♫ Ebony and ivory live together in perfect harmony Side by side on my piano keyboard, oh lord, why dont we? We all know that people ♫ are the same where ever we go There is good and bad in everyone, We learn to live, we learn to give Each other what we need to survive together alive. ♪
*lights lighter* *sets cd on fire*
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then I guess you attach a much lower moral signifigance to the idea of 'selling one's soul' than I do, or perhaps a much higher moral signifigance to certain activities.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I'ld vote for Obama if I was American.
IP: Logged |
quote:We need honest, reasoned debate; not fearmongering. To those who pit Americans against immigrants, and citizens against non-citizens; to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty; my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists — for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil.
A call for honest debate doens't sound unreasonable or like an assualt on anyone's patriotism. He's not saying that its unpatriotic to crit the government. It's a stretch to misuse this quote to say otherwise. But its easier for some to accuse this administration of using McCarthy tactics, i.e., to mud sling, than to confront the issues presented head-on. Which is how the left misused this quote when it was first made, and appears to continue to do so.
Tom, the Bush analogy is not apt because Bush was the frontrunner, party insider, and presumed nominee for a year before nominated. Bush was in the position that Hillary is in now. Your point would be better made if the GOP had choosen someone other than Bush.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's been Bush who's been the target of unending vileness and hatred. You may not mind thatr so much, but don't act as if political character attacks only come from the right.
Bush gets made fun of tons, no doubt. And while I think of late more of the attacks focus around his policies than his character, there have been tons of uncalled for character attacks as well. But that's true of virtually every candidate in the past 20 years. Sad as it is, munslinging is expected. With Hillary, I think the attacks go deeper than that. It's not just the pundits or extremists that hate her, it's also the every day person. My own family hates her with a passion that is almost unfathomable given their fairly moderate views. To be honest, I think a lot of it has to do with subtle sexism. People like women that seem softer than men. Hillary is a career woman that is abrasive and hard. She is the embodiment of a rejection of traditional gender roles. I think that's what makes people personally dislike her on a level that is unmatched with other politicians.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think really she just gets on my nerves, Hillary Clinton. Every time I see her speak she irritates me; and I don't have that reaction to, say, Nancy Pelosi. Might just be she's not very likeable.
But I like Barack Obama a lot. I have a signed photograph of him that my aunty got for me.
Posts: 910 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know my father can't stand her - but that's mainly because he ties her to Bill, who he also can't stand, and feels she was very heavily involved in shady dealings in Arkansas and the White House.
Though, I must say, he hates Ted Kennedy more - and has a special dislike for John Kerry, too. Oh, and a pretty healthy distaste for Chuck Schumer and Donna Shalala.
He's actually pretty neutral on Obama, though, and has even agreed with him on several things. Which I just find simply amazing.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think really she just gets on my nerves, Hillary Clinton. Every time I see her speak she irritates me; and I don't have that reaction to, say, Nancy Pelosi. Might just be she's not very likeable.
This happens to a lot of people. I think it's because Clinton looks and acts like, well, a politician, and she's a very public figure. As a result, there's a belief that she's been right in the middle of the political muck we've seen these past few years.
posted
Just out of curiosity, does anyone think that 24 has had any positive impact on the possibility of a black man being elected to the presidency?
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My general feeling is that Hilary Clinton is not terribly honest. That bothers me. I haven't done extensive research and I haven't pinpointed as to why I think that, but all the scummy things the Clinton White House did, she seemed to be involved in.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mig: Obama needn't worry about GOP barbs just yet. First he'll have to face the onslaught of the Clintons. When the first mud is slung, you'll be seeing dirty Democrat hands before you see any others. I, for one, am looking forward to a nasty Democrat Primary, especially if Sharpton enters the race. Hillary is going to stand by and lose this thing to an upstart without puttingup a serious fight.
I doubt this, to be honest. The Democrats already went through this once, two years ago, and they aren't going to repeat that mistake so soon. I think Hillary is going to have a very, very tough time, because frontrunners always have a tough time holding onto the lead. I just don't see them repeating the field of nine fiasco from two years ago. If Sharpton enters the race, he won't be invited to any debates that take place, at least I hope not. He's a loudmouth with zero chance of winning the nomination. Obama and Clinton, should they both run, would obviously be in it, and given their similarities in platform, it will come down to personality, where I think they'll both stay positive.
