Quote:

 

Not to mention, your democratic party is way to conservative for my tastes.

Quote:

 

Because that isn't an oxymoron. >_> Also, you realize that Hilary Clinton openly backed Obama and requested that everyone who supported her vote for him, right? And that they have very similar opinions on a lot of the major issues? And that McCain and Clinton are basically universal opposites?

Error

Oct 27 2008, 10:32 PM

Quote:

 

Because that isn't an oxymoron. >_> Also, you realize that Hilary Clinton openly backed Obama and requested that everyone who supported her vote for him, right? And that they have very similar opinions on a lot of the major issues? And that McCain and Clinton are basically universal opposites?

I know its retarded. But you compare your democratic party the the NDP in Canada. Their is a difference. In fact your Democratic party lies somewhere between the Canadian Conservative and Liberal parties. But then again, I'm not a professional political analyst so I could be misjudging that.

And ya Clinton and Obama were similar. But its like getting pepsi when you really want coke. Except the difference is bigger. Its like getting carbonated water when you really wanted normal water. That kinda idea.

But ya, like I said before. I'm just not that big of an Obama fan. How long do you think it would take to impeach Palin? She definitely isn't ready to be president. But I still think she was a great choice, IF it wasn't for that economic crisis. Also the conservatives could have been more creative with her. But she was still a hot topic on the news for weeks to come, she buried the democratic party. And she did solidify a lot of the base (or so I remember hearing, I wouldn't be surprised if that was only true for states that trended to the right on social issues). I also enjoyed the idea of bringing Alaska into the fold, epically because its relationship with oil will make it a much more lucrative state in the near future.

TX

 

You seem to forget that a view that is conservative in one country could easily be liberal in the one next door. What if Canada had allowed abortions for its entire history without argument? Supporting abortion there would therefore be a conservative view. What if the UK allowed gay marriages for the last hundred years? Wanting a ban on it would make you a liberal there.

TX

 

That might be, but the difference between Clinton and McCain is like asking for a Pepsi and getting a cheeseburger.

Quote:

 

McCain had plenty of good options, and Palin was not it. Her lack of education, especially when compared to Obama, Biden, and even McCain, makes it all the more astonishing that she was even chosen. She was picked to 'solidify the conservative base' and to draw in the Hilary supporters who were voting for her because of the gender factor. The first goal was a moderate success, the second was an absolute flop. And besides, although Alaska is already in the fold so to speak, more oil is not what we need at all. That's the most important issue for me in the coming election, and is the main reason why I support Obama over McCain. The former realizes that any oil, domestic or undomestic, will not last forever, and what we really need is to find an alternative, 'clean coal' as Biden so elegantly puts it. It's not even finding alternatives, as there are already plenty of options, it's about putting them into use.

Error

Oct 28 2008, 09:46 PM

Spoiler: click to toggle

TX

 

You seem to forget that a view that is conservative in one country could easily be liberal in the one next door. What if Canada had allowed abortions for its entire history without argument? Supporting abortion there would therefore be a conservative view. What if the UK allowed gay marriages for the last hundred years? Wanting a ban on it would make you a liberal there.

I get what your saying here. But the problem is that with the current age, with technology breaking down borders and such, the conservatives value of the world are more or less defined by the super powers in the region. I get what your saying, but with media dominated by your country's productions and such, the political spectrum is more or less defined by your yardstick. (HA get it... I said yard stick cause you guys use imperial measurements... Sure its mature discussion but we can still lighten it up) I actually had this discussion with a friend of mine when I was trying to compare your democratic party with one of the Canadian parties. You can't really compare, but that doesn't exactly mean that I couldn't be farther left than your parties allow, right? Sure America might not be ready for it, but that doesn't change the fact that I believe socialist systems are effective. And that change from your capitalist society to a more socialist one has to happen somewhere (well it doesn't technically HAVE to happen. But if it is ever going to happen it does Have to happen... Sorry that sounds ridiculous).

TX

 

That might be, but the difference between Clinton and McCain is like asking for a Pepsi and getting a cheeseburger.

I like this line. I'm not going to lie your definitely correct. Clinton and McCain are completely different. Maybe I just have a soft spot for Clinton. But I still tend to think that the polls of the political spectrum tend to be more effective when a country is having the problems that yours has currently. To get out of a rut, you need to be able to make changes. I wonder how your country would have been if the senate (I think its the senate sorry if I'm wrong) had a republican majority. Ultimately your country was put in a stalemate, which in my opinion it just needs to break out of. I compare it to the early days of the UN. Little could be done with the cold war going on because it couldn't make any actions as long as the Americans or Russians vetoed an action. Now I felt safer with Clinton. I felt she had a better plan. A more thought out strategy. I also think that the media did tend to be biased. But like I said I have a soft spot for the Clintons.

Quote:

 

McCain had plenty of good options, and Palin was not it. Her lack of education, especially when compared to Obama, Biden, and even McCain, makes it all the more astonishing that she was even chosen. She was picked to 'solidify the conservative base' and to draw in the Hilary supporters who were voting for her because of the gender factor. The first goal was a moderate success, the second was an absolute flop. And besides, although Alaska is already in the fold so to speak, more oil is not what we need at all. That's the most important issue for me in the coming election, and is the main reason why I support Obama over McCain. The former realizes that any oil, domestic or undomestic, will not last forever, and what we really need is to find an alternative, 'clean coal' as Biden so elegantly puts it. It's not even finding alternatives, as there are already plenty of options, it's about putting them into use.

And lastly, your right about the need for alternative sources. But at the same time, how do you plan on experimenting in the dark? Fuel is an evolution. Did Tesla work without a candle when he developed florescent lights? Oil has made its way into society. And with so much technology dependent on it, can you really expect to leave it alone when trying to think up new resources? How will you build your Hydroelectric damns? With solar power? How will you build your solar power sheets? With wind power? How will you build your wind mills? Do you get what I'm trying to explain? If you can get oil, if you can decrease its price, then working to find new technologies is easier and more affordable. If more people can experiment because it is no longer so costly than you will have a greater influx of ideas! Ultimately Oil, will fuel the way to a cleaner tomorrow.

But of course. How much do I really now about the world? Its interesting, I feel like I can judge. But do I really no anymore than Palin? I doubt it. So why am I attacking her for this concept of knowledge? Where was it when America headed into this crisis? We all expect it to give the answers. We all rely on this vague concept to solve our problems, but why should problems even exist if it is so potent? Maybe simplicity is important in the world?

Wanderer Shawn

 

Because they weren't allowed to say it was shitty.

Second Exile

Oct 30 2008, 08:49 PM

Spoiler: click to toggle

Ok, we're in the middle of an economic crisis. So, why don't we take all our military in Iraq whose families are getting massive hazard pay bonuses, take away their hazard pay, and ship them back to the United States and expect them to all find jobs to support their families where there aren't jobs for them to find? Does that sound like a good idea?

How about stopping oil companies tapping huge reserves of oil in favor of alternative energy that can't be provided on a large enough scale immediately? Does that sound like a good idea?

Maybe increasing taxes such that the families that are already barely getting by now can't get by? Maybe taxing small businesses and forcing them to go under, thus destroying more jobs? How about that?

America doesn't need a social safety net, it needs a real answer like more jobs. Opening up drilling in Alaska creates jobs in the oil industry that will pay good salaries, allowing Americans to purchase more. Keeping our military in Iraq where they are needed as peacekeepers and as stability in a broken world reduces the number of people looking for jobs in America and provides money for their families to live on. Cutting taxes across the board allows salaries to go farther, thus increasing the purchasing power of Americans. If we buy more, companies need to produce more, and they need employees to do so. It also allows businesses to make more money and thus allows them to hire more people. All of those are McCain policies, not Obama policies.

A safety net can't hold everyone. It's supposed to be a catch that will hold you until your life gets back together. Circus performers don't lie in the net if they fall, they are removed by paramedics. Americans can't lie in a government safety net either. They have to use the safety net until they are pulled out by the paramedics, which in that case is a new employer.

To pay for everything, just cut out the fraud and the waste and it's already paid for. More spending in Congress is waste spending than is not waste spending. Congress members use their pet projects to add to bills they don't like. That way they win whether the bill is shot down or goes through. If it is shot down, the bill they didn't like didn't go through and they can put their project into something else. If it does go through, they got something in their state. There is also a lot of fraud in the safety net we already have. People claim things that are false to get money from the government to sit around on their lazy asses playing video games or watching television. If this were eliminated through enforcement, it would save the government a huge amount of money.

Second Exile

Nov 1 2008, 11:18 PM

We aren't there as peacekeepers to fight Iraqis.

We are there because we want a democratic Iraq to survive. If it does, and the standard of living in Iraq becomes greater than that elsewhere in the Arab world, Iraq will act as a beacon of light in a dark world. It will show that a democratic nation there is possible, so we will have an easier time taking down Iran when the time comes.

Oh, and if our military pulls out, who do the terrorists have to attack over there? Not really anybody. Since they wouldn't be fighting us over there, they would have more resources to attack Americans, Israelis, and Europeans in their own nations. Since the American invasion of Iraq, there have been less terrorist attacks everywhere but in Iraq, and that is both because we have killed or captured countless terrorists and because our soldiers and our projects in Iraq are coming under attack instead of other, civilian, targets.

And why is it triggering cries for retreat in America when our soldiers are killed and civilians kidnapped? Why is it not triggering rage, desire for revenge? Why is it not triggering a hunger for terrorist blood, a want to see the men who killed our soldiers to be shot to death?

And I don't actually think McCain is right on all counts, I just think he's better than Obama. No candidate is actually what I want.

Quote:

 

We are there because we want a democratic Iraq to survive. If it does, and the standard of living in Iraq becomes greater than that elsewhere in the Arab world, Iraq will act as a beacon of light in a dark world.

Error

Nov 2 2008, 10:52 AM

It seems to me that if you ever want democracy to stick in Iraq you should limit the amount of political unrest. In other words make the people happy. The only way I see this happening is to improve their quality of life. Help the job market, help create stable living establishments, help increase access to food and water.

Wanderer Shawn

Nov 4 2008, 08:26 PM

Prove FOX news being biased.

Quote:

 

According to the results of a 2006 study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism a survey of 547 journalists, found that FOX was most frequently cited by surveyed journalists as an outlet taking an ideological stance in its coverage, and most identified as advocating conservative political positions,[33] with 56% of national journalists citing Fox News as being especially conservative in its coverage of news. Additionally FOX was viewed as having the highest profile as a conservative news organization; it was cited unprompted by 69% of national journalists.[34]

Quote:

 

The Project on Excellence in Journalism report in 2006[33] showed that 68 percent of Fox cable stories contained personal opinions, as compared to MSNBC at 27 percent and CNN at 4 percent. The "content analysis" portion of their 2005 report also concluded that "Fox was measurably more one-sided than the other networks, and Fox journalists were more opinionated on the air."[36]