View Full Version : SACK UP, COWBOYS and GIRLS: Name two issues you go against your political leanings
BroncoBuff
08-01-2008, 02:24 PM
And no whining, "No, BroncoBuff! I'm a centrist, I don't lean either way!" Get over yourself, everyone at the very least leans left or right.
TWO ISSUES you go against your general political stance. I'll start:
Drilling in ANWaR: Crazed environmentalist nonsense. First, it's not Anwar exactly, just the "coastal plain" IN Anwar ... the plain is 20x8 miles, while Anwar is the size of South Carolina. Second, Anwar gets fewer than 500 tourists a year. Third, the caribou in the northwesterly-adjacent very similarly-circumstanced "Prudhoe Bay Field," which started drilling around 1970, actually OVER-mutiplied because of the safeguards put in place. This is a rare one I agree with Bush: The footprint would indeed be "microscopic."
The part I don't get is: WTF is McCain against this for?!
Walter Reed Hospital Veterans Housing "Scandal": To me, this was a non-story. None of the problems were outrageous exactly, there were elevators that didn't always run, holes in plaster, and mold on drywall and in bathrooms. Sounds to me like all they needed was to fire the building superintendents and make the repairs. Remember - these were out-patient apartment buildings that just happened to be on Walter Reed grounds. The General who testified to Congress (more wasted hearings) was a haughty bastage, but also correct when he said: "I don't do baracks inspections." Poor bastard got fired anyway.Okay Cowboys and Cowgirls, sack up and reach out in a bi-partisan manner :peace:
.
I lean left but I am for small federal government and states rights and am anti abortion in most cases.
Crushaholic
08-01-2008, 02:53 PM
You're wanting 2 issues in which I've disagreed with the "Republican establishment"? OK...I don't believe there should be a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Secondly, I think SOME drugs should be legal so that they can be regulated (like marijuana).
BroncoBuff
08-01-2008, 03:25 PM
You're wanting 2 issues in which I've disagreed with the "Republican establishment"? OK...I don't believe there should be a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Secondly, I think SOME drugs should be legal so that they can be regulated (like marijuana).
These APPEAR to be bi-partisan statements ... but I remain suspicious of your pro-Booger McFarland agenda ... ::)
.
Rohirrim
08-01-2008, 05:02 PM
Drilling in ANWAR is no biggie to me. I grew up in SoCal. When I was a kid we had fenced in pumps chunking away on the edge of the school playground. I always thought they looked like cool dinosaurs. Besides, as the Valdez disaster showed, nature cleans up oil spills faster than we thought possible.
Abortion. Against it. You know not what your messing with. Stop pretending that you do. Life is sacred. Don't treat it like some blob of **** you came up with in your chem lab.
Death penalty. Opposed. No state with our ideals should be involved in ending the lives of its own citizens.
gunns
08-01-2008, 07:11 PM
I'm against abortion personally but for an individuals right to choose. Do not want any taxes used to pay for it.
Legalizing drugs. People who are going to do drugs are going to do them legal or illegal, just like people who aren't going to, legal or illegal. It'll stop a lot of crime.
Make everyone who works pay social security tax and medicare tax.
And amen to the death penalty Roh.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-01-2008, 07:55 PM
Against my political leanings?
Let's see:
1) Immigration - My views are pretty much identical to Pat Buchanan's here (including his proposed moratorium.)
2) Death Penalty - I support it for murderers, child rapists, et al.
3) Drug legalization - I'm against legalizing marijuana and other psychoactive drugs (although I favor rehab/treatment over incarceration for people who are busted for simple possession or use.)
Spider
08-01-2008, 09:18 PM
Dude strait up everything I have said about oil over the last few years is coming true , so listen up on this , ANWAR is a ****ing Joke , always has been always will be ..... Here it is in a nut shell , Republicans know damn well they will never drill in ANWAR , ( even if they could , they wouldnt , I will get to that later) So republicans use ANWAR to say hey Dems dont want to drill , dems say no to ANWAR cause it is a joke ........
Lets forget shale oil for now .. Section 181 in the gulf is a mother lode and a half for Oil and Natty gas , Several sections under the Alaskan pipeline itself is loaded , I mean loaded ( and you dip**** right wingers , a Priest here in casper told me this , they found this out while doing repairs on the pipeline except everyone that knows except this preacher is keeping it mum ) .ANWAR is nothing more then a political football , the dems should just say ...You know what / you guys are right , Drill up ANWAR , be our guest ..... And see how long tit takes to drill ........ The ones I dont like hold your breath ..
BroncoBuff
08-01-2008, 10:17 PM
Spider ... for me anyway, I'm not saying Anwar will help that much, I have no opinion about how much we'll get from there. I'm just saying we should not bar drilling there, especially for the nonsense environmental reasons.
THERE'S NOTHING THERE! Sure, it's a "pristine" area, but the footprint left by drilling in this 20 miles long strip would be microscopic, that's all I'm saying.
What is Section 181?
Spider
08-01-2008, 10:27 PM
Spider ... for me anyway, I'm not saying Anwar will help that much, I have no opinion about how much we'll get from there. I'm just saying we should not bar drilling there, especially for the nonsense environmental reasons.
THERE'S NOTHING THERE! Sure, it's a "pristine" area, but the footprint left by drilling in this 20 miles long strip would be microscopic, that's all I'm saying.
What is Section 181?
Section 181 is a huge , Massive oil /Natty gas pocket in the gulf stream , I dont care about the footprint , Mother Nature will take care of that , I just dont like the politics being used on ANWAR , I am not saying you are Buff , but politicians in general ...... I am waiting until I get a more reliable source to mentio nthis , bt from what I hear ,a huge oil pocket has been discovered in the Atlantic rim ....20 miles north of my truck wreck 2 years ago
Pseudofool
08-01-2008, 10:38 PM
As far as Anwar, it's not the drilling it's the pipeline, which as I understand, cuts right through the middle.
BroncoBuff
08-02-2008, 01:11 AM
As far as Anwar, it's not the drilling it's the pipeline, which as I understand, cuts right through the middle.Well, if the ice keeps melting in the Arctic Ocean, we won't need a pipeline, we'll be able to drive supertankers right up to the docks there year around.
See this map - the green part is the "Coastal Plain," and the wells inside it would only dot within that area. Plus it's adjacemt to the sea, so tankers can pull right up to the docks.
http://blog.fuelclinic.com/wp-content/anwr_map.jpg
See the black portions on the upper left ... the "Prudhone Bay" field? They had the exact same concerns about caribou when they started drilling there in '69-70. But the simple safeguards they put in place for them actually caused the caribou populations to RISE dramatically. My uncle Bob Jones (seriously) was one of Marathon's chief geologists ... he lived in Alaska in the 70s, and was the first guy to map ANWaR.
.
kappys
08-02-2008, 02:09 PM
1) Pro-life - not militantly though. I do support physician assisted suicide and pro-life is relatively low on my political agenda as compared with most supporters
2) keep drugs illegal - Not marijuana here but I think heroin/cocaine/meth should remain illegal. I don't think simple users deserve jail sentences though, but rather forced treatment and community service
3) Immigration - We need to stop it(illegal). Actually I'm not sure which way this one leans. It has the support of the majority of the populous but no support from either political party.1
Breaker
08-02-2008, 04:25 PM
1) Pro Gay rights - They should have every single legal and economic protection that straight people should have.
2) Abortion - Woman should have the right to choose whether or not they have a kid or not. I do get upset when I think about women who are using abortion as a form of birth control however.
I don't have any views that contradict my ideology.
I don't have any views that contradict my ideology.
Thing is we don't know your ideology.
Libertarianism without the doctrinaire silliness.
Bronco_Beerslug
08-03-2008, 05:03 PM
Libertarianism without the doctrinaire silliness.What's even sillier is people calling themselves Libertarians.
There is no single theory that can be safely identified as the libertarian theory, and probably no single principle or set of principles on which all libertarians can agree. Libertarian is an antonym of authoritarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism).
What's even sillier is people calling themselves Libertarians.
I'd rather be a libertarian (small-"l", please) than a Democrat, Republican, conservative, "progressive" or any other asinine ideology.
You're all a bunch of control freaks who can't run their own lives, and yet have the arrogance and hubris to try to run mine.
Bite me.
