The Last Homely House
General => Council of Cobra => Topic started by: SomeRandomDude on August 29, 2008, 01:36:02 PM
-
Okay, so she's McCain's VP candidate.
I'm the first person to condemn apathy, and it enrages me the apathy among people today at the state of their country, but up to this point in the presidential election (since I knew it would be McCain vs Obama), I've kinda taken a "who cares?" mentality because in my opinion, either one of them would spell equal disaster to the nation.
Then McCain announced his running mate, Sarah Palin. And being the Christian Conservative that I am, I was impressed. McCain made a very smart move by picking her as his running mate.
1). He counterbalances the "making history" effect of Obama running by also creating history if he wins with the first woman VP.
2). He solidifies the base. Or does he? Therein is the question. Has he alienated the conservative base with his deals with the democrats too much, or is Palin going to be able to reunite the base?
I'm kinda glad I can't vote yet, because I don't have to pick whether to vote for him or write in Ron Paul (yeah, Ron Paul supporter, you got a problem with that?)
But anyways. Do you think that McCain can actually manage to rally the base with Palin?
-
Yay. Palin.
Yay.
You kidding? "The Vice Presidency isn't worth a bucket of warm spit."
VP means squat.
Zilch. Zero. Nada.
Well, okay. With McCain (brave yourselves, McCain age joke coming) as old as he is, it might actually matter this time around.
I'm casting a write-in ballot for Odin. Or maybe Anubis.
Yeah, definitely Odin with Anubis as VP. :roll:
Sorry. I can't discuss either Obama or McCain seriously right now. I'm too cynical at this point.
-
Good point, AD. We might still get the first female president ever! =D>
---
See, I'm not apathetic about these elections, it's just that I'm in the same boat you're in, Professor Barden. I - literally - put a lot of my money into Ron Paul and seeing him not make it to this point convinces me that America is, well, boned. I see a bit of a difference in rhetoric between Obama and McCain, but I know they'll behave exactly the same once in office.
-
Yay. Palin.
Yay.
You kidding? "The Vice Presidency isn't worth a bucket of warm spit."
VP means squat.
Zilch. Zero. Nada.
Well, okay. With McCain (brave yourselves, McCain age joke coming) as old as he is, it might actually matter this time around.
I'm casting a write-in ballot for Odin. Or maybe Anubis.
Yeah, definitely Odin with Anubis as VP. :roll:
Sorry. I can't discuss either Obama or McCain seriously right now. I'm too cynical at this point.
I'm writing in a Alan Keyes/Dennis Kucinich ticket.
Its not as worthless as you might think. In actual power, not worth much, but influence it has a lot. Can't actually do anything, but can coax people into doing something.
But the question is, what does this say to Conservative America who knows nothing about what the VP can or can't do.
-
T"was a good choice, a very good choice.
-
I wonder what her definition of "rich" is. Maybe it's only $3M/year instead of McCain's $5M.
/sarcasm
Joking aside, I'm sure she loves America the same as everyone else involved and wants to see its greatness restored. I can't say whether or not I think she can do that, not knowing anything about her other than what the usual news outlets offer (2 years as AK Gov, defeated incumbent Gov in primary & former Gov in general, has 5 kids, one with Downs syndrome, enjoys hockey?).
At any rate, I can't believe anybody would actually think that Obama and McCain would act the same once in office. Honestly, McCain is so out of touch with the average American and their problems, there's no way he can relate to what any of us on these boards face every day.
No matter if you're a Republican or Democrat or Independent, liberal or conservative, religious or atheist, it still is incredibly hypocritical of McCain to have been talking about Obama's lack of experience and then go and pick someone with even less to be his running mate, someone who would be a literal heartbeat from the presidency herself. Then again, that does fit the theme of McCain vs McCain during this campaign, right? I guess I shouldn't be so surprised after all...
On the topic of experience, it doesn't really matter anyway if the president surrounds him or her self with the right people. Bush didn't do that, and our country suffured for eight long years. I would hope that either candidate would do a better job of this and put a focus on integrity and accountability to the American people, but you never know, do you?
Begin serious discourse:
Here's what matters to me: acknowledging the growing disparity of wealth in this county and doing something to close that gap (see below); acknowledging the desperate need for alternative fuels NOW and doing something about it NOW; acknowledging human suffering in all its forms and in parts of the world (eg, the Congo and Darfur) and doing something to stem that; acknowleding a certain line from the Declaration of Independence about equality and understanding that it applies not only to race and religion but also sexual orientation; acknowledging the burden our educators face and understanding that without supporting them and their efforts that this country WILL FAIL; and acknowledging who our TRUE enemies are and going after them by actually seeking them out rather than invading an entirely different country (see below).
Re: Disparity of Wealth
Closing the gap does NOT imply taxing the #$&*@! out of the rich. What this country needs is for the rich to take their foot off the throat of the poor. What this country needs is to be picked up. We need to stop holding each other back and holding each other down and realize that we cannot achieve the greatness that awaits us by dividing the riches among the few and the elite. Squashing the hopes and denying the dreams of others is petty and pointless. There is potential in all of us to do great things, but without opportunity we lose what may be. Welfare needs to be fixed. Healthcare needs to be available for all. Sickness and poverty are a needless pox on society. Our focus needs to change from personal wealth to personal well-being.
This is a two-way street of course, and those who can't afford need to STOP SPENDING. We as a society are addicted to material goods and services, and that must stop. Just as we're addicted to foreign oil, we're addicted to McDonald's and Starbucks, entertainment and having the newest, shiniest everything. This must stop. Who cares what kind of coffee Lindsay had after her workout or that Tom Cruise brainwashed Katie Holmes into joining his religion? Why is it anybody's business if Angelina and Brad want to adopt another 15 Cambodian kids and name them Spock? We need to take responsibility for ourselves and our actions and resolve to better ourselves and help those around us do the same. When 43% of American families spend more each year than they earn, we're doing something wrong and we're putting the focus where it shouldn't be.
Re: Seeking Our Enemies
Iraq was a danger. Perhaps immediate, perhaps not. Without real evidence of WMD's and a plan of attack we will never know. What is known is that Osama bin Laden attacked our country and is hiding in Afghanistan. Not Iraq, not Iran, not Pakistan, Afghanistan. He has been there the whole time we've been in Iraq. Why is he not dead? So that we can continue our war for oil against terrorism in Iraq, whether we belong there or not. In the end, the countries of this world need to come together for humanity to stop evil from gaining a foothold. That would mean a great leap of faith on the part of the US in terms of sharing intelligence (I guess we like to see ourselves as some kind of lone enforcer), so that may never happen, but one can hope.
I don't want to live in, and don't want my children to grow up in, a world governed by fear. Would we be here today if people like Christopher Columbus, the founding fathers of America, Sir Isaac Newton, or Galileo had been afraid of the unknown? If John F Kennedy had not challenged this country to put a man on the moon by the end of the 1960s, would we have tried, or even thought it possible? What if Rosa Parks had given up her seat? What if our grandparents or great-grandparents or so on hadn't come to America, out of fear?
As FDR said, "we have nothing to fear but fear itself," and that's all we've been given for the last eight years: fear.
We cannot give in. We cannot give up hope.
/Serious Discourse
If someone wants to flame me for that, they can go ahead, but they had better be prepared to back up their stance with more than a Bible quote or statement of prior debate achievement.
-
:o My lord, hawkeyespf, you've just summed up my feelings exactly! =D> hawkeyespf for president!
As an American who is now viewing America from the outside, I have had many many eye-opening (along with mind-opening) moments. I cannot say it any better than hawkeye has, but I would like to say that from what I've seen both within and without the States, he is correct. If you open your mind to a world view, you see things much more clearly.
The last 8 years have been a continuing disaster of foreign and domestic policy for America. And McCain says that he wants to continue on with Bush's policies. He wants to model himself after one of the worst presidents in the history of the United States! Bleah. :-X
Then he chooses his running mate purely to get the women's vote. As a woman, I am insulted. McCain hopes that women are so brainless, that we will vote for him just because his running mate is a woman. Bleah again. :-X
Palin has said that when/if she's VP, she will continue to look after Alaska's interests. :suspect: As one of the leaders of the entire country, shouldn't she be looking after the interests of...the entire country? But I would expect such a thing from her. Her husband is a production operator on the North Slope. Her administration plans to grant a license to TransCanada Alaska to build a 1,715-mile natural gas pipeline from Prudhoe Bay on Alaska’s North Slope to a hub in Canada. Hhhmmmm...looking after Alaska's interests? Nah, like George Bush, she is looking after her own.
I am sure that there are a few people here who will completely disagree. There is much more that I would like to say, but I am not interested in getting into a long, drawn out debate about this. So there's my 2 cents, and I will be voting accordingly (yes, I can and do vote in US elections, lol :P ). In the words of the immortal Gump, that's all I got to say about that. ;D
-
I don't think anyone can flame you for what you said, hawkeye. Reading that, my respect for you has never been higher.
But I would like to clarify on my comment about both Obama and McCain acting 'the same' once in office. See, I just don't trust either one of them to do the things they're promising to do. I honestly wish I could believe that Obama would break our dependence on oil within 10 years, that he would restore meaning to the middle class, that he would complete even half of the missions he assigned himself during his speech two nights ago, since accomplishing just half would save this country.
I'm not going to vote this year because I don't feel that either candidate deserves my vote. But I hope wildly that whichever one of them makes it all the way holds up the ideals that they've spoken about all along. If any of their words are true, then it's possible that either one of them could restore the country.
-
I'm not going to vote this year because I don't feel that either candidate deserves my vote.
But don't you think that HOPE deserves your vote? If you can't bring yourself to vote for Obama for the sake of Obama, vote for him for the sake of the HOPE of a better future. As you say, if he can accomplish even HALF of the missions he assigned himself, he will save this country. I know he can do that, we all know he can do that.
HOPE
VOTE
-
I honestly wish I could believe that Obama would break our dependence on oil within 10 years, that he would restore meaning to the middle class, that he would complete even half of the missions he assigned himself during his speech two nights ago
I concur with these sentiments. But the only way Obama will actually do 1/4 of what he's talking about is by convincing congress to head further down the path of Socialism. How do you think he wants to accomplish universal health care?
I haven't liked McCain for a long time, but so far I'm liking the Sarah Palin pick. Part of the reason she was chosen was because she's a woman, but that's definitely not all. She seems like she has alot to offer in economics (something McCain needed), energy, and transparent government. And if you really want to go down that road... why was Obama chosen to run for President? Certainly not because of experience...
-
Socialized healthcare is not a good thing.
-
Agreed. plus things are not quite as the dems are saying as far as uninsured Americans. 50 million have 0 healthcare. 30% of that number are people who can afford it, but have decided not to pay for it. Another 30% are people who qualify for government funded healthcare but they just haven't bothered to fill out the paperwork. Now that still leaves about 20 million (out of 350 mil) that we need to help be able to get healthcare, but there are better ways to achieve this rather than socialize the industry.
-
I'm not going to vote this year because I don't feel that either candidate deserves my vote.
But don't you think that HOPE deserves your vote? If you can't bring yourself to vote for Obama for the sake of Obama, vote for him for the sake of the HOPE of a better future. As you say, if he can accomplish even HALF of the missions he assigned himself, he will save this country. I know he can do that, we all know he can do that.
HOPE
VOTE
Well...I hope that things get better, and obviously Obama does too. Let's not vote for a president that hopes he can fix things, who doesn't provide a concrete plan, and whose campaign is run solely on the idea of "the other guy's really, REALLY bad."
That doesn't really make me want to vote for him. That and his redistribution of wealth policy is socialism.
The democrats are basically saying McCain = 4 more years of Bush. Bush, though he made a bunch of mistakes, is better than a redistribution of wealth, pro-choice, pro-gay policy of the democrats. Sorry.
But the democrats do have some legit points. Illegal Immigration policy, though they carry it a bit to the extreme, points out some strong concerns. We have been in Iraq too long (though I respectfully submit that entering to begin with WAS good for national security), and need to consider pulling out instead of shoving democracy down the throats of a nation who doesn't want it.
Conclusion: Ron Paul for President.
-
very well said...I never flame somebody for belonging to another political party, though I do get really angry when liberals imply that just being conservative makes essentially lower than scum...
so if you can debate thoughtfully and without insulting your opposition I'm not going to flame you...
IDK about obama...my brother is very politically savvy/active...and spent 5 months in DC and actually met the guy...and his conclusion was...
he's scary, nice guy in person but all we know is he's as liberal as anything and he hasn't really said how he plans to do what he says...
as for palin, I think she's gonna accomplish some things, and I think he did have to pick a minority, but thats just my opinion.
and she does have the + of being pro-life and having proved it by keeping a down-syndrome child.
and the thing is, in the end she's not president so I don't give her as much scrutiny as a presidential candidate...and as for biden...well... he's just kinda creepy ;)
-
very well said...I never flame somebody for belonging to another political party, though I do get really angry when liberals imply that just being conservative makes essentially lower than scum...
so if you can debate thoughtfully and without insulting your opposition I'm not going to flame you...
Clarification: We're not implying that you did this.
-
precisely...my bad for being unclear, your post was very mature and respectful.
-
though I do get really angry when liberals imply that just being conservative makes essentially lower than scum...
Okay this just made me laugh. No offence but a lot of the conservatives on here use the word liberal as just another word for demon sometimes. Both sides do the same thing.
I have found this whole election fascinating. It's great to watch from the outside, I decided to follow it as if I was American and decide who I would vote for but of course that was impossible as I'm not an American, I'm a Brit with an semi-American dad and who has lived in America for part of his life. Therefore I find myself naturally leaning towards Obama. Bush maybe quite unpopular in his own country but here in the UK he is absolutely detested and McCain's seeming willingness to be George bush Mark III automatically puts a black mark next to his name. I like Obama's foreign policy ideas and was very immpressed with him on his European tour.
Socialized healthcare is not a good thing.
I would very much like to hear your reasoning behind this as I have lived in both countries and experienced both healthcare systems and am under no illusion as to which one is better. Your current system is nothing more than a sorry tool of the pharmaceutical companies. It leeches off the poor and needy who more often than not are the ones who need it most.
However............
