Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

macs and politics

Political Parties

First Amen to me hate windows. Next I was raised Republican, Firearms since I was 5 (I have great respect for firearms). Because of this I have many Republican veiws. But my main beef with both parties is that both have their "wonderful ideas" but neither do jack **** about them. So on a Political Spectrum thing im in the "Radical" zone. But as for Party Im a very strong republican (on most issues). So Im a Radical Republican hey that sounds cool.

btw- I didn't mention religion because if parties are based on relgion then well have the same problems as N.Ireland, or the Israel confict.
 
Well we have World President Blair, I mean Prime Minister Blair as Leader of our country, And I'm pretty happy with our Government, and what they are tying to do for our country etc etc....... Although like any Government they have pretty seismic problems occasionally........ But a big improvement on what we had before though!!!

Must say though, the US elections a couple of years ago, the UK were very bemused to say the least..........

So what do you guys think of Mr Dubya anyway???
 
macs and the 2nd Amendment

I'm not really sure where I stand on this. I dispise people who abuse laws for their own good. The controversy surrounding the 2nd Amendment is huge. Look at the circumstances and the times during which the 2nd Amendment came to pass: we were gearing up for war against an imperialist oppressor. Damn right I'm going to grab my musket!

But today, things are a little different. Weapons are much more deadly, threats are different, internal, but with Sept. 11th the global issue is much more dangerous.

I don't personally own a gun, and unless things change drastically (for the worse) I won't ever have one. But if I need to I will protect myself and my familly.

The link below has some really interesting stuff, its worth the read

http://secondamendmentstuff.com/quotation.htm
 
Re: taxes!

Originally posted by jermsmingy
anyways, I think the rate of Federal taxes for the bracket that bill gates is in is 39% no more not more than 2% less though. figured what bill gates made this year. not how much he is worth. Figure what he makes and take 39% of that and you have what he paid in federal taxes, but don't forget that he has state taxes, sales tax, and property taxes.

I find it interesting how many of you say that you are liberal but hate big government and taxes. I do not know of any liberal that has voted for a tax cut. I know of democrats, but I do not know of any liberal that has supported a tax cut. That does not mean that I could not be wrong.

Anyway, I want taxes on income to be made unconstitutonal and there be a consumption tax. That way people pay their fair share. If you buy 10 2,00dollar macs you pay more in taxes than the one who buys 1 2,000 dollar mac.
Click to expand...

No offense meant by the following, and I'm not trying to start a fight, but you have absolutely no clue how the taxation system works in this country. A consumption tax is not a fair system by itself. The federal tax rates are progressive for that very reason. They help to flatten out the regressive tax systems that states impose.

If you are genuinely interested in a "fair" system, you need to really spend a lot of time actually reading the various tax codes, and should spend some time on the working end of it before you either pass judgment on the current system or suggest we change it to something else.

I'm not defending the tax system because that's what I do, in fact, I am a big advocate of changing it, but you must understand it if you really want to make changes that are helpful rather than damaging.

As for liberal versus conservative and taxes, it is a specious argument to say that liberals always vote for tax increases and conservatives always vote against them. If that were true, you could thank liberals for every service you make use of (roads, interstates, housing, food stamps, welfare, military, etc...) and must blame the conservatives for everything wrong with the country that the government could, but does not fix.

Of course, that is not the case. The difference between liberals and conservatives is ONLY their priorties when it comes to what they want to spend money on, and how much.

One other thing, Hindu's are accepting of other religions and typically adopt and incorporate those other religions into their beliefs. I am a Christian who accepts other religions, and I refuse to impose my beliefs on any other person, and as a militant hindu, I believe that anyone who attempts to impose their religion on another, or their moral views on another, or in any way attacks anothers religion or moral views should be taken out and publicly spanked. (or worse)

Finally, macs rule.
 
Oh, don't forget that the second amendment does not say that everybody has a right to bear arms, it says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

That single sentence can easily be read to mean that the Constitution favors the existance of a "well regulated Militia" consisting of members of the general population. Furthermore, that well regulated militia must be "well regulated" and must be designed for the sole purpose of protecting the security of a free State. Finally, that sentence could be read to mean that those members of the well regulated militia are allowed to bear Arms.

Assuming that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" can be cut out and read alone to mean that I can keep a tank in my backyard and carry an Uzi around, is absurd, and in no way fits in with the way in which the rest of the US Constitution is read.

That being said, I like the way in which the Supreme Court has read the constition to date, but I can't agree with anyone who says I have a "right" to own or carry a gun unless I am a member of a well regulated militia designed to protect the USA.
 
my opinion on dubya

he's a goofball who's been raised with a silver spoon. i used to see him around dallas and grew to really dislike his "do you know who my daddy is" smirk. his business ventures have been marked with failure after failure( he even named his oil company el busto). true it means "bush" in spanish but ,man, have the common sense not to leave yourself open to ridicule. he made a boatload of money off of the texas ranger's baseball franchise which he got into without any capital-one of the best sweetheart deals i've seen....

he's done ok with the problems we've had since september 11th but you don't have to be einstein to organize a retaliation. though you do have to be smart to prevent one.....

here's my main beef with him and his dad: bush sr left saddam in place saying he was no longer a threat-now jr's doing the same thing with osama. saddam and osama will always be a threat and they need to be taken out while we have the troops there and a smattering of world support.
 
Originally posted by iGAV
Must say though, the US elections a couple of years ago, the UK were very bemused to say the least..........

So what do you guys think of Mr Dubya anyway???
Click to expand...

The election mess was just that, a mess. Election contests are provided for in every local, state and federal election, but rather than just follow the rules and find out who won, we got a winner based on the best "guestimate."

Who won is only a temporary issue, and after 9/11, I'm happy it was Bush. From a legal standpoint, the US Supreme Court created new precedent when it overturned the Florida Supreme Court. That precedent is now the law in this country, and who knows what nasty problems that decision will cause. I'm sure that will be something we have to deal with long after Bush Jr. is gone.

As for the election, Dubya is our president, and I support him fully. I just wish he wouldn't be quite so uncooth when it comes to stepping on foreign government's toes. I mean, you can exert pressure without calling someone an "evil empire."

I hope he keeps the pressure up, but don't paint us into any more corners than we need to be in.
 
i agree with mcrain

the us supreme court has set a worrisome precedent for the us election process. time will tell how soon this ugliness rears it's head again.

my main complaint with us politics( both parties...) is that we keep telling the world that we are the keepers of all things good, wholesome, fair, peaceful, moral and ethical. lets face it our interests (based upon our actions) are for self preservation thru exports/ imports and oil. no matter how you dress it up thats what you get.

the u.s. really needs to address WHY so many other countries are angry and resentful of us. ( and it's not our prosperity-no ones yelling death to sweden...)
 
Re: Macs and sexuality?

Originally posted by Dunepilot
How about Macs and sexuality.
Click to expand...

OK, your question first, then this thread. Gay as the day is long. I used to see a lot of gay people using macs, being the "alternative" and all, but in the past few years, I've become the only queer i know that loves Macs. Kind of sad. But in the high-style home magazines i get, there are a lot of gay couples that use Macs, because Macs go well with contemporary decor.

i realize the whole sexual orientation thing gets on peoples nerves sometimes, and i don't like to make a big deal out of it, but it's far easier to outmyself once like this, than confuse people when i say "my partner this" or "that"... Happily married to a wonderful guy :)

On the topic of political orientation ;) i'm a centrist, Libertarian to be precise. The idea that the political spectrum is 1 dimentional is shortsighted. Off of the center, branch Libertarians on top, and down from the center are communists, so I'm the opposite of those commie bastards ;) it's lots of fun, i'm the only sane Libertarian alive. Most of them live in bunkers under Montana, still thinking Y2K was apocolyptic ;)

my2¢ as always :)
paul
 
Parties

First, I would have to say that Rush Limbaugh is one of the most liberal talk show hosts. That would be the dictionary definition of liberal, being of open mind. I don't know who decided to change the popular definition to something different.

Next, we don't have a Liberal v. Conservitave parties, they are Democrats v. Republicans. Personally I side with the Libratarians. They favor a much smaller government than the Republicans. That is my economic stance, but I have a very "liberal" social stance.

