Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nuclear1 on November 03, 2008, 09:49:33 pm
-
It's not Tuesday yet here in the US, but we're getting close (between 4 hours Pacific and one hour Eastern).
Who else is ready to get this ****ing political season over?
-
I've been ready for it to be over for a year. Of course I don't expect it to be over anytime soon. Recounts, lawsuits, etc will follow. Then in a month or so they will start talking about 2010 and 2012.
-
I'm ready to stop seeing these ****ing ads and getting these ****ing phone calls, that's for sure.
-
I dont live in a battleground state so ive probably been exposed to the fewest possible ads. Starting early doesnt give you any advantage.. just pisses everybody off for 3 or 4 years. Most people dont pay attention until 2 or 3 months to go. The primaries shouldnt drag on for 2 years.
-
I hope to watch from a bar. I want a good view and glass of Chardonnay in my hand as the McCain campaign topples like the Hindenburg amidst pillars of flame.
-
I for one am pleased that we shall soon know the names of our benefactors*.
*Half-life 2 joke, which indicates sarcasm in the above text.
-
Well, coming time for the new president to come on in, after 2 years of campaigning: a hope for change, and a change for hope. :no: Hope is all fine and dandy when there's a good plan backing it up. Oh well--Canada may have an additional citizen soon.
-
If I weren't in the military I'd be joining you...
-
Both candidates believe at some level the BS they spew. I'd vote Obama (if I was 18), though, because I'd rather not give Palin a shot at getting the Oval Office. At least Biden isn't a milf.
-
Finally they can stop sending me all this damn junk mail. I get several copies of the same pamphlet in the mail on a daily basis. I'm seriously thinking of voting Obama for the sole reason that his campaign has sent me far less junk mail. :p
-
The intresting thing about this election is that you actually vote for Joe Biden or Sarah Palin, because John Mccain will die of his old age reasonbly soon and Barrack Obama will be shot by an racist bastard.
-
The intresting thing about this election is that you actually vote for Joe Biden or Sarah Palin, because John Mccain will die of his old age reasonbly soon and Barrack Obama will be shot by an racist bastard.
Remember kids, Biden is a MAFIAA lapdog, and Palin is a Book Banner. No matter who wins, we lose.
-
...John Mccain will die of his old age reasonbly soon and Barrack Obama will be shot by an racist bastard...
The former has a higher chance of happening. I wouldn't say it out loud, however. Palin becoming a president would be more disastrous. I dislike her ever since she first appeared, and downright disapprove her conservatism ever since I read about her "I don't believe in dinosaurs because they aren't in the Bible" comment. (It was in a TV magazine that I read this, so she may not have even said anything like that). I admit that I don't know much about Biden, and therefore I don't know what he would be like as a president should Obama has the abovementioned fate.
-
If you are American and able to see this Tuesday's strip of Stone Soup, you may want to do so for some "light political humour".
-
How's this election going so far? blue vs red %-wise?
-
Everything seems to point to Obama having a slight percentage lead over McCain, but that was yesterday's news.
-
How's this election going so far? blue vs red %-wise?
In 9-10 hours, we'll see who the eastern sea board goes to. No idea until tonight: and I don't think many networks will be too hot on saying "Obama wins" until he has enough states.
-
The intresting thing about this election is that you actually vote for Joe Biden or Sarah Palin, because John Mccain will die of his old age reasonbly soon and Barrack Obama will be shot by an racist bastard.
Did you know that both of my grandparents were wounded in world war 2 (one of them pretty badly), and that one of them lived till 94 and the other till 89? How old is McCain? 73? And he's a rich white male, and in excellent condition for such. Somehow I just can't see him dying in office.
And if there's a presidency in which security would be tight and prepared for this, it would be Obama's. If Every single kid in America is like "omg obama will get ****ing shot", Then I'm quite sure that people who work for his safety and security for a living will have realized this and prepared for it long ago.
-
If Bush is still alive. Obama has a reasonable chance.
While Obama only has to deal with racists Bush has to deal with every single conspiracy nut who blames the US government for 9/11. Works out as a wash as far as I'm concerned.
-
Without a disaster like Bush we would have never had Obama get so far in the race. I'm voting for him this afternoon and I'm pretty sure he'll win the presidency.
I'm actually more interested in who will take the house and the senate, since those seem more uncertain thanks to Cain's 'You don't want a one-party government, do you?!' campaigning.
-
Well if he's saying he can still win then everyone had better vote Democrat then. :p
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adc3MSS5Ydc
You americans should do elections more often so I can watch more videos like these.
-
I have always failed to understand why so many people have found jibjab's stuff hilarious. It's like they've never seen anything actually funny in their lives before.
-
Twas pretty generic, but still, made me smile in places.
Should be an interesting election this time round, I suspect the rest of the world is paying the closest attention ever to the outcome, in a way, this is possibly the most important election in history, though only time will tell if that's true or not.
I know who I'd vote for, the same person as most of the rest of the world, so it's easy to tell, I think, who's got the more popular foreign policies, but elections are always really decided by home politics, so I still feel it could swing either way, it's easy to feel benevolent when talking to someone else, but once you are alone in a poll booth, it's a whole different story.
-
I voted for the candidate who is willing to solve problems with words instead of with bombs, who doesnt have a short temper, who has used the internet, and who doesnt have an anti-intellectual fundie secessionist VP.
Betcha can't guess who i voted for
-
I voted for the candidate who is willing to solve problems with words instead of with bombs, who doesnt have a short temper, who has used the internet, and who doesnt have an anti-intellectual fundie secessionist VP.
Betcha can't guess who i voted for
No idea :D
Give us some more clues :)
I wish you folks luck down there. Sounds like there are line ups and all sorts of hilarious things. If you need Elections Canada to run the election...just give them a call.
-
10 minutes till the first few polls close, Indiana being the only battleground out of them.
-
Hehe...election is like atching 2 monkies throwing feces at eachother.
Entertaining, but utterly stupid, and either way you end up with a dirty monkey.
-
Hehe...election is like atching 2 monkies throwing feces at eachother.
Entertaining, but utterly stupid, and either way you end up with a dirty monkey.
I agree. After all, it's much better than the alternative.
[/sarcasm]
-
I went out, I voted, wake me when it's over.
-
Either the networks are being very cautious with the projections or a lot of states are being very close calls already... :nervous:
Only Vermont and Kentucky projections are on BBC live coverage so far. Interesting. :drevil:
-
AFAIK, as of now, Obama's winning ~103 to ~54.
EDIT: Make that 175 to 76, Obama's favor.
-
IN, NC, FL, and OH still too close.
-
Pennsylvania went for Obama. That's big.
-
Betcha can't guess who i voted for
Ronald Reagan?
-
I voted for the candidate who is willing to solve problems with words instead of with bombs, who doesnt have a short temper, who has used the internet, and who doesnt have an anti-intellectual fundie secessionist VP.
Betcha can't guess who i voted for
Hooray, another Ron Paul write-in. :)
-
Hooray, another Ron Paul write-in. :)
I actually almost did just that.
-
*sigh*...guess it's my turn to be disgruntled for four years. Not that I didn't see it coming.
-
Democrat for President, Democrat majority in House and Senate...
Hmm
-
*sigh*...guess it's my turn to be disgruntled for four years. Not that I didn't see it coming.
You haven't been disgruntled by Bush's phenomenal performance?
-
Ohio went for Obama. It's pretty much over now.
-
You haven't been disgruntled by Bush's phenomenal performance?
oh snap!
Incidentally, the only conservative thing Bush ever did was the tax cut. In fact I remember in the run-up to the 2002 elections, shortly after the farm bill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farm_Security_and_Rural_Investment_Act_of_2002) had been passed, there was a heated discussion on a few talk shows about the 11 major "liberal" achievements that Bush had already either pushed through or failed to oppose.
-
And Texas goes to McCain, that was probably his last big gain for the night.
-
Ohio went for Obama. It's pretty much over now.
That's what Dewey said.
-
Dewey, of "Dewey Defeats Truman" fame?
-
Indeed.
-
40 minutes, and I think Obama's probably going to have it.
(That's when the West Coast polls close.)
-
*sigh*...guess it's my turn to be disgruntled for four years. Not that I didn't see it coming.
You haven't been disgruntled by Bush's phenomenal performance?
"Phenomenal" or not, I still preferred it to the alternative. Not that I'm expecting anyone in this audience to join me in this view.
-
*sigh*...guess it's my turn to be disgruntled for four years. Not that I didn't see it coming.
You haven't been disgruntled by Bush's phenomenal performance?
"Phenomenal" or not, I still preferred it to the alternative. Not that I'm expecting anyone in this audience to join me in this view.
