New and Improved 3-ply election thread...

[ih8music]

that bears in Montana DNA joke is at least two years old.

i found it interesting that when he was railing against "pork" spending and the evils of earmarks, he failed to mention a certain $300M infrastructure improvement project in a certain sub-arctic state of ours. isn't that also a pretty good example?

[explodo]

I don't understand, and this is completely serious, what people mean (John McCain, for example) when they talk about victory in Iraq. Tearing a country apart and then making it stable again isn't victory, especially given that nothing we are doing there now has anything to do with our stated goals. It's an admirable thing to do, of course, but it's not victory. So when he says that in the debate like he's proving a point, am I alone in rolling my eyes?

[mountain bed]

I don't understand, and this is completely serious, what people mean (John McCain, for example) when they talk about victory in Iraq. Tearing a country apart and then making it stable again isn't victory, especially given that nothing we are doing there now has anything to do with our stated goals. It's an admirable thing to do, of course, but it's not victory. So when he says that in the debate like he's proving a point, am I alone in rolling my eyes?

I completely understand what you're saying here man. What, exactly is "victory"? To me, it seems like we never learned the major lesson of Vietnam, and that is "you cannot break the will of the people". We can tear down, we can build back up, but as long as there's one person with a handful of dynamite willing to go into a crowded area and blow things up the war on terror will never truly be won.

 

So what's the choice here? Kill every single person in the country? Of course not. Hey - I'm as clueless as anyone else about how to end this damn thing. It just seems to be a no-win situation.

[viatroy]

I don't understand, and this is completely serious, what people mean (John McCain, for example) when they talk about victory in Iraq. Tearing a country apart and then making it stable again isn't victory, especially given that nothing we are doing there now has anything to do with our stated goals. It's an admirable thing to do, of course, but it's not victory. So when he says that in the debate like he's proving a point, am I alone in rolling my eyes?

 

No, that was the main thing I took away from the debate. McCain is still looking for validation, some kind of honor he didn't get when we lost in Vietnam (another righteous clusterfuck). We swooped into Iraq (because our former friend Saddam was yanking the oil supply chain), destroyed their country, their infrastructure, unemployment is something like 60% ( maybe higher?). American firms took duffle bags of OUR money to "rebuild" using American workers, jobs they either outright didn't do -- or botched. Far from exporting 'democracy (whatever that is anymore), they left the Iraqi's out in the cold -- homeless, hungry, unemployed and understandably angry.

[bjorn_skurj]

Victory in Iraq=an Iraq not an Iranian puppet state. (We could have achieved this by not invading it in the first place.)

[Atticus]

there really should be a literal vc punching bag. I unironically sympathize with the deep-seeded angst that some of you have. I guess I just don't see the same picture and it makes me wonder why. I just don't believe that john's motives are disingenuous. Maybe they are and I'm just blind to it.

[viatroy]

I think he genuinely believes in the macho posturing, so no, not disingenuous.

[Tweedling]

 

Me too!

[John Smith]

I completely understand what you're saying here man. What, exactly is "victory"? To me, it seems like we never learned the major lesson of Vietnam, and that is "you cannot break the will of the people". We can tear down, we can build back up, but as long as there's one person with a handful of dynamite willing to go into a crowded area and blow things up the war on terror will never truly be won.

 

So what's the choice here? Kill every single person in the country? Of course not. Hey - I'm as clueless as anyone else about how to end this damn thing. It just seems to be a no-win situation.

 

They should have learned alesson fromt he balkins. 70 years after these various peoples were tossed together as a country and then had that goverment removed they took all the old prejudices and hatred out on each other. Heck one group was talking about the massacre at the field of the balckbirds which occurred in the 1300's. So whatever we achieve in Iraq even if we leave it totally peaceful may be torn asunder once our "moderating" presence is removed.

[lost highway]

there really should be a literal vc punching bag. I unironically sympathize with the deep-seeded angst that some of you have. I guess I just don't see the same picture and it makes me wonder why. I just don't believe that john's motives are disingenuous. Maybe they are and I'm just blind to it.

 

No you're right. He is most honestly a hawk and portrays himself to be so. John McCain really believes the best way to fix the world is with bullets, military is the beginning and end of his perspective on everything. The only comments he could muster on any other programs is to say that they should be cut. I reiterate for the up-teenth time:

 

How do you get rid of a deficit by continuing tax cuts and furthering military ambitions?

[ikol]

How do you get rid of a deficit by continuing tax cuts and furthering military ambitions?

 

Cut spending. Not that McCain is going to do enough of this to make much difference, but that's the answer.

[Analogman]

Pastors preaching politics?

 

Some 30 pastors across the country will be preaching politics on Sunday in violation of the law. CNN's Jason Carroll reports.

[lost highway]

Cut spending. Not that McCain is going to do enough of this to make much difference, but that's the answer.

 

Fair enough. Cut spending by 9 trillion. Bye bye post office, library, school and hospital.

[SeattleC]

Let's lighten this up a bit:

 

Tina Fey does Palin, Vol. 2

 

 

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/vid...in-open/704042/

[markosis]

/\ insanely funny, equally scary. Its amazing that they took like 50% of Palin's dialogue from the actual interview, and it holds up as a comedy sketch. Scary.

[austrya]

The one part about the bailout was word for word. Funny stuff.

[sweetheart-mine]

the snl "debate" was very, very funny -- i lol'd. i thought they caught the politician-essence quirks of them both, in the end demonstrating mccain tailing off into the spin of the other planet he nowadays seems to choose to be on. very well done, and it almost makes me wish the pre-election phase could go on for a bit longer than it will . . . but not quite.

[bjorn_skurj]

Kristof: McCain more Bushy than Bush

[ikol]

Fair enough. Cut spending by 9 trillion. Bye bye post office, library, school and hospital.

 

I don't know about you, but where I live libraries and schools are owned by local governments. Hospitals are not typically owned by the federal government (with the exception of VA hospitals). That just leaves the post office. It's too bad there aren't privately-owned companies that can be used to mail things.

[sweetheart-mine]

Kristof: McCain more Bushy than Bush

as highlighted in this piece, and in some posts here today, mccain's downfall is that he sees most everything through a militaristic vision, a path of destruction and forceful control. even just as an end unto itself, where does this lead? mccain's view makes him a real throwback in my eyes, and devoid of possibilities for a future world powered mainly by diplomacy and devoid of possibilities for long-lasting communications (even though they might never be complete agreements). no matter what the fallback means are (and they are usually militaristic), if continual, focused, all-out-effort diplomacy -- along with firm stances but without immediate last-resort invasions and bombs -- fails, then i think the world fails, we fail ourselves and others. not only are we no longer a beacon in the world, we are becoming its waterloo. and so i think we must try, much harder than until now, to keep at it and to persuade others of the future that lies there. otherwise, what future, for anyone? mccain keeps saying "country first," but what about "world first"? "country first" is not going to cut it in the long run; we've been doing that for quite a while now, and all it has brought is isolation and well-earned fear of others.

 

i don't understand when people don't put mass violence as only a last resort in their "arsenal." if we end up with a president, as we have now, who is eager to stick our sword in middle-eastern ground in this superficial and extremely prideful way, i think that if bush is not our last president, mccain may well be. the same new-world-order people handle and advise them both. it would be like watching what we are supposedly (told we are) fighting for in iraq swirl right down our own drain. it's crazy.

 

who has the larger vision to see beyond the very old crap and to think and look ahead while leading? you know, i Really Don't Like politicians, but yet another one will be our next president, and i hope it's the one who sees the world through a broader lens and can conceive of many roads to peace, not only the bomb-them-out path. because that's a vicious circle. my friends . . .

[sweetheart-mine]

I don't know about you, but where I live libraries and schools are owned by local governments. Hospitals are not typically owned by the federal government (with the exception of VA hospitals). That just leaves the post office. It's too bad there aren't privately-owned companies that can be used to mail things.

yes, but federal Waste of billions (and soon possibly trillions) of taxpayer dollars leads to less funding for states and districts, and thus taxpayers and their basic services. "Bye bye post office, library, school and hospital" is not as far-fetched as you so glibly make it sound.

[MrRain422]

as highlighted in this piece, and in some posts here today, mccain's downfall is that he sees most everything through a militaristic vision, a path of destruction and forceful control. even just as an end unto itself, where does this lead? mccain's view makes him a real throwback in my eyes, and devoid of possibilities for a future world powered mainly by diplomacy and devoid of possibilities for long-lasting communications (even though they might never be complete agreements). no matter what the fallback means are (and they are usually militaristic), if continual, focused, all-out-effort diplomacy -- along with firm stances but without immediate last-resort invasions and bombs -- fails, then i think the world fails, we fail ourselves and others. not only are we no longer a beacon in the world, we are becoming its waterloo. and so i think we must try, much harder than until now, to keep at it and to persuade others of the future that lies there. otherwise, what future, for anyone? mccain keeps saying "country first," but what about "world first"? "country first" is not going to cut it in the long run; we've been doing that for quite a while now, and all it has brought is isolation and well-earned fear of others.

 

i don't understand when people don't put mass violence as only a last resort in their "arsenal." if we end up with a president, as we have now, who is eager to stick our sword in middle-eastern ground in this superficial and extremely prideful way, i think that if bush is not our last president, mccain may well be. the same new-world-order people handle and advise them both. it would be like watching what we are supposedly (told we are) fighting for in iraq swirl right down our own drain. it's crazy.

 

who has the larger vision to see beyond the very old crap and to think and look ahead while leading? you know, i Really Don't Like politicians, but yet another one will be our next president, and i hope it's the one who sees the world through a broader lens and can conceive of many roads to peace, not only the bomb-them-out path. because that's a vicious circle. my friends . . .

 

Well said. Great post.

[ikol]

yes, but federal Waste of billions (and soon possibly trillions) of taxpayer dollars leads to less funding for states and districts, and thus taxpayers and their basic services. "Bye bye post office, library, school and hospital" is not as far-fetched as you so glibly make it sound.

 

So what you're saying is that the federal government should waste less money, leaving more for state and local governments?

[viatroy]

the snl "debate" was very, very funny -- i lol'd. i thought they caught the politician-essence quirks of them both, in the end demonstrating mccain tailing off into the spin of the other planet he nowadays seems to choose to be on. very well done, and it almost makes me wish the pre-election phase could go on for a bit longer than it will . . . but not quite.

 

 

I know, what am I gonna do for fun after the election?

[viatroy]

as highlighted in this piece, and in some posts here today, mccain's downfall is that he sees most everything through a militaristic vision . . .

 

 

right on sweetheart!

 

So what you're saying is that the federal government should waste less money, leaving more for state and local governments?

 

 

The gov't should waste less on militarism and no bid contracts for the military-industrial-national security feeding trough and spend it on services and infrastructure at whatever level is most appropriate. damn right.