A democrat is changing his mind... - Page 3 - Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-09-2012, 04:55 PM   #21 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
KIRKRIDER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 2,454
Default

I think it's always going to be like "that" the politician that runs "for the people" is gone forever. Until this country allows campaign of billion of dollars from lobbies, those donor will expect a fat return for their money, and the politicians will have to deliver to...THEM, not to the people. The power and the money can corrupt the purest of politicians.

this system created a class of untouchable mega-rich. They control your country. Not you. All this noise about Romney going suddenly up 12 points? (now suddenly they trust polls) Is just because they need the ratings in TV> Or you really think that after the debate half the people instantly switched side?
__________________
2013/14 -10- Kirkwood days
Arbor A-Frame 158 2009-10
Jeremy Jones Hovercraft 156, 2011/12
Burton Driver-X
K2-Cinch-CTX
Subaru WRX 06
KIRKRIDER is online now  
Old 10-09-2012, 05:00 PM   #22 (permalink)
Reformed Creep-o-saurus
 
poutanen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 5,215
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KIRKRIDER View Post
Really. You mean that after 8 years of that war criminal of bush and Cheney you think it's a good idea trust the crazies again? I hope no one in your family it's in the military.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KIRKRIDER View Post
With all respect...you want to have a constructive discussion? Keep up. What are we going back in time? 911 and bush are past thankfully.
You started the discussion around Bush and the war and I'm told to keep up for discussing it? With all respect of course!

Also you never answered my questions. What would YOU DO? It's easy to criticize, it's a lot harder to come up with a plan and take action.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowolf View Post
There was never a link between Iraq and the 9-11 attacks. Even Bush finally admitted that. Did you not get the memo up there?

The invasion of auras was NOT supported by the American people and the Bush administration had to lie through their teeth to convince congress that an invasion was necessary. Then, as a result if total lack of planning for post Saddam Iraq, they left a leadership void that created the environment for sectarian violence.

Your understanding of world politics is painfully naive. With regard to Iraq, I would highly recommend watching two documentaries:

Sorry, but you are exceedingly naive and ignorant of many facts when it comes to this particular subject.
What do those documentaries and your comments have to do with reasons to invade? They cover the mistakes made in securing the country unless I'm mistaken. I'm naive but at least I can follow a train of thought!

BTW (this goes for all that attack the person instead of the issue), please look at the way I talk to people, and talk to me the same way. There is a level of sarcasm that is to me acceptable on a forum. And then there are personal attacks when someone disagrees with an opinion. Calling somebody naive, ignorant, saying "keep up" as if to imply I'm out to lunch... You're attacking the person instead of the issue.

It's pretty tough to debate fact on the internet, when in most cases the "facts" come from other sources on the internet, which may or may not have their roots in reality. I was hesitant to post the 88% stat but it was so massively one sided I figured even with error it would be hard to refute.

I'm happy to debate issues of theory. That is constructive. Again: you're a leader of a country which sustains a terrorist attack (forget about the potential advanced warning). What would you do? WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

And don't say move to Canada, we don't need any more liberals up here!
poutanen is online now  
Old 10-09-2012, 05:07 PM   #23 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
KIRKRIDER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 2,454
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by poutanen View Post
You started the discussion around Bush and the war and I'm told to keep up for discussing it? With all respect of course!

Also you never answered my questions. What would YOU DO? It's easy to criticize, it's a lot harder to come up with a plan and take action.



What do those documentaries and your comments have to do with reasons to invade? They cover the mistakes made in securing the country unless I'm mistaken. I'm naive but at least I can follow a train of thought!

BTW (this goes for all that attack the person instead of the issue), please look at the way I talk to people, and talk to me the same way. There is a level of sarcasm that is to me acceptable on a forum. And then there are personal attacks when someone disagrees with an opinion. Calling somebody naive, ignorant, saying "keep up" as if to imply I'm out to lunch... You're attacking the person instead of the issue.

It's pretty tough to debate fact on the internet, when in most cases the "facts" come from other sources on the internet, which may or may not have their roots in reality. I was hesitant to post the 88% stat but it was so massively one sided I figured even with error it would be hard to refute.

I'm happy to debate issues of theory. That is constructive. Again: you're a leader of a country which sustains a terrorist attack (forget about the potential advanced warning). What would you do? WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

And don't say move to Canada, we don't need any more liberals up here!
dude..you have 15% of my attention..I'm at work. Want to share a beer and discuss the world? My door is open. Don't expect me to discuss 11 years of US (criminal as usual) policy here.

