soleil, I have some political questions for you

[Ballygrl]

I hope this is in the right forum, it's not a call-out thread, I just wanted to ask soleil some questions about her views because she comes across as honest to me and I'm curious about her views on some issues and those of her fellow Democrats, because I find some Democrats unwilling to criticize Obama or their party. I freely admit that I protected Bush at times except when it came to his spending, I did criticize him publicly about that and a few other issues. So since you're the only Democrat I've seen here so far I just wanted your perspective on some issues. I swear, I'm not going to jump on you if I disagree.

OK, I just wanted to know if you're happy so far with Obama? if not which Democrat would you like to of seen become the nominee in 2008?

According to polls about 19% of the population see themselves as progressives, not sure if you see yourself that way, if not then how do mainstream Democrats feel as though they have a voice within their party? I'm curious about how they feel because I come from bi-political parents LOL, my Mother was a Democrat and my Father was a Republican, I always took after my Father politically, my Mother stumped for Stevenson, JFK, Johnson, RFK, McGovern, Carter etc. she despised Nixon at the time, but she felt that things changed for her during the 1980's, she's a very Religious woman and she felt the Democratic party was driving people like her out, about 6 years ago she changed her party to Republican, something she never thought she would do. So I'm just curious how regular Democrats feel about the progressives in their party, and why they don't speak up if they do disagree with them.

I think that's it for my questions now.

[soleil]

I actually prefer a more moderate democrat for president because I feel more things will get accomplished. The same goes for a republican president. I think most people are somewhat in the middle of many issues. For the most part, I am a "middle of the road" gal. Where I am not middle of the road is gay rights. I know that makes me extremely unpopular here, and many question how I can be a Christian and feel that way. Laugh all y'all want to, but Bill Clinton was who I would consider a "moderate democrat". He obviously can't be pres again, nor do I want him to. There are limits for very good reasons. I also like it to be switched up from time to time. Although I would never vote republican, I feel that having both sides represented keeps our country balanced. Extreme right and left people don't like that, but most people are not extreme.

No, I haven't been pleased with Obama. I don't think he is terrible though. I also don't think he will have a second term. That is just my prediction. Unless something major happens in his favor, I really think he will be a one term president.

I am also beyond ready to get this war wrapped up in Iraq. I would have much rather focused on Afghanistan, Iran, and North Korea over Iraq. That doesn't mean I approve of anything Saddam ever did. I certainly don't. I think he was a horrible horrible man. I wish we would have focused our troops in other places instead of sending them to Iraq. North Korea will need to be dealt with at some point in time. I don't want to go to war with them, but sanctions don't really do the trick, and I think they pose a greater threat than Iraq ever did.


Now, I know I will get lambasted here for stating these beliefs. I would love to discuss this as long as it is kept civil, and doesn't turn into me being an evil person who should FOAD.

[vesta111]

I actually prefer a more moderate democrat for president because I feel more things will get accomplished. The same goes for a republican president. I think most people are somewhat in the middle of many issues. For the most part, I am a "middle of the road" gal. Where I am not middle of the road is gay rights. I know that makes me extremely unpopular here, and many question how I can be a Christian and feel that way. Laugh all y'all want to, but Bill Clinton was who I would consider a "moderate democrat". He obviously can't be pres again, nor do I want him to. There are limits for very good reasons. I also like it to be switched up from time to time. Although I would never vote republican, I feel that having both sides represented keeps our country balanced. Extreme right and left people don't like that, but most people are not extreme.

No, I haven't been pleased with Obama. I don't think he is terrible though. I also don't think he will have a second term. That is just my prediction. Unless something major happens in his favor, I really think he will be a one term president.

I am also beyond ready to get this war wrapped up in Iraq. I would have much rather focused on Afghanistan, Iran, and North Korea over Iraq. That doesn't mean I approve of anything Saddam ever did. I certainly don't. I think he was a horrible horrible man. I wish we would have focused our troops in other places instead of sending them to Iraq. North Korea will need to be dealt with at some point in time. I don't want to go to war with them, but sanctions don't really do the trick, and I think they pose a greater threat than Iraq ever did.


Now, I know I will get lambasted here for stating these beliefs. I would love to discuss this as long as it is kept civil, and doesn't turn into me being an evil person who should FOAD.

Actually I could give a damn about Gay rights Soleil, I for one will not lambaste you, even if you make me uncomfortable by pointing out both sides of a problem.

You present your side in a reasonable and non reactionary fashion.  Matter of fact you make us think---good going.

[Ballygrl]

I actually prefer a more moderate democrat for president because I feel more things will get accomplished. The same goes for a republican president. I think most people are somewhat in the middle of many issues. For the most part, I am a "middle of the road" gal. Where I am not middle of the road is gay rights. I know that makes me extremely unpopular here, and many question how I can be a Christian and feel that way. Laugh all y'all want to, but Bill Clinton was who I would consider a "moderate democrat". He obviously can't be pres again, nor do I want him to. There are limits for very good reasons. I also like it to be switched up from time to time. Although I would never vote republican, I feel that having both sides represented keeps our country balanced. Extreme right and left people don't like that, but most people are not extreme.

No, I haven't been pleased with Obama. I don't think he is terrible though. I also don't think he will have a second term. That is just my prediction. Unless something major happens in his favor, I really think he will be a one term president.

I am also beyond ready to get this war wrapped up in Iraq. I would have much rather focused on Afghanistan, Iran, and North Korea over Iraq. That doesn't mean I approve of anything Saddam ever did. I certainly don't. I think he was a horrible horrible man. I wish we would have focused our troops in other places instead of sending them to Iraq. North Korea will need to be dealt with at some point in time. I don't want to go to war with them, but sanctions don't really do the trick, and I think they pose a greater threat than Iraq ever did.

Now, I know I will get lambasted here for stating these beliefs. I would love to discuss this as long as it is kept civil, and doesn't turn into me being an evil person who should FOAD.

I hope it stays civil too LOL because that was my intent starting thread.

As far as things you said, I think most Republicans/Conservatives don't really care if someone is gay or not, I think the line gets drawn at the issue of marriage. On this issue I have no problem with civil unions to protect gay couples, my childhood friend is "married" his words not mine to a man, I prefer the term partner, but I think that's what ticks me off about progressives when it comes to this issue, if you're against the term marriage you're homophobic, and I just feel that's wrong, my friend doesn't consider me homophobic yet a large segment of the left does.

As far as Religion goes, I'm pretty private about that, I don't force my beliefs on others, and I have to say most conservatives don't either. I think Bill Clinton was a moderate too but I think we might differ in the fact that he had no choice but to become a moderate especially after the Republicans took control during his Presidency, though I'm sure he did have some moderate positions, but I think he was mostly a liberal until he had no choice but to conform.

A lot of people prefer divided Governments, I can understand that because of what we've seen. Republicans should've stood up to Bush more when it came to issues such as education, spending, but they didn't and they paid the price. Seems like the same thing is happening now with Obama, although I think Obama will always get a pass because he's black, which is wrong, how are we ever going to get past race and judge someone fairly? Republicans are even playing the game and holding back on criticism.

For the Presidency I could never vote Democrat, so we're similar in how we feel when it comes to the Presidency, just different on how we'd vote, I also couldn't vote for a Democrat for Congress or Senate, and even locally I can't see myself crossing over, I just feel a lot of bitterness on how Bush was treated.

As far as Obama goes? not sure if he would even have the desire to run, or if there's a chance he'll lose will the party force him out? but if the Republicans don't run a good candidate? then he could get in again.

I go back and forth on Iraq, I do believe though there were WMD's there and they were either buried or moved to Syria (per Israeli intelligence) and after 9/11 I think Bush said we have to nip this crap in the bud, so he went in. It just seems as though under Clinton the US buried it's head in the sand when it came to terrorism, and Bush was stuck cleaning it up.

I do appreciate your answering the questions.

[Ballygrl]

Actually I could give a damn about Gay rights Soleil, I for one will not lambaste you, even if you make me uncomfortable by pointing out both sides of a problem.

You present your side in a reasonable and non reactionary fashion.  Matter of fact you make us think---good going.

That's how I think most Conservatives feel about people being gay, they really don't care.

[rich_t]

Gays have rights.

They can vote.

They can buy a home.

They can ride anywhere on the bus they want to.

etc... etc... etc...

Nuff said.

[soleil]

I hope it stays civil too LOL because that was my intent starting thread.

