Do You Feel Safer?

[Peikko 1,575]

Rush running for president would be so American Idol, it might be quite fun to watch

It might actually make the American people decide to change the electoral system for something that works - that would be a result.

it does work.

It does? So, does that mean that this time around the best man for the job got elected?

so why do you hate obama?

I don't think he was the best guy for the job - and I do think the system is very flawed. My position is - consistent It's yours that seems ###### up.

Edited May 1, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Bush campaigned almost exclusively on the War on Terror and "Social issues".

Kerry's campaign focussed on the illegitimacy of the war Iraq and that more attention needed to be given to Domestic policy (jobs, the economy and healthcare).

In hindsight he wasn't wrong.

I don't think he was the best guy for the job - and I do think the system is very flawed. My position is - consistent

I think he was the best from what was on offer - McCain/Palin would have been an abyssal mistake.

[scandal 951]

Rush running for president would be so American Idol, it might be quite fun to watch

It might actually make the American people decide to change the electoral system for something that works - that would be a result.

it does work.

It does? So, does that mean that this time around the best man for the job got elected?

so why do you hate obama?

I don't think he was the best guy for the job - and I do think the system is very flawed. My position is - consistent It's yours that seems ###### up.

Of course it's flawed. It was designed by mortal men who knew they were making a "government of the people, by the people, for the people". They had no illusions about it's lack of perfection, and the lengthy constitutional debates and near inability to get it ratified by the states proved how doubtful people were about this highly flawed system of government.

The truly amazing thing is how well it's actually worked for the past 200+ years.

[Ban Hammer 13,365]

Rush running for president would be so American Idol, it might be quite fun to watch

It might actually make the American people decide to change the electoral system for something that works - that would be a result.

it does work.

It does? So, does that mean that this time around the best man for the job got elected?

so why do you hate obama?

I don't think he was the best guy for the job - and I do think the system is very flawed. My position is - consistent It's yours that seems ###### up.

really? i have lots of faith in the wisdom of the founding fathers for putting the electoral system in place. are you still peeved about that revolutionary war, is that why you're so disgruntled?

[The_Dude 1,142]

Did you even pay attention to his campaign? It wasn't Kerry who made any mention of his military career. It was Bush, errr Rove's attack squad, Swiftboat Vets who made the claims about his military career, who by the way, none of them served with Kerry, or were even stationed near him. It was a classic hit job with no factual basis. One of the cornerstones of Rove.

Were you in this country during 2004? Kerry's entire campaign had the following memorable moments:

-One of Kerry's crewmembers actively campaigned against him. He was on the boat. Most of his unit opposed him because of his anti-war activities later on.

-Kerry went to Vietnam in 1968 but Bush didn't (nevermind almost no one was going TO Vietnam while Nixon was pulling troops out)

-Kerry opening words at the DNC with a stupid salute- "I'm John Kerry and I'm reporting for duty".

-The Swift Boat going around Boston Harbor.

-Kerry throwing his ribbons away as the anti-hero in 1971 and keeping the medals calling himself a hero in 2004.

-The fake documents on Bush from 1972 with Microsoft font.

-Kerry's 1971 speech and his phony "Winter Soldiers" Congressional hearing (some never served in Vietnam) used by the North Vietnamese as propaganda.

-Kerry claiming he was going to rebut the Swift Boaters and never did.

-He was booed at his own convention for wanting to increase the size of the military.

Lastly, Kerry never had another issue and there wouldn't have been a Swift Boat group if Kerry hadn't made it his sole issue. Can you recall any other major issue in Kerry's campaign?

His entire campaign was not based around his service. He might have alluded to it, but never did he come out and say that he was more qualified to be the commander in chief because of it. There were members who were his commanding officers, who coincidentally wrote glowing reviews of him before his campaign. However, none of them actually served with him, in battle. I'm no Kerry apologist, but lets at least get it straight. I do agree that he should have issued some rebuttal, or at least try to dispell their accusations. He would privately say that they were full of themselves, but publicly he remained silent. I read that his strategy there was that if he talked about it, he would keep it in the news, and perpetuate their lies. He was hoping it would just die down if he didn't address it. He guessed wrong I suppose.

[Peikko 1,575]

Rush running for president would be so American Idol, it might be quite fun to watch

It might actually make the American people decide to change the electoral system for something that works - that would be a result.

it does work.

