Obama vs. McCain

[diddy]

rules out America,

He doesn't "rule America" we haven't had real dictators in almost seventy years.

i want to c an intellegent guy rules out America, not another dump ass like bush!

But, you said you want Obama. So...which is it?

i mean i don't want McCain to become president!

benji, it's best to ignore Diddy posts

...

[Billie]

benji should be the next president of the united states..

[benji]

i mean i don't want McCain to become president!

Well that's fine, I don't either. But you said you wanted Obama and then you also said you wanted an intelligent guy who is not a "dump ass"

benji, it's best to ignore Diddy posts

But it is such low hanging fruit.

[OldReliable]

Go Obama.

[Lamrock]

lmao Dump ass.

I had a post replying to all of benji's anti-Obama posts, before realizing that I didn't know what I was talking about. I still would rather have Obama (after the past 8 years, anything would be better than essentially another Bush in my humble opinion), but I can't tell if he is any less of a dump ass than McCain.

[Joe']

lmao Dump ass.

I had a post replying to all of benji's anti-Obama posts, before realizing that I didn't know what I was talking about. I still would rather have Obama (after the past 8 years, anything would be better than essentially another Bush in my humble opinion), but I can't tell if he is any less of a dump ass than McCain.

Exactly. They're both dump asses in my opinion... I'm sorry if it's already been answered but do the indie parties offer any better, and is there any remote chance for them to have a shot at winning?

[Lamrock]

Probably and no.

[benji]

I had a post replying to all of benji's anti-Obama posts, before realizing that I didn't know what I was talking about.

And that they are air-tight cases.

I still would rather have Obama (after the past 8 years, anything would be better than essentially another Bush in my humble opinion)

You'll have to be more specific. Because Obama is another Bush, only without any good major ideas (Bush Tax Cuts which shifted more of the tax burden onto the richest, spurned an economic boom...Social Security reform), no principled (even if poorly executed) foreign policy (Obama's foreign policy is the irrational incoherent poll driven one of the Clinton administration which led to more individual military deployments in eight years than all other Presidents combined...he's also stated he doesn't care what happens to people in other countries, not even if there is genocide, if it's not popular to help in the U.S.) and an ego-driven fascism that that uses charges of racism, "divissiveness" and a lack of fielty to the "American cause" to fend off criticism.

but I can't tell if he is any less of a dump ass than McCain.

Oh, he easily is a bigger dump ass than McCain. But that's not saying McCain is any better. He wants to be TR for darkosakes. Biden's smarter than both of them by a long shot. But none of them like the Constitution, the rule or law, or our Republic, only power.

I'm sorry if it's already been answered but do the indie parties offer any better, and is there any remote chance for them to have a shot at winning?

I don't know why people are so resistant to reading threads they respond to, especially if they haven't made it their schtick already like Sauru. He got there first everybody, you all need to come up with something new.

Anyway, despite being answered:

do the indie parties offer any better, and is there any remote chance for them to have a shot at winning?

No, and no.

Good people won't ever get to a point where they can win because if the fifth column media doesn't stop them first the basic concept of modern American politics will. The entire point of which is to unconstitutionally use the power of the state to buy votes by stealing from people you don't like.

[OldReliable]

Can't we have a write in this time?

[benji]

You can always write in whoever you want. Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Bugs Bunny, etc. regularly get thousands of votes

[el badman]

Because Obama is another Bush, only without any good major ideas

Bush Tax Cuts which shifted more of the tax burden onto the richest, spurned an economic boom

I know you always find a way to dig up some stats proving your points, but I really doubt you could find anything that successfully proves every major economic institutes/experts wrong...The economy has been going down the drain, consumption levels are as low as it gets, people can barely afford to fucking drive to work, foreclosures are up, mortgage and automobile giants need to be saved by the Congress to avoid complete mayhem,... I'm glad this shitstorm isn't affecting you in any way, but pretending that everything's going smoothly for everyone is actually quite rude.

Social Security reform

Yup, that was in the agenda. Nothing was done of course.

foreign policy (Obama's foreign policy is the irrational incoherent poll driven one of the Clinton administration which led to more individual military deployments in eight years than all other Presidents combined

Except none of these deployments were anywhere as costly, in lives and financially, or managed to lead to the highly unstable foreign relations climate that we have now, so this is very much irrelevant.

not even if there is genocide, if it's not popular to help in the U.S.

