McCain/Palin

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
[quote author="GOTTI" date=1221619829]CK, are you from the OC? If you are, you should add that to the middle YOUR handle. I suggest that it only because it makes more sense.</blockquote>


With friends like you, Obama doesn't need any enemies. Your intellectual statements are doing much to further the cause of your candidate. With supporters like you, my prediction of the outcome seems all the more plausible.



Hurry along now, gotti--- the bell is about to ring, time to get back to your 9th grade Algebra class.
 
[quote author="CK" date=1221618834][quote author="T!m" date=1221617435]

With kids (esp girls) hitting puberty earlier now than they did 30 years ago, it might be good to tell them <strong>something</strong> before they become pregnant.</blockquote>


I don't think anyone would argue that, Tim. The point is who do you want teaching that stuff to our children? I guess if you think it is a matter for the gov't, Obama is your guy. Me, not so much. It's taken me a long time to realize it, but finally I can see that the gov't is neither the smartest nor the most efficient person in the room. </blockquote>


Hmmm, where do I start? First of all, I would agree that the "government" may not be the smartest or the most efficient. But note that the "government" is composed of people who send their kids to school, just like you.



So, who do you want teaching Math to your children? Social Studies? History? Economics? Biology? Health? I want a teacher teaching them. I want them to learn facts and learn about our society. Why is Sex Ed so different from Math Ed? What is the problem? They need to know about both and will use both as adults, right? How do you separate Sex from Health or Biology?



If you don't want the government teaching your kids about sex, then you have options:

1. Put them in private school.

2. Home school them where you can also make sure they learn how to clean weapons and about the evils of evolution.

3. Most schools have a form that the parents can sign to have their kids not be involved in sex ed.



What do you propose we do with the kids whose parents don't tell them anything about sex? What happens when one of those kids tells your daughter that he has no STDs because he never learned what they are?
 
I think it's your candidate that needs to get back to math class. The dow drops 504 points yesterday. Yet he says the "Economy is fundamentally sound".



I'll get back to algebra as long as you promise to get to an English class. You along with the rest of your Republicant cronies can't read and/or comprehend the facts of this election. You guys are crazy, believing your lies are the truth. Delusional.
 
[quote author="T!m" date=1221621085]Gotti, did you forget your meds or something? Has someone hacked into your computer? Stop being so offensive.</blockquote>


Can't help it, conservatives always bring the best out in me.
 
[quote author="T!m" date=1221621020]

Hmmm, where do I start? First of all, I would agree that the "government" may not be the smartest or the most efficient. But note that the "government" is composed of people who send their kids to school, just like you.



So, who do you want teaching Math to your children? Social Studies? History? Economics? Biology? Health? I want a teacher teaching them. I want them to learn facts and learn about our society. Why is Sex Ed so different from Math Ed? What is the problem? They need to know about both and will use both as adults, right? How do you separate Sex from Health or Biology?



If you don't want the government teaching your kids about sex, then you have options:

1. Put them in private school.

2. Home school them where you can also make sure they learn how to clean weapons and about the evils of evolution.

3. Most schools have a form that the parents can sign to have their kids not be involved in sex ed.



What do you propose we do with the kids whose parents don't tell them anything about sex? What happens when one of those kids tells your daughter that he has no STDs because he never learned what they are?</blockquote>


Tim: You might be surprised to learn that I am a pretty socially liberal guy. Please don't lump me into the guns and god crowd (#2). But it is statements like that from the left that roil the heartland and further paint the Democrats as out of touch with the folks. And you need to folks to win. The sooner the Democrats recognize that the votes of those clinging to guns and religion count the same as theirs, the sooner they start winning elections again.



But I digress. To your point, Math Ed and Sex Ed are like apples and oranges. Sex ed is a very delicate personal issue, and one that involved parents would prefer handling on their own. I am ALL FOR sex ed from about 6th grade on --- by that time involved parents would have (should have) already messaged it in their own way with their own children. I'm going to guess you don't have children? I suspect as much, because five years ago I would have said the same thing as you. Circumstances change things. You know what they say --- If you are a conservative under 30 you don't have a heart, if you are a liberal over 30 you don' have a brain. Or something like that.



The point of my posts on the state of the Democratic party is they need to step out of their vacuum and realize that most people are not living a NYC or SF lifestyle. The far left can THINK they are better than the sheep all they want, but if they want to win they are going to have to give a little to the center.
 
[quote author="CK" date=1221622192][quote author="T!m" date=1221621020]

Hmmm, where do I start? First of all, I would agree that the "government" may not be the smartest or the most efficient. But note that the "government" is composed of people who send their kids to school, just like you.



So, who do you want teaching Math to your children? Social Studies? History? Economics? Biology? Health? I want a teacher teaching them. I want them to learn facts and learn about our society. Why is Sex Ed so different from Math Ed? What is the problem? They need to know about both and will use both as adults, right? How do you separate Sex from Health or Biology?



If you don't want the government teaching your kids about sex, then you have options:

1. Put them in private school.

2. Home school them where you can also make sure they learn how to clean weapons and about the evils of evolution.

3. Most schools have a form that the parents can sign to have their kids not be involved in sex ed.



What do you propose we do with the kids whose parents don't tell them anything about sex? What happens when one of those kids tells your daughter that he has no STDs because he never learned what they are?</blockquote>


Tim: You might be surprised to learn that I am a pretty socially liberal guy. Please don't lump me into the guns and god crowd (#2). But it is statements like that from the left that roil the heartland and further paint the Democrats as out of touch with the folks. And you need to folks to win. The sooner the Democrats recognize that the votes of those clinging to guns and religion count the same as theirs, the sooner they start winning elections again.

</blockquote>


I don't count as a "folk?" I was born in an Iowa town of 20k people and went to college in a Missouri town of 10k people.



<blockquote>But I digress. To your point, Math Ed and Sex Ed are like apples and oranges. Sex ed is a very delicate personal issue, and one that involved parents would prefer handling on their own. I am ALL FOR sex ed from about 6th grade on --- by that time involved parents would have (should have) already messaged it in their own way with their own children. I'm going to guess you don't have children? I suspect as much, because five years ago I would have said the same thing as you. Circumstances change things.</blockquote>


You are all for sex ed from about 6th grade on? So, what exactly was your point when you asked who I want teaching my children? Obama has children. Apparently having children doesn't change everyone in exactly the same way, as you seem to suggest. Now that you have children, what do you disagree with in what I said that you wouldn't have before?



<blockquote>You know what they say --- If you are a conservative under 30 you don't have a heart, if you are a liberal over 30 you don' have a brain. Or something like that.

</blockquote>


Yeah, I have always found that saying to be simplistic, wrong, and offensive. There seem to be plenty of smart liberals over 30 and kind conservatives under 30.



<blockquote>The point of my posts on the state of the Democratic party is they need to step out of their vacuum and realize that most people are not living a NYC or SF lifestyle. The far left can THINK they are better than the sheep all they want, but if they want to win they are going to have to give a little to the center.</blockquote>
What does any of that have to do with the content of sex ed classes?
 
Tim: You are missing my point. The sex ed is just used as one example to illustrate my point of the larger issue which has faced the Democratic party since about 1968. But I can tell you are so blinded by your disdain for the enemy that you can't step back and see what makes them tick. Why do you think Sarah Palin has transformed the complexion of the race? Have you stepped back to see what she (as flawed as she is) is delivering that Obama/Biden are not?



Answer me honestly, do you think the Democrats would have had a better chance of winning if the ticket were Clinton/Obama? Or even Obama/Clinton? Why were Barack/Dean and such so out of touch to recognize that they needed the help of the Democrats who supported Clinton?
 
[quote author="CK" date=1221619121][quote author="socalmd" date=1221617678]

You're gonna be in for a rude awakening Nov 4. That's the day decent people take their country back from the liars and distorters.</blockquote>


That has to be one of the more absurd statements I have read, even in these ridiculous political forums. Surely your handle cannot stand for "medical doctor" with a statement like that.



But hey, Gotti gives you thanks. Maybe you guys should get together for the election night political coverage --- Too bad Chris ("Obama gives me a tingle up my leg") Matthews and Keith ("Shame on you, Mrs. Clinton") Olbermann won't be hosting, huh?</blockquote>






Did you know it's a fact that the average IQ of a Republican voter is 27.3 points below that of a Democrat?



And yes I am a medical doctor. But don't worry if you wind up in my ER I'll still treat you the same even though you're a Republican. I don't hate Republicans, I just pity them.
 
OK, CK, we can move past the sex ed issue. (But, it appears you have no problem with how it is being done, yet still criticize the Dems for it?)



I am not blinded by disdain. I was just addressing what I saw as a misunderstanding of a law.



Here is proof of my lack of disdain ;-) :

I get why some on the right are excited about Palin. In their view, McCain sucks, and they desperately want someone who is really religious (Protestant Christian only, all other religions are evil) and wants Roe v. Wade overturned. Oh, and someone who will stop all the homos from ruining marriage. If this were 50 years ago, these same people would want to make sure that inter-racial marriage stayed illegal. They don't see how their 19th century ideas are keeping them from thriving in the 21st century. They may say they care about other issues, but they don't vote that way. If they gave a list of everything they wanted, and Obama met every one of those criteria but said he was Pro Choice and for Gay Marriage, they would not vote for him. There is nothing Obama can do to appeal to this group. The Palin-people are not people that were choosing between voting for McCain or voting for Obama. These people were choosing between voting for McCain or not voting.



(Please note that the above is written at least half tongue-in-cheek.))



Anyone on the right that likes the right due to small government can't really be excited about Palin, because she's not going to do anything about that. None of the Republicans really do. They say it to get elected, but never follow through. Nixon, Reagan, GHWB, GWB -- none have made govt smaller. So, I exclude this group of intellectuals from being excited about Palin. This group should still be depressed about their choices in Nov.



I don't care if Clinton on the ticket would have helped. If Obama/Clinton would have been the ticket, it would have been a disaster. People have to know who is in charge. With Clinton as the VP, Obama's authority would have been undermined. It would lead to disasters as we have seen with Bush and Cheney. I respect Obama for not selling his soul and picking her. I wish McCain still had the soul that he lost when Bush killed it in 2000.
 
[quote author="waiting2buylater" date=1221563899]



I am willing to give up some personal liberties to give our government more power to catch terrorists. Even with all of our problems, this is the greatest country on earth and the greatest democracy the world has ever known. We have check and balance in our system and the people can vote to flush out a bad regime when it swings too far one way or another.



You are trying to make a point with faulty logic. Did voting for the Patriot Act make McCain not honorable? What about the rest of Congress who voted for it? Were they not honorable men and women too? From my perspective, those who voted for it were realists who wanted to protect the country from harm. You might not be for it but it doesn't mean those who disagreed with you were not honorable people. Knee-jerked statements like yours above just show a lack on understanding and immaturity.</blockquote>


Yes, calling me immature really proves your point. Do you understand the patriot act? Do you understand why a constitution and seperate branches of the government were formed and their main intentions? And you are so sure that I don't?



Do you even know of other democracies that were around before the United States?



<strong>

It is people like you, who are so easily scared into giving up liberties that have been fought for and paid for in blood, that allow individuals within the government to get away with breaking the law. </strong>



Yes voting for the patriot act makes someone not honrable. Yes that makes the majority of congress not honorable. Are you suprised?



<em>"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." </em>

Any guess as to who said that before you run off and google it?
 
Don't have a need to Google anything. This is not about knowing it all and who is the smartest or most well-read. It's about learning the facts and making reasonable choices. Giving up some of my liberties to allow the government to have more tools to prevent more 9-11 Events is a reasonable choice to me. I am a good citizen so I don't mind if the government checks up on me for illegal activities. It's just like going through airport security to be able to fly. It just like going through drunk-driving checkpoints for the privilege to drive. Imagine if we didn't have the Patriot Act and 9-11 happened again in LA, Dallas and Miami, do you still not want the Patriot Act?



We were the first true democracy and there have been many more in the Western World but in my heart, I feel that America is still the best democracy the world has ever known.



I might know a little bit more about liberty than you do. I essentially became an orphan when the communist took over my native country. My father was in re-education camp for along time. That is why I cherish this country and the liberties and the freedom we have. Even with that, I still supported the Patriot Act. Does that mean I am not an honorable person (same with McCain, same with the majority of Congress) because I supported it? I'll let the readers of this forum be the judge.



You are calling million of Americans who supported the Patriot Act not honorable just because you disagree with them, that shows your immaturity.



Some of you on here are just into making controversial headlines, spewing hate and making harsh accusations just because others are disagreeing with your view. Those are childish behaviors. You might have the highest IQ in the room or a doctorate degree on your wall but if you don't have some humility and emotional intelligence, life is going to be rougher than it should be for you.





[quote author="25w100k+" date=1221634464][quote author="waiting2buylater" date=1221563899]



I am willing to give up some personal liberties to give our government more power to catch terrorists. Even with all of our problems, this is the greatest country on earth and the greatest democracy the world has ever known. We have check and balance in our system and the people can vote to flush out a bad regime when it swings too far one way or another.



You are trying to make a point with faulty logic. Did voting for the Patriot Act make McCain not honorable? What about the rest of Congress who voted for it? Were they not honorable men and women too? From my perspective, those who voted for it were realists who wanted to protect the country from harm. You might not be for it but it doesn't mean those who disagreed with you were not honorable people. Knee-jerked statements like yours above just show a lack on understanding and immaturity.</blockquote>


Yes, calling me immature really proves your point. Do you understand the patriot act? Do you understand why a constitution and seperate branches of the government were formed and their main intentions? And you are so sure that I don't?



Do you even know of other democracies that were around before the United States?



<strong>

It is people like you, who are so easily scared into giving up liberties that have been fought for and paid for in blood, that allow individuals within the government to get away with breaking the law. </strong>



Yes voting for the patriot act makes someone not honrable. Yes that makes the majority of congress not honorable. Are you suprised?



<em>"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." </em>

Any guess as to who said that before you run off and google it?</blockquote>
 
[quote author="waiting2buylater" date=1221739434]Don't have a need to Google anything. This is not about knowing it all and who is the smartest or most well-read. It's about learning the facts and making reasonable choices. Giving up some of my liberties to allow the government to have more tools to prevent more 9-11 Events is a reasonable choice to me. I am a good citizen so I don't mind if the government checks up on me for illegal activities. It's just like going through airport security to be able to fly. It just like going through drunk-driving checkpoints for the privilege to drive. Imagine if we didn't have the Patriot Act and 9-11 happened again in LA, Dallas and Miami, do you still not want the Patriot Act?



We were the first true democracy and there have been many more in the Western World but in my heart, I feel that America is still the best democracy the world has ever known.



I might know a little bit more about liberty than you do. I essentially became an orphan when the communist took over my native country. My father was in re-education camp for along time. That is why I cherish this country and the liberties and the freedom we have. Even with that, I still supported the Patriot Act. Does that mean I am not an honorable person (same with McCain, same with the majority of Congress) because I supported it? I'll let the readers of this forum be the judge.



You are calling million of Americans who supported the Patriot Act not honorable just because you disagree with them, that shows your immaturity.



Some of you on here are just into making controversial headlines, spewing hate and making harsh accusations just because others are disagreeing with your view. Those are childish behaviors. You might have the highest IQ in the room or a doctorate degree on your wall but if you don't have some humility and emotional intelligence, life is going to be rougher than it should be for you.</blockquote>


I take back my insult. It is unfair of me to question if someone is honorable because of believing in something they've been told. I vehemently disagree with you and John McCain, but I think thats because I'm looking at things from a different angle.



I really truly believe things such as the PATRIOT act are unconstitutional and insidious. Our government was formed with the idea of decentralizing power because some of the most intelligent men in the world realized how easily power was abused by the old monarchies.



For thousands of years, governments have remained in power at any expense by criminalizing their opponents. It is a slippery slope. You and I aren't terrorists. But if we let ourselves be wiretapped just because we arn't doing anything wrong, perhaps one day we'll end up in jail after political dissent becomes illegal.



You yourself are from a communist country where it was probably illegal to disagree or openly speak out against the government. That is bad thing. It leads to zero accountability. I want our country to stay the proud democratic country that is free from political corruption.



Keep in mind the PATRIOT act was being written *before* the tragedy of 9/11. That just became the excuse to get congress to pass it. It was a way to skip accountability. Keep in mind, its not like the FBI couldn't wiretap people *before* the patriot act. It simply made it easier and with less accountability (and harder to catch outright abuse).



I'll post more later, but I am just trying to show you the other side of the argument. Again, I apologize for the insult, I realize you and I have differing opinions, and it may just be that you've never heard good arguments from where I'm coming from because people were too busy throwing insults.
 
I don't like the indefinite detention in the Patriot Act. I do personally feel like it's evil to lose the right to a speedy trial, and lose the right to know the evidence against you. The very first case where the states secret acts was used (the first time evidence was not presented because of reasons of national security), was supposedly to protect secret information but was actually used to cover up government mismanagement and errors: http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2008/012908loether.html



Since then, a very large majority of cases you'll find use "top secret" as a reason to settle grudges, get away with not having to do legwork to figure out if you have a criminal in custody (laziness, want to do the job later), and to protect the government from paying monetary awards when it's been incompetent. That's the problem with giving the government the ability to incarcarate people indefinitely and not present evidence. They don't use common sense, or put justice first. They put their time and money first. Just like anyone else.



And I do think, if you are one of the individuals who supports this stuff without pause, then you bear some of the responsibility for the wrongs that are caused. If you already knew of these wrongs and say that the people who have been harmed (some dead, some maimed, some destitute, loss of friends, family, good name) was worth it for the people who have been saved, then that's different. I personally don't feel like I can say my innocent life deserves to be spared at the expense of another innocent person's life. But I have discussed this topic with people who feel like it's a numbers game, and there are only so many innocent people that suffer at the hands of the government in exchange for hundreds more not being killed. I've never seen any evidence to back this up besides "the gut feeling" that it's true. As long as we are in agreement that the Patriot Act (and other legislation like it) will cause innocent people to suffer, then at least we're arguing on the basis of truth (using history, and what has actually occurred recently as a guide).



(This is a pre-Patriot act example from James Woolsey, who you probably know as an uber-hawk, uber-Republican http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june99/iraqi_6.21.html)



A side note: A few years ago a friend was forwarding me an email about an issue he was mad about at his film job. He said he felt like a "hired gun". He called me to read over the emailed letter to see what I thought. I hadn't gotten it. He emailed me a blank email to make sure there wasn't something wrong. It came through immediately. Over the course of 10 minutes he and I sent 50 various emails back and forth to different addresses, and discovered that specifically the yahoo servers were not sending any email with "hired gun" in it, though everything else came through instantly. Roughly 20 minutes after this all of the hired gun emails came through at the same time, all correctly time stamped and re-sorted timewise into the inbox.



We thought "Wow, I didn't know the government could do such a thing. That was interesting. I wonder if someone read that or not? I hope they aren't in the industry."
 
Perhaps McCain should reconsider how he feels about gay marriage and gay rights....and gays in the military, etc, etc, etc.



Considering.......



His Chief of Staff......



His most important confidant......



<a href="http://advocate.com/news_detail_ektid62106.asp">Has just been OUTED as a gay man</a>
 
and the U.N too, for that matter.



<strong><span style="font-size: 15px;">Gay Bush Appointee Loses Appeal for Fair Treatment</span> </strong>



<a href="http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid62590.asp">United Nations...isn't that supposed to be an all inclusive body ?</a>



<em>Richard Grenell was appointed spokesperson for the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations by President Bush more than seven years ago and became the longest-serving public servant to hold that post. But when it came to having his partner of six years listed alongside the spouses of other U.N. diplomats, his dedication to the job didn't carry much weight with the State Department. </em>
 
[quote author="jefa" date=1221813634]I don't like the indefinite detention in the Patriot Act. I do personally feel like it's evil to lose the right to a speedy trial, and lose the right to know the evidence against you. The very first case where the states secret acts was used (the first time evidence was not presented because of reasons of national security), was supposedly to protect secret information but was actually used to cover up government mismanagement and errors: http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2008/012908loether.html



Since then, a very large majority of cases you'll find use "top secret" as a reason to settle grudges, get away with not having to do legwork to figure out if you have a criminal in custody (laziness, want to do the job later), and to protect the government from paying monetary awards when it's been incompetent. That's the problem with giving the government the ability to incarcarate people indefinitely and not present evidence. They don't use common sense, or put justice first. They put their time and money first. Just like anyone else.



And I do think, if you are one of the individuals who supports this stuff without pause, then you bear some of the responsibility for the wrongs that are caused. If you already knew of these wrongs and say that the people who have been harmed (some dead, some maimed, some destitute, loss of friends, family, good name) was worth it for the people who have been saved, then that's different. I personally don't feel like I can say my innocent life deserves to be spared at the expense of another innocent person's life. But I have discussed this topic with people who feel like it's a numbers game, and there are only so many innocent people that suffer at the hands of the government in exchange for hundreds more not being killed. I've never seen any evidence to back this up besides "the gut feeling" that it's true. As long as we are in agreement that the Patriot Act (and other legislation like it) will cause innocent people to suffer, then at least we're arguing on the basis of truth (using history, and what has actually occurred recently as a guide).







(This is a pre-Patriot act example from James Woolsey, who you probably know as an uber-hawk, uber-Republican http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june99/iraqi_6.21.html)



A side note: A few years ago a friend was forwarding me an email about an issue he was mad about at his film job. He said he felt like a "hired gun". He called me to read over the emailed letter to see what I thought. I hadn't gotten it. He emailed me a blank email to make sure there wasn't something wrong. It came through immediately. Over the course of 10 minutes he and I sent 50 various emails back and forth to different addresses, and discovered that specifically the yahoo servers were not sending any email with "hired gun" in it, though everything else came through instantly. Roughly 20 minutes after this all of the hired gun emails came through at the same time, all correctly time stamped and re-sorted timewise into the inbox.



We thought "Wow, I didn't know the government could do such a thing. That was interesting. I wonder if someone read that or not? I hope they aren't in the industry."</blockquote>






Too bad we don't have a Professor of Constitutional Law running for the office?



perhaps then the things that Cheney and Bush authorized will be corrected?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top