|
I'd like to know as well. Because not only did he sound sexist, he implied that the majority of republicans are sexist. And as a republican, I have to strongly disagree with that statement. Not that I can speak for the majority of republicans, either though...McCain should not have picked the VP candidate that he wanted to screw the most; he should have picked someone who could become president if he died in office. I know this sounds sexist, but I believe that a majority of Americans would prefer a man as "Commander-in-Chief". I know that a majority of Republicans believe this, and they must be asking themselves what the F-Word McCain was thinking. I know he wasn't thinking with his brain...Query: Are you speaking as a Republican or are you presuming to be speaking for Republicans?
I agree, since most of the people on this thread who have identified themselves as Republicans have been supportive of Palin.
I agree, since most of the people on this thread who have identified themselves as Republicans have been supportive of Palin.
She is kinda cute.
Obama has a very realist take on international politics. McCain is of the "Don't talk with our 'enemies'" camp, whereas Obama knows that discussion is a diplomat's most powerful tool, especially with your enemies. McCain has shown himself to be an idealist in his overseas views, putting countries in nice "good" and "bad" categories, and then treating them as such. History is full of situations where countries judge themselves to be "good" and others to be "bad", and then leap into horrible situations. The Crusades, both World Wars, and nearly every other needless conflict was caused by governments that saw themselves as priviledged and unwilling to compromise.Its funny you should mention the world wars.
I thought the second world war was caused because certain countries wanted to take over the world. I also understood that there were people that thought that the best way to deal with Germany was to compromise and that this was in point of fact tried.
Are you in fact suggesting that the second world war could have been avoided if we had only tried a little harder to meet Germany and Japan halfway in their quest for world domination?
I can't speak for him, but for myself: No, probably not. Not *all* war is unnecessary. But look at history; very often wars come down to misunderstandings, pride, or just plain anger, and in fact could have been avoided if both parties had simply made a good faith effort to TALK about their problems. A single counter-example proves nothing.
Edit: removed unneeded snarkiness
FYI: I was rooting for Romney.Hey - we could start 'Pathfinders for Romney - 2012." ;)I'll jump on that Romney bandwagon!
I honestly don't think she's a bad choice though. I've heard a whole bunch of Obama supporters already bashing her for lack of experience.
Uh, huh. Pot, meet kettle.
I'll be honest, I don't understand why people like Romney. He spent most of his time as governor of Massachusetts completely reversing the positions that got him elected and traveling to other states to tell them how crazy his constituents were.
His office was also notoriously unresponsive to constituent concerns.
Sorry, don't see it. Romney on the ticket is the surest way to get me to vote against it... he's not even remotely trustworthy.
- Ashavan
Its funny you should mention the world wars.I thought the second world war was caused because certain countries wanted to take over the world. I also understood that there were people that thought that the best way to deal with Germany was to compromise and that this was in point of fact tried.
Are you in fact suggesting that the second world war could have been avoided if we had only tried a little harder to meet Germany and Japan halfway in their quest for world domination?
You can always count on compromise in foreign policy threads being Godwinned.
There's a time for compromise and a time for no compromise. The time for compromise was at the settlement of WWI. A good settlement there could have potentially prevented WWII in Europe.
Bingo. Godwinned FTL.
Wow...I think you have completely mixed up the definitions of realist and idealist. In my mind, it's the idealist who thinks that if somehow we could all talk to each other we'd be able to work things out and all sit down next to the fire and sing Kum-ba-ya. Obama is most certainly an idealist in this regard. The realist understands that there are horrible people in this world who simply can't...
Not really. An idealist is someone who thinks we can actually solve every problem by diplomacy (James Baker is actually something of an idealist in this sense because he always seemed to think issues could be solved mainly by diplomacy). A pragmatist is someone who's willing to try things to see what actually works, for a variety of end goals. A realist is similar to a pragmatist but who has very specific goals in mind and comes to the conclusion that all that matters is power and survival.
At this point, Obama is more of a pragmatist than McCain since it is McCain.
|
Wow. I actually like a lot of what I see, when I look into her. And I can't stand Joe Biden -- horrible choice on Obama's part, IMO, like saying "no change here!" I might just end up voting Republican after all... or maybe not. They all suck. Can I write in Arlen Specter?
I gotta say, I'm quite dissappointed with Obama's choice of Biden as running mate, too. Then again, I'm not too hip to Palin, either. *sigh*
|
This election, and this thread, have taken some very interesting turns. I am surprised how much "women's issues" are being addressed in this election. Well, maybe not so much, as it is one of those categories that "define us" from cradle to grave. I feel, as a woman, that the question of my rights is put in my face more than men's rights are put in their faces. I think this comes from only being allowed (ugh, I hate that word! Who is doing the allowing?) to vote for the past 88 years, not the "Universal Suffrage" granted men since the Andy Jackson administration. We are "new voters" relatively speaking. Anyway, I think my point is that it is nice to know that people want my opinion and my vote; but that it seems like the opinion they want from me is "where do you stand on your womb? where do you stand on domestic policy?" more than other questions. Or maybe I'm just more sensitive to that. It seems like "being a woman/acting as a woman" is still an issue (some of the posts on this thread have convinced me of that too).
|
Its funny you should mention the world wars.I thought the second world war was caused because certain countries wanted to take over the world. I also understood that there were people that thought that the best way to deal with Germany was to compromise and that this was in point of fact tried.
Are you in fact suggesting that the second world war could have been avoided if we had only tried a little harder to meet Germany and Japan halfway in their quest for world domination?
You can always count on compromise in foreign policy threads being Godwinned.
There's a time for compromise and a time for no compromise. The time for compromise was at the settlement of WWI. A good settlement there could have potentially prevented WWII in Europe.
Hey! I'm not the one who first mentioned the World Wars as evidence of men's failure to compromise with others.
Nevertheless, if you can concede that there is a time for compromise and a time when compromise is wrong, (a point I totally agree with) then all we are left arguing is who can be compromised with and who can't.
Nevertheless, if you can concede that there is a time for compromise and a time when compromise is wrong, (a point I totally agree with) then all we are left arguing is who can be compromised with and who can't.
No. We are left with the choice of who can best understand when is the right time for both.
Secondly, if you didn't think that the republican party would ever nominate a woman, you don't understand the mentality of the conservative wing of the republican party very well at all. You may see the behavior but I suspect that you don't understand the thinking that underlies the behavior.
It's not because she's a woman. But look at her positions:
raised taxes on oil company profits
pipeline contract to Canadian firm
government employee benefits to same-sex couples by blocking an attempt to stop them
And from a state that will offer no real electoral advantage in the presidential race since it's traditionally in the Republican corner anyway and its remote... very remote.
Not a typical choice.
Hence, McCain will be playing up the maverick card with a VP curveball.
Wow...I think you have completely mixed up the definitions of realist and idealist. In my mind, it's the idealist who thinks that if somehow we could all talk to each other we'd be able to work things out and all sit down next to the fire and sing Kum-ba-ya. Obama is most certainly an idealist in this regard. The realist understands that there are horrible people in this world who simply can't ever be reasoned with because they're unreasonable. And the realist approach is to find alternative methods of dealing with those unreasonable psychos.
So, if I understand correctly, in your mind, everyone is neatly and clearly divided into "good guy" or "unreasonable psycho"? I'll admit that I don't find that viewpoint particularly "realistic." Or possibly I'm misunderstanding it? The businessman who is a pillar of the community, pulls his town out of poverty, gives billions to charity, and is a deacon of his church, but also hits his wife one night: is he a good guy? Unreasonable psycho? Or maybe a bit of each?
I agree, since most of the people on this thread who have identified themselves as Republicans have been supportive of Palin.She is kinda cute.
See my earlier post (on this thread) about this point. :(
|
|
Nevertheless, if you can concede that there is a time for compromise and a time when compromise is wrong, (a point I totally agree with) then all we are left arguing is who can be compromised with and who can't.No. We are left with the choice of who can best understand when is the right time for both.
Well as the second argument really hinges for each individual voter on 'who has most agreed with me concerning the first argument,' I'm not exactly sure the arguments are that far apart.
Well as the second argument really hinges for each individual voter on 'who has most agreed with me concerning the first argument,' I'm not exactly sure the arguments are that far apart.Nevertheless, if you can concede that there is a time for compromise and a time when compromise is wrong, (a point I totally agree with) then all we are left arguing is who can be compromised with and who can't.No. We are left with the choice of who can best understand when is the right time for both.
They are not. I just felt that your phrasing could be misinterpreted too easily. :)
Are all NRA members this cute?
Of all Pres/VP candidates, who has the most EXECUTIVE experience?
Obama? none
Biden? none
McCain? none, actually
Palin? She's run a town AND a state. Executive experience- Palin.
PALadIN :)
McCain's pick leaves the media/Dems unable to criticize her without very careful plans...don't say she should stay at home, don't say she shouldn't have had a kid (all be one with special needs that leads to a whole new debate), don't say she should be part of the NRA, don't say her husband should belong to a labor group, etc...
Palin? She's run a town AND a state.
…and five kids! I think her diplomacy skill is just fine.
|
|
Not *all* war is unnecessary.
I know this is unrelated to original subject, however....
I disagree in that I feel strongly that all war is *unnecessary.* The difference is that it is sometimes necessary to enjoin a war. To use an oversimplified example: The expansionism, hostility, and crimes against humanity of the Axis powers was unnecessary. The Allied response, however, was very necessary.
This viewpoint is why I am very pro-military even though I am strongly anti-war.
|
|
Wow...I think you have completely mixed up the definitions of realist and idealist. In my mind, it's the idealist who thinks that if somehow we could all talk to each other we'd be able to work things out and all sit down next to the fire and sing Kum-ba-ya. Obama is most certainly an idealist in this regard. The realist understands that there are horrible people in this world who simply can't ever be reasoned with because they're unreasonable. And the realist approach is to find alternative methods of dealing with those unreasonable psychos.So, if I understand correctly, in your mind, everyone is neatly and clearly divided into "good guy" or "unreasonable psycho"? I'll admit that I don't find that viewpoint particularly "realistic." Or possibly I'm misunderstanding it? The businessman who is a pillar of the community, pulls his town out of poverty, gives billions to charity, and is a deacon of his church, but also hits his wife one night: is he a good guy? Unreasonable psycho? Or maybe a bit of each?
Man...how did saying that some people can't be reasoned with turn into me being a warmonger and thinking that everyone's lumped into a good guy/bad guy pot?
Just because you can't reason with someone doesn't mean there aren't other ways to deal with them besides go to war with them.
But there are plenty of countries whose governments have proved that they just can't be talked to. Burma, for instance won't even talk to us. Half a dozen warlords in Africa - the list goes on. I contend that the idea that all of those problems could be solved by just talking to their leaders is foolishly optimistic.
|
|
Not *all* war is unnecessary.I know this is unrelated to original subject, however....
I disagree in that I feel strongly that all war is *unnecessary.* The difference is that it is sometimes necessary to enjoin a war. To use an oversimplified example: The expansionism, hostility, and crimes against humanity of the Axis powers was unnecessary. The Allied response, however, was very necessary.
This viewpoint is why I am very pro-military even though I am strongly anti-war.
I'm not sure that I would word it that way but I think I agree in principle. :)
|
|
Not *all* war is unnecessary.I know this is unrelated to original subject, however....
I disagree in that I feel strongly that all war is *unnecessary.* The difference is that it is sometimes necessary to enjoin a war. To use an oversimplified example: The expansionism, hostility, and crimes against humanity of the Axis powers was unnecessary. The Allied response, however, was very necessary.
This viewpoint is why I am very pro-military even though I am strongly anti-war.
As Carl von Clauswitz put it "war is merely the continuation of politics by other means." Sometimes to get people to see things your way you need to rely on "aggressive negotiations."
I'm just happy all of the VP selection stuff is over and now we can get down to the final campaigning.
Biden is fine, honestly none of Obama's VP choices were all that thrilling for me. I don't know anything about Palin except what I've read today, but McCain could have picked the very best VP pick of any candidate who ever ran in the entire history of our country and you'd still have ... President McCain. I'll pass, thanks ;)
Exactly my opinion as well.
|
|
As Carl von Clauswitz put it "war is merely the continuation of politics by other means." Sometimes to get people to see things your way you need to rely on "aggressive negotiations."
On that, I think a lot of us agree. Where we (the general "we") tend to differ is where that point is when you've truly exhausted other available options, and have reached the "need" portion of the program.
Edit: also, I think it's important to ensure that "sometimes" doesn't eventually turn into "every time". After all, as they say, when all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Palin looks like a nail?
…former beauty queen…
|
|
…former beauty queen…
Yeah, and I just did some other reading around about her since getting home from work (early, ahhhh ..). Whatever else you'd say about her, she certainly has an interesting background - I think it would be a mistake to underestimate her (edit: as a politician, I mean)!
She's also a Comm/Journalism major. ugh.
Wow ... So a Comm/Journalism major is a bad pick? Color me mildly offended.
Man...how did saying that some people can't be reasoned with turn into me being a warmonger and thinking that everyone's lumped into a good guy/bad guy pot? Just because you can't reason with someone doesn't mean there aren't other ways to deal with them besides go to war with them. I contend that the idea that all of those problems could be solved by just talking to their leaders is foolishly optimistic.
I agree. I didn't necessarily assume you were a warmonger; I only remarked that your post made it seem very much as if you were indeed "thinking that everyone's lumped into a good guy/bad guy pot," and I asked if that was your intent. From your reply, it seems that it wasn't, and that you and I don't actually disagree at all. Which often turns out to be the case, when negotiations are still on the table.
Personally, I feel that both talking and warfare are more apt to be successful when warfare and diplomacy, respectively, are held in reserve rather than ruled out a priori.
Wow ... So a Comm/Journalism major is a bad pick? Color me mildly offended.
She's also a Comm/Journalism major. ugh.
No kidding. It is not like she took Corporate Law.
No kidding. It is not like she took Corporate Law.Wow ... So a Comm/Journalism major is a bad pick? Color me mildly offended.
She's also a Comm/Journalism major. ugh.
Yeah, send a lawyer to Washington ..there's some change ... <sigh>
Hey. How the heck can you guys be Republican and gamers? Didn't you hear what McCain said?! You must be for Obama if you play D&D. In fact, I believe that is a Constitutional Amendment he seeks.FYI: I was rooting for Romney.Hey - we could start 'Pathfinders for Romney - 2012." ;)
Ah! But they did not say "D&Der for Romney"; they are saying "Pathfinders for Romney."
There is a big difference.
Wow ... So a Comm/Journalism major is a bad pick? Color me mildly offended.
She's also a Comm/Journalism major. ugh.
My major was Radio/TV/Film, College of Communication, University of Texas, right alongside all the comm/journalism majors.
Many times, like Psychology, it feels like it's just an Mrs degree to some women.
Ah! But they did not say "D&Der for Romney"; they are saying "Pathfinders for Romney."
There is a big difference.
Oh no! The next phase of the edition wars:
"What's Senator McCain's position on Daily, Per-Encounter, and At-Will powers?"
I keep asking, "If the Realms has a serious threat from a Spellplague, who would you want answering the phone at 3 am?"
Wow ... So a Comm/Journalism major is a bad pick? Color me mildly offended.
She's also a Comm/Journalism major. ugh.
My major was Radio/TV/Film, College of Communication, University of Texas, right alongside all the comm/journalism majors.
Many times, like Psychology, it feels like it's just an Mrs degree to some women.
I don't know, I'm not a Republican, but with Barr at the helm of the Libertarians (to me that makes as much sense as nominating Karl Rove as the Democratic Party's presidential pick) I am leaning more and more to a McCain/Palin vote. Not that it will matter thanks to our wonderful electoral system. My Massachusetts vote is already solidly in Obama's pocket. I have yet to even SEE a presidential ad on TV, the Democrats have this state so sewn up.
I admire a woman who is self made, worked from school committee to governor, while raising five children. I liked her speech, I felt it had a lot going for it. Of course this is just a visceral feeling, who knows what the vetting sh*tstorm the press will unleash on her will uncover. Still it is a canny move by McCain. Better than any other he might have made. I guess a lot depends on how the disaffected Hillary boosters swing in November. Also I like the fact she was a teacher. Perhaps we could get a little more concentration on our school systems.
|
|
I keep asking, "If the Realms has a serious threat from a Spellplague, who would you want answering the phone at 3 am?"Ah! But they did not say "D&Der for Romney"; they are saying "Pathfinders for Romney."
There is a big difference.
Oh no! The next phase of the edition wars:
"What's Senator McCain's position on Daily, Per-Encounter, and At-Will powers?"
Um... Chuck Norris.
Of course, against all reasoning, he was a Huckabee man. :/
|
|
I'm not sure that I would word it that way but I think I agree in principle. :)Not *all* war is unnecessary.I know this is unrelated to original subject, however....
I disagree in that I feel strongly that all war is *unnecessary.* The difference is that it is sometimes necessary to enjoin a war. To use an oversimplified example: The expansionism, hostility, and crimes against humanity of the Axis powers was unnecessary. The Allied response, however, was very necessary.
This viewpoint is why I am very pro-military even though I am strongly anti-war.
Yeah, I'm sure it could be worded better... I'm a tad under the weather right now. :)
|
Well you know what, after watching Obama's acceptance speech, I don't think I would mind if he became president (if he can actually keep his promises), and with Palin as his running mate, I don't think I would mind McCain as our president. Neither are getting my vote (sorry, I believe a man can change his views and until Bob Barr does something to disprove that he's seen the errors of his ways I will put my support behind him) but at least I feel confident that no matter what, the white boys club of washington politics is ending either this year, or in 4-8 (when Palin runs)