| |
|
|
Reputation:75
Level:Pro
Since:Jul 11, 2008
|
|
great football game AND ITS FREE
HEY GUYS YOU GOTTA TRY THIS FOOTBALL GAME ITS AWESOME, CREATE YOUR OWN PLAYER, NEGOTIATE A CONTRACT ON A TEAM, BUILD YOU PLAYER GAME BY GAME UNTIL HE DOMINATES THE LEAGUE, ALL KINDS OF FUN FORUMS TO TALK SPORTS OR TALK ABOUT THE GAME... BUILD YOUR STA DIUM
CLICK HERE
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signu
p.pl?ref=8175191
|
|
|
Reputation:96
Level:Superstar
Since:Sep 2, 2007
|
I'll start with the economy. On this issue, I believe hands off is better than hands on. Recessions will happen, it's a natural part of the business cycle. You can blame it on the government and government policy often exacerbates it but this is not a direct result of Bush's economics. It's a result of poor investment strategies and lack of proper due dilligence. People putting their money in assets they did not truly understand, assets which were very, very illiquid and entailed more risk than investors should have undertaken. It's true that the feds could cut rates, cut taxes for certain brackets, increase benefits, etc...but then you have moral hazard issues because people are being bailed out by Uncle Sam. In the long run, it's better if they learn the hard way that they can't undertake these sorts of risks. Recessions are tough, but long term economic problems that lead to more recessions are tougher.
As for the free market vs. socialist type policies, the thing you ahve to remember is the free market stimulates innovation. The pharmaceutical industry is a perfect example. We could put price controls on drugs or import them from elsewhere, and yes, that would help individuals afford drugs, but then drug companies would lose out on sales revenue and there would be les smoney for innovative R&D. That means that cures for new diseases will not be forthcoming. I think, personally, it's better that people have trouble affording new drugs than that no new drugs are imported at all.
Finally (and this is not the last issue) let me get to the free trade stuff. We must keep our borders open to trade. Yes, autoworkers and others might lose their job, but that's part of living in a developing economy, I'm afraid. It happened during the Industrial REvolution, it's hapening now, that's what happens when technology progresses. When products or processes are cheaper to do abroad, we need to import them from abroad, because it means consumers here can purchase things cheaper, so thus each dollar owned by that consumer is more valuable. As for the low-paid workers abroad, I assure you, a $1/hour inflation adjusted wage is significantly better than a $0/hour inflation-adjusted wage, and fact of the matter millions of workers would lose their jobs, make $0/hour, and starve if we stopped outsourcing. Living in a broken down home and eating lousy food is better than starving, that much I am certain of.
|
|
|
Reputation:96
Level:Superstar
Since:Sep 2, 2007
|
Now, here's my theory on social policies. I do agree that the government should not endorse a particular religion--that is affront to our Constitution. At the same time, the government must not be hostile toward a particular religion. Pursuing a dogmatic atheist, Michael Moore like agenda is doing this. I'm not saying Obama falls into this category, but it's something that a lot of leftists want in this country. I'm in favor of permitting gays to marry and legalizing abortion, but for instance, I don't think the government should pay for abortions because that is affront to a number of religious groups, and being an atheist nation is no better than being Christian. We should not favor religion, we should not oppose religion. That's what our government needs to do. If Obama is openly hostile to certain sects of Christianity in this country, that would be as bad as Bush being hostile to atheist beliefs. I say government, don't affiliate with religion, but don't oppose religion either.
|
|
|
Reputation:96
Level:Superstar
Since:Sep 2, 2007
|
Now onto foreign policy. This might offend some people, because, fact of the matter is, I've always been more of a hawk than a dove here. The War in Iraq is something I have mixed feelings about. I don't think it was handled properly from a tactical standpoint, but I must say, unfortunately, that you cannot win a war sans casualties. A lot of people supported the war because they felt we'd win easily, then turned against it when people started dying. Well, people die in wars-a lot of people. Sad but true. As I say, the war could have been handled better, but (and here's where I'm going to get some hate, in all likelihood) as Cheney said, if they are dying over there, it means they cannot attack us here. Al Quaeda lost a great many resources in Iraq, and despite the support they get from Saudi oil barons, they cannot match the US in a war of resources. CNN and BBC don't report this, but Al Quaeda has suffered insurmountable losses in Iraq. Their leadership is in shambles, their manpower is down, and a lot of their support has been cut off. Say what you will about the War's problems, but it has weakened Al Quaeda badly.
Next we move to Iran. Here, I think we have to maintain a hardline policy. I'd love to think that we could sit down with Ahmandenijad and Ayatollah Khameni and speak rationally about nuclear programs and nuclear bombs with them, but I simply do not believe these are rational people, in the traditional sense. Iran claims their nuclear program is for energy purposes, but I can't accept this given all the energy already available to them. The consequences of Iran giving a nuke to Al Quadea or Hezbollah could be horribly, horribly disastrous, and I would not put this past Ahmandenijad. We're talking about the deaths of millions upon millions of people. I'd rather we break some international rules and destroy their their nuclear bunkers with some daisy cutters or tactical nukes, even if there is collateral damage, than take the risk of letting millions die from a nuclear strike. Tough decision, but that's what you want in a leader-someone who can make this tough decision.
Then we get to East Asia vs. West Europe. This is becoming more of an issue. When people talk of "international community," they are often referring to the talking heads of Western Europe. However, Western Europe is declining in terms of economic and military influence. Meanwhile, China and India are rising rapidly, and they contain almost half the world's population. I think we should stop worrying about whether France, Spain and the UN like or dislike our policies and start worrying about what future powers in Beijing and New Delhi think. To that end, I think we should give China more power in leading North Korea policy, and rethink our China/Taiwan security policy. We also, most importantly, need to open our borders fully to trade with China and India, problems notwithstanding. It will be crucial to have an open economic relationship with these countries as they grow into world powers. Lastly, it's time we stop treating Japan like it's 1945. The Japanese are not a threat to us--stop these ridiculous controls over how much Japan is allowed to expand. In fact, I'd go further, saying we should help arm Japan's military, going as far as to provide them with nuclear technology. Think about-with Japan and China (no to mention Russia) armed with nukes and surrounding him, Kim Jong Il will have to think twice about attacking South Korea or another neighboring country, don't you think
|
|
|
Reputation:96
Level:Superstar
Since:Sep 2, 2007
|
|
I understand that a lot of people might disagree with what I'm saying, but remember, if you guys shout scream and hate, you are just as bad as the most reactionary elements of our country, who cannot accept opposing viewpoints. And I assure you, you will not convince anyone to vote for your candidate by shouting and screaming.
|
|
