What is Digg?103 Comments
- PeoplesChoice, on 10/10/2007, -12/+101I believe Obama is the only candidate (at least for the moment) who will have a transparent presidency. I loved Hillary Clinton when she wasn't running for President. Her life has been characterized by a lot of secrecy and everytime you listen to her, you know the Gefen was right about her.
Just recently she accused Obama of being unpresidential for saying he would NOT use nuclear weapons to target Al Qaeda. She does not have half the fortitude of Ronald Reagan who said "A nuclear war cannot be won and so must not be fought", which is similar to what Obama said.
It beats me why Hillary thinks it may be OK to nuke people or dodge the question on nuke when Ronald Reagan didn't. - steelersfan7roe, on 10/10/2007, -6/+48Maybe we can have a president who answers our questions and explains to us what he's doing?
It makes Americans happy and in turn makes Americans more supportive of what he's doing.
Go Obama! - wiz31337, on 10/10/2007, -7/+30Having the ability to answer tough and heaven forbid hypothetical questions should be a prerequisite to running for president. The ideal candidate should be eloquent and feel comfortable rationalizing how they arrived at a decision, instead of taking the easy road by saying it is for the "good of the country."
If you are going lead a government "by the people and for the people" you better be able to rationalize why you are doing something, after all our tax dollars are paying their salary. - michaelinnotts, on 10/10/2007, -2/+25FTA: "he criticized the question in Latin"
Have we got to the point where "non sequitur" is out of the average person's vocabulary? I weep. - fasda, on 10/10/2007, -3/+24If you could hit the camp with a tactile nuke then you could hit it with several cruse missiles. Secondly a nuclear war would inevitably lead to mutually assured destruction
- eean, on 10/10/2007, -5/+23If I want a guy to throw a rock in a lake, Gravel is my first choice.
(Seriously the guy doesn't know what the hell he is talking about half the time in the debates.) - Daunting, on 10/10/2007, -5/+19From reading up on Obama's history, he has a habit of making himself sound strong initially, then, after surveying his damage, takes a step back and works the situation to his advantage. It's too early to say anything for sure. People will forget all of the things he has said in a year's time. But, I hope he can apply some more perspective to what he says, and when he says it. It's too early to get this jolly.
- SkippyDoorknob, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14Welcome to politics
- tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13He wants to reform it and remove the abusive parts. The PATRIOT Act has some good provisions that were long overdue; unfortunately, it also contains a lot of abusive ones.
- innocentsinner, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Enjoy living in fear
- Easty, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13His misuse of Latin is certainly something to weep about.
- CuzFu, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11I think what fasda is saying and you are failing to understand is that you can not fire a nuclear missile without someone taking notice. You can not just fire a nuclear missile and not expect a retaliation. What about the countries near them who have nuclear capabilities? What about a "dirty nuke"?
- sanman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Obama's Remarks have really struck a resonance with a lot of people. Read this:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/08/03/campaign_memo_barack_obama_was_1.html
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/03/303197.aspx
I think Obama's right on this. When some Chinese hookers working in a brothel in Islamabad were kidnapped and taken hostage by local militant puritanical fundamentalists, Beijing told Musharraf to act. And Musharraf immediately acted -- he raided the Red Mosque and freed the Chinese hostages. Because when Beijing says 'jump', Musharraf immediately asks how high. This is because Beijing doesn't take backtalk from any of its client puppets, and Musharraf knows this. But when America asks Musharraf to eliminate Taliban and AlQaeda nests, then Musharraf dawdles, drags his feet, and even signs peace treaties with the Taliban in Waziristan. Musharraf knows how to take the Yankee Gringo Tourists for a ride, while he milks them for cash. He never behaves this way with his Chinese patrons, because he knows they'd never tolerate it. What's pathetic is that the autocrats in Beijing will speak more forcefully in protection of a few ex-patriate hookers, than the politicians in Washington will speak to capture the murderers of 3000 Americans killed on 9/11. That's really pathetic. - revjustin2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9 Let me try to "explain"...ummm..this is America and people can associate with who ever they want and practice whatever religion they want.
Oh crap....I can't resist...you're an ***** - tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9I'll tell you what I told everyone who said things like "Invasion of Pakistan." Read the text of the speech (it's on his website). If you had, you wouldn't call it that. You'd call it "good foreign policy."
- mattxb, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Bush hates answering any questions, and with hypothetical ones it happens to be easy to refuse an answer.
- wiz31337, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9I agree that you shouldn't base your full support of a candidate on his/her answer to a hypothetical question, but they should be able to come up with an answer instead of blowing you off with "it doesn't matter it isn't happening now."
I however disagree with your statement that claiming to know how you would react or behave in a situation will come back to bite you in the ass. I feel that everyone should have a contingency plan in place for "hypothetical" scenarios. Granted you are not going to be prepared for every situation, but if you have a general plan of how you are going to react you will be a lot better of than if you were just "winging it."
This is why people pack survival kits in their cars during winter, why troops engage in battle scenarios, why people take first responder training and so on. They do this so that in the event that something unthinkable should happen they will know how to react rather than just freezing.
As for looking back at the past the what if scenario helps you plan for similar events in the future. If Edison hadn't asked what if after he made his first light bulb we would all be sitting here in the dark. This is how people learn from their mistakes or improve a process. - ChromaVita, on 10/10/2007, -8/+16Obama is the only candidate with transparency? You mean Obama is the only candidate you see on the news and in the media with transparency?
Mike Gravel '08! - fasda, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7and what about Pakistan or Russia etc that do we have increasingly shaky relations with and nukes? they wouldn't probably take offense to having a nuclear weapon destroying a part of there country would they?
- tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10You'd take Thompson, an actor, over McCain, a man who has been there? McCain may have some less-than-genius foreign policy questions, but I put him way above Romney or Thompson.
- LegOfLamb, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7http://blog.minotaurcomputing.com/mp/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/tinfoil-hat.jpg
- haterrade, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7if only we had a preferential system of voting so i could actually vote in this manner instead of having to figure out how i can not "throw my vote away"
- halavais, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I think the deal is that his (Romney's) "non sequitur" and "null set" comments verged on malapropisms. He may be bright, I don't know, but he certainly should stop trying to sound like it.
- tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I think that ruling it out completely is dumb, but saying that he won't target camps and caves that don't require such a weapon is not dumb. It's common sense, and he's not afraid to say it.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10Obama is a genius.
- mtrip, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7By "know better," you mean "have experience playing this evil ass game of 'fool the public' just to get elected." A more seasoned candidate would know not to honestly state his opinions.
- AzDraon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Let me put it this way for you. I would rather have a squirrel as our president over all conservatives. And, Yes, McCain is a conservative (he used to sport moderate views, not anymore). He used to be a man I could respect, no longer.
- Ventolin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6I love how non sequitur is in quotes and they make it look like it's some forgotten phrase no one's heard of. Sad.
- CrazyPirate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5No actually it doesn't make me particularly nervous. There are plenty of sane muslims.
- tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9I agree that's he honest and transparent. Unfortunately, that transparency and honestly shows that he's a little off the deep end :)
- revjustin2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5finally a real conservative viewpoint....let's retain the status quo!
and bush was qualified how? Oh yeah. He was in Skull and Bones. - tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5If Bush said that, I'd say, good for him. We missed the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan too many times already. I agree that people knee-jerk against anything he does, and I try not to do that. An example of that happening is Social Security.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Pakistan is a huge threat to be honest. You saw the news story on that "school" and yet thats a POPULAR school right in the heart of the capital. You saw just how radicalized those people were and any attempt to suppress them lead to huge amounts of blood shed and suicide bombings all over the country. Which means its not just a minority of people there that support that radicalism.
To make it worse, they already have nukes and the missiles to deploy them. Their father of nuclear weapons was the one that spread the secret to all other Islamic nations because he even said he wants Islam to rise up. Lets face it, we are stuck between a rock and a hard place with it comes to Pakistan. Its obvious they harbor and are a major capital of the terrorists forces we want to take out. Yet we cant risk destabilizing an already unstable military junta that rules the country because all it takes is one Islamic revolution there and ta da...instant nukes for those *****...so what do you do? We are stuck having to support a violently oppressive, unpopular leadership vs an Islamic state with generation 2 nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them and a popular sentiment there to spread that knowledge to every Islamic state. We are really *****. - revjustin2, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6You are not describing qualities of leadership as I understand them. A more seasoned politician is simply better at preserving his paycheck.
