SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Posted: Jan 21 2009 03:21 am

i knew bringing up a political debate would wake the sleeping giant known as Kubo lol

Joined: Aug 24 2005 Location: Mount Holly, NJ Posts: 1062

Fe fi fo fum... Smile

Joined: Apr 09 2008 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 3112

Kubo wrote:

As far as the actions of the Bush administration goes, of course you can argue that there have been government failures between 2001 and 2008. But, you're painting with extremely broad strokes. If you're going to bring up the weakened economy, be sure to mention the legislation developed under the Clinton administration that allowed for mortgages for people who couldn't pay for them and the dot com boom that the Clinton administration enjoyed in the mid- to late-90s. If you're going to bring up the decision to go to war in Iraq, be sure to mention certain parallels to Bosnia-Herzogovina in the 90s (the mass killing of non-Serbs in eastern Bosnia). And, of course, Clinton allowed bin Laden to operate relatively unbothered for his entire two terms in office; and planning for the September 11th attacks began between 1995-1997.

1) The loan accusation is racist bullshit. The Right-wing radio hosts want you to believe that it's them damned poor darkies getting home loans, when the main factor was the de-regulation of credit default swaps.

2) Bosnia was a nightmare, but thanks to the mess Bush Sr. started in Somalia, there wouldn't have been any support from the leg. to operate in Bosnia.

3)The whole Osama thing is a mess, I really don't blame Bush because the intelligence indicated a million different possibilities, and it's hard for Clinton to warrant bombing a country just because a white dot on a satellite photo might be bin Laden's white robes.

Yeah, I think there should be free healthcare for anyone who WANTS it because the costs these days are exorbitant without getting anything in return, and government should invest in the economy. I was talking to a friend who runs an internet service company and works for a venture capital company, and they're all psyched because Obama wants the government to invest in creating more high-speed internet lines to areas that don't have them. This will decrease connection prices, allowing more people to use these companies' services, so their businesses can expand, creating more jobs. The kind of interference I don't like is hands-off interference, such as de-regulations and pointless subsidies.

And Ermac, it must be really hard being a white male, huh? Nevermind that we typically get paid more, have a better way of life, and control almost all levels of the government, we're still oppressed.

Posted: Jan 21 2009 03:56 am

Greg the White wrote:

And Ermac, it must be really hard being a white male, huh? Nevermind that we typically get paid more, have a better way of life, and control almost all levels of the government, we're still oppressed.

That was my extreme conservative side coming out, it likes to come out late at night Very Happy

Joined: Aug 24 2005 Location: Mount Holly, NJ Posts: 1062

Greg the White wrote:

1) The loan accusation is racist bullshit. The Right-wing radio hosts want you to believe that it's them damned poor darkies getting home loans, when the main factor was the de-regulation of credit default swaps.

It sounds like we're both mostly on the same page, just opposite sides of the aisle, which is very cool. The only point I have to take issue with with you is the one above. The subprime loan thing isn't racist bullshit. De-regulation of credit default swaps aside, if you can explain to me how it's good business to provide mortgages for those who don't have the credit to pay for them ten years down the road, I'll eat my hat (as the old people say).

The lack of foresight on the part of the Clinton administration for providing those mortgages was almost impressive. I don't think the Clinton admin. had bad intentions with that legislation, I just think he and the rest of the administration assumed the best in people, and it just didn't turn out that way, and bam... shitty mortgage accounts that have to be paid from elsewhere.

There's 1000 reasons why the economy sucks at the moment, but simply because one of those reasons involves a large contingent of minorities in the country doesn't make it any less valid.

Posted: Jan 21 2009 04:46 am

I love being Canadian.

Sorry I had to. American politics is a very confusing subject to me. I'm basically just reading along and trying to learn something. So please, proceed Smile

Posted: Jan 21 2009 07:09 am

Canadian politics is confusing to me. The dad on You Can't Do That On Television was a Senator, and he didn't even own a clean shirt!

