One more reason to vote for Obama

[Stella_Omega]

A+ I might disagree that it's currently a civil war, but everything else was said perfectly. The problem with McCain's Iraq position (in my eyes) is that it assumes winning the peace is possible. I sincerely hope it is, and can't stomach pulling out without continuing to try because we had a taste of how bad it will be in the last couple of years. However, I fear this is an argument without an answer. Any choice is likely to be the wrong one.

And once again, that is why I want to see Bush tried as a war criminal. It is criminal to have put this country into this postion-- not to mention the position that iraq is now in.

 

[Boxlicker101]

And once again, that is why I want to see Bush tried as a war criminal. It is criminal to have put this country into this postion-- not to mention the position that iraq is now in.

You know as well as I do, and as well as everybody does, that is never going to happen. At least not in the USA, and I don't see how it could ever happen anywhere else. He will never be indicted and will never be charged, except for a few persons on the fringe, such as yourself.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

And once again, that is why I want to see Bush tried as a war criminal. It is criminal to have put this country into this postion-- not to mention the position that iraq is now in.

Given the history of the region, it would be impossible to prove that Bush/Cheney "put" this pseudo-country into this position. Tribes have always fought tribes and have never recognized any national sovereignty over those tribes. Sadaam simply put his tribe into a position of vicious, armed superiority over the others. Whether we are there or not, that will be, I fear, the position of the next "national" leader, as well.

Iraq isn't even a genuine country. Like much of the developing world, it is a construct drawn on a map for the convenience of the colonial powers as they existed at the end of WWI. Any sober analysis of the region would call old Mesopotamia three countries, Kurdestan, Sunni-stan and Shiite-stan. They haven't gotten along for 1300 years. Why believe that they will now?

 

[Stella_Omega]

You know as well as I do, and as well as everybody does, that is never going to happen. At least not in the USA, and I don't see how it could ever happen anywhere else. He will never be indicted and will never be charged, except for a few persons on the fringe, such as yourself.

Lick my fringe, baby. That's one thing I know you're good at.

Bear, there are very clear before-and-after shots, yanno? I agree that Hussein was brutal and criminal, but the middle-class was beginning to form cross-tribal affiliations. Tat's where change happens-- and now, once more, there is no middle class.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Bear, there are very clear before-and-after shots, yanno? I agree that Hussein was brutal and criminal, but the middle-class was beginning to form cross-tribal affiliations. Tat's where change happens-- and now, once more, there is no middle class.

Yes, that is the tragedy here. Under Sadaam the middle class had some small economic chances. Under chaos only the most heavilly armed have any chance at all. The middle has now all fled leaving the most tribal. Sadly, when it came to politics, the middle class was as tribal as anyone.

Ref: [url]http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=14947&R=13A16D2F3[/URL]

 

[dr_mabeuse]

DAMN! You fucking blind idiots.

What part of TWO TRILLION DOLLARS spent on the war do you not understand?

This administration squandered a surplus and plunged us into to debt to fight a war that has ZERO real purpose.

And McCain says we will stay for a hundred years if we have to.

Bin Laden ain't in Iraq, folks. Not now, not five years ago.

Obama may not be perfect but he is our best chance...

Forget it, Bel. They don't want to hear it. Apparently it hurts too much.

The idea of spending some of that military money on the citizens is just too perverse.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

As a commentary on the prospects for revolution/civil war that was discussed above, the current book review may bring some light to an overheated subject.

about the 60's

 

[S-Des]

As a commentary on the prospects for revolution/civil war that was discussed above, the current book review may bring some light to an overheated subject.

about the 60's

The link isn't working at the moment. The comparisons are night and day, and I'm guessing the people making them actually know it. The 60's & early 70's were not just a protest about an unpopular war (although that alone was far more heated than the ones today). You also have to lump in Civil Rights, which were still a huge question mark at the time, the death of MLK, women's rights, and progressive values changing. All of these happened in that short time span. You had riots at the Democratic Convention, with the Democratic Mayor of Chicago sicking dogs on the protesters. At Kent state, students were actually shot and killed by out of control National Guard troops. There were riots in the streets of a number of cities all over the country, as well as peaceful protests in practically every one.

There hasn't been a single incident even approaching that level, let alone hundreds that would lead to comparisons. As bad as that time was, civil war was never even close, which means the concept is laughable now. People might want to believe the times are the same, but it would be out of a desire for drama in their lives. I remember people on this board predicting that George Bush would suspend the Constitution and declare himself King. Now it's more likely that the next 4 years will see our first black president, and one who's the most Liberal member of the Senate. People like being drama queens....it's in our nature.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Agreed with, mostly, though the current bitterness of the Dem campaign shows signs of so alienating the undecided that McCain is gaining on both the Dem contenders. Maybe next election.

Try the link the old-fashioned way.

http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=139m2g9pj6wwfj4tkgxxjkfpmdgwrpvs

 

[Gizzmotick]

There hasn't been a single incident even approaching that level, let alone hundreds that would lead to comparisons. As bad as that time was, civil war was never even close, which means the concept is laughable now. People might want to believe the times are the same, but it would be out of a desire for drama in their lives. I remember people on this board predicting that George Bush would suspend the Constitution and declare himself King. Now it's more likely that the next 4 years will see our first black president, and one who's the most Liberal member of the Senate. People like being drama queens....it's in our nature.

I think it depends on what our next president does... no matter who it is. If the dollar keeps losing value to everything else, the price of fuel keeps going sky high, and it becomes harder and harder for people to provide for their own familes... then yes... it may come to some kind of revolt.

I'm already hearing of folks who are starting to grow their own food and even make their own laundry detergent because costs have gone up so much.

Revolt is not out of the question. Unlikely - yes, but not out of the question. I don't think that it has anything to do with being a drama queen or it being in our nature. I think it has more to do with how adequately people are able to provide for their families. If the government is allowing the economy to spiral down into the crapper, then perhaps a wake-up call is in order.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

President's have little control over the business cycle and none at all over the law of supply and demand. There have been some quite decent analyses of the current economic situation and the vast majority of Americans aren't going to be hurt, genuinely hurt, by either rising costs of oil or food. They will scream and hollar because they can't buy the latest Blackberry replacement or spend a vacation overseas like they wanted but that's not enough to tank the country. We're just spoiled right now. At least, most of are spoiled. Yes, there are those in desparate need of help and relief. Some of them aren't even at fault.

 

[rgraham666]

No control over the laws of supply and demand?

What about all the money spent on the military? If you check the rhetoric around it job creation is always a big part of it. There's infrastructure maintenance, R&D and education. All these things affect supply and demand.

The Fed, although independent, is also part of the government. It has some control over the money supply, which affects supply and demand.

There's also a lot of subsidies, such as below-cost provision of water for irrigation and nearly free use of federal land for grazing.

Even welfare affects supply and demand. So do production standards.

There's lots of ways a government can affect the marketplace. Every one that I know of does so in some way. Whether it's doing too much or too little is always open to debate.

Or flame wars.

 

[Boxlicker101]

The link isn't working at the moment. The comparisons are night and day, and I'm guessing the people making them actually know it. The 60's & early 70's were not just a protest about an unpopular war (although that alone was far more heated than the ones today). You also have to lump in Civil Rights, which were still a huge question mark at the time, the death of MLK, women's rights, and progressive values changing. All of these happened in that short time span. You had riots at the Democratic Convention, with the Democratic Mayor of Chicago sicking dogs on the protesters. At Kent state, students were actually shot and killed by out of control National Guard troops. There were riots in the streets of a number of cities all over the country, as well as peaceful protests in practically every one.

There hasn't been a single incident even approaching that level, let alone hundreds that would lead to comparisons. As bad as that time was, civil war was never even close, which means the concept is laughable now. People might want to believe the times are the same, but it would be out of a desire for drama in their lives. I remember people on this board predicting that George Bush would suspend the Constitution and declare himself King. Now it's more likely that the next 4 years will see our first black president, and one who's the most Liberal member of the Senate. People like being drama queens....it's in our nature.

