Obama defaults on Federal Lawsuit Jeopardizes Presidential..

[Ack]

But we must stay until Iraq is stable, if only by itself in a region with great hostility. Otherwise it's going to come back and bite us in ways that would probably shame Pearl Harbor and September 11.

The reason given for 9/11 by Al Qaeda was U.S. involvement in Middle Eastern countries - military bases, presence in holy lands, support of Israel, etc. I'm not sure having a larger/longer military presence will help us in the long run - I think we're repeating a dangerous post-Afghanistan/post-Gulf War cycle. Many other military and government officials agree and think that it is time for a different approach (e.g. diplomacy, trade, financial support, etc.).

Actually, I was leaning more towards the possibility of a nuclear armed Iran. I trace a lot of current attitudes in the Middle East back to Hitler's attempts to ally with Middle Eastern nations back in the 1930s in an attempt to gain Mujaheddin support in raiding British oil fields, and being able to strike British colonial gains in India. But after the Iranian Revolution, Iraq and Iran have been the two major opposed players in the Middle East. It's my belief we need a stable Iraq to counter Iran, similar to how they operated in the 1980s. The bigger problems I see now is that we'll have to worry about an Iran allied with Syria and what's becoming the dominant force in Lebanon. There's also the chance Hezbollah will ally with Hamas in Palestine to drive out the Israelis. A stable Iraq gives us a large military(at the time of Desert Storm, Iraq had the 5th largest in the world), the technical and espionage abilities of Israel, and the money of Kuwait. Potentially Afghanistan could join us if we finish our operations there, though strategically it brings little beyond another nation we can use to apply pressure to Iran. But considering the current government situation in Pakistan and its growing volatility, we may soon have another problem there. The question we should probably begin asking is "Should we be siding with a nuclear-armed India?" If things go bad in Pakistan, it might be a good bet.

[mobiusclimber]

I'm sorry, but George W Bush lied, and yes I do not mean he was misinformed, he lied, about what kind of danger Iraq posed to the United States. The Center For Public Integrity released a report that stated that the Bush administration made 935 false statements between 2001 and 2003 regarding this issue.

Furthermore, the war has helped only to destabilize the region and breed terrorism, not combat it.

I'm more worried about terrorist attacks now than I was before the Iraq war. Not to mention the escalating oil prices, the recession, and the dwindling of our constitutional protections.

[Ack]

Our war managed to destabilize further an area of the world where the fabric was being kept together by one man claiming to have chemical weapons. I don't think it was very stable to begin with.

If anything, you should actually be less worried about terrorist attacks, considering you're not in the military. Al Qaeda has made it a point to make Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan its principal areas of operation. Before that we were seeing attacks all over the place on US embassies and military bases. Of course, as things die down in the region, they'll probably begin turning their attention back towards the US mainland. In the meantime our partners in the British and Israeli intelligence fields help to augment our own reports.

935 over the course of two years? What were Clinton's estimates? In fact, what information do they base their studies on?

Ah, checking out their site, I see they use the Freedom of Information Act to get their stuff. They also posted about the biggest problem with basing all your info off that one source: The government gets allowed to edit sensitive information.
* National security and classified documents
* Internal agency practices and rules
* Information exempt under other federal laws (e.g., the tax code provision prohibiting public disclosure of tax returns and tax return information)
* Trade secrets and commercial information
* Internal government memos
* Invasion of personal privacy (e.g., an individual’s medical files)
* Law enforcement
* Financial institution reports
* Geological information about oil wells

Considering 2001 to 2003 falls well within range for classified material, makes me wonder what got edited.

In the meantime, oil prices are up due to a myriad of reasons, hence my advocating for opening our own fields as we slowly work our way to other energy sources. Again, as dsheinem said, the economy issue was the fault of both sides. And I am also concerned about my dwindling rights. But as I tend to be in good standing with the government and don't make international phone calls, I think I'm ok.

On a funny note, there's an interesting loophole I once heard about. It's how we get around not being legally able to spy on our own people. Britain does it for us, and we spy on Britain. Then we just swap info. The guy I heard that from claimed we'd been doing it for years. I don't know if it's true, but I think it makes a good story.

[disorderlyvision]

i think you guys have done one thing well...you proved that both side are horrendous. both sides represent business interests, not the interests of the people. republicans and democrats are both corrupt, and have lost sight of the constitution and the intentions of the founding fathers. its like you both link sources saying how corrupt the other side is, but instead of admitting it you just try to find evidence that suggest the other side is worse, while basically admitting their both bad.
I no longer buy into the two party system. i grew up in a hardcore republican house, and i have even gotten my dad to wake up when it comes to politics. republicans are out to fxck you and democrats are out to fxck you. i see no fundamental differences between the parties. they both have socialist agendas, they both voted for the bailout, they are both for sending more troops to afghanistan and possibly georgia, they both want to spend billions of more dollars. obamas energy and healthcare plans are to cost over a trillion in a ten year span, and mccain said out of his own mouth that he wanted to spend another 300 billion. republicans are no longer conservatives. Bush is just as Liberal as any democrat. either guy that gets elected this time is going to spend a ton of money and devalue our dollar even more.
my personal feeling is that in order to save this country you need to vote third party. i know they won't win this time, but the more votes they get the more likely they are to be included in debates, if they make the debates they get more votes, etc. it needs to occur. the dems and reps are to comfortable up there. they know that no matter how bad they fuck up one or the other will still get elected. we need to take our country back.

[lordofduct]

i think you guys have done one thing well...you proved that both side are horrendous. both sides represent business interests, not the interests of the people. republicans and democrats are both corrupt, and have lost sight of the constitution and the intentions of the founding fathers. its like you both link sources saying how corrupt the other side is, but instead of admitting it you just try to find evidence that suggest the other side is worse, while basically admitting their both bad.

[dsheinem]

i think you guys have done one thing well...you proved that both side are horrendous.

We've shown that both sides have horrendous elements, but that isn't the same thing as what you suggest. It's like arguing that the racketboy forums are bad gaming forums becasue some of its members (and moderators) also engage in political discussion.

Strong third party candidates have had increasing success at every level of government except presidential politics - this is a good thing. However, I personally think that with some exceptions, most third party candidates are even more horrendous - most of them are in third parties becasue they are too far right/left of either major party.

BLAH BLAH lost sight of the constitution and the intentions of the founding fathers......BLAH BLAH BLAH....we need to take our country back.

Sorry, when I hear this kind of rhetoric I picture a militia member sitting in their bunker talking about how good things used to be, how corrupt the government is, etc. I'll stick by a point I made the other day - it is not a perfect system by any stretch but it is better than many. I am proud to be a liberal, in part, because it means envisioning the constitution as a living document that needs to be revisited and reinterpreted for the present. I believe political fundamentalism is just as bad as religious fundamentalism, and no amount of nostalgia for the past should ever be allowed to define the needs of the present.

[dsheinem]

no amount of nostalgia for the past should ever be allowed to define the needs of the present.

*recognizes the irony of posting this statement on a retro-gaming message board.*

[Ack]

That or they're too far up or down, based on the Libertarian's graph thingy.

Besides, I like living in a country where, if I have an idea and am willing to divest the time, I can build my own business and potentially end up rich beyond my wildest dreams and never have to worry about the one thing I'm always worrying about now: money. But if my business isn't successful, there's always tomorrow. A former roommate of mine helped form his own business about a year and a half ago, selling board games, magic cards, those kinds of things. His store wasn't successful and ultimately ended up tanking. In fact, he was unable to pay rent and we all got kicked out of our apartment. Yet I don't blame him. He was pursuing his own happiness, exactly what that beautiful Constitution of ours said he could do when they wrote it a couple centuries ago.

If you really take the time to look at what the party platforms are, you will see differences. Dsheinem's right, much of the liberal view is based on interpreting the Constitution to fit today's needs. In general, the Republican's lean towards interpreting based on the needs of when it was written because those needs are still applicable. I don't know when life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is going to go out of fashion. I'm all for capitalism because I realize that it offers me a chance to throw in my lot with a company, make lots of money, and retire early. Also, anything beneficial to a company benefits the people working there as it provides them new opportunities, potentially greater benefits and pay, better equipment to make their work easier, and more chances to advance.

Let's look at the topic of abortion for a moment. No, we're not going to go into whether its right or wrong, but take a moment to consider a difference of opinions. Democrats favor pro-choice, Republicans pro-life. Ultimately their arguments boil down to a difference over when they believe the baby in question should be granted rights, and when those rights to life supersede the mother's rights to get on with her life. Or take the second amendment. Liberals favor one potential interpretation based on the grammar of the sentence, Conservatives favor another.

Now, very few people are fully one way or another. A Conservative can have a few liberal views and vice versa. Here's where I think I see your issue over party identification. John McCain is very much in the center, favoring more liberal views on illegal immigration, environmentalism, and keeping corporations in line. However, his views on foreign policy, using the military as a potential deterrent and diplomatic bargaining chip by maintaining its size and capability, as well as using intelligence services to handle some jobs the military just isn't able to do. Contrast this to the Liberal view of people like Obama, who favor diplomacy over military force.

And are their crummy people in both parties? Of course. Anything as large as those two political parties are going to suffer some corruption and problems. Look at any large group of people, somebody in there is likely scum. 3rd parties included.

Also, take a moment to consider why the Republicans are sometimes referred to as the "Coalition of the Right." Many individuals with differing views but with in general broad overarching themes make it up. Personally I like owning firearms, I generally favor pro-life stances(though I understand the need for abortions in special cases), I favor a large defense field with benefits to whoever inhabits it as well as a volunteer military. I prefer more free-market enterprise because I believe I can benefit from it. I feel some parts of environmentalism are a crock of shit, though I don't like the thoughts of ducks getting caught in six-pack plastic rings either. I do not favor some of the morality decisions brought in by the more religious aspects of the Republicans, such as regulating sexuality. While I'd prefer government to be off my back, I understand the need to have quality roads and transportation systems, a strong defense, a working court system, working utilities and communications devices and services, and public education. So I don't mind paying my taxes. But I favor a flat percentage tax.

[disorderlyvision]

i think you guys have done one thing well...you proved that both side are horrendous.

We've shown that both sides have horrendous elements, but that isn't the same thing as what you suggest. It's like arguing that the racketboy forums are bad gaming forums becasue some of its members (and moderators) also engage in political discussion.

Strong third party candidates have had increasing success at every level of government except presidential politics - BLAH BLAH BLAH, most third party candidates are even more BlAH BLAH BLAH third parties becasue they are too far right/left of either major party.

BLAH BLAH lost sight of the constitution and the intentions of the founding fathers......BLAH BLAH BLAH....we need to take our country back.

Sorry, when I hear this kind of rhetoric I picture a BLAH BLAH , how corrupt the government is, etc. I'll stick by a point I made the other day - it is not BLAH BLAH BLAH I am proud to be a liberal, BLAH BLAH BLAH. I believe political fundamentalism Blah Blah BLAH

pretty sure i didn't say BLAH BLAH BLAH. and it is not rhetoric...the military commissions act of 2006, the patriot act I and II, executive orders without going through congress, and a load of others have basically stripped the constituion of its power. they have gotten rid of the right of Habeas Corpus, trashed the 4th amendment, ignore the checks and balances, forgot about posse comatatus the list goes on and on. this wasn't done by third parties who are "too far left or right" this was done by democrats and republicans working together...

and since when did believing in the constituion and civil liberites become such a radical idea??? proabably because the dems and reps have been stripping us of these for the last 50+ years, and people who don't follow the main stream agenda are radical nuts "sitting in their bunker"...if believeing in the constituition the way it was intended, or believing in the civil liberties it laid out makes me radical, then yes Sir I am. I believe in my rights, and i don't take kindly to assholes in washington taking them away no matter their political affiliation.

[disorderlyvision]

Let's look at the topic of abortion for a moment. No, we're not going to go into whether its right or wrong, but take a moment to consider a difference of opinions. Democrats favor pro-choice, Republicans pro-life. Ultimately their arguments boil down to a difference over when they believe the baby in question should be granted rights, and when those rights to life supersede the mother's rights to get on with her life. Or take the second amendment. Liberals favor one potential interpretation based on the grammar of the sentence, Conservatives favor another.

thats my point, this comes up every election. it is almost the only difference between the two parties, and it shouldn't even be an issue in federal government according to the tenth amendment, which would delegate that issue to the individual states. I stand by what i said that there is no fundamental difference between them. perhaps there is in their platform...if thats the case than neither party follows their platform, or maybe republicans have just adopted the dems platform. they may be republicans, but they are no longer conservatives. conservatives have historically promoted smaller government less taxes, and less government spending. Bush has grown the government and spent more than any democrat in history that i can think of. JFK is more conservative than most of the republicans today. and as i stated earlier of the two running for president now, whats the difference? the both want to spend a ton of money that we don't have, so we will create it and it will lessen the value of our currency even more, they both voted to bail out PRIVATE institutions. that by definition is socialism. both are for sending more troops overseas. Obama may want to take them out of Iraq, but he wants to send more to afghanistan, and it looks like georgia as well. it doesn't matter which one of those two are elected it will be the same thing, mark my words. They are the same party...this is a one party government.