View Full Version : American Politics during the Obama Presidency
Punter 127
08-28-13, 02:40
Reid can't bring a new bill to the floor, without overcoming a virtually-gauranteed Republican filibuster. You remember the big flap over this last time. Most Republican senators voted against even allowing a debate and vote. So, any pretense that Republicans were ever serious about reducing gun violence is largely false. No doubt, Reid knows the calculus, and believes that for some Republican senators, a vote on background checks is going to be less politically risky than a vote to bring gun control legislation to the floor a second time. Sounds more like a kid who says I'll just take my ball and go home, and wait for the next crisis.
Certainly, expanded background checks won't put a complete stop to guns getting into the wrong hands. But the data shows it is an effective measure to reduce the occurence. And BTW, opening NICS to individual sellers on a voluntary basis has questionable merit, because the data also shows that most private sellers will agree to sell guns to people who say they can't pass a background check. The background check has to be mandatory, and enforced. [snip]I listed legitimate concerns and ask legitimate questions, you responded with gibberish and failed to answer how the checks would be enforced without a registry. The data from media matters is hardly scientific research and is therefore irrelevant. But if those people really did agree to sell a gun to someone who couldn't pass a background check they would be in violation of current law if they made said sale.
BTW Gun Prosecutions Down 40% During Obama Presidency
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/18/Obama-s-Hypocrisy-Gun-Prosecutions-Down-40-During-His-Presidency
Punter 127
08-28-13, 02:41
We should stand down in Syria.
"Remember, we went into Iraq based on the information we were getting about weapons of mass destruction. We better be sure who's using these weapons in Syria. Is it Assad or is it the rebels who, in fact, would love to have America come in? Remember, the rebels were being beaten back by Bashar Assad. So what reason would he have to use chemical weapons?
The United States should also be skeptical of Russian President Vladimir Putin and his involvement in the Syrian conflict.
"Putin is the puppet master in all of this and, so far, he's outdone the president of the United States at every turn.
I condemn all use of chemical weapons and the situation in Syria is very upsetting, but I just don't see how it's an American interest. We should not get involved militarily. We are not the world police and what will be gained by an attack by the US, it may well make things worse. I'm one of the first to make the call to arms if threatened but I don't see the threat to the USA, and this is just not our fight. We should stand down. IMHO.
Flexible Horn
08-28-13, 10:04
This from a BritSir If I may just correct you...I'm English.
Punter 127
08-28-13, 11:19
Sir If I may just correct you...I'm English.I stand corrected. LOL.
I'm good. But it might be past your bedtime, old man. You're confused. In the Zimmerman thread a few days ago you claimed NY was not enforcing gun laws. I asked you to share some data on this. You did not.Most sensible people with a modicum of common sense know that our prisons and jails would be filled to overflowing if the anti gun laws already on the books were enforced.
Tres3.
Member #4112
08-29-13, 16:16
Well I see our ball-less leader is still dithering over Syria.
If Obamanation was going to do anything he should have launched the air strikes three years ago when this was first cranking up and before all the radical's moved into the theater. Back when it was just the Syrians involved in the civil war.
No couldn't do that, instead the Obamanation amid all the hand wringing and platitudes about civilians had to shoot off his month about "red lines" and chemical weapons and now he feels like he has to do something a year after it was confirmed Sarin was used by the regime.
At this point our enemies are killing each other, Hezbollah vs Al Qaeda, so how is this a bad thing?
Tossing a few cruise missiles is not going to change the equation and I think everyone has had enough boots on the ground in the Middle East for a while unless there was a direct threat to the US and we intended to keep what we kill for a change.
If the Obamanation feels he needs to do something then I have two words for him tactical nuke. While he is at it, since Iran want's nukes so bad why not drop off a few we are about to decommission and save the money we would spend to dismantle them? That would sure make Iran a quiet corner of the Middle East for about 5,000 years.
Most sensible people with a modicum of common sense know that our prisons and jails would be filled to overflowing if the anti gun laws already on the books were enforced.
Tres3.There's an easy solution for that problem: Just release everyone who is doing time for possession of recreational substances.
Punter 127
08-29-13, 20:27
In Stunning Move UK Parliament Rejects Syria Military Strike, Obama "Willing To Go It Alone"
"Moments ago the UK House of Commons, in a razor thin vote, rejected the Cameron proposal for military action in Syria with a vote 285 to 272. Cameron promptly said he would respect the will of the House of Commons and UK Defense Secretary Phillip Hammond confirmed there would be no UK military intervention in Syria."
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-29/uk-rejects-syria-military-strike-obama-willing-go-it-alone
Looks like the Brits figured it out.
Daddy Rulz
08-29-13, 20:38
There's an easy solution for that problem: Just release everyone who is doing time for possession of recreational substances.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/eric-holder-marijuana-washington-colorado-doj_n_3837034.html
Punter 127
08-30-13, 14:54
Syria?
If it wasn't for the crickets the silence of the leftwing members of this forum would be deafening.
Where are you Blackshirt and WT69?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/eric-holder-marijuana-washington-colorado-doj_n_3837034.htmlThat's the 2nd thing in 6 years that Obama has done right.
Silver Star
08-30-13, 22:04
That's the 2nd thing in 6 years that Obama has done right.Also good was at the beginning of the administration there was a rescue of Americans being held by pirates, snipers took the pirates out by sniper fire...Great job!
Syria?
If it wasn't for the crickets the silence of the leftwing members of this forum would be deafening.
Where are you Blackshirt and WT69?Been on the island of Gili Asahan, no tv, no wifi, no bullshit. Just white powder sand, clear waters, some goats and cows. Crowing is not befitting you. Nobody is always right, and nobody is always wrong.
Punter 127
08-31-13, 13:48
Crowing is not befitting you. Nobody is always right, and nobody is always wrong.No "crowing" here. And you're right as Jackson and Silver Star have pointed out even Obama has been right a few times. I just find it very strange that nobody on the left has voiced an opinion on the very serious Syria situation, why do you suppose that is?
Have a safe flight.
Also good was at the beginning of the administration there was a rescue of Americans being held by pirates, snipers took the pirates out by sniper fire...Great job!The Navy Seals did that, not Obama.
I am not struggling with my position on this.
We must confirm Assad used chemical weapons, with convincing evidence. Assuming this is the case, we must do something. What that is, I'll leave to the experts, and it obviously needs to be thought through carefully.
I see several reasons. Chemical weapons are sickening and to stand by while a dictator uses them on his own people, is unacceptable for someone who can do something about it (like the US or UK). The UK decision is going to cause a lot of division in that country, and don't be surprised if it gets revisited (the vote was close, 272 to 285). If you are able to act and do not, you have basically said "I'm OK with mass murder by chemical weapons". The UK's shame will be multiplied if France joins the US. A secondary reason is Obama's statement about the red line. US credibility will be diminished if we do not act, and the Assad and other regimes may take this as license to expand use of chemical weapons.
Of course it all hinges on the credibility of the evidence.
WorldTravel69
08-31-13, 14:42
I do have a life. I don't always have time to read the bullshit some of you throw out.
All countries need to go slow and carefully about Syria. I wonder if Syria's rockets could reach our shores with chemical weapons.
It is bad enough that Monsanto puts the shit in our food, we don't need it in our air.
Syria?
If it wasn't for the crickets the silence of the leftwing members of this forum would be deafening.
Where are you Blackshirt and WT69?
Flexible Horn
08-31-13, 15:34
The UK's shame will be multiplied if France joins the US.
Of course it all hinges on the credibility of the evidence.France has closer ties with Syria than the UK, having occupied Syria from 1920 to 1946. Its about time the French actually did something...and we know the world police will lead the way.
Ok, I've just listened to Obama's statement from speech to end, and I have to say I was impressed. I'm not the greatest fan of our president, but I thought the content of his speech was right on the mark. Take it to congress.
So, all of you Obama haters, what was your opinion of his speech? Do you agree that congress should decide our course of action? And if he gets the go-ahead from congress, should the US go ahead with a strike even without the support of the UN Security Council?
I have a feeling he won't get the congressional support he needs. The US, like the UK, is war weary. Then what? Should he go ahead with a strike anyway?
And speaking of the UNSC, fuck Russia in the ass. That Putin is a devious, evil cocksucker, and Russia is backsliding into a 1-party state with personal freedoms slowly being chipped away (but that's another story). The fact that they are a voting member virtually assures that nothing will get done.
Punter 127
09-01-13, 03:14
Ok, I've just listened to Obama's statement from speech to end, and I have to say I was impressed. I'm not the greatest fan of our president, but I thought the content of his speech was right on the mark. Take it to congress.
I didn't see the speech but Obama has always been better at speeches than actions. However I think Obama did the right thing sending it to congress, he should have done that to begin with, he also should have called a special session if this is really that important. Why are we waiting until the 9th? The Brits did it the right way. BTW they are our closest ally and if we can't get them on board that should tell you something.
So, all of you Obama haters, what was opinion of his speech? Do you agree that congress should decide our course of action? And if he get's the go-ahead from congress, should the US go ahead with a strike even without the support of the UN Security Council?
I have a feeling he won't get the congressional support he needs. The US, like the UK, is war weary. Then what? Should he go ahead with a strike anyway?
We should not strike regardless of the congressional vote. Who appointed us the police of the world, don't get me wrong I think the death of 1400 plus people by chemical weapons is horrific, but so is the death of a hundred thousand by conventional weapons.
In 2007 Obama said "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," I agree with his statement and we don't have the right to interfere in a civil war unless there is a imminent threat to us, our allies, or our national interest, I don't see that threat. I also think this limited strike talk is BS, what would we do if they use chemical weapons again after we strike them, perhaps another limited strike and another and another? You don't play games with these people you either take them out or leave them alone.
And speaking of the UNSC, fuck Russia in the ass. That Putin is a devious, evil cocksucker, and Russia is backsliding into a 1-party state with personal freedoms slowly being chipped away (but that's another story). The fact that they are a voting member virtually assures that nothing will get done.As for the U.N. We should have cut funding and told them to fuck off years ago. I agree with you about Putin and I think he has and is playing Obama for a sucker.
Speaking of Russia would we even be considering a strike if it was Russia (or China) that had done this? If not, why not?
What about Iran they're building a bomb that will kill who knows how many and it won't be their own people, do we wait for them to use it before we strike?
I didn't see the speechWell, if you get a moment, check it out (forward to the 2 min mark): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmgQseJmmRM.
However I think Obama did the right thing sending it to congress, he should have done that to begin with, he also should have called a special session if this is really that important. Why are we waiting until the 9th? The Brits did it the right way. BTW they are our closest ally and if we can't get them on board that should tell you something.Exactly, a special session seems like the thing to do. Call those lazy bastards in to work on a Sunday (no sarcasm).
We should not strike regardless of the congressional vote. Who appointed us the police of the world, don't get me wrong I think the death of 1400 plus people by chemical weapons is horrific, but so is the death of a hundred thousand by conventional weapons.Again, I think he laid out a fairly convincing argument for why, which is why I wanted reaction from people who watched the speech. Prior to the speech, I was pretty much against a strike. And now I'm at least thinking about it. But the truth is, these things never end well. Thousands of years of religious violence isn't going to change with a few cruise missile strikes.
In 2007 Obama said "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," I agree with his statement and we don't have the right to interfere in a civil war unless there is a imminent threat to us, our allies, or our national interestActually, now that Hezbollah has entered the game and with Iran continuing to arm Assad, I think our allies (specifically Israel) could certainly be threatened if the Assad regime eventually holds on to win. On the other hand, part of the rebel coalition is the Al-Nusra Front, which is loyal to Al-Qaeda. So, there's your twisted Sophie's Choice: Iran, Russia and Hezbollah on the one side and radical Islam and Al-Qaeda on the other. Jesus H Christ, what a clusterfuck.
Speaking of Russia would we even be considering a strike if it was Russia (or China) that had done this? If not, why not?Too late, this is already a proxy war. Russia and Iran have already been arming the Assad regime, while the US, UK, France and Saudi Arabia have been providing non-combat aid, and now have basically said "fuck-it" and are arming the rebels to the teeth. So guys, how does it feel to be back in bed with Al-Qaeda? Kind of like the 80's in Afghanistan all over again.
And history repeats itself, over and over. Until:
What about Iran they're building a bomb that will kill who knows how many and it won't be their own people, do we wait for them to use it before we strike?It used to be that Mutual Assured Destruction (you know, that thing during the cold war that kept Russia and the US from blowing the fuck out of each other) was enough to keep the peace. But nukes in the hands of crazy Muslim jihadists, well, that's a reason to worry.
Now if you'll excuse me, I've got a plane to EZE to catch. I'm cooking dinner Tuesday or Wednesday at the house. To those of you that know me, stop on by.
WorldTravel69
09-01-13, 18:32
Sad times for the ladies.
http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Nevada-s-brothels-feel-economic-slump-4778302.php
Sad times for the ladies.
http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Nevada-s-brothels-feel-economic-slump-4778302.phpThey were way overpriced to begin with.
Punter 127
09-02-13, 02:13
Well, if you get a moment, check it out (forward to the 2 min mark): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmgQseJmmRM.
Exactly, a special session seems like the thing to do. Call those lazy bastards in to work on a Sunday (no sarcasm).
Again, I think he laid out a fairly convincing argument for why, which is why I wanted reaction from people who watched the speech. Prior to the speech, I was pretty much against a strike. And now I'm at least thinking about it. But the truth is, these things never end well. Thousands of years of religious violence isn't going to change with a few cruise missile strikes.
I watched the speech on youtube, and to tell you the truth every time I hear Obama talk it reminds me of a snake oil salesman, but hey I get the same feeling when I hear John McCain. When it comes to politicians I take most of what they say with a grain of salt.
Actually, now that Hezbollah has entered the game and with Iran continuing to arm Assad, I think our allies (specifically Israel) could certainly be threatened if the Assad regime eventually holds on to win. On the other hand, part of the rebel coalition is the Al-Nusra Front, which is loyal to Al-Qaeda. So, there's your twisted Sophie's Choice: Iran, Russia and Hezbollah on the one side and radical Islam and Al-Qaeda on the other. Jesus H Christ, what a clusterfuck.
There is nobody in that list I want to team up with.
In "The Sociology of Imperialism," Joseph Schumpeter wrote of the Roman Empire's suicidal interventionism:
"There was no corner of the known world where some interest was not alleged to be in danger or under actual attack. If the interests were not Roman, they were those of Rome's allies; and if Rome had no allies, then allies would be invented. When it was utterly impossible to contrive an interest - why, then it was the national honour that had been insulted."
Sound familiar?
Too late, this is already a proxy war. Russia and Iran have already been arming the Assad regime, while the US, UK, France and Saudi Arabia have been providing non-combat aid, and now have basically said "fuck-it" and are arming the rebels to the teeth. So guys, how does it feel to be back in bed with Al-Qaeda? Kind of like the 80's in Afghanistan all over again.
Look deeper, what do you think this war is really about, and who stands to gain from American involvement? Why has Syria become so important? Do you really think it's about Chemical weapons?
"Chemical attack, particularly one that kills civilians, is horrible and horrendous. All deaths in war and violence are terrible and should be condemned. But why are a few hundred killed by chemical attack any worse or more deserving of US bombs than the 100,000 already killed in the conflict? Why do these few hundred allegedly killed by Assad count any more than the estimated 1,000 Christians in Syria killed by US allies on the other side? Why is it any worse to be killed by poison gas than to have your head chopped off by the US allied radical Islamists, as has happened to a number of Christian priests and bishops in Syria?
For that matter, why are the few hundred civilians killed in Syria by a chemical weapon any worse than the 2000-3000 who have been killed by Obama's drone strikes in Pakistan? Does it really make a difference whether a civilian is killed by poison gas or by drone missile or dull knife?
WorldTravel69
09-02-13, 03:04
This the same now as then.
Greedy does not stop.
It started when America was born.
http://www.bbcamerica.com/copper
http://www.bbcamerica.com/copper/videos/uptown-bullshit/
I watched the speech on youtube, and to tell you the truth every time I hear Obama talk it reminds me of a snake oil salesman, but hey I get the same feeling when I hear John McCain. When it comes to politicians I take most of what they say with a grain of salt.
There is nobody in that list I want to team up with.
In "The Sociology of Imperialism," Joseph Schumpeter wrote of the Roman Empire's suicidal interventionism:
"There was no corner of the known world where some interest was not alleged to be in danger or under actual attack. If the interests were not Roman, they were those of Rome's allies; and if Rome had no allies, then allies would be invented. When it was utterly impossible to contrive an interest - why, then it was the national honour that had been insulted."
Sound familiar?
Look deeper, what do you think this war is really about, and who stands to gain from American involvement? Why has Syria become so important? Do you really think it's about Chemical weapons?
"Chemical attack, particularly one that kills civilians, is horrible and horrendous. All deaths in war and violence are terrible and should be condemned. But why are a few hundred killed by chemical attack any worse or more deserving of US bombs than the 100,000 already killed in the conflict? Why do these few hundred allegedly killed by Assad count any more than the estimated 1,000 Christians in Syria killed by US allies on the other side? Why is it any worse to be killed by poison gas than to have your head chopped off by the US allied radical Islamists, as has happened to a number of Christian priests and bishops in Syria?
For that matter, why are the few hundred civilians killed in Syria by a chemical weapon any worse than the 2000-3000 who have been killed by Obama's drone strikes in Pakistan? Does it really make a difference whether a civilian is killed by poison gas or by drone missile or dull knife?So we don't like Russia & Iran stepping in and propping up Assad. After all, we are a world power, and they are playing in our oil fields. And Israel is our proxy for maintaining some semblance of influence in that region. America's middle east foreign policy has always been about oil, then and forever. No difference from Iraq.
Punter 127
09-03-13, 11:43
Did I stutter?
What are you trying to say?Allow me to be simplistic. I oppose US military involvement in Syria.
So we don't like Russia & Iran stepping in and propping up Assad. After all, we are a world power, and they are playing in our oil fields. And Israel is our proxy for maintaining some semblance of influence in that region. America's middle east foreign policy has always been about oil, then and forever. No difference from Iraq.Are you saying there's no difference between Bush and Obama? Or are you just sidestepping the issue to keep from telling us where you stand on military involvement?
We're a broke world power, and I would be more incline to say it's the Saudi's that don't like what's going on, and they want Obama to use our military to clean things up.
Here's some other things I've seen that I suspect are in play in this situation;.
"In the last year, a giant Persian Gulf gas discovery was made in a joint Iran-Qatar project." I've also read reports that say Syria is to be the end port for a Gas Pipeline. If true it will begin in Iran pass through Iraq and end at the Mediterranean seaport in Syria, that's a straight shot. Even though Qatar is fighting against the Assad now, the plan calls for Qatari natural gas to be directed into the same pipeline. And who has a seaport in Syria, you guessed it the Russians have a naval port in Tartus.
While we've had our thumb up our asses arguing and fighting over fracking and blocking pipelines, "Russia has been building crude oil pipelines and natural gas pipelines from the Mother Russian lands to points in Europe and China and the Former Soviet Republics. They have been constructing modern LNG gas port facilities." What effect will all this have on Saudi crude oil? Will the world move from oil to gas? Also remember crude oil sales are in USD, if the pipelines are completed those sales will probably not be in USD, and what effect would that have on the dollar? Syria stands at the door to the emergence of the Eastern Alliance, the new dominant energy pipelines, and for these reasons and not chemical weapons, I believe the United States will find a way to get involved.
TejanoLibre
09-03-13, 16:49
"The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. He is not actually happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty. And he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies.
TL.
Some people have the vocabulary to sum up things in a way that you can quickly understand them. This quote came from the Czech Republic. Someone over there has it figured out. It was translated into English from an article in the Prague newspaper Prager Zeitungon.
The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their president.
Did I stutter?
Allow me to be simplistic. I oppose US military involvement in Syria.
Are you saying there's no difference between Bush and Obama? Or are you just sidestepping the issue to keep from telling us where you stand on military involvementThat's right, there has been no difference between the US presidents from Franklin Roosevelt to Barack Obama when it comes to oil and the Middle East. As for military intervention, just do what we did in Libya. A few key bombing missions would have tilt the tide. And meanwhile, have the Israelis do it for us.
Member #4112
09-03-13, 20:12
German parade floats:
2885828859288602886128862.
Enjoy.
"The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. He is not actually happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty. And he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies.
TL.Not flipping at you. Since we never met, I don't really know.
Member #4112
09-03-13, 20:30
Black Shirt, first of all we did not get any oil out of Iraq and while Afghanistan is rich in mineral resources they are never going to be recoverable in our lifetime. The only war we did wage for Oil was Gulf I to liberate Kuwait.
As I stated before, if the Obamanation was going to do anything he should have done it when the rebels were all Syrian and were making progress against the regime nearly three years ago not now after all the radicals flooded in and the Russians improved and manned their air defense network.
At the beginning he could have taken out their primary military assets as well as command and control centers with a few well placed strikes if he did not telegraph his intentions before the strikes. If he had to run his mouth then do it once the ordinance was in the air.
Obama has show over and over he has no grasp of much of anything but especially in the international arena where he is seen as weak and bumbling.
Punter 127
09-03-13, 21:00
That's right, there has been no difference between the US presidents from Franklin Roosevelt to Barack Obama when it comes to oil and the Middle East.Thank you.
As for military intervention, just do what we did in Libya. A few key bombing missions would have tilt the tide. And meanwhile, have the Israelis do it for us.Why Syria Is More Complicated Than Libya.
http://www.npr.org/2013/08/29/216858049/why-syria-is-more-complicated-than-libya
Audio.
http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=216858049&m=216926485
Black Shirt, first of all we did not get any oil out of Iraq and while Afghanistan is rich in mineral resources they are never going to be recoverable in our lifetime. The only war we did wage for Oil was Gulf I to liberate Kuwait.
As I stated before, if the Obamanation was going to do anything he should have done it when the rebels were all Syrian and were making progress against the regime nearly three years ago not now after all the radicals flooded in and the Russians improved and manned their air defense network.
At the beginning he could have taken out their primary military assets as well as command and control centers with a few well placed strikes if he did not telegraph his intentions before the strikes. If he had to run his mouth then do it once the ordinance was in the air.
Obama has show over and over he has no grasp of much of anything but especially in the international arena where he is seen as weak and bumbling.Especially on the home front. From people like you, Senator McConnell, Trump who try to block, mis-quote, fear-monger every issue for the last 5 years. Took away precious time & resources. Bush was the luckiest president alive, what with the Supreme Court decision & then 9-11 that united America and gave him a clear playing field for the next 6 years. He was toast after that. So now, we are war weary, suicidal and broke. No wonder that Bush took up painting and biking for his leisure activities. He must have nightmares about how Cheney con him, that trusted lieutenant.
You are right about the timing of intervention, it is a little late. Even with Assad gone, we do not know who is going to come aboard. Probably a Egyptian situation in the making. Syria has always been a Iran / Russia proxy, we had a chance to flip the situation & miss it.
Daddy Rulz
09-04-13, 00:32
More on Eric Holder and the weed issue.
Sorry it's from Huff Po again.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/marijuana-deaths_n_3860418.html
As I stated before, if the Obamanation was going to do anything he should have done it when the rebels were all Syrian and were making progress against the regime nearly three years ago not now after all the radicals flooded in and the Russians improved and manned their air defense network.
