Joker
Student
How about a magic trick? *Dada*
Posts: 19
|
Post by Joker on Oct 10, 2008 5:29:23 GMT -5
Just a question for Boromir, Why should we be basing our vote on what the world needs? I know Obama was campaigning in Germany, but why? How many electoral votes is the EU worth any how? I think we should base our vote on what is good for the US and the US alone. Obama want's to take millions of tax payers dollars and give that money to the world through the UN to fight global poverty. Why? What has the world done for us lately. Here is one more question I would like to ask Obama. So Obama, could you help me please find these things, sir? 1. Occidental College records -- Not released 2. Columbia College records -- Not released 3. Columbia Thesis paper -- 'not available' 4. Harvard College records -- Not released 5. Selective Service Registration -- Not released 6. Medical records -- Not released 7. Illinois State Senate schedule -- 'not available' 8. Law practice client list -- Not released 9. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate - - Not released 10. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth -- Not released 11. Harvard Law Review articles published -- None 12. University of Chicago scholarly articles -- None 13. Your Record of baptism-- Not released or 'not available' 14. Your Illinois State Senate records--'not available' Not only are these things usually released by candidates, but if this guy was a Republican, the press would have demanded it by now. Some of this he would need just to get a job at a law office. Bubba, I guess there is a big misunderstanding on your part. I do not know but I did not say anything European voting. Anyway, I am not sure what the answer I would come up with from the question up there even though I understand your question and you have got a point. Well, as far as I know, US votes for itself not for European countries or both US presidential candidates would talk about European all the time. Bubba, I guess you need to think rationally and I believe you'r somehow biased. As for my argument, I want US to take into consideration the world because US is the only one country which can effect millions around the world. Maybe I should remind you the past as to why shoul US take the world into consideration: 1) Afghan and Iraqi war still continues and there seems to be nothing that US claimed is found which was the weapons of mass destruction. 2) US is the one of the countries that have not signed on the treaty of Kyoto. I think you know it but Look that up! if you do not know what it is These are two primary that came to my mind right now. In the end, my friend US has all the economic power and military power. This is why the new president should think all of this stuff and I believe Obama is the guy. I have no idea about the records. U should e-mail Obama if you find out. And for the last time, I never said MCcain is a bad guy nor anything that might underestimate his approach towards the events. Mccain can be a good president but I think Obama will be better. Bubba, sorry that I would not answer your questions because your asking to the wrong person. However, feel free to debate with me anytime.
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Oct 10, 2008 7:57:46 GMT -5
Bubba, I guess there is a big misunderstanding on your part. I do not know but I did not say anything European voting. Anyway, I am not sure what the answer I would come up with from the question up there even though I understand your question and you have got a point. Well, as far as I know, US votes for itself not for European countries or both US presidential candidates would talk about European all the time. Bubba, I guess you need to think rationally and I believe you'r somehow biased. He's rational, and yes biased. He believes very strongly in conservative values, and honestly and integrity, as do I, which is why we have issues with Mr. Obama. However, I think the question was more an expression of frustration with the idea often expressed by our media, as well as the global media, that US citizens should vote based on the rest of the world's opinion instead of what is best for our country. No other democratic nation on the planet is expected to put their national interest in a position of secondary importance when it comes to their national election, and it is frustrating for many of us here in the US to have our media, your media, and one of our candidates pushing us to do exactly that. However, all that being said, this thread asked a specific question, who would you vote for. And you answered that question. So, it's all good as far as that goes. Actually we effect billions around the world in the things we do. I just opened another thread in the discussion area on a topic this would probably fit with. But, my comment on this idea is this, if we do not first protect our national sovereignty and our way of life, we will not be able to continue to have a positive impact on those billions of people. It is the fact that we are not a socialist system like Europe and many of the other developed nations, that allows us the funding and flexibility to assist in so many areas of the world in so many different ways. It is our system of government and economy that allows the UN to exist in its current form and provide the humanitarian aid that it does. Afghanistan was entered to get rid of a terrorist safe haven and rout the Taliban so that they could not continue to be sponsors of terrorism. In so far as it goes, that's been done. The problems that are still going on there are ones that were going in for decades before we engaged, and due to the tribal nature of the peoples in that region, the rugged terrain, and our desire to keep civilian casualties to a minimum, they could not, and will not be solved over night. If you would like us to nuke the area and eliminate the population, and thus the enemy, we can accomplish that. But it's not generally very good PR to wipe out entire countries in an effort to get rid of a small percentage of the population. So, we chose to do it the hard way. Iraq is a subject I'll address in a different thread in the next few days. For the moment, we did not go to Iraq solely because of weapons of mass destruction. And while we did not get UN security council approval, after trying for almost a year, we did go to war with a coalition force that included something like 35 allied nations in one capacity or another. There has been evidence of weapons of mass destruction uncovered in Iraq as well, it just hasn't been widely reported. Lastly, Saddam Hussein and Iraq were considered a major threat by most of the free world, for several years before the invasion took place, not just the US. Saddam was committing genocide against his own people, and promoting sectarian violence, among other atrocities. The same things the world is now crying to the US to step in militarily for in Darfur. You can't have it both ways. Either genocide is a cause for going to war, or it's not, and it was one of the 18 listed as justification for the Iraq war. You are absolutely correct. Under Bill Clinton, when it was first introduced, he supported the idea in public, then refused to send it to the Senate because he knew it would be a political lynching to try to get that by the people. We will not wreck our economy, which is a major driving force in developing clean safe energy technologies, by submitting to arbitrary limitations set by other countries designed to limit our life styles. You will also note that while China, Brazil, and India may have signed the protocol, they were not required to make reductions, or to keep expansions in check, and faced no consequences for not being responsible environmentally. That is why we would not sign it, and why we will not ever sign it. These are two primary that came to my mind right now. As to Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain, they, as well as the American people, understand the responsibility our position of power entails. However, Mr. Obama wants to move us into socialism, and curtail the very freedoms that give us the ability to meet those responsibilities. Mr. McCain wants to at least hold at bay the trend in that direction, giving our economy a chance to recover, and thus the economies around the world that are suffering, and be sure at the same time not to reduce our ability to respond to threats to ourselves and our allies by not losing the wars we are involved in. Thank you for expressing your thoughts. I find it very interesting to get an outside perspective. Just please remember that the press isn't usually right on a lot of this, so try not to think too harshly of us based upon what you see in the news.
|
|
|
Post by Bubba's Dad on Oct 10, 2008 12:06:29 GMT -5
Joker, I would answer you but Lady Tera beat me to it, and I agree fully with her answers.
|
|
sakaido
Journeyman
Ryuichi+Coffee=Best icon ever.
Posts: 111
|
Post by sakaido on Oct 10, 2008 17:02:12 GMT -5
I'm ignoring the ballots for the rest of my life. =[
I no longer see the point in voting.
I was going to vote Obama though. No special reasons.
McCain just reminds me of Bush. And Palin annoys the crap outta me.
|
|
|
Post by pendergrast on Oct 10, 2008 20:10:44 GMT -5
Memo from Joe Biden to Bubba's Dad; Don't question your opponent's integrity:
I am sorry to be getting behind on these posts. Frankly this much writing fatigues me and I just feel like a Christian trying to convert a commited Muslim, when I talk to deep dyed conservative republicans.
This is my general perspective on the election. Not point by point rebuttal.
I have been a democrat since Gene Mc Carthy’s campaign in 1968… I was a big Goldwater fan in ’64. Just like Hillary Clinton, in that small respect. I was already an Army vet by 68.
I do not believe in the mantra that the less government the better. I don’t believe in ‘trickle down’ economics (that is, that if the rich and the big companies have more money, via less taxes, business will be good, and eventually the little person will prosper). I think this is basically an excuse for the rich to get richer. The real need is for GOOD government, not small government. There are some things, not all, that government can do better. Call it socialism or reptilian anger, it’s still true.
I have not been a fan of the Reagan Revolution. I think Reagan was a very powerful and influential President who moved the whole mainstream of American politics to the right. I’d like to see it move back to where it was before that, from at least Eisenhower through Carter.
Obviously, big business has now proved itself incapable of self governance. We need a real working regulatory structure. The deregulation obsession of Bush/McCain has self-destructed.
I believe that national health insurance, properly handled, could work. It does work in many other countries (foreigners actually have good ideas too). I lived in Japan for 11 years and noticed that when people went to the hospital, they were mainly concerned about their health, whereas here (and I also worked in a hospital for 10 years) most people are doubly stressed because they aren’t sure they’re covered. We pay more per capita here for health care than anyone, and yet we have shorter lifespans than in many other countries, and 47 million Americans are cut off from all except emergency visits because they have no health care at all. The health care bills are a major cause of our economic woes.
Obama’s health care plan sounds pretty good. Mc Cain incorrectly claims that it would force poor people to buy health care…not true, he crafted it in such a way to avoid that problem. Nor is it quite ‘universal healthcare.’mm( Both Clinton and Obama, by the way, used the example of the Massachusetts health care plan passed by Mitt Romney, of all people. They don’t advertise that.)
Mc Cain thinks his detailed plan would be better, because it works with market incentives. But it sounds weird to me. It’s a regular Rube Goldberg machine, and the specifics, like a $5000 tax credit to families to buy personal insurance… well, it’s not going to be enough. Experts don’t think it’s as bad as Obama makes out, but it doesn’t look like it would actually increase coverage for the 47 million who are lacking it.
Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security are very good government programs that could be improved. Repub ranters call them ‘socialist’ but who cares about name calling? They work. National health insurance could work too.
I believe the Bush foreign policy is arrogant and unilateral. I remember, before his election, Bush boasting about how few foreign countries he had visited. It shows. I remember when Bush said, in his big speech declaring war on terrorism ‘We are drawing a line in the sand. You are either with us or against us.’ A Swedish friend heard that and said, “Of course, we are against you.’ I believe the US has lost the trust or confidence that other nations had in it. Obama knows that and wants to make the US a leader again.
I believe global warming is real. Gore did a very good job with his film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” A few of his conclusions were exaggerated, but the basic thrust is incontrovertible. Remember that when he received his Nobel Peace Prize, the co-winners were a group called the IPCC, the International Panel on Climate Change, a highly respected group of scientists who review all the scientific data on the subject from around the world. They concluded that global warming was real, and man-made.
Republicans since Reagan’s time have turned a blind eye to environmental problems. Carter put solar panels in the White House; Reagan had them removed. Bush killed US participation in the Kyoto Accords, effectively ruining any chance the US had to lead on this issue. It also made it much harder for major polluters like China, India, and Brazil to even think about changing their ways.
Iraq has been a disaster. No one but McCain thinks there’s a ‘victory’ in sight. Certainly Petraeus does not. Obama tried to make the case that the US obsession with Iraq causes us to lose sight of the bigger picture, of how we can best use our limited resources in dealing not with one country, but with a whole world of problems. The actual endgame in Iraq is bound to be difficult, but there must be one.
The Obama I see is calm and intelligent, with a large view of the world. People who have worked with him say he has indeed strived for consensus in all his work. That he has his own views but is a pragmatis, that he will take half a loaf rather than nothing. This is very encouraging.
Is he honorable? Why not? I automatically dismiss Republican personal attacks. They are a bad old story, dating back to Tricky Dick. The Swift Boat stuff about Kerry was terrible. Kerry got a silver start as commander of a ‘swift boat’ in the Vietnam war. Some other Swift boat commanders conveniently came out with, 30 years and more later, a letter saying that they were there, and Kerry didn’t do all the stuff the Navy Department said he did. But yet another Swift Boat captain…and a Republican..stood up for him. If nothing else, Kerry WENT TO VIETNAM AND GOT SHOT AT. As my dad would say, that puts him in a select fraternity. Unlike Clinton, Cheney, Bush, Quayle, who all found important reasons to avoid getting shot at… Or, ironically, the whispers about McCain having a black family that the Bushes used in South Carolina. Especially in this election, since they are likely to lose, and for very good reason. Republican operatives have tacitly admitted that McCain is not going to win on policy, so they are going to have to get ‘tougher’. (per Shields/Brookes on NPR news). I’m holding my nose. ‘Guilt by association’ is basically scummy method of mudslingling, perfected by Sen. Joe McCarthy, in the 1950s.
I think Obama’s election could be a great help for race relations in this country, and a great lesson for people in other countries who are dismissive of us. He could be a wonderful role model for young blacks. He could prove that white people can respect and vote for a black. This by the way, would give the lie to suspicions like those of his old pastor, Rev. Wright.
His choice of Biden for VP was excellent. Biden could do a decent job in case of need, he obviously has tremendous experience and gravitas. He also proved, in debating ‘the pit bull’ that he could restrain himself when it really counts. His performance during that debate outlines the democratic point of view eloquently, better than Obama does it. And there is no way to deny that he, like McCain, is an honorable man, and that he understands the problems of people.
I also learned something from him that night that all the ‘pit bulls’ on every side should ponder. Biden said that his secret for working with his opponents in the Senate was never, ever, to question his opponents’ motives…only their judgement.
So basically that’s where I’m coming from.
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Oct 13, 2008 6:00:27 GMT -5
Memo from Joe Biden to Bubba's Dad; Don't question your opponent's integrity: I've heard that quote, and I don't agree with it. Character matters in our elected officials. It is our obligation as those who choose our government to question questionable behavior. Ignoring it only condones it, and the capital turns into the cesspool it is now, through downright corruption, or turning the other cheek on it. And that is not directed against one side or the other. I question the character of anyone I'm looking at voting on, because character and principle will determine their reaction to events that cannot be foretold. Please note I'll be taking this in parts, because I'm falling behind too. I'm taking a short break from prep work for later this week. And I feel kind of the same way when I'm talking to dyed in the wool liberal democrats. It's a little less frustrating, because quite simply, your party no longer stands for the principles of most democrats from your generation, and more and more of them are starting to look beyond the sound bites to the actual policies, and how those policies measure up to their personal beliefs on government, and finding they can't vote for the current leaders. So noted. I'll probably go point by point for the sheer reason that it keeps my thoughts organized. Goldwater was a dyed conservative as you put it, and was the precursor to Ronald Regan. Economics is economics. Higher taxes result in less production (which, by the way, is entirely appropriate in some economic circumstances, but a recession is not one of them), which results in fewer jobs and lower wages, which results in a shrinking economy. Call that trickle down, rich getting richer, or whatever you want, but those are the basics laws of economics, that have proven out time and again. And just a note on a philosophical difference. There are no little people. Walmart started a small family store. Amway started with two guys in a basement making soap. Apple and Microsoft both started as one guy with an idea. Almost every large commercial company out there these days started out as a small business of some kind. And rich people making more money, does not follow that the poor get poorer, which is the mantra I don't subscribe to. The American Dream is that the sky is the limit, and the government shouldn't be allowed to tell you otherwise. You are right that we need GOOD government, but big government is too unwieldy to be GOOD. And you are absolutely correct that there are some things government does well. Business isn't one of them. Eisenhower gave us the War on Poverty. We've been fighting that war for more than half a century now, and we still haven't won. I think we need an exit strategy. Carter gave us fixed pricing, gas rationing, a major recession, and a hostage crisis that lasted more than a year. Those are just the high points I remember. I was still little at the time. Where do you get this impression. Read the Wall Street Journal, they are calling for the heads of Congressional leaders that BLOCKED regulation and oversight of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac. Paulson stated the reason it was necessary to place those two entities in conservatorship was because they were represented to investors as FEDERALLY backed companies, not private entities. HUD, the government run housing program, estimates millions of illegal immigrants were given access to loans through these companies using fraudulent documentation. These programs, and their fraudulent profit reporting is what led to the bottom falling out of the market. And the free fall on Wall Street gets worse every time the government steps in to help. The market has lost 40% of it's value since this time last year, and most of the drop has been since the beginning of the government intervention. Mr. Obama was at the forefront of the efforts, during his law years, in conjunction with ACORN, of forcing the sub-prime loans on lenders, under threat of being sued. Mr. Dodd was the leader of the committee that was supposed to be regulating these entities, and instead is the single largest receiver of campaign contributions from them, AND he got a sweet heart deal on a mortgage from one of the companies now under investigation. But, when it comes right down to it, if you want to lay the blame for all this on someone, put it squarely on the shoulders of the millions of Americans that went out and purchased homes they could not afford, without bothering to check the terms, and then decided to stick the rest of us with the bills when they came due. You are correct. For government backed entities, that force privately held companies to make substandard loans, we do need a working regulatory structure. Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain have been calling for stricter oversight of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac for the last five years, and they have been blocked at every turn by the Democrats in Congress. Contrary to the talking points, neither man believes in NO regulation. They believe in appropriate regulation, that promotes commerce, as the Federal Government is mandated by the Constitution to do. I do not know about Japan, so I won't speak to it. I do know about Canada and Europe. Their health care systems are bankrupting their citizens, and causing massive shortages in availability of care. The 47 million you quote is inaccurate. Many of those folks are what the Democrats are now calling "underinsured". I would also guess, but I do not have numbers, that that number also includes the 15-20 million illegal aliens who are NOT Americans. Either way, it is a fallacy that those folks have no means of obtaining health care. I know because I am among them. There are free clinics in most cities, most teaching hospitals also have free clinics, every county I've ever been in has a county health department for medical care, usually payment is on a sliding scale. Many counties also have charitable clinics that are either free or charge on a sliding scale. Each state has access to Medicaid for those below the poverty line, and a separate children's insurance for those that cannot obtain insurance through work or private means. And, there is always the option of going to your doctor and either paying up front, or working out a payment plan for their services. Government, in this case, is not the answer, and is in violation of the 10th Amendment with the programs they are proposing. You're right. It doesn't force them, it only applies fines if they opt not to. Well, if you have no coverage, and the government allots you $5,000 to purchase coverage, that would be an increase. Personally I think both plans stink to a degree, but Mr. McCain's offers personal choice, and personal responsibility, without government intervention. I'm going to have to quit for now. Gotta finish work and get some sleep before I head to the airport. I'll be back when I get a chance.
|
|
|
Post by keyodie on Oct 13, 2008 16:58:53 GMT -5
I only have one thing to say in response since I no pretty much nothing about politics. It's about what was quoted from Joe Biden.
I agree completely with that quote. What he's saying is that just because someone doesn't agree with you concerning America doesn't mean that they don't love America. McCain loves America. Obama loves America. Supporters from both sides love America. It doesn't make sense to me to say that Obama supporters aren't patriotic, because why would they be supporting a presidential candidate if they didn't care about the country? Why would they vote if they didn't care about their country? Don't judge their intentions, question their judgment.
Sure, there are people who vote based on which candidate will help them the most, but these people are on both sides and it's not that bad of a reason anyway.
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Oct 19, 2008 3:19:39 GMT -5
Keyodie, this is a case of someone attempting to change the language, and therefore limit speech.
Motive - 1. something that causes a person to act in a certain way, do a certain thing, etc.; incentive. 2. the goal or object of a person's actions: Her motive was revenge.
In essence, when we are told not to question a persons motives, we are told not to question what they intend to do and why they intend to do it. That would be like me saying, "Give me your wallet," and then telling you not to ask why. The folks now telling us not to question a person's motives equate that word with don't question their patriotism or love of country.
Patriotism - devoted love, support, and defense of one's country; national loyalty.
Here, the fact that one of presidential candidates chose to make a campaign speech in the same forum as Hitler in Germany disquiets me on exactly how devoted he is to my country. The fact that he chose to emphasize what he sees as the flaws of my country, and failed to mention our many strengths further calls that devotion into question for me. Am I saying he doesn't love this country? No, I cannot know another's heart or mind, I can only judge those things by their actions. Mr. Obama's actions do not reassure me that his interests and the interests of the nation are the same.
As for judging intentions, again:
Intentions - 1. an act or instance of determining mentally upon some action or result. 2. the end or object intended; purpose.
Again, how do you make an informed choice without knowing the intended course of action and the intended results of what a person says they want to do. Issues of character not withstanding, it is the stated goal of Mr. Obama, and most of the Democrat officials in Washington to redefine some basic principles. They want to move us toward a collectivist society where the government is responsible for providing for large portions of our private lives. This takes away individual responsibility, and thus removes individual liberty. From what I know of the history of this country, as well as the history of many other countries around the world, the idea of individual responsibility and limited government authority is what makes this country unique and successful. I truly believe that to change that fundamental ideal will eventually lead to the downfall of the land I love, and therefore, it is important that I understand the intentions of those seeking to lead us. I do, very much question Mr. Obama's judgment as well. Which is why his associations are important. People scream about the idea of guilt by association. But, the truth is, I don't believe Mr. Obama is guilty of terrorism and treason because one of his associates is. I don't believe Mr. Obama is guilty of racism and anti-Americanism because his associates are. I don't believe Mr. Obama is guilty of fraud and embezzlement because his associates are. I don't believe he is guilty of disliking this country because his associate is. I believe his judgment is highly faulty because he surrounds himself with such associations.
I also question his integrity. And, I think that's probably more the point of what Mr. Biden was getting at. Mr. Obama, both directly from his own lips, and in his campaign has misrepresented information, and outright lied on numerous occasions. He has reversed positions when it became politically expedient to do so. And, rather than state that he was wrong, he just expects to be taken at face value, and gets upset when someone questions the reason behind the shift. Basically, to me, he comes off as the worst kind of lawyer who will say or do anything to win, and damn the truth. I dislike people like that on principle.
Now, before anyone gets in too much of a twist, this entire post, with the exception of the language references, is posed here as opinion. That opinion is based on watching the debates, watching multiple campaign speeches, reading up on things I found questionable, and a lot of various other information sources. Needless to say I'm a bit of a political junkie, and I gather a lot of information before forming opinions on these things. But, even with that being said, I also realize that at the moment, I haven't provided links to the information I refer to here. So, if there are particular statements you'd like backed up, I'll find the information to post. And if you choose to dismiss it as the rantings of a hard core conservative, that's okay too. It's your prerogative. And, if you want to discuss the fact that you just disagree with the opinion, that's okay too. I just didn't want anyone to think I was trying to state this all as fact without backing it up. It's just an op-ed at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by keyodie on Oct 19, 2008 11:34:06 GMT -5
Ah, well, unfortunately, dictionary definitions don't do a very good job of explaining what people say. People do not think about what their words mean, they think about what they are expressing. Different words can be interpreted different ways and can mean different things, that's the nature of the language. So I think it's more important to look at the meaning behind them.
That quote was meant to say, or I interpret it as, don't question whether or not they love their country. Question how they are going to bring about the changes and how they are going to make this nation better. The motives of both candidates? Their love for their country. Their intentions? To make this nation better. Their judgement? Two very different ideas.
I won't get into anything else you said because I really don't know anything about politics. However, I think it's a bit misleading to say he only lists the flaws and not the strengths. His whole campaign is about change. Of course he has to justify what he is going to change, of course he has to focus on change. Many MANY people in this nation right now want change. It would only be logical to focus on how he is going to bring about these changes. Both candidates love this country and love the representative democracy, how could they not? Without it, they would not be doing this right now. I'm sure he has called this nation a great nation, but most people don't look into that because it's understood that this is what most politicians say. I know he has said numerous times that he wants to help the American people. Is that not patriotism?
|
|
Rhovanion
Apprentice
La Danse Macabre
Posts: 53
|
Post by Rhovanion on Oct 19, 2008 16:25:28 GMT -5
If I was a US citizen I'd vote for Obama. Why? It's simple. And it's even more easier to explain why I could never vote for somebody like John McCain. John McCain does not want my sister to have the same equal and fundamental rights as you or me. End of story.
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Oct 19, 2008 17:49:44 GMT -5
If I was a US citizen I'd vote for Obama. Why? It's simple. And it's even more easier to explain why I could never vote for somebody like John McCain. John McCain does not want my sister to have the same equal and fundamental rights as you or me. End of story. Could you clarify which equal rights those might be? Just curious.
|
|
Rhovanion
Apprentice
La Danse Macabre
Posts: 53
|
Post by Rhovanion on Oct 20, 2008 3:21:11 GMT -5
If I was a US citizen I'd vote for Obama. Why? It's simple. And it's even more easier to explain why I could never vote for somebody like John McCain. John McCain does not want my sister to have the same equal and fundamental rights as you or me. End of story. Could you clarify which equal rights those might be? Just curious. The right to marry whom she will.
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Oct 20, 2008 8:40:14 GMT -5
Rhovanion, this is often a point of contention and confusion. Gay marriage is not illegal here. Nor does anyone intend to make it so. It is just not recognized, on its own as legally binding, and not recognized as a legal term applied to anything other than a one man/one woman relationship. Both candidates agree with civil unions being open to any two people, which provides the same rights and protections under the law. And Congress can't make any laws restricting the freedom of religion, therefore they cannot stop any church from marrying whomever they wish to marry. So, in essence, while there's a lot of hubbub over the gay rights issues, it's really a non-issue. Gays already have equal rights under the law, and they have to go through the same steps as anyone else does.
However, to change the definition of marriage, which is what is being asked for, would leave the churches open to government interference through lawsuits if they chose not to marry gay individuals because it violated their doctrine. That is unconstitutional, and would open a can of worms for no purpose.
|
|
|
Post by misaki on Oct 20, 2008 9:48:55 GMT -5
I don't have the energy or drive to type an enormous story here. But I now finally think I know my fair share of background information on the US politics ( lol, Ammy had to explain me, a month ago or so, how the Checks and Balances system works, so I didn't really feel I had the right to express my opinion before, haha ) And though I can't say I agree with all of his points, I'd vote Obama. Why? to put it simply, because to me, the Republicans are worse. If I lived in the US, I'd probably be considered libertarian or something along those lines. One of the quite simple reasons why I would never vote for the Reps at this rate is... Sarah Palin. I don't care what the party's excuse is, but she. freaks. me. out. People like her shouldn't be allowed to have any say in politics. She denies the global warming. That's just stupid. I chose Geographics as an exam subject, so I'm perfectly sure global warming is actually real. Yes, the signs have been interpreted the wrong way before (global cooling isn't as opposite-y as it sounds. It is, actually, also a possibility, but it's much, much more reasonable to say the earth is warming. The warming could cause some changes that could possibly result in global ice age. But that is not very probable, it is, in fact, much more probable that the earth just warms and warms and we'll have some nice new deserts and more extreme weather. ) Aside from that whole thing, she doesn't give a crap about the world around her. Not even talking foreign politics here. But drilling in Alaska. When the polar caps are melting and ice bears are practically in danger of dying out on the north pole anytime soon. Could she be any more idiotic? She probably trusts in God to make everything okay. But seriously, do you think God is going to clean up a mess you made yourself, out of lust for money and a better economy? Hmm? Aside from that, she's obviously intelligent. And narrow-minded. The worst, most dangerous possible combination. Hitler was also narrow-minded and intelligent. So are most psycho's. Haha, btw, my American teacher ( she teaches English, which is kind of weird because we used to only have these English teachers from England with, preferably, a rather snobby accent. LOL. ) ..is so cool. Every time one of us mentions Palin, you see her expression becoming completely disgusted. Very funny because she, as a teacher, is not allowed to proclaim any political preference. So she tries to make neutral comments, but she can't really hide her opinion in this case, LMAO. ;D
|
|
Rhovanion
Apprentice
La Danse Macabre
Posts: 53
|
Post by Rhovanion on Oct 20, 2008 14:00:16 GMT -5
Rhovanion, this is often a point of contention and confusion. Gay marriage is not illegal here. Nor does anyone intend to make it so. It is just not recognized, on its own as legally binding, and not recognized as a legal term applied to anything other than a one man/one woman relationship. Both candidates agree with civil unions being open to any two people, which provides the same rights and protections under the law. And Congress can't make any laws restricting the freedom of religion, therefore they cannot stop any church from marrying whomever they wish to marry. So, in essence, while there's a lot of hubbub over the gay rights issues, it's really a non-issue. Gays already have equal rights under the law, and they have to go through the same steps as anyone else does. However, to change the definition of marriage, which is what is being asked for, would leave the churches open to government interference through lawsuits if they chose not to marry gay individuals because it violated their doctrine. That is unconstitutional, and would open a can of worms for no purpose. Marriage is not a Judeo-Christian invention. It's been around forever. If gay marriage is not legally recognized then it doesn't help that it's legal. Gays are still banned from enjoying the same rights (and protection under the law) as straight people. It's also illegal for them to adopt a child in several states. www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htmIt doesn't take a genius to read between the lines there. What he means is "only heterosexual couples have the right to marry". And that's enough for me. Granted, gay marriage is not the only issue I have with that man. Apart from him just giving me the creeps, he's also against abortion and stem cell research. And the bottom line is, he's a republican with conservative views and policies. I'm neither so I don't vote for either. I've always been a liberal so there is very little I agree with him on.
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Oct 20, 2008 16:05:45 GMT -5
I still disagree with your interpretation of gay marriage. You are correct about it being difficult for gay couples to adopt (I'm honestly not sure if it's illegal, or just policy of the adoption agencies involved, but the damage that has been done to Christian adoption agencies over this issue is one of the bigger arguments against allowing gay marriage). However, legal or not, adoption is NOT about the parents involved, it is about what is in the best interest of the child. Homosexuality, no matter how much someone may moan or groan about it, is not a normal state of being in society. Therefore, there are unintended mental and emotional problems caused to children of those relationships. It is the responsibility of adoption agencies to place their charges in the best homes they can. This means that most of the time, single mothers can't adopt, single fathers can't adopt, really old people can't adopt, and financially unstable or emotionally unstable people, can't adopt either. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives a person a right to a child not born of their own bodies. It has been proven that loving, married, stable couples are the best chance children have of growing up normal. It's selfish for people to insist on risking a child's future to insist upon their "equal rights" especially where no "right" exists in the first place.
As to the last paragraph. I can totally respect that. If you are a liberal, believe in liberal ideas, and actually want the liberal fiscal and social policies that Mr. Obama supports and will enact, then I think it's great you would know enough to vote for the person who best represents your idea of what the President's job is. That's pretty much what these debates are for.
Oh, BTW, I never said marriage was a Christian religious rite. It is, but what I said was it opened the church, meaning each and every one of them that practices marriage, and has specific religious obligations attached to it, to interference from the government. Which is unconstitutional, regardless of what church it is.
|
|
Rhovanion
Apprentice
La Danse Macabre
Posts: 53
|
Post by Rhovanion on Oct 20, 2008 17:57:04 GMT -5
But the thing is, a gay couple is neither single nor really old people. They can be just as stable, safe, secure, loving, financially stable and healthy as the straight couples they approve. The only reason they'd be declined is because they happen to be two males or two females. Plus, it's also hard to be that married stable couple when you're not even legally recognized as one. See my problem with the issue here?
If a child brought up by a gay couple suffers emotionally it's most likely not due to its same sex parents but due to the society and its peers for giving them a hard time about it.
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Oct 20, 2008 20:21:10 GMT -5
Rhovanion, I did respond to this, but I jumped it over to the Gay marriage thread. While I understand it's an election issue for you, and many others, we're wandering off into a lot of detail, so I figured it might work better over there. (I get confused if I go onto too many tangents in detail at once in this thread). Just didn't want you to think I was ignoring you.
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Oct 23, 2008 6:57:45 GMT -5
I don't have the energy or drive to type an enormous story here. But I now finally think I know my fair share of background information on the US politics ( lol, Ammy had to explain me, a month ago or so, how the Checks and Balances system works, so I didn't really feel I had the right to express my opinion before, haha ) She's fun to talk politics with, but she won't do it often. Too confrontational. This does not surprise me, considering your earlier, very well articulated post, on who you'd vote for there. You'd probably be considered more Green party, given your earlier posts. The libertarians, to a great extent, are far more conservative than the Republicans in most respects. Although, the anarchist movement has been folded into them recently, so perhaps you are right. Everyone here gets a say in politics. Should Mr. Obama be denied the right to have a say because I don't think the government should spread the wealth around? 'Tis up to the voters to determine who will best serve, not to determine who can run, as long as they meet the basic requirements, which are very few. She actually doesn't deny global warming, although I do at the moment, because it stopped warming 8 or 9 years ago. She denies that it is man-made, and that it has been proven to be anything more than the natural climatic cycles the world has experienced for thousands of years. The polar bears are not dying out. And drilling in Prudhoe Bay and the Alaska pipeline actually increased the size of the caribou herds people were so concerned about with that whole deal. The ice caps are thicker this year than they have been in years. We are apparently entering another cooling trend. Alaska is a vast wilderness, that looks an awful lot like the moon in a lot of places. As a resident, and then governor of the state, she's had a great deal more experience with the actual impact of drilling than either your or I, or probably your teachers. The majority of Alaska residents also favor drilling. He usually does, but that's really neither here nor there. So, basically what you're saying is that the Vice President of the United States should not be interested in maintaining a healthy economy (which, by the way, maintains the healthy economy of the rest of the world as well)? Again, that would be a good explanation of why you would vote for Mr. Obama. Most of the rest of the citizens of this country don't particularly agree with that point of view, and if they ever actually get the message that Mr. Obama's intent is to shrink our economy, they will not vote for him. He's pretty good at hiding that message here. I think, perhaps, you've been watching too much of the pro-Obama press. Mrs. Palin is pretty much an average American, who would like to see her government start working for its citizens again, instead of the other way around. That is why she is drawing huge crowds. You are right that she's pretty smart. I'm not really sure why you think she's narrow minded. And I really don't know about Hitler's IQ, but I'm pretty sure he's have terminated her last pregnancy. She does not advocate anything like the fascist ideas of the Nazi regime, nor any other psychotic ideas. Most of the women coming out of college here have been taught that they have to get help to succeed. They're kind of pissed off that some upstart from Alaska is living the feminist ideal, is happy, is still happily married, and didn't get any help from the Democrat machine to do it. Not only that, she looks good doing it. Jealousy is an ugly thing. ;D
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Oct 23, 2008 7:35:47 GMT -5
Ah, well, unfortunately, dictionary definitions don't do a very good job of explaining what people say. People do not think about what their words mean, they think about what they are expressing. Different words can be interpreted different ways and can mean different things, that's the nature of the language. So I think it's more important to look at the meaning behind them. This made me laugh. I'm pretty sure it's you that uses quotes from dictionary.com too to clarify the meaning of words, but I might be wrong, it might be mika. However, back to the point, I prefaced the references with the comment that the language was being twisted. And I went on to post the definitions for the meaning for the words behind the words that were actually used. Which is why I posted the definition of patriotism. There is the rub of the disagreement. Mr. Obama does not love the Representative Republic that we live in as it is currently constituted. He wants to make unconstitutional, fundamental changes to the structure of our government. Which would, in turn lead to fundamental changes in our country, and therefore it would no longer be the country it is now. That may be. I guess it depends how you define better. My idea of better is not Europe. So, I guess that might be why I don't think Mr. Obama wants to make the country better. Judgment and ideas are different things. Ideas are what you think, and what you plan. Judgment is, well, let try the dictionary again: 1. an act or instance of judging. 2. the ability to judge, make a decision, or form an opinion objectively, authoritatively, and wisely, esp. in matters affecting action; good sense; discretion: a man of sound judgment. 3. the demonstration or exercise of such ability or capacity: The major was decorated for the judgment he showed under fire. 4. the forming of an opinion, estimate, notion, or conclusion, as from circumstances presented to the mind: Our judgment as to the cause of his failure must rest on the evidence. 5. the opinion formed: He regretted his hasty judgment. Now, when I say judgment, I'm thinking 2 & 3. Mr. Obama has showed a distinct lack in that area from his opinions on foreign policy to the company he keeps. He's done this to the point that when I think of Mr. Obama's judgment, I think of the context sentences at the end of 4&5. You do know about politics. You're just still forming your opinions, and it's kind of fascinating to watch. I'm glad you keep coming to share your thoughts, even if I do keep arguing with you. Actually, most people really don't want change, no matter what they say. Why do I say that? Take a peek at the stock market lately, and before each and every election, all of which promise change in some form or another. Change brings uncertainty, and at heart, most people don't like to be uncertain. As far as campaigning on change, you don't have to stress weaknesses, on foreign soil no less, to promote the idea of change. You don't have to say that the country is not as great as it once was. And it's not misleading to point out that this is exactly what he did. You can emphasize the things you plan to do to improve the country. Instead, he's given lots of criticism of the country, our President, tried to interfere in US foreign policy on foreign soil, and not given specific ideas, until recently, and even then they have been somewhat vague, and he gets ticked when the details are questioned. For example, he promises a tax cut for 95% of the tax payers. Sounds great, right? Except for one thing, only 70% of the tax payers actually pay income tax. I'm pretty sure that means he's promising tax cuts to 25% more people than actually pay taxes. He's stated that he doesn't intend to raise taxes immediately, but also that he won't cut any of the new spending he's promised. Oh, wait, wasn't one of the main complaints that Bush had increased the deficit? He's stated that he would sit down with dictators without precondition, but wait, no he wouldn't really do that. He's stated that he would get us out of Iraq. But wait, he met with the leaders of Iraq and asked them to delay the withdrawl of troops until after the election. Worse than all of that, he was knocking on doors as part of his campaign stumping. One of the gentlemen he approached asked him about his tax policy, and what it would mean for small businesses, as the gentleman intended to purchase a business he currently worked for some time in the future, and his understanding was that the tax policy of Mr. Obama would make that difficult as the tax burden would be much greater. Mr. Obama's response was that he didn't want to punish the gentleman for doing well, he just felt we should spread the wealth around. That answer went over like a lead balloon in the press. So, instead of addressing his own answer, he sicced his campaign people on a private citizen of the United States of America, dug into his life, his taxes, his finances, and his work, all in an effort to discredit him for the sole purpose of taking the focus off the stupid answer that Mr. Obama gave when asked an honest question by a citizen he seeks to represent as President. If any other member of the government had done this, or allowed this, the nation would be calling for his head on a platter. Instead, the news is all about how Joe the Plumber has back taxes, and that he doesn't actually own a business (which he never said he did), and doesn't actually make 250,000 (which he never said he did). That is intimidation, pure and simple, and a gross violation of Joe's civil rights. Add to that, we are now being told, by Mr. Obama's running mate, Mr. Biden, that not only will the mere election of Mr. Obama not bring world peace, but that it will guarantee an international crisis. Worse, he also says that when the crisis comes to pass, Mr. Obama's decision will not be the right one. I'm sorry, but that doesn't inspire confidence. Add to that the folks in the business world, whose banks are telling them they won't be extending credit next year because they're anticipating as much as a 20% loss for the companies they run when Mr. Obama takes office. And that many companies are already making plans for massive lay offs after Mr. Obama takes office because the economic policies he has stated will force them to reduce their work force to stay solvent. Please note, trickle down poverty economics in action. Add to that, that the last time we were in a recession, and the economic policy of increased government spending and increased taxation was implemented, it resulted in the Great Depression. These are not misleading, misrepresented, or misunderstood statements. They are facts that can be found on the net and on the TV. No, that's not patriotism, and it does not show a love for the the representative republic we live in. It shows a distinct lack of faith in the American people to take care of themselves. It shows a desire to have as many people dependent on the government as possible. It shows a gross lack of understanding of what makes our economy and our country tick. The best way to help the American people is to get the government out of their way, and out of their pockets.
|
|