 |
|
|
|
Thursday, October 18, 2012 - 10:21 pm  I watched this movie last night. I found it very interesting. So according to this, we should be concerned because Obama will "weakening" our country (military wise) and economically which could be the ground work for the fall of our great nation. Below is the link to the movie. Has anyone seen this? What are your thoughts? http://2016themovie.com/
| |
| Friday, October 19, 2012 - 02:41 am I saw it and it was the stupidest most ridiculous piece of propoganda ever summoned from the bowels of the right wing......and trust me I'm completely unbiased I hope they both lose and we end up in a military dictatorship.....basically it went from hes a communist Kenyan....to hes "anti colonial" like that's a bad thing.....to some distorted facts about the budget deficit...to hes going to weaken our military which is by far the best in the world and decreasing it may help the budget...see above...stupid stupid stupid and mitt bitches about the campaign of hate give me a break you junior high Esq doichebag
| |
| Friday, October 19, 2012 - 03:25 am I would go for Obama, free health care for you Americans...
| |
| Friday, October 19, 2012 - 06:04 am This is why America should put me in charge. Then I'll form the North American Empire, with me on the throne.
| |
| Friday, October 19, 2012 - 06:42 am The propaganda didn't even seem well thought out. It was a movie about saying that Obama wants to be like his father but everyone who knew Obama's father had loads of respect for him. Very twisted. Plus the film is very heavily discredited by the Indian guy having such a solid reference of himself being so incredibly republican. So he can possibly come across as an objective observer, especially when he turned a large section of the movie into a movie about him. But I have to be honest I only watched a bit more than half of it, not because it was bad but because it was so incredibly boring and redundant.
| |
| Friday, October 19, 2012 - 10:13 am There are two anti Obama movies being circulated in addition to the one you are speaking about Lorelei. The only facts in any of them are the most obvious facts. The entire storyline and message is fabrication. Why? It certainly plays to the extreme right wing. Productions cost money. Follow the money. It will probably become known over time. Free speech? Suppose it is. Doesn't mean that I or the whole country if it chooses, can't despise those who had a hand in making the film.
| |
| Friday, October 19, 2012 - 05:15 pm Well, I decided as much and myself being a former news journalist and working with media know how this is played out. The film did not sway my thoughts, although I have already made up my mind about who I am voting for. I just thought it interesting.
| |
| Saturday, October 20, 2012 - 11:29 pm aint no way im giving that man another 4 years to throw our country into the toilet. obamacare is the worst piece of legislature that has ever been created, and frankly ought to be considered illegal the way it was passed into law. while I don't agree with trying to be the worlds police force, decreasing the military at this point would be utter stupidity. there are plenty of other ways of balancing the deficit. for one, start using american oil. let the drillers actually drill. we have tons of untapped oil reserves and other sources of energy that there is no need for foreign dependency. but hey don't wanna offend any tree huggers. stinking lobbyists have got things so tied up in pointless red tape that we cant use what we have, so we have to go over seas and rob, kill, and pillage everyone else for theirs. mind you, at a cost of trillians of dollars to john and jane doe tax payer. lovely! the situation makes me sick. then how do they wanna solve our Debt crisis? Lets just keep Printing trillions of dollars worth of worthless bills and circulate them. meanwhile inflation sets in as foreign confidence goes down. boy that makes sense! lol but hey no worries, cause if you come lookin for the money we owe you we will just blow you up, or star WWIII. 
| |
| Sunday, October 21, 2012 - 02:49 am lol shave you have obviously succumbed to right wing propoganda i feel for you obamacare being the worst piece of legislature ever please give me a break many developed countrys use state sponsored healthcare with a country of US size and diversity i wish it would be more state level and instead advocated by the federal government but wah wah less military? utter stupidity? quite the contrary we used to spend less per capita on military when we WERENT the sole superpower why do we spend more now I DONT KNOW because people are sheep? pussys? politicians have a secret ajenda to help fund the military industrial complex? a nice way to get reelected by appealing to voters like you saying how patriotic and supportive they are of the armed forces? i dont see any good reasons want to know what i say fuck the armed forces there you go lynch me foriegn dependency give me a break what does that even mean? how does drilling reduce are deficit is our drilling state sponsored and do the profits go to the government? (communist) lobbyists dont even get me started and your percieved idea of what they are doing to solve the debt crisis is unfounded and ridiculous
| |
| Sunday, October 21, 2012 - 03:08 am monto, I can see we are going to have some fun! lol obama care is a whole lot more then just a healthcare bill. as I said, regarding the military. cutting the military AT THIS POINT is utter stupidity. why? because we have already made enemies of the whole stinking Planet. its kinda like to guys in a stand off with their guns pointed at each other. one guy drops his gun and the other pulls the trigger. Foreign Dependency, is our need to go other places for oil, natural gas, and such. we have enough right here. How does this help our Deficit? because we spend less buying Foreign oil and other natural resources. not to mention less on military up keep and expenditures that it takes to maintain our hold on it. and as far as what they are doing to solve the debt issue. my friend that is exactly what they have done. unfounded,? are you kidding me. Bernanke at the Behest of obama has printed trillions of worthless bills and thrown them into the system, and just recently ok'd for anywhere between 40, and 80 billion a month to be printed and put into the system. do your home work friend. lol
| |
| Sunday, October 21, 2012 - 03:24 am Seems to me both sides are just trying to scratch the backs of the lobbies that scratched theirs, whether it's Obama pandering to gluttonously powerful unions or Bush sucking up to defense contractors. The best interest of the American people is lower on their priorities list than it has ever been, thanks in part to Citizens United. You wanna talk about something that shouldn't have happened! It makes Obamacare look like a innocent child by comparison. Shave, I also feel bad for you. You should check up on some facts: -Drilling for oil in environmentally important areas will not help our national debt or deficits much. The biggest items that should be cut are social security, medicare/caid, and defense spending. Honestly, we spend about the same on defense as the next 14 highest-spending countries PUT TOGETHER. That is just stupid, since we have to borrow the money from the very countries that we fear. -I do agree that getting off foreign oil is crucial. But switching to domestic oil is like going from meth to crack: an improvement, but not much of one. If we spent as much investing in renewable energy (solar, wind, toss in some hydro) as we do babying our oil/gas/coal companies, we'd be off fossil fuels in no time. The change is inevitable. The only question is whether or not we wait until we're completely bankrupt before we get moving. -I find it hilarious that anyone would complain about environmental lobbyists in the same paragraph that oil companies are mentioned. It's not even a contest. I will also point out that we 100% did NOT have to wage war in the middle east. OPEC relies on us as much as we do them, for now. We didn't secure oil for ourselves - we just ensured another generation of anti-American extremists. Anyway, I'm sorry to hear you won't be voting, since you won't vote for someone who isn't serious about decreasing our deficits. At least Obama is honest about the fact that rebuilding our economy is expensive. Romney's magic plan simply doesn't add up.
| |
| Sunday, October 21, 2012 - 03:27 am as far as the oil thing goes the biggest way we save, is that in producing our own oil, we are safer from things like price manipulation, and price shocks which has costed our economy trillions over the last decade. heak every time there is any kind of scare over in the middle east, we suffer here at the pump.no its not so much in the drilling its self, but in everything surrounding it. and yes, I do tend to lean more to the right wing then the left. however I will say this, I blame George Bush for just as much of where we are at as I do obama.
| |
| Sunday, October 21, 2012 - 03:48 am I agree that seeking other forms of alternative energy is a way we are going to have to go, but right now, the kind of money and time it would take to develop them is too much, not to mention wrestling the corporate giants that are making the money off of oil. as far as securing oil goes, every move we make over there has been about that in one form or another, the entire basis for the american dollar being the worlds sole reserve currency is based on that fact. securing control over the resources and making this country filthy rich. and yes that is about the only thing obama has been truthful about. not that Romney is much better. but hey that is just my take on things, no one is forced to agree with me. we do still live in a somewhat free capitalist country where we have the right to speak our minds! thank God for that! its all good. certainly wasn't trying to offend anyone.
| |
| Sunday, October 21, 2012 - 08:58 am Thank the founding fathers - and lots of folks since then who have made sure our free speech is mostly intact ;-) I don't think you offended anyone - this sort of thread is a place to exchange viewpoints, if you ask me. Sounds like we're not so vastly different in opinions, after all. I lean left, but mostly on social issues, rather than economic. Although, I'm one of those treehuggers, too. The argument that wrestling the corporate giants is a reason not to push for greener tech makes me sad - but I do realize how huge a task it will be. I don't have ready numbers to point to, but I'm not convinced that investing in solar/wind would take that much extra money - I think of it as just transferring from the huge amounts we invest in fossil fuels. Like our wars, for example, which I agree were largely prompted by our concerns over the middle east (ie oil). They didn't achieve much, though, and imagine what those trillions of dollars could have done to our domestic renewable energy production - or our infrastructure and schools - or simply not in our list of IOUs. In ten years, won't we look back and say the same thing about our current spending? "If only we'd started in 2012!" Sometimes I think our Democracy would function better if people had slightly longer terms but couldn't get reelected. Then perhaps they might take a longer view of what's good for this country...democracy and capitalism both tend to be rather short-sighted. I tried to like Romney. But here's my rationale: even economists can't agree whether gov't spending or private spending is more reliably better for the economy, especially when it's already weak. How am I supposed to know for sure, when the experts don't? I find it bizarre that so many people act so certain. So it comes down to other issues, for me, and I simply can't vote for ol' Mitt because of his social and environmental stances (at least to the extent that I can pin down what he actually thinks). In that arena, Obama is head-and-shoulders above, at least in rhetoric. What d'you think?
| |
| Sunday, October 21, 2012 - 10:14 pm drilling here wont help our debt nor will it lower prices...our prices will be the same as the rest of the worlds (bah foriegn dependency) OPEC has no more clout...although i do agree on letting drillers continue to drill to help balance off the incresed demands of china and india and having a huge ass inefficient behemoth of a military wont keep people safe not that theres that much danger anyways
| |
| Sunday, October 21, 2012 - 11:50 pm Ahem.... We sell our oil resources to Europe because they can't get along with the Middle East and it is worse than the US's relationship with them. Soooo.... We will always be dependent. Lets say contribution margins to the US are 50% but to Europe is 65%. US COMPANIES WILL sell to Europe regardless of the price to the US consumer. This is about the movie though... so... Um military spending really makes no sense but I'm not gonna debate that here as it has no relevance.
| |
| Monday, October 22, 2012 - 03:56 am I support whom ever gets the American Army out of Germany, with this maybe you can get a little more money into caring for your people and less spending on eavesdropping in foreign business.... I am pretty sure we can handle European Affairs as we did when America was barely setting foot in the world stage. Oh and if you keep up like this, Germany will end up getting all your manufacturing jobs lol (Schadenfreude), which is nice.
| |
| Monday, October 22, 2012 - 03:59 am Actually withdrawing your troops from the 130 countries you are currently "monitoring", would help your economy a lot I reckon.
| |
| Monday, October 22, 2012 - 05:56 am Wilhelm, no offense, but you do know why there are so many US troops in Germany, right? Europe has always handled its own affairs just splendidly. Anyway, pulling troops out of Germany is so far off the radar for American voters that it never even gets a footnote right now. That said, I agree wholeheartedly that we should get our boots off the ground wherever we possibly can. Save money and avoid making even more enemies, with one magical recipe. Militaries have a consistent and thousands-of-years-old record of creating more problems than they solve when there isn't a specific military threat.
| |
| Monday, October 22, 2012 - 04:47 pm my military view at this point was only based on the kind of problems our attempting to police { so called } the world has already caused us. the fact of the matter is, china and Russia are real threats to us, and make no mistake, if the roles were reversed and the opportunity ever comes open to them, I promise you they will make every attempt to do exactly as the United States has done. lets face it guys, Imperialism is not a new Idea. those in power always try to advance their power and maintain it. However I do agree whole heartily, I think we could do just as well, and it would certainly be more economically efficient for us if we pulled back to our own boarders. also iamihop11, I liked your idea about increasing the term limit and doing away with a possibility of reelection. that has real Merit if you ask me.
| |
| Monday, October 22, 2012 - 05:13 pm Well, I will say this, and this isn't propaganda. This is fact. Obama in his 4 years in office has tripled the deficit, which is 3 times that of all American presidents put together since George Washington. President Obama has greatly weakened our country. We are no longer the super power, which stands to reason why so many other countries and their citizens want him back in office. He is the beginning of the great fall of the USA. I'm sorry, no matter how expensive it is, you don't ever cut back on your military. When you pull troops out of certain places, leaving a skeleton crew there, you are endangering the lives of those men and women that you leave there. Stupid! You pull them all or leave them all there! You ask your military men here in the US what they think of Obama....... they respect the man as they have to as the president, but they do not regard him as a good president or leader. Neither do I. The man blantantly lied about Libya on television. Inexcusable. Furthermore, I do not want to answer to the goverment for my health care or anything. I do not want to live off the government or have them dictate what care I get or don't get. No thank you. Freeloaders need to work and stop abusing the system. Illegal immigrants need to be sent back to their countries or become legal. I'm sick of my tax dollars providing welfare and health care to people who drive better vehicles than I do, if you get my drift. Yet, those who have paid taxes like me all my life, you think I'll get those programs if I fall down on my luck? No. The problem with people is they all want something for free. We need to stop being lazy, work to survive, and as a community help each other out. Leave the government out of it, which is the Republican way. The way it should be.
| |
| Monday, October 22, 2012 - 07:50 pm AAhh! Lorelei Has Indeed Spoken! hows that for right wing Propaganda monto? lol just messing with ya man. your take on obama Lorelei is absolutely correct. and yes this country is becoming more and more a welfare state. here is my problem with the state run healthcare system that is being proposed here. in a perfect world universal healthcare for all would be great if it could be something that was of the highest quality. however, that is just simply not the case. do to the overwhelming cost for such an expenditure, the quality of the system winds up being crap! they are already making so many cuts within the system that it is reducing the quality of state sponsored healthcare { via medicaid/care}. Hospitals and nursing homes all over the country are already hurting over the cuts that have been made and are projected to be in worse shape when the full load of obama care sets in. we then are forced into a system where we, john/Jane doe tax payer have no say in what kind of care we get. we wind up with the same problem we have when we succumb to a communist way of governing. and that being this. once you remove free enterprise and more importantly business competitiveness , you lose entrepreneurial motivation. in other words Investment at least slows down, if not stop all together. and that my friend is what made this country great. the only thing that will come out of obama's lets spread the wealth around scheme, is that we will all wind up on welfare being poor....Equally!
| |
| Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - 12:26 am Lorelei and shave, the problem is that it simply isn't true that the majority of people who get gov't support are "freeloaders" who refuse to work. You have people working 2 or 3 jobs, but they're bad jobs and it doesn't provide enough money. That's much more common than lazy bums who just sit around all day (not to say that there aren't plenty of them, too). The lazy people are infuriating, but it's almost impossible to distinguish the two on an institutional scale. People seem to forget why we have these federal programs - it's because the communities, the capitalists, the markets were NOT doing a good job of helping each other out. I agree that it's a slippery slope - it does build up a feeling of entitlement that is incredibly destructive. I would also agree that each person's success or failure should be down solely to his or her personal abilities and efforts, except for one crucial element that is missing: people don't start out on anywhere close to equal footing. I believe in unequal outcomes as long as there are equal starts. We're miles away from equal opportunities. I'm lucky - lower middle class, well-educated family, where it was always assumed that I'd go to college and get a decent job and debate politics on online forums. So many people don't have that culture, that support, those opportunities. So it seems entirely unfair to leave them to their lots. Some will pull themselves out of the hole in spite of the challenge, but they are exceptional. I think even average folks deserve a security net. Do you think JK Rowling would have written Harry Potter if she'd been homeless and on the streets - ie, if the UK hadn't given her support? There are many examples like that. I tell you what does make me angry, though: the idea that I'm going to have to pay the healthcare costs of people who don't take care of their bodies - the huge proportion of people who are eat terribly, and avoid exercise like the plague, smoke, overdrink, etc. It's a wave a-coming, and it doesn't matter what system is in place - either I'll pay through the nose to support Obamacare, or I'll pay through the nose to cover healthcare costs when uninsured people can't pay their bills. Guess who picks up the tab. Yep, the public. Two final points: - Lorelei: While I agree that Obama has increased the deficit far too much, it's entirely unfair to blame him for an economic bubble burst that was building for more than a decade. Most economists agree that the worst time to cut spending is when the economy is weak. Clinton and Dubya should have been the ones cutting spending, but until Obama, Bush had the highest-deficits in the country's history. If you're looking for who to blame, look no further than the moronic banks who saw nothing but short-term $$$ and the gluttonous Americans who insisted on buying houses they couldn't afford. Ah, the glories of capitalism - boom/bust is the way it works, so we shouldn't complain when that's what happens! I say again, "pull them all." - shave: Obama isn't pushing for socialism. Period. The problem that Obama sees isn't that some people have more than others, it's that the disparity is huge, it's increasing, and it is leading indisputably to greater inequality of opportunity and democracy. It's a positive feedback loop: more influence = more money = more influence = ...etc . Again, I point to Citizens United and big corporation lobbies. We have to break that cycle, for the well-being of the entire nation. Otherwise you can kiss the middle class goodbye, along with the power of the people to influence our governments. Again, it's not about equality of result - it's about balance of power and opportunity.
| |
| Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - 12:49 am No offence taken iamihop11. Well Lorelei revealed her extreme right side! What about the people that can't afford private Health Care Insurance? I'm sure you have a couple of monopolizing enterprises (Medicaid and another one). As for the illegal immigrants, Turks in Germany that are useless can just go... We don't need people in the streets or just more crime, but some other illegal Turks, work well and strive to survive in the honest and right path, they also struggle and work to get assimilated into German Culture, those illegal immigrants should be granted at least residency. I am sure its the same case in America, where the south west is full of Hispanic people from Mexiko and Central America, even passing the american population originally there. Some work to get assimilated into American Society, work the right ways to get money and help do the jobs Americans do not like to do, just like the Turks in Germany. I say those illegal hard working immigrants should stay, they help, the other criminals and beggars can be deported. Also Tax the higher income people more (And I am saying this from a High Income Family point of view), I see low income families struggling with taxes while High Income people feel like its just throwing a penny on the pavement. Lets be fair and give more chance and opportunity to the low income people, by using part of that Tax for Healthcare, just like our northern neighbours Denmark and Sweden do.
| |
| Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - 12:52 am U kids are crazy. Every one of your points can be refuted. The democratic way is innrfecient but the republican way is pure evil and retarded
| |
| Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - 01:01 am Dear Pancake House (lol :P), No, I'm not talking about those people, who legitimately need help or assistance. I'm talking about those who are capable of working and abuse the system. Well I can blame Obama for tripling it! Thus, I am, because he did. Why did he triple it? That sounds like my philosophy which has been irresponsible! Oh heck, I'm $5K in debt, I think I'll go charge another $15K...what's few more 5K in debt?. I'll pay it back - TOMORROW. :S ha ha ha I'm sorry, how anyone can justify what Obama has done, or rather has not done, as President just baffles me. How people cannot see what he is doing and will further do as being destructive to our country's well being if reelected another four years is even more baffling. All I can say is if he gets reelected and we are in worse shape in 2016 (and we will be), you people who plan on voting for him, only have yourselves to blame. I will be there in 4 years to say "I told you so."
| |
| Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - 01:03 am There is no side but the right side. Right meaning CORRECT! :P No, our illegal immigrants come and are able to get jobs, taking them away from our own citizens. They even get driver's licenses somehow! It's galling! I have no problems with people coming to America to live, but they should have to abide by the laws and regulations as I do. It isn't fair.
| |
| Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - 04:37 am Dear Lorelei, It is now January, 2009, and you just became President of the US. You're faced with a tanking economy, shriveling tax revenue, two expensive wars, aging baby boomers, and the imminent collapse of the banking and auto industries. How do we proceed, Ms President? (And no, you can't just ransack a few C3s.) Sincerely, Mr Pancakes :D PS my dad was a police chaplain for a long time, and he used to tell us about the time that he was riding along with Officer Waffle, and they ended up arresting a Mrs. Pancake. I kid you not!
| |
| Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - 11:11 am Dear Jan, I love your fire and your passion in regards to the importance of saving both your and my country. This is the people's country and we all should fight for what is best for it, so involvement in the democratic process becomes increasingly important. There are facts that exist that are true, some are not. We can never continue this fight until the truths are revealed, and the deception is understood. So I plead with you do not listen to those that seek to confuse you, take in all solutions to every problem and decode these truths and reveal this deception. Most Sincerely, Your fellow concerned American Mr.Drewcakes Sorry lol, I just saw an amazing opportunities to write a letter. All my own words by the way I just hate those letters then attempt to be smart and appear sincere by are really outright arrogant and condescending. I wanted to right one YAH it was fun. So truth is Obama has climbed up that debt, but that doesn't matter. I know it should matter but it doesn't because more then anything you have to look at what caused it what is championed to prevent it. Like I said anything can be refuted. Deficit <- Well Obama has cut spending more than any president, and he is trying real hard to raise revenues. Immigration <- Is the issue immigration or illegal workers? Because Illegal Immigration is actually lower. But I would contribute this more heavily to lack of employment rather than immigration. If we can have aliens do all the jobs that would pay natural born citizens minimum wage but then also allow unemployment to continue to fall that would mean a larger % of natural born people will have more skilled jobs. But if you want to take Romney's argument about falling average pay the only correcting tool we have is government intervention or big government. I can write 20 page essays on any republican issue, but I'm not gonna. I'm only gonna ask you all i Obama got the ability to see some support in congress would we be better off than now because he didn't? If Obama gets re-elected do you want him to do a good job or a bad one? I want this country to do better if Romney wins I want him to do a great job despite the fact I know he can't. So I implore you to really just look at this stuff and use your judgement despite what anybody tells you. Because the level of ignorance on every side is so incredibly alarming it is destructive. I mean when mentally retarded people like Nancy Pelosi and George Bush become incredibly important people in millions of lives then it is such an incredible importance to have valid facts to correct the many issues that follow.
| |
| Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - 04:00 pm Drewcakes (I looooooooove this name!!! :P) I just want a tough as nails president, and I truly think Romney will fit this. Obama is too soft, in my opinion. I'm not saying all he has done is bad, but I do disagree on many of his philosophies. Whoever wins, I will support as my president. I really think we need a smart, crafty businessman approach to the White House. You can't fault Romney for being a successful business man. He does has ambition, drive in perhaps a different way. As far as Republican presidents, he is actually more liberal in his approach than most. Therefore, he wasn't really my choice for the Republican candidate. But I definitely think he will serve our country better than Obama. I don't trust Obama for the mere fact that he just blantantly lies on television in front of the American people. I think this is rather galling. I'd respect him more if he were just honest. Furthermore, as Romney brought up in the presidental debate last night, Obama more or less put down the Americans in way of apology to those other countries. As you know, you NEVER say you are sorry, this is the biggest sign of weakness ever! We shouldn't apologize for anything. I truly believe that the USA has helped more (even more than we should) people in other countries. Even then, they still hate us. As to Obama doing a good job, I really don't think he will pull it off, Drew. He hasn't over the course of the last 4 years and his ObamaCare is going to be a joke. Last night, his only method was to "attack" Romney, which is a sign of weakness to me and one of great intimidation and certainly desperation. Just saying. Hiya Ihop *winks. If I were president, oh there would be changes alright. I would rule this country as I do my sim ones! Shoes would be at the forefront and I would be feared!!! :P I don't even give my lil sim peeps much in the way of welfare programs. ha ha ha ha Muahs to all. I love all your political passions, and I really do read and take in all your views.
