Why exactly were we in vietnam again? talk about rambling off into another topic.... come on that war was also a war crime. It seems we have a history of attacking countries for little or no reasone. Me thinks some people watched to many Rambo movies



If memory serves me correctly we were in Vietnam because two democrat presidents thought that we needed to make a stand against communism. Or to be more specific, because JFK and LBJ sent our troops there.

There is one major problem with all this debate.

That which was done to three high ranking terrorists was legal.

It may have been wrong and immoral, but it was technically legal.

In that case, you agree with Sarah Palin.

Since y'all do not believe me, I will link a story from CNN.

Sarah Palin: "I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues. So I am not anti-contraception. But, yeah, abstinence is another alternative that should be discussed with kids. I don't have a problem with that," Palin said. Hers is hardly an extreme point of view in America today.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/11/beck.palin/index.html

Just because you two want to believe that Sarah Palin opposes sex ed regarding condoms, birth control pills, etcetra does not make it true. As a politician, Sarah Palin has repeatedly supported legislation to fund those types of programs. She has also supported funding for abstinence programs.

I still do not see why it is so evil to include abstinence education as one part of a diverse sex ed program, since doing so reduces teen pregnancy and STDs.

True, and statistically abstinence education does help reduce teen pregnancy.

Why is it so terrible to teach abstinence education in addition to birth control?

Melaschasm is the largest canyon on Mars.

Since that is the place of my birth, I choose that as my name.

Actually Bristol Palin did get sex ed. Either her choice of method did not work, or she didn't pay attention in class, or maybe she intentionally got pregnant. [shrug] At any rate that does not change the fact that Palin does not oppose teaching about birth control in school.

Only 40 Democrats voted for the auto bailout.

The UAW has been one of the most loyal and dedicated members of the democrat coalition. They even oppose the rare republican who agrees with the UAW on policy out of loyalty to the party. Then the democrats do not even bother to get out the vote for the UAW bailout?

On the other hand the UAW has consistently fought against republicans, even those rare republicans who share the same policy goals as the UAW. Yet 10 republicans actually voted for a bill that will help one of their biggest political opponents. And to add insult to injury, it is a republican president who has come out in support of bailing out the UAW, and providing the cash to keep the Big Three in business until Obama takes office (at which time he can decide how much more aid they should get).

It is sad that the UAW is a more loyal to the democrat party, than the democrat party is loyal to the UAW.

The irony is that the moderate/centrist republicans got their candidate, and the results speak for themselves.

Since 1980 the republicans have won the presidency every time they nominate someone who is widely perceived to be a conservative. Whenever they nominate someone perceived to be a moderate/centrist the republicans lose.

As far as Sarah Palin goes, McCain went from being a 20 point underdog to being behind by 5 points after selecting her. That is one of the most impressive improvements in polls from a VP candidate ever.

Admittedly that may have been more about the weakness McCain than about the greatness of Palin, but it is clear that she was hugely helpful to the McCain campaign.

About the protectionism issue.

I personally am a supporter of free trade on both sides, with "friendly" countries.

I don't like when countries attempt to manipulate a supposedly free trade agreement to their advantage.

An reasonably good example of truly free trade on both sides, is the trade between the USA and Canada. Each side has few restrictions on trade between these two countries, and each side tends to export that which they are better at producing, and import that which the other country is better at producing for the advantage of all.

The US makes it much more difficult to extract Oil and Natural Gas, while Canada makes it much easier to do so. This results in the US gaining access to oil and natural gas at lower prices from Canada, to the benefit of both. Canada has much more restrictions and limitations on the development of new medical treatments. The US is much more friendly to the development of new expensive medical treatments, and thus the US develops far more new medical treatments, and then exports these to Canada, to the benefit of both.

I read a post that was almost identical to this on another forum site. While people are running around pointing fingers at a few "right wingers" on some website that almost no one has ever heard of before, the democrats are on a witch hunt for opponents of prop 8, and might have burned down Sarah Palin's church.

Since Obama has been elected, I have not seen any big riots or protests by republicans. Where is all this anger and hate that is being refered to in the article above?

Ironically the democrats who have been given total support by the UAW were the ones who voted for the banking bailout, but against the auto bailout.

I strongly opposed the banking bailout, but our current plan of using TARP money for automakers is actually an improvement since aid to automakers is less wasteful than aid to banks.

It is hard to predict how much harm Obama will do.

Obama's tax increases are going to be a problem, and are one of the major factors in the current market turmoil. A really big tax increase combined with the inflationary policies at the Federal Reserve would be mimicking the US policies that led to stagflation in the 1970's, although the lack of wage and price controls might allow us to escape with less damage this time around.

Obama's global warming policies have the potential to cripple the US economy, but if he actually passes them, the republicans would win in a landslide in 2012 even if they nominate another Bush.

Nationalized Health Care will cause some significant problems, but most will be long term issues, not short term problems, so passing this will not be as big of a problem over the next 4 years.

Obama's trade policies remain a big question mark. Hopefully he will not push major protectionism. My best guess is that we get into some more trade disagreements over the next few years, but nothing to terrible.

From a foreign policy standpoint Obama seems to be moving towards the Bush policies, although I remain concerned that he will look the other way while Iran builds a few nukes.

McCain was a horrible choice by the republicans. As usual, a moderate/centrist republican can not win the presidency.

I hope Ron Paul can help spread his philosophy through the republican party, but I suspect that someone younger will need to emerge to win the presidential nomination in 2012.

http://www.lp.org/

The link above is the the Libertarian Party. They share much of Ron Paul's philosophy.

If my memory is working today, Ron Paul once ran for president as a libertarian and won almost 20% of the vote. But that before he joined the Republican Party and became a member of the US House of Representatives.

Ron Paul's politics are very similar to those of the Libertarian Party.

He was likely to have Walter Williams, an economics professor, as his VP, had Ron Paul won the republican nomination.

Ron Paul believes in strict constitutional restrictions on Federal government power. It is this philosophy which drives his political positions on assorted issues.

I guess y'all didn't hear that Sarah Palin repeatedly supported sex education that includes information about condoms and birth control.

You made the right decision. I hate it when I give help to someone, and they constantly demand even more help.