tempus est umbra in mente
Ugh...
While we're quoting religious figures from the late 70s, why don't we look into the fact that it wasn't until 1978 that the Mormon church finally changed its stance against allowing black people to join the religion... and not because they realized that discrimination was wrong, but because god sent them a special message that it was the right time.
Throbbing Member
I meant Ryan, halloween, he's a Roman Catholic. Or at least, he says he is.
But I read a bit about Romney's stance on women and women's rights, and it's nothing if not appalling.
Stubby Member
First problem is that you posted an article from the self proclaimed "token lefty" of Forbes, so there's the first red flag, second red flag is the reliance on CBO numbers that are usually off and require adjustments by the CBO itself over and over, third red flag is putting the 2009 budget solely on Bush's back, when in reality Bush's budget was passed by a Congress run by Pelosi and Reid, of which Obama himself voted for, and by the time Obama signed it into law in March of 2009 the budget cost had actually increased from Bush's initial proposal.Originally Posted by orestes
If you want to boil down what Romney has done to being a corporate headhunter, go for it, but being CEO of something like Bain Capital gave him a complex insight into the business world, into job creation, the risks and rewards of running a business, investing in a business and a lot more. He also did a hell of a job overseeing and managing the Salt Lake City Olympics, whom most agree was one of the best put together Olympics of recent time. Oh ya and there's that executive experience as governor in Massachusetts.
Considering unemployment has been above 8% for what, 40 months, thanks in part to Obama's wonderful knowledge of all the small businesses he believes the government built, I'd say Romney's real experience with real business is incredibly valuable. What exactly did Obama do to make him an exemplary candidate for president? Vote present a lot in the Illinois Senate? Get handed almost everything in his life to him for free? Be an unremarkable college professor who came from one of the worst classes to go through Columbia and likely made it into Harvard off the coattails of affirmative action? Be hoisted up by a corrupt and destructive Chicago political machine? Buddy up with extremists like Bill Ayers, Farrakhan, and Jeremiah Wright?
Stubby Member
Your whole post reads like a Chris Matthews monologue of fearmongering and sensationalism.
EDIT: By the way, I'm tired of all this moderate bullshit, I'm glad Romney didn't fall for that trap and did go with a real conservative. The GOP needs to stop trying to reach across the aisle and appease, because it is a dead end.
Last edited by 50 Volt Phantom; 08-12-2012 at 03:33 PM.
Throbbing Member
Oh- Oops, I didn't read carefully enough.
Throbbing Member
I don't even watch a news station! I just read a shit ton. I actually read conservative news more because its more entertaining (Christian news blogs are preferable) You still have nothing to say for anything I'm asking? It's not that hard. How do you not care about the rights of anyone whose interest isn't business? Fear mongering? It's a fact that people die because they can't get treatment. It's a fact that people don't have healthcare and so don't get any treatment. How is this sensational? How is it sensational to point that Paul Ryan actually IS against women's rights? How could one possibly even exaggerate detest when he actually is against abortion when a mother's life is at risk. The reality is scarier than anything I can come up with. Also he actually hasn't suggested which loop holes he'd be closing....
Also the rest of the western world has abandoned conservatism as an ideal mode of policy because they aren't as obsessed with unpragmatic mythos. Health and well being and education of their people are actually important to them.
Last edited by littlemonkey613; 08-12-2012 at 04:04 PM.
tempus est umbra in mente
And you sound like a Rush Limbaugh monologue without the intentional misrepresentation of facts. I think you actually believe this shit.
Holy shit. Bain capital is now identified with "job creation?" They're notorious for swallowing businesses and firing the employees after bleeding them dry. Where do you get this? I don't think that even the most hard line neo con dipshit would go where you're going here. Being CEO of Bain Capital gave Romney a complex insight into how to destroy American jobs and personally profit from it.
sometimes the best response is to just laugh at it
Last edited by Jinsai; 08-12-2012 at 04:57 PM.
Balls in Your Mouth
50 Volt, we've heard your opinions on "economic reform" - but what about these:
What are your stances/opinions on each of these subjects -
A.) Banning birth control
B.) Abortion
C.) Abortion in the cases of rape and/or serious health risks to the mother
D.) Gay and lesbian marriages
E.) Gay and lesbian adoptions
Throbbing Member
In 2011 Eurostat lists unemployment amongst under-25 for the 27 EU countries as 21.4% and 8.3% in over-25. The employment growth in total in the EU countries in 2011 was 0.2%, almost completely amongst women. 10.7% of all European children live in jobless households and 4.1% of all EU citizens have been unemployed for upwards of 12 months.
Noteable factors in the rise of youth unemployment and the general higher unemployment figures have been companies cutting down costs by flushing out temps and older (more expensive) workers, relocations and outsourcing, an oversaturation of certain types of higher education degrees, an alarming number of bankrupcies in smaller bussinesses due to the economic crises and a lack of new starters / investments in certain types of labour-intensive economies and the production of luxury items like suitcases and high quality towels.
Now please, do me the infinte pleasure of telling me this:
a) Why should the president of the USA be able to do what a great number of European leaders have not been able to do? And yes, some members of the EU (like Belgium, Germany, Italy and The Netherlands) have managed to keep their unemployment rates rather low. They didn't do this by getting more people active, though, it's all a statistic trick.
b) How would Obama have been able to tackle any of the issues I listed in a better and more effective way?
c) How is Romney planning to tackle any of the issues I listed in a better and more effective way?
And finally, not wholly unimportantly:
d) If there is a better and more effective way, why the fuck isn't anybody doing it?
Here's what really gets me in your post: the U.S. may have caused a global economic crisis by deregulating its banking system allowing for rogue traders to crash a significant part of the financial market, but it's not the only country in the world and like all of us little fish in the big pond it's going to have to face this very simple fact - that there is a financial crisis, that it isn't over yet and that what happens in Greece, Tunesia and China actually does effect the U.S. to quite some effect. And that when economy becomes a game of Giant Octopus vs. Megashark, countries don't matter and their politicians only matter to the effect that they can manipulate legislation to benifit certain industries.
What Obama had on offer was the idea that diversity could be a positive factor, and that the many individuals in the U.S. could make a solid one. And an idea, when it takes root in peoples' minds, can be a much more powerful catlayst for change, growth and progress than any number of tax cuts or government programs. But not when the idea is one of individuals in a divide-and-conquer scenario where there is an inherent divide across the nation - which seems to be the republican idea.
[Affirmative action isn't necessarily a bad thing, but that's a different discussion so I'll leave it undiscussed.]
Administrator
You know, I could quote statistics from the Office of Budget and Management and you would still derail it as a liberal source. But whatever, all your posts are a straw-man argument.
gettin' jiggy wit it
You could quote stats from the National Review and they'd still be disbelieved if they don't fit in to a nice little tiny package with a ribbon saying "tea party" on it.
Hey, Fifty (just read the book, weirdly enough?), guess what? You're a sore loser still smarting from being smacked in 2008. Get over it. Your one-term Governor gets trumped by the first-term President on the "executive experience in government" issue.
Romney was going to get the far-right vote regardless, because they'd vote against Obama if their candidate was a bag of lettuce (an improvement over Sarah). He just killed his chance with independents, especially the elderly. Best quote I've read so far was from Paul Begala, that Paul Ryan wants to "fix" Medicare kinda like the vet wanted to "fix" his dog. The dog wasn't happy, and you don't fuck around with old people, who have a powerful lobby and vote reliably. Other focus groups aren't going to swing much in either direction IMO.
On the other hand, Americans are morons, so he still has a chance. Take some comfort in that Fifty.
Last edited by sublimaze; 08-12-2012 at 07:13 PM.
Stubby Member
Ha, Paul Begala, I am SHOCKED he's not into Paul Ryan.
gettin' jiggy wit it
Being a liberal doesn't make his point/analogy less valid.
