You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

US presidential election discussion

Page 1 of 8: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | Next

Posted: Sat, 23rd Aug 2008, 8:04am

Post 1 of 1492

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

MOD EDIT: As we've had several topics relating to the US elections and politics, and seeing as it's a subject that is likely to continue to interest people for quite some time, please keep ALL discussion in this one topic from now on. Thanks!


Well, yeah, it's semi-official, well, scratch that, now actually definitely official: Barack Obama has picked Delaware Senator Joe Biden, a man with intense foreign policy experience, as his running mate/Vice President for the 2008 Presidential Election.

All I can say is "F*ck yeah!"

Well, for all of those that laughed when I said I wanted him to be President way back a year and a half ago, and then laughed again when I suggested him as a likely VP (most instead saying it was obvious Obama would go with Bill Richardson)- I was right, and that's all that matters. smile

No, I'm only kidding, but also very overjoyed at the news of the running mate choice. Biden is outspoken, but also tactful and well-spoken, with clear and good points- all backed by that 30+ years experience to balance the ticket. Throw Hillary in as Secretary of State, Bill Richardson in as a lead adviser, and a few forgotten once-A-list-others, and Obama's got the Uber-Super-Democrat-A-Team.

I'm so excited, can't wait to see McCain's choice.
Posted: Sat, 23rd Aug 2008, 4:12pm

Post 2 of 1492

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

Throw Hillary in as Secretary of State
I don't think Henry Kissinge-- Er, Hillary Clinton would be a wise choice. wink Still, I'm glad he chose Biden. It's almost a perfect match.
Posted: Sat, 23rd Aug 2008, 4:34pm

Post 3 of 1492

enoonsti

Force: 50 | Joined: 16th Nov 2007 | Posts: 97

Member

Atom wrote:

McCain's choice.
Crying smile

I set up a MyGuesstimate for anyone interested...
Posted: Sat, 23rd Aug 2008, 4:44pm

Post 4 of 1492

Biblmac

Force: 852 | Joined: 12th Jun 2007 | Posts: 1513

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

enoonsti wrote:

I set up a MyGuesstimate for anyone interested...
How come Micheal Phelps is on there and Huckabee isn't! Come on am I the only one who still has hope that Huckabee might actually still make it in to office somewhere?
Posted: Sat, 23rd Aug 2008, 5:38pm

Post 5 of 1492

enoonsti

Force: 50 | Joined: 16th Nov 2007 | Posts: 97

Member

Biblmac wrote:

enoonsti wrote:

I set up a MyGuesstimate for anyone interested...
How come Micheal Phelps is on there and Huckabee isn't! Come on am I the only one who still has hope that Huckabee might actually still make it in to office somewhere?
My mistake. He should have been added, but now MyGuesstimate won't let me change it sad smile

That being said, I like Huckabee's personality and he's not too bad at defending his positions..... yet I don't think he's going to get picked. Romney (whether it's fair or not) is more likely to be seen as addressing McCain's weaknesses than Huckabee (especially in terms of the economy), and I think that will be too strong of an incentive to pass up.
Posted: Sat, 23rd Aug 2008, 8:26pm

Post 6 of 1492

Biblmac

Force: 852 | Joined: 12th Jun 2007 | Posts: 1513

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Ya, I know he won't be picked, but I would rather have huckabee as president than McCain or obama, so I will continue to hope!
Posted: Sat, 23rd Aug 2008, 10:37pm

Post 7 of 1492

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Joe Biden helped architect an early revision of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. I'm no fan of his, but... it was pretty well expected that he would be the one. Suffice to say, I'm not surprised...

...and McCain will likely pick Romney, unless their hatred towards eachother prevents him from doing so.

And I will be writing in Ron Paul. I like my civil liberties. And my money.

Biblmac wrote:

How come Micheal Phelps is on there and Huckabee isn't! Come on am I the only one who still has hope that Huckabee might actually still make it in to office somewhere?
Huckabee wasn't so bad. He had a good personality, and generally progressive views, despite being a definite conservative -- which I liked. Of course, he made a comment in early 2008 that... er... I didn't agree with, but... politicians are people too. I hate it when people grab ONE thing a politician says and won't let go of it ever (kind of like the McCain 100 years in Iraq comment, or the Barack Obama 57 states comment).

So, yeah. Huckabee wasn't bad. I hear he made badass burgers.
Posted: Sun, 24th Aug 2008, 3:19am

Post 8 of 1492

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Smart move by Obama. I don't like Joe Biden, but nonetheless, it was a smart move. I was a bit dissopointed that he didn't pick Hilary, though... wink

I think McCain's best VP choice would be Mitt Romney, both because he will help McCain get the conservative vote and that, unlike McCain, he has a lot of economic experience that America needs right now. Sketchy rumors have been floating around that McCain has been considering General David Petraeus as a VP which, if by some slim chance it's true, would be a really bad move. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Petraeus as a General and soldier, but that's just it. He's a soldier, not a politician.

This is going to be a close race..
Posted: Sun, 24th Aug 2008, 5:11am

Post 9 of 1492

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Thrawn wrote:

but that's just it. He's a soldier, not a politician.
No offense, but where do people get this idea that military men and women would make ineffective politicians? Do you even know how many people serving in US politics have served in the past?

Sorry, I get a little miffed at that. Military people don't make political gold, but a lot of times they can get things done rather well, and rather efficiently. Added to that, they have added insight into things like wars, veteran's affairs, and foreign policy.

I don't think it'd be good of McCain to nominate Petraeus, only because Petraeus is getting stuff done over in Iraq, and... we need to keep that up down there. T'would be a shame to relegate the man who is making the magic happen to some useless position like Vice President.
Posted: Sun, 24th Aug 2008, 8:34am

Post 10 of 1492

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

A Pickle, it's pretty clear logic that military experience doesn't straight-up equal political experience; as has been confusingly touted by some McCain supporters and *cough*Fox News*cough*. I love the man, don't get me wrong- but military force is, in my opinion, close but not completely the exact opposite of diplomatic force.

It's not that good/great/decent politicians can't also be good/great/decent military leaders (and vis-versa)- but the pairing certainly isn't a given.

The notable Presidents to have majorly-served and led in military forces are, of course, the past- George Washington, and the present- Dwight D. Eisenhower. And truth be told, neither were terribly good political, diplomatic leaders/politicians. And really, that's a pretty big part of listening to the people and acting on their behalf. (Which, contrary to what some crazy left liberals and uber-right conservatives believe, is the point of the position; if not only a figurehead to the world.) That's a pretty big part of being President, is it not?

Not to say that Ike and Washington were poor/bad Presidents, but they said themselves-once in the role of Commander-in-Cheif- on several occasions that they, themselves, were unfit for the role. That a military leader is unfit to lead the politics and facade of a country. To partially-quote Washington, a military leader possesses a different training of thoughts and commands; a different way of making decisions and reacting to situations than is necessary or proper for the role of President.

If that makes any sense.
Posted: Mon, 25th Aug 2008, 3:12am

Post 11 of 1492

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

A Pickle, I wasn't saying that military leaders never make good political leaders, but rather I was speaking more specifically about the popularity factor. I, and most other americans, know Petraeus as a good General, not a good politician, though he very well could be one.

A -1 is little harsh, I think...
Posted: Mon, 25th Aug 2008, 4:33am

Post 12 of 1492

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

I agree that the -1 was harsh.

A great president, imo, is someone who isn't afraid to be unpopular. They have to make the decisions that sometimes aren't the ones that people like. Washington set this precident. I don't agree that soldiers make bad presidents. I think a soldier can be just as good a president as anyone else, and just as bad.
Posted: Mon, 25th Aug 2008, 5:31am

Post 13 of 1492

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Frosty G wrote:

A great president, imo, is someone who isn't afraid to be unpopular. They have to make the decisions that sometimes aren't the ones that people like.
This is the wrong school of thought. A good President does what is for the good of the people, not the good of the country. IMO, a great President is someone who is equally brave enough to go against his own conscience/interests in the interests of the people's will, as he is not afraid to make decisions people don't like.
Posted: Mon, 25th Aug 2008, 1:01pm

Post 14 of 1492

Coureur de Bois

Force: 1394 | Joined: 23rd Sep 2002 | Posts: 1127

VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

McCain is totally going to pick Tim Pawlenty. Seriously.

Minnesota ftw!
Posted: Mon, 25th Aug 2008, 1:16pm

Post 15 of 1492

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

This is the wrong school of thought. A good President does what is for the good of the people, not the good of the country. IMO, a great President is someone who is equally brave enough to go against his own conscience/interests in the interests of the people's will, as he is not afraid to make decisions people don't like.
Well, I disagree with you Atom. The Congress has the position of working at the will of the people. This is because the will of the people is never the same. It must be debated upon to decide what the majority opinion is. This is why the Legislative branch is the universally seen as the most closely connected to the people. A President cannot operate in that way. The President is elected to do things in the interest of the country. A President who operates in your school of thought would achieve little.
Posted: Mon, 25th Aug 2008, 1:32pm

Post 16 of 1492

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I haven't used the rate up/down feature in years. I didn't -1 you.

Secondly, that's fine, I don't think military experience should make or break a person's vote for or against a specific politician (I would vote for Obama before McCain, I think, even though they both suck and Ron Paul would have been the obvious candidate).

Thirdly, Atom, I don't think your examples of Ike Eisenhower and Washington do much to your argument that military experience somehow detracts from political performance. They both did extremely well in their situations, and Eisenhower did very well arguably because of his war experience (facing a postwar Europe and Japan in the face of increasingly aggressive Soviet Union).

Atom wrote:

A good President does what is for the good of the people, not the good of the country. IMO, a great President is someone who is equally brave enough to go against his own conscience/interests in the interests of the people's will, as he is not afraid to make decisions people don't like.
You mean like, say, invading Iraq?
Posted: Mon, 25th Aug 2008, 7:03pm

Post 17 of 1492

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Perhaps staying in Iraq would be more of the breaking-point of this decision-making compromise; like I said: where the President must weigh the will and wants of the people with his own conscience and opposition. It's all about compromising, man. Representative government has to be, because no one person can completely and equally represent a group of people and their interests.

Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs, perhaps a good example of this system going awry/weighing too much in the favor of a single person's conscience/gut?
Posted: Mon, 25th Aug 2008, 7:55pm

Post 18 of 1492

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Well, I just saw this article. I am deciding to not vote Obama just for this reason. I don't like McCain either so... I'll just go back to: Ron Paul 2008!

If Obama does win, by God Biden better stick to his foreign policy dance, and not stick his nose in anything else.
Posted: Mon, 25th Aug 2008, 8:21pm

Post 19 of 1492

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Examples to my point are:

Washington with the Jay's Treaty

John Adams refusing to go to war with France

Andrew Jackson against the Bank of the United States

Abraham Lincoln and slavery

FDR and his attempts to aid Europe in WW2

Harry Truman wanting to recognize Israil
Posted: Mon, 25th Aug 2008, 10:45pm

Post 20 of 1492

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

Where the President must weigh the will and wants of the people with his own conscience and opposition. It's all about compromising, man. Representative government has to be, because no one person can completely and equally represent a group of people and their interests.
I'm not suggesting one can... but I will argue this: A President's conscience should, quite literally, have no bearing on his decisions -- it should be the people's conscience doing 99.9999% of the work in a decision-making endeavor. Bush/Cheney have been remarkably poor examples of this, and while I think Obama/Biden and McCain/Whoever would have to try extraordinarily hard to beat the incumbents record of incompetence and liberty-gluttony, I still don't think that either combination truly represents the people in a manner that the Founding Fathers (or, for that matter, a fairly large chunk of living, breathing, taxpaying Americans) would like.

I don't think we should put all sorts of power into one man, I'm not suggesting that at all. As a matter of fact, the Executive Powers that Bush has allocated to himself (which he could not have done without the unwavering support of a Democratically-controlled Congress that supposedly promised to put a stop to it) are downright scary. I don't think you need to look as far back as Kennedy to find a frightening example of a single individual's actions when he/she gained too much power -- just go look at the Patriot Act, it's sinister revisions in 2006, the Military Commissions Act of 2007, etc.

I'm writing in Ron Paul this election because... quite honestly? The choices that I've been given for my first ever chance at voting are decidedly pathetic. I don't like either of the candidates, and I don't intend to vote for either of them.

Fill wrote:

Well, I just saw this article. I am deciding to not vote Obama just for this reason. I don't like McCain either so... I'll just go back to: Ron Paul 2008!
Yeah, I saw that. Biden also has a notorious track record of being a vigorous supporter of the War on Drugs, as well as a well-known gun grabber. I think Obama's a real okay guy (still a little left wing, is disturbingly evasive on what he intends to do with all those Executive powers he'll be coming into, and is no friend to gun-owners) and all, not my favorite politician, but he's not too bad in my book.

Biden?

Class A douchebag. I will not vote for that man to have any say in any part of the politics that will directly affect me. I've done more research on him, but... I saw him quite blatantly insult a citizen whom he's supposed to be responsible to and be working for, because that citizen just so happened to be concerned about what some asshat in Washington might do to his gun rights. Oh, and he showed his evil baby-killing black riflegun (read: AWB AR-15) on his YouTube video.

Any slight glimmer of chance that I might've voted for the Obama ticket is... um... completely gone.[/i]
Posted: Tue, 26th Aug 2008, 5:20am

Post 21 of 1492

ssj john

Force: 563 | Joined: 4th Nov 2003 | Posts: 795

Windows User MacOS User

Member

Atom wrote:

Frosty G wrote:

A great president, imo, is someone who isn't afraid to be unpopular. They have to make the decisions that sometimes aren't the ones that people like.
This is the wrong school of thought. A good President does what is for the good of the people, not the good of the country. IMO, a great President is someone who is equally brave enough to go against his own conscience/interests in the interests of the people's will, as he is not afraid to make decisions people don't like.


Wait.....A country is made up of its people...soooo.........wouldn't doing what is good for the country, be the same thing as doing what is good for the country?

It's obvious that you wouldn't want a president that is pursuing his own agenda's. But since when do the people ALWAYS (please note the use of the word ALWAYS) know whats best for their country? If a president makes a decision that is unpopular, that doesn't automatically mean that he's pursuing his own interests.

I think a good president is someone who knows he can get things done but does not think that he has all the answers to every problem we face. ( hence why you would need advisers who specialize in each area.) So basically not Obama. Obama seems like a genuinely nice guy but he doesn't seem to have the experience needed to be a good presient. I am a firm believer in less federal government. Obama and democrats in general are opposed to that, and thats the main reason I will be voting for the lesser of two evils John McCain.( not that Mccain is much better.)

Sometimes I feel like people will vote for Obama because he is black, and that's just as racist as not voting for him because he's black. We don't need a black president just to have a black president. We all know if he is elected there will be this big thing about how he's the first black president, which is ridiculous. Who cares who the first black president is? Really who cares? Please tell me if it even matters? Rant over.
Posted: Tue, 26th Aug 2008, 5:42am

Post 22 of 1492

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

What do you guys think we elect the President for? He is elected because he is entrusted with the duty to make the hard, potentially unpopular, decisions that need to be made. easy. Sometimes what the public wants is what is best for America, but often it isn't that easy. The public rarely universally agrees on anything.

These elections are are based around showing the people what kind of candidates there are. They focus on their views and how they think and their background and everything about them for a reason. Its so that we can see what kind of person they are and then decide if that is the person we want making these decisions. Of course they have advisors, but in the end it comes down to that one person making the decision. If it was the position of the President to do the will of the people how would the office operate? Sure we vote for what he plans to do(rarely happens, just gives us an idea of where he stands), but that doesn't account for anything that might happen unplanned during his presidency. Do we hold votes for those decisions? Is the President looking to the media to explain the people's decision?(no) Is he waiting to see what the protestors or advocacy groups tell him what to do? No.
Posted: Tue, 26th Aug 2008, 6:26am

Post 23 of 1492

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Meh, we only got 4years, 3months, 3weeks and 6 days left anyways. Does it really matter?
Posted: Tue, 26th Aug 2008, 1:09pm

Post 24 of 1492

Coureur de Bois

Force: 1394 | Joined: 23rd Sep 2002 | Posts: 1127

VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

CX3 wrote:

Meh, we only got 4years, 3months, 3weeks and 6 days left anyways. Does it really matter?
I see I didn't convince you in the "2012: End of the world" thread. heh
Posted: Tue, 26th Aug 2008, 10:34pm

Post 25 of 1492

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Gorion wrote:

I see I didn't convince you in the "2012: End of the world" thread. heh
Even if that's not what he was referencing, his post still works, since December, 2012 is approximately that far away, is it not?
Posted: Tue, 26th Aug 2008, 10:57pm

Post 26 of 1492

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

ssj john wrote:

But since when do the people ALWAYS (please note the use of the word ALWAYS) know whats best for their country?
Historically, quite a bit more often than does a single person with too much power. In fact, I can't reference a time in history where a single person ever did something positive for a large group of people alone. I certainly can't reference a time in which such an event occurred in this country (possibly because it was the very founding principle of this country to prevent exactly that from happening).

People with too much power don't always use it for bad actions... but the trouble is, when such people do use their power for bad, it becomes very, very, very bad. And frankly, it's more complex than "good vs. evil" like that, but... there are people in this country who probably feel oppressed, who probably feel as though the government has wrought too much power against them, who feel like the government has not done it's single duty: To protect THEIR rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. To the rest of us, it's easy to turn a blind eye to this plight, because perhaps the circumstances in which those people feel oppressed, don't apply to us.

That's why

ssj john wrote:

If a president makes a decision that is unpopular, that doesn't automatically mean that he's pursuing his own interests.
While this is true, it also means he isn't necessarily working for the people here.

ssj john wrote:

I am a firm believer in less federal government. Obama and democrats in general are opposed to that, and thats the main reason I will be voting for the lesser of two evils John McCain.
While this was true maybe 50 years ago, it isn't anymore. Have you been under a rock the past eight years, or do offenses like the Patriot Act, the Real ID Act, the Military Commissions Act, the revisions to FISA, and DSEA (Patriot II) appear as "less federal government" to you? I'm not sure if you're away how much more free you were eight years ago, compared to today. I'm not sure you're aware of just how badly the above mentioned legislation infringes on the rights promised to you by the Bill of Rights.

Frosty G wrote:

What do you guys think we elect the President for?
Uh, well, let's see here: Executive Branch -- to enforce laws. I would say, then, that we elect the President to enforce laws, not muck around with them.

Frosty G wrote:

He is elected because he is entrusted with the duty to make the hard, potentially unpopular, decisions that need to be made.
When the president has a habit of continually making unpopular decisions over, and over, and over, and over, and over, [i[and over[/i] again -- they probably didn't need to be made in the first place.

Frosty G wrote:

If it was the position of the President to do the will of the people how would the office operate?
More like a President and less like a Monarch?

Frosty G wrote:

Do we hold votes for those decisions? Is the President looking to the media to explain the people's decision?(no)
We probably should...
Posted: Tue, 26th Aug 2008, 11:28pm

Post 27 of 1492

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

A Pickle wrote:

In fact, I can't reference a time in history where a single person ever did something positive for a large group of people alone.
Please reference my earlier post of examples. And spare me your wordplay if you respond with "well that is an administration and not a single person", because that is irrelevant as we are discussing the executive branch as a whole.

A Pickle wrote:

People with too much power don't always use it for bad actions... but the trouble is, when such people do use their power for bad, it becomes very, very, very bad. And frankly, it's more complex than "good vs. evil" like that, but... there are people in this country who probably feel oppressed, who probably feel as though the government has wrought too much power against them, who feel like the government has not done it's single duty: To protect THEIR rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. To the rest of us, it's easy to turn a blind eye to this plight, because perhaps the circumstances in which those people feel oppressed, don't apply to us.
I'm not sure if you just hate the established idea of leadership or perhaps you're just ranting on a certain President you don't like. Either way, I don't really see how that is in anyway a response to the what ssj john said.


A Pickle wrote:

While this is true, it also means he isn't necessarily working for the people here.
It seems you are just restating what is implied in ssj john's statement. He says that it automatically doesn't mean it is for his own interests. This clearly expresses that it needs further looking to determine. You basically restate from your angle as a rebuttal. Don't know what to tell ya.

A Pickle wrote:

While this was true maybe 50 years ago, it isn't anymore. Have you been under a rock the past eight years, or do offenses like the Patriot Act, the Real ID Act, the Military Commissions Act, the revisions to FISA, and DSEA (Patriot II) appear as "less federal government" to you? I'm not sure if you're away how much more free you were eight years ago, compared to today. I'm not sure you're aware of just how badly the above mentioned legislation infringes on the rights promised to you by the Bill of Rights.
I am not sure, again what you are trying to arrive at other than your personal views on how each candidate will act in office. You obviously are using President Bush as your primary example of presidency.


A Pickle wrote:

Uh, well, let's see here: Executive Branch -- to enforce laws. I would say, then, that we elect the President to enforce laws, not muck around with them.
Well that ignores over a hundred years of presidential history in that definition.

A Pickle wrote:

When the president has a habit of continually making unpopular decisions over, and over, and over, and over, and over, [i[and over[/i] again -- they probably didn't need to be made in the first place.
Again, we are discussing the role of the President. You are discussing President Bush, obviously. Please look beyond the current President. I am avoiding using him in this conversation because I don't really like debating the merits of a President till down the road. You know, alot of now considered great presidents were hated for alot of their positions and decisions at their time.

A Pickle wrote:

More like a President and less like a Monarch?
Care to expand on your clever one-liner? I would really enjoy seeing how successful a President is who must adhere to the opinion of "the people" or I guess the majority since the people never agree, right? So please go deeper into your answer. I'd like to know.


A Pickle wrote:

We probably should...
Do you really believe that? You think that we should have public voting for every decision the President must make? If not that, you really want to entrust the media with the power of representing the people?
Posted: Wed, 27th Aug 2008, 12:07am

Post 28 of 1492

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Frosty G wrote:

Please reference my earlier post of examples. And spare me your wordplay if you respond with "well that is an administration and not a single person", because that is irrelevant as we are discussing the executive branch as a whole.
I would be happy to respond to your list of examples, because I would argue that not all of them are particularly good ones. Also, you seem to have this idea that I think that, whenever a President makes an unpopular decision, it must be a bad thing. I don't. Trust me, I know -- "the people" can be real idiots on a lot of issues (War on Drugs and the 'Energy Crisis' come to mind).


  • Abraham Lincoln and slavery
  • Most of the United States was NOT a slave-owning society. I don't think this was particularly unpopular.
  • FDR and his attempts to aid Europe in WW2
  • I'm a bit disinclined to call this unpopular. I'm sure there were opponents, but... not the majority, at all.
  • Harry Truman wanting to recognize Israil
  • This was a very bad idea. While I have no problem with the Israeli state or it's people, the formation of Israel was a complete and utter disaster which we wouldn't recognize until... er... now. Why do you think a lot of Islamic nations/people are really pissed? Maybe it had something to do with the fact that we just up and decided that a little part of their territory should belong to... their ancestral enemies? Oh. Yeah, there's... that.

    Nah. They're just crazy religious nutjobs and that's that, right?


Frosty G wrote:

I am not sure, again what you are trying to arrive at other than your personal views on how each candidate will act in office. You obviously are using President Bush as your primary example of presidency.
So, wait: By providing examples of government-expanding legislation that actually happened under a Republican administration, I'm just inserting my personal views? SSJ John said this:

"I am a firm believer in less federal government. Obama and democrats in general are opposed to that..."

I'm not inserting my personal views, the Republicans definitely did expand the powers of the federal government moreso than we've seen perhaps since the Civil War (140 years ago, FYI, and that involved the entire country about to collapse into two separate nations). To accuse the Democrats of being supportive of expanding the government without delivering the same due indictment to the Republicans is pretty dishonest. I was simply reminding him.

Believe me, I'm not an Obama supporter, nor am I pleased by the Democratic Party in general. SSJ John is quite right that the Democrats do pledge to socialize America by increasing taxes for welfare-state programs. Actions like these inevitably lead to more government-instituted prying about in my life, and I want no part of it. I'm also disappointed in them for having (rightfully) lambasted the Bush/Cheney administration for it's liberty-mongering, but here we are in 2008 with a Democratically-controlled Congress that voted to keep the Patriot Act in effect, and even gave the Executive Branch more powers (Military Commissions Act, etc).

I'm not a fan of either party, and I'm not inserting my personal views. I'm simply not keen on hearing: "Well, Democrats are for big government, so I'm voting for the Republicans this year!

Frosty G wrote:

Well that ignores over a hundred years of presidential history in that definition.
Maybe we've been doing it wrong just that long, then.

Frosty G wrote:

A Pickle wrote:

When the president has a habit of continually making unpopular decisions over, and over, and over, and over, and over, [i[and over[/i] again -- they probably didn't need to be made in the first place.
Again, we are discussing the role of the President. You are discussing President Bush, obviously. Please look beyond the current President. I am avoiding using him in this conversation because I don't really like debating the merits of a President till down the road. You know, alot of now considered great presidents were hated for alot of their positions and decisions at their time.
Uh, no -- you specifically stated:

"What do you guys think we elect the President for? He is elected because he is entrusted with the duty to make the hard, potentially unpopular, decisions that need to be made."

President Bush happens to be a shining example of WHY we don't elect Presidents to make unpopular decisions, but that doesn't change the fact that you elect a President to enforce the law. Period.

Frosty G wrote:

Care to expand on your clever one-liner? I would really enjoy seeing how successful a President is who must adhere to the opinion of "the people" or I guess the majority since the people never agree, right? So please go deeper into your answer. I'd like to know.
Just because the people don't agree doesn't mean an answer isn't there. I'm going to venture into dangerous territory and say this: In America today, there is this notion that one person has their opinion and another person has theirs, and it's okay. While it's okay to have those opinions, one, or both of them is most definitely wrong.

I guess what I'm trying to say is this: Apart from radically different political philosophies, I don't think that most of America WOULD disagree with one another, if most of America didn't take their news from sources like CNN and Fox. Yes, I think that the easy majority of voters are pretty uninformed.

Frosty G wrote:

Do you really believe that? You think that we should have public voting for every decision the President must make? If not that, you really want to entrust the media with the power of representing the people?
No, I don't think the people should vote for every decision the President must make. That's a redundant statement -- why hold a vote in the first place, if the President is going to be able to make a decision about it anyways?

I do think that the people should have a greater degree of control over our own fates and the government that supposedly works for us than we currently do. Let's put on some imagination hats. Imagine that the United States was doing something that vehemently stood contrary to the philosophies and principles on which it was founded upon, and certainly contrary to the expected conduct of an economically significant, modern, humane, and first-world country. What do you suppose that we, the people, with the rights we have now, could do about it?
Posted: Wed, 27th Aug 2008, 12:08am

Post 29 of 1492

ssj john

Force: 563 | Joined: 4th Nov 2003 | Posts: 795

Windows User MacOS User

Member

A Pickle wrote:

ssj john wrote:

But since when do the people ALWAYS (please note the use of the word ALWAYS) know whats best for their country?
Historically, quite a bit more often than does a single person with too much power. In fact, I can't reference a time in history where a single person ever did something positive for a large group of people alone. I certainly can't reference a time in which such an event occurred in this country (possibly because it was the very founding principle of this country to prevent exactly that from happening).
Have you never heard of batman? He is one single man who does a lot of good for a large group of people. only joking but seriously I also think that founding fathers expected the majority of American's to be politically educated to some degree. But because a huge chunk of Americans don't educated themselves on current issues, the politicians can say things like "oh yeah, you know what will help us with our gas issue....Pumping up your tires, yup that autta do it. We'll be back to normal in no time." Politicians can say anything and get away with being considered a expert on the subject. Its so dag gum frustrating.

Democracy is a great thing, but its down right useless if your people don't know/don't care who they are voting for.

People with too much power don't always use it for bad actions... but the trouble is, when such people do use their power for bad, it becomes very, very, very bad. And frankly, it's more complex than "good vs. evil" like that, but... there are people in this country who probably feel oppressed, who probably feel as though the government has wrought too much power against them, who feel like the government has not done it's single duty: To protect THEIR rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. To the rest of us, it's easy to turn a blind eye to this plight, because perhaps the circumstances in which those people feel oppressed, don't apply to us.
Like frosty G said I don't know how this is a response to what I said so I'll just say...ummm sure.


ssj john wrote:

If a president makes a decision that is unpopular, that doesn't automatically mean that he's pursuing his own interests.
While this is true, it also means he isn't necessarily working for the people here.

Ok, so your saying that a good president is someone who always makes decisions that the people always like.......Can you recall such a president? I guess we've never had a president that was actually working for the people then.

ssj john wrote:

I am a firm believer in less federal government. Obama and democrats in general are opposed to that, and thats the main reason I will be voting for the lesser of two evils John McCain.
While this was true maybe 50 years ago, it isn't anymore. Have you been under a rock the past eight years, or do offenses like the Patriot Act, the Real ID Act, the Military Commissions Act, the revisions to FISA, and DSEA (Patriot II) appear as "less federal government" to you? I'm not sure if you're away how much more free you were eight years ago, compared to today. I'm not sure you're aware of just how badly the above mentioned legislation infringes on the rights promised to you by the Bill of Rights.
Please reveal to me where I said that I agreed with, or even said I liked president Bush?

The thing is I think Obama, if elected, will seek his own interests. I don't think he'll be working for the people. He is a socialist in my opinion. I'm willing to help out the less fortunate, but from my religious view, whether I choose to do so or not should be my choice, the government should not be taking my money...and oh boy, will barack be taking my money....
Posted: Wed, 27th Aug 2008, 12:41am

Post 30 of 1492

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +2

ssj john wrote:

I'm willing to help out the less fortunate, but from my religious view, whether I choose to do so or not should be my choice, the government should not be taking my money...and oh boy, will barack be taking my money....
Wait, whaaaatttt? Your religious views prevent you from giving a tiny percentage of your money to an organization or government to benefit the poor and help the greater good? And tithes, historically, would be what exactly?

Granted I'm no straight-up conservative, more on the right-end of American liberalism; but throwing the word 'socialism' into a sentence doesn't automatically make it bad. You like that social security your grandparents get? How about that police or fire department, or those public schools 90% of the American youth go to each year; do those fair well with you?

Socialism, even the lightest amount of it, is an inevitable part of the success of any government. Even American democracy. That's why we aren't in pieces and civil-waring all the time: the people and the government give and take from eachother, compromising some democratic values for socialistic ones, and vis-versa.

Honestly, because someone wants to help the poor and take a portion of your money (and yes, theirs too, funnily-enough) doesn't make them communist. It doesn't make them socialist. In fact, in my opinion all it makes them is a good person trying to help those less-fortunate.

I'm not saying we should have total-welfare, that'd be ridiculous. But you better damn believe I'm perfectly happy semi-socializing, say, my astronomical debt from going to college or, I dunno, the hospital. Yeah, honestly, that'd be just fine with me. We all help eachother, and that's the way our country thrives- because we don't over-capitalize, because our government isn't entirely laissez-faire. That is why people come here. Because opportunity to rise up as high as your ambition takes you doesn't just come from capitalism, it comes from the opportunity being there in the first place. I'm happy to pass the buck to my government for socialized aid in paying for college right now; and I'm content with doing my part to help out later on, too.

All for the greater good, right? I mean, how do people see complete privatization as working in any society? Not everyone has money laid-away from generations and legacies of their families; and that's how privatization would work- always having money saved up, more than you could make at the time- money passed through generations. But this isn't the 1700s, this isn't the 1800s; and we don't have legacy families just standing around. And even if we did, not everyone would have that luxury at birth, of money just stashed away. And what would those people do? Live in squalor, like peasants?

No, that's not how modern-days work, and that's why nobody, no successful nation, deals in absolute democracy, absolute monarchy, or absolute socialism. In this day and age, it just wouldn't work.

Last edited Wed, 27th Aug 2008, 12:50am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Wed, 27th Aug 2008, 12:46am

Post 31 of 1492

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

A Pickle wrote:

Abraham Lincoln and slavery
Most of the United States was NOT a slave-owning society. I don't think this was particularly unpopular.
When running for re-election, Lincoln wasn't slated to win. While the American people were for fighting the war to restablish the Union, they did not want to make the condition of abolishing slavery one of the requirements for victory. Against the advice from his political advisors and against a former general of the war, George McCellan, Lincoln was expected to lose even in his home state of Illinois.

Lincoln's own words: "This morning, as for some days apart, it seems exceedingly probable that this Administration will not be re-elected."

Just look at the hostile reaction to the publication of Lincoln's "To Whom it May Concern" letter to see the unpopularity of it. It was said that Lincoln hijacked the war effort "in the interest of the black race".

A Pickle wrote:

FDR and his attempts to aid Europe in WW2

I'm a bit disinclined to call this unpopular. I'm sure there were opponents, but... not the majority, at all.
FDR was poised to lose his third election to Wendell Wilkie solely because of his warnings of Adolf Hitler and his statements that America must rebuild its military. Isolationism was huge before WW2 broke into America.

In the late 1930s, most Americans felt that American involvement in WW1 was a mistake. People were so against it, that Congress make neutrality the law of the land to prevent FDR from getting involved. The Ludlow Amendment, which specified that the only way America could legally go to war was by a referendum and not by Congress or FDR, almost passed in Congress with support from 73% of the American population, a majority I would say.

A Pickle wrote:

Harry Truman wanting to recognize Israil

This was a very bad idea. While I have no problem with the Israeli state or it's people, the formation of Israel was a complete and utter disaster which we wouldn't recognize until... er... now. Why do you think a lot of Islamic nations/people are really pissed? Maybe it had something to do with the fact that we just up and decided that a little part of their territory should belong to... their ancestral enemies? Oh. Yeah, there's... that.
Well that was the UN that created the state and took it away from Arabs. It was America that recognized the state so that the Arabs wouldn't slaughter them all.

While you make arguments to these three, this doesn't negate the fact that there were three others there that were examples as well. I am mearly giving you examples.

I'll respond to the rest of your post in a minute.
Posted: Wed, 27th Aug 2008, 1:09am

Post 32 of 1492

ssj john

Force: 563 | Joined: 4th Nov 2003 | Posts: 795

Windows User MacOS User

Member

Atom wrote:

ssj john wrote:

I'm willing to help out the less fortunate, but from my religious view, whether I choose to do so or not should be my choice, the government should not be taking my money...and oh boy, will barack be taking my money....
Wait, whaaaatttt? Your religious views prevent you from giving a tiny percentage of your money to an organization or government to benefit the poor and help the greater good? And tithes, historically, would be what exactly?
No no no, you took what I said completely wrong. I do believe that giving your money to help the greater good is not only a good thing but the right thing to do. But what I was saying that I shouldn't be forced to do that. It should be my decision. Of course if people are going to be given this option you are obviously going to have people who don't.

The LDS church has a ten percent tithe on all gross income. meaning you pay 10 percent on the amount of money you earned before they take taxes out. But its all voluntary. Nobody collects that money personally, it is always, and I stress the word ALWAYS, given to the church. Tithing has never historically been forced, unless the religion was acting also as the government.

The LDS church is one of the, if not the biggest, suppliers of humanitarian aid worldwide. If you don't believe me then I DARE you to go do some research on the humanitarian efforts the LDS church does each year. The LDS church responded to Katrina before the U.s. Government did. So please understand that I am a member of a church that puts forth huge efforts to aid those who are less fortunate and who are struggling and is heavily involved in the cause of the greater good even when religion isn't in the picture.

Don't let this break into a religious debate, I'm just saying that you took what I meant way wrong.
Posted: Wed, 27th Aug 2008, 1:17am

Post 33 of 1492

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

A Pickle wrote:

So, wait: By providing examples of government-expanding legislation that actually happened under a Republican administration, I'm just inserting my personal views? SSJ John said this:

"I am a firm believer in less federal government. Obama and democrats in general are opposed to that..."

I'm not inserting my personal views, the Republicans definitely did expand the powers of the federal government moreso than we've seen perhaps since the Civil War (140 years ago, FYI, and that involved the entire country about to collapse into two separate nations). To accuse the Democrats of being supportive of expanding the government without delivering the same due indictment to the Republicans is pretty dishonest. I was simply reminding him.

Believe me, I'm not an Obama supporter, nor am I pleased by the Democratic Party in general. SSJ John is quite right that the Democrats do pledge to socialize America by increasing taxes for welfare-state programs. Actions like these inevitably lead to more government-instituted prying about in my life, and I want no part of it. I'm also disappointed in them for having (rightfully) lambasted the Bush/Cheney administration for it's liberty-mongering, but here we are in 2008 with a Democratically-controlled Congress that voted to keep the Patriot Act in effect, and even gave the Executive Branch more powers (Military Commissions Act, etc).

I'm not a fan of either party, and I'm not inserting my personal views. I'm simply not keen on hearing: "Well, Democrats are for big government, so I'm voting for the Republicans this year!
I don't disagree that under the Bush administration the federal government was enlarged. We aren't voting for Bush, we are voting for McCain. How do you feel for someone to say that they are voting conservative? Do you find it equally hypocritical? The government is larger than it was in the 1800s and 1900s because America's position has changed in the world, thats the times that are changing. With the world in the condition that is in now and America being knee deep in it, the federal government is going to have to be a certain level to continue to participate in the capacity of a world power. The smaller/larger federal government is more focused on taxation and welfare programs, etc. I think you are taking it out of context what he is saying.

A Pickle wrote:

Maybe we've been doing it wrong just that long, then.
I am really at a loss of words here. A specific job of the executive branch is to enforce laws, but that is clearly not the only job it has been given through the Constitution and through years of examples, some of which you haven't argued.

A Pickle wrote:

Uh, no -- you specifically stated:

"What do you guys think we elect the President for? He is elected because he is entrusted with the duty to make the hard, potentially unpopular, decisions that need to be made."

President Bush happens to be a shining example of WHY we don't elect Presidents to make unpopular decisions, but that doesn't change the fact that you elect a President to enforce the law. Period.
Of course we don't elect a President to make unpopular decisions. That is taking my words out of context. We elect them to make difficult decisions that don't always end being popular. Again, your enforce the law statement is not the sole responsiblity of the President.


A Pickle wrote:

In America today, there is this notion that one person has their opinion and another person has theirs, and it's okay. While it's okay to have those opinions, one, or both of them is most definitely wrong.
Well I disagree with that too. I don't see how that can in anyway be true. Should America be a conservative nation or should it be liberal? Both sides have substantial arguments that have merit. Should the death penalty be used? Should Obama or McCain be president? Do I like this turkey sandwich in my hand?

A Pickle wrote:

I guess what I'm trying to say is this: Apart from radically different political philosophies, I don't think that most of America WOULD disagree with one another, if most of America didn't take their news from sources like CNN and Fox. Yes, I think that the easy majority of voters are pretty uninformed.
Well that is your opinion and I disagree with. Thats ridiculous. People are independantly minded and come to different conclusions when given facts. The jury system is an excellent example, or any judging system for any level of competition.

A Pickle wrote:

No, I don't think the people should vote for every decision the President must make. That's a redundant statement -- why hold a vote in the first place, if the President is going to be able to make a decision about it anyways?

I do think that the people should have a greater degree of control over our own fates and the government that supposedly works for us than we currently do. Let's put on some imagination hats. Imagine that the United States was doing something that vehemently stood contrary to the philosophies and principles on which it was founded upon, and certainly contrary to the expected conduct of an economically significant, modern, humane, and first-world country. What do you suppose that we, the people, with the rights we have now, could do about it?
Vote in a government that would change that situation as it obviously isn't in the best interest of the country.

Last edited Wed, 27th Aug 2008, 1:34am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Wed, 27th Aug 2008, 1:18am

Post 34 of 1492

D3L3T10N

Force: 317 | Joined: 23rd Jun 2007 | Posts: 472

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

ssj john wrote:

The LDS church responded to Katrina before the U.s. Government did.
Not to put down your religion or beliefs, but everyone responded to Katrina before the government... Beyond, that, most churches/synagogues take up collections and certainly do mission trips or charity work. Even when the Catholic Church was dominant during the Middle Ages, the foundation of religion was morality, which of course is associated with humanitarian efforts. Also, statistics like "largest contributor" are clearly directly related to the size of the church. Christianity--which Mormonism falls under--is the largest religion in the world by 600,000,000 people. Religions like mine--Unitarian Universalism--are much much smaller (800,000 total members) will appear to be smaller contributors simply because they have fewer members. Now forgive me if I seem sacrilegious, I do not mean to offend you in any way, and I certainly do not dispute the fact that the Church of Latter Day Saints is a great humanitarian contributor. I am just trying to point out that your church is not unique, and I feel that more fortunate people have a social obligation to help out the less fortunate. It doesn't matter if you contribute money or time, or even how much, but if the government decides that it is best for the people of the United States, I think that contributing a small percentage is fine. Though I can clearly see your point about having the choice, just think if you were homeless or impoverished--how would you opinion be different?
Posted: Wed, 27th Aug 2008, 1:37am

Post 35 of 1492

Bolbi

Force: 408 | Joined: 22nd Apr 2006 | Posts: 429

EffectsLab Pro User MacOS User

Gold Member

D3L3T10N wrote:

I am just trying to point out that your church is not unique
hmm...
Posted: Wed, 27th Aug 2008, 1:42am

Post 36 of 1492

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

D3L3T10N wrote:

I am just trying to point out that your church is not unique
Yes it is.
Posted: Wed, 27th Aug 2008, 1:50am

Post 37 of 1492

D3L3T10N

Force: 317 | Joined: 23rd Jun 2007 | Posts: 472

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Fill wrote:

D3L3T10N wrote:

I am just trying to point out that your church is not unique
Yes it is.
Not in the humanitarian aid sense.
Posted: Wed, 27th Aug 2008, 2:28am

Post 38 of 1492

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

D3L3T10N wrote:

Fill wrote:

D3L3T10N wrote:

I am just trying to point out that your church is not unique
Yes it is.
Not in the humanitarian aid sense.
I'd have to agree here; although to touch church efforts and issues into this discussion of politics would be bold and inappropriate, so I'll stop there with that. smile
Posted: Wed, 27th Aug 2008, 2:34am

Post 39 of 1492

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

Honestly, because someone wants to help the poor and take a portion of your money (and yes, theirs too, funnily-enough) doesn't make them communist. It doesn't make them socialist. In fact, in my opinion all it makes them is a good person trying to help those less-fortunate.
...with money that neither they, nor the "less-fortunate" earned. I want no part of socialism. I'm sorry, but this is a country in which, if you want it badly enough, and work hard enough you can make $100,000 a year. I have no problem with having a system in place to assist people who are simply down on their luck, facing hard times -- but the current system provides welfare for two years before the money dries up.

Atom wrote:

I'm not saying we should have total-welfare, that'd be ridiculous. But you better damn believe I'm perfectly happy semi-socializing, say, my astronomical debt from going to college...
The solution to this is not more taxes, but probably getting colleges to abide by the same rules of business that every other corporate institution must abide by. I have a hard time believing that it costs Harvard the $50,000 a year that they insist it does.

I don't have a huge college debt, because I've joined the Air National Guard for specifically that reason. They pay for my schooling. I scratch their back, they scratch my back. That seems perfectly fair to me.

Atom wrote:

...or, I dunno, the hospital.
Yeah, $20/month really breaks my back for health insurance. Of course, it might be more affordable if, hmm, maybe I could choose whether or not to have car insurance. But, see, when the government tells me that I HAVE to spend $174 on my car insurance, and then people bitch about how it doesn't pay for their healthcare, I have a problem with that.

Frosty G wrote:

I don't disagree that under the Bush administration the federal government was enlarged. We aren't voting for Bush, we are voting for McCain. How do you feel for someone to say that they are voting conservative?
I don't particularly care how someone votes. Just don't pass the buck and say, "Democrats increase the size of Federal Government," because it's not only the Democrats who do. That is all I was saying.

Frosty G wrote:

I am really at a loss of words here. A specific job of the executive branch is to enforce laws, but that is clearly not the only job it has been given through the Constitution and through years of examples, some of which you haven't argued.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_(government)

The primary job of the Executive Branch is to enforce laws. Fair enough, that isn't his/her only job, but it's his/her primary one. When you have a President make laws, it's one person doing it. That's why we have the Legislative Branch.

Frosty G wrote:

Well I disagree with that too. I don't see how that can in anyway be true. Should America be a conservative nation or should it be liberal?
Uh...

A Pickle wrote:

I guess what I'm trying to say is this: Apart from radically different political philosophies, I don't think that most of America WOULD disagree with one another, if most of America didn't take their news from sources like CNN and Fox. Yes, I think that the easy majority of voters are pretty uninformed.
And according to my personal political philosophies, neither?

Frosty G wrote:

Well that is your opinion and I disagree with. Thats ridiculous. People are independantly minded and come to different conclusions when given facts.
That isn't under dispute. But, most people don't form their opinions after an honest look at all of the facts, and especially after people have formed their opinions, they tend to be extraordinarily closed-minded to real facts that paint a very different picture to the one they have fixated in their mind. Most people also never question the opinion that they've decided on, after they've decided on it, making it very difficult for the other side to break in.

Couple that with the fact that, people can very easily tune out of becoming informed with movies, music, video games, and all of the other incessant distractions we have facing us today. And then people can very easily convince themselves that they ARE informed by watching such credible news sources like... CNN and Fox, which of course, tailor themselves to one crowd or another.

Far be it for me to say so, but the "proper" method of forming an opinion is by looking at ALL of the facts first, and interpret the most logical course of action by what the facts say. I think the easy majority of people don't do that.

Frosty G wrote:

Vote in a government that would change that situation as it obviously isn't in the best interest of the country.
Even if it wasn't happening to the majority? Or even 1% for that matter?
Posted: Wed, 27th Aug 2008, 3:12am

Post 40 of 1492

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

A Pickle wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_(government)

The primary job of the Executive Branch is to enforce laws. Fair enough, that isn't his/her only job, but it's his/her primary one. When you have a President make laws, it's one person doing it. That's why we have the Legislative Branch.
A wikipedia page with no sources? Not going any further with that, Nowhere on that page does it express that the role of enforcing laws is the primary duty of the President. In the Constitution, it is one of the last duties assigned. Going no further with that, to ignore the evolution of the American Government is ignorant. The government is a changing beast that has had the power of the executive increase steadily throughout history. Deny it if you want, but that would be lying to yourself, or clutch to your statement and do the same.

You want to argue what and whatnot the branches are supposed to do or not, you might as well haul in the other two branches as well. Both are guilty. By the way, I'm not arguing the President's primary role is to make laws. Nowhere in any of my posts do I ever say that.

A Pickle wrote:

Uh...
What does that response mean? You made a statement that was pretty clear in its meaning and I disagree giving examples.



A Pickle wrote:

That isn't under dispute. But, most people don't form their opinions after an honest look at all of the facts, and especially after people have formed their opinions, they tend to be extraordinarily closed-minded to real facts that paint a very different picture to the one they have fixated in their mind. Most people also never question the opinion that they've decided on, after they've decided on it, making it very difficult for the other side to break in.

Couple that with the fact that, people can very easily tune out of becoming informed with movies, music, video games, and all of the other incessant distractions we have facing us today. And then people can very easily convince themselves that they ARE informed by watching such credible news sources like... CNN and Fox, which of course, tailor themselves to one crowd or another.

Far be it for me to say so, but the "proper" method of forming an opinion is by looking at ALL of the facts first, and interpret the most logical course of action by what the facts say. I think the easy majority of people don't do that.
I have no idea what kind of point you are trying to make. You agree that people come to different conclusions, but they come to more severely different conclusions when they get their facts in a way that isn't completely without bias? Both instances support my point.

A Pickle wrote:

Even if it wasn't happening to the majority? Or even 1% for that matter?
You really aren't making strong points. I don't see how this supports your argument as well. Are you trying to build a bridge to where you say " Well thats the country we live in now!", because that is very opinionated. I'll ignore it if it is. If that idea is unpopular, but is truly the right decision than we would rely on a President to work towards changing that nation and making the hard, and perhaps unpopular, decision to work towards changing it. Do you see what I'm saying?

I am trying to be as clear as possible, but I'm really losing sight of what your point is.
Posted: Wed, 27th Aug 2008, 7:39am

Post 41 of 1492

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I have a feeling that this thread is going to remind us why we're not allowed to have political threads.

Or maybe I'll be surprised!
Posted: Wed, 27th Aug 2008, 8:13am

Post 42 of 1492

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Ahhhh, remember the big '04 thread? Evman and I duked it out relentlessly over Kerry/Bush. Now I think we're on the same side, politically. Funny how times and opinions change. Not mine, of course, but still. smile
Posted: Wed, 27th Aug 2008, 8:28am

Post 43 of 1492

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

A Pickle wrote:

I want no part of socialism. I'm sorry, but this is a country in which, if you want it badly enough, and work hard enough you can make $100,000 a year.
You actually believe that? o_O

Is there actually any evidence that your statement there is true? It makes the assumption that everyone's upbringing is the same and that everyone has the same opportunities, which, even in a country like the USA, simply isn't true. In fact, especially in a country like the USA, because of it's massive size. It's almost like trying to claim that everyone in Europe has the same opportunities.
Posted: Wed, 27th Aug 2008, 9:18am

Post 44 of 1492

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

The USA is not necessarily a country where anyone can make $100k a year, but it is most certainly a country where you are told that it's possible. And that kind of lifestyle is glamorized to the extent that people worry less about welfare and more about which sports car they want to get, or what to spend their tax refund on.
Posted: Wed, 27th Aug 2008, 9:28am

Post 45 of 1492

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I want no part of socialism.
It's fine for you to say that - but you're from a privileged background.

$20/month really breaks my back for health insurance
You know what, for some people it does. And some people have to work twelve hours a day, seven days a week, just to scrape enough money together to feed their family - let alone afford health insurance.

But, hey, you're a well-off white guy. Why should you care about the less well-off people in your country? I mean, it's all their own fault that they're born into poor backgrounds!
Posted: Wed, 27th Aug 2008, 9:40am

Post 46 of 1492

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Rating: +1

Arktic wrote:

You know what, for some people it does. And some people have to work twelve hours a day, seven days a week, just to scrape enough money together to feed their family - let alone afford health insurance.
But...but....surely if they're working that hard they'll be earning $100K in no time??? That's how it works, right?

Right?
Posted: Wed, 27th Aug 2008, 2:01pm

Post 47 of 1492

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Arktic wrote:

I want no part of socialism.
It's fine for you to say that - but you're from a privileged background.
Man, it would be nice. I'm sure glad you know everything about me and my financial situation. Way to glean that I *must* be from a privileged background because... I think that people should be held responsible for their own actions, and curiously enough, I think that extends to finances.

Did I come from a pretty well-off family? Yes. Both of my parents um... worked hard, went to college... and make lots of money. Enough to pay the bills... AND pay for other stuff. They worked hard to earn the money they made... why should they be forced to give some of it to someone who... didn't?

Arktic wrote:

A Pickle wrote:

$20/month really breaks my back for health insurance
You know what, for some people it does. And some people have to work twelve hours a day, seven days a week, just to scrape enough money together to feed their family - let alone afford health insurance.
Then they probably don't want to start paying the government to do this for them -- as it'll easily cost considerably more with taxes.

Arktic wrote:

But, hey, you're a well-off white guy. Why should you care about the less well-off people in your country? I mean, it's all their own fault that they're born into poor backgrounds!
So, I'm "well-off" and therefore, I don't care about the less well-off of my country? I'm sorry. I just have a bit of political beef with the government telling me what to do with money that I earned. But way to polarize the argument to make the "rich, white, conservative christian asshole" look like an asshole. The Democrats would be proud.

Let me be very clear: My annual income is below the poverty line for the United States. I have no business in the wallet of someone who makes more than me, because they worked hard... to make more than me.

Tarn wrote:

But...but....surely if they're working that hard they'll be earning $100K in no time??? That's how it works, right?

Right?
When did I say "no time?"

I couldn't afford college after my parents cut the line from me. I joined the Air National Guard to change that. That opportunity is available to most everyone in the country, and that doesn't change the other swaths of student loans, scholarships, grants, and even Federal assistance for going to school. Going to college and working hard can earn you a good job with good income. Working hard at that job, can earn you $100,000/year.

Will some people work harder than others in their life, to acheive the same goal? Yes. That's obvious. Different people lead different lives and have to overcome different obstacles.

Are there people who are born into bad neighborhoods, who get into the life of drugs/gangs at birth? Yes. Those people are disadvantaged, but I'd argue that the solution isn't to be a welfare nanny state, and spend tons of money on outreach programs hoping that some of those kids won't join gangs, but will go to school first. No, the solution is to make that neighborhood a good place to live. Spend more money on education and social improvement, less (rather, none) on the War on Drugs and the War in Iraq.

Throwing money at problems doesn't make them go away. Taking an honest, non-partisan look at a problem, and then figuring out the underlying causes of that problem -- then solving it, does.
Posted: Wed, 27th Aug 2008, 3:10pm

Post 48 of 1492

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

What happens, then, to the middle men, Pickle? What about us?

My family has worked hard for its money, very hard. My dad has worked his ass off on a lot of large architectural designs and even then, because he's got four kids to support- two of them in college- we can hardly cover the expenses of our colleges. Regrettably, as well, one of the kids has a learning disability (which makes private school an absolute necessity) and another has an autoimmune disease which requires expensive medication on a daily basis.

So what happens when, say, I have to take out 20k in loans to cover my college? Surely I've worked hard, but the money just isn't there. Scholarships, too, don't cover me well either because I'm white and middle class. So I'm stuck with loans. How does this debt, accrued from attending college (which you attributed in part to the wealth of your parents) figure into your 100k equation?

Surely you can sympathize, no? I'm not a socialist, but I would like to see the government make more effective changes in things like this, like higher education. You can say socialism is bad, blah blah blah- we've already got it! Look around you: it's here.

The problem then, of course, is (as I've pointed out) that it just doesn't cover any of the middle men. And this is something I think revising our socialism viewpoints would aid.
Posted: Wed, 27th Aug 2008, 9:38pm

Post 49 of 1492

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Rating: +1

Man, it would be nice. I'm sure glad you know everything about me and my financial situation.
Well, I never said I knew everything about you, not at all. But it's easy to tell you're not from an impoverished background - and that has nothing to do with your attitudes or beliefs, by the way. And was I wrong? No... so why are you complaining, exactly?

Then they probably don't want to start paying the government to do this for them -- as it'll easily cost considerably more with taxes.
What? That's a stupid statement to make (and for someone who doesn't like polarising arguments, a bit of a sweeping generalisation). Private healthcare in the UK costs much more than the NHS contribution - especially if you're on a low wage, as you pay a percentage of what you earn, rather than a fixed rate (below a certain threshold, you don't have to pay at all, but you're still able to access all NHS services, free of charge). So that means that if you lose your job, you're still able to access healthcare. Please explain how that is a bad thing?

They worked hard to earn the money they made... why should they be forced to give some of it to someone who... didn't?
You're looking at it the wrong way. Tell me - why should a person who develops a serious illness, who is no longer able to work, and who can't afford medical bills or health insurance have to suffer?

Why should a woman, whose husband abandons her leaving her with no income and a young child to look after, have to suffer? Worse that than, why should the kid have to suffer? Has the baby not worked hard enough for the government to step in?

And don't tell me those are rare or extreme cases - it happens to people day in, day out, all over the world. And I happen to think that some of us are civilised enough to realise that we, as a society, should not just 'care about' those less well off, but we should care enough to actually help them.
Posted: Thu, 28th Aug 2008, 12:00am

Post 50 of 1492

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

ben3308 wrote:

What happens, then, to the middle men, Pickle? What about us?
Define "middle men." If you mean "the middle class," then... I don't know. As far as I'm concerned, it seems to me like the middle class is... doing just fine?

ben3308 wrote:

My family has worked hard for its money, very hard. My dad has worked his ass off on a lot of large architectural designs and even then, because he's got four kids to support- two of them in college- we can hardly cover the expenses of our colleges. Regrettably, as well, one of the kids has a learning disability (which makes private school an absolute necessity) and another has an autoimmune disease which requires expensive medication on a daily basis.
I'm afraid I'll have to decline on commenting here. I don't know what your finances are, and it's not my job nor place to tell you, or your family, how to manage them any more or less "properly" according to my opinion.

ben3308 wrote:

So what happens when, say, I have to take out 20k in loans to cover my college?
You're not the only one who does that. My sister got her BAR in the state of Colorado after graduating Law School in Arizona. She's looking at somewhere near $80,000 outstanding in student debt. They aren't hiding anything from you when they offer student loans. They explicitly say: You won't have to pay these back as long as you're a full- (or half-) time student. After you graduate (and are thusly more eligible for a higher paying job), you will be paying them back.

I have about $4,000 outstanding in student loans (Federal Stafford) and I won't have to pay them back as long as I am enrolled for six credit hours. That was before I joined the Air National Guard -- now, I don't have to pay for college, because of the Montgomery GI Bill.

Is it fun? No. Is it easy? No. That's what college is about -- you go to this wonderful place where dozens upon dozens of very highly trained professionals bestow upon you (to the best of their ability) their skillset, so that you may go forth and advance the field for the next generation, while at the same time providing for yourself and, perhaps, a future family. It equips you for life -- I'd say it ought to be no surprise that college is a big investment. People deal with it.

I'm not saying the way the United States currently manages it's education system is proper (it isn't, by any means). It's an area where we used to have a pretty good handle on things before we ran huge budget deficits and foreign wars. IE, I'm not opposed to spending more money on education, and vastly less on the War on Drugs and the War in Iraq (and Defense, for that matter).

Additionally, I don't think that taxpayers giving the government money so that it can hand it right back to students is remotely a good idea. That doesn't begin to solve the problem, all you're doing is throwing money at it. Again, why is it hard to pay for college? Because universities are crazy expensive. Why are they crazy expensive? I don't know -- but I have a pretty firm belief that not all of that tuition and fees money goes to enhancing your education so much as it goes to... pretty rock formations in the courtyard, etc. I'm also pretty hard-pressed to believe it costs McGraw-Hill anywhere NEAR $100 to write, manufacture, and distribute a hardcopy textbook. I really think it's time for colleges and universities to start playing by the same rules that every other business has to play by.

In simpler terms, I'm not sure that what universities are doing is all that much different, from, say... Monster Cable.

ben3308 wrote:

Surely you can sympathize, no?
I can sympathize with the notion that our government needs to focus a helluva lot more on education. I agree with that, wholeheartedly. We ought to be spending, easily, three to four times what we currently spend on education.

But... again, I don't think this is grounds for hiking taxes by a load so that we can pay the universities and colleges their outright murderous tuition prices.

Arktic wrote:

You're looking at it the wrong way. Tell me - why should a person who develops a serious illness, who is no longer able to work, and who can't afford medical bills or health insurance have to suffer?

Why should a woman, whose husband abandons her leaving her with no income and a young child to look after, have to suffer? Worse that than, why should the kid have to suffer? Has the baby not worked hard enough for the government to step in?

And don't tell me those are rare or extreme cases - it happens to people day in, day out, all over the world.
They are rare and extreme cases! Unless you're going to tell me that 50% or more of the UK's population fits in those two categories, in which case, I think it'd be safe to argue that such a healthcare system isn't working at all. Fact is, most people are generally pretty healthy -- AND have healthcare coverage.

In America, the estimate is that 50 million Americans do not have healthcare. The population of this country is estimated to be 305 million people. That's 16% of the population (including myself, I might add), which is... nowhere near the majority. WHY are we even considering universal healthcare, when the overwhelming majority of people... are already affording it? Why are we seriously considering taxing EVERYONE IN THE COUNTRY so that 84% of them can... keep getting the healthcare they were already receiving... because 16% of them are not?

Don't get me wrong, the two examples (and other similarly or more critical cases) that you provided are really heart-wrenching, and by no means do I think that we should just shrug and say, "Sucks to be you!" Of course I don't believe that! In fact, I recall saying something along the lines of...

A Pickle wrote:

I have no problem with having a system in place to assist people who are simply down on their luck, facing hard times...
While I was saying that in reference to the idea of more welfare... I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. I would argue that a "serious illness" would count as "hard times." I would argue that the woman with one child and little income, also counts as "hard times" (and quite honestly, would probably be eligible for welfare and/or federally-provided educational grants/loans).

But to predicate an entire system of universal, government-provided, taxpayer-funded system of healthcare based on examples like that and/or a small minority of un-insured citizens is absolutely ludicrous. Is there a healthcare "crisis?" Ehh... of sorts. The solution should focus on... the 50 million Americans without healthcare -- not the whole country, the overwhelming majority of whom already have effective, privatized healthcare. They aren't having a healthcare problem, they don't need a healthcare solution, so why should we be forcing them to pay for one?

A Pickle wrote:

And I happen to think that some of us are civilised enough to realise that we, as a society, should not just 'care about' those less well off, but we should care enough to actually help them.
I agree. I don't think that those two cases should be handed off to the street. I also don't think that they are good enough reason to mandate that everyone should pay for universal, everyday healthcare.
Posted: Thu, 28th Aug 2008, 12:32am

Post 51 of 1492

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Socialism is actually being discussed as an intelligent option?


Tsk tsk...


(If we weren't spending so much money battling in foreign countries, we'd have such an enormous amount of money to spend on education and neighborhood rehab, I doubt we'd have much of the so-far discussed problems...)
Posted: Thu, 28th Aug 2008, 1:37am

Post 52 of 1492

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

A Pickle wrote:

I can sympathize with the notion that our government needs to focus a helluva lot more on education. I agree with that, wholeheartedly. We ought to be spending, easily, three to four times what we currently spend on education.
First off, what education are you talking about? Public education? As in, that socialized system your taxes go to? Public standardized education may not be in the best shape, but I got through it perfectly fine, had a great education too, even in not the greatest environment. Education isn't the issue right now, though. At least not public education. As it is, public education succeeds in its goal of giving each student and citizen the opportunity and the necessity to expand their horizons of knowledge. I'm not talking higher education here, either. Really, it does. Those outreach programs you talk about wanting to get rid of, that 'anti-gang outreach', 'war against drugs'- those are what fixes those bad neighborhoods, buddy. You say you want education, more emphasis on it too, to fix these things- you say that we need to fix neighborhoods before offering outreach programs. But in saying this, you're acting as if these things you're calling bad and socialistic aren't the very means of 'education' you're looking for, A Pickle.

And yet, with you wanting to focus and spend more on education, how do you justify statements you make like this?

A Pickle wrote:

Additionally, I don't think that taxpayers giving the government money so that it can hand it right back to students is remotely a good idea. That doesn't begin to solve the problem, all you're doing is throwing money at it.
You yourself said people should be able to do what they want, capitalize if they want. Well, then, by your own logic we really can't tell colleges to lower their costs, book companies to cut theirs. Not only shouldn't we, we couldn't. So then what becomes the solution?

Yes, you throw money at it. And for however sloppy or cavalier a term that may be: history, the United States economy, and most successful people, places, and enterprises would agree. The only way to really solve something, get it to sustainability, is to do exactly what you don't want- to throw money at it.

Even wayback when in my AP Economics class in high school we were trained and schooled to know, the only way the government solves recessionary gaps or welfare crisis, the only way it alleviates or aides these things, the only way it even can- is to

throw.
money.
at.
it.

And you should know, really, that anyone who works hard enough to successfully be admitted into the mainstream American college system, is certainly someone deserving, hard-working, and responsible enough to act with that money.

This is, of course, only going by the logic and theory I've been able to decipher between your posts. But then again, maybe I'm just rambling. smile

Bryce007 wrote:

Socialism is actually being discussed as an intelligent option?


Tsk tsk...
Like I said, say the word 'socialism' and everyone gets up-in-arms. We're not talking about switching to socialism, we're talking about integrating it- making it the facet it already exists and works successfully in, in the modern American democracy. If you (and A Pickle, for that matter) are too blind to see that these things you're against we already have- that they essentially keep the government as what it is- on a near-perfect/slightly-imperfect scale- then I don't know what to tell you.


If we weren't spending so much money battling in foreign countries, we'd have such an enormous amount of money to spend on education and neighborhood rehab, I doubt we'd have much of the so-far discussed problems...
How would this be any different or more acceptable to the likes of A Pickle, though? We've got that money back from the foreign wars now, that's great. But no matter what the percentage of income or total amount of taxes taken is, the argument will be the same. And so does that amount really matter? No. No, it doesn't.

Say you could be paying 20% less in taxes a year if we got out of foreign wars, if that money, that 20% then went into helping the less-fortunate with public education- and you knew this- would you be against it? You're still paying the same in taxes, why should it bother you?
Posted: Thu, 28th Aug 2008, 2:46am

Post 53 of 1492

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

I'm well aware of just how much money the U.S Government hands out each month to practically anyone that "Qualifies". There really should be tighter restriction as to how you acquire said money, but... can't really do anything about it.

As far as the amount of our taxes that goes to war, we would only need a fraction of that aimed at education to totally overhaul it.


570 Billion Dollars (That we know about)is a lot of money.
Posted: Thu, 28th Aug 2008, 6:01am

Post 54 of 1492

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

First off, what education are you talking about?
...all of it?

Atom wrote:

Public education? As in, that socialized system your taxes go to?
Uh... yes? Why the italics? Did I ever suggest that paying taxes was entirely a bad thing?

Atom wrote:

Public standardized education may not be in the best shape, but I got through it perfectly fine, had a great education too, even in not the greatest environment.
So did I. That doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement. Wyoming has some excellent public schools, with very good/nice equipment and facilities. The same cannot be said for other schools, and frankly, when the Air Force has as stellar a college as it has, I can't help but think we (the United States) can and should do a better job putting everyone through a much more comprehensive, standardized (though, with a better solution than the garbage that is currently known as 'No Child Left Behind') public K-12 education system.

Atom wrote:

Education isn't the issue right now, though. At least not public education.
When will it become one? When our college graduate rate drops below 20%? 15%? As much as I hate some Democratic rhetoric, they're on point as far as improving education goes. Young people are our future, regardless of whether or not they ever receive a college degree or go straight into the workforce. I should think that we ought to be striving to make sure that future is as competent as possible.

Atom wrote:

As it is, public education succeeds in its goal of giving each student and citizen the opportunity and the necessity to expand their horizons of knowledge.
Agreed -- but it can be improved. Some public schools across the country are in a pretty bad way.

Atom wrote:

Those outreach programs you talk about wanting to get rid of, that 'anti-gang outreach', 'war against drugs'- those are what fixes those bad neighborhoods, buddy.
No... they don't. The War on Drugs is... the fundamental reason as to why drugs are "bad." You obviously don't know your history here, because -- to begin with, drugs as heinous as cocaine and heroin were widely accessible to every man, woman and child with some coins in their pocket in the late 1800's and even early 1900's. Somehow, society didn't collapse, people weren't dying of overdoses left and right, and no one was getting killed by gang warfare.

As a matter of fact, gang warfare/organized crime wasn't even a concept until we tried banning a particular psychoactive drug that is now legal in most first AND third world countries. Ethyl alcohol, more commonly referred to as simply alcohol, was banned in 1919 by the United States, and it turned out to be one of the absolute worst decisions ever made by an elected government. This law didn't change the fact that people still wanted their alcohol, and were willing to pay for it. And the ONLY people who could supply this market, were forced (by law) to provide it illegally. That brings things like guns into the mix, just in case you have to stave off the fuzz. And since it was an illegitimate market anyways, there was nothing wrong with simply offing your competition. People died from impure moonshine. Law enforcement was corrupted by rich mafia lords who had enough money to pay what the authorities wanted to turn a blind eye. And alcohol wasn't to blame for any of this -- it's prohibition was. The government literally lost control of major metropolitan cities.

What makes you think illegal drugs are any different? They are illegal, and regardless of that fact, some people in this country want them and are willing to pay for them. A group of people willing to pay for a specific good or service, sir, is called demand -- and where there is a demand, there will be a supply. By making this supply illegal, you forego the safeties that are in place for legal product/service supplies. Both tobacco and alcohol companies must adhere to government standards for purity, manufacturing quality, transport and sales. They are legitimate businesses, which also means they're subject to the same criminal investigations that would go towards anything -- you don't ever see Budweiser hitmen going out and murdering the CEO of Coors, do you?

Do you think that drug cartels adhere to such standards? Even if they were just in it for the money, there's no actual documentation specifying the factory conditions in which cocaine must be manufactured, nor how much/what it can be manufactured with. So you have things like cocaine cut with ecstasy, or heroin cut with LSD which -- obviously, mixing two chemicals of that sort (with untrained alchemists) and then distributing it in a clandestine manner will probably react negatively with certain people who may be taking other medication. There's no place for drug users to go to check if it's safe to engage in their habit with x or y medication.

The War on Drugs also creates a permanent underclass due to the fact that, youth charged with drug-related indictments are generally foregone from any chance at any educational assistance, which ensures that bad, impoverished neighborhoods stay bad and impoverished. Because of this, youth generally don't leave that lifestyle of crime and drug abuse. As an adult, they are tried for criminal charges, which further keep them down -- as it is much, much harder to acquire employment of any appreciable degree with a felony on your record. Add to that mix the utter joke the United States calls an "effective punishment system," and you have a class of people that will always, and forever, be dealing drugs -- and dealing them dangerously.

There are recovery systems in place for people who feel they are addicted to both cigarettes or alcohol, in fact, for tobacco users -- there are off-the-shelf products that, make no mistake, DO help curb the addiction (gum and the patch). No such thing exists for any illegal drug that exhibits chemically-addictive properties. There are some recovery methods available to drug abusers within the United States, but the alternative to this is jail time. Jail time. For lighting a plant, and inhaling the smoke.

Roughly 600 tons of cocaine are produced annually, with a market worth of $70-77 billion dollars. Marijuana is the United States' #1 cash crop, and 40% of the marijuana that is sold in the United States, is grown here. Ever since the "end" of the War in Afghanistan, the country has risen to become the world's #1 supplier of poppy seeds, invigorating it's economy (of course, now the War on Drugs must be fought on two fronts).

Do you really think you're going to simply eliminate that from the face of the planet? Because the Federal government continues to follow your instructions in the face of the largest budget deficit this country has ever seen. Annually, STATES "throw more money" at the problem than the Federal government does -- and the Federal government is the entity that began this mindless tirade against our own citizens. As we pass the $40 billion mark for Drug War funding, less and less money goes to education. Each year, 800,000 people are arrested and imprisoned on marijuana charges alone (at a cost of $20-30,000 per year, per inmate). With a prison population of 1.8 million people, two-thirds of whom have been arrested and imprisoned with no charges of violent crime. Since the "beginning" of the War on Drugs in the wake of Vietnam in 1978, drugs of more kinds (Meth's popularity was largely spawned due to people looking for other substances) are now more available, cheaper, and more potent than they have ever been.

You can keep thinking that imprisoning over one-million non-violent offenders keeps your neighborhoods safe and free. It doesn't, and we've been throwing money (since that fixes problems, right?) at the "drug problem" for the past 35 years. Einstein said, "Insanity is trying the same thing twice and expecting different results," which would make our Federal government very, very... very insane. The Drug War is not making your neighborhoods safer, that's why, for the first time in history, politicians in Washington are holding committees, hearings, and debates about ending the bloody menace. It is a failed war that goes against the very principles of individual liberty on which this country was founded upon. It is the government's duty to protect, not remove, the freedoms you possess by merely being human. We agreed, in 1776, that those freedoms were Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness -- and if someone's Pursuit of Happiness is getting stoned in their basement, then why are we paying for organizations like the DEA to break into their home (against the fourth amendment) and imprison them for smoking a plant (against the eighth amendment).

Atom wrote:

Yes, you throw money at it. And for however sloppy or cavalier a term that may be: history, the United States economy, and most successful people, places, and enterprises would agree. The only way to really solve something, get it to sustainability, is to do exactly what you don't want- to throw money at it.
BS. The solution may cost money, in fact it always will -- but that doesn't mean you simply arbitrarily throw money at problems. You analyze the why, WHY is that problem a problem? Why does that problem occur in this location, to this group of people? Etc. Throwing money at something does nothing. Throw all the money you want at getting your computer fixed -- I guarantee you that Norton, Geek Squad, and Firedog will "fix" it with less aptitude than a free antivirus and a bit of googling. Throwing money at problems tends to overcomplicate them and, while there may be some positive results from mindlessly distributing cash, it's still incredibly wasteful compared to analyzing the issue and attacking the root of it. Throwing money at problems is where we are today: -$9.6 trillion and counting.

Atom wrote:

How would this be any different or more acceptable to the likes of A Pickle, though? We've got that money back from the foreign wars now, that's great.
Uh, what? We have our Iraq War money back? When/how did this happen? And how did you arrive at this conclusion while we're still TEN TRILLION DOLLARS IN DEBT?

Atom wrote:

Say you could be paying 20% less in taxes a year if we got out of foreign wars, if that money, that 20% then went into helping the less-fortunate with public education- and you knew this- would you be against it? You're still paying the same in taxes, why should it bother you?
It uh... doesn't. That is exactly what I've been saying. Taxes are high enough as is, we just need a government that can competently spend them. Capische?
Posted: Thu, 28th Aug 2008, 6:18am

Post 55 of 1492

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Well, Pickle, I agreed with every word of your post. Well stated, and I particularly liked the VERY literal phrasing of the "War on Drugs".
Posted: Thu, 28th Aug 2008, 6:26am

Post 56 of 1492

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Bryce007 wrote:

Well, Pickle, I agreed with every word of your post. Well stated, and I particularly liked the VERY literal phrasing of the "War on Drugs".
Yeah. Call me out of touch with the other issues, but it amazes me how... non-existent this affront to liberty is in the mainstream media.

And...

Frosty G wrote:

You really aren't making strong points. I don't see how this supports your argument as well. Are you trying to build a bridge to where you say " Well thats the country we live in now!", because that is very opinionated. I'll ignore it if it is. If that idea is unpopular, but is truly the right decision than we would rely on a President to work towards changing that nation and making the hard, and perhaps unpopular, decision to work towards changing it.
Over one-million non-violent people are in prison due to a Drug War that has achieved nothing but the polar opposite of it's original objective. That is the country we live in now.

Now go ahead, ignore it. Don't worry, they'll still be in jail tomorrow. And the next day. And probably the next. But, eh, it's not a pressing issue, right?
Posted: Thu, 28th Aug 2008, 8:41am

Post 57 of 1492

fertesz

Force: 1765 | Joined: 25th Apr 2003 | Posts: 470

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I kinda agree with prohibition example here. I neither drink alcohol, nor smoke cigarettes, but I don't really mind those substances are accesibble. Alcohol can do terrible things to a man, but I dare to think I'm smarter than to do something like this to myself. It's every persons choice. Same with drugs. I don't do drugs, as I honestly believe it's kinda stupid. IMHO. Others have their opinions. If somebody wants to get addicted - be my guest. As harsh as it may sound.

I'm not saying "legalize drugs now!". But there is point to applying same logic as with prohibition. Being aware of course, that such transition will NOT go without disturbances. Possibly tragic. We need to be aware of any aspect of the situation, not narrow-minded. Drug bussiness (meaning "bad guys") DOES profit from current law. But in such a topic, caution is advised, whatever option you support.

As for any person having a chance for 100k per year - it's a general statement, and as such is obviously wrong. It's an american dream, right? We heard a number of stories of AD coming true. It is possible. Point is - there are hundreds of variables here. Personality. Family. Neighborhood. Pure luck. We hear success stories, but we seldomly hear failure stories. Because they are rarely told. Hence a slight misconception. You never know how many people failed, for one guy who earned milions. And what happened to them.

Anyway - at this point somebody should probably point out which candidate supports which views wink
Posted: Thu, 28th Aug 2008, 8:54am

Post 58 of 1492

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

fertesz wrote:

I kinda agree with prohibition example here. I neither drink alcohol, nor smoke cigarettes, but I don't really mind those substances are accesibble. Alcohol can do terrible things to a man, but I dare to think I'm smarter than to do something like this to myself. It's every persons choice. Same with drugs. I don't do drugs, as I honestly believe it's kinda stupid. IMHO. Others have their opinions. If somebody wants to get addicted - be my guest. As harsh as it may sound.
Heh, do you think some people wake up one day and think "I know what I want to do today - I want to get addicted to drugs!"?

That's not really how it works.

What about if it's a teenager that's been completely let down by rubbish, irresponsible parents, and is incredibly vulnerable and has found themselves in a bad relationship with someone else, simply because they actually give them the attention they've never had from family, and who then introduces them to drugs?

Do you say "be my guest!"? Or do you acknowledge that they've been in a bad situation their whole lives and have never had the support they needed to make good decisions?

If you're in a good situation in your life already then, yeah, you're able to make wise decisions. If people in comfortable situations still make stupid decisions, then I don't tend to have much sympathy. But it's just not always as simple as that.
Posted: Thu, 28th Aug 2008, 9:23am

Post 59 of 1492

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

In America, the estimate is that 50 million Americans do not have healthcare. The population of this country is estimated to be 305 million people. That's 16% of the population (including myself, I might add), which is... nowhere near the majority. WHY are we even considering universal healthcare, when the overwhelming majority of people... are already affording it?
Because, believe it or not - even a single life is worth more than all the money in the world. Maybe not to some people, who apparently value a few extra bucks a month over the safety and welfare of their fellow countrymen - but to others, things like a human life actually matters.

Is there a healthcare "crisis?" Ehh... of sorts. The solution should focus on... the 50 million Americans without healthcare -- not the whole country
I'd love to hear a proposed system that will fairly and equally help those people who can't afford insurance as much as those who can, without increasing taxes (which you seem thoroughly against).

They aren't having a healthcare problem, they don't need a healthcare solution, so why should we be forcing them to pay for one?
Fifty million lives could benefit from universal healthcare... But what's worth more? A few dollars more in the bank each month, or knowing that everyone in your country has access to life-saving treatments, no matter their background? To me, that's not even a question.
Posted: Thu, 28th Aug 2008, 9:30am

Post 60 of 1492

fertesz

Force: 1765 | Joined: 25th Apr 2003 | Posts: 470

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Tarn wrote:

Heh, do you think some people wake up one day and think "I know what I want to do today - I want to get addicted to drugs!"?
Of course not. This whole family thing is an issue. I agree that people raised in a certain way (as in examples you've given), have bad start, and rarely can make good decisions. And above all - it's not simple.

But it's not like prohibiting anything helps here. Bacause such people tend to do illegal things anyway, from various reasons. "Bad relationship" as you put it. In many such cases it's "cool" to do something "bad" - "we rock, we are above the law" and such.

I do have compassion for such cases. But many people do stupid things despite being educated. And that's their choice. It's a difficult thing - where is the line between saving someone from their own stupidity (or inexperience, like children), and restricting their freedom? That's very hard thing to discuss.

Telling everyone "you don't want to get addicted" is arrogant. People should be educated to be able to make their own choice. And while I am fully aware of importance of issues you raised, I still believe what I wrote before. It just does not apply to everyone. Nothing does. Some people do things we consider stupid, but it makes sense to them and makes them happy. People are just different.

So don't get me wrong please. A child can hardly be responsible for making stupid decisions based on it's lack of experience or common sense. But as I wrote - there's a line somewhere there.

[EDIT]
As for my first sentence here - maybe I'll rephrase. I believe there ARE such people in the world. Few of them perhaps, but still. People tend to be very different and sometimes very stupid. Some may just as well decide to get addicted. Just for the record, not that it has any value in this discussion.

Last edited Thu, 28th Aug 2008, 9:36am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Thu, 28th Aug 2008, 9:33am

Post 61 of 1492

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Arktic wrote:

In America, the estimate is that 50 million Americans do not have healthcare. The population of this country is estimated to be 305 million people. That's 16% of the population (including myself, I might add), which is... nowhere near the majority. WHY are we even considering universal healthcare, when the overwhelming majority of people... are already affording it?
Because, believe it or not - even a single life is worth more than all the money in the world. Maybe not to some people, who apparently value a few extra bucks a month over the safety and welfare of their fellow countrymen - but to others, things like a human life actually matters.
It's a shame that the US military's concept of "no-one gets left behind" doesn't carry over to the way people think about the general population.

Edit: Thanks for clarifying, Fertesz. Makes more sense now.
Posted: Thu, 28th Aug 2008, 11:46am

Post 62 of 1492

D3L3T10N

Force: 317 | Joined: 23rd Jun 2007 | Posts: 472

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

A Pickle wrote:


As a matter of fact, gang warfare/organized crime wasn't even a concept until we tried banning a particular psychoactive drug that is now legal in most first AND third world countries.
No, actually, gangs etc. existed before this, it was just the prohibition that brought them to the public eye, because the gangs were doing a service to almost everyone this time--not just a select group of people.

A Pickle wrote:

then why are we paying for organizations like the DEA to break into their home (against the fourth amendment) and imprison them for smoking a plant (against the eighth amendment).
Its not against the fourth amendment if they have a warrant or probable cause.

And the eighth amendment defends against excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishment--I'm not quite getting the connection you're making there...
Posted: Thu, 28th Aug 2008, 1:43pm

Post 63 of 1492

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Tarn wrote:

Heh, do you think some people wake up one day and think "I know what I want to do today - I want to get addicted to drugs!"?

That's not really how it works.

What about if it's a teenager that's been completely let down by rubbish, irresponsible parents, and is incredibly vulnerable and has found themselves in a bad relationship with someone else, simply because they actually give them the attention they've never had from family, and who then introduces them to drugs?
I would argue that there are plenty of people out there who do drugs... because they enjoy it? I mean, I KNOW there a whole bunch of people who do -- it's like, an American pastime to go out on weekends and get inebriated beyond reason. As far as I'm concerned, it's their right to -- and the government shouldn't have say on what substance they use to do so. They should simply acknowledge that, irrespective of substance intoxication, they are still responsible for their actions and should be held accountable for anything that they did while under the influence.

Desecration of property, driving, harming another person... those are the actions that should be punished, and they should be punished a little bit more harshly if external substances were involved.

Tarn wrote:

Do you say "be my guest!"? Or do you acknowledge that they've been in a bad situation their whole lives and have never had the support they needed to make good decisions?
This is generally what I think of most people who end up in prison (here in America), and it's why I really think we need to revise our prison system. People just don't go, "Hey, I'm going to commit a crime today, because that's a bad thing to do! Ha ha, yeah, that'll show the system!" It amazes me that there are people in my country who think that that's how it actually works...

Arktic wrote:

A Pickle wrote:

In America, the estimate is that 50 million Americans do not have healthcare. The population of this country is estimated to be 305 million people. That's 16% of the population (including myself, I might add), which is... nowhere near the majority. WHY are we even considering universal healthcare, when the overwhelming majority of people... are already affording it?
Because, believe it or not - even a single life is worth more than all the money in the world. Maybe not to some people, who apparently value a few extra bucks a month over the safety and welfare of their fellow countrymen - but to others, things like a human life actually matters.
That isn't an answer to my question so much as a character attack on people who don't think we need we universal healthcare. Try again.

I'm asking you: If 84% of our population already has healthcare, why are we even bothering considering universal healthcare? We don't need it. We may need a solution of 16% people, yes, but... we don't need a solution for 100% of them, when the overwhelming majority of that 100% ALREADY HAS HEALTHCARE.

Arktic wrote:

I'd love to hear a proposed system that will fairly and equally help those people who can't afford insurance as much as those who can, without increasing taxes (which you seem thoroughly against).
Taxes, I think, are necessary to a point. I wouldn't be opposed to a reasonable tax hike to assist the 50 million (16% of the US population) people for healthcare purposes. I am not the cold-blooded machine that you seem keen to paint me as, I do not hate the people who don't have healthcare coverage. I just don't think that the amount of money that would be taken from the citizenry in order to fund this project would save much in the end. In case you hadn't noticed, my government has yet to demonstrate aptitude at anything. I'm not entirely certain "universal healthcare" would be this rosy pink, perfect system that people envision, and frankly, I think private healthcare would continue to outdo it in terms of services rendered, medication provided, etc.

But when 84% of the people are... already insured... we don't even need to THINK about a universal healthcare system. That is a gigantic, over-complicated, and overwhelmingly expensive solution to a problem the size of an anthill.

D3L3T10N wrote:

And the eighth amendment defends against excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishment--I'm not quite getting the connection you're making there...
Um...

...Life in prison after three "gotcha's" with marijuana. That... that doesn't sound like "cruel and unusual punishment" to you?

Inmate 1: "What are you in for?"
Inmate 2: "Smoking weed on my grandma's couch."
Posted: Thu, 28th Aug 2008, 2:49pm

Post 64 of 1492

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

http://www.236.com/feed/2008/08/26/john_mccain_makes_jay_leno_app_8491.php
Posted: Thu, 28th Aug 2008, 5:05pm

Post 65 of 1492

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1836909,00.html
Posted: Thu, 28th Aug 2008, 8:03pm

Post 66 of 1492

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

It's a shame that the US military's concept of "no-one gets left behind" doesn't carry over to the way people think about the general population.
Or unborn children.
Posted: Thu, 28th Aug 2008, 8:07pm

Post 67 of 1492

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Fill wrote:

Tarn wrote:

It's a shame that the US military's concept of "no-one gets left behind" doesn't carry over to the way people think about the general population.
Or unborn children.
Or soldiers.
Posted: Thu, 28th Aug 2008, 8:37pm

Post 68 of 1492

D3L3T10N

Force: 317 | Joined: 23rd Jun 2007 | Posts: 472

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

A Pickle wrote:


D3L3T10N wrote:

And the eighth amendment defends against excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishment--I'm not quite getting the connection you're making there...
Um...

...Life in prison after three "gotcha's" with marijuana. That... that doesn't sound like "cruel and unusual punishment" to you?
I seriously doubt that the DEA would break into your home if all you were doing was smoking marijuana. And if you did get busted--three times even--I highly doubt that you would get life in prison. Also, penalties for that kind of drug violation are regulated by the state, so this being a discussion about the presidential election...
Posted: Thu, 28th Aug 2008, 9:50pm

Post 69 of 1492

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

D3L3T10N wrote:

Also, penalties for that kind of drug violation are regulated by the state, so this being a discussion about the presidential election...
The Federal Constitution has precedence over state and local laws, and it is a FEDERAL policy that is keeping us embroiled in this needless war. States don't have a choice in the matter thanks to a one PRESIDENT Nixon.

And, holy crap, fxhome needs a mobile site. I just posted from my Sprint PPC-6700 and... it hurt. sad
Posted: Fri, 29th Aug 2008, 6:14am

Post 70 of 1492

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

You break the law three times doing the same thing obviously, regardless of what it is really, of course you're getting punished pretty severely.

Like Andy Dufresne says in Shawshank "maybe you should look for a new profession, stealing hasn't really worked out for you if you've been in and out of prison your entire life".

Maybe you should find a new recreational activity, hmm? Whether the law is justifiable to certain people's standards is moot if you're dumb enough to get caught or "gotcha"'d three times, buddy. And it's not 'life in prison' you get either. For someone who clings to his references to make himself think everyone has to be agreeing with him, you just threw out a whole bunch of propagandized garbage, Pickle. smile

Holy Crap, I just posted from my iPhone and.....it was fast, simple, and easy. wink
Posted: Fri, 29th Aug 2008, 6:17am

Post 71 of 1492

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

Like Andy Dufresne says in Shawshank "maybe you should look for a new profession, stealing hasn't really worked out for you if you've been in and out of prison your entire life".
Dude, that's a f***ed up analogy, smoking weed is all about having fun, not like a career thing. It's not about the art of hiding it, it's about the art of smoking it.

Legalize it.
Posted: Fri, 29th Aug 2008, 6:34am

Post 72 of 1492

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Serpent wrote:

Atom wrote:

Like Andy Dufresne says in Shawshank "maybe you should look for a new profession, stealing hasn't really worked out for you if you've been in and out of prison your entire life".
Dude, that's a f***ed up analogy, smoking weed is all about having fun, not like a career thing. It's not about the art of hiding it, it's about the art of smoking it.

Legalize it.
Not really, man. If you're dumb enough to do something illegal (and that's cool, I'm not passing judgement if you've got the boldness to do it), even if it's fun or shouldn't (by your own conscience) be illegal, and then you're also dumb enough to get caught with it by an authority figure- multiple times at that- you're kinda getting what was coming to you, especially if you already know full and well what the consequences are.

I'm not trying to storm on the 'legalize pot!' parade, Serpent; after all I live in Austin on one of the largest party school campuses in the world (heh smile)- but come on. That analogy is just as legitimate as any of the 'facts' and 'hard truths of life' A Pickle has been spouting out all-thread-long.
Posted: Fri, 29th Aug 2008, 7:37am

Post 73 of 1492

fertesz

Force: 1765 | Joined: 25th Apr 2003 | Posts: 470

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

Not really, man. If you're dumb enough to do something illegal (and that's cool, I'm not passing judgement if you've got the boldness to do it), even if it's fun or shouldn't (by your own conscience) be illegal, and then you're also dumb enough to get caught with it by an authority figure- multiple times at that- you're kinda getting what was coming to you, especially if you already know full and well what the consequences are.
Dura lex, sed lex, huh? smile Breaking the law isn't best way in the world to change it...

(though in Poland, we have a bunch of **** laws, so I fully sympathize with anyone having problems with stupid law...)
Posted: Fri, 29th Aug 2008, 7:38am

Post 74 of 1492

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

Maybe you should find a new recreational activity, hmm? Whether the law is justifiable to certain people's standards is moot if you're dumb enough to get caught or "gotcha"'d three times, buddy.
Aha. The inevitable, "you must be a stoner" argument comes out. All too common in drug policy debates. It's not the first political debate in which I've expressed my views about this issue where the opposing side has SUCH a nonexistent argument that they're reduced to personal insults. My personal habits aren't on trial here. As I have candidly refrained from remarking and judging your choice of lifestyle, I would expect you to extend the same courtesy to me.

Atom wrote:

And it's not 'life in prison' you get either.
True. I'm ashamed to say I misinterpreted or mis-read when I first read about the three strikes law. Still, though, a day in prison is far too long a time for someone who is guilty of smoking weed.

Atom wrote:

For someone who clings to his references to make himself think everyone has to be agreeing with him, you just threw out a whole bunch of propagandized garbage, Pickle.
Stick to what you know. I'll give you that I mis-read on the three strikes law, and was wrong about that. But uh... the rest of it? That $40 billion dollar-per-year-and-rising cost of the drug war? That over half of America's 1.8 million prisoners have never committed a violent crime? That $77 billion dollar global cocaine market? That $7.5 billion dollar failure that was Plan Columbia? That marijuana is the United States' #1 cash crop?

I encourage you to do some research. You can call all of that "propaganda" if you want. It doesn't change the fact that it is all factually accurate.

I don't expect everyone to agree with me, I expect people to present arguments with presentable facts to back them up. On the topic of the Drug War, I've yet to see facts from the other side that aren't rife with actual propaganda. If there is some magical resource that I have somehow missed in my studies of this matter, then by all means, link it to me. You can change my mind, I am open to that.

It just hasn't happened yet, and forgive me for saying so, you haven't done an entirely good job of changing my mind on that particular topic. Healthcare is a more eh... eh.... issue to me, I mean, I can see where you're coming from, and yet, I really still don't think a universal healthcare program is the solution. That's just my opinion, and there really isn't much data to go on one way or another. We'll find out whether or not it's a bad idea when and if we do it.

But the drug war? Man, that... that is such an easy debate. C'mon.

Atom wrote:

If you're dumb enough to do something illegal (and that's cool, I'm not passing judgement if you've got the boldness to do it), even if it's fun or shouldn't (by your own conscience) be illegal, and then you're also dumb enough to get caught with it by an authority figure- multiple times at that- you're kinda getting what was coming to you, especially if you already know full and well what the consequences are.
I'm... not sure how that's relevant. I mean, yes... obviously someone who gets caught for smoking weed will... probably be thrown in prison for doing it. Duh. That's the law. I wasn't asking you how the mechanics of judging an imprisoned pot smoker works, I was presenting my opinion that the War on Drugs is a far cry from "helping" impoverished neighborhoods, as you claimed it did.
Posted: Fri, 29th Aug 2008, 8:08am

Post 75 of 1492

fertesz

Force: 1765 | Joined: 25th Apr 2003 | Posts: 470

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

A Pickle wrote:

That over half of America's 1.8 million prisoners have never committed a violent crime?
Excuse me for asking, but what has that to do with anything? It's not like only a violent crimes should be punished. You can do a LOT of mess, without violence. I just don't get where are you going with this thing.
Posted: Fri, 29th Aug 2008, 8:22am

Post 76 of 1492

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Oh we're talking about the drug war now, are we? Yeah, countdown to thread lock.... wink

Seriously, though... Atom, the fact is that marijuana should be legal. I won't say it's not harmful if you abuse it, but it's certainly less harmful than the alcohol and cigarettes consumed by millions of people all the time. If you're worried about carcinogen intake, vaporize! If you're worried about vapor in the ol' lungs, bake some cookies! My point is that the rationale that most people have in regards to marijuana being illegal is that it's unhealthy. But it doesn't have to be. Alcohol and cigarettes do, and cigarettes are designed to get you addicted to them.

A Pickle is absolutely right that in the argument for marijuana legalization, eventually the only case against it for the opposing side is that you're a stupid stoner hippie.

I once read an article where a public defender was quoted as saying (regarding psilocybin mushrooms) "not only are they illegal, but also potentially dangerous." That pretty much sums up the drug war for me. It's put in place to strike against mind altering substances that, while dangerous to the authority of the state, are not at all dangerous to the physiology of a human being.

fertesz wrote:

Excuse me for asking, but what has that to do with anything? It's not like only a violent crimes should be punished. You can do a LOT of mess, without violence. I just don't get where are you going with this thing.
He means that prisons are overcrowded with people who haven't done anything that really justifies putting them in jail. We're talking people who shoplift, or get caught with a bag of weed, or are drunk in public, or driving dangerously. Obviously these people need some kind of rehabilitation to cure them of their wiles, but incarceration isn't the solution.

I should just say that the government is corrupt and evil and move on, I guess. Vote for Obama lol.
Posted: Fri, 29th Aug 2008, 8:28am

Post 77 of 1492

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Rating: +2

My main problem with marijuana is that it makes people who use it incredibly, incredibly boring. Legality and health issues aside, that simple fact makes me wonder why on earth people use it. smile

Anyway...don't forget, this is the one and only topic you guys are going to get on the US elections, so treat it with respect. razz

Last edited Fri, 29th Aug 2008, 8:36am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Fri, 29th Aug 2008, 8:33am

Post 78 of 1492

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

My main problem with marijuana is that it makes people who use it <i>incredibly, incredibly boring</i>. Legality and health issues aside, that simple fact makes me wonder why on earth people use it. smile
More of a cocaine man, are you? wink
Anyway...don't forget, this is the one and only topic you guys are going to get on the US elections, so treat it with respect. razz
Yeah, this. Listen to this part.
Posted: Fri, 29th Aug 2008, 9:27am

Post 79 of 1492

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

A Pickle wrote:

Aha. The inevitable, "you must be a stoner" argument comes out.
Firstly, no. Not at all. Rather, I was trying to stick to your first point about, I assume, the re-appropriation of funds and injustices, etc. that spawned your rather obvious segue argument into marijuana.

And Aculag, all judgment and viewpoints aside, it's rather ridiculous and baseless to say, for anything illegal that it should be legal so bluntly. And with italics, at that. smile I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but the reactionary force people come back at so quickly, especially with such an unbacked and blunt (no pun intended smile) sentence is annoying.

Back to the politics, though. I'll save my morality/viewpoint/decision-making arguments for my contemporary moral issues class, which I hope to continue to dominate. smile

Annnnnd it starts in....4 hours, and I'm still sitting up here at night typing to you guys. Jeesh, I need better prioritizing, like including sleep in the equation. smile

(Oh, and can someone fit more atrociously yet unintentionally numerous smilies into a post than me? smile)
Posted: Fri, 29th Aug 2008, 10:02am

Post 80 of 1492

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Buncha fuggin do-gooders +1'n Tarn's post smile. What's annoying is the over generalizations that people give to those who smoke/vape/bake.

Makes people boring?? Haha, come on, that's like saying "All black people like fried chicken" (and yes, I do). I guarantee you all have met people that were (dun dun dun... HIGH) and wouldn't even know it at all. Any idea how creative people are on the stuff?? Especially when it comes to art/film... ESPECIALLY when it comes to art/film ha.

And

Atom wrote:


And Aculag, all judgment and view points aside, it's rather ridiculous and baseless to say, for anything illegal that it should be legal so bluntly. And with italics, at that. smile I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but the reactionary force people come back at so quickly, especially with such an unbacked and blunt (no pun intended smile) sentence is annoying.
Hush talkin that nonsense, man ha. He's saying why is it illegal? Or maybe we should just listen to our govt and not ask questions as to why they make certain things illegal. "It's for your own good, son. You'll understand one day..."

neutral

Wrong... hah, they can't give any valid answer besides "It's bad for you." At least California is starting to come around and realize the money that's to be made off of this, instead of putting people in jail for a very stupid reason.

I'm working on plans for a missile, that when explodes, sends out a 5,000 mile radius of THC. I'll be dropping about 10,000 of these across the world and I guarantee it would be the most peaceful day on Earth... and hungry...

Oh, and I fig as long as everyone keeps putting this message at the end of their posts, we'll be able to continue the discussion of mary jew on uh. Here it is:

But now, back to the topic of politics. I'll save this for another discussion...
Posted: Fri, 29th Aug 2008, 12:13pm

Post 81 of 1492

D3L3T10N

Force: 317 | Joined: 23rd Jun 2007 | Posts: 472

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

A Pickle wrote:


But the drug war? Man, that... that is such an easy debate. C'mon.
I really don't thing this qualifies as a Drug War debate. This has been mostly centered around marijuana and the now disproved statement that 3 offenses will get you life in prison. Other, more powerful drugs have been mentioned once or twice, jokingly. Federal organizations such as the DEA are focused on drugs like cocaine and heroin etc. and on huge drug rings and dealers and the like. The federal government does not get involved with busting some school kid smoking pot behind his house. As for your argument, it seems that the bulk of it is presenting random facts that could possibly be connected with drugs, and then not bothering to explain yourself. You've talked about failed programs, that 1.8 million prisoners have never committed violent crime, and that marijuana is America's #1 cash crop. As for that last one, so its our number one crop. Does that mean we should legalize it? Y'know...just because... And failed programs, I guess failure means you should just give up, because what's the use of protecting children from drug exposure? I mean, shielding America's future from mind altering substances should definitely take second to letting people smoke pot "for fun". (Sarcasm alert!)

You said that 1.8 million prisoners have never committed a violent crime.

So? People burglarize others's homes while they're away. People cheat in casinos, people commit check fraud, and mail fraud. They launder money, they commit internet scams, the list goes on and on. Now these people didn't necessarily hurt anyone physically, but I don't know of anyone who would want to be a victim of any of these crimes.

Also about healthcare. 16% of America is uninsured. Negligible right? Thats over 48 million people. You don't think its important for these people to have heath insurance? Would you go up to one of those 48 million, shake their hand, look in their eye, and tell them, "I don't believe the government should provide health insurance for you, because frankly, I don't think you are important enough."?

That doesn't make much sense either...
Posted: Fri, 29th Aug 2008, 12:44pm

Post 82 of 1492

fertesz

Force: 1765 | Joined: 25th Apr 2003 | Posts: 470

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

D3L3T10N wrote:

Also about healthcare. 16% of America is uninsured. Negligible right? Thats over 48 million people. You don't think its important for these people to have heath insurance? Would you go up to one of those 48 million, shake their hand, look in their eye, and tell them, "I don't believe the government should provide health insurance for you, because frankly, I don't think you are important enough."?
For the sake of clear discussion - he wrote that those people DO need a solution, but he doesn't believe that UNIVERSAL healthcare is needed. So the statement above is kinda pointless, really...

Just trying to help keep it clean.
Posted: Fri, 29th Aug 2008, 12:56pm

Post 83 of 1492

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

CX3 wrote:

Buncha fuggin do-gooders +1'n Tarn's post smile. What's annoying is the over generalizations that people give to those who smoke/vape/bake.

Makes people boring?? Haha, come on, that's like saying "All black people like fried chicken" (and yes, I do).
I like fried chicken too, and I were any less black I'd be transparent. (what film is that from?) smile

And yeah, I'm sure not everyone reacts to smoking the same way, but in my experience that's always been the result. They all seemed to be having a great time, sure, and I don't really have a problem with that. But from someone who wasn't smoking it, looking at it from the sober outside, they just got a bit slow-witted and dull to talk to. Just my experience. razz

I do agree that having it be an illegal substance is pretty ridiculous, though, when things like alchohol and cigarettes are legal. Doesn't make a single bit of sense. Not least because it's completely unenforceable - if it were, 90% of university students would be jailed nationwide.
Posted: Fri, 29th Aug 2008, 1:16pm

Post 84 of 1492

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

The only thing I would have against legalizing pot would be the gateway argument. I'll be the first to say, though, that I don't really know the validity of the argument. I haven't looked at any studies or reports on the matter. If there is a connection, though, I see that as a problem. Because you let one drug legalize and those people that are always advocating, shift to the next.
Posted: Fri, 29th Aug 2008, 1:50pm

Post 85 of 1492

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Rating: +1

[I won't enter into a discussion about the legality of cannabis, mostly because this is all old ground that we've been over before - if you're interested in what I think, then have a read of this thread from a few years back: The Travesty of Marijuana Prohibition. It's interesting to see how people's opinions have changed over time!]

Back to the discussion at hand...

I agree that the 50 million people who can't afford health insurance do need a solution - but I think that what you're missing here, A Pickle, is the concept of equality.

I think we can call agree, healthcare is a basic human right - the right to life, the right to live without unnecessary suffering. Each and every citizen of a developed country should have access to an adequate level of healthcare. I think that all people should be given access to the highest quality of healthcare available, regardless of their financial situation.

You suggest a seperate scheme, a raise in taxes or whatever, to run alongside the present private healthcare system - so those who can't afford to pay for insurance will be able to access treatment.

But the problem with having a publicly funded scheme that the majority of people can't access, is that unless the suggested 'free care for the uninsured' system is providing less-than-adequate treatment, what is the incentive for the rest of the population to keep paying insurance as well as the tax paid to free care scheme? Why pay tax AND insurance to receive an acceptable standard of care?

There is no reason to do so – and if that is the case, many people will abandon private health policies in order to receive the 'free' treatment that their tax pays for, which will in turn put a greater strain on the 'free care' system, stretching it beyond it's capabilities – leading to a worse situation than before.

Of course, you might say that the 'free care' scheme won't provide the same high-standard of treatment as private healthcare - but if the 'free care' scheme isn't providing adequate treatment, then we're back to square one, effectively: the majority of the country get good medical care, whilst the poor benefit from some treatment, but not to the acceptable minimum that the majority receive. Again, why should those who find themselves in hard times or financial difficulty have to suffer this lack of equality because of (many times) factors outside of their control?

The only answer to this, to treat every person as equal, is to have a publicly funded scheme which everyone can draw benefit. In the UK, every single employee has to pay towards the upkeep of the NHS, as does every employer. And every person is able to draw benefit from the system, regardless of how much they have paid – and everyone receives the same adequate quality of care*.

Of course, we do have private healthcare in the UK as well – for those that can afford it and who want to receive treatment above the acceptable minimum standards of care (reduced waiting times, private beds, etc). But nobody is able to opt-out of the national scheme, and EVERYONE can benefit. In fact, even those with private insurance benefit from the money that pays for the upkeep of the hospitals that they attend, even if the doctors are on a different pay roll.

That is why universal healthcare is the ONLY option that gives everyone equal access to adequate levels of treatment.

And just because your government has failed to get it's act together in the past, it doesn't mean you should abandon hope of them ever doing it right... More than anything, it should be your impetus to make the right choices so your government CAN do the right thing – and moving in more of a socialist direction isn't a bad thing. I mean, as you say, your government hasn't done a great job so far... so why stick to the same policies?

Arktic.

* In practice this is a point that can be argued, mostly because in my opinion the Tories nearly wrecked the NHS, but that is another debate for another time. It is, in theory, the case for the sake of this discussion.
Posted: Fri, 29th Aug 2008, 3:44pm

Post 86 of 1492

enoonsti

Force: 50 | Joined: 16th Nov 2007 | Posts: 97

Member

*enoonsti shuffles awkwardly into discussion and submits link*

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080829/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_veepstakes

...McCain selects..... Sarah Palin?

Well, that certainly made it difficult to win MyGuesstimate smile
Posted: Fri, 29th Aug 2008, 4:10pm

Post 87 of 1492

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Well-put, Arktic. Very well-put. On the nature of 'free universal healthcare', at least. Oh, and thanks for inevitably reviving the actual marijuana thread itself. smile

And Chris, just so we don't have to go into this, because I'm honestly trying to reserve my opinion on it all:

CX3 wrote:

He's saying why is it illegal?

Wrong... hah, they can't give any valid answer besides "It's bad for you."
We're not even making this argument on either side, buddy. I was simply saying, from an argumentation standpoint, you can't simply and bluntly say something should be one way, just as you can't refute that it shouldn't be another way or fully assume that nobody has a justifiable reasoning as to why something is the way it is. This is, of course, just as I can't go out and say something is wrong/bad and leave it at that.

It'd be poor, sloppy, and inappropriate argumentation. And so it comes down to this: I'm not saying pot/marijuana is bad, neither is Tarn, neither is anyone else. Why are you giving me a reactionary response as if any of us have? smile Nobody is attacking you or your right/claim to anything, so why approach it that way? Obviously my reputation precedes me quite a bit, but I'm just speaking from and for argumentation here, really. Nothing else.

How did it become a legalization-of-marijuana debate? smile
Posted: Fri, 29th Aug 2008, 4:25pm

Post 88 of 1492

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Frosty G wrote:

The only thing I would have against legalizing pot would be the gateway argument. I'll be the first to say, though, that I don't really know the validity of the argument. I haven't looked at any studies or reports on the matter. If there is a connection, though, I see that as a problem. Because you let one drug legalize and those people that are always advocating, shift to the next.
I think the gateway argument is mostly bunk, and also a, "Well, duh" kind of thing. While it's true that most heroin and cocaine users have smoked marijuana prior to moving on to their harder habits, it's also true that the vast majority of marijuana smokers don't move onto cocaine and heroin. But again, I... really don't think any of this is valid. Most people who use heroin and cocaine... have smoked cigarettes and drink alcohol, too -- are they "gateway drugs"?

I mean, I guess I'd say "Yes, they are," but I guess I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. I'll give it this: In the US, the government has done a marvelous (if not morally bankrupt) job of convincing the mainstream US population that drugs are an undeniable, no-question evil. Most people don't even consider the idea of legalizing drugs, because, they're all bad, right?

So, the fact is, when you smoke a cigarette or you get blitzed for the first time -- it doesn't take a genius to put two and two together. By putting X chemical into your body, makes you feel Y conditions. A lot of people make that connection, and then due to the social status of marijuana (that it's harmless, funny and fun), don't consider it bad enough to care about the law. But that's just it: By making it illegal, the government associates weed with heroin and cocaine -- and they do. When the government talks about "Drugs," they refer to the whole collection of illegal drugs, but generally they focus on marijuana.

People take it the same way, as soon as they make the choice to go from cigarettes and alcohol (the legal drugs) to marijuana, they've entered the category of the "illegal drugs," and thus... they may start thinking about things like ecstasy and cocaine and heroin. After all, they're in the same category. Obviously, some people are wise enough to look up health effects and everything of that sort -- others are simply not well educated in the matter and it all goes downhill from there. I'd argue, though, that the all-too-common accusation that "Marijuana is a gateway drug!" is pretty baseless. I don't think you can call

Marijuana a gateway drug if most people who smoke marijuana DO NOT move onto the harder drugs, and I don't think you can pin that label on it if most people who smoke marijuana also drank alcohol and smoked cigarettes before. You can't call marijuana a gateway drug if... you require a gateway to that. Since those are legal, worldwide, multi-billion dollar industries, however... they're not bad drugs, and so they could never be a gateway!

Arktic wrote:

[I won't enter into a discussion about the legality of cannabis, mostly because this is all old ground that we've been over before - if you're interested in what I think, then have a read of this thread from a few years back: The Travesty of Marijuana Prohibition. It's interesting to see how people's opinions have changed over time!]
I was SO anti-weed at that point.

...

*cough*

Arktic wrote:

But the problem with having a publicly funded scheme that the majority of people can't access, is that unless the suggested 'free care for the uninsured' system is providing less-than-adequate treatment, what is the incentive for the rest of the population to keep paying insurance as well as the tax paid to free care scheme? Why pay tax AND insurance to receive an acceptable standard of care?
In my mind, it was working something like the FAFSA and the Federal Stafford student loan system works. It's basically this: You you fill out a FAFSA form, and it gives the government a general idea of what your financial situation is. IE, how much you make annually, if you're a dependent, how much your parents make. It knows how much you've made in scholarships and how much the school you plan on attending costs.

A lot of people can't really use it to any avail, because they or they're parents make entirely too much to qualify for it -- it's really geared for people who can't afford college. I think a similar thing would be a proper solution for people who currently cannot afford healthcare.

Arktic wrote:

And just because your government has failed to get it's act together in the past, it doesn't mean you should abandon hope of them ever doing it right... More than anything, it should be your impetus to make the right choices so your government CAN do the right thing – and moving in more of a socialist direction isn't a bad thing. I mean, as you say, your government hasn't done a great job so far... so why stick to the same policies?
I can see your point here, but... believe me: I hate our government's policies. I don't think we have to go as far as socialism to radically change them -- and I don't think that's a bad thing. As far as I'm concerned, every nation is a company -- it's a company that provides a service, that service being a social environment. Some nations have higher taxes, and provide more for their citizens right from the government. Others have lower taxes, and depend on you to do your own thing. You just pick whichever one you like, and live there.

I just think that my current government is a hodgepodge of either super Democratic or super Republican policies, neither of which I'm a fan of and neither of which really does anything. Then we have these two fricking parties which control the vast majority of it, and I'm convinced that a lot of Republicans believe certain ways on certain issues just because Democrats believe in such a way on certain issues. I don't think the Democrats are innocent in this regard, either -- and so we're left with a nation controlled by two incredibly polarized parties, one far left, one far right, and both -- equally irritating.

But yes, you're right: I don't think it's current ineptitude at certain things (it's job) is reason to give up. But it is reason to get really miffed sometimes. biggrin
Posted: Fri, 29th Aug 2008, 4:50pm

Post 89 of 1492

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Well the game is set now, McCain/Palin vs. Obama/Biden

Palin was definitly left-field and I don't know enough about her to really make an educated opinion of the selection(i hope to remedy that in the next week), but I really hope she's got a strong background because I don't want this selection to be purely a power play through her gender.

EDIT: In response to A Pickle's above comment about drugs. I don't see what you mean by the government has done its job in making us view drugs as bad. In my opinion, thats common sense. Drugs can change the way you think logically. It can dull your senses and make you do things you would regret later, to either yourself or to another. That is bad, and I don't need a government to tell me that. In that sense, alcohol and alcoholism are bad. Whether they should be illegal or not is a question, that while I have an opinion I can respect that others disagree, that is worth some thought.
Posted: Fri, 29th Aug 2008, 5:17pm

Post 90 of 1492

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Frosty G wrote:

EDIT: In response to A Pickle's above comment about drugs. I don't see what you mean by the government has done its job in making us view drugs as bad.
Sarcasm. I don't think the government has any place imposing any morals on a society of such diverse cultural affinity. There are, of course, social absolutes -- IE, murder, rape, etc. Those have to be banned, those have to be morally opposed by the government and everyone in society, otherwise... we don't have a very well-functioning society.

I don't think it's the government's job to tell us that drugs are bad, I think it's the government's job to help us make the decision for ourselves. We pay taxes, we have an education system. And no, high school Health classes don't count -- they're full of incredibly bad science and propaganda-ized information. The government ought to be honest. You don't need to lie about cocaine, heroin, or cigarettes. They are all bad enough to stand on their own -- but people should be educated to make the choice for themselves (after they're an adult).
Posted: Fri, 29th Aug 2008, 5:28pm

Post 91 of 1492

enoonsti

Force: 50 | Joined: 16th Nov 2007 | Posts: 97

Member

Rating: +3

Posted: Fri, 29th Aug 2008, 5:34pm

Post 92 of 1492

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Enoonsti, you just made my day.
Posted: Fri, 29th Aug 2008, 6:14pm

Post 93 of 1492

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Sarah Palin? Honestly, I didn't see that coming... Good choice, though. For one, she's younger then John McCain, which will help the campaign's image a ton. She's also a woman, which will help sway Hilary supporters to vote republican. She seems strong on the issues, which is nice. Good pick, McCain.
Posted: Fri, 29th Aug 2008, 7:51pm

Post 94 of 1492

D3L3T10N

Force: 317 | Joined: 23rd Jun 2007 | Posts: 472

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

fertesz wrote:

D3L3T10N wrote:

Also about healthcare. 16% of America is uninsured. Negligible right? Thats over 48 million people. You don't think its important for these people to have heath insurance? Would you go up to one of those 48 million, shake their hand, look in their eye, and tell them, "I don't believe the government should provide health insurance for you, because frankly, I don't think you are important enough."?
For the sake of clear discussion - he wrote that those people DO need a solution, but he doesn't believe that UNIVERSAL healthcare is needed. So the statement above is kinda pointless, really...

Just trying to help keep it clean.
I know I read that part biggrin Thanks anyway. What I was trying to say (it was early and I was tired) is that a Pickle has eliminated all the options. (To a Pickle:) On our system right now, they can't get insurance. How do you propose they get that? Oh! Universal Healthcare? You threw that one out. How else do you suppose we get them insurance? You've made it clear that you're against paying extra taxes in order to get them a lower priced option etc. It just seems like you want to sound like you care enough to want to get these people insurance, but you don't want to actually have to pay for it. I may just be grasping at nothing here, so please correct me if I'm wrong.
Posted: Fri, 29th Aug 2008, 9:53pm

Post 95 of 1492

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Sarah Palin has spent two years as a governor, good.......of Alaska. Yikes. And before that, she was a mayor of a town of less than 10,000 people. Again, in Alaska.

I do believe that good leaders and good people will be as such no matter what land they govern, but if experience or example is any indicator, Alaska is about as non-paradigm as a United State can get; no offense to any Alaskans.

Just saying, yeah, good leaders are good leaders are good leaders, but since this is for Vice Presidency, we'd like to see some evidence that this person, in particular, is such a leader; and governing Alaska doesn't fare the best in my book.

Demographically, and excellent choice: young, white Republican female. Just progressive enough to get votes without offending the far right. Smart move.

I'm just worried about her actions in the future, not the demographic she fits. Yes, this is me playing the devil's advocate. So don't take these words with anything but a grain of salt. biggrin
Posted: Fri, 29th Aug 2008, 10:58pm

Post 96 of 1492

enoonsti

Force: 50 | Joined: 16th Nov 2007 | Posts: 97

Member

ben3308 wrote:

Sarah Palin has spent two years as a governor, good.......of Alaska. Yikes. And before that, she was a mayor of a town of less than 10,000 people. Again, in Alaska.
I think it's going to be portrayed by the GOP in terms of geopolitical relevance as opposed to simply a number of people per se: meaning, Alaska is seen as part of a solution to the energy problem that affects all Americans. "So" says GOP, "if she can get it right in Alaska by pushing for drilling in ANWR, she might have the kind of insight needed to bring down gas prices in the future."

Of course, I'm exaggerating.... but still.... wink
Posted: Fri, 29th Aug 2008, 11:20pm

Post 97 of 1492

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Sarah Palin is a good step to getting elected, not to helping the country. As much as I dislike him, Romney would've been a great choice as far as actually helping the country and the economy goes. Sigh.

At least now, either way, there will be a historic nomination. Either with an African-American President, or with the oldest President and youngest, female VP ever.
Posted: Sat, 30th Aug 2008, 2:06am

Post 98 of 1492

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I'm actually looking pretty hard at Bob Barr, right about now. Personally, I think a Barr-Paul ticket would sell me immediately. I'd be all over that like white on rice. smile

Call me a sexist racist, but... that's the ticket I like. Gun rights, drug rights, and nuclear power, hooah.
Posted: Sat, 30th Aug 2008, 2:07am

Post 99 of 1492

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

So let me get this straight: Obama, an inexperienced politician, chose Joe Biden, a man with tons of experience in Obama's weak spots like foreign policy; however, McCain nominates Sarah Palin, a completely inexperienced politician that happens to be a woman, to help McCain in his weak spots like... not being so grumpy?

It was a foolish choice if you ask me. I like Sarah, though; her views-- well most of them-- are pretty solid.

Read the article on McCains choice on CNN:
McCain taps Alaska Gov. Palin as vice president pick
Posted: Sat, 30th Aug 2008, 2:39am

Post 100 of 1492

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

And apparently McCain barely knows her. Way to go, GOP. Integrity at it's finest is, apparently, selective. That... really pisses me off. Extraordinarily. I mean, the GOP has had a really bad rap the past eight years, people have been talking about them having lied to us like crazy and...


...yeesh. I mean, they could try to hide the fact that their VP nomination is entirely an attempt to sell the campaign to people. I mean, Palin seems like a pretty moderate conservative, but... I'm almost positive they picked her to say, "Look! We're diverse and modern thinkers too!"

I really don't think they picked her to sway Hillary voters, but... they'll definitely get some of the ones that are still bitter. Hillary voters are still Democrats, and... McCain-Palin aren't. I don't think McCain is dumb enough to think that Hillary voters won't distinguish between that...
Posted: Sat, 30th Aug 2008, 5:11am

Post 101 of 1492

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Sheesh, how stupid does McCain think the American people are? Obama chose someone that fills in his weak spots, but McCain then shows up with some random woman from Alaska to go "Lookie! I'm progressive and hip too!". November should be interesting.

EDIT: Apparently, she's a creationist.
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/08/mccains-vp-want.html
Uh oh.
Posted: Sat, 30th Aug 2008, 2:04pm

Post 102 of 1492

Coureur de Bois

Force: 1394 | Joined: 23rd Sep 2002 | Posts: 1127

VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Alright guys, countdown to the RNC. T minus 48 hours. Expect full coverage from me all week as I'll be working right in the thick of it. This is going to be a major shit show... I'm honestly kind of scared neutral
Posted: Sat, 30th Aug 2008, 4:02pm

Post 103 of 1492

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I'm excited to see what kind of stuff Ron Paul and co. are gonna put up. biggrin
Posted: Sat, 30th Aug 2008, 6:16pm

Post 104 of 1492

ssj john

Force: 563 | Joined: 4th Nov 2003 | Posts: 795

Windows User MacOS User

Member

A Pickle wrote:

I'm actually looking pretty hard at Bob Barr, right about now. Personally, I think a Barr-Paul ticket would sell me immediately. I'd be all over that like white on rice. smile

Call me a sexist racist, but... that's the ticket I like. Gun rights
Honestly if you are a conservative and you know ANYTHING about palin, I think you'd agree that Palin is a brilliant choice. Of course Mccain chose her to sell his campaign. Obama did the same with Biden which backfired for me. Biden is a complete idiot in my opinion, totally playing the game.
Posted: Sat, 30th Aug 2008, 6:28pm

Post 105 of 1492

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Palin has consistently voted against women's rights (like Abortion, for example), and her ratings have been dropping since she was caught abusing power. She panders to the oil industry (paying off Alaskans in order to drill), has barely any experience at all, thinks creationism should be taught in science class (instead of religion, hello?), and McCain had barely met her when he chose her to be in one of the most powerful, complicated, difficult jobs in human history.

Also, for any Hillary fans, Palin has called her a whiner, and criticised her in an interview.

So who is left that would vote for her?
Posted: Sat, 30th Aug 2008, 7:21pm

Post 106 of 1492

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

ssj john wrote:

A Pickle wrote:

I'm actually looking pretty hard at Bob Barr, right about now. Personally, I think a Barr-Paul ticket would sell me immediately. I'd be all over that like white on rice. smile

Call me a sexist racist, but... that's the ticket I like. Gun rights
Honestly if you are a conservative and you know ANYTHING about palin, I think you'd agree that Palin is a brilliant choice. Of course Mccain chose her to sell his campaign. Obama did the same with Biden which backfired for me. Biden is a complete idiot in my opinion, totally playing the game.
Romney was a brilliant choice, and the expected, necessary, and in my eyes appropriate choice. Palin is the "hey America, I don't give a damn about helping you guys by choosing knowledgeable and important staff. I just want to get elected!" choice.
Posted: Sat, 30th Aug 2008, 7:27pm

Post 107 of 1492

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

I agree with Atom. I can't stand Romney (I live in Massachusetts), but he would have been the perfect choice for McCain.

On another note, did Obama say in his speech that in the next ten years, we won't be dependent on foreign oil? If so, he has my vote (if I had one) smile
Posted: Sat, 30th Aug 2008, 7:48pm

Post 108 of 1492

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Rating: +2

Oops, I forgot one: she denies global warming is man-made.
Posted: Sat, 30th Aug 2008, 8:14pm

Post 109 of 1492

ssj john

Force: 563 | Joined: 4th Nov 2003 | Posts: 795

Windows User MacOS User

Member

Rating: +1

I guess its all your perspective. To me abortion isn't a right for a women should have. But thats my opinion so therefore Palin is perfect, especially since we know she just doesn't say she's against abortion she actually has had the opportunity to abort a child and decided not too.

Second-off. If she doesn't have enough experience to be VICE PRESIDENT. Then Obama for sure does not have enough experience to be president. She has more executive experience than Obama does. BIDEN has more experience than Obama does, that ticket is upside down. And don't tell me that Obama didn't pick biden to sell his ticket with foreign policy. Biden even said himself that Obama wasn't ready to lead this country.

She has a son who is going to Iraq. So she has a unique perspective on that situation that few of us have.

She stopped the federal government from building a bridge to nowhere in alaska! Told them that if Alaska needed a bridge they would pay for themselves.

She was appointed as the ethics commissioner onto the Alaska oil and gas conservation commission. She then resigned in a very public protest over the ethics of that council and the ethics of the republican party.

She's the perfect pick for Mccain! she'll stand up to him if he gets out of hand.

And most of all, I really finally feel like she's someone with real world perspective. She is the mother of 5 children. She has values and lines she isn't willing to cross. She actually looks like a genuine person to me! Of course Mccain chose her to sell the ticket and you know what he just bought my vote.

I agree Romney would have probly been a great choice. But Romney is almost a little to socialist for me. I'm sure mccain wont leave him out, he'll appoint Romney to something.
Posted: Sat, 30th Aug 2008, 8:33pm

Post 110 of 1492

enoonsti

Force: 50 | Joined: 16th Nov 2007 | Posts: 97

Member

Pooky wrote:

Oops, I forgot one: she denies global warming is man-made.
lol figures the one you forget could ultimately be more important than all of the others combined biggrin
Posted: Sat, 30th Aug 2008, 8:59pm

Post 111 of 1492

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

enoonsti wrote:

Pooky wrote:

Oops, I forgot one: she denies global warming is man-made.
lol figures the one you forget could ultimately be more important than all of the others combined biggrin
I completely disagree. There's a lot of science out there that's just now coming to light after being literally stomped on my the left-wing, eco-nuts that shows that global warming is... really... not that big of an issue. Frankly, I think the Republicans have a much more down-to-Earth, practical solution on this matter (though, to be fair, the Democrats are coming around).

The only reason there is an energy crisis right now is because of nuclear paranoia, and environmental whackjob groups that have WAY too much influence on some political decision-makers.

Nuclear power is safe, it's cheap, and it's incredibly abundant. The United States is largely in control of most of the world's nuclear resources, so we would finally have a clean energy source that we wouldn't have to be buying from countries hostile to us. With nuclear energy, we're also forced to manage the by-product -- we can't just dump it into the atmosphere as with fossil fuel energy plants. We transport it (very safely) across the country to the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage facility, and boom. We become a much less pollutant country, solve the electrical energy crisis, and become less dependent on foreign oil. Combine that with tax-breaks for companies and consumers that invest in hybrid-electric and fully-electric cars (none of this hydrogen fuel cell crap), and then we're in fat city.

I'd hope that Biden would go this route, but I'm disinclined to think that he will, despite him having said: "If I could wave a wand, and the Lord said I could solve one problem, I would solve the energy crisis."

...

Wand = Plutonium.

Also, I'm inclined to agree with Pooky: While I'm disappointed that McCain picked her to sell his campaign, I think... that she's a pretty moderate, pretty modern and progressive conservative. I think she's a pretty good choice, unfortunately she won't be a huge decision-maker unless...

...*cough* yeah, we won't go there. The Patriot Act is still in effect. biggrin
Posted: Sat, 30th Aug 2008, 9:46pm

Post 112 of 1492

ssj john

Force: 563 | Joined: 4th Nov 2003 | Posts: 795

Windows User MacOS User

Member

Not to mention that the timing of this was perfect for Mccain. I hate that politics is such a game.
Posted: Sat, 30th Aug 2008, 10:14pm

Post 113 of 1492

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

ssj john wrote:

Not to mention that the timing of this was perfect for Mccain. I hate that politics is such a game.
Personally, I think we the people should have far more political power than we currently do. Something like... being able to pick and choose where your tax money goes would be a nice bit...
Posted: Sat, 30th Aug 2008, 11:10pm

Post 114 of 1492

DigiSm89

Force: 815 | Joined: 2nd Jun 2002 | Posts: 1898

Windows User

Member

Pooky wrote:

Oops, I forgot one: she denies global warming is man-made.
Does she? That article says she doubts it "stems" from human activity. Doesn't necessarily mean she believes it isn't aggravated by human pollution.
Posted: Sat, 30th Aug 2008, 11:33pm

Post 115 of 1492

ssj john

Force: 563 | Joined: 4th Nov 2003 | Posts: 795

Windows User MacOS User

Member

A Pickle wrote:

ssj john wrote:

Not to mention that the timing of this was perfect for Mccain. I hate that politics is such a game.
Personally, I think we the people should have far more political power than we currently do. Something like... being able to pick and choose where your tax money goes would be a nice bit...
Pickle that is the first thing I fully agree with you on. Could not have been said better.
Posted: Sun, 31st Aug 2008, 4:38am

Post 116 of 1492

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

mVPstar wrote:

Pooky wrote:

Oops, I forgot one: she denies global warming is man-made.
Does she? That article says she doubts it "stems" from human activity. Doesn't necessarily mean she believes it isn't aggravated by human pollution.
Well, it's the "nice" way of saying it. Politicaly correct, if you will.

And Pickle has a point in that global warming isn't nearly as urgent and horrible (if we talk about the next 100-200 years, anyway) that people make it out to be. Many more people and animals and forests will die from other reasons for a very long time yet. However, it has been proven WITHOUT A DOUBT that human activity is responsible for global warming. It's just not going to flood the earth (basic water-ice physics), kill millions (40 times more people die from cold than from heat), or destroy ecosystems for another hundred years or so.

At any rate, ssj john, you make a good point: now that I think of it, Palin seems to be in line with devout religious conservatives (the USA's own extremists wink). This once again shows that she was an election-related choice instead of a leadership-based one.

Secondly, do your research, Obama has a lot more experience than her. She makes him look like FDR.

The son in Iraq thing is, indeed, really good, though negated by McCain's gun-toting approach.

The bridge to nowhere thing was also a good decision, from what I know, but then I didn't say she was stupid.
Posted: Sun, 31st Aug 2008, 6:06am

Post 117 of 1492

ssj john

Force: 563 | Joined: 4th Nov 2003 | Posts: 795

Windows User MacOS User

Member

Pooky wrote:



Secondly, do your research, Obama has a lot more experience than her. She makes him look like FDR.
Please tell me what experience Obama has that qualifies him to run this country?
Posted: Sun, 31st Aug 2008, 6:59am

Post 118 of 1492

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Rating: +2

Hmm, if I remember correctly, he'll have served 4 years in the US Senate representing Illinois in January 2009. Before that, he was a state senator in Illinois for eight years, and he was also a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School during that time (12 years total). Even before that, he worked three years as a community organizer in Chicago, and then occupied a position with the Chicago firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, which specialized in political and civil rights work and neighborhood economic development work.

Sarah Palin would have a little over 2 years of experience as Alaskan Governor in Jan. 09. Oh, and she was mayor of Wasilla for a few years before that. This is a village with a pop of 7000. She thus has absolutely zero foreign experience, and the best she has is half a term as governor of a state with less than a million people.

See what I mean?

Last edited Sun, 31st Aug 2008, 7:41am; edited 3 times in total.

Posted: Sun, 31st Aug 2008, 7:31am

Post 119 of 1492

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Pooky wrote:

Hmm, if I remember correctly, he'll have served 4 years in the US Senate representing Illinois in January 2009. Before that, he was a state senator in Illinois for eight years, and he was also a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School at the same time. Even before that, he worked three years as a community organizer in Chicago, and then occupied a position with the Chicago firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, which specialized in political and civil rights work and neighborhood economic development work.

Sarah Palin would have a little over 2 years of experience as Alaskan Governor in Jan. 09. Oh, and she was mayor of Wasillia for a few years before that. This is a village with a pop of 9000. She thus has absolutely zero foreign experience, and the best she has is half a term as governor of a state with less than a million people.

See what I mean?
Pwned...
Posted: Sun, 31st Aug 2008, 7:37am

Post 120 of 1492

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

I'm learning stuff as we go, mind you, but it's interesting to note that Chicago alone has nearly 3 times the population of Alaska, and that Wasilla's population of 7000 (or 5469, according to Wikipedia) is less than some high schools. That makes Palin the least experienced, least credentialed person to join a major-party ticket in the modern era.
Posted: Sun, 31st Aug 2008, 8:05am

Post 121 of 1492

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Ssjohn: It isn't that Palin isn't a good politician, but when this election is toting 'experience'- especially in classical terms, aka time- as the big clencher, McCain picking someone so incredibly inexperienced by classical terms doesn't as much balance his ticket by age as it does make his points against Obama completely hypocritical.

There's a difference between controlling your running mate, with Obama knowingly picking a power player in the Senate with 25 years of foreign affairs experience, and controlling your age. Obama can't control how old he is, how much experience he has. But he could control who his running mate was.

But just because they balance eachother out through experience, doesn't mean McCain should've done the same. In fact, it was a rather idiotic move, really. What is less experience going to give his ticket? Versatility? Hip-ness? Really, it makes no sense. She may be a great person, but there's a HUGE difference between working fervently as a public servant in all the sectors and socio-economic areas of one of the largest, most important, and most problem-prone city in the United States (that'd be Chicago, just in case you didn't catch on smile)- and being on commissions in Alaska.

I mean, come on with that one, ssjohn. She's a measly year or two into politics, not in the Senate, not in national politics, but in....let me say it again...Alaska. Obama, even for his lack of experience, has so got the political jump on her. And for someone who ridiculously supported Mitt Romney, ssjohn, and if I remember correctly a fellow LDS member (which I'm only mentioning because of it's rareity in the Republican party), I'm really rather surpised.

All I have to say is poor Mr. Romney, really. For all my gripes about him, he would've made a great VP. And his economic experience and skills, combined with that Kennedy hair, makes him that much more likable to me, slightly offsetting my hatred for most GOP politics. smile
Posted: Sun, 31st Aug 2008, 9:57am

Post 122 of 1492

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Yeah. I saw an article advertisement that said, "McCain, and the nomination that lost him the Presidency." I'm inclined to agree. I don't think Palin is a bad politician, but she is a beginner, by every definition. Alaska is part of the United States in that we can build bases there. They fly the US flag. And that... is about the extent of their symbiotic relationship with the continental US.

By choosing Palin, McCain was able to do a better job uniting the Democratic Party than the Democratic Party was able to. He just demonstrated that the GOP is, first and foremost, willing to sacrifice something like your vice-effing-president nominee just to get to the White House. And there's... honestly no way that they can deny it. No one, save for the absolute dumbest son of a gun in America, will ever believe that the GOP wasn't completely trying to pander to the disenfranchised Hillary supporters.

Now, I'm gonna go to a length here: I don't much care for Rush Limbaugh, but I heard him make a point that I feel was probably fairly accurate: That Obama picked Biden for his normalcy. Biden is a white, Christian Democrat. He's a safe choice that may help win back the hearts of people (idiots) who might otherwise be uncomfortable with an Obama-Hillary (black man, white woman) ticket. I think that, while there is probably an element of truth to that statement... at least Biden has political experience. I really dislike the guy, but he is a politician that has been in the Senate and around the world for a long, long time. He has a hell of a foreign policy resume behind him, and he's been in the biz for 35 years.

Let me say again.

Palin: 2 years -- Alaska.
Biden: 35 years -- Earth.

There is no comparison. The GOP was pandering. This wasn't their last attempt, by any stretch, but... quite honestly? They would have had a chance in November had they picked Romney. I would be very surprised if they do anymore. I consider myself a pretty moderate person, leaning on the side of conservatism. I like my guns. I don't like taxes. I like nuclear power. I don't like war. I like liberty.

The GOP of the past eight years has done one thing for me: They allowed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban to sunset, which is wonderful, because when the revolution comes, I'll be prepared. But in the meantime, they have all but ensured that the "revolution" will come sooner than later. They haven't made a big push for nuclear power. They have been the least peaceful party in YEARS, maybe even... ever. They have encroached on the very fiber on which America was founded -- our own civil liberties. I cannot, in good faith, say to my children in 10, 20, or 30 years that I had something to do with helping the GOP along. As far as I'm concerned, the Republican Party that once did encourage small government, lower taxes, individual responsibility and individual independence... exists today as the Libertarian Party. The Neoconservative movement has all but dominated the Republican Party, and those "gentlemen" scare the shit out of me. They demonstrate the worst facets of what human beings will do with too much power, and we need to have learned from that.

This Sarah Palin? Nice woman, I'm sure. She seems pretty moderate, as a conservative ('cept for intelligent design in schools)... but as Atom said: This isn't a question of whether or not Sarah Palin is a good person or politician. This is a question of the GOP's integrity, or apparent lack thereof. They chose her to pander, do you really want to give them the White House that they crave badly enough to lie to you for?

I don't. Barr or Obama will be getting my vote, even if Biden is a douche. He's still only a VP.
Posted: Sun, 31st Aug 2008, 5:31pm

Post 123 of 1492

ssj john

Force: 563 | Joined: 4th Nov 2003 | Posts: 795

Windows User MacOS User

Member

Pooky wrote:

Hmm, if I remember correctly, he'll have served 4 years in the US Senate representing Illinois in January 2009. Before that, he was a state senator in Illinois for eight years, and he was also a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School during that time (12 years total). Even before that, he worked three years as a community organizer in Chicago, and then occupied a position with the Chicago firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, which specialized in political and civil rights work and neighborhood economic development work.

Sarah Palin would have a little over 2 years of experience as Alaskan Governor in Jan. 09. Oh, and she was mayor of Wasilla for a few years before that. This is a village with a pop of 7000. She thus has absolutely zero foreign experience, and the best she has is half a term as governor of a state with less than a million people.

See what I mean?
I didn't ask for Obama's employment history. I said I wanted his experience the qualified him for president. Being a community organizer and being a lawyer doesn't meet the qualifications I want in MY president.

I understand that Palin is not super experienced. But she does have more executive experience than Obama. Lets not forget that she ISN'T running for president. She's Vice President, if Obama was vice president and Biden was on top of the ticket that would make more sense to me.

Last edited Sun, 31st Aug 2008, 5:38pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Sun, 31st Aug 2008, 5:34pm

Post 124 of 1492

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Oh well. I tried.
Posted: Sun, 31st Aug 2008, 5:34pm

Post 125 of 1492

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

A Pickle wrote:

I don't. Barr or Obama will be getting my vote, even if Biden is a douche. He's still only a VP.
Hm, I'd say so with the exception of Barr. I can't stand the guy-- I don't really know why. He just doesn't seem fit for the Libertarian Party; he used to be a drug warrior. Ron Paul's views have been 99% solid throughout; I say 99% because I recall him mentioning changing one of his views in an interview. Eh, we'll see.
Posted: Sun, 31st Aug 2008, 6:03pm

Post 126 of 1492

ssj john

Force: 563 | Joined: 4th Nov 2003 | Posts: 795

Windows User MacOS User

Member

Atom: I agree that Romney was a good choice but here is my thinking. I was for Romney as president, not Vice President. I think romney will serve much better in Mccains Cabinet. Sec of state or Treasury perhaps? He'll have more power to get stuff done then he would have had as Vice President. I'm not going to lie, Mccain-Romney ticket is pretty to look at.

I still think that Palin is a good choice. A_Pickle I realize that BIDEN has way more experience than Palin. But they aren't running for president! My point is I don't think OBAMA (please realize I'm talking about our next POTENTIAL president..not VP) has the experience he needs to be president. Mccain does have that experience I think. So I guess I said things wrong I didn't mean to compare Palin to Obama. If Palin were going for President than I'd be for Obama all the way.

I'm not basing my vote entirely on the premise that Obama doesn't have enough experience mind you. I also just don't like his policies or the lack thereof. I am not for murdering babies. I refuse to call that pro-choice, but thats a discussion for another day. I think that Obama's plan for Iraq is....well I just don't think he knows what he's doing when it comes to Iraq.
Posted: Sun, 31st Aug 2008, 6:06pm

Post 127 of 1492

DVStudio

Force: 4983 | Joined: 22nd Nov 2007 | Posts: 1845

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User PhotoKey 4 User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I think Palin was a good, not great, but good move for McCain.

1) May help attract the women vote and previou Clinton supporters.
2)She is younger so it may help to make McCain more popular with college kids and young adults
3) Although she may be slightly inexperienced, she doesn't come with extra baggage like many other politicians. (Bill/Hillary Clinton, Obama [pastor, etc.], Giuliani... must I continue?


We'll just have to wait and see. smile
Posted: Sun, 31st Aug 2008, 6:09pm

Post 128 of 1492

DVStudio

Force: 4983 | Joined: 22nd Nov 2007 | Posts: 1845

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User PhotoKey 4 User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

ssj john wrote:

Atom: I agree that Romney was a good choice but here is my thinking. I was for Romney as president, not Vice President. I think romney will serve much better in Mccains Cabinet. Sec of state or Treasury perhaps? He'll have more power to get stuff done then he would have had as Vice President. I'm not going to lie, Mccain-Romney ticket is pretty to look at.

I still think that Palin is a good choice. A_Pickle I realize that BIDEN has way more experience than Palin. But they aren't running for president! My point is I don't think OBAMA (please realize I'm talking about our next POTENTIAL president..not VP) has the experience he needs to be president. Mccain does have that experience I think. So I guess I said things wrong I didn't mean to compare Palin to Obama. If Palin were going for President than I'd be for Obama all the way.

I'm not basing my vote entirely on the premise that Obama doesn't have enough experience mind you. I also just don't like his policies or the lack thereof. I am not for murdering babies. I refuse to call that pro-choice, but thats a discussion for another day. I think that Obama's plan for Iraq is....well I just don't think he knows what he's doing when it comes to Iraq.
I think McCain may have a shot at winning. Yes, I support McCain. He has good ideas and some great points. He is also ahead in the polls where as Obama had been ahead for sometime. Aditionally, Clinton may have hurt Obama a little with her speech. We are voting b/c of who we want for prez. not who is running for VP.
Posted: Sun, 31st Aug 2008, 6:14pm

Post 129 of 1492

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

DVStudio wrote:

We are voting b/c of who we want for prez. not who is running for VP.
Two words: Dick Cheney.
Posted: Sun, 31st Aug 2008, 6:15pm

Post 130 of 1492

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

ssj john wrote:

But they aren't running for president!
YES. THEY. ARE.

When you suggest that a Vice Presidential nominee isn't running for President, you're not interpeting well. The person that the Presidential nominee selects for his VP must be as qualified and as experienced as though they were running for President -- because if tragedy strikes, that's exactly the position they'll be in.

Remember when the Clintons said, "Hey, we don't think Obama is experienced enough to be President, but he'd make a great Vice President!" That statement was pretty nonsensical, because if they didn't think that he was capable of handling the presidency, then how could they possibly think that he was capable of handling the vice presidency, when the job of the vice president is to BE president if, someday, tragedy strikes?
Posted: Sun, 31st Aug 2008, 6:27pm

Post 131 of 1492

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

McCain is 72, too... he's not far from death. Him having a sudden heart attack or something isn't far-fetched at all. Then we'd end up with some lady that hasn't a clue what she's doing as "leader of the free world"!

It also means that she'd be nearly useless as a VP to McCain, in the sense that her opinion wouldn't be worth much. Biden, on the other hand, has his own opinion (which is sometimes different from Obama's) and isn't afraid to say it, which is one of the reasons Obama mentioned picking him for: another viewpoint! Personally, I really respect that, as I'm the sort of person who thinks listening to what others say, always being willing to change your opinion if the other guy is right, is a mark of intelligence and of not being stuck up your own ***.

Still, if not allowing women to decide if they want to be pregnant or not, teaching religious texts as science, invading countries for no reason, spying on people, getting rid of Habeas Corpus and pandering to the oil industry is your thing, go right a head and vote for them, cause they're perfect for you.
Posted: Sun, 31st Aug 2008, 6:33pm

Post 132 of 1492

ssj john

Force: 563 | Joined: 4th Nov 2003 | Posts: 795

Windows User MacOS User

Member

Pooky wrote:



Still, if not allowing women to decide if they want to be pregnant or not, teaching religious texts as science, invading countries for no reason, spying on people, getting rid of Habeas Corpus and pandering to the oil industry is your thing, go right a head and vote for them, cause they're perfect for you.
Wow that could very well be the most ignorant thing you have ever said.

A_pickle: then why are you considering OBAMA? he doesn't have experience either? Is it just me? Does nobody get that Obama is running for the president? Sure Biden makes up for Obama's experience....Wait a minute, are you counting on the fact that Obama might be assassinated?
Posted: Sun, 31st Aug 2008, 6:41pm

Post 133 of 1492

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

ssj john wrote:

Pooky wrote:



Still, if not allowing women to decide if they want to be pregnant or not, teaching religious texts as science, invading countries for no reason, spying on people, getting rid of Habeas Corpus and pandering to the oil industry is your thing, go right a head and vote for them, cause they're perfect for you.
Wow that could very well be the most ignorant thing you have ever said.

A_pickle: then why are you considering OBAMA? he doesn't have experience either? Is it just me? Does nobody get that Obama is running for the president? Sure Biden makes up for Obama's experience....Wait a minute, are you counting on the fact that Obama might be assassinated?
It looks to me as if you keep ignoring most all the good points that people are giving to you and not responding to them.
Posted: Sun, 31st Aug 2008, 7:03pm

Post 134 of 1492

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

CX3 wrote:

ssj john wrote:

Pooky wrote:



Still, if not allowing women to decide if they want to be pregnant or not, teaching religious texts as science, invading countries for no reason, spying on people, getting rid of Habeas Corpus and pandering to the oil industry is your thing, go right a head and vote for them, cause they're perfect for you.
Wow that could very well be the most ignorant thing you have ever said.

A_pickle: then why are you considering OBAMA? he doesn't have experience either? Is it just me? Does nobody get that Obama is running for the president? Sure Biden makes up for Obama's experience....Wait a minute, are you counting on the fact that Obama might be assassinated?
It looks to me as if you keep ignoring most all the good points that people are giving to you and not responding to them.
Now, now. I think ssjohn has some merit to what he's saying here, even if I am from across the political spectrum to where he is. Things like abortion, creationism, etc. are two-sided issues, and not just with the religious fanatics. They should be handled delicately when we're all talking about them, and wording something so harshly and intently one-sided as this:

Pooky wrote:

Still, if not allowing women to decide if they want to be pregnant or not, teaching religious texts as science,
is not only unfair, it's rudely-written and, quite frankly, inappropriate. I realize you're just trying to hit a point, Pooky, and it's not something I necessarily disagree with you on, but there's much more to the issue than what you've stated. And like I said, it's unfair to throw in cheap shots like that and then get all antsy when ssjohn attempts to defend (poorly or properly) his views and points. I'm not trying to say this out of bias, as I am pretty much completely on the fence on both issues, but come on.
Posted: Sun, 31st Aug 2008, 7:07pm

Post 135 of 1492

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1/-2

ssj john wrote:

A_pickle: then why are you considering OBAMA? he doesn't have experience either?
He has considerably more experience than Palin, and frankly, because I like his platform quite a bit better than McCain's. I want no part of electing another Republican campaign, and the pick of Sarah Palin reminds me of exactly why I don't want another Republican incumbent: Because for the past eight years, the Republicans have damaged this country in ways that Osama bin Laden could never have done. I can't, in good faith, tell my children 10 or 20 years from now that my fingers had anything to do with McCain.

Plus, I... seriously doubt I'll be voting for Obama, either. I could at the very least stand Obama, versus McCain. I want a free country to live in again.

ssj john wrote:

Wow that could very well be the most ignorant thing you have ever said.
I would say Pooky, from Canada, has a vastly firmer handle of what's going on in the United States than you do. It amazes me that people will still look at the GOP with anything but revulsion, at this point...

Atom wrote:

Pooky wrote:

Still, if not allowing women to decide if they want to be pregnant or not, teaching religious texts as science,
is not only unfair, it's rudely-written and, quite frankly, inappropriate.
Uh, you mean like:

ssj john wrote:

I am not for murdering babies. I refuse to call that pro-choice...
Since, after all, lefties and pro-choicers WANT to murder babies. That's the clear goal of the pro-abortion movement, is to kill babies. Friggin' things. They cry late at night and crap in their pants. Definitely a menace to society. Ethnic cleansing.

Last edited Sun, 31st Aug 2008, 7:10pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Sun, 31st Aug 2008, 7:10pm

Post 136 of 1492

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

A Pickle wrote:

ssj john wrote:

Wow that could very well be the most ignorant thing you have ever said.
I would say Pooky, from Canada, has a vastly firmer handle of what's going on in the United States than you do.
There's something to be said for living somewhere and experiencing the country work, and there's something to be said for being an omniscient viewer, another country that watches the U.S. work its gears.

But don't be cocky enough to assume, one way or another, that someone has a vastly firmer handle on what's going on in the U.S. I should slap you for that, no smilies intended.
Posted: Sun, 31st Aug 2008, 7:13pm

Post 137 of 1492

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

But don't be cocky enough to assume, one way or another, that someone has a vastly firmer handle on what's going on in the U.S. I should slap you for that, no smilies intended.
I'm... no. Pooky actually knew the level of experience of those politicians. I'm not saying that just because, more or less, we're jiiving along the same political track, but... because he actually knows (or at the very least, has demonstrated that he knows) quite a bit about US politics... and uh... arguably more than some people...
Posted: Sun, 31st Aug 2008, 7:25pm

Post 138 of 1492

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Just a reminder guys - let's all keep it civil, as it has been for the past 9 or so pages.

Remember to respect everyone's views and opinions; that includes not insulting anyone, and also not using inflamatory terms like 'murder' when talking about issues like abortion.

Let's all be adults about this smile

Cheers,
Arktic.
Posted: Sun, 31st Aug 2008, 7:49pm

Post 139 of 1492

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Aye aye Cap'n!

Pickle - Yeah, I keep myself informed about US politics quite a lot for two reasons: One, Canadian politics suck. Two, we have about 1/500th the influence that you guys have, so I'd rather know what's going on with YOU guys.

Secondly, although living in a country gives a viewpoint that someone outside that country would have trouble getting, that point is negated when said country proliferates in propaganda. Now I don't mean this in an offensive way at all, partly because it's FACT (FOX News admitted to basing their news stories on bulletins sent from the White House... and also anyone watching that channel would have to be blind not to see the one-sidedness and ignorance), but also because almost all governments have some sort of "we rock!" discourse that bleeds onto all other facets of life eventually.

In other words, you guys get more "Bush is a fine president!" and "the USA is the best country!" stimuli than I do, which, I think, makes outside watchers like myself normally more centrist. Normally. Obviously, if Canada had tons of leftist propaganda, then I'd be biased myself. Also obviously, that makes you guys love the USA more, and me less... I'd like to love the USA, but it depends on how you guys act, whereas you ARE the USA and thus must love yourselves by default smile

But, yes, there are things I cannot know and I acknowledge that, but the things I CAN know are, I think, seen from a less biased, more neutral perspective if I live outside the country. Anyway, I hope that makes sense without being too offensive. neutral

----

Regarding the crude statements, that was kind of in response to the baby murder thing, to show there's another way of seeing it. The fact that there are two ways of seeing it, though, is what, in my opinion, makes it none of the government's business to decide. Murder is relative to how people define it.

Anyway, abortion is the least of our concerns these days, so it's kind of a shame that Palin's nomination had to bring the subject back...
Posted: Sun, 31st Aug 2008, 9:00pm

Post 140 of 1492

DVStudio

Force: 4983 | Joined: 22nd Nov 2007 | Posts: 1845

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User PhotoKey 4 User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

...with money that neither they, nor the "less-fortunate" earned. I want no part of socialism. I'm sorry, but this is a country in which, if you want it badly enough, and work hard enough you can make $100,000 a year.




I agree.

"Work harder. Millions on welfare depend on it!" Which is the problem.
Posted: Sun, 31st Aug 2008, 10:01pm

Post 141 of 1492

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Pooky wrote:

In other words, you guys get more "Bush is a fine president!" and "the USA is the best country!" stimuli than I do, which, I think, makes outside watchers like myself normally more centrist. Normally. Obviously, if Canada had tons of leftist propaganda, then I'd be biased myself. Also obviously, that makes you guys love the USA more, and me less... I'd like to love the USA, but it depends on how you guys act, whereas you ARE the USA and thus must love yourselves by default smile
I know what you're trying to say, Pooky, and you're doing it kindly but: Just as I can't assume your view and what the media gives you as a foreigner to the U.S. is a certain way, you really can't assume we outright get more "Bush is a fine president!" stimuli. Really, buddy. I think we're seeing it the same way- but assumptions on either end will just upset everyone. Just as you kinda tap into here:

But, yes, there are things I cannot know and I acknowledge that, but the things I CAN know are, I think, seen from a less biased, more neutral perspective if I live outside the country. Anyway, I hope that makes sense without being too offensive. neutral
So....I dunno. Trying not to be too offensive one way or another, I think you're trying to do the same.
Posted: Sun, 31st Aug 2008, 10:36pm

Post 142 of 1492

ssj john

Force: 563 | Joined: 4th Nov 2003 | Posts: 795

Windows User MacOS User

Member

Rating: -2

A Pickle wrote:

ssj john wrote:

A_pickle: then why are you considering OBAMA? he doesn't have experience either?
He has considerably more experience than Palin, and frankly, because I like his platform quite a bit better than McCain's. I want no part of electing another Republican campaign, and the pick of Sarah Palin reminds me of exactly why I don't want another Republican incumbent: Because for the past eight years, the Republicans have damaged this country in ways that Osama bin Laden could never have done. I can't, in good faith, tell my children 10 or 20 years from now that my fingers had anything to do with McCain.
Wow is it just me? I mean really...am I not being clear? K fine, I know Palin doesn't have as much experience as Obama. What I am saying is Palin aside, OBAMA doesn't have the experience needed to be president plain and simple. Mccain.....does....maybe.



ssj john wrote:

Wow that could very well be the most ignorant thing you have ever said.
I would say Pooky, from Canada, has a vastly firmer handle of what's going on in the United States than you do. It amazes me that people will still look at the GOP with anything but revulsion, at this point...
Why? because his views are more inline with yours? I'm not saying pooky doesn't, because he very well may have a firmer handle on whats what. But his arguments weren't what I was commenting on. It was the way he said that paragraph, very ignorant and single minded.

Atom wrote:

Pooky wrote:

Still, if not allowing women to decide if they want to be pregnant or not, teaching religious texts as science,
is not only unfair, it's rudely-written and, quite frankly, inappropriate.
Uh, you mean like:

ssj john wrote:

I am not for murdering babies. I refuse to call that pro-choice...
Since, after all, lefties and pro-choicers WANT to murder babies. That's the clear goal of the pro-abortion movement, is to kill babies. Friggin' things. They cry late at night and crap in their pants. Definitely a menace to society. Ethnic cleansing.
Heh ok that was more of a joke. But I do view abortion as murder. I'll admit that wasn't the best way to say it. I didn't mean to imply that was the soul purpose of Pro-choicers. Like I said before, we all have different perspective. So that admittedly was MY bad.

A_pickle: Are you completely ignoring congress for the last eight years? I'm not disagreeing with you that bush and cheney have consistently been taking the wrong turns. But the same can be said for congress....who's approval rating is in the dirt just like Bush's. So to lay everything from the last eight years solely on the shoulders of Bush is silly.
Posted: Sun, 31st Aug 2008, 11:30pm

Post 143 of 1492

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I know Palin doesn't have as much experience as Obama.
OBAMA doesn't have the experience needed to be president
So by your own logic, then, Palin (or should that be PALIN) doesn't have enough experience to be president - and that makes her an awful choice for VP.
Posted: Sun, 31st Aug 2008, 11:49pm

Post 144 of 1492

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Arktic, I don't think anyones arguing about whether Palin has the right amount of experience. I think it's more about why democrats making such a big fuss about McCain chose an inexperienced governor as his VP, and yet ignoring the fact that they themselves (as the democratic party) have chosen an equally (or almost so) inexperienced presidential nominee.

Maybe this is coming from a hard-core conservative, but the more I hear about Palin, the more I'm liking her stances. I won't say much about this though, because it seems that any conservative posting his thoughts will be immediately voted down...

Last edited Sun, 31st Aug 2008, 11:51pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Sun, 31st Aug 2008, 11:50pm

Post 145 of 1492

ssj john

Force: 563 | Joined: 4th Nov 2003 | Posts: 795

Windows User MacOS User

Member

Exactly.

I think its funny that people think that being the governor of a state of 600,000 is nothing. So she's been formerly the mayor of a city of only 9,000 or 7,000 or whatever the number keeps changing. so? Obama was once a child, who cares? Obama been a senator for 4 years which the last two he's been campaigning for president not being a senator. She has executive experience, which Obama does not have and the president is an executive Office. Oh and she's run a business. obama has not.

I don't get why people make a huge fuss over her being a 1 heartbeat away from Presidency when Obama would be 0 heartbeats away from presidency.

They are both inexperienced....Thats obvious, but the difference is that Obama is the Presidential Candidate. His Vice president has more experience than he does. If it were Palin-Mccain I'd be saying the same about them.

Experience aside, I still wouldn't vote for Obama. I don't like him, or his policies. If you think that Mccain is hungry for power, you obviously aren't looking at Obama. (Can't wait for someone to take that and twist it.) Mccain and Obama are both power hungry. I don't think either of them should be president but I have to go with who I think is the lesser of two evils.

Last edited Mon, 1st Sep 2008, 12:12am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Sun, 31st Aug 2008, 11:53pm

Post 146 of 1492

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

ssj john wrote:

So to lay everything from the last eight years solely on the shoulders of Bush is silly.
Not entirely. Please show me the part of H.J.Res. 114, the law passed by Congress allowing Bush to send troops into Iraq, that tells Congress (and the public) that the CIA scanned their database from the last fifty years to find links between Al Queda and Iraq and come up with... absolutely no evidence supporting it. Oh yeah. They forgot to include that minor detail. Whoops.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/

I went through that in the course of about a week and a half, and it covers the Iraqi war very thoroughly. I know it's probably biased in some instances, but it's still very informative.

Thrawn wrote:

Arktic, I don't think anyones arguing about whether Palin has the right amount of experience. I think it's more about why democrats making such a big fuss about McCain chose an inexperienced governor as his VP, and yet ignoring the fact that they themselves (as the democratic party) have chosen an equally (or almost so) inexperienced presidential nominee.
Did you not read Pickle's post covering the amount of experience Obama has? It's not anything like McCain, but I find it significant enough. Also, experience and leadership don't always go hand in hand. JFK and Lincoln, anyone?

Thrawn wrote:

Maybe this is coming from a hard-core conservative, but the more I hear about Palin, the more I'm liking her stances. I won't say much about this though, because it seems that any conservative posting his thoughts will be immediately voted down...
I'm glad you like her stances; that's what the voting system is all about. smile Speak, my friend, but be cautious. You won't be 'voted down' if you write sensibly.
Posted: Mon, 1st Sep 2008, 12:43am

Post 147 of 1492

ssj john

Force: 563 | Joined: 4th Nov 2003 | Posts: 795

Windows User MacOS User

Member

Fill wrote:

ssj john wrote:

So to lay everything from the last eight years solely on the shoulders of Bush is silly.
Not entirely. Please show me the part of H.J.Res. 114, the law passed by Congress allowing Bush to send troops into Iraq, that tells Congress (and the public) that the CIA scanned their database from the last fifty years to find links between Al Queda and Iraq and come up with... absolutely no evidence supporting it. Oh yeah. They forgot to include that minor detail. Whoops.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/

I went through that in the course of about a week and a half, and it covers the Iraqi war very thoroughly. I know it's probably biased in some instances, but it's still very informative.
That law which was passed by congress? So your saying its bushes fault that congress let him go to Iraq? I'm a little confused about the point you are trying to make. besides Iraq is only one issue, of many issues that have been dealt with in the last eight years.
Posted: Mon, 1st Sep 2008, 12:47am

Post 148 of 1492

D3L3T10N

Force: 317 | Joined: 23rd Jun 2007 | Posts: 472

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

ssj john wrote:


Experience aside, I still wouldn't vote for Obama. I don't like him, or his policies.
I can see why you may not like his policies, but--I'm just curious--what exactly don't you like about him as a person?
Posted: Mon, 1st Sep 2008, 12:54am

Post 149 of 1492

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Did you not read Pickle's post covering the amount of experience Obama has? It's not anything like McCain, but I find it significant enough. Also, experience and leadership don't always go hand in hand. JFK and Lincoln, anyone?
Those are two instances where leaders didn't have much experience under their belt. To say having little experience is not an issue because of two previous presidents is very ignorant, though I'm not saying that's what your stating. While I have to agree that experience and leadership don't always go hand in hand, a look at history proves that they do most of the time.

I believe it was Pooky that posted about Obama's experience, but yes, I did read it. Here's an interesting video briefly going over his experience made by the Republican Party. It's biased, naturally, but is there anything there that's not true?
Posted: Mon, 1st Sep 2008, 1:01am

Post 150 of 1492

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

ssj john wrote:

That law which was passed by congress? So your saying its bushes fault that congress let him go to Iraq? I'm a little confused about the point you are trying to make. besides Iraq is only one issue, of many issues that have been dealt with in the last eight years.
No, I'm saying that Congress let our President invade Iraq because not all the facts were presented to them. Would you like another example of what I'm talking about? See: The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

Thrawn, that video does cover his 'resume' and it is thin. I never knew he'd only passed one bill. That is scary. Right now it doesn't matter who gets into office; I think the U.S. will be off worse only in different ways with the two candidates. /Pessimistic View
Posted: Mon, 1st Sep 2008, 1:16am

Post 151 of 1492

ssj john

Force: 563 | Joined: 4th Nov 2003 | Posts: 795

Windows User MacOS User

Member

Ok point taken. But again Iraq is only one of the many things A_pickle blamed on President Bush. Your not getting what I'm saying, stop looking just at Iraq, Bush and congress have gotten their hands into a lot more messes than just that.
Posted: Mon, 1st Sep 2008, 3:04am

Post 152 of 1492

Coureur de Bois

Force: 1394 | Joined: 23rd Sep 2002 | Posts: 1127

VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Hey guys, the RNC kicks off tomorrow and everybody here is ready to go. The big news is obviously the timing with Hurricane Gustav. As of right now, all festivities and political rhetoric are being put on hold as the nation focus on the Gulf coast. The convention is scheduled to begin as planned tomorrow afternoon, however it will be a condensed version. The only thing we'll see is required commencing activities. The traditional delegate rolecall has even been canceled for now. All they have told us so far is that the entire business should last only about 2-3 hours.

How is Gustav and the attention of the nation being turned away going to effect the RNC and John McCain?

I think it could go two ways:

The public's focus on Gustav will capture their undivided attention and turn a blind eye toward the RNC and Mcain. The event won't be able to hold a candle to the Superbowl halftime spectacle of the Democratic Convention.

or

McCain will act decisively and encourage the nation to come together, not as Republicans or Dems but as Americans. He could show strength in overcoming party lines by giving up the spotlight.

Here are some pictures I took on the floor on the Xcel energy center where the delegates will be seated. The first is a wide shot showing the stage on which the event will focus. The second is where the delegates from the greatest state in the Union will be sitting.



Posted: Mon, 1st Sep 2008, 4:54am

Post 153 of 1492

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

ssj john wrote:

Ok point taken. But again Iraq is only one of the many things A_pickle blamed on President Bush. Your not getting what I'm saying, stop looking just at Iraq, Bush and congress have gotten their hands into a lot more messes than just that.
Yes, and this november, we're looking at (hopefully) eliminating one of those really crappy elements: Namely, President Bush. He has expanded Executive Power to a frightening level, and we... don't have any freedoms anymore. The Bill of Rights is... damn near a piece of paper, with no real value to these people.

Call me crazy: I'm more frightened

Thrawn wrote:

Maybe this is coming from a hard-core conservative, but the more I hear about Palin, the more I'm liking her stances. I won't say much about this though, because it seems that any conservative posting his thoughts will be immediately voted down...
BS. Post your thoughts. What's the worst that can happen, you might get someone who disagrees with you on a forum? Welcome to free speech. I don't hate conservatives, I consider myself to be fairly conservative. Democrats can take my guns from my cold, dead, hands. But when did being conservative mean that I have to be a madly-evangelical, homosexual-hating, liberty-confiscating war hawk?

I agree with you that there is a lot of conservative-hate around the US these days. The phrase, "The last eight years" is a commonplace and understood term (on it's own) because of a Republican president who has wrought more damage on this country than terrorists have in the same time period.

Sorry. Palin's an okay conservative, but I'm not a fan of pro-lifers or people who think anything religious has any place in a publicly-funded institution. Add to that the two years of experience she has dealing with Kodiak bears... and I'm not convinced she's the greatest politician. I'm sure she's a nice lady, and I'm sure she's working in the best interests of Alaska (and soon, the entire effing country)...

My beef lies with McCain, who picked her for one reason, and one reason only. That should be patently obvious. If a presidential candidate is willing to sacrifice that much from a very important choice in the election process for the explicit and sole purpose of getting elected, then I don't believe a person possessing that character (or lack thereof) needs to be leading our country when what we truly do need most is change.

And before you blast me for supporting Obama's "change" slogan, I'm going to defend myself by making abundantly clear that I think his "change" is empty marketing. If Americans want real change, they're going to need to look further than a political yardsign designed by a clever photoshop artist. I'm tired of warrantless police raids. I'm tired of the war on drugs. I'm tired of people trying to brand me as a bad, murderous person because I own several guns. I'm tired of idiots ignoring the patently obvious benefits of nuclear power. I'm tired of re-electing members from the same two parties that make promises, and since the beginning of their mutual existences, have failed to deliver.

Rita Mae Brown said something that's oft misattributed to Albert Einstein, that, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." I'm not insane. I'm voting Libertarian.
Posted: Mon, 1st Sep 2008, 6:04am

Post 154 of 1492

enoonsti

Force: 50 | Joined: 16th Nov 2007 | Posts: 97

Member

A Pickle wrote:

enoonsti wrote:

Pooky wrote:

Oops, I forgot one: she denies global warming is man-made.
lol figures the one you forget could ultimately be more important than all of the others combined biggrin
I completely disagree. (etc)
Oh no, I actually agree with you (to an extent). That's why I carefully chose my words: I said "could ultimately be" instead of "is" wink


A Pickle wrote:

we... don't have any freedoms anymore.
I also agree with this. I've been having a troublesome time finding Freedom Fries these days.
Posted: Mon, 1st Sep 2008, 6:53am

Post 155 of 1492

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Fair enough, A Pickle. You make a good point even, but I still don't fully agree with you, naturally. The Libertarian party is too small to be taken seriously, IMO. But of course, you have the right to vote for any party or candidate you want to, and I'm fine with you exercising that right.

I'm definitely not a big Bush supporter, but really, this country could be in a lot worse shape then it is right now. Everyone raves about how Bush is horrible and wishes they hadn't voted for him, etc, but if you really think about it, he could have screwed up a lot more. I think we should give the man some credit for at least that. Like I said, I'm most definitely not a Bush supporter in the least bit, but I for sure wouldn't have wanted to be in his position on 9-11.
Posted: Mon, 1st Sep 2008, 8:47am

Post 156 of 1492

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Pooky wrote:

McCain is 72, too... he's not far from death. Him having a sudden heart attack or something isn't far-fetched at all. Then we'd end up with some lady that hasn't a clue what she's doing as "leader of the free world"!
Glad someone touched on this rather terrifying concept. The idea of a Creationist being in such a powerful position (let alone her anti-abortion stance) seriously gives me the willies.

Remarkably, the McCain/Palin combo is now more worrying to me than Bush's administration has been over the last few years.

Obama (and US voters!) had better not mess this one up.

On another note: page 11 and the debate is still (mostly!) sensible. Nice one guys - there aren't many Internet forums where this could be the case.
Posted: Mon, 1st Sep 2008, 2:10pm

Post 157 of 1492

DVStudio

Force: 4983 | Joined: 22nd Nov 2007 | Posts: 1845

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User PhotoKey 4 User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

Pooky wrote:

McCain is 72, too... he's not far from death. Him having a sudden heart attack or something isn't far-fetched at all. Then we'd end up with some lady that hasn't a clue what she's doing as "leader of the free world"!
Glad someone touched on this rather terrifying concept. The idea of a Creationist being in such a powerful position (let alone her anti-abortion stance) seriously gives me the willies.

Remarkably, the McCain/Palin combo is now more worrying to me than Bush's administration has been over the last few years.

Obama (and US voters!) had better not mess this one up.

On another note: page 11 and the debate is still (mostly!) sensible. Nice one guys - there aren't many Internet forums where this could be the case.
I don't necessarily agree with this. I respect your opinion of course, but my thoughts are that McCain is in good health. All fo his recent reports have shown us that.

I find that Obama is more frightening than Bush ever was. He wants to raise taxes, he has no clue wjhen it comes to foreign policy (wants to sit down and talk with Iran, they'll laugh him away). Obama's plan... if he has one... is pathetic for Iraq. We have won! Look on Google UK. The only ones in denial of this are the US. Why? Because the media has too much power. We believe what they want us to believe! At least McCain has experience! What is funny is that the youngest and oldest candidates are running against eachother!
Posted: Mon, 1st Sep 2008, 2:22pm

Post 158 of 1492

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I find that Obama is more frightening than Bush ever was. He wants to raise taxes, he has no clue wjhen it comes to foreign policy (wants to sit down and talk with Iran, they'll laugh him away).
You've got to be kidding right? You think sitting down and holding peaceful negotiations is a bad thing? Care to explain that one?

Obama's plan... if he has one... is pathetic for Iraq. We have won! Look on Google UK. The only ones in denial of this are the US.
I have no idea what you're talking about. But I do know what a 'pathetic' plan for Iraq would be:

A pull-out date of 2108!

How can Obama's plan be any worse than that?!
Posted: Mon, 1st Sep 2008, 3:36pm

Post 159 of 1492

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

enoonsti wrote:

I also agree with this. I've been having a troublesome time finding Freedom Fries these days.
I found some Freedom Vanilla ice cream the other day. It made some wonderful mountain dew/dr. pepper/coca cola floats, but then I ate all of it, and I think it was the last freedom. sad

Thrawn wrote:

The Libertarian party is too small to be taken seriously, IMO.
Because people are still aligning themselves with the bi-partisan, Democrat/Republican party scheme, which has been doing great for us the past 140 years, right?

Not trying to call you out on that, but... that's why the Libertarian Party is small. The all-pervasive idea that, "Well, none of those candidates could ever get elected, so I'm not even going to consider them." Or, to some people, they're "Just that weird third-party."

Then, of course, after people throw out excuses as to why they didn't vote Libertarian, or worse, didn't even LOOK at their platform before choosing their run-of-the-mill Republican or Democratic candidate... are the ones who cry and moan about these darned politicians whom... THEY VOTED IN. Ron Paul admitted that he's totally a Libertarian/Constitutionalist running as a Republican because, had he been running as a Libertarian, he would've never garnered the support that he managed to dredge up.

When did the American people decide that the only people worth electing into public office must be from the "established" two parties?

Thrawn wrote:

Everyone raves about how Bush is horrible and wishes they hadn't voted for him, etc, but if you really think about it, he could have screwed up a lot more. I think we should give the man some credit for at least that.
Um... no. I don't think that credit is due for someone who "didn't damage the country as much as he could have." Thank you for sparing us, oh mighty overlord, and such. That's... not something to be thankful for, that's something that downright calls for a revolution, maybe violent if needbe.

DVStudio wrote:

He wants to raise taxes...
Yeah. Oh no. A few more cents on the dollar.

While I'm not a fan of that, I trust that Obama would do things like work to repeal the Military Commissions Act, and hopefully work to repeal the Patriot Act, both of which are Bush's work and are heinous violations of our freedoms. You don't have habeus corpus anymore, should someone in a position of authority invoke the Military Commissions Act to have you put away. Carolyn McCarthy, a Democratic Senator from Ohio, literally had a man's house raided and his firearms confiscated. And people who had "left-leaning" tendencies had their homes raided by police armed to the teeth in Minnesota prior to the RNC.

But Obama might raise taxes. And doesn't wear a flag lapel pin. Really? Are you serious?

DVStudio wrote:

...he has no clue wjhen it comes to foreign policy (wants to sit down and talk with Iran, they'll laugh him away).
He has a better clue than McCain or Bush. Diplomacy should always, always come first. It blows my mind that there are people in my country who seriously believe in this "Axis of Evil" that Bush created, that there are countries out there that would do us harm because "we're Americans" or because "we're free." That's total bunk, and I'm happy to see that Obama is willing to take a 21st century look at our less-than-ideal international relationships, rather than Bush's 15th century look at them.

If you seriously think Iran, Syria, and all of the other "anti-American" nations have contempt for us -- you're absolutely right. But it's not because we're free, it's not because we're successful, and it's not because we're America. It's because we've meddled around in their affairs for the past 50 years, we literally handed their enemies a piece of their land after World War II.

Arktic wrote:

I have no idea what you're talking about. But I do know what a 'pathetic' plan for Iraq would be:

A pull-out date of 2108!

How can Obama's plan be any worse than that?!
I'll be honest here: That quote by McCain is taken out of context and used against him in a pretty dishonest way. We've been in Germany for 70 years. We've been in Korea for 60 years. We've been in Cuba for about 100. That's what he was talking about, and people (including the do-no-wrong Obama crowd AND campaign) continually assault McCain over this subject, even though it's patently clear that McCain has no intention of literally fighting a century-long war. Moreover, he'll only be in office for, at most, eight years. How on Earth could he possibly mandate that we pull out in 2108?

I'm pretty disappointed in the Obama campaign, and frankly, the Obama crowd for taking that statement as they have. I don't think McCain will be a bad president, by any means... but I want to see my liberties restored above all, and I don't believe McCain will do that. Plus, call me prejudiced, bigoted or whatever -- but I don't want an open and staunch creationist and anti-abortionist politician that high on the political ladder.
Posted: Mon, 1st Sep 2008, 3:37pm

Post 160 of 1492

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

DVStudio wrote:

I don't necessarily agree with this. I respect your opinion of course, but my thoughts are that McCain is in good health. All fo his recent reports have shown us that.
Absolutely, and I wish him many years to come! However, he's nevertheless got less years to come than he has to look back upon. That's not a sleight on his character or health, it's just to do with the average human lifespan. smile

I find that Obama is more frightening than Bush ever was. He wants to raise taxes, he has no clue wjhen it comes to foreign policy (wants to sit down and talk with Iran, they'll laugh him away).
Eh? Since when is talking a bad thing? Sure, Iran can tell him to piss off, but that's not really the point. The important thing is that he would try, which would send a very, very powerful message to many parts of the Middle East. Sure, sending the troops in also sends a powerful message, but not the right one.

Opening up a dialogue with Iran is crucial, one way or the other.

His lack of direct foreign policy experience is why he'll surround himself with people who DO know what they're doing.

But if you think he's going to have trouble dealing with issues overseas and other countries, you really should think again. Just take a look at his recent world tour - everyone loves the guy. Certainly here in Europe: he'll have a massive head start when it comes to negotiations abroad, simply because he isn't Bush and he's a long way from anything Bush represents. That may or may not be fair, but it's the way it is.

If you don't like the negative way the rest of the world tends to see the USA these days, the Obama is your answer. He's the political equivalent of the big red 'reset button' at the end of a Star Trek episode. ie, no matter how bad things get, no matter how much things go wrong, at the end of the episode everything is OK again. Bush is the episode, Obama is the reset button. If McCain gets in, though, then it'll be a two-parter. razz

Obama's plan... if he has one... is pathetic for Iraq. We have won!
What?

Look on Google UK.


What's google got to do with the war in Iraq?
Posted: Mon, 1st Sep 2008, 4:10pm

Post 161 of 1492

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I'll be honest here: That quote by McCain is taken out of context and used against him in a pretty dishonest way.
True enough - to be honest I was just using it to make a point. I know he doesn't really want to be in combat for the next 100 years, but I still think that his foreign policies are stuck in the last century - unlike Obama, who wants to take a more diplomatic approach to the Middle East, like Tarn says.
Posted: Mon, 1st Sep 2008, 4:34pm

Post 162 of 1492

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Arktic wrote:

I'll be honest here: That quote by McCain is taken out of context and used against him in a pretty dishonest way.
True enough - to be honest I was just using it to make a point. I know he doesn't really want to be in combat for the next 100 years, but I still think that his foreign policies are stuck in the last century - unlike Obama, who wants to take a more diplomatic approach to the Middle East, like Tarn says.
Thaaaat's better. I agree, but I think that that's all Obama/his supporters have to say. By going the "OMGWTF HE WANS BE IN RAQ FER CENTURY" route, they're flinging as much political poo as the next party. Some people can see right through that...
Posted: Mon, 1st Sep 2008, 5:13pm

Post 163 of 1492

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

The longest you guys are staying in Iraq is probably going to be about 8 years. This is in the scenario where McCain wins two terms and keeps you there, but by the end of the 8 years, it's almost a given that everybody will want to get out of there as soon as humanly possible. That's still 8 years too many, though.

One interesting thing to note, by the way: in the US, about 3000-4000 people have died from terrorism in the last 50 years. On the same day. GIANT threat, huh? There's about that many people that die ever DAY for other, more easily fixed reasons (car crashes, disease, etc.).

Therefore, if your goal is to save American lives, directing all efforts at stopping terrorism is the stupidest thing you can do. Not only is it the hardest thing to tackle, but it's the thing that would save the least lives.
Posted: Mon, 1st Sep 2008, 6:20pm

Post 164 of 1492

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

When it's easier to objectify a force of death (terrorists), people are much more apt to take action against it. I'm not saying this gives credence to, say, not working to stop automobile accidents; just that terrorists are something to stop on a slightly more superificial (and therefore more easily-approached) level.

Everything that can take lives in this world is going to have airs of complications around it, America just chose to tackle one of them out of retaliation. Do we all still agree with it? No, not really. But at the time it seemed like a good idea, I suppose. I'm not for the war by any means, but I remember how I felt on September 11 and how scared I was that the Dallas WTC would be attacked. So I understand why terrorism (versus other causes of death) is considered a more lamentable demise.

To each his own, I suppose.
Posted: Mon, 1st Sep 2008, 6:53pm

Post 165 of 1492

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

A Pickle, we should at least give Bush credit for keeping this country safe. According to this article, the USA has stopped 19 terrorist attacks under George. W as the president. So yes, we can give him credit for that. It's all too easy for people to criticize Bush and not thing anything of it, but you have to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. Do you honestly think he's up there in the oval office planning and scheming on how he can rip americans off? I've said many times that I'm not a Bush supporter, and yet I still think that he's doing what he thinks is right, and we should give credit where credit is due.

You've got to be kidding right? You think sitting down and holding peaceful negotiations is a bad thing? Care to explain that one?
I don't think that's what he meant. Rather, if/when negotiations fail, what then? I don't think Obama has gone into detail about that, either. Also, about Iraq, why pull out? We're winning! This will be just another Veitnam if we pull out now. We need to finish what we started.
Posted: Mon, 1st Sep 2008, 7:31pm

Post 166 of 1492

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +2

Thrawn wrote:

A Pickle, we should at least give Bush credit for keeping this country safe. According to this article, the USA has stopped 19 terrorist attacks under George. W as the president. So yes, we can give him credit for that.
At what cost? Bush claims that the terroristst are a threat to our freedom, and arguably... they aren't much of one. Now, a threat to our lives? Sure. The terrorists are certainly that.

But the Bush administration has proven itself to be much more dangerous to our freedom than the terrorists. I say again, the Bush administration has proven itself to be much more dangerous to the underlying principles upon which this nation was founded.

And then, how many of those 19 attacks were motivated by the US-led invasion of Iraq? Do you seriously believe that ALL 19 of these supposed attacks were motivated by "freedom-hating" terrorists? I mean, really? When has any country EVER been attacked because "they were free and successful?"

Sorry. You can't say you protected America from terrorism if your actions are the motivation for that terrorism. Do you really think that we would've been attacked those 19 times if Bush wasn't president? Because for the eight years before Bush, we were attacked... what, twice? Three times? Really?

More of our servicemen and women have died in our "preventive wars" than died on 9/11. That doesn't include the thousands of Iraqi lives that have been lost in the horrors that, inevitably, follow in War's footsteps.

We've become the terrorists of another people, and the damage Bush has wrought on US-Middle East relations will not be undone for centuries. If anything, Bush has made the country far less safe for future Americans.

Thrawn wrote:

It's all too easy for people to criticize Bush and not thing anything of it, but you have to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. Do you honestly think he's up there in the oval office planning and scheming on how he can rip americans off? I've said many times that I'm not a Bush supporter, and yet I still think that he's doing what he thinks is right, and we should give credit where credit is due.
Mmk. Airport security is a bit better.
Posted: Mon, 1st Sep 2008, 10:32pm

Post 167 of 1492

enoonsti

Force: 50 | Joined: 16th Nov 2007 | Posts: 97

Member

A Pickle wrote:

Airport security is a bit better.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/08/19/tsa.watch.list/#cnnSTCVideo

twisted
Posted: Mon, 1st Sep 2008, 11:55pm

Post 168 of 1492

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I'm not saying it can't be improved. But... I mean, please. Before 9/11, it was up to the companies (airlines) to secure their flights, and it was a well-known and accepted fact that customers that paid less got searched, while customers that paid more didn't. Al Qaeda played on that common knowledge.

It is now, at the very least, a bit closer to how it should've been all along: A government regulatory agency. Of course, I'd think that, with us paying as much in taxes as we do, some of it could go to staffing those security checkpoints 100% of the time. I hate it when I'm passing a security checkpoint and there are like, five x-ray scanners and metal detector arches, and ONE of them is in operation.

Screw that. Protecting the country doesn't have to be a gaggle of stupidity and little tape mazes.
Posted: Tue, 2nd Sep 2008, 12:19am

Post 169 of 1492

DigiSm89

Force: 815 | Joined: 2nd Jun 2002 | Posts: 1898

Windows User

Member

Heh, while airport security has improved greatly, it's still as easy as ever to smuggle an explosive device on a train. And on a train, you can't just simply jump out of it as it's moving and hope you'll live.

I remember back in Boston, there was a suspected threat on our subway system. The only protection was...er...we had to basically protect ourselves. If we saw a "suspicious package," we had to call the subway guards. Yay for security!
Posted: Tue, 2nd Sep 2008, 3:18am

Post 170 of 1492

Coureur de Bois

Force: 1394 | Joined: 23rd Sep 2002 | Posts: 1127

VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

I just had the most amazing experience of my career so far. I held a door open for Tom Brokaw. TOM BROKAW!!
Posted: Tue, 2nd Sep 2008, 4:35am

Post 171 of 1492

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Pooky: while I agree with you that it isn't as big a problem in the grand scheme of things, the "war on terror" also factors in international terror threats to people of other countries. I don't support the war, but not including that aspect of terror threats weakens that argument. I'm curious: what are the stats on death by terrorists in the past x number of years in the world? <<not rhetorical question.

Anywho, back on topic:

'Shooped


I really don't like either of the potential VP's though.
Posted: Tue, 2nd Sep 2008, 4:45am

Post 172 of 1492

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Serpent wrote:

Anywho, back on topic:

'Shooped
Wow. And Fox News is no longer a source.
Posted: Tue, 2nd Sep 2008, 4:58am

Post 173 of 1492

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

That's Photoshopped. XD Probably should've made that more clear (I had hidden text below it), didn't want it to lose its impact though.
Posted: Tue, 2nd Sep 2008, 5:02am

Post 174 of 1492

StumpMovieMan

Force: 49 | Joined: 1st Jul 2007 | Posts: 43

Member

" Fox News is no longer a source."

.... blasphemy
Posted: Tue, 2nd Sep 2008, 5:13am

Post 175 of 1492

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

" .... blasphemy"

Your post: sarcasm?
Posted: Tue, 2nd Sep 2008, 6:02am

Post 176 of 1492

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Serpent wrote:

That's Photoshopped. XD Probably should've made that more clear (I had hidden text below it), didn't want it to lose its impact though.
I saw the text below, but... "shooped" doesn't mean much to me. I thought it might mean photoshopped, but... biggrin

Even still, it isn't hard to imagine Fox doing exactly that. It was incredibly believable.
Posted: Tue, 2nd Sep 2008, 8:06am

Post 177 of 1492

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

I think the fact that the image is entirely believable is all you need to know about Fox News. I mean, we have our fair share of propagandist, absurdly right wing newspapers here in the UK, but they're bastions of reason and intelligence compared to Fox News.

I find it hard to believe that anybody actually watches it (other than for comedy value).
Posted: Tue, 2nd Sep 2008, 8:08am

Post 178 of 1492

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

A Pickle, we should at least give Bush credit for keeping this country safe. According to this article, the USA has stopped 19 terrorist attacks under George. W as the president. So yes, we can give him credit for that.
Pickle is bang on the money on this one, Thrawn.

Even if we ignore the fact that Bush probably incited the majority of those potential attacks - at what cost have those 19 attacks been stopped?

The Patriot Act? Destruction of habeas corpus? Rendition Flights? Abu Grhaib? Guantanamo Bay?
Posted: Tue, 2nd Sep 2008, 4:25pm

Post 179 of 1492

StumpMovieMan

Force: 49 | Joined: 1st Jul 2007 | Posts: 43

Member

Serpent wrote:

" .... blasphemy"

Your post: sarcasm?
ehh more like... exaggeration of my point of view.
Posted: Tue, 2nd Sep 2008, 5:13pm

Post 180 of 1492

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Sarah Palin's unmarried 17-year-old daughter is pregnant.

I think this news demonstrates the antiquity of conservative 'abistinence only' sex education, and the hypocrisy of some of those that spout it.

Though I'm sad that this kid's mistake is going to be played out infront of an international audience - hopefully it will give the voters something to think about.
Posted: Tue, 2nd Sep 2008, 6:17pm

Post 181 of 1492

ssj john

Force: 563 | Joined: 4th Nov 2003 | Posts: 795

Windows User MacOS User

Member

I really don't think her daughter's situation should even be discussed. I believe in abstinence before marriage as do my parents, yet my brother went out and got a girl pregnant. Does that mean me or my parents are hypocrites? No, my brother did that on his own accord. Free will was still in play and a mistake was made. Nobody is perfect.

Just because Palin's daughter got pregnant doesn't show hypocrisy in Sarah Palin..(if thats what you are implying.) unless she encouraged it, which of course I find hard to imagine.

I feel bad for her daughter. If being 17, unmarried and pregnant isn't hard enough...She now has be to scrutinized by the media and used as a tool to show how evil and hypocritical her mom is. Re-dicu-lus
Posted: Tue, 2nd Sep 2008, 7:38pm

Post 182 of 1492

DVStudio

Force: 4983 | Joined: 22nd Nov 2007 | Posts: 1845

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User PhotoKey 4 User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Arktic wrote:

Sarah Palin's unmarried 17-year-old daughter is pregnant.

I think this news demonstrates the antiquity of conservative 'abistinence only' sex education, and the hypocrisy of some of those that spout it.

Though I'm sad that this kid's mistake is going to be played out infront of an international audience - hopefully it will give the voters something to think about.
This shouldn't be involved. It doesn't make her a bad VP choice. I don't think it is fair that her daughter is citicized by the democrats. She feels bad enough I am sure.

The UK headlines say the US won the Iraq war. In the US we hear about rod side bombings and Obama says: we must pull out, we're losing.
Posted: Tue, 2nd Sep 2008, 8:02pm

Post 183 of 1492

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Before I get into the baby thing, a quick aside...

DVStudio wrote:

The UK headlines say the US won the Iraq war. In the US we hear about rod side bombings and Obama says: we must pull out, we're losing.
I don't know what mysterious 'UK headlines' you're reading, but they're sure as hell not the same ones I'm reading. Or, indeed, anybody else actually in the UK. smile

Back to the current subject...

Arktic wrote:

Sarah Palin's unmarried 17-year-old daughter is pregnant.

I think this news demonstrates the antiquity of conservative 'abistinence only' sex education, and the hypocrisy of some of those that spout it.
What really made me sad is some comments I've read from a few conservative types, along the lines of "I don't think this is a problem and it shouldn't be a political factor at all. AS LONG AS SHE DECIDES TO KEEP THE BABY." Now that is hypocrisy!

DVStudio wrote:

This shouldn't be involved. It doesn't make her a bad VP choice. I don't think it is fair that her daughter is citicized by the democrats. She feels bad enough I am sure.
Has she been criticised by the Democrats? Last I heard, Obama was one of the first to explicitly say "leave her alone." The media might be all over it, but that's what they do - they're vultures. I imagine it's more likely to be Republicans that are making jittery noises about it, rather than Democrats.

Here we go:

BBC News wrote:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, asked for his response to the news while campaigning in Michigan, said people should "back off" from such stories.

"I think people's families are off-limits, and people's children are especially off-limits," he told reporters.

"This shouldn't be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Governor Palin's performance as a governor, or her potential performance as a vice-president."
Meanwhile, there's some interesting information on teenage pregnancy in the US here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7593735.stm

I didn't realise quite how bad the problem was over there - and here was I thinking we had screwed things up here in the UK! unsure

What's particularly depressing is the section at the bottom of the article about Palin and McCain's attitudes towards sex education, which are utterly ridiculous. How can you expect children to behave responsibly and understand sex if all you teach is abstinence?

If that article is accurate, Palin actively opposes any kind of sex education that deviates from the abstinence concept. What is wrong with the woman? Does she have absolutely no understanding of human behaviour? The idea of voting her into a position of tremendous power becomes more terrifying by the day!!

Help us, US voters. You're our only hope.

p.s. It's not that I'm against abstinence as a general idea. I have no problems with people that pursue that course of action, such as ssj john. In fact, I think it's a very good idea. But to actively teach it in schools and make it state policy at the expense of a well-rounded sexual education...that's idiotic.

Last edited Tue, 2nd Sep 2008, 8:15pm; edited 2 times in total.

Posted: Tue, 2nd Sep 2008, 8:05pm

Post 184 of 1492

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

According to a report by Population Action International, published at the end of last year, there were 44 births per 1,000 women aged 15-19 in the US for 2000-2005.
This compares with figures in the UK - itself said to be the country with the worst teenage pregnancy rate in Europe - of 27 births per 1,000 women aged 15-19.
Tarn, that article only accounts for the births of children, not the amount of people that become pregnant and have an abortion. For all we know, the UK could have more pregnancies along with more abortions. So you really can't say that America is or is not more screwed up in that regard if that's your only source of information.
Posted: Tue, 2nd Sep 2008, 8:08pm

Post 185 of 1492

Penguin

Force: 852 | Joined: 17th May 2006 | Posts: 560

EffectsLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Um...am I going crazy, or did Tarn just quote himself?
Posted: Tue, 2nd Sep 2008, 8:15pm

Post 186 of 1492

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Heh, not entirely sure what happened there. All I know is that I got very, very confused. I think I've modded this page back to normality now. smile
Posted: Tue, 2nd Sep 2008, 8:59pm

Post 187 of 1492

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Thrawn wrote:

Tarn, that article only accounts for the births of children, not the amount of people that become pregnant and have an abortion. For all we know, the UK could have more pregnancies along with more abortions. So you really can't say that America is or is not more screwed up in that regard if that's your only source of information.
Abstinence-only education doesn't work, and any human being should be able to find this as patently obvious. You have mammalian instincts that are built-in to human physiology for the explicit purpose of procreation -- no matter how hard you try to beat it out of young people that "they're not supposed to have sex before marriage" or that "sex means more after a faithful union," it doesn't change the fact that it does no such thing. You are biologically inclined to mate, and no education (certainly no middle/high school Health classes) are going to beat that instinct out of you.

SO... you may as well put some control and regulation on the problem, by teaching young people HOW to protect themselves from something that can and will alter the course of their lives.

Statistics and studies show (and Tarn's numbers are supportive of this) that abstinence-only education doesn't work well at all. In many cases, studies that DID show that abstinence-only education had superior results were found to have been doctored and misrepresenting bunches and bunches of facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstinence-only_sex_education
Posted: Tue, 2nd Sep 2008, 9:07pm

Post 188 of 1492

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

Before I get into the baby thing, a quick aside...

DVStudio wrote:

The UK headlines say the US won the Iraq war. In the US we hear about rod side bombings and Obama says: we must pull out, we're losing.
I don't know what mysterious 'UK headlines' you're reading, but they're sure as hell not the same ones I'm reading. Or, indeed, anybody else actually in the UK. smile

Back to the current subject...

Arktic wrote:

Sarah Palin's unmarried 17-year-old daughter is pregnant.

I think this news demonstrates the antiquity of conservative 'abistinence only' sex education, and the hypocrisy of some of those that spout it.
What really made me sad is some comments I've read from a few conservative types, along the lines of "I don't think this is a problem and it shouldn't be a political factor at all. AS LONG AS SHE DECIDES TO KEEP THE BABY." Now that is hypocrisy!

DVStudio wrote:

This shouldn't be involved. It doesn't make her a bad VP choice. I don't think it is fair that her daughter is citicized by the democrats. She feels bad enough I am sure.
Has she been criticised by the Democrats? Last I heard, Obama was one of the first to explicitly say "leave her alone." The media might be all over it, but that's what they do - they're vultures. I imagine it's more likely to be Republicans that are making jittery noises about it, rather than Democrats.

Here we go:

BBC News wrote:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, asked for his response to the news while campaigning in Michigan, said people should "back off" from such stories.

"I think people's families are off-limits, and people's children are especially off-limits," he told reporters.

"This shouldn't be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Governor Palin's performance as a governor, or her potential performance as a vice-president."
Meanwhile, there's some interesting information on teenage pregnancy in the US here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7593735.stm

I didn't realise quite how bad the problem was over there - and here was I thinking we had screwed things up here in the UK! unsure

What's particularly depressing is the section at the bottom of the article about Palin and McCain's attitudes towards sex education, which are utterly ridiculous. How can you expect children to behave responsibly and understand sex if all you teach is abstinence?

If that article is accurate, Palin actively opposes any kind of sex education that deviates from the abstinence concept. What is wrong with the woman? Does she have absolutely no understanding of human behaviour? The idea of voting her into a position of tremendous power becomes more terrifying by the day!!

Help us, US voters. You're our only hope.

p.s. It's not that I'm against abstinence as a general idea. I have no problems with people that pursue that course of action, such as ssj john. In fact, I think it's a very good idea. But to actively teach it in schools and make it state policy at the expense of a well-rounded sexual education...that's idiotic.
I agree with you 100%. I also haven't heard any Democrats attacking this girl- it's part of the right wing spin machine. They go out and find something, create a strawman, and then rally their troops to attack the strawman and pretend it was the Dem's position all along- then it becomes "She's a good girl keeping her baby! We must not let the Democrats criticize a good Christian girl!" When no Dems really are attacking her! It's a ruse, but it gets the conservative base fired up becasue they only get their news from "Faux News" (that's pronounced "Fox" over here) because ALL other media outlets cannot be trusted. It's Orwell's 1984. I always find these social conservative positions amusing at best, the states with the most social conservatives have the highest abortion and divorce rates and are totally against any type of education or social programs that might reduce abortions or provide safer sex education, etc... it's just funny to me, I've never understood it, i think there are opinions, unknowns, and debatable points on both sides, but sometimes simple, provable logic should prevail. "Abstinence ONLY" education doesn't work- it's a miserable failure, and statistacally provabvle.
Posted: Tue, 2nd Sep 2008, 9:40pm

Post 189 of 1492

enoonsti

Force: 50 | Joined: 16th Nov 2007 | Posts: 97

Member

I've been abstinent* my entire life, and I can safely say that I still snoozed through any potential abstinence-only lectures (I say potential because I can't remember if these lectures existed... since I was sleeping... duh).

*Full disclosure: this may not be necessarily by choice. I'm fugly biggrin
Posted: Tue, 2nd Sep 2008, 10:39pm

Post 190 of 1492

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

Help us, US voters. You're our only hope.
You do realise that Obi Wan allows himself to die shortly after, handing the fate of the universe to a younger, still forming Jedi?

Wait a second, that sounds about right smile

---

The problem with abstinence is that stereotypical "stupid redneck people" reproduce a lot, with anyone, all the time. Therefore, if the smart people don't procreate much and the stupid people do, stupid people is what we'll evolve into... stereotypically speaking. It might've already kind of started (you see, no human natural selection means only procreation affects evolution), now that I think of it.

In other words, if you're intelligent, procreate, and if you're dumb, then most definitely do go with abstinence. Now that doesn't mean you're dumb if you go for abstinence, of course, just that you're contributing to the stupidification of the human race (if you're smart).

Idiocracy is a movie all about this.
Posted: Tue, 2nd Sep 2008, 11:06pm

Post 191 of 1492

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Pooky wrote:

You do realise that Obi Wan allows himself to die shortly after, handing the fate of the universe to a younger, still forming Jedi?

Wait a second, that sounds about right smile
You don't understand Pooky. Emergency executive powers. We haven't gotten to that part of the story yet. biggrin

Pooky wrote:

Idiocracy is a movie all about this.
I want to see that so badly. biggrin
Posted: Tue, 2nd Sep 2008, 11:15pm

Post 192 of 1492

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

DVStudio wrote:

DVStudio wrote:
The UK headlines say the US won the Iraq war. In the US we hear about rod side bombings and Obama says: we must pull out, we're losing.
What, headlines like these you mean?

"Success? Not on a road full of bombs", The Mirror.
"No deal reached over future of US troops in Iraq", The Guardian.
"Iraq war costs US and UK more than £2,000 a second", Daily Mail.
Iraq's Sticky Future, The Times.
Iraq: Delusions of Success, The Guardian
"From WMD to Stop The War: The disastrous claims that launched the Iraq invasion, and the historic stand against the war", Daily Mail.
"Iraq mission a 'failure'", The Mirror

Oh yes, I see, they're ALL full of the joyous news of how well we've done in Iraq! [/sarcasm]. When Obama says "We must pull out", he's talking sense, and it has nothing to do with what your media is telling you.

ssj john wrote:

I really don't think her daughter's situation should even be discussed.
Whilst I don't think that it should be used by politicians to score political 'points'; I feel that as a news story (and one which is relevant to a number of policies that Palin stands for), it's perfectly legitimate for members of the public to talk about. I'm not criticising her daughter's actions - rather, I think that it's a rather alarming example of how teaching abstinence-only is a bad idea.

ssj john wrote:

I believe in abstinence before marriage as do my parents, yet my brother went out and got a girl pregnant. Does that mean me or my parents are hypocrites? No, my brother did that on his own accord. Free will was still in play and a mistake was made. Nobody is perfect.
I think that waiting to have sex with someone you love is a very respectable idea - and just because you believe in something and a member of your family made a mistake, it doesn't make you a hypocrite. The difference between you and Sarah Palin is that you don't actively campaign to stop young people from receiving proper sex education (I hope).

I have no problem with abstinence - and I think that it should be encouraged, as if you don't have sex, you're not going to catch any STDs or end up with an unwanted pregnancy. However, I also think that there is nothing wrong with sex outside of marriage as long as people take precautions, and the majority of people won't wait until they are married before they have sex - so it makes sense to educate young people on the proper ways to stay safe. How can you disagree with that?

ssj john wrote:

Just because Palin's daughter got pregnant doesn't show hypocrisy in Sarah Palin..(if thats what you are implying.) unless she encouraged it, which of course I find hard to imagine.
But maybe if her daughter, or her daughter's boyfriend had been taught about how to have safe sex, they might not have ended up with a child? I mean, it's clear that the abstinence-only education they received didn't work. So I think it would be hypocritical of Palin to carry on telling parents and teachers that abstinence-only sex education is a sensible thing to do.

Last edited Tue, 2nd Sep 2008, 11:46pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Tue, 2nd Sep 2008, 11:44pm

Post 193 of 1492

Coureur de Bois

Force: 1394 | Joined: 23rd Sep 2002 | Posts: 1127

VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Arktic wrote:

But maybe if her daughter, or her daughter's boyfriend had been taught about how to have safe sex, they might not have ended up with a child?
Well, perhaps. I don't know if Palin would be too keen on putting her daughter on a contraceptive pill. Plus, it's way better without a condom!
Posted: Wed, 3rd Sep 2008, 12:33am

Post 194 of 1492

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Highly doubt her daughter's boyfriend had any idea about how to have safe sex considering his MySpace:

On his MySpace page, Johnston boasts, "I'm a f - - -in' redneck" who likes to snowboard and ride dirt bikes.

"But I live to play hockey. I like to go camping and hang out with the boys, do some fishing, shoot some s- - - and just f - - -in' chillin' I guess."

"Ya f - - - with me I'll kick [your] ass," he added.

He also claims to be "in a relationship," but states, "I don't want kids."
Posted: Wed, 3rd Sep 2008, 1:21am

Post 195 of 1492

DVStudio

Force: 4983 | Joined: 22nd Nov 2007 | Posts: 1845

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User PhotoKey 4 User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Obama did cocane at age 22. Hmm. The media seems to cover this up, but at the same time Palin's husband was arrested for DUI. The press is all over this. Fair? Hardly. The news is so pro-Obama it isn't even funny.


Also, just 10 days ago a little bit of information came out about Obama possibly being involved in some chair board thing about 49 billion dollars going to terrorist organizations. This was on Fox news a short while ago.

I won't even get started on Obama's pastors! But it is okay to attack Palin about her daughter-which may not have been in her control.

See what I mean by Obama being frightening?

By the news media going after Palin, they have done exactly opposite what they wanted to do. They have made Palin a target and people tend to sympathize with victims of news media ganging up on someone. People see Palin as a hard working, middle class mom. When she is attacked by the news, they see it personal, as if they are being attacked. Was Palin a bad choice? Of course not!
Posted: Wed, 3rd Sep 2008, 1:34am

Post 196 of 1492

ssj john

Force: 563 | Joined: 4th Nov 2003 | Posts: 795

Windows User MacOS User

Member

Arktic wrote:

DVStudio wrote:

DVStudio wrote:
The UK headlines say the US won the Iraq war. In the US we hear about rod side bombings and Obama says: we must pull out, we're losing.
What, headlines like these you mean?

"Success? Not on a road full of bombs", The Mirror.
"No deal reached over future of US troops in Iraq", The Guardian.
"Iraq war costs US and UK more than £2,000 a second", Daily Mail.
Iraq's Sticky Future, The Times.
Iraq: Delusions of Success, The Guardian
"From WMD to Stop The War: The disastrous claims that launched the Iraq invasion, and the historic stand against the war", Daily Mail.
"Iraq mission a 'failure'", The Mirror

Oh yes, I see, they're ALL full of the joyous news of how well we've done in Iraq! [/sarcasm]. When Obama says "We must pull out", he's talking sense, and it has nothing to do with what your media is telling you.

ssj john wrote:

I really don't think her daughter's situation should even be discussed.
Whilst I don't think that it should be used by politicians to score political 'points'; I feel that as a news story (and one which is relevant to a number of policies that Palin stands for), it's perfectly legitimate for members of the public to talk about. I'm not criticising her daughter's actions - rather, I think that it's a rather alarming example of how teaching abstinence-only is a bad idea.

ssj john wrote:

I believe in abstinence before marriage as do my parents, yet my brother went out and got a girl pregnant. Does that mean me or my parents are hypocrites? No, my brother did that on his own accord. Free will was still in play and a mistake was made. Nobody is perfect.
I think that waiting to have sex with someone you love is a very respectable idea - and just because you believe in something and a member of your family made a mistake, it doesn't make you a hypocrite. The difference between you and Sarah Palin is that you don't actively campaign to stop young people from receiving proper sex education (I hope).

I have no problem with abstinence - and I think that it should be encouraged, as if you don't have sex, you're not going to catch any STDs or end up with an unwanted pregnancy. However, I also think that there is nothing wrong with sex outside of marriage as long as people take precautions, and the majority of people won't wait until they are married before they have sex - so it makes sense to educate young people on the proper ways to stay safe. How can you disagree with that?

ssj john wrote:

Just because Palin's daughter got pregnant doesn't show hypocrisy in Sarah Palin..(if thats what you are implying.) unless she encouraged it, which of course I find hard to imagine.
But maybe if her daughter, or her daughter's boyfriend had been taught about how to have safe sex, they might not have ended up with a child? I mean, it's clear that the abstinence-only education they received didn't work. So I think it would be hypocritical of Palin to carry on telling parents and teachers that abstinence-only sex education is a sensible thing to do.
I don't really have an opinion about what should be taught in school. I think that sex education should be left up to the parents. But I will say that I don't think that just because he may have only been taught abstinence means he had no idea how to have safe sex...I was taught abstinence in high school but I know what a condom is...Lets be honest you'll probly learn way more about sex from your friends then you ever will from parents/school.

I still don't think its hypocritical for Palin to be for abstinence. Just because her daughter didn't listen to her doesn't mean that she should just change her mind. "Oh yeah you know sex before marriage is alright I guess." or even to say that it shouldn't be taught. You can teach safe sex as well but that doesn't mean everyone is going to go and have safe sex. Same with abstinence, just because you teach it that doesn't mean everyone is going to be abstinent. To back down from her views because of her daughters(who obviously has her own free will to make decisions and her own brain to make them with) mistakes and completely change her view point, that would be hypocritical in my opinion.
Posted: Wed, 3rd Sep 2008, 1:49am

Post 197 of 1492

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

In other news, the R.N.C. has been postponed, but Ron Paul's fight for freedom still lives on! smile He's definitely shaking the GOP up; that's for sure.
Posted: Wed, 3rd Sep 2008, 1:53am

Post 198 of 1492

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

DVStudio wrote:

Obama did cocane at age 22. Hmm. The media seems to cover this up, but at the same time Palin's husband was arrested for DUI. The press is all over this. Fair? Hardly. The news is so pro-Obama it isn't even funny.
As far as I'm concerned, doing cocaine isn't a bad thing in and of itself. What's wrong with someone doing cocaine? People get drunk all the time, and apart from the legality of the two chemical compounds, there's no difference in that they're both psychoactive drugs. Use them all you want -- it's your freedom to do so.

Now, taking a psychoactive drug and doing something that depends on the sober state of your senses and intuition (things that psychoactive drugs drastically change) is a crime, because that puts innocent people into harm's way. In this respect, I'm not going to mince words: Palin's husband is far guiltier than Obama for DRIVING under the influence of alcohol. We KNOW he was driving under the influence of alcohol, where, Obama may not have been doing anything but chilling with friends in his basement when he did cocaine.

ssj john wrote:

But I will say that I don't think that just because he may have only been taught abstinence means he had no idea how to have safe sex...I was taught abstinence in high school but I know what a condom is...Lets be honest you'll probly learn way more about sex from your friends then you ever will from parents/school.
But teaching kids about contraceptives in school certainly couldn't hurt their knowledge about such options, could it?

ssj john wrote:

I still don't think its hypocritical for Palin to be for abstinence.
I don't think it is hypocritical. I think it's backwards and misinformed, but not hypocritical. Palin isn't responsible for a decision that her daughter made, and her daughter ought to be left out of this. Poor girl is probably having the hardest teenage pregnancy... uh... ever.

ssj john wrote:

You can teach safe sex as well but that doesn't mean everyone is going to go and have safe sex. Same with abstinence, just because you teach it that doesn't mean everyone is going to be abstinent.
The difference is that in a comprehensive sex education system, students are taught about contraceptives but ALSO abstinence. People who are against abstinence-only sex education are not against abstinence, they are against abstinence-only sex education. There is no denying that abstinence is the only, absolute, guaranteed way to avoid a pregnancy in your youth. But certain devices within human anatomy are specifically there to encourage us to procreate, and they don't yield to social taboos or laws. Because of this, you can never stop young people from having sexual relations altogether, so you may as well teach them that, if they're going to do it, to at least do it safely.

And whaddaya know. Statistics jive with that.
Posted: Wed, 3rd Sep 2008, 1:59am

Post 199 of 1492

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

As a Democrat even, I think saying really anything about Palin's daughter and her pregnancy (while, certainly, newsworthy) shouldn't be discussed here. This is the US Presidential Election Discussion thread, guys. Not the 'anything related news' thread. And not just that, it's rather inappropriate.

And, quite honestly, a 17-year-old girl deciding and willing to go through with an unplanned pregnancy might not be a blessing, but it's certainly commendable. At least, in my eyes it is. Not to touch on abortion, really, but is it not praiseworthy to have a teenage- one in good enough socio-economic conditions to care/find care for a child- decide not to abort?

Again, maybe it's just me. Really, though, this shouldn't be touched on at all. As Obama says, it's no one's business but the Palin family's.

Last edited Wed, 3rd Sep 2008, 2:00am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Wed, 3rd Sep 2008, 2:00am

Post 200 of 1492

ssj john

Force: 563 | Joined: 4th Nov 2003 | Posts: 795

Windows User MacOS User

Member

Your right, but like I said....I think that sex-education should be primarily left up to the parents to teach to their kids.

In other news, Mitt Romney has stated he doesn't want a position in the cabinet...which is really disappointing. I personally think he could have gotten more done there than as VP. His reasons for not wanting to be in the cabinet seem kind of sissy too.

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/09/romney_im_not_i.html

I agree atom. I am wondering really why they even anounced it? Its almost like they did it because they thought the media would pounce all over it and then they could point out how heartless the media is. Its dumb.

Page 1 of 8: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | Next