Large Scale Central

An overwhelming majority of Australians support

General Discussion
#21

Jerry.

The proposed internet censorship laws in Australia are just another dick head idea from the (so called) Labor party that is in power here.
Fortunately they do not have a majority in our House of review, The Senate, so the laws will likely not get implemented anyway.
The Greens and two independents will save us from the more extreme policies.

Any political party having total power anywhere is dangerous. Especially to themselves. The former Conservative government here got total power at the previous election and introduced such extreme anti worker work place policies that, when the inevitable backlash came from the people, even their own leader was ousted from his seat in Parliament.

#22
Steve Featherkile said:
Please answer this question, Tony, HJ, Ralph, Mike, and Vic.

What has Mr. Obama done to garner such support. Just what has he accomplished in his life?

Oh, FYI, Bush is not running this time.


I think Ric said something like this: we usually end up voting against someone rather than for someone.
Ralph

#23
Quote:
... What has Mr. Obama done to garner such support.
1) Believes that there are some aspects of society that government owes it to the people to take care of. McCain (and the conservatives) place the responsibility of many things on the individual. On some things, that's fine. People should take care of themselves and not rely on the government. However, on certain items like health care, the government has a fundamental responsibility to make sure its citizenry is taken care of. McCain wants to do this by giving you $5K to go out and buy your own coverage. If you're making $20K/year and trying to support even a very small family, your other expenses (food, rent, utilities) are going to eat every last bit of that $5K before a dime of it can be spent on health care. That's the reality. When the Constitution guarantees the right to life, that means the government cannot sit idly by while its citizens die from preventable diseases because they have no insurance and no way of affording treatment. What good is health care if your first diagnosis is malnutrition because you can't afford to eat?

  1. Throughout the campaign, maintained somewhat of a moral high road. Hillary and Co. threw everything but the kitchen sink at him in the primaries, and he stayed focused on the issues. McCain and Co. picked up where Hillary left off, relentlessly and repeatedly throwing one discredited claim after another, and he still–for the most part–has stuck to his message. That shows a level of character that goes beyond the petty political waffling displayed by every politician that’s ever breathed. McCain’s reputation as a hot-head is not what I want when his finger is on the button.

  2. Has a stronger foundation when it comes to women’s rights. Picking a female VP doesn’t make up for McCain’s faltering in this regard.

  3. Believes that gunboat diplomacy is not the first line of defense. Truman talked to Stalin, Kennedy talked to Khruschev, Nixon talked to Mao, Reagan talked to Gorbachev… There’s an inherent good that comes from keeping the lines of communication with your enemy open, even if you can’t agree on a single thing. Obama’s thought this relative to the mideast from day 1. Bush Jr. has come 'round to working towards this end as well, yet McCain is reluctant to see this as the way forward. Remember–“keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.”

  4. In spite of how he comes off to many, he has a better understanding of working-class America than does McCain. It wasn’t that long ago that he was fresh out of college working in the poor neighborhoods of Chicago. He might not have lived in the poor neighborhoods of Chicago, but he still worked with those people to try to make things better. Anyone who’s rolled up his/her sleeves in those kinds of neighborhoods gets my respect. And if–through that work–you associate with various individuals to pursue an end, well, you do what needs to be done. It’s not unlike our dealings with Saddam in the 80s to keep Iran in check. Politics makes very strange bedfellows.

  5. He’s a commanding presence, but very personable. When he came to Denver the first time, he went to a local gym to shoot hoops. Our sports anchor happens to belong to that gym, and found himself in a 3-on-3 basketball game with him. No cameras, no press, no “I’m running for President,” no nothin’. Just 6 guys shootin’ hoops. Totally down to earth and relaxed. (Our sports anchor did snap a photo on his cell phone so we’d believe him.) His handlers are equally laid back–or as laid back as they can be when he attracts 50 - 100K people at a rally. McCain, not so much. I met the man in 2000 covering his primary campaign against Bush Jr. (I liked McCain better than I liked Gore, and wish he would have done better.) Talking to the local media was a burden for him; something–it seemed to me–that he did only very reluctantly. While the same can be said for most national politicians I’ve encountered (and I have yet to personally interact with Obama), There’s just this sense of laid-backness that I find appealing in a candidate.

  6. Doesn’t have to pander to the far right to win/keep his job. I’m a religious person, but I have my limits when it comes to mixing religion and politics. I have nothing against laws based on the basic tenants of religion (no killing, no stealing, that kind of thing), and I also believe that our founding fathers held that religion was a fundamental building block of our democracy. (i.e., it’s okay for government buildings to put up a Christmas tree, they really did trust in God, and if students want to pray in school, they should full-well be allowed to do so.). But writing laws or establishing policy based solely on one individual’s interpretation of one singular religious text comes dangerously close to theocracy. Society is simply too varied in views and beliefs for policy enacted in that light to be remotely reflective of “We the People.”

Later,

K

#24

Bravo Kevin.
If only I was as erudite and lucid as you.
I thank your educated upbringing for that.

BTW I still remember running into you at Silverton when you were riding the train as a young(er) whippersnapper.

#25

Kevin,
Be careful what you ask for, you might get it.

  1. Universal health care…just like the poor get from the DPW. – Red tape and minimal care because many doctors won’t accept it. No incentives for innovation, long lines for urgent care…there is a reason rich Canadians fly south if they need something done.

  2. Yep, moral high road…tossed aside long time friends one by one when they became a political liability. Use em and lose em… And what change is he after? Spare change? Change of life? It’s EASY to stick to a nebulous ideal that means something different to everyone else as long as you don’t let them pin you down on specifics…

  3. Women’s rights? Women should have the same rights as men, beyond that I still have a moral problem with killing kids. Try a little self restraint and take responsibility BEFORE. Rape and incest are one thing, inconvenience is another…Sorry.

  4. McCain spent a long time stuck in a hell hole. I think he’s MORE likely to weigh the odds BEFORE going in. Withdrawing with honor so the sacrifices already made were not wasted seems beyond Mr Wonderful’s comprehension.

  5. The poor in Chicago (or any other major city) and the rest of our society are 2 different animals. Been both places, the mindset is night and day.

  6. McCain, can’t play basketball…something about getting shot I think. Guess you got me there.

  7. Nope, he panders to the far LEFT… just as bad, only different.

Got any more?

#26

Wow, Kevin’s off the deep end too.

“the Constitution guarantees the right to life”. My brother-in-law just died of cancer. I’d like to use that guarantee and get him back, please.

Funny you mentioned “Right to Life” and “Women’s rights” in the same post.

According to the US supreme court, (Roe v. Wade) the constitution does NOT guarantee the right to life.

It guarantees a woman’s right to choose. (Incomplete sentence…Choose what?)

Obviously, to surgically kill and remove her fetus. (Not a human being? What is it then, a dog?)

What is Obama’s history on abortion?

As an Illinois state senator, he had four legislative actions concerning bills similar to the federal “Infant Born Alive Protection Act”.

If you are not familiar, The IBAPA says that an infant born alive after a botched abortion has the right to nuturing care, and should not be killed or left to die.

On various forms of the Illinois state bill, Obama voted “no” twice, voted “present” once (in effect a “no” vote) and as committee chair, prevented it from coming to the floor for a vote, effectively killing it.

Obama’s position is not guaranteeing “a woman’s right to choose” but rather “a mother’s right to a dead baby”.

This is beyond NARAL’s (an abortion rights organization) position, which concedes to the IBAPA.

Kevin,

There are more points to argue against your “educated” post, but I’m short on time. “Life issues” are the most important.

Talented people, such as yourself, gain “credence” through their work and fame. Fans will then follow every utterence, however illogical, as gospel.

#27

Sound bite on CBC Radio …

Obama on Halloween:

“What did Senator McCain go as? George W Bush, like any of the past eight years.”

:wink: :slight_smile:

I guess they were right out of Maverick costumes or Palin rented them all for her Pals. :smiley:

#28

Gentlmen, I am not debating abortion. Period. What your definition of when “life” begins my or may not be different from what mine is, and we’ll leave it at that. I specifically did not mention abortion in my post for that very reason. Women’s rights and abortion rights are different things. I’m talking equal pay for equal work and the like.

