Kohdok
Billions a year to create peace treaties is different from billions a week to kill people. That, and billions are still less than trillions, no matter what anyone might try to tell you. Establishing good foreign policy again sounds like good America-rebuilding to me.

Apparently helping out other nations is debatably unconstitutional, from what I've read in conjunction with this bill.

Summation of the debate last night.
Hussain Obama, if that is your real name, when did you stop being an Marxist Afro-Islamic terrorist?
Senator Hillary, would you like another latte?

... y'know I think I'm gonna vote Obama. I think he is what this country needs right now. I may not agree with him on his views but I do beleive the US could use the effect he would have on the nation.

freefall_drift
Summation of the debate last night.
Hussain Obama, if that is your real name, when did you stop being an Marxist Afro-Islamic terrorist?
Senator Hillary, would you like another latte?

You forgot the series of timers Charlie Gibson had to indicate when he had spent half the total time going into tabloid anti-Obama issues. And off-to-the-side Stephanopolous periodically chiming in with questions fed to him by Sean Hannity.

imshard
... y'know I think I'm gonna vote Obama. I think he is what this country needs right now. I may not agree with him on his views but I do beleive the US could use the effect he would have on the nation.

I used to be in a tie between Ron Paul and Obama, mostly because of their platforms, but the more people piss and moan about how "bad" Obama is, the more I want to vote for him, if only just to piss off the pundits.

freefall_drift
Summation of the debate last night.
Hussain Obama, if that is your real name, when did you stop being an Marxist Afro-Islamic terrorist?
Senator Hillary, would you like another latte?

Okay, that does it. Now I'm definitely voting for Obama!
Oh wait ... do I have to be American or something?
;)

And as for hating babies ... damn, I'm not too keen on them myself!
:D

I hate the network news, what a bunch of hacks. I wonder what Cronkite, Murrow, or even Harry Reasoner would have asked the candidates. 15 minutes on a flag pin!?!?!?? As if that's even an issue. (Any idiot can wave the flag, respecting the flag is a hollow gesture when you rape the country it represents, like Bush and his flag waving charlatans.)

We might as well have had Pat O'brien and Deborah Norville moderate the debate. I half expected Maury Povich to come out and say, "In the case of the Bosnian Tarmack incident, Senator Clinton you were.....NOT telling the truth!!"

What passes for journalism in this country is a joke. Not a single question about Central America, a whole fucking continent that lies directly to our south. Not sexy enough to show up on the Network news radar.

The way we conduct the selection of the "Leader of the Free World" is not much different than a season of Survivor. If it wasn't so chilling it would be hysterical.

bobhhh
The way we conduct the selection of the "Leader of the Free World" is not much different than a season of Survivor. If it wasn't so chilling it would be hysterical.

Are they equally as scripted?

SpANG
By the way, niether George W. Bush or George HW Bush are CANDIDATES. But they DO have DIRECT TIES to the Bin Laden family.

Oy gevalt. You sound just as bad as he does, and just as ignorant. Anyone who knows anything about the bin Laden family knows they are not particularly religious, not militant, and run a large and well-respected construction firm in Saudi Arabia. Which is how the Bushes know the bin Ladens, through business contacts. Duh.

Yeah, we are using the liberal playbook. And you are using the FOX NEWS one.

And you BOTH come across as reasons to vote for "the other guy". The guy you're railing at makes me want to vote Obama to spite him. YOU make me want to vote McCain to spite YOU. I guess it's going to come down to which side makes me despise their caterwauling the most.

Comicracy
heres some kool-aid why dont you have a sip.

OMG check it out!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/21/rendell-says-college-kids_n_97854.html

headline of the news article: "Rendell Says College Kids "Drink The Kool-Aid" Of Obama Speeches"

found it randomly while using stumble and... wow... just...


also, its from fox news :P

Atom Apple

bobhhh
The way we conduct the selection of the "Leader of the Free World" is not much different than a season of Survivor. If it wasn't so chilling it would be hysterical.

Are they equally as scripted?

Watch Cspan for the answer. When you listen to an unedited stump speech you get the feeling the speechwriters think we're stupid. I still remember back in 2000 almost hearing the clicks as Gore downloaded his stump speech.

Can somebody say "Hall of Presidents"?

Barack Obama doesn't care about baby people.

:dizzy:

And it goes round and round. Can't we do something to make these election cycles shorter? Also it seems the last four elections have just been re-plays of each other with a different cast.

Hillary lies, Obama is a crazed socialist/balck supremecist, McCain is increasingly wish-washy Mr. Nice Guy.

I want Theodore Roosevelt or Harry Truman. Even if we dug them up and ran the rotting corpses it'd be better. You know Article 2 section i of the Constitution never says we can't have a president who was previously deceased... :)

I vote we dig up Ike.

