Promote your business or product on 700level.com. For
more information about advertising with us CLICK HERE!

On behalf of NCSF, we apologize for being ridiculous because we don't want a socialist running the country.

On behalf of NCSF, we apologize for being ridiculous because we don't want a socialist running the country.

That rampant capitalism with no restraints has led us to a $10 trillion debt, a tanking economy, and a war in Iraq. Capitalism is NOT about looking out for YOU. It's about looking out for the wealthiest people.

I'm not saying it's a bad system, but it's not an inherently positive one for humankind, either. It needs some checks and balances.

Don't think that debt's going away, either. That's a debt that your kids and grandkids are going to be paying off. They're f**ked before they're born.

That post was pre-morning coffee.

The point is that unchecked capitalism isn't really the answer to anything other than the most efficient way to transfer wealth to a small number of people. There need to be some checks and balances on it and there needs to be oversight. Corporations are not capable of making moral decisions but yet we put all our faith in them.

uber,
Aren't you confusing the economic system with government policies? Runaway spending is a problem and has been for decades, masked only because the federal government relies on Social Security taxes to spend down the deficit.

Capitalism is fine. Runaway government spending is the problem. So, what are the major government programs that threaten to bleed our children dry?

Regarding Obama, I thought all he did was acknowledge the Surge's success. I didn't realize he laid out a new plan.

How can he possibly develop a new plan when he hasn't talked to Petraeus, the new guy coming in, or gone to Iraq to see first hand? I realize that parrots McCain's criticism, but it's a darn valid one. The guy's making strategic policy decisions based on . . . what? DC advisors? That served us well in the past. O'Hanlon, a Democratic advisor at Brookings, even slapped down Obama's plan.

Someone slap sense into that guy.

How can he possibly develop a new plan when he hasn't talked to Petraeus, the new guy coming in, or gone to Iraq to see first hand? I realize that parrots McCain's criticism, but it's a darn valid one. The guy's making strategic policy decisions based on . . . what? DC advisors? That served us well in the past. O'Hanlon, a Democratic advisor at Brookings, even slapped down Obama's plan.

What's the alternative here...saying "I promise I'll look into Iraq when I'm in office"?

I assume his "plan" is based on what he knows and what he knows will probably change as he learns more information. That goes for any candidate and most policies, really.

Can we all just step back a second and understand the difference between "campaigning" and "governing"?

Also, I'm not thrilled with Obama over the last couple weeks, but if you didn't think BOTH candidates would move to the center for the general election campaign you're retarded.

The alternative is to talk to the Commanders, visit the area of operations, talk to the diplomatic team and talk to the Iraqis. I'm not saying he can't hold a position on Iraq, I'm saying it makes no sense to develop a strategy for a major issue when you are going off strictly third party accounts. I also wouldn't advise him to have a public position until he developed a strategy, or he'll look like a lightweight.

So, talk to the people who know best and visit the area, develop a strategy, publicize your position. Sounds reasonable to me.

uber,
Have you heard of Distributism? It was popularized by GK Chesterton, among others. Chesterton, if you haven't had the chance, is the most influential British writer of the 20th century. His works, essays, and op-eds influenced Michael Collins to rally for independence, Ghandi's civil disobedience strategy, CS Lewis' conversion, and influenced many other heavyweights in Britain.

Anyway, Distributism is often called a "third way" of economics between socialism and capitalism. As Chesterton wrote, "Too much capitalism doesn't mean too many capitalists. It means too few." Might be worth looking into, if it interests you.

"The Man Who was Thursday" was unbearable.

The alternative is to talk to the Commanders, visit the area of operations, talk to the diplomatic team and talk to the Iraqis. I'm not saying he can't hold a position on Iraq, I'm saying it makes no sense to develop a strategy for a major issue when you are going off strictly third party accounts. I also wouldn't advise him to have a public position until he developed a strategy, or he'll look like a lightweight.

So, talk to the people who know best and visit the area, develop a strategy, publicize your position. Sounds reasonable to me.

I would desperately hope that a Senator wouldn't have all the access and information on the war that a commander in chief would, for one.

The point here is whether or not what he did (updating his position on Iraq) was in some way dishonest as McCain suggested.

I don't think any reasonable person would say "yes".

The point here is whether or not what he did (updating his position on Iraq) was in some way dishonest as McCain suggested.

That might be your point, but I don't really give a darn what McCain says. He doesn't have my vote yet and may not get it.

My point is what Obama did was bass-ackwards. He reached a conclusion without the most important facts. His inexperience has been showing more and more. He's a nice enough guy, but in no way ready for the role of commander in chief.

My point is what Obama did was bass-ackwards. He reached a conclusion without the most important facts. His inexperience has been showing more and more. He's a nice enough guy, but in no way ready for the role of commander in chief.

The facts are these:

- He's running for public office.
- He's been against the war from the beginning.
- 60% of the country thinks the war wasn't worth it.
- 70% of the country wants out.
- 68% don't care about "winning".
- 64% want the next President to remove troops.

If his position is the war shouldn't have ever started, he wants to get troops out as quickly as possible, and the nation agrees, it's his job to start with getting the troops out/ending the war and work his way backward by getting the facts on how it can be done with the least amount of disruption and loss of American lives.

I don't know who he's consulting with, but his people feel the same way the people of this country feel and I assume that he'll work on the fine details of his plan as he learns more about logistics, if/when he's President.

Doesn't that make sense?

So you are saying he could get into office and then, once he's privy to all the info, decide then that pulling the troops out is not in the best interests of the Country?

