Who'll be the better president?

[farlex85]

It's one thing to dream and something completely different to legislate. With legislation we have only four options: 1) decide this is not something government can or should define and do nothing, 2) repeal a previous law, 3) amend a previous law, or 3) author something entirely new. In every case, it comes down to one of four choices: 1) Don't show up at all (don't support), 2) YAY (support), 3) NO (don't support), or 4) Present (don't support). As pointed out in the parenthesis, there's only two options: support or don't support. There is no middle ground. In law, you are in support of, or opposed to, everything. Anything between the two extremes is considered as being opposed. Nuanced answers like the one you gave doesn't work in legislation--that's why it comes down to support or oppose.

It really doesn't matter how nuanced something is, it can always be broken down to a support or oppose vote. Just try to think of a situation--a theoretical law--where support or oppose wouldn't work. You'll eventually come to a conclusion one way or another eventually. That is why legislation works. It asks the politicians if they fundamentally agree or disagree on the subject: nuance, if included, plays little role in the outcome.


I belong in bed so I may have to rewrite that one later...

Your right, and my idealism and abstractness sometimes has no practical place, but that's really goal right, to meld dream and reality. I understand what you mean, it can eventually only go one of two ways when it comes to the vote, if we constantly debated everything with ourselves nothing would get done. Still, it seems to me like the thought process leading up to those votes may be where the nuanced collectivism can take place, and perhaps where we differ most is w/ the word fundamental. Fundamentally, I believe no one should own a gun. If I were to be congressman though (heaven forbid) and devoid of the external influences of partisanship and lobbyists, I would probably vote for gun rights (excluding the notion that everyone owns guns all the time anywhere, I would vote against that one). This wouldn't come from a fundamental belief or disagreement that guns should not be permitted, but an understanding of why they should (at least for the time being). And that thought process should in no way align me with any partisanship, nor should it have any effect on completely different subjects (making me fundamentally conservative or liberal). Hence, again, a lack of fundamentalism, in it's stead perhaps an overarching line in which I could be compared to many, with many schools of thought and others ideas. I am too small to believe I am fundamentally right all the time about the well-being of everyone, thus my vote does not, can not, stem from any fundamental opinion I hold.

Have a good one, thanks for humoring my meanderings.

 

[FudFighter]

being a war hero is all nice and good but, being a hero of war doesn't necessarily mean your well suited for politics
i consider my brother a war hero, not in the sense of McCain (being tortured and all that jazz)
i respect McCain for the strength he has to endure all the atrocities he has been through, i just don't entirely agree with the mans political views man's political views or the way he has run his campaign (not that i really agree with obama either
btw my bro would NEVER make a good politician

also obama supporters have a lot of fear in them, if there is one thing i've noticed about each campaign is that both sides are absolutely TERRIFIED of the other candidate getting into office

and one last view point of mine
WHO REALLY GIVES A FLYING FUCK ABOUT JOE THE NOT SO MUCH PLUMBER
if i have to hear about joe the plumber, bob the builder, or douchebag the useless commentator im going to loose it

maby all us sain geeks need to head to another country and start a colony, laws against any kind of extreamists.....ok maby let the intel/amd nvidia/ati fanboi's fight it out, those arguements are less likely to lead to more then a couple geeks slaping at eachother

 

[ckoons1]

maby all us sain geeks need to head to another country and start a colony, laws against any kind of extreamists.....ok maby let the intel/amd nvidia/ati fanboi's fight it out, those arguements are less likely to lead to more then a couple geeks slaping at eachother

what about JOE THE COMPUTER GUY HA!HA!HA!

 

[das müffin mann]

what about JOE THE COMPUTER GUY HA!HA!HA!

 

[FudFighter]

lol, joe the computer guy who spends his time fixing joe the plumbers and joe sixpacks computers

 

[Tatty_Two]

On the matter of RESPECT let us not forget that McCain is a "WAR HERO". This may not mean a lot to the younger crowd but it means a lot to the older group. Think for a moment the price this man paid for US ,our country to be FREE. FREEDOM isn't FREE.

For the purpose of my ignorance, in his case, could you please define what is meant by "hero"? hero seems to be a word quite freely used in US politics in relation to someone who has served in the Armed Forces and who has been involved in conflict.

IMO, being a member of the Armed Forces even if you did well in your career within the Armed Forces) no better equips anyone to be a better president than say a Doctor, lawyer or Police chief.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Your right, and my idealism and abstractness sometimes has no practical place, but that's really goal right, to meld dream and reality. I understand what you mean, it can eventually only go one of two ways when it comes to the vote, if we constantly debated everything with ourselves nothing would get done. Still, it seems to me like the thought process leading up to those votes may be where the nuanced collectivism can take place, and perhaps where we differ most is w/ the word fundamental. Fundamentally, I believe no one should own a gun. If I were to be congressman though (heaven forbid) and devoid of the external influences of partisanship and lobbyists, I would probably vote for gun rights (excluding the notion that everyone owns guns all the time anywhere, I would vote against that one). This wouldn't come from a fundamental belief or disagreement that guns should not be permitted, but an understanding of why they should (at least for the time being). And that thought process should in no way align me with any partisanship, nor should it have any effect on completely different subjects (making me fundamentally conservative or liberal). Hence, again, a lack of fundamentalism, in it's stead perhaps an overarching line in which I could be compared to many, with many schools of thought and others ideas. I am too small to believe I am fundamentally right all the time about the well-being of everyone, thus my vote does not, can not, stem from any fundamental opinion I hold.

Have a good one, thanks for humoring my meanderings.

Oh contraire, you fundamentally agree that people should have guns. As always, the devil is in the details. You listed the detail that would conflict with your fundamental value and force you to oppose it. So fundamentally, you agree.

About nuance, I like the metaphor of a pearl. The fundamental belief or value is the irritant in the clam that caused the pearl to form. The layers coating the irritant is effectively the nuance and all the reasons that conflict with that fundamental belief. The thickness of the layers depends on how specific your definition of that fundamental belief or value is and when you test something against that fundamental value, you chip away at the layers until you either give up or reach the center. In this case, you reached the center coming to a conclusion that you fundamental agree people should have guns but, you chipped away some layers of that pearl to explain the conditions.

The nuance of a dreamy world is actually not a fundamental belief--it is a layer on the pearl that defines your stance on gun rights. If you came to a logical conclusion that that dreamy idea isn't so dreamy, your fundamental beliefs could change...the pearl collapses in on itself so to speak.

 

[FudFighter]

tatty dont say that, he is An Hero and a republican(this matters because if he was a dem he would be called a lier like kerry was)

I personaly feel that its great he served out country, but dont feel it makes him any better choice then anybody else, infact in this case I feel it could be the exect oposite, shellshocked vet from nam and a crazy hick soccer(or is it hocky?) mom from alaska IMHO dont make a good pairing to run any country, well maby alaska when it scedes from the union, its been alleged that palin and her husband are or have been members of the "Alaskan Independance Party" Once Sorce.(this is just as valid as the arguements about obama being a racist and non-christian)

Also theres good cause (at least from comments in this thred) to say palin and her husband are socialists Todd Palin is a member of a socialist organization Sorce

need I go on, anything you can pull out to use against one you can counter with something just as "bad" about the other..........


blah wish we could get this election over and stop the fighting about whos better so we can move on to bitching about whoever gets in office

 

[FordGT90Concept]

For the purpose of my ignorance, in his case, could you please define what is meant by "hero"? hero seems to be a word quite freely used in US politics in relation to someone who has served in the Armed Forces and who has been involved in conflict.

IMO, being a member of the Armed Forces even if you did well in your career within the Armed Forces) no better equips anyone to be a better president than say a Doctor, lawyer or Police chief.

Someone people look up to out of sheer respect.


Considering the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the military, experience does help; however, there are other issues that often trump that duty--at least during elections. I mean, Ulysses S. Grant did a pretty miserable job because he was a general without a war. George W. Bush did a pretty miserable job because he's a governor that had to face two wars. Some Presidents, like George Washington, fair well in many duties of the Presidency while others do not.

A doctor has no experience in any duty he/she will have as the President.

A police chief is more qualified by having more managerial chores than a doctor but, same as the doctor, the experience from being a police chief helps little in duties of the President.

We have already seen too many lawyers. Yes they are more qualified than a police chief and doctor but they're also trained spinners (aka liars). A spinner may be good for the country in some regards but in the end, it is bad for the people. Bill Clinton used his spinning skills to convince the public in his "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" speech.

tatty dont say that, he is An Hero and a republican(this matters because if he was a dem he would be called a lier like kerry was)

I personaly feel that its great he served out country, but dont feel it makes him any better choice then anybody else, infact in this case I feel it could be the exect oposite, shellshocked vet from nam and a crazy hick soccer(or is it hocky?) mom from alaska IMHO dont make a good pairing to run any country, well maby alaska when it scedes from the union, its been alleged that palin and her husband are or have been members of the "Alaskan Independance Party" Once Sorce.(this is just as valid as the arguements about obama being a racist and non-christian)

Also theres good cause (at least from comments in this thred) to say palin and her husband are socialists Todd Palin is a member of a socialist organization Sorce

If Alaska wanted to secede from the union, I really don't have a problem with that. IMO, it belongs with Canada. Yeah we'd lose a lot of territory and resources but it is their choice.


There is nothing on that link to suggest Palin is socialist.

 

[FudFighter]

wrong

Career

Palin is a union member belonging to the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (United Steelworkers).[9]

as stated in past pages, many republicans feel the Unions are socialist organization(infact thats exectly what a couple people have said in past pages of this thred)

see, all you need to do is learn how the mind of spinners work, then you will understand you can SPIN ANYTHING YOU WANT, it just takes an agile mind.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

as stated in past pages, many republicans feel the Unions are socialist organization(infact thats exectly what a couple people have said in past pages of this thred)

see, all you need to do is learn how the mind of spinners work, then you will understand you can SPIN ANYTHING YOU WANT, it just takes an agile mind.

I don't like unions but I don't see them as socialist. A key component of socialism is the statement Obama keeps making: "spread the wealth." Unions are simply third party leadership hierarchies because they feel the first party leadership does not adequately represent them.

 

[FudFighter]

unions protect workers from unreputable employeers is how I see it.

but alot of people see them as communist/socialist because the russians and such had unions

 

[Tatty_Two]

tatty dont say that, he is An Hero and a republican(this matters because if he was a dem he would be called a lier like kerry was)

I personaly feel that its great he served out country, but dont feel it makes him any better choice then anybody else, infact in this case I feel it could be the exect oposite, shellshocked vet from nam and a crazy hick soccer(or is it hocky?) mom from alaska IMHO dont make a good pairing to run any country, well maby alaska when it scedes from the union, its been alleged that palin and her husband are or have been members of the "Alaskan Independance Party" Once Sorce.(this is just as valid as the arguements about obama being a racist and non-christian)

Also theres good cause (at least from comments in this thred) to say palin and her husband are socialists Todd Palin is a member of a socialist organization Sorce

need I go on, anything you can pull out to use against one you can counter with something just as "bad" about the other..........


blah wish we could get this election over and stop the fighting about whos better so we can move on to bitching about whoever gets in office

You misunderstand me, I was not suggesting he is not a hero, meerly asking what he has done to acheive "hero" status as I don know, hence my ignorance comment.

 

[Tatty_Two]

Someone people look up to out of sheer respect.


