Sportbike World banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,344 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
So, I'm watching the Republican debates tonight, and I can't help but say to myself. "Who the hell believes the crap coming out of these people's mouth?!"

And if I watch the next Democratic debates, I'll probably say "Who the hell believes the crap coming out of these people's mouth?!"

There's got to be a better way!
 

·
Strength and Honor
Joined
·
6,143 Posts
That's television and the average American, I suppose. Want the 10sec snippet which, of course, doesn't indicate a bit about the candidate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,885 Posts
In light of the candidates... it is particularly bad this year. :crying:



I just keep saying to myself ... " Anyone but clinton." That bitch is responsible for starting a bill in an attempt to permanently ban rifles like the AR and AK, and if she has her way, she will ban guns in general. I have two AR15s, and I'll be damned if I am going to give them up because some stupid pathetic bitch who knows nothing about anything truly believes it is more dangerous than a deer rifle because it has a pistol grip.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,798 Posts
After huckabee started getting press, hillary isnt looking so bad.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,798 Posts
Mister Tee said:
Yeah, it takes a few beers, but she grows on you. Then you sober up.
lol, didnt say that I liked the woman, its just that there are worse alternatives out there, and somehow they are coming to the frontlines?
WTF is going on with politics anyway? Whats with the obama thing? Is it not painfully obvious that the guy seriously needs a few more years of expirience before you can consider him a viable candidate regardless of your idealogical leanings? I mean this is the guy whom on one hand wants to disarm the US nuclear arsenal, and on the other considers nuking pakistan. Fine for conversation, but I expect something abit more in depth from a future leader. And I would still take this guy over "no more energy use in 10 years" huckabee.

the '04 choices were pretty bad, and todays are worse. Its like the whole game got knocked off kilter. Maybe its because the atributes by which we select our leaders have absolutely nothing to do with they attributes needed to actually, you know, lead. So we look for the slickest personality possible, but one that isnt too slick, i.e. kerry, or romney.

Maybe the conspiracy theorists are right, and presidents have no power what so ever. That would explain this mess.

And lastly, why are we having the choice/life debate as one of the central issues in politics. Official policy hasnt changed sagnificantly in something like 35 years now, and it isnt going to change during the next term.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
658 Posts
Vash said:
lol, didnt say that I liked the woman, its just that there are worse alternatives out there, and somehow they are coming to the frontlines?
WTF is going on with politics anyway? Whats with the obama thing? Is it not painfully obvious that the guy seriously needs a few more years of expirience before you can consider him a viable candidate regardless of your idealogical leanings? I mean this is the guy whom on one hand wants to disarm the US nuclear arsenal, and on the other considers nuking pakistan. Fine for conversation, but I expect something abit more in depth from a future leader. And I would still take this guy over "no more energy use in 10 years" huckabee.

the '04 choices were pretty bad, and todays are worse. Its like the whole game got knocked off kilter. Maybe its because the atributes by which we select our leaders have absolutely nothing to do with they attributes needed to actually, you know, lead. So we look for the slickest personality possible, but one that isnt too slick, i.e. kerry, or romney.

Maybe the conspiracy theorists are right, and presidents have no power what so ever. That would explain this mess.

And lastly, why are we having the choice/life debate as one of the central issues in politics. Official policy hasnt changed sagnificantly in something like 35 years now, and it isnt going to change during the next term.
If you think there are worse alternatives than Hillary, then I don't think you've studied her enough. Irrespective of her politics, she is the most dangerous type of politician because she's power-hungry and a hot tempered control freak. Anybody in the race would be better than her, even kooky Kucinich. If she does make it in, I guarantee Congress will flip back to a heavy Republican majority in 2010. That would actually be good for the country. A big part of Bill Clinton's success was butting heads with Congress, shutting down the gov't, and leaving people alone to live their lives.

I honestly don't think that Obama can win a national election at this point, no matter what he promises. If he wins the Democratic nomination, I think whatever Republican will win - though not by a lot.

The problem the candidates today is that too many people are looking for someone who will do the most for them rather than who will do the best for the country. People want "health care" and free tuition, targeted tax cuts, and higher taxes for the "rich." Too few people want a president who will leave them alone so they can live their lives. This brings candidates who are willing to govern by poll rather than principle to the forefront. The general public's desire for the government to take care of them will be the downfall of the United States if it continues.