He had the balls to call out the military industrial complex. He cared about America enough to rat out the emerging neocon hawks in deference to wishes of his party.

not like this guy:

in regards to the whole "previous presidents were so much better" idea, what I've always wondered is whether or not they really were. It's kind of a "the grass is always greener" argument, but I think those presidents probably had theirown faults and flaws which we just don't see anymore since we aren't back there to see it happen in real time. Plus with the media machine running at full steam and our ability to obtain information at a greater height than it has ever been at before maybe we're just seeing the flaws of the present candidates magnified in a way we've never been able to see before.

That being said, at least politicians back then had a personality rather than just being sort of bland. Seems like nowadays everyone is too concerned about offending anyone to actually show any backbone. You never saw Winston Churchill afraid to make people upset...

plas
in regards to the whole "previous presidents were so much better" idea, what I've always wondered is whether or not they really were. It's kind of a "the grass is always greener" argument, but I think those presidents probably had theirown faults and flaws which we just don't see anymore since we aren't back there to see it happen in real time. Plus with the media machine running at full steam and our ability to obtain information at a greater height than it has ever been at before maybe we're just seeing the flaws of the present candidates magnified in a way we've never been able to see before.

Speaking for myself I was being tongue-in-cheek. Truman wasn't well liked, TR wasn't and especially not Lincoln. The only one that was perfect was George Washington and he really worked at it very hard. (read Douglas Southall Freeman's bio)

As for the media magnifying the warts? Not really, read about the 1800 election or 1860 and you'll see some really nasty media. Back then supporters often wrote "anonymous" tracts in competing newspapers and ripped the other guy apart, actually debated issues and often got personal.

Don't vote for Lincoln he looks like a monkey and wants your daughter to marry a n*****!

oh I'm not saying that the media wasn't vicious back then, in fact they were probably alot less subtle about bashing a candidate they didn't support seeing as journalistic integrity is a fairly new concept. I'm just saying that considering we weren't alive back then, we don't have the full story and view things in a better light as a result of it.

My point was that every politician was flawed in their own way, regardless of how history might colour them. I just think that media nowadays judges a politician based on their personality far too much. As a voter one should look not at the personality of the politician, but rather at which one would change your country for the better, according to your own standards of "better."

I've long ago given up on finding a candidate who truly represents all of my interests. As much as I hate to say it, its impossible to be truly represented by a political candidate. Its more a matter, now, of simply choosing the lesser of two evils, which is a concept that doesn't really fit with the whole idea of democracy but meh, the system is broken but I'll be damned if I can find a better one...

plas
oh I'm not saying that the media wasn't vicious back then, in fact they were probably alot less subtle about bashing a candidate they didn't support seeing as journalistic integrity is a fairly new concept. I'm just saying that considering we weren't alive back then, we don't have the full story and view things in a better light as a result of it.

My point was that every politician was flawed in their own way, regardless of how history might colour them. I just think that media nowadays judges a politician based on their personality far too much. As a voter one should look not at the personality of the politician, but rather at which one would change your country for the better, according to your own standards of "better."

I never said that looking at the past the people are better. I gave concrete examples that in their own time presidents were reviled. It is only is the prism of history that the results become known. Then their success or failure can be evaluated. Each one has/had their flaws, they were and are all human. The prism can also obscure the truth. But with enough research it comes out again. Even if you gotta dig for it. Of course the mythology taught in our classrooms only rarely gets shown for what it is.

With knowledge of history and culture one can know as much as anyone in any time whether you lived there or not. To say otherwise is admitting ignorance of the processes used by historians to evaluate the past. The glasses are not always rosey as found now in many revisonist histories of JFK. There is historical perspective where not being in the moment allows presonalities, goals and results to become clear and understandable in a way being on the ground in the here and now just doesn't allow. It's kind of like combat. When huddling in a foxhole and being shot at doesn't let you see the overall plan of Operation Cobra and the influence Churchill, Ike and Bradley and the results of the ultimate success of the offensive.

It foolish to think there is such a thing as journalistic integrity. Long ago journalists were honest about their predjudices and didn't pretend they had no opinion one way or the other. Having read lots and lots of 18th and 19th Century newspaper stories many are obviously biased and there are others that are very straightforward, just like today. Except then there were no journalists insisting they were without bias when it is clearly there. Everyone knew it was there and the editorial policies of each paper were known to the papers' readers. Now they pretend to hide behind an integrity that doesn't exist. Journalism has not changed.

I just wish they would run those hysterical hoaxes like they used to. :)

I think it goes both ways. Time allows you to view things much more objectively than you could in the present, as you can see the bigger picture. But at the same time there is something to be said for experiencing it in the moment. As objective and thorough as historians are, they're only human and as such are capable of missing details, which explains why there is debate as to what actually did happen.

Of course the most important factor of all, which no historian can truly obtain (and for that matter no one living in the present can obtain either) is the motivation behind an action. No one can truly understand why people do what they do, and as such one can never get the true picture of what occured. Viewing it removed, as from a historians perspective, it would be even more difficult to obtain this.

Thats the thing that really irritates me about journalism. No one can ever truly provide an objective view on the situation, yet they still insist on hiding behind the idea of unbiased journalism...

I don't know what the solution would be though... but the system is surely broken...

also bravo, I think we're both kind of on the same page here :P

Yup. One small caveat: the main reason historians disagree in their accounts is because the eyewitnesses always disagree. The more accounts that are found or become available the better the view of the whole picture becomes and the details are filled in by comparison and contrast of what was observed. Lawyers know about this stuff when they call witnesses in the courtroom. Eyewitnesses are not reliable as memory is a funny thing, so multiple accounts are needed.

(An excellent example of this is Hell Riders: The True story of the Charge of the Light Brigade the author compares each account to build a detailed composite picture of what occurred.)

And now the delegate count continues and gets confusing. May you live in interesting times.

Comicracy
Hey did you hear about Barrack Obama, he quotes if his daughter gets knocked up " I dont want her punished with a baby" so I guess babies are punishment, at least according to Barrack. Hey having a kid is tuff, but its definately not punishment, its actually a lot of fun. You can view the footage yourself on youtube, I think this guys a creep who can speak well.

I would rather a man who thinks having a kid can be a burden and voices that as opposed to a woman who will try to reform laws to pass partial birth abortions.

It's smear tactics, and frankly if you fall for it you're an idiot.

Someone
Im sorry the liberals have dominated the media for the last 50 years

Well we might as well confirm that you're an idiot. America as a whole has more or less been in conservative hands since Ronald Regan. The media hasn't switched views until Clinton took office, and held Bush in some favorable regards until he started to fuck up. The media is biased, sure, but from experiance they've held their opinion until the time has come. Saying, however, that the media has been in their hands for 50 years is just nonsense.

Also betting you're just here to troll. Nice job, btw.

Also also, you look like a dork.

SpANG

Comicracy
He's a pro abortion politician. Like it or not you cant argue that. MMKAY.

Awesome! He's got my vote.

Oh and SpANG stop being awesome. I'm not supposed to like you and this is totally creeping me out.

Aurora Moon
they are still a lot of responsblity and takes a lot to care for. Which is clearly too much for a young lady to handle. She would have to give up everything as a single young woman to care for a baby-- Social life, money, etc... which can be viewed as an type of "punishment"... or consquence, if you will, for having a child even if unintentionally.

Actions have always had consequences. It's not like life is reprimanding you. There's no discipline or opinion involved. You can't view an obvious result of having sex as a punishment. Well I guess you could, but that would make you idiot, despite the context.


Children should never be viewed as punishments or burdens. That' a terrible label to put on a child.

mishi_hime

Aurora Moon
they are still a lot of responsibility and takes a lot to care for. Which is clearly too much for a young lady to handle. She would have to give up everything as a single young woman to care for a baby-- Social life, money, etc... which can be viewed as an type of "punishment"... or consequence, if you will, for having a child even if unintentionally.

Actions have always had consequences. It's not like life is reprimanding you. There's no discipline or opinion involved. You can't view an obvious result of having sex as a punishment. Well I guess you could, but that would make you idiot, despite the context.


Children should never be viewed as punishments or burdens. That' a terrible label to put on a child.

I actually agree. I was just merely explaining to the OP here about the context of what obama actually meant.

Children aren't punishment at all, that's for sure. But as I said, they can be a lot of responsibility. And if you aren't sound enough finically, mentally, and emotionally to take care of a child... then EVERYONE suffers, inducing the children themselves.

Children shouldn't have to suffer because their parents were too Young/immature/etc. They shouldn't have to feel that their parents would be a lot happier without them. The parents shouldn't have to feel that taking care of a children is a huge burden, especially if they're not finically sound. It would basically put a huge strain on the whole family with those feelings of resentment.
It's a terrible day when a parent thinks: "Gee! I wish I had never gotten laid that day, I'm struggling to make ends meet here because of those brats!" out of sheer frustation with his/her situation even if he/she didn't mean it.

Parents should feel that their children are blessings and worth all the responsibility, just as the children should feel like they are loved and wanted.

