US Presidential Race

[Enoch]

I found this amusing: Somehow, I've ended up on a John McCain mailing list. I guess they found out that I'm a white male who lives in VA and makes a decent salary and concluded that I must be a Republican (and either did not know or ignored that I live in Northern VA, with a woman who does not share my last name). The letter they sent me was bizarre-- it's 4 pages long, but no paragraph was more than 2 lines, each one setting out Sen. McCain's viewpoint on a particular issue in the most general terms possible. They couldn't have made it less readable if they tried.

[Sand]

I would have rather had McCain as president than Bush. Hell, I would rather have Conan O'Brian as president than Bush. Nowadays I thikn we need someone new and fresh that can lead this nation, and not yet another Republican. We need a deomcrat congress and a democrat president to repair the damage Bush has done.

[Guard Dog]

While I do agree somewhat that the old Jefferson line but I would slightly amend it. "The government that governs least yet fulfills the needs of its citizenry governs best."

 

Be careful what you wish for Sand. To quote another great American "The government that is powerful to do anything for you can take everything from you". The government should only operate within the limits placed on by the Constitution.

[Darth Drabek]

I saw Edwards on a speaking tour back when he was running as VP on Kerry's ticket. I don't know if he still uses the "Two Americas" bit, but it makes a lot of sense. I agree with his stance on strengthening the middle class, but what I really like is his universal health care plan (endorsed by Paul Krugman, NY Times columnist and professor of economics at Princeton!).

 

Edwards also is calling for a complete removal of U.S. troops in Iraq within 12-18 months, which might make him popular at home, even if it leaves the Iraqis high and dry.

 

I might support him in the primary if he closes the gap enough to make a win possible.

[Guard Dog]

The letter they sent me was bizarre-- it's 4 pages long, but no paragraph was more than 2 lines, each one setting out Sen. McCain's viewpoint on a particular issue in the most general terms possible.

 

I guess McCains supporters have a short attention span.

[Sand]

Be careful what you wish for Sand. To quote another great American "The government that is powerful to do anything for you can take everything from you". The government should only operate within the limits placed on by the Constitution.

 

Sometimes those limits need to expand, Guard Dog. I don't think the founding fathers couldn't imagine the level of technology we have today, or such a population that we do. The framework of the Constitution is sound, but it does need to compensate for modern times, especially at the pace we as a people are advancing.

Edited March 14, 2007 by Sand

[Pope]

Being uninterested in politics, let alone American politics, I haven't even heard of most of those people, but LOL @ John McCain, because somehow whenever I see that name I go "yippy ka-yay mother***!"

[blue]

h. clinton is currently doing better with black voters, 'ccording to polls.

That's no longer true. African American support for Obama is trending higher and has surpassed Clinton in at least one recent poll:

 

"Blacks Shift To Obama, Poll Finds"

The Washington Post, February 28, 2007

 

Clinton's and Obama's support among white voters changed little since December, but the shifts among black Democrats were dramatic. In December and January Post-ABC News polls, Clinton led Obama among African Americans by 60 percent to 20 percent. In the new poll, Obama held a narrow advantage among blacks, 44 percent to 33 percent. The shift came despite four in five blacks having a favorable impression of the New York senator.

 

African Americans view Clinton even more positively than they see Obama, but in the time since he began his campaign, his favorability rating rose significantly among blacks. In the latest poll, 70 percent of African Americans said they had a favorable impression of Obama, compared with 54 percent in December and January. . . .

 

 

On the GOP side, keep an eye on Romney. He's quietly amassing party endorsements, an impressive war chest and the favor of Coulter conservatives who'll largely decide the nomination. He's convinced many that his issue reversals on abortion and gay rights are genuine. McCain & Giuliani, otoh, are not well liked by the FreeRepublic crowd. Rudy and John won't do well in the make-or-break South Carolina primary.

 

If I had to bet with your money: Romney v. Obama.

[Guard Dog]

Sometimes those limits need to expand, Guard Dog. I don't think the founding fathers couldn't imagine the level of technology we have today, or such a population that we do. The framework of the Constitution is sound, but it does need to compensate for modern times, especially at the pace we as a people are advancing.

