Bush administration has been drafting plans to remove US forces from Iraq cities this year, along with complete withdrawal within 1-3 years after that.
So far I've seen the Bush administration promise a time "horizon" for the removal of troops. A horizon will basically let the administration act without having too many time constraints. This is done as an alternative to the Democrats' push for a timetable. Honestly, I think we'd be better off with a timetable. While a horizon seemingly allows for flexibility, I believe it is counterintuitive. Without a timetable, the administration will be less inclined to remove combat troops as quickly as possible and will instead wait until the last possible moment. McCain said he will stay in Iraq "as long as it takes." This could take another year, it could take 8, and I think that 6 years after the war started, it's time to turn the country back over to the Iraqis so that our armed forces can be used where they are truly needed.
Obama did the same thing. He also called for the end of the space program, until he realized that those rockets take off from Florida.
I don't recall reading anything about Obama wanting to end the space program. I've read stuff about him wanting to delay various projects planned by NASA, but nothing as drastic as completely ruling out further space exploration. As for the offshore drilling, while I'm upset that Obama would even consider it, he's clearly aware that it has no real short term benefits. There are still 15 billion barrels of oil under US soil, but he realizes that we won't be able to drill our way out of depending on OPEC, and that more fuel efficiency and alternative energies will be necessary. McCain on the other hand, has criticized Obama for encouraging practices that experts agree save gas. I don't trust McCain to bring us closer to becoming energy independent, and while Obama might not be able to, I say he has a much better shot.
He was, until he flipped on almost every issue, and broken virtually every pledge so far (including campaign contributions from lobbyists and such, as of last week to meet the budget for the DNC). In fact, even though his acceptance speech is sold out, if you find a secret page on his website, you can purchase tickets for $1000. There was a report on that a few days ago.
I think the fact that he declined contributions from lobbyists while legislating in Congress is a far more notable thing than him accepting contributions to fund his massive campaign. In my opinion, he has proven that he won't give in to the whims of corporate juggernauts. He has come extremely far without accepting massive contributions from lobbyists, and I believe him to be of honest character. Of course, this is a matter of opinion and there is no real way to prove that my take on it is the right one. As for the issues, he has flip flopped just as much as any other presidential hopeful. The main thing is that he doesn't completely betray the promises he made once in office.
Yeah, people assume he'll keep us out of wars... he's already pledged to get into Pakistan and support Israel (which will certainly drag us into something).
Agreed. Assuming any President will keep us out of wars is unrealistic. Even as a Democrat, I realize that the US is a superpower, and the use of our Armed Forces is unfortunate, but necessary. That being said, I do believe going into Pakistan is the best course of action if we intend on fighting terrorism.
Considering I'm currently uninsured, this would certainly help me... but it's such a bad idea. Just one more [big] step towards a socialistic nanny society. So much for our top rate health care... UHC kills innovation by removing the incentive to do better.
For the longest time I was on the fence about UHC. After seeing it fail so spectacularly in Britain and Canada, I was skeptical of its benefits. However, there are too many uninsured Americans, and with insurance costs not going down any time in the future, I think that we need to accept UHC so that everyone gets the treatment they deserve.
So we find a flaw, and try to convince people that it's a feature? You should get a job in marketing. Or stop listening to the Obama camp spew that garbage. Either way.
FYI, Lincoln is remembered well NOW, but was hated THEN. Guess what other president was hated during his term? Lincoln stamped all over state's rights and then went to WAR with a sovereign nation that was created when state's exercised their legal right to cede from the "union" of the United States. Imagine if we tried to remove ourselves from the UN, and the rest of the UN invaded us and occupied us until we could be assimilated into the UN. Would you consider their leader "great"?
I think it's a stretch to call the CSA a sovereign nation. The Southern states cession from the Union was illegal, nothing in the Constitution says a state may leave the Union at a whim. No nation every recognized the Confederate States of America, so calling it a sovereign nation that was separate from the USA would be incorrect. They were simply rebels would refused to let go of their slaves, and this exploded into a war about state's rights, the true meaning of a free society, and whether or not democracy was destined to survive. The Civil War was a conflict just waiting to happen, something everyone saw coming. Lincoln's election was just the straw that broke the camel's back. He was popular in the North, and his great leadership and ability to inspire managed to preserve the Union. Discrediting that would be discrediting all the men that died to preserve this nation all those years ago, and ignoring an important part of our history.
Also, your comparison to the UN isn't accurate. The UN is a diplomatic organization while the United States is a government. Plenty of nations have boycotted the UN at one time or another(The USSR in particular), and there has never been a forceful occupation because of this. The UN's function is not to act as a government, it's to act as a tool for diplomatic relations. There's a key difference, I just wanted to point that out.
It's been improving for months... and a higher valued dollar isn't always a good thing, just so you know.
I'm aware of the benefits of a lower valued dollar, but the fact is, the dollar shouldn't be lagging behind the Canadian dollar and Euro by this degree. It may be improving now, but we still have a housing problem, and this temporary increase will lead us back into a recession. If we continue with the same economics, this rapid cycle of boom and bust will continue and the US will lose influence on the world market.
Oh? Are people abandoning their cars on the sides of the road? Turning off their A/C and heat? With the dollar getting stronger, energy prices (investors hedge against a weak dollar) are dropping. Everyone is investing in alternative fuels already (corn prices have skyrocketed because of it), we've got wind fields that people are already complaining about, etc. I guess it would only be right for a democrat to sweep in now and take credit for the gains that are already in progress.
To be satisfied with our current progress isn't enough in my opinion. I understand that we are better off now than we were even a few years ago, but to say that there isn't room for improvement is just as bad as ignoring the problem completely.
[/quote]