So it's in my opinion that people should have children ONLY WHEN they're ready for it, instead of being completely unprepared. And that also means doing your best to practice safe sex in more than one way as to ensure that there are no "surprises". :P

So many young people are too immature and don't realize the rammifications of what they are doing.

That's why I see so many Aunts & Uncles and grandparents at parent/teacher conferences. Being of an older generation they are often mature enough to realize the mistakes they made with their children having children and to take responsiblity for the results. Many of them were children who had children and they're trying to fix it. I am 43, imagine meeting a grandparent who is in their 30s or a great grand parent that is my age.

I almost never knew what to call them as so often their last names were different.

So many see children as a curse and that opinion is common in the minority community just like it has been among the poorest folks in society throughout history. "Nasty, brutal and short"

Also if you talk to the Obstetricians the term "partial birth abortion" is a misnomer and a very, very small number are performed every year and only when it is determined that the life of the mother is at great risk and the baby must be sacrificed.

No abortion is ever an easy choice. No method of birth control is 100% (a recent study showed that even abstinence might not be as sperm can survive and impregnate long after the last act of copulation. With artificial insemination there can be a virgin birth) The more you know the scarier it can become.

Someone
Also if you talk to the Obstetricians the term "partial birth abortion" is a misnomer and a very, very small number are performed every year and only when it is determined that the life of the mother is at great risk and the baby must be sacrificed.

Hillary wants the number increased in order to save the hospital money as opposed to having to nurse million dollar babies. Under that reasoning two of my best friends would be dead. A very small number are performed every year as it is, and yes it does save the mother's life in some instances, but there are chances that everyone will be fine. Hillary doesn't even want those avenues looked into. The baby weighs so much, chuck it in the garbage.

I don't give a flying fuck about abortion usually, and I'm fine with the current stance on partial birth abortions. But considering how bad Hillary wants to fuck our medical system as it is, I don't think I'm Ok with the likelihood of her trying to bump up the number of those performed per year.

But that isn't the only reason why Hillary is a monster, just look at ANY of her policies, the fact that she loves lobbyists and thinks it's Ok to accept money from them, how she wants insane pay cuts for nurses, how she is willing to waste everyone's time on some stupid extension to the primary. The woman will do more harm than good. Actually, if she does do anything right, it might be to stabilize our economy after the hellstorm Bush left us with.

As usual though, we're stuck picking the lesser of all the evils. Personally I think that's Obama. But I also think that Obama is a terrible choice and a last ditch effort AT BEST.

If it came down to Hillary and McCain though, looks like I'll be taking the republican ticket. :/

lefarce
If it came down to Hillary and McCain though, looks like I'll be taking the republican ticket. :/

Yeah you will be so much happier with McCain. Have you even paid attention to this campaign? Hillary has her faults, but she and Obama are so close on the issues, its nearly impossible to tell them apart.

But you would vote for Obama and not for her?

Good luck with that.

Obama wasn't saying he hates babies. He was saying that having a child would be detrimental to the life to a young woman at that point in her life. It concerns her life, not the child's. That's like saying everybody who has an abortion hates babies.

Drawing wild conclusions from tiny speech fragments, something the media makes it very easy to do, is one of the problems with modern politics. Everything gets reduced down to soundbytes and it gets sensationalized to attract attention, both by the media and those promoting the story (aka the thread starter).

When you're barely making ends meet and working really hard to correctly raise the children you have, another child -- unplanned -- can be a burden.

The crux what what Obama was saying makes sense. I realize it helps Republicans to take some sort of hysterical stance, but women should have the right to make a choice. They shouldn't be forced by the government to carry a pregnancy to term.

bobhhh

lefarce
If it came down to Hillary and McCain though, looks like I'll be taking the republican ticket. :/

Yeah you will be so much happier with McCain. Have you even paid attention to this campaign? Hillary has her faults, but she and Obama are so close on the issues, its nearly impossible to tell them apart.

But you would vote for Obama and not for her?

Good luck with that.

I've been paying close enough attention to the left to know that such a claim is beyond false. Obama cares about a variety of generations, Hillary really only gives a shit about herself and the people who can relate to the dried up old hag crowed that she is a part of. In that respect I'd say they're about as different as black and white (lolololololol).

Hillary and Obama being the same is about as accurate as a statement as "all black people like chicken and watermellon".

I would vote McCain over Hillary because I honestly think McCain will do more damage for our image over seas than he will back home. Yes that kind of thinking has lead to plenty of problems here, but at this time I think we need neglegance over gross imcopetance. (spelling may be screwed up, not on my computer and am honestly a lousy typist without a spell checker)

However, I can't say I've paid too close attention to what the right stands for at the moment. But I'm so far from wanting Hillary, specifically, to win, that I'm willing to put my vote towards a bag full of shit than that woman.