2012 Official Preallo Political Discussion Thread

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Romney (lesser of two evils in my opinion)

A few questions for everyone posting here?
1) It used to be government stepped in only to prevent bad things (i.e. The law says you can't do that without a consequence). Or to regulate areas where people needed to show competence and good judgement before being allowed to do something. With the Healthcare reform we are looking at a completely new set of circumstances in which the government forces people to do something against their will. Once this door is opened it will never be shut. Are you all fully aware of this and do you actually want it?

2) In the political game when has it ever been that the President had so much time to devote to making laws. It was originally intended that Congress be the only branch to create laws with checks and balances coming from the area branches. Does the Healthcare bill not seem to all of you to be circumventing this organization (much how California courts may soon overrule majority vote. Whether I or you agree with prop 8 the bigger picture here isn't being addressed. The majority of voters may be overruled by a judge!)?

Last one,
3) The founding fathers intended for the government to be a place of service for the people. It has now become a life long job for a new bread of rich and powerful men. This was precisely what the founding fathers wanted to avoid- people in positions that could enact laws to further their own agendas instead of the voice of the people. Why are we as a people not voting for more non-life-long politicians?

This is an excellent point and something that I have thought about it. Leon Trosky stated once; that if a nation would have a highly educated and knowledgeable population, the bureaucracy and corruption found in many modern governments would decrease because anyone could take their position in a heartbeat (he said this more eloquently, of course).

The alternative is to not treat a group of rich, land-owning, slave-owning, dead guys' words as if they came from the lips of God. Instead, the Constitution can be treated as a guide that serves the needs of our current world.

I totally agree with this point. It is absurd to continue with this type of mentality. The same argument has been made about the bible, which a lot of people take literally even though it was written <2000 years ago.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Thanks for noticing. That's different anyways, it's not like I have a choice to join a private enterprise military group to obtain a scholarship anyways. Unfortunately there is no militia HPSP program.

You could take out loans. Private ones.
 
The alternative is to not treat a group of rich, land-owning, slave-owning, dead guys' words as if they came from the lips of God. Instead, the Constitution can be treated as a guide that serves the needs of our current world.

You forget that these men were taught about the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, and they designed the government in order to inhibit that from happening again.

Never forget that individuals may be smart, but people as a whole are always stupid. We live in a republic (and not a democracy) for a reason: the majority will always vote to give itself the earned wealth and private property of the minority. The Constitution was drafted with checks and balances in order to protect property rights.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
You forget that these men were taught about the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, and they designed the government in order to inhibit that from happening again.

Never forget that individuals may be smart, but people as a whole are always stupid. We live in a republic (and not a democracy) for a reason: the majority will always vote to give itself the earned wealth and private property of the minority. The Constitution was drafted with checks and balances in order to protect property rights.


A republic is a form of democracy, so we do live in democracy (just not a direct/pure democracy). It's an incredibly effed up democracy (where Wyoming and North Dakota get the same # of senators as California and Texas, while Washington DC gets jacksquat). But it's a democracy nonetheless.

Anywho, I'm not about to get on my knees and worship o the supposed more-than-human wisdom of a bunch of long-gone rich guys. (They had some good ideas, but that doesn't mean they were infallible.) I say we work with the paper they've given us to meet our needs today.
 
A republic is a form of democracy, so we do live in democracy (just not a direct/pure democracy). It's an incredibly effed up democracy (where Wyoming and North Dakota get the same # of senators as California and Texas, while Washington DC gets jacksquat). But it's a democracy nonetheless.

Anywho, I'm not about to get on my knees and worship o the supposed more-than-human wisdom of a bunch of long-gone rich guys. (They had some good ideas, but that doesn't mean they were infallible.) I say we work with the paper they've given us to meet our needs today.

The difference between a republic and a democracy stems from the question of sovereignty. In a republic, the individual is sovereign while in a democracy it is the group. The idea for a bicameral legislature is merely another check on the stupidity of the majority. The Senate was originally supposed to represent the will of the states while the House represented the people. The Founders decided on this with a compromise called the Virginia Plan, which allowed the small states to have an equal voice with a set number of senators while it granted the larger states some more power with a population-based House. Also, nice job poisoning the well. I can really tell that you dominated on your debate team with solid arguments like that!
 