As a christian there are a lot of things about Obama that concern me. I am thoroughly Pro Life and while I wouldn't call myself anti-gay as I belive that while I don't believe its right people should be aloud to practice homosexuality in a free country (If they are not its not a free country at all but a country in which you are free just as long as you stick to a strict ideal), but I strictly disagree with the forcing of homosexuality on the church.
Another thing is that what the rest of the world is most concerned about when it comes to America is undeniably money. The disastrous and shoddy management of your economy by the Bush administration is having dire effects over her in Britain and Europe. Whatever happens in America has big effects here as far as money is concerned and so anyone who can get your economy back to the state Clinton left it in is welcome by us.
To bring things back to the subject at hand I think the the two choices for VP offer a very interesting commentary on the way the two men are running their campaign. McCain's choice reflects the fact that he is playing a very tactical game with lots of short term victories. His choice of Palin is nothing more than a choice to get him into the White House, she's there to grab the former Hillary supporters and thats it. Anyone trying to convince themselves that a 44 year old former beauty queen with a journalism degree from the University of Idaho, who has no interest or experience in foreign policy and has than two years experience as the govenor of a state of just 700,000 people is kidding themselves. In essence McCain is the tactition.
Obama on the otherhand is a strategist. So far he shown a willingness to forgo sudden decisions or short term strikes in favour of long term goals. His pick of Biden, a foreign policy heavyweight, suggests that his pick for VP was based on the person's actuall use in office rather than grabbing the most headlines.
McCain's move was clever, deft and well timed but also a little desperate, a little too risky and a bit unserious. America is at war with lethal enemies, its economy is teetering and its people unsettled. And McCain gave you a 44 year old former beauty queen as the person who would be asked to run the country should anything bad happen to what would be the oldest ever first term president. Tactically: daring. Strategically: potentially disastrous.
Game on. And Advantage Obama.
-
And I'm the crazy one?
-
Would you care to expand upon that comment? And wow there are a lot of spelling mistakes in that post of mine. In my defence i'm extremely tired and was typing fast.
-
I don't have much time but I will say that a foreign policy of appeasement is not what this country needs.
-
though I do get really angry when liberals imply that just being conservative makes essentially lower than scum...
Okay this just made me laugh. No offence but a lot of the conservatives on here use the word liberal as just another word for demon sometimes. Both sides do the same thing.
yeah but I try not to...I've slowly become more moderate, seeing both sides better, and certainly you admit that it annoys you?
However............
As a christian there are a lot of things about Obama that concern me. I am thoroughly Pro Life and while I wouldn't call myself anti-gay as I belive that while I don't believe its right people should be aloud to practice homosexuality in a free country (If they are not its not a free country at all but a country in which you are free just as long as you stick to a strict ideal), but I strictly disagree with the forcing of homosexuality on the church.
Another thing is that what the rest of the world is most concerned about when it comes to America is undeniably money. The disastrous and shoddy management of your economy by the Bush administration is having dire effects over her in Britain and Europe. Whatever happens in America has big effects here as far as money is concerned and so anyone who can get your economy back to the state Clinton left it in is welcome by us.
the thing about mccains choice is to a certain extent he does have to think about getting in, I mean what use is biden if obama doesn't get elected? I think he had to choose a minority and she was the best choice.
yes if would have been nice if he had chosen someone with more experience, but she does have more than obama...who spent a term in the senate, did not author a single piece of legislation (some congressman author 40 or so if I remember correctly and the average is around 15) and has basically spent the time running for prez...thats kinda scary to me...
and the thing is, theres a huge difference between a inexperienced VP, and an inexperienced prez...I g2g eat breakfast, but I respect most of your views, and find myself agreeing with you a lot turin.
-
And again I find myself intrigued by this debate. I have strong feelings about the US, and most of them are not positive. I get the impression of a man telling another how to build a house while his own is coming down. It is obvious that the US is in trouble. A weak dollar, an uncertain situation with mortgages and such, not a very succedful story when it comes to foreign campaigns against terrorism, and regulations that are at least to say worthy of thorough ethical debate.
But the thing that frightens me most is what I call capital-fundamentalism. A holy believe in that the course you take is the right one. Self critisism isn't being shown and instead of being humble, pride is marching. In the netherlands it is the same. Social care is being replaced for competing health-insurance companies, because the 'market' will bring higher quality and cheaper products because of competition.
Step away from your pride and take time to review some things. What does it mean to live in a free country? What do we want our goverment to do? Serve our best interest, for all, or not? What is our best interest? What do we find important? I would be concerned about the things I mentioned above, at the start of my observations, as I am concerned about a few of those things in my own country.
Also, I think the whole politic scene is getting more corrupt over the years. Where at the start of things, as with all great efforts, the maingoals where obvious, nowadays schemes are all around, people are lobbying for major companies and money, status and power are driving forces...who is to be trusted?
Obama? I don't like people who try to convince others not of their own quality, but to blame the opposing party instead -the story about McCain adopting children illegaly-. McCain? I don't know, and it seems that choosing a woman as a running mate is more of a electiontrick to lure more votes.....
But then again, I do not know much about the US, but could someone please be so kind to tell where are all the funds from they use to pay for their exhorbitant expensive campaigns?
-
What is our best interest?
Therein is the question of the ages, and the one that divides Democrats and Republicans. In my opinion, Democrats are very shortsighted, whilst Republicans look more towards the long-term and neglect the short-term.
-
GE proposed some good question to think about... I don´t live in USA and i´m not fully aware of it´s Socio-political moment and history but i do know some things that can help me to came up with some thoughts...
I live in Brazil that you can say it´s a very corrupt country. All the time we face some political escandal involving some politician. people around here love to keep blaming them (with reason of course) that they are this or that, but what few realize is that corruption is spread among the citizens. What espect from your politicians if they came from a similar social enviroment than most of population. Obviously there are plenty of variations depending on which way you was raised, the facts you experienced, etc and i should agree that some opportunists actively search for a "place at the sun" (to not mention that some get benefits from being relative of a politician and just "low with the waves"). Im not saying that "everyone is corrupt and that´s it and we can´t do anything about with" not at all! But we should try to comprehend some facts at the light of an enviroment that aren´t there only by chance but because of a particular evolution. If people from, say, Island are know to be "less corrupt country" (because of cultural issues / strong selective pressure against) you can expect this will reflect in their politicians.
For the correlation of political experience with a good govern i like to say some things: Seems obvious that we have some relation here (i would like to remind you that political experience isnt only had a "political job" e.g. being a politician, governator, senator, etc.), a person that lived most of his/her years outside of close contact with this world is less likely to know how many thing operate and what are the ways to deal with them. But that´s not all.
Many of the most corrupt politicians around here are the most experienced ones. When the current Brazil president won the elections many people were astonished by the fact that he was a humble worker that grow politically on the sindical movements (maybe because his left tendencies). But in fact, besides many negative aspects i could name, this is been one of the better governs of the last decades (we can´t forget that no person rules a country alone). So it´s good don´t judge a book only by it´s cover the but principally by his content...
I´m really not putting all that hope on Obama but i think that McCain is far more previsible in terms of internal and external politics (and i can´t say that i aprove very much his style). Anyway just try to look with critical mind to what are said...)
For the health debate i must say that we can correlate only socialism or capitalism to a good health system. I´m not really a fan of Fidel Castro but i think we can´t deny that Cuba have one of the best Health system and health technologies in the World and it´s much more to a socialism than a capitalism. In England, Brazil, and many other capitalist countries as far as i know they don´t let a person bleeding to death if they don´t have a health plan or sort of. I could be wrong since i don´t live and experience US reallity, but for what i know the US health system seems to be much more about business... Our public plans of health here in Brazil really sucks in many aspects but still life seems to be the priority.
About the Homo stuff: I really don´t have nothing against a person to be homosexual (be he or she) since he/she respects my heterosexual option (which i think is a very better choice :up:) and i think they (the homosexual) must be respected before law and before society. I have a couple of lesbian friends and a a gya teacher at the college and they are reaaly nice persons, so no worries or prejudices about that.
Well, we can find good and bad things in our own countries (be it Brazil, United States, Russia, China, Casaquistan, Romenia...) but like GE said (with better words in his second paragraph) we should be aware at what we intend at having a governament this or that way, to behaviour this or that way, to live this or that way...
So you really can have hope that things will change (obviuosly they will, but "best if for what we think it´s better") cause that´s a important step to achieve that.
Try to open your mind to some new angles of view and maybe you can start to see things in a different way. I´m not here to make some speech about it at the edge of my ignorance, but just giving a critical look to some things can make a real difference.
-
What is our best interest?
Therein is the question of the ages, and the one that divides Democrats and Republicans.
And who's interests are being served? Those of the peoples, or those of the companies......:ninja:
-
ah thats the question isn't it? and how exclusive are they? and that is where the debate comes in...
-
But then again, I do not know much about the US, but could someone please be so kind to tell where are all the funds from they use to pay for their exhorbitant expensive campaigns?
A lot of money comes from independent donations by normal citizens (I myself donated uh, well, quite a bit to Ron Paul's campaign). There are fairly strict rules regarding donations for elections here, but I'm sure there are illegal donations that go unnoticed.
I would like to clarify what I said before about Obama and McCain behaving more-or-less identically once in office. I see our political system as this: the higher up you go, the more people tie ropes around your neck. By the time you're running for president, you have so many favors for large donations or "friends" who helped you along the way that are influential among moneyed individuals that you inevitably spend more time coaxing their needs instead of doing your job.
Obama hasn't even finished his first term in the Senate and look where he is now. How do you think that is? By his own shoe-strings? I think not. He's dug himself deep into the system: he's entrenched. If he is elected president, he'll spend the first 3 years doing what he's promised his political allies he'd do. On the 4th year he'll utter the same promises of change and paradise that he's uttering now, and more likely than not our society would fall for it all over again.
And I figure McCain is in a similar situation, but for a different reason. He's been in politics for so long that by now he's got to be deep into so many circles that he probably can't even keep track of the debts he owes. The only benefit to this is that he's probably a lot better at this sort of thing than Obama is, which may give McCain a little more 'free' time to actually get something done as president.
Both candidates are corrupt, backward-facing southpaws that would prefer lying to the free citizens of the world just to sit in the big chair for a day, rather than run an honest bid for the most powerful position in the world in an attempt to make that same world a little bit better.
-
I sense much bitterness O ron paulian ;)
-
What is our best interest?
Therein is the question of the ages, and the one that divides Democrats and Republicans.
And who's interests are being served? Those of the peoples, or those of the companies......:ninja:
If the interests of the companies are served, then the interests of the economy is being served, and thus the people. Small business is extremely crucial to America, our economy is COMPLETELY different from European Socialism.
Success of business = success of economy = success of the people...who are willing to work. Democrats, on the other hand, are for the success of the people who want welfare. You know what? My mom grew up below the poverty level. And now she owns her own business. Because she was willing to work. My dad had no formal education, except an associate's degree, and is now in the leadership of an international corporation! If they can do that, so can anyone else, we don't need government handouts, they don't help the people, they cripple the people. The way to help the people is to help the economy.
Anyways. Back on Palin. Speech yesterday, it was awesome. Just plain awesome.
-
ah...mercy is for the weak...that kinda thing......
on: how is she doing with all the critisism going on? Her daughter being pregnant and all?
-
ah...mercy is for the weak...that kinda thing......
Nope. Its called tough love. Kinda like the difference between a family letting their kid live in the basement till he's 30, as opposed to telling him to get a job and an apartment.
Give a man a fish and you'll feed him a meal. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. Unless you plan to give him fish for the rest of his life. This we call welfare.
on: how is she doing with all the critisism going on? Her daughter being pregnant and all?
Kinda ignoring it. Everyone realizes that the media is groping for anything to slam her. Its a low tactic, and both the presidential candidates and the Democratic VP candidate all condemned it. Its probably backfired, outraging tons of people that such an issue would be brought up.
-
Than you have a twisted view on welfare. But I'll stop this, for we will never see the end of it.....
-
ah...mercy is for the weak...that kinda thing......
Nope. Its called tough love.
Sounds like no love to me.
Good Welfare is just a stepping stone not a stick to lean on your whole life.
-
Good welfare, yes. American welfare, no.
-
Then why don't you do good welfare? It's no good saying 'Oh well were not very good at helping each other so we won't'
-
well I think anything our government does is doomed to fail...now if we could get churches and such helping the poor with food banks and all, that works...but we don't want to get american government involved in this...
as pro is the opposite of con, so progress is the opposite of congress.
-
A democrat controlled congress. ;)
-
Then why don't you do good welfare? It's no good saying 'Oh well were not very good at helping each other so we won't'
Let me emphasize an important word. WE. WE have the responsibility to serve the people in need. WE have the responsibility to take care of the needy and help them on their feet. WE the people. WE the individuals. We do NOT need a government to "tax the heck out of everyone" in order to make sure everyone's equal. Socialism is idealist, but its also a breeding pool for laziness and a crashed economy. To quote: "Communism can only work in heaven where they don't need it, or in #$&*@! where they already have it." Same with socialism.
If you're going to give someone something for free, why work? Why not sit on welfare? I mean, you're getting a government paycheck anyways. So why not? Socialism assumes that everyone will work.
And it breaks down to the fundamental question. Is man inherently good, or evil? If man is evil, then socialism will not work. If man is good, then it works. The facts are staring you in the face. People are not inherently industrious. People tend towards laziness. Thus, socialism = collapsed economy.
Now, we must help those who are honestly out of work and want a job. Those people we can give money too. But American Welfare doesn't do this.
Let's go back a century or two. No welfare. If you needed stuff, guys at your church pulled up and unloaded groceries for you. Charities still help the homeless and stuff like that. THAT is what America needs, an opportunity for Americans to give. Because even though Man tends towards evil, he still enjoys good (BTW, Republicans give more to charities than Democrats on average, interesting tidbit).
So...what's this come down to? Yes, people should give each other a hand to help out. This does not mean socialism. This does not require government involvement.
-
=D> NB has summed this up nicely. =D>
-
Like I said we will never see the end of it. So let's stay ontopic.....
