What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Blatantantly political discussion, but...

  • #81
Jim......as far as im concerned if a woman 100% isnt willing to be pregnant she shouldnt be having sex......and other than the case of actual violent rrape(in which case i believe its 100% the womans choice and the man should be shot, though date rrape is a lil more foggy depending on circumstances, and statutory wouldnt fall under my belief of shooting the rapist most of the time) it does take the decision of TWO people to have sex so i think if the father is still active in the womans life it very much as much his decision as hers to have an abortion.....if its a one night sand and he disappears, its all her decision......in the cases where the mothers life is at stake i have no problem with abortion..........
 
  • #82
At least it feels like this thread is a little more amicable. You know, before I decided to actually try and catch up on politics, I wasn't going to vote anyway. Then I kinda got swept up in the Obama charisma machine and started being quite gung-ho. Natually, over time, I drifted back down to Earth and reaccepted the fact that all government is probably gonna suck one way or another, but the more I learn, the more I can at least solidly point my fingers that things.

As I try to state before being swept up in individual politics, I'm not voting for Obama per se, I'm voting for the democratic party. My reasoning for this is simply because my loathing for the Republican party was Bush, then as I learned more about what was going on, names like Carl Rove came up and started painting a picture, then Lee Attwater(sp?)... then what was accomplished during Reagan and Bush 41. It doesn't take much to see what's going on. Commend them for good political tactic all you want, but the game changed in the Rep.'s favor as soon as they adopted... the cowboy....

Bush didn't even own a house in Texas until it was time to run for president! I mean, the whole thing stinks. It'd be okay if they actually managed to try and form their political theatre and manipulation of the issues and trying to win people by tempting people with excellent plans and ideas while expanding on what they pleased when no one was looking (A reason why I frown on Dems as well, mind you). But it's not! It's about this shallow image fixation and playing on American idolization. The whole thing has blindsighted voters for decades now and it's kinda irritated.

Whoever gets voted in isn't going to make me happy until we abolish the idea of 'joe-sixpack' and 'guy i'd like to have a beer with' from politics forever. We're people, my name is not Joe, plumber or otherwise, And I am not identified by a six-pack, abs or otherwise.

Dido,

I'm finding it very hard to vote in this years election and I'm sure I'm not the only one. I've always been told to vote for the lesser two evils. Well, I can't even figure that out. I see Obama over promising change and McCain voting with Bush by 90%. Go figure. There is no in between this time in my opinion and it always seems to be that way or maybe this is the way most younger adults feel. I will support whoever becomes the President as I feel it is my duty as an American but I don't necessarily agree with either candidate on a number of levels. My least favorite President in my life being Bush. In my opinion anyone will be different. I'm beginning to feel that the lesser of the two extremes is McCain. Should I vote for McCain? Hmm, but what about that 90%. See why I can't make a decision?
 
  • #83
another thing i look at is i dont want someone from one extream or the other leading the country......i dont want an extream liberal or an extream conservative leading the country.....way left or way right beliefs on certain issues, sure no one is going to be 100% in the middle...but not most of the way one direction...mainly cause if all your beliefs are one direction its kinda hard to find comprise......in his short history in the US senate Obama has gotten the label of the most liberal senator, ever....McCain has a solid history of working both sides of the isle, something alot of republicans dont like him for.......bout the only flat out strict belief system i think i could live with is a constitutionalist......
 
  • #84
Jim......as far as im concerned if a woman 100% isnt willing to be pregnant she shouldnt be having sex......and other than the case of actual violent rrape(in which case i believe its 100% the womans choice and the man should be shot, though date rrape is a lil more foggy depending on circumstances, and statutory wouldnt fall under my belief of shooting the rapist most of the time) it does take the decision of TWO people to have sex so i think if the father is still active in the womans life it very much as much his decision as hers to have an abortion.....if its a one night sand and he disappears, its all her decision......in the cases where the mothers life is at stake i have no problem with abortion..........

All **** aside, which has its own set of variables, I agree it takes 2 to tango. It's just a lot more challenging to think straight when your vital fluids are heading to the wrong parts of the anatomy. That would pretty much explain all four of our "woopse!" :0o:
 
  • #86
I thought it was coming down to that. Well, that and her gender.
A great many conservatives (and and some liberals) hate Hilary Clinton. Very few dislike her just because of her gender, its everything else. McCain's VP pick seems to have a similar effect but for liberals (and some conservatives).
 
  • #87
According to the article that dewy posted, Obama is viewed as over the top and too liberal even for a lot of liberals out there?

Aside from the liberal/conservative debate, if he is elected, what will a major switch like that do to the country - namely our economy; going from opposite ends of the spectrum overnight?
 
  • #88
Aside from the liberal/conservative debate, if he is elected, what will a major switch like that do to the country - namely our economy; going from opposite ends of the spectrum overnight?

haHA! This is so funny. I mean, really, if it's the opposite end of the spectrum, then obviously nothing can go wrong XD

Note, not trying to be terribly serious, but in light of recent events and use of syntax, that's definitely how it struck me.
 
  • #89
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.
 
  • #90
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/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=244038&article=4338967

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

http://weblog.infoworld.com/robertxcringely/archives/2008/10/vote_early_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.
 
  • #91
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....
 
  • #92
>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?
 
  • #93
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.

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 :/
 
  • #94
>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
 
  • #95
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
 
  • #96
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
 
  • #97
Rattler you keep bringing up the constitution for a reason to be against Obama yet McCain wants to further warrant less domestic wiretapping on Americans. He wants to expand the patriot act. McCain is going to wipe his rear end with the constitution just as W did. What good will having your 2nd amendment in place when the govt can monitor everything you do and the wrong thing is said and bam your an enemy combatant and suddenly you have no rights at all. You don't get to challenge your detention you don't get a lawyer or a trial or anything else that is usually a right you get through the constitution.

Also the NRA is a powerful lobby and they have many many senators and congressional representatives on their payroll it will be hard to restrict gun ownership too much. Assault rifles will probably be ban as they were under Clinton but last time I checked everyone still has their guns. Dont get me wrong the last thing I want is a system of gun control like the UK or Australia have that would not be a good thing.
 
  • #98
Eh heh... maybe it wasn't fully automatic, but I seem to remember he did some sort of Mod to it... :blush:

Back to topic, hold the phone, I said don't ban guns. So before you argue with me about something I'm attempting to find a middle ground with you on allow me to state my stance:

If the gov't goes nuts: I want a gun.
If I felt lke hunting, I want a gun.
If someone breaks into my house and threatens my family, I really, really, really want a gun.

I do NO want anyone owning anything more powerful than a 30-odd-6(don't know the official demarcation, please excuse me) or a 357 magnum. Nor anything with the potential to exceed certain levels of efficacy, say, being able to kill or injure a crowd of people via whatever means one could do so in a small amount of time.
I do NOT want anyone convicted of felonies ever touching a gun. Since many states don't even allow convicted felon to vote, they shouldn't be able to express their opinion with a firearm either.
I do NOT want guns allowed in public spaces unless duly licensed and authorized. Thusly keeping firearms where they're needed (police officers, for example). And if a guy's gotta go to his car to grab a gun cause he's pissed, that allowed at least some margin for prevention. I'll conceed that this is likely impossible to enforce, but it would make me feel that more safe.

The philosophy I adhere to is that the 2nd amendment should be left alone entirely and be neither expanded or constrained, and that ultimately we should work on what does decrease crime, keeping people happy and employed and housed, simple Maslow's hierarchy stuff, and work tooward a point where we simply keep guns for their intended purpose for private defense from totalitarian.... whatever, etc. etc.

However, I believe if there are pieces of this that can be excised in the meantime to truly and provably limit firearm deaths, then I am all for that. I do NOT support a ban, I support regulation. If you still want your extraneous gun/turrets/cannons, etc, fine, but make the ammunition inaccessible. As I have stated, I am anti-extremist on both sides, so guns dissapearing bad, guns and firearms allowed to flourish also bad. We're not afraid of gov't when we think of guns, we're afraid of other people with guns. I'm not expecting the military to bust down my door when I(if i had one) reach for the gun on my nightstand, I'm scared of some crazy dude with a shotgun looking for my non-existent valuables. I'd like to eliminate both possibilities, but if I had the second scenario happening, I'd at least like to downgrade him to something a little more-short distance.
 
  • #99
We are on guns now eh? Have fun with that... hah...

(Yes, I actually did have something substantial to contribute but it got lost in submission or something. Very annoying!)
 
  • #100
Ugh, I really don't want to talk guns, actually... It falls under the things I know I can't really fight/defend.

Got lots of opinions on things and I'm a sucker for sharing them. I'm gonna bow out for now until another topic shows up that I can rant on temporarily.
 
Back
Top