theBlackman on 26/8/2008 at 22:32
I hate politics to begin with. Sadly for the last year (give or take) you can't avoid it.
This McCain, Obama fiasco is about the worst I've been exposed to in 50 years. Neither one has attempted to say they would deal with, or how, the real issues: reducing government to a reasonable realistic level, reducing expenditures to get rid of crap and porkbarrel politics, and actually serving the country as a whole.
Both want to lead us into a socialistic situation where no one is responsible for themselves and the expanded programs of the government, funded by higher taxes and a extreme loss of personal freedom and privacy, will provide for everyone.
BULL CRAP!
Free nearly everything at the expense of all. More eavesdropping on the population, more restrictions on the Internet, more "Police state" tactics, and numerous other BS that shreds the Constitution, reduces the public to a herd of sheep, and otherwise invades your life, home and personal freedoms.
Sadly, there is no way out at the moment. If you don't vote, or if you vote anything but Mc or Ob, you still need to bend over with a large jar of vaseline, KY Jelly, or Lard, for you country folk, and get ready to get reamed. Because the rest of the numbskulls and ne'r-do-wells and sheepherd mentality of the bulk of the population will vote one of these losers in.
McCain will give us more of Bush. Not a good thing. Obama makes good mouth music, with little substance, and if elected, has a hard road to even get close to making sweeping changes. The socialistic crap might go, because the rest of the congress will not want to rock the boat. So Health care, and immigration and the other BS issues have a small chance.
My thought is that it's time to bend over, grab your ankles and kiss your ass goodby.
And, no, I won't be arguing with anyone one way or the other. I'll just pack up my soapbox and watch the fur fly.
demagogue on 26/8/2008 at 23:15
It's not a great choice, but it's better than LBJ v Goldwater, or Nixon v Humphrey. Even Bush I v Clinton was considered an awful choice at the time; Perot actually had a plurality of the vote for him just before he briefly dropped out. So we've seen worse.
The Democrats aren't making me look forward to anything they can do. But I do feel like Obama could at least give us back some self-respect as a nation when he speaks publicly. I wouldn't hate McCain as President, but not sure the times really call for his skill-set just now. No less than Greenspan lambasted Bush's tax cuts, and McCain himself went 180° into now supporting them, and his economic thinking aside from that is ... not very confidence-building.
Muzman on 26/8/2008 at 23:53
Quote Posted by theBlackman
Both want to lead us into a socialistic situation where no one is responsible for themselves and the expanded programs of the government, funded by higher taxes and a extreme loss of personal freedom and privacy, will provide for everyone.
This is always bizarre to me. The possibility of helping people being the end of civilisation as we know it. Cons are always so worried about this lack of this mystical personal responsibility stuff like it's all teetering on the brink. The rest of the western world, with all of its horrible socialism and taxes etc, it's not really a conversation anyone needs to have. It's just kind of, you know, implicit it seems to me. And with that in place people can have a much more complex discussion about the role of the state (not necessarily a smooth process I grant).
For a country where half the populace reportdedly don't believe in evolution, much of that same half have a real hard on for social darwinism, it seems. Time to move on.
ZymeAddict on 27/8/2008 at 00:23
Quote Posted by Muzman
This is always bizarre to me. The possibility of helping people being the end of civilisation as we know it. Cons are always so worried about this lack of this mystical personal responsibility stuff like it's all teetering on the brink. The rest of the western world, with all of its horrible socialism and taxes etc, it's not really a conversation anyone needs to have. It's just kind of, you know, implicit it seems to me. And with that in place people can have a much more complex discussion about the role of the state (not necessarily a smooth process I grant).
It's funny that you should say that, because the end of civilization as we know it is exactly what European countries (and to a slightly lesser extent, Canada, Australia, and the US) are facing. With birthrates hovering at 1.5 children per woman or lower (replacement level is at least 2.1), while the rate among immigrants is many times that, western countries are likely going to be facing quite a bit of change over this century.
The lack of "mystical" personal responsibility you spoke of has had quite an influence on this situation, in my opinion.
Muzman on 27/8/2008 at 00:27
The lack of personal responsibility caused low population growth? Do elaborate.
Scots Taffer on 27/8/2008 at 00:28
Isn't it preferable to have an inexperienced but very vocal idealist as President but backed up with a cabinet of experienced and wise vets of the political business - I'm sure a President is only as good as his advisors and basically if Obama has an idealistic view of how America needs to change (which it does) then why is having that viewpoint a bad thing if he can have his idealism bolstered by true understanding of what's necessary to do etc.
Surely the whole problem is that these non idealist Presidents are already totally cynical and burnt out shells of humanity before they even step into the role, having been bought and paid for by major corps, and hence their entire administration stems from this lack of political idealism?
Starrfall on 27/8/2008 at 01:13
Quote Posted by theBlackman
My thought is that it's time to bend over, grab your ankles and kiss your ass goodby
oh noes we all die
Ko0K on 27/8/2008 at 01:23
Quote Posted by theBlackman
I'll just pack up my soapbox and watch the fur fly.
Looks like you shed the most fur so far.
Pyrian on 27/8/2008 at 01:27
Budget control is in the House of Representatives. The president can certainly cripple federal programs through appointing incompetence (as Dubya has proven), which is why I don't think I will ever vote for an even moderately anti-government executive official ever again. It's stupidity of the first measure; an idealist can bungle things by trying to do right, but a person trying to do wrong can virtually guarantee it across the board.
Sadly, Bush and the Republican congress presided over the most massive increase in the Federal government since the New Deal - on top of doing their best to make existing programs not work. People complain about tax&spend, but I think it's much better than borrow&spend.
The_Raven on 27/8/2008 at 01:38
Quote Posted by ZymeAddict
It's funny that you should say that, because the end of civilization as we know it is exactly what European countries (and to a slightly lesser extent, Canada, Australia, and the US) are facing. With birthrates hovering at 1.5 children per woman or lower (replacement level is at least 2.1), while the rate among immigrants is many times that, western countries are likely going to be facing quite a bit of change over this century.
Sounds like people need to take the time to teach immigrants about how to use a condom. :p
Still, ZymeAddict, this really does come across as "white man under siege" sensationalism.
