Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ashermusic]

wwittman wrote on Wed, 14 November 2007 19:48

Ashermusic wrote on Wed, 14 November 2007 12:19 England  was on the ropes when we we entered the war and Lend Lease is what kept them on life support until we did. This is in no way an attack on the valiant English effort but without us they would certainly have been defeated. Hitler's decision to attack Russia certainly was also a huge contributer to his defeat. and vice versa without England continuing to hold them back for as long as it took for the US to enter the war, the US would have been left alone. the point is only that what happened happened... you can't take CREDIT for it solely.

First of all, neither you nor I can take credit for it, perhaps our fathers can. Secondly I never said solely.

What the US CAN take sole credit for is Lend-Lease, which saved England according to Winston Churchill. I think he perhaps was qualified to make that assessment

I am having a senior moment and I cannot recall the tile but a book I read last year about Roosevelt had detailed accounts of the meetings and letters between FDR and Churchill where Churchill is constantly imploring Roosevelt to enter the war in Europe, telling him that if the U.S. did not do it sooner rather than later that England was doomed and Roosevelt telling him how hard he was trying to drum up popular support in the U.S. to do so.

Certainly England and Russia are major players in this but without the U.S. intervention, the world map would look very different today and few I think would argue for the better.

Besides William, why should I respect the opinion of a Steely Dan hater like you?

[Ashermusic]

wwittman wrote on Wed, 14 November 2007 19:52

Ashermusic wrote on Wed, 14 November 2007 12:21 Indeed. It is a somewhat moot point as Kucinich's chances of getting the nomination are non-existent so a vote for him really is a protest vote, which is a legitimate action. I disagree with this STRONGLY because of TV (mostly, and now the internets) we all think we have to be PUNDITS we have to project electability and evaluate campaign strategies and so on... I believe in voting for the person you want to have. that's the purpose of primaries... and my karma demands it. plus, the pundits are wrong an awful lot.

William I will bet you dinner at your favorite LA eatery the first time you come to LA after the nomination that Kucinich will not have even a single state pledged to him, including Ohio.

Are we on?

[PRobb]

Ashermusic wrote on Wed, 14 November 2007 15:05

William I will bet you dinner at your favorite LA eatery the first time you come to LA after the nomination that Kucinich will not have even a single state pledged to him, including Ohio. Are we on?

I don't think anybody would take that bet. But why does that mean I shouldn't vote for him? Remember, the big argument for Kerry was that he was "electable". Perhaps we all would have been better off voting  bit more from our hearts.

[Ashermusic]

PRobb wrote on Wed, 14 November 2007 21:51

Ashermusic wrote on Wed, 14 November 2007 15:05 William I will bet you dinner at your favorite LA eatery the first time you come to LA after the nomination that Kucinich will not have even a single state pledged to him, including Ohio. Are we on? I don't think anybody would take that bet. But why does that mean I shouldn't vote for him? Remember, the big argument for Kerry was that he was "electable". Perhaps we all would have been better off voting  bit more from our hearts.

Of course I encourage you vote for him if you believe that he is the best choice. Particularly since it increases the chances of my candidate winning:)

Actually I still think John Kerry would have made a decent president.

[PRobb]

Ashermusic wrote on Wed, 14 November 2007 17:11

PRobb wrote on Wed, 14 November 2007 21:51 Ashermusic wrote on Wed, 14 November 2007 15:05 William I will bet you dinner at your favorite LA eatery the first time you come to LA after the nomination that Kucinich will not have even a single state pledged to him, including Ohio. Are we on? I don't think anybody would take that bet. But why does that mean I shouldn't vote for him? Remember, the big argument for Kerry was that he was "electable". Perhaps we all would have been better off voting  bit more from our hearts. Of course I encourage you vote for him if you believe that he is the best choice. Particularly since it increases the chances of my candidate winning:) Actually I still think John Kerry would have made a decent president.

I agree. But my point was that the "electable" candidate might have been one people could have voted for enthusiastically.

BTW- Who is your candidate?

[Ashermusic]

[quote title=PRobb wrote on Thu, 15 November 2007 03:27][quote title=Ashermusic wrote on Wed, 14 November 2007 17:11][quote title=PRobb wrote on Wed, 14 November 2007 21:51]

Ashermusic wrote on Wed, 14 November 2007 15:05

BTW- Who is your candidate?

Hillary.

[mgod]

PRobb wrote on Wed, 14 November 2007 10:11

Pearl Harbor was one of the great tactical mistakes in history.

But from Japan's perspective a necessity as the US had blockaded its access to oil, which it needed for everything, as did (do) we. How long do you think we'd wait if someone tried to stop oil tankers from reaching our shores?

DS

[Barry Hufker]

Ashermusic,

You certainly have not offended me, but I think it great that you should be so thoughtful as to say you don't want to offend anyone.

It would be good to have your full name so we know with whom we're corresponding -- and because you already know our names.  Real names are something we like around here.

Without harping, I would say I would vote for Hillary over a Republican but frankly Hillary scares me and I wouldn't want to see her as President -- unless that was my only hope of seeing a Dem as Prez.  Having said that, I don't want to drag you into another candidate discussion.  I'm just stating my current thinking.

[Ashermusic]

Barry Hufker wrote on Thu, 15 November 2007 05:00

Ashermusic, You certainly have not offended me, but I think it great that you should be so thoughtful as to say you don't want to offend anyone. It would be good to have your full name so we know with whom we're corresponding -- and because you already know our names.  Real names are something we like around here. Without harping, I would say I would vote for Hillary over a Republican but frankly Hillary scares me and I wouldn't want to see her as President -- unless that was my only hope of seeing a Dem as Prez.  Having said that, I don't want to drag you into another candidate discussion.  I'm just stating my current thinking.

My name is Jay Asher and I am a composer.
www.jayasher.com

While I would not say I have no qualms about Hillary, overall  I think she is tough and smart, and she lived in the White House for 8 years as an important confident of one of the better presidents I have seen in my lifetime, who no doubt would be advising her, even if in an informal capacity. And since there is no one else in the race who actually has a chance that I prefer at this point she gets my vote.

[Barry Hufker]

Thanks Jay!

I agree with many of your points.  I fear that as Republicans had an agenda against Bill (for the entire term in office) it will be the same should Hillary win.  That doesn't mean anything I guess but the Republicans sure hate the Clintons.

I agree Bill was a good president.  He stands as a great one compared to the present office holder.

Barry

[Ashermusic]

Barry Hufker wrote on Thu, 15 November 2007 15:53

Thanks Jay! I agree with many of your points.  I fear that as Republicans had an agenda against Bill (for the entire term in office) it will be the same should Hillary win.  That doesn't mean anything I guess but the Republicans sure hate the Clintons. I agree Bill was a good president.  He stands as a great one compared to the present office holder. Barry

Actually Barry you  have hit the nail on the head on my biggest reservation about her. I  fear that the anti-Clinton aspect might unite the Republican base in a way i.e. an Obama candidacy might not.

[wwittman]

Really?

You don't think there'a whole OTHER unpleasant susbet of voters who won't vote for a black man?


I think enough 'republican' women will cross the other way to outweigh the Clinton haters.


which is not to say I wouldn't STILL rather see an actual Liberal as the candidate.

[Ashermusic]

wwittman wrote on Thu, 15 November 2007 20:54

Really? You don't think there'a whole OTHER unpleasant susbet of voters who won't vote for a black man? I think enough 'republican' women will cross the other way to outweigh the Clinton haters. which is not to say I wouldn't STILL rather see an actual Liberal as the candidate.

1. I think we have now reached a point where a black man maybe could be elected,

2. I think you're right.

3. Not me.