So who'll it be? Hillary or Obama for '08?

[Masa the Masta]

Obama is currently THINKING about running in the primaries.

Hillary has announced she's gonna do it.

What now? What are your thoughts? If you usually vote Democrat, what exactly would you be voting here?

I'm just curious, because I decided to take a shallow glance at Obama. As the days draw closer to the election, I wanna know more and more about each option.

Obama seems like he's a strong candidate, but is he just all hype? And what about Hillary? Is she also a strong candidate or is she ONLY riding on the successes of her husband's presidency (which often enough is another topic for debate).

I feel like I'm buying into hype, but I like this Obama guy. I wanna know more, see if I'm just being deluded by all the bells and whistles, or is there really a sincerity to the guy?

[ZaichikArky]

Good question. After the SOU today, I was thinking the exact same thing. I think Hillary will unfortunately lose in the primaries. I am rooting for her, but I know it's pretty much hopeless. I still really love Obama, however, so if she loses to him, it's fine : ). I just hope to god we will not have another republican in office next election. I'll be out of the country during the time anyway, but it's still immensely important for the country not to be taken over by another republican -_-.

[Masa the Masta]

I dunno. It's not like I'm anti-republican or anything, just serve me something refreshing. Let's NOT antagonize the dems anymore, lets try to compromise. This is something the country really needs help on, from both sides. The democrats are JUST as guilty of it too. Of course, I think that has to do with the fact that you're the minority party, and for sort of being the party that's just there for decoration for two years while the republicans have their way, I'd probably antagonize a bit too.

Though Obama seems to make it a point that he's willing to work with republicans. I dunno if that's just pretty rhetoric or if he's serious on that one. If he is, then he'd be well on his way on having my vote.

I would consider McCain, honestly.

[ZaichikArky]

You can also... VOTE GREEN!!

Seriously, our last election, I hated both the canidates and voted for Camejo. I knew Schwarzenegger would win by a long shot anyway.

I'm not the biggest fan of McCaine, but as of right now, he's my favorite republican, and it's hard for me to admit that. That's not saying too much, because he's the only republican I've ever liked since long long ago when the parties were the opposite of what they are now(IE long ago repubs were what dems now are and vice versa... this is why Lincoln was a repub..)

by the way, care to explain what treachery the dems have done recently? I'm not trying to be critical, actually, I'm just curious because I don't know what you're referring to.

[Masa the Masta]

Vote Green...? Why..?

That's like throwing your vote away.



...Just kidding, I just felt like giving the usual "don't vote 3rd party!" answer. :box:


by the way, care to explain what treachery the dems have done recently? I'm not trying to be critical, actually, I'm just curious because I don't know what you're referring to.

It's not like just by being Democrat, you're absolved from making mistakes. The Democrats made the mistake of having weak un-charismatic politicians run in the primaries. As I looked at the primaries between Edwards, Kerry and Dean, I wasn't impressed with any of them, and maybe I can attribute this to me being 17 and having the likelihood of not caring about politics enough to make that kind of stance to be all hyped up over something, but that would be a dumb excuse because I can't just assume I was devoid of a political opinion 2 years ago. It's not like suddenly I woke up at age 18 and said, "Hay I'm a moderate lol"

I just feel that STRATEGICALLY, it was the Democrat's fault for being inadequate as politicians in convincing the masses to vote for them in '04, to the point of losing any sort of majority in congress, and in losing the presidential race. C'mon people, your opponent was George Dubuya. It shouldn't be THAT difficult to find candidates more charismatic than him.

[Beowulf]

Hillary won't win because she's a woman. Obama won't win because he's black.

If Hillary wins then the same shit that retard conservatives have been joking about for years will just turn serious, if Obama wins every racist in the nation will mobilize against him.

[ZaichikArky]

Hillary won't win because she's a woman. Obama won't win because he's black.

If Hillary wins then the same shit that retard conservatives have been joking about for years will just turn serious, if Obama wins every racist in the nation will mobilize against him.

The more you post here, the more I think you are the most stupidest flametard I have seen here for a while. I mean it's amusing to troll, but when you're actually serious about it... >_>.

[Azrael]

^Huh? Beowulf does have a point.

Given how vastly unpopular Bush is, I think this is a giveaway election for the Democrats. ...So long as they don't send a total fuck up to the race, which is what they did 3 years ago with Kerry. While I personally would love to see a woman (Hillary) or a black dude (Obama) in office, I don't quite think America's ready for that yet. I fear the Dems would more or less be throwing away an election that's theirs for the taking.

You know, I'd honestly vote Hillary if for no other option than to have Bill as the first husband. Get him back in the White House, that would be awesome. I think though, more than the whole woman angle, what may hurt Hillary the most is her pro-Iraq war stance. America seems to be absolutely sick of this conflict, and I don't think people will warmly recieve a candidate who's willing to keep it going. The woman thing will just hurt her more. Seriously, how many middle aged men do you know of who approve of having a female boss? Do you think those same guys are gonna go out and vote for a female president?

I like Obama and the whole "fresh face in politics" thing. I really do. However, is America ready for a black president (aside from David Palmer - oh, how we miss you David Palmer...)? I don't think so. Especially considering that the gay marriage issue seemed to play a factor in Bush's re-election. I'd have to think that Obama running would polarlize the country, and those good 'ol red states would rally and make it a point to vote against him no matter what.

Though, I think Hillary/Obama do realize that if they're going to make a run, now's perhaps the best chance with Bush and the Republican ticket hurting as much as they are. I'd love to see it happen...I just have my doubts that America's ready.

[Saitou Hajime]

What's with you and finding faults in others tonight, Zaichik?

I don't like Clinton, and know just about nothing about Obama, so I can't say which I would chose as of yet. I'll go with Obama, though, since he's not Hillary.

[Masa the Masta]

Hillary won't win because she's a woman. Obama won't win because he's black.

If Hillary wins then the same shit that retard conservatives have been joking about for years will just turn serious, if Obama wins every racist in the nation will mobilize against him.

I didn't wanna say this, but I also wondered about that. Strong candidates as they may be, it's not like we live in a society COMPLETELY devoid of racism and sexism. I feel that with them running, it's certainly a step in the right direction for these minorities and will help solidify their ability to gain positions of power, I'm just not SURE if America is ready for that yet.

I'm not saying it's IMPOSSIBLE, but if Hillary or Obama lose, I won't be surprised. It's sad though, I really like Obama so far.

You realize if Hillary wins, people who disagree with her will be hit with a blanket statement of being sexist that may or may not apply to them? Same with Obama and racism.

Funny how Japan isn't the only country that hates change. :boggled:


Edit: FUCK, Az. Beating me to the punch. Wtf dude?

[ZaichikArky]

It's not just that one post, it's beowolf's posts in general that piss me off >_>. I don't think most people have been paying attention other than me, so I don't expect anyone to get it.

I disagree with you, Az >_<. I agree with the part about having Clinton back in office, because he has been my favorite president since Carter, however I don't think that by nominating Clinton and Obama it's a clear-cut disaster for the Dems in the least. Even though we have a lot of conservatives in this country, what is more important to realize is that we have a lot of progressives as well. The disaster of the Iraq war has put the Dems on the offensive as of right now and they're going to keep this up. However, if bush's top sekret "new strategy" actually manages to work out, it will not be good.

I think America is ready to have its first black president or female president and disregarding the amount of voting rednecks(which honestly is a low, low number), call me overly optimistic, but I would argue that if you look at the people who actually bother to vote, the majority will look beyond skin color and gender. This will be a factor for some voters, of course, but I just think that we're beyond ready for this kind of progressive politics in this point of our country's history.

EDIT: here is a quote from my republican father which I think may be true. "Hillary Clinton wilL NEVER take office. About 1/3 of the voting population will vote for her no matter what, 1/3 will NOT vote for her no matter what, and then she has that 1/3 to convince. She is not that strong of a candidate to convince the indecisive crowd and will lose" He is convinced that Hillary will never win the '08 election. I disagree with him, but up against Obama? I think that he is a stronger candidate than her...

[Masa the Masta]

Here's to hoping you're right, Zaichi. I'd like for you to be right, I wish that were true, I just feel that America isn't ready for it, even if I am. :box:

[Azrael]

I think America is ready to have its first black president or female president and disregarding the amount of voting rednecks(which honestly is a low, low number),
You're severly underestimating the power of hate.

In order to vote against Hillary/Obama, people who never voted before in their lives would vote. They'd register, vote against Hillary/Obama, and then never vote again. Do you really think mysogynists and racists would just sit around and let what they hate the most rise to the most powerful position in their country?

American's come a long way to be sure, but we're not all the way there yet.

[Masa the Masta]

You're severly underestimating the power of hate.


http://home.att.net/~sl.schofield/star_wars/emperor_palpatine.jpg




Couldn't help it. :rofl:

[MNJetter]

I don't know whether or not America is ready for them, but I am predicting one of the highest voter turnouts ever if we get either one of them in the campaign race. People either want Bush's friends out, or the democrats in, or have a specific opinion about the gender/race of their candidate. In any case, I think people are going to care about the outcome of this election more than they cared about the other ones that have taken place in recent years.

[Firefly]

I have to agree with Az on this one...people who never vote would vote, just so we don't have a black president...

and David Palmer ftw. :P

[ZaichikArky]

You're severly underestimating the power of hate.

In order to vote against Hillary/Obama, people who never voted before in their lives would vote. They'd register, vote against Hillary/Obama, and then never vote again. Do you really think mysogynists and racists would just sit around and let what they hate the most rise to the most powerful position in their country?

American's come a long way to be sure, but we're not all the way there yet.

Also with in regard to MNJ's post, maybe then you're seriously underestimating the power of motivation? I agree that you're right in that rednecks who have never voted before in their lives will vote to keep hillary or obama out of office, but what about the flip side of it? Do you know how many people would vote ONLY because we're voting on the first woman or the first black president? And I really think that it will be much more powerful that redneck politics.

[Angelyne]

Unless something drastic happens or the Democrats find some common sense, they are going to lose in '08.

Some people here underestimate the stupidity of the average American voter. All the Republicans need to do is trot out issues like gay marriage and abortion, trot out new bogeyman like illegal immigrants, remind people that the next President will likely nominate a Supreme Court justice or two, and they will instantly win over the people who vote based on morality. I don't care how elitist that sounds, that's what happened in 2004, and it will happen again.

What is the Dems strategy against this? Hilary and Obama as competition? Like the quote earlier, 1/3 will vote for Hilary, 1/3 of country will refuse to vote against her, and the other 1/3 will need to be convinced. And given how shitty the Democrat marketing committee is (how the FUCK do you lose to George Bush?), I don't have much confidence that they can accomplish that, not after how horribly they botched the 2004 election. Same case as Obama--I don't understand the hype behind this guy and neither do a lot of people that I know personally. Once again, the Democrat marketing machine needs to make us see why this man deserves to be hyped and right now, they are utterly failing at it.

In case you couldn't tell, I'm completely undecided at this point who I will be voting for. Years ago, I would have voted for McCain, but he has become Bush's bitch over the last year or so :meh:

[six-eight-ten]

How about a Clinton/Obama team up as running mates. But who would be the one running for Vice President?

[Y.T.]

Hillary will win..

I know this, since I have read the Transmetropolitan, which had a mention that the lowest approval ratings ever were had by president Rodham when he/she (wasn't specified, but we know) has been caught in Brooklyn fisting kittens ...

Seriously, I think it's time for the US to have Hussein for president (it's Barack Hussein Obama). And then the guy's apparently pretty smart, which isn't a bad thing in a president... considering how shortchanged by Bush has been in that area...

... Seriously. Politics would be far less disgusting if we disenfranchised 9/10 of people, by intelligence.

[Jetsetlemming]

I really don't think there will be people motivated to vote just to prevent a black or woman president. For one, nobody really thinks of the president as their "boss", or their superior. The government's more like a seperate body from the rest of us, occupying the same space. >_> For two, if they were willing to register and vote just to prevent a black or woman, they would register and vote to prevent any democrat/liberal and their affirmative actions and their helping the poor and whatnot. There are plenty of faults the average racist or misogynist could find in a liberal candidate. What WOULD be an issue for this would be the racist democrats who would likely go against their party to avoid Obama.
I personally, wouldn't vote for Hillary. I can't stand a pro-censorship politician, and she's made "protecting the children" one of her main points. :meh: The same thing went for Al Gore (which was really his association with Leiberman, who might as well be Jack Thompson).
For a politician I would vote for.... Rudy Guiliani.

[japanat]

I think America is ready to have its first black president or female president and disregarding the amount of voting rednecks(which honestly is a low, low number), call me overly optimisticOverly optimistic! Seriously, you live in the bay area, right? I'd be willing to bet that you don't know too many rednecks or die-hard Republicans. Head into the deep mountains of the central west, farm and ranch country in the midwest, basically anywhere in the south outside of major metropolitan areas, and you enter 'redneck country'. When I worked in north Nebraska one summer in college, I was amazed... And remember, Bush won again in 2004.

While I'd love to see either Clinton or Obama make it, just to set a precedent, not even Hollywood seriously rides the idea. In "Air Force One", Glenn Close's character was pretty ineffective; and 24 shot theirs. Remember Geraldine Ferraro in '84 with Mondale? Partially because he wasn't as popular as Reagan, but significantly because exit polls showed a lot of people voting against them because she was a woman.

"Hillary Clinton wilL NEVER take office. About 1/3 of the voting population will vote for her no matter what, 1/3 will NOT vote for her no matter what, and then she has that 1/3 to convince. She is not that strong of a candidate to convince the indecisive crowd and will lose" He is convinced that Hillary will never win the '08 election. I disagree with him, but up against Obama? I think that he is a stronger candidate than her...I think your father has a point. Clinton is a polarizing woman, whom people either love or love to hate. There isn't too much of a middle ground. She is fiercesomely intelligent, but doesn't come across as approachable or likeable on the TV screen sometimes.

Obama, on the other hand, has a wonderful prescence on TV. The only problem is that race is still an issue to many people.

But I truly hope one of them makes it, I just haven't decided which will get my vote, yet.

[Kass]

My boyfriend and I were talking about this this weekend. We actually agreed on something political. *insert absolutely stunned face here* Neither of us thinks Hillary can carry a state west of Ohio or any of the key southern states. Her voter base is New England--the most liberal of the states. She just can't hide from her past. Her proposals when she was the president behind the president were so liberal they scared even many Democrats. No matter what she says now, she just can't be moderate enough to carry the South and Midwest.

Obama is almost as liberal but he has the advantage of being unknown and not having much of a record to run from. That could also hurt him. He's very unkown and unpredictable. While I think his turnaround from his trouble youth is admirable, a lot of traditional (NOT conservative) Midwestern and Southern voters won't. Once a bad boy, always a bad boy.

I hope that Hillary and Obama suck so many votes from each other that John Edwards gets the nod. He's actually a Democrat that doesn't propose to tax me into welfare. With Hillary's proposals, I actually would be better off losing my job and going on assistance than to continue working in a middle class job as a single mother.

[Mastiker]

With Hillary's proposals, I actually would be better off losing my job and going on assistance than to continue working in a middle class job as a single mother.

The idea of that would get so many people excited to vote for her. "You mean, if I stop working, I'll be better off than keeping my job? Where do I sign up..."

Cynicalism aside, I'm excited to be able to vote for the next election. I really think, out of Obama or Clinton, I'd vote for Obama. I had enough of Clinton when her husband was in office, and I don't like her views on anything. Obama is a relatively new face, and while I don't know much on him, he would be the lesser of two evils. Besides, I'd be steamed if the presidency went "President Bush, President Clinton, President Bush, President Clinton".

[Jetsetlemming]

Besides, I'd be steamed if the presidency went "President Bush, President Clinton, President Bush, President Clinton".
:rofl:

.....:box:

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

I have a friend who is a hardline ultro liberal and even HE hates Hilary Clinton. I also really don't know if Obama will make it.

I also know its 21 months til the election.

Geeze.

[King Kong]

It's not just that one post, it's beowolf's posts in general that piss me off >_>. I don't think most people have been paying attention other than me, so I don't expect anyone to get it.

I disagree with you, Az >_<. I agree with the part about having Clinton back in office, because he has been my favorite president since Carter, however I don't think that by nominating Clinton and Obama it's a clear-cut disaster for the Dems in the least. Even though we have a lot of conservatives in this country, what is more important to realize is that we have a lot of progressives as well. The disaster of the Iraq war has put the Dems on the offensive as of right now and they're going to keep this up. However, if bush's top sekret "new strategy" actually manages to work out, it will not be good.

I think America is ready to have its first black president or female president and disregarding the amount of voting rednecks(which honestly is a low, low number), call me overly optimistic, but I would argue that if you look at the people who actually bother to vote, the majority will look beyond skin color and gender. This will be a factor for some voters, of course, but I just think that we're beyond ready for this kind of progressive politics in this point of our country's history.

EDIT: here is a quote from my republican father which I think may be true. "Hillary Clinton wilL NEVER take office. About 1/3 of the voting population will vote for her no matter what, 1/3 will NOT vote for her no matter what, and then she has that 1/3 to convince. She is not that strong of a candidate to convince the indecisive crowd and will lose" He is convinced that Hillary will never win the '08 election. I disagree with him, but up against Obama? I think that he is a stronger candidate than her...

Your optimism is well recieved, but you are underestimating the number of conservative racists in America. Many are closet racists that are members of the republican momentum. I sure hope you are right and Obama does take the presidential seat, not only does he have a quality about him that is refreshing but Im also guilty of Schadenfreude. I would like to see all right wingers howling in pain.
Beowolf is just being realistic, methinks.

[Jetsetlemming]

Racism has nothing to do with a republican voter not voting for democratic Obama. :frypan:
Also, I know far more democratic racists than I do republican ones. Party affiliation has nothing to do with one's personal prejudices.

[King Kong]

Party affiliation has nothing to do with one's personal prejudices.

There is an observed and documented correlation between conservatism and racism. Not to say all republicans are racists, mind you. But there are many republicans right of centre and some even further.

I was tottin' ma shotgun an' all an' I saw some crazied darkies. I tout I maht practice ma' shootin'

[andrewt]

An easier way for a female / minority to make it into office - would probably be to come from the republican party - ie - Powell (who will not run) would have been a pretty strong candidate, or what Thatcher did in the UK...

It'd be funny if naturalized citizens could run... imagine: the Presidenternator for '08.

[Jetsetlemming]

There is an observed and documented correlation between conservatism and racism. Not to say all republicans are racists, mind you. But there are many republicans right of centre and some even further.

I was tottin' ma shotgun an' all an' I saw some crazied darkies. I tout I maht practice ma' shootin'
There's about as much a "correlation between conservatism and racism" as there is a correlation between liberalism and antisemetism. :bored:
Besides, there are a lot of far-right democrats, especially in the south. My grandmother looks at republicans in the same light she looks at gays and jews. :box:

[Decade]

Here's my fears about the democratic candidates (although I tend to be more Republican, I would prefer the best Democrat candidate possible to run against as I do believe a Democrat president could be good for the country)

Hillary

Here's my real fear about what the race would come down to if she gets elected candidate:

It turns into a gender race for President.

Look, I have no problem with having a woman as President (we wouldn't be the first country to have one), but I refuse to vote for someone just because she's a woman anymore than I would because someone's a man.

What I honestly see happening:

Feminists voting Hillary just because she's a woman but not really focusing on her politics.

Men and conservatists voting for the male opposing candidate because they dont want a woman, they want a man in charge.


Not that it would make a difference, but I would like to keep this one point out there:

Don't vote/not vote for someone just because they're the other guy/girl. Don't vote for someone without actually understanding what policies you'd be voting for. If you vote based on gender alone, it's just as good as throwing your vote away because you don't understand what you're really doing.

This happened in the last elections when people voted Kerry just because "He's not Bush."

No.

I didn't vote Kerry because I knew some of the policies he was going to inact and really believe the man's an idiot (there's NO way he could get troops out of Iraq in 6 months, no matter what kind of promise he'd make. And even if he would, it would basically have left Iraq in a suicide state). I didn't vote Bush either though, I just didn't vote. You might call that throwing your vote away, I saw it as not taking part in supporting a psuedo hero for America (Kerry), and a man whose policies I couldn't really understand to well either (Bush).

Obama.

I see the same problem happening as for Hillary, only this time it will be a "race" race. Again, don't just vote for someone for the color of their skin, vote for the policies.

The other problem I find for Obama though is, sadly, the name "Obama" itself. I dunno why, but I see too many idiots out there thinking "Osama!" and terrorist-related ideas upon reading or hearing the name.

Sounds stupid? Damn straight it is. A real possible problem?

I regrettably say yes :gloomy:

I just hope his campaign crew can do a good job of taking attention away from that. Campaigns really can make or break a candidate's chances.


And then I remember nobody's vote REALLY matters anyway, only electoral votes really do

[Jiant Flying Panda]

What's gonna happen is that people will vote for Hillary not because they agree with her. But because of the historical significance. Or at least I would, to be hounest.

Same thing with Obama.

[setrict]

I wouldn't vote for Hilary. I don't like her ideas, or her attitude. She strikes me as the type of person I would politely excuse myself from the room rather than be in her company for long. It's a poor reflection on me that I feel that way about someone I've never met but it's just loathe at first sight.

Obama is pretty liberal for my tastes politically, but I think he has the potential to be a refreshing change if he is truly as genuine as he seems to be. A liberal president isn't nearly as dangerous as a liberal senate. On the other hand I just don't see him for 08. I get the feeling he is being groomed for the presidency by some of the powers that be, and I think he will use the 08 primary as a way of transitioning from relative unknown to a serious candidate for 2012, or 2016.

My guess is that you'll see a centrist Republican win in 08 against <insert someone other than Clinton or Obama here>, and I really think Obama can be a serious contender in the following election.

[Beowulf]

It's not just that one post, it's beowolf's posts in general that piss me off >_>. I don't think most people have been paying attention other than me, so I don't expect anyone to get it.
:'(

I wouldn't vote for Hillary because she plays a poor game of trying to stay in the middle. She'll support some liberal ideals then 180 and support hugely conservative issues. Her support of the Iraq War for instance, and another good one is how she agrees with over-publicised retard Jack Thompson on video game violence. Hillary doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of winning though, and nominating her would be handing the Republicans the white house. If you even have to wonder why she'd lose then you have never talked to a Republican about Hillary Clinton. They hate her like the AntiChrist and the talk show demogogues would moblize every conservative in the country to take her down.

Obama I like a lot, he seems like a down to earth intelligent politician. The thing is Obama will be undercut by his own hype, and he knows it. The man is supposedly an incredible speaker though. I think the biggest chip in Baracks favor is that he (from all standpoints I can see) actually cares about the people he represents. He has strong ties to the church and could easily moblize (at least) some of the Christians in his favor. He seems to be just about everything I've ever wanted in a politician. That's why it pisses me off so bad that he will probably never win. I have no doubt in my mind that he would give a spectacular run, only to end in a "Gore-Bush"-esque tie with whoever the Republicans put up. As I said before every racist in the country would moblize out against him, and every southern red state in the union would firmly rebuke him.

Another point I'd just like to make is, when did liberal become a four letter word? When did it become an insult to call someone a liberal? What is this mentality that all liberals don't understand the common people, liberals are all "too smart," liberals will just ruin the whole planet, liberals don't like war. As one of the farthest left on OP9 I ask people why it's bad to be a liberal? Why is it better to not be a liberal? Why do people have the reaction they do when the word liberal is mentioned? Did liberals hurt you in some way? I implore the members of this board who hold such biases to look inside your head and figure out why you hate liberals so very much.

Also if anyone wants a good read, or wants to know more about Barack Obama (I notice a lot of people are saying they don't know much about him) then I encourage you to skim through some of his speeches (http://obama.senate.gov/speech/).

[setrict]

As one of the farthest left on OP9 I ask people why it's bad to be a liberal?

It might surprise you to learn that it's due to *gasp* differences in political ideology. I don't think liberal = bad, but I do disagree with some what I feel are fundamental liberal beliefs.

If I use liberal in a negative context it's a short way of saying:

I like minimal goverment. I like extremely limited federal power. I don't think there is ONE right way, and I certainly don't think we should let the politicians try to pick one. I don't like centralized power. I think local and state goverments should have the flexibility to operate and effectively compete against one another for population. While I want people to be happy and healthy, I absolutely don't want the government becoming the teet to which it's people suckle. I believe strongly in individuals, and greatly fear the idea that we must impose an arbitrary 'great society' as much as I fear the idea of blind nationalism... they are two sides of the same, very dangerous, coin. I like limited laws and regulation. I do not think true equality will ever be possible, and the best we can work toward is to ensure equality of opportunity. I believe government is the worst possible avenue for progress. Like violence, it should be the last resort and used sparingly if at all. The list goes on, but no one is gonna read this far anyway, so I'll stop here and substitute the rest of the list with a copy paste on hummingbird migration. Each hummingbird species has its own migration strategy, and it's incorrect to think of "hummingbirds" as a single type of animal, all alike. This article will discuss Ruby-throated migration, because it's likely that more people see that species than all the others in North America combined, and its dynamics are similar to other species, although the dates and locations vary. An exception is Anna's Hummingbird, which typically does not migrate but may wander up- and downslope following seasonal food resources. Banding studies suggest that individual birds may follow a set route year after year, often arriving at the same feeder on the same day. We do not know if any individual bird follows the same route in both directions, and there are some indications that they do not.

[Jetsetlemming]

Yeah, beowulf, obviously for someone conservative, having a politician be liberal would be a negative point, just like for someone liberal, having a politician be conservative would be a negative point.
Personally, my beliefs are more liberal, but I feel closer to conservatives, mostly because I'm reluctant to associate with most liberals. I have a very bad image of most of them as overstrung whiny overly-political whiny whiny people. The girl I was dating in 2004 had a nervous breakdown when Kerry lost the election. The stupid election meant so much to her, a 15 year old girl, that she just couldn't take the strain of having the candidate she liked lose. :eyepop: I see crap like this all the time. High school kids having fits because Bush got elected, or ranting and raving about how republicans are evil fascists or christians shouldn't be allowed to hold political office or get in another person's face and start a fight because they expressed the slightest of doubt in liberalism or the democratic party, hear adults, who are supposed to be rational and pay attention to their actions, recommend people who don't believe in global warming be tried for crimes against humanity and shut up by force, hear teachers at my high school tell me and my fellow classmates to go home and vote for Kerry or tell our parents to, otherwise George Bush will draft us all into war and kill us.
There are insufferable conservatives out there. Plenty of them, by all means. It's just the insufferable liberals that are in my face every day.

[Soli]

I hope for a woman to be president. It'd sure make things interesting! I can't vote until 2012 though. >.<

[D-pad]

I'll be 17 and 3/4 in '08 elections...:bang:

That aside...I think Obama can pull it off. I think the number of die hard, non-felon, motivated, semi-intelligent racist cannot sway a vote.

[Masa the Masta]

It might surprise you to learn that it's due to *gasp* differences in political ideology. I don't think liberal = bad, but I do disagree with some what I feel are fundamental liberal beliefs.

If I use liberal in a negative context it's a short way of saying:

I like minimal goverment. I like extremely limited federal power. I don't think there is ONE right way, and I certainly don't think we should let the politicians try to pick one. I don't like centralized power. I think local and state goverments should have the flexibility to operate and effectively compete against one another for population. While I want people to be happy and healthy, I absolutely don't want the government becoming the teet to which it's people suckle. I believe strongly in individuals, and greatly fear the idea that we must impose an arbitrary 'great society' as much as I fear the idea of blind nationalism... they are two sides of the same, very dangerous, coin. I like limited laws and regulation. I do not think true equality will ever be possible, and the best we can work toward is to ensure equality of opportunity. I believe government is the worst possible avenue for progress. Like violence, it should be the last resort and used sparingly if at all. The list goes on, but no one is gonna read this far anyway, so I'll stop here and substitute the rest of the list with a copy paste on hummingbird migration. Each hummingbird species has its own migration strategy, and it's incorrect to think of "hummingbirds" as a single type of animal, all alike. This article will discuss Ruby-throated migration, because it's likely that more people see that species than all the others in North America combined, and its dynamics are similar to other species, although the dates and locations vary. An exception is Anna's Hummingbird, which typically does not migrate but may wander up- and downslope following seasonal food resources. Banding studies suggest that individual birds may follow a set route year after year, often arriving at the same feeder on the same day. We do not know if any individual bird follows the same route in both directions, and there are some indications that they do not.


..... :rofl:

That's why you should break up big chunks into smaller, easier to digest chunks, no?


Although I agree with you on your points, I get the feeling that the current presidency (granted, this is a presidency that should never be a benchmark for conservative ideas) is failing in upholding those ideas.

Minimal government, limited federal power, centralized power: With NSA, restricting Habeas Corpus, and picking false evidence to lead a country to go to war with Iraq, I'm kind of skeptical about Bush's ability to uphold that.

Limited Laws and regulation: Seems to me that there's been anything but lately, but since I can't back this up with facts and I'm just going with my intuition, I don't think I can say anything more on it.

True Equality: Maybe not now, but in the future I think so, maybe in the more distant future when a lot of us younger OP9'ers are picking up our social security checks, maybe then it'll happen but it's unlikely now.

Government = worst posible avenue for progress: How else can you get a bunch of people to agree on who gets what, where, when, and how, and who pays for it? How else could we get anything really done?

Everything else I probably agree with you. :watson:

[TygressVirgo]

I like Obama, tho I still want to research him further.

I first saw him on the Oprah show, and I really liked him. He puts off a very charasmatic and fresh face to politics. I think that he really could be the first black president, maybe not this election, but as sestrict said maybe 2012.

I am generally more conservative, but have gone more liberal within the past few years. I really do think that a change in party is in my future voting.

oh . . . Obama also promised Oprah that he would officaily announce his running for pres on her show o.0

[Plekto]

I think the final choice will be Edwards. He has a solid party-approved and voter-palatable image. Obama is good, but he's just not getting elected over someone like McCain or another decently competant Republican. His own party is also fearful because he's not from the rich and powerful old families and their social group, so he's as likely to be an aset as much as blow the party apart at the seams.

Hillary being a serious contender was actually started by Republicans as a rumor years ago. She's not going to be the final choice, as much as they would want her to be. Even she's not really doing it anymore than as a publicity stunt.