Considering the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the military, experience does help; however, there are other issues that often trump that duty--at least during elections. I mean, Ulysses S. Grant did a pretty miserable job because he was a general without a war. George W. Bush did a pretty miserable job because he's a governor that had to face two wars. Some Presidents, like George Washington, fair well in many duties of the Presidency while others do not.

A doctor has no experience in any duty he/she will have as the President.

A police chief is more qualified by having more managerial chores than a doctor but, same as the doctor, the experience from being a police chief helps little in duties of the President.

We have already seen too many lawyers. Yes they are more qualified than a police chief and doctor but they're also trained spinners (aka liars). A spinner may be good for the country in some regards but in the end, it is bad for the people. Bill Clinton used his spinning skills to convince the public in his "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" speech.



If Alaska wanted to secede from the union, I really don't have a problem with that. IMO, it belongs with Canada. Yeah we'd lose a lot of territory and resources but it is their choice.


There is nothing on that link to suggest Palin is socialist.

Yes you could easily say that the President is the Commander in Chief so experience does help but Defence wont take up the biggest part of your GDP so perhaps a Doctor or other prominent figure I mentioned could be equally if not more experienced in other important fields, at the end of the day, rarely would a serving officer below about 1 star level have full strategic experience and anyways, thats why he has a Defence Secretary and Chief of the General Staff.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Yes you could easily say that the President is the Commander in Chief so experience does help but Defence wont take up the biggest part of your GDP so perhaps a Doctor or other prominent figure I mentioned could be equally if not more experienced in other important fields, at the end of the day, rarely would a serving officer below about 1 star level have full strategic experience and anyways, thats why he has a Defence Secretary and Chief of the General Staff.

Defense is the single largest expenditure the government makes (entitlement programs are starting to threaten that though).

Even though the President has people to advise, it's still him/her making the decisions. A lot of failed wars can be linked to a failed administration (Nixon with Vietnam, Bush with Iraq). Yes, they have to be pretty high ranking to benefit from military training (Bush is an example of not having enough) but they don't have to be as high as a 1 star general to be able to apply what they learned in the military to their policy.


McCain is a hero because no one, even the Vietnamese, can stop him from serving his country. Most vets would be happy to retire after what he went though but he didn't. Instead, he went to Congress to serve his country in a different way. He is a tireless servant of his country, dispite what he has been through, and that is what makes him a hero.

Let me put that in context: During a townhall meeting back in the 1980's when he was running for the House, a gentleman asked him, "Why should we vote for you because you have only lived in the State of Arizona for a short while?" McCain paused and replied, "The only place I lived for a significant amount of time was Hanoi." A similar question was never asked again.

 

[newconroer]

You misunderstand me, I was not suggesting he is not a hero, meerly asking what he has done to acheive "hero" status as I don know, hence my ignorance comment.

Primarily that he survived as a POW for several years, and rather than fall down into the gutter upon coming home/being released, he did something with his life.


And there is a good reason that military personnel can make for good leadership, as the morals, ethics, traits and principles they possess are of high quality, such that you would want a nation's leader to exhibit. The only thing they might lack, is charm or social appeal, but naturally that's easier to obtain, when you have a whole cabinet of people 'advising' you on what to say or what not to say.

I find that a much better premise for a leader, as opposed to someone who is a pure civilian with no concept of the military spectrum, or pressure under fire. They also tend to lack the same moral/ethic qualities and they can be too soft.


If you can find someone though who combines the best of both worlds, then you have a winner. And I felt Ron Paul was that man. A military man who definatley saw action, a doctor with a high level of compassion and professionalism, and an educated man in the most important issue that America now faces : Economy. He's also a good speaker, and has high resolve for his convictions, which just happen to be traditionally old-school(something America is sorely in need of), and his whole campaign is built upon the platform of respecting the Constitution, which has to be the greatest testament to any government ever put in place.

There's three government and political systems that stand above all the rest in terms of effectiveness, appeal, strength and relevance.

Roman demoracy
American republic
Deutsche nazism

All three fell down because of bad foreign relations and policies, or the forced intervention of external relations and policies.

The Romans ended up distrusting one another, falling into a society of secret alliances and elite counsels, abandoning their deomcratic intent, because they let uninformed and unworthy 'citizens' twist their system the wrong way around.

The Nazis were destined to fail simply because they basically forced the U.S. to get involved. A system that was started to help regain the glory of Germany from those on the outside that would come and try to tear it down, ended up falling to more people who came to tear it down.

The Americans/U.S. is like a shooting star, burning brightly, rising fast, but falling faster. The inability to control foreign ideas, concepts, influences and influx; the bad management of foreign relations, economic policies, and entangling alliances whether economic or militaristic; the undying belief that they have a 'right' and a 'responsibility' to 'help' others across the planet; and their continued efforts to turn their back on the Constitution have brought them to this point.


How anyone can think that men such as McCain or Obama can solve anything, pretty much sums up how out of touch people have become with the reality of the modern world.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I honestly don't think I'd have a problem supporting Ron Paul if Ron Paul wasn't against the Iraqi war. I don't like anyone that wants to leave any job half finished.

 

[newconroer]

Keep in mind, he's against the war for the right reasons.

He isn't some flower power liberal nut saying 'make love and peace, not war.'

He sees the Iraqi war as not only unjustified, but more importantly, it's costing America the lives of their military youth, as well as destroying their economy.

He doesn't want to leave any job half finished, but to treat the Iraqi war(which is more or less never ending) as a job, would be unfair to any candidate battling the issue, because the only one way to end it with a 'military victory,' would be to simply nuke the whole place(which I do support. That's my idea of proper American intervention).

What he wants, is a humble victory; and that entails saving the lives of men who shouldn't be over there dying for a bunch of twisted, whacked out middle-easterners, and it also entails saving precious money that he doesn't want to use to get rich, but to pump straight back into a FREE market.

His comment about Reagan's memoirs on the Middle East relations in the 80s is extremely potent.
He said that Reagan claimed he would never turn-tail and run in a fight, but in his memoirs Reagan later wrote that he had no idea the chaotic nature of Middle Eastern politics.


Anyways... at this point I'm hoping one of two things happens soon: Either Jesus comes back, or we all blow each other up. While life can be enjoyable, and living is better than dying...there's no reason future generations should have to inherit such a wretched world.

 

[mdm-adph]

I honestly don't think I'd have a problem supporting Ron Paul if Ron Paul wasn't against the Iraqi war. I don't like anyone that wants to leave any job half finished.

You do know that there's nothing in particular about the Iraq war that Ron Paul opposes -- Paul opposes any intervention in foreign governments (unless they attack the US directly -- note that he voted for the authorization of force to capture Bin Laden, which included incursions into Afghanistan). He's quite consistent, and that's why I have a lot of respect for him.

And furthermore -- the Iraqi government is now asking the US to leave. The job isn't "half-finished" anymore -- it's over. Time to go home.

 

[FudFighter]

You do know that there's nothing in particular about the Iraq war that Ron Paul opposes -- Paul opposes any intervention in foreign governments (unless they attack the US directly -- note that he voted for the authorization of force to capture Bin Laden, which included incursions into Afghanistan). He's quite consistent, and that's why I have a lot of respect for him.

And furthermore -- the Iraqi government is now asking the US to leave. The job isn't "half-finished" anymore -- it's over. Time to go home.

no no no, we need to stay, after all the war profiteering isnt over yet they could wring at least another 8 years out of it if mccain gets in!!!!

 

[mdm-adph]

no no no, we need to stay, after all the war profiteering isnt over yet they could wring at least another 8 years out of it if mccain gets in!!!!

Bah -- Dick Cheney's former company (Halliburton) has already made billions from no-bid war contracts. Time for the troops to leave -- the oil contracts should provide enough money for America, and they'll last a lot more than eight years.

 

[Tatty_Two]

I don't like unions but I don't see them as socialist. A key component of socialism is the statement Obama keeps making: "spread the wealth." Unions are simply third party leadership hierarchies because they feel the first party leadership does not adequately represent them.

Unions most certainly are considered socialists in the UK, but is that a bad thing? No probably not.

 

[Tatty_Two]

There's three government and political systems that stand above all the rest in terms of effectiveness, appeal, strength and relevance.

Roman demoracy
American republic
Deutsche nazism

All three fell down because of bad foreign relations and policies, or the forced intervention of external relations and policies.

The Romans ended up distrusting one another, falling into a society of secret alliances and elite counsels, abandoning their deomcratic intent, because they let uninformed and unworthy 'citizens' twist their system the wrong way around.

The Nazis were destined to fail simply because they basically forced the U.S. to get involved. A system that was started to help regain the glory of Germany from those on the outside that would come and try to tear it down, ended up falling to more people who came to tear it down.

The Americans/U.S. is like a shooting star, burning brightly, rising fast, but falling faster. The inability to control foreign ideas, concepts, influences and influx; the bad management of foreign relations, economic policies, and entangling alliances whether economic or militaristic; the undying belief that they have a 'right' and a 'responsibility' to 'help' others across the planet; and their continued efforts to turn their back on the Constitution have brought them to this point.

.

You missed out probably the most significant one, The Mongol Empire under Ghengis Khan Also, the French may well argue with you over the success of your republic in comparision to theirs!

 

[SK-1]

Obama is really bipartisan.....
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Off_the_plane.html?showall


And this is FAIR,...NOT!

Hang an effigy of OBAMA,...GO TO JAIL.......
http://www.kentucky.com/471/story/574675.html



Hand a effigy of a woman,.... GET OUT OF JAIL FREE
http://cbs2.com/local/Sarah.Palin.Effigy.2.852046.html

 

[FordGT90Concept]

He sees the Iraqi war as not only unjustified, but more importantly, it's costing America the lives of their military youth, as well as destroying their economy.

Justified or not doesn't mean we don't have commitments to fulfill. The only thing to take away from "justification" is to not repeat the same mistake in the future. In that regard, he shares more in common with liberals than conservatives.

There is no proof the war is "destroying their economy." Also, the "youth" that died did so knowing the risks and the rewards.

You do know that there's nothing in particular about the Iraq war that Ron Paul opposes -- Paul opposes any intervention in foreign governments (unless they attack the US directly -- note that he voted for the authorization of force to capture Bin Laden, which included incursions into Afghanistan). He's quite consistent, and that's why I have a lot of respect for him.

And furthermore -- the Iraqi government is now asking the US to leave. The job isn't "half-finished" anymore -- it's over. Time to go home.

I oppose his isolationist mentality too. It didn't work up to WWII and it doesn't work today. World Wars only happen if they are permitted to take place.

The Iraqi government is "asking" us to leave because finally the military objectives were achieved (McCain, again). Imagine if McCain was in charge in 2000--the war wouldn't have been permitted to drag on as Bush allowed. Ron Paul was in the Democrat's pocket saying it was wrong to be in Iraq in the first place so we have to get out. Again, he would rather Iraq go down in history as a decisive defeat, like Vietnam, than a decisive victory.


Ron aul is a Democrat on foreign policy and a Republican on domestic policy. I feel that the President's primary jobs are foreign policy and commander of the armed forces--he gets a "fail" mark from me on both issues.

Bah -- Dick Cheney's former company (Halliburton) has already made billions from no-bid war contracts. Time for the troops to leave -- the oil contracts should provide enough money for America, and they'll last a lot more than eight years.

Cheney didn't see a penny of Halliburton's profit.