+- Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org)
+-- Forum: Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Lounge (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: Prez. Candidate Debates! (/showthread.php?tid=6024)
Prez. Candidate Debates! - CaptainHenreh - 06-06-2007
Well, we haven't had a political flamewar in a while, so I think it's time to go again.
I saw the debate last night, watched it with popcorn and everything. I haven't been as entertained by grumpy old men since...well, since Grumpy Old Men. I know the election is more than a year away, but whatever.
I'll go through the "front runners" real quick, and my impressions.
![[Image: mccain_wow.jpg]](http://www.doublespeakshow.com/images/2006/08/mccain_wow.jpg)
John McCain:
I feel like the old fire is still there somewhere, but someone has told him to tone it down to make him more palatable to the general public. Or maybe to the GOP, I don't know. Lately (like, in the last year) he's really toned down everything. I wanted to like McCain, but I'm really disappointed. Watch that vein there, buddy.
![[Image: mitt_romney.jpeg]](http://myclob.pbwiki.com/f/mitt_romney.jpeg)
Mitt Romney:
He uses his hands too much, and he can't decide what he wants to be. I don't care that he's Mormon, but I also don't really care that he's a "flip-flopper". I mean, part of the criticism of the current administration is being "The Decider" and not willing to compromise. Maybe we need someone who's not so steel-backed. Maybe not. The "double the size of Gitmo" was kind of ignorant, but I get what he's trying to say. He wants to be hard on terrorists, yeah man, I get it. Let's just make sure they're terrorists after, you know, like a year or something. Habeas corpus and all that. Every other issue, well, it just seems like he doesn't really have an opinion on anything. "We need to secure our borders" whatever that means and we need to "set higher goals", yeah no shit jackass. How are we going to do it? Who's going to pay for it? Answer those questions, damn son.
![[Image: giuliani.jpg]](http://www.gothamgazette.com/graphics/guiliani/giuliani.jpg)
Rudy Giuliani:
I chose that picture for a reason. Giuliani reminds me of the Wizard Of Oz. Pay no attention to the man behind the corner, 911! nine one one, september 11! I was there! Terrorists! I mean, that's the only thing he knows how to say. That, and "federal money for abortions." Yeah, way to score the conservative vote, man. Good job. I mean, one of the things that had me screaming at the TV last night was that "Take no option off the table" bullshit. Nuke Iran? Are you fucking serious? For that matter, why do WE have to do it? We're not the only country around, why is it our responsibility to piss off more muslims? I mean, did we not piss them off enough 50 years ago? No? Well let's say that we'll nuke them. That'll really piss them off! Now, I know Giuliani isn't the only one that said that, but he seems like the most Warhawk of the bunch. Talking about how the War On Terror is just beginning and shit. What, is the entire Middle East going to be the Middle American Hegemony Protectorate? Is that when it'll stop? Geez. What a douche. I kept expecting lightning to straight up zap his ass.
Finally, and I'll stop here,
![[Image: Ron_Paul.jpg]](http://www.fff.org/conference2007/_images/speakers/Ron_Paul.jpg)
Ron Paul:
Most "news organizations" don't count RP among the front runners, but I will because A:He's fucking awesome, and B:He seems to have more supporters than the MSM give him credit for. He didn't get many questions last night (a peculiarly low number, I thought) but those he did get I thought he did well on, especially the "Don't ask, don't tell" question. He's right, of course. You don't get your individual rights based on group membership (or at least, you shouldn't.) Which, of course, is exactly what I expected him to say, because it's what he's been saying which is both refreshing and convenient. Wait, you mean a politician that's consistent? That tells lobbyists where to stick it? That isn't just a GOP Puppet? I mean, I can see the hand up Giuliani's ass it's refreshing to not see any strings. Maybe they're there, but I don't see them.
Look, I'm not normally a political person, but I'm going to be honest. Ron Paul's campaign really kind of charged me up. I don't necessarily agree with everything he has to say 100%, but the cool thing about the way our government works (Checks and balances like whoa) is that if someone has some, say, nonstandard ideas...they don't necessarily get to change everything in the government! The President isn't responsible for every sneeze that comes out of the Fed! WOWO! This last senatorial race was pretty clear to me that the american people aren't just fed up with the President, they're fed up with the way everything is being run.
Maybe I'll get to the Dem candidates later this afternoon.
And now, let the MM Political Fight June 2006 begin!
Paging Jack
Paging Gerald
Paging Evan
Paging Kaan
Paging Goodspeed
Paging Feersty
Paging Chad
Please report to the Lounge for political debate, thank you!
- John - 06-06-2007
Ron Paul is a Libertarian that plays in a Republican world. Unfortunately, America refuses to pull their head out of their ass of their stupid two-party system that fails to cater to the majority of American needs. Out of all the candidates, Ron Paul is by far one of the most formidable challengers from a policy perspective, but as you'll note, the media and other candidates will avoid him and try to push him out of the race since he doesn't share their party-line views. You have to love political monopolies...
Re: Prez. Candidate Debates! - .RJ - 06-06-2007
CaptainHenreh Wrote:Mitt Romney:
That guy was on 60 minutes a month or so ago... it seemed like he had some decent ideas, but i think the party line drowned him into the
![[Image: kool.gif]](http://rr-ax.com/bbs/images/emoticons/kool.gif)
long enough that he had to drink and he's just waffled on most things. Just seemed like a d-bag, but I could be wrong.
hrug:
- Mike - 06-06-2007
The people who I see having a chance:
Rudy Giuliani. Why? Because there isn't a clear reason why not.
Why the others don't have a chance:
Hillary - she's a woman... I just don't see it happening.
Barack - he's not white and has a pretty weak political background... I've read blurbs from his book, and I agree with the guy on everything... He keeps it real
McCain - I'm not sure why, since I don't know too much about him, but he's comes across as nearly insane.
All of the other guys might as well give up now... Aside from Romney, I don't see them having any chance of winning their nominations.
- Apoc - 06-06-2007
John Wrote:Ron Paul is a Libertarian that plays in a Republican world. Unfortunately, America refuses to pull their head out of their ass of their stupid two-party system that fails to cater to the majority of American needs. Out of all the candidates, Ron Paul is by far one of the most formidable challengers from a policy perspective, but as you'll note, the media and other candidates will avoid him and try to push him out of the race since he doesn't share their party-line views. You have to love political monopolies...
+16+84+84+654684
I'm going to hurt myself if Giuliani wins the presidency.
- CaptainHenreh - 06-06-2007
Mike Wrote:The people who I see having a chance:
Rudy Giuliani. Why? Because there isn't a clear reason why not.
Seriously?
Him sharpening his battle axe last night was reason enough for me.
- Mike - 06-06-2007
CaptainHenreh Wrote:Mike Wrote:The people who I see having a chance:
Rudy Giuliani. Why? Because there isn't a clear reason why not.
Seriously?
Him sharpening his battle axe last night was reason enough for me.
I didn't watch.
<--- Runs to media outlets.
- HAULN-SS - 06-06-2007
Quote:I don't vote, but if I did, I'm pretty sure Giuliani would be my man. He's the first candidate I've seen in a long time who understands that one's political views needn't mirror one's personal views. People are confused by his position on abortion because they can't understand why his personal opinions on the subject don't define his political opinions. Those people are idiots.
The state is holistic; it's not merely the sum of its parts, the aggregate belief system of all of the individuals it comprises. It's rather like life. Just as there are no "life atoms" which make up organisms and distinguish them from nonliving things, there are no necessary political beings in the make-up of a state. This means that the state has an existence beyond those it was construed to serve, just as the atoms which make up the human brain act in concert to produce effects beyond those they are normally capable of producing. Giuliani shows respect for the ideals inherent in the American republic and its systems, placing them above his own beliefs, which are nothing but petty in the grand scheme of the state.
A key feature of this philosophy is the distinction between and separation of moral philosophy and political philosophy. Machiavelli seems shocking to us (at least in The Prince and in several sections of the tamer Discourses on Livy) because he argued just that: that the prince or, preferably, the republic, is amoral, being virtuous when it can, but always knowing how to act immorally. What is interesting is that he was shocking to his contemporaries for the same reason. They were bound by the Aristotlean and Platonic and Augustinian views of the perfect state: classically virtuous in the case of the first two, and supremely Christian for Augustine. These three views seem to have been replaced these days by the aggrandizing of the individual with respect to politics, completing a cycle.
This is not to say that the individual is without rights or importance. He surely has rights, and the most desirable states have as their goal the preservation of these rights. The United States is a republic with just this aim. But the founders were careful to distance the individual from the government which protects them. And the state may violate moral philosophy for the good of its political philosophy; republican utilitarianism, you may call it: the necessity of the virtuous state to bring its ideas to the greatest number of its citizens.
If the state may violate morals for the sake of politics, then the individual may violate politics for the sake of his morals. Each has the right of self-defense; the state may punish the rebel in keeping with the political philosophy, and the individual may challenge the state. As the state may sometimes stray from its own ideals, it is not only the people's right but their duty to keep it on its natural course. This is the meaning of the second amendment most often lost on those who would disarm the citizenry. When the state violates its own philosophy, it must be punished. The individual's right is the right to violate a personal moral philosophy and be unharmed by the state, provided his moral transgression does not interfere with the rights of the state. Thus does each side of the system have the right to violate certain rights. The optimal state is the one which produces the fewest of these violations, which is necessarily the one which grants the most individual freedom while being reasonable about the survival of the state and its ideals.
This philosophy renders personal political arguments null. When someone offers as an argument for gun control, "My brother was shot and killed," he should be ignored. It's too bad that his brother was killed, but state policies must reflect something more than the personal views--translated through personal experience--of its citizens. (The embarrassing appeasement of Chamberlain and the like provide an example of a state propelled mainly by the fears of its people.)
- Apoc - 06-06-2007
Sadly, Mike's right... he caters enough to retarded America's sentiment for most people to not care what he's really about.
- CaptainHenreh - 06-06-2007
Quote:I don't vote, but if I did,
You lost me right there.
- white_2kgt - 06-06-2007
God I can't wait until Thompson announces.
- Goodspeed - 06-06-2007
I've always liked McCain, he seems to be one of the only (him and Paul) republican candidates that isn't full of hot air and idealistic nonsense. But John hit the nail right on the head. Honestly though, I haven't been following the debates very much, because I have completely given up on the news media.
I'm curious though....a lot of the republican candidates have been bashing Bush, stating that he isn't someone of conservative ideals and that he doesn't represent the party; that he's become a rogue fanatical idealist blablabla. My opinion of the Republican party has turned to crap because of his administration, since I only got into politics after he became pres. So I'd like to give the party another chance before I write them off completely.
I don't know what I am....a rights theorist libertarian?Maybe....conservative liberal? Dunno. Maybe I'll figure it out someday :lol: I just find it ironic those who support candidates solely on how "clearly" they represent themselves (never mind what it is they are actually supporting), its like they are playing to the retarded sheep of America. I'd rather actually do some research and choose from there than take candidates at face value. American political system + American news media = fail
- WRXtranceformed - 06-06-2007
I shed a tear for America. I see no hope for the next 5 years. BUT HEY I'M GOING TO STAY OPTIMISTIC!!!! /sarcasm off
The media (and arguably big oil companies) pretty much drive everything in this country...from political careers to the way people view their meaningless individual lives. Politicians pull the trigger, but the media puts the gun in their hand.
McCain was the perfect example. I mean, the dude definitely shot himself in the foot and all, but who do you think overexaggerated it and blew him out of the water during his last campaign?
- Maengelito - 06-06-2007
![[Image: 808_img_10.jpg]](http://images.southparkstudios.com/media/images/808/808_img_10.jpg)
there's my boy, right there
Re: Prez. Candidate Debates! - ScottyB - 06-06-2007
CaptainHenreh Wrote:I wanted to like McCain
ditto
CaptainHenreh Wrote:fed up with the way everything is being run.
also ditto. wish i had something more constructive to say but that just about sums it up.
- CaptainHenreh - 06-06-2007
Dammit, there's more fire in the frickin' for sale forum than here.
Not at all like I planned.
- Maengelito - 06-06-2007
CaptainHenreh Wrote:Dammit, there's more fire in the frickin' for sale forum than here.
Not at all like I planned.
sometimes the most destructive fires are the ones that are accidentally started. besides, jack hasnt chimed in, G hasnt said anything and mike's responses i think will snowball very soon
- Mike - 06-06-2007
MINE WILL NOT SNOWBALL! :fire:
edit: Why? Because the potentially :fire: things are facts, not my opinions.
My vote will go to Obama or Paul.
- WRXtranceformed - 06-06-2007
I are serious cat. This are serious thread.
- Ryan T - 06-06-2007
I really like Ron Paul, he did an amazing job on his questions last night and I really like the whole "get the government out of everyone's business" kinda administration that he supports. The closer to a free market the better. However he doesn't have enough support within the party to get the GOP ticket.
I really would like to see Fred Dalton Thompson run for President. While I would have to hear him voice and defend his views on all the topics I think he has the persona and skills to make it to the top of the republican ticket. Could be a good thing or a bad thing that for most of the country it's not what you say, it's how good you sound saying it. We'll have to wait and see after we hear his views on everything if it's good or bad.
Democrats, while I tend to vote democrat more often than republican (but I'm not a straight party line guy) I don't see them as having much. The democrats best chance of getting someone into office is going to be driven off of how ticked off people are at the republicans. This country is not ready for a woman president so Hillary is out. I'm not sure about Obama.
If I was voting right now: Ron Paul.