2012 USA Presidential Election - Who's The "Best" Choice?

Maybe it ends about the same place "free speech" ends? You cannot yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater without some consequences... like a big fine at least and homicide if someone dies.

No one is going to stop you from yelling "FIRE" but it isn't protected by "free speech".

No one is going to stop you from owning a "gun"... some places try to restrict ownership of some guns... but if you own one, your life changes... especially if you use it or try to use it and something goes badly. Then you are in big trouble... if you don't own a gun this never happens. Of course other things can happen but few people talk about the obligations and dangers in owning a gun and that's where the real limit resides... what you are willing and able to do with a gun, how well you protect it from robberies, children, drunks and people who should have access to guns. Everyone talks about "the right to bear arms" but case law is full of cases where "ownership" can get you into real trouble, really quick. It's fine line sometimes. Oh well.

motokid wrote:

You brought the founding fathers and the second amendment into the thread.

Indeed. One line. Which resulted in you getting your panties in a knot about whether Bill Gates should be allowed to own nuclear weapons. Maybe - just maybe - the fact that a woman who walks alone through crime-ridden areas at night but can't even carry a Revolutionary War era flintlock pistol, much less a revolver, is a little more relevant. They did have handguns back then and carried them, you know. But in many places now you can't do that anymore - you're obligated to take part in the victim lottery.

Quote :

You seem to think they could foresee what the future would hold in terms of weapons and how deadly they might become on a large scale.

Well hell, let's just limit the hell out of all the rights, if that's the excuse we're going to use while doing everything other than amend the Constitution.

You apparently haven't noticed that you can't even carry a Revolutionary War era flintlock pistol in many places in the US these days, never mind flights of fancy about whether you can buy a nuclear weapon. If it's all about "how deadly" they are (and I think your knowledge of firearms would fit in a thimble) - why do our laws today in many places prevent somebody from carrying a handgun just like James Madison owned?

Do you think the Framers foresaw THAT? Think they would approve?

What the Framers did was provide an amending formula to change the Constitution when time and circumstances led the nation to believe that was necessary. That formula has been used numerous times. But statists like you want to limit and whittle away at the Second Amendment through the courts and the back door, because you know there's no way in hell an amendment to properly do the same thing would ever pass.

Quote :

You seem to hold that amendment higher than others in terms of what's in danger at this point in time.

What's in danger is the Second Amendment from statists like you who believe it should be "sacrificed".

Snap question: How many amendments in the Bill of Rights did the Framers believe were sufficiently important that they included the words "shall not be infringed" to underscore their importance?

Snap question: What other right can you be deprived of for life, after EOS, for even non-violent felonies?

Snap question: name one other right in the Bill of Rights that has been more abused and limited than the Second Amendment.

Final question: what the hell do the words "shall not be infringed" mean to you, anyways?

Quote :

You seem to put that higher on your list of presidential qualifications than almost everything else.

It's a litmus test for statists and others who have no respect for the Constitution. And I would think it equally as important if any of the other amendments was being abused as badly as the Second is.

Quote :

So what do you think the founders intended with the "right to bear arms"?

You forgot the end - SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Four little words, only one of which is more than one syllable. What do you think those four words mean - "remove when politically incorrect"?

Quote :

Self defense from .......

1) neighbors
2) invading armies
3) even our own government

All of the above when necessary. Ever spend any time reading the Federalist Papers? You should; they explain the rational behind what those men did - but you'd probably find them too long winded.

Quote :

What, in your long-winded mind is the intent and importance of the "right to bear arms"?

How can anyone even begin to explain that to somebody with the mind of a child so young they cannot understand the words "shall not be infringed"?

Quote :

And where does that right end?

You're about to get your panties in a knot as usual with a fear filled anti-gun diatribe about weapons of mass destruction, when the bottom line is many places in this country today, you cannot legally carry even a Revolutionary War era single shot flintlock pistol. Why do you want to talk about nuclear weapons when many places won't even let you carry a handgun design dating back to when this country was still being settled? Clearly, it has nothing to do with "how dangerous" the firearm is, but instead with the mindset of statists who don't believe in individual rights over statism and don't believe in the right to bear arms - even arms from the time the Bill of Rights was signed. And the Democratic candidate for 2012 is just fine with that - and I suspect you are in agreement.

You want to argue what the outer limits of what the Second Amendment covers? Take it to the Gun Control thread. Regarding best candidates for 2012, it's enough for me that The Anointed One doesn't even think people should be allowed to carry a lousy revolver for self defense. And if any Republican candidates are that contemptuous of the Constitution, I'd like to know that as well. Once an American can carry a nice, simple 18th century revolver anywhere in this country for self defense, then I'll worry about whether presidential candidates think Bill Gates should be allowed to buy his own nuclear arsenal.

Quote :

But to defend ourselves from our own government we need lots more.

Based on your exhaustive personal experience and expertise in military operations, weapons, and asymetrical warfare, no doubt?

You're such a tool at times you know that?

The "Revolutionary War era flintlock" horseshit is just that. Horseshit.

That's a law that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the president. It's a local law on a city level inside a state.

So stop the nonsense and get real.

Do you believe that any law abiding American citizen should be able to own any weapon that's ever been created?

Flame throwers, rocket propelled grenades, and armor piercing depleted uranium firing weapons than can destroy tanks and other armored vehicles?

You are doing your damned best to redirect the discussion away from what's being asked AND making foolish and childish accusations.

The free market and capitalism would suggest that if you can afford it, you should be able to buy it.

Gates, Buffet, and even Oprah should easily be able to afford some WMD's.

Surely for somebody who believes completely and totally in the "right to bear arms" those arms should not be off limits should they?

Certainly anybody who can afford it should be able to own and operate one of these:



or one of these:




Why shouldn't a person living in Manhattan be able to own one of those?
For the next time a terrorist comes looking for trouble.

motokid wrote:

You're such a tool at times you know that?

Wow. I can see why Delaware has more hate crimes than Montana! You are such an anger filled kid!

300 million sperm, one egg... and look what we got in you! What are the chances, eh?

Poor baby. Did your miniscule socialist little mind just get thrown into a backflip? Did I unfairly take advantage of you by asking what the words "shall not be infringed" mean to you? Does the concept that there are unalienable rights really outrage you that much? Or is it simply that you're still pissed more people would vote for Bush than Obama and I said "I told ya so"?

Quote :

The "Revolutionary War era flintlock" horseshit is just that. Horseshit.

What's "horseshit" is morons like you complaining about how "sacrifices must be made" with regard to the Second Amendment because of supposedly how dangerous and deadly weapons have become in the past 200 years. And yet, current laws that infringe the Second Amendment also prohibit carrying the exact same firearms in use during the time the Bill of Rights was created. You can't even come up with a defensible line of bullshit for what you propose.

Quote :

That's a law that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the president. It's a local law on a city level inside a state.

Nothing to do with the President?

Really?

There is absolutely no limit to the extent of your ignorance concerning the Constitution, is there?

Are we talking about the same President who swears as his oath of office to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."? The version of the Constitution that has the Second Amendment in it?

So a city - or a state - passes a law which infringes a constitutional right, and you say it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the president.

Really?

Funny how selectively that works. Like Arizona's law concerning illegal immigrants for example. That state law? The one where The Serial Liar immediately sued the state claiming the law was unconstitutional AND laid a complaint against Arizona with the United Nations?

Or is that "different" because the Second Amendment wasn't involved?

Let's test the depth of your ignorance further: I gather you'll be happy when some city in Delaware passes a law saying black people can't vote? After all, it's only a local law on a city level inside a state, right? Just like the laws infringing the right to bear arms in Chicago, Washington, etc? And we shouldn't and wouldn't expect to see our President have anything to say about it any more than about an infringement of the Second Amendment, right, because it's just a law some city passed?

What high school did you go to where they taught that the Bill of Rights could be ignored and/or interpreted by each city in each state as they saw fit - and that would be constitutional? And the President (you know, the guy who swears to protect and defend the Constitution) isn't to concern himself with whether laws in Chicago and Arizona are constitutional or not?

People like you exist just to serve as bad examples of how incompetent the public school system is in many places.

Quote :

So stop the nonsense and get real.

Coming from you, that's funny. Logic and rational thought never were your strong points, were they? And maybe you just went out and smoked a big fat dooby every time American history was covered in school, because your knowledge of the Constitution and the responsibility of the president in regards to the Constitution don't even meet grade school level.

Quote :

You are doing your damned best to redirect the discussion away from what's being asked AND making foolish and childish accusations.

This, coming from our official socialist mascot who is utterly incapable of explaining what the words "shall not be infringed" means to him!

No Sunshine, I'm not "redirecting". If you haven't noticed, the "Gun Control" thread is elsewhere - you started that one as well. Drag your whiny-ass comments on where the limits of the Second Amendment are to that topic and I'll be happy to try and find enough patience to explain to you what your teachers so obviously failed at doing.

THIS thread (you should know, you started it) is about the best candidate for 2012, not where the outer limits of the Second Amendment are. And with that in mind I want a constitutionalist, not a socialist in drag who thinks we hack away at the Bill of Rights through the back door instead of proposing amendments because, as some whacko put it, "sacrifices must be made".

I simply want to know whether prospective candidates for the 2012 election believe and will support the concept an individual has an uninfringed right to bear arms, specifically, carry a handgun for protection. That's about as basic as it gets when discussing the exercise of the Second Amendment. But you call that "redirecting the discussion" - because YOU find it more rational and intelligent with reference to those candidates to instead be discussing whether Bill Gates should be allowed to purchase a B1 bomber with nukes aboard.

I think you need to get your meds checked.

If you want to take the rest of your silly rational concerning WMD's (hint: they aren't personal arms) over to the Gun Control thread, you might be a bit closer to being on topic. But, one thing...

Quote :

Certainly anybody who can afford it should be able to own and operate one of these:

Yes, Motokid, as a matter of fact in the US today, anyone who can afford it can in fact own and operate one of "these" (it's a Browning .50 cal machine gun without the quick change barrel).

And... quite legally, much, much more!



I'm not sure Motokid's mind will ever be the same after that (but maybe that's a good thing, as Martha Stewart would say).

Sadly for Motokid, there is no evidence of a Ma Deuce ever being used in a crime, much less a minigun or any of the artillery shown in that footage. But still, if we are to think of the children, we must get rid of them immediately, because it MIGHT happen.

And yet... a woman walking home late at night in Chicago through crime ridden slums can't even carry a revolver for protection. And Obama voted - twice - that people using firearms in self defense should be prosecuted.

Wonder what the Republican hopefuls think of that concept?

Why does everyone gloss over the first part of the 2nd. amendment....

1."[A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,] 2. [ the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.]

If this wasn't about state militias, then why did the framers mention it at all? The second part alone would suffice if militias were not the object of the 2nd. Amendment.

TBird1 wrote:

Why does everyone gloss over the first part of the 2nd. amendment....

Glossed over? What do you mean "glossed over"? That prefatory clause and it's meaning have been dissected repeatedly over the years. What gets glossed over is the words that underscore and emphasize the importance they put on recognizing this unalienable right: shall not be infringed

Quote :

1."[A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,]

This is a dependent clause. Does it make any sense standing on it's own? In grammer it is an incomplete thought. Taken alone, it does not express a concept or right and needs additional information to give it meaning. This prefatory clause is the dependent or subordinate clause. Thus, the militia clause - and a militia itself - depends on the existence of the right of the people to keep and bears arms.

Quote :

2. [ the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.]

This part of the Amendment is the independent or main clause. Standing alone, is a complete thought expressing a concept and a right and does not need any dependent clauses to give it meaning. Thus, the right of the people to keep and bear arms does not depend on the existence of a State militia.

Quote :

If this wasn't about state militias, then why did the framers mention it at all? The second part alone would suffice if militias were not the object of the 2nd. Amendment.

You have the dependent and independent clauses confused. The order in which they appear does not influence which is the operative clause.

Statists - and those who just plain and simply are looking for any justiification to get around the Second Amendment to ban and limit firearms (to have Americans owning politically incorrect firearms "make sacrifices) have been making precisely that argument for years. And failing, for numerous reasons. Pity that all they can focus on is the prefatory clause and not the operative clause - including the words "shall not be infringed". But it has been anything but "glossed over".