-
I don't think I ever addressed the accusation of Palin being a 44 year old beauty queen with no experience. She has more executive experience than Obama. She is governor, and did one heck of a job at it too. Her approval ratings went through the roof! Like, higher than any other governor in the nation! She knows energy policy like the back of her hand, and with McCain being as tough as he is on foreign policy, the most logical choices for him were those solid on domestic policy, and probably a former governor. I was honestly expecting a McCain/Huckabee ticket (everyone knows that picking Liberman would be political suicide), but Palin is just as good. Yes, so he picked her in part because she's a woman. But look what the Obama camp is doing. "VOTE OBAMA HE'S BLACK MAKE HISTORY! (and let's HOPE he does something!)" Meeting it with his own history maker was a very smart political move, but I disagree that he did it at the expense of experience. When a governor has an 80%+ approval rating, there's a sign that something's going right in that state.
-
yeah its funny I mean people I like SHE HAS NO EXPERIENCE....well obama spent his one term in congress basically trying to get elected president, he has not authored a single stinking piece of legislation...And what stinks is you cannot criticize him for anything because he's black...and yet they'll criticize palin and we won't be able to call them sexist...
mr lurtzy: no the republican controlled congress was just as bad... well not just as bad...but close ;)
-
yeah its funny I mean people I like SHE HAS NO EXPERIENCE....well obama spent his one term in congress basically trying to get elected president, he has not authored a single stinking piece of legislation...And what stinks is you cannot criticize him for anything because he's black...and yet they'll criticize palin and we won't be able to call them sexist...
mr lurtzy: no the republican controlled congress was just as bad... well not just as bad...but close ;)
Um...yeah we can call them sexist. That's what they're being. Telling her she should stay at home and take care of her kids?
-
You know what? I had a big long post about this, but I'm done. I'm sick of the lies, I'm sick of the fear-mongering, I'm sick of being told "get used to it, it's the way it is" - what the * ever happened to the American dream, where anything is possible? What the * ever happened to separation of church and state ("We invaded Iraq because it was God's plan")? What ever happened to the family values that Republicans and conservatives claim to cherish (McCain slapping the future-husband of Palin's daughter on the back as if to say "Way to go, knocking up your UNDERAGE GIRLFRIEND!" What if the roles were reversed, and Obama's proverbial 17-year old daughter was pregnant by her boyfriend? He'd be out of the race in a hurry, that's what.) Why is it ok?
This is just ridiculous. How does McCain's tax proposal propose to help the middle class when it doesn't actually cut their taxes? What about Palin's plan for Alaska - trickle down economics??? I thought that went out in the 80's when it was discovered that IT DOESN'T WORK!
And about the subject of HOPE. Here's how I see it: you can either have hope or despair. When you attack the idea of hope, you reinforce that McCain and his cronies are only selling despair. So I ask you, what is wrong with hope? What is wrong with seeing that there is a problem, finding a way to fix it, and *ing fixing it? Obama inspires, while McCain instills fear - there's a big difference in ideology there. Don't take that to mean that Obama doesn't take the threats that face this country seriously, he's just not going to blindly attack without reason or cause, then occupy for years and years without need.
Energy: fund alternative energy development, since oil is now not only rare, but also in greater demand than ever before due to the industrialization of China and India. If you reduce our dependence on oil (altogether, not just foreign), then you reduce global demand. If you reduce global demand, you reduce price, or at least keep it at the same level as demand continues to grow internationally. If other countries adopt alternative energy sources, then global demand is lowered that much more. This problem is the easiest to solve, and it doesn't even involve drilling, not even in ANWR!
Terrorists: Seek them out and eliminate them. We have the greatest military in the world, and yet we cannot follow a man into a cave. Also pretty simple to solve.
Education: focus on student needs, not end results - instead of a war on drugs and illiteracy, we have a war for oil. NCLB has to go, now. Education is the key to life and success. Find me a profession that is as necessary as educators, but as badly paid for their efforts - I dare you. Not gonna happen, and once again, our focus needs to change. Support your educators and you support your children, your country, and your future. Not difficult - seeing a trend?
Gah, whatever, I'm just REALLY glad some of you can't vote, you scare me.
Oh, one more thing. Some of you have this notion in your heads that if we support welfare and healthcare, that suddenly we'll be socialist and things will be awful and the lazy people who currently work will just quit their jobs and live at home off of welfare. You people are nuts. Have you ever been suddenly unemployed and tried to keep up the same standard of living - having to support two or more people on the minimum wage income of just one? It's just not possible. Sure, everybody wants easy money (where do you think "work smarter, not harder" came from?), but people aren't going to abuse the system because it works better. If it works better, then those who shouldn't be on welfare will be prevented from being on welfare - pretty simple, again. Look at the facts, think about it, and see that this is just another topic where government officials who make entirely too much money have been trying to scare you into letting them keep their jobs or get promoted into higher paying jobs. You fully admit that there are some people out there who genuinely need welfare, or who should have healthcare coverage for their families but can't afford it - why should they continue to not have the same opportunities as those of us who have jobs and healthcare?
Do you regularly spit on bums? Do you think they're evil horrible people because they don't have jobs and they're just abusing the system? Do you really think they ENJOY the way they have to live? Man is not evil on the whole, my friends. As with everything, there are parts (of the population) that have no ethics and truly are evil. Even those people pale, though, in comparison to indifference. Seeing inequities and doing nothing about them - not even CARING - is the true evil this world faces.
Ok, so it turned out long anyway, sue me.
-
Just a little tought: Man aren´t "good" or "evil" it simples evolves strategies during times to get better adapted to enviroment (like all life forms do). So you can call that selfishnes or even evilness but stay in mind that this is in decurrence of evolutionary process and evolutionry processes are very dinamic thus can change within time... If the socirty tends to roll to a way in that "evil" isn´t a adaptative strategy, then human beings will tend not to be evil.
I think NBarden definition of capitalism and socialism, althought have certain true, are to reductionist (not in the cientific definition) because don´t take many aspects in count, like historical facts and even actual facts...
Well, just my opinion. I have not much to say about US elections altought i know that have a good influence in global dinamycs...
But it´s very good to see that this kind of debating are happening around here and that people are expressing their toughts and fellings...
-
Yep, I'm sick of the lies, but more than that, I'm sick of bloated government and useless bureaucracy. I'm sick of government intrusion in my life. The first step is to repeal the 17th amendment and find a different solution, namely the Fair tax.
"We invaded Iraq because it was God's plan" - I've not heard that one but it is obviously a stupid thing to say.
If Obama's 17-yo daughter was pregnant, there is a chance that she would have an abortion, being brought up in that type of mindset. And the MSM (main stream media) would love him more because he would stand by her, as he should do. Can you deny that Obama has had waaaay more media attention than McCain? Look at McCain's record of going to Iraq to visit the troops, it's at least 3 times, I think more but am not sure, and all the coverage he got was a 10 second sound-bite from each of the big 3 networks. Obama goes over there once and he takes along all 3 network anchors and gets 4 days of coverage.
I've never heard anyone (on either side) actually define what the middle class is so how do we know who does and doesn't get tax cuts?
I have hope. But it's not the same hope as the left. I hope the US wins in Iraq and the soldiers come home as soon as the Iraqi's want them out. I hope that Iraq keeps the democratic system the US has installed - the people certainly do as as we could see by the lines of Iraqi's going to vote puting their lives on the line to do something we take for granted and many of us never do. Not that the MSM ever showed the lines of Iraqi's voting because that was a victory for the current administration and that can't be allowed. I hope that my taxes won't go up. I hope that government will actually reduce in size rather than grow.
