Maximum Grilled Steelers Forum
Nov 28, 2014 at 19:33 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home   Forum   Help Calendar Media Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 ... 5 [All]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Smartest thing she's said yet  (Read 3142 times)
Preacherman0
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 5808
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,848



WWW
« on: Oct 29, 2008 at 12:23 »

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27436937

Okay, now I totally disagree with her "Drill baby drill" crap.  There are already millions of square miles of land that the oil companies could develop for drilling--IF they wanted to provide more oil (which they don't). 

However, I completely agree--contrary to most people I have encountered--that our dependence on foreign oil is creating a major terrorist threat and causing us to be in constant conflict with terrorist-supporting states in the middle east.  We need to take MAJOR steps to move away from OPEC.
Logged

We have traded Christ for the religion of Christianity.
steelerfaninCO
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 1271
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,484



« Reply #1 on: Oct 29, 2008 at 13:00 »

Yes, our nation definitely needs to get off the foreign oil because it is a major factor in regards to our threat of homeland terrorism, transfer of our wealth, and our foreign policy. But lost in all this, is that we need to get off oil completely, not just foreign oil. The "Drill, Baby, Drill" bullshit is a move to further line the pockets of big oil and does nothing to promote alternative renewable energy resources. She and the Repubs have desperately wanted to get into ANWAR for years now, even though it won't do shit for overall energy production. Props to McCain for still being opposed to that. No matter how you cut it, the US only has 3% of the oil reserves in the world.

Although, I am obviously for Obama(having voted for him already), I agree that we must move forward with a nuclear power agenda. Nuclear power, coupled with electric cars, goes a long way towards getting us off oil period. If France can power nearly their entire country with nuclear power safely, the good ole USofA surely can. Yes there are certainly environment and safety concerns, but its possible to do. Just a side note to McCain/Palin- Thats great you want 40 or so new plants, but who's going to pay for it? They go for about 10 billion a pop. Government going to help? Sounds like socialism to me, you hypocritical fucks.

The one area where Ms. Palin might have some credibility is energy policy. However, if you look closely at what she has done, you might be surprised. Basically, her "standing up to big oil" is her making them pay more taxes and redistributing that money among Alaskans. Thats great, but its basically what she is calling Obama a socialist for, and she raised taxes. The big pipeline? May not ever be built, and come to find out the bidding process was so restricted only one company could make a legit bid, and of course that company had major ties to Palin's administration, including the state's negotiator, who had worked as a paid lobbyist for said company. So, its not like I think what she did was bad, but her attacks on Obama for what she herself did/ and is currently doing are just another smokescreen laden ed with fear and divisiveness.

I certainly don't believe everything Obama says, but I don't believe anything Ms. Palin says.

Logged
Finnegans Wake
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 12195
Offline Offline

Posts: 22,379



« Reply #2 on: Oct 29, 2008 at 13:11 »

Best analogy yet for the "Drill, baby, drill" mindset was someone comparing it to the eve of the PC revolution, and some Luddite crying out for more typewriters.

Yep, what we need is more damned typewriters.  That'll be the ticket for the coming years.
Logged

Out of my mind on Saturday night...
Preacherman0
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 5808
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,848



WWW
« Reply #3 on: Oct 29, 2008 at 14:46 »

Believe me, I'm not drinking any Palin koolaid.  Just sayin' that on this issue, I agree with her in principle if not in practice.  But the "Drill baby drill" thing...absolutely an asinine outlook, IMO.

Quote
If France can power nearly their entire country with nuclear power safely, the good ole USofA surely can.

I remember as a kid growing up in South Carolina hearing about all the problems with nuclear waste.  We were basically the dumping ground for it from all over the country.  How do we handle that now, and what are the environmental implications?  Surely the technology must be cleaner and safer, but I've heard the same thing about coal.

Logged

We have traded Christ for the religion of Christianity.
Preacherman0
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 5808
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,848



WWW
« Reply #4 on: Oct 29, 2008 at 14:47 »

Oh, and when I get time, I'm going to post a perspective on this whole "Redistribution of Wealth" issue.
Logged

We have traded Christ for the religion of Christianity.
Finnegans Wake
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 12195
Offline Offline

Posts: 22,379



« Reply #5 on: Oct 29, 2008 at 14:49 »

Believe me, I'm not drinking any Palin koolaid.  Just sayin' that on this issue, I agree with her in principle if not in practice.  But the "Drill baby drill" thing...absolutely an asinine outlook, IMO.

Quote
If France can power nearly their entire country with nuclear power safely, the good ole USofA surely can.

I remember as a kid growing up in South Carolina hearing about all the problems with nuclear waste.  We were basically the dumping ground for it from all over the country.  How do we handle that now, and what are the environmental implications?  Surely the technology must be cleaner and safer, but I've heard the same thing about coal.


Tell me.  I grew up in the shadow of TMI.

I'm for nukes if you can give me pretty conclusive proof that they're safer now, esp. against terrorist shenanigans, and that there's a plan for spent fuel.  Sure, just bury it on Indian lands, right?
Logged

Out of my mind on Saturday night...
Finnegans Wake
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 12195
Offline Offline

Posts: 22,379



« Reply #6 on: Oct 29, 2008 at 14:55 »

Oh, and when I get time, I'm going to post a perspective on this whole "Redistribution of Wealth" issue.

Please do.

I've long had a refutation of the flat tax that I've never articulated.  Obama's "socialism" is a tweak of existing tax code nearly a century old.  Basically, rolling back the cash grab for the highest earners that Bush doled out.

Hmmmm, giving more money to the middle class... Yeah, that's a bad thing, because the super-rich sit on their money and the middle class spend it on goods and ser-- oh wait, that would actually help the economy.

Nevermind.
Logged

Out of my mind on Saturday night...
vinman3
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 1762
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,783


Master of the Obvious


« Reply #7 on: Oct 30, 2008 at 06:37 »

Oh, and when I get time, I'm going to post a perspective on this whole "Redistribution of Wealth" issue.

Please do.

I've long had a refutation of the flat tax that I've never articulated.  Obama's "socialism" is a tweak of existing tax code nearly a century old.  Basically, rolling back the cash grab for the highest earners that Bush doled out.

Hmmmm, giving more money to the middle class... Yeah, that's a bad thing, because the super-rich sit on their money and the middle class spend it on goods and ser-- oh wait, that would actually help the economy.

Nevermind.

IF Obama was actually taking money from the rich....The new proposed tax increase is for those making $150,000 or more. Um. That is not rich. Saw the link for reference yesterday, but cannot find it today. Even if it is not true, and it is still $250,000 or more, that still is not rich. Is it wealthy in WV? Well, maybe not wealthy, but doing very well. But NYC, are you kidding me? $250,000 is not even remotely close to rich.

I am not rich, I don't make anywhere close to $150,000 or $250,000, but it is 100% wrong on principle alone, IMHO. Really, it doesn't matter, both candidates are socialists anyways. Don't let McCain fool you, he is just a little less socialist. He absolutely voted for the bailout, and nationalization of banks...Um, socialism.

Vote for Bob Barr.
Logged

It's a hot night. The mind races. You think about your knife; the only friend who hasn't betrayed you, the only friend who won't be dead by sun up. Sleep tight, mates, in your quilted Chambray nightshirts.
Preacherman0
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 5808
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,848



WWW
« Reply #8 on: Oct 30, 2008 at 07:28 »

Quote
Vote for Bob Barr.

When did he stop hosting the "Price is Right"?
Logged

We have traded Christ for the religion of Christianity.
vinman3
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 1762
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,783


Master of the Obvious


« Reply #9 on: Oct 30, 2008 at 07:30 »

Quote
Vote for Bob Barr.

When did he stop hosting the "Price is Right"?

When it became a friggin' Cleveland lovefest.
Logged

It's a hot night. The mind races. You think about your knife; the only friend who hasn't betrayed you, the only friend who won't be dead by sun up. Sleep tight, mates, in your quilted Chambray nightshirts.
Finnegans Wake
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 12195
Offline Offline

Posts: 22,379



« Reply #10 on: Oct 30, 2008 at 09:49 »

Oh, and when I get time, I'm going to post a perspective on this whole "Redistribution of Wealth" issue.

Please do.

I've long had a refutation of the flat tax that I've never articulated.  Obama's "socialism" is a tweak of existing tax code nearly a century old.  Basically, rolling back the cash grab for the highest earners that Bush doled out.

Hmmmm, giving more money to the middle class... Yeah, that's a bad thing, because the super-rich sit on their money and the middle class spend it on goods and ser-- oh wait, that would actually help the economy.

Nevermind.

IF Obama was actually taking money from the rich....The new proposed tax increase is for those making $150,000 or more. Um. That is not rich. Saw the link for reference yesterday, but cannot find it today. Even if it is not true, and it is still $250,000 or more, that still is not rich. Is it wealthy in WV? Well, maybe not wealthy, but doing very well. But NYC, are you kidding me? $250,000 is not even remotely close to rich.

I am not rich, I don't make anywhere close to $150,000 or $250,000, but it is 100% wrong on principle alone, IMHO. Really, it doesn't matter, both candidates are socialists anyways. Don't let McCain fool you, he is just a little less socialist. He absolutely voted for the bailout, and nationalization of banks...Um, socialism.

Vote for Bob Barr.

So, Reagan was a socialist?

Really???

Because any president since the tax code was enacted has operated under the same set of rules, with the only difference being one of degree rather than order.  Who gets taxed at what rate gets tweaked, in other words.

So, if you're saying "spreading the wealth" is "socialist," then we've been a socialist country for some time now.

I always thought socialism involved the State owning (or distributing) goods and services.  Some services (police, fire, military, etc.) have always been socialized, as it were, as essential services.  But nothing in what we consider the private sector, at least until W. 

As to the fairness of either tax plan, we can discuss that later.
Logged

Out of my mind on Saturday night...
vinman3
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 1762
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,783


Master of the Obvious


« Reply #11 on: Oct 30, 2008 at 10:59 »

Oh, and when I get time, I'm going to post a perspective on this whole "Redistribution of Wealth" issue.


Please do.

I've long had a refutation of the flat tax that I've never articulated.  Obama's "socialism" is a tweak of existing tax code nearly a century old.  Basically, rolling back the cash grab for the highest earners that Bush doled out.

Hmmmm, giving more money to the middle class... Yeah, that's a bad thing, because the super-rich sit on their money and the middle class spend it on goods and ser-- oh wait, that would actually help the economy.

Nevermind.


IF Obama was actually taking money from the rich....The new proposed tax increase is for those making $150,000 or more. Um. That is not rich. Saw the link for reference yesterday, but cannot find it today. Even if it is not true, and it is still $250,000 or more, that still is not rich. Is it wealthy in WV? Well, maybe not wealthy, but doing very well. But NYC, are you kidding me? $250,000 is not even remotely close to rich.

I am not rich, I don't make anywhere close to $150,000 or $250,000, but it is 100% wrong on principle alone, IMHO. Really, it doesn't matter, both candidates are socialists anyways. Don't let McCain fool you, he is just a little less socialist. He absolutely voted for the bailout, and nationalization of banks...Um, socialism.

Vote for Bob Barr.


So, Reagan was a socialist?

Really???

Because any president since the tax code was enacted has operated under the same set of rules, with the only difference being one of degree rather than order.  Who gets taxed at what rate gets tweaked, in other words.

So, if you're saying "spreading the wealth" is "socialist," then we've been a socialist country for some time now.

I always thought socialism involved the State owning (or distributing) goods and services.  Some services (police, fire, military, etc.) have always been socialized, as it were, as essential services.  But nothing in what we consider the private sector, at least until W. 

As to the fairness of either tax plan, we can discuss that later.


Fair enough. I know you support Obama Finny, and that is cool by me. He just is too far left for my tastes. McCain, I never have trusted. I never voted for him in any primary he has ran in, and I will not support him now. Nor anyone who voted for the bailout.

I do like the fair tax though....Seems reasonable. http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main
Logged

It's a hot night. The mind races. You think about your knife; the only friend who hasn't betrayed you, the only friend who won't be dead by sun up. Sleep tight, mates, in your quilted Chambray nightshirts.
Finnegans Wake
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 12195
Offline Offline

Posts: 22,379



« Reply #12 on: Oct 30, 2008 at 11:56 »

Penso hates the fair tax.

It puts an undue burden on those who buy $100 puffy shirts.
Logged

Out of my mind on Saturday night...
steelerfaninCO
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 1271
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,484



« Reply #13 on: Oct 30, 2008 at 12:58 »

That crazy socialist Teddy Roosevelt was the first one to enact a progressive tax system, so it has been around for quite a while. What you have to remember, is that most people making over 250k a year usually don't pay even the current 36% of what they earn because any CPA worth a shit can get you a ton of deductions. I can tell you this through personal experience. Am I super psyched to be paying more taxes? Of course not, but if you make 20k a month(which is "only" 240k a year), at 39%, you still bring home over 12k a month. As Vin pointed out, tough to live well in Manhattan on that, but pretty much everywhere else in the country, you can live very well on 12k (take home) a month. And unless Congress closes a lot of the loopholes in the tax code, at the end of the year, your CPA will be lessing your tax burden.

I am definitely for another tax system though. Wouldn't mind a national sales tax, or a true flat tax with no deductions. The current system is way to complicated and is easily manipulated by the wealthy.

What we need is compassionate capitalism, not compassionate conservatism.

And even as a registered Libertarian, I can't vote for Barr. That guy is no Libertarian, and he can't change his record as a Republican Congressman from Georgia or being a total douche about impeaching Clinton. And I am pretty pissed at the Party for selling out their ideals and nominating him purely as a marketing strategy by putting a well known name on the ticket. Buts thats another story. I did vote for down ticket Libertarians here in CO.
Logged
pensodyssey
Halfsharkalligator halfman.
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 8124
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,753



« Reply #14 on: Oct 30, 2008 at 13:07 »

Penso hates the fair tax.

It puts an undue burden on those who buy $100 puffy shirts.

Whatever I can do for my country.
Logged

A shabby Charlie Brown.
leighclay
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 3979
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,194



« Reply #15 on: Oct 31, 2008 at 23:55 »

Fair enough. I know you support Obama Finny, and that is cool by me. He just is too far left for my tastes.

I'd be interested to know why, exactly, you think he's too far left?  Especially when you see so many moderate Republicans endorsing him.
Logged

I'm still the one with the boobs.
Finnegans Wake
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 12195
Offline Offline

Posts: 22,379



« Reply #16 on: Nov 01, 2008 at 08:07 »

Fair enough. I know you support Obama Finny, and that is cool by me. He just is too far left for my tastes.

I'd be interested to know why, exactly, you think he's too far left?  Especially when you see so many moderate Republicans endorsing him.

Powell is a socialist.

Buckley is a commie.

Logged

Out of my mind on Saturday night...
vinman3
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 1762
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,783


Master of the Obvious


« Reply #17 on: Nov 01, 2008 at 08:53 »

Fair enough. I know you support Obama Finny, and that is cool by me. He just is too far left for my tastes.

I'd be interested to know why, exactly, you think he's too far left?  Especially when you see so many moderate Republicans endorsing him.

Powell is a socialist.

Buckley is a commie.



Now now now Finny. Sarcasm will get you everywhere Smiley

I don't like his stance on gun control. The second amendment to the Constitution gives Americans the right to bear arms, and he has consistently voted to restrict those rights. I am not a gun fanatic, in fact, I only own one 4-10 shotgun. However, the second amendment is one I strongly believe in for self protection, hunting, and legal uses. Gun control laws take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, not criminals, they will still find ways to get guns.

I don't believe in the nationalization of our health care system. Now while Obama's plan doesn't go as far as Hill's, I think it will lead us down the road.

I don't know that I like an open dialogue with Iran, as long as Ahmadinejad is still intent on building a nuclear weapon program. That dude is bad news. I do agree with Obama about The Bush Doctrine to a point (see, I can be agreeable). We shouldn't act alone, unless an imminent threat or attack has occurred. Clearly, Iraq was not an imminent threat, but they had been a thorn in the world's side for a long time. I supported the war from the beginning, and do not support withdrawing until the country can defend itself. I think Iraq really needs to work more swiftly at getting there. But I do keep in mind that the United States still has bases in Germany and Japan, over 60 years later. Having a base in Iraq is likely going to happen, with the Iraqi government taking control of their security. At least I hope so.

Bush failed where he had every chance to succeed after 9/11, most especially in Afghanistan. There is no reason why the Taliban and al qaeda should be active in Afghanistan 7 years after 9/11. Period. On that, Obama and I agree.

You know me and my wacky stance on "global warming," well Obama and I don't exactly see eye to eye on that. I think we should do what we can to be good stewards of this planet for our kids, but I still don't think that man affect on the climate is minimal compared to that ball of fire in the sky, volcanoes, and other natural causes. Now man has polluted the water, air, and land, and certainly we need to do better at cleaning things up.

I want energy independence and the elimination of oil as the driving force in our country. The reality is we are not going to get there right away. So we do absolutely need to use the resources the United States has at its disposal. Drill in Alaska, drill off the coast, get the oil shale from the Rockies, etc. Fuck OPEC. I just don't see an Obama presidency doing that.

I do like his thoughts on education.

I don't like the tax increases, because I believe that those increases will absolutely be across the board before it is all said and done. But in the meantime, they will hurt many small businesses, and then hurt the employees. I am for the fair tax or even a flat tax with no loopholes.

I am for small government, less taxes. The past eight years has got us lower taxes, but WOW how the government has grown. It will grow more with Obama.

I guess when it boils down to it. I don't trust the man. I don't trust McCain either.

Hope that helps clarify my position as a crazy right winger Smiley
Logged

It's a hot night. The mind races. You think about your knife; the only friend who hasn't betrayed you, the only friend who won't be dead by sun up. Sleep tight, mates, in your quilted Chambray nightshirts.
steelerfaninCO
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 1271
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,484



« Reply #18 on: Nov 01, 2008 at 10:40 »



[/quote]


I don't know that I like an open dialogue with Iran, as long as Ahmadinejad is still intent on building a nuclear weapon program. That dude is bad news.


[/quote]
 

Clearly Ahmadinejad is a dangerous idiot, but you have to understand he is not the leader of Iran. The Supreme Ayatollah rules the country, and Ackwhatthefuckmandida job is basically a figurehead, with no real power. He also had a tough relection campaign, and thats when he said alot of the crazy shit he has been saying, trying to appeal to his right wing hardline base. People have to understand that Iran is not Iraq. Iraq is a made up country, by the Brits circa 1917. Iran, or Persia, has been a society for over 5000 years. They were building aqueducts thousands of years before the Romans. In other words, these are intelligent people who need to be respected, no matter what their stupid theocracy is saying.

How would open dialogue with Iran hurt? Especially in regards to their nuclear program? Look where shunning N. Korea got us. Didn't talk to them, and they went ahead and developed the bomb. We start talking to them, and they become more open to stopping their program. Just imagine what the US would do if , say Russia, refused to talk to us while demanding we get rid of our nuclear stockpile. We'd give them the finger.

Just because we talk to them, doesn't mean we agree with them, condone their actions, and support them. But how can we demand things from them from afar without engaging them? Do as I say, not as I do? Also, do we as a sovereign nation, have the right to tell other sovereign nations what they can, or cannot do? Surely, the rest of the world didn't want us to get the bomb, and we are still the only country to use nuclear weapons on another country. We need to sit down with them, tell them what we would like to see happen and how we can help them if they want to work with us. If they tell us to fuck off, then we tell them what consequences that will have. We can still be tough while talking to them, and we don't have to validate their crazy positions while doing it either. But not sitting down at the table with them, IMO, is the wrong move. It can't hurt, and can only help. Just my .02.
Logged
vinman3
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 1762
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,783


Master of the Obvious


« Reply #19 on: Nov 01, 2008 at 12:05 »

Maybe so. I do know about how the Ayatollahs are the real leaders in Iran, but Ahmadinejad is the man in the forefront. If they conceded the nuclear program, then I would be open for talk. I just don't want to make concessions prior to them changing their point of view especially in regards to nukes.
Logged

It's a hot night. The mind races. You think about your knife; the only friend who hasn't betrayed you, the only friend who won't be dead by sun up. Sleep tight, mates, in your quilted Chambray nightshirts.
steelerfaninCO
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 1271
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,484



« Reply #20 on: Nov 01, 2008 at 14:09 »

Fair enough. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one Vinman.

Just a little about their government, which is a superficial democracy(republic) controlled by a theocracy. When the US backed Shah was overthrown in 1979, we all know what happened. After Ayatollah Khomeini assumed power, it was declared The Islamic Republic of Iran, with the Shia version of Islam declared the official religion.

There is a Supreme Leader, a President and executive branch, a legislature and a judiciary branch.

 Now the Supreme Leader, and there have only been two- Grand Ayatollah Khomeini, and the current Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is responsible for the delineation and supervision "of the general policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran" per their Constitution. The Supreme Leader is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, controls the military intelligence and security operations, and has the only power to declare war. He also appoints heads of the judiciary, state radio and television networks, the commanders of the police and military forces and six of the twelve members of the Council of Guardians. The Assembly of Experts elects, and has the power to dismiss, the Supreme Leader. Which of course has never happened. There are 86 clerics in the Assembly of Experts who vote, and candidates have to pass a written exam from the Council of Guardians. The CoG oversees what laws are allowed to be passed based on their interpretation of the Constitution. They also approve all candidates for national election. So, basically, the Supreme Leader is exactly that. In control of everything, and making policy. And only he can decide to go to war.

The President(Ahmadinejad) is elected by a national vote of 15 or older males. The Supreme Leader controlled CoG must approve all candidate's before running. The President is basically responsible for running the day to day operations of the country as per the Supreme Leader's policies. There are 10 vice-presidents.
Logged
leighclay
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 3979
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,194



« Reply #21 on: Nov 01, 2008 at 22:08 »

I don't like his stance on gun control. The second amendment to the Constitution gives Americans the right to bear arms, and he has consistently voted to restrict those rights. I am not a gun fanatic, in fact, I only own one 4-10 shotgun. However, the second amendment is one I strongly believe in for self protection, hunting, and legal uses. Gun control laws take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, not criminals, they will still find ways to get guns.

Now, let me quote the Second Amendment for you:
Quote
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

So, when we had no armed forces (when the Constitution was drafted) it was imperative that the People kept arms so that they may defend the country when called upon.  Most people forget those first 12 words. 
I do not need to keep an AK-47 by my side in case the British come up over the hill in the middle of the night.  I have a police force, and army, navy, air force, marines, national guard, to worry about those things for me.

I think it's asinine and uneducated to argue that the Second Amendment gives every man, woman and child the unequivocal right to own a gun.  It does not.  And Vinman, I do not mean to call you an ass, nor uneducated. 
I don't give a shit whether or not you have a gun for personal protection, hunting, or whatever.  But I fail to see how semi-automatic weapon ownership is your Constitutional right. 
And since the Supreme Court just this year affirmed the right of individuals to own guns, I also fail to see how the President, no matter who he or she is, can fundamentally restrict that right.

In other words, your 2nd Amendment fears are by and large unfounded.
I'd go into your other points, but it's been a long day.

So, you don't trust Obama or McCain, but you do trust Bob Barr? 

But I do love you Vinman, so I won't point and laugh.
 pointlaugh
OK, yes I will....
 eck02
 Wink

« Last Edit: Nov 01, 2008 at 22:20 by leighclay » Logged

I'm still the one with the boobs.
leighclay
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 3979
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,194



« Reply #22 on: Nov 03, 2008 at 08:41 »

Just one more thing, because I didn't mean that last post to be such a rant.
OK, maybe I did, but....I have a question that I'm really interested in getting people's opinions on, especially Vinman's, since he's one of the people I don't understand.

You know that neither Ralph Nader nor Bob Barr have a snowball's chance in hell of winning this election.  Yet you're gonna vote for one of them.  Why?  Sure, you have an opinion, and the right to vote and I completely support your right to both have an opinion and to vote for the man or woman of your choice (as long as you don't vote for a Bengals or Patriots fan...)
But aren't you effectively throwing that vote away?  Why wouldn't you carefully study both candidates that do have a shot at winning, and then make an informed choice between the two?
I do not think that our only options should be limited to Republicans or Democrats, but until there is a fully functional 3rd party which can mount a realistic challenge for a high office, what good does voting for someone like Nader or Barr do?

I'm not trying to be an ass.  I truly want to know what people think.

Thanks!
Logged

I'm still the one with the boobs.
Finnegans Wake
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 12195
Offline Offline

Posts: 22,379



« Reply #23 on: Nov 03, 2008 at 09:09 »

I think the 2nd Amendment is worded in such a way that it could be interpreted differently by different people.  LC's interpretation is a sensible one, but the gun-rights advocates would argue that the right to bear arms does confer unequivocal rights to bear arms.  Why?  Because we might need to get together a militia to defend the country.  Like, say, Bush invades Iran and starts a third front, and all our troops are stretched thin, and Mexico says Hey, this looks like our chance!

Founding fathers didn't envision this well-oiled machine that is our military, or fully automatic weapons, or nuclear weapons for that matter.  Would they have worded the 2nd differently?  I am sure that they would, but for better or worse I think our country now has more fealty to its gun culture than it does to the Founders' intent.

How would they have looked on our interpretation of the 1st Amendment? 

Quote
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Specifically, was their intent on Congress not making any laws respecting an establishment of religion what we have made of it?  I agree with the separation of church and state, but was taking Christmas celebrations out of schools what this Amendment really conveyed?

I realize too that the Founding Fathers themselves were not of one mind on many of these issues.

As for open, top-level negotiations with Iran, hell yes.  Ahmadinejad is an amusing oaf, but if we're talking with the mullahs of Iran, I think we have a much better chance of avoiding an Iran with nuclear weapons and the desire to use them.  Period.  The Bush foreign policy has been a stunny failure.  Period.  Obama's a poker player; he won't be all doe-eyed with unquestioning acceptance of BS they may try to pass off on us.  But communication, transparency, and inspections will work here.  Saber-rattling, not so much.

Anyway, Obama has a hell of a mess to clean up.

God speed.
Logged

Out of my mind on Saturday night...
jonzr
Asst. VP, Jonzring
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 11364
Offline Offline

Posts: 11,836


Have a cup o' joe.


WWW
« Reply #24 on: Nov 03, 2008 at 09:17 »

I've done the same as vinman in the past.  My reasoning is I could never bring myself to actively show support for any of the candidates who were on the ballot.  For me, this thinking goes back to the first Clinton election - that's when I started voting Libertarian.

This time, even though I live in TX and my vote for Obama won't matter one little bit, at least it'll cancel out some fucker who votes for McCain.  

Considered voting for Kerry last time but just couldn't do it.  If I thought that he had a shot at winning TX I would have though - anything to end the Bush insanity.  Actually, I might have.  Don't really remember.

So, I don't see voting Libertarian as a vote for the lunatic fringe so much as a protest vote.  And holding out some small hope that perhaps eventually a third party will have a shot.  Probably be better off going with whatever party Nader is associated with though as a potential third party.  
Logged

"I like David Bowie, he was always my favorite member of Tin Machine."
- Rodney Anonymous

It's a Steeler Nation
leighclay
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 3979
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,194



« Reply #25 on: Nov 03, 2008 at 09:48 »

I've done the same as vinman in the past.  My reasoning is I could never bring myself to actively show support for any of the candidates who were on the ballot.  For me, this thinking goes back to the first Clinton election - that's when I started voting Libertarian.

This time, even though I live in TX and my vote for Obama won't matter one little bit, at least it'll cancel out some fucker who votes for McCain.  

Considered voting for Kerry last time but just couldn't do it.  If I thought that he had a shot at winning TX I would have though - anything to end the Bush insanity.  Actually, I might have.  Don't really remember.

So, I don't see voting Libertarian as a vote for the lunatic fringe so much as a protest vote.  And holding out some small hope that perhaps eventually a third party will have a shot.  Probably be better off going with whatever party Nader is associated with though as a potential third party.  


I understand that concept to a point.  And my vote for Obama won't change the way Kentucky goes, most likely.
I guess I'm really looking at the damage done to Al Gore by those who voted for Nader. 
Whether or not you like Al Gore, realistically, he lost the General Election because voters went with Nader rather than him.  Yep, those same voters may have voted for W., but I believe it was shown that Nader took the votes more from Gore than from Bush.

Anyway....hopefully it won't be that close this time and it won't matter.  And maybe the last eight years would have been worse under Gore.  I don't know. 
I'm probably just thinking too much, and without the ability to change history, it don't matter no way.
 eck02
Logged

I'm still the one with the boobs.
Preacherman0
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 5808
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,848



WWW
« Reply #26 on: Nov 03, 2008 at 10:00 »

Quote
I do like his thoughts on education.

My wife, as a teacher, has stated that she will vote for any candidate that will do away with No Child Left Behind as it currently exists.  She doesn't completely disagree with the stated principles or intent, but the fact is that it just doesn't work.  Bush's goal is to have 100% of students passing whatever test they have to pass to be considered "on grade level."  That is almost a statistical impossibility, and the only way to make it happen is to dumb down the test to the point that every kid can pass it just by writing his/her name at the top.

As for the election politics, well...thank goodness it's almost over!  Vinman, I wouldn't call you a crazy right-winger at all, because it sounds like you actually THINK about these things.  My issue with the right--at least here in SC--is that most of them haven't had a thought in about 20 years.  They just say, "I ain't votin' for no Hussein-lover!  If we elect Obama this world is comin' to an end."
Logged

We have traded Christ for the religion of Christianity.
leighclay
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 3979
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,194



« Reply #27 on: Nov 03, 2008 at 10:02 »

Back to my Election 2000 thing - Florida.
Difference in vote total was 2,912,790 for Bush, 2,912,253 for Gore.  Difference = 537.
Nader got 97,488.
FL has 25 electoral votes.
If it goes for Gore, new EC total is Gore = 291; W = 246.

537 votes!

Logged

I'm still the one with the boobs.
Preacherman0
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 5808
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,848



WWW
« Reply #28 on: Nov 03, 2008 at 10:08 »

Quote
Anyway....hopefully it won't be that close this time and it won't matter.  And maybe the last eight years would have been worse under Gore.  I don't know. 

I don't know if it would have improved under Big Al.  At the least, we can be pretty sure the White House power bill would have gone way up!

And, it is kind of scary to think that 537 votes may have decided the whole thing.

Still, I cannot be discouraged at people voting their convictions.  Maybe a vote for a third-party candidate is a "wasted" vote.  But, maybe if people voted their convictions rather than basing their decision on electability/lesser of two evils, we'd already have a viable third party at work in this country.
Logged

We have traded Christ for the religion of Christianity.
steelerfaninCO
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 1271
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,484



« Reply #29 on: Nov 03, 2008 at 10:10 »

I've done the same as vinman in the past.  My reasoning is I could never bring myself to actively show support for any of the candidates who were on the ballot.  For me, this thinking goes back to the first Clinton election - that's when I started voting Libertarian.

This time, even though I live in TX and my vote for Obama won't matter one little bit, at least it'll cancel out some fucker who votes for McCain.  

Considered voting for Kerry last time but just couldn't do it.  If I thought that he had a shot at winning TX I would have though - anything to end the Bush insanity.  Actually, I might have.  Don't really remember.

So, I don't see voting Libertarian as a vote for the lunatic fringe so much as a protest vote.  And holding out some small hope that perhaps eventually a third party will have a shot.  Probably be better off going with whatever party Nader is associated with though as a potential third party.  


I understand that concept to a point.  And my vote for Obama won't change the way Kentucky goes, most likely.
I guess I'm really looking at the damage done to Al Gore by those who voted for Nader. 
Whether or not you like Al Gore, realistically, he lost the General Election because voters went with Nader rather than him.  Yep, those same voters may have voted for W., but I believe it was shown that Nader took the votes more from Gore than from Bush.

Anyway....hopefully it won't be that close this time and it won't matter.  And maybe the last eight years would have been worse under Gore.  I don't know. 
I'm probably just thinking too much, and without the ability to change history, it don't matter no way.
 eck02


Gore lost because of Kathleen Harris and the infamous hanging chad. 10000 people did NOT vote for Buchanan in West Palm Beach He won the popular vote by 500,000 remember. He also lost because he ran a shitty campaign. I don't think you can lay the loss at the feet of people who voted for Nader. Nadar had/has a strong message than resonates with a lot of people. How else are we going to break the 2 party system? It won't change until enough people vote differently. But you bring up a very interesting debate. Should someone sell out the ideals and go with a party that has a chance of winning? Or do you stick to your guns and vote Independent/ Libertarian/Green/Etc and make your personal statement?

Since I am in a swing state, and with everything on the line, I went for Obama. There just can't be a President Palin. Or even the chance of it. But I voted Libertarian for all the local down ticket races. I like Libertarians in local government. Leave me the fuck alone!

Finny brings up a good point about the 2nd Amendment. Part of the original intent, was that people needed access to guns in case they needed a Revolutionary War 2.0. That the public has a right to A) have a militia and B) arm said militia to basically protect themselves from the government.

Oh yeah, we need to get rid of the Electoral College ASAP. One person, one vote. You know there is a possibility that Obama wins the popular vote by over 5 million, and loses the Electoral College. Its remote, but nevertheless possible. Can't wait to see what happens if that goes down.
Logged
vinman3
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 1762
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,783


Master of the Obvious


« Reply #30 on: Nov 03, 2008 at 10:16 »

No worries LC, I still love you too  love4

My interpretation of the second amendment pretty much continues along the point Finny made.

Ditto that on the second amendment.

I voted Clinton in 1992 (would have voted Perot had he not flaked), voted Perot 1996, Bush in 2000 (after voting Alan Keyes in the primary), I voted Bush in 2004, I voted for the crazy old coot Ron Paul (when McCain had been pretty well clinched it). I always vote for who I feel is the best candidate, even if they are a guaranteed loser. Right now, in this climate, I think Bob Barr is the best candidate for the job, so he will get my write in vote.

IMO, if everyone who thought that the third party candidate was the best choice would actually vote for that candidate, they would have a chance of winning.
Logged

It's a hot night. The mind races. You think about your knife; the only friend who hasn't betrayed you, the only friend who won't be dead by sun up. Sleep tight, mates, in your quilted Chambray nightshirts.
vinman3
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 1762
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,783


Master of the Obvious


« Reply #31 on: Nov 03, 2008 at 10:17 »

Vinman, I wouldn't call you a crazy right-winger at all, because it sounds like you actually THINK about these things.  My issue with the right--at least here in SC--is that most of them haven't had a thought in about 20 years.  They just say, "I ain't votin' for no Hussein-lover!  If we elect Obama this world is comin' to an end."

Thanks Preach.
Logged

It's a hot night. The mind races. You think about your knife; the only friend who hasn't betrayed you, the only friend who won't be dead by sun up. Sleep tight, mates, in your quilted Chambray nightshirts.
steelerfaninCO
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 1271
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,484



« Reply #32 on: Nov 03, 2008 at 10:20 »

Quote
I do like his thoughts on education.

My wife, as a teacher, has stated that she will vote for any candidate that will do away with No Child Left Behind as it currently exists.  She doesn't completely disagree with the stated principles or intent, but the fact is that it just doesn't work.  Bush's goal is to have 100% of students passing whatever test they have to pass to be considered "on grade level."  That is almost a statistical impossibility, and the only way to make it happen is to dumb down the test to the point that every kid can pass it just by writing his/her name at the top.




No Child Left Behind is a complete and total disaster. Its a good idea in Utopia, but unrealistic in the real world. Its actually encouraging schools to let underperforming kids drop out. Instead of having these kids drag down the schools average performance scores, they are telling them to drop out. Basically the bottom 3rd is getting left behind. Since the program isn't properly funded, most schools don't have the resources to lift the scores of the bottom scoring students. And since their some of their current funding is dependent on the schools performance, measured through students test scores, the schools don't want, or can afford to average in the low scores. So they tell the kid to drop out. And its happening all over the country at an alarming rate.
Logged
leighclay
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 3979
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,194



« Reply #33 on: Nov 03, 2008 at 10:54 »

Don't get me wrong, I also applaud Vinman for sticking by his guns (pun intended).
And I don't lay all the blame of the 2000 election at the feet of Nader, but....NH was also lost by a slim margin and would have won the election for Gore. No hanging chad there.
There may be others, I haven't done a full analysis. Work keeps getting in the way.   :rolleyes:

I have never considered voting for a 3rd party candidate.  None of them have every seemed viable enough to me.  Not viable in the sense that I did not think they brought anything different to the table, not in that they couldn't possibly win.  Believe me, I'd vote for one if I thought they offered a better answer than the others.

I see this election as the most important in my lifetime so far.  I originally thought that about the first Clinton campaign, but now realize that I was mostly a one issue voter.  Not a good thing, necessarily.

So, Vin, do you trust Bob Barr?  And if so, why? What makes him more trustworthy?

Again, asking purely for educational purposes.
Logged

I'm still the one with the boobs.
Preacherman0
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 5808
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,848



WWW
« Reply #34 on: Nov 03, 2008 at 11:45 »

Quote
No Child Left Behind is a complete and total disaster. Its a good idea in Utopia, but unrealistic in the real world. Its actually encouraging schools to let underperforming kids drop out. Instead of having these kids drag down the schools average performance scores, they are telling them to drop out. Basically the bottom 3rd is getting left behind. Since the program isn't properly funded, most schools don't have the resources to lift the scores of the bottom scoring students. And since their some of their current funding is dependent on the schools performance, measured through students test scores, the schools don't want, or can afford to average in the low scores. So they tell the kid to drop out. And its happening all over the country at an alarming rate.

That's just the tip of the melting iceburg on that issue.  Again, my wife (like most teachers) has no problem with accountability--but, let's make it reasonable accountability.  For example:  Two years ago, she got an ESL student about two months before the date of the big state test.  Kid's parents spoke no English, he knew barely a few words.  In NC (where we lived) he did not have to take the state test because he didn't know English well enough to be expected to have a chance.  Then, three weeks before the test, the ESL teacher calls my wife and says, "Yeah, he qualifies, and has to take the math and the verbal sections."  Now, my wife hasn't even had the kid in class enough to teach him any math because he's w/the ESL group.  Now, she has three weeks to teach a kid who can barely read a sentence enough math/english to get him ready for a stadardized test.  And literally, the bonuses, funding, etc. for the ENTIRE SCHOOL may come down to whether this kid who has live in the US for a few months passes this test.

Somehow, the kid barely passes.  Which means one of two things:

1) My wife is a miracle worker (probably true)

and/or

2) Test wasn't all that tough.

In one of the other little ironies to this brilliant W plan, South Carolina has some of the lowest test scores in the nation.  However, it is also the only state that is giving a test that is judged to be a "worthy" benchmark for student achievement.  What is the state's reward for having a truly challenging test and not dumbing down the material?  Less money, fewer bonuses, worse national reputation. 
Logged

We have traded Christ for the religion of Christianity.
pensodyssey
Halfsharkalligator halfman.
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 8124
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,753



« Reply #35 on: Nov 03, 2008 at 17:19 »

Let's also not forget that in order for a candidate to get his or her name on the ballot, their party has to meet certain requirements that entail getting a percentage of the votes in the previous election.   Forget the number, but I do know it's a minimum percentage of all votes cast.  So voting for a third party-- libertarian, green, socialist, etc.-- isn't a wasted vote, it's a step towards maintaining the viability of a party outside the big two, and keeping it out of a nowhereland write-in status.

Votes for a third party are one of the few real ways to maintain alternatives to the republicrats.
Logged

A shabby Charlie Brown.
Finnegans Wake
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 12195
Offline Offline

Posts: 22,379



« Reply #36 on: Nov 03, 2008 at 18:25 »

I'd be delighted with a strong third party, but don't see any of the existing thirds to curry much favor with the general public.  (I did vote Nader in 2000, not much enamored of either Bush or Gore, a protest vote.)  That leaves the cult of personality to take the charge, sporadically, in lieu of a compelling party vision.  To wit, within my lifetime:

1992, Perot, 18.90%
1980, John Anderson, 6.61%
1968, George Wallace, 13.53%

While voters may have some sympathy or affinity with aspects of independents' platforms, those parties just aren't taken seriously, in part because of systemic issues (media exposure, funding), in part because of voter resistance, but IMO because the argument is not compelling. 

To me, 2008 presents an election where the candidate I back would have made an interesting independent; a Clinton-McCain-Obama election would likely wind up in the House per the 12th amendment, with McCain winning a plurality of states and hence the presidency.  But an Obama party would likely have been a strong third; a pity in that regard that he did so well.

I've said forever that we need a Thomas Paine to author a tract for some Common Sense party, to which strong candidates disaffected with the bicameral system would be attracted, to represent the disenfranchised moderate majority.  Somewhere between the radical poles, a vast many Americans believe in a sense of balance, where neither ideology holds complete sway.  For me, that is a vision of fiscal conservatism, strong national defense, and a libertarian sense of non-intervention in social values; personal rights and freedoms being paramount; a respect and sense of conservancy of the natural resources; and the idea that while big government is not ideal, we have a duty to ensure that basic needs of all Americans are met very much in accordance with ideas promulgated in the Biblical Gospels.  If that sounds like every ideology into the blender, so be it.  We all pick and choose, although I don't believe there's consensus on which a la carte items we would each choose.  But the recalcitrance of the two parties to deviate from platform, and their insistence on polarization, make me hope in short-term for great things from Obama, and long-term for a party of sensible options.
Logged

Out of my mind on Saturday night...
vinman3
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 1762
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,783


Master of the Obvious


« Reply #37 on: Nov 04, 2008 at 06:34 »

So, Vin, do you trust Bob Barr?  And if so, why? What makes him more trustworthy?

Again, asking purely for educational purposes.


I think I do...As much as you can trust a politician. It is a gut feeling really. I wish it was more than that. I do like the fact that he has left the Republican party, which shows he can think for himself and not just walk the party line. Maybe that is it.

I like his stances on many issues. I love the fact that he was very much against the bailout. Quite frankly, I cannot in good conscience vote for ANYONE who voted for that travesty.
Logged

It's a hot night. The mind races. You think about your knife; the only friend who hasn't betrayed you, the only friend who won't be dead by sun up. Sleep tight, mates, in your quilted Chambray nightshirts.
leighclay
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 3979
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,194



« Reply #38 on: Nov 04, 2008 at 08:31 »

So, Vin, do you trust Bob Barr?  And if so, why? What makes him more trustworthy?

Again, asking purely for educational purposes.


I think I do...As much as you can trust a politician. It is a gut feeling really. I wish it was more than that. I do like the fact that he has left the Republican party, which shows he can think for himself and not just walk the party line. Maybe that is it.

I like his stances on many issues. I love the fact that he was very much against the bailout. Quite frankly, I cannot in good conscience vote for ANYONE who voted for that travesty.

Cool.
Alrighty then, go out and vote, if you haven't already.
My brother & his friends, since they're all off school and work today, were planning to vote then hit the strip club.
Ah, youth...
 Wink
Logged

I'm still the one with the boobs.
vinman3
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 1762
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,783


Master of the Obvious


« Reply #39 on: Nov 04, 2008 at 08:34 »

So, Vin, do you trust Bob Barr?  And if so, why? What makes him more trustworthy?

Again, asking purely for educational purposes.


I think I do...As much as you can trust a politician. It is a gut feeling really. I wish it was more than that. I do like the fact that he has left the Republican party, which shows he can think for himself and not just walk the party line. Maybe that is it.

I like his stances on many issues. I love the fact that he was very much against the bailout. Quite frankly, I cannot in good conscience vote for ANYONE who voted for that travesty.

Cool.
Alrighty then, go out and vote, if you haven't already.
My brother & his friends, since they're all off school and work today, were planning to vote then hit the strip club.
Ah, youth...
 Wink

LOL. Enjoy the day LC, I am sure Barr has as much chance as McCain does at winning today. I will be glad when it is finally over.
Logged

It's a hot night. The mind races. You think about your knife; the only friend who hasn't betrayed you, the only friend who won't be dead by sun up. Sleep tight, mates, in your quilted Chambray nightshirts.
leighclay
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 3979
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,194



« Reply #40 on: Nov 04, 2008 at 08:37 »

So, Vin, do you trust Bob Barr?  And if so, why? What makes him more trustworthy?

Again, asking purely for educational purposes.


I think I do...As much as you can trust a politician. It is a gut feeling really. I wish it was more than that. I do like the fact that he has left the Republican party, which shows he can think for himself and not just walk the party line. Maybe that is it.

I like his stances on many issues. I love the fact that he was very much against the bailout. Quite frankly, I cannot in good conscience vote for ANYONE who voted for that travesty.

Cool.
Alrighty then, go out and vote, if you haven't already.
My brother & his friends, since they're all off school and work today, were planning to vote then hit the strip club.
Ah, youth...
 Wink

LOL. Enjoy the day LC, I am sure Barr has as much chance as McCain does at winning today. I will be glad when it is finally over.

Yeah, but you know those damn political ads won't stop on TV until late next week.  I hate that.  Ads should have to be done by the time the polls close on the day.  Get that shit outta here!   tickedoff

 Wink
Logged

I'm still the one with the boobs.
Pages: 1 2 ... 5 [All]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal
| Sitemap
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!