| Welcome to Coffeetalk. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| I hate election campaigns | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 22 2007, 01:40 AM (486 Views) | |
| Eral | Jan 22 2007, 01:40 AM Post #1 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
It's going to be a hideously long year. Hillary, Barack, Al (maybe) are all going to present an image to the world, and try to lure people into voting for them. Just to be a candidate for the real election. God knows how bad it will be when everyone notices George's use-by date is expiring and we'll have to look at the parade of Republican candidates. Elections are getting too much like the Oscars for my liking. Voters have to be wooed: not informed. We are voting for who we are told has the most attractive hair style. Candidates have managers, like Hollywood stars: they are creatures of image and fiction. I have vague memories of the days when politicians actually had a different set of beliefs to each other. Now all the real deals are going on behind closed doors. How have we come to this? Tony Blair was swapping knighthoods in exchange for campaign contributions last year. (There is something horribly tragic in the idea of ex-socialists doing deals with the gentry.) Steve Bracks (our state Premier) has spent six years carefully doing nothing so as not to upset the status quo, despite being elected to change it, and is just now taking some criticism. (Drought, bush fires and power shortages are not good times to be seen as sitting around not doing anything.) I don't even want to think about George and Little Johnny. Hillary was trumpeted the other day as the "new Thatcher" - like it was good. No-one seemed to notice that Hillary and Maggie are supposed to have totally different agendas. In the movie 'Dave', the final scene shows Dave entering politics: and we are meant to feel hopeful that someone with integrity and honesty will win. 'West Wing' shows us what the worls would be like with someone with integrity and honesty in the driver's seat. Who do they think they are fooling? |
![]() |
|
| Blood_Raven | Jan 22 2007, 02:45 PM Post #2 |
![]()
Come burn with me.
|
I hate elections. Good thing about monarchies and that is never worrying about some lying politician trying to get your vote. |
|
TheFrozen North forums. Where it's at. Mood for today: Perfection | |
![]() |
|
| Joe | Jan 23 2007, 05:49 AM Post #3 |
|
Coffea Canephora
|
Actually, Eral, the possible Republican nominees are getting a lot of coverage. I think they get less than the Democrats for two reasons: 1) Hillary and Obama are novelty candidates, and 2) it's so up in the air right now concerning who the nominee will be. I think John McCain could win the national election, but probably not the election for his on party's endorsement. |
|
In the shadow of the light from a black sun Frigid statue standing icy blue and numb Where are the frost giants I've begged for protection? I'm freezing | |
![]() |
|
| Eral | Jan 23 2007, 09:45 AM Post #4 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
The media here is only up to the Democrats. For which I guess I should be grateful. McCain seems to get touted every year: but someone somewhere doesn't like him. |
![]() |
|
| underdog | Jan 23 2007, 04:37 PM Post #5 |
|
Irish Breakfast
|
I don't like him.
:) |
![]() |
|
| Boeing | Jan 23 2007, 05:07 PM Post #6 |
|
Yellow
|
I thought Blair was giving out peerages? |
| I want you. I want you so bad. I want you so bad it's driving me mad. She's so heavy! | |
![]() |
|
| Joe | Jan 23 2007, 09:50 PM Post #7 |
|
Coffea Canephora
|
McCain is generally popular with the American media, as well as with moderate Americans, but conservative Americans really despise him. He's a hawk, a fiscal conservative, and opposes abortion and gay marriage. In my opinion, they don't like him because he doesn't put his party above his principles or the American public. |
|
In the shadow of the light from a black sun Frigid statue standing icy blue and numb Where are the frost giants I've begged for protection? I'm freezing | |
![]() |
|
| underdog | Jan 24 2007, 04:27 AM Post #8 |
|
Irish Breakfast
|
I may have to sit out the election if it comes down to McCaiin or Hillary, don't think I could vote for either of them, McCain brought us the infamous McCain-Feingold fiasco, supports guest worker program (read amnesty) opposes a fence on the border, IIRC he opposed the Bush tax cuts,(not very fiscally conservative to me), McCain wants RvW overturned and the issue turned back tothe states where it belongs, (which is apparantly one issue that I agree with him on), otherwise he is just another RINO. Hillary is a vengeful woman, imagine that kind of person getting control of the IRS, FBI, NSA, and anything else, CBN was audited for 7 years under Bill Clinton, they only stopped when he left office. |
![]() |
|
| Joe | Jan 24 2007, 05:13 AM Post #9 |
|
Coffea Canephora
|
Would you really argue that McCain less fiscally conservative than Bush? |
|
In the shadow of the light from a black sun Frigid statue standing icy blue and numb Where are the frost giants I've begged for protection? I'm freezing | |
![]() |
|
| Eral | Jan 24 2007, 12:38 PM Post #10 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
Boeing: knighthoods/peerages. :rolleyes: Please. Does it make a difference? "Oh, he only bribed him with a GCMG. That's completely OK." :lol: Underdog: what is a RINO? I confess that I like McCain's policy stance on the issues you mention, except for Roe vs Wade. I guess we are diametrically opposed politically. ( I won't hold it against you, if you don't hold it against me. :lol: ) He sounds rather like a Democrat: perhaps this is the real reason he is unpopular as a Republican. Although, if this is true, I am very confused. As for Hillary being vengeful: this could be true, but how could you know for sure? CBN being audited could have been anyone's doing. So much of the information we have about our politicians is based on perception, not first-hand knowledge: I find it hard to know what's true. |
![]() |
|
| underdog | Jan 24 2007, 03:42 PM Post #11 |
|
Irish Breakfast
|
RINO 'republican in name only', he says he's a republican but takes or votes with the democrats almost all the time. Eral, so you support amnesty for illegal aliens?, oppose putting a fence on the border to deter illegal aliens? and are against tax cuts (for americans)? IIRC you're from Australia, I didn't think thos issues really mattered outside the US and probably Mexico. That is why a lot of Republicans don't like him and the press is so enamoured with him. I remember reading/hearing some (ex)IRS employees reported that they were 'suggested' to audit these people from rather high up. Joe, why do you think he is a fiscal conservative? the ratings I've seen have put him all over the baord from the 6th most liberal republican to the 3 most conservative republican. the ACU (American consertavie unino)now has him at 80-83% CAGW (Citizens Against Govt. Waste)has him at 91% NTU (National Taxpayers Union) has him at 64-77% for the last 3 sessions. FRC (Family research council) apparnatly gave hima 100% NRA gave him a C+. Not too bad ratings, did do some research otherwise last night he looks a little more palatable, but still don't really like him. He has opposed any drilling in ANWAR, caled for more taxes on oil, and as stated before supported amnesty and opposed a fence, for me those are relativly important issues, the rest (right now) aren't deal breakers. |
![]() |
|
| Regullus | Jan 24 2007, 04:02 PM Post #12 |
|
Reliant
|
If I recall R v. Wade correctly, the repeal of the decision would not make abortion illegal in the US, the law forced all states to legalize abortion. At issue was a woman in Texas who wanted an abortion but would have had to go California and this was deemed an unreasonable hardship. A year or so ago, I was at a pro-choice site which rated states for abortion access. How they rated the states was on ease of access. Fair enough, right? Well, it was pretty extreme, in essence what the goal was for any female (you'll see why I say that) to have an abortion anywhere. My state had a fairly high plus rating but had negative ratings because minors (with the exception of incest) had to have parental permission/knowledge or a judge's permission before an abortion, also we don't have a lot of abortion clinics and the site basically wants an abortion clinic in every county. The parental issue question aside, a clinic in every county is unreasonable and unnecessary. Also, the site was against waiting periods or counseling of other options and even counseling describing the procedure and the outcome; emotionally and physically. Some states had a negative rating because they didn't have any abortion clinics and it was the site's position that they should be forced by the Feds to have clinics, ideally, a clinic in every county. In my state, you either have to go to a major metropolitan area or you have to go to Massachussets. If you need a later pregnancy (I believe after four months) terminated, you need to go to Massachussets (a bordering state). R v. W. has been on the books for 33 yrs. In spite of this law being a federal mandate, the law didn't really change access. Yes, it did in Texas, it's a large state and the population can support a certain amount of clinics. I believe Mississippi is an example of a state with no clinics, part of the reason there are no clinics in the state is due, I believe, to the conservative values of the state. However, people in need may go to a neighboring state. Sound familar? If the voters of a state vote against an issue, should the Feds. override the culture and beliefs of a state? Obviously in some cases, segregation, comes immediately to mind but in all cases? I'm a great believer in states' rights and in many cases I think states have a right to decide their own culture and laws. Before R v. Wade, you couldn't get an abortion in Miss. because it was illegal, two generations later, you still can't get an abortion in Miss. (or at least there are no clinics) and it's legal. Now Canada has no abortion law and I believe in theory it is simply treated as a medical procedure but how has the law been applied? Could a woman walk into any Doctor's office at six months or later and procure an abortion simply for personal reasons? Should abortion be treated as non-judgementally as someone removing a mole or cyst? The reason abortion is such a fraught issue is because there are moral aspects and valid competing moral interests. I don't find it surprising that this issue is so contentious and I am uncomfortable forcing either side of the issue. I think an acceptable comprimise has been reached but again, should the issue be enforced on a unwilling populace (ie State)? This is a bad argument for a variety of reasons not least because the Feds could charge a potential case under federal law and execute but I'll use it, if a State did not wish to have the death penalty but the Feds forced the State to carry out death penalties, would that be fair? No. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Joe | Jan 24 2007, 10:14 PM Post #13 |
|
Coffea Canephora
|
Well I think your research has shown that McCain is hardly just a RINO. Opposition to drilling in ANWAR, building a fence along the border, and calling for higher taxes on oil hardly negate his other positions. Personally, I disagree with him about the border fence, but it's not a deal-breaker to me. I have very strong opinions about campaign finance reform, and I'm glad McCain has made it an important issue in the past. Those who try to make a "free speech" argument about monetary contributions to political campaigns are woefully misguided. He's branded as a RINO because he's willing to say "no" to the Party. Re: Roe v. Wade--What an awful decision, reached with awful legal reasoning. Also, I find it peculiar that many people who oppose abortion on the grounds of "right to life" also support the right to an abortion if conception was caused by rape or incest, or if the mother's life would be endangered by the pregnancy. A human being is a human being. |
|
In the shadow of the light from a black sun Frigid statue standing icy blue and numb Where are the frost giants I've begged for protection? I'm freezing | |
![]() |
|
| underdog | Jan 24 2007, 11:01 PM Post #14 |
|
Irish Breakfast
|
Border fence and amnesty are almost a deal-breker for me, drilling in ANWAR would reduce our dependance on foreign (read mideast) oil, and oil companies are already paying $50+ billion in taxes, and royalties for the right(s) to drill in federal land(s) in the gulf, how much more does the government think they need? Agreed RvW was bad decision based on bad law, and agree it should go back to the states, he's right on the federalism of the issue, and reversing RvW won't stop abortions, they were already occuring before the decision. Regullus: She wasn't really looking for an abortion, she was searched out by the abortion lawyers to use for a test case, and she is now solidly pro-life. |
![]() |
|
| Regullus | Jan 24 2007, 11:52 PM Post #15 |
|
Reliant
|
IRT underdog - I had heard that about the woman. Totally oversimplified the case and I have to say I didn't recall that it dealt with alleged rape. My bad! In my defense, I did say "IIRC." The decision is based on right to privacy. Not too, too different. :rolleyes: Roe v. Wade ala Wiki Judge White's Dissenting Opinion:
Liberal Dissent against the opinion:
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Joe | Jan 25 2007, 12:42 AM Post #16 |
|
Coffea Canephora
|
I've read and heard that drilling in ANWAR would only supply anything for six months. Hardly a reason to start drilling. Oil companies pay a pittance of their profits, and then have the nerve to price gouge at a time like when Katrina hit. They couldn't afford to double their profits rather than triple them? Re: Roe: I understand that woman seriously regrets even being involved with the case. |
|
In the shadow of the light from a black sun Frigid statue standing icy blue and numb Where are the frost giants I've begged for protection? I'm freezing | |
![]() |
|
| Eral | Jan 25 2007, 03:48 AM Post #17 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
I have always been interested in the issue of illegal immigrants in America. Everybody condemns it, but a squillion or so Mexicans without papers get work every year. I've heard commentators suggest America's economy runs on illegal immigrants' work. Amnesty seems a recognition of the fact that illegals are in fact contributing citizens. I object to the fence because I don't see it as a terribly effective response. A fence isn't going to be much of an obstacle to people with wire-cutters. The source of the problem is the fact that people can get work for better pay in America than in Mexico without having to go through legal channels. Tax cuts? Who are they for? What service is going to be decimated to pay for them? And don't you have a huge deficit? But other than that, I can't say that issue grabs me. Roe vs Wade: I've heard the woman was searched out by anti-abortion lobbyists and is used to support a roll back of a woman's right to control her fertility. I'm all for abortion being legal. I don't think personal religious views should be the basis for laws that pertain to everyone. Abortion and having children are a personal decision and a personal responsibility. There are those who believe that a woman's role in life is to deliver children into the world whether they want to or not, and people who think women should be allowed to have some control over their lives. Bad law? It's all in your interpretation, isn't it? Don't believe in abortion? Good for you. Don't ever have one. But I always think you never know exactly how things will turn out. For instance, in the event that Joe's wife suffers a life-threatening illness during pregnancy, who knows but that he might support an abortion in that case? Abortion is legal here: it is meant to be done for health reasons, but it a safe, readily obtainable procedure. We have issues with counselling services being run by pro-life groups who do not refer women on to clinics, and Catholic hospitals in rural areas refusing the procedure to women. It's still a controversial issue: but life and choice are biggies, aren't they? |
![]() |
|
| underdog | Jan 25 2007, 04:34 AM Post #18 |
|
Irish Breakfast
|
Joe, stop and think about it this way, they say don't drill in ANwar it will take 7 years to get any oil out of there, so why start now, then they say there's only 6 months of oil there, (didn't they say about the same thing about Prudhoe bay?) well if it is going to take that long to get oil out of there do you really think that the oil companies ( or any company for that matter) si going to invest several years and how many tens or hundreds of millions dollars to get some oil out of there, then pack up their toys and go home after only 6 months? If they though there was only 6 months of oil they wouldn't waste the time and money to go get the oil there would be no way to make the investment back. Most of the rigs in the gulf were damged/destroyed, their oil production went down, the oil prices wasn't set by Exxon or BP Amoco or who ever, it has become a commoditiy, and the speculators tend to set it, and yes they do drive the pirce up and down at the drop of a hat. Oil companies still have ~8% profit margins, when the american rigs went offline they then had to go buy oil from the open market, instead of using their own oil, that was bought from the Saudis or whomever(our bigggest supplier is actually Canada), for market prices of $60+ a barrel, so it's not like exxon was getting oil out of the ground for a pittance and selling for $60+ a barrel. The problem is with immigrants that don't assimilate they just want to move Mexico up here, there is a Mexican movement that has a goal of reclaiming the west for mexico, the Mexican govt. see's it as a civil right for their citizens to move freely back and forth into and out of the US, I didn't know that (at the time) Vicente Fox could decide what is or isn't a civil right in the US. Is there problems with the legal way (ie. log delays) to get into the US, yes, lets fix them rather then just granting amnesty and citizenship to anyone who wants it. Tax cuts can and do increase revenue to the government, it's not axiomatic that a tax increase will increase revenue, if you raise taxes enough people will not have enough money to spend and the economy will start to slow down, which will reduce revenues, the economic engine of the US and any country is the private sector, not the government, if you get right down to it, the government produces nothing, it just takes, it's the private sector, and business and people of the country going about their lives that produces the GDP. Little quiz, there are 2 tax rates that will produce no revenue to the government do you know what they are? Like I said before I don't think reversing RvW will stop abortions, but it will be up to the states, like regullus said the pro-abortion crowd would like to see a clinic in every county, and planned parenthood, who likes to say they are all for choices, had a cow when Bush 41, said that they had to provide information about adoption or assistance on raising the child instead of only the option of 'would you like your abortion at 9 or 10 O'clock?' if they accepted federal money. |
![]() |
|
| Regullus | Jan 25 2007, 05:30 AM Post #19 |
|
Reliant
|
As in most things there are benefits and negatives but make no mistake there are a lot of negatives to all involved with the possible exception of Mexico. I think Mexico gains quite a bit from the situation. I've always thought legal immigration while tedious was a win-win situation for all. I really don't understand why people are so against it. ![]() From Wiki:
More Wiki: Illegal Immigration to the US |
| |
![]() |
|
| Joe | Jan 25 2007, 08:48 AM Post #20 |
|
Coffea Canephora
|
It's not wrong to ask that people respect our immigration laws.
She was used by the pro-abortionists.
There's more to it than just religious belief. The Court has no right to decide when a fetus isn't a human being.
Not all interpretations are legitimate.
It has nothing to do with whether or not one "believes in abortion", it has to do with whether or not the Roe v. Wade decision was based legal reasoning and sound constitutional interpretation. Many people who "believe in abortion" also feel that the decision was totally unconstitutional.
Don't believe in pedophelia? Good for you. Don't fuck kids!
That's an appeal to emotion, not to reason. Even if I changed my feelings about because of my wife's situation, the argument I made remains the same. It doesn't rely on my present feelings to stay true. In any case, that decision would be my wife's. |
|
In the shadow of the light from a black sun Frigid statue standing icy blue and numb Where are the frost giants I've begged for protection? I'm freezing | |
![]() |
|
| Joe | Jan 25 2007, 09:00 AM Post #21 |
|
Coffea Canephora
|
I admit you are probably more up on this than me. But I also feel like resources spent on drilling in ANWAR would be better suited to finding alternative sources of energy.
They didn't even try to help out. They could have afforded it.
I disagree with you on this to a degree. I don't think anyone really wants former Mexican territory returned. I think the Mexican establishment sees illegal immigration to the United States as a way to deal with the economy they have destroyed, and would rather try to fix in the slowest ways possible. I think the problem with assimilation comes from two reasons: 1. Since they have entered the country illegally, they're not all that concerned about becoming a part of society. 2. Many of them never intend to live in the US permanently. They come, make money, and take it home. |
|
In the shadow of the light from a black sun Frigid statue standing icy blue and numb Where are the frost giants I've begged for protection? I'm freezing | |
![]() |
|
| Eral | Jan 25 2007, 10:36 AM Post #22 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
Are you sure? I think they are all for assimilation: the reason they come is to access education, health and job benefits. Assimilation is a very tricky thing: language and traditions are not easily ditched. In countries with a diverse migrant population, what is the dominant culture? In the 50's here, migrants were expected to anglicise their names, drop their language and only eat sausage and mashed potato. Thank Christ they resisted. We wouldn't have coffee or gelati if they had. :o |
![]() |
|
| Regullus | Jan 25 2007, 04:24 PM Post #23 |
|
Reliant
|
In Florida there's some type of duck (Muscovy?) kinda hideous looking thing that's all over the place but I digress, the state of Florida had to put the duck under protection because Haitian immigrants were killing the ducks for dinner. Apparently, the duck has very tough meat and requires hours of boiling to make it edible and it's very smelly and stinks up the area badly. So, really not all customs brought in by immigrants are to be encouraged. That's what some random stranger of Hispanic background told me when I was in Florida. In all seriousness, and we have touched on this discussion before but no, not all immigrant culture and customs should be encouraged. Yeah, there's really great food, writings, family traditions, etc., etc., but there's also female mutilations and health customs that aren't possibly the best thing in whole world either. A country should be welcoming but I think there should be an attempt at assimilation. If a Westerner moved to the East and yet made no attempt to live within the culture we would consider that an arrogance. I was watching some MTV show and it was about a young girl of Mexican descent who was having a hard time melding the two cultures. Her father disapproved of her desire to go to college and believed she should marry and obey her husband. This point of view isn't unique to Mexicans but should it be encouraged? No, a country loses valuable resources (if nothing else) and identity if there is no assimilation. On a related topic, I was watching a documentary called: Me and the Mosque The docu was quite interesting to me. One aspect that struck me was the women interviewed were on the whole well educated and opinionated in the West but felt inhibited when approaching their own culture about changes and misinterpretations; all admitted to feeling proscribed. One woman was an anti-war activist who spoke passionately and eloquently outside her culture and at the same time spoke of the excellence of her culture yet was an inarticulate school girl when discussing the problems of screened segregation at some mosques within her culture. It was a striking dichotomy. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Joe | Jan 25 2007, 09:46 PM Post #24 |
|
Coffea Canephora
|
I think it's pretty absurd when people don't think it's OK to want to preserve the Anglo spirit of this country and others in the Anglosphere. Like you said, Regullus, we wouldn't move to China and expect them to suddenly not give a shit about their own traditions. Foreign elements are welcome here, as long as they don't conflict with our society's values, and as long as our own elements are held above others. I don't mean "above" to be better, but to be special to our particular nation. |
|
In the shadow of the light from a black sun Frigid statue standing icy blue and numb Where are the frost giants I've begged for protection? I'm freezing | |
![]() |
|
| Krazy | Jan 25 2007, 10:35 PM Post #25 |
|
I haz powah!
|
So have I got this right, you had a Bush, then a Clinton, and then a Bush and now you might have a Clinton again? |
| "Well, ‘course dis one’s betta! It’s lotz ‘eavier, and gots dem spikey bitz on de ends. " | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today. Learn More · Sign-up Now |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Table 32 · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2



No-one seemed to notice that Hillary and Maggie are supposed to have totally different agendas.






6:59 PM Jul 11