mainor5251 Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 Hey yall remember one of obamas 2008 campaign slogans "change we can believe in" Anyone believing yet? So who you guys liking for his replacement so far? And question for democrats, do you think Obama as the incumbent is the best choice for a democrat nominee or would the party be better off backing another candidate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havending Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 Hey yall remember one of obamas 2008 campaign slogans "change we can believe in" Anyone believing yet? So who you guys liking for his replacement so far? And question for democrats, do you think Obama as the incumbent is the best choice for a democrat nominee or would the party be better off backing another candidate I say bring back Clinton and hire Monica part time. Lol. Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mission vending Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 Hey yall remember one of obamas 2008 campaign slogans "change we can believe in" Anyone believing yet? So who you guys liking for his replacement so far? And question for democrats, do you think Obama as the incumbent is the best choice for a democrat nominee or would the party be better off backing another candidate So far I'm not really impressed with anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mainor5251 Posted August 20, 2011 Author Share Posted August 20, 2011 The party is not going to back another candidate because he only served one term. Also , he inherited this mess. We had a surplus when dip golpher George took office. So yours stance is, all this mess is george bush's fault Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mainor5251 Posted August 20, 2011 Author Share Posted August 20, 2011 It went to hell under his watch, is what I am saying. And what is one thing that Obama has improved after after going on 3 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mainor5251 Posted August 20, 2011 Author Share Posted August 20, 2011 i just hope everyone spends a little time researching candidates and facts and makes there decision on that not all the garbage they hear at the water cooler or on tv by the opposite party Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherlock Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 i just hope everyone spends a little time researching candidates and facts and makes there decision on that not all the garbage they hear at the water cooler or on tv by the opposite party Democrats will claim our country is going down the crapper every time a Republican is in the White House. Republicans will claim our country is going down the crapper every time a Democrat is in the White House. That's been the case since before our grandpas were born. Three things a voter should never do is: 1. Vote for someone based solely on their political affiliation (Democrat or Republican). 2. Vote for someone based on what a politician says. 3. Base their vote on what any media outlet reports. A vote should be based on what your candidate has DONE. Actions speak louder (and truer) than any words. But, it's your vote, so who am I to tell you how to use it, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
will.vend Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 And what is one thing that Obama has improved after after going on 3 years Killed Osama bin Laden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mainor5251 Posted August 20, 2011 Author Share Posted August 20, 2011 Saved the collapsed Auto Industry Shifted focus of war from Iraq to Afganistan Authorized construction/openings of additional health care centers for Vets Better body armor for the troops Ended previous practice of forbidding Medicare from negotiating with drug manuf. for cheaper drugs. Ended previous practice of offering tax breaks to Corps that outsource American jobs Saved Wall Streets golpher I have more but I type slow and my finger is sore. I always see people throwing out points like these but they never want to talk about the huge negative impact that doing these things has caused, these were not without huge cost Killed Osama bin Laden ok andy is the winner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timberframe50 Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 I think the best replacment is Ron Paul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hillbilly Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 I have been shot at. I did not have body armor on. I really can't say that it would make me feel any safer. It is an adrenaline rush you will never forget. I have also seen firsthand some of what the government has in storage just in case we need it. Some of the items that the tax money is wasted on are useful items, the government just keeps them "just in case" Some things are like vaccinations,medicine,stockpiles of conventional ammunition,protective masks, water,communications equipment. I'm sure the body armor was already purchased, just not issued to the troops. I think Sherlock had the best advice. Just my .02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lurtsman Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 What I can agree with is Sherlock's position that we should vote based on what we have seen a candidate do. Their actions should tell us how they are most likely to perform given more power. I generally don't discuss politics with people because I find it leads to economics, and discussions of economics usually leave me with vastly less respect for the person I've spoken with. Economics is like a cross between justin beiber and open heart surgery. Everyone has an opinion about it (like beiber), and the vast majority of them don't know **** about it (like open heart surgery). If people spent more time learning and less time publicly announcing their opinions on topics they are as unqualified to discuss as surgery, it would improve discourse dramatically. Our politicians similarly are up there spouting opinions, when they do not understand economics any better than they understand their own organs. The theory that because they are in politics and using their position to influence economics every day means they will understand it, is equally absurd to the idea that because our hearts pump blood every day we will understand them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mainor5251 Posted August 20, 2011 Author Share Posted August 20, 2011 I started this thread cause I have been more and more interested in whats going in the world lately and with politics. I don't want to come off as I'm republican/libertarian and what I believe is right a you democrats are wrong. Just trying to better understand the lefts way of thinking. I don't get how spending more money is gonna help, are country is flat broke and obama wants to keep piling on debt. I believe the republicans should have never caved on the debt increase. I also don't think its fair to make successful wealthy people fit the bill for the poor. Its funny to hear democrats say "well, the guy making 5 million only pays 17% and i make 25 thousand and have to pay 25%". So the wealthy guy paid in $850,000 and you paid in $6250 and you think he should pay more, wtf, what benefits is he getting out of his tax dollars that should require him to have to pay so much more. (all numbers were just an example) My biggest gripe is the fact that are military occupy something like 135 countries, we need to bring are troops homes and keep are nose out of everyones else's business, I can understand why we are hated by other country's. While we are fighting for everyone else's freedom we are getting weaker. And kelly I can't really speak intelligently about the body armor because I have not done any research but I was always under the impression that military personnel decided the best way to utilize the budget approved by the president, so I not sure about the president "supplying body armor". And any good decision he has made in regards to military will always be trumped by the fact he has put us into another war and did it without congressional approval, we are at war with countries that make their decisions this way, closet dictator. And If a business practices bad business then they should go out of business, ie. the mortages that them banks were making or the $50,000 credit cards they gave college students. I just don't get the whole big government, they know whats best for me, and they will take care of me ideology. I'M WITH YOU TIMBERFRAME Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpvnc Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 I am going to ask one question here? If there were equally priced products you could vend that were made here in the good old US of A would you buy them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielirubin Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 I think the best replacment is Ron Paul. The next election is all about the Ron Pauls vs the not Ron Pauls could you imagine if all the quarters and dollars you collected out of your machines were backed by gold! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrifty Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 I want Ron Paul to be president, but he will probably lose. He is too ahead of the curve and honest. Obama will probably win again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bacho Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 I am going to ask one question here? If there were equally priced products you could vend that were made here in the good old US of A would you buy them? No! It's called Freedom of Choice. Something that this government is trying it's damnedest to take away from you, me, everybody. I will not live in a Nanny State! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lurtsman Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 Dpvnc. If I had the option of two choosing between two equal products that were identical in every way except location, I'd pick the one made here. I like that Northwestern machines are still made here. Regarding Ron Paul: I traveled about 140 miles each way a week ago so I could support Ron Paul at the Ames Straw Poll. I took a bus to save on fuel--not to mention I got to read for 2 hours each way. It will be very telling if Ron Paul actually makes it to the general election. Bachmann won the straw poll, but barely. Her campaign bought more tickets than they obtained in votes. Only 80% of the tickets they gave out actually voted for her. That's pretty sad. Now the republican party could do worse--she certainly isn't the worst person on the ballot, but she also is not a Ron Paul. Fox news followed it up by saying that was now a top tier of the candidates. Bachmann, Perry, and Romney. What? I watch the daily show for fun, but with a healthy dose of mistrust because they push an agenda--sometimes they are sly, and sometimes overt. However they really nailed the straw poll. There is a link to watch it for free. I'll be back on this thread later to go over some thoughts regarding personal liberty and taxation. Disagreement with my views is welcome. Because this is TVF I will treat all responders with a great deal of respect. I'd like to know more about how other people think also. My views will generally be presented in a logical fashion--such that I begin with announcing the base assumptions and outline each step from there. That way people who disagree can clearly critique what they don't agree with. If it was my reasoning, or if they feel the assumptions that I started with were incorrect. Edit: PS. If anyone but me were to make the decision on which product to buy for me, you can be certain they would have less interest in ensuring that the product made here was of equal quality. As our country has established, separate but equal is inherently not equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lurtsman Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 (Edit: In advance, I'd like to apologize for spelling or grammatical mistakes. I've been doing housework and getting up in the middle of writing this, so my train of thought may be incoherent in a sentence. Sorry for the wall of text, but logical cases can not be presented persuasively unless the foundation is clear.) Often times the challenge in building political dialogue and explaining positions is deciding where to start. When you have someone sitting directly across from you it's simply going back and forth--but in doing so it can be easy to alienate someone when you prove that views based on feelings are ineffective. Here is what I value: Personal freedom, aka liberty Scientifically backed results--and I'll harp on any that are repeatedly cited that do not have the proper credentials Standard of living - This is why I love economics Protection from crime - This is really a part of personal liberty though Here is where it gets tough: People who disagree with me often start with a different viewpoint. They do not see freedom as being paramount, and they do not feel that some people deserve to be free. Some people forfeit their right to be free by becoming a danger to others, however until that point I believe every person that is born has an innate right to be free. If we can accept that slavery is wrong, we must either also accept that being born into servitude is wrong, or we must draw a line somewhere in between. It is my belief that when people are born they should be free. To circumvent a point I hear too often: "What about terrorists?" They have given up their right to be free by becoming a danger to the liberty of others. How to understand freedom: Freedom and power are eternally at odds. They are the ying and the yang so to speak. Each always present in some degree. Each is defined by the other, or the absence of it. If anyone disagrees already--wait until the terms are actually defined. You can't object to a word you don't know--or you can, but it really circumvents any meaningful discussion. Power: Real power is not referring to electricity. REAL power is what I want to talk about for a moment. Power is the ability to make others do what you want them to do. Think about that. That is power. When you can make decisions for another person, you have power. Power is the ability to take the decision away from someone else whose life is directly effected by it, and decide for them. The ultimate power is owning slaves, or being the dictator of a country. You can see examples of power in the middle east. The Taliban has power. The people residing there will do as they are told, or they will be brutally murdered. The counter to power is freedom. Freedom: In the most pure form, freedom is the ability to make choices for yourself and to not be subjected to other people making choices for you. To be free is the absence of others making your decisions and leaving you to deal with the consequences. Freedom is choosing what deals you will enter into. Freedom is choosing where you will go, and which other people you will invite. The extent to which you are free is the extent to which others can not use power over you. What about children? We accept that parents must maintain some power over the children they have because children do not have fully formed brains (it finishes developing physically around 20 years of age) and are incapable of making reliably intelligent decision. A parents power over their children should be restricted when they abuse it. If they are beating or starving their child, the child's liberty has been infringed too much. In a similar way the guy who is yelling loudly on the the street corner is annoying, but generally is not violating people's liberties. If he pulls out a gun he has made a very credible threat to take the lives of others. At that point he has ceased using his freedom and is attempting to use power over others. To decide who among them will die. This is a simplistic way of showing it, but this is the difference between freedom and power. All of my future arguments will use the basis that personal liberty, aka freedom for those who have not in some way forfeited their right to it, is a good thing for the country. So if anyone feels differently, please respond in stating that my assumption of inherent freedom is incorrect. I'd like to use short one paragraph sections to change people's minds, but in politics that is rare the case. Once people have become emotionally attached to an idea they will generally look for ways to rationalize the viewpoint they already have. Therefore any case to change the opinion requires an almost iron clad backing to prevent future worming around the issues. The other point I'd like to establish to starve off countless republican/democrat arguments where there can be no winner. Does anyone support the idea of Theocracy as a reasonable form of government? This comes from the right occasionally, and I staunchly oppose it. This country was founded for oppression free worship, and that can not exist for all people unless we refuse to allow government to be a part of law. Too often I've met with people who had the stance "The government must stay the **** out of my church, but my church has every right to be involved in government". Now they never said, "The government must stay out of my neighbors church, but his church may be involved in government and determine for me what I may or may not do when I am not victimizing anyone or using power over them". The general principle has been "My religion has the right to dictate policy for all to follow, but the other religions have no right to tell me what to do, and the government should prevent any religion except for mine from creating policy". So for any who are considering the idea that their church should have a divine right to rule over people who do not consent to having others use this power over them, I ask this: What if it wasn't your church? What if it was the catholic church, or the mormon church, or the Scientology church, or what if we had Sharia (Muslim law)? Wouldn't you agree that you would oppose that other church deciding what you could do? As much as many people feel "My religion is right and therefore it is acceptable to force others to live by it because God has given us this divine right in establishing what is acceptable and all others are heathens who do not deserve to decide for themselves what they will do on earth." That is the same attitude that fueled the crusades. It is the same attitude that fueled the hatred leading to the attacks of 9/11. Theocracy, rule by the church, is oppression for all who do not wish to be ruled by it. Accepting theocracy is condemning all others to lose their liberty and be oppressed for the rest of their lives. Neither I, nor you, nor anyone else has the right to condemn the rest of society to oppression because they go to a different church. Do we have any takers for challenging that Theocracy is morally wrong to impose upon people? My arguments will make use of the theory that calling for divine right to rule others is ludicrous so I want to know if anyone will argue the base assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lurtsman Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 PS. The reason I spend so long developing these fundamental presumptions is from an experience in childhood arguing with adults. They would force me into arguing 2-3 points at a time. When I proved one wrong they would switch to the latter, or to an underlying assumption. When that point was proved they would go back to the previous point as if it had not already been proved. Because of that experience I lay out the assumptions first and then argue one point at a time so people can't forget the evidence and revert to whatever felt comfortable to them. Sorry for anyone who finds it overbearing to spend so much time laying the frame work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snack dude Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 PS. The reason I spend so long developing these fundamental presumptions is from an experience in childhood arguing with adults. They would force me into arguing 2-3 points at a time. When I proved one wrong they would switch to the latter, or to an underlying assumption. When that point was proved they would go back to the previous point as if it had not already been proved. Because of that experience I lay out the assumptions first and then argue one point at a time so people can't forget the evidence and revert to whatever felt comfortable to them. Sorry for anyone who finds it overbearing to spend so much time laying the frame work. I think all of you need to find a woman or get a hobby. Have a three or four kids and you wont have time to think about all this crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mission vending Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 Lurts... it looks like you've got a streak of Libertarian in you. I am pretty much in line with your statement. I don't believe that the gov't can do very many things well all at once. Stick to defense, law and order and then get the hell out of the way of those that go out and do something. I have no problem with my tax money going to help the young, old and infirm (those that CANNOT help themselves) the rest can go pound sand. Maybe that makes me harsh and cold blooded but I am OK with that. My parents grew up in post war Germany, the only reason they survived is that the extended family all worked together and worked their butts off to get the necessities of life. There was very little assistance available other than bootstrap leather. So I have little patience or understanding for those that will not work because the only job they are qualified for is "beneath them". One of my employees is finally "getting it" I've known him for over a decade, he is now 33 has a live in SO and a child. Last year he finally realized that if was going to be a man and live up to his responsibilities he needed to go back to school and finish a degree which he is now doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lurtsman Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 Snack Dude, I have a wife. Married at 20. I have extensive hobbies. I don't have children. I have great respect for people who are raising kids well, but at this time it is not something myself or my wife feel a desire to do. I think if more people spent the time to understand these things instead of voting low amounts of information the world would be a better place. It's like going bass fishing and voting on what tools to use when one person is a professional fisherman and the other two have never caught a fish. Our goal to fix the world is instead to be able to support charities that will save the children that already exist. Yes, I have a strong streak of libertarian. Republicans often seem to value personal freedom as a means to an end. A way to create the sense of family and community that they value. This is also in line with their dictating to others about the families they will have. (See restrictions on sex ed, on birth control, on marriage, etc) I see personal relationships as a means to an end. The end for me is personal freedom. Friendships and social constructs are tools to make it easier for us to achieve freedom. It is a fundamental difference that often marks the shift in mindset from republican to libertarian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dperry Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 Your political and economic opinions are worthless and your arguments are pointless. They are merely exercises in futility. There is nothing you can do to change anything; not even voting for the most appealing candidate. Life is what it is. Learn to live within your boundaries and be happy with what it is that you can personally influence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snack dude Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 Your political and economic opinions are worthless and your arguments are pointless. They are merely exercises in futility. There is nothing you can do to change anything; not even voting for the most appealing candidate. Life is what it is. Learn to live within your boundaries and be happy with what it is that you can personally influence. amen, brother Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.