Campaign 2008

[cbacon 0]

How is it US responsibility to support Israel while undermining democracies elsewhere? Where is the support for Palestinians?

 

While the US had interfered in Iran (supporting the shah and such), we weren't responsible for all their problems.

 

Uh, the fact that the Shah was in power and recieved support from the US was the problem. Same deal when they initially supported Saddam in Iraq and countless dictators in Latin America.

[panthermatt7 0]

Islamic nations, no.

 

Islamic terrorism is the result of US intervention in the Middle East, so to say "I'd leave the Islamists alone if they left us alone" is pretty ridiculous.

 

You're taking a hindsight view. Using a basis of "If the U.S. would have never done this, then..." does not fix the present issue.

 

I'm not disagreeing with the sentiment, just the "solution."

[cbacon 0]

Islamic nations, no.

 

Islamic terrorism is the result of US intervention in the Middle East, so to say "I'd leave the Islamists alone if they left us alone" is pretty ridiculous.

 

You're taking a hindsight view. Using a basis of "If the U.S. would have never done this, then..." does not fix the present issue.

 

I'm not disagreeing with the sentiment, just the "solution."

 

I agree, which is why it is important to put these situations into proper context so we can come to a viable solution.

[panthermatt7 0]

Islamic nations, no.

 

Islamic terrorism is the result of US intervention in the Middle East, so to say "I'd leave the Islamists alone if they left us alone" is pretty ridiculous.

 

You're taking a hindsight view. Using a basis of "If the U.S. would have never done this, then..." does not fix the present issue.

 

I'm not disagreeing with the sentiment, just the "solution."

 

I agree, which is why it is important to put these situations into proper context so we can come to a viable solution.

 

Agreed. How, then, would we solve our international relations with Islamic groups, state and otherwise?

[Guest]

We should not ever try to resolve our problems with "otherwise." We attempt to solve a problem with an otherwise, another otherwise will just take their place.

 

State, you bet.

[At Home 0]

Well, we've got a huge opportunity with Iran now, considering that Ahmadinejad's big bat, oil wealth, is getting smaller by the minute. Nicholas Burns, the top US negotiator on Iran, never even set foot on Iranian soil because of the moronic precondition that Iran drop all of their enrichment programs immediately before they can even begin negotiations. Burns believes that's ridiculous; "The US needs to commit to a more ambitious diplomatic strategy." That kind of absolutist policy has to be dropped immediately in favor of a more amiable one and Iraq's progress needs to be taken deadly seriously if it is to be considered a bastion of Middle-Eastern democratic hope. Iran, however, is a huge part of Iraqi (and Lebanese) stability. They have just as many interests in Iraq as we do; they also would like to prevent the breakup of Iraq, avoid confrontation between the Sunnis and Shia, and keep the Taliban from returning to power. We need to stop obsessing over the nuclear issue and start looking at the big picture in the middle east.

 

As Barack Obama said, "for us not to be in a conversation with them doesn't make sense."

[Jingus 0]

Part of the whole "preconditions" deal is that Iran demands its own preconditions for talks, too. Namely, that we stop supporting Israel and completely pull out of the entire Middle East region. Now it could be possible for us to eventually talk them out of demanding ridiculous shit like that, but that's their current stance.

 

Islamic terrorism is the result of US intervention in the Middle East

Which is an incredibly naive view to take. For the thousandth time: Osama Bin Ladin has said, over and over again, that the primary motivation behind the 9/11 attacks was the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia. Those troops are there because the Saudis ASKED us to put troops there. You can't just leave these fuckers alone and assume they'll do the same. Like, how much intervention did Spain do in the Middle East? Not much, right? Funny how they still got bombed.

[At Home 0]

Part of the whole "preconditions" deal is that Iran demands its own preconditions for talks, too. Namely, that we stop supporting Israel and completely pull out of the entire Middle East region. Now it could be possible for us to eventually talk them out of demanding ridiculous shit like that, but that's their current stance.

 

Seeing how both country's preconditions are measures of how not to conduct foreign policy on potentially rewarding allies, I'd say let's take that first big step into adulthood and extend the olive branch. What other recourse is there?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I disagree with both Dobbs and Bacon.

 

Dobbs--The Iranian Revolution was at least partially a result of the Operation AJAX, the US backed overthrow of nationalist leader Mohammed Mossadegh in the 1950s.

 

C-Bacon--Saying that Islamic terrorism is solely a result of Western meddling in the Middle East is overly simplistic. I would agree that Western intervention is one of several to many factors that has fueled terror.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Part of the whole "preconditions" deal is that Iran demands its own preconditions for talks, too. Namely, that we stop supporting Israel and completely pull out of the entire Middle East region.

 

But Jingus, you're ignoring the fact that Iran was quite helpful initially with the war in Afghanistan and offered huge diplomatic concessions to the US in 2003. The Bush administration's ridiculous approach to Iran fucked all this up, and it all went down the drain in 2005 with the election of the hardline conservative Ahmadinejad (with the Iranian public probably driven toward support of this douchebag by the Bush administration's rhetoric). Now we have two hardline administrations in place and have seen absolutely zero progress on the nuclear issue in the past years.

 

No serious foreign policy analyst--liberal internationalist, realist, whatever--thinks that the Bush/McCain approach to diplomacy with Iran is the right one. That's why you see crazy shit like Republican Senators Lugar and Hagel endorsing Obama's foreign policy.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Well, I'm a righty, but I don't agree with them. Maybe because I live in a state with numerous illegal immigrants, and they do not. I know that the talking points are "they hurt the economy, Jose crowdin' all our hospitals!!!" but I believe they have a positive impact on our economy which outweighs the negative. Speaking strictly in terms of those who work for a living.

 

I would like further explanation of how Illegal Immigrants have any positive impact on our economy because I dont see how thats possible.

 

They send money back to Mexico, they crowd hospitals which is a factor in the rise in healthcare costs, they cause car accidents and are uninsured which drives everyone's car insurance premiums up..I could go on. So please enlighten me on how they are a positive impact on our economy.

[At Home 0]

I agree with Marvin, they do not to any good at all. We should throw all of them out.

[Nightwing 0]

The vast majority of problems in the Middle East were set forth before the US was a power player; the European partitioning of the Middle East with no consideration for ethnic or religious concerns is the true bedrock for a lot of problems in the Middle East. While the US has certainly not helped the situation, cbacon's assessment is rather narrowly focused; the region was screwed up long before the US was truly messing around with things, and we are hardly the only power that has messed with the politics of the region.

 

Part of the whole "preconditions" deal is that Iran demands its own preconditions for talks, too. Namely, that we stop supporting Israel and completely pull out of the entire Middle East region.

 

But Jingus, you're ignoring the fact that Iran was quite helpful initially with the war in Afghanistan and offered huge diplomatic concessions to the US in 2003. The Bush administration's ridiculous approach to Iran fucked all this up, and it all went down the drain in 2005 with the election of the hardline conservative Ahmadinejad (with the Iranian public probably driven toward support of this douchebag by the Bush administration's rhetoric). Now we have two hardline administrations in place and have seen absolutely zero progress on the nuclear issue in the past years.

 

No serious foreign policy analyst--liberal internationalist, realist, whatever--thinks that the Bush/McCain approach to diplomacy with Iran is the right one. That's why you see crazy shit like Republican Senators Lugar and Hagel endorsing Obama's foreign policy.

 

Wasn't part of the problem with Iran also big protest of the election by the more liberal student movements in regards to perceived electoral problems? I distinctly remember hearing about massive protests against an election they felt was rigged. Not saying that Bush didn't cause the shift towards conservatism, but I don't think it was as much the people who made the choice for Ahmadinejad.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Yes, that was another major factor that fueled Ahamadinejad's victory.

[EricMM 0]

Anyone who wants to take a hard line against Iran had better be strongly for domestic non-oil energy in America.

 

Look how the price of oil has dropped because the US expected drop in demand.

 

But when we recover, which will hopefully be soon, it will creep back up, unless we can supply it with something else.

 

And buying other oil does nothing bcause its a world market.

[Guest]

Well, I'm a righty, but I don't agree with them. Maybe because I live in a state with numerous illegal immigrants, and they do not. I know that the talking points are "they hurt the economy, Jose crowdin' all our hospitals!!!" but I believe they have a positive impact on our economy which outweighs the negative. Speaking strictly in terms of those who work for a living.

 

I would like further explanation of how Illegal Immigrants have any positive impact on our economy because I dont see how thats possible.

 

They send money back to Mexico, they crowd hospitals which is a factor in the rise in healthcare costs, they cause car accidents and are uninsured which drives everyone's car insurance premiums up..I could go on. So please enlighten me on how they are a positive impact on our economy.

They help California's economy in multiple ways.

 

The companies who employ illegal immigrants pay them less, and keep the cost of our food down. Through paying them less, it also costs less to undertake projects, as many people doing the dirty work are illegal immigrants. If you quit paying illegal immigrants low wages, suddenly everything becomes a lot more expensive. Who the hell wants that? I like going out to eat and not paying an arm and a leg for a meal.

 

As for the other reasons, read

 

http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/01/news/econo...onomy/index.htm

 

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/87xx/doc8711/12-6-Immigration.pdf

 

I don't know if you know this, but most illegal immigrants are scared of being deported, so they don't use public services, and many of them are scared to head to the doctor.

 

In this state, I'd say we have a small net gain from the illegal immigrants who live here. We aren't going out of pocket to keep them around. The effect they have on the economy for doing things for less wage is undeniable.

[SuperJerk 0]

 

Probably the final solid polling data until the exit polls on Tuesday afternoon.

 

 

PREDICTIONS FOR THE ELECTION

 

PRESIDENT (POPULAR VOTE)

OBAMA 53%

McCAIN 46%

OTHER 1%

 

PRESIDENT (ELECTORAL COLLEGE)

OBAMA 329

McCAIN 209

 

SENATE MEMBERSHIP

DEMOCRATS: 56 SEATS

REPUBLICANS: 42 SEATS

INDEPENDENTS: 2 SEATS

 

U.S. HOUSE

DEMOCRATS: 278

REPUBLICANS: 157

 

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

I read that the polls that have the larger Obama leads are the ones that include polling people that don't have landline phones, and just have cell phones.

 

That's kind of interesting to me, because I don't have a landline...and most of my friends (ages 25 to 30ish) don't really either. That's got to be something that is more common in a younger voter who has an apartment and doesn't see the need for the landline. You figure Obama's winning the youth vote...and polls aren't reflecting a nice portion of that group.

 

 

[SuperJerk 0]

I think that's what the Gallup expanded is supposed to reflect (somehow).

 

 

 

In case you missed it...

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/vid...vc-open/805381/

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/vid...-mccain/805401/

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Marvin is fucking incredible. Eric, Smitty, and I should all bus Marvin into the district one day, have lunch at somewhere classy and pretentious, and then each write a Rashomon-esque account of our observations for the rest of the board.

 

I will be thrilled when the election's all over, and hate that it's going to probably take about 5 hours of my day to do this on Tuesday. Ho-hum. When I voted in the primaries, my polling place wouldn't even let me use a cell phone or iPod! And, there's something uncomfortable about standing while reading a book, slowly walking forward a step every 1-2 minutes. Fascists.

[Gary Floyd 0]

Marvin is fucking incredible. Eric, Smitty, and I should all bus Marvin into the district one day, have lunch at somewhere classy and pretentious, and then each write a Rashomon-esque account of our observations for the rest of the board.

 

I will be thrilled when the election's all over, and hate that it's going to probably take about 5 hours of my day to do this on Tuesday. Ho-hum. When I voted in the primaries, my polling place wouldn't even let me use a cell phone or iPod! And, there's something uncomfortable about standing while reading a book, slowly walking forward a step every 1-2 minutes. Fascists.

This is the post is so awesome, words can't describe it. The Kurosawa reference is a major plus.

[At Home 0]

This is the post is so awesome

 

[Guest C*Z*E*C*H]

He's done better. It's gonna take a little more than a Rashomon drop to impress me.

[Mecca 0]

I want to know why it matters that anyone opposes gay marriage, it should not in any circumstance be ok to deny any person their rights. I personally think it's really really fucked up to put it on a ballot to be voted on, would anyone else like if they had their rights voted on? I'm sure back many years ago it was popular to say that minorities shouldn't have equal rights or that bi-racial marriage is wrong. Even of a majority of people appose something does not make it right.

 

Secondly to bruisers fear here, you'd think the gun people would get over this fear of government coming to take their guns after you know 200 years. He has gun control on his record because he's from the south side of fucking Chicago. Do you realize how violent that city is? The high level of gun crime there, if you want to die in a hail of gun fire it's probably your best bet...it doesn't mean he wants to take your guns it means he represented an extremely violent city and tried to do something about that.

[BruteSquad_BRODY 0]

I want to slap Hannity.

 

That

is

all

[BruteSquad_BRODY 0]

Barack's kids are nappy heads. No wonder we never see them. Too sterotypical.

[EricMM 0]

God, the conservatives at The Pit are so fucking optimistic about this election, its killing me.

 

I just can't wait for 11/5. Hopefully it will be decided by then...

[Lord of The Curry 0]

Not sure how it is down South but up here we were allowed up to 3 hours off work to vote but I'm reading about six hour lineups so does that mean people will be losing money by taking time off their jobs?

[Nightwing 0]

God, the conservatives at The Pit are so fucking optimistic about this election, its killing me.

 

I just can't wait for 11/5. Hopefully it will be decided by then...

Link me; I'd love to see this.

[EricMM 0]

http://thepit.ronbarker.ca/

 

Current Events

 

Obama / McCain 08

 

yep.