Who do you want to be President?

SandChigger · Post by **SandChigger** » 24 Oct 2008 05:50

TAKE THE BET ROBBO!

Robspierre · Post by **Robspierre** » 24 Oct 2008 19:02

SandRider wrote:A dollar says you & I are the only ones who know what we're talking about.

Most likely

Rob

GamePlayer · Post by **GamePlayer** » 26 Oct 2008 20:10

Mandy wrote:

LOL

That's awful, but so damn funny

SandRider · Post by **SandRider** » 29 Oct 2008 01:11

SandChigger · Post by **SandChigger** » 29 Oct 2008 02:31

I can use that one, too.

A Thing of Eternity · Post by **A Thing of Eternity** » 29 Oct 2008 12:48

I thought it was pretty funny (funny strange more than funny haha) the other day when those skinheads were arrested for plotting to kill off a whole bunch of black kids and then shoot Obama - they were being charged with conspiracy to murder a presidential candidate(paraphrased)

- that gets its own charge? Not just conspiracy to commit murder? Weird. Does a person get more jail time for murdering a pres candidate or pres than killing some schmoe? Hmmm.

Hey, while on that topic I wish Canada would switch to consecutive sentences like you guys have instead of concurrent. That's one thing I actually would like to borrow from US law. Bryan - can you pass that on to your people?

SandRider · Post by **SandRider** » 29 Oct 2008 13:31

Thing wrote:they were being charged with conspiracy to murder a presidential candidate(paraphrased) - that gets its own charge?

I may be wrong but I think that came about
after Bobby Kennedy ...

A Thing of Eternity · Post by **A Thing of Eternity** » 29 Oct 2008 16:30

Baraka Bryan wrote:
A Thing of Eternity wrote: Hey, while on that topic I wish Canada would switch to consecutive sentences like you guys have instead of concurrent. That's one thing I actually would like to borrow from US law. Bryan - can you pass that on to your people?
already a few years ahead of you!

http://www.hillwatch.com/files/Hillwatc ... _Final.pdf --consecutive sentencing in Conservative platform 2006

http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=42e ... 6c4d30d999 ---an example of it in practice..

this year's platform (can't find a link) had mandatory concurrent sentencing for violent and sexual crimes

Good, I dissagree with a lot of the Cs positions on crime but this I do agree with.

see? you're more (small-c) conservative than you thought

now I just gotta convince you to vote that way

I'll probably never vote conservative in my life unless they become much more "liberal"(is there a better term for what I'm thinking?) in terms of values and morals. Or I guess it could hapen if some freak occurance suddenly makes my values and morals go out the window. I like a lot of what they do with the economy, and obviously that's important, BUT I'll vote for my morals first and my wallet second.

I was thinking the other day about that chart you found which places you according to socialism vs capitalism and authoritarian vs libertarian - it really needed a third dimension for values. So many of the questions it asked were about values and had IMO very little to do with socialism vs capitalism or authoritarian vs libertarian - like: should abortions be legal, or is premarital sex okay, or should we keep the races seperate, or is religion good. Any of the four extremes on the chart could have been for or against any of those things. Just because a person is a totalitarian or a straight up capitalist doesn't mean they're racist or pro-life or Christian or the opposite, and just because a person is socialist or anarchist doesn't mean they want all babies dead or everyone to be homosexual or secular.

A Thing of Eternity · Post by **A Thing of Eternity** » 29 Oct 2008 16:55

Baraka Bryan wrote:for sure. . . a third dimension for social conservatism vs liberalism is needed to get an accurate view. usually those aspects are used to determine right - left positioning but market views are very different from social values and should be accounted for differently.

the conservatives are actually "classical liberals" not "classical conservatives." the definition has changed over time and there are few true conservatives out there according to the classical meaning of the word. liberals (in canada) are more like neo-liberals.

They seem pretty socially conservative to me based on the social aspects of your definition below... maybe I'm missing something.

actual definition of a liberal: a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties , a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets

Sounds pretty much like me, but I'm very strongly for a blend of capitalism and socialism (leaning strongly toward capitalism) like what we already have, I don't think either extreme actualy works in reality.

the terms social conservative has become the antonym of 'liberal' in terms of social values, which is where your views strongly differ with the Conservative party (from what i can tell), and fiscal conservatism (which is equal to the old liberal definition) has become the antonym of "progressive" aka, supporters of the welfare state and higher spending.

