We did it!

[lisagurl]

Barack Obama was born on 4th August, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii. His father Barack Obama, Sr was born in Nyanza Province, Kenya

[tekla]

People, people.  Yeesh, I go away to work for a few days and everyone whips out the Kool-Aid.

Arnie played by the rules as he did not run for the presidency...  sorry, Arnie had the sense of RIGHT not to run.
Well, it just might be - that pesky Constitution aside, that Reagan's "Big Tent" Republican Party, turned into a religious revival, and there is no way that Arnold was going to win the party nomination, the law aside.  He supports gay rights and medical marijuana, doesn't go to church, is married into the Kennedy family and is more socially liberal than Obama is.  You think that will win in the current Republican environment?

Not only that, there were issues that didn't rate very much in Cali, but would matter in a national elections like the steroid deal, the 'gay soft core porn' he did (or perhaps it was just an educational film on how to shower), his time as a Big, Huge, Supergreasy Hollywood type show biz star where he acted like a Hollywood type star.  We're mature enough here (or jaded - remember he is Gov because the guy before him got recalled for being boring) to not care much about soft core porn, or the fact that he was banging starlets like Brett Farve throws passes.  On a national stage, within the Republican party, I'd be about as likely to get the nod.


I don't do "rules." I do "right" and "wrong."
But the USA does not do right and wrong, but rather - as you should have learned in like high school civics - "We are a nation of laws."  There is no notion of right and wrong (or god) in the Constitution).

Is it the goal of the Democrat party to lie and cheat to win elections?
No more than the Republicans who do the same.

I disagree slightly with the notion that our country was founded on the Constitution -- it was founded on the Declaration of Independence,
F.  100% dead wrong.  The DoI was about independence from British, and said little to nothing about government - other to note, at length, that any government run by George III sucked.  Nor, was the Constitution the way to enshrine those ideals.  Hell, it wasn't even the first government was it?  No, that would have been the Articles of Confederation.  So, basically the Constitution is, in and of itself, an amendment to a previous system of American government.

The Constitution is a document set up to enforce these principles
Oops, not even close, but thanks for playing our game.  Where the DoI stated, as you correctly said, it was all about life, liberty and happiness, (which of course is in the original, "life, liberty, and property" and not happiness, but you knew that didn't you) the Constitution says that We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.  It is, in fact, mostly a commercial document, its really about trade, money, standards, and business.  Because, the business of America is business after all, and 'twas ever thus.  It sought a very small, very limited federal government to work with very powerful states over commercial issues.  I would suggest, the basic text for all understanding of the American Constitution, Charles Beard's An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution.

[Alyssa M.]

I don't do "rules." I do "right" and "wrong."
But the USA does not do right and wrong, but rather - as you should have learned in like high school civics - "We are a nation of laws."  There is no notion of right and wrong (or god) in the Constitution).

My point is that I don't think that "constitutionality" or "legality" are interesting categories to discuss, unless you're discussing what ought to be constitutional or legal. If I choose to violate or ignore laws that I consider unjust, sue me or arrest me. But don't try to shame me by telling me that it's illegal. In general it's not much of an issue for me, since I'm quite meek and conservative in my actions and mostly just go along with what society (i.e. the law) tells me.

--

I disagree slightly with the notion that our country was founded on the Constitution -- it was founded on the Declaration of Independence,
F.  100% dead wrong.
The Constitution is a document set up to enforce these principles
Oops, not even close, but thanks for playing our game.

Look, it's a semantic argument regarding the definition of "founded." The principles of legitimate governmental authority are laid out in the Declaration; the form of our particular government is laid out in the Constitution. Do you disagree? As you said, there's no God or Right or Wrong in the Constitution. In fact, there is only the slightest hint of any moral argument in the Constitution's preamble. The Declaration (before diving into particular grievances) is all about the Laws of Nature and Nature's God.

I'm personally more interested in the moral basis for the form of government, not the form itself. The Constitution has little to say about the moral basis. So, for me, the Declaration speaks more to what interests me about the founding of this country. As to what the Constitution's framers intended, you're not a strict constructionist, are you? If so, I give you my condolences.

--

So it's the same point on both issues: when people base moral arguments upon legal documents, they have their logic reversed. It is the laws that should be based on moral considerations. I'm not alone in feeling this way -- that's why people are infuriated by legal decisions based on what they deem to be "technicalities," and that's why we admire people who engage in civil disobedience to overturn unjust laws.

[tekla]

What legal document?  The DoI was a radical screed that used whatever it could as a way of promoting a violent overthrow of an established government via revolution.

The other is/was a rather conservative document that laid out a framework for a limited federal government.

I don't think there is a moral basis for government, as morals are something that are only for living beings, not institutions, which may, or may not have ethics, which are not the same thing.

[nickie]

Well, I didn't realize this would be such a 'popular' topic, creating such a heated debate. Daisy, you sure sound like a lot of sour grapes to me. I will never understand how a Trans person can be a member of the Republican party, the way it is nowadays. The Republican party, under the rule of Ronald Reagan, put religion into our politics. I see that as the beginning of our major problems. Now, we have fundamentalist Hell raising preachers starting problems, then walking away from the messes. I was not attributing the problems we have to John McCain, you read that into it. But if you check out his voting record, he did vote with Bush most of the time. And getting the hell beat out of you repeatedly does not make you more qualified to lead.
Please, no one take offense to this, I am no way a racist. I have studied this. Even though Obama won, propositions 8 and 2 in California and Florida, respectively, won also. This is most likely because more African Americans voted in this election than ever before. And, African American folks tend to be more religiously fundamental than Caucasian Americans. They DO NOT like homosexuality, rather, their religions condemn it. I know a lot of African American people, and the ones who go to church are a lot more conservative than the white people than I know. Take it for what it's worth.... that's my opinion. No blame, just fact.

[whatsername]

Trying to blame what happened in California on black people makes no sense because they simply do not comprise a big enough percentage of the electorate to swing a vote.  MAYBE if they ALL voted the same way, but they didn't.  Just a majority did.  Like a majority of every race I've seen graphed did.

Plain and simple Equality California ran a terrible campaign.  They were slow with ads, they let the Pro people set the tone, their outreach was horribly disorganized and they didn't have people on the ground soon enough.  Whereas the Pro side utilized the mad on the ground skills of Mormon door-to-door folks, were well funded from the start, and campaigned hard in neighborhoods of color, where our people *did not go* until the very last minute.  Oh and guess what the pro side were telling people when they knocked on those doors?  "Your church will be forced to marry gay people or lose it's tax exemption"  "Your kids will be taught about gay marriage in school"  "Barack Obama opposes same sex marriage".  Lies, lies, and twisting of truths.  And we weren't there to correct it.  Also did you notice the lack of people of color in our advertising?  Hmmm that's a great way to make people feel included.

The Pro people had been there, on the ground, in the neighborhoods, for weeks when we got there after spending money on rallies in San Francisco and Los Angeles.  They were there with tried and true Mormon scripts of "if they're interested in this, go this way, if they're interested in that, go that way".  We spent way too much time preaching to the choir and not enough making phone calls, knocking on doors, and sending out fliers with Barack Obama's face on them with: "Barack Obama is AGAINST Proposition 8".

That's not to ignore the homophobia that does exist in communities of color, but that's not why we lost this campaign.

[lisagurl]

That's not to ignore the homophobia that does exist

It is the fear that the culture will change. It is the fear of unrestrained sex in public, both in schools work and all public places. The 30 second sound bites always show arrests of the fringe sexual activities.

[whatsername]

The 30 second sound bites always show arrests of the fringe sexual activities.

Our sensationalist media does seem to enjoy highlighting the "worst" of every community.

[nickie]

Okay, I'll give you that's what happened in California. But Florida is a different kind of place, totally. We are in the deep South, and have a large African American presence here. More than 2/3 of the people I work with are thus. Also, there is a huge retirement 'community' here, and these folks are mainly conservatives from the Midwest. The also fear gays and Lesbians, almost as much as terrorists. They see them as an attack on our survival, because to them, gays represent the very tearing of the fiber of morality, whether they be religious or not. Equality Florida led a good campaign against proposition 2, but it was obviously too little, too late. There was simply too much to over come. Florida is a VERY backward state. I still believe that the religious right of the African American community mainly voted in proposition 2 here. If you don't believe me, just visit and talk to some of our people. It would enlighten you.

[lisagurl]

gays represent the very tearing of the fiber of morality, whether they be religious or not

It is not morality as much as culture. Straight people fear the aggressive behavior of gays. The do not want to even be looked at with the idea that they are attractive to another man.

[daisybelle]

Well, I didn't realize this would be such a 'popular' topic, creating such a heated debate. Daisy, you sure sound like a lot of sour grapes to me. I will never understand how a Trans person can be a member of the Republican party, the way it is nowadays.

No sour grapes here... I would have voted potentially for Hillary --- who I see more as a moderate than Obama. 
And sorry justify what you want --- but I never thought Gore or Kerry(who would want a betrayor or the military trust in the WhiteHouse -- note Jane FOnda and had the bravery to admit she was wrong) were viable candidates, nor DOle when he ran against Clinton.     

The Republican party, under the rule of Ronald Reagan, put religion into our politics. I see that as the beginning of our major problems.

I believe and I welcome you to prove me wrong... that Reagan is what brought down the communist RUssia that eventually amounted to the tearing down of the Iron Curtain and Berlin wall.  Have you ever visited eastern europe before the Iron curtain came down......  I did and it was not anything like western europe.

I was not attributing the problems we have to John McCain, you read that into it. But if you check out his voting record, he did vote with Bush most of the time. And getting the hell beat out of you repeatedly does not make you more qualified to lead.

No getting beat the hell out of shows the troops under him that he stood the ideals of American Honor and would not give anything to the North Vietnamese no matter what they did to him.   Can you say the same?  If you found yourself in the military would you respect this man for the trials and tribulations he went through.  Could you last even one week before giving in??

Please, no one take offense to this, I am no way a racist. I have studied this. Even though Obama won, propositions 8 and 2 in California and Florida, respectively, won also. This is most likely because more African Americans voted in this election than ever before. And, African American folks tend to be more religiously fundamental than Caucasian Americans. They DO NOT like homosexuality, rather, their religions condemn it. I know a lot of African American people, and the ones who go to church are a lot more conservative than the white people than I know. Take it for what it's worth.... that's my opinion. No blame, just fact.

I think this might possibly be true...  but so what?   It does not change things now.   Either you learn to live within the propostiions, or you use the legal system to contest their constitutionality.   Either way I see this as a win for SameSex Marriages.  Ummm let me see -- two states came forward and actually voted on this as a question giving the idea credibility.  Sure it was voted down, but now a law can come into question before the Higher courts of the land.   I think this was the intention all along.  But I might be wrong.

Daisy

[tekla]

No getting beat the hell out of shows the troops under him that he stood the ideals of American Honor and would not give anything to the North Vietnamese no matter what they did to him.   Can you say the same?  If you found yourself in the military would you respect this man for the trials and tribulations he went through.  Could you last even one week before giving in?

Given that, it qualifies him as a hero, but not a commander or leader, it makes his service to the nation good enough to almost deserve a walk on the Keating charges, which he got.  Still, its not what is required to be president.  Given the two of them, I think Patton was hella more heroic on almost any given day of the war then Ike was in his entire life.  Yet, I have no doubt that Ike made a much better president then Patton would have.  It takes more than just being a hero.

Now, hell, if I had to choose which one 'I'd have a beer with' as the question goes, I'd pick McCain.  He has a similar sense of humor to me, is very much a 'party' person, and his wife owns the brewery, so that's win, win, win.  Yet, I think Obama has a deeper understanding of policy, of economics, of government and governing then John has. 

Is Obama going to be some sort of savior?  Some great heroic president (and being a hero president is different than a war hero) who faced great odds and overcame them?  Well, the second part of that is sure 'nuff in place, cause huge problems we got.  Is he going to find the way out, or around that?  We'll see, but I doubt it.  He might be more to the left of Hillary, but he's no leftist (and I say that speaking as one myself) its just that Hillary is only but a shade to the left of the Neo-Cons.  But the solutions are going to be way beyond any old notions of 'right' and 'left' or 'liberal' and 'conservative' - all that nonesense is pretty much obsolete as you read this.  These are new problems, they will require new solutions.

[lisagurl]

that Reagan is what brought down the communist RUssia

It was Gorbachev and Afghanistan. Russia could not afford to continue the arms race and be bogged down in Afghanistan while the communist form of economics gave people no incentive.

[tekla]

Russia could not afford to continue the arms race

I think that's the key.  We just spent them into the ground.  However when they stopped, we didn't (gotta have a new enemy right) so now were going the same route.  oops.

And granted, as they used to say in the USSR, "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us" the economic system sucked big hairy ones.  But we seem to be running out of incentives pretty fast too.

[daisybelle]

No getting beat the hell out of shows the troops under him that he stood the ideals of American Honor and would not give anything to the North Vietnamese no matter what they did to him.   Can you say the same?  If you found yourself in the military would you respect this man for the trials and tribulations he went through.  Could you last even one week before giving in?

Given that, it qualifies him as a hero, but not a commander or leader, it makes his service to the nation good enough to almost deserve a walk on the Keating charges, which he got.  Still, its not what is required to be president.  Given the two of them, I think Patton was hella more heroic on almost any given day of the war then Ike was in his entire life.  Yet, I have no doubt that Ike made a much better president then Patton would have.  It takes more than just being a hero.

I have no doubt McCain is a hero.  It definitely earns him the respect of the military.

But I think there is a difference between being a hero and being Honorable.  There are war heroes that saved their crew with bravery in the darkest moments in battle. 

The fact here though is McCain was not in the heat of battle, he was captured, and the only thing he could save was his American ideals.   So maybe we idenify him as an Honorable Hero.  The point I am making is he has lived his life in public service.   And it angers me to see people on the left besmirch his reputation as another Bush.  He is way more than other current President.  He has Character, Honor, and has showed the bravery to face another day of beatings sticking to his American Ideals. 

As far as the Patton versus Ike comparison.  I think Patton knew how to win a battle... Ike knew how to win a war.  In addition Patton would have potentially said something to get himself in trouble.

Daisy

[lisagurl]

He is way more than other current President

Yes he picked Palin as the next best thing if he was to die. Having leadership by throwing dice is not prudent.

[tekla]

I've been to West Point (where both Patton and Ike went) a few times, and have talked with several people who graduated from there (or the Navy/Airforce versions) and as best as I can tell those schools are divided into three parts.  There was a 'win battles' part, there was an 'administrate winning battles' part and there was 'design and operate technology needed to win battles' part.  In other words, there were military field commanders, administrators and engineers.  Patton was the first, and Ike the second. 

Each in their own way proved to be about as good at doing what they did, as anyone who ever did it. 

As a military commander its hard to find one who was as good a warrior and leader as Patton.  As someone who plans and administrates and arranges vast supplies and manpower over huge areas what Ike did was simply mindblowing.  Imagine for a moment, not only assembling all the people and gear you need to invade Europe in one place, but doing that without getting caught at it. 

But also imagine that if the figures are correct, then Patton's 3rd Army, during the years 1944-1945, at the apex of the war in Europe, accounted for 55% of the Germans who were killed in battle, or died later because of battle wounds.  55%  Patton killed half the Germans, the rest of the Allies, the other half.  Amazing.

But given those two skill sets, the President is much more about administration then winning battles. 

[postoplesbian]

THE WORLD IS RUN BY THE SUPER RICH They set up Reagan by setting up Carter to lose see = http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/october-surprise.html 

The group BILDERBERG  has been running things since 1954 and they are the military industrial complex that we were warned about after WW11

reagan was a figurehead just like Clinton and well Bush Sr and Jr both did what they could to undermine the USA in retaliation because their grandfater / father prescott Bush supported Hitler and lost all that $$ ..

Get over the false truth about america being about true red blooded americans except for people like my dad and many thousands of others who were used and abused as we keep seeing this happen to this day as they abuse the troops for $$ gains and profits


Here read some of the BUSH CLINTON REGIME  = http://bushclintonhurtchildren.blogspot.com/

don't believe your history books they were created for propaganda

[daisybelle]

OOOOKKAAAYYYY....

Then how does Obama fit into your little Conspiracy Plan?

And Clinton held the White House for 8 years.... How did he fit

[tekla]

Oh come on, the industrialists have had control over the presidency since about 1900 with the election of McKinley, prior to that they pretty much held the Senate since the 1850s.  The large holders of land controlled the House, but what the industrial proved in the US as well as England, is that old land money can't compare with industrial money.