Who'll be the better president?

[FordGT90Concept]

The thing is, I actually live in America, born and bred. I am the product of the American education system, all the way up through secondary education and probably beyond. I don't think America is what it could and should be, simple as that. But don't get me wrong, I count myself lucky every day to be here. That doesn't mean I don't think some things should be changed though, and we could make it better. To some, proposing such things is unpatriotic, and shows my ignorance. I, of course, disagree, but all one can do is laugh sometimes.

We have an inalienable right to disagree with our government and we have a right to try to change as we see fit. Because of our brilliantly crafted Constitution, this country is capable of adapting to new situations like no other. "We the people..."

Of course it is, and of course I have, that doesn't mean I do though. And yes, all differences can be resolved by words, if they can't, then maybe the two sides can agree to disagree. The words are not theoretical, although you would say they are idealist. History will continue to repeat itself if we continue to do what has been done, I thought you understood that was my point. :shadedshu

What if I came into your house and threatened to take over your land and everything on it at gun point. Would you give in or fight back? Words are quite irreleveant when your life is on the line where to agree is to live and to disagree is to die.

 

[Bigjohn]

Whaddayouknow -- Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal with an opinion piece about why government healthcare is bad. Imagine that. *Yawn*

Of course the system needs tweaking -- doesn't mean there's anything fundamentally wrong with it.

Typical democrat..
Dont' repudiate the facts, just say "well, that guy who owns that paper is a schill, so we can't believe anything..."

well, Madonna is a whore who's music I abhore, and she says "Obama is the best"... Can't be right, not any way shape or form... she's wrong, so OBAMA is wrong (well, he is, and she sucks, so ...)

 

[mdm-adph]

Yes, you are. Don't mock it until you experience it.

The same should be said here to Americans who have never lived in the rest of the world, too.

The words are not theoretical, although you would say they are idealist. History will continue to repeat itself if we continue to do what has been done, I thought you understood that was my point. :shadedshu

Let's be honest here -- history will more than likely repeat itself until we blow ourselves to hell. Human beings aren't immortal, and neither are our memories.

By the way, has anybody seen the numbers on "Obama stock" today? It's trading at something like nine times that of McCain's: http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/trading/t_index.jsp?selConID=409933

Typical democrat..
Dont' repudiate the facts, just say "well, that guy who owns that paper is a schill, so we can't believe anything..."

well, Madonna is a whore who's music I abhore, and she says "Obama is the best"... Can't be right, not any way shape or form... she's wrong, so OBAMA is wrong (well, he is, and she sucks, so ...)

I don't see a problem with what you're saying. Madonna is a moron -- you shouldn't base your opinions on Obama based upon what she says.

Rupert Murdoch is practically a shill -- you shouldn't base your opinions on McCain's policies (anti-NHS) based upon what he says.

I'm not going to repudiate it because it's not worth giving it credence to do so.

 

[farlex85]

What if I came into your house and threatened to take over your land and everything on it at gun point. Would you give in or fight back? Words are quite irreleveant when your life is on the line where to agree is to live and to disagree is to die.

I probably would fight back if I couldn't just leave (which I would do first). But how about you just don't come over to my house and threaten me in the first place (the key thing you said there is gunpoint, how about you just come say I want your land, we could discuss the matter w/o guns being in the equation)? As I said, we are a long way from a peaceful society but it is possible, and giving everyone guns is a step in the wrong direction. So is attacking and threatening other countries, but we don't need to get into that one.

Let's be honest here -- history will more than likely repeat itself until we blow ourselves to hell. Human beings aren't immortal, and neither are our memories.

.

That is probable, but not necessary.

 

[Bigjohn]

The same should be said here to Americans who have never lived in the rest of the world, too.



Let's be honest here -- history will more than likely repeat itself until we blow ourselves to hell. Human beings aren't immortal, and neither are our memories.

By the way, has anybody seen the numbers on "Obama stock" today? It's trading at something like nine times that of McCain's: http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/trading/t_index.jsp?selConID=409933



I don't see a problem with what you're saying. Madonna is a moron -- you shouldn't base your opinions on Obama based upon what she says.

Rupert Murdoch is practically a shill -- you shouldn't base your opinions on McCain's policies (anti-NHS) based upon what he says.

I'm not going to repudiate it because it's not worth giving it credence to do so.

Well, you're repudiating the publisher owner of the paper, who does nothing about the day to day running of the newspaper... instead of dealing with the facts of the article.

California, MASS, and Penn have all tried this bullshit, and they're all out of money because they can't tax the rich enough.....

 

[mdm-adph]

Well, you're repudiating the publisher owner of the paper, who does nothing about the day to day running of the newspaper... instead of dealing with the facts of the article.

It wasn't an article -- it was an opinion piece. One at least has the illusion of being unbiased -- one doesn't even try.

And the fact that you think that an infamous and ideologically-charged owner of a newspaper has nothing to do with the day-to-day running of it is just plain laughable.

You see? Here's me laughing.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I probably would fight back if I couldn't just leave (which I would do first). But how about you just don't come over to my house and threaten me in the first place (the key thing you said there is gunpoint, how about you just come say I want your land, we could discuss the matter w/o guns being in the equation)? As I said, we are a long way from a peaceful society but it is possible, and giving everyone guns is a step in the wrong direction. So is attacking and threatening other countries, but we don't need to get into that one.

That's negotiating with a terrorist (which I am in that case)--it doesn't work. Had that scenario actually played out, you'd be dead. Even if it weren't a gun, like a machette or some other large pointy object, you are still not in a position to negotiate without the same or better.

Now lets change the theoreticals. What if I come in to your house demanding you fork it over but instead of me having the weapon, you do. It puts you in a position to negotiate with me because it is my life on the line, most likely not yours; however, if an agreement is not reached, there's nothing to stop me from breaking into your home while you sleep and off you when you don't see it coming.

It works both ways. You can't control the attacker but you can control the situation. As long as humans live, this scenario can and will play out.

 

[DaedalusHelios]

Typical democrat..
Dont' repudiate the facts, just say "well, that guy who owns that paper is a schill, so we can't believe anything..."

well, Madonna is a whore who's music I abhore, and she says "Obama is the best"... Can't be right, not any way shape or form... she's wrong, so OBAMA is wrong (well, he is, and she sucks, so ...)

Madonna did a video with McCain though: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8G9jA-FGGd8&NR=1

That's negotiating with a terrorist (which I am in that case)--it doesn't work. Had that scenario actually played out, you'd be dead. Even if it weren't a gun, like a machette or some other large pointy object, you are still not in a position to negotiate without the same or better.

Now lets change the theoreticals. What if I come in to your house demanding you fork it over but instead of me having the weapon, you do. It puts you in a position to negotiate with me because it is my life on the line, most likely not yours; however, if an agreement is not reached, there's nothing to stop me from breaking into your home while you sleep and off you when you don't see it coming.

It works both ways. You can't control the attacker but you can control the situation. As long as humans live, this scenario can and will play out.

The "enemy at your doorstep" analogy if silly because the terrorists are not going door to door in america. Terrorists were never in Iraq in recent years until we entered it militarily. They are more than just an ocean away. Lets not be so paranoid. We have CIA, NSA, FBI, and homeland security. If they can't suffice they must be pretty shitty at there jobs. The more you fight on there land/area, the more enemies you create. Terrorist organizations have more than doubled in support since we entered Iraq. Wonder why? We had more collateral damage since then and the more rational Muslims are seeing us as a threat now because we are killing Muslims in the Middle East again without the aid of a large Muslim nation like Bush Senior did. Bush Senior said it was a bad idea and his son for some reason thinks he is smarter. Thats a huge mistake because Bush Senior was exCIA and very intelligent, GW Bush will never be as intelligent as his father.

I think Bush senior is a better pick than McCain. Or they could have had him as VP even. Bush Senior is very different than his son. He was more cautious and made better decisions. Bill Clinton was just alot better so that cut Bush Senior into a one term president.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

The "enemy at your doorstep" analogy if silly because the terrorists are not going door to door in america. ...

You, good sir, completely missed the point. For all you know, the "terrorist" in my example could be the nut case living across the street or a very aggressive repossessor. I am talking about domestic incidents of someone that you personally know or at least have met.

Yet, the same incidents I described have happened in the past during the Revolutionary War (British troops occupied American houses) and have most definitely occurred in Iraq (militants occupying civilian houses without welcome) with slightly different circumstances. The authors of the Constitution were well aware of this and had to come up with a way to prevent it from happening in the future. Their answer was the 2nd Amendment which effectively made it risky for anyone to attempt to commandeer anything. When there is enough risk, people don't attempt it.

Back to theoreticals. Knowing the 2nd Amendment does exist and about half of American households have fire arms, where would I try to bunk for the night in relative safety? Homes are not an option because I would have better odds playing Russian Roulette. Hospital, maybe, but they usually are in close contact with the authorities and there are a crap load of civilians there to cause problems. Schools don't have anything I would valuable and most likely do have some form of security presense. My best bet would be a church. I can tell how many people are inside from the number of vehicles outside, they usually have limited security systems, they often have a pantry of food I could consume, it is very unlikely anyone would come in in the middle of the night, and it is very unlikely to encounter someone that could fight back. So, if USA were to be attacked, I'd be looking at churches for temporary HQs and enemy forces being entrenched. That's a pretty narrow list in the average community...

If the 2nd Amendment did not exist, the only houses with guns are most likely those of law enforcement so, this makes it real easy. Because law enforcement vehicles are not owned by the family, the vehicle itself is most likely parked outside. All I have to do is cruise around the hood until I find a police vehicle outside, sneak in under the cover of night (officers aren't paid that well and because of the career, they have a false sense of security), send my group to find all the potential targets in the house, and eliminate them systematically. I can then find the gun and any useful supplies and I have a place to camp out with relative immunity. I can even use the cloths in the closet to pose as an officer and evict other homes. I can do as I please (including launching attacks on whomever) and few would be the wiser. So, how would this be countered without going door to door? I don't think there is a way.


Making guns legal only works in a stable society. Iraq, for instance, wasn't/isn't stable so if we were to hand out guns to smoke out the enemy, we have no way of knowing how many would use them against us. The reason why we would be the primary target is because many can/do see us as agressors (rightfully so). A "right to bear arms" only works in societies that have a strong kinship among the populous and also a fair amount of education. I don't doubt that Iraq will have that kinship and education once we leave (or at least our presence restricted to a base or two). Then again, there is another element USA had leading up to the Constitution that Iraq doesn't yet have: that is generations of Americans living on US soil before it became an independent nation. The people that were here were mostly tolerate of others and worked well together. Iraq has serious cultural divides that will take a few generations to diminish. Once Iraqis are Iraqis and not Sunni/Shiite/Kurd, guns could most likely proliferate without major detrimental consequence and the terrorists would be secluded to the few places guns are forbidden.

 

[DaedalusHelios]

I am not going to quote the entire post you just made but I know what you are saying. The problem is this fear induced by the media controls you and your world view. You shouldn't even watch television for news. Read it in print and do research on your own. You being afraid of them and thinking another attack could happen at any time only gives terrorists more power. Thats what empowers them and enables them to look like a better investment to people that want America in disarray and fear.

Our country already has more than needed in place to keep them at bay. We just need better airport and Marine security for checking things coming into the country and we are fine. Iraq was just a huge mistake without the help of countries like we had the first time we went in. Paranoia of "they will follow us home" is ridiculous. Attacks like 9/11 were an anomaly and we will have enough defense doing what I suggested above.

I can see your point, I just feel that its convoluted with paranoia.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

This has nothing to do media. It has nothing to do with fear. It has nothing to do with television. It has nothing to do with newspapers. It has nothing to do with research. It has nothing to do with me being afraid. It has everything to do with being prepared for anything. We have a right to bare arms and the choice is in your hands. Should something happen, are you going to be the victim or are you going to own the situation?

Terrorist, murder, arsonist, robber, etc. very little separates them. They're all criminals and they all bleed.

Some day, all the Republicans and Independents are going to have to save the Democrat's asses. It doesn't matter when that day will come, it is inevitable. We are not immune to attack but we are smarter than they are.


It's one thing to screen goods for illicit materials--it's something completely different to evaluate individuals for psychopathy. Need I remind you, all the perpetrators involved in 9/11 made it through multiple security measures include border/port security and airport security. We cannot look at an individual and accurately decide if they have criminal activity on their mind or not. The 2nd Amendment is about giving the people the opportunity to fight back and not be victimized. 9/11 wouldn't have happened if any and everybody was allowed to carry firearms on the aircraft. If someone wants to take over an aircraft, all they had to do in the past was find and incapacitate the air marshal: the only person previously permitted to carry a firearm.

 

[DaedalusHelios]

This has nothing to do media. It has nothing to do with fear. It has nothing to do with television. It has nothing to do with newspapers. It has nothing to do with research. It has nothing to do with me being afraid. It has everything to do with being prepared for anything. We have a right to bare arms and the choice is in your hands. Should something happen, are you going to be the victim are you going to own the situation?

Terrorist, murder, arsonist, robber, etc. very little separates them. They're all criminals and they all bleed.

I carry a gun almost everywhere, but that doesn't mean I am afraid of terrorists.

You are more than a hundred times more likely to die in a car wreck than a terrorist attack.

I am not afraid of driving either.

 

[ckoons1]

a vote for Obama is a vote for socialism

 

[FordGT90Concept]

You are more than a hundred times more likely to die in a car wreck than a terrorist attack.

I am not afraid of driving either.

Depends on your neighborhood. Every neighborhood has its own issues and its own solutions.


A 20 and 18 year old plotted to murder Obama and other African-Americans:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/10/27/obama.plot/index.html

Palin is a tested fiscal conservative:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...half-billion-dollars-in-spending-as-governor/

 

[Bigjohn]

Whoops... he said it again....(before)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...arack-Obama-reignites-fears-of-socialism.html

 

[WhiteLotus]

WOW your going to bring something up that happened 7 years ago? I mean he could have adapted that by now.

I just listened to that and it all made perfect sense to me, all common sense; and i hold my hand up here and admit - i know nothing about the USA legal and court methods so i ask...

What was wrong with what he said?


and btw - shame on the telegraph, looks like they are reporting it for reporting it sake. Once again the media strikes!

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Whoops... he said it again....(before)

The Constitution "a charter of negative liberties!?!" WTF!

Well hit me over the head with a hammer. We're rewinding the clock to 1933 when FDR was elected. The circumstances are similar and both were consistently called socialist. This is NOT new. This is NOT change. This is digging up 75 years of history. If he gets elected, I wonder how likely these events happen again in 75 years. History repeats.

What was wrong with what he said?

All the times he said "redistribution." In a capitalist system, you earn your pay--government doesn't just take it from someone that did and throw it at someone that didn't. That's exactly what he wants to do.

He hasn't changed his tune at all in the last 7 years. He claims he was against "going into Iraq in the first place" which happened in 2003. He continues to use the word "redistribution." He continues to want living Constitutionalist judges. The list goes on and on.

 

[Rammsteiner]

Yes, you are. Don't mock it until you experience it.

If you want to call it flaming. There's a lot of cool things in America. But when I pick a few points to show that the points you're praising are the most stupid positive parts is supposed to be flaming

Well, you know how I feel? And don't take any offense at this.

I wonder how Europe will feel once Obama gets into office, and they realize that no matter how much more diplomatic Obama is than Bush, no American president is going to kowtow exactly to what Europe wants.

Yes, but it doesnt matter really what Europe wants in the end. Europian leaders are guilty them selves for blindly following Bush into a basement for some phaggotry and come out and declare war against, whichever they picked this time, Iraq.

From a global pov it's relevant, especially now, who's going to be the president. As far as a WWIII wasnt there yet, we're on the very edge of it and this election might be a very big key in it.

Economically it doesnt matter either cause of the huge capitalism in USA. Plans from either president will have, if not only, affect USA population.

The thing is, I actually live in America, born and bred. I am the product of the American education system, all the way up through secondary education and probably beyond. I don't think America is what it could and should be, simple as that. But don't get me wrong, I count myself lucky every day to be here. That doesn't mean I don't think some things should be changed though, and we could make it better. To some, proposing such things is unpatriotic, and shows my ignorance. I, of course, disagree, but all one can do is laugh sometimes.

Dont get me wrong either, in the end everyone has an opinion. I respect nazi's, republican voters and communists just as much. The only thing I base my ideas on people is how they argument it, and thus far I only saw good arguments which you can count on one hand easily. That's plain stupid and really not enough. Both candidates have negative and positive points, but somehow the wrong points are more important

That's negotiating with a terrorist (which I am in that case)--it doesn't work. Had that scenario actually played out, you'd be dead. Even if it weren't a gun, like a machette or some other large pointy object, you are still not in a position to negotiate without the same or better.

Im still surprised people use 'terrorists' in their arguments since the majority doesnt even know the meaning of it anymore. When someone lets a fart in the wrong direction it's already a terrorist.

Spoken about not negotiating with terrorists, what about the attack on Syria? I think that was the most stupid move apart from the Iraq war its self:shadedshu Forgetting about innocent death count, Syria would be one of the last countries this should have happened.

 

[Bigjohn]

Here in the USA, the courts interpret the law as it's aplicability to the constitution (or so they're supposed to) and the law as it's written. Juries have the ability to nullify charges that they don't see as constitutional or as unjustly enforced, by the way.

All laws are SUPPOSED to derive their power from the constitution, which makes half of what we have on the books - or more - actually illegal. The war on drugs, property seizures, etc.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

But when I pick a few points to show that the points you're praising are the most stupid positive parts is supposed to be flaming

If I were to respond to that post in full, I'd swear up a storm. Mdm-adph and farlex85 responded in a civilized manner...

Yes, but it doesnt matter really what Europe wants in the end. Europian leaders are guilty them selves for blindly following Bush into a basement for some phaggotry and come out and declare war against, whichever they picked this time, Iraq.

They believed the case that the Bush administration presented as much as anyone else. The risks of not going in far outweigh the risks of going in. Yeah, thousands of US troops died and tens of thousands of Iraqis died but as long as it was not in vein, it was worth it. Argue that all you want but history is read-only protected.

From a global pov it's relevant, especially now, who's going to be the president. As far as a WWIII wasnt there yet, we're on the very edge of it and this election might be a very big key in it.

"Come whatever may." We tried our best the last 50+ years to make sure it hasn't happened. Perhaps it was just delaying the inevitable. With the global economy in decline, people are going to get cranky and short tempered. Everytime "a leader of the free world" is elected, it has international impact. I don't particularly believe that this time is really any special.

Im still surprised people use 'terrorists' in their arguments since the majority doesnt even know the meaning of it anymore. When someone lets a fart in the wrong direction it's already a terrorist.

I already discussed that. Replace it with arson, murderer, or what-have-you, it's all the same.

Spoken about not negotiating with terrorists, what about the attack on Syria? I think that was the most stupid move apart from the Iraq war its self:shadedshu Forgetting about innocent death count, Syria would be one of the last countries this should have happened.

WWIII hasn't happened because we selectively kill a hundred to save thousands. If you cut off the head of the snake, the body withers and dies.

The Iraq war would have never happened, or at least manifested itself completely different, if the F-117 bombs killed instead of injured Hussein back in 2003.

 

[Tatty_Two]

And that's why the US Declaration of Independence (as I understand it) is all about the minority splitting off from what they view as despotism and forming their own country. Just because a majority of people want something doesn't make it fair or right for everyone.

Is democracy not about the MAJORITY?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Not in a Republic. See also... electorate. :x

 

[Tatty_Two]

That's what Ive been saying for quite a time. Dont read it as a pure offense, although it's something to work on, there's too much arrogance among American people. 'Outsiders' dont know how it is to be American. Maybe true, and the older I get the more proud I get not to know it.

Those 200 years of history, it's plain crap. The only thing I can tell is that the history is rubbish and thousands of people got killed for 'The land of the free'. No, sod that.

An opinion about owning guns can always be made. And if we get a crap argument "because in the 1700's" We can make a long list of that, but in the 1700's drugs weren't prohibited either yet it's now. If you get arrested for that no goverment is going to accept such an argument.

Lots of laws and ideologies in America are outdated and stupid, so are a lot of them contradictions or even plain hypocrit. So they've laws which blaitantly discriminate non-believers, are pro-life but support guns and want to spread 'freedom' but live in a country which is not from them.

Im not flaming off USA here, there's a lot more we can name, but there's positive sides as well. Im just showing off the stupid ignorance there lives among American people for praising certain issues while it's anything but good.

USA is nice, but less nice than the American Dream does make you think. Ive known 4 families from East-Europe, working damn hard. Either they won the Green Card Lottery or they saved enough money and hope to get in America. Within one year 2 came back and a third within 1.5 years. The fourth did like it.

Everybody knows my views on the leagalisation of firearms....I am against it personally, I just find it kind of funny that a country can call itself "the land of the free" when it's citizens need to carry guns to feel safe. I can appreciate some of the arguments in favour, however I dont agree with them, it kind of dilutes the argument when so many gun crimes and deaths are caused by them, if it's civilised to go round killing people every minute of every day then thank god the UK is an un-civilised heap of cr*p ...........and ultimatly, as recent history has shown, all the guns in the world sadly dont stop terrorist bombings.

I like the United States, in fact it's just about my favorite country (2nd to the UK of course!), I have visited on maybe 15 occasions, 10 of which were holidays and I would go back every year if I had the chance but there are plenty of places there that I didnt feel safe in, and that was not because non of them were carrying guns!

 

[Tatty_Two]

Not in a Republic. See also... electorate. :x

Then it's not a democracy.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

...and ultimatly, as recent history has shown, all the guns in the world sadly dont stop terrorist bombings.

Stop, no; alter target, certainly. In a weapon-full society, it really segregates the likelihood of finding terrorist activity to places that, unsurprisingly, have fewer weapons. I mean, the last time I heard of a US military base getting effectively attacked by a suicide bomber was in Vietnam. It is hard to get killed and commit suicide at the same time, ya know?

...but there are plenty of places there that I didnt feel safe in, and that was not because non of them were carrying guns!

Again, the areas where gangs reign supreme are areas that mostly lack quality education and are generally quite poverished. Inner cities especially. This is an area that clearly needs a lot of work. It's hard to get teens with guns off the streets and into an environment where they seek to be prosperous--where violence is not the answer. I hope that, when the education system is reformed, they find a great way to address the inner-city issues.

Just because there is pockets of violence doesn't mean the rest of the country isn't better off with them.

Then it's not a democracy.

It never was. We are a Constitutional Federal Republic.