The official 2008 Presidential Election Thread!

Any topic is game... you can discuss it here! Just keep it clean, OK?

Moderators: malletphreak, Hostrauser

Post Reply

Who are you voting for/supporting?

Hillary Clinton
13
24%
John McCain
16
30%
Barack Obama
17
31%
Ron Paul
8
15%
 
Total votes: 54

User avatar
The Aceman
Support Staff
Support Staff
Posts: 3599
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 12:58 pm
Location: Escondido, Ca
Contact:

Post by The Aceman » Tue Jan 29, 2008 2:11 pm

Hostrauser wrote:
The Aceman wrote:
Hostrauser wrote: Ron Paul is most assuredly not pro-gay rights or pro-choice.

I don't like Ron Paul as a candidate because I disagree with his "let the states decide everything" views. All that will do is allow the beliefs of the majority to infringe upon the rights of the minority (IMO).
He personally is not, but he believes that gay rights and abortion rights should be handled by state government, which I think is a good idea, certain areas of the country such as the bible belt are more pro-life whereas other places such as the northeast and west coast are more pro-choice, so why handle it at a national level rather than a state level?
Extrapolate your argument. Why do black people or women need a federal right to vote? Shouldn't each state be able to choose based on their local demographics. Why can't North Dakota or wherever vote to strip black people of their right to vote just because the state is 90% or 95% white?

I disagree with Ron Paul: federal protection is needed in many areas to protect the various rights of people holding minority opinions from the majority opinions that wish to eliminate them/impose their will.
You are comparing moral differences to amoral differences, that is the main difference on why one should be federally regulated and one state regulated.
Go read "Ishmael" a novel by Daniel Quinn. It will literally change your life.
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
Image

User avatar
Hostrauser
Support Staff
Support Staff
Posts: 7984
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 6:46 am
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Contact:

Post by Hostrauser » Tue Jan 29, 2008 2:56 pm

The Aceman wrote:
Hostrauser wrote:Extrapolate your argument. Why do black people or women need a federal right to vote? Shouldn't each state be able to choose based on their local demographics. Why can't North Dakota or wherever vote to strip black people of their right to vote just because the state is 90% or 95% white?

I disagree with Ron Paul: federal protection is needed in many areas to protect the various rights of people holding minority opinions from the majority opinions that wish to eliminate them/impose their will.
You are comparing moral differences to amoral differences, that is the main difference on why one should be federally regulated and one state regulated.
Not quite. The race is not the "decision" here. Choosing to have an abortion is a "choice" just like choosing to vote is a "choice": you don't HAVE to do it if you don't want to. My example isn't perfect, but it stresses the perils of letting a majority dictate what a minority can or can't do.

Let's pose another hypothetical example. 60% of the people in State X believe you shouldn't eat meat on Friday. They get a law passed that FORBIDS restaurants from serving meat on Friday. You are okay with this? Even though you like meat and want to eat meat on Friday? You don't think it's necessary for a Federal Law stating "you can eat meat 24/7/365, whenever you want" that will allow the 40% of the people in State X who disagree with the majority to eat meat whenever they want?

I say again, I abhor any system where any moral majority can prevent/forbid actions from a minority that have no effect on anyone but the minority. "Majority Rules" often means that up to 49% of the people are getting their views stepped on.

Eric B
New Recruit
New Recruit
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:38 pm
Location: Long Beach, CA

Post by Eric B » Tue Jan 29, 2008 5:59 pm

Hostrauser wrote:I say again, I abhor any system where any moral majority can prevent/forbid actions from a minority that have no effect on anyone but the minority.
Like female circumcision?

I don't disagree totally with your point, but you might want to word it a little differently...

User avatar
fieldshowqueen
Drum Major
Drum Major
Posts: 2493
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 8:24 am
Location: Moreno Valley, CA
Contact:

Post by fieldshowqueen » Tue Jan 29, 2008 7:03 pm

Eric B wrote:Like female circumcision?
:shock:
Image

Ryan H. Turner
Grand PooBah
Grand PooBah
Posts: 3160
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2002 4:24 pm
Location: Brea, California
Contact:

Post by Ryan H. Turner » Tue Jan 29, 2008 7:35 pm

Good God ALIVE...

I'm actually more in line with Kevin in regards to "the issues" than I thought I ever would be in approximately 2,193,297,280 to the 10th power years.

Let's see if I can even come close to how smart he is in my opinion...

1. Protection of First Amendment--with the exception of the obvious general "don't yell fire in a crowded theater" guideline, yes, there is far far too much in terms of restriction of free speech. I've read and seen some very very scary examples of our government getting too full of itself in this regard. And you wonder why I harp about gun control.

2. Patriot Act--and all the sheeple slept. Repeal would be the FIRST thing I do to it. Than I would wipe my...uh...nose with it. And then shove up George W. Bush's big fat....uh...nose with it. And then...well I can't say anything else because than the Secret Service would want to speak to me about the First Amendment.

3. No Child Left Behind--on general principle, the Feds should get their big fat noses out of the educational system and just make sure you're protecting my borders. I think it has enough on its plate to do THAT--which they don't do very well.

4. Abortion--I have my finely aged and refined feelings about this that cross practical, moral, spiritual and personal beliefs. It is about MY beliefs that I want to be able to secure. I am "enlightened" because I think abortion is wrong, but I don't want to be telling a woman what they can or can't do. What I believe happens with the abortion argument is that those against it say it's "state sponsored murder". --sigh-- I shouldn't have typed that because there IS a smidge of truth to that. But the decision...that very intimate personal decision for the woman...and resultant consequence (practical, moral, spiritual and personal) is HERS. And it should be.

5. Equal Rights--I certainly see Kevin's point. I have a particular sensitivity to "rights" when it comes to religious affiliation and protecting that right for men to worship (OR NOT) as they see fit. I'm about 75% in alignment in this regard.

6. Tort Reform--I admit my ignornance, because I thought he meant TART reform, and I was pretty happy with some apple danishes I had this morning which were called tarts, and I didn't see a need to reform them. So, by the example he gave (which was genius), I agree 100%. Is that what a tort is??? Yeah. I'm really that stupid.

7. Legalization of drugs/prostitution/the "victimless crimes"--this puts me at odds with the public safety world where I earn my living in my career. I have lots o' cop friends. LOTS. There goal is to eradicate drugs and the bad guys that use them. And when they're done, they all go to the river and get stark raving drunk and smoke horribly addicting and health endangering cigarettes. But by God, that pothead they busted is IN JAIL WHERE HE BELONGS. It's absolutely the most dumb double standard I've ever seen. Kevin is absolutely right on with ONE exception. There is a part of me that is greatly concerned about public safety and standards in regards to the prostitution angle. Having children has changed my view on this, because no, in MY neighborhood, I would not want scantily clad women walking the streets for the sole purpose of seeking paying customers for sex. I read a book a LONG time ago--can't remember the author's name but I think the last was "McDaniels"--and the book spoke directly to this argument. I'll get the title when I get home...

8. Penalties--ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The tougher the better. If you want to use drugs, JUST LIKE ALCOHOL, do it in your house and don't drive or affect MY life. If you do--HUGE PENALTY. But WOP isn't the place to think this through all the way--but we're on the same page. And no hysterics allowed. Someone told me once that if you legalize drugs EVERYONE WILL BECOME DRUG ADDICTS AND IT'S HORRIBLE I COULD THINK THIS. I don't drink alcohol and it's legal. I don't do drugs because regardless of its illegality, I COULD do drugs if I wanted. I don't because I don't want to. That won't magically change if the law changes.

9. Iraq--There is something so fundamentally wrong with our presence there that it's hard to not think that there is something FAR BIGGER behind the scenes that motivates this otherwise absolutely fruitless operation we have going on in Iraq. I've read fringe reasons (there's a giant UFO buried in the desert we're trying to get to--seriously I read that) and practical but not well-thought out reasons (it's for the oil!). NOTHING...NOTHING...NOTHING is good enough for the horrendous toll this "war" has brought to our country and Iraq. That's so liberal sounding of me that it scares me, but if that rat bastard of a president of ours didn't LIE about why we went to Iraq in the first place, and caused me to become so disillusioned with our current government, than I'd be saying "Give the terrorists hell". But then again--we'd all have to buy in to the concept that it was Islamic terrorists that hijacked 4 different planes in the most well-coordinated attack EVER by a cave dwelling backwards people. Yeah. OK. Believe whatever you want. :roll: Bottom line--Please get the **** out of Iraq. YESTERDAY.

10. Universal Health Care--profit based medical enterprises are great for those that can afford them. Anything socialist in terms of health care will be a failure as well. So therefore--someone much smarter than me has to figure out how to do both. I'm fortunate to be in a career that has great benefits and I don't want to lose that to SOCIALIST medicine. PERIOD. But then again, I don't want to have an "every man for himself" society either.

11. ILLEGAL Immigration--let's call it what it is. ILLEGAL. As long as there is illegality, than it needs to be stopped. The SOURCE is our cheap business owners that skirt the law that is already on the books and harm not only our country but our fellow American citizens that CAN work by denying them the chance with cheap labor. It burns me to my core. CRUSH these businesses, and the illegal immigration problem "goes away". Enforce the border better with ANY means possible, and remain a sovereign state that answers to ITS CITIZENS, and not the FREAKIN' MEXICAN GOVERNMENT. I agree with Kevin...stricter laws, AND ENFORCE THE FREAKIN' LAWS. Crush these business owners that are about 1 INCH away from being treasonous IMHO. This is a VERY hot topic with me.

