You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Play nice. (This means you.)
Logins from the previous forum have been carried over; if you have difficulty logging in, please try resetting your password before contacting us. Attachments did not survive the migration--many apologies, but we're lucky we kept what we could!
mj12games.com/forum → Discussion → GO STUFF YOURSELVES!!!!
So much for a humorous Thanksgiving wish... :?
murtalianconfederacy wrote:jimbeau wrote:Nicely put, though my wife would argue there are subtle but fundamental differences in the positions each man states.
True, and the same applies over here. Believe me, I know I sounded hypocritical. Problem is, other people when arguing don't...:D
@underling: Too true. I don't usually get into them myself, but thought I'd introduce an outside view.
I don't mean to be obnoxious but could you give me examples of Obama's '*way* left of centre'? As to your saying Obama's policies might have to become more towards the centre, what if he manages to bring America into an era of almost unparalleled prosperity? Would he still have to go more 'central'?
@go0gleplex: While that idea sounds attractive, by trying to level the playing field, quite simply it wouldn't work. Theres always going to be some people that try and navigate their way around funding limitations...
I don't see Obama managing to do that. It usually take 2-4 years I'm told for even a strong President to have his policies affect the economy.
We've got TILLIONS in debt that need to be paid off - and it's not all on Bush's acount. There are other economic shortcomings in the USA that need addressing that can't be fixed easily.
Frankly, I don't think the President can't really affect the economy that much.
The Presidency is supposed to be a relatively weak office, and only a forceful deal-monger can manage to do anything while in office if his party is in the minority in the Legislature.
Hmmm... how is Obama left of center.....?
"I will not weaponize space" - hell, everyone else on the planet that CAN, IS....that may not be leftist, but it's nieve at best in my view. I believe in a strong defense - it's the primary duty of the government in my view.
...This is the home turf of Starmada, I'm going to be surprised that there isn't some attention given to that issue.
Someone else would have to enumerate his other stances, I've slept since (and during, if truth be known) his policy enumeration on national TV.
As to Bush's diction, yeah the guy makes me want to cringe, even though he's supposedly from here. His parents aren't from here, and MAN - did he transplant a little TOO well? Good lord....I LIVE in Texas, and rarely hear that bad an accent.
Re - Controlling Election Funding - yeah, "Move On" and similiar groups have already proven that it ain't gonna work. The hippies and the yuppies are going to jump in and try to 'educate' us all to get us to vote the way they deem correct.
Re - Political discussion - yeah, it's not gonna change anyone's mind, for good or ill. One thing it Can do - but in my experience rarely does - is educate that participants. Unfortunately, they usually devolve into shouting matches....
"like saying that a korma is a fhal" - uh, what? :shock:
Yay, a debate! Fantastic! :roll:
Hehe...
Okay, so you're saying in essence that Obama will not make big enough a positive mark (if any) to be able to get elected in four years time on a similar basis. For all that I know, you're right. I was just replying to underling's point that Obama may well have to 'modify' his views.
To be true, he's probably worried about a possible unbalancing in the whole balance of power. One thing that always kept the USSR and US at least talking is the fact that both sides could wipe each other out. Its quite likely that a power with weapon platforms in space, even only defensive, can at least keep a part of its power base intact. Bang goes the MAD. And if the weapons are offensive, then other powers are at a distinct advantage, and will feel like they're cornered--especially if the leaders of that power still have a Cold War mindset, a likely possibility seeing as it 'officially' ended only twenty years ago. A power that feels like it has nothing to lose is a whole different animal than one that has quite a bit to lose.
Other points I more or less agree on with you, so to the last sentence: Basically I'm saying that a party that might be only very slightly left of centre, in a two-party system, is going to seem much more extreme left than the slightly to the right of centre. Instead of viewing it as a korma, you're viewing it as a fhal. Over here its the same. The Tories and Labour are practically the same nowadays--both are close to the centre, yet theres a massive gulf between the two if you're over here. To the Tories, Labour are a raving bunch of lefty loonies, while to Labour the Tories are a raving bunch of upper-class toffs. Korma, fhal.
I'm still working on Obama's voting record also.
I didn't want you to think I was ignoring you.
It got a little busy here at work, so I got sidetracked.
Kevin
So much for a humorous Thanksgiving wish... :?
Don't be like that....
No one's lost it yet, and it's not bad to discuss our differences in a civil way.
Besides, my frig is almost bereft of turkey, and my wife plays Christmas songs on the radio now....
Yay, a debate! Fantastic! :roll:
Hehe...
Okay, so you're saying in essence that Obama will not make big enough a positive mark (if any) to be able to get elected in four years time on a similar basis. For all that I know, you're right. I was just replying to underling's point that Obama may well have to 'modify' his views.
I'm not really interested in debate as such, I'm more interested that people see what my point of view is, realize that I'm neither an idiot or an ogre of some sort, and to try and get enough of a glimpse into their thinking that I might someday understand it.
THAT is what I'm after....
Every candidate shifts from what he says he'll do to something somewhat more realistic. Clinton did it (middle class tax cut), Bush {2} did it (streamline government) - Obama WILL do it. We just don't know what.
Obama qouted a lot of 'leftist' goals. He can't do all that and not have ENORMOUS problems with the moderate parts of his own constituency (sp?).
To be true, he's probably worried about a possible unbalancing in the whole balance of power. One thing that always kept the USSR and US at least talking is the fact that both sides could wipe each other out. Its quite likely that a power with weapon platforms in space, even only defensive, can at least keep a part of its power base intact. Bang goes the MAD. And if the weapons are offensive, then other powers are at a distinct advantage, and will feel like they're cornered--especially if the leaders of that power still have a Cold War mindset, a likely possibility seeing as it 'officially' ended only twenty years ago. A power that feels like it has nothing to lose is a whole different animal than one that has quite a bit to lose.
Other points I more or less agree on with you, so to the last sentence: Basically I'm saying that a party that might be only very slightly left of centre, in a two-party system, is going to seem much more extreme left than the slightly to the right of centre. Instead of viewing it as a korma, you're viewing it as a fhal. Over here its the same. The Tories and Labour are practically the same nowadays--both are close to the centre, yet theres a massive gulf between the two if you're over here. To the Tories, Labour are a raving bunch of lefty loonies, while to Labour the Tories are a raving bunch of upper-class toffs. Korma, fhal.
Mutually Assured Distruction was stupid, but it worked.
Yeah, I can see that - but China has already tested them out - China is our most likely foe, not Russia. Anyone else at this point is an also-ran.
There are extreme elements on either side. Most of us are in the middle, on either side of a fine line. Government is too big in my view, and is all too often the problem, not the answer - YMMV...
First point:
Yeah I know. But I've been on sites where a 'debate' turns into around fifty pages of both sides freely using expletives like they were fast approaching their use-by date. Only reason I go there is because they do have some interesting threads when they're not shouting at each other...:D
I suppose you're right. But the reverse could also be applied to McCain if he got in. You're always going to have dissatisfied elements in any country. Over here its the far right and the far left (both for a slightly less than stringent immigration policy and the pro-big business policies of this government). Over there now its the far right (who got isolated by the moderates in their own party and then got a candidate who is to them far left) and others as well.
Second point:
I agree. The fact that China has tested such weapons is a cause for concern, and I reckon that Obama might have to renege on this point. To be perfectly honest, in a sense I'd be happy if he did. Having a reason to go back there might just kick both sides into gear and get us into space permanently instead of having a couple of people in one single space station.
Governments are, however, a necessary part of society. If the government is too weak, then the vulnerable get squeezed by those who can afford to buy what they want. Too strong, and you stifle progress.
First point:
Yeah I know. But I've been on sites where a 'debate' turns into around fifty pages of both sides freely using expletives like they were fast approaching their use-by date. Only reason I go there is because they do have some interesting threads when they're not shouting at each other...:D
I suppose you're right. But the reverse could also be applied to McCain if he got in. You're always going to have dissatisfied elements in any country. Over here its the far right and the far left (both for a slightly less than stringent immigration policy and the pro-big business policies of this government). Over there now its the far right (who got isolated by the moderates in their own party and then got a candidate who is to them far left) and others as well.
Second point:
I agree. The fact that China has tested such weapons is a cause for concern, and I reckon that Obama might have to renege on this point. To be perfectly honest, in a sense I'd be happy if he did. Having a reason to go back there might just kick both sides into gear and get us into space permanently instead of having a couple of people in one single space station.
Governments are, however, a necessary part of society. If the government is too weak, then the vulnerable get squeezed by those who can afford to buy what they want. Too strong, and you stifle progress.
Heh, yeah, that's a point - a seugue of Reagan's "government IS the problem" statement....
Dan said something about the difference escaping some of us on the right between Socialists and Communists. It's true, though I still find socialism to be something to be avoided and counter to the Constitution's intent.
I think the same can be said about the difference between Conservatives, Fascists and Nazis over here on the right - many on the left don't see the difference. There's a HELL of a difference....literally.
I think McCain lost because he lost the support of the conservative and reactionary elements. Obama managed to garner support from the dis-enfarnchised voters that usually don't vote because they feel powerless and the the left-leaning in the middle that both were trying to get. I know some conservative Democrats that didn't vote, as well as some Republicans that did likewise.
I'm in Texas, so my experience isn't typical I'm afraid. The Texas economy is so strong that the DFW area alone sells more cars than 47 other states COMBINED....right now.
It also explains all the damn traffic and all the houses being built. The rest of the country is apparently in pretty bad shape. Having a bad economy - even thought the president can't really effect it a lot - is usually bad for the outgoing president's party.
All I know is that nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it mention healthcare, bank bailouts or even education. Why the Federal government can take my money and spend it on these things is beyond me. I'm not saying the government shouldn't do these things...just they all sound like Article (Amendment) X things, reserved to the States. If the people in Massachusetts want to have gay marriage, universal healthcare and free public education, go for it. If the people of Alabama want prayer in school (another thing the Constitution is silent on), sex with donkeys and all education illegal, knock yourselves out. If I like the way Massachusetts is doing things, I can pack up and move there or try and change my State to reflect that without telling the people in Alaska how they should do things.
Amendment I only says that Congress can't establish an official religion...doesn't say anything about seperation of Church and State..the courts have thrown that stuff in through Judicial Legislation....another unconstitutional thingy we let slide. The Constitution nowhere gives the Judicial branch, under Article III or anywhere else, the power to declare laws unconstitutional. Chief Justice Marshal dreamed that one up and the whole judicial precedence stuff and Congress wimped and has let it slide by.
So all in all both of the major candidates in this election were two sides of the same coin. They have us split into two mutually hostile camps, so focused on each other that we can't see them laughing at us in their exclusive club. The two-party system has failed us..just as George Washington said it would.
Rather than give in to the urge to reply, I have decided we've gotten well into areas that should be reserved for other forums (fora?).
This discussion is now locked.
mj12games.com/forum → Discussion → GO STUFF YOURSELVES!!!!
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.