Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
I feel that if we're blown away by a nuclear Iran then gay issues won't mean anything at all. Because there will be no people left. That's why it's a lower priority.
If everything was going well in the world, I'd probably feel that social issues are of the highest importance, but with how things are globally right now, I think these issues quite rightly take a back seat.
You realize what Romney has done for a living, right? In no way does he have the best interests of the average American at heart. I totally believe that what he said about the 47% of Americans, was what he truly feels. If I believed in true evil, Romney would be in that column. The last thing need is another president who has shareholders best interests at heart and not the people, and a president who thinks it is a-okay to put your personal religious beliefs into running a country.
Look at our richest corporations. Where do they expand? Where do they hire out?? Other countries...because they want to avoid paying taxes to their own country, the one that makes them filthy rich. Letting them get away with not paying their fair share of taxes in the name of bringing them back to the US is asinine. Why come back where someone working a factory job will demand $15 an hour plus benefits when they can pay someone .40 cents an hour with no benefits in another country? It's all about the dollar and making people richer, and nothing at all do to with what is best for the average person, we cannot afford to raise their family without $15 an hour and benefits.
Anyone who chooses their vote based on political ads, is an uneducated voter. It's no different than making your vote based on who has the most signs in people's yards, or because the one newspaper you read tells you how to vote. Political ads aren't worth watching. Yes, I see and hear them, no, I don't pay any attention to them because I choose to get my information from facts and not the lies spread on both sides in political ads.
The point about the ads is what I was saying about his interest in celebrity status over his interest in being president.
And, sadly, people do pay attention. They're geared at young, first time voters. How educated is the average 18 year old? Are they watching the debates or are they watching that cool celebrity telling them that Obama rawks?
But, yes, political ads on both sides are just terrible.
I think younger people are far more educated on voting than I was, at least the ones I know, lol. As educated as a politically involved 40 year old, of course not. But they are more aware for sure, even kids my son's age (10th grade) are much more aware and talking about politics. It's included much more in depth in their school studies as well. The first time I voted, it was a local election and I voted for a guy because he was my doctor and was always nice. I didn't even know what I was voting for I don't think. I think most young people are vastly more influenced by who their parents/family vote for, than by ads, overall. It's pretty rare that someone in a family strays from their parents voting patterns. Most families I know who stick to one party or another, you can trace that loyalty back many generations. Thankfully my sister and I converted my mom who was a republican catholic, LOL.
I'm only 24 now, so I'm not too far removed from this generation of first time voters and I can tell you that when I was 18 I got my political views from the music I listened to. I studied politics at 19 and finally got my head on straight lol
But things are a lot different in the UK. Political interest is much lower.
I'm not sure I had political views when I was 18. I really didn't start to develop a view of the world and politics until college. My parents didn't talk about it and I wasn't sure how they voted until many years later (I was probably in my 20s at the time). I honesty don't have a big care about the economy. I feel badly for everyone who has been so affected, but that is not Obama's fault, nor can you fix such a financial disaster in 2 years. We participate as little as possible in the economy because I despise the very idea of it, and capitalism. It's impossible to avoid entirely, but we minimize our involvement the best we can, and if our economy collapsed and had to be rebuilt, I'm not entirely convinced that would be a horrible thing. Short term, yes, horrible experience for people. Long term big picture I'm not sure it would be so bad. The way we live is not sustainable, and it will eventually collapse.
You realize what Romney has done for a living, right? In no way does he have the best interests of the average American at heart. I totally believe that what he said about the 47% of Americans, was what he truly feels. If I believed in true evil, Romney would be in that column. ....
Anyone who chooses their vote based on political ads, is an uneducated voter. ... Political ads aren't worth watching. ...
I need to preface this by saying I'm a card-carrying, money-given-to-the-Obama-campaign, already voted for Obama voter.
But, I agree with half of Romney's 47% comment. He's right. About 40-some% of the American public won't vote for almost any Republican in an election. And 40-some% of the American public won't vote for almost any Democrat in an election. That much he had right.
But to say Romney is "true evil"...my goodness...what hyperbole. I guess you've never been around much evil in your life.
As far as political ads...they teach you a lot. Not necessarily at face value, but when you analyze what they choose to discuss, you learn something about the candidate. When you match their ads with the debates, you learn something about the candidate. The ads teach people far more about a candidate than the candidate sometimes realizes.
I also don't feel it should rest on the shoulders of the US to save the planet from Iran or any other country. I don't see a whole lot in international news about anyone willing to stand up and do something, yet all eyes are on the US to avert a crisis. We have enough problems here, and can't be the saviors for the whole world all the time. Our people can't take it, and neither can our budget. Yet the world expects it.
@Karasti, you're right. One of the dilemmas that America faces in today's world is the "damned if you and damned if you don't" concept. If we do it, we get damned. If we don't do it, we get damned.
Aside from that, he seems to have a much better grasp of foreign policy and issues in the Middle East than Obama does. Everyone laughed when Romney said that Russia pose a great geopolitical threat, but it's frankly the truth.
He understands the problems with countries like Iran, which Obama doesn't seem to get at all. Obama seems to be under the (completely false) impression that we can just all be friends and deal with things nicely and quietly. We can take a look at the recent history of Iran and it's backhanded attempts at gaining nuclear power and see how Iran has taken advantage of our complacency and political correctness. (The Rise of Nuclear Iran by Dore Gold goes into this in great depth).
Hellz yeah, another war in the Middle East is just what we need! The threat of nations like Iraq and Iran are never exaggerated, and the best policy is to strike first because we're the only ones who should be able to determine when another country is able to pursue nuclear technology. And we can totally afford it too.
Romney seems to understand that the biggest issue facing America (within the country) is the state of the economy. He wants to give businesses and wealth makers the opportunity to thrive again whereas Obama appears to want to create even more government involvement. Government is not the solution to the economic crisis, the private sector is.
Yep, Romney really does have working-class America's best interest at heart. I mean, he says he cares about poor and middle-class families and that his policies will make things better for them, and that's good enough for me. I totally think we can trust him to do what's right for America, because less taxes on the wealthy, more privatization and deregulation, and supply-side economics have always worked so well for us in the past. Must be why all those Scandinavian welfare states are such unprosperous shitholes.
I also don't feel it should rest on the shoulders of the US to save the planet from Iran or any other country. I don't see a whole lot in international news about anyone willing to stand up and do something, yet all eyes are on the US to avert a crisis. We have enough problems here, and can't be the saviors for the whole world all the time. Our people can't take it, and neither can our budget. Yet the world expects it.
I don't think so either, that's what I meant by foriegn "nation building" ideas being infantile.
America does, however, have a responsibility to protect itself.
I worked in sex offender treatment programs, I have seen plenty of evil, lol. I don't really believe in evil so much anymore, not in the way I used to. But yes, I do think Romney and others similar to him are evil. To put money above the care of people IS evil. Not in the same grain as kidnapping, torturing, and murdering someone, no. But evil none the less. To put your financial interests above the health and care of other people, yes, I feel that is evil. Deception can be just as evil as horrible acts.
As far as his comment, I take personal issue with his insinuation that people who don't pay taxes, are freeloaders. He knows that when you file taxes, you don't get a say in what you get back, right? That even if you fill out your forms to not receive a tax "handout" they will send it to you anyhow? (I tried it once) We don't pay tax, but it's not by our choice that we don't and short of improperly filing our taxes, we can't control whether they send us refunds or not. We can control there that money goes, and it gets split between donations to various charities (mostly local causes) and our kids savings accounts. But it doesn't make us non tax paying freeloaders, because the refunds are a result of Bush's tax cuts. I find some of what they give out as refunds to be excessive and ridiculous, and they don't take into account at all where someone lives. The money we make is more than enough to sustain us and our family. It's not even close to enough to sustain a family in NYC. I get that. But there's really no reason we should see the same refund as a family in NYC making the same amount, either.
0
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
You know, it's funny, I would say 90% of the people I am surrounded by are voting for Obama. This includes my fb friends list, my friends, my family... It just appears to me that almost everyone I know is voting for Obama and it really made me feel overly secure about this election. But then I was at work last night and the election topic came up... AND EVERYONE WAS PRO-ROMNEY. It startled me, but then I realized... at work I'm surrounded by rich gamblers. These people are so money oriented that even their fun involves money. I really shouldn't have been surprised.
Yes. Romney supporters simply love money and hate poor people :screwy:
0
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
@RebeccaS I didn't say anything about poor people (so maybe that wasn't directed at me? idk) Most of the people I know that are voting republican say it's for fiscal reasons, so it's not as big of a stretch as you might think. I even have gay friends that are voting Republican for "fiscal reasons" and it's just... so strange to me (My tax preparer, not so surprisingly, is one of them). But it is apparently very important to some people.
@zombiegirl I am reading "Ends and Means" by Aldous Huxley and he addresses this behaviour of humans.
Consider, by way of example, the recent history of that main source of evil, the lust for power, the craving for personal success and dominance. In this context we may describe the passage from mediaeval to modern conditions as a passage from violence to cunning, from the conception of power in terms of military prowess and the divine right of aristocracy to its conception in terms of finance. In the earlier period the sword and the patent of nobility are at once the symbols and the instruments of domination. In the later period their place is taken by money.
@RebeccaS Fair enough. But this conversation really got me thinking about my ideas of the parties. For me, it has always sort of boiled down to Democrats trust the government with their money a little more, have more trust and belief in social programs (welfare, SS, medicare, etc)... while Republicans want smaller government and want to keep more of their money, sure that they know what to do with it (like trickle down economics, for example). This usually means higher taxes with democrats and lower taxes with Republicans.
But what do I know... I don't claim that economics are my strong suit. And I'm not going to lie that I wish I lived in some of those 'Scandinavian welfare states' as Jason put it, lol. I just wish people would share more and realize that there is a limit to how much a person really needs. But then there's those that idolize Ayn Rand and her strange everyone-fend-for-themselves altruism-is-a-weakness ideology... and I just don't get it. I realize there's the need for a good middle ground here.
Just out of curiosity, how come you follow American politics so much anyways? I don't even pay attention to Canada's politics even though the border is a hop skip and a jump from me, lol.
I worked in the news media for a while so that's where it started and really, I do try to stay away from politics but I just can't help myself :shake: America is the most powerful country on earth and what happens there affects all of us. Aside from that, we're probably going to end up living there one day so I like to know what's going on.
As for the Ayn Rand lovers... There are people with extreme views on both sides, from the communists on the left to the fascists on the right. They're all as bad as each other.
Except we're the ones who have to live on a daily basis with who is elected, lol. I cried when Bush was elected to a second term. It was so embarrassing. That we re-elected him, not that I cried.
It is interesting how Romney is now completely mum on his "We need to get rid of FEMA and turn all disaster recovery over to local and state government." He was asked 5 times today and refused to answer all 5 of the questions. He flip flops way too much, based on what is popular to say. He felt safe saying to get rid of FEMA a few months ago, today, not so much!
Government is not the solution to the economic crisis, the private sector is.
Correct me if I am wrong, but AFAIK it is exactly the lack of government regulations that allowed the private sector to cause a huge financial crisis, which resulted in the economic crisis you were referring to. So yes, regulation costs money, but lack of regulation can mean losing an incredible amount more. Anyway, I still think that if the US would have spend the 3 trillion dollars spend on wars (estimated costs of the iraq and afghanistan wars by 2017, that is 3 million million dollars, nicely depicted here) in a more sensible way (health care, education, green technologies), the situation could have been different.
4
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
I guess I don't know how larger businesses run but I'd think that they'd start hiring more people because they have more customers and higher demand rather than a little larger tax cut. When the working class have decent paying jobs with money left over at the end of the month to me THAT is what stimulates an economy. Also employer provided health care keeps people tied to jobs when they may want to be all entreprenurial but can't afford the premiums or get coverage due to a pre-existing condition.
On the other hand if you really think about it trickle down economics works because when the large get more to drink they grow and their bladders would get bigger too allowing them to trickle down more onto the rest of us.
It seems to me larger corporations hold the rest of us hostage, saying "We can't afford to hire more people and grow our business because taxes cost too much, lower taxes and we'll provide more jobs!" Well, first, that's a bunch of baloney. Second, hiring more people to work for $7 an hour at Walmart or Best Buy is not going to help the economy one bit.
Sure, most people will take a job over no job. That wasn't my point. My point was that adding jobs like that does nothing to fix our economy, because people making $7 an hour still cannot afford to put money into the economy, and are still in need of welfare assistance. They still cannot stand on their own 2 feet, and they certainly don't have enough money to put into things that help build up our economy.
1
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Just got push polled for my congressional race. Started with normal questions then came in with, and I'm paraphrasing, "The candidate we don't you to vote for called the candidate we do want you to vote for a big, fat doody head in the last debate. Does knowing this make you more likely or less likely to vote for the wrong candidate?" And I'm in a solidly democratic district in a democratic state, I feel for those in swing states.
Sure, most people will take a job over no job. That wasn't my point. My point was that adding jobs like that does nothing to fix our economy, because people making $7 an hour still cannot afford to put money into the economy, and are still in need of welfare assistance. They still cannot stand on their own 2 feet, and they certainly don't have enough money to put into things that help build up our economy.
Except housing, food, clothing, electricity... The economy isn't just non-essential items.
Probably not, but I'm sure you're outnumbered because, as a Buddhist website, most people here recognise Obama's greater compassion and understanding towards all people, versus Romney's policies that serve the rich and socially conservative.
Probably not, but I'm sure you're outnumbered because, as a Buddhist website, most people here recognise Obama's greater compassion and understanding towards all people, versus Romney's policies that serve the rich and socially conservative.
Sleepy, mostly. I remain interesting by staying away from stereotypes and tropes that serve the best interests of no one and by avoiding the implication that people who have different political viewpoints to me are somehow less compassionate or caring (except, of course, in the cases of extremists).
They can't afford to buy clothing, much of the time. Electricity is paid for by welfare/energy assistance. Rent is paid for with rent assistance, and in the case of most landlords, the money ends up going back into property. Food stamps for food. People who make $7 an hour don't own homes. The point is, people cannot live on $7 an hour without assistance, so walmart claiming they are helping the economy by providing jobs with no benefits (they very frequently hold employees to fewer hours than the law requires them to give benefits to) just isn't true. That is the entire point. People who make retail wages, can't afford any of those things, so they get assistance. They certainly can't afford anything extra. Yet Romney and his buddies want you to believe Walmart hiring more people would help the economy so that is why they should get more tax breaks. One of the biggest tellers of how the economy doing, is the consumer confidence index...which means people are spending money at stores, buying cars, etc and not putting it in savings. People who don't make anything never get there. Giving them jobs doesn't help the economy in any sort of measurable way.
Sleepy, mostly. I remain interesting by staying away from stereotypes and tropes that serve the best interests of no one and by avoiding the implication that people who have different political viewpoints to me are somehow less compassionate or caring (except, of course, in the cases of extremists).
Me too (Sleepy, that is. I have little 'uns).
Please understand I wasn't implying YOU are not compassionate: I was saying that all Buddhists value compassion (including yourself) and that most Buddhists (but obviously not you) view Obama and his policies as being more compassionate that Romney's.
Namaste
0
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
You know, I'm so far from rich... but even so... I refuse to shop at Walmart. I'm a horrible spend thrift who actually enjoys shopping, so I literally don't even let myself walk into the store. I don't want to know about the sales!!!
Not that I think anyone on this website is unaware of the evils of Walmart, but here is a documentary on youtube called Walmart: The High Cost of Low Prices that really opened my eyes as to HOW horrible that company is for our economy. I can't really blame people for shopping there because everyone's so broke that they have to do what they have to do to save a buck... but imo, shopping at Walmart is the equivalent to sending jobs overseas. Walmart has literally ruined companies because they refused to send their operations to China. Yuck.
And since it's Halloween and this is the political thread... this seems relevant:
My wife finally voted for the first time in her life. I am proud of her.
