USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

You can talk about anything here

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
Cyclohexane
Honorary Officer
Posts: 384
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Houston, Texas
Contact:

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by Cyclohexane »

[quote=""KingKaramazov""]Like I said, I want the laws I am forced to follow to be based upon logic and philosophical reasoning, not upon religious beliefs. If you can give me objective reasoning why a law should be passed, then I will listen to you. But if you say that your religious beliefs tell you that something should be legal or illegal, then I stop listening.

I'm not religious, and I don't think my actions should necessarily be dictated by religious ideals that I don't subscribe to. That's just a back-handed way to try to push your religion on me. I respect your right to believe what you do, but give me some objective reason why this law should be passed for the benefit of society or I don't recognize your right to push your ideals onto my life, or onto anybody else's life. [/quote]

I’m an engineer and scientist by profession. I also read the bible and can tell you first hand that it is full of logic and philosophical reasoning. "If you hear a man rail at the Bible, you can usually conclude that he never reads it." - Charles Spurgeon.

Please read my previous posts completely before replying, you will see that the laws you have lived by your entire life were created by Christians. The very basis of the most powerful nation on Earth, was created by Christians. There are a lot of counties that have laws without morals and guess what, you see many of their former citizens over here. Refusing to accept historical fact is an option, but that does not make it true.

Is it just a coincidence that when we start deviating from these laws that we see more and more problems in society? You can draw many parallels with the fall of Rome with what is currently going on in America (illegal immigration, playing police officer with the world, homosexuality as an accepted way of life, over spending, infanticide (i.e. abortion), etc. etc.). Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.


[quote=""KingKaramazov""]Homosexuals are people, too, and as I said before, they don't choose to be homosexual.
….
If you remove yourself, your religious beliefs, and your heterosexual biases from the argument, I think you may find that there really is no good reason why homosexuals don't deserve the same rights and recognition as anybody else. [/quote]

Homosexuality is not a race and should not be treated as one with special laws for one type of deviant behavior so no one is offended. I say deviant because it is not the norm, not in humans or in animals. Homosexuality is a choice, just like heterosexuality or abstinence.

I’m going to have to ask you to take your own advice and remove your own beliefs and biases because you obviously did not read my entire post. I never said homosexuals are not human and homosexuality is not natural. The very fact that animals turn to homosexual behavior in the absence of a female leads me to believe this. What I said was do not turn the family institution into an unnatural thing. Love is one thing, but making a baby is impossible between two males or two females, hence having a baby in this environment is unnatural. Using the same reasoning that homosexual behavior is natural in animals, I’ll use it to prove my point, you do not see homosexual animals raising offspring.



[quote=""KingKaramazov""]I think the life of somebody who is actually living and who has an established life is more important than the life of a little sea monkey living inside a person's womb. [/quote]

That is still rationalization to justify a horrible practice except now you are providing opinion rather than fact. Why is the mother’s life more important? There is no fact that proves that statement. It is my opinion that people selfish enough to kill unborn offspring because their life will change are less important than the baby. I think error on the side of conservatism is a safe bet. Not everyone that grows up in poor / abusive homes prefers death! There were children still being born during the Great Depression, you are a testament to that.

To give you some background where I’m coming from, I feel the life of my kids is more important than mine and would never hesitate to give mine up if the unfortunate opportunity presented itself. Here is a hypothetical question, what if Albert Einstein, the father of Physics was aborted? His family was poor. You can replace Albert Einstein with anyone of your role models that grew up in a less fortunate family.

Wealth is not a measure of how much money you have. A child is the greatest treasure you can possibly imagine. Until you have some of your own, you cannot possibly understand this. Just like I cannot possibly understand what it is like to have a baby inside me but I do understand what it is like to lose one. Do you?


[quote=""KingKaramazov""]As for Ron Paul, like I said before, his ideas are nice but there's no way that he would be able to get support for any of them with the Congress if he were to be elected. We have to think realistically.[/quote]

I’ll agree to disagree here. A good leader pi$$es people off. “A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus.” - Martin Luther King Jr.





[quote=""I__CHAOS__I""]my opinion about abortion (and similar moral items like euthanasia) is that you cannot have a single law to cover it all. There are just too many different situations, I would even say that each case is different and should be treated accordingly. What if the mother is in high danger of losing her life? What if they know that the unborn kind will die shortly after birth while living in pain? This is not a black/white item, and whatever law is used, it should reflect that.[/quote]

I agree this is grey when the mother can die, there are exceptions to most rules but there are such things as cesarean operations. The percentage of woman dieing in American hospitals during child birth is extremely low. Are we to make laws catering to every situation or just outlaw infanticide? But as far as pain goes after birth, what if the abortion itself involves horrible excruciating pain? I mean think about it, your limbs are being ripped from your body. Ohh, I forgot, fish do not have any feelings.
Last edited by Cyclohexane on Sat Feb 09, 2008 12:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
Lead, Follow, or Get the Hell out of the way!

QUICK REFERENCE GUIDE & AOE3 TWC TAD UNIT COMPARISON: AOE3 TWC TAD Quick Reference & AOE3 TWC TAD UNIT COMPARISON

User avatar
RascalJones
N3O Member
N3O Member
Posts: 1275
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:22 am
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Contact:

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by RascalJones »

Cyclo, were you on the debate team?

User avatar
Cyclohexane
Honorary Officer
Posts: 384
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Houston, Texas
Contact:

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by Cyclohexane »

[quote=""RascalJones""]Cyclo, were you on the debate team?[/quote]

lol,
I listen to a lot of conservative radio and my parents are liberals (x-hippies). Believe it or not, I love to listen to both sides of an argument and then draw my conclusions. I just happen to have had this conversation before...

Dam, I just used up my lunch hour.
Lead, Follow, or Get the Hell out of the way!

QUICK REFERENCE GUIDE & AOE3 TWC TAD UNIT COMPARISON: AOE3 TWC TAD Quick Reference & AOE3 TWC TAD UNIT COMPARISON

KingKaramazov
Brigadier
Brigadier
Posts: 1216
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 12:12 pm
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by KingKaramazov »

Cyclo, in regards to Ron Paul, even if he became President, without some kind of support in congress, he wouldn't be able to get even half of the things done that he wants to. That's what I mean when I say he needs to be able to garner support. I just don't see him being able to do it. Anyways, he doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of being nominated at this point, so it's a moot point.



I've read a lot of the Bible, and I'm currently in a theology class. I realize that many of the laws in our society are based on Christian beliefs. I'm not saying that everything in the Bible is necessarily illogical or not worth following. My point is simply that we should come to conclusions regarding legislation on our own, based on our own logical and philosophical beliefs, a law should never be made simply because a particular religion tells us that it should be so.

It's not enough to just believe in something, you have to constantly ask yourself why you believe something, why it makes sense to you. Do we need the Bible or any other religion to tell us that there should be a law that makes murder illegal? No. It's something that is clearly required to maintain a stable society.

I'm sure many people in Muslim countries feel that their laws are logical and everything even though many of their laws are oppressive towards women - laws made based on Islamic teachings.

If the Bible told you that playing video games was a sin, would you advocate the passing of a law to ban video games? I hope not - because from personal experience you know that video games are not bad. Obviously, the Bible doesn't have anything quite so ridiculous in it, but I hope you see my point.




In regards to homosexuals, I'll say again. If you can give me proof that a child raised by homosexual parents is in some way disadvantaged compared to a child raised by heterosexual parents, I'll consider where you're coming from. Without some kind of proof, all I see is an argument based on your disagreement with a particular lifestyle, which is a result of your heterosexuality and your religious beliefs. What makes homosexuals bad parents? Would you rather give an orphan to an irresponsible heterosexual couple with little means or stability, or to a responsible, loving homosexual couple with stable jobs? Trust me, I find the idea of a child growing up with two fathers or two mothers weird as well, but I have to ask myself why I think that it couldn't work out just fine, and I find that I have no good answer to that question. Therefore, I can't oppose it.

"Homosexuality is a choice, just like heterosexuality or abstinence."
You have a wife, right? Did you choose whether to love her or not? If somebody told you that loving her was wrong, and you shouldn't have chosen to love her, what would you say?

