DEM Primaries/Candidates thread

[kapkomet]

Link

Of course, Balta, my answer is a slippery slope, but so was yours. Half the bulls*** that is out there about every argument you make is from some leftist-leaning website and is "fact"...

 

or better yet, it's a government document that is "independent in nature"... oh, but they have no reason to be biased on anything, do they?

 

The only reason that I post half the stuff I do in such a hyperbolic sense is because it's the exact opposite of the garbage I see posted here all the time. The truth of everything is almost always in the middle of what you're posting and my nonsense (yea, yours is sensical because it's linked and has support... mine's just "emotionalism") that I post as hyperbole.

 

For this particular topic, there are choices that we all make - you want good health care? Pick a career to where you can take care of things like that. Oh, I forgot... some of us never get the opportunity to better themselves because they have gotten screwed by life and/or the private sector, so Uncle Sam should take care of me and my needs. All of them.

 

Let's put a $$ amount for SCHIPS program (on the yellow brick road to universal health care I go...) if the floor is $61500 (or whatever it is) I should go ask my boss for a $2000 pay cut if I'm making $63K so my kids' health insurance is paid for! WHAT an incentive to do better! YA! Don't strive for those promotions or to work better, NO! YOUR GOVERNMENT will take care of you!

 

I hate the whole "de-centive" nature of what handouts mean... including government (read: universal) health care means. And it's not just health care. It's social security, it's in the tax coffers, and I could go on and on and on... WE have choices, and I choose to better myself as much as I can so I don't have to wait for my government to take care of me.

 

But now, I'll get some answer about how I'm a camel nose kisser slipperly slope poster.

[Balta1701]

And back onto actual campaign stuff.

 

Zbigniew Brzeznski, NSA in the Carter admin and one of the brighter foreign policy folks on the "correct for the last 6 years" side of the aisle has come out swinging for Obama.

[Balta1701]

Hillary also had some remarks yesterday that probably should be termed some sort of gaffe...

"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself 'What if? What if?' But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world. So I think I'm the best of the Democrats to deal with that as well."

 

Via Chris Dodd's campaign, I think this is the correct reply to that one:

"Frankly, I find it tasteless to discuss political implications when talking about a potential terrorist attack on the United States."

No link on the latter one yet, press release.

[NorthSideSox72]

Hillary also had some remarks yesterday that probably should be termed some sort of gaffe...

Via Chris Dodd's campaign, I think this is the correct reply to that one:

No link on the latter one yet, press release.

With respect to Hillary's statement, about the GOP gaining an automatic advantage if something bad happens, despite the fact that they have proven to be worthless in the war on terror... she's right. She just shouldn't have said it in public. And actually, I think maybe she is doing something that NEEDS to be done. She is pointing out what many already know but are afraid to say - whereas the GOP is constantly, embarrasingly, saying that putting a Dem in any office means submitting to terrorism.

 

Much as I dislike Hillary, she is right on this one (though she is wrong about being the right Dem to challenge that).

 

[EvilMonkey]

She is pointing out what many already know but are afraid to say - whereas the GOP is constantly, embarrasingly, saying that putting a Dem in any office means submitting to terrorism.

Well DUH! You have every Dem out there saying we should pull out, some now, some in weeks, some months, etc. What do you THINK that looks like, victory? Call it what you want, but constantly calling for withdrawal sounds like you are giving up, regardless of the circumstances. So they are just remniding people that if you put a Dem in office, they will surrender. Isolationism didn't work in WW2, it won't work in regards to terror.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Isolationism didn't work in WW2.

 

And imperialist aggression worked like a charm and that's the model we're pursuing I guess.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Well DUH! You have every Dem out there saying we should pull out, some now, some in weeks, some months, etc. What do you THINK that looks like, victory? Call it what you want, but constantly calling for withdrawal sounds like you are giving up, regardless of the circumstances. So they are just remniding people that if you put a Dem in office, they will surrender. Isolationism didn't work in WW2, it won't work in regards to terror.

And thank you for highlighting the reason it works - some people actually believe that going into Iraq was part of the war on terror. It wasn't. Of course, it is now, because of the debacle we created over there. So... BushCo creates a stupid, illegal war on a country with no significant terror ties that effect us... they screw up the war in almost every possible way they can... Terrorists seize the opportunity to go after US interests... and so now the only way to be strong on terror is to keep up the charade?

 

Sorry, I'm not falling for it.

 

[EvilMonkey]

And thank you for highlighting the reason it works - some people actually believe that going into Iraq was part of the war on terror. It wasn't. Of course, it is now, because of the debacle we created over there. So... BushCo creates a stupid, illegal war on a country with no significant terror ties that effect us... they screw up the war in almost every possible way they can... Terrorists seize the opportunity to go after US interests... and so now the only way to be strong on terror is to keep up the charade?

 

Sorry, I'm not falling for it.

You see, that is part of the problem in all these discussions. There are two parts to it that constantly get muddled together. 1) should we have gone there to begin with and 2) let's get out. Well regardless of the answer to number one, the fact is that we ARE there. So arguing about WMD's, or Bush lied, or whatever doesn't mean s***. The only real question should be #2, when do we leave. Are things bad over there? Sure. Will they get worse if we leave tomorrow? Yes. I won't try to defend how the 'war' is going. I think Bush has been totally incompetent on the handling of the whole thing. And even back to question #1, I would have been happy bombing the country back into the stone age (although that wouldn't have been a long trip). But leaving now would be a mistake. Millions MORE would die, all the soldiers who have died so far would have died for nothing (which still may be the case, but leaving now ensures it), the status of the US is further eroded, and you are kidding yourself if you don't think that pulling out would lead to attacks here in the US. So I don't care why we got in there to begin with. One of the zillion senate or house hearing can deal with that, since they don't seem eager to pass anything other than pork bills anyway. We ARE there, deal with that, and the consequenses of whatever decisions we now make. Pulling out because 'we should have never been there to begin with' is short-sighted political bulls***. We NEED to find someone who knows what to do over there, and give them the opportunity to do it without being constantly second-guesses by the media and 'opposing parties'. I don't know what to do, do you? I do know that pulling out now would be wrong. You want to complain about the Iraqis not pulling their weight, I would probably agree with you. I think we need to force them into more independent action, regardless of the danger. And if they fail, find out why and fix it. If they succeed, find out why and teach it. I want the troops home as well. I have 2 buddies and several cousins over there right now. Plus our own Nuke. But let's try to find a way to make our exit on our terms, with a victory, not just a 'I'm thru getting shot at, I'm going home'.

[kapkomet]

And thank you for highlighting the reason it works - some people actually believe that going into Iraq was part of the war on terror. It wasn't. Of course, it is now, because of the debacle we created over there. So... BushCo creates a stupid, illegal war on a country with no significant terror ties that effect us... they screw up the war in almost every possible way they can... Terrorists seize the opportunity to go after US interests... and so now the only way to be strong on terror is to keep up the charade?

 

Sorry, I'm not falling for it.

GMAB. LIES... AAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLL LIES!

 

It gets old.

 

Re: the red part, interesting choice of words.

 

 

[Balta1701]

But leaving now would be a mistake. Millions MORE would die, all the soldiers who have died so far would have died for nothing (which still may be the case, but leaving now ensures it), the status of the US is further eroded, and you are kidding yourself if you don't think that pulling out would lead to attacks here in the US.

My counterpoint to this argument is 2 fold.

 

First and foremost...the reality is...even if the U.S. stays there for another 10 years, if we're at the "Soviets in 1982 in Afghanistan" point in this war, eventually we are going to leave. The U.S. has neither the manpower, the political will, nor the resources to spend $5 trillion on this war for the next 10 years and give up another 5000 lives in the process. So the question is...is there any reason to believe, any reason at all to conclude that our staying there will prevent this calamity you describe from happening? Based on the way the situation has currently gone, I see absolutely no reason to think it will. If the U.S. can not occupy this country for 100 years...then if we want to stay...we better have some reason to think it's worth gambling a couple trillion dollars and a few thousand more U.S. lives and another million or two of Iraqi lives on it getting better.

 

And second...this argument makes one presumption; by staying, the U.S. will manage to keep the situation from becoming worse. And on this point also, I see no evidence it's true. Casualties in that country have gone up every single year we've been there, and the "surge" has simply done nothing to stop that. The political situation is simply a disaster and shows signs of getting even worse as every faction prepares for the civil war. And the U.S. is stuck in the middle of it...thus putting a target on every American over there, and giving out free training against Americans to anyone who wants to learn.

 

Yes, it could very well be a calamity if we pull out. But this ignores the reality on the ground right now; it is a calamity there right now, and it's a calamity we're stuck in the middle of...and it's a calamity that no amount of American blood or treasure is going to improve.

Edited August 26, 2007 by Balta1701

[kapkomet]

My counterpoint to this argument is 2 fold.

 

First and foremost...the reality is...even if the U.S. stays there for another 10 years, if we're at the "Soviets in 1982 in Afghanistan" point in this war, eventually we are going to leave. The U.S. has neither the manpower, the political will, nor the resources to spend $5 trillion on this war for the next 10 years and give up another 5000 lives in the process. So the question is...is there any reason to believe, any reason at all to conclude that our staying there will prevent this calamity you describe from happening? Based on the way the situation has currently gone, I see absolutely no reason to think it will. If the U.S. can not occupy this country for 100 years...then if we want to stay...we better have some reason to think it's worth gambling a couple trillion dollars and a few thousand more U.S. lives and another million or two of Iraqi lives on it getting better.

 

And second...this argument makes one presumption; by staying, the U.S. will manage to keep the situation from becoming worse. And on this point also, I see no evidence it's true. Casualties in that country have gone up every single year we've been there, and the "surge" has simply done nothing to stop that. The political situation is simply a disaster and shows signs of getting even worse as every faction prepares for the civil war. And the U.S. is stuck in the middle of it...thus putting a target on every American over there, and giving out free training against Americans to anyone who wants to learn.

 

Yes, it could very well be a calamity if we pull out. But this ignores the reality on the ground right now; it is a calamity there right now, and it's a calamity we're stuck in the middle of...and it's a calamity that no amount of American blood or treasure is going to improve.

Now why is THAT? If that part were not the case, things would be a LOT different.

 

[EvilMonkey]

And second...this argument makes one presumption; by staying, the U.S. will manage to keep the situation from becoming worse.

Yes, it could very well be a calamity if we pull out. But this ignores the reality on the ground right now; it is a calamity there right now, and it's a calamity we're stuck in the middle of...and it's a calamity that no amount of American blood or treasure is going to improve.

 

No, I only presume that by staying there is a CHANCE it will improve. Leaving now is automatic game over.

 

Also, I didn't ignore the reality over there. Read carefully, I said it was bad.

[StrangeSox]

No, I only presume that by staying there is a CHANCE it will improve. Leaving now is automatic game over.

 

Also, I didn't ignore the reality over there. Read carefully, I said it was bad.

 

There's a chance that its worse with us than without us, too, since we make for a nice target for all the radicals in the area.

[EvilMonkey]

A big endorsement on the Democratic side of things:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/...ket-invincible/

[StrangeSox]

A big endorsement on the Democratic side of things:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/...ket-invincible/

 

A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

 

Person A makes claim X

There is something objectionable about Person A

Therefore claim X is false

[EvilMonkey]

A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

 

Person A makes claim X

There is something objectionable about Person A

Therefore claim X is false

I made to argument above, merely pasted an article that has an endorement of sorts for a candidate or two, which is what this thread is for. Read into it what you will.

[StrangeSox]

I made to argument above, merely pasted an article that has an endorement of sorts for a candidate or two, which is what this thread is for. Read into it what you will.

Sure, there's nothing implied there.

[kapkomet]

Sure, there's nothing implied there.

Just like there's nothing implied by all the leftist links posted about all the conspriacy theories. It's just information, right?

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Just like there's nothing implied by all the leftist links posted about all the conspriacy theories. It's just information, right?

 

A logical fallacy is a logical fallacy, regardless of the source.

[Mplssoxfan]

Alpha, I know you're only trying to stir the manure, but do you think that any of us on this board gives a rat's ass what Castro thinks about US political races?

[EvilMonkey]

Alpha, I know you're only trying to stir the manure, but do you think that any of us on this board gives a rat's ass what Castro thinks about US political races?

If the Grand Exhaulted Wizard of the KKK (or whatever title they have) came out and said that he thought a Rudy/McCain ticket would be unbeatable and he would vote for it, the talk would be non-stop. Oh sure, most sane people realize that it wouldn't mean beans, but still, can you imagine this board not having a 20 page post about it? And I wasn't stirring, I gently laid a nugget of information, from CNN no less, out there for all to see, like a sprig of parsley on your dinner plate. Ignore it, or chew on it if you wish, your choice.

[Balta1701]

Didn't David Duke actually run for the Republican nomination a while back?

Edited August 29, 2007 by Balta1701

[EvilMonkey]

Didn't David Duke actually run for the Republican nomination a while back?

I think he tried for the Senate and tried the presidentail nomination in both parties, and I know the national party tried to distance themselves from him, but were still smeared by association in some eyes. I think it was Louisianna.

[NorthSideSox72]

If the Grand Exhaulted Wizard of the KKK (or whatever title they have) came out and said that he thought a Rudy/McCain ticket would be unbeatable and he would vote for it, the talk would be non-stop. Oh sure, most sane people realize that it wouldn't mean beans, but still, can you imagine this board not having a 20 page post about it? And I wasn't stirring, I gently laid a nugget of information, from CNN no less, out there for all to see, like a sprig of parsley on your dinner plate. Ignore it, or chew on it if you wish, your choice.

That 20 page thread would contain probably 1 post from someone on the far left snickering about it, followed by 19 pages of Republicans screaming bloody murder. Sort of like what just happened over this topic, on the flipside.

 

[EvilMonkey]

Edwards is into the whoel nanny-state thing it seems. He wants to force you to go to the doctor.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070903/ap_on_el_pr/edwards

 

The appropriate paragraph:

"It requires that everybody be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care," he told a crowd sitting in lawn chairs in front of the Cedar County Courthouse. "If you are going to be in the system, you can't choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK."