i think it was a better path to diplomacy, and i think it did a better job than bush's policy (which is evident by the fact that bush is abandoning his policy and adopting clintons policy)

the bush administration has made things worse. first it rejects the policy of controlling armaments through treaties , which has been followed since 1918. then it proposes using military and nuclear force in pre-emptive attacks to prevent proliferation. we sacrifice a proven method for vigilante bravado that has gotten us to where we are today.

[Edited on January 20, 2007 at 12:10 AM. Reason : .]

1/20/2007 12:05:59 AM

I think it's obvious that neither plan has worked, since NK has been working on its nuclear program almost nonstop since 1993.

Carrots and Sticks is nothing new, and Clinton didn't patent the technique. Just because Bush is using carrots now instead of sticks doesn't mean that Clinton was right and Bush was wrong. It just shows a different approach.

1/20/2007 12:09:15 AM

yeah, its not like all the time away from talks has screwed things up or encouraged them to test a weapon

oh wait it has

1/20/2007 12:11:10 AM

I think what he is saying is that NK would have tested it no matter who was in office

1/20/2007 12:12:43 AM

they would not have tested a weapon if they were in talks. he's crazy but not stupid

but whatever, my whole point was how rediculous this revisionist idea of reagan is

[Edited on January 20, 2007 at 12:14 AM. Reason : .]

1/20/2007 12:13:28 AM

They certainly did cease development. We literally took their nuclear material from them.

1/20/2007 12:15:30 AM

North Korea never stopped working on their nuclear program. Sure, they signed an agreement in '94 and the IAEA came in, but they continued to enrich uranium throughout the '90's, and continued to work on the Taepodong missiles despite the agreement.

Hell, they admitted to operating a clandestine nuclear program during this time. How do you not know this?

[Edited on January 20, 2007 at 12:43 AM. Reason : 2]

1/20/2007 12:43:29 AM

I hope Obama wins.

The USA world needs someone like him.

1/22/2007 2:33:42 AM

http://ncst.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2231653698

A pretty large group for obama.

1/27/2007 10:34:29 PM

THe median voter is a racist. I want to see an Obama-Warner ticket. We will have a black president before we have a woman president. A Black republican would have a better chance though.

Edwards is very electable....but I think hate him.

1/28/2007 5:22:17 AM

...Obama isn't black.

He's mulatto. Multiracial. Mixed ethnicity. Whatever you want to call it.

1/28/2007 7:59:37 AM

dude is one of the best speakers I've ever heard. he's talked for about 20 minutes now without looking at notes or anything and hasn't screwed up yet

oh yeah he just announced he's running for president too

2/10/2007 11:21:21 AM

A carefully cultivated public persona will ultimately fail to hide the fact that Obama is a far-left socialist democrat. Far to the left of the Dem's last losing candidate.. John F "Reporting for Duty" Kerry.

2/10/2007 11:36:38 AM

he's a democrat

so no

2/10/2007 12:15:26 PM

Per Obama's campaign: "According to the Springfield Deputy Chief of Police, Mike Geiger, there are between 15,000-17,000 people attending the speech."

2/10/2007 12:28:00 PM

Gotta admit...he was impressive in his speach...

all ideals though...no substance so far

2/10/2007 1:04:44 PM

CNN

Quote :

"Obama: I'm running for president Sen. Barack Obama has declared he wants to be the Democratic choice for president in next year's election. Obama stood on the steps of the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois, Saturday and said he wanted to follow Abraham Lincoln from the Illinois Legislature to the White House. "It's time to turn a page, right here and right now," he told a cheering and chanting crowd. "

I think that wording was a good way to show that his experience is qualifies him for a serious run at president.

2/10/2007 10:00:21 PM

The Pubs are scared of Obama. They are rooting for Edwards or Hillary to make it out of the primaries. As the last two elections show, people vote for the person more than the issues.

2/10/2007 10:10:29 PM

i am sure you are correct. it would certainly explain the complete lack of attacks from the right on edwards.

i think the republicans were ready to ignore obama until they realized #1 he was actually running and #2 he wasnt falling flat on his face. hence the madrassa story.

2/10/2007 10:31:32 PM

The GOP needs to get going and swift-boat this cat with his hard-left ideology. He wants to transform America alright..into a bigger socialist nightmare.

2/10/2007 10:38:45 PM

Quote :

"As the last twoseven elections show, people vote for the person more than the issues."

2/11/2007 1:44:31 AM

[Edited on February 11, 2007 at 4:59 PM. Reason : .]

2/11/2007 4:59:08 PM

ShinSPK

Let's make babies!

2/11/2007 5:02:17 PM

as a lifelong republican

and a person who voted for Bush twice


and as a fiscal conservative and socially moderate person




i'm have not ruled out voting for Barack Obama. Let's see what happens in the primaries, and who the Repubs bring out. (I'm hoping Mike Huckabee, Giuliani, or McCain)

2/11/2007 5:24:25 PM

you'd think that with this election being one that the left could actually win pretty easily they would bring forth some politician that is more mainstream instead of far left like the top 3 frontrunners are


oh well, good luck with that

2/11/2007 5:58:04 PM

far left of bortz, but not remotely left of anyone who is a moderate. And don't forget, during the primaries, the candidates rush to the extremes to get the base then come back to the center during the general election.

2/11/2007 6:09:39 PM

^^Yeah, let's keep calling them far-left. After all, if you say it enough, it becomes truth.

[Edited on February 11, 2007 at 6:10 PM. Reason : ]

2/11/2007 6:10:28 PM

I'm just basing on known policies and obamas stance on things available over the net

2/11/2007 6:11:19 PM

But it seems you're missing a step...

far right --- right --- centrist --- far left

Your perception is skewed.

2/11/2007 6:17:05 PM

so you're saying that neither obama, edwards or hillary are far left leaning?


none of them seem to be as "moderate" as Bill Clinton was...

[Edited on February 11, 2007 at 6:19 PM. Reason : .]

2/11/2007 6:18:34 PM

they aren't far left leaning. They are left leaning, but not far left leaning.

^That's because they are in the primary stage right now. Once the general election happens it will be a rush to the center and once governing they'll govern from the center. Especially if congress is in the hands of the other party.

[Edited on February 11, 2007 at 6:20 PM. Reason : .]

2/11/2007 6:19:39 PM

^^I'm disagreeing with this:

Quote :

"instead of far left like the top 3 frontrunners are"

And I'm right.

And you know it.

[Edited on February 11, 2007 at 6:21 PM. Reason : ]

2/11/2007 6:20:48 PM

yeah, they're not Hugo Chavez.... but hillary and obama both seem far left as far as I'm concerned


good luck winning on that ticket when it finally gets down to issues rather than speeches and "omg I'm running and I'm gonna be a unifier" lol

2/11/2007 6:21:50 PM

on what issues are they far left on? give me one.

2/11/2007 6:22:47 PM

Quote :

"none of them seem to be as "moderate" as Bill Clinton was..."

Right, at this time, none of them are seemingly as moderate as Bill. But putting them into this is wrong...

far right --- right --- centrist/moderate --- far left

[Edited on February 11, 2007 at 6:23 PM. Reason : sss]

2/11/2007 6:23:11 PM

Quote :

"good luck winning on that ticket when it finally gets down to issues rather than speeches and "omg I'm running and I'm gonna be a unifier" lol"

Yeah, we're gonna need that luck. Last election, the issues we lost on were fear and fags (fears and queers, if you prefer rhyme over alliteration).

2/11/2007 6:28:24 PM

Quote :

"on what issues are they far left on? give me one"

obama lost any hope he had of me even respecting him with his stance on gun control (omg pwrstrkdf250 cares about guns)

"wants to ban any and all civilian ownership of semi-automatic firearms"

thats not my only issue, but the one that affects me the most

2/11/2007 6:38:41 PM

So it doesnt matter at all that every Republican running except for Rudy is to the right of Bush, and Rudy has been sucking up to Bush in the last few months? That wont affect the dynamics of the race at all?

[Edited on February 11, 2007 at 6:45 PM. Reason : ps-If Hillary is far left then I am Marx reincarnated.]

2/11/2007 6:44:48 PM

"on what issues are they far left on? give me one."

socailized medicine

2/11/2007 6:50:03 PM

^^ well, it matters to me, but I still feel like I'll vote for one of those (republican) idiots before I vote for one of your (democrat) idiots...

it's a matter of what is important to me

haha, hillary has tried to come out lately as a moderate, but pressure from the left will make her go back to all of her socialist ideals before it's over

"lets take a poll and see what the people want me to be today"

[Edited on February 11, 2007 at 6:58 PM. Reason : .]

2/11/2007 6:57:40 PM

i dont care about your vote.

you are saying no one else will vote for them because they are crazy left. instead of arguing over that, i am saying that the entire republican field is far right. therefore, if you are right about the dems running (you arent) then the two will cancel each other out.

^^i wish i knew why people were so gung ho for protecting a system where we spend twice as much for half the results. its beyond reason.

2/11/2007 7:01:03 PM

The truth is we need more than 2 parties.

2/11/2007 7:04:24 PM

I don't wanna wait a month to see a Dr for one



^^ yeah, there are far right people, but what I think some of you TWW dems fail to realize is that voters aren't just centered in college towns, big cities, and Coastal New England

^ yeah, neither the left or the right will allow that to take place.... wasn't Ross Perot and his family threatened by people on both sides?

[Edited on February 11, 2007 at 7:06 PM. Reason : .]

2/11/2007 7:05:57 PM

Quote :

"obama lost any hope he had of me even respecting him with his stance on gun control"

I said far left. Not something 50% of american agree with. Same goes with socialized healthcare.

2/11/2007 7:08:57 PM

50% of americans agree that civilian ownership of semi-automatic weapons should be outlawed?

thats news to me

2/11/2007 7:10:38 PM

Quote :

"wants to ban any and all civilian ownership of semi-automatic firearms"

That "On the Issues" site doesn't cite any of its sources, and I haven't found any other place supporting this quote.

2/11/2007 7:10:50 PM

^^^^no. he wasnt threatened. he was paranoid. there is a difference.

the wait time fallacy is just that. actual studies of wait times show the similar times for the US and Canada for non-elective surgery. I dont mind someone having to wait an extra month for a liposuction.

apparently you fail to realize the difference between voters and candidates.

[Edited on February 11, 2007 at 7:11 PM. Reason : up]

2/11/2007 7:11:30 PM

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

exactly 50%

2/11/2007 7:12:04 PM

Socialized medicine is far left, sorry.. And im sure 98% of americans would be for the govt sending them a check for 10k, just the top 2% wouldnt like that.

2/11/2007 7:12:16 PM

there was more than one site that mentioned that


not to mention that he voted AGAINST a bill that would protect homeowners from being charged if they shot someone legally in self defense in their home...

thats pretty shitty

^^ that "poll" said "assault weapons" lol

obama had been quoted as saying... "ban civilian ownership of all semi-automatic firearms"

so there goes your standard 1911 .45, (attn duck hunters there goes your precious A5 and SBE), my deer rifle, and many other firearms that I own

guess what, hunting rifles aren't protected by the 2nd amendment either

[Edited on February 11, 2007 at 7:16 PM. Reason : ..once again, don't bring up the NRA... they concede and only care about hunting guns anyway]

2/11/2007 7:13:01 PM