Bronco_Beerslug
08-03-2008, 05:48 PM
I'd rather be a libertarian (small-"l", please) than a Democrat, Republican, conservative, "progressive" or any other asinine ideology.
You're all a bunch of control freaks who can't run their own lives, and yet have the arrogance and hubris to try to run mine.
Bite me.This is why I keep asking you why you live in this country. Wouldn't an African nation or a deserted Pacific island where there are no rules or laws be someplace you would rather be?
This is why I keep asking you why you live in this country. Wouldn't an African nation or a deserted Pacific island where there are no rules or laws be someplace you would rather be?
Simply get rid of the laws that violate our rights. And quit thinking you know better for me than I do. I don't know you or your life, and I wouldn't dare presume to tell you, or force you, on how to run it. I expect the same courtesy of you.
Look into your ideology and tell me that it honestly does that - leave people who are behaving alone.
Bronco_Beerslug
08-03-2008, 05:56 PM
Simply get rid of the laws that violate our rights. And quit thinking you know better for me than I do. I don't know you or your life, and I wouldn't dare presume to tell you, or force you, on how to run it. I expect the same courtesy of you.
Look into your ideology and tell me that it honestly does that - leave people who are behaving alone.Talk about BS!!!
You're all a bunch of control freaks who can't run their own lives, and yet have the arrogance and hubris to try to run mine.
Bite me.
Your stereotyping BS gets old here especially when you include EVERYONE in your PMS rants.
Talk about BS!!!
In reference to your ideology, "BS" certainly applies.
Your stereotyping BS gets old here especially when you include EVERYONE in your PMS rants.
You're left-of-center; at what point does a person's wealth become wrong?
Bronco_Beerslug
08-03-2008, 06:25 PM
You're left-of-center; at what point does a person's wealth become wrong?At what point does a Libertarian finally admit he really doesn't know what he is? You profess that government is evil and (most) laws and rules are not needed.
Your version of a "world" doesn't exist on this planet, nowhere even close, never will.
At what point does a Libertarian finally admit he really doesn't know what he is? You profess that government is evil and (most) laws and rules are not needed.
I'm not an anarchist.
What level of wealth is immoral? $1 million? $100 million? $1 billion?
Your version of a "world" doesn't exist on this planet, nowhere even close, never will.
That's what racists and sexists told abolitionists and feminists, respectively.
Bronco_Beerslug
08-03-2008, 07:06 PM
I'm not an anarchist.You talk like one.
What level of wealth is immoral? $1 million? $100 million? $1 billion?That question is irrelevant. The amount of money one has doesn't auto equate into some kind of moral argument.
That's what racists and sexists told abolitionists and feminists, respectively.Also irrelevant. Here is a fact of life for you. When the population (masses) reaches the millions and billions for a country more laws and rules are required to maintain civility (law and order). There currently is no way to get beyond that. Humans cannot exist together without them. Your world (one without government, rules and laws) does not and will not exist in any foreseeable future.
You can however find a few places in the world currently that do not have this problem of government laws, regulations and rules (see my post about you looking into a Pacific island).
You talk like one.
You talk like a socialist.
Are we even now?
That question is irrelevant. The amount of money one has doesn't auto equate into some kind of moral argument.
To some, it does. At some value, "wealth" becomes equivalent to "obscene", according to them.
Also irrelevant. Here is a fact of life for you. When the population (masses) reaches the millions and billions for a country more laws and rules are required to maintain civility (law and order). There currently is no way to get beyond that. Humans cannot exist together without them.
I disagree. Laws, like other things, reach a point of diminishing return. Also, there's no linear relationship between population size and the number of laws that population needs. There's an upper limit to the kinds of interactions possible, ergo, there's an upper limit to the numbers of laws required.
Indeed, there are more reasons for additional law than just sheer numbers of people. I mean really, the US ought to have 5x the laws that the UK has because there's 300 million people here and 60 million people there? That's rather silly.
Your world (one without government, rules and laws) does not and will not exist in any foreseeable future.
Like I said, I'm not an anarchist. Because I believe what I wrote about laws above doesn't mean I favor no laws or no government. Sheesh.
You can however find a few places in the world currently that do not have this problem of government laws, regulations and rules (see my post about you looking into a Pacific island).
You can find a few places where your ideology is in place; see North Korea.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-03-2008, 09:18 PM
Your world (one without government, rules and laws) does not and will not exist in any foreseeable future.
W*GS' world is a silly ivory tower libertarian fairy tale world whose ideas have never been tested in the real world.
W*GS' world is a silly ivory tower libertarian fairy tale world whose ideas have never been tested in the real world.
Not true, but humanity experimented with your ideas last century. All we got out of it was 100 million corpses.
No, that number doesn't count wars.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-03-2008, 10:57 PM
Ha ha ha! :laugh:
I guess I forgot to mention that in W*GS' nutty fairy tale world there is also no distinction between Gandhi and Stalin.
:D
Another lie.
In your world, a smidgeon of "difference" between you and genuine socialist means you're not a socialist, but an ocean of difference between me and a random Republican means I'm a Republican.
BroncoBuff
08-03-2008, 11:03 PM
Not true, but humanity experimented with your ideas last century. All we got out of it was 100 million corpses.
No, that number doesn't count wars.
Get outta here WAGS! You shouldn't even be posting in this thread ... you're the only one who hasn't listed two things that go against his philosophy.
That's the minimum requirement to post here, so GET OUT!
.
There's that famed left-wing tolerance showing itself again.
BroncoBuff
08-03-2008, 11:34 PM
That's the famed right wing ignorance of sarcasm again.
.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-03-2008, 11:36 PM
Get outta here WAGS! You shouldn't even be posting in this thread ... you're the only one who hasn't listed two things that go against his philosophy.
That's the minimum requirement to post here, so GET OUT!
.
In W*GS' nutty parallel universe, anyone who is an economic liberal is automatically branded a "socialist" and lumped in with Stalin and every authoritarian regime he can think of.
It's funny to watch. :D
ElwayMD
08-04-2008, 12:21 AM
I lean conservative but am pro-choice and opposed to the death penalty.
BroncoBuff
08-04-2008, 12:24 AM
I lean conservative but am pro-choice and opposed to the death penalty.
See W*GS? That's how it's done in this thread :approve:
Get outta here WAGS! You shouldn't even be posting in this thread ... you're the only one who hasn't listed two things that go against his philosophy.
That's the minimum requirement to post here, so GET OUT!
.
That;s just it he doesn't have a philosophy he hates everything.
In W*GS' nutty parallel universe, anyone who is an economic liberal is automatically branded a "socialist" and lumped in with Stalin and every authoritarian regime he can think of.
Another lie.
I reserve "socialist" for people who are socialists, either self-admitted or those who are but won't man-up and 'fess up, like LABF.
On the other hand, anyone who's a genuine economic liberal (as opposed to LABF's pilfering of the word "liberal" to describe his socialist beliefs) is automagically a neo-con and/or a Bush blower and/or a right-winger.
It's clear that he's a hypocrite based on that alone.
That;s just it he doesn't have a philosophy he hates everything.
I dislike frauds, liars, hypocrites, and folks who have irrational beliefs. Oh, and paranoids, conspiracists, and loonies.
I like honest, consistent, rational, skeptical and intelligent people and ideas.
Perhaps the differences above explain why you believe I hate "everything".
DenverBrit
08-04-2008, 10:35 AM
Well, I'm against any taxation that is not essential.
So I'll make a couple of tax concessions that I believe make sense.
Increase the tax on tobacco and alcohol.
Earmark those taxes ONLY for Medicare and to help those who can't afford insurance coverage.
After all, no two 'drugs' of choice burden the health system more than those two 'legal, drugs.
Reduce usage and raise taxes through recreational consumption.
Next, I would legalize and tax marijuana.
Why?
Because pot has been shown to be far less harmful than alcohol and tobacco, yet we spend billions of $s waging a drug war against pot that demonstrably doesn't work.
Legalize it, save billions in taxes looking for it and add billions in new tax revenue by licensing its sales.
Again, earmark the new taxes and 'drug war' savings for Medicare and universal health care.
Of course, LABF will point to my approach as proof that I'm a 'pothead'.
Save your breath, I'm a 'classic liberal' capitalist. :clown:
Links to validate my new drug policy. ;D
http:
//www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17760130/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17760130/)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6429239.stm
Edit: Oh, and let's create an atmosphere that studies THC for its medicinal value.
Clearly it has value in pain management and post chemo nausea and appetite stimulation. Those characteristics alone are worthy of research.
BroncoBuff
08-04-2008, 01:12 PM
Wow ... I agree 100% with Brit's post. :peace:
alkemical
08-04-2008, 01:59 PM
I'm an anarchist, but the libertarian outlines of the US constitution are my compromise. That being said, because i don't inherently trust people - you can't have it one way or the other - so while i hate and don't trust the gov't - i don't trust big business either. It's nothing more than it's the people i don't trust.
DenverBrit
08-04-2008, 02:06 PM
Wow ... I agree 100% with Brit's post. :peace:
Let me beat the rush!
Pothead! Hilarious!
I'm a pretty shoot down the middle independant, despite what I'm sure many would assume based on my posting history here.
However, I do differ significantly from my horse of choice this time around (Obama) in regards to one stance:
I'm adamantly pro-life. For two reasons. The first, all medical research shows a child is a living, breathing, thinking entity within the first month of conseption. The second, I believe in the ethical correctness of a future life value theory, in which an unborn life in our culture (i.e. very likely to survive and be healthy) holds untold potential and value, significantly more than the negative reprocussions 9 months of carrying a child has on the mother. If the unborn is a product of rape or poses extreme medial risks upon the mother's life then those are mitigating circumstances and I believe that an FLV theory would sway towards abortion in such an event, but as a rule? No.
Birth control, rubbers, and the morning after pill give basically zero reason for 99% of this country's population to not produce unwanted children that they then terminate.
I'm a pretty shoot down the middle independant, despite what I'm sure many would assume based on my posting history here.
However, I do differ significantly from my horse of choice this time around (Obama) in regards to one stance:
I'm adamantly pro-life. For two reasons. The first, all medical research shows a child is a living, breathing, thinking entity within the first month of conseption. The second, I believe in the ethical correctness of a future life value theory, in which an unborn life in our culture (i.e. very likely to survive and be healthy) holds untold potential and value, significantly more than the negative reprocussions 9 months of carrying a child has on the mother. If the unborn is a product of rape or poses extreme medial risks upon the mother's life then those are mitigating circumstances and I believe that an FLV theory would sway towards abortion in such an event, but as a rule? No.
Birth control, rubbers, and the morning after pill give basically zero reason for 99% of this country's population to not produce unwanted children that they then terminate.
Over the years I have come around to this way of thinking too. Good post
Rank&File
08-04-2008, 03:56 PM
Over the years I have come around to this way of thinking too. Good post
I second that. Very well put.
I dislike frauds, liars, hypocrites, and folks who have irrational beliefs. Oh, and paranoids, conspiracists, and loonies.
I like honest, consistent, rational, skeptical and intelligent people and ideas.
Perhaps the differences above explain why you believe I hate "everything".
My guess is the people that fall in that category of yours would be a room of one.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-04-2008, 05:49 PM
Of course, LABF will point to my approach as proof that I'm a 'pothead'.
Save your breath, I'm a 'classic liberal' capitalist. :clown:
Wow - anticipating what I might say, eh?
I get a chuckle out of knowing I've become that important in your world.
(Or is it just simple paranoia....? :puff: :clown:)
DenverBrit
08-04-2008, 06:04 PM
Wow - anticipating what I might say, eh?
I get a chuckle out of knowing I've become that important in your world.
(Or is it just simple paranoia....? :puff: :clown:)
Youre right, I did anticipate what you might say, you're so predictable. Hilarious! Hilarious!
Thanks for playing, Che. :welcome:
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-04-2008, 06:35 PM
Youre right, I did anticipate what you might say...
http://www.morescents.com/images/product/icon/251.jpg
DenverBrit
08-04-2008, 06:40 PM
http://www.morescents.com/images/product/icon/251.jpg
I should have seen that one too, you use it often enough. Ha!
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-04-2008, 06:42 PM
I should have seen that one too, you use it often enough. Ha!
Not often enough for you to see yourself in it, apparently. Ha! :clown:
DenverBrit
08-04-2008, 06:45 PM
Not often enough for you to see yourself in it, apparently. Ha! :clown:
I don't use perfumes, but you knock yourself out. :wave: