It's not really strange, but it is silly how people are trying to nail Obama based on nothing but guilt by association. I have a friend who has FAS, an obese friend, and a friend who is a pothead. Does that make me a mentally challenged, 300 pound pothead?
And as for the vagueness argument against Obama... what are McCain's policies specifically anyway? The only candidate who I have really heard a lot of specificity from is Hillary. McCain speaks in hyperbole as much as anybody when he says we're going to stick around Iraqietnam for 100 years. And, why are speicifcs so important anyway? Wouldn't it be better to say "Depending on the economy, we will take the necessary steps needed" than "Well, in 30 days, if we haven't sold 30 PBJ's and 5 T-Shirts, then we're going to take out a loan for exactly $56.07 from the piggy bank."
Hmmm... well stated, I certainly agree. It's exactly the same as the controversies created by athletes (as far as I know, all foreign, I haven't heard of such cases amongst American-born athletes) not putting their hand over their heart during, or skipping out on the national anthems at their sports events. Lots of sports fans get really sensitive about it when these athletes don't stand, which is particularly funny in the NHL where probably 75%+ of the dudes playing aren't from here anyway. It's like by refraining from the pledge, etc. people's feelings are hurt or something. All of a sudden, they don't want to sit at your lunch table anymore.
That's absolutely ridiculous. If that were true, why do we even have a debate on illegal immigration?
My dad is an ESL teacher in downtown LA by day, and runs a construction company during his off-hours. As such, he's dealt with hundreds of people who are newly arrived from Mexico in both of his capabilities, and most of them are not only relieved to be here, but are actively working to get their families back in Mexico to come up here too.
Just because my high school= they want to go back, doesn't mean the rest= they want to go back. Stop putting words in my mouth. I was just jotting down in observation in my area. Perhaps it also has to do with the fact that the guys I am referring to are teenagers, the generation after the construction people your pa works with. Maybe there is a generational split? For example, the Baby Boomers actually know at least something about computers while the McCain people think that "a YouTube" is a plumming implement. Maybe the younger immigrants have a different view than their parents. I don't know what it is, but the high school aged Mexican Americans in Estes Park were, as a whole, really pissed off, and wanted to go back. Maybe it's because there's a lot less job opportunities here as opposed to giant L.A.
The problem is that for a huge percentage of people, pride in their country basically does just boil down to they were born in country X so they are proud of it. An American soldier is no different from a Nazi soldier. Both think that they are doing something great for their country, both think "god" is on their side, and both would claim great pride in their country. Were they both born in the other country, they would still be fighting thw war, only for the other guys. In that way, I don't think people are pretty much born into national pride because of the society around them these days. It has progressed to the point where if your parents accept society's norm, with regard to at least this "patriotism" thing, then you will become a product of that society, and will be born a "patriot."
I also knew plenty of Mexican-American dudes in high school, and the majority couldn't wait to get back to Mexico after they graduated. Not many actually wanted to stick around.
The "liberal" media is clearly not "choosing sides". The worst thing that has happened to McCain has been the Iran/Al-Qaeda false statements. The media has really hit Obama hard on Wright especially, and to a lesser extent, Rezko.
Then, there was that little cranky old man raving that McCain was having with those reproters.
McCain's negative coverage is nothing compared to Obama's.
Yes, the U.S. couldn't have cared less about the Jews getting killed in Germany. In fact, the U.S. was offered boats filled with Jewish refugees from Germany, and we sent them back. How's that for altruism?
Vietnam does fundamentally = Iraq. They are relevantly similar for these reasons: Both are about the U.S. joining some conflict it shouldn't have. And, most importantly, both got to a stage where the U.S. was trying so hard to try to get their buddies in the other country to "step up" or whatever and take care of Vietnam/Iraq. The differences are that the U.S. hasn't lost as many in Iraq as they did in Vietnam. Not yet anyway, but if McCain gets in.. we'll catch up, only 50,000 to go. That will certainly be accomplished in 100 years.
To the anti-war camp: If we pull out of Iraq immediately, the way that obama and hillary claim they want to, there -will- be a civil war and a massive genocide. How do you justify pulling out if the cost in life and suffering would end up so massive?
Uh... last I checked, Iraqietnam IS in a civil war already. And if the U.S. is so concerned about loss of life in massive genocides, then why aren't we in Darfur again?
I justify pulling out because circumstances in Iraq were better than they are now before we went in anyway. Just like France after Napoleon was gone, what Iraq actually needs now is some dictator that will scare the piss out of both the Shiites and the Sunnis forcing them into a stalemate again.
Apokalypse Kid's post is dead on. Seeing as you guys are the ones that got us in there, you have the burden of proof to answer his question.
It most certainly is, and best to be right from the get-go. Therefore, Obama>Hillary>McCain. You've got right from the start, changed her mind, and still just spouting the wrong thing covered right there. Right Guy>Flip-Flopper>Wrong Guy.
I think the barb of an accusation of flip-flopping is not in the politician having changed his mind, but in his doing so entirely or predominantly for the purposes of political expedience. Exhibit One: Mitt Romney. A more principled change, such as, oh, Malcolm X's abandonment of black nationalism, is not considered flip-flopping as I understand the term.
Ok, fair enough. But given this, I don't see how Kerry "flip-flopped" on Iraq as he was accused of doing. I think that Kerry changed his mind as so many others did like Hillary.
Thats what I meant; my post was supposed to be dripping in sarcasm.
My apologies, I have to take my sarcasm detector into get it's annual check-up again.
And Rat, even though the Democratic Party cetainly has other principles, like being pro-choice, pro-gun control, etc, just the principle of being against the other party is a good enough reason to found a party. Case in point Federalists and Anti-Federalists. While the Anti-Federalists did not name themselves that, they did pretty much stand there to be the opposition party, and eventually the dominant party to the Federalists.
And as for "flip-flopping", I don't see it is a bad thing. In my opinion, it's better that Clinton at least doesn't support the Iraq War anymore, "flip-flopping", rather than still upholding that the war is good to avoid "flip-flopping." And anybody accusing people of "flip-flopping" on something are all hypocrites. Everybody does it. You think or say one thing, and then new evidence is found to show that is wrong. In this way, "flip-flopping" is perfectly logical. Anybody who has never "flip-flopped" in their life is either a liar, really young, or really lucky.
Of course, it is best to be Obama and have known the war was wrong in the first place.
Yeah, that's a troll.
And as for the vagueness argument against Obama... what are McCain's policies specifically anyway? The only candidate who I have really heard a lot of specificity from is Hillary. McCain speaks in hyperbole as much as anybody when he says we're going to stick around Iraqietnam for 100 years. And, why are speicifcs so important anyway? Wouldn't it be better to say "Depending on the economy, we will take the necessary steps needed" than "Well, in 30 days, if we haven't sold 30 PBJ's and 5 T-Shirts, then we're going to take out a loan for exactly $56.07 from the piggy bank."
Just because my high school= they want to go back, doesn't mean the rest= they want to go back. Stop putting words in my mouth. I was just jotting down in observation in my area. Perhaps it also has to do with the fact that the guys I am referring to are teenagers, the generation after the construction people your pa works with. Maybe there is a generational split? For example, the Baby Boomers actually know at least something about computers while the McCain people think that "a YouTube" is a plumming implement. Maybe the younger immigrants have a different view than their parents. I don't know what it is, but the high school aged Mexican Americans in Estes Park were, as a whole, really pissed off, and wanted to go back. Maybe it's because there's a lot less job opportunities here as opposed to giant L.A.
I also knew plenty of Mexican-American dudes in high school, and the majority couldn't wait to get back to Mexico after they graduated. Not many actually wanted to stick around.
Then, there was that little cranky old man raving that McCain was having with those reproters.
McCain's negative coverage is nothing compared to Obama's.
I think you're right.
Iraqiazation= Also will Fail.
And that is why we leave, in a nutshell.
Uh... last I checked, Iraqietnam IS in a civil war already. And if the U.S. is so concerned about loss of life in massive genocides, then why aren't we in Darfur again?
I justify pulling out because circumstances in Iraq were better than they are now before we went in anyway. Just like France after Napoleon was gone, what Iraq actually needs now is some dictator that will scare the piss out of both the Shiites and the Sunnis forcing them into a stalemate again.
Apokalypse Kid's post is dead on. Seeing as you guys are the ones that got us in there, you have the burden of proof to answer his question.
Ok, fair enough. But given this, I don't see how Kerry "flip-flopped" on Iraq as he was accused of doing. I think that Kerry changed his mind as so many others did like Hillary.
My apologies, I have to take my sarcasm detector into get it's annual check-up again.
And Rat, even though the Democratic Party cetainly has other principles, like being pro-choice, pro-gun control, etc, just the principle of being against the other party is a good enough reason to found a party. Case in point Federalists and Anti-Federalists. While the Anti-Federalists did not name themselves that, they did pretty much stand there to be the opposition party, and eventually the dominant party to the Federalists.
And as for "flip-flopping", I don't see it is a bad thing. In my opinion, it's better that Clinton at least doesn't support the Iraq War anymore, "flip-flopping", rather than still upholding that the war is good to avoid "flip-flopping." And anybody accusing people of "flip-flopping" on something are all hypocrites. Everybody does it. You think or say one thing, and then new evidence is found to show that is wrong. In this way, "flip-flopping" is perfectly logical. Anybody who has never "flip-flopped" in their life is either a liar, really young, or really lucky.
Of course, it is best to be Obama and have known the war was wrong in the first place.