Political Party & How Do You Decide?

Griff0rd · 08-06-2007, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blade

Protect us from what? See, this is the thing that I argue with people about all the time. Iraq has nothing to do with Sept 11th. Why the hell are we there?

As far as this goes, I am not 100% sure either way... I can't say that I know we are there for that reason and I can't say that we aren't. I think it was started for the right reasons, but I think that it has turned into something else. But like I said, there is no certainty for me because you can here all the arguments going both ways with "facts" supporting both.

God · 08-06-2007, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slim

how does it have nothing to do with sept.11?

Bin Laden was blamed for 9/11.
Bin Laden = Afganistan.
Invading Iraq = No reason. Other than Oil reserves.

Slimdust · 08-06-2007, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by God

Invading Iraq = No reason. Other than Oil reserves.

And how do you know that is the only reason? Seems to me that you are assuming.

Griff0rd · 08-06-2007, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by God

Bin Laden was blamed for 9/11.
Bin Laden = Afganistan.
Saddam Hussain = aiding terrorism
Bush vs Hussain rd 2 = Invasion
Threat of hussain = Invasion
Invasion = establishing new govt

Invading Iraq = No reason. Other than Oil reserves.

I did some editing up there to show my mathematical calculations...

The thing that I am pondering is why we aren't starting to pull back now and allow Iraq to use it's own resources. That is were "Other than Oil reserves" comes in...

Invictus · 08-06-2007, 07:30 PM

OK i'm gonna address this and move on so a good thread doesn't get hijacked but God, the USA have not taken 1 drop of Iraqi oil to the US mainland. All Iraqi oil is controlled by OPEC and has to be sold through them, the UN, Red Cross and Amnesty International have all stated that the USA has not taken a lick of Iraqi oil to use in the USA. In fact the US invasion of Iraq has made OPEC oil a lot more expensive than cheaper and easier to access. This is the left wing, Micheal Moore idiotic mantra of the all talk no substance clan.

Being a Brit, I actually follow the US presidential elections quite closely. If I was a yank I would have issues because I think the Republican stance on abortion, guns and civil partnerships is just wrong but I agree with their foreign policy and social reform programmes especially when it comes to Social Security, Taxation and Education.

The Democrats are still stuck in the rut they found themselves with when Kerry was running for office. They have nothing to say. All they seem to do is bash Bush and bang on about Iraq being this that and the other. Where is their social agenda? Where is their financial agenda? Energy, Education, Health Care? All you hear is Bush that, Bush this, Iraq is wrong blah, blah ................ They need to realise quickly that the majority of the US care alot more about what is happening in their neighbourhoods than what is happening in Iraq. If the News Networks and the Hollywood left didn't keep banging on about Iraq every 5 minutes then the Democrats might be able to say something people care about, but until then the Republicans will have an advantage so long as they nominate a good candidate.

Beaker · 08-06-2007, 08:50 PM

For me, I need someone who will make health care more affordable and either better pay for jobs or lower cost of living. I kind of take interests in the schools as well. I'm out of public school now, but it's a damn disgrace that they want to get rid of sports, music and art programs in our local school. They wanted to get rid of our middle school as well, and jam the 6th and 7th grade into elementary schools, and 8th grade into the high school.

Inogenius · 08-06-2007, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Being a Brit, I actually follow the US presidential elections quite closely. If I was a yank I would have issues because I think the Republican stance on abortion, guns and civil partnerships is just wrong but I agree with their foreign policy and social reform programmes especially when it comes to Social Security, Taxation and Education.

Take a look at Ruuuuuuuudy Guiliani.

I like Mitt Romney for his financial expertise, but I'm not sure he has anything more than that.

Denny Kucinich seems like he might be decent too, he's touchy.

Dakstang · 08-06-2007, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Dogg

Although I am not very politically minded whatsoever, I kinda agree with Beaker in that "civil" issues like gay marriage and abortion concern me considerably less than issues such as the economy, crime, the war in Iraq, etc.

I would rather pick a president that I agree with on the "serious" issues, than on stuff like gay marriage and abortion, which I consider to be petty issues, relative to the other stuff candidates concern themselves with.

Also, even though it sounds kind of shallow, our President is also a figurehead and a representative of the country, and somebody who has a good image is important. Personally, I think Presidents Bush and Clinton both reflected very poorly on the rest of the world (Bush because he strikes people as being less than intelligent, and Clinton because of his womanizing), and it makes Americans look bad as a result.

Also, I have to say I strongly disagree with the "I won't vote for somebody who's not the same religion as myself" sentiment. I personally don't believe that somebody's religion qualifies them to be president or makes them less qualified. Although a Christian president would probably support social policies based on his beliefs (abortion, stem cell research, etc), it's also possible that a non-Christian candidate would support the same social policies, yet be more qualified in other areas than the Christian candidate, making him a better all-around candidate.

I think it would be better to look at the candidates' stances on the issues first, and if you're having trouble choosing between two or more individuals, use religion as a way to narrow it down from there. Otherwise, you run the risk of supporting an inferior candidate based on something that has a relatively small effect on their ability to run the country.

The religion of the President matters a lot to me. One of the big issues to me is that America always sides with Israel. In the event of an attack on Israel, a Christian President would be likely to use all the resources at our disposal to protect Israel and that is what I want.

Another big issue that the President gets to appoint Supreme Court Justices and I want a President that will choose the right people for the job. Members of the Supreme Court are supposed to uphold the Constitution of the United States. We have had some in the past that interpreted the Constitution to mean what they wanted it to and therefore we have not obeyed the Constitution.

This is a VERY big issue to me.

Dr. Giganto · 08-08-2007, 11:55 AM

I totally understand that Dak...but I just wanted to point out that it's possible that a non-christian would make the same decisions on issues that are highly morality-based, but be more qualified in other areas that are less morality-based.

by the way, I just wanted to point out that I admire your ability to choose a candidate not based purely on party lines. Your support of Ron Paul (thats his name, right?) shows that the issues matter to you, not just blindly following party lines. Too many people just label themselves as "Conservative" or "Liberal", and then just blindly follow that party's beliefs...

Dakstang · 08-08-2007, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Dogg

I totally understand that Dak...but I just wanted to point out that it's possible that a non-christian would make the same decisions on issues that are highly morality-based, but be more qualified in other areas that are less morality-based.

by the way, I just wanted to point out that I admire your ability to choose a candidate not based purely on party lines. Your support of Ron Paul (thats his name, right?) shows that the issues matter to you, not just blindly following party lines. Too many people just label themselves as "Conservative" or "Liberal", and then just blindly follow that party's beliefs...

That is a big problem in politics today and I really hate that. What party someone is matters nothing to me. I just wish other people (especially people here in W.V.) would feel the same way. The majority of people here still vote a straight Democrat ticket because "My Great Grand Pappy said if you don't vote Democrat we will all starve!"

BTW: I am being totally serious about that last statement. People still actually believe that.

Ron Paul is officially listed as a Republican but he differs quite a bit from what the main stream Republicans are today. I believe that Ron Paul represents what the founders of the Republican party meant it to be. The Republican party has lost their way.

08-06-2007, 07:30 PM	#25 (permalink)
Invictus Platinum Member Status: Offline Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,574 vBookie Cash: 500 Rep Power: 5 gXboxLive Leaderboard: 2^nd	Re: Political Party & How Do You Decide? OK i'm gonna address this and move on so a good thread doesn't get hijacked but God, the USA have not taken 1 drop of Iraqi oil to the US mainland. All Iraqi oil is controlled by OPEC and has to be sold through them, the UN, Red Cross and Amnesty International have all stated that the USA has not taken a lick of Iraqi oil to use in the USA. In fact the US invasion of Iraq has made OPEC oil a lot more expensive than cheaper and easier to access. This is the left wing, Micheal Moore idiotic mantra of the all talk no substance clan. Being a Brit, I actually follow the US presidential elections quite closely. If I was a yank I would have issues because I think the Republican stance on abortion, guns and civil partnerships is just wrong but I agree with their foreign policy and social reform programmes especially when it comes to Social Security, Taxation and Education. The Democrats are still stuck in the rut they found themselves with when Kerry was running for office. They have nothing to say. All they seem to do is bash Bush and bang on about Iraq being this that and the other. Where is their social agenda? Where is their financial agenda? Energy, Education, Health Care? All you hear is Bush that, Bush this, Iraq is wrong blah, blah ................ They need to realise quickly that the majority of the US care alot more about what is happening in their neighbourhoods than what is happening in Iraq. If the News Networks and the Hollywood left didn't keep banging on about Iraq every 5 minutes then the Democrats might be able to say something people care about, but until then the Republicans will have an advantage so long as they nominate a good candidate.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Political musicians	Tyler Durden	Entertainment	10	03-17-2007 04:07 PM
Political Correctness to the extreme	Papa Shango	General Discussion	1	07-01-2004 09:27 PM
What irks you about a political party	Miakal	General Discussion	1	03-06-2004 02:06 PM
Political Correctness - Has it gone too far?	3D	General Discussion	6	12-31-2003 02:54 PM
Political Leaders that you admire	Miakal	General Discussion	14	10-09-2003 03:48 AM

Political Party & How Do You Decide?

Civilized discussion on past and present political issues, debates, and discussions about religion. Everyone has a right to their opinion, so please be considerate of other's beliefs and stances.