Yes, Obama inspires. But what does he inspire? He has hope, and all we need is to believe in change, and hope to believe, and change to hope, and ... He has openly stated that he will sit down without reservations and talk with the governments of the world that are out to hurt us. Why does he want to appease? McCain has instilled fear, but let's not let Obama off the hook so easily. His campaign has frequently targeted McCain in a negative light whilst saying that he will change the world of politics by not going down that road. I guess is changes aren't quite set in stone.
Dependence on oil is tricky because many things use petroleum products. All the plastic we use comes from petroleum. It's not just energy stations and vehicles that use gasoline. Alternative energy is needed but it will take time to develop. Take wind energy for instance - it will take years to build enough wind turbines to make a dent on oil consumption (not that we shouldn't do it) but then we have to deal with the environmentalists who'll say the Kansas plains are too pristine and we can't make them look ugly with all that machinery, and then there will be congressional hearings and more government restrictions and bureaucracy. By drilling now and building a few more refineries, we reduce our dependence on foreign oil in the immediate future, which will reduce gas prices in the now, while at the same time building wind turbines and other alternative sources. And by using the oil in the US, global demand will automatically go down.
You are right in that we cannot follow a man into a cave, but only because the media insists on following the military around and the government allows it. WTF?? This is a war, people, and in a war there are casualties. It's horrible but it's life. If the military didn't have to worry about what the MSM will show (always in a negative light), they could go and get bin Laden within a few months. But do we let the military do their job? No, that is very politically incorrect. And someone might get hurt.
NCLB is certainly something that needs to go, one of the worst acts of government ever. Educators here in Alabama are quite well paid (around $48,000 I believe) and keep getting increases of 5-7% every year. Yet the educators are doing no better in teaching my children. Alabama was recently listed as 49th in the union as far as education, and the Alabama Education Union keeps shouting that we need to throw more money at the problem, yet everytime we do, the scores stay the same or even slip. I agree in paying educators well, but results need to follow. I believe that Police and Firefighters are paid less than educators and I'm sure you'll agree that they are just as valuable to the community as educators.
Isn't being dependent on government handouts the whole idea of socialism? Helping those who need a hand to get back on their feet is where welfare should be. Instead we have a system that promotes staying on government handouts. For instance, my wife and I had a child 18 months ago. I did not get an increase in pay for this wonderful bundle of joy, nor should I expect to. But if a family on welfare has another child, they get an increase in welfare handout. I ask you, is this fair? How does this help that family except to put into their mind that the government will always help them out? The welfare system is broken and needs to be fixed.
I couldn't agree more about the government officials making too much money and they need to go, hence the reduction in the size of the civil service.
Many of you will disagree, but that's the beauty of free speech, which this country upholds.
-
Ulmo, you summed up a lot of my thoughts on the election so far. :gp: for letting me off the hook of having to take the time to write out an essay. :cheers:
-
Cheers for the gold. It did take quite a while, but Hawkeye has written 2 long ones - whew!!
-
Fair warning: half of this is serious. The other half is not. the two are completely and seamlessly interspersed, so good luck figuring out how much of this I really mean. ;) (Well, some of it's obvious... like that whole bit about conquering other planets....) It's mostly just a rant that I've only half thought out, so don't worry about refuting me too much. I'll probably disagree with half of what I said within the next couple hours. I also made no attempt to organize this into a readable form.
I have to admit that I haven't been following this discussion much. Too many long posts, and too much homework for me.
Dependence on oil is tricky because many things use petroleum products. All the plastic we use comes from petroleum. It's not just energy stations and vehicles that use gasoline. Alternative energy is needed but it will take time to develop. Take wind energy for instance - it will take years to build enough wind turbines to make a dent on oil consumption (not that we shouldn't do it) but then we have to deal with the environmentalists who'll say the Kansas plains are too pristine and we can't make them look ugly with all that machinery, and then there will be congressional hearings and more government restrictions and bureaucracy. By drilling now and building a few more refineries, we reduce our dependence on foreign oil in the immediate future, which will reduce gas prices in the now, while at the same time building wind turbines and other alternative sources. And by using the oil in the US, global demand will automatically go down.
Actually, there's a massive amount of stuff we use that requires petroleum.
Think rubber tires. Penicillin. T-Shirts. Anything made out of plastic (AKA, 99% of the United States... :roll: )
Wind power? Huh. Oddly enough, one of the times you need a lot of energy to run your air conditioners, or your heaters, is when there's not much wind at all. And how in blazes are we gonna get a Boeing to run on wind power, eh? I mean, by all means, try to develop alternative energy sources. That's great. We want that. But to be honest, THEY'RE NOT READY YET. *Sigh.* It's pathetic that Paris Hilton made more sense than either McCain or Obama here....
Given that freakin' Paris Hilton was able to present a semi-intellegent energy policy, anyone wondering why I'm a cynical, disillusioned maniac with a Nordic-Medieval worldview??? FRONTIER IMPERIALISM! Let's explore and exploit other planets! Someday, that might actually make sense.
Anyway, while I'm on it, the US actually has some of the most enviro-friendly oil drilling in the world. So would we rather get oil from ourselves, with some, mostly contained, damage to the environment, or do we want to keep importing the stuff from places that don't give a d*** about the environment? It's been demonstrated that the environmental impact of drilling in Alaska and then skipping it all down to the main body of the US is a LOT better for the environment than getting the stuff from Saudi Arabia, or Mexico, or something.
Still. Point being, with the general skimming I hath done of Ulmo's post, I heartily agree. Well, I figure his example of the welfare system giving more $ to a family that just got a kid isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I do agree with his point there. In theory, Welfare should be a crutch that is used to get back on one's feet, and discarded once it's no longer needed. Not what happens, though. It's free money. Why bother getting back onto your own two feet? same problem exists through much of Europe as far as military goes. The US is the 'global police.'
I'm not typing the whole thing, because I'm too lazy, but the gist of the problem is that post WW2, the US mantained a military presence in Europe. Now, many of the NATO nations admit that they want the US to stay there, so that they have a free military. A sort of mercenary army from the US that they don't have to support themselves. This has obvious problems similar to the Welfare problems of apathetic dependency which can also be seen, to a smaller degree, in South Korea: lack of ability to stand on their own, a dependency mindset, reduction of technological advancement, self sufficiency, National Sovereignty, et cetera. Difference is, SK has been asking us to reduce our presence substantially. And I'm pretty dang sure the exact same thign is gonna happen in Iraq. Everyone's talking about "when we can eventually pull out of Iraq." We're not gonna. we've been in Europe since WW2. We've been in Japan since WW2. We've been all over the freaking globe for a very, very long time. We're not leaving Iraq any time soon. Not even if the Democrats get elected, and there's gonna be heck to pay for it someday.
Okay, that's my rant. And that's all it is. A rant. You can all ignore me now. ;)
Oh, yeah. and words of wisdom from Douglas Adams:
"...it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."
EDIT: Everything below here is new.
Oh, while we're at it... :gp: to both Ulmo and Hawkeye for writing long posts that are actually rational. :up:
...oil is now not only rare...
Actually, we're constantly discovering more and more oil. We just can't drill for most of it because the enviros won;t let us. And other nations are constantly discovering more, too. I can cough up a bunch of news articles about that, if you want.
As for Hawkeye's education comments, I generally agree. Teachers should get paid more, schools less. We don't need more expensive curriculum, more expensive football bleachers, more expensive buildings, more expensive computers, more expensive expenses of any kind; we need more incentive for more good teachers, and to better support the ones we have, so that they can continue to be teachers. But the problem does not exist solely within the education system, the pay of the teachers, et cetera. A substantial amount of the problem is within the culture itself. How does a teacher successfully teach in a culture that is, to steal a line, "comfortable with zero accountability"? The culture of victimhood, the elimination of accepting personal responsibility, et cetera, does not exactly make it easy for a teacher to teach. Learning is somethign the student must do, not have done to them. When people respond to discipline by thinking the teacher/principle is a [insert random insult, probably related to perrentage...] for whatever minor discipline is invoked, when neither the parents nor society (whichever you want, it doesn't really matter for this point in the Status Quo, since neither one does this) try to enforce accountability, then how in heck is our education system supposed to work, anyway?
-
Obama does not have the judgement to lead this country. His involvement with Tony Rezko and William Aires(sp? he was a confessed terrorist) is enough to prove this. He has almost no experience and bad judgement. He is not fit to be the president of the United States.
-
Warning: Semi-sarcastic arguments below. Yeah, I know, Hawkeye and Ulmo are a lot more respectful than I am. And a lot more rational. Listen to them, not me. But my first post was a half-random rant, and this one is after way too long of having to listen to the idiot music down the dorm hall. I hope that at least some of my arguments are rational, if not exactly... diplomatic. Ii do have actually rational reasoning in my head-- I promise I'm not a complete lunatic.
Clarification of these Aires/Rev. Wright issues, because I've heard a lot of people on both sides misrepresent a legitimate argument.
Obama obviously shouldn't be blamed for their words/actions, because he didn't do it. Its more a question of "Waittaminute... if these are the people he hangs out with, names as his mentors, knowing what they were (and don't give me any of that nonsense about him not knowing about Rev. Wright's sermons... in The Audacity of Hope he cites from one of the worst of those sermons. And don't give me the whole "it wasn't as bad in context," either. It's true it wasn't that bad in context. I heard the context. It was actually even worse.).... what does that say about him?"
I mean, if someone claimed that Bin Laden or Hitler was their mentor, that would send up red flags all over the place. These guys may not be Bin Laden or Hitler (though Aires is a self-confessed terrorist, and proud of the fact) but the point still holds on a lesser scale.
Further, there's nothing that can be pointed to in order to show that he is at all qualified to be President. What has he done? Supported Hope & Change.
Ya know what? I think those are good too. Maybe you should vote for me? Well, I'm not old enough to run yet, but....
Anyway, back to Obama. Why should anyone at all believe that he can do what he says he wants to do? He's never accomplished anything in office. He's never even TRIED to accomplish anything.
He doesn't know what he's talking about, either.
I mean seriously. He wanted to invade Pakistan! Unilaterally! You gotta be kidding! And you thought Iraq was a bad foreign policy decision. Oh yeah. And he's really ticked off the Canadians. Did anyone else hear about that whole NAFTA incident? Where he said he would completely re-do NAFTA? Or get rid of it? Or something? I didn't hear exactly what his idea was, but the Canadians were sure sore about it. Threw a fit. Heck, two months later, while I was in Canada, I was still seeing news articles. Actual Canadian newspaper headline: "Is Obama a Danger to Canada?" Heh.
And people say he's good for foreign policy, will make other countries like us again. He doesn't even know what he's doing in foreign policy. Invade Pakistan. Of course, as far as I know, he's sorta abandoned this position after his campaign told him what a bad idea it was. Screw Canada and Mexico via NAFTA. I wonder what he'll do to upset the Brits and Frenchies? And the Russians? And the Chinese? He's not even in office, and he's already offended one of our biggest allies, and is not exactly helping our relations with allies in the Middle East. Give me one piece of evidence that says he'll make other nations like us again. I mean, I'm sure there's something, but I'm sorta missing it.
Not to say that I like McCain, either. McCain... Don't get me started.
If it was Palin/McCain, rather than McCain/Palin, then we legitimate conservatives might (and I stress MIGHT) be getting somewhere. (Is my cynicism showing at all? I get like this in political discussions.)
Waittaminute....
*looks at previous posts*
I'm confused. I thought SoP liked Obama? Did you change your mind, am I remembering wrong, or do you support him?
-
Wow this is really interesting. I find myself swayed by every post which is leaving me very confused about whose side I'm on. I do however think that you all need to go away and actually learn what socialism actually is. I'm a bit of an expert on early 20th century European history so you can bet your #$&*@! I know what socialism is and so far none of you have used the term right at all. Oh and Mr Lurtzy it would be really nice to actually hear a longer more detailed post from you. So far everyone else has written long answers which actually offer detailed explanation of their positions whereas you have been diving in and out, writing a sentance then leaving. It's not really a very adult way to approach a debate.
-
You know what? I had a big long post about this, but I'm done. I'm sick of the lies, I'm sick of the fear-mongering, I'm sick of being told "get used to it, it's the way it is" - what the * ever happened to the American dream, where anything is possible? What the * ever happened to separation of church and state ("We invaded Iraq because it was God's plan")? What ever happened to the family values that Republicans and conservatives claim to cherish (McCain slapping the future-husband of Palin's daughter on the back as if to say "Way to go, knocking up your UNDERAGE GIRLFRIEND!" What if the roles were reversed, and Obama's proverbial 17-year old daughter was pregnant by her boyfriend? He'd be out of the race in a hurry, that's what.) Why is it ok?
Because frankly, it doesn't really matter. A 17 year old daughter is not the candidate, and you can bet your life that her parents didn't condone it. She did it (wow, newsflash) against her parents will? And that simply means that her daughter is not perfect and that the parents cannot shelter their kid 24/7/365. Which you can't expect them too. I wouldn't look at Obama any different if it was his daughter, I have other problems with Obama, you don't need to attack them. And what's McCain supposed to do to the dad? Slap him in front of hundreds of millions of people?
This is just ridiculous. How does McCain's tax proposal propose to help the middle class when it doesn't actually cut their taxes? What about Palin's plan for Alaska - trickle down economics??? I thought that went out in the 80's when it was discovered that IT DOESN'T WORK!
Its quite simple. Let me explains. Business goes up. People get jobs. People get more money and can afford taxes. Or, we could cut taxes and go into massive deficit spending like Bush gave us.
And about the subject of HOPE. Here's how I see it: you can either have hope or despair. When you attack the idea of hope, you reinforce that McCain and his cronies are only selling despair. So I ask you, what is wrong with hope?
I attack the idea of blind hope. Which is what Obama is selling. McCain, you can actually have hope, because he's got a concrete plan to back it with. Obama? Not so much.
What is wrong with seeing that there is a problem, finding a way to fix it, and *ing fixing it?
Nothing. If Obama could do this, that would be great. But he can't.
Obama inspires, while McCain instills fear - there's a big difference in ideology there. Don't take that to mean that Obama doesn't take the threats that face this country seriously, he's just not going to blindly attack without reason or cause,
Without reason or cause. You know what? There was a big reason and cause. Saddam Hussein had materials necessary to make a bomb. Israel shut them down the first time, do you honestly think that after Israel, they gave up and said "ok, let's hold hands and sing Kumbayah with the Israelis?"
then occupy for years and years without need.
You and I finally agree there.
Energy: fund alternative energy development, since oil is now not only rare, but also in greater demand than ever before due to the industrialization of China and India. If you reduce our dependence on oil (altogether, not just foreign), then you reduce global demand. If you reduce global demand, you reduce price, or at least keep it at the same level as demand continues to grow internationally. If other countries adopt alternative energy sources, then global demand is lowered that much more. This problem is the easiest to solve, and it doesn't even involve drilling, not even in ANWR!
I'm all for nuclear power. Wind power is stupid, in order to power the state of Kansas with power, which has a small population, you'd have to stick a windmill every square mile, and that's not even powering some east/west coast sized city. But yeah, I'm all for nuclear power, and think that alternate energy is great. Guess what? So does McCain. But drilling is also something we should do. What, do we leave oil untapped? What good does that do to anyone at all?
Terrorists: Seek them out and eliminate them. We have the greatest military in the world, and yet we cannot follow a man into a cave. Also pretty simple to solve.
Once again, we agree.
Education: focus on student needs, not end results - instead of a war on drugs and illiteracy, we have a war for oil. NCLB has to go, now. Education is the key to life and success. Find me a profession that is as necessary as educators, but as badly paid for their efforts - I dare you. Not gonna happen, and once again, our focus needs to change. Support your educators and you support your children, your country, and your future. Not difficult - seeing a trend?
The way to do this is to cut bureaucracy, so that money can actually get to the students, not a bazillion and a half supervisors. Trust me, I'm from Kansas, I know the problems with education. We've got more than anyone.
Gah, whatever, I'm just REALLY glad some of you can't vote, you scare me.
You know what? I wish you couldn't vote for Obama. Cause that scares me. Just another blind insult to reply to the one you tossed at me.
Oh, one more thing. Some of you have this notion in your heads that if we support welfare and healthcare, that suddenly we'll be socialist and things will be awful and the lazy people who currently work will just quit their jobs and live at home off of welfare.
Um...yeah. Given a choice between hard work and leisure, who's gonna pick hard work? Add to it a philosophy of "tax the heck out of everyone" and why work? Seriously?
You people are nuts. Have you ever been suddenly unemployed and tried to keep up the same standard of living - having to support two or more people on the minimum wage income of just one? It's just not possible. Sure, everybody wants easy money (where do you think "work smarter, not harder" came from?), but people aren't going to abuse the system because it works better. If it works better, then those who shouldn't be on welfare will be prevented from being on welfare - pretty simple, again.
So...we have illegal immigrants crossing the border and getting welfare because they can't get a job (maybe because...they're here illegally?). Okay. I concede. Welfare is EXTREMELY efficient and figuring out who deserves it and who doesn't.
Look at the facts, think about it, and see that this is just another topic where government officials who make entirely too much money have been trying to scare you into letting them keep their jobs or get promoted into higher paying jobs. You fully admit that there are some people out there who genuinely need welfare, or who should have healthcare coverage for their families but can't afford it - why should they continue to not have the same opportunities as those of us who have jobs and healthcare?
Why does the government have to take over what has hitherto been the role of churches and charities? I'll tell you why. Its called the Great Depression. Afterwards, going back to it would have been completely fine, and would have worked great. But we found that we liked being lazy.
Do you regularly spit on bums? Do you think they're evil horrible people because they don't have jobs and they're just abusing the system? Do you really think they ENJOY the way they have to live? Man is not evil on the whole, my friends.
Just a simple answer. Nope. Herein is the fundamental debate. Is man good, or evil? Well...I'm not getting into this again, because we've been here before.
As with everything, there are parts (of the population) that have no ethics and truly are evil. Even those people pale, though, in comparison to indifference. Seeing inequities and doing nothing about them - not even CARING - is the true evil this world faces.
Or...perhaps we care in a different way than you do. Shocking, I know, but you don't have to advocate welfare in order to care.
Ok, so it turned out long anyway, sue me.
F_M!!!!!! ;)
-
You're right Turin, what we mean by using the word socialism is actually socialist welfare which is the stepping stone to a socialist state.
Socialism is the stage of government between capitalism and communism. In it's simplest form, it is where the assets are owned by the masses.
What annoys me is that I've been told - to my face - that if I don't vote for Obama, or believe in his change and hope (or is it hype?), then I'm racist. I wouldn't vote (I can't vote, I'm not a citizen yet thanks to the government red tape) for Obama because he's the #1 liberal senator, because his ideals don't match mine, because I don't believe that where he'd take the country is good for the country, because he has no experience and has shown this consistently throughout his campaign, ...
Now, I do think the right-wing media has ripped him too much on some of the smaller gaffes he has made: his comment on "visiting 57 states and that when he visits the last one he will have been to all 58 states" should be left alone. He was campaigning and was obviously tired and made a simple mistake about the lower 48 states. Sure he said it twice, but give him a break. When he states that he never heard any inflamatory remarks from Rev. Wright's pulpit, then they need to attack him because that's a crock of, well, you know what.
But as for which side you're on, I guess you have to do your own research, find out where the candidates stand on the issues that are important to you. I get bombarded with leftist dogma from the MSM and I listen to talk-show radio programs to get bombarded by the right-wing dogma.
McCain can really do nothing or say nothing to make me vote for him, but Obama says everything and does everything to make me want to vote for McCain.
-
turin- I talk about these things all the time with coworkers, family, and friends. So I'm a bit weary of the subject. My explanations will continue to be as long as I wish to have them. Get over it.
-
And again, like I said...we will never see the end of this. btw, nuclear energy has also disadvantages, like the waiste, which is still a problem + there is always a risk of a melt-down. Windenergy can be very effective, we -in the Netherlands- are building complete parcs in the Northsea that provide hunderds of thousands of houses with energy.
-
*looks at previous posts*
I'm confused. I thought SoP liked Obama? Did you change your mind, am I remembering wrong, or do you support him?
I really need you to come to that liberal forum I was talking about...
and yes for a bout a week I did...I guess his thing about change and uniting America swayed me...but I learned that he was the most liberal senator in America...which kinda changed things ;)
and he has almost no experience...I mean he's basically been in the state legislature...and then he spent a year in congress and ran a presidential campaign...BTO who keeps up to date on this stuff told me he has not authored a single piece of legislation in congress....
-
Woah Mr Lurtzy no need to be nasty I was just saying that it would nice if you would give us more idea of your views and the reasoning behind them. No need to be rude.
-
Ah, yes. Gotta love debating over forums. No visible facial expressions (except the occasional smiley) or voice inflections, so everyone thinks that everyone else is getting on them.
Lurtzy: turin was just trying to get a better idea of why you thought what you did.
turin: lurtzy was just legitimizing his minimal posts.
Neither of you were actually over any lines. Well, Lurtzy's "get over it" could probably have been skipped, but I can see how he would've been defensive.