> Cocanut wrote:

> Lol... Black_Wing... your words: "This is what makes me a Conservative."

You know what a conservative is? A conservative is someone who don't wanna see changes. Someone who want to keep stuff as it is.

So for Iraq that must mean that you wanna see still Saddam there.

Horrible fallacy there.  The political definition of "conservative," as opposed to "liberal" is much different from the dictionary definition.  According to the dictionary definition, liberals would be in favor of anything that wasn't the status quo, even if, oddly enough, the status quo was a recent creation of the liberal movement.

The dictionary definitions have uses outside the political sphere.  If someone spends money liberally, it just means that they're more willing to spend it.  If you dress conservatively, you're dressing in a traditional fashion.  Conservative dress doesn't mean you wear a "Bush/Cheney '04" shirt.

That was much more simple than what I said. 

I'll go one step further than Skoe on this one, just because it's fun. 

In spite of how the Iraq war started, it's now become an issue of US national security, considering the oil resources there.  Therefore, we can't possibly just leave the region.

The three state solution further harms this ends because we now would have three states to keep tabs on.  Any one of the states could destabilize the region by rejecting the international accord on oil, as they are currently rejecting the distribution of oil as one sovereign entity.  To make things worse, you would further instill nationalism among each sect, as the zero sum profits from oil become national policy, rather than political banter.

Now to the dictatorship idea.  This is an interesting idea, frankly, although it leaves a major problem.  Sorry, Justinian, but this would devastate the US image abroad.  It would be the perfect way to make everyone confirm that the war was for oil (I've argued about this position in the past, but frankly, I don't have enough time for my 2-page post about the war-for-oil argument).  The US would easily lose credibility both among Western nations and in the Islamic world, only furthering terrorism against the US.

That leaves only one option: continued US troop presence.

Now, I don't need to defend whether democracy is possible there.  The only thing I have to defend is whether a perpetual status quo is more desirable than the prospect of the alternatives.  Why?  Two reasons:
1: Continued presence and aid can give Iraq the time to develop a middle class, and
2: The worst case scenario is that the US is occupying the region, stamping out terrorism there.

Now, why is #2 good?  Because after 5 years, if the Iraq war would have caused major threats to the US, it would have done so already.  What makes the future occupation any different from the past?

1: I like McCain, so you're wrong.  I just happened to like McCain based on policies, not speaking style.
2: From a policy perspective, it's zero sum.  If I care about policy X, I like people who agree with me and don't like people who disagree with me on that policy.  So one can vote because they like one person AND because they don't like another person.
3: Policies decide which way a nation goes, not personalities.  At best, charisma is a benefit for diplomacy, but that assumes that the other person is more concerned with someone being a nice person rather than being concerned about policies.

Maybe your computer just decided that you need more friends. 

Some suck less than others?

That and the vowel thing. 

Nope!

Mishe?

No, RockLee, he's not saying that you're expressing yourself negatively.  You used a double negative.  It's a grammar issue.

A double negative is when you use two words in negation of a proposition (i.e., "not" in "The sky is not blue," being a negation of "the sky is blue").  The two negatives cancel each other out, meaning you have just affirmed what you intended to negate in your sentence.

Consider it like a math equation with each negation multiplying the value of the whole proposition by -1.

You're anti-against Clinton.  So you're -1*-1*Clinton, which means you're +Clinton, according to that sentence.

Alright, class, for your homework due on Monday, I want you to write a paragraph about what you did during that weekend.  Grades will be based on spelling and grammar, so don't expect to gain points by having a really interesting weekend.  Class dismissed. 

It's bullshit. 

WARNING: SPOILER ALERT!

========================================================================================

None of the first six cards are in the second pile of six cards.  All cards in the first group were replaced by cards in the second group of the same color and value, but not suit.

========================================================================================

> Gladiator wrote:

> "-2: The quality of speeches is really subjective, so let's not even get into that.  You and I look at "quality" by different lenses, so trying to argue this point would be a clash of civilizations."

it's not the speeches i'm really getting at, i'm getting at the setup, the organization, the thought, of the campaigns and the candidates, and that counts for a lot, as if a candidate can't even handle to organize to bring a campaign together and get everyone's input and make it the best damn event ever, than how do you excpect them to get the white house and country organized and make it best for everyone

That's a horrible analogy.  Running an election campaign has some qualities of resemblance to running a government, but only in terms of personal management.  By that logic, the Backstreet Boys would have had cabinent positions in 2000. 

