|
Post by corgilove on Sept 14, 2008 13:09:19 GMT -5
Ladytera, I think other responses have done a pretty darn good job of summing up your questions that I don't feel the need to add anything. The only thing I'll add is that the reason I said I don't think he will win is an opinion obviously lol. I suppose it's more of a fear than anything else and I simply have lost faith in our nation and picking idiots for President.
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Sept 14, 2008 15:44:06 GMT -5
Wow! I appreciate your long and thoughtful post. I will be trying my best to reply over time, but can't spend hours and hours. Take your time. I know how that goes. I really don't have hours and hours most days either. I just happened to be lucky this weekend. My workload is light, and half my kids are visiting elsewhere. What I watched of the debates, which I'll admit was not all of them, a lot because as you said they were repeating themselves, was a rehash not of their own ideas, but of ideas that have been being put forth first by the Communist Party in America back in the 40s and 50s, later by the Democrat party in the 60s and 70s. They are ideas that are NOT indicative of change. If I missed something, please give me a couple of specific issues and his policies on them. I guess my point was that the message he has so far succeeded in getting out is that he is more socialist than any other President has ever been, he wants to grow the government bigger than it has ever been before through programs intended to "help" some people, and he doesn't like to be questioned too closely on what the word "change" means to him, in fact he gets a little testy. So far, he's done two Presidential Forums, but no actual debates. I know there's at least one debate coming up later this month, but I have little hope that we'll see much more of that, as Mr. Obama has refused the multiple offers by Mr. McCain for townhall debates around the country. I do hope that during the upcoming debate the moderators are decent, and they do keep it on issues, because I already know what Mr. McCain intends on most of the issues I feel are important, I think it would be illuminating to get down to the nitty gritty with Mr. Obama. Oops, got ahead of myself. I think more people now will be listening than have been for the last year. Only the political junkies like myself have been following this from the beginning. I'm sad you feel that way. I know in the church we were attending at the time prayers for both sides were often uttered from our pulpit on a Sunday morning. And I know that in my household prayer went out for the Iraqis, even the terrorists, at the same time as the prayer for my countrymen. I think I miscommunicated on this point. I don't judge torture by their standards in the sense that you're talking about. Stoning people, chopping of their hands, limbs, heads, throwing people into giant quisnarts, gassing 10s of thousands of people, that is sheer and simple barbarism. What I meant was that several example of the "torture" that was supposedly endured in these places was utterly ridiculous, and far milder than what our military personnel go through in their day to day lives. I don't consider humiliation torture, I don't consider it torture to play loud music, put panties on someones head, or even to pretend to hook them up to an electrical outlet. The much flaunted pictures of the evils of our men and women at POW holding facilities reminded me mostly of a frat party here in the US, and it offends the living hell out of me that some idiots in the House and Senate, and more idiots in the media, allowed that story to run uncontested and grow into monsterous proportions. It down right pisses me off that people in this country and around the world believe the we "torture" people, and this brings to mind being held in a box with your arms tied behind you, being held in solitary confinement with no food, having your arms and legs broken and not given proper medical treatment. Or perhaps having all of you teeth knocked out, and being beaten on almost a daily basis. That's Mr. McCain's story. Let's do some other images that hollywood has associated with torture for years, bamboo shoots under the nails, whipped with a rubber hose, actual electrocution, being hung from the rafters, unable to hold yourself up until your body weight slowly suffocates you to death. Those are just a few that I can think of off the top of my head. When these same morons on our TVs and in our movies, that have shown us actual torture for years then turn around, and trumpet the headline that US troops are torturing prisoners, what are you going to think? Are you going to think they put panties on a guys head and made him listen to Britney Spears, or are you going to think we did something really bad. The media and the Democrats were traitorous in that entire affair, and the Republicans were shameful in their failure to defend our troops, our practices, and the reality and differences between us and the barbarians we were fighting. As for legal questions, our Supreme Court has constantly sited foreign law in the cases that have been brought before it regarding this, or they have said that the Constitution says one thing, but we're going to rules this way because we don't like what the Constitution says. I'm not sure about polling numbers, but I trust the Supreme Court on issues of national security about as much as I approve of the Senate. Thank you again for great responses!! This is a lot of fun, and I'm going to have to really discipline myself not to waste too much time on the forum after Monday night, or I'll never sleep this week. Until then, I only have 5 hours of work left to do, so I'll jump back on when I get a chance to finish the rest of your earlier posts.
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Sept 14, 2008 15:46:35 GMT -5
Ladytera, I think other responses have done a pretty darn good job of summing up your questions that I don't feel the need to add anything. The only thing I'll add is that the reason I said I don't think he will win is an opinion obviously lol. I suppose it's more of a fear than anything else and I simply have lost faith in our nation and picking idiots for President. I think there were a couple that got missed, but I'll check and repost them if there were. I was just wondering if there was a particular reason you figured he'd lose, aside from the current poll numbers.
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Sept 15, 2008 22:00:47 GMT -5
Pendergrast- here's the next installment. I still have about a paragraph of yours to go, but it has a lot of stuff, so it's going to take a bit. This one's a little shorter than the last.
I have issues with this entire concept. Thirty years ago, I remember as a small child hearing the stories about man-made global cooling and how we were going to put ourselves in another ice age. When the threat never materialized, and the climatic began a new warming cycle, those same idiots that were screaming about global cooling and a new ice age in the next twenty years began screaming about global warming, holes in the ozone, and that man was going to cause the ice caps to melt and the seas to rise. When the temperature again evened out, and another cooling trend began to be predicted, the same idiots once again came out telling us the man-made global warming was going to cause shifts in the jet stream and the ocean currents that would result in a new ice age in the next thirty years. Hollywood jumped on the band wagon, and the fact that some of the foremost pseudo scientists advocating the existence of man-made global warming now state that nothing we can do will actually have an impact one way or the other is over looked in the Al Gore faked footage of an incovenient truth, that is actually a lie. To top it off, they've gotten slicker in the last two years, getting ready for their next great prediction, since global temperatures have remained steady for the better part of a decade and begun cooling the last year or two. They have begun to call it man-made climate change, and believe we are stupid enough to ignore their dire predictions of warming, when reality finally forces them to shift to the next man made disaster. The simple fact is that the Earth has been here a long time, in the course of that time, it has gone through numerous climate shifts, nothing we insignificant little specs on the face of this earth can do will wreck the planet. Does that mean we shouldn't be responsible in our approach to energy, waste management, water usage, and all the other various things that cause pollution? Obviously not. We live here, and as the only sentient species that exists on this planet, it is our responsibility to do our best to take care of it. And the US does the absolute best job of any large nation on the planet of doing just that. But, it is not the job of the government to tell the citizens of this country that they are required to go back to walking, riding bikes and living in huts without electricity in some misguided effort to save a planet that is entirely capable of saving itself. As for the court decisions, I'm not sure which ones your referring to. Is it the one that said that what we exhale is a polutant, and therefore our very existence is destroying the planet, or the one that rules the methane gas released by cows is a pollutant, and therefore the existence of cows is destroying the planet? Just curious. Whatever the ruling, the simple fact remains that there is NO authority given to the Federal Government by the Constitution to regulate global warming or cause irreparable harm to our economy in that misguided effort. You could argue that that is because the founders didn't have the science to be worried about it, but I think it's more that they didn't have the audacity to believe they were God.
BD hit a lot of this in his post. First, though, the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina extended far further then New Orleans, and yet that was one of the only places that received the media attention, and the pity of the elite in this country. The news coverage failed to talk at length about the entire towns in Mississippi and Louisiana that were completely washed away. The buses that sat in their parking spaces being innundated by the flood waters, instead of being used to evacuate those who could not evacuate themselves were under the jurisdiction of the city, not the Federal Government. The levees that broke were left for decades in disrepair by the state government, despite numerous warnings from the Army Corps of Engineers. For the better part of last century, the government of New Orleans was a cesspool of corruption that used their city as a microcosim to create one of the most government dependent populations in the US. That population then whined, cried and wailed about how the Federal Government failed them, and they are still whining and crying 3 years later, when every other area that was devastated and destroyed by the same hurricane, and subsequent hurricanes, has grab itself by the balls, stepped up and pitched in to make the necessary repairs and improvements. It is not Mr. Bush's nor the director of FEMA's fault that New Orleans ignored the flooding risks that had been made evident to them back in the first half of the 20th century. It is not Mr. Bush or FEMA's fault that the folks there failed to heed evacuation orders, and it is not the job of the Federal Government to rebuil local cities and communities.
And, lest you think I am being cruel and uncaring toward the people of New Orleans. The private sector donated millions of dollars of goods, services, and money to the rebuilding and clean up of all the affected areas. The volunteer sector sent thousands of volunteers from all around this country to lend a hand, many of them are still there assisting in New Orleans. I know this first hand because I was one of the private individuals who provided goods through my church to fill the trucks being sent to the areas that had been hit, and I was one of the volunteers who went down to help muck out basements, haul trees, clear debris, tear out dry wall, haul out carpet, move furniture, and pretty much anything else that was needed. I saw first hand the devastation that had been caused, the trees torn out by the roots, the buildings in piles of rubble yards from their cement foundations, the houses knocked of their foundations, standing upright, but crooked in the middle of the road. I saw first hand the spirit and determination of those whose houses had water marks 14 feet from the ground, and 4 feet of nasty muck in their basements. I saw the people pull together to help each other out, I saw FEMA and the National Guard helping to protect and organize the efforts, and the churches openning their doors and grounds for any and all who were in need of help or willing to pitch in. That is what sets America apart from other places in the world. It doesn't take the Federal Governement to fix the problem, it takes neighbors helping neighbors to fix the problems themselves.
