17
   

I Am Sick of This Election

 
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
Below viewing threshold (view)
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Oct, 2008 10:59 pm
@mason738,
I can tell you with absolute certainty, he will be much much much better than Bush as a uniter. He's doing so already.

I'm afraid that the Truman precedent will not hold where Bush is concerned. He had a high high rating but he still was monumentally incompetent. He has been in competent his whole life and there's no good reason to think that that will change for the remainder of his life.
mason738
 
  -4  
Reply Wed 8 Oct, 2008 11:06 pm
@JTT,
The powers of the federal government are limited.

AMENDMENT X

The powers not delegated to theUnited States by the Constitution nor prohibited to it by the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people.

Very few states would be in favor of A SOCIALISTIC government. But OBAMA is welcome to try!!!
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
mason738
 
  -4  
Reply Wed 8 Oct, 2008 11:11 pm
@JTT,
If you kept up with the slurs from the left wing socialists and the black power advocates in the last twenty years, you would see that they think that REAGAN was a very poor president also--and in the survey I REFERNCED, reagan came out in 10th place ( out of 43)
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2008 12:09 am
@mason738,
I don't think Reagan was a poor president.

He was an abysmal president. He committed felonies while in office. He arranged for and ensured that many would be tortured, raped and murdered. He was more than a few jelly beans short of a jar full.

But hey, whatever floats your boat, Mason; we can't all hope to want honorable people as our leaders.

Quote:


If the Nuremberg Laws were Applied...
Noam Chomsky
Delivered around 1990


Reagan. It's not a question. I mean, the stuff in Central America alone suffices. Support for the Israeli invasion of Lebanon also makes Saddam Hussein look pretty mild in terms of casualties and destruction. That suffices.

Bush. Well, need we talk on? In fact, in the Reagan period there's even an International Court of Justice decision on what they call the "unlawful use of force" for which Reagan and Bush were condemned. I mean, you could argue about some of these people, but I think you could make a pretty strong case if you look at the Nuremberg decisions, Nuremberg and Tokyo, and you ask what people were condemned for. I think American presidents are well within the range.

http://www.chomsky.info/talks/1990----.htm



Quote:

War Crimes and Double Standards
(of Ronald Reagan and the press)
by Robert Parry
iF magazine, May/ June 1999

...

In the 1980s, U.S.-backed forces committed widespread massacres, political murders and torture. Tens of thousands of civilians died. Many of the dead were children. Soldiers routinely raped women before executing them.
There can be no doubt, too, that President Reagan was an avid supporter of the implicated military forces, that he supplied them with weapons and that he actively sought to discredit human rights investigators and journalists who exposed the crimes.
It is also cleat that the massacres at El Mazote and other villages across El Salvador, the destruction of more than 600 Indian communities in Guatemala, and the torture and "disappearances" of dissidents throughout the region were as horrible as what Slobadan Milosevic's Serb army has done in Kosovo.
But for Milosovic and his henchmen, there is talk of a war crimes tribunal. For Reagan, there are only honors, his name added to National Airport and etched into an international trade center, even a congressional plan to carve his visage into Mount Rushmore.
In the apt phrase of New York Times correspondent Raymond Bonner, the 1980s were a time of "weakness and deceit." Yet, the continuing blindness to crimes against humanity in Central America in the 1980s has brought that weakness and deceit into and through the 1990s, now as a permanent trait of Washington's political class.
Without doubt, it is safer for an American journalist or politician to wag a finger at Milosovic or at the killers in Rwanda or at the Khmer Rouge than it is to confront the guilt that pervaded Ronald Reagan's presidency.
Reagan, after all, has a throng of ideological enthusiasts - many with opinion columns and seats on weekend chat shows. Nothing makes them madder than to hear their hero disparaged.
To suggest that Reagan should be held to the same moral standard as Milosovic also invites lectures about "moral equivalence," a clever construct of the 1980s that meant, in effect, that the Cold War justified whatever American policy-makers did. One must not equate "our" crimes with "theirs."
Ironically, many of the conservatives who today advocate rock-hard moral values and who deplore fuzzy moral relativism embraced exactly that sort of situational ethic in the 1980s.
They did so under the banner of the Reagan doctrine, which held that battling the Evil Empire sanctified all actions no matter what other moral laws were violated, like some Medieval crusade, blessed by the pope and then sent off to slaughter infidels.
In this context, murder of unarmed civilians was not wrong. Neither were assassinations, torture, genocide, rape and drug smuggling. indeed, nothing was wrong as long as it was done in the name of winning the Cold War.
It didn't matter that the Soviet Union was in steep decline before the 1980s. It didn't matter that there never was a master plan for conquering the United States through Central America. It didn't matter that most of the victims simply wanted basic rights that North Americans take for granted.
But even more corrupting in its own way was the slippery refusal to debate the rationalizations openly. While the "moral equivalence" debate captivated some intellectual circles, the Reagan administration's basic strategy was simply to lie.
Rather than defending the atrocities, Reagan and his loyalists most often just denied that the crimes had happened and attacked anyone who said otherwise as a communist dupe.
Mostly, this lying strategy worked. By the end of the Reagan-Bush era, the national media no longer put up any fight for these historic truths. By the 1990s, the star reporters were more dedicated to their careers than to the principles of their profession.
Not surprisingly, therefore, the shocking historical disclosures form Guatemala earned only brief notice in the major news outlets.
But in our view, there are two important principles here: first, that truth is fundamental to a healthy democracy, and second, that the rules of common decency must be applied to all human endeavors. There are some acts that are simply wrong no matter who does them and why.
Through much of this century, those principles were held by many in Washington. Under those ideals, the United States led the fight against Nazi Germany and established many of the basic principles of international law.
... The larger question is whether the United States can confront its complicity in shameful war crimes committed against the people of Latin America.
While no one expects the ailing Ronald Reagan to face a war crimes tribunal, it is time for the nation to face the painful truth about him and his presidency - and to stop rewarding him with high honors...

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ronald_Reagan/WarCrimes_Reagan_iF.html


nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2008 04:22 am
@fbaezer,
Laughing
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2008 07:23 am
This new 'ignore' function is a wondrous and quite magical convenience. It's like, on a smaller scale of course, simply snapping your fingers and having George Bush disappear.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2008 10:27 am
@JTT,
JTT, I vaguely remember those atrocities performed by our government during Reagan's tenure, but didn't think much about them, because of other, more pressing, issues during those years - like work.

They were reported in our media, because I remember them. Thanks for refreshing my mind about the "republican party's" immoral majority.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2008 10:48 am
Here's an interview on Lehrer with reporters from Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. In each case, racist sentiments ("I will not vote for a black man") are appearing. How do these things last so long?
<br /> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/video/module.html?mod=0&amp;pkg=8102008&amp;seg=3
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2008 10:48 am
@blatham,
Bernie, Your link doesn't work.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2008 10:51 am
bizarre...

You can get to it here... http://www.cursor.org/

Scroll down to the silver coin on the left side and look for the word "video" in the text to the right.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2008 11:18 am
@blatham,
Here: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/video/module.html?mod=0&amp;pkg=8102008&amp;seg=3
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2008 11:19 am
@blatham,
Quote:
No hint of racism in that.


Of course there is, but that is clearly not the point.

Even assuming every conservative in America is a racist, conservative racism will not cost Obama the election.

The overwhelming majority of conservatives would not vote for Obama if he were white, and so their attitudes toward his race are immaterial as respects the election results.

If you wish to argue that there are conservatives who are also racists, and that this is an unfortunate thing, I will agree with you, but it has nothing to do with whether or not Obama wins.

If Obama loses, for the cause to be racism it must be the racism of voters we might have reasonably expected to vote for him if he were white: the vast majority of liberals and some share of moderates.

I know that Obama supporters wish to cling to the notion of American racism as a powerfully malignant force, and perhaps they are right to do so, but they wish to cling even more tightly to the notion that none of their kind might ever be a party to that force.

Even now, when he is 11 or more points ahead in the polls and seemingly on a straight track to the White House, his followers wish to not only hold in reserve the racism excuse for his defeat, but to scold us in advance with it.

The mere fact that Obama is poised to win (whether he actually does or does not) is powerful evidence that racism is America is not quite the terrible societal monster, some would have us believe, or at the very least, very much less so that it ever has been in the past.

Again, it is unlikely that he will lose and so we won't be able to test the hypothesis, but I am quite sure that if he were to lose, liberals would declare racism the cause without the slightest pause to consider its obvious actual source.



blatham
 
  2  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2008 12:14 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
conservative racism

You'll note I haven't used those two words linked together. If Colin Powell had decided to run, his vote would be diminished (to some unknown degree) by racist sentiment as well.

Quote:
racism will not cost Obama the election.

That's a guess on your part. I guess not as well, but Gergen is right, we don't know.

Quote:
I am quite sure that if he were to lose, liberals would declare racism the cause without the slightest pause to consider its obvious actual source.

There won't be an "obvious actual source" in any case. Statistical evidence will allow us to make inferences re causes but that's all they'll be because of complexities and unaccessible information.

But if Obama goes into election day with a significant lead in the polls and then loses the election, racism will be a reasonable inference.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2008 12:34 pm
@blatham,
That's right; Gergen has shown that what people says in polls doesn't necessarily end up the same when they vote. There's no way to confirm that until the votes are in. We just have to hope that we'll see better results during this election than we have in the past.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2008 04:37 pm
I have reached the point of total indifference about this election, as well as disgust.

I have not posted to the political threads in a few days, and will not post to any other political thread, except this one, for the duration of the campaign.

I have decided that I cannot in good conscience support either of the candidates running for POTUS.

There is so much lying, stretching of the truth, and character attacks on both sides that it has gotten stup[id.
I cant support Obama because of many of his ideas, ideas that will increase the deficit by 286billion USD, and McCains ideas will increase the deficit by between $167 billion and $259 billion


Quote:
The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has found that both Obama and McCain are proposing combinations of tax and spending policies that would increase the federal deficit. It found that in 2013, Obama’s proposals would produce a net deficit increase of $286 billion, while McCain's major policies would produce a net deficit increase of between $167 billion and $259 billion. In talking to CNN, CRFB President Maya MacGuineas estimated that McCain's deficit increase would fall midway between the extremes of that range, at $211 billion.


http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_2.html

I dont see that as any type of change, from either candidate.
IMHO, Obama does not have the foreign policy experience needed to be POTUS, and McCain is incompetent regarding domestic matters.

The onlt thing that McCain did that I can actually totally support was to choose Sarah Palin as his running mate.

I just cant support either candidate, but I will vote.
I will go to the polling place, hold my nose, close my eyes, and pull the first lever I grab.

Having said that, I will bid all of you adieu, and will watch this thread only regarding politics.
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2008 04:41 pm
@mysteryman,
Okay MM.....we all do what we have to do.

How about reporting in on the football thread and making your picks for this week though?
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Oct, 2008 07:05 pm
@Foxfyre,
Are you implying that there are other threads, besides politics, on this forum? Gee, who would'a guessed?
 

Related Topics

Join Us Here Tuesday Night! - Discussion by realjohnboy
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Be Careful What You Wish For - Discussion by cjhsa
'too close to call' - Discussion by H2O MAN
A Question of Barack Obama's Character - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama Sign CCTV - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
The Presidential Debates! - Discussion by sozobe
I'm Watching Palin On ABC - Discussion by Bi-Polar Bear
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/23/2021 at 10:01:16