AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 2012-10-25, 13:21   Link #1761
james0246
Senior Member
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
Honestly I don't think it matters who wins (of the two major parties).
They're both ruled by the corporatists (big banks, Unions, Wall Street firms, Big Pharma, and other monopolies/duopolies).
Then the only thing that should matter to you then is the eventual Supreme Court nominations that either candidate will choose. Which candidate do you trust more to potentially put in place a Justice that could even the playing field? Romney or Obama? For me it has to be Obama. He may still be in cahoots with the corporation, but of the two he is the more likely to put forth a candidate for Justice that wouldn't sell the American workers into indentured servitude.
james0246 is offline  
Old 2012-10-25, 13:21   Link #1762
Destined_Fate
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: "Sacrifice one to appease the few."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Casey View Post
As much as I strongly disagree with the guy, thinking that he deserves to be stoned to death is pretty crazy itself



So what? Romney says that he disagrees with the guy, and that should be enough. I don't see any reason why he should be expected to completely shun and ignore someone over one difference of opinion.
That's like saying "I don't support (Insert Theme)... But I'm going to accept millions of dollars from (Guy that I disagree with but not enough to say that he's wrong or to stop accepting his money). Make no mistake I don't agree with him but if he's giving me that much money I don't care what he says!"

Seriously, there used to be a time when members of ones own party called each other out for their BS. Now it's "We have different views on the subject" and that's it. They continue on like nothing happened and nothing changes since they're still receiving the money.

It's like the "Women can shut that whole Rape Child down" thing. That guy was a monster and guess what? After he refused to back down the Republicans rallied around him because they would rather have a monster in power than a Democrat or Independent.
Destined_Fate is offline  
Old 2012-10-25, 13:30   Link #1763
willx
Nyaaan~~
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Destined_Fate View Post
That's like saying "I don't support (Insert Theme)... But I'm going to accept millions of dollars from (Guy that I disagree with but not enough to say that he's wrong or to stop accepting his money). Make no mistake I don't agree with him but if he's giving me that much money I don't care what he says!"
Actually, no, that's not the same at all. Is it not possible to disagree with someone about one subject but agree with them about another?

Most of the "non-crazy" GOP republicans can disagree about the religious leanings while still agree on other fiscal matters.. I don't comprehend what intellectual problem you have. For example, I don't believe in God. The head of the government here does. We can still both agree that universal healthcare is important (Canada, yay!)
willx is offline  
Old 2012-10-25, 13:45   Link #1764
Destined_Fate
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: "Sacrifice one to appease the few."
Actually, yes it is. Romney's campaign didn't even say that guy was wrong for saying such a horrible thing. All they said was "We don't agree on that matter". That basically amounts to nothing at all and enables more radicals in the party to do as they please since they know that no matter what they say or do their fellow Republicans will back them if it means beating the Democrats and Independents.

Furthermore, that mindset plagues many Republicans in power and office, the ones that disagree are in the minority and almost always keep their mouths shut due to party pressure. I refuse to be affiliated with such a horrible group that treats many of their own base as nameless statistics to keep them in power. I also can't stand anyone foolish enough to support having their rights stripped away by the very people they're supporting.

I don't believe in God and I will never support anyone that places the beliefs of a Religion over what is "equal" and "just" for the American People as a whole. Romney and his elk have made it quite clear where they stand on that matter.
Destined_Fate is offline  
Old 2012-10-25, 13:57   Link #1765
james0246
Senior Member
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
Quote:
Originally Posted by willx View Post
Actually, no, that's not the same at all. Is it not possible to disagree with someone about one subject but agree with them about another?
You're being a little too glib on the matter. For example, If a candidate running for office in South Dakota (a generally "white" state) were to say that African Americans were inherently flawed and genetically weaker than Caucasians (and even felt the civil rights act should be repealed), but the candidate has an amazing gun rights record and firmly supported the 2nd Amendment, would it be okay for the constituents to just disavow the extraordinarily racist stance simply because the candidate supported gun rights (or a few other issues)?

When it comes down to it, these Republicans if elected will have a say (for better or worse) in all matters dealing with the human body and if they are entering office with the delusion that rape can be ignored by a woman's body if it's not "consensual" or that god ordained certain rapes (in order to create life), then how can you ever trust such candidates to ever actually look out for women's rights (let alone anyone's)? These candidates are clearly mentally handicapped in some fashion (maybe, hopefully, it is just ignorance, but more likely it is simple claptrap based on misconceived notions of that they hold toward their constituents...or worse, they actually believe their nonsense in which case they are clearly a harm to themselves and others).

You can disagree on substantive issues of policy, but when you add crazy to the mix you just end up shitting on everything and completely ruining the discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by willx View Post
For example, I don't believe in God. The head of the government here does. We can still both agree that universal healthcare is important (Canada, yay!)
Neither Canada nor the US will be making any governmental decisions based purely on God or their faith. Consequently, you do not need to fear that your government will outlaw or control anything based on God's perceived Will (generally speaking).

That is not the same when it comes to putting clearly delusional men in power who have fundamental misunderstandings about life or at least human bodies. They will actually have the power to influence and control the discussion concerning these issue in D.C., and from that power they could potentially change laws based on their complete misunderstandings.
james0246 is offline  
Old 2012-10-25, 14:28   Link #1766
willx
Nyaaan~~
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 31
@james/destined_fate:

I think you're both missing something fundamental though. The election rhetoric aside, none of which I care about, answer this question: Is there a difference between what Todd Aiken said and what Richard Mourdock said? Yes or no? The answer is yes.

Todd Aiken said something that showed a fundamental lack of understanding about the human body of knowledge related to biology. Something completely out of touch with how we understand the world to be. In other words crazy. What did Richard Mourdock actually say? He said that he believed the conception of life out of that horrific event was "God's Will" or in his rephrasing "God's Love." So what, although poorly worded, was he saying? Basically "All life is a gift of god, even conceived out of such a heinous act, that life is valuable." He is simply pro-life. That's a debate that rages to this day and isn't a simple question. I know where I stand on it.

That however, my friends, is his opinion. It is an opinion I do not share. I am pro-choice and don't believe in god. Now, what about that stance (his stance, to clarify), to you is so heinous that someone cannot simply agree to disagree about?

PS: I laughed about it as hard as anyone else when I heard it and said to myself: "How ridiculous" After reading further into the story though, I'm left sad at the mudslinging and the "picking on people" that goes about in elections and politics in general. Not that I hope for a "gentleman's duel at 20 paces" or anything.. but I wish everyone in general would be more tolerant and less emotional.
willx is offline  
Old 2012-10-25, 14:57   Link #1767
GDB
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by willx View Post
That however, my friends, is his opinion. It is an opinion I do not share. I am pro-choice and don't believe in god. Now, what about that stance (his stance, to clarify), to you is so heinous that someone cannot simply agree to disagree about?
Well, for starters it's about a person being victimized, and by his law based out of religious beliefs that should have no place in government due to the separation of church and state, she'd have to continue being victimized for at least 9 months, and possibly another 18 years after that. All because he wants to press his religious beliefs on the populace, which is unconstitutional.
GDB is online now  
Old 2012-10-25, 15:03   Link #1768
Neki Ecko
"Art"ful Dodger
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Everett, Washington
Age: 34
Send a message via Yahoo to Neki Ecko
Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
Honestly I don't think it matters who wins (of the two major parties).
They're both ruled by the corporatists (big banks, Unions, Wall Street firms, Big Pharma, and other monopolies/duopolies).

We the people (normal citizens/small business owners) are screwed.
Call me cynical, but I just call it like I see it.
You know what, that is most of the people in US is thinking that right now. That is the saddest thing, because if Romney does get to office, I got a list of stuff that is going to change or be gone. From Health Care to College from Gay Marriages to even stuff that actually help out the common folks, not hurt them.

My true feelings, is that everybody wants changes but they wanted it faster than what Obama is doing. Remember, that old saying that sometimes "Slow and Steady" wins the race. If the whole world would love to have a president like Obama on their side, why do we (US citizen) want him out of the office?
__________________
Neki Ecko is offline  
Old 2012-10-25, 15:09   Link #1769
willx
Nyaaan~~
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by GDB View Post
Well, for starters it's about a person being victimized, and by his law based out of religious beliefs that should have no place in government due to the separation of church and state, she'd have to continue being victimized for at least 9 months, and possibly another 18 years after that. All because he wants to press his religious beliefs on the populace, which is unconstitutional.
Even though I share the opinion you've expressed on the matter above, you're oversimplifying the argument with regards to it's "unconstitutional" nature. Read exactly what the U.S. Supreme Court said in their ruling on Roe v. Wade and the currently informed objections to it. In fact, notable legal scholars have expressly criticized it's precedent as being "total unfounded based on the constitution." Anyways, this is veering off course now for this topic, all I would say is that I'd hope people would give others the benefit of the doubt before making conclusions -- whether in politics or not.
willx is offline  
Old 2012-10-25, 15:11   Link #1770
Ithekro
Warning
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neki Ecko View Post
You know what, that is most of the people in US is thinking that right now. That is the saddest thing, because if Romney does get to office, I got a list of stuff that is going to change or be gone. From Health Care to College from Gay Marriages to even stuff that actually help out the common folks, not hurt them.

My true feelings, is that everybody wants changes but they wanted it faster than what Obama is doing. Remember, that old saying that sometimes "Slow and Steady" wins the race. If the whole world would love to have a president like Obama on their side, why do we (US citizen) want him out of the office?
Adverse to change, believe the changes are evil, racism, don't think the changes go the right way, or think the changes aren't the "American way".
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai! Signature by ganbaru
Rena's Saimoe Take Home List 2014: Dairenji Suzuka.Misawa Maho.
Ithekro is offline  
Old 2012-10-25, 15:27   Link #1771
GDB
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by willx View Post
all I would say is that I'd hope people would give others the benefit of the doubt before making conclusions -- whether in politics or not.
I don't see what that has to do with politics or the matter at hand.
GDB is online now  
Old 2012-10-25, 15:35   Link #1772
willx
Nyaaan~~
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by GDB View Post
I don't see what that has to do with politics or the matter at hand.
^ It's directly related to the 1) Richard Mourdock conversation and 2) is a statement of how much intolerance, rhetoric and vitriol is being spewed in this political environment. People are too quick to say the words: "they're stupid"

And.. folks, if you believe TPM, and you believe Michigan falls to the Dems .. this race is over :P

http://core.talkingpointsmemo.com/election/scoreboard
willx is offline  
Old 2012-10-25, 15:43   Link #1773
maplehurry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by willx View Post

That however, my friends, is his opinion. It is an opinion I do not share. I am pro-choice and don't believe in god. Now, what about that stance (his stance, to clarify), to you is so heinous that someone cannot simply agree to disagree about?
If he wants to ban abortion, so that opinion is no longer simply an opinion. Why do you even need to ask ? I thought it's obvious.
maplehurry is offline  
Old 2012-10-25, 16:27   Link #1774
RRW
Unspecified
*Scanlator
 
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Unspecified
Obama moves to make the War on Terror permanent

Quote:
A primary reason for opposing the acquisition of abusive powers and civil liberties erosions is that they virtually always become permanent, vested not only in current leaders one may love and trust but also future officials who seem more menacing and less benign.

The Washington Post has a crucial and disturbing story this morning by Greg Miller about the concerted efforts by the Obama administration to fully institutionalize to make officially permanent the most extremist powers it has exercised in the name of the war on terror
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...rism-kill-list
__________________
RRW is offline  
Old 2012-10-25, 16:57   Link #1775
james0246
Senior Member
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
Quote:
Originally Posted by willx View Post
@james/destined_fate:

I think you're both missing something fundamental though. The election rhetoric aside, none of which I care about, answer this question: Is there a difference between what Todd Aiken said and what Richard Mourdock said? Yes or no? The answer is yes.

Todd Aiken said something that showed a fundamental lack of understanding about the human body of knowledge related to biology. Something completely out of touch with how we understand the world to be. In other words crazy. What did Richard Mourdock actually say? He said that he believed the conception of life out of that horrific event was "God's Will" or in his rephrasing "God's Love." So what, although poorly worded, was he saying? Basically "All life is a gift of god, even conceived out of such a heinous act, that life is valuable." He is simply pro-life.
1) I addressed both viewpoints (Aiken's and Mourdock's) in my post. I did not lump them together, I instead argued against both. Whether Mourdock is a zealot, an idiot, or simply ignorant does not make his viewpoint any more acceptable.

2) I understand your "defense" of Mourdock's right to an opinion, but the truth of the matter is he is running for an office in which he can turn his opinion into law. Do you not see the vast power Mourdock could posses and how his stance, however well intentioned it may be, could fundamentally change women's rights? (Do you also not see how scary his slippy slope is? While he does not wish to legalize rape, he has clearly outlawed (currently morally, but if given the chance...) the women's right to be a victim in her own rape since she is merely a conduit for "God's Love").) As I said in my hypothetical, simply because a potential voter agrees on a few key issues does not excuse the extremist remarks a candidate makes (this is going back to the fact that Romney has not disavowed Mourdock); there is no justifiable way anyone can vote for this man unless they have the same opinion.

3) I have never fully blamed all Republicans for a few Republicans actions. Mourdock's words and opinions are his own and do not reflect on his party (though there are currently 5 Republican candidates that have all made similar stupid remarks concerning Rape in just a few months). The only Republican this potentially reflects badly on is Mitt Romney because he still accepts money from a man who does, no matter how he phrases it, justify rape.
james0246 is offline  
Old 2012-10-25, 18:04   Link #1776
Sugetsu
Kurumada's lost child
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
Honestly I don't think it matters who wins (of the two major parties).
They're both ruled by the corporatists (big banks, Unions, Wall Street firms, Big Pharma, and other monopolies/duopolies).

We the people (normal citizens/small business owners) are screwed.
Call me cynical, but I just call it like I see it.
What you are saying is true in the sense that both are in the pocket of the corporations, but as you also know, the GOP have stronger ties to corporations than democrats do.

You are wrong in the sense that this election won't change anything. It sure will, and the consequences are far reaching.

The X factor here is the Tea party. Those extremist have been dictating the GOP agenda for 2 years. They have gone to extremes in order to beat Obama. They are also highly religious and want to do away with the separation of church and state. They are also very intolerant people.
However, if the GOP were to lose the election this would most certainly spell the end of the tea party and heads would roll in the republican party as it struggles to redefine itself. If the Romney wins then get ready for some huge changes, as winning the white house would embolden and validate the tea party tactics.

Do you think Bush was bad? Wait until a guy called Mit Romney who is amoral and willing to do anything in order to fulfill his own goals starts leading the country according the Tea party's vision.
__________________
"If you educate people, you cannot control them." ~Jacque Fresco
Sugetsu is offline  
Old 2012-10-25, 18:13   Link #1777
FDW
AH.com Ambassador
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The Bay Area
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sugetsu View Post
What you are saying is true in the sense that both are in the pocket of the corporations, but as you also know, the GOP have stronger ties to corporations than democrats do.

You are wrong in the sense that this election won't change anything. It sure will, and the consequences are far reaching.

The X factor here is the Tea party. Those extremist have been dictating the GOP agenda for 2 years. They have gone to extremes in order to beat Obama. They are also highly religious and want to do away with the separation of church and state. They are also very intolerant people.
However, if the GOP were to lose the election this would most certainly spell the end of the tea party and heads would roll in the republican party as it struggles to redefine itself. If the Romney wins then get ready for some huge changes, as winning the white house would embolden and validate the tea party tactics.

Do you think Bush was bad? Wait until a guy called Mit Romney who is amoral and willing to do anything in order to fulfill his own goals starts leading the country according the Tea party's vision.
To be honest, I think that things have gotten to the point where any result (in November) will embolden the Tea Party. And I think that this partisanization going on in the Republican party (and to a much lesser extent in the Dems), is a natural process.
__________________
Blame Thande!
FDW is offline  
Old 2012-10-25, 18:19   Link #1778
Ithekro
Warning
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 37
Sometimes it makes one wonder if all the "doom and gloom" isn't imagined. Where in the real world things shouldn't be able to go that far because of the checks and balances...as well as the political need to be reelected.

Not to say it can't happen, just that it shouldn't be able to get that far.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai! Signature by ganbaru
Rena's Saimoe Take Home List 2014: Dairenji Suzuka.Misawa Maho.
Ithekro is offline  
Old 2012-10-25, 18:25   Link #1779
Sugetsu
Kurumada's lost child
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by FDW View Post
To be honest, I think that things have gotten to the point where any result (in November) will embolden the Tea Party. And I think that this partisanization going on in the Republican party (and to a much lesser extent in the Dems), is a natural process.
I don't think so, there might be a small chance that they will become even more vicious if they lose, which has been the GOP's strategy after the 2008 election. Although giving logical reasoning, the rest of the republican party will look at where they are standing now and how much support they have lost from women, homosexuals and minorities and how bad their chances for reelection on 2016 look that they will revolt against the tea party.
__________________
"If you educate people, you cannot control them." ~Jacque Fresco
Sugetsu is offline  
Old 2012-10-25, 19:20   Link #1780
james0246
Senior Member
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
Whether the Tea Party wins or loses this upcoming election is irrelevant since their stances and opinions will be considered worth less once the minority vote becomes the majority vote in a scant few years. Republican pandering to the Tea Party will essentially disappear as they are deemed less consequential to the elections.
james0246 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:38.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.