Be a Supporter!

Obama ahead in Texas, Poised to Win

  • 1,593 Views
  • 95 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
JMHX
JMHX
  • Member since: Oct. 18, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 15
Blank Slate
Response to Obama ahead in Texas, Poised to Win Mar. 5th, 2008 @ 01:29 AM Reply

Caucus results coming in through CNN and MSNBC, 15% in at last check with a fair Obama lead. The only way for Clinton to win it at this point is to snipe one of Obama's next strong states: Mississippi or North Carolina, both with strong black voter populations. Obama also seems to have the western primaries locked up - Wyoming, North Dakota, Oregon, etc.


BBS Signature
Musician
Musician
  • Member since: May. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Blank Slate
Response to Obama ahead in Texas, Poised to Win Mar. 5th, 2008 @ 01:31 AM Reply

At 3/5/08 12:51 AM, Memorize wrote: It's part of the war on terror. It is the MAIN FRONT of the war on terror. So to criticize someone for calling it 'the war on terror' is simpley nit-picking.

ie. A jackass tactic.

I.E. it's time for you to shut up and save yourself from any further embarrassment. It's not simply nitpicking since the Iraq war alone has put us at an increased risk of terror. Even though it could be argued that the war on terror in general put us at this risk, that was not the point I was making, and thus making statements about the war on terror outside of Iraq was irrelevant.


It made as much sense as your saying a fetus is different from a baby.

Um ok. There is a difference between a child and an adult. That makes perfect sense. Thus by your logic, there being a difference between a fetus and a baby makes perfect sense. I totally agree.


Subliminal translation: Shut the fuck up, dumbass.

Underlying Message: Memorize knows he's wrong and is devolving to petty tactics.


Obama: "I'll withdraw some troops, then if Al Qeada establishes a base in Iraq, i'll send troops back in".

McCain: "I have some news. Al Qeada is in Iraq"

Obama: "I have some news for John McCain. Al Qeada wasn't in Iraq until after the invasion".

Don't you love how irrelevant this all is? I sure do!

Facts:

Al Zarqawi was #2 under Osama bin Laden and entered Iraq in early 2002, obtaining a safe haven and training Al Qeada operatives.

Al Zarqawi wasn't even part of Al Quieda until 2004.


In 2006, the US military obtained documents detailing contexts between Saddam and Osama on numerous subjects including attacking Saudi Arabia.

http://www.nysun.com/article/29746

debunked

I don't give a damn if his stances are "more moderate". But Obama clearly doesn't know shit when it comes to Iraq.

Apparently he does.


Congrats, join the other congressmen!

Or did you fail to grasp such a simple concept?

This is such a pathetic attempt to turn the table. You though all Obama did was "vote", I proved he's authored and introduced MUCH more legislation recently than McCain. Obama has been doing much more than the "other congressmen".


Lol, fucking dumbass.

You don't know about how this election is going to work.
You make assumptions about moderates when the democrat nominee isn't even picked.
You support a man who doesn't even know simple facts about Iraq.

You = Epic fail, lol.

That's right Memorize, change the subject when you're proven wrong. It works so well for your beloved conservative politicians. Oh and by the way:

A) I know much more about this election than you do
B) I don't make "assumptions" about the moderate voter base. I base my arguments on actual polls.
C) you're entire random Iraq war tangent was disproven.


I have no country to fight for; my country is the earth; I am a citizen of the world
-- Eugene Debs

Nylo
Nylo
  • Member since: Apr. 6, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Audiophile
Response to Obama ahead in Texas, Poised to Win Mar. 5th, 2008 @ 01:34 AM Reply

At 3/5/08 01:20 AM, TheMason wrote: Also, where are you finding caucus results? Last I heard she was trying to keep those results from being published...

CNN has been doing a pretty good job updating both.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primari es/results/state/#TX

Just scroll down to the bottom.


I must lollerskate on this matter.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Obama ahead in Texas, Poised to Win Mar. 5th, 2008 @ 01:40 AM Reply

At 3/5/08 12:55 AM, Musician wrote:
At 3/5/08 12:38 AM, TheMason wrote:
JFK moved us into Vietnam to support the South Vietnamese, not to do direct fighting. LBJ was the one who ordered the bombing runs and ordered the ground forces into vietnam. JFK might have brought us into vietnam, he didn't "commit" us in it, that would be Johnson's fault.

You do not address his support of President's Diem's ouster which is really what set the stage for US involvement in Vietnam.

As more information comes available about the CMC, it is becoming rather evident that his amatuerish handling of the situation needlessly elevated it to the status of a crisis.
I'd love to see what exactly you're talking about. The naval blockade on Cuba, and the vast amount of masterful diplomacy performed with the Russians during the time of crisis both show how JFK's decisions avoided nuclear war. Most historians agree that JFK handled the CMC well.

The point is was the naval blockade really necessary? His desire to not appear weak (hubris) as well as allowing himself to fall prey to crisis thinking suggests that the issue could have been settled without bringing the world to the brink of nuclear war between two superpowers. Kruschev was sending a message; not really positioning assets for any real military operations or advantages. JFK misinterpreted this and took a Cowboy approach to it.

After Sputnik and the USSR putting a man into orbit first, this was going to happen regardless.
The Russian's still haven't put a man on the moon. Don't try to downplay our accomplishment.

I'm not downplaying it (nice obfuscation attempt); I'm not the one attempting to play it off as the accomplishment of one person. My point simply was that putting a man on the moon was most likely going to happen whether or not it was JFK or Nixon articulating it.


If you've ever been out of work with a pregnant wife and have to turn away a good job at UPS because the Teamsters would take your first 8 weeks wages to pay for dues...you may not think this is a good thing.
I guess we should just have no unions, that way companies can do whatever they want unchecked.

I see very little need for American Unions as they exist today; I much prefer the way Japanese labor and management interact.


You can believe whatever you want, personally, it's almost undeniable to me that strong unions benifit the individual.

It is a belief based upon personal experience; I've seen it several times where Unions do little for the individual workers (why else would they be dying?).


- strengthening welfare
- introducing affirmative action
- oh yeah, and the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
None of these were accomplished by JFK...they were done by LBJ. If you're going to give blame for Vietnam to LBJ you've got to credit for these things to LBJ as well. Furthermore, it is doubtful that JFK could've accomplished these things seeing that he did not have the legislative acumen that LBJ had.
Johnson may have been the one to ultimately pass it, but they were all ideas introduced by JFK.(affirmative action started with Executive Order 10925)

Then you need to give him the blame for getting us into Vietnam because he set the stage for that just as much as his domestic agenda. You're cherry-picking here...


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
JoeyRamone
JoeyRamone
  • Member since: May. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Blank Slate
Response to Obama ahead in Texas, Poised to Win Mar. 5th, 2008 @ 01:52 AM Reply

I'm looking at the polls right now and it says that Clinton in the projected winner. Has anyone noticed how low the republican turnout is comepared to the democrats. I guess everyone knows McCain is a shoe in.


BBS Signature
Musician
Musician
  • Member since: May. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Blank Slate
Response to Obama ahead in Texas, Poised to Win Mar. 5th, 2008 @ 01:56 AM Reply

At 3/5/08 01:40 AM, TheMason wrote: You do not address his support of President's Diem's ouster which is really what set the stage for US involvement in Vietnam.

Maybe he did support a coop (although I've never heard of this until now) which ultimately prevented the unification of vietnam. The point of the matter is, JFK did not "commit" us to Vietnam like you originally claimed. Your claim was false.

The point is was the naval blockade really necessary?

Yes, it was important for the US to appear to not back down from the Soviet Union. Want to know one of the driving factors that brought the Soviet Union to an end? Lack of morale in their government

His desire to not appear weak (hubris) as well as allowing himself to fall prey to crisis thinking suggests that the issue could have been settled without bringing the world to the brink of nuclear war between two superpowers.

We were already at the brink of nuclear war when the CMC started, it was JFK's tactics that brought us back.

Kruschev was sending a message; not really positioning assets for any real military operations or advantages. JFK misinterpreted this and took a Cowboy approach to it.

The "cowboy" approach to the CMC, would have been to bomb the shit out of Cuba (which some of JFK's advisors recommended and he ignored them). JFKs solution of a Naval blockade not only sustained the US's strong world image, but also offered a diplomatic solution behind the scenes. When they removed their missiles from cuba, we removed ours from turkey. Ultimately, the whole thing was a brilliant success.

I'm not downplaying it (nice obfuscation attempt); I'm not the one attempting to play it off as the accomplishment of one person. My point simply was that putting a man on the moon was most likely going to happen whether or not it was JFK or Nixon articulating it.

That doesn't change the fact that it happened under JFK. Which is why he deserves the credit for it.

I see very little need for American Unions as they exist today; I much prefer the way Japanese labor and management interact.

Ok. I respect your opinion

It is a belief based upon personal experience; I've seen it several times where Unions do little for the individual workers (why else would they be dying?).

And a Union back in washington saved my parent's jobs when they were almost layed off for malicious reasons.

Then you need to give him the blame for getting us into Vietnam because he set the stage for that just as much as his domestic agenda. You're cherry-picking here...

No I'm not. JFK entered Vietnam, this I know, but it was Johnson's choice to enter Vietnam in a full on assault and to: "stop the commies from taking that part of the world".


I have no country to fight for; my country is the earth; I am a citizen of the world
-- Eugene Debs

fli
fli
  • Member since: Jul. 22, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 26
Blank Slate
Response to Obama ahead in Texas, Poised to Win Mar. 5th, 2008 @ 02:12 AM Reply

Well,
Huckabee is out...

FUCKING HELLS YEAH...

I think, with him out, that the United States will finally curb its ethnocentric tendency to favor the extreme right.

Heck, I think Hilary, Obama, and McCain are better candidates than any Bush-ite.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Obama ahead in Texas, Poised to Win Mar. 5th, 2008 @ 02:22 AM Reply

At 3/5/08 01:56 AM, Musician wrote:
At 3/5/08 01:40 AM, TheMason wrote: You do not address his support of President's Diem's ouster which is really what set the stage for US involvement in Vietnam.
Maybe he did support a coop (although I've never heard of this until now) which ultimately prevented the unification of vietnam. The point of the matter is, JFK did not "commit" us to Vietnam like you originally claimed. Your claim was false.

Nope, my claim is true and still stands. By greenlighting the coup and then sending in 16K advisors and green berets (which is actually excessive in a country the size of Vietnam if all you're planning on doing is training); JFK politically committed us to involvement in Vietnam which set the US on the path to the military commitment under LBJ. My error was in not specifying which type I was referring to (which is not that big of a deal in a Cold War context).

Yes, it was important for the US to appear to not back down from the Soviet Union. Want to know one of the driving factors that brought the Soviet Union to an end? Lack of morale in their government

Caused by Afghanistan...not the CMC.


We were already at the brink of nuclear war when the CMC started, it was JFK's tactics that brought us back.

Huh? It was the CMC that took us to the brink...there were tensions but it was the CMC (specifically the US's heavy handed response) that moved us closer to the edge than we had ever been.


Kruschev was sending a message; not really positioning assets for any real military operations or advantages. JFK misinterpreted this and took a Cowboy approach to it.
The "cowboy" approach to the CMC, would have been to bomb the shit out of Cuba (which some of JFK's advisors recommended and he ignored them). JFKs solution of a Naval blockade not only sustained the US's strong world image, but also offered a diplomatic solution behind the scenes. When they removed their missiles from cuba, we removed ours from turkey. Ultimately, the whole thing was a brilliant success.

No...it wasn't a brilliant success. We could have negotiated the same response without the naval blockade. If anything it did not make us look strong; but rather like cry-baby assholes. Our NATO allies and the USSR can live in close proximity to nuclear arms...but the US is exceptional.


I'm not downplaying it (nice obfuscation attempt); I'm not the one attempting to play it off as the accomplishment of one person. My point simply was that putting a man on the moon was most likely going to happen whether or not it was JFK or Nixon articulating it.
That doesn't change the fact that it happened under JFK. Which is why he deserves the credit for it.

Nope. It wasn't his ass sitting on top of an expeiremental spacecraft flying a mission without being able to be sure if they could make it back to Earth. All he did was speak some words and sign some spending authorizations that any president would've done.

Then you need to give him the blame for getting us into Vietnam because he set the stage for that just as much as his domestic agenda. You're cherry-picking here...
No I'm not. JFK entered Vietnam, this I know, but it was Johnson's choice to enter Vietnam in a full on assault and to: "stop the commies from taking that part of the world".

Yes you are. JFK sent an excessive amount of advisors and green berets into Vietnam after greenlighting S. Vietnamese generals to overthrow a democratically elected president; commiting the US politically which set us upon the path to military commitment. Yet, you want to blame LBJ. However, the Civil Rights Act would have probably never happened had it not been for LBJ...yet because you think it is good you want to ascribe credit to JFK when he did little more than say "we need more civil rights"...


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
RaharuHaruha
RaharuHaruha
  • Member since: Mar. 3, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Obama ahead in Texas, Poised to Win Mar. 5th, 2008 @ 02:44 AM Reply

At 2/29/08 02:16 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: This is a summary of the discussion I've had with ardent Obama supporters:

Me: "Hey, who do you support for President?"

Supporter: "Barack Obama! Woo hooo!"

Me: "Why?"

Supporter: "Because I like him! He's awesome, I can't wait until he's our president!"

Me: "What has he done to show he'd be a good president? What policies has he proposed, what measures has he put in place, what accomplishments has he had? What about security, foreign relations, economics etc.."

Supporter: "I don't know... he's black and he's made it this far, let's elect him!"

Me: "So you're voting for him because he's black?"

Supporter: "Urm... no, I'm voting for him because he's qualified and he'll make good changes!"

Me: "What makes him qualfied, and what changes will he make"

Supporter: "I don't know... he's black and that's a change. People won't think Americans are racist after we have a black president!"

Me: "I see... (insert inner monologue about how stupid the supporter is)

Supporter: "It's Obama-Rama!!!! B-B-B BABY!"

dude, it doesn't really matter. hillary and obama are almost the exact same on so many levels. their only big difference is the fact that he is black and that he has a far better personality. personality counts because he is going to be talking to world leaders and stuff... people who - if pissed off - can go to war with us in a second.


BBS Signature
Nylo
Nylo
  • Member since: Apr. 6, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Audiophile
Response to Obama ahead in Texas, Poised to Win Mar. 5th, 2008 @ 03:32 AM Reply

At 3/5/08 01:52 AM, JoeyRamone wrote: I'm looking at the polls right now and it says that Clinton in the projected winner. Has anyone noticed how low the republican turnout is comepared to the democrats. I guess everyone knows McCain is a shoe in.

Actually on that note, I was listening to Michael Savage and he was harping on how this is proof that the Republicans hold the key to the next election.

What the fuck does that even mean?


I must lollerskate on this matter.

Memorize
Memorize
  • Member since: Jun. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Animator
Response to Obama ahead in Texas, Poised to Win Mar. 5th, 2008 @ 04:32 AM Reply

At 3/5/08 01:31 AM, Musician wrote:
I.E. it's time for you to shut up and save yourself from any further embarrassment.

As opposed to you, bitching to someone on calling Iraq the "war on terror"?

Um ok. There is a difference between a child and an adult. That makes perfect sense. Thus by your logic, there being a difference between a fetus and a baby makes perfect sense. I totally agree.

Tada!

Underlying Message: Memorize knows he's wrong and is devolving to petty tactics.

Keep reading.

Don't you love how irrelevant this all is? I sure do!

Don't you know that you're supporting a candidate who doesn't know shit? I sure do!

debunked

From your own link.

"The declassified version of the report, by acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble, also contains new details about the intelligence community's prewar consensus that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, and about its judgments that reports of deeper links were based on dubious or unconfirmed information."

In no way does this "debunk" what I just gave you.

Lol, dumbass. Can't even read your own link.

Apparently he does.

I notice you didn't even comment on the area of Al Qeada already being IN Iraq, lol.

This is such a pathetic attempt to turn the table. You though all Obama did was "vote", I proved he's authored and introduced MUCH more legislation recently than McCain. Obama has been doing much more than the "other congressmen".

Yep, and so have many other congressmen who've authored many more.

And...?

That's right Memorize, change the subject when you're proven wrong. It works so well for your beloved conservative politicians. Oh and by the way:

Please. At least learn to read your own sources.


A) I know much more about this election than you do

Explains why Obama lost Texas.

B) I don't make "assumptions" about the moderate voter base. I base my arguments on actual polls.

Where did I dispute this?

All I said was that it was incredibley stupid to make this statement when the democrats still don't have a clear nominee.

C) you're entire random Iraq war tangent was disproven.

*STUPIDITY ALERT! DANGER! DANGER WILL ROBINSON!*

Memorize
Memorize
  • Member since: Jun. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Animator
Response to Obama ahead in Texas, Poised to Win Mar. 5th, 2008 @ 04:57 AM Reply

At 3/5/08 04:32 AM, Memorize wrote:
At 3/5/08 01:31 AM, Musician wrote:
debunked
From your own link.

"The declassified version of the report, by acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble, also contains new details about the intelligence community's prewar consensus that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, and about its judgments that reports of deeper links were based on dubious or unconfirmed information."

In no way does this "debunk" what I just gave you.

Lol, dumbass. Can't even read your own link.

Heh, allow me to explain this further.

Global Security

Notes:

-He had some sort of association with al-Qaeda at this time, but American intelligence officials have said it was more of an alliance, rather than Zarqawi functioning as a lieutenant of bin Laden's hierarchy.

-In October 2004, Zarqawi pledged allegiance to bin Laden. Two months later, bin Laden named Zarqawi the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq.

Now that one I find ironically funny as the left seemingly loves to tell of how "smart" bin Laden is, yet they'll deny that Osama ever knew of Zarqawi's involvements with Iraq.

And...

Under Questionable:

-Zarqawi's reported presence in Iraq in 2002 was used by the Bush administration to suggest ties between the government of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. While it is likely Saddam's intelligence apparatus knew of his presence, it is far less certain that there was any cooperation between them.

-During the post-invasion insurgency, however, it appears at least some members of Saddam's former regime began working with Zarqawi and his foreign fighters.

Now then...

More stuff

-In October 2000, ZARQAWI was indicted in absentia in Jordan for his role in the al-Qaida Millennium bombing plot targeting the Radisson SAS hotel in Amman as well as other American, Israeli, and Christian religious sites in Jordan.

-ZARQAWI has arranged training for terrorists at al-Qaida camps. While he was in Pakistan, ZARQAWI made contact with al-Qaida to train Jordanians. His operatives (called "Jund al-Sham") began to arrive in Afghanistan in large numbers in l999. Some of these operatives trained at al-Qaida's al-Faruq Camp, where they received full support from al-Qaida. ZARQAWI eventually established his own cell and camp in Herat, Afghanistan.

On top of all of that, all your link did was say: "We're not sure, but we don't think Saddam was working with bin Laden directly." All it was was about discrediting pre-Iraq statements about Saddam being directly linked to Al Qaeda shortly before the invasion, whereas I was detailing about how they had some form of contact on certain subjects, way before the invasion, during the mid-90's.

If you're going to discredit what I'm saying, at least have the sense to attack what i'm actually refering to.

Buffalow
Buffalow
  • Member since: Jun. 5, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Obama ahead in Texas, Poised to Win Mar. 5th, 2008 @ 05:35 PM Reply

At 3/5/08 01:08 AM, Musician wrote:
And now the US is at EVEN MORE RISK BECAUSE OF THE IRAQ WAR. god you're incessant evasion of the facts is absolutely hysterical.

I said that about 3 posts ago.

Yes, which is why we have multiple words. Like: Zygote, fetus, infant, child, teenager, and adult. There is a difference, whether you want to accept it or not.

I'm not getting into an abortion debate with you. Really, theres about 4 threads on the front page.

If you'd read the reports instead of resorting to denial (which is what you're doing right now), you'd realize the crime rate drops can actually be correlated to the legalization of abortion.

I have seen the reports before. But answer me this. If abortion has had such a profound effect on the crime rate, then why is crime going down, although the number of abortions have decreased?

No.

Hmm...that's funny.

And you'd be wrong.

Haha, whatever you say chief. Once again, the War in Iraq probably has a more profound impact on this election than any other subject.

Only in this "metaphor", Obama is doing loops around McCain, because Obama has proven to be a much better pilot despite experience.

Have you ever even heard of Barack Obama before 2 months ago?

How about John McCain?

Why should I care if he did drugs? All that means is that he understands druggys on a personal level that many politicians can't claim to have.

He shouldn't be understanding druggies, he should be jailing them.

As for military experience, I could care less, military experience doesn't mean a thing to a president who plans to maintain peace. And this experience argument of yours has already been proven wrong so many times it's not even funny.

Not really. Obama has no experience. That was all my argument was, and yet you keep talking as though Obama has been in politics for years while McCain has just sat on his ass.

Of course, I've already posted these before. You'll probably ignore them again.

E yeah


Well-a Everybody's Heard About the Word, Tha-Tha-Tha Word-Word-Word the Word is the.....

BBS Signature
Musician
Musician
  • Member since: May. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Blank Slate
Response to Obama ahead in Texas, Poised to Win Mar. 5th, 2008 @ 07:17 PM Reply

At 3/5/08 02:22 AM, TheMason wrote: Nope, my claim is true and still stands. By greenlighting the coup and then sending in 16K advisors and green berets (which is actually excessive in a country the size of Vietnam if all you're planning on doing is training); JFK politically committed us to involvement in Vietnam which set the US on the path to the military commitment under LBJ. My error was in not specifying which type I was referring to (which is not that big of a deal in a Cold War context).

Not sure what you mean by commited. The difference between advising the south and sending in US ground troops was tremendous. As in, up to the point of the supposed attack on the US maddox, we could have pulled out of Vietnam at any time and there wouldn't have been as serious of repercussions. In other words, we weren't commited in any financial/social sense to Vietnam until LBJ ordered the bombing runs. It was LBJ who commited us to Vietnam, not JFK.

Caused by Afghanistan...not the CMC.

Um, when did I ever said it was caused by the CMC? All I said was that one of the driving reasons the Soviet Union failed could be attributed to loss in morale. And historians have attributed that to any number of things.


No...it wasn't a brilliant success. We could have negotiated the same response without the naval blockade. If anything it did not make us look strong; but rather like cry-baby assholes. Our NATO allies and the USSR can live in close proximity to nuclear arms...but the US is exceptional.

No we couldn't have. Backing down would have significantly lowered the leverage we had in diplomatic conversations with the Soviet Union. And given the result, yes the CMC was a brilliant success (this isn't debatable). The missiles were removed from Cuba and there wasn't a nuclear war.

Nope. It wasn't his ass sitting on top of an expeiremental spacecraft flying a mission without being able to be sure if they could make it back to Earth. All he did was speak some words and sign some spending authorizations that any president would've done.

Lol, I hope you realize that's the same as saying: " Yeah, the founding fathers don't deserve any special credit for writing the constitution, all they did was speak some words and sign some papers, some other US colonists would have done it eventually anyways". Too bad it doesn't work that way. Might the space program have been established under another president? most likely. But the fact of the matter is that it was JFK who established it, and doing that entitled much more than "speaking some words and signing some spending authorizations" suggests.

Yes you are. JFK sent an excessive amount of advisors and green berets into Vietnam after greenlighting S. Vietnamese generals to overthrow a democratically elected president; commiting the US politically which set us upon the path to military commitment. Yet, you want to blame LBJ. However, the Civil Rights Act would have probably never happened had it not been for LBJ...yet because you think it is good you want to ascribe credit to JFK when he did little more than say "we need more civil rights"...

Are you kidding me? "did little more than say "we need more civil rights""?

Sir. you must have never read a history book. JFK was the man who INTRODUCED the Civil Rights Act. Johnson was just the one that passed it.

June 19th 1963 <-- look it up


I have no country to fight for; my country is the earth; I am a citizen of the world
-- Eugene Debs

Musician
Musician
  • Member since: May. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Blank Slate
Response to Obama ahead in Texas, Poised to Win Mar. 5th, 2008 @ 07:39 PM Reply

At 3/5/08 04:32 AM, Memorize wrote: As opposed to you, bitching to someone on calling Iraq the "war on terror"?

Ah, and we come to this point again. You never tire of making an ass out of yourself.


Tada!

great job proving me right.


Don't you know that you're supporting a candidate who doesn't know shit? I sure do!

Don't you love how you NEVER know what you're talking about? And also how you always get owned in these little conversations of ours because of it?

From your own link.

"The declassified version of the report, by acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble, also contains new details about the intelligence community's prewar consensus that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, and about its judgments that reports of deeper links were based on dubious or unconfirmed information."

"The declassified version of the report, by acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble, also contains new details about the intelligence community's prewar consensus that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, and about its judgments that reports of deeper links were based on dubious or unconfirmed information."

Whoops. Guess it was you who didn't read the link.

Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides "all confirmed" that Hussein's regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday.


In no way does this "debunk" what I just gave you.

Lol, dumbass. Can't even read your own link.

Haha!


I notice you didn't even comment on the area of Al Qeada already being IN Iraq, lol.

Uh, what? First of all, I have no idea what you're talking about. Secondly, even if Al Qeada was already in Iraq (which there isn't much evidence to support that), they certainly weren't being sponsored by Saddam.


Yep, and so have many other congressmen who've authored many more.

And...?

Not McCain, and NOT Hillary. So it really doesn't matter what other congressmen you're talking about because nobody else is relevant. Obama has proved he can get things done.

Please. At least learn to read your own sources.

Hah, you're really milking this for all it's worth aren't you. It's funny in a sad kind of way.

Explains why Obama lost Texas.

When did I ever say Obama would win texas? This is incredibly irrelevant.


Where did I dispute this?

"You make assumptions about moderates when the democrat nominee isn't even picked."


*STUPIDITY ALERT! DANGER! DANGER WILL ROBINSON!*

Look out, it's coming from thattaway!

Obama ahead in Texas, Poised to Win


I have no country to fight for; my country is the earth; I am a citizen of the world
-- Eugene Debs

Musician
Musician
  • Member since: May. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Blank Slate
Response to Obama ahead in Texas, Poised to Win Mar. 5th, 2008 @ 07:49 PM Reply

At 3/5/08 05:35 PM, Gwarfan wrote: I have seen the reports before. But answer me this. If abortion has had such a profound effect on the crime rate, then why is crime going down, although the number of abortions have decreased?

one of the common theorys is unwanted children usually become criminals. Which is why even though abortion is decreasing, it's doing so because of free choice, not because mothers are being forced to have babies. Therefore the babies are wanted, therefore they're not statistically more likely to resort to crime.

Hmm...that's funny.

Politicians don't neccisarily represent the views of thier people. For example, Bush has views that a very contradictory to traditional conservative thinking, but he's still a republican even so.


Haha, whatever you say chief. Once again, the War in Iraq probably has a more profound impact on this election than any other subject.

Boom

Have you ever even heard of Barack Obama before 2 months ago?

How about John McCain?

Uh, yeah, I knew about both of them 2 months ago...


He shouldn't be understanding druggies, he should be jailing them.

Haha for what? Hurting themselves? Should someone be jailed for injecting poison into their bodies? What an incredibly narrow minded view you have.


Not really. Obama has no experience. That was all my argument was, and yet you keep talking as though Obama has been in politics for years while McCain has just sat on his ass.

No I'm not, I'm saying Obama has been more productive in the last 2 years than McCain has, and that's all there is to it. Obama has done more than McCain in the last to years.


E yeah

So you are going to ignore them? great. atleast you have the decency to tell me.


I have no country to fight for; my country is the earth; I am a citizen of the world
-- Eugene Debs

n64kid
n64kid
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Blank Slate
Response to Obama ahead in Texas, Poised to Win Mar. 5th, 2008 @ 07:55 PM Reply

At 3/5/08 07:49 PM, Musician wrote:
At 3/5/08 05:35 PM, Gwarfan wrote: I have seen the reports before. But answer me this. If abortion has had such a profound effect on the crime rate, then why is crime going down, although the number of abortions have decreased?
one of the common theorys is unwanted children usually become criminals. Which is why even though abortion is decreasing, it's doing so because of free choice, not because mothers are being forced to have babies. Therefore the babies are wanted, therefore they're not statistically more likely to resort to crime.

Correlation doesn't prove causation.... and it's hard to say one would correlate with the other due to x factors and other trends that might go along with the two, but not because of the two.

Politicians don't neccisarily represent the views of thier people. For example, Bush has views that a very contradictory to traditional conservative thinking, but he's still a republican even so.

Haha, whatever you say chief. Once again, the War in Iraq probably has a more profound impact on this election than any other subject.

Varies state by state.


He shouldn't be understanding druggies, he should be jailing them.
Haha for what? Hurting themselves? Should someone be jailed for injecting poison into their bodies? What an incredibly narrow minded view you have.

You aren't taking a lot of social and moral factors into consideration, the narrow minded person is YOU.

Not really. Obama has no experience. That was all my argument was, and yet you keep talking as though Obama has been in politics for years while McCain has just sat on his ass.
No I'm not, I'm saying Obama has been more productive in the last 2 years than McCain has, and that's all there is to it. Obama has done more than McCain in the last to years.

evidence please? Besides Obama contradicts his own morals and beliefs, when confronted he says he is trying to please everybody. Typical politcal nonsense, I can't see how anyone can trust him over Hill-dawg or Mccain


Tolerance comes with tolerance of the intolerant. True tolerance doesn't exist.

BBS Signature
Musician
Musician
  • Member since: May. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Blank Slate
Response to Obama ahead in Texas, Poised to Win Mar. 5th, 2008 @ 09:06 PM Reply

At 3/5/08 07:55 PM, n64kid wrote: Correlation doesn't prove causation.... and it's hard to say one would correlate with the other due to x factors and other trends that might go along with the two, but not because of the two.
Maybe it doesn't prove causation, but theres no other suitable explanation for such a large drop in crime. All the evidence points towards abortion.

Here's the report.

You aren't taking a lot of social and moral factors into consideration, the narrow minded person is YOU.

I love how you fail to list these "moral and social" factors. What exactly is wrong with smoking a joint again? who is it going to kill? Do you know that legalizing drugs would cut crime? I could make the argument that it is immoral for us to keep drugs illegal because it's a victimless crime

Anyone who wants drugs to remain illegal is brainwashed or uneducated. You're the narrow minded one.

evidence please? Besides Obama contradicts his own morals and beliefs, when confronted he says he is trying to please everybody. Typical politcal nonsense, I can't see how anyone can trust him over Hill-dawg or Mccain

I love how everyone just jumps into this conversation without bothering to read the argument. Know what? I shouldn't have to post the same links I've already posted 3 times in this thread again, just because you're too lazy to read.

Also, obama has never said that he's trying to please everyone, only that he's taken a much more moderate stance.


I have no country to fight for; my country is the earth; I am a citizen of the world
-- Eugene Debs

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Obama ahead in Texas, Poised to Win Mar. 5th, 2008 @ 10:00 PM Reply

At 3/5/08 07:17 PM, Musician wrote:
At 3/5/08 02:22 AM, TheMason wrote:
Not sure what you mean by commited. The difference between advising the south and sending in US ground troops was tremendous. As in, up to the point of the supposed attack on the US maddox, we could have pulled out of Vietnam at any time and there wouldn't have been as serious of repercussions. In other words, we weren't commited in any financial/social sense to Vietnam until LBJ ordered the bombing runs. It was LBJ who commited us to Vietnam, not JFK.

*Deep Sigh*
Later in your post you talk about "not backing down" in the CMC and the cost to our image and our perceived strength in the international arena. Yet above you make the claim that "we weren't commited in any financial/social sense to Vietnam" and "there wouldn't have been as serious of repercussions." There is a MAJOR disconnect in your reasoning here.

Read up on the things that were going on socially and politically in Vietnam while JFK was alive. What commits us to military action is not the deployment of military personnel. Rather, it is the political decisions made by governments in the 3-5 years leading up to the start of hostilities.

For example:
Pearl Harbor did not commit the US to war against Japan; it was the US embargo against Japan that charted the course towards war.
Pearl Horbor did not commit the US to war against Germany; it was the Treaty of Versailles but also the lend lease program.

The same is true for Vietnam; by greenlighting the military coup that allowed for president Diem's assasination set in motion political events that locked the US into support of S. Vietnam. Here's what the Commies had to say:
"I can scarcely believe the Americans would be so stupid."
-Ho Chi Mihn

"The consequences of the 1 November coup d'état will be contrary to the calculations of the U.S. imperialists ... Di%u1EC7m was one of the strongest individuals resisting the people and Communism. Everything that could be done in an attempt to crush the revolution was carried out by Di%u1EC7m. Di%u1EC7m was one of the most competent lackeys of the U.S. imperialists ... Among the anti-Communists in South Vietnam or exiled in other countries, no one has sufficient political assets and abilities to cause others to obey. Therefore, the lackey administration cannot be stabilized. The coup d'état on 1 November 1963 will not be the last."
-N. Vietnamese Politburo

Wars do not suddenly happen...not even 9/11. There is a political context and commitment to a policy that leads to war. JFK's decisions in regards to Diem and sending in advisors/Spec Ops puts the US on a path to defend a country...and if we reverse this policy after undertaking the actions JFK took we would have looked far weaker and unreliable than if he did not order the naval blockade of Cuba.


No...it wasn't a brilliant success. We could have negotiated the same response without the naval blockade. If anything it did not make us look strong; but rather like cry-baby assholes. Our NATO allies and the USSR can live in close proximity to nuclear arms...but the US is exceptional.
No we couldn't have. Backing down would have significantly lowered the leverage we had in diplomatic conversations with the Soviet Union. And given the result, yes the CMC was a brilliant success (this isn't debatable). The missiles were removed from Cuba and there wasn't a nuclear war.

Dude, backing down was NOT an issue BEFORE the blockade was ordered! What JFK did wrong was escalate, needlessly, a diplomatic situation into a military one way too early. Even if the Soviet ships had managed to off-load their cargo it would've taken days if not weeks to get the weapons operational...more than enough time for a negotiated response.

Now, in what way did the US look good in this? Kruschev put missiles in Cuba because the US had missiles in Turkey, a VERY short flight from the USSR's version of Camp David on the Black Sea. Kruschev wanted them gone...that's all. What was the end result of the CMC? Removal of US nukes from Turkey and Cuba. Why the HELL did we need to PUBLICLY bring the world to the brink of nuclear ANNIHILATION and then the outcome is what the SOVIETS wanted? JFK knee-jerked to a military response that was out of proportion to the problem at hand; JFK's initial handling of the CMC was entirely reckless. The US did not win...the SOVIETS got what they wanted while all the US was to save face that was lost due to the naval blockade.

Nope. It wasn't his ass sitting on top of an expeiremental spacecraft flying a mission without being able to be sure if they could make it back to Earth. All he did was speak some words and sign some spending authorizations that any president would've done.
Lol, I hope you realize that's the same as saying: " Yeah, the founding fathers don't deserve any special credit for writing the constitution, all they did was speak some words and sign some papers, some other US colonists would have done it eventually anyways". Too bad it doesn't work that way. Might the space program have been established under another president? most likely. But the fact of the matter is that it was JFK who established it, and doing that entitled much more than "speaking some words and signing some spending authorizations" suggests.

Boy you need to learn about US history. The Founding Fathers when they signed the Declaration of Independence put their asses on the line. They were traitors to the Crown...they were taking action. Furthermore, they had the education and expertise to write the Constitution. Unlike JFK who was not in possession of the skills (he wasn't a rocket scientist) required to get anyone to the moon other than his charisma and the power of the presidency.

Actually the space program was established under another president: Eisenhower. NASA was established in 1958. Furthermore, the USAF and to a lesser extent the US Navy was doing things moving us into space LONG before JFK. All JFK did was spoke some words and signed some spending authorizations that was made by Congress.

Are you kidding me? "did little more than say "we need more civil rights""?

Sir. you must have never read a history book.

You: Wrong on the background of Vietnam (you have even admitted you did not know about the coup against president Diem which was authorizied by JFK).
You: Wrong on the background of the CMC.
You: Wrong on the Space Program (JFK did not establish the space program).

JFK was the man who INTRODUCED the Civil Rights Act. Johnson was just the one that passed it.
June 19th 1963 <-- look it up

You sir, need to read the Constitution and read a US Government textbook. JFK did not introduce any legislation after becoming president. He does not have that power. Yes he sent a draft of a bill he wanted passed to Congress...BUT someone else (Rep Emanuel Celler) introduced it. Furthermore, had JFK NOT been assasinated it is very unlikely that a New Englander Democrat could get that legislation passed; Southern Dems were blocking the shit out of it. It took LBJ specifically (he was a Southern Democrat with MUCH better legislative prowess) to pass the Civil Rights legislation.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
n64kid
n64kid
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Blank Slate
Response to Obama ahead in Texas, Poised to Win Mar. 5th, 2008 @ 10:09 PM Reply

At 3/5/08 09:06 PM, Musician wrote:
At 3/5/08 07:55 PM, n64kid wrote:
Here's the report.

-sigh- Reports done by liberal campus' have liberal biases, and missed man x factors like violent vs non violent crimes, economic growth, and income gap. (I shouldn't have to explain these factors as to how they affect society and abortions to someone as "educated" as you)

I love how you fail to list these "moral and social" factors. What exactly is wrong with smoking a joint again? who is it going to kill? Do you know that legalizing drugs would cut crime? I could make the argument that it is immoral for us to keep drugs illegal because it's a victimless crime

Wastes time, causes memory loss, not productive to economy if people cannot make their appointments. You might know young'ins who seem to be very smart when high, but the affects of pot, if they don't show up sooner, show up later. I myself know smartasses who fight to legalize pot but forget some of the simple things in life, and cannot recall anything said to them after 30 seconds.

Anyone who wants drugs to remain illegal is brainwashed or uneducated. You're the narrow minded one.

I'm actually for decriminalization for economic reasons, not moral ones. Stop the jailing, double or triple the fines. It's not being tough on crime, but SMART on crime.

I love how everyone just jumps into this conversation without bothering to read the argument. Know what? I shouldn't have to post the same links I've already posted 3 times in this thread again, just because you're too lazy to read.

Your posted sources don't really prove, they only speculate.

Also, obama has never said that he's trying to please everyone, only that he's taken a much more moderate stance.

"I was trying to please everybody" was a direct quote from him on CNN last week when confronted about a contradiction in voting record. v.v


Tolerance comes with tolerance of the intolerant. True tolerance doesn't exist.

BBS Signature
Musician
Musician
  • Member since: May. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Blank Slate
Response to Obama ahead in Texas, Poised to Win Mar. 6th, 2008 @ 12:16 AM Reply

At 3/5/08 10:00 PM, TheMason wrote: Later in your post you talk about "not backing down" in the CMC and the cost to our image and our perceived strength in the international arena.

Among other reasons. That was honestly the first that came to my mind, but to be truthful it was only an added benifit. The true purposes for taking military action were much stronger. More on that later.

Yet above you make the claim that "we weren't commited in any financial/social sense to Vietnam" and "there wouldn't have been as serious of repercussions." There is a MAJOR disconnect in your reasoning here.

Maybe if that was the only reason I had given for the naval blockade, which if you check: it wasn't.


Read up on the things that were going on socially and politically in Vietnam while JFK was alive. What commits us to military action is not the deployment of military personnel. Rather, it is the political decisions made by governments in the 3-5 years leading up to the start of hostilities.

For example:
Pearl Harbor did not commit the US to war against Japan; it was the US embargo against Japan that charted the course towards war.
Pearl Horbor did not commit the US to war against Germany; it was the Treaty of Versailles but also the lend lease program.

Sorry but you're absolutely wrong. Military action IS what commits us to war. What you're trying to argue is that military action is the result of a more prolonged chain of political actions, which is true. For example, it is true that the Treaty of Versailles almost definitely allowed the Nazi's to come to power, which ultimately led the country to invade poland and start WW2.

However, the Treaty of Versailles did not commit us to the war, what ultimately commited us to the war on Germany was their declaration of war on us, after we declared war on Japan. So although I see where you're coming from, your original point of JFk committing us to Vietnam, is false.

JFK may have set us on the path to leading us into Vietnam (may have), but that doesn't mean he was the one who commited us to the war. The man who commited us to the war was undeniably LBJ, when he ordered the bombing runs on the North Vietnamese.

Quotes from the other side added for dramatic effect

Alright, glad to know the other side had opinions. A tad bit irrelevant.

Wars do not suddenly happen...not even 9/11. There is a political context and commitment to a policy that leads to war. JFK's decisions in regards to Diem and sending in advisors/Spec Ops puts the US on a path to defend a country...and if we reverse this policy after undertaking the actions JFK took we would have looked far weaker and unreliable than if he did not order the naval blockade of Cuba.

No, wars do suddenly happen. What doesn't happen suddenly are the slowly built tensions that lead to war, on this I agree. But a declaration of war (not in the formal sense, since I know that's all that matters to you) is "sudden".

Coming back to LBJ, since he was the one who started the military campaign in Vietnam, and thus he was the one who "committed" us to Vietnam.

Dude, backing down was NOT an issue BEFORE the blockade was ordered!

That is false. But it's not easy to explain in words why, so I should start with this story to help break my point:

Presumably after the blockade was in place (I'm note sure if it was before or after), the US sent a message to the Russians which suggested, that if they removed the missiles from cuba then the US would not invade.

The White house then received 2 messages:

The first message was written (as Robert McNamara describes it) by a man seriously depressed or drunk. It basically said (if I must make it short), that if the US promised not to invade, that he would remove the missiles from cuba.

The second message took a completely different tone. This message that arrived after the first message said that if the US invaded cuba, it would mean nuclear war.

Now what do you think this tells us about the affairs in Russia? Do I have to spoon feed it to you?

Khrushchev wasn't fully in control of his country, if he had removed the missiles before showing his country that the US was taking action against Cuba, he might have been removed from power. The Naval Blockade allowed Khrushchev to negotiate the removal of the missiles in Turkey, while still looking strong in front of his people.

What JFK did wrong was escalate, needlessly, a diplomatic situation into a military one way too early. Even if the Soviet ships had managed to off-load their cargo it would've taken days if not weeks to get the weapons operational...more than enough time for a negotiated response.

We did have a negotiated response. And as I have explained, the US needed to take some form of military action. The Naval Blockade, was a very limited military response.


Now, in what way did the US look good in this? Khrushchev put missiles in Cuba because the US had missiles in Turkey, a VERY short flight from the USSR's version of Camp David on the Black Sea. Khrushchev wanted them gone...that's all. What was the end result of the CMC? Removal of US nukes from Turkey and Cuba. Why the HELL did we need to PUBLICLY bring the world to the brink of nuclear ANNIHILATION and then the outcome is what the SOVIETS wanted? JFK knee-jerked to a military response that was out of proportion to the problem at hand; JFK's initial handling of the CMC was entirely reckless. The US did not win...the SOVIETS got what they wanted while all the US was to save face that was lost due to the naval blockade.

How exactly did the US lose face do the naval blockade? Both sides viewed it as a victory; the situation was diplomatically solved in a way that benefited both sides politically and militarily.

When the situation first reached the white house, JFK's entire cabinet voted unanimously for the invasion of Cuba. UNANIMOUSLY. And each and every one of them more experienced and educated than you. And JFK, the "rookie" president who had just recently blundered in the bay of pigs went against his entire cabinet by saying "no".

That is the action of an admirable and diplomatic president like JFK.


Boy you need to learn about US history. The Founding Fathers when they signed the Declaration of Independence put their asses on the line. They were traitors to the Crown...they were taking action. Furthermore, they had the education and expertise to write the Constitution. Unlike JFK who was not in possession of the skills (he wasn't a rocket scientist) required to get anyone to the moon other than his charisma and the power of the presidency.

I'm curious how you think my knowledge of history correlates at all to this. Oh wait that's right, it doesn't. I never claimed that the founding fathers didn't put their lives on the line (nice attempt at obfuscation though). The fact of the matter is, that the credit for establishing the space program that directly led us to placing a man on the moon belongs to JFK. Someone else might have if he hadn't (like someone else may have tried to rebel against the british empire if the original founding fathers had not), but he still was the one to establish it, and thus credit is due to him.


Actually the space program was established under another president: Eisenhower. NASA was established in 1958.

Who says I was referring to NASA when I said "space program"? I know Eisenhower established NASA, and I think it's overly obvious what I'm reffering to when I use the term "space program", especially in the context in which I am using it. Never the less, JFK undoubtedly established a space program that led to a man being placed on the moon.


I have no country to fight for; my country is the earth; I am a citizen of the world
-- Eugene Debs

Musician
Musician
  • Member since: May. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Blank Slate
Response to Obama ahead in Texas, Poised to Win Mar. 6th, 2008 @ 12:18 AM Reply

TheMason wrote:
You: Wrong on the background of Vietnam (you have even admitted you did not know about the coup against president Diem which was authorizied by JFK).

Where exactly have I been wrong when referring to Vietnam? Yes I was not aware of the specifics of the Vietnam campaign, but I have a general understanding of it and everything I have referenced factually has been accurate. I don't understand how I've been "wrong" on anything factual (or opinionated for that matter) relating to Vietnam.

You: Wrong on the background of the CMC.

No offense, but I think it's obvious who has a better understanding of what happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis (Hint: me) seeing as it's basically my favorite subject, and I know just about every in and out of it. I'd like you to point out JUST ONE thing I've been wrong about in my analysis of the CMC.

You: Wrong on the Space Program (JFK did not establish the space program).

I was absolutely right about JFK establishing a space program, because that's absolutely what he did. Perhaps the formal (because I know that's all that matters to you) term wouldn't be "space program", but as a general description is is completely correct. Nice work picking at a technicality though, it pads you "Wrong" list to meet the balanced number of three quite nicely.