"-Fair enough, it's a pretty big group.  But, to be frank, numbers of supporters aren't all that matters in an election."
LOL i think that came out wrong, right? number of supporters don't matter? that is how you win an election with the most supporters lol..i'll forgive you for that

Nope, you don't need to forgive me.  That came out exactly as you read it, word for word.  Now to back myself up:
1: You can have plenty of supporters, but if they're burnt out by the time November comes along, they won't come to the polls anyway.
2: Money is a big issue.  The one who controls the money controls the perceptions of each candidate.  I think the best example of this would be Bush v. Kerry, in which Kerry was forced to play defense for a good portion of the election.
3: Political tactics.  An interesting phenomena occurred during the 2004 election: at the same day as the presidential election, a number of states were voting on state constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage.  That drove a huge amount of people to the polls, who also happened to favor Bush over Kerry.
4: Demographics.  It's not enough to just have people like you.  I know, this is odd, but you need to have the RIGHT people like you.  Let me explain:
Here's an imaginary scenario.  Imagine a primary in which candidates X and Y are both trying to get the nomination to face candidate Z in the general election.  Picture this as a projection made by a study analyzing how two candidates, X and Y, would do in five state, A, B, C, D, and E, all of which have the same population.
State                Candidate X                   Candidate Y
A                      100%                            51%
B                      100%                            51%
C                      49%                             51%
D                      49%                             51%
E                       49%                             0%

Now, who did better?  Who should be picked, assuming these projections prove to be true in November?  Candidate Y.  Not because he had the most supporters, but because he had the RIGHT supporters.

While having lots of supporters is fine and dandy, there's alot more to it than that.

> but my point was not only that, it was also that obama's supporters are ready to do a lot for him, he can gather the crowds, he excites his voters, his voters can wait outside in the cold for him, that is a great deal and this hasn't happened for a LONG LONG LONG time, mccains supporters can't, it almost seems like they're voting just for the party name not the man or his values

1: What's wrong with voting for a political philosophy rather than voting on a person on a personality basis?
2: Still a long time until November.
3: There's a difference between someone coming to listen to you give a speech and someone going to help with the campaign.  Listening to a speech is a leisurely activity for one's own pleasure.  Helping out with the campaign, while enjoyable, is generally considered work.
4: Only another reason why Obama should ask Clinton to get on the ticket.  He can rally people behind a cause, as long as he reaches out to them.  He could unite the Dems by extending his hand to Clinton.  It doesn't matter that she lost anymore.  If she truly did lose by now (which is pretty much guaranteed), then an extended hand would unite the party.  If she doesn't think she lost, then there's still a fight going on and you shouldn't write her off just yet because there would still have to be a way for her to win the election.

"Doesn't matter.  She still has supporters.  As long as she has a significant amount of loyalists, she can screw him up regardless.  Pretending a bully isn't there doesn't do Obama a damn bit of good, regardless of what everyone's elementary school teachers said."

it's not like the people that voted her, are her slaves lol, they're not stay with her even if she loses, sure there'll be what a couple hundred, maybe a thousand or two, even if  a bit more, the other millions aren't guna vote mccain, change their beliefs completely, suddenly support iraq, suddenly oppose tax hikes and universal health care, and the independent candidate is only nader, he is not guna win..absolutely not , if another cadidate joins there might be a "little" more to worry but honestly, if clinton does something stupid even if she isn't handed the VP, the clinton legacy will be demolished, it will come down faster than lightning, and bill will not at any cost let that happen

I never said the Clinton supporters would vote for McCain.  I said they would stay home and not give a damn about either McCain or Obama, because your guy screwed up their hopes for the election by winning.  Obama demoralized the Clinton camp.  They don't HAVE to go out and vote for either Obama or McCain.

And remember, if Clinton isn't given the vice presidency, she'll be relegated to spending 4 more years minimum in the senate, with her name and the legacy of her husband slowly fading into the past, so your whole thing about doing "something stupid" would happen anyway now, unless she was given the VP slot.