We threw choices at our kids as soon as they could point.
Hold up three pairs of pants. Which one?
Two kinds of juice, Which one?
We had the laugh rule which I think worked wonders. If the child could come up with an incredible explanation why they did something and it made us laugh, they were excused.
This taught them to think about what they were doing before they did it. It provided impulse control. They developed huge vocabularies and debate skills. We had amazing discussions on right and wrong. Eventually we just talked about things in advance.
The older they get the more decisions. We never had to say "if you want to try this sport you have to do it six months before you can quit." We didn't make arbitrary rules.
The Momster
And despite your good teaching, she still chose Saber instead of Epee! rotfl
I keep seeing the word "hypocrisy" bandied about, and I'm not sure everyone actually knows what it means.
The computer I'm on doesn't let me cut and paste the definition from a dictionary, but suffice it to say that it does NOT mean "advocating X, trying to do X, and failing".
It also doesn't mean advocating X to someone and having that someone else do not-X anyway.
A parent, or indeed anyone trying to influence the behavior of another, is scarcely responsible simply because the attempt is unsuccessful.
I mean, I have tried my best to get Neinteen to use proper capitalization and punctuation consistently in her posts. That she continues not to do it does not mean that somehow I don't really want her to do so, or that I don't really believe in doing so, or even that I just haven't tried ( or tried hard enough ).
In relation to this argument though, it is: Palin advocates abstinence in children, Palin does not have abstinence in her children. That would be hypocrisy.
__________________
The Angel of Death Strikes!
If you can fool your friends, you can fool your enemies...
You are being thick, but you refuse to see your own fallacies.
You can call me thick all you want, but that doesn't make you right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shi no Tenshi
No point in continuing this, if you honestly think she is only preaching that only the parent should be abstinent, but their children don't have to be. The government cannot say abstinence is the way it should be, and expect others to follow, if they can't do it in a small, lets say, "research group".
No...she's preaching that each person should be abstinent, for themselves. Obviously, people teach children their morals, but I see no evidence that she thinks that parents are required to have absolute control over her children.
If she said that each person should be abstinent, and maintain an absolute control over their children's lives, then you would have a point. This is not what she is saying. You're assuming the second part for yourself, then calling her a hypocrite.
She advocates using tax money to teach absitence only sex education in the schools. This has been shown to be ineffective by several studies but she still advocates this. IMHO, this is a judgment error that reflects poorly upon other judgments.
She has filed a lawsuit to reverse the decision to declare polar bears to be an endangered species. Why? All evidence points towards it being an endangered species. Never mind fact and logic; if the polar bears are an endangered species, then they can't drill where she wants to drill. Again, imho, this is a judgment error. There's only so much oil in the ground and once you use it all, it's gone. Drill now, while polar bears are endangered, and the only ones remaining may very well be the ones in zoos.
My problem with the polar bears is that Palin is making untrue statements and building her case upon them with the clear expectation that people will accept her statements as truth. What bothers me most is a gut feeling that she may even believe they are true.
"In fact, the number of polar bears has risen dramatically over the past 30 years," she said. "Our fear (is) that extreme environmentalists will use this tool, the ESA, to eventually curtail or halt the North Slope production of very rich resources that America needs." [http://www.zimbio.com/pilot?ZURL=%2F...cain-pic.html]
The same web reference offers this quote:
"Polar bear populations have not been increasing for the past 30 years, and that's a well-known fact," said Ian Stirling, an emeritus scientist with Canada's Department of the Environment and an adjunct professor at the University of Alberta in an interview. Stirling has studied polar bears for 37 years -- the longest of anyone.
In fact, the polar bear population has actually declined by 20 percent in Alaska's Southern Beaufort Sea since the mid-1980s, he says, referring to peer-reviewed research that he's conducted with other scientists for the US Geological Survey. The reason: Loss of their habitat in the form of melting ice.
Note further from the same article:
Palin has stated that her opposition to the polar bear listing is based on a scientific review from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Yet documents released by a FOIA request show that the state's biologists agreed with the Interior Department about the polar bear's habitat.
IOW... and I hesitate to use this term but it's the most correct term to use to describe what I'm seeing... Palin lies. And she lies so smoothly and effectively and innocently, that people don't fact check.
This VP candidate quite literally gives me nightmares. The Republican Convention speakers stated quite clearly that this election will NOT be about issues and they're right. It's all about marketing and with Sarah Palin, they've got a highly effective speaker who can look you in the eye and convince you that X is Y.
