Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
shutupandclimb
climber
Palm Desert Ca.
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2008 - 02:01am PT
|
really, what it boils down to is voting for the puppet on the left or the puppet on the right.
Both are Puppets, both are completely sold out to special interest groups.
It's not about voting for the lesser of two evils. We are faced with a choice between the evil of two that are lesser.
less then we need in a leadership role in this critical time. The next term president will be the most important since WWII.
The only way to fix our ineffective and immoral governmental system is to remove all lobbyists from the ability to influence politics on any level and return to a REAL government by the people and for the people. Real Patriots should be loyal to the constitution and open their f*#ken eyes to whats been happening in this country incrementally for decades. I said my piece, did anyone hear? Or, more to the point, understand?
|
|
rockermike
Mountain climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2008 - 11:37am PT
|
ShutupandClimb,
basically you are right of course. The financial elites are calling the shots and carefully limiting the discussion between the far right and the moderate right (mislabeled the "left"). Everything else is portrayed as wacko. But even within the demopublican party and within the financial elites there are differences of desired strategy. As an example, some big financial players see the lack of universal health care as a grave competitive disadvantage to their interests. Others say, let the chumps die in the streets. Some think 4 wars and counting is in their best interest, others think the $10 trillion in national debt (by the way that's $30,000 for every man women and child in the country)will sink this country. A Kerry regime would have looked different than Bush and Obama's will look different than McCain's. But the range of possible outcomes is of course very limited. If the candidates aren't "players" in the money men's eyes, their campaigns would never get off the launching pad. More than $500 million was raised and spent on the primaries alone. Joe and Jane citizen certainly don't have that kind of money. Large campaign donations are basically legal bribery.
|
|
TKingsbury
Trad climber
MT
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2008 - 11:55am PT
|
How is he 'out of the box' when he is in such close agreement with the current administration?
Please outline some differences...help me understand.
|
|
rockermike
Mountain climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2008 - 12:01pm PT
|
ditto TK
Most of even the elites are tired of Bush's recklessness.
Can you name one important policy stance where McCain differs from Bush?
By the way, just heard an interview of Palin on the radio. She didn't know what the Bush Doctrine is and stumbled badly. It was then explained to her in simple English (the claimed right of the US to attack any country unilaterally as a first strike, if that country is considered a threat to the US) and she still fumbled the answer badly, clearly not understanding the import of the question nor international law. Even I felt embarrassed for her.
But you neo-con rightest -I'll admit - are sadly probably right, they'll win anyway, disproving the concept of democracy. The Clone and Beauty-queen for president. ha
|
|
ricardo-sf
Sport climber
San Francisco
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2008 - 02:19pm PT
|
Leb ..
when you vote this november i hope you consider which one of this candidates has your interests in mind ..
if most of america voted for the candidate that would benefit them the most, this country would be in a better place...
leb: i have some honest questions ..
are you safer today than 8 years ago?
are you more financially secure than 8 years ago?
do you have more freedoms than 8 years ago?
are you more proud to be an american today than 8 years ago?
.. i'll answer the questions for you, so its a fair situation ..
 i am not safer than i was 8 years ago .. -- but i consider this to be a trick question, i don't think that i was ever in danger ..
i am more financially secure, yet i feel the pressure that my friends and relatives are under.
i have less freedoms than 8 years ago.
i am less proud to be an american today.
.. so i'm looking for a candidate that will stop the fear mongering about terrorists around the world, slow the rate at which government infringes in my liberties, act in the interest of the majority of americans (who are in the middle and lower class), and will restore good-will towards american from abroad.
.. i think that the way to achieve these goals are to give middle and lower class citizens a tax break and increase services, end the war in iraq, close guitmo, and engage in some heavy duty diplomacy rather than war.
.. given that criteria, barack is my candidate.
|
|
ricardo-sf
Sport climber
San Francisco
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2008 - 02:31pm PT
|
fat ..
The rise of IRAN is partly due to the rise in oil in the last few years .. going to war with iran will likely create more problems than it would solve ..
.. a smarter way to fight iran would be to stop funding them, -- begin to decrease the ammount of oil we need to run this country .. alternative energy investments would bring down our consumption of oil down, and in turn bring down the demand for oil, -- and there is also the benefits of opening new markets for our enconomy to grow .. to get out of the hole we're in, we need to innovate in NEW markets, and markets that the whole world will need in the near future.
.. going to war with iran, or anything near that would be catastrophe for our pocket books .. you need certainty in order to get some good growth to happen .. war (or even just tension) brings about volatility ..
consider that iran's government can retain power because they have alot of revenue from mostly oil .. -- if that revenue was cut in 1/2 or more, they would have a hard time keeping up the sort of aggresive stance .. similar thing happened to USSR at the end of the cold war .. -- oil rose, and then fell by quite a bit, they found themselves spread too thin to keep everyone happy and fell apart.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2008 - 02:43pm PT
|
Fatty-
You always say that and then I always have to make this post.
They failed because Iran doesn't want reassurances from Europe, they want reassurances from US. We declared that preemption was now acceptable. We declared that we needed a new generation of nuclear weapons. So we abandoned our non-proliferation obligations and our agreements with Russia and invaded Iraq. In the mean time every country that new was on our hit list said "oh sh#t...we need nukes or else these crazy American bastards are going to bomb us!"
Never mind that Iran actually offered to help us after 9/11 or that we had a unique opportunity to open diplomatic ties and make gains during that time that we totally squandered. We have hardly been an honest broker in this realm.
You don't talk with people only if they meet your demands...you talk with them to try to accomplish goals over time. The majority of Iranians support stronger ties with the US. Many Iranians oppose the actions of their government. The longer we stay engaged with them the more likely it is we can make some sort of progress.
So tell me...how is bombing them a solution? What does that solve? Let's assume that we actually know where all their nuclear facilities are and we destroy all of them. Why wouldn't they just start over again, this time with stronger resolve and a populace completely united in their hatred for the United States and a muslim world even more motivated. Is THAT your goal? Fulfilling your Clash of Civilizations doomsday prophecy?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!