I personally don't need any more well seasoned politicians. - wendelgee2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Either read one of his ***** books or relinquish your screenname. If he knew you were using his name, he'd be sick.
- mjk78, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4This issue highlights one of the biggest problems with politics today, candidates are too afraid to voice their actual opinions because they will be used without context to mean something much different then what the candidate said.
Ex. Obama said he would go into Pakistan if he had intelligence about terrorists. Spin: Obama wants to "invade" Pakistan. Invade is completely the wrong term for this situation, it implies creating a new third battlefield in the war. What Obama meant was he would execute a surgical strike to take out the terrorists.
Ex 2. Obama says he won't use nuclear weapons in Pakistan or Afghanistan to take out terrorists. Spin: Obama wants to get rid of all our nukes. Sure we need some nukes for deterrence, but why the hell would be need nukes to take out terrorists, are their camps so big they can't be wiped out with several conventional weapons. Not to mention we would piss off anyone in the world who still likes the US. If we ever come to the point where we actually need nukes, the world is in deep trouble.
This kind of openness is refreshing and unseen in todays politics. Obama came out and said what all the candidates are thinking but don't have the courage to say.
The fact is if it was a republican candidate who came out and said this and democrats criticized it most of you republicans would be saying "(repub. candidate's name) is tough on terror, (dem. Candidates name) doesn't have the guts to take on the terrorists". - hisXenocide, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4we aren't looking for a perfect answer that will cover all possible situations within the hypothetical. I just want to know, in general, the candidate's views on certain issues and that they can defend them.
- RockIsDead, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4HAHA!
What a load of SPIN!
Why do you need to put words of explanation into Obama's mouth?
Isn't he well-spoken enough to answer for himself?
I'm sure you'd be as generous to a Rep.
HAHAHA!
Put a fork in him, he's DONE! - agent888, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5How about a MOAB or whatever that huge fuel air bomb is called. That would take care of a training camp~
- Platypus3333, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Barack Obama went to and taught law school. He should be a master of the hypothetical :)
- thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9So far, Obama is the only candidate to have protests in a foreign country because of what he says. Usually, that's only reserved for Bush.
- futureteg, on 10/10/2007, -13/+17what about Ron Paul? What about Kucinich? What about Gravel?
Lets not forget that Obama wants to continue the ***** patriot act - halavais, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Wow. You don't get out much, do you. I would love to see your reaction to a typical NY subway car, if a little bit of a headscarf scares you.
Frankly, that people like you will be voting for our next president makes me way more nervous than Obama's father's faith (WTF). - synaesthesia, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Comments from government spokespersons and the foreign minister are a far cry from mass protests of thousands of individuals.
- mempko, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Actually, Gravel knows more about what he is talking about in debates than Obama. Gravel has experience stopping wars like Vietnam. He is truly transparent and is against corruption as demonstrated by his ability to release the pentagon papers against the nixon administration. Gravel is wise while Obama has shown to be foolish in all respects and will not bring about change.
- halavais, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3On the *issues* Kucinich would have my clear vote. And he seems to be a candidate who can really get things done. And I'm ashamed to admit that I can't support him because:
1. He doesn't project power in the way I would expect a president to.
2. I'm worried that because of #1, I would be putting my vote toward someone who can't win.
I second haterrade. - SocialPoison, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3yeah since the "front runners" of the repulican party are so electable.
- michaelinnotts, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Fair enough.
- lobofanina, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Aliens aren't a big threat now, but when they invade you know damn well the hypothetical questions about what could the president have done to stop it will come out.
- mempko, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yes, Gravel is crazy..Crazy like a fox!
He is the only one to speak honestly to you and me. And yes, frankly in this world, most see it as crazy.
But to you and me, this is exactly what we need. -
Show 51 - 100 of 102 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 