Imoutgoodbye Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 Okay, okay, IGNORE the politics in this video. Focus on what's wrong with Americans and their short memories of history and realize that while this IS funny, it's not too funny because in fact, most Americans can't remember precise facts about what happened historically last year, so, maybe May isn't that far fetched! Haha! http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-19-2012/chaos-on-bull--t-mountain---video-distractions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imoutgoodbye Posted September 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 Now, THIS is political. This sums up quite nicely where the "entitlement" actually falls. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-19-2012/chaos-on-bulls--t-mountain---the-entitlement-society Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 Yeah, that was a pretty fine episode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f0xx Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 Hahahaha this guy is incredible lololol, I should watch more of him. Note to self: Don't watch him when drinking water from your bottle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inscribed Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 Now, THIS is political. This sums up quite nicely where the "entitlement" actually falls. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-19-2012/chaos-on-bulls--t-mountain---the-entitlement-society I'm glad to see you've given up support for Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imoutgoodbye Posted September 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 I'm glad to see you've given up support for Obama. I'm still voting for Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 I'm still voting for Obama. I hope you've got a photo ID and are able to jump through whatever other hoops Republicans in your state may have set up to make it harder for you to vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inscribed Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 I'm still voting for Obama. Well, at least you recognize your hypocrisy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inscribed Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 I hope you've got a photo ID and are able to jump through whatever other hoops Republicans in your state may have set up to make it harder for you to vote. Obviously, making sure that only legal, registered voters vote and only vote once should be considered a "hoop". Which party is it again that, without fail, tries to have overseas military votes thrown out every election cycle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inscribed Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 Obama has trounced civil liberties, increased the debt from 10.9 trillion to 16 trillion, engaged in more illegal military actions in 4 years than Bush did in 8, assassinated a US citizen without due process, maintains a kill list, added more secrecy to government instead of the transparency he promised, strengthened the Patriot Act up to and including indefinite holding of US citizens, and been responsible for more drug related arrests and raids than any other president in history. Which platforms are you two supporting again? What were those complaints you had with Bush when he was around? I think some people need to take a good look in the mirror and reevaluate exactly what they are supporting with their votes. Here's a great article to put some perspective on just how in debt we are: http://www.examiner.com/article/can-the-u-s-avoid-bankruptcy Another few years and we will be spending more on the interest of our debt than our entire GDP. Sure, let's spend even more guys! I know I'm not going to be one of the ones destroyed when our country becomes operationally bankrupt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imoutgoodbye Posted September 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 I hope you've got a photo ID and are able to jump through whatever other hoops Republicans in your state may have set up to make it harder for you to vote. Yes, I've got everything I need to vote. It's a shame that even if you live in this country, even if you pay your taxes in this country, you may not be able to vote. Hell, I've lost my birth certificate and social security card before. It's not pieces of paper that make me a citizen of this country. But, hey, you know, Bush's administration checked for vote fraud. Less than 3% of all suspected cases were true. Effectively, the Bush administration said there is no voter fraud going on and if there is, it's not enough to make any difference. These laws are just phantom Jim Crow BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyzarius Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 If you want to see someone who buys into the lies that the gop propogana engine sells, look no furthur than inscribed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inscribed Posted September 22, 2012 Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 If you want to see someone who buys into the lies that the gop propogana engine sells' date=' look no furthur than inscribed.[/quote'] Way to add anything of substance, as usual. Obviously, anyone who says anything negative about the almighty Obama must support the GOP. Whats really ironic in all of this is despite the different personalities created for them, Romney and Obama support and vote identically in 90% of the issues, for better or worse. Clearly I'm the one buying into propaganda... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imoutgoodbye Posted September 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 Fear mongering will get you nowhere. Besides, Obama has spent the least of any president since the early 1900's. Pulled that straight from a Forbes article. All presidents have kill lists. All presidents have enacted restrictions (sometimes people call them TAXES), etc... I have a nice bumper sticker on my vehicle that reads: I <3 Obamacare. Besides, I believe there is something to be said about the intelligible arguments made about hypocrisy are in fact just semantics about which side should have the rights, should wield society, and therefore I can co-opt them as well as you, hence they are mine or yours in this facade, depending on who we can sway with rhetoric. However, if what you say is not intelligible to me, then it is obviously part of some other culture or academia and is not relevant to me. Good night, sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyzarius Posted September 22, 2012 Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 Way to add anything of substance' date=' as usual. Obviously, anyone who says anything negative about the almighty Obama [i']must support the GOP. Whats really ironic in all of this is despite the different personalities created for them, Romney and Obama support and vote identically in 90% of the issues, for better or worse. Clearly I'm the one buying into propaganda... I contributed as much as you, repeating debunked falsehoods as if they are fact. Here is a fact, Obama has the least spending attributed to him than any president since Carter. There I contributed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celerity Posted September 22, 2012 Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 Here is a fact, Obama has the least spending attributed to him than any president since Carter. There I contributed. Reaaaaaally? The argument you are referencing means that Obama is increasing the average spending per year by less in raw dollars. So if we see a -0.5% for Obama's spending increases, that means he is increasing federal spending each year by -0.5% less dollars than Bush did. That does not mean he is spending less than other presidents--it means he is slowing down the rate of increases (as compared to Bush's spending). Since each president tends to increase the spending of the previous president, this is interesting. However, it means that Obama is still increasing spending, just by a lesser amount than Bush. Therefore, it should be understood that Obama is still spending more than every other president before him, including Bush. Obama really suffers in debt control, and our debt will increase by 14.6% per year. In addition, Obama's spending as a percentage of GDP is higher than most presidents. And Inscribed made a very good point in the striking similarity in stances that Romney/Obama take on issues. Basically, the rhetoric from the Republican side is economic freedom (less taxes, less entitlements) but social authoritarianism (no gay marriage, religious conservatism). The Democrat's rhetoric is the opposite: economic authoritarianism (higher taxes, more entitlement) but social freedom (abortion, peace). What is very interesting is that when in power, the Republicans renege on their economic promises (raising taxes, bailouts) but keep all of their social ones. The Democrats renege on their social promises (strengthening the Patriot Act, Obama's NDAA, maintain wars) but keep their economic ones (increase entitlements). Do you see the pattern here? Each party will renege on the promises that lead to liberty while following through on the ones that are totalitarian in nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted September 22, 2012 Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 Obviously' date=' making sure that only legal, registered voters vote and only vote once should be considered a "hoop".[/quote'] When the "problem" that one is attempting to address (in-person voter fraud) has an occurrence rate of under one in a million, and the "solution" proposed makes it more difficult, in many cases significantly so, for one in ten Americans of legal age to vote, do you really think that this is a good solution? Which party is it again that, without fail, tries to have overseas military votes thrown out every election cycle? Democrats, obviously. I am against this as well, but there are two reasons that I consider it a lesser issue for current discussion: one, the numbers involved are orders of magnitude smaller (hundreds of thousands vs tens of millions), and two, this is not a brand new issue that suddenly popped up out of nowhere in the last couple of years. And if you think I support every action Obama's taken, particularly those related to civil liberties, then you have paid absolutely no attention to the many discussions we've had in the past on the topic. But when it comes to civil liberties, I see absolutely no evidence to support the notion that Romney/Ryan would be better, so at the very best they'd be a draw there - it's not like Romney's been pointing out things like al-Awlaki's extrajudicial execution as abuses of executive power that he'd reign in. Considering that they are also against women being allowed to control what happens within their bodies and that they believe the US is a "Christian" nation so we can't let gays marry, I really can't expect them to be anything but worse when it comes to civil liberties. Do you see the pattern here? Each party will renege on the promises that lead to liberty while following through on the ones that are totalitarian in nature. Which is one of many reasons I hate our two-party system (edit: and do not expect it to change for the better for some time without something huge happening). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mali Posted September 22, 2012 Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 Gary Johnson FTW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted September 22, 2012 Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 Gary Johnson FTW. He'd be a far stronger competitor for my vote that Romney is, that's for sure. Admittedly, I don't know much about him, but what little I've seen I liked a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted September 22, 2012 Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 A piece from The Daily Show that you may appreciate a bit more than those Valek linked, inscribed, is here. It regards the failure to pass of a bill to provide job support to veterans. Having not read it (and not likely to appreciate/understand the minutia even if I did), I can't say whether it was a good or bad bill in my estimation, but the intention is one I can certainly get behind, considering that people who have put their lives on the line for an ideal/country/future/paycheck/whatever-reason-they're-doing-something-I-don't-have-the-fortitude-or-devotion-or-sense-of-obedience-to-do are doing worse when it comes to employment than the general populace. However, this segment also points out another major flaw with our legislative system. This bill went up for a vote in the Senate, a body of 100 members that is designed to pass such bills on a simple majority of 51. This bill failed to pass - with a vote of 58-40 (edit: I don't know the details, as I don't care to look them up because this kind of thing annoys the crap out of me, but I suspect this was not a formal vote on the bill, but rather something along the lines of a roll call to see who would/wouldn't support it - and yet this kind of vote still routinely destroys otherwise good ideas). This is emblematic of a disfunctional system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inscribed