All the little fish are unknown quantities.
If you want to see some mudslinging though Mig, you won't have to look any further than the Republican primary race. Romney, Giuliani, McCain, and whoever else gets into the race, especially if any really big really conservative names enter, are going to gnaw at each other. McCain as the frontrunner will take heat from the next most religious conservative candidate saying he isn't close enough to evangelicals. He'll hit back saying they are inexperienced in the military and will slam Giuliani's personal life (as I think he'd be wise to do). It gets nastier if really conservative really religious candidates enter the race, as they can slam statements McCain has made in the past about evangelical institutions while silmultaneously ripping him for trying to cozy up to the same people he used to slam.
I've seen Colbert and Stewart both rip Democrats in recent months for bungling chances to do the right thing, and ever since they took over Congress, even in the last week, I've seen an uptick in their jokes about Democrats. I think they focus on the people in power, as most pundits and comedians like them do. People in the hot seat have to be prepared for the fire.
And for years, Republicans and Bush administration officials made statement after statement about criticism being the same thing as being unpatriotic, and how that led to aiding and comforting terrorists. I'm glad that's mostly gone now.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:And for years, Republicans and Bush administration officials made statement after statement about criticism being the same thing as being unpatriotic, and how that led to aiding and comforting terrorists. I'm glad that's mostly gone now.
When has President Bush said that criticism of his policies, in and of itself, was unpatriotic?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't recall him ever saying it personally, but then I never said he did. And not any policy, only those relating to defense measures.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
He is a powerful speaker. He sounds good on paper He is very charismatic He knows what it is like to be down in the dumps
What I DONT like about Obama:
During his DNC speech, he went on a crazy tangent about racism.
As far as I could tell, he hasnt accomplished anything noteworthy
His voting record goes against what he is saying about "Bi-Partisanship"
That being said, I think he would be a more effective president than Hillary. She rubs me (and a lot of other people) the wrong way. I dont agree with her politics or her methods.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
1) President Bush, nor none of his people ever said that speaking against him was unpatriotic. Several conservative mouth peices hinted at it, but all knew that such a statement was political suicide.
What President Bush has proven so far is that he has mastered the skill of listening to, but not accepting, other opinions. See his insistance on locking out all protestors or people with divergent opinions, from all of his political rallies, up to and including, setting up mandatory protest areas great distances from where he would actually be. See the 9/11 commision and the Baker commission reports which he pleasantly admires, then totaly disregards.
That is his perogative as President, when he also controlled congress. Now, not so much.
2) Rakeesh, you thing that because the Democrats found somebody new who is exciting and mostly baggage free, it proves the Doom of the Democrats?
Your logic is that since we are turning to somebody new, we must hate the old.
Let me try another conspiracy theory on you. The Republicans have been running Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination since 2000. They know they can beat her, can rile up enough hatred to stomp her into the ground. This new guy, this Obama could actually be difficult to beat, so it is the duty of every good Conservative to convice the Democrats to drop Obama and join the doomed Clinton wagon.
Now, if you could only find some way to "swiftboat" Obama like they did McCain, why we'd be set for Jeb in 08.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tend to listen to Conservative radio stations even though im Liberal. Im am suprised I didnt hear one bad thing said about Sen. Obama and when they brought his wife into the conversation they praised her(as i found out she also had a law degree from Harvard). I think why people like him so much is because he's a great speaker and sounds like he knows what hes talking about unlike an idiot I wont name. Granted hes not going to talk about the big issues nor should he at this point in time. Be assured if he does decide to run once and if he lays his plans out they'll be ready to rip him a new one.
Posts: 29 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw this on another forum, courtesy of ontheissues.org. It's a partial snapshot of Obama's voting record and past statements, presumably intended to sketch his views insofar as they're known.
quote:
Extend presumption of good faith to abortion protesters. (Oct 2006)
Pass the Stem Cell Research Bill. (Jun 2004)
Protect a woman's right to choose. (May 2004)
Supports Roe v. Wade. (Jul 1998)
Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.
