Politics, religion: was 2008 Elections...? - enter at your own risk

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

The upcoming policy on Kosovo is also a kind of retreat and possibly dangerous.

Changing borders is a 20th century, pre-WWII thinking and is also contradictory to the EU philosophy, where the notion border will and should gradually disappear.

I'm not taking sides here, but it is retrograde.

 

[number6]

Or is there some other way to make this "political philosophy" coherent? Please tell me, because I can't figure it out.

See, there's your trouble... Adobeone has made the case time and time again on this thread and you still "can't figure it out."

But that's o.k., because you will never be swayed. Not your fault, it's in your RNA, if not your DNA (new research shows that a trait can actually be transferred from generation to generation irrespective of genetics, but dependent on life-exposures, hence, not dependent on genetic traits).

You and others like you (on both sides of the argument) are useful as a foil or as generic debater. No one is trying to help you "get it" because you have no capacity to be swayed, only to debate.

The target audience are those thoughtful ones reading this thread and weighing points from either side, with an open mind. Through non-atherosclerotic thinking, they will make informed and intelligent decisions.

 

[krd]

See, there's your trouble... Adobeone has made the case time and time again on this thread and you still "can't figure it out."

But that's o.k., because you will never be swayed. Not your fault, it's in your RNA, if not your DNA (new research shows that a trait can actually be transferred from generation to generation irrespective of genetics, but dependent on life-exposures, hence, not dependent on genetic traits).

You and others like you (on both sides of the argument) are useful as a foil or as generic debater. No one is trying to help you "get it" because you have no capacity to be swayed, only to debate.

The target audience are those thoughtful ones reading this thread and weighing points from either side, with an open mind. Through non-atherosclerotic thinking, they will make informed and intelligent decisions.

What a thoughtful post.... I also note it's free of content, but perhaps that's to be expected. If you can't disprove an argument, you had best call the other guy an idiot.

Then again, you do kindly concede that my benighted anti-torture views "aren't my fault". So I guess there's that to be thankful for.

 

[number6]

I don't see how anyone could think that it is too soon to tell if Iraq was a mistake !

It's just that given time, perceptions change. Nixon's presidency in re: China, for example. In retrospect that may be as important as Ronald Reagan's policy toward the Soviet Union. Sure, they did things surreptitiously. Leaders inherently think they are always right. It's what gives them the courage of their convictions IMO. My personal thinking is that it will eventually bring stability to the Middle East, and that is job one for this generation. I could be wrong... time will tell.

There will be a bloodbath after we leave regardless, if we leave tomorrow or ten years from now, makes no difference, blood bath. You can not make people do what you want them to do, they have to want it for themselves. I doubt very much that there will be a statue of W in future Iraq.
-A

You could be right. I and I'm sure you as well, hope not. It's just that the surge advocated by General Betray-us, as I believe the New York times allowed (initially, at a discount ad rate) Moveon.org to call him, seems to be working. If people get used to a period of not hearing car bombs and gunfire, they may be more cooperative in helping subdue the people who initiate those things.

I think you give people in the Middle East too little credit. I believe once the few noisemakers are quietened, the populace will turn to prosperity and peace. A region based on the Dubai model, if you will. Not every Middle Easterner is a terrorist or bomber.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

krd is right to point out this contradiction, which is related to the contradictions of Republicans talking about how they want smaller government with less control over our lives... yet everytime they are in power, expand the size and power of the federal government, and its reach into our private lives. Any old-time classic-mold Republican with semi-Libertarian tendencies would have been appalled by the Patriot Act, or the national deficit, or secret overseas interrogation facilities where torture is used, or the wiretapping of our phones, etc.

 

[David Birdy]

krd is right to point out this contradiction, which is related to the contradictions of Republicans talking about how they want smaller government with less control over our lives... yet everytime they are in power, expand the size and power of the federal government, and its reach into our private lives. Any old-time classic-mold Republican with semi-Libertarian tendencies would have been appalled by the Patriot Act, or the national deficit, or secret overseas interrogation facilities where torture is used, or the wiretapping of our phones, etc.

Right on Point David.
Don't forget the Republican campaign slogan of
"Bringing back honor to the White House"...What a joke...and people still believe it...

It amazes me how many people share a similar view but yet we do nothing...
I'm not sure the Republicans are any different from Democrats from the point of view that most Politicians are self-serving. We have been stuck with a real interesting administration the last 7 years.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, I'm not claiming any moral superiority for Democrats in office in this regard, just that there is a level of incredible hypocracy going on in regards to the classic Republican ideal of what government should be like and the reality of what Bush has done to it. It seems to me that Republicans respect strength so much that they are willing to put up with all sorts of abuses on their own ideals just to maintain power, that holding onto power is in itself the main purpose. What was going on in the Justice Department (and other agencies) where competent Republicans were being replaced by more loyal "Bushies" is a prime example of this drive to consolidate power for its own end. The notion that diversity of opinion and checks and balances in the government was a good thing was replaced by this whole loyalty to Bush at all costs notion.

Bush originally campaigned on the "I'm a uniter, not a divider" slogan, pointing to his record as governor of Texas and his ability to work with the Democrats in his own state congress there. But we see no evidence of someone who knows how to bring together different people in different parties to a common purpose. Instead, we've had a "my way or the highway" approach to governing. And I'm tired of the whole "if only I didn't have a Congress to deal with" sort of mentality. That's the system our founding fathers came up with. If they thought a single-branch of government under a king or dictator was a good idea, they would have proposed that, but obviously they didn't. They weren't even sure if the government needed an executive branch originally, or if the president should be appointed by Congress. The Constitution doesn't even describe the Cabinet posts under the President. When George Washington became President, he had three people he chose to advise him. Henry Knox, who had three secretaries, Thomas Jefferson, who had a couple... and Alexander Hamilton, who hired twenty-three people.

 

[R Fogg]

I think Number6 has been drinking our Utah koolaid. You are welcome here, we love GW, we love to smile, we have a solid grasp of history and international politics, we think fluoridating water is a communist plot and that the UN has plans to overthrow the american government. Welcome.

Quieting a few "noisemakers" in the middle east is a short term bandaid that absolutely guarantees future conflict. The US and Europe have been silencing noisemakers in underdeveloped parts of the world for the past century to serve short term foreign policy goals. Unfortunately, silencing a few noisemakers without changing the conditions that spawned the conflict ALWAYS leads to future conflict. Meanwhile, in the process of "silencing a few noisemakers" many, many innocent people are killed, injured, displaced and otherwise victimized.

Here is my prediction: regardless of who is elected to the whitehouse, as long as oil is relevant commodity, american foreign policy decisions in Iraq will serve american policy/economic interests, often at the expense of the interests of the population of Iraq, Iran, or fill in the country name here. I am willing to bet money that it will take 25 years for child mortality in Iraq to see the levels that were achieved in prewar Iraq.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I am (if someone hasn't guessed already ) a social liberal. I also think the government is incompetant and wasteful. That's not a "the bush administration is incompetant and wasteful" kind of statement that's a "government is inherently wasteful and incompetant".

So why do I continue to advance socially liberal policies which cost a great deal of money? Because I recognize that there is no large organization which doesn't 'waste' enormous amounts of resources in overhead. It's my obeservatin that you can't accomplish anything of any magnitude without decreased inefficiency.

Some would have us believe that if we stop providing public services people would just magically increase their charitable giving and that once these charities grow to the size necessary to handle the weight of the entire US Welfare System they would magically not face the same challenges that our current public institutions do. I hear this all the time from people who should know better. People who are managers, people who work at large companies... people who own companies. I work every day with clients at large corporations. I can tell you stories where they've had me waste $3,000 because they didn't bother spending an hour to check something. It comes down to oversight. When you are handleing millions of dollars there becomes this perception that your funds are unlimited and that a few hundred here and there are insignificant. This is a human problem not an administrative problem. Sure we could lock down the government and account for every penny spent... and probably end up spending more now than we did before in oversight.

Modern conservatives will tell you they still believe in the same social services as liberals but that by not helping they're doing more to help. This is a well intentioned lie. If we're going to solve poverty we're going to have to spend a great deal of money. That money is going to be spent inefficiently there is no way around that. If your current position is "I don't support welfare because it's inefficient and a small percentage of it goes to people who don't deserve it" you will never find an effective system which provides public service. You will always be waiting to give.

Give now. Give often and stay engaged in how your money is being spent. Starting over isn't going to solve all of our problems. It's just going to create the same problems after a brief reprieve.

regardless of who is elected to the whitehouse, as long as oil is relevant commodity, american foreign policy decisions in Iraq will serve american policy/economic interests, often at the expense of the interests of the population of Iraq, Iran, or fill in the country name here.

As long as oil is relevant as a commodity we will pay attention. When it isn't. We'll simply ignore the problem and they'll revert back into a similar state as East Africa: a complete disaster but ignorable by politicians. Unfortunately for countries such as Iraq and Iran this is their only chance to become an integral member of the world economy. In a century they'll be completly irellevant if they don't diversify and expand into new markets.

 

[Tom Lowe]

the contradictions of Republicans talking about how they want smaller government with less control over our lives... yet everytime they are in power, expand the size and power of the federal government, and its reach into our private lives. Any old-time classic-mold Republican with semi-Libertarian tendencies would have been appalled by the Patriot Act, or the national deficit, or secret overseas interrogation facilities where torture is used, or the wiretapping of our phones, etc.

Yes indeed. That's why I like Paul.

Obama is my second choice, but my only worry about Obama is that I don't hear him talking much about cutting spending or balancing the budget. We're going broke fighting these wars on "credit cards" like you said, David. If my own personal finances were in such a mess as our government's I would be ashamed of myself!

 

[Dominic Cochran]

Obama is my second choice, but my only worry about Obama is that I don't hear him talking much about cutting spending or balancing the budget.

He has a plan. Key to this plan is reinstating PAYGO rules.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fiscal/

 

[Tom Lowe]

He has a plan. Key to this plan is reinstating PAYGO rules.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fiscal/

Thanks for the info. Pay as you go sounds good, as long as that doesn't mean raising taxes.

He also talks about making earmarks and pork transparent, but I would rather see them ENDED, or at least cut to the bone.

 

[Shawn Nelson]

Thanks for the info. Pay as you go sounds good, as long as that doesn't mean raising taxes.

He also talks about making earmarks and pork transparent, but I would rather see them ENDED, or at least cut to the bone.

I believe Obama, Hillary and Edwards all want to raise taxes and repeal the Bush tax cuts.

 

[Dominic Cochran]

I believe Obama, Hillary and Edwards all want to raise taxes and repeal the Bush tax cuts.

Repealing SOME of Bush's tax cuts is the full extent to which Obama wants to raise taxes. That's it though. I personally think this is a good idea.

 

[Dominic Cochran]

Thanks for the info. Pay as you go sounds good, as long as that doesn't mean raising taxes.

He also talks about making earmarks and pork transparent, but I would rather see them ENDED, or at least cut to the bone.

People have different definitions of pork spending. You realize federal money is how the majority of public works projects get done right?

 

[Tom Lowe]

Personally, I would rather see the IRS thrown into the scrap heap, and have us move to a reasonable national sales tax.

 

[Shawn Nelson]

Personally, I would rather see the IRS thrown into the scrap heap, and have us move to a reasonable national sales tax.

or a flat tax

 

[Poi Boy]

In order for tax cuts to work you have to cut spending at the same time otherwise you are not paying for the true cost of services. The conservatives talk a good game on tax cuts but they have never had the guts to cut spending instead they have grown spending tremendously. Conservatives have no credibility on taxes.
Aloha
-A

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Personally, I would rather see the IRS thrown into the scrap heap, and have us move to a reasonable national sales tax.

BOOOOOO!!!

Yes let's tax the people who can barely afford food the same as people who are deciding between a porsche and Ferrari.

Everybody pays the same amount for garbage. Everybody has to replace light bulbs. If you live below $30,000 for 2 people you're having to spend all of your money on the necessities. There is no reason why these people who are already struggling should be slapped with higher taxes because people with yachts want things to be more "fair".

You have your Yacht! Be happy! You're successful. Let's not crush the people at the bottom while we live in the lap of luxury. Besides the Tax burdern IS NOT BAD. I take 0 deductions or allowances until the end of the year because it forces me to be more conservative with my money and not waste it and I don't feel any burden at all. I make my car payments, save for retirement, have health care, fast internet, rent, food, utilities... etc etc. I'm happy to help those who have to work 2 jobs and 60 hour weeks just to afford the bare necessities and enables me to do my work.

The poor spend a dramatically greater portion of their income on retail products than someone who is affluent. A flat tax and a sales tax (pretty much the exact same thing) hit the poor more than anybody. A Sales Tax is actually in many ways like taxing the poor more than the rich.

 

[Poi Boy]

Yes indeed. That's why I like Paul.

Obama is my second choice, but my only worry about Obama is that I don't hear him talking much about cutting spending or balancing the budget. We're going broke fighting these wars on "credit cards" like you said, David. If my own personal finances were in such a mess as our government's I would be ashamed of myself!

maybe you would be ashamed of yourself but you would also be in jail !
-A