View Full Version : '08 General Election
georgia_tech_swagger
06-27-2008, 10:59 PM
How can one hope to fix the system which is clearly broken when one takes the herd mentality and perpetuates it? I will concede that media access is a huge part of the problem. But Ears proved that if you have media access, you can beat the two party system.
rabidbadger
06-27-2008, 11:29 PM
"ears"? you mean Perot? Cause obama got ears too, haha. And he pretty much bucked the system, too. In some ways.
Can't find the thread I posted on the matter (maybe deleted? maybe I hit the bottle too hard too early on Friday?) ... so I'll post it in this mammoth of a thread:
Finally a viral vid from the Barr campaign!
It's on Digg if you're so inclined!
Im0Wqj3BSvU
I'm not a Barr supporter(mostly due to some of his domestic policies), but the video is definitely very effectively edited. As for ending the 2 party system, I hope he succeeds in that because I think that Obama, McCain, Barr, and Nader should all be allowed in the debates.
georgia_tech_swagger
07-01-2008, 10:43 PM
One step closer to Republicrats ......
Obama to expand Bush's faith based programs
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91L5FS00&show_article=1
The Obama campaign has responded (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/01/obama-plans-to-expand-bus_n_110140.html) and said that the AP misreported the story.
"Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don't believe this partnership will endanger that idea - so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them - or against the people you hire - on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work."
The idea seems like it could work as long as the government makes sure that its money is used only for secular aspects like feeding the poor, healing the sick, and clothing the hungry.
ageexchick
07-02-2008, 12:51 AM
And this sounds like a good idea! But do you think the gov't can actually keep it secular? Considering how the religious beliefs of those in charge do have quite an impact on what they believe to be wrong and right, do you think this is really possible?
Understood, there are plenty of secular agencies who can provide the amenities that you listed, but can we really be sure that it will be limited to those agencies?
Yeah, I guess I'm just questioning the authority again...
Edit: Why don't we also feed the hungry, instead of just clothing them? :P
The Obama campaign has responded (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/01/obama-plans-to-expand-bus_n_110140.html) and said that the AP misreported the story.
"Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don't believe this partnership will endanger that idea - so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them - or against the people you hire - on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work."
The idea seems like it could work as long as the government makes sure that its money is used only for secular aspects like feeding the poor, healing the sick, and clothing the hungry.
rabidbadger
07-02-2008, 02:01 AM
...like feeding the poor, healing the sick, and clothing the hungry.
Hmmmm.... sounds like Jesus. Now Jesus, he was one secular dude! :cool:
And this sounds like a good idea! But do you think the gov't can actually keep it secular? Considering how the religious beliefs of those in charge do have quite an impact on what they believe to be wrong and right, do you think this is really possible?
I think they can, but I'm not at all sure they will. I didn't go into full depth because I had to run out the door when I posted it, but I'm not completely satisfied with Obama's new initiative.
I think it will work if they're careful to only give to institutions which have a history of helping the needy regardless of denomination. However, his language suggests that he intends to create an outright alliance between the White House and the houses of worship which I'm not completely comfortable with. It could be a great boon to those who help the needy but at the same time, it certainly doesn't help maintain the wall between church and state(though I suppose it's arguable if that wall was ever completely real.)
Understood, there are plenty of secular agencies who can provide the amenities that you listed, but can we really be sure that it will be limited to those agencies?
Yeah, I guess I'm just questioning the authority again...
Edit: Why don't we also feed the hungry, instead of just clothing them? :P
My hope is that the form this will end up taking is simply that those secular agencies will use the religious institutions' access to the needy in order to make relief more accessible, though I do have my doubts.
Hmmmm.... sounds like Jesus. Now Jesus, he was one secular dude! :cool:
Point. :p I should have said "not inherently denominational" or something.
guytheninja
07-03-2008, 04:02 AM
I do have to say, this time around I'd like to see a lack of strong 3rd party candidate. I've never felt this way before but I think it's time to focus hard on getting the neocons out. It never seems 3rd party candidates remove votes from the republicans, it always seems to work against the democrats.
Yes, I don't agree with *everything* obama stands for, but I think he's as close to a mainstream candidate that shares my views as any since the last kennedy presidential bid.
The neocons are working overtime to vote themselves out of office. Those guys really screwed up this time. Republicans are supposed to be about decreasing the size and power of the federal government, yet Bush's administration has expanded both the government and the federal debt beyond our wildest dreams!
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3351
"In fact, you could say that what most voters wanted in 2000 was neither Bush nor Gore but smaller government. A Los Angeles Times poll in September 2000 found that Americans preferred "smaller government with fewer services" to "larger government with many services" by 59 to 26 percent."
This is why Bush's popularity is around 31% among other reasons.
computoman
07-03-2008, 05:45 AM
I have not seen a president I liked since the elder Bush. As for this year. I still do not like any of the candidates. The only one I liked did not not make it through the primaries.
The neocons are working overtime to vote themselves out of office. Those guys really screwed up this time. Republicans are supposed to be about decreasing the size and power of the federal government, yet Bush's administration has expanded both the government and the federal debt beyond our wildest dreams!
Which is why I think Bush has ended up as a uniter despite all his attempts to the contrary. He's reminded liberals of what big government can become if it becomes corrupt and provided true conservatives just why they oppose a larger government. The unity will of course end if a Democratic candidate gets elected.
yohey9
10-11-2008, 10:51 PM
dude, if those doesn't get you banned, it should get you arrested.
You have totally lost any credibility and you are the first I'm putting on ignore ever.
You guys have to understand here...And I haven't read the rest of the post so maybe someone already brought this up. Is someone is pro-life then they usually consider abortion murder? And what do we do with people who murder others or are accomplices in murder? Well in some states and in some cases, we sentence them to the death penalty. Crumbles views Obama as an accomplice of murder. Simply.
masherscf
10-11-2008, 10:54 PM
You guys have to understand here...And I haven't read the rest of the post so maybe someone already brought this up. Is someone is pro-life then they usually consider abortion murder? And what do we do with people who murder others or are accomplices in murder? Well in some states and in some cases, we sentence them to the death penalty. Crumbles views Obama as an accomplice of murder. Simply.
Dude, stop. Crumbles has been a member here for years. I think that we have a better understanding for his motives than you do. He gets treated the way he treats others.
yohey9
10-11-2008, 10:58 PM
Dude, stop. Crumbles has been a member here for years. I think that we have a better understanding for his motives than you do. He gets treated the way he treats others.
Yeah...I guess I am a no0bie :/
masherscf
10-11-2008, 11:02 PM
Yeah...I guess I am a no0bie :/
Well, there's no shame in that. But, you'll find that some people can take care of themselves online.
yohey9
10-11-2008, 11:03 PM
Well, there's no shame in that. But, you'll find that some people can take care of themselves online.
Ah. True that. Also, I noticed a regular crumbles was banned but then there is a "secret crumbles." You ban someone but just let them get another account?
xibalba
10-11-2008, 11:06 PM
he asked to be banned not for breaking rules.
masherscf
10-11-2008, 11:06 PM
Ah. True that. Also, I noticed a regular crumbles was banned but then there is a "secret crumbles." You ban someone but just let them get another account?
It's complicated. I'm not privy to the details. Crumbles is a member in good standing.
yohey9
10-11-2008, 11:07 PM
It's complicated. I'm not privy to the details. Crumbles is a member in good standing.
Ah okay....sweet. I think this is going to be my new home. People respond quick around here. w00t w00t.
tokenuser
10-11-2008, 11:07 PM
Ah. True that. Also, I noticed a regular crumbles was banned but then there is a "secret crumbles." You ban someone but just let them get another account?No. Not unless they come back a someone else and its not picked up on.
Crumbles asked to be banned so that he could not respond to a series of posts in a way that would have gotten him banned. He took a self imposed timeout. Then created a new account a couple of weeks later after he calmed down a little.
rabidbadger
10-11-2008, 11:15 PM
I always wondered about that. I should do that once in a while, but wanna keep my name and need desperately to get pragernated. ;)
masherscf
10-11-2008, 11:32 PM
I always wondered about that. I should do that once in a while, but wanna keep my name and need desperately to get pragernated. ;)
I know what you're thinking. Leave that man some clothes, he'll catch cold.
phatlip12
10-12-2008, 02:32 AM
It's complicated. I'm not privy to the details. Crumbles is a member in good standing.
It's not April 1st yet. It's okay, I forgive you. ;)
rabidbadger
10-12-2008, 02:38 AM
It's not April 1st yet. It's okay, I forgive you. ;)
Bwahahhahaaaa. He hasn't been on in a few days. thought he got banned for real, and all evidence wiped from the record. You Know, like Trig Palin's birth records. :D
gimpbully
10-12-2008, 09:52 PM
I know this is a lighthearted joke, I do understand that.
I do feel, however, it must be said that this is NOT a condoned action and anyone caught doing this (past crumbles as he was specifically the one that brought this situation to light) will be banned, likely with some permanence.
I always wondered about that. I should do that once in a while, but wanna keep my name and need desperately to get pragernated. ;)
rabidbadger
10-12-2008, 10:12 PM
I know this is a lighthearted joke, I do understand that.
I do feel, however, it must be said that this is NOT a condoned action and anyone caught doing this (past crumbles as he was specifically the one that brought this situation to light) will be banned, likely with some permanence.
I think you misunderstood, my joke was that I should ASK to be banned temporarily like crumbles did so as not to cross the line. And get myself banned again. But I've learned self restraint. I never meant I would use a second ip or whatever to come back. Hell, I don't even know how to do that!