What type of policy means the most to you?

[Guest BDC]

I only assumed that given that you've been upset by less. Even around here knows that Rant's a bit crazy, but you took offense to that.

 

Regardless, there's a topic here...

 

I'm more of a foreign affairs person myself. I personally believe that I'll just deal with my economic concerns myself.

[Guest Kamui]

I only assumed that given that you've been upset by less. Even around here knows that Rant's a bit crazy, but you took offense to that.

 

Regardless, there's a topic here...

 

I'm more of a foreign affairs person myself. I personally believe that I'll just deal with my economic concerns myself.

"I'm not surprised." is me being upset? Zuh? Do you even know what you're typing anymore?

[Guest BDC]

Let it drop, it's not important, okay? There's an actual topic for people to discuss.

[AndrewTS 0]

I care about foreign policy but no candiate's going to share mine anyway

 

Kamui's foreign policy: kiss Japan's ass with few/little/no major trade restrictions, and trust the U.N. to take care of any international conflicts, I'm assuming?

 

Yes, well, I have to contribute SOMETHING to this board other than neo-nazi propaganda and a whole lot of gheyness, right?

 

Naw, stick with what you know.

 

Anyway, social issues are extremely important to me--and are mostly opposite of Kamui's. They're not a priority.

 

Right now, the economy is the problem we've got to deal with. However, I can't see how the hell you could say that foreign policy and economic policy are two separate things. They're VERY closely tied together because foreign policy affects international trade which has a huge effect on the economy.

[Styles 0]

However, I can't see how the hell you could say that foreign policy and economic policy are two separate things. They're VERY closely tied together because foreign policy affects international trade which has a huge effect on the economy.

Shhhhh, you'll confuse him!

[Guest Kamui]

However, I can't see how the hell you could say that foreign policy and economic policy are two separate things.  They're VERY closely tied together because foreign policy affects international trade which has a huge effect on the economy.

Shhhhh, you'll confuse him!

Yeah, fuck you.

 

 

Anyway, Andrew- sure, they're connected, but they aren't the same thing. I suppose I should have clarified myself, though (even though everyone except you seems to get it)- by economic I meant more domestic economic, and by foreign policy I meant more our relations with other nations (so while this could include our economical relations, some people will still find domestic economical concerns to be more important- hence why I inlcuded it as a seperate option rather than lumping it all together).

 

And on what my foreign policy is- I already clearly stated I'm an isoloatinist. It's not my fault if you don't know how to read.

[Styles 0]

And on what my foreign policy is- I already clearly stated I'm an isoloatinist. It's not my fault if you don't know how to read.

An isolationist. Ok. Last time we tried that, world war broke out. And hmmm, how exactly would you handle countries sponsoring terrorists flying planes into our buildings? Sitting there and doing nothing?

[Guest Kamui]

And on what my foreign policy is- I already clearly stated I'm an isoloatinist. It's not my fault if you don't know how to read.

An isolationist. Ok. Last time we tried that, world war broke out. And hmmm, how exactly would you handle countries sponsoring terrorists flying planes into our buildings? Sitting there and doing nothing?

Not FUNDING THEM and then pissing them off by sticking our noses in conflicts that have no relevance to us, for one.

[Styles 0]

And on what my foreign policy is- I already clearly stated I'm an isoloatinist. It's not my fault if you don't know how to read.

An isolationist. Ok. Last time we tried that, world war broke out. And hmmm, how exactly would you handle countries sponsoring terrorists flying planes into our buildings? Sitting there and doing nothing?

Not FUNDING THEM and then pissing them off by sticking our noses in conflicts that have no relevance to us, for one.

OOh, zing, or something...

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about...

[AndrewTS 0]

"Domestic economic concerns?" So would that or would that not include multi-national corporations who build factories and plants in places other than their countries of origin? Or tariffs on imports?

 

If you're talking policies that affect us and us along (of which there are few), then I assume you mean the dilemma of higher taxes and more social welfare spending vs. lower taxes and less social welfare spending. Of course, that spills over into "social" policy as well.

 

However, we weren't asking which type of economic policy matters more, but rather which type of policy among those three.

 

I don't think that everyone but me gets it, I just think no one but me has considered the question as thoroughly.

 

As for foreign policy, I'm assuming what you're getting at is "how much and how aggressively should the U.S. be involved in foreign conflicts."

 

"It's not my fault if you don't know how to read."

 

Que? I basically said what it was--leave it up to the U.N. If you're isolationalist, it's only that option aside from "do nothing" (the two are quite similar anyway).

 

I don't see how you could really be an isolationalist. The U.S. is too powerful to be isolationalist anymore, especially since the world has shrunk as the U.S. has grown. We're the big fish, so we're expected to do something. If not, we'll be drawn into other conflicts anyway.

[Guest Kamui]

Obviously most issues will spill out into more than one of these three types- however, that doesn't mean you can't care about one more than the other.

 

And on the isolationist thing- well, I wouldn't have gotten to the point we're at now, but anyway, you're right, the COUNTRY itself can't practice isolationism now, because of the hole we've dug ourself into. It doesn't mean that I personally can't be an isolationist, though- especially considering the nation I plan to move to someday.

[Styles 0]

I don't see how you could really be an isolationalist. The U.S. is too powerful to be isolationalist anymore, especially since the world has shrunk as the U.S. has grown. We're the big fish, so we're expected to do something. If not, we'll be drawn into other conflicts anyway.

If the US doesn't get involved in a world conflict we're being evil, greedy, selfish isolationists that don't want to take the responsibility that comes with our great wealth and strength.

If the US does get involved in a world vonflict we're being evil, greedy, selfish imperialists trying to use our wealth and strength to kill the innocent and colonize countries for our own gain.

You can't win...

[Guest Kamui]

I don't see how you could really be an isolationalist.  The U.S. is too powerful to be isolationalist anymore, especially since the world has shrunk as the U.S. has grown.  We're the big fish, so we're expected to do something.  If not, we'll be drawn into other conflicts anyway.

If the US doesn't get involved in a world conflict we're being evil, greedy, selfish isolationists that don't want to take the responsibility that comes with our great wealth and strength.

If the US does get involved in a world vonflict we're being evil, greedy, selfish imperialists trying to use our wealth and strength to kill the innocent and colonize countries for our own gain.

You can't win...

You mean there's people on one side of a debate and then people on another side of it? WHAT A CRAPPY WORLD WE LIVE IN!

[AndrewTS 0]

I don't see how you could really be an isolationalist.  The U.S. is too powerful to be isolationalist anymore, especially since the world has shrunk as the U.S. has grown.  We're the big fish, so we're expected to do something.  If not, we'll be drawn into other conflicts anyway.

If the US doesn't get involved in a world conflict we're being evil, greedy, selfish isolationists that don't want to take the responsibility that comes with our great wealth and strength.

If the US does get involved in a world vonflict we're being evil, greedy, selfish imperialists trying to use our wealth and strength to kill the innocent and colonize countries for our own gain.

You can't win...

Exactly. The only way to make the rest of the world (read: jealous Europeans) happy would be for America to cease to exist so they could get back to bitching about their high taxes, extremely ineffective state-sponsored health care, and high unemployment rates.

 

And on the isolationist thing- well, I wouldn't have gotten to the point we're at now, but anyway, you're right, the COUNTRY itself can't practice isolationism now, because of the hole we've dug ourself into. It doesn't mean that I personally can't be an isolationist, though- especially considering the nation I plan to move to someday.

 

I'm sure you'd love living in a nation more capitalist than the United States--unless you're not moving to Japan.

[Guest Cerebus]

Obviously most issues will spill out into more than one of these three types- however, that doesn't mean you can't care about one more than the other.

 

And on the isolationist thing- well, I wouldn't have gotten to the point we're at now, but anyway, you're right, the COUNTRY itself can't practice isolationism now, because of the hole we've dug ourself into. It doesn't mean that I personally can't be an isolationist, though- especially considering the nation I plan to move to someday.

Yeah yeah you're moving to Japan we get it. (Which isn't that isolationist just b/c they don't send troops everywhere)

 

Actually, these issues aren't always THAT well defined. Bush's "Faith Baised Organizations" is that social or economic? Trimming the 87 billion dollars in Iraq grant. Economic or foreign? *shrug* Some are more obvious than others that's all. Personally I thought your poll was a good idea, but your comments aren't.

[Guest Kamui]

I'm sure you'd love living in a nation more capitalist than the United States--unless you're not moving to Japan.

Show me where I said I had a problem with capitalism. I'm not a communist.

 

Actually, if you remember that thread where we ended up taking the political compass results, my economical result was MUCH more conservative than my social one (-3.something for economic, -6.something for social)- and certainly more to the right than other liberals on this board. Generally, probably from being raised in a wealthy family, I have MUCH less problems with conservative economics than I do with conservative social or foreign policies.

[AndrewTS 0]

If you favor "conservative economics" where do you expect to get the money to fund all those expensive social welfare programs?

 

Hell, given the choice, I think every politicial, left or right-leaning, would like to be able to say they're going to cut taxes or keep them the same rate. In practice though, you can't really do it.

 

Although, personally what should be done is to use the money that is being spent more effectively. As it is, there's a lot of waste.

[Guest Kamui]

Although, personally what should be done is to use the money that is being spent more effectively.  As it is, there's a lot of waste.

Agreed. I liked your Swedish example- are the Swedish REALLY in such danger of being attacked that they need our military presence there year-round?

[AndrewTS 0]

Although, personally what should be done is to use the money that is being spent more effectively.  As it is, there's a lot of waste.

Agreed. I liked your Swedish example- are the Swedish REALLY in such danger of being attacked that they need our military presence there year-round?

Not really. Maybe there's SOME good reason for it, but damned if I know what it is.

[Guest Kamui]

Although, personally what should be done is to use the money that is being spent more effectively.  As it is, there's a lot of waste.

Agreed. I liked your Swedish example- are the Swedish REALLY in such danger of being attacked that they need our military presence there year-round?

Not really. Maybe there's SOME good reason for it, but damned if I know what it is.

This is why I always roll my eyes when it comes to the Democrats and their crazy social program spending- why doesn't anyone ever talk about all the useless money spent by BOTH parties (but probably moreso the Republicians) on the military that could be put to much better use back home?

 

I remember a joke around the time all those Afghan reforms came up- they want to give them nice streets and schools. Hey, I know another place that could use them- it's called NEW YORK CITY.

[AndrewTS 0]

This is why I always roll my eyes when it comes to the Democrats and their crazy social program spending- why doesn't anyone ever talk about all the useless money spent by BOTH parties (but probably moreso the Republicians) on the military that could be put to much better use back home?

 

I think a strong military is important, don't get me wrong, but when your army, navy, air force, and marines are about ten times as powerful than any possible threat (okay, China has the edge in the army, but that's it) and you have nukes on top of that, I think you can afford to cut down.

 

I remember a joke around the time all those Afghan reforms came up- they want to give them nice streets and schools. Hey, I know another place that could use them- it's called NEW YORK CITY.

 

How about Washington, D.C.? The politicians don't dare send their children to the public schools there.

[Guest Kamui]

I think a strong military is important, don't get me wrong, but when your army, navy, air force, and marines are about ten times as powerful than any possible threat (okay, China has the edge in the army, but that's it) and you have nukes on top of that, I think you can afford to cut down.

 

Exactly. How much more money do we have to put in? It's not like anyone's going to be passing us up anytime soon.

 

 

How about Washington, D.C.? The politicians don't dare send their children to the public schools there.

 

Yeah, I've always found the horrible state of our nation's capital to be pretty ironic, given the circumstances.

[Justice 0]

I think a strong military is important, don't get me wrong, but when your army, navy, air force, and marines are about ten times as powerful than any possible threat (okay, China has the edge in the army, but that's it) and you have nukes on top of that, I think you can afford to cut down.

Well, think of it this way: All that useless money that we spend on the military goes into things like body armor, better tanks with stronger armor, faster flying jets, more accurate missiles. One shouldn't only consider that we have to upkeep the current military but must plan ahead and keep it on the cutting edge so we can enjoy that advantage in peace-keeping around the world.

 

How about Washington, D.C.? The politicians don't dare send their children to the public schools there.

 

Didn't Mike bring up the fact that kids in D.C. generally tend to get more money per student than any district in the US? Money =/= Better grades. We have a similar problem in Detroit: It's called being 'top-heavy'. The current supervisor here makes $600,000 (he should NEVER be making more money than the President of the United States), plus he hired a dozen advisors on for six-figure salaries. Cut down on the administrative crap and get the money to the schools is what I say.

[Guest Kamui]

Well, think of it this way: All that useless money that we spend on the military goes into things like body armor, better tanks with stronger armor, faster flying jets, more accurate missiles. One shouldn't only consider that we have to upkeep the current military but must plan ahead and keep it on the cutting edge so we can enjoy that advantage in peace-keeping around the world.

Okay, but is that really more important than improving our own quality of life here and why do we need to have military bases in Sweden again?

[Justice 0]

Well, think of it this way: All that useless money that we spend on the military goes into things like body armor, better tanks with stronger armor, faster flying jets, more accurate missiles. One shouldn't only consider that we have to upkeep the current military but must plan ahead and keep it on the cutting edge so we can enjoy that advantage in peace-keeping around the world.

Okay, but is that really more important than improving our own quality of life here and why do we need to have military bases in Sweden again?

Most likely because of NATO and the fact that Sweden can't afford a military without raising their taxes another 10%.

[Guest BDC]

It's a favor to the Swedes, pretty much. By having a military base there, it's an indirect economic gift to them, just politically veiled.

[The Czech Republic 0]

I'm all for economic and social policy. I want a prosperous and clean nation.

 

So you're moving to Japan, eh Kamui. Are you of Japanese descent, by chance? Because if you're a Caucasian in an Osaka or a Tokyo, you're going to have a hard time making it unless you're really got something to offer to a prospective employer. I mean, Koreans that live in Japan are looked down on by the 99% Japanese population, to say nothing of any fair-skinned Americans.

 

But hey, if you want to be on an island in an oversaturated job market, living in a laughably tiny and pathetically expensive apartment, trying to cram your body into the subway every day, then hell, just move to Manhattan.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I think a strong military is important, don't get me wrong, but when your army, navy, air force, and marines are about ten times as powerful than any possible threat (okay, China has the edge in the army, but that's it) and you have nukes on top of that, I think you can afford to cut down.

 

Money put into the military is never a waste. Remember the militarty is responsible for almost all of the technology advances of the last 30 years. Military spending covers a wide range of things.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I voted Social because I'm not going to vote for someone who's going to spin civil rights back 30 years no matter how good a leader they be.

 

My heart though wants to vote Economic. As for foreign, wars come and go, but money is a constant.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Oh my God. Can you guys go one thread without trying to flame the poor kid?