PDA

View Full Version : Indecision 2012



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

Magtig
12-03-2011, 02:06 PM
Don't let the date fool you, it's always an election year in America. Let the blood sport commentary begin!



Herman Cain just dropped out of the 2012 Republican run for nomination. He will be missed, because he was hilariously stupid.

waffel
12-03-2011, 02:13 PM
Oh crap you beat me by 5 minutes. I'll go get rid of mine now :)

Magtig
12-03-2011, 02:26 PM
It happens. Copy your post over!

theruiner
12-03-2011, 03:04 PM
Herman Cain just dropped out of the 2012 Republican run for nomination. He will be missed, because he was hilariously stupid.The fact that that guy was a frontrunner speaks volumes about how stupid a lot of the people in this country are. If you didn't know any better, you would think his entire campaign was an SNL skit (and, if Rachel Maddow is right, (http://tinyurl.com/casd2gf])it effectively was).

The minute you flip-flop on an issue in the middle of an interview, in a two minute window, your campaign should effectively be over. Seriously. That's insane. That's absolutely insane.

waffel
12-03-2011, 03:49 PM
The fact that that guy was a frontrunner speaks volumes about how stupid a lot of the people in this country are. If you didn't know any better, you would think his entire campaign was an SNL skit (and, if Rachel Maddow is right, it effectively was (http://tinyurl.com/casd2gf])).

The minute you flip-flop on an issue in the middle of an interview, in a two minute window, your campaign should effectively be over. Seriously. That's insane. That's absolutely insane.
It seems a number of people are jumping on board this whole "I'm not an elitist politician" bandwagon, so I guess if you stick to your guns on an issue it makes you an elitist? I prefer some sort of elitism in my politicians, if I wanted an everyday citizen I'd run myself (figuratively, someone would get hurt if I tried to run for public office). Out if the current batch Romeny and Gringritch I think have the best chance of being a "real" candidate, Bachmann is just comedy material/ a mouth piece. Though with how moronic Cain carried himself in interviews, I might be surprised at what people take as "acceptable". I also wonder if the occupy movement will have any bearing on the election, it's a group that's disgruntled and I imagine will be politically active, so someone should try to get their vote.

Wretchedest
12-03-2011, 04:01 PM
I find it amusing how none of the Reds are electible even by Red standards. The front runners so far I guess come down to Romney and Gingrich, right? But Romney's a Mormon, which makes him difficult to elect, especially for those guys, and Gingrich is known for making a fool of himself from time to time.

Also I feel like Obama is going rather strong at the moment. 2011 was a very successful year for him and a very UNsuccessful year for republicans. Congress really got nothing done, and just muddled up the political process more than ever. Is there really any competition?

Magtig
12-03-2011, 04:33 PM
I think the way that Romney's religion is being used as a cudgel is disgusting. As a former Mormon I have huge beef with that religion, but prejudice is prejudice. Romney should be called out for his lack of principles, not which set of fairy tales he believes in (or claims to).

Obama makes me want to the throw up at least half the time, but that's a lot less than the Republican candidates. Honestly I'd rather have Hillary as president at this point, if only for the fact that Bill is her husband. It's not that I think she can't do things because of her gender or anything, it's that every time I see Bill talk he has a concise and effective strategy to get the economy back on track. Basically, I want his know-how and planning. He seems to understand the economy more than any other politician I've seen, and he's actually good at negotiating.

Also, if this (http://apps.facebook.com/theguardian/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/25/shocking-truth-about-crackdown-occupy) is true, Obama could have a really hard time with his own base.

Wretchedest
12-03-2011, 05:06 PM
I think the way that Romney's religion is being used as a cudgel is disgusting. As a former Mormon I have huge beef with that religion, but prejudice is prejudice. Romney should be called out for his lack of principles, not which set of fairy tales he believes in (or claims to).



I agree with you completely on this. On the other hand, we live in a reality where that, even after all of the things that are really bad about him, is what's going to keep him from office.

Dra508
12-04-2011, 02:41 PM
I think the way that Romney's religion is being used as a cudgel is disgusting. As a former Mormon I have huge beef with that religion, but prejudice is prejudice. Romney should be called out for his lack of principles, not which set of fairy tales he believes in (or claims to). I'm betting his full on Mormon. Got a giant temple built on top of a hill in the town he lived in.


Obama makes me want to the throw up at least half the time, but that's a lot less than the Republican candidates. Cracks me up that liberals thought he was more liberal then he actually is. If he can win re-election, I got to believe he'll actually get something done. Talk about being dealt the shittiest situation since..... Carter.


Honestly I'd rather have Hillary as president at this point, if only for the fact that Bill is her husband. It's not that I think she can't do things because of her gender or anything,it's that every time I see Bill talk he has a concise and effective strategy to get the economy back on track. Basically, I want his know-how and planning. He seems to understand the economy more than any other politician I've seen, and he's actually good at negotiating. OK, Bill Clinton has never ever ever been called concise. When he spoke at the democratic convention in 1988 he went on for 30 minutes. To your point, Clinton says "the best social program is a good job." We gotta get some of those fast.

I wish we could hear more about this Huntsman guy.

allegro
12-04-2011, 02:50 PM
George Romney was Governor of my state (Michigan) when I was a kid and it's weird but I didn't even know he was Mormon until his kid Mitt ran for President, heh, weird.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSdSiBehQpI

think i'm a fire engine
12-04-2011, 03:30 PM
I'm waiting for Sarah Palin to throw in her hat about two weeks before the first primary. She's letting all the regular faces get tired and boring to the people who watch tv, and their weaknesses and shortcomings are coming out while she sits there not facing any scrutiny. By the time it happens, everyone and their mom is gonna be talking about her crazy last minute effort and not about anyone else.

theruiner
12-04-2011, 03:47 PM
I think she's running out of time to register. It might already be too late in some states.

I think, at the end of the day, it's going to either be Romney or Gingrich at this point. And I think Obama is going to get reelected.

waffel
12-04-2011, 04:03 PM
I think she's running out of time to register. It might already be too late in some states.

I think, at the end of the day, it's going to either be Romney or Gingrich at this point. And I think Obama is going to get reelected.
Perhaps, but we'll see how much bullshit can be stirred up, either way Obama is going to get trouble from the repubs even if he's reelected. Romney did(or maybe he still does) have a stronger following here, but after saying that the auto companies should have gone bankrupt, he pissed off a bunch of people. Though this could have gotten him cudos in other states, I haven't looked up to see how it effected his popularity nationwide. Though I think he's a little too "moderate" for the tea party.Which leaves Gingrich as the strongest candidate, I haven't seen him in a debate yet, but if he plays his cards right he could start a major shit storm.

Dra508
12-04-2011, 05:14 PM
A couple of years ago, I saw Newt walking into a men's room at the airport in Chicago. One of his little "aides" ran in behind him. He has a gigantic head - on par with the size of Ted Kennedy's.

As Barney Frank said when he announced he wasn't going to run for re-election, Gingrich's nomination would be the best thing for the democratic party. Too bad the dem's need more then themselves to get Obama re-elected.

I'm wondering what voter turn out will be like.

Corvus T. Cosmonaut
12-05-2011, 12:29 AM
Which leaves Gingrich as the strongest candidate, I haven't seen him in a debate yet, but if he plays his cards right he could start a major shit storm.
Have you not watched any of the 100 GOP debates over the past two months? He's been at most of them, usually standing off to the side and saying nothing of much importance.

waffel
12-05-2011, 01:25 PM
Have you not watched any of the 100 GOP debates over the past two months? He's been at most of them, usually standing off to the side and saying nothing of much importance.

As I said, I haven't seen him in a debate, my schedule has been crazy so I either couldn't watch them or forgot(I'll remedy this soon). If what you say is true, I then (based off my knowledge as of right now) think it might come down to Perry or Romney, if he can convince people to over look his religion. Most of what I've seen has been crazy talk from the candidates, but I'll have to take time and dig up more info on them. Though really any of the candidates could cause Obama some grief.

Jacob's Ladder
12-06-2011, 02:01 PM
I'm betting his full on Mormon. Got a giant temple built on top of a hill in the town he lived in.
He's also talked a lot about separation of church and state. It might just be strategic, but he seems to believe in it. He understand that it protects his writes, unlike many protestant republicans who see it as a barrier that prevents them from doing what they want.

Tea
12-06-2011, 03:40 PM
We can't let an old fart who thinks financially-poor 9 year olds should work as school janitors run our country.

heroicraptor
12-06-2011, 03:47 PM
We can't let an old fart who thinks financially-poor 9 year olds should work as school janitors run our country.

Seriously.

Goldfoot
12-07-2011, 01:03 PM
George Romney was Governor of my state (Michigan) when I was a kid and it's weird but I didn't even know he was Mormon until his kid Mitt ran for President, heh, weird.

Yeah, I wasn't aware of that either. I guess my parents didn't care about it since I never heard them say anything. My dad is usually one to voice his opinion from time to time on how he thinks the governor is doing.

I just saw campaign ad from Perry and I would like to share it with you fine folks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PAJNntoRgA&utm
There is so much wrong with this, and it's only 30 seconds long.

theruiner
12-07-2011, 02:14 PM
"There's something wrong when gays can serve openly in our military." Wow. Just let that sink in for a second.

Yeah, that whole ad is just wrong in so many ways.

Goldfoot
12-07-2011, 02:31 PM
"There's something wrong when gays can serve openly in our military." Wow. Just let that sink in for a second.

Yeah, that whole ad is just wrong in so many ways.

But hey, at least he's not ashamed to admit he's in the majority when it comes to faith in this country. What a brave, brave man.

50 Volt Phantom
12-07-2011, 06:56 PM
I'll be voting for any of them over Obama, maybe we can take the Senate this time too, that would be great.

theruiner
12-07-2011, 07:01 PM
Yeah, that's what we need is a Republican senate and one of these freaks running our country. :rolleyes:

50 Volt Phantom
12-07-2011, 07:17 PM
I would say that ya, that's exactly what we need. Your boy had his shot, he's been total shit, even his own supporters are starting to realize it, and now it's time to move on. Even when you had both the Senate and the House you couldn't accomplish much of anything other than you're wonderful Obamacare, which is already causing my healthcare costs to increase, I thought it was going to make everything free?

Goldfoot
12-07-2011, 07:26 PM
I would say that ya, that's exactly what we need. Your boy had his shot, he's been total shit, even his own supporters are starting to realize it, and now it's time to move on. Even when you had both the Senate and the House you couldn't accomplish much of anything other than you're wonderful Obamacare, which is already causing my healthcare costs to increase, I thought it was going to make everything free?

It's hard to get things done when half of Congress votes no out of spite.

theruiner
12-07-2011, 07:34 PM
Even when you had both the Senate and the House you couldn't accomplish much of anything other than you're wonderful Obamacare, which is already causing my healthcare costs to increase, I thought it was going to make everything free?I smell a troll.

eskimo
12-07-2011, 07:41 PM
I would say that ya, that's exactly what we need. Your boy had his shot, he's been total shit, even his own supporters are starting to realize it, and now it's time to move on. Even when you had both the Senate and the House you couldn't accomplish much of anything other than you're wonderful Obamacare, which is already causing my healthcare costs to increase, I thought it was going to make everything free?

And the solution is to send us back to the dark ages?

50 Volt Phantom
12-07-2011, 07:50 PM
I smell a troll.
Why? Because I'm referring to the healthcare bill that Obama championed as Obamacare and simply regurgitating the stupid crap that it's supporters claimed? No you see Obamacare is the correct name for the healthcare bill, it forever connects him to it, and if it can't be repealed and ends up being a bigger failure than it's already shaping up to be then he can wear it proudly around his neck.

Eskimo, if our debt situation can't be solved, and it simply won't be under a spending whore like Obama, then this country will revert back to the dark ages simply by tearing itself apart. The middle class that he has crushed will become more and more unsettled, the poor will stay poor and probably get poorer, and the rich will leave altogether.

theruiner
12-07-2011, 08:00 PM
Why? Because I'm referring to the healthcare bill that Obama championed as Obamacare and simply regurgitating the stupid crap that it's supporters claimed?No, because what you said about Obama's healthcare plan was one of the most uninformed things I've ever read. If you really believe that Obama, or his supporters, claimed "everyone's healthcare would be free" then you really need to start paying attention to the news and the world around you. And by news, I don't mean Fox.

50 Volt Phantom
12-07-2011, 08:20 PM
I don't believe that his supporters said things that stupid, I know it, considering I had the privilege of listening to a bunch of little college shits have orgasms over all the free healthcare they were about to get, in their own words. Why would I have to watch the news to know what his supporters are saying anyway? You act as if the only news source that exaggerates, fabricates, and shows a clear bias is Fox, and this clearly isn't the case. I'd rather take in the world around me, as you suggest I haven't, then watch any of that crap.

Harry Seaward
12-07-2011, 08:20 PM
Regarding the Perry ad: It seriously feels like a parody. Obama's war on religion?! Obama is a Christian who is against gay marriage because his invisible sky daddy hates gays. The vast majority of the people who run our country believe in a millennium old fairy-tale. If that alone doesn't make you lose all hope for the political situation for this country, nothing will.

Harry Seaward
12-07-2011, 08:21 PM
And by news, I don't mean Fox.

As a liberal, I have to say this. Don't listen to MSNBC or CNN if you want to get any factual information either. They're just as slanted, they just aren't as painfully obvious as Fox.

allegro
12-07-2011, 10:19 PM
Eskimo, if our debt situation can't be solved, and it simply won't be under a spending whore like Obama, then this country will revert back to the dark ages simply by tearing itself apart. The middle class that he has crushed will become more and more unsettled, the poor will stay poor and probably get poorer, and the rich will leave altogether.
What kills me is that people like this think that a President of this country actually has this kind of POWER to be responsible for anything this big, good or bad. This country is full of people who forgot their 7th grade civics lessons, and obviously never took Econ 101.

Here, go read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics

westost
12-08-2011, 11:01 AM
My little brother is an american citizen since he was born while our family lived in the USA in the early 90's. Still he didn't vote during the 2008-elections, but seeing as sweden has a different set of popular political ideologies and parties, I can understand the confusion. I tried to get him to vote for the democrats because of their progressive values and, at least slightly, keynesian ambitions. But hey. This time around I'll force him to fucking vote (for like, anything) instead of playing WoW.

My opinion (as a possibly clueless socialist swede): Obama is the least terrible choice.

It's funny, because in Sweden when the economy is shaky, we usually stick with the government already in place. People perceive "stability" as more important in such times, and every political failure can be blamed on the economy. In USA, the tendency seems to be completely reversed; shitty economy = the current president goes down. However, Obama seems to have a pretty good chance if the opposition can't hurry up and form a believable alternative.

richardp
12-08-2011, 11:47 AM
I just saw campaign ad from Perry and I would like to share it with you fine folks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PAJNntoRgA&utm
There is so much wrong with this, and it's only 30 seconds long.

Kudos, Mr Perry. Quite possibly one of the most offensive things I've seen all year. And what's even more offensive is how many ignorant people will actually agree with this.

playwithfire
12-08-2011, 02:44 PM
That's actually a joke dub. Here's the original:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg1reOJV27w

Mantra
12-08-2011, 03:03 PM
I find it kind of shocking that a presidential candidate would actually say that on tv. I expect comments like that (and much worse) on right-wing radio shows and blogs and stuff like that, but I would have thought that a man trying to become president would have to be a little more subtle when expressing views as controversial as his.

Or maybe I'm naive or something. I'm just a little surprised to see such blatant homophobia being shamelessly broadcast in such a public way.

Tea
12-08-2011, 03:07 PM
I find it kind of shocking that a presidential candidate would actually say that on tv. I expect comments like that (and much worse) on right-wing radio shows and blogs and stuff like that, but I would have thought that a man trying to become president would have to be a little more subtle when expressing views as controversial as his.

Or maybe I'm naive or something. I'm just a little surprised to see such blatant homophobia being shamelessly broadcast in such a public way.

The Republicans used to be very good at hiding their corruption and hatred; I don't think they give a flying fuck anymore since they have enough public support for it all. Things like Fox News has manipulated people into thinking that the corruption is not only okay, but helpful for regular citizens.

theruiner
12-08-2011, 03:42 PM
I find it kind of shocking that a presidential candidate would actually say that on tv. I expect comments like that (and much worse) on right-wing radio shows and blogs and stuff like that, but I would have thought that a man trying to become president would have to be a little more subtle when expressing views as controversial as his.

Or maybe I'm naive or something. I'm just a little surprised to see such blatant homophobia being shamelessly broadcast in such a public way.The problem is, roughly half our country still thinks gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married. Homophobia is still pretty widely accepted in our society, so I don't see this making too many waves, unfortunately. This should be looked at the same way as racism. If Perry had come out and said something blatantly racist, his career and reputation would be over. But with homophobia? He'll get away with this no problem. Maybe he'll get a bit of backlash, but not much. And it will fire up his base (i.e. crazy religious fundamentalists who believe this crap).

allegro
12-08-2011, 04:00 PM
The problem is, roughly half our country still thinks gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married. Homophobia is still pretty widely accepted in our society, so I don't see this making too many waves, unfortunately. This should be looked at the same way as racism. If Perry had come out and said something blatantly racist, his career and reputation would be over. But with homophobia? He'll get away with this no problem. Maybe he'll get a bit of backlash, but not much. And it will fire up his base (i.e. crazy religious fundamentalists who believe this crap).

I personally do not believe that "roughly half" of this country feels that way. And I think Bachman just guaranteed herself out of this race. No big surprise, there. She was never considered a real candidate, anyway. Perry never stood a chance from Day One. Right now, it's down to Gingrich (ugh) and Romney.

theruiner
12-08-2011, 04:22 PM
According to the L.A. Times, as of last month, support for gay marriage was split right down the middle. (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/03/news/la-pn-pew-same-sex-marriage-20111103)

Now, maybe the polls are wrong about that, I don't know. But every time I hear one of these polls come out, it's always about right down the middle.

Regardless, there's still a lot of blatant homophobia in this country. We're getting better, and I think we're getting better pretty damn fast. Not fast enough, in my opinion, but it's getting there. Still, as sickened as I was by Perry's comments, I really don't think it's going to make that big of a splash. It should, but I don't think it's going to.

Like you said, though, he's not even a viable candidate at this point anyway.

Harry Seaward
12-08-2011, 04:23 PM
I personally do not believe that "roughly half" of this country feels that way.

There's a lot of America that's rural. Maybe there are plenty of progressives in the bid cities, but out in the country there is tons of blatant racism and homophobia. And those country folk (not to mention senior citizens) make up a pretty big amount of Americans.

allegro
12-08-2011, 05:25 PM
Now, maybe the polls are wrong about that
I don't believe these polls. Ultimately, same-sex marriage doesn't affect anyone else any more than black/white marriages (which ALSO USED TO BE ILLEGAL IN MOST STATES).

I think same-sex marriage needs to be reframed and explained to the American public (probably after a US Supreme Court decision) from the standpoint of:
Separation of Church and State (people just don't seem to GET this, again, having either slept through or forgotten their school Civics lessons)
Freedom of Religion is secondary to Freedom FROM Religion
Per #2 above, a State Marriage License is NOT allowed to make judgments as to God's view of "marriage" or any church group's view of "marriage" (see 4 below)
Marriage, per the State, is a CONTRACT between two individuals. A Contract is NOT sanctified by God or any church. It's a CONTRACT, plain and simple (see 5 below)
Generally, the State only prevents Contracts (per UCC laws) that involve: Minors, Drunk People, Insane People

Harry Seaward
12-08-2011, 05:50 PM
^ Everyone understands those points. They don't give a single fuck. They want to pretend gay people don't exist, and if they do exist, they sure as hell aren't going to be treated like normal folks in this great Christian nation.

Also, I have no doubt there are a lot of people who would still love to see interracial marriage outlawed again.

Delusional
12-08-2011, 05:54 PM
That's funny. He's going to end a "war on religion" by instating religious policies. Thankfully I don't believe he has a shot at the nomination anyway.

theruiner
12-08-2011, 05:59 PM
^ Everyone understands those points. They don't give a single fuck. They want to pretend gay people don't exist, and if they do exist, they sure as hell aren't going to be treated like normal folks in this great Christian nation.

Also, I have no doubt there are a lot of people who would still love to see interracial marriage outlawed again.Exactly.

Allegro, I agree with all your points, obviously, and it totally makes logical sense, and in theory most Americans with even a modicum of intelligence should understand that, but a lot of them, maybe even the majority, can't get it through their heads.

Prop 8 in California was split almost right down the middle, and that was only a few years ago. And Cali is a supposedly liberal state. We effective "outlawed" gay marriage out here in good ol' hillbilly Arizona (which doesn't surprise me). Gay marriage is only legal in a handful of states and there is rampant homophobia in almost every aspect of our culture. It's tangible. I can only remember a couple of times in my entire life where a gay couple showed any public displays of affection, and I spent most of my life in So Cal. Gay people just can't walk down the street holding hands the way that straight people can in this country, save for a few places. They have to essentially pretend to "just be friends" because of this blatant double standard. Or look at movies- there are no mainstream movies, with the possible exception of "Brokeback Mountain" (which, really, started out as an arthouse movie before it gainted some popularity) in which gay people, especially a gay couple, were the focus. It's just everywhere. If it was so widely accepted, we wouldn't have those problems. Or, at the very least, it would be a lot better than it is now.

Again, I don't mean this in any sort of hostile way, so I hope I'm not coming off that way. Just disagreeing.

allegro
12-08-2011, 06:19 PM
How do you explain the states that have legalized civil unions and/or same sex marriage? Illinois isn't exactly a pillar of liberalism, but same-sex civil unions are legal, here. That was rhetorical, bottom line is that a bunch of redneck hicks shouldn't be dictating interpretation of the Constitution. They don't like abortion or motorcycle helmet laws, either, but nobody listens to them.

Again, I was a kid in the 60s during the Civil Rights Movement when black people couldn't marry white people, couldn't vote in many states until the Civil Rights Act was passed, and couldn't do a shitload of other things, since the (ahem) "majority" of Americans thought black people were on the same level as farm animals. Did the U.S. listen to those Americans? No. It may seem like stupid rednecks run this country, but they don't. The gay-bashing shit is a relatively new thing. When I was in high school in a sterile white suburb of Detroit in the 70s, my best friend was gay and, oddly enough, nobody cared. But, as gay rights started to take a prominent stand, some people seem to be "threatened." Or something. I dunno. But it will get better. It's already getting better (http://www.npr.org/2011/09/20/140605121/with-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell-an-era-ends). Just like racism is SLOWLY getting better (there's a brother in the White House, dude). One day at a time. But a negative attitude isn't going to change anything, my friend.

Also, it's obvious you've never been to San Francisco or Boystown (in Chicago) or several other neighborhoods.

Actually, not too long ago, I saw a woman cross LaSalle Street during a very busy rush hour and, just before she crossed, her girlfriend gave her a kiss, a very public and romantic kiss. Two professional women, right there on LaSalle Street in the Loop. It made me smile.

I think we're digressing, here.

50 Volt Phantom
12-08-2011, 06:20 PM
The Republicans used to be very good at hiding their corruption and hatred; I don't think they give a flying fuck anymore since they have enough public support for it all. Things like Fox News has manipulated people into thinking that the corruption is not only okay, but helpful for regular citizens.
That's cute, you know we're in the midst of the Soleyndra scandal, the "Fast and Furious" scandal, the possibility of a primary forgery scandal, and the end of the Blago scandal. Not to mention the stimulus bill was basically money laundering. Democrats are as corrupt as they come, and seeing as they are divisive, use class and race warfare takes, and politicize everything, I'd wager to bet they are filled with some hatred too.

I'm glad though that at least one person here is reasonable enough to realize that all the mainstream news sources are basically crap trying to manipulate us down different paths, not just Fox News.

Allegro, Keynesian economics sure have worked, I mean just look at 2008 till now, we are just booming...oh wait, no we're not. The New Deal didn't help much of anything until parts of it were removed and the combination of a war economy and tax cuts finally started the end of the Great Depression. But you know, when social workers can't get paid because there's literally no money left to pay them, and the rich pull out of here because they're tired of having the total burden of wealth redistribution, then you can just tell everyone "ya, Keynesian economics, badass." The well has been dry for awhile, and we're still trying to get water from it.

allegro
12-08-2011, 06:37 PM
I'm not a 100% fan of Keynesian economics, either, but I survived the Reagan era.

Seems that the majority of this country has amnesia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_1980s_recession).

This financial mess has been brewing for a long time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_crisis_impact_timeline). Many believe this is just a continuation of the Asian contagion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Asian_financial_crisis).

Debt?

Let's not forget Exhibit A (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) and Exhibit B (http://jonathanturley.org/2011/05/31/cost-of-afghanistan-war-this-year-113-billion/).

Repugs and Dems BOTH have amnesia. Or dementia. Or both.

Mantra
12-08-2011, 06:38 PM
Separation of Church and State.


Freedom of Religion is secondary to Freedom FROM Religion.

I don't have any polls or scholarly evidence for this, but I strongly suspect that protecting the separation of church and state is not something that most right-wing Christians are even remotely concerned about. It's not even a value that they believe in. In fact, they usually define this country as "a Christian nation."

allegro
12-08-2011, 06:42 PM
I think you are probably right.

Aaron
12-08-2011, 07:10 PM
It's hard to imagine Obama accomplishing anything very significant. I would prefer we didn't send ourselves backwards with any of these medieval (and very, very, very stupid) Republicans. Let's look at the ones who might be president: Gingrich is a slime, obviously, and it's questionable as to whether he believes in anything. Romney isn't the worst guy in the world, and you've got to appreciate that his liberal record is giving him problems now. "Obamacare" might more accurately be called Romneycare, seeing as it's almost identical to what Romney got done in Massachusetts, to some very good results.

Now, that doesn't mean that Obama shouldn't absolutely be reelected. But he's got to get tougher with Congress. It doesn't matter anymore whether the Republicans filibuster everything he proposes. It's time to ignore millionaires whining about their taxes increasing by 3%. Just let Bush's tax cuts expire, and it turns out you've covered almost every spending cut that Congress has proposed.

It's also shocking how many people will defend the status quo, even when it is clearly not in their best interest to do so. Supply-side policies, deregulation that only benefits those at the very top. Please don't express an opinion on the goddamn housing bubble and resulting financial crisis if you don't actually know what happened. Too many people are under the impression that they have mobility, that they can realistically "move up" in a society that uses them only to prop itself up on their backs.

theruiner
12-08-2011, 07:11 PM
How do you explain the states that have legalized civil unions and/or same sex marriage? Illinois isn't exactly a pillar of liberalism, but same-sex civil unions are legal, here. That was rhetorical, bottom line is that a bunch of redneck hicks shouldn't be dictating interpretation of the Constitution. They don't like abortion or motorcycle helmet laws, either, but nobody listens to them.Well, to be fair, I don't like motorcycle helmet laws either (though anyone who doesn't wear a helmet is an idiot and that's a separate issue, anyway. :P)


Again, I was a kid in the 60s during the Civil Rights Movement when black people couldn't marry white people, couldn't vote in many states until the Civil Rights Act was passed, and couldn't do a shitload of other things, since the (ahem) "majority" of Americans thought black people were on the same level as farm animals. Did the U.S. listen to those Americans? No. It may seem like stupid rednecks run this country, but they don't. The gay-bashing shit is a relatively new thing. When I was in high school in a sterile white suburb of Detroit in the 70s, my best friend was gay and, oddly enough, nobody cared. But, as gay rights started to take a prominent stand, some people seem to be "threatened." Or something. I dunno. But it will get better. It's already getting better (http://www.npr.org/2011/09/20/140605121/with-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell-an-era-ends). Just like racism is SLOWLY getting better (there's a brother in the White House, dude). One day at a time. But a negative attitude isn't going to change anything, my friend.Maybe you're right. I hope you are. I would like to think that there is a silent majority in this country of people who are cool with gay people and a vocal minority who isn't. I see no evidence of that, however. I see is exactly the opposite. You can call it negative if you want, but I'm just calling it like I see it.

And I never said it wasn't getting better; in fact, I've been saying for a long time that it is. Just that we're not there yet. But we are way further along than we've ever been before.


Also, it's obvious you've never been to San Francisco or Boystown (in Chicago) or several other neighborhoods.I have been to San Francisco. It's my favorite city ever. But, like I said before, there are a few exceptions in this country, certainly. San Francisco is probably the most famous one, but it's an anomaly. There is a lot of this country that isn't that tolerant.


Actually, not too long ago, I saw a woman cross LaSalle Street during a very busy rush hour and, just before she crossed, her girlfriend gave her a kiss, a very public and romantic kiss. Two professional women, right there on LaSalle Street in the Loop. It made me smile.But again, that's one example. We've got a million examples all across this country of exactly the opposite. There are always exceptions to the rule.


I think we're digressing, here.That sounds just like something a gay loving liberal hippie would say. :P

But yeah, as much as I'm enjoying the conversation, and as important as it is, we are definitely digressing here. Sorry, everyone.

theruiner
12-08-2011, 07:27 PM
But you know, when social workers can't get paid because there's literally no money left to pay them, and the rich pull out of here because they're tired of having the total burden of wealth redistribution, then you can just tell everyone "ya, Keynesian economics, badass." The well has been dry for awhile, and we're still trying to get water from it.Dude, what are you talking about? You really think the rich are going to leave? Here, look. (http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12485)


Between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:
-275 percent for the top 1 percent of households
-65 percent for the next 19 percent
-Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent
-18 percent for the bottom 20 percent

50 Volt Phantom
12-08-2011, 07:58 PM
Absolutely. At the moment it's state to state more than anything else, the wealthy are leaving New York, leaving Chicago, leaving the places that are starting to ask too much of them. Companies have specifically looked to move or start up in states that won't screw them. Companies have chosen to go outside of the US for employment, it is not at all absurd that at some point individuals will begin moving out of here too. If you've made all you need then why put up with all the crap anymore.

Wretchedest
12-08-2011, 08:09 PM
You do realize, that Obama has deregulated more business than any other president, right?

allegro
12-08-2011, 08:17 PM
The wealthy are leaving Chicago?

theruiner
12-08-2011, 08:21 PM
What we need is more regulation, not less. This whole notion that it's SO HORRIBLE for the poor billionaires and OH we can't piss off the job creators or they'll go running for the hills is ridiculous. Yeah, they're moving their companies overseas because they can get RIDICULOUSLY cheap labor over there. Sorry, the minimum wage is way, way, way too low as it is; the last thing we need is to lower it any more, or lower our working conditions, or lower taxes on people who are already getting huge tax breaks as it is. The wealthy have it insanely good in this country and I'm getting sick of the boo-hoo-hooing for these rich, greedy assholes who have all the advantages in the world, who have their hands all over our government and are swimming in money like Uncle Scrooge from Duck Tales while the rest of us are barely scraping by and getting screwed more and more every day.

allegro
12-08-2011, 08:22 PM
The wealthy aren't leaving Chicago, and American companies aren't going to leave this country. Companies have ALWAYS looked around for better tax incentives. ALWAYS. This ain't a new thing, and it ain't any worse, now.

You can put Mitt Romney wrapped in Newt Gingrich in office and that ain't gonna change the economy. This economy has to come back on its own. This or any President has to realize that any "job" that this country "creates" is the very Socialism that people are screaming about (state jobs, duh) and those jobs are TEMPORARY. Fund all the road and bridge and train projects you want, you ain't gonna get laid-off accountants, bankers, lawyers and real estate agents to take (or get!) jobs building roads. This ain't the 40s in WWII.

G and I probably pay more in taxes than most of you have earned in the last 5 years, and we pay them gladly. Go ahead, tax me. For now. When the economy recovers, tax me less. Preferably a lot.

BTW, I'm not Republican or Democrat, I'm one of those Independent upper-middle class people that everybody is blowing.


p.s. Companies aren't moving overseas, the LABOR is moving overseas. That's been happening for decades, because our wages are too high to turn a profit for the cheap goods we all want. It's been that way for DECADES, people. We can't even blame Reagan for that, let alone Bush or Obama.

50 Volt Phantom
12-08-2011, 08:50 PM
What we need is more regulation, not less. This whole notion that it's SO HORRIBLE for the poor billionaires and OH we can't piss off the job creators or they'll go running for the hills is ridiculous. Yeah, they're moving their companies overseas because they can get RIDICULOUSLY cheap labor over there. Sorry, the minimum wage is way, way, way too low as it is; the last thing we need is to lower it any more, or lower our working conditions, or lower taxes on people who are already getting huge tax breaks as it is. The wealthy have it insanely good in this country and I'm getting sick of the boo-hoo-hooing for these rich, greedy assholes who have all the advantages in the world, who have their hands all over our government and are swimming in money like Uncle Scrooge from Duck Tales while the rest of us are barely scraping by and getting screwed more and more every day.
You know, you force employers to pay their employees more and then they lay people off, or they increase cost, which could lead to the same result. You go after the job creators and they won't create jobs, this is pretty simple shit. Obamacare is one big question mark up hanging up there for some companies, who won't hire until they see how bad it'll hit them. Stop being angry at the rich, they aren't all greedy assholes, and they're not all screwing you.

theruiner
12-08-2011, 09:12 PM
I never said they were all greedy assholes. And I'm sorry, but having to work three jobs just to make ends meet because the minimum wage in this country is so low is completely unacceptable. Maybe that's the society you enjoy living in, but I sure as hell don't.

And yeah, I'm sorry, but I don't have much sympathy for the guy at the top making a hundred million a year while everyone on the bottom makes seven bucks an hour. OH WOE IS THEM.

Jinsai
12-08-2011, 09:33 PM
You know, you force employers to pay their employees more and then they lay people off, or they increase cost, which could lead to the same result.

Sometimes the best response is satire (http://www.theonion.com/articles/layoffs-are-necessary-if-we-want-to-keep-the-light,26250/)

Aaron
12-08-2011, 11:21 PM
You know, you force employers to pay their employees more and then they lay people off, or they increase cost, which could lead to the same result. You go after the job creators and they won't create jobs, this is pretty simple shit. Obamacare is one big question mark up hanging up there for some companies, who won't hire until they see how bad it'll hit them. Stop being angry at the rich, they aren't all greedy assholes, and they're not all screwing you.
Jesus, man, seriously? Yeah, poor CEOs FORCED to pay their employees a livable wage, life is real fucking hard for them. I guess maybe, MAYBE, if CEOs' wages weren't over 300 times higher than the average worker's in the US(and the second highest figure in the world is 50), then a little bit of money would be freed up, and these corporations might be able to handle the higher costs of treating their workers fairly.

You're right, though, it is pretty simple shit: you see, if consumers aren't buying anything, and companies are losing revenue, they have no reason to hire anyone. Pretty simple, right? More money in the pockets of average Americans, kind of automatically means more revenue for businesses. This isn't advanced stuff, man, in fact it's pretty simple economics. If there's no one to buy goods and services, businesses have no incentive to hire. In fact, they're better off closing shop and downsizing; no matter how much capital is thrown at a company, it's going to SIT ON IT unless there are people to BUY what they're offering.

Corvus T. Cosmonaut
12-09-2011, 04:47 AM
Aaron, what is a fair pay ratio for bottom-rung grunt to CEO?

littlemonkey613
12-09-2011, 04:57 AM
Absolutely. At the moment it's state to state more than anything else, the wealthy are leaving New York, leaving Chicago, leaving the places that are starting to ask too much of them. Companies have specifically looked to move or start up in states that won't screw them. Companies have chosen to go outside of the US for employment, it is not at all absurd that at some point individuals will begin moving out of here too. If you've made all you need then why put up with all the crap anymore.

This is so funny. Do you know what is being asked of them in comparison to before? Do you have any idea how much these people USED to be taxed compared to now? Also stop kidding yourself. The big thing they are being asked to do is pay people an almost living wage. They use labor from abroad because they are allowed to hire people for miniscule amounts (that I consider to be evil). Do you not remember how a lack of regulation got us into this mess? Not to mention how can you ignore the wealth disparity in comparison to what it used to be. The top 400 earners in the U.S. have as much wealth as the bottom 150 MILLION. I don't want to live in a country like this.

Not to mention these big earners have Washington by the balls, when Washington are supposed to be representing the people. Oh yes, they are being asked to do too much. If only they ever got their way.

Jinsai
12-09-2011, 05:03 AM
Aaron, what is a fair pay ratio for bottom-rung grunt to CEO?

It's impossible to decide upon a "fair" ratio, but it should be startling to see how much more outrageous the divergence is in the United States by comparison to every other industrialized nation.

littlemonkey613
12-09-2011, 05:17 AM
It's impossible to decide upon a "fair" ratio, but it should be startling to see how much more outrageous the divergence is in the United States by comparison to every other industrialized nation.

Steven Pearlstein wrote in the Washington Post:
"We already know from numerous studies that chief executives of large U.S. corporations make hundreds of times what an average worker makes, with the gap growing steadily wider. We also know it's possible to run successful advanced market economies with large corporations where the ratio is 25-1 (Britain), 13-1 (Sweden), 11-1 (Germany) and 10-1 (Japan). Whether the ratio at Exxon-Mobil last year was 320-to-1 or 276-to-1 seems rather beside the point."


Pretty startling numbers.

theruiner
12-09-2011, 08:24 AM
But they're the job creators, guys! We can't piss off the job creators! Give them whatever they want, as long as they keep creating those jobs! Oh, what's that? They're not creating jobs? Well, they need a bigger tax cut, then! What's that? They're not paying very much already? Well, what do they want? Sacrifice some virgins if you have to, I don't care, just give them what they want!

You can't see it right now, but my eyes have rolled into the back of my head.

joplinpicasso
12-09-2011, 10:39 AM
For any non-US friends and folks here who have seen candidate Rick Perry's recent online ads: what do you think?

westost
12-09-2011, 11:42 AM
For any non-US friends and folks here who have seen candidate Rick Perry's recent online ads: what do you think?

While I'm not surprised, it's still outrageous. The worst kind of right-wing populism (arguably second-worst, with anti-immigration-populism on top of the pedistal). "Omg, we need to take the country back from teh gays and let our schools openly discriminate against non-christian religions, so we can become the 'strong christian nation' we once were!" Yes, that will fix the economy!

Michalrose
12-09-2011, 11:43 AM
I was researching my mothers Morman geneology on the internet and discovered we are related to Mitt Romney. We share the same great, great, great Grandfather; Philemon Duzette. I think that makes us cousins. How weird is that? This doesn't mean I'm going to vote for him though.

Aaron
12-09-2011, 12:14 PM
Aaron, what is a fair pay ratio for bottom-rung grunt to CEO?
I appreciate everyone else chiming in, but I want to call attention to this question. It's a real bait-and-switch, and it's pretty nonsensical, too. No one asked what the ratio should be between the CEO and the "bottom-rung" as you say. The ratio in question is between the CEO and the AVERAGE WORKER. But let's play your game. The bottom-rung, as you say, would make minimum wage. In the most generous minimum-wage state, Washington, a minimum-wage worker would make a yearly salary of $17,784. That's full-time. The average CEO of a large company made about $11 million in yearly salary in 2010. That's not counting bonuses, stock options, capital gains, etc. Let's see, 11 million divided by about 18,000? It's about 600. 600 times more. Obviously, it's unfair to just throw that number around, but since you brought it up, what do you think of it? An American working hard for 40 hours (or more) a week, often with little to no chance for advancement, makes over 600 times less than the guy at the top of the food chain. Does that seem fair? Does 340 seem like a fair number, even for the median worker? Does it seem fair, when put into context, that in the United Kingdom CEOs and corporations are doing just fine, and the number is closer to 25?

I'd also like to reiterate: throwing money at companies does NOT create jobs. This has been proven time and time again. More money in the pockets of consumers creates jobs. When people don't spend money, businesses retract and sit on their capital. When people do spend money, businesses expand and hire. Give small start-ups tax cuts, fine. But if there is no one to buy your product, you have no reason to expand your business.

50 Volt Phantom
12-09-2011, 06:38 PM
Let's not pretend like the guys at the top of the food chain don't work hard and long hours either presently or have at some point in their careers, if not more than those below them. That they didn't take tremendous risks and make sacrifices to get where they are, or had a vision, idea, or talent that those below them simply didn't possess. There are certainly cases where people have simply walked into these positions based on family, friends, or situations, but I would be willing to bet that the top of the food chain has put in significant amounts of work and risk to get where they're at. Does it make it fair for them to be 600 times more wealthy than a minimum wage worker? I find that debatable.

theruiner
12-09-2011, 06:59 PM
It shouldn't be debatable. It's flat out wrong. I don't know how any human being with any sense of compassion or common sense can look at the people at the bottom barely scrapping by then look at the people at the top screwing over the people at the bottom and making 600 TIMES more than them and go, "Well, I'm really not sure the guys at the top are doing anything wrong." If you can't see what's wrong with that, then I don't know what to tell you. It's a blatant, "I've got mine so fuck you" attitude from the top.

Not to mention the blatant corruption of our government from corporate money. You really think the rules are fair? You really think that corporate money and influence isn't helping to skew all the odds in favor of the rich? You really think that it's an even playing field and the people on the bottom have a fair chance of making it out? If you do, you're delusional.

littlemonkey613
12-09-2011, 07:55 PM
Exactly. If it were a fair system (or an even acceptable one) then these numbers wouldn't exist. We are at the point where nohting is morally wrong if you make a profit out of it. Then its simply "can you blame them?" Yes. Yes I can.

theruiner
12-09-2011, 08:00 PM
Morally it's reprehensible, but I long ago gave up on expecting morality out of these people. What we need is corporate money out of politics and stricter regulation. They need to pay their fair share of taxes, there has to actually be a living wage in this country, people need to be able to get access to healthcare without going bankrupt in the process...

There's a lot that needs to be done. But for someone to defend these people? Or worry about scaring away the poor wittle "job creators" by asking them to pay more in taxes? Ridiculous. And completely ignoring the reality that we live in.

littlemonkey613
12-09-2011, 09:42 PM
The taxes thing drives me absolutely insane. You have people that are yearning for a time when the middle class thrived but won't admit that taxes on the top dollar were in the 80's and 90s percentage wise. COMMUNISM!

sublimaze
12-09-2011, 09:56 PM
Let's not pretend like the guys at the top of the food chain don't work hard and long hours either presently or have at some point in their careers, if not more than those below them. That they didn't take tremendous risks and make sacrifices to get where they are, or had a vision, idea, or talent that those below them simply didn't possess. There are certainly cases where people have simply walked into these positions based on family, friends, or situations, but I would be willing to bet that the top of the food chain has put in significant amounts of work and risk to get where they're at. Does it make it fair for them to be 600 times more wealthy than a minimum wage worker? I find that debatable.

For every idea or business that's conceived and is successful, dozens of others fail, regardless of the time and effort of the person behind it. They put in just as much time and risk into their endeavor as the successful ones. And plenty at the bottom of the "food chain" work their asses off (and always have) just to survive. Like 2 or more minimum-wage jobs (part time, they don't pay benefits most places).

Nobody's debating that some people "deserve" a higher income than others! Well, not me, anyway. The inequity is staggering, though, even among the top 1%. I think the 1%'s income starts at 500K or so, not really deserving of sympathy, but the targets are banking executives and CEO's that run their companies into the dirt yet still make astounding amounts of money.

I'm a doctor. I'm comfortable financially, but not in the 1%. But I worked my fucking ass off to get where I'm at. To hear people say that super-rich people "deserve" their money because they "work hard" and "take risks" makes my blood boil. Especially when used to justify cuts to food stamps, health care, etc. FOOD STAMPS?! We'd rather let children starve than tax millionaires a little bit more in taxes.

Sick.

50 Volt Phantom
12-09-2011, 10:09 PM
Ya I'm not budging on this, someone like Steve Jobs is worth infinitely more value than someone that flips burgers, and theruiner, not every CEO is out to screw those below them.

Im also generally in opposition to any sort of welfare or entitlement programs, I believe they've caused more harm than aid over the long haul.

theruiner
12-09-2011, 10:18 PM
Ya I'm not budging on this, someone like Steve Jobs is worth infinitely more value than someone that flips burgers, and theruiner, not every CEO is out to screw those below them.Well, Steve Jobs certainly did.

And any CEO that makes millions of dollars while the people on the bottom make minimum wage is screwing over their employees. And, for the SECOND time, I never said every CEO was like that. And that isn't a counter-argument for anything we've said.


Im also generally in opposition to any sort of welfare or entitlement programs, I believe they've caused more harm than aid over the long haul.Well, aren't you full of compassion? Yeah, definitely dude. Every man, woman and child for themselves. Who cares if people starve in the streets? Fuck 'em. They should have decided to be Steve Jobs instead of flipping burgers, even if they are only a child.

So...let me get this straight. You're not for raising the minimum wage, so the people at the bottom can't make enough to feed their families and keep a roof over their heads. You have no problem with CEOs making 600 times the salary of the people at the bottom, thus ensuring that they probably can't make enough to make ends meet. And on top of that, you're against any government program designed to help them from starving in the street. Do I have that right? Should we just shoot the poor and get it over with? Put them out of their misery?

sublimaze
12-09-2011, 10:43 PM
Forget him. Just like he forgets that Ayn Rand accepted Social Security and Medicare when she got old. We're arguing with a block of concrete, here. As he/she already told us.

allegro
12-09-2011, 10:56 PM
Watch this movie to see where all these huge salaries started ..

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/95/BarbariansAtTheGateDVDCover.jpg

btw, I made minimum wage in high school. It was $3.25 per hour. I got $1.00 per hour babysitting. Whoa. But, that's capitalism. Minimum wage is a stepping stone, not a career choice. That's capitalism. We used to have SLAVES in this country. The cheaper the labor, the cheaper the goods. It's the American way. When companies are faced with the dilemma of turning a profit vs. human rights, they'll usually choose profit. Because, ultimately, more people "benefit" from turning a profit. (Or, so they say.) The middle and top stand on the backs of the bottom. That's capitalism.

Mantra
12-10-2011, 12:26 AM
someone like Steve Jobs is worth infinitely more value than someone that flips burgers

Man, I am so fucking tired of seeing the worshipful idolization of people like Steve Jobs.

Honestly, some people have the most backwards values, always taking the side of the wrong people. They'll be tripping all over themselves in awe of some "titan of industry," gushing with admiration for his success, and meanwhile they have little to no concern for people who are forced to rot at the bottom of society (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/apr/30/apple-chinese-factory-workers-suicides-humiliation). That's why I'm so repelled by that absurd free market Ayn Rand horseshit, where the "leaders" are venerated for their so-called contributions to mankind while the "moochers" down below are disdained. It's such an undeniably immoral ideology, and yet it seems to indoctrinate people so deeply that they become incapable of seeing obvious truths.

And that's also why I roll my eyes at these right-wingers who cry "class warfare!" anytime someone dares to ask for a decent wage. Our "heroes" of industry are the ones who started this class warfare a long time ago.

allegro
12-10-2011, 11:30 AM
I'd also like to reiterate: throwing money at companies does NOT create jobs. This has been proven time and time again. More money in the pockets of consumers creates jobs. When people don't spend money, businesses retract and sit on their capital. When people do spend money, businesses expand and hire. Give small start-ups tax cuts, fine. But if there is no one to buy your product, you have no reason to expand your business.
This. Exactly.

littlemonkey613
12-10-2011, 08:09 PM
Ya I'm not budging on this, someone like Steve Jobs is worth infinitely more value than someone that flips burgers

Really were now actually saying a person is only as valuable as their assets and business success? Steve Jobs owes a lot to the people he pays FOR ALMOST NOTHING in Chinese factories that sustain a system that's nothing short of indentured servitude.

allegro
12-10-2011, 09:37 PM
Please, can we NOT get into China? I've been doing my grad school work and research on China and it's WAY different than the vast majority of you understand. Let's focus on the Presidential race and ignore the incendiary non sequitur comments?

50 Volt Phantom
12-10-2011, 09:38 PM
Ya, except they didn't create the original vision and design, they only build it. Listen, you're not going to get me to see it the way most of you do. I mean you all talk about how important it is for the workers to work and have jobs, while unions and federal boards tried to halt the Boeing plant in South Carolina which had 4000 immediate jobs available and arguably more. Obama and his labor goons say they want job creation, but here they are actively trying to stifle it. Sorry companies are becoming wise to the fact that union labor is for the most part total shit. That's okay though, I get to pay for a bunch of their benefits while trying to look out for my own interests. I'm compassionate, I give the homeless food and money, I feel bad for the situations of some people, but at some point you have to say enough is enough.

littlemonkey613
12-10-2011, 09:44 PM
Please, can we NOT get into China? I've been doing my grad school work and research on China and it's WAY different than the vast majority of you understand. Let's focus on the Presidential race and ignore the incendiary non sequitur comments?

Sorry. I was referring to that specific case (which I think everyone should have the right to criticize) and didn't mean to generalize about China's economy and workforce.

allegro
12-10-2011, 09:53 PM
Sorry. I was referring to that specific case (which I think everyone should have the right to criticize) and didn't mean to generalize about China's economy and workforce.
Understood. It's a vast, complicated, political socioeconomic topic that would most certainly drift this thread, and you apparently understand that. Awesome. (Even the Apple case is not completely understood by the West and the media info that we're getting is greatly slanted. The labor unions in China are handling it, and Apple should be paying attention since it is in the middle of a complicated, growing state capitalist system, for which we all benefit greatly, of course. As I type this from a 27" iMac.)

On a different note, I'm oddly drawn to Mitt Romney. Maybe I've been watching too many episodes of Sister Wives.

littlemonkey613
12-10-2011, 10:00 PM
Listen, you're not going to get me to see it the way most of you do.

So let me get this straight. CEO's are making more than ever and you think they aren't getting what they want? You think they have a problem with the way things are in America right now when they are the ones benefiting? They are already getting what they want! (Insane profits). I just don't understand this logical gap you are experiencing. They are literally benefiting from the country's demise right now and you want t give them more....for what reason?

50 Volt Phantom
12-10-2011, 10:16 PM
I'm not saying that at all, I'm saying that if you start trying to cut at companies thinking that that will get them to make more jobs you're wrong, you can't just force companies to pay their employees more and not expect consequences. I'm mainly responding to theruiner's rage at the rich at large vs. the worker in all honesty. It's less of me wanting the CEO's to do whatever than it is I'm tired of the 99% whining, especially when they completely ignore the total corruption and ineptness of our current government and administration. Considering all the inside trading and the wastefulness of tax payer dollars to enrich companies that Obama chooses to be cool, I'd say that CEO's aren't necessarily the people benefitting from the country's demise.

If you want jobs and a fixed economy then you shouldn't want what Obama does, just look at Europe and see how well their policies have done for their economy. Trying to stop factories because they won't bow down and use union labor is fucking ridiculous and hypocritical to his phony message, especially in a recession.

theruiner
12-10-2011, 10:42 PM
It's less of me wanting the CEO's to do whatever than it is I'm tired of the 99% whining, especially when they completely ignore the total corruption and ineptness of our current government and administration.This is the last thing I'll say: if you really believe that (and I'm still not convinced you're not trolling us) then you absolutely haven't been paying any attention.

And with that, I'm going to agree with Sublimaze here.


Forget him. Just like he forgets that Ayn Rand accepted Social Security and Medicare when she got old. We're arguing with a block of concrete, here. As he/she already told us.

allegro
12-10-2011, 10:46 PM
I'm not the World's Biggest Obama Fan, but at least I know that this is the United States, a republic with a balance of power, and the President, no matter who he/she is, isn't to blame for this shithole that we're in.

I've been in real estate law for over 23 years and, trust me, we all saw this shit coming nearly 15 years ago.

Add Sept 11 then the AIG and Goldman Sachs 2007 (Bush era) meltdown and stir.

Whomever got elected during this shit storm was doomed.

We can't realistically point at ONE GUY for this mess. We need a GIANT REBOOT.

Most of these Republicans AND Democrats are totally full of shit.

50 Volt Phantom
12-10-2011, 10:48 PM
No, YOU haven't been paying any attention theruiner, go out and do what the unions tell you to do pawn. I'm not even an Ayn Rand fan, never read any of her stuff, not even sure what her stances are.

theruiner
12-10-2011, 10:49 PM
And you're even against unions. Ok, you're a troll. I'm done with you.

50 Volt Phantom
12-10-2011, 10:50 PM
Yep, totally against unions, just because I don't get in line doesn't make me a troll.

theruiner
12-10-2011, 10:52 PM
Anybody watch the debate tonight? I missed it yet again. Anything substantial happen, or is it just the same ol', same ol'?

allegro
12-10-2011, 10:53 PM
Wait, I'M against unions. But I'm from Detroit. hahaha

Debate: Yeah, Michelle Bachman said she wanted to be Romney's sister wife.

theruiner
12-10-2011, 10:56 PM
I'm not saying you're a troll, Allegro. That was just the final straw in a long line of straws from him/her, and really was a response to the culmination of what he/she said. I don't actually think he/she is a troll, really. Though it would make a lot more sense that way.

Anyway. Sorry to derail the thread for so long. Back on topic it is.

Anyone think Romney can pull this one out? It seems like Newt has got this pretty locked up, but then people were saying the same thing about Perry a few months ago, and I never in a million years thought Cain would rise in the polls, like, ever, so my predictions have been wrong.

50 Volt Phantom
12-10-2011, 10:57 PM
I worked for a union at one point, they took large quantities of money out of my paycheck above and beyond the usual crap, and the way the whole thing was run was as stupid as it gets, I could've sat around and picked my nose 8 hours a day and never been fired, probably even moved up the ranks to be honest. If that's the kind of crap you're for then by all means support the unions. We almost were going to have to do some kind of strike, not even sure what it was about, we were just told to follow directions and strike, half the people were looking forward to having an excuse not to work regardless of the reason for the strike. It's not at all shocking that companies would opt of union labor.

allegro
12-10-2011, 11:00 PM
Yeah, well,, welcome to Detroit, haha. However, in my house, this is a rather contentious subject since my other half is a member of the AFLCIO (FAA air traffic controller) for nearly 30 years.

Ruiner, I think Newt doesn't have a chance and Romney will be the Republican nominee. but I'm not the betting type.

littlemonkey613
12-10-2011, 11:09 PM
I agree that Newt doesn't have a chance. I'm actually really excited to see how Obama holds up in debating Romney.

allegro
12-10-2011, 11:13 PM
Me, too! That should be great!

chris
12-11-2011, 04:50 AM
I think Newt will be the nominee, because fox news and the corporate sponsored tea party have whipped the base into such a frenzy that they want someone who is outspoken and combative. No one else in the party can do that, especially not romney. It should be ron paul but he speaks truths that the corporations don't want to hear. Its going to get ugly folks, but by the end the voters should have their choices made clear.

sublimaze
12-11-2011, 05:03 PM
Jon Huntsman. But he lacks charisma. And a true following. Newt as POTUS? God, I hope not. I can't see him winning the general election, though. Too many skeletons.

littlemonkey613
12-11-2011, 05:51 PM
Jon Huntsman. But he lacks charisma. And a true following. Newt as POTUS? God, I hope not. I can't see him winning the general election, though. Too many skeletons.

That's exactly what I'm thinking. I don't think the party of "family values" will ever truly accept him. Especially when Obama is squeaky clean on that front.

sublimaze
12-11-2011, 08:28 PM
That's exactly what I'm thinking. I don't think the party of "family values" will ever truly accept him. Especially when Obama is squeaky clean on that front.

Even if he gets the GOP nomination, by default, because Romney is kinda meh, he'll lose. Right now, he's fired up the Tea Party voters. Why, I'm not sure, but he's a loud opinionated bully, so I guess they relate. He has ZERO chance in the general election, though. The Republican party has gone off the deep end. I like Obama, but he has some weak spots. A great campaigner, though. Even the Fox news poll had him winning.

allegro
12-12-2011, 10:20 AM
THIS is gonna kill Gingrich's campaign (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-reimer-gingrich-20111212,0,3928787.column).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr0NHAG3ebE

theruiner
12-12-2011, 11:09 AM
^^I don't know. That story has been out for a couple of weeks and it doesn't seem like it's slowed him down at all. Maybe in the general election it could come back to bite him, though.

allegro
12-12-2011, 11:15 AM
Exactly. There are a whole lot of voters who don't know about it, don't follow this. Hell, *I* didn't hear about it until yesterday. I don't follow this election crap that closely, for the most part. I'm avoiding all of it for as long as possible. Except I read a long expose about Mitt Romney in Parade magazine.

I have watched a few experts on Good Morning America who've said that the reason why it's unlikely that Gingrich will win the nomination is that he's always shooting himself in the foot, always has. His mouth always gets him into trouble. But, so far, pretty much all the Republican candidates have mouths that get them into trouble.

sublimaze
12-12-2011, 11:48 PM
The "Palestine state is invented" statement really was not just idiotic, but dangerous. If that's a preview for Newt's potential presidency, we should be running away screaming.

For all the people disappointed that Obama didn't "change everything" like magic, I'm pretty satisfied when I look at his record instead of the pundits. The ACA (healthcare reform) didn't go far enough, IMO, I would have liked a public option, but what's in the bill is better than nothing. FWIW, pretty much saved the US auto industry, and all the industry tied to it (parts manufacturers, for example). Killed Bin Laden and other high-ranking Al Qaida members. Aided Ghaddafi's overthrow without losing the life of a single American soldier. Repealed DADT.

Good lord, with the degree of opposition Obama's had in congress, his accomplishments are impressive. There's plenty to bitch about, but why can't Dems stop bickering and not stab themselves in the back because they aren't getting their way?

BrewHa
12-13-2011, 02:09 PM
All that needs to be said is this...Ron Paul 2012.

Corvus T. Cosmonaut
12-13-2011, 04:22 PM
Ron Paul's a troll.

Tea
12-13-2011, 05:13 PM
Optimism returns to Obama campaign. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/13/barack-obama-campaign-optimism)
I am seriously so afraid of a Republican winning this time, and not because of the stupidity of those running (like last election), but the threat of important rights being thrown out the window.

50 Volt Phantom
12-13-2011, 09:35 PM
Oh please, what important rights go out the window if a Republican is elected? That sounds like the same kind of outrageous bullshit you all gripe about Fox making, kind of like Chris Matthews saying the Republicans were going to tear bridges down and that there would be no roads if they had the power during his little whine-a-thon last November during the elections.

Jinsai
12-13-2011, 10:09 PM
Oh please, what important rights go out the window if a Republican is elected?

Well, you've got Rick Perry promising to bring mandated prayer into public schools, and on the other hand you've got Mitt Romney promising to bring back a country-wide ban on gay marriage.

I guess it depends on what you consider to be "important," right?

How about this? Is this important? (http://rt.com/usa/news/senate-mccain-battlefield-graham-429/)

sublimaze
12-13-2011, 11:10 PM
They don't have to tear down bridges. They'll collapse for lack of infrastructure spending. Because Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian, you know, the job creators, would suffer if we raised taxes on the rich.

50 Volt Phantom
12-13-2011, 11:12 PM
Okay, well keep in mind that Rick Perry has no chance and is really more comic relief than viable Republican candidate. I think gay marriage is a state issue, not a federal one, and I'm pretty "meh" in general about it anyway, it really doesn't register high on my priorities.

As for your link, I feel like a war criminal every time I fly thanks to Big Sis, and since the current administration has also been jonesing for an internet kill switch and censorship program a la China, among other things, I'd say things have gotten pretty fucked under Obama anyway.

50 Volt Phantom
12-13-2011, 11:14 PM
They don't have to tear down bridges. They'll collapse for lack of infrastructure spending. Because Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian, you know, the job creators, would suffer if we raised taxes on the rich.
More sensationalism a la Fox here. You guys are funny.

theruiner
12-13-2011, 11:14 PM
How about the fact that every GOP candidate seems hellbent on repealing Obama's healthcare changes once they get into office? Anyone with an ongoing health issue should be concerned about that. Just ask this woman, who was saved from bankruptcy by Obama's "horrible, socialist" healthcare plan. (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/06/opinion/la-oe-ward-in-praise-of-obamacare-20111206)

Of course, she is "poor," so I'm sure 50 Volt would have been much happier with her going bankrupt and ending up in the street than getting any sort of help from the government. And then, once she was in the street, dying of breast cancer with no roof over her head, he'd make sure she didn't have any welfare coming in, just so she can starve that much quicker.

Mantra
12-13-2011, 11:54 PM
How about the fact that every GOP candidate seems hellbent on repealing Obama's healthcare changes once they get into office? Anyone with an ongoing health issue should be concerned about that. Just ask this woman, who was saved from bankruptcy by Obama's "horrible, socialist" healthcare plan. (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/06/opinion/la-oe-ward-in-praise-of-obamacare-20111206)

Of course, she is "poor," so I'm sure 50 Volt would have been much happier with her going bankrupt and ending up in the street than getting any sort of help from the government. And then, once she was in the street, dying of breast cancer with no roof over her head, he'd make sure she didn't have any welfare coming in, just so she can starve that much quicker.

Well maybe she should have worked harder!!

sublimaze
12-14-2011, 12:17 AM
Apparently merit has nothing to do with how hard you work. It's how "smart" you work. :p

Corvus T. Cosmonaut
12-14-2011, 03:38 AM
I think gay marriage is a state issue, not a federal one, and I'm pretty "meh" in general about it anyway, it really doesn't register high on my priorities.
That's cool, bro. But for those of us who support legal recognition of gay marriage, it's a constitutional issue, and that's federal.

icklekitty
12-14-2011, 04:37 AM
For any non-US friends and folks here who have seen candidate Rick Perry's recent online ads: what do you think?

I think I said on Facebook that the video made me realise how weird it is that the US is a first world country. I don't think I can think of any other first world countries where that would be acceptable, let alone where someone would use that to get elected. I'm not trying to imply that gay rights means good politician or good economy it's just...SO WEIRD. In several ways I'm seeing more links with the US and India than any other country (partly because how social and sexual politics in India is changing)

Also the thought momentarily flashed across my mind that if the US wasn't connected to other countries I'd quite like to set it on fire.

theruiner
12-14-2011, 07:37 AM
I think gay marriage is a state issue, not a federal one, and I'm pretty "meh" in general about it anyway, it really doesn't register high on my priorities.
That's cool, bro. But for those of us who support legal recognition of gay marriage, it's a constitutional issue, and that's federal.And I'm going to take it a step further and say anyone who is "meh" on the issue is not much better than the homophobes who are blatantly against it. "Yeah, there is an entire group of people in this country being discriminated against and aren't being given their rights, but, you know...whatever."

And no, it shouldn't be a states issue. That's ridiculous.

Sallos
12-14-2011, 07:45 AM
One think i dont get is that if republicans, right wingers are against state intervention in both economic and personal life of the individuals, how come the state must have a say in who someone can or cannot marry? As a right winger myself i find that abominable

allegro
12-14-2011, 07:56 AM
Drugs, too. Reagan started the "War on Drugs."

50 Volt Phantom
12-14-2011, 10:06 AM
First of all I think there are things more pivotal to our country right now then gay marriage, I'm "meh" on it because a) it's not an issue that solves a huge number of our problems, like healthcare for instance, and b) because I personally am not invested in it, it's not like I'm out protesting against it, that hardly makes me a homophobe theruiner. I thought you were done with me anyway...

Now, I want Obamacare repealed too, because I also believe there are MAJOR problems with healthcare, like the story posted. As a person who has had cancer affect family members I'm very sensitive to the subject and the last thing that I would want is for someone to not have the chance to survive it, but socialized healthcare is not the solution, in England they've cut back on cancer treatments because their system can't afford it, which is no wonder why they're trying to pull free from government healthcare. I also had the opportunity to have friends from Canada who flat out said their system isn't all it's cracked up to be, one had to have her lungs scanned and x-rayed and simply could not believe she could get that done in a matter of days while her mother was waiting 3 months to have one of her eyes examined up in Canada. All of my friends from Canada agreed cancer is a kiss of death up north and America is really the only good solution.

icklekitty
12-14-2011, 10:20 AM
in England they've cut back on cancer treatments because their system can't afford it, which is no wonder why they're trying to pull free from government healthcare.

No, they haven't cut back on cancer treatments here at all, and I'm speaking as the daughter of someone that recently went through cancer treatment on the NHS. Look: 150m investment (http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/interactive/news/150m-investment-in-cutting-edge-cancer-treatment--id801237889-t116.html) into cutting-edge cancer treatment. Here's (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2073401/Cancer-patients-given-revolutionary-proton-beam-therapy-UK-instead-sent-abroad.html) that story again. Bowel cancer screening (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16065624) on course to cut deaths by 1/6. Have you misread this article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2072928/Call-cut-cancer-home-treatment-stop-bankrupting-healthcare-systems.html?ito=feeds-newsxml), which states that COSTS could be cut by treating patients at home? This isn't a reduction in care, it's a reduction in spending - huge difference there. This story (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iVQpDXm86Q-rXgpiRcZxnIqmy6eg?docId=N0390091323608767112A) says that costs will increase over the next decade IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR (BUPA is private healthcare (http://www.hi-mag.com/health-insurance/product-area/pmi/article386385.ece), not the NHS), but doesn't say anything about cutting back on treatment. I'd like to know what news story you read that says we're cutting back on cancer treatments here.

We're not trying to pull free from government healthcare at all, quite the opposite. We're trying to encourage the government to put MORE funding into healthcare. Privatised healthcare exists in this country (http://www.hcahospitals.co.uk/), anyway, so those who prefer it don't need to pull away from anything.

And besides, England doesn't have a national healthcare system. It's a British system, not an English one.

allegro
12-14-2011, 10:31 AM
Our whole healthcare system is totally fucked and Obama's plan won't come anywhere near fixing it. I pay $400 per month for my insurance, with a $2,500 deductible. My boss can't afford to pay for my insurance because he's a sole practitioner spending thousands per month on his wife's health insurance due to her pre-existing conditions (three types of cancer). Recently, I had to have a bunch of ultrasounds and tests done at the hospital, per my docs, to see if I had cancer. I'm fine, but it cost me my $2,500 deductible and MORE so far. THE COST OF HEALTH CARE IS THE PROBLEM AND MORE INSURANCE OR GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED HEALTH CARE WON'T CHANGE THAT.

I'm in a PPO. Here's what always happens: My insurance company (Humana) gets a bill for, say, $640. Humana demands a substantial "network discount" from the doc or hospital and the bill gets knocked down to, say, $198. Humana pays for 80% of that and the doc or hospital bills me for the rest. Meanwhile, what if I didn't have insurance? Would I have to pay the $640? Or, is $640 the bullshit "we'll never get that" rate that the med providers deliberately increase knowing it'll get knocked down? (list price, MSRP). This is Standard Operating Procedure, here. Literally. I had surgery years ago, and my doc billed $13,000 for the surgery. Know how much Humana paid him? $7,000. And he took it and ran.

Meanwhile, a government system (right now) won't work primarily because the government does a SHIT job at paying its bills. A few months ago, G's mom got a notice from Medicare that they paid her hospital bill ...BUT SHE DIED A YEAR AND A HALF AGO!! IN THE HOSPITAL!! If you're a healthcare provider, would you even ACCEPT that insurance? Probably not. Who wants to wait 18 months to get paid???

Socialized medicine won't work, here, because our government fucks up everything it touches. If we had a giant PRIVATE GROUP HEALTH CARE PLAN, wherein we get affordable premiums (THAT WE PAY OURSELVES, all you right-wingers) with all the benefits of a group policy, that'd be great; but it WILL NOT fix the giant profit-generating shithole that is U.S. medicine.

Oh, and p.s.: None of the Republican candidates have a solution, either, and even if they did, they won't risk suggesting a cost-saving solution because they get too many campaign contributions from high-paid people and corporations in the medical industry. Frankly, Dems do, too. But money don't vote. THE VOTERS have to have the balls to demand change to the COSTS of healthcare and insurance. Obamacare is like saying "we'll HELP you pay for that $9,000 placemat!"

p.p.s. Same-sex marriage is a big issue primarily because of benefits like ... drum roll, please ... HEALTH INSURANCE!!!

theruiner
12-14-2011, 11:17 AM
^^I'm not saying what Obama did is going to fix everything; I don't think anyone is. But is the alternative better? Getting people insurance who otherwise couldn't be insured because of pre-existing conditions seems to be a step in the right direction, at least. There are a LOT of people who are going to be helped by that, who otherwise would have gone into bankruptcy otherwise.

See also 2.5 million people who now have heatlhcare coverage that didn't before, thanks to the changes Obama put into effect. (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/12/14/389000/new-data-obamacare-extends-health-coverage-to-25-million-young-adults) I'd say that's a pretty damn big improvement.



First of all I think there are things more pivotal to our country right now then gay marriage, I'm "meh" on it because a) it's not an issue that solves a huge number of our problems, like healthcare for instance, and b) because I personally am not invested in it, it's not like I'm out protesting against it, that hardly makes me a homophobe theruiner.Yeah, but we can chew gum and walk at the same time. Just because there are other big issues going on doesn't mean a portion of our population being denied their rights isn't a HUGE deal, and it doesn't mean you can't support gay marriage. Also, the fact that you don't care about it because you're not "personally invested in it" says a lot about you. I'm not personally invested in it either, but I actually care about other people, which is why I want them to have equal rights, and I don't want them starving in the street. It's a crazy thing, this thinking of people other than myself.

allegro
12-14-2011, 11:21 AM
Obama's system won't work because it's not lowering the cost of the healthcare. It just shifts the high cost of healthcare from individuals without insurance to taxpayers or to employers or to insurance companies, who then pass it off to everybody else. Yes, demanding that insurance companies play fair is fine, but you can guess WHY they don't want to insure people with pre-existing conditions: BECAUSE IT COSTS A SHITLOAD OF MONEY. And it eats the insurance company's profits. Don't give me that "not-for-profit" shit, the board members are getting huge salaries and benefits. When cancer treatment costs $600,000 per year (we have a friend with ovarian cancer), can you see why the insurance company don't wanna cover it? Ain't no premiums in the world gonna pay for that shit. When the insurance companies go under, nobody benefits. The only solution is to force hospitals and doctors to reduce these ridiculous costs and profits. But, yeah, that ain't gonna happen, either, is it? They can afford to pay for Washington protection.

edit:
2.5 million people who now have heatlhcare coverage that didn't before, thanks to the changes Obama put into effect (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/12/14/389000/new-data-obamacare-extends-health-coverage-to-25-million-young-adults)
That sounds wonderful except there's a catch: Employers are covering that cost. And they're fucking their employees, using it as an excuse. "No raises or hiring, this year; Obamacare increased our premiums so your share of insurance will increase, and you'll have to do two jobs because we can't afford to hire anyone [lest it eat our bonuses this year] so you're gonna have to suck it up, I hope your married 25-year-old is enjoying your insurance coverage!" Employers can be total greedy assholes, ya know. This just gives them one more excuse.

Tea
12-14-2011, 11:57 AM
Without Obama Care, I wouldn't have had insurance for over a year. It was only emergency insurance, but hell, I would still be paying off my one night in the ER last January for the next four years if I didn't have it. It was a small relief in a still fucked up system, but it was something.

50 Volt, would you be "meh" about slavery if it didn't directly affect you? I don't understand this kind of attitude against other peoples' rights.
And in response to your "what rights" question, Jinsai answered it well. As a female who does not want children, the prospect of abortion rights being thrown out is frightening, as well.

PooPooMeowChow
12-14-2011, 11:58 AM
Ron Paul Stole the show in the last debate, he owned it. He the only person who shows up to have an actual debate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtxpsP66PU4&feature=related

Hes tied with Newt for first in Iowa now, look out.

50 Volt Phantom
12-14-2011, 12:37 PM
Boy for people that rail against Fox News for sensationalism a bunch of you aren't any better, I mean comparing slavery to gay marriage, that is just fucking idiotic, and really dilutes the true atrocity of slavery.

littlemonkey613
12-14-2011, 12:38 PM
It would be really nice to have a President that believes in you know facts.... like Evolution and Climate Change.

Mantra
12-14-2011, 12:48 PM
One think i dont get is that if republicans, right wingers are against state intervention in both economic and personal life of the individuals, how come the state must have a say in who someone can or cannot marry?

I've always thought this was a weird contradiction in American conservatism.

I think it comes from the alliance of social conservatives with business conservatives. I'm not sure what Corporate America and the Church have to do with each other, but they both vote for the same party. Businessmen rant about wanting small government, but pastors rant about preserving family values. And meanwhile Republican politicians need votes from both camps, so they end up with these self-contradicting platforms.

50 Volt Phantom
12-14-2011, 12:48 PM
Ya, especially after another huge email dump showing more numbers bended purposefully to try to make global warming seem real.... I mean my dad remembers when the ice age was coming when he was a kid, I think he's still waiting.

allegro
12-14-2011, 12:50 PM
They don't call it "global warming," anymore. It's called "climate change."

Shit, *I* remember the ice age scare (it was in the 70s). Certain climates do in fact appear to be warming. It provides a moral dilemma as to whether drowning the majority of the human population is a bad thing. I'm voting BRAVO. The rest of the flora and fauna will thrive, and humans can learn to swim. Or hold their breath for a really really long time. We've become like cockroaches; time for Earth to provide a giant can of liquid RAID. Wow, I'm so radical.

Look, whether or not climate change is as dire of a risk as claimed, or not, the POINT is that we need to control pollution. How that's a bad thing is beyond me, other than it reaches into the pockets of billionaires. Who are probably gonna be on the bottom of the Earth Swim Team.

50 Volt Phantom
12-14-2011, 01:00 PM
Now see I can buy into climate change overall, because it's been proven that there's been and ebb and flow for millions of years, I can even buy into human's having a role, but not on the level of significance that the climate change people are saying, and certainly not after the proof that they've been messing with the numbers.

By the way, I believe in evolution, before that gets questioned.

littlemonkey613
12-14-2011, 01:04 PM
First of all I think there are things more pivotal to our country right now then gay marriage, I'm "meh" on it because a) it's not an issue that solves a huge number of our problems, like healthcare for instance, and b) because I personally am not invested in it, it's not like I'm out protesting against it, that hardly makes me a homophobe theruiner. I thought you were done with me anyway...

Now, I want Obamacare repealed too, because I also believe there are MAJOR problems with healthcare, like the story posted. As a person who has had cancer affect family members I'm very sensitive to the subject and the last thing that I would want is for someone to not have the chance to survive it, but socialized healthcare is not the solution, in England they've cut back on cancer treatments because their system can't afford it, which is no wonder why they're trying to pull free from government healthcare. I also had the opportunity to have friends from Canada who flat out said their system isn't all it's cracked up to be, one had to have her lungs scanned and x-rayed and simply could not believe she could get that done in a matter of days while her mother was waiting 3 months to have one of her eyes examined up in Canada. All of my friends from Canada agreed cancer is a kiss of death up north and America is really the only good solution.

Obama's healthcare plan isn't even socialized medicine ............There are millions of people who now have insurance because of his bill. Repealing it LITERALLY means stripping away the healthcare from millions of people and offering NO alternative. What the hell do you say to those people? Btw in Canada its slower because everyone's allowed in line. In America we just kick the poor out and don't even give them a waiting period. An ACTUAL kiss of death.

theruiner
12-14-2011, 01:10 PM
^^Exactly!


Obama's system won't work because it's not lowering the cost of the healthcare. It just shifts the high cost of healthcare from individuals without insurance to taxpayers or to employers or to insurance companies, who then pass it off to everybody else. Yes, demanding that insurance companies play fair is fine, but you can guess WHY they don't want to insure people with pre-existing conditions: BECAUSE IT COSTS A SHITLOAD OF MONEY. And it eats the insurance company's profits. Don't give me that "not-for-profit" shit, the board members are getting huge salaries and benefits. When cancer treatment costs $600,000 per year (we have a friend with ovarian cancer), can you see why the insurance company don't wanna cover it? Ain't no premiums in the world gonna pay for that shit. When the insurance companies go under, nobody benefits. The only solution is to force hospitals and doctors to reduce these ridiculous costs and profits. But, yeah, that ain't gonna happen, either, is it? They can afford to pay for Washington protection.So...the answer is to just leave people without health coverage? Pre-existing conditions cost a lot of money, so should we just go ahead and leave things the way they were, and people with pre-existing conditions can just get fucked? I can't understand why extending health care to more people is a bad thing. Yes, it doesn't completely solve the health care fiasco in this country, I agree, and yes, costs need to come down, but it's sure better than nothing.


2.5 million people who now have heatlhcare coverage that didn't before, thanks to the changes Obama put into effect (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/12/14/389000/new-data-obamacare-extends-health-coverage-to-25-million-young-adults)
That sounds wonderful except there's a catch: Employers are covering that cost. And they're fucking their employees, using it as an excuse. "No raises or hiring, this year; Obamacare increased our premiums so your share of insurance will increase, and you'll have to do two jobs because we can't afford to hire anyone [lest it eat our bonuses this year] so you're gonna have to suck it up, I hope your married 25-year-old is enjoying your insurance coverage!" Employers can be total greedy assholes, ya know. This just gives them one more excuse.By that logic, we should just tax all employers nothing. And lower the minimum wage to a dollar an hour. It's the same logic as, "we can't raise taxes on the job creators, because then they'll get mad and take it out on us." We should just give up now and give corporations everything they want, regardless of the consequences to society, because we're afraid of what they're going to do to us.

allegro
12-14-2011, 01:13 PM
Ruiner, I have no suggestion other than the one I keep saying: COSTS should be reduced. Pre-existings cost a lot because hospitals charge way too fucking much. Period. $100,000 per chemo treatment is insane. But, we just say "oh well, that's how much it costs. I need to get insurance to pay for that." Why not just make them stop charging so much fucking money? The hospitals tell you, "oh, but we have OVERHEAD." Bullshit. Bullshit bullshit bullshit.


By that logic, we should just tax all employers nothing. And lower the minimum wage to a dollar an hour. It's the same logic as, "we can't raise taxes on the job creators, because then they'll get mad and take it out on us." We should just give up now and give corporations everything they want, regardless of the consequences to society, because we're afraid of what they're going to do to us.
Employers aren't hiring for lots of reasons, the biggest one being: "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free??" If they have 10 employees who are doing the work of 15, hey, why the fuck should they change THAT? This is exactly what happened in the 80s.

theruiner
12-14-2011, 01:35 PM
^^I'm not ignoring you, Allegro, I'm just at work and my lunch is over, so I'll respond later. I only say that because I'm posting a quick response to something else and I didn't want it to seem like I just skipped past what you said. :)



Boy for people that rail against Fox News for sensationalism a bunch of you aren't any better, I mean comparing slavery to gay marriage, that is just fucking idiotic, and really dilutes the true atrocity of slavery.Way to completely miss his point. Or misrepresent it on purpose. One of the two. Because that's not what he said. At all.

Tea
12-14-2011, 02:17 PM
Boy for people that rail against Fox News for sensationalism a bunch of you aren't any better, I mean comparing slavery to gay marriage, that is just fucking idiotic, and really dilutes the true atrocity of slavery.

Way to completely miss his point. Or misrepresent it on purpose. One of the two. Because that's not what he said. At all.

I'm not saying they're the same thing or the same caliber. I'm saying it's a case of not letting a certain group of people have certain rights (gays don't even have the right to have sex in many states) but you don't care because you're personally unaffected, which is how slavery began and continued. "Well, it's not me!" Being part of a democracy should entail some empathy for your fellow citizens; we are supposed to be equal in this country, and that includes equal rights and equal opportunities.

Mantra
12-14-2011, 03:43 PM
THE COST OF HEALTH CARE IS THE PROBLEM AND MORE INSURANCE OR GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED HEALTH CARE WON'T CHANGE THAT.

I'm in a PPO. Here's what always happens: My insurance company (Humana) gets a bill for, say, $640. Humana demands a substantial "network discount" from the doc or hospital and the bill gets knocked down to, say, $198. Humana pays for 80% of that and the doc or hospital bills me for the rest. Meanwhile, what if I didn't have insurance? Would I have to pay the $640? Or, is $640 the bullshit "we'll never get that" rate that the med providers deliberately increase knowing it'll get knocked down? (list price, MSRP). This is Standard Operating Procedure, here. Literally. I had surgery years ago, and my doc billed $13,000 for the surgery. Know how much Humana paid him? $7,000. And he took it and ran.


The situation you're describing is the direct result of a privatized health care system. That swap-meet style of haggling over the bill is what drives the hospitals to artificially jack up the cost. It's only logical that both sides are gonna fight to maximize their own profits because...that's just what private companies do. You'll never lower the cost of healthcare as long as insurance companies and providers are free to negotiate cost between themselves like that.

theruiner
12-14-2011, 03:50 PM
^^Bingo.

(ten characters)

Jinsai
12-14-2011, 04:29 PM
All of my friends from Canada agreed cancer is a kiss of death up north and America is really the only good solution.

Do you actually know anybody from Canada? Be honest.
I'm half Canadian, so I've got quite a bit of family that lives in Canada. They're actually a pretty conservative bunch for the most part, but they'd laugh at the idea of trading health care systems with America.

icklekitty
12-14-2011, 05:09 PM
50 Volt, would you be "meh" about slavery if it didn't directly affect you?


That's precisely what I thought. Gay rights is of no less value than "race" rights. To draw this parallel is not hyperbole in the slightest.


I also think that silence often speaks louder than words....no evidence for those claims about the British healthcare systems, 50 volt?

50 Volt Phantom
12-14-2011, 06:50 PM
I was posting mainly from work on my phone during lunch and it's hard to answer 5 people all at once.

First, you all make it sound like gay people have absolutely nothing without gay marriage, that their rights just don't exist at all, when in fact they are not that oppressed. Slavery on the other hand is an entirely different situation, suggesting that I'd be okay with slavery because I'm indifferent to gay marriage, would be like to me saying I must be cool with physical and sexual abuse on a child because I don't take a stance on giving a kid a spanking as punishment, I don't have a kid and so am not personally affected, therefore I must be okay with both, and that is stupid. I think it's horrible that partners can't have access to each other in hospitals because they are not married, that's not right, but I'm still indifferent to the actual act of gay marriage, it seems like a title thing that's being fought for more than anything, not any kind of actual oppression. I'm sure you all disagree of course.

As for healthcare, I'd first like to get it out there that not all CEO's or bosses or whatever are a bunch of greedy assholes, like seems to be the constant message here. Some companies can't hire people because of Obamacare's increased expenses, not because the CEO can't get that Porsche he always wanted, but because the expenses restrain their ability to spend the resources necessary to hire someone. It's not like hiring someone doesn't cost a company a lot of money and time, especially if training is involved, and it's not like giving raises doesn't do the same. A company has to balance what they can spend based on what they are making and being asked to pay, what do you expect a company to do if they find that hiring people and having to pay Obamacare's expenses is unsustainable or simply not in the company's best interest?

Jinsai, I do in fact know people from Canada, I lived with someone from Alberta for 3 years, and worked with and am friends with someone from Toronto, I met other Canadians while going to school, and I knew people that went up to Canada for internships/schooling. The general consensus from all of them was about the same, "wow, going to the doctor down here is so great." One of the people that went up north had a medical issue and could not believe how long it took for them to make it into an actual doctor's office, several months actually.

Iciclekitty, I didn't have time to post links earlier, here are some for now:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/01/better_health_care_97244.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6127514/Sentenced-to-death-on-the-NHS.html
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/justin-mccarthy/2008/10/08/joy-behar-france-denmark-england-solved-healthcare
http://www.healthjournalism.org/blog/2010/03/reports-reveal-problems-in-englands-nhs/

theruiner
12-14-2011, 06:59 PM
First, you all make it sound like gay people have absolutely nothing without gay marriage, that their rights just don't exist at all, when in fact they are not that oppressed. Slavery on the other hand is an entirely different situation, suggesting that I'd be okay with slavery because I'm indifferent to gay marriage, would be like to me saying I must be cool with physical and sexual abuse on a child because I don't take a stance on giving a kid a spanking as punishment, I don't have a kid and so am not personally affected, therefore I must be okay with both, and that is stupid. I think it's horrible that partners can't have access to each other in hospitals because they are not married, that's not right, but I'm still indifferent to the actual act of gay marriage, it seems like a title thing that's being fought for more than anything, not any kind of actual oppression. I'm sure you all disagree of course.You don't think not having equal rights is that big of a deal? Even if they got all the same "rights" except it just wasn't called marriage, it would still be blatant discrimination, and they still wouldn't be given equal rights. That's kind of like saying, "Yeah, I mean, I don't get what the big deal is. So black people have a separate drinking fountain. So what? They're still getting water, aren't they? They're just not allowed to use the same drinking fountain as everyone else." Separate is not equal.


I do in fact know people from Canada, I lived with someone from Alberta for 3 years, and worked with and am friends with someone from Toronto, I met other Canadians while going to school, and I knew people that went up to Canada for internships/schooling. The general consensus from all of them was about the same, "wow, going to the doctor down here is so great." One of the people that went up north had a medical issue and could not believe how long it took for them to make it into an actual doctor's office, several months actually.


Btw in Canada its slower because everyone's allowed in line. In America we just kick the poor out and don't even give them a waiting period. An ACTUAL kiss of death.


Also:


As for healthcare, I'd first like to get it out there that not all CEO's or bosses or whatever are a bunch of greedy assholes, like seems to be the constant message here.For the last time, and I don't know how many times it has to be said (this is MY THIRD TIME SAYING IT): no one is saying all CEOs are greedy assholes. Honestly, did you not read the other two times I said that?



As for healthcare, I'd first like to get it out there that not all CEO's or bosses or whatever are a bunch of greedy assholes, like seems to be the constant message here. Some companies can't hire people because of Obamacare's increased expenses, not because the CEO can't get that Porsche he always wanted, but because the expenses restrain their ability to spend the resources necessary to hire someone. It's not like hiring someone doesn't cost a company a lot of money and time, especially if training is involved, and it's not like giving raises doesn't do the same. A company has to balance what they can spend based on what they are making and being asked to pay, what do you expect a company to do if they find that hiring people and having to pay Obamacare's expenses is unsustainable or simply not in the company's best interest?How do you know that's going to be the case by and large? And even if it is, you've got to balance that out against the HUGE amount of good that this reform is going to do for average Americans. I'm not sure I buy this argument.

50 Volt Phantom
12-14-2011, 08:45 PM
I really don't see the comparison between slavery/segregation and gay marriage, like I said it comes off to me as more of a struggle for a title then an equality, and again, I'm not against gay marriage, it's just not something I think about that often, I don't know why this has become such a major deal.

Now to your healthcare comment, I can only say that companies have been vocal about the limitations, multiple businesses took to the local radio here to say they simply can't expand or hire currently with the rising expenses. I'm not arguing anything other than the facts, the good of the people can be accomplished other ways than Obamacare, as have already been discussed.

littlemonkey613
12-14-2011, 09:36 PM
I really don't see the comparison between slavery/segregation and gay marriage, like I said it comes off to me as more of a struggle for a title then an equality, and again, I'm not against gay marriage, it's just not something I think about that often, I don't know why this has become such a major deal.



Because if you think its not a struggle for equality then you are mistaken. It's not just a title, there are asset rights, medical rights, immigration rights, etc. all dependent on gay marriage.

allegro
12-14-2011, 09:59 PM
The situation you're describing is the direct result of a privatized health care system. That swap-meet style of haggling over the bill is what drives the hospitals to artificially jack up the cost. It's only logical that both sides are gonna fight to maximize their own profits because...that's just what private companies do. You'll never lower the cost of healthcare as long as insurance companies and providers are free to negotiate cost between themselves like that.

Well, yes. Except the Government runs Medicare. And insurance providers and the Government pay what is considered "reasonable and customary."

littlemonkey613
12-14-2011, 10:42 PM
First, you all make it sound like gay people have absolutely nothing without gay marriage, that their rights just don't exist at all, when in fact they are not that oppressed.

If you don't want people to make a big deal , stop writing such blatantly ignorant things such as this. You only think they are not that oppressed because you are in the majority and cannot fathom what they go through living in a country like this. Oppression and discrimination isn't always blatant and obvious either. You have to be paying attention. This is a ridiculously heterosexist society and for someone to belittle the struggle of others and say they "aren't that oppressed" is highly insulting.

theruiner
12-14-2011, 11:23 PM
^^Thank you!

sublimaze
12-15-2011, 12:05 AM
Just a few thoughts on health care.

The previously proposed "public option" in the ACA was not "socialized." Everyone would have to pay premiums and deductibles, co-pays, etc., but the uninsured citizen would have the same bargaining power in negotiating prices for insurance as a large company. The current health-care exchanges are somewhat similar, except that individuals have to buy insurance from an existing company, the vast majority of which are for-profit. Mandated, yes, but that's not socialism. To drive, you are mandated to buy liability insurance, but that's not socialism.

A nice little bit of ACA is that it caps the amount of expenses companies can use for non-benefit purposes. IOW, profits, administration, etc.

By and large, the crappy economy is what is keeping businessness from hiring, not the ACA. The ACA is just a convenient excuse. I don't want to get into a discussion about economics, but that's analogous to someone saying they don't want to make more money because taxes are higher. Even if you pay a higher percentage, you still make more money overall. Which is a big whopping DUH!

theruiner
12-15-2011, 12:33 AM
By and large, the crappy economy is what is keeping businessness from hiring, not the ACA. The ACA is just a convenient excuse. I don't want to get into a discussion about economics, but that's analogous to someone saying they don't want to make more money because taxes are higher. Even if you pay a higher percentage, you still make more money overall. Which is a big whopping DUH!Better than I could have said it.

chris
12-15-2011, 02:17 AM
I'm not sure what Corporate America and the Church have to do with each other, but they both vote for the same party.
It is in the capitalist's interest to have you think that your worth in the eyes of your God is defined by your material success, and they have been largely successful in molding theology to this view: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_Capitalism (over 100 years old but still relevant). Or for a more blatant & modern definition, see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology

icklekitty
12-15-2011, 03:52 AM
article links


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/01/better_health_care_97244.html - this isn't about cutting down on cancer treatment. The hospital mentioned there has been shut down.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6127514/Sentenced-to-death-on-the-NHS.html This is an article about euthanasia and a scheme developed by a cancer charity to help terminally ill patients. This isn't about cutting down on cancer treatment. Indeed, this is about whether a new practice is worthwhile - it's got nothing to do with private/public distinctions. I've even seen this storyline discussed in fucking Scrubs.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/justin-mccarthy/2008/10/08/joy-behar-france-denmark-england-solved-healthcare - again, this says nothing about the NHS cutting down on cancer treatment. It says that people are talking about turning away drinkers and smokers from NHS treatment. Just because they've raised the issue doesn't mean it's been implemented. (I know this because my dad is a heavy drinker and smoker and got free cancer treatment last year). If it were introduced these people would still be free to be treated under the US system, which also exists here (http://www.hcahospitals.co.uk/).

http://www.healthjournalism.org/blog/2010/03/reports-reveal-problems-in-englands-nhs/ - this isn't about cutting down on cancer treatment - this is about cleanliness in hospitals. The CQC's job is to look at this. According to CBS you don't have one (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/13/health/healthy_living/main3055393.shtml).



So I ask again: where is the proof for your claim about the "English" healthcare system, that


in England they've cut back on cancer treatments because their system can't afford it, which is no wonder why they're trying to pull free from government healthcare. ?

Also it's icklekitty, not Iciclekitty.

Tea
12-15-2011, 10:49 AM
I was posting mainly from work on my phone during lunch and it's hard to answer 5 people all at once.

First, you all make it sound like gay people have absolutely nothing without gay marriage, that their rights just don't exist at all, when in fact they are not that oppressed.
Where is someone implying this? Just because people are fighting for a certain right doesn't mean they think it's everything and all. But think about what we're about here- a group of people that are defined, in this context, by their sexual preference; why would marriage not be important?
And how on earth can you say that gay people aren't that oppressed when they only recently made it okay for open homosexuals to join the military? When it's okay in most of the country to turn down homosexuals from a job just because they are gay? When the biggest insulting word for children and many adults is "gay"? Imagine if it was "nigger" or "black".


Slavery on the other hand is an entirely different situation, suggesting that I'd be okay with slavery because I'm indifferent to gay marriage, would be like to me saying I must be cool with physical and sexual abuse on a child because I don't take a stance on giving a kid a spanking as punishment, I don't have a kid and so am not personally affected, therefore I must be okay with both, and that is stupid. I think it's horrible that partners can't have access to each other in hospitals because they are not married, that's not right, but I'm still indifferent to the actual act of gay marriage, it seems like a title thing that's being fought for more than anything, not any kind of actual oppression. I'm sure you all disagree of course.
I was not implying you were okay with slavery, I was trying to make you think about your stance a bit. That when you vote for politicians that state that being gay is flat out wrong, you're keeping one more group of people in our country at an inequality, in fucking 2012.
How is marriage only a title? Do you not believe in marriage for straight people, either? And I know you're saying that despite knowledge of the benefits of marriage in the US- so I'm pretty sure you're lying right there.

Gay marriage is a big deal because Republicans are making it one. It's a big deal because Christians are making other people's business their business, and Republicans are following them. If they just left people alone, we wouldn't be debating about this.

littlemonkey613
12-15-2011, 03:36 PM
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/census-shows-1-2-people-103940568.html

50 Volt Phantom
12-15-2011, 06:53 PM
Sorry Icklekitty, I wasn't aware we were talking about the cancer treatment in particular, here you go:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8349297/Cancer-sufferers-refused-life-extending-drugs-despite-Government-pledge.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1270160/Betrayed-NHS-Doctor-gave-life-health-service-refused-vital-cancer-drugs-save-her.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/6284532.stm

As for the gay marriage discussion, sorry, I just don't have the energy, you guys all keep up the good fight though I guess.

On to other news, people are all worrying about rights being taken away under a Republican president, and I know there's a thread for this already, but it looks like Obama will be signing in the NDAA, so what do you have to say now? It's kind of like when Obama and his DOJ declared themselves completely immune to lawsuits against the government based on warrantless wiretapping, something many believe even Bush wouldn't have been so brazen to do.

sublimaze
12-15-2011, 08:16 PM
Sorry Icklekitty, I wasn't aware we were talking about the cancer treatment in particular, here you go:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8349297/Cancer-sufferers-refused-life-extending-drugs-despite-Government-pledge.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1270160/Betrayed-NHS-Doctor-gave-life-health-service-refused-vital-cancer-drugs-save-her.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/6284532.stm

As for the gay marriage discussion, sorry, I just don't have the energy, you guys all keep up the good fight though I guess.

On to other news, people are all worrying about rights being taken away under a Republican president, and I know there's a thread for this already, but it looks like Obama will be signing in the NDAA, so what do you have to say now? It's kind of like when Obama and his DOJ declared themselves completely immune to lawsuits against the government based on warrantless wiretapping, something many believe even Bush wouldn't have been so brazen to do.

Reference #1--The Telegraph is a Murdoch-owned newspaper. And the claims aren't supported by actual data.
Reference #2--Anecdotal and not supported by standard medical care. No reputable medical center in the US would resect a liver metastasis from breast cancer. It's beyond ridiculous. Rejection of costly desperate measures does not equal withholding of reasonable and evidence-based medical care.
Reference #3--Same problem as #1 and #2. Sensationalist journalism without actual statistics to back up the claims. Just sticking numbers into an article isn't evidence.

Warrantless wiretapping didn't originate with the Obama administration. The same administration accused of being "soft" on terrorism. And the NDAA has been watered down.

theruiner
12-15-2011, 08:23 PM
And the NDAA has been watered down.Where did you hear that? I'm not being accusatory; I'm genuinely asking. I searched all over today and couldn't find any info on it. Last I read (this morning), The Guardian indicated that the provisions in question were still in the bill.

sublimaze
12-15-2011, 08:31 PM
I think it was on Think Progress or something. I'm too tired right now to look it up, but the original Politico article was a false alarm.

50 Volt Phantom
12-15-2011, 08:31 PM
Reference #1--The Telegraph is a Murdoch-owned newspaper. And the claims aren't supported by actual data.
Reference #2--Anecdotal and not supported by standard medical care. No reputable medical center in the US would resect a liver metastasis from breast cancer. It's beyond ridiculous. Rejection of costly desperate measures does not equal withholding of reasonable and evidence-based medical care.
Reference #3--Same problem as #1 and #2. Sensationalist journalism without actual statistics to back up the claims. Just sticking numbers into an article isn't evidence.

Warrantless wiretapping didn't originate with the Obama administration. The same administration accused of being "soft" on terrorism. And the NDAA has been watered down.
Next time I'll just post Huffington Post articles...

Warrantless wiretapping didn't originate with the Obama administration, but Obama and his Department of Justice made the government immune to lawsuits involving it, and the NDAA hasn't been watered down all that much, the new version has ruled out any limitations of the President's authorities and removed the requirement of military detention.

icklekitty
12-16-2011, 04:37 AM
Reference #1--The Telegraph is a Murdoch-owned newspaper. And the claims aren't supported by actual data.
Reference #2--Anecdotal and not supported by standard medical care. No reputable medical center in the US would resect a liver metastasis from breast cancer. It's beyond ridiculous. Rejection of costly desperate measures does not equal withholding of reasonable and evidence-based medical care.
Reference #3--Same problem as #1 and #2. Sensationalist journalism without actual statistics to back up the claims. Just sticking numbers into an article isn't evidence.

Warrantless wiretapping didn't originate with the Obama administration. The same administration accused of being "soft" on terrorism. And the NDAA has been watered down.


It's interesting that #1 ends with this:

Her case, featured in The Sunday Telegraph, was among several to trigger a public outcry about the way NHS rationing decisions are made, resulting in a Conservative party election manifesto pledge last year to set up the 200 million drugs fund. Health Minister Anne Milton said: “Since October, more and more patients are being treated with life-extending drugs that they wouldn’t have got under the previous system. Demand for the fund will vary across the country; we set up the fund in order to balance out existing variation in access.”

In addition, the comments point out some interesting comparisons between this and the US, where drugs are also unaffordable. This is more a debate between life-extending drugs vs palliative care (see Volt's first set of articles which didn't support his claim) than "cutting cancer treatment". There is more than one way to treat cancer. Additionally, those who REALLY DO want the drugs can (as I've said before) take the US healthcare route - the NHS isn't the only health system in the UK. People are welcome to do the whole insurance premiums thing and go to a different set of hospitals and pay retail prices for their drugs. On the NHS, ALL drugs cost 7.20 ($12ish) per prescription. Unless you're over 65, then everything is free. Birth control is also free.

Therefore for #3 those who want Sutent can buy it retail/privately (i.e. like the US system).

And #2....why didn't she go 5 miles to her neighbouring PCT to get the treatment then?! In the UK you're allowed to go to any practice you see fit for the treatment you want. Why didn't she get a second opinion from another doctor instead of visiting her GP three times? (Interesting to note: misdiagnosis happens in the private sector too. Here is a very high-profile example (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7336164.stm))

Also worth noting that the Daily Mail is basically FOX news in print. They have a reputation for a pretty warped view of things when it comes to cancer. (http://kill-or-cure.heroku.com/) Nonetheless, if you don't agree with that here's the above celebrity story in the Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-558062/Doctors-didnt-spot-breast-cancer-Kylie-reveals.html).
I

sublimaze
12-16-2011, 07:33 PM
Next time I'll just post Huffington Post articles...

Other than the first reference, I wasn't alluding to any political leanings. Just happened to be a part of the right-wing media bias. All three articles have the same problems. Heartbreaking stories. Treatments that aren't available, feasible, or reasonable, but may be someone's "last hope" for survival. Insurance companies wouldn't cover most of those same services in the US. And there are plenty of horror stories about inadequate medical care in the US.

allegro
12-19-2011, 10:38 PM
Billy Corgan just tweeted this:

https://twitter.com/#!/Billy/status/148981806350352385

Pensacola, whoa, wtf. Hillbillies.

playwithfire
12-20-2011, 08:02 AM
I know that guy! Not well at all, and it was a long time ago, but I knew him from the community theatre I would do in Pensacola. Also, that's crazy. I saw it yesterday.

mfte
12-20-2011, 03:43 PM
If you re an American citizen and you arent going for Ron Paul to win then I just dont dont dont dont know.

Tea
12-20-2011, 04:04 PM
If you re an American citizen and you arent going for Ron Paul to win then I just dont dont dont dont know.

I am quoting this to frame it. It's perfect.

littlemonkey613
12-20-2011, 04:38 PM
^ I just can't ever accept his views on poverty and healthcare......

There is much to love though.

mfte
12-20-2011, 05:32 PM
^ I just can't ever accept his views on poverty and healthcare......

There is much to love though.

I know what you mean about the health care.... especially that whole "i used to work in a catholic church hospital and we used to take people in off the street" doesn't feel very much like something people relate to BUT Ron Paul is the only chance that the States have to stop the insane debt and careless printing of money that will crash the country into the ground.

Aaron
12-20-2011, 05:34 PM
News flash: Ron Paul is not a good guy. He's a huge racist (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/12/news-bulletin-ron-paul-is-a-huge-racist.html). And I don't just mean he's a libertarian when I say that. He has defended himself by saying "someone else" wrote the articles, in a publication run by him, under his byline. Yeah, not really a defense.

Just last week, I was asking the Ron Paul people tabling on State Street in Santa Barbara what they would do about the 45 million Americans currently without health care. "Go back to the way things used to be."

I swear that was their answer. I asked if that meant paying doctors with chickens. Apparently so.

I asked if they knew the leading cause of bankruptcy in America. "Overspending." Nope, health problems. The one woman tabling was proud that she had no health insurance. "I stay healthy." That's her health plan. I couldn't make that shit up.

How appropriate that today I saw this article (http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sodahead.com%2Funited-states%2Flibertarian-legacy-ron-pauls-campaign-manager-49-dies-uninsured-of-pneumonia-leaving-family-4%2Fquestion-2156987%2F&h=MAQGCdjQdAQHktO1Xh0-qybRQIEvNtxGmXhGiwKHUIDQB1w) about Ron Paul's campaign manager who died, uninsured, at the age of 49, leaving his family with hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills. Ron Paul people: no, you're wrong, you don't understand economics, the Austrian school ruins lives. And he's racist. Really racist. So, think about it.

halloween
12-20-2011, 05:36 PM
I'm secretly voting for him. I don't care what people say about his crazy ideas, he's realistic about nothing changing over night. But we need at least a slight push in the right direction.

littlemonkey613
12-20-2011, 05:53 PM
Aaron, you basically summarized all my concerns. I had actually completely forgotten about that racist publication too. I remember looking at the articles last year. Anyways, there are only some issues that are literally a matter of life and death and healthcare is one of them. I simply can't ignore his stance.

Aaron
12-20-2011, 05:56 PM
I'm secretly voting for him. I don't care what people say about his crazy ideas, he's realistic about nothing changing over night. But we need at least a slight push in the right direction.
But that? What I said up there? All of that is so, so in the wrong direction. All of his good ideas come from the wrong place, too. His crazy paleo-libertarian ideology informs his views about pot and spending, etc., not any sympathy for any real people, at all. And it's not what people SAY are his crazy ideas. They ARE his crazy ideas. Because he SAID they were.

littlemonkey613
12-20-2011, 06:03 PM
All of his good ideas come from the wrong place, too.

Haha. Reminds me of the time he said that they shouldn't build a fence all the way on the border because that would mean Americans were trapped.

orestes
12-20-2011, 07:11 PM
Rand Paul is proof enough that you shouldn't vote for Ron Paul.

There's also this bill (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d098:HR04982:@@@L&summ2=m&) Paul introduced in 1984.

allegro
12-20-2011, 09:49 PM
Even our former Resident Libertarian, Technician (Boy Georgia) ended up saying that Ron Paul is not a good choice, for tons of reasons.

Dont let the romantic rhetoric fool you: Ultimately, Ron Paul is a terrible choice.

Jinsai
12-21-2011, 02:51 PM
Aaron, you basically summarized all my concerns. I had actually completely forgotten about that racist publication too. I remember looking at the articles last year. Anyways, there are only some issues that are literally a matter of life and death and healthcare is one of them. I simply can't ignore his stance.

Don't forget that he's set upon overturning Roe v Wade, that his experience as a doctor qualifies him to say with certainty that life begins at conception, and that abortion is always murder and should be made illegal.

He has also suggested that we deny emergency health care to illegal immigrants, and that we deny citizenship to their children born in the United States.

Then there's his strange answer to the issue of gay marriage, where he asserted that the institution was a religious ceremony, and that the federal government should therefore be removed. I don't understand how his followers can call that response sensible, when atheists can (and do) get married in secular ceremonies, and last I checked nobody was objecting to that... so how is the issue of marriage inherently a religious issue?

Then there's unsettling side concerns, such as his racist affiliations in the past, his extreme old age, his tendencies to allow states to vote to blur the separation of church and state, and his rejection of the theory of evolution...

allegro
12-21-2011, 03:06 PM
Then there's his strange answer to the issue of gay marriage, where he asserted that the institution was a religious ceremony, and that the federal government should therefore be removed. I don't understand how his followers can call that response sensible, when atheists can (and do) get married in secular ceremonies, and last I checked nobody was objecting to that... so how is the issue of marriage inherently a religious issue?
It's not. It's a contract, wherein the state issues a license (http://www.cookcountyclerk.com/vitalrecords/marriagelicenses/Pages/default.aspx), and only the state can dissolve the contract (a/k/a "divorce"). You can (most people DO) get married by a judge (or clerk or justice of the peace, etc.) in "civil ceremony."

Here he is on the Tonight Show in the future (2012, hmmmm):

http://www.nbc.com/the-tonight-show/video/ron-paul-gay-marriage-12-16-12/1374317

I agree with him, here.

edit: I hate this American politics jive shit, it ruins my zen. Gonna avoid this thread like the plague.

mfte
12-21-2011, 03:58 PM
and his rejection of the theory of evolution...

Really? you're gonna slag someone for rejecting a theory?

theruiner
12-21-2011, 04:24 PM
Really? you're gonna slag someone for rejecting a theory?When there's 150 years of scientific evidence behind it, and it's pretty much accepted fact? Yes. Very much yes.

Elke
12-21-2011, 04:54 PM
Don't forget Ptolemy's geocentric model: lots of evidence, it even made semi-accurate predictions and explained everything people saw. Until they started to look further. So.... Kuhn would disapprove.

Also: I'm so confused by the Republican primaries. Is there one serious candidate who is not Mitt Romney? I mean, in all seriousness, because I see people debating who should be nominated, but I can't make heads nor tails of it.

Emil Dorbell
12-21-2011, 06:05 PM
When there's 150 years of scientific evidence behind it, and it's pretty much accepted fact? Yes. Very much yes.

It's sad how some people see the word "theory" and somehow equates it with taking a random guess. I'd like to hear more of mfte's thoughts on this though, just to see how much he or she has misunderstood about evolution.

sublimaze
12-21-2011, 09:21 PM
It's sad how some people see the word "theory" and somehow equates it with taking a random guess. I'd like to hear more of mfte's thoughts on this though, just to see how much he or she has misunderstood about evolution.

Thank you. It's infuriating how many people, even those with a science background, misunderstand the difference between "theory" in science, and "theory" as used in popular discourse.

Jinsai
12-21-2011, 10:23 PM
Really? you're gonna slag someone for rejecting a theory?

Yes. I would also have issues with someone who rejected the theory of gravity.

joplinpicasso
12-21-2011, 11:34 PM
Elke: comparing the geocentric model of the universe with the theory of evolution is a bit different. Any one example, in your opinion, where the ancients validated the model with solid predictions is still degrees inferior to the amount of modern validation (and cross-analysis) the theory of evolution undergoes. And it's always right.

Ron Paul scares me, and those alleged racist articles scare me even more. I'd say I've been 60% in support of Obama his whole term but would gladly vote for someone better for the country (it depends, of course, on who's running against him).

sublimaze
12-22-2011, 09:21 PM
Elke: comparing the geocentric model of the universe with the theory of evolution is a bit different. Any one example, in your opinion, where the ancients validated the model with solid predictions is still degrees inferior to the amount of modern validation (and cross-analysis) the theory of evolution undergoes. And it's always right.

Ron Paul scares me, and those alleged racist articles scare me even more. I'd say I've been 60% in support of Obama his whole term but would gladly vote for someone better for the country (it depends, of course, on who's running against him).

Like most everything, "theories" run in a spectrum. Which is why people get confused. Evolution is not "speculation," but it doesn't have the same cold, hard evidence that, say, gravity has. Scientific evidence runs just short of "proving" evolution.

Re: Ron Paul. I truly think that a bunch of people (including some here) have latched onto this perception of "ok w/ drugs, anti-Iraq war, this guy must be cool!" But the guy's not cool.

armorer
12-23-2011, 02:19 AM
Re: Ron Paul. I truly think that a bunch of people (includi.ng some here) have latched onto this perception of "ok w/ drugs, anti-Iraq war, this guy must be cool!" But the guy's not cool. I was thinking this exact thing the other day. My wife said something about how she would vote for the guy if he wasn't a republican. It came right after one of his isolationist statements. The Iraq war was the defining issue for nearly a decade. It was brought on by the GOP and now its somewhat relieving to hear a conservative be anti-war. I asked my wife if she liked her govt job cause the department she works in probably wouldn't exist under a paul presidency. Regardless, I'm rooting for the guy because, like all the tea partiers, he's drawing a wedge into the conservative electorate.

PooPooMeowChow
12-24-2011, 11:53 AM
Ron Paul is not a racist, they bring up those pamphlets every time he runs. His answer hasn't changed but they continue to dog him. Also this seems to be the only dirt they can dig up against Paul compared to all the baggage Newt has and what ever they find when they get a hold of Romney's financial records. Every one knew this smear campaign was coming, same thing with Cain, build em up and then drop em down until there is only one left, Romney. It's been pretty obvious they chose Romney to be the winner since before the campaign even started.

Enjoy four more years of Bush.

orestes
12-24-2011, 02:35 PM
LOL apologist.

drmindreader, is that you?

littlemonkey613
12-24-2011, 05:01 PM
Ron Paul is not a racist, they bring up those pamphlets every time he runs. His answer hasn't changed but they continue to dog him. Also this seems to be the only dirt they can dig up against Paul compared to all the baggage Newt has and what ever they find when they get a hold of Romney's financial records. Every one knew this smear campaign was coming, same thing with Cain, build em up and then drop em down until there is only one left, Romney. It's been pretty obvious they chose Romney to be the winner since before the campaign even started. Enjoy four more years of Bush. What happened with Cain was not simply a smear campaign. Those devilish women coming after such a good honest man! That and the guy is an idiot. Most of Paul's idiocy is right in the open. Have you ever heard him talk about the Civil War? His solution was for the federal government to buy the slaves and set them free. The side against slavery buying PEOPLE! And that's not even going into the most obvious reasons this idea is ridiculous and morally abhorrent.

Jinsai
12-24-2011, 05:15 PM
I'm not sure I understand why it's preferable for people to think that Ron Paul was completely oblivious and clueless about the nature of the material that was being published in his newsletter. This isn't some small thing that he could have been completely unaware of, it's a publication he was profiting from... and it's somehow good spin to argue that he didn't even fucking read it?

PooPooMeowChow
12-25-2011, 01:17 PM
Most of the Allegations against Cain go back to the 90's, you really think the media didn't find out until he was the front runner?
Also I'm not here to defend Dr.Pauls views, but you can't seriously believe the man is a full fledged racist.

Magtig
12-25-2011, 01:28 PM
What Republican would everyone choose if they had to?

Out of the current field Huntsman seems to be the most sane, and then Romney. I don't think any of them are very viable candidates versus Obama.


I'm not sure I understand why it's preferable for people to think that Ron Paul was completely oblivious and clueless about the nature of the material that was being published in his newsletter. This isn't some small thing that he could have been completely unaware of, it's a publication he was profiting from... and it's somehow good spin to argue that he didn't even fucking read it?
I've wondered this same thing, isn't he the accountability guy? And we're supposed to give him a pass on his own publication? Still, I like what he injects into the conversations. Apparently it takes a crazy person to make a sane point in the modern Republican party.

sublimaze
12-25-2011, 04:02 PM
I think Huntsman and Roemer are the best candidates, but neither have a chance in hell. The current field has all but guaranteed an Obama win. No complaints here.

onthewall2983
12-25-2011, 04:30 PM
I might actually sit down and watch Fox News regularly for laughs if Obama wins next year. The annoyance will be so transparent, it'll be a thing of beauty.

halloween
12-25-2011, 04:42 PM
Oof, information overload. I've gotten to the point where I don't know who to vote for; I mean probably still Obama, the guy isn't the worst case scenario. Although he lets SOPA pass then I might have to retract my statement.

littlemonkey613
12-25-2011, 06:31 PM
The current field has all but guaranteed an Obama win. No complaints here.

I wish this were true but I'm not so sure. Romney is a really good debater from what I've seen, even if what he is spewing is nonsense. He's confident and charismatic. I could see him winning though I hate to admit it.

onthewall2983
12-25-2011, 06:56 PM
All Obama has to do is pin Mitt down on flip-flopping in the debates, game over. And if Trump is possibly running as an independent now that he's left the GOP, it could split the conservative vote in half.

halloween
12-25-2011, 07:19 PM
There's no way- no fucking way, Trump is going to run. I refuse to believe this is even a possibility!! DENIAAAAAL!

orestes
12-25-2011, 08:12 PM
Trump is too much of a megalomaniac NOT to run.

sublimaze
12-26-2011, 12:54 AM
Trump might distract enough disenchanted voters to allow Obama to win.

There is no "good news" for the GOP here. Romney may be the most "electable" candidate, yet only polls at about 20%, time after time after time. If he wins the nom, they're won't be this huge enthusiastic crowd rooting for him. Seems that the GOP regards him as "meh."

Aaron
12-26-2011, 01:36 AM
Trump might distract enough disenchanted voters to allow Obama to win.

There is no "good news" for the GOP here. Romney may be the most "electable" candidate, yet only polls at about 20%, time after time after time. If he wins the nom, they're won't be this huge enthusiastic crowd rooting for him. Seems that the GOP regards him as "meh."
We always forget that no matter how "meh" the GOP candidate is, the Republicans (meaning the Koch brothers, etc.) will literally spend a billion dollars or more on the smear campaign against Obama once the general politickin' season begins. It's going to be rough. Real fuckin' rough. I don't know exactly what it will be, but they are going to come up with something really good, really shitty, and really convincing. Remember how Kerry was going to win? Until they "Swift Boat"ed him into oblivion? Yeah, I'm really afraid that's going to happen again. They have more money and resources than ever, this time around.

onthewall2983
12-26-2011, 08:36 AM
Big difference there. Kerry was just a candidate with limited exposure compared to someone closing in on his first term. And all the GOP has been doing since Obama got on the Democratic ticket was slander him, so what difference will it make if they do it again come election time? And honestly, if Romney wins, I'm not going to lose much sleep over it. He's the one candidate out of all of them I'm least offended and/or mortified of. He really strikes me more as a businessman than a moral crusader, things like the lunch with the gay veteran aside. Win or lose, I really think this will be the beginning of the end of the spotlight on the extreme right, and maybe the end of it's influence on the media (one can only hope).

Aaron
12-26-2011, 12:27 PM
I wish I could take that attitude, that they've been trashing him the whole time, so what difference will it make? Unfortunately, I think that's tempting fate. We know that, statistically, election year is the only year that counts in terms of incumbency, and like I said, there will literally be billions of dollars spent on the anti-Obama propaganda. It's going to be nonstop, and a lot of it is going to stick, because Democrats are not happy with Obama. It's not just going to be a continuation of what we've already seen, it is going to be ramped up to an insane degree, and it's gonna be ugly.

The passion just doesn't exist in Democrats for Obama anymore, and the passion isn't really there for Romney nor Gringrich, from anyone, but the Republican establishment knows that there are plenty of Democrats who wouldn't kill themselves if Romney won. So they're banking on the fact that the real passion out there is from Republicans, independents, and even some Democrats AGAINST Obama. And again, they have the Koch brothers' billions just waiting to absolutely destroy him in the months before the election. I'm trying to look at this in a realistic way. If Obama doesn't do some amazing, messianic shit this year (especially for the economy), I am very afraid of what the GOP machine is going to do to him come election season.

sublimaze
12-26-2011, 06:40 PM
Last Gallup poll has Obama's favorable-unfavorable rating at 47-45. The economy is improving. The Occupy movement is waking people up to the unfairness of income inequality, and Obama is wisely riding the wave. This past few week's "What does $40 mean to you" campaign from the White House was brilliant. The Tea Party is looked upon unfavorably by most Americans, as is the Republican Party, especially the Republicans in Congress. And Obama has plenty of successes to tout, especially in foreign policy. His worst problem is the economy, which as I said looks to be improving. The "anti-Obama" pack is fading, and will fade further if he continues to be the lone "adult" in the room. The Dems need to start acting like adults and stop whining. The slogan was "Yes we can," not "Yes I can." Obama's only one person. Without a strong network of support behind him, nothing will get done. Look at the havoc the "Blue Dog" Dems caused in the Senate a couple of years ago. You wouldn't see Mitch McConnell putting up with that crap. Harry Reid needs to go.

I agree that Romney has the best chance, but he'll gather even less enthusiasm among the right than Obama currently has from the left. And I wouldn't pack up and move to Canada if he were elected. But he's like Kerry with a better haircut and more flip-flopping. Way too "meh." His wealth won't help (esp since much was inherited, unlike Obama), neither will his business record.

It's premature to say Obama has it in the can, but right now he's gaining ground.

50 Volt Phantom
12-26-2011, 10:48 PM
I might actually sit down and watch Fox News regularly for laughs if Obama wins next year. The annoyance will be so transparent, it'll be a thing of beauty.
Oh you mean like CNN and MSNBC last year during the elections? particularly on MSNBC where Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews acted like 3 year olds having pouty temper tantrums.


We always forget that no matter how "meh" the GOP candidate is, the Republicans (meaning the Koch brothers, etc.) will literally spend a billion dollars or more on the smear campaign against Obama once the general politickin' season begins. It's going to be rough. Real fuckin' rough. I don't know exactly what it will be, but they are going to come up with something really good, really shitty, and really convincing. Remember how Kerry was going to win? Until they "Swift Boat"ed him into oblivion? Yeah, I'm really afraid that's going to happen again. They have more money and resources than ever, this time around.
I don't know, I'd say the left does the same thing, I mean they somehow convinced the country that a "meh" candidate like Obama was actually special, and spent most of their time systematically destroying Palin's life. As much as I dislike her, the attack on her was far more merciless and relentless than anything the right has done, hell she's not even in the spotlight anymore and the attack still continues. The left are the group of people that went after Clarence Thomas, went after Cain, destroyed the lives and reputations of people involved in the Lewinsky case. Let's not pretend for one second that the left doesn't run a meaner and more aggressive smear campaign strategy than the right.


Win or lose, I really think this will be the beginning of the end of the spotlight on the extreme right, and maybe the end of it's influence on the media (one can only hope).
The extreme right has influence on the media? Haha, you have to be kidding right? Mainstream news is unabashedly left, Hollywood is left, the music industry is left, the magazine industry is left, and on and on.

I also think Obama has much less of a chance than many of you do and although I'm not big on really any of the GOP candidates, I think he's pretty easy to defeat at this point. His own people in the media are turning on him, and everything about him that people were duped into believing is wearing off. Occupy hasn't helped his image, I'm pretty sure Occupy is much more detested than the Tea Party amongst the average person that isn't super left or a union goon. The economy may be improving a little bit here and there, but I don't think it's enough to save him, especially amongst people that realize the economy would be better off without things like the stimulus and Obamacare.

chris
12-27-2011, 12:53 AM
So Palin and Cain were viable candidates who were "destroyed" by the mainstream media's liberal stance? What primary race have you been watching? They wrecked their own chances by saying and doing dumb shit. Their fuck-ups weren't staged or edited, they were right there on camera. They're either idiots or they viewed running for president as a publicity stunt to make money. I saw Karl Rove say that about Palin numerous times on Fox News, which I'm sure hurt her as much as any left wing commentary. As for the argument that all the important media is liberal, where do you think they get their advertising money from? The "liberal media" view is a classic talking point, part of the overall strategy of making white conservatives feel like they are the ones who are the oppressed. Its been a successful strategy from Nixon right on up to today's assholes like Rove and Frank Luntz.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_majority

Elke
12-27-2011, 06:12 AM
I don't know, I'd say the left does the same thing, I mean they somehow convinced the country that a "meh" candidate like Obama was actually special, and spent most of their time systematically destroying Palin's life. As much as I dislike her, the attack on her was far more merciless and relentless than anything the right has done, hell she's not even in the spotlight anymore and the attack still continues. The left are the group of people that went after Clarence Thomas, went after Cain, destroyed the lives and reputations of people involved in the Lewinsky case. Let's not pretend for one second that the left doesn't run a meaner and more aggressive smear campaign strategy than the right.

If 'the left' (whatever that is because, as a European, the idea that anything in American politics is actually left of center is hi-la-ri-ous) was as good at spinning tidbits of people's lives and carreers as a very vocal and visible part of the Republican backbone, Bush would never have been elected in the first place, let alone re-elected after the whole 9/11-Saudi-Iraq clusterfuck. Even a semi-conscious muppet like Kerry would have been a shoe-in, in that case.

And at least two of the examples you give are not at all related to any effort on the side of whatever it is you percieve as 'left-wing' US media: John McCain ruined Sarah Palin's initial chances by being the worst flip-flop in history and bowing to Tea Party / Bible Belt pressure to change some very long-held and very bipartisan beliefs so he could worship at the altar of 'real America'; and Sarah Palin then ruined her own chances by not only revealing herself to be stupid (STUPID), but unreliable (being elected into office and saying 'well, that was fun, what's next?' halfway through does not inspire voter confidence) and opportunistic (the 'punditry' for Fox? the reality show? the Twitter/Facebook commentaries on anything semi-political, usually without any background). Her hardcore fans probably figured they were in the moshpit and loved it, but she alienated more center-oriented voters completely.

And as for Cain.... seriously? Watched The Daily Show? Some of Jon's 'Herman Cain' segments don't even add funny graphics, and I'm sure the writing staff loved every interview with the guy because he doesn't need to be mocked: Rachel Maddow's I see what you did there speech, about how everyone should have figured it out at Pokemon, was a spot-on review of Cain's parcours. It was sad, sad, sad.

And what about Rick Perry? Is that a left wing spin job, or is he just honestly and seriously a loser? Michelle Bachman: is that the left making her look bad?

Let's face it: the only viable candidates right now seem to be Mitt Romney and Mitt Romney v. 2.0, because they're not insane, and by comparison they come off as mature, intelligent, educated and not likely to fuck things up for the Republicans and the U.S. Everyone else has disqualified themselves merely by opening their mouths. There's no need for a 'left wing attack machine' when you're most steadfast and ideologically sound candidate is Ron Paul.
I mean, if Ron Paul ends up looking good...

And just to give you some perspective on things: you say that 'the extreme right' is invisible in the media. However, Fox is the most-watched news network, leaving every other newsoutlet in the dust. Which means that most Americans get their news from Fox.
Fox is right wing to extreme right wing. So how is that invisible?

theruiner
12-27-2011, 06:28 AM
^^Just like the left-wing media to use logic and facts to dismantle the unstable and faulty arguments from the the right. Socialist!

halloween
12-27-2011, 02:30 PM
Not exactly new news but still frustrating to read about. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/opinion/keeping-college-students-from-the-polls.html?_r=2)

50 Volt Phantom
12-27-2011, 06:05 PM
So Palin and Cain were viable candidates who were "destroyed" by the mainstream media's liberal stance? What primary race have you been watching? They wrecked their own chances by saying and doing dumb shit. Their fuck-ups weren't staged or edited, they were right there on camera. They're either idiots or they viewed running for president as a publicity stunt to make money. I saw Karl Rove say that about Palin numerous times on Fox News, which I'm sure hurt her as much as any left wing commentary. As for the argument that all the important media is liberal, where do you think they get their advertising money from? The "liberal media" view is a classic talking point, part of the overall strategy of making white conservatives feel like they are the ones who are the oppressed. Its been a successful strategy from Nixon right on up to today's assholes like Rove and Frank Luntz.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_majority
The difference between Palin and Cain and say Obama, is that all three said incredibly stupid shit, "57 states" anyone? The inability to really even speak without a teleprompter anyone? The guy and his VP have plenty of gaffes, several made during the primaries, the difference is not only were they largely ignored or just played off as cute, the coverage on them paled in comparison to the meticulous and relentless effort in tearing apart Palin. The sad fact is that she was a far more experienced candidate then Obama, and yet that also never came up, it was just attack attack attack. Now I'm no fan of hers, but if you actually think that what was done to her was fair and appropriate then you are so delusional that we might as well just drop the conversation on her right now.

Karl Rove is a piece of garbage, I don't even want to start on him and how much I despise him.

The "liberal media" view isn't a classic talking point, it's the truth. Who cares about their advertising money, the left has enough assets and pull to not have to worry about advertising. Hollywood is pretty well known to be a stronghold of the left, and Hollywood is pretty rich, so is George Soros, CNN is on almost every public television set, I've never seen anything but CNN on at an airport for instance. It doesn't matter that Fox News gets more views then CNN and MSNBC, the overall system of liberal media is far greater than Fox News. I mean are you really going to tell me that most newspapers aren't liberal leaning, that the music industry isn't liberal leaning, that Hollywood doesn't lean left, that the magazine industry isn't liberal leaning, that most news sources on the average person's television don't lean left, etc.? As far as I see it the only thing the right has a firm grasp on as far as a message goes, is radio.

Elke, Al Gore and Kerry were terrible, that's why they lost, because they were absolutely awful candidates, and Fox News extreme right? Haha, I can agree they lean right, but not extreme right. They don't even lean as far right as CNN and MSNBC do to the left.

orestes
12-27-2011, 06:37 PM
Got anything to back up your claim that there is a "liberal bias" in the media other than empirical evidence of what's broadcasted on airport televisions? (Btw, I've seen FOX News on plenty of public televisions.) Just because you don't agree with what's reported from mainstream media sources doesn't mean that there is an overwhelming slant towards a liberal agenda.

And how is that Sarah Palin is more qualified than Obama for the Presidency? It couldn't be because she's fully served an elected position. Palin is as qualified to serve the office of President as much as Herman Cain. At least Palin waited until after the election cycle to use her newly gained celebrity to milk speaking fees from deep-pocket GOP fundraisers. Cain's "campaign" was nothing more than thinly veiled book tour. How is that we've gotten to the point where candidates like Palin and Cain are allowed to espouse such ignorance over a basic grasp of history or current foreign policy and when they are exposed for this, they try to point the finger at "gotcha journalism" or even worse, boast of such ignorance as if it should be an exemplary quality?

littlemonkey613
12-27-2011, 07:38 PM
The difference between Palin and Cain and say Obama, is that all three said incredibly stupid shit, "57 states" anyone? The inability to really even speak without a teleprompter anyone?

False equivalency! Obama did not seriously think there are 57 states there is a HUGE difference between misspeaking and misTHINKING. Notice also this is basically the only gaf that you have... It's the only one I ever hear Conservatives talking about. Jesus. Take away all the times Sarah Palin mispoke and you still have some of the most idiotic opinions of all time.

NOTHING in America is left compared to every other Western nation.

"How is that we've gotten to the point where candidates like Palin and Cain are allowed to espouse such ignorance over a basic grasp of history or current foreign policy and when they are exposed for this, they try to point the finger at "gotcha journalism" or even worse, boast of such ignorance as if it should be an exemplary quality?"

They literally boast ignorance. "We need a leader not a reader" I've never heard such an anti-intellect statement. Not only that, on social issues these people are simply archaic and despicable. And stop it with Cain. If any candidate had sexual assault allegations the way he did they would have to drop out of the race as well.

50 Volt Phantom
12-27-2011, 08:41 PM
Ya that's all opinion and you don't know whether Obama thought it or not, plus there were other gaffes that simply didn't get reported very much, shocking I know.

orestes
12-27-2011, 10:20 PM
ZOMG IT'S A CONSPIRACY.

Volt, we're still waiting for you to supply us with facts to support your​ opinion.

Magtig
12-27-2011, 10:22 PM
Ya that's all opinion and you don't know whether Obama thought it or not...
You're being disingenuous.


...plus there were other gaffes that simply didn't get reported very much, shocking I know.
Probably because people knew they were mistakes, not actual opinions. Feel free to point these out, if you'd like, but the idea that Fox News hasn't jumped all over ANYTHING they could is utterly ridiculous (the same goes for MSNBC jumping all over Republican gaffes as well, blah, blah, blah). The things you're talking about are empty gotcha bullshit. Bring actual positions Obama holds that you disagree with to the table, otherwise you're simply playing right along with the lamestream media game.

What's more important than gaffes on either side are the actual positions politicians take. Littlemonkey is probably referring to things like Palin's shockingly cruel position that victims of incest and rape be forced to have the child, should they get pregnant during assault.

sublimaze
12-27-2011, 10:26 PM
Ya, remember the impeachment scandal with Clinton. He got a blow job and LIED about it? It was HUGE in the press, all we heard about for weeks. Meanwhile Newt Gingrich was having a long-standing affair with his current wife. Not a peep from the press.

What was that about a liberal media, again?

The media goes for spectacle, scandal, and controversy. If it won't catch the American public's attention, it won't be heard. And we are really ADD.

Obama's made a few gaffes, for sure, but he's also a proudly well-educated human being. Today I fumbled over my phone number on someone's voicemail, took me a couple of attempts to get it right. My brain just froze for a second. Does that mean I don't know my phone number? Fuck. No.

My parents taught me to value education above everything else. Financial success was important, but academic success was much more important. I really feel that if I dropped out of college, started a business, and made billions, they'd still be disappointed that I didn't finish school. *shrug* So I have little respect for Rick Perry, a C- student (at most) at A&M, but lots of respect for the Obamas.

50 Volt Phantom
12-27-2011, 10:41 PM
Orestes, facts on what opinion, furthermore I think that burden goes to other people on here too if that's the case, just because I seem to be the lone person not lining up to show affection to Obama doesn't mean that I'm the only person held to that standard.

During the Clinton sex scandal the media spent a large chunk of time trying to downplay the incident and suggest that the only reason it was a big deal at all was because Republicans are sexually repressed, David Axelrod and the rest did a good job.

I do understand the desire to be educated and the weight in which one can give education, however, I personally would stand more on the side of business. Besides I don't believe you can judge someobe's true intellect on school grades.

orestes
12-27-2011, 10:54 PM
Right, you're the one make such claims and yet it's everyone else's responsibility to prove you wrong otherwise?! *eye roll* I don't think so.

Your memory seems to be falling, though, on the Clinton sex scandal. There were many people, including people within Clinton's own Cabinet, that were outraged and ashamed of the president's misconduct. I remember the scandal well because it played out over the summer of 98 like a damn soap opera, with leaked testimony coming out about blow jobs and fucking cigars. The only person, other than President Clinton, who was a political pariah at that point was Independent Counsel Ken Starr. I don't know why you brought up Axelrod because he was still working in Chicago at the time. The Clintons like to think that they were the target of a GOP witch hunt. I disagree but that doesn't mean that Clinton's misconduct deserved impeachment.

