A democrat is changing his mind... - Page 4 - Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-09-2012, 06:35 PM   #31 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
KIRKRIDER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 2,477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by poutanen View Post
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.
The huge corps are a product of broken capitalism. The capitalism Romney, Bush, Cheney and Co live and vote for. The capitalism with no rules, no minimal wage, no constrains about "legalized" torture, military and economic warfare. The capitalism of private prison system, Private water system, Private army. Private islands private air...of no bid projects in Iraq. The capitalism of rewarded outsourcing, the capitalism of suppression of press, and dissent. All key parts of the Republican Neo Cons agenda.

in a word Fascism. S it was in Italy with the connection between state and industry, but not for the good of the people...just the good of the owners and their country club.

Why anyone working class would vote R is beyond me.
__________________
2013/14 -12- 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 06:37 PM.
KIRKRIDER is offline  
Old 10-09-2012, 07:30 PM   #32 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
jdang307's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,802
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KIRKRIDER View Post
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.
That's fine not to like them. I can't stand Democrat policies, and I'm socially liberal. Fiscal policies is where I draw the line and as bad as Republicans are with money Democrats are just plain terrible.

Democrats run California, and have done so for the past 6 decades or so. We were the 5th largest economy in the world (now down to 8, or even lower than that). Yet we're perennially in trouble money wise, we run a deficit each year (even though our constitution says not to), our roads look like shit compared to a place like the Metro areas of Phoenix or Texas, and we spend Shit on education.

Whenever we have a fiscal crisis what's first on the chopping block? Education. It's always education.

Meanwhile employer salaries and pensions take up half the budget. We chase businesses out of the state, and then complain about declining revenues. Our unemployment is higher than the national average, in a state that should be #1 every single time. Other states are poaching our best companies (tech, biotech).

Quote:
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.
That is false. Nobody swore to oppose him. You're talking about Mitch McConnell who famously said he was going to try to make Obama a One-Term president. That was in late 2010 close to the mid-term elections. That was after more than a year of Obama and the rest of the Democrats stonewalling the GOP.

He said if Obama continued down his path, he was going to make sure Obama was a one term President. But if Obama turned around, and worked with the GOP, he would not do that, and would work with the President. Your version of the story is the version that is passed around liberal media circles, but it is patently false.

NationalJournal.com - Access Denied

October 2010. Here is the full quote. I've bolded the relevant parts.
Quote:
McConnell: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

NJ: Does that mean endless, or at least frequent, confrontation with the president?

McConnell: If President Obama does a Clintonian backflip, if he’s willing to meet us halfway on some of the biggest issues, it’s not inappropriate for us to do business with him.
The reason why he brings up Clinton is because Clinton started his term exactly how Obama started his. They both tried to shove liberal agenda down our throats as fast as they could. That led to Republicans winning the mid-term elections in 1994, and Republicans winning re-election in 2010. The facts were similar.

However, Clinton, noting his defeat, pivoted, and moved back to the center and worked with Republicans the rest of the way. Obama hasn't. McConnell is saying, if Obama did what Clinton did, they can work together. If he doesn't, then they're going to try and get a Republican President elected.

It's not quite as sensational as the media wants to paint it.

People also forget that It wasn't just Clinton who balanced our budget. It was the GOP Congress who forced it.

Do you remember that Govt. actually shut down? Yes, Newt Gingrich shut down Congress because of a fight with Clinton. The reason? Both wanted a balanced budget, but Gingrich wanted it sooner, and Clinton refused. Gingrich shut govt. down for a few weeks (spread over two periods). They finally agreed to a compromise, balance the budget in 7 years. But Clinton wanted it to be later, Gingrich wanted it sooner. It actually happened sooner than 7 years. Clinton gets credit, but you have to remember who forced Clinton's hands.

After that, Clinton moved all of his policies to the right. Remember, Obama loves him some Obama, and Clinton loves him some Clinton. But Obama is so rigid in his ideology, he will not violate it, even for ego. Clinton? Clinton doesn't give a shit. He's all about Clinton. So he moved to the right/center. He needed to protect his legacy. There is no better self-preserver than Clinton. He will do anything, in the name of self-preservation.

In 1996 he even declared, in the State of the Union, "the era of big government is over." That's how they worked together. That's how Obama can work with the GOP, but he's not budging an inch so we are at an impasse for now.

Last edited by jdang307; 10-09-2012 at 07:33 PM.
jdang307 is offline  
Old 10-09-2012, 07:37 PM   #33 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
davidj's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 389
Blog Entries: 2
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.
Dude, you have class
davidj is offline  
Old 10-09-2012, 07:42 PM   #34 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
jdang307's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,802
Default

OH, and as for racism, the democrat party is rife with racism. No need to try and say the right has a monopoly on that.

And racism isn't exclusive to whites either. Blacks are just as racists, and almost all of the black community is in the Democrat Party.

There are racists in both parties. Here is an excellent article from the Economist:

The politics and philosophy of racism: Grand Racist Party? | The Economist

They conclude, after extensive study, that at most, on the whole slightly more Republicans have views that may be considered racist, but not by much, and it is pretty evenly divided between the two parties.

On top of that, there is a new form of racism, which is minority on minority racism (non-latino blacks, latinos, latino blacks, Asians, etc.). And guess which party a lot of them reside in.

But like I said, I'm not here to change anyone's minds. I side with Democrats on social issues, but fiscally I side with the GOP. But I can see why people stick with Democrats.

The real answer is in the middle. Let's be honest, if either party had full control we'd be fucked. Look at California, and imagine the whole US being like that.

Last edited by jdang307; 10-09-2012 at 07:52 PM.
jdang307 is offline  
Old 10-09-2012, 08:34 PM   #35 (permalink)
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
backstop13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 690
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowolf View Post
How is any president responsible for your take home pay? How does any president control gas prices and insurance costs? These things are market driven and all companies have putting the squeeze on workers for far longer than Obama has been president. Blaming him for these things is no more credible than blaming Bush for them.
I would argue that a president's policy has an indirect influence on the market. And to elaborate about take home pay not increasing, these were things touted by a candidate who platformed on all the positive changes he was going to make, which would lead to things like growth in the middle class. Unfortunately, a lot of the promises made never happened. Granted, this isn't all Obama's fault and I don't mean to sound like it is. Obviously, the republicans in the house and senate who fought Obama over policy every step of the way made it hard to institute change.

My point was simply to say that in 4 years, life for the middle class has not gotten better, and in most fronts, it's stayed stagnant or gotten worse. This isn't a knock on solely Obama, but in my opinion, the leader of the country has to take some blame. Just because it wasn't his problem to begin with does not mean it's not his responsibility to clean it up. I'm sorry, but that's the gig you sign up for when you become president.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowolf View Post
Look at the global economy. Countries are not going to be placing orders for new jet liners when their economies are on the brink of collapse. Obama is not in control of the EU's economy. As for us, you are feeling the economic fallout from the 2008 crash which Obama had nothing to do with. Yes the recovery is painfully slow and people need a scapegoat to pin their anger on. All the economists at the time told us that this was s deep recession and that recovery was going to be historically slow regardless of won the 2008 election.

Imagine two things here:

1) How much worse it could be had we slipped into a full blown 2nd Great Depression

2) How much further along on the road to recovery we would be if not for Republican obstructionism. Remember, Frank Luntz and the House leadership met on Jan 20 2009 before Obama first sat in his chair and pledged to obstruct him every way possible regardless of what it did to the country.
Those are fair points, and I don't blame Obama for putting us in the situation. But from my point of view, the economy has not gotten any better. Sure, every month there's a new job report that gives us a little hope, but from my point of view, looking off my porch, I'm in the same situation financially that I was when he took office. I would have hoped for something a little better over the last four years. Perhaps those are unfair expectations considering how deep of a hole we were in, but look at it this way: If you hired a contractor to fix something on your house, and he fucked it up royally. So you hired a new contractor who made all sorts of promises about how great he was and all the great new things he was going to do with your house...then four years later, your house was still in shitty repair. I know that's a gross exaggeration of our economy, but you should get my gist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowolf View Post


And don't think it wouldn't. Read the posts about Globaltech in China and the latest news story about Huweai in China and Mittens' involvement.
I think this is what most people are clueless about. Sure, Romney might fix our country short term, just as he has done with a lot of these small businesses. But what scares me is the long term effect of outsourcing even more jobs overseas. I need to do more research, but I can't imagine many of the companies he had his hands in during his Bain capital days are thriving today.


Quote:
Originally Posted by backstop13 View Post
I am completely hopeless for this election. I honestly think no matter who gets elected, the middle class is in for a royal fucking.
not sure if you were going to respond to this or if you forgot to delete it, but to elaborate further, I'm not just speaking financially. I think no matter who gets elected, life for the average Joe will just get worse. From finances, to further erosion of constitutional freedoms, to a larger police-state, etc., I think we're all in for rough days ahead. Pardon my pessimism...
backstop13 is offline  
Old 10-09-2012, 09:00 PM   #36 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
KIRKRIDER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 2,477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowolf View Post
No it isn't false. Before Obama passed his first fart into his chair in the Oval Office, the House leadership pledged to engage in partisan obstructionism on everything he tried to do no matter how badly it hurt the American people they swore oaths to represent!





Now before you again make the claim that these are baseless liberal allegations, as an Arizona resident of northwest Phoenix, John zkyl was my representative. I called his office and directly if John Kyle attended thus meeting. The answer was YES!







No it
That is the whole point.
__________________
2013/14 -12- 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 offline  
Old 10-09-2012, 10:34 PM   #37 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
jdang307's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,802
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowolf View Post
No it isn't false. Before Obama passed his first fart into his chair in the Oval Office, the House leadership pledged to engage in partisan obstructionism on everything he tried to do no matter how badly it hurt the American people they swore oaths to represent!
The actual book does not report it so egregiously.

They did not make a pact to obstruct everything Obama tried. They made a pact to obstruct his economic policies. Essentially at that time, stimulus, which was already in the works before his inauguration. This article tries to say any and all legislation. According to Draper, this is patently false.

Note, that the actual GOP leaders, weren't at the meeting. And stimulus passed with GOP votes.

The other 3 things they agreed to were to attack Geithner, Charlie Rangel, win the Midterms, and replace Obama in 2012.

Sounds like a normal strategy meeting.

Obama had ZERO problems passing what he wanted for 2 years. He got stimulus passed, cash for clunkers, cash for dishwashers, HIRE act, everything, all with Republican votes. Where was the obstructionism the first two years? Cash for clunkers passed through the Senate 95-1, attached to a larger bill.

The HIRE Act passed through the House in 2009 with a vote of 259-157.

That's 259-157. where was this pact? 24 Republicans voted for it. This secret oath? It passed the Senate 70-28. 11 Republicans voted for it.

I'm not seeing any conspiracy. It was a strategy meeting, and yes that one pact to oppose Obama's economic policies (and only, his economic policies) looks bad. But it sure wasn't effective.

Quote:
Now before you again make the claim that these are baseless liberal allegations, as an Arizona resident of northwest Phoenix, John zkyl was my representative. I called his office and directly if John Kyle attended thus meeting. The answer was YES!
I don't doubt the meeting happened. It was reported last November, and nobody noticed it.

‘Telling revelation’ about Obama inauguration night actually old news | The Daily Caller

The actual book states it much differently than the sensationalism by that article you linked.

These are the four strategies listed in Draper's book.

Quote:
The dinner lasted nearly four hours. They parted company almost giddily. The Republicans had agreed on a way forward:

Go after Geithner. (And indeed Kyl did, the next day: ‘Would you answer my question rather than dancing around it—please?’)

Show united and unyielding opposition to the president’s economic policies. (Eight days later, Minority Whip Cantor would hold the House Republicans to a unanimous No against Obama’s economic stimulus plan.)

Begin attacking vulnerable Democrats on the airwaves. (The first National Republican Congressional Committee attack ads would run in less than two months.)

Win the spear point of the House in 2010. Jab Obama relentlessly in 2011. Win the White House and the Senate in 2012.
So yes I agree with you guys. In light of the past two years, that meeting doesn't look good. But it was a strategy meeting, and so far they've come close to their goal

But remember, the first two years Obama was not obstructed. He got almost every single bill passed, and he passed Obamacare. Republicans didn't obstruct his agenda until America voted him in to obstruct them. They were powerless before that.
jdang307 is offline  
Old 10-09-2012, 10:53 PM   #38 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
jdang307's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,802
Default

Rahm Emanuel, no friend to Republicans, on GOP participation in the first months of Obama's term

Quote:
Emanuel argues that while partisanship colored the debate over stimulus and later health care, there was other legislation that passed with Republican support even as the stimulus fight was starting. “We did try to change the environment,” he said.
Obama did not change Washington. For each side, it’s clear who’s to blame. - The Washington Post

Further evidence, there was no pact to obstruct everything Obama proposed. Just his economic policies, which makes sense. Republicans don't agree with Democrat economic policies, and vice versa! It's like a group of Yankee fans getting together and agree, that they will not root for the Red Sox

From the same article, this is what the Democrats did.
Quote:
But two Republican senators — Charles E. Grassley of Iowa and Orrin G. Hatch of Utah — believe an early battle over extending a children’s health program did the opposite.

During George W. Bush’s presidency, Grassley and Hatch had worked with Democrats to develop a bipartisan bill. They took heat from some of their colleagues but forged ahead, even in the face of Bush’s veto. They hoped to move a bipartisan bill early in Obama’s presidency, and they were negotiating final changes as the new administration was coming to power.

Suddenly their Democratic colleagues told them the negotiations were over, on orders from the Obama team.

A more liberal version of the bill passed the House on Jan. 14, 2009, with 40 Republican votes. The Senate approved it 15 days later. Nine Republicans voted for it, but neither Hatch nor Grassley supported it.

“We had all stuck our necks out to create a bipartisan bill, only to have the rug pulled out from under us at the beginning of the Obama administration,” said a Grassley aide who declined to be identified, in order to talk about the internal negotiations. “The point was made to them: Do you really want health-care negotiations to start off by undoing so completely an agreement that had been reached?”
jdang307 is offline  
Old 10-10-2012, 08:17 AM   #39 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
BoardWalk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 585
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KIRKRIDER View Post
I appreciate your patience and accuracy explaining...but I just don't like Republicans, their way of thinking, their principles, their superiority
This is the problem with this country, people are so blinded with party lines they will vote for anybody. The good thing is those in the middle make up the majority, but for how long?
BoardWalk is offline  
Old 10-10-2012, 02:24 PM   #40 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 86
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.
War criminal is ridiculous rhetoric.

Nearly all of my family has served in the military. I can't trust a president who wants to sterilize our country.
biocmp is offline  
 

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 03:07 AM.



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