US presidential election 2012 - Page 21 - MensTennisForums.com

MensTennisForums.com

MenstennisForums.com is the premier Men's Tennis forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.Please Register - It's Free!

Reply

Old 12-29-2011, 09:35 PM   #301
country flag scoobs
Anastasia Komananov, KGB
 
scoobs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Age: 36
Posts: 53,480
scoobs has a reputation beyond reputescoobs has a reputation beyond reputescoobs has a reputation beyond reputescoobs has a reputation beyond reputescoobs has a reputation beyond reputescoobs has a reputation beyond reputescoobs has a reputation beyond reputescoobs has a reputation beyond reputescoobs has a reputation beyond reputescoobs has a reputation beyond reputescoobs has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: US presidential election 2012

In terms of the US Election, I read an article today echoing my sentiments that Obama should be viewed as a moderate/centrist Republican if anything and that's one reason the Republicans are struggling to find an authentic candidate who offers enough difference to Obama without coming off as entirely loopy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...=FBCNETTXT9038

As things stand, I suspect we're in for a re-run of 2008 with Obama getting a less decisive but ultimately comfortable win. Once again the Republicans cannot unite around a candidate who energizes enough of the respective bases at any one time and still seems credible to the swing voters.

The major wildcard in the 2012 cycle is the Super PACs formed as a result of Citizens United, and how much influence they are able to buy and how much they're able to swing individual races - these are likely to break heavily for the Republicans. Potentially if Ron Paul decides to run as an independent (he won't get the Republican nod) that could chuck a major spanner in the works too, but I doubt it.
scoobs is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 

Old 12-29-2011, 09:40 PM   #302
country flag Jimnik
Registered User
 
Jimnik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Here
Posts: 20,771
Jimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: US presidential election 2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by orangehat View Post
Using my definition from google:

Libertarianism: An extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens.

Let me point out 7 reasons why Singapore does not fall in line with this definition.

1. No real freedom of speech, widespread censorship (and subsequently induced self-censorship). I believe Singapore ranked 136 on the Media freedom index 2010. (Behind Bangladesh, ZIMBABWE, Congo and IRAQ)
2. You can't protest, a gathering of more than 5 people in a public area (yes you read that right, 5 people) is technically an illegal gathering without a police permit if it is meant for a cause (even for charity)
3. Forced savings (as stated above)
4. Excessive "big brother" influence in daily lives (e.g. fines on everything from eating on public transport to spitting and a ban on chewing gum)
5. Dubious independence of the judicial system (multiple lawsuits bankrupting opposition and potential political opponents that would never stand anywhere else)
6. Internal Security Act (gives right for detention up to 2 years without probable cause)
7. Ban on Jehovah's Witnesses (granted they're annoying and non-mainstream) despite supposed religious freedom.

Libertarian does not solely refer to economic policies, that would make you more like a fiscal conservative.
I know I know. I'm sure there are tons of laws against social freedom. I'm against all of them (except the Jehovah Witness one).

Every country has random anti-social laws I don't agree with. The social side of freedom is almost impossible to measure since it's made up of entirely subjective laws, some of which infringe freedom more than others. The only aspect of libertarianism that can be quantifiably measured is the economic side which is why it's the only one I'm discussing.
Jimnik is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2011, 09:51 PM   #303
country flag Jimnik
Registered User
 
Jimnik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Here
Posts: 20,771
Jimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: US presidential election 2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by ibreak4coffee View Post
Also Sweden doesn't have to cope with immigration???? Have you ever been there? Seriously one google search would have shown you that 25% of the population of Sweden is either foreign born or from a parent born abroad. They were extremely welcoming of refugees from the former Yugoslav republics and more recently from Iraq. Its started to cause visible tensions as elsewhere.
I already had this debate earlier in the year. Of the 25% foreign born, the vast majority are either from Finland, Norway, Denmark or other developed fully educated European origins. The immigrants I'm talking about are uneducated, unskilled labor from 3rd world countries. Sweden have about 40,000 Iraqis living in Stockholm and maybe a similar number from the old Yugoslavia. Firstly, this is not a major proportion of the population. Secondly, most of these workers are better skilled and educated than the African immigrants in UK, France, Italy and Spain. If you pay less to bring immigrants up to speed then it's less burden on the government and they can spend more on free healthcare.
Jimnik is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2011, 09:55 PM   #304
country flag rocketassist
Banned!
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 25,682
rocketassist has a reputation beyond reputerocketassist has a reputation beyond reputerocketassist has a reputation beyond reputerocketassist has a reputation beyond reputerocketassist has a reputation beyond reputerocketassist has a reputation beyond reputerocketassist has a reputation beyond reputerocketassist has a reputation beyond reputerocketassist has a reputation beyond reputerocketassist has a reputation beyond reputerocketassist has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: US presidential election 2012

Obama needs to hold out long enough for when we kick the coalition out.
rocketassist is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2011, 10:04 PM   #305
country flag Jimnik
Registered User
 
Jimnik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Here
Posts: 20,771
Jimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: US presidential election 2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by ibreak4coffee View Post
You said it. Denmark is a fantastic country. But again, its not libertarian. They just have made it easier to do business while maintaining a strong social safety net - which no true libertarian endorses. Certainly if you listen to the definition of libertarianism in the country we both live in, you'd think government had absolutely no value to add to society at all beyond maintaining an army.
Making it easier to do business is at the heart of libertarian policy. Yes, I already said taxes are too high which is why I did NOT call Denmark libertarian. But there are other factors which make it one of the most free market (libertarian) countries in the world.


Quote:
No need to repeat what tripwires has written. Suffice it to say you define "living standards" solely on economic data and activity. To most people, its more than that. GDP per capita as a metric is not a great way to define living standards either - its not a measurement of standard of living or personal income but of national economic activity. People's real incomes and standards of living can be declining while GDP is increasing. And in the case of Singapore and Hong Kong, international bankers making astronomical sums doesn't mean the average person there is better off. GDP doesnt make a distinction. If you take the Human Development Index, Singapore is only 26th (though I concede Australia scores very high in second place)
No, GDP figures are not the be all end all measure of living standard. But they are the best most reliable unbiased quantifiable gauging of economic strength. There are many reasons why I trust it more than any other statistic.



Quote:
I said it was harder - not impossible. And again, you are misinterpreting what I said. Where did I say its wrong to have billionaires? But mentioning a man who made his fortune in the UK and US and then globally and hasnt had his base of operation in Australia in over 35 years is not exactly a great example for those 15 billionaires still living and working in Australia. Forbes doesnt even list Murdoch as Australian anymore.
And I'm saying you're wrong. You didn't even address the fact that US has 15 times the population of Australia, which I already indicated. Hence total economy size and consumer power will allow businesses to be bigger and make more money. If Australia had population 300 million, it would equal America on billionaires.
Jimnik is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2011, 10:06 PM   #306
country flag Jimnik
Registered User
 
Jimnik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Here
Posts: 20,771
Jimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: US presidential election 2012

This is fun. Finally got people giving me coherent (ish) counter-arguments. I love the off-season.
Jimnik is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2011, 02:03 AM   #307
country flag orangehat
Registered User
 
orangehat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 10,732
orangehat has a reputation beyond reputeorangehat has a reputation beyond reputeorangehat has a reputation beyond reputeorangehat has a reputation beyond reputeorangehat has a reputation beyond reputeorangehat has a reputation beyond reputeorangehat has a reputation beyond reputeorangehat has a reputation beyond reputeorangehat has a reputation beyond reputeorangehat has a reputation beyond reputeorangehat has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: US presidential election 2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimnik View Post
I know I know. I'm sure there are tons of laws against social freedom. I'm against all of them (except the Jehovah Witness one).

Every country has random anti-social laws I don't agree with. The social side of freedom is almost impossible to measure since it's made up of entirely subjective laws, some of which infringe freedom more than others. The only aspect of libertarianism that can be quantifiably measured is the economic side which is why it's the only one I'm discussing.
How is that fair? Say Mugabe's Zimbabwe had economic policies similar to that of HK/Singapore/Switzerland. Does that make them "libertarian" because we can't compare the social side and we could only compare the economic policies, hence they would be "similarly libertarian"?

Granted, I'm using an extreme example in the form of Zimbabwe but you get my drift.

Back on topic: I feel like if I were to be voting in this election I would be "forced", rather than willingly voting for obama. A lot of my friends and I are the same .. we're not liberal/lefties in any sense of the word but we would be in the US simply because we are anti-conservative. And I think in all senses thats the best way to put it now - anticonservative - because the entire balance of US politics has swung so far right that it is ridiculous.

There are many policies that I either don't agree with Obama on or feel that he is not doing enough on but the alternative is simply so horrendous that anything Obama does would be better than it.
__________________
Tennis Tipping

Singles: (61/10) Finals: 1-5 ATP, 3-1 Challengers
W: Rotterdam '12 F: Monte Carlo '11, Dubai '11, Nice '11, Stockholm '11, Atlanta '12
Slams:1R,3R,3R,QF

Doubles: (9/5) Finals: 3-4 ATP, 8-7 Challengers
W: US Open '12 (w/Allez-Alejo), Bercy '11 (w/ZackBusner), Winston-Salem '12 (w/Betty) F: Atlanta '12 (w/Betty), Eastbourne '11 (w/*Jean*), Stockholm '11 (w/njnetswill), Casablanca '10 (w/Gavnich77)
Slams:2R,3R,QF,W
orangehat is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2011, 03:41 AM   #308
country flag Jimnik
Registered User
 
Jimnik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Here
Posts: 20,771
Jimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond reputeJimnik has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: US presidential election 2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by orangehat View Post
How is that fair? Say Mugabe's Zimbabwe had economic policies similar to that of HK/Singapore/Switzerland. Does that make them "libertarian" because we can't compare the social side and we could only compare the economic policies, hence they would be "similarly libertarian"?

Granted, I'm using an extreme example in the form of Zimbabwe but you get my drift.
You're right, it's not fair. A country can be economically free but socially repressed. That's certainly not libertarian. But like I said, there's no way to quantifiably measure social freedom. It's impossible for me to compare unless I've actually experienced what it's like to live in the country.

100% fairness is impossible.
Jimnik is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2011, 08:03 AM   #309
country flag tripwires
Registered User
 
tripwires's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Singapore
Age: 28
Posts: 13,316
tripwires has a reputation beyond reputetripwires has a reputation beyond reputetripwires has a reputation beyond reputetripwires has a reputation beyond reputetripwires has a reputation beyond reputetripwires has a reputation beyond reputetripwires has a reputation beyond reputetripwires has a reputation beyond reputetripwires has a reputation beyond reputetripwires has a reputation beyond reputetripwires has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: US presidential election 2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimnik View Post
You're right, it's not fair. A country can be economically free but socially repressed. That's certainly not libertarian. But like I said, there's no way to quantifiably measure social freedom. It's impossible for me to compare unless I've actually experienced what it's like to live in the country.

100% fairness is impossible.
Jimnik you're confusing me. You make this statement and call Singapore libertarian at the same time, but only in terms of the Singapore economy. There seems to be a contradiction here. Maybe it would help if you posted your definition of 'libertarianism'.

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm operating on this one:

Quote:
Libertarianism has been variously defined by sources. In the strictest sense, it is the political philosophy that holds individual liberty as the basic moral principle of society. In the broadest sense, it is any political philosophy which approximates this view. Libertarianism includes diverse beliefs, all advocating strict limits to government activity and sharing the goal of maximizing individual liberty and political freedom.
(from our trusty Wikipedia)

Singapore definitely fails on the first bolded part. Maximising liberty and political freedom? No chance in hell. From a purely economic perspective, I am willing to concede that our open and trade-friendly economy gives an appearance of libertarianism. But it's probably most accurate to say that Singapore has a free market economy without going into the philosophy underpinning the said free market and attributing libertarianism to a government that probably doesn't use it as its guiding principle. Seriously, it's giving the PAP government too much credit. It has never been a libertarian government and it is currently not one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimnik View Post

Well there's the difference between you and me. If you can't afford to buy a home, you don't deserve to own a home. It's a simple as that. You're gong to think I'm very harsh but I come from West London (highest property prices in Europe next to Monaco). We have tons of billionaire foreigners from Russia and the Middle-East driving up property prices in my neighbourhood. There are apartments two streets away from my home which go for £5million. It sucks I can't afford to own my own home (yet) but I'm not going to blame it on a lack of freedom. It's the reality of the world we live in. An economy is still better off with billionaires driving prices up than no billionaires at all.
I think you missed the crux of what I was saying. My point about escalating property prices was in response to your post about Singapore having a high standard of living. The point that I raised essentially relates to how being ranked #13 (I think it was) on the standard of living list doesn't quite translate to actual reality because cost of living in Singapore has escalated over the past 5 years or so.

I agree with your second sentence insofar as it relates to private property - I don't, and won't, advocate government subsidies for individuals who want to own private property. That said, the problem that many Singaporeans face has to be taken in its context. We are a small country. There is no clear city/suburb demarcation save for a few parts of Singapore. Save for the high-end parts of Singapore, the price of a private condominium (which is getting smaller in size for whatever reason) is pretty much comparable throughout the rest of the country. I live in a part of Singapore that is quite far from the city centre and new developments around my area easily go for S$1.5 million at least. This was unheard of 5, 10 years ago. And this is clearly a problem which even the government recognises, which is why it stepped in recently and introduced price cooling measures.

Second, the government has a responsibility to ensure that public housing is affordable for its citizens. The PAP government, in fact, has a vested interest in ensuring this because of its emphasis on home ownership (not land, by the way - no one really owns land here) as opposed to home rentals. If it wants Singaporeans to have a stake in a country - which it does - then it has to make public housing affordable for Singaporeans. Before the elections this year, the price of public housing was practically pegged to that of private property. I don't know how it works in other countries but for me, that was absolutely ridiculous. Again, I emphasise that this point relates to Singapore's high standard of living and not not having enough freedom.

Regarding the point about foreigners - what you said works in theory, but in reality the Gini coefficient for Singapore has increased over the past 10 years or so and is one of the highest among developed countries. Clearly, the Singapore economy has benefited from the influx of foreigners, but it has not translated to a proportionate distribution of wealth on the ground. Conversely, guess whose salaries are pegged to GDP growth, among other things? The Cabinet ministers. Would you call this libertarian? I don't know, as a Singaporean I've never felt like the government cared too much about my individual liberty.

Last question: Have you ever lived here?
__________________
"But certain interests of particular people are so important that it would be wrong - morally wrong - for the community to sacrifice those interests just to secure an overall benefit. Political rights mark off and protect these particularly important interests. A political right, we may say, is a trump over the kind of trade-off argument that normally justifies political action." - Ronald Dworkin (RIP)
tripwires is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2011, 03:26 PM   #310
country flag fast_clay
Registered User
 
fast_clay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: ₫ṿﻁᶫỉᾔﺍᶏ
Posts: 15,730
fast_clay has a reputation beyond reputefast_clay has a reputation beyond reputefast_clay has a reputation beyond reputefast_clay has a reputation beyond reputefast_clay has a reputation beyond reputefast_clay has a reputation beyond reputefast_clay has a reputation beyond reputefast_clay has a reputation beyond reputefast_clay has a reputation beyond reputefast_clay has a reputation beyond reputefast_clay has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: US presidential election 2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by tripwires View Post
wow... you have a clear head...
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SelvenluvJo View Post
why are you so seriously
fast_clay is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2011, 06:14 PM   #311
country flag allpro
Registered User
 
allpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,067
allpro has a reputation beyond reputeallpro has a reputation beyond reputeallpro has a reputation beyond reputeallpro has a reputation beyond reputeallpro has a reputation beyond reputeallpro has a reputation beyond reputeallpro has a reputation beyond reputeallpro has a reputation beyond reputeallpro has a reputation beyond reputeallpro has a reputation beyond reputeallpro has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: US presidential election 2012

barring any major scandals or controversies, i think it'll be obama vs romney. as to who wins, that depends on the economy and unemployment level in about 9-10 months from now.
allpro is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2011, 06:48 PM   #312
country flag allpro
Registered User
 
allpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,067
allpro has a reputation beyond reputeallpro has a reputation beyond reputeallpro has a reputation beyond reputeallpro has a reputation beyond reputeallpro has a reputation beyond reputeallpro has a reputation beyond reputeallpro has a reputation beyond reputeallpro has a reputation beyond reputeallpro has a reputation beyond reputeallpro has a reputation beyond reputeallpro has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: US presidential election 2012

....and both are excellent debaters so i expect some lively, intelligent debate. but romney has to pick a moderate, non-polarizing vp candidate to win the general election (i.e. no to santorum, religious right-wingers, etc.).
allpro is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2011, 07:16 PM   #313
country flag Stensland
Registered User
 
Stensland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,227
Stensland has a reputation beyond reputeStensland has a reputation beyond reputeStensland has a reputation beyond reputeStensland has a reputation beyond reputeStensland has a reputation beyond reputeStensland has a reputation beyond reputeStensland has a reputation beyond reputeStensland has a reputation beyond reputeStensland has a reputation beyond reputeStensland has a reputation beyond reputeStensland has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: US presidential election 2012

why would he need to pick a moderate? after all, romney himself is getting flak from the right due to his (according to limbaugh, hannity and the likes) centrist stance on many issues.

i think his presidential campaign will probably look a little like mccain 08: in order to calm the far out radicals, chances are advisors might propose some sort of palinesque vp. romney's got the business credentials just like mccain had the political and military credentials, but both their street creds are a joke.

if romney becomes the nominee, watch out for a major appeasement move.
Stensland is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2011, 07:46 PM   #314
country flag buddyholly
RAVE ON
 
buddyholly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: LUBBOCK TX
Posts: 14,155
buddyholly has a reputation beyond reputebuddyholly has a reputation beyond reputebuddyholly has a reputation beyond reputebuddyholly has a reputation beyond reputebuddyholly has a reputation beyond reputebuddyholly has a reputation beyond reputebuddyholly has a reputation beyond reputebuddyholly has a reputation beyond reputebuddyholly has a reputation beyond reputebuddyholly has a reputation beyond reputebuddyholly has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: US presidential election 2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by allpro View Post
....and both are excellent debaters so i expect some lively, intelligent debate. but romney has to pick a moderate, non-polarizing vp candidate to win the general election (i.e. no to santorum, religious right-wingers, etc.).
Christie is campaigning with him today. Maybe a sign?
__________________
JOIN THE CHURCH OF THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER TODAY
buddyholly is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2011, 07:51 PM   #315
country flag Stensland
Registered User
 
Stensland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,227
Stensland has a reputation beyond reputeStensland has a reputation beyond reputeStensland has a reputation beyond reputeStensland has a reputation beyond reputeStensland has a reputation beyond reputeStensland has a reputation beyond reputeStensland has a reputation beyond reputeStensland has a reputation beyond reputeStensland has a reputation beyond reputeStensland has a reputation beyond reputeStensland has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: US presidential election 2012

christie makes sense in a way as he brings in the giuliani-coulter crowd (who are heavily opposed to romney), but then again there's quite an overlap. both christie and romney speak to the fiscal, monetary side of the republican party, but neither can tap into the whole bible belt reservoir in the south and the midwest.

if i was a christie advisor, i'd tell him to strengthen his game, lose a couple of pounds and give it a hell of a go in 2016. on his own. he's just gonna get burned next year, better skip the mess.
Stensland is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Copyright (C) Verticalscope Inc
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBCredits v1.4 Copyright ©2007, PixelFX Studios