Wretchedest
12-27-2011, 11:07 PM
Orestes, facts on what opinion, furthermore I think that burden goes to other people on here too if that's the case, just because I seem to be the lone person not lining up to show affection to Obama doesn't mean that I'm the only person held to that standard.

During the Clinton sex scandal the media spent a large chunk of time trying to downplay the incident and suggest that the only reason it was a big deal at all was because Republicans are sexually repressed, David Axelrod and the rest did a good job.

I do understand the desire to be educated and the weight in which one can give education, however, I personally would stand more on the side of business. Besides I don't believe you can judge someobe's true intellect on school grades.
And where were you during the Clinton sex scandal, the fucking twilight zone?

50 Volt Phantom
12-27-2011, 11:15 PM
Right, you're the one make such claims and yet it's everyone else's responsibility to prove you wrong otherwise?! *eye roll* I don't think so.

Your memory seems to be falling, though, on the Clinton sex scandal. There were many people, including people within Clinton's own Cabinet, that were outraged and ashamed of the president's misconduct. I remember the scandal well because it played out over the summer of 98 like a damn soap opera, with leaked testimony coming out about blow jobs and fucking cigars. The only person, other than President Clinton, who was a political pariah at that point was Independent Counsel Ken Starr. I don't know why you brought up Axelrod because he was still working in Chicago at the time. The Clintons like to think that they were the target of a GOP witch hunt. I disagree but that doesn't mean that Clinton's misconduct deserved impeachment.
Ya Axelrod isn't who I meant sorry, at the moment I can't recollect the name of who I'm thinking of.

Magtig
12-27-2011, 11:22 PM
Ya Axelrod isn't who I meant sorry, at the moment I can't recollect the name of who I'm thinking of.
You know, you keep insisting that everyone here is blindly liberal despite all evidence to the contrary. It seems to be a cover for not being able to backup the things you say. I keep wondering if you're ever going to grow. I have a strong belief that a dissenting voice and difference of opinion, when well argued, is a good thing even when I don't agree. It keeps me, and people in general on their toes. You're not keeping anyone on their toes.

Elke
12-28-2011, 07:49 AM
Elke, Al Gore and Kerry were terrible, that's why they lost, because they were absolutely awful candidates, and Fox News extreme right? Haha, I can agree they lean right, but not extreme right. They don't even lean as far right as CNN and MSNBC do to the left.

Actually, they weren't terrible. Especially compared to the man who actually got elected, they weren't terrible at all. This is a matter of opinion, obviously, but I think it's safe to say that the whole Iraq war might not even have happened had Bush not been in office. And yes: that was a big, big mistake.

As for FOX News not being extreme right, maybe you need to read up on your Politics 101 course, but here's the gist of it: MSNBC and CNN may seem very left wing to you, but at most they're liberal voices. At most. Almost nothing in US media, news or entertainment, is socialist. (Well, The Fraggles are a marxist critique of capitalism, but whatever.) When we talk about 'the left' or left wing politics, usually we're talking about socialism. A few vocal exceptions aside (people like Keith Olberman or Rachel Maddow), there's hardly any visible socialism out there. I'm a big fan of Jon Stewart and he's clearly a liberal, but that makes him a centrist voice, maybe on some issues left-of-center.

Let me give you an idea. Let's take the issue of legalizing abortion, because it's a rather clear example of how the three political groups work.
On the left, the argument will be that if you legalize and legislate abortion, more women can have it done safely, without risking their health; and because you legislate it, more opportunities will be created to inform women of other options. Moreover, by legalizing abortion you remove the income-related health issues, because rich women are more likely to be able to pay a decent doctor for an illegal abortion, and poor women are more likely to resort to hangers, musterd and the staircase.
For a socialist, abortion is a health issue.

In the center, the liberal argument will be that women should have the right to decide over their bodies. Period. There are discussions, obviously, about any rights of the unborn, but as in most circumstances the rights of the parent trump the rights of the unborn child.
For a liberal, abortion is an rights issue.

On the right, the argument will be one of these:
- Either it's politically conservative, in that it doesn't want to legislate too much, and so any legislation legalizing or criminalizing abortion would be condemned. Abortion should be a local, regional or state-issue. This is more the minimal state approach to conservatism.
- Or it's ethically conservative, in that it adheres to an already existing set of ethical values, either supporting or banning abortion, and that is the reason why it shouldn't be banned / legalized.

Now, far-right stances are extremely conservative, and completely unwilling to compromise: immigration is bad (because it disturbs the status quo), ethical progressive ideas are bad, secularization is bad, government policies are bad...
Spot a pattern?
Moreover, arguments in far-right politics are almost always based on history and tradition ('our founding fathers'), religion ('the Bible says'), nature ('we are born different, we should be treated different') and authority ('Reagan says'); rather than ideology, economics or practical reasonings.
See the similarities?

Here's a fun excercise for you: watch Fox News, and tell me how often you see one of the following things pass:
- 'government is bad'
- 'our founding fathers'
- 'the constitution'
- 'God'
- 'christianity'
- 'unnatural'
- 'evil'
- they vs. us rhetorics

Now, I'm not saying there's no extreme left, but there's no extreme left in US politics or media. I should know: I am a socialist, leaning towards the extreme left, and I know the rhetoric and politics of the European news outlets that hold viewpoints similar to my own. I'm always slightly appalled when people call Huffington Post or MSNBC 'extreme left', because to me that's communism, marxism and left wing ecologists; not Ariana Huffington and Keith Olberman.
But it's a sign of how thoroughly right-wing the American society is as a whole, that people would percieve their own ideas as only right of center, and those of slightly left-leaning liberals as extreme left.

aggroculture
12-28-2011, 10:42 AM
Elke your posts here and on the last page are spot-on.

chris
12-28-2011, 01:06 PM
But it's a sign of how thoroughly right-wing the American society is as a whole, that people would percieve their own ideas as only right of center, and those of slightly left-leaning liberals as extreme left.
THIS.

Over the past few decades the right has figured out how to bypass objective reporting altogether. They created their own mainstream media with Fox News, but what really keeps the rumor mills churning is the internet. Obama’s use of it in 2008 pales in comparison to the right wing crap that has been spewing from the dark corners of the web since day one. Try going to one sometime. There are so many outrageous lies being touted as truth, and posting something that disproves it just makes you more hated. Its sad, everyone thinks they’re more informed than in the past, but really they’re just being segmented further.

littlemonkey613
12-28-2011, 03:22 PM
THIS.

Obama’s use of it in 2008 pales in comparison to the right wing crap that has been spewing from the dark corners of the web since day one. Try going to one sometime. There are so many outrageous lies being touted as truth, and posting something that disproves it just makes you more hated. Its sad, everyone thinks they’re more informed than in the past, but really they’re just being segmented further.

Also Obama's rhetoric was only hyperbole about himself and hope and change. He wasn't demonizing gays, or the poor, immigrants or women who want abortions. He wasn't demonizing people with conservative ideologies (more than half the time he is trying to cater to those people). I'm always appalled when people try to insinuate he's just as horrible. Really?

50 Volt Phantom
12-28-2011, 05:54 PM
You know, you keep insisting that everyone here is blindly liberal despite all evidence to the contrary. It seems to be a cover for not being able to backup the things you say. I keep wondering if you're ever going to grow. I have a strong belief that a dissenting voice and difference of opinion, when well argued, is a good thing even when I don't agree. It keeps me, and people in general on their toes. You're not keeping anyone on their toes.
I'm not trying to keep anyone on their toes, I could really care less, the majority of you will vote for Obama again, just like you would've voted for Kerry, just like you would've voted for Gore, just like you would've voted for Clinton. I would vote for anyone over all of those people, it's not like we're going to change each other's minds. The fact that you all don't see a liberal bias to the media is absolute proof of this.

Elke, they were terrible, sorry, I didn't care for Bush, but compared to Gore and Kerry I'd take him. I'd take him right now over Obama too, and the Iraq war was by almost all accounts a war led hastily under false information, it was expensive and nasty, but Saddam is gone, and Iraq is better off without him and with the opportunity for Democracy. I can't imagine what Al Gore would've done after 9/11, and I'm glad we didn't have to find out.

Your take on our media is absolutely fucked Elke. First of all, I still take the stance that Fox News is not extreme right by any means, and second of all, left to me doesn't mean socialism outright, it means the sway towards regulation, big government, lots of spending, and government invasion and control, but not outright socialism. You can't tell me that outlets like MSNBC and CNN don't project those policies and values. Left is not center, left is left, and Jon Stewart as far as I'm concerned is not a centrist voice.

Your abortion example is interesting I guess, except for the fact that most vocal pro-abortion people I hear combine the socialist and liberal attitude into one, I've actually seldom heard one without the other. I consider myself a conservative, and quite frankly, if we're going to define the center by what liberals think, then some of you might even consider some of my ideas "extreme right," but personally I'm mostly okay with abortions up until the third trimester, or if the mother is in danger. I think there are better options, and that sometimes outright stupidity shouldn't be given such an easy out, but oh well, I'm not going to be out there protesting against abortion any day soon. So then where do I fall now on your little cheat sheet? I'm all for immigration if it's LEGAL, I'm not particularly religious, and while I think Reagan was right, I also don't tend to favor government expansion because next to no US government institution or plan has ever cost near what was advertised and is almost always completely and utterly ineffecient and stifling, how is that for practical and economical reasoning? Ideologically I'm not tied down to our founding fathers, I just think that personal responsibility, hard work, and freedom are good things. I don't think having my hand held and being told what I can and can't eat by the government is the proper way to live, I should be able to make my own choices and live with them.

I also tend to watch a balanced amount of MSNBC, CNN, and Fox when I decide to watch the big news channels, which is rarely. I can assure you that most of that list applies to MSNBC and CNN, just in the opposite direction. If you don't think us vs. them rhetoric and the word "evil" is used a bunch on CNN and MSNBC, I'd have to say you're wrong.

Also, it was Paul Begala I was thinking of last night, remembered it today.

sublimaze
12-28-2011, 06:53 PM
I voted for Gore, Kerry, and Obama. Bush II sucked as a president. Ignored Bin Laden and Al-Qaida until 9/11. Invaded Iraq without hard evidence of WMD's. Shortly thereafter neglected Afghanistan and took focus away from Bin Laden and actual terrorists. Fucked up our economy by decreasing taxes (on the wealthy) while being in TWO wars. The list goes on and on. I don't know if Gore or Kerry would have been better per se, but probably wouldn't have been worse. Bush II will go down as one of the worst presidents in history.

Everybody thinks that personal responsibility, hard work, and freedom are good things. Duh. Unfortunately, that's not enough to keep people fed, clothed, and sheltered in our current economical condition.

50 Volt Phantom
12-28-2011, 08:46 PM
I don't think Bush will go down as the worst president or even close to it in history, and let's not forget that Clinton made 9/11 possible.

orestes
12-28-2011, 09:00 PM
Anywoo, enough dredging up past presidencies. The Iowa caucus is next week and Gingerich's numbers (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2011/1228/Inside-the-Iowa-caucus-poll-numbers-Good-news-for-Romney-bad-for-Gingrich) continue to fall.

Jinsai
12-28-2011, 09:17 PM
let's not forget that Clinton made 9/11 possible.

What? How exactly do you figure that? Wait... never mind, I really don't care.


I still take the stance that Fox News is not extreme right by any means

Would you consider water to be "extremely wet?"

50 Volt Phantom
12-28-2011, 09:57 PM
Clinton could have had Bin Laden, he ignored the chances, and let al Qaeda gain strength under his watch.

And yes, water is extremely wet, but that still doesn't make Fox News extreme right, unless you're delusional and think that left is center.

Jinsai
12-28-2011, 10:03 PM
Clinton could have had Bin Laden, he ignored the chances, and let al Qaeda gain strength under his watch.

Well, those are some pretty impressive sources. You can prove anything if you just make shit up, huh? (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.asp)

50 Volt Phantom
12-28-2011, 11:27 PM
The original article of this no longer exists, but it can still be found on other sites.

http://carnageandculture.blogspot.com/2006/09/richard-miniter-what-clinton-didnt-do.html

Here's some more:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/ns/nightly_news/t/osama-bin-laden-missed-opportunities/#.Tvwc-RySy1M
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/apr/6/20040406-121654-1495r/?page=all
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/9/10/181819.shtml

I'll find more if need be, but the bottom line is that Clinton disregarded opportunities involving Bin Laden and did not take the Al Qaeda threat seriously enough, he treated the organization more like a city gang than an international terrorist group.

theruiner
12-28-2011, 11:45 PM
If you don't think Bush is one of the worst presidents in history, then you really are delusional.


The Iowa caucus is next week and Gingerich's numbers (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2011/1228/Inside-the-Iowa-caucus-poll-numbers-Good-news-for-Romney-bad-for-Gingrich) continue to fall.It really is going to come back around to Romney after all is said and done, isn't it?

Jinsai
12-29-2011, 12:14 AM
This is why I said "never mind." This is ridiculous. Go ahead and believe that Clinton regarded the taliban as the equivalent of a "street gang," even if all evidence points to the contrary.

Elke
12-29-2011, 04:07 AM
left to me doesn't mean socialism outright, it means the sway towards regulation, big government, lots of spending, and government invasion and control, but not outright socialism.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what is wrong with American politics today.
You can't just change the meaning of words to fit your purpose. It's not because the American society would otherwise have no left to speak of, that you can just take 'left' to mean whatever you want it to mean. Yes, those things you name are inherent to socialism. But legislating things in itself is not socialism. Government in itself is not socialism. The ideology behind political ideas or actions is what makes something socialist or not.

Is it socialist, for instance, to spend more than 5% of your GDP on one governmental task? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States) It's certainly massive government spending. [Check Scandinavia for a comparison.]
Is it socialist to have a government that has full access to all your information, without having to ask your consent or inform you that your information is pulled? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act) It's government invasion and control, for sure.
Is it socialist for a government to decide what types of relationships people are supposed to have (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act)? It's definitely big government.

And to be quite honest, the U.S. could do with some good, honest socialism. While the U.S. ranks 11th (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html) for GPD per capita; it ranks only 49th (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html) in terms of life expectancy, behind almost every West European (often socialist or centrist-left) country but also Greece, South Korea and Bosnia-Herzegovina.
The Happy Planet project (http://www.happyplanetindex.org/explore/global/) shows an equally unspurprising picture: the US has an estimated ecological footprint of 9.4, compared to Belgium's 5.1 (also in the red, obviously). That's more than four planets needed to sustain the U.S. type of spending and consumption.
It's 17th on the Human Poverty Index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Poverty_Index) while 4th on the Human Development Index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index) which means, amongst other things, that wealth and wellfare don't trickle down. And while in absolute terms poverty is not exceptional in the U.S. there is a very large income gap between middle class and lower-income household (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States) as well as a clear link to race and age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#Poverty_and_demograph ics). If you're young and hispanic, you're very likely to live in poverty.

The idea that personal responsibility, hard work and freedom are sufficient in light of all this data, is not just conservative, but irresponsible. That's what I liked about Old Mitt Romney: while coming from a conservative angle, he still was able to compromise and take elements from other political ideologies in an attempt at Realpolitik, which is generally preferable.



I'll find more if need be, but the bottom line is that Clinton disregarded opportunities involving Bin Laden and did not take the Al Qaeda threat seriously enough, he treated the organization more like a city gang than an international terrorist group.

Because it's not untrue. Check BBC's The Power of Nightmares. It's a seriously interesting documentary. (Obviously the Beeb is a lef-wing bastion, but still: watch it.)

50 Volt Phantom
12-29-2011, 05:39 PM
Is it socialist, for instance, to spend more than 5% of your GDP on one governmental task? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States) It's certainly massive government spending. [Check Scandinavia for a comparison.]
Is it socialist to have a government that has full access to all your information, without having to ask your consent or inform you that your information is pulled? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act) It's government invasion and control, for sure.
Is it socialist for a government to decide what types of relationships people are supposed to have (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act)? It's definitely big government.

Did Republicans lose their way and abandon their principles for a bit there? Yes, yes they did.

orestes
12-29-2011, 07:03 PM
And the GOP voter suppression machine continues. (http://www2.insidenova.com/news/2011/dec/29/va-gop-require-loyalty-oath-presidential-primary-ar-1574984/?referer=http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Finsidenova.com%2Far%2F1574984 %2F&h=hAQEi4ZIwAQEjDvJxAqmv9nzyoLKtPvDj46N2fZ6htx-C5w&shorturl=http://bit.ly/sbIhqL)

Elke
12-30-2011, 06:24 AM
Did Republicans lose their way and abandon their principles for a bit there? Yes, yes they did.

Actually, if you watch the documentary on the rise of the neo-cons and Osama Bin Laden that I mentioned in my previous post, you'd know why they did, and why they won't stop anytime soon. Thank you Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz for 40 years of fucking up the GOP.

Obama's administration hasn't done anything as Soviet Russia-esque as introducing the Patriot Act, yet I hardly ever see that brought up as a point against Bush, while 'Obamacare' (nothing like the health care systems in actual wellfare states) is pitched as The End of Days. You allign all these things with socialism, but they're all inventions of neo-cons, the right wing of the right wing (yes, known as: the extreme right).

It's difficult for me to judge, because I love politics and even though I'm often confused by different systems, I try to follow world politics as much as I can, but it seems to me that the US media are actually even worse than the Belgian media at trying to explain how politics work, and at asking the correct questions. Those GOP debates were fun to watch because absolutely nothing what was said meant anything, it was all hot air balloon drivel, but I kept wondering why those moderators never stepped in and said: 'You know what? I think you're talking through your ass right now.' Anyone calling themselves a journalist should be unable to let a possible presidential candidate get away with things like 'The president's party wants to try and take from some people and give to the others. That isn't the way to lift America' or We need to bring Pakistan into the 21st century, or the 20th century for that matter., or (one of my favourites) You have to let the [housing] market work and get people in the homes again, and the best way for that to happen is to allow this economy to reboot. ... When you have government play its heavy hand, markets blow up and people get hurt.
And that's just Mitt Romney! That's not even Michelle Bachmann calling Pakistan 'too nuclear to fail'.

Emil Dorbell
12-30-2011, 07:39 AM
The original article of this no longer exists, but it can still be found on other sites.

http://carnageandculture.blogspot.com/2006/09/richard-miniter-what-clinton-didnt-do.html

Here's some more:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/ns/nightly_news/t/osama-bin-laden-missed-opportunities/#.Tvwc-RySy1M
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/apr/6/20040406-121654-1495r/?page=all
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/9/10/181819.shtml

I'll find more if need be, but the bottom line is that Clinton disregarded opportunities involving Bin Laden and did not take the Al Qaeda threat seriously enough, he treated the organization more like a city gang than an international terrorist group.

Did you watch this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DI7u-TytRU
And this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L2513JFJsY

Elke
12-30-2011, 08:00 AM
I never saw that interview. Thanks for the link!

PooPooMeowChow
12-30-2011, 03:02 PM
^holy shit was that funny