/AGREE

http://www.reason.com/news/show/120893.html

Is Obama the next Lou Dobbs???

Eh, ye foot be in the wrong place .

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/22/america/muslims.php

http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=5142

In Europe they debate whether or not to grant the refugees refugee status. In the US we debate whether to give the illegals a path to citizenship : )

As for college level education, the given facts are misleading. It is true college is expensive here. However most students usually recieve scholarships to counter their tutition expenses. And if you are needy generous grants will either cover all or a significant chunk of your expenses. In short, If your dad is a janitor you will be funded for your college education. If you are Bill Gate’s kid, sorry dad is gonna have to dish out the dough.

Economic collapse is bit rich, however, healtcare in the US is very inefficient. We spend more per capita than Europe but have less coverage, though higher quality, than Europe. I don’t agree that the US is not progressive. Compared to Europe it is progressive on some fronts and regressive on others (e.g. healthcare). On the other hand the US has a far better situation with immigration. American muslims do suffer from discrimination here but it pales in comparison with the problems in Europe.

“One should ask McCain if prolonging an unwinnable war is a strategy for success, why didn’t the US stayed in Vietnam until now?”

I do not think this conflict is unwinnable. The typical insurgency lasts for about 10 years. What it takes is patience and commitment. Its true the strategy up till now with Rumsfeld was pathetic. However with current surge/strategy you are seeing many Iraqis fed up with the violence of the insurgents joining Awakening Councils that are sucessfully calming the situation down. The comparison between Vietnam and Iraq is faulty. Vietnam was never an insurgency. Rather it was one country successfully overtaking another.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18921312

Nothing. They really have not done anything since the US had a foothold in Afghanistan. Realistically an attack on Iran is far fetched. Probably Cheney’s wet dream. Another reality is that most Iranians were glad that Saddam was taken out of power given their personal animosities vis a vis the Iraq/Iran War. Saddam’s fall allowed the Shia majority to come out from being under the Sunni Baathists. The average Iranian has a greater hatred for the Sunni Arabs to the west than Americans.

There is nothing really progressive coming out of the USA as far as i can see – and there are significant constraints on any individual who takes the White House. Focusing in the presidency is really a bit of a red herring – ( the whole leadership thing is generally a bit of a red herring, the wider system is problematic in my opinion.)

for example – both Obama’s- and Clintons’ positions on healthcare – they talk the talk, as does Clinton, but what are they really proposing? As far as I understand, ( and admittedly its difficult to work out what they are all actually proposing) they are both talking about making the health insurance plans available from insurance companies more affordable and hoping it covers everyone that way. Whilst that would certainly be an improvement on the current situation, still, it leaves much to be desired. All i can see – is what kind of crazy situation do you have to be in when cheaper health insurance seems to be a wonderful solution.

Anyhow, i’m not suggesting that Obama might not be a better choice compared to the other who’re running, but i am pointing to wider issues. Overall, i think the Americans are in for a nasty shock when their economy collapses, and I can’t really see that the govt is doing much about this, ( there is this huge belief that nothing can happen to them) and anything they are doing to shore up their strength is all military based. And that i find very worrying.

“This is exactly why I am voting for McCain instead of Obama. It maybe nice to indulge in the fantasy that if the US left Iraq everything would be fine”

I think his point is that if the US left Iraq it would be better than if the US stayed for another 100 years.

“McCain – who by the way – has just voted to preserve torture …”

That’s consistent with his track record on inconsistencies – he is now trying to court the hard-right. Pathetic.

“So you’re saying the world and America need someone who would keep us in Iraq and possibly embroil us militarily in Iran? I’d rather take the hope demagogue.”

This is exactly why I am voting for McCain instead of Obama. It maybe nice to indulge in the fantasy that if the US left Iraq everything would be fine. Obama IMO is naive idealist. The man even advocates sending troops into Pakistan to clear out the militants there. Was invading Iraq a bad idea? Definitely. But we can only make the best decisions today not fret over previous decisions made by a moron.

Obama is running the ‘ol bait ‘n switch…

“no you sillies, you should let everyone visit, because we could learn something from them, not ‘oh we take pity on them so we should ‘ease’ our policies’. This is a brilliant documentary, made by some sensible americans, whose government sure doesn’t get it.”

Nice post, Sonia. I do agree with you that Cuba in a lot of ways shames the US, as the movie “Sicko” has shown. In particular its commitment to help the poor.

However, I am not sure Cuba recovered after the USSR collapsed – it is a pretty poor country, not to mention that political opposition and freedom of speech has been wiped off for decades.

I think Obama is courageous for breaking this taboo about Cuba – Clinton certainly isn’t, and pragmatic because capitalism can be used to empower people and create richness to the country. I certainly believe that socialism and capitalism go well together, and the US and Cuba can benefit each other. I also agree that it is best to approach without a complex of superiority.

I agree that the media and Huffington Post seem to be more pro-Obama than pro-Clinton, but I think “revile” is a strong word – a lot of people criticise her for being too calculist and somewhat unethical in regards to her opposition, which is different from the kind of bile she has endured from Republicans since she was the First Lady.

“*reads fugstar’s post, looks at thread title, grins*”"