She advocates using tax money to teach absitence only sex education in the schools. This has been shown to be ineffective by several studies but she still advocates this. IMHO, this is a judgment error that reflects poorly upon other judgments.
No question! But I don't think that the fact that abstinence did not work for her daughter means that it won't work for others. And the overwhelming scientific evidence against abstinence-only education is, in my opinion, a much better route for Democrats to take against Palin than using her daughter's pregnancy as a weapon.
In relation to this argument though, it is: Palin advocates abstinence in children, Palin does not have abstinence in her children. That would be hypocrisy.
No, that's failure. There's a difference. Hypocrisy would be if she advocated abstinence in public, but told her kids not to abstain.
__________________
Just because you have the right, that doesn't mean it is right.
What if the daughter and her baby-daddy used a condom and it failed? Would that make all the people who push for condom education in schools wrong?
No, again it would either be a failure to educate properly, or a failure to use one's education properly.
When condoms are used properly, it's pretty hard for them to get screwed up. Not like it never happens.... but check the efficacy rates when used properly 100% of the time, and when.... not. They're different.
The difference you're ignoring is that Abstinence education programs don't work as well at preventing unwanted pregnancies as programs that highlight that abstinence is your only guarantee, but there are some other things you can do. Even my Catholic sex ed mentioned that there were other birth control devices, which ones were allowed under what circumstances, and the difference between using them correctly and not. They didn't do a condom-and-banana thing, or a condom-and-entire-arm thing the way other high schools in the area did..... but they gave us enough information to get the rest of the information ourselves.
Then again, perhaps that's not what promoters of abstinence education want. Perhaps they want the highest total number of people who haven't had sex, and they don't particularly care what happens to everyone else. that's incredibly cynical, but what's the other explanation to why they continue to support a policy that doesn't work??
__________________
Visit my non-fencing blog, mostly about food, at Coset The Table!
An interesting selection, the merits of which will be obviously judged by her upcoming performances to much wider audiences than seen at the Repub convention. It seems that this election will be a first; the VP slot might actually matter.
Statistically, a man of McCain's age has a 15% chance of dying in the next 4 years. That's before you add his previous battle with cancer, the stress of the presidency, and the chance of assassination. Stepping up to lead the free world would be a woman who attended 5 colleges in 6 years to get a degree in journalism and aquired a passport just 2 years ago. HELP!!!!!!!!
A scathing, but only partially convincing, analysis by a right wing, Thatcher supporting, US born woman here:
This piece aside, the problem with European coverage is that there is almost too much of an overwhelming, desperate, desire for Obama. There will be an enormous collective cry of 'how could you' and 'what is wrong with you people' if McCain/Palin win. I'm not for a second suggesting that Americans would or even should consider 'who would Europe prefer' when going to the polls. I am suggesting that perhaps Obama's overwhelming popularity in Europe will be greeted with suspicion. It touches upon cultural and political sensitivities.
Yet the fact remains, symbolically, the global perception of Obama would translate into enormous political capital for American diplomacy. Without a doubt it would be a huge shot in the arm to America's global reputation. How long this would last is debatable, but would also depend on how effectively the Bush administration have 'boxed in' US foreign policy.
As an aside, dismayed as I would be if Obama lost- I think the fundemental democratic electoral slogan (McCain=another Bush) is a lazily simplistic observation. It may not, however, be a flawed strategy (I hope not!).
__________________
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots"
Statistically, a man of McCain's age has a 15% chance of dying in the next 4 years. That's before you add his previous battle with cancer, the stress of the presidency, and the chance of assassination.
I think the very frequent, routine medical screening for the president would help to lower this risk dramatically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pigeonmeister
Stepping up to lead the free world would be a woman who attended 5 colleges in 6 years to get a degree in journalism and aquired a passport just 2 years ago. HELP!!!!!!!!
Sure, these things aren't what you would look for as "ideal" in a presidential candidate, but I think a lot of people place a little too much emphasis on an elite background for politicians. There are plenty of smart, hard working people that didn't attend an ivy-league college. America was never meant to be ruled by a small, perpetual elite, but rather the natural leaders that emerged from the various, scattered states and communities. Sure, wealth and education helped, but US history is full of people from rather humble beginnings that worked their way up to accomplish great things.