| |
| Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - 04:45 pm I saw the recent debate last week and I believe Romney is kind of an idiot... But then again I have no idea how Obama managed the country in the last few years. Lorelei both our governments have the ability to immediately deport all illegal immigrants from our countries, in a week or two, why hasn't our governments done so? Because unfortunately our economies, unbelievably would slope if we lose all those millions of workers. I believe both your candidates want a good solution to the illegal immigrants, we have this problem to I understand you perfectly. What we hate more in Germany are Turks that come here and do nothing, and that above this refuse to speak, learn German. I see this problem less in America. There they want to become English speakers and assimilated. I have thought of it as well, but simply deporting millions of people would look bad internationally and would be a blow to our economy. I don't think apologizing is a weak action or shows weakness at all, he just apologised (why did he and for what?) he didn't bow down to any one or surrendered anything. Gives a better image to the unfortunately tattered picture of America. Well that is my opinion, I don't know the feeling. Well yeah I can thank America for saving us from the Red Army and the Eastern Threat. The country that seems to hate you the most is France and you Americans saved France. The World works in mischievous ways....
| |
| Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - 05:05 pm He can't be too much of an idiot. He is after all a self-made wealthy man. So if he in fact is, may I please forever be an idiot!!!! :P
| |
| Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - 06:51 pm taxing the wealthy would no doubt be the morally best way of going about things in a perfect world where people are motivated by doing whats right. unfortunately we don't live in that world. people are motivated by things like Greed, selfishness and Profit. and do to that unfortunate fact we must act accordingly. in taxing the wealthy we stunt economic growth as it is a fact that high corporate taxation and taxing of the wealthy will only slow down investment considerably. which of course will lead to fewer jobs and so on. its a fact even in this game, the more your country is CEO friendly the better the profits are for everyone. and whats the first question that a CEO always asks? what is your Tax set at? why? because the less they pay in taxes, the more they have in reinvestment ability and profit margin's. that is what motivates the wealthy in Game and in real life. Sad but true.
| |
| Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - 07:00 pm also Pancake, Obama was raised by hard core socialists, possibly even communists. most of his, advisers in the beginning of his term were of that ideology until thanks to Glen Beck exposing him, he then separated himself from them. not because he didn't support them or believe in their way of doing things, but he knew it would lead to his downfall, so he did the same thing that he did about his religious beliefs. when he stood in front of the christian crowd, he professed to be a christian. then when he got in front of the Muslims, he professed he was a Muslim. the man is a known Liar! say what you will about Romney! but he had one thing correct. with Romney its speculation, with Obama we have the record of his last four years in office. he is a proven failier.
| |
| Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - 07:37 pm Very well put, Shave. You want to know what amused me greatly last night. I tend to watch Fox News. While it leans more to the Right, they do report the opposite side. What I flipped over to on the other channels was some of the most far left reporting I have ever listened to. They did not report comments from both sides as Fox News did. I just shook my head and thought, what has happened to fair, unbiased journalism and news reporting????lol I was a newspaper reporter for 7 years and while certain media put certain spins on things, I was always taught to always put both sides in a news report. Now I know why most of the American people are so easily fooled by Obama, if you believe in what you hear from your biased news reports. The media is very powerful and most decidedly sways public opinion.
| |
| Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - 10:33 pm that's what you get with corporate owned news, including FOX unfortunately. but yes that does bring up an interesting issue indeed. that is precisely the point. the powers that be know that the american public will do what they are told to do. if its on tv it must be the truth. that is the consensus among the sheeple. a sad and most unfortunate fact. really makes one wonder just who is really pulling the strings. and where we are headed, doesn't it?
| |
| Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - 11:47 pm lol the news is a joke lorelei they had a program in which the immigrants offered to give up their jobs to american citizens not one was taken they provide a critical role in our economy of today if you want to pick starwberrys for 5 dollars a day i doubt you would see to much opposition shave taxing the rich doesnt stunt growth millionaires are made in poor and thriving economys they dont need more money to invest trickle down economics is a joke look at history economic growth has always been spurred by the middle class working its way up into new industrys please give me a break and shave i dont pick by president based upon supposed ideology or religion i do based on policy (which honestly for both presidents is almost exactly the same) republicrats or depublicans take your pick self made man wealthy typikal cliche bullshit again i decide based on policy not on who got lucky enough to invest in staples read the book outlier it presents some convincing arguments indicating there is no such thing as a self made man and believing there is is foolish and a common way of looking at things "i want a tough as nails president" please spare me the romanticism romeny is a bitch he just walks like all republicans like he is some gunslinger ready for battle when really they are just sending off other soldiers to fight yah they are tough republicans and democrats all politicians lie get over it and stop saying america is a welfare state because we are not...at all you could get rid of welfare foriegn aid and other MINOR programs and still have a pretty good looking deficit "U kids are crazy. Every one of your points can be refuted. The democratic way is innrfecient but the republican way is pure evil and retarded" Word and alex in america lorelei would probably be considered a right wing moderate isnt that kinda funny in europe she would probably be ostracized as a whacko obamacare a joke??? lol....want to know a joke...okok industrialized countrys with state sponsored healthcare far far superior to americas is actually CHEAPER wow now thats funny "Wilhelm, no offense, but you do know why there are so many US troops in Germany, right? Europe has always handled its own affairs just splendidly." LOL PLEASE JOIN US in the 21st century and wilhem if your politicians asked us to leave im sure all the yuppie politically correct folk would jump right on the idea to withdraw american troops using words like imperialistic and cultrual invasion AMERICAA!!!!
| |
| Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - 11:48 pm Shave, we are doomed! But then you have to wonder if it all plays into end-times Bible prophecy. All I can say is like the nuns used to say to me in school..... "keep your bags packed, you are just passing through". :P
| |
| Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - 11:50 pm thats a sad thing to say i think
| |
| Wednesday, October 24, 2012 - 12:10 am No, it means to always be in a state of Grace, as life is really short...no matter the circumstance.
| |
| Wednesday, October 24, 2012 - 12:48 am Well I can't vote *sniff* (I'm not an American citizen). Hopefully my "Leftist" argument helped though... More Equality people, I am not a communist and who ever said that Obama was raised by Communist is just plain stupid, no more word needed... Unfortunately it is short Lorelei, and with the additional unfortunate ability of taking you when it pleases and without warning (Death)... America should pave its way towards a Welfare State, you can do it, you just need to think about the people in need. If you give those people health, they work more! More work equals more Money! More money equals no more recession! lol scrap that The State should care for its people, its ridiculous for people to care for its government, people can easily topple a government whenever they feel like doing so. So why not invest money into health care? Let Taxes pay your health care, instead of wasting 1T 700B Dollars in a Middle Eastern War...
| |
| Wednesday, October 24, 2012 - 02:37 am Wow...way too much to respond to! You all have been busy! Obama hasn't lied any more than the walking-talking-etch-a-sketch. You want a candidate that doesn't lie? Look at Jill Stein. If I weren't so alarmed by Romney's social conservatism (at least, when he's talking to his base - who knows what he actually thinks) I would definitely vote green. Stein has no reason to lie, since she isn't going to win regardless. She's the most straightforward candidate I've ever heard talk. None of Obama's fancy lingo, none of Romney's vagueness. She charged right into the issues and explained precisely how she would address them. None of Obama's "we'll just keep doing the same thing" and none of Romney's magic, sans details budget balancing trick (fact-checkers keep saying "he can't cut taxes, increase defense spending, maintain entitlements, and decrease the deficit all at the same time"). I think it's funny that a Fox viewer is commenting on bias in the media. I consider all mainstream TV news to be garbage, and it's impossible to avoid all bias in news reporting. I listen to NPR. They don't have pundits on one side or the other; I have only occasionally heard stories with unequal attention to both sides - and they usually follow up with further details to even it up. They don't have the sort of agendas that Fox and MSNBC have. Fox is by far the worst, with spin-masters (and part-time raving lunatics) like Hannity and especially Beck. I swear, Beck is literally crazy. By contrast, I disagree with most of what O'Reilly says, but I think he's a sane and funny individual. Beck's marbles are gone. Wilhelm, the counter-argument to your welfare state is that it isn't the government's job to take care of everyone; it's the people's job to take care of each other. Americans are the most generous people on the face of the planet. $135 billion to charities in 2008, for example. These are mostly groups doing work on the ground, with tiny overheads, so the money is used much more efficiently than in enormous federal programs. There's a lot less room for people to take advantage of the system, and it's usually much more responsive to shifts in need. Plus, if taxes were lowered, we'd almost certainly give even more. Now, the flipside is that this still isn't enough money to support the people who genuinely need it. And during tough economic times (when aid is needed most) charitable giving tends to dry up. That's the opposite of the government approach. As is the case with the entire budget debate, THERE IS NO SINGLE CORRECT ANSWER! If we cut government spending, there is no doubt that millions of jobs would disappear. Even if we cut taxes for the rich (who keep getting richer) how quickly will they create new jobs? Will they be the jobs that we need? Will they pay well enough? Nobody can answer these questions. But it's also foolish and unsustainable to base an economy on borrowed government money. It's a trade-off that has economists -the experts- on both sides. How politicians can claim they have found the silver bullet is beyond me. Talk about lying to the public. I'm getting that recurrent impression that I'm standing right in the middle of a nation-wide catfight between vocal extremities. It's funny because us moderates always win in the end. We're the ones they end up pandering to
| |
| Wednesday, October 24, 2012 - 04:19 am well Lorelei, as a minister I gotta say, personally i believe it does play into the end time scenario. not suggesting the world will topple tomorrow necessarily, but being a student of the bible and particularly knowledgeable of Bible Prophecy Id say there are a whole lot of coincidental similarities to say the least.
| |
| Wednesday, October 24, 2012 - 05:23 am Okay, now here is where I draw the line. shave, you have just irrevocably undermined this entire discussion, in my eyes. I can no longer take you seriously at all. My father is a minister, I grew up steeped in religion, I know the Bible backwards and forwards, having studied it in detail from both a theological and literary perspective. Heck, my best friend from college is in seminary right now. I've been brewed in it for decades. And I will tell you unequivocally that Biblical Prophecies, unlike Jesus' overall message, are so much manure, utterly undeserving of our attention. People have been saying exactly what you just said for millennia, starting with the big man himself. Read Matthew 16:28, where Jesus states explicitly that the second coming will happen within his disciples' lifetimes, or Matthew 24:29-35, in which he does so a second time. We're still here. Either he was wrong, or you missed the boat with me. I enjoy disagreeing about nuanced political or social issues, discussing them, sharing ideas, including religious/spiritual ones. But I absolutely insist that those discussions be grounded in logic and facts, not the ravings of men many hundreds of years dead. I'm done with this conversation if anyone mentions Biblical Prophecy and how it clearly is close at hand once more. Let's please go back to how terrible Obama is.
| |
| Wednesday, October 24, 2012 - 03:25 pm Why are we drifting towards Religion here? Anyway I'm not on one side, as I am not even a citizen and your policies don't affect me. I just express my opinion "that you need more welfare and welfare is best". Foreigners always win when joining in Arguments about American politics "LoL"
| |
| Wednesday, October 24, 2012 - 04:33 pm Dear Ihop, Wow. Your post was not received well by me at all. Why are you coming across so "attacking"? There is no need for that. I ask you respectfully to please not discourage what anyone posts here, especially since I am the one who created the thread, and I don't hold people to ALWAYS stay on topic. If I wish to turn the discussion to end of times Bible prophecy, I shall, and it was only mentioned in fleeting. If Shave wishes to respond to my post, that is his given right. Why do you attack Shave when it was I that turned the discussion? He merely agreed with what I said. Are you going to stop taking me serious, because you disagree with something I post??? I'm sorry, but I see nothing offensive in what Shave posted in response to my post that would bring about such a response from you. Wow is all I can say. *shakes head This totally undermines what I've been trying to accomplish here and that is getting people involved in posting and having respectful, "friendly" discussions.
| |
| Wednesday, October 24, 2012 - 05:54 pm IamIhop11 I will just say this. you my friend are welcome to your beliefs any way you see fit. as I am mine. frankly sir, I've seen many that are just as hard toward religion change their minds at an instant, say around time to die....and they were alot harder about it then you. lol how ever that being said, it was not my intention to go there, but to simply agree with ms. Lorelei's statement. I have never gotten on here and attempted to preach at anyone. and have no real intent to do so. how ever i will say this. for something you don't believe in you sure do show forth a whole lot of hostility. but all of that aside, I am willing to get on here and have any discussion of politics, religion, or whatever, until it resorts to name calling and pointless bashing of people. just because they don't believe what you believe. that is just being narrow minded, and i don't have time for that. I may not agree with you sir about everything you say, But I have always treated you with dignity and respect. I only ask for the same in return. and thank you Lorelei for your kind words. they are appreciated.
| |
| Wednesday, October 24, 2012 - 08:55 pm Oh man guys way too much to keep up with with one. So I'll just use some closing words here. Romney is NOT a stupid guy, he does in fact sound stupid as all hell but there is a very good reason, and that reason is why no one should vote for him. He is a president who wants to influence policy to improve his own wealth and the wealth of his friends. He has zero loyalty to the people of the United States. Just imagine how difficult it is to spin the facts in a way that makes him a good candidate. The smartest person in the world would sound dumb trying to make this work, Paul Ryan is a smart guy but he looked incredibly dumb as well. We can't give a country over to someone that has no consideration for the country only his wallet. As for being tough as nails showing respect for other leaders is not weakness. I won't go as saying he apologized but what is wrong with apologizing America has done things wrong, America should apologize that doesn't mean we are going to lay down our weapons and tell them to attack us, NO it means hey we are willing to negotiate terms so we can all be friends and stop wasting our entire GDP on military.
| |
| Wednesday, October 24, 2012 - 08:56 pm Anyways...... Obama bites. :P
| |
| Wednesday, October 24, 2012 - 11:03 pm Dun make me slap you, Drewcakes!!!! lol :P
| |
| Wednesday, October 24, 2012 - 11:08 pm Well according to the Mayan calendar, we all won't be around after December of this year, so dun anyone fret. ha ha ha
| |
| Wednesday, October 24, 2012 - 11:35 pm lol
| |
| Thursday, October 25, 2012 - 12:19 am OBAMA LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Oh Im sorry I just could not stop LOL when you all said obama, I thought you where all talking about that other guy, you know that guy that used to sleep in a mansion before we shot him with our seal teams.
| |
| Thursday, October 25, 2012 - 12:24 am Oh and remember If you really hate something, use racial tolerance as an excuse to dostroy it. Liberals are masters at this. What awaits us all in heaven is eternal bliss, divine rest, and, $10,000 in cash. And remember: we all die in 2012. Never take a joke too far, no matter how funny it is. Hitler learned this lesson the hard way. When somebody does you wrong, you must be prepared to retaliate a thousand-fold. And, pubic hair isn't something you buy, you actually grow it on your body when you get older. No matter how great you try to make your life, people will find a way to fuck it up for you. And remember: we all die in 2012. No matter who it hurts, do whatever you can to havea super fun time all the time. Because we all die in 2012. Lesson Twelve, the final and most important lesson: Do not trust the Jews! Oh, and kids with red hair and freckles have no souls. And we all die in 2012. The Cult of Eric Cartman
| |
| Thursday, October 25, 2012 - 01:20 am :P
| |
| Thursday, October 25, 2012 - 02:32 am Lorelei, I thought what you said was tongue-in-cheek (kinda like the mayan calendar thing), but there was no doubt that shave was completely serious. It isn't that I disagree - I've disagreed with a lot of other points - it was that there isn't any grounding in facts or logic. I didn't mean to come across that aggressive, and I should have constrained my comment to attacking the idea (which I think I mostly did, but not enough). The fact is that it really alarms me that otherwise rational people make important decisions (decisions that impact me) based partially on something that just has no support in the logical world. What, after all, is the point of having rational discussions without the rational part? Do you take Phoenix King's posts above seriously? shave - I apologize if you felt personally attacked, and reading my post I can certainly see why you would. That wasn't my intention. I got carried away because I was so surprised and alarmed, and I didn't stick to the argument. I'm not hard toward religion, just specific timing of Biblical doomsday prophecy, a very tiny portion of the overall message. You just happened to express one of the very few sentiments that really galls me :-/
| |
| Thursday, October 25, 2012 - 06:33 am http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw
| |
| Thursday, October 25, 2012 - 04:19 pm Ihop, I will assauge your fears. I do find end times prophecy very interesting, but I also go back to where it is stated in the Bible that no man will know the day nor the hour. I, to a certain extent, believe that Obama and his time in office could tie into the end of the world as we know it, now is this the end of the "world", noooooooooo lol. Obama's philosophy leads to a communist way of governing, where the government controls everything. I do not want the government dictating what quality of healthcare I receive, what kind of job I can have, where I can live, or at what level of income I will ever achieve. Hell, I'm even pissed off at the seat belt law! lol I may be a little extreme here, but I'm just trying to make a point. I think we are at a turning point in history in the United States. I think this election is very crucial and will determine the path in which the US will take. I do not like the path that I see Obama taking us down. That is my opinion. All I know is that people keep saying Obama/Democrats are for the poor man and the middle class. Well he hasn't helped me over the last four years. Gas prices have climbed, healthcare costs have soared, food prices have gone up, yet my salary sure hasn't. I am considered in the mid to upper middle class, and I assure you, it's tough to keep your head above water month to month. I have never felt the financial rope around my neck as much as I have the past four years while Obama was in office. I say everyone in the US needs to vote for who they think will do the best job. I am hoping that we have a change in leadership. Obama didn't get the job done in his first 4 years. I'm still trying to figure out what exactly he did. lol
| |
| Thursday, October 25, 2012 - 04:21 pm Oh I wonder if Obama will respond to Donald Trump's challenge? lol
| |
| Thursday, October 25, 2012 - 04:40 pm I except your apology. as I said, I had no intention on going into a spiritual debate. my reasoning for not doing so is that there are too many differences in the way people interpret the Bible. I do understand your view of how you could find no Logic to what was being suggested, as there are many who perceive that to be the case. frankly we could sit here and have a debate of what is fact and what is fiction all day long. the reality is, we simply see these things differently because we interpret it from different perspectives. Faith in all its variety comes down to one simple truth. its something you have, or something you don't. its a choice every person has to make for themselves. and I have found that those who don't will not be persuaded by anything I could say. I leave that to God. however I Know the things I have personally experienced. thus turning my view would also prove to be an impossible task. so we can just agree to disagree agreeably as they say. now back to politics. lol
| |
| Thursday, October 25, 2012 - 06:07 pm Fair enough, for both of you :D I'm still more inclined to blame the recession for your (and pretty much everyone's) increased economic pressure, rather than Obama. My perspective is unusual because I'm feeling a lot better off now than I did four years ago, although all Obama did for me was keep things as they were (student loan interests, etc). I do agree that he hasn't improved things quickly enough, and that is definitely partly his fault. But it's also important to keep in mind that he was up against perhaps the most ideological, partisan, and uncompromising congress in our country's history. Did he fail from a leadership perspective? I think undoubtedly. Did he do so on his own? Not by a long-shot, thanks largely to the tea-party. Hmm, I'm beginning to think about this race as a choice between big government or big business. I'm not sure who I trust less: the bureaucratic, wasteful behemoth that is responsive to the entire public through voting or the self-interested behemoths that are responsive to the public through sales, but perhaps more responsive to their wealthy share-holders. What do you guys think about the idea that we're in the middle of a class war? If so, who do you want to win?
| |
| Thursday, October 25, 2012 - 07:11 pm Hoppy, Thank you. I think you are a very bright young man and love to read your views and opinions...when you are NICE! ha ha ha ha I really do read all your views, and am thankful for all of them. Jan
| |
| Thursday, October 25, 2012 - 07:52 pm Quote "What do you guys think about the idea that we're in the middle of a class war? If so, who do you want to win? " Yes i do think we migth be entering a new time of class war . I think most of this is being fougth by who controls the politicians , Public opinion or influential wealthy people , the media these days can sway the public vote and they are controled by the wealthy , who in turn can use that to control the politician . The leveson inquiry proofed that , I watched most of it and it was simply shoocking . The Media is so so powerfull , its scary . I think the working and middle class will win the war . But i also believe it is a cycle and once the dust settle the most driven and greedy people will always make there way back to the top , then abuse there position for themselves . Round and Round .
| |
| Thursday, October 25, 2012 - 08:25 pm yea MantoArms I think that is a good point and really kinda straight to the heart of the matter. it seems to me, and I may be wrong here, but was there not just a new law passed not long ago that gave the corporate's more power and freedom to financially support their candidate? I could be wrong about that, but i do remember hearing something about it. well anyway, that would certainly be more grounds for what you and Hop have suggested.
| |
| Thursday, October 25, 2012 - 10:22 pm You know what I find interesting......... is how a newspaper or network can endorse a candidate. How is that unbiased???? ha ha ha You are definitely correct about the power of the pen/media. It is quite frightening how much it impacts our thoughts and drives people, making us puppets, almost.
| |
| Friday, October 26, 2012 - 12:07 am I enjoy observing your Arguments people, keep it up (Y).
| |
| Friday, October 26, 2012 - 06:07 am Yeh, shave! That's Citizens United v FEC in 2010, in which the courts basically decided that corporations are people, and so they have the right to free speech, etc. Since the courts have also said that money = speech, corporations are now virtually unlimited in their ability to donate to (or "buy," in my opinion) candidates. It opened the floodgates to superPACs, as well, so they can even donate that unlimited amount of money secretly, so the public can't even see who owns their candidates. It should scare the living daylights out of any American who wants our elections to mean anything. As should the fact that media outlets endorse candidates, Lorelei! Heh, I'd never really thought about it before, because I don't pay much attention to newspapers or networks that do regularly endorse candidates, but it is really odd. How CAN they claim a lack of bias and then turn around and favor one side? Do they really say they're unbiased, I wonder? But if not, how can that be news? Haha, a new feature for SC?: Media corporations. You can take over an enemy country just by broadcasting and rotting it from within :D
| |
| Friday, October 26, 2012 - 06:10 am Shoot, I forgot to mention a bumper sticker that I saw related to Citizens United: "I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one." I almost had to pull over; I couldn't see through the tears of laughter.
| |
| Friday, October 26, 2012 - 04:26 pm Hoppy, I remember when I was a newspaper reporter. I covered the election in the year that Ross Perot ran for President. I remember sitting at a news meeting discussing election coverage that year. I was originally assigned republican headquarters. Everyone in the room was sympathetic towards me for having to cover the Republican campaign that night, because the paper where I worked always endorsed the Democratic party. I was thrilled, because I am Republican. ha ha ha Oh there is definite bias in new coverage. You can write a story, but depending on how you slant it depends on how people will receive it.
| |
| Friday, October 26, 2012 - 09:21 pm oh Heak yea that is scary!, that basically means we have no say in who gets elected. and as you pointed out, how do you fight an unidentifiable enemy? its our freedom of press laws that basically protected our democracy, and if those are infiltrated I fear our democracy is no longer a real one.
| |
| Saturday, October 27, 2012 - 12:27 am i think super pacs corporate and even individual funding of canidates is a threat to democracy and i dont see how you can argue otherwise unless your one of the elites
| |
| Saturday, October 27, 2012 - 12:30 am "Dear Ihop, Wow. Your post was not received well by me at all. Why are you coming across so "attacking"? There is no need for that. I ask you respectfully to please not discourage what anyone posts here, especially since I am the one who created the thread, and I don't hold people to ALWAYS stay on topic. If I wish to turn the discussion to end of times Bible prophecy, I shall, and it was only mentioned in fleeting. If Shave wishes to respond to my post, that is his given right. Why do you attack Shave when it was I that turned the discussion? He merely agreed with what I said. Are you going to stop taking me serious, because you disagree with something I post??? I'm sorry, but I see nothing offensive in what Shave posted in response to my post that would bring about such a response from you. Wow is all I can say. *shakes head This totally undermines what I've been trying to accomplish here and that is getting people involved in posting and having respectful, "friendly" discussions" grow up and put on your big boy pants im sick of people defending themselves by complaining about being attacked
| |
| Saturday, October 27, 2012 - 12:31 am "Very well put, Shave. You want to know what amused me greatly last night. I tend to watch Fox News. While it leans more to the Right, they do report the opposite side. What I flipped over to on the other channels was some of the most far left reporting I have ever listened to. They did not report comments from both sides as Fox News did. I just shook my head and thought, what has happened to fair, unbiased journalism and news reporting????lol I was a newspaper reporter for 7 years and while certain media put certain spins on things, I was always taught to always put both sides in a news report. Now I know why most of the American people are so easily fooled by Obama, if you believe in what you hear from your biased news reports. The media is very powerful and most decidedly sways public opinion." fox news is just as biased your just saying its not because your biased i love flipping back and forth from CNN to FOX its so funny better then comedy central
| |
| Saturday, October 27, 2012 - 12:36 am i get my news from facebook
| |
| Saturday, October 27, 2012 - 12:54 am Dimitri, dun make me slap you, cuz I will. You've just been added to MY list!!!!! ha ha ha
| |
| Saturday, October 27, 2012 - 06:00 am Heh, Lorelei, I must have seriously touched a nerve, because I bypassed any mention of the list and went straight to "wow." >.< And Dimitri, maybe there are some things that shouldn't be handled so cavalierly, ya know? I forget sometimes, because I shed my religious beliefs a while ago, but it's not necessarily about logic and so I can see where it would be offensive to have those dear beliefs attacked in the way I did. In some cases there's no real defense, because it's something you just feel, or because it's a synthesis of hundreds of personal experiences. I saw a really good Obama ad today - it stood out because it was so positive and laid out what Obama wanted to do, rather than the usual attack ads. If there's one thing that turns me off of a candidate, it's having them bring up petty, semantic complaints about the other guy. I haven't seen many ads this cycle because I only get PBS stations through my rabbit ears at home, but I'm visiting my parents in Virginia, a big battleground state. They're everywhere; so much nastiness from both sides; such little substance!
| |
| Saturday, October 27, 2012 - 07:11 pm you can still get channels through rabbit ears? wow in Ohio where I used to live everything went digital, you cant get anything by antenna there. I just assumed that was true everywhere.
| |
| Saturday, October 27, 2012 - 07:30 pm Hah hah, I liked the Trump challenge too Lor'. Some paper (Times was it?) asked Trump for his documents and was told "don't be so childish...". They dont like it up 'em, do they.
| |
| Sunday, October 28, 2012 - 04:48 am Well lets not forget there's people here that can get offended and fired up by people who make the slight remark of calling you by your player nation's demonym... followed by him accusing people of being racist and attracting people by making himself look like the victim. meh... "grow up and put on your big boy pants im sick of people defending themselves by complaining about being attacked" I agree Montan (Dimitri), hope you don't get mad for me calling you Montan lol
| |
| Sunday, October 28, 2012 - 10:03 pm No nerve, IHop, I just think that people can put forth views without being attacking or personal. Oh, you've been added to da list...that was implied in da "wow" ha ha ha ha ha
| |
| Monday, October 29, 2012 - 08:54 pm if you believe in such an important topic because you "feel" like it then you automatically give that right to everyone else which could cause some problems ex I feel like I need to kill everyone in my town
| |
| Monday, October 29, 2012 - 09:05 pm Dimitri, you are on my list.
| |
| Wednesday, October 31, 2012 - 01:45 am lorelei I don't give a shit can you entertain the idea of backing up your arguments with some logic instead of resorting to apparent charisma and vague threats on a videogame that is after all what these forums are for friendly discussion everyone seems to find you funny and charming for some reason persoanlly I find you irksome
| |
| Wednesday, October 31, 2012 - 02:05 am oh my dimitri.........eyes without a face.........say your prayers!!!!!!....still roving
| |
| Wednesday, October 31, 2012 - 03:42 am Dude, Dimitri, chill. I just went out of my to avoid a pointless religious argument so that we could keep sharing ideas and perspectives that might actually sway some opinions. To point: I just watched a fascinating (and chilling) Frontline episode. I think you could probably watch it through PBS's website, and I highly recommend it. It's called "Big Sky, Big Money." It goes back to what shave was talking about with campaign finance - how we are somehow managing to move backwards in reforms. It's one slimeball after another trying to justify the corporate takeover of our republic by saying it's the first amendment. Three problems: - Corporations are not people, and should not automatically have the same rights. Period. - Money is not the same as speech. Is it helpful to augment speech? Yes. But equating the two means that Bill Gates' first amendment rights are millions of times more powerful than mine. How's that for created equal? - superPACs are in bed with campaigns, and 501c4 groups have been caught red-handed in there with them. That's all illegal... and it's not the sort of threesome I want...
| |
| Wednesday, October 31, 2012 - 07:01 am Totally agree with you ihop. Terrible Supreme Court decision. Huge impact on elections. Impact on state and local elections will be x 10.
| |
| Wednesday, October 31, 2012 - 11:29 am Corporations have been legally defined as people for a very long time. There are some very good reasons for this as well. In either case, I don't think you understand that if corporations were not considered people then people would own the corporate assets directly. In other words, it would be the exact same situation in terms of rights of the asset holder. I think we're moving forwards on reforms... I mean calling money speech seems silly, but it comes from the understanding that economic liberty is a necessary prerequisite for political liberty: a view which I'm entirely sympathetic to and wish would be applied to a multitude of other areas. I understand the importance of money in allowing people and organizations of people to get their message spread. If you say that people have unlimited free speech, but limit their ability to use money in broadcasting their message... you've just right there placed a limit on their free speech. If people want to spend money on a campaign, let them spend to their heart's content. I think you really underestimate just how ingrained people are in their views.
| |
| Wednesday, October 31, 2012 - 02:51 pm Dimitri, You will die. You've sealed your fate, for I, Lorelei, will unleash drama upon thy head like no other sim member has ever known!!!! *laughs evilly You've made an enemy out of me. Beware! Oh and pssssssssssssssssst, the reason that everyone finds me funny is because they KNOW I'm not serious on these forums, that I am joking. I've been around this game for many years. However, in your case, I'm now making an exception. You will pay for your rudeness!!! You will be the first person I and my friends come for, and we are building. As Jiang Hu Warrior stated above, "say your prayers." :-)
| |
| Wednesday, October 31, 2012 - 06:01 pm Yer, dont piss off the drama queen of SC Dimitri. She has powerful allies, including me. We can make the SAW movies look like Cinderella for you. My legions of bats shall be awakened by the strains of your tortured screams. My packs of three headed wolves shall sate themselves on your virgin flesh and my fields of grotesque malformed toadstools will give you unimagineable horror, hallucinations of a never before breached dimension of madness as the fumes from your roasting eyeballs choke the very spark of life out of you. I kid you not.
| |
| Wednesday, October 31, 2012 - 06:37 pm yea there is absolutely no need for rudeness. Wolfe you suggested I was putting you guys in a position of security risk? lol Dimitri is about to start a war! lol pretty Bad when you can actually manage to tick off someone as laid back and easy going as ms. Lorelei.
| |
| Wednesday, October 31, 2012 - 06:50 pm See that lil pumpkin head in Crafty's mouth......that could be YOU, Dimitri!!!! Ooooooh Noes!!!! :P Even the gamemaster, Andy, knows of MY Wickedness. But I assure you, Crafty, is meaner than a junkyard dog!!! Dun even wanna go there!!!
| |
| Wednesday, October 31, 2012 - 08:25 pm lol must i remind people of the secured mode and level 3 unfortunate provisions that happen to be fortunate...also this is a game....im probably not going to die..... and lorelei i know your not serious but i find your humor to be childish and repetitive theres plenty of funny and clever people aswell
| |
| Wednesday, October 31, 2012 - 08:58 pm And since when did you, Dimitri, become the game master and dictate what I can and cannot post? If you don't wish to engage in my "sillyness" then by all means just ignore my posts. It is that simple. If Andy, the game master, has issues with me and my so called childishness and repetitiveness, then I will happily stop. If my game mates deem it inappropriate, then I will stop. Yes there is secured mode and level 3.... but you being a jerk won't gain you allies in this game and certainly will not encourage anyone in helping you build your countries. I am sure that my antics may not be liked by all. If you don't like, just ignore me lol As for me being childish and silly, well all I am doing is having a good time, joking around with people, people I've known for years in this game. I'm so sorry that is so upsetting to you. I have only met two people really in the five years I've played this game that have ever found that to be upsetting. Simply amazing. Furthermore, if me having fun makes me childish, well good, may I forever be childlike in my heart. I've been on the cusp of death, and I choose to live every day of my life laughing and enjoying people and having fun in this game. You spend your days as you choose, but don't you dare try and dictate to me. For future, it would be well of you to just not respond to my posts. I know that yours will be ignored by me in the future.
| |
| Thursday, November 1, 2012 - 12:28 am Mizore - corporations do not have to be considered people in order to prevent direct control of corporate assets by individuals. There aren't just two options. And in fact, the courts have found a third option. The personhood of corporations has typically meant simply that they could be represented legally as a single entity. This does NOT (or at least had not until recently) been interpreted as a ticket to all rights that real people have. There is an ocean of difference. Selling our 'democracy' to the highest bidder is not moving forward. The reason that campaign donation limits are critical is that it levels the playing field. Without it, the voice of a big oil corporation will utterly drown out the voices of the farmers who don't want the pipeline going through their property (a made-up example). Politicians follow the money just like anyone else, but unlike in the business world (or at least to a greater degree), that influence is terribly corrosive in politics, where each voice, each vote, should be equal. There are many other places in which free speech is restrained because of a higher priority (hate speech, threats, libel/slander, etc) and I think the integrity of our elected officials is more important than the vested interests of corporations. For the sake of argument, let's ignore the equal-footing concern for a sec. If we allow people (I reiterate: people, not corporations) to donate as much as they want, I could understand the justification for that from the 1st amendment. However, for the sake of accountability, such donations absolutely HAVE to be transparent, the sources of donation revealed. Voters have to be able to see who is funding candidates, because that can help them anticipate what decisions they will make once elected. 501c4's are PACs' way around this hurdle.
