Author Topic: who are you voting for?  (Read 1806 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BustaBrown54

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
who are you voting for?
« on: January 26, 2012, 10:32:30 AM »
Seeing as though most of us are "rational" people I would rather enjoy hearing who you will be voting for later this year. I dont really know who I will be voting for, due to all news on tv in Texas being very biased; all I want is a canditate that has a rather balanced budgit plan and not a racist, religious nut-job. Ron Paul seems good but it looks like he just went Republican just to get more votes due to the fact that no other party has no real chance in winning these days. But then again IDK, what do you guys think?
"Sweat saves blood, blood save lives, Brains save both."---Desert Fox

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4356
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: who are you voting for?
« Reply #1 on: January 26, 2012, 10:39:03 AM »
Seeing as though most of us are "rational" people I would rather enjoy hearing who you will be voting for later this year.

I live in Maryland, which is one of the bluest states in the Union.  That being the case, it's basically a foregone conclusion that it will be going to Obama, which in turn means that my vote doesn't ultimately matter.  So in presidential elections, I typically vote third-party (usually the Green Party) simply to make a statement about my objections to the two-party system.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline BustaBrown54

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: who are you voting for?
« Reply #2 on: January 26, 2012, 10:42:34 AM »
:D haha nice I should do the same as I despise my state's political view. They blindly vote for any canditate that sits atop that blasted elephant and wants to keep god in america. :P
"Sweat saves blood, blood save lives, Brains save both."---Desert Fox

Offline blue

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 364
  • Darwins +8/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Not cool, Zeus.
Re: who are you voting for?
« Reply #3 on: January 26, 2012, 10:46:23 AM »
I'm in New Mexico and its somewhat of a swing state. I'll be voting for a Democrat presidential candidate for the first time likely due to the current GOP crop of candidates. If Obama looks safe, I'll probably vote for Gary Johnson.

There’s no difference between a bunch of theologians sitting around debating scripture than a bunch of D&D nerds sitting around debating which version of the Player’s Handbook to use.

Online Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2638
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: who are you voting for?
« Reply #4 on: January 26, 2012, 11:20:23 AM »
I am writing my own name in for the general election.
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12130
  • Darwins +646/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: who are you voting for?
« Reply #5 on: January 26, 2012, 11:25:34 AM »
Ron Paul seems good

I am curious to know why people think he is a libertarian and why they like him.  My hypothesis is people know one or two of his positions - usually the anti-war one and the pro-pot one - and look no further.  But the man is a poser as far as libertarianism goes.  And his understanding of economic policy is stuck in the 18th century.

So tell me, Busta, what is it about paul that you think seems good?  Have you looked into all his positions?  Are you aware of his position that the departments of Energy, Commerce, Interior and the IRS should be eliminated?  I genuinley would like to know.

edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#The_Plan_To_Restore_America_.28Budget_for_2013.29
Quote
Spending Cuts

eliminate 5 cabinet-level agencies (Education, Interior, Commerce, Energy, and Housing and Urban Development)
privatize the Federal Aviation Administration and the TSA
cut the federal workforce by 10%
cut funding (down from 2006 levels) for the
Food and Drug Administration by 40%
Centers for Disease Control by 20%
Department of Homeland Security by 20%
National Institutes of Health by 20%
Environmental Protection Agency by 30%

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration by 20%
cut the Department of Defense budget by total 15%; eliminate all foreign war funding
freeze funding for most other federal agencies at 2006 levels
eliminate all foreign aid

eliminate international drug programs
substantially reduce foreign travel
eliminate international organizations and commissions
administer Medicaid and other joint federal-state social welfare programs (SCHIP, food stamps, etc) through block-grant funding mechanisms to the states

bold mine.  sounds pretty catastrophic.

He says some things I agree with, then he turns around and wants to gut the FDA and EPA.  I don't get it.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2012, 11:32:13 AM by screwtape »
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6295
  • Darwins +729/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: who are you voting for?
« Reply #6 on: January 26, 2012, 11:43:35 AM »
More pertinent to this site, Paul is a fundy all the way. 6,000 year old earth and all. Any brilliance he has in the political arena is negated completely by such crap.

On the bright side, he is for separation of church and state, he wants to keep the US out of foreign wars, and a few other things I agree with. But he's a dodo bird when it comes to religion, and I can't vote for idiots.

Well, I have to. That's the only choice unless I don't vote at all or write in Micky Mouse. But not Ron Paul level idiots.

I dislike a lot of what Obama has ended up doing (I was very supportive of him and voted for him the first time without hesitation) but after his election he was apparently instructed on what he could and could not do by those more powerful than he and by golly he's done a pretty good job of doing what they want. Of course all presidents have to do this. I prefer someone smart enough to follow instruction rather than someone stupid enough to think they are hot shit for doing the same thing.

Obviously the political system in the US is broken, and those who broke it are not going to do much fixing. The Occupy Wall Street movement has the right idea, but their fear of making decisions because it might offend someone is typical in this world where they grew up having to wear bike helmets and all the tall slides had been removed from the playgrounds. People who have never been allowed to get hurt or feel fear can't make good choices. Just like the people who see everything in terms of dollar signs, they are biased against the rational. So as generally enlightened as the 20 and 30-somethings are, they are still carrying around too much baggage to make useful choices in a world full of powerful and contrary folks.

In other words, we're screwed. And if Ron Paul were president, we probably wouldn't even be allowed to do that.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Timo

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1295
  • Darwins +98/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • You know
Re: who are you voting for?
« Reply #7 on: January 26, 2012, 02:18:34 PM »
I think it's also fair to say that those racist ass newsletters demonstrate that he's also either:

a.) Inept as a manager
b.) A racist piece of shit

or

c.) A cynical piece of shit that had no qualms about making racist statements as a means to a political and/or financial end.

My guess is c.
Nah son...

Offline Nick

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10294
  • Darwins +177/-8
  • Gender: Male
Re: who are you voting for?
« Reply #8 on: January 26, 2012, 02:20:24 PM »
Obama is the only choice if you care anything for the middle class.
Yo, put that in your pipe and smoke it.  Quit ragging on my Lord.

Tide goes in, tide goes out !!!

Offline Frank

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2363
  • Darwins +38/-20
  • Gender: Male
  • You're doin' my head in!!
Re: who are you voting for?
« Reply #9 on: January 26, 2012, 02:32:53 PM »
Seeing as though most of us are "rational" people I would rather enjoy hearing who you will be voting for later this year. I dont really know who I will be voting for, due to all news on tv in Texas being very biased; all I want is a canditate that has a rather balanced budgit plan and not a racist, religious nut-job. Ron Paul seems good but it looks like he just went Republican just to get more votes due to the fact that no other party has no real chance in winning these days. But then again IDK, what do you guys think?

I think you should stick with Obama.
"Atheism is not a mission to convert the world. It only seems that way because when other religions fall away, atheism is what is left behind".

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3561
  • Darwins +110/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
Re: who are you voting for?
« Reply #10 on: January 26, 2012, 03:15:19 PM »
I'm not sure why there is even a doubt concerning who to vote for.

It isn't as if the GOP has put up any decent candidates.  Essentially the worst thing they can say about Obama is that they think his policies are Socialist,[1] they think he wastes money[2] or that not white enough.

The Republican party is fielding a serial adulterer that wasted this countries time going after Clinton while having, lets call them 'overlapping' marriages.  A religious nutter who's position on abortion are actually to the right of Sharia Law, an old man who pines for the 1800's, and a mega billionaire who has a Swiss bank account and apparently makes 57,000 a DAY for... whatever.

I don't think that all conservatives are nutters, I had a fair amount of respect for Bush 1, but using him as an example not a single one of these candidates comes close.  They shouldn't even be in the hat for consideration.
 1.  they're not.
 2. amusing when you consider the source
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Offline bgb

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 862
  • Darwins +8/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • That felt great.
    • BGBART SHIRTS AND GIFTS
Re: who are you voting for?
« Reply #11 on: January 26, 2012, 03:24:22 PM »
I consider myself to be fiscally conservative and social liberal.  Never can find the right candidate.  I do favor eliminating foreign aid.  Why should we borrow money to give aid?  National sale tax.  I also favor universal health care.   Would love to see a atheist run on a similar platform.
The whole point of science is that most of it is uncertain. That's why science is exciting--because we don't know. Science is all about things we don't understand. The public, of course, imagines science is just a set of facts. But it's not.  Freeman Dyson

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12221
  • Darwins +268/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: who are you voting for?
« Reply #12 on: January 26, 2012, 03:27:36 PM »
The social-liberal part there isn't the sticker.  It's the fical conservative part.  There are no fiscal conservatives on offer, except perhaps for Ron Paul, who as others have pointed out has other issues.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Death over Life

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 675
  • Darwins +25/-4
Re: who are you voting for?
« Reply #13 on: January 26, 2012, 07:53:05 PM »
I am curious to know why people think he is a libertarian and why they like him. 

