Jewbutca

I'm honestly not sure what you're afraid of... It's not like they would be willing to nuke another country for what ever reason... Which I personally could see done if the Republicans controlled the Senate and Congress along with a Rep. President... What situation would convince a government to nuke another country, I have no idea... but it always feels to me like Republicans always want to keep their finger on the trigger in case anything occurs. But I might be bias...so I'll move on

If Barack wins, it's not like they are going to pass bills that will completely mess up the country. They are still politicians and have (hopefully) thought things through before voting yes or no on a bill. We'll see how things play out though...

laCster

lol my bad, i totally posted in the wrong thread >_>

ITG

... you're trusting POLITICIANS to think things through?

Perhaps that's unfair...

... you're trusting POLITICIANS to think things through in terms of what's actually good for the country as opposed to their continued presence in office?

I don't trust politicians more than I can throw them. And let's just say that while I walk a lot, it's the only exercise I get. I don't trust them to analyze anything based on what it's long term effects will be, just if backing it or not can serve them in the short term. Have enough short term successes, and you can ignore the long term losses, while the reverse isn't true- Americans stupidly adhere to a "what did you do for me lately?" approach to elections, even if the long term effects of something were really good. They actually reward those that are short sighted and not those that are far seeing.

I don't trust them to have the American interests at heart, only their own. We're talking about a group of people with control over their own salary, and between 1990 and 2003, voted it up from $98,400 to $154,700 a year. One could say that they need so much more money because of increased travel expenses, and I would concede this point- except that all job-related travel expenses, from transportation to lodging and food, are covered by the government.

What have they done to earn my trust? Politicians make promises, and then they break them. In the case of new people to the field, I'm willing to give them a bit of wiggle room, not really knowing the situation until they're there, but people who get re-elected STILL lie to the people. They don't ask what you think about the issues. They ask what you think about them, and will lie through their teeth to make sure the answer is good.

As far as a nuclear war goes, I think democrats are equally likely top start one as republicans, because no matter how war-mongering any group is, EVERYONE realizes that there is no return from a nuclear war. If there is a nuclear war, pretty much everybody dies. Including the politicians. Nobody wants that. Getting the nuclear bomb first was important because it put the power in our hands initially, but it's now a rather moot point because nobody who has nuclear weapons even remotely wants to use them.

What I'm afraid of in terms of a government completely controlled by the democrats is that anything they want, they can pass. It doesn't matter what it is. It completely destroys the idea of checks and balances that was the entire basis of our government. It lends itself to making a tyranny of the government, where only the interests of one group are supported instead of the whole. It'd be better if there were NO parties, but I've reconciled myself to the fact that unless I want there to be a call to arms, that's simply not going to happen. It's exactly the same problem if the government were completely controlled by the republicans. It doesn't matter; both scenarios are bad, because ultimately they both lead to major segments of the population's interests being ignored.

From this election, the only reprieve we have from a solely democratic government is that it's pretty apparent that they won't get the seats needed for a filibuster proof senate, so there is still some small measure of balance, perhaps more if Obama is the conciliator he claims instead of the party line democrat he has voted as in the past. If the Republicans are smart though, they will use the filibuster extremely sparingly- I'm afraid they'll be tempted to filibuster everything that goes through. If they do, then they're just opening themselves up for whatever goes wrong later, because even if something does end up getting passed that they filibustered and goes wrong, people can say that the situation changed while they were wasting time. And I'd have to agree that if they're just filibustering because it's a democratic congress, then they WOULD be wasting time. The filibuster must be used with surgical precision, not only to maximize their power (making people really think about what's being filibustered) but also to rebuild their image.

More coming later. Got to catch a bus.

EDIT:

I said more was coming, so here's some. Unfortunately, I kind of lost my groove and train of thought in the last few hours, so it might not be all I wanted to say.

Basically, what I am afraid of is that no matter who controls the government, it gves them a lot of power behind their particular ideology. I'm quite happy to say that I've never lost a friend because we disagreed on politics, and considering that I'm fairly libertarian that entertains ideas that, excepting the massive military backlash, NH would be better off seceding from the Union, and most of my friends are fairly liberal democrats (although one claims to be a democrat and at the same time desires a government based around a philosopher king... hey, an enlightened dictator is a fine, workable political system in theory, just like most others... but why the hell does he call himself a democrat?), we disagree a lot. But I do know people who have gotten into a fight about politics and never got out of it. People have radically different ideas about how the country should be run, and if we want a government working for ALL of the people, then no on ideology can dictate the actions of the government. Do not get me wrong- I entirely believe that this election was a great victory for democracy...

Yes, it was. It was an overwheming victory for a tyranny of the masses.

Perhaps, though, people forgot that that was the point of the democratic republic. To enable each citizen to have a say in government, and yet still protect minority groups. And by that I mean every minority group, such as african americans, latino americans, gay men and women, and yes, even the rich.

Wait, did that last one catch you off guard?

The point is, EVERY person should have the same rights and responsibilities as every other person in terms of the government. This is both socially and economically true. I support racial blindness. I support gay marriages. I also support a flat income tax rate, if there's one at all (considering the massive cut backs on government programs I think there should be, it wouldn't be that unfeasible). People who make more pay more under a flat tax rate no matter what. And why should more money be taxed more? Why do they have some inherent responsibility to provide more that others do not? Is the work they put in to earn their money not as good?

I admit it might seem like I'm biased, since the family I come from does fall above the $250,000 mark. But my grandfather was a turkish immigrant who was a farmer in Turkey. he came here and worked his ass off to put himself through college. He worked his ass off to build his company. Right when my father was going to college, the company went bankrupt and they couldn't afford to send him. He joined the navy, learned some engineering, worked his ass off at learning it too, and when he got out, he started HIS own company, and has been growing ever since. When I was growing up, he had 16 hour workdays. He still does, more often than not. He works like a dog and earns every penny he makes. But for some reason, other people say that because he makes more, because of his own drive and work ethic, he has a greater responsibility to support the nation more than they do. Why? It doesn't make sense- civic duty should be shared equally by all citizens. He didn't have more rights, privileges, or advantages given him by the government than anyone else.

So, you see, I think of myself as a true liberalist- one who believes that the government should treat EVERYONE equally, blind to color, sex, sexuality, or class. Instead, we have a system where it's perfectly acceptable to discriminate against certain minorities, simply because most people think that's an okay thing to do.

That's the core of why I am leery and, yes, afraid of a government controlled by one group with one agenda- because they will be able to discriminate against people because most other people are okay with it.

__________________

It matters not how strait the gate, How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul.

Freedom_User

Let's just say there's a politician midget. I was lurking in the bushes, and SUDDENLY I attack, with 2 huge needles filled with steroids and a small hint of Arnold Swarzenegger's blood(I don't know why..) and stick you in the back.


Actually.... I don't know what my point is... I would just LOVE to see that in my lifetime.

__________________
The feds continually use and twist this simple clause as an excuse to expand their own power - at the expense of our liberty.

"If you shot a ton of pot to the Sun, will it burn up and get everyone high?"

ITG

Considering my initial reaction would be to throw YOU and not the politician, I think it wouldn't work out too well...

Freedom_User

I'd be honored. <3

str8dank

if we had 4 more years of this neo-conservative deficit spending bull shit then our 10.5 trillion dollar deficit would continue to build up until we were all broke. if you look at the stats Regan started the trend of borrowing money and spending it, with no clear plan on how to pay it back. Bush 1 continued this trend for his yeas in office. Bill Clinton, A DEMOCRAT, got our country out of the debt that Regan and Bush 1 had racked up. Bush 3 came into office with a $230 billion surplus and now where are we?

Some people will argue Obamas ideas as socialist, and that is totally untrue and insane. Is Canada socialist because of their national healthcare? was FDR a socialist for giving us social security and welfare? the answer is no if you guys were wondering

__________________
"when the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace" - Jimi Hendrix

ITG

And yet another person fails to grasp long term economics, jumping to the conclusion that the immediately apparent results are the only ones. And, of course, it's rather easy to criticize for acquiring a deficit, but not so easy when you realize that they were presidents during the end days of the cold war and another war, and dealing with the first repercussions of the end of the cold war, when someone else didn't have those challenges to face. Mmhmm... don't you just LOVE how easy it is to provide misleading data in a vacuum?

And as far as them not being socialist, perhaps, but that doesn't change the fact that turning over personal power over your money to the government utilizing it on your behalf is a socialist trend. Or perhaps you should go look up the definition of "socialism"?

Also, Freedom User- it's what you can expect from stabbing me with needles. A preemptive strike such as that would call for retaliation. I'd throw you at the politician, except I'd probably be brought up on charges of committing a hate crime against little people.

BTW, who decided that "little people" was less demeaning than midget?

Mushroom Man

ITG, you made a good point up there.

__________________