Democratic Debate

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Just think, what if Ditka had run against Barack and won

LOL. He would have won.

I have no idea if Mike Ditka knows anything about politics. If he thinks through domestic issues the same way he thinks through present day football analysis, it probably wouldn't have been a good thing if he had run.

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Among Romney's inconsistencies:

_In his two previous campaigns, Romney said that regardless of his own personal beliefs, abortion should be safe and legal. Now, he describes himself as pro-life and argues that Roe v. Wade should be replaced with state abortion regulations.

_In his Senate race, he wrote a letter promising a gay Republican group he would be a stronger advocate for gays and their rights than his liberal opponent, Edward M. Kennedy. Now he emphasizes his opposition to gay marriage and civil unions.

_Then a registered independent, Romney voted in the 1992 Democratic presidential primary for Paul Tsongas. Two years later, he said he did so because he favored the Massachusetts senator's ideas over those of Bill Clinton, and was sure President George H.W. Bush would be renominated. Now, Romney says he backed the candidate he thought might be the weakest opponent for Bush.

_In his first two campaigns, Romney emphasized his support of gun-control measures. In 1994, he said: "I don't line up with the NRA." Now, he is a card-carrying National Rifle Association member. He joined the organization in August.

_Romney used to distance himself from President Reagan. Now he casts himself as a conservative in the mold of Reagan.

Sorry to threadjack.....back to the Dems.

sounds to me like he came to his sences. each one of those changes are for the better,imo.

[skinsguy]

It comes down to this. Which candidate (if any) will actually attempt to do what they campaign on? Which will actually help to provide affordable and affective health care for all people? Who will actually pay attention to the country's population in rural areas and not just the people's needs in big cities? Who will also work on bringing in decent paying jobs to these rural areas? I've heard a lot of promise from these candidates, but I'm not sure if what they campaign on is actually possible. We'll see though. Obama does seem like the most convincing candidate to me, and normally tend to side with Republicans.

I think we all agree we want change. We want our freakin' gas prices to be lowered if nothing else!

[saden1]

Originally Posted by wolfeskins

sounds to me like he came to his sences. each one of those changes are for the better,imo.

61 year old man coming to his senses?

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

It comes down to this. Which candidate (if any) will actually attempt to do what they campaign on? Which will actually help to provide affordable and affective health care for all people? Who will actually pay attention to the country's population in rural areas and not just the people's needs in big cities? Who will also work on bringing in decent paying jobs to these rural areas? I've heard a lot of promise from these candidates, but I'm not sure if what they campaign on is actually possible. We'll see though. Obama does seem like the most convincing candidate to me, and normally tend to side with Republicans.

I think we all agree we want change. We want our freakin' gas prices to be lowered if nothing else!

I don't care too much about what each politician says they will do in office. That sounds crazy, but (a) politicians often say things for the sake of securing votes, not because they actually mean what they say, (b) Presidents can't pass legislation without the help of that thing called Congress, and (c) candidates rarely reveal the specifics of their policy objectives and the devil is in the details.

I am FAR more concerned with any given candidate's intelligence, judgment, and integrity (by integrity I don't mean whether they get BJs or oppose gay marriage, I mean that they are principled and possess a clear identity independent of the voters). I'm more concerned about the President being able to deal with issues we don't anticipate.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

I think we all agree we want change. We want our freakin' gas prices to be lowered if nothing else!

It may sound crazy, but gas prices really need to be raised...to like six bucks a gallon. The value of gas (long-term) is way above the three dollars we are paying for it right now, and unless the government is going to finance oil companies when the prices skyrocket, the free market really, really needs to give massive and widespread incentive to consumers to cut down on gas.

Of course, setting a minimum price of 6 dollars a gallon may not do that. People may opt to spend a higher percentage of their earnings on gas as opposed to cutting down on usage. I don't really have the answer to this one, but the government probably should intervene here and force people who have the option of using less gas, to do so.

For me, I can drive to my college campus (8 miles from my residence) if time is not a luxury, or I can walk 12 minutes (in single degree weather) to the bus stop and bus to class for free. If the government set a price floor on gas at 6 per gallon, I would lose the luxury of driving to save a few minutes, and be forced to use the bus but for emergency situations.

I don't know how many people who have jobs are in similar situations to me, but the sustainability of personal vehicles for those who absolutely have no other option but to drive would be better if gas was fixed at 6 dollars a piece for the next 30 years, as opposed to relatively inexpensive for the next five, and then completely non affordable after that.

And this is probably the only issue in the world where I would support a price floor or any form of government restriction. You have to alter the habits of the masses quickly, and thats like the only thing the free market won't account for.

/end of totally off topic, but totally necessary rant.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I don't care too much about what each politician says they will do in office. That sounds crazy, but (a) politicians often say things for the sake of securing votes, not because they actually mean what they say, (b) Presidents can't pass legislation without the help of that thing called Congress, and (c) candidates rarely reveal the specifics of their policy objectives and the devil is in the details.

I am FAR more concerned with any given candidate's intelligence, judgment, and integrity (by integrity I don't mean whether they get BJs or oppose gay marriage, I mean that they are principled and possess a clear identity independent of the voters). I'm more concerned about the President being able to deal with issues we don't anticipate.

True. I mean, you want someone who you have confidence in that can handle the unexpected. I don't believe it stops there though. That might be enough for someone who's well secure financially and they're overall concern is security. For me, there's got to be more than that. 99% of what politicians promise won't come true, but it would be nice to find someone who at least tries to fullfill half of those promises (whether if they're successful or not.) I think that is where I feel integrity is granted. Not in their success in fulfillment , but in their effort.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

It may sound crazy, but gas prices really need to be raised...to like six bucks a gallon. The value of gas (long-term) is way above the three dollars we are paying for it right now, and unless the government is going to finance oil companies when the prices skyrocket, the free market really, really needs to give massive and widespread incentive to consumers to cut down on gas.

You're right. That does sound crazy, but I understand the logic somewhat. The problem is, only a very select people will be able to afford that. And, there are only select areas that have public transportation. There's too many fine details that would make that a bad idea.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

You're right. That does sound crazy, but I understand the logic somewhat. The problem is, only a very select people will be able to afford that. And, there are only select areas that have public transportation. There's too many fine details that would make that a bad idea.

I know. But if someone doesn't take some insane action soon, driving a car that runs on gasoline is likely going to become a luxury that only the top 5% (in terms of income) of Americans will have. For the rest of us schlubs, we would all be forced to abandon gasoline usage altogether, due to prices ranging from 12-15 dollars a gallon.

Like in every other issue, the free market will work itself out no matter what course of action we take. The problem here is that it will be at the expense of the poor who are 100% reliant on personal transportation to keep their jobs. I would imagine that's a lot of people.

Anyway, I'm going to stop there because this isn't the right place (thread-wise) to continue.

[saden1]

I see a day where gas prices are so ridiculous that most white collar workers work from home. This is the 21'st century, the only people that need to be commuting to work should be those that need to be at their workplace (blue collar and service sector worker).

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Interesting topic, but maybe we should start a separate thread? Sorry to play thread cop, but enough people have been complaining lately about "thread integrity."

[RobH4413]

I've always been criticized for my personal opinion that gas should be heavily taxed. If there's something that needs to be done, our demand for oil needs to curtail... and fast.

There needs to be policy change, and I've always felt that a huge gas tax (or easing off any subsidies) would make sense. Take the earnings (or savings) and pump them into alternate forms of energy, nuclear power plants, pro-environment cars etc...

There is one solid fact... We need to get off this addiction to oil. We need to change lifestyle. For both foreign policy, and economic reasons... it makes sense to behind the drivers seat, and not rely on foreign resources.
-------

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by saden1

61 year old man coming to his senses?

i guess he's a slow learner

[DynamiteRave]

Ann Coulter has voiced her support for Hilary Clinton if McCain gets the Republican nomination (which he probably will).

If Ann, "I-hate-everyone-except-for-myself" Coulter supports Hillary.. Somethings terribly wrong with that picture.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

Ann Coulter has voiced her support for Hilary Clinton if McCain gets the Republican nomination (which he probably will).

If Ann, "I-hate-everyone-except-for-myself" Coulter supports Hillary.. Somethings terribly wrong with that picture.

Must be getting damn cold in Hell. Oh yeah look out for flying porcine.