I am inclined to agree with your conclusions, although not everything you say. I think of Kent State as being Nat. Guard troops defending themselves against attackers. I also find it hard to believe that people actually believe that W would try to have himself declared king of the USA. If he tried such a thing, he would be a laughing stock. It's actually Slick Willie Clinton who wants to regain some of the power he once held.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Although it's true that the president has only limited powers over the economy, it's also true that the president is not entirely hand-tied with respect to the economy either.

The president appoints the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. That choice had a huge affect on how banks operate, mortgage rates and the borrowing capacity on large businesses.

The president also has the power to sway spending legislation in directions that benefit the populace more than the cost of the expenditure. Programs that promote Jobs, universal health care and so on may cost billions but the benefit to the public far outweigh the cost.

The president is also responsible for controlling the cost of government. Bush adding, at least, two more layers of "National Security" (Homeland Security and The Military National Intellegence Network) to the Federal Budget is a prime example of goverment for the sake of government and not for the people.

For government to survive, every government in history has understood that someone has to pay for it through taxes. That is, every government in history until the Bush Administration went on a borrowing spree. Americans, like all western countries, have accepted taxation with representation from the very beginning of the country. The actual marginal tax rate in the U.S. is conciderably lower than most of Europe.

There has not been a tax increase in this country since the Republicans took over the white house. That's just wrong. You cannot spend $1 Billion every day to support a war in the middle east on borrowed capital. All that does is create a crushing debt for our grandchildren. Thanks, George.

The way government spends money under the leadership of the president is far more important than how much it spends, as long as the voting populace is getting enough in return to realize they will have to pay for it.

Hence, the falicy of the Bush Administration's economic policy becomes clear.

 

[Stella_Omega]

... I remember people on this board predicting that George Bush would suspend the Constitution and declare himself King. ...

Oh believe me, the jury's still out on that one.

 

[Boxlicker101]

It appears that Hillary Clinton is kicking Barack Obama's ass pretty good in PA today. The final votes are not in, but it looks like more than ten percentage points.

 

[Belegon]

It appears that Hillary Clinton is kicking Barack Obama's ass pretty good in PA today. The final votes are not in, but it looks like more than ten percentge points.

According to the AP, it's about 8% with 35% of the vote counted.

Obama EXPECTED to lose this state. A small victory, meaning by less than 15%, helps Hilary more in morale than in numbers. However, a loss would have been disastrous. She is quickly running out of money according to CNN and the AP. The key to Indiana may be whether this victory bolsters her supporters enough for them to re-open their checkbooks.

What bothers me the most about the campaign for Penn was that the low blow side of politics re-emerged. I find that worrisome. I mean, some went so far as to condemn Hilary for drinking on camera and to condemn Barack for saying any of the three candidates were better than Bush.

Saying Hilary is promoting alcoholism by having one shot and beer or that Barack is a traitor to the party by admitting that McCain is better than Bush (talk about damning with faint praise) is exactly the kind of campaigning I don't want to see anymore.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

According to the AP, it's about 8% with 35% of the vote counted.

Obama EXPECTED to lose this state. A small victory, meaning by less than 15%, helps Hilary more in morale than in numbers. However, a loss would have been disastrous. She is quickly running out of money according to CNN and the AP. The key to Indiana may be whether this victory bolsters her supporters enough for them to re-open their checkbooks.

What bothers me the most about the campaign for Penn was that the low blow side of politics re-emerged. I find that worrisome. I mean, some went so far as to condemn Hilary for drinking on camera and to condemn Barack for saying any of the three candidates were better than Bush.

Saying Hilary is promoting alcoholism by having one shot and beer or that Barack is a traitor to the party by admitting that McCain is better than Bush (talk about damning with faint praise) is exactly the kind of campaigning I don't want to see anymore.

