DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: El Barto on December 22, 2011, 02:55:05 PM
-
You get three votes--one for each match up. I didn't include a "they all suck" option since one of these nimrods is going to win, regardless.
-
Paul>Obama
Mitt>Obama
Obama>Newt
Paul>All
-
As sad as it is to say...I will vote for whoever is up against Obama...not because of who they are but because of who they aren't. And they aren't Barack Obama, a president in whom I view as a direct threat to the way I'd like to see America.
-
Paul>Obama
Mitt>Obama
Obama>Newt
Paul>All
This.
-
Man do I wish I lived in the US/was a US citizen right now. I could actually go out this xmas breaking support RP, and done some real phone-banking.
-
Paul>Obama
Mitt>Obama
Obama>Newt
This is how I's go with Mitt my first choice, Paul my second and Obama over Newt third.
-
As sad as it is to say...I will vote for whoever is up against Obama...not because of who they are but because of who they aren't. And they aren't Barack Obama, a president in whom I view as a direct threat to the way I'd like to see America.
How exactly is he a threat to the way you'd like to see America? What, precisely, is so unAmerican about Obama or his policies? I hear this a lot of politicians, and they never qualify what they mean; it's always some vague boogeyman.
Obama > Romney
Obama > Newt
Too early for me to say Paul or Obama, as Paul could theoretically throw some interesting compromises on the table that makes him more palatable to me; as for now I'd say Obama as well.
-
As sad as it is to say...I will vote for whoever is up against Obama...not because of who they are but because of who they aren't. And they aren't Barack Obama, a president in whom I view as a direct threat to the way I'd like to see America.
How exactly is he a threat to the way you'd like to see America? What, precisely, is so unAmerican about Obama or his policies? I hear this a lot of politicians, and they never qualify what they mean; it's always some vague boogeyman.
Though I consider Romney or Gingrich to be a much greater one, I concur that Obama is a pretty serious threat to what I'd like to see in this country (although my America is probably quite different than GMD's America). The man is actually shaping up to be a greater threat to civil liberties than Dumbass was, and that's frightening. In every instance, he either supports Dumbass's position, or actually pushes to take it further. And sadly, because he's the chosen one, nobody wants to call him out on it. At least if Bush had done some of the things Obama has, people would be screaming about it. When Obama tramples on the bill or rights, nobody pays attention. That makes him scarier than his opponents, IMO.
-
As sad as it is to say...I will vote for whoever is up against Obama...not because of who they are but because of who they aren't. And they aren't Barack Obama, a president in whom I view as a direct threat to the way I'd like to see America.
-
As sad as it is to say...I will vote for whoever is up against Obama...not because of who they are but because of who they aren't. And they aren't Barack Obama, a president in whom I view as a direct threat to the way I'd like to see America.
How exactly is he a threat to the way you'd like to see America? What, precisely, is so unAmerican about Obama or his policies? I hear this a lot of politicians, and they never qualify what they mean; it's always some vague boogeyman.
Though I consider Romney or Gingrich to be a much greater one, I concur that Obama is a pretty serious threat to what I'd like to see in this country (although my America is probably quite different than GMD's America). The man is actually shaping up to be a greater threat to civil liberties than Dumbass was, and that's frightening. In every instance, he either supports Dumbass's position, or actually pushes to take it further. And sadly, because he's the chosen one, nobody wants to call him out on it. At least if Bush had done some of the things Obama has, people would be screaming about it. When Obama tramples on the bill or rights, nobody pays attention. That makes him scarier than his opponents, IMO.
I think we need to ask ourselves how much of that is institutional, and to a degree, outside of the President's hands, regardless if its Paul, or anyone else. And not because I don't think you're right, but because I think to actually solve the issue, we have to get beyond the President.
-
Man do I wish I lived in the US/was a US citizen right now. I could actually go out this xmas breaking support RP, and done some real phone-banking.
:lol where are you from!?
-
Paul>Obama
Mitt>Obama
Obama>Newt
Paul>All
This.
-
Paul>Obama
Mitt>Obama
Obama>Newt
Paul>All
This is what I went with but I also like Huntsman. I think he'd have a good chance of beating Obama. Paul may, but I'm not sure he has enough support even though I think he's make a great president and is the best one in the race. I just wish I was old enough to vote in this election.
-
Paul > Obama
Obama > Newt
Obama > Romney
As much as I dislike Obama, having another neocon in office still scares the bejesus out of me. Bush seemed to shy away from them toward the end of his presidency, but the current GOP crop (with a few exceptions obviously) seem even more explicit about diving even deeper in the Middle East.
-
Paul > Obama
Newt > Obama
Mitt > Obama
Note: I would only actually want Paul to win out of all those, and there's no way in hell I would EVER vote for Newt or Mitt.
I don't WANT a Newt or Mitt presidency, but at the same time I'm tired of people sweeping all the current civil liberties abuses under the rug just because the president is a Democrat. Is this dumb thinking? Probably, but I'm not voting for Obama, either.
-
at the same time I'm tired of people sweeping all the current civil liberties abuses under the rug just because the president is a Democrat.
That's my thinking, but I don't want to replace that with the GOP's absurd warmongering. At this point I'm not even sure I'll vote.
-
at the same time I'm tired of people sweeping all the current civil liberties abuses under the rug just because the president is a Democrat.
That's my thinking, but I don't want to replace that with the GOP's absurd warmongering. At this point I'm not even sure I'll vote.
I feel like there would actually be a chance of some legitimate opposition if a Republican president tried to drag us to war again.
-
I'm pretty sure the warmongering is a given, whether the White House is painted red or blue.
As long as someone's profiting from it and has deep enough pockets to lobby for it, it's bound to continue.
I do believe that Ron Paul would be the most likely to actually oppose it, should he end up in the White House.
-
The way I see it:
Mitt Romney: Flip-flopping, fickle crowd-pleaser
Newt Gingrich: Unassertive, weak, self-absorbed "intellectual"
Barack Obama: Promises, Disappointments, Bush-Round-2, Encroachment upon some constitutional rights, continuing of illegal international military acts
Ron Paul: Intelligent, qualified, assertive, yet some views are a little to far-fetched to my liking
Out of all these, I'd go Ron Paul.
-
I would not vote for any of these cock gobblers, but Newt Gingrich is easily the worst of these candidates IMO.
Definitely:
Obama > Gingrich
Less sure about these:
Obama > Romney
Paul > Obama
-J
-
Thanks for making this thread! I'll have to read later after I go fishing :)
-
I cannot and will not vote for any candidate that will nominate conservative justices to the bench. So I'm a lock for Obama.
-
I cannot and will not vote for any candidate that will nominate non-conservative justices to the bench. So I'm a lock for pretty much anyone other than Obama.
-
I cannot and will not vote for any candidate that will nominate non-conservative justices to the bench. So I'm a lock for pretty much anyone other than Obama.
I thought that was pretty clear when you quoted gmillerdrake in the post below:
As sad as it is to say...I will vote for whoever is up against Obama...not because of who they are but because of who they aren't. And they aren't Barack Obama, a president in whom I view as a direct threat to the way I'd like to see America.
But it's all good ;D
-
I cannot and will not vote for any candidate that will nominate non-conservative justices to the bench. So I'm a lock for pretty much anyone other than Obama.
But just out of curiosity, do you agree with the Citizens United ruling?
-
As sad as it is to say...I will vote for whoever is up against Obama...not because of who they are but because of who they aren't. And they aren't Barack Obama, a president in whom I view as a direct threat to the way I'd like to see America.
How exactly is he a threat to the way you'd like to see America? What, precisely, is so unAmerican about Obama or his policies? I hear this a lot of politicians, and they never qualify what they mean; it's always some vague boogeyman.
Dude, I am a complete lightweight when it comes to arguing points for my opinion and points against yours. Way out of my league in P/R so that's why I mainly lurk and read what you all have to say, you're all pretty well versed on both sides of the aisle. I do not spend a great length of time researching all the information I can to discount those I don't like and bolster those I do. Barack Obama is probably a good guy who loves his wife and kids just like I do, and believes in what he's doing.
The issue is EVERY career politician is the problem from Ron Paul to Obama to Romney and so on. I don't think Americans are really ready to combat career politicians because they are comfortable in their lives for the most part...it's only the extreme fringes of both sides that make all the noise in the news and what not. So until there is a SERIOUS movement (which there is not) to rid Washingon of career politicians who aren't a part of the machine...I will just try and put the part of the machine that fits me best...not a perfect fit...but works better for me in the machine. And anyone other than Obama works better for me.
Anyway to try and answer your question, I believe in personal responsibility, small Federal governemnt, that the States should be the ones making/shaping most of the laws and should maintain the 'power' while the Federal government does it's most important job and that is protecting the U.S. from our enemies with a STRONG military presence.
Plain and simple....I'm OLD school American way of thinking...like my Grandfater and his Dad way of thinking......Obama is not.
-
I cannot and will not vote for any candidate that will nominate non-conservative justices to the bench. So I'm a lock for pretty much anyone other than Obama.
But just out of curiosity, do you agree with the Citizens United ruling?
That's one that honestly I haven't paid enough attention to to offer a strong opinion on.
And I think you know this, but I wasn't making fun of your post, by the way. I read it and said to myself, "that is a short, well-worded post that if I made a few minor changes to make it say basically the exact polar opposite, would state my opinion on the subject pretty well." :lol
-
Yeah, it's cool, man :hat
-
I'll vote Paul over Obama or I'll write in Paul. I don't vote for people I don't support.
-
Anyway to try and answer your question, I believe in personal responsibility, small Federal governemnt, that the States should be the ones making/shaping most of the laws and should maintain the 'power' while the Federal government does it's most important job and that is protecting the U.S. from our enemies with a STRONG military presence.
Plain and simple....I'm OLD school American way of thinking...like my Grandfater and his Dad way of thinking......Obama is not.
See, this is where I get confused, becuase what's "OLD school American" thinking? 30-60's, so the generation you referenced, implemented things like Social Security, Medicare, and other "Welfare" programs, which these same people massively enjoy/look forward to. The same generation taxed people heavily, build a huge infrastructure, invested heavily in science and development, and heavily regulated Wall Street and corporations. In a lot of ways, Obama is simply fighting for these same principles; Health Care reform isn't something radically new, but an expansion of Medicare and Medicaid; Financial Regulations weren't something new, but in a lot of ways just the reimplementation of regulations enacted after the Great Depression. Nothing he has done has really harmed the military; in fact, he's really increased our presence dramatically in important ways; he got Osama, he killed Al Awlaki (sp?) with a drone strike, and I guess since no terrorist attacks have happened since the took over, according to Bush era republican thinking, he's protected America. We're out of Iraq now, we our military isn't unnecessarily weak, so we are actually able to protect ourselves better should something real materialize.
I get why people would vote for Paul over Obama, but voting to vote out Obama is jumping out of the kettle into the fire.
-
Yeah, I don't see how any sane defense hawk (oxymoron?) could be anything but thrilled with Obama's foreign policy.
-
Obama > Mitt
Obama > Newt
Paul > Obama
-
Obama > Mitt
Obama > Newt
(https://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100108063233/uncyclopedia/images/archive/b/b5/20100108063328!Exploding-head.gif)
-
Yeah sigz, I can't believe it either.
-
Obama > Mitt
Obama > Newt
(https://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100108063233/uncyclopedia/images/archive/b/b5/20100108063328!Exploding-head.gif)
I prefer Newt and Mitt over Obama, but I do not think either of them can beat Obama in a general election. They're all puppets of their Federal Reserve masters, anyway, so nothing would change... we'd still have the bullshit bickering of the false left-right paradigm.. global empirical expansion continues.. so does the Unconstitutional Patriot Act...wake up people!
-
I'm almost sorry we even asked.
rumborak
-
Obama > Mitt
Obama > Newt
(https://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100108063233/uncyclopedia/images/archive/b/b5/20100108063328!Exploding-head.gif)
I prefer Newt and Mitt over Obama, but I do not think either of them can beat Obama in a general election. They're all puppets of their Federal Reserve masters, anyway, so nothing would change... we'd still have the bullshit bickering of the false left-right paradigm.. global empirical expansion continues.. so does the Unconstitutional Patriot Act...wake up people!
Wasn't who you'd think would win, but who'd you vote for.
-
Maybe he thinks, as both Mitt and Newt would just expand the foreign policy adventures, they'd be worse.
-
I'd go for Obama over all of them. Romney is really the only Rep. candidate I could consider voting for since he's pretty moderate.
-
Obama over the lot.
-
I tend to be more liberal in my political views, but I think I agree with bosk that I'd like to see more conservative judges on the bench. Not necessarily because of their political views, but conservative justices tend to have more of a strict interpretation of the Constitution, which is something that I agree with over more loose interpretations.
-
Due to the events in Va. it would be fun to make a new poll: Mitt vs. Ron.
-
Paul > Obama
Obama > Newt
Obama > Romney
As much as I dislike Obama, having another neocon in office still scares the bejesus out of me. Bush seemed to shy away from them toward the end of his presidency, but the current GOP crop (with a few exceptions obviously) seem even more explicit about diving even deeper in the Middle East.
This is how I voted. I'm not so much a RP supporter, in fact, I find some of his libertarian views fairly repellent, but... he'd be a breath of fresh air mostly for his seemingly anti-warmongering vibe. I'm tired of bombing the shit out of other countries and invading places at the drop of the hat and his slamming the hammer down on Bachmann was goddamn satisfying to watch. If the only thing he manages to accomplish is to keep us from bombing some random ass country then I'd consider him a success, because honestly, most of his other policies I would see getting squashed during legislation.
Obama... well, I haven't been a fan of his politics for the past year and while I wouldn't be devastated if he won, I think it'd end up being more of the same shit: deadlocked Congress and watered down versions of good bills.
-
I tend to be more liberal in my political views, but I think I agree with bosk that I'd like to see more conservative judges on the bench. Not necessarily because of their political views, but conservative justices tend to have more of a strict interpretation of the Constitution, which is something that I agree with over more loose interpretations.
"Conservative" judges make just as radical of decisions as any "liberal" judge. Citizens United is an amazing example of where conservative judges do something extremely radical, and which has huge ramifications for our society.
-
I tend to be more liberal in my political views, but I think I agree with bosk that I'd like to see more conservative judges on the bench. Not necessarily because of their political views, but conservative justices tend to have more of a strict interpretation of the Constitution, which is something that I agree with over more loose interpretations.
"Conservative" judges make just as radical of decisions as any "liberal" judge. Citizens United is an amazing example of where conservative judges do something extremely radical, and which has huge ramifications for our society.
Absolutely. People tend to overlook that their job is to interpret the constitution; necessary because it's seldom black and white. The notion that the conservative bloc supports the constitution and the liberal wing just does whatever they fell like is silly.
-
Ron Paul. But if he gets knocked out of the primary, I'm done with the GOP. I'll throw my vote into that black hole known as the Libertarian Party before tipping my hat to Romney or Gingrich.
-
I tend to be more liberal in my political views, but I think I agree with bosk that I'd like to see more conservative judges on the bench. Not necessarily because of their political views, but conservative justices tend to have more of a strict interpretation of the Constitution, which is something that I agree with over more loose interpretations.
"Conservative" judges make just as radical of decisions as any "liberal" judge. Citizens United is an amazing example of where conservative judges do something extremely radical, and which has huge ramifications for our society.
Absolutely. People tend to overlook that their job is to interpret the constitution; necessary because it's seldom black and white. The notion that the conservative bloc supports the constitution and the liberal wing just does whatever they fell like is silly.
I've always said that the phrase "activist court" or "legislating from the bench" is just another way of saying "Court that makes decisions I don't like"
Interpreting the constitution is NEVER going to be a completely objective process because there is no such thing as 100% objectivity. Every justice has biases.
-
I wholeheartedly agree, kirk. Saying that gay couples should be able to marry isn't activist; it's a consistent application of the principle of equality as put down in the Constitution. Now, of course the conservative think tanks know it would be virtually impossible to push through an amendment that "rectifies" the situation in their view, so instead they rather try to appoint judges that disregard certain aspects of the Constitution in their judgments.
rumborak
-
I think the answer depends solely on the state of the economy at the time of the election. If its improving, no doubt Obama gets reelected. If its worse then it is right now I believe he could lose to any one of the candidates. America votes alot based on fear and what they hope might improve things.
-
I think the answer depends solely on the state of the economy at the time of the election. If its improving, no doubt Obama gets reelected. If its worse then it is right now I believe he could lose to any one of the candidates. America votes alot based on fear and what they hope might improve things.
I don't think so. For one thing, I don't think any of the GOP candidates will have anything to offer other than going back to Bush-era economic principles, and nobody would call that a good plan. Also, I think people will want to give him more time to see if he works it out. Of course he has precious little to do with anything, but as you pointed out, people want to associate the economy with the dipshit in charge. In this case, he'll focus on what growth there is and use the Bush '06 stay the course playbook.
Regardless, none of the current crop of maniacs are strong enough to beat an incumbent president.
-
Given the likely Romney nomination, it will be interesting to see whether the Evangelicals and other hardcore Christians can overcome their paranoia and actually vote for the guy.
rumborak
-
Given the likely Romney nomination, it will be interesting to see whether the Evangelicals and other hardcore Christians can overcome their paranoia and actually vote for the guy.
rumborak
They will vote Romney over Obama, in a heartbeat. Evangelicals, HATE, Obama to the core. To Evangelicals, Obama is pretty much the devil.
-
Given the likely Romney nomination, it will be interesting to see whether the Evangelicals and other hardcore Christians can overcome their paranoia and actually vote for the guy.
rumborak
They will vote Romney over Obama, in a heartbeat. Evangelicals, HATE, Obama to the core. To Evangelicals, Obama is pretty much the devil.
Absolutely correct. Romney's biggest hurdle is his Mormonism. Will evangelicals actually go out and vote FOR (or AGAINST Obama) him in a general election? I'm still not sure
-
Given the likely Romney nomination, it will be interesting to see whether the Evangelicals and other hardcore Christians can overcome their paranoia and actually vote for the guy.
rumborak
They will vote Romney over Obama, in a heartbeat. Evangelicals, HATE, Obama to the core. To Evangelicals, Obama is pretty much the devil.
Absolutely correct. Romney's biggest hurdle is his Mormonism. Will evangelicals actually go out and vote FOR (or AGAINST Obama) him in a general election? I'm still not sure
I will. I find it funny how much emphasis is put on any candidates (or politicians for that matter) 'religious beliefs' when if you take a look at our culture, what Washington D.C. has evolved into...with rampant greed and corruption and an obvious big middle finger extended out to 'normal' Americans.....it is VERY clear that those in congress with the real 'power' and who actually 'control' what's being written into law have ABSOLUTELY NO characteristics of what most major religions teach...not a single one of them, and actually do all they can to make sure religious values are absent from what is instituted into law.
To try and say you won't vote for this guys cuz he's Mormon or that guy because he's Muslim is a joke....because NONE of them are practicing what thier religion teaches. And for the limited few who have made it to Washington as a Representative that may be good, honest, decent people....they are over run and dominated by the career thiefs and criminals that occupy our government and eventually pull an Anakin and give in to the Dark Side.
So, I'm probably considered an 'Evangelical' although tags and labels like that are very broad.....and I will vote for Romney if that's who is running against Obama....I am not voting for someone to Pastor me, I have one of those I love and trust. I'm voting for a LEADER...and Obama makes it clear to me every day that passes that he is FAR from a leader. Not his fault, some men just can't do it and he's one of those men. On to the next one to see if he/she can.....
-
To be clear, Gary, I could not possibly care less what someone's religious beliefs are as long as I believe they will fairly and accurately represent my personal political philosophy and worldview when they are elected. What church they attend on Sunday is none of my concern.
But there are some folks on another message board that I visit who are Evangelicals (along with at least one Catholic person) who have told me flat out that they could never cast a vote for a Mormon candidate. I guess I understand that to some extent, but I think it's pretty strange when these people cast votes for third party candidates effectively siphoning off support for the candidate best positioned to defeat the guy (Obama) that they claim they want to beat.
-
but I think it's pretty strange when these people cast votes for third party candidates effectively siphoning off support for the candidate best positioned to defeat the guy (Obama) that they claim they want to beat.
I've never understood this either.
I personally don't think the % of "Evangelicals" out there that won't vote for Romney is very high....despite what the media will have you believe. Those people who will not vote for him because of him being Mormon are part of an extreme fringe of political view. Unfortunately the extreme fringes from both the Right and the Left make most of the noise therefor get most of the news coverage and hype.
I believe that most Americans are like minded people who's cares/values/beliefs etc. are pretty much similar....with maybe some very minor differences but nothing to the point of poloarization that Congress/Washington is perpetually in.
I can use you and I as perfect examples Barry. Despite you being a jokingly admitted 'liberal hippie' with a liberal point of view and me, who is a fairly Conservative Christian...I'd be willing to bet that our outlook on life and what we expect and wish for others is similar....all I want is to provide for my Family the best I can and be afforded the right to raise my children according to my beliefs, have a fair shake at making a living that best fulfills that goal and wish nothing but the best for the next man/woman. Personal preferences and the way you live your life to me are just that, until your choice begins to adversely affect MY family directly we won't have an issue...what one chooses to do with his/her life in my eyes is between them and God.
-
but I think it's pretty strange when these people cast votes for third party candidates effectively siphoning off support for the candidate best positioned to defeat the guy (Obama) that they claim they want to beat.
I've never understood this either.
I personally don't think the % of "Evangelicals" out there that won't vote for Romney is very high....despite what the media will have you believe. Those people who will not vote for him because of him being Mormon are part of an extreme fringe of political view. Unfortunately the extreme fringes from both the Right and the Left make most of the noise therefor get most of the news coverage and hype.
Well, I think the primaries tend to attract that "fringe" a lot more than the general election so it's not that surprising. But you're right about us "Generally" wanting the same things out of life. Those things may not always line up the same way on the nitty-gritty details...but it's all good.
Just don't accuse me of plagiarizing the Bee Gees (https://www.kirksnosehair.com/pics/smilies/2guns.gif)
-
Hey now!
-
Obama's disappointed me in many ways. The whole debt ceiling business, primarily.
The Republicans, however, actively terrify me. As evidence, might I present as evidence every single Republican debate this year.
OK, Huntsman's decent enough. His stance on Medicare is blargh, but he actually seems like a reasonable human being. Doesn't have a prayer unfortunately, and I don't think Romney would ever tap him (hah) for the VP slot.
-
Slightly off-topic: Being VP seems like a pretty sweet gig.
-
Mwahaha, Bachmann's aides are jumping the sinking ship.
rumborak
-
That's what rats do when a ship sinks
-
As someone outside the US, it's mind boggling when people complain about the direction Obama is leading the country. What, you mean from extremely conservative to only very conservative? Honestly, I think anyone who actually feels that way about Obama would literally die of culture shock if they stepped foot in any other developed country.
I mean, come on. On the political spectrum, Obama is more or less in the same place as Reagan. But I guess providing poor people with health care and actually treating homosexuals as human beings are the worst things imaginable.
-
I mean, come on. On the political spectrum, Obama is more or less in the same place as Reagan. But I guess providing poor people with health care and actually treating homosexuals as human beings are the worst things imaginable.
If you really believe this, I'd invite you to take a closer look at the people Obama has appointed to the federal bench and the Supreme Court. Those will be his two most lasting aspects of his legacy and his nominees have been decidedly liberal. Obama governs line most executives have governed in the modern era of our political system and that is center-right. By "modern" I'm talking about in the last 50 years.
I think there is this faulty logic out there that assumes that a president can just do whatever he wants. That's just unrealistic.
-
What you call "liberal" I would call forward-facing. I don't think the US can afford to cling to a past long gone.
rumborak
-
What you call "liberal" I would call forward-facing. I don't think the US can afford to cling to a past long gone.
rumborak
Well, you call it that because you happen to agree with a liberal point of view from what I've seen here. I call it "liberal" because that's just the current nomenclature for the type of political world-view that Obama's appointees tend to embrace. Most of my European friends do this: :rollin when I refer to Obama as a "liberal" because from their perspective he's damn near a conservative, and I can see how they would think that, but then, they don't live here.
So, I completely agree with you about those views being "forward facing," but the unfortunate reality is the power brokers that hold sway in our political system do not. This country is, generally, a center-right country. Frankly, a guy like Obama is lucky to be in office, and I know a lot of people here think he's a lock for a second term (I believe that view is influenced greatly by the relative youth of the audience here) but I don't believe that's the case at all.
What I find downright laughable is the fact that everyone on the political right in this country was doing an awful lot of hand-wringing about how Obama was "the most liberal senator" and such before he got elected and now everyone on the political left in this country is doing an awful lot of hand-wringing about how he's nowhere near as progressive as they had hoped.
What both sides seem to be forgetting is the fact that pretty much every president in the last 50 years has RUN on the extreme left or right but GOVERNED from the center. The exception to that being George W. Bush who governed from the center-right. But George W. Bush had a distinct advantage that Obama does not have. Bush did not face a unified Democratic opposition in the legislature the same way Obama faces a unified Republican opposition. That makes a MASSIVE difference in what an executive can actually accomplish.
This is why I've really just settled for Obama's court appointees, because aside from his watered down health care legislation that's about all he's going to get.
-
The thing is, US politics are extremely far to the right compared to, well, the entire rest of the developed world. What you guys call 'liberal' would still be pretty damn conservative in almost any other country. That's why it's hilarious when Republicans throw around 'liberal' and 'socialism' like they're dirty words.
The current Democratic party in the US is in many ways further right than the current Conservative party here in Canada, and the Conservative party is easily the most right-wing government we've ever elected (the moderate-right Progressive Conservatives and the super right wing Reform party merged into the Conservatives, who are basically the Reform party). Our super right wing Prime Minister would still be far enough to the left in the US that they probably wouldn't have a name for it.
-
The thing is, US politics are extremely far to the right compared to, well, the entire rest of the developed world. What you guys call 'liberal' would still be pretty damn conservative in almost any other country. That's why it's hilarious when Republicans throw around 'liberal' and 'socialism' like they're dirty words.
The current Democratic party in the US is in many ways further right than the current Conservative party here in Canada, and the Conservative party is easily the most right-wing government we've ever elected (the moderate-right Progressive Conservatives and the super right wing Reform party merged into the Conservatives, who are basically the Reform party). Our super right wing Prime Minister would still be far enough to the left in the US that they probably wouldn't have a name for it.
yep :)
-
The end is coming soon.
-
Today's liberalism all but tomorrows conservatism.
I am dumbfounded how ardent conservatives in this country are hell bent on maintaining the "America we love." What particular America would that be? Which era? Frankly, I see picking and choosing ideas from different periods of American history and not really one period in its entirety.
Do we return to the era where Jefferson single-handedly removed Christianity from the Virginia state government? The era where humans were counted as 3/5ths? The era where children worked in dark, smokey, death trap factories?
Do you conservatives not find it a bit strange that what you hold dear only matters for the time you live in? Do you disavow all the progress made over millenia by liberals and progressives?
-
Paul > Obama
Obama > Newt
Obama > Romney
this
-
Jesus I'm seriously concerned with the love for Ron Paul. He's scary.
-
So is everyone else.
-
As a Catholic do find it very difficult to vote for someone whom I know will not support the same morals I do, but then I think to myself I don't push my morals on others, I simply live by them and if they like what they see they will inquire, if not, they move on their way but do think a president shouldn't be acting according to the rules his religion tells him too given that not everyone he supports follows his religion. This is no better than an Evangelical forcing his beliefs down your throat or a fire breathing atheist ridiculing your belief system and forcing their opinions down your throat. The president from my point of view needs to represent the people of America, not the people of The United Church of Christ, or the United Dawkin's Front. That is not to say they must leave their faith at the front door of the White House either however it's a balancing game more or less. In voting I try to vote based on who I think is the right candidate for this time and as much as I see so much hate for Obama I'm still going to vote for him. Why? The economy took a HUGE nosedive the minute he took office which happens for the most part when any new president takes office. If Ron Paul takes office I'm convinced the economy will sink further, beyond even his control (which I think is inevitable anyways). Obama might not be effecting the change we wanted to see but him staying in office might keep the economy in check, maybe it might even improve. A new president in the chair will almost certainly in my mind will tip the scale. Also Ron Paul is a bit to "loopy" with some of his policies.
The biggest problem I see is that we are literally at this point a nation divided and until we find some way to unite again even the best presidential candidate isn't going to save this nation from falling into the abyss. In my humble opinion I think we should "pull an Argentina".
-
Obama might not be effecting the change we wanted to see but him staying in office might keep the economy in check, maybe it might even improve. A new president in the chair will almost certainly in my mind will tip the scale.
For the most part, we've been headed in the right direction since Obama took over. Any complain made that Obama has made things worse, is factually incorrect. He just hasn't made things better as quick as people would have liked him to, and considering he's the President, most of that blame is extremely misplaced.
Last two quarters have seen manufacturing jobs increase for the first time since 1996/7, and the massive trade gap we had (importing way more than we exported) is closing.
-
Jesus I'm seriously concerned with the love for Ron Paul. He's scary.
Not to me. Obama scares me. Romney scares me. Paul does not.
-
Jesus I'm seriously concerned with the love for Ron Paul. He's scary.
Not to me. Obama scares me. Romney scares me. Paul does not.
I don't know. Based on what I've heard from him and about him, I want him as far away from office as possible
Plus, pretty much every Ron Paul supporter I've met here can be reduced to 'ZOMG LEGAL POT HURRDURR'
-
Jesus I'm seriously concerned with the love for Ron Paul. He's scary.
Not to me. Obama scares me. Romney scares me. Paul does not.
I don't know. Based on what I've heard from him and about him, I want him as far away from office as possible
Plus, pretty much every Ron Paul supporter I've met here can be reduced to 'ZOMG LEGAL POT HURRDURR'
This, most people sheep to Ron Paul because he's pro-pot without hearing any of his many other loony spoutings.
-
I honestly can not fathom how someone could be scared by Obama. The guy is so middle-of-the-road, it's not even funny.
rumborak
-
Jesus I'm seriously concerned with the love for Ron Paul. He's scary.
Not to me. Obama scares me. Romney scares me. Paul does not.
I don't know. Based on what I've heard from him and about him, I want him as far away from office as possible
Plus, pretty much every Ron Paul supporter I've met here can be reduced to 'ZOMG LEGAL POT HURRDURR'
As a Ron Paul supporter myself, and someone who's acquainted with plenty of other Paul supporters, I have to wonder where you're getting your information, and what Paul supporters you know. That's certainly not representative.
But hell, even if that was a remotely accurate representation, what on earth would be scary about that?
This, most people sheep to Ron Paul because he's pro-pot without hearing any of his many other loony spoutings.
Seriously? MOST people are sheep to Ron Paul because he's pro-pot? There are so many things wrong with that sentence.
Weigh all the candidates' words against the text of the Constitution, which is supposed to bind down the federal government. Ron Paul is running for federal office. I've never seen anyone who called his views "loony" make a persuasive constitutional case against him. Do you base your opinion about his policies on anything other than baseless whims?
-
Plus, pretty much every Ron Paul supporter I've met here can be reduced to 'ZOMG LEGAL POT HURRDURR'
It's a stupid assertion that people only support RP for his support for legalized marijuana. Maybe those are the people you've met, I can't speak for your experience - but you can't make those generalizations.
His actual position is a constitutional position, states have a right to regulate it in their own way.
His PERSONAL position is though that there should be no paternalistic government laws, such as seat belt laws, drug/alcohol prohibition or anything like that. It's not the role of the government to mold behavior.
I have never seen or touched drugs nor will I ever consume them yet I support the legalization of all drugs. The effects are going to be only positive. Saving large amounts of money in the criminal justice system, as well as there being an easier method for rehab groups to reach out to abusers. The way drug laws are being enforced is also RACIST. Ron Paul would STOP that. Blacks make up something like 1/7 of drug users but over half of those incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses are black.
Plus, if we're going to draw any conclusions from Portugal, a country that legalized all hard drugs a few years back, it's that the number of deaths from overdoses have dramatically decreased. They have not decriminalized the sale of drugs though, which they should have.
I strongly believe that inner city major crime, including homicide, would drastically decrease if distribution and usage of drugs were fully legal.
-
Plus, pretty much every Ron Paul supporter I've met here can be reduced to 'ZOMG LEGAL POT HURRDURR'
It's a stupid assertion that people only support RP for his support for legalized marijuana. Maybe those are the people you've met, I can't speak for your experience - but you can't make those generalizations.
His actual position is a constitutional position, states have a right to regulate it in their own way.
His PERSONAL position is though that there should be no paternalistic government laws, such as seat belt laws, drug/alcohol prohibition or anything like that. It's not the role of the government to mold behavior.
I have never seen or touched drugs nor will I ever consume them yet I support the legalization of all drugs. The effects are going to be only positive. Saving large amounts of money in the criminal justice system, as well as there being an easier method for rehab groups to reach out to abusers. The way drug laws are being enforced is also RACIST. Ron Paul would STOP that. Blacks make up something like 1/7 of drug users but over half of those incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses are black.
Plus, if we're going to draw any conclusions from Portugal, a country that legalized all hard drugs a few years back, it's that the number of deaths from overdoses have dramatically decreased. They have not decriminalized the sale of drugs though, which they should have.
I strongly believe that inner city major crime, including homicide, would drastically decrease if distribution and usage of drugs were fully legal.
reread bolded/underlined before you make assertions about me
-
Assertions?
Are you sure you can stand by that statement about "pretty much every Ron Paul supporter" you've met here? It sounds like a pretty bold assertion to me.
-
So obviously I"m a liar when I say that most of the people I've met and talked to around here who support him mainly like his pro pot policy.
Ok then.
go fuck yourselves
-
While I wouldn't agree with Playslikejmx's assertion, I think everybody has had their experiences with "Paulbots", mindless supporters who regurgitate canned phrases with zero understanding of their own. And yes, some of them are on this site too.
rumborak
-
So obviously I"m a liar when I say that most of the people I've met and talked to around here who support him mainly like his pro pot policy.
Ok then.
go fuck yourselves
I think there may have been a misunderstanding of what you meant by "here."
-
So obviously I"m a liar when I say that most of the people I've met and talked to around here who support him mainly like his pro pot policy.
Ok then.
go fuck yourselves
:huh: "You're a liar" is only one possible interpretation of what I said, and not the most obvious one. I had no intention of offending.
-
So obviously I"m a liar when I say that most of the people I've met and talked to around here who support him mainly like his pro pot policy.
Ok then.
go fuck yourselves
this will serve as a warning
-
Oy vey. Anyway, jsem, I think the opposition to seatbelts speaks for itself. That's completely ridiculous, and my understanding of libertarians has become either people are free-market masturbators or people who are basically drunk on the word freedom.
-
Oy vey. Anyway, jsem, I think the opposition to seatbelts speaks for itself.
It's not an opposition to seatbelts, it's an opposition to seatbelt laws.
I don't want to put a gun to someone's head and coerce them into using seatbelts, even if it is a good thing for them to do.
-
Actually, it wasn't PlaysLikeMyung's assertion. He was speaking from experience.
Dark Castle made the assertion, but whatever.
edit: sorry for double post, didn't notice until it was too late.
-
Oy vey. Anyway, jsem, I think the opposition to seatbelts speaks for itself.
It's not an opposition to seatbelts, it's an opposition to seatbelt laws.
I don't want to put a gun to someone's head and coerce them into using seatbelts, even if it is a good thing for them to do.
I would say, get over yourself. Seriously, if you're opposing something that has saved millions of teenagers' lives over the years (who without the law would likely have driven without a belt) for the mere point of "I just don't want to be told!!", you need to grow up. Freedoms often come with a price tag of their own, maybe it's time to realize that.
rumborak
-
:facepalm:
directed at some of the last few posts
-
I won't vote for a career politician, except maybe a major philanthropist, or someone I don't largely respect. I'm a prick and have no meaningful bearing on US elections.
-
Oy vey. Anyway, jsem, I think the opposition to seatbelts speaks for itself.
It's not an opposition to seatbelts, it's an opposition to seatbelt laws.
I don't want to put a gun to someone's head and coerce them into using seatbelts, even if it is a good thing for them to do.
I would say, get over yourself. Seriously, if you're opposing something that has saved millions of teenagers' lives over the years (who without the law would likely have driven without a belt) for the mere point of "I just don't want to be told!!", you need to grow up. Freedoms often come with a price tag of their own, maybe it's time to realize that.
rumborak
Pretty much this. In all this talk about "freedom" the last few years, I think that lesson has been lost.
-
I think those of us who oppose seatbelt laws find it to be an unreasonable price tag. Why should the government micromanage my life? I'm sure they can conjure up other ways to "save millions of lives;" should they always do so?
It's that same principle that's been used to wage the drug war. Protect people from themselves. Opposition to seatbelt laws addresses the principle. There's nothing wrong with that.
-
OK, but it's been found to be of more utility to support and regulate drugs because doing so saves more lives than would fighting a drug war. The principle is still the same though, that we use government to protect lives. Sure, it allows more freedom, and none of us are saying freedom is a bad thing. But a price tag does come with freedom, and that's ensuring safety within that freedom, as Thomas Hobbes said of liberty.
-
I thought Huntsman's drop out speech was very well done.
-
Some of us favor Ron Paul because he isn't a paid shill of the RNC. Lots of people like to pessimisitcally assume that he's just as crooked as the rest of them, and he might well be, but his votes tend to suggest otherwise. Even if I think his ideology is a bit on the loony side, he still qualifies as enough of an outsider to be preferable to any ass-hats our corporate masters will allow us to vote for.
And do people really oppose seatbelt laws? I'm all for keeping The Man out of our private lives, but insofar as battles go, that's a pretty weak one to fight. Aside from making it exceedingly difficult to get a blow job while driving (which is fraught with enough risks already), I just don't see any detriment to wearing them.
-
The big fallacy with that "outsider" argument is that they all become insiders eventually. By very virtue of the presidency, doesn't that totally cancel it out? Not to mention an outsider will inevitably lack the experience necessary to lead, even if their heart is in the right place. Case in point: Obama.
-
I think those of us who oppose seatbelt laws find it to be an unreasonable price tag. Why should the government micromanage my life? I'm sure they can conjure up other ways to "save millions of lives;" should they always do so?
It's that same principle that's been used to wage the drug war. Protect people from themselves. Opposition to seatbelt laws addresses the principle. There's nothing wrong with that.
Except we don't throw people in jail for not following seat belt laws, we don't "point a gun to their head" as jsem implied. Basically, if you're pulled over for doing something else illegal with your car, you might get an extra fine. Hardly the insult to freedom that it's made out to be, and probably something NO ONE ANYWHERE has ever really complained about making their lives worse. Oh sure, perhaps after getting the $100 ticket, they're bitching and moaning, but compared with everything else in the world, this is like seeing a woman get raped, and a man get robbed, and helping out the man getting robbed.
Meanwhile, private for profit health care makes peoples lives much worse, actually inhibits their freedom, and a bunch of other horrible things, but we shouldn't do anything about those circumstances, becuase it requires public effort.
-
I think with the seat belt laws people just don't like the fact that they're being policed for being stupid. It's not truly a big deal, but is some sort of thing of principle.
I think where the laws make some sense is that twenty years ago there was peer pressure to not wear a seat belt. For some absolutely bizarre reason as a kid you could get picked on for being someone that wore them. Law, to some extent, attempts to alter that attitude, particularly by making parents afraid of a ticket for not securing their children.
-
I think with the seat belt laws people just don't like the fact that they're being policed for being stupid. It's not truly a big deal, but is some sort of thing of principle.
Yeah, pretty much.
I think where the laws make some sense is that twenty years ago there was peer pressure to not wear a seat belt. For some absolutely bizarre reason as a kid you could get picked on for being someone that wore them. Law, to some extent, attempts to alter that attitude, particularly by making parents afraid of a ticket for not securing their children.
Sounds like the job of a parent, not a body of elected officials. Kids get picked on all the time for all sorts of things; some of them are pressured into things far more egregious than not wearing a seatbelt. It's their own responsibility, and the responsibility of their parents, to ensure they don't do something stupid.
-
Parents are stupid. The headlines featured on this forum are more than enough evidence of that. You can't rely on them to make or enforce regulations like that.
-
I think where the laws make some sense is that twenty years ago there was peer pressure to not wear a seat belt. For some absolutely bizarre reason as a kid you could get picked on for being someone that wore them. Law, to some extent, attempts to alter that attitude, particularly by making parents afraid of a ticket for not securing their children.
Sounds like the job of a parent, not a body of elected officials. Kids get picked on all the time for all sorts of things; some of them are pressured into things far more egregious than not wearing a seatbelt. It's their own responsibility, and the responsibility of their parents, to ensure they don't do something stupid.
Well, the justification wouldn't be in making no belt necessary parents change their ways, but in reducing the unseen, opposing pressure faced by parents trying to get their kids to wear them all the time.
-
I think where the laws make some sense is that twenty years ago there was peer pressure to not wear a seat belt. For some absolutely bizarre reason as a kid you could get picked on for being someone that wore them. Law, to some extent, attempts to alter that attitude, particularly by making parents afraid of a ticket for not securing their children.
Sounds like the job of a parent, not a body of elected officials. Kids get picked on all the time for all sorts of things; some of them are pressured into things far more egregious than not wearing a seatbelt. It's their own responsibility, and the responsibility of their parents, to ensure they don't do something stupid.
Well, the justification wouldn't be in making no belt necessary parents change their ways, but in reducing the unseen, opposing pressure faced by parents trying to get their kids to wear them all the time.
It's a law with so little teeth, that it's more of a social reminder to wear a safety belt. It's one of those laws that are ridiculous, and usually only get enforced as basically bullshit, "I don't like you" kind of things, but they're overall impact is extremely small. It's not easily enforceable; I'd garner it has just as much to do with whose responsible in an accident. Seems to me to be fair to consider the stupidity of the person not wearing the seat belt just as equally the driver who caused the accident.
-
I see this entire seat belt "debate" as evolution in action, same as wearing a helmet on a motorcycle....evolution in action.
-
The big fallacy with that "outsider" argument is that they all become insiders eventually. By very virtue of the presidency, doesn't that totally cancel it out? Not to mention an outsider will inevitably lack the experience necessary to lead, even if their heart is in the right place. Case in point: Obama.
Your suggested fallacy is a fallacy. And to suggest that Obama was ever an outsider is ludicrous. He's a career politician from one of the places that best signify political corruption.
Basically, if you're pulled over for doing something else illegal with your car, you might get an extra fine. Hardly the insult to freedom that it's made out to be, and probably something NO ONE ANYWHERE has ever really complained about making their lives worse. Oh sure, perhaps after getting the $100 ticket, they're bitching and moaning, but compared with everything else in the world, this is like seeing a woman get raped, and a man get robbed, and helping out the man getting robbed.
Not sure how it is in your neck of the woods, but you can't drive to the store down here without getting pulled over if you don't wear a seatbelt. If you're white or if it's raining, they might ignore it, but more often than not they're always looking for excuses to snoop around. That's not to say that they'll necessarily write you for it, $75 isn't worth the possible court appearance, but they will investigate you.
I see this entire seat belt "debate" as evolution in action, same as wearing a helmet on a motorcycle....evolution in action.
Helmet laws are a different story. I can point to a few valid reasons why people should be able to opt out of that one.
-
It's a law with so little teeth, that it's more of a social reminder to wear a safety belt. It's one of those laws that are ridiculous, and usually only get enforced as basically bullshit, "I don't like you" kind of things, but they're overall impact is extremely small. It's not easily enforceable; I'd garner it has just as much to do with whose responsible in an accident. Seems to me to be fair to consider the stupidity of the person not wearing the seat belt just as equally the driver who caused the accident.
So we're clear, I was making zero argument about the implementation or effectiveness of the laws.
-
Who these days is not a career politician? Besides, I'd prefer someone who's specifically trained to do the job over someone who comes into it with different training.
-
Except we don't throw people in jail for not following seat belt laws, we don't "point a gun to their head" as jsem implied. Basically, if you're pulled over for doing something else illegal with your car, you might get an extra fine.
Ok, gun to the head is a bit over the top. But there is still an initiation of force. Because if you did nothing wrong (not looking at the law here), did not violate someone's rights, and some one forces you to pull over - that's coercion. What if you don't want to pay they fine? I'm not sure what the law says - but whatever the case there is still a threat of violence from the authorities.
But anyway, if one would see the government as a private owner of the roads, and the roads weren't "public" - it'd be up to the owner of the road to determine if there should be a rule enforcing the use of seat belts. Perhaps on a private road, the owners would highly enforce the use of seat belts for the higher chance of survival so that there can be agreements made by the two car owners and their insurance companies in case of accidents - or something of that nature. Or maybe the road owners whats to enforce it for the general safety of the drivers.
The only problem with this view is that we are coerced into paying for the government roads, which is a violation of the non-aggression principle in the first place.
-
The big fallacy with that "outsider" argument is that they all become insiders eventually. By very virtue of the presidency, doesn't that totally cancel it out? Not to mention an outsider will inevitably lack the experience necessary to lead, even if their heart is in the right place. Case in point: Obama.
Obama's mentor in the senate was Joe Lieberman.
Obama was hardly an outsider who would change the system.
-
Like I said, people have this strange fixation with the idea that someone who's therefore less qualified than an "insider" is somehow someone who can be trusted to be better at the job. I do not understand this. It's like saying that an auto repairman would be better at open heart surgery because he's "outside the system."
-
Like I said, people have this strange fixation with the idea that someone who's therefore less qualified than an "insider" is somehow someone who can be trusted to be better at the job. I do not understand this. It's like saying that an auto repairman would be better at open heart surgery because he's "outside the system."
What if all the established heart surgeons had shown themselves to be horrible at their jobs, while also charging extremely high prices? You might look somewhere else.
-
I think where the laws make some sense is that twenty years ago there was peer pressure to not wear a seat belt. For some absolutely bizarre reason as a kid you could get picked on for being someone that wore them. Law, to some extent, attempts to alter that attitude, particularly by making parents afraid of a ticket for not securing their children.
I think it is ludicrous to assume that the US population somehow "wisened" regarding seat belts. The people who are most at risk for death by not wearing a seat belt are teenagers, and that population has not changed in any way or fashion in its desire to behave reckless to impress peers. I only need to point to the millions of Youtube videos of people hurting themselves badly out of bad judgment. Sacrificing thousands of lives for the ability to say "yeah, but at least the Man is not telling me!" is the definition of a Pyrrhic victory.
rumborak
-
Like I said, people have this strange fixation with the idea that someone who's therefore less qualified than an "insider" is somehow someone who can be trusted to be better at the job. I do not understand this. It's like saying that an auto repairman would be better at open heart surgery because he's "outside the system."
What if all the established heart surgeons had shown themselves to be horrible at their jobs, while also charging extremely high prices? You might look somewhere else.
Except it's not all. As with anything else, there are surgeons who are reliable, and those over-charging ones who you wouldn't go near with a life-or-death situation. It's just a matter of doing your research.
-
Basically, if you're pulled over for doing something else illegal with your car, you might get an extra fine. Hardly the insult to freedom that it's made out to be, and probably something NO ONE ANYWHERE has ever really complained about making their lives worse. Oh sure, perhaps after getting the $100 ticket, they're bitching and moaning, but compared with everything else in the world, this is like seeing a woman get raped, and a man get robbed, and helping out the man getting robbed.
Not sure how it is in your neck of the woods, but you can't drive to the store down here without getting pulled over if you don't wear a seatbelt. If you're white or if it's raining, they might ignore it, but more often than not they're always looking for excuses to snoop around. That's not to say that they'll necessarily write you for it, $75 isn't worth the possible court appearance, but they will investigate you.
Well luckily every place I've heard about doesn't let a police officer pull you over for wearing a seat belt - it's just an extra ticket option, if there's other reasons to pull that person over. What they do there in Texas seems like a bullshit way to pull someone over, and perhaps a little against the spirit of the bill of rights.
It's a law with so little teeth, that it's more of a social reminder to wear a safety belt. It's one of those laws that are ridiculous, and usually only get enforced as basically bullshit, "I don't like you" kind of things, but they're overall impact is extremely small. It's not easily enforceable; I'd garner it has just as much to do with whose responsible in an accident. Seems to me to be fair to consider the stupidity of the person not wearing the seat belt just as equally the driver who caused the accident.
So we're clear, I was making zero argument about the implementation or effectiveness of the laws.
That's fine, but also means your argument is ignoring reality, so it's really not worth listening to.
-
Well fuck me. :lol
I think you're misguided here. First, these laws are different all over the place, while some generalizations might be good guesses I don't know more than one or two examples. Its possible someone did a good job and I have no idea. Second, before bothering to discuss implementation it should be debated if something can be justified as a law. Implementation can be done wrong while a law's purpose has merit, it seems to happen often enough. No merit should means we aim at summary withdrawl. Merit but bad implementation means we should try to adjust the law. Justification is wholly relevant.
You might be right that a law has no place if it can't be implemented effectively, but that's a different topic since a bad implementation doesn't imply it can't be fixed.
-
Dear God this Republican Debate almost makes voting for Obama seem somewhat appealing.
-
Lol. RP wants a 0% tax. Awesome.
rumborak
-
Well fuck me. :lol
You might be right that a law has no place if it can't be implemented effectively, but that's a different topic since a bad implementation doesn't imply it can't be fixed.
I'm just being pragmatic, and I'm not arguing against anything in this sentence, and it sounds like you're misunderstanding my position, which is probably my fault.
Seat belt laws don't erode my freedom (at least the ones I live with), even though in theory they can. They're about as effective as a speed limit sign, and about as limiting to my actual freedom. When libertarian get to this small of a hindrance to my liberty and my freedom, it overlooks so many bigger issues, and one's which in which the government has a role. There's bigger fish to fry, and it sorta reminds me of the whole "first world problems" meme; if you're really complaining about being forced to wear a seat belt, and it's effect on society, then you better be pretty damn happy that's what bothers you... and not a thousand other worse things.
-
Pretty much. Not to mention the quality of life we enjoy relative to almost 2/3 of the entire remaining world population. And the liberty and quality of life relative to just about every human being who ever lived before the 20th century.
-
Dear God this Republican Debate almost makes voting for Obama seem somewhat appealing.
In the current polls Romney is soaring in SC (~30%), Paul stagnated at ~15% and Gingrich is still on descent. I really hope that after SC this stuff is essentially over.
rumborak
-
Me too.
The crowd was raucous tonight. Straight up booing Paul on some foreign policy stuff and standing ovations for Newt on I don't even remember.
-
Me too.
The crowd was raucous tonight. Straight up booing Paul on some foreign policy stuff and standing ovations for Newt on I don't even remember.
Good god, people are desperate.
-
@Scheavo: I wasn't complaining or actively supporting seat belt laws if you thought I was. I was just discussing someone's question as to why people hate it.
-
@Scheavo: I wasn't complaining or actively supporting seat belt laws if you thought I was. I was just discussing someone's question as to why people hate it.
Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you were. That you I used was way more third-party/unspecific than it came off as.
-
Lol. RP wants a 0% tax. Awesome.
rumborak
What did you expect? It's not like he would have a ghost of a chance of getting it done though.
-
I just remembered, the crowd also booed Juan Williams when he was asking Newt some non softball questions on race -- Newt's swift rebuttal was what led to the standing ovation.
-
Lol. RP wants a 0% tax. Awesome.
rumborak
What did you expect? It's not like he would have a ghost of a chance of getting it done though.
What's the point of him standing there then? Make populist claims everybody knows are impossible?
rumborak
-
Lol. RP wants a 0% tax. Awesome.
rumborak
What did you expect? It's not like he would have a ghost of a chance of getting it done though.
What's the point of him standing there then? Make populist claims everybody knows are impossible?
rumborak
He answered the question as it was asked.
Basically, he's going to try to lower taxes as much as possible.
-
Because federal and local governments can pay for everything without tax dollars? ???
-
He answered the question as it was asked.
Basically, he's going to try to lower taxes as much as possible.
No, that's not what he said. Saying "I will lower the taxes as much as possible" would have made him look reasonable. He said "0%" twice in that whole conversation, and that's clearly the promise there. Which is ludicrous.
In other news, Perry called Turkey a terrorist Islamic country. The guy needs to be stripped from any public office.
rumborak
-
He answered the question as it was asked.
Basically, he's going to try to lower taxes as much as possible.
No, that's not what he said. Saying "I will lower the taxes as much as possible" would have made him look reasonable. He said "0%" twice in that whole conversation, and that's clearly the promise there. Which is ludicrous.
In other news, Perry called Turkey a terrorist Islamic country. The guy needs to be stripped from any public office.
rumborak
Rick Perry's comments on Turkey are among the most astonishingly stupid things I've ever heard uttered in public by an elected official. They're a freaking NATO ally for chrissakes :facepalm:
-
In other news, Perry called Turkey a terrorist Islamic country. The guy needs to be stripped from any public office.
rumborak
Wow. No matter how long I've witnessed his incessant buffoonery, he never ceases to amaze me in his idiocy.
edit: after reading the entire exchange, that's a damn fine example of gotcha journalism. The questioner was definitely leading him into a bad situation. Nevertheless, Perry blundered it horribly. If the goal of the question was to ascertain whether or not Perry is capable of diplomatic moderation, I think we got a very definite answer.
BAIER: Governor Perry, since the Islamist-oriented party took over in Turkey, the murder rate of women has increased 1,400 percent there. Press freedom has declined to the level of Russia. The prime minister of Turkey has embraced Hamas and Turkey has threatened military force against both Israel and Cypress. Given Turkey’s turn, do you believe Turkey still belongs in NATO?
PERRY: Well, obviously when you have a country that is being ruled by, what many would perceive to be Islamic terrorists, when you start seeing that type of activity against their own citizens, then yes. Not only is it time for us to have a conversation about whether or not they belong to be in NATO, but it’s time for the United States, when we look at their foreign aid, to go to zero with it.
-
1400 percent? :lol
Because federal and local governments can pay for everything without tax dollars? ???
Considering Paul and the general Libertarian agenda consists of cutting federal government as much as possible, basically until the United States is turns back into the United States are, it kinda makes sense unfortunately.
-
1400 percent? :lol
Because federal and local governments can pay for everything without tax dollars? ???
Considering Paul and the general Libertarian agenda consists of cutting federal government as much as possible, basically until the United States is turns back into the United States are, it kinda makes sense unfortunately.
I don't understand how cutting taxes, while getting rid of government solves anything. We still have a massive debt to pay - how do we pay that without taxes?
-
Ron Paul wouldn't cut all revenue. In three years, he'll have a balanced budget if he gets through his precise plan. After that, it's slowly sizing down spending while still running a surplus so the debt can be paid back.
-
Cutting down on the govt as he plans would bring so much chaos that the tax revenue would totally collapse, leaving the US with the same debt and a crumbled economy. One thing I've noticed about RP supporters is how they always only look at the outcome, never at the way to get there.
rumborak
-
Not to mention the vagueness on just how said budget would actually be balanced, beyond "cut everything."
-
Vagueness?
It's 100% clear:
https://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/ (https://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/)
Don't take my word for it, read it yourself.
-
I'm sorry, but that sounds exactly what I was describing before: cut everything.
-
Yeah, well - everything is getting cut at least a little.
-
By the sound of his plan, it's not just a little, but "tear everything down." Also my problem was that he doesn't seem to have anything else to say for himself; he's a one-trick dog. If your solution to any and all financial problems is just "cut it," that doesn't sound terribly realistic or convincing.
-
Obama wishes Betty White a happy birthday:
https://www.politico.com/blogs/click/2012/01/obama-to-betty-white-your-birth-certificate-111104.html
rumborak
-
The Ron Paul plan is mind-bogglingly absurd. Another in a long list of reasons he'll never get more than about 15% support.
-
Under Paul, his complete failure to pass any bills would just continue, only at a higher level. He would propose stuff that is absolutely ludicrous, and Congress would shut it down one after one.
rumborak
-
Since he votes against most bills anyway, he'd just get his way on stopping more "bad" stuff.
-
You'd be hard pressed to say anything more fatal about a candidate. I don't look for a perennial naysayer in a president; I'm looking for a leader who gets stuff done.
jsem, do you not have doubts yourself about RP? I mean, what's your personal view on this guy?
rumborak
-
What I like about him is that he looks what to cut and plans to do it. He's not like: Damn, there's a knife inside this patient, SHIT! OK, hmmm, let's fix this, STAB ANOTHER ONE AND WE WILL REMOVE THE FIRST ONE. No, man! he's more like RIGHT, so it has made the patient lose a lot of blood. GREAT! it hasn't touch vital organs let's remove this shit! BAM! Patient will now enter to the recovery process.
Remove all those useless departments, that's what he'll do.
-
I think it is a sign of major, major delusion to believe that 5 federal departments are completely devoid of any benefit.
The good news is, it's clear that even amongst Republicans, RP can not break the wall of more than 20%. That so far has been the high ceiling for him.
rumborak
-
I think it is a sign of major, major delusion to believe that 5 federal departments are completely devoid of any benefit.
The good news is, it's clear that even amongst Republicans, RP can not break the wall of more than 20%. That so far has been the high ceiling for him.
rumborak
What Rumby said.
-
What I like about him is that he looks what to cut and plans to do it. He's not like: Damn, there's a knife inside this patient, SHIT! OK, hmmm, let's fix this, STAB ANOTHER ONE AND WE WILL REMOVE THE FIRST ONE. No, man! he's more like RIGHT, so it has made the patient lose a lot of blood. GREAT! it hasn't touch vital organs let's remove this shit! BAM! Patient will now enter to the recovery process.
Remove all those useless departments, that's what he'll do.
Cept, if you have a knife inside you, simply removing it could mean you die. If you ever get stabbed by something big, leave it the fuck in until you get medical attention. It may sound all good to just remove the knife, or in this case cut the budget?, but you have to look at other adverse effects before just removing the knife.
Obama wishes Betty White a happy birthday:
https://www.politico.com/blogs/click/2012/01/obama-to-betty-white-your-birth-certificate-111104.html
rumborak
Obama seems to have a genuine sense of humor. By the way, I just realized that Obama is left handed.
-
Oh, you didn't know? Well, being lefty myself I guess I remembered that one the first time I saw it. I think Bill Clinton was lefty too.
EDIT: Whoa, good list of lefties as POTUS:
James A. Garfield (1831-1881) 20th
Herbert Hoover (1874-1964) 31st
Harry S. Truman (1884-1972) 33rd
Gerald Ford (1913- ) 38th
Ronald Reagan (1911 - ) 40th
George H.W. Bush (1924- ) 41st
Bill Clinton (1946- ) 42nd
Barack Obama (1961- ) 44th
rumborak
-
Oh, you didn't know? Well, being lefty myself I guess I remembered that one the first time I saw it. I think Bill Clinton was lefty too.
rumborak
Probably came up, but I never cared. Some reason, I noticed it when he was writing this time.
-
I just noticed, too. Lefties unite!
-
I just noticed, too. Lefties unite!
o/
-
I just noticed, too. Lefties unite!
o/
*\o RIGHT HANDED INTERCEPTION!
-
Damn it.
-
Cept, if you have a knife inside you, simply removing it could mean you die. If you ever get stabbed by something big, leave it the fuck in until you get medical attention. It may sound all good to just remove the knife, or in this case cut the budget?, but you have to look at other adverse effects before just removing the knife.
Half-jokingly, half-true: RP is a Dr. I think he knows what to do (and Doctors check what damage the stab has done; has it cut an artery, is it infected, has it touched a vital organ? which I implied it didn't.)
Yet I digress, the point was to address an old analogy Rumborak said about "if the knife is in don't pull it out" which, arbitrarily and wrong as it is, can be modified to the point of view I want.
Those departments can have all the good intentions they want, the point is that they don't work and have helped to corrupt the system. I don't think name-calling supporters of any politician helps a bit. Some RP supporters may be extreme in their ways, yet I don't think all are "delusional"; considering that all the POTUS from Rep to Dem have applied the same "medicine" to their measures, yet they are "leaders" and "reasonable" according to your logic.
tl;dr No more name-calling, please.
-
Cept, if you have a knife inside you, simply removing it could mean you die. If you ever get stabbed by something big, leave it the fuck in until you get medical attention. It may sound all good to just remove the knife, or in this case cut the budget?, but you have to look at other adverse effects before just removing the knife.
Half-jokingly, half-true: RP is a Dr. I think he knows what to do (and Doctors check what damage the stab has done; has it cut an artery, is it infected, has it touched a vital organ? which I implied it didn't.)
I kinda have my qualms about that one, btw. RP is a medical doctor; I have had many dealings with medical students, and there's one common thread among them: they are terrible with numbers. I know for the Paulites the fact that RP is a doctor is a source of pride (thus the whole "Dr. Paul, Dr. Paul!" chants on his gatherings), but I actually think it at least raises an eyebrow. Romney's previous profession makes him far more believable to speak authoritatively on matter of finance and economy. IMHO. The fact that RP so doggedly clings to defunct economic theories kinda underscores my concerns about him.
rumborak
-
I really don't see how drastic cuts to government spending is going to help our country right now. History has shown that cutting government spending too soon after a recession can cause a second recession (see the Great Depression). Plus cutting government departments as Paul wants to would let out probably tens of thousands of people into a workforce that already has more people than jobs. I understand wanting a smaller government and trimming the fat. I just don't think this is the time to do anything drastic. Let the economy rebound while making modest cuts and then go further when the economy is humming along again.
-
To stick with the analogy, the skilled surgeon removes the affected sites, not the whole organ. RP of all people should know that. I wonder whether RP always amputated legs when somebody had athlete's foot.
rumborak
-
Cept, if you have a knife inside you, simply removing it could mean you die. If you ever get stabbed by something big, leave it the fuck in until you get medical attention. It may sound all good to just remove the knife, or in this case cut the budget?, but you have to look at other adverse effects before just removing the knife.
Half-jokingly, half-true: RP is a Dr. I think he knows what to do (and Doctors check what damage the stab has done; has it cut an artery, is it infected, has it touched a vital organ? which I implied it didn't.)
I kinda have my qualms about that one, btw. RP is a medical doctor; I have had many dealings with medical students, and there's one common thread among them: they are terrible with numbers. I know for the Paulites the fact that RP is a doctor is a source of pride (thus the whole "Dr. Paul, Dr. Paul!" chants on his gatherings), but I actually think it at least raises an eyebrow. Romney's previous profession makes him far more believable to speak authoritatively on matter of finance and economy. IMHO. The fact that RP so doggedly clings to defunct economic theories kinda underscores my concerns about him.
rumborak
Hehe, reminds me of a story about some medical research doctors rediscovering calculus, because they never learned / completely forgot what integral were. Apparently it was a huge problem in the entire field.
Those departments can have all the good intentions they want, the point is that they don't work and have helped to corrupt the system. considering that all the POTUS from Rep to Dem have applied the same "medicine" to their measures, yet they are "leaders" and "reasonable" according to your logic.
This is true for some of them, but it's just false to say that no federal agencies have done anything positive for people, or that no federal programs have done nothing positive for people. Social security works great. Medicare works great. To simply cut both of those programs becuase they have some minor adjustments that are needed is wrong and silly.
Also, Obama recently called for the power to consolidate and get rid of federal agencies, to reduce regulations, burdensome regulations, and improve the overall process. Way to be factually wrong about what the POTUS and other Democrats are proposing.
-
You'd be hard pressed to say anything more fatal about a candidate. I don't look for a perennial naysayer in a president; I'm looking for a leader who gets stuff done.
True, and this is the sad part.
The one thing that he single-handedly would be able to change though is foreign policy. As Commander in Chief he would be able to bring the troops home, end sanctions that kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and have the exact opposite effect of what they're supposed to have. He would cease drone programs, withdraw completely from a region that is hostile to the UR because of the
very presence and their constant meddling in affairs. He would shut down all foreign military bases, end the Afghanistan War, end the Iraq War (it's not over, there's about 17000 contractors still there afaik).
He would also be able to end a lot of civil liberties atrocities.
These are things he can realistically do.
But as far as replacing the monetary system and financial reform, actual downsizing, none of that's going to happen. I mean, he's not going to be able to end the federal income tax either, or withdraw from the UN or NATO in the near future.
jsem, do you not have doubts yourself about RP? I mean, what's your personal view on this guy?
rumborak
I have no reason to doubt his sincerity, his truthfulness or his integrity. I have no doubts that he would abandon his views once he gets into office.
The thing that bothers me about him though is his strict view of the Constitution. The Constitution was a very good document, but several things in it put me off. The "general welfare" clause is one of them, it could be used to justify nearly any intervention by the government into the economy and people's pockets. Also there is this absolutist view of states rights that bothers me, I'm not a US citizen so it shouldn't concern me that much - but even if Ron Paul would end the drug war federally, he wouldn't go in and stop a state from banning marijuana or something of that nature.
His personal view is however to have a union where every state has libertarian laws, but he takes his oath of office too seriously. The Constitution is in small parts an anti-liberty document.
-
He can't end sanctions by executive order. You need the legislative branch for that.
-
True, but he wouldn't put on any new sanctions at least. The last sanctions on Iran were not passed through congress either afaik, it was done by executive order. It's sad.
When it comes to making a choice on who to vote for, remember this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4PgpbQfxgo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4PgpbQfxgo)
-
Hey, jsem, you're right, a lot of the sanctions imposed by the US were by executive order.
I found this really good complete list of all sanctions passed against Iran since 1979 (https://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/22/us-iran-sanctions-fb-idUSTRE7AL11K20111122)
(funny side note, I found it through Wikipedia, which really isn't all that blacked out if you know how to press the escape button :lol )
-
I almost feel that the only sanction I could see appropriate is to shut down their central bank.
But that would stem from the belief that central banking is bad and we want to free their people from the fiat money system :lol
Ok. Terrible joke.
-
By the way, from that link I just provided:
Congress approved tough new unilateral sanctions on June 24, 2010, aimed at squeezing Iran's energy and banking sectors, which could also hurt companies from other countries doing business with Tehran.
(emphasis mine)
I think when the congress imposes sanctions, the president cannot lift them by executive order. I could be wrong, though.
The point to all of this, going back to Ron Paul, the powers of the executive branch are many, but especially on budgetary matters no President can just wipe out huge swaths of the federal government. He'd have to work with congress on that stuff, so a lot of the claims that Ron Paul makes about balancing the budget in just three years are nothing but election-year hyperbole.
And that goes for any other candidate making similar claims.
-
By the way, from that link I just provided:
Congress approved tough new unilateral sanctions on June 24, 2010, aimed at squeezing Iran's energy and banking sectors, which could also hurt companies from other countries doing business with Tehran.
(emphasis mine)
I think when the congress imposes sanctions, the president cannot lift them by executive order. I could be wrong, though.
The point to all of this, going back to Ron Paul, the powers of the executive branch are many, but especially on budgetary matters no President can just wipe out huge swaths of the federal government. He'd have to work with congress on that stuff, so a lot of the claims that Ron Paul makes about balancing the budget in just three years are nothing but election-year hyperbole.
And that goes for any other candidate making similar claims.
That's his step by step plan.
But getting it done is a whole different story, especially with the way congress is now.
-
Barack over Newt and Mitt. Paul over Obama.