Debate and Discussion

Who do you want to see as President?
SpANG at 10:38AM, Nov. 1, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,105
joined: 1-1-2006
bobhhh
Vindibudd
Kucinich? Sigh.

Agreed, just because someone osyensibly agrees with a lot of your positions, doesn't mean he commands respect or trust.
Oh, please! Tell me who does in that lineup then… Fred Thompson??

*eagerly awaits answer on edge of seat*

So, what are you saying then? Vote for the person that doesn't agree with your stance?

Look, you can take this quiz for what it is. Whatever side these politicians are SAYING they stand. You can also use it against them and learn from it if they don't.
“To a rational mind, nothing is inexplicable. Only unexplained.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:52PM
Aurora Moon at 4:22PM, Nov. 1, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
eh, I see what bobhhh is saying though…

it's one thing for a person to claim that he/she stands for the same thing you do…but does he/she REALLY stand for those things? Can he/she really deliver?

For all you know, the person could be just saying all kinds of stuff just ot get elected. So if the person gives off the vibe of being likely to go back on his/her words….then why vote for that person?

And plus if the person isn't too strong in leadership and tends to just pretty much go with anything, then how can you respect the person as an LEADER?

Sometimes I'd rather vote for somebody who I didn't always agree with on a lot of things as opposed to a spineless wimp who doesn't even follow up on the things he said he would do. That is, provided the elected person doesn't do a lot of things I would find heavily objectable.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
bobhhh at 5:03PM, Nov. 1, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
SpANG
bobhhh
Vindibudd
Kucinich? Sigh.

Agreed, just because someone osyensibly agrees with a lot of your positions, doesn't mean he commands respect or trust.
Oh, please! Tell me who does in that lineup then… Fred Thompson??

*eagerly awaits answer on edge of seat*

So, what are you saying then? Vote for the person that doesn't agree with your stance?

Look, you can take this quiz for what it is. Whatever side these politicians are SAYING they stand. You can also use it against them and learn from it if they don't.

Dude, I'm not saying anything of the sort. Why because I express little enthusiasm in Kucinich do I instantly have to champion someone else? Isn't that you making a lot of assumptions with basis?

But let's assume you are right for a moment. Why is it better to vote for someone you don't like, just because he agrees with all of your opinions, instead of someone you feel motvated about who agrees with most of your important concerns? Is being ideologically identical more attractive in a potential president, or being effective in pursuing and agenda you can largely agree with?

I basically have had it with Democratic politicians like Daschle (with whom I agreed on most all platform planks) who allow Bush and the neocons to enact their agenda largely unchecked. I think I'll take a doer for a change even if I don't agree with every last bit of idelogigal minutiae.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
CharleyHorse at 6:32PM, Nov. 1, 2007
(offline)
posts: 627
joined: 12-7-2006
When all is said and done - don't you just love such phrases; as if anything is ever all said and done, barring death and sometimes taxes? - these cute little polling or ‘select your ideal candidate’ devices utterly depend on the pollster's definition of ‘is’ being the same as that of the subject's. In this instance it also depends on the veracity of the politician in question and the likelihood that he or she will continue the identical trend as president or could handle the vastly greater scope and intensity of psychological land mines inherent in the position of President of the United States of America.

In the interest of flogging a dead horse it must be noted that if one compares the record and the promises of Governor G.W. Bush to the known record of President G.W. Bush the obvious notion occurs to speculate upon the mans veracity and/or mental stability. He is very nearly the classic case of successfully portraying himself as a fiscally responsible conservative utterly opposed to nation building, with an abiding interest in something remotely approaching compassion. The reality, though, has turned out far, far differently from the slickly and professional packaged public offering of 2000.

So people are perhaps more inclined for now anyway to gaze with more than the average degree of speculative cynicism regarding the veracity and mental stability of any and all presidential candidates of any party affiliation.

