Warrior General Games

Originally posted by hutchins929


On "Drill Baby Drill" You say that the oil that they get from drilling wont help us now. Well, that was the same argument in the mid 90's well that would be helping us now and I'm sure in 10 to 15 years we'll still need it. So just because it wont help us immediately we shouldn't try to help ourselves out down the road? there is countless amounts of oil in Alaska that Barack Obama wouldn't let us touch. On top of that... "Studies over the years by industry and government alike estimate that there may be between 800 billion and more than one trillion barrels of oil locked up in these rocks--nearly three times the known reserves in Saudi Arabia. That would be enough oil to supply America for the next 400 years." I read that at http://www.newsweek.com/id/146161 about the possibilities in "Wyoming, Utah, and especially Colorado's Western Slope."

Also what "Lies" are you referring to about McCain's ad's? Yeah there have been some shoddy politics. But, they have been on both sides of the fence. I'm curious to here what your talking about because not all ad's are from the McCain camp or the Obama camp. Their are independent groups that pay for ad's all the time. However many real questions have been brought up pertaining to Obama. Like his relationship with Bill Ayers. The guy who bombed the capital. The same Bill Ayers who donated to the Obama campaign. The fact that he was a member of a church who's "Pastor" after 9/11 preached "God Damn America" behind his pulpit. Obama in turn left that church. but, not for nearly 7 years after the fact. And, not until it became public knowledge. At the very least it brings up questions about the people in whom he keeps in his company.

You're acting like you're not being short sighted about the problem by promoting drilling now because it'll help us in over a decade. The reality is it is time pour substantial efforts into alternative fuel sources. This goes beyond just financially and providing a governmental guided mandate to strive towards it, but to stimulate better education and focus on engineering, technological and other science based fields to keep our innovation and progress going forward. We're beginning to stagnate relative to the world around us.

Beyond this, I'm tired of people like you who focus on attacking the candidates repeatedly rather than striving for solutions. I'm tired of hearing bullshit about petty things like Obama's past drug use. Why aren't you firing away at McCain in the same way as he has many flaws that can be easily harped on to paint him something that he truly is not?

Let's hear your rational solutions and justifications for the issues that face our country. Tell me what candidates you know have the ability or plans to solve these problems.
Shut the fuck up with your inane bashing, mud slinging and bullshit; save that for the trash talk on the Capitals.

Originally posted by Stickman
Originally posted by tjking82

Originally posted by Pariah


Socialist democracy needs to strongly be looked at as a political model that could be intertwined here in America.

Well, some would say it is already working its way in the government here - but is it really? Or is it just a guise to keep some Americans happy thinking things are changing?



What the fuck?! You people make me sick. Man, maybe my next switch should be to an intelligent league.

Actually the fact that this conversation has gone on as civilly as it has seems to indicate that this is likely one of the more intelligent leagues around....I have to say that I'm impressed that this hasn't spiraled into a FU fest....


Originally posted by tjking82


Our democracy is becoming more and more socialist with our Robin Hood government, which takes from the rich to give to the poor, you are right there. Not coincidentally, we are also losing our place amongst the world's leaders in innovation. Can I prove causation, no. But there are sensible explanations for why a system which redistributes wealth will not cultivate innovation nearly as much as one based on pure capitalism.

While I can see some values to your argument, I think that other factors also contribute. Specifically having a presidential administration that doesn't value science, and therefore does not adequately fund the research which leads to the innovation. If we want to maintain/regain our status as the world leaders in innovation (outside of military technology) we need to invest heavily in biomedical sciences and engineering. Dramatically increasing the funding towards renewable energy (not corn based ethanol, that's not very energy efficient and is a whole other argument) such as wind, solar and geothermal would be good good places to start.

Thanks,
StickMan


1) Yes, I was harsh, and I intended to come back and edit out the insult. I actually feel rather bad about it.

2) The beautiful thing about capitalism is that it aligns every individual's private profit incentive with the good of the whole, the advancement of society. It's funny, the further along this road to socialism we get, the more we need government funding for things. Why? Well because the individuals and corporations are losing incentive to do the research themselves. Less profit motive = less industrious society, it should not be difficult to see...and in this case, many private research projects not undertaken. So what's the solution? More government funding? Which will come from where...predominantely the pockets of the wealthy. Evidently it's even MORE wealth redistribution. Seems like a cycle.

3) I agree with you. If we're gonna try to cut use of nonrenewable energy, industrial corn cannot be part of the solution. I think one of the worst things about our country right now is farm subsidies, and the effect it is having on our economy, dependence on foreign oils, and obesity levels. Oh, and it doesn't really help farmers either.

Originally posted by hutchins929

On "Drill Baby Drill" You say that the oil that they get from drilling wont help us now. Well, that was the same argument in the mid 90's well that would be helping us now and I'm sure in 10 to 15 years we'll still need it. So just because it wont help us immediately we shouldn't try to help ourselves out down the road? there is countless amounts of oil in Alaska that Barack Obama wouldn't let us touch. On top of that... "Studies over the years by industry and government alike estimate that there may be between 800 billion and more than one trillion barrels of oil locked up in these rocks--nearly three times the known reserves in Saudi Arabia. That would be enough oil to supply America for the next 400 years." I read that at http://www.newsweek.com/id/146161 about the possibilities in "Wyoming, Utah, and especially Colorado's Western Slope."

Also what "Lies" are you referring to about McCain's ad's? Yeah there have been some shoddy politics. But, they have been on both sides of the fence. I'm curious to here what your talking about because not all ad's are from the McCain camp or the Obama camp. Their are independent groups that pay for ad's all the time. However many real questions have been brought up pertaining to Obama. Like his relationship with Bill Ayers. The guy who bombed the capital. The same Bill Ayers who donated to the Obama campaign. The fact that he was a member of a church who's "Pastor" after 9/11 preached "God Damn America" behind his pulpit. Obama in turn left that church. but, not for nearly 7 years after the fact. And, not until it became public knowledge. At the very least it brings up questions about the people in whom he keeps in his company.

Sure, we're still going to need oil in 20 years, but there are better ways to focus our efforts and investments. If we'd started looking at alternative fuels more seriously back in the 70's when oil screwed us the first time, we'd likely be much less oil dependent than we are now. That's where I'd put my money. into research to figure out new ways to run our cars, so that we don't have to have all that oil. Can you imagine a bigger better FU you the middle east and Russia than saying eh, we don't need your damn oil anymore? Go rot in the desert....

As for getting all the oil we need from within our borders, did you read all of that article? There are significant technical and political hurdles to getting that oil. Oil would have to stay at or above $140 a barrel (about $4/gallon gas), and even at that, RAND corporation (a conservative think tank) says that the technology may not exist for that to be profitable for another 12 years, maybe never. combine that with how it tears up the environment, in a region known for crunchy environmentalists (colorado) and the damage it could do to already potentially scarce water supplies in the American southwest, and that will be a political suicide to back that in the region where the oil is. So sure, put in the research and see if someone can get that to work, but there should be competing technologies, so we can have a choice as to which one's better.

Finally as for the lie's McCain's campaign has put out, how about the ad stating that Obama supported sex education for kindergartners...the bill he supported was aimed at helping to prevent sexual molestation of young children.
Or most of the things McCain has said about Obama's tax plans. Or when they accused Obama of being sexist towards Gov. Palin with the "lipstick on a pig comments"

Factcheck.org is a good impartial site where people can go to find out if what people say is really true or not. Go there and you'll find out stuff about both parties and how they play politics.

Obama's said some things that are false as well, and I think he could win this even without those, so I wish he wouldn't have done those ads, but don't try to make it as if McCain hasn't done anything wrong. For Christ's sake, even Karl Rove said McCain's ads had gone too far. Are you shitting me, the devil's right hand man in right wing politics, actually said McCain went too far? Dude, that's got to be a sign to clean your act up.

As for Bill Ayers...seriously, you're going to bash a political candidate for the actions of someone else? A free individual (although a likely grade-A jackass) who has the power to make decisions for himself, and which Sen. Obama nor Sen. McCain have control over? he donated $200 to Obama's re-election campaign in 2001 for state senate. They lived in the same district, so it's entirely plausible that this is just coincidence. here's an article exploring the connection if you want to read up on it....there's not much to it.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_weatherman_connection.html

Be careful what kind of can of worms you open by calling out associates of the candidates, because as the economic issues gain more focus, it looks like McCain is going to have a lot closer ties to the guilty parties than Obama.

Oh and it looks like Palin has a crazy pastor now as well. Great.

Do you know if your pastor has spouted off about some crazy radical stuff or not? What about your boss, or your neighbor? Man, people do some crazy shit, so to judge people by people they've had some association with seems a bit of a stretch to me. I think I have pretty upstanding people around me in my life, but you never know everything.
If someone made a conscious decision to follow those questionable actions, then that's fair game, but otherwise I don't see how digging thru anyone a candidate has ever known gets us anywhere useful. Rather this distracts us from the real issues that we should be focusing on, such as the economy, the wars, social security, health care and what plans the candidates have for those.

Thanks,
StickMan

Originally posted by Admerylous
Originally posted by hutchins929



On "Drill Baby Drill" You say that the oil that they get from drilling wont help us now. Well, that was the same argument in the mid 90's well that would be helping us now and I'm sure in 10 to 15 years we'll still need it. So just because it wont help us immediately we shouldn't try to help ourselves out down the road? there is countless amounts of oil in Alaska that Barack Obama wouldn't let us touch. On top of that... "Studies over the years by industry and government alike estimate that there may be between 800 billion and more than one trillion barrels of oil locked up in these rocks--nearly three times the known reserves in Saudi Arabia. That would be enough oil to supply America for the next 400 years." I read that at http://www.newsweek.com/id/146161 about the possibilities in "Wyoming, Utah, and especially Colorado's Western Slope."

Also what "Lies" are you referring to about McCain's ad's? Yeah there have been some shoddy politics. But, they have been on both sides of the fence. I'm curious to here what your talking about because not all ad's are from the McCain camp or the Obama camp. Their are independent groups that pay for ad's all the time. However many real questions have been brought up pertaining to Obama. Like his relationship with Bill Ayers. The guy who bombed the capital. The same Bill Ayers who donated to the Obama campaign. The fact that he was a member of a church who's "Pastor" after 9/11 preached "God Damn America" behind his pulpit. Obama in turn left that church. but, not for nearly 7 years after the fact. And, not until it became public knowledge. At the very least it brings up questions about the people in whom he keeps in his company.

You're acting like you're not being short sighted about the problem by promoting drilling now because it'll help us in over a decade. The reality is it is time pour substantial efforts into alternative fuel sources. This goes beyond just financially and providing a governmental guided mandate to strive towards it, but to stimulate better education and focus on engineering, technological and other science based fields to keep our innovation and progress going forward. We're beginning to stagnate relative to the world around us.

Beyond this, I'm tired of people like you who focus on attacking the candidates repeatedly rather than striving for solutions. I'm tired of hearing bullshit about petty things like Obama's past drug use. Why aren't you firing away at McCain in the same way as he has many flaws that can be easily harped on to paint him something that he truly is not?

Let's hear your rational solutions and justifications for the issues that face our country. Tell me what candidates you know have the ability or plans to solve these problems.
Shut the fuck up with your inane bashing, mud slinging and bullshit; save that for the trash talk on the Capitals.

Damn son, you will never hear me say this outside this forum, but impressive. I fully agree. For most extreme left AND extreme right people, they would rather invest millions of dollars and countless amounts of time proving each other wrong that working in a truly "democratic" way to find out what is right.

And when I say "find out what is right" I mean find out what can work better to help strengthen and better our country now and going forward into the future. If that means adopting facets of other other "political belief systems" into our own (including socialism) and this can be applied and help us get better, then I am all for it.

I think that giving individual states more power and funding to be able to have "socialistic" systems in order to help people get state run health care, is a good thing. And this is just one snippet of an example, but it needs to start somewhere. People can always have the option to go the privatized route - but it shouldn't be the only option. That creates an oligarchy of power giving the control to only big business and the "elite."

And I won't get too deep into big business. There should be tax cuts for companies to remain in this country, and there should be penalties on those that move out of the country and don't bank within the country but are "American" corporations. I wrote a 19 page paper on this. I'm not going further here.

Originally posted by Pariah
I think that giving individual states more power and funding to be able to have "socialistic" systems in order to help people get state run health care, is a good thing. And this is just one snippet of an example, but it needs to start somewhere. People can always have the option to go the privatized route - but it shouldn't be the only option. That creates an oligarchy of power giving the control to only big business and the "elite."

I think the federal government should step down a peg and let states decide whether they want to operate as fully capitalist, fully socialist, or anywhere in between. That would be wonderful, I would love that. Why can't we do that right now?

Stickman, I think we're on the same wavelength here. You're just a bit more reserved (and drop less 'F' bombs) than I am.

So, what does everyone think of McCain's postponement move today?
I have to give it to McCain and his camp. This was one sly damn move. He's totally got Obama hurting over this no matter what he does.


EDIT: I too love increased power to states. 50 little microcosms of America working (and competing) together. I'm definitely moving to the Northeast or Northwest in that world.

Originally posted by Admerylous
So, what does everyone think of McCain's postponement move today?
I have to give it to McCain and his camp. This was one sly damn move. He's totally got Obama hurting over this no matter what he does.


EDIT: I too love increased power to states. 50 little microcosms of America working (and competing) together. I'm definitely moving to the Northeast or Northwest in that world.

Agree and agree. But Federal government will never willingly relinquish that power for the states...and given as the Republican and Democratic parties are two major winners in the big government system, you can bet neither party's candidate will EVER move power to the states and leave the federal government at a manageable size. Even if they have the best interests of America at heart, their party will NEVER let them do it.

PS - think it's funny that you guys are all circlejerking about how much you agree and ignoring my comments. But I see how it is, if you never have to confront those of different viewpoints, you can never be wrong! Eh well, I get frustrated by people like you anyway. I'm done.

Originally posted by tjking82
Originally posted by Pariah

I think that giving individual states more power and funding to be able to have "socialistic" systems in order to help people get state run health care, is a good thing. And this is just one snippet of an example, but it needs to start somewhere. People can always have the option to go the privatized route - but it shouldn't be the only option. That creates an oligarchy of power giving the control to only big business and the "elite."

I think the federal government should step down a peg and let states decide whether they want to operate as fully capitalist, fully socialist, or anywhere in between. That would be wonderful, I would love that. Why can't we do that right now?

That's extreme.

But the Massachusetts state run health care works well for those that need it. I can only use this example because I used to lived next door and the ones that have it and need it like it. Of course those that don't need it and are lucky enough to have privatized health care hate it and talk a lot of shit about it (typical).

I used the state level power because national programs tend to suck. So a national socialist system is not ideal. But to give more "power" or funding to states to run "socialist" style programs to help people, would eliminate the need for crappy nationally run programs in some aspects.

^
I
I
I
I




Originally posted by tjking82
PS - think it's funny that you guys are all circlejerking about how much you agree and ignoring my comments. But I see how it is, if you never have to confront those of different viewpoints, you can never be wrong! Eh well, I get frustrated by people like you anyway. I'm done.

Ahhhh, Im no elitist - I am anything but an expert at this shit. I just have some views I like to share. And I like to hear other peoples points.

Originally posted by tjking82
PS - think it's funny that you guys are all circlejerking about how much you agree and ignoring my comments. But I see how it is, if you never have to confront those of different viewpoints, you can never be wrong! Eh well, I get frustrated by people like you anyway. I'm done.

Is that why you just joined the "circlejerk" and agreed with two of my points in your post previous to this one?

I'll address one of your comments now, though. CERTAIN companies profit from the benefit of innovation and at the same time help people, ie. pharmaceutical manufacturers. OTHER companies do not benefit from innovation in fields we really need to be fostering and ultimately have become problematic in our country, ie. big oil. The latter also unfortunately has substantial political sway (well, so does the former, don't get me wrong) to maintain the status quo as it benefits them FAR more so than it benefits the nation as a whole.

Just depending on the scenario, the people at the controls and so forth capitalism can be bent to help and hell bent to destroy all in the way.

Originally posted by Pariah

^
I
I
I
I




Originally posted by tjking82

PS - think it's funny that you guys are all circlejerking about how much you agree and ignoring my comments. But I see how it is, if you never have to confront those of different viewpoints, you can never be wrong! Eh well, I get frustrated by people like you anyway. I'm done.

Ahhhh, Im no elitist - I am anything but an expert at this shit. I just have some views I like to share. And I like to hear other peoples points.


DAMN YOU and your slow typing!

Originally posted by Pariah
Originally posted by tjking82

Originally posted by Pariah


I think that giving individual states more power and funding to be able to have "socialistic" systems in order to help people get state run health care, is a good thing. And this is just one snippet of an example, but it needs to start somewhere. People can always have the option to go the privatized route - but it shouldn't be the only option. That creates an oligarchy of power giving the control to only big business and the "elite."

I think the federal government should step down a peg and let states decide whether they want to operate as fully capitalist, fully socialist, or anywhere in between. That would be wonderful, I would love that. Why can't we do that right now?

That's extreme.

But the Massachusetts state run health care works well for those that need it. I can only use this example because I used to lived next door and the ones that have it and need it like it. Of course those that don't need it and are lucky enough to have privatized health care hate it and talk a lot of shit about it (typical).

I used the state level power because national programs tend to suck. So a national socialist system is not ideal. But to give more "power" or funding to states to run "socialist" style programs to help people, would eliminate the need for crappy nationally run programs in some aspects.



Wait so you want states to have the option to become more socialistic but not less? They already have this power. The only change is you want the federal government to fund their socialism. You want a federal government to pull even more taxes from the wealthy to support the poor in states where they do not live. I'm just clarifying, is that right?

Originally posted by tjking82
Originally posted by Pariah


^
I
I
I
I




Originally posted by tjking82


PS - think it's funny that you guys are all circlejerking about how much you agree and ignoring my comments. But I see how it is, if you never have to confront those of different viewpoints, you can never be wrong! Eh well, I get frustrated by people like you anyway. I'm done.

Ahhhh, Im no elitist - I am anything but an expert at this shit. I just have some views I like to share. And I like to hear other peoples points.


DAMN YOU and your slow typing!

Dude you can't be mean with that avatar.

And that is a good point. Maybe all the CEOs of the most successful businesses and sleazy politicians should be forced to wear T-Shirts of kittens on them. Then no one would ever think they were destroying the world.

Originally posted by Pariah
Dude you can't be mean with that avatar.

And that is a good point. Maybe all the CEOs of the most successful businesses and sleazy politicians should be forced to wear T-Shirts of kittens on them. Then no one would ever think they were destroying the world.

I have since come to realize that is a major asset of my avatar, yes.