466 replies to this topic

[USA Forever]

SakuranoSenshi, on 14 August 2012 - 11:35 PM, said:

Obama is neither fascist nor communist and those two are diametrically opposed, historically speaking.

We're well past the point where someone can matter-of-factly claim Obama is not strongly tied to communist beliefs. I'm too lazy to write up my reasons since they've been given time and time again by myriads of people and since maybe no one wants to learn. For anyone wanting to know the degree of communist success in USA with Ob*ma I refer you here: http://obamaism.blogspot.com/

[Catamount]

dwbear, on 15 August 2012 - 09:46 AM, said:

That is the fallacy. You can't increase the debt without spending. You don't have the income you don't spend, What you are saying is that Obama has the smallest increase in gov't spending but it is still an increase when he has a decrease in revenue. Then the Federal Reserve keeps printing money to service the debt ie making our money worth less which in its own right is a hiddin tax on our citizens. It is a direct result of his fiscal policies is that he doesn't have the revenues in the first palce.

Yes, Obama did preside of an increase. No one disputes that claim, merely your incorrect assertion that it was a large increase.

With that small increase, smaller than almost any other president in the last 50 years, he accomplished far better results than were attained by the ridiculous austerity approach you're promoting here, which, at present, is bringing the UK economy to its knees.


And exactly how do you figure that that it's the result of Obama's policies that he has "less revenue"? Did he cause the recession that preceded his presidency, and is, by far, the source of greatest economic pain (in other words, the direct cause of the vast majority of the lost revenue from government over the past few years)? Would you mind explaining how that works?

It sounds like you're just trying to shoe-horn the blame to Obama, at all costs, no matter what contortion of logic is required. Obama is hardly the first president to engage in deficit-spending, and many of the others had very successful policies, economically, he's just presided over less of an increase than almost any president in modern history.

What would you have him do, unilaterally cut government spending in half? I'd love to see how you'd plan for that to happen, let alone how it would help us in any way, shape or form (again, if you think that works so great, I'm sure the UK would love to have you).

USA Forever, on 15 August 2012 - 09:53 AM, said:

We're well past the point where someone can matter-of-factly claim Obama is not strongly tied to communist beliefs. I'm too lazy to write up my reasons since they've been given time and time again by myriads of people and since maybe no one wants to learn. For anyone wanting to know the degree of communist success in USA with Ob*ma I refer you here: http://obamaism.blogspot.com/

In all the rambling on your little nutcase conspiracy site, there isn't a single mention of a single communist policy by Obama, as president, not that I could see anyways. It was merely a collection of sad attempts to associate him with communists.

By the logic on this site, I must be hispanic, because I'm friends with many hispanic people.


Let's see if you can do what this site can't: Can you name a single communist policy by the Obama admistration?

Edited by Catamount, 15 August 2012 - 10:22 AM.

[SakuranoSenshi]

USA Forever, on 15 August 2012 - 09:53 AM, said:

We're well past the point where someone can matter-of-factly claim Obama is not strongly tied to communist beliefs. I'm too lazy to write up my reasons since they've been given time and time again by myriads of people and since maybe no one wants to learn. For anyone wanting to know the degree of communist success in USA with Ob*ma I refer you here: http://obamaism.blogspot.com/

No, we're not past anything of the sort and quoting a link to your preferred propaganda site won't bolster your position in the slightest. You clearly know not of what you speak and I'm being quite polite about it, here, too.

You're making an extraordinary (and ridiculous) claim which means "I am too lazy" and "someone else already did the work, go find it" won't cut it; the onus is on you to back up the claim. You have no hope of doing that, though because I am not guessing or just trying to argue with you, I already know this stuff inside out. Obama is very much in the centre of the economic spectrum, somewhat to the right, in fact, as well as pretty authoritarian for my tastes but less so than Bush, for example. Obama is nowhere near communism or even socialism and he's no fascist, Bush was more of a fascist and I'd hesitate to suggest that, too because it's a stupid exaggeration.

Long story short, you're not very knowledgeable about this but you're clearly not stupid, so please stop drinking the cool-aid and actually do some real research, not just scanning Fox headlines to reassure yourself and gobbling up nonsense websites like the one you posted.

Edited by SakuranoSenshi, 15 August 2012 - 10:00 AM.

[dwbear]

Jmb, on 15 August 2012 - 09:07 AM, said:

Do have one final question: Who else wants to ditch the Electoral College for direct vote (ie One person/One vote). The Electoral College was fine when we didn't have computers to track the results, but it is now an archaic and outdated system.

Then you will have mob rule. Good example lynch mob 50 to 1. Then the people that don't pay taxes will be able to vote in who ever promise them to steal the most. Take from the haves and give to the have nots. I still think that people that do not pay taxes should not have the right to vote.
Just the people that pay the bills should have a say on how the money is spent. This bs about the rich not pay their share is just bs. Top 10% of the people pay 90% of the taxes. 40 % to 50% pay now taxes at all and actually get money from the feds as "earned income credit"
Now I'm not rich, retired less than 2,000 a month to live on, I've paid in all my working career and wish my retirement was bigger but not at the expense of passing the debt to my grandchildern.

[SakuranoSenshi]

dwbear, on 15 August 2012 - 10:03 AM, said:

This bs about the rich not pay their share is just bs. Top 10% of the people pay 90% of the taxes. 40 % to 50% pay now taxes at all and actually get money from the feds as "earned income credit"

Not even close to true. The vast majority of tax revenue comes from what would be considered to be 'middle classes', the rest largely comes from 'the working class'. The richest people in the USA pay a very small proportion of their wealth in taxes and that revenue is a small fraction of total taxation revenue. It would take you about ten minutes on the IRS site to work this out for yourself. Please, stop parrotting bullshit from your favourite 'shock jock' on some talk radio station or other; he's full of it.

[EmptySkull]

Wow, I stumbled across this post and was tempted to dive right in. "Not gonna do it". But I will quote someone whom I think nailed it on the head of what our(USA) political system is all about.

Jessie "The Body" Ventura

O and I believe the labels Left, Right, Fascist, Communist are thrown around with out people really understanding them. This website has a really interesting take on it. If one likes they can take the questionnaire and it will tell where on the compass you fall.

Political Compass
from their site:
Political Compass
"There's abundant evidence for the need of it. The old one-dimensional categories of 'right' and 'left', established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, are overly simplistic for today's complex political landscape. For example, who are the 'conservatives' in today's Russia? Are they the unreconstructed Stalinists, or the reformers who have adopted the right-wing views of conservatives like Margaret Thatcher ? ......................."



They also grade different politicians and figures from the past and present on this compass. Very interesting indeed.

Edited by EmptySkull, 15 August 2012 - 10:20 AM.

[Henchman 24]

Murph, on 14 August 2012 - 05:25 AM, said:

Unfortunately, the European Perspective doesn't get the whole story. Barack Obama is standing on a very tall pile of broken promises, criminal appointments and actions of dubious legality under our US Constitution. And many of those broken promises are things he did in fact have under his control or could have had many of his friends in high places in the congress do for him.

He had promised to make sure that all bills going through the congress would be available to read, in their entirety, for at least forty eight hours before a vote. That much touted health care plan that went through several years ago and one big constitutional argument? It wasn't even written to completion before being forced through, much less made available online. He has also, thus far, failed to close the camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Obama also signed into law the much maligned National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which is the infamous one with provisions allowing for indefinite detention of US citizens and others on US soil without due process of law for suspicion of terrorism. A federal court blocked the indefinite detention on the grounds of unconstitutionality, however the Obama administration has appealed.

He appointed Eric Holder Attorney General, a man who has done things so idiotic as operation Fast and Furious (look it up, the republican's aren't smart enough to make this up as propaganda.) He has also done little to nothing to protect the voting rights of people who may not vote for Barack Obama. During the 2008 elections, there were members of the New Black Panther Party standing outside a voting station in Philadelphia, one of them carrying a billy club, standing around in uniform and yelling insults at white voters going in to place their ballots. Bear in mind that the New Black Panther Party is considered a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Anti-Defamation League, and the US Commission on Civil Rights. Only one of the panthers was removed from the polling location, and all charges pressed were dropped by Holder's Department of Justice not long after the Bush Administration left office. This is but one of Obama's appointees.

The fact of the matter is that Barack Obama has not kept the economy afloat either. He used up pretty much all of his political clout on the affordable care act and has since been unable to even have a budget passed for our government. Most of any recovery occurring is actually from the economy being left largely alone since our government just isn't acting.

Unfortunately we do not have a GOOD candidate on either side of the aisle this election. As it was on an old episode of south park, we're picking between a giant ****** and a **** sandwich.

Before we all go too far, let's all agree this isn't the place for this, it's bad enough knowing we already have some factors that plan to ruin this game for folks(you know who you are). Politics won't improve that.

That said...you may want to do some more research, that pile of broken promises is smaller than the ones he's kept, but don't let facts get in your way.

Quote

The Obameter Scorecard

• Promise Kept 190 (37%)

• Compromise 71 (14%)

• Promise Broken 81 (16%)

• Stalled 50 (10%)

• In the Works 114 (22%)

Not yet rated 2 (0%)

[Osski]

Murph, on 14 August 2012 - 03:59 PM, said:

The constitution is NOT a living document. What it has listed for the federal government's powers are all the federal government should have. What powers are not expressly given to the federal government in that document are expressly given to the states or the individual by the 10th amendment. A centralized government trying to rule 300+ million (and growing) people living over 3.8 million square miles just isn't practical in the least bit. Keeping the bulk of the ruling authority delegated to smaller areas where the state laws can be tailored more closely and react more quickly to the needs of its people, with a smaller federal government providing for common defense, organization/proliferation of trade between the states and the civil rights of all Americans is what we should have according to the constitution and its amendments.

