Canadians, Euros....

[SEAL]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

-1
(that's what you want to hear right?)

[Foreign]

I don't mind the European point of view. It's an interesting way to learn about the values people have in other countries. I grew up a republican because my parents are and a lot of people here believe if you're a Christian you are sinning if you vote Democrat solely for the fact that most Democratic candidates are pro-choice.

That said, nowadays I am just unsure of who to vote for because I can't say I agree even 60% with all of the candidates. Furthermore, some of the issues I haven't fully figured out what I think is right (health care, for instance).

I personally think the art of debate and public speaking have turned into a joke that serves to gain popularity and not to further the candidates' plans and hopes for a great nation (struggling though it may be). Instead of using the debate to get people thinking about the issues and deciding where they stand, politicians seem to play a game of leverage against one another. Those who don't play the game by defending themselves, but instead use the speaking opportunity to present new ideas are seen as poor debaters and radicals. I'd sooner cast my vote for a so-called radical than a good-old-boy. The only problem is I still haven't seen one I agree with.

So who do I vote for? I feel it's a crime to have to vote for the candidate I hate the least. Out of them all, there ought to be at least one candidate I can get along with.

Isn't there anyone out there who is willing to admit that while the constitution's innermost principles should never be negotiated on (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for three) and while it a very good document to follow, it isn't completely infallible?

Is there a politician out there who ever says he is pro-life because in such an unsure and controversial issue he would rather err to the side of inaction than have blood on his hands?

Is there a candidate out there willing to make some small steps toward offering federal health care without diving in completely one way or the other?

I want a politician who is ready and willing to send some ripples across the pond instead of breakers, someone willing to stir the pot without adding too many new ingredients.

[Dack Falu]

I don't care what this thread is about, but this is awesome.

[Vatican Assassin]

Surely to god you must understand that our right-wing, conservative viewpoint on everything...

i was just trying to make sure everyone knows that america does not have a right wing conservative view point. in fact, more people voted democrat than republican in each of our last 2 elections. izor is trying to include me and a lot of other americans into his own viewpoint, which is bad. -5 points.

manta gets 15 points for flawless victory against izor, +5 more points for doing it without typing a single word.

mantra: +20
izor: -6
vatican: zounds (HoMM reference who got it)

[Izor]

So who do I vote for? I feel it's a crime to have to vote for the candidate I hate the least. Out of them all, there ought to be at least one candidate I can get along with.

If your points of view are truly in the middle, then what you say is true. But my point is that a lot of the people on these forums the same will not apply with. Despite thinking that they are in the middle somewhere, they're not. They will just eliminate the candidates on one side time after time using their own logic and call it an impartial decision. They think that because they do not subscribe to all of the philosophies of one party, that they dont still vote for that party.

[Noah]

On to more important issues, than threads created by Izor:

Is this hat funny? y/n

[Fluffz]

nothinf

[Vatican Assassin]

its not a tumah (name that movie)

[Pummel]

Shut the fuck up and celebrate christmas.

[Shan]

Pummel you're fat

[Galleleo]

I watched the Republican Youtube/CNN debate, and I know those are all a bunch of idiots I would not want running my country. Ron Paul made the most sense, out of them, but I still wouldnt want him running my country.

[Vatican Assassin]

I watched the Republican Youtube/CNN debate, and I know those are all a bunch of idiots I would not want running my country. Ron Paul made the most sense, out of them, but I still wouldnt want him running my country.

oh ya why not? ;p

[Birthday Party]

Liberals seem obsessed with having the world rosy coloured, that's their problem in my mind.

Here in Canada we have socialist healthcare. I remember a case where a woman had a rare genetic disorder, and it would cost around 500,000 a year to keep her alive. The courts were ruling that the state should keep her alive nevertheless, because no one should be denied life at any cost -- you know, as Marx the great socialist said, "to each according to his needs." To me, this seems just absurd. So you accept 500,000 dollars a year to keep someone alive just so they can do nothing but sit in a hospital. Would you accept twice that, one million? How about, one billion? But where does all that money come from? Mainly from hard-working people who pay taxes. You're essentially punishing them for being healthy and sucessful. But they are guilted into paying for benefits like that -- healthcare, welfare, et cetera -- because the liberals will say: "Oh you have it good enough! Now you have to take care of the disadvantaged!" Sure, that's all well and great, helping people and all, very saint-like. But I'm sure a saint wouldn't force someone else to help a third! So you have all these disadvantaged people and the liberals just can't seem to stand the thought of it or something, and they'll go to such lengths to "do something" to help them. I think you just have to accept that some people are just screwed, and that's a tragedy and all, but there's nothing reasonable you can do about it. Cry about it I suppose, but don't force other people to have to foot the bill in order to make this utopia.


What else...someone said something about the recent US policies being problematic internationally/diplomatically.

For every world leader that has moved away from the US under Bush, there has been another that has reaffirmed relations with the States and Bush. You may have had Australia, Italy, and the UK voting in people who have distanced themselves from America under Bush, but you have many others. Rasmussen in Denmark got reelected this year, and he is a Bush supporter. Sarkozy got voted in over Royale in France this year as well, with a pro-US platform. In South Korea, Myung-Bak was just voted in with a pro-American platform. Stephen Harper was voted in in Canada last year with a pro-American and pro-Bush agenda. Same with Calderon in Mexico. Bush, Harper, and Calderon: "the three amigos" as they were dubbed, controlling all of North America. Another was Angela Merkel in Germany two years ago, again a Bush ally. These aren't just small, marginal countries, but important ones. And Japan and Israel, another two important US allies hav still maintained their support with the US under Bush. The idea that Bush has somehow been a disaster for foreign relations just doesn't seem to hold water. The biggest problem has been with Islamic countries, but these in general aren't very important and powerful.

[PaulOakenfold]

im liberal and i obsess over way more than that

specifically long winded copy+paste posts

[MetalHeadz]

Liberals seem obsessed with having the world rosy coloured, that's their problem in my mind.

Here in Canada we have socialist healthcare. I remember a case where a woman had a rare genetic disorder, and it would cost around 500,000 a year to keep her alive. The courts were ruling that the state should keep her alive nevertheless, because no one should be denied life at any cost -- you know, as Marx the great socialist said, "to each according to his needs." To me, this seems just absurd. So you accept 500,000 dollars a year to keep someone alive just so they can do nothing but sit in a hospital. Would you accept twice that, one million? How about, one billion? But where does all that money come from? Mainly from hard-working people who pay taxes. You're essentially punishing them for being healthy and sucessful. But they are guilted into paying for benefits like that -- healthcare, welfare, et cetera -- because the liberals will say: "Oh you have it good enough! Now you have to take care of the disadvantaged!" Sure, that's all well and great, helping people and all, very saint-like. But I'm sure a saint wouldn't force someone else to help a third! So you have all these disadvantaged people and the liberals just can't seem to stand the thought of it or something, and they'll go to such lengths to "do something" to help them. I think you just have to accept that some people are just screwed, and that's a tragedy and all, but there's nothing reasonable you can do about it. Cry about it I suppose, but don't force other people to have to foot the bill in order to make this utopia.

I'm someone who takes a lot of pride in the welfare system that my country provides so I'll give you an insight to where I stand.

Firstly, if your lucky enough not to have had to use your health service or had family members use it then fair enough to you. My guess is that you've probably used it, as has your family - perhaps offering life saving treatment. So you've probably recieved free treatment and you're probably quite well off.

Secondly, The premise of a state run health service is that it offers that service to the best of it's capabilities to everyone. By denying one person (a very extreme example if I may say so) you are contradicting the very premise on which this system is based. To take a capitalist approach in such an inherently ethical debate is dangerous.

Lastly, the alternative free market approach is unfair and favours the rich. You live in a country which is lucky enough to be affluent and economically prosperous. The capitalist market structure necessitates that some people will be poor and a few rich. This intrinsic disparity in a capitalistm means that it requires Government correction of some sort i.e. you tax the rich more than you tax the poor. The rich will remain rich and the poor will remain poor but atleast a bit of that disposable wealth will be pushed into the economy and used to tackle social costs. If your most powerful argument is that there will be 'free riders' (people who reap the benefits of the service and pay no taxes) to this system then it's pretty insignificant.