PDA

View Full Version : Political Veiwpoint


Uncle Ben
02-29-2008, 10:06 AM
I am reluctant to start this "can or worms" but if we can respect each others viewpoints we can all learn about issues from a different angles than we look at it with in our personal perspectives. Lets not turn this into "if you are a ________ then you suck" thread! lets just post up meaningful views, links and non-attacking discussion....can we do it? I will quickly kill this post if it goes south! I think with the pathetic choices of candidates we have right now this might be a good way to open each of our closed minds to campaigns that we think we want no part of. AGAIN I STRESS......this is shaky ground so political bashing cannot happen as it raises the defenses and closes the communication! http://www.dinicartoons.com/forum/images/smilies/Embarrassed/sweat.gif

Uncle Ben
02-29-2008, 10:08 AM
Edit: I really liked this viewpoint and while it seems pretty neutral as far as party affiliation it does have a slant that I'm not 100% for but I can relate to what he's trying to stress.


CHANGE, CHANGE, CHANGE
By Robert Waters
2-28-2008

In this 2008 political season, we are seeing politicians make more use of the term “change” than ever before. I heard Obama, in a speech, use the word dozens of times to the point that it went way beyond absurd.

There is going to be a change, as there always is, after the general presidential election. With a new President or change in the leadership in Congress, there will always be some changes. But some seem to be overly eager for change for the sake of change. What is wrong with the way things are? What needs to be changed? What has been proposed that will result in a change for the better?

What are people so unhappy about? We have nearly 95% employment, electricity and running water, affordable food in our grocery stores, freedom of religion and speech, right to bear arms, etc. Are these the things that we want changed? When a majority of citizens of a nation become ungrateful for what they have and elect a national leader based solely upon his ability to motivate people, primarily with promises of change, they may get what they asked for. But will they be better or worse off than before?

One would think that EVERYONE would be in favor of taxes being cut, but many are not. One party is known for raising taxes, which has been known to stagnate the economy, but it doesn’t seem to greatly affect how those of their party vote.

We all want peace in the world, and especially in our country. But it seems that the leaders of one party are not willing to fight or to pay the price, and have historically (as opportunity availed) downsized our military to dangerous levels.

Why do people who enjoy shooting and hunting continually vote for people who are known to advocate gun control with the ultimate goal of taking away ALL of our guns? Why do people who would risk their life to save a child vote for people who promote the right of a woman to take the life of their child before it is born, or partially born? Why do people who see the Bible as inspired of God, and who profess to follow it, vote for people who promote drastic changes that are contrary to what is taught therein?

Various answers could be given to the above questions, but it all boils down to “party loyalty.” We need to realize that a party or institution is what it stands for. When a party no longer stands for the things we deem to be important why not change our affiliation and give our support to a party that will seek to continue what is right and to change only those things that need to be changed.

If you ever get the feeling that the mainstream media is owned by people who promote a liberal agenda for changing America you might want to make a concerted effort to listen to talk radio. Below is a link to an article called Conservative Radio Talk Shows – Great Use of Freedom of Speech: http://www.totalhealth.bz/misc-radio.htm

Red_Chili
02-29-2008, 10:20 AM
I am suspicious of government power and spending, so you would think that makes me a Republican. Only the current crop of Republicans seems to really like government power and spending. On everything but public lands. I have conservative social views, and believe that we live in a pluralistic society where those views are not shared, and that that is what makes our society work. So much for Republican.

I am pro labor and suspicious of unregulated big business (and small business, if they feel they can screw the little guy). You would think that would make me a Democrat. Only the current crop of Democrats seem to think the best way to regulate business is to tax it out of existence. While they fund the Republican spending and add to it.

I support the free market dynamic, within limits - unregulated Ayn Rand or Adam Smith markets are brutal. They will correct, eventually, but leave corpses in their wake. But eliminating business cycles will cause the accretion of dysfunctional barnacles of inefficiency on our hull. They need to be damped. Ben Bernanke seems to get this. We will see. Obviously I cannot be a Libertarian, though I admire many of their positions.

I am concerned about the poor, but do not believe a handout helps. True access to capital and education does. This should not be a race test, but a means test. But simple access is only the door, not the journey, and maintaining the journey is where help is needed too. You cannot open the door and then blame the poor for not knowing what step to take next. Haven't heard many talk about this.

I support New Urbanism and think we need to control sprawl. I am green (probably not a purist enough for the true believers though). I am in favor of diverse communities. Some friends live in a gated community and I swear every time I visit and get grilled by the guard I want to start a revolution or something. Remember when 'exclusive' was a positive marketing term? I find it a pejorative.

I also find riding diversity as a hobby horse to be equally appalling, and does violence to existing groups that also have value. I fear PC thinking. I am concerned with dispensing with historical values instead of extending them more fairly.

Wait, what? What was the subject? Oh yeah, who to vote for. It is a question of degree of dislike and distrust for me. I don't care for the old regime of HillBilly, there is some real abuse of power there, but because they say the right things they get a pass. Puhleeze.

Romer
02-29-2008, 10:28 AM
So what I read in that article

1) Politicians spew Rhetoric

2) People don't always vote based on their values

3) You can't rely on the media for open middle of the line views. Press is more Liberal, Talk is more conservative.

I would agree with all 3 of these points. Dick Gephart was the person who stuck out at me as the biggest user of Rhetoric that I can recall. They all do it to some extent regardless of their party.

On point 2, sometime I make a balance between values and give up some to vote for a candidate. For example, Strong Defense is important to me. Not only from a political and personal viewpoint, it impacts my paycheck. Where as someone's position on abortion is not that important to me and not a guiding point either way. My reason is that the politicians have no impact on decisions like this with the exception of appointing SC judges and that is only an impact if it comes up in front of the SC again. Note I am not stating which side I am on just that this isn't a driving factor for my vote. These are the two extremes, but my point is I prioritize values when looking at a candidate and make my selection on who represents the best value to me and my family based on our overall value set.

On Point 3, I listen and read and follow whats going on but don't get riled up till it comes down to a few weeks before the election and the candidates are selected. If I am torn or basing something off of what I heard or read, I will let google be my friend.

Uncle Ben
02-29-2008, 10:34 AM
I do want to ad that if you are offended by my posting this on our "4 wheeling" site as you feel it is not relevant to our hobby....I really suggest you think about that viewpoint again! I have no problem killing it if it offends anyone....but I do think if you are offended by this then your discomfort is probably deeper than just my posting this thread! :blah:;)

Romer
02-29-2008, 11:02 AM
Engaging in further discussion on something Bill said,

I am not pro labor. I worked at a company where certain workers were Union. The Union's concern is more about taking care of people based on seniority rather than performance, capabilities or meeting the contracts needs.

Example - One Test Tech who had been there 20 years could not read well and constantly made mistakes. he was senior and was always given first choice to work overtime and our weekend tests. He always made mistakes and caused more work for us to fix them and even resulted in scrapping some space hardware once. Another tech was there 5 years, young energetic and would do what it took to get the job done. he could run the tests in half the time and got in trouble for that. From what I saw, the younger techs who worked hard and took pride would either quit or try and move outside the Union because they were never rewarded for hard work. Rewards and raises were based on seniority no matter the quality of the worker. Frankly, I think thats BS and wasted a tremendous amount of consumer dollars.

Unions had their place, but in their current form are only hurting American Industry. Some places have modified and do reward based on performance, but that is not the norm. If Unions could evolve to allow us to improve productivity, reward based on performance rather than seniority I would not have heartburn with them.

Again, My position is based on working with the United Aerospace Workers Union for 20 years.

Red_Chili
02-29-2008, 11:15 AM
I'm not pro Union either - at least currently. They have abused power and screwed it up royally. Reform is needed, urgently, among the unions. But I am pro worker justice and suspicious of unrestrained higher management.

Just to add to what must seem like a confusing array of positions I hold... :D

Romer
02-29-2008, 11:19 AM
I'm not pro Union either - at least currently. They have abused power and screwed it up royally. Reform is needed, urgently, among the unions. But I am pro worker justice and suspicious of unrestrained higher management.

Just to add to what must seem like a confusing array of positions I hold... :D

Thanks.

I though pro labor meant pro Union, at least that what it usually means when a politician says pro labor.

DaveInDenver
02-29-2008, 11:24 AM
Unions are hurting the big aerospace primes almost as much as the domestic auto industry. It amazes me sometimes that we can get anything off the ground, what for the politics and union rules.

Red_Chili
02-29-2008, 11:24 AM
Thanks.

I though pro labor meant pro Union, at least that what it usually means when a politician says pro labor.

And you uncover a very important point: terminology. I wonder how many fights erupt over the choice of words, when a deep dive into the values behind them would produce a lot more consensus than we might think?

Alternatively, I think it might be politically expedient for many politicians to throw around terms, and make people THINK they support what they want, when in fact they have said... nothing.

Labels work similarly.

Uncle Ben
02-29-2008, 12:10 PM
And you uncover a very important point: terminology. I wonder how many fights erupt over the choice of words, when a deep dive into the values behind them would produce a lot more consensus than we might think?

Alternatively, I think it might be politically expedient for many politicians to throw around terms, and make people THINK they support what they want, when in fact they have said... nothing.

Labels work similarly.

Exactly! We, as a developed and by world standards, "rich society" have learned to play by the fence line rules. You state a politically excepted "proper" term and then it allows you to manipulate it's meaning for your benefit as long as you can still state it follows the term. When our constitution and government was first created no one ever thought so much manipulation of our core values would happen. Thus creating "loopholes" in the expertly crafted SOP's our fore fathers created to separate us from the same problems the much older British government already was experiencing. So what once seemed to be no-brianer rules now have to be redefined exactly word for word, unfortunately, by those with the power and money to get the descriptions to reflect what benefits those powers to be.
We are still the best country out there as far as freedom but it definitely isn't free and it's not just our sons and daughters serving in the military that pay for our rights!
Change does need to happen but the change the same old politics promise isn't defined enough! The people, you and me, need to again have a complete control of our government and the Politicians need to once again represent what we truly want. Electro Collage was a necessary method of representation back in the days when communication was difficult but now it really needs to be re-defined! :blah:

Chris
02-29-2008, 12:27 PM
What are people so unhappy about? We have nearly 95% employment, electricity and running water, affordable food in our grocery stores, freedom of religion and speech, right to bear arms, etc. Are these the things that we want changed?


Does anyone else find any issue the lines I quoted? The "we" he speaks of must be the middle class and above, not the people with marginal jobs, no health insurance, can't afford to feed their families decent meals and whose only concern regarding the right to bear arms is that they, or their children, don't get shot by someone.

What are people unhappy about? How about the 1.2 trillion, the nearly 4000 troops killed? Add in the horrific injuries and psychological damage not being properly treated of the Iraq vets and everyone should be unhappy.

How about economic conditions? Housings looking pretty grim isn't it? Foreclosures and the outlook for more affects everyone's equity. The stock market has reflected this decreasing individual value.

Should we be unhappy about the quality of education in the US? How about Colorado? Do you think your kids and grandkids are receiving the education you did?

I avoid these political discussions but wanted to post a response to the obviously conservative writer. I'm not a flaming liberal, not even a registered Democrat and the choices of candidates is what we have, never what we deserve. (On second thought I might argue that.)

:blah: :blah: :blah:

Uncle Ben
02-29-2008, 12:37 PM
I avoid these political discussions but wanted to post a response to the obviously conservative writer. I'm not a flaming liberal, not even a registered Democrat and the choices of candidates is what we have, never what we deserve. (On second thought I might argue that.)

:blah: :blah: :blah:

This is exactly why I decided to make this thread! Great stuff! "We the people..." need to say how we feel without getting burned by those who feel differently! This is the true core to our country! We as free Americans have this privilege to speak how we feel because of what we pay! (and we all pay dearly!)

nuclearlemon
02-29-2008, 01:57 PM
We as free Americans

everytime another law is laid down, i feel considerably less "free"

Romer
02-29-2008, 03:08 PM
On the education item. Being Natives, my wife and I both went to Denver Public Schools. My daughters education at Cherry Creek is leaps and bounds over what we had. Maybe it was that way back then, but I am very happy with the education my kids are getting at Cherry Creek. Sarah is taking classes with content I know is harder than college courses.

On the health care, I count myself fortunate to have a job with health Insurance. My monthly contribution is $85 a month for full coverage on a family of 4 with Dental and vision. I know the same coverage costs others $300 to $500 a month. These are the people that can't afford it and have to decide between Clothes and food and I can understand why some decide not to get it. The health care system does need overhaul so people don't have to decide between eating and inoculations. This is what happened to our good friend Oleg and why he cant get the care he needs and as result his house is now being foreclosed on. I don't know what the solutions are but we have a lot of smart people in this country.

The Economy is a relative thing. If your job is doing well and you can take care of your family, then the economy doesn't seem as big a deal as to those who get laid off and are unemployed. Again, I count myself very fortunate as I can provide for my family, put my kids through college and save enough change for a comfortable retirement. Besides have enough left over to enjoy my Cruiser hobby:thumb:

The war is too hot a potato to really discuss. The media does not properly describe what is going on in Iraq. There is a thread stickied in Mud Chat which is mostly posts from Soldiers who are over in Iraq. That is a good long read if you haven't read that. Plus I talk to officers all the time in my job and see things you won't see in the media. Going to war is always hard to defend. Based on what I know, I saw it as the right decision, the implementation is what got messed up. They had the battles planned out, but not what happens after the shooting stopped. Those errors put us in our current situation. I am against pulling up stakes and bringing everyone home though. We started this and need to find a way to stabilize the country and then get out.

AxleIke
02-29-2008, 09:27 PM
Ahhhh, its made it here too.

Politics is a hot button topic these days, but refreshing if discussed maturely.

Where do I stand? Square in the middle.

I love guns. I love the environment. I like big trucks, but use alternative transportation whenever I can, to save money on gas.

I honestly don't care about abortion. It makes me laugh that people base their votes on it. What a silly thing to care about, unless you are a teenage girl who may get pregnant. I guess then it makes sense to care. Funny that I don't see many of them involved in politics. Seems to be a lot of old men.

I don't like government control. I think things should be locally decided.

The numbers of poor in this country are appalling. I am honest enough to admit to myself that I could do something about it, by donating money to charity, but don't. That in itself is pretty sad. As for the government helping the poor, I think that is a tough decision. How do you prevent people from taking advantage of the system? You don't.

Immigration is a disaster. Everyone wants to be against it, but no one has a viable solution, and the current ideas are draining money from taxpayers at an unreal rate, with no noticeable progress. I also don't think there is anything wrong with wanting a better life here. What is wrong is requiring people to pass a test to become citizens that the VAST majority of natural citizens couldn't pass. And how can anyone charge thousands of dollars for a person to work here when they clearly have nothing?

Campaign finance reform is a joke. All politicians, lobbyists, and persons of power are corrupt. Even the "religious" leaders. I don't think anything will ever be done about that. The aristocratic elite have always been in charge, and they always will be.

I feel that people put too much emphasis on the stupid presidential election. Everyone comes out to vote for the president. What they should be voting on is their local governments, every year, and their state governments, as well as their federal reps and senators. The President is a figurehead. If people wouldn't pay so much attention to it, and focus their attention where it can actually make changes happen, this country would be in better shape.

Thats enough for now.

Bighead
03-01-2008, 06:07 AM
The war is too hot a potato to really discuss. The media does not properly describe what is going on in Iraq. There is a thread stickied in Mud Chat which is mostly posts from Soldiers who are over in Iraq. That is a good long read if you haven't read that. Plus I talk to officers all the time in my job and see things you won't see in the media. Going to war is always hard to defend. Based on what I know, I saw it as the right decision, the implementation is what got messed up. They had the battles planned out, but not what happens after the shooting stopped. Those errors put us in our current situation. I am against pulling up stakes and bringing everyone home though. We started this and need to find a way to stabilize the country and then get out.

Well said. There were many times when my teammates and I would be sitting someplace watching the news wondering where the hell they got their info.

Before I retired, I had done 4 rotations in Afghanistan and 2 in Iraq since 2001 including the initial push in country for both. Militarily, we accomplished the mission given to us but, in my opinion, you are correct in that the "post-invasion" plan left something to be desired.

Mendocino
03-02-2008, 06:55 PM
Who is John Galt?