**** It...let Obama Win

[El Guapo 8]

A good way to understand the different attitudes between Americans and Canadians is the philosophy when the countries started.US - Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.Canada - Peace, Order and Good Government

What? Really? It actually says good government somewhere.

[gobears 0]

Second Amendment is also something weird for me. When we listen US citizens, they often say that they need weapons to protect themselves against other armed persons. No weapons at all will put this need useless. I'm wrong?

In reality, it is impossible to eliminate all the weapons in the US. The argument that only the criminals would have guns if you tried to control/outlaw guns is valid.Of course we end up with Darwin Award winners and unfortunate accidents (saw one today where an 8 year old died from an Uzi recoil - he was supervised too) but I'm guessing that is more than offset by cases where a gun was used to protect it's owner from harm.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

What? Really? It actually says good government somewhere.

In Canada, "peace, order and good government" (in French, "paix, ordre et bon gouvernement"), often abbreviated POGG, is often used to describe the principles upon which that country's Confederation took place. Originally used in the British North America Act, 1867, enacted by the Imperial Parliament, it defines the principles under which the Canadian Parliament should legislate. Specifically, the phrase appears in section 91 of the Act, which is part of the block of sections that divide legislative powers between the federal and provincial levels of government. In section 91, the phrase describes the legal grounds upon which the federal government is constitutionally permitted to pass laws that intrude on the legislative purview of the provinces.Despite its technical purpose, the phrase “peace, order and good government” has also become meaningful to Canadians. This tripartite motto is sometimes said to define Canadian values in a way comparable to “liberté, égalité, fraternité” (liberty, equality, fraternity) in France or “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” in the United States. Indeed, peace, order and good government has been used by some scholars to make broad characterizations of Canada's political culture. US sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset, for example, contrasted POGG with the American tripartite motto to conclude Canadians generally believe in a higher degree of deference to the lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POGG

[Elthair 0]

you know, you're right. can we borrow your universal weapon destroyer for a week so we can get rid of all of ours? we'll give it right back.

Sure. Give me a shipping address and I post it. Honestly, I know that I'm a kind of utopist but look at the criminality numbers worldwide and you will get my point.I don't have a solution and as gobears said, the argument is valid. Anyway, sticking to the position that keeps weapons free is an aberration.Sorry for my english as it is not my native language.

[strategy 4]

Elections are not here for that in civilized countries? I mean, if you want to avoid a civil war as you will have most probably a good part of the population that will be on the other side.

our system for handling elections goes a long way to discourage voters. take my situation, for example. kansas has only a few electoral college votes and we've voted republican in a landslide for over 60 years now. that isn't going to change this year. is it worth the effort for me to fill in one of the bubbles for my vote for president, regardless of whether I support mccain or obama?if we switched to a popular majority style vote, kansas still wouldn't see any candidates each election cycle, but at least I'd have a reason to care about who I vote for.

[AmScray 355]

Thanks for your reply AmScray even if I don't understand what is bad in willing helping others.

Giving to others is "help". Taking from some to give to others is called "theft", no matter how well intentioned that theft may be.

Second Amendment is also something weird for me. When we listen US citizens, they often say that they need weapons to protect themselves against other armed persons. No weapons at all will put this need useless. I'm wrong?

Yes, no weapons at all would alleviate the need for people to have weapons to defend themselves from other people with weapons. THe problem is, "no weapons at all" only exists in fairlyland and European political theory. It doesn't exist in practice, as evidenced by England, who banned handguns all together yet their incidences of handgun crime have steadily risen in every subsequent year. Also, the need for one to defend ones self isn't simply a reaction to other people having guns. My 5'5, 130 pound girlfriend couldn't exactly 'punch it out' with a rapist.

[copernicus 0]

many of us believe it is not a realistic goal with the budget constraints he's inheriting, but that's beside the point. that there isnt a chance in hell given his stated spending goals, and that is the point.

[strategy 4]

lol, cop. there is no good smaller government vote this time around. stop trying to distract from the central issue, which is that mccain and the republicans are not meaningfully better than the dems.

[85suited 0]

lol, cop. there is no good smaller government vote this time around. stop trying to distract from the central issue, which is that mccain and the republicans are not meaningfully better than the dems.

absolutely not true.... I am looking forward to more taxes and watching this country sink further with our new liberal super majority

[copernicus 0]

lol, cop. there is no good smaller government vote this time around. stop trying to distract from the central issue, which is that mccain and the republicans are not meaningfully better than the dems.

I disagree. start with an across the board budget freeze vs 1 trillion in new spending.Youre falling for the leftie talking point that McCain=Bush. He doesnt, by a long shot. You also equate GWB spending with GOP philosophy, again not even close to being the same. And finally, other than Medicare prescriptions...which GWB included in his platform and was elected...he did not increase non-defense, discretionary spending as much as Clinton, he of the budget surplus.Drastically different, and if you dont think so youve talked yourself into it because you support BHO for other reasons.

[strategy 4]

absolutely not true.... I am looking forward to more taxes and watching this country sink further with our new liberal super majority

the govt's current financial situation dictates that, eventually, no matter how pro-small government a candidate could be, we are going to have to tax or inflate our way out of the commitments we've made. that's a reality, not some bullshit talking point. this is inherent in what we've been doing with spending for the last few decades.

[copernicus 0]

the govt's current financial situation dictates that, eventually, no matter how pro-small government a candidate could be, we are going to have to tax or inflate our way out of the commitments we've made. that's a reality, not some bullshit talking point. this is inherent in what we've been doing with spending for the last few decades.

Sorry but you are so far off its pitiful YOU CANNOT TAX YOUR WAY OUT OF A RECESSION. THAT IS WHAT CAUSED THE DEPRESSION FOR GODS SAKE. Even Barney (not that theres anything wrong with that) Frank, admitted that last week.

[strategy 4]

I disagree. start with an across the board budget freeze vs 1 trillion in new spending.Youre falling for the leftie talking point that McCain=Bush. He doesnt, by a long shot. You also equate GWB spending with GOP philosophy, again not even close to being the same. And finally, other than Medicare prescriptions...which GWB included in his platform and was elected...he did not increase non-defense, discretionary spending as much as Clinton, he of the budget surplus.Drastically different, and if you dont think so youve talked yourself into it because you support BHO for other reasons.

sir, both candidates are promising a freeze on the budget. I guess you forgot to watch barack's acceptance speech? he's promised to finance his spending with budget cuts. here's hoping some of that is coming from defense spending.I am not falling for any leftie talking points. the republicans are utter garbage and the leaders of the anti-civil liberties trend. we cannot in good conscience give the okay to that sort of behavior, regardless of how you want to spin it.honestly, the key word here is MEANINGFUL. the candidates are not MEANINGFULLY different at this point, imo.

[strategy 4]

Sorry but you are so far off its pitiful YOU CANNOT TAX YOUR WAY OUT OF A RECESSION. THAT IS WHAT CAUSED THE DEPRESSION FOR GODS SAKE. Even Barney (not that theres anything wrong with that) Frank, admitted that last week.

so dumping shitloads of cash into the market (ie inflation, per my post) is any different?cmon, this is basic stuff. stop with the blinders.

[copernicus 0]

so dumping shitloads of cash into the market (ie inflation, per my post) is any different?cmon, this is basic stuff. stop with the blinders.

basic stuff is that when you lower tax rates you increase tax revenues. no dumping shitloads of cash into the market is necessary.

[strategy 4]

basic stuff is that when you lower tax rates you increase tax revenues. no dumping shitloads of cash into the market is necessary.

sir, that was one of bush's big initiatives. he presided over a period in which we almost doubled the national debt. we're currently shipping out $237B/yr in interest alone, roughly 9% of the total budget. this is NOT acceptable. I really don't understand why you're attempting to defend these people--they've failed miserably and need to be held accountable.also, I don't think I've ever made it clear whether I even support obama. it seems everyone assumes I'm pro-obama because I do nothing but rail on the republicans.

[copernicus 0]

sir, that was one of bush's big initiatives. he presided over a period in which we almost doubled the national debt. we're currently shipping out $237B/yr in interest alone, roughly 9% of the total budget. this is NOT acceptable. I really don't understand why you're attempting to defend these people--they've failed miserably and need to be held accountable.also, I don't think I've ever made it clear whether I even support obama. it seems everyone assumes I'm pro-obama because I do nothing but rail on the republicans.

Examine the sources of the increase in the National Debt. Guess what ....it would have been bigger with tax increases. Tax revenues grew faster than the GDP. Im not defending anything but the facts and you either don't have them or choose to ignore them. Defend your statement that they "failed miserably" with facts, not whining.

[strategy 4]

Examine the sources of the increase in the National Debt. Guess what ....it would have been bigger with tax increases. Tax revenues grew faster than the GDP. Im not defending anything but the facts and you either don't have them or choose to ignore them.

bush had plenty of time with the majority in the house and senate to push his initiatives through. he chose a costly war and yet more government. how is this consistent with the republican platform?I just want you to acknowledge that the republicans are utter shit if we are to take them on their word. they push a mantra of smaller government and have a track record of nothing of the sort. I'm not saying you have to support the dems, just that you need to call our party on its shortcomings if anything is ever going to improve.

[strategy 4]

Defend your statement that they "failed miserably" with facts, not whining.

go go gadget: party of smaller government!

[copernicus 0]

go go gadget: party of smaller government!

i said without whining, which is all that those graphs do. I said LOOK AT THE SOURCES OF THE INCREASE IN THE DEBT.

[vbnautilus 48]

i said without whining, which is all that those graphs do. I said LOOK AT THE SOURCES OF THE INCREASE IN THE DEBT.

Do you think the Bush administration made the government smaller?

[strategy 4]

i said without whining, which is all that those graphs do. I said LOOK AT THE SOURCES OF THE INCREASE IN THE DEBT.

graphs do not whine. they present clear, tangible data. the source of the increase seems to be GWB, if the swift increase circa 2000 can be believed.

[copernicus 0]

graphs do not whine. they present clear, tangible data. the source of the increase seems to be GWB, if the swift increase circa 2000 can be believed.

GWB != everything that happened in the economy since 2000. In fact, if you bother to do the analysis, the debt is LOWER than it would have been in the absence of several GWB policies. Far from doing a terrible job, the Bush administration did a fantastic job handling the economy in light of the Clinton recession, Enron, 9/11 and the war. And if you want to nit, fine, posters of graphs that present no information relevant to the question I asked are whining. not the graphs themselves.

[SCYUKON 0]

edit - moved pic to other threadedit, screw it, can't figure out how to remove, leave in both, works in either thread "Obama wins!"

[Naked_Cowboy 0]

Thank god only productive people are well off (don't tell Paris Hilton). And thank God that someone like John McCain is running, a man so desperate to be president that he did a 180 from 2001 to 2008 and tried to marry himself as much as possible to Bush in order to appease the more conservative right. A plan that worked so well that he's spent the last year trying to remind people he's not really like Bush.

This is such awesome logic. Pick one of the most public wastes of human life and use it as an example for people who are well off not working hard. I see someone like my dad who spent his whole life working at various jobs before he started a company with less than zero money to his name 20 years ago and built it up to be a great company that employs a few dozen people now that it's seeing some real success. For every retarded celebutant with daddy's credit card or corrupt enron executive you think should get the crap taxed out of them, there are a dozen hard working entrepreneurs in the same tax bracket who are out there creating jobs, innovating, and working their asses off. Someday, I hope to be one of them, and I don't want a bigger proportion of my income spent for me than already is. In other news, i don't think there's anyone here calling mccain a superstar. I'm sure not. But i am far more anti-obama than pro-obama, and it so happens that the non-obama option is mccain.