I am very happily suprised that someone actually quoted the exact 2nd Amendment. Very few people realize that the 2nd Amendment does not say "We have the right to bear arms". I personally dispise the current gun laws. If you are any citizen in good standing, you can legally go to the Army Surplus store and buy an anti-tank rifle. Accurate to 5 miles, and capible of taking out modern tanks in a few shots. Also the fact that gun shows are exempt from the 3-day waiting period. Absolutly ridiculous.:mad:

On the other hand, I am getting fed up with all the jerks out there, I am not speaking of anyone here that I know of, who are crying over their taxes. I work in the poverty level where I live, and have no pity for someone who makes $1,000,000.00 and has to pay Uncle Sam half. I am tired of hearing it, just shut up, and live within your means which is still 20 times better than mine after taxes. Do I like taxes, no! So why not come up with some solutions to sociatal problems, rather than complain that you can barely afford your new BMW.

We as Americans, started out with no class system, but have gradually adopted one. It is my firm belief that the Republicans, not conservitaves, that are draging us down that road.

As far as the 9/11 stuff, it doesn't take a genius to respond to that terrorism, so that by itself doesn't make me like Bush Jr. any more than before 9/11. However since being in office, his choice for Att. General: Ashcroft(Hitler), as well as the 40% steel tariffs show me that "W" is just as stupid as advertised. Also the kangaroo court system set up for the POWs that are not called POWs from Afganistan, also developed by Bush and Friends, is ridiculous. Let's see, we went to war. We captured soldiers in the process of fighting this war. But they are not POWs?:confused:

Alright, Flame On! Give me your best shot!
 
i sure as hell know that Gore (the bore) wouldnt have done any better in office.

clinton should of taken care of osama bin laden in the first place so we wouldnt have to be in this mess. he was so pre occupied with preserving his legacy that he forgot about the important things to do in his position to help America. Sure Bush aint the brightest motha out there but he at leasts cares for America........Clinton only cared for himself.
 
nothing to flame really

i think george bush chose ashcroft (a member of a cult) and to the right of center more than most americans to counterbalance pro-choice colin powell and middle of the roader (slightly right) condoleeza rice

he had to do it to please all aspects of his party to stay in office

don't be so hard on w

bill clinton had to appease the right wing of the democratic party (the so called blue dogs), the centrists where he stood slightly to the right of, and the far left like the naders and jesse jacksons

it is called politics and it is a dirty game

nixon, ford, and reagan did not exactly like born again christians like me, but they needed the vote of born agains to win in 2000

in the united states, two out of every three born again christians are registered republicans so of course, bush has to cater to them or lose to gore

gore does not side with the born agains, but his wife is kind of a hero in those religious circles and i am not sure about lieberman if he really is religious or that was a ploy to get some religious conservatives on his side

anyway, i voted for gore, but i think w is doing a good job with the terrorists...i take that back...i think colin powell and **** cheney are the experts here

well, politics makes strange bedfellows and i am so middle of the road for 2004 and a flip of a coin could almost determine my choice for president

if bin laden is caught and sadaam taken out of power, i will go for w but if neither is caught and the economy is still in the dumps, i will go for the democratic candidate
 
To say that Clinton was too busy worrying about his legacy to do anything about Osama just shows that you are brainwashed by conservative talk show hosts. Oh, and Limbaugh isn't entertainment, or news media

Clinton, on half a dozen occassions, attempted to take out Osama Bin Laden, but, as W has seen, he's not that easy to find.

Furthermore, any blame on Clinton for being pre-occupied has to fall squarely on those who decided to hound him for Whitewater, Jones, Filegate, FBIgate, travelgate, haircutgate, Lewinsky and finally, impeachment.

Memo to any Republican running for office: You better be damn sure you don't have any skelatins in your closet, because your party set the new tone for politics in this country. That new tone is best described as: "If we don't like who was elected, we'll castrate and crucify them until we dig up something and then pound them with it to humiliate and distract them from their job in an attempt to influence the voting public."

You know, come to think of it, I don't remember seeing character assasination against the American president in the contract with America.

Can you imagine what the Republicans would have done to Clinton if he was the President during Iran-Contra?

I used to be interested in politics, but now with the way in which the Republicans have spoiled the political landscape, I'll never do that. If I were president and someone said the things they said about Hillary, but instead about my wife, I'd end up in jail for assault or worse.

