Who you voting for?

If you can't figure where a given topic fits - place it here.

Election 2008

Obama
12
75%
McCain
4
25%
 
Total votes: 16

Rakeman
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 9:50 am

Post by Rakeman » Sun Nov 02, 2008 7:10 pm

Vader218 wrote:TMTM wrote:
the US should disband its military so we can afford universal health care
That's right, shift focus to more important domestic issues.
I have no figures on what these Bush-wars cost you daily, but I think it's a significant amount.
I think that Israel is more willing to cooperate with regional countries like Egypt and Jordan (and even Syria) when it feels that it doesn't have full (unquestioned) support of the US.
Oh yes, that's a good point. Imagine if you had a small country but the United States would back you no matter what you do. No matter how many UN resolutions get passed against your country, the good ol' US will back you up and veto em, then send you all the money and military support you could ask for. And what you don't get from America, you go to Germany and ask for more holocaust reparations.

Why the hell would you waste time being diplomatic with your neighbors?

Israel is actually one of the world's human trafficking capitals. I believe that was the first thing America EVER condemned Israel for, so the Israeli cops began to enforce some of the laws against it...

I think the worst aspect of our unrelenting support of Israel is that we wonder why the Arabs are sending planes into our buildings, when we go and unconditionally back a hostile enemy of theirs. Not to say the Arabs are never at fault of course, but we *condemn* them when they commit wrongs. Not the Israelis.

Nobody is going to fly a plane into a building because they "hate freedom,"
like Bush would like you to think...
Craig A Yope wrote:Actually, the worst thing about this thread is the fact that the poll only has two choices.

That is the biggest indictment of our country right there.

From my personal standpoint, they are really just two shades of the same problem- Big Government. :shock:

It is just big government one way or the other.

At least the Democrat state that they want to grow it bigger with all their "socialist" programs. The Republicans talk a good game, but always seem to find a way to grow government too.

In the end, neither of these entities really want to shrink the size of government because that would hurt the special interest groups that they represent. They are there to keep their backers happy.

And remember, the only person they should be working for is the individual citizen, but that seems to be the only person they aren't listening to.

Craig
Right on man, I'm not a libertarian but I definitely respect what you guys have to say- it is much better than the dems and reps. I backed Ron Paul but unfortunately he's toast, but I would be more than happy with a Libertarian in charge. Personally I fall more in line with the Constitution Party.

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Post by Imperious leader » Sun Nov 02, 2008 7:45 pm

Support Obama and buy A&A 50 Anniversary ed
What the ?
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

User avatar
adlertag
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:28 pm
Location: norway

Post by adlertag » Mon Nov 03, 2008 1:55 am

Larry support Obama.

You buy AA50, WOTC get money, forward them to Larry, who forward them to Obama, who forward them to healt care. What part of this you dont get, you Hun warmongler ?

Bluestroke
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:17 am

Post by Bluestroke » Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:01 am

Vader218 wrote:Bluestroke wrote:
we will need to work with other nations
That's exactly what I foresee will not happen. Even when Obama gets office, the US will still impose it's will and is expecting the rest of the world to follow suit ("you're either with us or against us").

The US should back out of Afghanistan, Iraq, Japan, S.-Korea, etc. and let the world take care of itself instead of imposing so-called democracy (: the right to "trade" with the US) in strategic regions only.
Item:No,
one of the doctrinal differences between Obama and McCain is Obama wants to work within the world community. The minority party of Democratic opposition has opposed the Bush Doctrine, which includes, imposing its will and expecting the rest of the world to follow suit,
( " your either with us or against us. " ) And now the world economic crisis, the reality, will further force the US, back into cooperation, its less expensive. This is a good thing, having Allies and working with them.

item:No,
the US should not back out of Afghanistan, the front on terrorism is there. I want Bin Laden's head, so does Obama. Its only Bush, who doesn't have time for this minor aspect. The US and world, requires a strong US military deployed in each region. Despite the last eight years, the US has been a major force in global stability for fifty years. Have US policies been perfect, no. We make mistakes like all nations. Not to impose democracy, but to provide support to many global interests.
The US must be engaged internationaly, when they are not,
lets see WWI, WWII, facts are facts.

Bluestroke
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:17 am

Post by Bluestroke » Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:11 am

TMTM wrote:
Vader218 wrote:Bluestroke wrote:
we will need to work with other nations
That's exactly what I foresee will not happen. Even when Obama gets office, the US will still impose it's will and is expecting the rest of the world to follow suit ("you're either with us or against us"). The US should back out of Afghanistan, Iraq, Japan, S.-Korea, etc. and let the world take care of itself instead of imposing so-called democracy in strategic regions.
Right... the US should disband its military so we can afford universal health care like other countries who don't waste money on such foolish junk... maybe we can sale some of our stuff to those who need to carry more of the load. If this works out then maybe we can move on to a universal economy that cuts out all that evil profit.
Item:The rest of the industrialized world already has Universal Health care, and the US is spending more money on Health care, then those countries. Lets save some US tax dollar money and pass universal health care, hello. Many of the worlds Nations, could spend more on Defense, the US, spends too much, unforunately.
Profit is good, using the US military to gain excess profit, is bad.
We need to reinstate war profiteering laws that existed during WWII.

Bluestroke
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:17 am

Post by Bluestroke » Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:53 am

Craig A Yope wrote:Actually, the worst thing about this thread is the fact that the poll only has two choices.

That is the biggest indictment of our country right there.

From my personal standpoint, they are really just two shades of the same problem- Big Government. :shock:

It is just big government one way or the other.

At least the Democrat state that they want to grow it bigger with all their "socialist" programs. The Republicans talk a good game, but always seem to find a way to grow government too.

In the end, neither of these entities really want to shrink the size of government because that would hurt the special interest groups that they represent. They are there to keep their backers happy.

And remember, the only person they should be working for is the individual citizen, but that seems to be the only person they aren't listening to.

Craig
item:I agree, it is an indictment of our country.
The two party system is killing US.
It's the reason, for so many independents like my self, I don't fit into either party. Look at the Republicans, this year, actually three factions, attempting to find a common ground, they can not.
I am stuck, year after year with few or no actual political choices.
We need to change the laws on how we elect.
The Dems and GOP have a lock on our system.

Item:I agree, special interests, second pillar of this mess.
Large goverment, the biggest goverment expansion in history, the last eight years, who the Republicans. And now, Republicans sponsor this bail out of wall street, who's socialist?
There used to be a time, when you could count on the Republicans to be Fiscal Conservetive, those days are gone.
So, where do you go, as a Fiscal conservetive-you have nothing.
The Dems, can they change? Obama will be the first Nominee in many years, that will not owe, special interests.
We shall see, what this might mean in American Politic.

Item:I believe in a strong US military.
I believe in the draft, all should serve their country first,
before they continue on with their other interests.
I believe the US consitution is sacred. It gets pissed on by both parties.
Obama supported Bush's FISA bill, hell, I was so angry,
wanted to quit him right there. No nominee is beautiful, pox on all.
I find both parties abuse the military for political and financal gain.

Craig, kudos to you, for running for office.
As for being a Libertarian,
I can't agree with all Libertarian positions,
but respect their love of the consitution.
I like Ron Paul. He stated, he could not run as a Libertarian Party nominee, this time, because he wanted to have a real chance at being elected.
He was marginalized by the Republicans.
Your premise in action Craig.

User avatar
Craig A Yope
Posts: 820
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 12:23 am
Location: Saint Clair, MI

Post by Craig A Yope » Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:55 am

I am stuck, year after year with few or no actual political choices. We need to change the laws on how we elect. The Dems and GOP have a lock on our system.


People should spend some time researching the ballot access laws in the various states and see how restrictive some of them are. The two major parties have worked very hard to keep “third” parties off the ballots.

Here are some examples:
Louisiana- The Republican Secretary of State is fighting to keep Bob Barr/Wayne Root off of the ballot because the paperwork wasn’t filed by the proper deadline. The problem here is that the Governor shut all state offices because of Hurricane Gustav and, more importantly, issued an executive order delaying all state deadlines.

This one has gone into the courts with the LP winning an early decision and then having that overturned without even a formal hearing by the US Court of Appeals. That decision was appealed all the way to Supreme Court Justice Scalia and it seems to have been denied.

Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire- These are all examples of screwy systems in that you are required to start your petitions before your nominating convention with local “stand-in” candidates and then replace them with your nominations later. Republicans fought the Pennsylvanian bid claiming LP fraud and in Massachusetts the Democratic Secretary of State flip-flopped back and forth concerning the ability to substitute.

The Pennsylvanian case is still in court but a judge in Massachusetts cleared the way for the LP to be on the ballot. The New Hampshire case is also still in the courts.

Maine and Connecticut- These are cases of bureaucratic BS. In Connecticut, valid petition sheets were lost by the election officials between the time they were turned in to the town clerks and then they were to be counted/validated by the state. This is now in the courts. Maine is a case of the Democratic Secretary of State arbitrarily enforcing a deadline that has routinely been ignored by local town clerks. It is now in the courts, but is up in front of a Republican judge who has previously ruled against an independent candidate in a similar case.

Oklahoma- The toughest ballot access laws in the nation. This one is notorious in Libertarian circles and once again it is in the courts with the resolution likely after the election.

While I don’t know the story right now, the LP is also been kept off the ballot in West Virginia. There are also ongoing court cases in North Carolina, Tennessee, Washington, and Kentucky.

There shouldn’t be these kinds of barriers to participation in the political process, especially in a country such as ours. It is very hypocritical of us as nation to beat our chests and talk about democracy to the rest of the world, all the while we have these kinds of games going on in our own country. Despicable!


I agree, special interests, second pillar of this mess. The Dems, can they change? Obama will be the first Nominee in many years, that will not owe, special interests. We shall see, what this might mean in American Politic.


If you believe that Obama isn’t beholden to certain groups, then you are misguided. Being the nominee of a major political party ties you to many a group no matter what you think. Once he is in the White House, the different parts of the party will “come a callin’” to cash in on their support.



I believe in the draft, all should serve their country first, before they continue on with their other interests.


I don’t believe that anyone should be “forced” to serve. That is the point of the freedom that we have. It is a choice to do such a thing.


Craig, kudos to you, for running for office.


One thing I will say about running for office- You don’t do it to get elected, you do it because you believe it is the right thing to do. If you fall into the trap of running to get elected, then you start doing things that aren’t about what you believe in. You start doing what is necessary, not what is right. Your principles get left behind in the pursuit of just getting into the position. Everything gets twisted. Your goal becomes just to get in, not to serve.


As for being a Libertarian, I can't agree with all Libertarian positions, but respect their love of the consitution.

I like Ron Paul. He stated, he could not run as a Libertarian Party nominee, this time, because he wanted to have a real chance at being elected. He was marginalized by the Republicans.


I liked Ron Paul too, but I also had some serious disagreements with some of his positions. The main reason he was marginalized was because he would have been another Barry Goldwater for the party. He would have represented the older ideals of the party, but it would have gotten them steamrolled just like in 1964.

Ultimately (and unfortunately), the vast majority of people can’t agree with the Libertarian Party because they can’t handle that much freedom. Or they have some issue that they just can’t allow others to be free on.

Most people have an issue (or many) that they just can’t get past when it comes to freedom. Freedom isn’t just about you being able to do what you want, it is also about others being able to do what they want whether you agree with it or not.

There are plenty of things in life I don’t agree with, but I recognize the need to allow other to be free to do what they want to do if I am to be free to do what I want to do. You have to able to understand that and accept it in order to truly have a free society. As soon as you start to limit things, you start down the slippery slope towards limiting all things.

Note: I am not talking about Anarchy. I am talking about small government with very limited interference in the private lives of the individual citizen.

With freedom comes responsibility. It is a heavy burden, one that seems more and more people are unwilling to carry. The need for more government and more taxation is a result of the individual citizen doing less for themselves.

Craig

User avatar
TMTM
Posts: 415
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 4:28 pm
Location: Alpharetta, GA

Post by TMTM » Tue Nov 04, 2008 12:33 am

Best wishes to all tomorrow and thanks for good a discussion.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests