User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 12 of 15 FirstFirst ... 289101112131415 LastLast
Results 89 to 96 of 116

Thread: Blatantantly political discussion, but...

  1. #89
    Got Drosera? Indiana Gardener's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    391
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Let's entertain a thought for a minute though. I know that you like Obama's policies, as do others here. I'm not trying to make this specifically about him or MacCain. It's more so about the concept of a sudden switch which could work in either direction.

    If the winning candidate wins by a narrow margin, as in prior cases, and nearly 1/2 of the country, even some liberals, doesn't like the new President, what will that do to the population's outlook on the future; wether there is a threat or not, but due to perhaps a perceived threat, and how may that affect the economy?

    I'm terrible at wording things sometimes. I hope I conveyed my question better. Sorry if not.

  2. #90
    Nooblet Botanicadenta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    West Texas
    Posts
    177
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Now I can understand that. I like the idea of a narrow margin, as well, considering we've had the closest elections on record in both 2000 and 2004.

    The more I hear about it, it sounds like this:

    http://www.wjno.com/cc-common/news/s...rticle=4338967

    Ah, I love the Simpsons. Such a great AH HOLY CRAP!

    http://weblog.infoworld.com/robertxc...arly_vote.html

    I really don't think that the number of people who are 'worried that Obama is a threat' make up half the country. I would imagine that the majority of voters who are still 'undecided' in the polls are probably the politically disinterested who would rather not vote for either and ignore the politics completely, believing that Obama is a terrorist no more than they think of McCain as a war hero. I can't say much for McCain without bias. Once again, the more I hear about McCain, the more I actually like the guy in all earnesty, I just really believe he sold his soul for a shot at the presidency.

    The consensus among Dem. talk shows is that we're heading towards an economic catastrophe no matter who's elected. The stage is set and the fuse is lit for complete economic reformation world wide, I believe it's as inevitable as global warming is to those who believe that GW is not caused by human action. When I view the topic, I see the next president of the US as responsible for writing the rules on how international trade and economics for the next 100 years or so not unlike what FDR did. The new new deal is underway, and will probably set the backdrop for the next few generations of people worldwide. Someone's gotta take a stand, and if we want our American interests taken seriously, we need to propose something that not only serves us, but also serves our allies and and the other lawful nations of the world in an attempt to bind the world together a little better.

    I really think that if we don't get our act together(as we haven't for the last 8 years), we're leaving the title of #1 open for someone else, and if the worldwide political climate is any indication, and in light of the countries we've alienated under Bush's policies, chances are the people who grab the torch are likely to be someone we don't like much.

  3. #91
    rattler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    missing, presumed dead
    Posts
    8,554
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    that depends on how many and which of his policies get through and what outside forces happen.....dont think either McCain or Obama have "great" plans for the economy.....but i feel the economy needs to be left alone to correct itself for the most part....

    IF Obama starts in on the anti gun stuff that he was big on in Illinois expect violence but prolly not what you would expect.....there are alot of conservatives that both celebrated and hung their head in shame this year that the Supreme court finally said that the 2nd amendment was an individual right.....to attempt gun bans now could very well spark off lots of stand offs like Waco and Ruby Ridge cause you have alot of folks that are fed up with the feds, who have a Supreme court ruling, whos nest egg collapsed who may feel what the hell now is the time to fight.....and those that say this is impossible because of the ruling look at FDR, he got the SC to rubber stamp alot of his anti-constitution type policies.....who ever gets in would likely be replacing 2 SC justices in his first term.....

    Obama said in the 2nd debate he was ready to go after those ppl committing genocide and countries harboring terrorists that refuse to turn them over to us....Obama WILL NOT get us into a Iraq War type situation but expect lots of small conflicts like there were in Somalia and Bosnia during Clintons presidency....weither you feel this is right or not, our boys will be just as dead as if they were in Iraq......

    IF he pulls us out of Iraq suddenly, expect the country to collapse on itself in civil war and when the genocide starts again Obama will have us back trying to pick up the pieces.....

    expect a return of the "Fairness Doctrine", this will really dictate what regular TV and the normal AM/FM radio can report, especially on government type stuff....i bet satellite radio is just frothing at the mouth for this to happen as they and cable TV would be largely unaffected......

    Obama is pretty big on NATO.....NATO is pretty big on anti-US Constitution policies.....while some of you think this is a good thing NATO treaties should not ever supersede the Constitution(NATO is very big at getting rid of private firearm ownership), but given the right president with the right supreme court appointees and yes it could happen and destroy the very bedrock our country is founded on........

    not to mention the cost of all Obama's proposed social programs........you think the cost of the war in Iraq hurts, start paying for health care on even just 1/3 of our population....

    granted all of this is worst case scenario.....and in all reality Obama could become as much of a lame duck candidate that McCain likely will be.......but the "what ifs" do worry the hell out of me

    as i have stated before for someone that has been trained in and taught Constitutional law Obama seems to have no freaking clue what the piece of paper says....
    cervid serial killer
    Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety
    I didn't get stimulated but he kept his promise on change, that's about all I got left!
    http://www.wolfpointherald.com/--http://www.safety-brite.net/

  4. #92
    Got Drosera? Indiana Gardener's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    391
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    >The consensus among Dem. talk shows is that we're heading towards an economic catastrophe no matter who's elected.>

    I've thought the same thing for some time. I am convinced that, in addition to the gov enforcing the questionable loans, the war is at the middle of it. People just don't spend money during war times. While I want the war to be over like everything, it concerns me about putting a date on it.

    >The stage is set and the fuse is lit for complete economic reformation world wide>

    Yes, Iceland (the entire country) already filed bankruptcy and borrowed a bunch of money from Russia. Now there's a country to be bartering with! LOL I mean, they just invaded their small neighbor without a clear reason.

    I really wonder how much longer we will remain a "superpower". I hope we can, and I'm optimistic for the most part, but the signs point otherwise.

    >also serves our allies and and the other lawful nations of the world in an attempt to bind the world together a little better.>

    Interesting that you say that. Food has been an important factor in our offerings around the world and the economy isn't the only thing melting down. Consider the food issue that is at hand that the powers that be want to keep hush hush.

    The commercial poultry are genetically failing. Some poultry houses are affected up to 80% with cataracts and other health problems that appear to be genetically linked to bad combinations of lethal genes that came from the breeding stock. Genetic pools are down in content by 50%. There are only 4 lines of commercial chicken breeding stock in existence. Only 25% of genetic diversity can be replaced by crossing these 4 lines because everything after that will be blended together. There is nothing really new, just slightly less corrupted copies of the required genes.

    Without genetic diversity, there is nothing to select for fertility and disease resistance from. Cattle and swine are also in a similar, but slower moving, situation. So the poultry is consuming the lab time since it's moving at a faster pace. I know that UW Madison, UM East Lansing, and Purdue are on the case. The Dr who worked UW Madison and UM has been going at it for 3-4 yrs now... and no I can not name names. I was raked over the coals for that on another board. Since I couldn't (un-permitted) publicly put a name to it, I was making up imaginary people. LOL So I cited a similar work by Purdue that has been published. Another person chimed in with some info and shut up the bashers who refused to believe that such a thing is even possible.

    Basically, the more they look into it the worse it looks. Nothing new is available. There are no pure replacement genes. Crossing the lines will improve things by 25% at the most and may result in harmful muling doing more harm that good. If a fix isn't found, and that's not looking likely (even with the possibility of genetic modification) after 3-4 yrs of lab time now, starvation is an issue for those who depend on commercial food. No time has been put on it as far as I've been told, but it isn't looking good.

    Add that possibility to our economy, what happens if we don't have food to give to countries like China as we currently do?

    It's a lot to think about, but not worth dwelling on obsessively or we'd go insane.

    BTW, China actually likes McCain, but that could be a cultural aspect and not a platform issue.

    >IF Obama starts in on the anti gun stuff that he was big on in Illinois>

    I believe that one of the reasons we've not seen more attacks from alleged embedded terrorist organizations is that they know a large portion of the US is personally armed. Take away that right and crime will go up for sure. Criminals will always have guns. Tougher gun laws will do more to keep self defense weapons out of the hands of the honest people.

    If some armed individual breaks into your home and threatens you or your family, we don't need laws like they have in the UK that say it's illegal to defend yourself against the deadly intruder even if you yourself are at gunpoint. Defend yourself, and you are the one going to prison. In what realm does that make sense?

  5. #93
    Nooblet Botanicadenta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    West Texas
    Posts
    177
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by rattler_mt View Post
    IF Obama starts in on the anti gun stuff that he was big on in Illinois expect violence but prolly not what you would expect.....there are alot of conservatives that both celebrated and hung their head in shame this year that the Supreme court finally said that the 2nd amendment was an individual right.....to attempt gun bans now could very well spark off lots of stand offs like Waco and Ruby Ridge cause you have alot of folks that are fed up with the feds, who have a Supreme court ruling, whos nest egg collapsed who may feel what the hell now is the time to fight.....and those that say this is impossible because of the ruling look at FDR, he got the SC to rubber stamp alot of his anti-constitution type policies.....who ever gets in would likely be replacing 2 SC justices in his first term.....
    I really don't think anyone's out to get guns. That is to say, no one wants to break the constitution any further than it has been, Patriot Act, etc. I do believe in a bit more gun regulation, things like AK-47's (my friend has one, modded it to be fully automatic a few days after getting it .... XD) I don't think should be in the possession of anyone, really. I believe there should be a definite separation between firearms of hunting, self-defense and military use, and their distribution regulated accordingly. No civillians should own a military gun, and to purchase ammo for a rifle or other high-powered hunting rifles should require an active hunting license in addition to the regular paperwork. For self-defense, well, i think it will work for itself if there's less to defend against to begin with. I like guns, wish I had the money to get a couple, but I think people owning tripod-mounted turrets in the NRA are a little over the top. It's not a matter of eliminating constitutional rights, it's alleviating the necessity of something that was needed in a time when the population was a little more wild.

    I don't think guns will ever really disappear, it's a fantastic past time and a neat hobby, and I'd be just as disappointed if they were banned as I am at the Patriot act.

    I'd also like to add that your example of standoffs is one of the major reasons why such a thing is even considered XD.

    Not sure how I feel about NATO, I mostly hear about NAFTA and CAFTA, which are mostly unrelated. It does seem like NATO has been the focus for a lot of shady political plots, I don't think anyone would be hurt by it's dissolving.

    Quote Originally Posted by Indiana Gardener View Post
    Add that possibility to our economy, what happens if we don't have food to give to countries like China as we currently do?
    As far as food goes we may have to go to a more 'everyone for themselves' sort of model, it seems. I have issues with the way food is produced worldwide to begin with. If you look at the food pyramid as the standard dietary guide, the actual production of food is inverted. You can't count the grains and corn that goes to factory farms! that's cheating XD. I live in a vegan household (Not necessarily by choice... I like my sea bugs and dairy). So from all the propaganda I hear from that angle, I think meat production could use some reforms of it's own. I've heard the argument for ranchers and how that's all they can do, and that's fine. It's the enourmous factory farms that are ridiculous. The smell of Herford, TX takes over Lubbock for days if the wind blows right (As it often does), and the place is just sick to drive by. I believe that falls under excess. My Grandad was a rancher, but he also had a full garden and grew almost anything they needed from the ground up and shot a deer to mix it up on occasion.

    I think we're going to have to reopen factories and retool for new markets, not unlike Obama suggests. If McCain could promise an initiative that makes sense(not tax cuts XD) to reopen American factories, then I would definitely begin to feel okay with another Rep. president. I believe the Dem. platform to encourage industry through tax reductions (or providing funding, I need to look up how he exactly proposes this) on particular industries as opposed to across the board is a little more proactive than a flat cut. Before decrying the death of choice, I think smart industrialists know when to jump at a chance when they get one. Adaptability is a hallmark of humankind, so this shouldn't be a huge problem for those who truly want to capitalize on it.

    Food is a bad trade as it is. Putting work and technology and transforming raw materials into high-value goods is how you create wealth in a country.

    Also, of course China likes McCain, the Rep.'s have no problem with continuing to run up the China-provided credit card for the next 10 years while they work out the paperwork for offshore drilling :/

  6. #94
    Got Drosera? Indiana Gardener's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    391
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    >It's the enourmous factory farms that are ridiculous.>

    That is where the problems lies. You don't think the USDA is funding the research for the little guy do you? LOL The mass production of livestock is what got us into trouble with bad selections and genetic failing to start with.

    NAIS as it's proposed now will only serve to further drive out the family farms that do attempt to do things better and give benefits to the conglomerates because they will be exempt from ID'ing individual animals, unlike the little guy who will incur a greater cost. Obama is all for NAIS too. He's for big industrial agriculture and supports NAIS. ;-) So, if I may be so bold, if you don't like factory farms, why do you like Obama? LOL

    http://nonais.org/

    My favorite quote is by Ms. Zanoni, a NY attorney.
    "It is difficult to imagine any acceptable basis for the (USDA) to subject the owner of a chicken to more intrusive surveillance than the owner of a gun." -Mary Zanoni

  7. #95
    Outsiders71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,005
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by rattler_mt View Post
    that depends on how many and which of his policies get through and what outside forces happen.....dont think either McCain or Obama have "great" plans for the economy.....but i feel the economy needs to be left alone to correct itself for the most part....
    I think what it depends on is how many Republican seats in the house are gained/lossed. If Republicans lose seats and Obama becomes President, the check and balance system will cease to exist. Radical change will occur if this happens.

    Quote Originally Posted by rattler_mt View Post
    Obama is pretty big on NATO.....NATO is pretty big on anti-US Constitution policies.....while some of you think this is a good thing NATO treaties should not ever supersede the Constitution(NATO is very big at getting rid of private firearm ownership), but given the right president with the right supreme court appointees and yes it could happen and destroy the very bedrock our country is founded on........
    Agreed. I believe Obama would cater to the international community, even if that means giving them some of our rights. We have this problem in some of our benches, Judges using international law to make decisions instead of the constitution. It's troubling.

    Quote Originally Posted by rattler_mt View Post
    not to mention the cost of all Obama's proposed social programs........you think the cost of the war in Iraq hurts, start paying for health care on even just 1/3 of our population....
    Another very good point. People cry about how much money we're spending in Iraq. Since the war has started we've only spent ~$600 billion. Sure that is a lot of money, but Obama's plan will leap that. What gets me more is that Obama would rather flush that ~$600 billion and the thousands of American lives who died instead of finishing the job.

    Quote Originally Posted by rattler_mt View Post
    granted all of this is worst case scenario.....and in all reality Obama could become as much of a lame duck candidate that McCain likely will be.......but the "what ifs" do worry the hell out of me
    The President's biggest weapon is the fact they are Commander-In-Chief. While it's true that all the things Obama wants to do could be blocked by Republicans, especially if Republicans gain seats, Obama would still be in charge of foreign policy. That scares me alone.

    Quote Originally Posted by rattler_mt View Post
    as i have stated before for someone that has been trained in and taught Constitutional law Obama seems to have no freaking clue what the piece of paper says....
    I highly doubt Obama doesn't have a clue to what the paper says. I believe he disagrees with what it says and therefore wants to "change" it. Obama believes the Constitution needs re-interpreted for the 21st century, which is very dangerous.
    James 1:17

    "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows."

  8. #96
    rattler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    missing, presumed dead
    Posts
    8,554
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I really don't think anyone's out to get guns. That is to say, no one wants to break the constitution any further than it has been, Patriot Act, etc. I do believe in a bit more gun regulation, things like AK-47's (my friend has one, modded it to be fully automatic a few days after getting it .... XD) I don't think should be in the possession of anyone, really. I believe there should be a definite separation between firearms of hunting, self-defense and military use, and their distribution regulated accordingly. No civillians should own a military gun, and to purchase ammo for a rifle or other high-powered hunting rifles should require an active hunting license in addition to the regular paperwork. For self-defense, well, i think it will work for itself if there's less to defend against to begin with. I like guns, wish I had the money to get a couple, but I think people owning tripod-mounted turrets in the NRA are a little over the top. It's not a matter of eliminating constitutional rights, it's alleviating the necessity of something that was needed in a time when the population was a little more wild.
    nice job narc'ing on your friend......what he did is HIGHLY illegal and the BATF LOVES to prosecute......BTW those fully auto firearms have been regulated since the 1930's and a legally owned one has only once been used in the commission of a crime.......BTW you do realize the 2nd amendment says absolutely nothing about hunting.....it was written completely about keeping the government in check.....gun control does not have a single instance of succeeding in any country that implemented it....western nations that have such as Australia and England have seen their violent crime rates sky rocket after imposing gun bans....do we really want to go down the road England has in banning harmful things?
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,435189,00.html
    cervid serial killer
    Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety
    I didn't get stimulated but he kept his promise on change, that's about all I got left!
    http://www.wolfpointherald.com/--http://www.safety-brite.net/

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •