Official Political (Republican/Democrat) Debate Thread

[meteamo]

But wouldn't the current Democrats be viewed as Republicans a short while ago while the current Republicans be viewed as Democrats? If so, it would be like a flip flop.

[Sean O]

But wouldn't the current Democrats be viewed as Republicans a short while ago while the current Republicans be viewed as Democrats? If so, it would be like a flip flop.

I'm sorry, I'm not following you here.

[Sean O]

On a side note, Michelle Malkin and some other utterly insane people got this commercial:

Pulled because the scarf 'supports terrorism' or something because it's black and white like the Palestinians wear.

The Wingers on this site must be so embarrassed that people this crazy represent you out there. Just like I'm embarrassed as a New Englander at how quickly Dunkies folded.

[meteamo]

Sean O,

I messed it up. I meant:

The code of the republican party used to be low taxes, low gov't interference and low gov't spending. The states were more responsible for their own needs and the lower federal taxes would allow the states to charge more taxes and use their money as they see fit.

The new republicans believe in big gov't programs to help people who were in need. this used to be the position of the old democrats. the position of the new democrats is that the gov't should be in charge of helping all of the people whether they need it or not practically becoming a baby sitter to all. Whereas the Libertarians are more like the way the democratic party used to be.

---

What we really need to help straighten out the system to produce a good president is a box marked 'none of the above'. If this box gets the most votes, each party has one month to present a new candidate for the second election. And this will continue until a president is picked.

---

And as far as that Rachel Ray Dunkin' Donuts commercial goes, Rachel Ray is the farthest thing from trying to make a political statement. And this country is based upon freedom ... especially the freedom to wear a scarf as long as it fits the wardrobe. That was stupid and just trying to incite fear.

[mrmet06]

Just like that Starbucks commercial said to invoke thoughts of 9/11. Absolutely rediculous, and I blame the Republicans, but that's just me.

[Sean O]

The new republicans believe in big gov't programs to help people who were in need. this used to be the position of the old democrats. the position of the new democrats is that the gov't should be in charge of helping all of the people whether they need it or not practically becoming a baby sitter to all. Whereas the Libertarians are more like the way the democratic party used to be.

I disagree entirely. The New Republicans are about greater governmental oversight, but that really comes down to tremendous increases in executive branch powers. Homeland Security alone was a major, questionable increase, along with the FBI, CIA and NSA gaining far more power than they'd ever had previously. On top of that though, they haven't really instituted any social programs, and frequently cut taxes in spite of a massive governmental deficit.

The democrats have always been about more federal social programs, from FDR to The Great Society. Even now, the two democrats want government-sponsored health care, while McCain wants to maintain the power of for-profit HMOs without deregulation.

Personally, I believe in the classic (big L) Liberalism, that the government is a creation of the people for the greater good. It only has jurisdiction over our interactions with each other, and cannot infringe upon our freedoms when it relates to our own selves. This is why I am so opposed to the hegemony enjoyed by corporations, as their focus will always be on profits for shareholders rather than the greater good (which is why, legally, they were first "incorporated").

The government should be there to help, but it cannot limit most individual freedoms. It is the final safety net for (responsible) citizens, the arbiter in any intra-party disputes, and the (non-preemptive) police force against outside nations.

[meteamo]

Please forgive me. I mistyped that line you quoted. I meant to say that today's libertarians are more like the old republican (and not democratic) party.

And I wish that the republican party hadn't introduced any new programs. Unfortunately, their medicare drug re-imbursement program is going to do more to cripple our future budgets than social security.

One thing we really should do is check out the government handouts. A lot of people who receive benefits are not really in need. Afterall, this is the land of opportunity and if you take the responsiblities of taking care of one's self away from people, they have no need to search for the opportunities.

[Kccitystar]

[krawhitham]

[krawhitham]

[HardcoreLegend]

[kinghernandez]

Whoever wins the election, well I feel for them. We're in a war we can't win, have an economy we can't save, we're out of oil, out of food, and we're on the brink of another ice age. This world is in such an awful state and the leader of the free world is supposed to fix all of this. If they don't, which they won't, they'll be ridiculed and second guessed just as bad as Bush was. I don't even see how anyone could want to be president right now. And all of the candidates have their personal agendas to tend to first so I can guarantee none of the problems I mentioned are going to get any better. I don't see America, or the rest of the world for that matter, coming back from these struggles. It's gonna be a rough future for all of us

[piratesmvp04]

[piratesmvp04]

[Sean O]

Ok folks, posting images of questionable merit isn't really going to elevate the dialog. Each side has had their fun, how about we cut it out now.

Anyone stating that discussions with foreign powers are "appeasement" is plainly ignorant. No, "all of this could not have been prevented" in WW2 (even though it wasn't a democrat who said that, mind), but there are countless different positive results possible.

First off, I highly recommend watching The Fog of War about Robert McNamara. One of the major problems of the Vietnam war was our failure to understand our enemy, because we relied in caricatures instead of actual information. It also says how war was averted in the Cuban Missile Crisis because one of our top military advisers had spent lots of time with Khruschev, and so they knew to respond in a particular manner most likely to work.

Secondly, there are cases where simple delays, like the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, can delay military engagement long enough to turn the tables better in your favor. Right now, since we are fully involved in Iraq, any sabre-rattling towards Iran would be disastrous on a number of different fronts.

Discussions are just that, discussions. And that's why even our president, who seemed to call anyone engaging in discussions an appeaser, has engaged with a number of foreign powers in talks.

[krawhitham]

[Sean O]

That fourth one totally rips of Arrested Development.

are we done with the photo thing now?

[timay]

I thought this was the political thread, and cartoons are a part of politics.

No one is breaking any rules. I say let the cartoons stay.

Pweeze!!!!

[Sean O]

http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/2...ncle_seems.html

How do people like this justify still existing. I never thought I would hear anyone seriously say "Buchenwald... was merely a slave labor camp."

Unbelievable.

[RaptorQuiz]

You're kind of taking that out of context. He says in comparison to Auschwitz it was a slave labor camp.

I'm not sure of the actual detalis - but he seems to be trying to indicate that Aushwitz had the features most commonly assosiated w/ "concentration camps" in most people's minds... meaning: The gas chambers, the 'ovens,' etc - the machines for manufacturing the death of people (namely: Jews).

The comparison is that Buchenwald did not have these features, and while the author maintains that the camp was "atrocious beyond normal human understanding," he calls it "merely a slave labor camp, and not historically abnormal in a time of war."

The author later updated:

OK, I'll make one attempt, for those who think that I am somehow "minimizing" what happened at Buchenwald. Perhaps they don't understand the true meaning of the word "atrocious," as in the phrase I used, "atrocious beyond human understanding."

I wasn't using it in perhaps a more popular (and trivial) sense as "that movie or meal was atrocious." I was using it in its most literal sense, as in a place where actual atrocities occurred. The two words are related, you know?

[update about 9:30]

If I change the phrase "merely a slave labor camp," which is what seems to be generating such irrational fury and umbrage, to "not a site for the extermination of a people on an industrial scale," will that mollify people? Probably not, but I'll do it anyway.

Clearly this is a dubious distinction to make, but by taking the quote out of context, I felt like you were just trying to make him sound bat-%$% insane, rather than just partially insane (which he appears to be). lol.

Sort of like the big "chickens come home to roost" statement that was taken out of context when Pastor Wright said it, and it made him look bat-%$# insane instead of just partially insane (which he appears to be).

:)

[piratesmvp04]

Alright, I quit the cartoon thing if you don't want it, SeanO. I'll just use words, which are just as good. I personally think that we need to finish the war in Iraq. We started it, and we must fix it. That is the concept that our parents have taught us ever since we were young. I certainly wish we were not fighting over there right now, but we can't just leave. Look what happened when we walked away from Vietnam (even though I think Vietnam is a poor analogy to the Iraq war)? Hammas (forgive me if I'm not spelling it right) will take Iraq if we walk away. We MUST win this war because we CAN win. The troop surge is slowing violence (when was the last time you heard a report on a car bomb in the news?). Even if we have to maintain some presence in Iraq in the foreseeable future, aren't we already doing that in places like Korea?

[Kayxero]

Ok folks, posting images of questionable merit isn't really going to elevate the dialog. Each side has had their fun, how about we cut it out now.

Anyone stating that discussions with foreign powers are "appeasement" is plainly ignorant. No, "all of this could not have been prevented" in WW2 (even though it wasn't a democrat who said that, mind), but there are countless different positive results possible.

First off, I highly recommend watching The Fog of War about Robert McNamara. One of the major problems of the Vietnam war was our failure to understand our enemy, because we relied in caricatures instead of actual information. It also says how war was averted in the Cuban Missile Crisis because one of our top military advisers had spent lots of time with Khruschev, and so they knew to respond in a particular manner most likely to work.

Secondly, there are cases where simple delays, like the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, can delay military engagement long enough to turn the tables better in your favor. Right now, since we are fully involved in Iraq, any sabre-rattling towards Iran would be disastrous on a number of different fronts.

Discussions are just that, discussions. And that's why even our president, who seemed to call anyone engaging in discussions an appeaser, has engaged with a number of foreign powers in talks.

Reminding me on the vietnam war, reminds me of this lil story our english teacher had us read about in our text earlier this year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre

Gota luv a rushed and unplanned action huh =/. Reading about this ruined my whole week back when i first heard about it. War is just blah and i can only imagine what may be going on in Iraq with our soldiers. I read alot of crap online but id like to think that our troops are mature and smart citizens nowadays and that most of the crap i read is just propaganda.

[Sean O]

I think he is bat#)(*$ insane, that's the thing. The right wing has been playing the "democrats hate the troops!" card for 8 years now, and right here someone is saying that this soldier isn't as important because it was Buchenwald instead of Auschwitz.

Here's a description of what happened at Buchenwald/Ohrdruf:

Concerning the service of Mr. Charles Payne: C.T. Payne was a soldier in the 89th Infantry Division. He served in the 355th Infantry Regiment, Company K. The 355th Infantry Regiment was the unit to liberate Ohrdruf. Mr. Payne was there.

For those who seek to minimize the horrors of Ohrdruf since it was a 'work' camp and not a 'death' camp, we have but one word: shame. Ironically, this argument has been made to us time and time again by various Holocaust-deniers and other pro-Nazi groups. We will let the testimony of survivors and veterans speak for themselves.

"It has been recorded that in Ordruf itself the last days were a slaughterhouse. We were shot at, beaten and molested. At every turn went on the destruction of the remaining inmates. Indiscriminant criminal behavior (like the murderers of Oklahoma City some days ago). Some days before the first Americans appeared at the gates of Ordruf, the last retreating Nazi guards managed to execute with hand pistols, literally emptying their last bullets on whomever they encountered leaving them bleeding to death as testified by an American of the 37th Tank Battalion Medical section, 10 a.m. April 4, 1945.

Today I'm privileged thanks to G-d and you gallant fighting men. I'm here to reminisce, and reflect, and experience instant recollections of those moments. Those horrible scenes and that special instance when an Allied soldier outstretched his arm to help me up became my re-entrance, my being re-invited into humanity and restoring my inalienable right to a dignified existence as a human being and as a Jew. Something, which was denied me from September 1939 to the day of liberation in 1945. I had no right to live and survived, out of 80 members of my family, the infernal ordeal of Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Ordruf, and its satellite camp Crawinkle and finally Theresinstadt Ghetto-Concentration Camp."

Rabbi Murray Kohn

Bottom line, people are dumping on this veteran because of something his grandson said. He was on the front lines liberating a concentration camp where people were worked to death, and now his patriotism and service is being called into question. And yet, many of these same people will say they "support the troops". Swiftboating, this, the GI Bill, inadequate armor is painting quite a different tale.

[Kayxero]

Alright, I quit the cartoon thing if you don't want it, SeanO. I'll just use words, which are just as good. I personally think that we need to finish the war in Iraq. We started it, and we must fix it. That is the concept that our parents have taught us ever since we were young. I certainly wish we were not fighting over there right now, but we can't just leave. Look what happened when we walked away from Vietnam (even though I think Vietnam is a poor analogy to the Iraq war)? Hammas (forgive me if I'm not spelling it right) will take Iraq if we walk away. We MUST win this war because we CAN win. The troop surge is slowing violence (when was the last time you heard a report on a car bomb in the news?). Even if we have to maintain some presence in Iraq in the foreseeable future, aren't we already doing that in places like Korea?

Your def right. Looking what we did to Japan 60 years ago. Completely put them into submission and to this day occupy it and Dont allow them much in form of a military. But jesus look at their economy, culture, and influence on many western countries in terms of entertainment and technology. That is coming a long way.

[Sean O]

Your def right. Looking what we did to Japan 60 years ago. Completely put them into submission and to this day occupy it and Dont allow them much in form of a military. But jesus look at their economy, culture, and influence on many western countries in terms of entertainment and technology. That is coming a long way.

????

"We" don't let them have a military? Japan is an honor-based society that was mentally and physically destroyed by WWII. The dishonor of being the aggressor, after centuries of really just being self-contained, is why Japan has had nothing but a defense force. And in return, they've gone from devastation after the war to one of, if not the, greatest economy on earth. Hmm.

As for Iraq, I have to say "that's what our parents taught us" is not ever really a justification for anything. If we had even the slightest chance of victory, I'd say you were right. But, right now, staying in Iraq is refereeing a civil war, one that is costing us billions of dollars we desperately need stateside.

We are arming both sides of the struggle hoping that somehow this will reach a stalemate, but it will never happen. When you don't understand your enemy (enemies?), you have no hope of understanding the respective struggles. We just don't have any hopes of victory, especially after we are forced to withdraw the Surge forces. And we have so many pressing needs domestically, and so many have died unnecessarily, that the situation is untenable.

On another note, this sucks:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080529...clatchy/2952488