The reason why people like him is because he is the only candidate who is not only consistent about what he says, but he is also the only candidate who will bring actual change to the table, and on a plus, the greedy corporations and media hate his guts, which is all the more reason to vote for him. In addition, he is the only candidate who even has an interest in shrinking the National Debt. 1st year in office He will shrink 1 Trillion dollars off the debt. Everybody else talks about continuing to spend and make our money even more worthless than it already is. He is also one of the only candidates who isn't already bought and paid for from the big corporations.

While many of the other people are talking more and more about increasing government in our lives, Paul is as somebody said, separation of church and state, and is trying to get us off of depending on the government for everything. That is why there are so many cuts being made on many federal departments and agencies.

My hypothesis is people know one or two of his positions - usually the anti-war one and the pro-pot one - and look no further.  But the man is a poser as far as libertarianism goes.  And his understanding of economic policy is stuck in the 18th century.

Seems you are very uneducated on many of Ron Paul’s supporters.

Are you aware of his position that the departments of Energy, Commerce, Interior and the IRS should be eliminated?  I genuinley would like to know.

He wants them eliminated so they can be provided and ran at a state level. He is looking at weak federal government and a strong state government. With all the things the federal government has done, I think this is indeed a good thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#The_Plan_To_Restore_America_.28Budget_for_2013.29
Quote
Spending Cuts

eliminate 5 cabinet-level agencies (Education, Interior, Commerce, Energy, and Housing and Urban Development)
privatize the Federal Aviation Administration and the TSA
cut the federal workforce by 10%
cut funding (down from 2006 levels) for the
Food and Drug Administration by 40%
Centers for Disease Control by 20%
Department of Homeland Security by 20%
National Institutes of Health by 20%
Environmental Protection Agency by 30%

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration by 20%
cut the Department of Defense budget by total 15%; eliminate all foreign war funding
freeze funding for most other federal agencies at 2006 levels
eliminate all foreign aid

eliminate international drug programs
substantially reduce foreign travel
eliminate international organizations and commissions
administer Medicaid and other joint federal-state social welfare programs (SCHIP, food stamps, etc) through block-grant funding mechanisms to the states

bold mine.  sounds pretty catastrophic.

Not really. Some of them need to be done away with at a federal level, especially homeland security and foreign aid for examples. If you don’t want them cut so badly, then I recommend start spending your money on that national debt that is going to remove all of that and more because we can’t pay our debt off and is going to make USA bankrupt and a third-world country eventually.

And here is a misconception of Ron Paul bashers. He is not going to be able to do this overnight. He is going to be trickling it down little by little, kind of like what Obama is doing with our Military and National Defense. If he does this overnight, of course it will be catastrophic, he’s not stupid. He’s not going from one extreme to the other. He’s going to wean us off, which will be a good thing.

He says some things I agree with, then he turns around and wants to gut the FDA and EPA.  I don't get it.

Even I disagree that he should completely cut the EPA since that is the reason we breathe air instead of smog, and have water instead of tar to drink. But from everything I’ve seen with Paul, the good outweighs the bad.

I think it's also fair to say that those racist ass newsletters demonstrate that he's also either:

a.) Inept as a manager
b.) A racist piece of shit

or

c.) A cynical piece of shit that had no qualms about making racist statements as a means to a political and/or financial end.

My guess is c.

Over and over again, the RP haters must play ring around the Rosie with this stupid claim because it literally is all they have, other than personal insults. And yes, I am going to be voting for Ron Paul in 2012. He’s the only candidate worth voting for on the Republican ballot.

I'll take one racist claim in a magazine that He didn't even write well over 20 years ago and that's it as opposed to a theocrat, a Barack Obama version 2 with flip-flops added in, or a man who lies to our face about his many wives in addition thinks it's better to fire us so we can have 30 children working our jobs for .25 per hour and saying that helps the economy, or a man who has signed in The Patriot Act and the new NDAA bills despite promising to veto them.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2012, 07:56:10 PM by Death over Life »

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12221
  • Darwins +268/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: who are you voting for?
« Reply #14 on: January 26, 2012, 07:59:25 PM »
... thinks it's better to fire us so we can have 30 children working our jobs for .25 per hour and saying that helps the economy ...

But that's the sort of situation that Libertarianism is all about implimenting, too.  Openly or not.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Tero

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 707
  • Darwins +17/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: who are you voting for?
« Reply #15 on: January 26, 2012, 08:00:32 PM »
Never voted for a republican candidate. Once I was tempted by a Libertarian in a samller election, but seeing as I do not hate the gubment.....

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7275
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: who are you voting for?
« Reply #16 on: January 26, 2012, 08:02:45 PM »
Forever the optimist, I will vote for Obama again.  Mainly because he knows how to deploy the fucking Seals!  Hell to the yeah.

Online DVZ3

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1342
  • Darwins +40/-7
  • Gender: Male
Re: who are you voting for?
« Reply #17 on: January 26, 2012, 08:12:05 PM »
Obama all the way on this.

Obama is the only choice if you care anything for the middle class.

The GOP is already spin-doctoring Obama state of the union pro-middle class speech into a "pro-poverty" one..... I guess to millionares and billionares we middle class are all future homeless bums who deserve our jobs be sent overseas with no government assistance. <insert sarcasm here> Good deal!



Maybe the Dems should remake this animal cruelty video into a "saving the middle class cruelty" video. Just show a compassionate, white billionaire trying to save middle class people who just happen to be out their luck because they lost their home to greedy banks and their manufacturing jobs were just sent to China thanks to corporate profiteers such as Apple who just posted a record sales! Now maybe they can start building some products like iPads here in America! People will have to pay a bit more for them but they do that now anyway so....  :D

The big 3 U.S. automakers are poised to make profits (GM is #1 automaker again), we are pulling out of Iraq, we are 'trying' to 'invest' in the future with Infrastructure, companies are hiring and the unemployment trend has been falling among other things......
 
Obama isn't perfect.... He gave into tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires! He seriously signed an imprisonment treaty! Come on... (Republican majority house so.....) But..... if this were a Republican president they would be BRAGGING about how well everything is going right now! Without a doubt!
« Last Edit: January 26, 2012, 08:15:21 PM by DVZ3 »
Hguols: "Its easier for me to believe that a God created everything...."

Offline Chronos

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 2312
  • Darwins +125/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Born without religion
    • Marking Time
Re: who are you voting for?
« Reply #18 on: January 26, 2012, 08:12:33 PM »
Obama yo mama!
John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Offline pingnak

Re: who are you voting for?
« Reply #19 on: January 26, 2012, 08:29:22 PM »
The 'Electoral College' will select the next prez, no matter what you vote for. 

The public election is just for shits and giggles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)
http://www.fairvote.org/problems-with-the-electoral-college/#4

It's more or less a given, this time around, that 100% of the red electors will be 'faithless' if the people they represent vote blue (and there's no prison promised in 'faithless elector laws', if any, in that state - I think only South Carolina has criminal proceedings, if an elector votes 'wrong').  Even where it's 'illegal', they can have their fine reimbursed by their party and/or corporate sponsors, though the fines are laughably small with modern inflation. 

Of course, the public outrage should this overturn the 'popular vote' (which has not carried the election four times) would be a fine excuse for national martial law.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6295
  • Darwins +729/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: who are you voting for?
« Reply #20 on: January 26, 2012, 08:39:55 PM »
Maybe the Dems should remake this animal cruelty video into a "saving the middle class cruelty" video. Just show a compassionate, white billionaire trying to save middle class people who just happen to be out their luck because they lost their home to greedy banks and their manufacturing jobs were just sent to China thanks to corporate profiteers such as Apple who just posted a record sales! Now maybe they can start building some products like iPads here in America! People will have to pay a bit more for them but they do that now anyway so....  :D

Interestingly, at the scale Apple produces on, they can't do it in the US. When they looked into building the iPhone here, they first asked how long it would take to get enough qualified engineers to work in the plant. Experts told them that it would take ten months to recruuit and hire them. In China, it took only fifteen days. Apple is not about to let 9 1/2 months profit go down the drain under those circumstances. Also, the number of people required to build that many phones is something the US can not supply easily. None of us are in the mood to harvest tomatoes either. So in some cases, we bring Mexicans here. In others, we send the assembly lines to China.

I'm not excusing anything here. I agree that Apple should have manufacturing plants in this country. As should Dell and all the other computer companies. And a lot of other corporations. But again, on the scale and size that they operate at, it's not feasible.

What the US has to do is redesign it's economy to serve this part of the planet, and we Americans need to start demanding products that can be made here. If we can't adjust to this new world economy, we should abandon it and do stuff ourselves.

Except for the part where I love my iPad. Don't touch my frickin' iPad.  :P

Imagine a country that didn't spend 250 billion hours a year watching television, like the US does. What could we accomplish if we stopped considering entertainment one of the basic human rights, and learned to value hard work again? What could the country do if we demanded fairness and honesty and an accountable government. And got it.

Oh damn! I just woke up. I was having such a great dream...

Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7275
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: who are you voting for?
« Reply #21 on: January 26, 2012, 08:42:10 PM »
Maybe the Dems should remake this animal cruelty video into a "saving the middle class cruelty" video. Just show a compassionate, white billionaire trying to save middle class people who just happen to be out their luck because they lost their home to greedy banks and their manufacturing jobs were just sent to China thanks to corporate profiteers such as Apple who just posted a record sales! Now maybe they can start building some products like iPads here in America! People will have to pay a bit more for them but they do that now anyway so....  :D

Interestingly, at the scale Apple produces on, they can't do it in the US. When they looked into building the iPhone here, they first asked how long it would take to get enough qualified engineers to work in the plant. Experts told them that it would take ten months to recruuit and hire them. In China, it took only fifteen days. Apple is not about to let 9 1/2 months profit go down the drain under those circumstances. Also, the number of people required to build that many phones is something the US can not supply easily. None of us are in the mood to harvest tomatoes either. So in some cases, we bring Mexicans here. In others, we send the assembly lines to China.

I'm not excusing anything here. I agree that Apple should have manufacturing plants in this country. As should Dell and all the other computer companies. And a lot of other corporations. But again, on the scale and size that they operate at, it's not feasible.

What the US has to do is redesign it's economy to serve this part of the planet, and we Americans need to start demanding products that can be made here. If we can't adjust to this new world economy, we should abandon it and do stuff ourselves.

Except for the part where I love my iPad. Don't touch my frickin' iPad.  :P

Imagine a country that didn't spend 250 billion hours a year watching television, like the US does. What could we accomplish if we stopped considering entertainment one of the basic human rights, and learned to value hard work again? What could the country do if we demanded fairness and honesty and an accountable government. And got it.

Oh damn! I just woke up. I was having such a great dream...

I stand corrected.  ParkingPlaces for President.  And hell, parking spaces for everyone while we're at it! 

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6295
  • Darwins +729/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: who are you voting for?
« Reply #22 on: January 26, 2012, 08:48:40 PM »
I stand corrected.  ParkingPlaces for President.  And hell, parking spaces for everyone while we're at it!

I don't have a chance. My sex life wouldn't stand the intense scrutiny of the press. Since, if I remember right, I didn't have one.

But thanks for sentiments. Kind of turned me on  ;D
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7275
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: who are you voting for?
« Reply #23 on: January 26, 2012, 09:08:15 PM »
I stand corrected.  ParkingPlaces for President.  And hell, parking spaces for everyone while we're at it!

I don't have a chance. My sex life wouldn't stand the intense scrutiny of the press. Since, if I remember right, I didn't have one.

But thanks for sentiments. Kind of turned me on  ;D

Ha!  You're a clever one PP.  Now I have you quoted as a likely homosexual, which makes you better suited for POTUS.  Now, we need to find a good Jesus for you to love.  Hmmm....

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6295
  • Darwins +729/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: who are you voting for?
« Reply #24 on: January 26, 2012, 09:23:55 PM »
I stand corrected.  ParkingPlaces for President.  And hell, parking spaces for everyone while we're at it!

I don't have a chance. My sex life wouldn't stand the intense scrutiny of the press. Since, if I remember right, I didn't have one.

But thanks for sentiments. Kind of turned me on  ;D

Ha!  You're a clever one PP.  Now I have you quoted as a likely homosexual, which makes you better suited for POTUS.  Now, we need to find a good Jesus for you to love.  Hmmm....

My lack of a sex life is how I know there is no god.  So I don't want no jesus guy.

Unless my only other choice is Sarah Palin.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Online DVZ3

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1342
  • Darwins +40/-7
  • Gender: Male
Re: who are you voting for?
« Reply #25 on: January 26, 2012, 09:27:20 PM »
Maybe the Dems should remake this animal cruelty video into a "saving the middle class cruelty" video. Just show a compassionate, white billionaire trying to save middle class people who just happen to be out their luck because they lost their home to greedy banks and their manufacturing jobs were just sent to China thanks to corporate profiteers such as Apple who just posted a record sales! Now maybe they can start building some products like iPads here in America! People will have to pay a bit more for them but they do that now anyway so....  :D

When they looked into building the iPhone here, they first asked how long it would take to get enough qualified engineers to work in the plant. Experts told them that it would take ten months to recruuit and hire them. In China, it took only fifteen days

Imagine a country that didn't spend 250 billion hours a year watching television, like the US does. What could we accomplish if we stopped considering entertainment one of the basic human rights, and learned to value hard work again?

Have qualified, well trained, more expensive to pay laborores that can be recruited in 14 days!?  ;) Nice post ParkingPlaces
« Last Edit: January 26, 2012, 09:31:21 PM by DVZ3 »
Hguols: "Its easier for me to believe that a God created everything...."

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3561
  • Darwins +110/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
Re: who are you voting for?
« Reply #26 on: January 26, 2012, 11:28:14 PM »
If you don’t want them cut so badly, then I recommend start spending your money on that national debt that is going to remove all of that and more because we can’t pay our debt off and is going to make USA bankrupt and a third-world country eventually.


I'm curious, Death Over Life.

Can you tell me what the defining features of a third world country are?
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Offline Timo

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1295
  • Darwins +98/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • You know
Re: who are you voting for?
« Reply #27 on: January 27, 2012, 04:31:33 AM »
Nah son...

In addition, he is the only candidate who even has an interest in shrinking the National Debt. 1st year in office He will shrink 1 Trillion dollars off the debt. Everybody else talks about continuing to spend and make our money even more worthless than it already is. He is also one of the only candidates who isn't already bought and paid for from the big corporations.

He's got a plan.  But the plan consists of the sort of cuts that would, as screwtape said, be pretty catastrophic if implemented.  Luckily we'll never have to find out since these are also cuts that, in their totality, have no real support from any corner of Washington or from the public more broadly.  With that in mind, I'm not sure that it's right to say that he's actually interested in shrinking our debt.  At best, I think it would be fair to say that he's been interested in changing the way we talk about the issue, which is a step in the same direction but not quite the same thing.

See, people that are serious about changing things tend to actually build coalitions and get things passed, often times incrementally.  Ron Paul hasn't been interested in that.  It's no surprise then that he is one of the least accomplished legislaters in the House despite his long tenure.  Don't get me wrong though, I don't think that's even necessarily a knock against him.  I think that he sees what he's been doing as sort of laying the necessary intellectual ground work to make it possible for current and future politicians to change things--his son in particular.  And that's fine but it's not really the same as being the only one on the stage serious about debt reduction as you seem to want to frame it. 

Like everyone else, he's only serious about the idea of debt reduction.

He wants them eliminated so they can be provided and ran at a state level. He is looking at weak federal government and a strong state government. With all the things the federal government has done, I think this is indeed a good thing.

I don't.  As a person of color I look at this issue with a particular concern in mind.  The states have proven historically and continue to prove that the notion that states rights will somehow translate into a freer citizenry is fundamentally flawed.  You can see it when you look back at poll tests and taxes prior to the Voting Rights Act and you can see it in these new voter ID laws, which are aimed at supressing minority turn out in the name of fighting the almost non-existent crime of voter fraud.  This is not to say that the federal government can't do bad things too.  It does.  I just don't buy the argument that we ought to leave everything to the states.

