Let us not plunge into the legality of American politics as we will turn this thread to quagmire. While the genocide in Darfur is horrific to act there would be to condone the American position in Iraq and Afghanistan thus legitmizing their occupation of sovereign nations and giving truth to the myth that the US can act where and when it chooses.
Hate to burst your bubble, but you seem to not be aware of Obama's positions on a lot of things. Yes, he did not support the Iraq War initially when he didn't even have a vote anyway, but he is not anti-military action, or even necessarily anti-preemptive nuclear first strikes. He just didn't support the Iraq War specifically.Originally Posted by Cat X
Why so much confidence in Obama? He gave a good speech once and... that's about the sum total of his claim to fame. He's been pretty much insignificant as a Senator, has never had to feel the pressure of actual responsibility or authority since joining Congress. He is not associated with any major legislation. He's not a bad guy, but if this guy wins the Presidency because he has a nice smile, and because he looks young when he doesn't wear a tie, I'm just gonna give up on the American people. Since joining Congress, he's basically voted identically to Hillary Clinton on everything, including Iraq. Where is he getting all of this goodwill from the people and the press? Are people just too nervous to be hard on him because they don't want to be accused of racism?
Because every other candidate is as far as the people who live in the HERE BE DRAGONS part of the world is scary, he looks like the least insane of a terrible bunch. He is very much like Kevin rudd when he became opposition leader - and the more you dug into what he was really like, the better he got. Obama gives off the same vibes. He is simply the person most likely to restore the battered and shaken confidence in Amercia that the world has.
America is no longer the leader of the free world because of the actions of buffons. It no longer have a moral leg to stand on after the unjustified warmongering and destruction of Iraq. It has no leadership in climate change with it's stupid refusal to retify Kyoto, which at the least would now be a powerful symbol that someone gets it and that climate change is real and is going to affect us all. It's economy is basically broke and owned by the Chinese and Saudi's - ask where the finance for the proifigant spending of the last 6 years has come from. The Chinese own 1.5 trillion in treasury bonds - they now effectively have your economy by the nuts. America lost the moral high ground on torture, human rights and habeus corpus with the denial of that to innocents and the torture of innocents, turning them into the thing they were accused of. Afghanistan has been hung out to dry and that's where the real terrorists are.
Now are you telling me that you are willing to vote for the people that let this happen again? Your country has a lot of things to fix now and voting republican after that mess is just beyond insane. Inviting back Washington insiders liek Clinton isnt the answer either. The USA doesnt have a lot of chances or time left if it wants to haul itself to what it once was, because in only a few more years the real world leaders will be Russia and China, with Europe and the Asian block lead by Japan / Oceania balancing. Oceania will become a lot more important I think simply because it's one of the few very stable regions with big raw material deposits that can be exploited at will. China knows this and is out to lock them in for itself. That's going to become a real problem for other western countires sooner than later.
Your next leader has a lot to deal with and it looks like you got a dud bunch and an untried rookie who may be the USA's version of Chairman Rudd.
Ron Paul is certifiably insane and that's highly clear from across the ocean. Back to the GOLD standard? That's madness.Well, Ron Paul would prefer people only use Gold and Silver as legal tender, but he said that since that doesn't sound feasible right now, he at least wants to legalize using gold and silver as an alternative to paper, but without getting rid of paper money.
No offense, but you're falling for extremism in one direction just because the extremism in the other direction is frustrating you. True, Iraq was not a major threat to the United States' national security interests, but that does NOT mean that no viable threats exist in the entire world. The world has been relatively stable since WWII and even moreso since the end of the Cold War NOT because the countries of the world have become so enlightened, but because of deterrence. The U.S. can deter nuclear war by having a nuclear arsenal, and the U.S. can deter conventional war by having a large and technologically superior military with a clear strategic advantage. You assume that because peace can exist with the threat of the U.S. military, then that same peace can exist without the threat of the U.S. military.
Of course our military should almost never be used to settle disputes when not necessary, but the fact of the matter is that the threat of the U.S. military is a vital and important bargaining chip in international diplomacy, even if we never choose to use it. It's all about game theory. Even if you have absolutely no intention of supporting a military strike on a foreign country, you still shouldn't publically advertise that. And it's a part of sensible diplomacy and everyone knows that. For you to expect the next President of the United States (the sole protector of a large percentage of the inhabited world) to overtly be a Dove is, frankly, naive.
Australia is fortunate to be able to be non-interventionist if it decides to be. It has very little international responsibility. The United States, on the other hand, protects trade routes around the world, and provides a security umbrella for many countries in the Western Hemisphere, Europe, and Asia. U.S. Presidents have to be willing to use tough rhetoric. The stability of the free world depends on it. And most foreign leaders understand that it's usually just talk- which is why the US President sends diplomats and proxies to do most negotiating- diplomats who are free to show more flexibility.
I'm sorry but if you think that any of the front running Democrats are extreme in almost any way you really need to sit down and think about what "extreme" is. This country had been yanked hard to the "right" over the past twenty years.
I'm not expecting any of the Dems to be Doves, he's expecting they won't do anything so monumentally boneheaded as make up a fake war that gets real people killed and waste trillions of dollars.
Elect me and I'm not going to be a Dove, because that's almost as crazy as what the current administration did. The closest thing we've had is Carter, and sadly the world just doesn't work that way.
I think are nation has spent the better half of the last hundred years proving that.
Beyond that though, I love it how people want to feel good about themselves ( I live in Berkeley ca, and am referencing hippies not charley )and cry about Darfur but no one wants to demand that we take responsibility for our participation in the forging of a failed state, that being Afghanistan. The basic issues Afghanistan faces are largely result of direct American (let’s not forget about the motherland) influence during the cold war period.
Unfortunately for many of the countries in Africa war is an economic principle, which Sudan is in no way a stranger to. I’m obviously not entertaining the idea that this type of behavior is acceptable, nor should be to the global community. What I am saying however is that we as a nation should deal with the problems and evils we’ve forced on the world before we go around making marry for everyone. The issues in Darfur are also interesting because it really is a conflict of Genocide.
I would suggest the term and use of the word politically has only really been accepted after world war two, yet you get groups and politicians throwing the word around in any situation you’ve seen huge casualties, regardless of the motives behind the situation. A good example of this is a recent attempt to have Diane Feinstein or Nancy Pelosi (I forgot which) introduce in to congress a bill validating the legend of Armenian genocide, by the Turkish, not the Ottoman empire (who would be the actual group in question).
The tragedy of the Genocide in the Darfur region is truly unfortunate, but not the soul responsibility of our nearly exhausted nation.
I'd support Edwards pretty much for two reasons. I support his issues on poverty and social injustice and I think he is the best candidate on the Environment. I would go with Biden but he doesn't have a chance based on what I see. I am not sure if Edwards really has a chance since he trails Hillary and Obama so much in terms of money. When the primary for my state comes up I will see who has the best chance to beat Hillary. I don't really care for her. I liked her husband but I find her too cold for me. Of course I vote for her over Rudy. I don't like him, he scares me. I am afraid my personal liberties will be taken away by his administration.
I like Edwards as well; unfortunately being a student of polity my personal views are fairly apathetic.
Whomever wins, hopefully they will do away with the title of President - as if the country were a corporation. Something more powerful is necessary. Prime Minister, Premier, something else.
But seriously, before the United States begins to explode into a well practised sabre rattling campaign, issues domestically need to be dealt with. Among them:
Billions of dollars were raised for tidal wave victims but no money was raised to help homeless and disabled combat veterans of the Armed Services.
The border is unsafe and illegal migation continues with soft laws in place to prevent it, including the LEGITIMIZATION of them in states like NY that want to give them drivers lisences!
Petrol prices skyrocket when the price of a barrel goes up a few cents. It is very slow to go down; price gouging by corporations need to be dealt with.
Alternate energy sources need to be invested in and not squashed, such as the scientist in Nevada who has created a microwave that turns old tires into base petroleum fit for automobile use.
Realistic GPM standards, not a ten mile increase in TWENTY YEARS!
Fire companies across the US are being disbanded because funding has dried up, yet US monies are distributed to other nations. Why?
ETxc.
Let me address one issue if I may using anecdotal evidence. immigration. As you may or may not know, since having moved to the US I have become a police officer in the State of Delaware (having moved down from Pennsylvania). In the course of my duties I stopped a vehicle for a traffic violation and was unable to communicate in English - a language I had to master as myself an immigrant. Further investigation revealed that the four occupants of the car were illegal. Not undocumented, not whatever, they were criminals who willfully and knowingly contravened the territorial boundaries of a sovereign nation posing a clear and direct security threat not to mention economic.
I communicated with my department's dispatch center then the county communications office and finally the nearest INS/ICE office which happens to be forty-five minutes north in Dover, DE. I informed them of my problem and asked when they would be able to come down to arrest and deport the offenders.
I was curtly informed that four was not enough for them to send a unit down to my town to pick up and that it was not worth their time. I asked what number was worthy of their time and was told at least tne. I replied I would call back in an hour and have that number and they hung up on me.
Now, for the record, the Dover ICE office is not exactly busy. How do I know this? I drive ambulance part time and the Dover station happens to be in proximity to their office. Their vehicles do not often leave nor do they return much. Veiled inquiries to the city police in which said office is located validated my fears - the ICE agents and officers are often rude and refuse to pick up illegals no matter who calls or when.
Now why is it that they will not pick up illegal immigrants who are here illegally working and violationg the sovereignty of a nation but will waste thousands of dollars investigating citizens such as a Minneapolis Police Officer how was recently deported! Here was a man who was brought to the US when a minor and now risked his life in protection and defense of the people as a public servent - a low paid one, at that - having mastered English???
Someone, pelase explain it to me.
Last issue - legal immigration. Why are they trying to raise the prices and waiting times? If the country is combatting illegal immigration, why make it harder to do so legally? Thus forcing people to enter the country illegally. It would make sense to me at least to LOWER the price of legal immigration and RAISE the penalties and costs of illegal immigration, such as mandatory and un-appealable seizing of illegal migrants assets monies and possessions.
. hmmm
.
.
Hi I'm Telan and I don't know anything about internal combustion or how heavy cars have gotten because of ever increasing safety standards, nor about the lack of Low Sulfur Diesel until 2 years ago.
FYI weight kills fuel economy, along with all of the stupid gizmos people want in the car.
Telan, I've always liked you and plan, to some degree, to field your conserns with a realistic responce; I have finals though and am losing my mind.
I don't even really have the desire to spell check this post.
The current weight of consumer vehicles is ridiculous when you consider the leaps and bounds that we've made with plastics, but essentially - looking at it from the point of view of a car manufacturer - they can either charge you a reasonable amount of money for a car that is heavy and has mediocre fuel efficiency, or they can charge you an outrageous amount of money for a car made of light materials that has excellent fuel efficiency.FYI weight kills fuel economy, along with all of the stupid gizmos people want in the car.
The issues that will influence my vote heavily this election are: civil liberties, the economy, the economy and the economy. I couldn't care less about foreign countries in need of aid or people in the Middle East killing one another over religious differences. I just want them to focus on getting our country back on track economically.
Last edited by Jeseth Cloak; Dec 10th, 2007 at 08:46:30 PM.
Courteous and oversimplfying as ever, Morgan; almost make me glad I returned. Almost
He's also completely right. He and I both know just a tiny bit on this subject, so pick your reply carefully and make sure you get your facts right.
Do you have any idea what goes into the design of a car? Light cars are bloody cheap to make - Tata in India and the Chinese prove it. Light, cheap because it's actually pretty simple to make a small light car with cheap steel and plastics.The current weight of consumer vehicles is ridiculous when you consider the leaps and bounds that we've made with plastics, but essentially - looking at it from the point of view of a car manufacturer - they can either charge you a reasonable amount of money for a car that is heavy and has mediocre fuel efficiency, or they can charge you an outrageous amount of money for a car made of light materials that has excellent fuel efficiency.
And utterly bloody terrible in every way with absoutly NO crash compliance. Real car design is not cheap and nor is crash afety doable with cheap steels and plastics.
There are several reasons driving weight incars up and the first one is exactly as Morgan stated - crash safety has added upwards of 400 kg PER CAR in the last 20 years. You can not just use just any kind of material or aluminium for that kind of engineering, you need metals and structures that fold and bend in predictable ways, safety cells that will take a huge batterign before even looking like giving way, the simple air bag calls for motion sensors, accelerometers, certain designs of bumbers, reinforcements and protection from waht is basically a small bomb.
Next, demand for retarded garbage gzmos and simply unessary sound deadening. You can stack up 200 kg in this alone.
Third is simply the cars that the consumers demand. And this is the real killer - add in the crash safety, the BS gizmos and the fact light trucks seem to be regarded as necessary when clearly they are not, you have a disaster for any kind of light engineering and fuel economy. Size means weight and there can be no such thing as a light pickup or 4WD.
In Europe, they have a lot of smaller cars with diesels that get incredible economy. But that's because Eurpoeans arent car retarded and understand a small hatchback actually is a far better thing to drive about and also usually has much better engineering for crash safety. So the first step is not to make up l/100km laws, it's for US drivers to realise the cars they want are ridiculous for their real needs. And I add that these hatchbacks are well designed and usually quite affordible. Still quite a bit heavier than Tata's or Chinese cars but they dont fall apart in a crash. And they have dynamic safety in spades.
It should be the responsibility of the government to ensure the sustainability of resources and processes within the United States and, inherently, the world.
It should also be every corporation's personal quest to guarantee sustainability in their resources and processes.
Guess what? It's not. Why? Because 80%+ (random no.) don't care. Car manufacturers wouldn't make SUV's if no one wanted to buy them. Chain stores wouldn't put out socks made with child labor that required the burning of fossil fuels to make the elastics if people wouldn't buy them.
They wouldn't do it if the government said it was illegal (well, they might).
Of course, for the government to do anything requires one of three things: 1) the people to actually demand it, or 2) a lot of money behind a lobbyist for a special interest group, or 3) a congressman/senator to gain either monetarily or have her constituents gain monetarily (and, intrinsically, she gains).
The entire government should be overhauled. The founding fathers didn't insist this was the best form of government. Indeed, government must adapt to the time and people.
We've given American Republicanism a good go. Let's look at modifying it a whole lot to keep out those crummy special interest freaks that ruin our lives (more often than not).
/end rant (all political talk is ranting)
Here here Khendon, therein lies the primary failure of democracy and heralds my call to autocracy. People do not always want what they need, they need to be told what is right and forced into compliance.
Forcing people into compliance would more than likely make the issue worse, I'd like to think.
I mean, this country was founded on the freedom to choose how we live. Does that mean there are going to ALWAYS be good choices made in how we conduct ourselves? Of course not. That's a part of life; can't grow and gain experience if there aren't any bad decisions being made at some point along the line.
Thats true but the purpose of government is to enforce policy and protect the people, even sometimes from themselves. What am I saying? I am saying, in regards to the SUV matter, there comes a point when the government says, yes, a soccer mom that lives is Syracuse NY and has to battle snow for half of the year can buy an SUV. She needs it. A soccer mother in Nevada who nevers battles snow floods or harsh rains has no need of such a device and therefore is forebidden from driving one. The government steps in and says no, buy a minivan of better fuel efficiency and equal carrying capacity.
Cars are heavier now than before since we use plastics and polymers when cars of old were made from iron and steel. But Morgan is right - the gadets are ridiculous as well. A car that can back itself in? DVDs in every seat? That is ridiculous. Eliminate them
You've obviously never been to Nevada before, son.
But my issue isn't about cars and who can drive what; it's the freedom to choose. The key to that though is proper education, and making sure people understand and know the ramifications of what their choice will entail.
For myself, elections have always been about choosing the lesser evil. And the more I know about those who are running for office, the better a decision I feel I can make.
I do know what goes into the design and manufacture of consumer vehicles. Mind you, I have very little knowledge about the internal design of modern reciprocating engines, but I have drag raced, rally raced and repaired/maintained/tuned my own RX-7 (and my MR2, when it didn't involve opening up the engine) many times.He's also completely right. He and I both know just a tiny bit on this subject, so pick your reply carefully and make sure you get your facts right.
Do you have any idea what goes into the design of a car? Light cars are bloody cheap to make - Tata in India and the Chinese prove it. Light, cheap because it's actually pretty simple to make a small light car with cheap steel and plastics.The current weight of consumer vehicles is ridiculous when you consider the leaps and bounds that we've made with plastics, but essentially - looking at it from the point of view of a car manufacturer - they can either charge you a reasonable amount of money for a car that is heavy and has mediocre fuel efficiency, or they can charge you an outrageous amount of money for a car made of light materials that has excellent fuel efficiency.
And utterly bloody terrible in every way with absoutly NO crash compliance. Real car design is not cheap and nor is crash afety doable with cheap steels and plastics.
There are several reasons driving weight incars up and the first one is exactly as Morgan stated - crash safety has added upwards of 400 kg PER CAR in the last 20 years. You can not just use just any kind of material or aluminium for that kind of engineering, you need metals and structures that fold and bend in predictable ways, safety cells that will take a huge batterign before even looking like giving way, the simple air bag calls for motion sensors, accelerometers, certain designs of bumbers, reinforcements and protection from waht is basically a small bomb.
Next, demand for retarded garbage gzmos and simply unessary sound deadening. You can stack up 200 kg in this alone.
Third is simply the cars that the consumers demand. And this is the real killer - add in the crash safety, the BS gizmos and the fact light trucks seem to be regarded as necessary when clearly they are not, you have a disaster for any kind of light engineering and fuel economy. Size means weight and there can be no such thing as a light pickup or 4WD.
In Europe, they have a lot of smaller cars with diesels that get incredible economy. But that's because Eurpoeans arent car retarded and understand a small hatchback actually is a far better thing to drive about and also usually has much better engineering for crash safety. So the first step is not to make up l/100km laws, it's for US drivers to realise the cars they want are ridiculous for their real needs. And I add that these hatchbacks are well designed and usually quite affordible. Still quite a bit heavier than Tata's or Chinese cars but they dont fall apart in a crash. And they have dynamic safety in spades.
I'm not disagreeing that worthless light weight cars are cheap to make, but these cars are usually extremely unsafe (as you stated) and don't get significantly better fuel efficiency than the heavy ones. The technology to design very light cars that are both safe and fuel-efficient exists, although it's not cheap. For example, rotary powered vehicles weigh considerably less than vehicles that come equipped with piston engines. Rotary engines don't get very good gas mileage though, largely due to a lack of commitment by motor companies to invest in research.
As for European cars, yes some of them are good on gas, but since the value of the dollar is collapsing, they're not exactly affordable for middle-class people who live in the United States. Hybrid cars are also normally $3,000 - $6,000 dollars more expensive than a normal vehicle of similar size.
I agree with you though, American's on average could save themselves some money if they cut all of the excess bells and whistles that come with many assembly line cars - it would certainly trim down on the weight of most vehicles. I'll take my car without power steering, ABS, A/C (if I live someplace where that's feasible), soundproofing or power windows and locks, thank you. I normally strip most of these things from the cars that I drive anyway.
I think you might have misread what I was sayingI'm calling for a return to democracy. The problem is that we have special interests (look at them as aristocrats, but only in the monetary sense) controlling the nation. Money makes policy.
Popular opinion is controlled by money and...
That's right. Education.
Socrates, anyone? Education is the key to democracy. Sure, America isn't a true democracy; but, since we do have some democratic tenets, we require education.
The problem is, of course, that our current government is mucking up education
Athens made several poor decisions. Part of "democracy" is making wrong decisions and not having a dictator to blame, just the people. In our case, we're a lot less of a democracy.
Still, we elected the man with the most power. The Executive has an egregious amount of control. We have to choose wisely.
Sadly, it comes back to education.
That's not the problem. The problem is that the government isn't putting enough weight on manufacturers who have the technology to producer more eco-friendly vehicles.
No one better say, "Oh, but, it'd be too expensive for them!" Sure, the first few iterations might be pretty expensive. Guess what? New technology is expensive!
That's never stopped us before.
Why now? Because the oil industry and car manufactures have strong lobbyists that protect them from the government, powerful advertisement campaigns that protect them from the people, and an insane amount of money that they use to purchase Green technology to help prevent it from becoming well developed and dispersed.
Still, there's enough getting through the cracks that we have some amazing, renewable technologies. I can buy a solar panel for my backpack for $100 that will charge my digital camera and iPod while I'm hiking through a forest with the nearest power outlet being 200+ miles away!
That's awesome!
It's time we applied our technology to fix some other, more serious issues.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks