PDA

View Full Version : Election 2008 thoughts



LegalSmash
03-18-2008, 01:01 AM
The election is coming up in a few months and the primaries are almost done. Hilary and Obama are still neck and neck for the dems and McCain has pretty much cinched the nomination for the republicans.

Over a few conversations in the past days with friends, family, and classmates, Ive come to a few conclusions:

1. McCain is going to be the likely repub nominee, but he suffers from incomplete support by the whole of the republican party. The same way that many people see Arnold Schwartznegger as a RINO, many persons see McCain as the same... In fact, there is a bit of an opinion that they are essentially similar, but Arnie is in Cali, and Cali, safe to say, is not the rest of the country. Im not sure if such a centrist candidate would garner sufficient support from the GOP's traditional groups to pull out a W. Dont get me wrong, I respect his service to our country, and I think that he has some good platform ideas, but he is essentially a consolidation choice for most republicans that are not in his idea group.

2. Hilary: Let me first say this... personally, I dont like the clinton political dynasty... they are as detrimental and backhanded as were the johnsons of the 1960s and I cant tolerate such expansive, apologist, and subterfuge laden behavior. Clinton will say anything that she has to in order to get elected. I dislike that, because much like McCain, she is so busy parroting everything said by everyone else that she doesnt realize that she sinks herself. Additionally, I dont find it helpful or attractive that her husband is constantly doing campaign work... it seems as if it is forcing another 4 years of Clinton again. Also, a lot of women particularly, do not buy that "Stand by your man" BS that is being peddled by these jilted wives. If she is selected as nominee I would seriously consider voting for McCain Solely to spite her, despite my reservations on him.

3. Barack: I think he is an interesting fellow as far as people go, I think he makes a fine senator for his district, which is not mine, and considering the fact that michigan and illinois both have oddities in american politics as Senators, I guess he is the least of two evils there. That being said, I DONT think he would make a GOOD president, except for for those that like him, despite the fact that I would disagree with most of his stances regarding social, national, and economic policy. I want to see more regarding his policies to know more about him, but that by no means declares my intentions to vote for him. I was alerted today to the sort of devotion he gets from followers/supporters... its nearly fanatical and rather emotion driven. I imagine this has to do with him being the first widely supported, publicly acceptable black candidate.... Even so, I find the fanatical support, emotional rapture that the man seems to give a great deal of the left to be somewhat frightening. Someone today told me that Hitler commanded the same kind of rapturous support when he would do his famed rallies. I think this is a cause of concern

4. The outsiders: Both Nader and Paul are doing something that I consider both necessary and proper under our constitutional scheme. I WANT more than 2 parties, I want more than 2 view points (in reality 1), I wish that they were viable however. It is ridiculous that we cannot get a REAL multiple party election going, but I will take this with a grain of salt. I will say, however, for my friends here that continue to dream of the day of an ACTUAL election takes place, rather than a farting contest between two twats.

What does everyone here think of election 2008? Any disagreement with my observations? Do tell if anything...

Red
03-18-2008, 01:51 AM
Are you still drunk?

Obama?

phatman76
03-18-2008, 01:59 AM
In response to each of your points, by number.

1. You say McCain can't pull a W. Well, Bush is no conservative. No fiscal conservatives like him. Bush ran as a republican, and the only conservatives he really wooed were the social right, war was not a campaign issue in 2000. McCain has the war hawks, and unless he screws up, he can basically keep the social right because they will march lock-step as long as he opposes abortion. Nobody on the far right (myself included) can get excited about McCains policies or domestic positions. However, McCain will get the votes, he just won't get overwhelming support or love from me.

2. I dislike Clinton. However, I hope she beats Obama. A vote for Hillary is a vote for McCain.

3. Obama certainly does have a fanatical following, but he is certainly not interesting or worthy of further inspection. He is a liberal to the core, on every issue. He just peddles his wares with a smoother tongue and style than Hillary. Obama has a liberal social agenda (loose), a liberal spending agenda (loose), and a liberal foreign agenda (lose).

4. Paul will drop out if he doesn't pass the Republican Convention. He has said it, I trust his word. Nader is a douche, so he will stay in and be a nice little drag on whatever democrat ends up running. I hate how people keep on asking for a multiparty system. We aren't parliamentary, grow up. We have a winner takes all system where there can only be two views. Our "multiparty representation" is handled by lobby's and interest groups, who are numerous and powerful. Party shift won't occur until the issues completely change and the old views don't matter. Even then, the party names may be the same but will just change positions or take up a new platform.

LitKey
03-18-2008, 02:06 AM
you are way TOO apologetic about obama

we thought you were cool, man... we thought you were cool. :(

Red
03-18-2008, 02:07 AM
Seriously, what the fuck does Obama really stand for?

Other than "Change" whatever the hell that means.

Hitler stood for "change", Stalin stood for "change", Mao stood for "Change", Ho Chi Minh stood for "Change", Castro and Che stood for "Change".

I cannot think of a cohesive articulated response to your post Alfred.

Again I'm hoping you're just drunk or your gf was watching you type.

LegalSmash
03-18-2008, 08:31 AM
WOW... I wrote this shit? I was pretty hammered, and have a pretty terrible hangover.... To explain: I was also watching some videos of interviews from the candidates some guy at school sent me, and I wrote a critique up for the vids, for my own entertainment, while drunk. I wasnt able to FPS drunk, so I just went with that activity instead. I THOUGHT someone at school may pass it on if they read it, so I used lawyerly tact rather than just say what I want (insults hurt less when veiled in law).

My apologies to everyone here. LOL. Time to correct and retract. LOL.

Anyway, I corrected it, and this is how it was supposed to sound:

"The election is coming up in a few months and the primaries are almost done. Hilary and Obama are still neck and neck for the dems and McCain has pretty much cinched the nomination for the republicans.

Over a few conversations in the past days with friends, family, and classmates, and watching some youtube vids Ive come to a few conclusions:

1. McCain is going to be the likely repub nominee, but he suffers from incomplete support by the whole of the republican party. The same way that many people see Arnold Schwartznegger as a RINO, many persons see McCain as the same... In fact, there is a bit of an opinion that they are essentially similar, but Arnie is in Cali, and Cali, safe to say, is not the rest of the country. Im not sure if such a centrist candidate would garner sufficient support from the GOP's traditional groups to pull out a W. Dont get me wrong, I respect his service to our country, and I think that he has some good platform ideas, but he is essentially a consolidation choice for most republicans that are not in his idea group. He has the warhawks however, which still make up a substantial chunk of the center and right in the country.

2. Hilary: Let me first say this... personally, I dont like the clinton political dynasty... they are as detrimental and backhanded as were the johnsons of the 1960s and I cant tolerate such expansive, apologist, and subterfuge laden behavior. Clinton will say anything that she has to in order to get elected. I dislike that, because much like McCain, she is so busy parroting everything said by everyone else that she doesnt realize that she sinks herself. Additionally, I dont find it helpful or attractive that her husband is constantly doing campaign work... it seems as if it is forcing another 4 years of Clinton again. Also, a lot of women particularly, do not buy that "Stand by your man" BS that is being peddled by these jilted wives. If she is selected as nominee I would seriously consider voting for McCain Solely to spite her, despite my reservations on him.

3. Barack: I think he is an interesting fellow as far as people go, I think he makes a fine senator for his district, which is not mine, and considering the fact that michigan and illinois both have oddities in american politics as Senators, I guess he is the least of two evils there. That being said, I DONT think he would make a GOOD president, except for for those that like him, despite the fact that I would disagree with most of his stances regarding social, national, and economic policy. I want to see more regarding his policies to know more about him, but that by no means declares my intentions to vote for him. I was alerted today to the sort of devotion he gets from followers/supporters... its nearly fanatical and rather emotion driven. I imagine this has to do with him being the first widely supported, publicly acceptable black candidate.... Even so, I find the fanatical support, emotional rapture that the man seems to give a great deal of the left to be somewhat frightening. Someone today told me that Hitler commanded the same kind of rapturous support when he would do his famed rallies. I think this is a cause of concern. Needless to say, Id take McCain over him any day.

My big issue with him comes on issues of international economic policy: the man has said repeatedly prior that he disagrees with NAFTA. Additionally, many of the policies that he has advocated @ Howard or in videos they have shown here have shown an extremely one sided agenda as to social policy, issues like social programs for the "disadvantaged", changes in tax structure that will detriment investing (changing the capital gain rate), and tossing money into areas of the nation that dont need addition welfare funding, but rather an uprooting and shake up, such an "N'aw'lins". Much of his points also seem to desire to re-establish the status quo of the clinton era and johnson era expansive social programs... but adding in gays and muslims

This is disconcerting.

I added this part to address the fact that people ALWAYS complain that these two guys are never addressed... despite the fact that I believe that 2 party works better and leads to less extremism in view point

4. The outsiders: Both Nader and Paul are doing something that I consider both necessary and proper under our constitutional scheme. I WANT more than 2 parties, I want more than 2 view points (in reality 1), I wish that they were viable however as maybe it would make the major party candidates actually say something more than the same crap constantly in debates. It is ridiculous that we cannot get a REAL multiple party election going, but I will take this with a grain of salt. I will say this section, however, for my fellow country-men here that continue to dream of the day of an ACTUAL election takes place, rather than a farting contest between two twats.

What does everyone here think of election 2008? Any disagreement with my observations? If you do, die in a fire..."



3. Obama certainly does have a fanatical following, but he is certainly not interesting or worthy of further inspection. He is a liberal to the core, on every issue. He just peddles his wares with a smoother tongue and style than Hillary. Obama has a liberal social agenda (loose), a liberal spending agenda (loose), and a liberal foreign agenda (lose).

4. Paul will drop out if he doesn't pass the Republican Convention. He has said it, I trust his word. Nader is a douche, so he will stay in and be a nice little drag on whatever democrat ends up running. I hate how people keep on asking for a multiparty system. We aren't parliamentary, grow up. We have a winner takes all system where there can only be two views. Our "multiparty representation" is handled by lobby's and interest groups, who are numerous and powerful. Party shift won't occur until the issues completely change and the old views don't matter. Even then, the party names may be the same but will just change positions or take up a new platform.

I agree with you wholly on these points, however, Bushes' social conservative following in 2000 was more than enough to carry him through because people were just tired of the clinton BS. I think they got what they wanted, a guy who wasnt going to lie about fucking other women in front of congress. From what I remember of 2000, that was one of the biggest things people would talk about that I knew re: election 2000.

My only beef with 2000 is that a recount would have showed Bush winning anyways, and the supreme court really did not have any business making that decision in violation of seperation of powers and the bulwarks of judicial ethics. This isnt a "liberal rant" but rather a simple point of law. I dont think the court should EVER involve themselves in advisory opinions on elections.


Red, Lit, Phatman - 4 extra shots of Vat69 Scotch Whiskey @ 12 AM had unintended effects on me. LOL.

My bad again

Oh, Red, I was on vent waiting for game last night, where was ye?

Italian Jew
03-18-2008, 09:20 AM
Well, Obama does have good oratory skills and does stand for change like those other guys as you mention, but I think he doesn't want to rule with tyranny. So what, Hitler was a great orator, but are all orators dictators/racists/tyrants/complete fucking twats? Obama can stir up the people, which is something the U.S. needs now. I think he is the only candidate who can actually help America's stance in the world right now. McCain gets to angry and Hilary scares people.

I figure the U.S. is as messed up as its gonna get for a while, so why not gamble on somebody with little "experience" as so many people point out. At his worst, he could not do worse than Bush and crew has done. If you look at trends, presidents with the most political experience have led to some of the worst problems in American history.

I also don't like the Clintons too much, must be something in the Arkansas water or something that makes them seem crazy. McCain is a cool guy, but I don't agree with most of his policies. Those third party guys have some good policies, but to be honest, they are not getting elected any time soon.

Red
03-18-2008, 10:01 AM
At least we can all agree that we have crap selection of candidates overall.

Itch
03-18-2008, 10:21 AM
I think there is an episode of South Park that says it best..

"It all comes down to a choice between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich"

Red
03-18-2008, 10:23 AM
amen

LegalSmash
03-18-2008, 10:48 AM
indeed

Italian Jew
03-18-2008, 01:34 PM
Well the democratic convention has a certain amount of voters from countries other than the U.S. that decide who the candidate will be...but I take it you were not a part of that. I have no idea why that is there considering it is the U.S. president candidacy, not the world's. Although, maybe having the world's input in the vote could be beneficial, but it doesn't seem fair if the world decides our president.

Politics is weird nowadays...what happened to the time when you killed the leader you were the new leader? Much simpler times. :P

I will vote for a president who i think will not embarrass the U.S. on the foreign stage. Can't have the whole world hating us while we try to control it, now can we? XD

phatman76
03-19-2008, 12:51 AM
To be honest, not that my opinion counts as I'm not even American. But Obama seems to be appealing to everyone with fairly bland and boring policies, whereas Hillary has good policies and a political position.

Either way I don't care who gets elected, so long as everytime I put on the news feed I see something about George Bush looking like an idiot at a speech being fed words through his earpiece.

P.S. Just read Red's comments and I fully agree.

That's Obama's big lie. He is a god damn liberal. Bleeding heart, through and through. I can't stand that people swallow this "post-partisan" BS. Obama is more liberal than Clinton. Period. His proposed policies are actually THE SAME as Clinton's, he is just a smoother talker and has a more liberal voting record.

Italian Jew
03-19-2008, 10:06 AM
lol

what is wrong with a liberal... and why are they always referred to as "bleeding heart"? Not as fucked up as die hard republicans I can tell you that much.

Don't understand how Clinton with her socialist method of offering insurance (gov't forcing it and providing it, which isn't necessarily bad) is less liberal than Obama.

The republicans fucked up our country enough, let's give the other party a shot and see what they can do. Its the Dems turn now. Maybe in 8 years the Conservatives can have another crack at it. XD

Red
03-19-2008, 10:13 AM
One administration " fucking up " does not warrant giving another party "a shot" at it.

I don't have to wait and see when the Dems will do. Taxes are retarded enough as is. I'm already paying 1/3 of my paycheck in fed/state income tax, medicare (pointless), social security (pointless), 401k, dental, medical. The last thing I want is some BLEEDING HEART taking more money from my already raped paycheck to give to some gimme gimme gimme recipient.

I like my taxes low thank you.

Italian Jew
03-19-2008, 01:38 PM
The problem with conservatives most of the time is that their low tax policy includes the wealthy. Dems want low taxes for Low-income and low to moderate for middle class. The wealthy get higher taxes, so unless you are incredibly wealthy, which you probably aren't, you won't get it worse.

Regardless if you don't care about gimme gimme people or not, certain government funded institutions need money. I do believe our armed forces are underpaid, as are many law enforcement personnel and teachers. Teacher's wages depend on the state level government, so a president really cannot force anything there.

phatman76
03-19-2008, 01:40 PM
One administration " fucking up " does not warrant giving another party "a shot" at it.

I don't have to wait and see when the Dems will do. Taxes are retarded enough as is. I'm already paying 1/3 of my paycheck in fed/state income tax, medicare (pointless), social security (pointless), 401k, dental, medical. The last thing I want is some BLEEDING HEART taking more money from my already raped paycheck to give to some gimme gimme gimme recipient.

I like my taxes low thank you.

*claps*

Unfortunately, McCain is no more fiscally responsible than Obama or Clinton. This is a single issue election, war. The candidates are mostly the same on other issues, and the ones that they are different on will not play as big a role (abortion etc. ). Immigration might be big, can't tell yet. I would have loved Romney over McCain though, he was a guy you could trust with your money. Oh well, just pinch your nose and vote for the least bad candidate.

Red
03-19-2008, 01:57 PM
Oh well, just pinch your nose and vote for the least bad candidate.

Best summation of this election yet.

I'll take the turd sandwich.

Italian Jew
03-19-2008, 02:36 PM
Giant Douche FTW!!!

Let us resurrect George Washington for old times sake

VirDeBello
03-19-2008, 04:56 PM
Well Ima just say my silly little thing that I always say in topics.

Ima vote for the white guy, we don't need a women or black guy in office because as the saying goes....

The more things change the more they stay the same.

matt 187
03-19-2008, 05:05 PM
http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z24/clayjr88/hillary.jpg

all my word's sumed up in a pictur

LegalSmash
03-19-2008, 05:47 PM
Ok prior to work again, Ill waste time to indulge in this.

This will not be nice and WILL hurt, as I am sober and use no lube.


Well the democratic convention has a certain amount of voters from countries other than the U.S. that decide who the candidate will be...but I take it you were not a part of that. I have no idea why that is there considering it is the U.S. president candidacy, not the world's. Although, maybe having the world's input in the vote could be beneficial, but it doesn't seem fair if the world decides our president.

Politics is weird nowadays...what happened to the time when you killed the leader you were the new leader? Much simpler times. :P

I will vote for a president who i think will not embarrass the U.S. on the foreign stage. Can't have the whole world hating us while we try to control it, now can we? XD

The rest of the world is not american citizens... nor are illegal immigrants, nor are pussyfooted imbeciles in other countries that wish we'd be a little more gentile. This is a moot point.

Embarrassment I could care less about... I want a president that will represent our interests as a nation and as a people/culture... not the interests other people feel we should have because they have them. IMHO I think that you should not be able to get a passport, drivers license, or for that matter medical treatment at state's expense if you will not fully show your face for a photographic license. This Sultanaa Freeman shit that goes on in many of the states is downright sickening. We have rules and regulations we enforce on our own citizens and ALL people here need to abide by them, not "its my Muhammad I can decry you if i feel it may be construed against my religion."

The foreign stage is just that... as such, it doesnt matter... the place we supply troops for their bullshit third world uprisings, pay for their famines, their AIDs, their Hootoos and Tootsie/Darfur, or the name-your-random-africans-killing-each-other-while-starving-and-passing-aids
conflict that will get us nothing in return but more money taken out of our citizens pockets for horseshit.

I WILL say that I prefer our country not be run by a silver spoon packing fratboy with little public speaking ability or stage presence.





what is wrong with a liberal... and why are they always referred to as "bleeding heart"? Not as fucked up as die hard republicans I can tell you that much.

Don't understand how Clinton with her socialist method of offering insurance (gov't forcing it and providing it, which isn't necessarily bad) is less liberal than Obama.

The republicans fucked up our country enough, let's give the other party a shot and see what they can do. Its the Dems turn now. Maybe in 8 years the Conservatives can have another crack at it. XD

Bleeding heart refers to the fact that dhimmicrats, emo-crats, and college-bandwagon-crats tend to feel sorry for everything and everyone and are quick to give into emotions and go off on moral crusades rather quickly... this is usually done at the public expense in a ceremony that resembles a book burning of nazi germany, but with taxpayer dollars rather than jewish literature.

People here may hate me for this but: liberalism isnt ALWAYS bad. Franklin Roosevelt's extremely liberal programs of frugal spending by the consumer, low interest rates, and funding of public projects to create jobs in order to exploit our natural resources and kickstart our defense industry was a GREAT idea WHEN WE WERE IN THE WORST FINANCIAL DEPRESSION THE COUNTRY EVER HAD GONE THROUGH.

Ben Franklin was a classic liberal... Everyone in this country TECHNICALLY is a classic liberal: we believe in civil liberties of speech, religion, assembly, press, and expression... we believe in self determination and in democratic society (in that we vote for our leaders). By the same token, classic liberals were frugal, self sufficient, and rugged independents. BF said a penny saved is a penny earned, FE.

The problem with the "liberal" of today is that he is a socialist liberal. Socialist liberals believe in spending by taking away from individuals to give to many.

The problem with this philosophy is that the persons that are being taken from are the people that are willing to work... entrepreneurs, business people, and folks that drove themselves into debt to get worthwhile educations and pursue decent careers... the people they are giving to are the traditional voting block for the "NEW" democrats (those existing since the kennedy era... not those racist southern ones the democratic party of today pretend didnt exist.), which consists mostly of poor, minorities, single mothers with kids they dont need and continue to have, college students too stupid to see their math doesnt add up, and professors who dont have to make money because their smug sense of satisfaction and elitism pays their water bill for them.

The problem with liberalism in its current form is that it seeks to inflict an apologist culture on the country as a whole. Why the fuck should any American alive today have to apologize for slavery, or for killing indians, or for not letting women vote? They should not have to, they didnt propagate those social wrongs. Yet, multiple times, dem politicians have sought to pass measures that are tantamount to just that. Social Apologism is a bad idea in all ways, shapes, and forms... the British know this better than anyone... and anyone who doesnt know this, they should go look up appeasement.

You dont stimulate the economy by taking MORE from the people, nor by putting MORE into pipe dream projects that never come to fruition.. the miami, florida HUD scandal comes to mind here, as does the "great society" that never resulted in anything.

Im not totally against public spending, Im against irresponsible public spending.



The problem with conservatives most of the time is that their low tax policy includes the wealthy. Dems want low taxes for Low-income and low to moderate for middle class. The wealthy get higher taxes, so unless you are incredibly wealthy, which you probably aren't, you won't get it worse.

Regardless if you don't care about gimme gimme people or not, certain government funded institutions need money. I do believe our armed forces are underpaid, as are many law enforcement personnel and teachers. Teacher's wages depend on the state level government, so a president really cannot force anything there.

Actually, you couldnt be further from the truth. While tax cuts by the GOP has generally been across all the levels of income, the democrats have never actually made tax cuts that benefit the middle class at all. Enlarging social programs which cost the middle class and wealthy more money in taxes does not mean MORE money or tax rebates for the lower and lower middle class. Further, to actually qualify for those programs, you have to make a SUBSTANTIALLY low amount of money... try about 620 a month for medicare, and about as much for SSA. As for food stamps, that is about 12K for a single person or 18 for a family of two. That amounts to LESS than 10-15% of the total population.

The middle class doesnt get anything but a lot of financial assrape there.

WHY should the other 85% pay 10-39% of their gross salaries to support a very small minority of the population? Well, according to the dems, because we should... because its our fault they are there...
(sarcasm)

Also, BTW, Dems' tax boy Rangel want to change the prevailing capital gain tax rate (a low 15% right now) because "rich people invest more than poor people", the problem is, that lowering of the rate back in the 86 change in the tax code was to ENCOURAGE investment by ALL financial groups of the country... this came in hand with LOWERING the prevailing income tax rates for fed income tax, from the high 70s that the tax code was at prior to 86... the purpose of this was to GIVE money to these people to INVEST it in capital gains that were not heavily taxed, and in turn, put money into the economy.

instead of putting their money into the economy through investments.... well... they bought rims... and designer mullets, and consumer products that they didnt need....

The Dem tax programs hurt everyone who works for a living. Not even the blue collar workers can say that they are helped by the tax structure they kick in, save for the rampant favoring for union featherbedding by the dems.



Unfortunately, McCain is no more fiscally responsible than Obama or Clinton. This is a single issue election, war. The candidates are mostly the same on other issues, and the ones that they are different on will not play as big a role (abortion etc. ). Immigration might be big, can't tell yet. I would have loved Romney over McCain though, he was a guy you could trust with your money. Oh well, just pinch your nose and vote for the least bad candidate.

This is very true... its up to the constituents to MAKE it a multiple issue election...but we are too stupid to do that... after all, its a three ring circus... hootie, the ho, and the elderly war vet.

Ill be back with more.

Red
03-19-2008, 06:25 PM
^Nail, meet head.


and that's why you're a lawyer and I'm too lazy to use so many words.

Italian Jew
03-19-2008, 09:26 PM
Lawyers are evil....but necessary in this crazy place we call America. :P
politicians are just as evil, except they are unnecessary

I am not saying being completely liberal is good. Most welfare programs like you mentioned don't fix any problems; they just help things out for a while as the problem gets worse. Just saying screw the problem, I am rich and I don't care is bad and applying Neosporin to a gunshot wound doesn't help either.

I would gladly pay more taxes if it was for programs that worked to solve the problem. The democrats today need to realize they cannot help everyone and expect to win out. I agree they are becoming too socialist

Conservatives on the other hand tend to flock to "solutions" that have nothing to do with the damn problem. Saying terrorists are the root of our problems is just stupid. Our economy was screwed over by the way we ruined our foreign image and destroyed our domestic industry by outsourcing just about anything we could. Americans are not buying anything American because you can get something cheaper from Asia. Other countries are not buying American products as much because they despise us. They only need to get the things they can get nowhere else.

I do not understand how an economic "booster shot" will fix our economic cardiac arrest, while still spending billions of dollars of fighting a war that has turned rather pointless. Where are we getting this money from? All we are doing is adding to our deficit. The conservatives today are wasting money on things that will not do a thing, just as liberals are doing. Both need to wake and learn economics so the world does not have to suffer.

phatman76
03-20-2008, 12:52 AM
Lawyers are evil....but necessary in this crazy place we call America. :P
politicians are just as evil, except they are unnecessary

I am not saying being completely liberal is good. Most welfare programs like you mentioned don't fix any problems; they just help things out for a while as the problem gets worse. Just saying screw the problem, I am rich and I don't care is bad and applying Neosporin to a gunshot wound doesn't help either.

I would gladly pay more taxes if it was for programs that worked to solve the problem. The democrats today need to realize they cannot help everyone and expect to win out. I agree they are becoming too socialist

Conservatives on the other hand tend to flock to "solutions" that have nothing to do with the damn problem. Saying terrorists are the root of our problems is just stupid. Our economy was screwed over by the way we ruined our foreign image and destroyed our domestic industry by outsourcing just about anything we could. Americans are not buying anything American because you can get something cheaper from Asia. Other countries are not buying American products as much because they despise us. They only need to get the things they can get nowhere else.

I do not understand how an economic "booster shot" will fix our economic cardiac arrest, while still spending billions of dollars of fighting a war that has turned rather pointless. Where are we getting this money from? All we are doing is adding to our deficit. The conservatives today are wasting money on things that will not do a thing, just as liberals are doing. Both need to wake and learn economics so the world does not have to suffer.

Okay, people don't "not buy american because they despise us," they buy the best damn product for the best damn price. That is why the USA is first in weapons production, makes lots of cars, and exports all sorts of technology. People don't care about what country you buy from, they care about the product and price.

Okay, your last paragraph has some issues. First of all, we are not in economic "cardiac arrest," we are in a period of economic "heart burn." Investors are scared, stocks fluctuate, we all calm down after people start spending again. War didn't cause our economic crisis, poor decisions by investors in the sub-prime mortgage market caused it. War is good for the American Economy, why do you think everyone made so much money when we were fighting the soviets? And we don't just make weapons, we rebuild. When we win, we get to make all the money selling our services to the losers and exploiting them.

Finally, CONSERVATIVES DON'T LIKE TO SPEND MONEY. Republicans do, but conservatives don't. The only thing conservatives like to spend money on is the military. Look at Ronald Reagan, he made every federal agency except the military scared for its life. Thats conservative fiscal responsibility.

LegalSmash
03-20-2008, 02:19 AM
^ Indeed, Reagan scared the shit out of them all.


Italian Jew Lawyers are evil....but necessary in this crazy place we call America. :P
politicians are just as evil, except they are unnecessary

I am not saying being completely liberal is good. Most welfare programs like you mentioned don't fix any problems; they just help things out for a while as the problem gets worse. Just saying screw the problem, I am rich and I don't care is bad and applying Neosporin to a gunshot wound doesn't help either.

I would gladly pay more taxes if it was for programs that worked to solve the problem. The democrats today need to realize they cannot help everyone and expect to win out. I agree they are becoming too socialist

Conservatives on the other hand tend to flock to "solutions" that have nothing to do with the damn problem. Saying terrorists are the root of our problems is just stupid. Our economy was screwed over by the way we ruined our foreign image and destroyed our domestic industry by outsourcing just about anything we could. Americans are not buying anything American because you can get something cheaper from Asia. Other countries are not buying American products as much because they despise us. They only need to get the things they can get nowhere else.

I do not understand how an economic "booster shot" will fix our economic cardiac arrest, while still spending billions of dollars of fighting a war that has turned rather pointless. Where are we getting this money from? All we are doing is adding to our deficit. The conservatives today are wasting money on things that will not do a thing, just as liberals are doing. Both need to wake and learn economics so the world does not have to suffer.

I felt I had to add here....

ok, phat pretty much summed up the matter of US products. I'd like to add however, that US products ARE expensive.. this is because quality is expensive. We arent talking about regular consumer exports/imports/products either. Northrop, Lockheed, and other american companies make products that the world's militaries, governments, and multinational corporations will pay in the untold billions for. Our forte is not shitty electronics and gas-friendly cars... its state of the art off shore, deep core drill bits that are worth a few million A DRILL BIT, vaccines, medicines, state of the art airplanes (while Europe drags their brick shithouse plane through the straights of Gibraltar to put different parts on due to the rampant socialist unionism culture they have over there. ). People pay hand over fist for our obsolete shit... the Saudis paid several tens of millions for F-14 planes that we mothballed... IMHO, that is telling us something.

The US economy is no longer a products-manufacturing one, its a service delivery/design one. Problem is, not everyone in this country can appreciate this change for the better, and would rather a return to sweatshop labor conditions where we made shoes, because they would rather keep their featherbedded job rather than learning to do a new trick.

As to conservatives... I think you mischaracterize the group entirely: scared people flock to pointless solutions. Getting rid of islamic terrorists that cause unrest in global hotspots that cause petro prices to jump, causing prices for everything else to go up is not a "pointless solution" its actually a pretty decent one... unless we are all just going to go nuclear rather than BS with oil.

Also, as to welfare, no one is saying screw the problem, but dont spread it... Aids is preventing by stemming the infection, not by fucking everyone in a three mile radius with no rubber. When we give the message to the people that partake in these programs that "its ok to depend on us... for as long as you need... or .... forever... " you create a permanent underclass... the type of thing that results in the large, unhappy underclass that ripens well the ideas of revolutions.

Seeing welfare for what it really is is necessary for everyone: it is an aid for a limited time to get a fellow CITIZEN on their feet again.

As for the world suffering: understand this: the world can burn for all I care because I'd gladly trade 100 million of them for one of our own. That is not "amurrrikkkaanusm" but a simple fact of life, and an utterance that every other nation's head of state MUST come to terms with to readily represent his people. Our foreign image has very little to do with whether people buy things, rather it has to do with whether they poopoo us before or after we give them medicine, money, food, water, women, music, boners, or young boys that were born here, who volunteered for service, to die on behalf of their interests, and through proxy, our own.

Deficits happen, its life... they also reverse. What we need to do is learn from our lessons... require down payments, dont try to put every imbecile into a home, and learn to budget as citizens for the good of the economy... say I DONT NEED those spinnas, or those 7 jeans, or that escalade when I make 20-60K a year pretaxes. THAT is what resulted in the problems that are currently plaguing the economy... imbecilic overspending and lack of common sense. This is a place where asia DOES have a leg up on us... people accept their place and live within their means, not "SPEND EVERYTHING POSSIBLE" as our people have seemingly decided to do. Not everyone needs or can have a mcmansion.


Im tired.

Italian Jew
03-20-2008, 10:47 AM
So if we are in a war, people are guaranteed to make money as you say? Well, we have been in Iraq for a loooooong time now, and I really don't see any economic benefit from it, except maybe for the military industry. The oil industry is making a lot of money because they have the world by the balls right now, but your average joe is not making money from this. We made money fighting the soviets by being "patriotic" and being good little capitalists trying to buy American things plus there was a revolution in technology that helped businesses, granted that some of this was brought about by the military at the time.

Also, people who have lived their lives manufacturing things cannot suddenly learn new tricks. People who have no means for seeking a higher education cannot learn the new tricks. So yeah, let's just say fuck em for being unable to learn something they can't....unless you want to pay more taxes for more government financial aid.

Yes we make cars, but nobody is buying them. American car companies are laying off workers, but because they are selling so many cars to the world? I really haven't seen any Fords or Chevys outside of the U.S. except with car collectors and maybe in the Middle East with our "generous" hand me downs to contractors and government figures down there. We might also export specialty cars, but that does not provide anything to our GNP. Our technology is made by stuff produced in Taiwan or Korea, which we fix a bit to things while Japan is doing the exact same thing, sometimes at a cheaper price. I hear Sony a lot more than I hear anything else in the world.

I never said they were not buying our military items. Those are some of the few things that we still make in house because we are the best at blowing shit up for a profit. The stupid thing is our problems are sometimes caused by people who bought our weapons and used it against us or our allies. But yeah, if you make a quick buck back home over it, it is fine.

You can never...NEVER... eliminate every single terrorist in the world. They have a set of ideas and you cannot destroy an idea. You kill one, more will come; it is as simple as that. If you destroy an entire terrorist organization, another one will take its place. It is an impossible task. I am not saying we should roll over, but providing too many resources for the fight gives us the same results as fighting with less. The rest of the world has lessened the aid it gives to us in the war against terror because they see the crap we are in. If we back off a bit and establish our foreign diplomacy again, we can get more help for that mega action those gung ho types want.

For the record, drill bits can be expensive because they are very specialized for a task and hard to make. Also, they are made of rare metals most of the time or weird alloys which cost tons of money. They also get over priced a bit because not too many people make them. A lot better than your Wal-Mart drill bits. :P

My problem with the deficit issue is that we are adding to it, not trying to fix it. Bush just keeps spending like money grows on trees ( which it kinda does because it is made with forms of paper). Giving out money and spending money when you are already in debt does not sound like a good financial plan.

I don't see the point in being a leader of a country and not giving two shits about another. We are all humans and need to be more diplomatic at times rather than at each other's throats. War is unavoidable and necessary at times. However, we should lend a hand to causes that help the world as a whole. We probably have not evolved that much as a species yet to realize that, so we hold on to our bullshit political ideas that everyone is scared to shy away from.

TheRealPlayer
03-20-2008, 01:58 PM
Seriously, what the fuck does Obama really stand for?

Other than "Change" whatever the hell that means.

Hitler stood for "change", Stalin stood for "change", Mao stood for "Change", Ho Chi Minh stood for "Change", Castro and Che stood for "Change".

I cannot think of a cohesive articulated response to your post Alfred.

Again I'm hoping you're just drunk or your gf was watching you type.

Lenin was a genius! Communism flat out worked, the people were happy! Stalin killed everything good in Communism.

LegalSmash
03-20-2008, 03:14 PM
Lenin was a genius! Communism flat out worked, the people were happy! Stalin killed everything good in Communism.


Wow... seriously, i just shit myself when I read this from laughter.

Red
03-20-2008, 03:22 PM
"Communism doesn't work because it's fucking retarded" - Me

Itch
03-20-2008, 03:41 PM
"Communism doesn't work because it's fucking retarded" - Me

Amen!

Italian Jew
03-20-2008, 03:51 PM
Communism only works if EVERYONE else is communist. Hence, it fails since everyone was not a communist.

It has good motives, just is an unreal solution in the real world.