FA Discussion => Off Topic => Topic started by: Anonymous on August 18, 2004, 07:10:02 pm
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 18, 2004, 07:10:02 pm
Yes, I have made this thread. Yes, knowing the members of our clan, it will be locked after ten posts. Yes, I know nearly all the arguments will turn into personal attacks. But I'm hoping we can get at least one good conversation going on here without disintegrating to that.
First Topic: How does the U.S. look to other countrys now?
Yes, the forums do not allow for U....thanks Tbone.
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 18, 2004, 07:20:08 pm
No way U....
Well, I'll be darned sure doesn't. I would imagine we aren't viewed as highly as one would think.
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 18, 2004, 07:21:00 pm
How does the US look to other countrys now?
Are you referring to the US in general, or are you talking about Bush or the Republican party or what?
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 18, 2004, 07:26:44 pm
The United States in general.....
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 18, 2004, 08:26:43 pm
I've said this once before, and I'll say it again. If Ignorance is bliss, I want to be the most apathetic person on earth. Who cares about what other countries think of us, we don't live there, we live here.
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 19, 2004, 03:32:56 am
Hey all, before I begin my post (or rant, whatever) I just want to say that I am an open minded person and I judge people as individuals, not as a nation or type, IE: If you're French I don't nessasarilly <sp?> think that you were against the US going into the middle east. Got it? Good :)
Now fo the meat and potato(e)s of my post. I'm not a very political person, never have been but recently I've been paying more and more attention after learning a few things in history that have been slipped past the American people with or without their consent.. In the mid part of the 20th century the government of this great country, in it's infinte wisdom, decided to ban a past time that many Americans love, even to this day. Drinking. It was called prohabition and it caused alot more trouble then it was worth. Now I'll admit to being lazy and not looking up all the facts on the subject but I find it very hard to believe that the majority in the US held this law in high regard. I would evn hazard to say that many people did not support it, hence the reason the mayor of New York eventually started it's downfall by repealling it in his state.
Now that being just an example how many people in AMerica do you think honestly have a say in the way our country is run anymore? Now I like to think of myself as an intelligent person though I have made some horrid choices in my life and am now stuck in retail jobs until I can save money and get my fat buttocks back to school so I know where I stand in the job market but bear with me for a moment. I once heard a politician say (his name escapes me at the moment) that America is the consumer for the world, we didn't need to worry about manufacturing anything the rest of the world would want or need because we buy it and thereby stabilize global economy. The repoter then asked him exactly how the majority of Americans, being of working class, were supposed to fund this wonderful idea at wich the politician had no answer. Now there's something you don't see every day, a speechless polotician and it sort of struck me as funny how out of touch with the people they rule that our government really is.
They expect us to be good little consumers and buy buy buy but never really alow us to make enough money to do so. There's credit, sure, and if you know how to use it properly it's a great thing, but where were my mandatory finance classes in the mid 90's so I knew exactly how to handle my credit? I know I know, I dug my own hole now I have to lie in it, and I'm clawing my way out, slowly but surely.
What's this got to do with the price of tea in China, you might ask, well I'll tell you. See to be completely honest the US is basicly the most powerfull nation on the planet, that's not a brag, because I'm not proud of it, it's simple fact. If the US were to go under the global economy would be ruined. There's honestly not another nation that could ever invade the US and terrorist action, though in the news almost daily, is actually quie low when compared to other contries. This brings us to the things that will eventually bring us down. It's the ruling class of the nation.
Ever read history? It's quite interesting actually, especially if you look at the line of Presidents we've had through time, it all started with Washington, who was a wealthy land owner and I would like to believe had the best intrests of the nation at heart. On through great men like Jefferson, Lincoln, JFK, Carter and even Reagan did -SOME- good things for this nation. But why has it changed from anyone being able to run to only the wealthy being able to run? Oh sure I understand it takes money to run a campaign but why can't Joe Blow down the street one day wake up and decide he'd like to have a say in the way this nation is run instead of allowing it to tread all over his back? I mean Joes a good guy, he's a family man, never had a run in with the "law", maybe did a little hell raising as a teen but nothing that would ever be consdered serious and he truely wants to keep this nation great.
Votes you say, voting is how we make our voices heard, sure, worked great in Florida didn't it? I mean the fact that Jeb Bush is in charge over there had nothing to do with his brother being elected did it, that would be underhanded wouldn't it? Anyhow, I digress. Voteing isn't all people think it's cracked up to be, ever hear of the Electorial College? It's representatives from every state that are supposed to vote in favor of the majoritie's of their said state and thereby make counting the votes a bit easier in the end but there's no law that says they can't vote for whoever they like, at least not to my knowledge, if I'm wrong please educate me :) Now that basicly means if this person doesn't agree with my choice he can say whatever he feels. Yep, my vote counts..... yea right.
I'm also former military for anyone interested, and I tell you it's simply a playground for political hopefulls. I was a mechanic in a M.I. (Military Intelligence) unit and it was rife with problems that could have been fixed if not for red tape and politics. I won't go into the problems becasue my post is already long and I'm sure you guys don't realy want to hear it but suffice it to say it was a day to day thing that simply kept pilling up because of politics and palm greasing. That doesn't mean a natural amount of politics is bad, there should be opposing views, there should be debate. It's what keeps fresh ideas alive and helps people see anothers point of view, something that hasn't happened in national politics I think in the last 20 years or so. Look at the two canidates whe have coming up for Presidant, Bush and Kerry. What's the differance between them? I wouldn't give you a nickle for it, I mean except for their voices and physical appearance I can't tell them apart. So how does my vote count now? I mean I vote for one and I'm still basicly voting for the same thing if I vote for the other.
Now I'll finish, or try to at least. The reason I posted this is simple, the next time someone wants to attack me because of the natioan I happened to be born in, please remember I really didn't have a choice, like most of the people you'll run across in America I'm simply a drone, worried about the nation like everyone else but impotent to do anything about it unless I somehow come into a windfall of a few billion dollars (and I am taking donations ;-) ) I don't blame you for your countries politics, don't blame me for mine, it's not what I chose, it's what I got handed to me.
Thanks for your time, have a great day and I'll see you online :-)
(Please excuse any spelling errors as it's about 2am and I'm barely awake, feel free t flame me, I don't mind it......much)
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 19, 2004, 04:58:23 am
I am generally scared by America, or at least by George Dubblya. He scares the living shit out of me, because yes he has done some nice things.. maybe, I don't actually know but so far he is the reason for over 10,000 or whatever the number of people it was that died in 9/11 (please don't take that offensively). Not only did he cause those deaths, he decided "Heck, let's cause some more violence by invading Iraq for no apparent reason! That should be fun. And while I am at it I will bully England Spain and the rest of Europe into fighting with me, just to proove how powerful I am."
What exactly is a war on terrorism? Surely by doing a full on assault on some random country and declaring "WAR ON TERRORISM" everywhere, some of the terrorists might think "Wait a second, we are terrorists. He's going to try and kill us! Let's run and hide somewhere he can never find us." To be that sounds more like Statement of Idiocy than War on Terrorism.
If that imbecil stays in power we are all in deep Shia' ite, he will continue to make stupid mistakes and people will die in stupid ways when they didn't need to. We can expect another 10,000 people to be killed by him, or worse.
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 19, 2004, 05:19:37 am
Quote
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 20, 2004, 02:24:12 am
oh I wasn't platforming for Georgie boy :) Just give some general random thoughts on american polotics by your typical American :)
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 20, 2004, 01:01:11 pm
Personally, I think it has gotten to the point where voting for George Bush in the next election is now a character flaw. I mean, the administration LIED to us, and in a huge way. Sure Bill Clintion lied about his sexual relations, but that didn't have anywhere near the impact that this administrations lies have had. I don't see how people can still support this guy after all of that. Granted I haven't seen very many good things coming from Kerry either, so I think Nader is gonna be gettin my vote.
I really need to figure out this sig thing and stop looking like a jackass
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 20, 2004, 01:26:26 pm
a simple, yet effective way to get rid of terrorism, even though its crazy and was shown in a movie "swordfish" if you can recall so many years ago. i believe this would be a good idea, i mean heck were already killing iraqi's left and right, not just the men but the women and children. so we might as well pull out of "army" and nuke em, it'd get the same job done, just a hell of a lot faster.
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 20, 2004, 02:15:13 pm
That takes unethical to a new level.
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 20, 2004, 04:00:53 pm
Nice taking of Janine Garofalos words wolf.
Title: Politics
Post by: Ketamininja on August 20, 2004, 05:21:22 pm
Aint gonna rant coz its time for bed, but I could easily...
I'm from Scotland. We feel loved from those that want to have "alliances" - stereotypically, Americans always have a scottish uncle or cousin. We feel repressed because of what the English did in the past (really not relevant now) and coz when some think of the UK, they call her England.
Anyway, that sorta gives you a wholly uncomplete conception of my outlook here as another country viewing the US. It was also the type of conversation at the local curry house tonight. Dinner included that with a friend in the Scots guards, who were about to go to Iraq (Firemen are going on strike in Edinburgh - maybe - so this regiment has had its plans changed as they might be needed to fight fires now... his reg is really really pissed off).
So....
When you ask that question in a "politics" thread, you scream BUSH!!!! Right now, we think Iraq.... with a hint of 9/11.
If you question 9/11, I think you question Iraq.. there are other issues, of course, but this is just me... in a quick type going to bed fashion.
I've seen footage of the second tower being hit from a few angles. in this footage, slowed down, there is a UFO (I mean unindentifed - not alien). It's small enough, fast enough to be a missile. It would intercept roughly at the 2nd tower. The plane hit, it goes by and off shot.
It could be fake... hell it IS fake, right?
Ok, whats my point with this? If I have ANY doubts about 9/11, I have doubts about any action as its consequence. Bush has done many silly things. He has done good things as well, but the bad things stick.
So many mini topics here.... one more quick one: Iraq: NO WMD, let the world do its job on that, UN said no weapons. You said yes. Well, it was a good thing to overthrow saddam right? Yes.... but let the Iraqis do it. Other nations have, and defined themselves in the process - if most Iraqi people had to die in their own struggle for independance, then that is their choice..... not ours.
Every subject is a dodgey subject....
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 20, 2004, 10:38:37 pm
My instinctive response when prompted about politics, especially American politics right now, is something that would likely get me booted from this board and which would violate most every decency law ever conceived.
Suffice it to say that I find nothing redeeming about our current King, er, President and will be voting for the Democratic candidate this fall.
Our country looks like a steaming pile, and it is all our own fault. The USA is fine, but, this reich..er...administration has to be voted out. How did 1939 happen? Vote Bush again and find out.
Talk about a President disgracing the office, George W is THE most un-American ....
Sorry. If I get started, I will have to get another set of rabies shots.
Please, those who are of age, vote Democrat this November.
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 21, 2004, 12:00:23 am
Oh Mir, beleive me, if I was 18 my vote would be going right to the Democratic side. Zink though, I can't believe you said that....it's so stupid to be mad at the Iraquis....we're invading their home. Just like Keta said let the country istelf free itself from a regime that it doesn't like. It defines themselves.....it makes sure that they would value their independece so much more, it'd also make sure that the country wouldn't fall into corruption and another regime for a while.
First of all, I CANNOT believe that in this supposedly greatest nation of all how in the hell we would allow ourselves to believe that it was an error in the same state as the president's brother governed over, and there was nothing o be suspicious of....it;s mind-blowing the ignorance and just total laziness people have! Good Lord...it's like purposefully watching someone steal your money and walk, not run away with it right before your eyes while you did nothing.
Even with my knowledge, I am absolutely sure that we don't lknow all o Bush's corruptedness. But that's okay! We know that he is infact corrupt! He is a pig! A liar! Honestly I love America, but he makes me ashamed to say that I am a produc of this country. In some cases, and scenarios, I'd be afriad to say I was, instead of proud to be who I was. I so wish that I could see Farienhit 9/11 as I've been unable tos ee it as of yet.
Not to make anyone scared or anything, but listen. This is all I can say, and all I can say is this - No nation rules forever. A nation as corrupt and evil, as America is going to fall, one way or anyother, one day or another. May not be today, tomorrow, ten years from now, bu it will happen. Even Rome, Eygpt two of the greatest civilizations ever to rules the known worlds was broken. Hell Rome was sacked by raving barbarian savages......jsut goes to show you.
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 21, 2004, 05:14:24 am
Hey, since this seems to be a bash Bush thread, I'll say my piece.
Kerry's platform is based on unwavering indicision. He changes his stand with the wind. Check his record. He's on both sides of every argument. Bush makes his stand-he's got a backbone. Kerry has the NERVE to say he'd fight terrorism better than Bush, ha. That's where the current office does it's best work. And the stupid thought that Bush caused 9/11 is unfounded. That came from 8 years of democratic whoring with the nations that cause and support terrorism. before Bush came into office. Believe me, if anybody else had been in office, we'd be asking Afganastan to "please excuse us for being America" after they bombed us! No pussy-footing around from the pacifast democratic party would have done anything productive. I, for one, like Bush. Not every thing he does, but no ones perfect. He makes a moral stance, and I apprectate THAT. What is everyone upset about: the war that ended a tyranny that was barbaric, to say the least? or standing up as aprolife advocate? or voting against same-sex marriage? or giving tax breaks to the middle class? To me this seems like a mob mentality-"let's all bash Bush so I'll feel better about myself!" No one has been under the pressure of the Presidency, but like Monday morning quarterbacks, everyone knows how to do it better than the ones in office. Sure, I'm a republican, but only after the democtrats mad me so sick with their immoral actions that I had to change parties.
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 21, 2004, 10:31:05 am
I have to agree with Eclipse. My nation is going in the same direction that Rome was such a long time ago. I don't think any of us will live to see it and I doubt it's going to be by raving barbarians, but it's going to happen relatively soon.
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 21, 2004, 11:05:03 am
Quote from: "Firstborn"
And the stupid thought that Bush caused 9/11 is unfounded. That came from 8 years of democratic whoring with the nations that cause and support terrorism. before Bush came into office. Believe me, if anybody else had been in office, we'd be asking Afganastan to "please excuse us for being America" after they bombed us! No pussy-footing around from the pacifast democratic party would have done anything productive. I, for one, like Bush
Let me be the first to say this:
The only people to blame for 9/11 are the terrorists who plotted it. Period.
Yes, America is learning some lessons right now...but...thats the course of a nation growing up. I honestly believe that it was only a matter of time. Besides, when you are the only real super-power....and...nobody other than China could really take you on......a terrorist attack is the most likey form of attack.
But, no American was to blame. Not Bush Sr, Not Regan, Not Clinton, Not Carter, Not Bush Jr.
Hopefully, we learned a lot of lessons..........but still, if somebody wants to take a swing, we are a HUGE target. Not hard to hit, domesticaly or abroad.
Our security at airports has been lax for a VERY long time. Until 9/11, all those lazy sods at the terminal were paid for BY the airlines, not the local Airport / Port authorities.
I knew somebody in charge of such a Airport (smaller town, not NYC) and he would review and evaluate.....................but if the airlines didnt want to spend the $$$............it didnt get done. And, if you recall, there were a number of private, BIG corporations who got fined riiiiight after 9-11. I need to double check, but, I think they had ties to, gee, TX.
Uhm...and what about the previous truck bombs in NYC............at the WTC? Hello?
We knew. We knew they were coming, we knew there were holes. Nobody wanted to spend the cash. Just as in any crime........follow the $$$.
And, besides, during the Cold War era..............the Russians were sitting on these guys FOR us, keeping them employed in the regions bordering the ole Soviet Union.
Now that THAT war is over...........where do the warriors and disenchanted poor go? Back to war.........but....where? So, we did "win" the cold war. But, the focus on us now we are the #1 guy.....
And who doesn't want to be known as the dude who took down the baddest of the bad?
Leadership is a mother. Darn all that power and responsibility crap. Cant we just hire Spider Man and be done with it?
Quote
He makes a moral stance, and I apprectate THAT.
Yes. Decisiveness in leadership is an admirable trait. I, for one, just don't agree with most of his morals. Which is fine. If he was elected. IF. And if he doesnt suspend civil liberties to enforce them. IF. Or, if he doesn't march into imperialism. IF. Or, if he doesn't rob those people whom he claims to hear the heartbeat of.....oh.....by taking away their overtime and giving huge tax breaks to the rich. Yes, the numbers show they benefitted much,much more. IF. He just doen't meet any of the IF THEN evaluations I can stomach.
Quote
What is everyone upset about: the war that ended a tyranny that was barbaric, to say the least?
See my previous comparisons of W to an eastern flavored fundamentalist zealot.
Soooooooooooooo..........if fundamentalism and torture, suspending civil rights, etc.....are good enough reasons for invasion..........uhm........when should we expect Canada to liberate us?
W , or the govt. now, cant find ANNNNY of his records that prove he served. Go into my bedroom, along the right wall in my closet is a briefcase from when I was closing out of Ft. Campbell and the 101st............if an enlisted man like me mangages to somehow have enough paperwork to prove he served....how come somebody with enough $$$$ to hire lawyers, accountants, and, oh....what about the ARMY..........nooooooooooooooobody can find his records.
Yea. Ok.
But, he can find WMD in a haystack?
I call bullsh!t.
Quote
or standing up as aprolife advocate? or voting against same-sex marriage? or giving tax breaks to the middle class?
Nothing is wrong with believing, or advocating those things. I happen to strongly disagree with ALL of them, but, that is what makes America strong.
And, as I've mentioned, his middle class tax break is a crock.
Middle class, two kids, respectable income, etc...............didnt get a penny from those "refunds" .
And...............hmm. My situation might get a little worse if the wife loses her OT pay starting monday.
Quote
To me this seems like a mob mentality-"let's all bash Bush so I'll feel better about myself!"
Mmmmmm. No.
I have to raise an eyebrow there. That one, is one you might want to take back. This is the only small part I have to "take issue" with.
If nothing else, I think this and other posts have given reasons people dislike W.
Quote
No one has been under the pressure of the Presidency, but like Monday morning quarterbacks, everyone knows how to do it better than the ones in office.
Ok.
The Euro is whupping the $ of late, and all that Haliburton money from Iraq was going to the European countries who WERENT prohibited from doing business in Iraq.
The Saudi monarchy isn't going to last THAT much longer, and, well....where else were we going to get a foothold in the region?
Now, in the very accurate "You want me on that wall, you NEEED me on that wall" Jack Nicholson-in-"A Few Good Men" kinda way... ( "You can't handle the truth")
There are those of us who SEE that way of thinking, know there are harsh realities..........................and choose to live differently. That's not the way it HAS to be.
Now, was Slick Willy something of a disgrace and a shyster. Well, yea. But, in the home of the free and the conformists, "the rest of the world" was laughing at why we made such a big deal over ....a blue dress. The rest of the world was screaming about us invading Iraq, who, after a war and all those sanctions....was no threat to anybody.
We look like the embarrased kid who reacts by picking a fight on a weaker kid.
And, well, the impeachment .................Republican. ( Current ruling faction there of, to be more specific)
WMD and Iraq...........................................Republican.
Slick willy was one extreme of the Boomers . Self -indulgent . W is the other. Spoiled party frat boy ingnoramus latch key brat who needed his Dad, his brother and Uncle Richard to get him a job.
I really, really dont like the boomers. And, yes, my parents are boomers. But, thats another rant.
Here is what cracks me up....
Vince Foster and Whitewater...............nada. Hanging Chads......................................nada.
If the American people dont DO anything...........
Quote
Sure, I'm a republican, but only after the democtrats mad me so sick with their immoral actions that I had to change parties.
Ya know, I have a feeling we might not agree.........just in general.......about politics.
Thats cool. Your post was fine, and I hope yours, mine, and whatever others will prove the initial assumption of this thread, wrong. :)
Personally, I tend to lean twoards the Democratic side. I am more liberal than conservative.
I don't hate all things Republican, that isn't what I want to be taken from this. I just dont like the current "ruling faction" of that party. Im not anti Republican, just very,very anti W.
If whatever powers-that-be werent there, and we had John McCain up front...........I would be more than willing to listen. I think you could REALLY have a good election/campaign/debate circut with McCain vs Kerry.
But..........that isn't going to happen.
Which is why, at this particular point in time, this election is crucial.......and this country is so divided.
Cool. I gotta get on with the business of the day.......but....good thread so far! :)
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 21, 2004, 11:16:00 am
Quote from: "Condor"
I have to agree with Eclipse. My nation is going in the same direction that Rome was such a long time ago. I don't think any of us will live to see it and I doubt it's going to be by raving barbarians, but it's going to happen relatively soon.
Well, if pain is a way of the body telling the mind...."Hello! Problem here!"
Than such things should be a call to....participation.
Apathy is the biggest enemy of freedom in the USA.
Our soldiers serve, but , if the civilians dont................it isnt much good.
Vote. Be active in PTA ( or just in the school, I dont allways like *joining* stuff). Go to civic associaton meetings. Vollunteer, even if its once a year .... during Christmas..........to.........pass out presents in the Hospital. Whatever. Participate.
Let people SEE you do it, but dont get all braggy about it. Kinda defeats the purpose.
The American Revolution started .............with farmers and small businessmen, and went from there.
Grass Roots is where it is at. Regardless of your ideals, etc. If you participate, and are adult/civil, the United States will be just fine.
Various Administrations will continue to shine and flop, but, hey........they are politicians, and only human. So, they are doubly ....in for it. :)
Jimmy Carter.................GREAT man, lukewarm President. Bill Clinton.......................lukewarm man, great President. Well, mostly, IMO. Regan................................great man, great President. Bush Sr.............................decent guy, above average President.
So....on average we do ok. None of us will likely agree 100% on ANY of the policies/decisions.........their own best friends make, let alone their govt.
But, it is one of the few places on earth OF, BY, and FOR the people.
And, it's a reflection of us. We outta take care of it.
:)
Title: Politics
Post by: Ketamininja on August 21, 2004, 12:05:46 pm
There are so many different takes on all being discussed. Obviously, people support Bush, and people don't.
As the question was "How do other countries see the US", and when referring to Bush, only the worst things stick in the memories. I'm sure Bush has done some GREAT things for the US as well as all the shit that sticks.
There was this whole Florida vote thing when he got elected. That was the first step on a journey to "hating Bush" if you like.... there are many many things that occurred that are seen in a bad light, including the removal of all felons from the voting registrar, as well as those who shared a birthday (and/or last name too?? can't remmeber) with those felons.
That takes a lot of voters off the list - they may well have voted Bush anyway, but if they were not accounted for we will never know. There are those who will misues their power, and those who will try their best to do the right thing at all costs.
Every decision made is a moral decision, and a judge of character....
THe UK people protested. We didn't want to go to war. But Blair was sitting on Bush's lap too much, and couldn't say no.
Scandal is exciting to talk about, and hard to dismiss.
If the Iraq war was about WMD, at first, then when is Bush going for Norht Korea? Hell, the U.S. TRUST certain nations who have WMD, they don't ask them to get rid of them because they think it wont be used on the US or other countries... things can change....
If Iraq was changed to be about removing Saddam, then why not remove some other dictators around the world? Why support Israel?
Its all about what the US get out of it, or what other countries can. Its not always about the right thing.
Bush has had a chance, and the people all over the world have spoken about their dislike for him. My opinion is give another guy a shot, and see if they can do better... maybe they can't, but .. iunno
Campaign chat is all just talk until action takes place... every politician has a lot of wind.... but they do know more than we do... the public is not privvy to the same info to make certain decisions.
BTW I have no doubt that 9/11 or any terrorist act is bad, just as any form of opression is. There are a lot of holes around many stories.... but wiping terrorism from your own countries first would be MY priority... you will never be able to wipe out the elements in other countires, no matter how good your intel is.
They are stiffling the terrorists by the current actions, of course, but they are also aggravating them too. I like playing devils advocate, it encourages full debates will logical questions and answers. I try to sit on the fence, I'll submit an idea I don't necessarily agree with, but I'm open to hear and intrested in others opinions of. ;)
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 21, 2004, 01:19:08 pm
sorry but i'd have to disagree with that keta...the presidents are pushed towards their decisions on what will make them look the best and how much money/oil (in this case) he can get.
giving him a second chance is an awful idea, would we give all the people that died at 9/11 a second chance or maybe all the soldiers that have uselessly(not sure if thats a word) lost their lives for a war on oil. the president has to make monstrous decisions, but if you messs up, you dont get a second chance.
i dont want to get more people pissed off, but a mob mentality sounds about right, a president could be a GREAT president, i mean wonderful, but the SECOND he makes a mistake, everyone hates him and resents him. lets say clinton, he was a pretty good president, good at forgein affairs, gj. the second that scandal happened, which in any case i dont blame him other than he picked one fat chick to cheat on his crypt keeper wife, everyone hated him, dispised him, all the hard work that he had put forth towards the country was useless now because he he was a normal guy and didn't want sex from father time.lol sorry for bashing hillary, shes a great politician, but she did deserve this, she should of known the kind of person slick willy wasand how to keep him under control
...ok back on track. im not too particularly proud of being an american, hell given me the choice and the cash, i'd move to another country, but im stuck here :) and i have to live with corrupt politians only wanting whats best for their wallet, not the people.
You might think my views are a little extreme or a little immoral, but try explaining to the parents and children that died in iraq already that were fighting terrorism after we pull out of iraq with our taill between our legs like we did in nam.
and if we look in history, my views aren't that immoral, if you can recall two cities that were bombed shortly after pearl harbor? i hope nagasaki and hiroshima ring a bell. i wont disagree that it scared some people, we created one of the most destructive weapons in the world and used it. but every country was afraid, hence UN coming about before or after...dont remember. but those are my views, if ya like em or not its what comes to my mind first when i see what u guys are typing. they might be immature or stupid, but remember, when you see president Zink being sworn into office...watch out lol :)
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 21, 2004, 01:23:19 pm
Did Garofalo say that? I just heard it from a friend of mine and liked it, so I thought I'd throw it on up here. I apologize for not giving credit.
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 21, 2004, 01:51:13 pm
I don't like either candidate. I hate to have to choose. I'll probably pick bush just because Kerry has no spine. He fought in vietnam only to come back and protest. He arranged for Ex-military vets to throw away their hard-earned purple hearts only to throw away fakes. He's a two-faced, trendy, political w.... well I won't make this more vulgar than it has to be. :)
I'm not saying Bush is much better, as far as skills go. But at least he makes a choice and sticks with it. I'm not saying he didn't lie, or that he isn't corrupt, mind you; only that he is willing to take steps to solve problem the best he can.
If it were up to Kerry, we'd have our head so far of the UN's ass, we couldn't see daylight long enough to know that people like Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussien are evil and a possible danger to us. -Nukes or not.
-and now you know my opinion.
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 21, 2004, 02:17:25 pm
One thing: Yes, Bush is not a good president. In fact, I have no doubts in my mind that he is not the president, rather that Dick Cheney is the real brains behind the operations. Now, let me argye with Muse for the sake of arguing(BTW, I am actually suporting either not voting, or voting Nader. Neither Bush nor Kerry deserves to be in office)
Mirmir, did I just here you say that thanks to us being in constant fear of being brutally killed by nuclear missles, there were no terrorist attacks, and that, although I'm probably being a little too radical with this, that you think the cold war was a good thing?
And nobody won the cold war. The U.S.S.R fell apart, and Reagan (arguably the best president of the century next too maybe Roosevelt) announced we had "won". Bullshit, huh?
***
I despise big business. The CEO's make all the money , while the millons upon millions they employ get much less. Wait. The millions upon millions they[/i] employ? Although yes, the tax breaks do benefit wealthier people more, there are a couple of points. 1)They're people too. Although most of them have sold their souls to satan, there are some who actually worked their asses off to earn that money. What, are we supposed to penalize those people because we[/i] dont make as much money about them. 2) Bid business benefits from these tax breaks, in turn benefitting the millions they employ. Theres more to something than the liberal or conservative views of "lets either benefit the rich or[/i]. Both parties are full of assholes, that cant be changed.
***
Firstborn, Mirmir is right. Bullshit must be called on that. Although I believe he di serve, what the hell did he do? Him and Clinton just pussied out of vietnam like the bitches they are. Excuse my language.
***
I have so mixed feelings about abortion and euthanasia I couldnt really figure out a clear agument to that part of the state ment. Same Sex Marraige: No. I strongly dissagree with same sex "marraige". I am not catholic, or christian, or jewish, or any of those religions who advocate marraige so readily. But marraige is a sacred institution between man and woman, not man and man or woman and woman. Now, I have conpunction about civil unions other than this: Knowing the good ol United States, once this was allowed as a civil unions, people would start coming in with their sisters, pets, and foods to get civil unions. Its just the way of things. Cant change it.
***
I hate Bush. Although I will not say if we was elected or not (remember, in addition to the "lost ballots", there were the military ballots that werent counted, as there was "no need" for them), I will agree, though its not here, you must admit there are some ignorant fools who hate bush to hate bush, because there mommy or their friends tell them too.
***
Mirmir summed it up.
***
McCain? Kerry? Yes, that would be a fairly good debate, I must admit. But there are only two people in either party who I'd like to see in office.
Republicans: Collin Powell
Democrats: Wesly Clark
Wait make that three; John Edawrds.
***
My take on what many call one of the greatest presidents for some reason:
John F. Kennedy. What the hell? It may be because im half cuban, or maybe because I live in Florida, but I hate the man. Why? He screwed Cuba over in the Cuban Missle Crisis. If we are a great country, we could've dealt with those missles. Theres no doubt in my mind we could've. But instead of show incentive (and break the rule that only Republicans start wars, because we all know that would be a travesty), he decided to screw over Cuba and take the asy way out. Now, the Cubans wish someone, mainly the United States, would topple the regime. There is no way the residents of Cuba can do it, its just been that way for too damn long. But thanks too good ol Kennedy, the one country asking for our help we cant help. And of cours,e we wouldnt want to end millions of dollars in illegal exports to the United States by at least opening trade with cuba, right Mr. Bush?
Yes, I proabaly made a bunch of mistakes there. I'm trying to type as fast as I can. And welcome back Eclipse.
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 21, 2004, 04:00:38 pm
Wow...some really good posts....
Im stuck at work, so I will have to repsond later. See, this has been a good discussion.
bbl
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 21, 2004, 04:48:25 pm
Ultimately, I believe there is no one way to define America's international image. It changes at random based on everything from foreign policy and human rights to business monopolies and personal affairs - not to mention the given country's own politic and social climate. Many still view America as "the Land of Freedom", which is not to hard to see. Despite our social structure which has been solidifying over the past two hundred some odd years, America still boasts one of the most pronounced trends of social mobility. This is not to say that in other countries one couldn't go from rags to riches, but it seems that in a lot of cases one would stereotypically think of that situation happening in the States. That idea can obviously be taken naively, but in general it seems quite valid. Also, we mustn't forget that America's image is constantly skewed by the benefit of hindsight, for better or for worse. We are constantly comparing the present with the past to gage adequecy and ability, which inevitably will cancel out at least some aspect of the situation that could be otherwise important.
Considering all this, I find it hard to definitively provide one view as an answer over another.
But aside from the first question, I generally tend to lean towards Democrat - partially because I'm from MA, and well, what is Massachussetts if not Democratic? But unlike some of my fellow Democrats, I pride myself in not being so easily turned into a Bush-Hater by people like Michael Moore. I learned what I could about Bush and his policy before deciding to disagree with his adminstration's actions. I think the biggest problem in the up-coming election is going to be the fact that a lot of people will vote for Kerry and not Bush because it's become cool to hate Bush. Though I do support Kerry, an uninformed decision is worse than no decision at all.
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 21, 2004, 05:24:56 pm
I just wanted to point too two completely opinion oriented posts, and tell you which one is actually fair and balanced and which one is well, completely unfair and balanced.
Siren: Excellent post. I lived in MA for about a year, and that’s where I garnered a lot of my "liberal" views. It is definitely a democratic state, but at least they do have balanced views. And, unlike some people here, anti-bush is a new trend in America’s youth.
Eclipse: I didn’t notice your post in my previous post. As I said, yes, there was underhandedness involved. But must you assume Jeb has no integrity? There is a reason that he has been re-elected as Florida’s governor. People do like him here. There’s a reason for that too. Republicans aren’t the devil Eclipse. And people aren’t lazy. I really think Gore could’ve kept on going with the re-count. But he didn’t want too. It proved Bush wanted it more.
As to your next comment, even with all your knowledge you don’t know the full extent of his corrupted ness? That just destroyed any credibility you have man. We know that he is corrupt? That he’s a pig? A liar? There is not one president who was not a bigger liar than Clinton for one reason: He lied under oath. Yes, Bush is a liar. So were Carter, Roosevelt, Reagan and even Kennedy. Clinton however, under oath, clearly had stated he had no sexual relations with that woman. I don’t care that he got a frickin blowjob. Good deal for him. But when you lie to the very backbone of what keep’s America together, law, is when you lose my respect. Clinton did some good. Plenty of peace treaties. With terrorist supporting countries, which continued to support terrorism. And Fahrenheit 9/11? Don’t get me started on that piece of trash. Political propaganda, not supported by the left wing that is so completely one sided, not even my most liberal friends say it is a real balanced view. The same goes for all of Moore’s movies.
America falling? America fell in 1939, when we refused to live up to the world’s expectations and join in WW2, against the greatest threat to world peace that has ever been recorded in history. That is when we lost our position as the leaders of the world. We lost it before we ever gained it. And we do not rule the world. Or else France and Germany would have helped us liberate Iraq and then ask us for contracts there, instead of offering no help then asking for a piece of the cookie. As for being overtaken, with Canada to our north, and Mexico to our south, I doubt that we could be invaded. Defeated across the Pacific? Possibly by China, the only country who could even imagine taking us on, and now with N. Korea threatening the U.S., China is in a tight position. China is in threat of being nuked by N. Korea, is they even decide to start anything.
And why haven’t we done anything to N. Korea? We have allies over there. China, Japan, and even India are over there. We don’t want to risk them being bombed the crap out of. If you think we should take out a regime at the cost of a country, go right on ahead and think that.
This is completely my opinion. I'm sure some of you completely agree with Eclipse's post, but he say's things that should be supported with facts, not just saying "he's a pig"
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 22, 2004, 01:21:13 am
Crimson how can you say that about Kerry though? I mean to go to Korea and come back to protest? DUDE! I'm sure that if you fought in ANY war that'd you try and stop any other wars, using any possible methods that you could. Hell, I mean if I fought in Vietnam, if I still had any of my God-given senses I'd protest the hell out of wars, do anything I could to try and stop other people from remotely going through the same things I did - especially for a dare I say shitless, uselles cause.
They have not found one not one goddamn WMD yet. Bush is a lar. I'm sorry, but I don't think that if you're in a position that you hold a country literally hundreds of millions of lives at stake and you lie to the people just so that you can go avenge your father's vedetta that you should be be trusted with helping an old lady across tehs treet, much less leading a nation.
Of course we all have our own opinions, but even so Firstborn, I'm surprised that you'd be against some of the things that you said you were for. But in all honesty I really shouldn't be. It goes against America's own laws to tell someone who they can bed and who they can wed. It'd insane. Hmm what was those old laws again....jeez I can't remember it....it's on the tip of my tongue....OH YEAH! The BILL OF RIGHTS! You know, the raggedy old laws that built the foundation of this nation. Article three states (I won't bore you with teh whole thing I promise), "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....." In and of itself it stops any person from not letting those "unmoral people" from getting marrired. Who is Bush protecting the "sanctity" of marriage from? From the law? He has no right to say that it's unconstitutional for these people to be married.
Illuvatar, I'm not sayign that Jeb doesn't ahve "any" integrity, but if he did, I wouldn't be aware of it, the only thing I AM saying is that isn't it a little, oh come on just a little suspicious that the voting error went wrong in the very same state that his brother was governing? And yes however Clinton did lie under oath. And yes a man in his position of power it was godly wrong to do so, but bro, his lie didn't cause people to die. His lie didn't cause people to lose thier lives, and even more so bring the coutnry to such a hated level but other coutnries. You have to look at it on a relative scale. And unfortuantely it does sound like I'm being a bit biased, but wehn we label ourselves as to be liberal, democratic, republican, conservative, we automatically bias ourselves - so....sue me.
When you go to war....when you puts the army's men and women, the parents and family of those men and women, the country's reputation and security on the line all for SUPPOSED AND ALLEGED WMD that to date have not been found then yes I'd call you corrupt. When you're one of the biggest backers of the UN and tell other people to go to the UN to solve their problems, but then you go in and attack without the UN's agreement then yeah, I'd call you corrupt. **My opinion read at your own risk** Oh And yeah when you'd deny the right for women to do what women want to do with their own bodies then yeah I'd call you a pig. Especially, not to get off topic or disgusting, but I'm absolutely more then sure that Bush commited a little aborting in his life..........if you catch my drift.
Oh and I NEVER said to completely bomb a country to get rid of a few people. I was saying that was a stupid idea. I was referring to Zink who had posted that idea.
In closing, sorry if this seems a little well passionate, any of you who've known me for a bit know that I'm passionate in all my ways.
- www.airamericaradio.com
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 22, 2004, 10:33:48 am
Hmmmm, although I hate to post soon to my last post after all the posts I've made in this thread, it's just too tempting.
1.Although this doesnt have to do specifically with your argument, you mis labeled Kerry as a Korea vet. Just thought I'd point it out. And Eclipse is right, he has all the right in the world to protest against wars, that just shows he went through it and decided it is wrong, and I'm sure he would would've been pro war if he had decided that.
2. Before Bush was chosen as the republican candidate, the republicans were working on finishing that. So you cannot say it was just to avenge his daddys "vendetta". Also, they did find WMD shells, although they did not find uranium, it is mighty suspicious to have those kind of shells lieing around in your country....
3. Again, marraige is a religious institution, and as the churches dont want gay marraige to be legalized for the few evangelists to do marry, why violate their rights? Again, civil unions are much more reasonable and all around a better idea.
4. I would have said that, if he had not thrown out the military ballots. In doing so, to me, he actually betrayed his party. Of course, I looked higher up at him, due to him actually not being completely one sided. And of course he was looking for every oppurtunity to get his brother in office, im just not convunced that he would stoop to making stuff up to do it. And if you remember, Nixon was impeached for Watergate. Now, he had no involvement in Watergate until the whole scandal was going on, but he lied to the American people saying he didnt know, and he was impeached due to that lie. Although this is a lot less important than that, lieing under oath is lieing under oath. And Bush was technically relying on Information from his intelligence, which both Clinton and Kerry did vote for cuts in. For all we know, he was just relying on info given to him, not outright lieing to us. We cannot disprove that.
5. I have no real argument to your first statements in that paragraph, as it is nothing but opinion and I'd rather not go full on opinion, but I awnsered the WMD question earlier. And the U.N.? I would've wholeheartidly agreed with you, if they hadnt attempted to get they're hands wet when we "toppled" the regime their. I lost respect for America and the U.N. in this past war. And while my opinion on abortion is to legalize, again, its Bush's opinion Eclipse. He fighting for his opinion, and if he cant have his opinion and the right to fight for it, then I see no reason for me, or you, or Crimson, or Firstborn, or Siren, or any of the other members of this clan to be able too. While you may find him a pig, others find his views perfectly reasonable, as the argument against abortion is as strong as the argument for it is. And hmmm, if you wanna talk about aborting, lets talk about clinton again......
6. I never said you did. That was part of my post that I was stateing my opinion.
7. I just lost respect for you when you put up that radio shows website. Although I see what your trying to accomplish doing it, I feel that the radio show in question is so one sided, that nothing can be gleamed from it other than its so left sided, they seemingly go off the planet. I would post Limbaugh's radio show site, but as one I despise it, and two I dont feel like looking for the URL, I wont.
And, although I believe in most of what I said, a lot of it also is just the counter argument to Eclipse's post, which was actually excellent this time.
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 22, 2004, 11:21:28 am
On the topic of Dick Cheney being the real president, Robin Williams made quite an astute observation. Bush is never talking while Cheney's drinking water, check that out.
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 22, 2004, 06:12:54 pm
My room mate just showed me a web-site detailing quite a bit of interesting info in regards to John Kerry, I thought it was pretty interesting, some of you might like to read it as well. http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com/
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 22, 2004, 06:34:31 pm
One thing. Never in the history of America has a president gone to war and lowered taxes at the same time. Never.
That's why right now Fire Stations are being built in Iraq and closed in NYC.
I've seen a bumper sticker that said that an american voting for "dubbya" is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.
I'm a canadian so I guess I don't know squat right ? :-)
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 22, 2004, 07:29:35 pm
No, Canadians konw how to make maple syrup.
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 23, 2004, 07:29:34 am
Yeah. That and hockey I guess :-)
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 23, 2004, 02:44:13 pm
They don't know how to beat an great british coxless four though :)
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 23, 2004, 02:49:25 pm
I guess I don't understand because I'm not british. What the heck is a "great british coxless four" ?
:-)
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 23, 2004, 02:58:53 pm
rowing, the coxless fours, the fours without a cox, four men in a boat, no cox to steer, in the olympics
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 23, 2004, 03:22:54 pm
Ok.
I get it now.
We'll take our revenge in diving I guess. :-)
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 23, 2004, 03:54:22 pm
i just found out something interesting lately...let me find it....make sure ya read it all, our tax dollars at work baby!
"Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years.
Our Senators and Congresswomen do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it.
You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society. They felt they should have a special plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in their own benefit plan.
In more recent years, no congress person has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan.
For all practical purposes their plan works like this:
When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die.
Except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments.
For example, former Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275,000.00 during the last years of their lives.
This is calculated on an average life span for each of those two Dignitaries.
Younger Dignitaries who retire at an early age, will receive much more during the rest of their lives.
Their cost for this excellent plan is $0.00. NADA....ZILCH...
This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds;
"OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK"!
From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into, -every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer)- we can expect to get an average of $1,000 per month after retirement.
Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000 monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator Bill Bradley's benefits!
Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made.
That change would be to jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us ... then sit back and watch how fast they would fix it."
WTF is up with that shit?
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 23, 2004, 09:50:45 pm
holy crap.... for once I'm speechless......
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 24, 2004, 12:16:58 am
Maybe i shud become a senator........
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 24, 2004, 03:51:49 am
I've heard of that before Zink, but I never beleived it, or atleast didn't want to beleive it.
On another Note: Iluvatar, are your purposefully trying to discredit my arguements? It seems liek you are. I'm not mad or anything I just want to know.
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 24, 2004, 05:40:50 am
No, since I'm just arguing your point with another perfectly fair and balanced one. Nothing persona man. And yes, discrediting your arguments is a point in debating.
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 24, 2004, 10:49:16 am
Duh, it just seemed like you took particular interest to my points....hmmm I'll have to watch out for you - Although you're not my #1 foe......we all know who that is ;)
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 24, 2004, 04:06:17 pm
Bush is a disaster waiting to happen and I say we cut our losses.
Don't mess with Texas! He has taken his state slogan and applied it internationally, grandly alienating us from the rest of our international allies. OUTSTANDING! Even better, he took "clear evidence that Saddam had WMD" to the international community and demanded their help. Oh, wait, shit, that was forged...
I've seen people talking about how Bush is willing to take strong stances and actually stand by them, well, lets analyze that.
Economically speaking, it really doesn't matter to me where we sat when Bush took office. What matters to me is that he turned the largest budget surplus in the history of the United States of America into the largest budget deficit in the history of the United States of America. We can now add to that deficit the already-spent $166 billion for the cost of the work so far in Iraq and Afghanistan and the $87 billion that Bush informed us it will cost to stay in Iraq for another year. Bush's $5.6 trillion surplus once predicted by 2011 is now (given charitable predictions) a $2.3 trillion cumulative deficit. You can blame the immediate deficit problems on the economic downturn (although it was not solely that which caused the extreme slide in numbers), but economists are looking toward the future and the long-term deficit. It is THERE where Bush's incompetence truly shines. Oh, we may not have to deal with it and certainly Bush's supporters, old, white, rich men, won't have to deal with it. It is our children who will have to face the decision of drastically higher taxes, severe spending cuts, or unstable levels of debt.
Like Bush's educational stance? No Child Left Behind! Woot! Oh, wait, once he had taken pictures shaking hands with school superintendants and lawmakers, once he sat in on a few televised children's classroomes, he cut the shit out of the budget. That probably doesn't effect you. His freeze on permissible Pell Grants for college students may. Personally, I took out as much in Pell Grants as I could because I paid and worked my own way through college. Well, in an economy with record-highs for tuition, Bush's proposal is to completely freeze this program. That's not exactly it, though. He reduces the educational budget, eliminates educational programs, reduces afterschool programs and freezes teacher training grants.
And one of my BIGGEST problems with Bush is this assclown pushing Christian ideals on the country. His motivation for keeping gay marriage illegal is mostly grounded in pandering to the religious right. And here I thought there was something somewhere about church...and state...
The constitution guarantees equal protection under the laws. Accordingly, if this is a federal governance issue the constitution addresses it. If instead you feel this is a state governance issue, in 1967 the U.S. Supreme Court ruling made clear that states could not bar anyone from marrying without good reason. That ruling struck down state laws prohibiting interracial marriage, which the court also said violated 14th Amendment guarantees of equal protection.
So now Bush wants to re-write the constitution to match what he feels his right supporters desire? The whole point of the constitution and the US supreme court is that it is not beholden to popular opinion or the majority opinion. If it were, many of the decisions, on things like abortion, black rights, etc., would not have happened and our nation would not have progressed. The court is a vehicle for progression insofar as it is not tethered by public opinion and personal bias. It is only tethered by the constitution. And I don't care how sideways these people are reading the constitution, how closely they are squinting their eyes - it STILL cannot be bent to our petty hatreds. It is what protected us during similarly prejudiced times and hopefully it will protect us now. The Supreme Court has already once decided that equal but separate isn't good enough. Civil unions for gays are not good enough. Marriage is not privilege conferred by a State, it is a fundamental right that is protected against unwarranted State interference. There literally is no justification for a sex-specific classification in our marriage laws, much as there was no justification for laws forbidding blacks from marrying whites.
The idea that one president would do away with the equal protections and guarantees thereunder is a sad statement on how far the seat of the presidency has fallen. That is not taking a strong stance; that is desecrating one of our most historically important statements of liberty and freedom.
As for the mega machine propoganda about Kerry's flip flops, well the site posted by someone in this thread humorously addresses some of them. Honestly, I don't know every issue that can be drudged up. What I do know is I would prefer a president who puts "my" and "our" desires first, not a president who puts forth his own personal agenda in the face of international outrage and alienation. For people who feel that Bush has an agenda - and they can AGREE with it - his tactic may be great for you. I would prefer a politician who can listen to the populace, reseach and analyze the meaningful issues involved, and adapt his plans as needed. I don't know if Kerry is that guy. But I do know that Bush isn't.
Peace out. =)
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 24, 2004, 06:42:28 pm
Great post Muse. I couldn't agree with you more.
I lived in the states for the last four years. I recently moved to Canada. All I've seen in the past four years are pro-Bush people. I was beginning to think that the United States were full of trigger-happy, bible-totting rednecks.
It's nice to hear an intelligent and lucid opinion. Something more insightful than "Saddam was a bad guy".
I think four more years of Bush would definitely bring America's standing and leadership in the world to a new low. Bush isn't respected anywhere in the world. Other countries just fear him or kiss up to him. That's it.
I can't believe these guys were elected in the first place.
Anyways. I just hope the voters wake up before things get even worse.
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 24, 2004, 10:00:33 pm
Core you really thought that? This is just going to show what people are coming to think of America. It's so completely sad... And yes I forgot about the point you brought up muse. The deficit - I should ahve remembered when I was talking about Bush, don't know why I didn't. But GREAT post nonetheless - awesome....And just as you said, and To answer Iluvatar's rebuttle of civil unions being "much better" I say that who are you to say that a civil union is better for someone who wants marriage? If you wanted to marry someone that was black, or someone that's not of your race, a few decades, ago, you wouldn't be able too! OR what if they told you...to just go and have a civil union? Now as a amtter of personal preference that may or may not really mean anything to you, but tell that to any other straight couple now a days that they can't have a marriage but they can have a civil union and watch as all hell breaks loose. What I'm trying to say is that they shouldn't have to settle. Not in a country that's supposed to be so diverse and a "metling pot" they shouldn't. Not in a country that boasts on how it accepts all different colors, creeds, genders, but not sexuality. It's bullshit...and just like Muse who I once again say had a GREAT POST BUsh is really showing his intolerance and ignorace on trying to push his Jesus condemns your abominations and perverity or marriage. If he isn't for it personally fine, but don't try and use religion, and then USE THE LAW (as I stated in my first post) for his own selfish and ingorant wishes. That is why Iluvatar I call him a pig and a liar.
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 24, 2004, 10:01:16 pm
Also, I wanted to point out - it's not so much pro-Kerry for me, it's more Anyone But Bush.
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 25, 2004, 01:03:19 pm
It really seems that for most people it's not pro this person or pro that person, it is just anyone but Bush. I know it's that way for me and obviously Eclipse.
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 25, 2004, 01:05:27 pm
Don't forget, Hitler or Stalin can be placed in anyone.
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 25, 2004, 04:54:40 pm
Hmmmm. It seems eveyone misinterpeted my gay marriage sentiments. Marriage by state is nothing but a Civil Union with a superficial celebration. I am speaking of the Christian and Judaistic means of marriage, which clearly do believe solely in man and woman. When both of those religion both denounce gay marriage, how can you say it is right entirely? It seem's neither of you addressed the point of progression. Oh wait, you did. But only went it went in your arguments favor. Yes, interracial marriage was banned, which was a clear violation of the constitution and of a persons religious rights to get married to any member of the opposite sex. But, again, with the acceptence of that now gay marriage has come up. Interracial marriage had a complete grounds to be allowed, there was really no argument against it other than "we dont want it." But, now with gay marriage, their are religious arguments to bring up, and yes, I admit, there is nothing in the constitution (or anything that could be put in there, dear Mr. Bush, if you see this and can read above third grade level) to ban gay marriage. But what happens next? Again, the "hicks" as they call it in the south would want to be married to their sisters. They would say, in these exact words, no offense to anyone, "Well, you let dem gays marry, so why wont you let us murry?" Dont go saying "Well, those are two completely different things." What do you think they said when they let different races marry? That same thing about gay marraige. After that, what else could you attempt to marry? Pets? Foods? Books? Look, I dont know about anywhere else, but there have already been hundreds of epople trying to marry their pets and family. Three brothers wanted to marry, not because they were incestual, but just because it would bond them. Oh yes, my whole argument just now about the furture of marriage goes to both religious marriages and to civil unions.
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 25, 2004, 05:21:21 pm
Concering gay marriages, I think the whole problem really steams from one thing. A word. The word 'marriage' has a religious conotation, whereas the word 'union' does not, in the same sense of importance. If civil unions provide the same rights as normal marriages (being things like visitation in hospitals, tax breaks and adoption), then I see no reason why they can not be suitable for the homosexual population who desires just that. I understand that much of the protest has been that 'not allowing gay marriages to be called marriages means that those marriages are not good enough to earn the name'. But, if you have the same rights, why does it matter? I would think one wouldn't care what the Catholic church (or any other church refusing to acknowledge gay marriages) thinks, as long as they had what they wanted.
And if those rights attained by marriage are not enough, then these people should question their intentions. People SHOULD NOT be getting married just to make a statement. It's not right, and it will only further make a mockery of marriage, as we have recently been seeing (See: Britney Spear's 28-hour marriage, or any reality TV show about marriage or dating).
In my mind, allowing more gay marriages will make for more children being adopted, which means less children dependent on the state, which means more money for our floundering economy. So actually, supporting and legalizing gay marriages would've been in Bush's best interest in the long run if you look at it that way. Pity he couldn't realize that.
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 25, 2004, 05:53:18 pm
get rid of the social security for congress and there will never be a debt in the us ever again.
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 25, 2004, 06:53:17 pm
Quote from: "Siren"
Concering gay marriages, I think the whole problem really steams from one thing. A word. The word 'marriage' has a religious conotation, whereas the word 'union' does not, in the same sense of importance. If civil unions provide the same rights as normal marriages (being things like visitation in hospitals, tax breaks and adoption), then I see no reason why they can not be suitable for the homosexual population who desires just that.
Siren, Wasn't this "separate but equal" approach already proposed once in the United States with respect to a subject matter just as equally fraught with bias and prejudice? And after the close of that embarassing chapter in our collective history books wasn't it determined by both our society and our laws that "separate but equal" treatment violated our constitution and our conscience? I mean, I wasn't around when Rosa sat in the front of the bus, or when Martin marched for freedom, but even with my limited knowledge of history I know it cannot and must not succeed.
Rather than ask the question the way you did, one might ask why some in our society are so opposed to permitting gays to marry when they seem content to permit "unions." If it is purely religious (and it is not), then I suggest that our government and our laws ought not get involved. Let them take it up with God.
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 25, 2004, 11:01:48 pm
Excatly. If it's so...equal, why not just let it be all the same. If it's so close and the same thing as marriages, why would you even want a distinction between the two to cause confusion. Why have a difference when it could be the same?
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 26, 2004, 12:49:40 am
i have to find a video that i think everyone in the world should watch...ill get back to ya when i find it
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 26, 2004, 11:02:32 am
You guys might have already seen this but I think this is the most stupid thing I have ever seen from republicans.
"W" as in George "dubbya" Bush.
http://www.wketchup.com/
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 26, 2004, 11:40:12 am
what I think about the US in general?
Two things.
1. It's quite a Big Place with lots of intergrated cultures.
2. I do have a belief that America will play quite a large role in the revalation towards the destruction of mankind. Yeah you many think I am crazy but tis only my oppinion, don't be offended.
Edit: Not even sure if I have answered relavently but hey whatever.
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 26, 2004, 11:53:32 pm
Actually its very clever because it's calling george bushes ketchup americas ketchup and john kerrys wife is closely related to heinz (i kinda forgot how cos, ummmm, well no explanation but i just dont remember) so it indirectly makes a reference towards the kerry's being unamerican without really making the statement. Bush and his administration are very good at using things like this, as well as the media towards their advantage.
Also, I'm american and with zero disrespect intended towards my country i too believe that america will play a major factor in the destruction of mankind. But then again, America is really just a culmination of all the other countries in one, so its kinda like expediting the process.
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 27, 2004, 12:04:30 am
Quote from: "Muse"
What I do know is I would prefer a president who puts "my" and "our" desires first, not a president who puts forth his own personal agenda in the face of international outrage and alienation.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. you do make me laugh so muse.
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 27, 2004, 12:26:14 am
HUH? wth?
As for America bringing about the downfall of mankind I say this: We will see.
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 27, 2004, 12:45:18 pm
Well, hey Soma, I have a dream... ;2)
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 27, 2004, 01:04:41 pm
I agree with you Muse, I'd love it if the American government was still for the people and by the people, unfortunatly it's no longer there... but hey wasn't it Jefferson that said "The tree of Liberty must be refreshed time to time by the blood of Patriots." .....
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 27, 2004, 01:11:52 pm
Now it's really "For corporations and by corporations" :-)
Washington is even full of lobbyists from overseas. For instance Japanese lobbyists for pharmaceutical company that work to change US policy on prescription drugs because US decisions on that topic puts pressure on their own policies...
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 27, 2004, 02:06:31 pm
IMO, we need to ditch the electoral college, it's outdated and unnecessary. That would be a HUGE step in the right direction.
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 27, 2004, 02:43:26 pm
I agree.
The electoral college was created to help communicate the will of the people of a state to Washington two centuries ago. Most ordinary people of that time did not know who was running for president. There was no CNN then :-)
So basically instead of electing an unknown president and VP, voters were electing people from their state, people they "somewhat" knew or at least heard of. These people then had the mandate of choosing a president according to the will of the people. So if a majority of candidates of one party were elected, odds were that the president of that party would be president of the united states.
Nowadays with cable news, newspapers, the internet and other mass medias, is there really anyone that doesn't know who is running for president ? We get up-to-the minute results on election nights. So information travels pretty well nowadays.
I think the electoral college has past its usefulness. It's just a relic of the past.
As you know, it can even be responsible for doing terrible things. In 2000 the electoral college gave the presidency to the wrong guy ! The guy with the most votes nationwide lost ! Where's the will of the people there ?
I still can't believe that actually happened. If that's not stealing an election, what is ?
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 27, 2004, 07:21:53 pm
Hate to tell you, but nowadays most people know little more than the names of who are running. Somewhere around 90% of voters are severely uninformed on the candidates and their policies.
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 27, 2004, 10:59:56 pm
That's where For orporations, by corporations come in. The media's controlled by money, as is everything.
If you look in history you'll find the major tragedies and atrocities of mankind happened because people let other people do their thinking for them. They were usually to lazy to take part in thier own government, and sometimes too much of a coward. All you have to do is think with your mind, and not believe with your ears. I think if more people were able to think on their own actually and just try to research the issue, or issues to find the best course of action rather then Democrat or Republican this nation would be better off. Also, if America got rid of some of this useless hate that it has hanging around...but then again it's not just America. It's society. Here, I know this isn't the thread for it, but let me share a revelation i've had with you guys. I'm sure most of you've already noticed it.
Society is a bully. It needs someone or something to pick on, so that they can judge it and not realise the crap that they're in all around them. Evidence? Aside from broad generalizations like invasions and war and what not - let's look at some of the specifics. Jews - Jews have been picked on since.....thousands and thousands of years ago. They've been conquered so many times that it's bewildering. Let's look at it from a more mainstream point of view, even if this does take place a while ago. I'm sure you've all heard of the Crusades. The "Christians," who personally I'd never call these people christians, would burn down houses chock full of Jewish familes while they held hands outside singing some freakin Combuya (translated Come By Here in Jamaican) - or some other Christian hymn. You know what I find so funny? That not like a couple hundred years before, The Christians themselves were getting persecuted for what they believed, and who they were, by the Romans....it's incredible how the spirit of such a religion can be lost so fast. ESPECIALLY when they were killin the race of the freakin person who started the religion! May I remind you that Jesus WAS a Jew, but he WAS NOT a Christian. What about when America wa a young country? Who did it just mooooove on over so they can moooove on up? That's right....you got it. The NATIVE Americans. Who they promised many, many land rights, and actually gave them shit. Oh no, that's wrong, we actually gave them blankets full of the smallpox disease. Not to mention WW2 - that was just a large culmination of hate. Jews, Blacks, Gays, Japanese, Russian etc etc. (Also might I add the church's crimes to the Jews during WW2 - for which the Pope apologized. But to my knowledge he's never apologized for the Crusades. Also might I add here that the Native American's Navaho language was used as a code that the Germans could not figure out...just another way society uses and abuses) To move on, blacks were also persecuted during the slave trade, and then again in the civil rights movement. Now America also has new hatreds. Gays, dare I say it, and Middle Easterns, and I'm also noticing quite a large latino descrepency that's coming up. Now of course I'm generalizing here guys....I'm just saying the country as a whole, not any of you, and people you know, towns you live in...etc etc. But I'm sure that I haven't listed all of the things that have happened, but I'm very sure that if you look you will find only even more evidence to credit my claims.
ALL of these events have been because people allowed a person to tell them what to beleive. During the Crusades it was the pope, during WW2 it was hitler, during the slave trade it was the general disrespect of human beings between one another. During this time I believe it's partially owed to Osama, and that of George W.
But of course this is all just my opinion.
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 28, 2004, 03:13:14 pm
Quote from: "Muse"
Siren, Wasn't this "separate but equal" approach already proposed once in the United States with respect to a subject matter just as equally fraught with bias and prejudice? And after the close of that embarassing chapter in our collective history books wasn't it determined by both our society and our laws that "separate but equal" treatment violated our constitution and our conscience? I mean, I wasn't around when Rosa sat in the front of the bus, or when Martin marched for freedom, but even with my limited knowledge of history I know it cannot and must not succeed.
Rather than ask the question the way you did, one might ask why some in our society are so opposed to permitting gays to marry when they seem content to permit "unions." If it is purely religious (and it is not), then I suggest that our government and our laws ought not get involved. Let them take it up with God.
I couldn't agree with you more. Unfortunately, most of America doesn't think the way I do. I personally think separate but equal is a far cry from constitutional viability. And you're right, it hasn't worked in the past at all for anything close to a solution to the problem. But I do think that that is the first step. I would be thrilled if we could realistically make a jump like that - completely bypassing the nonsense we had with civil rights decades ago. I just don't think it can be done that quickly. I think more people would be likely to except a gradual approach to equality than something that would literally change society over night. I understand that this would irritate a lot of people who want gay marriages legalized now, but wouldn't it be better to take things at a sensible pace to ensure that everything is addressed thus making it harder for someone to over-turn it for being a rash decision?
Please understand, I honestly don't mean to offend anyone. This is just what I think.
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 28, 2004, 03:51:18 pm
What some people can't seem to see is the fact that, because of religious belief, marriage is something that is holy in many eyes. Thus the reasoning behind the lawful union approach. It's just a word, but a word that means everything in the eyes of christians.
I hate to sound cold-hearted but, If homosexuals want to hear marriage, their in the wrong lifestyle. Not to sound like i'm close-minded about it... just realistic. The problem is freedom of religion, err.. in this case. See, people think because they have a freedom of religion, they shouldn't pass a law directly changing the meaning/symbolism behind a religious tradition. By allowing homosexuals to take part in marriage, they're doing exactly that.
Hopefully, there will either be an agreement that makes lawful union acceptable, or they will completely denounce the right. Don't get me wrong... let them be lawfully married. I just feel they shouldn't pass laws directly manipulating a religious term. What's next? Forcing churches to allow it is another step toward tainted freedom, as i call it. If businesses can refuse business to anyone they choose, minus the obvious reasons, why can't churches? It wouldn't be a reason of segregation or hate, but because the "rules" of the religion forbid it.
If it were easy, it would already be over with, i suppose. I only hope that people realize just how serious this is. For every step you take to being more liberal, you take another step in being less free. -At least in cases such as these. Forcing anyone to change religious belief or manipulating them to fit the lifestyles of others is not freedom.
How would you feel if all of a sudden, the goverment told you that you have to allow a family you don't even know to live with you, and then says that you have to remodle your home so that they have enough room for their new baby? Or change what you eat because they don't like meat? It's stupid, I know.. but it's very close to what they're telling churches now. -You must marry this couple, regardless of your belief, going against everything you know, or else you go to jail for breaking the law.
I know a lot of people probably disagree with a lot of things i've said, but this is a touchy topic... it should be expected I guess.
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 28, 2004, 04:02:02 pm
I couldn't agree with you more, Crimson. It is perverted to try to force churches to do something that is against it's core belief. Personally, I think the world is going off the deep end. Like the bible said "In the end times people will say 'bad is good" and "good is bad", among other things. Straight people want to live together outside of marriage and gays want to get married-it's crazy!
there's a whole lot more to be said, but I'll leave it at that for the time being. w00t!
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 28, 2004, 04:07:24 pm
I heard a comedian saying that the best way to discourage gays from getting married is allowing them to do so. As long as its "forbidden" they'll all want to do it.
If all the gay couples do it, they'll soon find out, as the straight couples did, that it's not all it's said to be.
Just thought that was funny.
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 28, 2004, 04:28:55 pm
That seems to be the popular argument for anything either illegal or soon to be illegal. Just make it legal and then soon it won't be taboo anymore and people will just accept it as regular and it won't be a big deal anymore. Personally I think this has some major possibilities, I agree that thing would go to shit for a generation or so while people got used to there not being a drinking age or making marijuana legal, but eventually things would settle and it would just become a normal part of society. Plus, with things like alcohol being easily available, it will teach responsibility to those that choose to abuse that freedom. Some people will go crazy and get plastered every night, but they'll pay for it and soon realize that it's not the way to go. It would certainly be a fun social experiment though wouldn't it?
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 28, 2004, 04:56:09 pm
It's been proven time and time again that when enough people want something, they'll get organized and find a way to get it.
Whether it's booze, drugs, free cable or marriage they'll get it. The police and government can't do squat.
We've been fighting drugs traffic for decades now and it's still pretty easy to get some (I guess). Why ? Because there is a market for it, good money to be made. Find a way to make people lose interest in drugs, make the market disappear and the drug traffic will stop.
Prohibition failed miserably also.
If marriage is forbidden in the states, gays will go to Canada or somewhere else to get married.
I personally don't really care whether gays can get married or not, I just think fighting it will be fruitless.
Just my two cents.
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 29, 2004, 10:57:55 pm
Quote from: "Crimson_optix"
What some people can't seem to see is the fact that, because of religious belief, marriage is something that is holy in many eyes. Thus the reasoning behind the lawful union approach. It's just a word, but a word that means everything in the eyes of christians.
I hate to sound cold-hearted but, If homosexuals want to hear marriage, their in the wrong lifestyle.
You don't sound cold-hearted but I"m not sure you've considered the ramifications of your words in the context of modern day America. I'm athiest, and I will get married. Why? Well, not because I"m religious that's for sure! I'll get married because I will be ready for the lifetime commitment, and for all the legal responsibilities and duties and perks that accompany it.
I know plenty of Jews and Catholics and Muslims and Witches who have been married. And lots of Athiests and even a Satanist.
If you think everyone who gets "married" does so in a religious context - Christian at that - I think you need to get out more. /shrug
Title: Politics
Post by: Anonymous on August 29, 2004, 11:06:21 pm
I'm with Muse on this one. There are plenty of non-religious people out there who get married for the same reasons religious people do, just as there are many religious people who see marriage as just another term and not something holy.
The argument that sanctioning gay marriages will undermine "traditional" marriages is far too flawed. Marriages between men and women will get along just fine, with children, infidelity and divorce intact. Those opposed to gays marrying ignore that marriage is, in the state's eyes, a civil contract, not a religious one. Let's keep religion out of this.
Marriage is not a rigid, set-in-stone institution. It has changed and evolved over centuries. It's a banquet, an inherited cultural birthright, and there's room at the table for everyone.
Title: Politics
Post by: likwidtek on September 15, 2011, 07:22:28 pm
Title: Politics
Post by: ZephixLeer (Zephic) on September 15, 2011, 09:17:25 pm
Wow, I hope that wasn't the last post I made as crimson_optix. I came off like a biggot. Geez.
Just to be clear, I have nothing against anyone of any sexuality and don't have a problem with anyone getting married. I just don't think anyone should be forced to perform said marriage if it is at odds with their own religious beliefs. As long as some law isn't passed that makes it a hate crime to decline to marry someone as a priest of any religion, I'm fine with it.
Why was this necro'd anyway?
Title: Politics
Post by: Fuse on September 15, 2011, 09:36:39 pm
Yotogi thought random political posts didn't belong in a random thread.
Title: Politics
Post by: Maglorius on September 15, 2011, 11:02:17 pm
Title: Politics
Post by: Ash on September 16, 2011, 10:14:07 am
Quote from: "Fuse"
Yotogi thought random political posts didn't belong in a random thread.
There was nothing random about it when the conversation was obviously becoming steered in that direction.
1 post = random >10 = not so much
Title: Politics
Post by: likwidtek on September 16, 2011, 11:32:46 am
So. US citizens, how many of you are going to vote for Obama in 2012 and those who aren't, who do you support?
Title: Politics
Post by: Da6onet on September 16, 2011, 11:46:59 am
My rules are pretty simple.
note: this assumes that all republicans are always socially conservative and all democrats are always fiscal socialists.
This goes in order of preference. -If the republican candidate is a smart economist more than he is a social conservative (read good fiscal policy), republican vote +1 -If the democratic candidate is a strong social liberal more than he is a fiscal socialist (read more personal freedoms), democrat vote +1 -If both candidates are centrists or if their complimentary sides are too strong (evangelist republican/marxist democrat), libertarian vote +1
Title: Politics
Post by: likwidtek on September 16, 2011, 11:53:21 am
I'm talking specifics. Obama is obviously the Democratic candidate. If you don't support him which person would you support in the Primaries.
Title: Politics
Post by: Fuse on September 16, 2011, 12:16:16 pm
Tough call. I haven't seen anyone yet who I would back %100. I wish I could get a mesh of a few of them. I've always liked Pauls feeling on our monetary system, but some of his international policy beliefs make me very nervous. I trust Romney as far as I could throw him. I like Cain, and specifically his logical view of problem solving and history of business success - but I'm unsure if he would be aggressive enough in presidential situations. Bachman is far far smarter than the media and most give her credit for, but I think she's too much a social conservative for me to get behind. I've been far too busy with work and other life items to do my homework on Perry yet to make a decision on him.
With all that said, any of the republican candidates will be better for the economy than our current administration. Though, if Hillary gets into it, that will make for a very unique election.
Title: Politics
Post by: likwidtek on September 17, 2011, 04:39:07 pm
Hillary?
Title: Politics
Post by: Paitryn on September 17, 2011, 05:21:30 pm
I will vote the same as I have voted since I was 18: None of the above.
sorry I refuse to elect anyone I dont believe will fit as president. And I have yet to be able to vote for a president that I could believe in to begin with.
Title: Politics
Post by: Enoch on September 19, 2011, 06:51:34 pm
Quote from: "Zephic"
Wow, I hope that wasn't the last post I made as crimson_optix. I came off like a biggot. Geez.
Just to be clear, I have nothing against anyone of any sexuality and don't have a problem with anyone getting married. I just don't think anyone should be forced to perform said marriage if it is at odds with their own religious beliefs. As long as some law isn't passed that makes it a hate crime to decline to marry someone as a priest of any religion, I'm fine with it.
Why was this necro'd anyway?
The thing is, the issue isn't about religious beliefs. The law doesn't govern those except to say that you can't discriminate because of religion. It's about the legality of marriage. Marriage through the church is much different than through the courts, and judges know not to put their personal beliefs into their work. On that note, what you have nothing against, or me, or anyone needs to be irrelevant to securing equal rights.
Title: Politics
Post by: Da6onet on September 19, 2011, 07:09:51 pm
Quote from: "Enoch"
Marriage through the church is much different than through the courts, and judges know not to put their personal beliefs into their work.
I have never understood this, and I'm married. If the government makes a separation between church and state, what exactly does it mean to be married? The connotation as I understand it when you're filling out taxes, green cards, etc. is that marriage is some kind of special status vs civil union. Of course this is all retarded in my mind. If you want to marry your pet goat I don't really give a crap that you can get healthcare for your goat or file jointly on taxes. The only people that have a problem with gay marriage are people that have a problem with gay people. Anyone who says "I don't have a problem with gays, they just shouldn't be allowed to marry," is a hypocrit. Marriage is a sacred bond between two people (or goat).
Title: Politics
Post by: Lithium on September 19, 2011, 08:15:38 pm
I don't even need to crack a joke it speaks for itself.
Title: Politics
Post by: Fuse on September 20, 2011, 09:46:52 am
Quote from: "likwidtek"
Hillary?
Yes. Liberal support of the BigO is at an all time low, and I think a democratic contender emerging is only dependent on who the final few GOP candidates will be.
Two days after I made that suggestion here, Steve Chapman (a liberal himself) wrote a piece for the Chicago Trib about the BigO withdrawing from the 2012 race - and who does he suggest take his place? Mrs.Clinton. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-09-18/news/ct-oped-0918-chapman-20110918_1_obama-iran-contra-scandal-house-spokesman-bill-burton
Title: Politics
Post by: likwidtek on September 20, 2011, 11:23:01 am
Fuse, whaow. I didn't even consider that a possibility. There's no way though.. right? Has that ever happened?
Title: Politics
Post by: Fuse on September 20, 2011, 11:24:52 am
Which part? An incumbent not running, or being challenged by a member of his own party? I'll have to look up the history of both situations.
Title: Politics
Post by: Da6onet on September 20, 2011, 12:01:36 pm
Has an incumbent president ever lost the nomination to run for a second term? (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Has_an_incumbent_president_ever_lost_the_nomination_to_run_for_a_second_term)
As far as simply running against the incumbent, there have been numerous examples, a famous one that comes to mind would be Teddy Roosevelt vs Taft. Roosevelt beat him, but the split caused Woodrow Wilson to win.
Title: Politics
Post by: likwidtek on September 20, 2011, 12:09:11 pm
crazy
Title: Politics
Post by: Lithium on September 20, 2011, 04:34:11 pm
Ted Kennedy gave Jimmy Carter a run in his reelection primary and did moderately well.
Title: Politics
Post by: Fuse on September 21, 2011, 11:06:39 am
Billy C. just made a couple neutral comments abouts BigO's new plan - considering how his comments were quite centrist, it's perceived mostly as non-support for BigO's proposal. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/bill-clinton-calls-obama%E2%80%98s-deficit-approach-%E2%80%99a-little-confusing%E2%80%99-says-tax-increases-are-a-bad-idea/
BTW, has anyone read this new jobs plan? The new hoopla is revolving around section 376 - Federal and State Immunity in relation to the 11th amendment. Basically saying if a state receives any money from the federal government, that state waives it's sovereign immunity. I'm not sure how I feel about the 11th amendment, because I think if a government body, even a state, does wrong they should be able to be held accountable - but I also understand the extreme abuse of the ability to sue - and certainly I would prefer states to have varying power than to have all the power and decisions on a federal level. Even with the current system exceptions have been made in the past on a federal level too. My main concern is questioning why this is even in this proposal.
Title: Politics
Post by: Da6onet on September 21, 2011, 04:43:53 pm
Quote from: "Fuse"
My main concern is questioning why this is even in this proposal.
The way I interpret it is it's in there so the federal government can properly enforce the specific restrictions of its own program. It isn't saying the 11th Amendment is flat out invalid, just that if states are participating in this program, they have to abide by certain guidelines, and that they cannot simply ignore those guidelines and claim that the 11th Amendment allows them to do so. That said, I'm not a constitutional lawyer, so I don't know if this is standard language, a modern update to the language or what.
Title: Politics
Post by: likwidtek on September 21, 2011, 05:26:14 pm
A bit more respect for Penn after watching this. hehe
Title: Politics
Post by: Fuse on September 21, 2011, 07:51:32 pm
I've always respected PG... I don't agree with all of his beleifs, but I've always respected the way he presents them.
Title: Politics
Post by: likwidtek on September 22, 2011, 06:26:48 pm
Would you guys sign my petition on whitehouse.gov if you agree please?
End the wars, bring the troops home and put an end to policing the world. The military of the United States is deployed in more than 150 countries around the world with over 900 overseas military bases.
This is not financially sustainable and we must bring the troops home. We can no longer attempt to police the world nor can we afford it. It must end.
http://wh.gov/g8v
(The site is pretty slow today so please be patient but if you agree, please stay with it and sign)
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on September 22, 2011, 08:01:04 pm
No
Title: Politics
Post by: Enoch on September 22, 2011, 08:04:09 pm
As much as I agree with the sentiment of ending all wars, it's unrealistic to think that will solve the world's problems. The truth is, in many of those places, removing U.S. military presence from one day to another would cause instability as the remaining factions fight among each other without the U.S. there to keep people in check. I do heavily support not adding any more conflicts that we're involved in, and smartly ending the ones that currently exist, but saying pull everyone out isn't the way to go about it.
Title: Politics
Post by: Ghisteslwchlohm on September 23, 2011, 05:35:26 am
Personally, I feel that if you have reached a status in which you can control other contries, and your population has gone through any sort of "enlightenment" in which you ponder your own (and your world's) moral state, then you can attempt to uphold other countire's to that state yourself.
Now, I'm kind of drunk so let me reiterate myself in my meaning. If we have gone through so much philosophical civil dispute to doubt even our own actions as a country, I believe that our country has a leg-up on the rest of the world. Knowing that we were one of the first to reach an economic and technologically age much earlier than the rest of the world, is it not reasonable that we also reached a moral, and possibly philosphically supirior state before much of the rest of the world?
Granted, I don't necessarily think that our current 'moral,' or even for you non-religous, 'ethical' standpoint is the highest we could ever achieve, I do believe that we may possibly hold the highest out of the nations we currently "occupy."
Title: Politics
Post by: Lithium on September 25, 2011, 02:27:35 pm
I feel like if I hosted a, "Congressional White Caucus Foundation Annual Phoenix Awards at the Washington Convention Center" I'd be labelled some sort of racist, neo-nazis, white supremacist, extremest. But as long as a 'minority' is substituted for the word 'White' it's absolutely okay.
Title: Politics
Post by: Ash on September 25, 2011, 02:57:42 pm
Lith,
If you hosted a Tupperware party I'd think you were a racist.
And for you young'ns who don't know what Tupperware is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupperware
Title: Politics
Post by: Lithium on September 27, 2011, 05:13:02 pm
Dear Chris Christie,
Please run for president and bring back legitimacy to the Republican line.
Sincerely,
Title: Politics
Post by: Lithium on September 30, 2011, 06:23:09 pm
To all you Ron Paul fan boys out there, another reason not to waist a vote for Mr. hear no evil see no evil.
Title: Politics
Post by: likwidtek on October 01, 2011, 11:33:44 am
You're looking down on him for demanding due process?
"No I don't think that's a good way to deal with our problems," Paul said in a videotape of the questioning by reporters. Awlaki "was never tried or charged for any crimes. No one knows if he killed anybody. We know he might have been associated with the 'underwear bomber.' But if the American people accept this blindly and casually that we now have an accepted practice of the president assassinating people who he thinks are bad guys. I think it's sad."
"I think what would people have said about Timothy McVeigh? We didn't assassinate him, who certainly had done it," Paul said. McVeigh "was put through the courts then executed. ... To start assassinating American citizens without charges, we should think very seriously about this."
Who needs freedom right? Just assassinate the guys that are believed to be bad guys. No need for courts or evidence or sticking to that whole stupid constitution thing. Who cares right? Killing an American citizen without due process set a dangerous precedent despite the need for the United States to remain vigilant against terrorism.
Title: Politics
Post by: likwidtek on October 01, 2011, 11:38:09 am
"As we've seen today, this is a program under which American citizens far from any battlefield can be executed by their own government without judicial process, and on the basis of standards and evidence that are kept secret not just from the public but from the courts," said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director for the ACLU. "The government's authority to use lethal force against its own citizens should be limited to circumstances in which the threat to life is concrete, specific and imminent. It is a mistake to invest the president - any president - with the unreviewable power to kill any American whom he deems to present a threat to the country."
Added ACLU National Security Project Litigation Director Ben Wizner: "If the Constitution means anything, it surely means that the president does not have unreviewable authority to summarily execute any American whom he concludes is an enemy of the state."
I just can't comprehend in what way this situation has been spun and presented to you that you want to agree that the US government should have the right to assassinate US citizens without due process. This is a very very dark path and no one wants to go where we're headed.
Title: Politics
Post by: Tbone on October 01, 2011, 01:17:14 pm
This is somewhat of a grey area, I think. War has a different set of rules - it always has. If an American citizen had defected during WWII and joined the Nazis, experimenting on the Jews or advising soldiers, even if that person has not specifically killed others in the process, they could become a military target. If you join the other side of the war and wear the bad guy uniform, you're going to get shot at.
If you don't consider the "War on Terror" to be an actual war, or think that a soldier must have a gun and kill in order to be considered a military threat, then you could get into an argument about it.