This is the problem with these clever and cute polls and ‘select your ideal candidate’ thingamajigs. They can only, at their very best, guide one towards the general area of worth, not deliver pinpoint truth.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:40AM
cartoonprofessor at 1:28AM, Nov. 2, 2007
(online)
posts: 396
joined: 9-2-2007
Well said, Charleyhorse,
CharleyHorse
In the interest of flogging a dead horse it must be noted that if one compares the record and the promises of Governor G.W. Bush to the known record of President G.W. Bush the obvious notion occurs to speculate upon the mans veracity and/or mental stability.
Paticularly when you find out he is on "medically-prescribed drugs.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:36AM
bobhhh at 9:35AM, Nov. 2, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
cartoonprofessor
Well said, Charleyhorse,
CharleyHorse
In the interest of flogging a dead horse it must be noted that if one compares the record and the promises of Governor G.W. Bush to the known record of President G.W. Bush the obvious notion occurs to speculate upon the mans veracity and/or mental stability.
Paticularly when you find out he is on "medically-prescribed drugs.

Careful there, many people fuction way better that Bush on their meds. I hate the implication that someone on Psych meds is less than fuctional. I know you were just being perjorative, but having the right chemical balance supplied by supplements is no comment on someone's cpmetence.

Sorry if I got a bit persnickety. :)
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
Vindibudd at 4:04PM, Nov. 2, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
SpANG
Oh, please! Tell me who does in that lineup then… Fred Thompson??

*eagerly awaits answer on edge of seat*

So, what are you saying then? Vote for the person that doesn't agree with your stance?

Look, you can take this quiz for what it is. Whatever side these politicians are SAYING they stand. You can also use it against them and learn from it if they don't.

I'm sorry man, but he's crazy. Like, he is not all there. Check this out:

The Kucinich Plan For Iraq

12. Commence an international truth and reconciliation process, which establishes a policy of truth and reconciliation between the people of the United States and Iraq.


wtf?
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
bobhhh at 6:27PM, Nov. 2, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
Vindibudd
SpANG
Oh, please! Tell me who does in that lineup then… Fred Thompson??

*eagerly awaits answer on edge of seat*

So, what are you saying then? Vote for the person that doesn't agree with your stance?

Look, you can take this quiz for what it is. Whatever side these politicians are SAYING they stand. You can also use it against them and learn from it if they don't.

I'm sorry man, but he's crazy. Like, he is not all there. Check this out:

The Kucinich Plan For Iraq

12. Commence an international truth and reconciliation process, which establishes a policy of truth and reconciliation between the people of the United States and Iraq.


wtf?

That was definitely not on the poll!! Yeah something about him bugs me, and its not the bad hair.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
Ronson at 10:06PM, Nov. 2, 2007
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
Vindibudd
The Kucinich Plan For Iraq

12. Commence an international truth and reconciliation process, which establishes a policy of truth and reconciliation between the people of the United States and Iraq.


wtf?

This, I assume, is point twelve of a multiple part plan? Nice cherry picking, but I completely understand what this means.

To wit:

- Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq have been shown - over and over - to not have existed in Iraq. Experts who insisted that Iraq did not have any were discounted, evidence that Saddam was trying to get nukes were forged, and used by the President AFTER it was shown the evidence was forged. That's pretty close to a lie, but giving the benefit of the doubt it was a mistake.

- Abu Gharib was a horrible abuse of power.

- Blackwater's methods reflect poorly on how Americans are seen in Iraq, as the distiction between our military and our hired mercenaries are blurred at best.

- Our own soldiers are guilty of many unwarranted attacks on the Iraqi people, though this is undoubtably part of the “fog of war”.