What would I do? I would not bomb a country that has nothing to do with it in the first place...but you still assume that they attacked iraq for 911?
Sorry for the "keep up" ... some here are news junkies...we expect the same level of addiction...and knowledge
__________________
2013/14 -10- Kirkwood days
Arbor A-Frame 158 2009-10
Jeremy Jones Hovercraft 156, 2011/12
Burton Driver-X
K2-Cinch-CTX
Subaru WRX 06

Last edited by KIRKRIDER; 10-09-2012 at 05:09 PM.
KIRKRIDER is online now  
Old 10-09-2012, 05:12 PM   #24 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
jdang307's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,791
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KIRKRIDER View Post
I prefer Obama to Romney. At least he promised to strike down citizen united?
Do you acknowledge the total obstructionism of the Republicans? How would you be able to change anything if he has to fight EVEN for stuff that would appear obvious?
Since 911 this country has turned into something else.... And apparently most americans like it.
The intervention in Libya was minimal...and we are not in Syria..

Gitmo. Still open.
Military tribunals. Still open.
Rendition. Still used.
Drone attacks. Worse.

Totally agree with you and it's a shame. But I'm convinced that Romney would do even worse. And suddenly he's popular because he can lie on television? Are you kidding me??
Like I said, it's 100% cool you like Obama better. That's fine, I'm not here to change anyone's minds. But do so knowing he is just like every other Politician out there. The difference between the two are not that much.

The reason the GOP obstruct everything now, is because of what the Democrats did the first year in 2009. They did not start out as obstructors. But the Democrats, so giddy off of Obama's win, and taking over both the House and the Senate, even owning the supermajority of the Senate for a few months, basically took a scorched earth approach.

When Republicans took over Congress in 1994, Newt Gingrich extended an olive branch in the House. He implemented rules that were going to give the minority party a little more power. He took over the House, and gave powers to the losing party.

When Pelosi took over in 2008, she eliminated those rules. She erased transparancy rules.

Then Obama telling the GOP, elections have consequences, I won, and locking them out.

Then America rejects Obama and the Democrat agenda. In 2010 was a sweeping mid-term election which saw huge gains by the GOP. America did not like what the Democrats were cooking. So they voted them out, and the GOP in. Why did America vote that way? To stop the Democrats.

Faced with all of this, of course the GOP is obstructing. Look back to 2009 and what the Democrats did. The GOP tried for a few months to work with them, but Dems were not having it. Remember, a filibuster Senate, a majority in the House, and the White House. Democrats did not need the Republicans, and they let the Republicans know it.

Here is an article to what I was talking about (Pelosi). Pelosi Erases Gingrich's Long-Standing Fairness Rules | Conservative News, Views & Books

That was 10 days before inauguration. The Democrats had their game plan before taking office.

It's a game, and it is what it is.

Plus Obama's notion of compromise is that you have to move all the way to him, and then they'll wiggle a little. There is often no meeting in the middle. And he's not the only one at fault. Republicans now have taken the same stance, there is no meeting in their middle either.

So to place blame only at the GOP is wrong. It's not that the GOP is obstructing. It's that both sides have staked their ground and NEITHER are moving. Remember the GOP own half the legislative body, the House. The Democrats own the Senate. The President doesn't make any law.

So if there is obstruction it is on both sides. The Democrats in the Senate are just as guilty of blocking the House GOP' initiatives as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowolf View Post
Jdang, on this we agree as you know. It is the reason that I supported Ron Paul. But, do you think Romney will do ANYTHING different than Obama on this issue other than be increasingly more draconian? I do not not. Obama is the frying pan and Romney is the fire. I am supporting the least bad option...sad that it comes down to that, but I feel stromgly enough about how much of a danger Romney is that I can`t do anything else.
Agreed.

Ron Paul is the one guy who held up the Patriot act renewal and expansion. After all that talk during the Bush years of the patriot act, when Obama takes office they all quietly renew the law every time. It got held up in 2011 and almost didn't pass, because of Ron Paul, who felt that the law violated our civil liberties.
jdang307 is offline  
Old 10-09-2012, 05:14 PM   #25 (permalink)
Reformed Creep-o-saurus
 
poutanen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 5,215
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KIRKRIDER View Post
I think it's always going to be like "that" the politician that runs "for the people" is gone forever. Until this country allows campaign of billion of dollars from lobbies, those donor will expect a fat return for their money, and the politicians will have to deliver to...THEM, not to the people. The power and the money can corrupt the purest of politicians.

this system created a class of untouchable mega-rich. They control your country. Not you. All this noise about Romney going suddenly up 12 points? (now suddenly they trust polls) Is just because they need the ratings in TV> Or you really think that after the debate half the people instantly switched side?
So what are you going to do about it? Since the sentiment seems to be "all the politicians are corrupt so don't vote for any of them" are we saying that democracy has failed?

And if so, what is the next option?

I believe that democracy hasn't failed yet. Where there is corruption is needs to be weeded out, the system needs to be designed in a way not to support corruption (think about getting rid of campaign donations, lobbying, and make public salaries relatively low compared to equivalent private positions). Our Mr. Prime Minister makes $317k a year. The VP of the company I work for makes in excess of that, and he only has to control a company with 1000 people in it. The POTUS makes $400k a year. So I'm not sure if the top job needs a pay cut, but senators/members of parliament, etc. be making in the range of $200k a year?

Are we as the taxpaying public getting the most out of our elected (and paid) officials?

Again: here on this forum we can argue back and forth ad nauseam, and we may even sway a few voters, but at the end of the day unless we are putting effort into actively improving the system, we are just wasting our breath. I may be naive but I'm not stupid!
poutanen is online now  
Old 10-09-2012, 05:23 PM   #26 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
KIRKRIDER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 2,454
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdang307 View Post
Like I said, it's 100% cool you like Obama better. That's fine, I'm not here to change anyone's minds. But do so knowing he is just like every other Politician out there. The difference between the two are not that much.

The reason the GOP obstruct everything now, is because of what the Democrats did the first year in 2009. They did not start out as obstructors. But the Democrats, so giddy off of Obama's win, and taking over both the House and the Senate, even owning the supermajority of the Senate for a few months, basically took a scorched earth approach.

When Republicans took over Congress in 1994, Newt Gingrich extended an olive branch in the House. He implemented rules that were going to give the minority party a little more power. He took over the House, and gave powers to the losing party.

When Pelosi took over in 2008, she eliminated those rules. She erased transparancy rules.

Then Obama telling the GOP, elections have consequences, I won, and locking them out.

Then America rejects Obama and the Democrat agenda. In 2010 was a sweeping mid-term election which saw huge gains by the GOP. America did not like what the Democrats were cooking. So they voted them out, and the GOP in. Why did America vote that way? To stop the Democrats.

Faced with all of this, of course the GOP is obstructing. Look back to 2009 and what the Democrats did. The GOP tried for a few months to work with them, but Dems were not having it. Remember, a filibuster Senate, a majority in the House, and the White House. Democrats did not need the Republicans, and they let the Republicans know it.

Here is an article to what I was talking about (Pelosi). Pelosi Erases Gingrich's Long-Standing Fairness Rules | Conservative News, Views & Books

That was 10 days before inauguration. The Democrats had their game plan before taking office.

It's a game, and it is what it is.

Plus Obama's notion of compromise is that you have to move all the way to him, and then they'll wiggle a little. There is often no meeting in the middle. And he's not the only one at fault. Republicans now have taken the same stance, there is no meeting in their middle either.

So to place blame only at the GOP is wrong. It's not that the GOP is obstructing. It's that both sides have staked their ground and NEITHER are moving. Remember the GOP own half the legislative body, the House. The Democrats own the Senate. The President doesn't make any law.

So if there is obstruction it is on both sides. The Democrats in the Senate are just as guilty of blocking the House GOP' initiatives as well.


Agreed.

Ron Paul is the one guy who held up the Patriot act renewal and expansion. After all that talk during the Bush years of the patriot act, when Obama takes office they all quietly renew the law every time. It got held up in 2011 and almost didn't pass, because of Ron Paul, who felt that the law violated our civil liberties.
I appreciate your patience and accuracy explaining...but I just don't like Republicans, their way of thinking, their principles, their superiority ( the alleged "American exceptionalism?" do they read history? Exceptional at what? Bombing? And I sincerely think if Obama looked more like...Clinton, they would agree with half of its policies. Yes. I am saying that they are blatant racists. And not even ashamed of it.

They came up with nothing in 4 years after 8 years of pillaging and illegal wars, illegal private armies, illegal contracts.... On top of it most of them swore, the night Obama was elected, to oppose him in everything. No matter what...no matter the american people, the justice, or the future.. That to me is treason toward the People for the interest and gain of few. And Romney is one of those mega rich few. The same rich Bush worshipped and was part of. Not my tribe.
__________________
2013/14 -10- Kirkwood days
Arbor A-Frame 158 2009-10
Jeremy Jones Hovercraft 156, 2011/12
Burton Driver-X
K2-Cinch-CTX
Subaru WRX 06
KIRKRIDER is online now  
Old 10-09-2012, 05:31 PM   #27 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
KIRKRIDER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 2,454
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by poutanen View Post
So what are you going to do about it? Since the sentiment seems to be "all the politicians are corrupt so don't vote for any of them" are we saying that democracy has failed?

And if so, what is the next option?

I believe that democracy hasn't failed yet. Where there is corruption is needs to be weeded out, the system needs to be designed in a way not to support corruption (think about getting rid of campaign donations, lobbying, and make public salaries relatively low compared to equivalent private positions). Our Mr. Prime Minister makes $317k a year. The VP of the company I work for makes in excess of that, and he only has to control a company with 1000 people in it. The POTUS makes $400k a year. So I'm not sure if the top job needs a pay cut, but senators/members of parliament, etc. be making in the range of $200k a year?

Are we as the taxpaying public getting the most out of our elected (and paid) officials?

Again: here on this forum we can argue back and forth ad nauseam, and we may even sway a few voters, but at the end of the day unless we are putting effort into actively improving the system, we are just wasting our breath. I may be naive but I'm not stupid!

US is not a "democracy" how can it be with 2 parties? We have representative democracy in Italy...you get the 10% of the votes? You get the 10% of the seats. That keeps mega parties in control.

I'm not talking about 2, 300K per year. I am talking about TRILLIONS shored in the cayman islands because they are allowed to do so, bankrupting this country
I am talking about economic terrorism toward 3rd world countries, I am talking about monopoly ( Communication, seeds, ) subsidies for oil and corn...and of course weapon production...big Pharma, and on..and on...Those are the powers...not the guy with a 2 million dollar house.

It's pretty desperate! But it got this bad in the last 10 years...right? Was it better before? Or it looked better from outside? ( Europe)

What can I do? Keep voting for example.
__________________
2013/14 -10- Kirkwood days
Arbor A-Frame 158 2009-10
Jeremy Jones Hovercraft 156, 2011/12
Burton Driver-X
K2-Cinch-CTX
Subaru WRX 06
KIRKRIDER is online now  
Old 10-09-2012, 05:49 PM   #28 (permalink)
Reformed Creep-o-saurus
 
poutanen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 5,215
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowolf View Post
Never said "keep up" as for the other, you are being overly sensitive. Naive and ignorant are not personal attacks. I said your view on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is naive. I said you were ignorant of many facts about its nature. I didnt call you dumb or stupid; you are simply unaware (ignorant) of the facts. This is in part due to the fact that you are not an American living here day to day.

As for the rest of your comment. I will get to that later. gotta get to work
Fair enough, it just comes across as condescending.

If you believe I am naive about an issue, please educate me on it, calling me naive tends to get my back up. There is no way that anybody could know everything about every issue in the world. I've spent far more time studying WWII than more recent wars (probably because WWII is the single biggest event in shaping the way the world is today) but that doesn't mean I don't have an understanding about current issues. Believe it or not we have books, TVs, the internets, and other media options here in the great white north too!

If I'm discussing something with somebody, take cars for example, and they tell me an obviously wrong fact, I don't say "you're naive, you have no weight in this discussion!!!" My mother taught me to say something like "I think it's actually works like ...". It's just a way of talking to people that promotes constructive conversations rather than argumentative bantering.
poutanen is online now  
Old 10-09-2012, 05:52 PM   #29 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
KIRKRIDER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 2,454
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by poutanen View Post
Fair enough, it just comes across as condescending.

If you believe I am naive about an issue, please educate me on it, calling me naive tends to get my back up. There is no way that anybody could know everything about every issue in the world. I've spent far more time studying WWII than more recent wars (probably because WWII is the single biggest event in shaping the way the world is today) but that doesn't mean I don't have an understanding about current issues. Believe it or not we have books, TVs, the internets, and other media options here in the great white north too!

If I'm discussing something with somebody, take cars for example, and they tell me an obviously wrong fact, I don't say "you're naive, you have no weight in this discussion!!!" My mother taught me to say something like "I think it's actually works like ...". It's just a way of talking to people that promotes constructive conversations rather than argumentative bantering.

Ok. ("Keep up" was mine... sorry about that, as I wrote)

Why the US entered the WWII? What was the trigger event? What is the real story behind it? and most of it. What did US gain from WWII?
__________________
2013/14 -10- Kirkwood days
Arbor A-Frame 158 2009-10
Jeremy Jones Hovercraft 156, 2011/12
Burton Driver-X
K2-Cinch-CTX
Subaru WRX 06

Last edited by KIRKRIDER; 10-09-2012 at 06:12 PM.
KIRKRIDER is online now  
Old 10-09-2012, 06:25 PM   #30 (permalink)
Reformed Creep-o-saurus
 
poutanen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 5,215
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KIRKRIDER View Post
US is not a "democracy" how can it be with 2 parties? We have representative democracy in Italy...you get the 10% of the votes? You get the 10% of the seats. That keeps mega parties in control.

I'm not talking about 2, 300K per year. I am talking about TRILLIONS shored in the cayman islands because they are allowed to do so, bankrupting this country
I am talking about economic terrorism toward 3rd world countries, I am talking about monopoly ( Communication, seeds, ) subsidies for oil and corn...and of course weapon production...big Pharma, and on..and on...Those are the powers...not the guy with a 2 million dollar house.

It's pretty desperate! But it got this bad in the last 10 years...right? Was it better before? Or it looked better from outside? ( Europe)

What can I do? Keep voting for example.
I voted for proportional representation in 2007 when Canada had a referendum regarding the issue. Unfortunately the majority voted to keep the first past the post system. Maybe they didn't understand the issue, but THE PEOPLE voted to keep the old system vs. going to proportional representation. Remember that in a democracy the people can vote against democratic ideals, just the very right to vote makes it a democracy.

Now I can't speak with first hand knowledge for the other issues you mentioned. I know that defence contracts are huge. But liberals who put down defence contracts are the same liberals that back saving the auto sector because it keeps jobs. So what's more important, investing in national security or investing in the auto industry?

The large industries you mentioned with monopolies or near monopolies may be a product of capitalism in general. A properly run large corporation can add value to a product more efficiently than a small company can. The internet, shipping, etc. make it less necessary to have brick and mortar local companies. The large companies inevitably buy up the small ones, and oligopolies and monopolies are slowly created. The company I work for is the largest in the world in it's sector. We've been bought up, and bought up multiple companies in the quest for expansion. In some markets we've had to sell off chunks of the company because we were deemed to have too large a stake in the industry. There is massive amounts of money changing hands but it's all part of the new world and globalization.

Right now the chinese government is trying to buy a Calgary oil and gas company. Many people are against this because they don't want foreign ownership of our Canadian company. Meanwhile the company in question has a significant portion of it's operations in overseas oil.

Now, has it taken 10 years to get this bad? I don't think so! The systemic problems we're talking about have been happening for years. Possibly centuries... There is more awareness these days which may make the problem seem worse. What I would like to see is more active participation in helping change things. Sure voting helps. I think that's Step 1 as far as getting involved goes. If we take the steak and cut it into little pieces, I'm sure we can finish it all and be on the path to getting better, unfortunately there are a lot of issues to deal with so it will take a long time.

What kind of world do we want to leave behind? What kind of world do we want to retire in? What kind of world do we want right now?

My grandparents came here from Finland when there was a lot of turmoil with the Russians. They wanted a better life for future generations. Finland was invaded by Russia and fought back (and arguably won). Now looking at life, do I have it better than my grandparents did? Fuck yeah! I'm able to snowboard 30+ days a year, enjoy a comfortable home, have my finances in order. Sure it took me a lot of hard work, but the climb has been easier (I'm sure) than it was for them. It's been harder than my parents generation, but in the grand scheme of things we ARE improving quality of life, not the other way around.
poutanen is online now  
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:24 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
VerticalSports
Baseball Forum Golf Forum Boxing Forum Snowmobile Forum
Basketball Forum Soccer Forum MMA Forum PWC Forum
Football Forum Cricket Forum Wrestling Forum ATV Forum
Hockey Forum Volleyball Forum Paintball Forum Snowboarding Forum
Tennis Forum Rugby Forums Lacrosse Forum Skiing Forums