As far as things you said, I think most Republicans/Conservatives don't really care if someone is gay or not, I think the line gets drawn at the issue of marriage. On this issue I have no problem with civil unions to protect gay couples, my childhood friend is "married" his words not mine to a man, I prefer the term partner, but I think that's what ticks me off about progressives when it comes to this issue, if you're against the term marriage you're homophobic, and I just feel that's wrong, my friend doesn't consider me homophobic yet a large segment of the left does.

As far as Religion goes, I'm pretty private about that, I don't force my beliefs on others, and I have to say most conservatives don't either. I think Bill Clinton was a moderate too but I think we might differ in the fact that he had no choice but to become a moderate especially after the Republicans took control during his Presidency, though I'm sure he did have some moderate positions, but I think he was mostly a liberal until he had no choice but to conform.

A lot of people prefer divided Governments, I can understand that because of what we've seen. Republicans should've stood up to Bush more when it came to issues such as education, spending, but they didn't and they paid the price. Seems like the same thing is happening now with Obama, although I think Obama will always get a pass because he's black, which is wrong, how are we ever going to get past race and judge someone fairly? Republicans are even playing the game and holding back on criticism.

For the Presidency I could never vote Democrat, so we're similar in how we feel when it comes to the Presidency, just different on how we'd vote, I also couldn't vote for a Democrat for Congress or Senate, and even locally I can't see myself crossing over, I just feel a lot of bitterness on how Bush was treated.

As far as Obama goes? not sure if he would even have the desire to run, or if there's a chance he'll lose will the party force him out? but if the Republicans don't run a good candidate? then he could get in again.

I go back and forth on Iraq, I do believe though there were WMD's there and they were either buried or moved to Syria (per Israeli intelligence) and after 9/11 I think Bush said we have to nip this crap in the bud, so he went in. It just seems as though under Clinton the US buried it's head in the sand when it came to terrorism, and Bush was stuck cleaning it up.

I do appreciate your answering the questions.

I appreciate you answering honestly also. Do you think Iraq was the bigger threat? I always had a problem with that decision, and at the time that was decided, I had no clue about politics. I was 23-ish, and I didn't care. I was getting married, and that was my focus, but when we went to war with Iraq, I was perplexed. I really was hating on Saddam, but I didn't think that was where we should be focused. And hindsight, I still feel that way. If we are going to take down dictators and their weapons, we should have started elsewhere.

[Ballygrl]

I appreciate you answering honestly also. Do you think Iraq was the bigger threat? I always had a problem with that decision, and at the time that was decided, I had no clue about politics. I was 23-ish, and I didn't care. I was getting married, and that was my focus, but when we went to war with Iraq, I was perplexed. I really was hating on Saddam, but I didn't think that was where we should be focused. And hindsight, I still feel that way. If we are going to take down dictators and their weapons, we should have started elsewhere.

I don't think Iraq was a bigger threat, but I do think something had to be done about the region as a whole. With 9/11 I think Bush had to do something, and if Saddam ever got nuclear weapons I have no doubt he would've given them to the wrong people, so I think Bush felt as though he had to take out as many threats as possible.

[soleil]

I don't think Iraq was a bigger threat, but I do think something had to be done about the region as a whole. With 9/11 I think Bush had to do something, and if Saddam ever got nuclear weapons I have no doubt he would've given them to the wrong people, so I think Bush felt as though he had to take out as many threats as possible.

So where does that leave us with North Korea? (non-Muslim but HUGE threat)

[rich_t]

Where I differ from both soleil and ballygirl is that I will vote for the person that I feel that will best represent me and my views regardless of what political party they belong to.

I've meet some southern democrats that are a LOT more conservitive than a lot of northern republicans.

I have voted for republicans, democrats and independants in my time.

One of the biggest problems this country has is folks that vote for the party and not the person.

[Ballygrl]

So where does that leave us with North Korea? (non-Muslim but HUGE threat)

My personal opinion? I'd love to bomb the heck out of it if only to free a large number of North Koreans from the miserable lives they're forced to live. To compare the lives of people in the North to the South, it's infuriating to me.

[Ballygrl]

Where I differ from both soleil and ballygirl is that I will vote for the person that I feel that will best represent me and my views regardless of what political party they belong to.

I've meet some southern democrats that are a LOT more conservitive than a lot of northern republicans.

I have voted for republicans, democrats and independants in my time.

One of the biggest problems this country has is folks that vote for the party and not the person.