We are supposed to believe that, while the rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, etc are all individual rights belonging to the individual and constraining what government may do, this one particular right is an exception. It belongs not to the individual like the rest, but is instead a collective right belonging to the government, intended to transfer the right to bear arms from the individual to the State. For those who have read the Federalist Papers and the debates and discussions relating to the Constitutional Convention, it is very obvious that the Second Amendment was intended as an individual right, not a power belonging to government. All their writings from the time concerning arms emphasize a demand that the individual RETAIN his right to bear arms. It was the British's attempt to seize American arms and restrict that right that was one of the final points leading to the outbreak of war. The constitutions of several of the ratifying states at the time i.e. Pennsylvania made it very clear that the right to bear arms was an individual right and their representatives at the Constitutional Congress would not have ratified it if it violated their individual constitutions. These were men who had a well founded fear and mistrust of the overreaching power of a federal government, which was why the anti-Federalist faction existed in the first place. To get the Constitution ratified centered around reaching a compromise which would ensure those opposing federalism that a federal government would be limited, with very narrow and specific powers that did not interfere with the rights of the individual or create a tyranny of the majority.

If any of the Framers was suggesting or debating the right to bear arms (which they took from the English Bill of Rights, where it was also an individual right) was a right belonging to government and not belonging to individual, they sure concealed it very well. Because no surviving document from those men and from that time period makes any mention of the idea the Second Amendment is a right and power delegated to government. What does exist is drafts of the Second Amendment (i.e. the Sherman draft) written to make the right a collective right of militias - many of these men were lawyers or had legal training, so they knew how to make it a government or militia right if they so desired. The "collective rights" versions were so quickly rejected they weren't even voted on.

Had it been about giving states the right to miliitias, it probably would have been written something like this:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the States to maintain Armed Militias shall not be infringed.

At the time the Bill was drafted, the use of a prefatory clause stating a purpose was quite common in State constitution drafting of the time. Madison's original draft had numerous prefatory clauses, essentially used to establish the purpose for a thing, not an attached condition i.e. ... the trial by jury, as one of the best securities to the rights of the people, ought to remain inviolate." Madison said that a well armed militia was the objective - and at that time the militia was every single male person - but he also said in the original version and in his speeches to the Constitutional Convention explaining how his draft of the Constitution was written that no person had to serve in a Militia to exercise his right to keep and bear arms. Others of the Framers emphasized that the right was not only for the purpose of a militia being able to defend a state, but for the purpose of The People having the means and ability to rise up against tyrannical government within. And, of course, that most basic of human rights, for the simple act of defense of life itself. Most of the other prefatory clauses in other Amendments were ultimately stripped out, but this one was allowed to remain.

Finally, States do not have rights: they have powers. Unalienable rights such as those recognized in the Bill of Rights come not from the hand of man or the permission of government, but from God, the Creator, whatever you prefer. They are the natural birthright of all men. States are not men and do not have unalienable rights. Nor do they, by definition, have the power to legitimately restrict or eliminate an unalienable right.

And, aside from all of that, the Supreme Court has gone through this same mental exercise and confirmed the Second Amendment is an individual right, not a government or collective right. You can read those decisions if you want the really long version.

As for who's the best candidate for 2012 in reference to the Second Amendment? Obama's attitude towards the Second Amendment means "anybody but Obama, even a RINO" is again the best choice.

Within the Republican nominees, I think Romney is the least supportive of the Second Amendment among them. As governor of Massachusetts he did nothing to attempt to relax the severe anti-gun laws in that state. He came out in favour of the "assault rifle" ban (the one that doesn't have anything to do with assault rifles). He increased the cost of a Firearms ID card from $25 to $100 - and you need a FID even to own just OC spray (when did an unalienable right require a license, by the way?). And he publicly bragged that his state had really tough anti-gun laws and he didn't intend to "chip away" at them. What his position is today, I don't know - the guy has done more flips than Cirque du Soleil. He may or may not be the most electable, but of all the main candidates he's the one I trust the least on any of the issues.

Gingrich has been lukewarm in opposing bills like the "assault weapons" ban, confining his criticism to saying he thinks some of the firearms covered by that ban shouldn't be, and saying he doesn't like the idea of citizens owning machine guns if they so choose.

Rudy Giuliani supported the "assault weapons" ban, favoured national licensing (how about a license before you can exercise your freedom of speech or assembly, Rudy?), and thinks it is okay for cities and states to ban firearms if they so choose. Unalienable rights in the US being dependent on where you are at the time? So it would be okay for NYC or Delaware to declare blacks can no longer vote? Giuliani seems to have been the right man in the right place at 9/11, but unless he has renounced his earlier views on the Second Amendment, he is not the best man in that respect.

There are more issues than just the Second Amendment, but for constitutionalists, the Second Amendment and philosophy on taxations/spending are probably going to be two of the biggest. I am pretty sure that all Republican candidates will be surveyed by GOA and other groups for their views on the Second. And maybe by the time we're voting for the Republican nominee, we'll have had a peek on what Obama is working on in the way of gun control "under the radar".

"You have the dependent and independent clauses confused."

Actually, what was confusing to me was just the early American sentence structure and style of writing. Your explanation finally tied the pieces together for me in a way in which I could then explain it to someone else with some degree of confidence. Good job, Jager! I hope it was helpful to others as well.

As to the "glossed over" part, I stand by that statement. Most people, in defending the 2nd. Amendment in discourse are not as eloquent as you are and tend to fall back on the main clause only, hence the continuing confusion and rancor. Although I always accepted the 2nd. Amendment, I was puzzled by the sentence structure. Judging by the opinions and/or beliefs of others, I was not alone. Your explanation should go a long way to clearing this up. With your permission, I'll quote you wherever appropriate.

TBird1 wrote:

As to the "glossed over" part, I stand by that statement. Most people, in defending the 2nd. Amendment in discourse are not as eloquent as you are and tend to fall back on the main clause only, hence the continuing confusion and rancor.

Okay, but ask yourself this: every time you hear somebody arguing and dissecting the Amendment to mean it belongs to a militia only... how often do they address the words "shall not be infringed" in their argument.

Feel free to quote away. But there are some very gifted constitutional scholars out there who can discuss and explain the constitutional documents much better than I can.

Jäger wrote:

Anybody but Obama is a perfectly sensible and relevant answer. This country cannot afford four more years of Marxism-Saul Alinsky in the White House, and that would be true if he were a Republican doing the same things Obama has done. . .

"Anybody" like the two Drexler/Haliburton executives who said "deficits don't matter" and took a budget surplus and a national debt that was heading back toward sanity for the first time since Kennedy's administration and turned it into a $10 trillion dollar deficit with $2-7 trillion off-book debt for two corporate-inspired wars and a complete meltdown of the unregulated financial services mobsters? Of all the criminally corrupt things Reagan left this country, the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine (which should have been expanded to all government subsidized media including the Internet and cable television) allows uneducated Faux News pseudo-conservatives to imagine they have a single fact straight without correction.

If you can imagine Obama as any kind of relation to "Marxism-Saul Alinsky" you are either a trust fund baby, terrified that you are going to have to pay taxes on your ill-gained inheritance, or stoned on Ayn Rand delusions and as abstractly connected to reality as Glenn Beck. Clearly, those No Child's Behind Left Untouched years have generated an uneducated, unskilled, entitled "lost generation" who are rightly considered "consumers" and not worthy of actual democratic citizenship.

Reasonable debate is nearly a lost art in America and I realize that my European friends are right to worry that we are the world's next fascist terror. If this kind of barely disguised racism can pass for rational discussion, the world should start gearing up to defend itself from us because we are headed down that Nazi sewer without a chance of redemption. Where the hell is Thomas Paine when we really need him?

Quote :

If we continue down the socialist path, we will soon be completely broke

You dont need socialism to get broke. You are broke with out any socialism. That said by some one who was named fascist by the Soviets and Socialist by USA. Sarah Palin would be somthing

rokka wrote:

Quote :

If we continue down the socialist path, we will soon be completely broke

You dont need socialism to get broke. You are broke with out any socialism. That said by some one who was named fascist by the Soviets and Socialist by USA. Sarah Palin would be somthing

Quite true.. all that is really needed is fiscal irresponsibility, which has no political base. In our country, the democrats are mostly viewed as the 'tax & spend' liberals, & the republicans as the party of the wealthy & big business. But for many years now, the republicans have joined with the dems in freely spending the taxpayers money, & the dems have been very comfortable cozying up to big business, unions, & other special interests (greenies, etc). So the differences have been harder to see, & the choices less diverse.

But the last few years have seen a resurgence of more us constitutional values (which has been debated here a lot already!), with newly elected 'tea party' candidates who promise to reign in big govt., stop spending, & a lot of things that i have heard from politicians since before jimmy carter. Time will tell if they will deliver, or if they do, will we be like greece & have riots in the streets as govt programs are cut.

Sarah Palin has certainly become a lighting rod for political views here.. the country is very polarized. What is your view or how does your media portray her? Is it balanced at all? Or is a left wing smear? ..just curious.. i'm not a big fan of hers, but i do feel she is treated unfairly by our predominantly left wing press. They gushed over Geraldine Ferraro, but hate with a passion sarah palin.. when they are supposed to champion women's rights, & celebrate a woman running for a top political office.

For others who hate sarah palin.. i'm curious as to the reason.. i don't get it. I'm not that enamored with her, but i certainly don't see the reason for the hostility. Is it just her religious views? Is the left that shallow to discriminate against someone based on their religion? Open question.. probably should be a new thread.. but she is symbolic of something to the left, evidently, & i just wonder what that is.

Thanks in advance for any honest answers.

First of all i would like to say that i am not malicious with the economic situation in USA. Second is that somebody that I had a
debate earlier in this forum stated that we are un friendly against USA. This is not true. There is no country in Western Europe
that is so influenced by the US as Sweden. Yong people in my town listens to American rock music and drive American cars eat
hamburgers and adapt many other things.





The economic situation in USA has little to do with any –ism. My Country is in some parts socialistic compared to USA but it is not a socialistic country. But my country is in a way better situation than USA.

I think that USA has not the means of production to sustain the standard of life that the average American has. This means that there are two ways for the government in USA.
The level of ambition has to be on other than it is today. USA cannot spend the waste amount of money they do on space programs and defense and other things. Taxes are hot stuff in your country. With an empty treasury and enormous deficit rice’s of tax are necessary and that means that standard of life will decrease?

Sarah Palin is no issue in my country. But we have seen many statements and interjuvs that very clearly indicate that she is no candidate to be great states men. I don’t think that she got a fair shot because she became governor but fare enough to make the conclusion that she is in the same division as Iran’s president or Hugo Chaves. The world would not be a better place with her by the rudder.

.

"Sarah Palin is no issue in my country. But we have seen many statements and interjuvs that very clearly indicate that she is no candidate to be great states men."

Amen to that. The following is why I don't like Palin:

1. In all discussions I have heard she just sounds stone stupid. She has no grasp of most issues, cannot articulate her positions effectively and has little command of the English language.

2. Although she is not alone on this, when faced with a question she obviously cannot answer, she runs off at the mouth and buries the interviewer with gibberish, many times just repeating points over and over again. Almost as bad as Bachman.

3.The religion issue which we've already covered ad nauseum. I don't care how people worship in their private lives but I don't care to elect a "Preacher-in-Chief". Again, not quite as bad as Bachman but neither would get my vote.

4. Track record. A 1/2 term as governor- are you kidding me? Before that, mayor of Wasilla, a town 1/2 the size of my little cow town. To make matters worse, she quit to be a celebrity! How about a couple of terms as Congressman first or maybe even the Senate? Before everyone predictably jumps down my throat about Obama, etc., your predictable objections may be valid, but we're talking about Palin here.

I view Palin as the political version of Kim Kardashian.

I can't figure out one single reason for her being important to anything other than she just looks damn fine.

Quote :

Track record. A 1/2 term as governor- are you kidding me? Before that, mayor of Wasilla, a town 1/2 the size of my little cow town. To make matters worse, she quit to be a celebrity! How about a couple of terms as Congressman first or maybe even the Senate?

I want to believe that the woman has some kind of quality because she was vice president candidate. That is why I think that it could be un fair against her (the picture In media) I am willing to change my mind if she perform better and really shows intellectual knowledge.. I strongly doubt it will happen
I also noticed that placing labels are important to many authors here.

Here's my guess as to why she was potentially our next VP.

The Dems had a black guy running.

So the Reps had to get somebody besides "just another rich white male".
Getting a female in as VP sounds great. Problem is, who?

Holy shit - look at Sarah Palin. Hot and a Rep. Let's use her.
What about the fact that she's dumb as a post and about as fruit-batty as one can get when it comes to religion?
She's hot. That's worth thousands of votes right there.
Do we have any other choices for a female VP? No.
Palin it is.

Without hating the religious aspect I can say that I have problems with politicians using religion in their speaches. It shows that they call to the feelings of people instead of their intelligence.

When we see what's happening across the world in the name of religion, it's not very comforting when a politician whatever party he runs for uses religion to get votes. And when religious reprentatives have easier access to politicians in place, it is usuall not good news for citizens that are from another religion or not religious at all.

Over 9000! You hit the nail on the head with that one Dan! Wow...yeah they can't seem to go on their own merits and have to adopt the religious beliefs to get the votes. I'd like to see how many of these idiots actually get any further than their front door if you take away the heavy religious factor.

Quote :

A lot of our 'influence seems to be from the automobile! I guess we were the first to have it be available to the working masses & not just the rich. But now we all drive japanese cars, & it's getting so that only the rich will be able to afford the gas!

You would not be happy to fill up your bike or car in Sweden or europe.

Quote :

I would view Sweden as a socialist country.. coming from US roots. You have a 'cradle to grave' system where the govt takes care of you, guarantees a job, health care, retirement.. to most of us, that is the definition of socialism. It's not a derogatory term, just a description. You're a nanny state.. don't apologize.. if that's what you want, fine. Of course when we discuss it regarding the direction of American politics, it is used as a negative thing. Those who want socialism can't use the term. They have to be 'liberal' or 'progressive'.

You have every right to your definition of socialism. I did not know that the system fixed jobs to the population. How could the government tell a private enterprise to employ somebody ? You have to apply for a job even I governmet own companies. We have system of health care that are breaking down right now. Byt every Swede has a health insuraanse To use your definition on socialism I would like to have less of it.

Quote :

I do believe the american economic situation was caused by 'big govt-ism'. Too much govt spending, programs started under clinton, continued under bush.. these things escalated the housing market to artificial levels.. govt forced banks to make housing loans to the poor with no job or down payments or means to repay. Prices inflated artificially with the increased demand. Mortgage lenders popped up like mushrooms after a summer rain, & were glad to jump on the gravy train. Barny Frank guaranteed all the loans with a straight face.

Then the defaults began. It started slowly, then increased as the jobs began to fail. The poor walked away. They didn't risk anything, so nothing lost. The banks were bailed out by the govt.. 'you guys don't have to eat these loans.. especially since we made you take them. We'll make all the taxpayers pay for our stupid mistakes!' The only losers were those who had some money invested in their properties. I know many people who lost their life's savings because they took out a 2nd mortgage & bought an invesment house. Then both houses lost 50% of their value (here in Az), & they lose both of them. If you had a 100% loan, you just walk away & take the hit on your credit. But if you've got everything you have invested in your house, & the value drops below what you owe, you're in trouble. The stock market went down.. but within a short time, it recovered. I do not think the us housing market will be back to those 2007 values, except by inflation. It is a buyer beware market.. you make your investments, calculate the risks, & live with the result. But the us housing crash was a man made disaster, not a natural market cycle. That is why i do not like the govt practicing their social engineering programs with out lives. They should secure our rights to life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness. But they have been overstepping their bounds for years, as new ideas & new experiments can be made by those who have risked nothing, for those who have risked everything. What the govt decides affects us more than we realize.

I still don’t think its any –ism. It is a lack of common sense. Spend more than you earn and call it –ism. USA is not the only country that has this problem.

Quote :

I think you are right on here. We have been living beyond our means, & it is time to pay the piper. We have to cut back on all the excess govt programs & concentrate on what the federal govt is supposed to do, or become a full fledged socialist state, trying to do everything. But corresponding taxes will have to be levied to provide that level of intrusion.

But i think the US cannot afford either way to police the world, or let half our population be supported by the other half. Something has to give. Sooner or later you run out of other people's money.

And since we are slipping as a worldwide manufacturer, we are losing income from foreign countries & our trade is in imbalance. And without cheap energy, we will have to cut back on many of our excesses.. lots of cars, lots of driving miles.. big houses.. too much stuff. We might even have to cut back on our motorcycles.

I am glad that we can agree about something.

Quote :

That is probably due mostly to the fact that our other main world export (other than our war machine), is our left wing media! I would suspect most countries have an unfavorable view of any of our conservative politicians due to that. Anyone can be made to sound foolish if you take short clips out of context for the purpose of distorting them. The american media has become even more slanted, imo. They do not even make an attempt to be balanced, and since the advent of fox news, the first 'conservative' biased media outlet, the mainstream networks seem to have increased the left wing bias. I first noticed this during the reagan elections.. the media would blast him like no other. They hated him like they did bush. But the majority of voters had become wise to the media's bias, & actually listened to the candidates, rather than the pundits (what a concept!).

Interesting that she is (in your view) in the same philosophical league as Chavez & Ahmadinejad. To me, this shows how effective the left's slander machine is. She is much further away from any totalitarian form of govt than those 2, & probably is further than obama. But the left can portray her as that, so that's what she is. She's been called a nazi racist a lot, too, & a lot of people who dutifully digest whatever the left is serving end up believing it.

I remember when Gerald Ford took over from Nixon when he had to resign. During his election bid, the media liked to portray him as a bumbling fool.. stumbling over things.. being uncoordinated.. But he was a star athlete in college, & was anything but. Yet the left succeeded in their portrayal. I voted for Carter that year. He ran on the platform of streamlining the federal govt & cutting back.

I don't see anything that abhorrent in palin's message. She has a more laid back speaking style.. nothing like the slick, salesman, rock star image that obama projects. But i think many people are seeing through him. They are realizing they've been had.. it was a slick marketing campaign.. 'yes we can!'.. 'change you can believe in'.. slogans wear thin when substance is lacking. Now will our new 'tea party' representatives be substance or slogans? We shall see.

I disagree with most of that. I followed international politics for over 30 years and I cant recall that I stumble into a politician that gives such bad impression in a democratic state. It has really nothing to do with left wing propaganda. This is what I call labeling a view at a person in politics. If a left wing politician performed as bad I would post criticism against that person. No double standards thanks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrzXLYA_e6E

rokka wrote:

I disagree with most of that. I followed international politics for over 30 years and I cant recall that I stumble into a politician that gives such bad impression in a democratic state. It has really nothing to do with left wing propaganda. This is what I call labeling a view at a person in politics. If a left wing politician performed as bad I would post criticism against that person. No double standards thanks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrzXLYA_e6E

Really? That's an interesting link you're using to underscore your comments. But maybe your viewing has just been a little too selective:



Or, more seriously, what have you seen from Palin's history or outright lies that is anywhere near on the same level as this?



You've commented on Palin. Do you see anything worthy of posting on that left wing politician?

Quote :

Not to be confused with this Democrat ad targetting Republican J.D. Hayworth, right?



Or this one on George Bush:



Or maybe this one?



Know what they all have in common? They were all released by Democrats prior to Palin's graphic that you posted here. But I digress... or do I?

That's a very scary map you have shown us, although it doesn't actually have real, live politicians in a set of scope crosshairs like those previous Democrat graphics do! Even though those look like mapping locator symbols for orthorectifying photos, or crop marks, rather than what I see when I look through a riflescope - like the graphic targeting President Bush. But, I can appreciate that some would take them to be a scope reticule, so we'll accept them as such. Democrats generally don't know much about rifles so they are easily confused.

So tell us, did you think Palin was the first to use those kind of graphics? Did you miss the Democrat ad that had crosshairs right on J.D. Hayworth's head in an earlier election? What about the crosshairs in the graphic on President Bush? Were you more or less shocked by that? How about the target bullseyes the Democrats put on numerous Republican seats - was that innocuous while Palin's was damning?

Am I supposed to believe that a graphic showing nothing but a map is worthy of posting about, but ads from Palin's political opponents that put crosshairs on living Republican politicians weren't worthy of your mention? You can find that Palin stuff on YouTube but somehow or other missed similar content on Obama and other Democrats?

Just curious... I sure am glad that you're not applying a double standard after 30 years of watching American politics!

I have seen Obamas bloopers. I think that most American or people in the world would agree on Obama as an intellectual person with examine from university’s teaching at university for several years. I think that Obamas education an iq can compare with Sarah Palin every day of the week.
My opinion is that Sarah palling is a joke compared to Barack Obama as knowledge is concern. Given a test of question to does two persons about the world politics and issues I bet my money on Obama.
Who would you bet on?

Who made the target picture of Hayworth and Bush? Ill guess it was not Joe Biden Josef Lieberman or Al gore. Never the less I condemn pictures like that especially if the come from somebody who wants the office. And remember the case with Gabriel Gifford’s. Stuff like this is outrages in my world.

I think that it was the first person who was a vice president candidate to use that kind of graphics. I might be wrong on that one but I don’t think so.

I did not say that I have been watching American politics for 30 years. I said that I have been following politics for 30 years. This as a member in a Liberal Swedish party. That’s a difference and I think that you can agree that I probably know little more about American politics than most of you do about European politics.