Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
WE NEED SOME POLITICS. YOUR THOUGHTS?
Posts
republic
20
republic
View playlists
CloseThat survey is bogus. It's not a reputable organization (Republican claptrap machine), and he is rated more liberal than Bernie Sanders, the SELF-LABELED SOCIALIST SENATOR. Give me a break. (Edit: It's also bogus because it rated the senators on a very narrow, cherry-picked criteria list. One of the bills that made him so "liberal" was for the creation of an independent government accountability office. That doesn't strike me as "liberal" so much as JUST. If they want to say Republicans don't want accountability in their government, be my guest.)
Hmm after some digging I found both senators ADA score (score that shows how liberal a congressman votes) were in the high 90's - 100's. But most recently during the 2007 voting they took a nose dive with a score of 75. Very crafty politicians. I won't acknowledge that Obama is a full blown northern democrat. Hopefully, Obama will continually gravitate towards the middle because I still stand by what I've said before.
author=Thrasher link=topic=974.msg13499#msg13499 date=1209412583Because Americans hate the idea of universal health care? It really baffles me that a powerful and progressive nation like the US does not have a universal health care system, especially since it pays a greater percentage of GDP towards healthcare than, say, Canada (who isn't exactly running a tight ship on healthcare).
Edit 2:author=kentona link=topic=974.msg13496#msg13496 date=1209411750
I really don't care which one gets in because presidents really can't do much on their own in the states.
This is EXACTLY why it's imperative that Obama wins. Like I said, he's level-headed and not stubborn, unlike Hillary. Don't you think that's more conducive to getting legislation passed? Why do you think Hillary's health-care plan has failed for over 15 years?
Thrasher
539
author=kentona link=topic=974.msg13502#msg13502 date=1209414390There's no universal health care because the idea is demonized by conservatives who just say "MORE TAXES MORE TAXES" and people buy it. People regularly don't vote in their own interests -- do you really think the poor small-town folk who vote Republican benefit from their pro-corporate policies? People largely vote on social issues ever since Reagan and co. came into town.
Because Americans hate the idea of universal health care? It really baffles me that a powerful and progressive nation like the US does not have a universal health care system, especially since it pays a greater percentage of GDP towards healthcare than, say, Canada (who isn't exactly running a tight ship on healthcare).
Obama's plan is not universal healthcare, but it strives to come close enough. It's not a sea change as much as it is a lowering of rates and fees, so that people can afford it. Hillary's claim that it leaves out 15 million people is dishonest, because those 15 million are considered college students who wouldn't buy healthcare because they *don't want it*.
republic
20
author=Thrasher link=topic=974.msg13503#msg13503 date=1209414906
There's no universal health care because the idea is demonized by conservatives who just say "MORE TAXES MORE TAXES" and people buy it. People regularly don't vote in their own interests -- do you really think the poor small-town folk who vote Republican benefit from their pro-corporate policies? People largely vote on social issues ever since Reagan and co. came into town.
I disagree that people voting on social issues aren't voting in their own interest. To the average person, those issues are probably more important than most of welfare stuff. (Except for Social Security. People get uptight when you change that) That's an area where conservatives have capitalized.
author=Thrasher link=topic=974.msg13495#msg13495 date=1209410390
a) That survey is bogus. It's not a reputable organization (Republican claptrap machine), and he is rated more liberal than Bernie Sanders, the SELF-LABELED SOCIALIST SENATOR. Give me a break. (Edit: It's also bogus because it rated the senators on a very narrow, cherry-picked criteria list. One of the bills that made him so "liberal" was for the creation of an independent government accountability office. That doesn't strike me as "liberal" so much as JUST. If they want to say Republicans don't want accountability in their government, be my guest.)
Actually the survey is not bogus. Obama is pretty liberal. It's not a bad thing, unlike Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity make it out to be. The problem is now that "liberal" has negative connotations to the general public, which is crazy. As for Bernie sanders, remember that socialism usually only refers to economic issues - you can still be moderate or conservative on other issues (such as abortion). Many of the socialist groups in Europe are deemed "Christian socialists", for example.
The methodology wasn't perfect, but these things rarely are. For instance, Obama voted against a ban on late-term abortions, which earned him "liberal" points (just like in Knight of the Old Republic! The XP popped up right above his head and everything). But they don't consider the reason for the vote - Obama didn't approve of the bill because it didn't include an exception considering the health of the mother.
The survey I was referring to was conducted by the National Journal, which includes some very left-wing contributors, such as Richard Cohen. Don't be so afraid of being deceived by others that you deceive yourself.
author=Thrasher link=topic=974.msg13503#msg13503 date=1209414906
There's no universal health care because the idea is demonized by conservatives who just say "MORE TAXES MORE TAXES" and people buy it. People regularly don't vote in their own interests -- do you really think the poor small-town folk who vote Republican benefit from their pro-corporate policies? People largely vote on social issues ever since Reagan and co. came into town.
Actually, most of the people who are against universal healthcare don't disapprove of it because of taxes. They have kind of buyed into the theory that it is a government handout, like welfare, and that they should earn it at their job or some other nonsense. Lots of people think of it as big government..
author=Thrasher link=topic=974.msg13503#msg13503 date=1209414906
Obama's plan is not universal healthcare, but it strives to come close enough. It's not a sea change as much as it is a lowering of rates and fees, so that people can afford it. Hillary's claim that it leaves out 15 million people is dishonest, because those 15 million are considered college students who wouldn't buy healthcare because they *don't want it*.
Neither of their plans really classify as universal healthcare. Hillary's plan fines anyone who doesn't have insurance (whether obtained from the private market or from the government subsidy), which is stupid, similar to the plan Mitt Romney had in Massachusets. The problem is they normally end up exempting the poor because they truly can't pay. As Obama pointed out, it's not like people don't sign up because they don't want healthcare, they don't sign up because they can't afford.
Obama's plan fines parent who don't sign their children up for programs like SCHIP. The primary goal of his plan is to lower costs for citizens, whether through negotiating or subsidies.
Poo on the guy who said "he may be too liberal for the general election."
Sheesh... people are that sheep-like that what "they" say affects what YOU think?
Example1: Hmmm, I really like Obama in every way, but I don't think America is ready for a President with serious basketball skills. I'm voting McCain.
OR
Example2: Hmmm, I really like Obama and I don't care what his pastor says. It doesn't reflect on him very much, but it's going to hurt him in the election. Therefore I'm voting for carrot top.
Sheesh... people are that sheep-like that what "they" say affects what YOU think?
Example1: Hmmm, I really like Obama in every way, but I don't think America is ready for a President with serious basketball skills. I'm voting McCain.
OR
Example2: Hmmm, I really like Obama and I don't care what his pastor says. It doesn't reflect on him very much, but it's going to hurt him in the election. Therefore I'm voting for carrot top.
republic
20
author=harmonic link=topic=974.msg13523#msg13523 date=1209427488
Poo on the guy who said "he may be too liberal for the general election."
Sheesh... people are that sheep-like that what "they" say affects what YOU think?
Example1: Hmmm, I really like Obama in every way, but I don't think America is ready for a President with serious basketball skills. I'm voting McCain.
OR
Example2: Hmmm, I really like Obama and I don't care what his pastor says. It doesn't reflect on him very much, but it's going to hurt him in the election. Therefore I'm voting for carrot top.
What's sheep-like about what I said? I buy into that argument because I thought it through not because some big wig told me to follow it. If he does not gravitate towards the middle, being a northern democrat is going to hurt his chances at the presidency. Al Gore, John Kerry, and Dukakis are all losers and at the liberal end of the party. Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter are winners and at the middle portion of the party.
author=republic link=topic=974.msg13525#msg13525 date=1209429370
What's sheep-like about what I said? I buy into that argument because I thought it through not because some big wig told me to follow it. If he does not gravitate towards the middle, being a northern democrat is going to hurt his chances at the presidency. Al Gore, John Kerry, and Dukakis are all losers and at the liberal end of the party. Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter are winners and at the middle portion of the party.
Al Gore is a pretty bad example. For one, he was from Tenesee, making him a southern democrat. Two, he actually won the popular vote and would have won the electoral college as well if not for Ralph Nader splitting some votes or a disturbing Florida voting process (by the same token, the Clinton/Gore ticket would have lost in 1992 if not for Perot).Three, he's not your classic liberal either. He was actually the one regarded as "strong on defense" in 2000 vs. Bush's "humble" foreign policy.
Also, Jimmy Carter only won because of backlash against the Republicans for Watergate, not because he was a "moderate". Carter is actually more liberal than a few of the folks you lumped into the "northern" democrat.
republic
20
author=rcholbert link=topic=974.msg13526#msg13526 date=1209429764
Al Gore is a pretty bad example. For one, he was from Tenesee, making him a southern democrat. Two, he actually won the popular vote and would have won the electoral college as well if not for Ralph Nader splitting some votes or a disturbing Florida voting process (by the same token, the Clinton/Gore ticket would have lost in 1992 if not for Perot).Three, he's not your classic liberal either. He was actually the one regarded as "strong on defense" in 2000 vs. Bush's "humble" foreign policy.
1) Northern democrat is a term I use to describe people at the liberal end of the party. I can't help it I learned it that way. XD I still call very liberal politicians in Los Angeles for example, northern democrats. That idiot who lost to the governator in the california election was a northern democrat. I even forgot his name already.
2) Winning the popular vote does not count for anything. In the end, you have to win the entire game not just a portion of it. I do give him thumbs up for taking the election to double overtime.
3) You have to project that image as a democratic candidate. Being tough in foreign policy is just like Bush being the compassionate conservative. I still don't buy into your argument. I don't know too many people in the middle making environmental movies. =\
Also, Jimmy Carter only won because of backlash against the Republicans for Watergate, not because he was a "moderate". Carter is actually more liberal than a few of the folks you lumped into the "northern" democrat.
Ok, I change my argument. He lost re-election because he was too liberal. =D
It's a scary thought when the environment is a partisan issue and that caring about the planet makes you a unelectable liberal.
Wouldn't you agree, republic(an)?
(For the record, Newt Gingrich, former Republican speaker of the House, has wrote several books about the environment and has recently appeared in an ad for wecansolveit.org, the braindchild of Al Gore's enviromental machine. The environment - it's not just for liberals anymore!)
Wouldn't you agree, republic(an)?
(For the record, Newt Gingrich, former Republican speaker of the House, has wrote several books about the environment and has recently appeared in an ad for wecansolveit.org, the braindchild of Al Gore's enviromental machine. The environment - it's not just for liberals anymore!)
republic
20
It's a scary thought when the environment is a partisan issue and that caring about the planet makes you a unelectable liberal.
Wouldn't you agree, republic(an)?
I thought progress was part of the liberal mindset. You know, progress for a cleaner environment.
BTW, I'm not a full blown republican. ::) But as you can tell, I'm conservative on some issues. I'm just as hip as you guys with the hating of the bigwigs and the religious zealots in the republican party.
maladroithim
1495
author=kentona link=topic=974.msg13496#msg13496 date=1209411750
I really don't care which one gets in because presidents really can't do much on their own in the states.
Well this was true until the 21st century when secret spying programs and presidential torture orders became the norm.
author=kentona link=topic=974.msg13496#msg13496 date=1209411750
And it's hard to take american politics seriously when they remain in the outmoded 2-party system. But ANYTHING has to be better than Bush's Theocracy.
The primary system serves in many ways like a runoff system so it isn't as limited as you would think.
author=kentona link=topic=974.msg13496#msg13496 date=1209411750
But ANYTHING has to be better than Bush's Theocracy.
Jesus Christ agrees with you <3
author=kentona link=topic=974.msg13496#msg13496 date=1209411750
I really don't care which one gets in because presidents really can't do much on their own in the states.
To concur with brandonabley (oh, how it pains me to do this), the President of the United States actually has a wide array of powers that the presidents or prime ministers of many countries don't have. Besides have complete (not de facto) authority of the military, they also control the bureaucracy, which was formally little used. Today much of the legislation in the U.S. starts at the White House and not in Congress. Every government office in the land reports to the President, and whether or not Congress or the Supreme Court rule on an issue, the final say ultimately rests with the President. Especially now when the Democratic congress lacks the balls to impeach someone who abuses their office.
This is compared with many other democracies where the leaders can be recalled by a simple vote of no confidence, a caucus recall, or other means of political persuasion.
Our system is ripe for abuse... but also capable of doing great things.
demondestiny
889
wow, i'm glad this topic is getting somewhere much thanks to holb and his expertise at political debating.
lol, i would have to agree with this too.
author=kentona link=topic=974.msg13496#msg13496 date=1209411750
But ANYTHING has to be better than Bush's Theocracy.
lol, i would have to agree with this too.
maladroithim
1495
author=republic link=topic=974.msg13527#msg13527 date=1209431573
I don't know too many people in the middle making environmental movies. =\
Also I would just like to suggest that global climate change as presented by Al Gore is extremely sensationalist and probably not that accurate. He throws a wall of correlations at you with no real proof of causation (by the same token, Republicans are twice as likely as Democrats to commit suicide, but I honestly doubt that their political persuasion has much to do with it). Much of his arguments are based on ice melt in certain regions of the world even though there is ice accumulation of approximately the same amount in other regions that he is conveniently ignoring. We are definitely affecting our environment by polluting it, but maybe chasing after Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily the most productinve thing in the world. Most conservatives argue not that we have no need to keep the planet habitable, but that the science as presented by people like Al Gore is most certainly uncertain.
Personally, I'm glad that there aren't many people in the middle making movies like Al Gore's. It's kind of ridiculous how uninformed people are about the major issues even though we've had resources like the 1980s documentary The World is Full of Oil! for decades. Unfortunately, some of the uninformed people are recognizable figures like Al Gore who are presenting topics that they really aren't experts in and spreading even more disinformation.
author=brandonabley link=topic=974.msg13664#msg13664 date=1209570650
Rant
There is actually a pretty definitive scientific consensus on climate change, but conservatives don't want you to know this. I am sure you remember last year when conservatives took out articles in many national papers denouncing climate change and listed the names of like 150 scientists who disagreed with the global warming theory. The problem? Over three-quarters of the "scientists" were economists. That's right, most of the the people they found to debunk climate change are people who are students of the "science" of how money works.
I am pretty sure this will be one of this generational things, like evolution. The theory of evolution was pretty hotly debated at the beginning of the 20th century and it was rountinely "debunked" by conservatives
The other problem with these issues is we keep politicizing them. Let the scientists do their job and then we'll deal with the honest results. Remember, science is about raw data, not the spin that goes on afterwards. We don't need conservatives in the White House editing climate data (This actually happened. Guess we shouldn't put an oil lobbyist as the head of the EPA.) nor do we need liberals pushing baseless theories. We need facts.
One last response, but most conservative honestly don't care about keeping the planet habitable. During the 1980's one of Ronald Reagan's advisors, when questioned about Reagan's dismanting of several enviromental policies, responded that he didn't know if it was worthwhile anyways, because they didn't know how long it was before Jesus was coming back. More modern conservatives has made claims such as "God gave us the Earth. Take it. Rape it. It's yours."
As an aside, my favorite thing about the The World is Full of Oil! was when people went back and looked at it a decade later. This is a snippet I found on it...
The most radical theory is advanced by Thomas Gold, an astronomer who dismisses the generally accepted idea that fuel deposits were formed by the decay of biological materials over millions of years and holds instead that they were among the basic elements that created the earth. If he proves to be correct, we are told, ''the supply of oil and gas would be virtually limitless.'' So far, however, tests of his theory in Sweden have been costly but not productive.
maladroithim
1495
author=rcholbert link=topic=974.msg13683#msg13683 date=1209579187
There is actually a pretty definitive scientific consensus on climate change, but conservatives don't want you to know this. I am sure you remember last year when conservatives took out articles in many national papers denouncing climate change and listed the names of like 150 scientists who disagreed with the global warming theory. The problem? Over three-quarters of the "scientists" were economists. That's right, most of the the people they found to debunk climate change are people who are students of the "science" of how money works.
That is not what I was talking about at all. I was criticizing climate change as presented by Al Gore and claiming that it was sensationalist. I also said that I believe we are changing the climate of the earth through pollution but that there is actually not any evidence proving CO2 to be responsible than there is evidence proving that Republicans are more likely to commit suicide because they are Republican.
Also your discussion of Reagen et al is probably more relevant when describing Republicans and not Conservatives (it has been well-established that Republicans are not conservative).
author=rcholbert link=topic=974.msg13683#msg13683 date=1209579187
As an aside, my favorite thing about the The World is Full of Oil! was when people went back and looked at it a decade later. This is a snippet I found on it...
Oh man the last part of that movie is really hilarious in retrospect but the first half of the film brings up a lot of ideas that are conventiently left out of the current discussions for oil exploration (tar sands, oil shale, pumping all oil and not just 40% of it, etc). My point -- and I should have elaborated more -- is that people take messages at face value and run with them. We are told that there is no oil left in the world when there is sufficient evidence to suggest that there is quite a lot of oil left in the world. The global warming discussion is another great example of this, because a correlation between CO2 and global temperature is accepted as all we need to know in order to take action, when, in reality, running away with a correlation or two is very bad science.
