The Enlightenment show has e-mail from WA and it is about Hillary Clinton?

Author	Comment
99percenter		#11	[url]	[-]
Posts: 22 04/28/08 11:33:45	Quirky, I like your enthusiasm but not your motives or methods. It seems you have posted basically identical content to the CFI board. Barack Obama - ignoring gays and atheists? http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/3967/ Hillary Clinton / Barack Obama - Who respects atheist rights? http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/3966/ There are no rules against that, but it makes you look like a human spam machine, rather than someone who is interested in sincerely discussing the merits of the candidates. In another thread, AndysCatHouse posted some commandments from Robert Price about how to run a discussion group. The third commandment is "Thou shalt avoid politics like the plague!" I don't see why that should be necessary, but perhaps Price has wisdom that we have yet to learn.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
QuirkyAndSuch		#12	[url]	[-]
Posts: 10 04/28/08 15:20:13	99percenter wrote: Quirky, I like your enthusiasm but not your motives or methods. It seems you have posted basically identical content to the CFI board. Barack Obama - ignoring gays and atheists? http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/3967/ Hillary Clinton / Barack Obama - Who respects atheist rights? http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/3966/ There are no rules against that, but it makes you look like a human spam machine, rather than someone who is interested in sincerely discussing the merits of the candidates. In another thread, AndysCatHouse posted some commandments from Robert Price about how to run a discussion group. The third commandment is "Thou shalt avoid politics like the plague!" I don't see why that should be necessary, but perhaps Price has wisdom that we have yet to learn. Actually, you'll notice I put that up after I had sent my letter and it was put on this forum. I thought it was a really good idea, and decided to put it on another forum I knew about. It's all post marked so you can see that I put it on afterwards. And there's a ton of other content, like Hillary's stronger stance on science than Obama. Or the way I feel about his lack of diplomatic skills due to his ability of taking something innocent (bitter remarks, punishement remarks) and making it offensive. Like, I was saying that I felt that if he'd make mistakes like that when talking to Americans I felt that he might might say something not intended in insult another country, possibly an ally, and offend them. There are a lot of reasons I support her.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
QuirkyAndSuch		#13	[url]	[-]
Posts: 10 04/28/08 15:31:18	AndysCatHouse wrote: This is a good conversation. Keep it clean. I need to hammer out these points. Of course, I want to win over \ McCain and I know the Coulters, O'Rilleys, and Rushes are afraid of Barack. (Sean Hanity is bitching on fox about the Time Magazine cover promoting "global warming ALARMISM" with a "green tree" instead of the flag of our fathers from Iwo Jima). These people are going to destroy the world with their blind ideology. This is a symbol of respect equating the struggle, not a diss to our veterans. This is ad hominem reporting rather than the actual issues. Are people really this stupid?) Hillary Clinton was for the war, like most. Somehow Barack didn't listen to the powerful war and fear drum. I am impressed if what he says is true, that he is not paying attention to special interest. I am worried as I said before about Government protectionism. I'm actually pretty moderate socially and economically. I feel that although the war was a mistake due to the lack of intelligent leadership, it did have good potantial at the time. If we had an intelligent leader I feel that we could have done much more while working with Iraq. We have done some thing ... created democracy, created a free media, rid Iraq of a dictator. I mean, there really was potential there, we just had an idiot as a president and he turned the whole thing into a disaster. So I don't judge her vote for the war harshly. Besides, even Kerry voted for it. Back then things were less clear, and it wasn't obvious that Bush mislead people like it is today. And I just don't trust Obamas ability to work with the military. He actually wants the US to disarm ourselves, and get rid of our most powerful nuclear weaponry. But has he ever thought about what would happen when we do? That would just leave us more vulnerable to an attack. I feel that having those weapons gives us political leverage and deter countries such as North Korea from attacking us. I just don't trust him making these choices. He's not realistic enough about the world.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
agnohumanist		#14	[url]	[-]
Posts: 88 04/28/08 19:30:13	The war had "good potential at the time"? Are you serious? The one "potential" that is absolutely certain when you launch a modern war is that about 90% of the casualties will be innocent civilians, in many cases at least hundreds of thousands. That is certainly true in Iraq. "Good potential at the time"??!! Good potential to line the pockets of the defense industries, many of which are huge contributors to Clinton's campaign. (To be fair, maybe Obama's too--have to check on that. Wouldn't be surprised. I know they didn't contribute to Kucinich, and that's one reason I supported him.)
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
QuirkyAndSuch		#15	[url]	[-]
Posts: 10 05/01/08 12:53:21	agnohumanist wrote: The war had "good potential at the time"? Are you serious? The one "potential" that is absolutely certain when you launch a modern war is that about 90% of the casualties will be innocent civilians, in many cases at least hundreds of thousands. That is certainly true in Iraq. "Good potential at the time"??!! Good potential to line the pockets of the defense industries, many of which are huge contributors to Clinton's campaign. (To be fair, maybe Obama's too--have to check on that. Wouldn't be surprised. I know they didn't contribute to Kucinich, and that's one reason I supported him.) We've gotten rid of a dictator that killed (and would continue to kill) even more people than the wars casualties overall. We also created a democracy with a free press and elections that give citizens voting rights. The government is building up and being expanded to include more and more public duties. I feel that under the proper leadership this could have gone much better than it did.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Theo Doersing		#16	[url]	[-]
Posts: 32 05/01/08 18:11:45	Last time I checked (several years ago) we had over 24,000 nuclear weapons in all shapes and sizes, and that was before we started testing our nukes again. There are over 200 countries in the world. That is over a 100 nukes per country. How many do we need? How many does it take for a global winter fallout? How long are our oldest ones stable? How long can we maintain control of 100% of our weapons and radioactive parts? I would hate to end up like the former USSR and have a firesale to the highest bidder and lose track of our inventory.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Skeptigator	Obama manifesto	#17	[url]	[-]
Posts: 158 05/05/08 09:48:53	Sorry for the delay, I was in teh Bahamas, honestly, not thinking of any of you. Pina Coladas and Kalik have that effect on me ;) Tyler/Quicky, My reply wasn't meant to be rational just snarky. I thought I made that clear in the post but you are new and I doubt you'll stick around but that's OK. Despite my obvious wit I do enjoy others opinions even if they are heavily spun. I think the regulars on the forums have already made many of the same points I would already have made so I won't belabor those points but just let them stand. I will tell you why I am (at this point, and my opinion may change by tomorrow a.m.) going to vote from Obama in the primary. There are 3 fundamental issues in this election for me: 1) It's entirely likely in the next 4-8 years that one or more Supreme Court justices will retire and it will likely be Ginsburg. It is crucial that McCain not make it into office and appoint another ideologue like Scalia. It is excruciatingly important that that not happen. Clinton/Obama as president will likely ensure that this doesn't happen. [1 point to Obama and 1 point to Clinton] 2) The President carries little legislative power beyond the Veto and his/her ability to set the legislative agendas (which is important for things like health care, stem cell research, etc.) I see Clinton/Obama hold roughly equal positions although I see Clinton being a little more veto-happy but that's not necessarily a bad thing [1 point to Obama and 1 point to Clinton] 3) The President of the United States of America (Team America, Fuck Yea!!!, movie reference sorry) does however set the "tone" for the entire country. This affects so many things from legislation to the political discourse to the kinds of topics covered in the media. For a woman or a black man to take office this will be an extremely different aspect to the "feeling" of this country. [1 point to Obama and 1 point to Clinton], however, if Clinton is elected we will likely have the Presidency of this country in the hands of 2 families for a quarter of century. This smells like a dynasty. It reeks of political insider-ism. I don't believe that this will be the right tone for this country. We can see clearly with the Bush administration exactly what this insider/cronyism will get you, Rumsfeld/Cheney. In my opinion, Barack Obama will set the best tone for the country. It will be resounding statement that people are tired of business as usual. [1 point for Obama] So according to my arbitrary point system Obama wins by a point. From a policy standpoint I don't see any radical differences between the 2 candidates, from the standpoint of the image that the President of this country puts forward to the world and to ourselves, Obama wins. Is this emotional, perhaps. Is it based on specific policy, not really. Will the Republicans work with Hillary or Obama better? I could make arguments either direction. What does the President say about the way this country sees itself and what image do we want within the internation community, that's the issue, for me. If you disagree then you are wrong (that's humor). Honestly if Clinton is the Dem candidate I'll still vote for her but she just isn't my first candidate. At least this year we don't have a choice between a Turd Sandwich and a Douchebag (I'll let you decide which one was Bush and which one was Kerry). "The only winning move is not to play" - Joshua
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Skeptigator		#18	[url]	[-]
Posts: 158 05/05/08 10:03:03	Oh and Theo, that avatar is seriously wrong on so many levels. Could you please find something less disturbing like someone torturing a cat or an open wound. Sorry my last post was too serious. "The only winning move is not to play" - Joshua
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
QuirkyAndSuch		#19	[url]	[-]
Posts: 10 05/07/08 08:22:05	Well skept, I've actually taken the time to look at every policy and ideological difference between the two, and that did take a lot of research ... so I didn't really have a lot of time to think about the "tone" of the person. I was also too busy checking the actual records of the candidates, so again, no time to look at this magic aura that Obama has or pretend that the Clintons are a dynasty when they have been elected, which is totally democratic. But I will tell you that if you actually take the time to look at policy differences Obama pales in comparison. But don't be surprised when you find out that Obama actually once voted for the gas tax he's now pretending is pandering because Clinton is supporting it. And don't be surprised then you find out that he's planning to cut a major amount of money from NASA when he's elected. But, whatever. He has the magic aura, and the tone really matters.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
neuralgourmet		#20	[url]	[-]
Posts: 64 05/07/08 09:00:26	QuirkyAndSuch wrote: Well skept, I've actually taken the time to look at every policy and ideological difference between the two, and that did take a lot of research ... so I didn't really have a lot of time to think about the "tone" of the person. I was also too busy checking the actual records of the candidates, so again, no time to look at this magic aura that Obama has or pretend that the Clintons are a dynasty when they have been elected, which is totally democratic. But I will tell you that if you actually take the time to look at policy differences Obama pales in comparison. But don't be surprised when you find out that Obama actually once voted for the gas tax he's now pretending is pandering because Clinton is supporting it. And don't be surprised then you find out that he's planning to cut a major amount of money from NASA when he's elected. But, whatever. He has the magic aura, and the tone really matters. Whatever the differences are between Obama and Clinton, and from my standpoint those differences are neglible, they don't really matter much now. Unless there are a lot of backroom deals cut at the convention, after yesterday, Obama is the presumptive nominee. Mind you, I worked for the Bill Clinton Presidential campaign in 1992. Bill Clinton was not my first choice as a nominee then, just as Hillary Clinton is not my first choice now (Edwards was my pick). But after 12 years of Reagan/Bush I didn't care who got the nomination, so long as they got elected. Perhaps I should have cared more because 8 years of Clinton was pretty bad on a lot of fronts. Still, it wasn't as bad as if Bush had continued in office and I was proud of the work I did for the Clinton campaign and I would enthusiastically support Hillary if she gets the nomination. The thing is that both Clinton and Obama are neoliberals. Obama cloaks his neoliberal positions in rhetoric better, that's all.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

The Enlightenment show has e-mail from WA and it is about Hillary Clinton?

Quick Reply