I just hope she voted for Jill Stein of the Green Party, but I assume she voted for Obama.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Buddhist monk Mattieu Ricard kind of throws his 2 cents into the ring around the election.
Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan recommends the reading of Ayn Rand’s writings to all his collaborators. Does the United States of America truly want to have a leader whose ideal is to promote selfishness in society? I am convinced that selfishness makes life miserable not only for all those around us, but for ourselves as well.
Ayn Rand is indeed a puzzling enigma. Although she is practically unknown in Europe and in the rest of the world, she continues to have a significant influence on American society. In a 1991 opinion poll conducted by the United States Library of Congress, Atlas Shrugged, her major work, was cited as the most influential book after the Bible. President Reagan and Alan Greenspan were known admirers of Ayn Rand and so is Paul Ryan.
Ayn Rand does not think that we are all fundamentally selfish by nature. Rather, she advocates that we should be selfish if we want to live a good life. For her, altruism/compassion is a masochistic vice that threatens our very survival, leads us to neglect our own happiness. According to her, altruism is not only undesirable, but it is immoral. She believes that our own personal happiness is the only thing that matters in life, and that by caring for others we will become like slaves and, in her own words, “sacrificial animals”. She promotes the virtue of selfishness and contends that, “The attack on selfishness is an attack on man’s self-esteem.”...
...The main argument developed by Ayn Rand is that “the achievement of his own happiness is man’s highest moral purpose.” But believing that man must be selfish in order to be happy is Rand’s tragic mistake. Experience and science prove that the extreme selfishness she advocates is a recipe for suffering, not for happiness. This, in fact, appears to have been the case of Rand herself who was described by those who knew her well as haughty, narcissistic, devoid of empathy, and rather unhappy. Her relationships with her close entourage were filled with animosity and vindictiveness and she despised the vast majority of human beings as “mediocre, stupid, and irrational.” ...
Among the many things I love about this article is how it tries to imply that Obama, solely based on guilt by association, is some kind of radical, gay, Muslim, Kenyan Marxist who's partly responsible for Christian women and children being burnt alive in a Kenyan church by angry Muslims, and whose family dressed in black and red on election night because those colours denote black power, Malcolm X, and communism. Which is totally obvious, by the way, because where could one possibly even find a store that sells black dresses for little girls if not the Little Miss Black Power, Malcolm X, and Communism Store? This little gem has it all, red-baiting, homophobia, Islamophobia, xenophobia, you name it. Prepare to be dazzled.
If I had a vote in the US, it would go to Obama, because of the two candidates who have a real chance of winning he is the lesser evil.
In my country I’m moderately left. But in our political landscape Obama’s ideas are too far to the right to be in the political landscape at all. Accepting the death penalty, accepting a constitutional right to keep guns, accepting a large percentage of the country’s population living under the poverty line, allowing for extremely wealthy people to pay virtually no taxes; that is just unthinkable.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Among the many things I love about this article is how it tries to imply that Obama, solely based on guilt by association, is some kind of radical, gay, Muslim, Kenyan Marxist who's partly responsible for Christian women and children being burnt alive in a Kenyan church by angry Muslims, and whose family dressed in black and red on election night because those colours denote black power, Malcolm X, and communism. Which is totally obvious, by the way, because where could one possibly even find a store that sells black dresses for little girls if not the Little Miss Black Power, Malcolm X, and Communism Store? This little gem has it all, red-baiting, homophobia, Islamophobia, xenophobia, you name it. Prepare to be dazzled.
Kind of makes me wish I'd voted for him.
That article just happens to be posted today, for some reason I kind of thought that sort of stuff just happened to be a thing of the past. Mind blowing imploding.
Why would anyone consider voting for Romney ? Let alone any Buddhist.
I hate politics.
We have all these conversations about how it's not for us to say what makes a good or a bad Buddhist, but for some reason, that doesn't apply when it comes to politics? It's ridiculous.
I can't tell if politics just brings out the worst in people or if it makes us show our true colors.
Why would anyone consider voting for Romney ? Let alone any Buddhist.