However thanks to two centuries of court decisions having the rule of law (Because congress has x power from one part of the constitution and an unrelated power from y part of the constitution means that it has z power even though not explicitly stated in the constitution) our congress has legislated itself into a bloated cluster **** from which we have very little hope of recovering claiming that same 'living document' theory.

And just because the constitution has ONLY been changed 27 times in two hundred and thirty six years does not mean it hasn't kept up. There's a reason why we made it difficult to change. So that we can't have idiots single-handedly add stuff (Anti-gay marriage amendment?) to the constitution we're just going to ditch 20 years down the road because it turned out to be ridiculous (It happened ONCE. Prohibition, and that took greater than 100 years of lobbying on the part of abolitionists.)

Well said.

[USA Forever]

Catamount, on 15 August 2012 - 09:57 AM, said:

In all the rambling on your little nutcase conspiracy site, there isn't a single mention of a single communist policy by Obama, as president, not that I could see anyways. It was merely a collection of sad attempts to associate him with communists.

By the logic on this site, I must be hispanic, because I'm friends with many hispanic people.

Let's see if you can do what this site can't: Can you name a single communist policy by the Obama admistration?

I should expect there are many people who find it irrelevant that he has ties to many communists. You really ridicule the advancement of such knowledge as insignificant? That is your idea of wisdom? Your analogy with hispanics is foolish. You choose hispanic friends without regards to their race. They're at work or in your neighborhood and they are numerous so you are friends with them. Communist friends in the number Obama has are obviously a sign of deliberate choice. Communism is a belief not a race so such a friend is more of a conscious decision. Shame on you for not seeing that. However, I have ruled you out for any future discussion since I've learned in life that some people refuse to learn. As for one communist policy of Obama, my claim is that he is tied to it. He may not be devoted to it exclusively, but he respects it and prefers it over any free market system. Communists usually don't call themselves communist. He will not be so bold as to make a policy that ends private property rights because communists are more patient and smarter than that. He will do what he can to wreck our economy and gradually and stealthily steer us towards whatever he and his communist and other big-government-loving buddies plan.

I will leave you guys alone now since you prefer ridicule over a serious discussion. Take care.

[Bagheera]

"Republicrat, Democran .. One Party System."

"I hate Republicans, but I really ******* hate Democrats"

And so on. It's well past time to expand our dialogue beyond two choices which are functionally identical.

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/

[Catamount]

Have fun with that, USA; since it's obvious that you can't do what I challenged you to and name a single, solitary communist policy by the administration, it's you who's shown you don't have a point to make. However, since you're convinced that there's a secret conspiracy to ultimately turn the US into a communist country (didn't we outgrow that hysteria 30 years ago?), all I can say is to make sure your tin foil hat is extra think. The evil Soviet mind control rays are more powerful than you can possibly imagine.

Edited by Catamount, 15 August 2012 - 10:33 AM.

[SakuranoSenshi]

EmptySkull - familiar with that site, actually. Very much so, as I try and point people at it myself.

USA Forever - with respect, because you have been nothing but civil, I honestly would like you to consider the things we have said here that don't agree with your worldview and consider whether we might, in fact be right. Any single issue website like the one you seem fond of cannot possible be taken seriously as reliable and unbiased and it's very easy to find documents explaining why no politician in the USA, that was elected to national office, has been anything even close to a communist.

Edit: site not sight. I should eat lunch. :-)

Edited by SakuranoSenshi, 15 August 2012 - 10:33 AM.

[Slab Squathrust]

SakuranoSenshi, on 15 August 2012 - 10:11 AM, said:

Not even close to true. The vast majority of tax revenue comes from what would be considered to be 'middle classes', the rest largely comes from 'the working class'. The richest people in the USA pay a very small proportion of their wealth in taxes and that revenue is a small fraction of total taxation revenue. It would take you about ten minutes on the IRS site to work this out for yourself. Please, stop parrotting bullshit from your favourite 'shock jock' on some talk radio station or other; he's full of it.

CBO claims that in 2007 the top 10% payed almost 73% of the total income tax liability. I'm not saying this is good or bad it is what it is...

http://www.cbo.gov/s...lity_Shares.pdf

[Pht]

wanderer, on 14 August 2012 - 07:21 AM, said:

Romney's not THAT bad a candidate.