I'll join you but I'll be the only one.
-
It's too bad; we were all warned (http://staff.hard-light.net/goober5000/SM201_K3_03.wav) about the Obama juggernaut back when it might have been possible to do something about it.
-
*sigh*...guess it's my turn to be disgruntled for four years. Not that I didn't see it coming.
You haven't been disgruntled by Bush's phenomenal performance?
"Phenomenal" or not, I still preferred it to the alternative. Not that I'm expecting anyone in this audience to join me in this view.
I'll join you but I'll be the only one.
I'll join you as well. McCain winning this year was pretty much a pipe dream. Hopefully the party pulls back together.
-
"Phenomenal" or not, I still preferred it to the alternative. Not that I'm expecting anyone in this audience to join me in this view.
If you mean Kerry, sure.
-
Obama won.
-
Looks good...now all he needs is 8 years to try and have a go at fixing the terrible shape that the US is in right now.
-
Well.
...Huh.
-
It's too bad; we were all warned (http://staff.hard-light.net/goober5000/SM201_K3_03.wav) about the Obama juggernaut back when it might have been possible to do something about it.
Like what? Bush ran the country into the ground. While the economic mess isn't his fault (the blame for that goes to Greenspan), running massive deficits, financially bleeding us white in Iraq, and alienating our allies for the sake of pointless military adventurism
This was someone else on a blog commenting about a recent article Robert Kagan wrote about the US still being number 1:
Dan, I'm afraid I can't agree with you on this. True, the majority of people who talk about US decline do so more out of hope than expectation, but the US quite clearly will not be the most politically or militarily dominant power on earth 30 years from now. This is not because of a US 'decline' but because of the rise of other states, China, India and a united Europe foremost among them. Even talk about being 'no. 1' begs the question - no.1 at what? The population and land area of the US is such that it may always expect to be a major power, and, barring some catastrophe, the level of economic development found in the US will always be among the top 10 nations on earth, but neither of these guarantees a top placing in anything.
Robert Kagan does not actually give good supporting evidence for what he says - the figures he gives do show an American which is in decline relative to the rest of the world, the US's military spending is now going mainly on covering the costs of two wars which do nothing to increase its long-term strength. He talks a lot about allies, contrasting those gained through recent conflicts (Iraq and Afghanistan) to those lost to Soviet influence during the seventies, but misses the point that these hapless allies do nothing to increase American strength, and in fact are as much a drag on US strength as the USSR's 'fraternal allies' were in the seventies and eighties.
At the end of the 1890s people in Britain were very much worried about their main competitors. Whilst Britain was at this stage still the world's most pre-eminent power they were confronted by two great challenges. On the European mainland they were faced by the Central Powers, and across the Atlantic the growing power of the United States. Their answer to this was to engage in wars which, whilst important at the time, are little remembered anywhere except in the countries in which they were fought ( such as South Africa and the Sudan), to create alliances of dubious virtue (such as the one with Japan), and to get mixed up in a dispute with the US over the Venezuelan borders. Twenty years later Britain found itself in a titanic war against the Central Powers in defence of its French allies with only minimal help from the Japanese and with the oft-snubbed Americans keeping a respectful distance until the Central Powers forced them into the fight. The United States seems to be equally frittering away its 'unipolar moment', whilst the loss of China to communism sparked a witch-hunt for the traitors that "lost China", the loss of Russia to dictatorship (as ephemeral as democracy was in Yeltsin's Russia) has happened without any great introspection as to whether policy-makers in the US could have done anything to prevent it. Saying that the last eight years have been disastrous for US-European relations would hardly be an exaggeration, put simply, a good half of Europe is convinced that there is a significant portion of the US establishment that sees them as quasi-enemies - and all of this damage done in the building of a coalition 'of the willing' which essentially gave the US nothing it did not already have. In short, the US has been offending those allies from which it had the most to gain through building strong relations, and this was done so that the US could gain a paltry handful of third-world dictatorial client-states. This is not a winning formula.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
EDIT: link to origin if anyone wants to put it in proper context (http://www.chinalawblog.com/2008/11/america_china_and_the_world_we.html#comment-202306)
-
Can someone tell my why everyone was so obsessed with Ron Paul?
In the primaries, I was hoping Dennis Kucinich would make it. Quite a longshot it was.
If I were old enough to vote, I would have voted for Ralph Nader, as he most closely matches my views.
Obama victory. Yay. At least Palin is now far away from any significant role. I can't stand provincial populists.
-
Yay!
-
Well, the way I see it, it's better to have someone in office that you have no foundation for trust than it is to have someone in office that you already distrust.
I prefer NRDS over NBSI politics, thank you.
Unfortunately, the Republicans don't see it that way :blah:.
EDIT: Ron Paul is an icon of the kind of integrity and wisdom that the republican party once stood for. Could that be why?
-
(http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b319/Mistah_Kurtz/2rqdrx5.jpg)
-
RIP Liberty: July 4, 1776 - November 4, 2008.
-
oh stfu.
It died in November 2000 :D.
-
You seem to be off by about 8 years.
-
EDIT: Ron Paul is an icon of the kind of integrity and wisdom that the republican party once stood for. Could that be why?
Supposedly Ron Paul is also a member of the KKK. But I don't buy that. Either way I'd still vote for him since I agree with pretty much everything else he believes in, which is a better track record than most other candidates.
-
RIP Liberty: July 4, 1776 - November 4, 2008.
lawls...
First off, there was little to no liberty in 1776, secondly, if there ever was liberty, it died long before today.
Obama... the best chance the US has of being great again.
-
Obama... the best chance the US has of being great again.
Again, that goes to Ron Paul, not Obama. But he can try all he wants.
-
Obama... the best chance the US has of being great again.
Again, that goes to Ron Paul, not Obama. But he can try all he wants.
I wouldn't dare trust Ron Herbert Hoover Paul with fixing this economy in a hundred years.
-
Nobody can fix our mess, except probably Chuck Norris. Then again, his solution would be to kill every politician, but still...
-
Well the Democrats get their chance, so long as they don't turn us into the Republic of Haven then they probably can't do worse then the previous eight.
-
Obama... the best chance the US has of being great again.
Again, that goes to Ron Paul, not Obama. But he can try all he wants.
Ron Paul never had any chance... that's what you need to understand.
It was either going to be Hiliary, Obama, or (very remotely) McCain.
Ron Paul brought in a strange combination of religious fundamentalism and libertarianism that can no longer work. Isn't the point of libertarianism that the government should stay out of our lives? How do you combine that with the pro-life and anti-gay positions he takes?
-
I am more pissed off that there's Democratic control of our Legislature and Executive branches, and come 2010-2012, you can probably add the Judicial on there too.
-
I agree such a high majority has a lot of potential dangers.
On the other hand, no one was talking about how scary a Republican majority in the three branches was in the 2004 election... or at least not to my memory.
-
Better to have broken Republican control than stable Democratic control, eh?
Don't get me wrong, I am a firm believer that Democrats don't know how to manage anything efficiently and are too quick to act. However, it is a FACT that the Republican party is NOTHING like it was 20 years ago. The Democrats are closer than the Republicans are is when compared to their own prime back in the Reagan days.
If it were November 1988 and the Democrats took over, I'd be pissed off too (had I not been 5 years old at the time). But this isn't 1988, this is 2008. That generation of Republicans is gone, and it has been taken over by those who lust over power and self-interest.
Open your eyes.
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v74/GenoStar/untitled.jpg)
-
Would all of you honestly been happier if McCain had won?
-
I sincerely hope not.
-
If McCain had won, I would have used his picture instead of Obama's.
-
Meh. Unforeseen consequences are just that. Unforeseen consequences. While I'd normally much rather know what I'm voting for, this is a rare occasion when I'd rather take the gamble.
-
Who would make you happy if they won? Ant candidate will have unforeseen consequences, and probably even foreseen consequences - especially in an election such as this where the country is in shambles from day one of a presidency.
President Ron Paul would certainly have consequences if he executed a theistic moralist, pro unregulated trade, pro gun agenda.
It's easy to complain. I for one admit that there will certainly be some problematic decisions from the executives ahead, on the other hand, I consider Obama to be the best possible choice, if only for his international image.
-
It's too bad; we were all warned (http://staff.hard-light.net/goober5000/SM201_K3_03.wav) about the Obama juggernaut back when it might have been possible to do something about it.
Like what? Bush ran the country into the ground. While the economic mess isn't his fault (the blame for that goes to Greenspan), running massive deficits, financially bleeding us white in Iraq, and alienating our allies for the sake of pointless military adventurism
o hai. i'm in ur forum, maeking ur joke.
But I agree, as I said a few posts above the one you quoted. I enthusiastically voted for Bush in 2000 but voted for Badnarik in 2004 and Baldwin in 2008. Bush and the neocons pretty much stabbed the Republicans in the back, and it's going to take them a few years (and probably quite a bit longer) in the wilderness to realize that they need to go back to the old-school stuff.
Ron Paul brought in a strange combination of religious fundamentalism and libertarianism that can no longer work. Isn't the point of libertarianism that the government should stay out of our lives? How do you combine that with the pro-life and anti-gay positions he takes?
The personal is not the political, see. In other words, the government should not have the authority to impose personal opinions on anyone.
That means, get the government's meddling hands out of the people's business, and let them decide what they want. What business does the government have authorizing marriages, anyway? Let the churches handle it like they used to; and if homosexuals want to marry, they can form their own Church of Adam & Steve and hold whatever ceremony they want. As for survivors benefits and other legal partnership stuff, that can go under contract law where it naturally belongs.
-
The picture doesn't say "prepare for unforeseen consequences," it says "prepare for
unforeseen consequences."
Who would make you happy if they won? Ant candidate will have unforeseen consequences, and probably even foreseen consequences - especially in an election such as this where the country is in shambles from day one of a presidency.
None of them would or could have made me happy. Every single choice available was a poor choice.
-
Let the churches handle it like they used to; and if homosexuals want to marry, they can form their own Church of Adam & Steve and hold whatever ceremony they want.
No offense to any homosexuals in this community, but that was pretty funny.
-
The picture doesn't say "prepare for unforeseen consequences," it says "prepare for unforeseen consequences."
Who would make you happy if they won? Ant candidate will have unforeseen consequences, and probably even foreseen consequences - especially in an election such as this where the country is in shambles from day one of a presidency.
None of them would or could have made me happy. Every single choice available was a poor choice.
Here's the big reason we should give Obama a chance: He's not Bush. Let him show us what he will do. If we went with McCain it would just be like re-electing Bush.
-
I agree such a high majority has a lot of potential dangers.
On the other hand, no one was talking about how scary a Republican majority in the three branches was in the 2004 election... or at least not to my memory.
Would all of you honestly been happier if McCain had won?
I would be happier if we had a bipartisan government. McCain as president, or at least a sizeable enough portion of Republicans in one half of the Legislature to block bills. Last I checked, Republicans hold 40 seats in the Senate to the Democrat's 54--and I don't know about the status of the remaining 6 seats. In the House, the Democrats control 60% of the seats (upon last check). Both ways, they can push most legislation through without ever listening to Republican opinion, especially as not every Democrat has the same agenda, and not every Republican is a cookie-cutter version of dear old W.
Anyways--the advantage I see for a Republican majority in government is that Republicans, on a whole, don't push as much controversial legislation. We really can't take W.'s agenda as a view of a conservative, true Republican agenda. What I mean is I feel that liberal judges allow typically for more flexibility, and on the Supreme Court, their check on other branches of government is to declare legislation unconstitutional, and forcing an amendment if the law determined unconstitutional is to be reenacted. I would rather they strike down more legislation than less legislation, though I do realize it doesn't always hold true.
Anyways--do realize that only 2-3 of our Justices were seated under Democratic leadership: of the nine, most are in office because of Reagan, H.W., or W..
-
<impartial comment>
Congrats President Obama :yes:
<impartial comment>
-
<impartial comment>
Congrats President Obama :yes:
<impartial comment>
Don't think he's technically the president yet.
-
As non-American, I see the election of Obama as a proof that the US is not a big pile of dumb people who don't know what's going on in the world. Except for some exceptions, of course :P I hope I'm not offending anyone, but I was really thinking that after Bush was re-elected. Even though I was only 13 at the time.
Even if Obama does only half of what he promised, he already showed the world that the United States don't want to be guilty anymore of about everything that goes wrong on this planet. He showed that the Americans want to gain a respected place in the eyes of the world community, instead of being feared, hated and laughed at.
If this was offensive to anyone, please remove this post.
-
Anyways--the advantage I see for a Republican majority in government is that Republicans, on a whole, don't push as much controversial legislation. We really can't take W.'s agenda as a view of a conservative, true Republican agenda.
At yet at almost every turn there was the Republican congress there to backing him up and rubber stamp his agenda.
Both ways, they can push most legislation through without ever listening to Republican opinion,
Like Republicans did 8 years ago. What goes around comes around.
And besides, why should anyone listen to "Republican opinion"? The Republican party is getting its ass handed to it again, just like in 2006 because for the last 8 years they fouled up so many things. They did nothing to even try to solve fundamental problems like energy dependence, and instead catered to powerful special interest groups like the oil lobby. They had their chance and they blew it, big time. *
*Not that the Democrats have done much better these last two years since pretty much nothing has changed.
-
As non-American, I see the election of Obama as a proof that the US is not a big pile of dumb people who don't know what's going on in the world. Except for some exceptions, of course :P I hope I'm not offending anyone, but I was really thinking that after Bush was re-elected.
You and pretty much everyone else not in America.
To be honest I don't think that's really any less true now than it was 4 years ago. It's just that this time they swung the way the rest of the world wanted them to. Had Obama been following on from Bill Clinton I doubt he would have won. He got a lot of votes from those who were simply sick of Bush and the Republicans rather than any deep understanding of what Obama actually stood for or what his policies were.
Then again I think the same sort of thing about the electorate of pretty much every nation.
But Obama won. Which is good since I really don't think McCain would have been good for America and I know that Palin certainly wouldn't have been.
-
:yes: President-elect Obama! This election is an inspiring symbol, and there's not too shabby of a mind in the man, either. I'm still (happily) stunned it went this way.
-
Aw...so Optimus Prime didn't run for president?
(http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/5686/1210518225491ok3.jpg)
Drat. so all the energon cubes I stored up are for naught.
-
As non-American, I see the election of Obama as a proof that the US is not a big pile of dumb people who don't know what's going on in the world. Except for some exceptions, of course. I hope I'm not offending anyone, but I was really thinking that after Bush was re-elected.
You and pretty much everyone else not in America.
To be honest I don't think that's really any less true now than it was 4 years ago. It's just that this time they swung the way the rest of the world wanted them to. Had Obama been following on from Bill Clinton I doubt he would have won. He got a lot of votes from those who were simply sick of Bush and the Republicans rather than any deep understanding of what Obama actually stood for or what his policies were.
True. But even these people have shown they are willing to vote for a non-white president, rather than a continuation of the Bush policy. I imagine that being a big step for many Americans. And it's a good thing, because it shows that the people of the US have become aware that 1. Bush was a complete disaster for the idea that other people, in other countries, have about the US, and 2. that the colour of one's skin says nothing about the qualities of a person.
But Obama won. Which is good since I really don't think McCain would have been good for America and I know that Palin certainly wouldn't have been.
Absolutely.
-
The personal is not the political, see. In other words, the government should not have the authority to impose personal opinions on anyone.
That means, get the government's meddling hands out of the people's business, and let them decide what they want. What business does the government have authorizing marriages, anyway? Let the churches handle it like they used to; and if homosexuals want to marry, they can form their own Church of Adam & Steve and hold whatever ceremony they want. As for survivors benefits and other legal partnership stuff, that can go under contract law where it naturally belongs.
Yeah, this "secular marriage" is called Civil Unions, which most republicans oppose.
What really gets to me is when they try to pass it off as a "states-rights issue" or a "judicial activism" issue to avoid having to explain their discriminatory views. Its a discrimination issue. Politicians should discuss the issue also, not just issues about the issue.
2. that the colour of one's skin says nothing about the qualities of a person.
I would argue that someone with dark skin would absorb more heat from the sun if standing in sunlight for the same amount of time.
-
Yeah, this "secular marriage" is called Civil Unions, which most republicans oppose.
What really gets to me is when they try to pass it off as a "states-rights issue" or a "judicial activism" issue to avoid having to explain their discriminatory views. Its a discrimination issue. Politicians should discuss the issue also, not just issues about the issue.
They don't explain it and they dont really want to do anything about it because it has served since as long as I can remember as a useful wedge issure to divide the public.
-
And besides, why should anyone listen to "Republican opinion"? The Republican party is getting its ass handed to it again, just like in 2006 because for the last 8 years they fouled up so many things. They did nothing to even try to solve fundamental problems like energy dependence, and instead catered to powerful special interest groups like the oil lobby. They had their chance and they blew it, big time. *
*Not that the Democrats have done much better these last two years since pretty much nothing has changed.
Do note that the "Republican opinion" was elected by people to have their voice heard. The point of a Representative or Senator is to have their opinion heard--to represent the people that elected them. Now the house majority leader has the power to hear or ignore individual representatives--which makes a bi-partisan government in any form much more difficult. Sorry, but your statement pisses me off as you're just saying that 40% of the legislature don't have a valid voice, despite the fact that many were just reelected? Riiiiight. Basically do separate "opinion" and "control". I can have an opinion opposite your own, and our government is meant to work in a way that all opinions can be heard. Having a slim majority in one house, versus a wide majority, does influence bipartisan discussion. Other than that, McCain was voted for by greater than 55 million people, which is 46% of the voters. If you think that 46% of voters haven't a clue what they support, have fun with that. Many people vote along party lines, but there are people that supported McCain over Obama because they favored McCain's plan or McCain's views were most similar to their own.
Oh--and I do want to see exactly how the democrats in the past 2 years have done us such a favor. The only thing I remember from the past two years is Pelosi effectively refusing to work with Bush, who last I checked was reelected in 2004 with a majority of the popular vote.
-
The picture doesn't say "prepare for unforeseen consequences," it says "prepare for unforeseen consequences."
Who would make you happy if they won? Ant candidate will have unforeseen consequences, and probably even foreseen consequences - especially in an election such as this where the country is in shambles from day one of a presidency.
None of them would or could have made me happy. Every single choice available was a poor choice.
Here's the big reason we should give Obama a chance: He's not Bush. Let him show us what he will do. If we went with McCain it would just be like re-electing Bush.
That's funny, in a way. Because I kind of view Obama as Bush's replacement.
-
Oh--and I do want to see exactly how the democrats in the past 2 years have done us such a favor. The only thing I remember from the past two years is Pelosi effectively refusing to work with Bush
I think you've answered your own question. :p
-
That's funny, in a way. Because I kind of view Obama as Bush's replacement.
Of course he is, he replaces Bush as the president of the United States of America. Duh.
Policy similarities and differences are another matter, though... :nervous:
-
As non-American, I see the election of Obama as a proof that the US is not a big pile of dumb people who don't know what's going on in the world. Except for some exceptions, of course :P I hope I'm not offending anyone, but I was really thinking that after Bush was re-elected. Even though I was only 13 at the time.
Even if Obama does only half of what he promised, he already showed the world that the United States don't want to be guilty anymore of about everything that goes wrong on this planet. He showed that the Americans want to gain a respected place in the eyes of the world community, instead of being feared, hated and laughed at.
If this was offensive to anyone, please remove this post.
This is why I'm so glad Obama was elected. We live with these people, for goodness sake! There are other countries on Earth and their opinions do matter.
-
:yes: President-elect Obama!
Technically, not yet. The electoral college meets on December 15.
It would be hilarious, in a sick sort of way, if Hillary arranges for Obama to be assassinated and then convinces the Democratic electors to vote for a Clinton-Biden ticket.
-
Hilarity breeds contempt, add some randomness though and it'll stick ;7
I wish ELECT Obama all the best, as long as he doesn't shift military forces around TOO much :yes:
-
Oh--and I do want to see exactly how the democrats in the past 2 years have done us such a favor. The only thing I remember from the past two years is Pelosi effectively refusing to work with Bush
I think you've answered your own question. :p
Last I checked, Congress and Senate are to pass bills into law with meaning. She's wasted time and lost opportunities to compromise. Our system is based on compromise--so her refusing to work with the opposite party makes her leadership ineffective. The Supreme Court has the highest approval of all current branches of government. I find it appalling that approval continues to be below 25% for congress, and most people who disapproved felt that way because of inaction.
-
Given the laws Bush did manage to pass I'm hardly surprised they didn't want to work with Bush.
Besides compromise is a two way street and I didn't see much when the Republicans were in charge.
-
Oh--and I do want to see exactly how the democrats in the past 2 years have done us such a favor. The only thing I remember from the past two years is Pelosi effectively refusing to work with Bush
I think you've answered your own question. :p
Last I checked, Congress and Senate are to pass bills into law with meaning. She's wasted time and lost opportunities to compromise. Our system is based on compromise--so her refusing to work with the opposite party makes her leadership ineffective. The Supreme Court has the highest approval of all current branches of government. I find it appalling that approval continues to be below 25% for congress, and most people who disapproved felt that way because of inaction.
Much of that legislation was stuck because of Republican filibuster.
-
Here's the big reason we should give Obama a chance: He's not Bush. Let him show us what he will do. If we went with McCain it would just be like re-electing Bush.
SPECIAL NEWS FLASH: McCain and Bush are two different persons! Shocking!
-
True.
-
SPECIAL NEWS FLASH: McCain and Bush are two different persons! Shocking!
Different bodies. McCain was going to take the worst parts of Bush's policies and make them even worse.
Trickle down economics has worked so well for the past 8 years. Now, instead of relying on a few people to trickle down all over us, we get the vast majority of people now going to trickle up. You'll see it works much better.
-
So you say. So you think.
I for one think McCain is FAR better than Obama.
-
So you say. So you think.
I for one think McCain is FAR better than Obama.
So you say. So you think.
-
See signature below.
-
As non-American, I see the election of Obama as a proof that the US is not a big pile of dumb people who don't know what's going on in the world. Except for some exceptions, of course :P I hope I'm not offending anyone, but I was really thinking that after Bush was re-elected. Even though I was only 13 at the time.
Even if Obama does only half of what he promised, he already showed the world that the United States don't want to be guilty anymore of about everything that goes wrong on this planet. He showed that the Americans want to gain a respected place in the eyes of the world community, instead of being feared, hated and laughed at.
To be frank, I don't really care what "the rest of the world" thinks about the "US" anymore. I've had it with "the rest of the world" when "the rest of the world" decided that "Americans" were "stupid" because they re-elected Bush. "The rest of the world" is just as "stupid" as they thought "Americans" were when Bush was re-elected.
I supported (not voted for) Obama because I felt that he showed more promise than McCain in regards to repairing (or rather minimizing damage to) the US economy, among other things, not because I wanted the rest of the world to like me again.
-
"The rest of the world" is just as "stupid" as they thought "Americans" were when Bush was re-elected.
I don't understand this argument. How is "The rest of the world" "stupid" when Bush was re-elected? I think it proved that the median American is indeed "stupid" as "the rest of the world" predicted.
-
If a single poor desicion from less than 20% of the US population makes the entire US population of 300,000,000 total idiots, then I suppose you're right, KappaWing.
-
I voted for Obama because I believe he is the most likely to smooth out the US's problems with the rest of the world, and vice versa. I think Iran with nukes would be a serious problem, but a war with Iran, nukes or not, would be very ill advised. We need to improve our relations with Canada and China. We need to re ally ourselves with our allies, and we need to stabilize our economy.
I didn't see anything in McCain that was promising on any of those fronts.
"The rest of the world" is just as "stupid" as they thought "Americans" were when Bush was re-elected.
I don't understand this argument. How is "The rest of the world" "stupid" when Bush was re-elected? I think it proved that the median American is indeed "stupid" as "the rest of the world" predicted.
I personally am sick of being called stupid because of the election of a president when I was too young to vote.
-
So do you like Obama more because he's pro-life or because he wants our troops to finish the job in Iraq?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iM2xHggg7Uk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iM2xHggg7Uk)
-
Funny, really.
Try the same thing in Euro countries, I dare you. You'll get the same reaction.
-
If a single poor desicion from less than 20% of the US population makes the entire US population of 300,000,000 total idiots, then I suppose you're right, KappaWing.
I personally am sick of being called stupid because of the election of a president when I was too young to vote.
Well it was the percentage who bothered to go out and vote and represent themselves. Someone who was able to vote but did not has no right to complain when other countries assess the median citizen of his.
Of course, we are special circumstances as we are too young to vote, but an arbitrary limit on age has to be set somewhere. Granted, I think 18 is too high. I think it should be 16, the same age you can drive, drop out of school, join the military, etc.
I think other countries realize that we are not a nation of brainwashed idiots united behind our leader(s), we have a two party system with one party only inching above the other, although the way they can throw their weight around without due restraint doesen't give an impression of moderation.
As of this election, the median voting American.... is not an idiot.
-
I personally am sick of being called stupid because of the election of a president when I was too young to vote.
And I am equally sick of being called "stupid" because I voted for a particular person in an informed manner with the honest belief that he would be better than the alternative. It's almost the exact opposite reason as thesizzler, but I completely agree with his opinion about that nebulous "rest of the world" concept. I am an American, and I vote for the candidate whom I feel will be best suited to govern this country, not anyone else's. The political and social environments of the United States and Europe are two vastly different things, and I'll be damned if I'm going to let a bunch of complete outsiders sit on some high horse and look on me with disdain because I made a judgment call based on my understanding of my own country and its needs.
-
Everyones entitled to vote for who they want to as layed out in the constitution. As far as age goes, being made to wait is part of youth. Just be patient, we all go through it. Be patient.
-
I voted for Obama. Something about McCain didn't sit right with me and I learned to trust my gut. I am actually not sure what it was about him that set me off but i know something did.....maybe it was his freak of a vp candidate....who knows......
-
I am an American, and I vote for the candidate whom I feel will be best suited to govern this country, not anyone else's.
Oh, the irony!
-
And I am equally sick of being called "stupid" because I voted for a particular person in an informed manner with the honest belief that he would be better than the alternative. It's almost the exact opposite reason as thesizzler, but I completely agree with his opinion about that nebulous "rest of the world" concept. I am an American, and I vote for the candidate whom I feel will be best suited to govern this country, not anyone else's. The political and social environments of the United States and Europe are two vastly different things, and I'll be damned if I'm going to let a bunch of complete outsiders sit on some high horse and look on me with disdain because I made a judgment call based on my understanding of my own country and its needs.
The problem is that most of the outside world knew that Bush wouldn't go a good job governing your country either. You can claim that the outside world were all against Bush cause of his foreign policy all you like but most of rest of the world knew his domestic policy sucked too.
So the question is, how come you didn't know that?
-
How will George W. Bush be remembered? It’s way too soon to know,
and it will depend on the observer’s politics. But a few things look likely:
His most lasting legacy may be in creating a more conservative judiciary.
More than a third of active judges were appointed by Bush. All have lifetime tenure
and many are relatively young...a boon to business and social conservatives for years.
He’ll get credit for uniting the country after Sept. 11, even if only briefly,
And for the absence of another terrorist attack on the United States.
Also for moving quickly to oust both the Taliban and al Qaeda from Afghanistan,
although some will blame him for easing up too soon, leading to further trouble.
His Iraq legacy is still being written...now beyond his control to influence.
If Iraq emerges as a stable, self-governing nation, today’s criticism will be muted.
Bush will be linked by history with a sluggish economy, banking chaos,
falling home and stock prices and surging budget deficits. Blame for all of this
should be broadly shared, but presidents are always held responsible, fairly or not.
That's an excerpt from Kiplinger's newsletter. As it mentions at the end, Bush isn't the only one to blame for the economy being like it is.
-
The problem is that most of the outside world knew that Bush wouldn't go a good job governing your country either. You can claim that the outside world were all against Bush cause of his foreign policy all you like but most of rest of the world knew his domestic policy sucked too.
So the question is, how come you didn't know that?
"Knew," or "already felt that way because they disliked him to begin with"? I take opinions coming from certain parties with a massive grain of salt, particularly when said parties were griping against Bush from the very first moment they heard his name in 2000. And as I've already mentioned, having an outsider dictate to me who would institute a better domestic program in my own country is nothing more than a source of humor to me. From where I sat in 2004, Kerry was an indecisive candidate with an uncertain economic policy and a view on foreign relations that I did not agree with. I didn't think that Bush was perfect by any means, but his declared policies and track record meshed much closer with my own social and economic beliefs than Kerry's did. Therefore, I made my own informed choice that my country would be better off under him than Kerry, and despite the last four years being a rough ride, I stand by that choice.
But that's really neither here nor there for this topic, is it?
-
So you say. So you think.
Don't we all? :D
You know what they say - Opinion is like a a**. Everyone has one.
-
You know what they say - Opinion is like a a**. Everyone has one.
But some people are one.
-
Maybe. Such a thing is not easy to judge without actually really knowing a person...so it's better to not make such rash judgments.
-
And I am equally sick of being called "stupid" because I voted for a particular person in an informed manner with the honest belief that he would be better than the alternative. It's almost the exact opposite reason as thesizzler, but I completely agree with his opinion about that nebulous "rest of the world" concept. I am an American, and I vote for the candidate whom I feel will be best suited to govern this country, not anyone else's. The political and social environments of the United States and Europe are two vastly different things, and I'll be damned if I'm going to let a bunch of complete outsiders sit on some high horse and look on me with disdain because I made a judgment call based on my understanding of my own country and its needs.
The problem is that most of the outside world knew that Bush wouldn't go a good job governing your country either. You can claim that the outside world were all against Bush cause of his foreign policy all you like but most of rest of the world knew his domestic policy sucked too.
So the question is, how come you didn't know that?
Mongoose said that he thought Bush was the better alternative to Kerry, he never said that Bush would do a good job. The question is actually "How come Europeans didn't 'know' that Kerry was a lesser alternative?"
A good presidency isn't as an objective trait as we all want it to be. Mongoose weighed the possible consequences of each choice, and reached a conclusion. He still stands by that conclusion, so as far as I can tell, he made the correct choice based on the criteria with which he was evaluating the candidates.
-
Without getting too political here (ummmm...) we Europeans can't exactly claim a great record on electing leaders - Hitler being the extreme example! :lol:
Seriously though, many question the sense of electing Bush on the assumption that he was bad for everyone; chances are a lot of ordinary people did rather well under him, thanks very much. It is quite common for some here in England to talk about how awful Maggie Thatcher was and how people suffered. Actually, I reply to them, my family did a lot better under her than it ever has under New Labour.
It varies from case to case. I'll bet a lot of perfectly respectable folks are gonna really miss Bush and lose out, just like a lot of perfectly respectable folks are gonna thrive under Obama.
-
Mongoose said that he thought Bush was the better alternative to Kerry, he never said that Bush would do a good job. The question is actually "How come Europeans didn't 'know' that Kerry was a lesser alternative?"
A good presidency isn't as an objective trait as we all want it to be. Mongoose weighed the possible consequences of each choice, and reached a conclusion. He still stands by that conclusion, so as far as I can tell, he made the correct choice based on the criteria with which he was evaluating the candidates.
Thank you...you put it far more eloquently than I did. :) Let me make it perfectly clear that I'm not saying that a Kerry presidency would have been automatically better or worse than a Bush presidency, any more than the upcoming Obama presidency will be automatically better or worse than a McCain presidency would have been. All any voter can do on the day of an election is select the candidate whom she or he feels is capable of doing a better job of performing the duties of their office. That's exactly what I did in both of the presidential elections I've been able to vote in; I still stand by my first decision after knowing the consequences, and along with everyone else, I'll wait and see whether or not my second would have held up. Any what-ifs or might-have-beens are just that, and outside of uncovering an alternate dimension, spending any time speculating on them is rather frivolous in my humble opinion.
-
With the majorities the Democrats will control in the legislative branch Barrack Obama is going to have the most power of any president in generations. He has the potential to be the best president since FDR if he wields that power effectively. He literally is carrying the hopes and dreams of the nation on his shoulders, more so then any candidate in a long time.
That said some people do have legitimate reasons to be a bit jittery about the way the elections turned out as a whole. While i believe strongly in energy independence, education and many of Obama's campaign promises, all the proposals we've heard will cost a lot of money, which will translate into higher taxes for probably more of the populace then what was proposed. Whats more dangerous is that many Democrats are just radical and corrupt in their own way as the fools coming out of oval office. It will be difficult for him to say no if those elements of the party start trying to slide ridiculous legislation down the pipe especially now that their basically is no counter weight. From the prospective of someone in the middle it could easily turn into us having traded one extreme for the other. With control of the executive, legislative, and possibly the judicial branches their really isn't any reason for the Democrats to meet halfway or compromise. The country does best when they need to work together and be bipartisan when drafting legislation. This isn't to say thats how it will play out, but to point out that not everyone is voting out of some "My Guy Good You Guy Bad!" knee jerk reaction.
Another point is that the whole "McCain was Bush 2.0" is lazy thinking in a just as (but not nearly as bad) the "Obama is a Muslin"[sic] was. Not to say the Democrats didn't utilize it successfully but it's still a campaign gimmick. They used that strategy in elections at every level this time around. The Republicans seriously screwed the pooch over the last eight years, and they need to take their medicine and either reinvent themselves or collapse so we have a refreshing of the parties. However, Bush and his cronies where part of that special blend of NeoConservatives/Evangelicals that do not represent the same Republican philosophy as McCain nor the traditional dogma of the GOP. While Bush was going AWOL from the Air National Guard to do cocaine McCain was getting blown out of an A4 Skyraider and strung up by his shattered arms in one of the crappier POW camps in recent history. And while he was there he earned a bone deep love for his country, and whether or not you care for his policies there was no doubt he would do what he thought was best for it. The man has spent the better part of his political career doing his best to fight the corruption and profligacy that infests both parties, and if you watched his speech at the Republican convention then you would know he rebuked his party for their recent conduct. Heck if your familiar with the 2000 primary then you would know the McCain probably hates George W Bush's guts more then most Americans. Point is McCain is a genuine patriot and public servant comparing him to that inept bastard Bush isn't fair or accurate. John McCain was just as viable candidate for President as Barrack Obama is and acting like everyone who supported him was a moron is a thoughtless blanket statement.
I hope Obama does a excellent job, he will have the power to do more for this country then anyone in a long while and god knows we need it.
Go Barrack Go!
-
Point is McCain is a genuine patriot and public servant comparing him to that inept bastard Bush isn't fair or accurate. John McCain was just as viable candidate for President as Barrack Obama is and acting like everyone who supported him was a moron is a thoughtless blanket statement.
I would have agreed with you... up to the point where he agreed on Sarah Palin for his running mate. McCain, when he was McCain, had my respect, but with Palin he sold his reputation to the religious right and lost all credibility in the eyes of independent and moderate America. The neo-cons had made a mess of the government by appointing people based on ideology, not on qualifications, and Palin is the most egregious example of that.
McCain ran a good, clean campaign in 2000 that he should have been proud of, and up till September I believed he would have made a good president. But if he would have run the government like he ran his campaign, I wouldn't have wanted to see it.
-
With the majorities the Democrats will control in the legislative branch Barrack Obama is going to have the most power of any [Democrat] president in generations.
I'm just sayin...
-
McCain was the next Bush as far as I was concerned because McCain is a Republican. I am a liberal; I vote for the candidate who comes closest to my political alignment, and that person is always a Democrat. That's the only qualification I give a rat's ass about. Didn't anyone besides me know who they were voting for before they even knew who they were voting for?
To quote Bill Kristol (the first time I've ever agreed with him), "It's not a psychodrama."
-
McCain was the next Bush as far as I was concerned because McCain is a Republican. I am a liberal; I vote for the candidate who comes closest to my political alignment, and that person is always a Democrat. That's the only qualification I give a rat's ass about. Didn't anyone besides me know who they were voting for before they even knew who they were voting for?
That's particularly the kind of attitude that got Bush elected. He is a Republican, therefor he is the better choice.
If you aren't informed about who or what you are voting for, you have NO RIGHT to cast that vote.
-
If you aren't informed about who or what you are voting for, you have NO RIGHT to cast that vote.
Unfortunatley, one technically does. :ick:
-
That's particularly the kind of attitude that got Bush elected. He is a Republican, therefor he is the better choice.
If you aren't informed about who or what you are voting for, you have NO RIGHT to cast that vote.
Bush's elections were determined by people who don't think that way at all: swing voters. My point has nothing to do with being informed or uninformed. I have opinions that transcend the circumstances of any one election. Which candidate seems more qualified to me is inseparably tied to whose opinions are closest to mine, because when I agree with a politician, it means I think they're right, and if I think they're right, I think they should be in charge.
-
Republican and Democrat don't mean that much, assuming they agree with you because they have an ass or an elephant on their bumper sticker doesn't mean sh*t. The fact is, Palin's pretty retarded, McCain is old and not different enough from the status quo, Obama is more concerned with himself than anyone else and Biden can't keep his damn foot out of his mouth.
-
/me wonders how six pages of posts appeared during his absence.
-
Republican and Democrat don't mean that much, assuming they agree with you because they have an ass or an elephant on their bumper sticker doesn't mean sh*t. The fact is, Palin's pretty retarded, McCain is old and not different enough from the status quo, Obama is more concerned with himself than anyone else and Biden can't keep his damn foot out of his mouth.
None of that describes what any of their policies would be. The two major parties may be bloated, but they still have different platforms based on different approaches to government. Certainly not different enough, but different. The Democrats' platform represents a collection of philosophies that are generally CLOSER to what I believe the role of government is. If there's ever a Republican who's more socially liberal and economically left than the Democrat, I'll vote Republican. I'm not holding my breath for that.
-
"Knew," or "already felt that way because they disliked him to begin with"?
Knew. Besides I was talking about the 2004 election anyway. Even if you can claim it was a simple dislike in 2000 do you really expect to get away with claiming that people outside America didn't understand what Bush's policies would be if he won a second term?
I always find it hilarious when people try to claim that they didn't know how bad Bush would be the second time around.
-
Fact of the matter is that I didn't know which would be worse. One of the reasons why I didn't vote in '04.
-
You could have voted for Nader. :p
-
Why the frack do people want socially liberal? Wouldn't you rather the government stay out of your lives and stop with the give give give BS? We worry so much about the government's interference with other countries, but oh, if they want to spy on our daily lives, tell us how much we have to pay our workers to the point of it being unattractive to have workers here at all, tell us how fast we can drive, that we can't toke up with a harmless joint when we want, that we have to pay taxes via what's probably the worst tax system ever invented, and then try to adjust that tax system so that it appeals more to the masses than for the actual good of the economy, oh that's ok. The government simply outsteps its bounds more all the time, and most of the country seems to be ok with that. I'm tired of Big Brother, and I'm tired of the IRS. I don't know why I even voted for one of the two parties at all. I should have just written in Ron Paul or the Mooninites.
-
How are anti-drug and speed limit laws socially liberal?
-
Personally, I don’t think the government should be permitted to dictate whom I may marry or who is entitled to the use of my body, and to my knowledge my positions on these topics are socially liberal. By contrast, in recent years conservatives have been pushing anti-choice and anti-gay rights legislation, and more of them have supported wiretapping and content restriction on the internet and broadcast media. As far as I know it’s mostly liberals who have been advocating the legalization of marijuana as well.
-
content restriction on the internet
lol
-
Personally, I don’t think the government should be permitted to dictate whom I may marry or who is entitled to the use of my body, and to my knowledge my positions on these topics are socially liberal. By contrast, in recent years conservatives have been pushing anti-choice and anti-gay rights legislation, and more of them have supported wiretapping and content restriction on the internet and broadcast media. As far as I know it’s mostly liberals who have been advocating the legalization of marijuana as well.
^ Exactly what I was trying to articulate. :)
But....
who is entitled to the use of my body
Since when was necromancy a politcal issue? :nervous:
-
I always find it hilarious when people try to claim that they didn't know how bad Bush would be the second time around.
Well, that makes two of us laughing, then. But in any case, let's return back to what Ford Prefect said on the last page. Like him, I have a core set of beliefs and values that tend to mesh far better with one party than the other. As someone who favors socially conservative and economically right policies, the Republican Party's candidate automatically gets a huge leg-up on his Democratic counterpart for me. While Bush was light-years away from what I'd consider the ideal Republican candidate, he was still far closer than Kerry would hope to be; thus, he earned my vote, since I felt like he'd do a better job fulfilling what I wanted to see happen to America than Kerry would.
Amazingly enough, sometimes politics requires that you take the bad with the good when voting for a particular candidate. In the case of this election, that bad for me was Palin, but what I saw as the benefits of McCain outweighed that bad. I didn't think he had much of a chance at all to win, but I still went with him because he represented my interests far more than Obama did.
-
Seriously, it isn't the terrorists that hate freedom, it's the social conservatives who feel they need to push their beliefs on everyone else through law.
Don't like gay marriage? Don't get one.
Don't want an abortion? Don't get one.
Don't like stem cell research? Don't donate any embryos.
Don't like teaching evolution in school? Don't learn it and fail your science class.
-
Lets be fair here. The premise of the social conservative fundamentalist is, essentially, that the scientific community cannot be trusted, and that God can be proven to exist more convincingly than evolution can, for example. This might not be a fully reasonable premise, but lets accept it for the sake of understanding.
If marrige is supposed to be symbolic of God's union with the Church, than it would be offenseive for the church to allow gay marrige (I personally don't think the state should even touch on marrige at all)
If they see abortion as murder, wouldn't it be morally wrong for them to do nothing? If for example, people in the USA were to practice infanticide instead of abortion, wouldn't it be wrong to just let it go politically?
I will agree with your next two comments though.
I agree embryonic stem cell research is kind of beyond the pale.
If you believe the entire scientific community is out to fool you, you probably shouldn't be taking science class.
-
If the state is going to make special provisions for couples who are bound together, then they should do it for any couple, not just the man-woman ones.
As for abortion, well the world is already overpopulated as it is. One less person is more beneficial to the world than one more. That isn't to say that we should go on killing sprees and have wars, just that if it's a choice between pumping out a little clump of cells early on or dealing with yet another human a few years down the line whose mother can't even afford to support it, the first option is clearly the better one.
-
Mmm. Spicy flamebait.
-
I gotta go with Tura on the gay marriage issue, it's one thing if the State was planning on forcing churches to support and or provide for it since that steps on the issue of church and state, but as far as i have seen they have been only providing the rights married couples currently receive from the state. The same goes for it the church trying to dictate that the State shouldn't allow for it separation of church and state. As for religious ceremonies if the Church of Jesus Christ of more Socially Progressive Saints is willing to allow them to marry then the State should allow for it and the rest can go smoke it.
As for abortion i don't think the population control argument cuts it Tura there are plenty of more compelling arguments for it then that :P
-
Mmm. Spicy flamebait.
I know, isnt it great?
I really do wish there was some way to get to a comfortable, sustainable population of 2 billion without being incredibly mean to a lot of people :-(
-
Lets be fair here. The premise of the social conservative fundamentalist is, essentially, that the scientific community cannot be trusted, and that God can be proven to exist more convincingly than evolution can, for example. This might not be a fully reasonable premise, but lets accept it for the sake of understanding.
If marrige is supposed to be symbolic of God's union with the Church, than it would be offenseive for the church to allow gay marrige (I personally don't think the state should even touch on marrige at all)
If they see abortion as murder, wouldn't it be morally wrong for them to do nothing? If for example, people in the USA were to practice infanticide instead of abortion, wouldn't it be wrong to just let it go politically?
I will agree with your next two comments though.
I agree embryonic stem cell research is kind of beyond the pale.
If you believe the entire scientific community is out to fool you, you probably shouldn't be taking science class.
Well, fact of the matter is the state does touch marriage. Being married is a LEGAL state which affects secular things such as taxes and other rights/accomidations and whatnot. Therefore, the state must begin to recognize legitimate same-sex couples, or openly state their deep seated discrimination. The conservative bull**** smokescreen about judicial activism and states rights can only persist for so long before the issue itself is examined critically.
If the state is going to make special provisions for couples who are bound together, then they should do it for any couple, not just the man-woman ones.
As for abortion, well the world is already overpopulated as it is. One less person is more beneficial to the world than one more. That isn't to say that we should go on killing sprees and have wars, just that if it's a choice between pumping out a little clump of cells early on or dealing with yet another human a few years down the line whose mother can't even afford to support it, the first option is clearly the better one.
Sums up my point nicely. :) As for the abortion thing, well, I'm just surprised so many conservatives, who are always *****ing about not being able to splurge on gold plated toilet seats because they have to pay taxes, are not whining about poor people being forced to live and suck more tax money out of the system. With conservatives, it seems to be a battle between religious idiocy and social selfishness. Their stance on these issues shows which one wins out.
-
as for abortion i don't think the population control argument cuts it Tura there are plenty of more compelling arguments for it then that :P
Population control indeed does not cut it for abortion. A far better way to control population is to simply not get pregnant in the first place. for god's sake the reason people get abortions is because they fail to take the precautions.
Mmm. Spicy flamebait.
I know, isnt it great?
I really do wish there was some way to get to a comfortable, sustainable population of 2 billion without being incredibly mean to a lot of people :-(
There is, just don't give them time to realize how mean you are actually being.
-
Sorry, I didn't mean that everything I ranted about was socially liberal but it probably sounded that way. Both sides of the government keep interfering more than they should though.
-
My my, it's so nice to see one's political beliefs misrepresented so completely. Do give me a ring if you're willing to have a legitimate two-way dialogue, though.
-
I really do wish there was some way to get to a comfortable, sustainable population of 2 billion without being incredibly mean to a lot of people :-(
There is. It's called education.
Only fundamentalists consider that mean. :p
-
Silly fundies... (http://www.fstdt.com/)
-
Sorry, I didn't mean that everything I ranted about was socially liberal but it probably sounded that way. Both sides of the government keep interfering more than they should though.
It didn't seem socially liberal to me. it just seemed pretty logical.
-
Silly fundies... (http://www.fstdt.com/)
Yeah. I love that site. Been ages since I last visited. Glad to see this one still in the top 10 though.
Atheists have the greatest "cover" of all, they insist they believe in no god yet most polls done and the latest research indicates that they are actually a different sect of Muslims.
-
I really do wish there was some way to get to a comfortable, sustainable population of 2 billion without being incredibly mean to a lot of people :-(
There is. It's called education.
Only fundamentalists consider that mean. :p
Indeed. To all forum members who don't use condoms...Happy Father's Day.
-
A far better way to control population is to simply not get pregnant in the first place. for god's sake the reason people get abortions is because they fail to take the precautions.
How is it far better?
Surely, it would be even better to cull all the religious crazies, calling it the "rapture". That way everyone's happy! ;)
-
Ok.
when does it start?
-
Silly fundies... (http://www.fstdt.com/)
It makes me wonder how may of those "quotes" were invented and put on that site for kicks (and not by fundies). Not that fundies would need help in that deparment. People say stupid things as a general rule and being irrational and "driven" only strengthens that tendancy.
-
That's why every quote comes with an authentic link to the very message board it was posted on! Just look.
-
Many of them are obvious sarcasm though.
I think. :nervous:
-
I doubt that all, or even most, are.
However, the intelligence of fundamentalists is distributed on a bell curve just like the intelligence of atheists and the intelligence of everyone else. If you take all your samples from one end of the curve, you're obviously going to skew the results.
-
Silly fundies... (http://www.fstdt.com/)
Yeah. I love that site. Been ages since I last visited. Glad to see this one still in the top 10 though.
Atheists have the greatest "cover" of all, they insist they believe in no god yet most polls done and the latest research indicates that they are actually a different sect of Muslims.
Hell's teeth I've never seen that site before, and i almost wish i hadn't.
-
Why the frack do people want socially liberal? . . . The government simply outsteps its bounds more all the time, and most of the country seems to be ok with that. I'm tired of Big Brother, and I'm tired of the IRS. I don't know why I even voted for one of the two parties at all. I should have just written in Ron Paul or the Mooninites.
Nader didn't introduce the patriot act.
My question is why does America have such a phobia of socialism? Was it the 40 years of anti-communist propaganda? More government programs like health care to care for the welfare of the state doesn't equate to government control. And even if there is some measure of control, the government can at least be accountable on the ballot. Private companies are not.
-
My question is why does America have such a phobia of socialism?
It's very simple. Government is the least effective, least efficient way to do pretty much anything.
Welfare, health care, unemployment assistance, feeding the poor, etc., are all terrific ideas. That's why there have been organizations and charities doing those sorts of things for hundreds of years. But when government decides it wants to control those things itself, it starts introducing bureaucracy, corruption, too much bureaucratic distance between those in need of help and those helping, and so forth -- besides the fact that it always takes a cut of the funds available so it can sustain itself.
If you don't like the way a particular business is doing things, you can simply avoid that business. You can't avoid a monopoly.
And even if there is some measure of control, the government can at least be accountable on the ballot. Private companies are not.
The problem is that voting privileges are now pretty much universal. There are so many morons out there (in both major parties) that all the government has to do is convince enough of them that it's doing the right thing, and they'll outnumber the voters who actually think.
-
The Culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture) does it best, I tell you.
-
My question is why does America have such a phobia of socialism?
It's very simple. Government is the least effective, least efficient way to do pretty much anything.
Welfare, health care, unemployment assistance, feeding the poor, etc., are all terrific ideas. That's why there have been organizations and charities doing those sorts of things for hundreds of years. But when government decides it wants to control those things itself, it starts introducing bureaucracy, corruption, too much bureaucratic distance between those in need of help and those helping, and so forth -- besides the fact that it always takes a cut of the funds available so it can sustain itself.
The United States government is, in my opinion, flawed in its basic structure and is in dire need of reform. We here in Canada have socialized a lot of things...and we have far less corruption than your supposition would suggest. We need not worry, in general, about things like social security.
Your country needs to stop thinking in terms of "Can it work?" You need to approach issues like poverty with the question "Can it work if we try things differently?" The problem is, being as how your political organization is utterly ****ed and mired in typical bureaucratic vagaries, that doesn't happen.
You guys should really adopt a Parliamentary government. ;)
-
You guys should really adopt a Parliamentary government. ;)
Ewwno.
And what Goober said pretty much sums it up. One of the driving forces behind most of this country's history has been the idea of "do-it-yourself," that anyone is capable of standing on their own two feet and making a life for themselves. Not to be exceedingly cliche, but it's that sentiment that led a lot of people to jump on boats and sail over here in the first place, and it's that same sentiment that drove people to pack up their families and possessions on a covered wagon and travel a thousand miles into the middle of nowhere to start a new life. That idea pervades much of American culture to its core. Many of us, myself somewhat included, look on the idea of socialism as an unnecessary and unwanted intrusion into our ability to spend our own hard-earned money on the services that we personally want, as well as a system that can easily promote people mooching off the hard work of others without giving back anything in return (see: welfare state). While there are undeniably those who just can't make ends meet through no fault of their own, we feel that that same do-it-yourself spirit can drive the more fortunate to step in and lend a hand far more effectively than any overarching bureaucracy ever could. I'd put much more faith in the ability of a local church charity to help me out if I ever found myself out on the street than I would an overarching bureaucratic structure centered hundreds of miles away and subject to each and every political whim of those in power.
-
Coming from one of those evil, corrupt societies where the government handles things like healthcare and the unemployed recieve benefits, I find it amusing fact that we have a massive state budget surplus (and have had every year for... well for as long as I can remember actually).
I also find it amusing that our supposedly more corruption-prone country is consistently ranked as one of the least-corrupt countries in the world, and often alongside other countries with a similar form of government to our own.
Finally, I find it amusing that despite the evil unemployment benifits encouraging people to be lazy and never put in an honest day's work, we have effectively zero unemployment. Everyone's earning their keep.
Note: This post is not a dig at the US. In fact, I doubt it could work as well in a country that big. It is a dig at people who insist socialism is evil and can't work. It isn't and it can, and it is not hard to find examples of it if you care to look.
-
Many of us, myself somewhat included, look on the idea of socialism as an unnecessary and unwanted intrusion into our ability to spend our own hard-earned money on the services that we personally want, as well as a system that can easily promote people mooching off the hard work of others without giving back anything in return (see: welfare state). While there are undeniably those who just can't make ends meet through no fault of their own, we feel that that same do-it-yourself spirit can drive the more fortunate to step in and lend a hand far more effectively than any overarching bureaucracy ever could. I'd put much more faith in the ability of a local church charity to help me out if I ever found myself out on the street than I would an overarching bureaucratic structure centered hundreds of miles away and subject to each and every political whim of those in power.
I still cannot understand the refusal of the average American to ask their government for help. Other people in other countries are not afraid to ask their government for help; for them it's not a matter of pride or lack of faith in the bureaucracy. As a Canadian I place a fair measure of trust in my government, because I can depend on it if I ever unexpectedly go broke or get my spine wrapped around a traffic light in a car accident.
The virtue you preach won't do any good to the impoverished, the sick, or the dying who have nobody they know to help them, or to people who are supporting such individuals but just barely getting by. Nor does it do good to people who can't find help because of bias against their ethnic background or religion. A church charity in your community would be willing to help you, but what about everybody else? Would that church or another community organization be willing to help a complete stranger? Would the average American be willing to help a complete stranger whom he or she had never met before? Probably not.
Standing your own two feet and using what you have to help others who cannot help themselves is all well and good, but that principle was founded in America at a time when it was mutually beneficial for government, business, and the workers to do so, because America was in a state of growth.
That altruism died out a looooooooong time ago. If the average American with the same do-it-yourself spirit actually cared, then why are fifty million of your people without medical coverage?
-
It's very simple. Government is the least effective, least efficient way to do pretty much anything.
Nevermind that the American healthcare system is the least efficient and most expensive in the developed world, and yet all of those other countries have government run healthcare and the US doesn't. Hmmm, imagine that. We spend far more as a percentage of our GDP than anywhere else, and yet the results are often disappointing.
Many of us, myself somewhat included, look on the idea of socialism as an unnecessary and unwanted intrusion into our ability to spend our own hard-earned money on the services that we personally want, as well as a system that can easily promote people mooching off the hard work of others without giving back anything in return (see: welfare state).
When you get into a freak accident and lose your house to pay your hospital bills, I bet you'd be wanting some of that evil socialism. :p
-
I dunno about corruption and bureaucracy, but from what I've heard from Americans coming to Canada, the Canadian government is a lot more laid back. One guy in my class was applying for, I dunno what, taxes, or medical benefits, something like that and was stressing out about what forms he had to fill, and getting things in on time, and so on and so forth. And the official on the phone was like "don't worry, just submit this and if it's a little late, it's okay, they'll refund you retroactively" sorta thing. I don't know, I guess in the US if you don't fill out all your forms and submit them on time and yadda yadda you're pooched or something.
Btw, on the topic of health care. I pay 40 bucks CDN a month for coverage. That's it. I've gone to the doctors a few times for some minor things, didn't have to pay anything for the visits themselves. Had to pick up some medicine one time, it was about 30-40 bucks. When I was a student and didn't have any income, I didn't have to pay anything for health care. It was all subsidized by the government.
-
If you don't like the way a particular business is doing things, you can simply avoid that business. You can't avoid a monopoly.
Unless you have a pre-existing condition. Then see how many insurance companies will cover you.
-
That altruism died out a looooooooong time ago. If the average American with the same do-it-yourself spirit actually cared, then why are fifty million of your people without medical coverage?
To add to this, at the grocery store I work at, sometimes I have to man one of the checkout lanes. The first week of every month, when government aid is distributed, maybe about half of the people that go through my line are paying with EBT cards (food stamps), and a smaller percentage are using WiC checks. We are talking hundreds and hundreds of dollars in foodstuffs here. I seriously cannot see how private, local level charities could meet this kind of demand. If we got rid of welfare, would people really be willing to spend the money not lost to taxes on equivalent donations?
Maybe it's just how I was raised, but if I can't buy a computer game or a large pizza because someone had to buy fifty dollars worth of Infamil for their baby, I could care less if the state/federal government pried some money out of my cold, dead paycheck. Hearing people who make >$250,000 a year, which is x amount more than I make (x being a big number), whine about the tax increase in the future causes the blood vessels in my brain to tie in a knot. Unless you have three kids, a huge mortgage, and live in the middle of Manhattan, a little more money to social services isn't going to hurt you. I can understand where people who worked hard for their money and don't want to pay into this come from. I see people purchase necessities with food stamps and then blow twenty bucks on a box of cigarettes and roll my eyes too. But there are many who need this kind of assistance, and many other people who are selfish pricks that want to deny them help because of soshalizeem. Sometimes we can afford to drop the "got mine, **** you" attitude, believe it or not.
I'm not saying government is the answer to every problem, but let us not kid ourselves that absolving us of these taxes is going to make the country better. And we are not suddenly the Soviet Union because tax rates on certain income groups went up. My rant is over.
-
America either needs to accept and embrace an effective socialisim, or it needs to cut a bunch of these government run departments.
I don't know much about economics in this sense, but I'm pretty sure that just all of a sudden switching from what we have now to a fully free economy would only hurt the middle class and poor. AFAIK, the only way to effectivly have a lassaiz-faire system is to have everyone start out perfectly equal.
In a perferct world, no government regulations would be necessary. Welfare would come in the form of purely voluntary charity, mostly paid by rich philanthropists. Large companies would actively try and protect the environment and not totally gouge consumers. Education, while probably not public, would be cheap, thourough, and effective. Higher learning would be both a place to learn for a job's sake and a place to learn for learning's sake. The government wouldn't dictate people's morals by banning abortion or gay marrige, simply because no government is fit to arbitrarily decide the morals for over 300,000,000 people. If people don't want abortions, then they don't get them, and they do the best to convince everyone else otherwise.
The government would still consist of what it does now, but it'd be more focused on preventing people's rights from being infringed upon. It would be able to have a standing army, and able to call up a larger one when and if necessary. Laws would be formed on the basis of "Would this law be hurting the potential criminal's freedom more, or would not passing it be hurting the potential victim's freedom more?"
In a perfect would, America would be a place where you could do whatever you want.
But this isn't a perfect world. That couldn't happen even if people wanted it to happen, because people at the bottom are so down there, that they pretty much wouldn't be able to bring themselves up with charity (Most of them aren't even able to with welfare). Even if they had the capability, if people didn't want to (which some of them don't), it wouldn't happen because people will spend the welfare on crack and never even try to bring themselves up.
In reality, people are neither capable of doing this, nor do most people want to do this. What we have in the economic facet of the government is a group of people who want to force everyone to do all this philanthropy, and a group of people who want the opposite. Unfortunatly, neither methods will work. This transfer of wealth must be voluntary, or all of a sudden your stealing the rich's money and infringing upon their freedoms. But everyone has to start out in a lassaiz-faire system more or less equal, and all with an ideal to succede and live life to its fullest, otherwise you'll have people *****ing about starving in the gutters while there are people who have enough money to feed the entire nation a 7-course meal.
In short, the only way to get a truly free society is for everyone to really want it, and for everyone to voluntarily work towards it for the decades and decades that it takes to achieve.
Yeah, we're ****ed.
EDIT: I hope I didn't kill the thread.