Everyone has a different viewpoint on social issues. I have some friends who are wonderful people...and they are for Romney. I have some friends who are not such wonderful people...and they are for Obama. Of course, then there's me -- perfect in every way -- and I'm for Obama. :eek:
I have known people who have literally said, "Why would anyone consider being Buddhist?"
The experiences each person has had make each person a very unique individual.
Why would anyone consider voting for Romney ? Let alone any Buddhist.
Everyone has a different viewpoint on social issues. I have some friends who are wonderful people...and they are for Romney. I have some friends who are not such wonderful people...and they are for Obama. Of course, then there's me -- perfect in every way -- and I'm for Obama. :eek:
I have known people who have literally said, "Why would anyone consider being Buddhist?"
The experiences each person has had make each person a very unique individual.
Everyone is entitled to their own viewpoints however you have to look at the evidence, Bain Capital, Repeated Flip Flopping, His stance on corporations, Proposed Tax cuts for the wealthy ( now I wonder who will pay for that ? ) repeated mistruths, Bush like foreign policy ideas and the crazy baggage of the Republican party he will bring along with him when he gets into office...Need I say anymore ?
If your personal ethics are Logic and Compassion this would not be the guy to vote for Obama is certainly the more prefered candidate. At least outside of America.
^^ It isn't that I disagree with you on who the best choice is, it's a sort of elitist attitude that your viewpoint in superior to at least 47% of the people (his current standing in the most recent poll).
Comments
If everything was going well in the world, I'd probably feel that social issues are of the highest importance, but with how things are globally right now, I think these issues quite rightly take a back seat.
Look at our richest corporations. Where do they expand? Where do they hire out?? Other countries...because they want to avoid paying taxes to their own country, the one that makes them filthy rich. Letting them get away with not paying their fair share of taxes in the name of bringing them back to the US is asinine. Why come back where someone working a factory job will demand $15 an hour plus benefits when they can pay someone .40 cents an hour with no benefits in another country? It's all about the dollar and making people richer, and nothing at all do to with what is best for the average person, we cannot afford to raise their family without $15 an hour and benefits.
Anyone who chooses their vote based on political ads, is an uneducated voter. It's no different than making your vote based on who has the most signs in people's yards, or because the one newspaper you read tells you how to vote. Political ads aren't worth watching. Yes, I see and hear them, no, I don't pay any attention to them because I choose to get my information from facts and not the lies spread on both sides in political ads.
And, sadly, people do pay attention. They're geared at young, first time voters. How educated is the average 18 year old? Are they watching the debates or are they watching that cool celebrity telling them that Obama rawks?
But, yes, political ads on both sides are just terrible.
But things are a lot different in the UK. Political interest is much lower.
But, I agree with half of Romney's 47% comment. He's right. About 40-some% of the American public won't vote for almost any Republican in an election. And 40-some% of the American public won't vote for almost any Democrat in an election. That much he had right.
But to say Romney is "true evil"...my goodness...what hyperbole. I guess you've never been around much evil in your life.
As far as political ads...they teach you a lot. Not necessarily at face value, but when you analyze what they choose to discuss, you learn something about the candidate. When you match their ads with the debates, you learn something about the candidate. The ads teach people far more about a candidate than the candidate sometimes realizes.
America does, however, have a responsibility to protect itself.
As far as his comment, I take personal issue with his insinuation that people who don't pay taxes, are freeloaders. He knows that when you file taxes, you don't get a say in what you get back, right? That even if you fill out your forms to not receive a tax "handout" they will send it to you anyhow? (I tried it once) We don't pay tax, but it's not by our choice that we don't and short of improperly filing our taxes, we can't control whether they send us refunds or not. We can control there that money goes, and it gets split between donations to various charities (mostly local causes) and our kids savings accounts. But it doesn't make us non tax paying freeloaders, because the refunds are a result of Bush's tax cuts. I find some of what they give out as refunds to be excessive and ridiculous, and they don't take into account at all where someone lives. The money we make is more than enough to sustain us and our family. It's not even close to enough to sustain a family in NYC. I get that. But there's really no reason we should see the same refund as a family in NYC making the same amount, either.
But the conservatives just love money trope is just as boring and untrue as the liberals are just plain stupid trope.
@RebeccaS Fair enough. But this conversation really got me thinking about my ideas of the parties. For me, it has always sort of boiled down to Democrats trust the government with their money a little more, have more trust and belief in social programs (welfare, SS, medicare, etc)... while Republicans want smaller government and want to keep more of their money, sure that they know what to do with it (like trickle down economics, for example). This usually means higher taxes with democrats and lower taxes with Republicans.
But what do I know... I don't claim that economics are my strong suit. And I'm not going to lie that I wish I lived in some of those 'Scandinavian welfare states' as Jason put it, lol. I just wish people would share more and realize that there is a limit to how much a person really needs. But then there's those that idolize Ayn Rand and her strange everyone-fend-for-themselves altruism-is-a-weakness ideology... and I just don't get it. I realize there's the need for a good middle ground here.
Just out of curiosity, how come you follow American politics so much anyways? I don't even pay attention to Canada's politics even though the border is a hop skip and a jump from me, lol.
As for the Ayn Rand lovers... There are people with extreme views on both sides, from the communists on the left to the fascists on the right. They're all as bad as each other.
It is interesting how Romney is now completely mum on his "We need to get rid of FEMA and turn all disaster recovery over to local and state government." He was asked 5 times today and refused to answer all 5 of the questions. He flip flops way too much, based on what is popular to say. He felt safe saying to get rid of FEMA a few months ago, today, not so much!
The bartender says, "Hi Mitt!"
On the other hand if you really think about it trickle down economics works because when the large get more to drink they grow and their bladders would get bigger too allowing them to trickle down more onto the rest of us.
We need a sleepy/boring emoticon.
Please understand I wasn't implying YOU are not compassionate: I was saying that all Buddhists value compassion (including yourself) and that most Buddhists (but obviously not you) view Obama and his policies as being more compassionate that Romney's.
Namaste
Not that I think anyone on this website is unaware of the evils of Walmart, but here is a documentary on youtube called Walmart: The High Cost of Low Prices that really opened my eyes as to HOW horrible that company is for our economy. I can't really blame people for shopping there because everyone's so broke that they have to do what they have to do to save a buck... but imo, shopping at Walmart is the equivalent to sending jobs overseas. Walmart has literally ruined companies because they refused to send their operations to China. Yuck.
And since it's Halloween and this is the political thread... this seems relevant:
I just hope she voted for Jill Stein of the Green Party, but I assume she voted for Obama.
Can It All Be Coincidence?
Among the many things I love about this article is how it tries to imply that Obama, solely based on guilt by association, is some kind of radical, gay, Muslim, Kenyan Marxist who's partly responsible for Christian women and children being burnt alive in a Kenyan church by angry Muslims, and whose family dressed in black and red on election night because those colours denote black power, Malcolm X, and communism. Which is totally obvious, by the way, because where could one possibly even find a store that sells black dresses for little girls if not the Little Miss Black Power, Malcolm X, and Communism Store? This little gem has it all, red-baiting, homophobia, Islamophobia, xenophobia, you name it. Prepare to be dazzled.
Kind of makes me wish I'd voted for him.
In my country I’m moderately left. But in our political landscape Obama’s ideas are too far to the right to be in the political landscape at all.
Accepting the death penalty, accepting a constitutional right to keep guns, accepting a large percentage of the country’s population living under the poverty line, allowing for extremely wealthy people to pay virtually no taxes; that is just unthinkable.
blowingimploding.We have all these conversations about how it's not for us to say what makes a good or a bad Buddhist, but for some reason, that doesn't apply when it comes to politics? It's ridiculous.
I can't tell if politics just brings out the worst in people or if it makes us show our true colors.
I have known people who have literally said, "Why would anyone consider being Buddhist?"
The experiences each person has had make each person a very unique individual.
If your personal ethics are Logic and Compassion this would not be the guy to vote for Obama is certainly the more prefered candidate. At least outside of America.