Now I Am Convinced American Politics/Peoples is wtf

[Against Miik!]

...as if I didn't know before

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Huckabee_Amend_Constitution_to_meet_Gods_0115.html

I hate to give the story away with the link, but I guess it doesn't matter. Anyways, this last line really struck me:

Geist further noted of Huckabee that if "someone without his charm," said that, "he'd be dismissed as a crackpot, but he's Mike Huckabee and he's bascially the front-runner."

Like NO ****ING ****!!!

Nobody on this campaign trail is exponentially more sane than Paul or Kucinich or whoever else they write off as crazy. These words by Huckabee should serve as empirical evidence that crazy or not has nothing to do with electability or why the front runners are who they are. Its all about media spin and name recognition. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm convinced of it.

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

This country is so ****ed.

[McP3000]

Im a Christian and I think that Huckabee is a blundering idiot and evangelical 'tard. Ruin our country why don't you?

RON PAWL OH ATE

[Mr. Ron]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

[Give me Beer]

Uhm, what?

Okay, I hope this does mean that he can forget about becoming president, right?

[McP3000]

Uhm, what?

Okay, I hope this does mean that he can forget about becoming president, right?
Im pretty sure the majority of the America public will be against this too if this gets out in time.
I still have a small bit of faith in the country.

[Against Miik!]

Ha. I doubt it. They are behind already. It's common sense that Huckabee is a nut. If it takes him basically saying it outloud for people to finally get it, well, I don't have a whole lot of faith in those folks.

[132WalrusesInMexico]

Ah geez. If this man is elected, I'm moving to Canada. Actually, I will probably just move to Canada either way.
Today is the Michigan primaries, and most of the democrats have had their names taken off of the ballot.

[Cocaine]

Before you get all 'yay im moving to canada' look into stephen harper, then move to sweden instead.

[Chrysostom]

It's things like this that make me want to move to the US.

[Mr. Ron]

It's things like this that make me want to move to the US.

How so? :p

[Amit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Dean#Iowa_results_and_the_.22Dean_Scream.22

it happens every 4 years i swear

[guitrguy]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

That really hurts him in the long run, so I'm going to laugh.

[Against Miik!]

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/01/15/irrational-voters/

Same goes for McCain if you read that link. People vote to much on personality. It's not like the Iraq war or rewriting our Constitution are small issues like whether or not a candidate believes in evolution or not *cough*amit*cough*

[Amit]

assuming they have read up on the evidence, believing in evolution is like having a pulse except it demonstrates a working, honest, and wholly unretarded intellect

[Against Miik!]

Hmmmm, well I hate to get off track here but we always do. Lets take the Democrats out of the picture because they are crap mostly (not like republicans aren't)

On the one hand, we can have a new Constitution written based on the laws of Christianity, thats a theocracy for those watching at home. We could also have a leader who wants to keep us in Iraq for the next century, but gets voted in by people who want out of course (see my above post). Or we can have someone who doesn't claim to know where or how we got here as a race, realizes that as president it really doesn't matter what he thinks about that, and is otherwise perfectly capable of doing his job. Hmmmmm, tough one there.

[VomitStainedCretin]

People who vote on personality not policies should be disenfranchised as they clearly don't possess the intellectual capabilities to make a rational choice when casting their vote.

[Against Miik!]

I'm am going to say this with a completely straight face. I would be completely in support of having some kind of requirements for voting beyond being a citizen who is 18. I don't mean a tax, because you can penalize the poor. But something that would weed out all the complete morons. Anybody who says omg we can't do that we live in a free country should just look around.

[VomitStainedCretin]

The key is to cultivate apathy amongst the ignorant mass whilst simultaneously satiating their petty desires through Panem et Circenses (bread & circuses for those who aren't familiar with the Latin). Or as it translates nowadays, Fast Food & Reality TV.

[Permanent Solution]

I'm am going to say this with a completely straight face. I would be completely in support of having some kind of requirements for voting beyond being a citizen who is 18. I don't mean a tax, because you can penalize the poor. But something that would weed out all the complete morons. Anybody who says omg we can't do that we live in a free country should just look around.
Weeding out the morons would weed out the lower class disproportionately. So unless you're going to create some sort of equal opportunity clause for voting (and we see how well that works elsewhere) you'd just be accused of discriminating against the poor.

[pedro durruti]

You can't bar right-wingers from voting...!

[VomitStainedCretin]

Weeding out the morons would weed out the lower class disproportionately. So unless you're going to create some sort of equal opportunity clause for voting (and we see how well that works elsewhere) you'd just be accused of discriminating against the poor.Locke would be pretty happy with that, since he believed poverty indicated a lack of adequate reason.

[Smokey D]

Locke was an idiot.

And you can't set up tests because it's the people in charge who get to set the standards, and it's always going to be weighted in their favour. You'd just be entrenching a social hierarchy through legislation.

[Rams]

Hmmmm, well I hate to get off track here but we always do. Lets take the Democrats out of the picture because they are crap mostly (not like republicans aren't)

On the one hand, we can have a new Constitution written based on the laws of Christianity, thats a theocracy for those watching at home. We could also have a leader who wants to keep us in Iraq for the next century, but gets voted in by people who want out of course (see my above post). Or we can have someone who doesn't claim to know where or how we got here as a race, realizes that as president it really doesn't matter what he thinks about that, and is otherwise perfectly capable of doing his job. Hmmmmm, tough one there.

I like how objective this came out.

[Independent_CA]

There's already enough problems with the US voting system and the "moron factor" is kind of low on that list if you ask me. Campaign rules, campaign finance, debate formats, media coverage, and others all need work before we start weeding people out of the voting booth.

[Against Miik!]

True, fixing a lot of those things would probably make the moron thing less of a factor.

I like how objective this came out.

Was that serious? I can't tell.

[Dave de Sylvia]

I'm am going to say this with a completely straight face. I would be completely in support of having some kind of requirements for voting beyond being a citizen who is 18. I don't mean a tax, because you can penalize the poor. But something that would weed out all the complete morons. Anybody who says omg we can't do that we live in a free country should just look around.
You act as if poor people actually vote or something.

[Against Miik!]

I meant to say because you can't penalize the poor, if that changes anything.

[guitrguy]

That thrusts it into confusion.

[Against Miik!]

Well first we need to get out of the way the fact that stupidity is not a trait held only by the lower class. And I don't mean like overall IQ or anything. I mean political knowledge, of the issues and such. You can be knowledgeable about that, rich or poor.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Oh, ok, that makes more sense.

[Smokey D]

Well first we need to get out of the way the fact that stupidity is not a trait held only by the lower class. And I don't mean like overall IQ or anything. I mean political knowledge, of the issues and such. You can be knowledgeable about that, rich or poor.

Poor people are disadvantaged because they are less likely (and able) to go to higher education, and have less time to dedicate to it.

[Against Miik!]

Anybody with access to a newspaper and the will to do so can become politically educated. Formal education will give you the basics, but after that, I think its fair game.

[Smokey D]

Formal education gives a far more powerful analytic framework to think about politics than reading the newspaper.

[Against Miik!]

Perhaps. I still think mega idiots shouldn't be able to vote though. But yeah stupidity is subjective and there is no good way to measure it so I guess we are stuck with what we got, Mike Huckabee as a front runner and opposers of war voting for arguable the biggest warmongerer in the field.

[guitrguy]

Perhaps. I still think mega idiots shouldn't be able to vote though. But yeah stupidity is subjective and there is no good way to measure it so I guess we are stuck with what we got, Mike Huckabee as a front runner and opposers of war voting for arguable the biggest warmongerer in the field.

???? newspaper's aren't exactly the best source of info. And like Smokey said with out higher education how does one exactly learn analytical thought necessary to making a political decision.

[Against Miik!]

Education is great and everything, especially for getting a job. There is probably a slight correlation between education and analytical abilities. I just think that if somebody wants to learn whats going on in the world around them, it doesn't matter how much money they have.

[guitrguy]

Education is great and everything, especially for getting a job. There is probably a slight correlation between education and analytical abilities. I just think that if somebody wants to learn whats going on in the world around them, it doesn't matter how much money they have.

thats not the point, if they don't have the ability to learn, the passion or lack there of is irrelevant.

The goal of education is to instill analytical abilities as well as knowledge. Knowledge means nothing without analytical abilities, and vice versa

[Smokey D]

Education is great and everything, especially for getting a job. There is probably a slight correlation between education and analytical abilities. I just think that if somebody wants to learn whats going on in the world around them, it doesn't matter how much money they have.

Problem is attending higher education probably instills an interest in things like politics.

[Independent_CA]

Education is great and everything, especially for getting a job. There is probably a slight correlation between education and analytical abilities. I just think that if somebody wants to learn whats going on in the world around them, it doesn't matter how much money they have.

Being that this is my 4th year of college, I'd say people who have comparatively little or no college education don't really know how to analyze politics. They may be good at whatever they're jobs are and fairly bright people, but when it comes to understanding the whole process, spin, and how to filter out relevant information, most of them are lacking. That's when they just turn to media and go by what they hear there. They have no idea how to analyze it further for the most part.

[Against Miik!]

Well ok then. I guess I just haven't seen enough of the world to get it then.

Anyways, that means it is clearly the responsibility of the media to be more responsible when it comes to be election time...yea

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

when are people going to realize they don't know crap about ****

[Det_Nosnip]

Education is great and everything, especially for getting a job. There is probably a steep correlation between education and analytical abilities. I just think that if somebody wants to learn whats going on in the world around them, it doesn't matter how much money they have.

Fixed.

Miik, you're one to talk about supporting nutjobs. Ron Paul brings the big time lols.

[Against Miik!]

Thats my god damn point. All these guys are ****ed 3 ways to the weekend. So clearly that has nothing to do with why people do or do not vote for them.

[cometuesday]

Not to be one of those people who just adds a "this country's ****ed no matter what" to the conversation, but... this country is ****ed no matter what at this point.

I like how people continue to argue when it won't amount to ****.

[VomitStainedCretin]

Concerning the problem of political ignorance and the analytical ability gained as a result of education, John Stuart Mill considered this problem and, fearful of the possibility of 'mob tyranny', proposed that the better educated, e.g. Oxbridge graduates, should have plural votes.

This is a historical example not an appeal to authority, by the way.

[Smokey D]

Like Locke, Mill was a bit of a nonce.

[ringworm]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
this
Okay, I hope this does mean that he can forget about becoming president, right?
lol, sure :(


here is a country that has TWO religious people and a warmonger as the frontrunners, sooooooooo :)

and Ron Paul is seen as a radical

[guitrguy]

Well he does have this International Highway Conspiracy Theory going on.

[Chrysostom]

How so? :p

Ha ha. Well, y'know England just doesn't get this kind of religious nutjobbery, and it would be...er...'interesting' to experience it first hand.

[ringworm]

Well he does have this International Highway Conspiracy Theory going on.
well, if you're talking about the NAFTA hwy and associated items, it is a tad unsettling that so much can be approved spent and put forth without Congress or the people aware of it, its basically big business pushing stuff through without proper legislation being voted on. So, I guess this only furthers my support for him instead of the opposite :)

but the numerous people I hear call him a conspiracy nut because he questions unscrupulous behavior is laughable, hes just doing his job by watching how OUR money is used :)

[guitrguy]

Idk man, abolishing most of our gov't won't do much to prevent this highway from happening. Especially if it is big business behind it.

Not that I think thats actually going to happen.

Ha ha. Well, y'know England just doesn't get this kind of religious nutjobbery, and it would be...er...'interesting' to experience it first hand.

I remember reading some Dawkins and he was talking about a private school in England in which the Headmaster was a proponent of the young earth theory. He wanted to push that with creationism instead of you know, teaching empirical information.

[Smokey D]

What's so bad about a highway?

[guitrguy]

Nothing, but I seriously doubt its going to happen.

http://www.winnipegsun.com/Comment/2008/01/08/4757733-sun.html

this explains the conspiracy play on it.

[Smokey D]

As a roading project, it doesn't seem that unfeasible. But I guess the whole North American Union conspiracy thing is a little nuts.

[guitrguy]

From what I gather the road would be used just by freighters and other commercial vehicles.

[Smokey D]

Wiki says:The TTC is a multi-use, state-wide system that will include new and existing highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way. The network will include separate lanes for passenger and truck traffic, freight and high-speed commuter railways, as well as infrastructure for utilities including water, oil and gas pipelines, electricity, broadband and other telecommunications services.

EDIT: Flicking through the wiki links, it appears as if there are about 4 or 5 projects that have been called the Nafta Super Highway.

[guitrguy]

Wiki says:The TTC is a multi-use, state-wide system that will include new and existing highways, railways, and utility rights-of-way. The network will include separate lanes for passenger and truck traffic, freight and high-speed commuter railways, as well as infrastructure for utilities including water, oil and gas pipelines, electricity, broadband and other telecommunications services.

I have absolutely no problem with, that. In fact it sounds quite nice.

[VomitStainedCretin]

This NAFTA highway sounds almost as evil a Communist plot as fluoridated water.... :rolleyes:

[guitrguy]

Omg watch out for those commies and their strong teeth. :lol:

[ringworm]

Idk man, abolishing most of our gov't won't do much to prevent this highway from happening. Especially if it is big business behind it
Our gvnt IS big business, but yeah
its just funny that someone who wants to take a closer look at some skeptical associations of gvnt and business is deemed a conspiracy nut

here are few links
http://www.newsweek.com/id/73372
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2447
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul349.html

it just seems very familiar to what is happening in my area, developers, real estate etc, MANY of which also hold public office that can condem land, are falsely hiding behind saving green space by uniting and projecting what they want to build on farmland they deem as "undeveloped". Massive roads are being pushed ahead of old projects, DOT claims they have no money, but with utilities and banks behind them, who needs it (of which a $50,000 donation got you a seat on the steering committee while we beg to be part of it, we are denied the opportunity) and to boot, we arent even city taxpayers, we all live in the county only. Its just commercial developers and municipalities wanting to get $$$ before someone else does.

Ron is taking a stand, yet ridiculed for it?

[Smokey D]

It doesn't sound too different from any other municipal project, really, aside from maybe in scale. Paul opposes it because he thinks it's going to lead to a North American super state that overrides the constitution and sovereignty of the US, and that's just stupid.

[guitrguy]

Our gvnt IS big business, but yeah
its just funny that someone who wants to take a closer look at some skeptical associations of gvnt and business is deemed a conspiracy nut

here are few links
http://www.newsweek.com/id/73372
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2447
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul349.html

it just seems very familiar to what is happening in my area, developers, real estate etc, MANY of which also hold public office that can condem land, are falsely hiding behind saving green space by uniting and projecting what they want to build on farmland they deem as "undeveloped". Massive roads are being pushed ahead of old projects, DOT claims they have no money, but with utilities and banks behind them, who needs it (of which a $50,000 donation got you a seat on the steering committee while we beg to be part of it, we are denied the opportunity) and to boot, we arent even city taxpayers, we all live in the county only. Its just commercial developers and municipalities wanting to get $$$ before someone else does.

Ron is taking a stand, yet ridiculed for it?

Hes transcending taking a stand and pushing ridiculous ideas and accusations. Building a highway doesn't not mean we are going to create some EU clone.

[ringworm]

and that's just stupid.
eh, maybe to some people, while I agree with his level of involvement does make him appear crazy to some and its pretty early to get too riled up, now is usually when the underlying infastructure is passed and approved on controversial issues, then its too late, I would rather have a pitbull as a watchdog than a stuffed animal :)

[guitrguy]

I don't understand where he is getting the idea of a NAU from.

[ringworm]

it seems a likely possibility, well into the global future, at least to us oldschool "do things how we used to" people :)

[Det_Nosnip]

Like Locke, Mill was a bit of a nonce.

Yeah, the whole utilitarianism thing always seemed really dumb.

[guitrguy]

it seems a likely possibility, well into the global future, at least to us oldschool "do things how we used to" people :)

I see that as being a good thing. Coming together as single society is not that bad of an idea.

[Det_Nosnip]

but OMGZ national security!!

[ringworm]

Coming together as single society is not that bad of an idea.
i dont disagree with that at all, I encourage it, but, letting corporations handle it is another thing, its so easy for regular people to achieve this ideal but people in power fall short

[guitrguy]

i dont disagree with that at all, I encourage it, but, letting corporations handle it is another thing, its so easy for regular people to achieve this ideal but people in power fall short

Exactly.

[Iskandar]

Wait, what's so bad about the EU?

[VomitStainedCretin]

Yeah, the whole utilitarianism thing always seemed really dumb.Utilitarianism equals Jeremy Bentham; JS Mill was actually brought up in the Benthamist school of thought (his father was one) but realised that this view had deep flaws. JSM is more associated with Liberalism, one of that political philosophy's central texts being JSM's 'On Liberty'.

[Chrysostom]

I remember reading some Dawkins and he was talking about a private school in England in which the Headmaster was a proponent of the young earth theory. He wanted to push that with creationism instead of you know, teaching empirical information.

Alrighty, we don't get as much of that kind of religious nutjobbery in England. Certainly it doesn't infect politics here to the same degree.

[Rams]

Voting doesn't matter anyways so don't worry about it. Whom ever gets elected is going to be lambasted as the worst person of all time, while some defend him, and in four years a new guy will come in as most American's lives were minimally affected by him.

[Smokey D]

Utilitarianism equals Jeremy Bentham; JS Mill was actually brought up in the Benthamist school of thought (his father was one) but realised that this view had deep flaws. JSM is more associated with Liberalism, one of that political philosophy's central texts being JSM's 'On Liberty'.

He was a liberal who still deeply appreciated the principles of utilitarianism. Hence things like the harm principle etc.

But I was more referring to such brilliant ideas as not letting the natives running things on account of being the moral and intellectual equivalent of (white) children. Clearly the product of his time, but nonetheless a bit of a fool.

[guitrguy]

Alrighty, we don't get as much of that kind of religious nutjobbery in England. Certainly it doesn't infect politics here to the same degree.

Definitely. Funny thing is you guys don't have a separation of church and state as far as I know.

[Smokey D]

They have the opposite, as the Church of England is the established religion of England and Wales.

But they have functional separation of Church and state, just like every other western country. Probably even more so in some ways since the distinction has to be much more definite in order to counter the established position of the Church.

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

Voting doesn't matter anyways so don't worry about it. Whom ever gets elected is going to be lambasted as the worst person of all time, while some defend him, and in four years a new guy will come in as most American's lives were minimally affected by him.
^^^^



also whats wrong with nau that would be cool

[gregulus]

He was a liberal who still deeply appreciated the principles of utilitarianism. Hence things like the harm principle etc.

But I was more referring to such brilliant ideas as not letting the natives running things on account of being the moral and intellectual equivalent of (white) children. Clearly the product of his time, but nonetheless a bit of a fool.
But at the same time he also argued for the abolition of slavery, equal rights for women, etc. He also advocated education of the masses. He was also a great writer. He did have his darkside, though.

I also find consequentialism to make more sense than deontology anyway.

[Det_Nosnip]

He was a liberal who still deeply appreciated the principles of utilitarianism. Hence things like the harm principle etc.

But I was more referring to such brilliant ideas as not letting the natives running things on account of being the moral and intellectual equivalent of (white) children. Clearly the product of his time, but nonetheless a bit of a fool.

Yeah. He was very much a Utilitarian, as evidenced by his...*ahem* On Utilitarianism.

[VomitStainedCretin]

But at the same time he also argued for the abolition of slavery, equal rights for women, etc. He also advocated education of the masses. He was also a great writer. He did have his darkside, though.Yeah, consifdering he was basically decades ahead intellectually of his contemporaries, it's pretty weak to discredit him on the basis of not being 'modern' enough and retaining a few more archaic ideas.

[irishslappop]

It doesn't sound too different from any other municipal project, really, aside from maybe in scale. Paul opposes it because he thinks it's going to lead to a North American super state that overrides the constitution and sovereignty of the US, and that's just stupid.

no it's not. What better way for the U.S. to control illegal immigration then holding power over the lands that are providing the immigrants? Oil reserves in Canada, Land plots in canada, Provinces protecting the U.S. homeland from attack from the south AND the north. It's everything a failing empire ever wanted. More room, More people, more money, more resources. All gained from two countries that can't defend themselves.

Looking at history, it's not far fetched in the slightest.

[guitrguy]

no it's not. What better way for the U.S. to control illegal immigration then holding power over the lands that are providing the immigrants? Oil reserves in Canada, Land plots in canada, Provinces protecting the U.S. homeland from attack from the south AND the north. It's everything a failing empire ever wanted. More room, More people, more money, more resources. All gained from two countries that can't defend themselves.

Looking at history, it's not far fetched in the slightest.

Except the 3 countries would no longer be 3 countries.

[VomitStainedCretin]

I mean Canada's full of space, it's the second biggest country in the world, and it's got all that farmland, all you have to do is get rid of those beady eyed Canadians with their flapping heads and put Mexican slaves to work in those extensive grainfields and you've got LEBENSRAUM.

[irishslappop]

Except the 3 countries would no longer be 3 countries
good call???
<_<
>_>
I mean Canada's full of space, it's the second biggest country in the world, and it's got all that farmland, all you have to do is get rid of those beady eyed Canadians with their flapping heads and put Mexican slaves to work in those extensive grainfields and you've got LEBENSRAUM.

and bingo was his name-o

[Against Miik!]

I'm not completely convinced on the NAU one way or another. I mean, globalization is the overall trend the world has followed, as technology progresses. And don't forget that the EU was a long time in the making, although the NAU would theoretically be a bit different, since European countries still have their sovereignty for the time being.

[irishslappop]

oh, which brings up another point: the decline of the value of the dollar will eventually force the US to play ball with the euro and create something better, which is a possible segway[sound it out]to something like the "Amero". or like what is happening now, our economy will slowly crumble until there is a crash, all the people we've ****ed with during the bush admin see an opertunity[sp?], and then we're ****ed.






RON PAUL!

[Reaganista]

ooo you're a ron paul supporter now it all makes sense

[irishslappop]

ok. in this cluster **** of an election who are you gunning for?

[gregulus]

oh, which brings up another point: the decline of the value of the dollar will eventually force the US to play ball with the euro and create something better, which is a possible segway[sound it out]to something like the "Amero". or like what is happening now, our economy will slowly crumble until there is a crash, all the people we've ****ed with during the bush admin see an opertunity[sp?], and then we're ****ed.






RON PAUL!

yeah....except the north american union doesn't exist and the amero will never exist either.

[irishslappop]

im sorry, was i speaking in present tense?


ohh.....

it's a possible senario

sorry nostradamus.

[McP3000]

Hey guys
Ron Paul wants to help the country, legally, unlike our current administration

lets bash him

[Against Miik!]

I dunno. It could happen. The TransTexas Corridor is real. And the three Councils of Foreign Relations from each country got together in 2004 and 2005 and published two documents, titled Trinational Call For A North American Economic and Security Community By 2010 and Building A North American Community. Heres proof that at least one of those documents exists: http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf. I don't feel like finding the other.

Also, a few stated goals of the SPP in 2005 are a customs union, common market, investment fund, energy strategy, set of regulatory standards, security perimeter, border pass, and advisory council.

I am going out and will finish this later.

[McP3000]

The Amero would fail. It would be spread across 3 completely different economies.
Unless im missing something :confused:

[irishslappop]

Hey guys
Ron Paul wants to help the country, legally, unlike our current administration

lets bash him

right?

what the hell. The man wants to Adhere to the AMERICAN CONSTITUTION, yet we're all going to bash him for some reason. What do the other canidates have? opinions on abortion? opinions on other moral issues? if people haven't noticed, America is tearing at the seams, and still people want to argue over moral and highly subjective issues all day instead of agreeing to get the country back on it's feet.

First and foremost, we're so far in debt, we don't know whether to **** or go blind. Why isn't that the biggest ticket in this election?

[gregulus]

I dunno. It could happen. The TransTexas Corridor is real. And the three Councils of Foreign Relations from each country got together in 2004 and 2005 and published two documents, titled Trinational Call For A North American Economic and Security Community By 2010 and Building A North American Community. Heres proof that at least one of those documents exists: http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf. I don't feel like finding the other.

Also, a few stated goals of the SPP in 2005 are a customs union, common market, investment fund, energy strategy, set of regulatory standards, security perimeter, border pass, and advisory council.

I am going out and will finish this later.
http://www.spp.gov/myths_vs_facts.asp

[McP3000]

right?

what the hell. The man wants to Adhere to the AMERICAN CONSTITUTION, yet we're all going to bash him for some reason. What do the other canidates have? opinions on abortion? opinions on other moral issues? if people haven't noticed, America is tearing at the seams, and still people want to argue over moral and highly subjective issues all day instead of agreeing to get the country back on it's feet.

First and foremost, we're so far in debt, we don't know whether to **** or go blind. Why isn't that the biggest ticket in this election?
BECAUSE THOSE GAYS ARE INFRINGING ON MY RIGHTS TO BE PREJUDICE
WE CANT HAVE A FUNCTIONING GOVERNMENT IF 16 YR OLD GIRLS CAN GET ABORTIONS

k?

[gregulus]

right?

what the hell. The man wants to Adhere to the AMERICAN CONSTITUTION, yet we're all going to bash him for some reason. What do the other canidates have? opinions on abortion? opinions on other moral issues? if people haven't noticed, America is tearing at the seams, and still people want to argue over moral and highly subjective issues all day instead of agreeing to get the country back on it's feet.

First and foremost, we're so far in debt, we don't know whether to **** or go blind. Why isn't that the biggest ticket in this election?
because dismantling things like the department of education, cutting taxes to the core, and leaving the decisions of civil liberties up to the ignorant masses of the states is going to do a lot for american culture.

[McP3000]

because dismantling things like the department of education, cutting taxes to the core, and leaving the decisions of civil liberties up to the ignorant masses of the states is going to do a lot for american culture.
Yeah, the department of education isnt corrupt and ineffective...oh wait
Yeah, raising taxes will help our national debt and they wont be spent on other useless organizations...oh wait
Yeah, the ignorant masses will reinstate slavery and revert back to 17th century social structures...oh wait

[gregulus]

Yeah, the department of education isnt corrupt and ineffective...oh wait
leaving schools to compete with one another, ultimately damning some schools and the students end them to a even less-than-adequate education than they might receive now is hardly the way to fix that. nor is leaving it up to the poorer states (like the southern states) to support their own education systems. start by revoking NCLB, not doing away the dept. of education.
Yeah, raising taxes will help our national debt and they wont be spent on other useless organizations...oh wait
you're right, taxes aren't important at all.
Yeah, the ignorant masses will reinstate slavery and revert back to 17th century social structures...oh wait
i'm talking more like gay rights, abortion, social programs, etc., not slavery.

if you want to revamp the US economy, stop outsourcing. don't punish americans.

[Reaganista]

ok. in this cluster **** of an election who are you gunning for?
no one
why would i support anyone

[Dave de Sylvia]

I'd be interested to know what all these Ron Paul supporters believed three months ago. I've been on these internets for many years now and I've never seen his type of view represented in significant numbers outside of committed libertarians. No offence to some of the Paul supporters here, plenty of you are intelligent and articulate, but some of the stuff I've heard resembles some sort of Idiot's Guide to Libertarianism.

[guitrguy]

I've stop being Libertarian since RP.

[McP3000]

leaving schools to compete with one another, ultimately damning some schools and the students end them to a even less-than-adequate education than they might receive now is hardly the way to fix that. nor is leaving it up to the poorer states (like the southern states) to support their own education systems. start by revoking NCLB, not doing away the dept. of education.
I never said to get rid of it. And education will get worse if its run by the government anyway. Theres no way around it.

you're right, taxes aren't important at all.
That doesn't refute what i stated at all. Why raise taxes if you're just going to waste the money anyway?

i'm talking more like gay rights, abortion, social programs, etc., not slavery.
I was making fun of how primitive you think the average American is.
A couple of things:
-When people call it 'gay rights', it pisses me off.
-I think our national debt and economy are more important than whether two dudes can get monetary/tax benefits off each other
-Roe v. Wade will never be overturned so it doesn't matter
-I'm for some social programs, not all

if you want to revamp the US economy, stop outsourcing. don't punish americans.
I completely agree with you. However, there is no way we can mandate this without it being unconstitutional or without it hurting our economy in a different way.

[McP3000]

I'd be interested to know what all these Ron Paul supporters believed three months ago. I've been on these internets for many years now and I've never seen his type of view represented in significant numbers outside of committed libertarians. No offence to some of the Paul supporters here, plenty of you are intelligent and articulate, but some of the stuff I've heard resembles some sort of Idiot's Guide to Libertarianism.
I was a libertarian before i knew what it meant. I took one of those political spectrum tests and it told me i was closest aligned with a libertarian. I looked it up right afterwards, and ive been one ever since.
I used to have libertarian as my political views on facebook, but too many people asked me what it was, and a lot of people thought i was some wacko leftist.

[gregulus]

I never said to get rid of it. And education will get worse if its run by the government anyway. Theres no way around it.
i don't think that's necessarily true.


That doesn't refute what i stated at all. Why raise taxes if you're just going to waste the money anyway?
i'm not really arguing for raising taxes, more like taking away corporate loopholes and tax-cuts for the wealthy.

I was making fun of how primitive you think the average American is.
A couple of things:
-When people call it 'gay rights', it pisses me off.
-I think our national debt and economy are more important than whether two dudes can get monetary/tax benefits off each other
-Roe v. Wade will never be overturned so it doesn't matter
-I'm for some social programs, not all
you have more faith in the general american than i do.

I completely agree with you. However, there is no way we can mandate this without it being unconstitutional or without it hurting our economy in a different way.
it should be common sense for the companies, but it's not.

[McP3000]

i don't think that's necessarily true.
Well, i guess it wouldn't be the worst if it was the only way of getting education but why would you do that.

i'm not really arguing for raising taxes, more like taking away corporate loopholes and tax-cuts for the wealthy.
I agree. All people should be taxed the same % of their income.

you have more faith in the general american than i do.
The average american is ignorant, not stupid

it should be common sense for the companies, but it's not.
I know. It's horrible.

[Det_Nosnip]

-When people call it 'gay rights', it pisses me off.
Why?! Civil rights are the core of that issue! When people call it anything but that, they're simply wrong.

[Oriah]

F*** politics.


Call me when the revolution starts.

[Smokey D]

Well, i guess it wouldn't be the worst if it was the only way of getting education but why would you do that.

There are good government run education programmes all over the world.


I agree. All people should be taxed the same % of their income.

10% for a man who earns $100 a week is a lot more vital to him than 10% for someone who earns a $1000

no it's not. What better way for the U.S. to control illegal immigration then holding power over the lands that are providing the immigrants? Oil reserves in Canada, Land plots in canada, Provinces protecting the U.S. homeland from attack from the south AND the north. It's everything a failing empire ever wanted. More room, More people, more money, more resources. All gained from two countries that can't defend themselves.

It will never happen because the Congress and the electorate are all hostile to any breach in national sovereignty. And US hegemony doesn't need a NAU; if anything, it would hurt hegemony by tying it to new obligations.

oh, which brings up another point: the decline of the value of the dollar will eventually force the US to play ball with the euro and create something better, which is a possible segway[sound it out]to something like the "Amero". or like what is happening now, our economy will slowly crumble until there is a crash, all the people we've ****ed with during the bush admin see an opertunity[sp?], and then we're ****ed.


So, do you like not understand even basic economics or something? Amero, lol.

[irishslappop]

I'd be interested to know what all these Ron Paul supporters believed three months ago. I've been on these internets for many years now and I've never seen his type of view represented in significant numbers outside of committed libertarians. No offence to some of the Paul supporters here, plenty of you are intelligent and articulate, but some of the stuff I've heard resembles some sort of Idiot's Guide to Libertarianism.

tell you the truth, i care less what it's called or what the general stance of the party is at this point. The Repubs are a bunch of inconsiderate money grubbing dollar whores or their religious wackos. And the Democrats are a bunch of losers who Talk the pretty talk and walk the pretty walk but have no balls [quite literally in some cases].

What am i left with? Anything that is reasonably different. The country needs to change. we're on a self destructive path and if we want to stay afloat in the world we need to start being smarter. We're like the guy that wins the lottery, moves into a huge house, buys a nice car, gets himself other friends with lots of money, and proceeds to forget about where he came from and what his real mission is. At the same time we've spent all our money on the house and the car and our friends, not to mention fighting our enemies. which leaves us without a buck [several trillion in the hole no less] and with a bunch of paid for friends. Well paid for friends don't last when you dont have any cash.

ya dig?

i guess my point is that im pushing for a good foreign policy and recovery of the economy. and Paul presents the most convicing case for completeing that to me.

[irishslappop]

So, do you like not understand even basic economics or something? Amero, lol.

i dont think the government understands basic economics. but i'll admit, economics was a class i definately was stoned at every single day.

[Smokey D]

A united American and European currency would serve neither economy.

[irishslappop]

......where did that idea come from...i think i may not have been clear, or your mistaken :confused:

[Smokey D]

oh, which brings up another point: the decline of the value of the dollar will eventually force the US to play ball with the euro and create something better, which is a possible segway[sound it out]to something like the "Amero". or like what is happening now, our economy will slowly crumble until there is a crash, all the people we've ****ed with during the bush admin see an opertunity[sp?], and then we're ****ed.

When you said this.

[Det_Nosnip]

I think he was talking about an intra-continental form of currency...IE combine the dollar/Canadian dollar/peso/etc.

[Smokey D]

Oh right.

You guys already have that. It's the greenback.

[Det_Nosnip]

but have no balls [quite literally in some cases]. What's wrong with that?

What am i left with? Anything that is reasonably different.
Your definition of "reasonable" is unreasonable.

The country needs to change. we're on a self destructive path and if we want to stay afloat in the world we need to start being smarter.
By voting for people who don't believe in evolution and want to bring us back to a gold standard? :confused:

We're like the guy that wins the lottery, moves into a huge house, buys a nice car, gets himself other friends with lots of money, and proceeds to forget about where he came from and what his real mission is.
Wouldn't the mission in this case be "win the lottery"?

At the same time we've spent all our money on the house and the car and our friends, not to mention fighting our enemies.
Mixed metaphors FTW...?

which leaves us without a buck [several trillion in the hole no less] and with a bunch of paid for friends. Well paid for friends don't last when you dont have any cash.
If we're already several trillion in the hole, what's to stop us from going further into debt? I would think the cut off point, if there was one, would have been alot sooner.

ya dig?
No...

i guess my point is that im pushing for a good foreign policy and recovery of the economy. and Paul presents the most convicing case for completeing that to me.

Hmm. Yeah, no...sorry, that makes absolutely no sense.

[irishslappop]

What's wrong with that?
Just a simple observation and general comment on how the major party canidates seem to have no resolve on how to actually get the country doing well again. Its been said over and over in this thread that the American government is a just a huge company. right?

If we're already several trillion in the hole, what's to stop us from going further into debt? I would think the cut off point, if there was one, would have been alot sooner.


doesn't sound like a business i'd invest in. would you? Sooner or later, Rocky and the boys come to collect the debt and when we don't pay up, bad things happen to us. Be it china in 30 years, i dont know specific examples, but the principal is the same. The more money we have the more power we have. The more we are in debt, essentially the less power we have and more power we either owe, or have completely lost.

No...
:]

Hmm. Yeah, no...sorry, that makes absolutely no sense
what doesn't make sense about it? From what i have gathered, Ron Paul is the most responcable canidate for a time that needs to be handled respocably. Everyone else is reaching for the power Prize and i feel that Paul genuinely is looking to fix the country, not simply controll it.

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

its simple: people support ron paul because he's insane theres nothing wrong with that thats what your country needs

[irishslappop]

What about you Mr. Mod. Whos got your eyes? Hillary? Obama? McCain?

please. there is no canidate that isn't just a nice smile and a velvet tongue. These frauds don't fool me for a second. They argue about abortion, Stem cell research, and gay marriage while families in america cant retire before they are 68 years old because social security is grenaded, the value of the dollar keeps dropping, and general welfare of the American public have been forgotten. It's sickening that we would debate such complex issues when we can't even take care of our own country men.

[Dave de Sylvia]

I don't think Ron Paul would help on the Social Security front.

[Reaganista]

What about you Mr. Mod. Whos got your eyes? Hillary? Obama? McCain?

please. there is no canidate that isn't just a nice smile and a velvet tongue. These frauds don't fool me for a second. They argue about abortion, Stem cell research, and gay marriage while families in america cant retire before they are 68 years old because social security is grenaded, the value of the dollar keeps dropping, and general welfare of the American public have been forgotten. It's sickening that we would debate such complex issues when we can't even take care of our own country men.
do you know wat ron paul stands for

[ringworm]

Hey guys
Ron Paul wants to help the country, legally, unlike our current administration

lets bash him
lol, :)

I'd be interested to know what all these Ron Paul supporters believed three months ago.
tbo, until the Dropper called me a libertarian recently, I would have assumed it was some leftist bleeding heart ideal

i tend to concentrate on what someone STANDS for and SAYS rather than their "label" that is assigned to them

all these terms only divide people, and i really dont pay attention to them

when i first heard him speak, it was the first time in ages i actually got interested in politics again after years of the garbage/lies many of you seem to enjoy, he seemed to be connecting with people that see our country being flushed away by the current admin AND the party on the other side of the isle that are as capable as a doormat

yes, he has a few stances that i dont agree with, but his positives far outweigh the few negatives (not that his negatives could conceivably be put into action anyway :/)

but carry on supporting those who cant see whats around the corner, if america was a corporation, it'd be out of business right now with the way its being handled

[Amit]

10% for a man who earns $100 a week is a lot more vital to him than 10% for someone who earns a $1000

no one has responded to this yet

[Berner]

What is it with the US and religion? I see all this kind of religious fanaticism in the US sitting north of the 49th and just shake my head in disbelief.

Even with our conservative government (with evangelical leaders) we don't have these problems.

[McP3000]

10% for a man who earns $100 a week is a lot more vital to him than 10% for someone who earns a $1000
I'll be glad too
-I would rather cut taxes for the poor than the rich
-The government should treat all people equally regardless of their income.

[Amit]

so you'd support a tax that adjusts with income? that's the only way to treat people equally

[guitrguy]

What is it with the US and religion? I see all this kind of religious fanaticism in the US sitting north of the 49th and just shake my head in disbelief.

Even with our conservative government (with evangelical leaders) we don't have these problems.

You sir, are a lucky man.

/looks at location.

[ringworm]

no one has responded to this yet
because it isnt fair to assume that someones income is less important to them simply because they make more than someone else

[Berner]

You sir, are a lucky man.

/looks at location.It's pretty good I guess.

[Amit]

because it isnt fair to assume that someones income is less important to them simply because they make more than someone else

err

10% of $30000 is a lot more crucial to the person earning it than 10% of $10,000,000 to the rich bastard

this is, as so many of your type love to call it, common sense

[ringworm]

err

maybe to you, but its easy to discuss incomes values when they arent yours i guess

[Amit]

so you're content with screwing the lower classes

ok cool glad to know you're all about liberty and shi; i guess that really is the american way lolz

[ringworm]

so you're content with screwing the lower classes

ok cool glad to know you're all about liberty and shi; i guess that really is the american way lolz
well, i knew that was coming, as predictable as the moon in the sun :) i love how easily words get put into people mouths, lulz
but
how is over taxing someone above your social status ok? oh yeah, they wont mind, they make more than me :/

[Amit]

and how is over taxing someone below your social status okay?

btw in 10 years i'll be making at least 5 mil a year so it's not like i'm on the bottom trying to bring everyone else down; the intimation is quite amusing though :lol:

[DBoons Ghost]

and how is over taxing someone below your social status okay?

btw in 10 years i'll be making at least 5 mil a year so it's not like i'm on the bottom trying to bring everyone else down; the intimation is quite amusing though :lol:


You shouldn't do that. Mess with the powers that be. In a matter of days you could be dead Amit earning worms eating your decomposing skin.


Amit, I'm sure you understand basic math. The median salary in America is 45k or so right? If only 7% of the population make 100k or more, do you think America could sustain itself with taxing the people in the median salary demographic less and taxing those 7% more?

[Mr. Ron]

No amit, you will be making only 1 million. After you give the 4 million to me.

[guitrguy]

err

10% of $30000 is a lot more crucial to the person earning it than 10% of $10,000,000 to the rich bastard

this is, as so many of your type love to call it, common sense

but that same 10% is more money from the $10mil

[ringworm]

the intimation is quite amusing though :lol:
the only amusing thing is that i keep taking your bait, but lets continue

and how is over taxing someone below your social status okay?
where is this happening, dont we have progressive taxes currently? and how does a flat tax take more from anyone?

but my POINT is that you cant makes things fair by being unfair, besides, do you really think rich people just suck it up and pay anyway? thats what offshore accounts are for, to evade unfair taxation

YES, i would like to see those people help out, but only if they want to, but forcing them will only make it less likely

btw in 10 years i'll be making at least 5 mil a year so it's not like i'm on the bottom trying to bring everyone else down;
be sure and start a thread when that happens, im sure you'll still be here:)

[Det_Nosnip]

Just a simple observation and general comment on how the major party canidates seem to have no resolve on how to actually get the country doing well again. Its been said over and over in this thread that the American government is a just a huge company. right?
Right, but Clinton's lack of testicles has nothing to do with that.


doesn't sound like a business i'd invest in. would you? Sooner or later, Rocky and the boys come to collect the debt and when we don't pay up, bad things happen to us.
What evidence do you have for this? America has been in debt pretty much since the depression.


Be it china in 30 years,
China has MUCH better reasons for wanting peace than any sort of payoff.

i dont know specific examples, but the principal is the same. The more money we have the more power we have. The more we are in debt, essentially the less power we have and more power we either owe, or have completely lost.
That is complete and utter bullshit. Our power comes from our military and from our influence within global organizations. A big part of the reason why we haven't bothered to pay anyone back is because, quite frankly, they couldn't enforce payment if they tried. National debt is MUCH more complicated than personal debt.

:]
Sorry. :(

what doesn't make sense about it? From what i have gathered, Ron Paul is the most responcable canidate for a time that needs to be handled respocably. Everyone else is reaching for the power Prize and i feel that Paul genuinely is looking to fix the country, not simply controll it.

Ron Paul is a wackjob who wants to return the country to the gold standard, eliminate student loans, withdraw from NATO and the UN, leave the people of Darfur to die in a genocide, abolish the IRS+income tax, eliminate nearly all government departments including the department of education, legalize private ownership of machine guns, etc. He also claims to be a libertarian who opposes government interference, yet he is pro-life...

[guitrguy]

we've been in debt since the Civil war actually.

[Det_Nosnip]

Even better. :p

[-1up!-]

Ron Paul is a wackjob who wants to return the country to the gold standard, eliminate student loans, withdraw from NATO and the UN, leave the people of Darfur to die in a genocide, abolish the IRS+income tax, eliminate nearly all government departments including the department of education, legalize private ownership of machine guns, etc. He also claims to be a libertarian who opposes government interference, yet he is pro-life...

All of this is pretty standard for anyone with a libertarian views, except the pro-life bit. I guess that's how the US' religious nuttery contaminates political ideas even at the fringe. But then again, even if he claims being pro-life, it would be incoherent on his part to make any policy regarding abortion regulation. Not that politicians are always coherent (goes without saying!) but the claim about being pro-life may be more of a strategic move to reach out to evangelicals and hardline Christians than an important point among his ideas.

[Det_Nosnip]

All of this is pretty standard for anyone with a libertarian views, except the pro-life bit. I guess that's how the US' religious nuttery contaminates political ideas even at the fringe. But then again, even if he claims being pro-life, it would be incoherent on his part to make any policy regarding abortion regulation. Not that politicians are always coherent (goes without saying!) but the claim about being pro-life may be more of a strategic move to reach out to evangelicals and hardline Christians than an important point among his ideas.

I thought he was supposed to be all honest and whatnot. :p

Pro-life is the only defensible position he holds TBH.

[gregulus]

gold costs about $900/ounce these days.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

gold standard

omg

ron paul disease is everywhere on the internet sadly. he even had fanbois on a uk forum i'm on.

[dei]

gold standard

omg

ron paul disease is everywhere on the internet sadly. he even had fanbois on a uk forum i'm on.

Christ.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

what?

[Against Miik!]

Ron Paul will not enforce any federal regulations on abortion. He believes it is an issue that should be left to the states. It's simple as that. Just because he is personally against abortion does not mean he wishes to oppose that belief on anybody else. Thats what I like about him, and how he differs from other politicians. He doesn't try to enforce our morals for us.

[guitrguy]

Ron Paul will not enforce any federal regulations on abortion. He believes it is an issue that should be left to the states. It's simple as that. Just because he is personally against abortion does not mean he wishes to oppose that belief on anybody else. Thats what I like about him, and how he differs from other politicians. He doesn't try to enforce our morals for us.

umm it shouldn't be.

[Against Miik!]

What shouldn't be

[-1up!-]

Ron Paul will not enforce any federal regulations on abortion. He believes it is an issue that should be left to the states. It's simple as that. Just because he is personally against abortion does not mean he wishes to oppose that belief on anybody else. Thats what I like about him, and how he differs from other politicians. He doesn't try to enforce our morals for us.

That's the very spirit of libertarianism. Advocating for a minimal (minarchism) government, restricted to preserving economic freedoms and fighting monopolies, or its pure and simple disappearance (anarchism, though to be precise, most classical libertarians would be labelled anarcho-capitalists).

[McP3000]

That's the very spirit of libertarianism. Advocating for a minimal (minarchism) government, restricted to preserving economic freedoms and fighting monopolies, or its pure and simple disappearance (anarchism, though to be precise, most classical libertarians would be labelled anarcho-capitalists).
He doesn't want it to disappear

he just wants it to go from being obscenely interactive in everyday life, to just limited regulation


I also hate how anti-Ron Paul people say he's dumb and stuff, but then they don't talk about any of his points.
"Oh, he's a dumb libertarian. Smite him."

[Against Miik!]

He doesn't want it to disappear

he just wants it to go from being obscenely interactive in everyday life, to just limited regulation


I also hate how anti-Ron Paul people say he's dumb and stuff, but then they don't talk about any of his points.
"Oh, he's a dumb libertarian. Smite him."

Are you serious? I mean just look at his stances to know he's crazy. The gold standard? I mean, thats like the first think he would do when he gets into office, and it would ruin our country. And we can't abolish the IRS because how else would our government pay for anything? I mean, printing money out of thin air works really well, but we still need a way to take money from hard working citizens. O, and the government does a really good job at providing education, so we can't get rid of the Dept of Education. Everybody knows that. We would be dumb if we did. And he doesn't believe in evolution. Believing in evolution is the end all benchmark of whether a person is qualified to be president, and since he doesn't. he can't be president. O and libertarians are dumb.

[Hamilcar]

Are you serious? I mean just look at his stances to know he's crazy. The gold standard? I mean, thats like the first think he would do when he gets into office, and it would ruin our country. And we can't abolish the IRS because how else would our government pay for anything? I mean, printing money out of thin air works really well, but we still need a way to take money from hard working citizens. O, and the government does a really good job at providing education, so we can't get rid of the Dept of Education. Everybody knows that. We would be dumb if we did. And he doesn't believe in evolution. Believing in evolution is the end all benchmark of whether a person is qualified to be president, and since he doesn't. he can't be president. O and libertarians are dumb.

LOL :thumb:

Ron Paul is a wackjob who wants to return the country to the gold standard, eliminate student loans, withdraw from NATO and the UN, leave the people of Darfur to die in a genocide, abolish the IRS+income tax, eliminate nearly all government departments including the department of education, legalize private ownership of machine guns, etc. He also claims to be a libertarian who opposes government interference, yet he is pro-life...

Ok, understand something. A President does not have the authority to do anything you mentioned up there. Congress has to approve all of that, and do you really think they will? I don't. If Paul is elected President we will not go back to the gold standard, Congress will not allow it. The Department of Education will more than likely remain intact, though it might be cut quite a bit to get rid of some of the bureaucracy. Again, up to the Congress on that one. Why was NATO created in? To offset the Soviet Union, which isn't there anymore. There's no point to it. The UN is a great idea in theory, but it just doesn't work in its current state. Corruption, politics, you name it, it all gets in the way of the UN being effective. What's being done about Darfur now that will be different under a Paul administration...or any other administration for that matter? Nothing. Sad but the truth. If you Abolish the Income tax you will be left with about a little more than 60% of the current revenue. That's over $1.3 Trillion. You make up for that by reforming government spending to a RESPONSIBLE level. It's already been said but Paul is willing to set aside person beliefs (aka being pro-life) in order to have government work in a Constitutional manner. So the fact that he's pro-life and believes in Creationism is irrelevant. He's not a Huckabee type character that wants to amend the Constitution to "God's Standards." (There's a quote of Huck talking about this on youtube, check it out if you don't believe me...scary stuff.) But by and large the most important aspect of Paul's candidacy is his stance on foreign policy. Get out of people's business. Talk and trade with them (ie NOT isolationist) but don't point a gun at them and demand things. If I missed anything let me know.

[gregulus]

Ok, understand something. A President does not have the authority to do anything you mentioned up there. Congress has to approve all of that, and do you really think they will? I don't. If Paul is elected President we will not go back to the gold standard, Congress will not allow it. The Department of Education will more than likely remain intact, though it might be cut quite a bit to get rid of some of the bureaucracy. Again, up to the Congress on that one.
yeah, who's ever heard of veto power anyway? also, you must also take into account that he actually thinks these things are a good idea.
Why was NATO created in? To offset the Soviet Union, which isn't there anymore.
nato has served a vital role in peace keeping in places like bosnia and were a huge part of our operations in afghanistan. i don't really get why a defense alliance is so bad.
The UN is a great idea in theory, but it just doesn't work in its current state. Corruption, politics, you name it, it all gets in the way of the UN being effective.
the un did, and still does do, quite a bit that never gets talked about. a little basic research will tell you this
What's being done about Darfur now that will be different under a Paul administration...or any other administration for that matter? Nothing. Sad but the truth.
doesn't mean nothing should get done...
If you Abolish the Income tax you will be left with about a little more than 60% of the current revenue. That's over $1.3 Trillion. You make up for that by reforming government spending to a RESPONSIBLE level.
a responsible level that cuts off student loans, dismantles the department of education, cuts a lot of international ties, etc? because that's what ron paul wants to do.
But by and large the most important aspect of Paul's candidacy is his stance on foreign policy. Get out of people's business. Talk and trade with them (ie NOT isolationist) but don't point a gun at them and demand things. If I missed anything let me know.
i don't remember anyone saying we should point a gun at anybody and demand anything. cutting off international ties by pulling out of things like nato and the un are going to piss off a lot of countries that we made wish we hadn't pissed off later. social policy is just as important as foreign policy, though, and paul's social policy is absolutely absurd.
It's already been said but Paul is willing to set aside person beliefs (aka being pro-life) in order to have government work in a Constitutional manner. So the fact that he's pro-life and believes in Creationism is irrelevant. He's not a Huckabee type character that wants to amend the Constitution to "God's Standards." (There's a quote of Huck talking about this on youtube, check it out if you don't believe me...scary stuff.)
i thought things like that shouldn't matter because the president doesn't actually have the power to change things like that?

[Against Miik!]

But we do point guns and countries and demand everything. If you want to start somewhere, to get more money in this country, you stop spending so much overseas. Read Noam Chomsky's recent essay "We Own The World". It outlines pretty well how we just kind of walk all over everybody and don't really accomplish much. If you think pulling out of NATO will piss people off, just think of what our continued foreign policy will do.

Link to the article: http://www.zcommunications.org/zmag/viewArticle/16101

[guitrguy]

What shouldn't be

Its should not even be up to the state to decide.

[gregulus]

But we do point guns and countries and demand everything. If you want to start somewhere, to get more money in this country, you stop spending so much overseas. Read Noam Chomsky's recent essay "We Own The World". It outlines pretty well how we just kind of walk all over everybody and don't really accomplish much. If you think pulling out of NATO will piss people off, just think of what our continued foreign policy will do.

Link to the article: http://www.zcommunications.org/zmag/viewArticle/16101
i don't recall advocating our current foreign policy either...

[Against Miik!]

Well by supporting any candidate but Paul, Edwards, Kucinich, and maybe Biden or Richardson if they were still in it, you are tacitly consenting to our foreign policy. No other candidate will deviate from our current path, and many will add fuel to the fire.

[Iskandar]

Its should not even be up to the state to decide.Abortion is a national issue and therefore falls within the jurisdiction of the federal government, imo.
but my POINT is that you cant makes things fair by being unfair, besides, do you really think rich people just suck it up and pay anyway? thats what offshore accounts are for, to evade unfair taxationFunnily, states with a strong welfare state and redistribution of wealth tend to have inequality rates as low as 25%. (0% is perfect equality.) America's rate of inequality is 40-50%. That's worse than China's, I believe.

Appears you can legislate fairness.

O, and the government does a really good job at providing education, so we can't get rid of the Dept of Education. I could turn that right around and say, "The Dept. of Education is horrible, there's no use in even trying to reform it, we have to abolish it."

[guitrguy]

Well by supporting any candidate but Paul, Edwards, Kucinich, and maybe Biden or Richardson if they were still in it, you are tacitly consenting to our foreign policy. No other candidate will deviate from our current path, and many will add fuel to the fire.
haha, you threw kucinich in there
Abortion is a national issue and therefore falls within the jurisdiction of the federal government, imo.
I was more or less saying it shouldn't even be an issue, but yeah I think it should be up to the federal gov't to decide.

[Against Miik!]

Whats so funny about that? He's the most against the war of any of the candidates.

[guitrguy]

Then why are you saying we are supporting our foreign policy?

[Against Miik!]

I think you may have misunderstood me. I'm saying for all of you who support or supported any of the candidates besides the ones I listed, you must support our foreign policy. This is because all of the other candidates, although they might not come right out and say it, have no plans to withdraw us from Iraq, and some, like Rudy, McCain, Huckabee, geez just about any Republican besides Paul, will make the situation worse.

[Permanent Solution]

Wait since when did foreign policy become the only issue in the entire election?

[Against Miik!]

It's not, but its a mighty important one. I think its safe to say that it can make or break a candidate. It's important not just in itself, but because it affects things domestically as well. Patriot Act, H.R. 1955, those are all things we have done domestically, but they are because of our foreign policy. Those are just two. Lots of other examples out there.

[Permanent Solution]

It's not, but its a mighty important one. I think its safe to say that it can make or break a candidate. It's important not just in itself, but because it affects things domestically as well. Patriot Act, H.R. 1955, those are all things we have done domestically, but they are because of our foreign policy. Those are just two. Lots of other examples out there.
No it's not safe to say that at all because that would define it as the only important issue which is a total fallacy.

[Against Miik!]

God damn it I just said its not the only issue, but its really really really really really big.

[Permanent Solution]

If it "makes or breaks" a candidate that would make it the only important issue because if i had someone i agreed with on all other points except foreign policy, by that definition it should break them still according to you. Hence the only important issue.

Either way it's irrelevant because I've already disproved your rhetoric about approving of a candidate's foreign policies by virtue of supporting them.

[Hamilcar]

yeah, who's ever heard of veto power anyway? also, you must also take into account that he actually thinks these things are a good idea.

I think you misunderstood me. Of course a President can BLOCK a bill from being passed, but one cannot PROPOSE a bill or actually PASS one. It must be done with the consent of the Congress. And if you think Congress will pass a bill reverting our monetary system back to the gold standard you're nuts.

doesn't mean nothing should get done...

I agree, but I also think that pointing that out as a reason not to support Paul is a little unfair since it's something that is consistent across the board.

a responsible level that cuts off student loans, dismantles the department of education, cuts a lot of international ties, etc? because that's what ron paul wants to do.

Federal Student Loans would be cut yes, but very slightly, and in return the people would be taxed less therefore having more money for themselves. There's also state loans to consider as well. And believe me, as a college student, the federal government does not hand out as much money as people think they do. In '06 they gave out slightly over $2b in loans. Sounds like a lot, but that was less than 1% of the annual budget for that year, and only 2% of the Dept of Education's budget of $88b. There's a bit of a cushion there.

And he wouldn't be "cutting off international ties." If anything he would be revitalizing them. He has a non-interventionist policy which means you don't stick your nose in other people's affairs. Talk with them, trade with them, but don't go much beyond that if it can be helped. This would mean reopening trade with Cuba as well as talking with Iran rather than threatening them.

i thought things like that shouldn't matter because the president doesn't actually have the power to change things like that?

With his support among evangelicals and the GOP tending to lean more toward the religious right, it's possible. I'm not saying it's going to happen, but if a bill with that type of tone is put on Huck's desk, he'll sign it, and that scares me.

[guitrguy]

The president can propose a bill, how do you think he gets funding for the war?

[Hamilcar]

The president can propose a bill, how do you think he gets funding for the war?

No he can't actually. Budgets are different. The executive branch has the authority to write up a budget and send it for approval from Congress, but that's it. Any other legislation must originate from Congress. He can strongly suggest that a bill be proposed, but he needs someone in Congress to actually do it. It's like when Roosevelt went before Congress after Pearl Harbor and asked them to pass a declaration of war. He didn't actually propose the bill, but he convinced Congress to the point where someone proposed it and it passed.

[guitrguy]

No he can't actually. Budgets are different. The executive branch has the authority to write up a budget and send it for approval from Congress, but that's it. Any other legislation must originate from Congress. He can strongly suggest that a bill be proposed, but he needs someone in Congress to actually do it. It's like when Roosevelt went before Congress after Pearl Harbor and asked them to pass a declaration of war. He didn't actually propose the bill, but he convinced Congress to the point where someone proposed it and it passed.

Ok, he can get someone to do it for him. Its not like thats a huge hurdle.

[Hamilcar]

Ok, he can get someone to do it for him. Its not like thats a huge hurdle.

Well in the context of what was being talked about earlier, getting Congress to revert to the gold standard, I think it would be damn hard...never mind actually having it pass.

I also wanna clear up that this is one thing with Ron Paul that I don't agree on. The gold standard isn't necessary. The FIAT system (which is what we have) works if it's done responsibly, which is isn't at the moment. That's why we need audits into what the Fed does and how they do it to keep them in check and to prevent the random printing of money.

[Det_Nosnip]

LOL :thumb:



Ok, understand something. A President does not have the authority to do anything you mentioned up there. Congress has to approve all of that, and do you really think they will? I don't. If Paul is elected President we will not go back to the gold standard, Congress will not allow it. The Department of Education will more than likely remain intact, though it might be cut quite a bit to get rid of some of the bureaucracy. Again, up to the Congress on that one. Why was NATO created in? To offset the Soviet Union, which isn't there anymore. There's no point to it. The UN is a great idea in theory, but it just doesn't work in its current state. Corruption, politics, you name it, it all gets in the way of the UN being effective. What's being done about Darfur now that will be different under a Paul administration...or any other administration for that matter? Nothing. Sad but the truth. If you Abolish the Income tax you will be left with about a little more than 60% of the current revenue. That's over $1.3 Trillion. You make up for that by reforming government spending to a RESPONSIBLE level. It's already been said but Paul is willing to set aside person beliefs (aka being pro-life) in order to have government work in a Constitutional manner. So the fact that he's pro-life and believes in Creationism is irrelevant. He's not a Huckabee type character that wants to amend the Constitution to "God's Standards." (There's a quote of Huck talking about this on youtube, check it out if you don't believe me...scary stuff.) But by and large the most important aspect of Paul's candidacy is his stance on foreign policy. Get out of people's business. Talk and trade with them (ie NOT isolationist) but don't point a gun at them and demand things. If I missed anything let me know.

So your defense is that his nutjob positions are ok because he'll be ineffectual? :rolleyes:

[Hamilcar]

So your defense is that his nutjob positions are ok because he'll be ineffectual? :rolleyes:

Nutjob? Just because it's different doesn't make it crazy. And I don't support everything he wants, ie the gold standard, so I'm not defending them. I just think they're irrelevant. A President only has so much power, and most of that is focused in foreign policy of which a presidential administration directly designs. He also writes up budgets, appoints supreme court justices on rare occasion, vetoes bills every now and then, but that's about it. Everything else is just trying to convince people to think along his terms. You have to take into account the practicality of many of the things he wants to do and you'll realize that what he can actually accomplish isn't very much, but what he can accomplish could be very important ie foreign policy and balancing the budget.

I should also mention that I support Paul more for his philosophy on government more than anything. His foreign policy and budget policy are very good too, but there's more to what he's running on. He thinks that the federal government shouldn't be involved as much as it is today. He thinks our civil liberties are being stepped on and government is getting out of control. Think about it, the government has grown exponentially over the past several decades and it doesn't look like it's going to stop any time soon. It's good to have someone like him in power speaking out against that to try and keep it in check. That's what I support.

[Against Miik!]

I guess we forgot just how little power a president is supposed to have since 2001 happened.

It's true that many of the more extreme things that Paul calls for will not happen. Thats fine. I think a compromise between himself and some of the more moderate people in Washington would be just fine. Like, for monetary policy, maybe we won't have a gold standard, but we will have a leader that recognize that we have a problem, and will what we can within the restraints of Washington to get something done.

[Det_Nosnip]

Nutjob? Just because it's different doesn't make it crazy.
True, but the fact that it's crazy does.

And I don't support everything he wants, ie the gold standard, so I'm not defending them. I just think they're irrelevant.
They are an indication of his inability to think rationally...which suggests that giving him power is...er...a BAD idea. It's the same way with Mitt Romney...I'm sure he's a very nice guy, but IMO the very fact that he believes in Mormonism disqualifies him for anything greater than a windowless room and a straight-jacket.


A President only has so much power, and most of that is focused in foreign policy of which a presidential administration directly designs.
Yeah, his foreign policy ideas were among his nuttiest. Withdrawl from the UN and NATO?! :lol: I mean, COME ON! The UN building is in New York! How awkward would THAT be?


He also writes up budgets,
Again, another ability I do NOT want Ron Paul having...

appoints supreme court justices on rare occasion, vetoes bills every now and then, but that's about it. Everything else is just trying to convince people to think along his terms. You have to take into account the practicality of many of the things he wants to do and you'll realize that what he can actually accomplish isn't very much, but what he can accomplish could be very important ie foreign policy and balancing the budget.
Two areas he is clinically insane in.

I should also mention that I support Paul more for his philosophy on government more than anything. His foreign policy and budget policy are very good too, but there's more to what he's running on. He thinks that the federal government shouldn't be involved as much as it is today. He thinks our civil liberties are being stepped on and government is getting out of control. Think about it, the government has grown exponentially over the past several decades and it doesn't look like it's going to stop any time soon. It's good to have someone like him in power speaking out against that to try and keep it in check. That's what I support.

He's an alarmist douchebag who seems boogie-men jumping out of shadows. His philosophy is antiquated and not applicable today. Just about every candidate complains about civil liberties being stepped on...Paul is nothing new.

[Against Miik!]

Actually candidates don't really talk about civil liberties that much.

And I would love to have Ron Paul writing up our budget. Our government is already inflated beyond the point of sustainability. Other candidates just want to increase the size, be it through social programs or a bigger military. So again, it would be a compromise. He writes a budget, everybody else makes it a bit bigger, and we are still doing better than we are now.

Or maybe not. The democratic congress just passed another deficit budget.

[irishslappop]

^ i dont get it man. Why would a business set it's self up to fail when it could grow and become good?


anyways, i think my buddy might have convinced me ot vote for obama instead tonight....need to sit on it and think though.

Question for the people who aren't gonna vote:

Why not? and why are you such a pussy. [sorry, im trying to get a rise out of you so i can understand your wacked out position.]

[Dave de Sylvia]

I guess some people have better things to do. I wouldn't miss work to vote.

What state(s) is voting tonight?

[irishslappop]

yeah, makes sense. it's just i find it pretty fallicious, i guess i'd say, when people expect change or really have any expectation at all and dont vote...idk.

[Iskandar]

I repost just for fun:

O, and the government does a really good job at providing education, so we can't get rid of the Dept of Education.
I could turn that right around and say, "The Dept. of Education is horrible, there's no use in even trying to reform it, we have to abolish it."

[Against Miik!]

I repost just for fun:

I could turn that right around and say, "The Dept. of Education is horrible, there's no use in even trying to reform it, we have to abolish it."

So I guess we have to find a compromise. Is the Dept. of Education an inefficient bureaucracy? Yes. Could it use a major overhaul, which would include its budget being severely lowered, and still do what it is actually supposed to do? Yes.

These departments become inflated bureaucracies when you give them to much money. I'm not saying we should strangle them, but if we give them just what money they need, they will be forced to use it for what they should be using it for. I dunno, maybe that is a bit idealistic.

[Iskandar]

So I guess we have to find a compromise. Is the Dept. of Education an inefficient bureaucracy? Yes. Could it use a major overhaul, which would include its budget being severely lowered, and still do what it is actually supposed to do? Yes.

These departments become inflated bureaucracies when you give them to much money. I'm not saying we should strangle them, but if we give them just what money they need, they will be forced to use it for what they should be using it for. I dunno, maybe that is a bit idealistic.First thing to do is improve the allocation of funds within the system itself. Then you can see if you need more money or not. Ideally, America would get its spending priorities straight, and not spend billions on the military. Half the time the problem with spending isn't that we're spending too much, it's that we're spending it on entirely the wrong things.

[Against Miik!]

Well yeah, a combination of both. Remember, we spend far more on our military than the rest of the world combined. I mean, I know its great, having the most powerful military in the world, but at some point you just gotta say enough is enough.

But yeah, more accountability would be nice too. I can't think of any specific examples, but we hear things all the time about things the government spends money on and you think to yourself "how could that possibly cost so much". Well, it probably doesn't cost that much, the fact is we are spending money in some shady places.

Accountability and as you said, proper allocation, would go a long way before we even need to cut spending at all. After that, cutting unnecessary would only help that much more. The only way these things would occur though would have to be the result of a major overhaul of the way government operates, maybe nuke the whole thing and start over, for lack of a better term. Everything is just so twisted and complicated, I don't think anybody would know where to start.

[ringworm]

He doesn't try to enforce our morals for us.
this
Well by supporting any candidate but Paul, Edwards, Kucinich, and maybe Biden or Richardson if they were still in it, you are tacitly consenting to our foreign policy. No other candidate will deviate from our current path, and many will add fuel to the fire.
and this
Ideally, America would get its spending priorities straight, and not spend billions on the military. Half the time the problem with spending isn't that we're spending too much, it's that we're spending it on entirely the wrong things.
and sadly this, but like AM said, by supporting the frontrunners, you're supporting the same ole same ole warmongering, at least the radical "nutjobs" that fail miserably in the polls, want to end or fix some of these policies

[Amit]

so would ron paul make murder legal i don't want the state to enforce morality and also there are some people i need to shut up

[Iskandar]

Ron Paul 08

wait no

John Edwards 08

[Mr. Ron]

Edwards? Really?

[Iskandar]

Edwards? Really?Your options are Hillary, Obama and Edwards, so yeah. He's the best out of the three.

[Mr. Ron]

Your options are Hillary, Obama and Edwards, so yeah. He's the best out of the three.

Hm, for some reason I thought you were for Obama, must have mixed you up with someone else.

[ringworm]

im starting to sway over to him myself (edwards)

but im afraid the only options are gonna be McCain or Obama/Clinton

[Mr. Ron]

im starting to sway over to him myself

but im afraid the only options are gonna be McCain or Obama/Clinton

Thats what I think as well.

[Iskandar]

Hm, for some reason I thought you were for Obama, must have mixed you up with someone else.Nah, not really, although I'd take him over Hillary.

I'd take McCain over any of the other Republicans. He's not that bad. I mean, for a Republican.

[Mr. Ron]

True.

[Iskandar]

Huckabee and Romney are scary, Giuliani is a hack (and doing very poorly I might add) and Rawn Pawl's base of support is college libertarians.

I'll pass.

Lol, the only person who's going to dispute this is Serenity.

[Mr. Ron]

Yeah did you see the footage of him arguing with that reporter over whether his campaign was ran by lobbyists? Romney has a death stares that frankly made me wet my pants.

[Iskandar]

Yeah did you see the footage of him arguing with that reporter over whether his campaign was ran by lobbyists? Romney has a death stares that frankly made me wet my pants.I don't think I want to see it.

Just look at the guy. Listen to the stuff he says.

[ringworm]

mitt as pres REALLY does make me cringe

[Mr. Ron]

I don't think I want to see it.

Just look at the guy. Listen to the stuff he says.

GAWD

[Iskandar]

GAWD"Double Guantanamo"

[Mr. Ron]

ouch

[Iskandar]

ouchWait, I have more

"Increase troop levels by 100 000"
"Family, religion and military are the three pillars of our nation"

[Mr. Ron]

Wait, I have more

"Increase troop levels by 100 000"
"Family, religion and military are the three pillars of our nation"

......the sad thing is most Americans agree.

[DBoons Ghost]

Wait, I have more

"Increase troop levels by 100 000"
"Family, religion and military are the three pillars of our nation"

Who the hell said that? Ron Paul?

That's insane.

[Iskandar]

......the sad thing is most Americans agree.Let's not forget former evangelist Mike Huckabee.

"I'm the only person on this stage with a theology degree."
(Actually, he never graduated from his seminary.)
"A holocaust of abortions has created an artificial demand for immigrant labor."
"Most of the Founding Fathers were clergymen."
(Only one was.)
Who the hell said that? Ron Paul?

That's insane.Mitt Romney ... Ron Paul has different insane things to talk about.

[Mr. Ron]

Let's not forget former evangelist Mike Huckabee.

"I'm the only person on this stage with a theology degree."
(Actually, he never graduated from his seminary.)
"A holocaust of abortions has created an artificial demand for immigrant labor."
"Most of the Founding Fathers were clergymen."
(Only one was.)
Mitt Romney ... Ron Paul has different insane things to talk about.
I hate hate hate hate hate the "America is a xian nation" myth so bad. You have no idea how many times I had to explain to people why it isn't.

[DBoons Ghost]

Mitt Romney said.. that? Oh my... I don't believe that. Who is he to say what are the pillars of the nation when his reality is not anywhere near the normal reality.

Let's not forget former evangelist Mike Huckabee.

"I'm the only person on this stage with a theology degree."
(Actually, he never graduated from his seminary.)
"A holocaust of abortions has created an artificial demand for immigrant labor."
"Most of the Founding Fathers were clergymen."
(Only one was.)

Wow. I am sorta glad I can claim enlightened ignorance to the republican candidates. I guess those gems are better then 90 different variations of 9/11 pandering.

[guitrguy]

Huckabee and Romney are scary, Giuliani is a hack (and doing very poorly I might add) and Rawn Pawl's base of support is college libertarians.

I'll pass.

Lol, the only person who's going to dispute this is Serenity.

I saw a little clip on CNN, when some one asked Romney about the Lobbyist working high up in his campaign. Needless to say Romney got pretty perturbed and it showed. I laughed.

[Iskandar]

I hate hate hate hate hate the "America is a xian nation" myth so bad. You have no idea how many times I had to explain to people why it isn't.Show them the First Amendment.

America is a secular nation, always has been. Theocracy runs contrary to the spirit of liberal democracy.

[gregulus]

lol @ the holocaust of abortions comment.

[Mr. Ron]

Lets hope the 30 million or so evangelicals stay in bed on election day.

[guitrguy]

Lets hope the 30 million or so evangelicals stay in bed on election day.

Hopefully god decides thats the day of rapture, and gets them off my planet.

[Iskandar]

Hopefully god decides thats the day of rapture, and gets them off my planet.I was going to say, somebody tell them the Last Days are at hand.

That'd keep Steve from voting too, since he'd probably vote for "Holocaust of Abortions" Huckabee.

[guitrguy]

I really wish they abstained from sex as much as they preach.

[Mr. Ron]

"Holocaust of Abortions" Huckabee.


That has a nice ring to it.

[Iskandar]

"Double Guantanamo" Romney lacks the alliterative element, but it's still nice.

[gregulus]

I can get behind Edwards, though.

[Mr. Ron]

I actually haven't been up on his stances.

/checks

[gregulus]

um, guys. if all of those babies weren't aborted, we could under-pay them to do the jobs that none of us want to do. DUH!

edit: because if those abortions happened, we wouldn't have any immigrants at all. at all. ever.

[guitrguy]

"Rick Rollin'" Romney

[gregulus]

"Henry Rollins'" Romney

i bet romney listens to damaged on repeat before every primary.

[Iskandar]

I actually haven't been up on his stances.

/checksHe's a moderate liberal. Naturally he's portrayed as a far-left anarcho-communist in America.

[DBoons Ghost]

Edwards is my guy as it stands. I love Obama too though. I wish Obama would stop the spewage and detail plans.

I'm sure that'll happen as we get closer.

[Mr. Ron]

He's a moderate liberal. Naturally he's portrayed as a far-left anarcho-communist in America.

oh good he's for nationalized healthcare.

[DBoons Ghost]

He's a moderate liberal. Naturally he's portrayed as a far-left anarcho-communist in America.

You really detest American politics don't you.

It's either funny (which it is mind you) or you're just overstating the absolute ignorance of the American media machine to categorize the candidates affiliations.

[Berner]

oh good he's for nationalized healthcare.

How anyone can be against it is amazing.

[Iskandar]

You really detest American politics don't you.

It's either funny (which it is mind you) or you're just overstating the absolute ignorance of the American media machine to categorize the candidates affiliations.Don't you? Two-party system with your choices being right-wing crypto-fascists and centrist flip-flopping lib'rulz. Oh, and the South. Yeah.

[gregulus]

Well, Britain has become pretty bad recently too. Canada isn't that great either, we have four major parties but our two-party past still dominates the scene.

I'm more attacking the narrow political landscape of the US. Historically a strong left-wing party never developed there, so the Democrats (who are really centrist, and some are even conservative) are consistently portrayed as "left" when they're really, well, not.
ATTN: HILLARY CLINTON

[Berner]

Well, Britain has become pretty bad recently too. Canada isn't that great either, we have four major parties but our two-party past still dominates the scene.

I'm more attacking the narrow political landscape of the US. Historically a strong left-wing party never developed there, so the Democrats (who are really centrist, and some are even conservative) are consistently portrayed as "left" when they're really, well, not.Exactly. The Americans need to hear some NDP drivel. Now that is left-wing.

[Iskandar]

ATTN: HILLARY CLINTONYa, rly.

Hillary is as much a socialist as Mitt Romney is a pacifist. My left nut.
Exactly. The Americans need to hear some NDP drivel. Now that is left-wing.Hope for our nation!

[DBoons Ghost]

Don't you? Two-party system with your choices being right-wing crypto-fascists and centrist flip-flopping lib'rulz. Oh, and the South. Yeah.

Of course I hate American politics, but you have to understand by now that at this stage of my life personally I'm more concerned with the politics in the state of NY then I am with the politics of the next President. My governer has more effect on my life directly then the President.

Two parties with either side full of hate and contempt for the other? And we expect them to choose the right person for the job based on who really is the "best person for the job" rather then the most "electable" or the best for the party's selfish desires.

Yeah. Fun fun fun!

[Iskandar]

Of course I hate American politics, but you have to understand by now that at this stage of my life personally I'm more concerned with the politics in the state of NY then I am with the politics of the next President. My governer has more effect on my life directly then the President.

Two parties with either side full of hate and contempt for the other? And we expect them to choose the right person for the job based on who really is the "best person for the job" rather then the most "electable" or the best for the party's selfish desires.

Yeah. Fun fun fun!For some reason I keep getting New York political ads on cable. And really funny ads for hack law firms.

[gregulus]

Don't you? Two-party system with your choices being right-wing crypto-fascists and centrist flip-flopping lib'rulz. Oh, and the South. Yeah.
i live in the south. fortunately, my parents are not from the south and encouraged intellectual growth at an early age.

there are a lot of dumbasses.

[Berner]

For some reason I keep getting New York political ads on cable. And really funny ads for hack law firms.

Cellino and Barnes.

[DBoons Ghost]

For some reason I keep getting New York political ads on cable. And really funny ads for hack law firms.

That must be hell on you.

You're that close to the NY border up there eh?

I can't stand those low budget ambulance chaser ads. They drive me crazy man. There are thousands of firms in the 5 boroughs alone due to NYC being notoriously in favor of quick settlements with large payouts to avoid sucking up court time for important matters like the many murder, drug dealer and assault crimes that occur daily. Actually this year we might finally have domestic abuse take center stage for sucking up court time.

[Iskandar]

Dude. Cellino and Barnes.

Also, I swear George Pataki has been running for governor for about ten years now. Swear it.

[Berner]

Dude. Cellino and Barnes.

Also, I swear George Pataki has been running for governor for about ten years now. Swear it.

Fox Rochester++;

[ringworm]

Oh, and the South. Yeah.
lol, who saw Bill Maher over the weekend?

even a gay guy sent here to spoof us during the SC elections had to add, though we do have backwoods views, they all welcomed me back and told me to bring the family?

we do have some grounded principles, but none of them affect how we actually treat people in person

*tries to break the southern mold, again :)


and Berner, if you really understood nhc and how it would affect the average american, you'd see that our version of it is enough a reason to be very weary of it

[beso negro]

How anyone can be against it is amazing.

becuase we would have to pay taxes for it.

[Berner]

becuase we would have to pay taxes for it.

I'd rather pay less for the taxes in a year than the assload I'd pay for one hospital visit if I ever needed to go.

[beso negro]

yea but healthy people shouldn't have to pay for those who smoke, refuse to eat right, exercise, and motorcycle without a helmet. plus healthcare will likely get worse with a single-payer system and dont forget longer waiting lines. why do canadians come to America to get their surgeries done?

a free market system will create more doctors and therefore more competition and lower costs.

[Berner]

While providing no chance for anyone below a specific income. I think it's the right of a population to have healthcare and the duty of a government to supply it. This argument will be cyclical anyway, so I won't bother with it anymore.

[tablespoonful]

can someone tell me how much and how voting for another president matters

[1338 h4x0r]

even a gay guy sent here to spoof us during the SC elections had to add, though we do have backwoods views, they all welcomed me back and told me to bring the family?


And here's how Maher described it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

[-1up!-]

yea but healthy people shouldn't have to pay for those who smoke, refuse to eat right, exercise, and motorcycle without a helmet. plus healthcare will likely get worse with a single-payer system and dont forget longer waiting lines. why do canadians come to America to get their surgeries done?

a free market system will create more doctors and therefore more competition and lower costs.

You could argue in the opposite way, too. Imagine a child born with a severe medical condition that requires regular treatment. This condition is no fault of his, nor of his parents; but in an American system, the burden is all theirs to carry, all due to mere unluck. Is this just?

Or you have a public healthcare service which can address these issues without leaving the unlucky parents to deal with a condition that is no fault of theirs, a system which can correct natural inequalities in people's health. See, people are taxed for this service, but people are healthier in general.

You can be a non-smoking, well-eating, exercising person, for example, and be involved in a car accident that leaves you severely injured; say you have no health insurance (which is apparently the case with millions of Americans) , have trouble paying for the treatment you require; the way you've lived up to now now goes partially to waste because of an accident, an instant flash, that leaves with you with injuries that require operations you can't afford. The accident could not even be your fault; is it fair, is it just that you should be in your current condition? Would you deserve that shitty situation?