Political Argument Arena!!!

[JaredSS07]

I actually just saw this guy interviewed on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart tonight. He actually defends the Bush administration personally and tends to adopt the position of "blame the game not the player". He does have a point, but if anyone thinks that the US government (hell the British government too) didn't use propaganda in selling the war they're delusional or uninformed. It was definitely a case of "worst case scenario" threat and "best case scenario" war in their plans.


I saw this (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rutten31-2008may31,0,603653.column)a few days ago...
The New York Times' editorial page mocked the whole genre: "There are several kinds of Washington memoirs: 'I Reveal the Honest Truth,' a kiss-up-and-tell designed to settle scores (nod to honesty optional). 'I Was There at the Start,' designed to make the author appear to be the linchpin of history. And, most tedious: 'I Knew It Was a Terrible Mistake, but I Didn't Mention It Until I Got a Book Contract.' "

[Russell1892]

I've gotta say the whole American electoral process leaves me bemused. Its not just the Electoral College votes, the primaries, or the "Super" delegates (I mean wtf... did Marvel comics invent these guys... I'm picturing the people Superman went to for advice).

What really leaves me confused is a bunch of borderline insane riff-raff holding placards bearing the name of whatever candidate is speaking, whooping and cheering as said candidate says something mundane like "we're going to change America." They react like he just said "drinks are on me... the orgy's that way." When you're used to a round of polite applause it's unsettling.

It just reminds me more of the Jerry Springer show than an electoral process. Then I've seen Hillary supporters say they'll vote for McCain instead of Obama in a case of "cutting off one's nose." F*ckin' hell we're not talking about voting for the next winner of American Idol... we're talking about choosing the leader of the free world.

Your country is mad in many, many ways lads (acknowledged mine is too).

For an example from this country... there are calls for Robert Mugabe to be stripped of his honourary knighthood (which most people have forgotton he had). What makes me laugh is people forget that to have a knighthood removed the Queen is technically meant to break his sword over his head and declare: "that he is no longer a knight, but a knave."

[JaredSS07]

Your country is mad in many, many ways lads (acknowledged mine is too).

Our election process is pretty funny, but at least we taking governing more serious. Your House of Commons is like a school lunchroom with all the witty name calling and chatter on the benches. I actually watch the Commons for fun, unlike Congress which bores me to death.

[Russell1892]

Our election process is pretty funny, but at least we taking governing more serious. Your House of Commons is like a school lunchroom with all the witty name calling and chatter on the benches. I actually watch the Commons for fun, unlike Congress which bores me to death.

Christ, you must be the only person who watches the Commons for fun. I don't think its that they don't take it seriously... granted the outright laughing, and sly jokes may seem that way, but its part of the debate. In fact I think it adds to the debate. I can't believe how George Galloway (an odious little sh*t) was able to mop the floor with the senate when they questioned him over Saddam Hussein. I think the level of debate is better in the House of Commons.

This isn't to start a pissing contest of who's is better (and a pretty geeky one at that) but I'm reading a lot about the modern Senate (about Iraq at least) and there is barely any debate. If you call that taking it seriously?

[JaredSS07]

This isn't to start a pissing contest of who's is better (and a pretty geeky one at that) but I'm reading a lot about the modern Senate (about Iraq at least) and there is barely any debate. If you call that taking it seriously?

Maybe I am not reading you right, but the Iraqi system of government is much closer to your system than the US system.
You are right though, the debate in Congress is usually lame. Most Representatives and Senators aren't there unless there is an important vote or hot issue. It is just a parade of pre-written speeches with no interaction.

Just to kick off our geeky debate...
After working in politics in Canada and paying attention to Italian politics, I am not a fan of the parliamentary system. It is too biased for the incumbent's party and people tend to get stuck with a leader they don't like. Even if you hate the party leader, you may be in good with your MP and not want to vote against him. Plus, I prefer the two-party system. It may seem like you have less choice, but really they are just umbrella groups that contain many different factions. Plus it allows you to build coalitions on your own time, without disrupting government.

[JaredSS07]

I would actually love to look at them. Specifically something showing an economic improvement over the previous administration. Do you think Bush was a success as a President?

I am conflicted, as are most Republicans (in the game, at least). He is much smarter than he lets on, the many people I know that have worked directly with him say he is a very noble, loyal, and moral man. I think he has had to deal with one of the most difficult time periods that we have seen in awhile. I don’t think history will look back and say he was a horrible failure, but that there were so many paradigm shifts during his Presidency; all but the greatest Presidents would have struggled.
I am not a fan of his Medicare reform, No Child Left Behind, and I have always been unsure of the War in Iraq. I’m not against it because I think Bush is after oil or anything ridiculous like that, but I am sick of the US being the world policeman. That isn’t just a GOP mentality either; the Dems have done more than their fair share of using our military wrong. I was extremely pissed about the Kosovo War. The problem is that we cannot stop being the world’s police, because without a hegemon, the world usually devolves into chaos.

[JaredSS07]

I always like to hear your political opinions since you actually do this for a living. (Which is pretty cool). Honestly how do you see this thing playing out in November? Do you consider yourself more of a fiscal conservative or a social conservative? Growing up on the East Coast I met a few fiscal cons that didn't give to shits about the social agenda on either side it was all about what worked for GDP growth and the Street.

November is too far away to call. Anyone that tells you they know how it will go down is a liar. Typically, the polls taken this far out are crap too, but because people are more politically involved this year, I give them more respect. I base my predictions (sometimes my vote) on the campaign's structure and the "politics of politics." Once Obama gets through the Dem Convention and the RNC gets through fighting with McCain, I will have a better opinion.

As for my personal beliefs… I care way more about politics than policy. I personally hate to debate policy with people, mostly because it is rarely fruitful. I have noticed that campaign people are typically more moderate than their party faithful and the third party groups have the far right or far left nutjobs.

I am mainly a small government, fiscal conservative and typically center-right on the social conservative values. I love capitalism and hate social programs. I think abortion is wrong. I think guns and capital punishment are good. I think both prayer in schools and the banishment of Christianity from the public sphere are bad ideas. I would rather die than see national healthcare (either way I would be dying sooner than expected) and I think we should privatize Social Security. Global warming is real, humanity is not the main cause and we shouldn’t stop progress because of it. Immigration is a great thing and it is our fault that there are so many illegals. The US created one of the most stupid and inefficient immigration systems and forced people into having no other option.
Teddy Roosevelt is my favorite President because he could protect the environment while shooting everything that moved. He practiced true, hardnosed diplomacy, understood the proper use of force, and expanded the US sphere of influence in a good way. My least favorite is LBJ, except for his political strong arm tactics.

[Russell1892]

Maybe I am not reading you right, but the Iraqi system of government is much closer to your system than the US system.
You are right though, the debate in Congress is usually lame. Most Representatives and Senators aren't there unless there is an important vote or hot issue. It is just a parade of pre-written speeches with no interaction.

Just to kick off our geeky debate...
After working in politics in Canada and paying attention to Italian politics, I am not a fan of the parliamentary system. It is too biased for the incumbent's party and people tend to get stuck with a leader they don't like. Even if you hate the party leader, you may be in good with your MP and not want to vote against him. Plus, I prefer the two-party system. It may seem like you have less choice, but really they are just umbrella groups that contain many different factions. Plus it allows you to build coalitions on your own time, without disrupting government.

Well every system has its good and bad points. I find it odd that Obama and Clinton have spent so much time out on the campaign trail, I'm left thinking; "who's representing their constituents in the senate." But that's a very British way of looking at American politics.

The case in point of one of the flaws of the parliamentary system is the current situation in Britain where the PM has not won an election to govern. Gordon Brown reminds me of Richard Nixon actually in terms of personality (paranoid/scheming, socially awkward, and not very good at PR). There are problems of party politics within the system where the "whip" gets people to vote on acts according to the will of the leader and not their own convictions (not according to their constituents wishes). The Iraq war is a classic example of this, a lot of Labour MPs were against it but voted for it so as not to defeat the PM and make the party look fractured.

It can be too much in favour of the in-power party, but it depends on the majority gained in an election. We do have a two-party system really though, the 3rd party (Lib Dems) will never be in power, they're much like voting for an independent candidate.

What I like about the American system are; fixed terms, a limit of two terms to a President, and voting for both houses (since our house of lords is unelected by the public.) Our system where the government decides at any time within 5 years when to call an election needs to be reformed to fixed terms. I think though that having the President as the head of state, leaves anyone who criticises him open to accusations of being unpatriotic.

What I like about the British system though is the level of debate in the Houses of Commons and Lords (even the names of our houses show our history of gentry haha, "commons" and "lords"). I especially like PMQ's - the idea that once a week the PM is answerable to parliament about anything and everything. This also is another example where Gordon Brown regularly gets his arse handed to him and is great to watch if you don't like him (which I don't). Tony Blair however was a master of it. The only time I ever see the President answer questions is to the media.

I'm know you're familiar with it but for those that aren't here's a taste of Prime Minister's Questions from this week.
6Fr_otZW5m0

I don't know if you saw it, but after the revelations last week that Gordon Brown has been phoning members of the public (sometimes as early as 6am) a Tory back-bencher asked him "what does the PM intend to do about nuisance phone-calls?"

[Crazy Man Michael]

I am mainly a small government, fiscal conservative and typically center-right on the social conservative values. I love capitalism and hate social programs. I think abortion is wrong. I think guns and capital punishment are good. I think both prayer in schools and the banishment of Christianity from the public sphere are bad ideas. I would rather die than see national healthcare (either way I would be dying sooner than expected) and I think we should privatize Social Security. Global warming is real, humanity is not the main cause and we shouldn’t stop progress because of it. Immigration is a great thing and it is our fault that there are so many illegals. The US created one of the most stupid and inefficient immigration systems and forced people into having no other option.


That is a great statement of values and I think if I was going to write out my own they would look very similar. Basically, if you want something done in the most ineffecient and expensive way possible have government do it. Plus, once government gets its hands on something it never gives it up, which is why we keep having new social programs and never seem to get rid of the old ones, whether they work or not.

On a separate note, capital punishment is a problem for me at this time. In principle I support it, but the system needs a major overhaul, at least in Pennsylvania. Of the 200+ people condemned to death in my state over the last thirty years or so we have only executed three, and all have requested it. There are so many legal problems with how capital punishment is used, at least here in Pennsylvania, that it is more of a joke than a deterrent. The real effect of being condemned to death in Pennsylvania is that you spend your natural life on death row, which is much more restrictive than regular incarceration, but no one knows that so the deterrent value is nil. People on both sides of the issue are stymied, and there is no resolution in sight.

[tigerdave]

I am mainly a small government, fiscal conservative and typically center-right on the social conservative values. I love capitalism and hate social programs. I think abortion is wrong. I think guns and capital punishment are good. I think both prayer in schools and the banishment of Christianity from the public sphere are bad ideas. I would rather die than see national healthcare (either way I would be dying sooner than expected) and I think we should privatize Social Security. Global warming is real, humanity is not the main cause and we shouldn’t stop progress because of it. Immigration is a great thing and it is our fault that there are so many illegals. The US created one of the most stupid and inefficient immigration systems and forced people into having no other option.

Someone rep him, I'm all out.

[colinh9]

A good article about sitting down and talking to Iran.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/06/07/sitting_down_at_the_nuclear_table_with_iran/

hands on nuclear weapons and bring the security of the world . . . to an end."
more stories like this

Bush has insisted that "for the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon." Unfortunately, however, as a result of the failure of the Bush administration's strategy toward Iran, today Tehran stands seven years further down its path to nuclear weapons than it did on Jan. 20, 2001. Specifically, when Bush entered office, Iran had no operational uranium enrichment facilities. Today, as last month's International Atomic Energy Agency report documents, Iran is operating 3,492 centrifuges in a cascade that has produced 500 pounds of low-enriched uranium. This is one-third of what is required for Iran's first nuclear bomb.

The Bush administration's strategy to prevent Iran's mastering technology for enriching uranium and producing nuclear weapons has been characterized as a "diplomatic slow squeeze." The administration has hoped that UN Security Council resolutions isolating Iran, enforced by sanctions, would persuade Tehran to suspend enrichment activity. Ironically, the IAEA chose Memorial Day to inform its member governments that for the third time, Iran has stiffed the demands of the Security Council resolution.


If Bush recognized the fact that his diplomatic squeeze has failed, and asked what he could do in his final eight months to advance US interests in relations with Iran, he would not have to look beyond his own Cabinet.

In a 2004 report titled "Iran: Now is the Time for a New Approach," Defense Secretary Robert Gates urged that "the United States deal with the current regime rather than wait for it to fall." When asked about this recommendation during recent testimony on the Hill, Gates noted that he had been "in a happier place" then.

[JaredSS07]

Hillary Clinton paid a heavy price for presidential run (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/06/09/2008-06-09_hillary_clinton_paid_a_heavy_price_for_p.html)Eighteen million votes: $212 million. Some 1,926 delegates: $109,823 a pop. Blowing the biggest head start in presidential history: priceless.

Yikes...

[colinh9]

Hillary Clinton paid a heavy price for presidential run (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/06/09/2008-06-09_hillary_clinton_paid_a_heavy_price_for_p.html)

Yikes...

Yeah, and she's lent her campaign something like 11 million dollars. I doubt she's seeing the majority of that money back at any time soon.

[Dirt McGirt]

New thread time??

[JaredSS07]

New thread time??

Good idea...

Kick off the new thread with what type of Democrat/Liberal you are.

[Russell1892]

Bob Dylan supports Obama? (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/visual_arts/article4074327.ece) Your avatar might be putting you in league with Obama supporters Jared ;)

“Well, you know right now America is in a state of upheaval,” he says. “Poverty is demoralising. You can't expect people to have the virtue of purity when they are poor. But we've got this guy out there now who is redefining the nature of politics from the ground up...Barack Obama. He's redefining what a politician is, so we'll have to see how things play out. Am I hopeful? Yes, I'm hopeful that things might change. Some things are going to have to.”

Also from the same paper Bush 'regrets' his legacy. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4107327.ece) Incidentally this paper is owned by the same guy who owns Fox News, not to paint any kind of picture, just pointing out the hypocrisies of Murdoch's media depending upon their audience.

[tigerdave]

New thread time??

Indeed. (http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=704841)