Are the southern Democrats though beholden to their constituents? or the progressives of the Democratic party?  Seems like some of them are afraid to go against the party higher ups. At 1 time yes, but it doesn't seem like it lately.

[soleil]

Where I differ from both soleil and ballygirl is that I will vote for the person that I feel that will best represent me and my views regardless of what political party they belong to.

I've meet some southern democrats that are a LOT more conservitive than a lot of northern republicans.

I have voted for republicans, democrats and independants in my time.

One of the biggest problems this country has is folks that vote for the party and not the person.

You know that actually isn't true. I consider it all. I am southern ('bout as southern as you can get), and I know many dems here would be considered republicans in a national election.  I vote on the issues that mean a lot to me.

[Doc]

I don't think Iraq was a bigger threat, but I do think something had to be done about the region as a whole. With 9/11 I think Bush had to do something, and if Saddam ever got nuclear weapons I have no doubt he would've given them to the wrong people, so I think Bush felt as though he had to take out as many threats as possible.

Actually when you think about the region geopolitically, Iraq was the sensible move.  We already were committed in Afghanistan, and I truly believe that Saddam had a WMD program of some type that would have, in short order, destabilized the entire region.

Lets not forget that Saddam invaded his neighbor Kuwait once, and we had to intervene, and he at the same time threatened Saudi Arabia.  In short, he was a loose cannon that was aimed at about 60% of the oil production for the world......not a viable option to let that continue.

Were he to unleash some form of effective attack on Kuwait and Saudi again, he could bring the entire world economy to its knees within a few months.

North Korea has no resources, and can barely feed its own people......they are a threat to their neighbors, but it is in the strategic interest of the US to continue to just keep a lid on that situation.

doc

[Ballygrl]

Oh, how about immigration?

I personally think employers should be penalized for hiring them, we need to dry up the jobs market and they'll go home. I'm for a guest worker program for professions that really need the help, but Mexico also needs to contribute if we're taking care of their health needs, free oil would work. English should be mandatory, no ballots in every language imaginable.

[soleil]

Actually when you think about the region geopolitically, Iraq was the sensible move.  We already were committed in Afghanistan, and I truly believe that Saddam had a WMD program of some type that would have, in short order, destabilized the entire region.

Lets not forget that Saddam invaded his neighbor Kuwait once, and we had to intervene, and he at the same time threatened Saudi Arabia.  In short, he was a loose cannon that was aimed at about 60% of the oil production for the world......not a viable option to let that continue.

Were he to unleash some form of effective attack on Kuwait and Saudi again, he could bring the entire world economy to its knees within a few months.

North Korea has no resources, and can barely feed its own people......they are a threat to their neighbors, but it is in the strategic interest of the US to continue to just keep a lid on that situation.

doc

Ok,then we shouldn't say we did it for the people of Iraq then. They are freed from an evil man, but if we are going to "save the world" from evil people, that wasn't the place to start.

[Ballygrl]

Actually when you think about the region geopolitically, Iraq was the sensible move.  We already were committed in Afghanistan, and I truly believe that Saddam had a WMD program of some type that would have, in short order, destabilized the entire region.

Lets not forget that Saddam invaded his neighbor Kuwait once, and we had to intervene, and he at the same time threatened Saudi Arabia.  In short, he was a loose cannon that was aimed at about 60% of the oil production for the world......not a viable option to let that continue.

Were he to unleash some form of effective attack on Kuwait and Saudi again, he could bring the entire world economy to its knees within a few months.

North Korea has no resources, and can barely feed its own people......they are a threat to their neighbors, but it is in the strategic interest of the US to continue to just keep a lid on that situation.

doc

I agree.

[Carl]

I appreciate you answering honestly also. Do you think Iraq was the bigger threat? I always had a problem with that decision, and at the time that was decided, I had no clue about politics. I was 23-ish, and I didn't care. I was getting married, and that was my focus, but when we went to war with Iraq, I was perplexed. I really was hating on Saddam, but I didn't think that was where we should be focused. And hindsight, I still feel that way. If we are going to take down dictators and their weapons, we should have started elsewhere.

There are lots of military folks here that can answer things better then I probably can but understand one almost always fact of life...

It takes as long to undo a problem as it did to create it in the first place and a Iraq logistically and militarily is a starting point.
It wasn`t a home for militant islam but would be very willing to side with jihadists as its power hungry interests saw fit.
Like many in the far left here,Saddam saw islamists as a controllable ends to a means that he could control.
For him it was absolute domination of the region,for the far left here it is the end of capitalism.

Iraq was the only logical choice to try to turn to a popularly elected republic and eventually impact the region.

[Ballygrl]

Ok,then we shouldn't say we did it for the people of Iraq then. They are freed from an evil man, but if we are going to "save the world" from evil people, that wasn't the place to start.

I agree with that too, we should've been honest about why we invaded, I never thought it was because we wanted to free the Iraqi people, if we were going to go to war to free people then there are places like North Korea and Countries in Africa we could've started with.

[soleil]

Oh, how about immigration?

I personally think employers should be penalized for hiring them, we need to dry up the jobs market and they'll go home. I'm for a guest worker program for professions that really need the help, but Mexico also needs to contribute if we're taking care of their health needs, free oil would work. English should be mandatory, no ballots in every language imaginable.

I want people to be here legally. But I want people to feel free to come here for better opportunities. That is also what this country was built on. I have no problem with us learning other languages of this world. I think it could only enhance our children. English is our language and should be the main priority for our kids to learn, but learning other languages can only help our children. Should it be mandatory? No. But it should be encouraged.

[Ballygrl]

I want people to be here legally. But I want people to feel free to come here for better opportunities. That is also what this country was built on. I have no problem with us learning other languages of this world. I think it could only enhance our children. English is our language and should be the main priority for our kids to learn, but learning other languages can only help our children. Should it be mandatory? No. But it should be encouraged.

See, I want people to come here to become Americans, I don't get into the hyphenated American thing the progressives like, to me that was done to divide for their own personal gain.

[Doc]

I agree with that too, we should've been honest about why we invaded, I never thought it was because we wanted to free the Iraqi people, if we were going to go to war to free people then there are places like North Korea and Countries in Africa we could've started with.

I don't believe that GWB was dishonest about his motives for invading Iraq.......I believe that he only told part of the story, intentionally.  Were I in his pposition I would have likely done the same thing, for two reasons.....first, many Americans are simply too stupid or disengaged to take a logical look at a complex geopolitical issue and come away with an understanding.  Second, he had to listen to enough of that "No war for oil" crap as it ended up, can you imagine what it would have sounded like were he to declare that a part of his motives were preserving free access to oil reserves for the rest of the free world........

Regarding NK and Africa......first Africa is a waste of resources.......it is a largely ungovernable region that will need to evolve out of the bronze age before democracy will ever be possible, and in both countries the US has no strategic interest worth preserving there that cannot be sourced elsewhere.

doc

[Ballygrl]

I don't believe that GWB was dishonest about his motives for invading Iraq.......I believe that he only told part of the story, intentionally.  Were I in his pposition I would have likely done the same thing, for two reasons.....first, many Americans are simply too stupid or disengaged to take a logical look at a complex geopolitical issue and come away with an understanding.  Second, he had to listen to enough of that "No war for oil" crap as it ended up, can you imagine what it would have sounded like were he to declare that a part of his motives were preserving free access to oil reserves for the rest of the free world........

Regarding NK and Africa......first Africa is a waste of resources.......it is a largely ungovernable region that will need to evolve out of the bronze age before democracy will ever be possible, and in both countries the US has no strategic interest worth preserving there that cannot be sourced elsewhere.

doc

So you think Americans would be more accepting of freeing people in Iraq as a reason because they could understand that more then the real reason? if so I can agree with that too, Americans at time can be so short-sighted that they can't see the over-all picture of what could happen down the road if Saddam was left unchecked.

[rich_t]

My personal opinion? I'd love to bomb the heck out of it if only to free a large number of North Koreans from the miserable lives they're forced to live. To compare the lives of people in the North to the South, it's infuriating to me.

Sort of like what happened in Iraq?

Do you recall the purple fingers, and the pride of those that had one after Saddam was disposed of?

[soleil]

See, I want people to come here to become Americans, I don't get into the hyphenated American thing the progressives like, to me that was done to divide for their own personal gain.

Heritage maybe? Not sure since I was born and raised in this country, but if I were to go elsewhere, I'd always want to be referred to as an American in some way. My grandma always liked to call herself Irish-American even though it was her parents who came here and not her. She was born here. I have no answer to that question really. Maybe it is human nature to feel something about where you came from.