Just Watched the Democratic Presidential Debate

[Collegeboy]

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy


Go to your post and push the quote button. See how much text pops up? That's my point

Again if you want to talk about me, PM, to use you all's word and something you love accusing me of (wrongly), you are hijacking this thread.

How can I hijack my own thread?

But to answer the judicial review question, the founding fathers gave the Supreme Court the job of upholding the constitution with a loose interpretation. On gay marriages. No where in the constitution does it define what a marriage is and what it is not. It does grant everyone the same rights as everyone else though. All the other too are not found in the constitution either. There job is to make decisions on whether laws are unconstitutional and need to be changed. On affirmative action they are in the bounds of the constitution for they are trying to make sure everyone has the same rights that all others have.

On gay marriage I'm all for the government recognizing gay "joined" couples the same way they would recognize a heterosexual couple. For marriage, as in marriage performed in accordance with religious guidelines, the government has no jurisdiction.

As for affirmitive action. You cannot use discrimination to create equality, it just doesn't work. You can't tell somebody "No, you're not diverse enough for this grant" and then claim that there is an equality. It simply doesn't work that way.

You have the right to a good education. Something which many inner city school children (mostly black) are being failed at. To make up for their slow beginnings they are helped out a bit. Are they dumber then the white suburban school children, no. In fact I would say the ones that get in to school are normally smarter if they had the same opportunities as the white children.

Which isn't working. It doesn't work to do that. If you let a black child (or any for that matter) that doesn't know the fundamentals for any reason (poor educational opportunity being one) into a college that requires that knowledge you do a disservice to the student, the college, and the other students there. The fact is that the kids that don't meet the minimum educational requirements that are allowed into school anyway fail on such a scale that I can't believe it's allowed. You can't fix the problem mid stream, it needs to be fixed in the beginning. 12 years of poor inner school education cannot be fixed by 4 years of college. The people that advocate affirmitive action in colleges have misplaced their sympathies and their efforts.



How do you figure that liberals are the only ones that advocate any kind of change. Conservatives have advocated changes to:

Affirmitive Action
Social Security
Medicare
Taxes
Term Limits
Education
Energy

to name a few. Now, you may not like those changes, but that doesn't mean they aren't changes.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by Albinonewt
But to say that right now, after being Preisdent for 3 years through wars, recession, and terrorist attacks, he's nothing more then a silver spoon candidate is gross niave

The thread is now starting to get ugly. The essential posed question above, however, is whether people feel that he did a good job in his three years or a bad job? For those that think he did a good job of course his three years amount to experience. For those that feel otherwise the fact that he has been president for three years means little.

I mean Clinton had been president for three years but that didn't mean Dole supporters should have just thrown up their hands and said, "He is the most experienced available candidate for the job. I mean he is the president after all...."

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by aaron_mag


The thread is now starting to get ugly. The essential posed question above, however, is whether people feel that he did a good job in his three years or a bad job? For those that think he did a good job of course his three years amount to experience. For those that feel otherwise the fact that he has been president for three years means little.

The last three years means something whether a person feels the job was good or bad. My point is, that now for the re-election term, if a person's sole justification for voting against Bush is that he was brought up wealthy their ignoring a whole lot and they do a disservice to the country by casting their vote purely as a means of spiting a rich kid.

I mean Clinton had been president for three years but that didn't mean Dole supporters should have just thrown up their hands and said, "He is the most experienced available candidate for the job. I mean he is the president after all...."

No of course not. But to not consider Clinton's first three years when determining whether or not he should get a second term would have been just as nuts. And all I'm saying is that if a person is still only looking at Bush's days as a college student after the past three years to determine if they should vote for Bush isn't taking their civic responsibilities seriously. Heck, if that's the person's approach they're voting whether or not to ELECT Bush and not whether or not to RE-ELECT him. You should consider the candidate's three years of President when making a decision, for better or worse.

[aaron_mag]

I don't disagree with what you say above. The reason I will not be voting for Bush is because of his presidency and not because of college, drug rumors, or imagined military service dodging. I mean if our only criteria was military service why not put McCain in there?

You keep saying, however, that Wesley Clark has done nothing. Is rising to the rank of general nothing? Is having lives dependent on your decisions nothing? God I'd hate my life to be judged by such harsh criteria....

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by aaron_mag
I don't disagree with what you say above. The reason I will not be voting for Bush is because of his presidency and not because of college, drug rumors, or imagined military service dodging. I mean if our only criteria was military service why not put McCain in there?

Which is good. I don't think that everyone has to vote for Bush, but I think that everyone should consider everything before they make their decision.

You keep saying, however, that Wesley Clark has done nothing. Is rising to the rank of general nothing? Is having lives dependent on your decisions nothing? God I'd hate my life to be judged by such harsh criteria....

A fair critique to be sure. Clark has been Supreme Commander of Nato, he was a successful Vietnam tanker, and he did serve this nation for decades. He has not however, ever, not even once, been involved in the political process to really any degree. Sure he met lawmakers and politicians while a general, but not much beyond that. I should clarify when I state that he's done nothing.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by Albinonewt
A fair critique to be sure. Clark has been Supreme Commander of Nato, he was a successful Vietnam tanker, and he did serve this nation for decades. He has not however, ever, not even once, been involved in the political process to really any degree. Sure he met lawmakers and politicians while a general, but not much beyond that. I should clarify when I state that he's done nothing.

This is a concern. Military minded people are used to the chain of command concept versus the compromising and cajoling nature of politics. In my mind, however, Bush has followed the chain of command mentality more than the worst indoctrinated general.

[Collegeboy]

I will respond to the rest when I get back.

As to the claim or reference that I will vote against Bush for his college life, his financial backing, and lack of military service is wrong. Mind you I did vote for Bush the first time around, probably stupidly, but I did cast my vote for him. I don't think what you did as a youngster has anything to do with how you will do as a President, I don't think your criminal record is that big of a deal. But to the majority of voters it does.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by aaron_mag


This is a concern. Military minded people are used to the chain of command concept versus the compromising and cajoling nature of politics. In my mind, however, Bush has followed the chain of command mentality more than the worst indoctrinated general.

What makes you say that?

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
As to the claim or reference that I will vote against Bush for his college life, his financial backing, and lack of military service is wrong. Mind you I did vote for Bush the first time around, probably stupidly, but I did cast my vote for him. I don't think what you did as a youngster has anything to do with how you will do as a President, I don't think your criminal record is that big of a deal. But to the majority of voters it does.

This is the quote to which I was refferring that statement to

Originally posted by Collegeboy
And Bush is a silver spoon candidate, there is no way he can get away from it because it is him.

And my point is simply, that after three years in the Presidency there is more to consider then his college life. And you seem to agree (now)

[aaron_mag]

Ummmmm.....have you taken a look at our foriegn policy lately? Lets insult all other countries into compliance! Lets call them the old Europe. Lets encourage French bashing as the national pasttime.

I don't mind hard ball diplomatic tactics under the surface but publicy it should all be about "our two great nations with such strong historic ties" etc. Clinton understood that.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by aaron_mag
Ummmmm.....have you taken a look at our foriegn policy lately? Lets insult all other countries into compliance! Lets call them the old Europe. Lets encourage French bashing as the national pasttime.

Bush was tough with those in the world theatre that sought to prosper from some good old fashioned America bashing. France acted as a foil to the US and did so intentionall and smugly and Bush lowered the boom ever so slightly. He sang praise for those that worked with us and offered rather minor rebukes of those who didn't. Not only do I think that's ok, I rather like it. We should shower our staunch allies and supporters with praise and let those who intentionally stand in our way that we don't like it. France and Germany weren't upset with the US because Bush called them names, they wanted to interfere in our policy so that they could prove to the world they were tough guys that could bully the US around. Bush told them no they coulnd't, the US isn't bullied by them.

I don't mind hard ball diplomatic tactics under the surface but publicy it should all be about "our two great nations with such strong historic ties" etc. Clinton understood that.

Which is why Clinton left more foreign policy messes then I can count (I'll start with Iraq, Palestine, and North Korea). Don't say nice things about the people that seek to undermine you publically, call them on it. If France wants to publically and intentionall defy the will of the United States then call them on it. Don't smile politly while they tread on you. But, if they come around make sure you welcome them back publically, and kindly, like Bush did today with Germany.

[aaron_mag]

Yeah Iraq, Palestine, and North Korea were all the fault of Clinton.

I believe that as much as those who claim Gore could have miraculously stopped September 11 if he were in office. Guess what. Palestine is STILL a problem even though GW has been in office for three years. North Korea is STILL a problem as well. I, however, do not blame Bush for these problems. Unfortunately Palestine will probably still be a problem as you and I go to our respective graves.

It all comes down to what you believe. I believe that we could have received U.N. support for Iraq. I believe we could have had the U.N. helping to foot the bill for reconstruction and security. I believe the reason we did not get this is because of bad diplomacy by the administration. You believe differently which is fine. I believe, however, that you are wrong!

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by aaron_mag
Yeah Iraq, Palestine, and North Korea were all the fault of Clinton.

It was Clinton that iniiaited the great conference with Arafat and invited him to the White House more times then any other foreign diplomat during his Presidency. He neogitiated with Arafat and claimed to have finally sat the parties down and worked out a peace. Except that there's been constant fighting ever since.

Jimmy Carter got a peace prize for helping Clinton with his great foreign policy accomplishment in North Korea, which was to negotiate with them to get them to abandon their nuclear weapons program. Which CLinton got all the praise in the world for disarming them, except he didn't accomplish that at all. The North Koreans lied to him and basically just hid their program.

And Clinton ratteled his saber at Saddam every once in a while and even dropped some bombs and passed some resolutions about him. He never really did anything about him, he just talked about it.

Now, it wouldn't be fair of me to say that Clinton caused the problems, because that is certainly an untrue statement. But in all three cases he got involved and failed miserably. Heck, Madeline ALbright has been carrying on and on lately about how the Bush administration squadered all the progress that they made. What progress is she talkinga bout? Appeasing dictators to the point that all three situations were either unchanged or worsened?

[aaron_mag]

You forgot to mention Kosovo among his failures...

Once again it is all perception. You feel that Clinton failed in all these instances. Lets conveniently ignore the fact that during the Bush administration the Palestinian prime minister resigned after trying to bring about the road map for peace. One of the reasons he cited was lack of support from the international community including the U.S. Do I blame Bush for this setback? Of course not! That is a seriously screwed up situations (screwed is an inappropriate statement. It should be much stronger but you know the AO rules). As for Saddam he was a bastard. That cannot be questioned. However if Clinton had left him so free to do whatever he wanted why have no WMD been forthcoming? Bush has done a good thing in bringing the Chinese to the table with North Korea negotiations.

You know when Clinton destroyed the pharmaceutical company linked to Al Queda everyone accused him of doing a "Wag the Dog" to draw attention away from Monica Lewinsky. I personally was of the same opinion at the time. I'm not saying a trusted Clinton. I always was of the opinion that he was a sly tongued shyster but having now experienced Bush, Clinton does take on a sort of warm and presidential glow......