Battles legislatively against the death penalty.
Supports alternative sentencing and rehabilitation.
Quoted from his book, Dreams of my Father, "Junkie. That's where I'd been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man. Except the highs hadn't been about me trying to prove what a down brother I was. Not by then, anyway. I got high for just the opposite effect, something that could push questions of who I was out of my mind, something that could flatten out the landscape of my heart, blur the edges of my memory. I had discovered that it didn't make any difference whether you smoked reefer in the white classmate's sparkling new van, or in the dorm room of some brother you'd met down at the gym, or on the beach with a couple of Hawaiian kids who had dropped out of school and now spent most of their time looking for an excuse to brawl. You might just be bored, or alone. Everybody was welcome into the club of disaffection. And if the high didn't solve whatever it was that was getting you down, it could at least help you laugh at the world's ongoing folly and see through all the hypocrisy and bullshit and cheap moralism. "
Voted YES on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations.
Voted NO on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision.
Voted YES on establishing a Guest Worker program.
Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security.
Voted YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship.
Voted YES on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than $6.25.
Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007.
Voted YES on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan
So, if you guys don't want him as President, can we have him? I can assure you that we'd love him here in Canada. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure what mindset one has to have to support illegal alien participation in the Social Security program, a program which is in bad trouble already...
That said, I agree with the rest of it, more or less.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My knowledge of your Social Security system is extremely limited, but wouldn't having illegal aliens pay into Social Security be helpful if the [current] problem is demographic in nature?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of all of his positions, that is probably the one that is going to be the most trouble for him if he talks about it--and he will almost certainly be forced to talk about it.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought that a consequence of their status as illegal aliens was that they were paid "under the table," so to speak, and didn't pay taxes (and hence Social Security).
I take it my conception of the situation is flawed?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that if they pay into it, they should get to collect. I do not agree that they should pay into it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sometimes they get paid under the table...sometimes they get fake SS#, and so pay into it.
I do not believe that the correct solution to the problems with Social Security is to permit massive immigration (legal or otherwise) to solve the little pyramid scheme's problems.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Often illegal immigrants will get fake papers.
My dad hires a lot of immigrants, and they diligently require everyone to have documentation. He's also pretty sure that at least some of the documentation is fake, based on what he has overheard about their personal lives.
However: It is illegal to discriminate based on race or national origin. It is an invasion of privacy to look into your employee's personal lives. Investigating this leaves him open to all sorts of liability, and the birth certificates and SS cards looked legitimate. What do you think he should do?
In this case, it is very likely that illegal immigrants are paying into social security. They may or may not ever collect.
quote:I do not believe that the correct solution to the problems with Social Security is to permit massive immigration (legal or otherwise) to solve the little pyramid scheme's problems.
I actually think it's a great idea. Industry will follow the ready labor, and where labor goes, the high paying white collar jobs will follow. Allow lots of immigration, and you get cheaper labor so industry stays in the country, which means a tax base for schools, and you get a worker base so old people can retire.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: So, if you guys don't want him as President, can we have him? I can assure you that we'd love him here in Canada.
Illinois will keep him, thank you very much. (Hands off) Even though we are spoiled with good Senators.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm with Rakeesh on this one... In fact, even if we have a guest worker program, I still think they (and their employers) shouldn't have to pay in (of course they wouldn't be illegal at this point either). I think only US citizens should contribute and receive SS benefits. However, with a streamlined citizenship path, it shouldn't be an onerous effort to become a US citizen.
posted
I was going to say, "You have to be careful about looking at a candidates voting record." Then I read the list and thought, "Woa, what a good record!"
I fell into the very trap I was warning against.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
It seems like that's an easy thing to do, with this guy. I haven't heard him speak, and I'm not American -- all I've done is read about the guy, his background, history, and what policy-type information I can find, and I find myself liking him almost involuntarily.
[Edited last clause.]
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What are we supposed to use to judge a politician if not his voting record and his speeches and statements?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We can always judge them by their prowess at video games. I'd bet Obama would be a Tauren Druid. Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What are we supposed to use to judge a politician if not his voting record and his speeches and statements?
I didn't say "don't" I said, "be careful."
