|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 9:01 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
My point was that we have several people who say something like the following:
A: Let's go out for dinner, OK?
B: OK. I want beef for dinner.
A: Well, you jerk. No way I'd eat beef. If you insist that we have beef, then I will become a vegetarian. I ain't eating pork or chicken.
I know you are a libertarian, Mith. The aspect I was commenting on was that there are several people who post who say they are 'libertarian' or 'communist'. It's something like you having the choice between Barr and Paul and saying if Paul isn't the party choice, then you'll vote for Stalin.
I don't find politics to be an either/or proposition either, in most situations. However, I do think one's attitude toward government to come down to whether government should be a tool to help people or whether government should be seen as a danger in itself. |
Dude, I know the point you're trying to get at. And I'm not a libertarian. But the idea that one's view of government should be based on one's view of the role government itself should take assumes that a politician will do what they say they do when they become president, and that's not always the case. Bush didn't result in a smaller, more streamlined government. That's why it doesn't make sense to simply look at a candidate's policy platform and vote based on that. Part of it is the platform, part of it is trust and a confidence that they'll be able to make the country a better place 4/8 years later once they're done. That second part is why some people will switch sides to vote for someone that doesn't always agree with them on what government should be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| And I'm not a libertarian |
Mr. Mith, I'm flummoxed. I don't know what to say. After many posts saying you favor RP, now you say you are not a libertarian. How can I respond?
Are you one of those who picked out one aspect of RP's platform and went with that, ignoring the rest of his platform? If so, I missed your post saying so.
| Quote: |
| Part of it is the platform, part of it is trust and a confidence that they'll be able to make the country a better place 4/8 years later once they're done |
I agree with this part of what you say. However, I do think you can look at what a candidate says he/she will do (and then step back and say, OK, what can you really do?). As we say in the US, Presidents propose, Congress disposes. It means that the leader makes 'suggestions'. Congress then works out the details and sometimes changes the suggestion beyond recognition. But a president has the power of the veto. He can block legislation that goes completely against his basic philosophy of government. If a president, like Bush, says he wants a smaller government and then Congress adds 50,000 new government jobs, I think I'm entitled to expect the president to veto that. My point: if presidents say they want A, then I expect them to fight for A and accept B or maybe C, but veto X, Y and Z. (I know our government works by increments.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| And I'm not a libertarian |
Mr. Mith, I'm flummoxed. I don't know what to say. After many posts saying you favor RP, now you say you are not a libertarian. How can I respond?
Are you one of those who picked out one aspect of RP's platform and went with that, ignoring the rest of his platform? If so, I missed your post saying so. |
I think that's the whole point of what I'm saying now. I'm not a libertarian but I think Ron Paul would have made the best president. I don't agree with him on gun control for example and prefer universal healthcare, but if he is able to focus on lowering costs that would be the second best solution. I've never found a single politician that agrees with everything I do. Ron Paul makes the good point that health care is about the only sector where costs increase as technology improves, whereas other sectors (computers, cell phones etc.) go down to the point that almost anybody is able to afford them. Plus he's been a doctor for 30+ years, and it would be a real plus for a president working on health care to know exactly what it's like to be a doctor in the country, and in addition to that his economic knowledge is superb. So that all together gives him about 80% on my list, which = worth supporting.
That's why I don't like Bob Barr. He seems like he would be similar to Ron Paul but he's not the same person at all. Anybody that cared that much about impeaching Clinton is a person with wrong priorities. And he just comes across as really dumb compared to Ron Paul. I do hope he takes votes away from McCain though.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Part of it is the platform, part of it is trust and a confidence that they'll be able to make the country a better place 4/8 years later once they're done |
I agree with this part of what you say. However, I do think you can look at what a candidate says he/she will do (and then step back and say, OK, what can you really do?). As we say in the US, Presidents propose, Congress disposes. It means that the leader makes 'suggestions'. Congress then works out the details and sometimes changes the suggestion beyond recognition. But a president has the power of the veto. He can block legislation that goes completely against his basic philosophy of government. If a president, like Bush, says he wants a smaller government and then Congress adds 50,000 new government jobs, I think I'm entitled to expect the president to veto that. My point: if presidents say they want A, then I expect them to fight for A and accept B or maybe C, but veto X, Y and Z. (I know our government works by increments.) |
I hope so. I think most of the candidates this time around will do what they say they will. Even McCain at least is not pretending to be something he's not. Maybe Clinton and Obama will go back on free trade / capital gains taxes, but I don't consider those to be crucial. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't believe Clinton or Obama on free trade either. 'Everyone' knows trade increases the economy, but some people will suffer in the short term. In my opinion, the government needs to be actively involved in ameliorating the negative side effects of free trade and a government should be involved in deciding which industries are affected.
I pretty much disagree with the rest of your post. 
Yes, RP is a doctor, but he is also an ideologue, believing that repealing most of the legislation and advances of the 20th Century. Were he successful in doing so, he would remove most of the protections we consumers have slowly and very painfully won over the last hundred years. RP has a romantic idea of the business world of the 19th Century. His idea of 'freedom' is restricted to businessmen being free do whatever they want. I'm not anti-business, but I'm also not naive enough to trust businessmen to operate without regulation. The present crisis in banking should be enough to demonstrate why not. The entire world is teetering on the brink because US bankers were free to play fast and loose with common sense.
I also don't think he has a clue as to the results of a sudden withdrawal from Iraq.
As I said, he is an ideologue. I don't know the words to describe how much I distrust ideologues. The history of the 20th Century is the history of ideologues run wild. I think the world has had enough of them. I know I have. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that part. It's time for bed. Ta~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why?
She's full of 'the crap'.
So, potentially is Obama.
Can we trust anyone anymore?
ps-originally i intended a comma between Obama and potentially, but it seems more accurate the way it stands. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
If you mean independents, aggregated, neither agree nor disagree, then yes, they are turned off by her ad. The green line was at 0% the whole time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
