Suikoden United and Irenic Kraalesque Oblique Xperience

Suikox Home | The Speculation Shelter | Tablet of Stars | Suikoden Timeline | Suikoden Geography |Legacies


  [ View Profile | Edit Profile | Nation System | Members | Groups | Search | Register | Check PMs | Log in | FAQ ]

Democrat or Republican? Who do you think will win?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.     Forum Index -> Community Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Malvagio

Liberatori di Inferno


Joined: 01 Mar 2006
Post Count: 1382
Location: Merseto
26524 Potch
63 Soldiers
123938 Nation Points

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

[quote="Yvl"]
Quote:


Don't lump Communists with Democrats. There is a seperate party for that.




Hehe...again I never said that Communists WERE Democrats I know they are two different parties so you need to respect my common sense in this debate. I said that the capabilities becoming like that were possible at an EXTREME level. Of course I know there is a difference.......I'm not a damn idiot...I know my own country! But I believe and thats just me, I never said you have to believe, that can only go on for so long.......can't predict if that order will stay in effect 20 years from now the way we are heading now.
_________________


"Devoted Protector of Lord Logg and Lady Valeria"


Last edited by Malvagio on Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:19 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
Yvl

Sanctus


Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Post Count: 5979
Location: Senan
55224 Potch
1063 Soldiers
12421 Nation Points

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

There is, however, no chance of someone THAT extreme getting elected.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Amyral

Windriders


Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Post Count: 1355
Location: Sawgrass Landing
544907 Potch
4066 Soldiers
620 Nation Points

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Quote:
From 70 years ago? I hardly think that has a bearing on contemporary politics.


It proves that, under similar situations, the liberal side of the spectrum has taken immoral (and illegal) acts as a policy as well. It's not something you see only on the conservative side.

Quote:
There is a constitutional seperation of church and state. If your OWN beliefs are influenced by religon, fine, but it does not have a place in our government unless there is a reason outside of religon for making the law.


There is a constitutional amendment that bans the government from declaring a state religion. However, you are criticizing them because their moral stance goes hand-in-hand with their religious beliefs. They AREN'T mutually exclusive. Religion has, even for those who aren't religious, defined our moral system and legal system. If you are going to allow for moral reasons (which you pretty much have to, because the liberal side uses moral reasoning quite a bit as well), then you can't put down one side simply because theirs comes directly from their religion, rather than indirectly. The issue isn't so black and white.

Quote:
Wait, what?


The law limits how the funding can be used based on how stem cells are gotten, as there are more than one source for them. The law states that federal funding cannot be used on research utilizing embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, meaning they have multiple different possible outcomes. In essence, they are blank slates and can fit anywhere. However, under current technology, the only way to get them is to either destroy or clone the embryo, which is where the controversy comes in (and that controversy stems to the abortion controversy, which is an entirely different animal).

This, however, allows funding to be used on research with adult stem cells, which can be found in things like bone marrow and fat (so every fat chick who gets lipsuction has a wealth of stemcells). These are still stem cells, in that they can grow to various different types of cells, however, many of these cells have some paths they cannot go down, meaning they are progenitor cells. These can still be used to repair systems and such, and there are many multi-lateral cells in adult stem cells (as well as flat out unilateral).

Federal funding has been allocated to research with adult stem cells, and it has been the Bush administration that has allocated it. As far as I'm aware, administrations before hand have not provided funding for such research.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Parallax

Fighting 181st


Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Post Count: 8943
Location: Arlus
1109279 Potch
250 Soldiers
3275 Nation Points

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Yvl wrote:
From 70 years ago? I hardly think that has a bearing on contemporary politics.


Oh, but it does. Precedent is extremely important in politics.

American presidents, for example, have been fighting undeclared wars since the 1700's. It may be very sketchy as far as legality, but it makes it harder to fight against something that's been done many times before.

It's the same thing with FDR imprisoning our own citizens, or previous presidents endorsing the butchering of the Native Americans. It's also not as if Guantanamo Bay (spelling?) hasn't existed for the last thirty years. It may have become more readily publicized since terrorists have been held there, but it's been used to detain refugees and illegal immigrants since the 1970's, as I recall.

I will obviously not defend torture of prisoners, which is just obscene. It's also a disturbingly unanswered slap in the face of the Geneva Conventions which have helped to make ethical behaviour the norm around the world for over a hundred years. However, I do not think that the Democratic party is the answer to this problem, even if you are correct that FDR's democratic party showed little true resemblance to the democrats of today. I think the democratic party of today has just as many issues as their counterparts. Perhaps new leadership is called for, and if so, that's fine, but I don't think either party will ever have all the answers. My decicions have to be made on a case-by-case basis.

Just my two cents on that issue.

As for voting, I will be voting on some things on the ballot and not on others. I'm not well-informed enough on some of the acts, initiatives and whatnot to make a decision, and I don't like to vote on things I'm even the slightest bit unsure about. I've failed in my civic responsibility as an American, but there are some important issues I'm ready to take a stand on. Interestingly as I've digested the ballot, I find myself somewhere roughly between Republic and Democrat ideals. I can't support things from the extreme of either party, and I suspect that the proper way to run a government has a mixture of the two.
_________________

He's a victim - not a perp - and I'm choosing to let him go.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
Yvl

Sanctus


Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Post Count: 5979
Location: Senan
55224 Potch
1063 Soldiers
12421 Nation Points

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Quote:

It proves that, under similar situations, the liberal side of the spectrum has taken immoral (and illegal) acts as a policy as well. It's not something you see only on the conservative side.

Anything regarding parties pre-Vietnam really has no meaning today. My issue was more with you criticizing the democratic party for doing that than the fact it happened itself, or something like that.

Quote:

There is a constitutional amendment that bans the government from declaring a state religion. However, you are criticizing them because their moral stance goes hand-in-hand with their religious beliefs. They AREN'T mutually exclusive. Religion has, even for those who aren't religious, defined our moral system and legal system. If you are going to allow for moral reasons (which you pretty much have to, because the liberal side uses moral reasoning quite a bit as well), then you can't put down one side simply because theirs comes directly from their religion, rather than indirectly. The issue isn't so black and white.

You are still misunderstanding. If there is a clear NONRELIGOUS reason for that law, then it is fine. I'm not saying everything that comes from a relgious source is bad, I'm saying that there needs to be another reson besides the religon itself. For example, gay marriage - how does banning that benefit america? Yes, it says so in the bible, but is there a better reason based on fact rather than faith?

Quote:

American presidents, for example, have been fighting undeclared wars since the 1700's. It may be very sketchy as far as legality, but it makes it harder to fight against something that's been done many times before.

What happens there is that the President has the power to allocate forces to anywhere he pleases. If there happens to be some guys that are shooting at them there, then they would have no choice but to fight back. Or something like that.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Amyral

Windriders


Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Post Count: 1355
Location: Sawgrass Landing
544907 Potch
4066 Soldiers
620 Nation Points

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Yvl wrote:

Anything regarding parties pre-Vietnam really has no meaning today. My issue was more with you criticizing the democratic party for doing that than the fact it happened itself, or something like that.


Republicans are conservative, democrats are still liberals. What was fully within the realm of possibilities for liberals then still is now. I'm not really concerned if you take issue with it, it still happened, it was still democrat funded, and it was still one of the best examples of a different political side's leadership under a similar situation.

Yvl wrote:
You are still misunderstanding. If there is a clear NONRELIGOUS reason for that law, then it is fine.


Once in office, a person can vote for or against a piece of legislation for any reason that they see fit. Forcing a different reason for religious reasons goes against the law. If people don't like the reasoning, they can vote them out. The constitution does not say that they cannot vote on religious reasoning, nor does it ever use the phrase "seperation of church and state." If there is a moral basis aloud for voting them down, you can't refuse acceptance solely because it's on religious ground. It's not that I don't understand, it's that I flat out disagree.

As for the gay marraige, I don't take any stock in that, since the Federal government doesn't have the power over licenses. They wanted to take control over something they had no control over, which I mark up to general government idiocy more than anything else.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Yvl

Sanctus


Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Post Count: 5979
Location: Senan
55224 Potch
1063 Soldiers
12421 Nation Points

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 9:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Quote:

Republicans are conservative, democrats are still liberals. What was fully within the realm of possibilities for liberals then still is now. I'm not really concerned if you take issue with it, it still happened, it was still democrat funded, and it was still one of the best examples of a different political side's leadership under a similar situation.


Doesn't change the fact that it was 70 years ago and ALOT has changed since then. If I understand correctly, before the 70s, the democrats were conservative and republicans were liberal.

Quote:

Once in office, a person can vote for or against a piece of legislation for any reason that they see fit. Forcing a different reason for religious reasons goes against the law. If people don't like the reasoning, they can vote them out. The constitution does not say that they cannot vote on religious reasoning, nor does it ever use the phrase "seperation of church and state." If there is a moral basis aloud for voting them down, you can't refuse acceptance solely because it's on religious ground. It's not that I don't understand, it's that I flat out disagree.

Indeed it does not say "seperation of church and state," but it amounts to that. Whether it is a law or an actual nation wide religon, if it is based solely off religon, then it is effectively establishing part of that religon as part of our government. And if that is repeated time after time, allowing one religon to slowly take over more and more of our government, then we'll wind up a theocracy in no time. And you can't exactly "vote someone out," it isn't that simple. You have to wait until their term expires, or recall them (which is fairly difficult to my understanding.)

I'm a post-conventional thinker, so I REFUSE to obey ANY law that there is no sound basis for. I need a "why" before I can be told to do anything, and it upsets me to see others not do the same.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Amyral

Windriders


Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Post Count: 1355
Location: Sawgrass Landing
544907 Potch
4066 Soldiers
620 Nation Points

PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Yvl wrote:

Doesn't change the fact that it was 70 years ago and ALOT has changed since then. If I understand correctly, before the 70s, the democrats were conservative and republicans were liberal.


Has a lot changed since 70 years ago? Sure. Democrats were conservative and Republicans were liberal? No. 70 years ago, the democrats were liberal and republicans were conservative. If it were reversed, there would be no logic whatsoever for FDR's policies, since he was one of the most liberal president's we've seen in this county. They shifted to the left when William Jennings Bryant took over, before 1900. FDR's policies have still laid the groundwork for the modern democratic party. I don't really know where that assertment has come from, but it is not the correct one.

You may be confusing it with the neo-liberal movement, which began existing in the 70's, and they share far more with the republican party than the democratic. Neo-conservatism began to take hold in around the 60's, and is more liberal than the traditional conservatives on face value, as it supports a larger government.

Quote:

Indeed it does not say "seperation of church and state," but it amounts to that. Whether it is a law or an actual nation wide religon, if it is based solely off religon, then it is effectively establishing part of that religon as part of our government.


It didn't mean seperation of church and state until about 100 years later, actually. The Supreme Court made that decision. What it means is what it says, that you can't declare a state religion. That's why colonists left Europe to begin with. They didn't want the denomination/sect issues to affect who got what. Early rules and rulings showed that religion was still the largest factor. That's how it's been determined since, but that's not what the constitution means, just like free speech doesn't mean you are immune from all prosecution for speech, only that the government cannot limit what you say before you say (which has since been modified).

Quote:
I'm a post-conventional thinker, so I REFUSE to obey ANY law that there is no sound basis for. I need a "why" before I can be told to do anything, and it upsets me to see others not do the same.


Which level? There were two stages in Kohlberg's post-conventional subdivision. Stage 5 relied on the recognition that people have varying opinions and beliefs (and that everyone be respected equally), and that unjust laws should be changed to benefit the most people. Those who don't are to be removed when necessary (hey, sounds like democracy).

Stage 6 relied on the universal truth by which we apply our lies, which I find completely ludicrous in and of itself, since I find the concept of a universal truth to be ridiculous.

However, that doesn't really affect the issue at hand. People we elect have the power to do what we gave them, and what we gave them was the ability to vote on policy at their discretion. We CAN vote them out, in that we are physically able to rally people to vote against them in their next election. The fact that it isn't easy to have a recall election isn't simply (impossible in all but 18 states) or that there are elections doesn't change that

If that includes following morals, that's what they include. That's the point of elections, for the populace to choose people who they, at the very list, would be willing to put into power. Frankly, I don't think anyone who seeks office is very trustworthy to hold it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Sage

The Invincible Weeds


Joined: 22 Nov 2004
Post Count: 15653
Location: Blight's Bay
803820 Potch
0 Soldiers
2 Nation Points

PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Just to talk about my own region, I think republicans will win. Montana is a red state and as a whole that's the way things almost always go. However, we have been getting out of that trend recently as we elected a democrat for a governor last elections. That may have had more to do with our previous governor rather than party lines. I guess it's tougher to call than I thought, but I would still wager Republicans will win more in Montana.

As for the US as a whole, I have no idea.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Yvl

Sanctus


Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Post Count: 5979
Location: Senan
55224 Potch
1063 Soldiers
12421 Nation Points

PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Quote:

You may be confusing it with the neo-liberal movement, which began existing in the 70's, and they share far more with the republican party than the democratic. Neo-conservatism began to take hold in around the 60's, and is more liberal than the traditional conservatives on face value, as it supports a larger government.

That's what I was thinking of.

Quote:

It didn't mean seperation of church and state until about 100 years later, actually. The Supreme Court made that decision. What it means is what it says, that you can't declare a state religion. That's why colonists left Europe to begin with. They didn't want the denomination/sect issues to affect who got what. Early rules and rulings showed that religion was still the largest factor. That's how it's been determined since, but that's not what the constitution means, just like free speech doesn't mean you are immune from all prosecution for speech, only that the government cannot limit what you say before you say (which has since been modified).

And that's EXACTLY why making laws based on religon alone is ludicrous. It forces people to accept "moral" values that they do not have any reason to accept besides the fact that a person that someone else elected read that he should do that in the bible.

Quote:

Which level?

Stage 5, as per what you said. My point wasnt so much that is what I am as it was that it frustrates me to no end when people don't ask "why?" before making decisions that affect those of us that do. That applies to religous values especially.

Quote:

Frankly, I don't think anyone who seeks office is very trustworthy to hold it.

That was Douglas Adams... something along the lines of "The most fit person to govern wants to govern the least."
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Jorge Prima

La Raza de Héroes y Protectores de Osito


Joined: 30 Oct 2005
Post Count: 3919
Location: Avec Monsieur Angelus
938390 Potch
1120 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 3:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

I'm a little worried, Californias current govenor Arnold Schwarzenegger is beating the oposer Phil Angelides in the polls right now. California cannot take another freaking term with this guy. I really hope Phil can take it.

As for the democrats in general, I don't think they can do it. I hope they can, but the Republicans are very crafty when it comes to this sort of crap. Though the anti-gay activist, who turns out to be gay, may hurt them a lot.
_________________

J et J

Angelus on Aftershave wrote:
But it stings SO GOOD.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Rune hunter




Joined: 02 May 2006
Post Count: 461
Location: Tenzan Pass
236548 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

hmm considering that the democrat has nearly been handed this election on a silver plate it would be very disheartening to democrat if they do not win congress. I mean with all the scandal on the republican side and Iraq and the state of the US economy what more do the democrats need in order to win?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Blazing Camp

Rage


Joined: 30 Dec 2005
Post Count: 364

0 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 12:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Rune hunter wrote:
hmm considering that the democrat has nearly been handed this election on a silver plate it would be very disheartening to democrat if they do not win congress. I mean with all the scandal on the republican side and Iraq and the state of the US economy what more do the democrats need in order to win?


I agree, the Dems have a great chance to win both the House and Senate. However , as mentioned before, the Republicans are very crafty when it comes to elections. They use the fear agengda (War on Terror and gay marriage) to fool the sheeple to vote in dorves for them.

On the plus side, with the recent scandals within the GOP and the failures of the Iraqi War, the dems do have a big advatage for winning this election.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Vextor




Joined: 09 Mar 2004
Post Count: 12042
Location: Hell
11250168 Potch
23689 Soldiers
160 Nation Points

PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 12:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Well, I voted this morning and it sure was a nightmare. They made it as hard as possible for me to vote, and the whole ordeal took 3 hours. But anyhow, I'm glad it's done with and we'll see how things go from here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Malvagio

Liberatori di Inferno


Joined: 01 Mar 2006
Post Count: 1382
Location: Merseto
26524 Potch
63 Soldiers
123938 Nation Points

PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

I can't even vote.....I've been in Texas the past month and my homestate is California. Oh well...my support goes to the Democrats this time. Phil Angelides has my support.....but if what Jorge Prima says is true....I will be disappointed if that steriod popping loser actually takes the seat ANOTHER few years. :x
_________________


"Devoted Protector of Lord Logg and Lady Valeria"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.     Forum Index -> Community Forum All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 3 of 9

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
suikox.com by: Vextor


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
  Username:    Password:      Remember me