[TygressVirgo]

A quick question,

what is the best way to find out a senator's voting record. I have yet to fine the answer to this question.

[Baroness]

I have a strong feeling Hillary is going to win. People are familiar with her. Obama is probably the better choice but I don't think he is as "popular" and well known as Hillary at this point. He is making a name for himself though and a lot of people are starting to learn about him.

[Campion]

A quick question,

what is the best way to find out a senator's voting record. I have yet to fine the answer to this question.

Try the Washington Post.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/


Campion.

[TygressVirgo]

Try the Washington Post.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/


Campion.

:clap: uber

[Duke Luke of Juke]

I've voted Democrat in every election I've been old enough to participate in, but I don't really care for Hilary Clinton (loved Bill Clinton, though), and I honestly don't know enough about Obama to vote on him purely for the fact that he's Democrat--so I would definitely consider McCain if he ends up being the Republican candidate, but there aren't any other Republicans who've been discussed that I'm interested in right now.

[setrict]

Although I agree with you on your points, I get the feeling that the current presidency (granted, this is a presidency that should never be a benchmark for conservative ideas) is failing in upholding those ideas.


I agree. Both the president, and the republican party as a whole has moved away from true conservative government. They are just as 'liberal' as the Democrats, if not more so in many cases... just different directions. I think I should probably switch from the term 'liberal' to the term 'in your face (and wallet)'.

[4letterwords]

The republicans should pick a Jewish candidate and a Middle Eastern Candidate (they won't but meh).

I dunno why but that would be fun.

[Stephy]

Holy bejezus! The election is next year already!?

Hm... I better register to vote then. I can finally vote! I don't know who I would just yet. Too early too tell, I thinkth. Be nice for some new President history.

[4letterwords]

Unless the Republicans pick an awesome candidate (not likely) I'll go for Obama. I really pray that Hillary doesn't get in...

[Black fist]

I fear for who ever is the first black president mainly because many and I mean many will being either waiting for you to make a mistake that could lead to impeachment or murder him or her. The whole Obama sounds like a terrorist was joked about in the Daily show one day.

[NERD]

Obama simply does not have not enough experience, and is black; I don't think we are gonna see a minority president in the next ten years, at the very least. The way he has grabbed the attention of the media is quite admirable, but then again Howard Dean was seen as a front-runner before he collapsed in the primaries. Hype can be evaporated real quick.

Clinton will get the women voters, no doubt, but the idea of a female president may not be seen as favorable to the older voters, who make up the biggest voting group in any given elections.

Either way, both candidates will polarize the voters, no doubt. And remember, it's not important to win the popular vote, but to win the electoral college- otherwise, it would've been Al Gore who got elected in 2000 with more than half a million voters.

However, I don't see any strong democrat candidate that will capture the attention of the voting public like Obama or Clinton- Bill Richardson is a distant third and remains an unknown compared to those two.

And with the Republican party- I don't see anyone getting as much support as McCain, though his age is a concern. However, he might be a good candidate to bring America together- as demonstrated by the rift between the so-called red/blue states. However, he may not be seen conservative enough by the neo-cons.

[Jetsetlemming]

Howard Dean was seen as a front-runner before he collapsed in the primaries. Hype can be evaporated real quick.

Howard Dean's fall came after he started screaming like a maniac on the campaign. XD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5FzCeV0ZFc
Comic brilliance there.

[NERD]

The 'scream' came up after the Iowa caucuses were over, and delivered while Dean was conceding his defeat. It had no direct correlations to the Iowa primary, and I think it's overplayed... though if he EVER wants to run for prez, he would need to get over that.

Oh, and for Colin Powell running for prez- though he is more popular than Wesley Clark, I am not sure if we will see another president with military experience barring another World War of some sort. And Powell in my opinion was ineffective as the Secretary of State.

[Jetsetlemming]

It wasn't why he lost the primaries, it was why he evaporated. :P Nobody could take him seriously after that.

[harper]

I've voted Democrat in every election I've been old enough to participate in, but I don't really care for Hilary Clinton (loved Bill Clinton, though), and I honestly don't know enough about Obama to vote on him purely for the fact that he's Democrat--so I would definitely consider McCain if he ends up being the Republican candidate, but there aren't any other Republicans who've been discussed that I'm interested in right now.

I participated in a telephone poll where they were asking about a number of political things including various candidates. McCain is the only Republican candidate I would consider voting for. Oterwise, I would vote for either Hilary or Obama. Maybe they could even end up on the same ticket and I could vote for both of them.

[Masa the Masta]

Which one would be easier on the lowest common denominator to vote for however?

Hillary as President and Obama as running mate, or Obama as president and Hillary as running mate?

I'd personally like to see the latter. (Waits for chairs to be thrown at him from the feminists)

[Roxie]

Howard Dean's fall came after he started screaming like a maniac on the campaign. XD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5FzCeV0ZFc
Comic brilliance there.
Sure, his fall came after that, but that's not WHY the fall happend. The fall happend b/c he did not go to the media and try to explain/laught at the situation.

Honestly, he doesn't look crazy at all to me, he looks at excited! He's at huge rally, but b/c of the camera angle, it looks like he's screaming at your face instead of a BIG crowd.

Anyway....OBAMA!

[Masa the Masta]

Yeah, Dean just looked happy.

Sucks how it's real easy to screw up a presidential campaign.

[harper]

Which one would be easier on the lowest common denominator to vote for however?

Hillary as President and Obama as running mate, or Obama as president and Hillary as running mate?

I'd personally like to see the latter. (Waits for chairs to be thrown at him from the feminists)

Shades of Geraldine Ferraro...

I think having Obama as running mate would make sense since he is still young and could use the extra experience perhaps.

[RoxFontaine]

It will be neither person. I would love to see the landmark event of a woman or Black person becoming President. It won't happen in '08, I believe.

Even if Obama were elected, he'd be assassinated.

[TygressVirgo]

It is kind of scary how negative the future could be for OBama if he got elected.

[Angelyne]

Even if Obama were elected, he'd be assassinated.


If George W. Bush managed to survive this long into the Presidency, I doubt Obama has anything to worry about. If any President during our lifetime will be assasinated, it would be Bush.

[D-pad]

If George W. Bush managed to survive this long into the Presidency, I doubt Obama has anything to worry about. If any President during our lifetime will be assasinated, it would be Bush.
Finally optimism...Fucking tired of people going, "A black president would just get assassinated!"

[Masa the Masta]

I don't think he'd get assassinated.

[geesehoward4life]

Your new Emperor will be John McCain. Obama, Clinton, whomever from the Democratic party will be trampled under foot by the already strong streak of yellow that the newly appointed Democratic congress is showing. Emperor Bush is using the; if you cut the funds then it's YOU that caused the failure in Iraq ploy!

And it's working! :watson:

The funny part is that these people were elected to office for the sole purpose of ending the Iraq "Situation" and already they are trying to duck the hard choices because they HONESTLY have ZERO TRUST in the very same people that just elected them!

So, the Endless Waltz continues. Under these kinds of crappy conditions it is only natural that the side that says "THIS is what YOU NEED and LIKE IT!" will be the one that will garner the most votes from the Robotic Sheep that is... the American Voter! Let's not kid ourselves here, people voted for Bush who was tough on Terrorism who had 9/11 take place on his watch. That within itself is laughable when he then attacks EVERY COUNTRY BUT the ones that had the most terrorist number of 9/11 hijackers involved... Saudi Arabia... oh I'm sorry the Bush Family has been pals with the Saudi's for a LONGGGGGGG time. Egypt had a few as well, but never mind that these people were already on the FBI Terror-watch prior to all of this and then they had the balls to use credit cards to pay for their flight lessons. :bored:

I am well aware that electronic funds like these are too easy to trace, so with all of the sophisticated Visa commercials and Mastercard and American Express anti-theft crap commercials... I'm honestly SUPPOSED to believe that these already listed, already monitored, NAH! :gangster:

So if American's would re-elect a man who takes troops to countries with no plan to re-establish stability and no concern about the fact that both Iraq and Afghanistan are religious states?! :duh: Yeah Iraq and Afghanistan? Sure, they'll turn democratic... and the Japanese will recognize foreigners as Japanese citizens and South African Coloureds will have a voice in South Africa and United States history books will list ALL of the atrocities of Slavery, including the Holmesburg Prison Experiments and the fact that the North had slaves as well, pigs will fly and Bush will realize that his daughters really are crack addicts.
:bored:

Our new Emperor will be McCain and he will rule with a bizarre iron-fist...
:blank:
That is all...

[Cherub Rock]

He'd be assassinated for being supposedly Muslim before he'd be assassinated for being... ahem... half-black.

Honestly he's just as much white as he is black. His mother was white and she raised him with his step-father who I believe was Asian. Anywho, the who Muslim thing. Some people in some circles do not like the fact that his father was Muslim and his mother was supposedly atheist. I don't know how true any of it is, but I'll just say that America wants a white Protestant male. Even though 1/4 of America is Catholic there has only been one Catholic president. Imagine, in this period of time we are in, the odds of someone being winning the Democratic ticket, much less the Presidency, if they are supposedly Muslim.

It really is something to think about. Conservatives can be pretty nutty sometimes. I've even heard stuff about Obama being one letter removed from Osama being a potential reason not to vote for the guy. After all he has a Muslim sounding name.

[Matt W]

I would vote for either Obama or Hillary in the national election, and I think they would both make fine Presidents, but I won't vote for either of them in the primaries. Right now I really like Edwards or Joe Biden. Or Gore if he ran would be the best. I like Kerry too.

Obama has only been a Senator for two years, which I frankly think is not long enough, though from what I know of him I like him. I'm looking forward to learning more. Evidence shows that polls on race especially can't be trusted because people tell pollsters that they would vote for a minority cause they don't want to seem racist, but when it comes to the voting booth, which is secret, its different.

Hillary: I don't like her position on the war and flag burning and stuff, but she is clearly very smart and has some liberal positions that I like (healthcare for example). I think people underestimate her. I don't particularly want her to win the primary though cause then the whole election would be about her, she simply has too much baggage. People would bring up all the old bullshit from her husbands presidency, white water, and all the other garbage investigations into her. It just would be a nasty election I fear.

I think any of the people I mentioned has a very good chance of winning the Presidency though, the Bush years have been such a disaster and the time is ripe for the Dems. Plus, the Republican field looks pretty damn weak to me. The elections a long ways away though, so anything could happen in the mean time, but thats my assessment as of now.

[Masa the Masta]

Well for the uninsured like me, any sort of health care would be awesome.

[c-rex]

The more you post here, the more I think you are the most stupidest flametard I have seen here for a while. I mean it's amusing to troll, but when you're actually serious about it... >_>.

Get a grip, political theory suggests that the first minority and/or female presidents will be from the right. With a non-white male candiate running on the left many of the latently racist or sexist moderates will swing over to the right. This holds true right now because the most powerful voting block in America is old people. Think about it how many of you have grandparents that still have lingering sexism or racism issues? Or for that matter their friends at the retirment home. Beowulf's blunt comment is accurate in this case.

The race and sex barriers will more than likely be crossed by the right because their core voting block has tighter control. By nature the far right votes against women and blacks, but if Robertson and Limbaugh tell them to they'd vote for a minority or female Republican candiate. Such a candiate would also enjoy a high level cross party support from liberals and moderates that would be willing to cross party lines to support the first female president. You simply do not have people on the right that would vote liberal to support the first female president.

This country is so polarized on the national level that control of the middle is key to winning. Our presidential elections have come down to hinging on a small percentage of the vote in a few states (Ohio, Florida, etc). Even many of the other larger states such as Michigan had their electoral vote won by a small margin. To win the next election the key is to figure out how you can steal votes from the other party. You have a couple issues to keep your own following loyal to you, along with some spin and then you try to steal votes off the other side.

As for me I'm voting Wes Clark! Another write in vote for me!

A little side note: Anyone that says the 3rd party means throwing your vote away slept through American history. Kindly go read up on the Populist Party and many of the other political movements from post Civil War 1800s and early 1900s. You don't vote for the 3rd party person, the 3rd party has a snowball's chance in hell of doing jack, you vote for the issue. When the Dems and Reps see a large amount of people voting for a 3rd party that focuses on an issue they'll steal that 3rd party's stance on that issue as a platform for themselves as a means of attracting votes (say the Dems lost to the Reps by 7% of the vote in District X and the Green party got 9% of the vote in Distrct X. You can almost garauntee that next time an election rolls around the Green Party views in District X will have been coopted by the Dems on the grounds that they'll get the Green votes and a 2% edge over the Reps). Then you get your issue taken care of and they get your vote.

[ZaichikArky]

I don't have time to debate with all of you, so I'll get through only a few of you.

c-rex, I would never agree with "political philosophy" which dictates the first woman president will be conservative. I mean, it happened in England, but does this mean that it will happen here? No. I think that maybe by the next election America will be so distraught over all that has happened during the Bush regime, they will want to vote for the complete opposite canditate who is more "liberal" or, just NOT Republican. This happens all the time. Nixon got impeached, we put the biggest Hippie into office(hey, he's my favorite democrat). Next, Bush senior sucked, so we voted on a much more "progressive" president who took our country out of perhaps billions of dollars of debt and overall had a very successful presidency. I have no idea why Bush junior came to office in the first place. Of course, I'll just blame it on FLorida. It's just that Clinton was the first Dem president in decades to serve 2 terms. I don't think that Hillary has no chance in winning just because she's a "liberal woman". No, she calls for censorship of the media in various forms and some liberals have a huge problem with her. I don't... I read her whole book and I happen to really like pretty much all she stands for... including gun control and censorship. I don't want to get into that though. You can't just predict who will be the president because some political philosopher stated it. Who are we going to believe Limbah? God everyone hates him nowadays anyway... except for them rednecks -_-.

I agree with your stance on 3rd party voting. i've voted 3rd party several times and "throwing your vote away" is just a tactic the dems use to intimidate liberals into voting for them. It was especially bad after the 2000 election where the Dems said that Al Gore was not in office because people voted for Nader. I just find it sad that our country's "3rd party" is just a big joke to everyone. This needs to change. All the hippies need to unite and just keep voting for the Green party or SOMEONE ELSE if they don't like the candidates they're voting for.

Next,

Sadly, I never actually noticed the "Obama" issue. Yeah, that will be a huge deal and people won't vote for him because they think he'll have muslim blood even though he'll announce to everyone over and over that he's half black. It's sad to see in this country that race really DOES matter. It's very hard to see growing up in the Bay Area. I've never, ever witnessed racism here.

As for Dean, guuuh. You realize, when he got all excited like that, it was after his LOSS in Iowa. he came in like 3rd place. As I understand it, he was in an area with a bunch of college students who'd worked their asses off campaigning for him and supporting him and he just wanted to cheer them up. It worked and they were quite excited over it. Just the hype afterwards was just so stupid. Same thing with Kerry in a bunny suit -_-. I just wish, like Roxie said, that he would have explained what happened earlier than later 0_o. I don't know why he didn't... maybe it was hopeless at that point but I don't think so. Who cares if he got too excited? The American public loves charisma... look at Reagan >_>.

Sectrict, you sound very libertarian to me.... I hate that party so I'm not going to comment, but what party do you identify yourself with anyway? Doesn't seem like either to me. Go third party. wo.

That's all I have time for right now anyway..

[TygressVirgo]

sadly, I never actually noticed the "Obama" issue. Yeah, that will be a huge deal and people won't vote for him because they think he'll have muslim blood even though he'll announce to everyone over and over that he's half black. It's sad to see in this country that race really DOES matter. It's very hard to see growing up in the Bay Area. I've never, ever witnessed racism here.

I can't put my finger on why this comment bugs me so much, but it does. WTH is muslim blood? Islam is a religion and not a race, a religion that is widespread in the middle east, africa, the phillipines, and several other places.

[ZaichikArky]

Middle eastern blood?

It's kind of the same thing about saying "Jewish Blood". I'm a Jew who gets pissed off at that... but hey, really, it's kind of the same thing >_>. The point is, and I don't condone it at all, but Muslims are the biggest terrorists out there, according to the mofos who head the "war on terrorism" campaign. By calling Obama an A-RAB, redneck politics will be enforced if he ever gets anywhere -_-. Then they'd call him a liar for making up the fact that he's not "one of them ragheads".

I love rednecks >_>.

[Kaji]

All right, I'm a registered Republican who voted for Bush via absentee ballot from Japan in the last election. Personally, I trust McCain about as much as I do John Kerry, and therefore refuse to vote Republican if he is the final choice for the Republican candidate. Colin Powell would be an interesting choice, however last I checked he swore to his wife not to because she is certain he'll be assassinated if that's the case.

As for the Democrats, I am actually considering Obama, pending more research into his background and record. No commitment yet, however, and I'd take Powell over him if the two were somehow put against each other (or would both candidates be killed when someone decides to bomb the presidential debates during said hypothetical campaign?). I was no fan of Clinton, and I like his wife even less, so I'd absolutely vote against Hillary (Not because she's a woman, but because her policies make me sick).

[setrict]

Sectrict, you sound very libertarian to me.... I hate that party so I'm not going to comment, but what party do you identify yourself with anyway?

I don't affiliate with any party. They all smell like bad cheese. The libertarians are a bit too Cheech and Chong for me, and I just can't take them too seriously... I like some of their ideas though. Green party I haven't really explored yet. Democratic party I agree with on about 50% of the issues, Republicans about the same. I don't like the idea of a two party system at all, so I have trouble bringing myself to participate in or vote for either the Dems or Repubs.

[Cherub Rock]

Honestly, where is this "Black presidents will be assassinated" thing coming from?

[Roxie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQYiYVC-Ol0

It's an old idea really..most likely entrenched by the serial lynchings of economic successfull or highly influential blacks..that's my guess.

but in this movie, "Head of State" Chris Rock plays an alderman who gets pulled by the Democratic Party to run for President. They're sure they'll lose, but it'll make them look great for the next election.

When Rock's character is first propositioned, he envisions himself giving the State of the Union and immediately getting shot. Later on in the movie his look a like gets shot at a party Rock's character was attending.

[Jetsetlemming]

You only need one psycho to attempt an assassination. We unforunately have quite a bit more than one psycho lying around.

[ZaichikArky]

It's obvious enough 0_o. Some redneck racist is "bound to kill any ____ who comes into office". I don't see what's so difficult to understand about it. The first black president will get so many death threats that his family will constantly be scared out of their minds, Colin Powel's wife is right... as for if it will actually HAPPEN, perhaps, but probably not is my opinion. People try to kill presidents if they're insane more often than being bigots nowadays. Just look at that guy who tried to kill Reagan because he wanted to "impress Jodie Foster" >_>.

[Jetsetlemming]

There was some chick who tried to kill Reagan based on politics. She says she's really sorry now. :P Serving a life-time prison sentence, I'm pretty sure.

[Masa the Masta]

So much for secret service. :(

[Kass]

Well for the uninsured like me, any sort of health care would be awesome.

You wouldn't actually get health care, but the same deduction as people who have employer-provided health care get now. The portion employees pay for their health care (I pay half for example) is withheld from pre-tax dollars, lowering your taxable income. Instead, there would be a standard deduction ($7,500 for single people, $15,000 for families) that applies to everyone. That is actually a big hinderance for the self-employed or those who are employed by companies too small to afford health care benefits.

Depending on where you live, your current health and what plan you choose, that average should cover health care. Some areas like NYC and LA would be a different story. Even when I had to buy my daughter's insurance, on my own, her health care didn't cost more than $7,500 per year. It is a doable amount if you are in reasonably decent health and choose well.

This does lead to something I've thought was necessary for a very long time. Currently, many small companies don't provide health insurance because they can't negotiate affordable rates. They are too small. Large companies, like one of my previous employers, was HUGE and paid for employee health care and heavily subsidized family coverage based on a sliding scale. I paid about $40 per month for my daughter's coverage. Where I work now, I pay about $250 for health, dental and eye care for the two of us, which is actually a very reasonable and fairly standard rate for a mid-sized corporation.

Small companies need to be allowed to join together in a group to negotiate those kinds of rates. Buying in bulk is always cheaper, even for health insurance. Right now, some states don't allow it and others don't address it. A lot more businesses would be able to provide employer-subsidized health care benefits if they could negotiate with the same buying power as mid-sized and large companies.

One catch with the president's proposal is that if you spend more than the deductible amount on health care, you pay taxes on that. If you already have health care that costs more than that, your taxes will go up, so you have to shop around. Also, if you have any nasty habits like smoking, you'd do well to give them up. You'd save twice--the cost of your vice and your health insurance would be cheaper.

~~~

I forget who said Hillary would get the women's vote, but she wouldn't get all the women's vote. She'd get some of the women's vote. Hillary is as divisive amongst women as she is in any demographic. Most women I know would sooner have slit their own wrists than vote for her--and they are extremely liberal. Hillary is just too two-faced to play well with people with hard and fast convictions. She voted for the war in Iraq, but spends time railing against it. She used to espouse very liberal opinions that she eschews now in a play to appear moderate. She'd earn a lot more respect and votes if she was true to herself.

[japanat]

She voted for the war in Iraq, but spends time railing against it. She used to espouse very liberal opinions that she eschews now in a play to appear moderate. She'd earn a lot more respect and votes if she was true to herself.Everyone keeps talking about how Hilary voted for the war in Iraq. 75% of Senators and Congressmen voted for that damn war, and the news of the time made it seem like most did. Then, many of those who voted against it got voted out by the electorate!

Yes, Hillary Clinton has waffled and CYOA'd on this one. So have a lot of others. And the American electorate just sat around and cheered and applauded...

[Kass]

Because Hillary's waffling isn't consistent. Depending on her audience, she either defends her vote or says it was all a big mistake.

[japanat]

Because Hillary's waffling isn't consistent. Depending on her audience, she either defends her vote or says it was all a big mistake.Yes, she does. Sounds like a politician to me...

Much more than the waffling politicians, it's the waffling thundering herd that bothers me. Before the invasion, some friends and I were talking about it, and every one of us knew people Stateside that were just jumping on the bandwagon: "Time to get Saddam and stop his support of terrorists!", blah blah and assorted blather.

Now the same people are saying "We should get out now, our boys are dying over there." I think the time they should have thought about the price American soldiers (not to mention the Iraqi civilians!) would be paying would have been better had it been before shipping them over and invading with no rebuilding plan or schedule, not even understanding of the various groups involved.

The fact is, there were some monumental screwups in intel and intentions; but there were also some very respectable folks who said exactly what would happen, and have since been proven right. But no one wanted to listen, marching off to war just feels so good.

[c-rex]

c-rex, I would never agree with "political philosophy" which dictates the first woman president will be conservative. I mean, it happened in England, but does this mean that it will happen here? No. I think that maybe by the next election America will be so distraught over all that has happened during the Bush regime, they will want to vote for the complete opposite canditate who is more "liberal" or, just NOT Republican. This happens all the time. Nixon got impeached, we put the biggest Hippie into office(hey, he's my favorite democrat).

I never said you have to agree. You screamed troll at a guy who said Obama would lose for being black/muslim and Hillary for being a woman. While you may not agree with those feelings, it an accepted politic theory, not trolling by the poster. That was the point of my post.

[Kass]

no rebuilding plan or schedule, not even understanding of the various groups involved.


Actually, the rebuilding was the only thing planned and has been on-going and somewhat successful considering what we build gets blown up on occasion. The most unpopular thing about the rebuilding is that there are only two US companies who do that sort of work--Bechtel and Halliburton. Of course, we all know which one got some of the contracts (Bechtel got quite a few) and how unpopular that is.

There are two major international companies who als do that work. One is run by the Chinese Red Army (yes, let's give China access to our military information) and the company that owns Dubai Ports. We all know what happened the last time we tried to give Dubai Ports a US contract. A bunch of self-serving, bigoted politicians insulted one of the few real allies we have in the Middle East and killed the contract.

[Y.T.]

(yes, let's give China access to our military information)

As if they don't already have it.

Please, take a look at any serious scientific paper published in the last ten years.
In most cases, at least one author is of chinese origin ..

Considering that the greedy, corrupt & sellout leadership is setting an example for the entire nation, I wouldn't be surprised if a fair number of shittily paid military intel people were already on Chinese payroll ..

Take a look at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Anthony_Walker case ...

You have to face it Kass. The US is in a high speed national decline. Your youth is badly educated, economy is a pyramid scheme (it's mostly about consumption and expanding suburbia, all financed by debt no one's ever gonna repay). 21st century is the Chinese century... you should enroll your daughter in a mandarin course. It's going to be an advantage in the near future.

It doesn't matter who'll win the election. American Empire, like the British one before it is steaming right into history books.

Rebuilding? Successful ? Last time I heard, you couldn't get the oil flowing and the electricity running .. and that was before the insurgency stepped up.

Iraq contracts are apparently awfully riddled with corruption ...

[ZaichikArky]

Supposedly Afghanistan is doing a lot better after we bombed the shit out of it than before. I guess Iraq is a different story, but Im fairly confident we won't withdrawl from it any time soon and it won't become another muslim state... so maybe decades later Iraq will be a democracy.... not anytime soon, though. they need to just stop bombing each other. Al Quaida sux : (. So much brainwashing from everyone involved. I feel bad for the Iraqis... they just don't know who to believe... this Imperial power who bombed the shit out of their country and now promises to make Iraq a great nation, or the insurgencies from within who promise revenge on the imperialist nation. It's kind of an abysmal situation... but I think it's really bound to get better, not worse.

Also, the main reason I want hillary to go into office is that I am confident she can enact a new health care reform , perhaps similar to her old one, and she will be successful this time. HMOs suck :|

[Roxie]

Supposedly Afghanistan is doing a lot better after we bombed the shit out of it than before.
Cause we're allowing them to sell poppies again.

[Angelyne]

You have to face it Kass. The US is in a high speed national decline. Your youth is badly educated, economy is a pyramid scheme (it's mostly about consumption and expanding suburbia, all financed by debt no one's ever gonna repay). 21st century is the Chinese century... you should enroll your daughter in a mandarin course. It's going to be an advantage in the near future.

This sounds like the same shit that I heard in the 1980s where pundits claimed that US school children should start learning Japanese because Japan was going to overtake the US and become the world's dominant superpower.

[Trump]

As if they don't already have it.

Please, take a look at any serious scientific paper published in the last ten years.
In most cases, at least one author is of chinese origin ..

Considering that the greedy, corrupt & sellout leadership is setting an example for the entire nation, I wouldn't be surprised if a fair number of shittily paid military intel people were already on Chinese payroll ..

Take a look at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Anthony_Walker case ...

You have to face it Kass. The US is in a high speed national decline. Your youth is badly educated, economy is a pyramid scheme (it's mostly about consumption and expanding suburbia, all financed by debt no one's ever gonna repay). 21st century is the Chinese century... you should enroll your daughter in a mandarin course. It's going to be an advantage in the near future.

It doesn't matter who'll win the election. American Empire, like the British one before it is steaming right into history books.

Rebuilding? Successful ? Last time I heard, you couldn't get the oil flowing and the electricity running .. and that was before the insurgency stepped up.

Iraq contracts are apparently awfully riddled with corruption ...

WTF?

Those are some of the most amazing claims with absolutely no basis in reality I've seen in a long time. China is a large country and doing well for itself, but so is the US.

[Roxie]

This sounds like the same shit that I heard in the 1980s where pundits claimed that US school children should start learning Japanese because Japan was going to overtake the US and become the world's dominant superpower.
China's got the population to make it happen. I'm just worried about the whole Tawain situation. We're inbetween a rock and a hard place there.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

As if they don't already have it.

Please, take a look at any serious scientific paper published in the last ten years.
In most cases, at least one author is of chinese origin ..

Considering that the greedy, corrupt & sellout leadership is setting an example for the entire nation, I wouldn't be surprised if a fair number of shittily paid military intel people were already on Chinese payroll ..

Take a look at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Anthony_Walker case ...

You have to face it Kass. The US is in a high speed national decline. Your youth is badly educated, economy is a pyramid scheme (it's mostly about consumption and expanding suburbia, all financed by debt no one's ever gonna repay). 21st century is the Chinese century... you should enroll your daughter in a mandarin course. It's going to be an advantage in the near future.

It doesn't matter who'll win the election. American Empire, like the British one before it is steaming right into history books.

Rebuilding? Successful ? Last time I heard, you couldn't get the oil flowing and the electricity running .. and that was before the insurgency stepped up.

Iraq contracts are apparently awfully riddled with corruption ...
What the hell is this? Do you even have any idea what you're stating? China doesn't have shit on us militarily; if they did then their current most powerful jet fighter would be more than just the equivalent of an F-16.

So what if people of Chinese ethnicity are publishing on scientific papers? Obviously if someone is Chinese then they're a die-hard bleeding heart apologist for the CCP! http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v218/Ph4t3/Emot/emot-downs-1.gif What makes this any different from people who have German last names or English or Italian names, etc.? Is it because they don't have slanty-eyes?

China is a large country and doing well for itself, but so is the US.
As a whole sure, I guess you could say China is doing well for itself. In terms of for its people though? Not a chance.

[Y.T.]

... So what that the US has F-22s. It's not like those aircraft are indestructible, or indetectable. If trouble ever started n the Taiwan strait .. the US fleet there wouldn't last five minutes. China is the country that manufactures most anti-ship missiles nowadays ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-802

As far as I know, they aren't used on aircraft carriers, therefore it would be harder for them to take part in any conflict with China. (Having to fly several thousand klicks and refuel .. )


That 'doesn't have shit on us militarily' is a funny statement, considering that the US does have less than 10 divisions .. compared to China's ~ 50 - 60. I don't think the US would want to engage in a land war with a force like that.

The current US superiority in the air .. it's considerable.On the other hand, how long is it going to last ? The US cannot keep on relying on an ever increasing debt to fuel military spending. At some point, that mountain of debt'll crash down and a lot of people'll be in a world of shit.

Military is not everything .. Just as Kim .. his country has the biggest army compared to population size, and it's a hellhole. (China has a smaller army than US, relative to population size. They have more military manpower .. 380 million, than the US has inhabitants .. )


So what if people of Chinese ethnicity are publishing on scientific papers? Obviously if someone is Chinese then they're a die-hard bleeding heart apologist for the CCP! What makes this any different from people who have German last names or English or Italian names, etc.? Is it because they don't have slanty-eyes?

