US Elections 2008

[Terrestrial Dream]

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

I have a bias against someone who thinks only a bit of talking will solve everything. Obama will pretty much butter up DPRK like how Kim and Roh did in the past 10 years.

Oh and yeah Yi Myung Bak is doing such a great job right now. To be honest I don't know much about Korean politic but I liked how Noh and Kim approached towards North Korea and to be honest I hate Yi's pro US policy. I know that you have more knowledge in Korean politic but I really don't want to reunification of Korea just because of the Untied States used aggressive method.
Now Obama, I think that he is the best thing that US go right now as a candidate. The US imo need to change their direction of their foreign policy, it might be more of an idealistic view but sometime diplomatic methods do work.

Also the tags on this thread are quiet amusing.

[yezhanquan]

"Speak softly, but carry a big stick" - I think it was Teddy Rosevelt who said that. I might add "Swing the stick from time to time, but when you say you want to use it, you better use it."

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by SeedFreedom

That may be true, but does just because those presedents you mentioned failed to implement change mean that Obama will too? If you want comparisons, he has also been compared to Regan in the fact both opened a new door for politics calling for change. If i know my history, Ragan was considered a good president. Hes also been compared to Trudeau from Canada (if any of you know who he is) who radically changed the face to Canada and is considered one of , if not the best prime ministers to ever lead Canada.

Reagan is only consider a good president by Republican. Democrates think he was the devil incarnated.

Originally Posted by Terrestrial Dream

Oh and yeah Yi Myung Bak is doing such a great job right now. To be honest I don't know much about Korean politic but I liked how Noh and Kim approached towards North Korea and to be honest I hate Yi's pro US policy. I know that you have more knowledge in Korean politic but I really don't want to reunification of Korea just because of the Untied States used aggressive method.
Now Obama, I think that he is the best thing that US go right now as a candidate. The US imo need to change their direction of their foreign policy, it might be more of an idealistic view but sometime diplomatic methods do work.

Also the tags on this thread are quiet amusing.

I don't want a idealistic view, i want a realistic one. Bush is idealogue for the neocon and obama is neolib ver of bush.

[yezhanquan]

A realistic viewpoint is that no matter who becomes president, you'll want to start tightening your belt now. Right away.

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

Reagan is only consider a good president by Republican. Democrates think he was the devil incarnated.

Does this set of democrats include Obama?

[N-Bomb]

Kennedy got through us the cuban missile crisis, and also started us on the way to the moon. Great things can happen when you have a goal and you strive towards it.

And hiding your medical problems? Sometimes what a country needs is a strong leader, and showing a weakness can compromise that perception.

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by Vexx

As a specific example of why having business stuck with the execution of healthcare is making us less competitive - Ford Motors estimates that as much as $2000 of the retail price of each car goes to covering Ford's cost of acquiring and providing their part of health insurance. Ford is handicapped out of the gate against companies in countries where the healthcare costs are shared by all taxpayers. (and yes, I know that Ford/GM/Chrysler has other competitive issues like gas mileage and design/parts quality ...)

Small companies completely take it in the gut from insurance companies. I worked for one small company where our costs tripled because we "had too many women... those pesky pregnancies" ... when we tried to form a cooperative with other small and medium businesses in the area to increase our user pool, we were told that we'd be just shut out by the insurance industry. That was in the late 1990s and it hasn't improved. The average employee costs a company as much as 40% in addition to their salary to cover health benefits. But employees who try to get their own coverage are either charged through the nose as individuals or just denied due to pre-existing conditions.

The insurance company portrayed in the Disney movie "The Incredibles" was supposed to be funny - but in fact it was completely on target in regard to what the health insurance executive profiteers are about. Their customers are their shareholders and their own bonuses --- not the patient.

Now wait a tic...

Ford and GM absolutely spend an enormous chunk of of every car purchase toward employee benefits, but at their size they should be getting the best rates around. The reason they spend so much is because of union action. Not that I'm saying unions or bad, but particular ones are just as bad as the companies they are boxing with. Toyota, Honda, and Nissan, for example, actually have as much or more production done right in the US with union labor and don't have nearly the problems GM and Ford do here.

Abuse on insurance rates (group versus individual, etc) is absolutely a travesty, but I would say that's due to very poor regulations, and not inherent to a non-government-managed system. While not perfect, things were a lot better some years ago. Group buys are an absolute crock and should be outlawed, and the mandates on employer provided health insurance (the current ones being courtesy of the Clintons) absolutely destroy any ability for competition to keep rates low for individuals. And the farther out of the responsibility of the individual, the less accountability there is for an insurance company to do their job, which in turn causes hospitals to raise their rates... which causes insurance companies to raise their rates... and so the circle continues. That is my largest objection to the Clinton and Obama plans... They take us into that downward spiral at an even faster rate.

Our current system is broken, without a doubt, but these halfway-socialized-but-still-run-by-major-even-more-consolidated-corporations things sound insane to me. Not that supporting major corporate consolidation and squeezing out individual and small business advancement and saying it's "for the little guy" hasn't been the Democratic party modus operandi for years now...

Originally Posted by Mentar

Xellos, this is kindergarten stuff. You can't get into national politics without meeting and dealing with unsavory people. If Obama had wanted to go there, he could have opened up the whole slimepool over the Clintons, against who Rezko or Wright would have looked like choir knaves. Likewise McCain.

This whole "guilt by association" ploy is BS, plain and simple. It's the tool of the fearmongers, for the uninformed. If you can't manage to form an opinion on what the CANDIDATE says, and you really go to the "ooooh, his pastor is an antiamerican racist, so this must be a really scary person" logic, you're quite oblivious.

In modern times, it's possible to form an informed opinion on what the CANDIDATES say. Of course their associations are relevant, but they should be used as openings about what the candidate says about them. Otherwise any campaign devolves into bigoted mudslinging. And don't tell me that this is what in your world should decide an election.

I don't think you'll find any one who's more averse to judging Obama by the words of his pastor than me. I've been in similar situations, myself.

Obama's words, though, stand on their own. You might read up on "black liberation theology" and read from Obama's books, "Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance" and "The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream". His driving agendas become much more clear this way, and it sheds very different light on his words (and his relationships) than one might see from first impression.

[yezhanquan]

Originally Posted by N-Bomb

Kennedy got through us the cuban missile crisis, and also started us on the way to the moon. Great things can happen when you have a goal and you strive towards it.

And hiding your medical problems? Sometimes what a country needs is a strong leader, and showing a weakness can compromise that perception.

His medical problems and the drugs he took may have impaired his judgement.

The Cuban Crisis and the quest to the moon were a product of the times. The US chose to combat communism globally, and she needed to win the moon race, since the Soviets won part one. As for the crisis, luck played its part too.

The 1960s saw the Sino-Soviet split (undetected by the US until much later), and the US never seemed to drop the wrong idea that communism was monolithic. In fact, treating everything as monolithic seems to have been one of the wrong lessons the US took away from their victory in the Cold War.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by N-Bomb

Kennedy got through us the cuban missile crisis, and also started us on the way to the moon. Great things can happen when you have a goal and you strive towards it.

And hiding your medical problems? Sometimes what a country needs is a strong leader, and showing a weakness can compromise that perception.

1. The Cuba Missile Crisis is something he practically started. He was just cleaning up his own mess.

2. The Moon? I'm sure any other president who is facing a Soviet Space Program would have gone for such a thing.


We might add how not noticing the Sino-Soviet Split and escalating the Vietnam war is something that goes against Kennedy.



In short: Kennedy was a disaster. In a way, his untimely death ensured that he wouldn't be remembered as a complete fiasco.

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by N-Bomb

Kennedy got through us the cuban missile crisis...

As I've said here before... It's a **** good thing he did get us through it, because he got us into it.

Originally Posted by N-Bomb

And hiding your medical problems? Sometimes what a country needs is a strong leader, and showing a weakness can compromise that perception.

I agree with this sentiment.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by Terrestrial Dream

Oh and yeah Yi Myung Bak is doing such a great job right now. To be honest I don't know much about Korean politic but I liked how Noh and Kim approached towards North Korea and to be honest I hate Yi's pro US policy. I know that you have more knowledge in Korean politic but I really don't want to reunification of Korea just because of the Untied States used aggressive method.

Good thing you said you didn't know much about Korean politics, since that's the reason for your..... unrealistic thinking.

[SeedFreedom]

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

I have a bias against someone who thinks only a bit of talking will solve everything. Obama will pretty much butter up DPRK like how Kim and Roh did in the past 10 years.

Your right. Mindlessly going to war with countries is a much better policy. I mean, Look at the cold war, it was all talk and look how that turned out... oh wait, US came out on top and the soviets fell, bad example? We really need more Iraq wars and gulf wars, they were good for America.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by SeedFreedom

Your right. Mindlessly going to war with countries is a much better policy. I mean, Look at the cold war, it was all talk and look how that turned out... oh wait, US came out on top and the soviets fell, bad example?

You're working under the assumption that McCain will get into a war like Bush, perhaps?


The Cold War ended because of internal problems, so that's irrelevent.

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by SeedFreedom

Your right. Mindlessly going to war with countries is a much better policy. I mean, Look at the cold war, it was all talk and look how that turned out... oh wait, US came out on top and the soviets fell, bad example? We really need more Iraq wars and gulf wars, they were good for America.

I would rather say that the cold war was not all talk, but all no talking. To each other, at least. Except through the ever-escalating accumulation of arms.

For those reasons, it really is a bad example for your point.

[SeedFreedom]

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

You're working under the assumption that McCain will get into a war like Bush, perhaps?


The Cold War ended because of internal problems, so that's irrelevent.

And your working under the assumption kennedy = Obama. Only difference is we've actually seen Maccain back the president over the war on iraq and plans to not only keep the troops there, but increase this mindless waste of money and lives. Your saying Obama will fail before he's even got a shot.

OK, i admit my use of the cold war really was a bad example, but the point is mindlessly throwing troops and waiting until other countries fall to your every demand doesn't work. You have to take a strong stance and start to talk to these leaders instead of burying your head in the sand.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by SeedFreedom

And your working under the assumption kennedy = Obama. Only difference is we've actually seen Maccain back the president over the war on iraq and plans to not only keep the troops there, but increase this mindless waste of money and lives. Your saying Obama will fail before he's even got a shot.

1. Then you propose leaving Iraq and creating an even bigger mess? That's really irresponsible.

2. Yes, because Obama doesn't know a damn thing about foreign affairs, especially considering his foreign policy plans. Almost every point is a liberalist view of international affairs, without almost any sense of realism.

[SeedFreedom]

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

1. Then you propose leaving Iraq and creating an even bigger mess? That's really irresponsible.

2. Yes, because Obama doesn't know a damn thing about foreign affairs, especially considering his foreign policy plans. Almost every point is a liberalist view of international affairs, without almost any sense of realism.

I'm sorry, but the president has a bigger sh*thole back home then to worry about another country. It was a mistake going in, and we'll never be able to leave without a big mess unless you want to stay for 100 years. but by that time the economy will be so bad compared to china and india they'll be the ones needing foreign aid.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by SeedFreedom

I'm sorry, but the president has a bigger sh*thole back home then to worry about another country. It was a mistake going in, and we'll never be able to leave without a big mess unless you want to stay for 100 years. but by that time the economy will be so bad compared to china and india they'll be the ones needing foreign aid.

Then you might as well let oil prices reach over $300. You made the mess, and you clean it up. You might hate it, but you must if you're going to save yourselves.

[SeedFreedom]

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

Then you might as well let oil prices reach over $300. You made the mess, and you clean it up. You might hate it, but you must if you're going to save yourselves.

If Maccain hits the office, that will happen by next year.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by SeedFreedom

If Maccain hits the office, that will happen by next year.

Nope, it'll be stabler. That's why people are idiots: they believe the world is simple enough to think that if no money is going into the war, it'll all come back into the government's pocket. It doesn't. You have to pay for much more for oil, you have to pay much more for food, you have to pay much more for "Homeland Security". Not only that, you'll have to face a economic rundown by wrecking almost every country's economy, face starvations of hundreds of millions by subsidizing biofuel, and face a more anarchic world. Tell me which world is better.


Oh, and this is under the assumption that Obama does manage to get the troops out.