Therefore:

Kucinich's suggestion for a “international truth and reconciliation process” means that an international body would be given the power and responsibility to not only find the truth, but to also attempt to reconcile Iraq with their occupiers so that a true withdrawal can be acheived without collapsing the entire country.
___________

I don't see why that is hard to understand, unless you basically don't understand the problems going on in Iraq right now.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
bobhhh at 10:19PM, Nov. 2, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
Ronson
Vindibudd
The Kucinich Plan For Iraq

12. Commence an international truth and reconciliation process, which establishes a policy of truth and reconciliation between the people of the United States and Iraq.


wtf?

This, I assume, is point twelve of a multiple part plan? Nice cherry picking, but I completely understand what this means.

To wit:

- Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq have been shown - over and over - to not have existed in Iraq. Experts who insisted that Iraq did not have any were discounted, evidence that Saddam was trying to get nukes were forged, and used by the President AFTER it was shown the evidence was forged. That's pretty close to a lie, but giving the benefit of the doubt it was a mistake.

- Abu Gharib was a horrible abuse of power.

- Blackwater's methods reflect poorly on how Americans are seen in Iraq, as the distiction between our military and our hired mercenaries are blurred at best.

- Our own soldiers are guilty of many unwarranted attacks on the Iraqi people, though this is undoubtably part of the “fog of war”.

Therefore:

Kucinich's suggestion for a “international truth and reconciliation process” means that an international body would be given the power and responsibility to not only find the truth, but to also attempt to reconcile Iraq with their occupiers so that a true withdrawal can be acheived without collapsing the entire country.
___________

I don't see why that is hard to understand, unless you basically don't understand the problems going on in Iraq right now.

Well when you put it that way…
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
Vindibudd at 11:22AM, Nov. 4, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
Ronson
This, I assume, is point twelve of a multiple part plan? Nice cherry picking, but I completely understand what this means.


I'm not cherry picking, I am just commenting that this is not a policy issue that can be put into effect. It is nebulous and assumes alot of things that are simply not true. I could rail on all twelve, but I don't feel like doing it unless you want me to go off on it.

Ronson
To wit:

- Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq have been shown - over and over - to not have existed in Iraq. Experts who insisted that Iraq did not have any were discounted, evidence that Saddam was trying to get nukes were forged, and used by the President AFTER it was shown the evidence was forged. That's pretty close to a lie, but giving the benefit of the doubt it was a mistake.

Not getting into this again because I don't feel like going 18 pages of posts with you again.

Ronson
- Abu Gharib was a horrible abuse of power.

By a few bad soldiers.

Ronson
- Blackwater's methods reflect poorly on how Americans are seen in Iraq, as the distiction between our military and our hired mercenaries are blurred at best.

I think the Iraqis are a little more discerning since they are asking for Blackwater to be kicked out of the country, not the United States military.

Ronson
- Our own soldiers are guilty of many unwarranted attacks on the Iraqi people, though this is undoubtably part of the “fog of war”.

This is an irresponsible statement that paints every service member as a war criminal. Maybe you might want to refine it?

Ronson
Therefore:

Kucinich's suggestion for a “international truth and reconciliation process” means that an international body would be given the power and responsibility to not only find the truth, but to also attempt to reconcile Iraq with their occupiers so that a true withdrawal can be acheived without collapsing the entire country.

This would be fine if we were all in kindergarten. Kucinich assumes the worst about the United States and I don't see how anyone wants the leader of the country to think the worst of the country.

Ronson
I don't see why that is hard to understand, unless you basically don't understand the problems going on in Iraq right now.

Translated: you don't understand it because you don't know what you are talking about.

Response: Actually Kucinich doesn't know what he is talking about and that is why he will never be elected.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
bobhhh at 1:23PM, Nov. 4, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
Vindibudd
Kucinich doesn't know what he is talking about and that is why he will never be elected.

You almost had me until this. While I don't agree with everything in that post, you gotta admit the bonehead in the whitehouse now is a shit for brains who can't even speak correctly, and he got elected president twice. He has misread nearly every foreign policy situation, and counts his cowboy/tough talk bulldink as a credible diplomacy stance.