| |
| Thursday, November 1, 2012 - 07:16 am Mizore...I feel as if your discussion is about everything except the central issue. The definition of corporations or their function isn't the central issue. I agree that economic liberty is a prerequisite for political liberty. However, to what degree would you believe that to be true? Certainly there must be limitations. How you can feel that this decision is a step forward on reforms is really beyond my comprehension. Elections on any level can now be financed anonymously. The size or location of the community the election takes place makes no difference. The location of the political doner makes no difference. The level of financing has no limitations. The lower the level the election, the easier they are to buy. Doesn't it bother you just a little that some super-pac is telling you who should be your next state representative?
| |
| Thursday, November 1, 2012 - 08:57 am Mizore you are wrong Sarbones Oxley Act disallows people from controlling selling rights if the buyer has any controlling stake, in both sides of the exchange. So not only do individuals not own corporate assets to do what they will with, this also makes shell companies illegal to exchange assets. In reality anyone who sits on any board can not even buy their own product because of this. Interesting fact Romney had mentioned a desire to eliminate this act, which also enacts major accounting security and tax filing procedures. You know everything that WorldCom and Enron did wrong. But alas the point wasn't to bash the criminal possible future leader of the country, it was to tell Mizore that he is wrong, DEAD WRONG! The truth is there is no positive underlying benefit to citizens united outside of the .3% that has the ability to do so. Corporate assets have NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! But as these things go I'm very dissapointed in campaign finance the candidates are just too old and don't seem to realize how cheap communication has gotten, and how desperate 24 hour news cycles are. You can run a campaign for almost nothing in todays age, and they accept donations to waste money. Newt Gingrich paid 800k to make a website in which I could have done better for the few dollars to buy the domain name. If you aren't satisfied with just the Sarbones Oxley Act I could give zounds more of regulation that prevents corporate theft, well unless it is a private company which I guess is also a person which also debunks your argument. You know I always found this interesting not meant to be serious but... If shareholders are people, and shareholders own companies, then people own companies. If companies are people then people own people. Where does the 14th amendment fall into this?
| |
| Thursday, November 1, 2012 - 05:52 pm Hey Drew, the highest court in the land has said that the 14th amendment protections apply to corporations (for example, in 1886). I don't know how they make that mesh with the idea that shareholders own the corporation. Crazy. I heard a story today about the Attorney General race here in Pennsylvania. There have been ads funded by anonymous groups from either side, both of which have been thoroughly debunked as patently false (can we say defamation?). Both candidates have denounced the ads, and one candidate demanded that both stop airing (including the one attacking her opponent). However, they keep playing them, keep misinforming voters. Why? Because there is no accountability. Zilch.
| |
| Thursday, November 1, 2012 - 08:13 pm Shave you are not in NATO anymore and this is different, NATO is not being involved here. Hopefully you will spare NATO and Aquitania Lorelei... Dimitri has always had that attitude and he is straightforward, eventhough the damage is done and the issue has nothing to do with me I would like to apologize for the unfortunate discussion. I cannot do anything more as NATO does not follow any code or law when its members are on the forum. Hopefully this has not soured relations between NATO and the international community... most notably Lorelei and her allies.
| |
| Thursday, November 1, 2012 - 09:27 pm Wolfie, I have no issues with NATO, as a whole, or Aquitania who so sweetly hung its flag at half mast, mourning the loss of one of my fav pairs of boots. Alas, my mission is clear, Dimitri will suffer for his/her transgressions! It is my deepest hope that your federation will not come under fire for housing such a disrespectful member. I have taken back my Kiss Of Death name, my new motto is now Death Unto Dimitri, and I am out for blood, Dimitri's blood, and I and my powerful allies WILL succeed. We are meeting tonight to decide what our plan of attack will be. Thank you for your diplomacy and your kindness.
| |
| Thursday, November 1, 2012 - 11:36 pm NATO wasn't being involved in what I said either as it was never mentioned. however you felt that as a member of Nato my remarks represented NATO as a whole simply by association. that being said Dmitri is also a member of NATO, and his remarks should be taken with the same regard. however I do understand the lack of protocol in the situation. was only making the point , I guess, that his remarks were awfully rude, unwarranted and obviously a spark for an international incident, that could potentially drag NATO into an unnecessary war. no disrespect intended.
| |
| Friday, November 2, 2012 - 03:12 am your right lorelei sorry I'm just bored ive been ignoring you for awhile now I will continue to do so you are a pretty big part of the SC community please continue talking of shoes to your hearts desire I like your new avatar
| |
| Friday, November 2, 2012 - 03:17 am shave why are you still talking you reactionary grub
| |
| Friday, November 2, 2012 - 03:22 am IF YOU ALL WANT A PLUTOCRACY SUPPORT THE RIGHT FOR CORPORATIONS TO DONATE MONEY TO THEIR HEARTS CONTENT I'm surprised this issue hasn't been settled yet I thought America already went through the progressive era....it appears we have been steadily degenerating to a former stage of America....we must unite as a country become educated informed and skeptikal and we will continue to be the best manifestation of our own American ideals....many country's have adopted our enlightened thoughts on government and society it is an honor that our country has. but many country's have surpassed us in upholding these ideals and we must be diligent in order to remain a respected loved and beautiful country
| |
| Friday, November 2, 2012 - 03:52 am Thank you for your concern Shave, but protocol is handled in NATO and not publicly, this was something personal compared to your public declararation in your desire for war. No disrespect sensed by me or intended against you.
| |
| Friday, November 2, 2012 - 06:25 am Oh dear, I think I came off as saying more than I intended to... let's try this again, the people directing corporate resources are people and I think people should be able to spend to their heart's content. That was all I really wanted to get across. Basically, I'm speaking from the standpoint of political philosophy, not law. Whether corporations are considered legal people or not is not on my list of concerns. Whether something is currently illegal or not is not on my list of concerns. I'm sure there's issues with anonymity and other stuff, but the relevant point I wished to get across is that I don't necessarily believe that "corporations shouldn't donate" or "donations should be limited". Those are the only two notions I was thinking of when making the original post. For some perspective, I legitimately don't believe money plays very large a role in determining the winner. Not saying it doesn't help, but other factors such as incumbency, candidate record, party identification, etc. influence elections as well and even moreso. I figure most people vote the party line or some other line. Like I copy a "voter guide" made by some local group with similar views and don't even bother thinking. They did the research and they have similar objectives. What more could I need? I'm accustomed to relying on people more knowledgeable on the details that actually go into determining the appropriate policy. As such, the money issue isn't an issue for me. Beyond that, most people are very ingrained in their views and wary of taking political ads at face value. There's a certain level of silliness in thinking everyone except you is easily swayed to vote based on what candidate has the most money spent on their campaign. In any case, I stand by the principle that people - whether individually or through organizations such as corporations, unions, or groups like the NRA (would that be a normal PAC?) - should be able to spend to their heart's content. If anything, I'm less trying to convince anyone of anything that to introduce the notion that it's silly to instantly interpret something as "moving backwards" when others can interpret it as "moving forwards in a different direction". I mean there's that whole liberalism v. democracy thing that's far from settled.
| |
| Friday, November 2, 2012 - 02:39 pm Dear Dimitri, I like it too! :P I think I will keep it a while, for I have my eye on you!!! Thank you, for shoes are and forever will be in my heart! Lorelei aka KissOfDeath
| |
| Friday, November 2, 2012 - 04:13 pm whats a reactionary grub? lol look Dmitri you just came off the wrong way to alot of people. we all enjoy getting on here and voicing our opinions about things, and we are not always going to agree on everything. but there is no reason for personal attacks on people. at least I dont think there is anyway. if you look at most of my remarks for the most part, you will see that though I attack perceived behaviors, I rarely if ever attack the person. thats because I believe that everyone has the right to be treated with dignity and respect weather I agree with their position or not.
| |
| Friday, November 2, 2012 - 04:27 pm Good thing I wasn't called a reactionary grub!!!! Dem dere are fightin' words!!! lol Myself and my allies had a very productive meeting last night relative to one, Dimitri person. I am sorry to report that it doesn't bode well. :-( Now looks like Shave may be having a similar pow wow wif his folks as well. *Looks into my crystal ball..... I see Dimitri. I see fire bursts, and sim peeps screaming. Buildings are crumbling....... i see money turning to ash.... Nope your future does not look good, Dimitri. :-( But, on the bright side...there IS still hope for you! Happy Weekend! Cuz I knows you gonna ignore my post. :P
| |
| Friday, November 2, 2012 - 06:01 pm lol
| |
| Saturday, November 3, 2012 - 03:02 pm Screw Democrats and Republicans. I'm voting for Sailor Jerry!
| |
| Saturday, November 3, 2012 - 07:50 pm Nice of you to grace us with your prescence Mr BC. And how fairs you?
| |
| Sunday, November 4, 2012 - 01:07 am save yourself some time and just call them republicrats
| |
| Sunday, November 4, 2012 - 08:35 am Mizore: Your Quote "There's a certain level of silliness in thinking everyone except you is easily swayed to vote based on what candidate has the most money spent on their campaign." Come on Mizore, I didn't notice anyone claiming that here. Sounds like a typical political twist of words. Someone once said: In politics, money isn't everything, it's the only thing. If you can outspend your competition 2 to 1, your probably going to be elected. Especially in lower levels of government. So, to put it simply: I don't want a campaign for a local appeals court judge or representative to be funded by a corporation or their interests. Especially since the corporation may not even be located within the state, can remain anonymous, can funnel the money through a PAC called "Concerned Citizens of "your city" United" and funding is unlimited. Lower levels of government decide important local issues and most elections don't attract a lot of attention. A fairly small amount of money can have a huge impact. Next thing ya know: Corporation moves to your town and opens an anchovy cannery. Can't do a thing about it, the politicians are elected, the fix is in. The town is up to it's a$$ in anchovies. lol Ya get the idea. Anyway, that's why I think it's a bad decision.
| |
| Sunday, November 4, 2012 - 09:26 pm money is very very important in an election when was the last time you saw a middle class fellow elected for president.....remember back in the good ole days of real capitalism in america before all these damned liberals fell from the sky.....goddamn back then if you had alotta money you could buy a president with a snap of your fingers and a call to the banker
| |
| Tuesday, November 6, 2012 - 07:19 pm Today is the big day! Goooooooooooooooooooooooo ROMNEY!!!!!!!!
| |
| Tuesday, November 6, 2012 - 08:37 pm It is with a Heavy Heart that I will hopefully be able to say FINALLY at the end of this day........That Commie has been Ousted!!!!!!!!!!!! a Heavy heart of Laughter that is! lol
| |
| Tuesday, November 6, 2012 - 09:39 pm Best of luck to you Americans hopefully your leader. who ever wins, will take you up.
| |
| Tuesday, November 6, 2012 - 10:57 pm American is a Freemasonic Fasicst Plutocracy. We have given our sovereignty to the corporation called the Federal Government in Washington D.C. Our Sovereignty is in the Bill of rights. The rest of the constitution are the laws of the corporation. We are not suppose to be american citizens. We are suppose to be citizens of what ever state you are from living in the federation of the United states. This is the true form of the Republic, but we hired this corporation to be the middle man between the states, and they have taken over the power of the states, and the sovereignty from its people. Every time you say you are a US citizen and conform to the laws congress passed, you give up your freedom, and sovereignty. We do not ever look into the clause in the Bill of rights that says we are to overthrow any government that infringes on the sovereignty of any person in any state. The federal Reserve System is an infringement on our sovereignty. I like to see somebody make a documentary on that. I am sure it would not get off the blog to which it was written.
| |
| Wednesday, November 7, 2012 - 12:46 am Can't wait to get home and watch it!!!! :P I'm praying for a good day tomorrow!!! :-)
| |
| Wednesday, November 7, 2012 - 01:54 am So... just got back from the poll and there were about 100 freakin ballots to cast. Seems like we vote for EVERYTHING now.... BTW - I wrote in Crafty for "County Curmudgeon". I had to cross party lines for that, but it was the right decision.
| |
| Wednesday, November 7, 2012 - 05:24 am Ohio will make Obama win, Florida will make Obama win. I'm calling it now. It's not a horrible day yippie skippy
| |
| Wednesday, November 7, 2012 - 11:50 am Got FLA wrong did you Drew? lmao. Kids, ay!
| |
| Wednesday, November 7, 2012 - 12:35 pm Thats funny BC because I voted for you as county rat catcher. Saw you got beat by a three legged cat with one eye, unlucky, it was the vegetarian vote that did for you.
| |
| Wednesday, November 7, 2012 - 01:17 pm I would have made a damn fine county rat catcher. County's loss.
| |
| Wednesday, November 7, 2012 - 02:50 pm All I can say is UGH!!!!!!!!!! Today is NOT a good day. *CRIES I pray that he will do a better job these next 4 years.
| |
| Wednesday, November 7, 2012 - 07:04 pm It is a Sad day for the un united states of America indeed! ;(
| |
| Wednesday, November 7, 2012 - 10:28 pm How could you say its a sad day for your country dont be ridiculous Shave think and be thankfull that you have a president and that your country is safe and democratic. Some people's nation is ripped in civil war or dominated by a single party. I mean a dictator didn't win leadership of the United States think about it, maybe your Romney will run next time... yes?
| |
| Wednesday, November 7, 2012 - 10:44 pm I think, Wolfie, what he is saying is that we are sad that our candidate of choice was not chosen. We are not big advocates of big government and that is what Obama and his party support.
| |
| Wednesday, November 7, 2012 - 11:24 pm Crafty's mean. =(. I didn't say he won FL I said of he wins either at the juncture 270 votes would be his and it'd be over. But Jan and Shave you kept the house and the senate is about the same. +1 independant, -1 Dem, and with the 4 contested you can't win the senate but you can make the midterm elections easier.
| |
| Thursday, November 8, 2012 - 03:55 am they are all advocates of big government in one way or another....unless you want to vote for libertarians...they are mostly whacko though
| |
| Thursday, November 8, 2012 - 06:20 am I breathed a deep sigh of relief for women, gay folks, and the environment this morning. I very quickly breathed a deep groan of frustration, because Obama is not nearly forceful enough on these issues. And when someone convinces me that the free market will look after the poor and ensure that they get a fair shake, then I'll vote libertarian. I SO want Romney's economic ideals to be valid, but it leaves, oh, about 47% of the country out to dry. I hate how big the government is - I want them to just leave me alone and stop spending my money. But I've spent too much time with people who worked two or three jobs and only kept their heads above water because of their welfare checks. When the system stops being rigged, I'll stop voting blue.
| |
| Thursday, November 8, 2012 - 07:22 am Do you look after the poor? If you answered yes, then the "free market" has decided to look after the poor. Because in a "free market", YOU are the welfare system. Anyway, guess there was something about campaign finance on the ballot. I voted against corporations and unions deducting money for political contributions from employee paychecks without their consent. Looks like the other side won. I don't know... seemed pretty cut and dried to me.
| |
| Thursday, November 8, 2012 - 04:47 pm Ah there I slightly misunderstood. Well it seems most people is disappointed, I hope your country goes for the better.
| |
| Thursday, November 8, 2012 - 05:25 pm Own welfare system? You do realize what certain individuals use as tax write off charitable donations? You are also aware that there are those who would rather shovel third disposable income into campaigns instead of something that matters? If people don't hold a good job then they should find a better one but we still need people to fill those low level jobs. Your whole mentality is evil and self servicing and not until the system is fair do we as a nation have any right to adopt th r crap you are spewing
| |
| Thursday, November 8, 2012 - 08:22 pm I'd probably be lessed stressed and drive a finer car if I just quit my job and draw my check from the government. ha ha ha ha This is what Obama inspires people to do. :P
| |
| Thursday, November 8, 2012 - 08:36 pm You see, this is why I should become ruler of the North American Empire. Then everyone will be happy.
| |
| Friday, November 9, 2012 - 03:07 am Wouldn't you love that Lorelei, I myself would go and buy you a fancy car so you are less stressed. And some shoes now that we're on it. How about a Grande Tour through Europe
| |
| Friday, November 9, 2012 - 03:12 am So would you be annexing Canada and Mexico Tallis?? lol
| |
| Friday, November 9, 2012 - 04:30 am I'd probably be lessed stressed and drive a finer car if I just quit my job and draw my check from the government. ha ha ha ha This is what Obama inspires people to do. :P yah I hope your not serious
| |
| Friday, November 9, 2012 - 04:30 am Mizore - No, I don't. I don't have much extra cash floating around, as a grad student; I also don't have the knowledge or reach to get that money to people who need it most. How many charities do you know of who can support families during stressed times - not just provide a meal or a room for a night? The reason we have federal welfare is because the free markets and the states completely failed millions of Americans during the Great Depression. That is what unregulated markets do - they bubble and crash - so the times when the most people need help are precisely the times when charities are most strapped for cash. KoD - It really depends on where you live. If you're Hawaiian, then you could make $36,000 a year on Welfare. On the other hand, if you live in Mississippi, you'd have to scrape by on ~$11,000 a year. Most states are on the lower end of that spectrum. Oh, I almost forgot the kicker: this is for a mother with two kids, who ALSO happens to qualify for every extra benefit possible. Do you think you and your two kids would be living in luxury on $1000/month? I find it strange that I keep hearing the same two criticisms of Obama: 1. Unemployment is too high. 2. Obama's welfare state is discouraging everyone from wanting to work. But these don't really mesh well, because unemployment rates only count people who are looking for work. If everyone's content to get their checks from the government, why are they looking for jobs? - Welfare in some (about 1/3) states is too high. It could definitely discourage job seeking, especially if the person has low standards, anyway. - Welfare recipients cannot stay on the federal TANF program for longer than 2 years without finding a job. - Welfare is not luxurious, even in the highest-paying states. - Federal welfare can't be diminished without tremendous backlash. The problem is that it really SHOULD be, or else the US government will eventually be on Chinese food stamps. - Welfare functions as it should for most people on it: as a temporary safety net that can prevent homelessness until a new job can be found. - Fewer than 5% of Americans are on welfare - that's not even 1/3 of people below the poverty rate. I didn't realize it was that low. (By the way, thank you for bringing this up, because it was a great excuse to learn more about how our welfare system currently works. I found some things that I would change, but it's actually more restricted than I thought.)
| |
| Friday, November 9, 2012 - 05:45 am Motivating the workforce is simple though, increase minimum wage to 15 bucks then people will work to get the standard they can get with a welfare program. The problem is because capitalism doesn't work inflation would pick up like crazy. =)
| |
| Friday, November 9, 2012 - 04:00 pm Or, simpler yet, do as the commie/socialist countries do, and simply tell them if they don't get motivated, they and their families and friends will all be shot.
| |
| Friday, November 9, 2012 - 05:11 pm America is a masonic Fascist Plutocracy. We have given our sovereignty to the corporation called the Federal Government in Washington D.C. Our Sovereignty is in the Bill of rights. The rest of the constitution are the laws of the corporation. We are not suppose to be american citizens. We are suppose to be citizens of what ever state you are from living in the federation of the United states. This is the true form of the Republic, but we hired this corporation to be the middle man between the states, and they have taken over the power of the states, and the sovereignty from its people. Every time you say you are a US citizen and conform to the laws congress passed, you give up your freedom, and sovereignty. We do not ever look into the clause in the Bill of rights that says we are to overthrow any government that infringes on the sovereignty of any person in any state. The federal Reserve System is an infringement on our sovereignty. I like to see somebody make a documentary on that. I am sure it would not get off the blog to which it was written.
| |
| Friday, November 9, 2012 - 06:09 pm hezekiah what are you talking about are you ill? its not like the state and federal governments are intrinsically diiferent you are just being ridiculous
| |
| Friday, November 9, 2012 - 07:55 pm Yeah the confusing tenth amendment again. Strong state government is stupid.
| |
| Saturday, November 10, 2012 - 01:55 am i think the state governments are fantastically useful for encouraging democracy and making sure people get what they want in such a large and diverse country i agree with the idea that the states are the test tubes for democracy...im just saying the federal government isnt evil neither are the state governments id imagine they both have the same levels of corruption
| |
| Saturday, November 10, 2012 - 02:24 am Hezekiah, the last time people thought like that the Confederate States of America was formed and, in around four to five years, abolished.
| |
| Saturday, November 10, 2012 - 02:29 am indeed
| |
| Saturday, November 10, 2012 - 02:37 am Mind you, if given a choice between the United States of America and Virginia my answer is this: Whilst I do love America, I love Virginia more.
| |
| Saturday, November 10, 2012 - 04:05 am whatever
| |
| Saturday, November 10, 2012 - 08:25 am The federal government has widely overstepped its bounds, according to the Constitution. In the main, King Hezzy is right; the Enumerated Powers section of the Constitution pretty much limits the federal government to coinage, a national armed service, tariffs (NOT income tax), and ensuring a free flow of interstate commerce. It was never intended to be the controlling nanny-State that we have today.
| |
| Saturday, November 10, 2012 - 02:49 pm I would quite like a nanny... Provided she was under 30 and of Scandanavian descent.
| |
| Saturday, November 10, 2012 - 05:12 pm crafty that deserves a lol haha are chicks in scandanavia really that hot and I agree with that maclean I think the federal government needs to chill out abit but they have made ammendments that allow for income tax
| |
| Sunday, November 11, 2012 - 08:37 am I'm sorry if this is a little off topic, but am I the only person who thinks it's strange that the government forbids gas stations from raising gas prices to meet demand (specifically after Sandy), so people go crazy and buy all the gas? This causes an even worse shortage, so the government has to step in again and impose rationing and enforce it with police. Why not just let the gas stations charge what they want? The markets will find the balance between what people are willing to pay and the supply that's available. In fact, it would provide extra incentive to get more gas in there. This way people will only buy what they need, and the prices will gradually drop back to normal. I'm not always a huge free market advocate because the free market is completely blind to hidden costs (ie social, environmental, or long-term costs), but this seems like such a simpler and more elegant solution.
| |
Sunday, November 11, 2012 - 08:54 am I'm sure this isn't entirely out of context. You're fighting the whole notion that letting the price rise is "exploitation" and "profiteering" even when it's the most reasonable solution to solving the problem of scarcity.
| |
| Sunday, November 11, 2012 - 03:28 pm Kudos, Crafty. Me too
| |
| Sunday, November 11, 2012 - 04:20 pm There is a huge history to gas price regulation - I'm sure there are excellent books on the subject. I believe that historically, gasoline companies have been effectively a semi-regulated public utility. For instance, did you know it is illegal for a gas station to sell gas below it's wholesale cost? In California, someone sued the grocery store gas pumps under this law, and as a result, they no longer offer that '10 cents off per $50 in groceries' promotion they used to? (I'm not entirely certain of this - there was a vague reference to this in a newspaper article I read a few months ago). This was originally done to prevent the major chains from underselling locally owned stations to drive them out of business, and then having a local monopoly (allowing them to jack the price way up and making up their losses).
| |
Sunday, November 11, 2012 - 06:14 pm
Surprisingly enough... Hezekiah is dangerously right on point with his summary of the United States. For those of you in denial, please do your diligence and google it. Youtube has hundreds of documentaries covering every fact Hezekiah laid out, for those of you who don't like to read, it is even in pictographic education form. Don't parrot your patriotism, instead absorb the knowledge the average American doesn't even care to understand and the rest will be become clear to you very quickly. If you need some suggestions I'll post some links.
| |
| Sunday, November 11, 2012 - 08:45 pm im not close minded and blind with patriotism sweetpea. I notice signs of obvious aristocracy in America.. im just saying that its not centralized government that is causing this like i said "State and federal governments are not intrinsically different" and please do post those links im always open to new investigation
| |
| Sunday, November 11, 2012 - 09:54 pm I agree with you on the govt. not being a bad thing. Republicans just needed a new enemy public enemy to deflect from their own unpopularity. You know,,, by blaming the current govt. for the results of policies they promoted and passed for the previous 8 years. I will post the links sometime during halftime of the Dallas Philly game...
| |
| Sunday, November 11, 2012 - 10:00 pm Samson: yeah, they did pass an amendment for income tax, nearly 150 years after the original constitution was signed. It was under a Democrat presidency, so (to everyone else) all you people belly-ache-ing about republicans best take a lesson as to who is the bad guy...
| |
| Monday, November 12, 2012 - 12:38 am NO ONE WINS
| |
| Monday, November 12, 2012 - 01:01 am hey maclean INCOME TAX IS A GOOD THING IT PAYS FOR THE GOVERNMENT I will never be so myopic to just hate the guy who increases taxes.....do you still think this country can be paid for through tariffs? no probably not if we did we wouldn't have your precious military......lol bad guys and good guys Republicans and democrats I don't designate them as bad guys and good guys that's childish they are all when averaged out about mediocre...and sweet pea kudos to you for recognizing the low tactics of the republican party
| |
| Monday, November 12, 2012 - 06:36 am yeah Scandinavian chicks are hot lol, only thing I can help you in this american government thread, it is very interesting though, reveals what you kind people think of your own system
| |
| Monday, November 12, 2012 - 07:56 am I think it's a very good thing that we people are constantly grating against our system. I'm much more worried about people (sheep, really) who never question or think for themselves. On the gas price issue, I personally can understand gas being somewhere between a human right (like water) and a regular commodity (like peanut butter). The former should remain forever in the public domain and should never be privatized. The latter should have no government influence outside of ensuring safety. Gas is somewhere in between, but the REASON that it's in between is because of the way we have structured our society. Ideally, it shouldn't be a near-necessity at all, but (thanks largely to the auto industry and big oil) our cities are built around our cars, and therefore around gas. I think that's a huge problem. Here's the thing, though: I wish gas stations could charge whatever they wanted. The higher gas prices go, the less people buy. It would push us that much faster away from foreign (or any) oil. It almost feels like a government-supported conspiracy to keep us on oil - actually, it is, considering how in-bed the govt has been with car and oil companies, and subsidies and whatnot.
| |
| Monday, November 12, 2012 - 08:42 am 1. Gas prices was just used to show that those who create the demand can not force a surplus of a good that important to our society. Too prove a point, it didn't need to be gas but gas was easy to use. 2. You use gas scarcity as an excuse, I call BS. Now I'm not going to deny gas scarcity but the problem is how gas is utilized. American Gas is not sold to Americans. They sell it to the highest bidder for example France, who pissed off all other heavy gas contributors. Meanwhile in the states we buy from others who do the same to us. So we as Americans have no clue about the supply level we actually have and prices are manufactured with less regards to supply as you may think. So one can quite easily argue government intervention will guarantee a more productive American society if so many politicians weren't in big oil's wallet. 3. I don't really mean for this to be a heated point but I personally would like to defend Democracy for a bit though I don't agree with it. The constitution is a system of laws to ensure we are productive and free. If we as a society can ensure that we can improve the system we are not only supposed to change it, but we should be required to do so. The constitution has always been a current set of laws not a permanent one. If it is so permanent where is the democratic right to usher in the will of the people? 4. Big government is not necessarily against small government. Big government is against the next strongest sense of control. Outside of the federal government which entity has the largest sense of control? If you put every option on the table you will see if there is a decrease in the power of the federal government you will assuredly find an increase in the power of corporate control. This is among others, and there will 100% with absolute certainty a failure of equal representation to the rules and idealogues of the people and even the majority with the breakdown of fed. I for one do not want to give more power to those that claim to be multinational citizens. 5. Macro-management is cheaper then Micro-Management as a generalized statement. Macro also has better synergy a bigger big picture sense, a sense of a standard to increase overall fairness. Micro would then have a benefit a specialized action due to specific circumstances but I cannot see that by any means outweighing the benefit of financial responsibility and/or big picture longer term growth. Macro-management=Fed, Micro-management=state. 6. I don't get the nanny stateness? I never have what in my life is over-regulated except the click it ticket nonsense? 7. As far as regular commodities I definitely see the justification of no intervention, but I can't see any problem at all with intervention. Just because people think capitalism is good doesn't mean it's best. So many of you take things as they are, but why? If we can ensure supply of peanut butter to everyone without supplying any negative impact, who loses? the few people who own peanut butter companies? Out of those few people how many of which founded the peanut butter corp? It's all quite ridiculous when you think about it. I know a $hitstorm is coming for this post but why not have a sense a unity, foresight, and personal integrity when making decisions for a nation? Also I'd like to point out that though I am an advocate of big government it does not necessarily mean I believe in a much of the expenses that the fed takes in. BUT I BEG OF YOU TO LOOK AT THE WASTE THAT STATES ACCUMULATE
| |
| Tuesday, November 13, 2012 - 01:51 am The "scarcity" I was referring to (other folks may have been thinking something different) was localized, temporary, and relative (supply vs demand). More American oil would stay in this country if government subsidies didn't encourage its transport. If fuel prices were allowed to rise to their true costs, they wouldn't ship as much to France, and the same is true for our imports. Government intervention has a proven track record of artificially cheapening fuel, bankrupting our small farmers, decreasing investments in public transportation, and undermining renewable energy development. We may produce more, but it's worth less (for example, farmers are paid to overproduce grain crops, which drives down prices). I definitely don't like the way things are. Anyway, the most interesting point you made, in my opinion, was linking the growth of the federal gov't to the growth of national and multi-national corporations. I'm not sure which contributed to which (maybe a positive feedback), but at this point I agree that states would have a devil of a time coping with the power of corporations, if the federal gov't disappeared. Even the federal gov't is buckling under the power of big companies. If you take away the consumer protection agency, EPA, USDA, etc, it really would be tantamount to ceding power directly to the very industries whose corrupt mismanagement was the impetus for those departments existing in the first place. Jeez, nice run-on sentence, huh? At least we can vote for our politicians. 7. This system doesn't have a good record. Where capitalism results in stratification, communism tends to lower (almost) everyone together. The net quality of life in capitalism is usually higher. The only way to ensure peanut butter for everyone is to detach the price from its actual value. There would be little incentive to make peanut butter, and no incentive at all to make GOOD peanut butter. Innovation ceases, worker motivation drops, standards decline. We've seen this all before. USSR and China were beautiful examples of this system failing miserably. Look what happened when China tried to nationalize its agriculture system: 45 million people starved. 45 MILLION PEOPLE! I hope you don't get a storm of any type for expressing your views. One last little point: I'm from Virginia, which is constitutionally bound to have a balanced budget. They run a much tighter ship that the federal government does. I just did some research and discovered that every state except Vermont has some type of balanced budget restriction. They vary in effectiveness; obviously California's hasn't worked too well. But don't be too quick to write off the effectiveness of local/state governments for using resources more efficiently.
| |
| Tuesday, November 13, 2012 - 06:59 am Hop, I thoroughly enjoyed your post and don't agree with most of it, but it is because of a difference in understanding we both have. I also think I like your look because we take topics fairly and use your libertarian/masters degree studies to defend it. You don't just dismiss things. So kudos to you, it was rare to find free thinkers when I went through grad school merely puppets. So as I sign of respect I will defend what you contest to. Virginia and state fiscal responsibility: I can't possibly understand all state authorities but I am pretty well versed on those in the midwest primarily IL, WI, but also MO, MN. These states don't have such a solid track record, except WI and that is pre-scot walker WI. I support the use of a budget but the question isn't how much they spend money, it is how they spend money. For example the House of Reps and the senate have very similar responsibilities. Each senator has a staff, and each house has a staff. But there are far more Reps. If the federal government would accumulate some of the states power, they would have less employees. Less is more right? But a weaker state will be much less then a weaker fed. More resources to share, less levels of bureaucracy. Why should the reps pay more for staff then the senate does? The more divided anything is the most costly it is. So when I just said it is how they spend money what I'm really refering to is, is it right for decisions to be made to the constraints of the governmental budget or instead the ROI of the individual project? State governments as a combined entity currently employs more people than the fed, the departments of the states tend also to be heavily micromanaged and work independently of the welfare of the state. Leading to situations in which the transportation department will try to justify (without recognizable cause) a budget increase, that happens to against education, etc. The issues involved here lead to a lot of imcompetencies. I know this part is confusing, I probably could have used better words. But the lack of standardization makes it even more difficult for the state execs to have a thorough understanding of the benefits of their decisions. Mainly I feel the ball has been dropped on federal auditing of cause and effect to government on all levels, which hits smaller sectors harder. So my real take on this situation is The management of the fed is awful but is greater than state is greater than district is greater then local is greater than corporate. I think it is great we are on the same page with the dangers of corporate power. But you did not see the connection to the current discussion. It was brought up to reference the dangers of shrinking auditing procedures of the fed. If you limit the fed you limit the regulations, if you limit regulations you increase the power of these bastards. If you increase the powers of these bastards you limit freedoms of the individuals. That could be a complicated concept, but the SEC is the agency that would be first on my list then the three that you listed. Everyone is complaining about how big the fed but they fail to see the immense amount of safety that comes from it, That's why I brought it up. Onto peanut butter. This is an outright opposite opinion here. If the sense of profit is gone, then all that is left in regards to indivual peanut butter is an attribution to cost to manufacture. But you are totally correct and I can't argue with your concept of worker motivation and innovation to the peanut butter industry. But I don't advocate communism. I advocate community, and efficiency. I am NOT a commie, I am NOT a capitalistie. Why are those two options the only ones? Why can't the federal government own a peanut butter factory, pay employees to the share of the contribution they make towards the final product, charge consumers in reference to the cost it takes to produce those goods,and use their completely managed profits to pay for government services, at the same time compete with the public sector to drive down prices to a more consistent level of affordability and quality of life? That's not communism, that is intervention that can be geared towards companies that lower the quality of life. There are millions of smart minds in the world we can create the kind of world we should live in, but I'm an anti-conformist so... Ummm... back to topic, motivation falls in a communist society because of lack of attribution in work to wage. motivation in a capitalist society falls because of lack of attribution in work to wage. Government ownership doesn't mandate equal wages for everybody though communism supports it. Capitalism is notorious for being a classist sect, that encourages discrimination against productive work. It is a completely backwards system. Their are DEFINETELY ways to improve productivity in comparison to the capitalist system. Government subsidies: I agree with your statements, but disagree with your views. The fed does tons of things wrong but it doesn't the concept is wrong. For example Solyndra, without governement assistance the free market would have to develop alternative energy, however the current energy tycoons would use all of their powers to keep them down for as long possible. Did the governement make mistakes? Of course but they are championing innovation in areas like this. It is positive. And in most cases there is logic in the madness. The food subsidies are a product of the dust bowl. Alternative energies are a product of oil scarcity and global warming. Things that don't work right should be fixed or abandoned. But so many people think abandoning is always the answer but the sunk costs are more alarming then the path of true understanding and the most viable solutions to these mismanagement issues. Increased government intervention in regards to oil disbursement for example can keep our oil here, and force it into a realizable value of cost to manufacture as well as ACTUAL supply vs demand. More lax government in trade will result in the same actions we are doing now. Which is better for the people of this country? Because at the end of the day isn't that what is important? The fed does so many things wrong, but it doesn't mean it being big is bad. Instead of shrinking it we need to fix it. Sorry for the length.
|
