[Mongoose]

Who would you rather have as a president?  Biden or Palin?

Because it is fairly likely during the 4/8 years of presidency that McCain will drop dead of a stroke or something and Obama will be shot by some racist guy.  Both Obama and McCain would help the country in some way, but I'm leaning toward Obama a bit more.

McCain's probably healthier at 72 than I am right now at 22, so from where I'm standing, he'd have no problem getting at least four years under his belt. 

[Androgeos Exeunt]

It does make you wonder, though: has any side been in power for more than eight years?

[Nuclear1]

Republicans for 12: Reagan than Bush Sr.

[Akalabeth Angel]

    Yeah I voted for Nader, it might help the US to not have a corporate puppet as the exec for a change.

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OC7_-H_kSWQ

     or this one's kinda good too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsAKXeyvxzU&feature=user

[Nuke]

Who would you rather have as a president?  Biden or Palin?

Because it is fairly likely during the 4/8 years of presidency that McCain will drop dead of a stroke or something and Obama will be shot by some racist guy.  Both Obama and McCain would help the country in some way, but I'm leaning toward Obama a bit more.

i think palin would do the job better, shes been a damn good governor so far. shes a natural leader. its just as likely that mccain get assasinated by a racist black guy for "stompin' out tha brothas", or biden getting assassinated by some feminazi for taking the vp slot away from the ladies. when a presidential candidate picks a vp, they pick someone they know can be president.

[karajorma]

when a presidential candidate picks a vp, they pick someone they know can be president.

Explain Dan Quayle then.

[Nuke]

when a presidential candidate picks a vp, they pick someone they know can be president.

Explain Dan Quayle then.

as with any rule there are always exceptions. palin is a damn good governor, thanks to her our pfds this year will be $3269, completely funding my move to phoenix. plain tacked an extra $1200 to offset energy costs, as alaska buildings are mostly heated by fuel oil and natural gas. with the oil price where it is the state is getting plenty of extra revenue to help offset the costs of heating this frigid icebox.

its ridiculous the restrictions the federal government puts on alaska. we are surrounded by forests, yet we cant do any logging, local lumber prices are very restrictive. all the construction ive been doing has shown me how restricting the costs of such a basic resource can cause. so many buildings here are in complete disrepair because we cant afford the materials for basic maintenance of structures. none of our government buildings have any maintenance plan what so ever.

we produce our own oil but were not allowed to build our own refineries. were not allowed to make our own decisions about drilling in places like anwar for example. its completely unfair that the hippies down south are happy to dictate the future of my current state. there has recently been issues with mining here. they want to shut that down too. though i (and palin said she did) voted against that in the local primary (and it passed) them damn non-alaskan liberals are still trying to circumvent the vote to get their way. its disgusting, that my vote didnt count because someone manipulated the system. thats why i like palin, because shes trying to make something of this state, instead of the run down emergency gas pump that the rest of the usa thinks we are. these are our resources and we should get to use them for the advancement of our state. not that we dont want to participate in trade, just that we should get to have a say in what we choose to develop.

before someone brings up so called global warming, this was one of the coldest summers i can remember. as a result my usual job only paid a 3rd of what it usually would have paid. also this is the main reason for my leaving the state, since all our industries are tied up fighting to remain operational. my job is seasonal and i didn't make enough to stay the winter. i would really like to have a tech job, but there are few to none. maybe if our state is allowed to develop id find a reason to stay, but i cant so im leaving. so id say palin is seeing all the problems with our state and fixing them, imagine what she could do for the rest of the country (too bad shes only running for vp).

[Akalabeth Angel]

        God help america if she comes into power: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YD3Yk9RZRF0

[Ghostavo]

Did she just say "nucular" weapons?

Great, just great...

[Akalabeth Angel]

This is kind of interesting, except for the word "Illuminati" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teXgZoZrnwQ

[MP-Ryan]

This is kind of interesting, except for the word "Illuminati" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teXgZoZrnwQ

I see a video of disjointed clips taken well out of context and assembled to paint a great emotional picture but one, if you use an ounce of rational thought, that is entirely manufactured.

In short, more conspiracy bull****.

[karajorma]

        God help america if she comes into power: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YD3Yk9RZRF0

I preferred this one.

[Akalabeth Angel]

I see a video of disjointed clips taken well out of context and assembled to paint a great emotional picture but one, if you use an ounce of rational thought, that is entirely manufactured.

In short, more conspiracy bull****.

     Conspiracy?
     All I got out of it is that the US always go to war and they'll always continue to go to war because that's what they do and if you vote for mccain/obama that's exactly what's going to happen and a bunch of kids wherever and other people are gonna get their asses killed as a result. Got Obama talking about attack Iran, or Pakistan, or wherever the hell, how can that be taken out of context?


      Or you what something that's NOT out of context? Try this quote:

"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion… and you allow him to make war at pleasure… If to-day he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him,–’I see no probability of the British invading us’; but he will say to you, ‘Be silent: I see it, if you don’t.’"

-Abraham Lincoln

Or here's another one:

"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing."

-Dwight Eisenhower


       And yet the Americans will vote in Obama and McCain in droves to have the same pointless bloodshed again and again. But who cares, they're not americans dying. They're just Iraqis, just Afghanis, does it matter the US bombed the **** out of some Afghan civilians? Or that some Canadian soldiers shot some 3 year old dead (or however old it was). They're not American or Canadian lives, so who cares . . . .hell do they even get much news coverage? And yet there go the Americans, cheering on their future leaders who want perpetuate these conflicts until the end of time at the cost of thousands of innocent lives.

       

[MP-Ryan]

And yet the Americans will vote in Obama and McCain in droves to have the same pointless bloodshed again and again. But who cares, they're not americans dying. They're just Iraqis, just Afghanis, does it matter the US bombed the **** out of some Afghan civilians? Or that some Canadian soldiers shot some 3 year old dead (or however old it was). They're not American or Canadian lives, so who cares . . . .hell do they even get much news coverage? And yet there go the Americans, cheering on their future leaders who want perpetuate these conflicts until the end of time at the cost of thousands of innocent lives.

American Presidents cannot unilaterally decide to go to war.  That's what Congress is for - which means that if you want to effect a meaningful change in the way foreign policy is being conducted in the United States, you need to change the culture, not the politicians.  To say the US is always going to war is a fallacy as well; the emergence of the United States from isolationism only occurred after the 1930s.  The preventative war strategy only emerged after 1980.

A foreign policy shift occurring over two decades is hardly a case for "always" and certainly not a case for perpetuation.

I have a quote too:  "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic."  Where is the outrage over Darfur, Serbia, Rwanda, Somalia, Lebanon?

I'm not a fan of war either nor US foreign policy between the 1985 and 2005, but a little historical perspective is absolutely necessary.  That video was crap.

[Akalabeth Angel]

American Presidents cannot unilaterally decide to go to war.  That's what Congress is for - which means that if you want to effect a meaningful change in the way foreign policy is being conducted in the United States, you need to change the culture, not the politicians.  To say the US is always going to war is a fallacy as well; the emergence of the United States from isolationism only occurred after the 1930s.  The preventative war strategy only emerged after 1980.

"On at least 125 occasions, the President has acted without prior express military authorization from Congress.[4] These include instances in which the United States fought in Korea in 1950, the Philippine-American War from 1898-1903, and in Nicaragua in 1927."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

     Note that congress also hasn't formally declared war since World War 2.

   
     The American system is a good one but are the laws of that system actually being followed?

     
List of conflicts involving the United States:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States

Considering that half that page isn't even the 20th century I'd say you're a little mistaken on the "isolationist only before 1930". Hell the term "Manifest Destiny" is centuries old, the very idea of which is domination of North America or somesuch thing.

[MP-Ryan]

"On at least 125 occasions, the President has acted without prior express military authorization from Congress.[4] These include instances in which the United States fought in Korea in 1950, the Philippine-American War from 1898-1903, and in Nicaragua in 1927."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

     Note that congress also hasn't formally declared war since World War 2.

   
     The American system is a good one but are the laws of that system actually being followed?

Considering Congress has had to authorize American participation in ever conflict it has ever participated in, whether it is the declaring body is irrelevant.  Prolonged offensive military action requires the authorization of the legislative body.

List of conflicts involving the United States:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States

Considering that half that page isn't even the 20th century I'd say you're a little mistaken on the "isolationist only before 1930". Hell the term "Manifest Destiny" is centuries old, the very idea of which is domination of North America or somesuch thing.

This is why world history should be a mandatory subject throughout high school.

The United States pursued isolationist policy right up until World War 2.  That does not mean they did not participate in wars - that means any conflict they undertook was purely out of self-interest.  The official break with isolationism occurred on December 7, 1941.  The practical break with isolationism occurred in 1938 when the US began selectively supplying the soon-to-become Allied powers in Europe.

Manifest destiny refers to an American belief from approximately 1800 to 1900 that the provinces making up Canada would become a part of the United States.  That ranged from a military attack on the British territories there during the war of 1812 to political belief post-1867.  Isolationism does not have lack of warfare as a prerequisite - it merely means (concerning warfare) that the nation only involves itself in conflicts which are in its own self-interest.

Young people like to believe that the US is and always has been a warmongering state, but the reality is that the conflicts we see today are a result of a very recent change in foreign policy which Bush has himself already begun to reverse.

[Akalabeth Angel]

"On at least 125 occasions, the President has acted without prior express military authorization from Congress.[4] These include instances in which the United States fought in Korea in 1950, the Philippine-American War from 1898-1903, and in Nicaragua in 1927."

Considering Congress has had to authorize American participation in ever conflict it has ever participated in, whether it is the declaring body is irrelevant.  Prolonged offensive military action requires the authorization of the legislative body.

     Considering that I quoted the Wikipedia which just said that American has participated in 125 military actions NOT authorized by Congress I suggest you read the quotes a little harder.

The United States pursued isolationist policy right up until World War 2.  That does not mean they did not participate in wars - that means any conflict they undertook was purely out of self-interest.  The official break with isolationism occurred on December 7, 1941.  The practical break with isolationism occurred in 1938 when the US began selectively supplying the soon-to-become Allied powers in Europe.

Manifest destiny refers to an American belief from approximately 1800 to 1900 that the provinces making up Canada would become a part of the United States.  That ranged from a military attack on the British territories there during the war of 1812 to political belief post-1867.  Isolationism does not have lack of warfare as a prerequisite - it merely means (concerning warfare) that the nation only involves itself in conflicts which are in its own self-interest.

    So what, America is fighting for other people's interests now? "fighting for Iraqi freedom"? hahahahahaha. Come on. America fought for their own interests back then, they're fighting for their own interests now. Isolationism is a country that doesn't interact with its neighbours, hence, isolates itself. Interacting, through self-serving warfare is NOT isolationism.

     Here's another quote from Wikipedia regarding "Isolationism":
     "Non-interventionism – Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism

      So was the invasion of Canada in 1812 a defensive action?
     
      So was Hitler an isolationist because he took pre-emptive action in a war serving Germany's interests? No, of course he wasn't. And neither is the United States.

[MP-Ryan]

Considering that I quoted the Wikipedia which just said that American has participated in 125 military actions NOT authorized by Congress I suggest you read the quotes a little harder.

Considering that war cannot be conducted without funding from Congress which must be authorized several times a year, I suggest you research how the American system actually works rather than relying on Wikipedia.

    So what, America is fighting for other people's interests now? "fighting for Iraqi freedom"? hahahahahaha. Come on. America fought for their own interests back then, they're fighting for their own interests now. Isolationism is a country that doesn't interact with its neighbours, hence, isolates itself. Interacting, through self-serving warfare is NOT isolationism.

     Here's another quote from Wikipedia regarding "Isolationism":
     "Non-interventionism – Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism

      So was the invasion of Canada in 1812 a defensive action?
     
      So was Hitler an isolationist because he took pre-emptive action in a war serving Germany's interests? No, of course he wasn't. And neither is the United States.

Isolationism and non-interventionism are two different things, which is once again why relying on Wikipedia for your information without fact checking is a bad thing.

A few other facts:
-Canada wasn't a country in 1812, it was two different British colonies and Britain was at war with the United States.
-The conflict now is purely self-serving, but WW2, the Korean War, and the Gulf War were all breaks with isolationism, as have been the numerous economic programs in place following WW2 set to influence world politics.
-Nazi Germany was never isolationist and never pretended to be.

[General Battuta]

I see a video of disjointed clips taken well out of context and assembled to paint a great emotional picture but one, if you use an ounce of rational thought, that is entirely manufactured.

In short, more conspiracy bull****.

     Conspiracy?
     All I got out of it is that the US always go to war and they'll always continue to go to war because that's what they do and if you vote for mccain/obama that's exactly what's going to happen and a bunch of kids wherever and other people are gonna get their asses killed as a result. Got Obama talking about attack Iran, or Pakistan, or wherever the hell, how can that be taken out of context?


      Or you what something that's NOT out of context? Try this quote:

"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion… and you allow him to make war at pleasure… If to-day he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him,–’I see no probability of the British invading us’; but he will say to you, ‘Be silent: I see it, if you don’t.’"

-Abraham Lincoln

Or here's another one:

"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing."

-Dwight Eisenhower


       And yet the Americans will vote in Obama and McCain in droves to have the same pointless bloodshed again and again. But who cares, they're not americans dying. They're just Iraqis, just Afghanis, does it matter the US bombed the **** out of some Afghan civilians? Or that some Canadian soldiers shot some 3 year old dead (or however old it was). They're not American or Canadian lives, so who cares . . . .hell do they even get much news coverage? And yet there go the Americans, cheering on their future leaders who want perpetuate these conflicts until the end of time at the cost of thousands of innocent lives.

       

Okay, Angel, before you throw around rampant generalizations, maybe you should do some research and learn that

a) most Americans (a ridiculous proportion) feel that the country is 'on the wrong track', as shown in many polls

b) there is a huge and active antiwar movement in many parts of the country, particularly the Northeast and Northwest, which are generally more liberal.

[IceFire]

Just need to get those folks to vote...

The biggest problem in modern democracy is people not voting.