SFR: Who would WFF elect?

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Jason Rolfe, Oct 24, 2008.

?

Who would you vote for?

McCain/Palin 85 vote(s) 30.1%
Obama/Biden 169 vote(s) 59.9%
Nader/Gonzales 7 vote(s) 2.5%
Other 21 vote(s) 7.4%
  1. Gatorator Member

    Posts: 277
    Pend Oreille Valley, Idaho
    Ratings: +1 / 0
    I just thought ai would throw this out.

    Brits have a way with the language!

    "You have to pinch yourself - a Marxist radical who all his life has been mentored by, sat at the feet of, worshiped with, befriended, endorsed the philosophy of, funded and been in turn funded, politically promoted and supported by a nexus comprising black power anti-white racists, Jew-haters, revolutionary Marxists, unrepentant former terrorists and Chicago mobsters, is on the verge of becoming President of the United States. And apparently it's considered impolite to say so."

    - Melanie Philips, The Spectator (UK) 10/14/08
  2. Flyborg Active Member

    Posts: 2,299
    Kalama, WA
    Ratings: +597 / 0
    Sweet, from the same chick that wrote "The False Faith of Scientific Reason". What's considered impolite is to point out that she's a strong voice of the Jewish lobby in Britain. Faaar more sensitive subject. The only people I trust less than politicians are lobbyists. It's amazing that in today's age, with so much information available to us, people will repeat even the most obvious of lies.
  3. Evan Burck Fudge Dragon

    Posts: 6,425
    Duvall, wa
    Ratings: +1,602 / 2
    for those of you gun owners who expressed dislike with the NRA, check out the Gun owners of America. the group, to me, is a lot more respectable and much more devoted to protecting individual liberties. http://www.gunowners.org/

    i've already probably beaten my dislike for both major candidates to death. i guess i'll finish it by saying that Obama scares me a lot more than McCain. i disagree with them both on just about every issue that is important to me. the difference is, Obama will have a lot more power to carry out his agenda than McCain. he will have the benefit of having the other branches of the government democrat run, as well as the fact that his followers seem to hang on to his every word as if some kind of messiah figure. people seem to fall in line with him on every issue, and seem to ignore some of the more alarming things he has said. McCain would be a lame duck president that would have as much, or more problems getting people to go along with him as our current president (not that that's stopped him on a lot of things). but they will both also inherit many of the powers signed into law by this last administration. checks and balances as we know are done, a thing of the past. a large example should be the travesty that is the economic bailout package; congressmen from every district got flooded with calls and emails asking them to vote no, some say over 90% of their constituents were against the passing of that bill. but it passed anyways, and we're left holding the bill for it.
  4. Gatorator Member

    Posts: 277
    Pend Oreille Valley, Idaho
    Ratings: +1 / 0

    Or ignore even the most obvious of truths if it is in opposition to their ingrained beliefs. :beathead:
  5. Mark Moore Just a Member

    Posts: 732
    Vancouver, Wa.
    Ratings: +64 / 0
    If you take a piece of Granite and chip away at it for 230 years you will certainly have a pile of gravel.

    Would you be assuaged of my objectivity were I to state my real disappointment with President Bush and a great many of the current republicans in congress?

    Why is it that a Socialist/Communist cannot just speak plainly about his world view in the context of a presidential election. If it is truly the better way then the people will elect him. Why is he compelled to lie about important relationships in his past, his voting record or lack thereof, what he truly intends to do with our military? If his is the better way then why not just tell the truth and let the people decide?

    And no Richard, my passion for this debate is not a consequence of the current political season. I stay pretty wound up about it all the time.

    Just because she said it doesn't make it untrue, or make all lobbyist evil by definition. Who would you suggest we send to influence the debate about, let us say... , fisheries reform? A Mortician from Des Moines?

    I would love to be wrong about Obama, and assure you all that I will gratefully admit if I turn out to be so, will you?
  6. Flyborg Active Member

    Posts: 2,299
    Kalama, WA
    Ratings: +597 / 0
    Couldn't have said it better :)
  7. Flyborg Active Member

    Posts: 2,299
    Kalama, WA
    Ratings: +597 / 0
    It has nothing to do with evil/good. It's an issue of trust. If we're going to trust lobbyists to provide us with facts on issues they have obvious vested interests in, we're not really interested in the truth, are we?
  8. Flyborg Active Member

    Posts: 2,299
    Kalama, WA
    Ratings: +597 / 0
    By republican standards, all democrats are socialists. I asked my brother in law yesterday (having a similar conversation) and he couldn't tell me what socialism meant, despite spouting off about it non-stop. I explained all the ingrained aspects of socialism that already exist in our society, and he suddenly realized that socialism isn't a bad word, no matter what McCain says. Even McCain knows that without elements of socialism, America would be a piss-poor superpower.

    One of the quantitative lines between democrats and republicans is "how much" laissez faire and "how much" socialism. Too much of either is a risk to what is most important--democracy. I stand on the side that sees plainly that the lack of restrictions on corporate America, private interests and lobbies have become a monstrous danger to democracy. A little socialism is a far cry from communism--the fact that you even said it is a discredit to your argument :(
  9. Evan Burck Fudge Dragon

    Posts: 6,425
    Duvall, wa
    Ratings: +1,602 / 2
    iagree
  10. Mark Moore Just a Member

    Posts: 732
    Vancouver, Wa.
    Ratings: +64 / 0
    So if someone has a vested interest in a matter then we can count on the truth being a casualty?

    Hence, I vote for the Mortician from Des Moines to come out here and get our steelhead runs squared away.
  11. Mark Moore Just a Member

    Posts: 732
    Vancouver, Wa.
    Ratings: +64 / 0
    It was my effort towards charity that caused me to use socialism, for in fact I believe our long slide into socialism has led us to the precipice of electing a Communist. The desensitization of the last half century has led us to point where where we may in fact elect a communist in the name of a "little socialism". My assertion of these facts (or theory if you so choose) has nothing to do with John McCain but a lifetime of observation. Again, I state my eager willingness to stand corrected in the course of history,and ask, do those of you who support Obama stand willing to do the same?

    Alas, my original question goes unanswered. Why can't he just be truthful about his world view?
  12. constructeur Active Member

    Posts: 1,508
    Seattle, Wa
    Ratings: +404 / 0
    O.K. what style/type of communism is Obama pushing then?
  13. Richard Olmstead BigDog

    Posts: 2,479
    Seattle, WA
    Ratings: +783 / 0
    Fyrwood,
    I think it is your misunderstanding of communism that makes you think that Obama is untruthful about his position. He espouses pretty much straight up American capitalism in virtually all of his policy positions. Embracing a graduated income tax doesn't make someone a communist, otherwise our whole congress would qualify.

    The "center" of political debate in this country has been pushed so far right in the last 30 years or so that people are now using terms like 'socialist' or 'communist' in a context that would have been considered moderate or 'left of center' 40, 50, or 75 years ago.

    The main reason that Bill Clinton had difficulty in his first two years of office, when he had a democratic majority in both the house and senate, was because he was so far to the right of much of the democratic party at the time. The generation that came of age in the Reagan/Bush/Clinton eras refer to Clinton as "liberal," but he would have fit very comfortably into the Republican party of the '60s, what used to be called "Rockefeller Republicans." Heck even Barry Goldwater, who seemed pretty far right then, subsequently fell out with the Republican base as it moved even farther to the right, especially on social issues.

    I don't think we have anything to worry about anyone in our political system who makes their way to the top posing any threat to our capitalist economic structure; they are all so beholden to financial interests by the time they get to that point that anyone who might have such tendencies has been weeded out long before they get there. The biggest threat to capitalism, however, are the folks in our present administration who have been removing the regulations that maintain our economy on a even keel, as we've seen by the economic collapse in recent weeks. The The Republican majority in Congress for 12 of the last 14 years neglected their responsibilities for oversight. The Dems haven't done much better acting in the minority, but they can hardly bear the majority of the blame.

    In my travels, I've seen unbridled communism (Cuba) and unbridled capitalism (China) and all I can say is that I'm glad we don't have anything close to either in this country. in both of those countries, such extremes are only made possible by strong totalitarian governments. I think we don't have anything to worry about as long as we jealously guard our democracy.

    D
  14. 509 New Member

    Posts: 497
    WENATCHEE, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
  15. Scott Keith Member

    Posts: 602
    Arlington, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0

    I have never heard this, only the opposite, that Republicans tend to be better educated.

    "Yet Republicans in the general public tend to be better educated than Democrats. In the 1994-2002 General Social Surveys (GSS), Republicans have over 6/10ths of a year more education on average than Democrats. Republicans also have a higher final mean educational degree. Further, Republicans scored better than Democrats on two word tests in the GSS--a short vocabulary test and a modified analogies test.

    If one breaks down the data by party affiliation and political orientation, the most highly educated group is conservative Republicans, who also score highest on the vocabulary and analogical reasoning tests. Liberal Democrats score only insignificantly lower than conservative Republicans. The least educated subgroups are moderate and conservative Democrats, who also score at the bottom (or very near the bottom) on vocabulary and analogy tests.

    " From http://www.pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/archives/014093.php

    See Also:
    Democrats and Republicans
    http://people-press.org/report/124/republicans


    While I did see some articles that stated democrats were more educated none of them provided ANY evidence, they seemed to be more opinion than based on any research.
  16. Jergens AKA Joe Willauer

    Posts: 2,141
    Twin Bridges, MT
    Ratings: +19 / 0

    i don't think anyone in the field of education would consider www.pajamasmedia.com a credible source, or any website for that matter.
  17. riseform Active Member

    Posts: 1,074
    Tacoma, WA
    Ratings: +269 / 0
    More than education, I think the one's political viewpoint is frequently related to job experience. College professors are well educated, and virtually always liberal. Compare their reality to that of a small business owner. They receive a paycheck from a university with a good pension plan, but are shielded from the realities of what it takes to run a business. With salaries frequently being directly deposited into accounts, it's likely they rarely consider their personal income taxes until April each year. The same can be said for any well educated and well compensated employee of a business.

    Contrast the small business owner. They take home (and pay personal income taxes on) what's left after writing checks each month for overhead, city, state and federal taxes and are reminded monthly (or quarterly) of the burden placed upon them by government reaching into their back pocket. That's aside from the red tape, paperwork and cost required to comply with governmental requirements to run the business.

    It'd be interesting to see if perspectives changed if we received our real salary, eliminated escrow accounts and paid for gasoline at the pre-taxed price and then wrote separate checks for income, payroll, property and gasoline taxes each month.
  18. Richard Olmstead BigDog

    Posts: 2,479
    Seattle, WA
    Ratings: +783 / 0
    Don't confuse political oppression with anything having to do with an economic system! Some of the most openly, unrestricted capitalist countries in the past century exhibited some of the worst political oppression. Oppression is a function of a totalitarian government and can be on the left or right. China has largely abandoned any vestige of controlled economy. China's economic success is because they have abandoned communism. Yes, they are still ruled by the "communist" party, but the well-connected party members now own the means of production (the red army is the biggest owner of capital in China today). They are worrying today, because their economic growth has shrunk to an annual rate of 9.5%!! The sad evidence has been coming out of China in recent months of the problems with uncontrolled capitalism including the absence of labor laws, environmental regulations, and consumer protections (melanine cocktail, anyone?).

    Cuba is also starting to open up to capitalism a little bit now, as I understand, but when I was there in 1996, there were no stores and no advertising! This was the most stunning difference between our capitalist society and their communist one. I can embrace the absence of advertising(!), but it was a little frustrating to be a visitor and not be able purchase anything outside of the hotels and associated vendors set up for visitors.

    Folks in our country who bandy about the word 'communism' with respect to any policies in existence or even imagined in this country, don't know what a real communist society is like. Cuba at that time (and mostly true today, I think) had no relative poverty in their society - absolute poverty, absolutely! for virtually everyone, by western standards. But they do have health care and education available for everyone. By comparison, we have much more relative poverty than Cuba does. No one in Cuba sleeps under bridges because they have mental health problems or can't find a job. We have tremendous disparity in wealth in this society and at most we work the margins a bit with our tax system to try to keep the poorest from starving to death.

    Maybe we can go down to the street corner together some day and pretend we're politicians and someone will give us enough "change" to go get a cup of coffee together!
  19. Mark Moore Just a Member

    Posts: 732
    Vancouver, Wa.
    Ratings: +64 / 0
    Not withstanding your condescension, which I have come to expect from leftists, your comment abut my "misunderstanding of communism" challenged me to revisit my belief system regarding communism. Damn there's that ugly objectivity again.

    Your assertion that Obama espouses "pretty much straight up American capitalism" may well be true if you consider the substantially disproven Keynesian model American capitalism. I suspect you do. Embracing a graduated income tax in fact does not make someone a communist, however it is clearly and indisputably the single most powerful economic tool available to to the communist for the implementation of his social policies.

    In regard to our whole congress qualifying, well, there are some who propose a comprehensive overhaul of our tax code, and some are dragged along in their ignorance or stupidity otherwise this statement may in fact be true. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.


    Having lived in Delaware until the age of 11, I had the great fortune of spending time in the plethora of museums and other historical sites up and down the east coast. This sparked in me a deep interest in early American history. I love how peoples understanding of history begins and ends within the scope of their existence. What some may have considered 40,50, or 75 years ago to be "moderate or left of center" certainly would have been the result of the contemporary political climate. Say, the one that had developed as a result of the hard left policies of Woodrow Wilson, which would have been embedded in the culture by this point. Now I will concede Wilson was not a communist, however a good communist would never let the opportunity created under Wilsonian policies go to waste.



    I thank 509 for his well stated rebuttal of this.


    In addition I would submit that taking such a micro view of the historical context can favor anyones argument. If you take a longer term view of the 20th century I think it would be fair to say Democrats are most responsible for the shape of public policy today.

    The Republican party in fact did neglect their oversight responsibilities by and large, which is the reason many republicans withdrew their support and allowed them to be placed in the minority. Intellectual honesty in practice, me thinks. The policy of affirmative action housing, clearly a liberal concept, not being opposed by republicans vociferously enough is an interesting argument from the left however.


    My heart genuinely breaks for the oppressed people of Cuba and China. As for your assertion that China is an example of unbridled capitalism, well maybe I am not the one who misunderstands communism. After Tienanmen Square the Chinese government found itself facing the very real prospect of a revolution. Consequently it gave the people two choices, open economic growth, or religious and political freedom. Willing to accept the huge influx of western capital, the government was eager to foster the first choice while telegraphing that the second choice would be met with usual and utterly brutal force of the Chinese military.
    Human nature being such, the Chinese people chose the money. But be clear, there is no real economic freedom in China, having been there I suspect you understand this.


    The communism I understand, Richard, is the one that takes from motivated, prosperous people and gives to angry, lazy people. It fosters that anger and sloth in the pursuit of its own ambition. The communism I understand, is the one which crushes peoples personal, religious, and economic freedoms and with brutal, merciless force advances its own ends because the means are justified. The communism I understand, is the one which espouses no class distinction while relentlessly pursuing class class warfare in an effort to create as wide a chasm possible between them as the ruling class and the working class, never willingly helping the underclass achieve by creating opportunity or access. The communism I understand, is the one that uses propaganda and a leftist academia to reshape truth and public perceptions. The communism I understand, is the one that uses a captive press to advance a cult of personality, bringing evil men to power.

    In a Utopian world view, you may be able to credibly advance communism as valid. The problem is that Utopia has no human residents. You know the ones who have ambition or a lack thereof, charity or a lack thereof, a sense of justice or a lack thereof, or the ones who have an evil heart, or a lack thereof. It is because of this last group who oppose, with their lives if required, men of an evil heart and they will always exist, that I have hope.

    Richard, I do in fact understand communism. I also understand that Karl Marx himself stated that socialism was the intermediate step to communism. This understanding together with a critical, objective view of Mr. Obamas rise to prominence, the people he credits with the formation of his ideology, and his behavior in the public arena leads me to the inescapable conclusion that he in fact is a communist. Like all great communists before him he is in fact untruthful about his allegiance to this wonderful world view.
  20. Mark Moore Just a Member

    Posts: 732
    Vancouver, Wa.
    Ratings: +64 / 0
    Nothing personal Richard but this may be the single most naive statement I have ever seen or heard.

    And this should scare you death.

    My frustration here is that instead of view all the potential for prosperity, you view at the lowest common denominator. Would you be willing to live at the Cuban standard of living so that no one lives under a bridge? How would you feel when some told you they liked living under a bridge? Oh, how many of the non-ruling class own a fly rod, or have ever even heard of one?