It does? So, does that mean that this time around the best man for the job got elected?

so why do you hate obama?

I don't think he was the best guy for the job - and I do think the system is very flawed. My position is - consistent It's yours that seems ###### up.

really? i have lots of faith in the wisdom of the founding fathers for putting the electoral system in place. are you still peeved about that revolutionary war, is that why you're so disgruntled?

So then you do think not only that Obama is the is the best president we could have right now but presumably also that you believe the Democrats should have the majority in the House and the Senate and that being the case it is Obama's and the rest of the majority partie's elected duty to implement the policies that they were elected on?

Edited May 1, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[Peikko 1,575]

Presumably then, whatever direction the Democrats take the US in is perfectly acceptable and proper because they are the elected majority, even if that does mean some 'socialization'?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Presumably then, whatever direction the Democrats take the US in is perfectly acceptable and proper because they are the elected majority, even if that does mean some 'socialization'?

A mere 'majority' doesn't let you do whatever you want. We're a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Did you even pay attention to his campaign? It wasn't Kerry who made any mention of his military career. It was Bush, errr Rove's attack squad, Swiftboat Vets who made the claims about his military career, who by the way, none of them served with Kerry, or were even stationed near him. It was a classic hit job with no factual basis. One of the cornerstones of Rove.

Were you in this country during 2004? Kerry's entire campaign had the following memorable moments:

-One of Kerry's crewmembers actively campaigned against him. He was on the boat. Most of his unit opposed him because of his anti-war activities later on.

-Kerry went to Vietnam in 1968 but Bush didn't (nevermind almost no one was going TO Vietnam while Nixon was pulling troops out)

-Kerry opening words at the DNC with a stupid salute- "I'm John Kerry and I'm reporting for duty".

-The Swift Boat going around Boston Harbor.

-Kerry throwing his ribbons away as the anti-hero in 1971 and keeping the medals calling himself a hero in 2004.

-The fake documents on Bush from 1972 with Microsoft font.

-Kerry's 1971 speech and his phony "Winter Soldiers" Congressional hearing (some never served in Vietnam) used by the North Vietnamese as propaganda.

-Kerry claiming he was going to rebut the Swift Boaters and never did.

-He was booed at his own convention for wanting to increase the size of the military.

Lastly, Kerry never had another issue and there wouldn't have been a Swift Boat group if Kerry hadn't made it his sole issue. Can you recall any other major issue in Kerry's campaign?

His entire campaign was not based around his service. He might have alluded to it, but never did he come out and say that he was more qualified to be the commander in chief because of it. There were members who were his commanding officers, who coincidentally wrote glowing reviews of him before his campaign. However, none of them actually served with him, in battle. I'm no Kerry apologist, but lets at least get it straight. I do agree that he should have issued some rebuttal, or at least try to dispell their accusations. He would privately say that they were full of themselves, but publicly he remained silent. I read that his strategy there was that if he talked about it, he would keep it in the news, and perpetuate their lies. He was hoping it would just die down if he didn't address it. He guessed wrong I suppose.

As I said Kerry's campaign was more focussed on the "another fine mess he's gotten us into" response to the Iraq invasion and that more attention needed to be paid to domestic policy.

[scandal 951]

Presumably then, whatever direction the Democrats take the US in is perfectly acceptable and proper because they are the elected majority, even if that does mean some 'socialization'?

A mere 'majority' doesn't let you do whatever you want. We're a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.

Correct.

And further, Obama has repeatedly made the point that he wants bipartisan consensus building with Republicans on the Hill. If you want to see an agenda and legislation that encompasses non-Democrat ideas, there's an outstretched hand. All the other side needs to do is take it and not merely be the "Party of No" .

From a practical standpoint, even the Dems are hardly a united party on all issues. There's plenty of concession-making going on between the White House and the Hill, e.g. on things like the "Buy America" provisions in the stimulus package. That was hardly Obama's idea, but House leaders insisted and to get a bill passed sometimes you suck it up.

What the heck is 'soicalization' anyway?