No politician, or executive in any business, is expected to be an absolute expert...that's what experts are for. An executive's role is to weigh competing needs, enforce standards and ensure concerted efforts towards a predetermined goal. McCain has the knowledge and experience to put together a top-notch, relatively non-partisan cabinet and team of advisers, and Palin has shown an ability to accomplish things within her State. If the worst should come to pass, she's set up well to continue executing McCain's goals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pigeonmeister
Yet the fact remains, symbolically, the global perception of Obama would translate into enormous political capital for American diplomacy. Without a doubt it would be a huge shot in the arm to America's global reputation. How long this would last is debatable, but would also depend on how effectively the Bush administration have 'boxed in' US foreign policy.
I agree that the global reaction would be much more positive to an Obama victory, but I fail to see how that would result in any sort of political capital for the US. Is the UN or NATO going to suddenly become much more aggressive against Iran, Russia, North Korea or Afghanistan? I can see those nations being less concerned, as Obama has made clear he'll do anything to avoid using a military option, but will trade, business, meaningful treaties suddenly change because Obama is elected? Maybe something like Kyoto would pass, effectively crippling our economy like anyone else that complies with it, but other than that, I don't see any major global changes. Bottom line, the US is a major global player, and nations will interact with it regardless of who is in charge.
I think the very frequent, routine medical screening for the president would help to lower this risk dramatically.
I will concede that regular screening by the best medical team would reduce the figure of 15% for normal people. I think having suffered cancer, working in a uniquely physically and emotionally demanding environment and the fact that you cannot screen for assassination or helicopter accidents would probably return the figure to one that requires serious contemplation.
I take your point regarding America's suspicion of elitism. But there comes a point where you have to acknowledge that attributes you could extend to the chairman of the local PTA or even small town governors are not enough to rule the most powerful military and economy in the world. She IS smart, hard working etc.. but she is only on the ticket because McCain's experienced and trusted choices, who he preferred for the job, are not socially conservative or religious enough. I accept that this is a cultural thing- but as a criteria for selecting a VP and potential world leader, it sends a shiver up the spine. The passport issue is just laughable..
I also find the cynical manipulation/parading of her daughter and her b/f
hugely distasteful. The hypocracy of initially saying she should be afforded privacy is unbelievable. I'll stop short of suggesting it was stipluated by the McCain team that the daughter pledge to marry that bloke...but I wouldn't be surprised.
The rest of your post seems to suggest that in terms of America's political, diplomatic and economic relations with the rest of the world, it makes little difference who wins the presidency or whether that president lives or dies...
This analysis would seem to afford no credit, as most Repubs do, to Reagan 'winning the Cold War'- not that I believe he did. Or Kennedy standing up to Krushchev or, in a similar vein, Bush ruinous Persian Gulf policy. Even Carter's Arab-Israeli peace initiative was an accomplishment determined by his singular engagement with the issue. I find it quite baffling to assert that a President, or the team he puts together, is incapable of affecting major global change. That's not to say that there are not wider economic, environmental and geo-political forces that can dictate an agenda..
It goes without saying that I disagree with your implied analysis, that aggressive confrontation with Iran and Russia, rather than engagement, are positive attributes in the UN, NATO or the White House.
Has anyone paid attention to the issues behind the news versus looking for dirt?
She attended 5 or 6 colleges in 5-6 years before graduating with a degree in journalism without any evidence of having done any work in journalism while a student. That's a little worrisome but no big deal since young adults often need some time to find their path and she did work for a year in her degree after graduation.
In her campaign for mayor in a small town, she made right-to-life the issue. How many mayors do you know who run on a right-to-life issue? Religion was the centerpoint of her campaign. Her opponent was a member of the Lutherean church so it's not like she was campaigning against the devil.
As mayor, she enacted a tax to pay for an expensive sportscomplex and pushed it through. Good? Well... there's this little matter of not bothering to sign the sale papers for the land on which they planned to build. Someone else bought it. The town sued, the court ruled in the town's favor and they started building despite the appeal. The judge reversed himself on the ground that... well... they hadn't SIGNED the papers. The town used eminent domain. The court ruled the town had a right to do this.
Last year, the arbitrator ordered the city to pay $836,378 for the 80-acre parcel, far more than the $126,000 Wasilla originally thought it would pay for a piece of land 65 acres larger. The owner has appealed, arguing that she should have been awarded interest. It's been 10 years.
But she got the job done, right? Well... wait a minute. It seems that part-time job paid $78,000 which is about three times what our mayor earns and the city had a population of about 15,000. However, Palin did take a cut of $4,000 during her second term in office. And hired a city manager.