We have a rich history in America of using bills candidates supported or opposed as a reason to like or dislike them on their own merits, without any consideration for motive.
Compromise is a huge factor in legislative process. If I was told "Candidate A voted for a 1% increase in income tax!" and nothing else, I would see that as an unfavorable thing. If I was told "Candidate A agreed to support a bill that increases income tax 1% so that his bill to improve education spending could obtain its funding." My dissent would immediately turn into support.
While true that somebody who is not consistent on anything and votes however the wind is blowing does nobody a service. Still if people were judged purely on their acts instead of taking intent into account, do you agree our jurisprudence would be lacking?
edit: Clearly Obama is too lanky to be a Tauren, he is obviously a human mage.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now, now, clearly Obama would be a Tauren Druid on an RP server, thus making him one of the characters most dedicated to nobility and peaceful balance.
A Forsaken Rogue could make strip steaks out of him in no time, but I speak from experience that those guys are jerks-and we've got quite enough of them in politics anyway! Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just think it's a shame that somebody who appears to have a sheen of integrity and displays a willingness to think about issues and formulate a reasoned response to them is so incredibly novel that we immediately consider him presidential material.
Don't get me wrong: out of the field of available candidates, only Obama and Dennis Kucinich seem to share those qualities (Edit: and I'll add Al Gore, who doesn't possess as much integrity as I'd like but still seems to have some), and I DO think they're both as qualified for the office as any president in living memory. But my politics don't always align with theirs -- they're both more than a little to my left -- and I sincerely wish that the combination of forthrightness and thoughtfulness that both candidates display were the rule rather than the exception among the people being considered for the highest office in the land.
posted
Hillary is in. Bill Richardson is likely to announce next week, and he's the one I've been rooting for since the end of the 2004 election.
I can't stand Kucinich. Something about him just screams "WRONG!" and "UNPRESIDENTIAL." Could just be the little old lady that was stumping for him at the Democratic caucus 2 years ago that annoyed me, the way she lept on unsuspecting voters like a cougar on a jackrabbit, as my friend and I stared on in shock. We weren't a whole lot better, we were stumping for Howard Dean, but we didn't maul them in the process. I just find him annoying.
I'm hoping the top three candidates become Obama, Clinton and Richardson, which will leave me happy no matter who I vote for, but Richardson has a long way to go before he overtakes Edwards in the polls, who is also running. Kerry reportedly hasn't decided yet, which is crazy, as he should NOT be running. Gore I think has said he won't run, though I think he'd have a fighting chance. And there's a dozen dark horse candidates on both sides that will try to raise their profiles in the next 9 months or so.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been watching Kucinich on C-SPAN for the past week, which is pretty much the first time I've noticed him. So far I have to say that I would vote for almost anyone over him.
*shrugs* Indiana's primaries are in May, it doesn't matter who I support in the primary.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is illegal to discriminate based on race or national origin. It is an invasion of privacy to look into your employee's personal lives. Investigating this leaves him open to all sorts of liability, and the birth certificates and SS cards looked legitimate. What do you think he should do?
I think he should, after hiring, check the social security information with the SSA and make sure the numbers match the information given and are valid. The SSA allows you to do this free of charge and it takes just a few minutes to key in the information and check it.
Of course, there are rules such as the ones you mentioned - it can only be done after the job is offered and can't be used to pre-screen employees (as that might be discriminatory) and all employees must be treated the same - and the proper steps must be followed if there is a discrepancy. You can't use a discrepancy in the SSN info to be the sole grounds for dismissal. But this way you can check and make sure you haven't been given falsified papers. I think it's the proper thing to do, and what I would encourage all employers to do. Keep in mind it isn't just a good idea to help find false papers, but it also makes certain your legitimate employees have their information correct and can save you problems later if you didn't find that a number had been keyed in incorrectly until it was time for tax forms to go out.
Sadly, not many employers will take these steps because they just don't want to. They are fine with hiring illegal workers and will take papers they are pretty sure are fake as long as their own behind is covered and if they're ever investigated they can say "But they had papers!" (In this I'm speaking of businesspeople I know, not of your Dad because I do not know him or know how he runs his business.) I do unfortunately, know other contractors who operate this way in the construction business around here. I've heard construction firm owners bragging about how they'd hired illegals with social security cards that were in sequence - they were perfectly aware the cards were forgeries but they didn't care. (by the way, even my twins don't have numbers in sequence and they were applied for at the exact same time)
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's a gut reaction added to the accumulation of speeches I've heard him give.
I find that to be as appropriate a basis as looking at voting record.
Richardson announced he is forming a committee. I don't find him as compelling as I find Obama, but I'll give him a chance and I'm glad he is in the race. It's possible that Richardson has all of the potential as Obama, but just wears a more subtle veneer.
quote:They are fine with hiring illegal workers and will take papers they are pretty sure are fake as long as their own behind is covered and if they're ever investigated they can say "But they had papers!"
That's a deep character flaw, pervasive, and I think it may be an outgrowth of either having a business culture that is too legalistic or the reasons why people shouldn't hire illegal immigrants haven't been given enough air time.
posted
I'm THRILLED that Bill Richardson is running. And I think he's a serious contender. He has a history of balancing his state's budget, is a supporter of environmental reforms, business friendly (I think), and more. He's a highly popular, successful governor, and I think he'd make a great president.
I look forward to seeing Hillary, Obama and Richardson as the top three candidates a year from now.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm THRILLED that Bill Richardson is running. And I think he's a serious contender. He has a history of balancing his state's budget, is a supporter of environmental reforms, business friendly (I think), and more. He's a highly popular, successful governor, and I think he'd make a great president.
Bill Richardson is the only national politician that I've ever actually met. I lived in his congressional district in northern New Mexico in the late '80s, and I attended a town meeting - the concern was mining trucks and their impact on the mountain roads we all had to drive on.
I was impressed with Richardson, but only in his slickness. He set up the meeting, the committees, the follow up - everything - in such a way that he could not lose.
I was very young, and was very naive about the workings of government, but I was really disappointed that he was so unwilling to commit himself and so adept and making sure he couldn't be held accountable if things didn't go the way his constituents hoped.
Now that I'm a bit older (but not really more experienced politically), I understand that it's just "how things are done". But I don't like it and I don't think I could ever support Richardson as a candidate. In fact, for the rest of the years I lived in NM (I moved away shortly before he moved on from the House), I certainly never voted for him again.
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was impressed with Richardson, but only in his slickness. He set up the meeting, the committees, the follow up - everything - in such a way that he could not lose.
I was very young, and was very naive about the workings of government, but I was really disappointed that he was so unwilling to commit himself and so adept and making sure he couldn't be held accountable if things didn't go the way his constituents hoped.
That's the sense I get from him. Actually, I've seen him give a few speeches on television, and the only time I found him convincing was when he was shilling for his salsa. He seemed like a "blah" guy with "blah" ideas.
Maui Babe showed more wisdom and conviction in her last paragraph than I've heard out of Richardson's mouth. I don't mind Richardson as a member of the cabinet because he seems level-headed, but I'm waiting to see something that makes me think that this guy should set the tone of public policy in this great nation.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also liked, oh what was his name, I think he was the former governor of Washington, but he didn't seek reelection because he wanted to spend more time with his family. I want to say Gary Locke was his name. Democrats saw him as a rising star, and I was impressed with the speech he gave in 2003 in rebuttal to Bush's State of the Union Address.
But I look forward to hearing from ALL of the candidates. I want to hear more from Clinton and her new rumblings on health care, I want to hear, well, any ideas from Obama, I can't recall hearing anything specific yet from him.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I heard that same rebuttal, but I wasn't impressed. He has that same blah quality that reminds me of Richardson.
I wouldn't mind Chris Dodd getting in the mix. Whereas Locke and Richardson seem to have to push to seem visionary, Dodd strikes me as a guy who is restraining himself, waiting for the right time to tell the world what he really thinks.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've heard almost nothing from Dodd. I've only heard a single speech from Locke, and mostly stories ABOUT Richardson, rather than hearing him actually speak, so I can't tell about any of that.
Two people I KNOW I won't be voting for are John Edwards and John Kerry. Kerry had his shot, and for better or worse, lost. And I never liked Edwards. I don't have to worry though, even if both run, they'll never get the nomination.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