Posted September 22, 2012 Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 Which is one of many reasons I hate our two-party system (edit: and do not expect it to change for the better for some time without something huge happening). You can't complain about the two party system while supporting a candidate that you admit you disagree with on many policies and issues. More than two parties exist... you don't need 'something huge' to happen to support a candidate that you actually agree with. Even if these other candidates have no chance of winning the election, supporting them at least gives a voice to ideas that the two major parties are actively suppressing. Even a small victory like getting more party's candidates into the debates will be a huge win, and will show just how similar the Repubs and Dems are to each other. Gary Johnson FTW. "The majority of Americans are fiscally responsible and socially accepting. I'm in that category of people – I think I'm representative of the majority of people in this country. "Yet these people are let down by the two-party system. You've got Democrats that are supposed to be good on civil liberties but haven't been so good of late, and Republicans who are supposed to be good on dollars and cents but I'm not sure they have ever really been good at that. Combine them both, and arguably that's me." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/20/gary-johnson-libertarian-election-2012 Oh, and he became a Republican governor in a traditionally Democratic state... for two consecutive terms. And had an 80+% approval rating upon leaving office. And took a state in debt and built one of the largest state surpluses in the country. And was one of the highest-ranking officials in the country to openly support legalizing marijuana and pardoning all those jailed for marijuana related offenses. I can go on... A piece from The Daily Show that you may appreciate a bit more than those Valek linked' date=' inscribed, is here.[/quote'] http://reason.com/archives/2012/06/13/create-wealth-not-jobs This article mentions that bill in particular. It was something that was rightfully struck down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imoutgoodbye Posted September 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 Two-party system is rigged. I thought, I had a glimmer of hope, after about a year in college, that MAYBE this nation was going to move away from it. Then I woke up and realized America's still dumber than a box of rocks and I'd need to cast my vote in with the Democrats to sustain my my immediate needs. Who's going to offer me more social freedoms? Who's going to tax the higher income levels before the lower income levels? Yes, Obama has done his fair share of "rubber stamp" policies. However, before we run off into Blame The Presidents, let's also remember one man isn't going to get &%*$ done. The system doesn't work. We'd have to fix that first. And I don't just mean the government. I'm also pointing at the banking system, Wall Street, and corporations. I would still propose an end to the capitalist economy. It's already in decline here in the digital age. It prospered in the progressive era, but it's now time for it to fail. This is also another reason, by and large, to localize economies and finally get around to restructuring the broken institution of the federal mail system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inscribed Posted September 22, 2012 Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 Valek, the Democrats have done more to hamper social freedoms these past four years than even Bush did. Taxing the higher income families won't do anything to dent our debt... you could tax every man and woman in the US 100% and we still wouldn't be able to sustain our current (and future planned) spending. Presidents are most certainly the ones to blame here, because ultimately they have the power to veto. We haven't had a true free market, capitalist society in the US in a long time, if ever, so its hard to blame that for anything. It has been one of a centrally planned, government controlled economy, and it fails in every respect. There has never in history been evidence of a centrally planned economy creating wealth over the long term without the aid of war to sustain it, yet we still have people calling for it. The banking system, Wall Street, and corporations are only scapegoats... the problem is that the government wields so much power in the first place to give (sell) away. In a free market, the millions of voices of the American public hold corporations accountable... in a centrally planned economy, corporations answer to a few elite within the government. These 'elite' few are dumb, corrupt, and can be bought... and we choose to have them deciding which corporations succeed, who gets money, and what rules they play by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted September 22, 2012 Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 You can't complain about the two party system while supporting a candidate that you admit you disagree with on many policies and issues. Define "supporting". I've hardly said anything positive about Obama in this thread. That being said, I live in what is currently a swing state, and I do think that a Romney presidency would be a far worse thing than a second Obama term, so I'll be voting for Obama for pragmatic reasons. http://reason.com/archives/2012/06/13/create-wealth-not-jobs This article mentions that bill in particular. It was something that was rightfully struck down. No it doesn't. You do read the things you link to first, right? It's got nothing about the bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inscribed Posted September 22, 2012 Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 "But pumping money into public-sector unions is always good for businesses, communities and workers? Obama is peddling a "jobs" bill right now that features one pinch of protectionism, one pinch of feel-good veteran help and a few hundred cups' worth of wealth-sucking, union-growing debt inducement. Can anyone name a single policy proposal by his administration that even pretends to clear the way for private-sector wealth creation?" You do read the things I link to first, right? Also, there is nothing pragmatic about voting for a candidate you do not support, especially when broken down line by line, Romney and Obama are nearly identical in policy and voting behavior. Vote for who you think would make the best president, and encourage others to do so as well. There's no such thing as a wasted vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.