Who Do you Agree with?

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by jamber97

Some restrictions on certain types of guns....

His voting record does not reflect that position.

If he were to have his druthers, I believe that he is from the group of people that believe that all firearms are inherently evil, and private ownership should be prohibited.

Now, having said that, what sort of guns should be restricted, and why?

TR

[ZonieDiver]

Originally Posted by jamber97

I was trying to imply that a move away from the current approach would improve things in the long run. I’m not recommending a move away from a free market society but as I stated, going to an extreme and leaving things unchecked and unregulated isn’t the way to go.

In the long run you have to protect men from themselves; they'll only do the right thing if there's incentive.

The financial markets are one of the most regulated sectors of our economy. Look what has happened there of late. I contend it is this level of regulation that sets the stage for the types of things that have happened.

As to your closing statement, I tend to side more with John Locke than Thomas Hobbes in my view of most people.

[jamber97]

Originally Posted by Pete

Details please

What "certain types of guns"?

Like weapons designed for non-hunting uses? Weapons that fire "cop killer" bullets able to go through a "bullet proof" vest? Weapons of a certain length? Weapons with a pistol grip or bayonet lug? Semi automatic weapons? Weapons with detachable maginzines? Weapons with En Bloc clips?

Which weapons and ammunition does he think we can do without?

Details on what he thinks are bad guns.

FWIIW - the company that holds the micro stamping patent is donating real big sums of money to Democrats.

I don't know as much about the issues as I would like to know. I am striving to learn and understand my world much better than I already do. It was one of the many reasons I joined the site. Quite a few points made so far are over my head at the moment. It's difficult filtering thru all the propaganda coming from both sides of the media. Right now the Republican side seems to be the most manipulative out of the party's which triggers my red flags.

[USANick7]

Jamber

Who has suggested a completely unregulated economy?

I understand your debating quite a few educated and experienced individuals right now, so please take your time. When you do get a chance I would like a response, but no rush...honestly. I prefer a well thought out response.

Thanks

[Penn]

Jamber97, In detail, explain your position on 2nd admendment rights.

[Penn]

In case you missed it, I'll do the homework for you

In a February 17, 1998 speech at the Pentagon, Clinton focused on what in his State of the Union address a few weeks earlier he had called an “unholy axis” of rogue states and predatory powers threatening the world’s security. “There is no more clear example of this threat,” he asserted, “than Saddam Hussein’s Iraq,” and he added that the danger would grow many times worse if Saddam were able to realize his thoroughly documented ambition, going back decades and at one point close to accomplishment, of acquiring an arsenal of nuclear as well as chemical and biological weapons. The United States, Clinton said, “simply cannot allow this to happen.”

“unholy axis” by Clinton = Axis of evil by Bush. This is continuity in Foreign Policy. Only Clinton lacked the courage to pull the trigger.

I almost forgot: “starting in early 1999,” as Kenneth Pollack, an official in Clinton’s National Security Council, would later recount, “the Clinton administration began to develop options to overthrow Saddam’s regime.”

[Pete]

Originally Posted by jamber97

I don't know as much about the issues as I would like to know. I am striving to learn and understand my world much better than I already do........

Then read more, both on line and in print. Find out all you can on an issue. Do not listen to the talking points in the MSM.

What is behind a lawmakers push to pass a bill?

Did the bill passed in 1933 that Clinton allowed to expire in 1999 have anything to do with the meltdown we've seen the last week?

Did the "Fair Lending" Laws passed under Carter (yes Carter) have anything to do with lending practices the past 10 years - gee - that takes us back to 1999.

How are a natural disaster, the rush of business people to move needed supplies into an area and the people who need them effected by anti-gouging laws?

[The Reaper]

Just like the old saying, "You are, what you eat", You "know" what you are told, until you learn to read between the lines by critical thinking and do your own research.

Don't take our word for it, do some independent reading and study.

Back to Obama's 2nd Amendment positions, and what guns you do not like and why, if you do not mind....

TR

[Penn]

Originally Posted by jamber97

I don't know as much about the issues as I would like to know. I am striving to learn and understand my world much better than I already do. It was one of the many reasons I joined the site. Quite a few points made so far are over my head at the moment. It's difficult filtering thru all the propaganda coming from both sides of the media. Right now the Republican side seems to be the most manipulative out of the party's which triggers my red flags.

Ok, you take a position, but you are unable to articulate why and what that position is based on the issues that you have embraced. How then, can you support any position if you don't have the information in the first place to defend it.

[Penn]

As to your closing statement, I tend to side more with John Locke than Thomas Hobbes in my view of most people.


Jamber will need some time to digest your examples of political thought on social contract.

[USANick7]

Originally Posted by Penn

As to your closing statement, I tend to side more with John Locke than Thomas Hobbes in my view of most people.


Jamber will need some time to digest your examples of political thought on social contract.

uh oh....now we get into the debate concerning revelation vs. reason, and the philosophical problems with unaided reason, ethics, etc.

Definitely a conversation for another time...LOL...my hands are quite full for the present!

[FILO]

[QUOTE=jamber97;225157]I was trying to imply that a move away from the current approach would improve things in the long run. I’m not recommending a move away from a free market society but as I stated, going to an extreme and leaving things unchecked and unregulated isn’t the way to go.
QUOTE]

Normally I don't get involved in these discussions, but, the above statement is beyond ignorant. Ever here of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act? If not, use Google, it's your friend.

[Sigaba]

The structure of your argument does not inspire confidence in your understanding of how the federal government works or in your commitment to informed, civil discourse.

In regards to the latter, you begin by attacking and dismissing an important medium for being 'propaganda.' You also set up a straw man (a candidate as 'perfect') as the central topic of debate among conservatives. I think that the most cursory sampling of the debate among conservatives over the qualifications of either candidate is more nuanced than you indicate.

Your attack continues. You aver that you have analyzed the two campaigns based upon "issues" and "philosophy" in an implicit contrast to the uncritical acceptance of the aforementioned "propaganda" by others, including the members of this forum. In fact, the most casual reading of the threads on this forum reveals significant differences in opinion among its senior members.

In regards to the former, one would be hard pressed to find responsible scholarship that supports your contention that any policy is as heavily influenced by a sitting president or his political philosophy as you suggest. In my own research on the National Security Act of 1947 and the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 (arguably the two most important pieces of legislation since the end of the Second World War), I found ample evidence that both acts were influenced by debates that began in the 1800s and that the passage of both acts had little to do with the preferences of either Truman or Reagan.

Additionally, it is a widely believed that the ills of American politics center around the on-going efforts of the House of Representatives to redraw political districts in the states so that elections are less competitive. Add to this dynamic the well-documented indifference of voters to participate actively in politics (beyond voting once every four years), and it becomes rather quite clear that what you call "the big mess" is not just the product of "Republican philosophy."

I believe that your efforts to advance the discussion of contemporary American politics would be more beneficial if you were to approach the subject with a higher level of intellectual curiosity. Addressing those who might disagree with you more respect may also help your cause.

Originally Posted by jamber97

Is there a perfect candidate for president? No, McCain/ Palin has just as many if not more draw backs than Obama/Biden but you wouldn't know that from reading here or in listening to conservative talk radio. Talk radio is propaganda on both sides. Conservative talk radio hated McCain and talked about him like he was the anti Christ, until he became the nominee.

Focusing on the issues, Obama and a Democratic congress is in a better position to accomplish his plans than would be a McCain and a Democratic congress. The Republican philosophy has been tested and has its flaws. Privatization and deregulating things has proven to be disastrous. Allowing lobbyist to create your policy on such a large scale doesn't put the interest of the country first; it puts the interest of the organizations who are lobbying first. Hence the big mess we're in now.

I find that both party's and their followers tend to go to the extreme in their philosophy. It seems that as humans we tend to do this. Obama seems more willing to move to the center and has proven to be more right than wrong in his public stance on the issues in comparison to other candidates.

I vote based upon the issues and the candidates general philosophy. I don't label the candidate or put them into a category. I voted for 2 terms of Bush because I believed in his philosophy and approach. I felt we could see if it would work, given 8 years for it to be put into practice. The result wasn't what I expected hence the approach needs to be changed. I feel that Obama is that change and McCain represents a failed philosophy.

I don't agree with either candidate on all the issues but I don't see McCain giving us the best chance to improve where our countries at.

I agree with Obama on the economy, Iraq, terrorism, middle east, taxes and spending, trade and globalization, labor and business regulations, social security, abortion, Gun policy and crime, Gay rights, Poverty, the courts, government reform and his choice of team members.

I agree with McCain on Diplomacy, healthcare, Energy, education


They both have a similar approach on the environment and immigration.

Based upon my areas of agreement, I see Obama and a democratic congress being able to accomplish a great deal more than McCain and a democratic congress.

[USANick7]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

The structure of your argument does not inspire confidence in your understanding of how the federal government works or in your commitment to informed, civil discourse.

In regards to the latter, you begin by attacking and dismissing an important medium for being 'propaganda.' You also set up a straw man (a candidate as 'perfect') as the central topic of debate among conservatives. I think that the most cursory sampling of the debate among conservatives over the qualifications of either candidate is more nuanced than you indicate.

Your attack continues. You aver that you have analyzed the two campaigns based upon "issues" and "philosophy" in an implicit contrast to the uncritical acceptance of the aforementioned "propaganda" by others, including the members of this forum. In fact, the most casual reading of the threads on this forum reveals significant differences in opinion among its senior members.

In regards to the former, one would be hard pressed to find responsible scholarship that supports your contention that any policy is as heavily influenced by a sitting president or his political philosophy as you suggest. In my own research on the National Security Act of 1947 and the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 (arguably the two most important pieces of legislation since the end of the Second World War), I found ample evidence that both acts were influenced by debates that began in the 1800s and that the passage of both acts had little to do with the preferences of either Truman or Reagan.

Additionally, it is a widely believed that the ills of American politics center around the on-going efforts of Congress (in particular the House of Representatives) to redraw political districts in the states so that elections are less competitive. Add to this dynamic the well-documented indifference of voters to participate actively in politics (beyond voting once every four years), and it becomes rather quite clear that what you call "the big mess" is not just the product of "Republican philosophy."

I believe that your efforts to advance the discussion of contemporary American politics would be more beneficial if you were to approach the subject with a higher level of intellectual curiosity. Addressing those who might disagree with you more respect may also help your cause.

Good post Sigaba

Generally speaking...this is why liberals are real careful before sauntering in here and presumptuously attempting to educating us.

Postmodernist thought doesn't get allot of play around guys who have seen their fair share of reality. And attempting to argue based off a notion of morale and cultural relativism doesn't play well with people who have seen tyranny and its consequences.

[Razor]

jamber, thanks for responding. Like others have pointed out, however, your stated reasons for supporting Obama lack some depth. Since USANick has started with a focus on economic policies, I suggest we continue the discussion there, if you're willing.

First, so everyone has an equal baseline understanding of Obama's economic policies, the link to his stance on this issue from his official website is here.

At the top of the page, BHO is quoted as saying, "“I believe that America's free market has...provided great rewards to the innovators and risk-takers who have made America a beacon for science, and technology, and discovery…". My first question is how is innovation and unproven technology or methodologies most often funded? The largest source is venture capitalists from the free market, followed by loans and then government funding. The primary motivation behind venture capitalization is profit. However, the first point of the BHO/Biden plan is to enact a Windfall Profits Tax, whose very purpose is to punish financial success by taking a large percentage of profit and handing it out to the masses with no conditions or requirements. It doesn't take too much of that to discourage the domestic investment required to fund innovation and risk-taking.

The second gaping hole in BHO's economic plan involves the funding source of his planned spending. Assuming that Congress follows his direction lock, stock and barrel (ignoring constituent desires), let's look at BHO's announced spending:

• $1 billion a year in energy rebates/tax relief
• $50 billion to "jumpstart" the economy
• Unidentified amount (easily hundreds of millions) for an "Advanced Manufacturing Fund"
• Unidentified amount (again, easily hundreds of millions) to fund a Manufacturing Extension Partnership
• $150 billion for clean energy
• $60 billion for a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank
• Unidentified amount to fund job training in "clean" technologies
• Extention of broadband connectivity to every community in the country (funded through the USF charge on all phone bills)
• $250 million per year for a National Network of Public-Private Business Incubators
• Untold billions for a Universal Mortgage Credit
• The creation of another bureaucracy - the Credit Card Rating System
• Unidentified amount for nationwide 21st Century Learning Centers
• 50% credit to "low income" families for child care expenses
• $1.5 billion to encourage paid-leave policies

At the same time, BHO wants to get Congress to enact the following tax cuts (which reduce available funding sources):

• Eliminate income tax for 37 million citizens (over 3% of the population)
• Tax breaks to companies that do not offshore work, regardless of the economic efficiency of doing so
• A non-specific R&D tax credit
• Eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses (the most prolific source of employment in the US)
• Increase the Earned Income Tax Credit
• Provide a $7000 tax credit for buying hybrid cars

So we're left with greater spending, much of it on wealth redistribution programs and business plans that discourage investing in innovation, and deeper cuts in the majority of the tax base, which serves as the funding source for all the aforementioned programs. I suppose this assumes that the "rich" (between 1 and 3% of the population) will fund all of this through higher taxes in order to benefit the remaining 97 - 99%? That doesn't sound like free market economics to me.

Lastly (for now), BHO appears to favor creating domestic trade restrictions to reduce foreign competition while concurrently eliminating foreign trade protection policies (that should play out well), forcing companies into inefficient resource allocation to protect expensive American labor, supporting labor unions over consumers, and forcing companies to provide compensation to workers that are not working (more paid leave, more FMLA). These initiatives display a gross lack of understanding of even the most basic free market concepts. Is this the person that should be at the helm of the largest economy in the world?