I believe they foresaw that. That is the reasoning behind the 9th and 10th amendments. If the real federalists like Jefferson and Madison were alive today the would not be in favor of taxing people to pay for Uncle Sam doing things the Constitution does not allow it to do. My opinion only of course.

[Sand]

Romney would be the worse thing for this country. If you want to go back to the 19th century, vote Romney. I prefer to live in the 21st century thank you very much.

[Sand]

I believe they foresaw that. That is the reasoning behind the 9th and 10th amendments. If the real federalists like Jefferson and Madison were alive today the would not be in favor of taxing people to pay for Uncle Sam doing things the Constitution does not allow it to do. My opinion only of course.

 

Maybe the Federalists need to make a come back.

[Guard Dog]

Romney would be the worse thing for this country. If you want to go back to the 19th century, vote Romney. I prefer to live in the 21st century thank you very much.

I'll admit, I know very little about Romney, but how do you come to that conclusion?

[Guard Dog]

[Maybe the Federalists need to make a come back.

Oh I agree. But they would never win an election. Now everyone asks the candidates "What are you going to do for me?". The Federalist answer is "Cut your taxes and get out of your way so you can take care of yourself." That asnwer will not fly today and more is the pity for it. It started with LBJ and the "Great Society" programs but asking people to take personal reponsability for themselves is not politically correct anymore.

[blue]

Romney would be the worse thing for this country. If you want to go back to the 19th century, vote Romney. I prefer to live in the 21st century thank you very much.

Money, endorsements, scandals and whim decide elections. In that respect we're still in the 19th century.

[Sand]

His views on gay and lesbian rights, abortion, medical science research, and the like. Also his views on what constitutes a "family" and his general demeanor. I don't particularly like him all that much.

 

He assumes that all Americans "are a people who love God" and that it is the government's job to ensure that "every child deserves to have a mother and a father" when it is not the governmen's place to determine what constitutes a family or not. He wears his religion on his sleeve and makes a show of it. Religion and spirituality is a private affair between the self and the venerated. To force your religious ideals on others is not patriotic, nor is not the place of government.

[Dark Moth]

Shucks, that's good news, why do ya hate to tell me? But just because it's rocking doesn't mean it can't improve.

everyone seems so set on chastising bush they seem to forget this is the one area he has shone brightly with.

 

But okay, how about a candidate who can maintain the good economy? And also help eliminate the debt, though that might not happen for some time.

actually, bush's economy has been an uphill ride since the bubble, which started well before he took office. i.e. he is maintaining the economy. yeah, gas prices are high, but not when you consider average inflation over the last 30 years or so (oil is a commodity, so it doesn't track normal inflation). the over-heated housing market has cooled in the regions in which is was over-heated, but everywhere else it is chugging along. and, not surprisingly, our budget deficit is actually getting smaller now... eliminating the debt, however, is next to impossible unless we maintain a power split (i.e. dem congress repub pres, vice versa). the problem with spending over bush's terms is not necessarily a bush problem, it's a one party control problem. clinton would have done the same had dems been in control then.

 

taks

I've said before the economy wasn't entirely Bush's fault, but people like to point fingers anyway. Back to energy, it would definitely help gas prices if he strived for energy security. Let's face it, being entirely energy self-sufficient is unrealistic anytime soon. Energy security is a different thing, though. Mainly, if we can find other sources of energy so we can at least eliminate buying oil from the ME. Bush had a huge opportunity to push for energy independence right after 9/11, but as usual, he squandered it. It can be done, we just have to stop taking the path of least resistance.

 

As for stem cell research, I'm in a little paradox because I support stem cell research, but I'm also staunchly anti-abortion. I've heard about bone marrow cells being potential sources, but I haven't really read into it and don't know the pros or cons of using that over unborn embryos.

[Sand]

I don't see how one would be against using embryoes. Its not like they are sentient and self aware human beings. They are just a mass of underdeveloped cluster of cells. Besides there is also the cloning of stem cells which would also limit the need, if not get rid of the need altogether, for the use of embryoes. A human isn't a human til they have the cognitive ability to realize that they are human, and if they lose that capability what made them human is also lost.

Edited March 14, 2007 by Sand

[blue]

His views on gay and lesbian rights, abortion, medical science research, and the like. Also his views on what constitutes a "family" and his general demeanor. I don't particularly like him all that much.

 

He assumes that all Americans "are a people who love God" and that it is the government's job to ensure that "every child deserves to have a mother and a father" when it is not the governmen's place to determine what constitutes a family or not. He wears his religion on his sleeve and makes a show of it. Religion and spirituality is a private affair between the self and the venerated. To force your religious ideals on others is not patriotic, nor is not the place of government.

Romney's simply preaching to the base. He'll moderate his comments if nominated. Nixon's adage is GOP gospel, and it worked for GW Bush: sprint to the right to win the nomination and then run like hell back to the center. This shouldn't comfort you; god knows what Romney would do if elected.

 

Romney's articulate and a good campaigner. His issue reversals might be a problem, and I suspect there are unexamined skeletons in his closet. Not as many as are in Obama's though.

 

"If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a

mainstream concern. My opponent cannot do this. I can and will."

[Gfted1]

I don't see how one would be against using embryoes. Its not like they are sentient and self aware human beings. They are just a mass of underdeveloped cluster of cells. Besides there is also the cloning of stem cells which would also limit the need, if not get rid of the need altogether, for the use of embryoes. A human isn't a human til they have the cognitive ability to realize that they are human, and if they lose that capability what made them human is also lost.

 

 

Hehe, well therin lies the pickle. You feel that way while most religous people feel humanity occurs at conception.

[Sand]

His views on gay and lesbian rights, abortion, medical science research, and the like. Also his views on what constitutes a "family" and his general demeanor. I don't particularly like him all that much.

 

He assumes that all Americans "are a people who love God" and that it is the government's job to ensure that "every child deserves to have a mother and a father" when it is not the governmen's place to determine what constitutes a family or not. He wears his religion on his sleeve and makes a show of it. Religion and spirituality is a private affair between the self and the venerated. To force your religious ideals on others is not patriotic, nor is not the place of government.

Romney's simply preaching to the base. He'll moderate his comments if nominated. Nixon's adage is GOP gospel, and it worked for GW Bush: sprint to the right to win the nomination and then run like hell back to the center. This shouldn't comfort you; god knows what Romney would do if elected.

 

Romney's articulate and a good campaigner. His issue reversals might be a problem, and I suspect there are unexamined skeletons in his closet. Not as many as are in Obama's though.

 

"If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a

mainstream concern. My opponent cannot do this. I can and will."

 

So he is the Republican equivelent to Kerry, eh? Another reason to ditch him.

[Sand]

Hehe, well therin lies the pickle. You feel that way while most religous people feel humanity occurs at conception.

 

Yes, and most religious people think there is some invisible being out there that wants to be your friend and save you from a dark nasty place, but if you don't go along with this "friend" he pushes you in and locks you away for all of eternity.

 

A candidate that constantly spouts about traditions, his religion (look at me, I'm so pious!), and what not is definitely not getting my vote.

 

Traditions that are outdated have no value.

Edited March 14, 2007 by Sand

[taks]

I don't see how one would be against using embryoes.

because you base your opinions on different criteria than those that are against it.

 

Its not like they are sentient and self aware human beings.

an unprovable statement. certainly they are not sentient in the same sense as you and i are, but there's no way of knowing to what level their "self awareness" extends. i.e., this is still simply opinion.

 

taks

[Dark Moth]

I don't see how one would be against using embryoes.

because you base your opinions on different criteria than those that are against it.

 

Its not like they are sentient and self aware human beings.

an unprovable statement. certainly they are not sentient in the same sense as you and i are, but there's no way of knowing to what level their "self awareness" extends. i.e., this is still simply opinion.

 

taks

No no, you misunderstand. Sand is always right, no matter the situation. Oh sure, he'll say he's wrong most of the time time, but he'll never admit defeat in any argument.

[Volourn]

"A human isn't a human til they have the cognitive ability to realize that they are human, and if they lose that capability what made them human is also lost."

 

That's absolutely nonsense. You are implying that a newborn. isn't human nor is an old geezer with severe alzeimer's. That's beyond silly.

[taks]

hehehe...

 

taks