Collection of Thoughts » Collection of thoughts

the real issues...

(28 posts)

  1. Star

    i have been looking into the differences between the Democratic and Republican parties, historically, and as it pertains to this day and time, and i am having a little difficulty understanding them on some of the issues, especially as it pertains to free trade, and the more complicated foreign affair issues that tend to never really surface, and are never really put on the table, i suppose because for that very reason, they are complicated and difficult to understand, but having said that, is it not our responsibility to investigate these things and try to understand them so that we can vote more inteligibly?

    this is the desire of this thread, not to get into the emotional contraversy seperating the two parties, but distinguishing exactly what those differences are, and allowing ourselves to decide our conscious based on the issues, instead of our individual opinions of the issues, or the politicians that are running...

    i hope that those of you that are educated on the real differences, and the real issues that face us today, will contribute to this thread...

    just a few generalizations: there is a tendacy for Republican view to be about less government, Democratic view, about more government involvement...in issues that hit close to home, especially health care...

    some things are obvious; Republican platforms tend to want to give more say-so to the individual states, and individual Americans, in regards to health care, so they are not in favor of a Universal Health Care Plan, where as the Democrats tend to lean towards a more Governmently funded plan. it is not that the Republicans have a plan that does not require government funding, it just requires less, and gives Americans more of a choice in the matter. of course that is wonderful for the Americans that can afford it, but no so for the ones that cannot. Mccain wants to give every household a grant to help with the costs...not sure how that will work, and need to do some more investigating on toward that end, but historically, Republicans have leaned away from a socialist aspect, and Democrats more toward it...

    of course their is the pro-life, pro-choice issue; Republican view supports pro-life, and Democratic view supports pro-choice...this has long been a very emotional controversy, and i am not suggesting that we explore the moral reasons behind it, but that we consider the effects on our Country as a whole, if the laws we now have are changed...

    it is obvious that if Mccain gets into office, that he will appoint more conservative supreme Court Justices, and there will be the likelihood of Roe vs Wade being overturned, and back-ally abortions will become a reality again...this is what should be considered, not whether it is right or wrong, according to the pope or God, but how will it effect America as a whole...and ultimately every individual has the right to vote their conscious...

    on the environmental issues, Republicans have long advocated that Global Warming is a farce...made up...and have discounted scientific reports for many years, and have continued to make America, more dependant on foreign oil than ever...even at the point of going to war to establish further rights to foreign oil...but, in all fareness, many Democrats went right along with it...voting every time in favor of it...now we can say their hands were tied, but that is not the entire truth...we can also say that the war on terror was used as a fear tactic to validate our need for oil, but then again...that would mean that everyone is stuck on stupid...lol...one thing that is certain, there will have to be gas caps on greenhouse emmissions, among other things, if we are going to go in the right direction, and achieve cleaner energy, and catch up with our own technology...

    Democrats, on the other hand, have fought for cleaner energy...not hard enough, obviously, but i think they finally realize that this is the major issue we face today, and, in equal fairness, Republicans are beginning to admit also, that we must change the way we use energy...seems like the parties are actually coming together on this...

    the economy is a real hot issue right now because gas and food prices, which are interconnected, are skyrocketing, and hitting America hard in their wallets...Americans are losing their homes, their jobs, and there is no end in sight. Democrats want to raise taxes for the rich, and give the middle class a break...Republicans say no...this is another issue that i am not to clear on yet...i mean, i know that there is no easy fix...America is going to have to change the way we live our lives, and it seems to all go back to energy and oil...Bush has suggested drilling for oil here in America; Mccain says no; he wants to protect our environment, and not drill in certain places that are national parks and wildlife refuges...where as the Democrats are pushing hard for biofuel, other ways of running our cars, and heating and cooling our homes...and the Republicans are also looking into this.

    either way, jobs are going to be lost, but new jobs, from a thriving new prospect of new energy resources and technology will be gained...farming is going to make a comeback i think...and we will begin to depend upon our own resources and workers more and more...that is another big issue; American jobs being shipped overseas...and big coporations capitalizing on America's weaknesses...even in Iraq...right now, the companies are making big bucks...

    the war...i look for this to be a very hot topic as we come closer to November...the Democrats want to begin bringing our troops home, Republicans say no...there are reasons for both ideas that seem to make sense...Republicans claim that if we bring our troops home to quickly, that Iran will take advantage of Iraq, and our milatary will not be there to help, and all that has been done in regards to Iraq obtaining Democracy would have been in vain. The Democrats, say that we need our troops elsewhere...that America faces more serious threats from Afghanistan, and Iran...and that is not the end of it...our involvement with Israel, and Palistine, Saudi Arabia, and it just gets more and more complicated...which i feel on this issue alone there is much that could be discussed...not in terms of who did what that got us here, but what direction should we take now...looking at it intelligently.

    then there is the foreign affairs, Nato, and issues that are way beyond my understanding, free trade, blocking trade...jeeze!

    then we have the hot imigration issues...which i am just beginning to understand, a little...

    Historically, Republicans have been dominated by Christian beliefs; Democrats of course have been more liberal in those concerns, and instrumental in cival rights, gay rights, and womens rights...

    our first Republican President, was Abraham Lincoln, who historically gets credit for freeing the slaves, but it should be understood that this was not the initial reason for our cival war...it was about power, industrial states vs. slave states.

    if anyone has any knowledge concerning these issues, and can help me understand them better, by expanding on what i have posted, or correcting me where i may be mistaken, it would be much appreciated...

    Sincerely, Star...

    Posted 6 months ago #
  2. Star

    what is really interesting, is how Christianity has controlled and shaped politics, and still does at a very basic level...this country was established for the reasons of freedom of religion...yet, religion still dictates much of our government, because of our very conditioning...

    i have to wonder, how that will change in the future...

    it is obvious that it has changed, and continues to change, but it still waltzes a very fine line...

    Posted 6 months ago #
  3. shin
    Member

    shin

    Just some thoughts.

    Republicans are for less government and more individual choice? However, this is contradicted by their stance about abortion, as well as restricted choices for the people in Iraq and other places where the US has an intervention force.

    With regards to food shortages and prices we, that is the West in general, are paying the price for an ill-designed subsidy and tariff system which does not allow farmers in developing nations to compete, imrove their products, increase their production and sell it at a decent profit.

    The huge increase in oil prices will hopefully snuff out the excesses in consumption patterns and change to locally produced, locally processed, in-season products, instead of shipping in whatever one desires from all over the world.

    The question is "can we afford globalisation?"

    Posted 6 months ago #
  4. Star

    yeah, it would seem that Republicans are only interested in less government, when it involves issues like healthcare, and welfare, education, social security, etc...you seem to be absolutely right concerning the other issues, where they make their decisions that seem to still be linked to a Catholic religious base, as it concerns rights such as pro-choice, and also gay marriage. they expect the churches to deal with the other issues...feeding our poor, the drug infested community, etc.

    they also seem to favor the very wealthy, especially big business, and seem to be aligned with global control, democracy for all, or Christianity for all...which literally means control of all.

    under this administration, jobs are being shipped overseas to benefit big business; there has been tax cuts that benefited the wealthy; and big corporations are in the middle of Iraq, making big bucks. and instead of Iraq paying with some of it's billions from oil profits, America is steady putting millions a week into this war.

    i don't know if it would be total globalization, but there is a need for us to depend on ourselves...Republicans keep wanting foreign oil, instead of alternative energy, cause they don't believe we are running out of oil, nor are they completely sold on global warming, and let's face it, becoming environmentally smart, would cost big bucks, and lots of those big time lobbiest would have to go, along with a lot of big bussinesses...lots of people will lose their jobs...

    but we have to find alternative energy. that is a must, and that in and of itself will create more jobs.

    btw, Mccain has stated that he will not agree to an environmental plan, which includes gas cap emmissions, etc, that does not include a commitment from China and the other Countries that are doing well economically, have plenty of cars on the road, still building coal plants, etc.

    that is the same reason the treaty was not signed by the Clinton administration. as i understand it, Al Gore signed it, but because China and the rest would not, stating that they have not been in this as long as the United States, and they wanted to give their countries time to catch up economically...America backed out...that is eight years + that have been lost, and still nothing has been done. unfucking believable if you ask me, but they aren't asking me...lol

    do you actually think it would come to total globalization? and what exactly would that mean in your opinion?

    Posted 6 months ago #
  5. shin
    Member

    shin

    Globalization. The aim is to globalize profits and localize poverty. The poverty will a) not be int the profiteers backyard and b) impossible to get out of because the work/labour/production is shifting so rapidly that little can be gained at local level. Unless you are the cheapest and intend to remain that, but at what price?

    A customer of mine owns a garment factory. He told me yesterday that in China the machinists get their lunch, consisting of a bowl of soup, served at their machines and they eat while they continue working. They even sleep by simply putting their head down. Leaving the work place for such activities is not permitted.

    How can anyone compete with such a labour force? How can anybody support such practices?

    Globalization will not be total. What will be globalized is the good stuff that benefits the wealthy, the rest will localized to some remote place whose name will be largely unknown.

    Posted 6 months ago #
  6. shin
    Member

    shin

    To hold back signing the emission treaties and make it dependent on other countries shows a dismal lack of leadership and foresight.

    Now would be the opportunity to develop energy efficient techniques and alternative technologies. Then you will have them when the big polluters in the form of developing economies wake up, because when they wake up, the same thing that plays itself out in the manufacturing economy will play itself out in the energy economy. They will crush you with their innovations and speed of new development.

    Take the internet as an example. Penetration and speeds in e.g., Korea are unheard of in the West, something like 80% penetration and speeds up tp 100Gb/s. Japan is not far behind.

    Posted 6 months ago #
  7. shin
    Member

    shin

    Simplicity is aimed for. Above mentioned customer says that the suppliers in the East only ever answer the first point in an e-mail.
    You have two questions - you send two e-mails.

