Let's Talk About the Issues, People

What on earth are you talking about? :confused3

It makes no sense.

Enough!

Oh, I think it makes plenty of sense. Thus, the snarky responses. But, I'll simplify:

In addition to "the issues," it's important to know the true character of the people we are considering sending to the presidency. The Palin hysteria has revealed a lot about Obama's character, Joe Biden's character, the character of other prominent dems, the hypocrisy of our leading "feminists," and the media's shameless partisan election coverage. It's good information for voters to have. Therefore, I'm pleased that "the issues" have been interrupted for this brilliantly revealing episode in the campaign.

Capisce?
 
Oh, I think it makes plenty of sense. Thus, the snarky responses. But, I'll simplify:

In addition to "the issues," it's important to know the true character of the people we are considering sending to the presidency. The Palin hysteria has revealed a lot about Obama's character, Joe Biden's character, the character of other prominent dems, the hypocrisy of our leading "feminists," and the media's shameless partisan election coverage. It's good information for voters to have. Therefore, I'm pleased that "the issues" have been interrupted for this brilliantly revealing episode in the campaign.

Capisce?

Please take your hysteria somewhere else. People here want to discuss issues and not phony controversies over pigs, lipstick, etc.

I believe today's phony "controversy du jour" has pushed people to the "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" stage.

Enough!
 
I think what she's talking about is that this hysteria is showing the American people who Barack and the Democratic party really is. Barack keeps saying he's this "change agent" and all he can do is act like a regular old politician by blasting Palin and McCain. However, the McCain does that too so can't complain!

You can't have a one-sided conversation about issues while the other side is playing up pigs and lipstick. Most of us have heard that phrase numerous times and most intelligent people will admit it. Anyone with half a brain knew this was another phony controversy to drown out talk about issues.

This is about the direction of this election. If you want issues, then tell your candidates you want to hear about issues.
 
Please take your hysteria somewhere else. People here want to discuss issues and not phony controversies over pigs, lipstick, etc.

I believe today's phony "controversy du jour" has pushed people to the "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" stage.

Enough!

Oh, okay. The horrid attacks on a candidate's children weren't ENOUGH to make the Obama supporters "mad as hell," but when someone calls him out for going for a cheap laugh, well those are fightin' words, huh? Nice.

Righteous indignation just is not going to undo the last 2 weeks of peeking behind the curtain into the real Obama. "Angry Obama" isn't nearly as motivating as "Change-y Obama." His post-partisan rhetoric has dissolved into name-calling and a toddler's hissy fit. "Enough" isn't going to be enough to save this campaign.
 

Get a grip. The thread calls for a discussion of the issues and the zealots from both sides come out and discuss anything but. Ever notice its the same 10-15 people throwing these bombs? I am convinced that there will never be a coherent and intelligent thread about the issues. Each side is too concerned with telling the other side how wrong they are and distorting the opponent's positions.

I think that we should relegate the top 10 crazies on each side to a separate forum and let them bash eash other all day every day.
 
Get a grip. The thread calls for a discussion of the issues and the zealots from both sides come out and discuss anything but. Ever notice its the same 10-15 people throwing these bombs? I am convinced that there will never be a coherent and intelligent thread about the issues. Each side is too concerned with telling the other side how wrong they are and distorting the opponent's positions.

I think that we should relegate the top 10 crazies on each side to a separate forum and let them bash eash other all day every day.

"Crazies"? That's a personal attack, buddy, and it's against the forum rules. Me thinks that people who live in glass houses ought not cast the first stone.
 
Did I call you crazy? How about some thick skin. Prime example of staying away from the issues and going on the attack.
 
Get a grip. The thread calls for a discussion of the issues and the zealots from both sides come out and discuss anything but. Ever notice its the same 10-15 people throwing these bombs? I am convinced that there will never be a coherent and intelligent thread about the issues. Each side is too concerned with telling the other side how wrong they are and distorting the opponent's positions.

I think that we should relegate the top 10 crazies on each side to a separate forum and let them bash eash other all day every day.

I could live with that. Then the rest of us could have rational discussions about the actual issues. I think campaigning hit a new low today and the only way to go from here is UP. It's up to US to make that happen by not responding the ridiculous. Let's just say ENOUGH!
 
Did I call you crazy? How about some thick skin. Prime example of staying away from the issues and going on the attack.

Launch an attack. Call people nasty names. Get called out on it. Accuse those who call you out on it of "going on the attack"? Barack, is that you? :confused3
 
Launch an attack. Call people nasty names. Get called out on it. Accuse those who call you out on it of "going on the attack"? Barack, is that you? :confused3

do you work for the mccain campaign.... your diversion tactics are very good....

sanchez..I hope you don't get points and I hope I have not been one of "the crazies."..
 
do you work for the mccain campaign.... your diversion tactics are very good....

sanchez..I hope you don't get points and I hope I have not been one of "the crazies."..

A point well made isn't a diversion. It's just a point well made.
 
It's pretty useless, I think, to talk about the real issues. The lipstick thing is ridiculous, IMO, and yet, it's all I've seen reported on the TV today.

I've tried to discuss earmark reform numerous times. It's a subject that should be ripe for bi-partisan agreement. Forget the past, and which politician has pigged out the most. Almost all of them have done it, at some point in their careers.

The bigger issue should be how to reform the system, because it's a disaster. I've seen how it works, at the local level, lobbying the feds for "our fair share" of the collective taxpayers dollars. Nobody wants to take the high road, because we figure the money's going to get spend anyway, somewhere else, so might as well keep our hand as outstretched as possible.
 
Launch an attack. Call people nasty names. Get called out on it. Accuse those who call you out on it of "going on the attack"? Barack, is that you? :confused3

How did you guess? Now let's all light up a Camel (I still like one now and then) and discuss the respective plans to end the war in Iraq. What are the plans? Are they reasonable? Will Joe Biden's suspicious hair catch on fire if my cigarette gets too close?
 
How did you guess? Now let's all light up a Camel (I still like one now and then) and discuss the respective plans to end the war in Iraq. What are the plans? Are they reasonable? Will Joe Biden's suspicious hair catch on fire if my cigarette gets too close?

I'm up for that discussion. But I'll say right at the onset of the debate, I don't favor a plan to end the war in Iraq. I favor a plan to win the war in Iraq.

And this news item is very, very good news, on that front:

Safer Iraq draws foreign investors

BAGHDAD — Iraq is poised to receive a flood of foreign investment, thanks to improved security. More than $74 billion in projects have been submitted for government approval in just the past five months, according to Iraq's state investment regulator.
The investors include companies from the U.S., Europe, and Gulf Arab states. Their proposals all involve sectors other than oil, including a $13 billion new port for the southern city of Basra, several hotels and thousands of housing units nationwide, says Ahmed Ridha, the chairman of Iraq's National Investment Commission.


THE NEW IRAQ: Leaders have vision of burgeoning Baghdad

The biggest project, submitted by investors from Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, calls for an entirely new city to be built just outside the holy Shiite city of Najaf at a cost of $38 billion.

Only one of the projects has broken ground, while most others are still awaiting government approval, which has been difficult to obtain. The scale of the proposals — which, combined, equal almost as much foreign investment as China receives in a year — has drawn skeptics who say the final amount spent will be much smaller.

However, companies say they are eager to plow money into a country that has not received significant foreign investment for decades due to Saddam Hussein's economic mismanagement, U.N. sanctions and war.

"The political direction of Iraq is going the right way," said Najah al-Balaghi, the Iraq chairman for The Aqeela Company, the consortium behind the project in Najaf. "Our company is ready to play."

The projects seek to address long-standing needs in Iraq, such as a severe housing shortage and under-investment in public utilities. Najaf is visited by millions of Shiite tourists a year but infrastructure there is poor.

"This is an extraordinarily undercapitalized society," said Todd Schwartz, an economic counselor at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. "There's no question that Iraq can absorb $74 billion and hundreds of billions more."

There is plenty of money available as well, added Schwartz, in Gulf monarchies awash in petrodollars.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's crackdown on Shiite militias this Spring led to a thaw in relations with Sunni governments in the Gulf. That has encouraged investors such as Aqeela to turn to Iraq without fear of falling out of favor with their own governments, says Majed Michel, vice president of the Iraqi American Chamber of Commerce.

Most of the projects could remain on hold until al-Maliki signs off on regulations that streamline the government approval process, Michel says.

The Najaf project, for example, is currently held up due to ambiguous laws determining which government body has the right to sell the land.

Michel remains skeptical of ambitious plans such as Aqeela's: "You can't find anything solid or real yet, just shadows," he said. "But six months ago, we didn't have even shadows."
 
You can't have a one-sided conversation about issues while the other side is playing up pigs and lipstick. Most of us have heard that phrase numerous times and most intelligent people will admit it. Anyone with half a brain knew this was another phony controversy to drown out talk about issues.

This is about the direction of this election. If you want issues, then tell your candidates you want to hear about issues.

I want BOTH sides to talk about the issues. And yes I have half a brain to know that this was a phony attempt to drown out talk about issues.

I just think it's sad all these candidates can do is blast each other. They
have a limited amount of time to talk to the American people. Wouldn't that time be more productive if they talked about the issues? I shouldn't have to ask them to talk about their stances. They're running for president.
 
I'm up for that discussion. But I'll say right at the onset of the debate, I don't favor a plan to end the war in Iraq. I favor a plan to win the war in Iraq.

Valid point. How would you define "win"?

Obama supporters - what is his plan?

I will admit that from the outset I have been against the war in Iraq. However, the President and Congress (both parties for the most part), have brought us to this point. An immediate withdraw is likely to spur chaos (more than what we have now.) Can either candidate promise a timetable and consider the plan realistic?
 
How did you guess? Now let's all light up a Camel (I still like one now and then) and discuss the respective plans to end the war in Iraq. What are the plans? Are they reasonable? Will Joe Biden's suspicious hair catch on fire if my cigarette gets too close?

Nah, I think those plugs are flame retardant.

In all seriousness (sarcastic meter off), I have never really believed people care about "the issues." I know people say that they do, but if you ask a probing question or two, the knowledge level is pretty thin. Most people cast partisan votes, or pick the guy (or gal) they "like," "feel good about," "seems most presidential" (largely based on appearances), etc. It's really a gut-level decision. Few people, I think, actually study a candidate's platform. If one of the networks did a prime time show on "the issues," it would get creamed in the ratings by "Survivor," "Law & Order," and whichever celebrity Oprah is interviewing. The debates will get viewers, but that's because it's a "contest," like football, and we all want to be able to be Monday morning quarterbacks.

And before you think that's a cynical take, I'll add that I believe most people are simply content and satisfied, and therefore mostly unengaged from the political process except for fulfilling their duty to cast a vote — which, again, will be a largely partisan vote. The lack of the public's engagement in the process, I think, as well as our focus on "drama" over the issues in the campaigns speaks to the largely comfortable existence American life provides. We're having dinner, going to the movies, shopping at the mall, and watching TV. Politics just can't compete with all that…leisure.

That's just my take. (And, yes, I know that some people aren't prospering in this American life, but most are.)
 
In some sense I agree. I mean, the amount of crap that's being talked about is just incredible.

There has been a little talk that is somewhat on topic with regard to actual issues here on the DIS in the past few days. There were two threads about the fate of Roe v. Wade. But the problem, I think, is that when it comes to that kind of thing there isn't that much to say (at least for DISers). It's kind of like--I want Roe to stay, you want Roe to go. I believe looking at the makeup and history of the supreme court that we are one vote away from Roe going and you believe that the supreme court isn't going to overturn it even if they have the votes. Okay, that takes like 2 pages of a DIS thread and there's nothing more to say about it. Unless someone gets going with some mud slinging the thread dies.

I also have noticed in the past few days that numerous people seem to be uninformed about some positions, particularly in my case people seemed to think that Obama and McCain had similar positions on gay rights when in fact their positions are almost as far apart as they could possibly be. Now the trouble is, we can talk about those differences, but when it comes down to it, unless someone is going to change their vote based on gay rights (which I think is not very likely for anyone not personally affected by them) it just doesn't matter what the candidates' positions on those issues are.

And sadly, I don't think that elections are really won on the issues. I mean, if things go the way of the last two presidential election the only people's whose votes are really going to matter are some moderate folks in Ohio and some moderate folks in Florida. My guess is that the reason that there's so much crap out there is because it's the crap that is going to sway those voters one way or the other.

Sorry to be a downer.
 


Disney Vacation Planning. Free. Done for You.
Our Authorized Disney Vacation Planners are here to provide personalized, expert advice, answer every question, and uncover the best discounts. Let Dreams Unlimited Travel take care of all the details, so you can sit back, relax, and enjoy a stress-free vacation.
Start Your Disney Vacation
Disney EarMarked Producer

New Posts







DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Add as a preferred source on Google

Back
Top Bottom