political vent

Topic: political vent (Read 16319 times) previous topic - next topic

political vent

Reply #45 – October 28, 2008, 10:24:45 PM

Quote from: jcassity;240781

this brings me to thunderchicken....
Our bill of rights is perfect in every form and is and will be applicable for infinity if correctly read. Non of thsi "what is meant by natural borne" because our fore fathers assumed we would have common sense. This same thing was tried as well when it was in court about "illegal " alien as our constituion did not define the actual meaning of "Illegal" at that time. How stupid could one be to buy into this propoganda. Our fore fathers assumed again, we know what illegal is. It would even more stupid if our constitution needed a definition for every word used such as "the". Again, our fore fathers assumed smart people can read and define things in a logical debate without over complicating simple stuff.
So,, our constitution is not a rag, nor out dated to say the least. The problem is the lobyists and thier drug deals on capital hill have implanted an illness in the nation that needs a cure. A cure would be to delete lobyists and think tanks wihch would also force the elected officials to make choices based on the very reasons thier heart brought them to politics in the first place.
I know you did not mean anything bad by what you said and your calling the constitution or the bill of rights a rag was just a figure of speach. , atleast i think thats what you meant.

Actually, I didn't call your constitution a rag at all. I was making fun of the people who do, and people on both sides do. Like I said; The left call it an outdated rag when the right is using it to promote their cause (second amendment, f'rinstnace), the right call it a rag when the left is using it to, say, defend the pro choice movement.

I have much respect for the constitution, much like i have much respect for the bible. Where I lose respect is when people twist both documents to push their own agenda. Using my previous examples, the right twists the second amendment to mean that "bear arms" means "own assault rifles". They want the amendment to be very broad in this case, because it suits them (I own hunting rifles and shotguns, lest anyone reading this think I'm totally anti-gun - I'm only using this as an example because it's an easy one). Similarly, the left pushes a broad interpretation of the ninth amendment when talking abortion.

You pretty much summed it up yourself: People nit-pick and second guess even the simplest things (such as the word "the") if there's a chance they can twist the meaning to suit them. Personally, I blame the lawyers.

I do agree with Oldraven on the main topic of this thread, though: Vote for who you think is going to do the best for the country (or the least damage, anyway). Instead of looking for reasons to vote AGAINST candidate A, look for reasons to vote FOR candidate B. I know this is nigh on impossible, since neither candidate gives much reason to vote for them, and the same goes for senators and congressmen as well. All I see on US stations (and I have time shift, so I see all major US networks in all time zones, plus minor networks such as Peachtree) is negative ads. Not a single candidate is saying "Vote for me and I'll do this". Every single ad I've seen is "This is what this guy did. Shame on him." This is true of both democrats and republicans. Absolutely nothing positive.

And they wonder why young voters are turned off. The sad thing is that Canadian politicians, especially the conservative party, have picked up on the negativity tactics (our PM's party campaigned for a month before even releasing its platform, instead focusing on making its competition look bad).

political vent

Reply #46 – October 28, 2008, 10:43:48 PM

Let's be honest. This choice of president won't make much difference. They are both awful. The real problem is with Congress. It's never been this completely, ineptly run.

With commodity prices the way they are (oil, corn, wheat) the turn around will be quick, the economy will grow so that companies are cautiously hiring by next April/May and the new president will take credit, even though his policies won't take effect till late 2009.

political vent

Reply #47 – October 28, 2008, 10:54:14 PM

As for oil prices, I've said it all along: As soon as oil producers start seeing a serious threat to their energy monopolies, the prices would plummet to make those threats go away. No government, left or right, would ever force its people to pay more for energy just to promote alternatives. It would be political suicide to tell people they have to pay $4/gallon for biofuel while petroleum fuel is half the price. This is why it's with mixed feelings that I watch fuel prices plummet. On one hand it's nice to spend less on fuel, but on the other it's disappointing to see alternative energy research dry up because nobody will want it with cheap fuel.

As for OPEC: They were right all along (this is another thing I've argued). There always was plenty of oil on the market. Nobody was in any danger of running out. With the exception of some problems in the southeast after the hurricanes nobody ran out of fuel (and those problems in the southeast were refining issues, not crude shortages). In the 1970's, when they were rationing fuel, there was a real shortage (even if it was for artificial reasons). This time around there wasn't a shortage, there was just a bunch of "get rich quick" investors hoping there would be one. Speculation drove prices up, and the lack of speculation is driving prices down. It was a classic bubble, much the same as the tech bubble and the housing bubble. Normal economic principles did not apply, and when they finally did start applying it was brutal. Those investors who ignored common sense paid dearly.

I liken the oil bubble to an infamous Canadian navy experiment. A newly refitted boat was tested to see how far they could make it list before capsizing it. They pushed it further and further until it finally capsized, taking millions of dollars of brand new equipment with it. Right at dockside, the thing nearly sunk. Not one of the Canadian navy's proudest moments (and there were few proud moments to pick from anyway).

Oil speculators did the same thing. They kept pushing the prices higher and higher, trying to see at what point people would change their behaviour. UP-UP-UP, no reason for it, just raise the price because we can. They finally reached the point where people had enough, and sure enough we changed our behaviour. We drove less, SUV's suffered a mass exodus, we started carpooling, and some of us even resorted to public transportation, or, *GASP*, walking or cycling. The change happened fast - probably faster than any mass change in society's habits in history. Within weeks people all over the world changed. It happened too fast for investors to react. It happened too fast for oil producers to react. It happened too fast for automakers to react. It happened so fast, in fact, that prices actually dropped faster than they went up (and are still dropping, though they'll likely see an occasional bump in the downward spiral).

The stuffed suits on Wall Street are blaming the energy price plummet on a slowing economy. You see it every day on the financial news: "Dow goes up, so oil goes up too because investors think a recovering economy will mean increased demand".

I think it's vice-versa. They pushed us until we wouldn't (or couldn't) pay anymore. Every cent we spent on energy was a cent we couldn't spend on something else (including, in many cases, mortgages - hordes of people had to make the choice between immediate warmth and imminent foreclosure). I also think a recovering economy will not mean significant increases in energy demand. If the financial crisis ended tomorrow there would not be a line-up at Hummer dealerships. When people can afford to buy cars again (or when they can get loans to do so) they're going to buy small ones. No matter how cheap fuel gets in the near future, the general public would buy cars with the thought that current low(er) prices are only temporary (and OPEC, with all its chest puffing, is only serving to cement that thought - who would buy a Suburban right now, with OPEC screaming that they want higher prices?). Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice, shame on us.

That's not saying people will never revert to their old ways. It'll happen, but it won't happen tomorrow. It would take a good decade of cheap fuel before people became complacent again. Just like they did after previous fuel crises.

political vent

Reply #48 – October 28, 2008, 11:11:00 PM

Quote

Let's be honest. This choice of president won't make much difference. They are both awful. The real problem is with Congress. It's never been this completely, ineptly run.

More to the point: it's not really the President alone who decides "everything" in Washington. It's Congress along with the Prez. While the presidential election is obviously very important, what most people are neglecting to realize that there are other important races for Senate this year, across the United States. It is entirely possible to tip the power of both houses of Congress to one side or the other (or split both), and that can either work for the new President, or against.

Back in 1991, when Clinton was running for President, one of his biggest platforms was with health care reform. He wanted to completely overhaul the system to make it more like socialized medicine that many other progressive countries have. Both Bill and Hillary followed up on their campaign promise of pursuing the issue...they did right away, in fact. They and Congress worked for well over a year but, in the end, nobody could agree upon a single plan and the idea had to get shelved. IIRC, the Senate had a Democratic majority but the House was Republican. This was a classic example of how things can get sidelined, depending upon the party affiliation, and which party has control of which part of Congress.

So in my eyes, the candidates can talk/promise all they want until they're blue in the face. Does it really matter? Yes and no. It can, but more often it doesn't mean much unless they have the full backing of both the Senate and the House to pass the bills and make those promises into reality. And that's why people should really be paying more attention to whom they elect to Congress.

However...it's painfully obvious to me that, above and beyond the power play and campaigning, the U.S. is so torn apart in so many places that we must first stop, get our acts together, and begin to heal OURSELVES first. Not only that, we must begin the process of mending our relationships with other nations, ones which are all but irreparably damaged at this point, thanks to the flaming ass monkey currently in office. I've listened to both sides, and both have valid points, with neither one really hitting it out of the park for me. But there is one that will make sure that we begin the process of healing immediately. And that's really the bottom line for me.

political vent

Reply #49 – October 28, 2008, 11:21:53 PM

you and your avatar, Eric. Now I can't get "Bird is the word" out of my head. A pox on your firstborn, you ugly wart on a salamander's tongue!
[/derail]

political vent

Reply #50 – October 28, 2008, 11:55:03 PM

Quote from: shame302;240765

mccain asside, what would be the right reasons to vote for obama? my point on him ans his voters was that most of them dont have a ligit reason or even know why they are going to vote for him.

mccain is barely a republican, there is no real republican running in this race.

im sure we would have to agree that knowbody is going to vote or not vote on how old Bs mom was when she had him HOWEVER, if for any reason he isnt a lagit born in the usa american than that disqualifies him. end of discussion. i dont care if they found out he wasnt one day before the election. if thats the case he should be out. period.

political vent

Reply #51 – October 29, 2008, 03:26:53 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhbH9IYirD0

I'm really not sure if I should vote Bob Barr or write in mickey mouse at this point. RP would have had a decent chance if he would have run 3rd party.

political vent

Reply #52 – October 29, 2008, 08:19:09 AM

Quote

And Demon, if they both have py platforms, at least pick the least py of the two, not the one who dug up more dirt on the other guy.

My point was that just because one person is targeting nonplatform issue of a candidate does not make that candidates platform a good one. I'm not the one nitpicking on birthplaces.....I for one could give a **** where either of them were born.

Truthfully I have issues with some things that BOTH of them have said and wish to implement. The person I wanted to see bowed out a while ago...

As far as picking the least py platform -- well therein lies the biggest problem. Yet another 4 years of settling.

Both speak of change
Change?
Change my ass!

Quote

So in my eyes, the candidates can talk/promise all they want until they're blue in the face. Does it really matter? Yes and no. It can, but more often it doesn't mean much unless they have the full backing of both the Senate and the House to pass the bills and make those promises into reality. And that's why people should really be paying more attention to whom they elect to Congress.

Proof positive as to how something meant for good -- checks and balances -- is ruined by agenda.

political vent

Reply #53 – October 29, 2008, 08:50:06 AM

They should abolish the party system. Partisinship screws up the whole system.

political vent

Reply #54 – October 29, 2008, 09:34:19 AM

QUOTE]
They should abolish the party system. Partisinship screws up the whole system.
[/quote]
well, a dictatorship would be "change", woudnt it?

Quote

The person I wanted to see bowed out a while ago...

i was rooting for romney myself. only one that stood out, that had a chance as well.

in Ma it doesnt matter anyway. the lemmings always vote one way here.

political vent

Reply #55 – October 29, 2008, 02:31:28 PM

Quote

the lemmings always vote one way here

Just like NY.

political vent

Reply #56 – November 01, 2008, 12:17:33 AM

Just an FYI with respect to the original post that started this thread:

Quote

State declares Obama birth certificate genuine

HONOLULU – State officials say there's no doubt Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.

Health Department Director Dr. Chiyome fornicateino said Friday she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate.

fornicateino says that no state official, including Republican Gov. Linda Lingle, ever instructed that Obama's certificate be handled differently.

She says state law bars release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who does not have a tangible interest.

Some Obama critics claim he was not born in the US.

Earlier Friday, a southwest Ohio magistrate rejected a challenge to Obama's citizenship. Judges in Seattle and Philadelphia recently dismissed similar suits.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081031/ap_on_el_pr/obama_birth_certificate

political vent

Reply #57 – November 01, 2008, 12:42:38 AM

So if he was born after August 21,1959 when Hawaii became a state, he is legit.

political vent

Reply #58 – November 01, 2008, 11:18:27 AM

he still sucks though

political vent

Reply #59 – November 01, 2008, 08:22:10 PM

Big tits & lollipops?