At the beginning he could have taken out their primary military assets as well as command and control centers with a few well placed strikes if he did not telegraph his intentions before the strikes. If he had to run his mouth then do it once the ordinance was in the air.Gee, it all sounds so easy. Where were the Republicans on this? Oh yes, sitting on the sidelines waiting to whip up a frenzy of outrage to elect a Republican president in 2012. Obama was not going to harm America to help Syria.
Member #4112
09-04-13, 12:44
Gee, it all sounds so easy. Where were the Republicans on this? Oh yes, sitting on the sidelines waiting to whip up a frenzy of outrage to elect a Republican president in 2012. Obama was not going to harm America to help Syria.Esten.
First:
We don't have any business getting involved in Syria in the first place, it's not our problem. I'm pretty sure the Republicans have been on this tract from the start.
Second:
Why does Obama have his nose out of joint over the use of chemical weapons, Assad has killed a lot more civilians and rebels with air strikes, artillery, tanks, heavy and small arms fire than he has with chemical weapons.
So the folks killed by gas are more dead than the others, more special, a greater atrocity or is it Assad's use of chemical weapons crossed the "red line" Obama declared when he was shooting off his mouth trying to act tough?
As I recall when Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against the Kurds in Iraq the Democrats didn't bat an eye, so what makes this different, Obama's prestige?
Third:
As I have already said we have no business doing anything in Syria but if the Obamation was so upset about all the civilian causalities and was really serious when he said Assad must go, his words not mine, then he should have acted early and struck without telegraphing his intentions.
No it is not "easy" but much more easily accomplished before Assad began dispersing his assets and the Russians provided and manned up graded air defense systems.
Last:
Neither one drop of American blood nor the life of a single American service member is worth salvaging Obama's "prestige" after he shot from the lip in attempt to appear relevant or tough on the world stage and now is caught with his pants down and no allies willing to join him in this ill-conceived endeavor to bolster his image and save face.
Member #4112
09-04-13, 13:15
Especially on the home front. From people like you, Senator McConnell, Trump who try to block, mis-quote, fear-monger every issue for the last 5 years. Took away precious time & resources. Bush was the luckiest president alive, what with the Supreme Court decision & then 9-11 that united America and gave him a clear playing field for the next 6 years. He was toast after that. So now, we are war weary, suicidal and broke. No wonder that Bush took up painting and biking for his leisure activities. He must have nightmares about how Cheney con him, that trusted lieutenant.Oh Black Shirt, I had no idea I had such power, but me thinks you exaggerate my abilities and the situation.
Obama and the Democrats ran riot for two years enacting any and everything their liberal little hearts desired until the 2010 mid-term elections. If anyone squandered resources it was Obama.
I would say a significant portion of the country does not agree with Obama's leadership and the 2014 mid-terms may look a lot like 2010.
Obama's approval rating is at 42% and there is no appetite for another foreign adventure.
Obama's signature achievement AHA is losing support daily, twists in the wind with one delay after another and now even the unions have turned against it.
With the national debt at $16+ trillion and rising to support a welfare state spending rate which will bankrupt the country. I will add that I did not agree with financing the Iraq and Afghan wars with debt, it should have been paid with current revenues.
Obama has made his own bed and now he has to sleep in it.
I have to agree with Jackson's quote, who is more to blame the fool who leads or the fools who elected him.
Punter 127
09-04-13, 14:50
Iraq / Syria.
Fool me once, shame on you.
28863
Fool me twice, shame on me.
More on Eric Holder and the weed issue.
Sorry it's from Huff Po again.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/marijuana-deaths_n_3860418.htmlA Democrat friend of mine who's a stoner has told me that Holder and Obama had no control over the federal attorneys and agents who enforce the drug laws. And that's the reason, for example, that prosecution of medical marijuana clinics and growers in California was much more aggressive under Obama than Bush. I think this story shows that's all B.S. They can do what they want to do. I hope their sudden change of attitude will extend to other states, besides Colorado and Washington, and to other issues related to civil liberties.
Oh Black Shirt, I had no idea I had such power, but me thinks you exaggerate my abilities and the situation.
Obama and the Democrats ran riot for two years enacting any and everything their liberal little hearts desired until the 2010 mid-term elections. If anyone squandered resources it was Obama.I was on the road, and was not paying too much attention to what Obama & the Democratic Congress enacted other than ObamaCare. Maybe, you could enlighten me. All I knew was that all hell was breaking loose on the economic front, as banks, stocks & housing prices plunge, lay-offs & unemployment skyrocketed. The biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression. My personal investment fell 40%, I had to go into ignore mode, and convince myself into pretending it never happen.
A crisis you would wish on your enemy. And for an incoming president, just another day strolling through the park, eh! In your estimation, of course.
Member #4112
09-06-13, 09:51
I believe this explains Liberals pretty well. Leave it to Linus to get it right.
Doppelganger, your third cartoon is right on if one would use the words "pro abortion" instead of "pro choice". That is but one reason that I choose pro abortion rather than pro choice. I do not think that the abortion issue should be one that is liberal or conservative. Men should be left out of the decision entirely. The decision should be left to the individual woman who is pregnant, and whether she is conservative or liberal makes no difference.
Tres3.
As I have already said we have no business doing anything in SyriaLike a Republican free market capitalist, Doppel's life philosophy can usually be distilled to the following common denominator:
Who cares about anyone else. What's in it for me ?
WorldTravel69
09-06-13, 12:27
Did you read the whole thing or just the parts you liked?
Obama had 1 Benghazi.
Bush had 13 Benghazis.
I believe this explains Liberals pretty well. Leave it to Linus to get it right.
Punter 127
09-06-13, 13:22
Doppelganger, your third cartoon is right on if one would use the words "pro abortion" instead of "pro choice". That is but one reason that I choose pro abortion rather than pro choice. I do not think that the abortion issue should be one that is liberal or conservative. Men should be left out of the decision entirely. The decision should be left to the individual woman who is pregnant, and whether she is conservative or liberal makes no difference.
Tres3.Two questions;
1. Assuming the father's going to be held financially responsible shouldn't he have a voice?
2. Don't you think there should be some type limit, or a point of no return in the pregnancy?
I don't say "pro abortion" because I think it's morally wrong, however I support having the right to make that choice, within reason.
Did you read the whole thing or just the parts you liked?
Obama had 1 Benghazi.
Bush had 13 Benghazis.The difference is that Bush did something about it.
1. Assuming the father's going to be held financially responsible shouldn't he have a voice?
I do not want to get in an argument with you or argue the point with dueling article links. I agree that if the father steps up and accepts responsibility for his actions, and will also be financially responsible for the child, he should have some voice. Unfortunately, that is seldom the case. If one talks to the folks at Planned Parenthood (throughout the country) and / or lawyers, one finds an astounding number of fathers who refuse to accept responsibility for their actions.
Tres3.
Member #4112
09-06-13, 15:27
For all my liberal friends, Esten, WT69, Black Shirt et. Al.
28871288722887328874288752887628877.
Like a Republican free market capitalist, Doppel's life philosophy can usually be distilled to the following common denominator:
Who cares about anyone else. What's in it for ?Democrats want people to be poor or unemployed or totally dependent on government. That way they get more votes. They enlarge their constituency. And if they can blame it all on racism instead of their own policies so much the better:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323324904579041313852450646.html
Punter 127
09-06-13, 17:03
I do not want to get in an argument with you or argue the point with dueling article links. I agree that if the father steps up and accepts responsibility for his actions, and will also be financially responsible for the child, he should have some voice. Unfortunately, that is seldom the case. If one talks to the folks at Planned Parenthood (throughout the country) and / or lawyers, one finds an astounding number of fathers who refuse to accept responsibility for their actions.
Tres3.No argument here simply asking questions and voicing an opinion. I think a woman should have the choice of aborting, up to a point. (late term is absurd) But I also think the father should have the option of requesting her to abort, if she refuses than the father should be relieved of financial responsibility and all parental rights. It only seems fair to me, if she has the power of choice, he should have some options as well. IMHO.
WorldTravel69
09-06-13, 18:21
Read and you will know.
http://www.vice.com/read/here-are-all-the-laws-passed-by-the-worst-congress-of-all-time
WorldTravel69
09-06-13, 18:25
Why are they mostly in the Republican States. They hate the Demos and Vote Republican, but use what they can get for Free.
Democrats want people to be poor or unemployed or totally dependent on government. That way they get more votes. They enlarge their constituency. And if they can blame it all on racism instead of their own policies so much the better:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323324904579041313852450646.html
Member #4112
09-06-13, 18:42
Had to post this quote since we have not had a president over the past 5+ years.
"Musician Charlie Daniels is never bashful about his conservative beliefs, but his latest Facebook message pulls nary a punch regarding President Barack Obama's waffling on Syria.
In my soon to be 77 years as a citizen of the United States of America, having lived through Japan's sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, the dark days of WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Watergate, 9/11 and all the other serious and profound events our beloved nation has been involved in over the last three quarters of a century, I have to say with all sincerity that I have never seen a president as confused, befuddled, impotent, insincere and as out of his depth as Barack Obama has become in dealing with the Syrian issue.
When you're the leader of the free world, you don't make statements you can't back up and you don't draw lines in the sand, watch your enemies cross them with impunity and go off and play a round of golf.
America's leaders should guard their tongues well and not issue spur of the moment reactions and empty threats. Our bite should be a lot worse than our bark and a presidential warning should be a dire and solemn caution, issued only once and followed up with swift and decisive action, not some half-baked puff of bravado that nobody really takes seriously."
Poor and Unemployed - Why are they mostly in the Republican States. They hate the Demos and Vote Republican, but use what they can get for Free.Not true and / or irrelevant:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/29/politics/pol-fact-check-gop-governors
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2012/06/07/are-the-10-poorest-u-s-states-really-republican/
And, btw, adjust for the cost of living and taxes and "backwards" states like Texas start to look more prosperous than your home state.
WT69, You've been strangely silent on the Syrian issue. Why? I know you'd be raising hell if a Republican president were proposing to bomb another country.
Had to post this quote since we have not had a president over the past 5+ years.
"Musician Charlie Daniels is never bashful about his conservative beliefs, but his latest Facebook message pulls nary a punch regarding President Barack Obama's waffling on Syria.
In my soon to be 77 years as a citizen of the United States of America, having lived through Japan's sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, the dark days of WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Watergate, 9/11 and all the other serious and profound events our beloved nation has been involved in over the last three quarters of a century, I have to say with all sincerity that I have never seen a president as confused, befuddled, impotent, insincere and as out of his depth as Barack Obama has become in dealing with the Syrian issue.
When you're the leader of the free world, you don't make statements you can't back up and you don't draw lines in the sand, watch your enemies cross them with impunity and go off and play a round of golf.
America's leaders should guard their tongues well and not issue spur of the moment reactions and empty threats. Our bite should be a lot worse than our bark and a presidential warning should be a dire and solemn caution, issued only once and followed up with swift and decisive action, not some half-baked puff of bravado that nobody really takes seriously."Why don't you just declare yourself an isolationist. That way, we can know where you are coming from.
Americans like to think that international conflicts do not affect their lives. As in World War II and 9-11, they were rudely awaken, then they had no choice. Always a little late. Lucky, we have the firepower.
Democrats want people to be poor or unemployed or totally dependent on government.Republicans want people to be poor or unemployed or totally dependant on the rich man. No I don't really believe that, but it illustrates how utterly ridiculous such characterizations are.
Keep repeating it to yourself over and over, like a good Faux News robot.
Had to post this quote since we have not had a president over the past 5+ years.
"Musician Charlie Daniels is never bashful about his conservative beliefs, but his latest Facebook message pulls nary a punch regarding President Barack Obama's waffling on Syria.
In my soon to be 77 years as a citizen of the United States of America, having lived through Japan's sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, the dark days of WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Watergate, 9/11 and all the other serious and profound events our beloved nation has been involved in over the last three quarters of a century, I have to say with all sincerity that I have never seen a president as confused, befuddled, impotent, insincere and as out of his depth as Barack Obama has become in dealing with the Syrian issue.
When you're the leader of the free world, you don't make statements you can't back up and you don't draw lines in the sand, watch your enemies cross them with impunity and go off and play a round of golf.
America's leaders should guard their tongues well and not issue spur of the moment reactions and empty threats. Our bite should be a lot worse than our bark and a presidential warning should be a dire and solemn caution, issued only once and followed up with swift and decisive action, not some half-baked puff of bravado that nobody really takes seriously."Some near-octogenarian country musician from the south, Charlie Daniels? Whooo!! Pulling out the big ammo there Doppel. This is almost as powerful as your dumb cartoons. This guy Charlie Daniels pops up every few months on right wing media like Faux News, with some new diatribe on Obama. Syria is just the latest topic in a series of many. I wonder what he had to say about all the politicians who demanded Obama delay action until there was a vote. Most likely, if Obama had taken immediate military action as this guy seems to suggest he should have, he would just have penned a different diatribe that Obama is an out-of-control dictator. From his many rants, it looks like he just found a gimmick to get media attention to help his record and concert ticket sales. And folks like Doppel lap it up.
There is a very simple response to nonsense like this: Is the world taking Obama seriously that he may potentially order a military strike on Syria? 'Nuf said.
WorldTravel69
09-07-13, 12:31
We do not need to be in another war.
It does not make any different in the Arab countries who is in charge, they will fight each other over tribal differences. As they have been doing since the beginning of time.
I am not sure on the exact number, but I think our country has been at war in some form for all but maybe 25 years.
What is funny it that the Republicans are the Party of Hawks, but now they have become Doves. What do you suppose is the reason?
I believe Racist reasons.
The latest Poll:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/poll-majority-of-americans-approve-of-sending-cong,33752/
WT69, You've been strangely silent on the Syrian issue. Why? I know you'd be raising hell if a Republican president were proposing to bomb another country.
Like a Republican free market capitalist, Doppel's life philosophy can usually be distilled to the following common denominator:
Who cares about anyone else. What's in it for me?
Republicans want people to be poor or unemployed or totally dependant on the rich man. No I don't really believe that, but it illustrates how utterly ridiculous such characterizations are.
Keep repeating it to yourself over and over, like a good Faux News robot.My generalization was a response to your generalization, that Republican free market capitalists don't give a shit about others. First that's not true for most. Second, who cares. The benefits of their labors flow through mostly to employees, customers and society.
That said, there's a tendency for people to brainwash themselves to promote agendas that benefit themselves. It's not confined to Democrats. For example, there are Republican politicians in the Mid-West who support subsidies to mostly-wealthy farmers and ethanol companies. Some of them actually think that's good for America. Spending money on education as directed by the teachers' unions, encouraging people to stay unemployed by making welfare benefits contingent on not working, directing money out of the private sector and into the federal government, these are all policies that keep people poor, unemployed and voting for Democrats.
You misspelled dependent.
What is funny it that the Republicans are the Party of Hawks, but now they have become Doves. What do you suppose is the reason?
I believe Racist reasons.
The reason - they learned from their mistakes. To understand what's happening, you need to separate the libertarian / tea party wing of the Republican party from the establishment types like McCain and Graham.
I would have "liked" your post, except that I think you might be serious when you say "Racist reasons." Which would make no sense whatsoever BTW.
My generalization was a response to your generalization, that Republican free market capitalists don't give a shit about others. First that's not true for most. Your last two words are what I'm talking about. It may or may not apply to most, but there are Republican free market capitalists who almost never support government involvement in something which does not directly or indirectly benefit themselves. Their positions on government initiatives and spending are highly predictable. Their focus in life is their bottom line.
Please, spare us a break about "but they donate to charity". These gestures are a pittance to the real impact that government programs can have, and are completely irrelevant when it comes to issues like Syria.
...but there are Republican free market capitalists who almost never support government involvement in something which does not directly or indirectly benefit themselves."I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money."
― Thomas Sowell, Barbarians inside the Gates and Other Controversial Essays.
TejanoLibre
09-09-13, 06:24
Obama's approval ratings are so low that Kenyans are accusing him of being born in the United States!
TL.
I haven't posted in this thread in quite some time because the mental masturbation that goes on here can be quite boring. But I, too, have a big mouth and can't always be silent.
I'm watching people argue the same tired crap every time, basically mouthing the same thing their respective parties mouth to the country in general. From one month to the next, basically the amount of time I give to this thread, it's always the very same thing. It's almost funny, except it hurts to watch such polarity, particularly among people that are often friends in the real world. Particularly when they continue to think they are a part of the same country, when it seems to be in name only.
Of course, the arguing is not surprising, given that rarely do people really look beyond those who espouse their own beliefs to see if their own beliefs are valid. There is rarely much talk about finding the truth, but rather ensuring the each person's "side" wins the "war" that is currently being "fought" socially and economically.
Both of the two parties that are in power are dead wrong, because neither one really gives a crap about anything other than being in power. The back-and-forth that has been going on since Lincoln's time shows that.
We have people in this forum who think the "Conservatives" are right, as has been mentioned with politicians under that creed who garner money for the very things their party supposedly doesn't believe in, using political might to ensure that their farmers are taken care of by the government. Ensuring that their pet industries are taken care of, etc. Not to mention more recent NeoCons who think the US should be mighty and powerful so that all other nations will tremble at our might, while that very attitude is contrary to what the Founding Fathers fought for to begin with. We have people who think the "Liberals" are correct as they steal money from the hands of those who work hard for it to give to those who (for whatever reason) don't work to support their own families and who say that's OK, because they "deserve" to live at a certain level.
The "right to pursue happiness" has been morphed into the belief that it should read "the right to BE happy." Each person makes his or her own happiness, not some monolithic bureaucracy that has been created and guided over such a long time by politicians who have made their livelihood out of the political game of promising people anything and delivering some of the worst of it.
People who say the South is poor because of more recent Republican mis-management seem to forget about the terrible war that was fought a long time ago because a Republican decided that it wasn't right to let the country split up when it was so young, and those same Republicans who came down from an industrialized North to take advantage of the Southerners who wanted freedom from what they saw as tyranny and lost a real war. Time has reversed the actual centers of Republican and Democratic bases, but not all of the damage that was done in those times. You can talk about slavery all you want and the depths from which Lincoln supposedly rescued us, but look at countries like Brasil, for example, who managed to end their times of slavery quite peaceably and allow their people to intermix peacefully in modern times as a result. Of course, they had other reasons for not advancing so quickly, but that's another issue.
BTW. The country was on the path to ridding itself of slavery before Lincoln decided he had to maintain the integrity of the Union AT ALL COSTS, but that wasn't good enough. Can't let people decide their own fate, and less than 100 years after the country fought a brutal war to free itself from a tyranny overseas Lincoln provides his own brand of pain and tyranny. But even Democrats think Lincoln was a hero, and the result was terrible race relations and a good half of the country (at the time) that was left in economic ruins for a long time afterward.
Then people want to say things like "Texas is a backward state" as well. I find that kind of interesting as Texas actually has one of the largest economies in the world. 14th, right behind Russia and right in front of Australia. California is higher, but Texas is solvent and California is close to not being so. Does it ever occur to anyone that Texas seems like a "backwards" state because it has a ton of Mexican (and Korean, Vietnamese, Chinese, African, etc) immigrants almost all of whom end up better economically than where they came from originally? Many people seem to skew numbers to make it seem like Texas is backward, but I wonder if they have actually spent any real time in the state? Also, does it not occur to them that a lot of Texans enjoy living in rural settings, in small towns, rather than in big cities? We have the land and the temperament to live like that. Of course, we have at least a couple of the most successful big cities in the nation as well. But I've worked in smaller towns in Texas and they are anything but "backwards." Mexicans, blacks, whites, Vietnamese, (name the original nationality) all pretty much living peacefully together and enjoying their life as they want it. Prices are also SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper in Texas than other states. Hell, I owned a 3000 square foot house in Houston, 5 bedrooms, three bathrooms, corner lot. Something like that in California would probably go for upwards of $1,000,000 when I bought my house in Texas, and I paid $80,000.
Funny thing is, almost all of the legal immigrants despise the illegal immigrants because of their drain on resources, and the fact that they rarely integrate into society but rather remain islolated and refuse to share with the rest of the citizens.
What exactly IS backward, and why do people feel it is their right to change things on a national level to make things in Texas less "Backward", as an example.
You are all hoodwinked by the politicians, who have told you all how much you need them to be successful. What a total load of crap.
After having lived in Argentina for seven years now, I've seen what dependence on, and BELIEF in, idiocy gets you. People here don't even argue any more for different forms of belief. They argue between differing views of PERONISM. Very few here doubt that Peronism is the "correct" belief, it's just that they have never had their "Peron" again. Cristina is only bad insofar as she has carried the country away from the "good" Peronism into the "bad". Hell, one of the funniest campaign signs I've seen here is literally two guys who are running for office and at the top of the signs says "El Buen Peronismo". LOL. But kind of how I feel when I hear people talking about "good government" in the States. Talk about an oxymoron...
The Paraguayans and other MERCOSUR citizens come here to work while Argentinos collect their money from the government and figure out how to live on that paltry sum because mama Cristina (and other "Parents", be they Mom or Dad) know best while the leaders of the country get richer and the poorer get poorer. I pass healthy young guys on the street begging for money with babies in the arms (babies paid for by the government, BTW) while my brothers-in-law work their butts off at jobs these guys wouldn't touch because it would mean work for them. They use their babies as tools to get more money, much like I saw in India where it is not uncommon for the very poor to cripple their children to get more sympathy and make them better beggars.
While I was in high school, and for years after, I worked right alongside the Mexicans who came over to get construction jobs. I surely didn't feel like I was working beneath myself. I was young and could do so, but was smart enough to better myself so I didn't have to continue to work like that. I sure as hell didn't want someone to take money from others to pay me so I didn't have to work at drudge jobs.
Somehow Americans, both "Liberals" and "Conservatives" have forgotten what "good democracy" is. They have forgotten that living means providing for yourself at all costs to you, yourself, because that is what life means. Not to be coddled and told you don't have to work so hard because others haven't had to. They have forgotten what pride means. Pride doesn't come from others doing things so you can have a better life, pride comes from doing those things yourself and even in failure you can feel pride that you TRIED.
It's not using the government to get what is good for "lawmaker's" constituents.
It's not voting for your party because some in the party are good, ignoring those who are really bad.
It's not stealing money from the hands of those who create wealth to give to those who feel they "deserve" to live the same lives with little or no work. If you feel that, take it out of your own pocket and make the help PERSONAL. Otherwise it's too damned easy. You also end up creating a needy class because humans will be human.
It's not manipulating the market (I'm not talking about the stock markets, but the "real" market) so that one industry can survive terrible, stupid decisions and go on to make more, just because it may be a high-profile industry and a tiny percentage of jobs are "saved". Particularly when those jobs are such over-paid monstrosities that the same issue will come about again and again, multiplied with the bad decisions that that industry continues to make.
It's not about forcing people to buy healthcare whether they want it or not so that everyone can have the same crappy healthcare that's too expensive and a near monopoly thanks to that very same government supporting doctors who think they are gods and don't want to see their outrageous earnings reduced (not to mention insurers who don't have god-complexes, but are just greedy). Show me ONE monopoly that survived the market without active support from the government. The doctors have a good one in the US all tied up with their legislators. (I'm still waiting for someone to give me an example of this one, and I've asked many times but no one seems to supply an answer). The free market would never abide such high costs of medicine and health costs and has gone from a country where we could most all pay for our own care (this from my grandmother who was very poor and raised two sons by herself in the 50's, vs my ex-wife who has now one son to care for and can't pay her portion of ANYTHING, much less healthcare) to a country where you have to spend a significant portion of your income to insure medical treatment against the possibility of needing a doctor to blow your nose for you. Idiots, every one of you who can't see the reality of this one. (Sorry, I don't mean to be insulting, but for Christ's sake people WAKE THE FUCK UP!
What democracy should be is the right for everyone to ensure that the government does the maximum to maintain fair laws, that NO ONE is better or more above the law than anyone else, and beyond that the government has no right to take money from one person to give to another because that impersonal instrument of tyranny can't possibly make a fair decision. Even democracy does not give that right, because it is no longer democracy when people vote to give themselves money and things, as opposed to voting to provide a government fair to all. But politicians have managed to twist people's mind with all manner of idiocy to believe that the government needs to do more than provide the framework within which we all live. It has to decide who is deserving and who is not, of deep reserves of wealth to be paid out.
All of you who think that the government should "give" to needy people are among the worst of all, right next to those who think the power of the US should be used to make the rest of the world bend to our will and take money from the people to see that happen as well. Helping people should be a PERSONAL decision, should be targeted at those who truly need, those of your family or friends who are in trouble. The government cannot make such a decision because the government should be impersonal. NO ONE should be held above another as more deserving by an institution that is supposed to remain independent from such things.
I speak from personal experience on this. I have helped many people from the goodness of my heart, not at government gunpoint. I have been rewarded with watching people recover from personal disasters, and I have been shit on by people who took advantage of me. Guess which ones deserved my help, and will receive it again if they need it? But thanks to a tyrannical government who says it is better at determining such things, the amount of money I can spend to help those who deserve it has diminished, and I have no personal control over how money taken by me from the government is used to help those very asses that I know don't give a rat's ass about bettering their lives but are looking for a way to avoid work and personal responsibility.
Even those with the best of intentions still suffer from the Law of Unintended Consequences. The government making those decisions merely amplifies the effect and makes things worse than they otherwise would be. If you are going to make mistakes like that, make it personal instead of trying to get the whole country screwed up as well.
I wonder if Lincoln rolls over in his grave at night realizing what evil he did in the name of keeping a country divided together, surely with good intent on his part (I.e, not tyranny, but protecting a near-"holy" Union, in his eyes), but not realizing at the time how far-reaching would be the unintended consequences of his actions.
But what the hell. The US is already lost and the battle between the two sides that goes on here is just a symptom of what's really happening there. The espousal of two archetype theories being bandied at one another while those actually in power laugh their asses off.
When the Black soldiers had to serve & fight in World War II, and then had to come back home to the Deep South. "Yes, sir", "Yes, ma'am". What were their thoughts, what did it mean to their self esteem? What were they fighting for? Until Mohammad Ali refused to fight the "white man' war", human dignity was non existent in America for the Black man. He was the entertainer, he was the shoe shine boy, he was the boxer. Easy to say, "go back to Africa", but they didn't want to come in the first place. So you are stuck with them. See how many games those Longhorns & Aggies can win with a "good ole boys" team?
Today percentage wise, who is the most poverty stricken, who has the most incarcerated, who has the most single parent households? Yeah, they are quite loud and in your face these days. One of them even became the President of the United States. Too much for you? But remember, they are still paying for our sins.
Wow Black Shirt. What sins, I wonder, did you do that you feel you, personally, have to pay for? Personally, I wasn't alive during World War II when black people were discriminated against. I wasn't wearing a white hood and hanging black folk as they were fighting for their lives. I didn't even WANT to fight Muhamad Ali!
I respect those who fought against injustice (on both sides, I might add, lest ye forget), I despise what most of them (and those who enable them) have become.
You mention the "deep south" like southerners are the only ones that hold prejudices, while not realizing how far most of them have gone away from that. You mention UT and the Aggies needing black people to get anywhere with their sports teams. And I just have to laugh. Is that the most of what contribtion you think they have made? And pointing out Obama as a good example of black men making it as far as the presidency...well, you must obviously be quite "liberal" and as immersed as the rest in the BS.
Of course, I was actually excited to an extent when Obama won the presidency, and imagine that, me a good ol' boy from Texas. I despised Bush for the way he handled his presidency in many ways. Imagine that, a good ol' boy from Texas. But Obama pissed me off the moment he went out of his way to use Chicago-style machine politics to get the stupidest health bill in the history of the US passed by a nearly tied congress and a populace that was largely against it beause he "knows" better than the rest of us. Well, imagine that, I didn't like what Obama did and most probably assume it's because I'm a good ol' boy from Texas. What a load of crap.
Black people have been loud and in the face of everyone for a long, long time. They have been right about a lot of things in the past, but the ones still on the bandwagon are no longer the followers of heroes like ML King and Muhamad Ali but rather Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and other idiots who have no interest whatsoever in the success of the "black" people, but rather in forwarding their own interests.
Giving "black" people things doesn't do them any good. How well did giving them a mule and 40 acres work out for them? What a joke. What they needed (and need) was real freedom. So we look at a race that was subjugated and then freed at force, to live among their very subjugators who then blamed them and hated them for the deaths of ther families. Among a people that weren't ready for the very people that were freed to live among them as equals. And yet, again, Brasilians are a fairly well integrated people. Things need to come in when people are ready for them, not when others say it's time. Are Americans just naturally racist, or is the manner in which the slaves were freed in the States the wrong way to go about it?
The only thing that will "free" the black people is for them to stand on their own two feet, to become productive members of society. People who talk about reparations after such are long time are ridiculous. People who talk about ANYONE alive in these days owning one freaking cent to anyone who had a slave in their ancestry is insane or looking for ways to ingratiate themselves with those very people who are not productive and ask for things. And I wonder how it is that other, hard-working races that come to the US can end up living just as well as others who have already been there, but "black" people just can't quite make it.
I've had many free black friends. I've had a couple friends that still live under the slave mentality, wanting their due from whitey. I prefer the guys who are free, every time, no matter their "race".
If you knew me, you'd probably think I was one of the least racist people you have ever known in your life. Hell, I married a terribly poor Paraguayan and treat her family lke they are my family, her younger sisters like my own children. I have helped people of different nationalities and races throughout my life, and I'm really tired of the racist card. Racism exists, absolutely, but it's not strong enough to overcome those who are no longer racist and believe in fair play. At least in the US.
One of the "slave mentality" friends of mine was one of the guys who I also helped and who took advantage of me and my family in a number of ways while we were trying to help him out. He had it made at work (where I met him to begin with. He was a communications engineer in a petroleum company and could have gone farther than me as a mere programmer) but walked around all day complaining to anyone who would listen close by and to whoever he could reach on the telephone (his cubicle was next to mine), talking out how bad he was treated here. How bad his last review was. How people didn't "respect" him because he was black. You see, he actually didn't do his work, but complained ALL THE TIME, literally all the time he was at work, about how no one respected him. But because he was black our HR department was afraid to let him go and get someone in there that could do his job. I was at that company 9 years, he 15. We left at the sme time. When another company bought us out. I got a nice package and an offer of employment from the new company (I rejected employment because I didn't like the company) and he got a mediocre package because for all his time at the company he never accomplished anything. Was that racist?
I (who am not black) busted my ass, working overtime and doing everything I could to end up with respect I'd earned. He complained and did nothing. He had a degree, I didn't. I got discriminated against because I didn't have a degree, he got discrimiated againstbecause he was a lazy asshole and only existed as long as he did in that slot because of his race (called reverse racism, and supported by the government, by the way).
It's a long story, but he treated us like shit and ended up blowing off a $3000 loan I gave him when we helped him out (he was going to have to go live under a bridge but instead I invited him into our house and gave him a loan to help him get back on his feet) because he didn't have an ounce of respect in his being for others and he didn't respect himself to begin with. But oh, how he loved to complain about what a hellish life he had as a black man, how unfair life was for him.
You know what, life sucks for a lot of us. If you don't like it, do something to change it. But asking for handouts from people who have more than you and then shitting in their hands as a recompense is the furthest thing worthy of respect that a human can do, and I've watched that particular scene played out many times before. And not just with black folk, with whoever has the slave mentality. Admitedly I see it a lot more here in South America than I ever did in the States. I've watched the same thing happen here and in Paraguay.
Giving people help so impersonal like funding from government agencies, without strings and consequences, does nothing but take away a person's self respect and replace it with unfounded "deserving.
So Black Shirt is the first one to come back with this "oh poor race that has been kept down for so long." I was expecting something like it. Let the mental masturbation continue, I suppose.
I haven't posted in this thread in quite some time because the mental masturbation that goes on here can be quite boring. But I, too, have a big mouth and can't always be silent.
I'm watching people argue the same tired crap every time, basically mouthing the same thing their respective parties mouth to the country in general. From one month to the next, basically the amount of time I give to this thread, it's always the very same thing.Great post, except when you start to apply it to this board. Most on both sides are social liberals, and most do not parrot the party line on all issues.
In 2008 there was a site on the internet where you answered questions about your position on specific issues, like abortion, foreign policy, taxes, etc. It would then tell you which of the presidential candidates were aligned most closely with your beliefs. I agreed with Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich 80% of the time. The next highest candidate was around 55%. On economic issues, many would consider Paul far right and Kucinich far left. Neither is brainwashed or a pawn of his party or of special interests. So it is with a number who post here. For example, even though I've compared him to a KKK member and otherwise abuse him mercilessly, I respect WT69's willingness to think outside of the Democrat box on foreign policy issues and a flat tax. On non-economic matters, we'd mostly agree. The posts here have changed my thoughts about a couple of issues, and enlightened me on more.
Great post, except when you start to apply it to this board. Most on both sides are social liberals, and most do not parrot the party line on all issues...
I may not have been too clear because I'm not writing a paper and wrote quite quickly without making sure I covered all the points I was looking for. Still may not be real clear, and perhaps you are correct in me applying the criticism too liberally on this board.
There are a number of posts I've seen here who think the government needs to make these changes, as opposed to people making their own decisions on how their money is spent. I didn't dwell on it very long, but a lot of people who are "socially liberal" think the US needs to be a dominant player in the world in order for us to survive ["properly"]. And Abraham Lincoln shows a good person who means well who ran straight into the Law of Unintended Consequences with an oppressive action taken by the government under his command.
I didn't mention God, nor legalizing at least certain drugs (I think it's the absolute height of idiocy to make any drugs illegal, but I'm betting I'm more "socially liberal" than most), which are "easy" socialy liberal concepts.
I don't see forcing people to pay for an already-broken (and one that can never work) health care system, or any government program that gives things to some and takes from other, as being socially liberal.
My mental masturbation comment is related to BOTH sides (no matter how socially liberal) supporting government programs of any type,as well as parotting the same things their respective parties say on other items that are not socially liberal. It doesn't work for either side, it disrupts the economy, creates resentments through unfair practices, and ruins the country as a whole. Politicians in general, whether they believe or not in what they are saying, are too interested in keeping their power and the things that come with it to really look dispassionately at what is needed and EVERYONE should be FOR changing politics as they exist in the US today, and changing the class of politician and the direction politicians want to take us.
Those who believe that government is an inherent evil that is necessary, but in the smallest doses possible to maintain order and a fair playing field, think like I do. I don't see very much of this here, even those who claim they want small government but think we are doing the right thing around the world being world policemen/bullies who are trying to export and inculcate our brand of insanity to the rest of the world.
I don't think government is the solution. I don't think passing laws to force Americans to pay for things a large portion of the population doesn't want is a good thing.
There are some politicians that are trying to change things, but they are far and few between and have realtively little support while others (particularly on this board, of a particular "bent") are cuting them down the way the majority of the press does, repeating things that are stupid.
I do believe the majority on this board are well-intentioned. I agree with a LOT of what is said, but no one is really talking about changing the core of the States, but rather trying to make the current politics work, which can never happen because politicians have become too entrenched.
Sorry if I offended anyone, really. Not meaning to, and it doesn't really do any good to insult someone for their beliefs.
There are some politicians that are trying to change things, but they are far and few between and have realtively little support while others (particularly on this board, of a particular "bent") are cuting them down the way the majority of the press does, repeating things that are stupid.
I do believe the majority on this board are well-intentioned. I agree with a LOT of what is said, but no one is really talking about changing the core of the States, but rather trying to make the current politics work, which can never happen because politicians have become too entrenched.You might check out the Ayn Rand Institute. I am a supporter and we are making headway in changing the ideas.
Don B.
"I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money."
― Thomas Sowell, Barbarians inside the Gates and Other Controversial Essays.That's because when you live in a democracy where people support government spending for public services and other initiatives, and you don't want to chip in your part, you are rightly perceived as greedy and self-centered. You may not agree with every spending item, but a democracy cannot work if it depends on full consensus on every matter.
Punter 127
09-10-13, 02:06
Excuse Me?
That's because when you live in a democracy where people support government spending for public services and other initiatives, and you don't want to chip in your part, you are rightly perceived as greedy and self-centered. You may not agree with every spending item, but a democracy cannot work if it depends on full consensus on every matter.The United States is a Constitutional Republic, Not a Democracy!
Daddy Rulz
09-10-13, 02:59
Excuse Me?
The United States is a Constitutional Republic, Not a Democracy!Sadly I fear not for much longer my brother. I certainly haven't made a decision about anything, but in my youth I couldn't have even imagined I would ever even consider picking up another passport, but I think about it a lot these days. Some of the shit up there, not the red state / blue state stuff, but the "security" stuff really worries me.
Wow Black Shirt. What sins, I wonder, did you do that you feel you, personally, have to pay for? Personally, I wasn't alive during World War II when black people were discriminated against. I wasn't wearing a white hood and hanging black folk as they were fighting for their lives. I didn't even WANT to fight Muhamad Al
So Black Shirt is the first one to come back with this "oh poor race that has been kept down for so long." I was expecting something like it. Let the mental masturbation continue, I suppose.Just because I mentioned a "once upon a time" truth. From the ending of the Civil War in 1865 until 1964 with the Civil Rights Act, how much of the Constitution were denied to the Blacks? That's right, almost a 100 years. Yet the Board here is bristling with talk of secession and armed rebellion if their 2nd amendment rights were infringed. To me, the Blacks were downright beaten down P.S.ychologically to endure what they had to go through without lashing out in a dramatic way. Perhaps, they were not licensed to carrry, so could not? But there is no doubt, given half a chance, the Old South would happily go back to it's George Wallace days.
Everything you mentioned, I have seen with my own eyes. So you are cursing Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton (as I often do), but are they any different from Sarah Palin & Anne Coulter?.
Just don't take personally what I say. I am not targeting you. You spoke alot of truths. And I am sure you are a great guy (really). Next time, I come to BA, I might ask you for equal opportunity loan.(smile).
Punter 127
09-10-13, 11:24
Sadly I fear not for much longer my brother. I certainly haven't made a decision about anything, but in my youth I couldn't have even imagined I would ever even consider picking up another passport, but I think about it a lot these days. Some of the shit up there, not the red state / blue state stuff, but the "security" stuff really worries me.It should worry all of us, but I don't think another passport is so easy to pick up? You know something I don't?
Just because I mentioned a "once upon a time" truth. From the ending of the Civil War in 1865 until 1964 with the Civil Rights Act, how much of the Constitution were denied to the Blacks? That's right, almost a 100 years. Yet the Board here is bristling with talk of secession and armed rebellion if their 2nd amendment rights were infringed. To me, the Blacks were downright beaten down P.S.ychologically to endure what they had to go through without lashing out in a dramatic way. Perhaps, they were not licensed to carrry, so could not? But there is no doubt, given half a chance, the Old South would happily go back to it's George Wallace days.
Everything you mentioned, I have seen with my own eyes. So you are cursing Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton (as I often do), but are they any different from Sarah Palin & Anne Coulter?.
Just don't take personally what I say. I am not targeting you. You spoke alot of truths. And I am sure you are a great guy (really). Next time, I come to BA, I might ask you for equal opportunity loan.(smile).
Could it be that rather than performing its only legitimate function, the protection of individual rights, it was performing as a democracy, that is providing what the majority of its citizens wanted?
Don B.
Punter 127
09-10-13, 12:48
The Solid South was overwhelmingly Democratic!
Just because I mentioned a "once upon a time" truth. From the ending of the Civil War in 1865 until 1964 with the Civil Rights Act, how much of the Constitution were denied to the Blacks? That's right, almost a 100 years. [snip]
The term Solid South describes the electoral support of the Southern United States for Democratic Party candidates from 1877 (the end of Reconstruction) to 1964 (the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964). During this time, the vast majority of local and state officeholders in the South were Democrats, as were federal politicians the region sent to Washington, D.C.. The virtual non-existence of the Republican Party in the region meant that a candidate's victory in Democratic primary elections was tantamount to election to the office itself.
The Democratic dominance of the South originated in many white Southerners' animosity towards the Republican Party's stance in favor of political rights for blacks during Reconstruction and Republican economic policies such as the high tariff and the support for continuing the gold standard, both of which were seen as benefiting Northern industrial interests at the expense of the agrarian South in the 19th century. It was maintained by the Democratic Party's willingness to back Jim Crow laws and racial segregation.
Democrats won by large margins in the region in every presidential election from 1876 to 1948 except for 1928, when candidate Al Smith, a Catholic and a New Yorker, ran on the Democratic ticket; even in that election, the divided South provided Smith with nearly three-fourths of his electoral votes. Beginning in about 1948, the national Democratic Party's support of the civil rights movement significantly reduced Southern support for the Democratic Party and allowed the Republican Party to make gains in the South. In 1968, President Nixon's "Southern Strategy" is credited with allowing either the Republicans or Democrat George Wallace's independent campaign to keep much of the South out of the Democratic column at the presidential level. The South continued to send an overwhelmingly Democratic delegation to Congress until the Republican Revolution of 1994.
The Democratic Party was behind slavery, the KKK, and Jim Crow laws. Before the Civil War ended, State Slave Codes prohibited slaves from owning guns. After President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and after the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolishing slavery was adopted and the Civil War ended in 1865, States persisted in prohibiting blacks, now freemen, from owning guns under laws renamed Black Codes. They did so on the basis that blacks were not citizens, and thus did not have the same rights, including the right to keep and bear arms protected in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as whites. Black Codes, which explicitly restricted gun possession and carrying by the freedmen. Sometimes these laws facilitated the activities of the Ku Klux Klan, Americas first gun control organization. (and the roots of todays gun control movement.)
Reconstruction Congress responded with the Freedmens Bureau Bill, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1870every one of them aimed at racial subordination in general and racist gun control laws in particular.
Republican President Ulysses S. Grant (1869-77), who would later serve as president of the National Rifle Association, vigorously prosecuted Klansmen, and even declared martial law when necessary to suppress KKK violence. It was Southern Democrats who strongly opposed African-American equality to whites.
Black Shirt if you don't know history study it, if you do know history stop trying to rewrite it.
Black Shirt if you don't know history study it, if you do know history stop trying to rewrite it.
In my post, I did not use any party affiliations to identify the South. Yes, I am aware of the history of the transition and transformation of the Democratic South into the Republican South. But thanks for taking the time and effort to put everything into perspective.
Racism is found in every corner of the world. I was not trying to disparage the USA in that regard, just to highlight what has gone on in history. And to highlight the point that it can easily come back tomorrow if we are not careful.
That's because when you live in a democracy where people support government spending for public services and other initiatives, and you don't want to chip in your part, you are rightly perceived as greedy and self-centered. You may not agree with every spending item, but a democracy cannot work if it depends on full consensus on every matter.
My reaction is
Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.12345678910.
It should worry all of us, but I don't think another passport is so easy to pick up? You know something I don't?It's relatively easy in Dominica and St. Kitts and Nevis, although expensive.
That's because when you live in a democracy where people support government spending for public services and other initiatives, and you don't want to chip in your part, you are rightly perceived as greedy and self-centered. You may not agree with every spending item, but a democracy cannot work if it depends on full consensus on every matter.Except that what's really going is that 51% of the voters are telling the other 49% how much they have to pay in taxes, said taxes which are then given to the 51% majority.
Esten, it's all in your definition of "public services". The US Constitution provides that the US Government is to "provide for the general welfare", which I believe may be easily understood as government services such as a military for our common defense, a border patrol to maintain our common borders, a monetary system for our common use, a system of basic education that everyone attends, a criminal justice system that protects all of us from the criminal element in every society, etc. The Constitution does not refer to any need to provide for the "specific welfare" of individual citizens, as in cash payments to some individuals to remedy some alleged shortfall in their own personal lives.
"The normal must care for themselves."
Calvin Coolidge
Daddy Rulz
09-10-13, 18:43
It should worry all of us, but I don't think another passport is so easy to pick up? You know something I don't?Some provisions in the NDAA really scare the shit out of me. In another couple months I could start the process of getting an argie one, it wouldn't be my first choice, Australia or Canada would be, but it's a second one. While a lot of people from other countries may hold the politics here (Argentina) in contempt, as a rule they don't hate them.
I'm worried, not super worried, but worried that the USA could become a totalitarian state in my lifetime.
Punter 127
09-10-13, 21:36
In my post, I did not use any party affiliations to identify the South. Yes, I am aware of the history of the transition and transformation of the Democratic South into the Republican South. But thanks for taking the time and effort to put everything into perspective.You didn't need to name the party we all knew what you was trying to say.
Punter 127
09-10-13, 21:43
Some provisions in the NDAA really scare the shit out of me. In another couple months I could start the process of getting an argie one, it wouldn't be my first choice, Australia or Canada would be, but it's a second one. While a lot of people from other countries may hold the politics here (Argentina) in contempt, as a rule they don't hate them.
I'm worried, not super worried, but worried that the USA could become a totalitarian state in my lifetime.I knew you could get a resident visa, but did not know you could get Argie passport. As Tiny 12 pointed out most of the time they are expensive.
I've been worried for some time and I'd say we're already well on our way to becoming a "totalitarian state". Just MHO.
Except that what's really going is that 51% of the voters are telling the other 49% how much they have to pay in taxes, said taxes which are then given to the 51% majority.Jackson, why even bother posting such easily refutable statements? I can slice and dice this over and over and over it's so wrong. In one poll, 67% of the top one percent of American earners support higher income taxes on themselves. There are other similar polls showing the wealthy support increasing their own taxes, and polls showing that many poor people (typically conservatives) do not support raising taxes on anybody. Your statement is complete nonsense.
Majority of Rich Want Themselves Taxed More: Poll
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/majority-rich-want-themselves-taxed-193437266.html
BTW, the Constitution provides a process by which democratically elected representatives can approve and fund government services and programs that are not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. That is why our system is called a Constitutional Democracy (a form of Representative Democracy).
Amid all the weak hands in the Syria debate, both internationally and at home, Obama and others like John McCain are demonstrating real leadership in their firm calls for decisive action. There are significant implications in not responding firmly, which Obama laid out very well in his speech tonight and I won't repeat here.
My take is Obama has to play hardball with Russia and Syria on their diplomatic offer / ruse -- requiring nothing short of timely, complete and verifiable removal of all Syria's chemical weapons. In parallel Congress should draft and prepare to vote on a resolution authorizing limited military action if the diplomatic effort falls short. I will absolutely support a military strike if this is the case.
Jackson, why even bother posting such easily refutable statements? I can slice and dice this over and over and over it's so wrong. In one poll, 67% of the top one percent of American earners support higher income taxes on themselves. There are other similar polls showing the wealthy support increasing their own taxes, and polls showing that many poor people (typically conservatives) do not support raising taxes on anybody. Your statement is complete nonsense.
Majority of Rich Want Themselves Taxed More: Poll
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/majority-rich-want-themselves-taxed-193437266.html
BTW, the Constitution provides a process by which democratically elected representatives can approve and fund government services and programs that are not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. That is why our system is called a Constitutional Democracy (a form of Representative Democracy).I can't find the survey questions or the referenced American Express / Harrison Group report on line. How was the question phrased? "If you have to choose between higher tax rates for all Americans or a bankrupt country because politicians don't have the stomach to stop spending money foolishly, which do you prefer?"
From your article:
"Granted, the one percent is not happy about paying higher taxes. The American Express / Harrison poll shows that 64 percent say they carry an 'unfair tax burden in the amount of money I pay in taxes.' Nearly three quarters of them are extremely or very concerned about their taxes going up."
That doesn't exactly square with what you wrote.
Both of these polls were taken in 2012 when Obama was playing the class warfare card hard, first because he thought it would help him get re-elected, and later near the end of the year when he wanted to stick it to the rich people and the successful small businesses. And he did, by raising their taxes. That's right, Obama and Democrats were responsible for raising taxes. Contrary to what you've written, Bush is not the one to blame for the tax increases associated with the Affordable Care Act, nor for other tax rates going up the first of 2013.
I guarantee most working people (that is excluding people who inherited money from their daddies) paying the 43.4% federal tax rate, plus as much as an additional 13.3% to their state of residence, will be even more aware of their "unfair tax burden" come April 15,2014. The percentage will be higher than the 64% in your poll.
But hey, somebody needs to pay to bomb Syria. Barack Obama and John McCain say it needs to happen and they should know.
Punter 127
09-11-13, 03:56
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
"In the Pledge of Allegiance we all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy. "Republic" is the proper description of our government, not "democracy."
The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance.
The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy. (see People's rights vs Citizens' rights)
http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/pvcright.htm
In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable."
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, and we all know the Chicago mob really wants to rule.
Punter 127
09-11-13, 04:43
Colorado Lawmakers Ousted in Recall Vote Over Gun Law
COLORADO SPRINGS Two Colorado Democrats who provided crucial support for a slate of tough new gun-control laws were voted out of office on Tuesday in a recall vote widely seen as a test of popular support for gun restrictions after mass shootings in a Colorado movie theater and a Connecticut elementary school.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/us/colorado-lawmaker-concedes-defeat-in-recall-over-gun-law.html?pagewanted=all
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
"In the Pledge of Allegiance we all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy. "Republic" is the proper description of our government, not "democracy."
The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance.
Exactly. Because they believed that Democracy lead to mob rule, our Founding Fathers despised democracry. Yet our last few idiotic Presidents seem intent on bringing a government we don't have to places that don't want it.
All those decades spend combating the Communists in every corner of the world. But of course, it always was about America's economic interests. That's why, we should forget about Syria, we are not the Red Cross.
Yes, stupid me. So easily conned.
My take is Obama has to play hardball with Russia...ROTFLMAO!
When it comes to playing "hardball", Obama doesn't have the skill or the experience, and most importantly he doesn't have the balls.
Thanks,
Jax.
ROTFLMAO!
When it comes to playing "hardball", Obama doesn't have the skill or the experience, and most importantly he doesn't have the balls.
Thanks,
Jax.Only difference, Putin does not have to answer to anybody in Russia, but Obama has to answer to you and every joker in town. Actually, like you, I am quite partial to dictatorships, as long I'm the dictator.
Bin Laden, Moammar Gaddafi, and a historic shift in Syria's position on chemical weapons under the credible threat of a military strike? Obama's already got the foreign policy credentials as a player to be taken seriously. Will Putin stall and play hardball too? Quite possible. Will Jackson be eating his words when Obama pushes the lever further on a military strike? Quite possible. One thing for sure, it's sad to see the Obama haters reduced to lame zingers.
Just because we don't have a direct, '51% wins' democracy in all cases doesn't mean we do not have a form of democracy. Some people are just desperate to play down the fact that citizens can and do influence what their government does. I wonder why?
Between mob paranoia and government paranoia, the right wingers have a sure-fire formula for staying paranoid all the time.
Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equallyeither directly or through elected representativesin the proposal, development, and creation of laws.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
Member #4112
09-12-13, 10:40
Esten, in a democracy ALL the people vote and who / whatever garners 51% of the vote wins. No president in the last 20+ years has been elected by 51% of the electorate. In all these past election 30% or less of registered voters cast a ballot for the people elected to lord over us.
Voter Turnout.
2012 57.5%.
2008 62%.
2004 60%.
Had the Conservative voters turned out in the same numbers in 2012 as in 2008 the results would have been very different, but alas they stayed home due to a lack luster candidate.
We have a constitutional Republic, not a democracy.
Punter 127
09-13-13, 00:54
So, it never was about democracy?
All those decades spend combating the Communists in every corner of the world. But of course, it always was about America's economic interests. That's why, we should forget about Syria, we are not the Red Cross.
Yes, stupid me. So easily conned.Nope never a democracy, we supported freedom for "all those decades", but we are a Constitutional Republic, and for very good reasons. (see below).
Democracy
Just because we don't have a direct, '51% wins' democracy in all cases doesn't mean we do not have a form of democracy. Some people are just desperate to play down the fact that citizens can and do influence what their government does. I wonder why?
Between mob paranoia and government paranoia, the right wingers have a sure-fire formula for staying paranoid all the time.Assuming you know the difference between a democracy and a republic, which is a huge assumption, I'd say people like you give us good reason for concern. I wonder why you want to replace the constitution with "critical thinking"? I think the answer to that question will be obvious to those that watch the videos below.
Democracy vs Republic.
"The key difference between a democracy and a republic lies in the limits placed on government by the law, which has implications on minority rights. Both forms of government tend to use a representational system where citizens vote to elect politicians to represent their interests and form the government. However, in a republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters. In a "pure" democracy, the majority is not restrained and can impose its will on the minority.
The various forms of government can be briefly summarized as:
Monarchy or dictatorship: Rule by one (a king or emperor).
Oligarchy: Rule by a few.
Democracy: Rule by a majority.
Republic: Rule by law ".
Two very good videos that I challenge our resident lefties to watch, they're about ten minutes each.
We await your response.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C_YBhY11yA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFXuGIpsdE0
Daddy Rulz
09-13-13, 02:22
I knew you could get a resident visa, but did not know you could get Argie passport. As Tiny 12 pointed out most of the time they are expensive.
I've been worried for some time and I'd say we're already well on our way to becoming a "totalitarian state". Just MHO.I don't read this often. I don't really know and need to find out. I found a pretty good site with the laws translated but really need to speak with a lawyer. A friend of a friend is a judge here so maybe I'll start with a coffee with her.
I agree with the "well on the way" part. Some scary stuff going on up there.
Punter 127
09-13-13, 03:20
I don't read this often. I don't really know and need to find out. I found a pretty good site with the laws translated but really need to speak with a lawyer. A friend of a friend is a judge here so maybe I'll start with a coffee with her.
I agree with the "well on the way" part. Some scary stuff going on up there.Thanks Daddy, I'd be interested in knowing what you find out, and I'm sure others would also be interested. Maybe a new thread? Up to you.
Who is dysfunctional here?
The political right & left have changed sides about Syria. And what is the underlying reason for this ladyboy transformation. Are you sure you know who you are?
And Congress? A bunch of cocksuckers who is not even good at sucking.
Obama is merely a symptom of the dysfunctionality of the majority of the American voters.
So are many (if not most) of congressmen, senators and judges who claim affiliation from both of the major parties.
My ex-wife used to say it best: "I deserve..."
Obama is merely a symptom of the dysfunctionality of the majority of the American voters.
So are many (if not most) of congressmen, senators and judges who claim affiliation from both of the major parties.
My ex-wife used to say it best: "I deserve..."That's what I was saying a few pages back...
Some people have the vocabulary to sum up things in a way that you can quickly understand them. This quote came from the Czech Republic. Someone over there has it figured out. It was translated into English from an article in the Prague newspaper Prager Zeitungon.
The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their president.
Whether you like it or now, we are the leader of the free world. And Americans do enjoy displaying the strut that our affluence and power generates. Not so long ago, just having an American passport in your shirt pocket would generate envious looks, and women to drop their panties. Now, sadly, not so much, and the passport has to be supplemented with 3 or 4 platinum credit cards, and pictures of your 5 bedroom house, with at least 2 BMWs in the driveway.
So we stand for freedom, justice, human dignity?
We can argue about the reasons for going to Iraq. But Syria, we are stepping in for humanitarian reason, and for a major voice in the outcome. For this reason, we can stand tall & be proud to be Americans. We have given enough time for their civil war to run its course, but it is not a fair fight anymore. With Russia & Iran giving help to Assad, we need to step in. And only by playing tough, can we convince the other parties to contribute to a resolution. On this issue, Obama has shown restrain and leadership and I am proud that Obama has taken this stance. No ladyboy here.
The rest of you are just playing politics, as usual. It's about the next elections, you know.
Punter 127
09-15-13, 01:18
Did you just come out of the warmonger closet?
So we stand for freedom, justice, human dignity?And if they don't believe it will blow their asses off.
We can argue about the reasons for going to Iraq. Nothing to argue about, there's no comparison.
But Syria, we are stepping in for humanitarian reason, and for a major voice in the outcome. Lets see if I got this right, they killed people in a manner we don't approve of, so to teach them a lesson we are going to kill people in an approved manner? OK, got it.
BTW, why should we have a voice in the outcome?
For this reason, we can stand tall & be proud to be Americans. We have given enough time for their civil war to run its course, but it is not a fair fight anymore. Well how self-righteous of us! On what authority would the US act in Syria, and what goal would be achieved with an 'Unbelievably Small' Strike?
With Russia & Iran giving help to Assad, we need to step in. And only by playing tough, can we convince the other parties to contribute to a resolution.And who will we help, Al-Qaeda?
On this issue, Obama has shown restrain and leadership and I am proud that Obama has taken this stance. No ladyboy here.Yes, you should be proud that Obama can get both of his feet in his mouth at the same time!
The rest of you are just playing politics, as usual. It's about the next elections, you know.How can you call it a " political right & left" issue when you see Obama and McCain and others from both sides saber rattling together? I don't think this is a party line issue for most people, I know many on the left oppose military action, not to speak of the military itself.
People who support military action at this time appear to fall into one of two groups, warmongers, or boot licking, ass kissing, Obama zombies, which are you?
I believe the American people are tired of the US government sticking its nose in the business of other countries. Remember this is not an international issue, at this time it's completely within the Syrian borders, and the vast majority of the world agrees with the American people. Who stands with Obama, the French? I guess they will bring the white flags.
But fear not your bloodlust will most likely be satisfied soon. But be careful what you wish for because this could easily lead to WW III. If you don't believe that just look at movements of both Russian and US forces in the last few weeks, and then consider the huge egos at play here. Make no mistake Russia controls Syria and they will not give up that control easily. This situation could very easily escalate, this is nothing like Libya.
[B]
People who support military action at this time appear to fall into one of two groups, warmongers, or boot licking, ass kissing, Obama zombies, which are you?
It seem the Far Right woke up yesterday and saw the staircase to heaven. When Bush wanted to go to Iraq, they couldn't get their boots on fast enough.
Obama may not be everything that I wanted as a president, but he was RELECTED only a year ago. How soon we forget! Out of many mouths, was that he was going to go down faster than Gatorade. Anybody with 2 fingers & a conical hat could beat him! Yeah, how soon we forget! If nothing else, I support the Presidential office, and the Commander-in-Chief. Somebody has to lead, and he is not as stupid as you think. I saw alot BS rhetoric from the know-it-all crowd last year, and then came the elections.
Something astounding has happen. I was informed that we no longer believe in democracy, majority rule in America. Yeah right, do you resolve all your conflicts in a showdown at High Noon? You think you have the fastest draw? I might be the only one slower than you, but there is always going to be somebody faster than you. Then, where will you be.
Punter 127
09-15-13, 04:13
No matter how much you ululate it's still a Constitutional Republic!
If nothing else, I support the Presidential office, and the Commander-in-Chief. Somebody has to lead, and he is not as stupid as you think. How much did you support the "Presidential office, and the Commander-in-Chief" when Bush was in office? When the President over reaches we don't have to support him, that's part of being free and living in a Constitutional Republic.
Something astounding has happen. I was informed that we no longer believe in democracy, majority rule in America.Majority rule equals minority ruled, and considering the racist history of the Democrat party I'm not surprised you wish we were a democracy. Did you know we have elected four Presidents that didn't have a majority of the popular vote, how could that happen in a democracy? The truth is the word democracy does not appear in the Decoration of Independence or the Constitution. (nor does it appear in any of the fifty state Constitutions) Have you ever read any of those documents? You really should try to brush up on your American history before you make rash statements. Oh, but wait I forget, facts don't matter to progressives.
Yeah right, do you resolve all your conflicts in a showdown at High Noon? You think you have the fastest draw? I might be the only one slower than you, but there is always going to be somebody faster than you. Then, where will you be.Gibberish.
I've found Obama to be an intelligent, common-sense and practical person. Just the kind of person we need as President.
The disfunctionality I see is mostly at the ends of the political spectrum, particularly on the right. A group that clings to ideology, refusing to compromise when such could address real issues, is disfunctional. Even worse, when said group is invested in slander, lies and deception, is not only disfunctional but a destructive force. For example, wide disemmination of urban myths (lies) involving slander is one manifestation.
Claim: Editorial from the Prague newspaper Prager Zeitungon criticizes those who voted for Barack Obama
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/pragerzeitungon.asp
"Prince of fools". Fake "quote of the century"
http://thoselegends.blogspot.com/2012/09/prince-of-fools-fake-quote-of-century.html
But I'm also the president of the world's oldest constitutional democracy. So even though I possessed the authority to order military strikes, I believed it was right, in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our security, to take this debate to Congress.
President Obama, September 10, 2013
Sorry Punter, but Obama would know better than you. The term "Republic" or "Constitutional Republic" alone does not indicate whether the people have any say in their government. Using only "Democracy" as well (as I have done) isn't fully accurate either since it does not indicate if there exists a set of laws governing the democracy, such as a Constitution. So a term like "Constitutional Democracy" is more accurate. Or "Democratic Republic" if you like.
People who support military action at this time appear to fall into one of two groups, warmongers, or boot licking, ass kissing, Obama zombies, which are you?
Boot licking, ass kissing Obama zombie. It's fascinating to see Black Shirt and Esten aligned with the neoconservatives and the Wall Street Journal editorial page - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323623304579056823678968760.html.
Since he couldn't get the support of other nations, Congress, or the American public for military action, Obama's position appears to be moderating. This morning he was saying sensible things about Syria on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. Look for Black Shirt's and Esten's positions on this issue to change accordingly.
The rest of you are just playing politics, as usual. It's about the next elections, you know....It seem the Far Right woke up yesterday and saw the staircase to heaven. When Bush wanted to go to Iraq, they couldn't get their boots on fast enough....
Yeah, how soon we forget! If nothing else, I support the Presidential office, and the Commander-in-Chief.
Do you see the irony? There are those of us who opposed going into Iraq. But because we don't support Obama's positions on issues about which we believe strongly, like Syria, we're trying to undermine the presidency? You appear to be willing to accept what Obama comes out with, especially if you think the issue will result in more votes for Democrats in the next election. Which is why you will change your position on Syria, because the idea of bombing the country is becoming less and less popular with voters.
"Prince of fools". Fake "quote of the century"
http://thoselegends.blogspot.com/2012/09/prince-of-fools-fake-quote-of-century.html
Regardless of where it came from it's true, and applies to people who elect candidates like Obama, the Kirchners and the Papandreous.
But because we don't support Obama's positions on issues about which we believe strongly, like Syria, we're trying to undermine the presidency? In 5 years, I have yet to see one issue you agree with Obama. On top of it, he is socialist or communist! And many things more according to our Head of Constitutional Studies.
In 5 years, I have yet to see one issue you agree with Obama. On top of it, he is socialist or communist! And many things more according to our Head of Constitutional Studies.Personally, I thought he did the right thing in signing the CALM Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Advertisement_Loudness_Mitigation_Act
Now you can't accuse me of disagreeing with EVERYTHING Obama has done.
Thanks,
Jackson.
In 5 years, I have yet to see one issue you agree with Obama. On top of it, he is socialist or communist! And many things more according to our Head of Constitutional Studies.Then you missed my support for appointing Kerry as Secretary of State instead of Susan Rice, agreeing not to prosecute pot smokers in Colorado and Washington, and initially negotiating with Boehner in good faith to decrease the deficit in 2011. I admit my "praise" was lukewarm on the first two points, but I was enthusiastic about the third. I think I even compared Obama to Nixon when he normalized relations with China. Unfortunately, political considerations and his impulse to pursue class warfare outweighed doing the right thing, and negotiations broke down.
Then you missed my support for appointing Kerry as Secretary of State instead of Susan Rice, agreeing not to prosecute pot smokers in Colorado and Washington, and initially negotiating with Boehner in good faith to decrease the deficit in 2011. I admit my "praise" was lukewarm on the first two points, but I was enthusiastic about the third. I think I even compared Obama to Nixon when he normalized relations with China. Unfortunately, political considerations and his impulse to pursue class warfare outweighed doing the right thing, and negotiations broke down.Very funny, if I didn't think you & Jackson were dead serious. Like saying, your tie pin is nice, just throw out the suit & tie. Next complain will be Obama's pee flow is too loud.
Punter 127
09-15-13, 21:55
In 5 years, I have yet to see one issue you agree with Obama. On top of it, he is socialist or communist! And many things more according to our Head of Constitutional Studies.
However I think Obama did the right thing sending it to congress, [snip] You only ask for one. lol
BTW how many times have you disagreed with Obama?
Punter 127
09-15-13, 22:11
I almost forgot, I agreed with his 2007 statement as well;.
In 2007 Obama said "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," I agree with his statement [snip]His words not mine!
Punter 127
09-15-13, 23:32
Sorry Punter, but Obama would know better than you. The term "Republic" or "Constitutional Republic" alone does not indicate whether the people have any say in their government. Using only "Democracy" as well (as I have done) isn't fully accurate either since it does not indicate if there exists a set of laws governing the democracy, such as a Constitution. So a term like "Constitutional Democracy" is more accurate. Or "Democratic Republic" if you like.This is so absurd it's really not worthy of a reply, but since it's you I will; The discussion is not about the people having a voice in their government, they have a voice in both types of government and even in this third type you have now added, it's about what type of government we (technically) have.
In support of my arguments I point to the Declaration of Independents, the United States Constitution, and the Federalist Papers. In opposition you offer one statement by Obama. Do you really want to talk about how many times Obama has misspoke, do you really want to open that can of worms?
So who should we believe our Founding Fathers or Obama?
I point to the Declaration of Independentsjejejejeje
Punter 127
09-16-13, 00:11
jejejejejeWe normally don't grade on typographical errors here. But I guess if that's all you got, you go with it.
Republicans want people to be poor or unemployed or totally dependant on the rich man.Jajajajaja.
But be careful what you wish for because this could easily lead to WW III. If you don't believe that just look at movements of both Russian and US forces in the last few weeks, and then consider the huge egos at play here.Make no mistake, Russia controls Syria and they will not give up that control easily. This situation could very easily escalate, this is nothing like Libya.
And if you were my accountant & saw my financial picture, you would be predicting my self destruction. But I am doing fine & enjoying my life under the poverty line. The real things in life are actually free, you could sing, dance & have sex for free(in my case, with one self). OK, they did not teach you that in school. How about fresh air, beautiful butterflies, colorful flowers, a faithful dog. Ok, you were not a flower child. Actually, I wasn't one either. In my culture, you could be a flower child only after you finish engineering school. And I flunk college.
Evil triumphs when people choose to look the other way. Sure, we cannot cure or solve every problem with force. Obama knew that Americans were sick of foreign campaigns, but he also wanted the world to know what America stands for. His leadership despite the crumbling Brits, cheating French, cowardly Italians, emotionless Germans, looking-the-other-way Chinese, was able to make Putin come to the table for the time being. It is not over yet, but Obama make masterful moves to allay opposition on the home front(the table is very full) and make American stand tall in the international community.
Russia host the Winter Olympics this coming Winter, they will not want anything to overshadow the festivities. In Sochi on the Black Sea, just a hop-step & jump from Syria. World War III awaits? I feel no need to do any confessing to the priest yet.
Caveat: my insulting of certain nationalities was committed under temporary insanity.
Punter 127
09-16-13, 05:03
Blackshirt.
If you can put rightwing leftwing politics aside for just a few minutes and read the link below, maybe you will understand where I'm coming from. The link is a couple of weeks old and it's from CNN, so it should be on the approved reading list. As I said before this is not a left right issue.
Syria allies: Why Russia, Iran and China are standing by the regime.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/29/world/meast/syria-iran-china-russia-supporters/index.html
Blackshirt.
If you can put rightwing leftwing politics aside for just a few minutes and read the link below, maybe you will understand where I'm coming from. The link is a couple of weeks old and it's from CNN, so it should be on the approved reading list. As I said before this is not a left right issue.
Syria allies: Why Russia, Iran and China are standing by the regime.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/29/world/meast/syria-iran-china-russia-supporters/index.htmlAnd there is nothing new for me. Syria is a proxy of Iran, and of course, Russia consider the whole Middle East their sphere of influence. China is driven by oil interests, as is the US with Israel / Palestine being the side issue for now.
I have not seen you comment on Obama's poker playing strategy here at all. He has domestic as well as international agendas here with multiple implications and side shows. He hasn't gone all-in yet, so why are you screaming so much. You just consider him a simpleton, a guy who can't even put on his pants right. And so your comments are always driven by whatever Obama do or say. You automatically take the other side.
With reservation, I gave Bush moral support for 6 years, hoping that he was right and I was wrong. He was after all, the Commander-in-Chief. And on this forum, I just try balance the scales against the Gang of 5,6,7,8? Very loud & obnoxious. You know, the Gang that couldn't Shoot Straight.
I have not seen you comment on Obama's poker playing strategy here at all. He has domestic as well as international agendas here with multiple implications and side shows. He hasn't gone all-in yet, so why are you screaming so much. You just consider him a simpleton, a guy who can't even put on his pants right. And so your comments are always driven by whatever Obama do or say. You automatically take the other side.
With reservation, I gave Bush moral support for 6 years, hoping that he was right and I was wrong. He was after all, the Commander-in-Chief. And on this forum, I just try balance the scales against the Gang of 5,6,7,8? Very loud & obnoxious. You know, the Gang that couldn't Shoot Straight.Just as I predicted, you are changing your position on Syria to whatever Obama's position is. I thought Bush was a genius, that he was going to get the Iraqi's to open the country up to WMD inspections again without having to spill blood, right until the moment when he entered the country. What a let down.
A big difference between the situations is that Bush was, unfortunately, enough of a consensus builder to get Congressional approval for Iraq. The same Congress that you want to string up thankfully would not give that approval to Obama for Syria.
You have way too much confidence in politicians.
12 dead in Washington DC.
Every time I hear about the latest gun massacre, I think of the NRA and all the effort they have made to ensure wide proliferation of guns in the United States.
Just as I predicted, you are changing your position on Syria to whatever Obama's position is. I thought Bush was a genius, that he was going to get the Iraqi's to open the country up to WMD inspections again without having to spill blood, right until the moment when he entered the country. What a let down.
A big difference between the situations is that Bush was, unfortunately, enough of a consensus builder to get Congressional approval for Iraq. The same Congress that you want to string up thankfully would not give that approval to Obama for Syria.
You have way too much confidence in politicians.That there is a consequence for previous actions. And because of what happened in Iraq, there is a fear factor about Syria. But you can continually blame Obama for everything under the Sun. Unlike you, I am not as savvy as the president and willing to let him make the case for America. I am a team player, until such time I feel the need to exit. Why? Because he was elected, and re-elected. Something the The Gang that Couldn't Straight cannot accept since Day 1.
Punter 127
09-17-13, 03:38
That there is a consequence for previous actions. And because of what happened in Iraq, there is a fear factor about Syria. But you can continually blame Obama for everything under the Sun. Unlike you, I am not as savvy as the president and willing to let him make the case for America. I am a team player, until such time I feel the need to exit. Why? Because he was elected, and re-elected. Something the The Gang that Couldn't Straight cannot accept since Day 1.Is there no end to your absurdness? Obama was elected President, not appointed God!
We have every right to speak out against anything he does that we disagree with. What's next a law forbidding us from speaking out?
"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.
Is there no end to your absurdness? Obama was elected President, not appointed God!
We have every right to speak out against anything he does that we disagree with. What's next a law forbidding us from speaking out?
"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.You have, and by all means. I never said you were forbidden. Just saying don't blame him for everything under the sun, just wipe your eyes once in a while.
Daddy Rulz
09-17-13, 20:21
You will want to adopt this kid. What he says at 13:25 is exactly what I believe and he says it better than I do. I'm not sure if the documentary is supposed to be pro or con, it seems pretty neutral to me, but I'm with this kid. Too bad he'll prolly end up at Guantanamo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DconsfGsXyA
Punter 127
09-17-13, 20:52
There's none so blind as those who refuse to see
You have, and by all means. I never said you were forbidden. Just saying don't blame him for everything under the sun, just wipe your eyes once in a while.Gee thanks for clearing that up, but my eyes are wide open, it's not me that's blindly following Obama.
Happy Constitution Day, check out the link below.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/091613-671242-founding-fathers-gave-us-a-republic.htm
Punter 127
09-18-13, 19:13
You will want to adopt this kid. What he says at 13:25 is exactly what I believe and he says it better than I do. I'm not sure if the documentary is supposed to be pro or con, it seems pretty neutral to me, but I'm with this kid. Too bad he'll prolly end up at Guantanamo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DconsfGsXyAHey Daddy, I just got around to watching the documentary, turns out I'd seen it before, but I watched again anyway. I agree with you.
I watched the video, in particular to see what quote DR connected with. Interesting stuff. I have seen those stereolithography machines (AKA 3 D printers) in person and the molded prototypes they can generate. They're immensely useful in design iteration because if you had to do the same with actual steel molds it would cost a fortune. Those machines are expensive and will never see widespread use. Sure, some folks could start up small operations and make guns, but outside of personal use they'll be regulated like other manufacturers. I don't see it changing the gun debate significantly.
"There's this Fukuyamaist idea that history had ended after the Cold War and that if we could just tweak neoliberal democracy, everything's going to be fine forever; that somehow, this is like the final political form. I mean, this is ridiculous. And you can see it. There's no evidence of a political program anymore - in the world; in America. There aren't genuine politics. There's the media telling you that Barack Obama versus Mitt Romney is the epic clash of ideology when we both know they're globalist neoliberals. I mean, they both exist to preserve the interests of this relatively autonomous class of Goldman Sachs bankers." Who ever heard of Fukuyamaism before? Who thinks everything will be or could be fine forever? The kid talks as if this is some widely held belief, which is ridiculous. Maybe it's just part of his marketing gimmick. Now on the latter part of what he says though, there's actually a shred of common ground I share with him. Which is -- a disdain, or wariness, of what I have referred to before as the 'rich elite'. There is absolutely a system in place, both in the US and worldwide, where the wealthiest individuals and corporations continue to amass more wealth and power. I've posted such facts and figures before, like the top 5% receiving 81.7% of the new wealth created over the past three decades. This wild economic inequality is one of the world's great problems. Where the kid goes wrong however is calling both Obama and Romney equal in their support of the rich elite, calling them both "neoliberals". Neoliberalism encompasses right wing ideologies such as small government, private sector deregulation and free markets. I doubt few politicians actively or consciously support the rich elite, but the power and wealth of this group is not something that can be changed easily or quickly. It has evolved in proportion to the spread of capitalism. To gauge whether a political leader is acting to "preserve" this group, simply look to their policies. Policies like financial regulation, higher taxation of high incomes, the Buffett Rule, and expansion of social programs, act to counter the forces favoring the rich elite. Obama is absolutely not a neoliberal. Romney, and several posters on this board, yes.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybinswanger/2013/09/17/give-back-yes-its-time-for-the-99-to-give-back-to-the-1/
The progressives will have a heyday (sp) griping about this.
I have known Harry for about 35 years.
Don B
Don B's post and article ("Give Back? Yes, It's Time For The 99% To Give Back To The 1%") is a great example of neoliberal propaganda. No surprise from the neoliberal Forbes magazine.
Don B's post and article ("Give Back? Yes, It's Time For The 99% To Give Back To The 1%") is a great example of neoliberal propaganda. No surprise from the neoliberal Forbes magazine.Yep, economic liberalism represents everything you hate and despise. You'll never get over your misconception that profits are spent on yachts and planes, when they're actually mostly reinvested and grow the economy, making everyone wealthier. Bono came around. He now believes capitalism, not aid, is the key to alleviating poverty.
Neoliberalism encompasses right wing ideologies such as small government, private sector deregulation and free markets.
So you support big government, extensive private sector regulation, and markets that aren't free. That's a recipe for stagnation or disaster. Name one country that's benefited from those policies. While I believe you're a social democrat, that sounds a lot like communism or facism.
Punter 127
09-19-13, 02:51
Nice move Daddy.
I watched the video, in particular to see what quote DR connected with. Interesting stuff. I have seen those stereolithography machines (AKA 3 D printers) in person and the molded prototypes they can generate. They're immensely useful in design iteration because if you had to do the same with actual steel molds it would cost a fortune. Those machines are expensive and will never see widespread use. Sure, some folks could start up small operations and make guns, but outside of personal use they'll be regulated like other manufacturers. I don't see it changing the gun debate significantly.[snip]
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." -- Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943.
"Where a calculator on the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs 30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh only 1.5 tons." -- Popular Mechanics, 1949
"I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won't last out the year." -- The editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall, 1957.
"But what...is it good for?" -- Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip.
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." -- Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977.
"640K ought to be enough for anybody." -- Attributed to Bill Gates, 1981, but believed to be an urban legend.
"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us." -- Western Union internal memo, 1876.
"The Americans have need of the telephone, but we do not. We have plenty of messenger boys." -- Sir William Preece, chief engineer of the British Post Office, 1876.
"The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?" -- David Sarnoff's associates in response to his urgings for investment in the radio in the 1920s.
"While theoretically and technically television may be feasible, commercially and financially it is an impossibility." -- Lee DeForest, inventor.
"The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in order to earn better than a 'C', the idea must be feasible." -- A Yale University management professor in response to Fred Smith's paper proposing reliable overnight delivery service. (Smith went on to found Federal Express Corp.)
"Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" -- H. M. Warner, Warner Brothers, 1927.
"I'm just glad it'll be Clark Gable who's falling on his face and not Gary Cooper." -- Gary Cooper on his decision not to take the leading role in "Gone With the Wind."
"A cookie store is a bad idea. Besides, the market research reports say America likes crispy cookies, not soft and chewy cookies like you make." -- Response to Debbi Fields' idea of starting Mrs. Fields' Cookies.
"We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out." -- Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962.
"Radio has no future. Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. X-rays will prove to be a hoax." -- William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, British scientist, 1899.No doubt Esten is a card carrying member of the 'flat-earth society'.
jejejejeje.
There is absolutely a system in place, both in the US and worldwide, where the wealthiest individuals and corporations continue to amass more wealth and power. I've posted such facts and figures before, like the top 5% receiving 81.7% of the new wealth created over the past three decades.I just love Esten's choice of words such as "amass" and "receiving", each one designed to inflame the sensitivities of the LIV (Low Information Voter) by invoking images of wealth falling from the sky unfairly onto the hands of a few selected individuals.
Nevertheless, because I do not live my life in envy of the success of others, I read his comments differently, to wit:
There is absolutely a system in place, both in the US and worldwide, where the wealthiest most successful individuals and corporations continue to amass create more wealth and power. I've posted such facts and figures before, like the top 5% receiving creating 81.7% of the new wealth created over the past three decades.
Esten, I've got some news for you: Wealth is not something that falls from the sky. Wealth is created as a result of human endeavors. I worked my whole life and I created some wealth for myself. If your lazy, clueless, crybaby LIV's would get of their collective asses and get to work, they too could create some wealth for themselves.
Wealth is not a zero sum game. There is no limit to the wealth we could all create for ourselves. If everybody worked, we could all be "rich" in whatever way each of us may define that word. We could all live in better houses, drive nicer cars, eat better food, enjoy better medical care, etc., etc., etc.
Thanks,
Jackson.
Wealth is not a zero sum game. I just took a look at the Russell 3000 index, which represents 98% of the investable USA Equity market. Here are some trailing 12 month figures:
Sales: 13 trillion dollars (Compare to GDP of 16 trillion dollars).
Earnings: 1.13 trillion dollars (8.4% of Sales).
Dividends: 400 billion dollars (3% of Sales).
For every dollar in sales, 3 cents are paid as dividends to owners. Of this 3 cents received by shareholders, how much is re-invested in the economy? My guess would be north of 2/3 rds. This would mean maybe a penny out of every dollar of revenues gets spent by the owners, and is not re-invested.
So around 1% of any increase in revenues of business goes into the pockets of the owners of the private sector, money that they spend as they choose. The rest goes into growing the economy, and helps everyone. Wealth indeed is not a zero sum game in a capitalist "neoliberal" economy. Unfortunately, as Esten says, Obama is not a neoliberal. He believes in putting more and more money into government, which does not grow the economy.
You can argue about my assumptions, what percentage of dividends are re-invested and whether financials of public companies are representative of the private sector as a whole. But any way you slice or dice it, most of the benefits of wealth creation are not accruing to the holders of the wealth.
http://www.drhurd.com/index.php/Daily-Dose-of-Reason/Politics-Government/The-Post-American-Economy.html
More reality that the progressives will deny.
Don B.
Daddy Rulz
09-19-13, 16:24
Not getting involved in the left right thing, still think they both suck.
"There's this Fukuyamaist idea that history had ended after the Cold War and that if we could just tweak neoliberal democracy, everything's going to be fine forever; that somehow, this is like the final political form. I mean, this is ridiculous. And you can see it. There's no evidence of a political program anymore - in the world; in America. There aren't genuine politics. There's the media telling you that Barack Obama versus Mitt Romney is the epic clash of ideology when we both know they're globalist neoliberals. I mean, they both exist to preserve the interests of this relatively autonomous class of Goldman Sachs bankers." What I know is they are buying shit loads of this http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/03/11/1-6-billion-rounds-of-ammo-for-homeland-security-its-time-for-a-national-conversation/.
And doing this http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/president-obama-new-steps-gun-control-article-1.1440413.
In my fevered brain it looks like preparing to suppress an insurgency. I'm afraid Jefferson was right;
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. I know he was specifically talking about education in the above quote but it's germane. There is simply no question that the US government is preparing for a much more invasive state given the powers under the NDAA and other legislation, the build up of surveillance infrastructure, and the preparation for domestic oppression by force.
See what he said by "slow operation?" I won't argue that limiting gun access to convicted felons is a bad thing but what if the conviction was for growing weed twenty years ago? What about embezzlement, or other non-violent convictions? Then we continue to magazine capacity? What about styles of guns? The question is always the same, "What do you need X for?" Then Y, then Z? I'm telling you if something doesn't happen to change this trend, those of us that are 50+ won't even recognize the USA that our great grandchildren live in.
I maintain that the kid is correct, it's not a left / right thing, that's a distraction. It's a Goldman Sacs / Hunt Brothers thing, which eventually will include all the people like the guys here that have done "well" for themselves and generally argue for the conservative side.
Disclaimer; I'm not saying that making money and being successful are evil and agree with Cheese that people who have done "well" should be willing to do some good with it but in a manner that they see fit, rather than through legislation. I'm not saying that they have to, nor should be compelled to, I said I think they should. I think Gates and Buffet are great examples of this thinking and personally admire it. I do not wish to, nor will I debate it, it's my opinion and is unlikely to change.
Mis dos centavos.
Not getting involved in the left right thing, still think they both suck.
Disclaimer; I'm not saying that making money and being successful are evil and agree with Cheese that people who have done "well" should be willing to do some good with it but in a manner that they see fit, rather than through legislation. I'm not saying that they have to, nor should be compelled to, I said I think they should. I think Gates and Buffet are great examples of this thinking and personally admire it. I do not wish to, nor will I, debate it, it's my opinion and is unlikely to change.
Mis dos centavos.There is a difference between benevolence and altruism.
Don B.
Daddy Rulz
09-19-13, 20:33
There is a difference between benevolence and altruism.
Don B.But not nearly as much as the Objectivist's claim. If you read their stuff, one is good and the other terrible, I don't agree. I believe they have similar appearance through different motivations.
Some people have a natural altruism, they are rare, St Francis, this new Pope (I think, time will tell), are examples. They are driven to sacrifice to improve the circumstances of others. They are not bad people who are doing terrible which cause them to develop huge resentments and hate the people they helpt as Ayn would have us believe.
Benevolence is more of a choice, one chooses to develop the quality of compassion and help others. This is Gates and Buffet, they will never skip meals or make their children suffer from a desire to find the cure for malaria. Andrew Carnegie was certainly one of these men as well. I don't like it though when people say that one is better, that benevolent people are more moral. All of those guys are or were fiercely competitive people, Carnegie knew what an ABSOLUTE dick and brutal tyrant Frick was and did nothing until public sentiment after the Homestead massacre forced him. They do what they need to do to be able to look at themselves in the morning when they shave. If they didn't then the Gates Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation would have different names.
There is a difference between benevolence and altruism.
Don B.Just think Silvo Berlusconi (I am innocent, I am a victim). Sounds familiar?
And not too far behind, Jamie Dimon (not as sensational), but of the same DNA. JP Morgan, fined again $920 million, but laughing all the way to the boardroom. Like Kobe getting a technical foul, a $5,000 hamburger, that's all to it. Tax deductible, I believe.
Big contributors to the economy? As if the table is not pre-set up for them by the legislators. And we keep talking about a level playing field.
Not talking about your struggling mom-pop shop selling home-made guacamole dip or your start-ups. Detroit can take a lesson from Singapore about a business investment zone, look at Subic Bay's comeback from the dead.
No complaints from me, the ride on Wall Street has been very rewarding since 2008. Up for this year at 20%. Not sure who to thank, the AP Investor Board? Of course, Obama had nothing to do with it. Yes, it could all end tomorrow, World War III is just around the corner. Then I would have to make do with a ride on the Chao Praya Express Boat instead of my own yacht. But that's what life is all about, adjusting, mixing and changing as the world evolves and revolves. Nothing ever stays the same. (A BIG SIGH).
Really looking forward to it, big time. Kamakazi style tactics by the Tea Party.
What I know is they are buying shit loads of this http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/03/11/1-6-billion-rounds-of-ammo-for-homeland-security-its-time-for-a-national-conversation/.Please realize that Forbes is a right wing media outlet, just like the Wall Street Journal. Steve Forbes is a long time outspoken Republican with a very pro-Wall Street bias, and WSJ is owned by the same company as Fox News.
I'm afraid the Forbes article you linked is pure conspiracy-mongering, which is actually a surprise to me that Forbes would stoop so low. Notice how smoothly the article goes from describing an ammunition purchase to statements like "stockpiling enough ammo for a 20-year war in the homeland"? Doesn't that strike you as odd? When even another right-wing media outlet (Breitbart) calls the Forbes article a myth, you know something is not right.
MYTH: The estimated 1.6 billion rounds purchased by DHS would sustain the military for over 20 years.
FACT: This myth was even reported by Forbes. While this number is comparable to rounds expended at the height of combat in Iraq, the actual ammunition produced for the military annually is, quite ironically, 1.6 billion rounds. Many conspiracy theorists are not accounting for ammunition expended in training.
A well-trained police officer will expend a minimum of 2,000 to 5,000 rounds per year, yet may never fire their weapon in defense. There is a significant disparity between rounds fired for training and those fired in a real world scenario.
Similarly, DHS agencies train quarterly, with an expectation of using 1,000 rounds per year per firearm for training and qualifications, while an officer may never fire a single round from their firearm on duty.
THE GREAT DHS AMMUNITION STOCKPILE MYTH
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/04/The-Great-DHS-Ammunition-Stockpile-Myth
"Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted."
The children in the US are subjected to 12 years of leftist brainwashing, altruism, etc.
Lenin would be proud.
Don B.
"Give me four years to teach the children and.
The seed I have sown will never be uprooted.
The children in the US are subjected to 12 years of leftist brainwashing, altruism, etc.
Lenin would be proud.
Don B.Marching with the Salvation Army at the Rose Parade?
Marching with the Salvation Army at the Rose Parade?Nothing like a well thought out intellectual response.
I think you are proof of my point.
Don B.
Nothing like a well thought out intellectual response.
I think you are proof of my point.
Don B.Just trying to say that in the end, our lives will reflect how we treat our family members, friends & neighbors. That's all that really counts. Nothing ever really changes, at most, only for a short time. Civilizations come, and then, they go.
I just took a look at the Russell 3000 index, which represents 98% of the investable USA Equity market. Here are some trailing 12 month figures:
Sales: 13 trillion dollars (Compare to GDP of 16 trillion dollars).
Earnings: 1.13 trillion dollars (8.4% of Sales).
Dividends: 400 billion dollars (3% of Sales).It bears repeating: Democrats support capitalism, business, making money and getting rich. But we think there need to be some rules and regulations in place so the workers who also play a vital role in wealth creation get a fair shake, and that people have a reasonable shot (not a long shot) at getting ahead if they work for it. As far as small businesses, like Jackson's or Doppel's, we respect, admire and support them. If you find that laughable, that's only because you've been lied to by Republicans and right wing media to believe otherwise. Our critiques of capitalism are mainly reserved for big business and Wall Street.
Look at Tiny's numbers. He tries to downplay the dividends, saying they're only 3% of sales and they go to the owners. What's really going on is this: 35% of profits go to Wall Street. $400 billion a year. The vast majority of the "shareholders" are Wall Street financial firms and the very wealthy individuals they represent. Do they "earn" their dividend payments? Not really, they park huge sums of cash in investments with little risk (it's an insider's game, and these companies aren't start-ups anymore) and basically extract free money from the system. They make financial transactions on their computers, and collect regular 6 and 7-figure payments from corporations. Nice "work" if you can get it. The real work comes from the sweat and ingenuity of the company's workers and management.
And this folks, is how Wall Street leeches off the American worker. When you buy gas, when you buy an I-Phone, when you buy a computer, when you buy skin care products, toilet paper, cereal, when you get a loan or mortgage, etc etc (the list goes on and on), you are paying into a system where millionares and billionaires receive 35% of the profits generated. $400 billion a year, for basically doing nothing.
Wall Street LeechesI agree with part of your post. While Wall Street's share of corporate profits would be in single digits, in the middle of the last decade profits from the entire US financial sector peaked at something like 35% to 40% of total corporate profits. See Figure 1:
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1101&context=intl
Banks, insurance companies and brokers don't make cars, construct houses, etc. They're the grease that lubricates the machine, not the machine. After the crisis of 2008/2009, their percentage of total profits plummeted. It may have been negative. Financial profits have since risen to about 20% of corporate profits, which still seems high. It's not as bad as the health care sector, which eats up 17% of GDP -- profits are only a small percentage of revenues -- but still 20% seems like an outsized percentage of the profits for the "grease".
Why? I'm not an expert on the industry so am not sure. Some of it is because of moral hazards created by government. For example, the government provides implied guarantees of derivative contracts. Then it allows a company like Bear Stearns that buys and sells these contracts to operate with equity that's only 3% of its capitalization. Actually, I remember looking at Citibank in 2008, and their tangible book value as a percentage of capitalization was 1.5%. And the government was supplying an explicit guarantee for Citibank's depositors and also an implied "too big to fail" guarantee to the stock and bondholders. The Fed's policies, keeping interest rates low, under Greenspan and Bernanke probably also had something to do with large financial profits. But, of course, low rates are also required to avoid bankrupting the government, now that the debt is north of 16 trillion.
There are fallacies in your post besides "35% of profits go to Wall Street". Democrats support small business with words and do the opposite with actions. Top marginal tax rates on successful small businesses range from 43.4% to 56.7%, depending on the state. Democrats fought tooth and nail to make that happen. For large corporations, the rates are lower, from 35% to 45%. Democrats are also more responsible than Republicans for making the tax and regulatory systems complicated. A complicated system is bad for everyone, but worse for small business, that doesn't have the legions of lawyers and accountants to take advantage of special write- offs and comply with thousands of regulations. Some Republicans are trying to do something about this, but no Democrats.
The last half of your post is riddled with misconceptions. I'll say the same thing you've said about some of my posts, maybe with good reason it's so screwed up it really doesn't merit a reply. I'm not sure, but suspect pension funds and mutual funds own the largest percentage of corporate America. The fact that profits are a small percentage of revenues, and that most profits are reinvested, means zip to you. You don't like profits, if they have any association with a "millionaire or billionaire". All I can figure out is that you want the government to own the means of production, that is, you're a communist, but you won't admit it to yourself. Come out of the closet Esten. I wear the neoliberal badge you pinned on me with pride. It feels good.
Tiny, glad to see you owning up to your neoliberalism and (somewhat) acknowledging the outsized profits Wall Street rakes in. For myself, I just explained my position on capitalism and regulation in my last post, yet now you call me a communist. That's par for the course I guess, endless mischaracterization of people on the left. I have never posted supporting government ownership of the means of production. I believe in a strong private sector and a strong government. This includes some degree of redistribution when capitalism creates wild disparities in how prosperity is shared.
I agree the numbers in my last post are a simplification and likely overestimation of the profits accruing to Wall Street from dividends. Certainly pension and retirement funds are also big beneficiaries. It is hard to find good data on this, but no doubt Wall Street and the wealthiest Americans receive a huge chunk of corporate dividend payments. And dividends are only one example of "using money to make money". I'm not saying it's wrong, most people with money to invest would seek good returns as well. But let's stop pretending this vast wealth flowing to the top is "trickling down" and creating jobs and prosperity for everyone else.
Here's another estimate that puts outsized financial industry profits in the hundreds of billions ($280 billion):
http://www.voxeu.org/article/where-wal-mart-when-we-need-it
We have a giant problem in this country with income and wealth inequality. Wall Street and corporate America are at the center of it. If you think that's OK you've become complacent, which is exactly where Wall Street wants you to be. Or perhaps more accurate, where neoliberal capitalists want you to be. Because some folks at the top understand the problem and agree we need to do something about it.
"Theres class warfare, all right, but its my class, the rich class, thats making war, and were winning."
- Warren Buffett
And this folks, is how Wall Street leeches off the American worker. When you buy gas, when you buy an I-Phone, when you buy a computer, when you buy skin care products, toilet paper, cereal, when you get a loan or mortgage, etc etc (the list goes on and on), you are paying into a system where millionares and billionaires receive 35% of the profits generated. $400 billion a year, for basically doing nothing.And yet (and this is the paradox for liberals) without the Wall Street "leeches" (including employee pension funds) to provide and supervise the capital investments, you wouldn't be able to "buy gas, buy an I-Phone, buy a computer, buy skin care products, toilet paper, cereal, get a loan or mortgage, etc. etc. (the list goes on and on)."
Nevertheless, for argument's sake, let's accept Esten's figure of "35%" for what he describes as "basically extract[ing] free money from the system", which I would describe as "providing, allocating and supervising capital." I suggest that if you think that 35% is too much to pay for "providing, allocating and supervising capital.", then think about what percentage we would "pay" (meaning lose) if the government was in charge of "providing, allocating and supervising capital."? 40%? 50%? 60%? What a fucking nightmare that would be.
Does anyone remember Solyndra?
Of course, Esten would have us believe that the solution would be that all of these aforementioned products and services should be provided by government organizations staffed by government employees, supervised by government bureaucrats and led by political appointees. But does anyone here really believe that the government could actually do a better and lower cost job of providing gas, I-phones, computers, skin care products, toilet paper, cereal, or loans or mortgages than the private market? Esten does, but I can only amuse myself at the thought of a government bureaucracy inventing, producing, marketing and servicing anything akin to the I-Phone.
Thanks,
Jax
Without government, at the federal, state and local level, it is my opinion that at least 20% of the people would not be employed. The private sector simply cannot produce goods and services at a competitive price if it has to employ the 20% who cannot produce anything but hot air and shuffle paper. To that extent, government provides a valuable service to the taxpayer who can produce something. Government is the employer of last resort that lets producers make I-phones, etc.
Tres3.
Really looking forward to it, big time. Kamakazi style tactics by the Tea Party.Me too!
I say "starve the beast"!
It's the ONLY way we'll ever stop the growth of entitlements.
That is, the only way short of a complete financial collapse, which is where we're headed now.
Let's do it!
Thanks,
Jax
For myself, I just explained my position on capitalism and regulation in my last post, yet now you call me a communist. That's par for the course I guess, endless mischaracterization of people on the left. I have never posted supporting government ownership of the means of production. I believe in a strong private sector and a strong government.
What's really going on is this: 35% of profits go to Wall Street. $400 billion a year. The vast majority of the "shareholders" are Wall Street financial firms and the very wealthy individuals they represent. Do they "earn" their dividend payments? Not really, they park huge sums of cash in investments with little risk (it's an insider's game, and these companies aren't start-ups anymore) and basically extract free money from the system. They make financial transactions on their computers, and collect regular 6 and 7-figure payments from corporations. Nice "work" if you can get it. The real work comes from the sweat and ingenuity of the company's workers and management. If you want to eliminate the share of profit (i.e. dividends) paid to owners of corporations because that represents "free money" and instead allocate that small percentage of revenues to workers and management, what do you call it? Sounds like Communism to me.
You're deluding yourself. While you may think you believe in a strong private sector, the measures you favor weaken it.
If you want to eliminate the share of profit (i.e. dividends) paid to owners of corporations because that represents "free money" and instead allocate that small percentage of revenues to workers and management, what do you call it? Sounds like Communism to me.
You're deluding yourself. While you may think you believe in a strong private sector, the measures you favor weaken it.He is easily deluded.
Don B.
UPDATE 1-Hedge funds warm to Apple; Omega re-enters, Soros buys more
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/14/hedgefunds-filings-apple-idUSL2N0GF21U20130814
Hedge fund guys like Leon Cooperman, David Einhorn, George Soros, Carl Icahn, and numerous others have purchased big stakes in Apple. What's behind their investment? Do they want to help a struggling startup get off the ground? Do they want to create jobs? Nope. Apple has an estimated $156 billion in cash and investments. Like many large corporations, Apple doesn't need any investment. What these guys are up to is clear. Making a buck. Free money in dividends and anticipated share gains.
Icahn said Apple has the ability to do a $150 billion buyback now by borrowing funds at 3 percent. "If Apple does this now and earnings increase at only 10 percent, the stock - even keeping the same multiple currently - should trade at $700 a share," Icahn said.What a nice guy, Carl Icahn has a suggestion on how Apple can use it's financial position to help him (and his wealthy clients) get even richer. LOL! And then we've got guys like Tiny calling him an "owner" and trying to frame critics as communists. I haven't proposed any laws to force corporations to steer profits from dividends to workers. What I do strongly support however is the Buffett Rule, which makes a ton of sense. People making millions and billions off financial investments shouldn't get a special tax break. Warren Buffett had the good sense to recognize these folks shouldn't be paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries.
If you think these leeches are "job creators", you're a sucker for Wall Street and for the Republican Party.
And yet (and this is the paradox for liberals) without the Wall Street "leeches" (including employee pension funds) to provide and supervise the capital investments, you wouldn't be able to "buy gas, buy an I-Phone, buy a computer, buy skin care products, toilet paper, cereal, get a loan or mortgage, etc. etc. (the list goes on and on)."
Only true when a company needs money to grow. For large profitable corporations, it's pure leeching.
Nevertheless, for argument's sake, let's accept Esten's figure of "35%" for what he describes as "basically extract[ing] free money from the system", which I would describe as "providing, allocating and supervising capital." I suggest that if you think that 35% is too much to pay for "providing, allocating and supervising capital.", then think about what percentage we would "pay" (meaning lose) if the government was in charge of "providing, allocating and supervising capital."? 40%? 50%? 60%? What a fucking nightmare that would be.
According to this mentality, you shouldn't complain no matter how much a company charges, because it would always be worse if the government provided the good/service. ROTFLMAO !! Thanks a good one, thanks. Nevermind that nobody is proposing the government do this. You've got the perfect excuse to suffer all manner of shoddy and exploitative practices from the private sector.
WorldTravel69
09-25-13, 02:40
Washington Post (blog).
It is bullshit.
Ted Cruz launches faux filibuster as Senate readies spending bill vote.
It means nothing, It is not a Filibuster, it has no Votes to be voted on. It is just cold / hot air.
No votes will be cast.
He is Rookie, that knows nothing about how the Government Runs. A Tea Bager.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57604284/mcconnell-bucks-cruz-wont-filibuster-budget-bill/
Only true when a company needs money to grow. For large profitable corporations, it's pure leeching.
Not true. Large companies issue bonds, borrow money from banks, take payment via credit cards, use letters of credit for commerce, hedge costs and income, etc.
According to this mentality, you shouldn't complain no matter how much a company charges, because it would always be worse if the government provided the good/service. Thanks a good one, thanks. Nevermind that nobody is proposing the government do this. You've got the perfect excuse to suffer all manner of shoddy and exploitative practices from the private sector.
If you take the profits from the owners (shareholders) because they represent "free money", then who's left to do these things except government? People are going to risk money out of the goodness of their hearts? You have excessive confidence in government's ability to manage everything btw.
About your other post, it's like El Queso said, this is mental masturbation, the same thing over and over again. You trot out Warren Buffet. I say he's a self-serving hypocrite. You say dividends are free money and should be taxed heavily. I say they're essential for efficient allocation of capital. Apple provides an example, although perhaps not a good one. If it has a ton of cash it's just going to sit on forever, then the money is better used by companies with growth opportunities. The cash should be distributed to shareholders so they can re-invest. This doesn't make sense however if their shareholders pay a large tax on dividends, as you would prefer. I have no opinion on people like Icahn, one way or the other. What upsets you the most is probably that there's another rich guy about to make a profit, which is unconscionable. That money should go to government.
You've got the perfect excuse to suffer all manner of shoddy and exploitative practices from the private sector.Esten should travel around Central and South America and see the results of government subsidized "import substitution".
Tres3.
Not true. Large companies companies issue bonds, borrow money from banks, take payment via credit cards, use letters of credit for commerce, hedge costs and income, etc. In many cases this is just more leeching. For example, the company borrows money to buy back stock, the stock price goes up which benefits the hedge funds, and the company now additionally pays interest to a financial institution. The latter also probably paying a dividend. So the financial industry latches on to the profitable corporation to tap it's cash in multiple ways.
Do a search on "Hedge fund targets" and see all the companies hedge funds have targeted. One study found: "We further find that employees of target firms experience a reduction in work hours and stagnation in wages despite an increase in labor productivity." (ref. forum.johnson.cornell.edu/faculty/hk722/papers/real_effects_activism.pdf). Remember, increase in productivity = forced to work your ass off even harder.
Like I said, Wall Street leeches off the American worker. If you think this is somehow good for the economy, you're deluded. We can implement measures like the Buffett Rule that can help offset the leeching to some degree, while preserving the profit motive of legitimate investors, and using the tax revenues for more productive purposes.
"We further find that employees of target firms experience a reduction in work hours and stagnation in wages despite an increase in labor productivity." (ref. forum.johnson.cornell.edu/faculty/hk722/papers/real_effects_activism.pdf). Remember, increase in productivity = forced to work your ass off even harder.Productivity = output of goods and services per unit of labor.
Increase in productivity = the only way to increase output (and prosperity) if the amount of available capital and labor are fixed.
Work your ass off even harder = accomplish more
Improvements in technology = the primary reason for increased productivity
You mentioned hedge funds that make companies borrow money to buy back stock or equity. I share your concerns about certain hedge and private equity funds that cause some American corporations to take on too much debt. And I lay the blame squarely on government, primarily Democrats, for creating a tax system that rewards debt (interest is fully deductible from income) while penalizing equity (distributions to shareholders, i.e. dividends or "free money", are double taxed). That's what drives these deals, not trying to get more out of American workers.
Actually, Wall Street executives and hedge fund managers have traditionally supported Democrats more than Republicans. There are reasons why and they have nothing to do with which party they think would be best for the general public.
As to your bigger point, leeching, you'll recall that I agreed with you as to the share of profits of the financial industry. Your and my analysis of the causes and the way to fix the system are very different however. I believe the causes are perversions of the free enterprise system and have provided several examples. I think you believe free markets are the problem.
Washington Post (blog).
It is bullshit.
Ted Cruz launches faux filibuster as Senate readies spending bill vote.
It means nothing, It is not a Filibuster, it has no Votes to be voted on. It is just cold / hot air.
No votes will be cast.
He is Rookie, that knows nothing about how the Government Runs. A Tea Bager.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57604284/mcconnell-bucks-cruz-wont-filibuster-budget-bill/Tea bagger? You should be above that WT69. Leave the obnoxious, vulgar insults of your political opponents to the experts, like Bill Maher, Barack Obama and Rachel Maddow: http://theweek.com/article/index/202620/the-evolution-of-the-word-tea-bagger.
You may be right. A 21 hour filibuster and then he votes to advance the legislation he's protesting. I voted for Cruz. Now I'm thinking I should have voted for the libertarian.
Only true when a company needs money to grow. For large profitable corporations, it's pure leeching.
According to this mentality, you shouldn't complain no matter how much a company charges, because it would always be worse if the government provided the good/service. Thanks a good one, thanks. Nevermind that nobody is proposing the government do this. You've got the perfect excuse to suffer all manner of shoddy and exploitative practices from the private sector.http://www.drhurd.com/index.php/Daily-Dose-of-Reason/Politics-Government/Harry-Reid-s-Conspiracy-Theory.html
Esten, et al will not agree with this.
Don B.
WorldTravel69
10-08-13, 02:17
Why, No posts in the last few days. Come on, Cop to it, you backed the Wrong party?
Boehner says he does not have enough Votes to pass a clean CR. He Lies. What is needed is 216.
95 Demos have signed agreements to vote for it and 22 Republicans have stated that they will vote for a clean CR.
That makes 217 votes for a clean bill.
Exon who is the cock sucker?
Ted Cruz, a Canadian trying to bring down the USA Government!
Who is the home grown Terrorist!?
Where is his Passport?!!
Is the party falling apart.
Paul Ryan?
The rookie Ted Cruz is screwing the Party and the Country.
Boeh-ner is kissing ass. (Boner)
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/04/boehner-likened-to-crying-baby-in-new-ad/
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/10/republicans-lose-ground-vs-obama-in-the-shutdown-blame-game/
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-gop-became-the-party-of-the-rich-20111109
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/07/shutdown-aversion-republicans-may-have-just-lost-the-house.html
Member #4112
10-08-13, 14:41
Last time I checked 95 + 22 = 117.
Must be that new math where you get 217.
WorldTravel69
10-08-13, 22:22
When I reached for the wine.
Last time I checked 95 + 22 = 117.
Must be that new math where you get 217.
Punter 127
10-09-13, 07:45
Ted Cruz, a Canadian trying to bring down the USA Government!
Who is the home grown Terrorist!?
Where is his Passport?!!Which would you prefer Canadian or Kenyan?
Is the party falling apart.
Nope just exposing the RINO(s).
The rookie Ted Cruz is screwing the Party and the Country.
In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot..~ Samuel Langhorne Clemens
WorldTravel69
10-09-13, 19:08
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/19/ted-cruz-releases-birth-certificate-and-is-apparently-a-canadian-citizen-but/
https://www.google.com/search?q=obama's+birth+certificate&newwindow=1&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=mcVVUvGzE87_qAHXk4 HwAw&ved=0 CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1920&bih=955&dpr=1.
Which would you prefer Canadian or Kenyan?
Nope just exposing the RINO(s).
In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot..~ Samuel Langhorne Clemens
Punter 127
10-10-13, 03:34
So what's you point? Nobody cares about this BS.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/19/ted-cruz-releases-birth-certificate-and-is-apparently-a-canadian-citizen-but/
https://www.google.com/search?q=obama's+birth+certificate&newwindow=1&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=mcVVUvGzE87_qAHXk4 HwAw&ved=0 CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1920&bih=955&dpr=1.Apparently Cruz really scares you guys. (he should) And if this is the best you've got to use against him, I think your little low on ammo amigo.
Oh BTW, congratulations you have now lowered yourself to "birther" status. To the best of my recollection you are the first "birther" on the forum.
October 17.
I am sure you all have met and known people who are very inflexible. I have a friend who once he made up his mind to wash his car, he could not be persuaded to change his plans even if the Penthouse centerfold was waiting for him.
You know, all about principles, but no common sense.
October 17.
I am sure you all have met and known people who are very inflexible. I have a friend who once he made up his mind to wash his car, he could not be persuaded to change his plans even if the Penthouse centerfold was waiting for him.
You know, all about principles, but no common sense.Your example has nothing to do with principles. Further I think you are confusing common sense with pragmatism.
Don B
Punter 127
10-10-13, 16:14
"October 17".
Americans deserve better!
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006.
"October 17".
Americans deserve better!
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006.Not that I am a Obama fan, but that kind of hits the nail on the head!
"October 17".
Americans deserve better!
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006.This was before he personally was in a position to use the borrowed money to buy votes.
Let's discuss what is really important. Kris & Bruce Jenner have split! The Kardashian saga continues. It's really a shame that a fine Armenian name has to be dragged into the toxic wasteland that make up American entertainment today. Down the slippery slope. Just ask the Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Spaniards for that trusted formula for self destruction.
WorldTravel69
10-10-13, 22:50
Gee I wonder how this post got changed.
Read the green print.
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
Punter 127
10-11-13, 00:35
"October 17".
Americans deserve better!
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006.
Not that I am a Obama fan, but that kind of hits the nail on the head!
This was before he personally was in a position to use the borrowed money to buy votes.
I agreed with Senator Obama's words in 2006 (though skeptical), and I still agree with those words today, but it seems President Obama has trouble living by the words of Senator Obama.
Now Obama says "Nothing has changed," and "I voted against a debt ceiling increase at the time because I had some concerns about what President (George W). Bush was doing."
Mr President many Republican and Independents along with some Democrats have concerns about what you are doing!
Daddy Rulz
10-11-13, 18:02
I know it came from Huff Po and it was done by NBC so the guys on the right might hate the source, but I'm right there on the sentiment. Get rid of all of them.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/11/government-shutdown-fire-congress_n_4085276.html
This one is way to the left of anybody on the board, yes including those that argue for the left, but I love the URL. Warning to the conservatives, don't click on it will send your P through the roof. I'm not saying I like the message, I dig the name. I couldn't believe it was available.
http://fuckyoucongress.com/
I wonder if www.fuckyou[insertchiefexecutivename].com is available as well?
Obama holding 4 dueces, GOP holding aces & kings. Boehner knows he needs to fold, but Cruz, kamakazi style, wants to go all in. All principles, no common sense.
Punter 127
10-12-13, 02:00
Nero Obama fiddles golfs while Rome USA burns.
Obama is the leader, it's his job to bring the sides together.
Nero Obama fiddles golfs while Rome USA burns.
Obama is the leader, it's his job to bring the sides together.He can't do it.
He does not have, and never has had, the executive management skills necessary to be the chief executive of the largest organization in the world.
His failure in this case to bring both sides together and forge a compromise is simply the latest example of his appalling lack of leadership skills.
Of course, none of that matters to the LIV (Low Information Voter) who always votes for the politican who promises them the most free money.
In the mean time, the USA burns.
Thanks,
Jax.
Obama holding 4 dueces, GOP holding aces & kings. Boehner knows he needs to fold, but Cruz, kamakazi style, wants to go all in. All principles, no common sense.It is the compromising of principles over the last 100 years that has brought us to this point.
Don B
You can't forge a compromise with someone who refuses to compromise. How does that work? You schmooze, wine and dine them, and somehow magically they agree to compromise? The Republicans / Tea Party think compromise means capitulation. They seem incapable of recognizing that in a divided government, holding power in only 1 of 3 branches, compromise is necessary.
Since they didn't get their way in the election, Republicans waited until now to manufacture a crisis, to try and force their way. They are holding much of the federal government hostage. If it was a company, and some employees were blocking the provision of the company's goods and services to get their way, the CEO would have them fired, if not arrested.
The Republican party is now ripping itself apart. A fight between the pure ideologues and those with more common sense. Obama and Dems just need to stand by and watch the infighting worsen. Think it's bad now, just wait until we breach the debt limit. All of this could have been avoided by some simple common sense and compromise a long time ago. As it stands now, we'll just have to let the consequences of rigid ideology play out.
NBC/WSJ poll, October 7-9, 2013
Barack Obama............ 47% Positive, 41% Negative, Diff 6
Democratic Party........ 39% Positive, 40% Negative, Diff -1
Republican Party......... 24% Positive, 53% Negative, Diff -29
Tea Party Movement... 21% Positive, 47% Negative, Diff -26
Of course, none of that matters to the LIV (Low Information Voter)
Uh, that would be me. I voted for Obama and even supported the Affordable Care Act. I did so without even reading the fucking thing.
And now, we're all fucked. Because of people like me. Yup, I'll just come right out and say it: because of uninformed people like me -- people who were either too high, lazy or busy to read this piece of shit fucking bill that we supported -- we're all straight fucked. Well, not all. Some of you clever bastards figured out a way to begin a new life outside of sex prison in the land of abundant pussy.
But assholes like me are now forced to live with the consequences of our actions.
Here's why: the Affordable Care Act is neither affordable nor caring. It's a massive pig-fuck bloated piece of legislation that is the worst type of forced-socialism I have ever read. Yup, I actually read it. And then I got the letter. The letter that said because of provisions mandated by the ACA, my insurance was going up 128%. That's not a typo, one hundred twenty eight fucking percent. Why? Because insurance carriers (in my case Kaiser) are no longer allowed to offer catastrophic care coverage (perfect for the traveling ***** monger like myself). Instead, in order to comply with the ACA, they had to cover me with all sorts of care I couldn't give a shit about.
Don't believe me? Try logging onto www.healthcare.gov and be prepared to be violated wrongly. For a middle-class working Joe like me, you'll be shocked at how expensive healthcare has just become. Or WILL become after January 1, 2014, when many of the provisions come into effect.
So, to those of you who voted for Romney, and on behalf of the assholes like myself who voted for Obama, I'd like to apologize. Every day I'm reading on www.sfgate.com and other so-called "liberal" publications about how many Obama supporters are reeling with sticker shock on what the ACA really means. If you're a lazy, unemployed bum, this bill is for you. If you're a working-class American, be prepare for the shock of your life. My guess is the individual mandate and the penalties for non-compliance will be overturned. It's going to happen when taxpayers start to receive "the letter" from their carriers.
As an aside, most on this board would be surprised at how conservative San Francisco really is. Just check out the comments section of and article on sfgate (the online version of San Francisco's largest daily, The San Francisco Chronicle).
You can't forge a compromise with someone who refuses to compromise.Right. And it's on Obama this time. The compromise would have been to eliminate the individual mandate, and that would have ended this God damn thing dead in it's tracks. But that fucking cocksucker dug in his heels and is refusing to budge.
I swear to christ, I'm going to learn German and move to Frankfurt and open a shawarma stand. How hard could it be? At least I'll be getting laid instead of getting fucked.
Chezz, the vast majority of Americans have employer-sponsored health insurance and will see little difference. I have good health insurance, I get to keep it and my premiums aren't going up significantly more than they usually do each year. This will be the situation for most Americans. So your claim "we're all fucked" is pure emotion.
You are in a small slice of Americans that may see a big % jump in premiums. If you were buying a dirt cheap catastrophic plan, of course your premiums may go up, for the expanded coverage you mentioned. You didn't realize ACA had minimum coverage levels? And BTW, what does that 128% work out to anyway, $100 more a month? Depending on your income you may be eligible for subsidies. If not, is it really that much a hardship. I could be wrong, but you might come to appreciate some of the things you'll now have covered. The fact that you think the mandate and penalities may be overturned (won't happen) suggest to me you are still not following this too closely.
The ACA is here to stay and it's going to be more popular than some people think. Calling it a program that just helps lazy bums is ridiculous and simply doesn't wash with the large numbers of Americans that support it, or who oppose repeal. Sorry that you are getting hit, but if you dive into it there are many good things about the law.
P.S. You can't trust message boards, because amongst the valid, authentic posts are also tons of propaganda posts from right wingers. Poll numbers are a better reflection of public opinion than any message board/comments section.
Chezz, the vast majority of Americans have employer-sponsored health insurance and will see little difference. I have good health insurance, I get to keep it and my premiums aren't going up significantly more than they usually do each year. This will be the situation for most Americans. So your claim "we're all fucked" is pure emotion.
You are in a small slice of Americans that may see a big % jump in premiums. If you were buying a dirt cheap catastrophic plan, of course your premiums may go up, for the expanded coverage you mentioned. You didn't realize ACA had minimum coverage levels? And BTW, what does that 128% work out to anyway, $100 more a month? Depending on your income you may be eligible for subsidies. If not, is it really that much a hardship. I could be wrong, but you might come to appreciate some of the things you'll now have covered. The fact that you think the mandate and penalities may be overturned (won't happen) suggest to me you are still not following this too closely.
The ACA is here to stay and it's going to be more popular than some people think. Calling it a program that just helps lazy bums is ridiculous and simply doesn't wash with the large numbers of Americans that support it, or who oppose repeal. Sorry that you are getting hit, but if you dive into it there are many good things about the law.
P.S. You can't trust message boards, because amongst the valid, authentic posts are also tons of propaganda posts from right wingers. Poll numbers are a better reflection of public opinion than any message board/comments section.
Posts by left wing progressives are valid, those by others are right wing propaganda.
Is Esten immoral, amoral, hopelessly naive or just plain stupid?
Don B.
No Don, there are valid posts from both sides. But one side is also REALLY stacked with misleading information that can only be characterized as propaganda. I have witnessed this on many message boards / comments sections on the internet.
Chezz, the vast majority of Americans have employer-sponsored health insurance and will see little difference. You cannot make that assertion until the data is in. I've read the bill. The entire bill. And even employer-subsidized healthcare plans are going to take a big hit...just wait.
I have good health insurance, I get to keep it and my premiums aren't going up significantly more than they usually do each year. This will be the situation for most Americans.What do you mean, "most Americans"? Again, you have no data to go off of until after January 1. Most working Americans whose employers are offering health insurance subsidies will see a much big year-over-year increase.
So your claim "we're all fucked" is pure emotion.Well, you're right about that. It is pure emotion, and yet we're still fucked. Most people get emotional whilst getting fucked!
You are in a small slice of Americans that may see a big % jump in premiums. If you were buying a dirt cheap catastrophic plan, of course your premiums may go up, for the expanded coverage you mentioned. You didn't realize ACA had minimum coverage levels? And BTW, what does that 128% work out to anyway, $100 more a month?Dude, read the bill then get back to me. My increase was waayyy more than $100, and I didn't have dirt cheap catastrophic coverage. I paid a hefty premium, thank you very much.
Depending on your income you may be eligible for subsidies.Never taken a handout, and not starting now. I can take care of myself.
If not, is it really that much a hardship. I could be wrong, but you might come to appreciate some of the things you'll now have covered.You said it -- you're wrong. And why can't I make that decision on what I want covered?
The fact that you think the mandate and penalities may be overturned (won't happen) suggest to me you are still not following this too closely.This quote suggests you don't know me, what the fuck I'm doing in my spare time and how I feel about how my tax dollars are being spent.
The ACA is here to stay Heh-heh...that's what you think.
Calling it a program that just helps lazy bums is ridiculous and simply doesn't wash with the large numbers of Americans that support it, or who oppose repeal. Sorry that you are getting hit, but if you dive into it there are many good things about the law. P.S. You can't trust message boards, because amongst the valid, authentic posts are also tons of propaganda posts from right wingers.It is indeed a program that primarily helps the poor; which includes a huge subset of lazy bums that now feed off the system while contributing nothing in return. And the only message boards I read are this one and the ISG, because I'm more interested in pussy than having long drawn-out conversations with strangers. At least on this board, people with common interests actually meet in real life and share some good times.
Poll numbers are a better reflection of public opinion than any message board/comments section.Because people getting polled haven't felt the cold, hard steel us the US Department of Health & Human Services ramming it up their ass to grab even more of their hard-earned cash.
Esten, I believe in paying taxes and am quite liberal in nature. But I also know when to call a spade a spade. Agreeing 100% with the party line isn't healthy. There has to be someone who steps out from the shadows and says "hey boss, you're going overboard here". And while there are absolutely some positive benefits of the ACA, forcing certain types of coverage and the individual mandate were an over-reach. These provisions are going to get smoked...just watch. There are more liberals like me than you think.
Before, it was someone else getting screwed, now it's you. And tomorrow, it's your mother-in-law. But lucky me.
I just used Kaiser Permanente in LA only a few weeks ago. Everything was the same for me, $5 co payment for all procedures under my employer subsidized plan. And will continue under Medicare & ACA. Smooth entry, very well lubricated. But I did read that premiums can range widely even in the same city, somewhat like car insurance. A friend of mine was already paying close to $1000 a month for single coverage before ACA. I will check with him about his new premiums, but he did not bring this issue up. No distress or outrage.
I don't claim to have read the bill, or understand all the implications. The law is not perfect, because one side totally rejected it and was not willing to discuss it. It was passed under the emotional rhetoric of socialism vs capitalism and all the political shit that goes with it. Whose fault is is it? Everyone's, you & me, and your mother-in-law.
Dude, read the bill then get back to me. My increase was waayyy more than $100, and I didn't have dirt cheap catastrophic coverage. I paid a hefty premium, thank you very much.
.Hey, count yourself lucky. My health insurance company is cancelling all policies in my state effective December 31,2013. And you're insured by Kaiser, who from what I've read offers high quality, low cost health care by USA standards.
Health care costs, especially the cost of Medicare and Medicaid, look like they're going to play a big part in bankrupting the country. My impression is that the Affordable Care Act will get us there that much faster, but I haven't read the legislation. Being one of the few that have actually read it, do you believe it will lower costs? Improve quality?
NBC/WSJ poll, October 7-9, 2013
Barack Obama............ 47% Positive, 41% Negative, Diff 6
Democratic Party........ 39% Positive, 40% Negative, Diff -1
Republican Party......... 24% Positive, 53% Negative, Diff -29
Tea Party Movement... 21% Positive, 47% Negative, Diff -26Adolph Hitler had high approval ratings in 1930's Germany, as would have Lenin around 1918. Not that Obama is in the same league with either. However, as a believer in big government, big spending, big deficits, and high taxes, he's wrong.
I grudgingly respect Obama for actually believing in something, unlike some of his colleagues like Pelosi and Schumer who consistently sell out to the highest bidders. I however have much more respect for the Tea Party, for believing in something, for willingness to take unpopular positions, and for being right. Unfortunately, I fear they're currently on a suicide mission.
Before, it was someone else getting screwed, now it's you. And tomorrow, it's your mother-in-law. But lucky me.
I just used Kaiser Permanente in LA only a few weeks ago. Everything was the same for me, $5 co payment for all procedures under my employer subsidized plan. And will continue under Medicare & ACA. Smooth entry, very well lubricated. But I did read that premiums can range widely even in the same city, somewhat like car insurance. A friend of mine was already paying close to $1000 a month for single coverage before ACA. I will check with him about his new premiums, but he did not bring this issue up. No distress or outrage.
I don't claim to have read the bill, or understand all the implications. The law is not perfect, because one side totally rejected it and was not willing to discuss it. It was passed under the emotional rhetoric of socialism vs capitalism and all the political shit that goes with it. Whose fault is is it? Everyone's, you & me, and your mother-in-law.Not socialism vs capitalism. We are well on the road to Fascism and the system we have not is not capitalism but a mixed economy.
Fault, not mine I have been fighting the March towards totalitarianism in this country longer then most of you have been alive.
Don B
http://www.drhurd.com/index.php/Daily-Dose-of-Reason/Politics-Government/Half-of-Americans-Now-Want-a-Third-Party.html
What we need is a second party, I don't know how many years ago I said this.
Don B
Not socialism vs capitalism. We are well on the road to Fascism and the system we have not is not capitalism but a mixed economy.
Fault, not mine I have been fighting the March towards totalitarianism in this country longer then most of you have been alive.
Don BYou wouldn't know fascism from a month end sale at Macy's. Talk about suffering from a persecuted mentality. Unless you are black, and live in Mississippi in the 50's, stop talking like you know what fascism is. And no, I am not mixing fascism with racism. They are join at the hips.
Punter 127
10-13-13, 09:04
Talking out of your ass!
You wouldn't know fascism from a month end sale at Macy's. Talk about suffering from a persecuted mentality. Unless you are black, and live in Mississippi in the 50's, stop talking like you know what fascism is. And no, I am not mixing fascism with racism. They are join at the hips.Just WTF qualifies you to speak about being black in Mississippi in the 50's? Are you black? Was you in Mississippi in the 50's? Hell have you ever even been to Mississippi? Do you know which political party was in control in Mississippi in the 50? (hint: Democrat) Do you really think blacks are the only people that have ever had to deal with fascism?
Here's a black guy that thinks "Obamacare is really the worst thing that has happened to this nation since slavery'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVvz7o6CDls
You wouldn't know fascism from a month end sale at Macy's. Talk about suffering from a persecuted mentality. Unless you are black, and live in Mississippi in the 50's, stop talking like you know what fascism is. And no, I am not mixing fascism with racism. They are join at the hips.
And you are just plain stupid.
Don B
Talking out of your ass!
Just WTF qualifies you to speak about being black in Mississippi in the 50's? Are you black? Was you in Mississippi in the 50's? Hell have you ever even been to Mississippi? Do you know which political party was in control in Mississippi in the 50? (hint: Democrat) Do you really think blacks are the only people that have ever had to deal with fascism?
Here's a black guy that thinks "Obamacare is really the worst thing that has happened to this nation since slavery'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVvz7o6CDlsI did drive through Mississippi in the 80's. Yes, I know all about Ben Carson. We belong to the same tiny Christian denomination. We probably agree on about 80% of the issues. But ObamaCare is not one of them. He and I are beneficiaries of the same health care system that is out of control in terms of cost. He was probably not overpaid but I sure was.
And you are just plain stupid.
Don BBut looks can be deceiving.
Hey guys,
Please throttle this down a little.
Thanks,
Jax
You wouldn't know fascism from a month end sale at Macy's. Talk about suffering from a persecuted mentality. Unless you are black, and live in Mississippi in the 50's, stop talking like you know what fascism is. And no, I am not mixing fascism with racism. They are join at the hips.
OK, for the sake of the argument lets say I don't know what Fascism is. So how about defining it for me. While you are at it also define racism. For good measure toss in what Fascism, Socialism, Communism, Christianity, Islam and a few other isms have in common and while you are at it cite the origin of that.
Your answer is eagerly awaited.
Don B
OK, for the sake of the argument lets say I don't know what Fascism is. So how about defining it for me. While you are at it also define racism. For good measure toss in what Fascism, Socialism, Communism, Christianity, Islam and a few other isms have in common and while you are at it cite the origin of that.
Your answer is eagerly awaited.
Don BI made my point. You don't like it, too bad. You reacted, and now it's time to move on. I don't have to write a doctoral dissertation for your satisfaction. You believe in what you know, you don't need to prove anything to anybody on this board. Neither do I.
But perhaps, you would like tell us about your persecutions and sufferings under the so called perverted American liberties, and how your life has been restricted and shattered due the living under a growing fascist regime.
I was in the US recently. I know the government know everything about me. But so do the credit companies. So what! I have nothing to hide. I pay my taxes, I enjoyed my visit. Immigration was very friendly. Everything went well. The socialized medical coverage I have is the best in the world. I had peace of mind knowing that. Did not run into anybody who wanted to hurt or rob me. Must be lucky, but maybe it's where I choose to go to spent my time. And of course, somebody upstairs watching out for me.
Life is what you make of it. There you go, that's as conservative a value as you can get.
P.S. Will do, Jax
I made my point. You don't like it, too bad. You reacted, and now it's time to move on. I don't have to write a doctoral dissertation for your satisfaction. You believe in what you know, you don't need to prove anything to anybody on this board. Neither do I.
But perhaps, you would like tell us about your persecutions and sufferings under the so called perverted American liberties, and how your life has been restricted and shattered due the living under a growing fascist regime.
I was in the US recently. I know the government know everything about me. But so do the credit companies. So what! I have nothing to hide. I pay my taxes, I enjoyed my visit. Immigration was very friendly. Everything went well. The socialized medical coverage I have is the best in the world. I had peace of mind knowing that. Did not run into anybody who wanted to hurt or rob me. Must be lucky, but maybe it's where I choose to go to spent my time. And of course, somebody upstairs watching out for me.
Life is what you make of it. There you go, that's as conservative a value as you can get.
P.S. Will do, Jax
I am really dumb, just what point did you make?
Don B
Not socialism vs capitalism. We are well on the road to Fascism and the system we have not is not capitalism but a mixed economy.
Fault, not mine I have been fighting the March towards totalitarianism in this country longer then most of you have been alive.
Don BDon, Would you apply this just to the economy? Or do you also believe the USA, like Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Germany, is imperialistic, nationalistic and militaristic?
I do see that Obama, like the fascist dictators, believes businesses and people should serve the government, and not vice versa. Actually, reading about the Fascist Manifesto on Wikipedia, it sounds a little like the Democrat Party platform: "The Manifesto supported the creation of an eight-hour work day for all workers, a minimum wage, worker representation in industrial management, equal confidence in labour unions as in industrial executives and public servants, reorganization of the transportation sector, revision of the draft law on invalidity insurance, reduction of the retirement age from 65 to 55, a strong progressive tax on capital, confiscation of the property of religious institutions and abolishment of bishoprics, and revision of military contracts to allow the government to seize 85% of their profits."
WorldTravel69
10-14-13, 03:22
I Told you About This Thread.
You will make more people hating you, than friends.
That is Not Very Good Business.
Politics and Sex Do Not Mix!
Or Religion.
P.S. Kill out The Cararas Lists and Medellin Lists, Also Maracaibo, VE
I am Working, you are Not.
Hey guys,
Please throttle this down a little.
Thanks,
Jax
When you look in the mirror, what do you see?
A healthy man, physically, mentally & spiritually? How many kinds of pills are you popping? Are you sleeping well? Do you have pain? If you do not have health, you have nothing, regardless of how much money you have.
Let's be honest, the American life style (being copied around the world) leads to many excesses that culminates in poor health, often, at an early age. By middle age, looking around, a great majority is taking some kind of drug. Drugs, of course, can prolong your life. But by then, you are a prisoner of the system, a system controlled by the pharmaceutical companies and the medical industry. Doctors are trained to give you drugs, it gives you instant relief and huge profits to the system. A great combination that is hard to escape. I heard that doctors do not have a longer life span than non-doctors despite their knowledge & training.
American life style is also a combination of fast food & packaged food. Convenient, tasty for both the busy & lazy. Brilliant business concepts, one that most of the population are entrapped, willingly of course. Large fries, anyone? Double double? The assembly line being prep for the shark infested health industry.
And lurking to strike at this goldmine is the financial industry. With costs spiraling every day, a lucrative alliance is being forged in every doctor, dentist, hearing aid center, pain clinics, etc, between the American health care & American finance. CareCredit, a subsidiary of GE says, "when the economy gets worse, our business gets better". APR of up to 30% and late fees, collection agencies prey on the weak & vulnerable. Another one way into another big trap.
Perhaps to be continued. I have a headache, I'll swallow some Advil, washed down with Pepsi.
Chezz, You sound more like an independent, or at most lean left. But no way are you a liberal, based on what you wrote. For example, liberals do not use standard conservative talking points about huge numbers of lazy people feeding off the system. No doubt there is indeed such a subgroup, but whether it's "huge", or representative, somehow never gets backed up by numbers. I've asked folks on this board before to support such claims and they never can. Like conservatives, liberals do not like leeches who contribute nothing. However, a liberal believes most of the unemployed and working poor are decent people, who work hard (or will) to make ends meet, and if possible, get ahead. Instead of focusing on lazy bums we focus on those who finally will be able to afford good health insurance, or even get it in the first place because before they were shut out by insurance companies. Here's one story. The conservative storyline that Dems give people free stuff to buy votes is 1000% bullshit.
Millions Previously Denied Insurance Coverage Because Of Health Problems Look To Online Marketplaces
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2013/october/01/preexisting-condition-consumers-insurance-obamacare-marketplaces.aspx
Interesting you state I don't have any data to draw conclusions, but you've gone ahead and drawn your own anyways. Show me where it says in the ACA that everyone will see a big premium increase, and I'll eat my words. I don't believe you read the entire bill. It's something like 2500 pages, even I didn't read the entire thing. But I know the main features, including that the whole thing essentially falls apart without the mandate. So your suggestion that this "provision" could just be removed tells me you still don't fully understand the law.
I suspect you will in fact take any subsidies you are eligible for. If you don't get it upfront, it will play out on your tax return as a tax credit. If you take advantage of standard or itemized deductions, if eligible why would you not also take advantage of the ACA tax credit to reduce your taxes.
You still have a choice of what level of coverage you want, but the minimum floor has been raised. Why can't you choose to have less, and pay less? A fair question. That is just how it's designed, setting a minimum standard. For it to work it probably needs to work across the board, otherwise a lot of people would choose to pay less, making it more affordable for them, but less affordable for those who want the features. It's a similar concept to auto insurance.
WorldTravel69
10-15-13, 15:32
Ha Ha!
The whole thing is tooo funny.
Except for the people out of work.
What is the purpose of a debt ceiling if every time it is reached it is raised?
Sooner or later the creditors wll realize that they are loaning money in order to pay the interest on money already loaned, then there will actually be a debt ceiling.
Don B
What is the purpose of a debt ceiling if every time it is reached it is raised?Not exactly an answer to your question but helpful to get an idea of how it came to be and why it is always raised.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/history-lesson-why-did-congress-create-a-national-debt-limit/2013/01/13/21114db8-5db8-11e2-9940-6fc488f3fecd_blog.html
With the oncoming delays of SS payments, it looks like my lifestyle will be severely impacted. Can you guys help? Just a measly $10 from a 100 of you will be able to help me continue my poverty line existence and save me from the possibility of a 1 meal per day crisis. The good karma you will receive will ensure that you will have no erection problems in this life, as well as the next one in Pluto. And I promise to not insult anyone in the future.
May the God of a Thousand Erections be with you.
Big Boss Man
10-15-13, 23:13
What is the purpose of a debt ceiling if every time it is reached it is raised?
Sooner or later the creditors wll realize that they are loaning money in order to pay the interest on money already loaned, then there will actually be a debt ceiling.
Don BI agree completely. Markets should set the debt ceiling rather than government. Somebody should make the motion to eliminate the debt ceiling. I strongly oppose default. Maintaining a strong credit rating should be a common goal of all elected.
The battle on what should be funded can continue.
If Chezz is a liberal, I'm Sarah Palin ChezzNice to meet you, Sarah.
You sound more like an independent, or at most lean left.Exactly.
But no way are you a liberal, based on what you wroteWhat is it with you and labels? Why does everybody need to fit into some sort of box?
For example, liberals do not use standard conservative talking pointsSo, my opinion has now been marginalized into simply a talking point? No liberal can have an opinion outside of the party line without being called a conservative? What kind of freedom is that? I couldn't care less about "standard conservative talking points".
, a liberal believes most of the unemployed and working poor are decent peopleI also believe the working poor are decent people. My guess is that conservatives also believe the working poor are decent people.
Instead of focusing on lazy bums we focus on those who finally will be able to afford good health insurance, or even get it in the first place because before they were shut out by insurance companiesNot sure where you live, but here in California, nobody is denied medical care. Without being too geographically specific, free healthcare is already available to everyone.
Here's one story. The conservative storyline that Dems give people free stuff to buy votes is 1000% bullshit.Agree, but who really believes that? And who gives a shit?
Show me where it says in the ACA that everyone will see a big premium increase, and I'll eat my wordsWhere did I say everyone? That's the problem with toeing the party line, 100%. In your world, there's no room for independent thought. Based on anecdotal evidence, most working-class people will see a rate increase. And the FACT is, a citizen of the US will no longer have the choice of whether or not to purchase health insurance. It's just another tax, whether they like it or not.
I don't believe you read the entire bill. It's something like 2500 pages, even I didn't read the entire thing.Congratulations, you got me. I didn't read the entire 2500 pages. My guess is that neither did you, nor our representatives that voted for it.
But I know the main features, including that the whole thing essentially falls apart without the mandate. So your suggestion that this "provision" could just be removed tells me you still don't fully understand the law.And you enjoy jumping to conclusions. The fact of the matter is that not only is the individual mandate troubling, but so is the pre-existing condition (guaranteed issue) provision.
I suspect you will in fact take any subsidies you are eligible for. If you don't get it upfront, it will play out on your tax return as a tax credit. If you take advantage of standard or itemized deductions, if eligible why would you not also take advantage of the ACA tax credit to reduce your taxes.What kind of question is that? I follow the law. And whether or not I itemize or take the standard deduction come tax time is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not I would live my life gaming the system.
You still have a choice of what level of coverage you want, but the minimum floor has been raised. Why can't you choose to have less, and pay less? A fair question.No, it's a fucking great question, not simply a fair one. You can't simply side-step that question. It's the crux of the whole debate.
It's a similar concept to auto insurance.No, it's not like auto insurance. One has the choice of whether or not to purchase a car. This "insurance" is a must. You cannot opt out. Moreover, unlike car insurance, where if you're a bad driver you pay more, healthier people end up carrying a much higher burden. I already pay Medicare.- that's enough.
Daddy Rulz
10-16-13, 03:57
What's really sad is this is from 2011, which was the last time Congress and the White House played this stupid game. He's right, it's not the Repubs, it's not the Dems, its both and the corrupt system which has become American Politics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIcqb9hHQ3E
Less than 2 days to go, the presents are already under X'mas tree. Will your wish come true? That's what you guys really wanted, right. I can hear the celebrations already. Please, please, don't play the blame game. No more excuses, no more victimization when you shoot yourself in the foot. Don't say the gun wasn't loaded!
Ha Ha!
The whole thing is tooo funny.
Except for the people out of work.Hey WT,
Can you explain that cartoon?
It appears to be portraying ObamaCare as saving a patient, but that's exactly the opposite of what's happening.
Anyway, it looks like one of your typical, completely unintelligible parodies, but maybe I'm wrong.
Thanks,
Jax.
With the oncoming delays of SS payments, it looks like my lifestyle will be severely impacted.Black Shirt,
You were fucked the day they started deducting SS from your 1st paycheck.
It's unfortunate that it took you all these years to figure that out.
My personal retirement plans do NOT include any dependency on any government, but maybe that's just me.
Thanks,
Jax.
Black Shirt,
You were fucked the day they started deducting SS from your 1st paycheck.
It's unfortunate that it took you all these years to figure that out.
My personal retirement plans do NOT include any dependency on any government, but maybe that's just me.
Thanks,
Jax.And he wants to know which of my rights have been violated. I had to, not wanted too, get a SSN in 1941.
You all remember 1941 don't you?
Don B
And he wants to know which of my rights have been violated. I had to, not wanted too, get a SSN in 1941.
You all remember 1941 don't you?
Don B1941 eh. And then what happen?
America embarked on it's greatest era that mankind has seen. Yes, you suffered so much! The 2 cents they took from you was too much. Life was unbearable. Go head, tell me more.
Black Shirt,
You were fucked the day they started deducting SS from your 1st paycheck.
It's unfortunate that it took you all these years to figure that out.
My personal retirement plans do NOT include any dependency on any government, but maybe that's just me.
Thanks,
Jax.There's alot to learn about Self Dependency. It can even be said that it is the difference between winners & losers. But how are you going to get rich unless there is a big market of "losers". Oh yes, it has been said, that "behind every big fortune, is a crime". In America, unfortunately, many criminal activity have been made legal.
Ever since the masses started to trek from rural to urban centers for employment and a better life, government intrusion became a necessity. It's as simple as that. I don't know why that is so hard to understand. As you know, SS was born from the ruins of the Great Depression. That it is not funded correctly at this moment does not mean it is a disaster. It can be fixed, very easily, too. The inadequacies, the mess, is not on the people receiving SS, it is on the representatives in Washington that is funded by by Special Interests. Again, corruption made legal.
I won't go into why human behavior is not animal behavior. But I will save it for another day.
Member #4112
10-16-13, 23:52
Ever since the masses started to trek from rural to urban centers for employment and a better life, government intrusion became a necessity.Black Shirt, what exactly makes government "intrusion" "necessary"? Just because a portion of our population moved from rural to urban centers does not make the case for more government intrusion into their lives and once the government began to intrude it most certainly did not stop at the urban city limits.
Regarding the social security system, had all the funds collected been set aside for that specific purpose instead of being placed in the General Fund for the pigs in Washington to spend the system would be in much better shape today. Another factor is all the "additional benefits" added to the program over the years which were never envisioned at the program's inception and again the fund would have been more solvent that it is today.
But this is only crying over spilled milk. The plan can be salvaged but many of the benefits will have to be reduced and in some cases terminated. When you consider the participation factor in the work force today I see no other way to remedy the problem.
We can not simply continue to print bogus money which fuels structural deficient or we will shortly become the next Argentina and then Greece. We need to put our fiscal house in order and the Democrats have no intention of doing that so long as they can buy votes with give away programs.
Black Shirt, what exactly makes government "intrusion" "necessary"? Just because a portion of our population moved from rural to urban centers does not make the case for more government intrusion into their lives and once the government began to intrude it most certainly did not stop at the urban city limits.
Regarding the social security system, had all the funds collected been set aside for that specific purpose instead of being placed in the General Fund for the pigs in Washington to spend the system would be in much better shape today. Another factor is all the "additional benefits" added to the program over the years which were never envisioned at the program's inception and again the fund would have been more solvent that it is today.
But this is only crying over spilled milk. The plan can be salvaged but many of the benefits will have to be reduced and in some cases terminated. When you consider the participation factor in the work force today I see no other way to remedy the problem.
We can not simply continue to print bogus money which fuels structural deficient or we will shortly become the next Argentina and then Greece. We need to put our fiscal house in order and the Democrats have no intention of doing that so long as they can buy votes with give away programs.We need congressional term limits, we need electoral finance reforms. The country has been very sick for a long time. How do you teach people how to save when Big Business, Big Banks are tempting & encouraging people to stretch their credit to the limit. The Greed culture has taken over big time, dignity & shame have disappear.
Government Intrusion might have been the wrong term of what I wanted to say. World has change, population shifts have change. When people are living in very close proximity, there are just more regulations in general than in a rural setting, hence more government. Crime, safety, pollution, etc. And of course, there is the need for more funding for infrastructure and services, etc It is not just a simple world anymore, just read the front page of your local people. As I write this, Hannity is saying he is not a Republican, as he repeats the mantra that the American people are going to get screw by ObamaCare. Fearmongering at its best The joke is, why not let ObamaCare fall on its face. From repealing now to just delaying it, the Republicans have try to blame the fiasco to Obama. No leadership is another often cited accusation. No shame.
Win the elections, and you can do anything you want. I won't say a world.
WorldTravel69
10-17-13, 03:35
The Fucking Tea Party and a few Republicans Lost!
And that also means some of the hard core Independents that do not know where they stand for Our County.
That means the King Crab Fishing that opened yesterday will now get there permits to Crab and make a living.
Most of their Crabs are sold world wild, Japan and China are the most buyers.
It is call World Wide Economics, that the Reptilians tried to kill and blame on Obama through their Racist politics.
They cost the growth of the country 25 billion dollars in loses.
WorldTravel69
10-17-13, 04:32
You are Rich enough to not Need Health Care, and that you can use Argentina's Socialist Free Health Care.
Come on Tell Us that you Never Used It?
That You always Flew back to Florida for a medical check ups and all your teeth cleanings etcs., and that you never got those bad hair cuts from those cheap bad haircuts guys in B. A.? You saved what $10 or $15. Did You Tip Them?
Hey WT,
Can you explain that cartoon?
It appears to be portraying Affordable Health Care Act Not the Racist Term, ObamaCare as saving a patient, but that's exactly the opposite of what's happening.
Anyway, it looks like one of your typical, completely unintelligible parodies, but maybe I'm wrong.
Thanks,
Jax.
Member #4112
10-17-13, 11:58
We need congressional term limits, we need electoral finance reforms. The country has been very sick for a long time. How do you teach people how to save when Big Business, Big Banks are tempting & encouraging people to stretch their credit to the limit. The Greed culture has taken over big time, dignity & shame have disappear.
Government Intrusion might have been the wrong term of what I wanted to say. World has change, population shifts have change. When people are living in very close proximity, there are just more regulations in general than in a rural setting, hence more government. Crime, safety, pollution, etc. And of course, there is the need for more funding for infrastructure and services, etc It is not just a simple world anymore, just read the front page of your local people. As I write this, Hannity is saying he is not a Republican, as he repeats the mantra that the American people are going to get screw by ObamaCare. Fearmongering at its best The joke is, why not let ObamaCare fall on its face. From repealing now to just delaying it, the Republicans have try to blame the fiasco to Obama. No leadership is another often cited accusation. No shame.
Win the elections, and you can do anything you want. I won't say a world.At least we can agree on term limits and some type of campaign finance reform, but term limits would go a long way to solving the problem. Limit them to one term of 4 to 6 years, only one term at the state level and one at the federal level, with the additional caveat no consulting for 10 years from their last day in office. This would have the effect of limiting them to a total of 12 years max then they have to go back to work. No more professional politicians. It becomes too expensive for the special interests of Republican / Democrat to keep buying politicians and by the time they can hire them as consultants they are irrelevant.
Where I don't agree with you is the spending, no matter the enticement individuals make the decision to spend. No one is holding a gun to their head, so don't blame industries or businesses for individual choice and conduct.
I agree with you on ObamaCare as well, stop trying to defund it, let it go into effect and let the voters decide at the mid-terms in 2014. The websites are failing and people are already getting sticker shock from the new premiums.
By the way, both sides lie with ease about any issue and the politics of personal destruction runs riot on both sides of the isle. The first victim of politics is the truth.
http://www.amberpawlik.com/BorrowingAndPrinting.html
An interesting article about the current mess.
Don B
At least we can agree on term limits and some type of campaign finance reform, but term limits would go a long way to solving the problem. Limit them to one term of 4 to 6 years, only one term at the state level and one at the federal level, with the additional caveat no consulting for 10 years from their last day in office. This would have the effect of limiting them to a total of 12 years max then they have to go back to work. No more professional politicians. It becomes too expensive for the special interests of Republican / Democrat to keep buying politicians and by the time they can hire them as consultants they are irrelevant.
Where I don't agree with you is the spending, no matter the enticement individuals make the decision to spend. No one is holding a gun to their head, so don't blame industries or businesses for individual choice and conduct.
I agree with you on ObamaCare as well, stop trying to defund it, let it go into effect and let the voters decide at the mid-terms in 2014. The websites are failing and people are already getting sticker shock from the new premiums.
By the way, both sides lie with ease about any issue and the politics of personal destruction runs riot on both sides of the isle. The first victim of politics is the truth.
Until there is a fundamental change in ideas the trend towards Fascism will continue. With term limits we will mostly get just another group with the same corrupt philosophy.
The place to change the ideas is in the schools but as there is a government monopoly on education it is an uphill battle. The university faculties are predominately leftist, especially the philosophy department, so another battle. However, there is progress being made but I do not expect to see a reversal in my lifetime but maybe my granddaughters will.
Don B
Hey WT,
Can you explain that cartoon?
It appears to be portraying ObamaCare as saving a patient, but that's exactly the opposite of what's happening.
Anyway, it looks like one of your typical, completely unintelligible parodies, but maybe I'm wrong.
Thanks,
Jax.It's pretty simple. The aims of the guy in the white lab coat are more in line with Josef Mengele's than Albert Schweitzer's. The elephant is toast.
You are Rich enough to not Need Health Care, and that you can use Argentina's Socialist Free Health Care.
Come on Tell Us that you Never Used It?
WT69, Please note that Jackson has praised "Argentina's Socialist Free Health Care" system here, but noted that U.S. politicians don't have the gonads to try something similar.
You are Rich enough to not Need Health Care, and that you can use Argentina's Socialist Free Health Care.
Come on Tell Us that you Never Used It?
That You always Flew back to Florida for a medical check ups and all your teeth cleanings etcs., and that you never got those bad hair cuts from those cheap bad haircuts guys in B. A.? You saved what $10 or $15. Did You Tip Them?All that talk, and you still can't explain the meaning of your cartoon.
Member #4112
10-17-13, 17:43
I just received the health insurance quote from my carrier for the new policy period beginning 12/01/13 and guess what it's 12% higher after a 10% increase from the prior year. What was that you were saying Mr. President about costs going DOWN? Since my healthcare carrier and all the carriers we reviewed don't give a damn about George Bush any more nor do they price to please Fox News I'm not sure what to make of this increase. Perhaps reality is catching up with the President's fantasy of "free" healthcare?
Obama was complaining about Fox News again regarding why so many people don't like ObamaCare here is Neil Cavuto's response, sorry WT69 no cartoon with this one.
Subject: Fwd: Obama blames Fox News for 2/3 of Americans not liking Obamacare
Obama is blaming Fox News for 2/3 of the country disliking Obamacare. Here's Neal Cavuto's explanation and it is great. If you don't understand what is bad about ObamaCare please read his comments and you will understand.
Mr. President, Fox News isn't what's making Americans sick about your healthcare law. Your healthcare law is. Welcome, everybody, I'm Neil Cavuto. And excuse this departure from form. But I think this is just poor form. So, it's time we set some things straight.
Mr. President, we at Fox News are not the problem. I hate to break it to you, sir. You are. Your words are. Your promises are. We didn't sell this healthcare law. Sir, you did. Remember this?
President Barack Obama: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period.
Mr. President, tell that to tens of thousands of retirees at IBM and Time Warner and dozens of others, who've been dumped from their coverage and told to find their own coverage. Fox News didn't break that news to them, Mr. President. Their companies did.
Fox News didn't push more of those firms to hire part-time workers. Your healthcare law did. Fox News didn't incentivize fast food restaurants to scale back their benefits. Your healthcare law did. Fox News didn't make doctors want to opt out. Your healthcare law did. Fox News didn't make insurance premiums sky rocket. Your healthcare law did. Just like Fox News didn't grant hundreds of exemptions to companies that needed them. You did. And Fox News didn't delay one key provision after another, including online enrollment for those small business exchanges. You did.
Just like it wasn't Fox News that said we had to pass this to see what was in this. You did. Or was that Nancy Pelosi? Sometimes I'm confused. But of this I am not. Fox News didn't re-do basic math. Sir, you did. Fox News didn't say you can cover 30 million more Americans and not see a hit in premiums. You did. Fox News didn't say you could throw in those with pre-existing conditions and not have to pay for it. You did. Fox News didn't all but say you could get something for nothing. You did. Fox News didn't come back years later and say, oh yea, we did raise some taxes. You did.
Here's where you are right about Fox News, however, Mr. President. We can do math. And did. You cannot. And did not. We said it, and proved it. You didn't. And we're all suffering for it. Take it from the numbers guy at Fox. Numbers don't lie. The number of Americans working part-time and nervous. The number of retirees days away from being dumped on exchanges and anxious. The number of company bosses with any news to pass along on those exchanges, but still clueless. The number of doctors who want out. The number of congressmen now opting out. No, Mr. President, none of those numbers lie.
But with all due respect sir, I can only conclude you do know; I know, I know you hate us at Fox. But please take a look in a mirror, and fast. You think we're the skunk at your picnic. But that doesn't mean we're the ones that stink. Because that smell isn't coming from the folks reporting on your law. Mr. President, that smell is your law.
I just received the health insurance quote from my carrier for the new policy period beginning 12/01/13 and guess what it's 12% higher after a 10% increase from the prior year. What was that you were saying Mr. President about costs going DOWN? Since my healthcare carrier and all the carriers we reviewed don't give a damn about George Bush any more nor do they price to please Fox News I'm not sure what to make of this increase. Perhaps reality is catching up with the President's fantasy of "free" healthcare?
Obama was complaining about Fox News again regarding why so many people don't like ObamaCare here is Neil Cavuto's response, sorry WT69 no cartoon with this one.
Don't worry about your rates increasing. Once there was a discussion about government education on another forum, I had pointed out that not only were the students not receiving an education but that it was immoral to use force to fund these schools. I suggested that being good little altruists they should pay that part of my property tax bills that went towards funding government schools. Strangely that ended the discussion. However certainly that will not be the case here and, Black Shirt, et al will kick in the difference for you.
BTW, adjusted for inflation, in the 37 years in my current residence I have been looted of around $750,000 (slightly more than 2 cents) in property taxes. Of course not all went to the schools, much of the balance went towards very generous pension plans.
Don B
TejanoLibre
10-17-13, 19:13
A woman went to her doctor for advice.
She told him that her husband had developed a penchant for anal sex, and she was not sure that it was such a good idea.
"Do you enjoy it?" The doctor asked.
"Actually, yes, I do," she answered.
"Does it hurt you?" he asked.
"No. I rather like it," she responded.
"Well, then," the doctor continued, "there's no reason that you shouldn't practice anal sex, if that's what you like, so long as you take care not to get pregnant.
The woman was mystified. "What? You can get pregnant from anal sex?
"Of course," the doctor replied. "Where do you think people like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Feinstein, Mayor Bloomberg, Chuck Schumer and Barak Obama came from?
TL.
WorldTravel69
10-17-13, 20:46
Microsoft software wasn't perfect when it came out. It still needs work.
I am sure changes will be made to make the "Affordable Heath Care" work.
I am sure Argentina's Health Care System was not perfect when it came out.
It's pretty simple. The aims of the guy in the white lab coat are more in line with Josef Mengele's than Albert Schweitzer's. The elephant is toast.
WT69, Please note that Jackson has praised "Argentina's Socialist Free Health Care" system here, but noted that U.S. politicians don't have the gonads to try something similar.
Microsoft software wasn't perfect when it came out. It still needs work.
I am sure changes will be made to make the "Affordable Heath Care" work.
I am sure Argentina's Health Care System was not perfect when it came out.
I assume your first, for that matter, all computer purchases were voluntary, no penalty if you did not buy one.
It is not just that Obama-care will not work it is immoral.
OTH, if as many say, it was designed to fail, blame the free enterprise system and institute a single payer system for all then it will be a success, for the leftists, that is.
There was a letter in the local paper today extolling the virtues of Medicare. The man had some chest tumors that if not remove would have killed him. Then he goes on to say the biggest problem is overpopulation and something must be done about it. He may get his wish next time he needs something.
Don B
Microsoft software wasn't perfect when it came out. It still needs work.
I am sure changes will be made to make the "Affordable Heath Care" work.
I am sure Argentina's Health Care System was not perfect when it came out.All that talk, and you still can't explain the meaning of your cartoon.
Next issue, immigration reform. Obama's bait that will make the Tea Party dive in kamakazi style again. They will try to nail Obama to the cross. You will hear language that will make your mother's face go pale. Is the same angry crowd again.
Once more, Obama is holding very good cards. The grand strategy to winning the mid terms in 2014. There is no way that the GOP will lose the house, right. Don't be so sure. You start that shit again that you try with ObamaCare, and you go all in. You will come out naked, with no money, no pants, and a limp dick. The GOP leadership knows it, but you guys in AP, do you know it?
Rock Harders
10-17-13, 22:33
Mongers-.
Why is there not more talk on this thread about how these pathetic, cowardly Republican congressional members manufactured this crisis and then didn't have the balls to hold their ground when Obama refused to negotiate? The fact that these self-proclaimed capitalist heroes could even bring the notion of default to the table (even more amazing as the US prints the very money it sells debt in, a rarity) shows they are nothing but a group of moronic redneck racists intent on simply doing anything they can to clash with Obama. Get ready for Hillary in 2016 and Corey Booker whenever Hillary is done.
Suerte,
Rock Harders.
I just received the health insurance quote from my carrier for the new policy period beginning 12/01/13 and guess what it's 12% higher after a 10% increase from the prior year. What was that you were saying Mr. President about costs going DOWN? Since my healthcare carrier and all the carriers we reviewed don't give a damn about George Bush any more nor do they price to please Fox News I'm not sure what to make of this increase. Perhaps reality is catching up with the President's fantasy of "free" healthcare?10% and 12%. Hmmm. And how much of that premium increase is due to the Affordable Care Act? You don't know do you. This is typical Fox News narrow-focus, out-of-context information for the Low Information Voter.
Those increases are indeed higher than normal, but only a few percent. From 1999 to 2009, the average family premium increased from $5791 to $13375. There is a long-term trend of increasing healthcare costs and insurance premiums. Annual increases were in the range 10-13% between 2000-2004, and 5-9% between 2005-2009. Most of your premium increase is part of this long-term trend, and only a few percent is attributable to ACA. In return the ACA provides several improvements in coverage. Whether you want or like the improvements is obviously a different question.
When Obama said costs would go down, he was referring to specific groups of people. I'll agree he did not equally say that costs would go up for some. Personally, I never expected my own premium to go down, and I think most Americans with employer-provided healthcare never had such an expectation either. BTW, back in 2011 CMS projected a big bump in 2014 (when the bulk of the law kicks in) a 9.4% increase in private insurance spending (close to Doppel's numbers) before its estimates come back down to around 6%. 2014 is a bit of a blip. Just putting the numbers in context, Doppel.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/16/your-health-care-benefits-in-charts/?_r=0
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/10/factchecking-health-insurance-premiums/
Good anal sex joke TL, though it was stolen and modified by some NRA member (you can tell from the names referenced).
Still it's just a joke. The real life story is the assfucking Republicans just took.
Member #4112
10-18-13, 12:06
10% and 12%. Hmmm. And how much of that premium increase is due to the Affordable Care Act? You don't know do you. Those increases are indeed higher than normal, but only a few percent. From 1999 to 2009, the average family premium increased from $5791 to $13375. There is a long-term trend of increasing healthcare costs and insurance premiums. Annual increases were in the range 10-13% between 2000-2004, and 5-9% between 2005-2009. Most of your premium increase is part of this long-term trend, and only a few percent is attributable to ACA. In return the ACA provides several improvements in coverage. Whether you want or like the improvements is obviously a different question.
When Obama said costs would go down, he was referring to specific groups of people. I'll agree he did not equally say that costs would go up for some. Personally, I never expected my own premium to go down, and I think most Americans with employer-provided healthcare never had such an expectation either. BTW, back in 2011 CMS projected a big bump in 2014 (when the bulk of the law kicks in) a 9.4% increase in private insurance spending (close to Doppel's numbers) before its estimates come back down to around 6%. 2014 is a bit of a blip. Just putting the numbers in context, Doppel.
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/10/factchecking-health-insurance-premiums/Esten, did you even look at the graph from Fact Check which clearly shows a steep downward trend in premium increases during the time period you are referencing?
First the ten year time period you just referenced, 1999 to 2009 and I would like to see some facts to back those premiums, with the associated increase in premiums was 131% or an average of 13% per year, yet your Fact Check graph clearly shows a steep decrease in premiums increases over that same period. Your graph clearly shows a steep increase in premiums after ObamaCare's elements began taking effect.
Are you trying to tell me as ObamaCare forces insurance companies to eliminate lifetime caps and mandates specific treatments be covered by the insurance company at no cost to the patient the cost of insurance is going down while forcing companies to give more "free" care away? By the way for you liberals there is no "free" someone is paying for it.
Second, Obama stated flatly you can keep you insurance if you like it, you can keep your physician and he unequivocally stated PREMIUMS WOULD GO DOWN. None of which is true. If I were you I would not be quoting the Congressional Budget Office since they have gotten the cost of ObamaCare wrong from the beginning as the cost even by their estimates has increased significantly.
The increases I have seen in the last two years are greater than those from 5 years combined. My coverage has not changed, my group size and health profile has not changed for many years, so don't stand there and tell me a 23% increase is not related to ObamaCare unless of course you have some hard data which I don't see.
Last but not least the Federal Government now determines what type of coverage you "need" rather you want it or not. What's next they choose your condom, toilet paper, toothpaste, and what Chica's your allowed to bone!
WorldTravel69
10-18-13, 12:34
First it is cartoon, that I did not make.
It is obvious what it means. The naysayers say the "Affordable Heath Care" will not work. The anarchistic Tea Party and some republicans do not want the government to work.
They fought it and lost and now they need to be patched up.
They said about the Wright Brothers; that it was immoral to fly. "It we were made to fly we would have wings."
http://truecostblog.com/2009/08/09/countries-with-universal-healthcare-by-date/
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/heres-a-map-of-the-countries-that-provide-universal-health-care-americas-still-not-on-it/259153/
All that talk, and you still can't explain the meaning of your cartoon.
Mongers-.
Why is there not more talk on this thread about how these pathetic, cowardly Republican congressional members manufactured this crisis and then didn't have the balls to hold their ground when Obama refused to negotiate? The fact that these self-proclaimed capitalist heroes could even bring the notion of default to the table (even more amazing as the US prints the very money it sells debt in, a rarity) shows they are nothing but a group of moronic redneck racists intent on simply doing anything they can to clash with Obama. Get ready for Hillary in 2016 and Corey Booker whenever Hillary is done.
Suerte,
Rock Harders.Yep, if you're not on Obama's side you're a redneck and a racist.
What did suicide bombers, Australians at Gallipoli, Texans at the Alamo, and Congressmen taking orders from Ted Cruz have in common? You might accuse them of stupidity, but sure as hell not cowardice.
Since you clearly believe the "crisis" was bad for the country, why do you say they didn't have the balls to hold their ground? That attitude, refusing to change course when fact or circumstances dictate otherwise, is the cause of a lot of pain, suffering and death. You need to lighten up on the testosterone injections.
While I believe the Tea Party's tactics recently have bordered on moronic, I wholeheartedly share their goals. Some of those on the left here, who have commented about how large financial companies and certain other special interests are in bed with government, need to take their heads out of the sand. There's only one group in American politics that would do something about that, and it's sure as hell not Democrats or mainstream Republicans.
WorldTravel69
10-18-13, 15:26
For those of you that are cartoon Challenged.
The GOP is in such disarray that they are attacking each other.
First it is cartoon, that I did not make.
It is obvious what it means. The naysayers say the "Affordable Heath Care" will not work. The anarchistic Tea Party and some republicans do not want the government to work.
They fought it and lost and now they need to be patched up.Really? Because I interpret the cartoon completely differently.
In your cartoon, the battered Republican elephant is about to be saved by ObamaCare.
Here's how that will actually happen: When the American people realize that their health insurance premiums are skyrocketing, that they can't keep their doctors because their existing policies are being eliminated, that millions of jobs are being restructured to part-time positions to avoid the employer mandate, that the individual mandate forces millions of healthy younger Americans to pay for policies that are double and triple what they should be paying for their risk group, then the ensuing anti-ObamaCare backlash will in fact rescue the Republican party.
Thanks,
Jax.
TejanoLibre
10-20-13, 01:42
For those of you that are cartoon Challenged.
The GOP is in such disarray that they are attacking each other.Please No WT!
Not the Sacred Alamo of the Great Republic of Texas!
Or the Great American Sports Bar in BA!
I guess that the Great Republic of Texas is one huge Sports Bar too!
The Cowboys may be America's Team but the Oilers are Texas' Team! (Texans).
Texas, the Only State that has the Right to Succeed from the Onion! (Union?).
Ja!
Come on Boys!
Let's talk about Latin Pussy for a while!
TL.
This is from a friend of mine who's a die hard Democrat and Obama supporter. He was writing to a couple of Democrat buddies and forwarded to me as an afterthought. He has cancer and is getting treated in California even though he lives in Nevada.
It looks like the Republicans were right.
My guaranteed issue health insurance is being cancelled as Welpoint can do that if they withdraw from the personal insurance market in the state. My choices are limited to one of the Obamacare plans that are basically all HMO-type plans with limited hospitals/cancer centers/heart centers. You don't have a choice of where to be treated if you get sick , at any price point.
You can only go to the approved places, which in Nevada....suck
My insurance is being canceled too as a result of the Affordable Care Act, as the insurance company is abandoning my state.
And now, to placate TL, Latin pussy kicks ass!
TejanoLibre
10-20-13, 09:02
Please No WT!
Not the Sacred Alamo of the Great Republic of Texas!
Or the Great American Sports Bar in BA!
I guess that the Great Republic of Texas is one huge Sports Bar too!
The Cowboys may be America's Team but the Oilers are Texas' Team! (Texans).
Texas, the Only State that has the Right to Succeed from the Onion! (Union?).
Ja!
Come on Boys!
Let's talk about Latin Pussy for a while!
TL.http://news.yahoo.com/armed-gun-rights-activists-rally-alamo-181856390.html
Sometimes Mexican Food is good enough!
TL.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.4 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.