Bal-Sagoth said:
Well, seriously. If they would catch me and bring me to Guantanamo to torture me... then, after this, I would be a terrorist and anti-american man too.
So what difference do you all think he will make?
- Thread starter Loxley
- Start date
Well, seriously. If they would catch me and bring me to Guantanamo to torture me... then, after this, I would be a terrorist and anti-american man too.
Bal-Sagoth
Water Chip? Been There, Done That
Wooz said:
Lexx said:
No kidding...
I really do not know what they were thinking on this one. Few years vacation in Gitmo and I would be running back to the desert asap looking for some infidels to blow up.
Also, nice avatar Wooz. I always enjoyed that song/video.
psychosomatic
First time out of the vault
I guess you could try to predict that nothing much will happen based on history and an understanding of human nature. But I think its worthwhile to remember that no one really knows what is going to happen in the future; I'm sure history is filled with many moments that defy logic or what everyone expected (i.e. the critical message in Obama's speech..hope etc.). I know some people say it is naive or even stupid to expect anything different, but can you really predict the future? I don't know, but if the whole nation believes that positive change is possible, and they try their best to achieve this goal, then maybe America's economy can really be transformed. So I think it is less important what has happened in the past...certainly you can learn lessons from it etc. But it shouldn't determine your future. I hope I wasn't too irritating 
. I'll go away now
. I'll go away now
I am on the fence with this one. On one hand I believe maybe Obama's team might be able to pull something off, but as the system is not something with particularly amazing foundations, its unrealistic to expect perfect results.
This media circle jerk happens to most presidents during and after inauguration for the first few years. Although in Obama's case, its reached heights only akin to Kennedy during the Sixties. I believe its unhealthy for the media to glorify him , as people come out with often unwarranted and unrealistic enthusiams.
It is a step in the right direction in terms of race relation in the U.S however. His race has been used constently as a means to explain why he is that much more superior than previous predecessors and will bring in a utopia that the United States could never realistically obtain.
This media circle jerk happens to most presidents during and after inauguration for the first few years. Although in Obama's case, its reached heights only akin to Kennedy during the Sixties. I believe its unhealthy for the media to glorify him , as people come out with often unwarranted and unrealistic enthusiams.
It is a step in the right direction in terms of race relation in the U.S however. His race has been used constently as a means to explain why he is that much more superior than previous predecessors and will bring in a utopia that the United States could never realistically obtain.
I do not believe this is a step in the right direction for race relationship. If anything, racism has escalated during the campaign, and raceof the candidate was one of the big issues. If anything, B.O. becoming the president has pointed out the racial divides where they were hidden. Racism will not go away as long as people keep bringing it up, and media is doing a very "good job" at that.
Regardless of what you think of Obama, the fact that that half-retarded cowboy is out of office is reason to celebrate the world over.
It is definitely encouraging to know that within his first few hours in office he made steps towards shutting down the fucking gulag in gitmo. Impressive that he did anything at all really, most Presidents are probably just soaking in a jacuzzi filled with cristal while snorting coke off of $10,000 a night hooker ass during their first few hours.
It is definitely encouraging to know that within his first few hours in office he made steps towards shutting down the fucking gulag in gitmo. Impressive that he did anything at all really, most Presidents are probably just soaking in a jacuzzi filled with cristal while snorting coke off of $10,000 a night hooker ass during their first few hours.
Bal-Sagoth
Water Chip? Been There, Done That
Ausdoerrt said:
The Obama Administration should also think about wording things a tad bit differently.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opxuUj6vFa4
Youtube said:
Also did anyone catch at the inauguration Rev Lowery's little speech?
“We ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to give back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man, and when white will embrace what is right,”
I sense idiotic nitpicking, in good 'ole suburban mom style.
Bal-Sagoth
Water Chip? Been There, Done That
Wooz said:
I do not think it is a huge deal at the moment. If anything I think his words could have been worded a bit better on the white male construction worker part.
Lay offs do not care what skin color you are.
CriticalCheck
First time out of the vault
I'm conservative.
Liberals currently have a huge monopoly in Washington.
Personally with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Joe Biden, and Barack Obama running the country I'm scared. I just can't wait to see how many taxes I shouldn't have to pay get tacked onto my pay check.
Say Hello big government! Goodbye extra money! The only person who are going to get any help from whats about to go down are people who don't hold a job.
Universal health care is a nightmare. I'd rather be in debt my entire life because of medical bills or have to pay my own medical insurance than deal with decreased quality of health care and waiting lines.
If people don't know what I'm talking about I'll gladly write you one huge freaking explanation with support from the less insane conservatives in the party.
Liberals currently have a huge monopoly in Washington.
Personally with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Joe Biden, and Barack Obama running the country I'm scared. I just can't wait to see how many taxes I shouldn't have to pay get tacked onto my pay check.
Say Hello big government! Goodbye extra money! The only person who are going to get any help from whats about to go down are people who don't hold a job.
Universal health care is a nightmare. I'd rather be in debt my entire life because of medical bills or have to pay my own medical insurance than deal with decreased quality of health care and waiting lines.
If people don't know what I'm talking about I'll gladly write you one huge freaking explanation with support from the less insane conservatives in the party.
Plus, Al Franken is your senator! :gigglesnort: :poke: :poke:
You had your 8 years of glory. We managed to suspend that pesky ol' constitution. And in true republican fashion, wonders were worked with the economy! As in, I wonder if it will ever recover.
Don't worry, Olliver North is still hailed as a hero and has his own show on Fox, you're still good to go.
You had your 8 years of glory. We managed to suspend that pesky ol' constitution. And in true republican fashion, wonders were worked with the economy! As in, I wonder if it will ever recover.
Don't worry, Olliver North is still hailed as a hero and has his own show on Fox, you're still good to go.
CriticalCheck
First time out of the vault
I'm really not a fan of Bush. I think he was the worst choice for the republican party. He was an idiot. He was fed bills by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. He wasn't conservative at all.
A true conservative wouldn't have got himself in over his head like that. He ran the country like he was playing Civilization Revolution without realizing it's real life and a nation should be ran like a well oiled machine. Not a broken piece of shit.
I'm a working stiff. I come from no money. I mean no money. My parents are both extremely poor. They made bad decisions in life. Decisions that they now pay for. I'm attempting to carve a future for myself by being hardworking and wise with my money.
The republican party in a hole isn't very conservative. Honestly most of the republicans I know are but that is because we are very deep into politics. We scratch deeper than the surface. We don't take Fox news or Rush's word as gold because we know they aren't the sources for reliable political information. We know we'll probably have to find the goods on our own if we want them.
I'm talking about TRUE conservative values. Not just republican system abusers. My conservative beliefs would piss most republicans off.
A true conservative wouldn't have got himself in over his head like that. He ran the country like he was playing Civilization Revolution without realizing it's real life and a nation should be ran like a well oiled machine. Not a broken piece of shit.
I'm a working stiff. I come from no money. I mean no money. My parents are both extremely poor. They made bad decisions in life. Decisions that they now pay for. I'm attempting to carve a future for myself by being hardworking and wise with my money.
The republican party in a hole isn't very conservative. Honestly most of the republicans I know are but that is because we are very deep into politics. We scratch deeper than the surface. We don't take Fox news or Rush's word as gold because we know they aren't the sources for reliable political information. We know we'll probably have to find the goods on our own if we want them.
I'm talking about TRUE conservative values. Not just republican system abusers. My conservative beliefs would piss most republicans off.
iridium_ionizer
Mildly Dipped
Since you brought them up, you should make a post listing your basic political beliefs and what kind of policies you would like instituted. That way we will know a little bit more what you are referring to instead of it just being socialism = bad. It would be much appreciated.CriticalCheck said:
CriticalCheck
First time out of the vault
I forgot that people assume that if you are republican then you suck on the tit of FOX news and Rush Limbaugh.
As requested here is the breakdown. I pulled the first bit from myself in another post with minor modifications to wording.
The federal government shouldn't HAVE to make so many decisions on how to rule the entire country. The way people look at government right now is "I must follow federal government activities" and "Huh? Town meeting? So?". That is completely backwards. The United States of America is a republic of states. The Federal government is giant compared to what it SHOULD be doing. It should take care of foreign affairs.. importation taxes.. freeways.. things that are large like that.
The state level should take care of highways connect one end of the state to the other, or covering hundreds of miles of farm land. The state should be concerned with working on the states infrastructure. Then the cities and towns should do more to take care of their town. They should spend more on raising the money for their individual town instead of relying on state tax money to do the work.
If Social Security was privatized it would mean that first off we wouldn't be paying into social security all our lives. If I could opt out of social security and just save the money that I'm pumping into it I would be able to retire without government help. My nest egg would be freaking massive because I'd be pumping another 40 bucks a week into the bank. That would be $2240 dollars a year before figuring compound interest.
Government, especially liberal government, is given to much power. With great power comes great responsibility. The Federal government doesn't need great responsibility. Problem solving is done for the situation. Why not put the ability to solve the problem into the hands of the people who face the situation? Make sure people are accountable for their actions. Run government like a business is ran. If a person isn't doing what they should be doing, they aren't having positive results that meet standards, get rid of them. Find someone who can do the job better.
The Federal government should take care of things that are wide spread. Things that the state or city level governments can't handle. Large things that the entire nation needs a guideline for.
The federal governments current way of running the country is to give a man a fish every time he needs a fish. Why not do it right and teach him to fish? While a group may be very strong the Spartans legacy says it best. An army of a million fair trained soldiers has nothing against a handful of well trained, well equipped, and smart soldiers. I'm not sure about the rest of the world but the United States tries to function as 300,000,000 individual people. Why not have a revolution of thought? If you started to show the population the light eventually they would be interested on their own. Eventually we would function as 300,000,000 individuals with the will to be one. This isn't a Utopia. This is a NATION.
Can't we all agree it would be better to be 300,000,000 as one instead of being one part of 300,000,000?
The deceleration of independence says that each person has a right to life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness. The opportunity is there. Take advantage of it.
Personally I believe that we should take as much power from big government as we can. I'm not an anarchist but I believe that local governments given more power over big government would know better how to use tax money in the area it comes from.
A great example is the state of Minnesota is getting a 6 cent per gallon of gas tacked on our road tax. The 6 cents per gallon is to make a public transportation rail system for the metro area. Why would the entire state need to pay for a public transportation project in the Metro area? Why wouldn't businesses or the people in that area be able to support it's own social program? I do believe in social programs, on the other hand I don't believe people they CAN'T benefit should have to pay for them.
That 6 cents per gallon of gas could go towards something logical like repairing roads easing congestion by opening up new major routes across the state.
If I was taxed because of a referendum from a local school district that I don't have kids in I would gladly pay it. I would be fueling local growth. Growth that will ultimately improve my areas quality of life. A local school that is able to produce quality students is far more important to me, even without being a parent, than having a light rail system put in a metro area 100 miles away. Because that light rail system will not benefit me or my community.
I personally believe that far too many conservatives fail to realize that religion shouldn't change their belief in small local government. I think that gay marriage should be legalized. Marriage is supposed to be about love isn't it? I am personally pro choice. I really don't think that these things shouldn't even be considered issues. But just because I stand with a party doesn't mean I support it's every move, or every supporter of that party.
I don't believe that the republicans are perfect little angels. At the same time I disagree much more with across the board social solutions. Conditions are different in different locations. They just can't be solved with a general solution. Issues should be solved as often as possible on a local level.
As requested here is the breakdown. I pulled the first bit from myself in another post with minor modifications to wording.
The federal government shouldn't HAVE to make so many decisions on how to rule the entire country. The way people look at government right now is "I must follow federal government activities" and "Huh? Town meeting? So?". That is completely backwards. The United States of America is a republic of states. The Federal government is giant compared to what it SHOULD be doing. It should take care of foreign affairs.. importation taxes.. freeways.. things that are large like that.
The state level should take care of highways connect one end of the state to the other, or covering hundreds of miles of farm land. The state should be concerned with working on the states infrastructure. Then the cities and towns should do more to take care of their town. They should spend more on raising the money for their individual town instead of relying on state tax money to do the work.
If Social Security was privatized it would mean that first off we wouldn't be paying into social security all our lives. If I could opt out of social security and just save the money that I'm pumping into it I would be able to retire without government help. My nest egg would be freaking massive because I'd be pumping another 40 bucks a week into the bank. That would be $2240 dollars a year before figuring compound interest.
Government, especially liberal government, is given to much power. With great power comes great responsibility. The Federal government doesn't need great responsibility. Problem solving is done for the situation. Why not put the ability to solve the problem into the hands of the people who face the situation? Make sure people are accountable for their actions. Run government like a business is ran. If a person isn't doing what they should be doing, they aren't having positive results that meet standards, get rid of them. Find someone who can do the job better.
The Federal government should take care of things that are wide spread. Things that the state or city level governments can't handle. Large things that the entire nation needs a guideline for.
The federal governments current way of running the country is to give a man a fish every time he needs a fish. Why not do it right and teach him to fish? While a group may be very strong the Spartans legacy says it best. An army of a million fair trained soldiers has nothing against a handful of well trained, well equipped, and smart soldiers. I'm not sure about the rest of the world but the United States tries to function as 300,000,000 individual people. Why not have a revolution of thought? If you started to show the population the light eventually they would be interested on their own. Eventually we would function as 300,000,000 individuals with the will to be one. This isn't a Utopia. This is a NATION.
Can't we all agree it would be better to be 300,000,000 as one instead of being one part of 300,000,000?
The deceleration of independence says that each person has a right to life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness. The opportunity is there. Take advantage of it.
Personally I believe that we should take as much power from big government as we can. I'm not an anarchist but I believe that local governments given more power over big government would know better how to use tax money in the area it comes from.
A great example is the state of Minnesota is getting a 6 cent per gallon of gas tacked on our road tax. The 6 cents per gallon is to make a public transportation rail system for the metro area. Why would the entire state need to pay for a public transportation project in the Metro area? Why wouldn't businesses or the people in that area be able to support it's own social program? I do believe in social programs, on the other hand I don't believe people they CAN'T benefit should have to pay for them.
That 6 cents per gallon of gas could go towards something logical like repairing roads easing congestion by opening up new major routes across the state.
If I was taxed because of a referendum from a local school district that I don't have kids in I would gladly pay it. I would be fueling local growth. Growth that will ultimately improve my areas quality of life. A local school that is able to produce quality students is far more important to me, even without being a parent, than having a light rail system put in a metro area 100 miles away. Because that light rail system will not benefit me or my community.
I personally believe that far too many conservatives fail to realize that religion shouldn't change their belief in small local government. I think that gay marriage should be legalized. Marriage is supposed to be about love isn't it? I am personally pro choice. I really don't think that these things shouldn't even be considered issues. But just because I stand with a party doesn't mean I support it's every move, or every supporter of that party.
I don't believe that the republicans are perfect little angels. At the same time I disagree much more with across the board social solutions. Conditions are different in different locations. They just can't be solved with a general solution. Issues should be solved as often as possible on a local level.
And that would be even understandableLexx said:
*Edit
Well would be interesting to know who the right person would be in your opinion.Brother None said:
I remember once a political discussion with a russian ex-diplomath (Soviet foreign minister), some kind of US-expert, one delegate of the european NATO or UNO? I dont know it anymore and a couple of famous journalists. When they asked the russian what he is thinking would be the better choice as President Clinton or Obama he just said they would be both terrible. Well that always brings up the question who would be the right one?
Please, avoid this sort of void quick-commentaries in a 'serious' thread. It tends to upset the users that put time and effort to formulate their thoughts into a coherent whole.
CriticalCheck
The traditional American "small government" approach you described has worked for years but is also known for its weaknesses during recessions. In the current economic crisis having a democratic government could as well be a good thing - to cushion the fall a bit, and to control the resources better. Government spending and government control need to both increase to effectively deal with a recession. Not that I like the democrats, but as it is it may be for the best. Look at the EU - more gov't power, more funding, and the recession is less severe despite countries' economies being smaller and more dependent on the exports that are decreasing by day.
As for your Minessota example, I think that it's either a bad example or you are getting it backwards. Social programs are exactly that - some people paying taxes so that others can benefit. The rich pay so that the poor can have unemployment payments, the healthy pay so that the unhealthy can have medical treatment. It all comes around and is necessary to get economy going - if only those who needed the benefits would pay for welfare, the economy would stagnate. You are looking at things in too much of a close-up perspective. The light rail system may come back to benefit you eventually - without you realizing it. There is more than just the direct benefits.
As for gay marriage, it's a grey area, although not like the issue has any importance other than the social and the moral argument. I don't think politics should be mixed in. From an efficiency stand point (this will sound wrong but...) there is enough reason for gov't to oppose same-sex marriage because those to-be families are "dead branches" and do not contribute to country's well-being because they are unable to produce offspring.
The traditional American "small government" approach you described has worked for years but is also known for its weaknesses during recessions. In the current economic crisis having a democratic government could as well be a good thing - to cushion the fall a bit, and to control the resources better. Government spending and government control need to both increase to effectively deal with a recession. Not that I like the democrats, but as it is it may be for the best. Look at the EU - more gov't power, more funding, and the recession is less severe despite countries' economies being smaller and more dependent on the exports that are decreasing by day.
As for your Minessota example, I think that it's either a bad example or you are getting it backwards. Social programs are exactly that - some people paying taxes so that others can benefit. The rich pay so that the poor can have unemployment payments, the healthy pay so that the unhealthy can have medical treatment. It all comes around and is necessary to get economy going - if only those who needed the benefits would pay for welfare, the economy would stagnate. You are looking at things in too much of a close-up perspective. The light rail system may come back to benefit you eventually - without you realizing it. There is more than just the direct benefits.
As for gay marriage, it's a grey area, although not like the issue has any importance other than the social and the moral argument. I don't think politics should be mixed in. From an efficiency stand point (this will sound wrong but...) there is enough reason for gov't to oppose same-sex marriage because those to-be families are "dead branches" and do not contribute to country's well-being because they are unable to produce offspring.
iridium_ionizer
Mildly Dipped
But if you get rid of all the wedge issues in U.S. politics then you would have some Democrats becoming Republican and some Republicans becoming Democrat. That would end up being more confusing than the Star-Bellied Sneeches. Okay enough of my sarcasm. Seriously, I think eventually gay-marriage and abortion will become non-issues like they should be.CriticalCheck said:
Personally, I'm kind of wishy-washy about gay marriage. But to call gay marriage families "dead branches" is to ignore adoption, sperm banks, egg donations, surrogate mothers, and all manner of ways to get around the technical difficulties using technology, markets, and social networks (I don't mean Facebook, I mean a gay man getting his sister to donate her eggs).Ausdoerrt said:
That one was from a completely cynical point of view. As for the "workarounds", you don't have to have gay marriage to make use of those. Regular families have that same option, except in addition they may have children of their own. But all that is kind of beside the point.
My main issue is though, the society being as it is, I'd feel really sorry for any kids brought up in homosexual families.
Not to mention that I am personally quite homophobic and find homosexual people an unnecessary irregularity. Yup, you got it right, it's called "prejudice".
My main issue is though, the society being as it is, I'd feel really sorry for any kids brought up in homosexual families.
Not to mention that I am personally quite homophobic and find homosexual people an unnecessary irregularity. Yup, you got it right, it's called "prejudice".
So you would in a minimum government interference economy trust the banks with your money? I mean, seeing how good they have been with peoples money recently.CriticalCheck said:
If a marriage between two gay people cause those two gay people to be a bit more happy, then that will probably have a positive effect on the country do you not agree ausdoert. I think it strange that the US which was created for the pursuit of happiness will not allow people the happyness of marriage. Seriously. And Sure the first generation of gay raised kids will be picked on, but someone have to lead the way. Two generations and people will not care one iota.