Members Jess Posted September 20, 2008 Members Share Posted September 20, 2008 Is Palin at the top of the ticket? Personally I think Palin is a gun-toting hick, but that has nothing to do with whether or not she can be vp. By the way, what is an elite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Roman Posted September 20, 2008 Members Share Posted September 20, 2008 I just got through watching Real Time, and Andrew Sullivan was on, saying that John McCain is the biggest elitist in Washington. That he goes to all the celebrity parties and will only speak with the elite media types. I was surprised to hear him go off like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jess Posted September 20, 2008 Members Share Posted September 20, 2008 Well considering how much we spend every month in Iraq fighting an unjust war, I think $50 billion is a small price to pay for a poverty program. Lets add to that, our ongoing support of Pakistan. We spend all kinds of money on all kinds of foreign aid. As a rule, foreign aid is used to accomplish strategic objectives other than just poverty reduction or whatever we spend it on. Our participation in the United Nations is much like our participation in NATO that your favorite vice presidential nominee discussed. It comes with responsibilities. In this instance, it is a responsibility that I believe country should pursue. We have responsibilities of moral leadership as well as military leadership. We also are spending a butt load of money on a Aids reduction program in Africa that I 100 percent agree with. Today we announced that we would probably spend $1 trillion bailing out greedy business people. I have no problem supporting a $50 billion anti-poverty program and in fact consider it commendable and a far better expenditure of money that many other things we do. No, you want to talk about the national debt? Why do we look at the soaring increases under the Bush administration that are caused in very large part by a tax cut that never should have been implemented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GoldenDogs Posted September 20, 2008 Members Share Posted September 20, 2008 One would think she was, based on how the media seems obsessed with her. You know, all of this talk of qualifications, etc., makes me wonder what George Washington's experience was... Oh, sure, we can't compare 200+ years ago to the world we live in today, but shouldn't politics be about people like you and me making a difference? Don't you think things would be a lot different if the people running for office were concerned citizens rather than career politicians who live off taxpayer money? Maybe that is an element to the appeal of Obama and Palin to their respective supporters... Regardless of ideology, I think people just want fresh blood in Washington. With all due respect to our representatives that have fought the good fight for us, but were entrenched political families like the Kennedy's or the Bush's really what our founding fathers intended, or was the idea of a representative government really about concerned citizens like Jess and Brian having a go at it, serving the people and their wishes for a couple of terms before moving back into private life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jess Posted September 20, 2008 Members Share Posted September 20, 2008 I'm really surprised more has not been made of the Keating Five this election. I'm glad it has not been dragged out, but I think some of the things McCain says in light of experience with the Keating Five is a little bit hypocritical. Honestly, I don't know what McCain is doing. He's not the same man who won the nomination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GoldenDogs Posted September 20, 2008 Members Share Posted September 20, 2008 Bush is an ass for not exercising his veto powers on every high-dollar piece of legislation rolling out of Congress. However, Jess, I would be truly impressed if you would acknowledge the fact that there are also spend-happy leftists in the democratic-controlled Congress who authored and pushed off to Bush some high-dollar pieces of legislation... For instance, tacking on pet projects they sought money for and amending them to bills crafted to fund the war... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jess Posted September 20, 2008 Members Share Posted September 20, 2008 I in no way would vote for me for president. :lol: Interesting on George Washington. The presidency in large part was created with understanding that he would serve in the office first. One of the biggest debates at the constitutional convention was how to establish the executive, and it was established with the thought that Congress would be the stronger of the three branches. I think using today's test, Washington would be considered an elitist. I think that is what the Founders expected. Remember that originally, it was envisioned that all voters would be landowners. The Founders believed that wealthy land owners would elect good representatives because they would have a vested interested in the well-being of the country. As far as the Kennedys and Bush's, let's not forget that the Adams came first. Crisis changed the powers of the presidency, particularly the Depression. The need for a singular figure to lead at times of crises established the need for a strong executive. I agree that the public is looking for something different, but I don't think it's unusual for presidential campaigns to argue an outsider appeal. I do think the fact Obama and Palin are different adds to their appeal. I think that is what the current President Bush did -- touted himself as an outsider. I also think it is why that the career path to the presidency so often passes through the statehouse rather than the senate, people are anti-Washington. I do think the founders did not conceive of a system of professional politicians. The United States was 13 states at the time and the economy was totally agraian. (man I didn't spell that right and I don't know how to spell it right :lol: ). I do tend to agree that people spend too much time in Washington. The public continues to elect them though, and it does seem that they represent their constituents pretty well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jess Posted September 20, 2008 Members Share Posted September 20, 2008 Yeah, there are spend-happy liberal. I would also say spend-happy Republican did the same thing. Will you acknowledge that? I don't share your dislike for the "pet projects". One person's pet project is another's highway that connects Appalachia to a city. Research universities all receive ear mark funding. We talk about the need for energy programs. So much of the research into energy is in ear marks. My only problem with ear marks is they are not transparent. I think if they are going to do em, put their name on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jess Posted September 20, 2008 Members Share Posted September 20, 2008 Damn, I went to get a glass of wine and some popcorn (a fitting combination of elitism and blue collar) and everyone had stopped talking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Wales2004 Posted September 20, 2008 Members Share Posted September 20, 2008 I just started reading the posts again. I'm debating about whether I want to make a video clip or not. I like reading your posts. I haven't seen the word "agrarian" in a long time. You were close....just missed an "r." Not surprisingly I agree with you on anti poverty. What's a bit surprising to me is that the so called religious right don't seem to push for programs of this nature I guess I really don't have a clear understanding of what their principles are based on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jess Posted September 20, 2008 Members Share Posted September 20, 2008 I know!!! Let's remember the scriptures talk about those with the least being the most important. I guess the RRs don't buy into social justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GoldenDogs Posted September 20, 2008 Members Share Posted September 20, 2008 I can answer that one, Wales... The religious right doesn't push for government-funded anti-poverty programs because they prefer to handle such programs themselves through their faith-based organizations, churches, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Wales2004 Posted September 20, 2008 Members Share Posted September 20, 2008 I think all I've heard associated with them tends to be that they're against abortion and want to promote family values. I suppose they may have outreach programs going but the focus on whatever they've termed as family values seems to be #1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jess Posted September 20, 2008 Members Share Posted September 20, 2008 They have the federal government funding those now. :lol: I don't know about RRs being overly engaged in pushing poverty programs in churches. I think the RRs focus is moral issues and when religious conservatives talk about moral issues, they are talking about sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GoldenDogs Posted September 20, 2008 Members Share Posted September 20, 2008 Awesome post, Jess! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.