Posted: Jan 21 2009 07:29 am

Kubo wrote:

Helping the middle class is fine... to an extent. What worries me is the level of talk about "FREE HEALTHCARE! FREE THIS! FREE THAT!" That's a really nice thought if you don't have to worry about maintaining gross domestic product and a spot in the worldwide commerce game. FDR benefitted from World War II... war, despite generally sucking, is typically fantastic for the economy. Clinton, again, the dot com boom. The problem with giving away free shit in a time when the economy is slumping (for whatever reason) is that it provides a disincentive for work. Failure to provide an incentive to work risks having a shitload of people just staying home to suckle the governmental tit. If you want healthcare, you should be provided for to a limited extent, then you have to work for it.

I am genuinely concerned about the national debt more than anything else right now. FDR really fucked us over in terms of that, and none of our presidents since then have done a damn thing to fix it. Instead, they've spent even more. And now Obama wants to spend nearly a trillion dollars on economic stimulus. We can't afford to spend a trillion dollars on ANYTHING, no matter how good the intentions. We need like 5 or 6 presidents who do nothing but take our tax money and use it to pay off the national debt. Maybe sell off some of our foreign military bases too. Maybe sell our weapons to anyone who wants them.

In particular, we should be selling weapons to Chinese rebels. China is too big for its own good, but importantly, it's too big for our good. They're becoming more and more of an economic force with each passing year and there's simply no way that any other country on Earth can come close to competing with their production levels. China needs to be split up into at 5 separate countries, preferrably more, and the borderlines should be determined by a long bloody civil war that destroys much of the country's industry. Also, we owe a lot of money to China, so if China ceases to exist as a political entity, that would really help the national debt.

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

Syd Lexia wrote:

Kubo wrote:

Helping the middle class is fine... to an extent. What worries me is the level of talk about "FREE HEALTHCARE! FREE THIS! FREE THAT!" That's a really nice thought if you don't have to worry about maintaining gross domestic product and a spot in the worldwide commerce game. FDR benefitted from World War II... war, despite generally sucking, is typically fantastic for the economy. Clinton, again, the dot com boom. The problem with giving away free shit in a time when the economy is slumping (for whatever reason) is that it provides a disincentive for work. Failure to provide an incentive to work risks having a shitload of people just staying home to suckle the governmental tit. If you want healthcare, you should be provided for to a limited extent, then you have to work for it.

I am genuinely concerned about the national debt more than anything else right now. FDR really fucked us over in terms of that, and none of our presidents since then have done a damn thing to fix it. Instead, they've spent even more. And now Obama wants to spend nearly a trillion dollars on economic stimulus. We can't afford to spend a trillion dollars on ANYTHING, no matter how good the intentions. We need like 5 or 6 presidents who do nothing but take our tax money and use it to pay off the national debt. Maybe sell off some of our foreign military bases too. Maybe sell our weapons to anyone who wants them.

In particular, we should be selling weapons to Chinese rebels. China is too big for its own good, but importantly, it's too big for our good. They're becoming more and more of an economic force with each passing year and there's simply no way that any other country on Earth can come close to competing with their production levels. China needs to be split up into at 5 separate countries, preferrably more, and the borderlines should be determined by a long bloody civil war that destroys much of the country's industry. Also, we owe a lot of money to China, so if China ceases to exist as a political entity, that would really help the national debt.

I agree with you Syd.

What I am interested to see is how he handles the spending reduction he has promised.

The claim is that lowered taxes and rebates can come while lowering the defecate by reducing frivolous spending.

Personally, I think we should be doubling our efforts to reduce what we owe, since we owe it to ourselves... but shifting in the positive direction is really the most important step.

Is he blowing smoke up our asses? He might be. I hope not. At this point, he is the president, so lets cross our fingers and hope he actually cares about the survival of the country.

Posted: Jan 21 2009 09:04 am

thats confusing?

manny pacquia, the boxer, is vice president of the phillipines. figure that one out

Posted: Jan 21 2009 10:05 am

Syd Lexia wrote:

Ice2SeeYou wrote:

That said, this is the first time in my 28 years that I've been excited about a presidential inauguration. Obama is the first president in my memory who I feel is truly in there because he wants to do good for people, and not just for the glamor and thrill of being president.

This is the first time that I've been truly disappointed with a presidential inauguration.

I was sad when Tsongas had to drop out of the '92 Democratic Primary.
I was down when George Bush lost his reelection to Clinton.
I was unsurprised, but disheartened when Bob Dole lost to Clinton in '96.

But none of it even comes close to the disappointment I feel every time I remember that John McCain was not elected the leader of this great nation. The man is a war veteran, an American hero who has dedicated the vast majority of his life to serving his country in one form or another. And he lost to a man who five years ago was a complete nobody, a man who's only real political accomplishments were being in the right place at the same time and having an extremely photogenic family. What pisses me off is how desperate and naive many of the Obama supporters I've talked to come off as. These people come off like Ralph Kramden, Jackie Gleason's beloved character from the Honeymooners. Ralph was always coming up with crazy schemes to get rich quick, and none of them ever worked. I can think of no better metaphor for Obama's election than this. People voted for him expecting to get a great big government that will fix the economy, hand out welfare checks and healthcare vouchers aplenty, end the war in Iraq, babysit their children, cure their halitosis, and give them oral pleasure. Well it ain't gonna happen. Obama might fix the economy to some degree and will probably decrease our presence in Iraq, but four years from now, Barack will have a lot to answer for when most of his 2008 promises and rhetoric are revealed for what they are: the same old empty pledges from another run-of-the-mill politician. People have themselves convinced that Obama is somehow special or different from other politicians. He's not. He's cut from the exact same cloth.

A war veteran losing to someone who has never served before? Sounds like the 2004 election to me. I would have voted for McCain if he had shown some damn character. He was degraded by Bush in 2000 and he let Karl Rove and his buddies spread viscous lies about him and then turned around and embraced George Bush only to save his own political career. I'm sorry, but that is not what I want in a President. President Obama ran a clean campaign, no "swift boat" tactics like ol Bushie, and he won. This country is in for better days and the only ones left in that 22% still approving of Bush are living in la la land. Sorry Sid, you may not have been affected by the destruction that this man has caused, but the rest of the country has. I've buried too many of my brothers for a pointless war, seen jobs flushed down the drain, seen our image abroad made a joke, and the presidency a punchline. Either you are a devout Christian or you work for Haliburton, because your political stance really blows my mind Syd. If General Zinni, General Jones, and former Republican James Webb have jumped ship then I will follow them. The three most intelligent, strong willed Marines are strong supporters of Obama and opposed to Bush and his insane agendas. I'm with them, not the Chickenhawks who are packing their bags, Good riddance to the Neo Con cowards!

Posted: Jan 21 2009 10:32 am

It's not that Obama was never in the military; it's that five years ago he was in the Illinois state legislature, where he did nothing of consquence, then he was a US Senator who did nothing of consequence, and now suddenly he's president. It boggles the mind that he was able to win the primary, let alone the general election.

Posted: Jan 21 2009 10:42 am

Well, I think that the country has seen what "political experience" has brought them, and they decided to go another way on that. I'm not a blind Obama follower and I dont expect him to bail out the country. He has said himself that WE must bail ourselves out and that the government won't do it for us. I too oppose big government but Bush thought Government should be so small that it overseas nothing. There must be a balance. Bush led with his convictions too much, and not with intelligence. I think that will be the difference.

Joined: Aug 24 2005 Location: Mount Holly, NJ Posts: 1062

Marine79 wrote:

This country is in for better days and the only ones left in that 22% still approving of Bush are living in la la land.

Either you are a devout Christian or you work for Haliburton, because your political stance really blows my mind Syd.

All due respect, Marine- this is why there's such an unhealthy divide between the parties. You can think the war pointless and you can think W the Antichrist, nobody will fault you for that. But what pisses me off are the people who refuse to recognize the fact that there might be those that hold values that are different than their own. I like to think that Syd, Cattivo, Ermac (?) and I (along with other right-leaners that I may be forgetting) are relatively intelligent people who simply hold political (and tangentially, personal) beliefs different from you. Claiming that those who argue for things like the positive outcomes of the Iraq war are somehow disconnected, stupid, fundamentalist, or politically and economically corrupt is stupid and serves only to reinfoce the whole WE'RE RIGHT YOU'RE WRONG crap that moves us, as a country, in circles.

