The 2012 Elections Thread - Page 4

Well, Obama is fucked now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

 

I'm with YT. The reason American politics have been tilting further and further to the right is that the left is easily demoralized and disillusioned, whereas the right-wingers keep voting for their guys in the face of all reason. Expecting magical liberal utopia from your politicians is unrealistic, which is why some of the hue and cry over Obama is a little ridiculous--yeah, the left got him into power, but then they basically shrugged and went home. If they were out there in the streets every day fighting for public health care and the closing of Gitmo, Obama would have listened. Instead, it's the Tea Party who are broadcasting themselves at top volume. It reminds me of how the environmental movement withered away under Clinton--the left seemed to think that having a Democrat in power would magically solve all their problems, so they stopped the popular campaigning that they did under Bush I, which probably had a much bigger impact on the environment than who was in power. The problem with Bush II is that he legitimately didn't give a shit what the people wanted, but he's an anomaly. And even he was supported by a certain level of apathy, or to be precise, people whining on the internet when they should have been hitting the streets.

 

Yes, the deck is stacked somewhat with Fox News (whose job is to convince politicians as much as it is the general populace that right is good and left is bad) but liberals are kind of lazy and whiny. If they were out there fighting the way they did in the 60s, things would be different. You can only blame the people in power for so long.

Yeah, but if you look at the condition I've attached -- harming social security -- I don't think I'm being unreasonable. SS does not drive the deficit, is fine until 2037, and can fixed very easily.  If it gets thrown under the bus by the democratic party, then there is no democratic party. I refuse to vote republican, no matter what their party affiliation says.

Then people need to be out there making noise about how Democrats will lose your vote if they throw SS under the bus (and you need to be careful to vote for the ones that don't). It needs to be a very clear cause and effect. Someone wrote an essay a while back about how a lot of the left-wing congresspeople who voted for Obama's health care plan (or who tried to assemble something better) were voted out in the last election, because LIberals didn't go out to support them. The overall conclusion seems to be that skewing right isn't going to lose you votes, whereas skewing left will, because the American left doesn't support their politicians. You can't act surprised when that leads to increasingly right wing policies. You have to fight for this stuff--YOU, not the people you elected. And yes, sometimes that means supporting candidates you're not super-happy with, because the alternative is worse.

Prankster, actually, you've got it backwards.  Almost all of the ConservaDems were voted out whereas only a handful of progressives (sadly, the great Feingold because he was targeted with millions in Koch money) were voted out.

That said, I agree with the premise.  One thing Thom Hartmann always talks about is infiltrating the Democratic party -- go to meetings, be vocal, participate in letter-writing and telephone campaigns, etc.  That's what the "tea party" has done (of course, they had billions in corporate money to organize them).  It's possible for progressives to influence the Democratic party, but not just by venting on the internet.  If you don't participate in Democracy, it falls into the hands of corporate looters and thieves, which is happening right now in Michigan.

Devildoubt, I'm curious what makes you think that Dems are going to throw SS under the bus?  It's true that the SS fund is an incredible surplus that will be viable for the next 30 years in spite of the GOP's (fairly successful) conflation of SS with the deficit, but I don't see a lot of Dems out there saying it needs to be privatized.  Obama reinforced the Dems' commitment to honoring SS in his "deficit" speech.

ETA:  If you're not registered to vote, GET REGISTERED NOW.  The GOP is working at the local level to make registering much more difficult and to make voting more difficult for first time voters. 

Whether the Democrat in question was a Liberal or a Blue Dog, voting them out doesn't do any good unless they're replaced by that mythical beast, the Liberal Republican. You're right that I got it mixed up, but some of the Blue Dogs did in fact vote for health care, voting them out and installing a Republican is not really a logical way to reward them. Regardless of the voter's intent, it ends up looking like politicians are punished in certain districts for being too liberal. The only way the voter's point is made properly is if, next election, the right-wingers in those districts are ejected in favour of really left-wing Democrats, which is pretty unlikely to happen--it's hard to believe the Dems are even going to want to run left-wing candidates in those districts.

Using votes, or failure to vote, to "send a message" only works if you've made yourself crystal clear beforehand and stumped hard for your pet causes. Otherwise you're making the perfect the enemy of the good. Again: right-wingers vote, blindly, fanatically in some cases, for their candidates. And the result of that is that right-wingers have the electoral support to be bold. Fingers crossed, we'll see if the Tea Party gets sufficiently disillusioned this year and the right-wing support crumbles, but I doubt it--those people aren't voting from objective reality, and they're easily swayed by advertising. Rather than bemoaning the Blue Dogs, the left should have used their electoral muscle to convince them to push left. Now they've been replaced by right-wingers that aren't going to listen to them at all.

Yes!  Agree completely!

Sigh.

It's a HuffPo link, but the guy seems to know what he's talking about. I literally cannot think of a more obvious sign that American Christianity has lost its way than their deciding to support Donald Trump for President.

Because of Donald Trump, now every Republican presidential hopeful and elected official has to weigh in on whether Obama was born in the US or not.   Let's just let that sink in for a moment.   Things have gotten so bad that Republicans now have to put out statements certifying that they aren't nuts as opposed to fully 50% of their party.  

The fact that Trump is being considered seriously at all is a disgrace.

Has Snaieke weighed in on Trump yet?

Maybe Christian leaders are hoping for some Trump megachurches.  The cross already kinda looks like a "T".

The one thing that Trump seems to be focusing on is everything anti-Obama. Whether or not he's making shit up, demagoguing an issue or indulging in pure partisan Obama hate, he's giving the base nothing but red meat. And they're loving it, which says something about the base. Right now the establishment Republicans are stepping away from Trump but assuming he's still in the race, I wonder how long it's gonna take for them to start singing his tune.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cylon Baby 

The fact that Trump is being considered seriously at all is a disgrace.

I blame the 24 hours newscycle + celebrity.  Any celeb that talks politics gets put on tv.

Even if Trump runs he'll be destroyed by his record, ego, stupid political satements, and short temper. 

THe guy wanted a 14.25% tax on the rich at one time, wants to seize Libyian oil fields, and supports(ed)  universal healthcare.

Trump is doing well on name recognition alone.  Nobody is paying attention and couldn't name anyone or known them(other than Palin) when told.  I can't see him running because he'd have to release financial info.  It's all ego driven.  He may form exploritory comm. to further the ego stroke, but never run.

Question: Has the GOP screwed itself for 2012 by creating and promoting the Tea Party?

In other words, is it possible for a candidate with the best chance of getting swing voters to make it out of a primary season where so much of the base is radicalized?

The scenario I see is a GOP candidate who will have to say crazy things to get the nomination and then spend the general election walking it all back.   Should be fun to watch.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dynamotv 

Question: Has the GOP screwed itself for 2012 by creating and promoting the Tea Party?
 

Notice how Snaieke's been absent lately? They're all waiting for Obama to implode somehow, and seize upon the carcass like the vultures they are. They thought for a minute they had him with Libya, but goopers like McCain calling for even more intervention snuffed that before it got rolling. Trump is the male version of Palin, but doesn't have the tits or the wink. Pawlenty is a wash, Bachmann makes Palin look almost normal, and Romney is a non-starter.

I don't think they had much of a choice. I've been thinking about why it is that Repubs fear their base while Dems hate their base, and I think I've come up with a plausible answer.

Since Democratic voters are made up of all kinds of random groups, ethnic minorities, women, gays and lesbians, environmentalists, economic liberals, labor unions, they all have different "pet" agendas. But they''re also all stuck with each other and have nowhere else to go. No other party could represent such a broad coalition and continue to win. So since they're always getting pulled in 50 different directions by this wide swath of constituents, Democratic politicians tend to hate it when they get pressured since it's all a balancing act to them.

Republican voters are a much bigger, monolithic voting bloc. You have your social conservatives, and economic conservatives. I mean, yeah you can split them up into libertarians and the uber-rich, or Southern Baptists and gun freaks, but basically if that group decided to pack up and move to another political party, they could and the Republican politicians would be shit outta luck. Hence they fear losing their base to a crazy teabagger party or anti-abortion party and getting immediately voted out of office.

This is just my 2 cents but I think it's logical. What's happening now is that the writing is on the wall as far as Medicare and tax cuts. As long as the Dems keep hammering the message that tax cuts for the wealthy don't help the economy and that the GOP has been looking to eradicate MediCare since it was created, they shouldn't have a problem winning. But they're not going to get any help from the media. See this week's MTP, with what has to be one of the most biased cold opens and perfectly symbolizes how co-opted DC is by corporate messaging and the conservative elite.

Well I think the Tea Party, and the Radical Right in general, have done a great job of infiltrating the Republican party at the grass roots level, then purging everyone who is moderate or "left" leaning. And this has been going on since the 80's with the Evangelicals. The Tea Party just kicked things up to Warp 9.

You make it sound like a conspiracy, when it's the natural order of things for the grass roots to be populated with the most passionate, partisan people. Now, if you want to say that they're being manipulated by moneyed interests looking to exploit the idiocy of the masses, I wouldn't disagree with that. It has been over 50 years of this nonsense so it's just mantra at this point.

But as much as it bums me out to admit it, I kinda believe the Republican grass roots really believes all this Orwellian nonsense about tax cuts increasing tax revenue, that trickle-down economics creates jobs and that Medicare would lead to boundless socialism. Well, that or they happen to be the honest Republicans who are just greedy for more money and fuck the rest. The problem with the fooled is they've become so filled with hate for all things liberal that they refuse to listen to them even when their arguments are logical and objectively persuasive.

Don't forget the obsession with "Social Issues" like Teh Gay Marriage and Abortion, plus all those communists who want good Amurican children to read Textbooks!

And it ain't a conspiracy, it's stone cold idiocy bubbling up from the depths.

According to the IMF,apparently whoever wins in 2012 will reside over the end of America! Doom! Thoughts? It is inevitable but I still think it is decades away.

http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/112616/imf-bombshell-age-america-end-marketwatch

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pop Zeus 

You make it sound like a conspiracy, when it's the natural order of things for the grass roots to be populated with the most passionate, partisan people. Now, if you want to say that they're being manipulated by moneyed interests looking to exploit the idiocy of the masses, I wouldn't disagree with that. It has been over 50 years of this nonsense so it's just mantra at this point.

 

But as much as it bums me out to admit it, I kinda believe the Republican grass roots really believes all this Orwellian nonsense about tax cuts increasing tax revenue, that trickle-down economics creates jobs and that Medicare would lead to boundless socialism. Well, that or they happen to be the honest Republicans who are just greedy for more money and fuck the rest. The problem with the fooled is they've become so filled with hate for all things liberal that they refuse to listen to them even when their arguments are logical and objectively persuasive.

Read the Powell Memo, written in 1971.  Long-sighted political strategies do bear fruit:  http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/powell_memo_lewis.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbrother 

According to the IMF,apparently whoever wins in 2012 will reside over the end of America! Doom! Thoughts? It is inevitable but I still think it is decades away.

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/112616/imf-bombshell-age-america-end-marketwatch

Yeah, I read that article.  There's lots of GOP dogwhistle rhetoric in it.  I wouldn't take it seriously, as such. Especially after he updated it with reaction from the IMF that told him he was misinterpreting their report.  An assertion he brushed off.  

Let me tell you, there's no surer sign of intellectual honesty than brushing off someone's concerns that you're misinterpreting him. 

I think the political discussion needs to open up more to include other parties besides the Dems and Repubs. These are such limiting choices. I don't think the problem is with the Dems or the Repubs, it's both. There are very few honest and principled people that hold any public office.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pop Zeus 

But as much as it bums me out to admit it, I kinda believe the Republican grass roots really believes all this Orwellian nonsense about tax cuts increasing tax revenue, that trickle-down economics creates jobs and that Medicare would lead to boundless socialism. Well, that or they happen to be the honest Republicans who are just greedy for more money and fuck the rest. The problem with the fooled is they've become so filled with hate for all things liberal that they refuse to listen to them even when their arguments are logical and objectively persuasive.

We really need to sit down as a country and have an honest discussion about these issues. The problem is, as someone else stated for different reasons, the 24-hour news cycle. These news shows feed their various bases exactly what they want to hear and every day they become more and more biased. People on the left don't want to hear anything about the causes on the right and vice versa.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob_the_Gambler 

We really need to sit down as a country and have an honest discussion about these issues. The problem is, as someone else stated for different reasons, the 24-hour news cycle. These news shows feed their various bases exactly what they want to hear and every day they become more and more biased. People on the left don't want to hear anything about the causes on the right and vice versa.

 

The thing to attack is the electoral system.  We can all push for instant run-off voting on a local level.  That needs to trickle up to federal elections.  Instant run-off voting is where you can put first, second and third choice on your ballot.  If your first choice does not have enough support to win, your vote defaults to your second choice and so on.  This is how multi-party countries do it and it's how we should do it.  As of now, entrenched in our two-party system (which naturally benefits big corporations), on the big seats I go for Democrats every time because there IS a difference between the parties, never more than now. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by yt 

The thing to attack is the electoral system.  We can all push for instant run-off voting on a local level.  That needs to trickle up to federal elections.  Instant run-off voting is where you can put first, second and third choice on your ballot.  If your first choice does not have enough support to win, your vote defaults to your second choice and so on.  This is how multi-party countries do it and it's how we should do it.  As of now, entrenched in our two-party system (which naturally benefits big corporations), on the big seats I go for Democrats every time because there IS a difference between the parties, never more than now.
 

I do like the idea of instant run-off voting, but don't think it's necessary. There are a lot of barriers for independent candidates, most of it has to do with campaign funds, but there is also the fact that no one takes them seriously and the two parties make such a stink about including them in debates. If there is a difference between the parties, I don't see it. Our current POTUS reminds me quite a bit of our former POTUS. Continuing the wars, coporate welfare, and trampling of our rights.
 

Really?  Because I recall our former POTUS trying to privatize social security, which the current GOP-led House is trying to do and the current POTUS has said he'll veto.  I also recall our former POTUS gutting the EPA while our current POTUS is trying to shore it up.  I also recall our former POTUS signing a new bankruptcy law that basically empowered banks to abuse consumers at will with no consequences and favored people with "investment" properties over people who were just trying to hold onto their homes, while our current POTUS signed a law designed to protect consumers from predatory banking practices and enacted the country's first Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  I recall the former POTUS cutting taxes and sending a backdoor bailout to the banks in the form of a preemptive "refund check" because the gigantic debt volcano was nigh exploding, whereas the current POTUS (in what many consider to be a low point) gave in to the GOP's insisted-upon-or-else-no-unemployment-benefits-no-START-treaty-and-no-tax-cuts-for-struggling-people tax cuts for the country's richest (including Wall St. and their ridiculous 15% income tax).  But there's quite a distinction between giving in to the GOP's insistence on tax cuts for the rich to ensure other critical priorities versus driving, forcing and wanting to make permanent tax cuts for the rich.   Also, do you think our former POTUS would ever even speak the words "cut oil subsidies" or "close tax loopholes for corporations" out loud? 

So, you can believe there's no difference between the parties, but there actually is a huge difference between the parties, both of which are mired in an utterly corrupt and corrupting system that no one seems to have the attention span to really deconstruct and call for targeted reforms.  Obama is struggling to do the people's business in this miasma of corporate campaign money and hardcore brutal cynicism from the "conservatives" doing the transnational monopolies' bidding.  Oh, and this all while being blamed for the Bush/Cheney "deficits don't matter" administration's drunken spending and Reagan's ballooning of the deficit to enact a massive redistribution of the nation's wealth upwards, not being recognized as the legitimately elected President while the major media puts on talking heads who disparage him in the most pungently racist ways, and countenancing threats of secession from the states. 

ETA:  Also, death threats on this POTUS have increased 400% over the last POTUS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yt 

Really?  Because I recall our former POTUS trying to privatize social security, which the current GOP-led House is trying to do and the current POTUS has said he'll veto.  I also recall our former POTUS gutting the EPA while our current POTUS is trying to shore it up.  I also recall our former POTUS signing a new bankruptcy law that basically empowered banks to abuse consumers at will with no consequences and favored people with "investment" properties over people who were just trying to hold onto their homes, while our current POTUS signed a law designed to protect consumers from predatory banking practices and enacted the country's first Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  I recall the former POTUS cutting taxes and sending a backdoor bailout to the banks in the form of a preemptive "refund check" because the gigantic debt volcano was nigh exploding, whereas the current POTUS (in what many consider to be a low point) gave in to the GOP's insisted-upon-or-else-no-unemployment-benefits-no-START-treaty-and-no-tax-cuts-for-struggling-people tax cuts for the country's richest (including Wall St. and their ridiculous 15% income tax).  But there's quite a distinction between giving in to the GOP's insistence on tax cuts for the rich to ensure other critical priorities versus driving, forcing and wanting to make permanent tax cuts for the rich.   Also, do you think our former POTUS would ever even speak the words "cut oil subsidies" or "close tax loopholes for corporations" out loud? 

 

So, you can believe there's no difference between the parties, but there actually is a huge difference between the parties, both of which are mired in an utterly corrupt and corrupting system that no one seems to have the attention span to really deconstruct and call for targeted reforms.  Obama is struggling to do the people's business in this miasma of corporate campaign money and hardcore brutal cynicism from the "conservatives" doing the transnational monopolies' bidding.  Oh, and this all while being blamed for the Bush/Cheney "deficits don't matter" administration's drunken spending and Reagan's ballooning of the deficit to enact a massive redistribution of the nation's wealth upwards, not being recognized as the legitimately elected President while the major media puts on talking heads who disparage him in the most pungently racist ways, and countenancing threats of secession from the states. 

 

ETA:  Also, death threats on this POTUS have increased 400% over the last POTUS.

Instead of focusing on what they wanted to do or what they say they will do, I would prefer to focus on what has happened. Both have wanted to do things that didn't happen or won't happen. Also, I'm not trying to say the former POTUS was any better then our current, as I stated, they are both pretty bad in my eyes. I was looking at the similarities and you are looking at the difference, but there are many of both.

Sure enough the current POTUS is making the EPA stronger, but we will probably disagree on the effects and consequences of those actions. Yeah, that bankruptcy bill was bad. Bankruptcy is an unfortunately necessary tool and it shouldn't have been passed. I wish people didn't have to use it, but it helps the market absorb bad investments. The financial reform bill won't stop some of these banks from doing what they did before and actual creates more of a barrier for small firms. 

We're not going to get anywhere on taxes, I don't think there should be any income taxes on rich or poor people.

Our current POTUS is sending back door bail outs to a lot of companies, especially GE, in the form of "green" subsidies. GE is a multinational company that brings in billions of dollars, why do they need tax payer money? Why does any company need tax payer money? All subsidies to private companies should end be it oil, farmers, or multinational companies.

What did Obama and the democrats doing about the financial mess they inherited, just made it worse by going on a drunken binge.

I don't understand the coporations are evil, government is good stick. The political elite class (both parties) and corporations are colluding to keep us in our places. Look at campaign funds for the midterm elections and you'll see these corporations supporting both parties and I'll continue to believe that there is no real difference between the parties.

This ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob_the_Gambler 

We're not going to get anywhere on taxes, I don't think there should be any income taxes on rich or poor people.

 

and this...

are contradictions.  Governments can be voted in or out; corporations can't.  You want to end taxes and let corporations govern?  Move to Somalia. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by yt 


Read the Powell Memo, written in 1971.  Long-sighted political strategies do bear fruit:  http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/powell_memo_lewis.html

 

Welp, this is a bummer. Ha!

It is interesting how this memo came from an era where it looked as if the "New Left" (funny name) was taking up their cause with armed militancy and clearly these conservatives were preparing for such an event. But look how that turned out. Instead, the left got co-opted and now conservative ideology is all the rage in Washington. I guess it does pay to play the behind-the-scenes big money game. I wonder what that says about our current state of affairs. Now the Teabaggers are all tree of liberty/bloor of tyrants, the left is virtually to the right of the right from 1971 and it appears as if Norquist's "drown the federal government in a bathtub" might backfire, because all those simple voters are catching on.

We on the "New New Left" must be vigilant and make sure their plans do not succeed!
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by yt 

...are contradictions.  Governments can be voted in or out; corporations can't.  You want to end taxes and let corporations govern?  Move to Somalia. 

How so? Companies can be "voted" out too with your money. You don't have to buy from any one specific company and if you work with others with the same cause against a company they can be taken down. Boycotting can come in handy and has work in many cases. Ever the threat of a boycott can change things.

How you can say that I want to let coporations govern is ridiculous and insulting. At one point in history there was no income tax in the US and during peace time usually went away. Just because there is no income tax doesn't mean coporations would take over, like they are now. With no income tax there would be a lot less money to syphon off to these companies. Granted the government could get the Fed to just print more money to compensate, but that would cause hyperinflation and the people would revolt.

Oh yes, the "if you want x, moved to y" rhetoric.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob_the_Gambler 

 

How so? Companies can be "voted" out too with your money. You don't have to buy from any one specific company and if you work with others with the same cause against a company they can be taken down. Boycotting can come in handy and has work in many cases. Ever the threat of a boycott can change things.

 

 

That's a gross oversimplification of capitalism and, frankly, reality. You must be a libertarian because those are the only people who believe in this corporate utopia nonsense. You are going to boycott health insurance companies? How about oil companies? Which ones? What happens if your boycott can't afford to sustain itself? (Please don't try to answer these rhetorical questions, as there is none that would satisfy the basic facts.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pop Zeus 

 

That's a gross oversimplification of capitalism and, frankly, reality. You must be a libertarian because those are the only people who believe in this corporate utopia nonsense. You are going to boycott health insurance companies? How about oil companies? Which ones? What happens if your boycott can't afford to sustain itself? (Please don't try to answer these rhetorical questions, as there is none that would satisfy the basic facts.)

You now what, you're right. Who am I to say that I can buy what I want, when I want. I guess I'll just wait until our president tells me what I want and I'll be fine. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob_the_Gambler 

You now what, your right. Who am I to say that I can buy what I want, when I want. I guess I'll just wait until our president tells me what I want and I'll be fine. 

You know what the most effective marketing message is?  You deserve this.  You "deserve" to buy what you want when you want.  You "deserve" to keep your tax money and "get the govmint off your back."  You are the victim of a long-running marketing campaign and you don't even know it.  I'll bet if you looked around you, you couldn't name the parent companies of anything you consume, unless you're as serious as a Ted Kaczynski about disconnecting from society.  The problem with you libertarians is that you think that you can just buy what you want when you want and live.  So when you're breathing plutonium and eating e-coli-tainted meat and the water out of your tap is flammable, just remember your rejection of the concept of paying for someone to make sure all those things are safe.  Just remember that without taxpayer-funded law enforcement and courts, GE could what's yours and there'd be nothing you could do about it.  You have bought into this idea that what the revolutionary war was about was letting you buy what you want when you want without the government on your back has been carefully and painstakingly marketed to you over decades by billionaires that want nothing more than to have no government so they can then flip the script on you and take what they want when they want without a government to hold them back.  That's why I say you should move to Somalia.  When you're begging BP to let you into their safe compound, remember that you rejected the concept of paying taxes.  Because that's really what it comes down to.  I hate to break it to you, but the revolutionary war was actually about forming a government, not creating a country of selfish nihilists, which is what the Koch brothers have taught you (even if you don't realize that's the kool-aid you're drinking).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob_the_Gambler 

You now what, you're right. Who am I to say that I can buy what I want, when I want. I guess I'll just wait until our president tells me what I want and I'll be fine. 

Again with the gross oversimplification. But if misconstruing my argument makes you feel better about the fantasy world you live in, be my guest. Is SIN CITY your favorite movie because it's the only one that looks regular to you, what with all its 2 colors?

Quote:

Originally Posted by yt 

You know what the most effective marketing message is?  You deserve this.  You "deserve" to buy what you want when you want.  You "deserve" to keep your tax money and "get the govmint off your back."  You are the victim of a long-running marketing campaign and you don't even know it.  I'll bet if you looked around you, you couldn't name the parent companies of anything you consume, unless you're as serious as a Ted Kaczynski about disconnecting from society.  The problem with you libertarians is that you think that you can just buy what you want when you want and live.  So when you're breathing plutonium and eating e-coli-tainted meat and the water out of your tap is flammable, just remember your rejection of the concept of paying for someone to make sure all those things are safe.  Just remember that without taxpayer-funded law enforcement and courts, GE could what's yours and there'd be nothing you could do about it.  You have bought into this idea that what the revolutionary war was about was letting you buy what you want when you want without the government on your back has been carefully and painstakingly marketed to you over decades by billionaires that want nothing more than to have no government so they can then flip the script on you and take what they want when they want without a government to hold them back.  That's why I say you should move to Somalia.  When you're begging BP to let you into their safe compound, remember that you rejected the concept of paying taxes.  Because that's really what it comes down to.  I hate to break it to you, but the revolutionary war was actually about forming a government, not creating a country of selfish nihilists, which is what the Koch brothers have taught you (even if you don't realize that's the kool-aid you're drinking).

What you don't realize is that everyone is "the victim of a long-running marketing campaign", even you. Really, is it that hard to find out the parent companies of the products I buy? Nowhere did I say that I want to disconnect with society. What does that have to do with boycotting? Also, where did I every say I was a libertarian. I don't agree with everything they stand for, or any other party for that matter. There are other ways to raise taxes besides an income tax. I'm not  for abolishing all taxes or the government. Do you now for a fact that I'll be "breathing plutonium and eating e-coli-tainted meat and the water out of your tap is flammable". It's the companies jobs to make sure their products are safe and when they aren't there are the courts. It's very bad business to kill your customers. Actually, the revolutionary war was about taxation without representation and how the colonies had no say in their government.

All you are doing is assuming to know what I think. You don't, and you don't seem to want to debate topics, just put words in my mouth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pop Zeus 

(Please don't try to answer these rhetorical questions, as there is none that would satisfy the basic facts.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pop Zeus 

 

Again with the gross oversimplification. But if misconstruing my argument makes you feel better about the fantasy world you live in, be my guest. Is SIN CITY your favorite movie because it's the only one that looks regular to you, what with all its 2 colors?

You didn't want me to reply to your argument, so I replied with sarcasm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob_the_Gambler 

What you don't realize is that everyone is "the victim of a long-running marketing campaign", even you. Really, is it that hard to find out the parent companies of the products I buy? Nowhere did I say that I want to disconnect with society. What does that have to do with boycotting? Also, where did I every say I was a libertarian. I don't agree with everything they stand for, or any other party for that matter. There are other ways to raise taxes besides an income tax. I'm not  for abolishing all taxes or the government. Do you now for a fact that I'll be "breathing plutonium and eating e-coli-tainted meat and the water out of your tap is flammable". It's the companies jobs to make sure their products are safe and when they aren't there are the courts. It's very bad business to kill your customers. Actually, the revolutionary war was about taxation without representation and how the colonies had no say in their government.

 

All you are doing is assuming to know what I think. You don't, and you don't seem to want to debate topics, just put words in my mouth.

Then please, let's hear it.  What, the Flat Tax or the Fair Tax?  Unless you're a millionaire, the Flat Tax and Fair Tax are both regressive taxes, meaning they place a disproportionate burden on lower-income people to the sole benefit of the rich. 

Also, if you think taxation without representation was all the revolutionary war was about, you should really read the Constitution.  It's not that long, and there's a lot in there that reflects the overall picture of how they wanted to live and why they disconnected from England. 

And if you think it's not really hard to find out the parent companies of the products and services you consume, I would suggest that you're naive.  And if you think there's not a cost/benefit analysis (including death and disease epidemics) that goes into corporate decisions, I would also suggest that you're naive.  It's not a company's job to make sure their products are safe; it's a company's job to make sure they make a profit.  And in terms of the courts, maybe you should read the Powell Memo that I linked to earlier to understand why federal courts, the Supreme Court in particular, now favor big business over the individual in the majority of cases. 

Lastly, I'm all for personal boycotts and in fact am in the midst of more boycotts than I can name.  I'm part of a boycott BP group on Facebook and haven't gone to a BP/ARCO/Thrifty station since the oil spill.  What has been the result?  BP's profits are up this year.  Back when there was a "giant sucking sound" as all the manufacturing jobs went to third world nations because of NAFTA and other trade agreements, I and many others made an effort to only buy things made in the USA.  Did that change anything?  No.  During the Bush Administration alone, 50 thousand factories were closed in the US.  Government has a purpose--it's our way of organizing the kind of government we want.  But a machine this massive requires participation that goes beyond just ranting on the internet.  If you don't like what the government is doing, you can get involved, go to meetings and town halls, contact your representatives, vote and participate in voting drives and efforts to educate your neighbors on the issues.  You can't just sit back and do nothing and expect people who are being drooled on and wined and dined by lobbyists 24/7 to do your bidding without letting them know you're there and will hold them accountable.  I'm not saying that as a presumption that you're not doing any of the above; I'm just saying that most of the young malcontents I encounter on the internet just seem to like the sound of their own voice and have never participated in actual government action.  Our system may be flawed, but it's better than what they have in, say, Syria, or China, or Russia.  The preamble to the Constitution talks about forming "a more perfect union."  That is an ongoing effort, but the Koch brothers don't want people involved.  They want them to sit back and enjoy all the things "they deserve" without realizing that it takes time, effort and money to have a beneficial economy and society.  And if you scrap what we have and "start over," whatever rises will be just as prone to the Koch brothers' type of corruption as anything else.  I think we're better off working to reform the system we have. The Founders were in many ways a lot smarter than our leaders are today, and in fact, for the first 150 or so years of this country, corporations had to die with their owners, and the number one item on the charter had to be to serve the public good.  Now, it's to make a profit.  Also, we had tariffs till Reagan began to dismantle them.  Today, we have "free trade."  I don't think we have to reinvent the wheel--I just think we need to look back at a lot of what Reagan did (as the front man for big business) and undo it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob_the_Gambler 

You didn't want me to reply to your argument, so I replied with sarcasm.

Ha. Fair enough. Your response, sarcastic as it may be, doesn't really change the fact that libertarianism is unsustainable, inherently unfair and will result in less social and economic mobility, not more. Also, libertarianism does nothing to address this issue, as it is a historically proven FACT that not everything that is good and necessary for society can be prescribed a profit motive, as much as free market fundies would like to believe otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yt 

 

Then please, let's hear it.  What, the Flat Tax or the Fair Tax?  Unless you're a millionaire, the Flat Tax and Fair Tax are both regressive taxes, meaning they place a disproportionate burden on lower-income people to the sole benefit of the rich. 

 

Also, if you think taxation without representation was all the revolutionary war was about, you should really read the Constitution.  It's not that long, and there's a lot in there that reflects the overall picture of how they wanted to live and why they disconnected from England. 

 

And if you think it's not really hard to find out the parent companies of the products and services you consume, I would suggest that you're naive.  And if you think there's not a cost/benefit analysis (including death and disease epidemics) that goes into corporate decisions, I would also suggest that you're naive.  It's not a company's job to make sure their products are safe; it's a company's job to make sure they make a profit.  And in terms of the courts, maybe you should read the Powell Memo that I linked to earlier to understand why federal courts, the Supreme Court in particular, now favor big business over the individual in the majority of cases. 

 

Lastly, I'm all for personal boycotts and in fact am in the midst of more boycotts than I can name.  I'm part of a boycott BP group on Facebook and haven't gone to a BP/ARCO/Thrifty station since the oil spill.  What has been the result?  BP's profits are up this year.  Back when there was a "giant sucking sound" as all the manufacturing jobs went to third world nations because of NAFTA and other trade agreements, I and many others made an effort to only buy things made in the USA.  Did that change anything?  No.  During the Bush Administration alone, 50 thousand factories were closed in the US.  Government has a purpose--it's our way of organizing the kind of government we want.  But a machine this massive requires participation that goes beyond just ranting on the internet.  If you don't like what the government is doing, you can get involved, go to meetings and town halls, contact your representatives, vote and participate in voting drives and efforts to educate your neighbors on the issues.  You can't just sit back and do nothing and expect people who are being drooled on and wined and dined by lobbyists 24/7 to do your bidding without letting them know you're there and will hold them accountable.  I'm not saying that as a presumption that you're not doing any of the above; I'm just saying that most of the young malcontents I encounter on the internet just seem to like the sound of their own voice and have never participated in actual government action.  Our system may be flawed, but it's better than what they have in, say, Syria, or China, or Russia.  The preamble to the Constitution talks about forming "a more perfect union."  That is an ongoing effort, but the Koch brothers don't want people involved.  They want them to sit back and enjoy all the things "they deserve" without realizing that it takes time, effort and money to have a beneficial economy and society.  And if you scrap what we have and "start over," whatever rises will be just as prone to the Koch brothers' type of corruption as anything else.  I think we're better off working to reform the system we have. The Founders were in many ways a lot smarter than our leaders are today, and in fact, for the first 150 or so years of this country, corporations had to die with their owners, and the number one item on the charter had to be to serve the public good.  Now, it's to make a profit.  Also, we had tariffs till Reagan began to dismantle them.  Today, we have "free trade."  I don't think we have to reinvent the wheel--I just think we need to look back at a lot of what Reagan did (as the front man for big business) and undo it.

They could implement user fees. If you own a car and want to use the roads there could be a small monthly/annual fee. A federal sales tax on high priced luxury items. Tariffs, leasing of government lands and buildings. I'm sure there are better ideas out there. I would prefer for the States to have more control though. All the federal government is allowed to do is in the Constitution, everything else is supposed to be delegated to the States. The whole reasoning for this was to have the government be closer to the people.

Who's responsibility is it for food to be cooked properly in a restaurant? The chef, the owner, or the safety inspector that comes by occasionally. No, it's a companies job to make their products safe and to turn a profit.

I've read the Constitution many times actually. Taxation without representation was one of the major/first causes of the Revolutionary War, more specifically the Stamp Act of 1765. Leading up to the war there were many other reasons. 

Boycotts don't work as well if you have government involvement.

Research isn't that hard. Yes, it may take time, but anyone can find out who the parent company of the products they may buy.

The thing is that we actually agree on a lot of these issues: NAFTA, lobbyists, corporations, etc. I don't advocate starting from scratch and think that if more politicians actually took there oath of office seriously, then we wouldn't have a lot of these problems. I always make sure to be involved in the political process, but I prefer to focus more on issues dealing with my state government. There is this one size fits all mentality in the Federeal government. What works for one state doesn't necessarily work for another.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pop Zeus 

Ha. Fair enough. Your response, sarcastic as it may be, doesn't really change the fact that libertarianism is unsustainable, inherently unfair and will result in less social and economic mobility, not more. Also, libertarianism does nothing to address this issue, as it is a historically proven FACT that not everything that is good and necessary for society can be prescribed a profit motive, as much as free market fundies would like to believe otherwise.

Again, I'm not a libertarian.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob_the_Gambler 

Again, I'm not a libertarian.

No, you just share some of the exact same radical ideas as many libertarians. And I'm not a liberal, I'm a progressive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob_the_Gambler 

They could implement user fees. If you own a car and want to use the roads there could be a small monthly/annual fee. A federal sales tax on high priced luxury items. Tariffs,

I'm for all this.

No.  Just no.  I've already had an endless argument with The Closer about this so I don't want to repeat myself, but the short version is: it's penny wise and pound foolish.

So, the Constitution is calcified?  Is that before or after slavery was abolished?

It would be a much better country if that were true.  But "make their products safe" and "turn a profit" most often contradict each other, and in this post-Reagan era, monopolization has destroyed the odds for small businesses, so oftentimes if you like the way Restaurant X does it, when it's sold to Monopoly Y, you're never told, and then you have to start over.  Kids believe that if something is on the supermarket shelves, it can't kill you.  It's like believing in the Tooth Fairy these days.  And by the way, the safety inspector is a public job, paid for by taxpayers, and often overburdened and understaffed.  How does your philosophy play for the energy in your house.  Do you know how it's generated?  Do you know how you get your natural gas and if anyone's groundwater was destroyed finding it?  Do you know where the gas in your car comes from?  Do you know where your clothes come from?  Do you know the labor and environmental practices of that factory? 

The key being many other reasons.  And the Framers didn't march in lockstep. They all had different ideas.  But they organized a government with rules.  A slave state (England) had on rules except those dictated on the whims of a king.  Rules that can be legislated and enforced by democratically elected people's representatives make a free state possible.  The perversion of that by so-called "small government conservatives" is anarchy, such that the US will become a slave state with corporations instead of a king.  The corporations are chomping at the bit to get rid of the rules because they don't want a free state; they want a slave state.

I'm for boycotts but in the "global marketplace" with an out-of-control Wall St., they don't have an icecube's chance in hell.

You're so wrong.  They make it extremely hard to find out.  You can't even be told if your food is genetically modified or not.  The dairy industry fought even identifying which products have hormones and which don't.  And  you may have time to research, but the average person is too busy just trying to stay afloat that they don't have hours to commit to internet research.  I want my tax dollars to go into regulation.  I'm for that.  I know how most monopolistic transnational corporations operate; they don't give two s#!%s about public health, the air we breathe, the health problems we get as a result of their products, their degradation of the Earth.  Part of what goes into making huge profits is making someone else pay for what they call externalities.  They don't have to pay when people get weird cancers from the air, water, food, plastics, etc.  They don't have to pay when animals are poisoned to death.  They don't have to pay when people are displaced by "accidents."  Those are costs they should be paying and aren't.  Corporations are too big and we're seeing what that's doing to our world, health and way of life.  Without a strong government it's only going to get worse.  "Small government conservatives" don't seem to see that when, as Mrs. Palin says, "government gets out of the way," big business just drives over people and anything else that gets in its way.

Agree.  But we're all in this together.  The southern states that seem to hate "big government" the most get help when they have issues.  But any other time, they choose not to see that we're all in this together.  And if our great leaders didn't believe that we were all in this together, there would be no "United States" and the Civil War would not have happened.

So anybody watching the 1st 2011 Rep. presidential debate tomorrow?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/04/us-usa-campaign-debate-idUSTRE7436T320110504

Let's look at the candidates;

• Pawlenty
• Ron Paul
• Rick Santorum
• Gary Johnson (former New Mexico Governor)
• Herman Cain (former Godfather's PIzza executive)

Herman Cain - former Godfather's Pizza executive <=== ???

I have to watch this train wreck now.

Associated Press won't cover event. Fox News and the South Carolina Rep party won't allow pictures during the event (only before or after), so AP won't cover it!!!

No Trump?! Boo!

This debate was not serious enough even for Trump ...

15 minutes in and it's barely watchable.  FOX stooge Bret Baier and his Burt Ward haircut...Herman Cain is as dumb as a sack of talking points...goons playing to the torture-happy rednecks in the audience...every answer starts with "Well, what Obama has done wrong is"- so much for men of ideas...the whole setup looks like Jeopardy (which is fitting because if any of these ignorant toads get into office that's what we'll all be in!)

This really isn't that fun without the A-list lunatics.  (The guy and his son are dangerous weirdos but I'll give Ron Paul props...he's turning out to be the George Carlin of the debate.)

This debate really sucks.

Santorum does a good job at increasing his douchebag quotient though.

Ha ha.  Santorum.  This guy is an unapologetic neanderthal.

"Senator, do you think you could dial down your faggot-hating in the interest of party unity?"

"No!  What are ya, some kinda faggot?"

"Senator, do you think women belong in the kitchen?"

"And cooking my dinner!  Just like Jesus said to."

The creep can't seem to call Gingrich on being a skunkfucker, though.

(The audience is applauding everything like it's the Maury Povich show but, I'll say it again, Paul is really stealing the show.  Johnson's pretty funny too.)

Paul's throwaway line that union wages are artificially high was probably the most interesting thing I heard in this debate.  Setting landowners and paymasters free to screw workers over is of course the entire point of Libertarianism, but it's rare to hear that expressed so bluntly by someone who is actively trying to install himself in the White House.