0
   

McCain's Electability

 
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2008 10:57 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Uh, yes, we were dirtier and less clean before the industrial revolution. I'm not sure who argued against that postition.

But that's no excuse for the pollution and toxins we pump out today. You say that it's a 'product of industrialization that comes with the territory.' I agree completely. I merely seek for those who participate in the process to have to pay to clean up the waste they produce.

That is happening in an open and free enterprise society in which we live, cylcops. It does not happen so well in more closed societies, as in China or the old Soviet Union. You should be singing the praises of the competitive and open society that we have, and the business that plays the huge roll that it does, instead of criticism.

Quote:
This does not stop business from happening, it merely makes it more expensive. I really could care less about that. You have the option of purchasing or not purchasing the products of a business; you don't have the option of ignoring the pollution that they put out. This is nothing more then requiring those who make a mess to clean that mess up, to take personal responsibility for their actions. Now, are we talking zero-emissions? No, of course not. Just limits and regulations on the amounts and types of chemicals and toxins which can be put into the environment.

Have you EVER lived around a large industrial base, Okie? If so, you might have some idea of what air and water pollution really are, and how they can affect one's life.

Cycloptichorn

I am all for reasonable regulation. What I don't like are groups of people that are anti-capitalist that wish to shut down all activity, such as all oil drilling, or all whatever. There is a huge difference between sensible regulation and obstruction, and all too often business has to fight obstructionists, which raises the cost of doing business for all of us.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2008 11:05 am
You are Appealing to Extremes. Nobody is talking about shutting down all oil drilling - at least not in this conversation.

What you call 'obstructionists' are merely folks who don't want businesses to have the right to pollute our air and water without any requirement for them to clean it up, or be held responsible for the pollution.

I think you will find that it is possible to do business and produce goods without being overly pollutive. There are many plants and factories around the globe which are not too pollutive; the designers and companies took steps to mitigate their waste, or in some cases even turn it into a commodity. The only thing that this takes is innovation and a desire to do what is right; to place something above Greed.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2008 11:10 am
okie wrote:
Sure its true. I don't pick my country of citizenship the same way I choose to purchase a product. My country is not a commodity to me, Thomas.

That, too, is your free decision. Other people do choose to shop for countries and their governments. (As do I, for example.) You're welcome not to do that, but that's your choice. So don't pretend you don't have one.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2008 11:19 am
That reminds me, did you move to the U.S.? I thought I remembered something happening with you in regard to a move? I see it says NJ, if so, congratulations and welcome!

I am not against moving to another country, but I still think it is a good thing to try to improve ones own country before resorting to moving. There can be lots of reasons for moving from one country to another, and I don't pretend to condemn many of them, but loyalty to ones country, and staying there through thick and thin is also to be respected. Unless it becomes simply unbearable and asylum is the other issue that comes into play.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2008 11:23 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
You are Appealing to Extremes. Nobody is talking about shutting down all oil drilling - at least not in this conversation.

Cycloptichorn

Thats what your party is doing, cyclops, admit it. They are not allowing drilling, they are shutting it down completely in many many places.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2008 11:31 am
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
You are Appealing to Extremes. Nobody is talking about shutting down all oil drilling - at least not in this conversation.

Cycloptichorn

Thats what your party is doing, cyclops, admit it. They are not allowing drilling, they are shutting it down completely in many many places.


There are areas in which we don't want to drill for more oil, for there is plenty of historical evidence that the process of drilling is disruptive and inimical to the wildlife around it, which some of us actually care about.

And what's the point of doing so, even? To get yet more and more oil, which leads to more burning of fossil fuels and ever-greater amounts of smog and pollution? It's a lose-lose situation in the long run.

I would point out that the rise in the price of oil isn't a product of scarcity, but of warfare. The Iraq war is directly responsible for large parts of the rise in oil prices.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2008 12:08 pm
okie wrote:
That reminds me, did you move to the U.S.? I thought I remembered something happening with you in regard to a move? I see it says NJ, if so, congratulations and welcome!

Yes, I did move in December. Thanks for your good wishes!

okie wrote:
I am not against moving to another country, but I still think it is a good thing to try to improve ones own country before resorting to moving.

In the case of Germany, the problem with that alternative is that the rest of the country disagrees with me about what constitutes improvement. There's little sense in improving a country where 95% of the population don't want it "improved". Here in America, my major disagreements with current public policy are about the war in Iraq and the health care system. On these points, more Americans than not agree with me that withdrawing from Iraq and creating a universal healthcare system constitutes improvement. Thus, America makes much more sense for me to help improve than Germany.

okie wrote:
loyalty to ones country, and staying there through thick and thin is also to be respected.

Actually I disagree with that. But that's a topic for a different thread.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2008 12:24 pm
Thanks for the answer, Thomas, and will you become a citizen, or are you already?

Interesting answer about Germany. What does Walter think, or what would he think in regard to your opinion?

Also, I thought everybody in Europe hated us, at least that is what the Democrats are telling us. Of course I don't believe it, but what do you have to say about that?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2008 12:28 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
You are Appealing to Extremes. Nobody is talking about shutting down all oil drilling - at least not in this conversation.

Cycloptichorn

Thats what your party is doing, cyclops, admit it. They are not allowing drilling, they are shutting it down completely in many many places.


There are areas in which we don't want to drill for more oil, for there is plenty of historical evidence that the process of drilling is disruptive and inimical to the wildlife around it, which some of us actually care about.

Of course you are wrong about that. Oil drilling is not a large problem in regard to wildlife, not in Alaska any more than any other oil field, besides the area of disturbance projected there is so negligible as to be of very little concern whatsoever.

Quote:
And what's the point of doing so, even? To get yet more and more oil, which leads to more burning of fossil fuels and ever-greater amounts of smog and pollution? It's a lose-lose situation in the long run.

You betray your true opinions, you do want to shut down oil, otherwise why would you say what you just said.

Quote:
I would point out that the rise in the price of oil isn't a product of scarcity, but of warfare. The Iraq war is directly responsible for large parts of the rise in oil prices.

Cycloptichorn

The price of anything is impacted by scarcity, whether it be war or whatever. To argue otherwise is stupidity.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2008 12:32 pm
Quote:

You betray your true opinions, you do want to shut down oil, otherwise why would you say what you just said.


Uh, because it's true?

I don't want to shut down oil drilling, but I certainly don't seek to expand it. There's little reason to do so. We will not be able to significantly lower the price of gasoline by doing so...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2008 12:35 pm
okie wrote:
Thanks for the answer, Thomas, and will you become a citizen, or are you already?

At the moment, I have a Green Card, which practically gives me all the rights Americans have except the right to vote. It'll be five years until I can apply for citizenship, and I'll wait until then to decide if I will.

okie wrote:
Interesting answer about Germany. What does Walter think, or what would he think in regard to your opinion?

I haven't asked him, but as a Social Democrat he almost certainly doesn't believe that a classical-liberal direction of reform would constitute improvement for Germany.

okie wrote:
Also, I thought everybody in Europe hated us, at least that is what the Democrats are telling us. Of course I don't believe it, but what do you have to say about that?

You'd be surprised how many T-shirts of American baseball teams you would find on a Munich subway. I'd say a vast majority in Europe rejects your current administration, but that doesn't mean they hate America or its citizens. This sentiment, though, should ring familiar to an American conservative. After all, "love your country, hate your government" is a staple affirmation in American politics, especially conservative American politics.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2008 01:24 pm
It started with the founders, Thomas. They distrusted government more than almost anything, and the Bill of Rights was designed to protect us mostly from government. This along with the one big reason for government, to protect us and those rights, and often the two issues collide, and we have to sort out where one begins and the other stops.

One big reason why I am a staunch conservative.

I am curious how your residence here affects your political views as time passes.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2008 01:25 pm
okie wrote:
It started with the founders, Thomas. They distrusted government more than almost anything, and the Bill of Rights was designed to protect us mostly from government. This along with the one big reason for government, to protect us and those rights, and often the two issues collide, and we have to sort out where one begins and the other stops.

One big reason why I am a staunch conservative.


Oh really? How do you feel about the government having the right to eavesdrop on your conversations without a warrant, at any time? Or to enter your abode, once again, no warrant necessary.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2008 01:30 pm
Cyclops, I interpret that issue to be totally on the side of national security, and not an unreasonable encroachment on my rights. I simply draw the line in a different place between the two responsibilities of government, and I do not find Bush's terrorism eavesdropping as being out of his responsibility as commander in chief. I do not believe he has abused his authority, but he has rather done his duty. I trust him to do it right.

In contrast, I would not trust a Clinton, in fact they violated my rights and other peoples rights by using the IRS to intimidate people and FBI files to intimidate their policitical enemies. Also, right now, the Democrats want to take away my free speech by re-instituting their version of the fairness doctrine. And the Supreme Court already did the same thing with McCain Feingold in my opinion. Those are far more serious than monitoring a computer for potential terrorist communications overseas, which I think is entirely justified given the threat posed.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2008 01:33 pm
okie wrote:
Cyclops, I interpret that issue to be totally on the side of national security, and not an unreasonable encroachment on my rights. I simply draw the line in a different place between the two responsibilities of government, and I do not find Bush's terrorism eavesdropping as being out of his responsibility as commander in chief. I do not believe he has abused his authority, but he has rather done his duty. I trust him to do it right.

In contrast, I would not trust a Clinton, in fact they violated my rights and other peoples rights by using the IRS to intimidate people and FBI files to intimidate their policitical enemies. Also, right now, the Democrats want to take away my free speech by re-instituting their version of the fairness doctrine. And the Supreme Court already did the same thing with McCain Feingold in my opinion.


The founding fathers, who you reference in your post, did not trust the government; and National Security was not an exception. You will note that the 4th amendment does not say 'except in case of national security worries, in which case, disregard.'

You can't hold them up as paragons on one hand, yet disagree with them on the other, and claim any sort of moral equivalence. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2008 01:51 pm
Theres that little word, "unreasonable," cyclops, and you forget there are competing duties and rights that the president is duly sworn to uphold, including the protection and security of the country. There is a pendulum that interprets these things more strict at times, at other times less strict. I happen to think the monitoring of potential terrorist communications is not an unreasonable search or seizure of information, and is in fact within the duty of the president to carry out in a reasonable manner. You and other liberals don't happen to think so. I disagree, and I think your opinion is tainted by your desire for political power, because if Clinton had done this, I am pretty convinced there would be no similar outcry from you and your political side of the aisle.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2008 01:57 pm
okie wrote:
Theres that little word, "unreasonable," cyclops, and you forget there are competing duties and rights that the president is duly sworn to uphold, including the protection and security of the country. There is a pendulum that interprets these things more strict at times, at other times less strict. I happen to think the monitoring of potential terrorist communications is not an unreasonable search or seizure of information, and is in fact within the duty of the president to carry out in a reasonable manner. You and other liberals don't happen to think so. I disagree, and I think your opinion is tainted by your desire for political power, because if Clinton had done this, I am pretty convinced there would be no similar outcry from you and your political side of the aisle.


NO, the president is not sworn to uphold the protection and security of the country. How can you be so ignorant about your own nation, yet claim to be a Constitutionalist?

The President's oath of office - the oath that he swears to uphold:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

There is no 'national security' provision in the Constitution. It is the President's duty to protect and uphold that document. The founders of our country specifically put in the 4th amendment for a reason, Okie, and your fear does not trump either that reason or the President's duty to protect the Constitution of America.

You are wrong on this issue. You are left with only arguments that the Constitution and the Law (FISA) should not be written the way they are. But, they are written that way, and there's little doubt that the Bush crew is violating the law.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2008 02:44 pm
We don't call the president Commander in Chief for nothing. The president has more latitude to make war, to protect the country, than he does to carry out other facets of his responsibilities. Protecting the constitution encompasses protecting the country, otherwise why would he be given the power to direct the Army, Navy, etc.? Get serious, cyclops, the constitution is just a piece of paper, what I am talking about is protecting what is written on it, and what the president is duty bound to do.

You and I both know this has been debated ever since the document was ratified, and that everyone has slightly different interpretations, but it is sure that the president has powers and duties to direct the instruments of defense of the country. The debate comes into just how much powers he has, but there is no doubt in my mind that previous presidents have gone alot further into the encroachment of citizens right in the interest of defense than President Bush has ever dreamed of doing. You and I both know this issue has grown out of a political vendetta against Bush, at least in part, and I think almost entirely.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2008 02:50 pm
okie wrote:
We don't call the president Commander in Chief for nothing. The president has more latitude to make war, to protect the country, than he does to carry out other facets of his responsibilities. Protecting the constitution encompasses protecting the country, otherwise why would he be given the power to direct the Army, Navy, etc.? Get serious, cyclops, the constitution is just a piece of paper, what I am talking about is protecting what is written on it, and what the president is duty bound to do.

You and I both know this has been debated ever since the document was ratified, and that everyone has slightly different interpretations, but it is sure that the president has powers and duties to direct the instruments of defense of the country. The debate comes into just how much powers he has, but there is no doubt in my mind that previous presidents have gone alot further into the encroachment of citizens right in the interest of defense than President Bush has ever dreamed of doing. You and I both know this issue has grown out of a political vendetta against Bush, at least in part, and I think almost entirely.


" the constitution is just a piece of paper"

Adding to my sig line, thanks Okie.

During the 90's, it was Republicans who were screaming bloody murder about the Clinton admin's TIA program, claiming that the invasion of people's private communications was tantamount to dictatorship.

And the US has regularly criticized Russia and other countries for spying on their citizens without warrant or cause. But it's okay for us to do so? I will hunt up some links on that one for ya.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2008 02:53 pm
I hope you are proud of yourself for taking my opinions out of context. Print this too. The constitution is a piece of paper, but I care what is written on it even if you don't. Write that one down, cyclops.

You are learning from dyslexia, take only part of a sentence. Dishonesty is not something to be proud of. Any apology forthcoming, cyclops, or is it beneath you too?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/16/2022 at 12:12:48