I think you're right (pun not intended), social morals and values are where I differ from the Conservative party and the term "Social Conservative".

anyways... I vary along the spectrum when it comes to social issues (more right wing tho), and quite strongly fiscally conservative (classically liberal)

Each issue gets its own review for me, but I think it's pretty safe to say that I'm probably way more to the left than you when it comes to my social values, and we're probably kinda close as far as fiscal, though I'm probably a bit more socialist. This is all kinda hard to gauge on a message board, needs more in depth conversation to reaelly understand anyone's veiws.

A Thing of Eternity · Post by **A Thing of Eternity** » 29 Oct 2008 17:57

Baraka Bryan wrote:
I wrote:the terms social conservative has become the antonym of 'liberal' in terms of social values, which is where your views strongly differ with the Conservative party (from what i can tell),
I totally agree with you on your view of the Conservative's social stance... i didn't really explicitly state it, but I was trying to imply here that they are socially conservative. the classical liberal definition was referring to their economic policies and administrative style.

Hey, we agree on another thing. Too bad we don't agree on this thing that we agree on.

Post by **Freakzilla** » 29 Oct 2008 19:26

TAKE OFF, you hosers!

GamePlayer · Post by **GamePlayer** » 29 Oct 2008 19:58

1985 called for you Freak Z; it's want it's post back

I'm almost hoping McCain wins just to piss off all the blowhards in Hollywood. There's nothing I hate more than a movie star trying to tell me how to vote and live my life.

Post by **Freakzilla** » 29 Oct 2008 20:11

GamePlayer wrote:1985 called for you Freak Z; it's want it's post back

Bob & Doug are timeless.

From what I remember, that was a great decade. Probably because RONALD REAGAN was president!

I'm almost hoping McCain wins just to piss off all the blowhards in Hollywood. There's nothing I hate more than a movie star trying to tell me how to vote and live my life.

That really irks me too. As if they're so in touch with reality.

GamePlayer · Post by **GamePlayer** » 29 Oct 2008 20:27

Freakzilla wrote: Bob & Doug are timeless.

From what I remember, that was a great decade. Probably because RONALD REAGAN was president!

Well, I suppose I'd be mentally scared by the 80's too if I had a psychotic fast food clown as my leader of my country. But at least you had nice shirts

That really irks me too. As if they're so in touch with reality.

I REALLY miss the days when agents had their stars on a leash. Worse thing that ever happened to pop culture was the freak that let Tom Cruise off the chain. I just wish these Hollywood stars would allow Kevin Smith to do the talking for them; he puts the Hollywood "reality" into fine perspective. Shame I don't like his films, cause he'd be a perfect role model otherwise. Well, it's like I've always said, art would be so much more enjoyable without the need to tolerate artists

"Christ, I miss the Cold War"

Post by **Freakzilla** » 29 Oct 2008 20:32

GamePlayer wrote:
Freakzilla wrote: Bob & Doug are timeless.

From what I remember, that was a great decade. Probably because RONALD REAGAN was president!

Well, I suppose I'd be mentally scared by the 80's too if I had a psychotic fast food clown as my leader of my country.

If not for the War on Drugs I'd have remembered none of it.

But at least you had nice shirts

I sense some jealousy.

GamePlayer · Post by **GamePlayer** » 29 Oct 2008 20:35

No, it was still a compliment. I'm generous that way

GamePlayer · Post by **GamePlayer** » 29 Oct 2008 21:05

It better live up to the hype, cause I adored Casino Royale.

Robspierre · Post by **Robspierre** » 29 Oct 2008 21:10

I'm almost hoping McCain wins just to piss off all the blowhards in Hollywood. There's nothing I hate more than a movie star trying to tell me how to vote and live my life.
That really irks me too. As if they're so in touch with reality.

I think Ronald Reagan, Sonny Bono, and the Gropinator are perfect examples why actors should keep their mouth's shut.

Rob

SandRider · Post by **SandRider** » 29 Oct 2008 21:11

GamePlayer wrote:It better live up to the hype, cause I adored Casino Royale.

I liked the Casino Royale with David Niven better ....

I'm funny that way, tho, I like the classics ...

GamePlayer · Post by **GamePlayer** » 29 Oct 2008 21:15

Baraka Bryan wrote:ditto. craig completely redefined bond from what we'd seen over the last decade from brosnan. so much grittier and real... no more crazy flipping cars and shit.

i love that his first movie was the original story because it allows them to continue the franchise in a whole new direction

I still love Goldeneye, I don't care what anyone else says

But Casino Royale was a near perfect Bond film for me. All it needed was a little more Eva Green, but that's what Bertolucci's film was great for

SandRider wrote:I liked the Casino Royale with David Niven better ....

I'm funny that way, tho, I like the classics ...

The Niven film was never a classic

SandRider · Post by **SandRider** » 29 Oct 2008 22:13

Whaaaaaaattt ?

Blasphemy !

Post by **Freakzilla** » 30 Oct 2008 08:32

Yesterday on my way to lunch, I passed one of the homeless guys in that area, with a sign that read 'Vote Obama, I need the money.' Once inside I noticed my waiter had on an 'Obama '08' tee shirt. When the bill came, I decided not to tip the waiter and explained to him while he had given me exceptional service, that his tee shirt made me feel he obviously believes in Senator Obama's plan to redistribute the wealth. I told him I was going to redistribute his tip to someone that I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. He stood there in disbelief and angrily stormed away.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $3 and told him to thank the waiter inside, as I had decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy looked at me in disbelief but seemed grateful.

As I got in my truck, I realized this rather unscientific redistribution experiment had left the homeless guy quite happy for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn.Well, I guess this redistribution of wealth is going to take a while to catch on with those doing the work.

SandRider · Post by **SandRider** » 30 Oct 2008 09:10

good job - as an Obama supporter, self-appointed educator of the Lost Youth,
and rabid socialist, I support your experiment 100%. Supporting
Obama has become "fashionable" this year, and the Kid you schooled
needs to understand that social & economic parity requires sacrifice,
primarily from the Financial Oligarchy running the nation, but also from
the individual. If he had truly had a Social Conscience, he would have
thanked you for your compassion & concern. Plus, the homeless guy got
a can of beer and a good start on a pack on smokes. Kudos, Freak !

Post by **Freakzilla** » 30 Oct 2008 09:16

I look forward to retiring early and living of welfare. Thank you tax payers!

(And thank you, Obama supporters, too.

)

Ampoliros · Post by **Ampoliros** » 30 Oct 2008 09:42

I think it takes about 2 seconds of watching FOX to get the impression that that is what is meant by redistribution of wealth vis a vis Obama's economic plan.

Sadly, that is FOX news, which is destroying this country by telling people its okay to be a mindless idiot as long as you agree with God guns and "C'ntry".

Look at it this way, Freak you work your butt off to put food on the table and have a bit to put away for retirement. I'd say roughly 60%-80% of your income is recirculated into the economy yes? meaning you only keep about 20-30% for your savings that is yours alone.

the more money you make, the more you put into savings, which most savings and investments are tax free (if you know where to put them). For all intense purposes that wealth no longer benefits the economy it benefits you. Now its totally reasonable and expected for Freak to have some money saved up for retirement and emergencies, we all do (or should)

Now imagine you have millions, maybe even a billion dollars that is benefiting you alone and taken out of the economy proper. That's a billion dollars that isn't being circulated to Freak, the waiter, or the bum through proper economic channels.

Obama isn't after your measly 20-30% savings. He wants to increase the amount you can spend in the economy and increase the value of your income while making your savings more valuable. He wants to scrape the cream off the top earners so he can cut taxes on the middle class.

That's creation of wealth, not redistribution of wealth.

conservative fiscal policy should look like this:
You should have told the waiter that you wanted the homeless guy outside to serve you, then given the homeless guy the 3 bucks.

Then offered to buy his sign for 3 more bucks, and given it to a faith based charity who will donate it to the Waiter.