You sir, need to read the Constitution and read a US Government textbook. JFK did not introduce any legislation after becoming president. He does not have that power. Yes he sent a draft of a bill he wanted passed to Congress...BUT someone else (Rep Emanuel Celler) introduced it.

Picking at technicalities again? This isn't helping your credibility at all. Yes, perhaps he did not introduce the bill to congress in the formal sense (because I know that's all that matters to you), but you can't deny that the bill was written and sent to congress under his administration/

Furthermore, had JFK NOT been assasinated it is very unlikely that a New Englander Democrat could get that legislation passed; Southern Dems were blocking the shit out of it. It took LBJ specifically (he was a Southern Democrat with MUCH better legislative prowess) to pass the Civil Rights legislation

So you claim but can't prove. Either way, it doesn't matter, because the Civil Rights Act was developed under JFK's administration, so the IDEAS that formulated the act came from the Kennedy administration, not the Johnson administration, which is far more of an accomplishment than the passing of a bill.


I have no country to fight for; my country is the earth; I am a citizen of the world
-- Eugene Debs

Musician
Musician
  • Member since: May. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Blank Slate
Response to Obama ahead in Texas, Poised to Win Mar. 6th, 2008 @ 12:26 AM Reply

At 3/5/08 10:09 PM, n64kid wrote: -sigh- Reports done by liberal campus' have liberal biases, and missed man x factors like violent vs non violent crimes, economic growth, and income gap. (I shouldn't have to explain these factors as to how they affect society and abortions to someone as "educated" as you)

Actually at the beginning of the report, they immediately address the other factors that could cause the decline in crime rates, but none of them can really explain the drop as well as abortion can.


Wastes time, causes memory loss, not productive to economy if people cannot make their appointments. You might know young'ins who seem to be very smart when high, but the affects of pot, if they don't show up sooner, show up later. I myself know smartasses who fight to legalize pot but forget some of the simple things in life, and cannot recall anything said to them after 30 seconds.

Those are all self destructive activities. And are completely legal on their own. In other words, I don't tell you that you shouldn't take a needle and stick it through your eye, I think if that's your decision then it's not my place to tell you not, and certainly not my place to put you in jail for doing it. What people do to their bodies is their business.

I'm actually for decriminalization for economic reasons, not moral ones. Stop the jailing, double or triple the fines. It's not being tough on crime, but SMART on crime.

People shouldn't be fined for doing drugs either. I don't see how drugs can ever be considered a crime.


Your posted sources don't really prove, they only speculate.

My sources list both Obama's and McCain's sponsored/cosponsored bills. Obama has gotten more done recently than McCain has. No speculation there, just facts.

"I was trying to please everybody" was a direct quote from him on CNN last week when confronted about a contradiction in voting record. v.v

I'd like to see that article for that so I can examine it in context.


I have no country to fight for; my country is the earth; I am a citizen of the world
-- Eugene Debs

n64kid
n64kid
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Blank Slate
Response to Obama ahead in Texas, Poised to Win Mar. 6th, 2008 @ 12:41 AM Reply

At 3/6/08 12:26 AM, Musician wrote:
At 3/5/08 10:09 PM, n64kid wrote:
Those are all self destructive activities. And are completely legal on their own. In other words, I don't tell you that you shouldn't take a needle and stick it through your eye, I think if that's your decision then it's not my place to tell you not, and certainly not my place to put you in jail for doing it. What people do to their bodies is their business.

It causes a decline in work ethic, alcohol was banned in the 20s for the same reason. Unemployment was correlated with alcohol consumption at the time, and with my own anecdotal evidence, I can say my pothead friends get jobs holding signs for subway and getting fired from them in week 2.

I'm actually for decriminalization for economic reasons, not moral ones. Stop the jailing, double or triple the fines. It's not being tough on crime, but SMART on crime.
People shouldn't be fined for doing drugs either. I don't see how drugs can ever be considered a crime.

See above, drugs are bad mmmkay.

Your posted sources don't really prove, they only speculate.
My sources list both Obama's and McCain's sponsored/cosponsored bills. Obama has gotten more done recently than McCain has. No speculation there, just facts.

Reading bills and doing little action except giving them off to other committees isn't as triumphant as the Mccain-Feinstein bill.... wow a republican and democrat co-sponsoring a bill? I thought only Obama could unite the country hmmm I guess theres other candidates that have more than the rhetoric.

"I was trying to please everybody" was a direct quote from him on CNN last week when confronted about a contradiction in voting record. v.v
I'd like to see that article for that so I can examine it in context.

If CNN posts all coverage on the web, you can find it there.


Tolerance comes with tolerance of the intolerant. True tolerance doesn't exist.

BBS Signature
Musician
Musician
  • Member since: May. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Blank Slate
Response to Obama ahead in Texas, Poised to Win Mar. 6th, 2008 @ 12:49 AM Reply

At 3/6/08 12:41 AM, n64kid wrote: It causes a decline in work ethic, alcohol was banned in the 20s for the same reason. Unemployment was correlated with alcohol consumption at the time, and with my own anecdotal evidence, I can say my pothead friends get jobs holding signs for subway and getting fired from them in week 2.

Um the prohibition of alcohol was repealed after everyone realized what a HUGE mistake it was.

1) it didn't stop consumption
2) organized crime skyrocketed

Organized crime is being funded even today by drug sales. Legalizing drugs would cut the mobsters off from their money supply.


See above, drugs are bad mmmkay.

Um, poisoning yourself is probably bad too. Is there a law against that?


Reading bills and doing little action except giving them off to other committees isn't as triumphant as the Mccain-Feinstein bill.... wow a republican and democrat co-sponsoring a bill? I thought only Obama could unite the country hmmm I guess theres other candidates that have more than the rhetoric.

Reading bills and doing little action? What are you talking about? How exactly is the McCain-Feinstein bill triumphant? I seem to miss the part where you told me what it was. Oh, and a democrat and a republican sponsoring the same bill doesn't = uniting the country.


If CNN posts all coverage on the web, you can find it there.

Googling that quote doesn't turn up anything.


I have no country to fight for; my country is the earth; I am a citizen of the world
-- Eugene Debs

n64kid
n64kid
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Blank Slate
Response to Obama ahead in Texas, Poised to Win Mar. 6th, 2008 @ 01:00 AM Reply

At 3/6/08 12:49 AM, Musician wrote:
Um the prohibition of alcohol was repealed after everyone realized what a HUGE mistake it was.

1) it didn't stop consumption
2) organized crime skyrocketed

Organized crime is being funded even today by drug sales. Legalizing drugs would cut the mobsters off from their money supply.

and the point about work ethic?

Um, poisoning yourself is probably bad too. Is there a law against that?

suicide is illegal o.o

Reading bills and doing little action? What are you talking about? How exactly is the McCain-Feinstein bill triumphant? I seem to miss the part where you told me what it was. Oh, and a democrat and a republican sponsoring the same bill doesn't = uniting the country.

saying you will unite the country with nothing to back it up doesn't = uniting the country either.

Googling that quote doesn't turn up anything.

Guess what, he still said it.


Tolerance comes with tolerance of the intolerant. True tolerance doesn't exist.

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Obama ahead in Texas, Poised to Win Mar. 6th, 2008 @ 01:31 AM Reply

At 3/6/08 12:16 AM, Musician wrote:
At 3/5/08 10:00 PM, TheMason wrote:
Tried to argue above his knowledge level in order to justify his ideologically tainted view of history.

1) Wars are the product of political agreements and decisions. When these are made they commit a country to a course of action. For example, we are committed to fight N. Korea in the event of a resumption of hostilities. [Don't make me break my New Year's Resolution about touting my Cred! ;) ]

2) War involves more than one country; therefore quotes from the adversary's political leaders and institutions are not dramatic but rather relevant. (Basic scholarship...but nice try at obfuscation.)

3) JFK had more options than a naval blockade; there was always "back-door diplomacy" in which members of the administration actually tried talking to the Soviets behind the scenes rather than resort to a military option as the first resort.

4) Signing the Declaration of Independence meant that the loss of property and if caught death for treason to the crown. And yes you DID say that the founding fathers didn't put their lives on the line:

Lol, I hope you realize that's the same as saying: " Yeah, the founding fathers don't deserve any special credit for writing the constitution, all they did was speak some words and sign some papers, some other US colonists would have done it eventually anyways". (Emphasis mine)

You are responding to my criticism that JFK didn't put his ass on the line w/the space program and then parroted my inflamatory remark...thereby parroting the sentiment and meaning. The Founding Fathers & the Constitution and JFK & the moon are fundamentally different. In the case of the founding, you have people who were directly engaged in diplomacy, warfighting and building a new government. In the case of JFK he was not involved with designing the rocket or testing it or flying the mission beyond signing the bill that authorizied it. Finally, JFK inherited a government that included all the necessary structures while the founding was making something from nothing. Furthermore, the idea of a moon mission was articulated in 1960 before JFK was president. In fact, once he was in office he started having second thoughts when he saw the bill.

5) Space Program refers to a structure larger than a single mission. Therefore, it is not overly obvious what you are talking about...you are abusing the term. You should have said "The Apollo Program" or the "Moon Mission". Then when I pointed out the error you should have admitted to being unclear rather than making a feable attempt at making it sound like you knew what you were doing all along.

6) It is obvious that you lack understanding of Vietnam beyond a basic timeline. Furthermore, it is obvious that you lack understanding of international relations.

7) No offense, but I think it's obvious who has a better understanding of what happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis (Hint: me) seeing as it's basically my favorite subject, and I know just about every in and out of it. I'd like you to point out JUST ONE thing I've been wrong about in my analysis of the CMC. No offense but you sound like a 12 year old meeting a paleontologist and telling said academic he's wrong because the Raptor is his favorite dinosaur and the kid knows "...every in and out of it." You're wrong in that you appear to think that a naval blockade was the only option open to JFK.

Another thing you're wrong on: I have more education than Robert McNamara. In terms of defense experience; I'm not trailing him by much there.

8) Sorry, no matter how you try to sematically dodge the issue JFK did NOT create a space program. Had the Soviets not sent Yuri Gagarin into space, JFK may not have been so keen on spending the money. In fact Congress acted faster than JFK to authorize a crash program to put a man on the moon.

9) Consider my technical acumen good preparation for college. Furthermore, the president NOT having the legislative power to introduce legislation is no small technicality. It indicates a serious misunderstanding of how the government works and strongly implies the person making the error does not know what he's talking about. But nice attempt at lashing out at me and acting as if pointing out your erroneous understanding somehow reduces my credibility.

10) Actually, the IDEAS included in the 1964 Civil Rights Act where first articulated by the REPUBLICAN's Civil Rights Act of 1875. The Civil Rights Act of 1875 was declared unconstitutional because it related to private organizations rather than federal or state government. In the 89 years between the two bills (which when added to the Fair Housing Act are remarkably similar) SCOTUS had expanded Constituional Rights to protect individuals against private organizations as well as public institutions.

BTW: You are right, my statement that JFK could not get the legislation passed is speculation. However, it is a speculation shared (and taught) by my fellow academics.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Obama ahead in Texas, Poised to Win Mar. 6th, 2008 @ 01:50 PM Reply

At 3/6/08 12:16 AM, Musician wrote: Presumably after the blockade was in place (I'm note sure if it was before or after), the US sent a message to the Russians which suggested, that if they removed the missiles from cuba then the US would not invade.

The White house then received 2 messages:

The first message was written (as Robert McNamara describes it) by a man seriously depressed or drunk. It basically said (if I must make it short), that if the US promised not to invade, that he would remove the missiles from cuba.

The second message took a completely different tone. This message that arrived after the first message said that if the US invaded cuba, it would mean nuclear war.

Now what do you think this tells us about the affairs in Russia? Do I have to spoon feed it to you?

Khrushchev wasn't fully in control of his country, if he had removed the missiles before showing his country that the US was taking action against Cuba, he might have been removed from power. The Naval Blockade allowed Khrushchev to negotiate the removal of the missiles in Turkey, while still looking strong in front of his people.

You don't need to spoon feed anything to me; it appears you have been fed (and swallowed) enough for both of us. What you're describing is the perception of the participants at the time of the crisis. However, perception is not the same as reality.

You see much has happened since the CMC and we know more than McNamara, JFK, etc did at the time and (in the case of those who died before 1992) ever did. When the USSR fell new information about what was going on in the Kremlin came out. You see Kruschev was the first to miscalculate. He fully intended to put the missiles there and then negotiate their removal in exchange for the removal of US missiles from Turkey. He never thought that JFK would push a military solution...he expected a quiet (non-public), negotiated settlement. He never expected the communique: pull out or we invade.

JFK's response was to lead with a military solution rather than leading with diplomacy. Furthermore, he did a ballsy move with ordering a naval blockade (an act of war) and calling it a quarantine. But ballsy is often irresponsible (as it was in this case). The fact is there were miscalcuations on both sides; but missiles were not in the air. A military response moving us closer and faster to nuclear war was not a good choice so early in the crisis. Yes, he did turn down the Joint Chief's recommendation to invade. However, he still ratcheted up the tensions by coming dangerously close to commiting an act of war.

The fact that Kruschev was drunk may indicate that he was not in control of his country does not mean that this is the reality....this was the interpretation of US actors who were essentially making guesses about what was going on inside the USSR. And this is the point, at the time JFK and his advisors were making calculations about what was the intent and what was going on in the Kremlin. These calculations were based off of ignorance; they did not know what was going on in the Kremlin or Kruschev's mind (no one in the West new this until the USSR collapsed). It is because you very rarely know what's going on behind the scenes of your adversary's government that you do not lead with a military response. What JFK did was foolhardy and irresponsible.

You see JFK learned from his mistake/miscalculation and he never took such a hardline stance with the Soviets again.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
Buffalow
Buffalow
  • Member since: Jun. 5, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Obama ahead in Texas, Poised to Win Mar. 6th, 2008 @ 06:42 PM Reply

Sorry to interrupt the JFK debating....

But is Obama's campaign in jeopardy by Texas and Ohio, or is this merely a roadbump to his inevitable nomination? And if he nabs the nomination, will McCain be able to pull threw against Obama, or is the situation vice-versa?


Well-a Everybody's Heard About the Word, Tha-Tha-Tha Word-Word-Word the Word is the.....

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Obama ahead in Texas, Poised to Win Mar. 6th, 2008 @ 07:06 PM Reply

At 3/6/08 06:42 PM, Gwarfan wrote: Sorry to interrupt the JFK debating....

But is Obama's campaign in jeopardy by Texas and Ohio, or is this merely a roadbump to his inevitable nomination? And if he nabs the nomination, will McCain be able to pull threw against Obama, or is the situation vice-versa?

Yes and no. It keeps Hillary's campaign going...possibly even until June. Obama is the probable nominee, however the Clinton machine is pretty cut-throat so I don't see her running on her sword for the good of the party and abandoning her presidential ambitions (this is probably her one and only shot).

As for the general election; the Democrats are pulling out all stops to loose '08:
1) A LONG and divisive primary which is costing the nominee a shitload of money.
2) Alienating voters in Florida and Michigan by sending them the message that their vote count for nothing.
3) In an attempt to fix the above mistake the DNC is talking about having another primary in those states that the DNC will pick up the bill for. This means the DNC will have just that much less to contribute to the nominee in the general election. (The Democrats can come up with some inventive ways to drain their own warchest!)
4) Superdelegates ('nuff said).

I think either Democratic candidate would be a challenge; however Democratic politics is really working overboard to ensure the party's nominee is as hobbled as possible!


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature