Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: The one-party state.

  1. -1
    Tetragrammaton's Avatar
    Hall Of Famer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2006
    Posts:
    9,669
    vCash:
    3091
    Thanks / No Thanks

    The one-party state.

    This is a US election that defies logic and brings the nation closer towards a one-party state masquerading as a two-party state.


    The Democratic incumbent has surrounded himself with conservative advisors and key figures many from previous administrations, and an unprecedented number from the Trilateral Commission. He also appointed a former Monsanto executive as Senior Advisor to the FDA. He has extended Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, presided over a spiralling rich-poor gap and sacrificed further American jobs with recent free trade deals.Trade union rights have also eroded under his watch. He has expanded Bush defence spending, droned civilians, failed to close Guantanamo, supported the NDAA which effectively legalises martial law, allowed drilling and adopted a soft-touch position towards the banks that is to the right of European Conservative leaders. Taking office during the financial meltdown, Obama appointed its principle architects to top economic positions. We list these because many of Obama's detractors absurdly portray him as either a radical liberal or a socialist, while his apologists, equally absurdly, continue to view him as a well-intentioned progressive, tragically thwarted by overwhelming pressures. 2008's yes-we-can chanters, dazzled by pigment rather than policy detail, forgot to ask can what? Between 1998 and the last election, Obama amassed $37.6million from the financial services industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. While 2008 presidential candidate Obama appeared to champion universal health care, his first choice for Secretary of Health was a man who had spent years lobbying on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry against that very concept. Hey! You don't promise a successful pub, and then appoint the Salvation Army to run it. This time around, the honey-tongued President makes populist references to economic justice, while simultaneously appointing as his new Chief of Staff a former Citigroup executive concerned with hedge funds that bet on the housing market to collapse. Obama poses something of a challenge to The Political Compass, because he's a man of so few fixed principles.
    Really fascinating little editorial from a site that doesn't do them too often.

    http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2012
    Quote Quote  

  2. -2
    Dolphins9954's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2005
    Posts:
    10,158
    vCash:
    7744
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Tetragrammaton View Post
    Really fascinating little editorial from a site that doesn't do them too often.

    http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2012
    Good read. All this hooting and hollering over these 2 candidates is all a charade. Makes it easier to vote for Coke or Pepsi I guess.





    "Politics is the Art of Looking for Trouble, Finding it Everywhere, Diagnosing it Incorrectly, and Applying the Wrong Remedies"
    Quote Quote  

  3. -3
    Tetragrammaton's Avatar
    Hall Of Famer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2006
    Posts:
    9,669
    vCash:
    3091
    Thanks / No Thanks
    People always ask why our participation in elections is so low. It is because it doesn't matter. When the Labour Party lost and the Tories took over in 2010, Britain changed. Now that the Socialists are in power, France has changed. What has changed from Bush to now?
    Quote Quote  

  4. -4
    MadDog 88's Avatar
    TANNERECTION!!!

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jul 2008
    Posts:
    13,804
    vCash:
    48522
    Loc:
    Wichita, Kansas
    Thanks / No Thanks
    This is why this country needs a legitimate third political party.
    Quote Quote  

  5. -5
    LouPhinFan's Avatar
    Hall Of Famer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Sep 2006
    Posts:
    5,409
    vCash:
    11272
    Loc:
    Louisville, KY
    Thanks / No Thanks
    It looks like to me the only real difference between the 2 is on the social issues. Even then it's kinda fuzzy at times.
    Nearly 70% of the Earth is covered by water...the rest is covered by Gerod Holliman.

    Quote Quote  

  6. -6
    Tetragrammaton's Avatar
    Hall Of Famer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2006
    Posts:
    9,669
    vCash:
    3091
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by LouPhinFan View Post
    It looks like to me the only real difference between the 2 is on the social issues. Even then it's kinda fuzzy at times.
    Even then, it is mostly rhetorical. Obama is pro-choice and Romney is pro-life, but no one realistically thinks there will ever be a national ban anyway. Obama supports gay marriage, but wants to leave it up to the states, while Romney wants a constitutional ban against gay marriage, but if it couldn't be done in 2004, why would anyone expect it to be done now?
    Quote Quote  

  7. -7
    LouPhinFan's Avatar
    Hall Of Famer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Sep 2006
    Posts:
    5,409
    vCash:
    11272
    Loc:
    Louisville, KY
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Tetragrammaton View Post
    Even then, it is mostly rhetorical. Obama is pro-choice and Romney is pro-life, but no one realistically thinks there will ever be a national ban anyway. Obama supports gay marriage, but wants to leave it up to the states, while Romney wants a constitutional ban against gay marriage, but if it couldn't be done in 2004, why would anyone expect it to be done now?
    As far as a constitutional ban, I'm hoping our lawmakers learned from history when it comes to legislating morality. That's not what our constitution is there for.
    Quote Quote  

  8. -8
    Locke's Avatar
    They looked like strong hands.

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2008
    Posts:
    8,870
    vCash:
    5460
    Loc:
    Albuquerque, NM
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by LouPhinFan View Post
    As far as a constitutional ban, I'm hoping our lawmakers learned from history when it comes to legislating morality. That's not what our constitution is there for.
    Hearing Christians say stuff like this makes me happier than I could put into words. It's good to be reminded that the minority, while vocal, is in fact the minority...

    If I could take your pain and frame it, and hang it on my wall,
    maybe you would never have to hurt again...

    Quote Quote  

  9. -9
    LouPhinFan's Avatar
    Hall Of Famer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Sep 2006
    Posts:
    5,409
    vCash:
    11272
    Loc:
    Louisville, KY
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Locke View Post
    Hearing Christians say stuff like this makes me happier than I could put into words. It's good to be reminded that the minority, while vocal, is in fact the minority...
    Here is my thought:

    Do I consider homosexuality a sin? Yes I most certainly do. Do I care how government defines marriage? I do not. And I doubt Jesus would either. Yes he would know that it is a sin but it's not our place to tell government how to deifine laws. He made that pretty clear when he said "give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's and to God what is God's". The government can define marriage however they want and the Christian church should follow what the Bible says on the subject. The problem that may arise is if the government ever starts trying to strongarm the church into going against the Bible.
    Quote Quote  

  10. -10
    LANGER72's Avatar
    FinHeaven VIP

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Nov 2006
    Posts:
    9,295
    vCash:
    29925
    Loc:
    Munchkin Land / Emerald C
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by LouPhinFan View Post
    Here is my thought:

    Do I consider homosexuality a sin? Yes I most certainly do. Do I care how government defines marriage? I do not. And I doubt Jesus would either. Yes he would know that it is a sin but it's not our place to tell government how to deifine laws. He made that pretty clear when he said "give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's and to God what is God's". The government can define marriage however they want and the Christian church should follow what the Bible says on the subject. The problem that may arise is if the government ever starts trying to strongarm the church into going against the Bible.
    Agree. It will be construed as bigotry and discrimination. The Federal government will become an enemy to the church losing all tax exemptions,etc or worse.
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Maaco Las Vegas Bowl Game Preview: Boise State vs. Arizona State
    By WelcomeBack in forum College Sports Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-23-2011, 09:16 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-04-2010, 09:43 PM
  3. This is a pajama party now, not a Super Bowl party
    By BAMAPHIN 22 in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-16-2009, 02:39 PM
  4. China’s Elite Talk of Democracy in One-Party State
    By ckb2001 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-20-2007, 01:19 AM
  5. My True Political Views and the State of the Republican Party
    By DolFan31 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-26-2004, 11:19 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •