|
|
shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
posted November 04, 2010 04:43 AM |
|
Edited by shyranis at 04:45, 04 Nov 2010.
|
I must congratulate the Republicans on their strong performance. Democracy really is a tango in your country, and the Republicans have put Obama's hand on their shoulder and theirs on his hip. Either way I still do not see any major changes though. I have been looking into the healthcare bill, and it has the same giveaway wasteful garbage the Democrats swore up and down they wouldn't do because the Republicans had done the same in power. That is part of the anger I'd say, not releasing a responsible, clean, reform bill that didn't sell the country out to big pharma. From the reactions I see, most people not polarized to one party simply chose not to vote due to the frustration that the 2 step, 2 face tango causes people who don't throw their lot in the the Coke or Pepsi Republicrat parties.
Should the GOP retake the whole thing in 2012, well, I'm pretty darn sure we're just going to have the same thing and other than the Libertarians, moderates and independants who get ignored, there will be no outrage from most of the people voting right now to change things.
Let me reiterate, the Demolition party deserved its losses today, but the Repubican party has not done anything to show it's actually worthy of filling in other than talk, and talk is cheap. Especially since the new Speaker and new Majority leader both supported all of the measures that the last Republiclam house pushed (with partial Democramp help).
Quote:
I beg to differ that voting does not make a difference. I think the difference between what Congress would have passed if it had remained under Marxist control and what it will pass now will be profound. This was an important election indeed.
The nation can return to the founding principles through peaceful means as long as the voters keep the heat on the politicians.
To call them Marxist is a bit strong. A Marxist house would have just let the auto industry collapse and nationalize the remains using very little government money. Even if a handful of them were, I can safely say that 95% of them are not Marxist in the least. Just like I can safely say that 95% of the Republicans ever to be in any office are not Theocrats despite some being associated with Theocrats, having Theocratic beliefs in their younger years or espousing their supposed beliefs despite not following them (a common foible for all politicians).
As for Obama, as I've mentioned before, he is a Corporatist. He just gives the money away to large companies and they essentially run the country. He's the exact same as all of the Democratic AND Republican leadership before him in that way. Even if he associated with Marxists and was formerly a Marxist, he doesn't act like one. He's more like a Pawn that made it to the end of the board and became a Queen. He's in a position of power, but at the end of the day he's still the King's posession. (Chess is played with an army representing the Medieval ages afterall)
Quote:
That Nazi cos-player Rich and ex-witch O'Donnell who claims condoms an offense towards mankind?
Well, to be fair the guy does have a right anywhere outside of Germany to dress that way. In cops and robbers, one kid has to play the bad guy right? And I guess O'Donnell is just agreeing with the pope on condom usage that aids just shoot right through them somehow. People have a right in the West to make any stupid claim they want or dress any way they want. People may not always like it, or may think they are quite stupid; but it's usually a cold, calculated move to get negative attention so you can play the victim and tug at your base's heart strings. (They donate more money that way)
Quote:
we are so hard-wired to believe that only a Democrat or Republican really has a shot at winning, most people don't feel it's worth throwing a vote away on an Independent, Green Party member, Libertarian, etc, etc. It does happen but I don't seem them organizing to the point where they can become a lasting political party.
It reminds me of this clip from The Simpson's. I'd like a clip but God-forbid someone post a clip without a copyright violation threat.
"What are you going to do? It's a two-party system. You have to vote for one of us!"
"Well I believe I'll vote for a third party!"
"Go ahead! Throw your vote away! Hahahah!"
Reminds me of this.
Also this is appropriate to the discussion as well.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 04, 2010 07:45 AM |
|
|
Quote:
What idea is there to vote when even the best choice would be someone with whom you disagree about 50% of the time? 
It's bad, but I'd vote for someone I disagree with 50% of the time if it meant keeping someone I disagree with 75% of the time out of office.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 04, 2010 03:56 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 15:58, 04 Nov 2010.
|
Quote:
Quote:
No, teenagers often do stupid stuff. She said she dabbled in witchcraft as a teen but has cast that aside and says she became a Christian. Of course you failed to mention that part. Not deliberate, I'm sure.
It doesn't matter that she now claims to be anti-masturbation die-hard Christian - doesn't it kinda bother you that your candidate admitted of being a witch, having fun on satanistic altars or something? Seeing how you bash Obama for taking drugs in the past. Can't he be forgiven the same way? I'd rather have ex-drug taker rather than "ex-witch" or something as politician.
How odd that you think I should be offended by a teenage witch forsaking witchcraft and turning to Christ for salvation. All Christians were once non-Christians, a fact that seems to have escaped your grasp.
Yes, it could be that the Marxist Obama has kicked his drug habit, although he seems to have failed to kick his smoking habit and tobacco should be an easier habit to kick than the drugs he has admitted to doing. If he has kicked his drug addictions, good for him. Oh, and I have not bashed Obama for his drug use, only pointed out what he himself said about his drug use.
Yes. Obama can be forgiven if he indeed turns to Christ for forgiveness. There is no evidence that he has in fact become a Christian however. He does not seem to hold viewpoints that reflect Christianity and he has attended a church for 20 years that preached a message that opposes that which Christ himself preached. Since leaving that church for political reasons during the campaign he has not joined another congregation.
Quote:
You also ignored my question regarding her "condom is anti-human" statement... Since I recall you being not opposed to contraception - don't you think it's a tiny bit... you know, stupid to claim such things?
I do not oppose condoms or any form of contraception that actually prevents a sperm from fertilizing an egg. When conception occurs a unique human life starts.
Here is the actual "anti-human" quote from her:
Quote:
"And to me, it's a very anti-human way to go about this. And what I mean about anti-human is even if the population is increasing, so what? So what? People aren't bad. When did humans become a bad thing? Why is it that we have to, you know, stop people from getting pregnant?" [The O'Reilly Factor, 1/6/06]
I agree with her that babies are not bad. I know there are libs who hate babies and love to kill them before they are even born, but I have to disagree with their viewpoints.
I don't agree that condoms are "anti-human" though.
Quote:
I don't understand why such freaks mean to represent a serious party. Can't they get more normal people? Not the not-very-bright Palin, that Nazi cos-player Rich and ex-witch O'Donnell who claims condoms an offense towards mankind?
How odd to call her a freak for saying that people are not a bad thing.
I do however agree that there are a lot of freaks in politicas. Freaks who think it is ok to steal from others simply because the freak thinks that person has too many things already. Freaks who think it is ok to kill an unborn baby simply because Mommy does not want the baby. Freaks who think it is ok for the State-god to force people to buy health insurance. Freaks who basicly think the people are the property of the State instead of the State existing to serve the people. The Tea Party is opposed to all of those freakish ideas. Let freedom ring from shore to shore and across the seas until all people in every land are able to feely exercise all of their God-given rights without some jack-booted thug of a beaurocrat seeking to squash them under his feet.
Quote:
I wonder how many folks know that the "founding fathers" did not get paid anything to serve?
Actuallly, the first Congress did get paid.
Clicky
They got $6 per day that Congress was in session but no annual salary. The founding fathers envisioned politicians who were citizens engaged in politics, not professional politicians. Professional politicians are essentially nobility, something the founders were opposed to.
I think there needs to be term limits for Congress. Maybe two terms and then they are no longer eligible for public office. Also the salary should be tied to the average US salary.
The people in every branch of the government need to get back to the idea that they are public SERVANTS, not rulers of the pulbic.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted November 04, 2010 04:06 PM |
|
|
According to your wish, I don't see any interest for somebody to develop unique capacities and become part of the government. Getting the same income as a random guy who post in a gaming forums while speaking in front of CNN cameras is stupid. Everyone should be payed accordingly to how hard is to become what he is. I don't know how is in USA but I get tired to hear low class people in France constantly bashing on Sarkozy because he has a 20k/month salary. He is president of a country, a very hard job to obtain. The hardest actually.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 04, 2010 04:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
How odd that you think I should be offended by a teenage witch forsaking witchcraft and turning to Christ for salvation.
I did not say offended. I asked whether her past doesn't bother you. I know I wouldn't want such a candidate myself. There are other people out there with similar political views to mine that weren't idiots in their youth, and I would prefer such.
Quote:
Yes. Obama can be forgiven if he indeed turns to Christ for forgiveness. There is no evidence that he has in fact become a Christian however. He does not seem to hold viewpoints that reflect Christianity and he has attended a church for 20 years that preached a message that opposes that which Christ himself preached. Since leaving that church for political reasons during the campaign he has not joined another congregation.
And what evidence do you have that O'Donnell actually did turn to Christ? Because she claims so? Gee, great evidence. You're awfully quick to trust people that claim what you want to hear, Elodin. A very bad trait for anyone who's voting. It's pretty easy for a politic to lie to appease the majority.
Quote:
even if the population is increasing, so what? So what? People aren't bad.
Overpopulation is bad.
Or if you don't want to play global politics and care for overpopulation: Having more kids that you can afford is bad. Most people can "afford" 1-2 kids at most with the average payment. However with no contraception "since it's good to have more people!" would mean an average family would have like 10 kids or so. You think that's any good? This would be a total, complete disaster. So what's the alternative, no sex? Great, a politician that indirectly bans sex... offering you the "alternative" of having 10 kids.
As you can see this is simply ridiculous to propose such things. On every level. Ethical (it's not her business what people do in bed), Demographical (10 kids per family would be a complete catastrophe), logical (what's the difference of using a condom and ejaculating on the floor - except that intermitent intercourse isn't a contraception method and has pretty much horrible effectiveness, which leads to 10 kids per family? either way you "waste" human life as mrs O'Donnell claims but just with much more severe consequences)... and so on. If a person that's supposed to be a representative of a major party makes even ONE such RIDICULOUS claim as POLITICAL instrument, this means such person shows no logic and absolutely no aptitude towards influencing the law at all.
Which brings me to a point: She's not a serious candidate. She's a freak politician: her points make no sense, are dangerous and bigoted. Hence my question, why does your party of choice allow such people to represent it?
Quote:
I do however agree that there are a lot of freaks in politicas. Freaks who think it is ok to steal from others simply because the freak thinks that person has too many things already.
I recall you saying you have nothing against the same freaks stealing the same money for you, but only if it funds more tanks. Cause stealing to buy more tanks and kill more people = good, stealing to feed more people and allow them to survive = bad.
Hence I will not comment on your claims about socialism any further since you are a marxist yourself... but only when the cash stolen is meant to fund your army a bigger tank. What a radical marxist you are.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 04, 2010 05:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Hence my question, why does your party of choice allow such people to represent it?
In all fairness, the Republican party had only tepid enthusiasm for her, and it's easy to see why. As for the Tea Party, well it's more of a political movement than a political party. It's also not monolithic. And like any political movement, what started as a single, well-intentioned message has attracted a lot of fringe whackos who have tried to use it to leapfrog into power.
And while I'm on my soapbox - while I do agree that people shouldn't necessarily be tied forever to the stupid things they do as teenagers, there does come a point where you go, "hmm, maybe I should vote for someone else." Practicing witchcraft and praying at bloody altars of Satan aren't really the same thing to my mind as taking a few hits from a joint. Frankly, I think the fact that she managed to somehow get nominated shows how disgusted people are with main-line politicians in this country.
On the other hand, I'm pretty convinced that Nancy Pelosi was a witch, so there is precedent for that kind of thing in Congress.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 04, 2010 06:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Practicing witchcraft and praying at bloody altars of Satan aren't really the same thing to my mind as taking a few hits from a joint.
Exactly.
Oh, and even though we're getting a bit offtopic here, one last question I'm going to ask Elodin.
What's not right to you, Elodin?
A) Government taking money from people's pocket (stealing) in general.
B) Government taking money from people's pocket (stealing), but only when the money is meant to be spent on helping people. Spending it on army justifies stealing.
Why exactly government theft for tanks fine and accepted, and goverment's theft for helping people bad and communistic?
You are a wierd person and I'd really want to know what logic is behind all of that.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 04, 2010 06:20 PM |
|
|
Military spending (assuming it's done properly) benefits people more than distribution of wealth.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 04, 2010 06:25 PM |
|
|
Is there some sort of amount of benefit, a threshold it must pass to justify stealing?
What is "more" exactly? What benefit does it give to your country that the majority of tax money is wasted on your massive army?
Why can't it be solved like Elodin's "charity" ? People who think army is necessary give them money willingly? What about pacifists who hate violence? Why does the government steal from them?
For the greater good?
Why does greater good make you being called a commie then? Because it's about feeding people and not funding your glorious US of A another Abrams or designing another invisible fighter?
I just don't get it. If someone is against government taxing (stealing) people and distributing the wealth as politicians decide, he should be totally against it. And not nitpick "oh no the money to help the poor I can give willingly so the government is stealing" while going "oh yes I'll gladly let the government steal from me to fund a research on another F-22 because it's fine and everyone should pay for that".
Where's the logic behind that? If you're against violence and actually think that money (stolen from people's pockets) would end up better HELPING those people instead of creating another weapon or tank, you're being called a commie.
Ah, the irony.
Military marxism, that's what it is.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted November 04, 2010 06:27 PM |
|
|
mvassilev: Define what you say then. Why would proper public education and scholarships be bad?
____________
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 04, 2010 06:33 PM |
|
|
I think this is BS. WHat's the benefit for an average US citizen that billions of dollars have been wasted on B2 stealth bomber? What good did the bomber bring? In the campaigns US fought, cheaper bombers would do exactly as good. And the money wasted on B2 (STOLEN from people's pockets) would serve them better if it was used i.e. to promote education that would make people better, more qualified employeers thus generating more profit for the country overall.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted November 04, 2010 06:36 PM |
|
|
Well, you need a army.
We humans are after all a race of complete snows, and we need a goverment and a law for the same reason: The option is a lot worse.
Well, a army is a lot more redundant than a functional court. Spending BILLIONS and BILLIONS on war tech for the kick of it, is quite stupid when that could have been spent on more useful research(Thorium, cold fusion, etc etc etc). You need to spend something on the army, but I think I agree there is money being waisted without a good reason.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 04, 2010 06:47 PM |
|
|
DF:
I think the US is definitely spending too much on its military. That's why I said "assuming it's done properly".
del_diablo and DF:
It has nothing to do with "the greater good" - that concept is too nebulous to be useful, anyway. It's about efficiency. Obviously, I would prefer the military to be funded privately if it was possible. But that's not good because of two key factors that make the military different from most other services. The first is that the military is a major tool of force. If a private military becomes sufficiently powerful, it can stop being a defensive force and just extort money from its former customers. The second is externalities. When people who aren't paying for a good/service are benefiting from it, then the full benefit of that good/service will not be realised in a free market. Sometimes it is more efficient to use coercion to obtain funding, and it may be in the interests of the coerced to be coerced, as it results in more of what they wanted, but would not have found it effective to obtain otherwise.
For this reason, I support publicly funded vaccinations, but not publicly funded heart surgery. Communicable diseases have negative externalities, but non-communicable ones only directly impact those who suffer from them. If someone gets smallpox, that is a danger to many people. If someone has a heart attack, sure, it's bad, but it can't be compared.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted November 04, 2010 06:53 PM |
|
|
Yes, that somewhat true. But mvassilev, what about schoolarships and making sure monopolies do not hurt the marked?
What about a reasonable minimum wage? If we interprent "reasonable" to be the minimum needed for a cheap appartment, food, and something minor on the side without working your ass completely off?
____________
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 04, 2010 07:08 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 19:09, 04 Nov 2010.
|
To my mind, minimum wage laws are bludgeoning intruments - they may succeed in their primary objective, but unintended collateral damage may result from their implementation. There may be better, less direct ways to increase the salaries of unskilled workers; unfortunately it is a reality that most people only comprehend, and thus are satisfied with, blunt approaches to problem solving.
Consider, for example, the possibility that by raising the minimum wage to such a point where an unskilled person can buy a mansion and own a yacht. What then would be the motivation for the average person to get an education and learn a skill. In this sense, it might be argued that high minimum wages actually increase the pool of unskilled workers. And can you think of what other kinds of ripple effects that might have on the economy, including those which may undermine your original objective?
Just think about it. My point is not that minimum wages are bad, nor is it that wages for unskilled laborers are not a problem. It's just that the best solution to an acknowledged problem isn't always the most obvious one. In fact, obvious solutions may sometimes be counterproductive. Good luck trying to convince voters of this, though.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 04, 2010 07:20 PM |
|
|
del_diablo:
Education has similar externalities to defence and vaccination, so it should be publicly funded.
The question of monopoly regulation is an interesting one and not at all as easy to deal with as some people think. Overall, it's probably a legitimate function of government.
As for the minimum wage, it increases unemployment and should be abolished.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 04, 2010 07:27 PM |
|
|
So if you think army is important, why not to give funds for it and release pacifists from having to pay for something that they detest? Forcing to pay = stealing in Elodin's logic. And stealing is bad, right? No matter how is the money spent later, it's still stealing.
As for minimal wage, it's pretty much country dependant. Here we have massive unemployment. In smaller cities, if someone opens a shop, he will most likely offer minimal wage because people are striving for work and will do anything. If there was no minimal wage, he'd set it much lower because there would be still people willing to do it. Not much of a free market in a country plagued by unemployment, I fear. This just opens a door to abuse. The minimal wage is calculated so that a worker may actually survive a month for his monthly pay. Take it away and things may get nasty.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted November 04, 2010 07:31 PM |
|
|
Minimum wage and "trickle up" economics in general are like pushing a rope. Increasing the bottommost tier does not increase pay immediately above that tier. A person can work hard at a minimum wage job for a few years and get a few small raises. Then minimum wage increases and suddenly they are back to minimum wage again. And with the resulting inflation, they have actually gotten a pay decrease in purchasing power.
In theory, eventually the increase in minimum wage will trickle up resulting in an increase in pay for everyone. But as I said it's like trying to push a rope. The only immediate affect is the bottom tier which tends to be entry level jobs for young people anyway. Anything above that receives little if any benefit, and what little benefit they gain will take a long time.
Add to that the inflationary aspect of minimum wage increases and it becomes highly questionable how much net benefit there is (other than political bonus points). There are a very large number of people who are not far above the minimum wage. They are hurt in both real ways (inflation), and more importantly in psychological ways. It can be quite demotivating for people just above minimum wage.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted November 04, 2010 07:40 PM |
|
|
Military vs education.
Keep in mind that the military is a major institution of education. They have some of the best schools around. It's one of the biggest reasons why people sign up with the military in the first place.
The military is also a huge social welfare system. It is a GREAT way for people from lower social-economic groups to get ahead in life, get great training, learn good skills, learn discipline, make pretty good money for someone young, great benefits, etc.
The military is also a major source of technology and R&D spending. An awful lot of military technologies and research have civilian uses.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted November 04, 2010 08:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
As for the minimum wage, it increases unemployment and should be abolished.
I disagree.
What I have read about minimum wage indicates that it will only start increasing unemployment if its above a certain level, below that treshold its a beneficial thing for society.
Well, the assumption of a minimum wage to be "damaging" would that not actually require that people can work and live well enough of their current low salary already? If people can do that, then minimum wage serves no purpose.
I guess its a chicken and egg situation, no clue on where its needed thou.
Corribus: That is several ages over "reasonable", at that level the economy collapses on itself, most likely. Unless you imply a completely different system underlaying beneath that 
____________
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
