Im bored and I usually enjoy the political dialogue on the site.

So, what are the 3 issues you will your vote be based on this year.
Dont limit yourself to the presdiential race.

There's no need to vote on issues, for the phenomenal satire of Gerard Baker has alerted us that the second coming needs no further campaigning.



Seriously... can any American create this kind of satire? I love it to no end.

Dynamo Owl Wrote:There's no need to vote on issues, for the phenomenal satire of Gerard Baker has alerted us that the second coming needs no further campaigning.



Seriously... can any American create this kind of satire? I love it to no end.

YEs,, that was dead on,, thanks for the link

THRILL Wrote:

Dynamo Owl Wrote:There's no need to vote on issues, for the phenomenal satire of Gerard Baker has alerted us that the second coming needs no further campaigning.



Seriously... can any American create this kind of satire? I love it to no end.

YEs,, that was dead on,, thanks for the link

All it needed was shots of the dozen or so people standing behind him that always "fainted" whenever he gave a televised campaign speech.. (obvious staged plants)

'The Golden Child cures the meek and ill"....

THRILL Wrote:Im bored and I usually enjoy the political dialogue on the site.

So, what are the 3 issues you will your vote be based on this year.
Dont limit yourself to the presdiential race.

1. No MARTA expansion up to the Northern Metro Atlanta Counties. Build GWIN-TRAN and link the systems at a common terminal. Big deal if people have to change trains, MARTA is corrupt. Keep their corrupt hands out of our taxpayers pockets.

2a. Repeal the "3 foot rule" at clubs. 2b. Sell beer/wine after 1 pm on Sunday in grocery stores in Georgia. (Now no beer/wine sales on Sunday)

3. Defeat as many Georgia Legislators as possible that oppose the separation of North Fulton County and that oppose the creation of "new" Milton County.

1. Energy and the environment is one of my issues. It is finally getting real attention from the presidential candidates. I wish more politicians would realize that our military is useless without fuel and, if only for that reason, proactively take steps to prioritize the development and widespread use of alternative fuels. I wish that politicians would look at the high-speed rail systems in Europe and Japan and see that increased investment in intercity rail in the U.S. is more sustainable than investment in roads and can offer travelers a very competitive alternative to driving long distances or flying. Getting more oil and/or cheaper oil is not the solution. Pandering to oil companies and auto manufacturers is not the solution.

2. Property tax cuts is a local issue of interest. Property tax cuts sound good, but those in recent years have resulted in deep cuts to public services like public transportation. I think public transportation is important; see Issue 1.

I haven't decided what my third top issue is yet.

WMD Owl Wrote:2b. Sell beer/wine after 1 pm on Sunday in grocery stores in Georgia. (Now no beer/wine sales on Sunday)

Why stop at 1 pm? I can't stand having to wait until after noon to do my grocery shopping (running out of beer is usually the first sign that I need to go shopping). After all, with the good people all in church on Sunday mornings, the lines are much shorter for degenerates like myself.

Reducing the size & scope of the government (at all levels, but particularly the federal).

Restoring private property rights & protections after the Kelo decision.

Not sure I can limit it to three, but on most of the issues I care about and on general philosophy of governance (I'm one of those people who believes that in a democracy such as ours we give up some things (particularly tax dollars) to the government in order to help those less fortunate and the country as a whole), I have a pretty good idea of who I'm going to vote for at most levels. Oh, and even as a relatively strong Obama supporter (who is becoming more and more anti-McCain the more the New McCain (as opposed to the 2000 McCain) is showing his stripes), I find some of the church-revival aspects of some of his speeches and the way they are covered kinda silly. However, I do think some of it shows just how sick a lot of people are of the last 7-8 years and how much they see him as a possible agent of change. That, and the fact that he has clearly spent a lot of time in churches that have very much influenced his rhetorical style.

Oh, and I think Connecticut has the most annoying Blue Laws. No alcohol (at least in supermarkets) from 8 or 8:30 pm on Saturday night to 8 or 8:30 pm Sunday (or something like that, they may have changed)...

I heard enough about the Change malarky when Jimmy Carter was campaigning in 1976. The change turned out to be for the worst in his Presidency. I think Obama will be even worse.

I believe what people DO is decidedly more important than what they say... They SAY things to get votes of people they need to be able to DO things. Some of Bush's biggest complainers (outside of the ones who never voted for him in the first place) are the far right who feel he's abandonded all conservative thought. Obama and McCain the candidates are quite different from their legislative records. McCain 2000 didn't win the election. MUCH more conservative (at least by word) Bush did... yet outside of a few pandering speeches, he has turned out to be almost a death sentence for conservatives.

It seems to me that liberal (by record) Obama has moved his message to the middle to get more votes, and moderate (by record) McCain has moved to the right to get more votes. While I certainly understand that many may be vocal supporters of the more liberal Obama or the more moderate McCain than the candidates we are seeing today, I suspect that (because CT mentioned stripes) tigers don't change their stripes.

To answer the question... MY problem is, while I believe that I have a clear view of McCain based on a long history (and a personal relationship) rather than based on a message tailored to a specific voting block, much less the sound bytes from that speech. I am less confident in what Obama represents as his talking points and voting record don't always match up... so I suspect that Like McCain, he is tailoring his speeches to a specific voting block... but I ALSO want to give him the benefit of the doubt that his voting record is more liberal than I would like because that was the fastest way for him to gain the power he needed to be in the position that he is in... (you can't win if you aren't in the game, Bob Barr). I don't know which Obama would govern, so I am left with the common threads in his record and speeches as opposed to the areas where they differ...

I am voting on a strong defense, and someone who understands how our enemies view us... not how we THINK they SHOULD view us. I am voting for a smaller government (less intrusion into our personal wallets and lives... less social engineering as we always get more of what the government supports and less of what the government punishes (taxes)) While I understand that in order to respond to the new era of threats we initially erred on the side of protection over privacy, I am eager to see that trend find a more reasonable (and effective) medium. We need an energy plan. We don't need to solve all of the issues at once, but we need to put some "generally" agreed upon long-term projects into motion TODAY, even if we can't agree on many of the details. I suspect that as things happen, we will have time (and better information) on which to act.

Most importantly, I am voting for a candidate with a history of accomplishing the national good, regardless of party/personal benefit.

If you want the short version of this, read my signature line.

What I'd like to be able to vote on:

1. Fiscal conservatism (generally smaller government, less government spending, balanced budget, and if not lower taxes, at least a preference for structuring taxes in ways less harmful to economic growth). Where government action is necessary or appropriate (and there are places where it is), follow some general rules:
a. Barry Goldwater said, "stick with proven ways, not because they are old, but because they are true." Many of the problems that we are struggling with today have already been worked out in other countries, and instead of repeating the mistakes they made to get there, we should open our eyes and learn from what they are doing now. Brasil has a better answer on energy than we do (it involves both alternative fuels and drill here, drill now). Norway and New Zealand are two very green countries who need oil/natural gas from offshore drilling, so they figure out how to minimize the envrionmental risks of getting it. France has a better answer on health care (I know from first-hand experience). Sweden has a better answer on social security (and yes, it involves privatization). Most of Europe has dealt with high taxes for so long that they've learned how to structure taxes to minimize their harmful effects on growth (consumption tax to offset lower individual income tax, corporate income tax, capital gains tax, double taxation of dividends; we could adequately fund our government using their structure with lower rates, making us in effect a tax haven which would attract businesses, jobs, exports, and growth instead of drivng them away).
b. Let the federal government do what it does best--which is generally to raise large amounts of money for big needs. Eliminate or privatize or transfer to the states the rest.

2. Social liberalism (instead of using issues like abortion and gay rights to drive wedges between various elements of society, look for to find and develop common ground; for those like myself who are serious Christians, that means less Old Testament "thou shalt not" and more New Testament "love thy neighbour").

3. In foreign policy, return to the Teddy Roosevelt concept of, "speak softly but carry a big stick." That means building the strongest military possible and then using it as infrequently as possible. And when you do use it, hit hard, get it done, and come home. We do not need to be spending more to defend Germany and Japan that Germany and Japan are spending to defend Germany and Japan. We do not need to be micromanaging the affairs of every nation on the planet. They don't like it, and sometimes they might decide to steal a few airplanes and fly them into a few buildings to show us how much they don't like it.

Unfortunately, I don't see anyone out there who advocates more than bits and pieces of this, so I won't have options that allow me to vote on these issues. I guess what I really am is an old-line republican. Unfortunately, I don't think the republicans are old-line republicans any more. I truly believe that what the Bushies have done is enough to make TR, Ike, and Goldwater (and for that matter, Reagan) turn over in their graves.

Well, #3 is interesting in that McCain (a history, particularly military history buff) considers TR a model... and knows from firsthand experience how "the enemy" views American politics, and the unintended consequences they can have. Unfortunately, I believe that Obama, like most Americans start from our own perspective, and expect our enemy to react as we would. Its why so many policy ideas make sense in this country, and fail miserably when put into action.

I believe #2 probably speaks to BOTH candidates, at least to a decent degree. I'll let everyone decide on their own how much for each, because we ALL have our own priorities. For some people, Gay rights (as an obvious example) might be VERY important, and cause them to not support a candidate who doesn't openly support them 100%... even if it means they must accept some shortcomings in other areas.

to #1, this is ALSO a TR mantra. Help those who need it, but don't do it FOR them.... sort of the "teach a man to fish" school of thought. McCain may not do as much of this as any of us would like, but in a nod to the "common ground" of number 2... that is at least a step in the right direction (imo). I do not see any proposals by Obama that involve smaller government or LESS transferrance of wealth.

I may be getting too political, and if so... I apologize.

Caelligh Wrote:Getting more oil and/or cheaper oil is not the solution.

In the short term and intermediate term, it most certainly is the solution. Renewables/Alternatives will take time to develop, fund, test, commercialize, and achieve market acceptance. We are talking many years. Investors/Companies have been pouring money into these fields for years and have made progress, but the progress is slow and gradual.

Sadly, the issue of energy policy has been politicized and distilled down to the false choice of drilling versus alternatives. The issue is far more complex than that. The answer is all of the above, not one or the other.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:If you want the short version of this, read my signature line.

What I'd like to be able to vote on:

1. Fiscal conservatism (generally smaller government, less government spending, balanced budget, and if not lower taxes, at least a preference for structuring taxes in ways less harmful to economic growth). Where government action is necessary or appropriate (and there are places where it is), follow some general rules:
a. Barry Goldwater said, "stick with proven ways, not because they are old, but because they are true." Many of the problems that we are struggling with today have already been worked out in other countries, and instead of repeating the mistakes they made to get there, we should open our eyes and learn from what they are doing now. Brasil has a better answer on energy than we do (it involves both alternative fuels and drill here, drill now). Norway and New Zealand are two very green countries who need oil/natural gas from offshore drilling, so they figure out how to minimize the envrionmental risks of getting it. France has a better answer on health care (I know from first-hand experience). Sweden has a better answer on social security (and yes, it involves privatization). Most of Europe has dealt with high taxes for so long that they've learned how to structure taxes to minimize their harmful effects on growth (consumption tax to offset lower individual income tax, corporate income tax, capital gains tax, double taxation of dividends; we could adequately fund our government using their structure with lower rates, making us in effect a tax haven which would attract businesses, jobs, exports, and growth instead of drivng them away).
b. Let the federal government do what it does best--which is generally to raise large amounts of money for big needs. Eliminate or privatize or transfer to the states the rest.

2. Social liberalism (instead of using issues like abortion and gay rights to drive wedges between various elements of society, look for to find and develop common ground; for those like myself who are serious Christians, that means less Old Testament "thou shalt not" and more New Testament "love thy neighbour").

3. In foreign policy, return to the Teddy Roosevelt concept of, "speak softly but carry a big stick." That means building the strongest military possible and then using it as infrequently as possible. And when you do use it, hit hard, get it done, and come home. We do not need to be spending more to defend Germany and Japan that Germany and Japan are spending to defend Germany and Japan. We do not need to be micromanaging the affairs of every nation on the planet. They don't like it, and sometimes they might decide to steal a few airplanes and fly them into a few buildings to show us how much they don't like it.

Unfortunately, I don't see anyone out there who advocates more than bits and pieces of this, so I won't have options that allow me to vote on these issues. I guess what I really am is an old-line republican. Unfortunately, I don't think the republicans are old-line republicans any more. I truly believe that what the Bushies have done is enough to make TR, Ike, and Goldwater (and for that matter, Reagan) turn over in their graves.

hmmm- Ike, Goldwater, Reagan, I'm with you. Teddy Roosevelt, not so much. Too much 'Progressivism' and 'New Nationalism' for me.

My issues-
1- Energy Policy- We have to end our dependence on oil from the Mideast. Does that mean more drilling (everywhere we can), coal, nuclear, natural gas, wind, solar, wave, more conservation, developing new technologies (like shale oil extraction, better renewable sources)? YES- ALL OF THE ABOVE. We should do it everything in the most environmentally sound manner possible, but we have to do everything at our disposal. This is a national security issue.
2-Taxes- I don't want them raised, in fact they should be lowered, or at least flattened. Budget deficit? CUT SPENDING. One of the true failures of 8 years of the Bush presidency is his inability (or more likely unwillingness) to reduce, or ever slow the growth of, government spending.
3-Foreign Policy- what 69/70/75 said above.

Hambone- you have a personal relationship with McCain?

Hambone,

You have expressed very cogently exactly why Obama scares the h*ll out of me, and why I am currently trying to figure out how to Obama-proof my life to the greatest extent possible.

Unfortunately, my fear with McCain is that we'll just get a slower version of the same thing if he is elected, kind of like getting nibbled to death by ducks. I liked McCain a lot better when he was a maverick (he was actually pretty close to what I outlined across the board then) than I do now that he has kissed up to the religious right to get the nomination.

My personal connection to McCain is more remote than yours. I happened to be on the tarmac when the flight bringing him back from the Vietnamese prison landed, and I had a first-class petty officer who had previously been on his dad's staff who wrangled a very brief meeting with him. Because of that connection, our entire command had worn McCain POW bracelets. My cousin was his squadron commander when he was shot down, but the two were never really friends.

I'm not sure I can get it down to three specific platform planks. My two biggest concerns are...
1. America's global image: I'm enough of a patriotic idealist to think that America, in the course of the country's history, did a lot of things right, and thus earned the respect of the rest of the world. In the course of my lifetime, and more specifically of the past eight years, that has gone to hell in a handbasket. Now is the time to start repairing America's tarnished image: leading the free world doesn't work if it doesn't want to be led because it thinks our policies are cruel and our official incompetant. Just sayin'...
If I thought McCain would be the best person to repair our image with other countries, I might vote for him. Foreign policy--or a lack of it--has been one of my concerns about Obama from the beginning. I'm encouraged, however, by Obama's trip to the Middle East and Europe...other countries seem ready to accept and work with him and that's the first step. Experience is all very well--and I don't mean to downplay it--but the person who is the next president...or the people who work with him...must be able to garner and to keep the respect of the world.

2. Social issues: The government should stay out of my bedroom and my body, and religion should stay out of my schools. Speaking of schools, can we do something about the giant class and race-correlated achievement gap, maybe?

That's my two cents, so far. Now that I have my computer back, I can like, argue with people and stuff again!

As far as energy being a national security interest...

It is true because there are currently no alternatives to fossil fuels, and you can't simply grow more fossil fuel. I don't like it when we discount importing ethanol on the basis of "national security". The truth is... wars are being fought over land that hold oil reserves, and those that have them have power over those that need them. Because there are ethanol sources existing or possible in just about every nation of the world, I do not believe that (as long as we have the refining capacity here) we need to "plant here, plant now" at least to the degree that it has a negative impact on our food supplies. IMO, because bio-fuels can be grown virtually anywhere, should (as an example) Brasil decide that they want to double the price of ethanol and cut supplies by 50%, we could start buying ethanol from the DR, and plant more in Hawaii... OR... should things get this far... even buy/pump more fossil fuels.

The point being... Ethanol is a direct and almost equal competitor to fossil fuels... especially if we run our existing cars on e-50 (and virtually any car made this decade can run on e-50 with no modification) and make all new cars capable of running on e-0 to e-100... and literally hundreds of countries are capable of supplying it. I suspect that there are a number of goods where we import a large percentage of our supply... but it is this simple availability of competition that takes away the risk to national security. Sure, we should grow as much of our own as we can... but we shouldn't rule out importing ethanol on the argument that it is changing one cartel for another. Its just not the same.

Middle Ages Wrote:Hambone- you have a personal relationship with McCain?

Depending on your definition... certainly more than I have with any other candidate in my lifetime, though Modale's security chief was my neighbor in VA. McCain was a classmate/roomate of my fathers at the Academy. He was in my parents wedding. Met him a few times over the years in informal/non-political venues. They also worked at Pentagon together for a period.

Pretty regular fixture at the '58 tent at the Rice/Navy games.

Quote:leading the free world doesn't work if it doesn't want to be led because it thinks our policies are cruel and our official incompetant. Just sayin'...

Most of the world that doesn't want us to lead it thinks we worship a false God. Also, by virtue of being an "open" market and seeking other open markets, we are trying to export our false God and our immoral society. This is NOT something that just started 8 years ago (otherwise 9/11 and the Iraq war, not to mention the "rebels" in the Phillipines, Kosovo and even Africa wouldn't have happened)

The EU doesn't want us to lead them because they don't see themselves as needing our leadership... again, the EU was created in 1993 to basically compete with our economic dominance, long before people thought we had an incompetent President... but perhaps about the same time it became popular in this country for the average American who can't spell Yale to make fun of our President. I blame the vast right wing conspiracy and shows like Jerry Springer.... seriously. What do you think would happen in Iran (or Russia for that matter... remember they Russian oil magnate?) if they spoke of their leaders the way we do? I'm not saying they shouldn't... truth is truth... but I suspect that the leaders of MOST countries are just as incompetent, if not moreso, than ours... and VASTLY more cruel.

This part of the conversation is EXACTLY what I'm talking about when I speak of how our enemies (and I guess even our friends) view us... from their own perspective. Members of the EU think we are ignorant because we don't speak 5 languages... but they live in a world where a 100 mile trip might take them through 5 countries. 100 miles here won't get you out of the city limits of Houston, LA, New York or Chicago.

In the middle east, they send their kids to us for an education and to get a better understanding of our culture... but we don't send OUR kids to them... in fact, we send them parts of America (like McDonalds, Coke etc.) to make them more like us... and the kids they sent to us get "Westernized". In their minds... the best way I can say it... They sent their best and brightest missionaries out to the world, and we corrupted them. I'm quite certain we don't see it that way

Hambone10 Wrote:As far as energy being a national security interest...

It is true because there are currently no alternatives to fossil fuels, and you can't simply grow more fossil fuel. I don't like it when we discount importing ethanol on the basis of "national security". The truth is... wars are being fought over land that hold oil reserves, and those that have them have power over those that need them. Because there are ethanol sources existing or possible in just about every nation of the world, I do not believe that (as long as we have the refining capacity here) we need to "plant here, plant now" at least to the degree that it has a negative impact on our food supplies. IMO, because bio-fuels can be grown virtually anywhere, should (as an example) Brasil decide that they want to double the price of ethanol and cut supplies by 50%, we could start buying ethanol from the DR, and plant more in Hawaii... OR... should things get this far... even buy/pump more fossil fuels.

The point being... Ethanol is a direct and almost equal competitor to fossil fuels... especially if we run our existing cars on e-50 (and virtually any car made this decade can run on e-50 with no modification) and make all new cars capable of running on e-0 to e-100... and literally hundreds of countries are capable of supplying it. I suspect that there are a number of goods where we import a large percentage of our supply... but it is this simple availability of competition that takes away the risk to national security. Sure, we should grow as much of our own as we can... but we shouldn't rule out importing ethanol on the argument that it is changing one cartel for another. Its just not the same.

Even if there were an ethanol cartel, we would be changing not one cartel for another, but one cartel for two--which we could play off each other. That is a huge advantage. OPEC charge too much, we'll use more ethanol; the ethanol cartel charge too much, we'll use more oil. Think Coke vs. Pepsi; we have a lot of options that probably wouldn't be there if we had just one or just the other. And if we have to use military power to secure our supply, it's a whole lot easier to support a presence in Haiti than it is to support one in Iraq.

I'm in Hawaii now, just waking up and checking morning email while everyone else sleeps in before deciding whether to play golf or go to the beach. Gasoline here is $4.50/gallon. There are abandoned sugar cane fields all over the islands, because at current prices it's not economic to produce. Why isn't Hawaii on sugar cane ethanol?