Democrats versus Republicans

[PBzeer]

Sorry cam, it may or may not be 47 million. Though Obama uses that number, which includes illegal aliens, he also says, illegal aliens won't be eligible. So there's really no way, given his consistent lack of consistency, just what the actual number would be.

One has to love the irony of the bank bailout though. Institutions that would be unworthy of credit, were they to apply to themselves, will now benefit from those individuals and companies they have rejected for credit. Only in America!

[PBzeer]

Sailking - you forget the salient point of the whole exercise. It isn't to actually solve a problem, but to APPEAR to solve it that counts.

[SailKing1]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Sailking - you forget the salient point of the whole exercise. It isn't to actually solve a problem, but to APPEAR to solve it that counts.

And I'll bet this Mortgage Bailout Bill was originally Obama's Idea back when the housing market took off so he can APPEAR to be solving another problem.

I think i got it now Bz.

[PBzeer]

If, as we are to believe, race does not play a part in the upcoming election (and I defy anyone to show me a quote from McCain where his opposition to Obama is based on race), just what is the purpose of the following quote from Obama during a speech where he called GOP economic policy reckless without giving any concrete examples?

"It's a leap, electing a 46-year-old black guy named Barack Obama," he said, adding that the message Republicans have for voters is simple: "He doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bill."

So, anyone want to show me where the GOP is running against Obama's race? Or is it Obama, who is playing the race card?

[wind_magic]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

One has to love the irony of the bank bailout though. Institutions that would be unworthy of credit, were they to apply to themselves, will now benefit from those individuals and companies they have rejected for credit. Only in America!

That's a very clever way of looking at it, I'm going to steal that and use it from now on, thanks PBz.

[SailKing1]

So Bush called on Congress again today to put offshore oil exploration to a vote before leaving for August recess. (I thought recess was something for elementary school kids) Anyway, what do you think the chances are Polosi and Harry will oblige?

[PBzeer]

They won't allow a vote, until they can include reauthorizing the ban (which expires 9/30) into some appropriations bill that they can pass.

[sailaway21]

The debate over morality is somewhat hilarious in that, it is not really a debate over morality. Morality? You for it or agin' it? (g)

The real debate is not over morality itself but over the consequences of immorality. At the bottom line, we share far more in common than separates us regarding matters of morality. Those who are obsessively focused on the imposition of other's moralities upon themselves seem to fail to see the forest for the trees.

The real question is in the consequences of matters moral, not morality itself in any guise. Which person will say that murder, rape, robbery, stealing, lying, slandering, adultery, divorce, unmarried pregnancy, abortion, obscenity, or even swearing are inherently good and desirable? No one thinks we should have more of any of the above listed items. So we share a core morality. Where we differ on the matter is in the nature of the consequences for immoral behavior. Our opinions on those consequences may have evolved, or just changed a bit, but that doesn't mean that our morality has changed. With the exception of those people who somehow think that there should be no consequences to any immoral actions which does indeed threaten the very nature of morality itself.

What we experience in our present society is a bunch of spoiled immature children, regardless of age, who are unwilling to say, hey, I made a big mistake and I hope you and society will forgive me. And they then launch into a long diatribe on how their actions were justified. Those among the dreaded "morality police" are somewhat befuddled by their intense animosity and their need for validation of their "personal morality", ie...acceptance of the position that they've done nothing wrong or immoral. This befuddlement stems from their belief that we all enter the world as sinners and depart in the same state and that, if there is any hope of salvation for them it lies not in their moral scorecard. They tend to value the act of confession and contrition and then moving on with their lives, endeavoring to sin no more. We used to call such people well-adjusted. (g)

Now I happen to find the latter position a logical one that not only ascribes value to morality but also acknowledges the innate failings of the human condition. The former view of morality strikes me as immature and brings all matters of morality down to a personal sliding scale based upon whatever the current situation dictates. If that is one's position it I suppose it concerns me not over much but it'd be nice if the holder realized that should we all hold to such a position the end result would be anarchy and immorality where all distinctions of behavior become either impossible or mere relativism's.

[sailaway21]

Seemingly lost in the non-debate currently taking place over Iraq versus Afghanistan is the relative strategic importance of each.

Afghanistan is a poor benighted country of little significance even in historical terms. It strains the mind to imagine Afghanistan as other than a third world country even fifty years from now. The words great Afghani cultural tradition ring hollowly. The fact is that were Afghanistan not the rental property of nascent Islamism the world would little care nor devote much time to contemplations about it's existence. Our sole goal should be to prevent it's becoming a renewed training area and staging ground for Islamic terrorism directed at the West. I suspect that nation-building efforts there are more likely to reveal the hubris of the neo-conservative philosophy than they are to implant the seeds of a recognizable democracy to western eyes.

Iraq, on the other hand, is at the virtual epicenter of what will likely be the most important world real-estate of the 21st century. And Iraq is far more important strategically. That is to say, Iraq is a strategic interest while Afghanistan is no more than a tactical field of combat. The western world has a vital interest in not only Iraqi oil but in Iraqi stability. That stability could be established in a democratic way, recognizable to the West, is the pipe dream of just a few years ago that is no longer just a flight of fancy. The implications for the region are enormous. The implications for the West might be cataclysmic. It makes perfect sense to imagine paying the price of long term US-involvement within Iraq. It may be of a higher priority to the US than a European presence. The relevance of NATO, or irrelevance, is painfully obvious and more pointed than at any time in the last thirty years of struggling for relevance.

The debate and wrangling over our presence in either of the countries is mere partisan politics with nothing of long-term strategic interest involved. It certainly reveals little, if anything, of what long term US foreign policy should resemble. It is grand-standing and posturing of the most craven sort because it ignores what are the real issues of the next decade and beyond. Will the US be required to continue it's transformation into Fortress America or will there be changes within the Middle East that obviate that need. Now that is something that we could and should be talking about.

[poopdeckpappy]

Originally Posted by SailKing1

what do you think the chances are Polosi and Harry will oblige?

Oh I like my chances of being adopted by Oprah Winfrey's better