Jump to content

Presidency


StratDudeDan

Who would you like to see become the next American president?  

81 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

voters age 18-22 (first possible year) are showing an amost 15% increase at the polls.

voters age 18-22 vote nearly 70% democratic.

those are the years when most of that age group do not have much experience with paying taxes.most in that age group that have jobs recieve their entire amount of taxes paid for the year back at the end of it.it isn't until they start getting promotions that bring them into the middle class tax bracket that they really start to get pissed.then they tend to change their voting to reflect their desires for lower taxes,either by voting conservative (who is kidding who,conservatives don't have a handle on the tax system either i think)or by voting for a guy like Nader(he is not the only one though)who wants to reform the entire tax system to a pay as you spend program,instead of an income tax,or to a more equal flat tax system.

forcing some to spend higher percentages of their income than others is just not right,or that is the way i see it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

well, I would be danged if i voted for an american election (or electruction? no offence, just a joke) when I am Canadian and dang proud of it!

lol, I put in undecided, and if i was american, i wouldnt vote Bush, too much anger,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been a great, very eloquent and informed discussion on all sides.

First things first...I think it is important that no one waste their vote. The system is what it is, and if you don't vote, I think you lose the right to complain about the outcome!

The (short) takes of a 38yo father of three (2 boyz 1 grrrl):

The role of government in people's lives increased substantially after the depression, in order to help people who had no other options. This has evolved today into a government that, in many aspects of society, thinks it knows what is better for the average citizen than the citizen himself. No one does this more blatanly than Massachusetts Democrats (I spent 5 years in Boston so I know). The more decisions that goverment makes for people up front, the more dependent people will be on that same government.

Abortion is, in a vast vast majority of cases, used by women to bail them out of a bad decision (the exceptions are obvious). It would not be necessary in 99% of the cases if more women were raised with an awareness of the awesome responsibility they carry as potential mothers; in that light, all women are in a unique and previledged position, and they should live their lives accordingly. The debate between "life" and "potential life" is semantic; it is precious either way.

Wes, I used to think much like you did regarding population control; it held me back from having kids for several years (that and a lack of job...). But then I gradually realized that well-trained kids are one of the most powerful ways you have of improving the world around you.

The health care problem is, as much as anything, a response to companies switching from a small number of full-time employees (with benefits) to a larger number of part-time employees (without benefits) as a way to cut costs. Other contributing factors are the costs of doctors' malpractice insurance (litigous society) and the high cost of medicines (pharmeceutical companies' lobby). It is a mess, and here is where government really should just impose minimum benefit requirements for all employees, and let the business community adjust accordingly.

National security is much more of an issue for people with children. My wife actually did have to make the decision of which kid to go get first on 9/11/01. The following year we had a sniper out hunting citizens (including a kid who was shot walking into his school). The decision whether or not to use military (or police) force is never easy, but it is sometimes required in order to demonstrate that the security system has teeth. And people (e.g. some European allies) seem to be quick to forget this. WWII happened gradually, as lots of people watched, it wasn't a lightning bolt out of the sky. If you look at the military solely as a force to respond to world events, then by sitting back and waiting for something to happen, you've already lost control of the situation.

The gay agenda most recently expressed in the gay marriage issue is a self-serving attempt on the part of gays to legitemize their lifestyle by drawing parallels to the civil rights movement of the 1960s. To equate this with blatant racism is, to me, really demeaning to the civil rights movement and all it represents. The fact is, homosexuality is almost unheard of in societies that have strong family structures in place; it is very common for gays to have a history of abuse originating in their immediate family (mostly from the father). Abuse is terrible, but that doesn't mean that my kids should be taught that homosexuality is a biological trait or "lifestyle choice" with equal value to heterosexuality. The ways in which gays are discriminated against are social, not legal.

Long story short: the world would be a better place if Joe Citizen took courtesy and personal responsibility more seriously, instead of taking advantage of the various avenues available for assuming a "victim mentality".

Like this year's Red Sox... :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The gay agenda most recently expressed in the gay marriage issue is a self-serving attempt on the part of gays to legitemize their lifestyle by drawing parallels to the civil rights movement of the 1960s. To equate this with blatant racism is, to me, really demeaning to the civil rights movement and all it represents. The fact is, homosexuality is almost unheard of in societies that have strong family structures in place; it is very common for gays to have a history of abuse originating in their immediate family (mostly from the father). Abuse is terrible, but that doesn't mean that my kids should be taught that homosexuality is a biological trait or "lifestyle choice" with equal value to heterosexuality. The ways in which gays are discriminated against are social, not legal.

you were doing good,but you lost me there.

i know that no matter how many times you give me the choice between a man or a woman,i will take the woman every time.and for a guy to want another guy,well it seems to me like they must be wired differently.

you are right in that it is

almost unheard of in societies that have strong family structures in place
,but maybe that is because they have been shamed into hiding it.i mean i just don't understand the fear involved here....it is not like gay people are going to take over the world or anything.

how do you determine which lifestyle has more value?in my experience all lifestyles have their problems.yes i know it is distasteful for a hetero man to think about the intimate details,but that doesn't mean we should just treat it as a social issue.the law doesn't stop applying just because a person is gay,anymore than it stops applying if a person is not a christian

anyway i think we need to be careful here.because turning this into a "gay or not " debate really is getting into touchy territory in which stereotypes invariably start being thrown about.

by the way i am not sure how bigotry against gays is any different than bigotry against other races.it is all intolerance based on fear

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abortion is, in a vast vast majority of cases, used by women to bail them out of a bad decision

I guess all I have to say is, so what? That is exactly what it is for, and I don't see the problem with that. You said so yourself that the best way to improve society is to have kids raised in a strong family structure: why would you then unleash on the world children who will by definition not have the family structure to build their character and thus improve society. Outlawing abortion is simply prolonging the need for it, if you will; that is to say, the ideal society where everyone makes good choices and every child is raised with a strong moral sense is only possible if we allow abortions today. Otherwise it simply will not happen.

As for health care, pharmaceuticals are so expensive because the Bush administration is doing nothing to help the problem. His health "solution" ended up being very profitable to the companies, and helping out very few people. The only drugs the government has allowed to be purchased from Canada are the ones that the big American companies aren't producing.

As for gay marriage, all I have to add to what Wes said is this: what is wrong with two people of any sex wanting to have a stable, monogamous relationship? More importantly, why should the government not allow them the legal rights inherent in marriage? Gays are not evil. Gays are not a corrupting force. They won't take over the government, they won't corrupt society, and your children are perfectly safe from whatever threat they might pose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how do you determine which lifestyle has more value? in my experience all lifestyles have their problems.

Yeah, "value" was a poor choice of word (I struggled over what word to put there..). I just don't put sexual orientation in the same boat with gender, race or religion in terms of requiring some kind of specific legal designation. There are really no fundamental legal rights that a person is denied because they're gay. Really.

Adoption is one that gets pointed to a lot. The fact is that single straight people have the same rate of "adoption rejection" as single gay people, and anyway no one has a "right" to adopt a child.

And you're right Wes, any lifestyle has its own set of problems. I certainly don't have any problems with gay people, I know several and to the extent that I know them, they are all solid people who are open, but are not pushing their lifestyle any more than I'm pushing mine. What I object to is a concerted lobbying effort (and that's what it is) to set this apart as a legitimate basis for legal protection, when it is really a social issue. It is as though we as people can't be responsible enough to police our own behavior when it comes to gay people, so let's change the constitution. This is typical socialist thinking.

You can't legislate behavior; you can't make it against the law to be an a-hole.

There are lots of lifestyle choices people make, or are driven to by circumstances in their lives. There are lots of people who eat to the point of obesity (please don't tell me its a "disease"), but you don't see fat guys marching on Washington DC trying to get Congress to change school curriculums and impose yet another set of rules on hiring. That's what frosts my cake.

the law doesn't stop applying just because a person is gay,anymore than it stops applying if a person is not a christian

Exactly. Find me a law that is anti-gay (or anti-Christian), and I'll sit up and take notice.

by the way i am not sure how bigotry against gays is any different than bigotry against other races.it is all intolerance based on fear

True, there is no basis for bigotry that is any less bad than any other. But once upon a time, people couldn't go to the same school, or ride on the same bus, or hold the same job, or drink from the same water fountain because of race. The legal issues are not the same. The fact that there are still racists walking around is a social problem.

I've made my point; I'll leave this topic alone now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. Find me a law that is anti-gay (or anti-Christian), and I'll sit up and take notice.

the constitutional amendment that the conservatives are proposing specifically against gay marriage is blatantly anti-gay

but i see now that we are of the same opinion generally,if not specifically.as i said a few posts ago(before yours that i misunderstood the gist of)i think the constitution and our laws already protect each individual,regardless of race,religion,sexual preference,etc.and that government should stay out of the business of regulating such things as gay marriage.

but all the gay people asking to get married are trying to accomplish is to show that there is still bigotry towards them,and essentially the people pushing the amendment are saying "yes,we are prejudiced against you,but that is okay because you are gay and are therefore not entitled to equal treatment"

so maybe you can understand their frustration a little bit.

