Jump to content

The Next President of the USA will be?


Who will win the Presidency in 2008?  

282 members have voted

  1. 1. Who Wins in 2008?

    • Hillary Clinton
      47
    • Rudy Giuliani
      9
    • John Edwards
      7
    • Mike Huckabee
      7
    • John McCain
      42
    • Barack Obama
      136
    • Ron Paul
      21
    • Mitt Romney
      9
    • Bill Richardson
      1
    • Fred Thompson
      3


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 6.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yeah.

Hence.. "SHOCK and awe". <_<

Thanks for posting that video, Patrycja. I've heard Naomi talk about 'The Shock Doctrine' and 'Disaster Capitalism' on the radio, but I'd never seen that video before. Imho, its a must see.

It gives some insight into how the shock of trauma.. real OR perceived.. like that which was experienced on 9/11/01 (real) or that which was fabricated with regard to iraqi WMD (perceived) .. can leave people so disoriented and so AFRAID that the most fearful among us are willing to go along with (rationalize, justify, and support) such clearly un-American and un-democratic policies and practices such as torture, domestic spying, the suspension of habeus corpus, preemptive invasions, etc... all the while waving the American flag and claiming themselves to be "patriots" and "REAL AMERICANS".

You can see that the most fearful among us.. the most regressed among us.. look to a "father figure" who promises safety and security; and regardless of that person's limited ability to actually provide safety and security, the fearful-and-regressed wholeheartedly place their trust in that person, believing that he'll keep them safe from the bogeyman. If that daddy-figure says "you must sacrifice civil liberties so I can keep you safe, my child", the fearful-and-regressed respond by saying "Do whatever you gotta do, daddy! I trust you to keep me safe and I trust that my safety is first and foremost on your agenda!". They hear John McCain say "I'll follow bin Laden to the gates of Hell if that what it takes to protect Americans!" and "I will defeat evil!".. and they swoon, fully believing that a 72 year old man will do "whatever it takes!" to keep them safe and sound.. even if that means violating core American, democratic, and human rights principles... all the while proclaiming themselves "patriots" and "REAL AMERICANS". Talk about self-delusion! :blink:

The more mature and rational among us don't look to the false bravado and braggadocio of a daddy figure to keep them safe; they remain grounded in their principles, and look to leaders who display an even-keeled temperament, thoughtfulness, and wisdom; leaders who, like them, aren't willing to sacrifice precious civil liberties or condone torture in response to being in danger. They stand firmly on the foundation of democratic principles and human rights values; they recognize the limitations of military action against an ideology such as militant Islamic extremism or against a tactic such as "terrorism"; they recognize that there are no guarantees of ultimate safety in a free and open society, and they recognize that it will require a balanced, thoughtful, rational approach to keep them as safe as possible.

The irony is that it's the most-fearful and the most-regressed (child-like) among us.. those who look to George Bush and John McCain as father-figure-like protectors and guarantors of safety and security.. who are also the most tough-talking.. the most pro-war.. the most willingly duped.. among us. :rolleyes:

Anyway..

thanks again for posting the video, Patrycja. :hippy:

Hi One Drop, you're most welcome, and even though sometimes these types of short docs can be a bit incendiary (they are designed to get people talking, after all), I agree with it's core and with your assessment.

In addition to keeping people in a state of fear and looking to a 'father-figure' type, they also more readily accept a president who adopts 'commander-in-chief' as an alternate understanding of 'president'. Both come with that built-in notion of not questioning authority and it is subtly reinforced that you'd have to answer to two strong forces (which cover nicely people's roles as children and adults) on personal and social levels. What it also does then is reduce the debate about the necessary qualifications to run for office, and not to take anything away from McCain and his military service - it stands very well on its own - it has inevitably become a political tool, and sorry, but it can't be put on the resume under foreign policy experience.

The issue of sacrificing civil liberties in this scenario is worth ongoing examination because people go from expecting things to return to how they were to just accepting that it is now the norm, worse still, accepting the reasons for it. All you have to do is put out another nation-wide alert 'Yellow!' ... 'Orange!!!' and with a soon-to-end never-ending war, it is easy to get people to comply. Or you just just distract people with heaps of reality tv while policies and civil liberties are changed. I'm not sure on which side of the ocean is the greater sleeping giant.

A pleasure, One Drop :beer:

Cheers,

P

Link to post
Share on other sites
The teen pregnancies count for the largest group of abortions, so this group should be given education, education and more education. I am glad i was smart enough to use birth control when i became active. That is the key. oh btw...funny, not only does Alaska have one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy, but i heard that they also have the highest rate of STD's in the country (i believe it was 44 %). This is a group of people who need to get some schooling (or do some cooling).

I don't find that funny at all.

First, I'd like to know where you got that statistic.

And if it or something of its nature is true, I'd like to add that a lot of that is probably because of all the native villages who aren't educated at all. I don't even know if these people have access to birth control.

Here in Anchorage, the more civilized, modern cities, I don't believe it's that much of a problem.

Sarah Palin has made it okay to hunt anything anyone damn well pleases.

Actually, to my knowledge, she hasn't done anything of that nature. I have no idea where you got that notion. :huh:

And to clear up something about the aerial hunting of wolves - it's not "for no reason". It's predator control, and it is saving our moose. We love our moose.

Also, I don't believe anyone is allowed to shoot anything directly from a plane - not even fish and game officials. The point is to find wolves with the plane, land, then do the dirty work. I'll admit, I see some ethics issues too. But so many people believe these shit ads, then try to persuade others with their false ideas. It puts me off sometimes, and I just wanted to clear things up for those of you who have been misled.

Carry on.

Edited by Matthew!
Link to post
Share on other sites
^

honestly, it appears you are misled about the aerial gunning. They shoot from the plane, that's why it's called aerial gunning. But we all understand wolves can be a nusiance.

...........Nope. We actually just voted on a ballot measure related to this. They wanted to expand the 'aerial gunning' rules, that are already applied to wolves, to grizzly bears. The rules that say you can't fly in a plane, land, and hunt them in the same day. The rules that say only fish and game officials are allowed to do it. To my knowledge, nobody is allowed to shoot animals from a plane.

Though I think I will do some reading on it, try to find the actual legislation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I respetfully disagree. I believe such people are a minority. The Republicans have played these folks for years. There has never actually been a conservative President in our lifetime. Reagan was as close as they came, and he was pulled to the center. Certainly neither Bush was a conservative. Jr. talks a good game, but he sure does like to spend money like a Democrat. It's no different than abortion. For all the complaining, it's been law for over a generation. That's because the law pleases the majority, not the conservative vocal minority. The Repugnants have consistantly played the religious right for years. There all just too ignorant to notice that none of their agenda has ever actually come true.

I understand what you're saying, and fair enough, but to an outsider's perspective, Americans in the majority do seem to hold moral issues at an important, almost deciding level when it comes to election time.

That's why I find US elections so fascinating because topics crop up that just don't happen in my country or in Europe, and these are mostly topics of a moral quality. And I think it is this concern with morality issues that a lot of Americans have that often decide elections in favour of the Republicans.

From my point of view, it seems the Democrats are forced into morality discussions because the American public seems so concerned about them in the political arena. Maybe not in their daily life or in their community's life, but definately morality and politics are a package deal in the USA. Whereas the Republicans champion their views on morality, this is what always makes the Democrats look shakey every election time, because, like political parties outside of the USA, morality is not a big part of their interest.

But this preference for jingoistic conservatism sadly spells the end for the USA being on top of the perch. If the USA can't move with the times and adapt to change, and if Americans continue to cling to the safety blanket of the Republican Party and conservative moral ideology, then the country will stagnate and it will suffer. It's as simple as that. America is at a rather 'Imperial' stage of its history, and Empires do fall, we've seen it countless times, unless they can adapt to change.

Link to post
Share on other sites
here's a link to what the Humane Society thinks they do.

http://www.hsus.org/wildlife/wildlife_news...ng_program.html

and Wildlife Defenders

http://www.defenders.org/programs_and_poli...ial_hunting.php

Yes, the ads here are abundant when the elections happen. Notice the date of the first link - 2004. There has been plenty of time for amendments to be made. As of our last set of ballot measures, which was August 26th, a person cannot fly on a plane and shoot a wolf in the same day. I don't know how long this has been in effect, and the measure wasn't about hunting wolves, but those rules were mentioned and made clear in the measure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand what you're saying, and fair enough, but to an outsider's perspective, Americans in the majority do seem to hold moral issues at an important, almost deciding level when it comes to election time.

That's why I find US elections so fascinating because topics crop up that just don't happen in my country or in Europe, and these are mostly topics of a moral quality. And I think it is this concern with morality issues that a lot of Americans have that often decide elections in favour of the Republicans.

From my point of view, it seems the Democrats are forced into morality discussions because the American public seems so concerned about them in the political arena. Maybe not in their daily life or in their community's life, but definately morality and politics are a package deal in the USA. Whereas the Republicans champion their views on morality, this is what always makes the Democrats look shakey every election time, because, like political parties outside of the USA, morality is not a big part of their interest.

But this preference for jingoistic conservatism sadly spells the end for the USA being on top of the perch. If the USA can't move with the times and adapt to change, and if Americans continue to cling to the safety blanket of the Republican Party and conservative moral ideology, then the country will stagnate and it will suffer. It's as simple as that. America is at a rather 'Imperial' stage of its history, and Empires do fall, we've seen it countless times, unless they can adapt to change.

I hear you, but I still think you are giving these folks a lot more credit than they deserve. The moral majority is neither. They are well organized, they have money, and they are very vocal, but that doesn't make them a majority.....not in their wildest dreams. If they had as much control as they think, Hucklebee Hound would be the Republican nominee. Didn't you hear them all crying and theatening to jump ship when McCain was nominated ? Hell, they were actually touting Hillary ! They sounded like school children. This will be a very close election again, but Obama will win. If not.....On a clear day, I can see Ontario.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't consider us animals. I don't think we are who we are for no reason. I think there's mthod behind this madness. But that's just me.

Then what do you consider us to be?Do you think that we've evolved past being animals?Do you think that we never were?

Because if we're not animals,and we're not gods,what does that make us.....demigods?Aliens?

I'm not trying to be an asshole-this time-I just sincerely want to know.

I believe that we are animals,and we're simply the smartest ones out there.We're at the top of the food chain-unless you're in the ocean B) -it's just that we've reached a higher level than the rest of the pack.

I also don't think that we're here for no reason,and I agree that there's a method to the madness,but we're surely still animals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Del, I presume you have the maturity, wisdom, and intellectual integrity to acknowledge the difference between hunting as a matter of survival vs. tormenting and killing animals for for the "sport" of it.

Is my presumption about you wrong? :unsure:

Presuming that we agree there's a fundamental difference between hunting

for survival vs. tormenting and killing animals "sport".. for the mere fun of it..

perhaps you'll take another stab (pun intended) at the previous questions:

* Is tormenting and killing animals for "sport".. for the mere fun

of it.. a righteous family value to be teaching one's children?

* How does tormenting and killing animals for "sport".. for the mere fun

of it.. reflect a respect for "life" or that one values the "sanctity of life"?

The problem I have with your question is that you would consider any sport hunting as "tormenting" or animal torture and cruelty. The only set of circumstances where you would believe hunting is moral, is where there an imminent need for the meat in order to survive. I would assume that you believe that anytime there are other options for food outside of hunting or farming; then you probably believe that hunting is then only a sport that amounts to "tomenting and killing"?

I don't happen to believe that is the case. I have no problem with sport hunting whether or not the meat is needed for "survival" or not. As long as the species being hunted, whether it is a trout or a moose, is not being hunted to extinction... then more power to the hunters.

Many people including myself view "the hunt" in some what deeper spiritual terms. We recognize the skill and determination to be able to hunt, kill and process the animal. And in that aspect it remains a part of a human survival experience that has been passed on for thousands of years. I can assure you that outdoorsmen and people accross this nation from many rural and bordeing wilderness areas (like Alaska), appreciate the fact that at ANY GIVEN TIME they are trained and able to provide for themselves through these well practiced and established sets of skills. Skills which also include knowing how to survive in the elements, starting a fire, building a shelter, farming, finding and storing potable water, and knowing how to read the signs of changing seasons and make preparations. You won't see these people outside the New Orleans Superdome screaming for help because they could not handle 3 or 4 days without a supermarket and a welfare check.

Therefore, all of these skills and many more have a cross over in modern society to several outdoor "sport activities" like hunting, fishing and camping. And to me they are of great value. They have been taught to us by our fathers and grandfathers... and of course we pass these skills along to our children. That is the "family value" part of hunting that you just don't seem to get.

And of course many of us like Sarah Palin do not "worship the creation" the way the animals rights people do. We see "the creation" as being created for us. To be used sensibly of course. But used to our own means and needs. And if there is "sanctity of life" it applies to human life alone. Although we recognize and give thanks for the "bounty" that the creator of "the creation" has provided us. And as it is true even in many native cultures, "the hunt" has both practical and spiritual significance.

Again, these are things that "the other America" will never accept or understand. But I hope I answered your question.

Edited by Del Zeppnile
Link to post
Share on other sites
Then what do you consider us to be?Do you think that we've evolved past being animals?Do you think that we never were?

Because if we're not animals,and we're not gods,what does that make us.....demigods?Aliens?

I'm not trying to be an asshole-this time-I just sincerely want to know.

I believe that we are animals,and we're simply the smartest ones out there.We're at the top of the food chain-unless you're in the ocean B) -it's just that we've reached a higher level than the rest of the pack.

I also don't think that we're here for no reason,and I agree that there's a method to the madness,but we're surely still animals.

The chain is not as simple as animals, then demigods, then gods. I think humans are above the other creatures of this Earth and below God above us. I don't think we're simply the smartest of the animals. I think that our revelations of self-awareness and consciousness of the universe puts us on a stand above the creatures that call this planet home.

It's weird aint it, though...how fucked up we are? Lord knows I could be wrong and we are animals B):lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...