12. Guns--as long as the government does not say "You can't have guns at all", I'm good. My own philosophy aside and regardless of whether Kevin and I agree an armed populace is a safe populace, it comes down to MY choice to be what I consider safe. That's my right. And I do NOT want my right taken away. Control--fine. Banning--which to me is the next very close step to control--well, I'll turn into the Tazmanian Devil to defend that right.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...I feel so much better typing this out.

SCARY HANH KEVIN!?!?!?!? :wink:

User avatar
The Aceman
Support Staff
Support Staff
Posts: 3599
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 12:58 pm
Location: Escondido, Ca
Contact:

Post by The Aceman » Wed Jan 30, 2008 1:21 am

Hostrauser wrote:
The Aceman wrote:
Hostrauser wrote:Extrapolate your argument. Why do black people or women need a federal right to vote? Shouldn't each state be able to choose based on their local demographics. Why can't North Dakota or wherever vote to strip black people of their right to vote just because the state is 90% or 95% white?

I disagree with Ron Paul: federal protection is needed in many areas to protect the various rights of people holding minority opinions from the majority opinions that wish to eliminate them/impose their will.
You are comparing moral differences to amoral differences, that is the main difference on why one should be federally regulated and one state regulated.
Not quite. The race is not the "decision" here. Choosing to have an abortion is a "choice" just like choosing to vote is a "choice": you don't HAVE to do it if you don't want to. My example isn't perfect, but it stresses the perils of letting a majority dictate what a minority can or can't do.

Let's pose another hypothetical example. 60% of the people in State X believe you shouldn't eat meat on Friday. They get a law passed that FORBIDS restaurants from serving meat on Friday. You are okay with this? Even though you like meat and want to eat meat on Friday? You don't think it's necessary for a Federal Law stating "you can eat meat 24/7/365, whenever you want" that will allow the 40% of the people in State X who disagree with the majority to eat meat whenever they want?

I say again, I abhor any system where any moral majority can prevent/forbid actions from a minority that have no effect on anyone but the minority. "Majority Rules" often means that up to 49% of the people are getting their views stepped on.
Well I'm not going to argue to much, for one this is one of the few parts of the Ron Paul campaign I'm not sure I agree with, and for two, I'm not even sure what my stance on abortion is, I can see the logic in both sides of the argument. I've debated with myself which side is better and basically the only conclusion I've come to is that I'm glad I've never put myself in the situation to have to deal with it at a personal level.
Go read "Ishmael" a novel by Daniel Quinn. It will literally change your life.
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
Image

cobybos
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2002 8:57 am
Location: LA/OC
Contact:

Post by cobybos » Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:45 am

Edwards and Giuliani have dropped out. Giuliani will endorse McCain, not sire about Edwards.

User avatar
Hostrauser
Support Staff
Support Staff
Posts: 7984
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 6:46 am
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Contact:

Post by Hostrauser » Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:06 am

Eric B wrote:
Hostrauser wrote:I say again, I abhor any system where any moral majority can prevent/forbid actions from a minority that have no effect on anyone but the minority.
Like female circumcision?

I don't disagree totally with your point, but you might want to word it a little differently...
Not at all, since you're ignoring the other key point I've been harping on, which is that each individual person's right to control their body is inviolate. Female circumcision is usually the case of a group of people forcing it upon another person and is not acceptable.

If you want me to word it differently, then add a "voluntary" between "forbid" and "actions."
Ryan H. Turner wrote:Kevin is absolutely right on with ONE exception. There is a part of me that is greatly concerned about public safety and standards in regards to the prostitution angle. Having children has changed my view on this, because no, in MY neighborhood, I would not want scantily clad women walking the streets for the sole purpose of seeking paying customers for sex.
Here we will have to disagree, then. To me, standards belong in the home, and prostitution is not a huge hit against safety. Maybe it comes from living in a borderline ghetto neighborhood, but I'm far more concerned about the (possibly gang-affiliated) four gentlemen sitting on their porch, drinking and swearing at passers-by than the two young women with atrocious fashion sense.

Prostitutes, too me, aren't scary and aren't a safety threat. Indeed, I'm fairly sympathetic to them because I find them somewhat sad and a little pitiful.

User avatar
The Aceman
Support Staff
Support Staff
Posts: 3599
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 12:58 pm
Location: Escondido, Ca
Contact:

Post by The Aceman » Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:36 am

Rudy Giuliani has withdrawn from seeking the republican nomination and has been deleted from the poll. He had 1 vote at the time of deletion.

John Edwards has withdrawn from seeking the democratic nomination and has been deleted from the poll. He had 0 votes at the time of deletion.
Go read "Ishmael" a novel by Daniel Quinn. It will literally change your life.
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
Image

User avatar
The Aceman
Support Staff
Support Staff
Posts: 3599
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 12:58 pm
Location: Escondido, Ca
Contact:

Post by The Aceman » Wed Jan 30, 2008 12:50 pm

The American people need to Stop Dreaming!
Go read "Ishmael" a novel by Daniel Quinn. It will literally change your life.
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
Image

User avatar
BGRtumpet
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 4:15 pm
Location: Santa Clara CA

Post by BGRtumpet » Wed Jan 30, 2008 4:03 pm

Yeah stop dreaming on Ron Paul :roll:
Had good music though.


So he's entirely isolationist huh? Quoted Ben Franklin on that. Shoulda Quoted George Washington's farewell adress--practically the definition of non-interventionist policy. That policy was determined based on this principle: the U.S. is small and weak compared to Europe, but we are making a ton more babies than they are so if we can last long enough we'll be strong and stable. If you didn't get the hint its somewhat out-dated. Just a bone to pick about dumb-propaganda.

More importantly he said get of Iraqi right away. Great I posted once on this...no-one has said anything other than that they want to get out right away. It'd be nice to hear someone try to justify the consequences rather than pretend they don't exist. BTW:I was against the war from the outset, but as I have said, I think it is going to be necessary to create some sort of stability--even if its another dictator (for our sake).

Also Ron Paul makes the claim that Fed is controlled be secretive private interests controlled by big money and hiding in a marble palace. Or something like that. Well I hate to burst your bubble, but the fed chairmen is appointed by congress and the pres. and can be removed by them....so he's as controlled by big business as our gov is.

He also comes out very strongly against national debt, as if it has no uses. Well WWII and the jobs thus created (largely by national spending, i.e. debt) brought us out of the great depression. Esentially national debt is like an investment in our future. Pay now and when we it creats boom times get enough money to pay it back. Some risks are dumb, admitedly but they can be necessary. Heck maybe history will look back and say the Iraqi war stimulated the economy and brought us out-a the tech boom. Who knows? (still wont have made it worth it).

As for listing issues of importance too me:

Finding a way to stabilize Iraqi so that we can get out.

Reduce the impact of the upcoming recession

Find ways to reduce the stratification of society without becoming a wellfare state. Taking money form the ever-richer rich to give to the ever-poorer poor is backwards way of solving the problem. Instead encourage education and other equalizing factors.
Wilcox Black and Gold Regime (NCBA)

Trumpet--Benge CG

'05 Mask of Zorro
'06 Rhapsody (in blue)
'07 "Symphony 99" (music from Beethoven's 9th and Dvořák 's 9th)
'08 Jurassic Park

User avatar
The Aceman
Support Staff
Support Staff
Posts: 3599
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 12:58 pm
Location: Escondido, Ca
Contact:

Post by The Aceman » Thu Jan 31, 2008 1:07 pm

It's not as though Ron Paul would do a complete e-vac of Iraq the day he went into office, he would just use the money that has already been allocated to the war to start taking the troops out at a slow steady pace and not put any more money into the war or nation building. He's not an isolationist, he just believes we should only go to war in defense and only if we actually DECLARE war like the constitution says.

"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." --Thomas Jefferson
Go read "Ishmael" a novel by Daniel Quinn. It will literally change your life.
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
Image

User avatar
IsnipeWithAknife
Drum Major
Drum Major
Posts: 2858
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 1:38 am
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Post by IsnipeWithAknife » Thu Jan 31, 2008 2:54 pm

This is the only online social gathering place I visit where Ron Paul isn't winning in popularity
WHS '05, UCSB '10
WOP OT Round 1 Picture Battle Champion!
WOP OT Mafia Game II: First ever mafia champions
http://officeofstrategicinfluence.com/spam/

User avatar
The Aceman
Support Staff
Support Staff
Posts: 3599
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 12:58 pm
Location: Escondido, Ca
Contact:

Post by The Aceman » Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:36 am

A vote for Hillary is a slap in the face of America:

Hillary Knew (explicit)

Hillary Knew (clean)
Go read "Ishmael" a novel by Daniel Quinn. It will literally change your life.
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
Image

Ryan H. Turner
Grand PooBah
Grand PooBah
Posts: 3160
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2002 4:24 pm
Location: Brea, California
Contact:

Post by Ryan H. Turner » Fri Feb 01, 2008 3:03 am

The Aceman wrote:A vote for Hillary is a slap in the face of America:

Hillary Knew (explicit)

Hillary Knew (clean)
Freaking YIKES....double yikes.

You know what's scary--the "dream team" rumors are now officially starting...Obama for President...Hillary for VP!!!!!!!!

YIKES!!!!!!!!!!

Post Reply