Off-topic: Barack Obama - Nobel Peace Prize Winner?

[jemagee]

We were told of imminent nuclear and biological weapons - but no proof was presented.

There's proof of imminent nuclear weapons in Iran - so I'm going to assume you advocate invading them as well and setting up a 'democracy' there as well?

India & Pakistan have been at war for centuries - should we invade them because they might use nuclear weapons?

Greece has had a centuries long conflict with another nation whose name honestly escapes me right now - if they get nuclear weapons should we invade?

There was no proof - there was no evidence - but the administration needed to distract from the mess in Afghanistan (not to mention the pending disasters that were coming in the US as well), so they started a fake war but holding 'the flag' over everyones head and making anyone with a dissenting opinion unpatriotic and anti-american (whereas dissent is one of the most American things anyone can do in my opinion)

Long ago, the best and the brightest aspired to higher office, but they no longer do because it's not about being the best, or being bright, it's about being slick, and teflon, and never doing anything wrong or being able to hide it away....the best and the brightest go other places...

And much like our broken legal system, our broken governmental system is still probably better than most of the ones currently functioning in nations in the world - but it's still pretty broken - and probably still far away from what was intended (blame it on living with someone who knows more about John Adams than 99.9% of Americans)

It's great that you have hope - but I've been jaded and cynical about life since before I was 10 - I learned all about how the people you are supposed to trust can lie to you for their own motivations and needs, even on a small scale, long before I learned how to ride a bike...so i'm not surprised when the guys on the 'big scale' lie...

What i'm surprised at is that how peopple can be lied to SO MUCH and still go on believing the liars are NOW telling the truth?

[Joe Vancil]

I guess my philsophy is "I'm not as much worried about where we're going as long as we're all going together on it

Maybe you should talk to the leaders of your party then...

You missed the point.  Maybe we should *BOTH* talk to the leadership of *BOTH* parties.  Don't fool yourself.  *BOTH* parties are ignoring *ALL* of us.

For example:  I assume you're for government-run health care.  In general, I'd be against it.  But in a week's time of serious discussion, I have absolutely no doubt that you and I could come up with *BOTH* 1) a government-run health care solution that would not be completely objectionable to me, and 2) non-government-run health care reforms that you would regard as great progress.  Which one would we try?  The one that most American people would get behind (as they decided in the past election).  But our government can't do EITHER, because they've forgotten how to compromise with the CITIZENRY rather than their supporters.  You and I might not be elected to a second term - but then again, getting re-elected wasn't the job we were supposed to be doing.

And in my mind reagan was one of the worst presidents in my lifetime (born in 72) until Bush 2 got to office.

Maybe it's telling that the 2 presidents the republicans loved the most I despise the most.

Maybe it's telling that the 2 presidents who I consier the worst - Carter and Bush Jr. - let American citizens be attacked.

This country doesn't do ANYTHING together - people disagree with the opposing party  just because it's the opposing party...our country is united under nothing...and honestly - who cares - we aren't supposed to b e- DISSENT is an essential part of democracy - DISSENT is what this country was founded on - the right to disagree...i wonder why it's not ok to disagree any more -

I think whether it's okay to disagree or not depends upon what you're disagreeing with and who is in power.  Why is it that a war protester is regarded as an enemy by one party, and a tax protester is regarded as an enemy by the other?  Let's be honest - both political parties aren't interested in hearing disagreement with them.

Personally, I consider disagreement the most basic American value.  The real question is what we do when someone disagrees.  We used to listen, and perhaps argue back - and hopefully, eventually come to an agreement.

I know you hate the example - but Reagan had a Democratic House and a Republican Senate - and still got his agenda through.  Back then, we were better compromisers.  Under Clinton, a Republican would vote against things just because it was a Democrat proposing them.  Under Bush, a Democrat would vote against things just because it was a Republican proposing them.  And now, despite Obama's best efforts - AND DARN GOOD ONES - at being bi-partisan, now you can't even get just Democrats or just Republicans on the same page without an ugly fight from the other side.

Don't get me wrong, jem - I'm disgusted by many of the same things you are.

[jemagee]

Maybe it's telling that the 2 presidents who I consier the worst - Carter and Bush Jr. - let American citizens be attacked.

Well I personally believe that the reagan folk made a dal to keep those folks hostage until after reagan won the election so he could use it to beat carter...i personally think carter was one of the few presidents in my life who had the balls to be honest with the american people and tell them how fracked up this country really is.

Bush Jr could be the least intelligent president, EVER, if ever there was a puppet presidnet it was him (but must admit, his bit in Harold & Kumar 2 was AWESOME)

My problems with REagan is that he made it ok to hate again, his evil empire nonsense told the American People it's ok to hate an entire group of people if you don't understand or agree with them....I don't buy that...not to mention his econonmic poicies being crap, and the whole hiding a debilitating mental illness from the American people...(and the fake war on drugs that was so racially fracked up and still is that it's ridiculous)

You wanna know why I call out the republican party more?  Because their blowhards are more extreme and more asinine than the democrats - they are more viscious and vindictive - because the republican party picked a VP nominee who looked good in a skirt but posisbly was dumber than Bush and yet people STILL LISTEN to her (Death panels anyone?)

yes both parties are a mess - but the republican party is the party that has more extremists I don't agree with, more extremists influenced by an inaccurate book that's over 1700 years old and more members who choose to hate people based on differing beliefs, skin color, or gender.

I judge political parties by their extremists and the extremists of the republican party scare me a WHOLE LOT MORE than the democratic extremists...republican extremists would advocate the killing of my mother because she performed LEGAL medical procedures...

Let me be clear, I don't trust the media at all, either side, but if you don't think Fox News has more of an agenda than any other network, if you don't think Ruper Murdoch pushes his agenda through ever media outlet he owns...

I mean seriously - only ONE network has not broadcast every national address President Obama made - because they wanted to air so you think you can dance...don't tell me that the FOX network has any respect for the President whatsoever...

[Joe Vancil]

We were told of imminent nuclear and biological weapons - but no proof was presented.

I trusted my government, and they LIED TO ME.  And I'm PISSED.  I'm still in favor of getting the heads of the folks in charge.  And the fact that my Congress isn't aiding me in this makes them complicit in it.  I WANT THEM ALL GONE.  Unfortunately, no one is listening to me.

There's proof of imminent nuclear weapons in Iran - so I'm going to assume you advocate invading them as well and setting up a 'democracy' there as well?

Actually, no.  I favor international diplomacy, and if that fails, U.N. action.  And if the U.N. won't act, I cut its funding.  If it still won't act, I withdraw.  And *THEN* I favor unilateral action - the last resort.  And I trust we won't get to the last action.

India & Pakistan have been at war for centuries - should we invade them because they might use nuclear weapons?

Neither is engaged in hostilities now.  However, the development of nuclear weapons in both is a U.N. failure that needs to be addressed within the U.N.

Greece has had a centuries long conflict with another nation whose name honestly escapes me right now - if they get nuclear weapons should we invade?

Conflict, or WAR?  As long as all their exchanging is harsh language, I'm okay with it.

There was no proof - there was no evidence - but the administration needed to distract from the mess in Afghanistan (not to mention the pending disasters that were coming in the US as well), so they started a fake war but holding 'the flag' over everyones head and making anyone with a dissenting opinion unpatriotic and anti-american (whereas dissent is one of the most American things anyone can do in my opinion)

...which makes it all the more important that we punish the folks who got us here.

Long ago, the best and the brightest aspired to higher office, but they no longer do because it's not about being the best, or being bright, it's about being slick, and teflon, and never doing anything wrong or being able to hide it away....the best and the brightest go other places...

And much like our broken legal system, our broken governmental system is still probably better than most of the ones currently functioning in nations in the world - but it's still pretty broken - and probably still far away from what was intended (blame it on living with someone who knows more about John Adams than 99.9% of Americans)

It's great that you have hope - but I've been jaded and cynical about life since before I was 10 - I learned all about how the people you are supposed to trust can lie to you for their own motivations and needs, even on a small scale, long before I learned how to ride a bike...so i'm not surprised when the guys on the 'big scale' lie...

Perhaps Obama can restore your sense of hope the way Reagan restored many of my generation.

What i'm surprised at is that how peopple can be lied to SO MUCH and still go on believing the liars are NOW telling the truth?

It's fear.  Fear the the next group we get will be worse.  Fear of change.  Fear that if we make too big of a change, we'll be disregarded even more.  Fear that the next Senator or Representative will be taking money from a different set of people with a different agenda than the one we've gotten used to.  I may not like it - but I understand it.

We've had people promise change, but we've never had anyone promise REAL change.  No presidential candidate has come out and said, "And don't send these bozos we've got now to Washington to work with me.  I don't care who you send, but send somebody ELSE."  And you won't hear one *EVER* say that.  Mores the pity....

[jemagee]

You call it fear

I call it ignorance, complacency, self interest and dogmatic devotion to a party or belief without paying attention to what that party will do.

The number of voters in this country who actually MATTER in presidential elections - the ones who don't just vote by party regardless of nominee is a small percentage of the overall voters...and that's a problem in and of itself.

Not to mention - a lot of people don't care if they lie on the big things as long as they are still nice and cozy in their homes, with their pork coming in...

That's how i see it...it ain't fear - it's laziness and dogma

[rickortreat]

I call it blatant stupidity.  The US government has betrayed the ideals upon which it was founded for years. Collectively, we have lost sight of what is truly important. The founding fathers were quite clear about avoiding foreign entanglements, and they weren't keen on a large, standing Army.  There was no income tax, and the capacity to create money was beyond government.

The high ideals upon which this country was founded, has been swept away by a large, despotic central government that extends itself into our daily lives and the lives of billions of others around the world.

The bottom line for Americans is individual freedom, the ability to choose to live your life the way you want, believe in what you believe, to have respect for each other, and to have only obligations that you choose to enter into. 

America today is a far cry from what was intended. And our meddling and underhandedness around the world, has earned us a good deal of ill will.  After WW2 everyone looked up to us, not only did we emerge with victory, but we didn't impose ourselves on Germany and Japan afterwards, but actually helped them to rebuild.

Unfortunately, the military-industrial complex became so influential and powerful, and the banking system was so enthralled with the possibilities, that the war to end all wars became a platform to launch a new empire, not what America was intended to be, but something entirely different.

By the time the Vietnam war was over, this country was changed irrevocably. The debt inncured forced us off the gold standard. The incipient inflation led to heavy corruption in the banking industry. Our governmental leaders were influenced by foreigners to fail to protect our economic interests.

Now we are a debtor nation, with an ever increasing trade and budget deficit, an irresponsible government and a crumbling infrastructure.  We are witnessing the decline of our own country and our standing in the world.  Our lifestyle is under threat, as much if not more from within than from without. We are more vulnerable and less independent economically than we have ever been, and our freedoms are slowly but systematically being eroded.

Regan who many in this country still revere, did nothing to stop the decline. He made us feel good about ourselves, but he was a crook through and through and sold us out to the Japanese and our own banking industry and his deregulation led directly to the Savings and Loan crisis in the US and prior to that rampant speculation in housing and real-estate. In terms of putting America back on track, he failed miserably.  But he did manage to resuscitate the Republican party and make liberalism a bad word, setting the stage for the Bush's to continue to undermine our country and put us ever deeper into debt, and diminish our standing in the world.

[Joe Vancil]

On Carter - decent and honorable man - poor president.  Had I been one of the folks who came after Carter, I'd have put him where he belongs - representing the United States at the U.N.  Seriously.  He truly gets American values, and he's good at working on compromises.  What he's not good at is setting the appropriate tone, and that was what really hurt him as *THE* leader.  He's a good ally - a bad leader.

Bush Jr. - I said the man was a thief, and that I'd never vote for him all the way back in 1996.  And I never did.  I supported him the way I supported Clinton, as the President of my country, but I didn't like him, didn't want him, and refused to vote for him.  And I don't think he's dumb.  I think he's CORRUPT.  And I'm more tolerant of fools that I am of crooks.

I don't think Reagan made it okay to hate...but I do think he tapped into the public sentiments that were already there.  And for all the "We hate the Russians," he did a great job of actually NEGOTIATING with them.  (Had it been Bush Jr., we'd have had a war.)  For all his "cowboy diplomacy" image, Reagan did do a good job in actually getting serious diplomacy done.

Reagan's economic policies are a mixed bag.  He was right on some, wrong on others.  And, as Obama said, what we need to do is try whatever works - whether it be Reagan or Kennedy or FDR.  I think you're going to find that history will regard Reagan's economic policies more in line with what I'm saying than with what you're saying, jem.

Palin - no question, she comes across as the proverbial blonde chick (even though, yes, she's not blonde).  Interestingly enough, though, she challenged the political establishment in Alaska, won, and enjoyed favorable ratings and support there UNTIL she ran for VP.  "Death panels?"  75% scare tactic, 25% things that need to be spelled out clearly to the American public.  I'm not as opposed to what she's saying as much as I am how she's saying it, and how she's failing to address the same concerns with our CURRENT system of "death panels."  I count her adopting of typcial Washington DC tactics as a huge loss for the "might rattle some cages" side against the political establishment side.  Bad choice for VP,and I think that's de-railed some good work she was doing in Alaska (although I'm opposed to the drilling there).

I'll pass comment on the slams against Christianity.  I realize the futility of debating the "logic" of "faith."

As for the media - I don't trust any of them.  My approach is to read MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News - in some random order.  Between reading all 3, you get to see very clearly the biases of each.  All in all, I think that gives me the best chance to interpret what is REALLY going on.

Finally - as for extremists in political parties - my take is that I want to hear what they're saying.  I mean, seriously - if we're going to try to claim an open mind, then LET'S GET SERIOUS.  Some extremists rant because they're scared.  Some, because they're trying to intimidate.  Some, because they're trying to manipulate.  Some, because they're seriously concerned.  Some, because they're wanting to spur debate.  Some - believe it or not - because they REALLY ARE CORRECT!

My problem with extremists is generally, they have a single agenda, and that is far too simple of a solution for a country that faces the complicated problems that America faces.  As a result, they typically make poor allies.

[jemagee]

I'll pass comment on the slams against Christianity.  I realize the futility of debating the "logic" of "faith."

That's ok - I never saw the logic of any sort of interpretation of faith that suggests killing folks...because I'm pretty sure most faiths are opposed to murder/killing on principle...

[Joe Vancil]

Should've let that one alone, jem.

That's ok - I never saw the logic of any sort of interpretation of faith that suggests killing folks...because I'm pretty sure most faiths are opposed to murder/killing on principle...

Absolutely opposed to murder on principle.  (And if I really want to start a fight, I say, "What is it that constitutes life, again?")

Can't equate murder with killing, however.  Generally speaking, sides that fight their wars by using harsh langauge against folks who shoot to kill don't fare very well.

Also don't equate capital punishment with murder.  One is conduct by an individual, the other is conduct by a society.  The two play by different rules.  (Great.  Now I have to start pulling out why I'm not all that big a fan of capitalism.)

Ultimately, there *IS* a logic behind the belief.  It is not as simple as many other things are.  I guess I tend to regard it the way I regard taxes:  a necessary evil, but one that must be carefully watched and controlled responsibly by society as a whole.

The real problem is that any sort of religious principle has to permeate through all layers of life, and by examining only a single portion of it, you miss the full meaning.  Objection to murder ties in to so many other things:  the wrongness of greed, the wrongness of pride, the wrongness of putting things before God.  Ultimately, each person must interpret God's direction in their lives - all the while knowing that there's only one correct answer - God's - and he hasn't spelled it out completely and unmistakeably.  In that regard, living a Christain life is among the most frustrating - but rewarding - things one will ever experience.

[WayOutWest]

I don't think Reagan made it okay to hate...but I do think he tapped into the public sentiments that were already there.  And for all the "We hate the Russians," he did a great job of actually NEGOTIATING with them.  (Had it been Bush Jr., we'd have had a war.)  For all his "cowboy diplomacy" image, Reagan did do a good job in actually getting serious diplomacy done.

I agree with Jem about Reagan making it okay to hate but I'm not referring to "foreigners", I'm talking about Reagan making it ok to hate "certain" Americans.  I was born and raised in Cali so despite growing up in a mixed neighborhood I had no idea what racism was until Reagan introduced me to it on national media.  IMO Reagan was a racist puke who was an inept president, how you see him otherwise is beyond me.  We had a very long discussion about this subject and I don't remember if you addressed my comments/questions about Reagan, my guess is NO, you probably skirted my issues about him.

[jemagee]

I agree with Jem about Reagan making it okay to hate but I'm not referring to "foreigners", I'm talking about Reagan making it ok to hate "certain" Americans

I wasn't referring to foreigners specifically - I just feel he made it 'ok' to hate someone again...regardless of your prejudice - he made it ok for people to let those old kinds of hates resurface - and i think even today it still simmers in a way it might not have before hand.

Not to mention the war on drugs is racially imbalanced and always has been (even if nancy did go on different strokes)

Plus - the economic divide that's wider and more bitter - he helped that along too.

My favorite pizza place in town had a fire - and when they rebuilt the building it was some sort of young republicans reagan center, so i lost my favorite pizza place AND got a 'monument' to a mediocre actor who conned the country for 8 years.

[Ted]

Well I personally believe that the reagan folk made a dal to keep those folks hostage until after reagan won the election so he could use it to beat carter...i personally think carter was one of the few presidents in my life who had the balls to be honest with the american people and tell them how fracked up this country really is.

They made a deal with another government BEFORE they were in power? Never thought of that. That's like Bush planned 9-11 type stuff.

I always just thought Reagan was the beneficiary of good timing.

[jemagee]

Should've let that one alone, jem.

That's ok - I never saw the logic of any sort of interpretation of faith that suggests killing folks...because I'm pretty sure most faiths are opposed to murder/killing on principle...

Absolutely opposed to murder on principle.  (And if I really want to start a fight, I say, "What is it that constitutes life, again?")

Can't equate murder with killing, however.  Generally speaking, sides that fight their wars by using harsh langauge against folks who shoot to kill don't fare very well.

Also don't equate capital punishment with murder.  One is conduct by an individual, the other is conduct by a society.  The two play by different rules.  (Great.  Now I have to start pulling out why I'm not all that big a fan of capitalism.)

Ultimately, there *IS* a logic behind the belief.  It is not as simple as many other things are.  I guess I tend to regard it the way I regard taxes:  a necessary evil, but one that must be carefully watched and controlled responsibly by society as a whole.

Not sure what taxes have to do with it - or what point you are trying to make - but here's a very specific point i'll spell out for you.

There are people who think that my mother SHOULD BE KILLED because she will perform what's declared legal in this country - and they use YOUR BIBLE to justify it.

There's using religion to hep you form your own world view  - there's those who are too weak willed to think for themselves and will just do what they think the bible tells them to without thinking about it - and then there are those who will BEND the bible to their own ends to manipulate folks - and sadly - those are the ones who are the most powerful in religions.

Only thing that angers me more quickly than politics is religion discussion.

I live in a country where it's 'first' amendment talks about how religion is supposed to stay separate and yet it's influence is insidious throughout our nation from the influence on the idiotic 'marriage' issue to caring what church a politician attends - and people making important decisions in terms of leadership based on only one issue that is more influenced than religion than common sense or practicality.

[Joe Vancil]

My favorite pizza place in town had a fire - and when they rebuilt the building it was some sort of young republicans reagan center, so i lost my favorite pizza place AND got a 'monument' to a mediocre actor who conned the country for 8 years.

...and the Taliban is partly responsible for getting the new Babylon 5 show cancelled.  BOMB THEM INTO THE STONE AGE!

[jemagee]

Well I personally believe that the reagan folk made a dal to keep those folks hostage until after reagan won the election so he could use it to beat carter...i personally think carter was one of the few presidents in my life who had the balls to be honest with the american people and tell them how fracked up this country really is.

They made a deal with another government BEFORE they were in power? Never thought of that. That's like Bush planned 9-11 type stuff.

I always just thought Reagan was the beneficiary of good timing.

Two entirely different issues (though if you think about it, FDR knew that pearl harbor was coming...but he needed to get out of the depression, nothing works like a war).

I was only 8 at the time - but didn't the hostages get released on the day of Reagans inauguration?

The concept of an envy from the reagan camp saying 'keep em until after the election and we'll give you some money after the election' is a lot different than organizing the destruction of the twin towers.

You don't think back door deals are made all the time in politics that play themselves out publicly in a way to mislead the public on the true motivation of why this thing happened?

Again, maybe it's just being jaded and cynical since i was 8