466 replies to this topic

[bikerbass77]

OK, just going to add my own little bit of flame-bait charred troll food right here.

This is the impression I get of US politics over my lifetime. This is considering I live in the UK and have only been to the US twice in my lifetime.

Raegan - A senile old actor who saw Star Wars and could not tell it came from the imagination of George Lucas. He wasted tax payer money on schemes like getting boards of science fiction writers to discuss the possibility of weapons for the US armed forces (interestingly Arthur C Clarke was thrown off one of these panels for wanting to limit things to what was theoretically possible) and thought the Communists were going to invade at any time.

George Bush Sr - A rather grey man, similar to John Major in a way, who decided to take the US into war against another country with no connection to the US (Iraq) because they were taking over another country which again was not connected to the US other than it supplied oil.

Bill Clinton - A shrewd politician educated in the UK who's political tutor was famously quoted 'Bill could be president some day, if only he could learn to keep his flies zipped up tight.' I think we all remember what his downfall was (the look of shock when he was accused of using a cigar as a sex aid was quite amusing). He was good on his first term but is second was paralysed with hearings and the political fire-storm from these hearings.

George W Bush - Planet of the Apes invades the US Government. With his powers of speech rivalling Boris Johnson (the blond ***** waving the Union Jack at the closing ceremonies of the China Olympics and, god help us all, mayor of London) and a consistent yahoo character. He used the 9/11 bombing as a springboard to firstly get troops sent to the Gulf for stage 1 of a 2 part plan. The invasion of Iraq. He didn't invade because of WMD's or harbouring of terrorists (who also hated ****** as much as anyone) but he wanted to finish what his father had started and not been able to complete. This together with the orders sent down through **** Cheney which broke human rights laws left right and centre makes his government the biggest bunch of war criminals to ever get away with it. I personally think they should be made to stand up in front of the Geneva convention for what they did.

Barack Obama - Seemingly a man of the people when he was on the election run. He has sat in office over disasters like Hurricane Katrina and seems to be presiding over a cabinet of hawks. Everything I hear coming out of US politics these days is about this bill which violates an individuals rights to privacy or that bill which will let the US shut down web sites with impunity. I believe he would like to get out of the whole Iraq and Afghanistan but knows he can not simply pull everyone out as the US, UK and all other powers made the mess and have a responsibility to clean it up.

Just to be clear, I hold politicians around here in just as much contempt. At our next election the choices are between the Conservatives (who are a bunch of upper class snobs who know nothing about the country they rule over and only care about feeding the rich) and the Labour Party who's last government brought us into recession by de-regulating the banks.

Just a note, Mr Cheney's first name seems to be a swear word. Same goes for a certain former dictator from Iraq.

Edited by Hans Davion, 29 August 2012 - 06:18 AM.

[Booger Klown]

DavidHurricane, on 29 August 2012 - 05:49 AM, said:

So what if we lottery another ******? Humans need to gain from success, and learn from failure. Some people haven't learned from the 2008 election still . Personally, I'd rather vote for a dog than Obama. So Mitt is the only and best choice.

Vote for a Dog?!? Why not research other candidates that are running? There are more than just Obama and Romney. The election campaign and amount of money spent has been spent not to convince you to vote for the best candidate, but to make you feel like there are only two choices, both of which will continue the cycle that has been going on for over half a century, slowly stripping away the rights of United States Citizens do bring this country into a state of "Justifiable Despotism"

[whiskey tango foxtrot]

Booger Klown, on 29 August 2012 - 05:56 AM, said:

The Basic principals of the constitution is meant to be the guidelines for american government. It details out the division of power among our different branches of government. It lists basic rights that all citizens are entitled to. If these principals were the guiding principals of those in power then our country would be in much better condition. Of course it needs to be amended as times go on. But to say that you stop listening when someone mentions it means that there is no more respect for the principals on which this country was based on. Be happy you have the constitution or else all your rights would have already be stripped from you and America would not be the country it is. The real power of a nation lays with its people. If we as American citizens remain apathetic and unappreciative of what rights we have, then we don't deserve them; We should be enslaved by dictators who control our thoughts and actions. So if that is the kind of life you want to live then continue to not care about the founding principals of our nation which are the only thing standing between the government and your freedoms.

Just one thing , the Constitution , is the "law" that governs govenment.

[Inappropriate042]

Im voting for Paul by write in. If you choose not to because you only vote for those the media tells you who can win dont complain when the next war starts or our country goes bankrupt. The media can tell us anything it wants, the individual decides whether to listen to it or not.

[whiskey tango foxtrot]

Yuck Fou, on 29 August 2012 - 06:26 AM, said:

Im voting for Paul by write in. If you choose not to because you only vote for those the media tells you who can win dont complain when the next war starts or our country goes bankrupt. The media can tell us anything it wants, the individual decides whether to listen to it or not.

Think I like Gary Johnson , ex gov of N Mexico.

[Sam Slade]

Booger Klown, on 29 August 2012 - 05:56 AM, said:

The Basic principals of the(U.S.) constitution are meant to be the guidelines for american government. It details out the division of power among our different branches of government. It lists basic rights that all citizens are entitled to. If these principals were the guiding principals of those in power then our country would be in much better condition.

The U.S. Constitution and more specifically the Bill of Rights remain some of the most brilliantly drafted pieces of legislation in democratic history; though the nihilists might argue that if you give people the right to say and think anything they wish we'll all end up like Marvin the Robot history has shown that... conflict induced cultural cringe leading to endemic isolationism aside... the U.S. is a pretty fantastic place. I mean, I live in a city consistantly voted the best place in the world to live, but I don't have a Constitutional Bill of Rights protecting it for me... the best I can manage is Article 42 of the U.N. Universal Decleration of Human Rights... and my government can ignore it if they like.

The U.S. has a great system... sadly their cultural predispositions are doing the same thing to their system as Russias did to Socialism.

Booger Klown, on 29 August 2012 - 06:02 AM, said:

Why not research other candidates that are running?

"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos"

Edited by Sam Slade, 29 August 2012 - 07:36 AM.

[process]

Flyingpants, on 28 August 2012 - 10:48 PM, said:

hint: Being black gives you unlimited scholarships, 100% entrance rates, and indeed easier grading.
It is highly likely that unofficially they do much more.

[citation needed]

Flyingpants, on 28 August 2012 - 10:48 PM, said:

Also: both the obama's "allowed" their licenses to expire, that is something noone would do after graduating and becoming a lawyer. Clearly something fishy was going on with that.

Old email chain is old.

http://www.snopes.co...lawlicenses.asp
http://www.factcheck...s-law-licenses/

tl;dr, they let their licenses expire because they weren't using them, and so they wouldn't have to pay big annual fees and take continuing education courses. They can be renewed. It's the same deal with my profession.

Edited by process, 29 August 2012 - 10:37 AM.

[Insidious Johnson]

SakuranoSenshi, on 29 August 2012 - 05:47 AM, said:

You're comparing a business degree to law? Really?

Lets clarify it. Bush's collegiate record has been released. Obamas... sealed, still. In fact just about everything but a questionable birth certificate and a social security number that fits the time and series for Connecticut is sealed. So, for the record. Bush is provably smarter and legitimate. Obama... isn't... until we SEE the proof. Game over . It is provable that Dodd and Frank pushed Citibank and others to approve UNQUALIFIED minority housing loans (or face bussed in astro-turf protests and biased media circus) which along with shady trades collapsed the economy right from under Bush's feet. No one but Obama is undermining Obama. Everyone else wants an economy, a job, $1.50 gas, and is working for it. You are talking to a former Democrat. That party skipped out on me. Last I saw them, they were headed deep left field on a short hitter. But, I don't blame the parties. I blame lack of journalistic integrity. The 5th estate has failed us, completely.

Edited by Insidious Johnson, 30 August 2012 - 12:12 AM.

[TaiSa Ugly 7th PR]

process, on 29 August 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

[citation needed]



Old email chain is old.

http://www.snopes.co...lawlicenses.asp
http://www.factcheck...s-law-licenses/

tl;dr, they let their licenses expire because they weren't using them, and so they wouldn't have to pay big annual fees and take continuing education courses. They can be renewed. It's the same deal with my profession.

Process: It's mighty decent of you to try to reason with the unreasonable- but just reading his first quote says enough about the mind behind it.

Flyingpants: I understand that living a life where you have questions, rather than answers, can sometimes feel uncomfortable- but I don't recall anyone telling me that life was all about comfort. For whatever reason, you've decided to sip the Kool-Aid and take something someone else told you because it fit something already inside of you that you wanted to believe.

I'm in California, land of magical free honey pots of government and private goodness- and I can assure you that as the average middle age white dude of yore- there are plenty of available school finance opportunities that a similarly situated darker skinned friend of mine cannot access.

One friend (as non-black as they come), presently attending school for (no joke) Soccer, and an entry level business course, has a special financial aid debit card that gives him a monthly cash allowance, on top of all of his tuition and associated fees being covered. This very same program was unavailable to the aforementioned darker friend... He uses it to cover his rent, and other associated expenses. The darker shaded friend picked up a second job, and still manages to volunteer to look after an elder family member during the week.

You might think these are isolated examples, but then I'd ask you for your evidence. Other than things people told you they heard/saw/experienced 2nd, 3rd, and 19th hand can you say you have a reason for believing the things you choose to repeat? Wake up man, quit listening to hate mongers on the radio who give you something to think and feel and look around a little. In the words of Terrance McKenna, "...create your own culture"- it's why we're here.

[process]

Insidious Johnson, on 29 August 2012 - 11:59 PM, said:

Lets clarify it. Bush's collegiate record has been released. Obamas... sealed, still. In fact just about everything but a questionable birth certificate and a social security number that fits the time and series for Connecticut is sealed. So, for the record. Bush is provably smarter and legitimate. Obama... isn't... until we SEE the proof. Game over . It is provable that Dodd and Frank pushed Citibank and others to approve UNQUALIFIED minority housing loans (or face bussed in astro-turf protests and biased media circus) which along with shady trades collapsed the economy right from under Bush's feet. No one but Obama is undermining Obama. Everyone else wants an economy, a job, $1.50 gas, and is working for it. You are talking to a former Democrat. That party skipped out on me. Last I saw them, they were headed deep left field on a short hitter. But, I don't blame the parties. I blame lack of journalistic integrity. The 5th estate has failed us, completely.

There is no precedent for presidents to release college records. A snippet of Bush's were leaked, and he verified they were accurate, but by no means did he enthusiastically release them. Obama's records are not sealed, since college records are not documents that reside in the public domain.

On the other hand, there is​ a precedent for releasing tax returns. And of course, no one's clamoring to see Mitt's birth certificate or college records; that's a special privilege for the outsider Barack Obama.

TaiSa Ugly 7th PR, on 30 August 2012 - 12:24 AM, said:

Process: It's mighty decent of you to try to reason with the unreasonable- but just reading his first quote says enough about the mind behind it.

I know I'm probably wasting my breath, but unchecked misinformation only serves to spread it.

[SakuranoSenshi]

Johnson, process beat me to it but I'll echo. Bush didn't freely release any records at all, Obama's are not sealed and there's nothing odd about his birth despite a lot of noise made about it. In fact, he humiliated Donald Trump over it, at a dinner, in the White House as I recall. It's time to do your research on this sort of stuff, it's not hard, just as process showed with the status of the law licences, rather than believing the ******** fed to you by Fox and "talk" radio hosts.

[990Dreams]

Booger Klown, on 29 August 2012 - 06:02 AM, said:

Vote for a Dog?!? Why not research other candidates that are running? There are more than just Obama and Romney. The election campaign and amount of money spent has been spent not to convince you to vote for the best candidate, but to make you feel like there are only two choices, both of which will continue the cycle that has been going on for over half a century, slowly stripping away the rights of United States Citizens do bring this country into a state of "Justifiable Despotism"

Actually, there is only Obama and Mitt running. Ron Paul dropped out, I think.

[GaussDragon]

Flyingpants, on 28 August 2012 - 04:31 PM, said:

Monopolies do not occur in the free market

Flyingpants, on 28 August 2012 - 04:56 PM, said:

also you need to go learn about economics, because you are very ignorant.

Stop posting, seriously.

Insidious Johnson, on 29 August 2012 - 11:59 PM, said:

It is provable that Dodd and Frank pushed Citibank and others to approve UNQUALIFIED minority housing loans (or face bussed in astro-turf protests and biased media circus) which along with shady trades collapsed the economy right from under Bush's feet.

The minority housing loans through the Community Reinvestment Act made up such a laughably small portion of the loans. The GSEs (Government Sponsored Enterprises) like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac couldn't actually write sub-prime loans that were flooding the market because they were REGULATED. The reason they failed is because they got exposed to these mortgages through financial instruments such as MBSs (Mortgage Backed Securities) which were basically these ****** home loans packaged into tranched fixed income products, they were never the ones actually writing these loans. I would explain the complex chain of cause-and-effect that were these shady trades but considering nobody responded to my post on page 2, I'm assuming no one here would really understand what the **** I'm talking about.

I know all this because sitting on my desk next to my Razer Naga Hex is my hard copy of the official inquiry into the financial crisis:



You can get it for free here - http://fcic-static.l...report_full.pdf

Insidious Johnson, on 29 August 2012 - 11:59 PM, said:

Everyone else wants an economy, a job, $1.50 gas, and is working for it.

The president has virtually no control over petroleum prices. Let me repeat this:

The president has virtually no control over petroleum prices.

I know this because sitting on my desk next to my copy of the financial crisis inquiry next to my Razer Naga Hex is a 700+ compendium on the energy industry:




Getting our information from highly partisan sources is worst way to become informed. Everyone needs to do themselves a favour and read an actual book by people who actually know what they're talking about. Glenn Beck, Bill O'reilly and whoever their uber-liberal equivalents are do not count.

[SakuranoSenshi]

GaussDragon, on 30 August 2012 - 06:46 PM, said:

I would explain the complex chain of cause-and-effect that were these shady trades but considering nobody responded to my post on page 2, I'm assuming no one here would really understand what the **** I'm talking about.

You know what assumptions make, right? ;-) I understand it fine, it's just not that relevant to most of the topic nor is it very interesting and you're probably right, most people probably don't have enough background knowledge to really understand the details but it's enough to understand that the institution who 'fell' essentially were underwriting loans that should never have been made.

[process]

GaussDragon, on 30 August 2012 - 06:46 PM, said:

The president has virtually no control over petroleum prices. Let me repeat this:

The president has virtually no control over petroleum prices.

Just to pile on:



Unless the suggestion is that the President can control global gas prices, there's pretty much nothing he can do to bring them down again. And this is on top of an increase is domestic oil production under this administration.

Of course, if you don't believe me:

Edited by process, 30 August 2012 - 07:55 PM.

[GaussDragon]

SakuranoSenshi, on 30 August 2012 - 07:07 PM, said:

You know what assumptions make, right? ;-) I understand it fine, it's just not that relevant to most of the topic nor is it very interesting and you're probably right, most people probably don't have enough background knowledge to really understand the details but it's enough to understand that the institution who 'fell' essentially were underwriting loans that should never have been made.

I meant to qualify that statement; I meant mostly no one .

process, on 30 August 2012 - 07:53 PM, said:

Just to pile on:



Unless the suggestion is that the President can control global gas prices, there's pretty much nothing he can do to bring them down again. And this is on top of an increase is domestic oil production under this administration.

Of course, if you don't believe me:

This is why I loathe Fox. "Gas prices have gone up 91% under this administration". Ya, they rebounded to their nominal levels after the market was pricing them into a future that never was (July 2008). It's easy to say they increased 91% when they originally fell from a cliff of around $147 dollars a barrel right before the financial crisis and right before Obama got elected. **** like that is so disingenuous and it's pathetic to see news casters take advantage of ignorance like that. And this is coming from someone who used to like Lou Dobbs.

I like how this is the related video that complements your video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztc8UxvSSTo&

[Pht]

Catamount, on 28 August 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

I never said that article was based on assumptions; ...

Yep. You didn't. My bad on that one.

Quote

I said it didn't cite sources. That means the information is unverifiable.

No, it doesn't mean it's unverifiable. It means you might actually have to do some work to verify it. "Unverifiable" = impossible to verify, by any means. Not much of a counter-argument in the age of google and the internet.

Quote

The rest of your supposed quotations of me are equally unrepresentative. I never accused anyone of cherry-picking, for instance; I have no idea what percentage of Obama's associations are with socialists, self-identified or otherwise, merely that it wasn't a basis to frame policies.

You did accuse them of cherry picking. You don't need to post the words "cherry picking" to accuse someone of doing it.

Catamount, on 15 August 2012 - 09:17 PM, said:

...So since they can't pin Obama as a socialist/communist/whatever through his actions, they try to do it through desperate attempts at association, and so try to shoehorn the characterization into place by basically using logic by which if Obama ever had a single friend who espoused any such views, ...

This means cherry picking.

Quote

I noted that their logic was such that individual associations were being used as evidence, anecdotal case after anecdotal case, which is what they displayed, but if I never mentioned that his list of such associations might be quite large, it's only because it went without saying. The relevance of such associations to the tangible effects of his policies doesn't change based on that number, and so, nor does the soundness of the logic.

...

If you felt I downplayed the percentage of his associations that were socialist, and want me to retract those statement, then show me a source that outlines what percentage of Obama's friends and colleagues are socialist.

I didn't cite the post as evidence that his policies are/were socialist. The articles were cited as evidence of obama's life-long marxist preferences.

---

If you care enough to find out from a reputable source, http://books.google....epage&q&f=false

Quote

Look, PhT, Obama is hardly the first president to vastly empower unions. Unions have had a long history in this nation, always under a system that was mostly fundamentally capitalist.

...

I already conceded that if you take what Obama does, define it as socialism,...

Our system hasn't been fundamentally un-coerced markets since before FDR. As for the history of unions - they've been a strong force for socialism for a long time. They are, by their very nature, group oriented, to the detriment of the individual; that they are also coercive is a well known fact. They now exist mostly as large contributors to the socialist political causes and the government unions mainly function of late as money-laundering institutions for the democrat party - the taxpayer funded Tarp bailouts that went to the unions went right back to the democrat party as donations, for example.

---

This is not what I've done.

From the Oxford English Dictionary:
Definition of socialism

noun
[mass noun]

• 
  
  a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
  
• 
  
  policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
  
• 
  
  (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.

• The term ‘socialism’ has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state Communism, and social democracy; however, it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammelled workings of the economic market. The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended towards social democracy.

http://oxforddiction...glish/socialism

The instances I mentioned fall under this definition.

Quote

The problem is: no one cares. What you're doing is little more than characterization; it's name calling.

If people don't care when they're told they're laying across the rail-road tracks and a train is coming... Yes, and if the name validly implies the character of the person and his actions, and those actions are wrong...

Valid name calling is a virtue, regardless of what queen victoria might have thought of it.

Quote

If you want to take exception to his policies in terms of their tangible effects,...

But simply looking at policies and yelling "that's socialism" ISN'T AN ARGUMENT.

Theft on a massive scale from us, our children, and our grandchildren, for one. Having the government horn in via heartless bureacracies into our medical care, for another, and regulating uncoerced markets out of existance.

---

Yes, it is an argument. The word "socialism" has a meaning, which, if implemented, leads to tyranny, dictatorship, and in the marxist flavor of it, state legistlated and endorsed ******, on a massive scale.

Quote

... if you point at an individual aspect or policy and say "that's socialism", it's a statement of the obvious.It doesn't mean Obama is purely socialist, anymore than Bush was purely fascist.


These are extremes that the whole of the policies of a given president have never come close to meeting, as they tinge our hybrid system this way or that way.

I pointed out more than an individual aspect or policy.

---

I said the man was socialist. I didn't say that the man was a pure socialist. In fact, I even indicated the kind of socialist he is - marxist.

Quote

And again, what one chooses to call a set of policies is irrelevant.
...
So if you want to object to the policies, make an argument that actually has something to do with the tangible effects of the policies, not what kind of name-calling you can attach to them.

Than nothing you have to say about anything I've posted has any meaning at all. That is, if you are honest enough to apply your standard equally in all the situations where it applies. Words and language matter, they have meanings, and those meanings have an extreme effect on people's lives.

Nobody does anything except that they do it at the prompting of an idea tha they believe; and those ideas are expressed in language.

---

The names "socialism" and "marxist" imply ideas that have logical conclusions that have tangible effects.

[Pht]

LogicalTightRope, on 28 August 2012 - 04:46 PM, said:

While I still disagree on the monopoly part (I think what your saying is true because the only monopolies the government lets happen are ones it wants to happen), you've made a decent point about people working for more than themselves even in an anarcho-capitalist system.

Free markets and anarchy are mutually exclusive. In order for a market to be free, it must have boundaries (can't steal, can't break legal contract, can't commit fraud, etc).

He's right about monopolies; they don't occur without the backing of the government. A government is defined as the gropu that has exclusive access to the use of coercion in any given area; and monopolies require coercion. So, either the business is in bed with the local government, or the buisness IS the local government. Either way you slice it, the only way to get a monopoly is thorugh the use of the means of government coercion.

Quote

I just wonder whether we'll ever be able to fully remove welfare - as much as I dislike it, it's necessary, at least for now.

it's going to remove itself. Right now we have anywhere from 135 to 200 trillion promised out in welfare debt; the reaper, he is coming for the wealth-theft-redistribution systems.

Sam Slade, on 28 August 2012 - 05:23 PM, said:

1st Amendment

The first amendment does not legalize the act of coercing people to not vote at a polling place by the means of threatening physical violence.

[Brenden]

Hehe. I have no clue what's going on.
I'm an Independant.

[Pht]

Sam Slade, on 29 August 2012 - 05:10 AM, said:

Arguments against affirmative action assume a socialy level playing field; this is simply not the case(yet, ideally affirmative action policy will not be needed in perpetuity).

If you use the justification that you're ok to do something wrong because someone else did something wrong to you, anarchy ensues with all it's attendant horrors.

Zoex, on 14 August 2012 - 03:33 PM, said:

I usually stop listening to people as soon as they bring up the constitution. It's an over 200 year old document

Your post came before mine. Therefore, your post is irrelavant.

If you don't agree with what I just posted here than you must disagree with what I've quoted you saying here.

Age does not renderr something un-true; and the constitution is based on an understanding of human nature; which has not, can not, and will never change.

Quote

It was supposed to be a living document

No, it was not intended as such. The several states would have never voted to ratify it if it was not a solid standard that was hard to change.