PDA

View Full Version : November Election



mkemse
07-10-2008, 06:18 PM
Very Simple, Who do you want to Win In Novemember and Move Into The White House In January??
This Poll is based only on Obama vs. McCain since no VP's have even been mentioned for either

Virulent
07-10-2008, 07:18 PM
d.) The people... I don't support politics in general, but specifically I can't imagine supporting either of the two candidates that the Capitalist Party is fielding this time around. As to who should move into the White House, I think it'd make a nice squat for some of the 10 to 20 thousand homeless in D.C.

denuseri
07-10-2008, 11:59 PM
walks in the door with a dildo and some fruit juice, looks around,, humm whats up? oh a vote ?

well as an american however futile it may seem, i believe in voting, i dont allways like my choices, sometimes its just a matter of picking who you want to fuck you more than the other lol

now lets see, which of those two would i rather have tapping my ass

mabey i should make a pros and cons list

1) likely to be better hung============= obviously i dont really know but using ocums razor i cum up with obama

2) can really spank da ass=========== ocums razor again, the older the player the more he should know so its mccain

3)can go the longest =================== i have to say obama here but it is a close one if i factor in viagira for mccain,

4)will most likely call his buddies to help====== here i think mccain has the advantage its that whole military faternity thing

5)wont want to cuddle after===============just me here on this one its apet peev for me, hard choice to i allmost flipped a coin, but here i think its definetly leaning towards the older man, young guys are allways too lovey dovy, and i wouldnt respect him after if he was too clingy

well there we have it it was so allmost a tie,,

unless of course they change things and let the 2nd place guy be VP again (then i can get a little DP action going on),, oh wait Aronn Burr showed us why that doesnt work,

sips my juice and sits down with the dildo to watch the allmost certian fireworks

denuseri
07-11-2008, 02:16 AM
this thread has so much potential too, i cant wait to see all the chads flying

Kuskovian
07-11-2008, 04:18 PM
LOL. Looks like most will vote in secret. They seem to want to avoid this issue my pet.

I personally don't trust the current Democratic cantidate any more than I did his oposition for his party's nomination. Especially since Barrak Heussien Obama has played dirty and flipped on so many issues allready proving he isnt any big "change" at all. He wasted no time running to center after securing the #1 slot for the dems. We will see if he is dumb enough to thrust her as the primaries continue. Afterall lets not forget what has happened to others that have tried to investigate or oppose little miss high and mighty. The stupidist thing he could do if he values his life is make her his #2.

It still might be a Clinton running after all in the end. I wouldn't doubt if another Bobby Kennedy event happens before the fat lady sings.

I was for McCain before he won the primary and I am with him today. He at least has earned his chops.

mkemse
07-11-2008, 04:46 PM
My biggest issue with McCain is he always says he want to creat more jobs in the United States, yet he was Intialy instrumental in getting the Air Force Tanker Refueling Contract to Northrop Grumman/ EuroBus sending hundreds of Thousand of United States Jobs over seas, I am glad to see the Pentagon re -review both Bids and maybe keep it in the USA and to Boeing, that would help creat great jobs here in the United States, where they are badly needed

denuseri
07-11-2008, 10:42 PM
all I know about the tanker thing is the poor people that are living around the area where the company was going to build it have had thier hopes dashed for all those jobs now

John56{vg}
07-12-2008, 12:48 AM
LOL. Looks like most will vote in secret. They seem to want to avoid this issue my pet.

I personally don't trust the current Democratic cantidate any more than I did his oposition for his party's nomination. Especially since Barrak Heussien Obama has played dirty and flipped on so many issues allready proving he isnt any big "change" at all. He wasted no time running to center after securing the #1 slot for the dems. We will see if he is dumb enough to thrust her as the primaries continue. Afterall lets not forget what has happened to others that have tried to investigate or oppose little miss high and mighty. The stupidist thing he could do if he values his life is make her his #2.

It still might be a Clinton running after all in the end. I wouldn't doubt if another Bobby Kennedy event happens before the fat lady sings.

I was for McCain before he won the primary and I am with him today. He at least has earned his chops.


Let's see. Interesting AND a lot disturbing. A call for an assassination. It was disgusting when Hillary bought it up and disgusting when it is brought up here.

Also following the party line. John McCain has flip-flopped like a fish out of water on every issue there is. He is first FOR the right of women to choose, then he is pro-life. He calls the Late Jerry Falwell a force for divisiveness then embraces him.

He is against Bush's policies and then for them. He opposes the new G.I. Bill and now is "proud" of how he has worked for it. If we want another 4 years of Bush, Vote McCain.

Barack Hussein Obama!, Too funny that the thought that someone's NAME can be brought up to scare so many people, classic political partisan drivel. And that is OLD news anyway. The "Obama is a MUslim" Lie failed to work MONTHS ago. It would be good to keep up with the current slurs.

plato571
07-12-2008, 03:43 AM
Barry the Moslem has gotten a free ride from all the news media, we do not need another
George Bush in the WhiteHouse. But , since we had Bush shoved down our throat, Barry will be too! I for one am going to write-in Hillary Clinton, While everyone allows Barry to be shoved down thier throats. We get the government that we deserve!
plato571

MissElizabeth87
07-12-2008, 03:58 AM
First of all, Barak Obama is NOT a Muslim, people!!! Hello!!! How much was in he in the news for what his CHRISTIAN pastor said??? I mean, I don't care if you don't like the guy, you are entitled to your opinions, but can we at least not resort to name calling?

Secondly, I'm voting for Obama. I grew up in Arizona, I saw what McCain did for my state-which was nothing, except lie through his teeth. I don't want that in a president. I don't like a man who will hide his opinions just to look better-like McCain has done when he so quickly became moderate right before announcing his first bid for the presidency 4 yrs ago. And lastly, McCain is well known for his temper, and verbally abuses his wife in public when he's "had a bad day" (this is something HE himself said in response to a book about his life-do not tell me I'm wrong, I watched him answer the question). See, I figure, as President, he's gonna have a lot of bad days. And verbal abuse often leads to more. I would prefer to not have a man prone to abuse in the white house.

Obama, on the other hand, is a huge family man, has only been in the senate for 7 years, but has done quite a bit for his own state. He seems to be incredibly moral and never once backed into the mud slinging politics are so famous for in the race for the democratic party nomination. I respect him immensely, which is a lot more than I can say for McCain. I don't care that McCain was in the military and a POW. Until McCain started putting his career ahead of his constituents, I had great respect for the man for that very reason. I do not, however, think that makes him more capable of running the country. Period. Why should we punish Obama for not being old enough to have served in Vietnam?

Oh.. and I think the best choice for his VP would be Condoliza (sp?) Rice. Our sexist, racist country would not dream of assasinating him if the follower was not only African-American, but a woman! (It's a joke!!) And John, I don't think the dude was calling for an assasination. Just saying that it could be likely, due to his race/supposed religion and the controversy over it.

mkemse
07-12-2008, 04:16 AM
Some have said Obama does not have the experience to be President, well eithr did jFK when he was elected
Obama respresents the JFK of this generation
Also, and I do not know that I care much for Ret Gen Wesley Clark, but has he said about McCain"Being in the Srfgvice, being a POW ect does not by itself Quailfy him to be Presdient, we have had many POW's over the years and probably still do, many who wil never be accountedfor," But to say a person served their country, was a POW ect that qualifies him/her to be Presdient, to me it does not or we would have 100 thousand people runnig for President based just on those facts

I MEAN NO DISRESPECT for ANY former POW or Service person all I mean is by having been a POW and having served our Nation, these 2 reasons alone does not qualify them to be our leader

denuseri
07-12-2008, 06:09 AM
if he gets assasinated it will probabaly be Hillary behind it is what i think my owner really means and as satirical as the sugestion is, its a very common one

also i think its funny how mentioning someones middle name becomes a slur all the sudden,,or somehow is an accuzation as to his religion

shouldnt obama be proud of his full name?
and even if he was a muslim ...shouldnt he be proud of that too?

btw my husband doesnt have anything against muslims he actually respects thier faith very much ,,no wonder that he married a bahai

for your information if you looked my owner didnt mention McCains militarary record which was far more than "just being a pow" as i recall he went on despite that to become admiral in charge of the pacific fleet and has a much longer and more ilustrious career in the senate than his oponent and obviously more experience especially in foriegn affairs all around which yes does come with age perhaps

i am all for getting someone else in the whitehouse

nieather one of us voted for bush eaither time btw

and just so we are clear: none of what we have said is a personal attck against anyone , though it looks like some may want it to be, we certianly wont be calling anyone names or saying that what they are saying is disgusting even though those tactics seem to be some peoples prefered methods

we would like to keep the focus on the cantidates and the issues

both of which i think you will see flip-flop like fish out of water on allmost everything as the election slowley approaches
both will move to the center and away from thier bases(though McCain was allready closer to center to begin with) close enough many in his party dont like him, yet somehow he did secure the nomination,,,

hummm, could it be that the majority of the republican party's members are not the radical far right neocon monsters that liberals love to fear monger about?

i also hope you realize (if yu bothered to read my first post) i am a suporter of obama myself too,which does not mean i dont see him for what he is.......another politician complete with ALL thier trappings

mkemse
07-12-2008, 08:11 AM
if he gets assasinated it will probabaly be Hillary behind it is what i think my owner really means and as satirical as the sugestion is, its a very common one

also i think its funny how mentioning someones middle name becomes a slur all the sudden,,or somehow is an accuzation as to his religion

shouldnt obama be proud of his full name?
and even if he was a muslim ...shouldnt he be proud of that too?

btw my husband doesnt have anything against muslims he actually respects thier faith very much ,,no wonder that he married a bahai

for your information if you looked my owner didnt mention McCains militarary record which was far more than "just being a pow" as i recall he went on despite that to become admiral in charge of the pacific fleet and has a much longer and more ilustrious career in the senate than his oponent and obviously more experience especially in foriegn affairs all around which yes does come with age perhaps

i am all for getting someone else in the whitehouse

nieather one of us voted for bush eaither time btw

and just so we are clear: none of what we have said is a personal attck against anyone , though it looks like some may want it to be, we certianly wont be calling anyone names or saying that what they are saying is disgusting even though those tactics seem to be some peoples prefered methods

we would like to keep the focus on the cantidates and the issues

both of which i think you will see flip-flop like fish out of water on allmost everything as the election slowley approaches
both will move to the center and away from thier bases(though McCain was allready closer to center to begin with) close enough many in his party dont like him, yet somehow he did secure the nomination,,,

hummm, could it be that the majority of the republican party's members are not the radical far right neocon monsters that liberals love to fear monger about?

i also hope you realize (if yu bothered to read my first post) i am a suporter of obama myself too,which does not mean i dont see him for what he is.......another politician complete with ALL thier trappings


No the remarks i Made about McCain's beingi n the Military and a POW where what Gen Wesley Clark said about a week ago, what he said was that McCain having been a POW ect does not automticly quailify him to be President, i was just reierating what Clark said and Obam has distanced himself fromthose remarks
What I would like to see now simply is to have both Candidates discuss what they plan to do aboutthe economy, gas prices, medical coverage ect and NOT keep attacking ect toher, we also need to psay no attention to those outside the campaign that keep blasting McCain or Obama, wearen't voting for them
As far a whar Rev Wright said in the past in gneneral, as 1 Obama spoekpersaon said "Thisi s a free country, people can say as they wish, that does not mean Barack supports or believesi n what they say, even if that person supports Obamam

Wesimply need achange in Washington, no it may not be any better initalythen it is now, but it took 7 years to get hwere weare now itwill take more then 90 days to clean up the mess we have

DungeonMaster6
07-12-2008, 09:09 AM
I really don't have anything personally against McCain. He can't possibly be worse than the jackass in the White House presently. Although, I do disagree with him on staying in Iraq and keeping these tax cuts for the wealthy. And yes he has flip-flopped on some things as well, like drilling for oil along the coast and the tax cuts.

Obama, however, seems more organized and I liked the way he dealt with Rev. Wright and the way he talked about more responsible fathers. I agree with him on Iraq. There should be a timetable to be completely out. Furthermore, the Iraqis don't want us there, so why stay. If I'm visiting someone and it looks I've worn out my welcome, I'm leaving.

As people have said, Barack reminds me so much of JFK, that it would be hard not to vote for him.

mkemse
07-12-2008, 09:42 AM
I really don't have anything personally against McCain. He can't possibly be worse than the jackass in the White House presently. Although, I do disagree with him on staying in Iraq and keeping these tax cuts for the wealthy. And yes he has flip-flopped on some things as well, like drilling for oil along the coast and the tax cuts.

Obama, however, seems more organized and I liked the way he dealt with Rev. Wright and the way he talked about more responsible fathers. I agree with him on Iraq. There should be a timetable to be completely out. Furthermore, the Iraqis don't want us there, so why stay. If I'm visiting someone and it looks I've worn out my welcome, I'm leaving.

As people have said, Barack reminds me so much of JFK, that it would be hard not to vote for him.

DungeonMaster6,

Simple enough, If JohnMcCain wins the White House I believe it will be 4 more years of Bush and as you mentioned, President Mailki of Iraq said last week that he even wants a time table for us to leave Iraq as part of a security deal with his country and as I understand it, Bush said that would not even be considered, so here we have a country we are helping "rebuild" the Presdient of that Country has said he wants a time table for US Troops to leave, yet our President won't accept that
Wonder what would happen if I wore out my welcome at someones house but refused to leave... I can see the light flashing now as a car pulls into his drve way

DungeonMaster6
07-12-2008, 10:07 AM
Although I disagree with McCain on Iraq, I don't believe he would've vetoed the "Stem-Cell Research" bill like Bush did. Besides attacking Iraq, that was the worst thing W has done. That bill could lead to finding cures for some serious deseases, but the jackass vetoed it because of some moral issue.

Kuskovian
07-12-2008, 11:55 AM
Which is one of many reasons why I never voted for the little weasal to begin with DGM. LOL.

His father I respected in a strange sort of way. He was certianly well groomed for the position, more so than Reagan by far despite his popularity.

The Clintons; well what can I say about that administration? It truely brought the back doors coruption that we learned of with Nixion into the full lime light of the media. Right out in our faces on both sides. Funny thing is up until the whole thing with the cigar and cum stained dress; Newt and Slick Willy were about to broker an under the table deal for non-bi-patisan cooperation the likes of which even Regan or FDR never imagined.

I am not saying Obama is anymore a prick than any other politician now days, what I am saying is:

I believe McCain as more overall experience in the "leadership role".

I believe he will get more cooperation from both sides of congress as well as other nations.

I believe he will do what is "right" in the protection of our nation and it's principles.

I believe he is more than a pretty face with cheap talk, like his oponent seems to be turning out to be.

Moreover he as been there done that if you know what I mean.


The timetable for withdrall,, ahh a real sticky wicket, do we listen to the generals and stay, do we jump ship and cut our lossess, do we mismanage it and hand over full control to the locals too soon? All difficult questions if you really put thought into them. It is especially ironic considering we shouldn't have mabey been there under the pretexts that we were.

I would lay my bottom dollar that who ever wins the election will try to get us out eventually,( and niether will make it as soon as some want) but only in a way that lets them say it was a success.

Virulent
07-12-2008, 02:56 PM
I am not saying Obama is anymore a prick than any other politician now days

Hehehe.

MissElizabeth87
07-12-2008, 08:11 PM
If Barak Obama was actually a Muslim, I would say that he should be proud of his faith. However, it bothers me extensively that people are using a religion that he is NOT a part of, to say he supports terrorists and/or should not be president.

And while, yes, John McCain does have more leadership experience, as I stated, he hasn't done WELL in his leadership. More BAD experience does not mean he'd make a better leader.

And I'm sorry, my father is serving in this ridiculous war. And I really would rather him not have to go back 30 times because the president absolutely refuses to make any sort of timetable to get us out of a place we shouldn't be. Period. 100 years is way too much.

John56{vg}
07-13-2008, 01:09 AM
And furthermore, The generals that have told the truth and said that had a different opinion than the President have all been fired. So any General that wants to stay in his position will say exactly what the President wants I fear.

MissE I commend your Father's service, the troops are the TURE heros of this debacle. They just do their jobs while being sent over there again and again and again.

I am sorry for your family's suffering thru this, yes, ridiculous war. The families are heroes as well.

Virulent
07-13-2008, 02:00 AM
I'm pretty sure Kuskovian is correct, and the United States will leave Iraq no matter who is elected.


Q: What would or should we do if a sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there?

McCAIN: Well, if that scenario evolves, then I think it's obvious that we would have to leave. I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.

CFR quote (http://www.cfr.org/publication/6973/3)

Nouri al-Maliki requested "a memorandum of understanding to put a timetable on their withdrawal" on 7/9. <link> (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/08/AR2008070803127.html)

As everyone knows, Barack Obama has ran on a platform of a phased withdrawal, that he has reiterated as recently as 7/12, and probably won't back-down from that.

Once again, this is indicative of the normative, monolithic nature of American politics. Its just like Viet Nam; the Tet Offensive made the war unpopular, and the corporate elite decided to begin a phased withdrawal. This time around instead of the Tet Offensive, we have $4 gas. Americans can't possibly be made to give a fuck about anything but their rapidly devaluing currency right now, so anyone who made their way through the layers of ideological filtering to reach a position of political power will make the exact same politically expedient decision.

MissElizabeth87
07-13-2008, 07:23 PM
Virulent, are you saying that anyone who believes we should be out of this war only believes that because of gas prices? Sorry if I misunderstood, that's just what your comment seemed to say.

I don't personally think leaving Iraq is going to fix gas prices anyways. Drilling in Alaska and on the continental shelf will though. :P

claire
07-13-2008, 07:36 PM
It is my understanding that the combined oil in Alaska and off the continental shelf will only provide enough oil to supply the USA for two months. The trade off in the threat to the environment in these areas makes it an irresponsible move. The only people that will benefit from such a move are Bush and Cheney and the others who are invested in the oil industry. If they were to drill, the time line is so long it will have no effect what so ever on current gas prices.

denuseri
07-13-2008, 08:44 PM
Malthis and his malthusians, (chk the spelling yursleves) if any are familuar

basically said as the worlds population gets to a signifigant size a last ditch scrammble will begin to sieze control of all remaining rescources, in effect a global war with massive famons etc

they predicted this proccess to occur a while ago based off the population growth rate in malthis's day,, he was wrong on the timetable becuase westernized countries that allowed more freedom to wemon resulted in lower birthrates as more wemon chose to have careers etc, somthing allmost unthinkable to him in his day and age

the process however seems to be ocuring just not on schedule

as a side bar to the thread i am just curious what all think about thier canidates abilities or knowledge levels to step up on these things as they are some things i consider when choosing a cantidate

our own cicil liberties not with standing,,, what does everyone think we will have to do to survive and do they think thier cantidate will be able to prepare us for this eventuality and why?

is thier a way that will work (considering we cant just snap our fingers and everyone be peaceful) that wont involve war?

Virulent
07-13-2008, 09:34 PM
Virulent, are you saying that anyone who believes we should be out of this war only believes that because of gas prices?

I can totally see how you could read it like that, but I was just sort of using gas prices as a metaphor for a bad economy. No, I think an overwhelming majority of Americans, of all political inclinations, no longer want to stay in Iraq because they're beginning to feel, viscerally if not intellectually, what its like to spend 12 billion dollars per month over there. That's 4.95% of the total U.S. federal income. In contrast, the Department of Education gets 1.9%, the Department of Health & Human Services gets 2.4%, and the Department of the Interior, which is responsible for tending to our wild spaces in ANWR and other places gets 0.4%

Note this is not for military spending, per se. This is just off-budget appropriations for Iraq & Afghanistan. Military spending is an additional 16.6%. Put another way, for every $100 you paid in taxes last year $21.55 was used to blow shit up. So, for someone making the minimum taxable income, $7,825 per year, they contributed $168.62 (21.55% of 10% of their income) to buy bombs and shit.

If you make $8k per year, and you realize that you're spending $168 on bombs and guns, I wonder why you're not out in the street, with some guns and bombs of your own. That's fucking theft, and from people so institutionally under-educated they can't understand that someone else is spending their bread money... and on what? 25 million individual Americans got aid at non-governmental food banks last year. 8% of the population can't feed themselves adequately. Nothing makes me angrier than taxation.

If Americans feel poorer lately, it might have something to do with the tremendous amount of wealth being expended in Mesopotamia. I think most Americans are starting to come to that conclusion, and I really think political affiliation becomes irrelevant at that point. Its important to remember though that long-term health care costs for the wounded troops will also cost between 240 and 500 billion, depending on whose numbers you use.

That's all I meant.


An old man told me, instead of spending billions on the war,
we can use some of that money, in the ghetto.
I know some so poor, when it rains that when they shower,
scream and fight the power.

Virulent
07-13-2008, 09:55 PM
as a side bar to the thread i am just curious what all think about thier canidates abilities or knowledge levels to step up on these things as they are some things i consider when choosing a cantidate

I'm not sure how much it matters. :D But, I think that John McCain is more pragmatic than Barack Obama; if you imagine that the President sits there and decides what he wants the country to do, and then has the country go do it... then I think I'd pick John McCain. To be real though - I'm pretty sure that "president" is what we call our national speech-giver/hand-shaker. I don't think there is any autonomous authority in the job.


what does everyone think we will have to do to survive?

A good book for people interested in this would be Endgame (free mostly complete version <here> (http://books.google.com/books?id=CSsfg3325iEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=endgame&ei=udh6SPyoLoGkjgGF-9jMCA&client=firefox-a&sig=ACfU3U3UtfXqLYK9o1YD8bCh-3lBiQhg-Q)), by Derrick Jensen. I'm quite fond of it, but as a word of caution, it explicitly is written to preach to the choir - if you're not already certain that human civilization is doomed to eco-Malthusian collapse, it probably won't interest you. The book doesn't spend one line trying to convince you of this impending catastrophe. Either you see it coming, or you don't.

I think that is exactly the right way to handle it too - if when you look around you, you don't see civilization in its death throes, I do not believe I could possibly convince you to see what it looks like to me... and honestly, I hope every day that I'm wrong.

MissElizabeth87
07-13-2008, 11:09 PM
For the record, I thought we should never have been in the Middle East... But then again, I'm a pacifist to begin with. I just don't think war is the best way to solve things. It's just the first way human beings tend to do it apparently.

I was half-joking about drilling in Alaska and such. I do think we should try to be obtaining oil from places OTHER than the Middle East however-it is possible, and I doubt sincerely gas prices are ever going to go down. However-gas prices everywhere else in the world are as bad or worse than they are here. Honestly, I think they should be trying to find better ways for transportation. Not hybrids-though they're a start- but like... hydrogen cars, extensive good public transportation. Cars are not a necessity.

Either way, I think honestly, McCain is going to be elected. Clinton voters will split the democrat vote and McCain will win. That's my prediction. Not how I want it, but it's how I think it's going to be.

John56{vg}
07-14-2008, 12:24 AM
MissE,

I am trying to have faith that that will not happen. But I have a fear you may be right about McCain. Which will mean our economy will continue to tank and the war will continue I fear. I DO NOT have faith that the Republicans will listen to the Iraqis. They will find some reason to have a continued presence. Too many companies like Blackwater and KBR are making a killing in the war zone I fear. It is funny, I try to be optimistic, but it is getting almost impossible to stay that way.

I agree, (I did feel you were kidding about the offshore drilling etc :-) ). If we stick with using fossil fuels, we will need more gasoline refining, not more oil. And refining is already at capacity so that oil companies can make their tidy profits off the backs of Americans.

Stealth694
07-14-2008, 02:57 AM
Neither Obama and McCain are what you can call pick of the litter.
Considering the financial, political and international mess Bush will be leaving behind
anyone with sense would wonder "Do I want the Job???"
But whoever gets the job had better hit the ground January 21 2009 at a dead run because I doubt if the media will give him the traditional 100 day grace period to get his administration in order. More like 100 hours, and with the financial mess with the banks questionable loan policies he had better have someone picked for head of the treasury.

Thorne
07-14-2008, 02:57 AM
Virulent, are you saying that anyone who believes we should be out of this war only believes that because of gas prices? Sorry if I misunderstood, that's just what your comment seemed to say.

I don't personally think leaving Iraq is going to fix gas prices anyways. Drilling in Alaska and on the continental shelf will though. :P

That won't do it, either. The best way to fix the gas prices is to restrict the futures traders who are artificially raising the prices in order to generate unearned profits for themselves. Then do the same for food. Let the free market determine the prices, not the stock market.

MissElizabeth87
07-14-2008, 01:05 PM
So, to start off, I am no fan of Bush. HOWEVER, the one thing I will defend him until the end on-it takes about 8 years for the results of a president's financial administration to show. We are NOT seeing what Bush has done, because it can barely show at this point. What we are seeing is the result of the Clinton Administration. The exact same thing happened in history to Millard Filmore. He was villanized (sp?) for the financial mistakes of his predecessor. I do not KNOW for sure what the results of Bush's financial stuff will be, and honestly, neither can you. We can all try to predict it, but predictions aren't always right. Wait 3 years, then talk about what Bush did financially, because then the proof will be in the economy.

Thorne
07-14-2008, 01:50 PM
So, to start off, I am no fan of Bush. HOWEVER, the one thing I will defend him until the end on-it takes about 8 years for the results of a president's financial administration to show. We are NOT seeing what Bush has done, because it can barely show at this point. What we are seeing is the result of the Clinton Administration. The exact same thing happened in history to Millard Filmore. He was villanized (sp?) for the financial mistakes of his predecessor. I do not KNOW for sure what the results of Bush's financial stuff will be, and honestly, neither can you. We can all try to predict it, but predictions aren't always right. Wait 3 years, then talk about what Bush did financially, because then the proof will be in the economy.

I don't know if I would agree that it takes eight years for a president's (or Congress) economic policy to show results, especially in this age of near-instant communications. But it certainly does take several years. I would agree with you about Bush getting the blame for Clinton's policies in his first term, but what we're seeing now, I believe, is all on Bush and the current crop of senators.

Which means that we're unlikely to see much change over the next four years regardless of who occupies the oval office. If anything, barring drastic steps by Congress, things are quite likely to get worse!

John56{vg}
07-14-2008, 03:50 PM
So, to start off, I am no fan of Bush. HOWEVER, the one thing I will defend him until the end on-it takes about 8 years for the results of a president's financial administration to show. We are NOT seeing what Bush has done, because it can barely show at this point. What we are seeing is the result of the Clinton Administration. The exact same thing happened in history to Millard Filmore. He was villanized (sp?) for the financial mistakes of his predecessor. I do not KNOW for sure what the results of Bush's financial stuff will be, and honestly, neither can you. We can all try to predict it, but predictions aren't always right. Wait 3 years, then talk about what Bush did financially, because then the proof will be in the economy.

I don't know if I can agre with this either at this point. It IS true that economic problems are cyclical and very hard for a President to influence.

However, the immense amount of money being spent on the war, the devaluation of the dollar due to vast amounts of money being borrowed to conduct that war, and putting corporate interests above those of the people HAS influenced the current trouble we are in, I believe.

So some of Bush's policy have born rotten fruit in a very few years I fear.

mkemse
07-14-2008, 04:23 PM
So, to start off, I am no fan of Bush. HOWEVER, the one thing I will defend him until the end on-it takes about 8 years for the results of a president's financial administration to show. We are NOT seeing what Bush has done, because it can barely show at this point. What we are seeing is the result of the Clinton Administration. The exact same thing happened in history to Millard Filmore. He was villanized (sp?) for the financial mistakes of his predecessor. I do not KNOW for sure what the results of Bush's financial stuff will be, and honestly, neither can you. We can all try to predict it, but predictions aren't always right. Wait 3 years, then talk about what Bush did financially, because then the proof will be in the economy.

I am sorry to differ with you on this, but when Bill Clinton left office in 2001, he left a $350 billion federal deficit surplus. How long did it take the President Bush to go through this and how much is it now?
In 2004 3 years after Bush took over as President our Defecit went from plus $350 BILLION to a Negative $400 Biilion as of Jan 2004, and this does not include the added costs of the Wars Going on there are some who say it it possible that by the time Bush leave office that our Feeral Deficit could hit $1 Trillion Dollars, based in part of the devaultion of the US Dollar overseas as well as other Unsuccessful Economic Policies of the Bush Years

Also case in point, when Bush took over as President in 2001, Oil was approx $37.50 a Barrel, Gas was $1.79 a Gallon, from 2001 at 37.50 a barrel to it's current price of $145 a barrel that is approx a 450% increase in oil prices in 7 years, NO comoditiy in United States History that I have seen and feel free to correct me on this if I am incorrect, has gone up 450% in 7 years

MissElizabeth87
07-15-2008, 01:26 AM
Well first, Bush doesn't affect Oil prices-OPEC does. Yes, you can make the argument that they are raising them due to the war in the Middle East, and I can see where that's merited but it's really kind of speculation. The people who actually run OPEC aren't going to come out and say "Well, we're pissed you're here, so we're raising prices".

Economics are cyclical. I did not say I believe that Bush has done a GOOD job, I just believe we really can't tell right now. And I saw this information-about the whole 8 years bit-first in an econ textbook I used almost 4 years ago (which was then 1 year old), and again in a different economic book, with a different slant entirely-that was written 1 year ago. I don't always believe every single thing that I read, but when I find that two different books agree on a point when they disagree in many other places, I am very inclined to believe it. But-with the whole cyclical thing-inflation, like recession-is also cyclical... I believe it's like... the economy goes up-and then the dollar starts going down in value-which leads to a recession-which eventually leads to the dollar being worth more (due to people having to spend less)-and then the economy starts going up again. That's the way I understood it at least.

Now, with "Clinton's surplus", by what I've learned and believe, "his" surplus was not his doing. And it was him who spent through most of it-not including what has been spent on the war in the middle east. I don't want to start a huge debate about that point in particular-I'm just saying that it follows with the line of logic I have been using. But honestly, what I have read-again, in multiple places-the earliest we are going to see the influences of policy is 6 years, and that is rather rare. It is usually more like 8.

But! I could very well be wrong, and you all could be right. I'm just paraphrasing books-I'm definitely no economist.

mkemse
07-15-2008, 03:34 AM
Well first, Bush doesn't affect Oil prices-OPEC does. Yes, you can make the argument that they are raising them due to the war in the Middle East, and I can see where that's merited but it's really kind of speculation. The people who actually run OPEC aren't going to come out and say "Well, we're pissed you're here, so we're raising prices".

Economics are cyclical. I did not say I believe that Bush has done a GOOD job, I just believe we really can't tell right now. And I saw this information-about the whole 8 years bit-first in an econ textbook I used almost 4 years ago (which was then 1 year old), and again in a different economic book, with a different slant entirely-that was written 1 year ago. I don't always believe every single thing that I read, but when I find that two different books agree on a point when they disagree in many other places, I am very inclined to believe it. But-with the whole cyclical thing-inflation, like recession-is also cyclical... I believe it's like... the economy goes up-and then the dollar starts going down in value-which leads to a recession-which eventually leads to the dollar being worth more (due to people having to spend less)-and then the economy starts going up again. That's the way I understood it at least.

Now, with "Clinton's surplus", by what I've learned and believe, "his" surplus was not his doing. And it was him who spent through most of it-not including what has been spent on the war in the middle east. I don't want to start a huge debate about that point in particular-I'm just saying that it follows with the line of logic I have been using. But honestly, what I have read-again, in multiple places-the earliest we are going to see the influences of policy is 6 years, and that is rather rare. It is usually more like 8.

But! I could very well be wrong, and you all could be right. I'm just paraphrasing books-I'm definitely no economist.

Thanks for your responind and addtional comment i agree with most of what you say, i believe the oil is is speculators who realy need to be reeled in, some have even suggeste that they beforced to put up "Cash Bonds" to cover their speculations, but as you said only time will tell also i believe alot of the oil issue is the insane ammountthe i believe it is China is using which effects the whole world market, buttherality is the US HAS to find alternative energy sources

last Bush's approval raing is lowerthe any oher rsident in US history, buti am sure alot of this is due to Iraq, buti do not wantto spin this thread into an entirely different direction
I appreciate your comments
whether it is OPEC, Speculators or who ever the reality still is that Oil has gone up 450% during Bush's term in office

Thorne
07-15-2008, 02:01 PM
But honestly, what I have read-again, in multiple places-the earliest we are going to see the influences of policy is 6 years, and that is rather rare. It is usually more like 8.

I've never studied economics so I'll take your word for it. 8 years seems high to me, but even based on the 6 to 8 years you specify, we're right at the point where Bush's policies at the beginning of his term should be overriding Clinton's policies.

All in all, though, I think it's a crap-shoot. You pays your money and you takes your chances.

Kuskovian
07-15-2008, 04:26 PM
The President being a single individual often takes all the credit and or the blame conserning just about anything that happens or appears to happen while he is in office.

Consider how after less than 30 days in office Slick Willy was taking credit for the economy reaching unprecedented hieghts due to things that happened years before he even ran for the position.

Look at LBJ (a conservative dixi crat), and Kennedy, often cited for being big movers and shakers in civil rights reform which was not in fact the case.

Often times the focus is on the big guy in charge to the chagrin of all the worker bees.

Looks at civil rights:

Much more credit should have went to Hubert Humphrey the Farmer/Labor Parties cantidate vs Kennedy for the democratic primary. He was responsible along with Jeane Kirtpatrick and a small group of others (sans LBJ/ JFK) for allmost single handedly changing the the democratic party's traditional stance opposing such rights.

Yes thats right until Elenor Rosevelt and Hubert Humphrey, the democratic party was predominately the white southern racist party of Andrew Jackson (remeber it was the newly formed republican party that had the strong anti-slavery platform). In fact the reason Humphrey pushed so hard for the change was he feared the newly anounced intended focus (that was quietly proffered by Eishenhower a few days before the covention) for the republican party was indeed going to be a return to a civil rights agenda. Hubert wasn't going to have any of that, He was far to passionate about the subject to let his enemies take the baton. So he made a surprise speach at the last minute on the minority plank resulting in a walk out of the dixiecrats that helped put the dems on the civil liberties trail. When Ike heard about it he wrongly thought it would look like he was a copycat if he opened his address with a civil liberties focus so he changed his speech. SMH.

Humphrey's behind the scenes efforts over the years as majiority whip and later vice president changed the democratic party and in effect ultimately history allmost every single piece of legislation that conserned civil rights was pushed hard by him up until the late seventies when he died.

You don't hear much about him though do you?

No matter which cantidate wins he, or still perhaps she (LOL. if some perdictions hold true) is going to grab all the glory they can and unwillingly take much blame later, its the nature of the beast.

mkemse
07-15-2008, 04:37 PM
One thing that can be said however is NO system is PERFECT but ours at least works, it may have problems at time but it still works

Thorne
07-15-2008, 07:00 PM
One thing that can be said however is NO system is PERFECT but ours at least works, it may have problems at time but it still works

That's true, at least. We haven't (yet) reached the point where the incumbents have their opponents assassinated in order to retain their power.

Although, if Bush wasn't hogtied by the two term law, one would have to wonder...

_ID_
07-16-2008, 04:37 PM
One thing that can be said however is NO system is PERFECT but ours at least works, it may have problems at time but it still works

So did Sadam Husseins. It was a system, not one most people would approve of, but it still worked.

What I'm getting at is just because it's what we have and what is working doesn't make it the best option.

Virulent
07-16-2008, 04:55 PM
so did sadam husseins.

:11:


stability means we run it. There are countries that are very stable. Cuba is stable, but that’s not called stability.

mkemse
07-16-2008, 05:28 PM
So did Sadam Husseins. It was a system, not one most people would approve of, but it still worked.

What I'm getting at is just because it's what we have and what is working doesn't make it the best option.

True but in this Country you cna vote for who ever you want and not worry asbout being shot, imprisoned ect you have freedom of choice here, in Iraq you realy did not under him

Stealth694
07-16-2008, 06:32 PM
Thomas Jefferson said it well: Democracy is an ongoing experiment.

mkemse
07-16-2008, 07:13 PM
Thomas Jefferson said it well: Democracy is an ongoing experiment.

True but our Experiment has for the most part gone pretty well through out our History, the choices may not have been great, but we can vocaly support who we want critisize those we don't want and no end up in jail, beaten or killed for doing so

Virulent
07-16-2008, 09:26 PM
we can vocaly support who we want critisize those we don't want and no end up in jail, beaten or killed for doing so

I'd add the caveats 'lately', 'usually', and 'if you're a white male land owner' to that. But that said, America is better than a lot of other places. Mostly what I like about is the geography though. The rest of it is pretty much the same as everywhere else I've been, more or less.

America... fuck yeah!

_ID_
07-17-2008, 03:37 PM
True but in this Country you cna vote for who ever you want and not worry asbout being shot, imprisoned ect you have freedom of choice here, in Iraq you realy did not under him


We pretend to vote for who we want. Even if the popular vote is won, it doesn't mean that person gets into office (as was the case of the Bush/Gore election).

We may not get shot in the street for speaking our mind against a leader, but I can bet you that things become increasingly difficult for you when you do (at least under the current administration).

I love America, I love its people, and I love how imperfect it is and don't want to live anywhere else. I won't however say it is the best at anything over any other country. We just spend more on our military so anyone who does something better suddenly has a change in government.

mkemse
07-17-2008, 04:45 PM
We pretend to vote for who we want. Even if the popular vote is won, it doesn't mean that person gets into office (as was the case of the Bush/Gore election).

We may not get shot in the street for speaking our mind against a leader, but I can bet you that things become increasingly difficult for you when you do (at least under the current administration).

I love America, I love its people, and I love how imperfect it is and don't want to live anywhere else. I won't however say it is the best at anything over any other country. We just spend more on our military so anyone who does something better suddenly has a change in government.

No I agree we are imperfect but we have managed to survive for over 200years with our system, with no attempt to overthrow the governement (a coupe), no system I have ever seen or read abouti s Perfect but I would like to both think and believe we have the closest system to perfectio of any other Nation on the planet, and i certainlywould not want to live anywhere els,e if for no ther reason, if i did i could not be typing here what I am without fear of me getting into trouble for speaking freelyas far as the current adm, they have made it clearthat they operte on their own rules, they do what they want, when they want, how they want then claim "Excutive Priedge" when Congress tries to investigate, as a matter of fact our current attorney generla was as within the last week or so to appear before Congress regardling the CIA leak, Bush immediately rusfed to allw himto appear invoking "Executive Priveldge" ans withthe except of Thomas Jefferson, if evenb him, NO other President in US Histry has invked Excutive Pridlge as much as Bush has to prevent Congress from interviewing peole who may have broken the law

there is the United States Consistuion, Internation Law, The Geneva Concention and then there are what ever Law(s) the current Adm. wishes to folow on it's own, reffered to I believe as "Bush's Law" which apprently superceedes all other, but this should all end in January of 09

hopperboo
07-19-2008, 12:43 AM
Obama terrifies me. He is an eloquent speaker which I think draws people. He also looks pretty. America is blinded by that. (Not that I am all gung-ho for McCain, but anything is better than the anti-Christ, IMO).


With Obama we can say our final good bye's to a lot of things.

Say good bye to your guns.

Say good bye to justice.

Say good bye to the chance of equality. On many different fields.

Say good bye to the last clinging part of religion in public places. (i.e. Having a personal Bible in school, etc).

Say hello to change. A lot of change. And not for the better.

mkemse
07-19-2008, 01:45 AM
Obama terrifies me. He is an eloquent speaker which I think draws people. He also looks pretty. America is blinded by that. (Not that I am all gung-ho for McCain, but anything is better than the anti-Christ, IMO).


With Obama we can say our final good bye's to a lot of things.

Say good bye to your guns.

Say good bye to justice.

Say good bye to the chance of equality. On many different fields.

Say good bye to the last clinging part of religion in public places. (i.e. Having a personal Bible in school, etc).

Say hello to change. A lot of change. And not for the better.


He will not get rid off all guns, but their is a current issue regarding HAND GUBS not the right to own Rifles ,look at the violence on the streets of Chicago, 99% has been caused by HANDS guns NOT RIFLES, I do not care for guns, does a person have a right to own a gun to defend himself and protect his family and prporty, yes 1000% is there a need to carry a hand gun, no

Justice was gone when the Current Adm took office, Bush has invoked "Excutive Privledge" more then ANY other President In history with the possble exception of Thomas Jefferson, Bush hasallowed illegal wiring tapping, he has set his own rules of Governement, we have not had equalityi n this country for many years, Black are not treated the same as whites, Wooemn gneneraly earn far less in the same jobs then men do, men seem t be permoited more then women, this all goes back years

1 question I do have and I have no seen adressed anywhere, yes the Comstitution gurantees everyone the right to bear arms, BUT where HAND GUNS even around then and if they were not,m then the debate ontherigh to own a hand gun onder the Constition is a MUTE issue as wearedebating about a gun that did not exxist at the time??

There is a Clear Seperation Of Church and State In The Constuttion, I have not seen anything he (Obamam has said about not allowing Bibles In Public School, but to have open Bible Study In Public Schools, in class on Tax Payers Money is a violation of the Seperation of Church and State, State Funded Schools can not under law encourage or Publcy endose 1 religion over anyther, Bible Study does that if a student wishes to carry a Bible with them in a Public School and on HIS or HER own Private time read and study it, that is fine,but to use School time in Class to study and debate the Bible, that Violates the Seperation of Church and State, but that is a different issue, to me no not in Publics Schools that is one of the Various Reaons for Private or Parochial Schools, as a Tax Payer, do I want to "Pay for" or Have Bible Study in Public Schools, no, you need to remian in Priavte schools. I also do not ant to offend anyone by this statement, should the Goverment offer vouchers to attned Private Schools over Pub;lic Scoold. NO thst again would have the stae or states indorsing 1 religion over another which violates the Consistution

My concern with McCain is that he will effectively be 4 more years of Bush, our economy is in terrible shape, more forclosures then any time in hsistory oil is up 450% in 7 years when he (Bush) took office, gas was $1.79 a gallon oil $37.50 a barrel, NO comodity in US History has ever rise 450% in 7 years in US History

We have a lack of choice in Novemmber, but the American People thrugh our Primary system choose who they wanted,maybe not a great choice by any stretch of the imignation but a choice none the less, and unilke MOST countries we did have a choice, we as Americans choose who would run in November, nobody forced anyone to run or not run for office, the Republican Party did not demand we vote for MCCain nor did the Democratic Party Demand we vote for Obama it was an idividual choice, we now have to live with what we decided, as someone onc said "Weall have decsions to make in livfe we then have to livewiththe conciquences of our decsions be they right or rong, and if they arewrng, we can changethings again in 4 years

We has a choice Between a former POW, A Mormon or a Fundamentalist Southern Baptsit on 1 side, on the other Side An African American Male or a Female, and yes therewere other but none ofthen got anywhere, we made as American our decsion who we wanted to run in Novmember, we now have to live with our decsion

Logic1
07-19-2008, 01:50 AM
No I agree we are imperfect but we have managed to survive for over 200years with our system, with no attempt to overthrow the governement (a coupe), no system I have ever seen or read abouti s Perfect but I would like to both think and believe we have the closest system to perfectio of any other Nation on the planet

Why is the US system any better than our Swedish one for one? To me your system seems too flawed to be anywhere near "the best". Sure it is democracy but you basically have two parties to choose from, and they are both kinda similar. To me perfect would atleast mean more than 2 parties to choose from.
:je

mkemse
07-19-2008, 02:00 AM
Why is the US system any better than our Swedish one for one? To me your system seems too flawed to be anywhere near "the best". Sure it is democracy but you basically have two parties to choose from, and they are both kinda similar. To me perfect would atleast mean more than 2 parties to choose from.
:je

I did not mean too insinuate we are better then your system,if that is the way i cam across my apologies, it was NOT my intent, what I meant was,We have now and have had in th Past other parties we have had Independnts run, the Librirtarian Party Run, the Green Party Run, but the Public here has decided on their own to stay with the 2 main parties,NO system is 100% perfecr, if there is one that is i have not seen it
We are not the best, we are flawed and we ppplace are flawns in thefront window forthewhole world to see but we have what MOSt countries do not, and that is CHOICE you do not have choice per sey in Russia, China, Japan, Korea ect no our system is far from perfect but it has lasted over 200 years and if we do not like things we have the chance to change it ever 4 years

hopperboo
07-19-2008, 10:19 AM
He will not get rid off all guns, but their is a current issue regarding HAND GUBS not the right to own Rifles ,look at the violence on the streets of Chicago, 99% has been caused by HANDS guns NOT RIFLES, I do not care for guns, does a person have a right to own a gun to defend himself and protect his family and prporty, yes 1000% is there a need to carry a hand gun, no

I fully support the public being able to own and use hand guns.

I am not aware of the stats this year but I can guarantee you the public that has CCW's and actually carry their hand guns on their person are not the people America has to fear.

America has to fear those people who don't legally obtain CCW's. Those people who don't legally obtain hand guns...you think if laws are passed to rectify the situation we will be safer? No. We won't. We'll be sitting ducks while the bad guys still get their hand guns. Boom.

mkemse
07-19-2008, 10:41 AM
I fully support the public being able to own and use hand guns.

I am not aware of the stats this year but I can guarantee you the public that has CCW's and actually carry their hand guns on their person are not the people America has to fear.

America has to fear those people who don't legally obtain CCW's. Those people who don't legally obtain hand guns...you think if laws are passed to rectify the situation we will be safer? No. We won't. We'll be sitting ducks while the bad guys still get their hand guns. Boom.

thanks for your feedback on the issue

hopperboo
07-19-2008, 11:07 AM
they are both kinda similar.
'Cept for one is the bad guy. :icon176:

Virulent
07-19-2008, 12:44 PM
the Public here has decided on their own to stay with the 2 main parties

There are only two parties in the U.S. that even have their presidential candidates on the ballots in all 50 states. If the Libertarian or Green presidential candidate isn't even on the ballot, I don't know how you can claim that the people made an informed choice.

The public never had a choice; people with money chose a two party system because its cheaper... you get the perception of real choice, and the minimum number of candidates to legally bribe with campaign contributions.

Any parliamentary system, like the one Sweden has, is unarguably more democratic than the U.S. system.


'Cept for one is the bad guy. :icon176:

LOL! That's hilarious. :D

mkemse
07-19-2008, 12:47 PM
There are only two parties in the U.S. that even have their presidential candidates on the ballots in all 50 states. If the Libertarian or Green presidential candidate isn't even on the ballot, I don't know how you can claim that the people made an informed choice.

The public never had a choice; people with money chose a two party system because its cheaper... you get the perception of real choice, and the minimum number of candidates to legally bribe with campaign contributions.

Any parliamentary system, like the one Sweden has, is unarguably more democratic than the U.S. system.



LOL! That's hilarious. :D

Thanks for your comments, they are appreciated

BTW how many ACTIVE Poltical Parties does your country have, just curious??

Kuskovian
07-19-2008, 04:43 PM
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't Sweden's government a constitutional monarchy, primarly controlled for the most part by one main party; The Social Democratic Party?

(I know Sweden has many other parties, yet I am under the assumtion that the social dems have dominated Swedish politics for 100yrs.)

If that system works fine for Swedes than fine by me.

The United States has many many different parties, just like most governmental systems claiming to be democracys.

Unlike most of the worlds "democracys" the U.S. doesn't use a parlimentary system.

Our system is called direct representative, the individual not the party is elected (as well as other differences), hence no majiority is required to form a government.

This means in the United States, you and your party stand alone. No other parties are going to attach themselves too you for the sake of fulfiling thier own paticular special intrests (because the victor in elections doesnt need them to rule if his party is big enough).

Quite naturally, allmost from the start, a primarly two party system developed to dominant the rest.(strength in numbers)

Our two parties have changed markebly throughout thier individual histories even apparently switching entire political directions. ( at one time it was the dems that were the conservatives and the republicans were the radical liberals)

American politics have allways thrived on controversial stances and lots of fighting between the two main parties.

One time in congress there was even a fist fight between a conservative democrat and an abolisionist (early republican party, see U.S. Civil War for details).

All the low balling and dirty political tricks aside, just can't change the fact that regardless of what type of government system you belong to......that so called "democracy" is just limited voluntary tyranny by any other name.

mkemse
07-19-2008, 06:11 PM
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't Sweden's government a constitutional monarchy, primarly controlled for the most part by one main party; The Social Democratic Party?

(I know Sweden has many other parties, yet I am under the assumtion that the social dems have dominated Swedish politics for 100yrs.)

If that system works fine for Swedes than fine by me.

The United States has many many different parties, just like most governmental systems claiming to be democracys.

Unlike most of the worlds "democracys" the U.S. doesn't use a parlimentary system.

Our system is called direct representative, the individual not the party is elected (as well as other differences), hence no majiority is required to form a government.

This means in the United States, you and your party stand alone. No other parties are going to attach themselves too you for the sake of fulfiling thier own paticular special intrests (because the victor in elections doesnt need them to rule if his party is big enough).

Quite naturally, allmost from the start, a primarly two party system developed to dominant the rest.(strength in numbers)

Our two parties have changed markebly throughout thier individual histories even apparently switching entire political directions. ( at one time it was the dems that were the conservatives and the republicans were the radical liberals)

American politics have allways thrived on controversial stances and lots of fighting between the two main parties.

One time in congress there was even a fist fight between a conservative democrat and an abolisionist (early republican party, see U.S. Civil War for details).

All the low balling and dirty political tricks aside, just can't change the fact that regardless of what type of government system you belong to......that so called "democracy" is just limited voluntary tyranny by any other name.


Thanks for your imput and comment

Ragoczy
07-19-2008, 06:28 PM
Any parliamentary system, like the one Sweden has, is unarguably more democratic than the U.S. system.


The US is a Republic in order to limit pure democracy. The Founder's did this intentionally, because they recognized that pure democracy is the the tyranny of the majority -- in reality, worse than a dictatorship. Think about it, it's easier to overthrow a dictator than the majority.

Pure democracy is when seven wolves and a sheep decide what's for lunch. Everybody gets a vote; even the lunch.

Virulent
07-19-2008, 07:13 PM
how many ACTIVE Poltical Parties does your country have, just curious??

1; the Capitalist Party. I'm an American.


"democracy" is just limited voluntary tyranny by any other name.

When I die, it will be to no loss; Kuskovian makes me entirely redundant.


The US is a Republic in order to limit pure democracy. The Founder's did this intentionally

This is true... its important to note though that all of the Founding Fathers were anti-party. Most famously, George Washington's advice: "Let me ... warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally."

The Founding Fathers speeches and writings speak of a republican polity, deferring to state's rights in internal matters, without parties, wherein a vote was for a man not for a party. The Electoral College was created because the Founders believed that there would be numerous candidates, and that the Electoral College was necessary to winnow them down to just a dozen or so.

To be clear though, I'm not saying that the above or any other government would be preferable to the organization that currently takes 28% of my money and spends 22.5% of it on blowing up people who never fucked with me. I don't believe any compulsory statist authority is ethical or advisable.

denuseri
07-19-2008, 10:41 PM
They did have hand guns back in the days of the founding fathers,, often used in duels, or by highway men and or pirates as well as law abiding citizens,,,,,,just to answer a previous question..

i honestly belive that the corporations are more in charge (even if indirectly) regardless of which party wins in november

i base this in the way our system works

our system is primaraly reactionary, the government responds to stimulus, from several scources, lobbyists, special intrest groups, the media, public out cry, legal case judgements, government burercratic self promotion, and or politically inclined ambitious individuals

the corperate lobbyists make up a numerically small yet advantaged group of these influences, yet is perhaps the most powerful, after all who can afford to "buy" a politician the easist, (much like the roman patron/client system during the republic)

next time you look at who you are voting for, try checking out just who is really backing them finacially one time, its well worth the effort and often enlightening

Logic1
07-21-2008, 02:11 AM
Well what to say.. what to say.
Whatever form of governing that is the best depends entirely on where it is and who will live by it. There are plenty of countries that democracy just wont work. Take a look at the middle east. The project of enstilling democracy in Iraq is doomed of failure even before it was started. A country like the US or Sweden just isnt gonna work without it cause we have been used to it for so long that our collective minds just cant(or wont) accept anything different.
Iraq actually worked pretty fine with Saddam in power and now it is a hellhole cause that fine balance is desturbed. Different factions are fighting for power and those factions werent powerful enough under Saddams rule to make such a mess as it is now. That is just one example. Yes the Iraqui people werent too fond of him but the truth is that Iraq was a working community and before and just isnt now.
Russia isnt really coping with the democracy that they had. They are a people that seems to need their one strong man.

Thorne
07-21-2008, 02:35 PM
Iraq actually worked pretty fine with Saddam in power and now it is a hellhole cause that fine balance is desturbed. Different factions are fighting for power and those factions werent powerful enough under Saddams rule to make such a mess as it is now. That is just one example. Yes the Iraqui people werent too fond of him but the truth is that Iraq was a working community and before and just isnt now.

You might try asking those tens of thousands of people (his OWN people) that Saddam and his sadistic sons had tortured and executed whether their country worked well under Saddam. I doubt they would agree. The same logic applies to Nazi Germany in the 30's. The country prospered under the Nazi rule. For a while. I don't think those who were sent to the camps could be considered happy about that, though.

No, any government which must rule by fear and terror (and that MAY include the US government: the Patriot Act, and others like it, are meant to instill fear in the US population, I believe) can hardly be considered acceptable. At least in a democracy, though, the people can only blame themselves for allowing their government to get out of control.

Virulent
07-21-2008, 03:04 PM
Yes the Iraqui people werent too fond of him but the truth is that Iraq was a working community and before and just isnt now.

Coming from you Logic, this seems pretty cynical; do I read you correctly?

Stability is more important than justice? Peace before liberty?

Would you apply that same criteria to your own nation?

Mad Lews
07-22-2008, 01:19 PM
Truth be told we are on the way out of Iraq because the surge worked. That is why the Iraqi government feels stable enough to talk about a US withdrawal timetable.

McCain and others urged the surge years ago and as a military strategy they were right.

At this point there is little or no difference between McCain and Obama as to how the war ends. Both will pull troops from Iraq over the next two years (stability permitting) and redeploy them in Afghanistan.

It really won’t much matter which of them gets elected, the country can survive either. Hell we may have even made it through 4 years of Billary.


Yours
Mad Lews

Logic1
07-22-2008, 01:33 PM
You might try asking those tens of thousands of people (his OWN people) that Saddam and his sadistic sons had tortured and executed whether their country worked well under Saddam. I doubt they would agree. The same logic applies to Nazi Germany in the 30's. The country prospered under the Nazi rule. For a while. I don't think those who were sent to the camps could be considered happy about that, though.

No, any government which must rule by fear and terror (and that MAY include the US government: the Patriot Act, and others like it, are meant to instill fear in the US population, I believe) can hardly be considered acceptable. At least in a democracy, though, the people can only blame themselves for allowing their government to get out of control.

all you said is true ofcourse. I am not denying that at all. He did kill an awful amount of people but on the other hand the country as a whole was actually prosperous with oil money coming in and with that came way better living conditions than they used to have. We are talking about half of the people, the side Saddam was part of (which I cant remember but I am sure some of you know that better than I do or can be arsed to Google it :p.





Coming from you Logic, this seems pretty cynical; do I read you correctly?

Stability is more important than justice? Peace before liberty?

Would you apply that same criteria to your own nation?

I just might be a cynical one at heart :p.
I am not sure if stability is better than justice. Sometimes it just might be under certain circumstances. Peace definitely before liberty because without peace there wouldnt be any liberty.
But then again a country that was working although it was under rule of an evil Saddam and then suddenly it was without leadership heading for civil war with all the factions that Saddam was actually making submit to him and no fighting between them.
Now they are fighting eatchother and the invaders.
Is it better? I honestly dont know.. Is it even possible to answer?
Saddam killed lots of Iraqis and attacked Iran and Kuwait which in turn killed loads of people. Now the people there have slim to no future and are falling into the hands of fanatic Islamists or their clan leaders learning to kill their enemies. Tens of Thousands of civilian Iraqis have died from bombings, suicide bombs and other attacks including those killed by american soldiers scared shitless in a faraway place very unlike home.
What is better? I mean, Is that question even possible to answer?

Dont consider me somebody who judges here but as an onlooker getting saddend by all the horror and death happening there.
It looks like you got another Vietnam though and I really hope it can be solved real soon.
:)
The surge in Iraq might have worked somewhat though and letting them govern themselves is hopefully a step in the right direction to peace and stability with a better ruling than they had with Saddam.
Moving troops into Afghanistan to search for Usama will most likely be just another Vietnam again. The Russians failed horribly and bombing civilian weddings sure isnt making the civilian afghans anymore likely to love you and betray Usama for you either.
Again I sure hope it is solved real soon and he is found and brought to justice.


may the best man win in the US :)

hopperboo
07-22-2008, 03:01 PM
It really won’t much matter which of them gets elected, the country can survive either. Hell we may have even made it through 4 years of Billary.


I would have voted for Hillary rather than Obama.

And that would like chopping off my right arm with a spoon.

A dull spoon.

That's rusty.

Virulent
07-22-2008, 07:52 PM
I am not sure if stability is better than justice. Sometimes it just might be under certain circumstances. Peace definitely before liberty because without peace there wouldnt be any liberty.

I disagree, but I respect your opinion; I'm sure you're smart enough to understand the implications.

I'm full-blooded Swedish; my grandparents emigrated to the U.S. just before WW2. I've always wondered how my viking ancestors turned into the people whom Winston Churchill called "that small, coward country". I wonder why when the Soviets and the Nazis invaded Finland, and tried to starve them to their knees, the Finns gave them Molotov cocktails and Simo Hayha, but my people made bullets and tank parts for the fascist war machine. Is pacifism popular in Sweden?

Logic1
07-23-2008, 01:40 AM
I disagree, but I respect your opinion; I'm sure you're smart enough to understand the implications.

I'm full-blooded Swedish; my grandparents emigrated to the U.S. just before WW2. I've always wondered how my viking ancestors turned into the people whom Winston Churchill called "that small, coward country". I wonder why when the Soviets and the Nazis invaded Finland, and tried to starve them to their knees, the Finns gave them Molotov cocktails and Simo Hayha, but my people made bullets and tank parts for the fascist war machine. Is pacifism popular in Sweden?

yeah I am quite aware of what it means thankyou.
cut and paste makes for a bad quote though but alrightey.
Perhaps if you read the rest you will understand my reasoning. Can you have liberty without peace? Can you have justice without stability? Can you really?

That small coward country as you say that Churchill said didnt have a defence at all back then. "Our defence is good" is what our king and state minister said back then and we had wodden tanks defending our beaches :p.
That started an arms "race" here but we didnt really have anything to defend or attack anything for that matter during WW2. We did however have plenty of Swedes fighting in Finland. "The Finnish cause is ours".
We are a neutral country sitting between the Russians and the west and the Swedish people firmly believes that neutral is the best for us. There are people who wants us to join NATO but the majority dont.
What good would come from us being attacked by the Nazis during WW2? We acted like we had one helluva defence and apparently it worked.
Sweden is a trading people that hasnt really been to war since 1814 and that is well rooted in the Swedish mindset.
Your reply to me seems to indicate that not making a futile war declaration against the Nazis was an act by cowards for some reason. I think the decisions were the right ones at that point in time for us yes.
Not that it has anything to do with the US elections but ;)

Virulent
07-23-2008, 02:58 PM
yeah I am quite aware of what it means thankyou.
cut and paste makes for a bad quote though but alrightey.
Perhaps if you read the rest you will understand my reasoning. Can you have liberty without peace? Can you have justice without stability? Can you really?

Pardon me, I wasn't arguing with the above points in my previous post because, as I said, you're obviously intelligent enough to know what I think already. Just in case I'm wrong though, enjoy the next two paragraphs.

I absolutely disagree, of course; the absence of safety does not preclude nor make worthless liberty. Just because you don't have the opportunity or inclination to enjoy every freedom you have doesn't mean you shouldn't be mortified at their reduction.

Justice is not only not conditional upon stability, but many stable countries notably sacrifice justice to guarantee stability. The conduct of China towards occupied Tibet is a wonderful example thereof.


Sweden is a trading people that hasnt really been to war since 1814 and that is well rooted in the Swedish mindset.
Your reply to me seems to indicate that not making a futile war declaration against the Nazis was an act by cowards for some reason. I think the decisions were the right ones at that point in time for us yes.

I mainly brought it up because I think that Sweden nationally followed the exact same line of reasoning you were inclining yourself towards. The decision that safety is more important than freedom.

To be clear, I do not believe that Sweden is a nation of cowards, or behaved in a cowardly manner; I just like quoting Winston Churchill. I think its more accurate to say that you're a nation of pragmatists, who behaved in a pragmatic manner.

I do think its important that we have many idealists in this world though, who will do things like fight fascism at the risk of their own lives. You probably already know I think that, especially if you've ever taken the time to read my .sig. In my opinion, a nation of pragmatists is forever at the mercy of those who see them as the means to an end.

Logic1
07-25-2008, 12:34 PM
Pardon me, I wasn't arguing with the above points in my previous post because, as I said, you're obviously intelligent enough to know what I think already. Just in case I'm wrong though, enjoy the next two paragraphs.

I absolutely disagree, of course; the absence of safety does not preclude nor make worthless liberty. Just because you don't have the opportunity or inclination to enjoy every freedom you have doesn't mean you shouldn't be mortified at their reduction.

Justice is not only not conditional upon stability, but many stable countries notably sacrifice justice to guarantee stability. The conduct of China towards occupied Tibet is a wonderful example thereof.



I mainly brought it up because I think that Sweden nationally followed the exact same line of reasoning you were inclining yourself towards. The decision that safety is more important than freedom.

To be clear, I do not believe that Sweden is a nation of cowards, or behaved in a cowardly manner; I just like quoting Winston Churchill. I think its more accurate to say that you're a nation of pragmatists, who behaved in a pragmatic manner.

I do think its important that we have many idealists in this world though, who will do things like fight fascism at the risk of their own lives. You probably already know I think that, especially if you've ever taken the time to read my .sig. In my opinion, a nation of pragmatists is forever at the mercy of those who see them as the means to an end.


You do have a point absolutely but my point didnt come through as I meant it sadly. What I meant was that just having one or the other makes the "whole" less if you know what I mean. Every liberty is nice but to have both liberty and safety is way better than just the one.

Nowadays lots of western countries seems to sacrifice freedom to have safety and stability which is real sad. Echelon and other ways for the governments to "spy" on their fellow countrymen is definite signs on this.

I am all for all the freedoms we can get though ;)

yourlilslave86
07-25-2008, 02:04 PM
I haven't posted in this thread due to everyone having their own opinions. I don't think us pulling out of Iraq is going to solve the gas price issue. Even if we started drilling in Alaska or doing offshore drilling it isn't going to be a quick fix whatsoever. I have gone from complaining about gas prices to really looking at exactly how much gas I have used and I have cut it back a lot. I have also started looking at energy efficient cars. This can be a blessing in disguise if one wants to look at that way. Either way both presidential candidates will have one hell of a time fixing what is going on.

Virulent
07-25-2008, 03:15 PM
to have both liberty and safety is way better than just the one.

I'll drink to that!

I suppose my opinion is just that I'd much rather have liberty and fight for safety, than safety and fight for liberty.

denuseri
07-25-2008, 10:58 PM
i think the real reason prices are going up for oil is: the oil companies have forecast the dwindling supply to end sonner than later, so they are squeezing as much money out of it as they can

Logic1
07-26-2008, 01:57 AM
I'll drink to that!

I suppose my opinion is just that I'd much rather have liberty and fight for safety, than safety and fight for liberty.

amen to the first.
to the second I am really torn. Our government has just about a month ago voted through a law (FRA law) which means that they can monitor all the internet and phone traffic crossing our borders which sure is an infringment in our liberties and it seems that lots of Swedes rather have the "safety" than the freedom to not have your government looking over your shoulder to see what the heck you are surfing/talking about.
I am personally 100% against a law like that. It is not really like I care if they knew that I am surfing the library or whatever but truth to be told they have no business knowing unless I am doing something wrong which I am not.
They claim that it has to do with monitoring Russias phone and internet traffic but it also affects every Swede and even some Danes and Norwegians and Finns. It is one ugly law.. kinda the Swedish version of Echelon if you catch my drift.

denuseri
07-26-2008, 07:09 AM
imajines goverment officials monitoring the internet and masterbaiting to the posts on this site and laughs until i allmost cum without permission

Logic1
07-26-2008, 01:08 PM
imajines goverment officials monitoring the internet and masterbaiting to the posts on this site and laughs until i allmost cum without permission

the way too nasty thing is that it is very easy for governments to actually do that and I am sure it happens in some countries and were not just talking about the dictatorships but countries like yours and mine. Perhaps not looking at this page but watching email and scanning for when you write an email to your friends or tell them that that past party was a bomb! or something.
Big brother is definitely here and I for one dont like it.

mkemse
07-27-2008, 06:11 PM
To of you who posted a reply to this thread and the Poll, thank you for your imput and comments