I'm going to skip the first part, BD already hit the most obvious answers, if you want more examples, let me know, and I'll see what I can find. However, the conten of the email itself speaks volumes on this issue, and I'll get to those when I get back to that post. As for the "Bridge To Nowhere" that everyone is raving on about at the moment, investigative journalists, on several channels have concluded that while she was for building both of the bridges this refers to, she was always ambivalent at best about using Federal Funds for it. And when it came right down to it, she refused the federal funding for that purpose. As to other Alaskan Federal Earmarks, it appears that, yes there have been some, as there are in every state. On the State level however, she cut more than 10% of the earmarks spending in her legislature, and brought the budget in line in the process.
I am in disagreement with my husband on this particular point, and he actually doesn't believe all of Mr. Obama's supporters dislike this country. First, before I get to anything else in that statement, Thank you for your service. It is much appreciated in this family, and many others, and our military can never be told thank you enough. My Dad was in the Navy for 20 years starting at the tail end of Vietnam, on through Desert Storm. I still don't know all the places he's been, the things he's done, or the dangers he's faced over the years, and I didn't realize that the reason I didn't know was because it was classified until a few years ago. Corey's father served in Vietnam, and stayed in the rest of his twenty after that. The people in my life have instilled a great respect for the military and a humble gratitude that recognizes their service can never be repaid. My father also instilled in me a great love, respect and pride for my country and the freedom for which it stands. So, no sir, I do not believe that everyone who is planning to vote for Mr. Obama dislikes my very beloved country, I do believe that they are being misled by a group of people in power who despise the freedom and prosperity our country was blessed with, that was enshrined in the founding documents by those who knew more about encroaching tyranny than we can comprehend. I believe that Mr. Obama has been indoctrinated with that hatred, and chosen as its mouthpiece. And I will happily support that claim in a bit.
Why do Democrats presume that Republicans and conservatives do not recognize the shortcomings both in our history and in our present? Every nation has shortcomings, and those in other countries only see our shortcomings because of one of two things, they are unwilling to reflect on the misery their own country is causing them, or they have only been exposed to propagandist media that gleefully details, ad nauseum, every stumble of the US, and remains woefully silent on every success, every instance where our country has invested time, money, and lives into making the entire world, not just our small corner of it, a better place. They discount the billions of private donations and private volunteer hours given to nations hit by poverty, tragedy and natural disaster, instead choosing to say the US government has not done enough. They decry our use of military power in our own defense, as they come screaming to us for protection when their own borders are threatened. They ridicule our diplomacy, and then fail miserably to resolve diplomatic situations when left to their own devices. Do I see the problems here, yes. Do I believe our Governement can fix them? Not really. It's not their job. And when you look at the shortcomings, and desire to see them fixed, what do you do about it? Do you just innumerate the perceived injustices, and propose vague or ill conceived notions to fix them someday, that require sacrifice from everyone but you as the democrats have been doing for 30+ years, or do you get up, go out and do something about it within your own sphere? I perceive the wrongs in our history. I know that we had slavery, I also know that more than 500,000 Americans died in a war to preserve this great nation and at the same time set the slaves free. I know that there was discrimination, and I know that men and women of all colors fought, protested, worked and sometimes died to bring the institution of discrimination to an end. I know that there are failing schools, failing local economies, failing communities, and I know that there is not one single Federal program that has improved the problems, they have only served to make people dependent, and inclined to look to Washington for salvation, instead of looking in their own front yard. I see the shortcomings, and I see the incredible spirit, will and independence that overcomes them every single day.
Every other developed country that has nationalized health care also has huge debt, due to national health care, huge tax burdens, due to socialized medicine (lets call it what it is), has long waits, shortages of doctors and nurses and stagnant medical research due to socialized medicine. We spend more on health care here for many reasons, one being ridiculous maplractice laws. But mainly, it is because we live longer, because we have access to better medicine, more options, and better research than any other developed nation in the world. That is solely because our health care system is NOT socialized but is instead free market based, if still too heavily regulated. If you look at some of the other results in countries with socialized medicine, the trend is downright frightening. In England, you can't get health care if you are a smoker and do not agree to smoking secassion treatment, you cannot get health care if you are obese and do not agree to and abide by a weight loss program. State enforced euthenasia is being considered for terminal patients because they are considered a waste of public resources. Those are just a few examples. They have the right to make those decisions for their citizens, because they have been given the responsiblity for paying for their health care. Let's look a little closer to home. We have socialized medicine in this country. Medicare is a program that you pay premiums for from the time you get a job, and are required to pay for, in return, you aren't supposed to have to worry about health insurance once you have reached the government determined age of retirement. And yet, I see at least 10 advertisements a day for supplemental Medicare insurance to cover the thousands of dollars in health care costs that the government program does not cover. We hear constant complaints about the health care plights of our elderly, even though each one of them has paid thousands of dollars over the course of their lives for the right to worry free health care in their old age. Let's look at another federal healthcare program. The VA health care system. It is chronically underfunded, our veterans have to travel long distances to get the care they need or pay out of pocket expenses to see a doctor closer to home. The quality of care comes under fire on a regular basis, including in your posts here. And yet, our military is promised worry free health care for as long as they serve, once they retire, and for life if they are injured. The problems in both of these programs are solely due to the fact that they are socialized medicine programs run by the federal government. Before any politician in Washington attempts to socialize 1/7 of our economy, and increase my taxes to pay for it, they'd better get the programs they are already in charge of straightened out, providing what they promised, and running within their budgets.
Socialized medicine is socialist, welfare is socialist, enforced federally mandated pre K is socialist, the idea that you should take money from rich people and give it to poor people is communist, and every single one of these programs, and the other like them that want to give more power to a central government has been proven by history to be a failed policy, and leads to economic and social devastation, eventually leading to the downfall of the government. With all due respect, my beloved country is not an old beloved car, it's a hell of a lot more important than that. And the policy proposals of the Democrats that will destroy my beloved country if allowed to run their course are not my idea of a fix for a country or a car.
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Sept 17, 2008 1:17:58 GMT -5
Okay, last installment on your very point packed posts. I hope you enjoy, and I look forward to hearing your responses when you get the time. I'll try to go back and spell check everything tomorrow. I actually read the parts of this bill that the ad referred to, and it is 100% accurate. Regardless of what Mr. Obama may say his intent was at the time, the language of the bill attempted to change the law to state that: "Each class or course in comprehensive sex 14 education offered in any of grades K 6 through 12 shall 15 include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted 16 infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread 17 of HIV AIDS. Nothing in this Section prohibits instruction in 18 sanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology." Read as written, as laws must be, to believe that Mr. Obama wanted the other provision, regarding inappropriate touching: "11) (8) Course material and instruction shall 34 teach pupils to not make unwanted physical and verbal -4- LRB093 05269 NHT 05359 b 1 sexual advances and how to say no to unwanted sexual 2 advances and shall include information about verbal, 3 physical, and visual sexual harassment, including without 4 limitation nonconsensual sexual advances, nonconsensual 5 physical sexual contact, and rape by an acquaintance. The 6 course material and instruction shall contain methods of 7 preventing sexual assault by an acquaintance, including 8 exercising good judgment and avoiding behavior that 9 impairs one's judgment. The course material and 10 instruction shall emphasize personal accountability and 11 respect for others and Pupils shall be taught that it is 12 wrong to take advantage of or to exploit another person. 13 The material and instruction shall also encourage youth 14 to resist negative peer pressure. The course material and 15 instruction shall inform pupils of the potential legal 16 consequences of sexual assault by an acquaintance. 17 Specifically, pupils shall be advised that it is unlawful 18 to touch an intimate part of another person as specified 19 in the Criminal Code of 1961. 20 (12) Course material and instruction shall teach 21 male pupils about male accountability for sexual violence 22 and shall teach female students about reducing 23 vulnerability for sexual violence. 24 (13) Course material and instruction shall teach 25 pupils about counseling, medical, and legal resources 26 available to survivors of sexual abuse and sexual 27 assault, including resources for escaping violent 28 relationships. 29 (14) Course material and instruction shall teach 30 pupils that it is wrong to take advantage of or to 31 exploit another person. 32 (15) Course material and instruction shall be free 33 of racial, ethnic, gender, religious, or sexual 34 orientation biases." which really don't address the "stranger danger" issues that Mr. Obama has said he intended, you would have to include the above curriculum on sexually transmitted diseases as well. As well as the other "shall include" sections of the bill, that are quite frankly to numerous to quote here. But if you want to read the actual bill the link is www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=99&GAID=3&LegID=734&SpecSess=&SessionA couple other personal observations on this point. Cub Scouts has a program as part of it's advancement that starts being taught in first grade that addresses abuse of all kinds, and stranger danger issues, as well as known assailants. All of my children began being taught about those same subjects as early as Preschool, and it didn't not require them to be taught additional sex education, and there is no law I'm aware of for elementary school students that addresses a requirement to teach about sexually transmitted diseases. You will probably still make the arguement that that was not his intent, and that might be okay for you and me, but Mr. Obama is an attorney as you pointed out, who was the President of the Harvard Law Review. Any lawyer knows that it is the actual language in the law that takes precedent, not the intent. Se he's either an incompetent attorney, did not even skim the bill before he voted on it, or knew darn well that as it was worded it would entail sex education for Kindergartners, regardless of his intent. That is an opinion, entirely without support, so please site your source here. Name something she has said that wasn't true, and I don't mean it wasn't true because the media said so, but because there is actual evidence that she lied. As to the first part, if you admit that some stories aren't true, essentially you admit that the media and Democrats have lied in an attempt to smear this woman with unfounded allegations. If you admit that, then why on earth should you or anyone else trust anything else they have to say about her or anyone else? That's like saying sure I know my best friend lied to his wife about cheating on her, but I still think he's a totally honest and upstanding guy. Be serious. Let's not. Newt Gingrich - The supposed scandal he was accused of was over a course that was taught. The ethics committee fined him, but the full committee never agreed that he did anything wrong. The IRS, the actual investigative body responsible for handling the allegations of using tax-exempt money for politcal purposes, with regard to a college course he was involved with, eventually cleared the entities involved of wrong doing, thus absolving Mr. Gingrich of any crime, but not before the "scandal", brought by the Democratic Party Whip, had removed him from the speaker position, and caused him to resign, rather than damage the party further. There was also, apparently, a six year affair with a staffer as well, but according to you Democrat type folks, that's only sex, so it shouldn't matter. As for Larry Craig, at best he committed the act of a sexual advance toward a same sex partner in a public bathroom. However, that is only if you assume the policeman who based the arrest on the fact that Mr. Craig put his foot into the stall next to him and then reached under it with his hand actually was correct in interpreting those motions, and not just either homophobic or looking for a reason to arrest the man. I don't know about you, but there have certainly been times when my foot has travelled into the bathroom stall next to me, and when I'm out of toilet paper, you bet your butt I'll reach into the next stall to see if I can reach some there. I don't know what was in Mr. Craig's thoughts at the time, but the point is, neither did the cop. Mr. Craig pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct, and later recanted after speaking with his attorney. Considering the feeding frenzy in the Republican party that was throwing everyone overboard at even the breath of scandal, I can kind of understand his knee jerk decision to try to get it over with instead of allowing it to turn into a media circus. He should have known better, then again I should have known better when the DFACS investigators that my ex-husband called to try to harass me into taking him back told me "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help." Until that point, Mr. Craig had performed his duties as a representative of his state admirably. Mr. Clinton gave us a gutted military, a gutted intelligence service, multiple terrorist attacks on US interests abroad. He gave us Osama bin Laden to deal with when he twice turned down the opportunity to bring him to the US and try him for crimes he was under indictment for. He gave us the 9/11 bombings, which were two years in the planning, by giving terrorist leaders like Osama bin Laden the idea that America was nothing more than a paper tiger. By the way, that is a direct quote from bin Laden after Mr. Clinton turned tail and ran in Mogadishu. Mr. Clinton came into office riding the wave of the Reagan tax policies, and put us into recession in just a few short years. Mr. Clinton, and his cronies in the Congress and Senate raped the Social Security "trust fund" turning it into a general slush fund for their pet projects and to make it look like we were running a surplus. This was you decry so much, and the way it was initially required to be managed, is a direct "peace dividend" of Mr. Clinton's failed policies domestically and internationally. To top it off, in the years he controlled the White House, and his party controlled the Senate and Congress, he still failed to institute the national healthcare that seems to be the current holy grail of the Democrat cause. He sold nuclear secrets to China, and gave them most favored nation trading status, remember your earlier comment on the state of our relations with that lovely, communist country? That's just the things I can remember off the top of my head, and yes if you want references, I can probably go back and find them. Since he has left the Presidency, he has insulted our country on foreign soil, and gotten huge fees to do so. He has commented negatively on a sitting President which was unheard of before his time in office. And he has travelled the world, as a private citizen, interferring in our foreign policy, which is a violation of the Logan Act. Please don't tell me what a saint that pompous, philandering idiot is. Can you name one person he actually improved the circumstances of in his community organizer days? And by the way, he is now distancing himself from that qualification, saying it was twenty years ago, so how could he be held responsible for the corrupt practices of the organizations he was involved with. As for the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review, all I have to say is so what? Harvard doesn't really impress me much. All that really illustrates is the ability to memorize, and the ability to speak bull**** with lucidity and a smile. I can do that. As to his family being poorer that Palin's, I don't know about that, since he grew up in Hawaii, and I've lived there, it ain't cheap. But either way, so what? His daddy left his mommy when he was two, she dragged his butt to Indonesia when he was six, and sent his butt back to grandma and grandpa when he was 10. Where he got to know a lot of upstanding communist citizens through his grandfather, played basketball, did drugs and damn near flunked out of high school because he couldn't find himself. Not a damn thing in that bio qualifies him for the Presidency, nor does it make him special for having gotten where he is. He had a hell of a lot of help. Don't believe me, watch his little video he put together for the Democrat Convention. Once again, point me to his accomplishments, other than finishing college and getting elected to various offices. Just a few. Better yet, point me to one clear, constitutional policy position on a single issue. Until he is questioned or until things aren't going his way. Then he reverts to type, in grand democrat style, and evades, obfuscates and attacks. Anything to draw attention from his own weaknesses. Which, by the way, has been the hallmark of every Democrat campaign I have ever seen in my life time. His speeches are thoughtful and organized, until his teleprompter malfunctions. His answers to questions are filled with hesitations, equivocations, and either 50 year old socialist dogma or completely idiotic off the cuff remarks. He survived the debates with Hillary because she is universally hated by the right in this country, and seriously disliked in much of the left. She's pragmatist who did not pander hard enough to the base. She tends to be extremely shrill when she gets irritated. There were many other factors as well, but those were the primary issues. Even with that, she has him tied in the popular vote, and it would have been a contested convention without the Super Delegates the Democrats use to control their primaries. He lost the majority of the primary elections after Super Tuesday, and refused to have further debates shortly after the debates came down to just him and Mrs. Clinton. I'm not sure what you mean by conceptualizing, or why that might be a good thing if you have no history of following concept with execution. As to appearing to understand the world, he said the US had 57 states that he'd visited, he said he would nuke Pakistan instead of continuing in Iraq, he said he would sit down for direct diplomatic relations with a state sponsor of terror, he said the Georgians were just as much in the wrong as Russia in the most recent debacle, until a few days later, at which point he parrotted Mr. McCain's position. He said his relationships should have no impact on the public's impression of him, which is sheer niavte at best. He said that the fact the gas prices shot up to $4 a gallon was okay, he just wished it hadn't happened so fast. He said that the government will create new energy sources that will have us off oil in less than 10 years, which is impossible, due to lack of technology and the use of oil for a hell of a lot more than just gasoline. He said that the banking problems were a result of greed, when in fact it was a result of socialized mortgage companies that were presented as government guaranteed. He is now criticizing Mr. McCain for saying that the fundamentals of our economy, are sound, when in fact, the fundamentals free markets, non-government interference, etc. are sound, the government spending and government regulation is not. I agree on the first point, on the second, I'll wait to see if he keeps his Senate seat after the election. Mr. McCain will veto spending with pork barrel ear marks, and then he will make public all congressmen and senators on either side, who included those earmarks in the spending bills. He will begin the draw down of troops in Iraq as soon as it's feasible, which actually looks like it will be before Mr. Bush leaves office. He will assure that we win the war, once and for all in Afghanistan. There are more policy postions that I know he has stated, and the one things you can be sure of with Mr. McCain is that if he says he's going to do it, he will make every effort to follow through. He's kind of stubborn that way, and his experience over the years has pretty much allowed him to speak his mind. With Mr. McCain, he's pretty much what you see is what you get. That does not make it a dishonest add. Mr. Obama has a habit of advocating one thing in public, then voting another way when no one is watching. If the ad states that Mr. Obama voted against a bill Mr. McCain also voted against, I'd imagine they are running the ad to highlight the difference between his public position and his actual vote, however, I haven't seen that one and I don't speak Spanish, so I'm not entirely positive on that one. I do know that the voting record is public though, so running it to highlight the difference in the candidates policy stances would be self-defeating, and Mr. McCain is never that. One last point. I've known a lot of lawerys in my life, unfortunately, and I have to say I'll take the Vet and the Pit Bull on my side over the Legal Eagle Duo on yours any day of the week. You see, we agree on something! Sir, I have thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity to exchange ideas with you, and look forward to more whenever you have the time. It made me do a bit of research to get my own facts straight on a few things too, so that's always a bonus. Have a lovely night.
|
|
|
Post by pendergrast on Sept 24, 2008 21:19:35 GMT -5
You were very circumspect indeed! Of course, Gov. Palin is going to receive a tremendous amount of attention from the press, since absolutely nobody outside of Alaska knows anything about her. I am amazed that she’s not available for interviews so she can help straighten out these things. (Unless maybe she’s incompetent to defend herself.) I am now a regular reader of factcheck.org and realize lots of phony stories are out there. At the same time, she has clearly misrepresented herself on such topics as the Bridge to Nowhere and the percentage of energy Alaska contributes to the country. . I haven’t read them either! But there’s lot of info out there that’s not tainted. Republicans are not the party of change anymore. That’s yesterday’s story. People are in fact disgusted with the democrats because they were elected to change republican policies but failed to do so. The hope is that an Obama presidency and a successful election campaign wil improve the picture. I believe factcheck.org has noted that Pelosi’s husband, not Pelosi, has invested in Pickens. Generally speaking, methinks thou dost protest too much. The republican mantra lately seems to be that Congress has all the power, so don’t blame the president (noticed the same theme in the post about Ron Paul.) If an activist president has a highly disciplined majority in both houses committed to the same aims as the President, as from 2001-2006, he can accomplish a great deal indeed. If you surf Google per ‘McCain’s flip flops’ you’ll find an amazing number of hits. I was thinking of his renouncing the immigration bill he himself sponsored, his ‘evolving’ position on abortion, his backs and forths on privatization of social security, his flip flop on the Bush tax cuts. Now, as I write, he seems to be turning into an advocate of financial regulation for Wall Street, which has historically almost always resisted. Ready to take over the reins of government, is she? I just don’t think so. Alaska has a population of less than 1% of the US total. It has almost nothing in common with any of the population centers. She might turn out to be quite competent, but she definitely needs more national experience. in dealing with big problems and heavy hitters. I don’t feel comfortable trampling on others’ views in such a private emotional area. One point I insist on: pro-choice is pro-choice. I cannot agree to your changing the terms of argument. Also…and here you may have misspoke yourself. Roe v. Wade is not being ‘twisted.’ The case clearly made many state laws against abortion illegal, citing the constitutional right of privacy. See for example, section 3 of the decision: www.tourolaw.edu/Patch/Roe/. I think that undoubtedly this means that in many cases there IS A constitutional right of abortion, according to the decision. I hear Fox News is getting better, but remember that its CEO is Roger Ailes, the former dirty trickster for HW Bush… Stop playing with smoke and mirrors. Is it change or is it the same? McCain embracing Bush and/or Cheney at the convention would have been a wonderful photo-op for the dems, and feed into their ‘McSame’ argument. It’s no accident neither one showed up, or that the present administration was hardly mentioned. Bush has no coattails. He violated the agreements, so we find legalistic arguments to go to war! Pretty bloodthirsty, if you ask me. That doesn’t mean we needed to go to war, or that consensus is not important. I did some research on your claims, and lo and behold, you were right about the first. The claim that Bush ‘lied’ apparently came from State Department official Joseph Wilson (Valerie Plame’s husband) and was discredited. See factcheck.org. I apologize for not being up-to-date. (Factcheck.org did admit that Bush could have been wrong.} However, you may not be aware that your Senator Rockefeller also headed up the Senate Committee on Intelligence, which recently published its ‘phase 11’ report on the intelligence failures in Iraq. I will give you the URL, but let me first quote the following portion of Sen. Rockefeller’s remarks: “It is my belief that the Bush Administration was fixated on Iraq, and used the 9/11 attacks by al Qa’ida as justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. To accomplish this, top Administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and al Qa’ida as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11. Sadly, the Bush Administration led the nation into war under false pretenses. “There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate. BUT the Bush Administration was falsely overstating the case. Check again the Senate Committee report. Thus the president’s ‘sworn duty and responsibility’ does not come into play. Also, as I will further discuss later, the Security Council is supposed to agree unanimously on military action, or at least Not disagree. This is an important mechanism established to make people of the world feel safe, and in a law-abiding international community. If as the (formerly) leading country the U.S. doesn’t follow this rule, how can anyone else be expected to? By contrast, Bush Sr. did achieve a consensus of opinion, and managed to conduct the first Gulf War with relative approbation. Yes. Other countries ALSO have selfish motivations. I quote you; . ‘It does state that if we have evidence and intelligence that says another country means us harm, or if that country has acted to cause us harm in the past, and is preparing to do so again, we can act preemptively to prevent loss of American civilian life.’ That is but a refinement of what I said is it not? It still gives us the unilateral power to decide to attack someone, even if they have not attacked us. It is of great concern to other countries around the world. As for Karl Rove, he is at best an authority of how to get into the innards of folks like you. Your assessment of the situation in Iraq is rather sunny. From everything I hear, the situation in Iraq is probably still worse than under Saddam, in terms of everyday life, infrastructure, perhaps even personal safety. Now, I don’t think I need to cite sources about the status of the situation in Iraq. If things were OK, why do we have 140,000 troops there over 5 years after Bush declared, “mission accomplished.” (Looking really spiffy in a flak jacket aboard an aircraft carrier…off San Diego!) In fact, if you want to assert ‘Iraqis for the most part like us,’ it seems that YOU need to supply evidence. Why did Bush have to let go of his buddy Rumsfeld, who seems to have planned the whole operation? You, like Bush and his pal Rumsfeld, but unlike Colin Powell, and a number of other top military brass, seriously underestimated the terrors of anarchy in a war situation. Ignored that anarchy can be even more terrible than a dictator. The artifacts I mentioned were stolen from national museums in Baghdad, because there was no one left to guard them, and our military was too small and too tied down to do the job. Probably didn’t even know the museums were there. The U.S. troops did rush to control security at the oil wells, though. The looting of Iraqi museums was widely recorded. See, for example, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/26/AR2006082600810.htmlThere haven’t been many polls on the popularity of Americans in Iraq, but what there have been are not promising. And no, it’s not just arab propaganda. I beg you to use your imagination. How would you like it if strange looking people from a foreign culture and religion, knowing no English, blew apart your favorite town or city, killing or scattering all our soldiers and police, ‘acccidentally’ wasting any number of civilians, women and children, destroying your towns electricity, water, etc. Why? In the name of giving you a ‘superior’ political system (theirs) and…by the way…insuring that they got a sweet, noncompetitive deal on your number one export product….I hope you get the idea. Put the shoe on the other foot. It WAS a mess, undeniably. It’s impossible to detail how many were killed. The estimate I gave was for civilian casualties, by the way. Many news agencies reported this number…google ‘100000 Iraqi civilians killed. They all admit that nobody really knows for sure. The U.S. was giving the excuse of ‘having its hands tied’ as early as the Korean conflict… Your assumptions reflect your belief that the war was absolutely necessary and that we are basically good and trustworthy people. But many people around the world feel that the US is untrustworthy (do we really need documentation?) and that the war came because we wanted to secure the world’s second largest oil reserves for ourselves, and that our concern for ‘democracy’ means that we want a government there that we can contain and control. I don’t know of one American politician—including Obama-- who will tell the truth about this stuff, but its fairly obvious to foreigners. That is not Economics 101, it’s Reaganomics 101. There are plenty of top economists who will dispute it, though they probably don’t work for the RNC. One friend of mine pointed out that according to that logic, if no one paid any taxes, everything would be paid for… I said ‘Reagonomics 101’ but maybe I should have said ‘Politics 101’. It sounds SO NICE to pay less and get more. Interestingly, McCain originally opposed Bush’s 2003 tax cuts, but his position has ‘evolved’. Delighted to find out our economy is in such good shape. I'll be sure notify Sec. Paulson. And then... 46000000 with no health insurance, the middle class dwindling at an ever increasing rate, three of Wall Street’s five biggest investment banks going down in the last couple of weeks…I can’t argue about the use of economic indicators by various groups of highly paid liars, but I am aware that Alan Greenspan,libertarian and Ayn Randian, was heard to say that Clinton knew more about economics than any president he knew except Nixon. Listen, you guys live in an alternate universe, but one well constructed to win votes. Even the word ‘entitlements’ is a republican invention. It sounds so much like all these lazy people—not even proud Americans and probably not white—demanding money when they’re too lazy to work. NOT money for our brothers, our fellow Americans, who have done their share,done all they could…the weak, the lame, the halt…’Entitlements’ is much easier to sell, don’t you think? It’s the same old mantra, the democrats want to sell out the country by helping the poor, the republicans want to spend all the money on guns. I think democrats believe that we are our brothers’ keepers. That’s what a society is about. As for Clinton, his surpluses were real. Read the article from factcheck.org: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased? February 3, 2008 Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not. Were Clinton's policies responsible for the 1990s' economic growth? December 7, 2007 He deserves part of the credit, but many factors were at work. Perhaps one of the reasons for his success was that he didn’t cut taxes! Again, our poor helpless President! Did he ever make any public active attempt to stem the tide? Probably not, because then he’d have had to fund the war by raising taxes! I’m sorry, I feel that here you’re making stuff up. The photos don’t lie. The issues regarding prisoners have been widely reported and widely debated both by American lawyers and the international human rights organizations. The US has signed international conventions against torture, and Bush, Rumsfeld, Henry Gonzalez, et al, tried to circumvent these rules…without any doubt. Again, our international reputation has been sullied, and the general impression of lawlessness even further increased. None of this protects ‘me’ or ‘mine’ in the long run. May I mention that the US has operated in Pakistan already? Just today (9/24) I saw a report that Pakistanis found remnants of an American missle in their territory. However it’s handled though…the point is that Afghanistan was never going fine. People always underestimate that place. Remember that the Afghans defeated the flower of the Russian Army. These people are fierce, patient, independent,they hate communists and Christians and who knows who else equally. The main export crop is opium. The government is no doubt extremely corrupt. Northern Pakistan is made up of similar people, and the Pakistani Army has no way to even find the ex-Taliban or Al Quaida in the endless mountains. (Not too mention that our dauntless allies have a heavily pro-Al Quaida populace.) Obama’s main point..and others have said the same, that Afghanistan is where the fight is, that Iraq should never have drawn our attention. (Unless…no, that would be impossible… getting our hands on that oil was more important than fighting the 9-11 terrorists.) For example, NPR had a long interview with the Admiral of the Pacific fleet, who was concerned that his battle strength was depleted because of redeployments to the Gulf. He ticked off potential hot button areas involving a resurgent China, which has territorial disputes with Japan, and North Korea... Then too, there’s the problem in Georgia, since ‘we’re all Georgians now.’ Google ‘US Forces Stretched Thin’ to find many articles on the subject. McCain is almost always a little testy… There are the customary 3 debates scheduled. McCain wants more town halls because he thinks they help his cause. Obama feels otherwise. But there’s no lack of information about the proposals of either. Your own comments about his proposals are pretty vague… Obama wants to help poor people and old people. This is pretty old. The attitude of ‘screw ‘em’ is also very old. Throwing out the words ‘leftists’ and ‘socialists’ and ‘communists’ is stale manure. The Karl Rovians and their like have taught us to react viscerally to these words so we don’t look at their policies. ‘Communists’ by the way, believed in leadership in a culturally aware elite, no matter how that elite got there… They detested democracy. Obama is trying to get what he wants by getting democracy to work. Good for you and your church! I didn’t hear nary a one where I was. Boy, I’m going to stay away from frat parties from here on out, unless I’m awfully well armed and with backup. I saw some of those pictures, so you can’t con me or anybody else. I think here again you are ranting, and repeating the argument that ‘they are worse than we are,’ which you already agreed is not a good argument. What happened was indecent, which is why no serious person would publically support it. We need to ask is, did these PARTICULAR prisoners commit any or all of these atrocities? Did they receive a fair trial? And if so, was their punishment suited to the crime, and within the bounds of American and international law? That’s an opinion, not an argument. One more point…Believe it was your husband who said that the ‘Swift Boaters’ were right when they said Kerry was not a war hero…This again is not clear at all. See factcheck.org: Republican-funded Group Attacks Kerry's War Record August 6, 2004 Ad features vets who claim Kerry "lied" to get Vietnam medals. But other witnesses disagree -- and so do Navy records.
|
|
|
Post by Caunion on Sept 25, 2008 23:50:32 GMT -5
I will be voting for Obama in this election, mainly because between him and McCain, I feel that he is more able to adjust America in this world. As we are all undoubtedly unaware, our world is changing. We are witnessing the rise of two new superpowers, China and India. Although, right now, they are only surpassing America in population, it will soon change within the administration of the next president. I do not think the McCain-Palin administration will, by any means, assist the transition that the world is going through.
Speaking of Palin, I strongly disagree with her political beliefs. For example, her pro-life position that extends to rape and incest. Being a pro-choice at heart, I can't imagine why there should be a law that forbids a rape victim from aborting the embryo and force her to bear that child. Rape is traumatic enough. Imagine the sheer psychological damage she will suffer as she goes on through her nine months of carrying her attacker's child. Or her environmental policies which are reminiscent of Anne Coutler's ideas of our environment. I do not think a woman like her should be one person away from being the leader of America.
I am also voting for Obama because most of his position parallel mine. Whether or not he will hold to them if he is elected remains to be seen, but I have an unnatural trust in him and his ability to lead this country.
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Sept 26, 2008 4:20:42 GMT -5
Folks, I didn't want you all to think I was ignoring you here. I've od'd on politics this week, and it's starting to make me cranky. I've got a Scout Leadership Training camp this weekend, and pendergrast, your post in particular, is going to take a little research. So, I'm taking a break from this thread, and will be back on Monday to hassle everyone some more. In the meantime, everyone, feel free to keep the conversation going.
Caunion, what, specific issues do you foresee as being problematic with regard to our position in the world, and what specifically do you believe the right course would be? What specific positions of Mr. Obama's do you agree with, and why? Not trying to be picky, I just can't argue with you if I don't know where you stand on specifics, rather than generalities. 8)
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Oct 2, 2008 1:13:10 GMT -5
I'm coming back to this thread sometime tonight. One caveat, however, I pulled this thread entirely off topic, and got muddled in the past, which wasn't where it was supposed to be heading. Entirely my fault. So, from here on, I'm going to set up another thread to chat about Bush, Clinton, Republican/Democrat past policies, the question or torture, the early stages of Iraq, etc., etc., etc. Why? Despite the constant mantra and push, neither President Bush nor Former President Clinton is for President this time around. Torture, whether or not it was perpetrated, is not being now, and is irrelevant to this discussion because Mr. McCain has been a fierce opponent of anything even approaching torture from the time the issue was raised. Past policy positions of either party, unless they are current policies being advocated by the current candidates, or unless they are past policies advocated by the current candidate, are also irrelevant. Iraq is a war we are in, regardless of how we got there. The only relevant question on that subject is how we proceed and what each candidate is currently advocating on the subject, or what their individual past policy positions on it were, and if they've changed, why.
The reason I'm resetting my approach is this. There is a mass of information of both sides to wade through already as it pertains to the current candidates, and their personal political histories. When you start adding in all the past histories of every other member of their party, it becomes impossible to have a rational, reasonable, and above all fact supported debate without wasting hours doing research running back 10, 15 or twenty years in some cases.
I'm also going to get off the Abortion topic, as we have another thread going now to discuss that particular topic. As it is relevant to this debate, I don't have a problem with it, but as to the debate of if abortion should be legal or not, that again pulls the thread off the main topic, and makes it difficult to discuss the pros and cons of the candidates themselves.
For the rest of you, feel free to post whatever you'd like. I'll respond to the topic, and redirect elsewhere for my thoughts on things in other topics. For the posts already here that were in answer to my rambling rant on historical politics, I once again apologize, and I will happily dig into all the details I can find and research, as I have time, but I think this election is more important than that, so it may take me a bit longer to get back to that.
Until later, happy debating!
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Oct 2, 2008 7:53:54 GMT -5
I'm back, as promised. Darn, and I thought my posts were long. Can you give me a link to the misrepresentations please. As far as I can tell, that is not the case, but I have not seen the information regarding the energy issue. I don't object to the attention she is receiving. I do object to the tone of that attention, not so much because I don't think she can take it, but because it calls into question the legitimacy of anything the media doing an obviously bias job has to say. I expect politicians to be partisan. I expect my news people to do their jobs based on fact, not innuendo and speculation. I also object to the fact that they are digging into every aspect of Mrs. Palin's life (including old beauty pageant video), and yet they will not touch Mr. Obama's past with a ten foot pole. The press is failing miserably to do its job, and thus the electorate is not properly informed on all participants. Mr. Obama's campaign is encouraging this behavior. I find that distrubing. I'll address this elsewhere, as it doesn't bear directly on this debate. I have to check on the abortion and social security issues. The Wall Street thing is seriously pissing off his base, but I'd have to do some research on his actual current position, as well as his prior positions. You're talking sound bites right now, which is different than actual policy and votes. On the immigration bill, he was forced by a massive outcry from more than 70% of the population of this nation, across party lines, to back off the comprehensive immigration bill that was proposed. In his statements after that vote, he stated that the people had demanded secure borders before the rest of the immigration issue was dealt with, and that while he still advocated the changes encompassed by the rest of the bill, and would bring them back to the floor at a later date, he understood the citizen's need to see that its government would fulfill its obligations for a secure border first. That was a direct response from the populace to the results of the Reagan Amnesty that did not end up securing the border, although the original legislation called for that, and put us in the position of going from 3 million illegal residents naturalized in that wave to having 5 times that number today. I don't consider that a flip-flop. I consider that an employee of the people taking direction from his boss, as did majorities in both houses. On the tax cuts, I assume you are referring to the fact that originally voted against them, and now wants to keep them in place. First, he was NOT against the tax cuts, he was against passing a tax bill that did not have corresponding spending cuts. Now, since the tax cuts have been in effect for half a decade, he is for keeping then in place because to repeal them would be the exact same things as a huge tax increase, across the board, and that isn't good in any economy, but especially not in one as volatile as the current climate. I'm not concerned about how big the population of Alaska is, nor its commonality with New York and LA. The only requirement I have of a VP candidate is that they have and articulate a strong set of principles that guide their decision making process, they have an understanding of the limitations of their power, and they know that they work for the people of this country, not the other way around. It also helps if they have at least some track record of proposing solution to challenges in previous positions, and then implementing those solutions in an honest manner. She fits those criteria quite well. You're requirements for a VP candidate may be different than mine. That's cool. Mr. Obama doesn't meet my requirements for a VP, so there is no way I would vote him into being the heart beat of the President. I'll redirect this to the Abortion thread currently running. The only point I will make on this issue is that regardless of Mrs. Palin's personal views on the subject, she has not proposed or signed any legislation with regard to this issue. She has simply stated her views, and lived by them. I'll go into this elsewhere as well, as the bias and occasionally actually fraudulent reporting of CNN, AP and some others is documented, but it will take some digging on my part. President Bush has no coat tails with Democrats, and probably not with independents. That isn't necessarily true within the Republican base. However, it's really neither here nor there. Mr. Bush isn't running for President. Whatever the Democrat photo-op may have been worth, or the perception of politicing you may have, the first day of the Republican convention was overshadowed by a media frenzy about the coming of Hurricane Gustav straight for New Orleans. All the speeches for the first day were cancelled as a result of efforts to be sure that preparations were in place for dealing with it. So, unless you are one of the conspiracy nuts that actually believes Mr. Bush has a weather machine, it was pretty much an act of nature that took Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney out of the convention. And of course it's change. Mr. McCain is not Mr. Bush, no matter how much you might like it to be so. And Mr.s Palin is certainly not Mr. Cheney, she shoots moose, not lawyers. BUT the Bush Administration was falsely overstating the case. Check again the Senate Committee report. Thus the president’s ‘sworn duty and responsibility’ does not come into play. Also, as I will further discuss later, the Security Council is supposed to agree unanimously on military action, or at least Not disagree. This is an important mechanism established to make people of the world feel safe, and in a law-abiding international community. If as the (formerly) leading country the U.S. doesn’t follow this rule, how can anyone else be expected to? By contrast, Bush Sr. did achieve a consensus of opinion, and managed to conduct the first Gulf War with relative approbation. Yes. Other countries ALSO have selfish motivations.[/quote] Off topic. Unless you are claiming that Mr. McCain was also part of this conspiracy. I'll get into the details on this elsewhere later. I will touch on this because it's actually a continuation of comments made by Mrs. Palin in an interview. The key difference between what you said, and that quote is if we have evidence and intelligence that says another country means us harm, or if they have acted against us in the past and are preparing to do so again. That is a huge difference from "In doing so, Bush created the Bush Doctrine, which means that if we think another country means us ill, we can attack them first. " We must have reasonable certainty, some form of proof, before engaging in preemptive action. And of course we have unilateral power to attack someone. We are a sovereign nation, it is our absolute right, and the absolute responsibility of our Federal Government to protect the sovereignty of this nation and her citizens. That was the primary purpose for which the founders of this nation created a federal government. Why did we have an occupational force in Germany until 1955, and nominally until 1991 I will post on this in another thread, as it only lightly touches on the current debate. I recently assisted on a term paper on this very subject, as well as researching current stories on Iraq for our Scout website, so I have a lot of information to refute quite a bit of this. One point I would like to make in this thread however, as it does directly relate to Mr. McCain's stance on this. Quite a lot of the complaints you make have to do with the small size of our initial occupational force, including the eventual need for Mr. Rumsfeld to be replaced. Mr. McCain, from the beginning, objected to the small size of the force used, and advocated from the beginning of the holding action in Iraq and increase in troops to effect a swifter and surer securing of the country. He was ridiculed on both sides for that position, but it was apparently the correct one in hindsight, and demonstrates his grasp of tactical situations, as well as his willingness to buck his party and its leader to push for doing the right thing. Okay, I actually just took the time to read the Principles of Economic, or at least a bit of it that has to do with taxation policy and its effects on the macroeconomics of a country. This is Econ 101. Not Reaganomics. As to the top economists, could you tell me a few? Ben Stein is one who agrees with tax cuts, William Walters is another that agrees with tax cuts in recessionary times. The only reasoning, as I understand it, for increases in taxes, is when you have inflation. But, that also calls for a decrease in government spending. And it sounds so nice to have free health insurance. Of course it's politics. The key is, as citizens, it's our responsibility to have a basic understanding of how taxes effect our economy, how government spending effects our economy, and know what is going on with both. Reagan had a knack for explaining these issues that allowed people to understand the basic principles involved. Increase disposable income creates increased consumption, creates increased job market. Raising taxes decreases disposable income, decreasing consumption, decreasing the job market. Simple principle of economics, later dubbed Reaganomics. But the economy did well under his management, and the standard of living has risen for the entire populace, not just the so called rich. I addressed that earlier. Alan Greenspan was one of the architects of the current mayhem in the financial markets. As to the current economic storm, and Mr. Paulson, it's a crock. Don't get me wrong. I am well aware that the Dow Jones is fluctuating wildly all over the map. I've been following this in both the regular media, talk radio, and poking around on the internet for various fact checking. This all started a year ago when the housing price bubble finally burst, and individuals began defaulting on their mortgages on properties that were no longer worth as much as the mortgages. Those mortgages were issued as a result of Federal Policy requiring banks to lend to people with shaky credit. Those requirements allowed Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae to purchase obscene amounts of risky debt, and because they were federally mandated companies, the impression was given that those debts would be covered by the government should they be defaulted on. So, in turn, as "safe" debt, they were used as collateral to leverage Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, which were publicly held companies, and therefore other companies as well as individuals held stock in them and issued loans to them to expand their portfolio. When they tanked, they started taking their investors, and their lenders down with them in a domino effect. And now, here we are. The reason I say it's a crock is this. First of all, the market suffers corrections on a regular basis. The Dow soars for extended periods, until some of its stocks begin to be worth more than the debt to asset ratios warrant, they reach a tipping point, and boom, they equalize, sometimes bankrupting particularly unstable companies. This usually happens within one or two sectors of the market at a time. It happened with the Savings and Loans in the 80s, the dot.coms in the 90s, and is now happening in the housing market. Once it equalizes, and prices come back in line with value, the markets once again begin to rise. Three of the largest investment banks on Wall Street tanked because the idiots in charge misread market conditions, and rode the bubble too long. However, something else that recently happened on Wall Street, Berkshire Hathaway, and major mutual fund, just stepped in to buy a major share in Goldman Sachs, one of those failing investment banks, giving Sachs needed liquidity, and Berkshire Hathaway shareholders a major boost to their portfolio. Other investors are coming into the market and picking up low stocks in solid companies, doing the same thing. In other words, the market is working just the way it always has, and is supposed to. Once again proving that the fundamentals of the economy, namely the free market system, work just fine. Paulson and Mr. Bush have been predicting a full economic collapse for two weeks now unless a bailout was immediately forth coming. What did we get? And initial drop of 700 points in the Dow Jones when the first bill went down in flames in the house, and an immediate rebound of at least 1/3 of that loss the following day. Markets fluctuate, they always recover, the speed with which they recover is directly related to how much government interference slows them down. The vaunted middle class is shrinking. Yes, it is, they're getting rich. That too is the way a free market works. I am currently one of the lowly lower class, occasionally lower middle class, sometimes, in the not too distant past, I'd have been considered under the poverty level. Not once in all that time did I stop advocating for the elimination of governnment subsidies for poor people, or tax cuts for the rich. One of these days, I'm going to be rich, but not if I let myself start being dependent on the government for the things I need. Oops. I'm wandering again. That would be why I am a conservative on tax policy however. As for health care. It doesn't matter if the entire population has no health insurance. I happen to be one of those uninsured. If I need a doctor, I can go to the local county health clinic and they will charge me on a sliding scale. Or I can go to any doctor I choose, and pay for my medical care. If I must go to the hospital for an emergency, they are required to treat me, and I can apply for financial assistance or a payment plan for those charges. There is noone in this country that does not have access to medical care. And as for the affordability of insurance, if you'd rather go that route, there are numerous plans available through places like Mega Insurance that can be tailored to fit your medical and financial needs. If you want to find the true culprit in the high cost of insurance in many instances, look to your federal government who has mandated that companies provide you with health care, and then mandated that you as a man have to pay the same premium as the young woman who has to be provided with maternity and prenatal coverage. This is another political ploy to make people dependent on the government for one of their most basic needs, and it's unconscionable. Definition 3 from dictionary.com 3.the right to guaranteed benefits under a government program, as Social Security or unemployment compensation. Any program that leaves you dependent on the government for your well being, physical or financial, is a loss of your individual liberty. I do not disagree with all entitlement programs, just most of them, and I don't believe the ones we have work the way they're supposed to, and therefore don't believe they should be increased or have new ones added. Do you know where that quote originates? It is from Genesis, when God asks Cain where Abel is, after he has killed him, his response is "I don't know, am I my brother's keeper?" Just an odd thought that hit me. As a human being, I believe it is my responsibility to show compassion to those less fortunate than myself, and to do what I can to assist them. I do NOT believe that is the role of any government agency. They are lousy at it, and it relieves us individually of a duty we should not so readily relinquish. As to spending all our money on guns, well, yeah. One of the handful of charges the Federal Government is actually tasked with is protection of our country from enemies both foreign and domestic. Do you expect us to hit them with Twinkies, or just politely ask them to go away? When it comes right down to it, humans are animals, just like all the other breathing critters on this planet, and nature dictates that peace is achieved through strength. Again, I'll post elsewhere. Historical politics and all that. Quote: Actually, you get no arguement from me here. It is unconcsionable, and it is also the reponsibility of Congress and the Senate, rather than the President. In my lengthy and longwinded posts, I can't find this specific quote, so I'm not entirely sure to what I was referring. I'll try to find it again later. Again, I'll post elsewhere. Mr. McCain has been a harsh critic on this topic, so it does not relate to the current debate. I have to do more research on the situation in Afghanistan. I don't have the benefit of working of a research paper for that one recently. As to Pakistan. Yes, I am aware of skirmishes along the border there. I am also aware the Pakistani government has protested those actions when we have crossed their borders. They are a sovereign nation, and an ally by treaty. We must either work within that frame work, or declare all out war on another nuclear armed nation. Personally, I'm thinking you aren't for war. Mr. Obama declared in an early debate that he would "nuke Pakistan" if they didn't produce Bin Laden and stop Taliban activity in a region that they have only nominal control of. That is reckless at the very least, and would also pull our focus out of Afghanistan. In order to increase our forces, we must increase our defense budget. You appear to be categorically against doing so. So, we are currently in a war, with multiple fronts, none of which we can afford to lose. Yes there are problems in other areas of the world, but as of this moment, they are not more important than the current conflict. If and when they become as important, it will be because we have finally tipped into a true world war, instead of just a regional conflict, and the dynamics will change. Until that time, no one, on either side, and most people within our populace, will support the kind of increases we probably need. Is that short sighted as hell? Yes, it is. But it is the political reality of our time, and our military, as it always has, and always will, will do the best job possible with what they have, until they are provided more. That's just who they are. I have to say the first debate was a little more balanced than I had feared, but relatively boring for the most part. It hit on some high points of their different view points on foreign affairs, and truthfully, didn't give much new information. If you want specifics of Mr. McCain's policies, I will happily dig them up later this week. I actually don't have much problem with helping poor people and old people, but there is little evidence that any government program has actually accomplished that goal, and quite a bit of evidence that it has in many cases made things worse for them. So, again, can you cite specific policy and implementation proposals of Mr. Obama's that would achieve these goals. Or any previous accomplishments in these areas that actually improved the situation of poor people or old people? We don't have a democracy. We have a Republic. And as to terms (like Karl Rovians maybe), words mean things. I didn't make up the words socialist or communist. They are words that apply to a type of governing principle. Those principles revolve around the idea of the government being responsible for the individuals in its society, rather than the individuals being responsible for themselves, and the government being responsible to the society as a whole. They involve government run health care, government run schools, government run industry, and government run financial markets, all at the expense of the citizens through taxation. This country is not a socialist or communist country, it is a Republic with a capitalist economy, and I strongly object to anyone who wants to change that, for any reason. I do look at the policies of all politicians. Those that adhere to the concept that all men are created equal, and the the government is limited to the responsibilities bestowed upon it by our Constitution and its subsequent amendments, I approve of. Those that want to legislate activities that go beyond those responsibilities, I object too, regardless of what you call them. Different thread again. Thank you once again for a stimulating post. I wanted to note though. You got into a lot of stuff, but still have not gotten specific on Mr. Obama's policies. Nor do you respond to the information regarding his voting record, and other topics you had raised and I disputed. I would love to hear your thoughts on those as well. Caunion - You still haven't gotten back to me with specifics, so I can't argue with you. I did make mention of my thoughts on Mrs. Palin's abortion views in this though, as pendergrast has mentioned them as well.
|
|
Hravan
Journeyman
Life is a Musical
Posts: 106
|
Post by Hravan on Oct 2, 2008 15:05:50 GMT -5
Okay, so this may be a loaded question, and I know not all of you are going to be 18 come November, and at least one of you is not a citizen here. But, never the less, I'd be interested to here who you'd vote for, and just as importantly, why? What issues would you decide your vote on, why do you think one candidate represents those issues better than the other? Is character important to you in making a choice for political office? What criteria would you use to determine who the best person for the job is? BTW, it doesn't just have to be about the President of the US for this, it can be about your Congressmen and Senators, local leadership, or for those of you not here in the US, the leaders in your own countries elections whenever the next ones may be. Ok, I don't live in the USA but if I did I would vote for Obama. Simply because I loathe Sarah Palin. That woman is pure evil. When it comes to animal cruelty all reason goes out of the window for me. Aerial gunning of wolves, trying to unlist the polar bears as endangered... I know it's ridiculous and I should care more about everything else but I don't..... As for here... Well I hate the Labour government, they've done nothing but f-up this country. I hate the Conservatives as well. According to the Tories all the problems in society can be blamed on single mothers. Something like 70% of all children from single mothers will end up in jail and over 80% will fail to get 5 GCSES at grade C or above and the rest still won't be very high achievers (A* or A)... Gee thanks David Cameron... so my future consists of jail and the 11 GCSEs I got (including one that was an extra subject that I did after school on a Friday) aren't really real are they? And there is no possibly way that 7 of those GCSEs were A* or A and the others were Bs is there? And of course, I shouldn't be at college doing A levels (predicted A, A/B and B). No! I should be out on street corners getting drunk, doing drugs and beating the crap out of old people. I'm sorry for not doing what's expected of me... I really am! Yeah, so there is no way on earth that I will ever vote Tory and actually I will be willing to vote Labour if there was a chance of them winning so that the badger cull won't happen... Yep we're back to the animal cruelty issue.... If the Tories get into power the badger cull will happen... the only thing that's stopping it at the moment is the Labour government.... And this is quite a big issue for me seeing as we're pretty sure that the farmer is putting poison down for badgers as our dogs keep getting poisoned if we walk on the fields behind our house (public footpaths). First time they ate some kind of animal that could have been a badger but was pretty hard to tell as had been scavenged so much, but the second time the only thing the dogs ate was some of the grass at the edge of the crops.... they normally eat it and aren't ill but this time they were. And the symptoms are the same....... I just want the government to hurry up and get the vaccine developed, trailed and then put to use so this stupid cull idea goes out of the window and common sense comes in.... So yes, I will be quite willing to be subjected to another 4 years of Labour rule, regardless of how much I hate them, just for the sake of the badgers... Wannabe vegan (can't go vegan until I leave home so just vegetarian now - I respect my mother's wishes), will be doing animal welfare at university, am a AR sympathiser and want to work with the RSPCA, VIVA or the Dogs Trust.. what do you expect?! Plus I adore badgers - favourite British mammal... Wolves are my favourite animals hence why I despise Palin so much... But if there is no possibility of Labour winning (or if Gordon really mucks it up big time (yes even bigger than now), or allows a badger cull), then I'm voting Green.....
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Oct 4, 2008 2:39:32 GMT -5
Okay, I'm going to digress off topic again for a minute. Do you understand why they do badger culls, or aerial wolf hunts? You say you are against animal cruelty. Do you think it is less cruel to allow those populations to grow so large that enormous numbers of them starve to death because they have depleted their food supplies? I don't really know about badger culls, perhaps they are for the sole purpose of keeping the farmers crops safe, but there again, is it more humane to allow large numbers of humans to starve because the entire years crop is depleted by badgers? As for the wolf culls you are referring to, they are done by helicopter for several reasons. First, safety of the hunters, second speed so they cause less interference with the natural habitats of the packs, and third accuracy, to be sure that no more than necessary are killed in very rough terrain where keeping track on the ground would be difficult. Population control of wolves is part of the fish and wildlife conservation mandate, they also control the populations of deer, moose, etc. If the deer and moose herds grow too large, they die miserably when they starve to death in winter, but before winter comes, they create increases in the predator populations. Once the predator populations annihilate the herds, they in turn starve because they have eliminated their food source. While it might be more "natural" to allow nature to take its course, it is certainly no more humane, and in the past these types of cycles have led to the extinction of entire populations of both predators and herds in some areas. The hunts you are talking about have nothing to do with animal cruelty.
Back on topic. Is that truly, in today's day and age, the only issue you would consider when choosing who to vote for?
|
|
Joker
Student
How about a magic trick? *Dada*
Posts: 19
|
Post by Joker on Oct 4, 2008 8:18:23 GMT -5
If I were a citizen of US, I would vote for Obama definitely. He is the guy who could find the solution to the problem that the economy had. And his motto was "a change we believe in" well he made me believe in that. I think you guys are longer for the years that would pass 4 years without any war besides the wars you have created. I really do not know if the democrats could bring the peace the world has yearned for but I am sure Mccain will continue Bush's legacy. He may be a hero however he is the one US needs. You need a kind of president who is good at talking and persuading. You need a thinker so does the world. We know of US's military power already. Obama seems liks a guy who is a man of his word and in addition, he is the most honorable person I saw as a candidate. Unlike Mccain, the world can rely on Obama thus US will have his allies back. As much as any country that existed needs US, US needs them too. So another mistake would be even more deadlier than that. I do not really know about the others but Obama looks like the best choice.
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Oct 4, 2008 12:17:35 GMT -5
If I were a citizen of US, I would vote for Obama definitely. He is the guy who could find the solution to the problem that the economy had. And his motto was "a change we believe in" well he made me believe in that. I think you guys are longer for the years that would pass 4 years without any war besides the wars you have created. I really do not know if the democrats could bring the peace the world has yearned for but I am sure Mccain will continue Bush's legacy. He may be a hero however he is the one US needs. You need a kind of president who is good at talking and persuading. You need a thinker so does the world. We know of US's military power already. Obama seems liks a guy who is a man of his word and in addition, he is the most honorable person I saw as a candidate. Unlike Mccain, the world can rely on Obama thus US will have his allies back. As much as any country that existed needs US, US needs them too. So another mistake would be even more deadlier than that. I do not really know about the others but Obama looks like the best choice. I will ask the question again, as noone has yet answered it. What, specifically do you believe Mr. Obama will do that will be good for the US or for the world? What, specifically, do you believe Mr. MrCain will do that will be bad policy? Why do you believe Mr. Obama is a man of his word? Why do you believe Mr. Obama is honorable? You mentioned his slogan, anyone can come up with a slogan, why do you believe in a change we can believe in without actually looking at the policy proposals that label is attached to? I know this is specific to the US elections, but these same questions are applicable to any election. And, the rest of you that have been saying I'll vote for Obama, will you also please answer these questions. Not one of you have answered anything specific, except, perhaps pendergrast, a little. I know, I sound like I'm whining. I'm not. The entire point of opening this thread was to exchange ideas, and more importantly allow those of you who are younger, and may not have participated in an election before, to learn something about the responsibilities of the job you are holding interviews for, and to learn how to educate yourself to make the best choices. If you say to me, I want to vote for Mr. Obama because he is for an immediate end to the war in Iraq, he is for increased education, he is for keeping abortion legal, whatever your reasoning, that's cool. I'll argue the policies with you, and I'll tell you what about those policies I don't agree with. But if you just sit there and say I'm voting for Mr. Obama because he's for change, and I believe in change, that's not a reason, that's brainwashed mantras or a repetition of sound bites. Elections are important, and it's essential that you know what you believe in, why you believe in it, and what the qualifications of each candidate are so that you can make an informed choice. That's how we maintain the freedoms we enjoy in this country.
|
|
Joker
Student
How about a magic trick? *Dada*
Posts: 19
|
Post by Joker on Oct 4, 2008 14:24:54 GMT -5
I do not know whether that was a question asked to annoy me or not. I would try to be nice because I think you asked out of curiosity. Anyway, as to why my choice would be Obama because Mccain is supporting the war and wanna go further even though he has not said a word about it lately. Well, I never said anything about a bad policy. If you look over my post again, You may pick out whys easily. In fact, I never said bad anything about him. I am sure if Mccain is elected, he will do good things in favour of US. The thing is that what the world needs are far more important than merely an abortion or another subject matter. In other words, Obama has something to offer more to the world than McCain to only himself. I see Mccain as a copycat of Bush. So I do not trust Mccain. He can prove me wrong if he gets elected. And Obama knows for sure how to handle the crisis USA facing and thus the world crisis. If you saw the first debate, you probably figured Mccain playing dirty politics on Obama and Obama. This is why I trust Obama.
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Oct 4, 2008 18:59:50 GMT -5
Actually, you are correct in interpreting it as curiosity, and not just directed at you, but at every one here. But the response is still vague when it comes to Mr. Obama. I now, however understand that your main objection to Mr. McCain, or the main point of your perception that he would be a continuation of Mr. Bush's policies center around the war. I assume you don't approve of the war in Iraq, or the one in Afghanistan.
As to abortion, while I have opinions as to whether or not it should be legal, I don't base my Presidential choices on that issue because writing laws isn't the President's job. Many others here do base their decision solely on a candidates position on that one issue, on both sides of the debate, and I've always felt that was a mistake. No one issue should be the deciding factor, because the job entails a lot of different responsibilities. But, that's the beauty of a Representative Republic, people can vote by whatever criteria they see fit.
But what you state about Mr. Obama is this "Obama has something to offer more to the world than McCain only to himself," and "Obama knows for sure how to handle the crisis USA is facing and this the world crisis." What does he have to offer that you find appealing, and what does he know about how to handle the crisis the USA is facing, specifially? I'm not picking on you, in particular. I keep getting the same kind of vague ephemeral answers from everyone that says they are going to vote for Mr. Obama. "He speaks well. He promises change. He promises hope for the future." But noone will talk about what he actually proposes to do.
I did watch the first debate, and no, I don't think either of them was playing dirty politics. I think they were both playing to the base, as they always do, and they both for the most part stayed on the issues, rather than degenerating into personal attacks. From what I got out of the debate, both idiots blamed the downturn in the financial markets on "greed on Wall Street." Which is stupid and arrogant political speak for don't look in Washington, where the real mess was made. They also discussed very differing view points on foreign policy. Mr. McCain believes that we must leave Iraq with victory still secured and a stable, strong allied Iraqi government in place. Mr. Obama believes we should set a time to leave, and withdraw without assuring that the Iraqi government has control of its territory, which would result in the same situation he was complaining about in Southern Pakistan, where the government's influence isn't stable, and often far less than the influence of the terrorists in the region. Mr. McCain believes it is essential to win the war in Afghanistan as well, but he understands that the two conflicts are not actually separate wars, they are different fronts of the same war, and if we leave an unstable Iraq behind us, victory in Afghanistan will be that much more difficult, more costly, and more deadly to us, our allies, and the people of Afghanistan. Mr. Obama also believes that the war in Afghanistan should be ramped up, not ended, and that we should consider action against the Pakistani government. Those were his statements. Mr. McCain believes that Pakistan is an allied country, whose sovereignty must be respected. He believes that we should offer them as much assistance as they are willing to take, and bring pressure to bear on them to gain control of their Southern territory, but he does not propose a full scale military attack on a friendly nation. At the same time, Mr. Obama believes we should negotiate with the government of Iran, which has shown a history of aggression, an unwillingness to negotiate, and an inability to abide by its international agreement. Mr. McCain believes we should be unwilling to lend the legitimacy of a unilateral meeting with the President of the USA to the leaders of Iran until they renounce their intentions of world domination and nuclear proliferation, and begin to cooperate with the international community.
So, there are the specifics, off the top of my head, that I got from the two candidates in the first debate. What about those positions swayed you toward trusting Mr. Obama more than Mr. McCain with US foreign policy?
|
|
|
Post by Bubba's Dad on Oct 4, 2008 20:21:55 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.
|
|
Hravan
Journeyman
Life is a Musical
Posts: 106
|
Post by Hravan on Oct 5, 2008 6:30:36 GMT -5
Okay, I'm going to digress off topic again for a minute. Do you understand why they do badger culls, or aerial wolf hunts? You say you are against animal cruelty. Do you think it is less cruel to allow those populations to grow so large that enormous numbers of them starve to death because they have depleted their food supplies? I don't really know about badger culls, perhaps they are for the sole purpose of keeping the farmers crops safe, but there again, is it more humane to allow large numbers of humans to starve because the entire years crop is depleted by badgers? As for the wolf culls you are referring to, they are done by helicopter for several reasons. First, safety of the hunters, second speed so they cause less interference with the natural habitats of the packs, and third accuracy, to be sure that no more than necessary are killed in very rough terrain where keeping track on the ground would be difficult. Population control of wolves is part of the fish and wildlife conservation mandate, they also control the populations of deer, moose, etc. If the deer and moose herds grow too large, they die miserably when they starve to death in winter, but before winter comes, they create increases in the predator populations. Once the predator populations annihilate the herds, they in turn starve because they have eliminated their food source. While it might be more "natural" to allow nature to take its course, it is certainly no more humane, and in the past these types of cycles have led to the extinction of entire populations of both predators and herds in some areas. The hunts you are talking about have nothing to do with animal cruelty. Back on topic. Is that truly, in today's day and age, the only issue you would consider when choosing who to vote for? No it's not the only issue... but it is something which I feel very strongly about... I did mention that I hate the Labour government because of how much they've mucked up this country and now they're getting all Big Brother on us as well ( www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4882600.ece ). And probably if the Tories weren't so anti-single parents I might consider voting for them but as that is another issue I feel very strongly about there is no way on earth I will vote Tory.... So I am probably, most likely, voting Green... I don't actually agree with all the polices of the Green party but it's better than wasting my vote... I bet you that there are people who will vote McCain just because of Palin's abortion views... I admit that I don't know much about aerial hunting but I view any hunting, regardless of the reasons behind it, as cruel... As for the badger cull, it's noting to do with crops.. Basically it's to do with Bovine TB... badgers can carry bTB and farmers blame them for spreading the disease... However, if you go over the Ireland, badgers were pretty much eradicated in 4 counties but still the cases of bTB are still nearly twice as high as in Britain... And there has been a 10 year long trial cull and the results show that badger culling had no effect or very little effect. Instead the government is investing money into a bTB vaccine www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-rules-out-badger-cull-861804.htmlThat pretty much sums it up...
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Oct 7, 2008 3:44:19 GMT -5
hravan, thanks for the explanation. I'll agree to disagree on the cruelty of hunting. But the badger cull thing sounds like it should be stopped on the grounds it isn't working, and is probably costing your average citizen a lot of money that could be better spent elsewhere, even if people can't be convinced on the grounds that it's cruel.
I have to admit I don't know a great deal about politics outside the states. I know Tony Blair was your PM, and that he resigned a while back. I can't remember the guys who replaced him, which I guess means he hasn't been particularly controversial. I know that Sarkozy is President in France, and Putin is Prime Minister in Russia. Maliki is the top guy in Iraq, and I know but can't spell the guy in Iran. So, in other words, the groups you describe are a little confusing, except the Greens. I think they're pretty much the same the world over to some degree.
Thanks again for the info!
|
|
Hravan
Journeyman
Life is a Musical
Posts: 106
|
Post by Hravan on Oct 9, 2008 12:43:46 GMT -5
Gordon Brown is our PM now (he was the scary, never smiling Chancellor of the Exchequer under Blair.) , .... Oh he has been controversial but mainly on Home policy rather than Foreign policy so not international news.... Actually, I think there's a clip somewhere of a senator saying how nice it was meeting "Tony Brown" when Gordon first went over to the USA as PM... Ummm... run down on the parties... New Labour= centre-left but more centre now. Conservatives (Tories/Tory Party) = Is historically right-wing but under David Cameron it's become more centre-right. And the Liberal Democrats (Lib Dems) = is a centre social liberal something/wishy-washy/I really have no idea what they actually stand for party. Those are the Big 3. The Lib Dems normally get around 20% of the vote so the main battle is between Labour and the Tories. That's in England. It's a different story in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. I actually don't know much about politics outside the UK... What I know of the USA is what's on the news.... We do get quite a lot of coverage of the US politics over here, mainly because what happens with you affects us. The only other things I know are Putin in Russia, Sarkozy in France and Yushchenko in Ukraine.
Oh and another reason why I won't vote Tory... My MP now is a Tory and he is a complete and utter arse. He's just horrible and there's no way on this planet that I will vote for him...
|
|