A Pilot's Perspective On Barack Obama

[renrich]

The definition or usage of the term liberal has changed here. Thomas Jefferson was thought of as a liberal. He believed that government should tread lightly on the land(and the people.) That was the original concept this country was founded on. Actually it was originally founded as a republic with limited suffrage because the founders recognised the dangers of a true democracy. I can't remember exactly how the liberal tag got twisted around to where it is today but it may have been when democrats decided that they needed to pander to the " oppressed" and called themselves liberals. Youall in Europe need to remember that the political parties have gradually swapped ends. The Republican party used to be the party of big strong central government, protectionist trade policy, isolationism and abolition of slavery. THe Democrat party believed in states rights, low tariffs, small government, (the little man) and were more warlike. As you can see that has all changed.

[Danielmellbin]

Originally Posted by renrich

The definition or usage of the term liberal has changed here. Thomas Jefferson was thought of as a liberal. He believed that government should tread lightly on the land(and the people.) That was the original concept this country was founded on. Actually it was originally founded as a republic with limited suffrage because the founders recognised the dangers of a true democracy. I can't remember exactly how the liberal tag got twisted around to where it is today but it may have been when democrats decided that they needed to pander to the " oppressed" and called themselves liberals. Youall in Europe need to remember that the political parties have gradually swapped ends. The Republican party used to be the party of big strong central government, protectionist trade policy, isolationism and abolition of slavery. THe Democrat party believed in states rights, low tariffs, small government, (the little man) and were more warlike. As you can see that has all changed.

hehe - same here - we actually have a party called "The Left Party" - which is far out to the right...

[Danielmellbin]

Originally Posted by renrich

In the US, many low income families pay no federal income tax but they do pay FICA(social security taxes.) I believe that it would be fair if a person's vote should be mutiplied by a factor taking into account the amount of federal income tax and FICA paid the year before with perhaps some kind of cap. Given my particular circumstances now I would probably not have a vote or maybe only one but I think that the people who are paying the lion's share of the tax should have a greater voice in government than those who pay little or nothing. That would tend to solve the classic problem that democracies have of the have nots voting in the people who will take from the haves to give to the have nots. Any thoughts? LOL

But it would also multiply the classic problem of non-democracies - namely that the "have's" would completely dominate the political spectrum. At best I would call it a form of Oligarchy.

[Danielmellbin]

Originally Posted by ToughOmbre

ren, your demographics hit the nail on the head.

The only problem I have with voters is when they vote "their party" regardless of candidate, political philosophy, liberal, conservative, etc. Still a lot of folks in this country that do it. Wasted votes in my opinion.

TO

Yea - I really hate that too. IMO people have to look at their world and the policies offered by each party - and then decide. For my own part: In the last election we had here, my usual first choice party (and historically the largest in the country) had become so mired by trying to please everyone that their policy made no sense anymore. Thankfully they had their worst election in their entire 100-something year history. But pretty much all the votes they got (still alot of them) where "habit" votes - pissed me off.

P.S. I jumped to a different party slightly more to the left - surprised anyone?

P.P.S. Should have combined all these posts - sorry.

[renrich]

We used to have a bigger problem here with "party" voters than we have now. There was what was called the "yellow dog" democrat. They were said to be ready to vote for a yellow dog if it was a democrat. This was a left over from the War Between the States and was mostly a Southern thing. When I was a kid growing up in Texas, in a local election there were often no Republicans on the ballot. Whoever won the Democrat primary was automatically the winner of the general election. In 1948, I think, "Landslide Lyndon Johnson" won the state dimocrat primary by less than 100 votes. It was later found that a large number of votes he got in Duvall county, down near the Mexican border, were cast by people who had been dead for a number of years. Nothing came of it because it was just one dimocrat cheating another. There was a political boss in that county named George Parr. The law could never put him in jail because the judges were all crooked. Finally a Texas Ranger got so frustrated he pistol whipped George Parr. Good old Texas justice. It is a shame that black voters are almost automatic democrats because that party takes them for granted. To me though, because the dimocrat party has moved so far left, there is no choice but Republican even if I disagree with the nominee on a number of issues. There is a dimocrat congressman who made a speech recently and said that GW was responsible for the loss of our soldiers in Somalia in Blackhawk Down because the unrest in Somalia was caused by a drought which was the result of GW. There is a dimocrat who is running for congress here in Colorado named Udall who says the answer to high gas prices is not to drill for more oil but to pass laws to regulate speculation in oil futures and to tax the oil companies more heavily because they are making "too high profits" while we are paying high gas prices. How could an intelligent person vote for idiots like that?

[Danielmellbin]

In European countries we have alot of parties in politics. After an election the largest wing will form a government. However only some of the parties that back the new government will be allowed to actually join it.

Example of a typical election in my country (a very typical system of the continent):


Enhedslisten (Socialists) : 2%
SF (Leftwing Social-Democrats) : 17%
Socialdemokraterne (Social-Democrats): 28%
Radikale Venstre (hard to put into a box - but the "middle of the middle"): 5%

Konservative (Social-Conservative): 8%
Venstre (Social-Liberal): 30%
Ny Alliance (Market-Liberal): 5%
Dansk Folkeparti (Rightwing-Democrats): 14%
Fremskridtpartiet (hard to define - mild version of nazis I would say): 1%

The bottom 5 are the typical rightwing and the top 4 the typical leftwing. But this is not set and any party is free to back the new government formed. However typically this is how the new government is formed: Either by the top or the bottom (although there is a 4% "lowerlimit" so nr.1 and 9 (thankfully) very rarely make it). The largest party on the winning side will form the new government together with one or more of the others from its wing. Any eventual "leftover" parties on the winning side will not get into the government and thus not gain any ministerial posts. However its backing will still be needed to form the new government and its votes will still be needed to pass legislation opposed by the other wing - so they will have considerable influence.

Anyway - hope this is understandable - thought it might be interesting as some of you have said you do not know how it "works" over here.

[Njaco]

I have recently seen and heard some of the dumbest reasons someone is voting for our prez candidates. Because he's black (which baffles me), because he's too old, he speaks good, he was too dumb to get caught, because he did get caught and refused to give up, he's Muslim, because we can't have a president named Hussein, on and on.

Like Ren said, some people vote single issues and really don't look at a candidate except for looks, speech and other things that don't mean a thing.

[ToughOmbre]

Right Njaco. Said it before and I'll say it again, average voter ain't all that bright. And another thing, though I firmly believe that 18 years olds should have the right to vote, they don't have enough experience, political savy, insight to usually make intelligent voting decisions. Most of the time they vote emotion. Cause that's what I did when I was that age. I mean no offense to the younger members of this forum, just the way it is. Want proof? I actually voted for Jimmy Carter.

I'm not a one issue voter, but there is ONE issue that would determine my choice.....

Better support the 2nd Amendment, because "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." And that's NOT debatable.

TO

[Njaco]

Agree.

And I was guilty of that also. Voted John Anderson in '80 cause I thought his gas tax made sense. jeez!

[renrich]

Here is an issue which to me shows how out of touch most of our politicians are. High gasoline prices are a big issue to most voters. Four dollars or more per gallon is a lot given the much lower prices we paid only a year or more ago. My little brother who lives in Italy is paying eight dollars. I believe, however, the high gas prices are having some good effects, more fuel efficient vehicles, more reliance on railroads, less driving especially by teenagers, etc. Now, to relieve the high gas prices, Bush says we should begin drilling off shore. Most dimocrats and some residents in Florida and California say no way. 70% or more of Americans polled say we should drill offshore and in ANWR. The dimocrats say we won't see any benefit for 5 to 10 years. Here is what they should all understand including the American public. The demand for oil worldwide will continue to grow. The supply is pretty finite. Regardless of what we do in the US, we are going to see high gas prices as long as gasoline is our principle fuel for autos. What we should be concerned about is energy prices in the FUTURE. How would gas prices of eight dollars a gallon impact our economy? Of course we need to learn to conserve energy, create alternative fuels, renewable energy sources, utilise nuclear power, wind power and solar power, et al. In the meantime, fossil fuels are going to be the mainstay for at least 20 years. Why would we be so stupid as to leave billions of barrels of oil and gas in the ground just a few miles offshore and in Alaska especially when foreign countries are already drilling just outside our continental shelf? The impacts of producing all of our available fossil fuel resources would be many fold. New jobs right away, a stronger dollar, curtail the outflow of dollars to Canada, Mexico, Middle East, etc, and help our foreign trade balance, a more secure domestic energy source and finally lower energy costs in the FUTURE than they otherwise might be. What we should be thinking about is not how to substantially lower four dollar per gallon gas prices but how to keep from having to pay six or eight dollars a gallon in 2009 or 2010. Some of the politicians may be thinking along those lines but why not try to educate the American public with that outlook which immediately puts paid to the dimocrat argument that it won't do any good for 5 to 10 years?

[Njaco]

Thats what I was thinking Ren especially after Bush put it in the Congress' court. There is no feasable way that I can see for prices to stop or go down NOW. Its a fantasy. We have to focus on the future cost. 3 to 7 yeras for oil drilling and refineries to start up, 3 to 10 years for nuclear plants to be built looks much better than the speculation of ethanol and other alternative energies. Factor in delays caused by PETA, the Sierra Club, the ACLU and any other group that these new sources might infringe upon, I don't see any cost advantage for at least 10 years. So plan for the future and each person do what you can individually for himself. Bike, walk, public transport, etc.

[Danielmellbin]

Originally Posted by ToughOmbre

Right Njaco. Said it before and I'll say it again, average voter ain't all that bright. And another thing, though I firmly believe that 18 years olds should have the right to vote, they don't have enough experience, political savy, insight to usually make intelligent voting decisions. Most of the time they vote emotion. Cause that's what I did when I was that age. I mean no offense to the younger members of this forum, just the way it is. Want proof? I actually voted for Jimmy Carter.

I'm not a one issue voter, but there is ONE issue that would determine my choice.....

Better support the 2nd Amendment, because "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." And that's NOT debatable.

TO

Regarding the voters age: And the older voters do?


And the quote all (grownup) conservatives loooove: "If you are 18 and a conservative you have no heart, if you are 30 and you are still a democrat you have no brain"

Jimmy Carter... duuude - the one time I would have not voted democrat had I been a US citizen

Quick curiosity question: Why is it - in your opinion - so important for you and many other Americans to have the right to bear firearms?

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Danielmellbin

Quick curiosity question: Why is it - in your opinion - so important for you and many other Americans to have the right to bear firearms?

It was written in our constitution (which was recently confirmed by our surpreme court).

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by Danielmellbin

Quick curiosity question: Why is it - in your opinion - so important for you and many other Americans to have the right to bear firearms?

Don't start that, Dan, we did have had a lengthy discussion about that a year ago, it's a typical Europe vs. USA issue. There are reasons and while I don't agree with them all, I sometimes see their point.

We have a similar system as yours in Denmark, lots of parties. I usually vote centre parties and tend to lean left or right and vote for them, if I think it's necessary.

[JugBR]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

It was written in our constitution (which was recently confirmed by our surpreme court).

we uses fireguns here, becuse the police doenst works and ctiminals uses ak-47´s. but the most part of kills in brazil are "loose mind crimes"; footbal discussions, parties fights, alcohol drunks, transit discussions because a cars crash. does the police officers work well there in your opinion ? did a restrictive law about firguns could prevent some cases of snippers or psychos firing in schools or something like ? hows the percent of murders made by nom-criminal people by futile reasons ?