Later,

K

#29

Kevin, :slight_smile: :wink:

The problem starts with some people believing that dinosaurs and man roamed the earth together a scant 6000 years ago and since there was no mention of woman … well it stands to reason that those rights just couldn’t be quite the same.

Reminds me of “good old Switzerland” where women couldn’t vote on the federal level 'til 1971. The common excuse from the usual male chauvinists was “Hell, they decide everything else anyway, no need for them to vote, too.” :open_mouth: :frowning:
The last lagging canton (AI) was finally convinced by the highest court who decided that “citizen” indeed included both genders. Talk about “conservative”!!
AI’s redeeming feature? … good cheese and good music! And the butt of as many jokes as we tell here in TGWN about the Newfies. :wink: :smiley:

#30

They must have been serving Cool-Aid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=381gFG4Crr8

#31
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
...Reminds me of "good old Switzerland" where women couldn't vote on the federal level 'til 1971. The common excuse from the usual male chauvinists was "Hell, they decide everything else anyway, no need for them to vote, too." :O :( The last lagging canton (AI) was finally convinced by the highest court who decided that "citizen" indeed included both genders. Talk about "conservative"!!
Wow, I did not know that. I sometimes forget that other countries besides the U.S. had/have civil rights issues. Cannot imagine that in my lifetime women living in a western society were denied the right to vote.
#32
Steve Featherkile said:
Please answer this question, Tony, HJ, Ralph, Mike, and Vic.

What has Mr. Obama done to garner such support. Just what has he accomplished in his life?

Oh, FYI, Bush is not running this time.


Steve let me answer this please. NOTHING! He at this point cannot get a security clearance. Some might want to read the Fourteenth Amendment, section 3 of the US Constitution, But Nancy Pelosi and company can help.

Keep your powder Dry
John

#33
Kevin Strong said:
Quote:
... What has Mr. Obama done to garner such support.
1) Believes that there are some aspects of society that government owes it to the people to take care of. McCain (and the conservatives) place the responsibility of many things on the individual. On some things, that's fine. People should take care of themselves and not rely on the government. However, on certain items like health care, the government has a fundamental responsibility to make sure its citizenry is taken care of. McCain wants to do this by giving you $5K to go out and buy your own coverage. If you're making $20K/year and trying to support even a very small family, your other expenses (food, rent, utilities) are going to eat every last bit of that $5K before a dime of it can be spent on health care. That's the reality. When the Constitution guarantees the right to life, that means the government cannot sit idly by while its citizens die from preventable diseases because they have no insurance and no way of affording treatment. What good is health care if your first diagnosis is malnutrition because you can't afford to eat?

  1. Throughout the campaign, maintained somewhat of a moral high road. Hillary and Co. threw everything but the kitchen sink at him in the primaries, and he stayed focused on the issues. McCain and Co. picked up where Hillary left off, relentlessly and repeatedly throwing one discredited claim after another, and he still–for the most part–has stuck to his message. That shows a level of character that goes beyond the petty political waffling displayed by every politician that’s ever breathed. McCain’s reputation as a hot-head is not what I want when his finger is on the button.

  2. Has a stronger foundation when it comes to women’s rights. Picking a female VP doesn’t make up for McCain’s faltering in this regard.

  3. Believes that gunboat diplomacy is not the first line of defense. Truman talked to Stalin, Kennedy talked to Khruschev, Nixon talked to Mao, Reagan talked to Gorbachev… There’s an inherent good that comes from keeping the lines of communication with your enemy open, even if you can’t agree on a single thing. Obama’s thought this relative to the mideast from day 1. Bush Jr. has come 'round to working towards this end as well, yet McCain is reluctant to see this as the way forward. Remember–“keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.”

  4. In spite of how he comes off to many, he has a better understanding of working-class America than does McCain. It wasn’t that long ago that he was fresh out of college working in the poor neighborhoods of Chicago. He might not have lived in the poor neighborhoods of Chicago, but he still worked with those people to try to make things better. Anyone who’s rolled up his/her sleeves in those kinds of neighborhoods gets my respect. And if–through that work–you associate with various individuals to pursue an end, well, you do what needs to be done. It’s not unlike our dealings with Saddam in the 80s to keep Iran in check. Politics makes very strange bedfellows.