Don't even get me started on Carter…sometimes people who don't know what they're talking about get elected, because the majority of Americans don't either.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
Vindibudd at 3:36PM, Nov. 4, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
bobhhh
Vindibudd
Kucinich doesn't know what he is talking about and that is why he will never be elected.

You almost had me until this. While I don't agree with everything in that post, you gotta admit the bonehead in the whitehouse now is a shit for brains who can't even speak correctly, and he got elected president twice. He has misread nearly every foreign policy situation, and counts his cowboy/tough talk bulldink as a credible diplomacy stance.

Don't even get me started on Carter…sometimes people who don't know what they're talking about get elected, because the majority of Americans don't either.

I'm not comparing Kucinich to Bush. I am comparing Kucinich to any competent foreign policy that ever existed.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
Ronson at 7:54PM, Nov. 4, 2007
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
Vindibudd
I'm not cherry picking, I am just commenting that this is not a policy issue that can be put into effect. It is nebulous and assumes alot of things that are simply not true. I could rail on all twelve, but I don't feel like doing it unless you want me to go off on it.

It is cherry picking to pick one out of 12 (or more) points of a plan to end the conflict in Iraq. I don't want to debate it, as I haven't read it, and I doubt it would be very enlightening since we have such divergent opinions on the matter.

Not getting into this again because I don't feel like going 18 pages of posts with you again.

I also don't want a rehash. But the point is that the error made in entering into this war is known by the world and by Iraqis. It undermines the United States' credibility.

Vindibudd
Ronson
- Abu Gharib was a horrible abuse of power.

By a few bad soldiers.

Even if that was true (and it has not been established as true by any means, but I'd prefer not to have THAT argument again as well), it is still another part of Iraqi-American relations that have made the Iraqis distrustful of the United States.

Vindibudd
I think the Iraqis are a little more discerning since they are asking for Blackwater to be kicked out of the country, not the United States military.

For the past two years, polling data has shown that Iraqis overwhelmingly have wanted ALL foreign troops out. Other data has shown that while the majority of Iraqis think that attacks on civilians by insurgents are wrong, only a minority thinks insurgent attacks on occupying forces are wrong.

Even the Iraqi parliament has had members demanding the withdrawal of foreign occupiers as well (though it never reached the floor for a vote). The Blackwater incidents are considered American-spawned because we hired them. Yes, if Blackwater was kicked out and a new mercenary force was not put in place it might help Iraqi-American relations.

However, the United States has just hired a British Mercanary company to take Blackwater's place. Time will tell if they are more incident free.

(I would love to argue about whether it is in a company's interest to end an occupation when the continuation of that occupation is where they're making their profit, but that is surely another thread.)

The point is that these incidents have added to poor Iraqi/American relations.

Vindibudd
Ronson
- Our own soldiers are guilty of many unwarranted attacks on the Iraqi people, though this is undoubtably part of the “fog of war”.

This is an irresponsible statement that paints every service member as a war criminal. Maybe you might want to refine it?

I think grammatically it is correct, but to avoid another semantic argument, we'll change that to “some of our soldiers”, okay?

Some Soldiers have shot, wounded and/or killed innocent civilians. Some soldiers are currently being investigated for the rape of an Iraqi girl (and they are not all pleading innocent). These are true incidents, and there are many more.

Many milder incidents - soldiers bullying civilians needlessly - have been reported.

This isn't new. This is what the “fog of war” is. There's no way a soldier can know for certain that a civilian isn't an enemy, and with the language and cultural barriers between our soldiers and the Iraqis it is inevitable that there will be incidents.

The point is that this, again, strains Iraqi/American relations.

This would be fine if we were all in kindergarten. Kucinich assumes the worst about the United States and I don't see how anyone wants the leader of the country to think the worst of the country.

If you think American bravado is going to end this occupation, you're wrong. If we do not hand this off to an international coalition of some sort at some point, it will end with us abandoning Iraq, probably later rather than sooner. (Assuming we continue living in a Constitutional Democracy, of course).

The sad part will be that whatever party is in power when that decision is made will be blamed for the withdrawal, and not the party that put us into such an untenable situation in the first place.

Everything I've been talking about illustrates the reason Iraqis do not trust us. You may think that's an unfair conclusion they have come to, but that doesn't make it less true.

Do Kucinch's conclusions necessarily mean that he only sees the “worst in our country?” Well, that's a jingoistic phrasing if I've ever seen one.

I think that it isn't going too far to say that Kucinich thinks Bush's actions have been some of the worst things for our country, and he wants to undo them in a rational manner.

I understand that some may choose to defend the indefensible so that they never have to call those they are loyal to to account for their actions.

Vindibudd
Translated: you don't understand it because you don't know what you are talking about.

Response: Actually Kucinich doesn't know what he is talking about and that is why he will never be elected.

No, he'll never be elected for several reasons:

1. He's goofy looking.
2. He's a bit of an attention hog.
3. He doesn't take corporate donations.
4. He has a somewhat odd personal history (though comparable in many ways to Fred Thompson)
5. He speaks poorly and doesn't inspire confidence.

But I do think he knows what he's talking about sometimes. I just don't think America is in any way ready to give away the power he is talking about in trade for peace. And that is what he is suggesting, and in many ways that is very hard for Americans in general to stomach. We must be continue to be the world's superpower, right?

And because of that, I actually am not sure that those in power want peace all that much. And what's worse is that I'm not sure the majority of Americans want peace.

last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
Vindibudd at 12:12PM, Nov. 5, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
Ronson
But I do think he knows what he's talking about sometimes. I just don't think America is in any way ready to give away the power he is talking about in trade for peace. And that is what he is suggesting, and in many ways that is very hard for Americans in general to stomach. We must be continue to be the world's superpower, right?

And because of that, I actually am not sure that those in power want peace all that much. And what's worse is that I'm not sure the majority of Americans want peace.

You know what, maybe he does know what he is talking about when he:

Well I just went to his site and I was trying to find something that he was speaking intelligently on and I get this:

Dennis
Saving Capitalism

As President, Dennis Kucinich will end America's participation in NAFTA and the WTO.

Okay he says he is saving capitalism and his policy is in DIRECT contradiction to capitalism.

His End to Poverty issue is incomprehensible. His Sustainable Future issue says that we face a greater threat from nuclear power than from terrorists. I have yet to see a nuclear power company running around car-bombing children and flying planes into buildings. His Securing Constitutional Democracy issue is full of conspiracy theory rants about Republican prosecutors and an offensively wrong reading of part of the Constitution. All I need to say about his Survival of the Middle Class is to quote: "Global elites scour the globe in search of slave labor while some of them earn 36,000 times the wages of the average American worker and 580,000 times the average Chinese worker." Yeah just a little misleading for a presidential candidate. His A Healthy Nation issue advocates national health care and I don't have the 3 months it would take to adequately address everything wrong with that. And lastly, his Strength Through Peace issue is a wreck of tying political peace to the environment and simultaneously trashing why we have general world peace to begin with (massive military).
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
Ronson at 1:59PM, Nov. 5, 2007
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
Vindibudd
You know what, maybe he does know what he is talking about when he:

Well I just went to his site and I was trying to find something that he was speaking intelligently on and I get this …

Yes, you don't understand, therefore you have decided what he says is gibberish. Got it. I've heard Intelligent Designers make the same arugments against evolution. Because they don't understand it, they disregard it.

I could explain it all to you, but I don't think it's worthwhile for either of us.

I will say that every point you just posted by Kucinich makes sense to me, even through the distorted lens of your interpretations. (I may not agree with everything he says, however. But I do understand what he's saying)

(** edited to remove comments I don't think were fair to V – Chuck)

last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved