The GOP Presidential Race = Reality TV Stars and $
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General discussions
Forum Description: Discuss any topic at all that is not music-related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=78620
Printed Date: February 24 2025 at 01:47
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: The GOP Presidential Race = Reality TV Stars and $
Posted By: cannon
Subject: The GOP Presidential Race = Reality TV Stars and $
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 13:45
|
First it was Donald Trump. Now it's Sarah Palin. These two IMO have no intention of actually running in the GOP presidential campaign. It's all about attention and money. As a Canadian looking from the outside in, this a mockery and a disgrace on what is the Office of the President of the United States.
Do you believe either of these two will actually throw thier name in the race? IMO, Palin and Trump are clowns. It's really hard to believe it's come down to this. What a joke. I say this with disbelief, sadness and anger. How can anyone take these two serious? Does this eradicate or lessen the seriousness of what is the position of the President of the U.S.? I'm not sure what my answer is. What do you think?
|
Replies:
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 13:47
|
Trump, no. Palin, probably. Maybe it's because you're an outsider but I can't say I'm surprised in the least. Clowns? Take them seriously? A disgrace of the office? Yeah, pretty much. Old news. Semi related note: I am finally switching from Democrat to Independent  |
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 13:56
|
Her views represent what I hope is just the radical fringe of our society. I honestly don't believe that she believes that she has any hopes of actually winning, but I think that the hopes are that her views will at least cause the final GOP representative to move from the center to the right on some of these radical policies. But who knows, the people who have her ear may actually have her convinced that she can win. ------------- 
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 13:57
For sure. They are after attention and money. But if you think of it, most politicians are after the latter. And to get it, they need the former. These "celebrity" politicians ar only a little more evident in their ways and intentions. By the way I think anyone can try to be president of the US, there's no need for a "career" politician (which means one with all the dirt of politics already well-learned). ------------- 
|
cannon wrote:Posted By: The T
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 13:57
 -------------
|
Posted By: cannon
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 14:28
|
It seems the US political media has been duped by these two. The NY Times seems to think that Sarah Palin will be jumping in the race.
Sarah Palin is dumb as a fox. I think she's knows she has no chance of winning in either race. She's taking advantage of the situation to get more attention thus making her more money. Why do you think she left her mandate in Alaska as governor half way through? Money.
|
Posted By: manofmystery
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 14:52
|
Trump and Palin are no bigger jokes than Romney, our current president, or any of our recent past presidents. They are all authoritarians. There is only one established candidate out there that gives a damn about abiding by the limited Constitutional authority granted to the President and the powers that be within the republican party will never let his candidacy happen. It's sad to say but too many people desire to regulate how everyone else lives for Ron Paul to ever win. I've been saying this for awhile: Mit Romney (always look for the weak, spineless candidate: republicans think they need them to appeal to "moderates") will win the republican primary ensuring a second term for Obama. -------------  Time always wins. |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 15:03
|
Who is really worse then Mom? Romney or Obama? One being GOP and the other democrat doesn't make the choice for me. Both are bad, horrendous. I think Romney would be even worse. That he might be a little more pro-market doesn't make him more pro-liberty (in fact in personal liberties he might be worse). Who then? -------------
|
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 15:20
The GOP.... ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 15:23
That's the simplest way to put it! Only good thing is, as of right now...polls show Obama V. Palin would deff be a loss for the GOP, and I think he was generally ahead of most. Not that it means much but I am just glad people aren't so pissed at Bama they are willing to turn to the classic GOP!  If the Reps want to win, Ron Paul would be the best choice. He's polling even with Bama and given the anti government sensation...well Paul pretty much made it what it is now. Edit: Though as Anton said, all Republicans are cool with the less taxes and regulation but gay marriage? Drugs? And the military. I hope the Paul's push for drastic defense budget cuts, then see how happy the party is with him. |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 15:27
Well to be fair...she abandoned her state because she was facing a few charges and she gave a passionate speech about how she "didn't want to put the good people of Alaska through that nightmare" and "waste their time and money with it" Very nice eh? And of course technically...whatever she was accused of now goes out the window! Kinda like Jame McGreevy years ago, governor of NJ. He was facing some scandals and then comes out saying he was gay and resigning. This was NJ not Texas...no reason to resign! But whatever trouble he may have gotten in is just speculation now. |
Posted By: timothy leary
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 15:38
| Palin would be no worse than Obama, they are all corporate puppets. I personally think the office of president has become outdated, when it becomes, as it has, a choice between the lesser of two evils, then what is the point. |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 15:44
nono, Palin would be worse  Both parties are corporate puppets but at least one would keep intact our social rights (inb4 all the libertarians say we have none already). And that really has nothing to do with it being outdated, just the field of candidates we have! The office can't help we're stuck with choosing the lesser of 2 evils or writing in a guaranteed loser, that's a bigger flaw with the system. |
Posted By: timothy leary
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 15:49
| We don't need no stinking president |
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 15:50
|
With today's media and internet accessibility the best possible candidates for president will probably never run because of all of the scrutiny and lack of privacy, etc... You basically have to be a media whore and megalomaniac to even consider running for president these days. -------------
|
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 15:50
|
...and be extremely rich. -------------
|
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 15:51
Well the way things are heading we might as well eliminate the government and just have mega businesses run the country, cut the middle man! Oh yeah Scott, I never knew why anyone would..there must be some want to do good and help the country. Why go through the inhuman amount of sh*t they go through? You cheated on a math test in 5th grade!?!? And all the misinformation that millions will blindly believe because they want to. That would drive me the craziest. If someone wants to just rip off the people and lone their pockets why bother with all that? Just stay a representative and line the bills with pork, or become a lobbyist or something! |
Posted By: timothy leary
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 15:52
| and a clown |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 16:00
What's GOP?
"Lobby", "donations", etc... |
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 16:12
-------------
|
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 16:26
|
GOP are the Republicans Alex. The "Grand Old Party" is a nick name that it often goes by. |
Posted By: manofmystery
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 16:43
Oh yeah?
http://reason.com/archives/2011/05/17/obamas-war-on-fun" rel="nofollow - http://reason.com/archives/2011/05/17/obamas-war-on-fun
Neither party gives a sh*t about economic or social rights. It's all about imposing their own morality. ------------- Time always wins. |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 16:44
|
Did you stop reading at the very end of that statement? I already knew your answer and said so inside the ( ) right next to it! You are right though, neither party cares. I guess Obama takes the flak for being the leader, but not like it would've gone differently with McCain. Hell, it may have nothing to do with the Presidency! The smoking bans have been growing for years, even without a word from the guvment it'll be nationwide soon. Even Six Flags and Penn State have smoking bans on their park/campus. Yes, outside you have to smoke in small designated areas. And you can't get anymore local than an amusement park. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 16:52
|
Bill Clinton should just run again and get it over with. Palin no worse than Obama? What planet of infantile blockheads must one come from to believe that? |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 16:54
|
haha! I don't like Clinton, really. Well, kinda sorta. |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 17:05
| Clinton was a good president, he really left a mark. A stain, to be more precise... |
Posted By: timothy leary
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 17:06
|
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 17:09
|
Wise words from our good friend Tim who seems to be anarchist, socialist, liberal, libertarian, hippie and anti hippie all in one! Oh snap Alex! Over a decade later and the joke keeps a coming! Clinton did leave a stain though, thanks to NAFTA! |
Posted By: timothy leary
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 17:12
| I ain't your good friend |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 17:13
True story, I also forgot you are the king of semantics, contentiousness, and being unable to accept things at surface level. A jack of all trades you are my good buddy. |
Posted By: timothy leary
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 17:19
| quite a list for someone who has never met me |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 17:21
Well, all coming from a statement from someone who's never met me amirite? Besides, prove me wrong. At least from your talks here on PA, I have seen you argue pretty much every counter point. Leading me to wonder if you actually have any beliefs or just have to be alternative, so you always just take a counter argument. Or are not quite sure of yourself and attempt to believe everything. Either way whatever |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 17:27
Though nobody could be worse than Palin. Well maybe The Situation. -------------
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 17:31
ooh, sassy ! |
Posted By: timothy leary
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 17:32
|
I believe in my family and I am quite sure of myself, so let me see i am contentious because I respond to some obama fan boy who calls me an infantile blockhead and because I think Palin and Obama are both clowns, I have nothing to prove. I worked hard and am now retired and I putter around the yard and spend time with my family and happen to like good music. Maybe you can tell me what to believe, I'm all ears |
Posted By: cannon
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 18:09
|
I'm somewhat surprised at the responses. As a Canadian who follows US politics quite extensively, I must say I'm kind of dumbfounded by members from the US with thier posts. I thought the office of the president of the US held more respect than what is represented here in this discussion. Have I been that knieve? Astonished.. yes. Ignorant...I guess so.
|
Posted By: manofmystery
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 18:11
|
Everyone seems to have missed the fact that Bill Clinton can't run again. ------------- Time always wins. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 18:18
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 18:21
you're right |
Posted By: manofmystery
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 18:24
I don't believe I showed any disrespect to the office itself in my posts. The individuals who occupy the office are fair game. Especially if the president himself is acting outside his authority and/or is disrespecting the office. ------------- Time always wins. |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 18:54
And why is the office of the president of the US so sacrosanct that we have to apologize for disrespecting it? -------------
|
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 19:26
Cannon, you must have missed something in your US news if you think we respect politicians...
I think a lot of people would prefer a "war on fun" over a "war on homosexuals, women, and the poor". ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 19:38
-------------
|
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 19:45
I was being a tad melodramatic because of the tone of the article mom posted. ;-) And yes, but there are certain targets that groups prefer over others. ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 19:49
Yes, usually the weakest ones  -------------
|
Posted By: zappaholic
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 20:09
Or, as they seem to want to be called, God's Official Party. ------------- "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." -- H.L. Mencken |
Posted By: cannon
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 22:15
I didn't intend for my post above to state that you or anybody has shown disrespect for the office of the president of the US. Maybe respect in the context of observance, reverence, esteem for the office itself, not the person occupying the seat in the office.
I agree the individual should be held in scrutiny. Right or wrong. Unfairly or fairly. That comes with the job.
|
Posted By: The Truth
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 22:36
Well lets look at this OP. Donald Trump isn't running and most conservatives thought he was a joke anyway and Palin hasn't declared she is running (she's to smart to run) and the republican party is pretty split with her. You obviously haven't been watching the polls very much, Mitt Romney is the Republican's favorite and what's wrong with him? (No offensive Morman comments)
I'm not associated with any party really but this thread is really a joke. ------------- http://blindpoetrecords.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow">  
|
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: May 27 2011 at 22:59
Well I don't know about smart, lol, but she's not going to run because she knows she can't win and being a non-Presidential candidate makes her too much money.
He is transparently a man with no principles who will do anything to gain and retain power. And the Massachusetts health care reform he passed will almost certainly sink him with the Republican base, who are most important in the primary. And actually, http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/05/27/rel9a.pdf" rel="nofollow - Giuliani jumped ahead in the most recent CNN poll, although he also cannot win even the primary because he is a repulsive human being. I don't know why he's even talking about running, he spent almost $60 million in 2008 and only got http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/giulianis_59_mi.html" rel="nofollow - one delegate in 2008 . Gingrich is also too flamboyantly terrible of a person to make any headway in the primaries, he's only talking about running for the attention.
The fact that so many people have paid attention to Donald Trump and Sarah Palin for so long is the joke. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/poll-donald-trump-leads-gop-primary-by-wide-margin.php" rel="nofollow - He was leading the polls at one point. ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 00:35
|
actually the word is that though Romney may be the current best Repub nominee (which he isn't, they should get Boener to run, and not just cause it's fun to mispronounce "Boener"), but Romney is not popular at all with the GOP as a candidate |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 05:43
| Palin and "too smart" in the same sentence? |
Posted By: cannon
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 07:42
Actually I have seen many polls. The last poll, which was from a couple of days ago shows Romney at 17% followed by Palin at 15% and the rest of the field in single digits. In my interpretation of the poll is that most people polled aren't happy with any of the candidates/presumed candidates. Very low numbers.
Most Republicans aren't happy with Romney for his health care he instituted in Massachusetts and the fact is he is Mormon. Newt Gingrich blew it in his first week of announcing that he'll be a candidate. Tim Pawlenty has no charisma. Ron Paul actually came in at 10%. He is too far out from the GOP mainstream. John Huntsman is the best candidate I've seen so far but he was the the US ambassador to China under Obama. Look out for him.
I believe Michelle Bachmann will run as she will call Palin's bluff. Similar candidates but Bachmann has an education and is lot brighter than Palin IMO.
Trump was actually leading the field in a poll about a month ago. Now that's a joke.
Palin isn't going to run. She loves being rich and she needs more cash as this bus tour is all about money. Fox news has cut all thier political pundits who are running for president. Sarah Palin has not been let go from the Fox news stable. That has to be the biggest clue to why she won't be running.
In summary, the GOP field is a joke. IMO there is no one who can challenge Obama. If I was an American I sure would be disappointed in these candidates.
Maybe you should go back to my original post and reread the question.
 |
Posted By: manofmystery
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 14:07
Ron Paul clearly could (Rasmussen had them polling almost even) but, as I said before, he won't make it through the primary stage, sadly.
Yes, all but 1 candidate ------------- Time always wins. |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 15:19
|
I just came in here to say RON PAUL RON RAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL. And to lol at the president being respected. I would spit on each and every president we've had since Coolidge if I had to displeasure to be in their presence. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Proletariat
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 15:39
|
Until we have a viable third party no election will matter in the slightest. the dems and reps have entrenched themselves so deeply into the fabric of our laws and culture that we are blinded to the fact that neither adiquately represents anyone. The major points of contention in the primaries is simply who will best pull the party line and the race itself comes down to who is nicer.
Sure politics in countries with many parities and coalitions can be messy but it does provide for a better representation of the public, wich is a necessity in any democracy or republic. ------------- who hiccuped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob |
Posted By: cannon
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 16:18
Do you think there is room for a third party in the US?
Here in Canada we have three major national parties though one of them took a beating in the last election. We have a green party which finally won thier first seat in parliament though thier vote% went down. The separatist party from Quebec went from 50 some seats to 2 and lost its official party status. Quebec has been holding the rest of the country hostage for 50 years. Maybe separatism has finally eroded.
From what I've seen in US politics is that in both presidential primaries both parties run on policies that appeal to thier base but when it comes down to the general election both move to the center to try and capture the independent voters. With that it seems like there is no room for a new party to come up the middle(?).
I shouldn't have written off Ron Paul. He might be the man to straighten out the ship with some of his policies. Some are very common sence well others seem radical IMO.
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 16:47
my guess is you'd be spitting on him too after three years |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 16:49
My guess is absolutely not. If he were to be corrupted, it would have taken place already probably. The man hasn't cast a wrong vote as a Congressman yet. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Proletariat
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 16:52
atleast in canida the quebecois can even contemplate sepretism, in the US our states rights have eroded to the point where anyone who even mentions the subject would be considered insane and down right criminal, witch is rediculous as the USA was founded on seperatism and several of our states have been independant nations in the past. ------------- who hiccuped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob |
Posted By: Proletariat
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 16:55
------------- who hiccuped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 17:24
f**k the office of the president of any country. They're just glorified administrators given too much power... -------------
|
Posted By: cannon
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 17:39
Here in Canada we have the Official Party Status both on the federal level as well as provincially. On the federal level a party needs 12 seats to have that recognition to be able to have funding. So with that the Quebec separatist party, The Bloc Quebecois has lost its federal funding with only 2 seats. Will that be the end of the separatist movement in Quebec? It will probably rise again as it seems to be a trend over the last 50 years.
Our last election which was May 13th. saw the Conservative party win a majority as they had been in minority for the last 5 years. Our Conservative party was almost extint some 20 years ago as it was deomolished in 1993 and only got 2 seats. The party dissolved and then united with the Canadian Alliance(formerly the Reform Party of Canada) party to become the Conservative party of Canada.
The Liberal party has been basically our ruling government here for decades but in the last election won only 34 seats and are now in the rebuiling mode as was the Conservative party 10 years ago. So at least here in Canada there is the oppurtunity for a party to organise and rise to power ina relative short time.
Basically in Quebec it was a protest vote against the separatist party as the New Deomcrat Party(NDP) won the most seats in Quebec which one would of never thought to be case as now they(NDP) are our official opposition. Once known as a socialist party but they have come more center.
That is one of the biggest differences I see between your two parties is that of thier religious and moral views. The GOP being very conservative(not like our Conservative party) and dominated by the evangelical christians and thier beliefs and intolerances. Religion is almost irrelevent here in Canadian politics. The other main difference I see is that of fiscal responsibility, generally.
I think Washington is much more lobby dominated than our national capital, Ottawa. Big money has a lot more power there than it does here.
Anyway, basically alot of decisions made in Washington effect us here in Canada as we're the biggest trading partners in the world (China will change that in short time).
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 17:44
But isn't part of being president compromising some of one's ideals so that you can effectively govern a country as huge and diverse as the US? It's not a matter of age, or of principles for that matter, but rather leadership and good judgment that makes an effective American President. We might all be eating German food right now if Roosevelt and Eisenhower had not been so good at building coalitions and rejecting the Pax Americana that so many of his (and Kennedy's) generals wanted in Europe. Ideals are wonderful things until you actually are in charge, then the reality of governance begins to sink in and you have to consider all perspectives or risk losing the whole thing. That's what being in charge is, and it's no love fest. |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 17:55
I would have really had doubts about coming to live in the US if all you could eat here was sauerkraut... -------------
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 17:57
|
On a more serious note, candidates start comprimising much earlier, way before they even reach the oval office. Power corrupts, yes, and the expectancy of power corrupts too. Paul hasn't compromised, that's why, probably, he'll never be president. -------------
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 17:59
|
Well then there you have it-- no compromise, no movement forward |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 18:03
|
I'm not sure what of what has happened lately qualifies as movement forward... -------------
|
Posted By: manofmystery
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 18:47
The ideals of liberty do not need to be compromised. A president is meant to defend the liberties granted by the constitution. It's a cut and dry job. Being "in charge" of the United States has nothing to do with bending to the whim of majority or minority but denying each power to protect the rights of both. ------------- Time always wins. |
Posted By: timothy leary
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 18:55
|
bunch of clowns are going to waste a bunch of money campaigning (lying) to unseat a clown who told a bunch of lies(campaigning)which he has never fulfilled. To take the nobel peace prize was the height of arrogance. There is not anyone who can convince me that the leadership of America has not devolved to clowns. The wives are clownesses. The present first lady wants to tell America how to eat right. We don't all have chefs and a carte blanche pantry at home. Bozo would be proud. |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 19:04
-------------
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 19:08
in other words a kind of compromise |
Posted By: manofmystery
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 19:37
Actually, it's the opposite. ------------- Time always wins. |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 19:44
I'm sure the Japanese and Americans who looked Japanese were very happy with how "effective" Truman and FDR were. Yeah no. The idea isn't to compromise. The idea isn't even to govern. The idea is to do as little as possible. That's the express duty of the President. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 19:48
so you would elect Ron Paul to do as little as possible |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 19:51
I would elect to him correct the actions of Presidents who did not do as little as possible. Once he undoes what others have done in place of doing as little as possible, Ron could then return to being an inconsequential piece of the political machine as the president is supposed to be. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 19:56
|
I see. |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 19:59
|
You indignant responses are quite strange given that my opinion of the presidency is clearly expressed in the Constitution. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 20:04
|
Indignant? 'I see' is indignant? Seems to me you're calling the kettle black ; in·dig·nant adj angry or annoyed at the unfairness or unreasonableness of somebody or something |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 20:09
|
Your responses certainly seemed to be indicating annoyance to me. I see isn't a typical response. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 20:13
|
No I'm not annoyed at you at all, I'm not even annoyed at your position, just trying to fully understand it which I believe is crucial to political progress |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 20:14
|
I've misunderstood you then. I fully apologize. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 20:21
|
I do love a good argument, and I the current ultra-Constitutionalist position does seem to be platform for, or attract, a general social-political ideal I do not like, ie Judge Napolitano or Glen Beck, but on the other hand I also very much like the Libertarian position of real freedom, as allowing both abortion and handgun rights |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 20:24
|
What's wrong with Napolitano? He's quite the opposite of Beck. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 20:27
To be fair, a long time libertarian friend of mine always tried to tell me that it is the final form of political progress. Like, you go through the stages of your country and eventually once the people can handle it...you're down to minimal government. Nice and idealist, and in a way something I can't argue with... but it raises a few issues. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 20:28
|
yeah I guess Nap is okay, assuming he supports a woman's right to choose, which I don't if he does or not-- I would hope he does, but I don't know |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 20:29
He does. But he doesn't support abortion. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 20:30
|
in other words he supports current law but would oppose the practice it if he could legally |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 20:34
Well his exact position is that it is up to the States to allow or disallow abortion, and that abortion should be disallowed by the States. I was disagreeing with your choice of words. Pro-abortion people call it pro-choice to try to label those who oppose it as being against a women's rights. Anti-abortion people call it pro-life to make everyone else seem like murderers. The issue isn't that clear. We don't need to smear both sides of the debate through subtle word play. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 20:34
One of the best things I've seen about the debate! |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 20:36
|
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? |
Posted By: CCVP
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 20:37
|
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. . . . -------------   
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 20:38
No I don't. If you could convince me otherwise I'd be happy to change my mind though. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 20:39
Yeah that hasn't happened here. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 20:40
|
Well the wealth is not new Caio. Certainly before the 80's! You need to be wealthy to be involved. As for celebs, yeah that is kind of new and horrifying, but in a way it has also always been about the show. I saw this comedian who said in the US we pretty much elect on "star f**king" even back to the early days it was about shallow and opinion over truth! But that's probably the case with most countries, I'd be willing to bet. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 20:46
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. |
Posted By: CCVP
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 20:46
The governator would like to differ.
What I mean is that this political cicle that you and me are living have its origin in different periods. In the US that can be traced back to the 80's, maked by the lection of the actor Ronal Regan as the president of the nation. Here, it has started in the first half of the decade, but it only took form in the 2004/2006 elections. -------------
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 20:47
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? ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 20:48
Someone being famous does not imply they were elected because they were famous. Jesse Ventura certainly wasn't elected because he pinned Hulk Hogan. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: CCVP
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 20:50
using an exception as the rule really works when making a point . . . -------------
|
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: May 28 2011 at 20:51
|
Yeah...you mean the literal celebs that are running for office? Not really an issue, I mean Reagan, the Governator, Ventura, Al Franken. Maybe a few others but out of the 535 people in Congress, the President, Governors, local figures...it's a small % I thought you meant we elect people more on "likes" than beliefs and what they do, which most countries do I am sure  |