packplantpath
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
Too true Jason. I want the military budget slashed by 50% or more and every troop pulled out of eastern Europe and Japan and brought home. Close the bases and give them to the host country. Spend more money on hardware and troops for protection, but cut all other spending heavily. I don't know exact numbers, but I would be you could reach a 50% cut doing that.
Why are we defending Europe from the bogeyman of Russia? Are they poor and destitute?
NCStatePride
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
On "moral" issues, they want a big government to enforce their beliefs
As a pretty strong conservative that comingles with a decent amount of conservative coworkers and friends, I don't know many who think the federal government should be mandating morals. Even with gay marriage, regardless of their personal opinions, most I have spoken to seem to think letting each state decide is a good policy.
Honestly, I think that is a big perception problem that liberals have of conservatives. I don't know any conservative that thinks 'outlawing oral sex' should be a platform issue. Good grief, at least when I see a generic Democratic Candidate, I try to at least assume they have some common sense (I actually don't mind Hillary too much). What bugs me is when I speak to someone and say, 'Yeah, I at least like what Hillary is doing with N. Korea, but I think Obama is being way to hands-off as the Commander in Chief' the response from the liberal is 'You just wish we would nuke everyone.' WTF. Regardless of how liberals want to paint the Tea Party, I'm starting to think that maybe our 'extremists' are just doing a good job of mimicing what they've seen out of liberals for a long time.
NCStatePride
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
I want the military budget slashed by 50% or more and every troop pulled out of eastern Europe and Japan and brought home. Close the bases and give them to the host country. Spend more money on hardware and troops for protection, but cut all other spending heavily.
Why are we defending Europe from the bogeyman of Russia? Are they poor and destitute?
This is a very, very good example of why I find it hard to give a lot of credit to extremist ideas one way or another (because libertarians would agree with you, packplantpath, and they are closer to conservatives). Trust me, if it were that simple, we probably would be trying to draw back. Unfortunately, it's not.
packplantpath
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
Trust me, if it were that simple, we probably would be trying to draw back.
Saying it's hard isn't a very convincing argument.
I honestly don't think an argument can be made for one country being the world police. It's illogical
because libertarians would agree with you, packplantpath, and they are closer to conservatives
I think most libertarians would take offense to that :) I definitely don't consider myself libertarian, though I have some tendencies.
NCStatePride
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
I honestly don't think an argument can be made for one country being the world police.
It's tactical. Have you not once considered that we aren't "the world police". Do you have any idea how much sh#% goes on internationally every day that we just ignore? You can get into the "world police"/"just for oil"/"oppressing others" argument all you want, but the facts are that we are a very large target in a one-country super-power where any nation/organization/culture desiring to get any street-cred in the international community has to somehow take a swipe or somehow gain major respect from the US. If you pull back everything we have, you make what is currently our "last defense" our "first line of defense". In effect, by pulling everything back, you (a) risk massive destabilization in nations across the world due to other powers that want to become super powers, (b) completely disable our diplomatic collateral, and (c) bring the closest possible American engagement right outside our home boarders rather than in another continent.
Yep... sounds like a great plan to me.
[Alright, NOW I'm done talking about defense.]
Pack Mentality
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
^What does Rush have to say about it?
packplantpath
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
Actually, I don't think it has anything to do with oppression or oil. It simply happened due the outcome of WWII and the soviet threat and has become the accepted status quo. That doesn't make it right or justified IMO. The old conservative mantra of "no government program ever shrinks" works equally well on the military.
The defense expenditures of the US accounts for slightly more than 40% of the total world expenditures. I think we can afford some pretty drastic cuts unless you think the entire rest of the world is going to gang up and attack us. And if that happens, we are screwed anyway.
No, it's not tactical, there is no invasion threat to justify our level of spending. The real threat is nuclear attack either on a large scale by a rogue state or by a small terrorist organization and no amount of troops in S. Korea, Japan, or Germany will stop that.
BJD95
Administrator
Posted 1 month ago
#
I voted for Obama, gave his campaign quite a bit of money,and even volunteered a bit (which is something I never do). Still very much like him, he's pragmatic and an intellectual (which is the kind of leadership I prefer). Not surprised at all that he won NC, I fully expected him to.
I don't defend him on threads here because I've learned to avoid political debates on any sports blogs. Nobody changes their mind, and it screws up the ability to have rational discourse on the sports front later. If it was just up to me, I would keep political threads totally off the blog except when there is a direct NC State connection (Robert Gibbs, JD Hayworth, etc.).
Khan
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
NCStatePride, I'm 100% with you brother! Adolf Hilter contributed to the design of the Volkswagen Beetle, but everytime people try to talk about his individual accomplishments you have "those types" coming out of the woodwork talking about the Jews, I'm like OMG! WTF! Totally! Can't we just show love to everyone?
It's a proven fact that the first side to bring up Hitler in an argument loses the argument.
Thread complete.
old13
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
NCStatePride
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
Khan's forum procedural rules, FTW.
highstick
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
Fellows, you are much too civil to each other...Must be something about our superior education at State versus what happens when you drink water from a polluted well in Chapel Hill.
This is a much more rational discussion than I normally see on these type boards. By the second page, the race card would have been played and everyone would have been screaming at each other!
tjfoose1
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
Oh wow....
Ok, let me be clear. For the record, I do not support killing Cherokee Indians.
So here is my question for the crowd: how come when a conservative is talking about a given subject (here, shrinking government) and brings up a particular founding father (Andrew Jackson), a liberal feels the need to bring up a 100% unrelated fact (i.e. killing of the Native Americans) as a response?
Ok, I think you know the answer, but I'll bite...
Very similar to the same reason conservatives are called racists. Those throwing the insults usually have nothing of intellectual merit to add to the conversation, so they resort to 4th grade, playground tactics. They can't win the intellectual debate, so they attack the opponent, not the issue. Just see the "Journo-list" story for support of this.
Sad thing is, there is often a intellectually sound counter to conservative points (though I usually do not agree) in most debated issues. They healthy thing to do is to actually engage in a debate, identify the strong and weak points of both sides, and come to an agreeable compromise.
However, some opposed to a conservative position are often not informed enough to use these counter points and/or are not willing to compromise. They take the easy way out and break out the name calling in order to 'win' in the 5 second sound bite arena via the assistance of a sympathetic media.
[edit]
Now back to Jackson... claiming Jackson killed 4,000 Cherokees is a simplistic statement void knowledge and understanding of the US/Cherokee issues of the time.
Too complex to discuss here, but some bullet point facts/issues:
Several 'Indian Removals' had taken place prior to the Cherokee removal without the horrors and suffering of the 'Trail of Tears'.
Opposing 'solutions', supported by many, included the complete extermination of the tribe.
State's rights were an issue. States were acting against the Cherokee, Jackson was interceding to stop violence and protect white settlers and Indians alike.
The Cherokee brought suits to the Supreme Court. Legislation was passed. Actions taken against the Cherokee were not the result of an executive fiat of the President
I am certainly not supporting or defending Jackson or the treatment of the Cherokee, but "Andy Jackson killed 4,000 Cherokee" is a statement full of a simplistic reasoning and wrought with ignorance.
tjfoose1
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
I voted for Obama, gave his campaign quite a bit of money,and even volunteered a bit (which is something I never do). Still very much like him, he's pragmatic and an intellectual (which is the kind of leadership I prefer). Not surprised at all that he won NC, I fully expected him to.I don't defend him on threads here because I've learned to avoid political debates on any sports blogs.
BJD - understand your reasons for not engaging in political debates on the blogs. I for one, would have enjoyed reading your posts on the issues. I respect your opinions and comments and would have appreciated, and benefited from, your insights and reasoning.
Not asking for them, just wanted to be clear that my previous comments referring to laziness and ignorance were NOT directed towards you are others who are similarly thoughtful and informed.
We don't say it enough - Thanks for your efforts on Statefans.
leewolf
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
I voted for McCain, but I'm one of a very few in my age group (early 20's) that I know who did. And a lot more folks I know around my age voted in 2008 than in 2004. I was a Paul supporter early on (though I know he has some bat-shit crazy followers and some out-of-left field ideas), but resigned myself to McCain when he became the nominee. As someone else stated, McCain did not believe in many of the same ideas and principles I do, but he sure believed in more of them than Obama does.
A lot of my friends who did vote for Obama have since then tuned out and I'm willing to bet the vast majority of them will not vote in the mid-terms. My girlfriend is a perfect example of this. She voted for Obama, bought the "We Made History" t-shirt, and never watches the news. She isn't stupid (NC State grad like myself) she just doesn't care about politics all that much and I doubt is going to vote in November. Meanwhile, my more conservative friends (and me) are all planning on voting in November and I think that is why we will see the House and maybe the Senate switch sides. Your typical 20-something Obama voter has probably checked out at this point.
tjfoose1
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
Kudos to you, leewolf, for you engagement at a relatively young age.
Texpack
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
Too complex to discuss here, but some bullet point facts/issues:
"Bullet points" about killing Cherokees made me chuckle
NCStatePride
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
HA! It wasn't funny until you connected the dots. You really shot a bulls-eye with that one...
tjfoose1
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
Oops. Bad, and unintentional, choice of words.
Wufpacker
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
I usually avoid the political stuff here, and every other sports-centric site I visit. Not my purpose for visiting. But this title made me wonder, and I finally had to click on it. And, I agree with what someone said earlier. I am also surprised that this discussion has remained as civil as it has.
My .02 cents, which probably isn't worth that much.
First, let me say I do not consider myself to be tied to either of the major parties. That being said, I also realize that in our current two-party system, a vote for an independent, or one of the smaller upstart parties, is likely a vote wasted. I further believe the two-party system has damaged our political process terribly, and will continue to do so. It has become about whoever raises the most money usually, though not always, will win. Further, many too many of the extreme right or left win seats in congress. This is dangerous, IMHO. And those are not the only problems, but that's a discussion for another day.
When I am trying to decide which candidate I'm going to vote for, I look at the Republican and Democrat candidates. I try my best to be objective and look at the issues, and their views on them. I make the best choice I can, and cast the vote accordingly.
Then, sometimes at a later time, we find things out that might have changed our choice, had we known.
A lot of unpopular things were going on in the 2-3 years before November, 2008. Bush was in the White House, so right or wrong, the Republicans had an uphill climb no matter who ran in 2008. The same thing is happening now for Obama's administration. A lot of things are happening, and not all of them are his fault. Others are debatable, but again, a discussion for another day.
My point is, Obama's numbers have been dropping steadily for a while now. He has little control over it, quite honestly. It might change in the next two years. It might not.
But, the phenomena of the President, or Presidential candidate, either suffering or benefiting in the polls based on these sorts of things is well established. Responsible or not, they are subject to the whims of the voters. Most voters are pretty flaky. I usually am one of the "undecided" voters, longer than many at least. But I also realize that most undecided voters are often some of the most dense people on the planet.
That's in a nutshell what I believe about this particular issue.
PackWolf82
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
To answer the original question, which can be answered in an unbiased way, which I will attempt to do: Charlotte
Charlotte voted for him. I lived in Charlotte during the election and knew that if he won Mecklenburg Co. He would win the state probably. I believe he won or gained a lot of votes from urban areas in NC. So having the population the Charlotte area does wouldn't hurt your ability to win.
I agree with those who think....let's get back to sports on here! Leave this for other forums...
Looking forward to kickoff in a little over a month!!! Go Pack!
SMD
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
^Charlotte did indeed vote big for President Obama. I am self-employed in the political arena and some of my clients ran a Get-Out-the-Vote program that touched 1 out of every 5 Democratic voters in the Char/Meck area. That's a pretty substantial accomplishment.
Elections are won not by those who are right/wrong on the issues, but by those who employ the best political tactics, and this applies to both sides. For example, President Bush won Florida in 2004 largely through a marketing campaign that let them find and turn out likely conservative voters in the Tampa to Orlando corridor.
The other factor is that much of our political beliefs are actually geographic and social preferences handed down to us. I haven't surfed for the exact numbers, but I guarantee you that at least 75% or higher of southern native white males vote Republican. You see that on this very board. By the same token, the same amounts of minority voters in NY and CA always vote Democratic. Heck, the numbers aren't as stark as with minorities, but take the same white males and put them in the North, and they vote more Democratic than Republican.
The Obama victory in NC was created by two things - A) the campaign had the resources to do an unprecedented voter mobilization effort and B) the socio-political preferences of the state are changing as more non-natives move in and bring their voting preferences with them.
tjfoose1
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
The other factor is that much of our political beliefs are actually geographic and social preferences handed down to us.
I would agree, but only for those who have only a passing interest in politics, if that. They vote X because their parents voted X. Unfortunately, that is most of America.
There is, however, a movement (some would say subversive) to change that, to get 'em while they're young, so to speak.. but that's another discussion.
I'm as conservative as most here, if not more so. Yeah... I'd have to say more so. Both my grandfathers were hard core Democrats and union members. Both were active in the unions. One was VERY politically active and on a first name basis with the WV Rockefellers.
If the Democratic party and the unions were the same today as they were then, there's a good chance I'd be a Democrat today.
If my grandfathers were alive today, the is no way in hell either of them would vote Democrat. I doubt either would be involved in the unions.
SMD
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
tj - That show the fact that to a large degree, our idealogical differences in this country have essentially switched party labels. Southern Democrats "back in the day" exemplified conservatism, whereas NE Republicans were downright progressive.
Take a look at the records and issue positions of Nixon, Ike and Teddy Roosevelt, compared to today's Republicans, all three of those guys were liberal whackos.
The battle rages on, we just change who has what labels.
tjfoose1
Member
Posted 1 month ago
#
Yep. Pretty spot on.
The one variable today being we live in the Information Age. At least, for those who take advantage of it.
There is greater access to information and truth, but also the means to more readily spread propaganda and misinformation.
The responsibility of the individual to be engaged and informed is therefore made greater.
What role that plays is yet to be determined.
You must log in to post.