  5. He’s a commanding presence, but very personable. When he came to Denver the first time, he went to a local gym to shoot hoops. Our sports anchor happens to belong to that gym, and found himself in a 3-on-3 basketball game with him. No cameras, no press, no “I’m running for President,” no nothin’. Just 6 guys shootin’ hoops. Totally down to earth and relaxed. (Our sports anchor did snap a photo on his cell phone so we’d believe him.) His handlers are equally laid back–or as laid back as they can be when he attracts 50 - 100K people at a rally. McCain, not so much. I met the man in 2000 covering his primary campaign against Bush Jr. (I liked McCain better than I liked Gore, and wish he would have done better.) Talking to the local media was a burden for him; something–it seemed to me–that he did only very reluctantly. While the same can be said for most national politicians I’ve encountered (and I have yet to personally interact with Obama), There’s just this sense of laid-backness that I find appealing in a candidate.

  6. Doesn’t have to pander to the far right to win/keep his job. I’m a religious person, but I have my limits when it comes to mixing religion and politics. I have nothing against laws based on the basic tenants of religion (no killing, no stealing, that kind of thing), and I also believe that our founding fathers held that religion was a fundamental building block of our democracy. (i.e., it’s okay for government buildings to put up a Christmas tree, they really did trust in God, and if students want to pray in school, they should full-well be allowed to do so.). But writing laws or establishing policy based solely on one individual’s interpretation of one singular religious text comes dangerously close to theocracy. Society is simply too varied in views and beliefs for policy enacted in that light to be remotely reflective of “We the People.”

Later,

K


Still looking for an accomplishment, Kevin.

#34

Well,
He managed to beat the very powerful Clinton political machine. He was either very smart, or smart enough to have even smarter people in the right places.
I would say that is a major accomplishment.
Ralph

#35
Quote:
... Still looking for an accomplishment, Kevin.
If you're looking for an earth-shattering "saved the world" kind of accomplishment, no. You're not going to find it. You'll have to settle for a string of small "save the world one corner at a time" achievements. (Read his bio. It's online.) That's all any of us can do, really, and more than many of us can say we've actually done. Graduating at the top of his Harvard Law class isn't anything to sneeze at, either. You don't do that by luck.

Personally, I have no problem putting an intelligent, less seasoned man in office. An intelligent man knows how to surround himself with experience, and to pull the right people together to get the job done–no matter what their politics. (How do you think he’s got to where he is now?) I liken it to a film producer. The producer has the vision and the expertise in putting together the right team that knows how to get things done. He’s more architect than engineer. He knows how (and who) to schmooze, but trusts his people to know their jobs.

So, no. “Accomplishments” as Steve would like them listed aren’t an issue for me. The smaller, more orchestrating accomplishments to achieve the small, but necessary goals carry more weight. Plenty of people have been elected into office on their “big” accomplishments, only to prove that they were lucky, rather than good.

Later,

K

#36

I’ll tell what, if all you who live in other countries love BHO so much, if he is elected you can move here and just maybe I’ll move to OZ! Was ready to do that when RFK was running! Even had the wife convinced, at least OZ state they are a socialist country and don’t hide behind a bunch of BS!

Paul

#37

BHO you mean this guy?

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?RsrcID=2036

#38

Paul.

OZ is NOT a proper Socialist country.
Mores the pity.
However, we do have a strong (and growing) Greens Party to help keep the incumbents honest.

Barack Obama is NOT a true Socialist either. Not even a pretend Socialist. Unlike Sarah Palin.

#39
TonyWalsham said:
Paul.

OZ is NOT a proper Socialist country.
Mores the pity.
However, we do have a strong (and growing) Greens Party to help keep the incumbents honest.

Barack Obama is NOT a true Socialist either. Not even a pretend Socialist. Unlike Sarah Palin.


I get my new glasses on Tuesday, so maby all this will be abit clearer then. No don’t worry I already voted so I won’t make a mistake there.:slight_smile:

#40
TonyWalsham said:
Barack Obama is [b]NOT[/b] a true Socialist either. Not even a pretend Socialist. Unlike Sarah Palin.
Palin is a socialist? For not changing state laws by executive decree? Or not selling off stuff that was property of the the state before she got in office? ... You ARE stretching -- or is that shovelling it deep?