The life/choice debate continues because it is based in religion, which is based upon control. Although mainstream Christianity has been forced to give up most control in the lives of those outside their religion, don't think they wouldn't ban abortion if they had the chance. However, abortion will always be legal for the life of the U.S. (until we are under Sharia law). The abortion supporters view any type of regulation of abortion as a potential threat to all abortion so they fight it vehemently, even if it makes sense, as in the case of partial-birth abortion. The NRA should take lessons from them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,798 Posts
The NRA has taken lessons from them. They fight otherwise reasonable legistlation on the premise that its a step closer to total gun control. We've been over this before.

The thing about hillary (And I really hesitate to show her any kind of support), is that a presidents largest influence on policy is in the cabinet the appoint. There is no question the HRC is well connected to the "inside crowd", and will most likely appoint people to positions of power who are well expirienced in the ways of washington. Also, her husband will likely have a great deal to say as to whom gets what position. Now, those appointments will likely carry a different idealogical leaning than I do, but they are not likely to take steps that are drastic departure from what we expect out of ussual. In other words, it might be bad, but its not likely to be unussually bad, whatever concilation that is.

I dont see much of a point in discussing healthcare and tax the rich schemes with you, since we already see eye to eye
 

·
Strength and Honor
Joined
·
6,143 Posts
Vash said:
Whats with the obama thing? Is it not painfully obvious that the guy seriously needs a few more years of expirience before you can consider him a viable candidate regardless of your idealogical leanings? I mean this is the guy whom on one hand wants to disarm the US nuclear arsenal, and on the other considers nuking pakistan.
Well, we elected GW TWICE, didn't we? He had zero in foreign affairs (the crucial reason I voted against him) yet still got elected. At least as a senator they are involved in some level of international affairs.

And the nuke thing is untrue. He explained it on a talk show. Someone had suggested using nukes and he pointed them to some top generals who explained the fallacy of such a move. Yeah, it was a back and forth, but as is often the case for all candidates, an out-of-context newsie report.

I want to see Obama and McCain get the nods if only to b-slap both Parties' leadership into reality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,798 Posts
kanwisch said:
Well, we elected GW TWICE, didn't we? He had zero in foreign affairs (the crucial reason I voted against him) yet still got elected. At least as a senator they are involved in some level of international affairs.

And the nuke thing is patently false. He explained it on a talk show. Someone had suggested using nukes and he pointed them to some top generals who explained the fallacy of such a move. Yeah, it was a back and forth, but as is often the case for all candidates, an out-of-context newsie report.

I want to see Obama and McCain get the nods if only to b-slap both Parties' leadership into reality.
GW had a zero in foreign affairs prior to becoming president or while? I'm of the opinion that he tried to do the right things in most of the foreign arena (north korea being the most notable exception) but his biggest failure was in that he couldtn convince people as to why those were the right things to do. I know that you will disagree with me, but you have to note that a great many people are of the same (perhaps wrong) opinion as I am.

Has obama explained the whole "lets get rid of the us nuke arsenal" quote, or does he stand by it? That seems awfully naive.

From the republican side, I'm cool with either mccain, giuliani, or thompson. mccain has the faingold thing going against him, but everyone is allowed a mistake. I havent seen much of anything I really didnt like about giuliani, but perhaps I didnt look hard enough (I'm not bothered by the however many wives he had, i dont think his personal life is any of my buisness). I disagree with thompson on immigration, frankly I think his approach is naive (people who have come here illegally made the decision that being a second class person in this country is much better than being a full citizen in theirs, and thus unlikely to just leave if things get a slight touch tighter) but on most everything else he says seems alright. I think two of those three (one as pres one as vp) would make a very strong ticket. Romney seems capable, but its abit hard to trust him. I think I said enough about huckabee. an ron paul is a freaking loonie, and reminds me of every backwoods conspiracy theorist I've ever met.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
658 Posts
Vash said:
mccain has the faingold thing going against him, but everyone is allowed a mistake.
I don't view flouting the Constitution for the sake of political recognition a "mistake". I would vote for a Democrat before McCain, except Hillary. McCain is not a conservative.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,798 Posts
mkeeney said:
I don't view flouting the Constitution for the sake of political recognition a "mistake". I would vote for a Democrat before McCain, except Hillary. McCain is not a conservative.
I'll let the courts decide wether or not it is unconstitutional. My main opposition to it is that its fucking stupid. The idea was to limit some of the dirt slining that dominates todays politics, which is all well and good, except that even without the anti free speech argument it is rediculously ineffective. So now all adds have "I'm a blah blah and I approve this message" what does that change? I mean, was anyone in anyway confused as to whom the swift boat crew was working for? I dont think anyone is naive enough to believe that the bush campaign couldnt have silenced those guys if they really wanted to. Not saying they should have, just saying that they could.

One could dance around the free speech argument. You could say that an organization attacking a candidate is automatically seen as being pro his opponent, and if he does not endourse it, it created a libel sort of situation. I'm sure someone who is pro this law could make a more colorful argument. I'm not, because as I said, its fucking stupid.

So lets take the stupidity out of the equation for just a second and what do you have left? A candidate that wants to cut taxes, is pro gun rights, plays the federalism card on abortion, prowar, anti gay rights, pro free trade, pro school voucher, anti welfare, anti national healthcare, agressive on forign policy, doesnt want to sign kyoto, wants to build that fence, and anti drug.

And thats a pretty quick summary. That puts him in the conservative camp. Is he as conservative as thompson? No. Is he more conservative than anyone on the democrat side? You betcha.

I dont agree with many of his views, but I do feel confident that he is going to lead by principle and not by polls. Thats a good start. Hey, he's the least favorite out of the three, but do you really think that EDWARDS will make a better president than him?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
658 Posts
Vash said:
I'll let the courts decide wether or not it is unconstitutional....

...wants to build that fence...
...
I dont agree with many of his views, but I do feel confident that he is going to lead by principle and not by polls. Thats a good start. Hey, he's the least favorite out of the three, but do you really think that EDWARDS will make a better president than him?
The Supreme Court already decided on McCain-Feingold, and they got it wrong. If you don't think the Supreme Court can be wrong, google Dred Scott.

You should read more about McCain and immigration.

"The McCain-Kennedy bill would create a path to so-called earned citizenship for some of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States. To some voters, earned citizenship for someone who came into the country illegally is tantamount to amnesty."

No, I don't think Edwards would be a better president, but I won't vote for McCain because of McCain-Feingold, and I don't think he will lead by principle based on his attempt to pass that hideous immigration bill. His partnership with Kennedy is an attempt to drum up support in the general election in case he wins the nomination. He's a lot like GW Bush, who is no conservative either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,798 Posts
Well this is going to go off topic... But I was actually pro a great deal of that immigration bill. Here is the rationale

1. People who have come here illegally made a choice. The choice was between living in their home country, with whatever situation political situation, but surrounded by their families and loved ones, and all things familuar. Or going to a new country, where they dont know the language or customs, will likely be seriously disliked by most everyone they meet, will have to settle for less far less than equal rights, will have to learn a new language, and most likely not see most of their friends every again. On top of that a few went thru the whole trecking across the desert where there is a good chance of dying, and putting yourself in a position to get screwed over by cayotes, whom are not nice people. Not a light decision, but thats what they decided. Put yourself in that situation for a second and ask yourself how shitty do things have to be before you would be willing to do that?
2. Now there is something like 12 million (where did that number come from?) roughly one in 25 people whom are here illegally. Seing the sacrifice they made to get here (wrong or right) they are not going to go back because you ask them nicely. Whatever it is that is waiting for them back home is much worse than most anything you can threaten them with.

So you got two choices. You can find out every last illegal here, and deport them by force. Thats finding one in 25 people, imprisoning them, holding them somewhere, and moving them out of the country. Many of them have been here for years, are homeowners, members of their communities, etc etc. I imagine a few spent more of their life here than they did in their home country. Many will try everything in their power to escape this fate. There is no way you can get all that done without building concentration camps. There will be riots. There will be alot of blood spilled. Sure you have the legal right to do so, I'm not questioning that, but do you want your country to turn into that?

But the situation as it stands cant go on, right? Something has to be done, some program has to be instituted, and in order for it to work, the illegals here have to cooperate with it. Why are they going to cooperate with a program that will result in them being kicked out of their homes and sent to places they went thru so much trouble to escape? Either you can threaten them with a worst fate, or you can offer them a chance of being able to stay here for good. Anyway to do that will be called amnesty by some.

Now the idea of "lets secure the borders first, then deal with whomever is already here" is perfectly reasonable, assuming it is possible to secure the border (I really dont know if it is). But any plan to deal with illegals whom live here has to either include a permission to stay (doesnt have to be full citizenship), or concentration camps. Or its just not going to work.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top