So you are saying he could get into office and then, once he's privy to all the info, decide then that pulling the troops out is not in the best interests of the Country?

In theory, he could do anything once he's in office. Given his voting record and stance on the subject, I doubt that would happen...anything's possible, though.

Lieberman hits Barry on Iraq:

"Senator Obama this morning said that he wants a foreign policy that is “tough, smart, and principled.” This afternoon, I ask: was it tough when Senator Obama voted to order U.S. forces to retreat from Iraq on a fixed timeline—regardless of the recommendations of our military commanders, regardless of conditions on the ground? Was it smart when Senator Obama opposed the surge and predicted that it would fail to improve security? Was it principled when Senator Obama said that he would order U.S. troops to retreat from Iraq, regardless of the humanitarian consequences for millions of innocent Iraqis—even genocide? Was it tough and principled when Senator Obama said he would be open to changing his plan for Iraq after going there and talking to General Petraeus—only to change that position a few hours later after being heatedly criticized by organizations like Moveon.org? I say respectfully, the answer to all of those questions is no."

"Senator Obama also said this morning that he wants a foreign policy that recognizes that we have interests “not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi and Tokyo and London.” But what Senator Obama does not seem to recognize is that—in an interdependent world—what happens in Baghdad affects our interests in Kandahar and Karachi and Tokyo and London. What Senator Obama does not seem to understand is that—had we taken the course he had counseled and retreated from Iraq—the United States would have suffered a catastrophic defeat that would have left America and our allies less safe not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi and Tokyo and London."
linc

Lieberman 2006:

“I want to get our troops home as fast as anyone, probably more than most, and as I have repeatedly said, I am against an open-ended commitment,” Mr. Lieberman said

He was also the sponsor for the Iraq Resolution in 2002.

Pardon me if I don't care what Lieberman says/thinks. Business as usual.

Nice quote parsing.

“I want to get our troops home as fast as anyone, probably more than most, and as I have repeatedly said, I am against an open-ended commitment,” Mr. Lieberman said, according to a copy of remarks prepared for delivery. “But if we simply give up and pull out now, like my opponent wants to do, then it would be a disaster to Iraq and to us. We would run a high risk of allowing Iraq to become like Afghanistan when the Taliban were in charge, and Al Qaeda had safe haven from which to strike us.”

f-d,
First, I'd never confuse polls with "facts." Polls are, by their nature, subject to change. Facts should not be a matter of time of the day or who answers a phone.

Next, as I stated, I think he could have a position on Iraq, but developing and publicizing a strategy without talking to the generals, the diplomats, or the Iraqis and without travelling to the region is the height of hubris.


Good:
Position on Iraq: I want to end the war.
Strategy on Iraq: After consulting the generals, the diplomats and the Iraqis and after seeing the situation firsthand and talking to ground commanders, here is my strategy to end the war.

Bad:
Position on Iraq: I want to end the war.
Strategy on Iraq: Haven't been to Iraq in years. Haven't had a chance to talk to the generals or the diplomats. My plan of two brigades a month has been laughed at by O'Hanlon (a guy typically in the corner for Democrats) and logisitics personnel in theatre. Regardless, I know best and here's my strategy.

Shouldn't we, as voters, know his strategy for Iraq? Shouldn't we have confidence it is the best he could do?

I say, "Yes."

Others say, "Look over there!"

Nice quote parsing.

“I want to get our troops home as fast as anyone, probably more than most, and as I have repeatedly said, I am against an open-ended commitment,” Mr. Lieberman said, according to a copy of remarks prepared for delivery. “But if we simply give up and pull out now, like my opponent wants to do, then it would be a disaster to Iraq and to us. We would run a high risk of allowing Iraq to become like Afghanistan when the Taliban were in charge, and Al Qaeda had safe haven from which to strike us.”

Wasn't attempting to pull the quote out of context. I just wanted to point out that he holds the exact same beliefs as Obama except Obama doesn't have to hedge his quotes because didn't sponsor and vote for the war like Lieberman. Obama said he wasn't to get out of Iraq as quickly and safely as possible. the only difference between hima nd Lieberman is Obama was right about not going in the first place.

f-d,
Enough with the "Barrack was right in 2002" stuff. Here's why:

He has shown no true backbone when it comes to votes. He gets away with the 2002 line because he was never asked to vote on it. Given what we've seen recently (net neutrality, FISA, funding for the war), there's better odds this guy would've gone along with the rest of the crew when the vote was tallied.

He gets to trumpet it only because he was never asked to vote on it. Public statements mean little coming from this guy (again, given how they're quickly revised). I have no doubt he would've gone along with the vote.

So he didn't vote for the war?

You can hedge and twist as much as you want, but he was against the war and it turns out he was right.

You can't take that away from him.

No, but I'm not going to give him mythical cajones in 2002 when he's shown he doesn't have them now and didn't have them then (Mr. "Present").

Shouldn't we, as voters, know his strategy for Iraq? Shouldn't we have confidence it is the best he could do?

I say, "Yes."

Others say, "Look over there!"

Here's his plan...no "look over there". It's a general plan or what he wants to accomplish in Iraq and the voters overwelmingly want what he wants.

I still don't understand what you're looking for here.

linc

No, but I'm not going to give him mythical cajones in 2002 when he's shown he doesn't have them now and didn't have them then (Mr. "Present").

“an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs and undetermined consequences.” Obama 2002

Not myth and not balls. Just the facts.

LOL @ linking to a portion of Barry's site that was just recently scrubbed.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50  51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 
181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207