You're right ... he's *worse.* From what we've seen, he doesn't have the basic first foundational beliefs that would enable him to actually, on his feet, explain what was right about america, as it was founded.

Which is worse for an idea ...

To have it be viciously attacked and nobody really defends it ...

or to have it poorly defended, such that everybody thinks that said idea is worthless?

The Wee Baby Seamus, on 14 August 2012 - 03:44 PM, said:

by that defintion no one can be president, since no one is a natural citizen.

Natural born citizen = had two us citizen parents at birth. which, if you accept obama's purported two documents, he wasn't. He claims his father was a kenyan citizen at the time of his birth.

Murph, on 14 August 2012 - 03:59 PM, said:

The constitution is NOT a living document.

AMEN!

Quote

What it has listed for the federal government's powers are all the federal government should have. What powers are not expressly given to the federal government in that document are expressly given to the states or the individual by the 10th amendment.

Yep. The states voluntarily formed the union; they retain all powers not specifically granted in the enumerated powers clause. Had it been otherwise, they would have never ratified the constitution.

Quote

And just because the constitution has ONLY been changed 27 times in two hundred and thirty six years does not mean it hasn't kept up.

26 times, actually. The 14th amendment didn't pass any of the constitutional requirements to actually be in the constitution.

Besides the 16th amendment and prohibition the other amendments (as far as my memory serves) don't violate the basic principals that underlie the constitution; it's no more a wax nose ... err... "living document" than a stone is a pile of jello.

[Catamount]

SakuranoSenshi, on 15 August 2012 - 10:32 AM, said:

Edit: site not sight. I should eat lunch. :-)

Coffee

I'm just about to grab some myself

[Pht]

Slab Squathrust, on 15 August 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

CBO claims that in 2007 the top 10% payed almost 73% of the total income tax liability. I'm not saying this is good or bad it is what it is...

http://www.cbo.gov/s...lity_Shares.pdf

I'll say what it is ... this is due to rank class-warfare and politicians who think that pushing hatred for your fellow man is a good thing to do, as long as it gets them back in office.

This makes the whole "gotta make the rich pay their fair share" propaganda that's being tossed around this election cycle even more rediculous.

Apparently "fair" equates to "take everything from everyone who has more than you."

Bigotry never went out of style in the US.. what's different now is the targets; and the affluent are now one of the favored targets for mindless bigotry.

Edited by Pht, 15 August 2012 - 10:38 AM.

[dwbear]

Just an example, a public figure released his tax return. He 15 mil in dividends and paid 15% tax or 2.25 mil. its public record and he was not all that rich. Now me on the other hand made a good living for years and paid between 20 thou and 25 thou a year. It would take me 90 years to pay the same tax as he did in 1 year. Now I don't know what you consider middle class and working class. I consider myself working middle class. Now I do take exception to the rich people that dodge and cheat on their tas returns. And I think that the lopholes that are in the tax code should be done any with.

[SakuranoSenshi]

Slab Squathrust, on 15 August 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

CBO claims that in 2007 the top 10% payed almost 73% of the total income tax liability. I'm not saying this is good or bad it is what it is...

http://www.cbo.gov/s...lity_Shares.pdf

Quite possibly true, in fact, I am sure they will have their figures straight. I was not talking income tax. I realize this might look like hair splitting but I was deliberate in not saying 'Federal (or state) Income tax'. A great deal of taxation is levied through other means than directly at source, probably the bulk of that would be sales taxes (Texas has no personal income tax, after all and I don't think it's alone). I also said quite specifically, wealth, not income. You can have huge income and huge outgoings (liabilities such as rent, etc) and thus not be rich. You can have no taxable income but be enormously rich.

Edit:

P.S. Tax dodges, as in minimizing liability under the legislation, are entirely relevant to why you can be rich and pay very little tax, even allowing for spending more (so being subject to more sales tax).

Edited by SakuranoSenshi, 15 August 2012 - 10:42 AM.

[Pht]

SakuranoSenshi, on 15 August 2012 - 10:39 AM, said:

You can have huge income and huge outgoings (liabilities such as rent, etc) and thus not be rich. You can have no taxable income but be enormously rich.

Kind of makes income taxes seem stupid, doesn't it?

[SakuranoSenshi]

Pht, on 15 August 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

Kind of makes income taxes seem stupid, doesn't it?

You're not without a point, there. However, they're not really; a hybrid tax system has tended to work best for various reasons. I won't lie, though, I enjoy not paying income tax here in Texas... but I am not blind to the way San Antonio gouges me compared to nearby locations, by adding on extra tax. Of course, I realize that they have costs to cover and so on, taxes are necessary (if not actually an evil) but it's a battle between "pay upfront to central gov" or "pay regularly to local gov" and it's not clear cut that one is inherently better than another.