Decision '08.

[Jae Onasi]

The problem is, aside from the blatant elitism, the 'smart people' don't always accurately represent all the people. How in the world are you going to pick these 'smart people'? Sorry, but as soon as you turn over power to a few and take it away from all citizens, you no longer have a democracy, you have at best an oligarchy and at worst a dictatorship by 'the smartest'. I have no desire to live in a country where I could potentially have zero input on decisions because I didn't happen to be in a position to be chosen as one of the 'smart people' or able to curry the favor of said smart people. Granted, democracy has its warts and it may have its sheep, but if you create a 'rule by intelligence', you'll demote people who used to have opinions down to the level of all the other ovines that you're trying to get rid of when in fact their opinion could have had great merit and value to society.

[Totenkopf]

Seems to me that arguably both candidates have made missteps in their choices. I have to wonder what the race might have looked like had Clinton and Romney been the veep picks. It's funny that Biden couldn't scare up more votes than the size of the small town Palin was mayor of (9000+/-) while he ran for the dem nomination and Palin's biggest problem appears to be "who is this woman?", especially this close to the election. The whole argument about "foreign policy" experience is pointless. Obama has none, hence the pairing of Biden w/him by his own party. Even assuming McCain got elected w/Palin and then died in office, she'd merely be where BO is now and a veep could be picked to balance out her inexperience. At least she's only the bottom half of the rep ticket.

 

While I believe there's some value in a meritocracy, I'm not sure to what degree I'd trust the people who set the standards if the "smart people" ran everything. What criteria would be used to determine who qualified and who didn't? I've met some pretty flaky people who had high IQs.

 

@Johnathan--not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that BO's loss would constitute a failure of "democracy". I realize you favor his candidacy over McCain's, just don't understand your reasoning. Or was that just you being a bit cheeky.

[Tommycat]

Geez you guys must not know how to spin things. See, Palin could justify her position and still have her daughter being pregnant as a show how abstinence only is the best solution. All she has to do is have her daughter say that she was on the pill and they used a condom. It would show that the only way to prevent a pregnancy is to do as her mother wanted and be sex free until marriage. Simple. Whether it's true or not, it's all in how you spin it. Not to mention kids are allowed to hold different views than their parents. Unless everyone here agreed fully with everything their parents said when they were teens. Heck some of you are from religious families and are non-religious.

 

At any rate, To the topic(as I feel that Bristol's promiscuity is kinda off topic), I think that so far the best arguments against McCain are he shares the party with Bush. But honestly he has shown a great willingness to cross party lines to get things done. Heck he even got a Democrat to come to the Republican National Convention to speak for him. Not just any Democrat, but a former VP candidate. It was funny to hear Clinton getting praise at the RNC. And Lieberman is right. If he had won his party's nomination I might have voted for him to be frank. We need to stop being so stuck on the party and more focussed on what is better for the country.

 

Admittedly I haven't studied Obama's history, but has he crossed party lines to work with Republicans on any issues? I'm genuinely curious, because aside from the ads, I haven't looked at him much.

 

As for the tax cuts for the "rich" please stop. How many people does a person making under 150k per year employ? In some households depending on the city and state you live in 150k is barely scraping by(well maybe a little better than that). At least the person making 200k a year employs at least one other person. The person making 300k might employ 3 to 5 people. If you increase the tax they pay, you decrease the people they can employ. If you increase it too far, they take risks in how they hide their wealth and you lose even more tax revenue. This is not economics, but more psychological economics. Taxes hurt businesses. Businesses employ people. Tax them too much and they find ways to cut costs to keep them in the lifestyle they enjoy. Or they just pass that cost on to the consumer.

 

edit: Gotta say you should be careful what you use to determine "smart" in this perfect society... Unless you agree with me that is... I had routinely scored in the extreme genius range on IQ tests. Lowest was a 140'ish after I had been out killing brain cells the night before... I'm not saying I'm a better decision maker than anyone, not by a long shot. Just saying that you might not like who ends up making the decisions if you use tests to determine who should choose the leader. I mean more hollywood stars support Obama than McCain, and they tend to lower the average IQ of that candidate's supporters.

[Astor]

Also, why are you assuming that she'd have an abortion if she was a Democrat or if her mother was pro-abortion? Why couldn't she decide on her own that she wanted to have her baby, regardless of parental wishes or party lines? I dearly hope she's decided she's having her baby because she and her fiance want to love and care for this tiny person they have created together, and not because the Republican party wants her to.

 

Apologies Jae, I wasn't assuming that she would, I was just commenting that it's at odds with Republican beliefs. I wasn't saying that she should have an abortion, just that any hint of it would probably weaken her mother's position.

[Arcesious]

Well opinion polls can be quite useful for study of what people's opinions are. Anyways, here's an idea: You get all the scientists and whoever are willing to study and make decisions about these things, and have them collaborate, with an equal amount of 'smart people' on all sides of an argument. The people get to elect their representatives, but the 'smart people' must be taken very seriously by their elected leaders. It should not be a definite matter of IQ- perhaps just experience. Also, these people would need to very open-minded and understanding people- who understand the issues and know how and why people think the way they do. They would have to study the issues with science and address them. They would then have to see what the people's opinions are, and consider them highly. IE, they have to read their 'hate mail' to see if anyone else has a useful opinion that they didn't consider before. They have to be excessively throrough in their work, to make sure they don't make mistakes.

[mimartin]

All she has to do is have her daughter say that she was on the pill and they used a condom. [/Quote]

Wow. No, that would be even worse. That would show a double standard. She supports complete sex education for her daughter, but only wants her constituents’ children to be taught abstinence. Palin is better off sticking to her guns at least abstinence appeals to those that are misguided enough to believe you can legislate morality.

It would show that the only way to prevent a pregnancy is to do as her mother wanted and be sex free until marriage.[/Quote] Yes and if we taught compressive sex education to our children they would have that information. After giving them the complete facts, they would know that the abstinence was the only 100% safe method to prevent pregnancy and spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Everyone should know condoms and other prevention methods fail. However, knowing the proper method of use significantly reduces the failure rate and helps prevent the spread of diseases.

 

I’m not condemning Palin for wanting to teach abstinence in sex education classes. I agree with her that it is the only sure method. I am condemning her for only wanting to teach abstinence in sex education classes, because sometimes, just like the rest of us, teenagers don’t do what is best.

[Jae Onasi]

Well opinion polls can be quite useful for study of what people's opinions are. Anyways, here's an idea: You get all the scientists and whoever are willing to study and make decisions about these things, and have them collaborate, with an equal amount of 'smart people' on all sides of an argument. The people get to elect their representatives, but the 'smart people' must be taken very seriously by their elected leaders. It should not be a definite matter of IQ- perhaps just experience. Also, these people would need to very open-minded and understanding people- who understand the issues and know how and why people think the way they do. They would have to study the issues with science and address them. They would then have to see what the people's opinions are, and consider them highly. IE, they have to read their 'hate mail' to see if anyone else has a useful opinion that they didn't consider before. They have to be excessively throrough in their work, to make sure they don't make mistakes.

 

So you basically want a robot to run things, because no one is that perfect. First of all, no one could possibly read that much mail at that level of governance. Secondly, mail does not accurately represent how the general population thinks. Third, I have a very high IQ, understand people, understand issues including their history and how they affect society, understand science and psychology, and can read polls just like everyone else, but I suspect you'd find me unacceptable because I'm religious and therefore potentially more 'close-minded' than you'd like. If by 'smart people' you also mean 'not religious', I would find that incredibly offensive, by the way--there are many, many brilliant people who also happen to be religious. Fourth, IQ and experience don't always translate over to leadership ability--those are completely different skillsets. Fifth, the 'smart people' would tend to choose more people like themselves and perpetuate a particular course of action when it may no longer be what's best for the country or region as a whole. There's no recourse in your system to get rid of 'the smart people' who aren't doing a good job. Sixth, I think you're assuming you'd be one of the 'smart people' in this system. What if you're not? What if the smart people decide that getting rid of all controversial comedy and drama is good because it's mindless trash? Good-bye Comedy Central, CNN, Fox news, and anything else that could cause dissent. What if they decide it's a good idea to wiretap your every conversation to make sure you and others don't commit crimes or do bad things to each other? That would be for the good of society, of course...and you wouldn't be able to do a thing about it if you disagreed.

 

With elections you and a few million of your closest friends have the option to get rid of people you don't agree with by electing in people you do agree with. I'll take my democracy any day, thank you, and happily exercise my vote in November.

[jonathan7]

Much as I would love to respond to many of the points on democracy/forms of Government, I think they are taking this thread off-topic.

 

I would comment, that I do have my own political theory; it is not a democracy, but freedom of thought, speech and action are rated highly. The Government is a highly selective progress, almost in a national service vein of picking only those who are best for the job. The people do still have elections - in that they vote in someone for their area to represent their concerns and raise them to the government, however it is the governments decision to take these up or not. I hope that clarifies my thoughts on this.

[Jae Onasi]

Yeah, we probably need to steer back to the topic at hand.

 

I think we're at a fundamental and historic crossroads in how the US is going to proceed as a country.

 

What's at stake?

1. How the Iraq war is conducted. If Obama is elected, the mandate will be to leave Iraq as quickly as possible. If McCain is in, we'll be there longer than Obama's timetable.

2. Healthcare. With Obama, I think we'll see a move to nationalized health care in a way that Bill Clinton was not able to do in the early 90's. With McCain I think we'll see more of private business model.

3. Higher education: I think Obama will work to make higher education much more affordable and accessible than McCain will.

4. Domestic vs. foreign issues--Obama is clearly better in the domestic department than foreign, McCain's going to be stronger in foreign issues.

5. Taxes. More gov't programs mean

s more taxes, period. National health care, free or heavily subsidized higher education, and expansion of other social programs is going to take more of our tax dollars. Americans must decide if they are willing to pay the higher taxes required for these benefits.

6. Environment--expect more controls from Democrats and loosening of restrictions from Republicans. I think both need to find a healthy balance, and I don't think either of them have done enough to find that balance.

7. Energy--if Democrats win I think we'll see a greater and faster push to alternative fuels. I think the Republicans will pursue more drilling for oil and some work on alternatives. I think we need to do a big push to alternatives _and_ drill some more to get us by until we've converted as quickly as possible to those alternaties, but that's a topic for another thread I'm sure.

8. Supreme Court picks--that's pretty simple--McCain's going to choose more conservative justices, while Obama will pick more liberal ones. That's going to affect how laws are interpreted in the US for years, and I think this is one of the biggest impacts a President actually has.

9. Gun control--expect more gun control, especially assault weapons, with Obama.

10. Foreign issues--I think the world will try to curry Obama's favor and I think he'll reach out more to nations we've had cold relations with. However, he runs the risk of getting taken advantage of as he attempts to be conciliatory. His diplomatic efforts might be viewed as weakness by some other countries. McCain's not going to deal with BS, but he's not going to try as hard to make friends from neutral or hostile countries, either.

11. Immigration--more open with Obama, I'm sure. I would suggest that both men need to work on the issue of illegal aliens, certainly speed up the process and widen the numbers of immigrants allowed.

12. Oil--well, since neither candidate is so attached to the oil industry as Bush is, we might actually see something useful done in that arena. I'm not holding my breath on that one, however.

 

Those are just some of the issues--there's plenty more.

[SD Nihil]

I agree we are at a crossroads. The fact that we have a woman VP nomone and a black presidential nomine shows how far we've come as far as civil rights is concerned. How far we've come in just a feew decades. With all the Palin rumors, pictures, blog statements flying around I at least will be waiting to see what Sarah says tonight.

 

In St. Paul there was this group calling themselves the republican welcoming commitiee. These guys were talking about kidnapping delagates. So far police have made about 400 arrests. Also I heard something this morning about someone stealing Sarah's social security number.

 

Bad move whoever did that. With things like lifelock that protect your social security number in the wrong hands even and plus the fact she's a govoner of a real roguh and tumble state, whoever did this is in deep.

 

Attacks like this only ticks people off. It certinally doesn't help anything in my opinion. It's ridiclous.

 

The RNC welcoming party group was learned about according to police by police. The police put in an embeded opertive. I'm hearing about it on tv as I'm typing this. Uh 300 at the verty minimum captured. Many of it's leaders are in hiding...apparently these bad dudes had some site too.

 

Hope someone finds out more about this info wise.

[Jae Onasi]

The people arrested were arrested because they were not protesting peacefully--they were causing property damage and in some cases resisting arrest after they'd been caught being destructive. I've not heard anything about kidnapped delegates.

[mimartin]

What's at stake?

1. How the Iraq war is conducted. If Obama is elected, the mandate will be to leave Iraq as quickly as possible. If McCain is in, we'll be there longer than Obama's timetable.[/Quote] That is a nice way to put it. With Obama we get our troops out of harm’s way. With McCain we are there indefinitely. This means more of our young men and women die and we continue to look like invaders and not liberators. It was a valiant effort by our military of an ill conceived plan by our civilian government to bring democracy to Iraq. Problem is you cannot force democracy on a country, they have to want it.

2. Healthcare. With Obama, I think we'll see a move to nationalized health care in a way that Bill Clinton was not able to do in the early 90's. With McCain I think we'll see more of private business model.[/Quote] I’m more under the opinion this is all talk by both sides just like it has been the past four elections. Nothing is going to happen because all sides are more worried about profits than 47 million uninsured Americans.

3. Higher education: I think Obama will work to make higher education much more affordable and accessible than McCain will. [/Quote] I’d say they are close to the same on this issue; both have this as a higher priority than Bush.

4. Domestic vs. foreign issues--Obama is clearly better in the domestic department than foreign, McCain's going to be stronger in foreign issues.[/Quote] Obama is going to work with allies and build up American image in the world. I believe McCain will do the same, but as of now he is saying he wants to continue the Bush plan.

5. Taxes. More gov't programs mean…[/Quote] We are going to have higher taxes no matter who is elected. I cannot believe we will allow our debt to spiral out of control until we have 19% interest rates again. The question is do you want that money spent building up our infrastructure, our schools and the health care for all Americans or do we want the money going to building up a foreign counties infrastructure, their schools and their health care (and funerals) in our attempt to nation build.

6. Environment--expect more controls from Democrats and loosening of restrictions from Republicans. I think both need to find a healthy balance, and I don't think either of them have done enough to find that balance.[/Quote] Agreed.

7. Energy--if Democrats win I think we'll see a greater and faster push to alternative fuels. I think the Republicans will pursue more drilling for oil and some work on alternatives. I think we need to do a big push to alternatives _and_ drill some more to get us by until we've converted as quickly as possible to those alternaties, but that's a topic for another thread I'm sure.[/Quote] I agree, but would change on the Republican side to – will pursue more drilling for oil and pay lip service to working on alternatives.

8. Supreme Court picks--that's pretty simple--McCain's going to choose more conservative justices, while Obama will pick more liberal ones. That's going to affect how laws are interpreted in the US for years, and I think this is one of the biggest impacts a President actually has. [/Quote] Agreed again. I believe if McCain is elected Roe vs. Wade will be overturned in the near future and abortion will go underground again. It will not stop abortion; just make it unsafe and uncontrolled.

9. Gun control--expect more gun control, especially assault weapons, with Obama.[/Quote] Agreed and since I don’t use an assault weapon to hunt Bambi I don’t care.

10. Foreign issues--I think the world will try to curry Obama's favor and I think he'll reach out more to nations we've had cold relations with. However, he runs the risk of getting taken advantage of as he attempts to be conciliatory. His diplomatic efforts might be viewed as weakness by some other countries. McCain's not going to deal with BS, but he's not going to try as hard to make friends from neutral or hostile countries, either.[/Quote] To fight terrorism takes a world effort, the problem is we have alienated most of the world. Obama is an intelligent person and I believe he will surround himself with intelligent, knowledgeable people. So until someone tells me he appointed Mickey Mouse or Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State, I’m not going to worry about it.

11. Immigration--more open with Obama, I'm sure. [/Quote] How is that even possible? How can you be more open than allowing amnesty to illegal aliens? Is Obama going to send buses to pick them up?

12. Oil--well, since neither candidate is so attached to the oil industry as Bush is, we might actually see something useful done in that arena. I'm not holding my breath on that one, however.

Yes, McCain will work to open up ANWR. Allowing oil companies the rights to drilling without proper compensation thus increasing the oil companies’ profits. We will get lower gas prices for a year or two in three to five years and the oil companies get record profits again.

[Druganator]

That is a nice way to put it. With Obama we get our troops out of harm’s way. With McCain we are there indefinitely. This means more of our young men and women die and we continue to look like invaders and not liberators. It was a valiant effort by our military of an ill conceived plan by our civilian government to bring democracy to Iraq. Problem is you cannot force democracy on a country, they have to want it.

.

 

Well Obama is talking about taking them out of Iraq and putting them into Afghanistan so they wouldnt really be out of harms way, they would just move from one ****hole to another

[jonathan7]

Well Obama is talking about taking them out of Iraq and putting them into Afghanistan so they wouldnt really be out of harms way, they would just move from one ****hole to another

 

The difference is one of those holes we should be sat in... And the other we shouldn't be in - it would also seem to me Afghanistan needs more attention than Iraq these days anyways.

[Achilles]

The difference is one of those holes we should be sat in... And the other we shouldn't be in - it would also seem to me Afghanistan needs more attention than Iraq these days anyways.

QFT

[mimartin]

Well Obama is talking about taking them out of Iraq and putting them into Afghanistan so they wouldnt really be out of harms way, they would just move from one ****hole to another

 

There is a big difference between moving to Afghanistan to search for Al-Qaeda (remember those people that actually attacked us on 9/11/2001) and democracy building in Iraq. We should have never moved our troops from Afghanistan to Iraq in the first place. We diverted our manpower, our money and our energy from going after Al-Qaeda to a giant deadly Easter egg hunt, only Saddam did not hide any eggs. I would rather have our soldiers in Afghanistan fighting against those that attacked us instead of fighting in Iraq for Halliburton’s profits.

 

it would also seem to me Afghanistan needs more attention than Iraq these days anyways.

QFT

 

Since we drew our troops out to fight in Iraq giving the Taliban and Al-Qaeda a chance to regroup, we now have to retake the country. That is a very nice tribute to those that gave their life when we first invaded the country.

[SD Nihil]

That is a nice way to put it. With Obama we get our troops out of harm’s way. With McCain we are there indefinitely. This means more of our young men and women die and we continue to look like invaders and not liberators. It was a valiant effort by our military of an ill conceived plan by our civilian government to bring democracy to Iraq. Problem is you cannot force democracy on a country, they have to want it.[/quote

 

I believe he was trying to point o out some of the issues without giving a bias. Just simply listing the issues. That's what I got from it.

 

You seem to speak about Iraq like we've already lost. It was a valient effort. At least that's what I interpurated.

 

We are doing so good that on Monday we handed over Anbar provence completly to the Iraqies. Before wAnbar was thought of as a lost cause. Now it's secure and Iraqies are taking over. As I said in the prior topic the Iraq government is stiring about talking about making movements towards getting a lot to leave soon. Not because of losing at all. We are on the virge of victory.

 

It's almost wrapped up. Alqueda is gone from Iraq as well. Suicide bombings are down I think at least 70 percent.

 

No one has ever said besides people saying in their opinion like what you've said you think we'll be there indefinintly. No one ever said that. We'll leave soon. That time is very near.

 

And you won't be able then to say it was a failed war when we walk out of there victorous. When we leave is up to the commanders on the ground actually fighting the war. Not politions in cooshy chairs. Or at least they shouldn't be the ones to say how the conditions are.

 

The facts and evidence show we have done this well and are almost at victory's doorstep.

 

I’m more under the opinion this is all talk by both sides just like it has been the past four elections. Nothing is going to happen because all sides are more worried about profits than 47 million uninsured Americans.

 

We'll see.

 

Obama is going to work with allies and build up American image in the world. I believe McCain will do the same, but as of now he is saying he wants to continue the Bush plan.

 

You prefer him. I prefer McCain. I care less what other countries that don't have our interests at heart think. And more about what we are doing to fight terrorism and secure us world wide.

 

We are going to have higher taxes no matter who is elected. I cannot believe we will allow our debt to spiral out of control until we have 19% interest rates again. The question is do you want that money spent building up our infrastructure, our schools and the health care for all Americans or do we want the money going to building up a foreign counties infrastructure, their schools and their health care (and funerals) in our attempt to nation build.

 

Well we will see higher taxes with Oboma if you are making I believe it is over 150 thousand. And everyone under that gets a tax decrease according to Obama if we get him.

 

Sounds like Socilism. Redistribution of wealth. Kinda sounds like punishing those who worked hard and made much. So what it offends you. So what you don't like this guy has more than you. Work.

 

My father use to live in someone's garage. Now he's retired and quite weel if I must say. The point is you can do it if you apply yourself and work hard.

 

In my opinion with welfare as long as your not able to work and on disability. As long as your not disabled you can work. Welfare means we that are working ahve to pay for you sitting on your butt doing nothing, but collecting a check for being a lazy slug.

 

With McCain everyone according to what he's said he's said if he gets in everyone gets a tax cut. And no not the wealthiest 1 percent according to those who say that.

 

Simply pointing out this is what the candiates say. Now we need to stop overspending yes. We beat Russia in the cold war by spending them into oblivion. If we keep spending the way we are we'll spend our selves into oblivion too if we're not careful.

 

With the way we are spending we can't do that with all of these crisises going on and be able to survive 20 years from now.

 

So whoever gets in needs to stop the overspending. In my opinion. So spending money your tax dollars and things like a green bean museum or spending it on bridges to no where needs to stop. Earmarking or as I call it wastefull pork barrel spending needs to cease. We didn't ask them to make a green bean museaum of all things.

 

As far as energy is concerned a lot of the technology isn't there yet as far as alternatives. Now there is wind power. But some have complaints about that too.

 

What happens with these wind devices is it's like these prapellers attached to these poles which when the perpeller spins to powers a generator. Even when down here there is no wind up how far they extend there is wind.

 

The problems some have with it is that it can confuse bats and shred them. Also it's an eye sore if it's put in someone's yard.

 

So for right now oil we need. I'm for drilling at home. It was on the table to drill during the Clinton years to drill in Anwar, but was not passed. Had it been improved back then gas prices might be lower because we'd have more oil.

 

We are using as much oil right now as we did back during WWII times. Guys China has signed 100 year leases to drill in the gulf. Yet we haven't because environmental extremists. They don't want to drill in Alaska or Anware. We could be fully independent of foreign oil if we drill here. If we do we won't have Sauida Arabia oil sellers screwing with the prices because we have to pay. It is getting lower over there. I think they built some pump system over there to get oil out deeper.

 

Sarah feels we should drill in her state. Alaska's gas prices are the hightest in the nation at last check. In my opinion screw the caraboo. Drill.

 

In my opinion being energy independent is more important than caraboo.

 

I would love to not use oil and at the same time be energy independent. But right now the technology isn't there yet. And the wind power thing people have disputes with.

 

Agreed again. I believe if McCain is elected Roe vs. Wade will be overturned in the near future and abortion will go underground again. It will not stop abortion; just make it unsafe and uncontrolled.

 

No because too many wouldn't want that. I think it should be up to individual states to decide whether to aloow or disallow abortions in their own states. It's not afair to either side to say no abortions. Or to say abortions for all.

 

That's unfair to both sides. It should be in this state you can get an abortion, but over in this state you cannot. It's just more fair in my opinion.

 

Agreed and since I don’t use an assault weapon to hunt Bambi I don’t care.

 

Three words. The Second Amendment. Right to bare arms. If I want to have a gun in my house to defend against intruders it in my opinion is not the government's job to go against the second amendment.

 

 

To fight terrorism takes a world effort, the problem is we have alienated most of the world. Obama is an intelligent person and I believe he will surround himself with intelligent, knowledgeable people. So until someone tells me he appointed Mickey Mouse or Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State, I’m not going to worry about it.

 

It's not our job to kiss the butt of nations doing wrong. A lot of the world doesn't like us because they are jelous of all the accomplishments, how generous we are, how we pulled countires out of 2 worlds wars, how we've spread freedom so quickly,

 

They think we are bullies because of our power. Without us Hilter would rule, comunism would be throughtout the world, and freedom would be little.

 

When we go to war we go for our furthering of our ideals (which is mostly done by influence and deplomacy), defending nations inocent that are invaded by oppressors like Hilter.

 

How is that even possible? How can you be more open than allowing amnesty to illegal aliens? Is Obama going to send buses to pick them up?

 

I agree. I'm not sure if you are aware, but last I heard 6000 Americans died on the border down there.Americans getting kidnapped, drug lords. It's awful. The kidnapping is to get the families of the kidnapped to force them to pay these drug lords money.

 

We need a wall. We have the right to defend our borders.

 

And I believe when you come in you learn English. It's the language of the land. When you go into another country and plan to live there in my opinion you should learn their language.

 

It's a process to be a citizin. I think those that are here illegially that commit a felloney should get thrown out of the country.

 

Go through the process to become a U.S. citizin And pay the taxes. The rest of us have to.

 

As for Afganistan I think both plan to put some number more in Afganistan.

 

mimartin

There is a big difference between moving to Afghanistan to search for Al-Qaeda (remember those people that actually attacked us on 9/11/2001) and democracy building in Iraq. We should have never moved our troops from Afghanistan to Iraq in the first place. We diverted our manpower, our money and our energy from going after Al-Qaeda to a giant deadly Easter egg hunt, only Saddam did not hide any eggs. I would rather have our soldiers in Afghanistan fighting against those that attacked us instead of fighting in Iraq for Halliburton’s profits.

 

We went into Iraq because Hussain broke the cease fire. I would be happy to again like I did before in the prevous topic elaborate.

[Astor]

You seem to speak about Iraq like we've already lost. It was a valient effort. [/Quote]

 

It being a valiant effort doesn't make up for past mistakes, though.

 

We are doing so good that on Monday we handed over Anbar provence completly to the Iraqies. Before wAnbar was thought of as a lost cause. Now it's secure and Iraqies are taking over. As I said in the prior topic the Iraq government is stiring about talking about making movements towards getting a lot to leave soon. Not because of losing at all. We are on the virge of victory.[/Quote]

 

Or it could be that the US is sick of it, perhaps?

 

It's almost wrapped up. Alqueda is gone from Iraq as well. Suicide bombings are down I think at least 70 percent.

 

And you won't be able then to say it was a failed war when we walk out of there victorous. When we leave is up to the commanders on the ground actually fighting the war. Not politions in cooshy chairs. Or at least they shouldn't be the ones to say how the conditions are.

 

The facts and evidence show we have done this well and are almost at victory's doorstep.[/Quote]

 

Where are you getting this from? I can't comment as to whether the war is a failure or not, but I haven't really seen much evidence supporting either viewpoint.

 

I care less what other countries that don't have our interests at heart think. And more about what we are doing to fight terrorism and secure us world wide.[/Quote]

 

So you don't care that America is often seen as a bullying, imperialistic menace by many in the world at large?

 

What happens with these wind devices is it's like these prapellers attached to these poles which when the perpeller spins to powers a generator. Even when down here there is no wind up how far they extend there is wind.

 

The problems some have with it is that it can confuse bats and shred them. Also it's an eye sore if it's put in someone's yard.[/Quote]

 

That's the most ludicrous thing i've heard.

 

Three words. The Second Amendment. Right to bare arms. If I want to have a gun in my house to defend against intruders it in my opinion is not the government's job to go against the second amendment.[/Quote]

 

As I understand, no side is saying you can't have a gun, just that certain guns (such as assault weapons) aren't really necessary.

 

It's not our job to kiss the butt of nations doing wrong. A lot of the world doesn't like us because they are jelous of all the accomplishments, how generous we are, how we pulled countires out of 2 worlds wars, how we've spread freedom so quickly,[/Quote]

 

That's right, I'm jealous because i'm not American. And we were doing just fine in the First World War without America, thank you. And the 'we saved you in the war' thing is getting kind of old.

 

They think we are bullies because of our power. Without us Hilter would rule, comunism would be throughtout the world, and freedom would be little.[/Quote]

 

Of course it would.

 

When we go to war we go for our furthering of our ideals (which is mostly done by influence and deplomacy), defending nations inocent that are invaded by oppressors like Hilter.

 

An M1 Abrams blowing apart a Mosque isn't democracy.

[jonathan7]

That's right, I'm jealous because i'm not American. And we were doing just fine in the First World War without America, thank you. And the 'we saved you in the war' thing is getting kind of old.

 

Especially considering any proper review of World War 2 in Europe would reveal that it was the Russians who had the major hand in defeating the Nazi's - Russia was the Nazi's bridge too far, and where their massive war engine stalled.

 

@ SD Nihil - any proper review of the last 50 years would reveal that American foreign policy, has either been non-existent, constantly bad or damn right hypocritical (not that Britain's is much behind). How can we be fighting a 'War on Terror' against the 'evil people' - when we support regimes as barbaric as Saudi Arabia (a government which circumcises baby girls, so they can't enjoy sex later in life, chops of thieves hands etc).

[mimartin]

The facts and evidence show we have done this well and are almost at victory's doorstep.[/Quote] Then I take it you support Obama's plan. Let’s start pulling out the troops since everything is so stable.

And more about what we are doing to fight terrorism and secure us world wide.[/Quote] Fighting terrorism needs a world wide effort. When terrorist cells can hide anyway, you need other governments help in rooting them out. What we are doing now is just giving them more places to hide.

Sounds like Socilism. Redistribution of wealth. Kinda sounds like punishing those who worked hard and made much. So what it offends you. So what you don't like this guy has more than you. Work.[/Quote] For your information, I am one of those that according to your interruption of the data will be getting a tax increase. I agree with you interruption of wealth redistribution, but it works both ways. I just don’t see the benefit or the fairness in taking from the middle and lower class and giving it to the rich. Giving tax breaks to corporations that move operations off shore not only seems unfair, but dooms our economy. So by all means let us continue the wonderful economy we have now.

With McCain everyone according to what he's said he's said if he gets in everyone gets a tax cut. And no not the wealthiest 1 percent according to those who say that.[/Quote]How financial prudent is it to give tax cuts with the debt we have now? We need to become more financially independent and conservative not less. I’m all for cutting taxes, but only if we have a surplus not when we are running at a huge deficit. I can give you 9,655,168,190,493.32 reasons we don’t need a across the board tax cut. It goes up by 1.90 billion dollars a day and your share is $31,691.41. Yea, tax cuts sounds like the really conservative thing to do. Now you can see why I’m a democrat. Both sides are going to spend, but only the democrats are willing to pay their way, the Republicans just want to push it off on our children.

In my opinion being energy independent is more important than caraboo.[/Quote] I’m not against drilling in ANWR if it were done in the environmental friendly way possible. I’m against giving the oil away to the oil companies. The caribou in ANWR are a natural resource just as the oil in the ground is. We should take care to preserve our natural resources. To me the caribou are not more important than humans, but they are more important to me than oil company profits and I do own oil company stock.

I would love to not use oil and at the same time be energy independent. But right now the technology isn't there yet.[/Quote] No it isn’t and the technology will never be there unless we spend money researching alternatives.

No because too many wouldn't want that. [/Quote]Want has nothing to do with it. A Supreme Court decision should not have anything to do with what we want. It should have to do with the letter of the law and nothing else. So banning abortion was ruled unconstitutional in 1973. What has changed? The Constitution hasn’t, so it must be political and not have anything to do with the law of the land. Why should I be disallowed a medical procedure in one state and deny that procedure in another state? What about individual rights?

Three words. The Second Amendment. Right to bare arms. If I want to have a gun in my house to defend against intruders it in my opinion is not the government's job to go against the second amendment.[/Quote]So why can’t I have a rocket launcher in my home for protection? I own guns and have a license to carry concealed weapons. I was a member of the NRA until they took a walk on the stupid side. There is a difference between home protection and firing an assault rifle that goes through two walls killing the next door neighbor. Same goes for large clip sizes. If someone is so terrible that you can’t hit what you are shooting at with 3 to 8 shots then maybe they should buy a dog for protection.

 

It's not our job to kiss the butt of nations doing wrong. [/Quote] List three things any European country has done wrong other than not take kindly to our intimidation. I’m not talking about making friends with Iran or North Korea. I’m taking about making up with our oldest ally. You know the nation that gave us support during the Revolutionary War with whom there might not be an America today. France! Yea, we saved their butts in WWII, but they saved our butts long before that.

 

We need a wall. We have the right to defend our borders.

I agree, I just don’t like the idea of wasting our money on a wall with a bunch of gaps in it.

[SD Nihil]

It being a valiant effort doesn't make up for past mistakes, though.[/quote

 

Mistakes are made in war. You can't anticipate everything, and yes things could've been done better. Yes learn from the past and do better in the future. Now we're in the present and we are soon to victory.

 

For the leaving Anbar thing I just did a google search. Here's one: http://www.topix.com/military/marine-corps/2008/09/iraqis-take-control-of-once-bloody-anbar-province

 

Well here's all the results: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=UsS.+hands+over+control+of+Anbar+to+Iraqies&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

 

So you don't care that America is often seen as a bullying, imperialistic menace by many in the world at large?

 

You are correct sir. Because of all the generosity, pulling Europe out of 2 world wars, humanitarin aid, promoting freedom, spreading freedom, and fighting for the inocent and oppressed. So yes I care less for the comments of thankless nations.

 

That's the most ludicrous thing i've heard.

 

What's so ludicris? Elaborate please.

 

As I understand, no side is saying you can't have a gun, just that certain guns (such as assault weapons) aren't really necessary.

 

That's right, I'm jealous because i'm not American. And we were doing just fine in the First World War without America, thank you. And the 'we saved you in the war' thing is getting kind of old.

 

What country are you from. Without us you'd be speaking German. I know saving your tails is getting old. But it's because we ae a nation that fought for you. We did for France and Iraq and haven't gotten anything in return. We're not getting oil from Iraq.

 

Now I'm going down stairs to eat my steak and baked potato while you eat your baloney and cabage. A little joke for ya. lol.

[Arcesious]

So you basically want a robot to run things, because no one is that perfect.

No, I want people. Not the kind of people who are political puppets.

 

First of all, no one could possibly read that much mail at that level of governance. Secondly, mail does not accurately represent how the general population thinks.

Good point.

 

Third, I have a very high IQ, understand people, understand issues including their history and how they affect society, understand science and psychology, and can read polls just like everyone else, but I suspect you'd find me unacceptable because I'm religious and therefore potentially more 'close-minded' than you'd like.

No, not at all. The system would have to be fair to all sides. Also, I think that every person is close-minded in some way, so that's kind of unavoidable. Being an Athiest, i have a Bias about religion, preventing me from be totally open to it. It works kind of the same for all sides... Even neutral sides are, in a sense, biased by refusing to form a definite opinion, and being neutral on issues...

 

If by 'smart people' you also mean 'not religious', I would find that incredibly offensive, by the way--there are many, many brilliant people who also happen to be religious.

No, that's not what I mean. I think you're jumping to conclusions about what I'm saying. If I meant 'Athiests only' I would have said 'Athiests only'. But I didn't. I said 'smart people'. And a smart person, in my definition can be smart and brilliant no matter what they beleive.

 

 

 

Fourth, IQ and experience don't always translate over to leadership ability--those are completely different skillsets.

Good point. That's why I suggested that people who can lead, taking the position of politicians, will lead, and be advised by the 'smart people'.

 

 

Fifth, the 'smart people' would tend to choose more people like themselves and perpetuate a particular course of action when it may no longer be what's best for the country or region as a whole.

Good point. I'll revise my idea- the 'smart people' would have to be voted for by the people.

 

 

There's no recourse in your system to get rid of 'the smart people' who aren't doing a good job.

Also, another good point. Ths is exactly why i put this idea into a debate thread- because I wanted it to be debated and to receive criticism in order for it to either be discredited or improved upon as a working/non-working idea.

Perhaps these 'smart people' should be under the jurisdiction of being voted in and voted out, within reason.

 

Sixth, I think you're assuming you'd be one of the 'smart people' in this system. What if you're not?

Not at all. Admittedly, I used to arrogantly think that 'my opinion was the best' and that 'I should lead', but not anymore. (About three months ago.)

I realize that I don't know everything. I do not have a PHD, nor am I in an AP/Honors classes at my school. I do not beleive that I have the ability to lead, because my decisions in the past, and even recently, have lacked good reason many times. Because of this, I think that I cannot make big, hard decisions on big issues for any entire country or even a small commmunity, because I am prone to error. Therefore, because of my proneness to error and use of logical fallacies, I put my opinion out there, and watch others disect and advise on it, in order to correct me when I am wrong so that I don't make a huge mistake. Still, I can make relatively good decisions for myself, but I don't think I can make good decisions for others. In summary, I do not beleive I have what it takes to lead. Nor am I a good oral speaker. Perhaps a deveolping writer, but in real life, when I'm not on the internet, I talk pretty casually and 'red-neckishly.' (And that's because I have some 'stage fright' issues... )

 

 

What if the smart people decide that getting rid of all controversial comedy and drama is good because it's mindless trash?

Also another good point. I think that a justice system to keep this system in check would need to be put in place to make sure free speech and all those fundamental rights we have are never infringed upon.

 

 

and you wouldn't be able to do a thing about it if you disagreed.

Another good point. In the past, I've been for security over privacy, but my opinion of that has changed. I don't beleive that these great freedoms we have should be violated, no matter what.

 

 

With elections you and a few million of your closest friends have the option to get rid of people you don't agree with by electing in people you do agree with.

Agreed, but consider this example: Say that 90% of the population was say.... Racist or something against black people, and a KKK leader was running for president. Now, this situation is impossible to happen today, because of the bill of rights. However, this is still somewhat similar to what goes on today. Things like restricting certain Gay Rights for example, relate to this 'KKK' example of election. (This is a highly exaggerated example, used in order to make a point.) However- Mccain is in no way a bad person. He wants what is best for the country, and so does Obama. Both of them have their faults. However, nobody's perfect, so it is unavoidable to have to choose between two imperfect candidates every four years. The candidates can be really close to perfect, or really messed up. ither way; we're alll human, and we all make mistakes. But the thing is that we have to learn from those mistakes, and "treat others as we ourselves would want to be treated."

 

 

Anyways, if this is going to far off topic, we could either continue it in another thread, somewhere else, or end it here. It's your call.

[jonathan7]

You are correct sir. Because of all the generosity, pulling Europe out of 2 world wars, humanitarin aid, promoting freedom, spreading freedom, and fighting for the inocent and oppressed. So yes I care less for the comments of thankless nations.

 

What country are you from. Without us you'd be speaking German. I know saving your tails is getting old. But it's because we ae a nation that fought for you. We did for France and Iraq and haven't gotten anything in return. We're not getting oil from Iraq.

 

Did you even read my post? I'll quote it again for you;

 

Especially considering any proper review of World War 2 in Europe would reveal that it was the Russians who had the major hand in defeating the Nazi's - Russia was the Nazi's bridge too far, and where their massive war engine stalled.

 

@ SD Nihil - any proper review of the last 50 years would reveal that American foreign policy, has either been non-existent, constantly bad or damn right hypocritical (not that Britain's is much behind). How can we be fighting a 'War on Terror' against the 'evil people' - when we support regimes as barbaric as Saudi Arabia (a government which circumcises baby girls, so they can't enjoy sex later in life, chops of thieves hands etc).

 

A common misconception - the War analysts have actually found that even if the Nazi's had got to mainland Britain; we would have won a land battle, with the Nazi's stalling in the face of London's defences and failure to gain the aerial advantage, inflicting perhaps a cataclysmic defeat on the Nazi's - which is probably why Hitler never really tried to seriously to mount operation Sea Lion (the invasion of Britain) - I don't think we could of won on our own - but as stated, Russia was the Nazi's big mistake.

 

However again we are going wildly off-topic, so I suggest we return to the topic at hand, I did however feel compelled to correct the fallacies you were trying to promote.

 

Edit:

Agreed, but let's not forget the Americans involvement in helping supply the Red Army with Lend Lease. Let’s also not forget England holding on against the blitz and without England as a staging ground the liberation of Europe may never have happened. Let’s also not forget….(could go on for a few pages)

 

The victory in World War II was a group effort without any one of the allies victory would be in doubt. I really believe American history short changes the rest of the world’s contribution to the allies victory. I also think American history does not take into proper account how close we came to losing the war. It took everyone working together along with some stupid mistakes by the other side to win that war.

 

Oh, don't get me wrong America played a big part in the war, nor am I trying to sound ungrateful for your help.

[Astor]

You are correct sir. Because of all the generosity, pulling Europe out of 2 world wars, humanitarin aid, promoting freedom, spreading freedom, and fighting for the inocent and oppressed. So yes I care less for the comments of thankless nations.[/Quote]

 

America didn't pull us out of anything. In the First World War, American simply sped up Germany's already inevitable defeat.

 

I don't deny that the supplies that Britain paid for during World War II helped, and the situation was dire at the time, but England and her allies were far from helpless.

 

I'll refer you back to J7's posts for more information.

 

What's so ludicris? Elaborate please.[/Quote]

 

Not only that you felt the need to explain what a Wind Turbine is, you then claim that bats are being shredded by them, without providing any proof.

 

What country are you from. Without us you'd be speaking German.[/Quote]

 

No, i'd be speaking English. I don't remember the Germans making occupied nations speak German.

 

But it's because we ae a nation that fought for you.

 

Of course, because we all need America to come in and ride roughshod over everything.

 

We did for France and Iraq and haven't gotten anything in return. We're not getting oil from Iraq.[/Quote]

 

Have you thought that maybe they could do without American 'help'?

 

Now I'm going down stairs to eat my steak and baked potato while you eat your baloney and cabage. A little joke for ya. lol.

 

How quaint.

[mimartin]

Russia was the Nazi's bridge too far, and where their massive war engine stalled.[/Quote] Agreed, but let's not forget the Americans involvement in helping supply the Red Army with Lend Lease. Let’s also not forget England holding on against the blitz and without England as a staging ground the liberation of Europe may never have happened. Let’s also not forget….(could go on for a few pages)

 

The victory in World War II was a group effort without any one of the allies victory would be in doubt. I really believe American history short changes the rest of the world’s contribution to the allies victory. I also think American history does not take into proper account how close we came to losing the war. It took everyone working together along with some stupid mistakes by the other side to win that war.