Who do you think should be elected in 2008?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by faerie_child

Obama wants to take the troops out of iraq and then put more in afghanistan.

And he wants to put a bunch of troops in Pakistan. He said he wanted to make it a "battlefield," if I recall correctly. Pull out of Iraq and into Pakistan. I don't care much for the strategy. Pakistan is already doing a lot to fight terrorism, and doing what Obama suggests would jeopardize our alliance with the country and destabilize Pakistan, IMO. Which, considering their nuclear capacity, is something we can ill afford.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I hope it's things like education, healthcare and the economy, but war is so much more fun to argue about along with the hotbutton, but much less relevent issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc.

Well, the War on Terror is one of the biggest issues for me. Foreign relations. I still see abortion as probably the single biggest moral issue facing America right now, though, and I wouldn't vote for any candidate who supported its legalization unless those were the only options to pick from.

My vote would tend to depend a great deal on candidates' positions on the "hotbutton but much less relevant issues."

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

When you believe, as I do, that a fetus is a living human person, then abortion is no more an irrelevant issue than is murder, war, or the death penalty.

In fact, I'd argue that it's much more relevant, for it involves about one and a half million people being killed each year in the US. The war in Iraq, horrible though it is, is not at all close to that kind of death toll yet. So I agree, the degree of relevance all depends on whether you view abortion as murder or not.

Originally Posted by faerie_child

I hope education gets a lot more attention towards election time- I went to public school for a few years and it was horrible. We need so much reform there.

You know, I've heard this, but I tend to believe that it's less the system that needs reform than it is the children who enter into it.

I'm homeschooled, so I don't know that much what public school highschool is like. But being homeschooled, our parents taught us values and discipline that has enabled my siblings and myself to do much better at college than most of the people around us. People tend to ask us for help and we tend to excell in our classes. I note as I go into the classes that all the people around me who have come through the public school system have a similar amount of knowledge to that which I have to begin with (in several of the classes, anyway) and have the same course material to go through to succeed. Yet they don't bother. Instead, I see them goofing off and chatting about off-topic things, partying and their social lives.

I tend to think it's because my siblings and I go into the system with a different mindset. I go there to learn and succeed. They don't. And so with college, at any rate, I don't think it's so much about the system as it is about the students who go into it. I've heard bad things about highschool too, though, about education getting dubbed down to the lowest denominator of student, for instance. And about how it is becoming exceedingly politically correct.

So I tend to suspect the problem is less with the system than it is with our current American culture. I know that past generations of Americans were extremely studious and disciplined from youth, and that in earlier generations education fared much better. So I think family upbringing and family values, and cultural values have a very large amount to do with the problem.

[inked]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I'd be interested in hearing what makes Obama so "frightening".

The way it rhymes with "yo' mama".

And, to validate HB, "With a name like (Obama), (he) has to be good."

[faerie_child]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

You know, I've heard this, but I tend to believe that it's less the system that needs reform than it is the children who enter into it.
I'm homeschooled, so I don't know that much what public school highschool is like. But being homeschooled, our parents taught us values and discipline that has enabled my siblings and ...

I thankfully got out of there before I started highschool( I'm homeschooled now). This was a while back, end of elementary school- but it was awful. The older kids start trying to get you into gangs at that age... It wasn't the kids fault either- the teachers weren't adequately prepared and they didn't have enough money. Like you said, it's the mindset you have. I was alway really disciplined when it came to school, but a lot of the other kids don't have that and they never learn it. It's so sad.

[brownjenkins]

I went to public school and I think I turned out okay.

It is all about the parents though. Uneducated parents or educated parents that don't particularly care about their child's education don't do very well at inspiring their kids to learn.

That's why we need public education. And we need a system that spends ten times as much time and money with our children so that those who do not get it at home at least get it somewhere.

[faerie_child]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I went to public school and I think I turned out okay.

It is all about the parents though. Uneducated parents or educated parents that don't particularly care about their child's education don't do very well at inspiring their kids to learn.

That's why we need public education. And we need a system that spends ten times as much time and money with our children so that those who do not get it at home at least get it somewhere.

I'm sure I would've turned out ok, but as a middle class girl in an impoverished school, my parents were concerned.
I agree, a lot of it is the parents. I'm a docent at a museum that does field trips a lot and the kids will be really interested, but the parents won't let them ask questions and touch the interactive displays. It's like they don't care whether or not their kids learn anything, like it doesn't matter to them whether their kids turn out unmotivated.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by faerie_child

I'm sure I would've turned out ok, but as a middle class girl in an impoverished school, my parents were concerned.
I agree, a lot of it is the parents. I'm a docent at a museum that does field trips a lot and the kids will be really interested, but the parents won't let them ask questions and touch the interactive displays. It's like they don't care whether or not their kids learn anything, like it doesn't matter to them whether their kids turn out unmotivated.

My wife does daycare, and I've worked with children's theatre's for years, and it never ceases to amaze me how self-centered so many parents are. And it's not just the impoverished families. It happens in the upper class ones as well.

I have little against homeschooling, except that I think it is important to experience the bad as well as the good while growing up. If you never got teased, and never learned how to deal with a bully, then you haven't really learned how to live in the adult world.

But I think 90% of how a child is going to turn out is their parental experience. Homeschoolers turn out better not because "home schooling" is better, but because the statistics are self-selecting. By definition, someone who is home schooled has parents who care about their child's education. The problem is how to bring education to the children who's parents don't care, or do but aren't particularly good at educating.

That's why good public schooling is a necessity. It's not a question of what is better, but whether a child will get education at all.

[faerie_child]

I agree completely. If my parents hadn't cared about me, who knows what may have happened to me? I love it that my mom cares enough about my education to give me and my younger brother the time it takes to successfully homeschool. If the parents cared about their kids, we wouldl live in a MUCH better world.

[brownjenkins]

It is the key for so much in life. And, while we obviously can't make parents care, or even devise a government system that takes the place of "good" parents, we can provide a system that does a lot to make up for "bad" parents.

What discourages me is the people who refuse to see the other side. Typically those who grew up in good environments and assume that they don't have to spend all their money helping others because they didn't need subsidised daycare, public schools, local youth programs, etc.

It's a blindness of those that have had a very gifted life, and it is extremely hard to open their eyes to the other side. And I don't even think it is because they don't care, it is simply because they can't understand.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

And he wants to put a bunch of troops in Pakistan. He said he wanted to make it a "battlefield," if I recall correctly. Pull out of Iraq and into Pakistan. I don't care much for the strategy. Pakistan is already doing a lot to fight terrorism, and doing what Obama suggests would jeopardize our alliance with the country and destabilize Pakistan, IMO. Which, considering their nuclear capacity, is something we can ill afford.

No, he said that IF the US had solid information on bin Laden's location in Pakistan and IF Musharraf refused to take action THEN the US should do it unilaterally. Do you disagree?

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

When you believe, as I do, that a fetus is a living human person, then abortion is no more an irrelevant issue than is murder, war, or the death penalty.

So, since abortion is murder, presumably you're looking for a candidate that will insist on long prison terms for women who have abortions?

Or are you one of those who believe that abortion is murder but the penalty should be less than for shoplifting?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I imagine you know I'm fully in agreement with you about that; I believe very much in caring for the human person throughout life, and don't care any more than you for the way some people abandon them after birth. However, given my convictions and the rate of abortion, can't you see that for me, abortion would be an even more pressing issue than education?

Yes and no. I think it's a battle that is better fought via other methods: free, universal birth control; attractive options for care and support for those who experience unwanted pregnancies.

Overturning Roe v Wade would just throw it back to the states, which would mean people crossing borders to get them. Making it illegal would just send people out of the country to get them, not to mention the implementation problems Gray eluded to.

Do you charge a young girl with premeditated murder if she is found to have gotten an abortion? What about her boyfriend that may have drove her to the clinic?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

No, he said that IF the US had solid information on bin Laden's location in Pakistan and IF Musharraf refused to take action THEN the US should do it unilaterally. Do you disagree?

He said "high value Al Qaeda targets," by the way, not "bin Laden." Not that I have a problem with that. Hitting high value Al Qaeda targets if Musharraf won't might be acceptable.

Where my problem begins is here:

Originally Posted by MSNBC

The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.

That's not a surgical strike but an invasion, another war. I don't believe that our military can handle that or that Pakistan is the right place to try it. If it must happen, it should be in Iran, not Pakistan. Pakistan could be completely destabilized if we did that. They are our key ally in the Middle East in the War on Terror, and they also have nuclear weapons. We can't afford their disintegration, and that's what might happen if we invaded. We saw Islamic militancy expand its power base in Iraq because of our invasion there- the same thing would happen in Pakistan.

So no, I don't support an invasion of Pakistan, even if the president views it as not doing enough in the War on Terror. Surgical strikes on high value targets are one thing. An invasion is a horrible idea.

Besides, since the battle at the Red Mosque, Musharraf has gone all-out against Islamic militants. There have been at least 200 casualties (I think it was more like 250) since the Red Mosque attack. The fighting is intense and many soldiers are dying.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

So, since abortion is murder, presumably you're looking for a candidate that will insist on long prison terms for women who have abortions?

Or are you one of those who believe that abortion is murder but the penalty should be less than for shoplifting?

Unfortunately, such a candidate's chances of success in today's political climate are zilch. Practicality has to be considered too . That's why if Guiliani and Clinton were the only two options for president, I'd still vote for one of them, even though I disagree with most of what both of them stand for.

[Acalewia]

I just strated keeping with the election stuff. Right now there's too many for me to decide who I would vote for.

[hectorberlioz]

Acally------->>>>>SEE SIGNATURE;-)

Each part of that, "advertisement", if you will, contains a link to a different website about my favorite candidate.

I like Huckabee, personally, but he isn't...very conservative on fiscal issues. He's a good-hearted guy, but very spotty when it comes to policy.

[GrayMouser]

Iowa results in.

Democrats:

Obama 38%
Edwards 30%
Clinton 29%

Big loser- Hillary. While she's got the money and organization to keep going, third place has to hurt.

Republicans:

Huckabee 34%
Romney 25%
Thompson 13%
McCain 13% (just edged out by Thompson)

Big loser: Romney, though it's less of a blow- does make New Hampshire, where McCain has apparently been resurrected, a must win.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Iowa results in.

Democrats:

Obama 38%
Edwards 30%
Clinton 29%

Big loser- Hillary. While she's got the money and organization to keep going, third place has to hurt.

Republicans:

Huckabee 34%
Romney 25%
Thompson 13%
McCain 13% (just edged out by Thompson)

Big loser: Romney, though it's less of a blow- does make New Hampshire, where McCain has apparently been resurrected, a must win.

Edwards and Clinton are still a dead heat, statistically.

It has to be bad news for the country that both candidates who ran to their bases won. We're going to split down the middle like a boiled egg, if this keeps up.

Be interesting to see what the NH brand of crazy turns up. We look to be running right through Super Tuesday. What a waste of resources.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Edwards and Clinton are still a dead heat, statistically.

It has to be bad news for the country that both candidates who ran to their bases won. We're going to split down the middle like a boiled egg, if this keeps up.

How do you figure? Huckabee ran to one of the Republican's bases- the Christian Right- but was scorned by the Grover Norquist tax-cut crowd, as well as the national security hawks- the Republican base is a three-legged stool.

As for Obama, he ran well to the right of Edwards, and in some cases-(social security, health care) even right of Hillary, and based his appeal on 'unity', rising above partisanship, and abandoning those stale old battlegrounds (whether it's as much a crock as Dubbya's "compassionate conservatism" is another matter.)

But so far, from a sample of one, it's working. Obama beat Clinton and Edwards by 32 to 31 to 27 among Democrats. His winning margin came from Independents, especially first-time voters.

Be interesting to see what the NH brand of crazy turns up. We look to be running right through Super Tuesday. What a waste of resources.

Well, I'm not a big fan of the American primary system as a democratic process- but for us outside observers, for sheer sporting spectacle, it beats the World Cup and Super Bowl combined.

Of course, we don't have to live through it...

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

How do you figure? Huckabee ran to one of the Republican's bases- the Christian Right- but was scorned by the Grover Norquist tax-cut crowd, as well as the national security hawks- the Republican base is a three-legged stool.

That's what I meant. Huckabee is of no interest to the "Rockefeller wing" of the Republican party, the ones who have been increasingly marginalized since "The Christian Coalition" started its evil empire building. The Republican base isn't a three-legged stool if it keeps nominating people with a single pole up their...

As for Obama, he ran well to the right of Edwards, and in some cases-(social security, health care) even right of Hillary, and based his appeal on 'unity', rising above partisanship, and abandoning those stale old battlegrounds (whether it's as much a crock as Dubbya's "compassionate conservatism" is another matter.)

But so far, from a sample of one, it's working. Obama beat Clinton and Edwards by 32 to 31 to 27 among Democrats. His winning margin came from Independents, especially first-time voters.

His winning margin came from "first time voters", I agree. I disagree that they were Independent. In this country, you can register as an Independent. These people didn't register before, they went into a really open primary for a single candidate. They could all have been R's in the morning.Why are they here now? Getting out new voters is a good thing, but I'd like to be sure everyone keeps wearing out their shoeleather until the WHOLE election is over. I don't trust people who don't vote, and I think open primaries are an invitation to dirty tricks.

Well, I'm not a big fan of the American primary system as a democratic process- but for us outside observers, for sheer sporting spectacle, it beats the World Cup and Super Bowl combined.

Of course, we don't have to live through it...

True, that. I'm seeing millions of dollars spent on TV ads and donuts for campaign workers. I don't know about you, but I have things I think that money was better spent on.

[hectorberlioz]

*sigh*

On the other hand, I'm not rooting for Clinton. But I don't see this upsetting her for long...well see what happens on Tuesday night.