Forget, for a moment, that heterosexuality is considered normal. Remember that when people argue against homosexuality they aren't just telling homosexuals that they can't have sex and that it is wrong for them to do so - they're telling homosexuals that the love they feel for each other is wrong, and that it is a choice that they should be able to control.

Most arguments I hear against homosexuality are revealed as bigotry by the mere fact that heterosexuals treat homosexuality as a form of sexual deviance, as some sort of weird sexual fetish, as if homosexuals don't actually love each other in the same way that heterosexual people love each other.

Do I find the idea of homosexual people having sex weird and unsettling? Yes. But that's because I'm a heterosexual. I can't understand loving another guy. But to them, loving a person of the opposite sex is what's weird.

You mentioned Rome. Homosexuality wasn't just an accepted way of life before Rome fell. It had been accepted for many hundreds of years, going all the way back to Ancient Greece. Are you going to tell me that Athenian or Spartan society fell apart because of moral deviance related to homosexuality? Some of the greatest Greek philosophers and moral teachers, like Socrates, were homosexual or bisexual. Are you telling me Socrates was immoral and depraved?
"Why are some people all grasshopper fiddlings, scrappings, all antennae shivering, one big ganglion eternally knotting, slip-knotting, square-knotting themselves?  They stoke a furnace all their lives, sweat their lips, shine their ey

User avatar
Tatltael
Major
Major
Posts: 387
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 9:28 am

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by Tatltael »

Getting in on the forum discussions!

I would much rather vote for the candidate that was raised by his grandparents and delved into drug experimentation as a kid (Obama), rather that psycho-***** Clinton with her weak follow-through with socialized health policies. And also, if Hillary grabs the White House then thats just another 4 years of Bill. Not that Bill was bad at being a president, he screwed around the office but his economic plans were brilliant, and they all worked. Kennedy once said; "If i dont have at least one strange piece of ass a day; ill get a headache."

Mccain is okay, his nominal stance is Republican but hes very liberal, although i would be afraid that shortly reaching office he would have a stroke and that would be it.

For me its vote Obama, besides the whole idea concept of giving money to the rich and letting it trickle down to the poor is B.S. It just makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.

User avatar
RascalJones
N3O Member
N3O Member
Posts: 1275
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:22 am
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Contact:

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by RascalJones »

Which economic plans? The ones that Enron and the likes get away with hoarding money, faking their financial records, and eventually going bankrupt and screwing over the employees that made the owners rich?

Yeah, good plans.

User avatar
Cyclohexane
Honorary Officer
Posts: 384
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Houston, Texas
Contact:

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by Cyclohexane »

[quote=""KingKaramazov""]In regards to homosexuals, I'll say again. If you can give me proof that a child raised by homosexual parents is in some way disadvantaged compared to a child raised by heterosexual parents, I'll consider where you're coming from. Without some kind of proof, all I see is an argument based on your disagreement with a particular lifestyle, which is a result of your heterosexuality and your religious beliefs. What makes homosexuals bad parents? Would you rather give an orphan to an irresponsible heterosexual couple with little means or stability, or to a responsible, loving homosexual couple with stable jobs? Trust me, I find the idea of a child growing up with two fathers or two mothers weird as well, but I have to ask myself why I think that it couldn't work out just fine, and I find that I have no good answer to that question. Therefore, I can't oppose it.[/quote]

Can you prove they will be better? I’m going to have to error on the side of conservatism. I do not think it is fair to ruin a few kids lives and warp their understanding of sexual relations to test if homosexuals do or do not damage the institute of the family.


[quote=""KingKaramazov""]You have a wife, right? Did you choose whether to love her or not? If somebody told you that loving her was wrong, and you shouldn't have chosen to love her, what would you say? [/quote]

That was my point, it is a choice. As far as *** marriage goes, or men falling in love with each other, let them marry, everyone deserves the right to be miserable :) but I cannot agree to let an innocent child to be involved. It is funny that I am now the bad guy and the bigot because I believe this unnatural union is a positive environment for a child.

Your environment as well as your genes come into play as you enter adulthood. The youth is being deceived into thinking it is cool and acceptable when missing out on a truly beautiful relationship the way it was designed. From a purely human existence point of view, with no bias or prejudice, is sex not designed around procreation and the continuation of the species? It is by design, not a fluke of nature. How can you possibly fail to recognize that there would be no life if everyone was a homosexual? It is unnatural in the continuation of our species.

If you’re going to repeat the same argument, read my example above of the homosexual animals. I agree some people are more inclined to become homosexual but it is still an active choice and following that path will leave you without an heir. By introducing this behavior to children you are poisoning their chances of leaving behind an heir as well.


[quote=""KingKaramazov""]You mentioned Rome. Homosexuality wasn't just an accepted way of life before Rome fell. It had been accepted for many hundreds of years, going all the way back to Ancient Greece. Are you going to tell me that Athenian or Spartan society fell apart because of moral deviance related to homosexuality? Some of the greatest Greek philosophers and moral teachers, like Socrates, were homosexual or bisexual. Are you telling me Socrates was immoral and depraved?[/quote]

Attitudes of Romans towards homosexuality changed over the time ranging from condemnation to acceptance (Greece fell because Rome consumed them). Of course I am not trying to say Rome fell as a direct result of homosexuality. It was a combination of many different issues, moral issues and corruption in politics are but a few. Of course the country going broke with many enemies is the main cause. I find it fascinating the similarities of Roman and our current American culture. These similarities cannot be denied.

As far as Socrates, Shakespeare, etc. goes, I cannot say anything about their morals because I do not know. The Wizard in The Lord of The Rings is *** but I love that movie. I think he is a great actor but that does that mean I would want him raising my kids? You seem to think I am attacking homosexuals but I am not. Once homosexuals can procreate, then they can raise children. Until then, the answer is no.






[quote=""RascalJones""]Which economic plans? The ones that Enron and the likes get away with hoarding money, faking their financial records, and eventually going bankrupt and screwing over the employees that made the owners rich?

Yeah, good plans.[/quote]

Well, Clinton did advocate outsourcing as a budget-balancing tool urging the farming out of common computing tasks. He recognized that efficiency in government meant a lower burden on the taxpayer and that private firms can provide a service at a lower cost with higher quality than the government. If you hate outsourcing, well you should hate Clinton as well since he really set the ball in motion but much of what you hear about outsourcing is a myth. Outsourcing has been a positive for the American economy and part of the reason we currently have an approximate 5% unemployment rate (better then the majority of the developed world). I know, it is counter intuitive but outsourcing makes the rich and the poor richer.

There are so many examples of failed policies of presidents on both sides I’m not going to just bash Clinton, Republicans have been just as bad as of late (hence the huge recent swing to Democrat in the house and senate). I will give him credit for creating a balanced budget but the economy was already booming when he entered office due to tax cuts which allowed business to boom. The economy was already in a rebound before he stepped into office but he did not destroy the economy (i.e. Bush 2) by any stretch of the imagination. The only problem I have with Clinton supporters is that they just want to see what they want to see. The fact is, he was just as bad as Bush but Bush is not even half as charismatic. Taken from here:
Sierra Club President David Brower wrote, "President Clinton has done more to harm the environment and to weaken environmental regulations in three years than presidents Bush and Reagan did in 12 years."

• Clinton ended the ban on production and importation of PCBs
• Stopped the phase out of Methyl Bromide (a toxic pesticide and ozone layer depleter)
• Supported the weakening of the safe drinking water act (by allowing increased levels of arsenic and lead in drinking water)
• Signed the Salvage Rider law (which cut down thousands of acres of healthy forests)
• Signed the Panama declaration (which weakened protection for marine mammals including dolphins and whales)
• Supported international distribution of Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone
• Supported mountain top removal strip mining
• Continued subsidizing the sugar industry in Florida (which poisons the Everglades & diverts water away from wildlife that needs it)
• Lowered grazing fees on public land
• Supported the World Trade Organization (WTO), which weakened or removed environmental protections, including the weakening of the clean air act and the removal of part of the Endangered Species act's protection of sea turtles.


They do not call him Slick Willie for nothing. He definitely gave a new definition to the word “is”. You think he will lie to his wife and under oath but not to the American public? Come on now.


[quote=""Tatltael""]

For me its vote Obama, besides the whole idea concept of giving money to the rich and letting it trickle down to the poor is B.S. It just makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.[/quote]

I’m still waiting for justification on why voting for Obama is a good idea. I keep hearing how great a man he is, and I agree he is an excellent public speaker and has a few qualities that I respect, but I have yet to see any justification as to why he should earn my vote.

The rich richer and poor poorer way of thinking is a myth. America has a very healthy middle class. What do you think is going to happen when the Democrats squeeze the belt with higher taxes? Companies are going to have to lay off hard working middle class Americans to keep their profits up. Is that a bad thing? Am I to feel guilty for a company taking care of it’s share holders and staying competitive in a world market. Look, I’m not an advocate for corporations but raising taxes now will increase the unemployment rate. This will then proceed to provide more welfare type services, which then leads to more tax increases. Guess what, if a company cannot operate profitably due to tight governmental restrictions, they are going to do one of two things: 1.) leave, or 2.) go out of business. Both are bad for Americans.

The majority of wealthy Americans earned their money. Why should “rich” people give their money to people whom many of which just made a series of unfortunate life choices. This reminds me of the serious sub-prime montage issues currently going on. People were buying homes without down payments and without doing the research first and being surprised when the electric bill, gas bill, and property taxes increased. Then they want the government to bail them out. Well guess what, the government money is my money and I have been pinching and saving ever since I got out of college to buy a home. I have been sacrificed the new toys and saving and doing things right, not jumping into something I cannot afford. Now I am going to be punished by my tax money going to people that made bad decisions and the value of the dollar decreased because of lower interest rates when I could have just been reckless myself. We’ve all paid the stupid tax before because of bad decisions. The government role is not to bail us out of our own stupidity, it is to enforce laws and keep us safe from outside enemies.

I grew up in a very moderate middle income family struggling for everything but able to eat and a place to lay my head. I didn’t have the nice toys the other kids did and my father drove a piece of crap car his entire life and made many sacrifices to ensure we could continue our education. Now am I to honor those sacrifices by not being able to afford my own children’s higher education so I can bail out someone I do not know that possibly never took the time to plan for the future?

Why should money not trickle down? Is it supposed to trickle up? I am comfortable but I’m not rich by any means. I never ask for anything that I did not earn, and if I earn it, I don’t ask, I demand it. I asked this question earlier so I take it you did not read the entire thread: Have you ever worked for a poor man? If you did, did he pay you? Last I remember, this is a capitalistic society, not communism. Communism looks great on paper but once people figure out that they get paid the same regardless of how hard they work, guess what happens? It is still possible in America to start at the bottom and end on the top (and vice versa).

I work hard for my money and I do not like forced charity. That does not believe I do not believe in charity, I actually refuse to pay for online multiplayer video games (i.e. WoW) because I feel the money can be better sent on people that need to eat. However the charities I donate to are not governmental bureaucracies that cannot even balance a budget correctly. I make sure the charities I donate to are very well organized and do not blow the money on advertising or executives.
Lead, Follow, or Get the Hell out of the way!

QUICK REFERENCE GUIDE & AOE3 TWC TAD UNIT COMPARISON: AOE3 TWC TAD Quick Reference & AOE3 TWC TAD UNIT COMPARISON

User avatar
Tatltael
Major
Major
Posts: 387
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 9:28 am

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by Tatltael »

"Why should money not trickle down? Is it supposed to trickle up?"

Haha that made me laugh. Well, yes in some cases there are self-made billionaires self made millionaires- whatever. But, you must admit that there is something very sick about Bill Gates being worth $50 billion and Native Americans on reservations drinking themselves to death due to poverty, or people in Peru running around in their slum type things.

But, i think we are thinking of two very different kinds of rich, rich playing off of poor suckers and rich being honest in business dealings. I haven't much to add to your argument at the moment, hehe.

KingKaramazov
Brigadier
Brigadier
Posts: 1216
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 12:12 pm
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by KingKaramazov »

Cyclo, I didn't mean to single you out. I was really arguing against the majority of the arguments and attitudes I've encountered regarding homosexuality and homosexual marriage.

I stand by my statement that unless there is proof that homosexual parents are not as good at raising children as heterosexual parents, I will give people the benefit of the doubt.

I think we should worry about the nature of the character of adoptive parents, their job and criminal history, how responsible and loving they are, etc as opposed to worrying about their sexual preference.



In regards to fiscal policy and taxes, I think the sad truth is that the government needs to consider both raising taxes for certain income brackets as well as cutting their spending. Doing that, in addition to taking a serious look at our horribly wasteful government health care systems (Medicare / Medicaid) and our Social Security system, both of which are going to be running serious deficits in the near future, is absolutely necessary. Our country's deficits are its biggest problem right now, and there doesn't seem to be much political will to properly address them.
"Why are some people all grasshopper fiddlings, scrappings, all antennae shivering, one big ganglion eternally knotting, slip-knotting, square-knotting themselves?  They stoke a furnace all their lives, sweat their lips, shine their ey

User avatar
I__CHAOS__I
Honorary Member
Honorary Member
Posts: 3007
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 12:55 am
Location: ??

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by I__CHAOS__I »

[quote=""KingKaramazov""]Cyclo, I didn't mean to single you out. I was really arguing against the majority of the arguments and attitudes I've encountered regarding homosexuality and homosexual marriage.

I stand by my statement that unless there is proof that homosexual parents are not as good at raising children as heterosexual parents, I will give people the benefit of the doubt.
[/quote]

I completely agree with KK here. And it's strange to worry about the few kids that might get into that situation, while thousands are dealing with screwed up situations caused by divorce.
There is nothing wrong with the education imho as long as the "parents" love each other AND the kid.
Image
Wisdom is the supreme part of happiness. - Sophocles
Happiness belongs to the self-sufficient. - Aristotle

User avatar
Sporting_Lisbon
N3O Officer
N3O Officer
Posts: 5276
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 3:18 pm
Location: Lisboa

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by Sporting_Lisbon »

KingKaramazov wrote:
Cyclo, I didn't mean to single you out. I was really arguing against the majority of the arguments and attitudes I've encountered regarding homosexuality and homosexual marriage.

I stand by my statement that unless there is proof that homosexual parents are not as good at raising children as heterosexual parents, I will give people the benefit of the doubt.

I completely agree with KK here. And it's strange to worry about the few kids that might get into that situation, while thousands are dealing with screwed up situations caused by divorce.
There is nothing wrong with the education imho as long as the "parents" love each other AND the kid.
I don't know about you guys but I wouldn't like to be raised by homosexual parents. Again, why wouldn't the kid be able to have heterosexual parents like the other kids? We don't know how can that affect him.

And about divorcing, can't homosexual parents divorce as well? That doesn't have much to do with the case.


As, you Cyclo asked, don't get too disappointed with my view, I don't know much about American politics, I'll still give you my view.


About picking Obama, I see you guys are very much into politics while I'm not, but as an outsider I didn't like Bush' presidency at all. War at Afghanistan, invasion of Iraq, Kyoto and not caring at all with ecological issues. I think (think, because I'm not sure nor into this issues so don't you all fall on me) the republicans care less for the environment than democrats and they have a more opportunist and capitalistic view of the world. Therefore I'd cheer for democrats. There's something about Hillary Clinton that I don't like, she seems a bit false in her speeches. I like Obama's image and they way he talks (Again, I'm totally out of this matter, and my judges are just general and not based on anything). I'd also like to see a black US president.

So that's my view as an outsider and not knowing much or anything about this matter, which was why I didn't give much of an opinion on the first post.

Yet, if I was American, I'd vote for the republicans, because I think capitalism is better than socialism for the country.


I'm gonna leave you guys debating this cause it seems that it isn't right for me to participate in this while this is so important for you americans (hence the Dangerous Territory on topic title) and I know not much about the politics of each candidate. Hf

Quoting Lazy, Out

User avatar
LaZy
Honorary Officer
Posts: 2444
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 3:44 am
Location: Ferragudo Portugal
Contact:

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by LaZy »

Im just glad that there r still some mature US citizens (like cyclo) that are kean and eager to follow these elections.

As a European I hope and pray that the next US president is more caring about the US economy then searching for WMD´s. I hope he/she will respect the UN (which is a huge mess by itself anyways) more then the current liar. I hope the next president actually wins this election unlike the Florida fiasco we all remember. Hope the next US president thinks of the Kioto Treaty as not just a strangulation of industrial economy. I hope the next president isnt manipulated by evil doers like Mrs Rice, Mr Chenney or the horrible D Rumsfeld who have done nothing other then enrich their own companies of which they are CEO´s. I hope the next US president doesnt invade a country just because daddy couldnt finish it off 10 years earlier.

As a citiezen of this global village we now call Earth, I hope the next US president takes on a diferent position and approach regarding problems like: Israel and Palestine; the untold horrors going on in Saudi Arabia; takes Iran and the Nuke seriously;stops turning its back onto Africa; advances with regard to the Cuban situation, Columbian situation, Venezualean situation, Argentianean situation, Chilean situation; the onslaught in Dafur; the continous crimes against humanity still going on in China; makes progress regarding the N and S Korean peninsula; takes the Muslim part of the world as serious as the non Muslim world ( I am infact Christian); stops the horrific, unjust and inhumane treatment of hundreds of people in Guantanamo; becomes less oil dependant etc.

As hard as it is for me to admit, the fact of the matter is, that the US of America is currently the ONLY true super power of the world. With this great title comes an unimaginable amount of responsability. Please live up to it Mr future President.
I'm from the US...:)

What I don't understand really, is why is everyone so against Bush? I know why the Democrats hate him, but why does Europe, South America, etc.?
For all the reasons Ive stated above bro and Im sure that alot more have slipped my mind. Please dont misunderstand me here. a) its wlays easy 2 point the finger but what Im stating is just the obvious, b) I personally like the US and its citizens, Ive visited the country many times and find it and its people great (not so much their cars though), c) my criticism is with the ADMINISTRATION (not just the puppet who works in the Oval Office), d) if you (americans) want the rest of the world to be sympathetic to you then you really need to change ur foreign policies.

Let me share some current local ( Portuguese) news with you. A couple of days ago a British NGO claims that between 2002 and 2006 over 92 flights of the CIA containing over 700 people flew through Portuguese airspace. These "famous" planes all we Europeans hear about were filled with human beings who were mistreated when they were forced 2 leave their countries ( Abu Ghraib for instance) and are currently inhumanly treated in Guantanamo Bay. They are humiliated on a daily basis, stripped from every dignity and often tortured (like the CIA itself admitted just yesterday using drowning techniques long abolished). As a Portuguese citizen I am disgusted with my OWN government for either a) their ignorance and blindness into not knowing was done with the people aboard those planes or b) the acceptance of these peoples´ destination and allowing the planes to go their way after refuelment. I personally think that my current Prime Minister and the current Foreign Minister should both be shot in public for their part in this situation. Now just imagine what I think should happen to the people who ORDERED these ongoing offences to happen in the 1st place!

All in all I agree with Rascal when he asks in disbelief if these were the best choices currently available. I also find it hard to believe. But I agree with cyclo even more when he states that drasctic measures are needed ASAP. Cyclo my freind trust me me on this 1, we in Europe are also in dire need of some drastic measures ourselves.

On a more postivie note now: I honestly dont think things can get any worse then they already are. I hope Im not wrong, not just for my sake, but for the sake of us all. (wow getting a little too philosofical here!)

Out

KingKaramazov
Brigadier
Brigadier
Posts: 1216
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 12:12 pm
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by KingKaramazov »

[quote=""Sporting_Lisbon""]
I don't know about you guys but I wouldn't like to be raised by homosexual parents. Again, why wouldn't the kid be able to have heterosexual parents like the other kids? We don't know how can that affect him.
[/quote]

That's right. We don't know. How can you say that homosexual parents are worse than heterosexual ones?

[quote=""Sporting_Lisbon""]
And about divorcing, can't homosexual parents divorce as well? That doesn't have much to do with the case.
[/quote]

You're right, it has nothing to do with the argument. Anybody who is married can and should be able to divorce. That shouldn't affect their ability to adopt, either way.

[quote=""Sporting_Lisbon""]
Yet, if I was American, I'd vote for the republicans, because I think capitalism is better than socialism for the country.
[/quote]

This is a horribly gross generalization. Democrats are no socialists by any stretch of the imagination. Democrats are typically painted as raising taxes but having stronger social programs while Republicans are typically painted as lowering taxes but leaving social support programs to private interests. Those are very black and white definitions, however, and everybody in either party does not conform completely to those guidelines, either ideologically or in terms of their voting history.

That attitude that anybody should just blindly vote for a particular party based on a sweeping generalization about the political parties is completely retarded. People who have that attitude shouldn't vote.
"Why are some people all grasshopper fiddlings, scrappings, all antennae shivering, one big ganglion eternally knotting, slip-knotting, square-knotting themselves?  They stoke a furnace all their lives, sweat their lips, shine their ey

Navarone_Guy
Honorary Officer
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 9:02 am
Location: Over there

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by Navarone_Guy »

I must say, props to Cyclo. Everything he has said on abortion I agree with wholeheartedly and he has said it far more eloquently than I ever could. Again, well said Cyclo!
Groovy.

User avatar
Comadevil
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 2114
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:55 am
AOE3 Nickname: Comadevil

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by Comadevil »

@Sporting: The Democrats are by european standards a conservative party.

About homosexuals and having children:

Here i agree completely with KK. It depends on the attitude of the parents. In Germany were some cases in media where parents didn't care about the children at all and kids were dying because of hunger and thirst. I don't think that sexual orientation does matter.

Someone asked why Bush is hated so much even in foreign countries:
1. He went to war with Iraq without having any proves. This already was evident when he already announced that he will go. In Germany there are much more reports about foreign policy even about important domestic poltics of important allies. so e.g. primaries in the US are always headline here. The US after Iraq war I made much pressure on Iraq all the time to reveal their biological and chemical weapon program and there were also inspections all the time and nothing revealed such programs. and after almost 10 years they found suddenly something after all this pressure? Quite unbelievable. And everytime Rumsfeld or Bush were standing in front of the press and declaring that they will find something, everyone asked himself why they and even the american country believes in such stupidity?? The verdict at least in Germany was quite clear. Bush went after the Iraq to secure the oil there for America or he wanted to finish what his father didn't.

2. Bush made almost everything on his own. European states which didn't share his opinion are belonging to the old "stubborn" europe (like France, Germany) and states who are with him belonged to the new "good" europe. This also damaged the reputation of the US here. Schröder won also the elections in 2002 because he made an "anti-american" campaign (we are not going to Iraq etc.). And this in Germany which is a traditional ally to the US since WWII, who were the guarantee of a stable europe during the cold war.

3. Civil rights in the US after 09/11 in the US: Patriot act is something people were looking at with some disdain. And even things Bush did things, which weren't even authorized by laws: listening to phone calls by NSA without approve from court (something which we thought can happen only in states like former East Germany)

4. Guantanamo Bay: By holding prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, which don't had any rights at the beginning, the US discredited itself. U cannot go against terrorism if u keep such camps. So people don't believe in all in the war against terrorism if there are two class people: People who are believed to be terrorists have no rights and the other people have all rights to defend themselves.

We had one german cititzen who was detained to Afghanistan, because he had a similar name to an Al-Quaida member, tortured and after they realized their mistake, they set im free in a forest in Albany wihout money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaled_Masri

Another case is Murat Kurnaz being imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay for 5 years and being innocent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murat_Kurnaz

Both cases where strong in media and further damaged the reputation of the US, though i the last case german government also wasn't playing a good role and also caused a great uproar and an inquiry.

Post Reply