Election

[thepixiesrock]

Boy I sure do hate those American's too! What a bunch of idiots! ha... ha...

 

Do I fit in now? I just want to join in the reindeer games.

[Guest The Architect]

That's not good enough, Lou. Tell us about how much you hate Americanism, then we might be getting somewhere.

Edited September 29, 2008 by The Architect

[Guest The Architect]

I chose the "Damn, we {you missed the apostrophe, but it's not the end of the world} re screwed" option, because I like to pretend I know something about American politics.

Edited September 29, 2008 by The Architect

[Killian Kalthorne]

I most certainly do not want McCain in. McCain would be just four more years of Bush, more or less, and the biggest reason is Palin. If Obama kicks the bucket we get Biden and he is good enough til the end of the term. If McCain kicks the bucket we get Palin, who got a African pastor once to do some "ceremony" to protect from witchcraft prior her becoming the Alaskan governor. I am all for keeping mysticism shenanigans out of the White House.

Edited September 29, 2008 by Killian Kalthorne

[Humodour]

South America

I don't know about "evil conspirators", but Ch

[Meshugger]

I voted damn we're screwed because it really doesn't make a difference in foreign policy who is elected.

 

This.

 

Has the US policy towards the middle east changed during the last 20 years? Has the domestic financial policy changed? Has the energy policy changed? And so on...On the whole, not much has changed no matter if it was Carter or Reagan or Bush.

 

Empires never play fair. Playing fair is playing to lose, in this case. I guess it's just a matter of comparing and deciding what you like best. A consumerism-based world which essentially depreciates the individual and reduces them to what they can buy, a model that entails that if you can't purchase you're pretty much cannon fodder... or the opposite. The gulags, engineered famines, chronic, integrated ineffectiveness and crimethink.

 

Listened to Bill Hicks lately, i presume?

Hilarious either way.

 

The current system is built for winners, not for those who are the 'good guys'. The financial and political system rewards winners, who are usually opportunistic, ethically and morally flexible, and seek power for self-gratification, and are not afraid to bestow their power in the most machiavellian ways. The good guys don't win, since they seek justice, empathy and the wellbeing of others. Will those values get you to the top of:

 

- The industrial sector?

- The banking and financial sector?

- The political establishment?

 

Not really.

 

Well, some will say "But Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Jesus?". Well yeah, look what happened to them.

[Humodour]

No one excepts world's only superpower to play completely fair, but somewhere along the line things got really twisted.

Empires never play fair. Playing fair is playing to lose, in this case. I guess it's just a matter of comparing and deciding what you like best. A consumerism-based world which essentially depreciates the individual and reduces them to what they can buy, a model that entails that if you can't purchase you're pretty much cannon fodder... or the opposite. The gulags, engineered famines, chronic, integrated ineffectiveness and crimethink.

 

Yep, for me it's that bleak. Excuse me now, it appears the depression is starting to fight through the medication

 

Look, maybe I'm being silly here - and call me crazy - but couldn't we have, you know, have a Third Way that strikes a balance between the two?

[Dark_Raven]

Go go Palin, I mean McCain.

 

Look at the vice president candidates, they will be the one in charge. McCain is old and may expire in office. Obama will be taken out of play by white supremists. So that leaves the number two who will advance to number one.

[Meshugger]

Go go Palin, I mean McCain.

 

Look at the vice president candidates, they will be the one in charge. McCain is old and may expire in office. Obama will be taken out of play by white supremists. So that leaves the number two who will advance to number one.

 

Uh-huh?

 

[Dark_Raven]

Like WoW. She can't do anything about it any way. The Pro Deathers in Congress and the courts would see to that.

[Humodour]

Go go Palin, I mean McCain.

 

Look at the vice president candidates, they will be the one in charge. McCain is old and may expire in office. Obama will be taken out of play by white supremists. So that leaves the number two who will advance to number one.

 

Uh-huh?

 

 

You think that's bad? Try this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npUMUASwaec

 

She'll take over America when McSame kicks it in. Do you look forward to it, Dark Raven?

[Meshugger]

Like WoW. She can't do anything about it any way. The Pro Deathers in Congress and the courts would see to that.

 

She is a 'young earth'-er as well.

 

Neverminding those links that i put up for a moment. After all, as you said, congress and the courts ultimately decide these things. But remember (in case McCain kicks the bucket):

 

- Congress and Senate can easily again fall under republican majority.

- Whenever it may happen, she would get to pick the judges in the supreme court (and with a majority controlled senate and congress, there wouldn't be a debate).

 

Guard Dog right on some points. When a party has almost absolute majority, it is never in the best interest for the avarage american.

[Humodour]

Like WoW. She can't do anything about it any way. The Pro Deathers in Congress and the courts would see to that.

 

You seem confused. The Bush administration went to lengths to tip the partisan balance of the DoJ and Supreme Court towards religious conservatives.

[Kelverin]

McCain

[random n00b]

The financial and political system rewards winners

That's not just the financial and political systems. It's the way nature itself works. Why does it feel so much better to win than to lose? It's not a rational response, it's something far more visceral.

 

It's always been the fittest, strongest, smartest and boldest that survive, thrive and live to pass on their genes to the next generation. Trying to shed millions of years of evolutionary ruthlessness on willpower and nice words alone is wishful thinking.

 

 

Look, maybe I'm being silly here - and call me crazy - but couldn't we have, you know, have a Third Way that strikes a balance between the two?

I don't know man. Can we, really? I mean, it sure sounds nice (vagueness of definition notwithstanding), but is it really a philosophy, a way of things that can come on top when faced with others? I'm not even talking about whether it's a better way of doing things, but, can it even become a prevalent ideology?

[taks]

Has the US policy towards the middle east changed during the last 20 years? Has the domestic financial policy changed? Has the energy policy changed? And so on...On the whole, not much has changed no matter if it was Carter or Reagan or Bush.

other than domestic financial policy, i'd agree 100%. not much changes. domestic financial policy see-saws, and overall, except for taxes, is really driven by congress and the fed more than anything (really, by the fed, since they determine the amount of money available to the system). i.e., the president really doesn't set "domestic financial policy" in any meaningful way (even with taxes, the president only recommends the changes).

 

the only problem that i ever see is when there is control over legislation and its approval by one party. we spend ourselves into oblivion. the balance with SCOTUS is really immaterial. they don't decide much that impacts the average joe. even the kelo decision, as bad as i think it is, will rarely have any effect on most in the US (like, 99.9999% of us will never notice).

 

taks

[Meshugger]

Has the US policy towards the middle east changed during the last 20 years? Has the domestic financial policy changed? Has the energy policy changed? And so on...On the whole, not much has changed no matter if it was Carter or Reagan or Bush.

other than domestic financial policy, i'd agree 100%. not much changes. domestic financial policy see-saws, and overall, except for taxes, is really driven by congress and the fed more than anything (really, by the fed, since they determine the amount of money available to the system). i.e., the president really doesn't set "domestic financial policy" in any meaningful way (even with taxes, the president only recommends the changes).

 

the only problem that i ever see is when there is control over legislation and its approval by one party. we spend ourselves into oblivion. the balance with SCOTUS is really immaterial. they don't decide much that impacts the average joe. even the kelo decision, as bad as i think it is, will rarely have any effect on most in the US (like, 99.9999% of us will never notice).

 

taks

 

kelo decision? What's that?

[samm]

Ah damn, I couldn't resist and chose the one option that describes the state of the world since the spread of humanity best

[Humodour]

Look, maybe I'm being silly here - and call me crazy - but couldn't we have, you know, have a Third Way that strikes a balance between the two?

I don't know man. Can we, really? I mean, it sure sounds nice (vagueness of definition notwithstanding), but is it really a philosophy, a way of things that can come on top when faced with others? I'm not even talking about whether it's a better way of doing things, but, can it even become a prevalent ideology?

 

*shrug* We do it here in Australia (have for almost 30 years). You might have noticed I find economic libertarianism laughable, and the accusations that I'm a socialist or a liberal equally laughable. Once you get past the ideology barrier and just go "what the heck, let's just pick the best bits and stop trying to lay blame", it gets a lot easier.

 

The real question should be whether or not you can extend the Third Way to populations of hundreds of millions, or perhaps whether or not some cultures are capable of perfecting it; America is ideologically as different to Australia as China is (in different ways, of course). I suspect that no matter who tries it in America, it will remain imperfect there for some time to come - there's just too much ideological opposition to regulation and the welfare state. But then, that was before this year. Now, I think the world is changing. A lot. The next 10 years will be amazing not just for America but the world - if we consider current trends, development in Brazil, India, China, Mexico, the Internet, and this new economic uncertainty in America.

 

I'm hopeful. Brazil is already shaping out to be a potential good case for a successful social democracy with hundreds of millions of people (Mexico not so much). I agree, 'Third Way' is a vague term. I can recognise the tangible difference we have over here compared to America or a generic social democracy in Scandinavia, for example. And I can recognise the similarities Australia shares with Canada in what seems like 'Third Way' politics. But I honestly can't tell you yet if Brazil will head that way, or forge its own unique form of social democracy or what. *shrug* But yeah, I'm hopeful.

 

I think the Internet is a really empowering tool for the Third Way and social democracy in general, so if I had to predict, I'd say yes - it can become a prevalent ideology.

[taks]

kelo decision? What's that?

they upheld a decision in NH in which some people had land confiscated to make way for some commercial development. the "public use" clause was interpreted to mean "raises more taxes therefore is good for the community" rather than "public park or roadway, etc." it is decisions like these, those that favor some sector of the business world, that are an affront to "rights," and create the environment we have, which i hate, allowing special interests to ultimately decide our fate. the government is in the pocket of big business, and we're screwed as long as we allow this to happen.

 

taks

[Meshugger]

kelo decision? What's that?

they upheld a decision in NH in which some people had land confiscated to make way for some commercial development. the "public use" clause was interpreted to mean "raises more taxes therefore is good for the community" rather than "public park or roadway, etc." it is decisions like these, those that favor some sector of the business world, that are an affront to "rights," and create the environment we have, which i hate, allowing special interests to ultimately decide our fate. the government is in the pocket of big business, and we're screwed as long as we allow this to happen.

 

taks

 

I have never heard about that before. I'll get back later, i need to do some reading on the subject.

[taks]

two years ago maybe? we discussed it pretty heavily in here somewhere. big deal. many states are passing their own constitutional amendments to prevent such happenings, but some are using it to their advantage. bad, bad decision, IMO.

 

taks

[Meshugger]

two years ago maybe? we discussed it pretty heavily in here somewhere. big deal. many states are passing their own constitutional amendments to prevent such happenings, but some are using it to their advantage. bad, bad decision, IMO.

 

taks

 

Ah, now i remember. There was a group that managed to seize one judg'se property as protest against his ruling on such a matter. They turned it into a public park, iirc.

Edited September 29, 2008 by Meshugger

[taks]

Ah, now i remember. There was a group that managed to seize one judg'se property as protest against his ruling on such a matter. They turned it into a public park, iirc.

now that i had not heard. i knew they were trying, but never got the story that they had succeeded.

 

taks

[Hildegard]

So the Bailout has been rejected...oh if only McCain didn't go back to Washington to 'do his job'

 

Sarcasm aside, so what's the next step? Do they try to push for an altered Bailout plan or will they stand by as this financial storm bashes various companies and banks?