Of course I'm not serious on that part as even my posts are not directed in that manner. How could I be serious since I am not putting him down in any way other then not having the experience. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrow_Raider
Printable View
Of course I'm not serious on that part as even my posts are not directed in that manner. How could I be serious since I am not putting him down in any way other then not having the experience. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrow_Raider
It's ok to switch letters around in someone's name to make some funny nickname, but you CAN'T do it to Obama.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrow_Raider
That's foolish...
Did you whine and complain when people came up with names for Hilary Clinton?
Hilary --> Hitlery (saying Hilary is Hitler, just in case you couldn't tell)
Obama --> Osama
Big deal. Get over it.
What? Well those jokes about Hillary were just as funny. :lol: But anyways, back on to the point. :)
Obama has shown that he can find the smartest person in the room and ask the right questions of them. It'll be change enough to have a leader who will seek out advice rather than ratification of his intuition.
McCain was a much better person than the campaign he ran. Anybody who has been awake for the last decade knows that he took Palin as a running mate because he felt she would give him a chance, not because he really wanted her as VP. The person he wanted to have as his VP was Joe Leiberman.
McCain is a rash, hot tempered, but highly principled public servant. In this campaign he gave away too much of himself to chase the prize. Now he'll be back where he belongs, and it makes perfect sense for Obama to reach out to him in particular, as McCain has shown a preference for principle over party whenever he didn't need party support for a presidential race.
Would that be 62% of those white people who voted, voted for Obama?Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
Or
Would that be 62% of those who voted for Obama were white people?
The jokes I heard about Bush would get me banned. Of course, with a name like that, the low hanging fruit is just too easy.
As a big, hairy, white guy, I have no misconceptions about racism in this country. People just seem to let down their guard when talking to me. Maybe it's just that I don't talk back. I was very concerned about the Bradley Effect in this election, since I know so many closet racists who have not changed their views, they have just learned to hide them in public. Thus, I was greatly encouraged by the results.
Thats 62% of those who voted for Obama were white/caucasian.Quote:
Originally Posted by NotLKH
Also, those who voted for Obama that made more then $200K a year also support him raising taxes on the rich which would increase their own taxes too.
I thought Obama's race would be a great selling point for him in this race, but I do have my worries about his safety as a president.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Thats my point and agree. If he can do it then great but I just felt McCain was more experienced.Quote:
Originally Posted by System_Error
I felt McCain was too much like me. I don't belong in the White House, and neither does he.
To be honest, I would have voted for Harvey the Invisible Rabbit as long as Harvey wasn't a republican.
We have had enough of those morons to last several life times.
Issues Shmisues - After George Bush I would have voted for kregg as long as he wasn't a republican.Quote:
Originally Posted by kasracer
Incidentially, I have been a registered, card carrying republican, for over 40 years.
The republican platform has many planks that I dislike. Therefore, I would have to agree with Hack if I looked only at the party platform. What issues are there other than the ones that the republicans take on? There are a few republicans in my state that I have no problem with. However, if they have the majority, then they will push the party platform, which I have serious problems with. You do have to consider party affiliation along with the individual. If the party is going to do things that you really dislike, then even if you like one member, you have to consider the impact of that one person being elected on the overall pattern.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kasracer
True, but it's precisely because your example doesn't actually happen that people can vote along party lines. Policies in general are pretty similar; both sides want everybody to be happy, everybody to be wealthy, everybody to be secure. They just have slightly different ideas as to how to go about it, and because there's no proven means to secure those objectives, it means that every Joe Plumber can get on his high horse and say "My idea is better than yours". What it boils down to is what people think about a few nitty gritty issues which are important to them, such as policy on healthcare or taxes or military spending, and if they aren't even particularly swayed either way by that then why not plump for the guy who looks the part.
Personally, I think there's a lot to be said for, if you aren't especially bothered either way, voting for the party in opposition because if one party stays in power too long they tend to go a bit barmy. Keeps everybody on their toes to have a change of govt fairly regularly.
Quite true. Maggie Thatcher had become power-mad and was in tears when she was kicked out, still in disbelief.Quote:
Originally Posted by zaza
As regards McCain and Obama, I've found the run-up to the election amusing at times. Let me explain - the media in the UK are like rotweillers when they scent a weakness in a politician and it's no doubt the same in the US. For instance, HC was a dead duck when she said she was "under fire", McCain lost it after the "Bomb, bomb Iran" jibe. Both demonstrated a lack of integrity and certain contempt for the general publics' intellect. As far as I know, Obama never tried to fool anybody.
Add that to communications and file sharing technology - any politician who messes-up can't hide any more. i.e. I don't even need a phone, PC or envelope to communicate in short order - I can send emails through my TV if I want (and it's got chat facilities now...)
Obama may be good for the US in other ways. Others have already said many US leaders/citizens are racist, but what about the coloured leaders of unfriendly oil rich countries ? They may be more amenable to a black (If the president of the US can say "black", so can I ...) president than a white one. The US has voted in an opportunity, it would be daft not to use it.
Spoofs can backfire on you. During the mayoral elections for London (UK), Ken Livingston put out a video ridiculing Boris Johnson. People regarded Livingston's video as childish. Boris won despite being portrayed as a buffoon. The Obama/Osama and Hussein jibes have no doubt had exactly the same effect - showing the McCain camp as being ridiculous and childish.
And finally...
Boris for the next UK Prime Minister ? :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Boris Johnson, October 21, 2008
Very good quote. Perhaps you should have worked for Obama's campaignQuote:
Originally Posted by Boris Johnson, October 21, 2008
A person who keeps his cool in the heat of an argument or conflict and hence is able to make good decisions is much better than a rash person who makes quick decisions without having a clear mind. In your anger you make stupid decisions, now magnify that to the whole country.Quote:
Originally Posted by kasracer
People should really vote for who has the best policies that appeal to them like you said, but that should not be the only thing they should think of. Remember they only just want to get supporters, so how do you know anything they say will even happen?
You personally might not be racist, but there are plenty of people who said they wouldn't be caught dead with a black president, how is that not racist?
They are saying Paylin will be groomed to run for president in 2012 but only if Obama screws up otherwise she will run in 2016 when he comes to the limit of his term.
She knows she has no chance against him? :p
This is so very not true. For example, the issues I care about:Quote:
Originally Posted by kasracer
Tell me again how both parties are the same.
- I want us out of Iraq yesterday.
- Abortion must remain legal.
- Stem cell research should be federally funded, like all other promising areas of research.
- The war on drugs needs to be abandoned, especially the mandatory sentences. The focus should be treating drug abuse as a health issue, not punishing it as a crime.
- The Patriot Act needs to be immediately revoked, as well as every detainee in Guantanamo needs to be given immediate representation. Under Bush we have become a monstrosity that would have made our founding fathers weep. 20 short years after Orwell's nightmare, Bush brought it to life. No more imprisonment without due process. No more torture. No more warrantless wire taps. This police state has got to go. Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.
- I want the next Supreme Court appointees to be liberals.
- Religion, as well as all woo-woo superstition, needs to be removed from the White House. What is with Republicans and their dopey beliefs? At least Laura Bush wasn't consulting astrologers.
All good points mr Dee! :afrog:
You don't get to say "that's a Bush thing, not a Republican thing" when we've had to suffer through 8 years of destructive Republican policies. If his policies were so contrary to Republican ideals why did he get their nomination in 2004?
I thought of a couple more that I don't particularly care about since they don't apply to me, but the lack of these things offends me as a thoughtful person. They make me ashamed of my country, or at very least its leadership.As to your "rebuttals", you have got to be kidding me. You seem to agree that the war on drugs is at best ineffective. As stated, I'm a guy who very much wants it abandoned. Be honest: If I were to cast a strictly one-issue vote on this, given two unknown candidates, which party would I do better to cast my vote for? Same question for stem cell research.
- Actual sex education, as opposed to the current "abstinence-only or you lose your funding" fundy approach.
- Gay marriage should be legal.
Please cite or retract your claim that Obama wants to "restrict abortion." Note that if you link to a quote where he talks about some specific type of abortion -- say, late-term partial birth abortion for example -- then you have committed the worst kind of disingenuous douchebaggery that unfortunately pervades most political discussions. Your wording deliberately implied that Obama wants to restrict all abortion. Don't be deceitful like that.
The fact that you can dig up at least one representative from both parties that are on any given side of any given issue is irrelevant. It is an obvious attempt at obfuscation in order to support your false premise that both parties are the same. They are demonstrably NOT the same. Under democratic presidencies, schools can teach about contraception without losing their funding. There is no debate about whether the joke that is creationism gets taught alongside science as "the other side of the debate."
Under democratic presidencies, the country doesn't wallow in and take pride from their willful ignorance. Our science community doesn't fall behind the rest of the world; we become the mecca of scientific research. Our economy doesn't crumble during wartime, which I would have previously thought impossible. Yet the ineptitude of republican leadership managed to pull even that off. Bravo.
And if you honestly believe that consulting psychics and astrologers isn't a dopey woo-woo belief -- you're aware I was referencing Nancy Reagan, right? -- then you are beyond hope. And Obama is not a creationist like Bush, so don't say they have the same beliefs. Bush thinks the world is 6000 years old. Yeah, I'm comfortable calling that a dopey woo-woo belief as well.
(Btw, I hate multiple-quotebox point-by-point replies. Please don't do that. Assume I know what I wrote and just put together a cohesive narrative addressing the points you want to address.)
This deserves its own reply.Quote:
Originally Posted by kasracer
You may not be aware of this, but there are different christian denominations. Some are more "hard core" than others. For example, some are bible literalists who believe the grand canyon was caused by noah's flood. These are known as evangelicals. The vast majority of evangelicals make up the base of the republican party.
Other christians believe in god, but not the literal word of the bible. Some are democrats, some are republicans. These reasonable, not idiotic people make up the majority of christian democrats but only a minority of christian republicans.
So saying that both sides are christians is either naive in the extreme or another attempt at being intentionally disingenuous.
I had to quote this because of the second quote (there couldn't be only one).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Dee
Nyah, nyah!Quote:
(Btw, I hate multiple-quotebox point-by-point replies. Please don't do that. Assume I know what I wrote and just put together a cohesive narrative addressing the points you want to address.)
Of course, as probably the most liberal American on this forum, I agree with what you have said, but I agree with lots of the arguments that Kas put forward as well, especially the war on drugs. I feel that the only solution that has a real prayer is heavy education, but I recognize that it has no chance of solving the problem. After decades of strong and multi-faceted attempts to stop drunk driving, having surrendered on the question of stopping drinking entirely, we have not solved the problem.
The impact of alcohol on human societies is greater and more negative than all other drugs combined, yet we have given up prohibiting it, and are fighting a constant and unwinable battle to limit the damage. The other drugs will be no easier to deal with.
As for R vs D. There lines between the two have wandered back and forth over the decades. The south was staunchly democratic until the 60's because Lincoln was a Republican. When Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, he stated that he did so though he realized that it would cost the Democratic party the south for at least the next generation. He was right. The southern vote followed the party of segregation. Other segments have followed evangelical leanings of one party or another (the first born-again evangelical president was Carter). Other groups have wandered around based on fiscal policy. The rhetoric and party platforms seem to have lagged behind the membership, though.
I supported conservative fiscal values back in the early 90's when the deficit hawks in Congress were R (like Warren Rudman and Ernest Hollings). At the time, the Rs labeled the Ds as "tax and spend". They still use the line, even though the party of deficit hawks is more the democrats than the republicans. The Ds should be labeling the Rs as "borrow and spend" conservatives, just for the contrast with "tax and spend". Ultimately, I believe that the Rs will regain the mantle as deficit hawks, but not for several more years.
I think I'm not communicating my position properly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
My position is that the war on drugs is both ineffective and destructive, and as such it should be shelved. I would recommend shifting some of those reclaimed resources to the treatment of drug abuse as a health issue, but that's mostly irrelevant to my point. Regardless of what is done in place of the war on drugs -- a large scale education & treament initiative, complete decriminalization, whatever -- the main point is that the war on drugs must go.
Anything -- and I mean anything -- would be better. So when you guys say "yeah, treatment won't work either", you are implying that you want to stick with the war on drugs. I don't care a whit if the alternative doesn't work; I want the draconian, life-destroying punishment system we currently offer drug addicts to end.
To be clear, arguing that alternatives would be no better is neither compelling nor relevant to my position. "No good" is better than "actively bad."
You clearly haven't a clue. A good example is the following:Quote:
Originally Posted by kasracer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Me
Try reading for comprehension next time. Of course schools can teach about contraception. If they decide to do that, however, they will lose out on federal funding. Just like I said in a very short, clearly stated sentence.Quote:
Originally Posted by You
'Abstinence Only' Policy Puts Teens at RiskQuote:
Yet, instead of promoting comprehensive sex education, the federal government aggressively funds "abstinence-only until marriage" programs that fail teenagers by withholding information they need to make healthy, mature decisions about sex.
To receive federal funding, abstinence-only programs must have the "exclusive purpose" of teaching the benefits of abstinence. They may not advocate contraceptive use or teach contraceptive methods except to emphasize their failure rates.
Thus, recipients of federal abstinence-only-until-marriage funds operate under a gag rule that censors vitally needed information. Grantees are forced to omit any mention of topics such as contraception, abortion and AIDS or to present them in an incomplete and therefore inaccurate fashion.
In fiscal year 2006, the federal government lavished $3.6 million in grants on New Jersey organizations to deliver abstinence-only programs to students and young people. Nationwide, some $87.5 million is spent annually on abstinence- only programs, most of it taxpayers' dollars.
Is this some kind of parody? If you're serious with this, I can't possibly take you seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by kasracer
Have I ever seen a person on drugs? Let me guess; you helped organize a Scared Straight intervention for your Up With People group.
The scary drug users! So intense! Clearly, throwing them in jail is the best way to go. How could I possibly be expected to cope with scary and intense?
And just how old are you that you think a person on drugs can be "scary and intense"? 18? Most adults would describe a person on drugs as sad or depressing. Scary and intense? It's like you're describing going on safari, where you came frighteningly close to the animals.
This from the guy chastising me for generalizing a specific. Way to preach it, brother. Hypocrisy lives. What the **** does your school have to do with the inarguable fact that there are such things as schools who DO need federal funding? Those schools who need the funds are not allowed to teach about contraception.Quote:
Originally Posted by kasracer
Once you graduate from your pampered, sheltered, upper middle class high school -- I'm guessing that'll be this coming June -- then maybe you'll have an opinion worth listening to. Until then, keep your naivety to yourself.
As for the hostility, here's a friendly tip: When you open with "You are a dick", don't be surprised when rudeness is returned to you.
Oh please. You didn't even understand what I was saying, as evidenced by your later agreement that what I was calling dopey woo-woo beliefs you would also call dopey woo-woo beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by kasracer
Then you personalized your misunderstanding of what I said and lashed out in anger, calling me a dick. And I'm the one who started it by being "biased"? Grow a thicker skin. Or just grow up. Either way works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Dee
It's hardly worth replying, since all of Kas's posts are gone, making this thread so disjointed I actually have no idea whether you were really talking to me or responding to something else. If that was directed at me, you either didn't read what I wrote or I didn't write clearly.
In fairness, I think both users posts should all be gone. Just because one didn't resort to name calling, they're still condescending and contain personal attacks.
It was ambiguous:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
When I first read that, I inferred your meaning to be that because the act of "giving up prohibiting" alcohol has led to a situation "more negative than all other drugs combined", giving up prohibiting drugs would cause worse problems so we should stick with the war on drugs.Quote:
The impact of alcohol on human societies is greater and more negative than all other drugs combined, yet we have given up prohibiting it, and are fighting a constant and unwinable battle to limit the damage. The other drugs will be no easier to deal with.
There is another way to read it, so apologies for the misinterpretation.
In his very first reply to me he called me dick -- "You are a dick." -- so I treated him as a hostile opponent from then on.Quote:
Originally Posted by demotivater
Not all of us have the patience of a saint.
My point was that we tried a war on alcohol, and when that failed we tried education, which has also failed. The war on drugs is an expensive failure, but no other solution will actually work, either, so what we need to do is manage for the situation using the most cost effective solution available, which appears to be education and treatment.
Solution to war on drugs: death penalty for possession or use of drugs.
Don't turn hostile in return. If you get insulted, report it instead. If you turn hostile as well, then you'll be part of the problem too, from a moderator's/admin's point of view.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Dee
Looks like NASDAQ is down by 4.34% :D
Ellis, I agree with most of what you've put (not too keen on the tone but I didn't see Kasracer's posts so, <shrug>, who am I to judge) but I do want to pick you up on a couple of points:-
I disagree with this. The evidence from the Netherlands (the most licentious state in Europe) is that an increased tolerance to canabis has led to increased usage of harder drugs and all the problems assosciated with that. We've seen similar results in the UK as a result of downgrading it to a class C (a decision which is now being reversed). The clear implication is that a tougher aproach does have some deterring effect. Whether a limited pool of funding is better spent on deterance or treatment I really don't know as I don't think a truly impartial study has ever been done. What I'd like to see is a policy based some truly objective research rather than some focused research undertaken to support whichever policy the current government feels will be easiest to sell to the public. I suspect the most effective policy will actually be a combination of deterrence and treatment.Quote:
Anything -- and I mean anything -- would be better.
I also disagree with treating drug abuse as a health issue. Drug abuse contains an element of choice. Certainly in the early, pre-addiction stages and, I would argue, in the addicted stages as well. Contracting cancer, for example, contains no such element of choice. Deterrents will have some effect and, while they should not replace treatment, I believe it's sensible to keep as many tools in your arsenal as possible.
Finally, on drug abuser being scary or sad, it depends on the drug user and, to a large extent, the drug in question. A guy whose whose taken canabis is unlikely to be a threat, they're also not particularly sad. A guy on Heroin is generally sadder than they are scary. Coke, on the other hand, does tend to make people arrogant and aggressive. Someone on PCP can be downright terrifying.
Ok alot has gone on since I last looked in this thread.
Good point mendhak.
Ok, more to the topic...
World President Obama?
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11...esident-world/
Is that good news? Why the smiley? :ehh:Quote:
Originally Posted by allankevin