Not really. Some of them need to be done away with at a federal level, especially homeland security and foreign aid for examples. If you don’t want them cut so badly, then I recommend start spending your money on that national debt that is going to remove all of that and more because we can’t pay our debt off and is going to make USA bankrupt and a third-world country eventually.

A couple of things here.  To begin with, I just don't think that our national debt is the most important issue we're facing right now.  It's an issue in the short term only insofar as creditors believe or don't believe that we'll eventually get our house in order.  In the mean time, folks seem to think that US treasury bonds are a safe bet and are therefore willing to finance our debt for the time being.  With that being the case, I just don't think you can justify treating our debt as our first priority.  There are more pressing matters.  And really, I think that if we're serious about reducing our debt, foreign aid is a bad place to start.  It's a drop in the bucket of the federal budget.  In the immediate term, reducing the unemployment rate would be perhaps the single most effective thing we could do to move our budget into balance.  And if that's our goal, we'd do well to do a bit of deficit spending.

In any case, I think the concerns that we'll inevitably be reduced to a third world country by the weight of our debt are kind of overblown.  We have a debt to GDP ratio of 102 percent.  That's a little less than what Greece has.  And while conservatives love pointing that out, they never mention that Greece doesn't have its own monitary policy.  Furthermore, there was a time in this country's history, WW2, where the debt soared, eventually ballooning to over 250 percent of GDP.  Japan is at around 200 right now.  And while that's not exactly the best position to be in, I don't think I'd call Japan a third world country.

And here is a misconception of Ron Paul bashers. He is not going to be able to do this overnight. He is going to be trickling it down little by little, kind of like what Obama is doing with our Military and National Defense. If he does this overnight, of course it will be catastrophic, he’s not stupid. He’s not going from one extreme to the other. He’s going to wean us off, which will be a good thing.

If he doesn't think that he is going to be able to do this overnight, why is he advertising his plan to do this overnight as a selling point?  And if you know that he doesn't plan on doing this overnight, then why are you crediting him for saying that he has a plan to do this overnight?

Over and over again, the RP haters must play ring around the Rosie with this stupid claim because it literally is all they have, other than personal insults.

To begin with, the fact that you felt the need to rebut screwtape's post demonstrates that this point is false.  There are plenty of places where we dreaded Ron Paul haters can disagree with him pointedly.  The long and short of it for me is this.  Ron Paul seems to want to live in a pre-New Deal, pre-Civil Rights legislation America.  I don't want to live in that America.  My black ass couldn't vote in that America.

More importantly, I really fail to see how this is a "stupid claim."  What exactly is stupid about the claim?  Is it untrue?

I'll take one racist claim in a magazine that He didn't even write well over 20 years ago and that's it as opposed to a theocrat, a Barack Obama version 2 with flip-flops added in, or a man who lies to our face about his many wives in addition thinks it's better to fire us so we can have 30 children working our jobs for .25 per hour and saying that helps the economy, or a man who has signed in The Patriot Act and the new NDAA bills despite promising to veto them.

It wasn't one racist claim in a magazine.  It was a series of racist magazines.  It was years and years worth of bile preaching impending race wars, misinformation about homosexuals, AIDs, anti-Jewish conspiracy theories etc.  And Ron Paul made a hefty profit from it.  The idea that I should excuse it or ignore it because it was written by someone else just doesn't make a lot of sense as a defense.  Going back to my previous post, that just means that he either 1.) approved of this or he 2.) was unable to control what went out under his name.  Neither possibility really makes me pine for a Ron Paul presidency.

On a side note, Obama promised to veto a version of the NDAA because of a provision in the bill that would have forced his administration to turn terrorism supsects over to military custody.  The language of the bill was changed to accomidate this.  He signed the bill.  You can debate whether or not he should have signed the bill, which everyone should remember funded the entire military, but on this one, I don't think it's right to say he flip flopped.

So yeah....nah...


Peace and Love
Nah son...

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12130
  • Darwins +646/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: who are you voting for?
« Reply #28 on: January 27, 2012, 10:27:22 AM »
1st year in office He will shrink 1 Trillion dollars off the debt.

hold that thought.

 
Everybody else talks about continuing to spend and make our money even more worthless than it already is.

Why do you say "other people" spending money will make our money even more worthless than it already is?  Money is not currently worthless.  Spending money does not diminish its value.  For money to be worth less that would mean its purchasing power is diminished. That would indicate inflation.  Inflation is currently very low.  So how have you come to these conclusions?

While many of the other people are talking more and more about increasing government in our lives, Paul is as somebody said, separation of church and state, and is trying to get us off of depending on the government for everything. That is why there are so many cuts being made on many federal departments and agencies.

Who is talking about more and more government?  In what way are they trying to put more government in our lives?  On things like health care you are going to have one giant organization or another in your life.  It can be insurance corporations or it can be the government.  I prefer the government, because their motive is not profit margin.  They are more transparent (by law).  While they will try to screw citizens over from time to time, I find it is infrequent, usually incidental and not part of their SOP. And if you do not like how it is working, you can at least change the government.  Case in point: Social Security.  Corporations, on the other hand, appear to have that as their goal, have no transparency, and if they do not work the way you like, tough.  The board of directors is beyond your reach.


Seems you are very uneducated on many of Ron Paul’s supporters.

That is possible.  I am not sure if I know any in person.  All I have to go on are what I read on the intertubes. And that is why I asked the question.

Are you aware of his position that the departments of Energy, Commerce, Interior and the IRS should be eliminated?  I genuinley would like to know.

He wants them eliminated so they can be provided and ran at a state level. He is looking at weak federal government and a strong state government. With all the things the federal government has done, I think this is indeed a good thing.

In what way are states qualified to run any of those departments?  For energy, would that not make an inconsistent set of rules and regulations for energy providers?  The idea that we are loose collection of mainly autonomous sovereign states has been practically dead since about April 9 1865.  We need to be a united nation, not a patchwork of semi-nations.  State control is malarkey and a step backward.

What "things" has the federal government done that make you think state controle is better?  I look at states like Tennessee, Arizona, Mississippi, Alabama - you know, the ones full of bible pounding dipshits -and I think they should be invaded by the US.


Not really. Some of them need to be done away with at a federal level, especially homeland security and foreign aid for examples.

How can foreign aid be done at a state level?  International relations lies with the federal government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_United_States#Powers_of_the_President_and_Congress
Why would you want each state to run its own homeland security?  Don't you want a consistent national policy?

If you don’t want them cut so badly, then I recommend start spending your money on that national debt that is going to remove all of that and more because we can’t pay our debt off and is going to make USA bankrupt and a third-world country eventually.

Foreign aid is not what is breaking the bank. For every tax dollar you spend, one penny of it goes to foreign aid.  And foreign aid is a good thing.  It is the best, cheapest way to influence other countries.  It is what avoids the trillions we spent on the two latest wars. 

We have the debt we have because we had two wars and the president at the time did not pay for them.  In fact, he cut taxes.  We have the debt we have because george fucking bush happened.


And here is a misconception of Ron Paul bashers. He is not going to be able to do this overnight. He is going to be trickling it down little by little, kind of like what Obama is doing with our Military and National Defense. If he does this overnight, of course it will be catastrophic, he’s not stupid. He’s not going from one extreme to the other. He’s going to wean us off, which will be a good thing.

So, let's go back to this:

1st year in office He will shrink 1 Trillion dollars off the debt.

How do these two statements square?  A trillion dollar surplus[1] created in the first year is a tremendous amount of money and it is virtually overnight.

I agree with Timo.  The debt is not our most urgent concern nor is it long term.  I think we need to do some things to get the budget under control, but paying off 7-8% of it in one year is neither practical nor necessary.  The whole point of borrowing money is that it is easier to pay it back over a longer period of time. 

That is like saying you MUST pay off two full years worth of your 30 year mortgage otherwise it will be catastrophic.  No.  What you must do is make sure you don't have to borrow every month to make the payment.


But from everything I’ve seen with Paul, the good outweighs the bad.

I don't think you would think that if the EPA and FDA were demolished the way he wants.

 1. You'd need a trillion dollar surplus to pay off the debt that much
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.