RE: Yes - The Presidential Candidates ARE that BAD!

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Yes - The Presidential Candidates ARE that BAD!

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Yes - The Presidential Candidates ARE that BAD!

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Yes - The Presidential Candidates ARE that BAD! - 8/4/2008 1:34:08 PM

Archer

Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline

My vote will be going to Barr even though I don't think I'd want him to win.
Same goes for Senator and House election this year again Libertarian vote even if it means throwing the election to the opposition.

Ross Perot inadvertantly gave us Clinton and Clinton inadvertantly brought us to the Contract With America which brought us a ballanced budget.

So I don't fear the "You're throwing away your vote/ you might as well vote for the other guy/ bla bla bla." The only way a third party will ever make a difference is if the folks say the hell with the short term I'm voting long term and my heart, and if the other guy wins maybe the message will get through.

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Post #: 21

RE: Yes - The Presidential Candidates ARE that BAD! - 8/4/2008 1:51:24 PM

philosophy

Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
Ethics? Which of these men represent that in their past?

...neither. But, for the purposes of the argument i'm forwarding, it's broadly irrelevant.....

quote:

Or have you been convinced that past decisions don't represent "ethics" in either case? I think the decisions both these men made regarding their philosophical associations is a truer indication of their ethics than any promise or representation made on the campaign stub.

....i tend to agree. i think most US presidential elections are about the candidates. The vast majority probably. Thus, making decisions based on the correlation of their words and actions is a good idea.
i am suggesting, however, that this election is not one of those elections.....

quote:

Were there a candidate who represented a "next step" or progress in any direction it would be something to consider. Both of these candidates represent a future that insures special interest status quo in one form or another.

.....this is almost certainly true......which brings me back to ethics. Society is made up of a number of different groups angling for a slice of the pie, and controlling the size of the pie in the first place....more or less. Sometimes, (and this was very true of the Kinnock/Thatcher election i alluded to in my first post), whats at stake isn't the usual switch of governmental control. If an encumbent government has been radical enough, then it has almost always partially disenfranchised some groups in society. They may need disenfranchising, or there may be good reasons why it has to happen. But there are always losers. Every now and then there comes an election when it's only fair to make the pendulum swing the other way. To let the people that have been losing has a turn at winning.
In the long run, society benefits....

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

Post #: 22

RE: Yes - The Presidential Candidates ARE that BAD! - 8/4/2008 2:07:03 PM

Mercnbeth

Posts: 11766
Status: offline

quote:

Every now and then there comes an election when it's only fair to make the pendulum swing the other way. To let the people that have been losing has a turn at winning.
In the long run, society benefits....

Holly shit! That's the logic that brought us the "trophy's for everyone!" philosophy of youth sports. The elimination of the letter 'F' on a report card. The 'spirit' award replacing acknowledgment of academic achievement. The false world view created by a policy of striving for homogeneous mediocrity. How the hell does society benefit by making "failure" a qualification for the highest office in the land?

You recommend electing for President the person best represents recent "losers"? This would benefit society? A society of losers perhaps. Maybe that makes sense in this era of the US when rewarding failures is so prevalent.

However, I can't reason that supporting a representative loser is a good thing. Whatever side of the political fence, they earned the title loser for a reason. Besides; how could I expect a "winning" result for society or me when I've gone in with the idea of wanting a loser in the first place?

(in reply to philosophy)

Post #: 23

RE: Yes - The Presidential Candidates ARE that BAD! - 8/4/2008 2:48:47 PM

popeye1250

Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

5 million criminal workers

That's just plain ignorance. Immigration laws are regulatory and not criminal in nature, hence people working without authorization and without legal status are merely here unlawfully, not criminally.

Cloudboy, the Feds don't have "misdemeanors."
It is a Federal Felony to enter this country other than through a "Legal Port of Entry."
The very first action that these people take is to break our laws.
And if someone "overstays" their Visa it's also a Federal Felony and they can be arrested "on sight."

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to cloudboy)

Post #: 24

RE: Yes - The Presidential Candidates ARE that BAD! - 8/4/2008 4:52:12 PM

cloudboy

Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline

There's nowhere to go but up.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

Post #: 25

RE: Yes - The Presidential Candidates ARE that BAD! - 8/4/2008 5:00:08 PM

subrob1967

Posts: 4591
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

Here's a mliion dollar idea for you, make them in red & blue, and in the shape of an elephant's trunk & a donkey's ass.

(in reply to Sanity)

Post #: 26

RE: Yes - The Presidential Candidates ARE that BAD! - 8/4/2008 5:08:31 PM

philosophy

Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline

...because not all losers are measured by being right or wrong. We're not talking about competing paradigms locked into a death struggle from wihch only one can rise, alive........we're talking about subtly different visions of the way the whole business of governence works, and how those differences occur in most human populations. How sometimes, after one side of that extreme gets too free a rein......it's only sensible to make the system balance......

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

Post #: 27

RE: Yes - The Presidential Candidates ARE that BAD! - 8/5/2008 7:12:20 AM

cloudboy

Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline

Well the country looks to be changing.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

Post #: 28

RE: Yes - The Presidential Candidates ARE that BAD! - 8/5/2008 7:29:41 AM

Owner59

Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline

As if any of you whiners had a better alternitive.As if there were a better system of gov. or a freer` place.

Count your fucking blessings and be glad you can vote at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlXoIVLJWCY&feature=related

This sounds a lot like a guy(the op) who`s own candidate sucks eggs(McCain) and he knows it,so he`ll just shit on the whole parade and make every stink alike.

_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Post #: 29

RE: Yes - The Presidential Candidates ARE that BAD! - 8/5/2008 9:44:45 AM

Mercnbeth

Posts: 11766
Status: offline

quote:

This sounds a lot like a guy(the op) who`s own candidate sucks eggs(McCain) and he knows it,so he`ll just shit on the whole parade and make every stink alike.

\
You know Owner, you should stop projecting your own situation on others, especially me. I challenge you to find any reference that I ever was a McCain backer or even a Republican.

You, on the other hand, have an inexperienced, self proclaimed socialist left winger (his books - read them?) who didn't find it necessary to distance himself from a variety of questionable people and organizations. The same man who now is desperate to backtrack from his rare "on record" stances regarding off shore drilling, and the use of oil reserves. He has also yet to disclose any substance behind this "change" that he claims to represent.

I appreciate that the result of his programs would be to put each and every citizen on the government payroll in some form or fashion, but he leaves out a method of payment. I don't need or want a nanny. I don't think losers should be given a chance to government as a part of a loser EEO program. I can't see why an individual's or corporation's success should fund the failure of others. But what I really don't understand is how enabling failure to continue ever, or ultimately produces success. Do you?

As I've said in the past, I admire your blind trust and support for your party. However, I'd rather be in my situation of having no candidate than try and rationalize support for your guy.

(in reply to Owner59)

Post #: 30

RE: Yes - The Presidential Candidates ARE that BAD! - 8/5/2008 9:53:58 AM

philosophy

Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

I appreciate that the result of his programs would be to put each and every citizen on the government payroll in some form or fashion, but he leaves out a method of payment.

.......everyone who has a political view runs into the problem where the candidates available to vote for don't reflect their complex concerns. Owner has, on occasion, fallen into the trap where he sees the labels rather than the real views of people.

But Merc, the piece i've quoted is you doing exactly the same thing. Obama may well increase the number of people on the government payroll. i fully concede that how they are paid for is an issue that needs addressing.........but he's not going to conscript every single citizen.

Seems to me that the argument has become polarised, and once that happens it is difficult even for fair minded people to keep a good handle on their use of language.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

Post #: 31

RE: Yes - The Presidential Candidates ARE that BAD! - 8/5/2008 10:35:16 AM

Mercnbeth

Posts: 11766
Status: offline

Philo,

I'll substantiate my opinion on a recent Senator Obama quote; "It will take nothing less than a complete transformation of our economy,"

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080805/ap_on_el_pr/obama_energy

The US is what it is, and is the primary destination of immigrants, (legal and criminal) as a result of our economy. Good or bad, it functions. If it is functions poorly now, the support of failures has been a contributing factor. However, since this quote comes from an address on energy what possible "transformation" is he referring? Nationalizing the oil companies? Windfall profits tax? The negative impact of either of those complete transformations is too big a price to pay, unless its part of an overall move toward nationalizing private industry and commerce.

Also any of his policies are based behind questionable absolutes. For instance this quote from the same speech:

quote:

We've heard talk about curbing the use of fossil fuels in State of the Union addresses since the oil embargo of 1973.
Back then, we imported about a third of our oil. Now, we import more than half. Back then, global warming was the theory of a few scientists. Now, it is a fact that is melting our glaciers and setting off dangerous weather patterns as we speak.

(The speech in its entirety: http://www.wlns.com/global/story.asp?s=8784123 )

According to Senator Obama all the debate concerning global warming is now moot and "it is a fact". Ironically in 1973 there were an overwhelming number of scientists, documented in Newsweek who proclaimed the 'facts' of the imminent global cooling.

And it should be noted that this anti aid to oil companies candidate is advocating a $4 Billion in aid to the auto companies (Do you think the location of the speech, Michigan, has anything to do with that?). Environmentalists should note the advocacy for additional pipelines in the Alaskan wilderness. He also, in a sentence, represented himself in support of nuclear energy. Is he still the "environmental candidate"?

But of course, those of us not working for or advocating the religion of global warming, or the welfare payment to auto companies were offered something too. We'll get a $7,000/per car tax credit on the purchase of a energy efficient car. He's also going follow the lead provided by President Bush's 'economic stimulus plan' and send out a quick stipend of $1,000.00. to placate us. (Owner - is following the current administration 'economic stimulus' policy what you expected from your candidate?)

Now paying for this is missing from the equation. Considering that a new car is about $20k who is going to finance the balance; failed and failing banks? Then again is a tax credit not a discount, you'll be paying the full amount with the hope of getting something back someday, maybe, if there is any 'change' left over.

< Message edited by Mercnbeth -- 8/5/2008 10:39:40 AM >

(in reply to philosophy)

Post #: 32

RE: Yes - The Presidential Candidates ARE that BAD! - 8/5/2008 2:42:11 PM

cloudboy

Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

You know Owner, you should stop projecting your own situation on others, especially me. I challenge you to find any reference that I ever was a McCain backer or even a Republican.

I'd be curious to know your voting record over the past 20 years.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

Post #: 33

RE: Yes - The Presidential Candidates ARE that BAD! - 8/5/2008 3:07:23 PM

NuevaVida

Posts: 6707
Joined: 8/5/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Maybe there's a market for nosepins this year, special clothespins that go on your nose as you go in to vote. They could be made in red or blue and come in many different styles...

I like this idea. I'm almost tempted not to vote at all, but that just perpetuates the problem. *sigh*

_____________________________

Live Simply. Love Generously. Care Deeply. Speak Kindly.

(in reply to Sanity)

Post #: 34

RE: Yes - The Presidential Candidates ARE that BAD! - 8/5/2008 3:11:33 PM

Mercnbeth

Posts: 11766
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

You know Owner, you should stop projecting your own situation on others, especially me. I challenge you to find any reference that I ever was a McCain backer or even a Republican.

I'd be curious to know your voting record over the past 20 years.

I appreciate your fascination of me; however the response would be irrelevant to the current thread. Suffice it to say it was never along any party line ever - even beyond the 20 years of your interest.

(in reply to cloudboy)

Post #: 35

RE: Yes - The Presidential Candidates ARE that BAD! - 8/5/2008 6:07:05 PM

DarkSteven

Posts: 28072
Joined: 5/2/2008
Status: offline

Merc, I have a couple of things to say to you...

1. I believe that candates are not getting worse as much as perceptions of them are going downhill. Ike, JFK, and LBJ all had affairs while in office and nobody publicized it. Different world nowadays.

If JFK said one thing in Baltimore and then said something different in Poughkeepsie next day, nobody recorded it with a camera phone and posted it to YouTube that day. Today if Obama or McCain makes a slight change in position, it's viewed as a sacrilege. Flip flopping. As though inflexibility and stubbornness is a virtue.

Also, as negative campaigning comes into play, both candidates look worse.

2. I never cease to be amazed at conservatives who whine that they don't like any of the candidates. Trust me, their dislike ot McCain and Obama is NOTHING compared to the dislike which we have held for Bush for seven years and counting.

Since when is it mandated that 100% of the voters must believe 100% in one or more of the candidates? Or do you simply feel that as long as you're getting 100%, you don't care if others' desires are taken into account?

The ideal situation is if everyone's likes could be charted on a graph, and the President comes in roughly in the middle, antagonizing people on the ends equally.

_____________________________

"You women....

The small-breasted ones want larger breasts. The large-breasted ones want smaller ones. The straight-haired ones curl their hair, and the curly-haired ones straighten theirs...

Quit fretting. We men love you."

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

Post #: 36

RE: Yes - The Presidential Candidates ARE that BAD! - 8/5/2008 6:15:34 PM

PanthersMom

Posts: 2215
Joined: 11/26/2007
From: Cleveland Ohio
Status: offline

honestly, this surprizes anyone? they are the worst excuses for the best america has to offer in leadership. one would think the candidates would be the cream of the crop, the best and most qualified people available for the job. pipe dream! we only get the ones who can afford to buy their way into the job. if you believe otherwise, get your head out of your ass and pay attention.
PM

_____________________________

That which does not kill me, better run pretty damn fast

I miss my ex, but my aim is improving!

(in reply to DarkSteven)

Post #: 37

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Yes - The Presidential Candidates ARE that BAD!

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.074