Stubby Member
A.) Against it, and you're fucking crazy if you think there's a risk of this happening.
B.) I do not support third trimester abortion, I would rather see people choose other options than abortion overall.
C.) Rape does not result in a high number of pregnancies, I believe single digit percentiles, so I've never really understood the huge outcry about this particular issue, and I really have no stance on abortion in health risk situations.
D.) Not for or against, we've been through this discussion before, I'd rather not do it again, no one is changing eachother's minds.
E.) See answer for D.
Elke, I would say massive amounts of spending, entitlement programs and socialism has led to permanently high unemployment in Europe, Obama wants us to be more like Europe and so we're seeing the same results here. Also, if you think that the republicans are the ones dividing this country than you are horribly misled, Obama and his lapdogs in the media have done nothing but divide this country since he was elected in every possible way they can. Furthermore affirmative action is almost always a bad thing.
Sublimaze, Paul Begala is a hitman, he is a political assassin, his entire job is to destroy people's lives, all one has to do is look at his role in the Lewinsky scandal to know that what he says isn't worth shit. Obamacare is a disaster, same with Medicare and Social Security, sure healthcare needs to be fixed, but Obamacare basically fucks it up even more and in 2014 when it fully kicks in and the real taxes start the already unpopular legislation will be truly reviled. Medicare and Social Security are unsustainable, which is really surprising because I thought the government did everything right.
Obama won because Bush did a bad enough job near the end and the media did everything in their power to make the US at large hate his guts, anyone could have beat him. The amazing thing is Obama has the entire media behind him, he has Hollywood behind him and he can't seem to gain any traction, in fact he's losing more ground thanks in part to his Chicago style attacks on Romney. I guess when you feel you have nothing of value to say about yourself and what you've done for the country you need to just start making up lies about your opponent to cover your butt.
Active Member
Obama leads Romney by nine points
gettin' jiggy wit it
Obamacare can't possibly be a disaster, since almost none of the major provisions have gone into effect. Social Security was designed to keep the elderly out of poverty and has done exactly that. Medicare, while flawed, does a decent job.
Paul Begala, seriously, a political assassin? Where the fuck do you get this shit from? He's a liberal pundit but hardly toxic. What he said just took my thoughts to a more articulate level. Fifty, you're being awfully hostile.
There are personal reasons why I'm strongly opposed to cutting social programs. My son has autism, and while I have health insurance to cover some therapies and income to cover the rest, most families are not as fortunate. All the bootstrap-pulling in the universe could not provide enough for them and government resources fill in the gap. People like you would gut those resources under the guise of fiscal responsibility, but the truth is that you don't personally know anyone in those dire straights and just don't give a shit about those less fortunate.
Stubby Member
Don't assume I don't know people in dire straights, you don't know anything about me other than what I've posted here, I just happen to think dire straights can be aided in ways other than massive entitlement and social programs. I think what Paul Ryan has proposed for Medicare makes sense, Bill Clinton was caught backstage basically saying he liked what Paul Ryan was doing with it, and Bill Clinton is the god of the Democrat party. In fact, for all the Paul Ryan wants to destroy Medicare talk, it's actually Obama who has stripped out massive amounts of money for it to try to pay for Obamacare.
Like it or not, Social Security and Medicare are unsustainable, period, we need to find a way to fix them, I lean towards a conservative method and you don't, we both feel that the other person is wrong. I think that we will find Obamacare to be equally as troubling when it's hidden taxes hit everyone and businesses already struggling are forced to decide between paying the fine or insuring their employees. I for one am worried about losing my employer provided health insurance thanks to Obamacare. With healthcare costs rising and the economy still stuck thanks to the failed stimulus and lots of spending that fine may look like the more appealing route. Then there is the fact that there is going to be a doctor shortage, there are going to be European and Canadian style wait times, there will be rationing, and the keeping your current healthcare and doctor ruse. Sure, you can in theory, the question is will your employer keep you on the same plan, will you be able to afford it after Obamacare hits, and will your doctor even be there to see you.
gettin' jiggy wit it
How do you think, then, someone who is physically or mentally disabled should pay basic living expenses or buy food, much less for needed health care? What if their family has abandoned them and private charities don't have enough resources (which they don't).
How? Where does the aid come from?
Stubby Member
There is a big difference between people who need some sort of welfare system aid and someone who simply rides on it out of ease, I've seen plenty of people do the latter so they can drink all day or spend more time selling and using drugs. There is welfare for the lazy and welfare for the truly needy. Now that entitlement programs are quite ingrained into our society we will never truly get rid of them, so we must do what we can to make them as efficient as they can be and cut down on people playing the system to their advantage.
gettin' jiggy wit it
Nobody wants people on the dole if they don't have to be. Where to draw the line is an issue up for grabs. Right now, Medicaid is available to families making "x" amount (differs between states, but about $30K here in TX), otherwise you're not eligible. Social security is basically a pension fund (and is solvent for another 50 years at least). Medicare works like a very inefficient single-payer plan. Could be better, but vouchers that benefit for-profit insurance companies isn't a "fix," it's a handout to corporations. I personally think it's horrible to make a profit providing health care, whether you're a hospital system or insurance company. For many people, their life is on the line, not the bottom line.
Forgot to mention before, doctors aren't going to quit, just whine and moan a lot about any possibility of loss of income, autonomy, etc. Docs have invested a lot of blood, sweat, tears, time, and money into their training, so the potential for lost salary is a big deal. I don't think Obamacare will hurt them much to be honest.
I do know that my sister and many others, who aren't offered health benefits from their employers, have pre-existing conditions, and not much money, stand to benefit a TON from the proposed exchanges in Obamacare.
Throbbing Member
Maybe you lack empathy?
You would say that, as do many European right wingers and fiscal conservatives but oddly enough, there's no actual research supporting this thesis. In fact, the countries with the strongest social security network and the most socialist government (though don't make the mistake of thinking any country in Europe is truly socialist, not even te Scandinavians) like Belgium, Denmark, The Netherlands, the Scandinavian countries or pre-Sarkozy France, don't have the highest unemployment rates or poverty rates. In fact, unemployment over 25 is highest in Bulgaria, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain (a staggering 19.4%), Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, Slovakia and Croatia. None of these are classical welfare states with strong government support systems, yet they all have upwards of 10% +25 unemployment rates. In fact, the main problem in Spain and Greece seems to be that the governments were simply bloody corrupt.Elke, I would say massive amounts of spending, entitlement programs and socialism has led to permanently high unemployment in Europe, Obama wants us to be more like Europe and so we're seeing the same results here.
If you compare that to those classic welfare states, the numbers are rather clear: Belgium (6%), Denmark (6.3%), Germany (5.6%), The Netherlands (3.8%), Finland (6.1%), Sweden (5.2%), UK (5.8%), Iceland (5.5%) and Norway (2.4%) are models of wellfare states (or: Socialist Terror Realms, in your lingo) that do remarkable better in terms of unemployment than the U.S, in a year in which the EU was in an economic crisis worse than the global one the U.S. banks created.
One can see why Obama would look to those countries for solutions, no?
What's more, most of those countries have seen employment growth in 2011, with Norway even raising employment rates by 1.4% and Sweden managing 2.2%.
Again, one can see why economists might look at those countries to see what can be done.
Okay, give me some research to support your claim, or some things the Obama administration has done that was divisive.Also, if you think that the republicans are the ones dividing this country than you are horribly misled, Obama and his lapdogs in the media have done nothing but divide this country since he was elected in every possible way they can.
No, it isn't. This is a short and easy list to start your research with.Furthermore affirmative action is almost always a bad thing.
I also noticed that you haven't responed to a single one of my main arguments, or answered any of my questions.
So let me try again: barring the traditional tools of the welfare state, what would Mitt Romney do that Obama didn't and how would it work?
tempus est umbra in mente
Yeah, that small part towards the end where the economy collapsed... due to 8 years of his bullshit leadership where he steadily drove our economy into the ground.
Last edited by Jinsai; 08-13-2012 at 04:25 AM.
Throbbing Member
I'm very mentally invested in US politics (also I am writing my thesis about US fiscal policy), and I have to say that the Ryan pick is even worse than the Palin pick at first sight. With Palin, I was very sceptical but her first impression was not THAT bad. She was fierce and mostly unknown, and she delivered her speeches well (Even now, she is good when she's scripted). Also, she was able to focus a lot of resentment against the black, educated, liberal Obama. But Ryan... there is no question. He is a symbol of right-wing politics taken to the ultimate extreme. I get the feeling that a lot of liberals are even more convinced of an Obama win than before. Romney was already a weak candidate, weaker than McCain was, but now he's just running for his base. Maybe he knows he's going to lose and simply wants to get the conservative 45% of the voting population to the polls to prevent a total collapse.
tempus est umbra in mente
The one difference is that Ryan will not falter without a teleprompter. Palin was a flat out idiot. All signs point towards Ryan being a very smart bigot. Unlike palin, he'll actually read the script. Comparisons to palin are flattering and should be avoided.
Throbbing Member
Well, I was talking about the first impression. And for about two weeks, Palin looked not as bad as she turned out to be. It was probably that Katie Couric interview that sealed the deal. With Ryan however, we know what we have.
Hairy Member
But don't you know, all true American Conservatives 'were never fans of Bush.' Go ahead and ask any one of them. It remains a mystery as to why he did so well in the 04 elections, seeing as no one, not even conservatives, ever supported or liked him. Same thing applies to the two wars he began. It must have been some kind of liberal plot.
Yep. Painting Europe with the same strong-government / public-spending brush is to ignore the last 20 years. Sarkozy US-style deregulation and dismantlement has taken hold in quite a few places. That and quite a few leaders still insist on austerity measures. If anything, I think the issues that persist in the EU are evidence of the need to build and KEEP a strong social safety net.
Throbbing Member
Absolutely. The countries I listed as doing rather well all refused to implement the strict EU cirsis-guidelines, and with positive results. Cutting back expenses can never be the only option when facing a monetary or financial crisis.
BADGERS
You know what republicans are most afraid of right now? The tea party. It sounds a bit crazy, but all of the traditional republicans I know are concerned about the schisn created by them and the bad rap they get from being associated with them. At the same time, they have to appeal to them. I think Ryan's a fix on that. I know quite a few people whos passions are now ignited hy this pick. As far as conservative nut jobs go, hes a clever choice.
Stubby Member
The very idea that insurance companies and hospitals shouldn't make a profit is ludicrous, it is yet another example of liberal ideals that I find ridiculous. I don't know how so many people have grasped onto this profit = bad meme, but it seems to be showing up all over. How are hospitals supposed to expand, hire more people, essentially grow, without profit? Same to insurance companies. Why is profit such a reviled thing these days? On the subject of profits and wealth, it really bothers me when the Obama is caught talking about a so-called new America where prosperity is shared, other than the hard left and the socialists out there that should feel people with a small dose of anxiety.
On doctors, there have time and time again been polls showing dissatisfaction amongst doctors in regard to Obamacare, the health industry that seemed to support Obamacare is now openly concerned about this dissatisfaction and the looming likelihood of doctor shortages. If you don't think we'll see quite a few doctors retire because of Obamacare you are nuts. The system as it is set up now is difficult enough for doctors to work with, much like car dealerships found themselves waiting to be reimbursed after the "Cash for Clunkers" program, doctors jump through hoops and wait for the government to reimburse them. It's no wonder some simply opt out of the program outright, I wouldn't be shocked to see similar results with Obamacare.
Now onto you Elke. First of all, I do not lack empathy, not by a longshot, I just find that the drama made about the subject of pregnancy by rape far outweighs the reality of the situation. To quell any further drama you should know that I support abortion in this matter, but again believe other options should be considered first.
As for Europe, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the so-called social net much greater there? Meaning that unemployment and similar nanny systems are much larger and more prevalent? Our own numbers here, above 8% tell only part of the story, when including those that have given up looking the number is far more substantial, I assume the same or more likely worse for Europe.
As for divisiveness, I guess you weren't paying attention during the summer Obama tried to sell the country on Obamacare, you know when unions stepped up their nastiness, when opposition to Obamacare was shut out of townhall meetings, when union thugs were assaulting people, etc. The manner in which he and his cronies pushed that legislation sharply divided this country, because he got nasty about it and so did his union army. His administration has used the race card at every instance to protect him from criticism. His immediate remarks in support of Prof. Gates back in 2010 when he didn't know the full story created even more racial division. He has completely politicized Arizona trying to figure out it's illegal immigration problem to create a stir amongs the latino community. His Department of Justice has been caught up in yet another racial issue when refusing to prosecute the Black Panther members participating in voter intimidation in Philadelphia I believe, and that scandal continues to evolve. He has at all opportunities slighted Wall Street, the well off, investors, etc. while happily taking their campaign dollars. More recently he took the stance that business owners didn't build their own businesses, that government did, that the people did. The man who promised to unify has deeply divided this country amongst partisan lines, class lines, and race lines, he has not once attempted to truly unify us as a nation.
Your link on affirmative action is opinion, and I disagree with it. You are either better qualified for the job than the other person or you are not, losing out to someone not as qualified as you in the name of fairness is the exact opposite of fairness.
Wretchedest, you must have some pretty flimsy Republican friends, most Republicans/conservatives I know find a lot to enjoy about the Tea Party, including myself. It's about time we have true conservatism again and not the Bush style conservatism that occurred for 8 years.
Finally, Romney being weaker than McCain is hilarious, I mean really? McCain was an absolute moron, a pushover moderate, if that, trying to play as a Republican, too happy to try to play the nice guy while the liberals tore him to shreds. I like that Romney/Ryan are going to be mean, they should be, especially in light of this unbelievable cancer SuperPAC ad and the equally vile "Romney didn't pay taxes" crap. You all can pretend to be happy about the pick, but it's Romney/Ryan packing in huge numbers wherever they go, it's certainly not Obama anymore, all he has is his hypocritical Hollywood shindigs.
Throbbing Member
Profit is not bad inherently. I don't know why this concept is so hard for you to understand. Health is life and death. As in death of people. As in people's existences (as far as we know) are being wiped out just because they can't get treatment. As in the actual lives of all people are in the hands of insurance companies whom cannot have health as a priority when profit DEPENDS on people being sick. Our lives should not be dependent on the mere hope that insurance companies aren't run by sociopaths (which they are) whose main priority is to make profits. I literally cannot think of a more blatant example of a conflict of interest that leaves more room for evil. Are you serious?
Unnecessary death should upset you more than unbalanced numbers. The deficit is not directly correlated to the death and sickness of thousands. We are not ignorant and care free when it comes to the deficit, debt and budget. The difference is that we are not willing to sacrifice the lives and health of people in order to balance those numbers because they it defeats the purpose in our eyes. If we are not starting with the idea that the well being of the PEOPLE is most important then who the fuck cares if spending is cut astronomically? What is the point if the people (mainly the poor) are not in a better place. Comprendo?
That is why we want to cut things that do not mean less food for people, less healthcare for people and the like (when its possible). Again Ryan cannot be taken seriously for the mere fact that he hasn't put military spending on the table. It proves he is no more logical than the "libtards" you hate so much. If there was a call for a collective sacrifice from both parties to cut increase revenue (higher taxes for the rich) and decrease spending (the poor making sacrifices in terms of benefits and healthcare) then maybe we'd understand. But Ryan wants the sacrifices to come from the people who literally cannot afford them and that is unacceptable while richer Americans have to give up NOTHING.
Last edited by littlemonkey613; 08-13-2012 at 08:29 PM.
Posting Permissions
Likes: 
Faceplams: 