2k8 election kumite

Dr. Hess tried to start this in another thread I posted, and all I wanted was a silly thread making fun of that drugged up weird Rush. So I'll start off, but before I do I must provide some notes:

notes: 1. I'm typing this while sitting on the crapper (ain't wifi grand) 2. My current surroundings, actions, etc.. indicate where this thread will probably be going, but try to keep it respectful.

Here's my take on the canidates. I know it's superficial(I'm in grad school and don't have time for tons of research.

McCain - Seriously as republicans go he's not terrible. However, He comes off as a warmonger to me. Summary, after 2 terms of moron boy I'll vote for anyone but a republican.

Clinton - Run on your own accord. She's got her daughter and husband going everywhere trying to help you. Something is wrong here. I will admit to liking her husband up until he started stumping(humping?) for her. I now cannot stand him or her and If it was between her and McCain, I'd probably vote for Ron Paul. She made $109 Million last year and is now playing up to working class people. Her working class ties and background is ludicrous. Summary, Chalmeleon and lies through her teeth.

Obama - I want someone outside to come in a change something, because Bush F'd everything up so badly. I like the fact that most of his money has come from outsiders with little PAC money(I know its spin. Summary, I vote for him. Can't be as bad as Bush and I like the fact that he dosen't sling mud.

What I want:
I'm hoping for a better energy policy, nationalized health care, larger taxes to pay for infrastructure updates, the list goes on and on, but it boils down to a more socialzied government. Large companies rule us too much. The government needs to put the smack down.

Im hoping for NO nationalized health care, more efficient use of the massive quantity of our money the government already gets, A government that doesnt decide where I should spend my money (dem) OR drastically alter my personal freedoms(Rep), and a government that encourages businesses but doesnt manipulate the legal system to promote monopolies. The fact that national health care is going to be forced national health insurance, and will be a giant money sucking mess for at least my lifetime means there is no way I will ever vote for someone pushing it. Looks like McCain will get my vote.

Ok time for me to sling mud, like obama is starting to do....

McCain Aides and there connections:

What is more startling,

1. The fact that there are connections? or
2. The fact that McCain only cares that it looks bad and dosen't care about the actual issue of where the money comes from?

The choices today are Suck, Suck or Suck. Soros wins no matter which way it goes. ignorant, I don't know which Little Mac connection you're refering to, but the Soros connection to Little Mac's foundation providing his staff is the one most troubling to me. Obama's theme is "Let's all get along by doing what I say and don't look at anything I've ever done in the past.." The Lizard Queen has pretty much been exposed for what she is and been thrown under the bus by the Democratic leadership.

Oh, when you wish for more taxes, please realize that YOU are the problem because today, YOU are free to give more of YOUR money to the federal government but YOU are refusing to do that. When you want to give MY money to the government for whatever programs you like, then I have a problem with that. Right now, the governments get somewhere around half of everything we make. How much is enough? 90%? Would that do it for you? 100%? And just exactly where do you think that money goes? It goes to big corporations. Taking more of OUR money will only transfer more of it to big corporations, owned by filthy rich Democratics.

Agreed there are no good choices... Romney was the only sensible one I saw.

Obama is the last one I'd vote for... his list of "friends" tells the story. William Ayers, former head of the Weather Underground, in the '70 responsible for placing bombs in the Pentagon, unrepentant and "wishes we could have done more". "Rev." Wright, well we all know that chapter.

Hillary just wants everything you own and remember Whitewater, Travelgate, etc plus look at the list of people in the Clinton inner circle that died mysteriously, were indicted, etc.

I'm no fan of McCain but.......

Wow, it's like you took the thoughts out of my head ignorant!

Although non-Americans such as myself just batten the hatches and duck and cover when you guys...do stuff...such as elect a new leader :P

ignorant wrote: What I want: I'm hoping for a better energy policy, nationalized health care, larger taxes to pay for infrastructure updates, the list goes on and on, but it boils down to a more socialzied government. Large companies rule us too much. The government needs to put the smack down.

Ok, I'm bored, so I'll bite.

1. What is better energy policy? To some that means strip mining the Rockies, to others it means banning internal combustion engines. I've not heard Obama give definitively state his actual "policy" on energy.

2. Nationalized Health Care? Count me out. I think the government should stick to things it already knows how to screw up.

3. Larger Taxes to Pay for Infrastructure? No thanks, I'm already paying enough taxes. I was fortunate enough to get a pretty nice bonus recently, and the amount of it I got to take home is appalling. (See Dr. Hess' comment, he's in the ballpark.) If you want to pay more for infrastructure, write your highway department a check, but leave me out of it.

4. More socialized government? Well, if that's what you want, Obama is the choice.

5. Smack down of large companies? If you don't like a large company, don't buy their product/service. Otherwise, there's not too much "smack down" the government can put on them. Corporations don't pay taxes. Shareholders and customers pay taxes. You and I are the shareholders and customers.

I agree with Ignorant on most counts here.

Energy policy and Universal Healthcare, although I strongly support both in theory, are such tricky and detailed issues, that I have trouble imagining a real plan ever getting hashed out.

And let's not forget: the President doesn't make any laws or decide any legal policies. That's all the job of the legislature. The President just signs them and is a REALLY BIG talking head.

GameboyRMH wrote: Wow, it's like you took the thoughts out of my head ignorant! Although non-Americans such as myself just batten the hatches and duck and cover when you guys...do stuff...such as elect a new leader :P

best post evar..

Most of the world wants Obama to be president. All of my Uk colleagues belive that the US is the most backwards place in the developed world...

As to energy policy, where did First Solar build its latest plant.. Not in Ohio where it is from, but in Germany because of the positive financial incentives. But it's OK, Coal will continue to power the world.

Tell your UK colleagues to enjoy their forward thinking system that includes $10 a gallon gasoline and Queen. I prefer our system thanks.

Wait-isnt Iraq a screwed up relic of the british trying to take over the world?

MrJoshua wrote: Tell your UK colleagues to enjoy their forward thinking system that includes $10 a gallon gasoline and Queen. I prefer our system thanks.

It's ok.. they think we are represed by our substandard health care system and ridiculously weak education system. Our High School age kids can't read and comments about not getting any more of my money seems to smack of utter greed.

MrJoshua wrote: Wait-isnt Iraq a screwed up relic of the british trying to take over the world?

Lacking a sound argument, it's time for unrelated nonsense.

(ok so he's right about the british, but... its unrelated to a domestic policy argument)

Ignorant, you want MORE government to manage the lives of its' citizenry?

Please offer some relevant examples of how this government performs anything better than something managed in the private sector. As Dr. Hess noted, the government takes about half of one's income but still cannot maintain the infrastructure, cannot educate the masses and cannot develop a coherent energy policy.

Other than some brilliant rhetoric, what exactly has Obama proposed (other than "change") to suggest he can accomplish anything beyond offering sound bites? Carter played the same game and his failure was so complete, virtually no honest person can argue. What are Obama's core beliefs, what "change" does he intend for the country, who benefits, who suffers and who is paying for it? Those are some of the questions you need to consider and then carefully dissect Obama's answers - if he has any.

BTW, you're posting from the toilet, you're a grad student who didn't catch your mis-spelling of repressed and you admit you have developed opinions without having done any real research - man, you are doing everything you can to prove your UK colleagues are right about America:)

ignorant wrote: It's ok.. they think we are represed by our substandard health care system and ridiculously weak education system. Our High School age kids can't read but... "Those bastards in washington will not get any more of my money"

Gosh, you mean that if we just double the amount of money we are giving the education system that suddenly our kids will be able to read? Wow, that's brilliant!! You should run for public office. That strategy has worked so well for education so far. In fact, if you look at the richest school districts, like Washington DC, various inner cities, you will find what? Oh, never mind. I'm sure that if they only had a good after school music program that it would all be better and they'd become engineers and not crack dealers or basketball stars.

Why don't we fix education like this: Pick a time in our recent history when the education system worked and then duplicate the spending level, discipline, curriculum, attitudes, "hand holding" level, etc. Oh wait, that won't work because it doesn't fit your "just need a little more money" model.

Oh, and a great deal of the Middle East's current issues do relate to the English dividing the whole thing up when they ran the place. Check your history books. The rest of the problem goes back to two sons of Abraham and a girl in a polygymous marriage. Read that history book, if you can find it. Here's a hint: It starts with "B."

ignorant wrote: It's ok.. they think we are represed by our substandard health care system and ridiculously weak education system. Our High School age kids can't read but... "Those bastards in washington will not get any more of my money"

Are you suggesting that more money to Washington will mean more High Schoolers can read? I know hundreds of people personally who read exceptionally well and NEVER received a penny of Government funds directly or indirectly through the forced government de-education system.

oldsaw wrote: Other than some brilliant rhetoric, what exactly has Obama proposed (other than "change") to suggest he can accomplish anything beyond offering sound bites? Carter played the same game and his failure was so complete, virtually no honest person can argue.

These are very related. In that the examples are total opposites.

See... outside of war time, the president doesn't actually do much of anything. Look at the constitution. What powers does the president have? Commander in chief of the military... cool. He can make a State of the Union speech (not even required) and he gets the veto. Umm... So why do we keep looking at this guy to actually get anything done?

Oh, because he's the single biggest talking head in the country. With his office he can talk real nice, wave his veto around, and shine a spot light on things to move congress into acting on them (but he needs to wait for congress to act).

Carter was perhaps the most intellectually intelligent president of the past century. He was really smart and had a lot of great ideas. But he wasn't good at communicating and playing the politics game. So the whole congress got pissed off and turned their back on him.

Obama is a good talker and a likeable guy. He has an idea of how the game is played and probably won't alienate congress. He's also good at getting the unwashed masses to think that whatever he's talking about is really spiffy. Doesn't matter if what you propose is spiffy or not, just if you can convince congress that they'll make they're constituents happy if they follow the plan.

Then there was Reagan, the opposite of Carter. A bunch of really stooopid ideas, but he talked well and everyone loved him.

People don't love McCain. People don't love Hillary. People think Obama is spiffy. Making people like you and think you're swell is the third most thing a president can do (#1: get elected #2: command the military).

Salanis wrote: Carter was perhaps the most intellectually intelligent president of the past century. .

I have worked for President Carter, and I respect him. But I don't agree with this comment, and would like to know what you base it on.

ignorant wrote:

MrJoshua wrote: Wait-isnt Iraq a screwed up relic of the british trying to take over the world?

Lacking a sound argument, it's time for unrelated nonsense. (ok so he's right about the british, but... its unrelated to a domestic policy argument)

Wasnt trying to counter any argument about policy or presidency with that statement. I was just countering your implication that the British are the pillars of greatness who have lived in such a way that we should try to mimic their society. (If you use something to support an argument, a counter to that support is completely related)

I do realize the British screwing up Iraq is not really a good argument for us to be there. I disagree with about everything you said in that first post, but the British history in Iraq was probably a better reason for us to stay out than go in.

Salanis wrote:

oldsaw wrote: Other than some brilliant rhetoric, what exactly has Obama proposed (other than "change") to suggest he can accomplish anything beyond offering sound bites? Carter played the same game and his failure was so complete, virtually no honest person can argue.

These are very related. In that the examples are total opposites. See... outside of war time, the president doesn't actually *do* much of anything. Look at the constitution. What powers does the president have? Commander in chief of the military... cool. He *can* make a State of the Union speech (not even required) and he gets the veto. Umm... So why do we keep looking at this guy to actually get anything done? Oh, because he's the single biggest talking head in the country. With his office he can talk real nice, wave his veto around, and shine a spot light on things to move congress into acting on them (but he needs to wait for congress to act). Carter was perhaps the most intellectually intelligent president of the past century. He was really smart and had a lot of great ideas. But he wasn't good at communicating and playing the politics game. So the whole congress got pissed off and turned their back on him. Obama is a good talker and a likeable guy. He has an idea of how the game is played and probably won't alienate congress. He's also good at getting the unwashed masses to think that whatever he's talking about is really spiffy. Doesn't matter if what you propose is spiffy or not, just if you can convince congress that they'll make they're constituents happy if they follow the plan. Then there was Reagan, the opposite of Carter. A bunch of really stooopid ideas, but he talked well and everyone loved him. People don't love McCain. People don't love Hillary. People think Obama is spiffy. Making people like you and think you're swell is the third most thing a president can do (#1: get elected #2: command the military).

Carter failed as much for his lofty (but ill-conceived and idyllic ideas) as for his alienation of Congress and failing to deliver on his campaign promises. His domestic, foreign and economic policies did nothing to erase the "national malaise" as promised.. Said policies, it can be argued, form some of the foundation of our current national and global problems.

Reagan was a cowboy who spoke a language voters could understand, and when elected, did something that helped ease the pain of the national shame that resulted from the Nixon/Watergate fiasco, economic woes and humiliation in the Middle East. I'll readily admit that I voted for Carter and didn't like Reagan, but in retrospect I'll also readily confess I was wrong on both counts.

I don't want a presidential candidate that is "spiffy" and likeable. I want a candidate who comes out and unequivocally says what he stands for, what he wants to accomplish, and shares his/her plan to accomplish those goals.

The role of a president is FAR more than that of a "talking head". The job is to inspire direction to the voting public and Congress. Voters then communicate their opinion(s) to Congress. Laws are proposed, voted-on, legislated and the Supreme Court is there to decide if such proposals meet the rule of law. The "balance of power" concept was put there for a purpose!

As for the current campaign, "spiffy" and "likeable" doesn't cut it. But then again, I shower every day.:nice:

Except that, it doesn't take good ideas that are well reasoned and fully explained, in order to inspire direction to the voting public.

People care less about the logic of an argument, and more about the emotional connection you make with them. Look at car commercials. They don't examine the specific pros and cons of buying their specific model. You buy a big Ford truck, because you're a big Ford guy. The kind of guy who does big work and wants his friends to see how much tougher than them he is.

1. I can tell you stories about DC public schools that will make your innards turn. My wife student taught there in a Montessori pilot program. She has stood outside on the corner waiting for bomb squads to clear her school. She sure could have used more money in that program. Kids coming out of her classes didn't run around the halls or curse or get bad grades.

2. throwing good money after bad is stupid. I don't know why it is implied that with more required money that inefficency will rise. It shouldn't. I can't stand graft, pork etc.. BUT, because those items are there does not mean we should stop giving and stop projects to better our country. We are behind on infrastructure, education, manufacturing... The list in which we are failing is too long and too basic. We don't have our basics covered and even if we remove inefficency from the system, they'll need more money cause theres a crap load of ground to make up.

3. Cost cutting people are unpopular in washington. Once souvenirs on Air Force one were cut to a pack of matches, the press started to turn slowly on Carter. Makes sense to me though, why should someone who flies with the president get special china. Infact, why should the president get special china at all. Dude should be eating off corel with the rest of us.

I could tell you stories about the Compton, CA school district that would make your innards turn. My dad taught there for 30+ years. You know Compton, that's next to Watts and people in Watts wouldn't go into Compton because Compton was too rough. Bomb scares were nothing and came every time a parent wanted their kid out of school early. How about gangs with machine guns walking across campus to execute students? Students mad because the urine was erasing their graffiti? Children fornicating on the front lawn of the school? Dollars per student were and are through the roof there. More money won't fix that.

Yes, cost cutting is unpopular with the government. All governments. Why? That's why if you raise taxes, the governments will find something to spend it on regardless. Cut the taxes and somehow they manage to trim waste. The school district I'm in is a good example. They are trying to raise our taxes again because they managed to spend all the money they got from the last tax raise and be broke again. So, now they decided to cut costs and are saving $70K by cutting the free cell phone policy. How did that get there in the first place? Because they had money to spend.

education is just one small piece of the pie. We need to overhaul our countries transportation systems, power generation/distribution systems, and encourage folks to move back to cities. The sheer mountain of work needed and the timeline needed in will not be covered by just cutting the fat.

Why do we need to move people to cities or encourage mass transit? (I assume thats the transportation systems you speak of)
The basis for all of your arguments is that theres a way YOU think I should live my life. I disagree.
Everyone needs to realize that dictating how I travel, where I get my medical care, where I live, what I can buy, how I retire, basically every cent of how I spend my income, should not be the actions of a party that claims they believe in personal freedoms. Yet the democrats continue to trumpet personal freedom while at the same time planning on dictating large portions of my life. The republicans want me to pray and not marry gay. The democrats want to control everything else. Both are too much interference in my life, but im not gay, and they cant really make me follow any particular religion. On a whole, I agree with the republican way of running a country more than the democrats. The current administration isnt anyones pride and joy, but no matter how much a republican disagrees with the way the current republican party runs the country, that doesnt change your thoughts on running a society to those of a democrat.