For all the high and mighty moral preaching that the Republicans do, it is very surprising how they believe the golden rule doesn't apply to them and that it is ok to bash other people for what they do and believe.
 
Taxes!

Ok don't give me that crap that just because someone earns 1,000,000 dollars that it is ok to give half of their income up. the top 10 percent in this country are those who make over 120,000. So if a wife makes 40,000 and a husband makes 80,000 they have to pay half of their income (including state taxes) to the government. People make money generally based on their skills. A programmer makes more money than a person that works at McDonalds's because he has taught himself a skill that not many people have. Should we make him pay half of what he has earned to the government because he has taught himself or taken classes to gain knowledge. I don't think so. Doing that just punishes hard work. Besides that if you give a tax cut to people it helps everyone. People with money hire people without money (Yes I know that this is a generalization). Anyway, If you give a small business owner an extra 20,000 back in taxes, he will probably expand his business in which case he will have to hire someone and that way 2 people make more money. It is called trickle-down economics and it works. Remember that the founding fathers got upset over a 3% tax. Taxes are well over that.

on the gun issue, the bill of rights only applies to the federal government and not the state governments. I know that the Supreme court has applied the bill of rights to state governments but that is not how the founding fathers set it up. so don't give me this well organized militia. Every American has the right to own a gun, but I do believe that you can give up that right.
 
two thirds of the rich inherit it (the millionaire next door...a good book)

of the other one third, most are self employed and have special writeoffs many who are employees don't

i am not worried about the ten percent but w's special help to the upper 1 percent so that the middle class has to get higher taxes

i thought the republicans were going to help the middle class, not the upper one percent!

but on the foreign policy front, w is doing as good as a job as anyone could...his dad knows mideast politics as does powell and cheney

overall, i am happy with w but like any prez, i have my gripes




with clinton, he didn't push the medical care thing enough to completion and of course (non-politically), monica lewinsky and the others

with george bush...lying about taxes

with reagan...not keeping an eye on voodoo economics and bringing on the recession which perot brilliantly pointed out in the 92 debates (though george bush got blamed unfairly for reagan's bad voodoo economics and incorrect trickle down theory crap)

with carter...bad domestic policy but good spiritual man

with ford...i liked him and still do

with nixon...watergate

with johnson...vietnam

kennedy i liked but was too young to remember anything

so like i said before, i am middle of the road liking ford and carter for different reasons...time will tell if i decide i like clinton and george w
 
Originally posted by krossfyter
i sure as hell know that Gore (the bore) wouldnt have done any better in office.

clinton should of taken care of osama bin laden in the first place so we wouldnt have to be in this mess. he was so pre occupied with preserving his legacy that he forgot about the important things to do in his position to help America. Sure Bush aint the brightest motha out there but he at leasts cares for America........Clinton only cared for himself.
Click to expand...

Now now, I hated Clinton as much as the next moralist, and perhaps he didn't do everything he could have to get rid of Bin Laden, but hindsight is 20/20 isn't it? We could spend all day shifting the blame around on the past 4 presidents, but it's beside the point. Point is, Bush's isolationist stance following 9/11 hasn't helped anything... this 90% or whatever approval rating he has, is a rediculous show of patriotism, and I think in the grand scheme, Bush has done a poor job of handling things. Bush has himself in quite a situation on this middle east thing, doesn't he? The man has no foresight. It's not difficult to bomb the hell out of Afghanistan, but beyond that, Bush is rather worthless without his trustworthy Powell at his side. I don't think Bush cares about anything but himself, and his image... And of course his military. Reminds me of a kid playing with a gun. Forgive me for not using that to segway into the 2nd Amendment crap... I don't favor one political party over the other, because they balance each other nicely, but I hope we get a liberal in office soon to fix our foreign relations a bit...

Forgive me krossfyter, because much of this isn't in reply to you, just the thread in particular...
 
Could someone please explain this though?

Cuba was named by George W as a member of the 'axis of evil', in that now infamous speech of his. However, the POW's from afghanistan are being kept at the american military base in cuba, as it's supposedly the safest place to keep them. Where's logic there?
 
taking out the taliban and effectively rooting them out and most of the al-qaeda is not an easy job

anaconda reduced any mountain dwellers to insignificance

i am sure sadaam will get out of power within a few years

like i said before, i am just scared at the republican's domestic policy


my best answer is if we have a republican prez, a democratic congress or senate is a good thing

and on the other side if there is a democrat in office, a republican senate or congress is a good thing

this is called check and balance...only the truly ignorant would call that gridlock...i don't want to start a flame on gridlock so if you are curious, just do a search on google or go to the library because of all the recent posts i started, macs and dc gridlock theory is not what i really want to bring up:D :D :D
 
Mc rain.....


I do not listen to Rush....I havent heard the guy since 4 years ago. He was to much "SPIN" for me. I side with O'REILLY on most of the issues. THE NO SPIN ZONE! dig it!
 
Originally posted by paulwhannel


Now now, I hated Clinton as much as the next moralist, and perhaps he didn't do everything he could have to get rid of Bin Laden, but hindsight is 20/20 isn't it? We could spend all day shifting the blame around on the past 4 presidents, but it's beside the point. Point is, Bush's isolationist stance following 9/11 hasn't helped anything... this 90% or whatever approval rating he has, is a rediculous show of patriotism, and I think in the grand scheme, Bush has done a poor job of handling things. Bush has himself in quite a situation on this middle east thing, doesn't he? The man has no foresight. It's not difficult to bomb the hell out of Afghanistan, but beyond that, Bush is rather worthless without his trustworthy Powell at his side. I don't think Bush cares about anything but himself, and his image... And of course his military. Reminds me of a kid playing with a gun. Forgive me for not using that to segway into the 2nd Amendment crap... I don't favor one political party over the other, because they balance each other nicely, but I hope we get a liberal in office soon to fix our foreign relations a bit...

Forgive me krossfyter, because much of this isn't in reply to you, just the thread in particular...
Click to expand...



understood. i was just making a point that not ALL the blame is on Bush. Some of the crap we are in is a result of Clinton....and some of it is the result of Regan....BUSH sr....etc.etc. you see my point.

now i humbly disagree with you about bush only caring about himself.
he is a christian and i know he is a TRUE christian.....from his fruits. So from that i deduct that he really cares about the nation as GOd would want anyone in that postion to. Now clintin.....well from his fruits im not sure if he really cares about following God...but rather following man related standards.
 
Originally posted by britboy
Could someone please explain this though?

Cuba was named by George W as a member of the 'axis of evil', in that now infamous speech of his. However, the POW's from afghanistan are being kept at the american military base in cuba, as it's supposedly the safest place to keep them. Where's logic there?
Click to expand...

Happy to:

Because the Taliban was never recognized as a national government and it's millitary was made up primarily of mercenary extra-national Zealots prisoners taken were not considered POW's under the Laws of War as established by the Haig.

Guantanamo bay was annexed by the US millitary and is disputed territory.....it is not reguarded as part of ANY nation by the US and is therefore perfect for isolating "Illegal combatants" while the US figures out what to do with them.

The issue of POWs is as misquoted as the issue of cloning. A POW has a distinct definition in the Laws of War. Despite what the humanitarians among us might want to believe on the subject these individuals are.....technically not POW's.

As much as all of this may suck it is all technically kosher.
 
Originally posted by krossfyter
I do not listen to Rush....I havent heard the guy since 4 years ago. He was to much "SPIN" for me. I side with O'REILLY on most of the issues. THE NO SPIN ZONE! dig it!
Click to expand...

Don't confuse "no spin" with being rude, which O'Reilly most certainly is... because he uses confrontationalism to put his own spin on everything, while stifling the views of his guests, even if they're the same as his...

Tho I suppose this is the definition of "opinion" show.

As for Rush, well I'm not a huge fan (He's disgusting in person, if you ever get the honor) but he does seem to use logic rather than defending archaic values of his party, and he is willing to listen and change his own opinion... so that makes me like him a little :) Plus of course, he plugs Macs whenever he gets the chance, which made my dad convert, and eventually got me my first iMac...

pnw
 
Originally posted by mischief

Guantanamo bay was annexed by the US millitary and is disputed territory.....it is not reguarded as part of ANY nation by the US and is therefore perfect for isolating "Illegal combatants" while the US figures out what to do with them.
Click to expand...

now that i didn't know. Thanks :)

As for the pow thing, i just called them that for lack of another word at hand. I guess 'prisoners' might have been a better description.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back