DEM Primaries/Candidates thread

[Texsox]

Please note that I said it SHOULD be, not that it was. Move along.

 

So tell me, how does a candidate speaking Spanish, or a tourist being able to get a Visa in their native tongue, harm you?

[EvilMonkey]

So tell me, how does a candidate speaking Spanish, or a tourist being able to get a Visa in their native tongue, harm you?

I said GOVERNMENT BUSINESS should be conducted in English. I agree, a debate is not government business, so my quip was a little out of place. As for the business of government, how many f***ing languages will we have to be able to understand, or print ballots in for it to be too much? Do we need ballots in Cantoneese? Polish? Hebrew? Piglatin? i understand the value of mulit-language speakers in tourist cities, but c'mon, should Des Moines really need a ballot printed in 6 different languages? it should be english. And if you want to discuss this further, we can start a different thread, I am thru with this tangent, at least in here.

[Texsox]

Not worth the debate. I think government should serve the citizens, not vice versa. If we have the resources to serve the citizens, I think we should.

[southsider2k5]

Why should they be speaking in spanish for a debate at all? Our elections are not held in mexico. If a person is able to LEGALLY vote here in this country, shouldn't they have enough grasp of the English language toat least follow a soundbyte debate? And if they can't understand english, why the hell are they voting and how did they become eligible to do so?

 

That is the blessing of freedom. They are free to debate in any language that they want to debate in. I have zero problem with that. I have a bigger problem with them being told that they can't debate in Spanish versus the fact that they went on Spanish TV for a debate. Here in the US you can speak whatever you like.

[southsider2k5]

I said GOVERNMENT BUSINESS should be conducted in English. I agree, a debate is not government business, so my quip was a little out of place. As for the business of government, how many f***ing languages will we have to be able to understand, or print ballots in for it to be too much? Do we need ballots in Cantoneese? Polish? Hebrew? Piglatin? i understand the value of mulit-language speakers in tourist cities, but c'mon, should Des Moines really need a ballot printed in 6 different languages? it should be english. And if you want to discuss this further, we can start a different thread, I am thru with this tangent, at least in here.

 

I do agree that the government should have an official language to conduct business in. I really think that the extra costs associated with all of the people necesary to add just a single language's worth of materials shouldn't have to be borne by the rest of the country. You don't have to speak English, but in order to conduct business with the government you should be able to. You are free to not learn English, but as in anything there are consequences for your actions.

[NorthSideSox72]

I do agree that the government should have an official language to conduct business in. I really think that the extra costs associated with all of the people necesary to add just a single language's worth of materials shouldn't have to be borne by the rest of the country. You don't have to speak English, but in order to conduct business with the government you should be able to. You are free to not learn English, but as in anything there are consequences for your actions.

I think that sums it up nicely. In order for the government and the country to function well, there needs to be one language used (and for the most part, this is already the case). If people want to also speak some other language(s), feel free. Or if they want not learn English, then hey, they can not learn math either and drown in their own financial mistakes. Their choice.

 

[Texsox]

I do agree that the government should have an official language to conduct business in. I really think that the extra costs associated with all of the people necesary to add just a single language's worth of materials shouldn't have to be borne by the rest of the country. You don't have to speak English, but in order to conduct business with the government you should be able to. You are free to not learn English, but as in anything there are consequences for your actions.

 

Excellent post.

 

Here is a practical example and perhaps something the English Only will tolerate. Down here most of the population is bi-lingual. Especially the people who grew up here. If the customer (Post Office, City Hall, Congressman's Office, DMV) is standing there and more comfortable in Spanish or French, and the taxpayer supported employee speaks Spanish or French, why prohibit them from speaking in that language?

[southsider2k5]

I wouldn't stop anyone from using their language if they ran into someone who also spoke it. I just don't want to pay for the expectations that someone SHOULD speak it. If an employee and a customer at the DMV both speak Spanish, good for them. If it helps them get their transaction finished, its fine with me. I just don't think everyone should have to pay for it.

[Texsox]

I wouldn't stop anyone from using their language if they ran into someone who also spoke it. I just don't want to pay for the expectations that someone SHOULD speak it. If an employee and a customer at the DMV both speak Spanish, good for them. If it helps them get their transaction finished, its fine with me. I just don't think everyone should have to pay for it.

 

I could support that. If the normal employment pool mirrors the population, that should occur naturally.

[EvilMonkey]

I wouldn't stop anyone from using their language if they ran into someone who also spoke it. I just don't want to pay for the expectations that someone SHOULD speak it. If an employee and a customer at the DMV both speak Spanish, good for them. If it helps them get their transaction finished, its fine with me. I just don't think everyone should have to pay for it.

This is essentially what I was trying to say, but done so more eloquently.

[Rex Kickass]

Please note that I said it SHOULD be, not that it was. Move along.

I'm just pointing it out. Very few people seem to realize that.

[BigSqwert]

Obama: Troops out of Iraq, by end of 2008

 

By John McCormick

 

CLINTON, Iowa – Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama this afternoon called for an immediate start to the withdrawal of all U.S. combat forces from Iraq -- with a goal of full removal by the end of 2008 -- as he suggested the nation has lost its way because of the war.

 

"We're not going to be truly united and resolute as Americans until we can stop holding our breath, until we can come together to reclaim our foreign policy and our politics and end this war that has cost us too much," he said.

 

Obama's plan, outlined before an audience of about 500 at Ashford University, calls for the complete pullout of troops by the end of next year.

 

"Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq. There never was," he said. "'The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year – now."

 

That rhetoric is similar to the position New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio have expressed for months. While Obama's speech added some new detail, it did not offer any dramatically new insights about his position on the war.

 

"The American people have the right instincts on Iraq," Obama said. "It's time to heed their judgment…I will be a president who listens to the American people, not a president who ignores the American people."

 

The speech came a day after Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker updated Congress on the war during two days of testimony.

 

Obama discounted any signs of progress in the war-torn nation.

 

"This has little to do with the surge," he said. "It's because Sunni tribal leaders made a political decision to turn against al Qaeda in Iraq. This only underscores the point – the solution in Iraq is political, it is not military," he said.

 

Saying President Bush was "afraid of the future," Obama repeatedly criticized the current administration for its handling of the war.

 

"After all the flawed justifications for his failed policy, recently he invoked Vietnam as a reason to stay in Iraq," Obama said. "Let's put aside the strange reasoning – that all would have been well if we had just stayed the course in Vietnam. Let's put it aside and leave it where it belongs – in the past."

 

He then continued on the Vietnam theme, making a reference to the last presidential election.

 

"Now is not the time to reargue the Vietnam War – we did that in the 2004 election, and it wasn't very pretty," he said. "I don't want to fight the battles of the 1960s. I want to reclaim the future for America."

 

Link

[NorthSideSox72]

Link

In another article I read covering that speech, they emphasized that Obama was specific to the 20 combat brigades coming out, but not going so far as to say no troops at all would be left. He is leaving that door open, for specialized forces to remain there to help with things like advising on border security, etc. So he is getting his footing on this issue - more forceful on pulling out than Clinton, but not as dramatic about "no troops" as Kucinich and Richardson.

 

[BigSqwert]

In another article I read covering that speech, they emphasized that Obama was specific to the 20 combat brigades coming out, but not going so far as to say no troops at all would be left. He is leaving that door open, for specialized forces to remain there to help with things like advising on border security, etc. So he is getting his footing on this issue - more forceful on pulling out than Clinton, but not as dramatic about "no troops" as Kucinich and Richardson.

 

I agree with him that there needs to be a political solution. The military solution will not work.

[Balta1701]

Dodd replies:

"I was disappointed that Senator Obama's thoughts on Iraq today didn't include a firm, enforceable deadline for redeployment, and dismayed that neither he nor Senator Clinton will give an unequivocal answer on whether they would support a measure if it didn't have such an enforceable deadline.

 

"It is clear to me - especially after yesterday's testimony - that half-measures aren't going to stop this President or end our involvement in this civil war. I thought it was clear to Senators Obama and Clinton as well after they finally came around to supporting the Feingold-Reid measure and voting against a blank-check supplemental spending bill this spring. If 'enough was enough' then, why isn't it after the bloodiest summer of the war?

 

"Senator Obama has a gift for soaring rhetoric, but, on this critical issue, we need to know the substance of his position with specificity. Without tying a date certain to funding how does he plan to enforce his call for an immediate redeployment?

[NorthSideSox72]

Dodd replies:

Well, Dodd is full of it on this one. Obama said end of 2008, and he said a phased withdrawal to that point. What does Dodd want, someone to say "11:59pm GMT on December the 31st, 2008 A.D."?

 

[Balta1701]

Well, Dodd is full of it on this one. Obama said end of 2008, and he said a phased withdrawal to that point. What does Dodd want, someone to say "11:59pm GMT on December the 31st, 2008 A.D."?

He wants him to quite simply say he will vote against any funding bill that does not include his deadline. The idea being, you can say you're for all the deadlines you want, but if you're not out trying to stop funding bills from going through without them, then you're all just talk.

[NorthSideSox72]

He wants him to quite simply say he will vote against any funding bill that does not include his deadline. The idea being, you can say you're for all the deadlines you want, but if you're not out trying to stop funding bills from going through without them, then you're all just talk.

Which is sort of true. I am not aware how Dodd has been voting lately, but I am pretty certain he has voted for plenty of funding until now. I think the only Senate/House member who is a Prez candidate who can honestly say they've been truly against this thing from Day 1 is Dennis Kucinich.

 

[BigSqwert]

Which is sort of true. I am not aware how Dodd has been voting lately, but I am pretty certain he has voted for plenty of funding until now. I think the only Senate/House member who is a Prez candidate who can honestly say they've been truly against this thing from Day 1 is Dennis Kucinich.

 

(Mental note: Do not change avatar to some random chick in a bikini....or maybe I should?)

Edited September 12, 2007 by BigSqwert

[Rex Kickass]

Obama's plan is kinda good.

[Chet Lemon]

Mark Warner (D-VA) announces his Senate candidacy.

 

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jbfV6b-...-zF9SIPMBRWyPFA

 

Up until today, I considered him the leading VP choice of any Dem Presidential candidate.

[Balta1701]

Mark Warner (D-VA) announces his Senate candidacy.

 

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jbfV6b-...-zF9SIPMBRWyPFA

 

Up until today, I considered him the leading VP choice of any Dem Presidential candidate.

With the number of potential candidates out there for whoever does win the nomination (Edwards, Obama, Richardson, Clinton) I think he's much better in that role grabbing the Dems another Senate seat. If he wants to move up more, his time will come.

[Balta1701]

Tonight, after President Bush makes yet another argument for continuing the war in Iraq, John Edwards will speak directly to the American people in a nationwide address on MSNBC.

 

Our campaign has bought airtime on MSNBC immediately following the President's address at 9 p.m., and John Edwards will challenge the President's remarks with a strong call to the nation to end the war now.

 

Please watch in that timeframe—and forward this e-mail to your friends, asking them to watch as well. Each of us has a responsibility to make sure that President Bush and Congress understand that the time for excuses has run out. John Edwards will deliver a strong message tonight on our behalf. It's time to end this war and bring our troops home.

 

Buying this kind of airtime is expensive. But we believe that President Bush's address must be countered with a strong voice in opposition to the failed policies that have kept our troops in harm's way for far too long. Tonight, John Edwards will continue to lead, and make the case to the nation that we cannot wait for an election to change course in Iraq—we as citizens must make Washington understand that the time to end this war is now.

 

Don't miss John's address tonight on MSNBC, immediately following the President.

 

President Bush will be on every network for free tonight. Our campaign will have to pay for the time on MSNBC so that John Edwards can challenge the President's failed policies. Please consider making a contribution to the campaign—to help us meet the costs of paying for tonight's address—and to help John's campaign continue to grow.

 

www.johnedwards.com/action/contribute/iraq-address

 

Thanks for all you do,

 

--Joe Trippi

Senior Advisor, John Edwards for President

September 13, 2007

[BigSqwert]

Is that Bush address 9 EST?

[Texsox]

I really do not like those point-counterpoints after the President speaks, and will not watch. I know it;s the whole equal time thing but I prefer to spend those moments contemplating what the President said, noit having "the other side" tell me what to think.