Thread: Don't pull no punches, tell me what you really think.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Yeah but that argument works both ways, which is the problem.
You don't want to pay for general healthcare (I suppose. my apologies if I am wrong). So you could annoy people who do by saying you like to keep your money.

But they can make the same argument over the war in Iraq. Or various other things that conservatives are generally very much in favor of and don't mind spending federal money on, even though another group of people don't agree.

That is why those one-liner catch phrases are not accurate. They generally work both ways and both parties are doing the same thing.

But to get back to the election: who do you think would be the best republican candidate?

There isn't one yet. Ron Paul may be the closest thing to a good candidate that I've seen yet.

It makes a bit of a difference who is the president, but not all that much, as the government system in place is pretty robust and there are two other branches with a lot of power on their own.

For example making money equivalent to free speech and allowing unlimited amounts of them to buy politicians seems like something that will ensure very specific economic policy, irrespective of who are the politicians who end up making the decisions.

And as we know the recession ended long time ago, it's just that a lot of americans are very uncompetitive, so the free market is sorting out everybody's socioeconomic status according to their competitiveness compared to others across the world. Direct result of the globalization, which I consider inevitable, so you just have to take the good with the bad.
Of course everybody who doesn't like it is free to switch to self-sufficiency with the corresponding standard of living.

So, as long as they seem reasonably smart and intelligent (beyond political savvy) I think it doesn't make that much of a difference.

When Ralph Nader said both parties were the same and it made no difference whether Bush 2 or Gore were elected I didn't know what to think. We'll never know how many more people would be alive in this world had the supreme court thrown the election to Gore, the guy who got the popular vote. Now I no longer wonder whether it makes a difference. I know it does. It is however true, IMHO, that big $ runs the pols whichever party they belong to. The $ seems to be running the "high court" now too. We're in a helluva shape is all I can say.

Yeah, may be Iraq wouldn't have happened in 2003, it could've been 2005, or it could've been Iran, or Lybia, but I think the cards were heavily stacked towards a war. The neoconservative wing had had these great bright ideas about US and it's role in the world for many decades and no real power to test them out. After all by HW Bush the isolationism had started going out of fashion with the conservatives.
So, a "cheap war" to the benefit of the oil industry and the industrial-military complex seems like something that was just waiting to happen. (Of course after finding out that "war on the cheap" is a risky business that's less likely to happen again, but hindsight is always 20/20.)

By the same token the US military presence all over the world is probably not going to be changed dramatically no matter who's president. Again due to the globalization there are rather powerful business interests all over the world that need the US military support in their region of operation. Yes, the president can fight this, but if it's good for US why would (s)he?

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

...We'll never know how many more people would be alive in this world had the supreme court thrown the election to Gore, the guy who got the popular vote. Now I no longer wonder whether it makes a difference. I know it does. It is however true, IMHO, that big $ runs the pols whichever party they belong to. The $ seems to be running the "high court" now too. We're in a helluva shape is all I can say.

Or dead for that matter. I am sorry to say the events of over the last decade and the current state of the U.S were set in motion long before that Supreme Court decision gave the election to Bush. I am no fan of either political party right now, but I will say if a republican makes it into office he needs to ask himself one question, "What would Reagan do?"

Originally Posted by northpaw

Sorry for stirring the pot, but...

From Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli (wiki link), drawn up during Washington's presidency, presented to, read aloud in, and ratified unanimously by the U.S. Senate, and signed by President Adams:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

(emphasis added)

Would a politician lie as a matter of convenience to people they consider barbaric heathens, like "musselman" or red "injuns".

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

Would a politician lie as a matter of convenience to people they consider barbaric heathens, like "musselman" or red "injuns".

Nice one! In this case one will probably find an established track record starting with the very first US document - the declaration of independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Did they meant this only for the superior white, christian, taxpaying, male people?

Originally Posted by gugi

Nice one! In this case one will probably find an established track record starting with the very first US document - the declaration of independence:


Did they meant this only for the superior white, christian, taxpaying, male people?

As a matter of fact there were many who wanted to grant freedom across the board, but due to politics(greed/selfishness), a weak government in its infancy (articles of confederation) it was not possible, thus the need for a civil war, civil rights marches and etc.
No Ivan, America is not perfect, I am not, you are not, we are not, but for over two hundred years now the great experiment has not only survived but thrived, a great improvement over any other form of government at the time, it continues as such today, an example to other peoples who have gained a say in their government as well as those who wish to.

Speak for yourself, I'm as perfect as they come

Yes, I agree that it was an improvement to other government types, but you'll notice that had US not seceded from the british empire the slavery would've been abolished a couple of generations earlier (or perhaps a new country would've split over slaves instead of over tea taxes).

As far as whether the US has thrived, that's an interesting premise. It's one month away from bankruptcy (every american currently owes about $45,000), as evidenced in previous posts in this thread people consider their government 'a bunch of corrupt/incompetent scumbags', most people think the country has gone far away from the 'original blueprint', a big issue is that 'I don't want to pay for anybody else'...

I mean it is a great country if you are ambitious and skilled enough to take advantage of it, and if you're not the more you're screwed the more you get screwed.

I wont argue with this, in fact I wholeheartedly agree with the assessment. The true problem is the fact that we have surrendered the responsibility of "citizenship", when was the last time any of us attended city council meetings or ran for office. 95% (+/- 50%)of people I talk to have either the " but what can you do' mentality or "somebody ought to do something" mentality. We are either "too busy" or too lazy to "get involved",after all "politics are dirty". It has been said that"power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". I dont believe this is true, I believe the corrupt are drawn to power and the honest mistakenly believe they have no need for it.

Bi-annually I see the people divided into two seperate herds by the corporately owned media (because they wont do their own research and thinking) and then conquered by one of two corporately sponsored puppets. The biggest deception perpetrated is the capitalism vs socialism debate, which I would think would be thoroughly debunked by now, it should be obvious that the capitalists own the socialists and use them as a management arm. Who has been making laws for whose benefit, who profits(the govt and the corporations, the lovers of money and the lovers of power working hand in hand)who got the bailouts and who is going to pay for them. I cannot see it as a Democrat vs Republican issue, I cannot see it it as a Liberal vs Conservative issue(neither party truly fits either bill), I do see it as an us versus them issue and we are losing.

Mr. Chairman, I now concede the soapbox. Thank you.