Before this, during her first term, in 1997 I think, there was a recall effort by about 60 citizens (not a huge number but it was a small town) over the firings. One item in particular catches my attention:
[quote]Department heads serve at the pleasure of the mayor under Wasilla's city code. The police chief, however, contends he had a contract with the city and that he could be removed only for cause. Palin counters that the contract isn't valid since it was negotiated with the previous administration. [quote]
"Four months of turmoil have followed in which almost every move by Palin has been questioned, from firing the museum director to hiring a deputy administrator at a cost of $50,000 a year to a short-lived proposal to move the city's historic buildings from downtown. Critics argue the decisions are politically motivated. Palin says people voted for a change and she's only trying to streamline government. "
Notice that word "Change" in there?
Of course, this was early in her career.
At the end of her term, they had a nice sports complex for her star hockey player son to use and roads to reach it. They also had a multi-million dollar debt and the city had not really had a long term debt before.
She attended 5 or 6 colleges in 5-6 years before graduating with a degree in journalism without any evidence of having done any work in journalism while a student.
Is she slow or something?
()
*"Lots of people go to college for seven years..."
*"Yeah, they're called doctors."
__________________
"Agh, that's roping milk." -Mr. R. Johson, October 22nd, 2008
Last edited by KidLazy; 09-08-2008 at 03:11 PM..
Reason: just remember that joke...
She ran for re-election with a promise to take a cut in pay. She did. She cut her pay from $78,000 to $74,000 and hired someone to handle some of the workload.
After her unsuccessful bid for Lieutenant Gov., she was chaired the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission from 2003 to 2004 while also serving as Ethics Supervisor of the commission.
One member must be a registered petroleum engineer, one member must be a registered geologist, and the third member must represent the public at large (and not be in either of the other categories). Palin was the public representative.
Her official reason for resigning was allegedly a protest against Randy Ruedrich, a fellow commissioner and state Republican Party chairman.
"She was unsettled and unhappy that he was conducting party business on state time," says Joe Balash, Gov. Palin's special assistant. Mr. Reudrich was later fined $12,000 for violating state ethics laws.
Ms. Palin's biggest accomplishment has been to jump-start work on the giant gas pipeline, expected to cost more than $30 billion. When she took office, a deal negotiated between former Gov. Frank Murkowski and the oil companies was rejected by the state legislature because it gave the industry favorable fiscal terms without extracting any guarantees the project would move forward. Progress on a pipeline was completely stalled.
Ms. Palin pushed for new public negotiations, including a piece of legislation to provide $500 million in incentives to induce work on a pipeline. Earlier this week, she signed the legislation into law, selecting Calgary-based TransCanada Corp. to build the pipeline.
The companies say their interest in building a gas pipeline predates Gov. Palin's administration.
Current market conditions are credited as the reason for moving forward now.
Doug Reynolds, an oil and gas economist at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, said the governor has given the natural gas pipeline project new momentum. But her deal with TransCanada Alaska Co. to build the pipeline is useless unless there is also a deal with gas-producing companies to fill it, he said.
"We don't have an agreement. We don't have anything," Dr. Reynolds said.
Initial plans by TransCanada and Denali call for gas to begin flowing in about 10 years, but some experts expect it to take longer. The TransCanada proposal could handle 5 billion cubic feet of natural gas a day. The United States consumes roughly 60 billion cubic feet a day, says Jeff Share, editor of the Pipeline & Gas Journal.
Dr. Foss says producing the necessary pipe for the new line could require the equivalent output of every steel mill in the world for more than a year.
Just wondering... Why are they keep on thinking of spending billions dollars on drilling/digging/overspending for something that would only help in very small amount, instead of funding the same money to find alternative energy resources?
*If they did that, it would make my last project much easier.
__________________
"Agh, that's roping milk." -Mr. R. Johson, October 22nd, 2008
Last edited by KidLazy; 09-08-2008 at 11:50 PM..
Reason: typo
Just wondering... Why are they keep on thinking of spending billions dollars on drilling/digging/overspending for something that would only help in very small amount, instead of funding the same money to find alternative energy resources?
*If they did that, it would make my last project much easier.
Because you've missed the obvious. Drilling is NOT about energy; it's about creating high paying blue collar jobs in America and winning votes.
Creating alternate energy sources will generate few jobs and most of those in highly specialized fields.
I take your point regarding America's suspicion of elitism. But there comes a point where you have to acknowledge that attributes you could extend to the chairman of the local PTA or even small town governors are not enough to rule the most powerful military and economy in the world. She IS smart, hard working etc.. but she is only on the ticket because McCain's experienced and trusted choices, who he preferred for the job, are not socially conservative or religious enough. I accept that this is a cultural thing- but as a criteria for selecting a VP and potential world leader, it sends a shiver up the spine.
It's called compromise, and it's an important part of politics. To get anything accomplished (winning the presidency, in this case), you'll have to make compromises to your positions with the positions of others...at least enough others to get the votes you need.
If he picked someone who had no more experience than running a PTA, I'd understand the concerns about her readiness more. Sure, she's less prepared than I (or most) Americans would prefer, but she's about equal in terms of experience/accomplishments as Obama.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pigeonmeister
The passport issue is just laughable..
Agreed. That anyone would think this matters at all is ridiculous. Oh, you meant it DOES matter...I have a passport. I traveled to England for about 10 days when I was younger...does that suddenly make me an expert on European diplomacy? Did I really become more intelligent, intellectually curious, honest, or anything else? No. Sure, I learned a few interesting things, met some nice people, etc, but the only thing I gained that would be remotely important to the presidency would be the ability to say I've traveled abroad, because that matters to some people for some reason. Other than that, it makes no difference.
My 5 years living in Germany with the military, however, is a bit more meaningful, but that's a different story. I would say it would help me a bit, from a presidential angle, but again, mostly on the campaign trail...there are plenty of experts on Europe that would give me more useful information/advice on Germany for any serious policy decisions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pigeonmeister
The rest of your post seems to suggest that in terms of America's political, diplomatic and economic relations with the rest of the world, it makes little difference who wins the presidency or whether that president lives or dies...
This analysis would seem to afford no credit, as most Repubs do, to Reagan 'winning the Cold War'- not that I believe he did. Or Kennedy standing up to Krushchev or, in a similar vein, Bush ruinous Persian Gulf policy. Even Carter's Arab-Israeli peace initiative was an accomplishment determined by his singular engagement with the issue. I find it quite baffling to assert that a President, or the team he puts together, is incapable of affecting major global change. That's not to say that there are not wider economic, environmental and geo-political forces that can dictate an agenda..
It goes without saying that I disagree with your implied analysis, that aggressive confrontation with Iran and Russia, rather than engagement, are positive attributes in the UN, NATO or the White House.
No, I think the US president has a huge amount of influence on the rest of the world, and each president has a unique approach to how international relations should work. My point was that, unless the US president pushes for something directly, very little will change in international relations, at least nothing significant. Trade, for example...is trade with other nations going to suddenly get better with Obama, or worse with McCain? No...it'll stay pretty much the same. Is NATO or the UN going to sanction the US if McCain is elected, or give us some kind of meaningful privilege if Obama wins? No.
Is the UN going to do anything meaningful about Georgia or Iran if Obama is elected? No...the only major impact in either of those places will (once again) depend on US (or Israeli) unilateral action.
An Obama presidency creates warm, fuzzy relations with many mostly European) nations...but nothing significant changes as far as actual policy. Seriously, what major international focus has Obama proposed that's on par with Reagan's war to end communism?
Because you've missed the obvious. Drilling is NOT about energy; it's about creating high paying blue collar jobs in America and winning votes.
Creating alternate energy sources will generate few jobs and most of those in highly specialized fields.
Uh, drilling is all about energy. Oil is a cheap, plentiful source of energy, so why not use it? Energy prices affect the prices of everything, so it's in our best interest to provide cheap and plentiful energy.
Sure, maybe the oil we pump out of Alaska is a fairly small amount in the big scheme of things...so what? The amount of energy you save by switching to compact fluorescent bulbs is small, especially considering the extra (unsubsidized) cost of the bulb and the dangers or the mercury they contain...so why don't the people arguing against drilling advocate mandating use of them? Because every little bit helps, and pumping this oil helps provide energy to the US in addition to all the benefits of jobs and increased commerce.
It's called compromise, and it's an important part of politics. To get anything accomplished (winning the presidency, in this case), you'll have to make compromises to your positions with the positions of others...at least enough others to get the votes you need.
Agreed, Palin is on the ticket to get McCain into office. That she is deemed capable of doing so is much more dependent on her moral and religious beliefs than her suitability to fulfill the role of VP.
Quote:
Sure, she's less prepared than I (or most) Americans would prefer, but she's about equal in terms of experience/accomplishments as Obama.
I disagree. Obama's academic accomplishments dwarf Palin's (president of harvard law versus taking 6 years and 5 colleges to get a degree in journalism). They are both politically inexperienced- but look at what Obama has achieved since he decided to seek the democratic nomination. Whilst Obama faced intense public scrutiny every day in what must be the most gruelling and successful primary campaign in American history, Palin was a nobody. As Obama met many of America's most important global allies, Palin sat in Alaska. The whole experience garnered Obama more political experience, at a national and international level. Palin has made one speech, most of which she did not write, to a an audience guaranteed to lap it up.
Quote:
Agreed. That anyone would think this matters at all is ridiculous. Oh, you meant it DOES matter...I have a passport.
Funny how a lot of the right wing commentators attribute Ahmadinejad's ranting and closed mind to the fact he had never left Iran before becoming president..
Travelling abroad as a tourist exposing yourself to foreign cultures does not an expert in foreign relations make. I would still be suspicious of people advancing a world view without seeing the world. But, from what I can make out, Palin doesn't even have a world view.
I speak to Americans most days, I work in a field of American studies, I spent 6 weeks of this summer in America and a month last year. I have only, however, visited 7 or 8 states- none in the west or mid west. Thus I do not pretend to have a firm grasp on US political culture. But if I was to meet someone who had never left London, I would presume a better understanding of America. I merely extend the same logic to Palin and Obama. Whatismore, Obama has met Brown, Merkel, Sarkozy, Barak, Peres, Nethanyahu, Abbas, Maliki, Talebani. Palin's lack of a passport merely highlights her isolation from global affairs- mind you, that might be an attraction for many in the US.
Quote:
My point was that, unless the US president pushes for something directly, very little will change in international relations, at least nothing significant.
But clearly nearly all (Ford?) post war presidents have pushed for something directly-I fail to see why you would preclude Obama from doing likewise
Quote:
Trade, for example...is trade with other nations going to suddenly get better with Obama, or worse with McCain? No...it'll stay pretty much the same
US led geo-political change can have a profound but, often at the time of conception, unknown or unpredictable effect on trade. Look at Iran- until 2003 it's trade with Iraq was all but a slow trickle. As a direct consequence of a decision made by a US president, it now runs into billions and billions.
This illustrates that there are unforeseen commercial costs (and indeed benefits) associated with successful or unsuccessful foreign and diplomatic policies. Should, for instance, a US administration succesfully negotiate a 'grand bargain' with Iran- that would lead to a huge increase in natural gas on the market. An eventuality that would also go some way to reducing Russia's ability to play the energy weapon.
Put more simply, foreign policy errors are very costly. Bush made a lot of them- one will cost you at least 1.7 trillion dollars. A president who makes fewer mistakes (and has a track record of having opposed previous ones) could leave more money in the wallet of the average American. Trade is obviously also linked to the price of oil- Iraq is one of several factors that has increased its price.
Then again, Iraq has probably aided improved trade relations with other countries- Poland and other Eastern European states, possible Qatar and Oman..
Either way, Presidential decisions clearly impact on trade. McCain and Obama have different solutions on Iraq, regardles of which you feel is correct, both will have either a favourable or unfavourable impact on the global economy and business cycles
Quote:
Is NATO or the UN going to sanction the US if McCain is elected, or give us some kind of meaningful privilege if Obama wins? No.
Are we going to deal with sensible issues?
Quote:
Is the UN going to do anything meaningful about Georgia or Iran if Obama is elected?
That's the wrong question. You should be asking, is the Obama or McCain approach to diplomacy ultimately going to have positive or negative geo-political ramifications? Suffice to say, a period of intense confrontation will not be good for the US, Russia or the UN. Ask yourself who has played a more constructive role in the crisis; Sarkosy's quiet diplomacy or Cheney's bombastic jolly around Eastern Europe?
Quote:
Seriously, what major international focus has Obama proposed that's on par with Reagan's war to end communism?
The lack of a communist threat, the gravest America has ever faced, would obviously preclude a similar proposal. Also, Reagan didn't campaign with a realistic (or even stated) belief that he could end communism. It happened because of a much wider and long reaching series of events and forces (most of which happened inside Russia). Another example, the Bush campaign didn't propose to attack Iraq (though they clearly had it in mind). Unforseen events and conflicts happen- the resolution to which cannot be proposed in prior campaigns. The question is whether you want another hot head in the WH if and when they do.
__________________
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots"
Last edited by pigeonmeister; 09-09-2008 at 10:36 AM..
Is she slow or something?
)
Linear Mode