Only 8%? That's a Pyrric victory. It's going to right down the convention floor where all the party's dirtly laundry will be spread all over national TV. The GOP is chortling up it's sleeves.

 

[Belegon]

Only 8%? That's a Pyrric victory. It's going to right down the convention floor where all the party's dirtly laundry will be spread all over national TV. The GOP is chortling up it's sleeves.

with only 35% reported and lot's of very one-sided counties, the final numbers are far from decided...

 

[Boxlicker101]

with only 35% reported and lot's of very one-sided counties, the final numbers are far from decided...

The last time I checked, she had a lead of about 192,000 and more than 55% of the votes. That's with 84% of the vote counted.

The lead was 1,034,060 to 842,087.

 

[Belegon]

The last time I checked, she had a lead of about 192,000 and more than 55% of the votes. That's with 84% of the vote counted.

The lead was 1,034,060 to 842,087.

That won't be enough. If it's less than 15%, the delegates get split. It's important for her, because if she lost she was SOL. But it's not a grand slam home run to win in the bottom of the ninth... it's a single to force extra innings.

Important? Oh yes, immensely. But not a reversal of fortunes yet.

 

[Pure]

well, the split is about 10%. here's one reason why.

In This Forgotten Town, Obama Can Forget About It

By Dana MilbankTuesday, April 22, 2008; Page A03

McKEESPORT, Pa.


This town was bitter before bitter was fashionable.

The Monongahela River Valley lost its steel mills in the '80s and, a quarter-century later, this sad town in the heart of the Mon Valley still hasn't recovered. Its downtown is a collage of crumbling buildings, and its once-proud landmark, the 102-year-old People's Union Bank Building, has signs in the window:

"Bank Repo Sale.
Excellent Deal.
Eight stories.
Priced to sell!"

It is, in short, just the sort of place Barack Obama was talking about when he said he wasn't getting the support of blue-collar workers of the industrial heartland because they "cling" to guns and religion out of economic bitterness. It is also the place Obama chose to visit on Monday night, on the eve of Tuesday's primary -- and the reception here explains why Obama, the national front-runner, is expected to lose Pennsylvania.

"I don't care too much for Obama," Maria Norgren, the daughter and granddaughter of steelworkers, said in the parking lot of the Giant Eagle shopping center here, near the Obama rally.

"I don't even think he's American," added her husband, Edward, who lost his job when the steel mills closed and now mans the counter at the Puff Discount Tobacco and Lottery shop next to the Giant Eagle.

"His father's from Nigeria, right?" asked Maria, wearing a Pittsburgh Steelers T-shirt.

Kenya, actually. But the point is the same: The Norgrens, who backed Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004, will vote for Hillary Clinton on Tuesday. And if Obama wins the nomination, these Democrats say they'll vote for Republican John McCain, even though they want an end to the war in Iraq, where their soldier-son is about to start his third tour.


If Hillary Clinton wins Tuesday's Democratic presidential primary -- and polls forecast that she will do just that -- it will be because of white, working-class voters like the Norgrens. Yet the blue-collar voters poised to keep Clinton's candidacy alive are also the reason she is losing the national race to Obama: Though still in charge here, they have lost control of the Democratic Party to the wealthy and better-educated.

Obama found himself confronting the divide again on Monday: While a crowd waited for him in a warm gymnasium in McKeesport, he was preparing for segments for "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart" and Rachael Ray's show. The comedian and the foodie prevailed, and Obama arrived at the gym nearly two hours late.

"I'm so sorry we're late; I feel terrible, McKeesport," Obama said. The crowd didn't seem to mind -- but then, it wasn't a typical Mon Valley gathering. The venue -- a branch campus of Penn State -- played to Obama's base: a racially mixed throng of students blended with an older group of academics, professionals and arty types. A Lexus was parked prominently near the entrance.

A young man set up a table to sell T-shirts and entertained those waiting in line with a rap: "Run and tell your mamas/We're voting for Obama."

When it was time for the audience to question the candidate, their topics weren't local misery but policy matters such as public transportation and tuition assistance.

Still, Obama began his talk with a nod to the local struggles, including recent job losses in the area and low wages. "The population has dropped off in the last few years, and people are working harder to get by and moving away for better jobs," he said, avoiding any mention of God, guns or bitterness. "I'm not telling you anything you don't know," he added.

He certainly wasn't. The average household in McKeesport earns less than $30,000 a year, barely half the U.S. average. Its population has shrunk and aged with the loss of the mills, and the average home here sells for a mere $45,000.

On the river bank, Andrew Carnegie's mills have fallen silent. The corrugated metal ones are rusting. An old brick one, from 1906, still says "National Tube Company." But the loss of industrial jobs here has turned downtown McKeesport into a place for repo lots and pawnshops ("Cash 'til Payday") and nonprofits caring for the elderly.
It's enough to make anybody bitter -- and some of that is directed at Obama.

"I think he just wants to be president because he's black," said Tim Hetrick, smoking a cigarette as he waited for a bus among the crumbling structures of downtown McKeesport. A Democrat, he's thinking about voting for McCain in November.


The discontent is common among the valley's hard-luck residents. Outside the Penn State campus hosting the Obama event, Jim Obley, who lost his job at a mental-health center, set up a folding chair so he could wave Hillary Clinton signs at the Obama supporters. "He said most Pennsylvanians are bitter and they need religion and guns," protested Obley, wearing a necklace with a gold cross. "We're not about that."

The antipathy toward Obama isn't necessarily logical. Outside the Giant Eagle -- pronounced "jyn-igl" in the local accent -- Edward Norgren listed his reasons: Clinton's ad accusing Obama of taking oil-company money; Michelle Obama's suggestion that she hadn't been "proud" of her country; Obama's provocative former preacher, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

And, of course, there was the "bitter" remark. "My dad taught me to hunt and I taught my son," he said.

"It's a racial component, too," Maria Norgren added. "A lot of black people are voting for him." And her older, white neighbors "won't vote for a woman or a black man."


Some might attribute that sentiment -- and the Norgrens' -- to bitterness. But Edward Norgren sees it differently. "I'm not bitter," he said. "I've moved on in my life." He just doesn't like Obama.

 

[S-Des]

Oh believe me, the jury's still out on that one.

Bwah-ha-ha-ha.....

I really can understand why he's so detested by the Left (and most of the middle, and some of the Right). I am not fond of defending him, in fact I oppose virtually everything he's done for the last 7 years. On the bright side (for Democrats), the worst case scenario is President McCain (who has a history of stepping away from the Right to work with the Left) with a Democratic House & Senate. The Dems don't like his Iraq position or his stand on taxes (never has voted for raising them in 25 years), but he's closer to the middle on virtually everything else. That should be considerably better for everyone, and if that's the worst thing that's going to happen, at least it's a step up (a huge one in my humble opinion).

Here's a question for my Democratic brethren (although I know most of you here are Obama supporters).....It was stated before the last primary state that if the Dems used the same 'winner take all' procedures as the Republicans use for the most part (which is what's used in the General Election), Hillary would already be the winner. Does this make anyone uncomfortable? Is there any concern that when the rules change, the electoral math could make things very difficult for him? Last night she spanked him by 10% (215,000 votes) in the 6th biggest state in the nation, and won a whopping 12 delegates.

 

[Guest]

Why do you do that, Des?

Always swear you aren't a Bush supporter, yet you slam the "Left" and take great delight in whatever difficulties seem to be happening with Democratic issues.

I'm so tired of being summed up in one word. "Left."

That's bullshit and you know it. Shall I sum you up in one word?

'Cause it sure ain't "Right."

 

[S-Des]

Why do you do that, Des?

Always swear you aren't a Bush supporter, yet you slam the "Left" and take great delight in whatever difficulties seem to be happening with Democratic issues.

I'm so tired of being summed up in one word. "Left."

That's bullshit and you know it. Shall I sum you up in one word?

'Cause it sure ain't "Right."

Huh? When did I even mention you?