The difference between a republic and a democracy stems from the question of sovereignty. In a republic, the individual is sovereign while in a democracy it is the group. The idea for a bicameral legislature is merely another check on the stupidity of the majority. The Senate was originally supposed to represent the will of the states while the House represented the people. The Founders decided on this with a compromise called the Virginia Plan, which allowed the small states to have an equal voice with a set number of senators while it granted the larger states some more power with a population-based House. Also, nice job poisoning the well. I can really tell that you dominated on your debate team with solid arguments like that!


I wish we had had a debate team at my public high school.
Somebody decided that the founders never intended for public monies to be collected for the purposes of instruction in the rhetorical arts so they cut the program.:(
 
I wish we had had a debate team at my public high school.
Somebody decided that the founders never intended for public monies to be collected for the purposes of instruction in the rhetorical arts so they cut the program.:(

I sense that you're implying I went to a private school. I'd like to quell those fears, since I also went to public school. I went to a good one, but I know somebody that went to a public school that was considered inner-city and they had a debate team. If I really hit a nerve, I sincerely hope that you can gain something from this. I'd recommend learning how to debate ( finding the pro and con in the argument, coming up with rational talking points, etc.) in order to thrive during med school interviews. As Aristotle once said, it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without necessarily accepting it.
 
I sense that you're implying I went to a private school. I'd like to quell those fears, since I also went to public school. I went to a good one, but I know somebody that went to a public school that was considered inner-city and they had a debate team. If I really hit a nerve, I sincerely hope that you can gain something from this. I'd recommend learning how to debate ( finding the pro and con in the argument, coming up with rational talking points, etc.) in order to thrive during med school interviews. As Aristotle once said, it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without necessarily accepting it.


That's not what I was getting at. I was mocking the idea that the constitution is sacrosanct and that anything not spelled out in it shouldn't be done, etc. etc. I only said public school because that would put the school under the jurisdiction of the federal govt.

But I sense that I, perhaps, may have accidentally hit a nerve in you.
 
That's not what I was getting at. I was mocking the idea that the constitution is sacrosanct and that anything not spelled out in it shouldn't be done, etc. etc. I only said public school because that would put the school under the jurisdiction of the federal govt.

But I sense that I, perhaps, may have accidentally hit a nerve in you.

Public school means it's managed by the local school board, whether that is a county or a municipality.

Unfortunately, no, I don't crumble that quickly. I am simply defending liberty and free-market capitalism, which isn't that hard when I'm debating with you.
 
Public school means it's managed by the local school board, whether that is a county or a municipality.

Unfortunately, no, I don't crumble that quickly. I am simply defending liberty and free-market capitalism, which isn't that hard when I'm debating with you.

Your self-righteousness is amusing.
Have fun "defending liberty and free-market capitalism."

[Insert "SUPER" teabagger meme]
 
Your self-righteousness is amusing.
Have fun "defending liberty and free-market capitalism."

[Insert "SUPER" teabagger meme]

A bit tangential, but I found it amusing.
 

Attachments

  • Slide1.jpg
    115.9 KB · Views: 30
Your self-righteousness is amusing.
Have fun "defending liberty and free-market capitalism."

[Insert "SUPER" teabagger meme]

Your arguments are amusing.

lib.jpg
 
The alternative is to not treat a group of rich, land-owning, slave-owning, dead guys' words as if they came from the lips of God. Instead, the Constitution can be treated as a guide that serves the needs of our current world.

I don't think you understand that the purpose of the constitution you describe is exactly what it does. You just don't like it because it doesn't support your views. The constitution spells out pretty simply what your rights are, what the government can do (narrowly), and what the government can't do (broadly).

The alternative is something like the UK, where you have no defined rights except those granted by law - which can just as easily be repealed. Personally I would prefer the currently dysfunctional but fundamentally sound constitutional system over the UK's system.

(sent from my phone - please forgive typos)
 
Members don't see this ad :)
The alternative is to not treat a group of rich, land-owning, slave-owning, dead guys' words as if they came from the lips of God. Instead, the Constitution can be treated as a guide that serves the needs of our current world.

The first ten amendments to the U.S. constitution AKA the bill of rights, comprise some of the greatest and most important words ever put to paper. To treat the document as something that "changes" with time can have terrible consequences.

For example, last year an American citizen was targeted and killed by a drone strike in the middle east. I have no sympathy for terrorists, but this type of action is completely counter to the 5th amendment which states that no citizens should be deprived of life, liberty, or property w/out due process of the law. In justifying the legal rational behind the strike, attorney general Eric Holder publicly stated that due process does not mean judicial process i.e. the decision to kill the guy was considered his due process. That's quite scary in my opinion.

Wake up folks. As much as the constitution has already been trampled on, things would be much worse w/out it in its original form. This is why the words of the constitution need to be taken literally. It is a timeless document, ever wonder why it's such an arduous process to amend it? To think our society is somehow beyond the constitution as it was written more than 200 years ago is a mistake.
 
Last edited:
I don't think you understand that the purpose of the constitution you describe is exactly what it does. You just don't like it because it doesn't support your views. The constitution spells out pretty simply what your rights are, what the government can do (narrowly), and what the government can't do (broadly).

The alternative is something like the UK, where you have no defined rights except those granted by law - which can just as easily be repealed. Personally I would prefer the currently dysfunctional but fundamentally sound constitutional system over the UK's system.

(sent from my phone - please forgive typos)

The constitution does not define what your rights are - it simply spells out, from the many that you have, which specific ones the government is not allowed to encroach upon. The rest are left upto the legislatures to decide.
 
I don't think you understand that the purpose of the constitution you describe is exactly what it does. You just don't like it because it doesn't support your views. The constitution spells out pretty simply what your rights are, what the government can do (narrowly), and what the government can't do (broadly).

The alternative is something like the UK, where you have no defined rights except those granted by law - which can just as easily be repealed. Personally I would prefer the currently dysfunctional but fundamentally sound constitutional system over the UK's system.

(sent from my phone - please forgive typos)



I understand what it's there for and just because I doesn't line up with my opinion doesn't mean I don't respect the intention of having certain rules. Also, I strive to have a measure of intellectual honesty in my arguments (unlike a WHOLE LOT of people in this community). I just think that the kind of fetishistic obsession with old rich guy-written 200+ year old document is more than a litle bit irrational (see Praefectus).
 
I understand what it's there for and just because I doesn't line up with my opinion doesn't mean I don't respect the intention of having certain rules. Also, I strive to have a measure of intellectual honesty in my arguments (unlike a WHOLE LOT of people in this community). I just think that the kind of fetishistic obsession with old rich guy-written 200+ year old document is more than a litle bit irrational (see Praefectus).

:lol:

Again, your argument devolves into more logical fallacies. If you're so sure that the Constitution needs to be trashed, list out concrete facts. You need to stop relying on ad hominem attacks and provide an actual rationale behind your thinking. The reason why we have a Constitution is to place limits upon the federal government, so that it does not infringe upon your rights. As a citizen you have unlimited rights, as long as your rights don't infringe on others. These rights are not granted at the whim of a ruler; they are your inalienable rights given to you when you were born. The government's rights are listed out in 7 articles and 27 amendments, but your rights are not written out on a piece of paper.
 
I'll be voting for Obama again.

Though, my main issue is foreign policy. I don't think Romney has the intestinal fortitude to stand up too a very concerted movement in this country to wage a preemptive war in Iran.

Just my opinion. I don't expect to be swayed by it, nor am I going to waste my time trying to convince others who to vote for.
 
So this discussion has moved towards wolfie77 vs Praefectus.
 
I'll be voting for Obama again.

Though, my main issue is foreign policy. I don't think Romney has the intestinal fortitude to stand up too a very concerted movement in this country to wage a preemptive war in Iran.

As a child of Iranian immigrants, I think we need to be rational and calm with Iran, yet stand strong with Israel when we need to. I am skeptical of a supposed leader who claims Russia is our greatest geo-political foe, and I instead stand with the President that has been more effective in Iraq and Afghanistan, while surgically eliminating the most wanted terrorists in the world, than Baby Bush was in 8 years.

President Obama gets my humble vote.
 
Neither of them are going to do a damn thing if they are in office. Look what our country has become in the new century. Our government is a joke that handcuffs its own hands behind its back.
 
Neither of them are going to do a damn thing if they are in office. Look what our country has become in the new century. Our government is a joke that handcuffs its own hands behind its back.

I would disagree.
 
One of the only things I like about Obamacare is the requirement for everyone to have health insurance or pay a fee.
 
As a child of Iranian immigrants, I think we need to be rational and calm with Iran, yet stand strong with Israel when we need to. I am skeptical of a supposed leader who claims Russia is our greatest geo-political foe, and I instead stand with the President that has been more effective in Iraq and Afghanistan, while surgically eliminating the most wanted terrorists in the world, than Baby Bush was in 8 years.

President Obama gets my humble vote.

President Obama did nothing special. It was SEALs who took out Bin Laden, and his decision was a no-brainer.

Edit: That said, the current batch of Republicans is a bit more aggressive than I would like. That's why Ron Paul has been so important in the debates (among other reasons).
 
Last edited:
As a child of Iranian immigrants, I think we need to be rational and calm with Iran, yet stand strong with Israel when we need to. I am skeptical of a supposed leader who claims Russia is our greatest geo-political foe, and I instead stand with the President that has been more effective in Iraq and Afghanistan, while surgically eliminating the most wanted terrorists in the world, than Baby Bush was in 8 years.

President Obama gets my humble vote.

I agree. I spent a year in Afghanistan as an Infantry Officer. I am proud of my service, but war is an atrocity and this notion of "pre-emptive war" is criminal.

If my paycheck gets screwed up, that's bad. If I am complicit in policy that has 18 year olds going off to die for a war that has nothing to do with supporting and defending the constitution of the United States, that's worse.
 
President Obama did nothing special. It was SEALs who took out Bin Laden, and his decision was a no-brainer.

Ummm, it was Romney in the last election who said he wouldn't go into Pakistan to get Bin Laden. Those SEALs did do miraculous work, but they became the most powerful force IN THE FIELD under President Obama. This "Socialist hippie" has become one of the strongest Presidents in our history in terms of national defense.
 
I agree. I spent a year in Afghanistan as an Infantry Officer. I am proud of my service, but war is an atrocity and this notion of "pre-emptive war" is criminal.

If my paycheck gets screwed up, that's bad. If I am complicit in policy that has 18 year olds going off to die for a war that has nothing to do with supporting and defending the constitution of the United States, that's worse.

Very well said.
 

No President will ever get it completely right. But with all the garbage Bush left for him, for all the closet-racism he has faced in office, and for all the obstruction towards progress he has faced in terms of policy, President Obama has done the best that any one could have possibly done to move this country forward.
 
No President will ever get it completely right. But with all the garbage Bush left for him, for all the closet-racism he has faced in office, and for all the obstruction towards progress he has faced in terms of policy, President Obama has done the best that any one could have possibly done to move this country forward.

It's pathetic that practically in the same breath, you credit Obama for the assassination of OBL and blame Bush for all the bad stuff.

"The path to Bin Laden's death didn't start with Obama" - http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...t-with-obama/2012/04/30/gIQAfFmdsT_story.html
 
Ummm, it was Romney in the last election who said he wouldn't go into Pakistan to get Bin Laden. Those SEALs did do miraculous work, but they became the most powerful force IN THE FIELD under President Obama. This "Socialist hippie" has become one of the strongest Presidents in our history in terms of national defense.

Yes, especially with the politically-beneficial national security leaks from his administration.
 
I agree. I spent a year in Afghanistan as an Infantry Officer. I am proud of my service, but war is an atrocity and this notion of "pre-emptive war" is criminal.

If my paycheck gets screwed up, that's bad. If I am complicit in policy that has 18 year olds going off to die for a war that has nothing to do with supporting and defending the constitution of the United States, that's worse.

As far as I know, the military is still 100% voluntary. Nobody is forcing these 18 year olds to go to war. They're choosing it. I'm very grateful for our troops and their service, (and I know you're not alluding to this at all) but I get sick of hearing veterans complain about all they do for the country and get nothing in return.
 
President Obama did nothing special. It was SEALs who took out Bin Laden, and his decision was a no-brainer.

Horsecrap. Only the POTUS could have green lighted that raid. That was his role. He is the CINC.

That raid was sufficiently risky. They inserted in Blackhawks without letting Pakistan know about it (since the ISI was likely hiding Bin Laden). Pakistan would have been in their rights to scramble fixed wing and blow the helos out of the sky. If that would have happened, it would have been a disaster on a level that dwarfed Desert 1 and a ton of Americans would be dead. The political fallout for Obama would have been his job and likely impeachment/removal.

It's annoying that the right can't even give credit where due. You sure would have applied credit if it would have been a disaster
 
As far as I know, the military is still 100% voluntary. Nobody is forcing these 18 year olds to go to war. They're choosing it. I'm very grateful for our troops and their service, (and I know you're not alluding to this at all) but I get sick of hearing veterans complain about all they do for the country and get nothing in return.

Hmmm, that's a difficult response to accept. Presidents ought not to be careless with troops' lives, and should only put them at risk when such is in America's interests.
 
As far as I know, the military is still 100% voluntary. Nobody is forcing these 18 year olds to go to war. They're choosing it. I'm very grateful for our troops and their service, (and I know you're not alluding to this at all) but I get sick of hearing veterans complain about all they do for the country and get nothing in return.

I am not complaining about anything. I have no idea what you are ranting about.
 
It's pathetic that practically in the same breath, you credit Obama for the assassination of OBL and blame Bush for all the bad stuff.

"The path to Bin Laden's death didn't start with Obama" - http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...t-with-obama/2012/04/30/gIQAfFmdsT_story.html

Pathetic? This is a discourse, act like a physician. You can disagree, but no need to be patronizing. But of course, it's okay for a conservative to be patronizing if they are setting a liberal straight, right?

Yes, especially with the politically-beneficial national security leaks from his administration.

Scooter Libby anyone? Oh wait, only President Obama's administration is guilty of politicizing an issue and compromising our trust.

Spot on dude.
 
Horsecrap. Only the POTUS could have green lighted that raid. That was his role. He is the CINC.

That raid was sufficiently risky. They inserted in Blackhawks without letting Pakistan know about it (since the ISI was likely hiding Bin Laden). Pakistan would have been in their rights to scramble fixed wing and blow the helos out of the sky. If that would have happened, it would have been a disaster on a level that dwarfed Desert 1 and a ton of Americans would be dead. The political fallout for Obama would have been his job and likely impeachment/removal.

It's annoying that the right can't even give credit where due. You sure would have applied credit if it would have been a disaster

I am not complaining about anything. I have no idea what you are ranting about.

Very well said again.
 
Hmmm, that's a difficult response to accept. Presidents ought not to be careless with troops' lives, and should only put them at risk when such is in America's interests.

It's no secret that the current (and past) administration are sending troops places they don't belong. Anyone with half a brain can see that and, if they voluntarily sign up, know that there's a possibility they'll end up at war.


I am not complaining about anything. I have no idea what you are ranting about.

I didn't say you were complaining about anything.
 
Horsecrap. Only the POTUS could have green lighted that raid. That was his role. He is the CINC.

That raid was sufficiently risky. They inserted in Blackhawks without letting Pakistan know about it (since the ISI was likely hiding Bin Laden). Pakistan would have been in their rights to scramble fixed wing and blow the helos out of the sky. If that would have happened, it would have been a disaster on a level that dwarfed Desert 1 and a ton of Americans would be dead. The political fallout for Obama would have been his job and likely impeachment/removal.

It's annoying that the right can't even give credit where due. You sure would have applied credit if it would have been a disaster

No need to stretch the truth. Everybody gives Obama credit for making the politically-risky call. That said, everyone is also of the opinion that any president would have OK'd the strike.

What annoys some of us is when people say stupid things like "Obama took out OBL." Um, no, he didn't. The SEAL team did. But yes, it was probably President Obama's finest moment (quickly undone when he said "I" and "me" about thirty times in that speech he gave right after).
 
no need to stretch the truth. Everybody gives obama credit for making the politically-risky call. That said, everyone is also of the opinion that any president would have ok'd the strike.

What annoys some of us is when people say stupid things like "obama took out obl." um, no, he didn't. The seal team did. But yes, it was probably president obama's finest moment (quickly undone when he said "i" and "me" about thirty times in that speech he gave right after).

+1
 
Pathetic? This is a discourse, act like a physician. You can disagree, but no need to be patronizing. But of course, it's okay for a conservative to be patronizing if they are setting a liberal straight, right?



Scooter Libby anyone? Oh wait, only President Obama's administration is guilty of politicizing an issue and compromising our trust.

Spot on dude.

Hypocrisy is pathetic.

As to your second point, I'm sure you've heard that two wrongs don't make a right. You tried to make a point about this president and national defense, and Scooter Libby has no bearing on that. I did not say only the Obama administration has committed such breaches of security.
 
No need to stretch the truth. 1) Everybody gives Obama credit for making the politically-risky call. 2) That said, everyone is also of the opinion that any president would have OK'd the strike.

What annoys some of us is when people say stupid things like "Obama took out OBL." Um, no, he didn't. The SEAL team did. But yes, it was probably President Obama's finest moment 3) (quickly undone when he said "I" and "me" about thirty times in that speech he gave right after).

1) I haven't read you express the slightest acknowledgement of credit towards the President for this tough move

2) According to the presumptive savior of our economy because he was a clearly left of center governor, Mr. Romney has clearly stated that he would not pursue Osama Bin Laden across the Pakistani border.

3) President Bush was known to use the words "I" and "me" in a few speeches as well. That is the nature of a presidential speech, and the English language in general, for that matter. These words tend to be used. But of course, if an elitist like President Obama uses these words in his speech, he is stroking his own ego. What do you suggest he do? Name each SEAL, put up their pictures in front of the cameras, and release their home addresses so we can all send flowers to their families in appreciation?
 
It's no secret that the current (and past) administration are sending troops places they don't belong. Anyone with half a brain can see that and, if they voluntarily sign up, know that there's a possibility they'll end up at war.




I didn't say you were complaining about anything.

Okay.......

I guess this:

but I get sick of hearing veterans complain about all they do for the country and get nothing in return.

Was directed at someone else then....... At any rate, I've never heard any other veteran verbalize that they "get nothing in return". I certainly don't feel that way either. Then again, I didn't do it for the perks.

Whatever you were griping about, Dave89 nailed it on the head. Men and women sign up with the expectation that they will be used in an manner consistent with the oath they took. It's ignorant to imply that, simply because they volunteered, they deserve to be sent to whatever hell hole the president sends them too.
 
No need to stretch the truth. Everybody gives Obama credit for making the politically-risky call. That said, everyone is also of the opinion that any president would have OK'd the strike.

No. You are of the opinion that any president would have OK'd the strike. I am of the opinion that Romney, ever the consummate politician, would never have done so.

Again, if people think this was an easy call with no risk, they are clueless.

What annoys some of us is when people say stupid things like "Obama took out OBL." Um, no, he didn't. The SEAL team did. But yes, it was probably President Obama's finest moment (quickly undone when he said "I" and "me" about thirty times in that speech he gave right after).

And the helicopter pilots got them there, and the CIA got the intel, and all the way up to every piece of the raid working correctly to equal success.

Almost like it was a military operation or something...
 
Already made the easy decision to vote for Obama instead of lolRomney, but watching this so far makes me cringe listening to Romney.

Switching back to baseball :)
 
Already made the easy decision to vote for Obama instead of lolRomney, but watching this so far makes me cringe listening to Romney.

Switching back to baseball :)

I'm Republican and I'm voting for Obama. I don't want to be caught dead on the Romney train.
 
I think Romney is handling himself pretty well. Keep in mind that Joe Public people will be impressed if he does anything beyond pander to the Tea Party nuts. That's probably their perception of him right now.

(sent from my phone)
 
Top