Ehm. More likely to engage in espionage ? It's not like scientists earn much, and they all believe that sharing of information is good. If scientists didn't share research data, science wouldn't progress at all... thus selling secrets of US military research to scientists' in one's ancestral land is good for science, thus good for all mankind. Besides, it evens the odds, thus ensuring the US doesn't get to be too powerful. See .. it's very easy to rationalize selling secrets.

And then, if there is such a disproportion of them, how does the US want to win a technology race with the country that is the source of all that talent.
If China has 1.5 billion people, that means that it should have roughly 5 times the number of very smart people in each generation....

China is militarily inferior, but the US would never go to war against it, simply because it couldn't win. And there's the risk of nuclear escalation ..

[Beowulf]

Wow Zakalwe's post is familiar...

Now where have I heard that before...

Oh that's right! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkBNKa2KXZE)

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v218/Ph4t3/Emot/emot-downs-1.gif
The US Navy doesn't currently use the F-22, but it does use the F/A-18 Hornet, which is scheduled to be replaced with the F-35 in coming years.

What does number of divisions have to do with anything? A land war isn't the only war to be fought you know, so who says the US would bother with a land war? Also, the PLA does not have 380 million in terms of military manpower, although they do have more soldiers. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_active_troops)

Arguing military is a waste of breath anyway though, as if the US were to entire a war with China, I doubt the US would be alone.
Ehm. More likely to engage in espionage ? It's not like scientists earn much, and they all believe that sharing of information is good. If scientists didn't share research data, science wouldn't progress at all... thus selling secrets of US military research to scientists' in one's ancestral land is good for science, thus good for all mankind. Besides, it evens the odds, thus ensuring the US doesn't get to be too powerful. See .. it's very easy to rationalize selling secrets.
I don't even know what to say to this; it makes little sense and has such a warped perception of people I don't know where to begin.

And then, if there is such a disproportion of them, how does the US want to win a technology race with the country that is the source of all that talent.
If China has 1.5 billion people, that means that it should have roughly 5 times the number of very smart people in each generation....
This is such a bunch of bullshit. Chinese people aren't somehow genetically superior in terms of intelligence to anybody else. Ergo, your statistic on the population of China has no relevance. Do you even know what most people in China live like?

[setrict]

This is such a bunch of bullshit. Chinese people aren't somehow genetically superior in terms of intelligence to anybody else. Ergo, your statistic on the population of China has no relevance. Do you even know what most people in China live like?

It does have relevance. China has 5x the population of the US. If you took an IQ test of china, they would have 5x as many people in the top 1%. It has nothing to do with genetics, or anything else it's just a proportion. When you factor in education levels, environment, etc things get a little murky... but if all those are equal than yeah, they are going to have 5x the number of pocket protector types. How well that translates into progress in new technology is anybody's guess, but it probably can't hurt.

Think about it in terms of a basket ball team. Each side can put forth a maximum of 5 players. Statistically, who do you think has a better chance of putting together the most powerful team... the US with a potential resource pool of 300 million or the country of Tuvalu with a resource pool of 11,000?

[Cherub Rock]

You assume the Chinese have the mentality to overtake the US in... well, whatever quantifier you are using. Perhaps per capita GDP adjusted for purchasing power parity, which is basically how much each household can buy if everyone works under the same prices. In that case China will have to pass quite a few countries to catch up the US (who is actually third behind Luxembourg and Norway). China is 87th in that ranking.

If you want to give China their population advantage and just look at GDP adjusting for PPP then China ranks second behind the US and is in position to catch up quite easily. Then again if the US forces China to appreciate the yuan then their trade surplus (which is the driving force behind their economy currently) will taper off significantly. And that is a real problem with China right now. We don't have the accurate picture of their economy that we do with Japan, Europe and the US. If you remember Cold War Russia you'd remember a country that was going through a period of unprecidented growth year after year until it was discovered to be a fabrication of the Soviet government.

[Masa the Masta]

Arguing military is a waste of breath anyway though, as if the US were to entire a war with China, I doubt the US would be alone.

China has allies too, no? Big allies.

[Roxie]

I thought this might be of interest..


Black Presidents Elected Regularly on TV, in Movies (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6929002)
Weekend Edition Saturday, January 20, 2007 · There have been numerous black presidents on TV and in the movies. Some of the more notable performances, from Dennis Haysbert to Morgan Freeman, say something about our society

[Y.T.]

Ehm. Russia is sore from being shafted by the US since they lost the cold war, and not exactly thrilled by the NATO expansion...

So you can count on them to provide unmatched military technology (such as those very cool rocket torpedoes the US Navy doesn't have .. those that move at 300 kph or so).

Or things like GPS jammers, sophisticated anti-tank missiles, or very good air defense systems... You remember those joint military maneuvres by China and Russia last year ?

Anyway, a war there isn't gonna happen, and even if China ever attacks Taiwan, the US won't get involved probably...

If you want to give China their population advantage and just look at GDP adjusting for PPP then China ranks second behind the US and is in position to catch up quite easily. Then again if the US forces China to appreciate the yuan then their trade surplus (which is the driving force behind their economy currently) will taper off significantly. And that is a real problem with China right now. We don't have the accurate picture of their economy that we do with Japan, Europe and the US. If you remember Cold War Russia you'd remember a country that was going through a period of unprecidented growth year after year until it was discovered to be a fabrication of the Soviet government.

That's true .. I remember reading in the Economist about the difficulties of outside statisticians in measuring China's economics. Though I doubt they would resort to serious exxageration. China is a country people invest in, unlike the US. Those numbers can't be wholly fictious. They reportedly understate their military budget 2-3x .. or so proponents of yellow peril in the US claim.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

It does have relevance. China has 5x the population of the US. If you took an IQ test of china, they would have 5x as many people in the top 1%. It has nothing to do with genetics, or anything else it's just a proportion. When you factor in education levels, environment, etc things get a little murky... but if all those are equal than yeah, they are going to have 5x the number of pocket protector types. How well that translates into progress in new technology is anybody's guess, but it probably can't hurt.
That is completely theoretical and you have no way to prove that; ergo, I consider it irrelevant.
China has allies too, no? Big allies.
Of course China does. However, we have bigger and better allies.
So you can count on them to provide unmatched military technology (such as those very cool rocket torpedoes the US Navy doesn't have .. those that move at 300 kph or so).
Explain.

[Y.T.]

Originally Posted by Zakalwe
So you can count on them to provide unmatched military technology (such as those very cool rocket torpedoes the US Navy doesn't have .. those that move at 300 kph or so).
Explain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval_torpedo

Too lazy to google "rocket torpedo" , eh ?



Originally Posted by setrict
It does have relevance. China has 5x the population of the US. If you took an IQ test of china, they would have 5x as many people in the top 1%. It has nothing to do with genetics, or anything else it's just a proportion. When you factor in education levels, environment, etc things get a little murky... but if all those are equal than yeah, they are going to have 5x the number of pocket protector types. How well that translates into progress in new technology is anybody's guess, but it probably can't hurt.

That is completely theoretical and you have no way to prove that; ergo, I consider it irrelevant.

Education levels / enviroment don't really matter .. in the sense that finding top talent* and ensuring it gets adequate schooling isn't probably worse in China than in the US...

What's it that you don't understand about that concept ? Every population in the world has smart people in it. Even California. So, if China is 5x as populous as the US, the US probably has 5x less very smart individuals. Though maybe only 4x - 3x less, because it attracts a lot of foreign scientists and engineers.

*the top 5-10 % who must get university education, as opposed to the mass of idiots who go on to inflate statistics with degrees in business, media/women studies or crap like literature ..

[Y.T.]

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/shkval.htm

On 05 April 2000 the Russian Federal Security Service [FSB] in Moscow arrested an American businessman, Edmond Pope, and a Russian accomplice, on charges of stealing scientific secrets. A FSB statement said it confiscated "technical drawings of various equipment, recordings of his conversations with Russian citizens relating to their work in the Russian defense industry, and receipts for American dollars received by them." Pope, a retired US Navy captain who spent much of his career working in naval intelligence, was at the time of his arrest the head of a private security firm. On 20 April 2000 the FSB revealed that Pope had been seeking plans the Shkval underwater missile. Pope was detained during an informal contact with a Russian scientist who had participated in the Shkval's creation.

Pretty much a smoking gun that the Navy wants it badly ...

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

Too lazy to google "rocket torpedo" , eh ?
When you're the one to bring it up, it's up to you to provide actual information and sources. Try to be condescending when you can actually get away with it.


Education levels / enviroment don't really matter .. in the sense that finding top talent* and ensuring it gets adequate schooling isn't probably worse in China than in the US...

What's it that you don't understand about that concept ? Every population in the world has smart people in it. Even California. So, if China is 5x as populous as the US, the US probably has 5x less very smart individuals. Though maybe only 4x - 3x less, because it attracts a lot of foreign scientists and engineers.
I understand the concept perfectly. However, that doesn't mean that all those alleged smart people are getting the necessary education or will get it to make any real use of it.

Another point; you're basing all this (or at least seem to be) on the assumption that people are only born "smart" rather than actually learning it through education, and that education is only meant to utilize that seemingly God-given intelligence. That's really narrow-minded and flawed thinking.

You're also going to have to elaborate on what the hell you mean by "adequate schooling". For the stuff you've mentioned before, such as hard science, you're speaking about university education, in which case the United States is not doing poorly in at all, and is much better than the PRC.

*the top 5-10 % who must get university education, as opposed to the mass of idiots who go on to inflate statistics with degrees in business, media/women studies or crap like literature ..
Just because you don't like literature or business doesn't mean that those people aren't getting a university education.

[Cherub Rock]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval_torpedo

Too lazy to google "rocket torpedo" , eh ?


Education levels / enviroment don't really matter .. in the sense that finding top talent* and ensuring it gets adequate schooling isn't probably worse in China than in the US...

What's it that you don't understand about that concept ? Every population in the world has smart people in it. Even California. So, if China is 5x as populous as the US, the US probably has 5x less very smart individuals. Though maybe only 4x - 3x less, because it attracts a lot of foreign scientists and engineers.

*the top 5-10 % who must get university education, as opposed to the mass of idiots who go on to inflate statistics with degrees in business, media/women studies or crap like literature ..

Brain drain is what you refer to at the bottom and trust me, you understate it significantly. The US draws the top talent from nearly every single country in the world and because of our capitalist economy and low taxes we tend to keep them. It is more than a 1-2% swing when it comes to a country like China. Now you figure that the majority of those "top 1%" individuals in China are not in the position to contribute heavily to society because of the position they were born into, so we'll say that China probably keeps a good percentage of them, but of the ones who are in position to go to school and contribute to the greatness that is China, the majority will go abroad to be educated and maybe not return. Now once China's population is developed enough to make the most of those "top 1%" persons, you figure more and more of them will go abroad rather than stay.

The problem is you go to med school for 8 years and you are left with two decisions. Stay in the US (or wherever) and make a boat load of money or go back to China and do the same work for significantly less. Many people have decided to stay in the US and send part of that difference back to their country of origin in the form of remittances because they are able to help their relatives more that way.

Either way, the most intelligent people will always gravitate to the place where they can make the most of their ability, and that is the very definition of capitalism. As long as they are able to, they will come to the US. In other words I've venture to say that the US has within its borders a significantly unproportional percentage of the world's "top 1%" compared to its population. Probably several times more than China.

[Y.T.]

Another point; you're basing all this (or at least seem to be) on the assumption that people are only born "smart" rather than actually learning it through education, and that education is only meant to utilize that seemingly God-given intelligence. That's really narrow-minded and flawed thinking.

Flawed ? Excuse me, but intelligence is mostly determined by one's genetics and early life. If you don't torment kids till they are seven years old, after that, you can't influence much how smart they'll end up, even though a lot of dumb bastards seem to think that driving their kids insane with schoolwork might have an effect.

Indeed, intelligence is 80 % inheritable. So there goes your argument about people getting smarter.



*the top 5-10 % who must get university education, as opposed to the mass of idiots who go on to inflate statistics with degrees in business, media/women studies or crap like literature ..

Just because you don't like literature or business doesn't mean that those people aren't getting a university education.

I'm not disputing them getting degrees. I am wondering whether those degrees are good for anything except providing make-work, or looking nice in a frame. Especially something like women's studies.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

Flawed ? Excuse me, but intelligence is mostly determined by one's genetics and early life. If you don't torment kids till they are seven years old, after that, you can't influence much how smart they'll end up, even though a lot of dumb bastards seem to think that driving their kids insane with schoolwork might have an effect.

Indeed, intelligence is 80 % inheritable. So there goes your argument about people getting smarter.
Prove it.

Edit: Actually, scratch that. I know you'll just tell me to prove my point and all I have is mostly anecdotal evidence, and I dislike arguing psychology either way.

I'm not disputing them getting degrees. I am wondering whether those degrees are good for anything except providing make-work, or looking nice in a frame. Especially something like women's studies.
Many of those kinds of degrees require a lot of analytical paperwork among other things, so yes, I would say that they're useful. Just because they're not getting a B.S. in engineering doesn't mean they're not being prepared for anything.

[Roxie]

seriously...this is now a conversation between two ppl.
could you take it to pm's pls?

[Cherub Rock]

Why? Personally I'm interested in hearing about how intelligence is 80% inheritable and how people do not get smarter. Besides I replied to one of them a couple of posts ago so unless each of us only count as two-thirds of a person then there is more than two people talking here.

[Masa the Masta]

What about English majors?


EDIT: Intelligence is hard to define, unless you go by that one definition that states that it's motivation and goal driven behavior or something.. and the fact that there's multiple kinds of intelligence.

[Cherub Rock]

2/3 * 3 = 2 for you English majors.

[spaik]

it doesn't matter how many people hate bush and the war in iraq. if the democrats send hillary or obama, they will lose. people would be uncertain, and that is a very bad thing in dealing with 'questionable' candidates. people sent bush back because they wanted an incumbent during war time, and they were uncertain about the opposition candidate. no, 08 is not going to be their year. the dems would be throwing this election away to have either one of them run.

[Roxie]

Biden Unwraps ’08 Bid With an Oops!
By ADAM NAGOURNEY

WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 — In an era of meticulous political choreography, the staging of the kickoff for this presidential candidacy could hardly have gone worse.

Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, who announced his candidacy on Wednesday with the hope that he could ride his foreign policy expertise into contention for the Democratic nomination, instead spent the day struggling to explain his description of Senator Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat running for president, as “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”

The remark, published Wednesday in The New York Observer, left Mr. Biden’s campaign struggling to survive its first hours and injected race more directly into the presidential contest. The day ended, appropriately enough for the way politics is practiced now, with Mr. Biden explaining himself to Jon Stewart on Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show.”

Earlier, in a decidedly nonpresidential afternoon conference call with reporters that had been intended to announce his candidacy, Mr. Biden, speaking over loud echoes and a blaring television set, said that he had been “quoted accurately.” He volunteered that he had called Mr. Obama to express regret that his remarks had been taken “out of context,” and that Mr. Obama had assured him he had nothing to explain.

“Barack Obama is probably the most exciting candidate that the Democratic or Republican party has produced at least since I’ve been around,” he said, adding: “Call Senator Obama. He knew what I meant by it. The idea was very straightforward and simple. This guy is something brand new that nobody has seen before.”

Asked about Mr. Biden’s comments, Mr. Obama said in an interview, “I didn’t take it personally and I don’t think he intended to offend.” Mr. Obama, who serves with Mr. Biden on the Foreign Relations Committee, added, “But the way he constructed the statement was probably a little unfortunate.”

But later in the day, with Mr. Biden coming under fire from some black leaders, Mr. Obama issued a statement that approached a condemnation. “I didn’t take Senator Biden’s comments personally, but obviously they were historically inaccurate,” he said. “African-American presidential candidates like Jesse Jackson, Shirley Chisholm, Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton gave a voice to many important issues through their campaigns, and no one would call them inarticulate.”

For Mr. Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, it was an inauspicious beginning to his first presidential campaign since 1988, when he dropped out after acknowledging using without attribution portions of a speech from a British politician. By the end of the day on Wednesday, Democrats were asking only half-jokingly whether Mr. Biden might be remembered for having the shortest-lived presidential campaign in the history of the Republic.

Shortly after 6 p.m., Mr. Biden issued a written statement. “I deeply regret any offense my remark in the New York Observer might have caused anyone,” he said. “That was not my intent and I expressed that to Senator Obama.”

Under questioning from reporters at his announcement conference call, Mr. Biden was pressed on what he meant in his description of Mr. Obama, particularly in his use of the word clean.

“He understood exactly what I meant,” Mr. Biden said. “And I have no doubt that Jesse Jackson and every other black leader — Al Sharpton and the rest — will know exactly what I meant.”

When he was asked, again, what he meant, Mr. Biden — known in Washington for his long-winded ways and his love of the microphone and the spotlight — bristled as he struggled over the squawk of feedback and echoes.

“I’m not going to repeat everything I just said,” he said. “There is a vote that starts at 2:30, it takes 11 minutes to get to the floor. I can take one more question but not on the subject I have already spoken to.”

And after taking one more question, Mr. Biden did something entirely out of character: He announced he was done talking.

Mr. Biden’s assurances notwithstanding, both Mr. Jackson and Mr. Sharpton — African-Americans who have run for president — said they had no idea what Mr. Biden meant. And both suggested they felt at least a little offended by the remarks.

Mr. Jackson described Mr. Biden’s remarks to the Observer, which also included critical statements about the Iraq positions of two of his Democratic opponents — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina — as “blabbering bluster.”

A wounded note to his voice, Mr. Jackson pointed out that he had run against Mr. Biden for the 1988 Democratic nomination, and had lasted far longer and drawn more votes than did Mr. Biden. Mr. Biden was forced out in September 1987.

“I am not sure what he means — ask him to explain what he meant,” Mr. Jackson said. “I don’t know whether it was an attempt to diminish what I had done in ’88, or to say Barack is all style and no substance.”

Mr. Sharpton said that when Mr. Biden called him to apologize, Mr. Sharpton started off the conversation reassuring Mr. Biden about his hygienic practices. “I told him I take a bath every day,” Mr. Sharpton said.

No stranger to electoral intrigue, Mr. Sharpton was quick to offer a political motive: That Mr. Biden was drawing distinctions between Mr. Obama and African-American leaders like Mr. Sharpton and Mr. Jackson, to “discredit Mr. Obama with his base.”

At the very least, Mr. Biden’s remarks obscured a campaign roll-out in which he said that Mr. Bush had “dug America into a very big hole” with the war in Iraq and that the nation would need a leader experienced in foreign policy to take over during dangerous times. More than that, it seemed sure to harden Mr. Biden’s image in political circles as politically undisciplined, an image he had been working scrupulously to change in what has emerged as a long-term political rehabilitation project for him.

In his conference call, Mr. Biden quoted his mother in trying to explain what he meant about Mr. Obama. “My mother has an expression: Clean as a whistle and sharp as a tack,” Mr. Biden said, showering more praise on one of his biggest opponents for the nomination.

On Comedy Central, he told Mr. Stewart: “What got me in trouble was using the word clean. I should have said fresh. What I meant was he’s got new ideas.”

Mr. Biden’s comments also focused new attention on remarks he made about Indians last year, when he said, “you cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking.”

Before he went on television, Mr. Biden found himself sharing a stage with Mr. Obama at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Iraq, where he was noticeably solicitous to his new presidential rival as members of the committee questioned Henry Kissinger, the former secretary of state. Mr. Biden chastised Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat, to keep his comments short (“just one minute, Senator, or we will have everybody else”).

But he could not have been more accommodating to Mr. Obama as the senator from Illinois began wrapping up: “I know I’m out of time.”

Mr. Biden would have none of that. “That’s O.K.,” he told Mr. Obama. “You’re making a very salient point.”

[Josh]

These are assuming that all friendly countries would ally themselves as they usually tend to.

Chinese Allies: North Korea, Russia, Pakistan(Maybe, but only because they dont like India too much and India doesn't like China.) and perhaps a few other not-so-major-contributers.

US Allies: Most of NATO. And NATO covers a pretty large portion of the worlds most highly developed nations which tend to have pretty excellent militaries.

Then to mention that China has hardly any navy to speak of and their airforce is rather lacking. A few bombs placed here and there at various electrical facilities would leave China hurting with power outages.

Back on topic, Mr. Obama for the win. I think it would be a nice change of pace. I couldnt force myself to vote for Mrs. Clinton. Yuck.