The Official Obama debate thread.

Det. Bart Lasiter · December 11, 2008

Unfortunately these days I think most politicians are corrupt, and would suspect Bush is definatly in bed with big business.

Just suspect? His VP was the CEO and chairman of Halliburton and his own family has been in the oil and banking businesses for years, Bush working for the former before he entered politics. Garfield simply likes to point out that Obama is so different from every other politician in these areas, even though he's no more corrupt than any other politician.

EnderWiggin · December 12, 2008

that and his ties to corrupt people and crazy pastors...

I would watch what you say. If I remember correctly, you're quite familiar with ties to crazy pastors.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones

_EW_

And I swear to god, if someone says ad hominem to me, I'm going to pull out my own hair.

Edit:

I don't make idle accusations.

Sorry, but that's the definition of what you're doing.

_EW_

6.8k · December 16, 2008

Military action against civilians is terrorism. Period.

Then every bit of modern warfare that has transpired since Sherman's march to the sea could be classified as such. Does this mean that every single combatant is a terrorist?

Warfare is ugly and, ideally, it should not happen, but it does.

No. Maybe that's enough for you, but I don't believe the government ever has a right to kill innocents no matter how many zones they put up.

And, ideally, you are correct. Unfortunately, it does not work out that way, and it is not just to treat individual combatants like criminals, or to view them as such.

But we're kind of getting off-topic here. This kind of discussion belongs in another thread.

Achilles · December 16, 2008

Then every bit of modern warfare that has transpired since Sherman's march to the sea could be classified as such. Does this mean that every single combatant is a terrorist?

Does every single combatant engage civilians? I'll need to know whether or not this is a premise before I can accurately respond to your other question.

Warfare is ugly and, ideally, it should not happen, but it does.

Indeed. I'm not sure what this has to do with a conversation about standards and how we apply them though.

The Doctor · December 16, 2008

I'd just like to point out the laughable irony of GarfieldJL, of all people, accusing others of taking part in a smear campaign.

6.8k · December 16, 2008

Does every single combatant engage civilians? I'll need to know whether or not this is a premise before I can accurately respond to your other question.

Are you accusing McCain of deliberately targeting civilians?

Indeed. I'm not sure what this has to do with a conversation about standards and how we apply them though.

It has everything to do with the fact that, realistically speaking, applying standards has very little to do with waging modern warfare. Unless you want to lose, of course.

The best thing that a nation's military can do is take the necessary steps to insure that civilian casualties are kept to a minimum, but even then they can not be completely avoided. Such is war.

Achilles · December 17, 2008

Are you accusing McCain of deliberately targeting civilians?

Are you answering a question with a question?

My earlier assertion was that military action against civilians is terrorism. If you would like to muddy the dialog with allegation that I have not made against the deliberateness (or lack thereof) of John McCain's actions, we can, however I don't see what that has to do with the point I was trying to make.

It has everything to do with the fact that, realistically speaking, applying standards has very little to do with waging modern warfare. Unless you want to lose, of course.

"Win" or "lose" also have nothing to do with the point I was making.

What constitutes an act of terrorism? However we choose to define it, we then have to ask if anything we do fits that definition. And we have to do it objectively. We can't make arguments from special pleading about how it isn't terrorism when we do it because "we're the good guys", etc.

The best thing that a nation's military can do is take the necessary steps to insure that civilian casualties are kept to a minimum, but even then they can not be completely avoided. Such is war.

Fair enough. Then I will say that war is an act of terrorism and we should be careful when labeling others "terrorist" because that label applies to us as well. My 2 cents.

PS: I'm perfectly ok with this so long as we're consistent. I don't want anyone to misinterpret my post as some sort of bleeding-heart, "give peace a chance" BS.

6.8k · December 17, 2008

What constitutes an act of terrorism? However we choose to define it, we then have to ask if anything we do fits that definition. And we have to do it objectively. We can't make arguments from special pleading about how it isn't terrorism when we do it because "we're the good guys", etc.

In war the concept of "good guys and bad guys" is rarely more than propaganda. There are exceptions, of course, but for the most part there are only the victors and the vanquished.

Then I will say that war is an act of terrorism and we should be careful when labeling others "terrorist" because that label applies to us as well. My 2 cents.

And I know way too much about how we waged World War II to ever be able to honestly disagree with you.

Jae Onasi · December 17, 2008

This is so much of a non-issue, I think it's utterly ridiculous that we still consider it a viable topic for debate. To assume that Obama is somehow guilty of terrorism, or of planning some sort of terrorist attack on America,

I never even remotely implied that. I don't think Obama is planning any kind of terrorism at all. I don't even think Ayers is planning any kind of terrorism now--I think he's moved on to working within the system to effect changes instead of blowing things up for attention.

On the contrary, Jae, I think it's the height of ignorance to assume that simply because they've interacted, they're suddenly friends...Just because I know them, and have shared idle chat with them, doesn't mean they have any influence whatsoever on what I believe, or how I stand on any issue.

Do you regularly hold a political fund-raising party for someone who's not your friend or with whom you don't share similar political ideals? Do you host any kind of party for someone who's not your friend? Does Ayers, who feels so strongly about his ideals that he was willing to bomb things for those ideals, strike you as someone who would endorse and host fundraising events for someone who didn't share a lot of the same ideals?

This whole issue a sad farce of an attempt to smear Obama's name, and it's discredited a more or less respectable man of learning in the process. Did Ayers make a bad move? Yeah, he did. My Grandmother's sister made some bad choices too. You know what they called her in the '60s? A hippy. That's all Ayers was too, plain and simple.

A lot of hippies sat around in their VW minibuses painted with psychedelic daisies, smoked joints (or did assorted other mind-altering substances) while listening to Janis Joplin and the Beatles, and joined in generally peaceful protests against the Vietnam war if they protested at all. Most hippies did not go bombing things, and Ayers' actions at that time were certainly not the benign actions of a peacenik. Ayers was a criminal for what he did, and was most definitely not a peace-loving Harry the Happy Hippy. Mind you, I don't associate Obama with the Ayers of the past who bombed things. Obama associates with the obviously more mature Ayers, and they've worked together on a number of educational/social activism projects.

I'm not going to throw Obama under the bus for being friends with an anti-war activist who used violent techniques, although I will call Ayers on not apologizing for his crimes and making restitution. However, the things Ayers says and teaches are very liberal, and Obama has associated with him on these issues. Ayers is a lot more liberal than I prefer, and I do want to know how much of an influence Ayers' current liberal ideas have on Obama. So, in that respect, the depth of their relationship, public and private, is important information for me.

As for whether or not Obama knew about Ayers' past--it's kind of hard to believe a man as well read and knowledgeable as he is would not have learned at some point about Ayers' very public record of attacks. I understand that Obama has denounced Ayers' actions on that matter, by the way, and accept that denouncement as genuine.

Terrorism: Let's work with this definition as a starting point so we're all on the same page (no pun intended). The Academic Consensus Definition is this:

4. Academic Consensus Definition: "Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988).[14]

Since open warfare is not a clandestine (semi- or otherwise) operation, and open warfare has specific intended targets (enemy combatants) rather than symbolic targets, actions conducted during war are not technically terrorist acts. McCain's actions during the Vietnam war thus do not fall under the definition of terrorism. Any willful violations of the laws of land warfare would fall under the heading of war crimes. Since there's no evidence that he attempted to violate the laws of warfare, he can't be charged with war crimes, either.

Intentional targeting of civilians is a violation of the laws of land warfare

Parties are bound by the laws of war to the extent that such compliance does not interfere with achieving legitimate military goals. For example, they are obliged to make every effort to avoid damaging people and property not involved in combat, but they are not guilty of a war crime if a bomb mistakenly hits a residential area.

By the same token, combatants that use protected people or property as shields or camouflage are guilty of violations of laws of war and are responsible for damage to those that should be protected.

See also the Army field manual on the Law of Land Warfare for more military minutiae than most any of us ever wanted.

jonathan7 · December 17, 2008

Due to a number of reported posts from this thread, and several of you becoming upset over various aspects of posts, I'm closing this for 24 hours, for everyone to cool down - will be re-opened this time tomorrow -- j7

Re-opened! -- j7

Darth Avlectus · December 22, 2008

I agree, it's REALLY creepy how into Obama some people are. Sure, I like the guy and I think he'll do a good job, I mean, Bush is a pretty low standard to beat, but really, this whole craze with thinking that Obama will fix all the wrongs in the world is just weird.

It is also irrational and a bajillion other similar things, most of which could be considered idolization. I'm not normally into viiolence...most of the time... however, dingy people sure could use a good smack upside the head,

or a chinese foot-sole spanking to bring them back to reality.

Creepy? 2 words: Obama girl.

Finally someone of the opposite sex with a collegiate background agrees with me...and a fencer too. I remember how weird and offended some wives in the fencing club got at me when I called obama girl creepy. Seriously SNL status.

As do I. It'd be a shame if, once in office, none of the promises that threw him into office were delivered. [/Quote] Which I have come to expect with *every* politician.

Indeed. I guess money does buy you friends. [/Quote]

Define friend? In that case I would rather attempt to tame a ferile aggressive adult brown rat.

I disagree: many (kids) are more affected by their peer's/close 'friends'' views. It's not always 'cool' to be with your parents in politics, or so I've observed.

[/Quote]

It depends largely on the age group you're looking at, really.

Personally, I was always apart from my peers and eventually my parents too. My opinions were contrary and different from both. So I can speak for myself when I say there are exceptions.

In general, though, true.

Obama is a good man, and I hope everyone gives him the benefit of the doubt.

[/Quote]

I am an independent with largely conservative values, some liberal.

I'd like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt regardless if I agree/disagree with their politics.

Not that I actually think he will live up to it, buuuuut, if he will do things to make the market competitive and *keep* it there, and protect it...GREAT!

Sounds to me like he is a capitalist/free enterprise marketeer.

I'll believe it when I see it, though. Fair enough?

---------------

I also hope that his supporters are honest enough to call him on the things he does wrong. This international craze over Obama will die down rather quickly. For now most of them are still in the "Anybody but Bush" mode, but as soon as Obama does something for the US that others disagree with, we'll be back to being hated again.

Ain't that the fickle truth. You know, I wouldn't count on his supporters as THOSE are who I trust the LEAST.

Obama is a door man in my eyes. Be polite to a door man but keep an eye on him.

I don't understand why it seems that, to Republicans, you have to fit a certain mold. White, older, and stupider than you are, and if they aren't stupider, then they're elitist.[/Quote]

While, yes I do notice such a thing in the general republican mentality, I would advise you not make hasty generalizations. As well as to whomever else believes racism is absolutely necessarily tied into conservatism. It is not, and racists, frankly are an embarrassment.

I don't follow Obama blindly, worshipping him. I don't worship anyone or anything, that's a personal life choice, and one of the things I love about Obama's policies on separation of church and state, something that a lot, not all, but a lot, of Conservative Republicans are against simply because they don't know how to keep religion, which is basically an irrational faith, out of their reason and logic. [/Quote]

Thank you for the discernment--an example of discriminating. The kind rarely seen anymore since political correctness tied racism in with the word.

Principles are something as a general guidance where there is none; Common sense and logic for all else.

I have my doubts about whether or not Obama can make the changes he wants to make. His choices thus far are bold, and ballsy, and constructed, in my mind, to both gather as much bipartisan support as he possibly can, so as to have little to no political resistance in the drastic choices he will be making later on, and forming enough socialist and democratic change in the country to earn a re-election. [/Quote]

Agreed. And that is as far as I agree with you. The rest we will fundamentally disagree on.

Uh huh, we have a guy that pals around with terrorists, worked for a group that specializes in voter fraud, worked with a slum lord (even bought a house with this guy's help), took money from Freddie Mac.

And you say he's the lesser of two evils compared to a war hero.

Obama is either extremely corrupt, or makes George W. Bush look like a genius, I'm going for extremely corrupt. It's Chicago style politics.

The past alliances and actions are definitely something unsettling to say the least. Which gives me cause to not trust him. Whether it is more for his implicit corruption or his naiveté and innocence he wishes to project I'm as yet uncertain.

In war the concept of "good guys and bad guys" is rarely more than propaganda. There are exceptions, of course, but for the most part there are only the victors and the vanquished.

And I know way too much about how we waged World War II to ever be able to honestly disagree with you.

As is fighting for or sustaining peacesuch things are a slogan. Peace is an unnatural state. It only occurs in society and civility. Frankly, corruption is inevitableno matter what--it is like decay.

I never even remotely implied that. I don't think Obama is planning any kind of terrorism at all. I don't even think Ayers is planning any kind of terrorism now--I think he's moved on to working within the system to effect changes instead of blowing things up for attention. [/Quote]

I agree and I think ayers is also trying to rot the system from the inside out as his anti-americanism would best be achieved that way.

Do you regularly hold a political fund-raising party for someone who's not your friend or with whom you don't share similar political ideals? Do you host any kind of party for someone who's not your friend? Does Ayers, who feels so strongly about his ideals that he was willing to bomb things for those ideals, strike you as someone who would endorse and host fundraising events for someone who didn't share a lot of the same ideals? [/Quote]

Thank you! As well I think the media is covering his old wrinkly butt. Just because he says one thing about his relationship to Obama does not mean that he is telling any truth about it whatsoever. He 'said' something? Yeah, so does everyone.

<SNIP> Most hippies did not go bombing things, and Ayers' actions at that time were certainly not the benign actions of a peacenik. Ayers was a criminal for what he did, and was most definitely not a peace-loving Harry the Happy Hippy. Mind you, I don't associate Obama with the Ayers of the past who bombed things. Obama associates with the obviously more mature Ayers, and they've worked together on a number of educational/social activism projects.
[/Quote]

Matured evil is still evil. I mistrust it. Obama, I'm not sure if the mistrust I have towards him is towards the same thing or if it is his blindness while allying with such a thing.

I have a hunch, nothing more, Obama would attempt to be another JFK and that he's attempting to use these evils against themselves and each other. Biden or Ayers would assasinate Obama, just my opinion.

I'm not going to throw Obama under the bus for being friends with an anti-war activist who used violent techniques, although I will call Ayers on not apologizing for his crimes and making restitution. However, the things Ayers says and teaches are very liberal, and Obama has associated with him on these issues. Ayers is a lot more liberal than I prefer, and I do want to know how much of an influence Ayers' current liberal ideas have on Obama. So, in that respect, the depth of their relationship, public and private, is important information for me.

As for whether or not Obama knew about Ayers' past--it's kind of hard to believe a man as well read and knowledgeable as he is would not have learned at some point about Ayers' very public record of attacks. [/Quote]

Confirming my hunches I guess.

Thank you, you are seriously the one of the most coherent people I have seen on this topic.

I understand that Obama has denounced Ayers' actions on that matter, by the way, and accept that denouncement as genuine.[/Quote] It's all a very ugly proposition, regardless.

As somebody who has been backstabbed and been let down repeatedly I have come to expect betrayal and inconsistency from those with questionable alliances--especially in the business of politics.

Genuity of character is important. I reflect what I see, and I see grey.

GarfieldJL · December 23, 2008

Well I don't trust him for a lot of reasons I'd advise people to read: http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2532305&postcount=3

Yar-El posted the post, and there is a lot more where that came from.

Thread Concerning Obama Campaign Practices which I started: http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=192825

Jae Onasi · December 31, 2008

All right, grab the drool buckets, people, and attach them to your head. You'll need them if you read Eli Saslow's gushing article about Obama in the Washington Post. Now, I'm really glad Obama exercises--I think it's a great example for American and can only help in what's become an epidemic of health problems related to weight and lack of exercise.

However, can we make this sound a little less like a Bertrice Small bodice-ripper novel, please? The notable excerpt:

Between workouts during his Hawaii vacation this week, he was photographed looking like the paradigm of a new kind of presidential fitness, one geared less toward preventing heart attacks than winning swimsuit competitions. The sun glinted off chiseled pectorals sculpted during four weightlifting sessions each week, and a body toned by regular treadmill runs and basketball games.

"The sun glinted off chiseled pectorals"? I don't know whether to laugh or barf. I half-expected to see a picture of Obama either in a Chippendales speedo or on a cover of some cheesy romance novel wearing nothing but tight buckskin pants, said chiseled pects bulging as he catches the swooning damsel-in-distress-with-pouty-lips-and-boobs-the-size-of-Montana.

Here's a tip for you, Eli--put your tongue back in your mouth before it gets filthy from being dragged on the ground. I know that a lot of people are absolutely enchanted with Obama, but groveling is just plain tacky.

Achilles · December 31, 2008

swooning damsel-in-distress-with-pouty-lips-and-boobs-the-size-of-Montana.

Moar pics please.

jrrtoken · December 31, 2008

Sounds more like a homo-erotic novellla than anything else. Eli is a guy, amirite? >_>

Adavardes · December 31, 2008

All right, grab the drool buckets, people, and attach them to your head. You'll need them if you read Eli Saslow's gushing article about Obama in the Washington Post. Now, I'm really glad Obama exercises--I think it's a great example for American and can only help in what's become an epidemic of health problems related to weight and lack of exercise.

However, can we make this sound a little less like a Bertrice Small bodice-ripper novel, please? The notable excerpt:

"The sun glinted off chiseled pectorals"? I don't know whether to laugh or barf. I half-expected to see a picture of Obama either in a Chippendales speedo or on a cover of some cheesy romance novel wearing nothing but tight buckskin pants, said chiseled pects bulging as he catches the swooning damsel-in-distress-with-pouty-lips-and-boobs-the-size-of-Montana.

Here's a tip for you, Eli--put your tongue back in your mouth before it gets filthy from being dragged on the ground. I know that a lot of people are absolutely enchanted with Obama, but groveling is just plain tacky.

I honestly fail to see how this has any relevance to Obama. The man is clearly a surpressed homosexual that finds him attractive. It is true that some people don't support Obama because his policies fit their mold, or because he is rational, intelligent, and well-read, but rather because he is a fantastic public speaker and is entrancing on stage, if you're only listening to the pretty words, and no recognising what they mean. And the words, to me, mean a whole lot, ring true with a lot of my political philosophies, and are words that I see as words filled with potential for progress and betterment of the entire nation.

This is one of many examples of individuals supporting a candidate for the wrong reasons, IE, because Obama was an African American, or because Palin was a woman. There are some, myself included, however, that choose their candidates by what they plan to do and how they plan to do it. I'm just a little tired of the nutjobs being dredged up to somehow make the man himself look less credible, or trying to build something about his "associates" that make him look like a liar and a schemer. This Eli person has sexuality confusion, obviously. But other than somehow making Obama's election to office seem unfair or irrational, I can't see any alternative reason for bringing this up besides chastising the man, which, frankly, is kind of pointless.

Nobody with any taste in literature, or common sense, for that matter, would eat that cheesefest, and it's a gaff on the Washington Post's part for printing it.

Jae Onasi · December 31, 2008

Nobody with any taste in literature, or common sense, for that matter, would eat that cheesefest, and it's a gaff on the Washington Post's part for printing it.

I totally agree. I thought the Post had better taste than that, or at least an editorial board that was a little more attentive, unless, of course, they have Bertrice Small on staff, in which case I would be surprised we haven't seen something like this sooner. It's the only time something in the Washington Post made me want to gag for completely idiotic print. I'd love to see the look on Obama's face when he learns how chiseled his glistening pecs are.

Here's a few covers of 'glistening pecs' and 'damsels in distress' for your viewing pleasure. I'm sure Eli had these in mind when he was describing Obama's chiseled muscles. I hope the pouty lips and other, um, assets, are sufficiently large enough for you, Achilles, given the restrictions of a PG-13 forum.

Show spoiler