Members SUPER VELCROBOY Posted September 27, 2008 Members Share Posted September 27, 2008 The truth is that if we still want to be around as a country in 20 years and still have a respected say in the world, we have to reel in the 'john wayne' foreign policy that we've had under bush, and would likely continue under mccain. i think that is a bit of a exageration but yes McCain is likely to be more similar to Bush than Obama to Bush. Either way, likely an upgrade to Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brian Marshall Posted September 27, 2008 Members Share Posted September 27, 2008 im also gonna say this one more time, so that everyone understands it: this thread is meant for a healthy and respectful discussion of the debate and the candidates. please refrain from being a {censored}ing asshole. what do i mean by asshole? condescending remarks, posts that make a general statement like FAIL, or just a few words about how ignorant and dumb someone is. if you cant debate with some decorum, go back to kindergarten. im sure a time out will do you good. im only asking, and i hope that there are enough adults her that will respect my request. if not, then god help us all, the candidates are the LAST thing this country needs to worry about. thank you! ummm you started a political thread. you can try to make all the ground rules you want, but it's still a political thread. People have strong opinions, and other people are seemingly willfully ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brian Marshall Posted September 27, 2008 Members Share Posted September 27, 2008 i think that is a bit of a exageration but yes McCain is likely to be more similar to Bush than Obama to Bush. Either way, likely an upgrade to Bush. blah, i f'ed up what i was trying to say after editing that sentence about 10 times...what i meantThe truth is that if we still want to be around as a country in 20 years that still has a respected say in the world, we have to reel in the 'john wayne' foreign policy that we've had under bush, and would likely continue under mccain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Crxsh Posted September 27, 2008 Members Share Posted September 27, 2008 Yup, you really got to point. At the end of the day, the differences between a democratic president and a republican president are philosophical and the same as they have been for the last 30 years. A democrat favors the Robin Hood model (steal from the rich to feed the poor). The democrat will increase government spending to support social programs like welfare, medicare, s-chip, medicaid, veteran support along with schools and education. To get all this funded, someone is going to pay more taxes. You will pay taxes for things you may not ever care for. On foreign policy, he will shy away from defense spending and will likely hope for a peaceful settlement in conflict. A republican president favors the Reaganomics approach, i.e. cut all taxes to drive the economy (until we get into trouble, recall "read my lips"). A republican will favor a free market approach with little government as possible. It's more of a "let the people fend for themselves." While this isn't a bad idea per se, the people who can't fend for themselves get punished pretty severely in all ways (e.g. minorities, elderly, handicaps). On the foreign policy front, a republican will also favor the "peace through strength" principle. All of this probably stemmed from history, i.e. ww2, where inaction and appeasement would likely have allowed Germany and Japan to reign. So you probably will get a lot of defense spending, and pre-emptive striking the enemy (e.g. Reagan+ Granada, Bush+Panama, Bush+Iraq+afgan) and also on some ridiculous stuff that are deterring but unproven like SDI star wars and missile shields. We end up in debt anyways because of all the defense spendings. Pick your poison, right? I'm tired of war debt and market instability, but social programming often ends up with people asking where such a great idea went wrong. And lower taxes are great -- but Obama's plan seemingly neglects economic stimulants, and McCain's makes me mad at every Fortune 500 CEO out there. The only logical answer seems to be -- RON PAUL '09!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SUPER VELCROBOY Posted September 27, 2008 Members Share Posted September 27, 2008 blah, i f'ed up what i was trying to say after editing that sentence about 10 times... what i meant The truth is that if we still want to be around as a country in 20 years that still has a respected say in the world, we have to reel in the 'john wayne' foreign policy that we've had under bush, and would likely continue under mccain. ah nice save Brian did you watch this one yet? Pretty funny (or scary)http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=186052&title=clusterf#@k-to-the-poor-house Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members The Great Waldo Pepper Posted September 27, 2008 Members Share Posted September 27, 2008 From one of the planes he crashed. Cheap shot, Nick... He did crash 5 planes or something but thats a cheap shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members The Great Waldo Pepper Posted September 27, 2008 Members Share Posted September 27, 2008 Cheap shot, Nick... He did crash 5 planes or something but thats a cheap shot. I know. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brian Marshall Posted September 27, 2008 Members Share Posted September 27, 2008 ah nice save Brian did you watch this one yet? Pretty funny (or scary) http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=186052&title=clusterf#@k-to-the-poor-house hadn't seen that one yet... thanks Truth is that something does need to be done, but the idea of just forcing through some legislation without any oversight is stupid. There's plenty of theory, and ideas out there, and this would be a great time to take a few extra days and bring back some of the regulations we had before the 80's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members The Great Waldo Pepper Posted September 27, 2008 Members Share Posted September 27, 2008 ummm you started a political thread. you can try to make all the ground rules you want, but it's still a political thread. People have strong opinions, and other people are seemingly willfully ignorant. In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination. Mark Twain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Crxsh Posted September 27, 2008 Members Share Posted September 27, 2008 In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination. Mark Twain Oh Samuel....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brian Marshall Posted September 27, 2008 Members Share Posted September 27, 2008 I know. Sorry. Nah, i think we've had enough fighter pilots as presidents. first there was the guy in independence day (bill pullman is the worst actor ever)... then bush... no more please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members The Great Waldo Pepper Posted September 27, 2008 Members Share Posted September 27, 2008 Pick your poison, right? I'm tired of war debt and market instability, but social programming often ends up with people asking where such a great idea went wrong. And lower taxes are great -- but Obama's plan seemingly neglects economic stimulants, and McCain's makes me mad at every Fortune 500 CEO out there. The only logical answer seems to be -- RON PAUL '09!!! As much as I really like Ron Paul, Libertarian's perspective on the markets would permit this sort of economic crisis to occur whenever, not just once every 70-80 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wader2k Posted September 27, 2008 Members Share Posted September 27, 2008 he's a nice protest vote, but he is a wacko and a hypocrite. Nader....the man that brought us 6 inch power cords..... 8^) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Crxsh Posted September 27, 2008 Members Share Posted September 27, 2008 As much as I really like Ron Paul, Libertarian's perspective on the markets would permit this sort of economic crisis to occur whenever, not just once every 70-80 years. How do you mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brian Marshall Posted September 27, 2008 Members Share Posted September 27, 2008 How do you mean? economic liberalism... (not to be confused with social liberalism, or modern liberalism) Basically deregulate everything. Personally i like some of the libertarian ideals (freedom, liberty) but the basic principles they adhere to at the root of their ideology are inherently flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wader2k Posted September 27, 2008 Members Share Posted September 27, 2008 hadn't seen that one yet... thanks Truth is that something does need to be done, but the idea of just forcing through some legislation without any oversight is stupid. There's plenty of theory, and ideas out there, and this would be a great time to take a few extra days and bring back some of the regulations we had before the 80's. what's your take on this "sunday deadline" they keep throwing out there as if it's the apocalypse.....methinks Paulson and Bernanke are playing chicken to see who blinks.....what's really messed up is that it seems that the only folks standing against this plan are house republicans against there own republican president....the senate dems are all for it along with bush.....and NEITHER candidate answered the question during the debate on where they stand on it.....seems they are afraid to at this point. I get the feeling that this question COULD swing the election if one of them plays his cards right.....but I doubt it will happen.....mainstreet would flat out elect the one that stands with them against the Paulson/Bernanke plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brian Marshall Posted September 27, 2008 Members Share Posted September 27, 2008 what's really messed up is that it seems that the only folks standing against this plan are house republicans against there own republican president....the senate dems are all for it along with bush..... my take on this is that it is a bluff. It's not uncommon for the party in the minority to get all angry against something that they know they don't have the power to stop. Even if they know more details than the general public and know SOMETHING needs to be done, they can wash their hands of whatever it is that is being legislated.... even if they would have done exactly the same thing if in the majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members The Great Waldo Pepper Posted September 27, 2008 Members Share Posted September 27, 2008 How do you mean? Libertarian "free market" ideology is at least consistent with their desire to keep government out of private and international affairs unlike Republican ideology. But it disregards the commons that make business work, educated workforce, court system to enforce contracts, regulations and laws, or infrastructure to transport good & services to market. If you don't keep the predators in check they will devour everything. We did a pretty good job at keeping them at bay since the 1930s. It seems to take us about 70 years to forget we need to do that. I think a true free market first of all would NEVER build infrastructure for the common good out of economic reasons but there would be barely any extended periods of stability to do so anyhow. It rewards those who lie, cheat, and steal. While forgetting about the others. Sounds similar to our bailout situation. hrm. Like I said it is at least consistent in terms of overall freedom compared to Republicans... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nosferatu123 Posted September 27, 2008 Members Share Posted September 27, 2008 Both seem like conmen to me. Both are right wing, both are conservative and both are one sided. Doesn't matter who the Americans vote for, they're essentially voting for the same person. After the economy collapses (which shouldn't be too far away), we can all then just sit back and listen to Godspeed's Dead Flag Blues! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members !i!i!i!i!i! Posted September 27, 2008 Members Share Posted September 27, 2008 I LIKE IKE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members The Great Waldo Pepper Posted September 27, 2008 Members Share Posted September 27, 2008 Both seem like conmen to me. Both are right wing, both are conservative and both are one sided. Doesn't matter who the Americans vote for, they're essentially voting for the same person. After the economy collapses (which shouldn't be too far away), we can all then just sit back and listen to Godspeed's Dead Flag Blues! On my Fisher-Price windup record player! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brian Marshall Posted September 27, 2008 Members Share Posted September 27, 2008 pinko liberal... just like nixon... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members echodeluxe Posted September 27, 2008 Author Members Share Posted September 27, 2008 oh yeah... which party has been framing foreign policy in terms of good and evil. That is about the most retarded thing you can do, because it plays right in to oppressive regimes hands. Not to mention that if you look at it in broad terms Mccain's foreign policy ideals are the same as what got us in all of this mess in the first place. They fail to realize that for every action there is a reaction.you obviously are paying more attention to sound bites than what obama actually originally saiddick cheney and don rumsfeld had lots of experience... just sayin'... I dont know where you are getting that from obama... I don't get that feeling at all.why the hell do we have to back up israel... shouldn't we qualify that statement with something??? It's not the 1950's anymore. so much for you being "on the fence"The truth is that if we still want to be around as a country in 20 years and still have a respected say in the world, we have to reel in the 'john wayne' foreign policy that we've had under bush, and would likely continue under mccain. ugh. dude, seriously, just because im weary of obama's foreign policy, that doesnt mean im running into mccains arms. we should back up israel cuz they are our allies. also, i just feel like eradicating israel is called something... what do they call that... OH YEAH! GENOCIDE! remember the holocaust? you think we shouldnt have intervened? thats what the dude is talking about. we have to help israel. i guess being a humanitarian isnt cool. come on, its really black and white! and to whoever said it, the islamic "god" would be Allah. yeah, its a different god. i dont know about any of your religions, but neither christianity, catholicism, or judaism had a prophet named mohammed. i dunno, you arent arguing for the sake of progress, your arguing to be antagonistic, which isnt moving this along at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members The Great Waldo Pepper Posted September 27, 2008 Members Share Posted September 27, 2008 i dunno, you arent arguing for the sake of progress, your arguing to be antagonistic, which isnt moving this along at all. Echo, you gotta realize you can't start a political thread, or even partake in one unless you are prepared to be told something you don't wanna hear. Brian's comments aren't antagonistic in the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members echodeluxe Posted September 27, 2008 Author Members Share Posted September 27, 2008 first off, it doesnt matter what our allies do, if we dont help them when they need help, how can we call them allies? iran (who isnt an ally) threatned to wipe them off the face of the earth. genocide is not a shortcut to thinking, thats literally what that is. and you know, when i am told things about the islamic faith by a MUSLIM, im going to take that over a non muslim, not to mention ive read the koran... stuff like "its not the 1950's anymore" and "you obviously are paying more attention to sound bites than what obama actually originally said" are both meant to antagonize. i asked that people be respectful in this discussion so that people can feel comfortable coming in and discussing things. either way, we can have our difference in opinion or whatever, but telling me i absord things as absolute fact is ignorant, you have no idea where i get what information, and what information i come across and how. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.