Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The GOP Presidential Race = Reality TV Stars and $
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedThe GOP Presidential Race = Reality TV Stars and $

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 9>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
The Dark Elf View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 13229
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2011 at 22:36
Originally posted by CCVP CCVP wrote:

 Hmm, I guess a guerrilla military leader really gets elected because of being trustworthy and of principle, even if he attacked the enemy in the night of Christmas eve, a date that even WW1 respected and stopped the battles during it.
 
Your distortions sound more like Anti-American bias rather than having any historical foundation whatsoever. George Washington was noted to be a very principled and trustworthy individual -- that he sought liberty from a repressive regime does not change his principles. Washington was also religiously tolerant, and like Jefferson was a Deist, not a Christian; therefore, the surprise attack on the Hessian contingent at Trenton was a masterful bit of strategy.
 
As far as WWI, you really have your facts skewed. The truces that occurred along the front during Christmas were not official but spontaneous among many dead tired and homesick soldiers on both sides. As the war progressed, these unofficial truces became more sporadic. The desolation of "no-man's land", and the abject futility of trench war in WWI were what drove these unofficial truces. In WWII, the Nazis thought nothing of conducting major attacks at Bastogne during Christmas. Prior to WWI, the lack of battles during the holiday season had less to do with religious commemoration than war being "out of season" during December. Major troop movements were literally impossible in the middle of winter, and any winter manuevers were considered dangerous (Napoleon's retreat from Moscow is a notable example).
 
Coming from Brazil, a country known for political instability, military dictatorships and the overthrow of democratically elected governments, you have some gall denigrating Washington who, after two terms as president, actually turned down another term in office, as he believed holding the office any further ran counter to the premise of a constitutional democracy. That's something Brazil didn't learn until 1994. But hey, it's always easier to criticize someone else than checking for skeletons in your own closet.
 
 


Edited by The Dark Elf - May 28 2011 at 22:37
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Forum Guest Group
Forum Guest Group
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2011 at 21:55
Originally posted by CCVP CCVP wrote:



Hmm, I guess a guerrilla military leader really gets elected because of being trustworthy and of principle, even if he attacked the enemy in the night of Christmas eve, a date that even WW1 respected and stopped the battles during it.


All's fair in love and war, sadly.

Originally posted by CCVP CCVP wrote:

And, oh yes, I forgot about rich.

then I guess the list will be much broader.

Both Bush(es), Jimmy Carter, Kennedy, FDR, Theodore Roosevelt and all the first 10 presidents.

True, being rich can help you get elected.  Campaigns are expensive.  But there are many other qualities a presidential candidate must have in order to run a successful campaign, such as wide-ranging influence and a network of powerful friends.  Obama got the unwavering support of Harry Reid and other congressional democrats early on in his campaign.  Bush had his own long-standing political allies.

In the end, its always about the votes and not the wealth or status.  Sadly, in order for people to recognize a candidate there usually has to be a lot of money spent in this day and age.
  


Back to Top
CCVP View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: September 15 2007
Location: Vitória, Brasil
Status: Offline
Points: 7971
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2011 at 21:30
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by CCVP CCVP wrote:

 

Evidence to what? That being famous helps you in being elected? You've got to be kidding.

Washington himself got elected due to his fame on revolutionary times.
Ulysses Grant due to his fame as being a military leader. Same with Eisenhower.

I'm sure there are more cases, but those are the ones I can remember on the top of my head.

So you're going to change what you said? You said people get elected because they are rich and famous. That's much different than saying that being famous helps you.

And lol @ your examples. You working with a very skewed definition of fame. Washington didn't get elected because of name recognition. He got elected for being known to be a good leader, trustworthy, and of principle.


Hmm, I guess a guerrilla military leader really gets elected because of being trustworthy and of principle, even if he attacked the enemy in the night of Christmas eve, a date that even WW1 respected and stopped the battles during it.

And, oh yes, I forgot about rich.

then I guess the list will be much broader.

Both Bush(es), Jimmy Carter, Kennedy, FDR, Theodore Roosevelt and all the first 10 presidents.


Edited by CCVP - May 28 2011 at 21:31
Back to Top
Finnforest View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 03 2007
Location: The Heartland
Status: Offline
Points: 17309
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2011 at 21:29
Great exchange, guys, really interestingBeer
...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell"
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2011 at 21:24
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:


You told me you didn't want to hear my justification so I'm not sure I can answer that. Libertarians are as divided on abortion as the general population. The answer to the rest of those things is of course yes uniformly. 


I find that a fascinating anomaly (and thank you for the measured response, it helps get past the crap)--  it indicates abortion is an even deeper issue than I'd thought, and transcends even someone's core political beliefs.  Do you think religion plays a part in that discrepancy?



No doubt it does. I think it not as much as people would think. I read a lot of literature on it. People mean things different than what they write, but certainly the arguments aren't referencing holy works or anything like that.

Alright nice active discussion guys. Phillies game is over so I'm going for a run, showering, and getting ready for work in the morning.


Edited by Equality 7-2521 - May 28 2011 at 21:27
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65616
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2011 at 21:21
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:


You told me you didn't want to hear my justification so I'm not sure I can answer that. Libertarians are as divided on abortion as the general population. The answer to the rest of those things is of course yes uniformly. 


I find that a fascinating anomaly (and thank you for the measured response, it helps get past the crap)--  it indicates abortion is an even deeper issue than I'd thought, and transcends even someone's core political beliefs.  Do you think religion plays a part in that discrepancy?


Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2011 at 21:20
Originally posted by CCVP CCVP wrote:

 

Evidence to what? That being famous helps you in being elected? You've got to be kidding.

Washington himself got elected due to his fame on revolutionary times.
Ulysses Grant due to his fame as being a military leader. Same with Eisenhower.

I'm sure there are more cases, but those are the ones I can remember on the top of my head.

So you're going to change what you said? You said people get elected because they are rich and famous. That's much different than saying that being famous helps you.

And lol @ your examples. You working with a very skewed definition of fame. Washington didn't get elected because of name recognition. He got elected for being known to be a good leader, trustworthy, and of principle.


Edited by Equality 7-2521 - May 28 2011 at 21:21
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
CCVP View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: September 15 2007
Location: Vitória, Brasil
Status: Offline
Points: 7971
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2011 at 21:18
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by CCVP CCVP wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by CCVP CCVP wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by CCVP CCVP wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by CCVP CCVP wrote:

I've always been allarmed how degraded the political scene in the US is since the 80's and how we are marching towards that disgrace here since the past 5 years or so. Not that things are perfect here, God no, but electing people just because they are famous or rich. . . .

Yeah that hasn't happened here.



The governator would like to differ.


Someone being famous does not imply they were elected because they were famous. Jesse Ventura certainly wasn't elected because he pinned Hulk Hogan.


using an exception as the rule really works when making a point . . .

Ummmmm that's funny because it's exactly what you did. 


and how using the exception to the exception helps you in any way?

I wasn't. I was providing a counterexample to the fact that being famous and being elected implies that you were elected because you were famous. Having produced this counterexample, the burden would now be on you to present further evidence even though if you were to prove this, it would mean little since you cited but one case. On the same page now?


Evidence to what? That being famous helps you in being elected? You've got to be kidding.

Washington himself got elected due to his fame on revolutionary times.
Ulysses Grant due to his fame as being a military leader. Same with Eisenhower.

I'm sure there are more cases, but those are the ones I can remember on the top of my head.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Forum Guest Group
Forum Guest Group
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2011 at 21:14
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by Barking Weasel Barking Weasel wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by Barking Weasel Barking Weasel wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:


Because I believe that a fetus has rights


What kind of rights, exactly?  The right to vote, bear arms, have free speech, and all that? Wink

yerp


Perhaps another thread would suffice for this, but how do you feel about victims of rape/incest getting an abortion?

I'm against abortion still, but I feel bad about saying yes to both sides. It's one of those issues where I pretty much just don't know. 


I agree.  Personally I'm against it, but I think it should be legal because I don't like the idea of forcing women to have unwanted children, especially as a result of coercion.  As you mentioned before, there are more shades of gray to the issue itself.  You, me, and every other male on this thread have the luxury of not ever having to go through with one, fortunately.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2011 at 21:13
Maybe we aren't mortal enemies after all?

Edited by Equality 7-2521 - May 28 2011 at 21:13
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2011 at 21:11
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by Barking Weasel Barking Weasel wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by Barking Weasel Barking Weasel wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:


Because I believe that a fetus has rights


What kind of rights, exactly?  The right to vote, bear arms, have free speech, and all that? Wink

yerp


Perhaps another thread would suffice for this, but how do you feel about victims of rape/incest getting an abortion?

I'm against abortion still, but I feel bad about saying yes to both sides. It's one of those issues where I pretty much just don't know. 


Oh sh*t we agree on something else.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2011 at 21:11
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Well then, sir, I oppose him and that most significant social position utterly and completely, and if you take your principles of freedom to be literal, I would expect you would to.  Is that fair to say?
No I don't. If you could convince me otherwise I'd be happy to change my mind though.

I thought it was self-expalnitory; a woman's right to a legal abortion is a freedom as any other.  I take the Libertarian stance to support such freedoms.  I do hope that's not incorrect, I mean to be in favor of allowing people to live as they please unless their State dictates otherwise doesn't sound like Liberty to me.  More like Confedralism or something.
You're making one of two arguments to take the libertarian position. Either the fetus has no rights or the fetus has aggressed upon the woman. Which is it?
Both, or I suppose for our purposes, the first.  But I can see where this is going and I'm not interested in having a debate on abortion.  My puzzlement is in why someone who believes in ultimate freedom would be so hesitant to support full abortion rights whether or not they find themselves sucked into a philo-scientific argument that, as past threads on the subject show, are mostly fruitless.
Because I believe that a fetus has rights and that the second condition is by no means met. I won't proselytize since you don't want to hear it though.  Suffice it to say that I believe my libertarian cred is safe.


Alright, that's a reasonable thing to say, you feel how you feel and I've no ability or even desire to change it.  But I really just cannot get past an individual with a belief that holds personal freedoms dear, but won't support and would indeed actively oppose the right of an adult woman to decide what she wants to do with her body.  Do Libertarians believe in Right-to-Die?  What about drug legalization?  Gays in the military?  I have to assume the answer must by definition be an unrequited Yes, including abortion rights.  And if the answer is not Yes, then no one's "libertarian cred" is safe.  How could it be?





You told me you didn't want to hear my justification so I'm not sure I can answer that. Libertarians are as divided on abortion as the general population. The answer to the rest of those things is of course yes uniformly. 
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2011 at 21:09
Originally posted by Barking Weasel Barking Weasel wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by Barking Weasel Barking Weasel wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:


Because I believe that a fetus has rights


What kind of rights, exactly?  The right to vote, bear arms, have free speech, and all that? Wink

yerp


Perhaps another thread would suffice for this, but how do you feel about victims of rape/incest getting an abortion?

I'm against abortion still, but I feel bad about saying yes to both sides. It's one of those issues where I pretty much just don't know. 
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2011 at 21:09
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

I wonder if it was a threat or a bribe. My gut tells me bribe.


True, I naturally assumed threat but I suppose that could be as well.

Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65616
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2011 at 21:08
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Well then, sir, I oppose him and that most significant social position utterly and completely, and if you take your principles of freedom to be literal, I would expect you would to.  Is that fair to say?
No I don't. If you could convince me otherwise I'd be happy to change my mind though.

I thought it was self-expalnitory; a woman's right to a legal abortion is a freedom as any other.  I take the Libertarian stance to support such freedoms.  I do hope that's not incorrect, I mean to be in favor of allowing people to live as they please unless their State dictates otherwise doesn't sound like Liberty to me.  More like Confedralism or something.
You're making one of two arguments to take the libertarian position. Either the fetus has no rights or the fetus has aggressed upon the woman. Which is it?
Both, or I suppose for our purposes, the first.  But I can see where this is going and I'm not interested in having a debate on abortion.  My puzzlement is in why someone who believes in ultimate freedom would be so hesitant to support full abortion rights whether or not they find themselves sucked into a philo-scientific argument that, as past threads on the subject show, are mostly fruitless.
Because I believe that a fetus has rights and that the second condition is by no means met. I won't proselytize since you don't want to hear it though.  Suffice it to say that I believe my libertarian cred is safe.


Alright, that's a reasonable thing to say, you feel how you feel and I've no ability or even desire to change it.  But I really just cannot get past an individual with a belief that holds personal freedoms dear, but won't support and would indeed actively oppose the right of an adult woman to decide what she wants to do with her body.  Do Libertarians believe in Right-to-Die?  What about drug legalization?  Gays in the military?  I have to assume the answer must by definition be an absolute Yes, including abortion rights.  And if the answer is not Yes, then no one's "libertarian cred" is safe.  How could it be?








Edited by Atavachron - May 28 2011 at 21:12
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2011 at 21:08
I wonder if it was a threat or a bribe. My gut tells me bribe.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2011 at 21:07
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

Originally posted by Barking Weasel Barking Weasel wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

I just came in here to say RON PAUL RON RAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL.


A good man, but a weak presidential candidate like every other GOP'er.  Nonetheless, he's the only honest Republican Politician out there. 


Fixed.
Now that Russ Feingold has been given the boot I'd agree the Paul's are probably the only honest ones.


Kucinich is pretty honest. Though he was very shady with the health care vote.


Oh thank you! I forgot about him! Sad since he was one of my favorites as well. Embarrassed
I've only come from under my political rock recently, can you enlighten me? I'm not sure what you mean.

I don't remember the exact detail. He wasn't going to vote for it because it didn't include a certain provision(single payer) he deemed necessary. He said he would not vote for it unless that was included time and time again. Obama took him for a ride on Air Force One. He then changed his mind saying that it was better than nothing so what the hell he'd vote for it.


hmm....that is intriguing. Especially after meeting with Obama, have to wonder what he was threatened with? Which is what my gut says.

Kind of like Chris Dodd who argued against a certain measure the SEC put forward, but then put that very thing in the Wall Street reform bill! Supposedly the pressure came from the White House.
Obama is a little more moderate, and iron fisted than many expected!
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Forum Guest Group
Forum Guest Group
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2011 at 21:06
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by Barking Weasel Barking Weasel wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:


Because I believe that a fetus has rights


What kind of rights, exactly?  The right to vote, bear arms, have free speech, and all that? Wink

yerp


Perhaps another thread would suffice for this, but how do you feel about victims of rape/incest getting an abortion?
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2011 at 21:04
Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

Originally posted by Barking Weasel Barking Weasel wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

I just came in here to say RON PAUL RON RAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL.


A good man, but a weak presidential candidate like every other GOP'er.  Nonetheless, he's the only honest Republican Politician out there. 


Fixed.
Now that Russ Feingold has been given the boot I'd agree the Paul's are probably the only honest ones.


Kucinich is pretty honest. Though he was very shady with the health care vote.


Oh thank you! I forgot about him! Sad since he was one of my favorites as well. Embarrassed
I've only come from under my political rock recently, can you enlighten me? I'm not sure what you mean.

I don't remember the exact detail. He wasn't going to vote for it because it didn't include a certain provision(single payer) he deemed necessary. He said he would not vote for it unless that was included time and time again. Obama took him for a ride on Air Force One. He then changed his mind saying that it was better than nothing so what the hell he'd vote for it.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2011 at 21:01
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

Originally posted by Barking Weasel Barking Weasel wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

I just came in here to say RON PAUL RON RAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL.


A good man, but a weak presidential candidate like every other GOP'er.  Nonetheless, he's the only honest Republican Politician out there. 


Fixed.
Now that Russ Feingold has been given the boot I'd agree the Paul's are probably the only honest ones.


Kucinich is pretty honest. Though he was very shady with the health care vote.


Oh thank you! I forgot about him! Sad since he was one of my favorites as well. Embarrassed
I've only come from under my political rock recently, can you enlighten me? I'm not sure what you mean.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 9>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.223 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.