PDA

View Full Version : Why Obama will be elected



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

mattclary
10-16-2008, 10:07 AM
LOL... or crying, not sure.

http://teamsugar.com/group/974220/blog/2368078

IMI
10-16-2008, 11:01 AM
Oh, that's hilarious. :lol:

In a very tragic way....

warmiak
10-16-2008, 11:05 AM
The underlying message here seems to be that a lot of blacks are going to vote for Obama mainly because he is black.

adamredwoods
10-16-2008, 11:11 AM
My grandmother is the same way. She is voting McCain because Obama just doesn't "look" trustworthy.

warmiak
10-16-2008, 11:14 AM
My grandmother is the same way. She is voting McCain because Obama just doesn't "look" trustworthy.

Well, you should listen to her ... she's been around :)

mattclary
10-16-2008, 11:14 AM
My grandmother is the same way. She is voting McCain because Obama just doesn't "look" trustworthy.

How would she have fared in that interview though? Would she have agreed on this or that issue (very erroneously), or we should have said, "I'm not voting for Obama because my gut says not to trust him"?

Personally, I have more respect for someone (on either side) who just claims it's a gut feeling. We read and judge people all the time, it's part of being human.

hrgiger
10-16-2008, 12:32 PM
I'm white. And I'm voting for Obama pretty much just because he's black. I just wish he hadn't chosen Sarah Palin as his running mate. But I still support him.

IMI
10-16-2008, 12:41 PM
I'm white. And I'm voting for Obama pretty much just because he's black. I just wish he hadn't chosen Sarah Palin as his running mate. But I still support him.

I thought Joe Biden was Sarah Palin's running mate?
Since when is Obama black? Is that some kind of a racist statement just because he plays basketball?
You really ought to research this stuff better. ;)

colkai
10-16-2008, 12:51 PM
That is beyond scary, yet tragically, not remotely surprising.
I mean, the one about saying McCain is uneducated, yet they were, themselves, not a shining example of same. :p

3DGFXStudios
10-16-2008, 01:05 PM
http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63918

mattclary
10-16-2008, 01:22 PM
http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63918


:offtopic:

grimoirecg
10-16-2008, 01:23 PM
Voting a candidate in for superficial reasons is what Americans do. How do you think Arnie became a governor.
Their whole election is run like a celebrity popularity contest.
Personalities not Policies, that's how America votes for it's leaders.
That sums up the reason why the **** always manages to float to the top.

*Pete*
10-16-2008, 02:37 PM
everyone is black when i close my eyes, so i also vote with my eyes closed.

the bonus of that is that i dont get the quilt feeling of voting for the wrong guy/girl.

rakker16mm
10-16-2008, 02:57 PM
LOL... or crying, not sure.

http://teamsugar.com/group/974220/blog/2368078

OK.... So Howard Stern found three idiots who are voting for Obama for all the wrong reasons, but what did we actually learn from this about the majority of people who are voting for Obama? Well actually we learned nothing at all.

I'm sure Sarah Palin will cary Alaska because that is where she is from, and John McCain will cary Arizona because that is his home state, but the majority of people voting for the McCain Palin ticket do not live in Arizona or Alaska. Likewise the majority of people who are voting for Senator Obama are not African American. If Senator Obama was only able to get the "BLACK" vote then he would not have beaten Hillary Clinton to with his parties nomination.

In any case I'm sure I can find at least three idiots voting for McCain and just like Howard I can edit out any of the responses that don't make my case that people voting for McCain are idiots.

Cageman
10-16-2008, 03:04 PM
In any case I'm sure I can find at least three idiots voting for McCain and just like Howard I can edit out any of the responses that don't make my case that people voting for McCain are idiots.

Very true indeed. I view these kinds of videos with a grain of salt. Fun and scary at times, but, as you say, they don't represent any majority. It would be alot more interresting to see an unedited 3 hour video with maybe 200-300 people answering the same question (boring to watch, sure, but alot more reliable as a source).

3DGFXStudios
10-16-2008, 04:44 PM
:offtopic:

that's the point...........

Hopper
10-16-2008, 05:24 PM
Just goes to show, while we would like to think people are making educated descisions on electing our next president, sadly enough, it truly is a popularity contest. I hate how shallow people have become these days. It's pretty sickening.

Tzan
10-18-2008, 10:54 AM
Agreed.

I saw a movie a long time ago where the president was chosen at random from the entire country.

My rules, not the movie:

1. Choose 2 people from each state at random
2. Give them an IQ test, anyone who passes, 120+, get to move ahead.
3. Primary, you can vote for anyone from any state.
4. Election the top vote getters are in the Nov. election.

mattclary
10-20-2008, 09:04 AM
Agreed.

I saw a movie a long time ago where the president was chosen at random from the entire country.

My rules, not the movie:

1. Choose 2 people from each state at random
2. Give them an IQ test, anyone who passes, 120+, get to move ahead.
3. Primary, you can vote for anyone from any state.
4. Election the top vote getters are in the Nov. election.

Add to that a one term limit and I'm on board!

Tzan
10-20-2008, 10:19 AM
Yeah 1 term is good because it will focus that person on being a president and not on a 4 year election campaign.

Well that makes two of us so far. :)

hrgiger
10-23-2008, 09:27 AM
In response to the original post of this thread. I'll cal this Why Obama could lose: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zRqcfqiXCX0&feature=related

POTO2220
10-23-2008, 09:58 AM
The underlying message here seems to be that a lot of blacks are going to vote for Obama mainly because he is black.

The funny thing is....he is NOT Black, nor is he African American. He is only 12% Kenyan. His father was a small amount of kenyan but the vast majority of his family was Arab.

If anything, he is the first Arab-American candidate....70-some percent Arab married into a American caucasian trumps his minimal Kenyan background. Ridiculous that blacks will vote for him over such nonsense....love to hear blacks comments on whites who only vote for a man cuz he's white....they would call racism all day long....but whatever's good for the goose.....

Sekhar
10-23-2008, 10:31 AM
2. Give them an IQ test, anyone who passes, 120+, get to move ahead.

That wouldn't be fair to the Republicans. :devil:

warmiak
10-23-2008, 10:36 AM
That wouldn't be fair to the Republicans. :devil:

They are stupid , you are smart ...and now you can feel better for the rest of the day ..

hrgiger
10-23-2008, 10:42 AM
They are stupid , you are smart ...and now you can feel better for the rest of the day ..

I wouldn't say Republicans are stupid at all. I mean, except for the ones who voted for Bush the second time.

Sekhar
10-23-2008, 10:44 AM
It was in jest... of course.

prospector
10-23-2008, 11:04 AM
http://teamsugar.com/group/974220/blog/2368078
Typicle Obama voters here too.
Neighbors have no idea whatsoever what Obama stands for.
Haven't asked about Palin as VP tho...that was great.
Must try that around here.

mattclary
10-31-2008, 07:11 AM
Updated! Hey, this is even better than the original!!! :thumbsup:


http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/10/30/on-canceling-the-informed-vote.php

IMI
10-31-2008, 07:26 AM
Updated! Hey, this is even better than the original!!! :thumbsup:


http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/10/30/on-canceling-the-informed-vote.php

Heh. Good stuff. :thumbsup:

"I won't have to worry about putting gas in my car, I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage..."

It's like I've been saying all along - and get summarily poo-poo'd about - the Obama campaign has invested a huge amount of effort into making people think he's giving stuff away, has some magical answer for everyone's problems. And whether he's actually saying that or not, that's the message people are getting (due to some masterfully subtle implications), and that's largely how he's going to be elected.

On the bright side, there's no telling how much backlash he'll get over it after people begin realizing he's NOT giving them stuff and he's NOT solving their problems. Should be fun to see it all unfold. :D

Of course, just to be "fair and balanced" ( :D ), Hope is a good thing to have and it seems to have spread around to people who might otherwise have little to hope for. Since it seems like The Obama will win, let's "hope" that the Hope isn't actually just the Hype I think it is...

Auger
10-31-2008, 07:27 AM
Updated! Hey, this is even better than the original!!! :thumbsup:


http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/10/30/on-canceling-the-informed-vote.php

ROFLMAO!:cry:

mattclary
10-31-2008, 08:13 AM
Heh. Good stuff. :thumbsup:

"I won't have to worry about putting gas in my car, I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage..."

It's like I've been saying all along - and get summarily poo-poo'd about - the Obama campaign has invested a huge amount of effort into making people think he's giving stuff away, has some magical answer for everyone's problems. And whether he's actually saying that or not, that's the message people are getting (due to some masterfully subtle implications), and that's largely how he's going to be elected.

On the bright side, there's no telling how much backlash he'll get over it after people begin realizing he's NOT giving them stuff and he's NOT solving their problems. Should be fun to see it all unfold. :D

Of course, just to be "fair and balanced" ( :D ), Hope is a good thing to have and it seems to have spread around to people who might otherwise have little to hope for. Since it seems like The Obama will win, let's "hope" that the Hope isn't actually just the Hype I think it is...

When they don't see the... "dividends"... they expect, it will be someone else's fault. Hell, if the Demoscrats maintain their lead or gain a bigger lead in Congress, all her dreams just might come true.

IMI
10-31-2008, 08:46 AM
When they don't see the... "dividends"... they expect, it will be someone else's fault.

True. I didn't think about that. I'm sure there are strong measures in place to prevent exactly what she wants - measures implemented by Reagan, and upheld by Bush Sr. Measures Clinton was unable to overturn though he tried, of course, all the while feeling the pain....
Measures strengthened once again by Bush and Cheney, and Haliburton...

And of course, when The Obama is *cough cough* unable to break those measures and seals and unleash Utopia upon the United States... well, of course it will not be his fault... :D

warmiak
10-31-2008, 10:20 AM
Found it somewhere on the net ….



· "give a tax break to 95 percent of Americans who work every day and get taxes taken out of their paycheck every week"

· "eliminate income taxes on Social Security for seniors making under $50,000"

· "give homeowners and working parents additional tax breaks"

· not increase taxes on anyone if they "make under $250,000; you will not see your taxes increase by a single dime –- not your income taxes, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains tax"

· "end those breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas"

· "give tax breaks to companies that invest right here in the United States"

· "eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses and start-up companies that are the engine of job creation in this country"

· "create two million new jobs by rebuilding our crumbling roads, and bridges, and schools -- by laying broadband lines to reach every corner of the country"

· "invest $15 billion a year in renewable sources of energy to create five million new energy jobs over the next decade"

· "reopen old factories, old plants, to build solar panels, and wind turbines"

· build "a new electricity grid"

· "build the fuel efficient cars of tomorrow"

· "eliminate the oil we import from the Middle East in 10 years"

· "lower premiums" for those who already have health insurance

· "if you don't have health insurance, you'll be able to get the same kind of health insurance that members of Congress give themselves"

· "end discrimination by insurance companies to the sick and those who need care the most"

· "invest in early childhood education"

· "recruit an army of new teachers"

· "pay our teachers higher salaries, give them more support. But ... also demand higher standards and more accountability"

· "make a deal with every young person who's here and every young person in America: If you are willing to commit yourself to national service, whether it's serving in our military or in the Peace Corps, working in a veterans home or a homeless shelter, then we will guarantee that you can afford to go to college no ifs ands or buts"

· "stop spending $10 billion a month in Iraq whole the Iraqis have a huge surplus"

· "end this war in Iraq"

· "finish the fight and snuff out al Qaeda and bin Laden"

· "increase our ground troops and our investments in the finest fighting force in the world"

· "invest in 21st century technologies so that our men and women have the best training and equipment when they deploy into combat and the care and benefits they have earned when they come home"

· "No more homeless veterans"

· "no more fighting for disability payments."


I am surprised he didn't mention "getting rid of cancer once and for all " ... but it is an impressive list nonetheless.

mattclary
10-31-2008, 11:44 AM
Found it somewhere on the net ….
I am surprised he didn't mention "getting rid of cancer once and for all " ... but it is an impressive list nonetheless.

True. And were he serious about helping America, he should cure the common cold.

hrgiger
10-31-2008, 07:48 PM
Updated! Hey, this is even better than the original!!! :thumbsup:


http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/10/30/on-canceling-the-informed-vote.php

I think she was saying that she believes Obama will actually do something about energy and the housing crisis, things that currently worry her. Everything sounds so bad when you take people out of context. I could be wrong though, she might be stupid.
And when I say do something, I mean, not give the oil companies big tax breaks after their astounding and offensively large profits over the last few years.

IMI
10-31-2008, 08:02 PM
I think she was saying that she believes Obama will actually do something about energy and the housing crisis, things that currently worry her. Everything sounds so bad when you take people out of context. I could be wrong though, she might be stupid.
.

You would PREFER to think that she's thought it out that thoroughly. After all, nobody wants to know that his candidate won because of the stupid vote. ;)

However, she said "I won't have to worry about putting GAS in my car, I won't have to worry about PAYING my mortgage". But maybe she meant to say she was glad Obama was going to by her a gas-free, shiny new electric car, and he personally was going to pay her mortgage...

Gas? Far as I know, Obama's plan has little to do with gas. Unless you consider hot air in with it... :D
Won't have to worry "about paying my mortgage", she said, not, I won't have to worry about if I can afford to pay my mortgage...

Of course, maybe she's just communication-impaired, and there's evidence of that possibility, because she began with "It was the most memorable time of my life", where she should have said, "It's been one of the most memorable times of my life", or "This will be one of my most memorable moments".

Unless she was planning on dying right immediately afterwards, that is. ;)

hrgiger
10-31-2008, 08:05 PM
After all, nobody wants to know that his candidate won because of the stupid vote. ;)



You think anyone on either side would want to give up a victory if they thought they won because of the stupid vote? You don't know people very well. Personally, I could care less who makes up the votes as long as they're Americans, as the system should be.

hrgiger
10-31-2008, 08:10 PM
However, she said "I won't have to worry about putting GAS in my car, I won't have to worry about PAYING my mortgage". But maybe she meant to say she was glad Obama was going to by her a gas-free, shiny new electric car, and he personally was going to pay her mortgage...



From what she said, it could mean that she is under the impression that she won't have to pay for gas or a mortgage if Obama is elected, or it could very well could mean that she believes that if Obama is elected, he will create the conditions that would allow her to pay her mortgage and put gas in her car and not have to worry about the financial result that it may currently be creating for her. The key word in what she said was worry. Now if she had just said, I won't have to pay my mortgage and won't have to put gas in my car, now it takes on a whole different meaning and we're back to her being stupid.

IMI
10-31-2008, 08:19 PM
From what she said, it could mean that she is under the impression that she won't have to pay for gas or a mortgage if Obama is elected, or it could very well could mean that she believes that if Obama is elected, he will create the conditions that would allow her to pay her mortgage and put gas in her car and not have to worry about the financial result that it may currently be creating for her. The key word in what she said was worry. Now if she had just said, I won't have to pay my mortgage and won't have to put gas in my car, now it takes on a whole different meaning and we're back to her being stupid.

Honestly, I think she was neither stupid nor thinking it all through to that extent.
I think she was hyped up, reeling from the Obama phenomenon - the Obamanon, and just excited.

And yes, you can see it at Palin rallies as well.
Poor old John and Joe though - they never get anybody excited. ;)

She also said at the beginning that she never thought she'd see this day. I took that to mean a black guy likely to win the US presidency. I think that alone had her well on her way to accepting anything he might say.

hrgiger
10-31-2008, 08:22 PM
She also said at the beginning that she never thought she'd see this day. I took that to mean a black guy likely to win the US presidency. I think that alone had her well on her way to accepting anything he might say.

As it should.

IMI
10-31-2008, 09:58 PM
As it should.

You're saying that just because he's black she SHOULD be more predisposed to accepting whatever he says?

What if that was Bill Cosby up there?

Mike_RB
10-31-2008, 10:06 PM
Jeez, just hurry up and vote Obama in. And lets see how he does. I think everyone can agree the world could use a change for the next 4 years. If he sucks then just boot him out and it will be Romney's (shudder) turn.

Mike_RB
10-31-2008, 10:06 PM
You're saying that just because he's black she SHOULD be more predisposed to accepting whatever he says?

What if that was Bill Cosby up there?

Those making less than $250,000 would get as many Jello Puddin' pops as they want.

Stunt Pixels
10-31-2008, 10:10 PM
She also said at the beginning that she never thought she'd see this day. I took that to mean a black guy likely to win the US presidency. I think that alone had her well on her way to accepting anything he might say.

Huh.

I would take that to mean she never thought she'd see the day where she could "live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character".

But maybe that's just me.

IMI
10-31-2008, 10:34 PM
Huh.

I would take that to mean she never thought she'd see the day where she could "live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character".

But maybe that's just me.

Dress it up as much as you want, but it still means the same thing I said.

IMI
10-31-2008, 10:36 PM
Those making less than $250,000 would get as many Jello Puddin' pops as they want.

Yeah that's all we need. Let's hope he also includes plenty of free insulin in the deal. :D

Stunt Pixels
10-31-2008, 10:56 PM
Dress it up as much as you want, but it still means the same thing I said.

No it doesn't - it means the exact opposite. It would mean taking the colour of someones skin out of the equation, and judging them by their character. Which would certainly be against supporting someone for the colour of their skin...

IMI
10-31-2008, 11:21 PM
No it doesn't - it means the exact opposite. It would mean taking the colour of someones skin out of the equation, and judging them by their character. Which would certainly be against supporting someone for the colour of their skin...

No, it doesn't. You said, "I would take that to mean she never thought she'd see the day where she could "live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character"."

What I said couldn't exist if what you said weren't a given reality. You're trying to split hairs; when I said I "took that to mean a black guy likely to win the US presidency.", the underlying implication is everything you said.

Trust me when I tell you I'm capable of thinking more than I write, and in the case of the likelihood of Obama becoming president, I am completely aware that we DO in fact "live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character". It's a given, else how else could we be where we're at, with a black man about to become president?

Unfortunately I often forget that some people seem to need every single little underlying detail thoroughly spelled out for them.

And in any event, there is nothing that woman said to imply she meant any other higher ideals beyond simply being happy it's a black dude up there. She made several dumb comments, and you guys are trying to make her out as some subtle scholar. If it had been someone saying similar things at a Palin rally, you'd be LOL'in it up all over the place. ;)

Stunt Pixels
10-31-2008, 11:47 PM
And in any event, there is nothing that woman said to imply she meant any other higher ideals beyond simply being happy it's a black dude up there. She made several dumb comments, and you guys are trying to make her out as some subtle scholar.

I'm not saying anything about her being a "subtle scholar". She may be an idiot, from that short quote, I wouldn't presume to know either way.

OK, here's an example as I see it, I don't get to vote in the US. I'm much closer aligned politically to Democrats the Republicans. Because of what Obama stands for, I'd vote for him. Would I feel a thrill at the same time, as I was taking part in an historically transformitive event? Absolutely. Can I imagine the satisfaction a black democrat would feel casting the same vote? Not really.

The question you have to ask is, would she be so enthusiastic about Obama if he and McCain were on opposite sides, with each others policies? Possibly, but I doubt it. I have no doubt that there are some people who will be voting (each way) on racial issues. But I'd guess that's a small number on either side. To simply assume she's enthusiastic about Obama purely because he's black seems pretty condescending.

warmiak
10-31-2008, 11:52 PM
The question you have to ask is, would she be so enthusiastic about Obama if he and McCain were on opposite sides, with each others policies? Possibly, but I doubt it. I have no doubt that there are some people who will be voting (each way) on racial issues. But I'd guess that's a small number on either side. To simply assume she's enthusiastic about Obama purely because he's black seems pretty condescending.

It is hard to say one way or another given the fact that African American voters are pretty much wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party.

We are talking here Kim Jong-il style election margins ( 90% +)

IMI
11-01-2008, 12:18 AM
She may think the exact same thing that Stunt Pixels is saying - but just not say it eloquently enough. The fact is, we don't know what SHE was thinking any more than we know what YOU are thinking. We've already had how many (?) misunderstandings because many of us here do not say COMPLETELY what we are thinking - even though WE know what we are thinking. :)

What? YOU again? I thought I lost you in that other thread. ;)

OK, we don't KNOW what the woman was thinking. Maybe by saying "I never thought I'd see this day" she WAS thinking it was about time someone honest and decent has a chance and was happy to see the racial barrier torn down.
Maybe she WAS thinking she was just happy to see a black guy up there.

Hell, for all I know, maybe she had an appointment to have her eyeballs removed that day but it was canceled and she went to see Obama instead. ;)

And therefore I concede. Meaning I'm not going to argue about it any longer, although I do still think I was right.
:)

Panikos
11-01-2008, 01:14 AM
Here how Greeks interpret the elections :)

Vote for the black one.
The other is an a$$hole.

jin choung
11-01-2008, 03:07 AM
anywhere you go, you can find stupid people. do you have any doubt that you can't find an ignorant mcpalin supporter and pull the same gag? PEOPLE ARE FING STUPID.

http://www.despair.com/idiocy.html

that is the truth that no politician will say. the american people, the british people, the chinese people, all people everywhere are stupid motherfing morons.

is that a REVELATION to anyone?

as for RACE. it matters. still.

how many people will NOT vote for obama because he's black?

i say any reverse racism just balances the scales.

for me personally, i am proud to have voted for the first black president of the united states of america. i am proud to have been a part of that. i'll be able to look back on it with my children and my grandchildren and say i was there, i was a part of that historic election and i cast my vote for obama.

like it or not, on top of everything else, he IS a symbol. and it's one that i like.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

the real reasons obama will be elected on nov 4 2008:

1. the american people are sick and tired of republican rule. they've had 8 years with a majority in both houses of congress for most of that time. they've HAD THEIR CHANCE to show what they could do.

y'know how i say f all this arguing, i'd just GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO DO IT YOUR WAY... just so i could go, "ha ha" at the end of it.

here's me: "ha ha"

2. we want health care. i want health care. we believe that health care is a right. the fact that even now, we cannot turn anyone away at an emergency room PROVES that.

3. we're tired of "emergency socialism for the wealthy".

if we're gonna engage in some fing socialism, we all better get a piece of that motherfing pie.

if PROGRESSIVE TAXATION, SOCIAL SECURITY, FOOD STAMPS, MEDICARE, MEDICAID and UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE are all examples of socialism, we're inclined to think that some of this socialism stuff is not so bad.

and if we can afford 70 billion for the stupid motherfers in wall st and how many billions of dollars a week for iraq, dam fing straight we're gonna print some fing money to get someone's bump checked out.

4. 80% of us make less than $250k. waaaaaaay less.

"joe the plumber" is a stupid motherfer - aside from the fact that he's not ACTUALLY a plumber and that his "dreams" of buying the business he's thinking of is a VERY VERY REMOTE pipe dream according to biographical research - if he votes mccain. he really wants to put in place policies that will really make it HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT HE WILL EVER BE IN DANGER OF MAKING $250K? ugh.

5. as the last and ultimate rebuke on the bush administration. that the america that bush, cheney, rumsfeld and crew wrought has been rejected and that history will remember a presidency that was so much of a failure, so much of an unmitigated debacle, that the sitting president could not even campaign for the candidates of his party and ultimately, the stench of his regime drove even the unlikely into the arms of the democrats.

6. to give the middle finger to those who would play at being "the architects of fear" (watchmen shoutout! prescient!) and instead embrace some confidence and hope and for a nation that claims God - some FAITH for fs sake - that doesn't rely on xenophobic fear to manipulate the herd.

jin

hrgiger
11-01-2008, 03:25 AM
You're saying that just because he's black she SHOULD be more predisposed to accepting whatever he says?

What if that was Bill Cosby up there?

No, not exactly. Blacks have a lot of reason to feel disenfranchised from the political system and in this country in general. There have been black 'appointees' in higher positions like Rice but for the first time, a black man has a possibility of gaining the top spot by popular vote. I would think that people would see that as inspirational. He didn't get there solely because he's black. He's charismatic, a family man, and has spent much of his life serving the community and I think he is an excellent role model for the black community. I don't think it's a coincidence that he'll get a lot of black support AND he's a democrat which normally receives much of the black vote anyway. Know how popular Bush is among blacks? 2% with a margin of error of 2%.
Bill Cosby is an excellent choice of an example. He is not very popular with a lot of blacks because he tells the black community that they're not victims of anything and to stop becoming a black sterotype. If it were Bill Cosby were in Obamas spot right now...he wouldn't be getting as much black support which just proves my point that blacks aren't going to be predisposed to just swallowing anything any black politician says by nature.

mjcrawford
11-01-2008, 03:47 AM
· "give a tax break to 95 percent of Americans who work every day and get taxes taken out of their paycheck every week"

· "eliminate income taxes on Social Security for seniors making under $50,000"

· "give homeowners and working parents additional tax breaks"

· not increase taxes on anyone if they "make under $250,000; you will not see your taxes increase by a single dime –- not your income taxes, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains tax"

· "end those breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas"

· "give tax breaks to companies that invest right here in the United States"

· "eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses and start-up companies that are the engine of job creation in this country"

· "create two million new jobs by rebuilding our crumbling roads, and bridges, and schools -- by laying broadband lines to reach every corner of the country"

· "invest $15 billion a year in renewable sources of energy to create five million new energy jobs over the next decade"

· "reopen old factories, old plants, to build solar panels, and wind turbines"

· build "a new electricity grid"

· "build the fuel efficient cars of tomorrow"

· "eliminate the oil we import from the Middle East in 10 years"

· "lower premiums" for those who already have health insurance

· "if you don't have health insurance, you'll be able to get the same kind of health insurance that members of Congress give themselves"

· "end discrimination by insurance companies to the sick and those who need care the most"

· "invest in early childhood education"

· "recruit an army of new teachers"

· "pay our teachers higher salaries, give them more support. But ... also demand higher standards and more accountability"

· "make a deal with every young person who's here and every young person in America: If you are willing to commit yourself to national service, whether it's serving in our military or in the Peace Corps, working in a veterans home or a homeless shelter, then we will guarantee that you can afford to go to college no ifs ands or buts"

· "stop spending $10 billion a month in Iraq whole the Iraqis have a huge surplus"

· "end this war in Iraq"

· "finish the fight and snuff out al Qaeda and bin Laden"

· "increase our ground troops and our investments in the finest fighting force in the world"

· "invest in 21st century technologies so that our men and women have the best training and equipment when they deploy into combat and the care and benefits they have earned when they come home"

· "No more homeless veterans"

· "no more fighting for disability payments.".

Ok, if any of you actualy believe that any of this is going to happen, I have some great sub prime mortguages you might be interested in...

hrgiger
11-01-2008, 03:58 AM
Ok, if any of you actualy believe that any of this is going to happen, I have some great sub prime mortguages you might be interested in...

Well, once we get back to remembering that these are things that Obama wants to do vs what he's promised will be done by any certain date, it's a lot more of a manageable list. The right has been complaining that we dont' know where Obama stands on issues. There you go, there's your list.

Stooch
11-01-2008, 04:13 AM
yeah adama is a good leader.

mjcrawford
11-01-2008, 04:24 AM
Well, once we get back to remembering that these are things that Obama wants to do vs what he's promised will be done by any certain date, it's a lot more of a manageable list. The right has been complaining that we dont' know where Obama stands on issues. There you go, there's your list.

Fair enough, but please do not refer to me as ‘the right’ I am an independent. In the interest of being fair, I will only mention things that Obama has indeed promised…


tax cuts:
Give a tax break to 95 percent of Americans who work (in the form of a $1000 tax credit)

Eliminate income taxes on Social Security for seniors making under $50,000

Give homeowners and working parents additional tax breaks

Not increase taxes on anyone if they make under $200,000 (250k for families)

Give tax breaks to companies that invest right here in the United States

Eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses and start-up companies

tax increases:
Raise taxes on those making more than $200k (250k for families)

End those breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas

new spending:
Spend $150 BILLION to develop new energy and next-gen cars

Lower premiums by an average of $2500 for those who already have health insurance

If you don't have health insurance, you'll be able to get the same kind of health insurance that members of Congress give themselves



These are all things that Obama has said that he WILL do, not that he would like to do. (There is of course more, but for the sake of a sane discussion we will stick to the basics)

So, if he effectively eliminates all taxes on seniors under 50k (which by the way includes a lot of rich retired folks that simply no longer earn more than they already have) gives a $1000 tax CHECK to 95% of households including EVERYONE who does not currently pay taxes, give additional tax breaks to those that own homes and have kids, eliminate a large portion of capitol gains tax, and cut taxes for all business that employ Americans, plus spend hundreds of billions on a new health care system and next-gen tech, just how much will the individuals making more than 200k (250k for families) and the few large companies that can actually afford to ‘ship jobs oversees’ have to pay to make up for all this?

Don’t get me wrong; I am not a big fan of McCain’s tax plan either; however Obama’s is simply fiscally impossible so either he is lying, or he is an idiot.

IMI
11-01-2008, 07:56 AM
The right has been complaining that we dont' know where Obama stands on issues. There you go, there's your list.

Anybody can make up a list. Here's mine:

10- Solve the world hunger problem.
9- Harm no trees, drill no oil, cause no pollution.
8- Completely eliminate poverty in the US
7- Completely eliminate unemployment in the US
6- Completely eliminate oil usage in vehicles within ten years
5- Everyone will be able to buy a shiny new electric car the moment internal combustion becomes illegal
4- Figure out a way to make it so everyone will be able to buy that shiny new electric car
3- Destroy Autodesk once and for all
2- Remove all term limits for Congress and the Executive Branch
........
And the #1 reason why you should elect me to the Presidency of the United States of America.....

ALL problems will be solved, ALL negative aspects of life, eliminated. Verily I say unto you, even Death and Misery shall be defeated and tossed into the Abyss and shall torment nobody ever gain. Amen.

**************************

By the way it's not that the "right"* doesn't know where Obama stands on the issues, it's that the "right"* still has yet to hear any kinds of in-depth explanations as to HOW he hopes to accomplish much of these things.

The more complex the issues, the less information he's given, such as health care and The Great Greenification. From what I can tell, his "plan" for such things seem to mostly involve tossing more money at the problems and hoping for the best.

*And by the "right", I mean everyone who questions these things and thinks it's valid to do so, not just the Actual Right.
This isn't Spy vs. Spy here - just because someone has problems with Obama doesn't mean he's automatically part of the immediately assumed opposition.

theo
11-01-2008, 08:47 AM
Obama=There
McCain=Here

There is better than Here because There isn't Here.

Here=Bush
Bush=emotional discomfort and memory-enhanced stress

If Obama pulls this off it's only going to be because enough folks cross party lines for the There.

I see nothing special or original about Obama. He's a senator from a hometown with the highest murder rate in the US and he plans on saving the world. Go figure.:stumped:

warmiak
11-01-2008, 12:07 PM
anywhere you go, you can find stupid people. do you have any doubt that you can't find an ignorant mcpalin supporter and pull the same gag? PEOPLE ARE FING STUPID.

http://www.despair.com/idiocy.html

that is the truth that no politician will say. the american people, the british people, the chinese people, all people everywhere are stupid motherfing morons.

is that a REVELATION to anyone?

as for RACE. it matters. still.

how many people will NOT vote for obama because he's black?

i say any reverse racism just balances the scales.

for me personally, i am proud to have voted for the first black president of the united states of america. i am proud to have been a part of that. i'll be able to look back on it with my children and my grandchildren and say i was there, i was a part of that historic election and i cast my vote for obama.

like it or not, on top of everything else, he IS a symbol. and it's one that i like.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

the real reasons obama will be elected on nov 4 2008:

1. the american people are sick and tired of republican rule. they've had 8 years with a majority in both houses of congress for most of that time. they've HAD THEIR CHANCE to show what they could do.

y'know how i say f all this arguing, i'd just GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO DO IT YOUR WAY... just so i could go, "ha ha" at the end of it.

here's me: "ha ha"

2. we want health care. i want health care. we believe that health care is a right. the fact that even now, we cannot turn anyone away at an emergency room PROVES that.

3. we're tired of "emergency socialism for the wealthy".

if we're gonna engage in some fing socialism, we all better get a piece of that motherfing pie.

if PROGRESSIVE TAXATION, SOCIAL SECURITY, FOOD STAMPS, MEDICARE, MEDICAID and UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE are all examples of socialism, we're inclined to think that some of this socialism stuff is not so bad.

and if we can afford 70 billion for the stupid motherfers in wall st and how many billions of dollars a week for iraq, dam fing straight we're gonna print some fing money to get someone's bump checked out.

4. 80% of us make less than $250k. waaaaaaay less.

"joe the plumber" is a stupid motherfer - aside from the fact that he's not ACTUALLY a plumber and that his "dreams" of buying the business he's thinking of is a VERY VERY REMOTE pipe dream according to biographical research - if he votes mccain. he really wants to put in place policies that will really make it HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT HE WILL EVER BE IN DANGER OF MAKING $250K? ugh.

5. as the last and ultimate rebuke on the bush administration. that the america that bush, cheney, rumsfeld and crew wrought has been rejected and that history will remember a presidency that was so much of a failure, so much of an unmitigated debacle, that the sitting president could not even campaign for the candidates of his party and ultimately, the stench of his regime drove even the unlikely into the arms of the democrats.

6. to give the middle finger to those who would play at being "the architects of fear" (watchmen shoutout! prescient!) and instead embrace some confidence and hope and for a nation that claims God - some FAITH for fs sake - that doesn't rely on xenophobic fear to manipulate the herd.

jin

You have a nasty habit of insulting people you don't know simply because they don't share in your extreme political dreams.
Don't presume Joe doesn't know what's good for him ...

Despite what you think, your “ideas” are in fact the most conservative tired and old stuff there can be.
What’s so progressive about clinging to half a century old and clearly not sustainable failing programs like Social Security, Medicaid and others ?

In one fiscal year we are spending a staggering $1,6 trillion on various social programs and only 450 billion on the defense budget.

Do you seriously think that shifting additional 100 billion from Iraq to things like Medicaid would make much more difference ?
Hell …even if we were to dismantle our armed forced altogether and spend additional 450 billion on these social programs, you think it would make that much more difference ?

These things are going bankrupt because they are not sustainable and an incredible waste of money….

IMI
11-01-2008, 01:10 PM
One thing to consider about Social Security is that when it was created people weren't routinely living into their 80's and 90's.

It wasn't designed to be some sort of government-sponsored retirement plan, just to assist seniors in their final years - maybe 5 or 6 years for most of them.

Obviously we shouldn't just put our seniors out to pasture and let 'em starve to death, but Social Security is a mess as it is and SOMETHING needs to change in it, although I'd have no idea how to do it up better and more efficiently. Logan's Run comes to mind, but that seems a bit extreme. ;)

jin choung
11-01-2008, 03:31 PM
These things are going bankrupt because they are not sustainable and an incredible waste of money….

and the right is completely blind because they don't recognize that - as i keep saying - you ALWAYS PAY.

you pay early and smart or pay late and stupid.

joe IS stupid. his vote for mccain WILL harm him and his interests. this is FACT. i have a habit of calling stupid people stupid. he's also a liar that tried to misrepresent himself to make a point. HE REALLY WOULD end up paying less taxes and probably benefit from health care and other programs under obama.

also: mcpalin rallys are stupid. mccain keeps saying "he's gonna take YOUR money and spread it around!" what i'd really REALLY REALLY love to ask that crowd - especially a "heartland crowd" is this:

"how many of you make more than $250k? SHOW OF HANDS?"

that would be a sight. a sight of a bunch of people looking around with their hands in their pockets.

and you know what's really tired and unsustainable? trickle down economics.

it's time to saw the legs out from under the fat cats and start funding from the bottom up.

jin

jin choung
11-01-2008, 03:39 PM
just how much will the individuals making more than 200k (250k for families) and the few large companies that can actually afford to ‘ship jobs oversees’ have to pay to make up for all this?

oh please....

there is NO problem with the numbers.

try to understand what this means because it is true and if understood, really makes all the numbers come into focus:

THE TOP 2% OF THE POPULATION CONTROLS MORE WEALTH THAN THE BOTTOM 98% COMBINED.

the line STARTS at $200k but it goes WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY UP from there and there will be NO LACK of money if we tax THEM.

your argument is akin to saying, "how is this country gonna survive we stop taxing serfs and only start taxing royalty?!"

jin

Chris S. (Fez)
11-01-2008, 03:45 PM
I still think it is stupid to punish people for being successful.

Interesting cut-n-paste from a post here: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/obamas-new-atta.html

"On my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." At lunch, my server had on a "Obama 08" button.

When the bill came I explained to the server that, in accordance with the Obama redistribution of wealth concept, I am redistributing his tip to someone I deemed more in need - the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed away. Then I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10.

The homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the server was angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient needed the money more.

Clearly, those demanding redistribution of wealth are the ones with their hands out, who think they will receive but will not have to give.

This is the worst kind of greed, the kind that destroys a nation relying on democracy."

jin choung
11-01-2008, 03:47 PM
Obviously we shouldn't just put our seniors out to pasture and let 'em starve to death

i have a couple of conservative friends and the funny thing is that they almost always BEGIN their sentences this way but they have no idea how their economic ideas can FINISH THE SENTIMENT!

their economic ideas simply do not and cannot address people who cannot earn their keep. (almost always reverts to some notion of charity which i am always quick to point out is decidedly NOT sufficient).

and yet for them, it's political suicide to be as harsh as their political ideas would mandate. (they cannot earn their keep, why should MY MONEY go to them?! that's SPREADING THE WEALTH!)

in that case - when the conservative solution is simply ignore the issue until it shows up at the ER: you always pay. pay early and smart or late and stupid.

jin

jin choung
11-01-2008, 03:55 PM
I still think it is stupid to punish people for being successful.

Interesting cut-n-paste from a post here: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/obamas-new-atta.html

"On my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." At lunch, my server had on a "Obama 08" button.

When the bill came I explained to the server that, in accordance with the Obama redistribution of wealth concept, I am redistributing his tip to someone I deemed more in need - the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed away. Then I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10.

The homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the server was angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient needed the money more.

Clearly, those demanding redistribution of wealth are the ones with their hands out, who think they will receive but will not have to give.

This is the worst kind of greed, the kind that destroys a nation relying on democracy."

does the server make more than $250k? heck does the RESTAURANT?! then he's safe.

the analogy is flawed and we can make other flawed analogies where i take that money and give it to somebody in the military industrial complex so he can go to a place i've never been and kill people i've never met.

economic policies of a land can "distribute the wealth" or it can help the "rich get richer". which would you prefer?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

ULTIMATE QUESTION: do you REALLY believe that life is not fair.

most on the right give lip service to that question and say yes simply because it is untenable to say no. but their philosophy believes that life IS fair.

that is their flaw.

and if life is UNFAIR - think about ALL the ramifications of what that means from every aspect of life.

and if life is NOT fair. should society - heck, civilization - seek to make things MORE fair or to AMPLIFY the unfairness?

jin

p.s. and that analogy, as i've said in previous posts, applies to social security and all kinds of socialized programs even now. should we get rid of those?

jin choung
11-01-2008, 03:58 PM
here's a nice flawed analogy too:

fire departments are "socialized". but how is it fair that someone who is NOT on fire be forced to pay to put out the flames of someone who IS on fire?!

that is ridiculous! why should people not currently being immolated be punished?!

jin

Chris S. (Fez)
11-01-2008, 04:09 PM
economic policies of a land can "distribute the wealth" or it can help the "rich get richer". which would you prefer?


I would prefer a land where people are not discriminated against for any reason...including being rich/successful. That is "fair" in my mind.

Life is not fair. Survival of the fittest I say. If the fit see fit to distribute their pie to the poor, then it should be by choice, not law.

jin choung
11-01-2008, 04:13 PM
I would prefer a land where people are not discriminated against for any reason...including being rich/successful. That is "fair" in my mind.

Life is not fair. Survival of the fittest I say. If the fit see fit to distribute their pie to the poor, then it should be by choice, not law.

that's what the right always says - and as i keep pointing out "by choice" is NOT enough.

"survival of the fittest"... greaaaaaat....

so no social security? let old people rot?

let the person on fire pay for the fire dept? and if he can't, let him burn?

as i said in the post to imi, the right CANNOT hold to what they believe in: "survival of the fittest"... please. think about what that means.

if you take your post to its logical conclusion we would live in one helluva INHUMANE society.

jin

Chris S. (Fez)
11-01-2008, 04:13 PM
here's a nice flawed analogy too:

fire departments are "socialized". but how is it fair that someone who is NOT on fire be forced to pay to put out the flames of someone who IS on fire?!

that is ridiculous! why should people not currently being immolated be punished?!

jin


Ha! Well, I suppose the rich SHOULD pay more because if their second summer home starts flaming it will require a lot more water and resources to extinguish then, say, the hobo's cardboard box.

Chris S. (Fez)
11-01-2008, 04:20 PM
if you take your post to its logical conclusion we would live in one helluva INHUMANE society.

jin

Only if you take it to "Lord of the Flies" extremes...

I believe we should ALL pay taxes. I believe we should ALL be responsible. I do not believe that certain people should be forced to take on more taxes and more responsibilities simply because they are successful.

jin choung
11-01-2008, 04:24 PM
I would prefer a land where people are not discriminated against for any reason...including being rich/successful. That is "fair" in my mind.

also what the right does not recognize-

being successful is a gift. being able to apply yourself and work hard is a gift. it depends on things that are outside of your control and you did not earn. a sound mind, a sound body, resources of time and wealth and that you were born into.

being unsuccessful is not by definition "earned" either. again, the luck of the draw of sound mind and body. the environment that allows the space and freedom to discover your gifts. a neighborhood that does not show you everyday that all there is is a small closed world of crime and ducking for cover when gunshots ring out.

other factors: height, race, beauty, intelligence, firends of parents, etc....

when i say life is not fair, i'm saying that it extends from FIRST PRINCIPLES.

there are ALWAYS EXCEPTIONS to the rule but the rule stands.

and in america, we know that the "american dream" is a myth - the greatest determinant of your class IS INDEED what class your parents were.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

also, the whole "no discrimination whether or rich or poor"... well here's the thing, THIS is impossible. again, another manifestation of life not being fair. from the bible:

"he who has will be given more. he who does not have, even what he has will be taken from him."

life is at its root - un fair.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

given that this IS the case, seeking a system that seeks to address inequities instead of AMPLIFY THEM is what is truly "FAIR".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

also, people STILL discuss this as if it is an academic subject in a vacuum...

hello? the heart and engine of capitalism just got its a$s handed to them in a little doggie bag. and there are MANY societies and countries in our world that is faaaaar more socialized than we and they frequently have a higher quality of life and their citizens claim to be happier.

jin

jin choung
11-01-2008, 04:27 PM
I do not believe that certain people should be forced to take on more taxes and more responsibilities simply because they are successful.

again, you're putting mental barriers in that are not germane:

when i pay taxes to fund the life of an old person who would otherwise starve, i am being punished to help him.

when i pay taxes to fund a fire engine that is putting out the fire of someone whose apartment building is burning down, i am being punished to help him.

we ARE our brothers keepers and to take "survival of the fittest" at its word in ANY serious way is indeed simply inhumane.

as i say, the philosophy of the right is essentially untenable.

jin

theo
11-01-2008, 04:28 PM
fire departments are "socialized".

Fire departments are indisputable community necessities that save lives and resources. Very few disagreements will arise between ideologically polarized factions when it comes to funding fire departments.

Redistribution of wealth is not an indisputable necessity and it is a highly polarizing issue for many good reasons.

The fact that fire departments can be analogized as a socialization scheme has little to do with anything since almost total public support removes the politics from the equation (outside of typical community power plays- which doesn't relate to the socialization aspect at all).

jin choung
11-01-2008, 04:30 PM
Ha! Well, I suppose the rich SHOULD pay more because if their second summer home starts flaming it will require a lot more water and resources to extinguish then, say, the hobo's cardboard box.

you say this in jest but there is also an aspect in which this is PRECISELY the reason why taxing the rich more also is more just than most people think.

they end up taking a lot of resources to do what they do (and own what they own). their "footprint" as they say is larger.

again, you say this in jest but it is more apt than you're likely to believe.

jin

Stooch
11-01-2008, 04:34 PM
yes because everyone in the world falls into two categores. a server or a homeless guy.

was the homeless guy a veteran by any chance?


I still think it is stupid to punish people for being successful.

Interesting cut-n-paste from a post here: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/obamas-new-atta.html

"On my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." At lunch, my server had on a "Obama 08" button.

When the bill came I explained to the server that, in accordance with the Obama redistribution of wealth concept, I am redistributing his tip to someone I deemed more in need - the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed away. Then I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10.

The homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the server was angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient needed the money more.

Clearly, those demanding redistribution of wealth are the ones with their hands out, who think they will receive but will not have to give.

This is the worst kind of greed, the kind that destroys a nation relying on democracy."

jin choung
11-01-2008, 04:35 PM
Fire departments are indisputable community necessities that save lives and resources.

you're saying that "popular support" somehow mitigates it but i'm talking about the essence of it.

fire departments ARE a form of redistribution of wealth.

the benefits of MY WEALTH are being used to help NOT ME but SOMEONE ELSE! WTF?!?!?!

the person who is not on fire is indeed getting his wealth reduced for the sake of helping someone else so that his wealth/life is preserved as much as possible.

the "fair" thing would be let the person on fire pay for it or if he can't, if he is not "fit enough" to protect his own property, let it burn.

that is the logical extension of the right's position on most things.

and it is ludicrous.

jin

Chris S. (Fez)
11-01-2008, 04:38 PM
we ARE our brothers keepers and to take "survival of the fittest" at its word in ANY serious way is indeed simply inhumane.

as i say, the philosophy of the right is essentially untenable.

jin

Here are the "Lord of the Flies" laws according to Fez. I think they are fair, if not humane:

1) Everybody who participates in the hunt earns an equal share of the pig.

2) Everybody contributes an equal part of their share to feed anyone who was too sick/old/feeble/inept to participate.

3) Anyone who dedicates time and resources to catch pig on their own can do whatever they see fit with their winnings.

It is certainly reasonable to expect the faster, stronger, slyer hunters to catch more pigs.

jin choung
11-01-2008, 04:49 PM
well you do recognize that #2 is blatantly socialistic don't you?

HOW DARE YOU?!?!

: )

as for #3, in this context, what does it mean that someone goes trying to catch a pig "on their own"? if #3 is acceptable, why would any of the strong and the smart and the fast participate in #1 and therefore #2... : )

that's where it breaks down.

1 and 2 obama and the democrats would back you all the way.

3 breaks the system.

jin

theo
11-01-2008, 04:50 PM
we ARE our brothers keepers and to take "survival of the fittest" at its word in ANY serious way is indeed simply inhumane.


Listen, this mindset reeks with glorious ideal. Anyone with even the slightest sense of compassion cares for mankind in some fashion.

The problem with what you and others suggest, in the manner you do, emanates from what I feel is a move toward reliance on forceful elitist entities.

There is little question in my mind that handing over the reins of human compassion for 'proper' dissection and dispensation to calculating government structures actually works against free will and independence in a populace.

We are a very giving nation as it is.

You will get little argument from few that more needs to be done to assist mankind.

Where you and I diverge entirely is on the ways and means of accomplishing this, jin.

There is one thing I take away from being an armchair historian for most of my life: government is a necessary evil.

Therefore, in spite of the glorious ideals driving policy I would prefer to keep the hand of the state as far away from the human cookie jar as possible.

In the end, not one single government on the face of the earth has been able to redistribute its poor out of existence (long-term).

Now, do I think we should, as a people, take the poor lightly? Of course not. Much needs to be done... just not through massive lumbering bureaucracies that sponge millions from the public coffers that never see the light of a poor man's day.

jin choung
11-01-2008, 05:02 PM
Now, do I think we should, as a people, take the poor lightly? Of course not. Much needs to be done... just not through massive lumbering bureaucracies that sponge millions from the public coffers that never see the light of a poor man's day.

again, this is a common approach of the rich - "the inefficiency of cumbersome government".

as i said, as "giving" as we are as a people, it's not enough. not nearly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
and government CAN work. the excuse of an inefficient government is an EXCUSE. nothing but. nothing more.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
government works when it has to. military is not perfect but it works and a government driven entity is the ONLY WAY in which it CAN work.

if the government can be whip shaped into taking into account a nuclear arsenal that can incinerate every square inch of the earth 50x over, it CAN BE WHIPSHAPED to address the problem of inequity and the poor.

the issue is not one of capability. it is one of WILL.

government and the people have the WILL to make a military that works because it is in their own best interest. people know that it's good to have a gun against someone coming at you with a knife.

what STUPID FING PEOPLE don't understand is the less exotic, more prosaic threat of tremendous social inequity. like diabetes, you don't think having another cookie is gonna kill you but as unthreatening as that cookie may be, it can kill you just as dead as a knife.

if people come to understand this, that addressing poverty and social just is indeed in their OWN BEST INTEREST, we can find the WILL and we CAN make government work to address the poor.

jin

theo
11-01-2008, 05:13 PM
you're saying that "popular support" somehow mitigates it but i'm talking about the essence of it.

fire departments ARE a form of redistribution of wealth.

the benefits of MY WEALTH are being used to help NOT ME but SOMEONE ELSE! WTF?!?!?!

the person who is not on fire is indeed getting his wealth reduced for the sake of helping someone else so that his wealth/life is preserved as much as possible.

the "fair" thing would be let the person on fire pay for it or if he can't, if he is not "fit enough" to protect his own property, let it burn.

that is the logical extension of the right's position on most things.

and it is ludicrous.

jin

Others benefit (if they experience a blaze), but the main desire driving public support of a local fire department is self-interest.

It doesn't matter whether one is rich or poor the desire to protect one's family, life and property is exactly the same. If you don't care about THIS then I would have to question the validity of your position in reference to caring for the distant poor.

Under unfair redistribution policies (which are created under democratic rule) only the poor are helped, and in a most superficial manner.

Frankly, I am FOR the poor being helped- I would rather teach them how to fish and make sure those that do have money are in a position to create jobs benefiting those in need.

theo
11-01-2008, 05:15 PM
if people come to understand this, that addressing poverty and social just is indeed in their OWN BEST INTEREST, we can find the WILL and we CAN make government work to address the poor.


Perhaps you don't know as many people as I do that give a tremendous amount to help those in need. I know many that do and I give much myself. I am comfortable knowing there is no vast middle man.

hrgiger
11-01-2008, 05:16 PM
Don’t get me wrong; I am not a big fan of McCain’s tax plan either; however Obama’s is simply fiscally impossible so either he is lying, or he is an idiot.

Well, you're wrong about Obamas tax plan, not everyone who is in the working 95% is going to get a $1,000 tax cut. It's up to $1,000. He has a calculator on his website where you can figure out what you're tax cut will be depending on your income and filing status. I think mine was $500.
He also stated in the debates that of course everything isn't going to be able to be done, especially in the current economic crisis so I dont' see a promise to get anything done, I just see a list of things that he would like to do if possible. Every candidate lays out such a list and promises you the moon and normally, they do not get all those things done. So I see them as positional stances.

Chris S. (Fez)
11-01-2008, 05:17 PM
the rich...end up taking a lot of resources to do what they do (and own what they own). their "footprint" as they say is larger.

jin

The rich pay for that footprint, right? I see your point though. We ALL pay taxes to maintain and restore roads but the rich are the ones doing the most driving (or compelling others to drive).


well you do recognize that #2 is blatantly socialistic don't you?

HOW DARE YOU?!?!

: )

as for #3, in this context, what does it mean that someone goes trying to catch a pig "on their own"? if #3 is acceptable, why would any of the strong and the smart and the fast participate in #1 and therefore #2... : )

that's where it breaks down.

1 and 2 obama and the democrats would back you all the way.

3 breaks the system.

jin

#1 and #2: I am semi-socialist for sure. Soup kitchens and government jobs for everyone. The phrase "can't find work" does not apply on Fez island. If you are healthy enough to work, we WILL find you work. If you are capable of work and are not working, you are free to rely on the kindess of family and strangers...but you will also be cut off from the soup kitchens.

# 3: Consider the Fez laws revised: Every capable citizen has a mandatory pig quota. Everyone must catch and contribute 1 pig to the community. Hunters who exceed their quota through skill/speed/luck can do what they please with their pig parts.

Panikos
11-01-2008, 05:43 PM
Cant wait for Tuesday when Obama will win :P

Chris S. (Fez)
11-01-2008, 05:55 PM
I dislike both candidates. It is gonna be an election day decision for me.

jin choung
11-01-2008, 06:02 PM
Perhaps you don't know as many people as I do that give a tremendous amount to help those in need. I know many that do and I give much myself. I am comfortable knowing there is no vast middle man.

it's not enough.

one look at the world tells me and anyone with eyes in his head - it's not enough.

as much as your friends give, as much as you give. it's not enough.

jin

jin choung
11-01-2008, 06:06 PM
# 3: Consider the Fez laws revised: Every capable citizen has a mandatory pig quota. Everyone must catch and contribute 1 pig to the community. Hunters who exceed their quota through skill/speed/luck can do what they please with their pig parts.

haha,

you realize of course that at that point, we're just quibbling over the tax quota.... : ) and we've also embraced "progressive taxation" because we're clearly taxing the able more than the un-abled and lame.

we've come around and basically stand in the same place. and in that place, the sentiment, "survival of the fittest" is alien and stranger.

but yeah, "semi socialist" is, i think, where MOST americans would feel completely comfortable in and with. me too.

jin

mjcrawford
11-01-2008, 07:07 PM
oh please....

there is NO problem with the numbers.

try to understand what this means because it is true and if understood, really makes all the numbers come into focus:

THE TOP 2% OF THE POPULATION CONTROLS MORE WEALTH THAN THE BOTTOM 98% COMBINED.

the line STARTS at $200k but it goes WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY UP from there and there will be NO LACK of money if we tax THEM.

your argument is akin to saying, "how is this country gonna survive we stop taxing serfs and only start taxing royalty?!"

jin


:lol:


So you think that people making $100k+ a year are surfs! Man you are funny! I do not think we need tax cuts for people making $150k per year, nor do I think that homeowners any special break, renters are hurting a LOT more than owners but nobody cares about them. Aside from your statistic being untrue (if you want to say that the top 5% controls more than the bottom 95% you would be right, but not the top 2%, get your facts right if you are going to quote them) the amount you would have to raise their taxes they simply would not put up with.

Sure your left wing rich guys like Buffet will stick around, but most of your billionaires will not stick around to have their taxes doubled or tripled. And before you say that Obama is only going to raise their taxes to the Clinton-era tax levels, THAT WOULD NOT PAY for all the crap he wants to give away!

Sure it feels good to ‘stick it’ to the rich. However, you are simply encouraging a class war mentality, which of course according to your signature is what you want. The problem is that is there was truly a class war, you will lose. The collective rich could simply leave this country, which would leave us in economic depression.

I wonder how you would feel if instead of ‘rich’ we were talking about ‘Christians’ or ‘Asians’ or ‘Gays’ stereotyping and attacking a group of people is wrong. The Rich are not evil, they are simply successful.

You go on living your life of hate, I have no time to hate you, or anyone else, I would rather get rich then hate them.

The simple fact is, Obama says all this crap knowing full well that he will not deliver. He only says it so that Kool-Aid drinkers like yourself will believe that he cares about you and that he is going to give you a break while sticking it to the other guy.

mjcrawford
11-01-2008, 10:02 PM
haha,

you realize of course that at that point, we're just quibbling over the tax quota.... : ) and we've also embraced "progressive taxation" because we're clearly taxing the able more than the un-abled and lame.

we've come around and basically stand in the same place. and in that place, the sentiment, "survival of the fittest" is alien and stranger.

but yeah, "semi socialist" is, i think, where MOST americans would feel completely comfortable in and with. me too.

jin

Perhaps you miss the point in your own arguments Jin, there is a big difference between “semi socialist” and “socialism” also we have hardly embraced “progressive taxation” in fact we have quite the opposite, we truly have “regressive taxation” if you truthfully look at our system.

On socialism, I would agree as the Constitution states, that some things the Government must provide (infrastructure, military, emergency services etc.) however also as the Constitution states, anything not mentioned in the Constitution is not the business of the federal government. The reason that the Constitution defines all this stuff, is to prevent people on the far left, or the far right from implementing extremist agendas in an attempt to constrain personal liberty, unfortunately both parties have stepped all over this authority and we literally have thousands of laws that are direct violations of the Constitution. They should be removed. Obama and McCain both have spent a lot of time trying to promise things that are not in the Constitution (Health Care, Government backed loans, etc) I am against this practice. If we continue to ignore the Constitution, eventually it will be nothing more than a quaint document that used to be the law.

On taxes, you Kool-Aid drinkers are funny; I say this because I honestly think you believe the crap you talk about which means that either you are ignorant, or delusional or perhaps simply out of touch. People on the right point out that the rich already have a tax rate that is too high, people on the left say that it is unfair that they do not pay their “fair share” both are technically correct. We currently have a system that punishes the poor, as well as the rich, and attempts to be “fair” to the middle and the bottom. This is complete BS as those that are truly poor yet trying to improve their situation are screwed.

We do not need a “progressive” tax system, we need a tax system that makes EVERYONE pay their fair share, there are only two ways to do this, either a flat tax, with ZERO deductions, or a consumption tax like the “fair tax” plan. Obama says he wants the Rich to pay higher taxes, and give to the poor, yet he has said nothing addressing the fact that the poor are hit hardest by Social Security taxes and state taxes or that the poor get hit hard with the various non-income based taxes like the gas tax or local sales tax. We also need to get serious about reforming welfare so that it is not a viable career option as it currently is; the currant system punishes people for getting off of assistance. There is NO reason that any person in this country who is not disabled to the point of being unable to work should receive discounted housing, cash, food stamps, and many other benefits, while people who work but are struggling cannot get any appreciable help at all.

The truth is that the rich pay almost no taxes because of all the various ways they can shelter their income, the middle get massive tax breaks in the form of write offs for things like mortgage interest, the bottom feeders get a free ride on everyone else’s dime, but the poor? They get no deductions, no breaks and truly get screwed.

Obama’s grand plan gives MORE tax breaks for the “middle class” while ignoring the poor almost completely, increased tax breaks for owning a home is not going to help the poor, however it will help the rich quite a bit and the $1000 check is simply not enough. Also if he raises taxes on small business, and large business for that matter those same poor people will end up with no work and become bottom feeders… but then that is what many leftists truly want anyway, to keep the masses dependant on the government for everything.

jin choung
11-01-2008, 10:41 PM
as for all of that:

you believe that life is fair.

i disagree.

and whatever you feel about how obama lacks in helping the poor, i would say his health plan alone trumps mccain in the entirety of his economic policy.

as for "(if you want to say that the top 5% controls more than the bottom 95% you would be right, but not the top 2%, get your facts right if you are going to quote them)" i say, meh whatever.... depends on what study you look at. it's in the margin of error and my point is unchanged.

as for "losing the class war because the rich will just pack up and leave..." HAHAHAHAHAHAHA... WHERE WILL THEY GO?!

CANADA? BRITAIN? FRANCE?

oh yeah, those places have much less taxation...

pffffft.

yes. i want the class war. yes if people on the right are gonna spout the bible, i want all the stuff about the wealthy and eye of the needle brought to bear.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

finally, the GOP has had it their way for 8 years now. look where it got us.

time for... say it with me.... some CHANGE.

jin

warmiak
11-02-2008, 01:49 AM
As opposed to "the other guy" saying allot about nothing. The simple fact is... you're cynical and think that everyone voting for Obama believes that EVERYTHING he says will come to pass. You don't seem to understand that many of us are REALISTS and know full well what reality may bring.


I am all for Obama being like Clinton ... don't **** too much with anything ... don't raise taxes and basically stay centrist.

There is nothing Obama or anyone can do at this moment - the only thing they can do is make things worse ( FDR style 10+ years long recession)

IMI
11-02-2008, 01:55 AM
I am all for Obama being like Clinton ...


I'll go one step beyond that. I wish somehow we could replace him with Clinton - if we HAD to have a democrat, that is.

I liked ol' Bill. At least he kept things interesting. ;)

warmiak
11-02-2008, 01:28 AM
Cant wait for Tuesday when Obama will win :P

Why would you even care ?

Panikos
11-02-2008, 01:37 AM
Why would you even care ?

Because I got sick of USA Police on the entire planet.
Obama doesnt desire such role.

warmiak
11-02-2008, 01:51 AM
Yeah, right, when was the last time you saw US marines in your neighborhood ?

Perhaps you got them confused with Turks ...

mjcrawford
11-02-2008, 03:10 AM
as for all of that:
you believe that life is fair.

i disagree.

When did I say that life was fair? And WTF does that have to do with anything? If you want fair, move to China where everyone is equal.



and whatever you feel about how obama lacks in helping the poor, i would say his health plan alone trumps mccain in the entirety of his economic policy.

So you don’t care about the poor, only about your home value? If so you are the source of the whole problem.



as for "(if you want to say that the top 5% controls more than the bottom 95% you would be right, but not the top 2%, get your facts right if you are going to quote them)" i say, meh whatever.... depends on what study you look at. it's in the margin of error and my point is unchanged.
Fair enough, however the top 5% also already pay a higher tax rate.




as for "losing the class war because the rich will just pack up and leave..." HAHAHAHAHAHAHA... WHERE WILL THEY GO?!

CANADA? BRITAIN? FRANCE?
oh yeah, those places have much less taxation...

pffffft.


Well lets see, currently the top tax rate is 35% now of course France with it’s 50% rate is out, as is the UK with it’s top rate of 40% but Canada is only 29% so that is a possibility, not to mention good ‘ol Switzerland 13.2%. Course none of them compare to the United Arab Emirates or Monaco or even British Virgin Islands with their tax rates of 0%.





yes. i want the class war. yes if people on the right are gonna spout the bible, i want all the stuff about the wealthy and eye of the needle brought to bear.
At least you admit it. Why is it that you believe in this? Seriously what do you hate the rich for? Are you just jealous? Or do you have a rich relative that you dislike? Or is it just that you like having someone to hate? I honestly do not get this, I do not hate anyone.




finally, the GOP has had it their way for 8 years now. look where it got us.

time for... say it with me.... some CHANGE.

jin

Nice try, but while I agree that the GOP has failed in many respects, swapping bad policies for worse ones is not going to fix the issue. The GOP’s primary failure is that they lost sight of one of their primary beliefs, that taxis should be low, and spending should also be low, they got the tax cuts, but did nto cut the spending. McCain was one of the few who fought against this, so I believe that he will actually reduce spending so some degree, I think that Obama will increase spending dramatically, raise taxes, and drive our currant recession into a depression.

mjcrawford
11-02-2008, 03:12 AM
Because I got sick of USA Police on the entire planet.
Obama doesnt desire such role.

you really belive that? Obama will have troops all over the place, just not in Iraq... well actulay now he says that we will keep them in Iraq so well I guess he is really an agent of change right? oh wait he just wants to change who is in the white house... I get it now.

mjcrawford
11-02-2008, 03:15 AM
As opposed to "the other guy" saying allot about nothing. The simple fact is... you're cynical and think that everyone voting for Obama believes that EVERYTHING he says will come to pass. You don't seem to understand that many of us are REALISTS and know full well what reality may bring.

"Sticking it to the other guy?" Oh... you mean the slightly higher taxes for those making more $$$ ? Interesting, since McCain was for the VERY SAME THING back in the primaries for the '00 election. Interesting that he was FOR it then and comes out against it NOW and calls Obama a socialist for being for the very same thing he WAS for. McCain ONLY wants to get elected and he'll do whatever it takes to become president. At least Obama is intelligent and understands what America faces - McCain.... FAR, FAR less.

So... I'm voting for the BEST chance this country has at the moment - and that is quite obviously... Obama. :)

I find it ironic that you consider yourself a realist when you agree with a guy that thinks you can cut taxes for everyone but the “rich” and dramatically increase spending and balance the budget. I am sure Obama will most likely win, and sadly, we will likely see a second depression as a result if he and his Democronies in the Congress pass his idiotic plans.

thesenator
11-02-2008, 04:39 AM
Here Israeli analyst provides a detailed comparison of Obama to Michael Jackson: http://samsonblinded.org/blog/michael-jackson-for-president.htm

hrgiger
11-02-2008, 04:43 AM
Fire departments are indisputable community necessities that save lives and resources.

Hmm, so is health care.

Chris S. (Fez)
11-02-2008, 05:03 AM
haha,

you realize of course that at that point, we're just quibbling over the tax quota.... : ) and we've also embraced "progressive taxation" because we're clearly taxing the able more than the un-abled and lame.

we've come around and basically stand in the same place. and in that place, the sentiment, "survival of the fittest" is alien and stranger.

but yeah, "semi socialist" is, i think, where MOST americans would feel completely comfortable in and with. me too.

jin

Obviously I feel it is unfair and discriminatory to tax the hyper-abled more than the abled. If the rich invest time and ingredients to produce more pie, it should be totally up to them to decide how to distribute it.

"Survival" of the fittest might reasonably be swapped out with "affluence" of the fittest. Want more pie? Work harder. Work smarter. Wealth should be earned not distributed.

EVERYBODY should pay taxes and compensate for their imprint. Anything beyond that is too socialist for my taste.

hrgiger
11-02-2008, 05:24 AM
Obviously I feel it is unfair and discriminatory to tax the hyper-abled more than the abled. If the rich invest time and ingredients to produce more pie, it should be totally up to them to decide how to distribute it.

"Survival" of the fittest might reasonably be swapped out with "affluence" of the fittest. Want more pie? Work harder. Work smarter. Wealth should be earned not distributed.

EVERYBODY should pay taxes and compensate for their imprint. Anything beyond that is too socialist for my taste.

Wealth is a strong word here. Nobody is going to get wealthy by Obamas so called distribute the wealth plan. The rich are still going to be rich and the poor are still going to be poor and nobody from the middle class will be moving up by paying a little less taxes. More poor just might be able to feed their families. I know that's a horrible thought, feeding those poor who didn't earn it themselves and all.

Verlon
11-02-2008, 05:59 AM
No it doesn't - it means the exact opposite. It would mean taking the colour of someones skin out of the equation, and judging them by their character. Which would certainly be against supporting someone for the colour of their skin...

It would mean not voting for or against someone based on the color of their skin. Unfortunately, people ARE still judged on this. So stupid as to defy reason? You bet. People do it though.

Verlon
11-02-2008, 06:01 AM
I find it ironic that you consider yourself a realist when you agree with a guy that thinks you can cut taxes for everyone but the “rich” and dramatically increase spending and balance the budget. I am sure Obama will most likely win, and sadly, we will likely see a second depression as a result if he and his Democronies in the Congress pass his idiotic plans.

The rich (people with a net worth of more than $100 million - we can all agree they are rich, right?) have more money than the rest of us combined.

Obama talks about cutting spending in other areas - like the war in Iraq. Also, if we start creating decent jobs here, more people making more money will be paying more taxes.

Chris S. (Fez)
11-02-2008, 06:08 AM
Wealth is a strong word here. Nobody is going to get wealthy by Obamas so called distribute the wealth plan. The rich are still going to be rich and the poor are still going to be poor and nobody from the middle class will be moving up by paying a little less taxes. More poor just might be able to feed their families. I know that's a horrible thought, feeding those poor who didn't earn it themselves and all.

If the middle class liberal democrats are so compassionate why are they so quick to take and so reluctant to give?

EVERYONE should pay taxes and contribute equally to socialized programs that provide for the poor. No one should get tax cuts IMO.

Obama wants to redistribute wealth EARNED by individual Americans to all of America. To me it is not a question of compassion. It is question of what is fair.

mjcrawford
11-02-2008, 06:23 AM
The rich (people with a net worth of more than $100 million - we can all agree they are rich, right?) have more money than the rest of us combined.

Obama talks about cutting spending in other areas - like the war in Iraq. Also, if we start creating decent jobs here, more people making more money will be paying more taxes.

So when he moves all the troops from Iraq to Afghanistan it will be free? I don't think so. Besides you do know that he has backpedaled on the whole “get out of Iraq” thing right? Or are you still listening to stump speeches from 18 months ago before he started “Changing?”

theo
11-02-2008, 06:47 AM
it's not enough.

one look at the world tells me and anyone with eyes in his head - it's not enough.

as much as your friends give, as much as you give. it's not enough.

jin

For our wage and profit levels it is more than enough.

You are establishing yourself as an arbiter of what is just and socially required.

Which is fine in the context of debate:

I don't see you as a troublesome elitist by a long shot, but combine your statement above law-making capabilities of a ruling hyper-compassionate elite with millions in their own bank accounts and we have the utter horror of the Bourgeois running the country, which is where we are practically now with Republicans.

Millionaires run the country whether demo or repub. The idea that these people really GET what you are idealizing about here in this thread (and others) is highly unlikely.

Most of these people have no idea what a poor person is and how they live. And this goes for ALL fricking politicians. As if Democrats in their pin-striped suits, starchy offices and shiny cars are somehow better at discerning the needs of poverty. Whatever.

I prefer to live without the shallow comforts of delusion.

This isn't to say that what you and other arbiters of compassion feel isn't noble (it is), I just don't see much grappling with harsh and, sometimes, confounding realities in your statements.

hrgiger
11-02-2008, 06:48 AM
If the middle class liberal democrats are so compassionate why are they so quick to take and so reluctant to give?

EVERYONE should pay taxes and contribute equally to socialized programs that provide for the poor. No one should get tax cuts IMO.

Obama wants to redistribute wealth EARNED by individual Americans to all of America. To me it is not a question of compassion. It is question of what is fair.

How is it that they are reluctant to give?
Everyone but the poorest of working Americans pay taxes. You make it sound like the poor are living on easy street because of it. You also make it seem like it would be great to be poor so that you can receive handouts and not work for them. It's amazing how skewed some peoples views are about the quality of life for others. Nobody dreams about being poor one day so that they can receive handouts.
As far as cutting taxes, I think it's generally agreed that cutting taxes for consumers helps stimulate the economy. Democrats want to help the greatest number of Americans, the middle and lower income ranges, while the republicans seem only concerned about the fewest number of people, the upper income ranges and big corporations. Which makes more sense?

Mike_RB
11-02-2008, 06:56 AM
Why are you guys so concerned with Obama's tax changes for those earning over $250k?

All he is doing is changing the tax bracket numbers to bump up those on the top end and drop it a little on the bottom end. You already have a tax bracket system that does this redistribution, hes just dialing the numbers a little. Every year those numbers get adjusted a little. So people earning more already pay more tax on that 'more' amount of money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Year_2008_income_b rackets_and_tax_rates


All these calls of him being a socialist or whatever is just silly. He's just tweaking the tax bracket numbers slightly. It's a system thats already in place.

hrgiger
11-02-2008, 07:01 AM
All these calls of him being a socialist or whatever is just silly. He's just tweaking the tax bracket numbers slightly. It's a system thats already in place.

Because they think by calling him socialist, they can use their usual fear tactics and scare Americans away from voting for him. They've already admitted that if they have an honest talk about the economy, they'll lose big time.

Chris S. (Fez)
11-02-2008, 07:19 AM
How is it that they are reluctant to give?

As far as cutting taxes, I think it's generally agreed that cutting taxes for consumers helps stimulate the economy.

The middle class (of which I am a member) should pay taxes just like the rich. If liberal democrats were sincerely concerned with the poor and the community at large then they would happily pay more taxes. Seems to me the democratic middle class is more interested in securing more pie for their own plates. Liberal democrats are determined to eat the pie yet unwilling to pay for the poor to eat pie.

Obama is winning over middle class with the promise that he will cut their taxes while the rich provide for the poor. It is my opinion that EVERYONE should accept responsibility for funding our social programs rather then selfishly relying on the rich.

America is BROKE largely because the middle class has been borrowing and living beyond their means. IMO the middle class should start spending responsibily and they should help the country revitalize its infrastructure and economy by paying their fair share of taxes.

richgrafx
11-02-2008, 07:27 AM
There are things that I like about both candidates but they are both politicians so I will not trust either.

theo
11-02-2008, 07:30 AM
All these calls of him being a socialist or whatever is just silly. He's just tweaking the tax bracket numbers slightly. It's a system thats already in place.

A tweak is an increase.

Increase the taxes on the rich and the rich increase prices which ultimately affect the poor.

The actual benefits to the poor are, and will always be, negligible. Outside of helping those in need there is little reason to constantly raise taxes, which is a democratic impulse.

The Obama message is populist and motivates disinterested po' folk to vote.

All good, except that the message is nothing new and does little to ease the real reason why the poor have little. ACTUALLY fix the lack of education in these hard-hit communities (many of which have been run by democrats for years), increase business opportunities and create jobs and those in need will be benefited enormously.

Those interested in government power to 'take' will employ whatever method necessary in the debate arena to stifle this enterprise. I see this as noble not silly.

Chris S. (Fez)
11-02-2008, 07:32 AM
Why are you guys so concerned with Obama's tax changes for those earning over $250k?

All he is doing is changing the tax bracket numbers to bump up those on the top end and drop it a little on the bottom end.

All these calls of him being a socialist or whatever is just silly.

What seems "silly" to me is that anyone making 150,000 dollars a year is going to get a tax cut. Instead of lazily relying on the rich the middle class should accept some responsibility for our economic woes and contribute equally to our country's social programs.

hrgiger
11-02-2008, 07:35 AM
Increase the taxes on the rich and the rich increase prices which ultimately affect the poor.




The reality is that Obama is technically not raising taxes on the rich, he's just wanting to roll back the Bush tax cuts and take us back to the rates of the 1990s when Clinton was in office. I hate to bring up the budget surplus again but...

hrgiger
11-02-2008, 07:37 AM
What seems "silly" to me is that anyone making 150,000 dollars a year is going to get a tax cut. Instead of lazily relying on the rich the middle class should accept some responsibility for our economic woes and contribute equally to our country's social programs.

Again, I just have to repeat that including everyone under $200,000 for a tax cut enables the largest number of people to get a tax cut, enabling people to keep more of their money, and hopefully in turn contribute to our economy.

Chris S. (Fez)
11-02-2008, 07:44 AM
Again, I just have to repeat that including everyone under $200,000 for a tax cut enables the largest number of people to get a tax cut, enabling people to keep more of their money, and hopefully in turn contribute to our economy.

That is where we differ. You feel the rich should do the heavy loading. I feel "the largest number of people" should accept equal responsibility and help carry the burden.

IMI
11-02-2008, 07:56 AM
The reality is that Obama is technically not raising taxes on the rich, he's just wanting to roll back the Bush tax cuts and take us back to the rates of the 1990s when Clinton was in office. I hate to bring up the budget surplus again but...

Although I do agree with you, that's just where he's gonna start, IMO. Where's He gonna get the money for all the Really Big Plans He has, such as this whole new industry which will be built up around The Great Greenification and the whole health care lie... oops :o ....I mean, plan?

I really don't have any problem with the tax cuts being rolled back, but it's not gonna be enough money for all His high ambitions, IMO, and I figure that will only be the start of it.

And of course it bears repeating that all this has been done before. No new thinking here, nothing along the lines of this CHANGE! thing of His.

Obama will probably end up helping some people out along the way, but in the end I think He's just going to leave behind more bloated and broken government on top of what already exists.

"The Change We Need", as His campaign slogan says. Well, He's partially right about that - we DO need change. Unfortunately, His "change" is just a bunch of ideas, the success of which are rooted to a very old plan, very much overdone, tired old methods.

The Change We Need is actually a complete dissolution of both parties specifically, and the whole two-party system in general, followed by the resignation of everyone there.

The Change We Need is new METHODS of achieving new ideas. New Ideas in and of themselves are not any kind of change. Taxes upon taxes, bureaucracy upon bureaucracy upon Agency and Program after Agency and Program are NOT new ideas, and seem predestined to lead to spectacular failures, time and time again.

But as has been observed before, Obama is a Party Man, and His party has nothing to offer unless there's alot of pain, misery, poverty, and dependency in the US, and somehow I can't see them really wanting to CHANGE! the things which keep them in power too much.

Chris S. (Fez)
11-02-2008, 08:06 AM
Obama insinuated in a recent speech that citizens resisting taxes are "selfish." I agree.

The hypocrisy is hilarious.

hrgiger
11-02-2008, 08:10 AM
That is where we differ. You feel the rich should do the heavy loading. I feel "the largest number of people" should accept equal responsibility and help carry the burden.

You keep saying that as though Obama wants only the rich to pay taxes. Everyone except for the very poor are going to continue to pay taxes, again, it gets back to the difference between the parties on what percentage they'll pay. It's still the same system either way.

hrgiger
11-02-2008, 08:13 AM
The Change We Need is actually a complete dissolution of both parties specifically, and the whole two-party system in general, followed by the resignation of everyone there.



On that I agree with you. I'm tired of both the Republican party and the Democratic party. I obviously tend to swing more democratic, but it's still a party based on a broken system and it doesn't seem interested in changing that at all.
I fee like Neo in the Matrix before he knows what the Matrix is. There's something wrong with the world but he just can't quite figure out what it is. That's how I feel about our system right now.

IMI
11-02-2008, 08:22 AM
On that I agree with you. I'm tired of both the Republican party and the Democratic party. I obviously tend to swing more democratic, but it's still a party based on a broken system and it doesn't seem interested in changing that at all.
I fee like Neo in the Matrix before he knows what the Matrix is. There's something wrong with the world but he just can't quite figure out what it is. That's how I feel about our system right now.

I don't think you've ever written anything I could agree with more. Well, aside from the LW CA stuff. ;)

Chris S. (Fez)
11-02-2008, 08:32 AM
You keep saying that as though Obama wants only the rich to pay taxes.

I was careful to use the phrase "equal responsibility." Again, I want everyone to take equal responsibility for their own welfare and the country's welfare. To resist taxes would indeed be "selfish," as Obama suggested.

For middle class liberal democrats to rally for raising the taxes of the rich while at the same time embracing their own tax cuts strikes me as selfish and hypocritical.

theo
11-02-2008, 08:42 AM
Obama insinuated in a recent speech that citizens resisting taxes are "selfish." I agree.


I am selectively selfish. Absolutely.

My ideal is to be independently selfless, that is, I f'g prefer to make the decision where my money and time go... not government.

Since I engage in selfless acts of compassion for those in need within my social circle I am more than comfortable with my view on social and tax policy.

On this thread we have those who view government as equivalent to a moralizing and righeous task-master forcefully dispensing broad equanimity ponderously rooted in pure emotion whereupon absolutely little will change in the socioeconomic arena yet the feeling of these folk will be that much has been done.

This is anti-logic of the highest order.

Again, if Obama cannot fix his own backyard what makes you folk think he can change the world? Chicago is the murder capital of the US for 2008 and you are voting for a self-proclaimed globe-changer?

prospector
11-02-2008, 09:34 AM
So the rich are now 120K ???
Big fall from 250K

He is almost back to his 42,600 that he voted for before :D

Chris S. (Fez)
11-02-2008, 09:40 AM
So the rich are now 120K ???
Big fall from 250K
:D

Yep. Biden, Obama and Richardson can't seem to agree on a number.

prospector
11-02-2008, 09:48 AM
It's probably that 'new' math everyone is taught...2+2=5

IMI
11-02-2008, 10:17 AM
It's probably that 'new' math everyone is taught...2+2=5

No, that's not right.
If the Dems added 2+2 and got 5, they'd think they're getting more out of it than what people are putting into it. Would be good for us, because they'd think they could tax LESS to get the number they want.

No, what they do is add 2 (your taxes)+2 (my taxes) and come up with 1, and then realize that to obtain the target number of 5, your taxes and my taxes need to be increased from 2 to 4. ;)

Panikos
11-02-2008, 10:20 AM
Yeah, right, when was the last time you saw US marines in your neighborhood ?

Perhaps you got them confused with Turks ...

I am not surprised from your feedback.
I suggest you read this book
http://www.amazon.com/Conspiracy-American-Espionage-Turkish-Invasion/dp/B000W8S9OE

Or read this
http://maillists.uci.edu/mailman/public/mgsa-l/2004-October/004351.html

Our experience says that USA likes to impose its ideas either with military means or with finance. Since USA is deeply involved in the Cyprus politics then why not Cyprus involve into USA elections ?

Stooch
11-02-2008, 12:09 PM
Perhaps you don't know as many people as I do that give a tremendous amount to help those in need. I know many that do and I give much myself. I am comfortable knowing there is no vast middle man.


so have you bailed out a person that was facing bankruptcy beacuse of medical bills?

provide insurance for someone who lacks it?


if your idea of tremendous help is to give some cash or some food to someone, id say you are just being helpful based on convenience and personal satisfaction. however your contribution is like a grain of sand on the beach when considering the actual problem.

religions in general try to take the "we donate so we must be good" moral path. not saying that you are religious but it seems to me that you arent actually helping because you are so good, but alot of times there is a selfish reward like going to heaven or some other moral ********. And even then its only about helping your fellow brainwashians or some select social group that you fancy. leaving a large part of society ignored.

infact its the very nature of these kind of small handouts that dont actually get rid of the problem that so many republicans joke about. you know give a man a fish vs teaching him to fish...

Sande
11-02-2008, 12:21 PM
I don't know if this has already been here: Sarah Palin talking with Sarkozy - well, almost Sarkozy... (http://ru.youtube.com/watch?v=m38kNLSEras) :D

mattclary
11-02-2008, 12:22 PM
I would take that to mean she never thought she'd see the day where she could "live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character".


Yes, because that is why Obama has 99% of the black vote wrapped up, because they are judging him not by the color of his skin. He and his running mate, Sarah Palin, are going to do a great job.

hrgiger
11-02-2008, 12:25 PM
Yes, because that is why Obama has 99% of the black vote wrapped up, because they are judging him not by the color of his skin.

It goes back to the fact that most blacks support a democratic candidate despite his color. Bush's support among blacks. 2% with a margin of error of 2%. So that 99% number you pulled out of thin air is probably right.

warmiak
11-02-2008, 02:30 PM
Of course, you are a history major and KNOW ALL and SEE ALL of what can and will be done. That's AMAZING!!! You must be another Nostradamus or Edgar Cayce! Keep on telling us the future -- please! :thumbsdow

It is more like common sense.

He cannot do anything .. at the core he can only regulate and confiscate .... don't forget these people don't create wealth , they only spend it.

warmiak
11-02-2008, 02:32 PM
I am not surprised from your feedback.
I suggest you read this book
http://www.amazon.com/Conspiracy-American-Espionage-Turkish-Invasion/dp/B000W8S9OE

Or read this
http://maillists.uci.edu/mailman/public/mgsa-l/2004-October/004351.html

Our experience says that USA likes to impose its ideas either with military means or with finance. Since USA is deeply involved in the Cyprus politics then why not Cyprus involve into USA elections ?

It always makes for a better story if you manage to incorporate the US, perhaps CIA or something like that ...

If the book was just called "Turkish Invasion of 1974" .... nah , that's just too plain - but stick in there "American Espionage" and voila ... you got something going.

IMI
11-02-2008, 02:36 PM
And yet government spending during the Reagan, Bush and Bush years was FAR GREATER than those of the "democrat years." So I guess the Republicans spend all of the money that the Republicans expect the Democrats to raise in taxes? :D

Oh... and the size of government increased during those Republican years as well - and DECREASED during the Democrat years. Kind of the EXACT OPPOSITE that we've all been "taught" over the years.... :D


Yes.
Yes, that's right.
Silly me, I seem to have forgotten that if I make a crack against Democrats, it is therefore an endorsement of Republicans.

You know what I think about both parties. :D

And if you're going to get defensive about me making fun of democrat tax policies, you might want to reconsider what you *appear* to be defending. Because, to me at least, clearly neither party or its policies have done us any kind of lasting good, and more of the same is... well, it's more of the same whether it's coming from the right or the left.
Both of which have masterfully conspired to screw us up good.

IMI
11-02-2008, 02:45 PM
It always makes for a better story if you manage to incorporate the US, perhaps CIA or something like that ...

If the book was just called "Turkish Invasion of 1974" .... nah , that's just too plain - but stick in there "American Espionage" and voila ... you got something going.


All I get at that Amazon link is that the title is no longer available. No information, no reviews, no pictures.
Must have been a real winner.
Oh it does say there - "Amazon.com Sales Rank: #4,144,674 in Books"
Wow, and they were so close to the high 3 million mark. ;)

Mike_RB
11-02-2008, 02:45 PM
go libertarian

IMI
11-02-2008, 02:51 PM
go libertarian

I have.
The problem is, the rest of the country isn't playing along. ;)

Not only that, but the only true bi-partisan effort you can count on in Washington is that there SHALL BE NO other party to ever gain any serious ground.
No how, no way, no choice.

IMI
11-02-2008, 03:05 PM
Absolutely. But there are many who may not know and who also don't KNOW that it is the Republicans who have REALLY added to the national debt as well as the deficit.




Anybody who doesn't know that has probably been living under a rock for the past 20 years and likely has no interest in the subject to begin with. ;)


Remember... we have new people joining this thread all the time and we MUST let them know where we all stand all the time.


An excellent argument for a sig line more than 200 characters long. ;)

Elmar Moelzer
11-02-2008, 04:03 PM
While I am not a US citizen, the result of this years elections is going to affect me as well as everyone else in the world as well.
All I demand is that the leaders of the most powerful nation in the world are more intelligent than me. That includes that they need to understand and know basic principles of science and have knowledge of physics, chemistry, biology and especially genetics but also astrophysics. Of course noone can know all details about everything, but a true leader knows when to ask someone and who to ask when decisions need to be made. Now look at the positions of your candidates that they stated in debates and speeches. Then look for anything that requires logic and scientific knowledge or being informed about a certain area of science.
Countercheck their statements with other sources of information. See whether their reasoning is logical or at least try to understand what they were even talking about. I am sure most people dont even know that. All they hear and see are little tidbits of things that were ripped out of context and put into campaign wordings.
Anyway do all this first and then decide who you think would be a better candidate. Did you bother to do that? If not, you should have no right to vote! Your decision here, the decision of every single one of you, is to important to be based on a gutt- feeling or the opinion of others fed to you in small predigested and easily accessible snacks inbetween Jay Lenno and David Letterman, your neighbour, preacher, psychiatrist or university professor.
Btw, if you are only watching MTV you should definitely not go vote, better if you watch MTV at all, please dont go vote!
If your decision is based on racial ideals one way or the other, dont go vote! This has no place in a nation like the US and I do not care whether you are black or white, or yellow, or red or green, or pink ;)
BTW, if you speculating that the race card will have an effect one way or the other, only 13% of the US population are black... So nah, I dont think it will.
Oh, I do not know about this years participation at the election, but in past years it was more important who could motivate more of his voters to actually go vote than who had a higher support in the population...
With a participation of what? 30 % ? your vote counts for 3.
Also worth considering...
CU
Elmar

PS: so who would I vote for? I wont tell ;) Check your candidates as I said and you might figure it out ;)

jin choung
11-02-2008, 04:10 PM
EVERYBODY should pay taxes and compensate for their imprint. Anything beyond that is too socialist for my taste.

you keep contradicting yourself though. in your hunter/gatherer analogy, the disabled and the weak do NOT contribute their fair share. and you're fine with that. EVERYBODY does not pay in your system.

your mottos keep conflicting with your belief that we shouldn't just cut off those who cannot earn their keep.

jin

jin choung
11-02-2008, 04:14 PM
For our wage and profit levels it is more than enough.

NO IT'S NOT.

if it were enough, we wouldn't HAVE A PROBLEM with health care and poverty and hunger in this country.

you seem to equate "enough" with personal feelings of "i did enough".

i am equating enough with "DID IT SOLVE THE PROBLEM?"

and i'm saying it's not enough because the problems still exist.

just like we can't run a military by donation alone, you can't really help the poor, disabled, old and disenfranchised with volitional charity.

jin

jin choung
11-02-2008, 04:19 PM
Obama is winning over middle class with the promise that he will cut their taxes while the rich provide for the poor. It is my opinion that EVERYONE should accept responsibility for funding our social programs rather then selfishly relying on the rich.

again,

this ignores the fact that 2-5% of the wealthiest control more wealth than the bottom 98-95%.

if you get a grip on those numbers, the middle classes that you want taxed just as heavily as the rich DON'T COUNT VERY MUCH toward a solution!

AND FURTHER:

the SAME taxation rates on them as on the rich would DISPROPORTIONATELY HURT THEM.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

as chris rock said about divorce - "hey, if you're a billionaire and you get a divorce and the wife takes half, you're still ok. you're still good to go with your half a billion. but if you're making $40k and the wife takes half and you have to move back in with your momma, you may have to kill her!"

jin

mattclary
11-02-2008, 04:22 PM
It goes back to the fact that most blacks support a democratic candidate despite his color. Bush's support among blacks. 2% with a margin of error of 2%. So that 99% number you pulled out of thin air is probably right.


What was the rationalization during the Democratic primaries?

jin choung
11-02-2008, 04:23 PM
and mjcrawford,

the entirety of my philosophy is a response to the fact that life is not fair. several pages ago i tried to talk about why if we truly take into account the ramifications of that, that it can and should affect our taxation policy such that it is "progressive" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax ... (i am using the technical term, not a colloquialism that can be construed as being actually "regressive"....).

the fairness of life matters because the essential question then is whether society should serve to AMPLIFY unfairness or MITIGATE IT.

again, all posted in previous pages.

jin

warmiak
11-02-2008, 04:28 PM
Essentially the same as Republicans then....

Yeah, that's what being a Republican used to be all about ...

George Bush and his "compassionate" ******** are just a temporary distortion.

jin choung
11-02-2008, 04:31 PM
REGARDING MIDDLE CLASS CONSUMER CREDIT BLITZ-

this is gonna be the next thing to collapse after housing bubble i think.

but i would argue that this is not merely people acting irresponsibly and stupidly (though, as with the housing bubble, that's definitely a part).

just as in the housing bubble, consumer credit is being extended in order to bolster their bottom lines... and just as with the housing bubble, there was a lot of IRRESPONSIBLE POLICIES by the banks to extend credit where it should not have.

AGAIN: PREDATORY LENDING.

yes, irresponsible consumers but also an out of control banking industry that wants to fill your every orifice with consumer credit for their sakes. THIS WILL COLLAPSE.

and i look forward to it because it fuels the class war.

i suspect that to a degree, this kind of consumer credit MASKS the true state of one's economic status. you don't feel as poor because you can still buy necessities and luxuries (but a lot of people are INDEED overextended on credit paying for necessities).

when credit dries up, when the other shoe falls on this industry, people will realize just how poor they really are.

and they will be angry.

and hopefully, that will spark the kind of political change we need to address issues of social inequity.

jin

Glendalough
11-02-2008, 04:36 PM
"To put them in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. "Can I interest you in the chicken?" she asks. "Or would you prefer the platter of sh-t with bits of broken glass in it?" To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked."

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2008/10/27/081027sh_shouts_sedaris?printable=true

Chris S. (Fez)
11-02-2008, 04:37 PM
you keep contradicting yourself though. in your hunter/gatherer analogy, the disabled and the weak do NOT contribute their fair share. and you're fine with that. EVERYBODY does not pay in your system.

your mottos keep conflicting with your belief that we shouldn't just cut off those who cannot earn their keep.

jin

I said everybody who is able to work should contribute. Only those who are able to work and yet refuse should be "cut off."

The middle class is most certainly able and IMO should contribute as much to the country as the rich. But Obama would have them selfishly rely on the rich to feed the poor.

Again, if Liberal democrats were really compassionate and had any dignity they would pursue and welcome EQUAL taxation for themselves...or at least resist tax cuts. Yet most don't. Why is that?

jin choung
11-02-2008, 04:41 PM
Yeah, that's what being a Republican used to be all about ...

George Bush and his "compassionate" ******** are just a temporary distortion.

well like it or not, your boy had the ball. it was your party's game to lose... they were in the white house, they controlled both houses of congress for the majority of the term, the media was bending over backwards to accommodate them because of idiotic dixie chick burning americans.

it is their policies that are coming to fruition now - aka debacle. in everything they touched.

some of what "traditional republicanism" believes in helped contribute to the economic debacle. deregulation as an ideological principle has proven disastrous.

but as for the other principles like small government, republicans aren't that way anymore. time to get a new party.

jin

hrgiger
11-02-2008, 04:43 PM
What was the rationalization during the Democratic primaries?

What, now you're saying that Obama was only picked because he would get the black vote? That wouldn't be a very good strategy. To date, blacks haven't made up a significant portion of the voting public. In fact, I would say that there are probably just as many whites who won't vote for O because he's black as the blacks who are voting for him because he's black.

jin choung
11-02-2008, 04:45 PM
The middle class is most certainly able and IMO should contribute as much to the country as the rich. But Obama would have them selfishly rely on the rich to feed the poor.

again - why your notion of "equal taxation" is flawed - DISPROPORTIONATE HARM.

AGAIN - the numbers:

only 20% of the country makes more than $250k a year. but they're STILL chump change compared to the

2% > 98% super echelon elite.

taxing 100 beggars vs. taxing 2 kings.

it's SIMPLY NOT COMPARABLE.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

and again, the chris rock example - taxing everyone the same results in DISPROPORTIONATE HARM.

it is NOT VIABLE.

jin

p.s. this is indeed a really good article and a good quote from adam smith: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax

hrgiger
11-02-2008, 04:51 PM
Again, if Liberal democrats were really compassionate and had any dignity they would pursue and welcome EQUAL taxation for themselves...or at least resist tax cuts. Yet most don't. Why is that?

You're talking almost like there are no rich democrats that know they will pay more in taxes. They will still support Obama, why do you suppose that is?

And I agree with Jin that the whole point of a tax system that is progressive is because paying the same tax rate for both the middle and upper class will cause the middle class disproportionate harm.

Chris S. (Fez)
11-02-2008, 04:52 PM
What, now you're saying that Obama was only picked because he would get the black vote? That wouldn't be a very good strategy. To date, blacks haven't made up a significant portion of the voting public.

IMO Obama was elected for his dynamism as a speaker. I might not agree with all of Obama's policies but I AM very excited about the presidential presence he will bring to the office if elected.

jin choung
11-02-2008, 04:53 PM
What was the rationalization during the Democratic primaries?

hillary made some really bad mis-steps.

1. she supported the war when obama did not. that's pretty huge.

2. the thing about dodging sniper fire in serbia just made her out to be a flat out liar. and the fact that this led to an investigation to other tales she has told over the years (including the one about how she was named after sir edmund hillary when chronologically, that was not really possible).

3. she had a difficult time finding a good speaking "voice". most of the time she came across as really unpleasant. trying to be "forceful" and "strong" she ended up trying to mask all shreds of femininity. it's probably a tough balance beam for a female candidate to walk but she failed.

in contrast, palin has never suffered a problem in this. (has all kinds of other problems but not in "voice")

---------------

many many other issues including campaign strategy and an obnoxious sense of entitlement to the presidency etc....

jin

jin choung
11-02-2008, 04:57 PM
You're talking almost like there are no rich democrats that know they will pay more in taxes. They will still support Obama, why do you suppose that is?

right. generally, i think they end up being the "nouveau riche"... they remember what it was like being poor - they won the lottery but they're not a rockefeller.

lot of hollywood actors.

seriously, these are definitely among the super rich but they're saying "TAX ME!!!"

as i really really would too if i were in their shoes.

TAX ME and get universal health care going.

TAX ME so that we can put in place policies that don't result in so many in our prisons.

jin

Chris S. (Fez)
11-02-2008, 05:05 PM
It is not flawed. It is fair. No one BUT the poor should be having their taxes lowered.

It is amazing the number of middle class homes I have been in that have monolithically large screen TVs and tankesque SUVs in the driveways. The middle class of America live like Kings compared to the rest of the world. They can and should contribute more.


again - why your notion of "equal taxation" is flawed - DISPROPORTIONATE HARM.

AGAIN - the numbers:

only 20% of the country makes more than $250k a year. but they're STILL chump change compared to the

2% > 98% super echelon elite.

taxing 100 beggars vs. taxing 2 kings.

it's SIMPLY NOT COMPARABLE.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

and again, the chris rock example - taxing everyone the same results in DISPROPORTIONATE HARM.

it is NOT VIABLE.

jin

p.s. this is indeed a really good article and a good quote from adam smith: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax

jin choung
11-02-2008, 05:08 PM
It is not flawed. It is fair. No one BUT the poor should be having their taxes lowered.

It is amazing the number of middle class homes I have been in that have monolithically large screen TVs and tankesque SUVs in the driveways. The middle class of America live like Kings compared to the rest of the world. They can and should contribute more.

so you're saying that middle classes should be taxed more? ok, i don't necessarily disagree there but you have said previously that they should pay the SAME as the super wealthy. do you still hold to that?

ok, let's cut to the chase -

do you believe in "progressive taxation"?

if so, then as i said, we're quibbling about RATES. but essentially, we're saying the same thing - that it's better to tax the guy with more pig than he can eat more parts than the guy who just barely has enough for his meal as it is.

jin

Chris S. (Fez)
11-02-2008, 05:10 PM
You're talking almost like there are no rich democrats that know they will pay more in taxes. They will still support Obama, why do you suppose that is?

And I agree with Jin that the whole point of a tax system that is progressive is because paying the same tax rate for both the middle and upper class will cause the middle class disproportionate harm.

That post was in the context of a discussion about "middle class liberal democrats". I was tired of typing the entire phrase and condensed it to "liberal democrats."

theo
11-02-2008, 05:15 PM
so have you bailed out a person that was facing bankruptcy beacuse of medical bills?

provide insurance for someone who lacks it?


if your idea of tremendous help is to give some cash or some food to someone, id say you are just being helpful based on convenience and personal satisfaction. however your contribution is like a grain of sand on the beach when considering the actual problem.

religions in general try to take the "we donate so we must be good" moral path. not saying that you are religious but it seems to me that you arent actually helping because you are so good, but alot of times there is a selfish reward like going to heaven or some other moral ********. And even then its only about helping your fellow brainwashians or some select social group that you fancy. leaving a large part of society ignored.

infact its the very nature of these kind of small handouts that dont actually get rid of the problem that so many republicans joke about. you know give a man a fish vs teaching him to fish...

Nonsense. I am for religious freedom and individual morality but am, personally, a free-thinking, pluralizing agnostic who leans extremely liberal.

Confiscating more money from me will not EVER get rid of the problem you feel so strongly about.

Defending why I give and lend support is not something I particularly feel the need to do, in part, because the 'why' doesn't matter one whit.

I am interested in where you find the justification to question MY reasons for personal charitable efforts when in fact you don't give a damn about the practically nonexistent (by proxy) reasoning of folks who will be FORCED to supply the needy through increased (or tweaked) taxation.

mattclary
11-02-2008, 05:17 PM
What, now you're saying that Obama was only picked because he would get the black vote? That wouldn't be a very good strategy. To date, blacks haven't made up a significant portion of the voting public. In fact, I would say that there are probably just as many whites who won't vote for O because he's black as the blacks who are voting for him because he's black.


No, I'm asking why he got 99.9% of the black vote during the Democratic primaries. Go back to my reference where someone mentioned black people just being happy someone was being judged on something other than the color of their skin, in case you have lost track what you originally responded to.

hrgiger
11-02-2008, 05:26 PM
It is amazing the number of middle class homes I have been in that have monolithically large screen TVs and tankesque SUVs in the driveways. The middle class of America live like Kings compared to the rest of the world. They can and should contribute more.

And how much debt do you think those middle class people have. I would be willing to bet that most of those people don't actually own many of those things (as in bought and paid for) After all, the average credit card debt per household is around $9,000 and we have an abysmal savings rate in this country. So I don't think as many people are living like kings as you think they are. Let them get fired from their jobs or be laid off and see how long the king lifestyle continues.

Chris S. (Fez)
11-02-2008, 05:31 PM
so you're saying that middle classes should be taxed more? ok, i don't necessarily disagree there but you have said previously that they should pay the SAME as the super wealthy. do you still hold to that?

jin

I am saying it is hypocritical to increase the taxes of the rich and lower the taxes of the largest demographic of ABLE citizens (the middle class). I have said from the beginning that we ALL broke this economy and we should ALL fix it. Leaching off the rich does not exactly encourage citizens to become self-reliant and accept responsibility for their own successes and failures.

The bail-out set a terrible precedent. These mortgage buyouts are merely delaying the inevitable. I say let them foreclose. Like the pampered students who expect a B just for showing up to class, too many Americans have been spoiled into EXPECTING instead of working for success.

As for my opinion of progressive taxation:

I think their should be an upper limit on taxation so that people are not punished for being successful. Larger house? Higher taxes. Hot rod? Higher taxes. But higher income? No. I think that income is earned and should be off limits to taxation.

hrgiger
11-02-2008, 05:39 PM
No, I'm asking why he got 99.9% of the black vote during the Democratic primaries. Go back to my reference where someone mentioned black people just being happy someone was being judged on something other than the color of their skin, in case you have lost track what you originally responded to.

My mistake, I didn't think you were referring to his run against Hillary.
I find it hard to believe that he got 99.9% of the black vote, especially running against Hillary. After all, Clinton was our first black president and he was very popular among blacks. Do you have some numbers on that? I mean, that don't come out of the American Thinker or Fox News.
Either way, I'm not sure what difference it makes. I'm sure that Blacks are thrilled that for the first time, they see a black man with the strong possibility of being elected to the Presidency. He's intelligent, well spoken, and has spent much of his life serving his community. I would just have to ask, why wouldn't they vote for him? My Sister in Law's daughter is half black and she's disappointed as hell that she's going to be too young to vote for Obama this year.

Stooch
11-02-2008, 05:39 PM
Here Israeli analyst provides a detailed comparison of Obama to Michael Jackson: http://samsonblinded.org/blog/michael-jackson-for-president.htm

wow that guy is a racist retard and needs a solid punch to the face.

theo
11-02-2008, 05:52 PM
NO IT'S NOT.

if it were enough, we wouldn't HAVE A PROBLEM with health care and poverty and hunger in this country.

you seem to equate "enough" with personal feelings of "i did enough".

i am equating enough with "DID IT SOLVE THE PROBLEM?"

and i'm saying it's not enough because the problems still exist.

just like we can't run a military by donation alone, you can't really help the poor, disabled, old and disenfranchised with volitional charity.

jin

You live in Pollyanna land. Nothing will ever fully vaporize the disparity between the haves and the have-nots.

We can work toward methods and solutions that may assist but:

THE PROBLEM CANNOT BE SOLVED. Maybe you hyper-compassionate folk need to get over this fact.

Total charitable contributions in the US, yearly, tops a quarter of a trillion dollars. This does not include government confiscation figures which will increase under the demos. If this vast amount of money isn't chasing the need problem away nothing will.

Comparing the inadequacy of my personal charity to the impossibility of military donation: In fact, when I donate money to local charities that dispense sustenance to the local needy at large I am benefiting many, as you say.

Also, the military DOES rely on a large force of charitable organizations to support its troops in many ways.

In the end, whether by individual or government bureaucracy those in need will STILL have to helped one at a time.

One thing I would suggest is that these self-serving and despicable political campaigns that cost many hundreds of millions of dollars be completely done away with and that same money poured into community support organizations rather than benefiting, in the most fleeting manner, the vapid political culture inherent with large-scale electioneering.

jin choung
11-02-2008, 06:00 PM
regarding military,

i'm not talking about tertiary programs or uso! i'm talking about m1a1 abrams tanks and b2 bombers... just as government needs to fund a working military so it is needed for true social change.

it's worked in the past. FDRs newdeal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

charity is not enough. government intervention can work in ways that far outstrip mere charity.

i am talking about efficacy in all of this. NOT AT ALL about "good intentions". people may feel good about how much they give - if we still have a problem, it's CLEARLY not enough.

EASIEST EXAMPLE:

charity would NEVER have gotten us universal health care. government can. government DOES in every other industrialized nation of the world. we don't exist in a vacuum. government programs can and DO work.

jin

p.s. re: "it cannot be solved"... that's not the point is it? you say you try by giving. you're still TRYING right? well i'm saying that's not good enough and that tax funded programs can be BETTER.

Randall Chesbro
11-02-2008, 06:11 PM
Too Bad Obama Cant prove He's a US citizen.Even the news papers in Africa says he was born there. and his grandmother said she was in the hospital when he was born. in Africa.
You all will vote for Him not because he's Democrate But because he's not Republican. Good thinking, (sarcastic ending)

Stooch
11-02-2008, 06:12 PM
your personal reasons for contributions are irrelevant because its clearly insufficient. so whatever efforts you claim to be making dont mean jack ****. obviously we arent going to succeed out of the goodness of our hearts so the only way its going to work is force.

personally i dont care about paying more or less taxes, 1000 dollars dont mean much to me either way, I have far greater reasons to elect obama than just some cash and im nowhere near the 250k mark. my motivation is not self interest.

i want a vision, i want oil independence, equal education and i want a world that respects American leadership and whose citizens ALL benefit from living in a first world country.
all the people focusing on cash make me die a little inside. Is that really all people care about? Its sickening.

first world country my ***. just a bunch of selfish pricks wanting everything their way and wanting it now. there is no way a society will ever work when everyone is out to gain from the loss of others. this works both ways, democratic and republican.


Nonsense. I am for religious freedom and individual morality but am, personally, a free-thinking, pluralizing agnostic who leans extremely liberal.

Confiscating more money from me will not EVER get rid of the problem you feel so strongly about.

Defending why I give and lend support is not something I particularly feel the need to do, in part, because the 'why' doesn't matter one whit.

I am interested in where you find the justification to question MY reasons for personal charitable efforts when in fact you don't give a damn about the practically nonexistent (by proxy) reasoning of folks who will be FORCED to supply the needy through increased (or tweaked) taxation.

hrgiger
11-02-2008, 06:17 PM
all the people focusing on cash make me die a little inside. Is that really all people care about? Its sickening.

True that. I could care less if I get a tax break from Obama or not. I want jobs staying in this country, I want energy independence with a strong focus on alternative energies and the energies of the future, and I want health care to be a priority in this country and not just for those who can afford it.

jin choung
11-02-2008, 06:24 PM
Too Bad Obama Cant prove He's a US citizen.Even the news papers in Africa says he was born there. and his grandmother said she was in the hospital when he was born. in Africa.
You all will vote for Him not because he's Democrate But because he's not Republican. Good thinking, (sarcastic ending)

pffft...

do you also think he's a secret muslim?

and seriously, is english your primary language? with your name it seems like it would be... so what's your excuse?

jin

Hopper
11-02-2008, 06:25 PM
Too Bad Obama Cant prove He's a US citizen.Even the news papers in Africa says he was born there. and his grandmother said she was in the hospital when he was born. in Africa.
You all will vote for Him not because he's Democrate But because he's not Republican. Good thinking, (sarcastic ending)
That was just an ignorant statement. The fact that you didn't even bother a Google on it is quite idiotic.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

Do you honestly think the State Dept. just "overlooked" that fact? lol ...

jin choung
11-02-2008, 06:28 PM
all the people focusing on cash make me die a little inside. Is that really all people care about? Its sickening.

unfortunately it's our world. money sways power.

personally, i'd love it if money and politics would be completely divorced. no more campaign fund raising. no more lobbyists.

the only thing that matters is one person, one vote, one voice.

but alas, THAT is the impossible dream.

jin

jin choung
11-02-2008, 06:31 PM
OT but did anyone see mccain on SNL last nght?

he was really funny and likable and loose. but the whole thing cheapened his campaign in a way that seems counter to a campaign that still wants to present itself as a going concern.

that's my take and i'm wondering if it's just me (totally could be) or if anyone else felt that way.

it really felt like he was somewhat admitting that you can stick a fork in him, he's done.

jin

Chris S. (Fez)
11-02-2008, 06:45 PM
OT but did anyone see mccain on SNL last nght?

he was really funny and likable and loose.
it really felt like he was somewhat admitting that you can stick a fork in him, he's done.

jin

That was exactly the impression I got from the "Sad Grampa Maverick" gag.

Randall Chesbro
11-02-2008, 07:03 PM
Its not a secret and with a name like yours you should know better.
maybe you should look it up a little better and not believe every thing you hear. Im sure thats what your trying to say to me. so your no more right than me. pfft...

jin choung
11-02-2008, 07:11 PM
Its not a secret and with a name like yours you should know better.
maybe you should look it up a little better and not believe every thing you hear. Im sure thats what your trying to say to me. so your no more right than me. pfft...

nope.... still not being intelligible.

jin

warmiak
11-02-2008, 08:49 PM
some of what "traditional republicanism" believes in helped contribute to the economic debacle. deregulation as an ideological principle has proven disastrous.


jin
It hasn't.
You have no idea what happened ( neither do I at this point).

This thing has been brewing for close to 2 decades and is conceptually no different than the dot com crash ( which really happened under Clinton)

warmiak
11-02-2008, 08:53 PM
your personal reasons for contributions are irrelevant because its clearly insufficient. so whatever efforts you claim to be making dont mean jack ****. obviously we arent going to succeed out of the goodness of our hearts so the only way its going to work is force.

.

... if people aren't compassionate enough ... **** it , WILL MAKE THEM compassionate ( and WE will define compassion in the first place)

What the hell are you doing in this country ?

TripD
11-02-2008, 09:14 PM
unfortunately it's our world. money sways power.

personally, i'd love it if money and politics would be completely divorced. no more campaign fund raising. no more lobbyists.

jin

I'm not sure it is possible at all. It is only on the surface that they appear to be different things. 'Power to the people', and 'Spread the wealth around' aren't likely to happen because those that have, fundamentally have the ability and desire to obtain those things. The rest of us are satisfied with our day to day lives and aren't driven to obtain either power or money.

So, if you make some sort of mandate for change, the folks that yearn for power and cash will inevitably find a way to rend them away.

jin choung
11-02-2008, 09:25 PM
It hasn't.

it has.

jin

warmiak
11-02-2008, 09:27 PM
it has.

jin

How do you know ?

theo
11-02-2008, 09:36 PM
all the people focusing on cash make me die a little inside. Is that really all people care about? Its sickening.


Perhaps you need to grow up a little, pop some Seltzer or grow an inner coffin to take care'o the dead insides.

Nothing you desire to achieve will be possible without 'focusing on cash'. Period.

Your expansions of socialism die an immediate death without funding.

You are surprisingly uncomfortable coping with the harsh realities of the confiscatory enterprise you heartily support.

jin choung
11-02-2008, 10:04 PM
How do you know ?

how do you?

your position is worse because you admit to not knowing what happened but you unequivocally say "it hasn't".

it has because ideologically driven de-regulation.

jin

warmiak
11-02-2008, 10:40 PM
how do you?

your position is worse because you admit to not knowing what happened but you unequivocally say "it hasn't".

it has because ideologically driven de-regulation.

jin

Yeah, I completely agree ... had Democrats not blocked any regulations related to Fannie and Freddie, there is a chance things would,'t be so bad at this point but this was a long term process anyway.

The worst thing you can do is simply say "not enough regulations" and call it a day.
You will end up with another distaster like Sarbanes-Oxley.

warmiak
11-02-2008, 10:48 PM
Then you haven't been paying attention to the real world. De-regulation IS to blame. Much of what has happened in the financial community - and has been said by MANY financial experts - is a direct result of de-regulation and would have been illegal in nealy all of the 20th century.

I am just saying think twice before you start regulating ...

theo
11-02-2008, 10:48 PM
regarding military,

i'm not talking about tertiary programs or uso! i'm talking about m1a1 abrams tanks and b2 bombers... just as government needs to fund a working military so it is needed for true social change.


The government cannot fully fund a working military at all levels. It can buy tanks and bombers and keep critical infrastructure operating but it cannot be truly successful (if there is such a thing) without the continued assistance from outside organizations like the USO and many others.

I am assuming by social change you refer to universal health care.

When I think universal health care I immediately reflect on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the DOT, Department of Education and other similar enormously inefficient federal bureaucracies.

I don't think the US government is capable of producing the ideal health care system.



it's worked in the past. FDRs newdeal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal


Interesting to note that FDR was a devout Christian.

The New Deal did not entirely work. As a matter of fact, if I remember correctly, some sections of it were eventually considered unconstitutional while other parts of the New Deal created more problems than solutions.

In spite of this, the New Deal was able to produce some serious reforms, most notably in the banking sector, I believe.



charity is not enough. government intervention can work in ways that far outstrip mere charity.


Nothing will ever be enough. Government intervention can and does work in ways that complicate and exacerbate in spite of the wonderful intentions behind the actions.



i am talking about efficacy in all of this. NOT AT ALL about "good intentions". people may feel good about how much they give - if we still have a problem, it's CLEARLY not enough.


Efficacy is fine. We all want this. But 'clearly not enough' (as you say) is an observation fraught with tendencies that tend toward over-simplification of enormously complex social problems.

Question is: what IS enough? I would wager nothing within the current financial scope of the US is capable of 'being enough'.




charity would NEVER have gotten us universal health care. government can. government DOES in every other industrialized nation of the world. we don't exist in a vacuum. government programs can and DO work.


Government can, of course, provide UHC. I am not debating whether or not government can do this.

I am debating whether or not this country is capable of producing an optimal health care solution for its citizens. My view is, no, it cannot.

Stooch
11-02-2008, 10:52 PM
... if people aren't compassionate enough ... **** it , WILL MAKE THEM compassionate ( and WE will define compassion in the first place)

What the hell are you doing in this country ?

what you dont think i belong here?

Verlon
11-02-2008, 10:52 PM
Yes.
Yes, that's right.
Silly me, I seem to have forgotten that if I make a crack against Democrats, it is therefore an endorsement of Republicans.

You know what I think about both parties. :D

And if you're going to get defensive about me making fun of democrat tax policies, you might want to reconsider what you *appear* to be defending. Because, to me at least, clearly neither party or its policies have done us any kind of lasting good, and more of the same is... well, it's more of the same whether it's coming from the right or the left.
Both of which have masterfully conspired to screw us up good.

Well one of TWO parties will be in charge at the end of the day, so if you spend all your time tearing one of the down, you are, like it or not, suporting the other.

As for the 'dissolve both parties,' it doesn't look like it is going to happen this side of armed revolution. Campaigning for that is a crime. So either vote the system, or start building your army and prepare to be prosecuted. It would take an ubelievable shakeup to change things now. Of course, if the republicans continue to self-destruct, you might get that. I just wouldn't bet money on it at this time.

Stooch
11-02-2008, 10:53 PM
what are you talking about?


Perhaps you need to grow up a little, pop some Seltzer or grow an inner coffin to take care'o the dead insides.

Nothing you desire to achieve will be possible without 'focusing on cash'. Period.

Your expansions of socialism die an immediate death without funding.

You are surprisingly uncomfortable coping with the harsh realities of the confiscatory enterprise you heartily support.

Verlon
11-02-2008, 10:54 PM
what you dont think i belong here?

You must not be a 'real american.'

I love how the party that goes around telling people they don't love their country is the same party that divides it up (or even wants to secede).

Stooch
11-02-2008, 10:54 PM
I don't think THAT was his point at all in that statement. IMO, it was more directed at the people who JUST want MORE money. More, more, more. They don't want to help others, they just want to gain more wealth. It's not that we don't want money to help us achieve the goals, but the GOAL is NOT to obtain MORE money, the goal is to USE the money to make life better. I believe there IS a difference. Stooch can correct me if I'm wrong. :D

yeah. i figured it was pretty clear. but hey some people see what they want to see.
afterall its working for us so well right?

jin choung
11-02-2008, 11:13 PM
Yeah, I completely agree ... had Democrats not blocked any regulations related to Fannie and Freddie, there is a chance things would,'t be so bad at this point but this was a long term process anyway.

The worst thing you can do is simply say "not enough regulations" and call it a day.
You will end up with another distaster like Sarbanes-Oxley.

see? we know and we agree. dems didn't help and clinton did his own bit to contribute to dereg... but the ideology of deregulation is not a dem platform.... that's a republican, free market principle that's shown time and again that regulation is necessary.

so in this, republican principles in action result in disaster.

time for some change.

jin

Panikos
11-02-2008, 11:20 PM
It always makes for a better story if you manage to incorporate the US, perhaps CIA or something like that ...

If the book was just called "Turkish Invasion of 1974" .... nah , that's just too plain - but stick in there "American Espionage" and voila ... you got something going.

If you add "Henry Kissinger" you get many stories.
Out of what you wrote I can easily conclude that have no idea of whats outside USA.

IMI
11-02-2008, 11:31 PM
True that. I could care less if I get a tax break from Obama or not. I want jobs staying in this country, I want energy independence with a strong focus on alternative energies and the energies of the future, and I want health care to be a priority in this country and not just for those who can afford it.

You know what? I feel exactly the same way.
Tonight on CNN and Fox (or should I say Sunday night), they broke into Obama's speech in Cleveland at a big rally there. The one Sprigsteen was at.
And he went on and on about those things you mention. It's the same speech he's been giving for a while now, really, just variations.
And the crowd went wild.
The unfortunate thing is, once again, I heard nothing about HOW he intends on doing these things just that he wants to. He plays to the crowd real good and gives them what they want. I kept wishing they (the crowd) would shut the f up and stop cheering his talking points and start demanding DETAILS.

Because as long as they cheer the message and seem unconcerned about those pesky details, there is no motivation for any politician to even TRY to sell them on that. As long as they can be whipped up into a positive frenzy with powerful words from a powerful speaker, that's all that matters.

Yes, you can say the same for McPalin as well, and all of them, for that matter.
This is why I've repeatedly stated I think these people need to be grilled like a cheese sandwich and treated like defendants at trial during the campaign period, not this endless parade of "feel good" speeches.
If they still deserve all the cheers and accolades afterwards, they've earned it.

Why don' they do it that way? Because they ARE rock stars and they ARE celebrities. They're politicians who know full well half their audience responds to the ******** and the promises, the half truths, outright lies, and slanders of the opponent; the pesky, boring details of the how's and why's just put the uninterested public to sleep.

Stooch
11-02-2008, 11:33 PM
hey man. you dont always have a solution to every problem. the first step to solving a problem is realizing it exists and having the desire to do something about it.

warmiak
11-02-2008, 11:35 PM
If you add "Henry Kissinger" you get many stories.
Out of what you wrote I can easily conclude that have no idea of whats outside USA.

What kind of response is that ?

This is your way saying that Americans are stupid ? Can't you be at least a bit more original ?

That's just so old and tired.

IMI
11-02-2008, 11:38 PM
hey man. you dont always have a solution to every problem. the first step to solving a problem is realizing it exists and having the desire to do something about it.

Well hell then, most of us here in this and other recent threads are every bit as qualified to be President of the US as any of them. Probably even moreso, since we haven't been playing the Washington game and aren't yet corrupted or indebted to higher powers. ;)

I therefore nominate HRGiger and Megalodon for Prez and Veep. Up to them who gets which position.
Just because they seem like swell guys with a passion for this country's people, and what the US could be.

Stooch
11-02-2008, 11:44 PM
Well hell then, most of us here in this and other recent threads are every bit as qualified to be President of the US as any of them. Probably even moreso, since we haven't been playing the Washington game and aren't yet corrupted or indebted to higher powers. ;)

I therefore nominate HRGiger and Megalodon for Prez and Veep. Up to them who gets which position.
Just because they seem like swell guys with a passion for this country's people, and what the US could be.

or maybe you should just cut the B.S. and vote for obama. :)

warmiak
11-02-2008, 11:46 PM
what you dont think i belong here?

You belong in California ...

Which is where you are so I guess things are where they should be.

On a more serious note .... despite what some love to say, we are not in this "together" ... this country was supposed to be about freedom and individual choices.

I don't mess with your way of life and you shouldn't mess with mine.
I don't give a damn who you contribute your money to, if you want to save the world or whatever .... I don't care if gays get married, people do drugs and own guns - it is their business after all.
By the same token, I don’t want to be forced into anything “collaborative” beyond necessary minimum required to keep a functional society.

Stooch
11-02-2008, 11:51 PM
By the same token, I don’t want to be forced into anything “collaborative” beyond necessary minimum required to keep a functional society.

thats the thing, by all indicators we do not have the minimum requirement for a functional society.

also im interested in what your definition of a "functional society" is.

if your presidential choice rests solely on taxes, then you are a sad human being. im glad that im not in your position where a measly tax break means so much to me that im willing to eat **** with broken shards of glass in it.

im also curious, are you in a position where you stand to lose money under obamas plan? are you on the side of joe the dumbass?

IMI
11-02-2008, 11:54 PM
or maybe you should just cut the B.S. and vote for obama. :)

Maybe I would vote for Obama if he had given me a solid reason to believe he can accomplish what he says. :)

Stooch
11-02-2008, 11:57 PM
and mccain has? or are you rooting for palin?

or better yet, you are one of those undecided, on the airplane, thinking hard about those steaming, broken shards of glass?

warmiak
11-03-2008, 12:01 AM
thats the thing, by all indicators we do not have the minimum requirement for a functional society.

also im interested in what your definition of a "functional society" is.

if your presidential choice rests solely on taxes, then you are a sad human being. im glad that im not in your position where a measly tax break means so much to me that im willing to eat **** with broken shards of glass in it.

im also curious, are you in a position where you stand to lose money under obamas plan? are you on the side of joe the dumbass?

It is not about money ... it is about choice.

IMI
11-03-2008, 12:05 AM
and mccain has? or are you rooting for palin?

:foreheads

Here we go again.
(Hey Megalodon, did I do it wrong again? How can I get past this happening?)

Because I am unimpressed with Obama, I therefore must be for McCain....
*sigh*
I don't know how many times.....

Skip it. I'm not for EITHER, and I'm really overall opposed to the entire process, the Washington way, the two party system.

You even brought it up in the McCain/Nuclear power thread a couple months ago - how nobody without money has a chance at high level political positions, and if you recall, I agreed emphatically with you.

To sum it up, I am "rooting" for *neither*. If it were up to me I'd just as soon see it all start over again.

Tell me something though - just WHAT is wrong with demanding to know specifics in terms of how candidates intend on achieving what they promise? Because, try as I may, I can't see a downside to that.

Remember Ross Perot and his charts and graphs? There's a reason he got so much support you know.

Panikos
11-03-2008, 12:06 AM
What kind of response is that ?

This is your way saying that Americans are stupid ? Can't you be at least a bit more original ?

That's just so old and tired.

I didnt imply anything against all Americans. Do not add words I didnt write.
There are classified and top-secret documents released to public by State Department and reveal Henry Kissinger and CIA dirty business in Cyprus.
Additionally, Tomas Miller recently said that if USA didnt bribe people in Cyprus, the referendum would have been 90%-10% instead of 76%-24%.

I can write endlessly for how USA policy is involved in Cyprus. So accept the fact that Greeks and Cypriots support the next US President Obama and cant wait for his victory.

Stooch
11-03-2008, 12:11 AM
It is not about money ... it is about choice.

it seems that you care more about having a choice than making the right one.

Stooch
11-03-2008, 12:14 AM
are you blind?


or better yet, you are one of those undecided, on the airplane, thinking hard about those steaming, broken shards of glass?

i clearly mentioned the undecided angle, but to me its such a dubious and useless choice its hardly justifies the consideration.
hey i might not agree with all of obamas points but im sure as hell not going to throw my vote away. id rather have a dreamer in office than a dumbass (palin).
just the thought that she might walk through the white house makes me shiver with dread. then again the white house is no stranger to dumbassery.
:foreheads



:foreheads

Here we go again.
(Hey Megalodon, did I do it wrong again? How can I get past this happening?)

Because I am unimpressed with Obama, I therefore must be for McCain....
*sigh*
I don't know how many times.....

Skip it. I'm not for EITHER, and I'm really overall opposed to the entire process, the Washington way, the two party system.

You even brought it up in the McCain/Nuclear power thread a couple months ago - how nobody without money has a chance at high level political positions, and if you recall, I agreed emphatically with you.

To sum it up, I am "rooting" for *neither*. If it were up to me I'd just as soon see it all start over again.

Tell me something though - just WHAT is wrong with demanding to know specifics in terms of how candidates intend on achieving what they promise? Because, try as I may, I can't see a downside to that.

Remember Ross Perot and his charts and graphs? There's a reason he got so much support you know.

IMI
11-03-2008, 12:14 AM
So accept the fact that Greeks and Cypriots support the next US President Obama and cant wait for his victory.


Well, that's super. As I've always said, when the Cypriots are happy, everyone's happy. Can I come to the victory party? :D

I wouldn't be so quick to expect Obama's Cyprus policy will be any different. I'm not so sure Obama even has a Cyprus policy...

IMI
11-03-2008, 12:22 AM
No stooch I'm not "undecided", just alienated.
"throw my vote away"

Just how is voting for what you believe in "throwing your vote away"?
Sure, I understand the mathematics of it, but when it comes down to it, THIS IS WHY WE VOTE - to TRY to get someone in there we WANT, not someone we can SETTLE FOR.

Which brings me back to my overall disdain for the way the system is set up.

warmiak
11-03-2008, 12:28 AM
it seems that you care more about having a choice than making the right one.

Well, with all due respect.... it is none of your business.

Don't you agree ?

warmiak
11-03-2008, 12:36 AM
I didnt imply anything against all Americans. Do not add words I didnt write.
There are classified and top-secret documents released to public by State Department and reveal Henry Kissinger and CIA dirty business in Cyprus.
Additionally, Tomas Miller recently said that if USA didnt bribe people in Cyprus, the referendum would have been 90%-10% instead of 76%-24%.

I can write endlessly for how USA policy is involved in Cyprus. So accept the fact that Greeks and Cypriots support the next US President Obama and cant wait for his victory.

Come on, you are talking about centuries old rivarly and frankly ... you have lost that war on your own.

Frankly, given the outcome of the war ... you should be happy there were external forces involved ...capable of pressuring Turks into some sort of reasonable agreement.
Beside ..



Negotiations to find a solution to the Cyprus problem have been taking place on and off since 1964. Between 1974 and 2002, the Turkish Cypriot side was seen by the international community as the side refusing a balanced solution. Since 2002, the situations has been reversed and the Greek Cypriot side has been seen as the side refusing a balanced solution. The latest Annan Plan to reunify the island which was endorsed by the United States, United Kingdom and Turkey was accepted by a referandum by Turkish Cypriots but overwhelmingly rejected in parallel referandum by Greek Cypriots, after Greek Cyriot Leadership and Greek Orthodox Church urging the Greek population to vote No [8].

Verlon
11-03-2008, 12:58 AM
No stooch I'm not "undecided", just alienated.
"throw my vote away"

Just how is voting for what you believe in "throwing your vote away"?
Sure, I understand the mathematics of it, but when it comes down to it, THIS IS WHY WE VOTE - to TRY to get someone in there we WANT, not someone we can SETTLE FOR.

Which brings me back to my overall disdain for the way the system is set up.

REALISTICALLY - one of two parties will be voted in charge of the country on Tuesday. Third parties and independents have a vanishingly small chance in the large elections.

So those are your choices.
A. Party 1
B. Party 2
C. Vote that will be seen as a wasted vote by the party who thinks they were most likely to get your vote before you switched
D. Don't vote.

Libertarians and Green party cadidates are not going to win the big elections this year.

You have two parties, and would probably best be served by voting the party that best approximates the issues most important to you, personally. Then you take your licks where they disagree.

But, coming in here and saying "you're making the wrong choice! You're making a bad choice! Oh, what me? Oh I don't really have a choice, so I can't be making the wrong one. I just wanted to point out how wrong you were," isn't exactly being reasonable. It sounds more like you just wanted to stir the pot for no good reason.

I can understand supporting the underdog if you want to drive the country more to the middle than the party extremes, but the last 8 years have already done that. So there isn't really a need on that front.

I don't agree with the entire Obama platform. I agree with more of it than I do of McCain's. So my vote was cast for Obama.

TripD
11-03-2008, 01:00 AM
I don't think THAT was his point at all in that statement. IMO, it was more directed at the people who JUST want MORE money. More, more, more. They don't want to help others, they just want to gain more wealth. It's not that we don't want money to help us achieve the goals, but the GOAL is NOT to obtain MORE money, the goal is to USE the money to make life better. I believe there IS a difference. Stooch can correct me if I'm wrong. :D

Pretty much what I meant by the statement I truncated. Most of us only see money as a means to an end. others though......

*Pete*
11-03-2008, 01:12 AM
When I think universal health care I immediately reflect on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the DOT, Department of Education and other similar enormously inefficient federal bureaucracies.


this is something i cant understand.

all that makes the difference between unversal healthcare and the one you have now, is the funding of them...if govt will fund them and not private insurance companies, how would the healthcare change in a negative direction?

all you would do, is to remove private companies who do nothing but profit on it, they do not provide healthcare, but pay for it with the money you pay to them, and a part of the money they keep for them selfs...those are the ones you want to keep, and i cant understand why.

Verlon
11-03-2008, 01:17 AM
And the difference in cost between McCain's health care plan and Obama's is only $30 Billion a year (which isn't exactly the big slice of the annual US budget), and looks to be much more helpful to middle class americans and small business owners.

IMI
11-03-2008, 01:31 AM
REALISTICALLY - one of two parties will be voted in charge of the country on Tuesday. Third parties and independents have a vanishingly small chance in the large elections.

So those are your choices.
A. Party 1
B. Party 2
C. Vote that will be seen as a wasted vote by the party who thinks they were most likely to get your vote before you switched
D. Don't vote.

Libertarians and Green party cadidates are not going to win the big elections this year.

You have two parties, and would probably best be served by voting the party that best approximates the issues most important to you, personally. Then you take your licks where they disagree.



I fully understand all this. What, because I don't like it I can't voice that? How many people in the US really understand it *doesn't* have to be this way, that if they spoke up, maybe it wouldn't?
Staying quiet about it certainly isn't the way to change it, and federal prison isn't on my list of things to do, so revolution is out of the question.




But, coming in here and saying "you're making the wrong choice! You're making a bad choice! Oh, what me? Oh I don't really have a choice, so I can't be making the wrong one. I just wanted to point out how wrong you were," isn't exactly being reasonable. It sounds more like you just wanted to stir the pot for no good reason.




I didn't just blow in here with the wind to "stir the pot". I've been in these discussions with these same people for a good while now.
And for your information, I *do* have a choice - I do have my preferences, I do know what I want and what I don't want.
I think I've been *very* reasonable, also. You don't like what I'm saying, don't read it, but don't go telling me I don't have a right to feel that way or to speak it.
I guess by your reasoning, this thread, titled "Why Obama will be elected" should have had only one post:
1 He'll win because he's the best choice.

And any argument to that would just be people trying to "stir the pot".
And if it goes astray of the original topic and gets deeper into the whole political scene in general, anyone complaining about how it all is is somehow out of line and not being reasonable, because that's the way it is and you just have to face it and deal with it?

Sorry, I don't accept that.
Like I said, if you don't like what I'm saying, don't read it.

*Pete*
11-03-2008, 01:41 AM
I therefore nominate HRGiger and Megalodon for Prez and Veep. Up to them who gets which position.


i bet you would vote for Ted/Prospector instead...

Panikos
11-03-2008, 02:35 AM
Come on

That's someones version of the story.

IMI
11-03-2008, 02:43 AM
i bet you would vote for Ted/Prospector instead...

No I wouldn't.
I like them plenty, but they're faaar too conservative for me.

Verlon
11-03-2008, 02:44 AM
I fully understand all this. What, because I don't like it I can't voice that? How many people in the US really understand it *doesn't* have to be this way, that if they spoke up, maybe it wouldn't?
Staying quiet about it certainly isn't the way to change it, and federal prison isn't on my list of things to do, so revolution is out of the question.





I didn't just blow in here with the wind to "stir the pot". I've been in these discussions with these same people for a good while now.
And for your information, I *do* have a choice - I do have my preferences, I do know what I want and what I don't want.
I think I've been *very* reasonable, also. You don't like what I'm saying, don't read it, but don't go telling me I don't have a right to feel that way or to speak it.
I guess by your reasoning, this thread, titled "Why Obama will be elected" should have had only one post:
1 He'll win because he's the best choice.

And any argument to that would just be people trying to "stir the pot".
And if it goes astray of the original topic and gets deeper into the whole political scene in general, anyone complaining about how it all is is somehow out of line and not being reasonable, because that's the way it is and you just have to face it and deal with it?

Sorry, I don't accept that.
Like I said, if you don't like what I'm saying, don't read it.


No, you are fully entitled to speak your mind. I never disputed that. Nowhere will you find me telling you anything like you are niot entitled to speak your mind.

I did say that you were not being reasonable. You argue that we are wrong for making a certain choice. You argue that the only electable alternative isn't your choice, and that the flaws in that platform cannot be used as he is not your choice. And you haven't even supplied your ideal candidate for scrutiny. So, you are just taking shots at one candidate and implying your position is above reproach because you aren't for the other guy either.

In a two party system, being against one guy effectively (note the use of the word effectively, it is very important in this sentence) makes you for the other guy. That is just how a two party system is. Since you haven't introduced a viable third party, that is where we are.

Important side note: Being in a discussion for a 'long time' does not mean you aren't merely stirring the pot.

So who is the candidate you suggest we all vote for? Barr? He was the only other person on my ballot, and I'd be AMAZED if he got an electoral vote.

Not trying to offend you. I can disagree and still be friends.

Panikos
11-03-2008, 02:44 AM
The Anan Plan was written by David Haney and was given to the UN Secretary General by George Bush.
The Plan was not fair and those that they accepted it were settlers that Turkey brought to Cyprus in order to change the population status. Sending settlers is a war crime.
As far as Turkish invasion, Henry Kissinger blueprinted the coup and triggered the invasion.

As I wrote, I am not surprised from your ignorance. You know what you hear and read.

IMI
11-03-2008, 02:53 AM
No, you are fully entitled to speak your mind. I never disputed that. Nowhere will you find me telling you anything like you are niot entitled to speak your mind.

I did say that you were not being reasonable. You argue that we are wrong for making a certain choice. You argue that the only electable alternative isn't your choice, and that the flaws in that platform cannot be used as he is not your choice. And you haven't even supplied your ideal candidate for scrutiny. So, you are just taking shots at one candidate and implying your position is above reproach because you aren't for the other guy either.

In a two party system, being against one guy effectively (note the use of the word effectively, it is very important in this sentence) makes you for the other guy. That is just how a two party system is. Since you haven't introduced a viable third party, that is where we are.

Important side note: Being in a discussion for a 'long time' does not mean you aren't merely stirring the pot.

So who is the candidate you suggest we all vote for? Barr? He was the only other person on my ballot, and I'd be AMAZED if he got an electoral vote.

Not trying to offend you. I can disagree and still be friends.

I don't have time to go into detail -maybe later, but I'm actually nursing a LW render right now. :D But if you MUST know, believe it or not, I'll probably be voting for Obama.
Why? Because McCain is gone, lost, out there. Bad ideas. Certainly no "maverick", and I really don't want to see Palin anywhere near the White House except as a visitor.
And also because I *do* realize that a vote for, say, Barr is a wasted vote. I don't like the way things turned out, but I know I have to live with it... for now.

As for my ideal candidate, I'd really like to see Lou Dobbs run, although he's not entirely ideal either, IMO, but has a pretty good grasp of economics and a great disdain for politics.
*waits for the shock to die down....

IMI
11-03-2008, 02:55 AM
Oh, just to add... I give Obama a hard time because I do realize I have to vote for him, and he's been kinda disappointing me. Agree or not, I see a lack of substance and an overabundance of altruism, much of which I don't think is too realistic, given his lack of experience.

*Pete*
11-03-2008, 03:11 AM
No I wouldn't.
I like them plenty, but they're faaar too conservative for me.

id vote for Lightwolf/Dpont...for inteligence, or Chuck/Jayroth if they promise us even more good stuff with LW 10, they have kept most promises so far ;)

*Pete*
11-03-2008, 03:25 AM
I'll probably be voting for Obama.

i thought you were only half serious when you said you didnt like McCain....but anyways, thanks IMI :D

i knew all this whining wasnt for nothing... ;)

hopefully he wont turn out to be a dissapointment, i do not think so..not after Bush.

IMI
11-03-2008, 03:26 AM
id vote for Lightwolf/Dpont...for inteligence, or Chuck/Jayroth if they promise us even more good stuff with LW 10, they have kept most promises so far ;)

Lightwolf can't - he's not a US citizen. Of course, Obama, having been raised in Somewhere-istan by Muslim radicals isn't either, so I guess that doesn't matter. :D

I'd have to go with Brad Peebler though - now THERE'S a maverick! :devil:

hrgiger
11-03-2008, 03:58 AM
Lightwolf can't - he's not a US citizen. Of course, Obama, having been raised in Somewhere-istan by Muslim radicals isn't either, so I guess that doesn't matter. :D

I'd have to go with Brad Peebler though - now THERE'S a maverick! :devil:

Brad Peebler pals around with traitors. He's a seperationist.

theo
11-03-2008, 06:08 AM
what are you talking about?

Sorry about the misunderstanding.

Our misunderstandings have now been equalized, if you recall your rather harsh misunderstanding on my gay-origination logic on another thread (thanks for the correction, by the way).:thumbsup:

warmiak
11-03-2008, 09:56 AM
The Anan Plan was written by David Haney and was given to the UN Secretary General by George Bush.
The Plan was not fair and those that they accepted it were settlers that Turkey brought to Cyprus in order to change the population status. Sending settlers is a war crime.
As far as Turkish invasion, Henry Kissinger blueprinted the coup and triggered the invasion.

As I wrote, I am not surprised from your ignorance. You know what you hear and read.

Whatever .. just remember that it will do you no good looking for some far away, remotely connected villains when you have plenty of true villains at home.
This whole issue, as I mentioned, was a long standing problem and whatever Kissinger's role was it was purely a response to the crisis.

In other words, the invasion was not triggered by Kissinger's actions but it is simply the continuation of centuries old rivalry between Greece and Turkey.

Panikos
11-03-2008, 11:03 AM
In other words, the invasion was not triggered by Kissinger's actions but it is simply the continuation of centuries old rivalry between Greece and Turkey.

Well, everybody is looking for his interests instead of justice.
The victims are always innocent people.
Remember what happened in 911.

You hate Bin Laden ? I hate Kissinger. So simple.

warmiak
11-03-2008, 11:32 AM
Well, everybody is looking for his interests instead of justice.
The victims are always innocent people.
Remember what happened in 911.

You hate Bin Laden ? I hate Kissinger. So simple.

I will cherish the day when U.S .disengages from world politics and leaves behind all these ****** little conflicts that have no bearing on this country interest or future.

If Turks decide to come up with another version of the Armenian genocide , this time on Cyprus - well it will be your problem and frankly - it should be, it is your country and your future.

When people want to slaugther each other ... it is simply not our business.

jin choung
11-03-2008, 11:40 AM
When people want to slaugther each other ... it is simply not our business.

apparently not. we didn't lift a finger to help in rwanda did we?

and when bush couldn't get altruistic justifications to gain traction to make a case for iraq, he appealed directly to SELF INTEREST didn't he?

and in this day and age, do you actually believe that america does ANYTHING - especially military ventures in separation of our OWN interest?

puh-leez....

don't fool yourself. nothing the u.s. did in the last decade was in any means divorced from "self interest". it's just the last decade has seen "self interest with guns".

jin

Panikos
11-03-2008, 11:51 AM
I will cherish the day when U.S .disengages from world politics and leaves behind all these ****** little conflicts that have no bearing on this country interest or future.

You call this "****** little conflicts" ?
When we had Olympic Games some thousands years ago, you didnt even exist as a country !
We send Light to the west, and they return us Darkness.

IMI
11-03-2008, 11:55 AM
don't fool yourself. nothing the u.s. did in the last decade was in any means divorced from "self interest". it's just the last decade has seen "self interest with guns".

jin

In all fairness, that "self interest with guns" goes back well beyond a mere decade.

theo
11-03-2008, 12:00 PM
we didn't lift a finger to help in rwanda did we?


The ROI on halting ethnic-cleansing massacres makes for an impractical exercise with zero substantive returns. After all, people in third world countries are only worth something like three dollars, right? No one wants to defend a three-dollar human especially when you are too busy poking cigars into interns.:thumbsup:

Even the most socialist and hyper-compassionate of countries were nowhere to be found during the Rwandan Genocide.

What we did to remedy the obvious lack of state altruism in Rwanda was to dispatch a de-balled cluster of clowns called U.N. Peace-keepers. Righteous nothings, they.

warmiak
11-03-2008, 12:09 PM
apparently not. we didn't lift a finger to help in rwanda did we?

and when bush couldn't get altruistic justifications to gain traction to make a case for iraq, he appealed directly to SELF INTEREST didn't he?

and in this day and age, do you actually believe that america does ANYTHING - especially military ventures in separation of our OWN interest?

puh-leez....

don't fool yourself. nothing the u.s. did in the last decade was in any means divorced from "self interest". it's just the last decade has seen "self interest with guns".

jin


What self-interest ?

What have we gained from our incursion in Iraq ?
Nothing ... it was based on some vague idea of promoting change and democracy, a truly Wilsonian idea that sometime in the future we will benefit from having relatively democratic and stable societies in the region.

This is the same type of thinking that led US into two world wars , Korea and Vietnam.

warmiak
11-03-2008, 12:15 PM
You call this "****** little conflicts" ?
When we had Olympic Games some thousands years ago, you didnt even exist as a country !
We send Light to the west, and they return us Darkness.

It doesn't matter to us.
Obviously you care about this issue and that's good ... as I said before, I would expect nothing less - it is your country and your future after all.

The whole point of starting a country like US was to escape all these centuries old conflicts and various dependencies.

There is no good way to handle issues like that because whatever we do , in the end there will always be someone on the losing end of the deal...

Panikos
11-03-2008, 12:16 PM
Eventually all empires collapse, sooner...later...sometime :thumbsup:

warmiak
11-03-2008, 12:18 PM
Eventually all empires collapse, sooner...later...sometime :thumbsup:

I don't want this country to be an empire ... that's the whole point of my post.

Panikos
11-03-2008, 12:21 PM
You may dont want, but so far George Bush in all his visits outside US, he is welcomed with demonstrations. Have you wondered why ?
You cheat yourself!

IMI
11-03-2008, 12:30 PM
Eventually all empires collapse, sooner...later...sometime :thumbsup:

OK, gotcha.
Panikos of Cyprus, anxiously awaiting the demise of the US, ready to celebrate.
Funny, I don't recall ever having had anything against Greece, but I guess you don't always get to choose your enemies.

IMI
11-03-2008, 12:32 PM
You may dont want, but so far George Bush in all his visits outside US, he is welcomed with demonstrations. Have you wondered why ?
You cheat yourself!

Nobody wonders why. And you say you don't think Americans are stupid...

Anyhow, Bush gets demonstrated against here, too - no reason to leave the US borders to see that. :D

warmiak
11-03-2008, 12:33 PM
You may dont want, but so far George Bush in all his visits outside US, he is welcomed with demonstrations. Have you wondered why ?
You cheat yourself!

Who said I support Bush ?
In any case, he is no longer relevant.

Unfortunately, neither McCain nor Obama will introduce the real change.
Mark my words, by the end of Obama's term , there will still be about 700 US military bases around the world .

Of course, Obama will surely be more polite and will "listen carefully" to what Europeans and others have to say but in in the end, he will still command the strongest military in the history of this planet and he will do what he thinks is right ... regardless of what people in Cyprus or elsewhere might think of it.

And that's the problem ...

Stooch
11-03-2008, 12:44 PM
Of course, Obama will surely be more polite and will "listen carefully" to what Europeans and others have to say but in in the end, he will still command the strongest military in the history of this planet and he will do what he thinks is right ... regardless of what people in Cyprus or elsewhere might think of it.

any other insights into obama the rest of us dont know? im curious as to where you got that opinion from. did you hang out with him back in college or something? or sat down for a long chat over dinner?


What self-interest ?

What have we gained from our incursion in Iraq ?
Nothing ... it was based on some vague idea of promoting change and democracy, a truly Wilsonian idea that sometime in the future we will benefit from having relatively democratic and stable societies in the region.

This is the same type of thinking that led US into two world wars , Korea and Vietnam.

we are pumping iraqi oil, when we couldnt before. What happens to the world oil prices when you have more supply?

notice the gas price and how it sunk from $5 to $3. yet the rest of the world still pays way more than we do. hmmm....

warmiak
11-03-2008, 12:47 PM
we are pumping iraqi oil, when we couldnt before. What happens to the world oil prices when you have more supply?

notice the gas price and how it sunk from $5 to $3.

We are pumping ?

We are still paying the same price everyone else is paying and what happened to world oil prices has nothing to do with Iraq but rather with the economic collapse.

After all just 2 months ago they were at their highest ever.