Yes, thank Jeebus that Bush and co have been hard at work with what's going on in Darfur and the zillion countries plagued by civil war...

[benji]

I don't see what's absurd about the comparison. They're both religiously driven guys who want to use the state to "correct" life. Obama can't speak without a teleprompter, Bush manages this but people still mock when he flubs.

Bush: "When somebody hurts, government has to move."
Obama: "I just want all of you to pray that I can be an instrument of God... We're going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."

I know you always find a way to dig up some stats proving your points, but I really doubt you could find anything that successfully proves every major economic institutes/experts wrong...

Except economic experts do look at statistics and would never deny the post-2003 "Bush Boom" during which economic performance was comparable to the late 90s.

The economy has been going down the drain

Sorry, going down the drain is when growth goes negative, a short term correction that we're now out of that will, once shaking off the effects, suddenly turn into a "great economy" on Jan 21st if a certain feller wins is not "going down the drain." It is standard market practice.

foreclosures are up

Again, the result of an economic boom. People had more money, so they with Congress' backing, bought loans they couldn't actually pay long term for. When things slowed, everyone realized that was a bad idea and now the lenders needed to be blamed.

mortgage and automobile giants need to be saved by the Congress to avoid complete mayhem,...

Again, bad management does not control the status of the entire economy. GM isn't an automobile company and hasn't been for years, it's a health care provider that also happens to make cars. Cars that are much more expensive to make due to...gasp...government regulations. (Which Obama wants more of!)

And Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac don't even count. They're government agencies used to line the pockets of "important" people like Jamie Gorelick and Jim Johnson. They also happen to mess with the mortgage market when they feel like it.

I'm glad this shitstorm isn't affecting you in any way, but pretending that everything's going smoothly for everyone is actually quite rude.

Brilliant! I love it! He decides that because I actually bother to look at economic data and read economists instead of just listening to sob story anecdotes I must be pretty well off and are therefore rude to claim the entire economy is not as bad as it may be for certain people. (It is still by far the largest economy in the world.)

Except this is a empirical fallacy. You cannot apply characteristics of individuals to the whole. There are plenty of anecdotes I can find of tough times for certain people and industries during all economic times, this is logical, it makes sense. Just because since the 1980s we've gotten used to very few market corrections doesn't turn the soft corrections into depressions or even deep recessions. I guess I'm one of those people who don't understand how GDP growth and unemployment drops happen during "spirals into Depression" but what do I know?

Of course, even if the economy was "the worst economic times in American history" I don't see how taking more money from employers and citizens, and taking over more facets of the economy, to fund pet projects and buy votes is the way to reverse that.

As to the state of my economic well being, I don't think anyone would characterize me as their ideal status, but since some class warfarists believe the rich aren't allowed to discuss economics, some cred: I flinched at Thug's semi-elitist notion that $400 is less than a month's paycheck and thus consoles are cheap as well as the people who constantly buy phones or have three, I don't spend anywhere near outside my means and I do save some though so I am "doing fine"

Yup, that was in the agenda. Nothing was done of course.

Don't see how Washington being scared to reform itself negates it being a good idea.

Except none of these deployments were anywhere as costly, in lives

Um, losses of life during the Clinton administration were only slightly less than during the Bush administration. (Assuming continued reduction path for the remainder of this year.) I don't remember the exact numbers, but during the Clinton years it was around an average of 1300 lives a year.

or managed to lead to the highly unstable foreign relations climate that we have now, so this is very much irrelevant.

I don't know about that. Leaving office with North Korea, Iraq, al Qaeda in the situations they were in? The Kosovo precident giving justification to Russia's summer invasion tour?

Yes, thank Jeebus that Bush and co have been hard at work with what's going on in Darfur and the zillion countries plagued by civil war...

This doesn't even make any sense. Because Bush didn't overtly intervene everywhere in the world, it makes it okay let genocide happen in Iraq, where the US already is involved?

It is a failure of the Bush Administration to not fully back the Bush Doctrine and his Second Inaugural. But that does not deflect criticism of Obama's positions. (And as I've explained before, failure to meet standards or ideals does not make criticism hypocritical or invalid.)

[el badman]

I don't see what's absurd about the comparison. They're both religiously driven guys who want to use the state to "correct" life. Obama can't speak without a teleprompter, Bush manages this but people still mock when he flubs.

I was not referring to their heavy focus on religion actually, I do know that Obama frequently mentions his faith, which is completely irrelevant in a political environment in my opinion (that would never happen in most other developed countries). Comparing them as far as religion is fine, I was referring to...well, everything else.

Except economic experts do look at statistics and would never deny the post-2003 "Bush Boom" during which economic performance was comparable to the late 90s.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that there has never been any economic boom during the last 8 years, I am referring to the last year or so which has been undeniably tough for most people/businesses. Of course, some will always keep striving no matter what, but it seems obvious that the vast majority is hurting these days, and not just because of the price of gas.

Sorry, going down the drain is when growth goes negative

Not in my world. Yes, that'd be quite a bigger problem if there actually was economic recession (negative growth), but it's still fair to admit that the economic situation is nowhere where it should be, mainly because of the atrocious choices from this administration when it comes to properly allocating funds.

Again, the result of an economic boom. People had more money, so they with Congress' backing, bought loans they couldn't actually pay long term for. When things slowed, everyone realized that was a bad idea and now the lenders needed to be blamed.

Again, I'm not saying that there was never any growth to contribute to this real estate boom, but the current situation is clearly a symptom of an economy that's being hammered. The lenders wouldn't have to blame themselves if things hadn't got that bad for the last 2 years or so. With no rapidly rising prices for food, gas, etc, most would still have enough dough to make their monthly payments.

Again, bad management does not control the status of the entire economy.

And Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac don't even count.

I understand that, I was only giving examples, which is think are particularly significative considering the scope of these groups, to show once again one of the symptoms of the current situation. It's legitimate for people to really start wondering what the hell is going on when such huge entities are in danger.

He decides that because I actually bother to look at economic data and read economists instead of just listening to sob story anecdotes

I certainly do not rely on sob story anecdotes, trust me I look around before claiming things. And currently, it's both from everyday's life and from what I see and read that I can tell the economy is clearly hurting.

Except this is a empirical fallacy. You cannot apply characteristics of individuals to the whole.

That's certainly not what I do. But when you start reading/hearing about how bad things are, then you realize that you, as an individual, and the ones around you, are also affected by the same issues, I don't see what's wrong with bringing that to the table as well, that's not generalizing.

I flinched at Thug's semi-elitist notion that $400 is less than a month's paycheck and thus consoles are cheap as well as the people who constantly buy phones or have three, I don't spend anywhere near outside my means and I do save some though so I am "doing fine"

Glad we're on the same page then. That used to be the case for me but not anymore, and I certainly do need to plan ahead when I want to spend 200 or 300 bucks for a purchase. I guess I just wanted to make sure that you're not some brat that doesn't have to lift a finger or has such a comfortable situation that he can hardly have a realistic grasp on what really matters to normal people and what affects them financially (not that all rich people's opinion about economics is worthless, but I think some are most likely to have a distorted view of this type of things.... To which you may reply that Obama is one of them, and I'm not necessarily denying that).

Because Bush didn't overtly intervene everywhere in the world, it makes it okay let genocide happen in Iraq, where the US already is involved?

Not at all, but instead of misleading the world, including his own people, and going on false pretenses on an uber costly crusade that made the world more dangerous than ever for any non-Muslim individual (how many new generations of terrorists do you think this has created?), Bush should have given the priority to infinitely more dire situations.
In this regard, I do believe that Obama would never ever be as reckless and manipulative as the current dickhead in the Office, and the world would have to be a slighly better place from it.

[benji]

but it seems obvious that the vast majority is hurting these days

Not to me. Is there any evidence that more than 60+% of Americans are doing poorly? The economy hasn't shrank, so I assume the money is still there.

mainly because of the atrocious choices from this administration when it comes to properly allocating funds.

Which is to let those funds remain with employers and citizens instead of using them to buy votes. Except Obama promises more of the latter and to reverse all of what Bush pushed to let people keep, so I can't see how he'd be anywhere near as good in that regard.

It's legitimate for people to really start wondering what the hell is going on when such huge entities are in danger.

But the answer is not "more government" when the problems are entirely the results of those institutions being poorly managed for decades upon decades. As well as feeding at the public trough. Something Obama wants to promote even more, and start labeling certain companies to be "Patriot companies" and give them more public money.

Not at all, but instead of misleading the world, including his own people, and going on false pretenses on an uber costly crusade that made the world more dangerous than ever for any non-Muslim individual

Unfortunately I disagree with most of these premises. For example, the Bush administration clearly did not mislead the world unless they went back in time and made world leaders spend a decade saying the same things.

The Bush Administration's failure was not in making the correct decision to end the war and remove Saddam from a position of power, but in the execution of the post-invasion period.

(how many new generations of terrorists do you think this has created?)

And how many were drawn to Iraq to die in a losing effort? And how many of the networks were severly damaged, especially financially? And how many generations will hopefully have a country like Iraq is becoming to look up to?

They're just going to take over the West with demographics and "thought crime" laws anyway.

In this regard, I do believe that Obama would never ever be as reckless and manipulative as the current dickhead in the Office

I take it you haven't been paying too much attention to Obama in this campaign. He's already said he wants to invade Pakistan just to capture one man. He spent all of the primary season railing against NAFTA and borderline vowing to dismantle it, while telling Canada in private he won't touch it. He's alternatively against, for, ready to go over himself, to the surge in Iraq or staying in Iraq or eating dinner with The Rock. And so on.

Bush may have been a problem. But I think it's delusional, as so many cultists seem to believe, to think someone like Obama is the divine answer.

[Indy]

The Bush Administration's failure was not in making the correct decision to end the war and remove Saddam from a position of power, but in the execution of the post-invasion period.

And how many were drawn to Iraq to die in a losing effort? And how many of the networks were severly damaged, especially financially? And how many generations will hopefully have a country like Iraq is becoming to look up to?

When has the US ever successfully installed a democracy with a good human rights record? Sure the US has been heavily involved in countries who have improved their standing economically as far as being active in the world market but the gap between the rich and poor is always still wide and US backed governments are always corrupt.

The best example is Nicaragua in the 80s. US backed Somoza was guilty of corruption and human rights violations and the Sandinistas were forming to overthrow him. Regan sponsered terrorism to stop it. We have never cared about the people of the countries we occupy.

[benji]

Some of us care about non-Americans.

the gap between the rich and poor is always still wide

Well, some of us don't have a problem with everyone not being poor.

When has the US ever successfully installed a democracy with a good human rights record?

When have the Pacers ever won a NBA title?

US backed governments are always corrupt.

There are governments that aren't corrupt? I didn't know this was possible.

[Indy]

Some of us care about non-Americans.

I am one of those. This is exactly why I want America as far from them as possible.

Well, some of us don't have a problem with everyone not being poor.

Helping to create an elite while leaving the majority behind to watch their situation worsen. That is the American way. Ohhh saaaay can you seeee

When have the Pacers ever won a NBA title?

Ah, but at least it is the Pacers intention to win a title every year.

There are governments that aren't corrupt? I didn't know this was possible.

Sure, different levels of corruption exist everywhere. But I think it should be pretty easy to not help fund terror and genocide as the United States seems to love doing. (Please, if you don't already know, ask me for examples. There are hundreds. We could go administration by administration if you wish.)

[el badman]

instead of using them to buy votes. Except Obama promises more of the latter

He's already said he wants to invade Pakistan just to capture one man. He spent all of the primary season railing against NAFTA and borderline vowing to dismantle it, while telling Canada in private he won't touch it.

I take it you haven't been paying too much attention to Obama in this campaign.

I did listen to what Obama has to say. I almost went to see his rally when he came in my area. And I really think that your apparent contempt for what the guy stands for clouds your judgement and makes you interprete his words in a totally extreme and subjective way. For you, he only seems to be an attention-seeking noob who just wants to step all over your pecious constitution in order to reach his personal goals.

I'm fairly sure he's never said he would invade anyone. As one of the rare politicians who was against the invasion in Irak in the first place, and seeing how incredibly unpopular and costly this occupation has become, I really don't think that would make any sense for him to already start planning for the US' next war. Instead of an all-out conflict, he's actually been suggesting the specific targetting of known terrorists while trying to obtain the local authorities' collaboration (even though bin Laden has most likely ben dead for quite some time by now). Instead of bombarding everything and asking questions later, he's trying to regain credibility for the US with a diplomatic approach.

Bush may have been a problem. But I think it's delusional, as so many cultists seem to believe, to think someone like Obama is the divine answer.

I certainly don't believe that Obama is the messiah and that he'll resolve all the issues that have already been raised. I do think that given the national and international context, given all the shit that's been going on for the last decade, he's a better fit than McCain in order to bring his country's economy on the right track while improving the relations with the rest of the world (the so called "war on terror" just can't be fought and won as as sole party, disregarding what the rest of the world has to say like what's been done in the last few years).

[benji]

I am one of those. This is exactly why I want America as far from them as possible.

So do I. Which is why we listen to Washington and leave NATO, the UN, etc. However, I realize that we are already invested into the World, and in situations like Iraq have long standing obligations and "sins to atone for." Our divestment from these interests and the question of the resulting vaccuum is important however. Lots of people believe in the concept of the UN, and how effective can that body be without an enforcement arm? It is difficult with the US at its power to reject the ideal of Wilsonian protection of self-determinationism. Yes, yes, we haven't adhered, but that is irrelevant to the ideal, no?

Helping to create an elite while leaving the majority behind to watch their situation worsen. That is the American way. Ohhh saaaay can you seeee

So, then you'd rather everyone be poor as enforced by the State. You can't make everyone rich, you can only make everyone poor. The rich will leave, the poor will be trapped and cannabilized.

Somehow socioeconomic mobility, the core of the American economy, eludes you.

Ah, but at least it is the Pacers intention to win a title every year.

Irrelevant. Despite past history you hope things will change and they will win.

(Please, if you don't already know, ask me for examples. There are hundreds. We could go administration by administration if you wish.)

Excellent! Good to know! If only my field was American Political History, with some emphasis on figures (like Presidents) as actors in philosophy of politics. Hopefully you'll go all the way back to Washington, and don't miss any of the 41 men. Will we be including domestic "funding of corruption" as well?

For you, he only seems to be an attention-seeking noob who just wants to step all over your pecious constitution in order to reach his personal goals.

He's a modern American politician.

And I love it. "Your precious Constitution." It's the fucking highest law of the land and it's been blatantly ignored and violated for 116 straight years (Yes, I'm giving Lincoln a pass for simplicity's sake) by the political entities. Anyone with actual respect for the American republic would not dismiss the most important document in its history as something to be ignored.

I did listen to what Obama has to say. I almost went to see his rally when he came in my area. And I really think that your apparent contempt for what the guy stands for clouds your judgement and makes you interprete his words in a totally extreme and subjective way.

Well, I've only read 90% of his speeches, explored his history, and re-read his Issues section every month as it changes. But hey, you almost went to a rally to support him.

And yes, I do have contempt for people who are fascists and who show no regard for our law. This is also why I don't like Johm McCain, and do not care for the gross majority of George W. Bush as a political actor.

Instead of bombarding everything and asking questions later

That's Clintonian/Democratic foreign policy though.

As one of the rare politicians who was against the invasion in Irak in the first place

So because he was wrong then, he must always be right now?

and seeing how incredibly unpopular and costly this occupation has become

Which doesn't really discredit the invasion.

I'm fairly sure he's never said he would invade anyone.

Well, maybe not "invade" on a grand scale as in Iraq, but I consider "violating borders without approval" the equivalent of invading.

Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region.

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.

he's a better fit than McCain in order to bring his country's economy on the right

How is the government taking more of employers and citizens money and using it to purchase votes something that will improve the already growing economy?

while improving the relations with the rest of the world

They hated us in the 80's, hated us in the 90's, and will continue to hate us in the 10's. Obama isn't going to change this by doing the same thing as all previous Presidents.

(the so called "war on terror" just can't be fought and won as as sole party, disregarding what the rest of the world has to say like what's been done in the last few years

Good thing it hasn't been, huh?

[el badman]

And I love it. "Your precious Constitution." It's the fucking highest law of the land and it's been blatantly ignored and violated for 116 straight years (Yes, I'm giving Lincoln a pass for simplicity's sake) by the political entities. Anyone with actual respect for the American republic would not dismiss the most important document in its history as something to be ignored.

I don't think it's just because I'm a foreigner, but I'm really having a hard time to understand how all things relevant to today's politics should still be based on a 221 year old document. I'm starting to understand that you're some sort of "Constitution protection elite" member no matter what, and I guess that's where 99% of my disagreements with you come from.

The fact is a whole lot of what's in the Constitution CANNOT possibly apply to our modern society, and it's ludicrious to base all your political opinions on this document. Yes, it created the architecture needed for your country to become an actual country, but it doesn't mean that 100% of what it says should still be taken literally to the letter in order to resolve modern problems. Would you gladly oblige if it had somehow stated that it's okay to beat up your wife and kids on every first monday of the month?

I do have respect for your Republic and I'm not dismissing the Constitution, I'm simply saying that basing your entire political approach on it seems absurd to me as some parts of it cannot possibly apply anymore to the society we live in.

Well, I've only read 90% of his speeches, explored his history, and re-read his Issues section every month as it changes. But hey, you almost went to a rally to support him.

Oh, I'm sure you've read much more stuff about him, I'm not trying to compete with you here. I'm just saying that I personally heard and read enough to know that in my mind, he'd a better option than the other alternative.

So because he was right then, he must always be right now?

Fixed.

Which doesn't really discredit the invasion.

Well, that and the fact that it was initiated on false pretenses, and that it always was, indeed, an invasion, not a rescue mission.

How is the government taking more of employers and citizens money and using it to purchase votes

Again, this appears to be a completely twisted, subjective opinion of what was said or implied.

Good thing it hasn't been, huh?

Hmm yeah, since every single country that participated to this masquerade had its majority of citizens against the war, I think it's fair to say that the US went all lonesome cowboy and fascist bully on that one...

[BigKaboom2]

The fact is a whole lot of what's in the Constitution CANNOT possibly apply to our modern society

Name something.

Almost every political argument I've ever had ends with the opposing party admitting that they don't really care for the Constitution...I have nothing to argue with after that comes out, since, as benji said, it's the highest law in the land.

Well, that and the fact that it was initiated on false pretenses

False pretenses that pretty much everyone accepted, rather than "fabrications of the Bush administration."

[el badman]

Almost every political argument I've ever had ends with the opposing party admitting that they don't really care for the Constitution.

Again, not what I said, but I'm not surprised it would come down to a good ol' "either you agree a zillion percent with ALL of it or you disrespect the Constitution" with you joining this discussion...

as benji said, it's the highest law in the land.

Which doesn't mean it shouldn't be altered to reflect today's world.

False pretenses that pretty much everyone accepted, rather than "fabrications of the Bush administration."

Except all these quotes are from US politicians, there's actually a few billion people outside of your country, and the majority certainly didn't "accept" these pretenses.

[BigKaboom2]

None of that was the main point of the post - I'm more interested in:

The fact is a whole lot of what's in the Constitution CANNOT possibly apply to our modern society

Name something.

[el badman]

The problem is, since you basically admit with what I quoted that if I do not agree with you, I'm simply wrong, there's obviously no point in discussing this further with you.
Again, that's deja vu.

[benji]

I will get to the Constitutional part in a bit, please bear with me as I tie up the other loose ends. Feel free to not respond to any of the Iraq stuff, I know we will not agree on it, but I just want to emphasize that my reasons are not the same as the ones pushed by the Bush and Clinton Administrations.

Well, that and the fact that it was initiated on false pretenses

You seem to be confusing the Bush administration's reasons for invading Iraq, with everyone who may have supported the invasion. The Bush administration was wrong about serious active stockpiles of WMDs, as was the rest of the world's leaders and intelligence agencies. It was difficult to know what was going on in Iraq, and it was hard to believe Saddam after he had spent over a decade deceiving everyone. That said, WMD is the only "false pretense" (remember, it is not the only reason listed in the AUMF) albeit not a "lie" (unless you can somehow prove everyone knew Saddam had nothing and ignored this, when people such as Carl Levin, John Kerry and Joe Biden who are quite opposed to Bush came to the same conclusions based on the same intelligence, and that not only this, but the anti-invasion people were also in on the lie when they claimed Saddam could use his weapons against the troops) that is part of the case for ending the war in Iraq. The rest is where my belief that the operation was correct lies.

-Because we did not remove him from power at the start of the war, while implying we would assist those to overthrow him, when we turned our back we became morally obligated to correct this error.
-Saddam did have ties to terrorist groups, paid suicide bombers families, had a few in his country on state salaries, etc.
-Saddam was a serious jerk. Ask the Marsh Arabs, the Kurds, Shiite Iraqi's, people who went to his rape rooms if they're still alive, Iraqi Olympians, etc.
-The various US and UN resolutions, are we going to actually enforce international law or render it meaningless by having them merely admonishments without consequences?

The false choice that Obama and the ilk present is that there was a choice for not getting involved in Iraq (his side) or getting involved (Bush, Biden, etc.) but this is not the actual choice. We were already involved in Iraq, the cease fire had been violated in 1991, the no-fly zones and Desert Fox were twelve years of active warfare. They shot at US and UK planes, the planes bombed them. Sanctions, as all sanctions do, were harming the people not the regime and allowing Saddam to run free was never a viable option. The Oil-for-Food scandal siphoned billions to corrupt political figures and institutions.

It was never an option of choosing war or choosing peace, we had already chosen war in 1990. The question was were we finally going to end the stupid thing or let it continue to fester.

Hmm yeah, since every single country that participated to this masquerade had its majority of citizens against the war, I think it's fair to say that the US went all lonesome cowboy and fascist bully on that one...

Please read what I was responding to (which you wrote), we were not talking about Iraq. Nor public opinion. I was referring to the "behind the scenes war on terror", no glory, work of intelligence sharing, police actions and shutting down of financial networks. Even Islamic countries have worked with us on this, this is all non-controversial stuff. The Bush Doctrine is the controversial part, and I'm not really surprised that people are opposed to change and new paradigms.

Again, this appears to be a completely twisted, subjective opinion of what was said or implied.

So Obama doesn't want to raise taxes on everyone and create endless new programs? (While employing actual blatant vote buying techniques (programs are the same thing, only long-term versions) such as his tax rebate...not to say Clinton and McCain's gas tax holiday's aren't the same, we're talking about Obama though. McCain is just not-Obama in our discussion.)


Anyway, to the good stuff.

Which doesn't mean it shouldn't be altered to reflect today's world.

There is a process for this, it is called amending the Constitution. Having five people who are not granted the power to do so, deciding the Constitution means the opposite of what it says is not the process to do this. Simply ignoring it and violating your oath to uphold the Constitution is not the process to do this. If it needs to be changed, amend it. Don't violate or ignore it, that is tyranny.

I don't think it's just because I'm a foreigner

It probably has some impact, although most American's do not understand this either. (I am not holding this against you, I don't expect people from elsewhere to fully invest into the political history of another country. Hell, at this point I don't expect Americans to do it. I've had kids in my classes who can't even guess as to the purpose of the Constitution beyond that is "important" and "something about the government and checks and balances.")

The American Constitution is of a completely seperate design to European style constitutions. (You can quibble with how oh, all European constitutions aren't like that, blah blah blah...but this is how they are traditionally seperated in Political Science.) European style are often very long, addressing numerous issues, and granting rights. The American style is very short (the US one is typically referred to as six and a half pages long...here it is, the entire thing, with all the amendments...for comparison and emphasis of my point, the German one) attempts to avoid addressing specific issues (leaving them to the political process) and serves only to limit the government.

The fact is a whole lot of what's in the Constitution CANNOT possibly apply to our modern society

I know BigKaboom2 asked, but I'm wondering, which parts? I mean, the only obvious one to me is the third amendment. (Although who knows, this could become a problem at some point again.) True, the Bill of Rights through number eight come as a product of their time (although they are still completely valid), but nine and ten, the most ignored are the absolutely 100% timeless ones I would think.

Would you gladly oblige if it had somehow stated that it's okay to beat up your wife and kids on every first monday of the month?

But it would never say this. The Constitution grants citizens no powers or rights as that is the antithesis of the founding ideology, it grants the government powers and the government cannot (well, should not) exceed those granted to it in the document.

What seems absurd to me is rejecting the supreme law of the land, a basically timeless and essentially perfect document that is based in a brilliant political foundation (see the Federalist Papers for some hott shit...although Hamilton's parts can be...boring and redundant), just to stick it to people you don't like and benefit yourself.