I agree and have asked Justuss for clarifcation.

medc, I wish you well.

You too FH...are you heading off? Or am I???

Folks, please keep up the good work of keeping an explosive topic respectful. A couple posts were close to the edge, but most have been very respectful. We appreciate it.

Thanks, Revera

Won't discuss it on MB. Feel free to email me if you are curious and want to know more.

God bless.

Mr. Wondering --

Thanks for the apology. I was the one who brought up a similarity in rhetoric between Hitler and Obama. It was nothing I read. Actually, I was listening to philosophy tapes by Joseph Koterski while doing laundry (courtesy of the library's collection of lectures by college professors which are published by The Teaching Company), and this professor talked about Hilter's rhetoric. It occurred to me that I heard similar rhetoric from Obama. In my search on the Internet after this discussion, I found a person who had specifically compared Hitler's rhetoric to Obama's.

My real reason for voting against Obama is his liberalism, including his stance as pro-choice. His rhetoric, however, does scare me. Maybe, as we get into the fall, he'll have to get into specifics.

Cherished

Mr. W. and Mimi--not ignoring you, but I'm on a trip to ID to visit my oldest adopted grandson in juvenile concentration camp (actually a wonderful place with wonderful people who have helped him remarkably). It's just not possible to put the kind of thought into a reply that is deserved, while visiting away from home. It's pretty obvious to me that we have profound disagreements politically, but personally you both strike me as pretty nice people who have made excellent cyber-friends. I am willing to agree that we disagree and leave it at that. How about you? BTW, this offer is only good for ME. I can't stop anybody else from arguing, but in general it's against my principles to tilt at windmills! And trying to change minds of fully-fledged adults who have already made up theirs on a given issue pretty much meets that definition, as far as I'm concerned.

Obviously, with such diametrically-opposed views, we can't all be right...but trying to sort out who is and who isn't is much more likely to produce heat than light, and when it's done everybody still thinks what they thought before but now they're upset, too. Not my idea of a good time. :MrEEk:

Did you have to mention concentration camps as now I suspect Cherished is going to freak out that their existence in California is likely a precursor to Obama's 4th Reich?

Oh no...just did a google search

Obama +"concentration camps" = 251,000 hits :crosseyedcrazy:


*Though it was interesting to discover that Obama’s great-uncle was in the 89th Infantry Division that helped liberate the notorious death camp, Buchenwald. Obama is quoted to say he “is proud of the service of his grandfather and uncles in World War II -- especially the fact that his great-uncle was part of liberating of one of the concentration camps at Buchenwald. I bet his grandfather and uncles would be rolling over in their US MILITARY graves at the thought of their relation being compared to Hitler.


Other than that...thanks for conceding that I'm right thndrltg

Your friend,

Mr. W

If McCain would pick a running mate like Condoleezza Rice (and if she'd agree), I'd vote for him. Actually, I'd prefer to have her as president...not because of the color of her skin, but because she has the experience, the intelligence, and the wisdom to be a great president. I wonder how many people who you think are rejecting Obama based on his race would gladly accept Condi based on her qualifications???

she would be an EXCELLENT running mate. I do not think she will be picked though a JM is a bit too moderate to go with such a conservative choice. But, IMHO, she would be THE choice.

At least you didn't repeat his original claim that Uncle (in that version, apparently a Russian solder) helped liberate Auschwitz! Neak and I have been to Buchenwald. It is a solemn and grievous place. My grandson's "concentration camp" doesn't even BEGIN to compare! But all the weenie delinquents think they've got it so bad! :RollieEyes:

I guess it all depends on the meaning of the word "conceding."

This is not a true statement, we DO have other options, they just aren't being interviewed or looked at by the media. Here is one I have been looking at as an alternative..

Alan Keyes


The key to American statesmanship

The Two Party System is a lie..we really do have other choices.

No choice but evil

Technically, yes. Realistically, no. Until laws change.

Third party candidates can NEVER win, as is. But they CAN effect the outcome. Just ask Perot or Nader.

If enough people actually stopped thinking "they can NEVER WIN" and actually stopped voting "the lesser of two evils" and looked at the other candidates things could change. And they could win..

Personally, I didn't care for Perot or Nader so I didn't vote for either of them, but I do know people who voted for both of them, because they didn't like the other candidates and they felt Perot and Nader fell more inline with their own views, even though for years prior they had voted "one of the two party candidates".

I believe that the true problem with our "representative" democracy is the political parties themselves, and having to "register" ones party.

In order to truly fulfill the destiny of our great nation as the forefathers envisioned we must to do away with the split ballot. All primaries should be open. That is that all citizens should have the right to vote for whomever they want regardless of party affiliation. Until we do this we cannot have even constitutional elections.

I support states rights vehemently, but when some other state by virtue of their particular election laws affects a national election to my detriment, I believe it is unconstitutional.

National laws for national elections.

While I understand the point of thinking the two party system is unfair, there are LOTS of negatives with a three party system....and if we go to three parties, why stop there, why not 4?

I don't know if I would be comfortable with WINNER that has 34% of the vote. Not having the majority is hideous enough. ANd with 4?
Its a tough question.

TR - I'm not going to argue the point with you because you are "technically correct." I should have perhaps been more "precise" in the statement.

We have TWO people, and only two people to choose from, ONE of which WILL be the next President of the United States because the MAJORITY of voters vote either Republican or Democrat and the Electoral College, not the "popular vote," determines the winner.

NO "3rd party" candidate has a "statistically significant chance" of securing either the popular vote or the Electoral College votes in order to make them a "viable candidate." As such, there are only 2 choices and all a "3rd party candidate" can do is get some "air time" for their opinions and potentially siphon off enough votes in a given State to affect the outcome of which of the two "viable" candidates actually does become the next President.

Forgive me for not being more precise. I thought that was "understood" in the statement.



TTH - the "political party system" has been around since the beginning of the country, and it's not likely to change, or at least not within the current election cycle.

However, no one "must" register with one party or another. All that really relates to is who gets to vote in the "Party Primary" races to select a candidate to represent the Party.

But some States allow "crossover" voting in the primaries and that "defeats" the purpose of even having Party Primaries. I would not object to doing away with all "party affiliation requirments," however, and just open the WHOLE field to a general election, do away with the Conventions, and let the people decide. In addition, I would favor TERM LIMITS on all of Congress AND the Supreme Court to maintain "equality" with the Executive Branch and return those other Branches to "servants of the people and servants of the Constitution.

gabagool - don't look now, but we already have a "multiple party system." You'll find those "other candidates" on the ballot when it comes time to vote. There are things like the Socialist party, the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the Communist party, etc.