One thing I've noticed in the many years of living in 3 countries - the US, Canada, Israel - is that there's an almost otherworldly aura to certain buzzwords here, 'socialized' being one of them. Ooooohhhhh.... the boogeyman of socialized medicine is out to get us, and life will never be the same! Like, what do you think Medicare is???? Why is it that Canada, Israel and other countries are able to have universal healthcare without the scare of the 'socialzied' boogeyman being right around the corner?

[alienlovechild 75]

His entire campaign was not based around his service.

6 threw out Iraq, health care, jobs. . .but none of the issues were central to his campaign except to say the Democrats wanted a vet to look tough on Iraq. All the issues were there in 2008 (and many other campaigns for years).

He might have alluded to it, but never did he come out and say that he was more qualified to be the commander in chief because of it.

That's not what his supporters said.

There were members who were his commanding officers, who coincidentally wrote glowing reviews of him before his campaign. However, none of them actually served with him, in battle.

Nope. Steve Gardner served on the same boat as Kerry.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200408101318.asp

[The_Dude 1,142]

His entire campaign was not based around his service.

6 threw out Iraq, health care, jobs. . .but none of the issues were central to his campaign except to say the Democrats wanted a vet to look tough on Iraq. All the issues were there in 2008 (and many other campaigns for years).

He might have alluded to it, but never did he come out and say that he was more qualified to be the commander in chief because of it.

That's not what his supporters said.

There were members who were his commanding officers, who coincidentally wrote glowing reviews of him before his campaign. However, none of them actually served with him, in battle.

Nope. Steve Gardner served on the same boat as Kerry.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200408101318.asp

He didn't say it, period. Thats my point.

Steve Gardner, who served on board PCF-44 under Kerry's command in December 1968, as well as part of January 1969

Your derision of him is based upon the testimony of a partisan who by his own admission only spent a couple of weeks with him. I question the motives of the man as well as his integrity. He couldn't attest to anything first hand and it was all suggestion and opinions.

Seriously, we're arguing about Kerry? Thats even more mindless than arguing about Bush

[Peikko 1,575]

Presumably then, whatever direction the Democrats take the US in is perfectly acceptable and proper because they are the elected majority, even if that does mean some 'socialization'?

A mere 'majority' doesn't let you do whatever you want. We're a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.

Whatever you want? No, but pursue policies you were elected on, surely that's expected, no? No democracy that I know of allows the elected majority to do exactly what they wish and all deomcracy's have checks and balances. Very few democracies allow one person to have as much power as an American President.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Presumably then, whatever direction the Democrats take the US in is perfectly acceptable and proper because they are the elected majority, even if that does mean some 'socialization'?

A mere 'majority' doesn't let you do whatever you want. We're a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.

Whatever you want? No, but pursue policies you were elected on, surely that's expected, no? No democracy that I know of allows the elected majority to do exactly what they wish and all deomcracy's have checks and balances. Very few democracies allow one person to have as much power as an American President.

Congress passes law. The President does not.

[scandal 951]

Presumably then, whatever direction the Democrats take the US in is perfectly acceptable and proper because they are the elected majority, even if that does mean some 'socialization'?

A mere 'majority' doesn't let you do whatever you want. We're a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.

Whatever you want? No, but pursue policies you were elected on, surely that's expected, no? No democracy that I know of allows the elected majority to do exactly what they wish and all deomcracy's have checks and balances. Very few democracies allow one person to have as much power as an American President.

I think Randomizer's reference to "not a democracy" was in the sense of a pure (Athenian) democracy, which America certainly is not.

Not all democracies have checks & balances - Athenian democracy was a pure "tyranny of the majority" with no minority protections. That's exactly why the framers of the US constitution departed from that model. The notion of checks & balances started right here, in the good ol' USA.

The American President as originally envisioned has relatively limited powers. Commander in Chief, can veto legislation, stuff like that.

What's interesting is that as the size of the Executive Branch has grown and grown over the years, there's so much MORE power today in the Presidency than ever previously envisioned. And Bush took the notion of Executive Privilege as part of the Patriot Act, War on Terror, illegal (non_FISA) wiretapping, renditions, detentions..... to an incredible extreme, effectively neutering the role of Congress. I think one point you make that is quite valid is how scarily powerful the Executive has become in recent years, and especially under Bush. It will be interesting to see if Obama rolls back some of those Executive Privilege arguments fostered by the Bushies (esp. Cheney).