Next door neighbors or relatives can't even agree on how each other lives, how can one expect complete strangers or even nations to keep their hands off other people's lives ??

I don't really see the denunciation of war to an audience predisposed towards being agains it as something particularly risky: within the Democratic party there has always been a strong anti-war movement since the '60s - when he first started his Senate bid in 2004 there was a significant segment of the population opposed to the war (particularly in his party).

That's just revisionist history, Chris. The war in Iraq began with ample, resounding bipartisan support, ranging from the vocal support of Congressional Democrats like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, the entire membership of the DLC, and, of course, the so-called "liberal media." Anti-war sentiment was basically limited to a grassroots fringe movement which had zero credibility in any political arena.

I'm just saying that there was always a significant audience within his party's base to appeal to, making it politically worth-while to court them.

The dirty hippies? There was no advantage in courting them, at least, none at the time that could have been forseen. Of course it turned out that nearly everybody was wrong, that the Iraq war would turn into a disaster, and as a result Obama emerged as the only credible Democratic candidate for 2008.

It works by using his position to do what must be done instead of achieving a compromise that is more costly to his nation in the long run.

Oh, I see. Not only are you ignorant of our history, you're under the impression that the President is the King, empowered with unilateral authority to act in whatever way he sees fit.

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way, and the only way an American president can do anything at all is by assembling a consensus. So, again, I ask you: how is it better to stand firm on a solution with no chance of actually being implemented than to compromise slightly to get something done?

I cast a protest ballot for Frank Castle/Alucard

On what? A Post-It note?

You don't find his opposition to the Iraq war to be an example of a principled yet unpopular position? Why on Earth not?

I don't really see the denunciation of war to an audience predisposed towards being agains it as something particularly risky: within the Democratic party there has always been a strong anti-war movement since the '60s - when he first started his Senate bid in 2004 there was a significant segment of the population opposed to the war (particularly in his party). This segment grew as the war dragged on these past few years even outside the boundries of his party, giving him political capital with anti-war undecided voters (and even with some Republicans dissatisfied with Bush's handling of the war).

Note: I'm not questioning the legitimacy of his position nor whether it was "right" or "wrong" (I'll let you be the judge of that) - I'm just saying that there was always a significant audience within his party's base to appeal to, making it politically worth-while to court them.

Less chance of success than a method too unpopular to be implemented? How does that work, in your mind?

It works by using his position to do what must be done instead of achieving a compromise that is more costly to his nation in the long run. Since the example of Iraq was brought up, let me illustrate the idea using the present situation there.

Given the turmoil that the nation is in right now (infighting between fractured tribes and religious extremists and no real consensus on a constitution for a new government), any attempt to establish a democratic nation will require U.S. military pressence to provide security for the forseable future - but the American public has spent enough blood and treasure for this war (as it has become a quagmire): without popular support, it's impractical to keep U.S. troops engaged in a foreign war.

The most expedient solution (and thus the one I would recommend if I was leading your country) to the probelm would be this: set up a new military strongman to replace Sadaam - it would end the infighting, allow for a U.S. pullout (while the politicians claim victory) and it would leave a government friendly to U.S. interests in the region. The problem is that it's such an unpopular move that to do it would be political suicide for anyone to go through with it - yet the alternatives call for more blood and treasure to be spent in a war that would take decades to win (no one wants that) or else admit defeat and withdraw; letting nature take its course in the upcoming power struggle (causing the U.S.-backed government to quickly fall - but this would be received as a more popular decision than setting up an autocracy.

I don't think that Obama is prepared to make decisions like these when none of the options are particularly appealing - as this would tarnish his image and perhaps end his political career. The kind of leader I respect is the one that can make those choices without regard to who they might affect his own political standing.

All I can say is, I'm glad you didn't vote in my election.

I cast a protest ballot for Frank Castle/Alucard - I had more faith in fictional characters than in either of the two major canadates...

His "methods" were IGNORING THE CONSTITUTION.

In that case I put him ahead of the curve - as the modern political class ignores your nation's Constitution as well (see Patriot Act), but only without any endgame in mind (Bush's new branches of government created without any expiration date, as opposed to simply annexing some land like Jackson).

Ends justifies the means? Even if that wasn't completely immoral proposition, a libertarian such as yourself should be horribly opposed to the government overriding an individuals desire for the supposed benefit of all.

When did I claim to be a Libertarian? Why do people like you keep calling me that? I'm a Nihilist, not a Libertarian!

Anyway, I have no "moral" judgements on the matter: all I see were two nations (the United States and a confederacy of five "civilized tribes" [as they were called - "civilized" is a relative term anyway]), one being strong and intent on expanding, the other too weak to oppose them. What I see here is not a conflict between the individual and government (in which case I would favor the individual - as a strong individual can fight against his government should it turn against him), but rather a conflict between two competing governments (in which case I let them fight it out) for the same land. One government (yours) won, the other (the Native American tribes) lost.

Say what you will about the brutallity of his methods (which I don't deny), but it paved the way for your nation to become the superpower that it is today by igniting the idea of "Manifest Destiny" - incentivizing your nation to span its borders from coast-to-coast. That's why I think of Jackson as being an example to follow: he did what needed to be done (cost to his personal reputation be damned) and the nation he led was rewarded for his actions in the long run.

Like I said before, I don't see Obama making tough decisions like those - as he tends to count on popular support for his actions.

Say what you will about his methods,

His "methods" were IGNORING THE CONSTITUTION. This isn't really even a debatable position; he straight out told the Supreme Court to go fuck themselves. "Justice Marshall has made his decision, let's see him enforce it". That doesn't make a good president; that makes a good dictator.

but the guy knew how to get results in tough situations - sure, he did some deeds people like you would find "morally" questionable but they ultimately resulted in strengthening his nation (ex. displacement of Native Americans cleared the path for Westward expansion).

Ends justifies the means? Even if that wasn't completely immoral proposition, a libertarian such as yourself should be horribly opposed to the government overriding an individuals desire for the supposed benefit of all. And it wasn't "his" nation.

WTF? If he can make whatever agenda popular enough to garner majority support, what else does he need to be able to do?

if an action is unpopular but effective in achieving the best interests of his nation, I have little doubt that he will resort to a more popular, but less effective, method that has less chance of success.

Less chance of success than a method too unpopular to be implemented? How does that work, in your mind?

A specific case - it's likely that Obama will pursue a carbon cap-and-trade system on emissions rather than the more effective carbon tax policy. On the other hand, a cap-and-trade system that is actually implemented is infinitely more effective than a carbon tax that never is. You seem to argue that pragamatic success is worse than idealistic failure. All I can say is - I actually live in this country, and I need to have a government that works, that does things, not one that allows ideological inflexibility to turn into gridlock.

All I can say is, I'm glad you didn't vote in my election.

Jackson? You mean the racist jackass nearly solely responsible for the trail of tears, ignored the Constitution and the Supreme Court, and abolished the Federal Bank, hastening (if not out right causing) a recession? That's a great president to you?

Say what you will about his methods, but the guy knew how to get results in tough situations - sure, he did some deeds people like you would find "morally" questionable but they ultimately resulted in strengthening his nation (ex. displacement of Native Americans cleared the path for Westward expansion).

As for the Federal Bank, I never much liked the idea to begin with - while dispanding it may have resulted in a recession then, keeping one (like the "Federal Reserve" you have now) would have just given his government a greater capacity to drown itself in debt (like your $10.6 trillion national debt today). Jackson understood that government needed to be kept on a tight budget in order to prevent runaway spending that would result in economic meltdown (like the one your country is experiencing now).

How, when my post answered it?

My question remains the same because I was already aware of his "accomplishments" that people keep pointing to - yet nowhere does he do anything that requires him to really take innitiative and stick his neck out by doing that which is unpopular for the sake of achieving a goal! He tends to rely on his charisma and flowery words to get peoplpe to swallow his agenda, but I see nothing in his record that would indicate the ability to do anything else - if an action is unpopular but effective in achieving the best interests of his nation, I have little doubt that he will resort to a more popular, but less effective, method that has less chance of success.

A guy like Jackson could make those unpopular decisions, while Obama (and most of todays political class, for that matter) can't. That's why I find Obama to be overrated and say "what has he done?" - because I see nothing he did to really establish himself as being any different from your garden variety politician.

How, when my post answered it?

Oh, well, you've certainly answered my question - you've chosen to remain ignorant of Obama's extensive record in a disingenuous effort to pretend like it doesn't exist.

My question remains unchanged...

. . . and only proves you've not paid attention. Obama's record, as with all public officials, is painfully transparent to anybody not waiting for it to be handed to them through the television. Whatever faults we may find with him, I do not consider ignorance of his record a a valid criticism of his record.

*pfft*

Which means what exactly - now we can watch police offers question people on charges they have no business bringing up in the first place?

It means that people can't be unlawfully coerced into confessing crimes they did not commit.

Of course, all that talk of non-proliferation is just lip service - parties that have the bomb will give it to other parties that don't if it serves their intersts to do so, and they won't let little things like non-proliferation measures get in the way (if any nation does try to enforce it, they will simply find a way to side-step it).

Securing loose nukes is the more successful aspect, and something that we are good at if we have the funding for.