    Have you ever gotten frustrated to comment on multiple points in an e-mail using Outlook? If you tried you will see how sensible their way of working is.

    Posted 6 months ago #
  8. Star

    thanx for your input...

    you said:

    "To hold back signing the emission treaties and make it dependent on other countries shows a dismal lack of leadership and foresight."

    i agree completely, and both parties, and their administrations have been guilty of this. not only that, America is responsible for most of the greenhouse emmissions, and they should take the initial lead in this.

    we already have the technology, just an unwillingness to convert over too it. let me give you an example that is happening right now.

    there is a democratic primary coming up on Tuesday; West Virginia; both Democratic candidates are over there campaigning. now West Virginia is coal industry territory. coal supplies 50% of our energy, and causes 40% of greenhouse emmissions. already, the state is hurting and has lost a lot of industry jobs, and are desperate to hold on to the ones they have. so what are the Democrats over there doing? talking about clean coal, which will take a couple of decades to implement, and will not solve our long term problem of carbon dioxide emmissions...

    now you might say, as i have, oh well, they are trying to win votes, which they are, but when is the government going to level with America and the world? especially when we have two parties that are saying different things, and leaning towards different ways of dealing with it...we have already been screwed by both parties on energy, among other things. i mean, clean coal? give me a break! now both Democratic candidates have extensive energy plans, and are willing to try anything that works, but they risk loosing the election to the Republicans if they really tell the whole truth...these are only some of the issues we face.

    i have watched programs that prove that we have the technology; one plant has been built, i think in Oregon, that literally turns algea into fuel, and they have the plant built in such a way that the carbon dioxide is pumped back through pipes and is reused...i don't understand it all, so i am not qualified to explain it, but i know from the scientific programs i have watched, that we do have the technology.

    see, the American people are going to have to change their way of living, which includes many of their jobs, and the way we relate to the world concerning trade, and a bunch of other stuff...

    Republicans and Democrats want to wait on the rest of the world to come along, but we are the ones responsible, so the sooner they get off their asses and get honest, both parties, the better.

    also, we know how to build cars that do not have to run on gas...i am sure that most people are aware of that, right? and yet, all the big car manufacturers are still rolling out these gas guslers, KNOWING, that we are destroying our environment, running out of oil, and that we have to change over...it just makes no sense, except that they are trying to make as much money as they can, before the government steps in.

    now some of those big gas and oil companies are putting money into research, or so they say, and i believe them to a certain extent, they would be stupid not to, but it seems to me, that we are still tiptoeing around the real issues...especially when it comes to both the political parties of America...

    shin, did not understand what you said here, as i have not tried it.
    "Have you ever gotten frustrated to comment on multiple points in an e-mail using Outlook? If you tried you will see how sensible their way of working is."

    maybe you can further explain?

    concerning your friend and China...

    are they trying to kill these workers in China? what about labor laws and unions? see, big businesses, here in America, are making lots of money by shipping American job overseas, where this is going on, but i can see where it actually helps other countries that are thankful for the jobs that it brings...it's a big world, but since America is the richest country in the world, we should lead and set an example, of course that is going to mean a lot of changes that Americans are not ready for...oh well...eventually, there will be no choice...

    Posted 6 months ago #
  9. starion
    Member

    starion

    As I was taught, Republicans represent $$$$$$ and issues around money. Republicans represent power and the elite, the movers and shakers. When it comes to laws, republicans make laws to assist the rich.
    Democrats, on the other hand, are supposed to represent the common people, the regular
    taxpayer, the welfare mother, and pass laws to enable common issues.
    Of course, since I was taught, both sides have been blurred. Recently, the last
    8 presidencies or so, the holder of the office seems to be a watered down clone speaking only a common line like they are all coached to do. It is my considered opinion, after watching these issues unfold, that U.S. Presidents act as figureheads and are no longer in charge of that office.

    Posted 6 months ago #
  10. Star

    hey starion, i too was raised a Democrat, but this is part of what i am talking about, and is an issue that faces us today...it is not just the President, i don't think he has every really been in charge all by his lonesome; we have a house of representatives and the senate; two houses really, and they can over-ride the President, but they need 2/3's of the vote, of both houses to do so...

    typically, when you have a Republican President, you have a Democratic House majority, and vice versa, so if we look at the very foundations of our Democracy, we see that it is designed to work against itself, with the idea that justice will prevail. Democrats and Republicans continue to be divided on major issues, but does not our predicament have just as much reflection on those two houses as it does on the President and his administration? maybe more...

    the issues, as i am beginning to understand them, have much more to do with other than just the idea that the Republicans are for the rich, and the Democrats are for the poor...although that may appear to be the case, i tend to think that it is just another conditioned way of thinking, and has less to do with what is really going on, and why Republicans make the decisions that they seem to make...there are legitimate arguements that each party has, and i believe if we understand individually, what those reasons and arguements really concern, then we as Americans are better prepared to make intelligent decisions concerning our own governing body.

    i think it is high time that the American people took back their government, but to do that, we have to educate ourselves on the real issues, and get involved with not only choosing our President, but also our Senators and Congress Representatives, and our own Representatives at our own State level. most of us, just throw our hat in the ring, and let everyone else fight for it; we turn a blind eye, and literally close our eyes to what is going on around us, then we blame the President for everything that is wrong in our world. we are like little children on a playground, that don't care if it is snowing or raining hail, we just want to go outside and play.

    we want our jobs, our cars, our rights, our money to spend on all our bullshit, and we don't have the time to be bothered about the affairs of our own Country, much less the world around us; we want our American way of life, and expect our government to figure out how they can continue to give it to us, then we complain when something major doesn't suit us, and readily and easily lay blame at Washington's door...so, our government continues to candy coat the truth, because the majority of Americans don't want to hear the truth.

    if Washington has become a house of lieing warmongers, that are greedy for gain, then it is just a reflection of America, and representative of what we as a Country have become. maybe we have always been this way. maybe it had to get to this, so we as a Country could become willing to change...this is why i feel it is important to look at the foundations of both parties, and the reasons they do what they do, and believe what they believe, so that we as intelligent citizens, can learn to lay aside all the conditioned thinking, and make intelligent decisions, based on the issues, that are good for America and the world, instead of basing our decisions on our emotional attachment to outdated ideas, conditioned allegiance to a party or system that is not working, or to a candidate we 'feel' emotional about...we even need to go beyond issues that we feel strongly about, and see the bigger issues...

    it is those issues that are important here, and one of those issues, is the very thing you brought up, and maybe we can get to the bottom of it; is it fair to say that Republicans are really only concerned about the wealthy? if so, why? and how can we change that?

    see, i don't think that is the whole story; i think there are many reasons behind why either party does what it does...and by looking at the very foundation of our system, and the way it works, and all the problems facing it, maybe we can understand how to help it work towards a better tomorrow for all...

    Posted 6 months ago #
  11. Star

    here is an example of our own 'American' thinking:

    i have been talking to my son lately, who is doing very well in sobriety, btw, and my daughter, about the environment, the rising costs of gas, and the fact that they are struggling to pay their bills. i suggested to them both that they consider trading their cars in on smaller, more gas efficient vehicles, or to even consider hybriads; my daughter is mulling over the idea, but my son, who is a pimp-wannabe, lol, has a Cadilac, and kept saying to me, "but Mom, i will lose money on it if i try and sale it now!" i explained to him, that this idea that gas is going to go down, and we are going to be able to continue on living the way we do, has got to change. i also explained to him, that at a later date, he would lose even more money. he is attached to the idea of this car, as many Americans are. their cars and trucks somehow defines who they are, or who they think they are, or who they want to be...the media sells Americans this illusion, and they believe it...but we as individuals are allowing this to happen!

    right now, i am listening to the news; you would think that consumer spending would be down instead of up...IT'S NOT!...trunuf, they are complaining about high gas prices, but they are steadily filling their tanks, and going, going, gone! Americans have an addiction to spending, and going, and while it may appear to be good for the economy, it is only prolonging the inevidible...

    many Americans are so fat, they can hardly get in their cars to drive to Mcdonalds for all their happy meals...our way of life is killing us and everyone else, while we cry and complain to our government and doctors, we refuse to look in the mirror at ourselves...if we would just park the damn car once and a while, and walk to the park and throw a frisbie, or eat a salad...stay home and play scrabble with the family instead of driving cross country, but America is spoiled, and addicted to all that is American...this is just part of the conditioned thinking we need to work on within our own families and communities.

    Posted 6 months ago #
  12. starion
    Member

    starion

    It's hard to break a habit. However, the presently eroding system is creating just
    the momentum that will accomplish that! The news is, of course, created for consumerism, and for using the economy as watchers are being bombarded with flashes of
    drugs, Hollywood, political posturing, and a lot of BS. The most important part of the
    news can be said in 15 minutes; the rest is BS. There are ads to sell drugs, ads to sell movies, cars, fast food, and fancy vacations. TV is geared to push the economy upward...
    Your son has a choice. He can believe he is admired for having a large fancy gas hog
    that is draining his wallet, or realize that he is considered wise and considerate for
    having a hybrid and saving money for other more useful and rewarding pursuits.

    Posted 6 months ago #
  13. starion
    Member

    starion

    However, perhaps he needs to grow a little first....

    Posted 6 months ago #
  14. shin
    Member

    shin

    { are they trying to kill these workers in China? what about labor laws and unions? }

    HAHAHA! What about beatings and re-education camps might be more appropriate?
    Actually, I don't know too much about labor laws and conditions there, except that they do not seem to be there or at least not strongly adhered to.

    But, let's assume a more positive angle.
    What about a fanatical work ethic which makes everything else subservient to it?
    What about an honor system that requires one to deliver the best at ordinary times and the impossible at expetional times?
    I have heard a story that when they had a most severe snow storm in Japan and the snow drifts where so high that the Hokaido express was delayed for an hour or so, for the first time ever, the operations manager performed sepuku (ritual suicide) because he said "It was my fault teh train was late. It was my job to have the train running on time, no matter what! I have dishonored the company, myself and my family."

    Posted 6 months ago #
  15. Star

    well, i thought China was changing and moving towards a deomocracy, but i dunno, but Japan, i have very little understanding, but it would appear that they are conditioned by a whole different mindset...which just proves, that society, whether it be American, Japanese, or whatever, is conditioned by what it is taught to believe, and acts according to that conditioning.

    we in America, have been conditioned to trust and believe in our government, but that system of belief has been changing for some time now. new voters and first time voters are coming out in record numbers, and even those that have voted loyally for one party or another, are not just sitting idly by anymore and accepting whatever Washington is feeding it...

    Posted 6 months ago #
  16. Star

    starion, you are absolutely right on both counts...it is his choice, but he may just have to learn it the good old-fashioned hard way! lol...one thing is for sure, his bullshit does not play with me, cause i have been there done that, and he knows, that i will always tell him the truth...lovingly as possible, but i cannot afford to coddle him when it comes to him taking responsibility for his actions...he is a grown man. when he called on Mother's Day, he was down because he did not have the money to buy me anything; i told him that his being sober was enough, but that if he really wanted to do something to please me, that he should register to vote, and pay attention to the campaign, educating himself on the issues that he and his generation faces today...that made him laugh...in the end, all we can do is plant the seeds of liberation, and nuture them, hopefully to fruition...

    Posted 6 months ago #
  17. YetAnotherSeeker
    Member

    YetAnotherSeeker

    "Recently, the last 8 presidencies or so, the holder of the office seems to be a watered down clone speaking only a common line like they are all coached to do"

    Interestingly enough, 5 of the last 8 presidents (17 out of 45 years)were Democrats, some with a very strong Republican congress during their term of office.

    Posted 6 months ago #
  18. Star

    well, the Republican spin now, is that the reason we are in the mess we are in, economically, and with the war in Iraq, is because of the strong Democratic congress we now have...

    i cannot really speak to whether or not our President is being dupped or controled; although many times it appears to be true...congress does have the power to tie their hands it would seem...that is why, i think, it important that we elect someone that can reach across party lines...to solve real problems for real people...our party lines need to blur...and our strong beliefs need compromise...to reach an intelligent middle-of-the-way solution...that reflects harmony and unity instead of conditioned divisiveness...

    that has always been our way; if something goes well, we adore our President, and give him the credit, and they readily accept such adoration and congratulations themselves in a job well-done; on the other hand, if it all looks bad, while the public blames them, they call congress into suspect...

    i tend to think that there is enough blame to go around, and reaches even into the American public that turns a blind eye, or doesn't vote, or allows themselves to be dupped by government...after all, our government, for better or worse, is a reflection of America itself...time for a real change!

    Posted 6 months ago #
  19. Star

    this is also the predicament that the Evangelical Christians are finding themselves in...

    they see the longtime held beliefs of pro-choice and gay rights, preventing the country from moving forward to 'real' issues...

    when we are focused on these conditioned, religious, hold-outs, we forget that we have men and women of our armed forces dying for a war that was a lie...not to mention the innocent, dead Iraqies...

    we also tend to forget that there are human beings starving to death, and being eliminated by aides, suffering from natural disasters, and from genicidic milatary regimes...while we are running our out-dated election, focusing on whether or not it is moral for us to elect this one or that, depending on their limited beliefs controlled by ancient mindsets of religious idiologic thinking...

    we have those that are more concerned with whether or not changing the abortion law is moral or not, then with what is going on in the here and now...we also have those same Republicans, in a state of denial where our environmental issues are concerned...

    it is obvious, at least to me, and now, it would appear, to many of the Evangelican Christians, that we have more immediate problems to deal with...

    you know what? those that still deny that gas emminations of carbon dioxide are harming our people and our planet, remind me of those on that board of directors that testified for tobacco...while they were faced with the evidence, long before they admitted it, they chose to ignore it...because of money...

    same difference...if we finally have to face our responsibility to this planet and it's people, the oil tycoons of big business will be out, and clean energy will be in...

    Posted 6 months ago #
  20. Star

    correction on my previous post yas...we apparently have a majority of Republicans in congress at present...sooooooooo...make of that what you will...my bad on that...no wonder we are not able to have a 2/3's majority in congress to turn things around...that makes more sense now...forgive me for the dumb blond moment...they still strike periodically...lol

    Posted 6 months ago #
  21. Star

    the issues are really taking shape here in America, as the heated debate continues between the Democratic and Republican parties...

    one of the major issues is of course the war in Iraq...i expected this to take center stage in November...it seems to be taking center stage now, because from what i can tell, it is really all that is on the Republican platform...all their other issues and plans appear to be very weak...please, if anyone has a different view, express it, so that we can look at both sides...

    the Republican Party is for continuing our positioning in Iraq, for, as GOP Presidential candidate Senator John Mccain says, "100 years, why not 1000...if Americans are not in danger." where as both Democratic candidates, Senator Barack Obama, and Senator Hilary Clinton, state that we must begin bringing our troops out of Iraq, allowing Iraq to control it's own country, and allowing American military troops to focus more solely on the threat in Iran, Afghanistan, and other far east countries such as Saudi Arabia, and South Korea, where Al quada is stronger than ever in some of those places, and weapons of mass destruction really exist...

    Mccain, has called into question Barack's ability and experience where foreign affairs are concerned, blatenly associating him with this idea that he is favored by terrorist leaders, planting suspision in the minds of Americans trying to control them, as was done in previous years, by fear, because Barack has said that he would diplomatically engage in discussions with terrorist leaders...which, btw, is the job of the President...lol

    it would appear that the Republicans are using their same old fear tactics, to keep the American military in Iraq, for the purposes of controling the oil there...

    President Bush, while in Israel, made suggestive comments concerning this idea of actually approaching terrorist countries with diplomocy, saying it had been done before by Hitler...many democrats here in America were angered and offended by these comments, as it goes against policy, to make such comments on foreign soil, as they pertain to an election here at home...the slurs and fear tactics continue to be the platform of the Republican Party, that continues to lose respect here with the American people, and just recently have lost three senate seats to the Democrats in Republican states...

    Barack Obama came out quickly with an angered response towards President Bushes attempts to misrepresent what he stands for, and said that President Bush knows that he has never stood with terrorists...

    Hilary Clinton came out against President Bush also, with some harsh words of her own, in defense of Barack Obama...

    Other Demorcratic representatives are also coming out angrily; one such Democrat called Bushes comments Bullshit!

    Mccain was reveling in this, and took every opportunity to once again, call Senator Obama's lack of experience concerning foreign affairs into question...stating that Obama must explain what he meant by saying that he would meet with terrorists...again, all this is being taken out of context, and being fed to the American people by the shovel full...

    what has become painfully obvious, even amongst the drama, is this...

    Republicans want the war in Iraq to continue, indefinatly...Democrats want to begin bringing our troops home from Iraq, and focus more in Iran and Afghanistan, where the terrorists threat is growing...

    we can expect this campaign to get worse, before it gets better...hopefully the American people are more aware of the issues now, and can make educated decisions, based on fact instead of fear, and on what would be good for America...and the world...

    Posted 6 months ago #
  22. Star

    heads up;

    the gay-marriage issue is raising it's head, and being thrust into the fore-front of the campaign...hmmmmmmmm...have to wonder is this was done on purpose by those Republican Supreme Court Justices that voted in favor for it...lol...

    Democratic candidates are for gay-unions, against gay-marriage, but against banning gay-marriage in the constitution...

    here are their individual views in black and white...

    Mccain is against gay-unions, against gay-marriage, and also, against banning gay-marriage in the constitution...
    Obama says that he personally believes that "marriage is between a man and a woman" but also says that "equality is a moral imperative" for gay and lesbian Americans. He advocates the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) because "federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does." He supports granting civil unions for gay couples, and in 2006 he opposed a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. In March 2007, Obama initially avoided answering questions about a controversial statement by a U.S. general that "homosexual acts" are "immoral," but Obama later told CNN's Larry King, "I don't think that homosexuals are immoral any more than I think heterosexuals are immoral."

    McCain says marriage should be between a man and a woman and should be regulated by the states. He opposed a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage because "it usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed." McCain endorsed a 2006 Arizona ballot initiative to limit marriage to be between a man and a woman and said, "I'm proud to have led an effort in my home state to change our state constitution and to protect the sanctity of marriage as between a man and woman." He also supported the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which banned federal recognition of gay marriage and domestic partnerships. He supports the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy and says that to "even reopen the issue" would be a "terrific mistake."

    Clinton opposes same-sex marriage but favors civil unions in which gay couples receive full recognition and benefits. She says that "marriage has always been province of the states" and advocates repeal of a provision in the Defense of Marriage Act that prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage. In the U.S. Senate, she opposed amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage. While she has solicited and received the support of gay and lesbian groups, many gay activists were alarmed over her March 2007 comment that the morality of homosexuality was up "to others to conclude." She later released a statement saying that she does not believe homosexuality is immoral. In an April 2008 interview, Clinton said she would change federal tax policies and immigration laws to eliminate disparities affecting same-sex couples.

    Posted 6 months ago #
  23. Star

    heads up;

    the gay-marriage issue is raising it's head, and being thrust into the fore-front of the campaign...hmmmmmmmm...have to wonder is this was done on purpose by those Republican Supreme Court Justices that voted in favor for it...lol...

    Democratic candidates are for gay-unions, against gay-marriage, but against banning gay-marriage in the constitution...

    Republican Mccain is against gay-unions, against gay-marriage, and against banning gay-marriage in the constitution...

    here are their individual views in black and white...

    Obama says that he personally believes that "marriage is between a man and a woman" but also says that "equality is a moral imperative" for gay and lesbian Americans. He advocates the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) because "federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does." He supports granting civil unions for gay couples, and in 2006 he opposed a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. In March 2007, Obama initially avoided answering questions about a controversial statement by a U.S. general that "homosexual acts" are "immoral," but Obama later told CNN's Larry King, "I don't think that homosexuals are immoral any more than I think heterosexuals are immoral."

    McCain says marriage should be between a man and a woman and should be regulated by the states. He opposed a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage because "it usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed." McCain endorsed a 2006 Arizona ballot initiative to limit marriage to be between a man and a woman and said, "I'm proud to have led an effort in my home state to change our state constitution and to protect the sanctity of marriage as between a man and woman." He also supported the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which banned federal recognition of gay marriage and domestic partnerships. He supports the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy and says that to "even reopen the issue" would be a "terrific mistake."

    Clinton opposes same-sex marriage but favors civil unions in which gay couples receive full recognition and benefits. She says that "marriage has always been province of the states" and advocates repeal of a provision in the Defense of Marriage Act that prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage. In the U.S. Senate, she opposed amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage. While she has solicited and received the support of gay and lesbian groups, many gay activists were alarmed over her March 2007 comment that the morality of homosexuality was up "to others to conclude." She later released a statement saying that she does not believe homosexuality is immoral. In an April 2008 interview, Clinton said she would change federal tax policies and immigration laws to eliminate disparities affecting same-sex couples.

    Posted 6 months ago #
  24. Star

    surprise, surprise, surprise...

    Mccain has outlined his platform for Presidency...and it is beginning to have left-wing overtones. he has been known as the Maverick Republican, the one who has reached across party lines to reach compromise on pressing issues...and we are seeing that in this speech...

    Republican Senator Mccain now claims that by the end of his first term, 2013, the war in Iraq will be won, American soldiers will be coming home...this is the direct opposite of what he was saying about a week ago...lol...but hey, maybe he has really changed his mind...my problem with him, is he keeps changing it, depending on who he is talking to...it seems...

    he is also outlining an energy plan, that calls for a better awareness in regards to the environment...he now believes that Global Warming is real...hmmmmmmmmmmm...which may be more in line with gaining back the Evangelical vote than anything else...

    in the media, his focus is more on bashing Obama for his lack of experience in foreign affairs...still asking Obama to explain his comments about meeting with the heads of terrorist countrys...which i find quiet ridiculous, seeing that America has always done that, including Bush and his administration...i am very leary of ploys such as this, no matter who they are directed at...it always makes me more suspicious of the one doing it...

    Posted 6 months ago #
  25. Star

    NARAL changes its endorsement from Senator Hilary Clinton to Senator Barack Obama...

    this is a very important endorsement; it is an organization of Pro-choicers...here are the candidates stand on this issue...

    Hillary Clinton
    Will sign into law the Freedom of Choice Act, which would codify Roe v. Wade into federal law. Would overturn the "global gag rule," which prohibits Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) from talking about abortion in the event of an unplanned pregnancy. Voted against the Prohibit Partial Birth Abortion bill in 2003. Did not cast a vote on Prohibiting Funds for Groups that Perform Abortions amendment in 2007.
    Disagreed with Supreme Court ruling to uphold the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act."

    Barack Obama
    Opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v Wade. Disagreed with Supreme Court ruling to uphold the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act." Did not cast a vote on Prohibiting Funds for Groups that Perform Abortions amendment in 2007.

    John McCain
    Voted for the Prohibit Partial Birth Abortion bill in 2003 and "yes" for Prohibiting Funds for Groups that Perform Abortions amendment in 2007. Believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned. Supports Supreme Court ruling upholding the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.

    Posted 6 months ago #
  26. Star

    Senate Republicans rebuke Bush on Iraq veterans
    4 hours ago

    WASHINGTON (AFP) — Republicans in the US Senate on Thursday rebuked President George W. Bush and joined majority Democrats to pass a bill offering a fully-paid college education for Iraq and Afghan war veterans.

    The vote marked one of the few occasions when the Democratic-led Congress has been able to overcome Republican blocking maneuvers to adjust any aspect of the White House war strategy.

    The Senate also passed a 165 billion dollar emergency funding bill for the war, but rejected an amendment containing a troop withdrawal timetable and restrictions on US war policy which Bush vowed to veto.

    The veterans measure, modelled on the post-World War II "GI bill," pays for four years in college fees and living expenses for returning veterans.

    It passed by a veto-proof 75-22 majority, as part of a huge package of domestic spending, which Bush has vowed to veto.

    "This is an historic victory for America's veterans," said Senate Majority leader Harry Reid.

    "I hope President Bush watches closely what happened here today, and I hope he heeds the call of a bipartisan, veto-proof majority of Congress and the thousands of veterans who know we owe our veterans the support they deserve."

    Bush had warned he will veto the Iraq war funding bill if it contains extra domestic spending. It is unclear whether Democrats have the votes to override the veto in the House of Representatives as well as the Senate.

    "The United States Congress needs to pass a responsible war funding bill that does not tie the hands of our commanders and gives our troops everything they need to complete and accomplish the mission," he said in Fort Bragg, North Carolina earlier Thursday.

    The measure was the brainchild of freshman Senator Jim Webb from Virginia, who is attracting increasing mentions as a possible vice presidential running mate for Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama.

    It was also supported by Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, like Webb, a Vietnam war veteran.

    "One percent of our population does all the dying, does all the fighting, makes all of the sacrifices," Hagel said.

    "This is about honoring the commitment that Americans have made, since 1944, to their veterans."

    Both Democratic presidential candidates, Obama and Clinton returned from the campaign trail to vote, but Republican presumptive nominee John McCain, a former Vietnam war prisoner who opposed the current bill, did not.

    But the measure still sparked a fresh row between McCain and Obama, who are already eyeing a potential general election clash.

    "I respect Senator John McCain's service to our country," Obama said, in an unusually direct speech on the Senate floor.

    "But I can't understand why he would line up behind the president in opposition to this GI bill. I can't believe why he believes it is too generous to our veterans."

    Obama's comments drew a swift, and highly personal statement from McCain.

    "I take a backseat to no one in my affection, respect and devotion to veterans," the Arizona said.

    "I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did," he said.

    Obama later his back in his own statement, as the antipathy between him and McCain deepened.

    "It's disappointing that Senator McCain and his campaign used this issue to launch yet another lengthy personal, political attack," he said.

    "These endless diatribes and schoolyard taunts from the McCain campaign do nothing to advance the debate about what matters to the American people."

    McCain says he is concerned that the Webb legislation would harm retention rates in the US armed services, and has offered an alternative approach that would boost benefits according to a veteran's length of service.

    The two measures passed by the Senate will now be returned to the House for a vote on the specific funding measure.

    Last week, the House rejected 163 billion dollars in emergency spending for Iraq and Afghanistan, in an unexpected but symbolic twist to the long political battle over war funding.

    Posted 6 months ago #
  27. Star

    The Candidates on the Iraq War

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hillary Clinton While she voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq in 2002, Clinton has since said that she "certainly wouldn't have voted" for the war if she had known then what she knows now. She says it is time to focus on "ending this war – not next year, not next month, but today" and has described the war as one "we cannot win." If elected president, Clinton says she would use "the best military advice we can get" to begin to withdraw troops within 60 days of assuming office. She would also order "small elite strike forces to engage in targeted operations against al Qaeda in Iraq" and create a U.N.-led stabilization group to discuss strategies for rebuilding the country.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    John McCain In 2002 McCain voted to approve the use of American force in Iraq and remains supportive of President Bush's policies there. He has criticized management of the war but says pulling out would be a mistake that could lead to greater instability and future conflicts in the region. McCain has defended the moral justification for the war and has called it a "just war." He has referred to terrorism as "a malevolent force that defiles an honorable religion by disputing God's love for each and every soul on earth," and the war in Iraq as "a fight between right and wrong, good and evil." In a March 2008 interview with CNN, McCain said that the "surge is working" and that withdrawal from Iraq "means Al Qaeda wins." He favors a continued presence of American forces in Iraq after the war has ended.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Barack Obama Obama was an opponent of the war effort as an Illinois state senator, arguing that the fight in Afghanistan should be finished before the U.S. embarked on a "dumb" and "rash" war. He campaigned against the war in his 2004 U.S. Senate bid. In his presidential campaign, he has made his opposition to the war a central theme, telling voters that "they should ask themselves: Who got the single most important foreign policy decision since the end of the Cold War right, and who got it wrong?" If elected, he says, he will remove one to two combat brigades each month and have all U.S. combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ron Paul Paul has objected to the war in Iraq for having been "sold to us with false information," being fiscally irresponsible and lacking both a congressional declaration of war and moral justification. He has introduced legislation to revoke the president's authority to wage war in Iraq and favors a "clear decision to leave." Referring to the Iraqi government, Paul said that "the biggest incentive for them to take upon themselves the responsibility is just for us to leave."

    Posted 5 months ago #
  28. Star

    McCain has been vocal in the media challenging Barack Obama to go to Iraq and see for himself the progress of the insurgency...making claims that the war is being won, and that Bagdad is now safe enough to walk through, etc...even laughing at Obama and alluding to his lack of experience and knowledge of military and foreign affairs...

    this would seem to be a lot of bullshit political posturing, especially according to Michael Ware, someone that is over there, right now, and has been for some time, reporting the truth of what is actually going on...check this out, please...if you are thinking of supporting McCain and this war, please watch this video, and get the facts...

    http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/27/michael-ware-i-dont-know-what-part-of-neverland-senator-mccain-is-talking-about/

    Posted 5 months ago #
  29. Star

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90902171&ft=1&f=13

    have seen Clark on several political shows now, and he talks with more sense than anyone i have heard on these issues...no fluff, just the facts...

    Posted 5 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.