Also, to argue two other points- the "pointlessness" of the Iraq war can't be judged for a while yet. Ask the Kurds how pointless it was. And before someone argues that helping a group in a country that is under threat from its government shouldn't be the business of the U.S., what were we doing in Bosnia or Somalia and why is there still such an outcry for us to intervene in Sudan?

And as far as our image abroad goes, I think any President should that governs on the basis of our reputation and NOT on what he believes to be the best course of action for the country is governing incorrectly. Still, there is still a wide array of countries that respect and benefit from US generosity http://www.thebody.com/index/govt/global_aids.html?archive=on, we just don't hear about them too often.

Posted: Jan 21 2009 11:09 am

Kubo wrote:

Marine79 wrote:

This country is in for better days and the only ones left in that 22% still approving of Bush are living in la la land.

Either you are a devout Christian or you work for Haliburton, because your political stance really blows my mind Syd.

All due respect, Marine- this is why there's such an unhealthy divide between the parties. You can think the war pointless and you can think W the Antichrist, nobody will fault you for that. But what pisses me off are the people who refuse to recognize the fact that there might be those that hold values that are different than their own. I like to think that Syd, Cattivo, Ermac (?) and I (along with other right-leaners that I may be forgetting) are relatively intelligent people who simply hold political (and tangentially, personal) beliefs different from you. Claiming that those who argue for things like the positive outcomes of the Iraq war are somehow disconnected, stupid, fundamentalist, or politically and economically corrupt is stupid and serves only to reinfoce the whole WE'RE RIGHT YOU'RE WRONG crap that moves us, as a country, in circles.

Also, to argue two other points- the "pointlessness" of the Iraq war can't be judged for a while yet. Ask the Kurds how pointless it was. And before someone argues that helping a group in a country that is under threat from its government shouldn't be the business of the U.S., what were we doing in Bosnia or Somalia and why is there still such an outcry for us to intervene in Sudan?

And as far as our image abroad goes, I think any President should that governs on the basis of our reputation and NOT on what he believes to be the best course of action for the country is governing incorrectly. Still, there is still a wide array of countries that respect and benefit from US generosity http://www.thebody.com/index/govt/global_aids.html?archive=on, we just don't hear about them too often.

OK, let me elaborate on "pointless". We decided to pull our attention away from Afghanistan because Iraq had a mushroom cloud smoking gun, right? Oops, no WOMD! So ok, lets see...why did we invade? Oh yeah, to help the poor Kurds! Lol, if we are in the business of helping people in need then where were we when Darfur happened. How bout Cuba? Korea? It's called the Plan For A New American Century. Look, the divide you speak of is exactly what scared Americans into entering into this war, either you love God and support our Country and Bush or you are a liberal, terrorist sympathizer. I dont think Bush is the anti-christ, and I don't really hate him. I hate his policies of arrogance and his cabinet who failed to listen to the advise of great leadership. If you were not a "yes man" to Rummy than you had an early retirement coming to you. Please don't take my rants as anything more than discussion. I am a Marine, and a Political Science major so I do tend to get carried away. I especially get frustrated by the level of intelligent people who are still misinformed about the former President. As for the war, we shall see how this next government we set up works out for them. Hopefully better than the last time we did it.

Joined: Apr 14 2006 Location: Lake Michigan Posts: 3332

Greg the White wrote:

I want Obama, because statistically, we're usually better off under leftist presidents.

Those "statistics" don't exist. I think you're looking at history through your own ideological lense here. From your other partisan statements in this thread, I think I'm right.

Posted: Jan 21 2009 11:19 am

Cattivo wrote:

Greg the White wrote:

I want Obama, because statistically, we're usually better off under leftist presidents.

Those "statistics" don't exist. I think you're looking at history through your own ideological lense here. From your other partisan statements in this thread, I think I'm right.

Or maybe he's thinking about the 90's? Man, the 90's kicked ass...who was president then?

Joined: Apr 14 2006 Location: Lake Michigan Posts: 3332

The 90s were a time of complacency & the "peace dividend" which ended up biting us in the ass.

It's all subjective.

I could also say how the 80s were great, and the late 70s were awful. Gee who were the presidents then?

Or say, gee how come the depression lasted so long? FDR's socialist policies just extended a recession that would have naturally ended itself.

Or the 50s were booming, wasn't Ike a great president?

Posted: Jan 21 2009 12:17 pm

Marine79 wrote:

A war veteran losing to someone who has never served before? Sounds like the 2004 election to me. I would have voted for McCain if he had shown some damn character. He was degraded by Bush in 2000 and he let Karl Rove and his buddies spread viscous lies about him and then turned around and embraced George Bush only to save his own political career. I'm sorry, but that is not what I want in a President. President Obama ran a clean campaign, no "swift boat" tactics like ol Bushie, and he won. This country is in for better days and the only ones left in that 22% still approving of Bush are living in la la land. Sorry Sid, you may not have been affected by the destruction that this man has caused, but the rest of the country has. I've buried too many of my brothers for a pointless war, seen jobs flushed down the drain, seen our image abroad made a joke, and the presidency a punchline. Either you are a devout Christian or you work for Haliburton, because your political stance really blows my mind Syd. If General Zinni, General Jones, and former Republican James Webb have jumped ship then I will follow them. The three most intelligent, strong willed Marines are strong supporters of Obama and opposed to Bush and his insane agendas. I'm with them, not the Chickenhawks who are packing their bags, Good riddance to the Neo Con cowards!

Oorah, Marine! Couldn't have said it better myself. I've had the same experience with Obama supporters in the Army. I only know a few people who *don't* claim to support Obama, and that's a huge contrast from 2000.

What the campaign did to Kerry was what finally convinced me that Bush (and company) were truly as nasty as I feared. Ripping apart a man's war service, and WELL DOCUMENTED, EYEWITNESS DEFENDED medals, is reprehensible. And then to see people at the RNC convention with those fucking Purple Heart band aids...FUCK that. I really, really hurt for Kerry during that election. He wouldn't have made an amazing president, no doubt about that, but the man sure as HELL deserved better than to have his war record turned into a motherfucking punchline.

Phew. Sorry about that. I've been waiting to air that in full for bout four years lol. Thanks for the indulgence.

I don't hold anyone's political views against them, and as much as I disagree, I do think we're going to need plenty of right-leaning folks (the intelligent kind, not the blind loyalty kind) to help keep things balanced. One of the biggest problems with the last eight years wasn't so much that we had a conservative government (we've had those before), but that they had almost complete control of every branch at first, and were able to do whatever without check. That's not a situation I want to be in under Bush (okay, ESPECIALLY not under Bush), but I don't want to be in it under Obama either. Our government is set up to balance for a reason.

The only thing I kind of wish is that the two major parties didn't have such a choke hold on power. It would be really, really nice to see some independents have a genuine shot at something more than the House. As long as they aren't asshats and have a brain on their shoulders, the more points of view we can get in government the better in my book.

Joined: Apr 14 2006 Location: Lake Michigan Posts: 3332

I'm sorry but a man like Kerry who compared our troops to Genghis Khan through second-hand accounts did not honorably serve his country - especially when there are legitimate questions about the authenticity of the injuries he received to get those purple hearts.

Geez, why does this topic have to re-hash all these stupid arguments? You Obama supporters should be happy and looking towards the future. You've been Bush-bashing for years, try to be positive about how America is going to live happily ever after in a land of rainbows now.

Joined: Feb 24 2006 Posts: 2578

Cattivo wrote:

try to be positive about how America is going to live happily ever after in a land of rainbows now.

Totally not flame bait. Rolling Eyes

Joined: Apr 14 2006 Location: Lake Michigan Posts: 3332

It's a serious statement DM. Obama supporters across the nation have been acting as if everything is going to be perfect now that Obama's in the WH. I say, keep on raising those expectations to unreasonable heights:

Edit:

South Park even made fun of this (while making fun of Republicans' doom & gloom):

"Wooooo, everything's going to be awesome now!"

Posted: Jan 21 2009 12:35 pm

Cattivo wrote:

I'm sorry but a man like Kerry who compared our troops to Genghis Khan through second-hand accounts did not honorably serve his country - especially when there are legitimate questions about the authenticity of the injuries he received to get those purple hearts.

Geez, why does this topic have to re-hash all these stupid arguments? You Obama supporters should be happy and looking towards the future. You've been Bush-bashing for years, try to be positive about how America is going to live happily ever after in a land of rainbows now.

What he actually said was that "they [Vietnam vets he interviewed so he could testify at this hearing] told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun." We all know that shit went on. That's not a secret, and there's no reason Kerry shouldn't condemn it (which he wasn't even doing there--just stating what he was told.) If there were questions about his decorations fine, investigate them. But don't fucking made him a punchline.

Okay, I'll shut up about that now, really. Promise. Its just bugged me for a hell of a long time, and its nice to be able to FINALLY air it with intelligent people who will actually LISTEN even if they disagree.

But yes. This Obama supporter at least is very happy and looking forward to the future. I don't think there's a land of rainbows ahead though--Obama has never, ever promised an easy solution to any of the problems we're facing. Even his inaugural address was all about taking responsibility, and working on a personal level to help improve things. I can't argue with a solution of hard work and patience--its what I've thought the solutions to most problems are since before I could vote!

Joined: Aug 24 2005 Location: Mount Holly, NJ Posts: 1062

Marine79 wrote:

Oops, no WOMD! So ok, lets see...why did we invade? Oh yeah, to help the poor Kurds! Lol, if we are in the business of helping people in need then where were we when Darfur happened. How bout Cuba? Korea?

Please don't take my rants as anything more than discussion. I am a Marine, and a Political Science major so I do tend to get carried away. I especially get frustrated by the level of intelligent people who are still misinformed about the former President.

1) I agree that the pretense under which to invade Iraq was, in retrospect, ill informed and stupid- but that doesn't mean that the endgame of the war is any less beneficial. There are ideological and moral issues with going to war in Iraq, yes. But there are also victories that this war has provided that go largely unnoticed. You made my point for me... it's stupid to argue either for OR against the Iraq war on the basis of helping others since administrations from both sides of the aisle have chosen to fight some wars and not fight others. The argument that the Iraq war was wrong OR right on the basis of helping a repressed subpopulation is ignoring the history of U.S. support (or lack thereof) for similar situations.

2) No problem whatsoever. And please don't take my rebuttals/rants as any disrespect toward you. I can't tell you the amount of respect I have for you for being a Marine... I've had the pleasure of interviewing a few for research I've done in counter-terrorism, and 100% of the time, they've been great people. In these debates, I get carried away as well- but mostly due to my frustration about intelligent people who refuse to recognize the benefits of controversial policies. So essentially, we're in the same boat, I'm just wearing a red lifevest and you're wearing a blue one.

Posted: Jan 21 2009 01:10 pm

Cattivo wrote:

I'm sorry but a man like Kerry who compared our troops to Genghis Khan through second-hand accounts did not honorably serve his country - especially when there are legitimate questions about the authenticity of the injuries he received to get those purple hearts.

Geez, why does this topic have to re-hash all these stupid arguments? You Obama supporters should be happy and looking towards the future. You've been Bush-bashing for years, try to be positive about how America is going to live happily ever after in a land of rainbows now.

Ok, Bush went AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard! Cheney deferred going to Vietnam and said he had more important things to do than the war. Yet they have no problem sending America's poor into combat. Kerry was in Vietnam, Bush was not. I don't care about Kerry's medals or what he said when he came back. He was a rich kid who could have pussied out like Bush and Cheney did but he didnt. He served our country, end of story.

George Bush and company did the same thing to John McCain, which makes me laugh out loud when I heard the Bush endorsement. That is what Bush did, he ran campaigns on fear and turned his opponents strengths into weaknesses. Fuck that chickenhawk bs. Obama has people believing in America again, and he is surrounding himself with the right people. Dick Luger, General Jim Jones, General Zinni, General Shinseki, Steven Chu and others. I see that he is not only choosing liberal left wingers, but conservatives as well. A big difference from the last administration. It may not be a land of rainbows, whatever that is, but it will be a new America in which we think before we act and look towards the betterment of whole country not just the richest 10 percent.