Who has the best shot at the democratic nomination?

[Squiggy]

I'd bet there are actually more democrats here then republicans. For some reason they just don't seem to speak up.

Hard to blame them when nothing short of extreme right wing views seem to be acceptable in this forum.

Better than extreme communist views.

Heres how sincere his fucking apology was...Fuck him. I'm outta here.

 

[unclehobart]

I'd bet there are actually more democrats here then republicans. For some reason they just don't seem to speak up.

Hard to blame them when nothing short of extreme right wing views seem to be acceptable in this forum.

Better than extreme communist views.

Heres how sincere his fucking apology was...Fuck him. I'm outta here.

Hope you just mean the thread and not the boards.

 

[MitchSchaft]

Hope you mean the thread, too. We need more Marines around here . I'm as close as they're gonna get and I didn't even make it outta bootcamp.

 

[HeXp£Øi±]

You see RD_151, this is a great starting place for you and i. Because like you i believe the economy is in trouble. The market is a forward looking indicator. That's a bad sign. But it's not the only bad sign, red flags are everywhere. The market has never gone down three consecutive years not even during the great depression. As if this within itself wasn't bad enough, it's very likely a sign as well. I traded right through the bubble and i'm still strading. The market has it's ups and downs. But even though i fear what the future holds for our economy, my greater fears are for that of human life around the world.

 

[Jeslek]

Hope you mean the thread, too. We need more Marines around here . I'm as close as they're gonna get and I didn't even make it outta bootcamp.

Give me a few years...

 

[MitchSchaft]

But you're thinking of going officer grade, that's different .

 

[Jeslek]

But you're thinking of going officer grade, that's different .

And?

 

[unclehobart]

He can still be a maverick officer and do traditional boot for grunts while an undergrad and not have to take the teasip version for officers as a postgrad.

 

[Jeslek]

I'd rather do the harder version of whatever you two are talking about.

 

[Gonz]

I'd rather do the harder version of whatever you two are talking about.

Don't bet on it. That's some tough shit.

 

[RD_151]

HeXp£Øi±,

I share your fear about human life. I worry that recession or worse yet, depression will make all of this a moot point soon. I further worry that actions in the middle east, "preemptive ones" could lead to a general war in the region, and possibly the world. Ok, if some evidence can be put out there to implicate Iraq in 911 I can see that it could be justified. In the absence of that, I would say it couldn't. I won't lie to you though, I believe he was involved, but "proving" it is another matter. It needs to probably be proved that Iraq was involved. Preemption is not the answer. I worry what will happen in India and Pakistan when this happens, or Taiwan and china (ok, bad example, tawain doesn't have a chance), but you get my point. Its a really bad precedent to set. Preemption is not a good idea. Tie them to 911, them bomb the hell out of them, I can support that, but thats probably the only way I would go along with it.

AS for the markets, there are many frightening articles at the Economist. They stated that world markets have already fallen more (percentage wise) than during the Great Depression. Looking at Japan, I sit and wonder. Who could imagine 10 years of that shit over there? What if it happens here, in Europe, through out the world? Iraq is a small issue in comparison to this (assuming of course they are incapable of nuking NYC or something to that effect).

I don't know, I need more "proof" that they are a "threat" or guilty of conspiring in the events of 911.

 

[MitchSchaft]

If you think regular boot is hard, I've heard OCS is worse .

 

[Gonz]

WHy does the war in Iraq have to be directly tied to the war on terrorism? saddam runs a rogue, dangerous dictatorship. He's pissed on the UN for 11 years. He has & uses WMDs. He's aspiring to have nuclear arms. He sends Palestinian "martyrs" families $25,000. per homicide bombing. He is a brutal, evil ruler who is starving his people. He supports terrorism. He allows them to train, recruit & reside in his country. He is terrorism, personified. Take Iraq & Iran out of the picture & suddenly there's very few places to run.

 

[Jeslek]

I'd rather do the harder version of whatever you two are talking about.

Don't bet on it. That's some tough shit.

I'm tough. Or I will be. whatever. I wanna at last try it.

 

[HeXp£Øi±]

RD
Gonz made an important point
WHy does the war in Iraq have to be directly tied to the war on terrorism?
Answer: It doesn't. Even if we were to sink into a depression, i still wouldn't see it as a moot point. Yes we are facing a general war in the region. But do you actually think that by waiting and letting Saddam get his Nuclear weapons things are going to get any easier? Saddam sees himself as the leader of the islamic world as as the destroyer if Israel. Do you have any idea what's going to happen if he even comes up with one nuclear device? It would then be his tool to threaten the US and Israel even more. In his view, it would be a vice. Surely the united states would never dare challange him if ha had a weapon of such power. Guess what? Israel will. And if that happens it's going to be far uglier then you can imagine because the rest of the Arab nations will get involved. You say you read the Economist, then you should know that even they've seen this coming for some time. It's going to happen one way or the other. Why do you think saddam has forgone $140,000,000,000.00 (research it if you don't trust my numbers) a year in oil revenues for eleven years? He must want something pretty badly to pay that price. And if it's that important to him, then just what are his plans for it? Another point, what country in the history of the world has come as far as he has with a nuclear weapons program only to stop. None. Things aren't going to get better by waiting, only more dangerous. India and pakistan will always be there and both will only become more powerful and as far as i'm concerned we're extremely lucky to have Musharraf leading Pakistan at this time. Depression sounds bad, but i can picture worse.

 

[RD_151]

Yeah, I can picture worse too. I don't know man. Its an ugly situation. I understand what you are saying, but its kind of a no win situation. You can't stop proliferation everywhere. Which is what we will eventually need to do. Its not possible, and thats a scary thought. Iraq is only one of many. If only it was so simple as bombing anyone who is close to building a nuke, its not. I wish it were, that would make it simple, but it just isn't so simple. Yes, Israel will be the one to turn the middle east into a glass factory, not us, but its not a matter of if, but rather when. I realize that, and I think you probably do as well.

 

[HeXp£Øi±]

I really don't think we'll have to. Iran is a glass house. If Iraq turns into some form of legitimate government be it democracy or not, i think Iran will roll over within about five years. Nothing says we'll have to take this same action again & again.

You can't stop proliferation everywhere. Which is what we will eventually need to do.

All due respect, i think this is a false presumption. We(the US) have always spoken out against nations seeking weapons of mass destruction including communist and radical Arab states but we've always allowed them to continue these programs while stopping short of violence. Instead we talk and enforce economic sanctions. Now here's where we come down to personal interpretation. I don't believe that because Bush uses Iran, Iraq and North Korea in the same breath that he intends on dealing with them all in the same fashion. Iraq is the only one to use chemical weapons on civilians and repeatedly threaten and attack it's neighbors. Not to mention the fact that the sanctions that we've put on Iraq have resulted in the death of a million people. And don't think that this blood doesn't weigh heavy on the shoulders of US poloticians regardless of whether or not they are directly responsible. People want these sanctions to end. Of course, this point you'll never hear in the media, God forbid anyone present the idea that our leaders might actually have a heart and might be concerned about human suffering. Personally i don't think the presidents plan of aggression extends to Iran and beyond. If the war extends beyond Iraq it will be because either a: Iraq attacks Israel so Israel responds.
or b: Hezbollah starts lobbing ammunition into Israel(sensing thier ultimate destruction) and so Israel responds by attacking Lebanon AND Iran for supporting Lebanon.

 

[ris]

The foreigners haven't chimed in yet. Wait 'til ris starts in. If you like the left side, then they're the guys for you.

Don't forget Luis and Leslie. Them socialists love high taxes, total government control power, Big Brother, redistribution of wealth, work quoats (Luis), and all that shit.

i have no comments to make on the next democrat electo-whatsit as i have no idea who or what they are standing for. as for my views on the rest of this thread, when i see something i wish to comment on i will, until then i can survive happily without being attacked for having a contrary view.

i would kindly suggest that lastlegionary, having spoken to me for a few hours on my opinions, is my spokesman on politics from now on. he clearly knows all my views, can generalise me to a screaming uber-socialist and save me the hassle of bothering to post.
unc is right on the complexity of peoples views and seeing my opinions reduced to 3 lines gives me even less incentive to post to this thread.

 

[Leslie]

The foreigners haven't chimed in yet. Wait 'til Ris starts in. If you like the left side, then they're the guys for you.

Don't forget Luis and Leslie. Them socialists love high taxes, total government control power, Big Brother, redistribution of wealth, work quoats (Luis), and all that shit.

Why dont you ask them what they like instead of telling them what they like? Just because someone speaks or rather stiff left or right views doesnt mean that they accept 100% of the party line pamphlet. One may be leftist and yet pro military. One may be rightist and despise religion. One may be left and love free enterprise. One may be right in an ecconomic sense and yet be left in a social sense. Theres a whole curve in there to play with.

Why don't you ask questions before you make statements? I have had looooong MSN chats with the respective parties and I know what they like and don't like, hence I don't argue with them anymore because all points are moot. All that I stated is accurate and I have the log files to back it up.

WTF??!!

 

[Leslie]

btw, thank you, unc