o8jedi
Jet
Please, call me "o8"
Posts: 364
|
Post by o8jedi on Jul 9, 2008 20:41:56 GMT -5
I meant he now agrees with the decision. Plenty of people can and do disagree with Supreme Court decisions. Roe vs. Wade, Dred Scott, etc. etc. Valid point. Regardless, I file this under "Stuff He'll Say Just to Get Elected." Considering every politician does this to some extent, I don't really consider the whole agreeing with the gun ban thing an issue. I mean, look at Rudy Guliani. He had been a long time champion for safe, legal abortions until he started running for President. Then, he was singing a completely different tune (albiet one where every other word was "9-11"). In any case, I'm sure Obama thought that the intentions of the null and void DC law were good (a public safety measure in a city with a notoriously high crime rate). On a different, but related, note, if Obama were to support a law to reinstate the ban on the private ownership of assault weapons, I would have even more admiration for him. A semi-automatic handgun is one thing. An AK-47 is another. Good point, but the opinion isn't that the positions changed. The opinion is that it was bad. [/i] I knew I should have added "Take it with a grain of salt." Look where else, "Sticking to our guns" got us: The Country itself. A unified nation, and an end to slavery. The end of World War I, ending pointless bloodshed. The defeat of Hitler and Tojo. And last, but not least, The fall of the Soviet Union. Okay, I concede that there are times to stick to your guns, however I would like to use a poker analogy. You're playing Texas Hold 'Em. You have pocket Jacks. The last community card has been dealt and the cards are: 10 of clubs, Jack of spades, Queen of Clubs, 10 of Diamonds, King of clubs. You know you have a three of a kind. Your only other opponent left in a table of 5 goes all in. Do you call him? Now, three of a kind is a winnable hand to have when there's 5 people, but let's look at the other hands that could beat you. He could have an Ace, giving him a straight. Two clubs gives him a flush. A pocket pair of Queens or Kings gives him a full house. Pocket tens, 4 of a kind. 9 of clubs, a straight flush. Ace of clubs, royal flush. Now, ask yourself: knowing all these possibilities (and probabilites) that could exist, would you stillcall him? Then ask yourself, who would the better poker player be: one who makes decisions based solely on the quality of their own hand or one that figures out the outcomes and then decides? That's all Barack is trying to do: Try to analyze what the other person's hand is like before calling. And, further, the recession has little to do with the war, it started as a Long Island sup-prime mortgage crisis, which spread to the rest of the nation. And, honestly, I don't see the point of European nations disliking us. They'll come running back to us once they need help. (just kidding) Honestly though, France, Germany, and Italy are all becoming slightly more conservative. Actually one Frenchman, decrying the smoking restrictions, bemoaned that France was becoming to liberal like the U.S. It should be noted that the United States is the only country in the world that uses "conservative" to describe politically right people and "liberal" for politically left people. The rest of the world uses those terms to describe one's economic policies, rather than their social policies. With this terminology, President Bush is one of the most liberal people in the world since he is a firm believer in a Total Free Market economy (which is often just as bad as true Communism, but that's a different topic). You're right, though, that the recession has little to do with the war. What I meant by that was that since there were plenty of signs that the sub-prime mortgage bubble was going to burst (and if you look at the idea behind it, it's a dumb one to begin with, but I digress again) and President Bush did little to try to make the landing as soft as possible, relying on his tax cuts and "economic stimulus packages" to do the work for him. The same goes for alternative resources. Imagine having to first hammer out alt. fuel technologies, then build refineries, or whatever processing it needs to go through, and finally being able to ship it out as a usable fuel. I say we do both, alternative fuel, and oil. Valid point. Now, unless you know something that I don't, Obama already has an alternative fuel in mind: Ethanol. Now, he is aware that corn-based ethanol is actually more expensive and less efficient to produce than straight gasoline is (this was pointed out to him by Rolling Stone during an interview for the most recent issue), but he contends that the current infrastructure and industrial growth will be useful once other ethanol sources (such as cellulosic ethanol) becomes usable and, thus, allow corn to be used for its primary purpose: food. This, however, is merely a transitional stage in his mind. If hyper-efficient photovoltaic materials or hydrogen fuel cells become more feasible, he will naturally try to encourage these new technologies. I must say, I very much enjoy debating here as opposed to Yahoo answers, where 75% of the comments are: "Lololol, Obama's a dum dum he'll let gays, Muslims and Jews take over the world!!!!!!!!!1!! And he's black!!111!!!!" or "Omg McCain's going to make the U.S. a dictatorship!!!!!!1!!!!! And he has cancer!!!!!11!!!!! No seriously, that's what it's like there. For DH, where intelligent debate rules! Glad I can be a bit more of a reasonable voice in a sea of idiocy.
|
|
|
Post by madfoot713 on Jul 20, 2008 1:05:03 GMT -5
ugh. Neither of them. I used to be a Ron Paul supporter but considering his chance of election is miniscule, don't even think about him. I guess this sounds like I'm a conspiracy theorist--I'm not--but honestly IMO, both sold themselves out to corporate America and the news corporations and such. One of the things that tick me off about politics is that the candidates are chosen for us by the media two or three years before the election. Why can't average American actually be responsible and take the hour that it takes with a google search to find a candidate who isn't a frontrunner or isn't in one of the two main parties to actually find someone who hasn't sold their soul to the devil? No, it's just easier and more satisfying to choose between the lesser of two evils, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by Grimmjow of the Funk on Jul 20, 2008 10:43:16 GMT -5
^uhhh that is how obam won the illinois senate man. if the public wasn't pestering him so much to run for president he wasn't going to so we kind of did get obama to run and yeah you do sound like a conspiracy theorist.
|
|
|
Post by madfoot713 on Jul 21, 2008 20:53:07 GMT -5
well, honestly, it's not conspiracy theorist at all. the government IS too big for its own good, and neither Obama nor McCain are going to do anything to fix that. it's not a conspiracy theory to say that the government is corrupt, that the media will say anything to get money (which includes influencing politics as they do)... anyway, this is off-topic :/
|
|
|
Post by Grimmjow of the Funk on Jul 22, 2008 10:09:27 GMT -5
^no what i meant is when you were saying the government chooses the candidates that was not the case with obama i agree that the government is very corrupt and the media is also screwed up i hated ron paul because he has very very insane and wanted to shut down public schooling which is the worst idea ever.
|
|
|
Post by mentalmishaps on Jul 22, 2008 13:54:32 GMT -5
Look where else, "Sticking to our guns" got us: The Country itself. A unified nation, and an end to slavery. The end of World War I, ending pointless bloodshed. The defeat of Hitler and Tojo. And last, but not least, The fall of the Soviet Union. I know that this is a little bit old, and it's a little off topic, but I have to respond to this. Sticking to our guns had nothing to do with the end of the Civil War. In fact, it was sticking to our guns that started it! World War I should never EVER have involved the US. In fact, WWI is largely regarded as the catalyst for WWII. If we had not stuck to our guns, Europe would have worked itself out. The US did NOT cause the fall of the Soviet Union. The faulty communist economic structure and the willingness of Gorbachev to innact change did. All the US's policy did was create a decades long red scare. It could have potentially lead to a nuclear war. As soon as one of the countries STOPPED sticking to their guns, the Cold War ended. Lets not forget that this idea of sticking to out guns also got us: -Into Iraq -Into the Spanish American or "Splendid Little" War which permanently damaged North and South American relations. -Into the Plains Indian Wars and the almost complete massacre of an entire culture. (Although, I don't feel that the Indians were completely faultless here either.) I really couldn't support McCaine or Obama. I'm not as well read on the current issues as I should be, but McCaine strikes me as another Bush. Obama reminds me of FDR with his: "We'll change SOMETHING. We don't know what or how, but we will" policies. If I had to choose, I'd support Obama. And to the post above me, I'm pretty sure that they weren't speaking literally. The government doesn't say: "Alright, McCaine is gonna win." But they do things to insure that someone they can manage wins. The Republicans and Democrats are so similar in terms of what will actually happen that it doesn't really matter which one becomes president. The government and media also do happy little things like bar any third party candidates from the national debate. I also noticed that, during the primaries, Ron Paul actually got 14% in one state- more than Huckabee. However, no one ever mentioned his name. They skipped straight from McCaine to Huckabee. Tell me that's fair. As for the conflict in the Middle East, it wasn't our bussiness, and it shouldn't be now. By interfering, we have, once again, made asses of ourselves. The rest of the world is NOT America's problem. We should get our troops out. We're only responsible for their problems because we made ourselves responsible.
|
|
historyman12
Fugitive Iroh
IS IT JULY 14TH YET?
Posts: 4,822
|
Post by historyman12 on Jul 23, 2008 9:12:23 GMT -5
Look where else, "Sticking to our guns" got us: The Country itself. A unified nation, and an end to slavery. The end of World War I, ending pointless bloodshed. The defeat of Hitler and Tojo. And last, but not least, The fall of the Soviet Union. I know that this is a little bit old, and it's a little off topic, but I have to respond to this. Sticking to our guns had nothing to do with the end of the Civil War. In fact, it was sticking to our guns that started it! No. The war, especially from 1862-1864, was vastly unpopular in the North. Lincoln was ridiculed in many newspapers, and commonly regarded as an awful president who dragged the nation into a war that was none of its business and was causing an economic downturn. Sound familiar? If Lincoln hadn't stuck to his ideals, we would be two separate countries, and slavery would remain widespread throughout the world, as many countries followed America's lead and abolished slavery. Wrong. The war would have continued several more years, with neither the Entente (Allied) Powers nor the Central Powers gaining an advantage. The two sides moved about 25 miles of French mud back and forth during four years. Europe would have worked itself out? Europe, prior to the first World War was always at war. Always, always, always. Anything could have set it off. If the war ended without a clear victor, the cycle would merely have continued. In fact, part of the motive for World War I was the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, which was in turn revenge for a war in the 1840's I believe etc. etc. And, further, it was the Treaty of Versailles, which Woodrow Wilson opposed, that created mass bitterness and anger in Germany, allowing for the rise of Adolf Hitler. ... No. Ronald Reagan did. The US./Soviet arms race had largely ended, and was a heck of a tax on the Soviet economy. SO Reagan reactivated it. The ensuing race put a tax on the Soviet economy that it could barely recover from. Some politicians such as Ted Kennedy, proposed a nuclear halt, which would have lifted the burden of the arms race on the Soviet. Further, Reagan got Saudi Arabia to increase oil production, further hurting the Soviet economy. Further, Reagan made Gorbachev enact the glasnost policy. He refused to stop putting pressure on him. The Spanish American War wasn't us "Sticking to Our Guns" it was war hysteria, and ended in a month. It also didn't permanently damage relationships. That's fair. Huckabee won several primaries, and was John McCain's largest competitor. Not Ron Paul. Really? So, a country launches planes at us, steers them into our buildings, and it's not our business. Further, going into a country that has done everything in it's power to make it look like he had WMD's and everyone everyone thinks he does, you have no business stopping him. I see.
|
|
|
Post by mentalmishaps on Jul 23, 2008 12:21:21 GMT -5
Sorry if this is difficult to read; I'm having issues with the quote function.
"No. The war, especially from 1862-1864, was vastly unpopular in the North. Lincoln was ridiculed in many newspapers, and commonly regarded as an awful president who dragged the nation into a war that was none of its business and was causing an economic downturn. Sound familiar? If Lincoln hadn't stuck to his ideals, we would be two separate countries, and slavery would remain widespread throughout the world, as many countries followed America's lead and abolished slavery."
Yeah, but if Lincolon had never initated the war to begin with, he wouldn't have to have stuck to his guns. As it was, his provocations got us into war. If he had just allowed the South to succeed, we might not live in a country that has gotten far too big for its own good. Of course, I feel that the South was to blame as well. If they had simply calmed down and not attacked, the same end might have been reached. As for slavery, the US was one of the last countries to abolish slavery. Slavery wasn't widespread throughout the world. Eventually, it would have died out on it's own in the US.
"Wrong. The war would have continued several more years, with neither the Entente (Allied) Powers nor the Central Powers gaining an advantage. The two sides moved about 25 miles of French mud back and forth during four years. Europe would have worked itself out? Europe, prior to the first World War was always at war. Always, always, always. Anything could have set it off. If the war ended without a clear victor, the cycle would merely have continued. In fact, part of the motive for World War I was the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, which was in turn revenge for a war in the 1840's I believe etc. etc. And, further, it was the Treaty of Versailles, which Woodrow Wilson opposed, that created mass bitterness and anger in Germany, allowing for the rise of Adolf Hitler."
I don't think that the problems of Europe were any of our business. We shouldn't have interfered in other countries business. If the war had been allowed to end without a clear victor, then the Treaty of Versailles would never have happened either. Europe would have gone on as usual. It isn't the US's business what other countries do. We should have stayed out. It was also Wilson's inflexibility about his fourteen points that stopped the US from backing the League of Nations.
"... No. Ronald Reagan did. The US./Soviet arms race had largely ended, and was a heck of a tax on the Soviet economy. SO Reagan reactivated it. The ensuing race put a tax on the Soviet economy that it could barely recover from. Some politicians such as Ted Kennedy, proposed a nuclear halt, which would have lifted the burden of the arms race on the Soviet. Further, Reagan got Saudi Arabia to increase oil production, further hurting the Soviet economy. Further, Reagan made Gorbachev enact the glasnost policy. He refused to stop putting pressure on him."
Sorry, I don't buy the whole "Reagan pressured the Soviets" thing. Both nations were putting pressure on one another. Communism doesn't work. Therefore, the Soviets couldn't last as long. But that wasn't Reagan that did it. It was years and years of idealism. ALL the other presidents had pressured the Soviets. It just broke in Reagan's office. It was a combination of years and years of stubborness (from both nations) and a faulty economic structure.
"The Spanish American War wasn't us "Sticking to Our Guns" it was war hysteria, and ended in a month. It also didn't permanently damage relationships."
It ended in a month, after many pointless lives were lost, and the Philippines were put under US control for quite a while. I'm not up on the current affairs to know how permanent the damage was, but it sure lasted a long time.
"That's fair. Huckabee won several primaries, and was John McCain's largest competitor. Not Ron Paul."
Sorry, but Guliani doesn't have a prayer either and they said his name. They literally acted like Ron Paul wasn't running. If I had a list of four people who were competing with someone and I called the first, third, and fourth place names out, that's biased. No one wants an independent (even one now running as a Republican) to have a voice. It isn't a big conspiracy theory; it's fact.
"Really? So, a country launches planes at us, steers them into our buildings, and it's not our business. Further, going into a country that has done everything in it's power to make it look like he had WMD's and everyone everyone thinks he does, you have no business stopping him. I see."
The country had nothing to do with it. It was some extremist nutjobs. If a couple of crazy fanatical Americans blow up a building, should the whole country be blamed. No you have NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER TRYING TO STOP OTHER COUNTRIES FROM HAVING WEAPONS. It is NOT the US's business if anyone has weapons. Unless they make a direct and severe threat, we should just stay out of it. No one really thought that they had WMD. That was crud and everyone knows it. It was crud to get us in a war that is costing thousands of lives across the board.
|
|
historyman12
Fugitive Iroh
IS IT JULY 14TH YET?
Posts: 4,822
|
Post by historyman12 on Jul 23, 2008 16:40:31 GMT -5
Sorry if this is difficult to read; I'm having issues with the quote function. That's fine then. Lincoln initiated the war? What? The South seceded because he was elected. He made no demands, in fact, he bent over backwards to assure the South that he had no intentions of starting a war. And no, slavery wasn't dying out, only two countries, Britain and France, abolished slavery before America. And, the U.S. could have been invaded by a foreign power, if it was seen as weak after the war. It wasn't just"Europe's problems" it was the sinking of the Lusitania, and, much more importantly, the Zimmerman telegram. In fact, before the Zimmerman telegram, the U.S. and her citizens very much wanted to stay neutral. "Gone on as usual"? Europe couldn't stop going to war before World War II. Can you imagine a back and forth every few years breaking out, especially with today's technology, and between such powerful nations? The renewed arms race is what did them in. Who started that? Reagan. He may not have ended the Cold War, by himself, but he certainly shortened it by the Arms Race, and getting the Saudis to increase production. I never said it was a good thing. I just said it wasn't us sticking to our guns. Yeah, but Giuliani had large leads in the polls prior to the primaries. After they started I say no mention of his name. So, let's get this straight. We had no right to invade Afghanistan. Even though their government was known to be harboring terrorists, and their government was actively Al-Qaeda sympathetic, we shouldn't have invaded. Right. And no one really believed Iraq had WMD's? Bill Clinton couldn't stop talking about it in 1997-1998. The UN were fanatic about sending UN weapons inspectors. Everyone believed it. Everyone. I do not want a leader, a despot, a man who has invaded another country and is openly Anti-American getting weapons of mass destruction.
|
|
|
Post by CountessRachel on Jul 24, 2008 23:44:04 GMT -5
I know you guys are in a strong debate, but a friendly reminder, let's not lose sight of the overall topic. I feel that it's slowly starting to veer off a bit. Just wanna put that out there.
Thanks! -CR
|
|
|
Post by madfoot713 on Jul 25, 2008 0:59:14 GMT -5
So, let's get this straight. We had no right to invade Afghanistan. Even though their government was known to be harboring terrorists, and their government was actively Al-Qaeda sympathetic, we shouldn't have invaded. Right. And no one really believed Iraq had WMD's? Bill Clinton couldn't stop talking about it in 1997-1998. The UN were fanatic about sending UN weapons inspectors. Everyone believed it. Everyone. I do not want a leader, a despot, a man who has invaded another country and is openly Anti-American getting weapons of mass destruction. Afghanistan is one thing, but we invaded a country--illegally--under false pretenses and overthrew its government. That's a fact.
|
|
|
Post by Princess Azula on Jul 25, 2008 2:52:44 GMT -5
I would not countenance voting for either candidate. John Sidney McCain III is a blundering war monger and Barack Hussein Obama is a deceitful demagogue. It would be the equivalent of reëlecting George Walker Bush or William Jefferson Clinton. Loathsome choices.
Had I my way, I would rather see George Herbert Walker Bush reëlected, even though the former president is older than McCain. He's our last true president--he was a stateman who had a truly globalist mindset. He was a moderate who opposed the religious right and the neocons without giving in to the New Dealers and Great Society types. He was a war hero and a man who stood for principles. Most importantly, he refused to toot his own horn and only very reluctantly engaged in attack advertisements against Dukakis. Unlike his son and unlike Clinton, he wasn't and isn't full of himself.
He's also an unsung hero. His budgetary control lead to about 60% of the so-called "Clinton surplus" and his tireless diplomatic efforts are what led to the reunification of Germany, rather than a continuation of the status quo after the Clone War. He also knew better than to occupy Iraq--and indeed received criticism from Democrats for not deposing Saddam Hussein!
O, how things have changed.
|
|
asian malaysian
Avatar Kyoshi
Let me hear you say this ship is bananas! B-A-NA-N-A-S!
Posts: 1,308
|
Post by asian malaysian on Jul 25, 2008 3:15:27 GMT -5
^^ok- So youre definitely not going to vote? (Puts big wad of campaign dollars back in wallet)
|
|
|
Post by Princess Azula on Jul 25, 2008 4:13:17 GMT -5
There is such a thing as write-in votes. It will be meaningless as to the outcome of the election, but it will allow me to vote with a clean and honorable conscience.
|
|
historyman12
Fugitive Iroh
IS IT JULY 14TH YET?
Posts: 4,822
|
Post by historyman12 on Jul 25, 2008 17:05:20 GMT -5
So, let's get this straight. We had no right to invade Afghanistan. Even though their government was known to be harboring terrorists, and their government was actively Al-Qaeda sympathetic, we shouldn't have invaded. Right. And no one really believed Iraq had WMD's? Bill Clinton couldn't stop talking about it in 1997-1998. The UN were fanatic about sending UN weapons inspectors. Everyone believed it. Everyone. I do not want a leader, a despot, a man who has invaded another country and is openly Anti-American getting weapons of mass destruction. Afghanistan is one thing, but we invaded a country--illegally--under false pretenses and overthrew its government. That's a fact. The war wasn't illegal, it was approved by Congress, after the President proposed it. That's how it's supposed to go. Oh, and, if anyone brings up the U.N., the Security Council should not be able to decide who it is can and can't go to war. Our country should be able to decide what it want s to do without a union of countries, many opposing America and its viewpoints, giving us the go-ahead. Oh, and, it wasn't exactly false pretenses, it was mistaken pretenses if you will, false pretenses implies a direct and deliberate lie. And I don't care either if we overthrew a madman, genocidal, warmongering despot. Really, I don't.
|
|