My opinion though is war is war. If you're gonna get involved, then you accept that risk. You're no longer a civilian. You're military and, therefore, fair game.
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on October 01, 2011, 02:03:45 pm
The ACLU is a bunch of communist liberal pukes and I couldn't give two shits what they care to vomit out.
I always love how left leaning folks use the mights or suppousedly or allegedly in their sentences to make it seem like we don't know for sure what the guy was doing. Like we MIGHT not know that he was a killer. Like we MAYBE don't know that he planned things. Like we can only say that he ALLEGEDLY was part of a plot to kill people. Like we can only say that he SUPPOUSEDLY fled his own country and set up a terrorist base and organization in a foreign country to plot to kill Americans wherever and whenever he can.
I just love how left leaning people want to make things a criminal action...
What did you want us to do? He was the number two in al qaeda... I mean you do know that right? Or are you gonna dispute that? You know the group that killed over 2K citizens just a few years back?
What were suppoused to do go out and arrest his ass... Oh excuse me other foreign countries that are harboring his ass may we come into your terrirotry and arrest him and take him home?
You have no concept of what it takes to do that shit here in the States let alone outside the country. And if we had run in and grabbed him and hauled him away you'd be crying and bitchin and moanin with the ACLU how we just violated the sovereignty of some other counrty and that's why everyone hates us and we can't do that and how bad we are and blah blah blah blah blah... Makes me want to puke up shit.
The guy got killed because he declared WAR on his own country and orchestrated acts of terrosim against us.
You know what he decided that he wanted to play that game. And when you step up to that level then you end up dealing with dangerous cold people. AND ULTIMATLEY WE FIND YOU AND THEN WE KILL YOU... He's dead... he deserves to be dead. My only regret is I didn't push the button.
I don't care who you are or where you are from you do that kind of shit and you are a dead man.
And I mean I don't care who you are... If my own momma started that kind of shit then I'd expect her to be put down.
Title: Politics
Post by: ZephixLeer (Zephic) on October 02, 2011, 06:37:49 am
Well, I can see both sides of the discussion, but feel this hasn't really be nailed down by either.
Look at the history first. The House Un-American Activities Committee would be an excellent example of power given to the wrong people for the wrong things, for the right reasons.
Defending against home-born threats is necessary, but there really isn't a good way to do it without crossing the line and ruining some freedoms along the way.
Someone ends up with the trigger to a loaded gun eventually, either metophorically or literally, in the more recent case.
I do believe that the war in terror is different than any past wars. Intel is reallt one of the few sources the gov has to determin targets in most cases. However, in this case you have a guy who came out as the number 2 to a known terrorist irganization and has video evidence to show this.
Dude had to die. Itd be like taking out one of hitlers military strategists. Noone would say a thing. The only reason we hear anything from folks like Ron Paul is because the see the possibility of government hits/lack of due process on US citizens as a very distant possability and jump at the chance to use it politically.
Title: Politics
Post by: Da6onet on October 02, 2011, 12:48:07 pm
I've been impressed by the situation. Finding and successfully attacking a high profile target in Yemen sends a damn strong message to Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. This is actually really good follow through of our country's policy on fighting terrorism. The very fact that he was in Yemen is actually what allows us to ignore many of the "rights" of a US citizen. Ironically he would have been safer in the US by that measure.
Playing devil's advocate, what if we had gotten a trial by jury for Al-Awlaki- If he had been convicted, should he be put to death? If he had been acquitted, would you feel safe knowing Al-Awlaki is free to do as he pleases? How do you define evil people? How do you think we should deal with evil people?
Here are my answers. Yes No People who intentionally harm the innocent. (of course this depends on the definition of innocent) Vanquish.
We're entitled to have different moral values, so as a society, should we be democratic about it? What if we put decisions like this to a vote? Do you think we would have voted for this hit?
My answer, yes.
Title: Politics
Post by: Lithium on October 02, 2011, 07:54:05 pm
"I don't think we're asking for much, just to wake up every morning not worrying whether we can pay the rent, or whether our next meal will be rice and beans again."
Erin Larkins, a Columbia University graduate student at who says she and her boyfriend have significant student loan debt, was among the thousands of protesters on the bridge. She said a friend persuaded her to join the march and she's glad she did.
My advise is to get a job you fucking bums and quit blaming 'Corporate America'* for your own foolish choices. There are so many ignoranus quotes from 'intellectual' young people in this article it sickens me... and then they get violent and break the law over their 'cause'.
* Corporate America - The 'thing' that allows you to live a life a luxury driving your fucking hybrid ricer, drinking your Starbucks coffee, watching The Colbert Report on your 70" plasma, playing Angry Birds on your iPhone w/ extra data and texting for the BFFs, and wearing your $100 pair of pre-ripped jeans with a colorful scarf to pull it all together.
Edit: Perfect example I found after posting, a spitting image of what I'm talking about above: http://cdn.slashgear.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/smiling-580x382.png
Title: Politics
Post by: Ash on October 02, 2011, 08:55:54 pm
Wait just a second.....
I can get jeans pre-ripped?
Title: Politics
Post by: Tbone on October 02, 2011, 09:35:47 pm
Quote from: "Lithium"
Edit: Perfect example I found after posting, a spitting image of what I'm talking about above: http://cdn.slashgear.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/smiling-580x382.png
I'd hit it
Title: Politics
Post by: Fuse on October 02, 2011, 09:41:50 pm
What wouldn't you? :)
Title: Politics
Post by: Tbone on October 02, 2011, 09:59:20 pm
Quote from: "Fuse"
What wouldn't you? :)
I like how you said "what" instead of "who"? Haha. Don't be hatin just cuz you never got any from me!
Sorry, no more off topic!
Title: Politics
Post by: Fuse on October 02, 2011, 10:06:22 pm
You are a sexy man, true.
Title: Politics
Post by: Lithium on October 02, 2011, 10:26:16 pm
She's actually being called a 13 year old. That might make you a pedophile!
Title: Politics
Post by: Tbone on October 02, 2011, 11:17:50 pm
I was talking about the police woman, duh
Title: Politics
Post by: Da6onet on October 03, 2011, 01:24:31 am
The collective asshats who lost trillions (yes, fucking trillions) in the derivatives market have not really paid for their shortsightedness and extreme risk taking.
The way I justify government regulation in a free market economy is punishment for stupidity on behalf of the market players, analogous to prison for criminals. That said, our own system of government has produced some pretty awful fiscal policy blunders since about, I don't know, ever.
I guess really our market system and government are just reflections of us as an evolving society and aren't to blame collectively.
Following that logic, I'm going to get some sleep now so I can make America better tomorrow :-)
edit: also, those whiny hippies need to be dropped off in the mideast or africa and just left there. There might be hope for the ones that survive.
Title: Politics
Post by: Fuse on October 09, 2011, 01:27:41 am
How have I just now stumbled upon this guy? Another guy that I may not always agree with, but I love the arguments he makes.
He's a smart sarcastic ass, like me. But black, so he can say stuff without getting mistakenly called a racist.
Title: Politics
Post by: Da6onet on October 09, 2011, 02:23:40 am
Quote from: "Fuse"
He's a smart sarcastic ass, like me. But black, so he can say stuff without getting mistakenly called a racist.
Refreshing.
Title: Politics
Post by: Anamodiel on October 12, 2011, 09:16:27 pm
Debbie Wasserman-Shultz is a nut job.
Title: Politics
Post by: Revalis on October 21, 2011, 04:39:48 pm
I recall a TS conversation the other night that wandered into the 'Occupy Movement' subject. I don't really know much about it myself, but someone posted this to my facebook wall earlier, so figured I'd share and see if the more knowledgeable would agree. I was getting a pretty negative vibe from the context of the conversation, but these simplified goals seem... good.. to me?
GOALS OF THE OCCUPY MOVEMENT
a) reverse the supreme court decision which allows unlimited contributions from corporations towards campaigns for political offices. (no more buying politicians)
b) make it a criminal act to financially benefit from a legislative or judicial decision. (no more paying off judges and representatives)
c) revoke personhood from corporations deemed to be "public menace", and liquidate the assets - which go to citizens harmed by the malicious/ irresponsible acts of the corporation... board members of corporations found guilty may not preside over another corporation for 'x' number of years. (no more hurting the people for profits) (we are not 'anti-corporation'... we're anti corporate corruption)
d) regulate/label questionable food sources (GMO's, etc) not currently regulated due to conflict of financial interests, unrestrained lobbying, and kickbacks. (no more unregulated experiments on the food supply and consumers)
e) move towards a standardized currency base, rather than debt driven fiat based exchange. ( more protection from market manipulation- does not require the debt of another to create wealth)
Title: Politics
Post by: Fuse on October 21, 2011, 06:54:11 pm
I have to go... like now. But here's my two take so far... http://lostlocalhost.blogspot.com/2011/10/we-are-132516-40-percent.html http://lostlocalhost.blogspot.com/2011/10/put-your-money-where-your-whinny-crying.html
Will address your post later. :)
Title: Politics
Post by: Da6onet on October 21, 2011, 07:26:47 pm
I'm going to pull the pussy card on this one and not comment on the occupy wall street post because I'll say something that A, I'll regret, and B, will probably be wrong.
Title: Politics
Post by: Revalis on October 23, 2011, 02:12:52 pm
Title: Politics
Post by: ReReminiscence on October 24, 2011, 03:01:26 pm
^ i loled
loled even harder when i zoomed in and saw the V mask on the troop XD
Title: Politics
Post by: Manic Velocity on October 25, 2011, 03:58:20 pm
Apparently there's an "Occupy" movement here in Salt Lake City. They're camping out in a secluded park that is a known haven for drug dealers, and they're relying on donations of food and toiletries to sustain themselves. So their "protest" essentially amounts to choosing to become homeless... until it becomes inconvenient, I guess? It's starting to get pretty cold here. I wonder how long they intend to stay.
I'm going to stop by after work today and check it out. Will report back with my findings.
Title: Politics
Post by: JazzyC on October 25, 2011, 04:46:35 pm
There is an Occupy protest in London. They couldn't occupy the Stock Exchange so they're outside St Pauls.
Current news reports that the majority of the encampment is actually going home at night! When questioned the protestors were reported as saying that it doesn't matter where they go at night, it's all about the message.
Err, right, I think the message they're sending and the one they're trying to send, just got incredibly mixed up.
Title: Politics
Post by: Manic Velocity on October 26, 2011, 10:03:33 am
So I went to the park and walked around for a bit, just quietly observing. There were a lot of tents housing maybe 30-40 people. Fold out tables and lawn chairs everywhere. An older gentleman was lounging in the sun, typing away on his laptop. I played ignorant and asked what this was all about.
"We're just here to show solidarity with the protesters on Wall Street, and to raise awareness of the situation."
I asked how long they've all been out here, and he said some people go home for the night and only camp out during the day. He said they were looking at other options for when the snow comes. I thanked him for his time and kept walking.
All in all, everyone looked like they were having a pretty good time. Some people were playing cards, others had laptops or iPads. There was plenty of coffee and hot chocolate going around. It didn't look anything like a protest. I didn't even see any signs with catchy slogans.
Title: Politics
Post by: Fuse on October 26, 2011, 10:07:15 am
Sounds like you were right they were choosing to be homeless.... for the day.
Did you get a sense of what their impression of "awareness of the situation" meant?
Title: Politics
Post by: Da6onet on October 26, 2011, 10:32:06 am
/rant @ western politicians I'm so sick of the indecisiveness and fear mongering among the leaders both in Europe and here with our Congress. I mean seriously, you're elected leaders, do your fucking jobs and make the tough choices. I swear to god our leaders are a bunch of whiny bitches. Fuck worrying about getting re-elected, get off your ideological high horses and just be pragmatic. This whole "Italy needs to get their shit together" is really counterproductive. Yes, there are some lazy dumb ass governments and banks that borrow too much money in Europe. So what? That was the case since before the EU was founded, France can stop acting surprised now. UK MP's threatening to pull out of the EU are just adding fuel to the fire. You're not going to get paid back any time soon. Cut your losses, forgive the debts, do what you need to do to ensure you don't lose more (or as much) money in the future.
Then of course there is our own congress, that has absolutely no will power to exercise even the most basic economic policies. They take half measures and inefficiently spend money and then blame everyone that isn't in their party for the lack of results. Hey congress, you want to know why company's aren't hiring?-Because they don't ever know what you're going to do next. You say "but I can't get anything done, the -insert party here-'s won't let me!" Wah-wah, cry a little harder, jesus.
Alas, its not really their fault, it's the idiots who elect these pussies into office that are to blame. If people stopped eating the spoon fed rhetoric of these windbags and had half a brain to seek out, hell even become, people dedicated to actually working and getting shit done, we'd be out of this economic sinkhole in a year.
/endrant
Title: Politics
Post by: Fuse on October 26, 2011, 11:07:53 am
You should rant more often.
Title: Politics
Post by: Manic Velocity on October 26, 2011, 11:23:34 am
Quote from: "Fuse"
Did you get a sense of what their impression of "awareness of the situation" meant?
Those were the guy's exact words, and I didn't think to press further. I'm sure he just assumed that I already knew "the situation" (I don't). But to answer your question, no.
The atmosphere was very positive. Nobody seemed angry or even a little upset about "the situation". Like I said, it didn't look like a protest. It looked like a camp ground in the middle of the city. I don't want to impose the "hippy" stereotype surrounding this movement, but the shoe does seem to fit in this case.
Title: Politics
Post by: Fuse on October 26, 2011, 11:44:39 am
I'm thinking of writing up a little post on stereotypes, BTW... Mainly how they become to be stereotypes; it's usually because it's a true observation, but people are so afraid to acknowledge that different cultures are indeed different that they apply this term to it attempting to excuse it.
Hippies live a more jipsy-lifestyle and usually are only productive to small tribes African descendants play sports really well I can't jump.
Nothing wrong with making a connection. The majority of them are acting like hippies, so be it.
Title: Politics
Post by: Lithium on October 26, 2011, 04:21:09 pm
Title: Politics
Post by: NoCry on October 26, 2011, 05:19:38 pm
Two comments:
1. Free market caused this- free market should solve it. Let things fail (like Lehman - Greece?) 2. I still blame ninja loans as the genesis of it all.
Title: Politics
Post by: Ghisteslwchlohm on October 26, 2011, 06:02:56 pm
Yeah, fuck those ninjas!
Title: Politics
Post by: Anamodiel on October 26, 2011, 08:34:49 pm
Whoever wrote the rebuttal is ignorant, or maybe stupid....
Hard to say they seem some what intellectual so I'm guessing ignorant
Title: Politics
Post by: Lithium on October 27, 2011, 09:56:54 am
Yeah, it really is a shining example of the ignorance. Hence why I posted it.
Title: Politics
Post by: Fuse on October 27, 2011, 12:51:24 pm
Occupy Wall Street kitchen staff protesting fixing food for freeloaders http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/zuccotti_hell_kitchen_i5biNyYYhpa8MSYIL9xSDL
HA!
Title: Politics
Post by: Da6onet on October 27, 2011, 01:32:02 pm
Among the sometimes conflicting and mixed manifestos I've found regarding the OWS movement/protest/whatever, is one common theme about what is "fair." Two things I have to say in response to these overprivileged, naive, immature socialists.
1. You have a right to be upset because: You're whole life you were told that you are special and will have everything you could ever want when you grow up by your parents, your teachers, your political leaders, etc. Now you're out of a job, in debt, depressed, can't get a new iPad 2, insert life problem here, etc. etc.
Hell I know I was upset when I realized it was all a lie. I cried "this isn't fair!"
2. Regardless of how much you want to blame CEO's greed/lack of ethics for the depressed economy, relative to many people on this planet, your ability to succeed is still far less limited in the United States of America, but it is by no means guaranteed (go watch The Pursuit of Happyness).
3. I'm reminded of a quote you should get familiar with "Life isn't fair, it's just fairer than death."
Personally I feel occupy thing is a good thing. Once these hippies realize that the rest of society isn't going to change and isn't going to give them a handout they'll either A. grow up and work within this reality or B. die of starvation. Either way produces a desired result.
Title: Politics
Post by: Ghisteslwchlohm on October 27, 2011, 02:10:19 pm
Quote from: "Fuse"
Occupy Wall Street kitchen staff protesting fixing food for freeloaders http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/zuccotti_hell_kitchen_i5biNyYYhpa8MSYIL9xSDL
HA!
It's really interesting, another thing the article points out, that the protesters have developed a sort of sub-society. It's pretty cool that there is an organic sort of structure forming into this group. Although I really don't care for the protesting, being interested in social psychology as I am, I would like to see this group grow as a miniature social system. Purely from an observational standpoint, of course.
Title: Politics
Post by: Fuse on October 27, 2011, 08:35:37 pm
This is great...
Title: Politics
Post by: likwidtek on October 28, 2011, 01:22:56 pm
Regarding Fuses post (there's also a part 2 to the video) but this is what I commented on it:
I'm not sure how he gets that he's paying 50% but this is a pretty good conversation an an interesting point of view from one of the 1%
I think that the #OWS are upset for sure. I think that a lot of them think the answer is to get government more involved, tax and regulate more to fix this. Personally I think it's the collusion of corporations and government that caused this. The scam can be busted up if we disarm the corporations; Meaning, take away the ability for corporations to manipulate the economy and siphon tax payer dollars. That is, get money out of politics and get the government OUT of the economy.
This is another NOT black and white issue. It's not the 1% vs the 99% it's the goverment/corporate (corporatists) vs everyone else. Not all of the 1% are in bed with congress and paying them off. Again, it's easy to get trapped in the Us versus Them absolutist way of thinking.
We've got to think rationally about this.
Title: Politics
Post by: Fuse on October 28, 2011, 02:21:16 pm
and MY reply... :) Agreed. I'm a firm believer that what makes you a criminal is breaking the law and hat makes you morally despicable is doing immoral things. Simply being rich, owning a multi-million dollar business, or offering items or services that many people want is not illegal or immoral. That's not saying that there aren't illegal or immoral practices going on in business.
Title: Politics
Post by: Tbone on October 28, 2011, 02:29:13 pm
Quote from: "likwidtek"
I think that the #OWS are upset for sure. I think that a lot of them think the answer is to get government more involved, tax and regulate more to fix this. Personally I think it's the collusion of corporations and government that caused this. The scam can be busted up if we disarm the corporations; Meaning, take away the ability for corporations to manipulate the economy and siphon tax payer dollars. That is, get money out of politics and get the government OUT of the economy.
Um, I don't think hash tags work on his forum...haha!
I think a major concern is that politics are being controlled by corporations. Because corporations are now allowed to donate without limit and without the need to go public with it, many politicians are forced by their party (or by their own greed) to push an agenda that's not good for the general public and for Americans at large, but benefit the corporations. Basically, the politicians' bread is buttered by corporations, and the people feel like the politicians should work for them and not for the big businesses.
You could say "just don't vote for someone you think is in bed with corporations", but that just means you wouldn't vote. It permeates at every level.
This of course applies to taxes as well. 45% of households don't pay income tax because we're too poor to begin with. The "super rich" and middle class pay income tax, but the difference is in the tax breaks. The top 1% are able to get their ACTUAL income tax down quite a bit through tax breaks and loopholes. The average income tax rate for these people has dropped from 26% in 1992 to 17% now (as opposed to the 35% which is what they would pay before the breaks and exemptions). There are $1.1 trillion of deductions, exemptions and credits annually.
Note that these numbers may differ slightly depending on what system you're using (I'm not an economist), but take this chart:
You an cleary see that over $5mil people start paying less, and after $10mil it drops drastically. A "job creator" making between $500k - $1mil is paying a higher percentage than a "job creator" making over $10 mil. If $10mil was on par with the $2-5mil, our debt would just about go away.
The average income rate for all Americans is 9.3%, so the rich are still paying more. The problem is that the tax rate going from 26% to 17% for the top 400 earners has put a burden on our debt, combined with frivolous spending from the government. Just as the burden has been created by a combination of tax breaks and spending, the solution should be on both ends as well.
And here's where the frustration comes in. The tax breaks for the super wealthy can't go away because the super wealthy control policy. Rather than reverse some of the tax cuts, the discussion is being steered towards putting the burden created from cuts for the super wealthy onto the middle and lower class. In this economy, the middle and lower class cannot support this burden. It would basically destroy any middle class left in America.
On top of all of this is the bailouts for the huge banks, who were "too big to fail". So large corporations get a do-over after driving the economy into the shitter, and you begin to get the feeling that Wall Street owns this country.
Now I'm not an economist, and so I can't claim that I know everything about this. I'm really just trying to understand the OWS movement the best I can. From what I can tell, the main issues are unlimited funds transferred from corporations to government (corporations are people), the tax breaks of the wealthy being "untouchable" due to this corruption (and therefore putting the burden on the middle class), and the mismanagement and corruption of Wall Street being not only forgivable, but rewarding those who created the problems.
As for the guy who says over half of his income goes to the government, he needs to find a better accountant! Heh.
Title: Politics
Post by: Fuse on October 28, 2011, 04:08:16 pm
The best explanation of the occupy movement I've heard was in a comparison to the Tea Party.
The tea party is upset that the big banks got a bailout. The occupy movement is upset that they themselves didn't get a bailout.
And to T's first point - I'm ok with business doing whatever they want with their money. They want to buy ads for someone they want in office? That's their business. Don't like it? I don't only suggest NOT voting for the guy, but I suggest NOT buying from that business. As Schiff explained, business doesn't get big by doing a shitty job. In the correct way, they get big because the people give them money for goods and services. Also to T's point, when government steps in, steals the money from the people, and then decides what businesses don't get to fail it creates an unbalanced dichotomy of fairness - and as seen recently, usually creates an opposite effect than originally intended.
My questions is why the OWS folks are yelling at business and not government...
Title: Politics
Post by: Ghisteslwchlohm on October 28, 2011, 04:18:54 pm
Quote from: "Tbone"
Quote from: "likwidtek"
I think that the #OWS are upset for sure. I think that a lot of them think the answer is to get government more involved, tax and regulate more to fix this. Personally I think it's the collusion of corporations and government that caused this. The scam can be busted up if we disarm the corporations; Meaning, take away the ability for corporations to manipulate the economy and siphon tax payer dollars. That is, get money out of politics and get the government OUT of the economy.
Um, I don't think hash tags work on his forum...haha!
Hash tags work EVERYWHERE.
Title: Politics
Post by: Tbone on October 28, 2011, 04:21:45 pm
Businesses pay major bucks to have their policies embedded into the dialogue of the public. The public doesn't have the money to embed their policy ideas into the businesses, and so this is the way they are going about it.
As for not patronizing certain businesses, the loopholes that currently exist prevent the public from knowing which businesses donate to which politicians (for a breakdown, look up Colbert's SuperPAC running gag).
As for where the corruption stems from, surely the government and large corporations are both to blame. Corporations paid mega bucks to control the government. Government allowed it to happen. From what I've seen, politicians have made an attempt to get out from under the corporations' thumbs (placing limits on donations, for example), but that was counter-acted by the "corporations are people" thing. Not every corporation is to blame just like not every politician is to blame, but certainly Wall Street is just as much of a pressure point as DC is.
Our government was set up to be by the people, for the people. I think many people feel like the government right now is set up to be by the corporations with lots of money, for the corporations with lots of money. Politicians are pandering more to $$ than they are to votes, because $$ can buy votes.
Title: Politics
Post by: Lithium on October 28, 2011, 05:28:38 pm
I'm just going to point this out because it better realizes the '50% of my income' comment. But should really be called 50% of my success tax.
Corporations are essentially double taxed--if not in some cases triple taxed. The first tax isn't there for every situation but it's sales tax. Tax on goods that both the company buys and sells. Let's call that 10%. Then any profit that is made by the company is taxed at the corporate rate, which again is like 35%, and let's assume 20% after breaks. And finally payouts, dividends, and stocks that executives take are taxed at their bracket, 35%. Ok, so lets say they take some tax breaks (which are there to promote investment in America) and get their income tax down to 20%.
So by that logic they would be paying 10% + 20% + 20% = easily 50% to taxes.
Title: Politics
Post by: Da6onet on October 28, 2011, 05:35:22 pm
About corporate greed today: I feel the problem at the corporate level is that for some reason the market is not punishing those who make bad decisions, or at least, we're not seeing the kind of fallout one would expect. In theory, if an 8 man board destroys its 20,000 employee company with risky or incompetent decision making, that company's resources (including its labor force) should be cannibalized by the companies that didn't fail and those board members should find themselves out of work in the same capacity for a very long time, if ever again. Instead we see the opposite happening- if the company doesn't get bailed out by Uncle Sam the board members just find another company in need of their "expertise" and they continue about their way. It baffles my mind that at the highest level of the corporate world the effective risk of bad decision making can be minimized like that. My only hope is that the next generation of C-levels want to get rid of the old ones as quickly as possible so they can make bad billion dollar decisions.
About candidates brought to you by (insert company sponsor here): First off, lets be clear about a couple things. Corporations still cannot give money directly to federal candidates or national party committees. That ban dates to 1907. The justices also upheld some other restrictions, including disclosure requirements for nonprofit groups that advocate for political candidates. At any rate, this gets back to my rant about the electorate- Yes, you can actually stop voting for people you don't think are doing a good job representing your interests, that's how democracy works. Corporations do not get a vote. If you want an eye opening experience, volunteer to do exit polling, especially asking why people voted for candidate x. You will find that the people that actually do vote (little over 41%), don't know much about the people they just elected to office; in fact some don't even know the names of the people they just voted for minutes ago. Only a very small percentage of Americans seriously participate in our governance. Sad to say a close friend of mine is an apathetic voter and its been a long standing point of contention between us. The corporations are just giving the people what they want, brand name products.
edit: forgot to agree with Tbone, I have never understood why our income tax structure was not scaled up beyond 380k (not necessarily beyond the marginal 35% rate, but have a larger scale with better marginal rates for those of us earning six figures or less). That said, it wouldn't matter, our tax laws are enforced about as well as our campaign finance laws (even before the 2010 ruling).
Title: Politics
Post by: NoCry on October 28, 2011, 05:48:16 pm
Effective tax rates paid by the rich are less because it tends to be classed as investment income - ie income derived from shares owned in corporations which contribute to the economy and employ people. Without such tax breaks where is the incentive to invest and take an entrepreneurial approach?
Just my two cents and based on English taxation which I assume is comparable at least.
Ana/ broin - penny for your thoughts ;)
Title: Politics
Post by: likwidtek on October 31, 2011, 01:13:39 pm
Teachers, Educators and Administrators: What is your opinion on the Department of Education? With political talk of closing it down I'm curious what more people actually involved in education directly feel about it.
Title: Politics
Post by: NoCry on November 01, 2011, 04:32:39 am
They dilly dally for 6 months; get an unbelievable deal and then screw it. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you: Greece.
Title: Politics
Post by: Lithium on November 01, 2011, 12:15:59 pm
That's Socialists for ya...
Title: Politics
Post by: JazzyC on November 01, 2011, 01:18:55 pm
Quote from: "Lithium"
So by that logic they would be paying 10% + 20% + 20% = easily 50% to taxes.
Simple maths would actually show they wouldn't be paying that 50% in tax.
For example. A company earned $200. $50 was cost of goods. So, take 10% is $5. In a world where they have no overheads or other costs, all the rest is profit. So 20% of $150 is $30.
That makes $35 in tax. Surely 50% in taxes would amount to $100?
Ok, I haven't accounted for the other 20% you've stated as coming from payouts, etc. But surely that is taxation of the individual rather than the corportation.
But, even if I did throw in another 20% tax it wouldn't add to 50%. Even taxing 20% on the whole $200 would equate to $40. Add to the $35 you already have and you end up with $75. Still not that 50% tax.
Title: Politics
Post by: Lithium on November 01, 2011, 07:22:12 pm
I was rounding the numbers and doing 'bad estimating' I guess. Here is a scenario to consider:
I sell a computer to a consumer for $1,500.
The consumer pays 8% sales tax of: $120.
Parts for this computer cost me $463.
I pay 8% sales tax on these parts: $37.
My corporation makes a profit of $1,000 on the computer.
Let's say I'm a big corparation and I get taxed 35%, that's $350. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_States
This means I have $650 that I can pay out to myself as a dividend.
Let's say I am a wealthy individual and again get taxed at 35%, that's ~$227.
I get to walk away with $423.
This means on the $1,000 'profit' the government takes 57.7% of it. And that still excludes the tax your suppliers pay, the $37 you lost to sales tax, and the $120 your customer lost to sales tax.
This is why businesses are paying big bucks for lawyers to look for loop holes and moving money OUTSIDE the US.
Title: Politics
Post by: Fuse on November 01, 2011, 07:42:51 pm
This is also a great example of how raising corporate taxes raises consumer prices. You will never pay the tax on the parts - That $463 is actually past onto the consumer, making the $1500 computer $1963, also increasing how much they will pay in taxes on it.
Title: Politics
Post by: likwidtek on November 03, 2011, 03:05:35 pm
Lithium, you don't pay sales tax on goods you're reselling. It's called wholesale. When you are a business and you buy from vendors you pay zero sales tax on those goods. You are however expected to charge the customer sales tax and then give that money directly to your tax agency. So there's that. You're also doubling numbers by saying "I'm a guy that's part of a corporation. The corp gets taxed but I also pay personal income tax." Those are two totally different things. Once you incorporate, you're separating your social security number and tax liability from the business entity. You now have things like stock holders, a board and this huge machine of people. It has nothing to do with you anymore aside from the stake you have in it that's measure in share percentages. You are taxed only on gains from say selling stock or dividends gained from profit sharing. You're confusing some things here. There are sole proprietorships, LLCs and corporations (different kinds as well). They're all structured and taxed differently.
Also not directly related but very much to do with the overall discussion:
(http://i.imgur.com/XjQiC.jpg)
Title: Politics
Post by: Anamodiel on November 03, 2011, 09:04:56 pm
The primary purpose of a corporation is to make money. Lots of it. As much as they are legally allowed to under the laws of the United States of America. They aren't in business to "care about average people." If you want an entity that cares about people, find a 501(c)3 and go donate to it. Everything else is in business to make money. Hell, even businesses who donate to charities do it for the deduction on their taxes. My dad didn't successfully run a franchise of 16 Domino's pizza stores back in the '80's to feed people. He did it to make money so that he could support his family, and he did a damn good job of it. He did not get into the pizza business because he cared about people. While part of his business was making sure the customers were happy, that was not his motivation to be successful. Money was. Customer satisfaction was a key to success, but his success was defined by the amount of money he made and the number of pizzas he sold. His success bred further success: he was able to hire more workers and pay them salaries based on how well they performed. Obviously, my dad could not run 16 stores on his own. He had to hire managers and pizza delivery guys and everyone in between. Why did my dad hire people? Was it to show that he cared about people? No, it was because he wanted to make sure his business remained successful and profitable. A by-product of his success enabled others to succeed as well.
My dad made "bundles of money" doing this, and he never exploited his workers. I actually find it unbelievable when I hear businesses "exploit their workers and take away their rights". Businesses have not exploited their workers since the early 1900's when labor laws were nearly non-existent. We have thousands of laws protecting workers in the work place. However, I'm sure this graphic is referring to the exploitation of workers by corporations not paying their workers enough. I'll debunk that right now. In 2007, total compensation of all employees of U.S. corporations was $8 trillion, roughly 57% of the total $14 trillion GDP. After tax profits of corporations was $1.7 trillion. That means that employees of corporations received about 85% of available for distribution corporate funds. Hardly sounds like exploitation to me. Really, they take away their rights? I didn't know a business had the ability to take away the rights of someone. A business has no sovereignty, and cannot take away the rights of someone. The only thing that can take away the rights of someone is the government. If an employee really feels like their rights are being taken away or that they're being exploited, go work somewhere else. We live in a free market.
Why are corporations attempting to influence policy? They don't do it because of some grand conspiracy by Fortune 500 CEO's to oust Obama. Business pay major bucks to influence policy so that they can better compete in the marketplace. Businesses pay exorbitant amounts of money to lawyers and lobbyists to carve out deductions for them because they feel like they're unfairly regulated against or because there's some policy in the way of them furthering their success. I don't trust a politician to be able to do very much, and most of the time they don't know very much about some of the intricacies of a certain industry that they're legislating for. That's why business hire lobbyists to craft legislation and push for its passage. The lobbyists and the corporations know the intricacies of the industry and can craft better legislation that favors business and keeps from excessively regulating them.
But we're really looking at the problem from the wrong point of view when we demonize corporations for trying to influence public policy through various donations. If our corporate tax code were simplified and most deduction and exclusions were eliminated ("loopholes" for the non-accountants among us), businesses wouldn't have to dump as much money into campaigns. Let me tell you. There are a ton of deductions, many of which were written to help out a variety of businesses. All summer, I worked at KPMG, one of the Big 4 accounting firms in their Fed Tax division. When they're doing the taxes for a client, they start out by creating a proposal for a company and give the amount of hours that the project will normally take. I didn't personally get to work on any major Fortune 500 tax filings, but I know some of those top companies literally have entire offices and thousands of accountants dedicated to working on them for thousands of hours. Our tax code is so bloated that there is a very specialized person who has to navigate it to make sure the corporations are correctly filing. Things need to be simplified.
And, if politics were really controlled by corporations, they certainly would be pushing for an agenda that promoted growth and not higher taxes.
In regards to Tbone's chart, Nocry's right. The effective tax rate goes down because more and more of those making $5 million or more each year are from long-term capital gains, which are taxed at a flat 15%. This is done to promote people investing in the economy so they don't leave it in a savings account. I think the rate, as it stands now for 2013, has been increased to 20%. That's why Warren Buffett's tax rates are so much lower than his secretaries: the money she makes is classified as earned income, and is taxed at her respective tax bracket percentage. See below: (I know the year is 2000, but I assume it has to be similar to 2009)
Transfers are government payouts, such as Social Security and Medicare.
Taxes are not the problem nearly as much as the deficit spending by the government. The 2010 Federal Budget had total requested spending of $3.83 trillion, with the federal deficit forecast to be $1.56 trillion in 2010 and $1.27 trillion in 2011. Total debt is budgeted to increase from $11.9 trillion in FY2009, to $13.8 trillion in FY2010, and $15.1 trillion in FY2011. If we were to take 100% of the income of households above $250,000 (that's everything, all of their net worth), the government would receive $1.412 trillion. That just covers the deficit for one year. Taxing the rich is not going to serve our long-term spending problem.
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on November 03, 2011, 09:15:42 pm
Quote from: "likwidtek"
You are taxed only on gains from say selling stock or dividends gained from profit sharing.
LOL I wish...
And occupy Wall Street is a joke. If you can't keep your feces off the ground... Your penis in your pants.... Your hands off of everyone elses stuff... and your violence out of the streets then you're a bunch of idiots.
Seriously most of these people are a bunch of rich kids who are the sons and daughters of the hippy class doppers from the 60's. They are trying to recreate their own free love peace phoney baloney.
Seriously tell the occupy Wall Street jokes to put their pants back on. Stop sexually assaulting women, stop stealing from each other, stop crapping on the ground, stop shutting down small businesses, stop being bozo's and go home to mommy and daddy.
OH and this.... LOL seriously.
Quote
Also not directly related but very much to do with the overall discussion:
(http://I.imgur.com/XjQiC.jpg)
Let me explain this as simply as I can. Corporations donate to all political parties for one specifici reason. So that the political party in power will leave them the F alone.
See Microsoft not being a big policital contributor and getting the big Monopoly stick taken to them. They started donating and that went away...
Unions donate only to one party... Guess who? I know I know I don't even need to say it.
The majority of union members are goverment employees. They are paid by the taxpayers. Their union dues are mandatory. Those union dues go to the support of one party despite what the individual members may want. Hence the taxpayers own money go to support one particualry party through unions.
Hence the Stimulus. The stimulus was put together to make sure that teachers, firefighters, police, etc., don't lose jobs. ALL of these people are union members...
The taxpayers paid to keep these people employed for a year or two or hire new members. ALL those members had mandatory union dues taken out of their pay. Those dues went to support one particular party.
Can you now say MONEY LAUNDERING. Seriously I've sent people to jail for this same type of scheme... But it's okay when it's the goverment doing it....
OR is it just okay when it's the people you like in goverment that does it?
Your stats are off on the Union vs Corp contributions as well.
Title: Politics
Post by: likwidtek on November 18, 2011, 04:02:41 pm
Amazing clip. ACTUAL journalism! woo!
Title: Politics
Post by: Heironymus on December 04, 2011, 12:51:13 am
Is anyone else mildly concerned about S. 1867 SEC. 1031?? in reference to military ability to detain any american citizen on american soil indefinitely without due process if the government sees you as a "potential threat"
It is blowing up online, but of course Faux news and the other big news arent really covering it..
Opinions?
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on December 04, 2011, 01:18:51 am
Quote from: "Heironymus"
Is anyone else mildly concerned about S. 1867 SEC. 1031?? in reference to military ability to detain any american citizen on american soil indefinitely without due process if the government sees you as a "potential threat"
NOPE
Title: Politics
Post by: NoCry on December 04, 2011, 04:47:23 am
coveredpersonftmfw.
Title: Politics
Post by: Da6onet on December 04, 2011, 09:31:18 am
For those interested --> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf
1031 is defined down on page 359
As it's currently defined, I don't have a problem with this bill specifically. Defining who is a terrorist and how we're going to arrest them isn't inherently a problem.
The problem is that the avenues for prosecution of suspected terrorists hasn't been adequately fleshed out, which is why we have these real or perceived problems of civil liberty violations. Part of it is that using the label of terrorist can destroy any person's semblance of rights (such as the sixth amendment). I disagree with Gingrich that there exists a line between criminal law and the war on terror. I think it's better to understand terrorists as murderers with different motivations than murderers we're "used to." The reason this distinction is needed is because so many self-righteous anarchists label themselves political enemies of America or some activist marches on the National Mall and honestly believes our government will arrest them for being a "terrorist."
My message to any socialist/anarchist/Muslim/etc. claiming big brother is out to get them is this, killing people, makes you a murderer. If you're not murdering people, or at least assisting in the murder of people, then you are not, by definition, a terrorist. That doesn't mean you won't be under the eye of some investigatory body, but I would remind you that there are 300 million+ people in the US, and only about 800,000 law enforcement officers. Even if every single FBI agent, NYPD officer or local sheriff were doing nothing but surveillance of US citizens, that's 1 person covering more 375 people.
But I digress, the main point is we need to strengthen language that defines how and when we will prosecute terrorists. Debating the legislation that further defines who or what a terrorist is and how to arrest them is fine, but without a better process, we're just going to have camps of detained people with a trickle pace of trials or out-processing.
One last thing... anyone here from Arizona? How about Michigan? If you don't like this bill, it was written by your senators (McCain seat up for election 2016, Levin seat up for election 2014).
Title: Politics
Post by: NoCry on December 04, 2011, 10:53:42 am
I have not read the Act, other than the section first cited. I think terrorists or those who support them should lose the protection of the law and it should be an express and permanent loss of such protection - I am not some right wing lunatic.
These people are out to destroy a whole society and any "religion" which does not accord with their own perverted interpretation of religion or law (I am talking of any form of fundamentalism); not just a few people or indeed a few hundred people.
In my book, you take steps down that road, however "preparatory" you lose any right to be protected by the very system you are seeking to take down.
@dag - an act of "revenge" for, for instance, killing the rapist of your child in circumstances that you can not or fail to convince a jury that you were insane or that there was some other mitigation which can diminish your crime from murder to something lesser can not have the same label (murder) as a person who goes out and kills or prepares to kill for so called ideological reasons. As for what Gingrich seems to have said - makes sense to me.
Anyway, back in my box now;)
p.s. "beligerant act" = seems harsh!
Title: Politics
Post by: likwidtek on December 04, 2011, 11:28:22 am
Title: Politics
Post by: Da6onet on December 04, 2011, 03:48:17 pm
Nice find Likwid.
@ NoCry, I will try to clarify further. We deal with all kinds of murderers, those who do it out of revenge, those who are psychopaths, those who are serial killers, etc. We even deal with mass murderers (people who shoot up their office, Timothy McVeigh, Uni-bomber, etc.). But the reason I bring up the idea of labeling terrorists as murderers is not because I necessarily feel they should be tried the same way other murderers have been tried in the past, rather, by attaching a terrorist to some more familiar measure of evil for Americans will help keep us rational in our reactions to them. I don't want America to turn into a fascist state.
We need an honest conversation about how to deal with this brand of murderers when they're incarcerated. Perhaps some definition between an enemy combatant and a criminal would be helpful. Regardless, there have been religious zealots and political militants for thousands of years now, there are volumes of history from which we can draw on. Come on legislators!
Title: Politics
Post by: Subb on December 04, 2011, 04:15:11 pm
I think, if found guilty, they should be forced to be point man for ISAF patrols in Afghanistan. Oh, and they shouldn't get a detector. If they trigger an IED, then we're one asshole down and none of our guys get injured.
Title: Politics
Post by: ReReminiscence on December 05, 2011, 03:02:27 pm
well Cain is out the others are idiots look like Newt is more or likely going to end up rep nomination.
Title: Politics
Post by: Fuse on December 05, 2011, 03:28:35 pm
Tough call. Romney is lawyer-shady. Perry is Bush-dumb. Bachman is too cheerleader-unbelievable. Paul is .... Paul. Cain had issues of his own before the scandal, though he was viewed as the most "like you". Newt is in some ways too big government and his personal past will hurt him, but he's a no-BS guy. The country is liking that right now. Santorum isn't given the credit he's probably due, but is probably too right for many independents.
Title: Politics
Post by: Lithium on December 08, 2011, 08:05:07 pm
So President Obama, Commander-in-chief, has now lost two pieces of stealth US technology to foreign adversaries...at least the first one was worth it.
I think with the 2nd one, instead of handing over $100 million to the enemy we should have 'launched' another $10 million at it to rid the problem.
And while we're at it finish the job with an additional $10 billion 'launch' from our last base in Iraq before we surrender. Then we'll open up a bunch of cafes where nuclear reactors once existed and ship all the Occupy Protesters there.
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on December 08, 2011, 08:08:22 pm
Well they didn't want to upset them... Honest to God that was there reason for not destroying it.
Title: Politics
Post by: likwidtek on December 29, 2011, 02:16:31 pm
The Internet is probably the most important technological advancement of my lifetime. Its strength lies in its open architecture and its ability to allow a framework where all voices can be heard. Like the printing press before it (which states also tried to regulate, for centuries), it democratizes information, and thus it democratizes power. If we allow Congress to pass these draconian laws, we'll be joining nations like China and Iran in filtering what we allow people to see, do, and say on the Web.
And we're better than that.
Read more: MythBuster Adam Savage: SOPA Could Destroy the Internet as We Know It - Popular Mechanics
If you haven't already, calls and emails to our representatives about this crap. This is super bad news bears. Yet another example of how our government is bribed, bought and paid for. This crap was literally written by big corporations, pushed through by highly paid lobbyists and we can't stand for this blatant attack on our free speech and personal liberties.
They're trying to hijack and control the internet and that's now how this works.
Use this to find out who you should call: https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
If you don't know your zip +4 https://tools.usps.com/go/ZipLookupAction!input.action
Title: Politics
Post by: likwidtek on January 18, 2012, 11:39:13 am
PROTECT IP / SOPA Breaks The Internet from http://vimeo.com/fightforthefuture / Fight for the Future
Here's Google's Stance: https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/ (please sign the petition on that site)
Easy way to call your representatives: http://americancensorship.org/modal/call-form-moz.html
Title: Politics
Post by: Lithium on January 22, 2012, 05:14:01 pm
A sobering story about how America lost manufacturing. How do you compete with countries that have no regulation and basically employ competent slave labor?
Title: Politics
Post by: Keeloth on January 22, 2012, 06:50:08 pm
Quote from: "Lithium"
A sobering story about how America lost manufacturing. How do you compete with countries that have no regulation and basically employ competent slave labor?
You impose economic sanctions on countries that practice effectual slave labor.
Title: Politics
Post by: Phyroxis on January 22, 2012, 06:53:52 pm
Quote from: "Lithium"
A sobering story about how America lost manufacturing. How do you compete with countries that have no regulation and basically employ competent slave labor?
Where did values go? They could hire American, but don't because it's cheaper. Why do we drive corporations to focus only at the bottom line? We're shooting ourselves in the foot.
With millions of dollars going to CEO salaries (fractions of which could be used to create hundreds of jobs), do people really think that just a few tax incentives will bring jobs back to the US? No. They'll just bring more money into the pockets of execs.
We need to change the culture. We need to show companies what it means to be an American company. Don't focus just on money, but focus on supporting your country, who incidentally are your consumers.
As consumers we must make the stand, we can't expect "decision-makers" to do it without us.
Title: Politics
Post by: Da6onet on January 22, 2012, 10:01:17 pm
I know it sucks right now, but I can safely say that cheap labor doesn't last forever, even in China (actually, especially in China). My prediction, within 20 years enough people will fall into the educated middle class category and demand changes both in their labor laws and government. There were 180,000 strikes in 2010 in China alone.
edit: forgot to mention, worst case scenario, we keep exploiting foreign labor for these jobs, it turns global labor into a quasi-caste system, which means Americans will simply be the country that breeds executives :-)
Title: Politics
Post by: likwidtek on February 08, 2012, 12:29:47 pm
Title: Politics
Post by: NoCry on February 08, 2012, 05:44:38 pm
I was wondering where this thread got to. Keep it up.
Title: Politics
Post by: ZephixLeer (Zephic) on February 08, 2012, 06:28:37 pm
I just wish we could get all the corruption out the door. But when our leaders refuse to investigate corruption and are they themselves corrupt and earning a majority of their income from corporate "donations," how can we ever expect laws to be passed that would do any good in elimitating that corruption, greed, and power-mongering?
If the current administration won't at least instigate some investigation on something this insane, who can we trust to put our freedoms and concerns first?
Also...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0GFRcFm-aY
Title: Politics
Post by: Anamodiel on March 27, 2012, 12:38:54 pm
According to CNN's legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, the arguments were "a train wreck for the Obama administration."
"This law looks like it's going to be struck down. I'm telling you, all of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong," Toobin just said on CNN.
Title: Politics
Post by: Tbone on March 27, 2012, 01:32:45 pm
Cool, I suppose that means that the social security tax will be deemed unconstitutional as well! Then we won't have health care or social security! Poor people live too long as it is, amiright?!
Title: Politics
Post by: Lithium on March 27, 2012, 02:32:42 pm
Healthcare is a mandate not a tax. Hence, why arguments made it to day 2. A tax implies that you actually did something for money or value, like work or own a home or own investments, and then they promptly take a majority of your paycheck from you.
This is an issue of the powers of the federal government and what congress can impose on the people, namely under the Commerce Clause. Our founding fathers went to great lengths to ensure that the government had enumerated powers and this mandate tosses that concept right out the window.
And yes social security should be deemed unconstitutional but that's another issue. People who manage their 401k, IRAs, investments, and finances have no problem with retirement. It's just this air of personal irresponsibility that is allowed to continue unpunished.
Title: Politics
Post by: likwidtek on March 27, 2012, 02:36:35 pm
Personally I'm not sure what needs to be done but any of you guys who live here in the states who actually pay for your medical insurance can all agree that SOMETHING is broken and SOMETHING has got to give. I have no idea if the mandate will drive costs down but if it doesn't something needs to give.
I have really really great medical coverage through Blue Cross Blue Shield here in Arizona. My company pays for my coverage 100% which comes out to $600 a month. Seriously. PER MONTH. But for me to just add my daughter I have to pay an additional $400 a month. I mean holy crap guys. It's a racket. A total racket. Not only that but Jess's Mom just had major heart surgery. She works as a nurse for a large hospital in Phoenix. Well, she's going to have to declare bankruptcy from the surgery. Seriously. She HAD health insurance through her work! But because of how fucked and corrupted that system is they're playing the "Oh well we cover this but we don't cover that. We only cover *THIS* anesthesiologist not the one who worked your surgery". Like she had ANY CONTROL OF THAT!!!
I'm not sure universal health care would be the answer but what we have ain't working folks. If any of you here think our system is working for America you're either incredibly wealthy, Mommy and Daddy got you covered or you're damn fortunate that you or a loved one hasn't had massive health problems.
What's the number one reason for bankruptcy in America folks? Out of control medical costs. Why are they out of control? Well it depends on what news channel you watch.
Title: Politics
Post by: ZephixLeer (Zephic) on March 27, 2012, 08:15:17 pm
There are a lot of very complicated wheels turning with healthcare. My wife and I discussed the pharmacy she works for recently. She said they (CVS) have a lot of CVS brand generics avaialble for quite a few over the counter drugs but that they can't carry some of them because they are still under some kind of regulation. I'm ignorant to the interworkings of all this, but I gathered that drug companies are allowed to be the only producer of drugs that they do the research to produce for 3 years or something like that. The idea is the give them time to make money off the drug, reimbursing them for the research and development costs, which are really high in most cases.
This is one issue, as I see it. How do you reimburse a drug company for the research without limiting availability of a drug, driving costs so high? High drug costs hurt insurance companies, which in turn look like theives to the majority of us for charging so much for insurance in the first place.
Now, I'm not saying any of those industries are without fault. Personally, I hate slimy insurance companies. I've seen it all too often in my life where something is declared a pre-existing condition or some certain doctor wasn't under their plan. So they end up not covering things anyway.
My point is just that I feel like there's something more going on here than many people have the knowledge to put a finger on. I'm certainly ignorant in this discussion... but I know what I've experienced. I know it's wrong for people to be charged for things that they need to survive when they can't afford it. I know it's wrong for people to be denied preventative care because they can't afford it. I know it's wrong for people to die so that others can make money, too.
Sure, there's a certain point where enough is enough. What do you do when there's just not enough to go around? You take care of you and yours, I guess? But the issue here is that there are those who have more than they need causing those who have so little to lose what they've worked so hard for.
I don't think that using one doctor over another should ever factor into an insurance company paying up or not. I don't think where I receive care should matter. I don't feel that someone should ever die because they can't afford preventative care.
My grandfather died when I was 7 years old. I barely remember him now days. He died because of a blood clot forming in his leg while essentially waiting to die from lung cancer they hadn't spotted on some x-rays taken several years earlier. He didn't have insurance, so he didn't get yearly check-ups. Had he been able to afford the insurance or the actual care needed to have yearly check-ups, they'd have at least seen it in the second year. Who knows, maybe he'd still be around these days?
I know that's maybe a little too much information and a bit too personal, but it's why I hate healthcare in the situation it is in now.
High healthcare costs don't just hurt individuals eithers. There are entire hospitals locally that people consider "second-rate" because they can't afford to hire the best doctors, just the doctors who'll work for their pay. Regulations alone should prevent this even being an issue, but let's face it... a doctor who has performed 1000 open-heart surgeries is clearly the better choice than one who's on his first. And a new doctor will take a job making less money a lot faster than a guy with experience. It's the same in any industry.
Anyway... I'm done ranting... I don't really have any answers, either. :P I just know I wish our leaders did!
Title: Politics
Post by: Da6onet on July 17, 2012, 02:05:58 pm
From Fox News: "President Obama, in a speech to supporters, suggested business owners owe their success to government investment in infrastructure and other projects -- saying "if you've got a business, you didn't build that." Obama's comment Friday during a campaign stop in Roanoke, Va., came just days after he urged Congress to extend tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration only to families earning less than $250,000 annually -- part of his argument that top earners have an obligation to pay more to trim the deficit. "There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me because they want to give something back," the president said. "If you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen," he said. "The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, has pledged a vote on the Obama plan before Congress' August recess, but whether he has the votes remains unclear. A handful of Democrats - include several facing a tough re-election bid - don't want to vote on a proposal that would result in a tax increase for some Americans. Senate Democrats and Republicans wrangled Wednesday over the tax cut extensions, which have emerged as a major campaign issue as GOP candidate Mitt Romney attempts to upend Obama's re-election bid. Leaders of the GOP-controlled House want to extended the cuts for all American and will almost assuredly reject any plan capping them at the $250,000 income level, or $200,000 for individuals. The cuts will expire in January. \n Wait for it...
Title: Politics
Post by: Anamodiel on July 17, 2012, 05:12:09 pm
Op-Ed from Jack Welch in yesterday's WSJ. I guess Dag's post segway's nicely into this...
Here's a new party trick. Want to be accused of being a member of a satanic cult? Like to be called the kind of person who would steal candy from a child, or harm a puppy and start a forest fire-all in the same day? Do you want to be described as evil, heartless and stupid?
Then just do this: Offhandedly mention in public that you agree with Mitt Romney-and that, yeah, you think corporations are people.
Oh, how that notion sets some people right off their rockers! Take, for instance, the scene last month when senatorial candidate Elizabeth Warren introduced President Obama at a big fundraiser in Boston:
"Mitt Romney tells us, in his own words, he believes corporations are people. No, Mitt, corporations are NOT people," she pronounced. "People have hearts. They have kids. They get jobs. They get sick. They love and they cry and they dance. They live and they die. Learn the difference." The audience went wild.
What nonsense.
Of course corporations are people. What else would they be? Buildings don't hire people. Buildings don't design cars that run on electricity or discover DNA-based drug therapies that target cancer cells in ways our parents could never imagine.
Buildings don't show up at a customer's factory and say, "We won't leave until we solve your inventory problem." Buildings don't encourage their employees to mentor inner-city kids in math and science. Buildings don't fund homeless shelters in Boston or health clinics in Rwanda. People do.
Corporations are people working together toward a shared goal, just as hospitals, schools, farms, restaurants, ballparks and museums are. Yes, the people who invest in, manage and work for corporations are there to make a profit. And yes, corporations may employ some bureaucrats, jerks, cheapskates and even nefarious criminals.
But most individuals working in corporations are regular people, people just like you and your friends and neighbors. People who want to make a living and want to make a difference.
And while they're doing that, people in corporations do indeed love and cry and dance. If you don't know that, you've never been part of a team that has pulled together over coffee and late nights and shouting and laughing and created something amazing to hit a deadline. You've never been in the room when a longtime client says it's not working anymore and she's taking her business to your biggest competitor. You've never sat in the lunch room when someone runs in and says the new medical device that no one thought had a chance, the little heart valve or something like it that every engineer in the place has been working on for two years, has just passed its first human clinical trials with flying colors.
In such moments-moments that happen every single day-you can see and hear and feel that corporations are people. That's all they are.
This fact is so obvious that there can only be one conclusion drawn when we hear the pronouncement, "Corporations aren't people"-that it's doublespeak. That is, when people say that corporations aren't people, what they really want to say is, "Business is evil."
They want to say what they feel, which is that capitalism doesn't work, that it's unfair, and that America needs another system-one that, to quote the president himself, "spreads the wealth around."
Obviously, we're not in that camp. We know capitalism isn't perfect. But free markets are the best system there is to provide opportunity to those with an idea, or simply the motivation to work their butts off to make their lives better. We also know capitalism can spawn bad behavior; greed is part of the human condition and always will be. That's why regulations and controls exist, as they should.
But this movement afoot that hates on business is craziness. It will destroy America as we know it because very few jobs get created in an environment that's outright hostile to business. And without jobs, the whole thing falls down. It becomes a welfare state. We become a welfare state.
If that's what you want, we can't change your mind. But in your efforts, stop hiding behind words. Corporations are people. If you want to put an end to corporations, at least say what you mean.
Title: Politics
Post by: Mharz on July 17, 2012, 08:31:53 pm
Quote from: "Da6onet"
From Fox News: "President Obama, in a speech to supporters, suggested business owners owe their success to government investment in infrastructure and other projects -- saying "if you've got a business, you didn't build that."
This single quote will assure him of losing the election.
I'm confident that Kermit the Frog could run now and beat him.
Title: Politics
Post by: Lithium on July 20, 2012, 01:53:39 pm
Title: Politics
Post by: ZephixLeer (Zephic) on July 20, 2012, 01:59:51 pm
Quote from: "Mharz"
Quote from: "Da6onet"
From Fox News: "President Obama, in a speech to supporters, suggested business owners owe their success to government investment in infrastructure and other projects -- saying "if you've got a business, you didn't build that."
This single quote will assure him of losing the election.
I'm confident that Kermit the Frog could run now and beat him.
Yeah... but we don't get Kermit, we get Romney. A guy who changes his tune daily, won't disclose tax records, owns offshore financial accounts and put together a healthcare plan similar to the one people insist on calling Obamacare.
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on July 20, 2012, 04:53:04 pm
Please do not make me come into this thread....
Title: Politics
Post by: ZephixLeer (Zephic) on July 20, 2012, 05:59:35 pm
LOL.
Personally, I'm happy to hear what you have to say. I am tired of seeing elections where its not a choice for the better man, but rather a decision on which is less evil than the other. I see the whole Damn Congress as an issue right now. Indecision after indecision. And I've yet to see a man step up who can get them to listen. But I'm young... the best president I recall getting anything done was Clinton and that's the same time the housing market was essentially doomed to one day fail.... so....
Title: Politics
Post by: Phienyx on July 20, 2012, 09:05:50 pm
All I have to say at this point is that this country is in deep shit. We are so far down the tubes there is no coming back. People argue and bicker like brothers and sisters over differences of opinion (not to say that they are not on important matters...) and fail to see the overall picture of what is happening to this country. I don't really give a shit what label you stand under, if you uphold the spirit and letter of the Constitution, then you are my fellow American and I will fight to the death beside you in defense of that. All others who seek to circumvent and outright ignore or blatantly violate those rights for any reason have no business in any position of power in this country.
Those of us who have at one point or another took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution (and in many cases it specifically mentions defending against enemies foreign and DOMESTIC) must realize that an oath is not something to take lightly and it has no expiration date.
While there are many, many factors that must be considered when discussing politicians, you should consider that if any person's agenda includes systematically dismantling the Constitution or ignoring it, you should be the first to question their loyalty to this nation and our well being.
Beware of those who offer a solution to any problem that requires you to sacrifice any of your rights and freedoms. The Piper will always eventually demand payment.
Title: Politics
Post by: Mharz on July 20, 2012, 10:20:05 pm
Quote from: "Zephic"
Quote from: "Mharz"
Quote from: "Da6onet"
From Fox News: "President Obama, in a speech to supporters, suggested business owners owe their success to government investment in infrastructure and other projects -- saying "if you've got a business, you didn't build that."
This single quote will assure him of losing the election.
I'm confident that Kermit the Frog could run now and beat him.
Yeah... but we don't get Kermit, we get Romney. A guy who changes his tune daily, won't disclose tax records, owns offshore financial accounts and put together a healthcare plan similar to the one people insist on calling Obamacare.
I tend to change my opinion when I learn more about problems, I won't disclose my tax records to anyone, ever. I also might own assets which are not located inconus.
I have yet to design a heathcare plan but if I do I'm calling it ReaganCare.
Point is, Mitt isn't perfect but he is certainly the lesser of the two evils offered.
Title: Politics
Post by: Milhouse on July 21, 2012, 10:19:51 am
Context: "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."
So yes, if you cherry pick the one badly worded line in there, it's pretty awful. But if you ignore a person's entire point and just pick out the parts you want to focus on, your argument is lazy and childish. It was shameful when people did it to GWB, and it's shameful now.
Grow the fuck up and have an adult conversation. (That's for the our entire country, not just this thread.)
Title: Politics
Post by: Mharz on July 21, 2012, 01:25:50 pm
Quote from: "Milhouse"
Context: "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."
So yes, if you cherry pick the one badly worded line in there, it's pretty awful. But if you ignore a person's entire point and just pick out the parts you want to focus on, your argument is lazy and childish. It was shameful when people did it to GWB, and it's shameful now.
Grow the fuck up and have an adult conversation. (That's for the our entire country, not just this thread.)
While your read on the situation is roughly correct, that's not how it was spun and that's not how it was spread.
Also, I'll take issue with the fact that some business owners did do it all themselves. Personally I'm not one of those people, my work is built on many of the things you mentioned but I'm not really the "average american worker" in my opinion.
The right will spin that phrase and that single speech into the ground and Obama will lose because of that. While I don't mind (his politics don't match mine as well as Mitt's does) it is just a simple fact that the american media and the political system are like hungry sharks swimming around the water and that single comment is like chumming the water before throwing Obama in. He's going to be eaten alive.
Sorry left wingers. Your guy made a huge gaff and you'll pay for it for the next 4 years.
Title: Politics
Post by: likwidtek on July 21, 2012, 02:47:16 pm
Dude Obama is no better but seriously you guys are going to carry the water for Mitt? Seriously?
Title: Politics
Post by: likwidtek on July 21, 2012, 02:55:08 pm
They're both full of shit. They're both puppets for people with fuck tons of money, they're totally bought and paid for and neither of them have the integrity this country needs.
This is a Dog and Pony show and political theater at it's best. You guys are distracted. Wake up.
Title: Politics
Post by: Sared on July 21, 2012, 03:18:42 pm
Quote from: "likwidtek"
This is a Donkey show and political theater at it's best. You guys are distracted. Wake up.
Fixed that for you.
Title: Politics
Post by: Da6onet on July 21, 2012, 03:46:22 pm
I do think it's sad that Romney is the best the Republican party could put up.
Revelant question for our generation: If every nation has the government it deserves, what does America's government say about its denizens?
Title: Politics
Post by: Phienyx on July 21, 2012, 09:25:07 pm
I will agree that there is a lot of money behind both candidates the question should be asked...... Who's money is it and what is their agenda? I will not support an agenda that advocates removing citizens ability to defend themselves from tyranny or that allows the United Nations to do so because it won't stop there.
Title: Politics
Post by: Tbone on July 22, 2012, 02:12:16 am
Corporations are people: The idea there is that corporations have free speech in the vein of money. This ruling instantly polluted and corrupted our political process more so than it already was. It's why the fundraising and amounts being spent on presidential campaigns are out of control and why both sides are forced to become puppets to the people with the big pockets. It's an arms race. To make the argument that corporations are people because they are made of people is circumventing the whole reason for the debate. The whole flesh-and-blood thing is just pointing out the error in the ruling that corporations are people and the extremes that might be taken to. Can a corporation become president now?
Obama's Gaff: The banking corruption with Lindor has already pushed this to the outskirts. There's gaffs-of-the-week all the time, and while it's a sound byte for Romney, it's not nearly as damning as, say, tax evasion, a possibility for Romney, or at least that's what could be twisted if he doesn't release his tax records. Most people already know the context of this quote and have moved on, unless you're watching Fox News, in which case you aren't voting for Obama anyway.
Lies, lies, lies: I hate to say it, but likwid is right. Our current two-party system is such a well-oiled corruption machine that we just keep spiraling. Anyone who doesn't play the game is blacklisted and shut out. Whether I agree with him or not, Ron Paul is someone who seems like one of the last honest politicians who sticks to his beliefs, but because of his convictions the Republican party and media did everything they could to minimize his role. I always had respect for John McCain until he ran for president and sacrificed his "maverick" ideals in an attempt to win over the base and satisfy the ones footing his bill. There's no independent party who can even get close.
In the end I think greedy, powerful people have corrupted politics. Big businesses tell us what to say and think and none of us know what's really going on. I feel like the Republican party is more in bed with these corrupted influences than the other side. They use small businesses as an example but really are just out to make sure policies are made to help their best interest. I also think the Republican social policies reflect an ignorant, intolerant, backwards-thinking attitude that, while it's slowly dying out, if nurtured, would just continue to weaken America and keep us in a stagnant stasis (read: slavery, women's rights, child labor, workers' rights, McCarthyism, etc. as past examples). Be all pissy about it, but gay rights are this generation's black rights and one day what the gay community has had to endure will be seen as a mirror to the accepted racist policies decades ago.
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on July 22, 2012, 04:46:35 pm
Eh someday you'll all grow up and then you'll realize how life is....
It's okay even if you don't someday it'll hit you square in the eyes and you'll be like.... Holy Shit I was such a dolt
Title: Politics
Post by: ZephixLeer (Zephic) on July 22, 2012, 04:49:08 pm
Broin has all and none of the answers all at the same time. You're like a mysterious Mr Rogers.
Title: Politics
Post by: Mharz on July 23, 2012, 02:31:21 pm
History lesson inc..
Abe Lincoln (the president that waged a civil war to free the slaves) was a Republican.
George W. Jullian ( the guy who is credited for leading the group of legislators who wrote the 15th amendment) was a republican for most of his political career.
This thread has definitely disappointed me. Remain out of the mud I will.
For the record I'm a conservative and I support equal rights for all living beings, denounce slavery, and consider my views one of many paths forward to a brighter future. It just happens that a larger fraction of my core beliefs align with the right.
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on July 23, 2012, 03:41:40 pm
Keep going Mharz.... Desegregation... Republicans, democratic party tried to kill it.
Jim Crow laws... Anyone that's right democrats... 1870's Dems gained power back in the southern states by attacking blacks and preventing them to vote. During the following time period the Dems initiated the Jim Crow laws...
Bah don't get me goin'
Title: Politics
Post by: likwidtek on July 23, 2012, 04:03:36 pm
Mharz, I don't get your point.
What I think you're saying is that the Republican party is good because of the things republicans have done in history. My opinion: One has nothing to do with another. If that's what you mean, then I feel you aren't taking into account that the right wing TODAY are far from what republicans used to be. You aren't taking into account that what we see on Fox news are Neo-Cons and you don't seem to realize that the current republican party, the tea party, all that... has been hijacked by corporate interests.
But here's the M Night Shamalama-ding-dong twist. SO HAS THE Democratic party. :O Just because a dude in history did some awesome things and wore a Red shirt, doesn't mean that if you also wear a Red shirt, that you share the same values. It's a label. I simple and senseless title. That's one of the biggest reasons why the two party system is such crap anyway. It prevents people for thinking for their damn selves. People now-a-days just vote how they're influenced by their party to vote. "Well, mr and mrs news show person say that this is how Party X votes... hmmm that sounds good".
It's all messed up man. There are so many distractions put in the mix to keep people from caring about the real issues. These idiotic social wedges and all the political theater that's drummed up to keep the American people polarized is MIND NUMBING. But we all keep doing it because that's what's on TV. It happens because no one wants to turn the TV off and go fact check the vomit they just lapped up on the TV. The TV tells us that "The other side is bad, they did this horrible thing, they're coming after what you care about MOST!!!!" And we just drink it down blindly and point the finger at the guy across the street because he's a Liberal/Tea Partier. In the mean time, our dollar is being eroded, our freedoms and privacy are being systematically plucked one by one, our children are becoming stupider, we're becoming less healthy, we're fucking up the environment, and we're praising the jerks who are trying to take our money and freedom.
So regarding Democrats versus Republicans, here's the problem for me personally:
I consider myself socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I feel that my money is my money, I support paying for infrastructure, schools, taking care of those who truly need it,.. But I don't support senseless wars; I think the fact that we have 900 over-seas military bases in 130 countries it pretty damn ridiculous, I'd prefer that I have as much personal freedom as possible, I think that things like the patriot act are the scariest things that could ever happen to us yet people keep smiling and thanking the government for taking their freedom. I feel that it's no one's fucking business what people do in their bedroom, who they love and who they marry and I feel that congress should not be making medical decisions for American women LET ALONE the rest of us. I strongly disagree with writing the Christian bible into law. I believe that illegal immigrants should not get welfare and public resources. I believe that illegal immigrants who get caught doing crime should be deported. But I agree that the path to citizenship should be MUCH easier. I believe that we need to spend WAY more of that money that comes out of our checks on schools paved in gold, filled with the best computers money can buy, only the best and most current books and teachers should be making enough to support a family on.
So where do I fit? What color shirt do I wear?
Title: Politics
Post by: ZephixLeer (Zephic) on July 23, 2012, 04:53:17 pm
I red, white, and blue one. :p
Title: Politics
Post by: Mharz on July 23, 2012, 05:28:27 pm
Lik I think you completely "get my point" but you might not realize it.
My main history lesson was pointed at Tbone, who, apparently has taken a hefty helping of mis-information. That history (the facts) were re-written by our left wing friends to make the right "appear" to be responsible for all things backwards, evil, and degenerate. Republicans (and in fact conservatives) are not bad people. We don't support evil corporations, we don't support putting seniors out on the streets with no medical coverage, and we don't support things like slavery, unfair labor policies or backwards human rights issues.
While you can demonize the right for their pandering to big business for every example you give for the right being corrupted you can list one for the left. It is, in fact, as someone pointed out, part of the system.
Here's the secret no one tells you. The one you have to figure out for yourself.
The system has always been that way and the only way to change it is to become a part of it and work from inside of it to affect change.
There won't be a revolution. There won't be sweeping change. The country will move forward slowly and steadily and many people will rant, rave, and demonize. Those people will be ignored and shut out because they aren't a part of the system. They're radicals that no one really understands or cares about.
Sorry to be the one to break this news but that's how it is. You can't change the Matrix from outside the Matrix. You have to jack in, get involved, and get a little dirty. But here's the interesting thing.. when you do, you find out that many of your views about those people in the system change. They aren't who or what you thought they were.
Lik you completely get the point. You.. yourself, your views, your position, is not represented.
You're part republican and part democrat and you don't have a person that represents your thoughts/views/wants for society.
The best thing you can do is to figure out which side most represents you and hop into the system, support what you like, talk down what you don't (even on your own side) and make your voice heard.
I'd encourage everyone to write down issues and how you feel about them in private. List a lot of issues. Then compare your answers with the party lines/goals. I think many of you will find, you're actually republicans and don't know it.
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on July 23, 2012, 09:59:48 pm
I know I'm being bad here by not reading your post Likwid but I pretty much know what it says...
So for all you guys out there who are down on big business and republicans and what not I'm going to demonstrate my thoughts on how you are wrong, by addressing you as if you were my kids. No not as children, but I'm going to tell you exactly what I use to tell my kids, when they got squirrley. So from this point forward when you see the word Me or I or we or parents or father or mother just replace it with Big Business.
So this is me now explaining to my kids their lot in life.....
Alright now listen up everything you have, everything you own, everything you do is because I allow you to have it. I allow you to do it. The house you live in, the car you drive, the food you eat, the clothes you wear, the water you wash and drink and brush your teeth with. Everything is because of me and your mother. EVERYTHING.... You own nothing you have nothing unless we let you have it. EVERYTHING.
Without the work we do without the sacrafices that we make you would have nothing. You think it's easy doing this? These things don't come wihtout sacrafice and work. Work that comes from the hours of my life. Everything you have EVERYTHING comes from me sacraficing my life for them. PERIOD. Do you get it.... I sacrafice and give the hours of my life so that you can have the things you want, the things you desire, the things you crave, the things that make your life the luxury it is. Without the sacrafice of my lifes time you have nothing.
Do you think that I can just wake up in the morning and make these things appear for you. Do you think that you can just lay around and someone is going to provide you with the gadgets and gizmos and crap you like. Well you are sadley mistaken because without me you don't get them. Without me you don't get anything. Without me you would be living in a van down by the river, and actually not even in a van because without me you wouldn't have the van. You'd just be sitting on the dirt looking at the water roll past you, like your life rolling past you without me.
Now I want you to stop and think about that for a second. Stop and take that smug look off your face, take the sneer off your lips, and the glare out of your eyes and think about it. If you don't think this is the case then you tell me... Tell me one thing that you have, one thing that you get to do, one thing... One thing alone and I'll explain to you how you don't have it or can't have it unless I allow you to have it or provide it to you.
Title: Politics
Post by: ZephixLeer (Zephic) on July 23, 2012, 10:25:40 pm
I guess your analogy works if mom and dad charged me rent. My parent's didn't.
:P
But seriously, big business is well and good... hell it helped to make America what it is. I can agree with that.
What I don't agree with is a Wal-Mart coming to town and putting all of the local shops out of business because it's impossible to compete. That'd be one thing if Wal-mart still bought/sold USA produced goods and services, but they don't. We're buying from China, Vietnam, Taiwan and Japan.
Trade is good too, but not when we no longer provide any goods or services to the global market. We've become a nation of pure consumers because our leaders allowed our goods and services to be sold off to the lowest bidder, allowing corporations to make more profit by paying out less. It's effectively slave labor. Look at working conditions in China. Chinese government's fault? Sure. But we consume the goods produced at slave labor "wages."
The problem isn't in one place. It's our entire way of living. The issue is that it's a cycle we will have hell breaking free from without our leaders taking the first large steps. Joe and Marie down the road can't afford NOT to buy from Wal-mart beacuse they don't make any money themselves. They are forced to buy cheap goods now. Why? Big busines shipped their call center jobs to India. Same for Bob and Sue next door. They aren't working in that factory that made cloths anymore because Chinese workers those jobs too.
Then there are the issues with healthcare we've discussed already...
This country is great. This country is amazing in so many ways. However, we have problems that aren't meant to be political. We need real leadership to take charge and make things happen. We need true leaders to forget their own wallet for a moment and consider the big picture.
So far, I haven't seen anyone do that but maybe Ron Paul, but geez... I don't even know where to begin with him. :(
Title: Politics
Post by: Tbone on July 23, 2012, 10:59:44 pm
Being progressive - The Republican party used to be the progressive party. My comparison wasn't a demonstration on how Republicans are always on the wrong side of the fence, but how the conservative stance on gay issues of today will later be perceived in the same right as pro-slavery, lack of women's rights, etc. The Republican party is no longer the progressive party - as a matter of fact, it's a bad word. The party was hijacked and now you can't talk about economic issues without also lumping in religion and family values and other conservative stances. Their base forces them to take extreme sides on these issues, and until they find a way to balance it, I see them becoming weaker and weaker as old people keep dying and young people get older. Likwid would be a perfect Republican in the past, but because of these changes, the Republican party is losing him to the independent area. He's up for grabs.
Big business is your mom - It's a good analogy. But mom and dad still pay taxes. And if they don't, they get in trouble. And if they get in trouble and go broke or go to jail, guess who also gets screwed over. You. Mom and dad can't just go to the casino and gamble away all their money or you're not gonna get fed. Mom and dad are held accountable just as much as you are for their actions, and because of that, they have to make smart choices to keep themselves and you alive. Big businesses and Wall Street have lost that accountability and now they're breaking open their kids' piggy bank to go buy more booze. Intervention time!
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on July 23, 2012, 11:06:45 pm
T I think you should replce big business in your statement with big government and then you'll have it right
Title: Politics
Post by: likwidtek on July 23, 2012, 11:39:41 pm
Broin that's fucked up man. Don't even read my post? And you just make assumptions about what you think it may say? That's disrespectful and shitty IMO.
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on July 23, 2012, 11:49:54 pm
Likwid it'll all be ok.... remember its politics...it is all about assumptions
Title: Politics
Post by: Sared on August 03, 2012, 08:55:33 pm
"Anti-Occupy" law ends American's right to protest (http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/leading-edge-legal-advice-everyday-matters/2012/aug/1/i-object-i-disagree-can-i-now-say-so-publicly/)
Anyone else feeling a little less free?
Title: Politics
Post by: Da6onet on August 03, 2012, 09:06:05 pm
Meh, Supreme Court will overturn it eventually.
Title: Politics
Post by: Phienyx on August 03, 2012, 11:00:13 pm
Quote from: "Da6onet"
Meh, Supreme Court will overturn it eventually.
Really? That's all you have to say about it?
And when in history has an increasingly oppressive government taken away rights.....and then gave em back......without a fight?
I find it a load of fucking bullshit that when the WTC was attacked, all of a sudden people were "passionate" about patriotism and freedom but just the day before, they could tell you more about the shit going on with the TV show Big Brother or Survivor than what was going on in their own government. Now 11 years later, again, the majority know more about the Kardasians and Jersey Shore than about the direction this country is being taken. We, the people are supposed to be determining where this country is going, yet most of us don't really give a rats ass as long as we can go out and drink ourselves silly on the weekends and get free meds to cope with it all on Monday. (Seems as if most of America has completely missed the point and the symbolism behind The Matrix.) The American war cry has now become....They can take our rights, but they can't take our MTV!
If your not passionate about patriotism every day, even when its not popular....then you stand for nothing and you're full of shit; the antithesis of those that founded this country. Inform yourselves and don't just let yourselves be spoon fed by the crap that the media decides to tell you. Its not the supreme court's job to fix this country's problems. Its ours!
If this pisses you off, then this message was for you.
Dag, that post wasn't aimed at you specifically....just the mindset.
Title: Politics
Post by: Da6onet on August 04, 2012, 01:03:35 pm
The founders understood that the vast majority of people are ignorant, selfish, and apathetic. That's one of the main reasons we have the electoral college. I vote in elections knowing full well that my informed and careful decision will be out weighed by dozens of the aforementioned idiots. The wisdom the founders had that our current politicians don't seem to have, is that the quest for power is misguided, one has to give up power to be truly great.
Does it bother me when we lose constitutional freedoms? Yes. Does it bother me to the point where I'm going to pick up arms and raid Washington? Not yet.
My mindset is that in today's world, the American Revolution/War of Independence never would have happened. So yes, "meh." Our federal government broke down some time in the 60s/70s and has been shit ever since. That wouldn't be so bad except that our state and even local governments are extremely dependent on the functioning of Washington now.
Do I see it getting better in my life time? No. Do I see it getting better in my daughter's life time? Possibly.
Here's a real question I have:
What is more likely to happen next in America, a constitutional amendment or a violent revolution?
Title: Politics
Post by: NoCry on August 04, 2012, 01:56:01 pm
I thought you just had faith in lawyers dag;)
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on August 04, 2012, 05:04:35 pm
LAWYERS!!! Don't get me started :)
Title: Politics
Post by: Anamodiel on August 11, 2012, 11:37:52 am
PAUL. RYAN.
Title: Politics
Post by: Tbone on August 11, 2012, 12:25:55 pm
Quote from: "Anamodiel"
PAUL. RYAN.
RIP GOP. You just lost Florida!
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on August 11, 2012, 06:39:55 pm
YOUR IGNORANCE IS BLISS
Title: Politics
Post by: Sared on August 22, 2012, 07:14:08 pm
HERD U GOT VP NOMINATION
GUD FER U
(Also, the internet found out that his Wiki profile pic is ginormous.
Original: (http://i.imgur.com/X58del.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/xxOuYl.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/ycb6gl.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/rRRchl.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/AjZ8ul.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/SSBxLl.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/xNUPHl.jpg)
Title: Politics
Post by: Venlar on August 24, 2012, 03:49:01 pm
Mahoney, come on buddy... Don't you know Clinton already did the intern thing... Oh shit wait this one was just a Congressional Page. He must like them young....
(By the way I could keep going.... I just got bored of copying and pasting this shit)
I mean saying something stupid, misspeaking, or getting tripped up on words is so awful that the Dems jump all over ya.... But when it comes to their shit they are silent as door mice. Want me to go and post all the assenine things The big Pres and his cronies have said?
Wake up.... Most damn corrupt Pres and admin ever....EVER F'n EVER
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6QOscKvUjU
Title: Politics
Post by: Sared on August 25, 2012, 11:42:24 am
Quote from: "Broin"
Janet Napolitano accused for sexual discrimination and frat house behavior? Well she kind of is like a man....
Title: Politics
Post by: jessercas on August 25, 2012, 03:19:21 pm
I just wanted to say that Akin didn't "mis-speak" and he wasn't taken out of context. He legitimately thought that women who were truly raped had biological defenses to keep them from getting pregnant. He admitted in an interview with Sean Hannity that he had been misinformed and after every one got all angry he had been educated to the truth. The scary thing is that he truly believed that women had some mystical Wizard of Oz gatekeeper up in their uterus to defend against rape sperm. I am proud of him for apologizing, and learning the truth and admitting that he was completely and utterly wrong. It doesn't change the fact that there are many people out their who agree or believe his original statement and are trying to pass legislation on women's health benefits or to control my uterus which they clearly know nothing about.
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on August 25, 2012, 03:38:56 pm
Claaisc example between ignorance and stupidity.....
He was ignorant....
I would call those trashing him for one ignorant coment while wilfully ignoring true dispecable behavior, as stupid
Title: Politics
Post by: jessercas on August 25, 2012, 04:12:28 pm
Sooooooo, allowing ignorant people to run for high level positions and make uneducated legislative decisions that impact the health benefits of every woman in the United States qualify as stupid? (While also willfully ignoring true despicable behavior in both parties I might add)
Title: Politics
Post by: Phienyx on August 25, 2012, 05:23:36 pm
One thing ALL humans have in common is a penchant for ignorant and despicable behavior. You cannot judge an entire group of people based on the actions of a few idiots. (I can deal with the merely ignorant because they can be corrected and educated. Its the willfully ignorant that refuse to change even when presented with the correct information that I cannot tolerate.) If you want to get past the childish mud slinging and into a discussion that matters, you should look at the core beliefs of a group. What are the morals and standards they support? What are their visions and goals? What are they about, over all? Discuss those differences and their merits....or lack thereof.
Sometimes discussing politics ceases to be about the politics and becomes about getting distracted by relatively petty issues. Much like when trying to have an internet discussion about which web browser is the best, but then some one starts ripping on someone's spelling and grammar.
Title: Politics
Post by: Subb on August 25, 2012, 05:33:11 pm
I'm loving this thread so far; nice seeing people's different opinions.
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on August 25, 2012, 08:12:02 pm
Quote from: "jessercas"
Sooooooo, allowing ignorant people to run for high level positions and make uneducated legislative decisions that impact the health benefits of every woman in the United States qualify as stupid? (While also willfully ignoring true despicable behavior in both parties I might add)
There is a huge difference between ignorance and stupidty.... I'll explain it to you.
Ignorance means that you have little or lacking knowledge of a subject matter. It does not mean that you do not have the ability or intellegience to understand... Everyone has been ignorant in their lives about something or other... EVERYONE. That does not make you a bad person or mean that your life and all your past and furture contributions are worthless and meaningless.
Stupidty means that you lack the mental capability to gain any sembleance of understanding on a subject matter. I place many people in this category because of their mentality on a subject which refuses to allow them to see anything other than what they choose to see...
So just because the guy was ignorant on what he said does not mean he is stupid like the people who are castagating him.
What happens all to often is that Dems attempt to blur the difference between an ignorant statement or someones ignorance on a subject and equate their ignorance with stupidty and lack of ability to be worthwhile.
They try to make someone who may be ignorant out to be just plain stupid and therefore use that to dismiss them and their stand outright.
I really do like your point though about allowing an ignorant person to run for a high level position and make undeducated legislative decisions.... I mean why didn't you just spell out the name of the one person who utterly and truley emodies that statement... OBAMA
And do not get me started on this crap about women's health and bullshit that is being thrown out there right now. Cause if you do I'll tell you what it really is then you'll be really pissed at me.
Title: Politics
Post by: likwidtek on August 29, 2012, 11:33:19 am
The thing is, this guy Akin and Paul Ryan are co-sponsors on legislation about contraception, pregnancy and abortion. See, if he were just some idiot who "mispoke" then that's one thing. But these guys are self-proclaimed experts on the subject. So much so, they want to create laws regarding this matter that impact every Man, Woman and Child living in the United States.
Ignorance, stupidity, retardation, misunderstanding... I don't care. If you're going to try and make laws about a topic you damn well better know your shit. Which obviously this guy doesn't.
Whether you're pro-life or pro-choice shouldn't matter. This is a guy who obviously didn't understand the subject matter in which he was attempting to legislate. Make sense?
Title: Politics
Post by: Phienyx on August 29, 2012, 11:59:50 am
Quote
Ignorance, stupidity, retardation, misunderstanding... I don't care. If you're going to try and make laws about a topic you damn well better know your shit. Which obviously this guy doesn't.
Sounds like our current administration. Add to that a blatant disregard for our Constitution, what this country stands for, what the people want..... you have a much bigger problem than ignorance, stupidity, retardation or misunderstanding. You have a calculated plan to disrupt and disable from within. Classic Trojan Horse strategy.
Title: Politics
Post by: likwidtek on August 29, 2012, 12:29:14 pm
Fully agree. Both parties are doing this crap. Neither give a crap about the Constitution. Each side likes to quote it but they like to pick and choose.
It's funny that the Republicans who are so anti big government want Federal government to dictate if or when a woman can have an abortion. Or buy birth control. It's a state issue. But the Republicans don't care about that. Neither do the Democrats. Each want giant blanket laws that sweep all states.
Title: Politics
Post by: Da6onet on August 29, 2012, 12:40:25 pm
I have a solution for bad politicians!
Vote for someone else or run for office yourself :-)
Title: Politics
Post by: likwidtek on August 29, 2012, 12:59:37 pm
I had forgotten that George Carlin passed away 4 years ago...where does the time go?
Title: Politics
Post by: Phienyx on August 29, 2012, 03:20:44 pm
The current administration is really neither Democratic or Republican. It is something else entirely hiding behind the banner of democrat. This explains why nearly its entire agenda violates the Constitution and every move they make is one step closer to setting the stage for total control of EVERYTHING and EVERYONE. I am not opposed to the government of the United States in the least. I'm just saying, this is no longer truly the government of the United States of America where things were as simple as democrat or republican. If you do not recognize this, you really need to wake up and look at the facts and not just what the media feeds you. You've been being lulled to sleep over the last few decades.
Pay close attention to the analogy of the frog and the pot. You cannot just throw a frog into a pot of boiling water. He will jump out. However, if you put him into a pot of cool water and slowly raise the temperature to the boiling point, he will allow himself to be boiled alive. Now THAT is just downright retarded, ignorant, stupid and a misunderstanding that will cost you your freedom and probably your life.
Title: Politics
Post by: likwidtek on August 29, 2012, 03:55:22 pm
We do not disagree
Title: Politics
Post by: Venlar on August 30, 2012, 02:51:13 pm
I'm no big fan of Ron Paul but he got seriously screwed at the RNC. They changed the rules so He couldn't be officially nominated and so they could replace delegates loyal to him with delegates for Romney. Notice how the teleprompter says the Ayes have it while the No's are still voting.
Title: Politics
Post by: Venlar on August 30, 2012, 03:10:57 pm
What sickens me the most about this election cycle though is the blatant attempts at voter suppression all in the name of eliminating voter fraud. Not only is voter fraud incredibly rare but is almost never perpetrated by an individual in person so these new laws will have no impact on the actual statistics. If you want to take a look at them I recomend this article from the NYU school of law. http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/policy_brief_on_the_truth_about_voter_fraud/
Now what's scary about this is all the states that have enacted these laws have seen huge drop offs in registration for the democrats. You can take a look at the numbers in florida here. http://jacksonville.com/news/florida/2012-08-27/story/democratic-registration-all-dries-new-florida-laws
What's even worse now though is there has been a push to take enforcement of voting rights out of the hands of the federal government and be solely controlled and enforced by the states. This would ultimately allow states to circumvent constitutional amendments such as the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments which deal with citizenship, race, sex, age, and poll taxes. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/20/todd-akin-voting-rights_n_1810228.html
Title: Politics
Post by: likwidtek on August 30, 2012, 04:45:05 pm
Corruption.
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on August 30, 2012, 05:06:31 pm
Quote from: "Venlar"
What sickens me the most about this election cycle though is the blatant attempts at voter suppression all in the name of eliminating voter fraud. Not only is voter fraud incredibly rare but is almost never perpetrated by an individual in person so these new laws will have no impact on the actual statistics. If you want to take a look at them I recomend this article from the NYU school of law. http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/policy_brief_on_the_truth_about_voter_fraud/
Now what's scary about this is all the states that have enacted these laws have seen huge drop offs in registration for the democrats. You can take a look at the numbers in florida here. http://jacksonville.com/news/florida/2012-08-27/story/democratic-registration-all-dries-new-florida-laws
What's even worse now though is there has been a push to take enforcement of voting rights out of the hands of the federal government and be solely controlled and enforced by the states. This would ultimately allow states to circumvent constitutional amendments such as the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments which deal with citizenship, race, sex, age, and poll taxes. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/20/todd-akin-voting-rights_n_1810228.html
Ah trust me Voter fraud is RAMPANT in the country. When you can explain to me how requiring an individual to have a nVALID ID showing your true STATE RESIDENCE and US CITIZENSHIP to vote as suppresion then I'll lesson to your points.
Voting is not a right, it is a privledge. It is the single most important privledge that a citizen has to inact change and get the persons they want in the positions necessary to inact the legislation they desire.
Seeing how it is the most IMPORTANT privledge you would think it would be protected as such. What is freakin' insane is that the same fools who yell and scream that you should be carding everyone who buys beer or cigarrettes to make sure the youth aren't hurting themselves yell and scream louder to keep the most important privledge we have from being protected.
Think of all the places you go or things you do that require VALID ID, but the most important thing you can do to inact true change in your life with elected officials is suppoused to be what? Not as important.... Give me a fuckin break.
You need ID to
Title: Politics
Post by: likwidtek on August 30, 2012, 05:16:07 pm
Quote
Ah trust me Voter fraud is RAMPANT in the country.
I'm interested in this. Do you have any facts on this that you can share? Seriously, not being shitty. I hear people say it but have never seen facts.
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on August 30, 2012, 05:27:43 pm
Quote from: "likwidtek"
The thing is, this guy Akin and Paul Ryan are co-sponsors on legislation about contraception, pregnancy and abortion. See, if he were just some idiot who "mispoke" then that's one thing. But these guys are self-proclaimed experts on the subject. So much so, they want to create laws regarding this matter that impact every Man, Woman and Child living in the United States.
Ignorance, stupidity, retardation, misunderstanding... I don't care. If you're going to try and make laws about a topic you damn well better know your shit. Which obviously this guy doesn't.
Whether you're pro-life or pro-choice shouldn't matter. This is a guy who obviously didn't understand the subject matter in which he was attempting to legislate. Make sense?
If you don't like the legislation then don't vote for him or others who believe like him... That simple. But what the rest of the comments on him are just a bunch of BS. If you don't agree with him that's fine, but there are millions of people who agree with him, and his legislation.
I would bet that you don't even know what the legislation is even about. I would guess you are just hearing what everyone else is saying and spewing out about it.
As far as him trying to inact legislation at least he is doing it the right way instead of circumventing the process and passing shit that most US citizens didn't want... OBAMA CARE anyone?
As far as the PRO CHOICE crowd the thing I find most ridiculous about them is that they are not about CHOICE. They are just like most Dems and Libs .... If you don't believe the way they believe or chose the choice they want you to chose then you are a bigot, racist, hater, idiot, etc., ect., etc.,
Like T the other night and his stupid ass comments about the RNC convention... Hateful worthless comments that he doesn't even realize are hateful. "Oh look they are putting the black people up front to make it look like..."
Half of you guys are so damn blinded by the spewing crap that you've swallowed that you don't see that the hate and vile you throw out to bethe same hate and vile you accuse the other side of doing. In your minds it isn't, WHY? Because the other guy does'nt agree with you... So therefore it is okay to hate on them.
Like the dumbass from AOL/ABC that got canned.... I always hear you guys bitching and moanin about FOX news and all what not... Tell me the last time one of them got caught saying something like what that dumbass said. Hell last night I switched to MSNBC after the speech to here some dumbass tell me how the whole speech was rasict becuase it was directed at rich white people... WTF are you kidding me?
You know what I say we do... I say we hook all these so called news casters and people up to lie detectors and electric chairs. Each time they lie or put a falsehood out there they get shocked to death. If that happened MSNBC, NBC, CNN, and ABC would be emptied of staff in 24 hours.
Title: Politics
Post by: Venlar on August 30, 2012, 05:36:17 pm
Quote from: "Broin"
Quote from: "Venlar"
What sickens me the most about this election cycle though is the blatant attempts at voter suppression all in the name of eliminating voter fraud. Not only is voter fraud incredibly rare but is almost never perpetrated by an individual in person so these new laws will have no impact on the actual statistics. If you want to take a look at them I recomend this article from the NYU school of law. http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/policy_brief_on_the_truth_about_voter_fraud/
Now what's scary about this is all the states that have enacted these laws have seen huge drop offs in registration for the democrats. You can take a look at the numbers in florida here. http://jacksonville.com/news/florida/2012-08-27/story/democratic-registration-all-dries-new-florida-laws
What's even worse now though is there has been a push to take enforcement of voting rights out of the hands of the federal government and be solely controlled and enforced by the states. This would ultimately allow states to circumvent constitutional amendments such as the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments which deal with citizenship, race, sex, age, and poll taxes. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/20/todd-akin-voting-rights_n_1810228.html
Ah trust me Voter fraud is RAMPANT in the country. When you can explain to me how requiring an individual to have a nVALID ID showing your true STATE RESIDENCE and US CITIZENSHIP to vote as suppresion then I'll lesson to your points.
Voting is not a right, it is a privledge. It is the single most important privledge that a citizen has to inact change and get the persons they want in the positions necessary to inact the legislation they desire.
Seeing how it is the most IMPORTANT privledge you would think it would be protected as such. What is freakin' insane is that the same fools who yell and scream that you should be carding everyone who buys beer or cigarrettes to make sure the youth aren't hurting themselves yell and scream louder to keep the most important privledge we have from being protected.
Think of all the places you go or things you do that require VALID ID, but the most important thing you can do to inact true change in your life with elected officials is suppoused to be what? Not as important.... Give me a fuckin break.
You need ID to
I'll trust you on voter fraud being rampant in the country if you can show me evidence that it is. All the statistics I have seen show that it's .0002% - .0009% of votes that are fraudulent and the vast majority of which are absentee ballots that don't require someone to be in person to vote.
I disagree that voting is not a right. It is referred to as a right in the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th amendments. Please explain why you believe it is a privilege and not a right as an American citizen.
The argument that we have to use ID for so many other things in this country is false logic. The same argument can be used to justify the requirement for ID in every other aspect of our lives in this country. That simply becomes a road towards a draconian society.
You also are ignoring the fact that the laws are a clear violation of the constitution. Particularly the 24th amendment which reads:
"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
If a U.S. Citizen does not have proper ID in the states that are passing these law then in order to vote they must pay a fee to the state in order to obtain the proper ID. This is a poll tax.
Also please don't give me the argument that people on welfare need id to cash their welfare checks. There are many other people out there without ID. MY 90 year old grandmother uses direct deposit for her SS and no longer drives so she doesn't have an ID. She's worked the polls all her life and if she were in a state with a voter ID law she would not be allowed to vote. Don't forget college students whom have out of state IDs that will not be accepted at the polls.
You also haven't addressed the voter purges in Florida which is disenfranchising thousands of voters and leaving them with no way of appeal.
Title: Politics
Post by: Da6onet on August 30, 2012, 09:41:13 pm
Fun fact, it wasn't until the 14th amendment, 80 years after the initial drafting that we start to define what it means to be a U.S. citizen.
Quote from: "Venlar"
If a U.S. Citizen does not have proper ID in the states that are passing these law then in order to vote they must pay a fee to the state in order to obtain the proper ID. This is a poll tax.
Actually, "The 2008 case Crawford v. Marion County Election Board ruled that an Indiana law that required voters to obtain and present picture identification such as a driver's license was constitutional because the Supreme Court found no substantial burden imposed on voters and preventing voter fraud was a valid governmental objective. The lawsuit continued in the 2010 case League of Women Voters, et al. v. Todd Rokita where the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that requiring photo identification for voting was within the legislature's power."
I have two thoughts on the matter. 1. Paying for an ID so you can vote is a tax and should have been ruled unconstitutional. 2. Since registering to vote is already free, why not beef up the requirements a little so that the voter registration card can be a form of identification? I think that would solve most of the complaints on both sides.
Personally I feel that people should have to pass some form of civics test before being allowed to register, but that really would be Draconian, albeit a chance for hilarity to ensue.
As for Florida, well, I think the country gave up on Florida after the hanging chads.
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on August 30, 2012, 09:59:29 pm
Quote from: "Venlar"
I'll trust you on voter fraud being rampant in the country if you can show me evidence that it is. All the statistics I have seen show that it's .0002% - .0009% of votes that are fraudulent and the vast majority of which are absentee ballots that don't require someone to be in person to vote.
I disagree that voting is not a right. It is referred to as a right in the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th amendments. Please explain why you believe it is a privilege and not a right as an American citizen.
The argument that we have to use ID for so many other things in this country is false logic. The same argument can be used to justify the requirement for ID in every other aspect of our lives in this country. That simply becomes a road towards a draconian society.
You also are ignoring the fact that the laws are a clear violation of the constitution. Particularly the 24th amendment which reads:
"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
If a U.S. Citizen does not have proper ID in the states that are passing these law then in order to vote they must pay a fee to the state in order to obtain the proper ID. This is a poll tax.
Also please don't give me the argument that people on welfare need id to cash their welfare checks. There are many other people out there without ID. MY 90 year old grandmother uses direct deposit for her SS and no longer drives so she doesn't have an ID. She's worked the polls all her life and if she were in a state with a voter ID law she would not be allowed to vote. Don't forget college students whom have out of state IDs that will not be accepted at the polls.
You also haven't addressed the voter purges in Florida which is disenfranchising thousands of voters and leaving them with no way of appeal.
Do not take this the wrong way but Venlar you do not know what you are talking about. There is no consitutional right to vote (.) <---- PERIOD. The sections you are pointing out do not have to do with the right to vote but have to do with discrimination against individuals in regards to race, ethnicity, gender or creed. They ARE NOT establishing the right to vote, but are clauses to prevent DISCRIMINATION against those who have the PRIVLEDGE to vote. I will happily post the information that shows this. But instead encourage you and EVERYONE else to LOOK IT THE F' UP instead of just believing what some freakin moroon professor or liberal hack job told you.
And the sheer idea that requiring someone to present valid ID and proof of citizenship is a path to draconian society is ridiculous... LOOK UP WHAT A DRACONIAN SOCIETY IS. I mean a 5 year old child can see the ridiculousness of your argument. "Oh, just because you have to have an ID to do 99% of the basic things to survive and get buy in life doesn't mean you should have to have an ID to do the one most important thing a US citzen could do." Really? Your going to go there?
I don't recall off hand but I'm guessing you are the guy/member who works for one of our friendly neighborhood Dems/Libs and have probalby swallowed hook line and sinker the BS they've been swillin'
I can probably guess which one based off of the silly Poll Tax arguement. Please I mean give me a break... It's like Obama saying requiring people to buy health insurance isn't a tax, but then claiming it is. It is not a poll tax... SHOW ME WHERE IT HAS BEEN DECLARED A POLL TAX. It is not... It is a argument being used to try and prevent the most basic and simple of understanding about voting...
You should have to verify who you are. Where you live. And that you are a US citizen to vote. A majority of the American by far know this should be the way it is... It is only the very few and hard core LIBS who fight against it.
And it is not the Federal Goverment that gives the individual citizens the privledge to vote... The STATES do(.) <------ PERIOD. THE STATE IS THE ENTITY THAT GIVES THE INDIVIDUAL THE PRIVLEDGE TO VOTE (.) <===== PERIOD.
It has always been this way.... It will always be this way.... And if you do not understand that then you need to educate yourself more on the subject.
And I bet my immortal soul that youe 90 year old grandmother has an ID of some sort. She wouldn't get her SSN / Medicaid / Medicare / Retirment / Bank Account /Nursing home services / Hospital Services / Etc., etc, etc, without it.
You really want to put that to the test... It is simple. You give me her full name, city, and state of residence and of course the OKAY, and I'll pull it up and post it for you.
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on August 30, 2012, 10:18:29 pm
Quote from: "Da6onet"
Fun fact, it wasn't until the 14th amendment, 80 years after the initial drafting that we start to define what it means to be a U.S. citizen.
Quote from: "Venlar"
If a U.S. Citizen does not have proper ID in the states that are passing these law then in order to vote they must pay a fee to the state in order to obtain the proper ID. This is a poll tax.
Actually, "The 2008 case Crawford v. Marion County Election Board ruled that an Indiana law that required voters to obtain and present picture identification such as a driver's license was constitutional because the Supreme Court found no substantial burden imposed on voters and preventing voter fraud was a valid governmental objective. The lawsuit continued in the 2010 case League of Women Voters, et al. v. Todd Rokita where the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that requiring photo identification for voting was within the legislature's power."
I have two thoughts on the matter. 1. Paying for an ID so you can vote is a tax and should have been ruled unconstitutional. 2. Since registering to vote is already free, why not beef up the requirements a little so that the voter registration card can be a form of identification? I think that would solve most of the complaints on both sides.
Personally I feel that people should have to pass some form of civics test before being allowed to register, but that really would be Draconian, albeit a chance for hilarity to ensue.
As for Florida, well, I think the country gave up on Florida after the hanging chads.
Another FUN FACT. I do not know a single state that requires or is updating their voter laws to require ID to vote where they do not provide ID's for FREE to individuals such as Granny or your Welfare folks or anyone other individual or group that has been used as an excuse to oppose such laws. Many States have huge initiatives spending millions of dollars to get ID's out to people.
If you can find one that doens't have such programs you post it up here for my knowledge but I seriously doubt you find one.
Title: Politics
Post by: Tbone on August 30, 2012, 10:30:39 pm
There's only one reason why voter ID laws are being put in place:
You can argue semantics all you want, but that's the REASON that these states are implementing these laws. 32 out of the 33 states implementing voter ID laws are Republican controlled.
Yes, this is a fictional show, but it uses real facts and makes some real good points:
86 cases of voter fraud. The whole thing is a joke. Requiring an ID to vote doesn't actually sound like a bad idea to me (we need it for everything else), but systematically using the law to exclude certain demographics from being allowed to vote since they aren't voting for your candidate is underhanded and wrong.
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on August 30, 2012, 10:35:56 pm
LOL a joke... you mean like using a fake show to try and prove a fact. Keep trying but it is still so simple a kindergartener can understand it.
Let go of your hate...
LOL seriously just looked at your first video.... that's what you are using? Come on T you have to be joking?
What liberal piece of crap website did you get that from? Can you play the whole clip please. I'm sure if you do you'll find he was talking about the fact that voter ID is necessary to keep fraud out of elections.
Which for Dems and Libs mean... No fraud no WIN
Oh and I'm not even going to bother with your second video... Not worth my time as it is a JOKE to even attempt to use it to prove a point. Seriously, I bring you facts and you bring me some crap liberal show?
Title: Politics
Post by: NoCry on August 31, 2012, 04:55:30 am
Carry on please - why though do people assume that every payment to the government is a tax?
Do you not have to pay for your passports, driving licences (please note the correct spelling;))? - when you pay for them do you class them as a tax? If so, are they offset against your taxable income? If not, why not?
If not, why on earth is paying for an ID which proves you are a US citizen (and thus entitled to vote) deemed a tax and somehow being used as an argument that to have a paid ID is non-constitutional?
Further, if people are having the cost of this "id" paid for them - where on earth is the argument that this goes against the constitution?
The funny thing (looking in) - is that some are arguing that X weakans the constitition/ goes against the constitution - but surely the first test to determine whether or not you benefit from the protection is to determine that a person is a US citizen...
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on August 31, 2012, 06:49:22 am
LOL...leave it to a Brit. GOOD POINT MR ATTORNEY SIR
OH and they try to claim it is a tax because forcing a citizen to pay for something they dont want is unconstitutional.... Well unless it is the new Obama care tax.... Then they are all okay with it.
THEY ARE SO F'D UP THEY DON'T KNOW IF THEY ARD COMING OR GOING NOWADAYS
Title: Politics
Post by: Da6onet on August 31, 2012, 10:43:20 am
Quote from: "Broin"
If you can find one that doens't have such programs you post it up here for my knowledge but I seriously doubt you find one.
You were right, I retract the statement. I checked, all the states that have strict photo ID requirements offer a way to get ID's for voting for free. No need to steamroll me. Save your bullying for the Statists (aka democrats).
Quote from: "NoCry"
Carry on please - why though do people assume that every payment to the government is a tax?
Well lets not use the word tax, as that evokes forcible payment. I'll instead used the term burden. Yes we pay for all sorts of administrative fees, but they are not imposed on people automatically under penalty of law enforcement, they are self-imposed burdens. As such, it wouldn't make sense to offset them against taxable income (government imposed burden).
By making a photo ID something which you must have to execute your right to vote, if it were not free, that would mean the government is making you pay for a right, which goes against the idea of American freedom, and more to the point, our constitution. This is the same logic used by Chief Justice Roberts to rule Obamacare as constitutional as long as it is defined as a government imposed burden -- a tax. In his dissent he all but said that Obamacare tax was not good policy, alluding to the poll tax in my mind.
But since, as Broin pointed out, states with strict photo ID requirements have fee waivers, there is no grounds for constitutional argument on the basis of a poll tax.
I personally think it is a marvelous idea to prove you're a U.S. Citizen when you go to vote, I just didn't want it to go against the constitution. It doesn't so I'm happy. The people who bitch and moan about it are Democrats who need irresponsible/illegal/poor/senile people to vote for them. Voter ID laws should show noticeable drops in overall voter turnout, but the majority of that drop would have been blue voters.
Don't get me wrong, I think the Dems can be good for a handful of social legislation I'd like to see passed, but they always want to take control of the economy too. While I hate how much time Republican's spend on bible thumping, abortion, and guys having butt sex, there are enough young people in America who don't share those views that we'll eventually see progressive civil rights/social policies through attrition (as has been the case for hundreds of years now). In the mean time we need Republican economic strategies now more than ever (when I say that I don't mean Bush's pussy bailouts in 2008).
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on August 31, 2012, 11:26:47 am
JESUS H. FUCKIN CHRIST... I AM GOING TO SAY THIS AGAIN FOR EMPHASIS
THERE IS NO RIGHT TO VOTE IN THE CONSTITUTION
STOP LISTENING TO IDIOTS WHO TELL YOU OTHERWISE!!! IF SOMEONE TELLS YOU THAT YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO VOTE GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTIUTION THEY ARE EITHER
A) LYING TO YOU OR B) IGNORANT
SERIOUSLY I DON'T MEAN TO BEAT UP ON YOU OR OTHERS, BUT PEOPLE NEED TO BE AWARE OF THE TRUTH AND THE FACTS AND STOP ACCEPTING WHAT OTHERS HAVE WEASLED IN TO BE BELIEVED AS THE FACTS OR TRUTH.
AND I'M DOUBLY FUCKIN TIRED OF EVERY LAST TOM, DICK, AND WORTHLESS HARRY DEM/LIB WHO CRIES FOUL AND SITES SOME MADE UP OR IMAGINED RIGHT THEY THINK IS GUARANTEED TO THEM IN THE CONTSITUTION.
OH WE HAVE A RIGHT TO A GOOD JOB
OH WE HAVE A RIGHT TO GOOD PAY
OH WE HAVE A RIGHT TO LIVE IN A ATHEISTIC COUNTRY WHERE PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND GOVERMENT CAN NOT ACKNOWLEDGE GOD
OH WE HAVE A RIGHT TO HEALTHCARE
OH WE HAVE A RIGHT TO FORCE RELIGIOUS INTITUTIONS TO PROVIDE HEALTHCARE THAT THEY DEEM TO BE AGAINST THEIR BELIEFS
OH WE HAVE A RIGHT TO GET MARRIED
OH WE HAVE A RIGHT TO FORCE RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS TO RECOGNIZE OUR MARRIAGE
OH WE HAVE A RIGHT TO VOTE
WHAT MOST OF THESE FOOLS HAVE IS THE RIGHT TO BE IGNORANT AND THEY ARE STEPPING UP TO THAT ONE IN FULL FORCE
Title: Politics
Post by: Da6onet on August 31, 2012, 12:06:42 pm
Less capslock, more concise arguing please. I'll do it for you.
Quote
The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to vote because of race or gender. Citizens of Washington DC can vote for President; 18-year-olds can vote; you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax. The Constitution also requires that anyone who can vote for the "most numerous branch" of their state legislature can vote for House members and Senate members.
Note that in all of this, though, the Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example. It does require that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by "the People," and who comprises "the People" has been expanded by the aforementioned amendments several times. Aside from these requirements, though, the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld. For example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote. It is interesting to note that though the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote, states can allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they chose to.
Fine, it's not an affirmed right, but denying someone the right to vote based on a tax is unconstitutional.
Forgive me for using "the right to vote," language stated many times in our constitution, as a construed affirmative right. No, if our state governments wanted to, they could prohibit us from doing so.
Just remember the 10th amendment language. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Further, remember what a government is supposed to be, a way for a group of people to self-govern. If we really wanted to, we could disband the entire government, federal and state, and start over. You may have heard of this concept before.
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on August 31, 2012, 01:30:01 pm
I love the 10th amendment language...
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This ensures that the privledge of voting is done so at the decision of each individual State.... followed by the people of the state.
Meaning that the State is the higher power in making the decision but that the people have the authority to remove those in power and replace them with others who will make decisions based in a manner the people want.
Title: Politics
Post by: Da6onet on August 31, 2012, 01:42:32 pm
Quote from: "Broin"
Meaning that the State is the higher power in making the decision but that the people have the authority to remove those in power and replace them with others who will make decisions based in a manner the people want.
Exactly :-)
I yield the remainder of my time to Teddy.
Title: Politics
Post by: Sared on September 01, 2012, 10:39:23 am
(http://i.imgur.com/Fcu4Fl.jpg)
Title: Politics
Post by: Longboard on September 01, 2012, 02:46:17 pm
The Politics Forum is the BEST forum in FA!
Title: Politics
Post by: NoCry on September 03, 2012, 02:33:23 am
I deleted your post van. It serves no purpose at all
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on September 05, 2012, 09:56:18 pm
Hate to stir it back up but I found this quite funny. As I watched I had some many thoughts about the irony of it all...
What is one of the biggest complaints of the Dems/Libs, and the one big thing they claim the Reps always do? Voter disenfranchisment!!!
I feel sorry for Mayor Villaraigosa he was like WTH do I do... LOL. The woman walking up behind basically says push it through and let them do what they want... CLASSIC.
The second version shows some audience reaction...
I just wish the Dems/Libs would just admit the facts of the matter... Their party ideology is one that hates the founding basis of our country and despises those friends of freedom around the world
Title: Politics
Post by: Tbone on September 06, 2012, 08:05:52 pm
I agree that they shouldn't have changed the platform if that's what a majority of the party agrees on. I believe it was actually Obama who insisted it be changed to reflect his only views/policies on the matter. I reject the conclusion that drafting a position that could include all faiths/religions and concentrating on compromise rather than absolutes equates to "hating the founding basis of our country and despising the friends of freedom".
Title: Politics
Post by: Sared on September 06, 2012, 09:10:28 pm
GG Mitt.
Title: Politics
Post by: Da6onet on September 06, 2012, 10:09:03 pm
If you are like the majority of Americans not in a swing state (meaning your vote doesn't matter anyway), I suggest voting for your ideological candidate.
Favorite moment: NPR Interviewer: If you're on the torture rack, and they're going to kill you, who are you going to vote for, Mitt Romney or Barak Obama?
Johnson: Look I've climbed Mount Everest, I know what it is to hunker down and do what it takes. Take this to the bank, I would die.
Title: Politics
Post by: Tbone on September 06, 2012, 10:24:06 pm
Quote from: "Sared"
GG Mitt.
Whoa, he looks like he's being punched in the stomach. I hate it when politicians can't engage in actual conversation and just repeat their talking point.
Title: Politics
Post by: Phienyx on September 06, 2012, 10:48:34 pm
Quote from: "Tbone"
Whoa, he looks like he's being punched in the stomach. I hate it when politicians can't engage in actual conversation and just repeat their talking point.
Politicians?! I hate when the people that vote our politicians into office can't engage in actual conversation and just repeat the media's talking points.
Title: Politics
Post by: Tbone on September 06, 2012, 11:33:39 pm
Quote from: "Phienyx"
Quote from: "Tbone"
Whoa, he looks like he's being punched in the stomach. I hate it when politicians can't engage in actual conversation and just repeat their talking point.
Politicians?! I hate when the people that vote our politicians into office can't engage in actual conversation and just repeat the media's talking points.
I Hope we can Change that, since We Build That. I think the best thing to remember is A Dollar Makes Me Hollar (http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2012/08/30/779391/here-comes-honey-boo-boo-beats-the-rnc/").
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on September 07, 2012, 12:35:51 pm
Quote from: "Sared"
GG Mitt.
I'd just like to point out how the guy/vet asking the question is another example of someone who is ignorant of the facts of the constitution and what rights are or are not enumerated within.
Time Stamp 1:14 he brings up constitutional rights. Someone want to find for me the right for a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman. Or what the heck how about we just make it easy on everyone.... JUST FIND ME THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO GET MARRIED
Also I dont' know where the hell you are getting it looked like he got punched or he was spouting talking points. I think he pretty much answered the fools question and even kept a cool head when the hack started getting shitty with him.
Lastly in regards to this....
Quote from: "Tbone"
....I reject the conclusion that drafting a position that could include all faiths/religions and concentrating on compromise rather than absolutes equates to "hating the founding basis of our country and despising the friends of freedom".
They were not, I repeat not drafting, nor had they drafted a position that included all faiths/religions. That is a specious argument as it is furthest from what they were doing.
What the failing of so many people are nowadays it to not recognize that our country was founded on the most original proposition ever to be put forth.
That TRUE RIGHTS do not come from King, or Country, from Czar or Ruler but come from a higher power. That true RIGHTS can not be taken away or even given by man made positions of power or goverments.
That in holding the belief that RIGHTS are given to all men/women by a higher power (at that time of founding God) that they are inalienable. Meaning just what I have said that they can not be taken or given by any man or position of power.
So many have the false notion that RIGHTS are given by goverment and that is so furthest of thinkings you could have completeley 180 degrees from the truth.
And the problem with the Dems/Libs is that they have become so bound in the notion that Goverment is the answer that any mention of God as the provider of True Rights is basically hate speech for them. Why, because if Rights come from God then you can't go to God and say.... "Hey we need to change these a bit" Where if they come from goverment then they can, and that is what the Dems/Libs truley want... Control over the rights of everyone.
Title: Politics
Post by: Tbone on September 07, 2012, 02:30:49 pm
Quote from: "Broin"
JUST FIND ME THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO GET MARRIED
Recognized federal civil rights law in the United States is grounded in the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. By this standard, marriage has long been established as a civil right.
The operative constitutional text is section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868. The relevant passages read as follows: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The U.S. Supreme Court first applied this standard to marriage in Loving v. Virginia (1967), where it struck down a Virginia law banning interracial marriage. As Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority: The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men ...
To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. -source (http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gendersexuality/f/Is-Marriage-a-Civil-Right.htm)
Quote from: "Broin"
That TRUE RIGHTS do not come from King, or Country, from Czar or Ruler but come from a higher power. That true RIGHTS can not be taken away or even given by man made positions of power or goverments.
That in holding the belief that RIGHTS are given to all men/women by a higher power (at that time of founding God) that they are inalienable. Meaning just what I have said that they can not be taken or given by any man or position of power.
So many have the false notion that RIGHTS are given by goverment and that is so furthest of thinkings you could have completeley 180 degrees from the truth.
And the problem with the Dems/Libs is that they have become so bound in the notion that Goverment is the answer that any mention of God as the provider of True Rights is basically hate speech for them. Why, because if Rights come from God then you can't go to God and say.... "Hey we need to change these a bit" Where if they come from goverment then they can, and that is what the Dems/Libs truley want... Control over the rights of everyone.
If only that were the truth. The truth of the matter is that the inclusion of God and religion allows politicians to control a population (specifically those of faith) by combining religious doctrine with policy. These policies don't come from a higher power - it's just suggested that they do. By tying your political party to a religion, you can make yourself appear infallible. "God is punishing New Orleans for their sins". "Traditional marriage in the bible is between a man and a woman". These aren't truths. It's making your argument appear to be God's argument so that no mortal can argue with it. Religions has been used in this way for CENTURIES. And it's the main reason that the founding fathers did not want religion to be involved in politics:
John Adams: "As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion--"
Thomas Jefferson: "That our civil RIGHTS have no dependence on our religious opinions"
The Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
To say that Liberals want to remove references to God so that they can control people's rights is a radical perspective. You could argue that they are trying to downplay Christianity in order to be respective of everyone's religion, which I'm sure could cause fear in the ultra-conservative, but to say it's a conspiracy to take our rights away is a pretty big leap.
As history has proven, the best way to control a population without being questioned is not to remove God from the equation, but to say that God is on your side. Then you can say whatever you want and who's going to question you and God. THAT'S the way to take those inalienable rights away. After all, God didn't seem to have a problem with slavery, right?
Title: Politics
Post by: likwidtek on September 07, 2012, 06:22:36 pm
This isn't news because it's not entertaining enough. This is both parties guys. Both parties. Don't worry guys, we are free in our democracy. It's a fair and level playing field guys! Move along, nothing but freedom here everyone!
‎"The real story here it's not about Democrats and God and Republicans and Ron Paul. Who cares what the specific issue at hand is. The real story here is that what happened in tampa last week at the RNC and what happened in Charlotte at the DNS yesterday proves that the party bosses - Republican and Dmocrat really don't care what the delegates think. They don't care what the people think. And unless grassroots of both parties stand up now and push back, the national conventions will now simply become coronations."
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on September 07, 2012, 06:23:55 pm
It is about our founding damnit.... The recognition that we are founded upon certain propositions that each man is embued by a higher power.... Call it God, a creator, whatever. I'm not talking about political party here you dolt I'm talking about recognizing where we came from. And it is a damn fucking shame that you are either to blinded by your years of brain washing in the school system or the life you've lived sense to deny the simple fact of how this country was founded and on what principles it was and has imparted itself with.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." ― John Adams
Oh how about this one... Sounds right up the Obama alley
"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt." ― John Adams
Here are some Thomas Jefferson for you...
"The Bible is the cornerstone of liberty. A student's perusal of the sacred volume will make him a better citizen, a better father, a better husband." - Thomas Jefferson
One of my favorite...
"Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed the conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?" - Thomas Jefferson
How about some Madison....
"We have staked the future of American civilization upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." - James Madison
Henry anyone....?
"It can not be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions but on the gospel of Jesus Christ." - Patrick Henry
I mean give me a F'n break I could qoute all day on how the founders believed in a Judeo-Christian foundation for our country... For anyone to deny that fact is the basis for our founding means that they are IGNORANT
Oh and by the way marriage is not a freakin civil right... That is the problem I'm pointing out. Anytime some wants something that isn't in the constitution they claim it is their RIGHT. And then just claim it is their right to do what they want even if it imposes on the rights of others.
And don't give me that crap about how can marriage be something that imposes a right on others. I don't give a shit if people are gay, or straight, or bi, or want to go fuck a goat while they marry their brother and his half sister.
But just because you want to fuck a goat or marry your brother and his half sister doesn't mean that we have to agree with it and allow it. It is not a F'n RIGHT.
Title: Politics
Post by: likwidtek on September 07, 2012, 06:54:15 pm
Broin, but these are personal choices not to be dictated by the government. You can't and shouldn't legislate religion on people. Freewill, right? So those quotes from John Adams and Thomas Jefferson mean they were religious men, sure. But they still understood that to protect all people, including the minority, there is a need to keep religion out of politics. Separation of church and state.
If the argument is being made that the founders were Christian on a personal level, ok fine. If the argument is that because they were Christians, then that means by proxy we should assume they felt everyone had to live under Bible rules... well... that's a bit of a stretch.
I think religion is great. But you cannot create laws based on religion for religion sake. So making birth control illegal, outlawing marrying black people, giving less rights and freedom to men marrying men, having government pay for things that should be left for home and church... it's just not appropriate.
It doesn't get much clearer man. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
Please show me where in the constitution that it says the bible has constitutional authority. Seriously. What some of you guys want is a Theocracy. I'm not sure if any of you have spent any time in Saudi Arabia lately but.... that's not where we want to go. I'm deadly serious. Executions in the streets because you got caught by the religious police for not following the bible... yeah.... We're a few thousand years ahead of that bull. Just because American Christians feel that their church is the right church doesn't make it ok to start legislating it. It's the government's job to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Even if 95% of Americans think that we should make the Bible LAW, it's still not appropriate. That's why we have the constitution. Right?
We have to keep in mind, we're the nation of immigrants guys. We have Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, Humanists. They all get equal rights. All of them. Not just the Christians.
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on September 07, 2012, 09:32:28 pm
For the love of god don't you guys get it... It's not about religion it's about what set of beliefs and ideals we are founded upon. WTH are you talking about legislating religion? OR religion in politics?
The founding of our republic was based upon Judeo Christian principles.... That yes were found in the bible and Christianity. Why the hell is that a bad thing to acknowledge? Does it mean that the founders wanted everyone to bow down to the God of Abraham? No.... Shit fire wake the F up.
And you have your f'n first admendment wrong
Quote from: "likwidtek"
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The key part being "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
What they are freakin saying is that Congress will not acknowledge a specific type of establishment of religion. Why because it is against the very principles of our founding. HOWEVER that doesn't mean that the aspect of Judeo Christian principles are ABSENT from our founding beliefs and principles. They are KEY... Freaking KEY and without them you are right you would be living in some third world backwater country like Saudi Arabia wandering why you were being beaten, your wife was being rapped, and your children were all killed, because someone up the chain didn't like the way you looked.
It pisses me off to no end when T and some of you others actually equate the acknowldement of our founding ideals and principles with the freakin intolerance and totalitarianism you find in these back water places.
It drives me absolutley insane that when you just mention the facts of our founding and principles that automatically you younger folks want to jump straight to... WELL HELL WHY DO WE HAVE TO LIVE BY WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS, SHOW ME WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT WE HAVE TO LIVE BY THE BIBLE. EVERYONE HAS EQUAL RIGHT NOT JUST CHRISTIANS.
Who the fuck said that?
And don't get me started on discrimination because if there is one religious group that is disriminated against the most in this country it is the Christians.
Title: Politics
Post by: Tbone on September 08, 2012, 02:31:49 am
Quote from: "Broin"
The key part being "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
So if my religion believes that marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is OK, does Congress still have the right to forbid that union? Should Congress or the states be at liberty to decide what a "right" marriage and a "wrong" marriage is? And before you go all "fucking goats" on me, by "marriage" I mean a union between two consenting adults. The comparison to anything else is insulting. It was the same argument used against those against interracial marriages and it's a bunch of bullshit.
Quote
And don't get me started on discrimination because if there is one religious group that is disriminated against the most in this country it is the Christians.
Speaking of bullshit, I love you man, but this is the most backwards, ignorant comment I've seen you make. There's no way - NO WAY - you can justify or prove that CHRISTIANS are the most discriminated against religion in America. I don't care how many "no prayer in school" quotes you find. BOTH conventions had a Christian benediction. Every politician still says "God bless America". There's still prayer in lots and lots of schools. Creationism is taught as fact. Churches are at every corner (no one has ever said "you can't build a church there- it'd be offensive). I could go on and on and on and on. Christians are far FAR from earning a victim card in this country. Just because not everyone believes what you believe and not everyone is forced to act on your beliefs (see prayer in schools) doesn't mean everyone is discriminating against you and you're just so suppressed. Christians need to stop seeing the inclusion of all religions as an exclusion of their own.
Love ya Broin! =P
Title: Politics
Post by: Tbone on September 08, 2012, 02:36:22 am
Oh, and likwidtek, those voting procedures really pissed me off. I saw that happened at the DNC and couldn't believe it. How insulting! I hadn't realized it had happened at the RNC as well. In both cases, the whole thing was scripted. The RNC just kept on going. The DNC took the vote THREE times and finally just gave up and kept going on script regardless of the outcome. Both of those decisions should be reversed based on the rules of the convention. What a joke...
Title: Politics
Post by: Venlar on September 08, 2012, 10:18:14 am
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on September 08, 2012, 12:32:02 pm
Don't have time to ellaborate on all your post T but again you are wrong... Marriage is not a constitutional right. The clauses you sighted are protection clauses for discrimination much like the protection clauses I've already talked about concerning voting. There is no constitutional right to vote nor is there one for marriage. The Dems/Libs want there to be but there isn't.... That is why they are pulling from the protection clauses against discrimination.
The States set the laws about marriage, and voting, and tons of more issues that Dems/Libs want to give over the Feds.
As far as your rant on if my religion is that men should marry men crap.... I would just forward you back to your own posts about religion and goverment. That's like saying if my religion is I want to marry my sister and the two twins down the street then it's okay.
Each state has the right to set it's own laws regarding morale belief and establishment of things such as marriage. The citizens of the state elect people to represent them and then produce legislation that the citizens vote on. SO YES IT IS THE STATES THAT DECIDE WHAT IS A RIGHT MARRIAGE AND WHAT IS A WRONG MARRIAGE. That is the way it has always been... Well until the Dems/Libs decide they don't like what the people say and decide to take it to the courts. If you want something a certain way then vote on it... But don't force me to accept what I don't agree or believe in without me being able to have a voice on it.
That's the problem you say you are for freedome of choice but when it comes to mine you want to take it away, and just say.... Well because I or a group of us believe that it should be this way then it has to be that way.
You want to marry a man then move to San Fran... There is nothing prohibiting you from having the exact same rights as a married couple in any State. None... and don't give me the crap about not being able to see your man/woman partner in the hospital or any of that other crap. Fill out the paperwork and get it all set up through the lawyers and you'll have the exact same rights as a married couple, but it won't be called MARRIAGE.
Title: Politics
Post by: Tbone on September 08, 2012, 01:58:50 pm
Venlar: That is epic.
Broin: There are times when minorities need protection from popular vote. It's the same as INTERRACIAL marriage. Interracial marriage was banned in most states until 1967, when the Supreme Court stepped in and ruled that it violated the 14th Amendment for States to ban it. Since then interracial marriage has been legal in the United States and, surprisingly, no one is marrying goats or their sister because of it. It's the exact same thing with gay marriage. There is already a precedence that this is an issue that should not be left to the States. If you believe in the Constitution of the United States and our court system's ability to interpret it, then you must concede that gay marriage could potentially (and I believe should) fall under this same umbrella. If you don't believe that, then you are just picking and choosing what parts of the Constitution and legal system applies to whom. It's discrimination based on sexual preference, whether you believe it is discriminating against a RIGHT (which the court system says marriage is) or simply a discrimination.
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on September 08, 2012, 09:27:15 pm
No it is not, because they are afforded the same legall rights and benefits through other civil and legal action. Marriage is a cultural and moral funtion of the society.. thus left to the states and the residents there in. The civil actions afforded to same sex couples through other legal means allows them to have the legal standings they desire...save one. They cannot claim to be legally married. Therefore same legal stanfings then your disrimination charge is moot.
What it truley is, is an attack on the morale standings that you and others don't agree with
Title: Politics
Post by: likwidtek on September 12, 2012, 03:26:57 pm
You can handle the truth By Neil Brown Published on Wednesday, September 12th, 2012 at 12:52 p.m.
Share this article:
We've published more than 6,000 Truth-O-Meter fact-checks since we launched five years ago.
"We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers."
Neil Newhouse, pollster for Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney
That quote at a breakfast the week of the Republican National Convention swept through the press gallery in Tampa, swirled around the blogosphere and even found its way into a scold from former President Bill Clinton during his speech at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte.
Neil Newhouse was defending a Romney ad that claimed President Barack Obama had gutted the successful bipartisan welfare reform law, even though numerous reporters had revealed that the details in the ad were just plain wrong. PolitiFact.com, the fact-checking unit of the Tampa Bay Times, declared the ad "Pants on Fire" false.
Newhouse's candor fanned a brush fire over what some have dubbed the "fact-check movement" - the growing number of journalists who report on the accuracy of what candidates and their surrogates say.
Right-wing publications like the Weekly Standard and the National Review have derided such fact-checking as a liberal conceit. Newhouse has remained unbowed, and the Romney campaign argued that inaccuracies in the welfare ad were debatable and had little to do with the larger differences between Republicans and Obama.
This fact-check business, it turns out, makes some partisans very uncomfortable.
"We have disrupted the status quo in American politics," says my colleague Bill Adair, editor of PolitiFact and our Washington bureau chief.
We launched PolitiFact - featuring its now trademarked "Truth-O-Meter" graphic - in August 2007 with a handful of journalists and a promise that if it wasn't popular with readers, we'd quit after the January 2008 Florida presidential primary.
Five years later we have published more than 6,000 Truth-O-Meter stories, set up shop in 11 states and have 36 fact-check journalists reporting on claims made from the White House to the statehouse to City Hall. We are syndicated in newspapers around the country.
Along the way, we've called out Republicans for misleading Americans on Obamacare, and Democrats for scary over-the-top characterizations of Paul Ryan's budget ideas. We've documented every promise candidate Obama made before he became president and scored how many he has kept and broken. We've been "fired" by lefty Rachel Maddow, scolded by liberal Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman, berated by the likes of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. We won the Pulitzer Prize in 2009.
The heat comes from all sides and our audience comes from all over. In the past two weeks of party conventions, a record 1.2 million unique users went to PolitiFact.com, racking up more than 4 million page views of our journalism.
Today there is more fact-check journalism under way than ever before. Reporters at Factcheck.org (one of the earliest and most credible initiatives), the Washington Post Fact Checker and other newsrooms are diving deep into the claims of politicians, asking the most basic question: Is it true?
Why would there be a backlash against that? It's all about power.
The candidates, the political parties, the super PACs, the cable TV and talk radio shows - they all spend millions of dollars in order to shape what you believe. There are no question-and-answer sessions after you watch a campaign ad; there are no meaningful disclosures of where their info comes from. Beliefs are declared with authority and impunity and crafted to look like facts. The strategy is clear and not at all new: Say something strongly and frequently enough and perhaps it will be accepted as truth.
But what if you have your own set of tools to judge political speech? What if you have the source of the information and took the time to consider it? You might agree with the claim, you might not. But the power is all yours.
The underpinning of fact-check journalism is this tenet: Words matter. If you don't believe that, then journalism that checks the veracity of political speech may not hold much interest for you.
At PolitiFact, we wrote "Principles of the Truth-O-Meter" to help guide our work. Words matter was the first principle. The second principle: Context matters. And another important principle: We show our math and explain where we got all our information. So you don't have to take our word for it, you can look it up yourself. No anonymous sources.
When Paul Ryan's website accused President Obama of "doubling the size of government since he took office," we rated that Pants on Fire since it turned out Ryan included data from before Obama was president and projected spending for another nine years after his term was up. After our ruling, Ryan's office dropped the claim and replaced it with one more specific to the national debt. Words matter.
When Delaware Gov. Jack Markell, a Democrat, took to the stage in Charlotte, N.C., last week and said Mitt Romney "likes to fire people" - we rated that False and showed how Markell had cherry-picked a sentence out of a Romney quote, making it entirely misleading. Context matters.
At times - the Romney welfare ad being one of the latest - critics complain that this is a movement of nitpickers. We should lighten up, they say, because hyperbole has and always will be a part of politics. Even fellow journalists approach some fact-checking with a measure of cynicism.
"I suppose fact-checking would matter more to voters if they expected honesty from their politicians," Jack Shafer of Reuters wrote last week. "But most don't. ... Voters crave rhetoric that stirs their unfact-checked hearts. As long as the deception is honest, pointing in the direction they want to go, they're all right with it."
Campaign managers everywhere are betting Shafer is right. "Look, when people give speeches, not every fact is always absolutely accurate," former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani told CNN's Piers Morgan with aw-shucks candor at the Tampa convention.
Hey, we are (with apologies to Claude Rains) just as "shocked, shocked" as anybody to discover that there is deception under way on the campaign trail.
But why settle for that when the stakes are so high? Why not let voters decide for themselves? The naysayers of fact-check journalism make the mistake of underestimating voters. For their part, we say to voters: Caveat emptor. They must invest some time in becoming better consumers of political information.
That's where we come in.
A fan letter to PolitiFact from Paul Levin of Woodstock, Ill., put it this way: "Your unbiased checking and analysis is paramount to helping Americans understand the detail 'devils.' Hopefully it will end with an election that will honestly result in a true majority-rule democracy."
Which brings us back to Mr. Newhouse, the Romney pollster. He has it all wrong. Fact-check journalists aren't trying to dictate how he should run the campaign. We are not the ones demanding accuracy in politics. We'll just publish what we find.
Then, fellow citizens, it's over to you.
Neil Brown is the editor the Tampa Bay Times, which owns PolitiFact.
Title: Politics
Post by: Sared on September 18, 2012, 04:37:17 pm
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A2N_xw4CYAA_DzA.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/G8Yqv.jpg)
Title: Politics
Post by: Phienyx on September 18, 2012, 04:48:54 pm
...your point....?
Title: Politics
Post by: Tbone on September 18, 2012, 05:18:24 pm
Quote from: "Phienyx"
...your point....?
Mitt Romney hates video games. Duh! =p
Title: Politics
Post by: Sared on September 18, 2012, 08:31:12 pm
Quote from: "Phienyx"
...your point....?
I'm pro-legalization and Romney has proven himself to be a shallow intolerant fuckwit to me.
Title: Politics
Post by: Lithium on September 18, 2012, 08:53:46 pm
So much for the liberal idea of Pro-choice. You can't buy a 17oz soft drink in NYC and even better only in 'selective' establishments.
Title: Politics
Post by: likwidtek on September 18, 2012, 11:36:22 pm
7 Things Christians Need to Remember About Politics http://www.relevantmagazine.com/current/politics/7-things-christians-need-remember-about-politics
Title: Politics
Post by: Erathaol on September 19, 2012, 12:51:39 am
Quote from: "likwidtek"
7 Things Christians Need to Remember About Politics http://www.relevantmagazine.com/current/politics/7-things-christians-need-remember-about-politics
I quite like this Bryan Roberts fellow, thanks for the link! I was worried at first when I saw the title, but that was thankfully short-lived. Now if only more Christians would think this way (y'know, following that stuff we supposedly believe), maybe we wouldn't look like such asshats.
Title: Politics
Post by: Phienyx on September 19, 2012, 01:05:59 am
So if I was pro legalization of open season on pedophiles, would that make anyone who opposes that idea an intolerant fuck-wits? There is a big difference between tolerance and just allowing everyone to do whatever the fuck they want......regardless of the consequences. Its funny how people demand tolerance for anything they want to do, but do not extend that same "tolerance" for views they strongly disagree with.
Title: Politics
Post by: Mharz on September 19, 2012, 10:57:09 am
Quote from: "Lithium"
So much for the liberal idea of Pro-choice. You can't buy a 17oz soft drink in NYC and even better only in 'selective' establishments.
Anyone want to guess how they'll enforce this one? Wait, better yet, lets try to figure out how much it's gonna cost to try to enforce. Awe who cares.. that's just more government jobs.
"I work for the softdrink enforcement division and I'm here to investigate allegations of supersized soda sales."
/smashfaceondesk
Less government, less laws, more freedom!
Title: Politics
Post by: Tbone on September 19, 2012, 01:04:35 pm
So...how about that Romney video where he digs a deep hole in front of a bunch of donors? I guess that's why politicians lie - speaking candidly is how you lose an election, at least with those views.
Title: Politics
Post by: Mharz on September 19, 2012, 02:19:53 pm
His only hope now is to bring up the Obama, "You didn't build that.. " quote to try to cover his own gaff.
But he then goes on Fox and says, "I think all Americans want to pay taxes.." Really?!? NO.. This american wants to pay zero to the government. I want the government out of my way. Of course.. Obama wants a larger government so again.. this election cycle it turns into a race not of who is the best person to be president but more who is the less of the two evils.
Title: Politics
Post by: Sared on September 19, 2012, 02:20:47 pm
Quote from: "Phienyx"
So if I was pro legalization of open season on pedophiles, would that make anyone who opposes that idea an intolerant fuck-wits? There is a big difference between tolerance and just allowing everyone to do whatever the fuck they want......regardless of the consequences. Its funny how people demand tolerance for anything they want to do, but do not extend that same "tolerance" for views they strongly disagree with.
I will confess, my comment was brief and harsh, simply intended to reflect my distaste for the man without really explaining my position, while correlating it to the context of our community (video games) with the picture of Gabe.
Without going into too much detail: I support legalization of cannabis as both a medicine, as well as a recreational drug to be taxed and regulated much in the same way that alcohol currently is. I believe that cannabis is far less harmful to the consumer than alcohol, and the positive medical applications have been more than thoroughly proven. I believe that the ludicrous form of prohibition that we have still exists due to the underlying roots of industrialized functionalism that's been applied ad hoc to our values system for the last hundred years or so.
So, there's that. Apologies if I seemed like I was just lashing out or being lazy in my argument, but I honestly just don't like the guy, and I have thought-out reasons for it.
Title: Politics
Post by: Sared on September 19, 2012, 02:22:18 pm
Quote from: "Mharz"
Less government, less laws, more freedom!
Spoken like a true conservative. <3
Title: Politics
Post by: Venlar on September 19, 2012, 03:40:32 pm
Quote from: "Sared"
Quote from: "Mharz"
Less government, less laws, more freedom!
Spoken like a true conservative. <3
Then why do conservatives seem hell bent on putting government and regulation in the bedroom?
Title: Politics
Post by: Mharz on September 19, 2012, 03:50:02 pm
Quote from: "Venlar"
Quote from: "Sared"
Quote from: "Mharz"
Less government, less laws, more freedom!
Spoken like a true conservative. <3
Then why do conservatives seem hell bent on putting government and regulation in the bedroom?
Cite an example please.
If you're an american and not doing anything to infringe on the freedom of other americans I really don't want to know what you're doing in bed.
Disclaimer - I'm a real conservative not a whack-job religious right one.
Title: Politics
Post by: Subb on September 19, 2012, 04:29:03 pm
When religion stays the hell away from politics, I'll die happy.
Title: Politics
Post by: Sared on September 19, 2012, 05:42:29 pm
Quote from: "Mharz"
Disclaimer - I'm a real conservative not a whack-job religious right one.
+1
Title: Politics
Post by: Phienyx on September 19, 2012, 05:42:53 pm
Quote from: "Subb"
When religion stays the hell away from politics, I'll die happy.
Tell that to Obama and his Holy Kuran
Title: Politics
Post by: Venlar on September 19, 2012, 06:31:20 pm
Quote from: "Mharz"
Quote from: "Venlar"
Quote from: "Sared"
Quote from: "Mharz"
Less government, less laws, more freedom!
Spoken like a true conservative. <3
Then why do conservatives seem hell bent on putting government and regulation in the bedroom?
Cite an example please.
If you're an american and not doing anything to infringe on the freedom of other americans I really don't want to know what you're doing in bed.
Disclaimer - I'm a real conservative not a whack-job religious right one.
Gay marriage, civil unions, anti-sodomy laws, birth control regulation and bans, abortion, mandatory invasive internal ultra sound probes for abortion even in the case of rape.
I know you're not a whack-job religious right conservative but they are taking over the party. I used to be a republican and have seen this coming for a while. Moderate Republicans are being pushed out and replaced by teabaggers that tow the hard right party and religious lines.
Title: Politics
Post by: Mharz on September 19, 2012, 07:46:34 pm
Quote from: "Venlar"
Quote from: "Mharz"
Quote from: "Venlar"
Quote from: "Sared"
Quote from: "Mharz"
Less government, less laws, more freedom!
Spoken like a true conservative. <3
Then why do conservatives seem hell bent on putting government and regulation in the bedroom?
Cite an example please.
If you're an american and not doing anything to infringe on the freedom of other americans I really don't want to know what you're doing in bed.
Disclaimer - I'm a real conservative not a whack-job religious right one.
Gay marriage, civil unions, anti-sodomy laws, birth control regulation and bans, abortion, mandatory invasive internal ultra sound probes for abortion even in the case of rape.
I know you're not a whack-job religious right conservative but they are taking over the party. I used to be a republican and have seen this coming for a while. Moderate Republicans are being pushed out and replaced by teabaggers that tow the hard right party and religious lines.
They aren't taking over the party. They just scream the loudest.
Gay Marriage - This is a complicated issue but I'm about to make it simple for everyone. I understand that as time passes the "pursuit of happiness" changes for new generations. I embrace change in many cases. I don't have qualms with social unions for gay couples. What I very much oppose is the concept of gay "marriage." I'm willing to grant the same contractual rights under the law but what I WILL NOT do is call it marriage because that is a social contract between a man and a woman which has historical, social and moral roots.
Words mean things.
We use words to communicate.
More conflicts in the world come from lack of communication than anything else in my opinion so I won't endorse changing the meaning of a word for a group of people who are seeking a contractual social agreement.
So summary - Marriage no. Social Union, yes.
Anti-sodomy laws - Who plans to enforce those? Yeah.. thought so. Those aren't laws, they're social statements. Unless you're doing something like this in public who is really going to enforce a law like this? Stupid. Waste of time to even put it on the books and we all know that wasting time is wasting money and government can't afford to do that.
So summary - These aren't really laws that can be enforced and therefore shouldn't even be laws.
Birth control regulation - All medicine should be tested and regulated. How else would you regulate it? Sex is a choice. No one holds a gun to your head and makes you hop in bed for a roll. If you can't afford the possible consequence of your actions maybe you should reconsider.
Abortion - Another complicated topic that I'm about to make simple but this will make half of you cry because it will tear down your big government. There are people who strongly believe that abortion is murder. There are other people that believe women (and the men who made the choice to romp around) have a right to choose.
So who's right? That depends on who you ask. What I do know is that America is built on diversity. That diversity is a pillar of what this country stands for. So how do you create an environment where both of these equally voiced groups can exist? You let states regulate and legislate. There were a few people who thought that the states should do exactly this. They were the ones that founded the country. Maybe we should remember their wisdom.
When you allow states to regulate the laws you allow people who believe a certain way to exist in a different state. If you believe that there should be no sugary drinks sold over 16 ounces move to NY. If you think that sugary drinks should only be sold in 1 gallon containers with a straw then you can move to [insert cool state here].
What this does is create states that reflect the values of the people that live there. If you don't like the values that are reflected in the laws passed by that state then move or work to change the laws.
That's how the founding fathers thought it should work.
Get rid of the huge federal government and the Department of Goat Herding and Grass Cutting and ship all the responsibilities to the states. Who understands people best? The governing officials that are closest to them not some idiot in DC or a lobby serving a corporation that doesn't even operate in the state.
Summary - Abortion yes, as long as it is state regulated and a state should be allowed, at it's own discretion to outlaw it.
Lets start there.
I'm conservative but I know not everyone thinks like me yet. So in order to help get those of you that don't to think like me I'm willing to embrace our differences. More important than being conservative I'm an American and I know our country is built on diversity and we have to make a place for everyone.
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on September 19, 2012, 08:53:06 pm
Quote from: "Tbone"
So...how about that Romney video where he digs a deep hole in front of a bunch of donors? I guess that's why politicians lie - speaking candidly is how you lose an election, at least with those views.
You really want to get me started again? There is nothing he said that was not TRUE.
Didn't seem to hurt the Obama with his comments on ... Bitter clingers.... Oil and Coal companies necessarily failing due to regulations... The Plumber... redistribution... didn't build it.... and on and on and on..
As for Venlar...
"Then why do conservatives seem hell bent on putting government and regulation in the bedroom?"
1) Gay marriage
Uh this doesn't have to do with your bedroom it has to do with what has already been discused as a result of the States rights on marriage
2) Civil unions
Again nothign to do with what you do in your bedroom. Screw who you want but see my previous answer for why some States and the people in those states decide why they do or do not want Gay Marriage or Civil Unions.
Don't like what a state does or doesn't do you are free to move out of State to one that is more accomadating to you. There are plenty
3) Anti-sodomy laws
Really? Dude stop stretching.... Show me the latest person who was arrested for this who A Wasn't doing something else ethey weren't suppoused to be doing in publice or B Hell just see A
4) Birth control regulation and bans
LOL there are no bans on birth control.... I love how when people argue that they don't want public tax payer funds to pay for certain things that it is somehow a regulation or a ban. It is not... You are free to spend your own damn money and get what you want when you want for whatever reason you...
The real problem here is forcing religious organizations to go against their believes and provide services that are contrary to what they believe. But that's okay I know that most libs don't give a crap about what other people's beliefs and morales are... I mean if we don't hold the same belief system or morale system that you want us to have were just hate mongers.... It's okay I understand
5) abortion
If you need one go get it... If you want me to pay for it go fuck yourself.
6) mandatory invasive internal ultra sound probes for abortion even in the case of rape.
You want to elaborate on the entire law and the reason why it is being looked at, and what STATE specifically it is in? Because I dont' see when or where that is being forced upon the populace in general
Title: Politics
Post by: Tbone on September 19, 2012, 11:06:02 pm
Quote from: "Mharz"
Gay Marriage - This is a complicated issue but I'm about to make it simple for everyone. I understand that as time passes the "pursuit of happiness" changes for new generations. I embrace change in many cases. I don't have qualms with social unions for gay couples. What I very much oppose is the concept of gay "marriage." I'm willing to grant the same contractual rights under the law but what I WILL NOT do is call it marriage because that is a social contract between a man and a woman which has historical, social and moral roots.
That's not true at all. "Marriage" has always been a malleable contract that is different with different cultures and has changed over time.
Polygamy, men's freedom versus women being put to death for adultery, child marriage, same sex marriage, etc. etc. - have all been a part of "marriage" history. Religion and the church didn't even have anything to do with marriage for a long time.
Just because YOU have a specific idea of what "marriage" should mean doesn't mean that you shouldn't allow other cultures or people to define their own "marriage". If you think a civil union is fine, then the word isn't going to fuck up your "sanctity". If you really wanna tackle that, you should focus on banning divorces.
Quote from: "Broin"
You really want to get me started again? There is nothing he said that was not TRUE.
You miss my point. I didn't say that he was lying to a bunch of people and got caught. I'm saying he voiced what he believes to be true and, as a result, has dug himself a hole that's going to be hard to get out of.
I could go off about how his 47% of lazy fucks are mostly comprised of children, the elderly, military, and families making less than $50k, but the real point is his conviction to not compromise.
"It's not my job to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
A President's job is certainly to worry about "those people", even if they aren't going to vote for him. It shows a level of ignorance and disdain for HALF OF THE POPULATION that's just going to make it near impossible for him to come out on top. Even if you agree with his gross stereotype of half of America, his "if only I had a race card" joke, and his defeatism of any form of peace between Israel and Palestine, you have to concede that this will probably be the beginning of the end for Romney. Good luck in 2016 GOP!
His only hope is that YouTube comes out with another addicting video that everyone flocks to...oh wait...
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on September 19, 2012, 11:19:22 pm
The 47% are not comprised of children.... That is just liberal talking points.
Oh and you better hope he doesn't get back in because if he does... I've got my out and I'll be done with workin for that puke... And I'm not going to be the only one who will be out as well. So good luck cause at that point you'll need all you can get.
Title: Politics
Post by: Phienyx on September 20, 2012, 12:02:40 am
I can tell you one thing for sure. The fact that those who disagree with what I believe when I voice it will never be a concern of mine. Of course I'm going to "dig a hole" with them. The fact that you disagree doesn't necessarily mean that those who also disagree are in the majority. Therefore that doesn't mean any "hole is being dug". That has yet to be seen in regard to Mr. Romney's comments.
Title: Politics
Post by: Venlar on September 20, 2012, 12:08:56 am
Quote from: "Broin"
Quote from: "Tbone"
So...how about that Romney video where he digs a deep hole in front of a bunch of donors? I guess that's why politicians lie - speaking candidly is how you lose an election, at least with those views.
You really want to get me started again? There is nothing he said that was not TRUE.
Didn't seem to hurt the Obama with his comments on ... Bitter clingers.... Oil and Coal companies necessarily failing due to regulations... The Plumber... redistribution... didn't build it.... and on and on and on..
As for Venlar...
"Then why do conservatives seem hell bent on putting government and regulation in the bedroom?"
1) Gay marriage
Uh this doesn't have to do with your bedroom it has to do with what has already been discused as a result of the States rights on marriage
2) Civil unions
Again nothign to do with what you do in your bedroom. Screw who you want but see my previous answer for why some States and the people in those states decide why they do or do not want Gay Marriage or Civil Unions.
Don't like what a state does or doesn't do you are free to move out of State to one that is more accomadating to you. There are plenty
3) Anti-sodomy laws
Really? Dude stop stretching.... Show me the latest person who was arrested for this who A Wasn't doing something else ethey weren't suppoused to be doing in publice or B Hell just see A
4) Birth control regulation and bans
LOL there are no bans on birth control.... I love how when people argue that they don't want public tax payer funds to pay for certain things that it is somehow a regulation or a ban. It is not... You are free to spend your own damn money and get what you want when you want for whatever reason you...
The real problem here is forcing religious organizations to go against their believes and provide services that are contrary to what they believe. But that's okay I know that most libs don't give a crap about what other people's beliefs and morales are... I mean if we don't hold the same belief system or morale system that you want us to have were just hate mongers.... It's okay I understand
5) abortion
If you need one go get it... If you want me to pay for it go fuck yourself.
6) mandatory invasive internal ultra sound probes for abortion even in the case of rape.
You want to elaborate on the entire law and the reason why it is being looked at, and what STATE specifically it is in? Because I don't' see when or where that is being forced upon the populace in general
1 and 2) We're not going to agree on this no matter what. The way I see it is discrimination based on sexual orientation. Saying that you can just move to another state isn't a solution to the problem seeing as the far right has tried to introduce a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage on a national level at least 5 times since 2002. This is an issue that will continued to be fought out until gay marriage is universal or until its outright banned.
3) Anti-Sodomy laws were deemed unconstitutional in 2003 in the Lawrence v. Texas case in which 2 men were arrested after a false burglary call led officers to their home where they were arrested for violating the anti-sodomy law. However since 2003 several states have continued to keep these laws on the books despite the supreme courts ruling. States such as Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Virginia. State legislators have actively tried to find loopholes around the Lawrence v. Texas decision in order to continue discriminating against same sex couples.
4) The "personhood" bills that republicans have tried to pass in several states and in congress would not only ban abortion but effectively ban several types of birth control, contraceptives and invetro fertilization.
5) Here you differ from the far rights attempts to outright ban abortion. Which is in my opinion the biggest part of the abortion argument. Funding is another issue entirely.
6) Virginia tried to pass a bill that would require a transvaginal ultrasound before getting an abortion however the bill was revised because of public outcry. However similar bills have been passed in Texas, Oklahoma and North Carolina.
Title: Politics
Post by: Venlar on September 20, 2012, 12:13:02 am
Quote from: "Broin"
The 47% are not comprised of children.... That is just liberal talking points.
Oh and you better hope he doesn't get back in because if he does... I've got my out and I'll be done with workin for that puke... And I'm not going to be the only one who will be out as well. So good luck cause at that point you'll need all you can get.
Title: Politics
Post by: Da6onet on September 20, 2012, 08:11:12 am
WARNING: simplistic inflammatory talk ahead
The bedroom issues will get worked out within a generation (think attrition).
I'm more concerned that America is really headed for a cradle to grave government protected society.
Look how well that's worked for Greece, Spain, Portugal, etc.
So how about it, are you for the individual or for the state?
For those who aren't out of school yet, think of it this way: If you have worked hard to get all A's, and your partying friend has straight C's, would you be willing to give up your A's so that both end up straight B's.
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on September 20, 2012, 08:18:50 am
Quote from: "Venlar"
[1 and 2) We're not going to agree on this no matter what. The way I see it is discrimination based on sexual orientation. Saying that you can just move to another state isn't a solution to the problem seeing as the far right has tried to introduce a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage on a national level at least 5 times since 2002. This is an issue that will continued to be fought out until gay marriage is universal or until its outright banned.
3) Anti-Sodomy laws were deemed unconstitutional in 2003 in the Lawrence v. Texas case in which 2 men were arrested after a false burglary call led officers to their home where they were arrested for violating the anti-sodomy law. However since 2003 several states have continued to keep these laws on the books despite the supreme courts ruling. States such as Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Virginia. State legislators have actively tried to find loopholes around the Lawrence v. Texas decision in order to continue discriminating against same sex couples.
4) The "personhood" bills that republicans have tried to pass in several states and in congress would not only ban abortion but effectively ban several types of birth control, contraceptives and invetro fertilization.
5) Here you differ from the far rights attempts to outright ban abortion. Which is in my opinion the biggest part of the abortion argument. Funding is another issue entirely.
6) Virginia tried to pass a bill that would require a transvaginal ultrasound before getting an abortion however the bill was revised because of public outcry. However similar bills have been passed in Texas, Oklahoma and North Carolina.
So what you are saying is that your original rant that there is some kind of ban on abortion, limit on birth control, people being arrested for sodomy, mandatory ultrasounds, and everything else you said is....
NOT TRUE
You decide to pick things here and there that are not law or not implemented and just put them forth as being law and true and happening now....
Want me to put forth all the crazy crap the liberals/dems have tried to pass or offered up as bills and amendments and say that they are all true?
Your f'n head would explode
As I said before... I totally understand the liberal mindset.
Oh and on your little liberal graph... Where are the children? And before you answer you better do some research because if you think that is showing children as part of the 47% you are WRONG
What is absolutely insane to me is that here you have a stupid ass video where one candidate is basically telling the truth about things and half of you dolts think it's the worst thing in the world.
While on the other hand really serious issues that matter to our life and liberty and the well being of our citizens are happening and the media don't care and neither do any of you.
Your more concerned about what crap you hear from MSNBC, CNN, Jon Stewart and the Daily Show as if they are providing you with real news or anything worthwhile.
I mean on the 11th anniversary of 9/11 we had a group of terrorist come on sovereign US territory and soil and kill 4 US citizens and the best thing that Obama can manage to say is " Oh it wasn't a terrorist attack it was just random protest and violence based off of some video. It has absolutely nothing to do with our policies or current standings"
Seriously are you a fuckin moron, and you want to know the worst of it. They knew. Think about that... The president and his cabinet knew this shit was going to happen. They knew that the security was insufficient in Libya. They knew the protests were coming and they also knew that there was a threat... And what did they do....? NOTHING
But what do we get from the Libs/Dems/Media..... CRICKET CRICKET If a Repub was in the White house they'd been fried up and served to the masses by now....
Title: Politics
Post by: Da6onet on September 20, 2012, 08:51:31 am
Quote from: "Broin"
I mean on the 11th anniversary of 9/11 we had a group of terrorist come on sovereign US territory and soil and kill 4 US citizens and the best thing that Obama can manage to say is " Oh it wasn't a terrorist attack it was just random protest and violence based off of some video. It has absolutely nothing to do with our policies or current standings"
Seriously are you a fuckin moron, and you want to know the worst of it. They knew. Think about that... The president and his cabinet knew this shit was going to happen. They knew that the security was insufficient in Libya. They knew the protests were coming and they also knew that there was a threat... And what did they do....? NOTHING
But what do we get from the Libs/Dems/Media..... CRICKET CRICKET If a Repub was in the White house they'd been fried up and served to the masses by now....
True story.
Though I don't see Romney as a deft foreign policy man, he cannot possibly do worse than Obama and his administration who have really weakened our standing in the world.
Title: Politics
Post by: NoCry on September 20, 2012, 09:45:28 am
Aye, Obama and Clinton between them have reduced your strength on the world forum no doubt.
Your state department believes the middle east will manage itself and applauded when fundamentalists get elected whilst allowing the russians and chinese to continue their lovefest under their noses.
On the contrary, a (right wing)(strong) statesman is needed more than ever for your country (at least in so far as the world is concerned).
Carry on.
Title: Politics
Post by: likwidtek on September 20, 2012, 11:38:36 am
Title: Politics
Post by: Lithium on September 20, 2012, 05:02:34 pm
Quote from: "Da6onet"
Quote from: "Broin"
I mean on the 11th anniversary of 9/11 we had a group of terrorist come on sovereign US territory and soil and kill 4 US citizens and the best thing that Obama can manage to say is " Oh it wasn't a terrorist attack it was just random protest and violence based off of some video. It has absolutely nothing to do with our policies or current standings"
Seriously are you a fuckin moron, and you want to know the worst of it. They knew. Think about that... The president and his cabinet knew this shit was going to happen. They knew that the security was insufficient in Libya. They knew the protests were coming and they also knew that there was a threat... And what did they do....? NOTHING
But what do we get from the Libs/Dems/Media..... CRICKET CRICKET If a Repub was in the White house they'd been fried up and served to the masses by now....
True story.
Though I don't see Romney as a deft foreign policy man, he cannot possibly do worse than Obama and his administration who have really weakened our standing in the world.
After 9 days of thinking about it the administration has now decided it was ''self-evident'' that it was a terrorist attack.
And the man fingered for pulling off the attack was let go from Gitmo under the extreme pressure of the democratic controlled senate.
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on September 20, 2012, 11:31:49 pm
They knew it from the start and all but allowed it to happen. They knew it was coming. They knew it was not safe. They had ZERO security for the ambassador. The marines who died were not on his detail or even at his location. They manned up on THIER OWN to try and get him out and protect him. AND THEY ALL DIED BECAUSE OF OBAMAS WEAKNES AND INEPTNESS. Then Obama and his pukes knowing this will eventually get out try to cover what really happened up and the LIBS/DEMS/AND MEDIA TRAITORS go along with it.
OUR. Guy was tortured on American soil then killed on American soil then drug through the streets and his body disfigured. AND there is nothing from the media to call for an account... and far to many people care more about Romney telling the truth on something rather than the fucking president lying and misleading to cover up his incompetence.
WAKE THE FUCK UP or you may find yourslf in the middle of some serious shit wondering why it is all hapening.... right before a great big scary empty darkness swallows you up
Title: Politics
Post by: Longboard on September 21, 2012, 01:14:41 pm
Quote from: "Mharz"
Quote from: "Lithium"
So much for the liberal idea of Pro-choice. You can't buy a 17oz soft drink in NYC and even better only in 'selective' establishments.
Title: Politics
Post by: Longboard on September 21, 2012, 02:05:11 pm
Quote from: "Broin"
They knew it from the start and all but allowed it to happen. They knew it was coming. They knew it was not safe. They had ZERO security for the ambassador. The marines who died were not on his detail or even at his location. They manned up on THIER OWN to try and get him out and protect him. AND THEY ALL DIED BECAUSE OF OBAMAS WEAKNES AND INEPTNESS. Then Obama and his pukes knowing this will eventually get out try to cover what really happened up and the LIBS/DEMS/AND MEDIA TRAITORS go along with it.
OUR. Guy was tortured on American soil then killed on American soil then drug through the streets and his body disfigured. AND there is nothing from the media to call for an account... and far to many people care more about Romney telling the truth on something rather than the fucking president lying and misleading to cover up his incompetence.
WAKE THE FUCK UP or you may find yourslf in the middle of some serious shit wondering why it is all hapening.... right before a great big scary empty darkness swallows you up
This one event pretty much did it for me. I had high hopes for Obama because I was happy to see a younger, technology inclined person in a place of leadership for America. I won't comment much about the Dem or Rep arguments, as a lot of them started many presidents back and will continue for many future presidents. Everyone that is posting is making good points, very thought provoking. I applaud you for your passion, in your beliefs!
Bottom line for me is this, If our president, "the leader of the free world" does not stand up for our people, like the events of this past 9/11, he has to go. It's no different then a father not standing by his son. To me, that was a BIG FUCK OFF to all Americans. Where the hell is our pride?
I really don't consider myself a Dem or Rep, I vote for who I like. Both parties have good and bad ideas. What we really need, is leadership that cares about Americans first. I have no problem with caring about the world and humanity but lets take care of our own people first. It starts at home. As of today, who is speaking for our dead in Libya and and for our people in Egypt?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/21/world/middleeast/assault-on-consulate-in-libya-a-terrorist-attack-white-house-says.html?_r=0 - Too little, too late!
Title: Politics
Post by: Da6onet on September 21, 2012, 07:25:57 pm
I've been reading up on the Chicago Teacher's Union Strike and was thinking about this idea of evaluating teachers to determine if they're shitty or not. The saying "garbage in, garbage out" comes to my mind in response to judging a teacher on standardized test scores.
Here is a potentially more equitable solution. If we are to truly gauge how effective a teacher is at teaching, we must establish a baseline for every individual student at their entry point into a school system and track progress throughout their primary and secondary education, even between districts and states. Basically, if a 5th grade teacher inherits a student reading at the 1st grade level, they should actually be commended if they can increase a student's proficiency beyond the 3rd grade level by end of the school year, punished if they cannot get the student to at least a 2nd grade reading level. These cutoffs are arbitrary and not backed by data, I am just using them as potential measures.
Of course the larger question I found myself grappling with: Do we want primary and secondary education to try and bring along every single student or do we want it to be a zero-sum system with winners and losers?
I feel like we're asking too much of an American education system that was set up to give basic education to as many people as possible. Nobody wants to believe their kid is lazy or stupid (or both), at the same time, everyone wants their child to be in the gifted programs, taking AP and honors classes, getting into an Ivy League college etcetera etcetera. The reality is teachers get blamed far far to often for what is really the fault of the parents, the child, and to a larger extent the system that gives them little recourse for remediating the problems.
Charter schools in my mind seek the zero-sum model of education. If it robs a child of exposure to diversity, then that's the trade off for a tailored education. Alternatively, if we as a society can accept that we will always have a bottom 20%, then we should stop going on witch hunts against teachers when some kid fails.
If it weren't for the top 1% earners in America, you would see a pretty close correlation in income distribution and educational attainment, grades, test scores, etc.
That said, there is nothing wrong with wanting to shift the median continually further right, however, I disagree with this weakest link in the chain argument, that if we focus our efforts on bringing up the bottom, somehow that will benefit or incentivize those in the middle and top to do better. All it will do is narrow the bell curve.
If you want to blame the teachers for something, blame them for ludicrous pension plans.
Title: Politics
Post by: Lithium on September 21, 2012, 11:12:27 pm
Quote from: "Broin"
OUR. Guy was tortured on American soil then killed on American soil then drug through the streets and his body disfigured. AND there is nothing from the media to call for an account... and far to many people care more about Romney telling the truth on something rather than the fucking president lying and misleading to cover up his incompetence.
This part is very much true. The New York Times just 2 days ago (Sept. 20) didn't have a single story about the attack or a single story about Libya in the entire paper.
Also, Krauthammer had a good article out last week on the very situation in the Middle East: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-collapse-of-the-cairo-doctrine/2012/09/20/72fb7f62-035f-11e2-91e7-2962c74e7738_story.html
The collapse of the Middle East is very much related to our policy of appeasement which is only rivaled by that of Neville Chamberlain and FDR some 70+ years ago. We have our minds made that the people can settle the issues themselves, we have set timetables to leave and we have abandoned our only strongholds in the region. Meanwhile leaving many of our allies panicked and asking, 'why?'
I believe that the current situation is only more proof against those who believe America should not be involved in foreign interests. America has an obligation to bully the world... bully the world to accept the ideas of freedom. Do you think after WWII we just up and left Japan? Do you think we just up and left West Germany? Did we just up and leave South Korea? We know what happened to those places--they boomed and are pro-American. Yet, we up and left East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, North Korea and others.... we all know what happened in those places.
My point is that if we do not provide military presence around the world these little shit places power vacuum and very unfriendly people take over. It takes decades to change people. Just watch, because we didn't stay in Iraq long enough the fundamentalists will take charge and it will become once again a very unfriendly country.
Assimilate or Die.
Title: Politics
Post by: Lithium on September 24, 2012, 04:39:39 pm
You just can't make this shit up. You have a 'Hitler-esk' dictator spouting anti-semitic slurs and ranting about eliminating the Jews in NYC. Meanwhile hundreds of other heads of state are in New York, many of who want to speak to our leader and are concerned about the biggest terrorist attack since 9/11 and where is our president?!? On 'The View'.
Title: Politics
Post by: Tbone on September 24, 2012, 06:05:57 pm
You just can't make this shit up. You have a 'Hitler-esk' dictator spouting anti-semitic slurs and ranting about eliminating the Jews in NYC. Meanwhile hundreds of other heads of state are in New York, many of who want to speak to our leader and are concerned about the biggest terrorist attack since 9/11 and where is our president?!? On 'The View'.
Yeah, because the Secretary of State can't handle a foreign policy meeting :rolleyes:
The person who wrote that article was the Republican strategist for Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, and Mike Huckabee. Please stop getting your "news" from Fox News. Shouldn't he be flying to Libya? Bombing Iran? Fortifying Israel? Why's he hanging out with his daughters when he has to be doing something else? It's an opinion article from someone trying to get Romney elected. Why didn't Romney fly to Libya after the consulate attack? Instead he used it to politically harass Obama! See, you can use any situation and say someone should be doing something else. Why am I responding to your post? Shouldn't I be doing my taxes??
Title: Politics
Post by: Lithium on September 24, 2012, 06:50:45 pm
This really wasn't news. This was just a tid-bit (Obama goes on 'The View') for commentary. It's the same thing Colbert and Stewart do.
Understanding why it's ridiculous is the important part and the commentary summed it up perfect. So, yeah, your right. He is taking a play right out of Putin's playbook by playing proxy to the world which he has no interest in. His only interest right now is the election and the fear of losing power because of the 'promises' he has not kept. Had he done what he said he was going to do he'd be 20 points ahead. But, as everyone reminds him he can't run on his record, all that's left to run on is charm.
"You can't change Washington from the inside. You can only change it from the outside." - President Obama
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on September 24, 2012, 10:15:26 pm
Quote from: "Tbone"
The person who wrote that article was the Republican strategist for Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, and Mike Huckabee. Please stop getting your "news" from Fox News. Shouldn't he be flying to Libya? Bombing Iran? Fortifying Israel? Why's he hanging out with his daughters when he has to be doing something else? It's an opinion article from someone trying to get Romney elected. Why didn't Romney fly to Libya after the consulate attack? Instead he used it to politically harass Obama! See, you can use any situation and say someone should be doing something else. Why am I responding to your post? Shouldn't I be doing my taxes??
Uh... You mean like all the hate they spit at Bush and our troops during the two elections he was in?
Let me make this clear to you... Obama let those men die. His incompetence is what lead to it.
What you are eventually going to find out is these facts.
1) The Diplomats on the ground in Libya knew that shit was going bad 2) They reported their concerns back up the chain of command 3) Those reports were ignored 4) Increased security was denied because they were worried about how it would look 5) When the shit hit the fan that night White House/Secretary of Defense/Secretary of State were contacted by our Diplomat in counrty and advised that what they had warned would happen was happening 6) Since there was no true security for our diplomat in country the White House/Secretary of Defense/Secretary of State contacted the marines in country (who were tasked with other duties other than the diplomat) and asked them to attempt to get the diplomat. 7) They were advised of the situation 8) They were advised that they were outnumbered 9) They were advised they were outgunned 10) They were advised they would most likley not survive 11) They went anyway 12) They died 13) The diplomat died after being tortured 14) It was due to Obama's lack of understanding and incompetence
Oh and Fox news is a hell of alot better than CBS / ABC / NBC / MSNBC / CNN and all the other puke networks that are covering NOTHING about what is happening. You think for one fuckin second if a Republican was in office they wouldn't of chewed them up and spit them out by now. They are covering for Obama. They are giving him a PASS on EVERYTHING...
AND YOU KNOW IT!!! YOU KNOW IT!
Anyone who doesn't see that or doesn't admit that is a fuckin idiot who can't think for themselves but just accepts the spewed crap garbage they feed you.... AND DESERVES the Hell that you are going to get if they vote for that puke and he gets relected
Title: Politics
Post by: likwidtek on September 25, 2012, 03:18:06 pm
[citation needed]
Title: Politics
Post by: Sared on September 26, 2012, 12:55:56 am
Broin, looks like we might be bringing in a new Sage DPSer next week...
(http://i.imgur.com/PNr2z.jpg)
Title: Politics
Post by: Subb on September 26, 2012, 04:40:02 am
*chuckle*
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on September 26, 2012, 04:23:17 pm
NICE SARED....
My only response....
Title: Politics
Post by: Sared on September 27, 2012, 05:39:39 pm
Love you too old man. <3
Title: Politics
Post by: likwidtek on September 28, 2012, 12:36:52 pm
Nothing to see here guys! Remember! Freedom isn't free! And hey, if you aren't a terrorist, you have nothing to hide right! Privacy is only a word that terrorists use to thwart the freedom machine.
Title: Politics
Post by: Lithium on September 28, 2012, 12:54:56 pm
I really enjoy how the libs/dems posting in this topic *completely* switch topics as soon as the counter-points are made to debunk their arguments.
Anywho, if you post something publicly on a social network site you deserve to have it swiped if you are threatening the safety of others. If you are looking for consistency with wiretapping phone laws, then yes, real-time private 'data' (email, private messages, etc.) should require a court order before the government 'hacks' and/or asks a 3rd party for that data. However, I am not terribly familiar with 'tapping' laws and it's not unusual for these articles to be extremely misleading.
Title: Politics
Post by: likwidtek on September 28, 2012, 01:02:04 pm
If I send you a private message via email, facebook, this website or whatever... There is a reasonable expectation of privacy that the government or law enforcement cannot and should not be able to view this information without a warrant.
The government or law enforcement has the power to surveil American citizens without a warrant and that is not ok. It's not ok for the government to put a camera in my home, or put audio recording devices in my home. It sure as shit isn't ok for them to go through my private messages.
What's so hard to understand about that?
Title: Politics
Post by: Sared on September 28, 2012, 01:24:22 pm
Although I completely agree that warantless surveillance is an invasion of privacy that I do not support, I think the numbers on the article are important to put into context.
According to that article, the JD made 1661 "live intercepts on social networks and e-mail providers in 2011". That's out of millions of such exchanges that happen every single day, and is really a very small number. Doesn't make it any better or justified, and I'm hopeful that this incursion into privacy is fixed before it gets any worse, but I also think it's a mountain made out of a molehill by the press.
Title: Politics
Post by: likwidtek on September 28, 2012, 02:02:39 pm
Some more to think about: http://www.democracynow.org/2012/4/20/exclusive_national_security_agency_whistleblower_william
"National Security Agency Whistleblower William Binney on Growing State Surveillance"
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on September 28, 2012, 07:28:54 pm
Nothing to see here guys! Remember! Freedom isn't free! And hey, if you aren't a terrorist, you have nothing to hide right! Privacy is only a word that terrorists use to thwart the freedom machine.
LOL you do understand the concept of SOCIAL MEDIA... Correct?
I mean if you are going to put shit out there into the ether and not expect it to come back and haunt you or not to be found out then you are crazy.
I mean that's like sending out a text to a few hundred friends and then askign them hey make sure you don't pass this on.
Oh and I do this on a regular basis with my guys... AND it keeps you safe and puts lots of bad people in jail.
I also regulary get Verizon, AT&T, etc., to ping cell phones to track people down and see where they are staying, moving around and visiting, etc., Another awesome tool...
Oh and Democracy Now = Funded almost entirley by George Soros... What a guy. Yeah I'm buying what they say. Like a spoonful fo shattered glass.
Title: Politics
Post by: NoCry on September 29, 2012, 01:55:54 am
Never understood the drama on supposed loss of privacy. There can be no expectation of privacy/ secrecy if you use public channels or networks (which of course the Internet is even Pam's etc).
If you have nothing to hide who cares who reads your sordid little fantasies?
The only people who benefit from any privacy laws are terrorists - sometimes I am amazed when I hear what an outcry there is from the US on this issue - you guys know right that half the world (probably more so in terms of population) does not like you vey much - why not have the tools to protect? The tools certainly are not there to oppress.
Title: Politics
Post by: Sared on September 29, 2012, 09:37:45 am
Quote from: "NoCry"
The only people who benefit from any privacy laws are terrorists...
And...you know...people that don't want to live in a totalitarian socialist state, right?
Title: Politics
Post by: NoCry on September 29, 2012, 01:32:53 pm
What is more important though? Security or privacy?
Title: Politics
Post by: likwidtek on September 29, 2012, 01:34:14 pm
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Title: Politics
Post by: Lithium on September 29, 2012, 02:12:19 pm
It requires a balance.
On one hand you have American's sceaming when it takes 20 years to take down a corrupt business figure. Or when someone like Casey Anothey gets off scottfree. Or how a drunk doctor kills a teenage girl while driving and gets off with 1 year in jail for DWI all other charges dropped.
Yet, on the other hand those same people demand more privacy rights. Which only helps the defendents in those cases. The constitution protects really just your home. The government can't bust in without just cause. The governement can't barracks troops in your house. I'm not positive but I really doubt there is any mention of 'privacy'.
Quote
The right to privacy isn't directly mentioned in the Constitution, but the US Supreme Court has held that it is a fundamental liberty deserving protection because privacy is implied in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments (Due Process Clause).
Wireless communication is one of those things where if the company you trust your data with gives it up... they give it up. They have every right to say NO to the governement.
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on September 29, 2012, 04:52:22 pm
Quote from: "likwidtek"
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
I totally get you on this one Likwid
Title: Politics
Post by: Tbone on September 30, 2012, 12:43:14 am
I want the new ObamaPhone!
Title: Politics
Post by: Da6onet on September 30, 2012, 10:00:45 am
This is why I listen to both WAMU and WMAL, they don't always cover the same stories.
The default rate on student loans is now above 10%. To put that in perspective with mortgages, before the collapse only about 2% were delinquent on their house. During the collapse it was as high as 20%. Right now it's around 7% I believe.
Also, most people don't know this but student loans were rewritten in the healthcare law and a significant portion of the program is funded by the 'expected' revenue of student loan interest. Of course the law also 'expceted' that unemployment right now would be at 4%. So the orginal phoney CBO costs were off by at least half.
Title: Politics
Post by: Da6onet on September 30, 2012, 09:20:24 pm
It will be interesting to see how the country/world adapts to deal with an entire generation of unemployed/underemployed college grads with stupid amounts of debt. I fear nothing is going to change until it blows up in everyone's face.
There is hope though, I hear comments like this more often these days: "I'm starting to think it's Obama's fault I can't get a job. When Bush was in office (before my degree) I was able to get jobs with ease.
Title: Politics
Post by: Sared on October 01, 2012, 12:11:38 pm
Quote from: "Da6onet"
It will be interesting to see how the country/world adapts to deal with an entire generation of unemployed/underemployed college grads with stupid amounts of debt. I fear nothing is going to change until it blows up in everyone's face.
There is hope though, I hear comments like this more often these days: "I'm starting to think it's Obama's fault I can't get a job. When Bush was in office (before my degree) I was able to get jobs with ease.
As an adult going back to school, I don't like this. I don't like this one bit.
Title: Politics
Post by: Adam on October 02, 2012, 03:22:00 pm
WORTH A READ... Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18.. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said,'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. 'Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings) The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings) The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings) The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings) The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings) The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings)
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
I only got a dollar out of the $20, declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, but he got $10! Yeah, that's right, exclaimed the fifth man. I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more Than I That's true! shouted the seventh man. Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks! Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor! The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man (the richest) didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
Title: Politics
Post by: NoCry on October 02, 2012, 04:58:56 pm
But not France.
Title: Politics
Post by: Subb on October 06, 2012, 05:12:46 pm
Have fun with Abu Hamza.
Title: Politics
Post by: Anamodiel on October 21, 2012, 01:10:02 pm
I don't see an escalation of this for at least a decade, but the foundations are being laid now under Obama's watch. Of course the Chinese want him to be reelected, that way we'll be the only kids in the room following the rules while all hell breaks loose.
Title: Politics
Post by: Da6onet on October 30, 2012, 10:48:48 pm
Title: Politics
Post by: Tbone on October 31, 2012, 01:33:00 am
"The 1% will no longer be the rich - they will be the very fast!" Haha
Title: Politics
Post by: Mharz on October 31, 2012, 05:33:25 pm
Quote from: "Adam"
WORTH A READ... Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18.. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. So, that's what they decided to do.
I don't know where you drink but where I'm from, and where I drink no one would EVER pick this system. What most people would think is fair is for each man to pay for his beer and if they couldn't afford the beer they better head home and save up until they could.
Our tax system is TOTALLY BROKEN. Considered to be one of the most oppressive tax systems in the world (last I checked we were #12) it is certainly one of the most complex.
Why is it so complex? Social engineering. Big government is financially manipulating you to live the life that they want you to. To do the things they think are best. If you invest in a house you get a break. If you get married you get a break. If you have kids, you get a break. If you save money for retirement, you get a break. If you buy a POS green car, you get a break.
The tax system isn't about paying for the government anymore (those tax law bastards can't do math anyway Trillions of dollars in debt) it's about control. Plain and simple control.
Think about how much money we could save if we just said, "Everyone will now pay 17% flat tax."
IRS - Gone. Hundreds of millions of dollars saved every year.
Tax law debates in government - Gone. Millions more saved every year.
Tax accountants (sorry Ana) - Gone. Millions more in GDP in the form of useful occupations every year.
Tax code updates - Gone. Millions of dollars a years saved.
Tax prep time - Gone. Tax = Income * 0.17 and done.
People don't agree to pay for beer tabs like that. Why would they agree to be taxed like that?[/i]
Title: Politics
Post by: Anamodiel on October 31, 2012, 08:43:28 pm
Quote from: "Mharz"
Our tax system is TOTALLY BROKEN. Considered to be one of the most oppressive tax systems in the world (last I checked we were #12) it is certainly one of the most complex.
True, in regards to the total complexity and total brokenness of the system.
Quote
Why is it so complex? Social engineering. Big government is financially manipulating you to live the life that they want you to. To do the things they think are best. If you invest in a house you get a break. If you get married you get a break. If you have kids, you get a break. If you save money for retirement, you get a break. If you buy a POS green car, you get a break.
I don't think social engineering has very much to do with it. Your argument assumes that marriage and kids are primary reasons for pursuing these tax breaks. Instead, these tax breaks are a result of constituents asking for tax relief from tax burdens that they felt too high. People were getting married and having kids before the IRS came around. In addition, the thought behind some of the credits like the home mortgage deduction credit and the child tax credit were because those each cost a lot of money. I'll debate you on whether you should be able to deduct that from your AGI, but very few of the credits create social engineering. If anything, most of the credits and differing rate structures results from economic engineering.
Remember, the IRS has to fulfill the will of the Congress. The Congress, not the IRS, is responsible for the Code. The IRS simply implements the legislation put into place by the Congress and interprets the Congressional will. Sometimes, Tax Courts and the Appeal Courts disagree with the IRS' interpretation, but that's not that often. We haven't had a serious overhaul of the Internal Revenue Code since the '50's. There was a quasi-one done under Reagan, but it doesn't really count because it didn't completely re-organize everything. It just simplified some stuff but, overall, it continued the structure of the current Code and didn't truly eliminate anything.
Quote
The tax system isn't about paying for the government anymore (those tax law bastards can't do math anyway Trillions of dollars in debt) it's about control. Plain and simple control.
That's a very cynical view. The IRC is incredibly complicated, but it's not meant to control us. It is actually there to collect tax revenue for the government. You're blaming different people for different problems. The IRS is there to collect tax revenue - plain and simple. It interprets the law passed by the Congress and the President and implements it in order to collect the way the law says that they have to. Who you should actually be mad at is the many different politicians on both sides of the aisle who have spent more than the IRS is taking in. Now, that is an issue I can get behind. I can also get behind the issue of too much regulation and code structure in the IRC and how it burdens small business growth.
Quote
Think about how much money we could save if we just said, "Everyone will now pay 17% flat tax."
IRS - Gone. Hundreds of millions of dollars saved every year.
The IRS is one of the few revenue positive and revenue creating entities that the U.S. government is able to employ. It is one of the most efficient government entities that has ever existed. Getting rid of the IRS would mean that there would be no way to be sure that someone actually paid their 17% of their income. There would be no audits, and there would be no penalties for tax evasion. I view the IRS as one of the few government entities that is a necessary evil. Getting rid of our one major source of tax revenue would cause the US government to generate most of its income from tariffs. The average US tariff rate is about 4.3%. I will point to Smoot-Hawley to show you how dumb of an idea that would be to increase those tariffs.
Quote
Tax law debates in government - Gone. Millions more saved every year.
Tax accountants (sorry Ana) - Gone. Millions more in GDP in the form of useful occupations every year.
Tax code updates - Gone. Millions of dollars a years saved.
Tax prep time - Gone. Tax = Income * 0.17 and done.[/I]
Alright, if you're arguing for a flat tax, that's fine. I could get behind that. That would eliminate a lot of work and time. However, I don't think that it will happen for a very long time, if ever. So, I'd like to work in the world of reality. Simplify the tax code, and make it easier to understand.
Also, your argument for getting rid of tax accountants because it would increase the GDP is slightly off-kilter. The large majority of tax accountants are small business owners and, while they make a large amount of money, they spend a lot of it, too. They're in service industries, but they don't detract from the US GDP anymore than paying someone to rake your leaves does. You're still spending the money. It's just going to different people.
Title: Politics
Post by: Da6onet on November 01, 2012, 09:19:40 am
FairTax > All
Vote Libertarian
Title: Politics
Post by: Tbone on November 07, 2012, 12:19:13 pm
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on November 07, 2012, 03:56:29 pm
Feel sorry for you guys.... YOU'RE FUCKED and you don't even know it yet.... GL to you
Title: Politics
Post by: Da6onet on November 07, 2012, 06:03:14 pm
Here is how I predict the future of America, maybe not specifically under Obama's next four years, but this election has convinced me it's going to happen. 1. Rule of law will become more of a suggestion of law. 2. The idea that the individual is greater than the government will be officially fall into extremist thinking. 3. The Republican party will become irrelevant in our new statist society, instead we will have the liberal party and the flaming liberal party. 4. Monetary collapse.
Title: Politics
Post by: Lithium on November 07, 2012, 09:24:10 pm
I think the market picked it's winner and loser today. Biggest drop of the year. Well, there disappears a 3rd of my capital gains this year. I suppose my future income is poised to help the pits of society rather than build my own wealth that I worked damn hard for.
Title: Politics
Post by: Ketamininja on November 08, 2012, 03:17:41 am
Quote from: "Da6onet"
4. Monetary collapse.
I'm actually looking forward to seeing a global monetary collapse. Well... that is I would if I could see through to the other side in my lifetime.
Title: Politics
Post by: NoCry on November 08, 2012, 09:41:25 am
Day's point 3 is being echoed loud and clear in the British papers.
Title: Politics
Post by: Subb on November 08, 2012, 12:19:50 pm
As I am a Brit, from the nation that is far superior than yours (except in the race of the most clogged arteries; however, we are closing down), I feel as if you should all personally read a letter from Her Majesty.
A MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
To the citizens of the United States of America from Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
In light of your failure in recent years to nominate competent candidates for President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately. (You should look up 'revocation' in the Oxford English Dictionary.)
Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths, and territories (except North Dakota, which she does not fancy).
Your new Prime Minister, David Cameron, will appoint a Governor for America without the need for further elections.
Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire may be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed.
To aid in the transition to a British Crown dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:
-----------------------
1. The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'colour,' 'favour,' 'labour' and 'neighbour.' Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping half the letters, and the suffix '-ize' will be replaced by the suffix '-ise.' Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. (look up 'vocabulary').
------------------------
2. Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler noises such as ''like' and 'you know' is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. There is no such thing as U.S. English. We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take into account the reinstated letter 'u'' and the elimination of '-ize.'
-------------------
3. July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday.
-----------------
4. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers, or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not quite ready to be independent. Guns should only be used for shooting grouse. If you can't sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist, then you're not ready to shoot grouse.
----------------------
5. Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a vegetable peeler. Although a permit will be required if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.
----------------------
6. All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you will start driving on the left side with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables. Both roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.
--------------------
7. The former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been calling gasoline) of roughly $10/US gallon. Get used to it.
-------------------
8. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called crisps. Real chips are thick cut, fried in animal fat, and dressed not with catsup but with vinegar.
-------------------
9. The cold, tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be referred to as beer, and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as Lager. South African beer is also acceptable, as they are pound for pound the greatest sporting nation on earth and it can only be due to the beer. They are also part of the British Commonwealth - see what it did for them. American brands will be referred to as Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine, so that all can be sold without risk of further confusion.
---------------------
10. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as good guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors to play English characters. Watching Andie Macdowell attempt English dialect in Four Weddings and a Funeral was an experience akin to having one's ears removed with a cheese grater.
---------------------
11. You will cease playing American football. There is only one kind of proper football; you call it soccer. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which has some similarities to American football, but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like a bunch of nancies).
---------------------
12. Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the World Series for a game which is not played outside of America. Since only 2.1% of you are aware there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. You will learn cricket, and we will let you face the South Africans first to take the sting out of their deliveries.
--------------------
13.. You must tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us mad.
-----------------
14. An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax collector) from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all monies due (backdated to 1776).
---------------
15. Daily Tea Time begins promptly at 4 p.m. with proper cups, with saucers, and never mugs, with high quality biscuits (cookies) and cakes; plus strawberries (with cream) when in season.
God Save the Queen!
Title: Politics
Post by: Sared on November 08, 2012, 01:34:31 pm
I know for sure Broin snorted out loud at #13.
On an unrelated note: (http://ih0.redbubble.net/image.12862375.0140/fc,550x550,silver.u1.jpg)
Title: Politics
Post by: Tbone on November 08, 2012, 05:16:13 pm
Oh, your tears taste so so sweet! I want to save them in a jar! I thought the world was ending four years ago when we first elected Obama? But NOW it's REALLY ending because this time, it's personal, and...yeah...you'll all be sorry because...he's Obama, and...it's bad, really bad.
My prediction is that the economy will continue to slowly get better, hampered mostly by the grid-locked Congress. Social issues will continue to go more towards the center (away from the right) - helped by the Republicans' need to appeal to latinos, women, etc. Our reputation internationally will continue to improve. We will manage to avoid any unnecessary wars. Obama will go down in history as the first black president who fixed health care, killed Osama Bin Laden, paved the path for true gay rights and equality, and pulled America out of the greatest recession since the Great Depression.
That's of course assuming the world doesn't end in a month...
The radical narrative that a lot of you guys buy into simply isn't based in reality, and it's real interesting to see the Republicans now struggle with their perception of how things should be/are and how things actually are turning out. They've been drinking the kool-aid for so long, that they truly believe these radical viewpoints and it's really an ideological struggle when the bottom falls out. Right now they are grasping at straws trying to find someone else to blame other than themselves.
I think if Republicans are going to turn it around, they need to move more towards the center and away from their radical base. Reality just doesn't exist in such extremes. If you trust our government at all, electing Obama for a second term isn't sending America to hell in a hand basket even if you don't agree with his policies. Our system has checks and balances - it's just not always an easy pill to swallow when YOUR side needs to be checked and balanced.
The real concern now should be if Congress can actually work together to get anything done. The Republicans spent four years trying to shut down Obama, signing pledges to never compromise, and essentially trying to keep the country in the shitter in an attempt to get elected in 2012 (yeah, I know half of you disagree, but this is coming from the Republicans mouths to your ears here). With that out of the way and the Republicans still feeling sore from the ass-whooping, hopefully BOTH sides can sit down and come up with some real solutions quick!
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on November 08, 2012, 10:04:13 pm
You are simply ignorant of reality...
Show me how our economy is improving?
Show me how he is fixing healtcare? I would call it socializing it. But then again you believe that healthcare is a right.
Show me how he killed Osama Bin Laden? Really you think he did? What did he contribute to finding him? To the intel? To anything? The only reason we found him was because of the implementaiton of policy and procedures that Obama fought against tooth and nail and vowed to do away with.
Show me what policies he implemented to pull us out of a recession?
Obama is a man who allowed those seals in Libya to die. He made the decision and told the assets in air not to fire after the seals lit up the mortars emplacements and gave away their position. The assets were ready to fire and the only way it could be called off is either the onsite area commander or the pres. The onsite did not give the word. Those men gave away their position with the laser and then got killed by Obama saying no go over a thousands of miles away.
I'll give you the true predictions...
1 - Stock Market under 10 K 2 - Assassination attempts in the middle east on our allies 3 - Continued attacks against our forces over seas.... See the news they withheld about Iran firing upon our military assets over international space. 4 - Additional attacks of terror growing over seas 5 - Within the next 32 months another attack at home 6 - Israel attacks Iran sites alone. Response back from the middle east dictators with continued aggression towards them and attacks into their cities. Obama's America leaves them to fend for themselves. 7 - Obama Care - Your great healthcare rights causes companies to stop hiring full time employees. The general status of workers in the US changes to Temp and Part time from full time employment. 8 - Another downgrade in the US credit rating within the next 32 months
You are IGNORANT... The republicans could do nothing the first two years of Obama's 1st term and the Dem's and Obama had free reign which gave us Obama Care / Debt Ceiling increases to no end / Economic crisis / it goes on and on and on.... Forcing religious organizations/institutions to provide contraception.
When was the last time the Dems proposed a budget... Not even passed one but proposed one? Can you tell me? Anyone. Don't think in months because it has been YEARS. The republicans at least stepped up and put their shit down on paper. Where was Obama's budget? every other president before him has put it down on paper and given it to Congress for consideration.... But he's so awesome isn't he?
I could keep going but I'm tired of typing and we are raiding.
I know you like to pick and chose / or just ignore what you don't like but the facts are the facts.
Personally I hate seeing you talk like this because personally I like you. But I hate your ignorance of what our countries foundations... Who we are and where we came from.
**EDIT**
The real reaons he won is because he is freakin Santa Clause and you all love him for it.
There are now more takers than makers and we are screwed for it.
Tell me in all honesty what do you think when you read these words....
From each according to their means and to each according to their need.
Title: Politics
Post by: Avzeke (Khr0n1k) on November 08, 2012, 11:54:18 pm
Quote from: "Broin"
When was the last time the Dems proposed a budget... Not even passed one but proposed one? Can you tell me? Anyone. Don't think in months because it has been YEARS. The republicans at least stepped up and put their shit down on paper. Where was Obama's budget? every other president before him has put it down on paper and given it to Congress for consideration.... But he's so awesome isn't he?
Democrats: March 26, 2012 http://democrats.budget.house.gov/sites/democrats.budget.house.gov/files/documents/dem_alt_summary_3.pdf
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on November 08, 2012, 11:56:18 pm
Where is the proposed bill that they put forth Khronik? Show me the Bill.
Oh and remain silent about the Obama letting those guys die because you know he did... I know... you know. We both know.
Title: Politics
Post by: Avzeke (Khr0n1k) on November 09, 2012, 12:00:44 am
Quote from: "Broin"
Where is the proposed bill that they put forth Khronik? Show me the Bill.
Right here, http://democrats.budget.house.gov/sites/democrats.budget.house.gov/files/documents/dem_alt_pdf.pdf
Edit: I am not arguing against or for any point on anything. I was just correcting something you said with facts.
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on November 09, 2012, 12:02:53 am
That is your boys Amendment, not the Dems budget proposal
AND stop ignoring the rest...
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on November 09, 2012, 12:08:55 am
Timeline Of Senate Democrats' Refusal To Make Budget Plans Public
April 29, 2009 - The last time the Democrat-led Senate adopted a budget resolution. Also the last time the Majority brought a budget plan to the floor.
April 22, 2010 - The Budget Committee completes action on a mark-up and reports a budget out of committee, but the Democrat majority chooses to keep its own plan from being offered on the Senate floor. This is the last time the Majority conducted a legally required markup.
May 17, 2011 - Despite missing the statutory deadline for a budget to be passed out of the Budget Committee, Chairman Conrad delays the unveiling of his budget for FY 2012, announcing that "I'll say something later - not today, probably... There are a lot of conversations under way."
April 15 - The Republican-controlled House of Representatives passes its budget for FY 2012, which cuts $6 trillion in comparison to the president's budget.
May 18 - Majority Leader Reid says it would be "foolish" for Senate Democrats to offer a budget.
May 19 - Chairman Conrad cancels a planned committee mark-up, announcing he will not reveal a budget to the public until after such time as the Gang of Six produces a proposal.
May 25 - The Senate rejects President Obama's FY 2012 budget by a vote of 0-97.
May 23 - Senator Schumer, when asked why there is no alternative to the House-passed budget, answers, "To put other budgets out there is not the point."
June 7 - Even some Senate Democrats become anxious about their party's lack of a budget.
June 29 - Chairman Conrad tells Politico, "Senate Democrats have reached an agreement on a plan - just now - and we'll be putting that out sometime soon." (Note: the plan was never made public, but a leaked outline revealed that it contained as many as $2 in tax hikes for $1 in spending cuts.)
November 9 - House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi claims that Democrats didn't pass a budget when they controlled both chambers of Congress because "Republicans would have filibustered it," but as she should know, budget resolutions can't be filibustered.
January 24, 2012 - President Obama delivers a State of the Union address that falls on the 1,000th day since Senate Democrats offered a budget plan. Although the president focuses much of his criticism on "the way Congress does its business these days," he neglects to mention Senate Democrats' budget failures.
February 3 - Days after Chairman Conrad promised to hold a budget mark-up in committee, Majority Leader Reid declares that the Senate would not consider a budget for the third straight year.
February 12 - Current White House chief of staff (and former OMB director) Jack Lew falsely claims that budget resolutions require 60 votes to pass the Senate.
March 14 - Every Republican on the Budget Committee reminds Chairman Conrad that the Congressional Budget Act deadline for passing a budget out of committee is April 1.
March 29 - The Republican-led House passes a budget for FY 2013.
April 17 - Chairman Conrad cancels the scheduled Budget Committee mark-up for the second year in a row, a move that the New York Times reported "surprised Republicans and Democrats, who were expecting him to produce a Democratic budget that, if passed by the committee, would have been the first detailed deficit reduction plan in three years." April 29 - Three years pass since Senate Democrats adopted a budget.
May 10 - Treasury Department figures show that the nation has spent $10.6 trillion since the Senate's Democrat majority last passed a budget.
FACTS ARE A BITCH
Title: Politics
Post by: Avzeke (Khr0n1k) on November 09, 2012, 12:10:04 am
Quote from: "Broin"
That is your boys Amendment, not the Dems budget proposal
AND stop ignoring the rest...
It is a "AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE" for "H. CON. RES. 112", the republicans budget. That means this amendment would completely cancel out the republican's budget. While it is a response to a already proposed bill, it is the democrats budget proposal.
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on November 09, 2012, 12:11:51 am
Better check my post before yours.
You know that what he put forth was not a budget but an amendment which had no chance of passing. It was a stop measure. Who else signed onto that other than your boy?
The Republican held House passed their budgets.... What did your boys over in the Senate do?
You know it goes from the House to the Senate right... I mean you do understand that and aren't trying to confuse these kind people here by trying to say what you are posting is the Senate controlled Dems proposed budget plan? And not some political slight of hand going on in the House while they are attempting to pass their own budget.
You wouldn't do that would you now?
I mean T and these other slack jawed yokuls were all like... Wow Khronik is showing him what for. Until the freakin FACTS smacked them in the head.... But then again they'll probably ignore the facts... It seems to be the new national passed time
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on November 09, 2012, 12:20:50 am
Going to bed now... I'll wait till tomorrow to throw another monkey wrench in your flawed single thought processed logic.
Title: Politics
Post by: Avzeke (Khr0n1k) on November 09, 2012, 12:36:16 am
Quote from: "Broin"
Better check my post before yours.
You know that what he put forth was not a budget but an amendment which had no chance of passing. It was a stop measure. Who else signed onto that other than your boy?
The Republican held House passed their budgets.... What did your boys over in the Senate do?
You know it goes from the House to the Senate right... I mean you do understand that and aren't trying to confuse these kind people here by trying to say what you are posting is the Senate controlled Dems proposed budget plan? And not some political slight of hand going on in the House while they are attempting to pass thier own budget.
You wouldn't do that would you now?
I mean T and these other slack jawed yokuls were all like... Wow Khronik is showing him what for. Until the freakin FACTS smacked them in the head.... But then again they'll probably ignore the facts... It seems to be the new national passed time
You are right that this amendment was in the house. But you stated that democrats as a whole have never proposed a budget. You didn't say submitted a bill and you didn't specifically state Senate democrats, did you? The statement you made was very broad and as such, was incorrect.
You said, "When was the last time the Dems proposed a budget... Not even passed one but proposed one? Can you tell me? Anyone. Don't think in months because it has been YEARS."
You even gave me the "Not even passed one but proposed one?"
I answered with the dates of both the party and the presidents proposals. Then you came back with wanting a bill. I gave you what was entered into the record for the democrats. You then come back saying it had no chance to pass as if that is a requirement to propose something. I never said it did have a chance.
I responded to what YOU stated. You can't just keep coming back trying to get more and more specific until it makes what I stated as incorrect. Sure it is a good way to appear to discredit someone to those following along but it still makes you wrong.
Title: Politics
Post by: NoCry on November 09, 2012, 02:44:26 am
Without doubt though - foreign policy under Obama is a joke. I agree wholeheartedly with broin that America is at greater risk than before. Your enemies simply love the "reset buttons" and policies of appeasement. leopards can't change their spots and Romney (whom personally I do not care for that much) would have, I am sure, been a better deterrent than your incumbent president.. Your military is the greatest (apart from obviously the Brits') but they will lose the ability to inflict fear into your lunatic enemies - that is a terrifying thing.
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on November 09, 2012, 07:44:21 am
Christ this is why people hate your boss and the rest of the politicians up there. You say something you know not to be true and expect people to take it as truth. Then when the truth comes out you obviscate the facts about the truth.
This is very simple. The Democratic party has not proposed a budget (.) <----- PERIOD
You can throw out an admendment that one of their members put forth and claim that it is but it is not. There is no proposed budget by the Dems/their leaders/their party as a whole that you can point to (.) <----- PERIOD
You know the way that it works Khronik. It starts in the House. It passes. It goes to the Senate. They amend and pass. It goes to committe.
This is the whole problem with what has been going on. YOU claim something to be true when it is not. YOU present it as truth when it is not. The problem that people like T and these other dolts have is they believe it because the foolish retarded media and crap they listen/watch doesn't report the facts or truth of the matter. They do not question the liars that put out the falsehoods and half truths.
And yes I am lumping in with the obviscators and liars because that is what you have done here. I congratulate your boss... He has taught you well.
Title: Politics
Post by: likwidtek on November 09, 2012, 01:16:06 pm
Quote from: "Subb"
As I am a Brit, from the nation that is far superior than yours (except in the race of the most clogged arteries; however, we are closing down), I feel as if you should all personally read a letter from Her Majesty.
A MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
To the citizens of the United States of America from Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
In light of your failure in recent years to nominate competent candidates for President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately. (You should look up 'revocation' in the Oxford English Dictionary.)
Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths, and territories (except North Dakota, which she does not fancy).
Your new Prime Minister, David Cameron, will appoint a Governor for America without the need for further elections.
Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire may be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed.
To aid in the transition to a British Crown dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:
-----------------------
1. The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'colour,' 'favour,' 'labour' and 'neighbour.' Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping half the letters, and the suffix '-ize' will be replaced by the suffix '-ise.' Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. (look up 'vocabulary').
------------------------
2. Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler noises such as ''like' and 'you know' is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. There is no such thing as U.S. English. We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take into account the reinstated letter 'u'' and the elimination of '-ize.'
-------------------
3. July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday.
-----------------
4. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers, or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not quite ready to be independent. Guns should only be used for shooting grouse. If you can't sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist, then you're not ready to shoot grouse.
----------------------
5. Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a vegetable peeler. Although a permit will be required if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.
----------------------
6. All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you will start driving on the left side with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables. Both roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.
--------------------
7. The former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been calling gasoline) of roughly $10/US gallon. Get used to it.
-------------------
8. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called crisps. Real chips are thick cut, fried in animal fat, and dressed not with catsup but with vinegar.
-------------------
9. The cold, tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be referred to as beer, and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as Lager. South African beer is also acceptable, as they are pound for pound the greatest sporting nation on earth and it can only be due to the beer. They are also part of the British Commonwealth - see what it did for them. American brands will be referred to as Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine, so that all can be sold without risk of further confusion.
---------------------
10. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as good guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors to play English characters. Watching Andie Macdowell attempt English dialect in Four Weddings and a Funeral was an experience akin to having one's ears removed with a cheese grater.
---------------------
11. You will cease playing American football. There is only one kind of proper football; you call it soccer. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which has some similarities to American football, but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like a bunch of nancies).
---------------------
12. Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the World Series for a game which is not played outside of America. Since only 2.1% of you are aware there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. You will learn cricket, and we will let you face the South Africans first to take the sting out of their deliveries.
--------------------
13.. You must tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us mad.
-----------------
14. An internal revenue agent (I.e. tax collector) from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all monies due (backdated to 1776).
---------------
15. Daily Tea Time begins promptly at 4 p.m. with proper cups, with saucers, and never mugs, with high quality biscuits (cookies) and cakes; plus strawberries (with cream) when in season.
God Save the Queen!
This was fucking genius. LOL!, awesome.
Title: Politics
Post by: Da6onet on November 09, 2012, 07:36:23 pm
Yay for litigation! Boo for little guys coming up with cool ideas!
On a related thought. If politicians are a representation of the people, and I have no faith in our politicians, should I also have no faith in the people?
Title: Politics
Post by: Da6onet on December 17, 2012, 12:28:13 pm
Now I'm sure all of you smart folks here have a basic understanding of macroeconomics, but just the same, I had an argument this morning with an friend who believes that the jobs situation is getting better in America. So in case anyone needs a lesson in terminology:
From Wikipedia (yes I'm being lazy):
Unemployment Rate - The unemployment rate is calculated by dividing the number of unemployed persons by the size of the workforce and multiplying that number by 100, where an unemployed person is defined as a person not currently employed but actively seeking work(meaning still receiving unemployment insurance, in most states this lasts ~26 weeks). The size of the workforce is defined as those employed plus those unemployed.
Labor Participation Rate - The ratio between the labor force and the overall size of their cohort (national population of the same age range).
Just remember this every time the "unemployment" numbers come out each month, you should go look up what the labor rate is to get a real picture. My favorite quote from an economist so far is "if you replace full time jobs with part time jobs, you get half the participation."
Note: "Retiring" baby boomers are not to blame --> http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/word-labor-participation-rates
Title: Politics
Post by: Longboard on December 19, 2012, 05:49:43 pm
Can we have a real discussion about guns in America? I'm really tried of all the bandwagon people since this last tragic event. Where do you stand?
Title: Politics
Post by: Sared on December 19, 2012, 06:21:38 pm
2nd Amendment should stand unscathed in my opinion. Require licensing for individuals that wish to be armed in public places (via CCL) and revoke the license of firearm retailers that fail to do background checks as required with varying degrees of scrutiny by different state laws.
If you ban swords, then your citizens will practice Kung-Fu.
Title: Politics
Post by: Heironymus on December 19, 2012, 07:09:12 pm
Quote from: "Longboard"
Can we have a real discussion about guns in America? I'm really tried of all the bandwagon people since this last tragic event. Where do you stand?
Every time I see someone post "the 2nd amendment was intended for Muskets and Single loaded pistols" I laugh and laugh and laugh at how stupid they think our founding fathers were. They honestly believe in their little limited world that the founding fathers who were hailed as the geniuses of that generation could create a creedance for governing a whole government and limitations for said government thinking of the future and problems we could possibly run in to but couldnt predict advancement in firearms? Especially since before the start of the American revolution and through the end of it the advancement in cannons and other arms took drastic changes.. Some people realllllly need to learn how to read and where to read from instead of spewing everything they hear from some news anchor that speaks for two minutes and doesnt actually do any research him or herself.
Title: Politics
Post by: Longboard on December 19, 2012, 10:14:48 pm
A LITTLE GUN HISTORY In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million. You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late! The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson. With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'. During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED! If you value your freedom, please spread this antigun-control message to all of your friends. SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN! SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE. SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
Copied from someone on Facebook...
There is so much ignorance out there, it makes my blood boil. When did "crazy" stop being just "crazy"?
Look at the UK, they have had similar events and they have gun control.
Title: Politics
Post by: Subb on December 20, 2012, 04:28:24 am
Let me say this first; the Newtown shooting (which is scary as my home town is called 'Newtown', too) was because of a guy who had a severe mental illness - no one willingly kills children if they are healthy and sane. It was not a gun-control issue. However, this is when I rant: it's the question of how a guy with severe mental disabilities managed to get his hands on the weapons. I haven't looked this up, so I'm not sure if he used his mother's (who, I'm pretty sure was mentally ill herself) or bought them. Gun control needs to be in place and heavily vetted, so nutjobs don't get their hands on them as easily.
Switzerland's firearm policy is due to the fact that it has no real military - the citizens are the military and are called up if it gets invaded. Britain has more of a knife-crime problem at the moment, not gun crime - gun crime is very, very low with the odd peak here and there. Plus, we are not the nation with metal detectors and police/security in schools.
I am anti-firearms in households (strange, as I'm military) - why do you even need them? For protection? Kids use that excuse nowadays over here for knives, yet they become the problem. It's just stupid. People are stupid and get power-blind when they hold weapons - Hell, I still do from time to time - and rational thinking flies right out the window unless you are subject to intense training (I have personal experience); you do very, very stupid things.
As for those dates; if you gave guns to each of those who were killed to 'defend' themselves they'd either A) still die as they most probably wouldn't hit shit B) kill a fuck load of people themselves.
Guns are bad, m'kay? Also, this assault rifle shit - why the Hell do you guys need assault rifles?! Handguns I can, partially, understand but those things were made for one reason only (clue is in the name).
Read this (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/the-guilty-conscience-of-a-drone-pilot-who-killed-a-child/266453/) article's first sentence - food for thought. Whilst whats happened is a tradegy, it shouldn't of happened so easily and steps could've been taken to minimalise the risk.
To be fair, your gun-crime stats have improved a lot over the years, which is brilliant.
(I love this thread)
Title: Politics
Post by: NoCry on December 20, 2012, 06:12:22 am
I have wanted to raise the gun issue in this thread but wanted to wait until a US person did so first.
Crazy will always be crazy and you can not stop it.
Why however ought a crazy person (or anyone) have access to assault rifles? Now, all jolly good fun to fire these things at a range but if anyone had actually seen the damage that these things do to living, breathing things I can not see how they can argue, in good conscience that they should be freely (or even on a licence) available - forget about "your rights" what about the equal right for people to be able to go to school and not have some lunatic with (freely available) automatic weapons break in.
I also find it odd, personally, that people can talk of their second amendment rights with authority when your country's leading judges and legal commentators have wrestled with these issues over the past years - surely you can see that the judges, being political appointees, will by their very nature side with the party which nominated/ picked them? Further, if the right is so enshrined in your constitution why are surface to air missiles not freely available? the founding fathers must have thought that someday man would harness the power of flight, they must have surely considered that flying machines could be used to oppress a population - why not argue therefore that people can have missiles? take it one step further (or actually a hell of a lot of steps) - what about nuclear weapons - they are an arm, why don't these second amendment people claim their right to have nuclear weapons as well as missiles to shoot down evil flying machines.... I'll tell you because you ought be locked up if you truly believe that something written hundreds of years ago gives you the right to have modern weapons which inflict inconceivable (at that time) damage.
No law or legal system (or indeed constitution) can keep up with technological advances or can properly legislate for them unless and until the actual advance exists or is imminent - that is where judges and lawmakers need to step in and surely what we are seeing now (or at least, as a parent I hope to see) that really there is no need whatsoever in a modern and developed society with an armed and trained security apparatus to allow normal citizens to purchase and keep fully automatic weapons - their role is offensive, not defensive.
Anyway, am following this issue closely and hope that a solution is found, albeit I doubt a solution is possible as the genie is well and truly out of the bottle. In the meantime obviously my thoughts are with the community ripped apart by this, crazy person's act.
Title: Politics
Post by: likwidtek on December 20, 2012, 10:58:31 am
You guys need to look up the definition of assault rifle.
Title: Politics
Post by: NoCry on December 20, 2012, 11:02:35 am
British army for 5 years. Got a good grasp of weapons in that time. Don't need a dictionary.
Title: Politics
Post by: Heironymus on December 20, 2012, 11:13:49 am
Quote from: "NoCry"
Anyway, am following this issue closely and hope that a solution is found, albeit I doubt a solution is possible as the genie is well and truly out of the bottle. In the meantime obviously my thoughts are with the community ripped apart by this, crazy person's act.
There is a very easy solution.. its called COMMON SENSE.. The problem is no one wants to think their precious little billy is mentally unstable and may need help.. I own guns and no.. I do not plan on giving mine up for any reason.. however. If I have a child and I think for even a second he could get around the safety and security that I employ to keep my guns secure and only accessible to myself then I would get rid of them. If I thought my teenage kid was unstable and might try to use a gun for harming another then I would get rid of them. I want to point out that my parents and most of my family are all in law enforcement. I grew up around guns everywhere.. I learned from very early they are not toys and you do not mess around with them. Why do people not teach this to their kids is beyond me.
Title: Politics
Post by: Lithium on December 20, 2012, 12:01:24 pm
- Fully Automatic Firearms are not legal in the US.
- The 2nd amendment was designed with the thought in mind by some, Jefferson in particular, that the people should always have the power to overthrow the government if it were to become oppressive. It can be argued the government wants to ban guns for it's own safety.
- The same day of the shooting our president announced that his administration would not actively prosecute federal violation of the pot law. My question, how many children have been killed by potheads and ruined families? How about drunks? Malnutrition accounts for thousands of child deaths in this country as well.
- If you are convinced your children are not safe in America I'll gladly help with your immigration papers to China, Russia, or the likes.
- The sad state of mental institutionalization is the by-product of the last 60 years of villainization of mental hospitals. We live in a society where the mentally challenged must be integrated seamlessly into society. They must go to the same schools, work in the same businesses, and have the same control on life as you and I. We think this is a reality by pumping them full of medication that alters mood, personality, and makes them even worse when they decide not to take it. Like a wild animal you can train and tame but at the end of the day it's still a fucking lion that can bite your head off.
Title: Politics
Post by: Subb on December 20, 2012, 02:33:50 pm
Quote from: "NoCry"
British army for 5 years. Got a good grasp of weapons in that time. Don't need a dictionary.
*Waves* British Commando here.
Title: Politics
Post by: Sared on December 22, 2012, 12:41:15 pm
If anyone's interested, the NRA played a fun blame game yesterday, and ended up insisting that we have an armed guard at every single school.
(http://i.imgur.com/3Erck.jpg)
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on December 22, 2012, 02:47:25 pm
Quote from: "Sared"
If anyone's interested, the NRA played a fun blame game yesterday, and ended up insisting that we have an armed guard at every single school.
(http://I.imgur.com/3Erck.jpg)
ROFLMAO.... Just the mere idea that the NRA is playing blame game is funny... I believe you have it backwards there Sared.
It is the NRA that is getting blame gamed on.... I didn't see the speech but I bet you can't find a qoute where the NRA INSISTED that armed guards be at every SINGLE school.
Don't make me come into this thread and educate you all again? You know it never ends well...
Title: Politics
Post by: Longboard on December 22, 2012, 03:09:02 pm
Quote from: "Broin"
Quote from: "Sared"
If anyone's interested, the NRA played a fun blame game yesterday, and ended up insisting that we have an armed guard at every single school.
(http://I.imgur.com/3Erck.jpg)
ROFLMAO.... Just the mere idea that the NRA is playing blame game is funny... I believe you have it backwards there Sared.
It is the NRA that is getting blame gamed on.... I didn't see the speech but I bet you can't find a qoute where the NRA INSISTED that armed guards be at every SINGLE school.
Don't make me come into this thread and educate you all again? You know it never ends well...
I personally would love to hear your views on guns.
Title: Politics
Post by: Sared on December 22, 2012, 05:16:26 pm
Quote from: "Broin"
ROFLMAO.... Just the mere idea that the NRA is playing blame game is funny... I believe you have it backwards there Sared.
It is the NRA that is getting blame gamed on.... I didn't see the speech but I bet you can't find a qoute where the NRA INSISTED that armed guards be at every SINGLE school.
Don't make me come into this thread and educate you all again? You know it never ends well...
No, you're not the only one that thinks it says 'code pinko' on the video preview. :P
The first three minutes is basic pre-amble filler, can skip if you want. First protester shows up at 4:56 and holds up the speech until 6:03.
At ~8:30 is where the blame, both taken, and given, begins.
Second protester shows up at 11:22 and holds up the speech until 12:12.
14:08 "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
18:34: "...can't we afford to put a police officer in every single school?"
Verbatim.
To be clear, I have no issue with having cops in public schools. As a college student in Texas, I'm comfortable with the armed security guard on-campus. All I'm bitching about is his railing against the media and other entities as a foothold for his argument. :P
IMO, if the movie/video game industries, the media or the NRA were to say "You know what, we are a part of the issue..." they'd be quickly railroaded into oblivion. No one can admit partial blame without ALL of it landing squarely on their shoulders.
SURPRISE ASA HUTCHINSON AT THE END!
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on December 22, 2012, 06:29:51 pm
So why in the world would the NRA say they are part of the blame? And you still didn't show me where they insisted that we put a cop in every school...
Oh and by the way the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun IS a good guy with a gun.
Haven't heard a damn thing in the Media about the Portland Oregon Mall shooting have you.... Take a look at the story the outcome, what stopped it, and maybe you'll figure out why.
Title: Politics
Post by: Lithium on December 22, 2012, 06:32:05 pm
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on December 22, 2012, 09:00:06 pm
Title: Politics
Post by: Tbone on December 22, 2012, 11:08:39 pm
It's a mental health issue. A guy in China killed 20 kids in school with a knife the same week as Connecticut. I don't think having an armed guard in every school is the answer, as whose to say who the bad guy and good guy is? Put a mentally unstable rent-a-cop with a gun in an elementary school and then THAT becomes the problem.
Title: Politics
Post by: Lithium on December 23, 2012, 12:00:06 am
The children in China were not killed. The guy obviously didn't know how to use a knife.
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on December 23, 2012, 12:22:15 am
Yes it is a mental health issue. Here is what the issue is... Look back to the late Late 90's when Clinton was in office.... Specifically 95-96 of first term and 97-98 of second term. We had large mental health facilities most of which he and his buddies shut down, because they were bad... MMMKay.
Then all those in the institutions went into group homes because those were suppoused to be better... MMMkay.
Those group homes were run by private companies and businesses. When they went out of business or when someone became to much of a problem then those people in those homes had to go back to live with mom and dad or somewhere else... MMMkay.
The truth is we have people who are nuts who need to be locked away from the rest of society. MMMMkay
Did bad things happen to people who lived in those facilities... Yes.... MMMkay
Are bad things happening to others now that those people are no longer kept in the facilities.... Yes... MMMkay
So you all decide which bad thing you would rather have happen.... MMMKay
And next time vote for someone whose gonna have the balls to make the hard decisions that are gonna keep most of us safe but are gonna allow a few others to suffer....
Mmmmkay
BECAUSE.....
THINK ABOUT IT.... MMMMKAY
Title: Politics
Post by: Sared on December 23, 2012, 06:58:43 am
I have no idea what tree you're barking up anymore Broin, because I agree with everything you've said so far. (I think it's a mental health issue and I don't think that aspect of the situation is being handled well.)
I don't care that his conclusion was 'put a guard in every school', only the decade-old terribad arguments that he used to get there.
Title: Politics
Post by: Lithium on December 23, 2012, 01:37:55 pm
Title: Politics
Post by: Heironymus on December 24, 2012, 09:42:41 am
Quote from: "Broin"
And next time vote for someone whose gonna have the balls to make the hard decisions that are gonna keep most of us safe but are gonna allow a few others to suffer....
Mmmmkay
so.. what youre saying is
BROIN 2016!!!
also.. I believe the NRA saying police in schools refers to the comment (and im at work so Im not sure if its in this particular press conference) where he says we spend $2 Billion dollars training foreign police services in the middle east why could we not find it in that same budget to change it to put off duty police officers protecting our schools. And yes... police officers do a lot of OFF DUTY WORK.
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on December 24, 2012, 11:52:31 am
Quote from: "Heironymus"
so.. what youre saying is
BROIN 2016!!!
I guarantee world peace....
Title: Politics
Post by: Heironymus on December 24, 2012, 01:07:51 pm
Quote from: "Broin"
Quote from: "Heironymus"
so.. what youre saying is
BROIN 2016!!!
I guarantee world peace....
Youve got my vote.. but then you have to actually tell people your real name!!
Title: Politics
Post by: Lithium on December 24, 2012, 08:11:42 pm
So today a man who killed his 92 year old grandmother with a hammer 30 years ago, was then let out of prison after 17 years, decided to set fire to a building and shot 4 firefighters, killing 2 of them. Why the fuck was this man let back out into the public? Thank you New York State Correctional Facilities!
Title: Politics
Post by: Longboard on December 24, 2012, 08:46:17 pm
Quote from: "Heironymus"
Quote from: "Broin"
Quote from: "Heironymus"
so.. what youre saying is
BROIN 2016!!!
I guarantee world peace....
Youve got my vote.. but then you have to actually tell people your real name!!
Jack Bauer
Title: Politics
Post by: Longboard on December 24, 2012, 08:58:44 pm
Quote from: "Lithium"
So today a man who killed his 92 year old grandmother with a hammer 30 years ago, was then let out of prison after 17 years, decided to set fire to a building and shot 4 firefighters, killing 2 of them. Why the fuck was this man let back out into the public? Thank you New York State Correctional Facilities!
Title: Politics
Post by: Tbone on December 27, 2012, 07:20:19 pm
I believe there is a difference between deaths and murders. There's even a difference between murder and accidental homicide. Just sayin - not really a fair comparison.
Title: Politics
Post by: Sared on December 27, 2012, 07:48:01 pm
Lost my shit at 'Assault Toyota'. :P
Anywho, I'll bite: no likwid, I do not believe that is an 'assault rifle', but I as I know little enough about guns (brands, models, maintenance, etc.) then I could be wrong.
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on December 27, 2012, 11:07:02 pm
Quote from: "Tbone"
I believe there is a difference between deaths and murders. There's even a difference between murder and accidental homicide. Just sayin - not really a fair comparison.
Life's not fair... I say we ban murders
Title: Politics
Post by: Lithium on December 27, 2012, 11:28:00 pm
Well, the second person to get pushed onto the tracks in front of an oncoming subway train this month...
"Four handguns, and only handguns" were recovered inside the school.
Go ahead. Cue up your "Oh, he went back to the car and left it there" stories.
Title: Politics
Post by: Anamodiel on December 28, 2012, 10:07:30 am
Quote from: "Broin"
Quote from: "Tbone"
I believe there is a difference between deaths and murders. There's even a difference between murder and accidental homicide. Just sayin - not really a fair comparison.
Life's not fair... I say we ban murders
You'd be out of a job. :P
Title: Politics
Post by: likwidtek on December 28, 2012, 10:20:26 am
Quote from: "Sared"
Lost my shit at 'Assault Toyota'. :P
Anywho, I'll bite: no likwid, I do not believe that is an 'assault rifle', but I as I know little enough about guns (brands, models, maintenance, etc.) then I could be wrong.
You're correct, it is not.
as·sault ri·fle Noun A rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.
People confuse anything that looks "tactical" or "military" as an "assault rifle". The fact is, it is illegal to have fully automatic weapons. Every weapon that you can go to a gun shop and buy it one round per trigger pull, Also known as SEMI automatic. Which only means that when round leaves the barrel, it automatically ejects the spent casing, and loads another round. However to fire another round, you must pull the trigger again. So that's what SEMI automatic means.
Assault rifles are fully automatic. Period. This should be the end of the conversation right?
Nope... now this bill is being pushed through. http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons
Notice the wording... "military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devices"
Also, get this:
Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
* 120 specifically-named firearms; * Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and * Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.
Fucking. Bullshit.
Title: Politics
Post by: Da6onet on December 28, 2012, 12:34:21 pm
It's ok, we can go back to six shooters, shotguns and one shot rifles like in the wild west. I heard things were much quieter then....
Title: Politics
Post by: Sared on December 28, 2012, 12:50:21 pm
Oh, well, if it's at a state level, then I honestly don't care. If that was a federal measure then I'd be concerned. Yay Federalism!
Title: Politics
Post by: likwidtek on December 28, 2012, 02:35:59 pm
Quote from: "Sared"
Oh, well, if it's at a state level, then I honestly don't care. If that was a federal measure then I'd be concerned. Yay Federalism!
Correct me if I'm wrong but this is being proposed on a Federal level. Not State.
Also, according to this bill all of the firearms I own will be banned. My pistol and my hunting rifle included.
Title: Politics
Post by: Sared on December 28, 2012, 03:19:46 pm
Ahh, I read 'California State Senator' and thought it was a state thing, so I guess you're right.
Title: Politics
Post by: Anamodiel on December 28, 2012, 06:33:21 pm
Title: Politics
Post by: Sared on December 29, 2012, 09:24:39 am
The 90's sucked.
Title: Politics
Post by: Subb on December 29, 2012, 03:01:15 pm
So, uh, ban guns? You can't argue with a mother fucking graph.
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on December 29, 2012, 04:54:35 pm
Might want to look up the violent crimes stats for the UK. You might be surprised when comparing it with ours
Title: Politics
Post by: Heironymus on December 29, 2012, 06:13:27 pm
my problem with the crap legislation they are trying to pass right now would ban "assault rifles" like AR-15's and the like... which is whatever.. my problem is if you already own one and are "grandfathered in" they REQUIRE you to come in and register said gun with the local Constabulary.. ya know.. so in case they wanna take if from you they know where to get it.. and if you dont register it you are breaking the law.
Title: Politics
Post by: Subb on December 30, 2012, 08:25:15 am
Quote from: "Broin"
Might want to look up the violent crimes stats for the UK. You might be surprised when comparing it with ours
Was talking to someone who thought the same n likwid's Facebook. I'll copy and paste my reply:
I'm sorry, but I question your increased crime stats opinion. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb1011/hosb1011?view=Binary page 57 shows a peak in violent crime in 1995, after which it falls from 4,000 to 2,000. In '97 all handguns were banned, exception being Northern Ireland and the Channel Islands. Page 58 shows the different crime types - robbery has plateaued, admittedly, but everything else has fallen. Assault without injury is still the most prevalent, which is good. Also, how many of your police officers have been shot whilst on duty? We had three shootings in the span of a decade. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0212/hosb0212?view=Binary
Title: Politics
Post by: Anamodiel on December 30, 2012, 01:54:34 pm
* U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000 * Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000 * New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000 * National debt: $14,271,000,000,000 * Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000
Let's now remove 8 zeros and pretend it's a household budget:
* Annual family income: $21,700 * Money the family spent: $38,200 * New debt on the credit card: $16,500 * Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710 * Total budget cuts so far: $38.50
Title: Politics
Post by: Da6onet on December 30, 2012, 03:27:30 pm
Yep, seems like the typical American household financial situation :-P
Title: Politics
Post by: Da6onet on December 30, 2012, 11:13:12 pm
Title: Politics
Post by: Tbone on January 06, 2013, 03:35:01 pm
It's all symbolic. It would never pass unless we had some kinda huge disaster or something. It didn't get any attention in 2009 and it won't get any attention now, except maybe to stir up the Obama haters.
Title: Politics
Post by: Sared on January 06, 2013, 08:13:33 pm
Quote from: "Tbone"
It's all symbolic. It would never pass unless we had some kinda huge disaster or something.
9/11 part 2?
Title: Politics
Post by: Subb on January 07, 2013, 04:59:10 am
Quote from: "Sared"
Quote from: "Tbone"
It's all symbolic. It would never pass unless we had some kinda huge disaster or something.
9/11 part 2?
9/11 x a million.
Title: Politics
Post by: Subb on January 13, 2013, 12:45:08 pm
"Piers Morgan's anti-gun argument is based on statistics, but statistics aren't necessarily causal. Italy has more organised crime, it isn't necessarily because they eat more pasta.
Some American's will aruge the UK has more stabbings, but we don't ban knives, so why should they ban guns? Well you can't take your bread knife to the pub, but the bread knife has another use; you can't ban bread knifes in the home because you need them to cut bread. In America, you don't because they don't have bread that isn't already sliced. They don't know how to use a knife. If you gave real bread to an American, they would shoot it into smaller pieces."
Jeremy Hardy, 2013.
Title: Politics
Post by: Da6onet on January 13, 2013, 04:31:12 pm
Quote from: "Subb"
Italy has more organised crime, it isn't necessarily because they eat more pasta.
I would like to conduct a controlled study of this.
Also, doesn't everybody shoot their bread?
Title: Politics
Post by: Lithium on January 17, 2013, 11:11:31 pm
Title: Politics
Post by: Lithium on January 21, 2013, 12:13:06 pm
Welcome to America! Our top US headlines of the day:
Inauguration 2013: What Michelle Obama is wearing Kelly Clarkson sings 'My Country, 'Tis of Thee' Video: Beyonce makes live return at Barack Obama inauguration Star warms up ...
A better headline is:
Obama inauguration: the President starts his second term with a declaration of class war
Apparently, 'equal' (in Obama's world) extends beyond 'rights' and into equal paychecks, equal work ethic, equal ambition, equal career paths, equal rations, and equal housing. I'll give you a hint, it starts with 'S' and ends in 'ism' and you can look to Europe as a perfect example of it.
Title: Politics
Post by: Da6onet on January 21, 2013, 01:46:58 pm
What's fucked up is that Barack Obama makes me pine for the days of Bill Clinton.
Title: Politics
Post by: Lithium on February 01, 2013, 11:48:03 pm
I feel like this is an appropriate time to post and point out as we approach the anniversaries of the space shuttle disasters. No regrets, no backing down, no political blaming, no giving up, only perseverance.
...the future doesn't belong to the faint hearted it belongs to the brave...
Title: Politics
Post by: Lithium on February 04, 2013, 03:59:49 pm
It's about time this country sits down and has a serious conversation about buses.
Seriously, those tour buses crash all the time, especially in my neck of the woods. I would not be surprised if more people were injured by these bus crashes then illegal gun play. Just saying :-)
Title: Politics
Post by: Lithium on February 08, 2013, 09:28:59 pm
Where are all the anti-gun advocates now? I thought Obama and the liberals only want 'trained professionals' to carry weapons and protect society?
7+ LAPD officers mistakenly open fire 30+ rounds on 2 Mexican women in their 40s and 70s. Injuring both, while sending bullets through neighbors front doors and cars.
Title: Politics
Post by: Subb on February 10, 2013, 04:19:28 pm
Quote from: "Lithium"
Where are all the anti-gun advocates now? I thought Obama and the liberals only want 'trained professionals' to carry weapons and protect society?
7+ LAPD officers mistakenly open fire 30+ rounds on 2 Mexican women in their 40s and 70s. Injuring both, while sending bullets through neighbors front doors and cars.
Heard about that; not nice stuff. Over here, apparently, any officer who takes off the safety is suspended and arrested until a reason is given. Can't really see how that'll work in the Wild West.
Title: Politics
Post by: Ghisteslwchlohm on February 11, 2013, 01:31:41 pm
Quote from: "Subb"
any officer who takes off the safety is suspended and arrested until a reason is given.
How would they even know that happened?
Title: Politics
Post by: Subb on February 11, 2013, 04:54:58 pm
Quote from: "Ghisteslwchlohm"
Quote from: "Subb"
any officer who takes off the safety is suspended and arrested until a reason is given.
How would they even know that happened?
No clue, but I'm guessing colleagues or something similar. Hell, the government probably know how many times I take a leak, so maybe somekind of software or mounted camera? Your safety shouldn't be off in any situation unless you're firing the gun; it goes back on if you can't see them or you're mobile (even if under fire or you're in a kill house).
Title: Politics
Post by: Sared on March 02, 2013, 01:19:02 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/epx8KlM.jpg)
Title: Politics
Post by: Subb on March 02, 2013, 02:56:14 pm
And that is one of the reasons why I absolutely loved the Dictator and all of SBC's movies; he plays on the the public's general ignorance - Brits with Ali G and you guys in Borat, Bruno and The Dictator.
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on March 02, 2013, 04:15:25 pm
Don't get me started... It won't be pretty or friendly, and there will be a great wailing and gnashing of teeth as I prove all of your misconcieved notions as false and foolhardy. Much as I have done before in each of my rants on this thread.
Title: Politics
Post by: Sared on March 02, 2013, 08:31:42 pm
Love you old man. :)
Title: Politics
Post by: Da6onet on March 16, 2013, 01:20:56 am
Starts slow, but well worth the watch if you have an hour.
Title: Politics
Post by: Lithium on April 01, 2013, 04:45:47 pm
Only 12% of American's have correctly answered that gun violence is at an all time low. Meanwhile, 56% believe it has gone up... wonder who the 56% are?
Title: Politics
Post by: Ghisteslwchlohm on May 07, 2013, 08:13:49 pm
I blame the media.
Title: Politics
Post by: Lithium on May 12, 2013, 02:42:19 pm
Quote from: "Broin"
Quote from: "Tbone"
The person who wrote that article was the Republican strategist for Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, and Mike Huckabee. Please stop getting your "news" from Fox News. Shouldn't he be flying to Libya? Bombing Iran? Fortifying Israel? Why's he hanging out with his daughters when he has to be doing something else? It's an opinion article from someone trying to get Romney elected. Why didn't Romney fly to Libya after the consulate attack? Instead he used it to politically harass Obama! See, you can use any situation and say someone should be doing something else. Why am I responding to your post? Shouldn't I be doing my taxes??
Uh... You mean like all the hate they spit at Bush and our troops during the two elections he was in?
Let me make this clear to you... Obama let those men die. His incompetence is what lead to it.
What you are eventually going to find out is these facts.
1) The Diplomats on the ground in Libya knew that shit was going bad 2) They reported their concerns back up the chain of command 3) Those reports were ignored 4) Increased security was denied because they were worried about how it would look 5) When the shit hit the fan that night White House/Secretary of Defense/Secretary of State were contacted by our Diplomat in counrty and advised that what they had warned would happen was happening 6) Since there was no true security for our diplomat in country the White House/Secretary of Defense/Secretary of State contacted the marines in country (who were tasked with other duties other than the diplomat) and asked them to attempt to get the diplomat. 7) They were advised of the situation 8) They were advised that they were outnumbered 9) They were advised they were outgunned 10) They were advised they would most likley not survive 11) They went anyway 12) They died 13) The diplomat died after being tortured 14) It was due to Obama's lack of understanding and incompetence
Oh and Fox news is a hell of alot better than CBS / ABC / NBC / MSNBC / CNN and all the other puke networks that are covering NOTHING about what is happening. You think for one fuckin second if a Republican was in office they wouldn't of chewed them up and spit them out by now. They are covering for Obama. They are giving him a PASS on EVERYTHING...
AND YOU KNOW IT!!! YOU KNOW IT!
Anyone who doesn't see that or doesn't admit that is a fuckin idiot who can't think for themselves but just accepts the spewed crap garbage they feed you.... AND DESERVES the Hell that you are going to get if they vote for that puke and he gets relected
Well, NBC finally made this their feature story on nightly news. I guess FOX beat them to the punch by only about 8 months... no big deal.
Title: Politics
Post by: Anamodiel on May 13, 2013, 10:53:05 am
Actual NYT headline: "IRS Focus on Conservatives Gives GOP an Issue to Seize On"
So, instead of focusing on WHY THE FUCK THE IRS IS TARGETING SPECIFICALLY TARGETING ONE POLITICAL GROUP, the Gray Lady wants to instead have a story on how the Republicans will "politicize" this.
I am so incensed right now.
... And to think I almost considered looking at jobs at the IRS.
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on May 20, 2013, 11:56:14 pm
In the end you will discover that all the things happening were so that he could secure his election...
Direct lies and falsehoods about Benghazi Targeting and harassing of conservative/republican groups. Not just with the IRS but with every government agency that could be used. Media control and manipulation Withholding knowledge and information wantonly from congress and the American people All of this transpiring and happening before and during his bid for re-election.
Title: Politics
Post by: NoCry on June 07, 2013, 09:37:24 am
Why are none of you upset about Prism? Don't tell me because you think that no US persons get caught up in it...
Title: Politics
Post by: Da6onet on June 07, 2013, 12:16:57 pm
Quite frankly it isn't all that surprising to me, but more importantly, they still aren't at a point where they can do much with the information. Most of what has been reported is speculation and hypothetical. My wife actually works on the bleeding edge development of what can be done with regard to this kind of data mining and I can tell you it is not as scary as hollywood or the media would have you believe. That isn't to say it won't get to a scary place, or that various entities aren't trying to get there, but we're still years away.
Title: Politics
Post by: Anamodiel on June 07, 2013, 12:52:23 pm
Quote
"We don't expect the President to give the American people every detail about a classified surveillance program. But we do expect him to place such a program within the rule of law, and to allow members of the other two coequal branches of government - Congress and the Judiciary - to have the ability to monitor and oversee such a program. Our Constitution and our right to privacy as Americans require as much." - Senator Obama 2006
Title: Politics
Post by: Sared on June 08, 2013, 02:54:00 pm
Quote from: "Anamodiel"
Quote
"We don't expect the President to give the American people every detail about a classified surveillance program. But we do expect him to place such a program within the rule of law, and to allow members of the other two coequal branches of government - Congress and the Judiciary - to have the ability to monitor and oversee such a program. Our Constitution and our right to privacy as Americans require as much." - Senator Obama 2006
Journalism: 1 Cultural Memory: 0
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on June 10, 2013, 10:13:59 pm
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on June 11, 2013, 11:09:02 am
I hear that Obama is trying to get AT&T and SPRINT to endorse Verizion's "Share Everything Plan"
Title: Politics
Post by: Tecknik on June 11, 2013, 11:34:47 am
I heard they already did.
Unless we're talking about the actual plan, then nevermind. :)
Title: Politics
Post by: Broin on June 11, 2013, 02:07:14 pm
I believe the original program was called lantern light or lamp light or some such crap... But I like the new "Share Everything Plan" much better.
Title: Politics
Post by: Lithium on June 11, 2013, 03:08:33 pm
I feel like instead of trying to fight 'terrorists' with scraping every American's phone and internet records we should be out there killing them on the battlefield. But, I guess that's because this country doesn't like getting it's hands dirty and can't handle the hate from the haters anymore. I do think Hitler would proud of our intelligence services and the strict no whistle blower policy.
Those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety.
Title: Politics
Post by: Subb on June 11, 2013, 04:48:50 pm
I... I really couldn't give a fuck if my government tapped my phone or watched my every move. So what if they listen to me talk to my missus and know that I look at naked women on the net? Pff.
Title: Politics
Post by: likwidtek on June 25, 2013, 12:23:01 pm
Title: Politics
Post by: likwidtek on June 26, 2013, 12:22:59 pm
DOMA is dead! WOOT!
Title: Politics
Post by: Da6onet on June 28, 2013, 11:33:17 pm
I'll throw Snowden a party all day long, in his federal prison cell.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Da6onet on August 05, 2013, 02:06:35 am
Bear with me a moment: I was watching a story on "ant colonies" in China and got to thinking about the push and pull of education vs job market. If tomorrow everyone in the world had a PhD, I think you'd just have particle physicist cleaning toilets and day laborers at the home depot parking lot who could give you insight into Athenian culture. Without a radical structural change in the economies of the world, there simply isn't demand for everyone to be scholars.
1. Taking the extreme capitalist stance, not everyone should get an education, we should place more emphasis on artisan/apprenticeship/trade craft and apply it to all industries, saving academia for those who will create knowledge (in this context, create new industries) or those who have the personal luxury to afford it. Politically - do away with all federal student loans, incentives, tax breaks, etc. as they pertain to those seeking higher education. Further, public sector monies should be solely dedicated to funding research (creation of knowledge/new industries) and everything else should be corporately run - leave it up to private companies to best "educate."
2. Taking the extreme optimist stance, if everyone is going to get a college education, then economic structural changes necessary to foster a society of academics must occur. I'll call this the Gene Rodenberry society, where food production is trivial, material possessions are trivial, virtually unlimited power and matter creation through replication available to all - thus the only thing left to "do" is explore. Politically - take entitlement and defense monies for a few generations and put it all toward creating energy-matter conversion. Assuming all 7 billion people on the planet agree to focus on this common goal, it might actually be achievable.
3. Realistic ideas? 'insert thoughts here'
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: NoCry on August 29, 2013, 04:58:57 pm
My country just lost its way.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Da6onet on December 10, 2013, 11:20:00 pm
Just in case anybody forgot, here's how the labor participation rate (the real measure of unemployment) has been faring.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: NoCry on December 11, 2013, 03:12:28 am
Cripes - instead of posting a response I think i locked the topic then? anyway - hopefully all unlocked now...
My observation was simply that on the positive side you will all soon be chomping on Cuban cigar's safe in the knowledge that Broin won't be knocking your door down!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sared on December 12, 2013, 03:17:06 pm
I know I like to post these guys a lot, but this last week's episode started a two-parter on politics, also touching on the last shutdown.
Extra Credits: Incentive Systems and Politics (Part 1) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xa-vQ0L77LY#ws)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Lithium on December 21, 2013, 10:22:29 am
Only in America, would people protest about the betterment of their neighborhoods. On the other hand maybe it's about time the liberals got a taste of their own medicine.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Da6onet on December 21, 2013, 08:03:17 pm
There are two approaches getting/keeping liberals out of power in America. Out canpaign/out vote them to prevent them from gaining power, or if they're already in charge, give them everything they want.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Lithium on December 31, 2013, 12:50:56 pm