But once upon a time, people couldn't go to the same school, or ride on the same bus, or hold the same job, or drink from the same water fountain because of race. The legal issues are not the same. The fact that there are still racists walking around is a social problem.

and once upon a time...gay people hid the fact they were gay in order not to be beat up in school,beat up on the bus,fired from their jobs,etc...etc..

see,the only difference is that it is easier to hide sexual orientation than it is to hide your race...and all that time that racism was so prevelant,the gay part of our society was hiding.

i think you get it now.you seem like a very intelligent guy who has just never considered the other side of the coin,so to speak

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not being from the USA, I don't really understand what's going on, nor can I debate the policies of each party...but if this is anything to go by...

we had our national election here a couple of weeks ago..

John Howard was part of bush's "Coalition of the Willing"...No-body that i have me or spoken to supported the war in Iraq, and expected John Howard to get squashed, or for the other party to at least sneak in.

He actually did better in this election than the last...Which may (or may not be) because of the appeared disorganisation of the opposition leader and party...IE, people were voting by the old rule "better the devil you know".

All the polls said that Latham (opp leader) would get in, so, I reckon it's too close to call...

We hear a lot (TOO MUCH) about the USA election over here....so i have a basic understanding of what's going on..

I just have a few questions/comments, I may be highjacking this thread, so don't answer if i am, or mod's can delete this section, whatever...

Over here, it is compulsory for everyone over the age of 18 to enrol and vote. If you do not, you can be fined. Why don't you all have to vote and what do you all think about it..

Why is your health care system privatised? Is that really the best option? Shouldn't basic human rights be controlled by the government?

What is the general concensus on the war? over here, everyone thinks it's bad, we had no right to go into Iraq, and that it's a blind, knee jerk reaction by the USA at a sneaky attack that they didn't see coming.

Is Michael Moore's movies/docos/shows even close to the truth? or is he full of ****?

Why should everyone have the right to carry a gun! :D I just threw that in as an added bonus...ignore/delete if inappropriate/highjacking, etc....

Thanks in advance!

I look forward to hearing your comments and opinions, as well as reading your responses so far..

As far as I can see, the elcetion in the USA has very real repurcussions for everyone!...they are the super power at the moment...until China get's it's act together :D

Anyway... :DB)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Over here, it is compulsory for everyone over the age of 18 to enrol and vote. If you do not, you can be fined. Why don't you all have to vote and what do you all think about it..

Why is your health care system privatised? Is that really the best option? Shouldn't basic human rights be controlled by the government?

What is the general concensus on the war? over here, everyone thinks it's bad, we had no right to go into Iraq, and that it's a blind, knee jerk reaction by the USA at a sneaky attack that they didn't see coming.

Is Michael Moore's movies/docos/shows even close to the truth? or is he full of ****?

Why should everyone have the right to carry a gun! :D I just threw that in as an added bonus...ignore/delete if inappropriate/highjacking, etc...

as for voting, i've asked around quite a bit and found the most common answer to be "my vote doesn't really count." which may or may not be true. due to our current electoral college system (explained on the first and part of the second pages), a lot of people feel that their votes are just an unheard cry that won't end up mattering anyway...

health care:

this gets into "American Capitalism," which is very different than capitalism as the world sees it. if you can provide it for cheaper than the government, the government will let you provide it and make money, basically is the rule. our military buys most arms from private manufacturers; our space program is almost 80% funded by private investors; the list goes on. it applies to health care as well. granted, i don't believe in it. i would prefer to live in canada for this situation.

the war:

depends on who you talk to. some people feel the need to go out and "crush every single possible one-man threat to our american way of life," while others think that there are bigger concerns out there, like the growing nuclear threat in the far east (N. Korea, China), our current world-wide standing and how we're looked at by other countries, and other "non-military" areas of interest. my apologies for the slight bias in how i worded that, i guess it's my personal opinion shining through once again...

Michal Moore:

he's an idiot and a genius all in one. he produces his videos in an incredibaly biased presentation, and he gets what he thinks off amazingly well. in his other films (Roger and Me, Bowling For Columbine, and others but i can't think of the titles), no one doubts what Moore thinks, but they still question whether he's right or not. he finds the "nuts" on the opposing side and interviews them, while he finds well-spoken, intelligent PR-type personalities to present his own. he uses brilliant editing to create the worst outlook possible on what he doesn't believe, while using the same tricks to make him look like a brilliant politician or investor or whatever he's trying to get off.

i haven't seen Farenheit 9/11 yet, though i do plan on it. his portrayal of the president's reaction to the events of the WTC incident is a section of the film i always hear talked about. here's my personal take on it:

yes, our prez. might have sat down for a while. this is not what the american people want to see, so he showed it. he played into the idea that our prez is an idiot and can't do anything without being told what to do. now, put yourself in his seat. a major incident has just taken place, and the secret service are getting fragmented pieces of information and feeding it to you the best they can. can you make a decision on how to act based on that? no, it would take some time and a clearer understanding of the facts. in all honesty, i did not believe there was a bombing when i heard it in the hallways of my high school. i was like...yeah...tabloid crap...whatever...

next class, they turned on the TV and then i was like...oh...okay...

guns:

here's my own take, and no, i don't have too many facts to present to back it up, this is only my own liberal/independant take on things.

gun laws aren't going to stop crime. if someone wants to shoot someone and needs a weapon, where is he going to go? to a gun shop so he can wait a week, as well as fill out and complete an amazingly secure paper trail that will in turn lead directly to him? no...

he'll find a cheaper, faster way to purchase his weapon on the streets or "black market" in order to save money and alleviate the pressure from the paper trail, as well as being able to pick up his weapon right there for cash so he can kill the person faster.

will he register his weapon? no...he'll dispose of it.

will he make sure he has the proper safeties and child-gaurds? no...he just wants to shoot somebody. he doesn't care about safety...

ah well...some info from me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Strat Dude Dan,

That was a really great, unbiased answer...

(Highjack) I, personally, find it really hard to understand why the USA government does some of the things they do, and thank God that I don't live there most of the time..I do not agree with privitisation of anything, and since I am studying town planning, get a pretty good idea, first hand of what the government does, and why. Some things should not be done for money...Like health care, most infrastrucutre, some telecommunications, police, army (navy, airforce)...I think a moral boundary is crossed. The notion of a democratic government is to represent the people, for the best interest of the people. Health care is a necessity, and should not be done for proft, but for the benefit of the people. It is the responsibility of the government to provide this. We have public and private over here..you may nearly die on the public lists, but at least the government seems to be trying to fix this...

Gun ownerships....well, after the Port Arthur Massacre in 1996, guns were banned in Australia. To own any gun, you need a license, and people with guns and no licenses are in big trouble. I must say I agree with you, however, if someone wants a gun, they're going to get one regardless, and maybe it's too late for you guys to go back...but we were never nearly close to where you guys are, so I guess it wasn't such a big deal banning them..i don't know, I was only 11 when it happened.

Gun deaths seem to stay fairly well within marfia and gang land wars, which, thankfully for me are in Sydney and Melbourne, so I can't even remeber when there was last a gun shooting in Brisbane (probably yesterday! :D ) and Brisbane is the 3rd largest city in Australia. Even still, I don't fear for my life walking through Sydney or Melbourne, they ususally shoot each other, and not random people. Besides, our gangs are usually 25-55 year old italian/greek/lebanese/vietnamese migrants/children of migrants, not teenagers, etc (Gross generalisation). Bit more underground I guess. If you need a gun to shoot foxes, or roos, or wild pigs, you get a license. If you have a criminal record, you can't get a license. I wouldn't know a single person who owns a gun, just for the sake of owning a gun. Even still, I only know a few people with guns, all of whom live and work on cattle properties. All said and done, i don't think that ANYBODY has the RIGHT to own a gun...No one has the right to take another human life, only God has that right, so therefore, no one NEEDS a gun.

Michael Moore, I think he's a crack up, but having said that, I take everything he says with a large pinch of salt. He just interests me with another point of view. I think it's great about how he pays out his own country...

the war: as said before, Everyone i know thinks it's wrong, and now bush and all the other *@$(*#% &%&$% who followed him over there have been shown up. Serves them right. I hope he gets voted out simply because of that.

My theory is this...John Howard (our Prime Minister) was basically stuck between a rock and a hard place. We are a small country, 20 million people, negative birth rate (you do the maths), we don't even have a big enough army to stop illegal immigrants getting into the country. We live next to Indonesia, one of the biggest countries in the world, I think the biggest or second biggest Islamic population in the world. If he says yes to Bush, then they hate us, possible increase in risk from terrorism (which may or may not be worse because of us going to war), BUT USA (biggest, most powerful country in world) likes us, so they'll help. If he says NO, then USA has no reason to help us if we get attacked, we only have the UK (enough said :D just joking). Liklihood is that we will be targets of attack at some time, I think I'd rather have the USA on-side, even if it is like selling your soul to the devil, so to speak. People bagged him out for going to war, and i don't agree, but at the end of the day, I don't think he had a choice.

ANYWAY (takes breath)

Thanks for reading my political theories

(Highjack/)

All said and done, Australia is still the best place to live on Earth!

:DB)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Over here, it is compulsory for everyone over the age of 18 to enrol and vote. If you do not, you can be fined. Why don't you all have to vote and what do you all think about it..

well not voting in itself is a statement.voter apathy says loud and clear "get me a better candidate to vote for"

but see.the main reason is that,if you force people to vote,they will resent it,and the majority of people are uninformed enough that you don't want them voting anyway.

those that take the time to study up on the candidates DO vote.and those are the voters you want,not the ones who get their political information from daytime talk shows like "ricki lake"

and this is supposed to be a free country.forcing people to stand in line against their will to vote for something they coudn't care less about is just not what this country is SUPPOSED to be about

guns?i am not afraid to walk around my town,and every one in my town owns some type of gun,including me.the last time i shot one of my guns was about 5 years ago i guess,at a rifle range.i am not sure what you think it is like over here but i assure you it is not like the "lethal weapon" movies,any more than australia is like "crocodile dundee"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, what a great thread! It's great to read all of these varied view points.

When the USA was formed it was formed by people who had had their fill of being overly controlled by government. That being said those people went about creating a government that in theory wouldn't be allowed to have too much control over its people.

In 1787 the founders wrote the constitution. If you skim over this document you will see that it lays out the ground work for how our government will function. This was nice and all but the founders soon realized that it didn't protect the basic rights of the people. So in 1789 the drafted the Bill of rights.

The first rights they protected for the people were the right to free speech, religion and the right of the people to assemble and protest. The very next thing they adressed was the right of the people "to keep and bear arms". This was so improtant to them that it was the second thing they addressed!

If you look throughout history, countries that have stripped this right from the people have paid in higher crime rates and invasions. Look how well it worked out for Poland around the time of WWII.

As far as health care goes, I would have to agree with Westheman, in that our government is the last establishment you want doing something if you want it done efficiently. I can't think of one gov. program that is efficient.

What happens when you decide that John Kerrys health plan for everyone, isn't good enough for you. Well then you can go back to paying your HMO and being taxed to death for a health care plan that isn't good enough

I just keep coming back to the idea the our country was founded on the principal of very limited government involvement in the lives of the people. You will never convince me that any government has my interests in mind, or know better how to spend my money than I do.

And again a great discussion and thanks for all of your opinions

P.S. Erikbojerik for President :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Over here, it is compulsory for everyone over the age of 18 to enrol and vote. If you do not, you can be fined. Why don't you all have to vote and what do you all think about it..

I agree with what's been said on this one already. Compulsory voting would be distinctly un-American.

Why is your health care system privatised? Is that really the best option? Shouldn't basic human rights be controlled by the government?

Is health care a right? I must have missed that one. Access to health care might be a right, but that's about as far, as an American, as I would be willing to take it. Having been a government employee, I agree that most government does not run anywhere close to effecient. I would always rather have Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" guiding my health care industry. Of course, there was no way for him to have been able to consider the runaway litigation....

What is the general concensus on the war? over here, everyone thinks it's bad, we had no right to go into Iraq, and that it's a blind, knee jerk reaction by the USA at a sneaky attack that they didn't see coming.

I'll throw out one point of view that I think a very few Americans have access to. I spent six years in the Army after having graduated from the United States Military Academy (West Point). I consider Iraq a battlefield masterstroke on what would be considered, in U.S. military doctrine, the "strategic" level of war. Terror, previously, was a fight that took place at the time and place of the enemies' (terrorists') choosing. Now, it has been given a battlefield of our choosing. All the folks still in the Army, and in Iraq, that I have contact with, say that 40% or so of the insurgents they capture are from Syria, Jordan, Egypt, etc. They are being recruited, usually for drugs and money, to fight in Iraq. I would much rather that happen, and have those of the U.S., namely the Army, who are most capable of dealing with them, deal with them, than have them be recruited and show up in Dallas. Everyone agreed that the intel that every country (Russia, United States, Great Britain, etc.) had pointed to Saddam's possession and use of WMD. If you look at MSNBC today, you will see that maybe they did manage to sneak them out of the country to Syria or somewhere. The charge that there was no plan to win the peace is false, trust me, this is a part of every Army plan. Of course, the Army also has a catchphrase that "no plan survives contact with the enemy." I, in my infinitely biased, personal view find the "no plan to win the peace" and "WMD" arguments to be nothing more than excellent Monday morning quarterbacking.

Is Michael Moore's movies/docos/shows even close to the truth? or is he full of ****?

I think folks here on the board have already hit this nail on the head.

Why should everyone have the right to carry a gun!

There has been some pretty good commentary on this one as well. Suffice it to say that it is a right protected by the Constitution. You would have a tough time changing that. That is why most of the gun control advocates in the U.S. have focused around waiting periods, background checks, etc. I would also agree with the statement that a gun is an inanimate(sp?) object and is only harmful in a person's hands (in other words "guns don't kill people, people kill people"). Don't restrict my rights because someone else is a murderer. Until my government can guarantee me that no criminal will have a gun, I deserve to protect myself with the same.

To end it all, I ran across this Churchill quote, which I though might have a nugget of truth: "If you are not a liberal at 20, then you don't have a heart. If you are not a conservative at 40, then you don't have a brain."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

P.S. Erikbojerik for President :D

Thanks for the sentiment, but I don't want the job. I've got enough to deal with under my own roof! And it leaves no time for working on guitars...

I agree with all of what Wes had to say in his last post, except...

not voting in itself is a statement.voter apathy says loud and clear "get me a better candidate to vote for"

I really don't think that's true. That's just not what I think of. In the last presidential election, I did notice that ~50% of the US population did not vote, but my only thought was "I wonder what they were doing that was more important than voting". In the end, those Florida non-voters should have been kicking themselves; there's no better example of why you should vote.

Having 3 or 4 or 6 candidates will just increase the number of imperfect would-be presidents all of whom have different warts. One of the most encouraging things about the US government is that it has an incredible amount of inertia; nothing changes very quickly, despite what happens at the top.

One more example of government inefficiency; the DC public school system spends the most money per child of any school system in the nation, and it is an astonishing disaster.

El Danger - thanks very much for your service, and for the excellent Churchill quote!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading most of this, I most say that there a lot of issues here and not everyone agrees on everything. There will NEVER be a President that pleases everbody cause someone will complain about something. Why should the President be bothered with things like the gay equal rights, we are the home of the free so where is the problem, Wes, has a point about closet homosexuals,if you knew that your parents would hate and you lose your job and all that stuff would you say "hi nice to meet you and btw im gay".

Another thing is the health care plan from both parties stink,I am an American and live in Germany and here EVERYBODY that works pays into health care and EVERYBODY here is insured whether they work or not, I pay half and my Boss has to pay the other half, it´s a law, unlike medacare here the health care pay 100% of your medical bills and the medication you pay between $5-$15 per item depending on it´s original price and the rest is health care bills.

National security, well I beleive if our politicians didnt stick their nose where it does not belong, we wouldnt need national security. Why does the U.S. think its the police of the world? We sould get our own backyard clean before we tell other folks how to run there business.

the U.S.A could be all we want it to be but we got to get more involved and tell the politicians what to do,WE ARE THERE BOSS,WE PAY THEM,WE ELECT THEM SO THEY SHOULD DO WHAT THERE ARE TOLD AND NOT WHAT THEY THINK IS BEST FOR US. It is us,the little poeple that make the Country run,cause the big boys dont pay very much tax and if they do then"we gotta lay off a bunch of people so we can buy another Benz or a house in Spain". So in turn we are paying for our own jobs by giving these jerks a tax break. Everybody should pay there fair share.

thanks for listening

bye

Link to comment
Share on other sites

National security, well I beleive if our politicians didnt stick their nose where it does not belong, we wouldnt need national security.

Don't bet on it. The world has its fair share of people full of hate, and the USA is easy to hate because, well, its the best country on the planet. It's the same reason people like to hate the NY Yankees...

Other people will hate the USA simply for what they think the country is all about from watching movies. Politicians don't actually have to do anything for hateful people to hate someone.

WE ELECT THEM SO THEY SHOULD DO WHAT THERE ARE TOLD AND NOT WHAT THEY THINK IS BEST FOR US

Well, you should realize that the USA is a republic, not a democracy. In reality, you are voting for people to do what they think is best (assuming you vote at all).

I totally agree with your take on health care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to try and word this in such a way as to not start a flame war, but erik, you stated :

Don't bet on it. The world has its fair share of people full of hate, and the USA is easy to hate because, well, its the best country on the planet. It's the same reason people like to hate the NY Yankees...

Other people will hate the USA simply for what they think the country is all about from watching movies. Politicians don't actually have to do anything for hateful people to hate someone

I think this a simplistic viewpoint of the world. Its easy to set back and say "Oh they hate us because they are jealous", or "They hate us for our freedoms".

But in reality, the people responsible for the worst attack on America (in my lifetime at least) have stated plainly that they are set on attacking America and inflicting injury upon us directly due to our actions in the world.

Osama Bin Laden has expressly stated that the motivation behind his drive to attack America is due to:

1.) The presence of American military forces in Islamic holy lands (i.e. Saudi

Arabia, at least since the first Persian Gulf War)

2.) The sanctions against Iraq, which were adamantly promoted by the U.S. and

were seen by many in the Arab world as punishing the innocent Iraqi civilians

3.) The United States unfaltering support of the Israeli government. (Don't get me

wrong, I believe the Israelis have the right to defend themselves from

terrorist attacks just as we do, but the Israelis have been guilty of their share

of attrocities also. They are also now and have been in violation of numerous

UN resoltuions for many, many years.)

Aside from all of these reasons, the United States has a long history of supporting despots and dictators in the Middle East, as long as these tyrannical leaders kept the oil spigots open and flowing freely. WE routinely turn a blind eye to the brutal Saudi royal family and supported the Shah of Iran despite some terrible human rights violations. We even backed and supplied Saddam himself, while fighting the radical Islamists that deposed the Shah and assumed control.

I'm sorry if the mods think this is getting too politcal and I usually wouldn't delve into these matters as I come here to escape these type of discussions eslewhere. But I get a bit rattled when some of my fellow Americans offer simplistic explanations of why there are people in the world who would harm us. We must learn to look at ourselves with a more realistic assesment and realize that even though America is generally a benevolent country, we are capable of doing the wrong thing at times and we should be willing to admit it when we do and try to correct it. I think if we did this, more people in the world would have a positive view of the United States and Americans.

erik, I do not mean this to be an attack on your position, I am simply stating my opinions, and this will be the end of my political prosthelyzing here at PG ! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is your health care system privatised? Is that really the best option? Shouldn't basic human rights be controlled by the government?

What is the general concensus on the war? over here, everyone thinks it's bad, we had no right to go into Iraq, and that it's a blind, knee jerk reaction by the USA at a sneaky attack that they didn't see coming.

Is Michael Moore's movies/docos/shows even close to the truth? or is he full of ****?

Why should everyone have the right to carry a gun! :D I just threw that in as an added bonus...ignore/delete if inappropriate/highjacking, etc....

The health care system is privatized because people do not have a right to health care. They have a right to be able to access health care. I see no reason to have a middle man. Why should I pay the government who will then pay for my healthcare? I would much rather simply pay for my healthcare myself or with the assistance of a private inssurance company.

I see no reason to pay for my healthcare in taxes on a regular basis if I am not recieving any health care. What if I never need a large scale procedure? Wjhere has all of my money gone?

Oviously the biggest argument for federal healthcare is that it allows everyone healthcare no matter how much money they have. This is done by using the taxes I have payed.

To me this is also rediculous. Frankly, I do not want my money going to treat a heroine overdose, or the injuries recieved by a drunk driver. They have broken the law. They have done something incredibly stupid, and unless they can pay for their own healthcare, then they will have to suffer the consequences of their decision.

It is not my duty to make up for other's stupidity. As for the poor in general, I beleieve that the only appropriate means help is private charity. This includes madical care, housing, food, etc. It should only be abtained through private charity. It is not acceptable for the government to provide assistence at the expense of the tax payers.

As for the war, like many others, I am highly against it. Reasons have already been outlines nicely.

Michael Moore is an incredible director. He doesn't lie, but he twists the facts. I believe he has gone so far as to say that if anyone can find a lie in his movies and have if verified false in a court of law, he will give the person $10,000.

Guns, here's a hot button issue of mine.

We have a right to own a gun as outline by the bill of rights. Thgis right cannot be infringed upon. The current laws aree already infringing on this right.

The key word is that is is a right, not a privledge. I have a right to free speech, religion, etc. Do I need to ask for permission or obtain a license in order to excercise this right? No

I should not have to to excercise my right to own a gun either.

The common misconception is that this right was included for hunting or criminal protection purposes. That is false. Many say it was also included to protect ourselves from the british. This is part of it, but a very small part at that. This right was included to keep ourselves from becoming the british. The founders of this country recognized that government is inherantly evil and the citizens need a means to protect themselves from it.

A gun was the answer. It is our duty and obligation to remove a tyranical government in our own country from power.

The day the government tell us we cannot own guns, is the day they should be used for the purpose they were intended for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my take on it, in a nutshell:

The liberals want to tell me how to discipline my children, defend myself and my property and how to speak and think, and they want to spend my money for failed social programs that were doomed to begin with because of bad planning. Nope, don't think so. :D

The conservatives want to tell me what to teach my children, when, how and with whom to have sex, how to worship, and they want to spend even more of my money on maintaining the status quo for the benefit of the most wealthy. Not gonna work either. :D

To top it off, there's not a single person in the electorate who is truly fiscally conservative, nor is there even one truly tolerant liberal on the Hill. Isn't there some way to fire them all? B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't read all of this thread and I am not slamming anyone here, but this one point always seems to come up in these conversations and I would like to express my opinion. BTW I do agree healthcare costs are out of control but I don't think a free ride for some at my expense is the way to go.

So while it may not be free health care, this allows for cheap health care for the poor (read: musicians  ), no increase for the middle class, and increases for the rich.

Exsqueeeeze me???

Why does everyone want to keep raising the "rich" people's taxes? I started out my adult life as a poor military guy that made a lot less than minimum wage for 6 years. I busted my butt studying and taking every course I could while I was in the service and afterwards so I could make some money one day. Nobody gave me a dime, including the military, for my school (I was in during the "lean" years when their was no GI Bill, etc...I still get nothing even though I did my time----Thanks----and you are welcome for 6 years of my life). I worked and worked and worked for it, mostly working two and three jobs at a time so I could one day kick back and enjoy a bit of life before I died off. Work hard in a free society and one day you too might have money to spend. I got lucky, although I am far from rich, I do have a decent paying job, as does my wife, and we live quite comfortably. Now stay away from my money.....I worked for it, I earned it, and you a free to do the same.

I currently pay $17 a week for healthcare (darn good healthcare too). If you initiate a public healthcare system and guarantee me I will pay $17 a week or LESS for it I will sign on. If you want a couple hundred a month from me because I have a good paying job and you want a free healthcare ride I guarantee I will quit my job, take the free ride with you and smile upon my good fortune of having an early retirement......and getting free healthcare too!!

[/Rant] Back to your regularly scheduled thread........ :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the United States has a long history of supporting despots and dictators in the Middle East, as long as these tyrannical leaders kept the oil spigots open and flowing freely. WE routinely turn a blind eye to the brutal Saudi royal family and supported the Shah of Iran despite some terrible human rights violations.

that is true,but generally they were the "lesser of 2 evils" that we were supporting at a time when we didn't see a better way.

just like the election today.you basically have two realistic choices.kerry or bush.alot of people are supporting kerry in spite of the fact they don't really like him or agree with his politics because they see him as "at least better than bush"

and vice versa

so how can you hold our government accountable for doing what we voters do every election?you really can't unless you are voting for who you really believe in,instead of voting merely against who you hate.

i repeat what i said earlier.how nice would it be to have multiple choices?as in 5 or more REAL choices with real chances of winning.

instead every time you have a strong third or fourth candidate you hear the cry "they are taking votes away from so and so!"

what utter....(nevermind)

To top it off, there's not a single person in the electorate who is truly fiscally conservative, nor is there even one truly tolerant liberal on the Hill. Isn't there some way to fire them all?

i should not be surprised that lovekraft sees the same truth i do,and then expresses it better than me,yet i am :D

I currently pay $17 a week for healthcare (darn good healthcare too). If you initiate a public healthcare system and guarantee me I will pay $17 a week or LESS for it I will sign on. If you want a couple hundred a month from me because I have a good paying job and you want a free healthcare ride I guarantee I will quit my job, take the free ride with you and smile upon my good fortune of having an early retirement......and getting free healthcare too!!

today is a good day for me.i completely agree with lovekraft and bluesprescence

do any of you have any idea how tough it is to find two guys who REALLY get it being in the same conversation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bluespresence, I am -certainly- not talking about robbing you blind and leaving you in ruins. I'm talking about people who make many of millions of dollars a year, more money than you could possibly know what do do with, and maybe having them handle some of the ever-growing burden. People who won't miss the money; people who for the most part won't even know it's gone.

Take this with a grain of salt; I do, in a lot of ways subscribe to the socialist school of thought. I also think the Romans had it right with 1 year terms and two equally powerful leaders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bluespresence, I am -certainly- not talking about robbing you blind and leaving you in ruins. I'm talking about people who make many of millions of dollars a year, more money than you could possibly know what do do with, and maybe having them handle some of the ever-growing burden. People who won't miss the money; people who for the most part won't even know it's gone.

Take this with a grain of salt; I do, in a lot of ways subscribe to the socialist school of thought. I also think the Romans had it right with 1 year terms and two equally powerful leaders.

that may very well work, but why does the government have a right to deem who has a right to keep their money and who does not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...