Front Office Football Central

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)
-   Off Topic (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Obama versus McCain (versus the rest) (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=65622)

flere-imsaho 08-29-2008 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lungs (Post 1818710)
Education in America is indoctrination into the liberal ideology.


The conservative wing of my PoliSci class (i.e. the group of us who went through the major together) would probably have disagreed with you. But then again, I think we had good profs.

ace1914 08-29-2008 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan T (Post 1818941)
Not sure what part of the country you live in, but the car seems a bit high and rent seems way low. I doubt a poor 2 person family would have 2 car payments, so probably closer to $200-$400 a month. But rent, I haven't seen below $1000 a month for a small apartment since I moved from the South a long time ago. So I guess it all balances out! :)


I was including maintenance and All-State.

Mizzou B-ball fan 08-29-2008 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1818943)
Even with Palin on the ticket, I wonder how many PUMAs are going to go with McCain, especially with that now established as the anti-Choice ticket very solidly. Are so many Clinton supporters really going to vote against their own issues? I'm trying to remember if that's really happened before. Bucc?


Perhaps you missed it, but that was my whole point. I think both are overblown. There's probably some moving that way on both ends, but they'll cancel themselves out in the end.

DaddyTorgo 08-29-2008 12:35 PM

i'm sure someone has pointed this out, but I'm 4 pages back. There is ZERO chance that Hillary supporters will flock to Palin. She's pro-life. That alone kills that idea.

SFL Cat 08-29-2008 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1818937)
this doesnt vibe with other facets in your party's platform...

nor your leader's voting records in regards to what I would consider to fall under the umbrella in your quote above.


I think most people on the conservative side would rather utilize private charities to tackle problems like this, rather than letting bloated government bureaucracies handle it...which seems to be the only approach the donkey party will consider.

Galaril 08-29-2008 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galaril (Post 1818945)
First off smart choise by the Repubs. As for attracting Hilary's voters I say not likely for one big reason. She is a huge antiabortionist so I doubt that will atract them and expect the Dems to remind people of this often. I think Hilary should feel like she has fucked herself by subtley getting her base to turn on Obama before which really is why the Repubs choose a woman IMHO. now if McCain wins in four years you got a guaranteed VP weho will kill Hilary. So she pretty much can kiss her chance asd Pres. 20012 goodbye baby..............Oh, despite the fact the mom is hot the older daughter has some serious guns already but not sure how old she is.


Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 1818951)
i'm sure someone has pointed this out, but I'm 4 pages back. There is ZERO chance that Hillary supporters will flock to Palin. She's pro-life. That alone kills that idea.



Yup I beat you to it my man;)

SFL Cat 08-29-2008 12:38 PM

I don't think McCain is going after Hillary votes with his choice so much as energizing conservatives still sitting on the fence.

molson 08-29-2008 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1818943)
Are so many Clinton supporters really going to vote against their own issues? I'm trying to remember if that's really happened before. Bucc?


Reagan Democrat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We won't see anything on that scale, but the general phenomenon could be relevant.

molson 08-29-2008 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 1818951)
i'm sure someone has pointed this out, but I'm 4 pages back. There is ZERO chance that Hillary supporters will flock to Palin. She's pro-life. That alone kills that idea.


Unless they realize that a VP's aborition views mean NOTHING. In fact, she could do more harm to aborition rights as governor of Alaska.

Edit: Oh, unless McCain dies. I have to remember that.

flere-imsaho 08-29-2008 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 1818716)
I sometimes want to vote liberal, but they turn my stomach.


Speaking of turning one's stomach, I think the biggest single factor that's turned more more anti-GOP (as opposed to pro-Democrat which is a longer-held stance) over the past few years is the "you're either with us or against us" and "liberals are anti-US and not patriotic" schtick. Given my experience with my brother, all that's served to do is make me more angry, even to the point of just being blanket against the GOP (at times) even though there are plenty of member who I'd normally objectively respect.

So it cuts both ways.

And I've had plenty of people give me shit about the very small peace symbol on the back of my car. Usually questioning my patriotism. When I explain that my brother served in Iraq while they got their fat ass down to Applebees to fill their lazy face they usually back down. I guess they assume liberals won't fight.

On a tangent, then, one of the reasons I do like talking about stuff like politics at FOFC is that there's very few people here who do the stuff above. I respect the conservative posters here, and if I had the chance, I'm sure I'd enjoy talking to them in Real Life. Even Cam. :p

Flasch186 08-29-2008 12:41 PM

Looks like all of the churches are in a fever over this and are now more motivated than ever to vote for the McCain/Palin ticket. She was the Evangelical favorite.

molson 08-29-2008 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1818963)
Speaking of turning one's stomach, I think the biggest single factor that's turned more more anti-GOP (as opposed to pro-Democrat which is a longer-held stance) over the past few years is the "you're either with us or against us" and "liberals are anti-US and not patriotic" schtick


It's not a good schtick. I think it's faded in use over the last 2-3 years or so though.

JPhillips 08-29-2008 12:43 PM

Obama would be a fool to bring up experience and I highly doubt you'll hear anything from anyone connected to the campaign. However, what this does is neutralize the experience issue especially for the media types. If experience is off the table as an issue that's a net positive for Obama.

But just to inoculate myself, I still think judgment is far more important than experience.

flere-imsaho 08-29-2008 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic (Post 1818725)
For those of you who think that McCain picked Palin solely on her gender; she is is the youngest governor in Alaska history and she was elected largely on the issue of ethics reform, one of McCain's longtime caucuses. During her time in the governor's mansion, Palin has also fought "pork barrel spending," another top McCain issue.


It's pretty telling about the current state of affairs in the GOP that someone who abuses her office to retaliate against her brother-in-law is still considered a paragon of ethical reform.

The Alaska GOP machine is generally considered to be one of the worst in the country. Almost as corrupt, really, as the Chicago Democratic machine which, ironically, Obama fought against to gain his initial seat to the Illinois Senate. I wonder how McCain's vetting process went, because I hope for his sake there's not a lot more to uncover there in the next two months.

KWhit 08-29-2008 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFL Cat (Post 1818956)
I don't think McCain is going after Hillary votes with his choice so much as energizing conservatives still sitting on the fence.


I don't think that's true at all.

She already pandered to the Hillary supporters in her first speech.

SFL Cat 08-29-2008 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1818969)
It's pretty telling about the current state of affairs in the GOP that someone who abuses her office to retaliate against her brother-in-law is still considered a paragon of ethical reform.

The Alaska GOP machine is generally considered to be one of the worst in the country. Almost as corrupt, really, as the Chicago Democratic machine which, ironically, Obama fought against to gain his initial seat to the Illinois Senate. I wonder how McCain's vetting process went, because I hope for his sake there's not a lot more to uncover there in the next two months.


Not like Obama or Biden have any ethical skeletons in the closet ... :lol:

ace1914 08-29-2008 12:46 PM

[quote=Galaxy;1818946]Why have two kids when your making $30,000 in combined salary? What does $800 in car mean? Is that car payments?

Anyways, as I posted in a previous post:

1)
Quote:

The rich should be rewarded for what they create. They do a lot more than the government, bloated by waste and bureaucracy could. They provide jobs, tax revenue (the wealthy pay a large % of the US tax revenue), new products and services that benefit society. They also how to create new jobs and such through managing money.

Isn't being rich the reward? That's the object of the game of capitalism. Hell that's why so many insanely rich people give away so much money. They've already won the game. What other reward is there? Oh yea, the reward of giving back to those less fortunate.

Quote:

2) The government already has a wealth of social programs. We have Medicaid/Medicare, welfare/disability/Social Security/food stamps, low-income housing and assistance in paying bills (heating/gas, ect.) and homeless shelters. We have educational programs all over.

People have a misconception that people actually "want" to be on welfare. That's why I think the idea of driving towards renewable energy is so crucial. The same people that we complain about being on welfare and other government assistance programs would much rather have a job and dignity than ask for a handout.

Quote:

3) The increase in charity from people (particularly the upper crust of income generators). They are more pro-active and demand results.

Please explain further because I don't understand the validity of this statement.



Quote:

I don't think just taking money from a wealthier party, who has worked hard and created something, and giving it to the less fortunate works.

I don't think making continuing tax-breaks for the very wealthy does anything but increase the gap between the haves and the have-nots.

flere-imsaho 08-29-2008 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 1818743)
Well, you'll come around. I voted for Bill Clinton twice in my younger years. :eek:


Well, I'm 35, with a house, a new child, and an income which places me in the highest tax bracket and my politics are still as progressive as they were when I was in College (though perhaps better focused).

In fact, it's telling that one of the GOP attacks on Obama is that he's got the support of a lot of rich, elite Democrats. So, is he a friend of the wealthy, or not GOP? Make up your mind. :D

Plus, look at his economics team again (from the free-market University of Chicago). Not a lot of pamby-mamby bleeding heart liberals there.

flere-imsaho 08-29-2008 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFL Cat (Post 1818744)
okay, looks like McCain is picking a hottie to be his VP running mate...he's got my vote now.


You're so cute when you pretend to have been the objective observer all along. :lol:

SFL Cat 08-29-2008 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KWhit (Post 1818970)
I don't think that's true at all.

She already pandered to the Hillary supporters in her first speech.


If the GOP gets any Hillary voters, it will be because McCain is already a RINO.

I could be wrong, but I think this VP choice will appeal to a lot of conservative voters who were thinking of sitting this one out. If that wasn't a concern for McCain, he would have chosen someone pro-abortion -- and his campaign did send out feelers to state GOP leaders to find out what reaction would be if he did pick a pro-abortion running mate.

molson 08-29-2008 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1818969)
It's pretty telling about the current state of affairs in the GOP that someone who abuses her office to retaliate against her brother-in-law is still considered a paragon of ethical reform.



Weren't you one of the people who flipped out in the Jon Edwards thread about people stating things as facts when they weren't?

We don't know the truth (yet). She certainly denies it and has offered an explanation for the dismissal.

I can tell you from my job that government employee terminations are always a tricky thing (one of the reasons government is so wasteful and doesn't work).

If you fire someone, they can come up with a poltical reason for it. That's why paper trials are so important, and you have to develop one for years before you can fire someone who's clearly awful. There's even a chilling effect. If there's some kind of dispute, you immediately think, "shit, now we can never fire that person".

This fired government employee knew he had this in his back pocket, and very well might have assumed he was untouchable and acted accordingly (he wouldn't be the first). Governments are filled with incompetent people (spending your tax dollars, by the way). A lot of that money you want to "liberate" from rich people is just being used to prepare for these termination lawsuits (and then defending them). So guess where that tax money ends up - with the lawyers. Might as well just let Walmart have the money, pre-waste, so they use it in the economy.

SFL Cat 08-29-2008 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1818976)
You're so cute when you pretend to have been the objective observer all along. :lol:


McCain's not my guy...never has been. I was seriously considering sitting this one out, and I still might.

But if I do vote, it will be for McCain.

Arles 08-29-2008 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1818969)
It's pretty telling about the current state of affairs in the GOP that someone who abuses her office to retaliate against her brother-in-law is still considered a paragon of ethical reform.

One instance does not a person create. Atleast, those rooting for Biden better hope that's the case. Plus, there's not much substance here. Her husband may have done some questionable things, but she was not involves (it's like punishing Hillary for some things Bill did - I doubt much comes of it).

IMO, when your first act as governor is to put the "governor jet" on ebay and bring in $2.7 million in revenue, I would say that's a pretty powerful image on cutting wasteful spending. Combine that with how she slashed the bloated construction boondoggle and you have someone who has done more against powerful special interests than Obama or Biden combined.

Quote:

The Alaska GOP machine is generally considered to be one of the worst in the country. Almost as corrupt, really, as the Chicago Democratic machine which, ironically, Obama fought against to gain his initial seat to the Illinois Senate. I wonder how McCain's vetting process went, because I hope for his sake there's not a lot more to uncover there in the next two months.
One of the reasons she gained notoriety was going against both "machines" in the legislative branch. She beat former governors with strong machine backing in both the rep primary and general election. Then, she went on to take fiscal stances that hurt legislative members of both parties. Essentially, she went out and did what Obama has been promising he will do for 8 years (but not deliver).


Here's the positives of adding here:

1. It adds life and interest to a very dull campaign.
2. It reinvigorate the conservatives (both social and fiscal).
3. She has a strong background in business and running a very tricky state (esp from a political standpoint).
4. While many are pointing to her pro-life stance, she will still be very attractive to women (esp independents). Her history as a mom, business woman, governor and her persona will attract some women voters. If McCain just get a small portion of the independents (not even the democrats) who voted for Hillary, it could be huge.
5. She is very likable. Once people listen to here and see her make cases for different ideas, she comes across very well.

At the end of the day, this draws a stark comparison with Obama and steals his thunder from the convention. Obama goes out and says he wants to change Washington, then adds a guy who's been in the senate longer than McCain. McCain says he was to change Washington, and he adds a governor from out west with a strong reform background. One could read into this that Obama is more interested in winning the election than sticking to the principles he started his campaign with.

flere-imsaho 08-29-2008 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galaxy (Post 1818837)
I really think the Dems attacking a VP pick (last time I checked, the president runs the country, not the VP) over inexperience would really do them no good. They would just be asking for an aggressive attack that highlights Obama's inexperience.


To turn this on its head, if one of the roles of the VP is to attack the other party's Presidential candidate, then would you rather have Biden attacking McCain or Palin attacking Obama?

flere-imsaho 08-29-2008 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1818849)
Watching the speech and she seems very amateurish in the start of her speech but Ill cut her some slack since she's probably blown away by her selection as well.


She's got one week to get really good at public speaking or she's going to crash & burn at the RNC.

Galaril 08-29-2008 01:05 PM

Somebody just mentioned John Edwards what the hell happened to him I haven't heard any word about him I was surprised he wasn't asked to be at the convention what happened did the guy go join the Peace Corp or something?

molson 08-29-2008 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1818995)
One could read into this that Obama is more interested in winning the election than sticking to the principles he started his campaign with.


Say it isn't so!!! Not Obama!!!!

molson 08-29-2008 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1818997)
She's got one week to get really good at public speaking or she's going to crash & burn at the RNC.


It's not that hard to give a prepared speech in front of a friendly crowd.

Galaril 08-29-2008 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 1819001)
It's not that hard to give a prepared speech in front of a friendly crowd.



Biden is going to chew up and spit out Frontier Barbie at the VP deabte(s).

flere-imsaho 08-29-2008 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFL Cat (Post 1818882)
She's a governor. Bill Clinton used that on his political resume too. Obama has ZERO executive experience, so if his people try to play the inexperience card on her...blammo it comes back to bite them big time.


Of course, McCain has ZERO executive experience as well.

SFL Cat 08-29-2008 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galaril (Post 1818999)
Somebody just mentioned John Edwards what the hell happened to him I haven't heard any word about him I was surprised he wasn't asked to be at the convention what happened did the guy go join the Peace Corp or something?


He tried to pull off a Clinton...

...but there is only ONE Bill Clinton. He has gone the way of Gary Hart.

SFL Cat 08-29-2008 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1819003)
Of course, McCain has ZERO executive experience as well.


So, of the four of them, I guess that makes Palin most qualified to be President.

Young Drachma 08-29-2008 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galaril (Post 1818999)
Somebody just mentioned John Edwards what the hell happened to him I haven't heard any word about him I was surprised he wasn't asked to be at the convention what happened did the guy go join the Peace Corp or something?


Maybe you not hear. He get sent into exile for cheeterism.

molson 08-29-2008 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galaril (Post 1819002)
Biden is going to chew up and spit out Frontier Barbie at the VP deabte(s).


Maybe. I have no idea if he's a good debater. Debating is a skill that isn't necessarily connected to being old, experienced, and isn't particularly reflective of one's qualifications regarding anything except debating.

Also pretty interesting to see a socially enlightened liberal be so overtly sexist.

SteveMax58 08-29-2008 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ace1914 (Post 1818973)
I don't think making continuing tax-breaks for the very wealthy does anything but increase the gap between the haves and the have-nots.


To me it comes down to...do you believe there is a fair pathway to increasing your economic status, and if you do, how hard should one have to work to do this without negating what somebody else's hard work has earned them?

If you do not believe it is a fair pathway(i.e. due to discrimination by race, gender, etc.), then what specifically needs to be in place to change the fairness of that pathway?(rhetorical statement mostly)

I think most economic conservatives(this is my view as well) would argue that capitalism isnt intended for everybody to be rich, or to even be within X% of income/standard of living from the top tier. The point is to have a system that allows for anybody to increase their economic status through hard work, intelligent/informed decisions, and a pathway that does not discriminate against them for traits they were born with, and cannot be expected to change to fit a "system", or the people within that "system". But it does not mean the system should change the non-discriminatory rules for every individual that fails to increase their relative economic status, nor reward those who do not try to adhere to the rules of the system, where they are trying to pursue wealth.

There are certainly arguements that can be made for where and how the "system" is unfair, impossible, or otherwise non-optimal. And where those instances occur, they should be addressed, debated, lobbied for, and changed. But the idea of government, rather than doing their job of creating a fair system, deciding to just take more money from the wealthy to give out more to the poor is not only unfair to those who do adhere to the system...but it simply allows for the continued decline of the poor to perform more valuable services to society.

JonInMiddleGA 08-29-2008 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1818995)
If McCain just get a small portion of the independents (not even the democrats) who voted for Hillary, it could be huge.


And, depending upon which states he gets them from, it could be completely meaningless too.

flere-imsaho 08-29-2008 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic (Post 1818894)
the GOP vice-presidential nominee is as experienced as the Democratic presidential nominee


Really? How do you figure? The last relatively undistinguished 18 months aside, her resume rests on part-time experience at a very, very low political level.

Quote:

but also has executive decision-making that Obama lacks.

Alternatively, she has 18 months of working with a friendly state legislature in a very thinly populated State with no current dire issues (aside from the corruption-related ones being engineered by the state GOP).

Quote:

Her tough stance on reform of long corrupt practices could give her a very clear advantage over practiced cronyists Obama and Biden.

:lol:

Arles 08-29-2008 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galaril (Post 1819002)
Biden is going to chew up and spit out Frontier Barbie at the VP deabte(s).

Like Al Gore did to W? Expectations are a big thing here and if Palin can pull a draw out of the debates (not too difficult, IMO), she wins big.

Flasch186 08-29-2008 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFL Cat (Post 1819006)
So, of the four of them, I guess that makes Palin most qualified to be President.


I know youre just pouring Koolaid out and are saying this in jest since she was mayor of a then of less than 10K, governor of Alaska for 2 years earning herself a legislative investigation, etc.

This is all about the pillars of the Religious Right platform, you, I, and everyone else knows it....and that's OK. There is nothing wrong with that. It is what it is and if the people want that than thats great.

To say that she is more qualified to be pres than the other 3 is a very very ridiculous statement.

SFL Cat 08-29-2008 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1819013)
Really? How do you figure? The last relatively undistinguished 18 months aside, her resume rests on part-time experience at a very, very low political level.



Alternatively, she has 18 months of working with a friendly state legislature in a very thinly populated State with no current dire issues (aside from the corruption-related ones being engineered by the state GOP).



:lol:


Nice spin!!! You sure you don't do this for a living?

I work with a lot of libbies, and most of them are kind of nervous about this choice. Just the simple fact that she is a hottie, especially compared to say Geraldine Ferraro or Hillary Clinton has them worried.

JPhillips 08-29-2008 01:20 PM

You say this:

Quote:

One could read into this that Obama is more interested in winning the election than sticking to the principles he started his campaign with.

But every positive you point out about Palin is a political consideration.

Quote:

Here's the positives of adding here:

1. It adds life and interest to a very dull campaign.
2. It reinvigorate the conservatives (both social and fiscal).
3. She has a strong background in business and running a very tricky state (esp from a political standpoint).
4. While many are pointing to her pro-life stance, she will still be very attractive to women (esp independents). Her history as a mom, business woman, governor and her persona will attract some women voters. If McCain just get a small portion of the independents (not even the democrats) who voted for Hillary, it could be huge.
5. She is very likable. Once people listen to here and see her make cases for different ideas, she comes across very well.

Vegas Vic 08-29-2008 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1819013)
Really? How do you figure? The last relatively undistinguished 18 months aside, her resume rests on part-time experience at a very, very low political level.


Well, she has spent her time in office shaking up government in Alaska and achieving results. Senator Obama has spent the majority of his time in office running for president.

Mizzou B-ball fan 08-29-2008 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galaril (Post 1819002)
Biden is going to chew up and spit out Frontier Barbie at the VP deabte(s).


I think that Biden stands a good chance of doing well in the VP debate, though given that he's debating against a woman, he could just as easily say something that he doesn't feel is derogatory towards Palin or women, yet it is perceived as being out of line. You always have to have that in the back of your mind with Biden. He's going to have to be very careful to not talk down to her, as it may be perceived by independents and women as being insensitive or being a bully. He wouldn't have had this issue if McCain would have selected a man.

As mentioned before, McCain should trump Obama in their three debates, which would more than offset any Biden gains.

JPhillips 08-29-2008 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1819015)
Like Al Gore did to W? Expectations are a big thing here and if Palin can pull a draw out of the debates (not too difficult, IMO), she wins big.


Everyone should back off the VP debate. Nobody makes their decision because of the VP debate. It's the rhythmic gymnastics of the election.

molson 08-29-2008 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 1819020)

But every positive you point out about Palin is a political consideration.


But Obama's the one who's about change and being above all that.

SFL Cat 08-29-2008 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1819018)
I know youre just pouring Koolaid out and are saying this in jest since she was mayor of a then of less than 10K, governor of Alaska for 2 years earning herself a legislative investigation, etc.

This is all about the pillars of the Religious Right platform, you, I, and everyone else knows it....and that's OK. There is nothing wrong with that. It is what it is and if the people want that than thats great.

To say that she is more qualified to be pres than the other 3 is a very very ridiculous statement.


Yeah, mostly in jest....but if a guy can win who's sole claim to fame is that he was governor of a state like Arkansas....who knows! :)

Deattribution 08-29-2008 01:26 PM

Do the people who keep saying that this won't get McCain any of Hilary's votes really believe she had 18 million abortionist voting for her?

A large portion of her vote were women who wanted to see another woman in a position of power. Infact, she probably got more votes from women overlooking the pro-choice than she did women voting for it.


And if nothing else, McCain has made a splash. This thread alone has blown up since, and it's definately made things alot more interesting.

ace1914 08-29-2008 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveMax58 (Post 1819010)
To me it comes down to...do you believe there is a fair pathway to increasing your economic status, and if you do, how hard should one have to work to do this without negating what somebody else's hard work has earned them?

If you do not believe it is a fair pathway(i.e. due to discrimination by race, gender, etc.), then what specifically needs to be in place to change the fairness of that pathway?(rhetorical statement mostly)

I think most economic conservatives(this is my view as well) would argue that capitalism isnt intended for everybody to be rich, or to even be within X% of income/standard of living from the top tier. The point is to have a system that allows for anybody to increase their economic status through hard work, intelligent/informed decisions, and a pathway that does not discriminate against them for traits they were born with, and cannot be expected to change to fit a "system", or the people within that "system". But it does not mean the system should change the non-discriminatory rules for every individual that fails to increase their relative economic status, nor reward those who do not try to adhere to the rules of the system, where they are trying to pursue wealth.

There are certainly arguements that can be made for where and how the "system" is unfair, impossible, or otherwise non-optimal. And where those instances occur, they should be addressed, debated, lobbied for, and changed. But the idea of government, rather than doing their job of creating a fair system, deciding to just take more money from the wealthy to give out more to the poor is not only unfair to those who do adhere to the system...but it simply allows for the continued decline of the poor to perform more valuable services to society.


Lunchtime. I'll respond in a little bit. Good post by the way.

Vegas Vic 08-29-2008 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 1819023)
Everyone should back off the VP debate. Nobody makes their decision because of the VP debate. It's the rhythmic gymnastics of the election.


Yes, and the McCain campaign also realized that the inexperience factor for Obama wasn't having that much of an effect, just as it ultimately didn't have much effect in the Democratic primaries with Clinton. Of course, with the Palin choice, every Republican in the country who believed that experience was important will no longer think so, and that every Democrat who didn’t think it was a big deal will now decide it is absolutely critical.

molson 08-29-2008 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1819013)

Alternatively, she has 18 months of working with a friendly state legislature in a very thinly populated State with no current dire issues (aside from the corruption-related ones being engineered by the state GOP).



I think you need to read up on her a little bit (though nothing would ever even temper your opinion).

-She challenged the GOP governor and even defeated him in the primary
-She was not supported by the state GOP - but she won over the people
-She challenged Stevens to come clean about the federal investigation
-Has an approval rating consistently in the 80s and 90s, largely based on her "independent/outsider" views and actions.

Trying to link her with the problems of the Alaska GOP is absolutely ridiculous. Sometimes blind party unity isn't a good thing.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:43 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.