PDA

View Full Version : The Official Obama debate thread.


jonathan7
12-10-2008, 10:14 AM
I thought it better to have all the debate about Obama's presidency in one place, instead of having a million and one threads debating his abilities. So this thread can manoeuvre anywhere in sphere of subjects related to Obama and especially his presidency. I won't as yet lock other threads, however I'd prefer it that criticisms or praise of Obama were in here for now, as he hasn't even yet started office, so seems silly to have a million and one topics about. - j7

On a slight side note, for some of you to think about - Obama is now going to be the President, complaining about how bad a candidate he is isn't going to change that fact ;)

Yar-El
12-10-2008, 10:17 AM
On a slight side note, for some of you to think about - Obama is now going to be the President, complaining about how bad a candidate he is isn't going to change that fact ;)
So, we should lay down our verbal arms, and let him kill us all? Would you do the same for the oposition? Obama says something and we jump, right?

Don't make jokes about suicide--that's horrible. --Jae

jonathan7
12-10-2008, 10:25 AM
So, we should lay down our verbal arms, and let him kill us all? Would you do the same for the oposition? Obama says something and we jump, right?

Perhaps you may want to offer a viable option for Obama to take instead of just criticising him (n.b. before I'm accused of any bias - I wouldn't of voted for Obama or McCain - though I think Obama was the lesser of two evils. I'm also not American).

Yar-El
12-10-2008, 10:31 AM
Perhaps you may want to offer a viable option for Obama to take instead of just criticising him (n.b. before I'm accused of any bias - I wouldn't of voted for Obama or McCain - though I think Obama was the lesser of two evils. I'm also not American).

I will criticise any politician when I feel as I need to. You may not have noticed, but LucasForum's server is on American soil. Congrats on trying to surpress the freedom of speech while using an American based forum.

jonathan7
12-10-2008, 10:36 AM
I will criticise any politician when I feel as I need to. You may not have noticed, but LucasForum's server is on American soil. Congrats on trying to surpress the freedom of speech while using an American based forum.
Have I supressed your right to criticise him anywhere? I offered a non Mod comment, hence it not being in green your free to heed or ignore that however, you may want to review the Forum Rules;

1. Everyone is reminded that Lucasforums is a privately owned corporation and is a PG-13 forum. You are our invited guests. The staff have the challenging job of keeping the forums clean and presentable while not suffocating open discussion. If a thread is locked or a post is edited or deleted, this was a step deemed necessary in the staff's judgment. Please don't throw around irrelevant constitutional law or try to plea the case for 'less censorship'. We're not censoring, we're exercising quality control on something in which we invest a great deal of effort and time. You may present your views and opinions, whether they're popular or not, but you must do so in a respectful and courteous manner appropriate to a PG-13 forum.

May I suggest not trying to tell any member of the Mod team how the forums works.

Adavardes
12-10-2008, 12:29 PM
So, we should lay down our verbal arms, and let him kill us all?

I lol'd.

'Cause.

Y'know.

McCain was so against killing people.

Jae Onasi
12-10-2008, 01:05 PM
The topic is "Obama", not "Yar-El's posting style". Off-topic posts and baiting comments have been removed. Keep it civil and on-topic, please.

Litofsky
12-10-2008, 04:22 PM
To bring up an issue for this thread: What do you all think that Obama will do in way of our foreign appeal? Has our reputation be forever tarnished by Bush, or is the damage reparable?

mur'phon
12-10-2008, 04:38 PM
He'll be the Messiah for a short time, afterwards the boulevard of broken dreams in his wake will at least make him mortal, probably just another president, and pherhaps the great satan V2.0. I just hope he spends his Messiah time well.

And if you think your reputation is forever tarnished by Bush, ask a sub-saharan African what he/she thinks about him and prepare for a surprise.

jonathan7
12-10-2008, 04:39 PM
To bring up an issue for this thread: What do you all think that Obama will do in way of our foreign appeal?

Whatever else is said; Obama is seen very well in Europe - so inside Europe he will have improved your foreign appeal.

Has our reputation be forever tarnished by Bush, or is the damage reparable?

I like America :) The damage isn't un-repairable, and its sad that Bush's presidency is only going to be remembered for the foreign policy - (i.e. the Iraq war). America has much going for it, and it will be interesting to see how things go.

ForeverNight
12-10-2008, 05:19 PM
I'm with Mur'phon on this one.

I'm sick and tired of the people who worship the very ground he walks on! It's really disconcerting to be in a class of what you thought were rational people and suddenly find out that they don't like Obama... they practically worship him!

My friend has even worse stories, he's a member of the local Young Democrats group, or, rather, the Students for Barack Obama group... and there are a lot of kids in it who feel that he's the Messiah!

Now, to declare my bias, I wouldn't have voted for him if I could've (2012!) but nor was I all that crazy about McCain.

Since kids usually represent their Parent's biases, it's really kinda scary that so many parents like Obama this much!

Web Rider
12-10-2008, 05:30 PM
I'm with Mur'phon on this one.

I'm sick and tired of the people who worship the very ground he walks on! It's really disconcerting to be in a class of what you thought were rational people and suddenly find out that they don't like Obama... they practically worship him!

I agree, it's REALLY creepy how into Obama some people are. Sure, I like the guy and I think he'll do a good job, I mean, Bush is a pretty low standard to beat, but really, this whole craze with thinking that Obama will fix all the wrongs in the world is just weird.

Litofsky
12-10-2008, 05:31 PM
I just hope he spends his Messiah time well.
As do I. It'd be a shame if, once in office, none of the promises that threw him into office were delivered.

And if you think your reputation is forever tarnished by Bush, ask a sub-saharan African what he/she thinks about him and prepare for a surprise.
Indeed. I guess money does buy you friends.

Whatever else is said; Obama is seen very well in Europe - so inside Europe he will have improved your foreign appeal.
Europe's certainly a start. :p

I like America :) The damage isn't un-repairable, and its sad that Bush's presidency is only going to be remembered for the foreign policy - (i.e. the Iraq war). America has much going for it, and it will be interesting to see how things go.
I dare to say that Bush's foreign policy ended up affecting his home policy, too, as opposed to staying overseas.

My friend has even worse stories, he's a member of the local Young Democrats group, or, rather, the Students for Barack Obama group... and there are a lot of kids in it who feel that he's the Messiah!
:lol:

Since kids usually represent their Parent's biases, it's really kinda scary that so many parents like Obama this much!
I disagree: many (kids) are more affected by their peer's/close 'friends'' views. It's not always 'cool' to be with your parents in politics, or so I've observed.

I agree, it's REALLY creepy how into Obama some people are. Sure, I like the guy and I think he'll do a good job, I mean, Bush is a pretty low standard to beat, but really, this whole craze with thinking that Obama will fix all the wrongs in the world is just weird.
QFT.

Jae Onasi
12-10-2008, 07:34 PM
Creepy? 2 words: Obama girl.

Rev7
12-10-2008, 07:43 PM
I'm with Mur'phon on this one.

I'm sick and tired of the people who worship the very ground he walks on! It's really disconcerting to be in a class of what you thought were rational people and suddenly find out that they don't like Obama... they practically worship him!

My friend has even worse stories, he's a member of the local Young Democrats group, or, rather, the Students for Barack Obama group... and there are a lot of kids in it who feel that he's the Messiah!

Now, to declare my bias, I wouldn't have voted for him if I could've (2012!) but nor was I all that crazy about McCain.

Since kids usually represent their Parent's biases, it's really kinda scary that so many parents like Obama this much!
I definately agree with this. It is really un-nerving, to me at least, that so many people get this caught up in things.

Creepy? 2 words: Obama girl.
:nod:

EnderWiggin
12-10-2008, 09:35 PM
You may not have noticed, but LucasForum's server is on American soil.

QFT.

Creepy? 2 words: Obama girl.

Well, I think that was more in jest than actual truth. A 15 mins of fame sort of thing.

_EW_

Tommycat
12-10-2008, 10:11 PM
First off, Bush actually won the international medal for PEACE(no not peace, nor Peace as it actually stands for something, but I can't remember what) because of his comitment to education and foreign aid. Please try not to trivialize the few good things he has done. He doesn't have a lot of them.

Obama is a good man, and I hope everyone gives him the benefit of the doubt. I also hope that his supporters are honest enough to call him on the things he does wrong. This international craze over Obama will die down rather quickly. For now most of them are still in the "Anybody but Bush" mode, but as soon as Obama does something for the US that others disagree with, we'll be back to being hated again.

Arcesious
12-11-2008, 09:30 AM
The only reasons I supported Obama were:

His pro-science plans
His pro-environment plans
His speech about why 'politics should be secular'
And because his economic plan sounded better than what the GOP came up with. (But not much better. It was still full of problems.)

Other than that, I disagreed with most all the rest of Obama's plans, that and his ties to corrupt people and crazy pastors...

Adavardes
12-11-2008, 11:09 AM
I'm with Mur'phon on this one.

I'm sick and tired of the people who worship the very ground he walks on! It's really disconcerting to be in a class of what you thought were rational people and suddenly find out that they don't like Obama... they practically worship him!

Reminds me of that same religious-like fervor Republicans held for Bush, in spite of the fact that the man couldn't bumble through a sentence without saying a word that didn't, in fact, exist. I'm sorry, there's labelling someone an idiot, and then there's just being unintelligable, which is a major, MAJOR factor in leadership skill, and a precursor for evidence in their cognitive abilities, as well as their intelligence. The man wasn't fit to be anyone's commander in cheif, just like Palin isn't fit to be second in command, for the exact same reason. I don't understand why it seems that, to Republicans, you have to fit a certain mold. White, older, and stupider than you are, and if they aren't stupider, then they're elitist.

I don't follow Obama blindly, worshipping him. I don't worship anyone or anything, that's a personal life choice, and one of the things I love about Obama's policies on separation of church and state, something that a lot, not all, but a lot, of Conservative Republicans are against simply because they don't know how to keep religion, which is basically an irrational faith, out of their reason and logic. I have my doubts about whether or not Obama can make the changes he wants to make. His choices thus far are bold, and ballsy, and constructed, in my mind, to both gather as much bipartisan support as he possibly can, so as to have little to no political resistance in the drastic choices he will be making later on, and forming enough socialist and democratic change in the country to earn a re-election.

If there's ever been a politician intelligent and tactful enough to pull it off, it's him, but for me, being a left-wing libertarian, that means my policies, the things I agree with, will probably be squandered until Obama changes gears out of his center-left position, back into far left. He'll only do that, though, after he's got the Republican support he'll need to avoid bickering in the senate and congress, and get things done properly. If he can do that, then I personally believe that he'll make strident efforts in ushering this country back into an age of enlightenment, fairness, and peace. Does that mean it will all happen in his term? No, but he sure as hell can set a precedent for foreign policy that has been harshly neglected in the past 8 years in favour of war, work with his best-of-the-best economic team to bring stability, and hopefully a less capitalistic attitude (though those two kinda go hand in hand), to the economy, and begin to alleviate the war debts America faces.

He can start working towards leaving his successor the plans for a greener America, begin larger efforts on alternative energies and environmental conservation, raise the quality of living, bridge wealth gaps, pave the way for further redistribution of wealth, and even begin raising the quality of education. That's why I support him, because I think he'll set us down the right track, commence these policies, not complete them, but get them started. That, and I simply do not think conservative policy is at all constructive, nor is it rationally sound, toward any kind of progress. That's why I support Obama, and that's why I'm a liberal in the first place.

As per the comments about Obama's "friends"? I'm just not even gonna bother arguing that anymore. Why? Because it's crap. End of story.

Jedi_Man
12-11-2008, 12:33 PM
Personally, i really dislike obama. I would've voted for McCain. but thats because im christian and repblicans generally fit that way of life. i mean, im all pro choice, kinda. if a woman wants to screw her life and teh life of her own unborn baby, let her. then she would just be a <snipped>. or just a bad mom, in either case she shouldn't have gotten into bed with someone anyways. or if some gay guy wants to get married to another gay, im alright with that. as long as he doesn't stare at me from across the room. and bush isn't an idiot. what happened over in iraq isn't his fault, wouldn't any one of us , in the heat of the moment, gone to war, all pissed off at the Middle Easterns? we speak with rational hindight, right then and there was were a bloodshed would've broke out.
now ofcourse McCain has his short comings too. he chose the wrong person for VP. if you wanna win the presicency you gotta get someone from a big state. shoulda gone for someone from michigan or something, then he woulda won. but im not going to list all the tiny little discrepencies and wrongs that someones done, at least not yet.

The Doctor
12-11-2008, 12:47 PM
Personally, i really dislike obama. I would've voted for McCain. but thats because im christian and repblicans generally fit that way of life.
That's a poor way to go about selecting a political party to vote for. Choosing a candidate simply based on their party's usual ideals is ignorant, at best. McCain is a far cry from the traditional Republican candidate, to be honest, as is Obama from the traditional Democrat.

i mean, im all pro choice, kinda. if a woman wants to screw her life and teh life of her own unborn baby, let her. then she would just be a <snipped>. or just a bad mom, in either case she shouldn't have gotten into bed with someone anyways.
Do you know how many women are raped and impregnated every day in the United States? If you had a strangers child violently forced on you, can you say you'd want to carry and give birth to it? Some women just aren't ready to be mothers, and if they have one forced on them, they have every right to abort it. With all due respect, labelling a woman who wants to get rid of a rapist's daughter a bad mother is a poor and incredibly offensive judgement call.

or if some gay guy wants to get married to another gay, im alright with that. as long as he doesn't stare at me from across the room.
So, it's ok for a straight man to find a woman attractive, but a gay man isn't allowed to check out another man he finds attractive? So long as he doesn't force himself on the guy, there's no problem with that.

and bush isn't an idiot. what happened over in iraq isn't his fault, wouldn't any one of us , in the heat of the moment, gone to war, all pissed off at the Middle Easterns? we speak with rational hindight, right then and there was were a bloodshed would've broke out.
A politician, particularly the leader of one of the most powerful nations in the world, should be calm, rational, and level headed, no matter what's going on. If anyone else had rushed into war just as Bush did, I sure as hell wouldn't have voted for them, either. Saying that it was done in the heat of the moment doesn't justify it, in fact, it only further serves to prove the point that it was a giant mistake.

now ofcourse McCain has his short comings too. he chose the wrong person for VP. if you wanna win the presicency you gotta get someone from a big state. shoulda gone for someone from michigan or something, then he woulda won. but im not going to list all the tiny little discrepencies and wrongs that someones done, at least not yet.
If you want to win the Presidency you need to choose a running mate with some semblance of intelligence. Choosing someone "from a big state" doesn't necessarily do jack - a politician from a big state has the potential to be just as stupid as Palin. But I won't argue with you on that one, because at least you acknowledge that Palin was a mistake.

EDIT @ Jae below: I'm sorry if I'm coming across as uncivil. It's certainly not my intention. I've edited this post, and will keep a closer eye on myself in the future.

Jae Onasi
12-11-2008, 01:55 PM
It's an Obama thread, not an election thread, not an abortion thread, and please don't turn it into a thread about gawking at someone's buns, legs, or assorted other body parts. Doctor, watch how you word your posts so that you don't end up on the wrong side of the 'be civil' rule. You're getting close to the boundary. Jedi_Man--accusing women of being sluts out of hand if they get pregnant, when there may be completely innocent reasons on their part for the impregnation (e.g. rape), is tremendously offensive. Please avoid that characterization in the future. Thank you.

Web Rider
12-11-2008, 02:58 PM
Personally, i really dislike obama.
Yet, you don't state why.

I would've voted for McCain. but thats because im christian and repblicans generally fit that way of life.
Most Americans are Christians, 78%, give or take. Most Democrats are Christians, yes, they're not the same kind of evangelical christians that the Republican part holds on to, but Obama was a Christian. So then, was Obama the wrong kind of Christian?

i mean, im all pro choice, kinda. if a woman wants to screw her life and teh life of her own unborn baby, let her. then she would just be a <snipped>. or just a bad mom, in either case she shouldn't have gotten into bed with someone anyways.
Then clearly, you are pro-choice, and pro-life, which a perfectly reasonable stance, though I think you need to learn a little more about why people would want an abortion first.

Also: Given your stance, you could easily have gone for Obama, Obama is pro-life and pro-choice, just like you.

or if some gay guy wants to get married to another gay, im alright with that. as long as he doesn't stare at me from across the room.
And Obama, while having to take the Christian line of "marriage is between a man and a woman", at least believes gays should have the right, and it's a state issue.

and bush isn't an idiot. what happened over in iraq isn't his fault, wouldn't any one of us , in the heat of the moment, gone to war, all pissed off at the Middle Easterns?
"Middle easterners" did nothing to us. A radical hate group did. Please get your facts straight. It is like being attacked by the KKK, they do not represent Americans, they are a radical hate group.

In any case, your views are as much Democrat as they are Republican, so, why not Obama?

GarfieldJL
12-11-2008, 04:22 PM
Perhaps you may want to offer a viable option for Obama to take instead of just criticising him (n.b. before I'm accused of any bias - I wouldn't of voted for Obama or McCain - though I think Obama was the lesser of two evils. I'm also not American).

Uh huh, we have a guy that pals around with terrorists, worked for a group that specializes in voter fraud, worked with a slum lord (even bought a house with this guy's help), took money from Freddie Mac.

And you say he's the lesser of two evils compared to a war hero.

Obama is either extremely corrupt, or makes George W. Bush look like a genius, I'm going for extremely corrupt. It's Chicago style politics.

jonathan7
12-11-2008, 04:25 PM
Uh huh, we have a guy that pals around with terrorists, worked for a group that specializes in voter fraud, worked with a slum lord (even bought a house with this guy's help), took money from Freddie Mac.

And you say he's the lesser of two evils compared to a war hero.

Yup that's still my opinion :xp:, and I would argue a lot of the above as to what Obama is guilty of is down to opinion, I'll agree its fact when he's tried in a court of law (innocent until proven guilty etc).

Obama is either extremely corrupt, or makes George W. Bush look like a genius, I'm going for extremely corrupt. It's Chicago style politics.

Unfortunately these days I think most politicians are corrupt, and would suspect Bush is definatly in bed with big business.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-11-2008, 04:41 PM
Unfortunately these days I think most politicians are corrupt, and would suspect Bush is definatly in bed with big business.Just suspect? His VP was the CEO and chairman of Halliburton and his own family has been in the oil and banking businesses for years, Bush working for the former before he entered politics. Garfield simply likes to point out that Obama is so different from every other politician in these areas, even though he's no more corrupt than any other politician.

EnderWiggin
12-11-2008, 08:34 PM
that and his ties to corrupt people and crazy pastors...

I would watch what you say. If I remember correctly, you're quite familiar with ties to crazy pastors.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones :)

_EW_



And I swear to god, if someone says ad hominem to me, I'm going to pull out my own hair.

Edit:
I don't make idle accusations.
Sorry, but that's the definition of what you're doing.

_EW_

Q
12-16-2008, 05:20 PM
Military action against civilians is terrorism. Period.
Then every bit of modern warfare that has transpired since Sherman's march to the sea could be classified as such. Does this mean that every single combatant is a terrorist?

Warfare is ugly and, ideally, it should not happen, but it does.
No. Maybe that's enough for you, but I don't believe the government ever has a right to kill innocents no matter how many zones they put up.
And, ideally, you are correct. Unfortunately, it does not work out that way, and it is not just to treat individual combatants like criminals, or to view them as such.

But we're kind of getting off-topic here. This kind of discussion belongs in another thread. ;)

Achilles
12-16-2008, 05:28 PM
Then every bit of modern warfare that has transpired since Sherman's march to the sea could be classified as such. Does this mean that every single combatant is a terrorist?Does every single combatant engage civilians? I'll need to know whether or not this is a premise before I can accurately respond to your other question.

Warfare is ugly and, ideally, it should not happen, but it does.Indeed. I'm not sure what this has to do with a conversation about standards and how we apply them though. :confused:

The Doctor
12-16-2008, 05:52 PM
I'd just like to point out the laughable irony of GarfieldJL, of all people, accusing others of taking part in a smear campaign. :lol:

Q
12-16-2008, 06:04 PM
Does every single combatant engage civilians? I'll need to know whether or not this is a premise before I can accurately respond to your other question.
Are you accusing McCain of deliberately targeting civilians?
Indeed. I'm not sure what this has to do with a conversation about standards and how we apply them though. :confused:
It has everything to do with the fact that, realistically speaking, applying standards has very little to do with waging modern warfare. Unless you want to lose, of course. :p

The best thing that a nation's military can do is take the necessary steps to insure that civilian casualties are kept to a minimum, but even then they can not be completely avoided. Such is war.

Achilles
12-16-2008, 07:52 PM
Are you accusing McCain of deliberately targeting civilians?Are you answering a question with a question? :xp:

My earlier assertion was that military action against civilians is terrorism. If you would like to muddy the dialog with allegation that I have not made against the deliberateness (or lack thereof) of John McCain's actions, we can, however I don't see what that has to do with the point I was trying to make.

It has everything to do with the fact that, realistically speaking, applying standards has very little to do with waging modern warfare. Unless you want to lose, of course. :p"Win" or "lose" also have nothing to do with the point I was making.

What constitutes an act of terrorism? However we choose to define it, we then have to ask if anything we do fits that definition. And we have to do it objectively. We can't make arguments from special pleading about how it isn't terrorism when we do it because "we're the good guys", etc.

The best thing that a nation's military can do is take the necessary steps to insure that civilian casualties are kept to a minimum, but even then they can not be completely avoided. Such is war.Fair enough. Then I will say that war is an act of terrorism and we should be careful when labeling others "terrorist" because that label applies to us as well. My 2 cents.

PS: I'm perfectly ok with this so long as we're consistent. I don't want anyone to misinterpret my post as some sort of bleeding-heart, "give peace a chance" BS.

Q
12-17-2008, 12:01 AM
What constitutes an act of terrorism? However we choose to define it, we then have to ask if anything we do fits that definition. And we have to do it objectively. We can't make arguments from special pleading about how it isn't terrorism when we do it because "we're the good guys", etc.
In war the concept of "good guys and bad guys" is rarely more than propaganda. There are exceptions, of course, but for the most part there are only the victors and the vanquished.
Then I will say that war is an act of terrorism and we should be careful when labeling others "terrorist" because that label applies to us as well. My 2 cents.
And I know way too much about how we waged World War II to ever be able to honestly disagree with you.

Jae Onasi
12-17-2008, 01:16 AM
This is so much of a non-issue, I think it's utterly ridiculous that we still consider it a viable topic for debate. To assume that Obama is somehow guilty of terrorism, or of planning some sort of terrorist attack on America, I never even remotely implied that. I don't think Obama is planning any kind of terrorism at all. I don't even think Ayers is planning any kind of terrorism now--I think he's moved on to working within the system to effect changes instead of blowing things up for attention.

On the contrary, Jae, I think it's the height of ignorance to assume that simply because they've interacted, they're suddenly friends...Just because I know them, and have shared idle chat with them, doesn't mean they have any influence whatsoever on what I believe, or how I stand on any issue.
Do you regularly hold a political fund-raising party for someone who's not your friend or with whom you don't share similar political ideals? Do you host any kind of party for someone who's not your friend? Does Ayers, who feels so strongly about his ideals that he was willing to bomb things for those ideals, strike you as someone who would endorse and host fundraising events for someone who didn't share a lot of the same ideals?

This whole issue a sad farce of an attempt to smear Obama's name, and it's discredited a more or less respectable man of learning in the process. Did Ayers make a bad move? Yeah, he did. My Grandmother's sister made some bad choices too. You know what they called her in the '60s? A hippy. That's all Ayers was too, plain and simple.A lot of hippies sat around in their VW minibuses painted with psychedelic daisies, smoked joints (or did assorted other mind-altering substances) while listening to Janis Joplin and the Beatles, and joined in generally peaceful protests against the Vietnam war if they protested at all. Most hippies did not go bombing things, and Ayers' actions at that time were certainly not the benign actions of a peacenik. Ayers was a criminal for what he did, and was most definitely not a peace-loving Harry the Happy Hippy. Mind you, I don't associate Obama with the Ayers of the past who bombed things. Obama associates with the obviously more mature Ayers, and they've worked together on a number of educational/social activism projects.

I'm not going to throw Obama under the bus for being friends with an anti-war activist who used violent techniques, although I will call Ayers on not apologizing for his crimes and making restitution. However, the things Ayers says and teaches are very liberal, and Obama has associated with him on these issues. Ayers is a lot more liberal than I prefer, and I do want to know how much of an influence Ayers' current liberal ideas have on Obama. So, in that respect, the depth of their relationship, public and private, is important information for me.

As for whether or not Obama knew about Ayers' past--it's kind of hard to believe a man as well read and knowledgeable as he is would not have learned at some point about Ayers' very public record of attacks. I understand that Obama has denounced Ayers' actions on that matter, by the way, and accept that denouncement as genuine.

Terrorism: Let's work with this definition as a starting point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism) so we're all on the same page (no pun intended). The Academic Consensus Definition is this:
4. Academic Consensus Definition: "Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988).[14]

Since open warfare is not a clandestine (semi- or otherwise) operation, and open warfare has specific intended targets (enemy combatants) rather than symbolic targets, actions conducted during war are not technically terrorist acts. McCain's actions during the Vietnam war thus do not fall under the definition of terrorism. Any willful violations of the laws of land warfare would fall under the heading of war crimes. Since there's no evidence that he attempted to violate the laws of warfare, he can't be charged with war crimes, either.

Intentional targeting of civilians is a violation of the laws of land warfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war)
Parties are bound by the laws of war to the extent that such compliance does not interfere with achieving legitimate military goals. For example, they are obliged to make every effort to avoid damaging people and property not involved in combat, but they are not guilty of a war crime if a bomb mistakenly hits a residential area.

By the same token, combatants that use protected people or property as shields or camouflage are guilty of violations of laws of war and are responsible for damage to those that should be protected.

See also the Army field manual on the Law of Land Warfare (http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~nstanton/FM27-10.htm) for more military minutiae than most any of us ever wanted.

jonathan7
12-17-2008, 12:44 PM
Due to a number of reported posts from this thread, and several of you becoming upset over various aspects of posts, I'm closing this for 24 hours, for everyone to cool down - will be re-opened this time tomorrow -- j7

Re-opened! -- j7

Darth Avlectus
12-22-2008, 09:52 AM
I agree, it's REALLY creepy how into Obama some people are. Sure, I like the guy and I think he'll do a good job, I mean, Bush is a pretty low standard to beat, but really, this whole craze with thinking that Obama will fix all the wrongs in the world is just weird.

It is also irrational and a bajillion other similar things, most of which could be considered idolization. I'm not normally into viiolence...most of the time... however, dingy people sure could use a good smack upside the head,
or a chinese foot-sole spanking to bring them back to reality.

Creepy? 2 words: Obama girl.

Finally someone of the opposite sex with a collegiate background agrees with me...and a fencer too. I remember how weird and offended some wives in the fencing club got at me when I called obama girl creepy. Seriously SNL status.

As do I. It'd be a shame if, once in office, none of the promises that threw him into office were delivered. Which I have come to expect with *every* politician.



Indeed. I guess money does buy you friends.

Define friend? :) In that case I would rather attempt to tame a ferile aggressive adult brown rat.


I disagree: many (kids) are more affected by their peer's/close 'friends'' views. It's not always 'cool' to be with your parents in politics, or so I've observed.


It depends largely on the age group you're looking at, really.

Personally, I was always apart from my peers and eventually my parents too. My opinions were contrary and different from both. So I can speak for myself when I say there are exceptions.

In general, though, true.



Obama is a good man, and I hope everyone gives him the benefit of the doubt.


I am an independent with largely conservative values, some liberal.
I'd like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt regardless if I agree/disagree with their politics.

Not that I actually think he will live up to it, buuuuut, if he will do things to make the market competitive and *keep* it there, and protect it...GREAT!
Sounds to me like he is a capitalist/free enterprise marketeer.

I'll believe it when I see it, though. Fair enough?
---------------

I also hope that his supporters are honest enough to call him on the things he does wrong. This international craze over Obama will die down rather quickly. For now most of them are still in the "Anybody but Bush" mode, but as soon as Obama does something for the US that others disagree with, we'll be back to being hated again.

Ain't that the fickle truth. You know, I wouldn't count on his supporters as THOSE are who I trust the LEAST.

Obama is a door man in my eyes. Be polite to a door man but keep an eye on him.

I don't understand why it seems that, to Republicans, you have to fit a certain mold. White, older, and stupider than you are, and if they aren't stupider, then they're elitist.

While, yes I do notice such a thing in the general republican mentality, I would advise you not make hasty generalizations. As well as to whomever else believes racism is absolutely necessarily tied into conservatism. It is not, and racists, frankly are an embarrassment.

I don't follow Obama blindly, worshipping him. I don't worship anyone or anything, that's a personal life choice, and one of the things I love about Obama's policies on separation of church and state, something that a lot, not all, but a lot, of Conservative Republicans are against simply because they don't know how to keep religion, which is basically an irrational faith, out of their reason and logic.

Thank you for the discernment--an example of discriminating. The kind rarely seen anymore since political correctness tied racism in with the word.

Principles are something as a general guidance where there is none; Common sense and logic for all else.


I have my doubts about whether or not Obama can make the changes he wants to make. His choices thus far are bold, and ballsy, and constructed, in my mind, to both gather as much bipartisan support as he possibly can, so as to have little to no political resistance in the drastic choices he will be making later on, and forming enough socialist and democratic change in the country to earn a re-election.

Agreed. And that is as far as I agree with you. The rest we will fundamentally disagree on.


Uh huh, we have a guy that pals around with terrorists, worked for a group that specializes in voter fraud, worked with a slum lord (even bought a house with this guy's help), took money from Freddie Mac.

And you say he's the lesser of two evils compared to a war hero.

Obama is either extremely corrupt, or makes George W. Bush look like a genius, I'm going for extremely corrupt. It's Chicago style politics.

The past alliances and actions are definitely something unsettling to say the least. Which gives me cause to not trust him. Whether it is more for his implicit corruption or his naiveté and innocence he wishes to project I'm as yet uncertain.

In war the concept of "good guys and bad guys" is rarely more than propaganda. There are exceptions, of course, but for the most part there are only the victors and the vanquished.

And I know way too much about how we waged World War II to ever be able to honestly disagree with you.

As is fighting for or sustaining peacesuch things are a slogan. Peace is an unnatural state. It only occurs in society and civility. Frankly, corruption is inevitableno matter what--it is like decay.

I never even remotely implied that. I don't think Obama is planning any kind of terrorism at all. I don't even think Ayers is planning any kind of terrorism now--I think he's moved on to working within the system to effect changes instead of blowing things up for attention.

I agree and I think ayers is also trying to rot the system from the inside out as his anti-americanism would best be achieved that way.

Do you regularly hold a political fund-raising party for someone who's not your friend or with whom you don't share similar political ideals? Do you host any kind of party for someone who's not your friend? Does Ayers, who feels so strongly about his ideals that he was willing to bomb things for those ideals, strike you as someone who would endorse and host fundraising events for someone who didn't share a lot of the same ideals?

Thank you! As well I think the media is covering his old wrinkly butt. Just because he says one thing about his relationship to Obama does not mean that he is telling any truth about it whatsoever. He 'said' something? Yeah, so does everyone.

<SNIP> Most hippies did not go bombing things, and Ayers' actions at that time were certainly not the benign actions of a peacenik. Ayers was a criminal for what he did, and was most definitely not a peace-loving Harry the Happy Hippy. Mind you, I don't associate Obama with the Ayers of the past who bombed things. Obama associates with the obviously more mature Ayers, and they've worked together on a number of educational/social activism projects.


Matured evil is still evil. I mistrust it. Obama, I'm not sure if the mistrust I have towards him is towards the same thing or if it is his blindness while allying with such a thing.

I have a hunch, nothing more, Obama would attempt to be another JFK and that he's attempting to use these evils against themselves and each other. Biden or Ayers would assasinate Obama, just my opinion.


I'm not going to throw Obama under the bus for being friends with an anti-war activist who used violent techniques, although I will call Ayers on not apologizing for his crimes and making restitution. However, the things Ayers says and teaches are very liberal, and Obama has associated with him on these issues. Ayers is a lot more liberal than I prefer, and I do want to know how much of an influence Ayers' current liberal ideas have on Obama. So, in that respect, the depth of their relationship, public and private, is important information for me.

As for whether or not Obama knew about Ayers' past--it's kind of hard to believe a man as well read and knowledgeable as he is would not have learned at some point about Ayers' very public record of attacks.

Confirming my hunches I guess.

Thank you, you are seriously the one of the most coherent people I have seen on this topic.

I understand that Obama has denounced Ayers' actions on that matter, by the way, and accept that denouncement as genuine. It's all a very ugly proposition, regardless.

As somebody who has been backstabbed and been let down repeatedly I have come to expect betrayal and inconsistency from those with questionable alliances--especially in the business of politics.

Genuity of character is important. I reflect what I see, and I see grey.

GarfieldJL
12-22-2008, 07:07 PM
Well I don't trust him for a lot of reasons I'd advise people to read: http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2532305&postcount=3

Yar-El posted the post, and there is a lot more where that came from.

Thread Concerning Obama Campaign Practices which I started: http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=192825

Jae Onasi
12-31-2008, 02:24 AM
All right, grab the drool buckets, people, and attach them to your head. You'll need them if you read Eli Saslow's gushing article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/24/AR2008122402590.html) about Obama in the Washington Post. Now, I'm really glad Obama exercises--I think it's a great example for American and can only help in what's become an epidemic of health problems related to weight and lack of exercise.

However, can we make this sound a little less like a Bertrice Small bodice-ripper novel, please? The notable excerpt:
Between workouts during his Hawaii vacation this week, he was photographed looking like the paradigm of a new kind of presidential fitness, one geared less toward preventing heart attacks than winning swimsuit competitions. The sun glinted off chiseled pectorals sculpted during four weightlifting sessions each week, and a body toned by regular treadmill runs and basketball games.

"The sun glinted off chiseled pectorals"? I don't know whether to laugh or barf. I half-expected to see a picture of Obama either in a Chippendales speedo or on a cover of some cheesy romance novel wearing nothing but tight buckskin pants, said chiseled pects bulging as he catches the swooning damsel-in-distress-with-pouty-lips-and-boobs-the-size-of-Montana.

Here's a tip for you, Eli--put your tongue back in your mouth before it gets filthy from being dragged on the ground. I know that a lot of people are absolutely enchanted with Obama, but groveling is just plain tacky.

Achilles
12-31-2008, 02:32 AM
swooning damsel-in-distress-with-pouty-lips-and-boobs-the-size-of-Montana.Moar pics please.

jrrtoken
12-31-2008, 08:55 AM
Sounds more like a homo-erotic novellla than anything else. Eli is a guy, amirite? >_>

Adavardes
12-31-2008, 11:37 AM
All right, grab the drool buckets, people, and attach them to your head. You'll need them if you read Eli Saslow's gushing article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/24/AR2008122402590.html) about Obama in the Washington Post. Now, I'm really glad Obama exercises--I think it's a great example for American and can only help in what's become an epidemic of health problems related to weight and lack of exercise.

However, can we make this sound a little less like a Bertrice Small bodice-ripper novel, please? The notable excerpt:


"The sun glinted off chiseled pectorals"? I don't know whether to laugh or barf. I half-expected to see a picture of Obama either in a Chippendales speedo or on a cover of some cheesy romance novel wearing nothing but tight buckskin pants, said chiseled pects bulging as he catches the swooning damsel-in-distress-with-pouty-lips-and-boobs-the-size-of-Montana.

Here's a tip for you, Eli--put your tongue back in your mouth before it gets filthy from being dragged on the ground. I know that a lot of people are absolutely enchanted with Obama, but groveling is just plain tacky.

I honestly fail to see how this has any relevance to Obama. The man is clearly a surpressed homosexual that finds him attractive. It is true that some people don't support Obama because his policies fit their mold, or because he is rational, intelligent, and well-read, but rather because he is a fantastic public speaker and is entrancing on stage, if you're only listening to the pretty words, and no recognising what they mean. And the words, to me, mean a whole lot, ring true with a lot of my political philosophies, and are words that I see as words filled with potential for progress and betterment of the entire nation.

This is one of many examples of individuals supporting a candidate for the wrong reasons, IE, because Obama was an African American, or because Palin was a woman. There are some, myself included, however, that choose their candidates by what they plan to do and how they plan to do it. I'm just a little tired of the nutjobs being dredged up to somehow make the man himself look less credible, or trying to build something about his "associates" that make him look like a liar and a schemer. This Eli person has sexuality confusion, obviously. But other than somehow making Obama's election to office seem unfair or irrational, I can't see any alternative reason for bringing this up besides chastising the man, which, frankly, is kind of pointless.

Nobody with any taste in literature, or common sense, for that matter, would eat that cheesefest, and it's a gaff on the Washington Post's part for printing it.

Jae Onasi
12-31-2008, 11:58 AM
Nobody with any taste in literature, or common sense, for that matter, would eat that cheesefest, and it's a gaff on the Washington Post's part for printing it.I totally agree. I thought the Post had better taste than that, or at least an editorial board that was a little more attentive, unless, of course, they have Bertrice Small on staff, in which case I would be surprised we haven't seen something like this sooner. It's the only time something in the Washington Post made me want to gag for completely idiotic print. I'd love to see the look on Obama's face when he learns how chiseled his glistening pecs are.


Here's a few covers of 'glistening pecs' and 'damsels in distress' for your viewing pleasure. I'm sure Eli had these in mind when he was describing Obama's chiseled muscles. I hope the pouty lips and other, um, assets, are sufficiently large enough for you, Achilles, given the restrictions of a PG-13 forum. :D
http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc17/JaeOnasi/Reimaginedromancenovelcoverletone.jpg
http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc17/JaeOnasi/Reimaginedromancenovelcovermcmullet.jpg
http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc17/JaeOnasi/Reimaginedromancenovelcovertallerth.jpg
http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc17/JaeOnasi/Reimaginedromancenovelcovertubesock.jpg
http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc17/JaeOnasi/Reimaginedromancenovelcoverwardrobe.jpg

Q
12-31-2008, 12:09 PM
You seem to be awfully familiar with this particular... um, genre, Jae. :p

Jae Onasi
12-31-2008, 12:37 PM
You seem to be awfully familiar with this particular... um, genre, Jae. :p

Google is your friend. :xp:

EnderWiggin
12-31-2008, 07:48 PM
Someone wrote a book entitled Wardrobe Malfunction: She'd Risk it All to Show Her Boob?

Wow.

_EW_

Jae Onasi
12-31-2008, 09:55 PM
Someone wrote a book entitled Wardrobe Malfunction: She'd Risk it All to Show Her Boob?

Wow.

_EW_
It's from a site that parodies bodice-ripper novel covers.

Tommycat
12-31-2008, 11:01 PM
I thought the titles gave em away as parodies Jae... Then again, with the tripe that gets written in those.....

Those were funny as heck.

Gotta agree though that maybe that story could have gone in the Media bias thread... I think that definitely shows a bit of media bias... maybe just a little... Barely noticable...

Jae Onasi
01-10-2009, 07:07 PM
OK, so I was getting some stuff in Walgreens today, and on the way out of the store I saw a display of Obama trading cards, inauguration edition (http://www.toppsonlinestore.com/servlet/the-Obama-Trading-Cards/Categories). Now, I'm as excited as a lot of other people about Obama becoming President and what an amazing moment in history this will be. However, trading cards are just a little over the Topp.

Overall, I've been pleased with what I'm seeing from him since the election--he seems to be putting together a pretty good team of advisors, and I think having a lunch with all the current/previous living Presidents to get advice from them was a great idea. No one can truly understand the job as well as those who've been in it before, and it reinforces the picture I've gotten from him over the last year or so that he cares very deeply about not just being President, but also doing the job with excellence. I suppose you could argue that all Presidents want to be good ones, but Obama seems to be working hard on mastering all the different issues in order to be as effective as possible, and with the economy and wars, he has a very difficult road ahead of him.

Astor
01-10-2009, 07:12 PM
I agree that the merchandising is getting a little over the top. Isn't he also supposed to be on the new Spiderman?

Achilles
01-10-2009, 07:37 PM
However, trading cards are just a little over the Topp. Well done. :)

I'm not sure which sickens me more: the knowledge that some people are so blatantly trying to cash in on something that should be above this type of crap or the knowledge that there is a market for what they're selling. Nevermind, I think I just decided that they both sicken me equally.

Jae Onasi
01-10-2009, 08:17 PM
I wonder what a Bill Richardson card will be worth.... Yes, I agree both options are equally nauseating. It cheapens something that deserves some gravity and respect.

@Achilles below: :lol:

Achilles
01-10-2009, 08:20 PM
I wonder what a Bill Richardson card will be worth....

2 Mike Gravels and an Alan Keyes.

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-10-2009, 08:30 PM
what's my dennis kucinich rookie card worth

Achilles
01-10-2009, 08:32 PM
I'll trade you my 1991 George H.W. Bush for it. Mint condition.

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-10-2009, 08:42 PM
psh he didn't even go two terms

Achilles
01-10-2009, 08:48 PM
and Dennis Kucinich never invaded a foreign country.

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-10-2009, 08:53 PM
i know something he did invade though (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/Elizabeth_Harper_Kucinich.jpg)


dohoho

Achilles
01-10-2009, 08:59 PM
Fine.

I'll throw in your choice of an autographed 8.5x11 of Monica Lewinsky or Ann Coulter. The actual Ann Coulter.

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-10-2009, 09:52 PM
hmm what kind of condition is the ann coulter in

Achilles
01-10-2009, 10:20 PM
Emaciated

jrrtoken
01-10-2009, 10:22 PM
http://hbcukidgear.com/store/images/jbt-obama-c.jpg

The Doctor
01-10-2009, 10:23 PM
I love the "Warning: Choking Hazard". Lets those of us who support him have a larff at those who oppose him. :xp:

Web Rider
01-11-2009, 01:24 AM
Just got in an argument with my cousin over who Obama is picking. No wonder Democrats don't win elections. It's not good enough that they won, that they're trying to fix thing, noooo, they have cater to every freaking special interest group that ever backed him. Jeeze, with attitudes like that, Democrats deserve to lose.

Achilles
01-11-2009, 08:49 AM
they have cater to every freaking special interest group that ever backed him.Could you expand on this please?

I'm hoping for specific examples of "Democratic" behavior for which there are no equivalent with regards to Republicans. Thanks in advance.

Jae Onasi
01-20-2009, 03:09 PM
So, what issues do you all think Obama will tackle first? Iraq war? Health care? Education? Economy? Something else?

Which programs do you think will be successfully completed first?

mur'phon
01-20-2009, 03:33 PM
The Economy should (and probably will) be tackled first, and with this reccesion apearing to be a long one, I have less against the keynesian way of doing it than I usually would have. Wether it is compleeted or not will depend a lot on things outside his controll.

Health care and education seems like slow and steady issues, tackled early, finished late (especially health care).

Iraq, since his position on it seems to woble a bit, I think he'll not do terribly much in the begining, hope the good news keep comming, and then alow Iraq to "kick out the Americans" when they feel like it. Again a lot will depend on things outside his controll, but with any luck it'll be done before he leaves office.

What will he compleete first? Americas relations with the world. Admitedly, that is also what he will ruin first (read: bring back to normal levels).

Jedi_Man
01-26-2009, 05:16 PM
I'd like to change my previous ideas. I still have a slight problem with abortion, but if a girl is raped, then yeah I guess its all right. But I still don't like gay marriage, thats just me . I will support Obama, but would still rather have McCain as Pres. Yeah sure, like I said, we were all pissed off at the Middle Easterns and most of us wanted some payback. I was in Second Grade, so I didn't even realize something was wrong until like a few weeeks later. But I still stick by Bush. Sure the war may seem bad, but I think of it like Vietnam. Vietnam was a military sucess, the VC, although knowing the terrain better, were getting there butts handed to them. but it was all media, they were showing all the bad stuff, instead of the good, just like now. what makes better news, a troop carrier gets blown to bits by a weirdo with a bomb, or a bunch of army engineers restores water and elctricity to a town.

EnderWiggin
01-26-2009, 06:38 PM
Vietnam was a military sucess.

Are you serious? In what ****ing world?

_EW_

Web Rider
01-26-2009, 06:39 PM
I was in Second Grade, so I didn't even realize something was wrong until like a few weeeks later. But I still stick by Bush. Sure the war may seem bad, but I think of it like Vietnam. Vietnam was a military sucess, the VC, although knowing the terrain better, were getting there butts handed to them. but it was all media, they were showing all the bad stuff, instead of the good, just like now. what makes better news, a troop carrier gets blown to bits by a weirdo with a bomb, or a bunch of army engineers restores water and elctricity to a town.

I think you need more history on Vietnam. If you were in 2nd grade during 9/11 I'm going to wager that you didn't vote in this election, and that means your education is just the basic public school one, and yeah, it's just not good enough.

Adavardes
01-26-2009, 07:57 PM
would still rather have McCain as Pres.

Too bad?

Yeah sure, like I said, we were all pissed off at the Middle Easterns and most of us wanted some payback.

Stop generalising around race or ethnicity, it's as ignorant as it is hateful and wrong. They were not "middle easterners", they were terrorists, regardless of country of origin. And wanting payback has no weight on what should have been done properly. That war was pointless, driven by fear, and therefore should have never been allowed to happen. Saying "we were mad" doesn't make it better.

Jedi_Man
01-28-2009, 09:10 AM
Like I said, these are my own opinions. I still support our pres, whom ever that may be. And yes, although Vietnam was horrible and pointless, in the end we won most of the battles, its just that the press was bashing the military at every turn. kind of like now. You never hear any good news from the press anyways. And, the terrorists were of Middle Eastern descent, And I am not generalizing. I stated that the men who flew the planes into the twin towers were terrorists who were Middle eastern. Go ahead, keep bashing me, but my opinions are my own.
And no, I have studied these thing with my spare time, Which i have plenty of. SO my education on these thing is more than a basic public schools.

Jae Onasi
01-28-2009, 10:20 AM
Ender, Web Rider, Adavardes, jmac: Jedi_Man is what, in 9th grade or so? Cut him some slack for not having the same level of life experience and education as you all, and instead of attacking him, share some of what you know and what you've experienced. We all know what it was like when we were in 9th grade, and we all know just how much we've learned since then and how far we had to go to reach maturity. Please also be aware that the brains of younger teens are not fully developed, and they aren't going to have the same reasoning skills that someone in their 20's has. You'll get a lot farther with people if you're educational instead of confrontational. Thanks.

GarfieldJL
01-28-2009, 11:01 AM
Jae, some of Jedi_Man's comments indicates that he is actually better informed than I would expect from a person his age.
That wasn't my point anyway. People need to remember that we have members with a huge range of ages on this forum, some of whom at age 14 or 15 just don't have enough background knowledge yet to be able to argue with college-level skill. This was something I pointed out to others, anyway. --Jae

Just got in an argument with my cousin over who Obama is picking. No wonder Democrats don't win elections. It's not good enough that they won, that they're trying to fix thing, noooo, they have cater to every freaking special interest group that ever backed him. Jeeze, with attitudes like that, Democrats deserve to lose.

It's what you basically get in what is practically a 1 party system, where the Press is in the tank for that party.

jrrtoken
01-28-2009, 11:29 AM
It's what you basically get in what is practically a 1 party system, where the Press is in the tank for that party.Only problem with that is that the media has to be controlled by government, and IIRC, it isn't.

Jedi_Man
01-28-2009, 12:35 PM
thanks for defending me Jae

EnderWiggin
01-28-2009, 02:45 PM
And yes, although Vietnam was horrible and pointless, in the end we won most of the battles

Ok, I'll try it Jae's way.

No, Jedi_Man, Vietnam was not a success, and we did not in the end win most of the battles. Notice how Vietnam is now in a single-party communist state, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam) and how S. Vietnam was rapidly defeated soon after we left it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Saigon)

If you did not learn this by 9th grade, I apologize.

If you would like to discuss further the catastrophe that was the Vietnam War, I'd be happy to talk to you via PM. It may be slightly-offtopic to continue the discussion here.

It's what you basically get in what is practically a 1 party system, where the Press is in the tank for that party.
Recall that there are still 55 million GOP members in this country, and countless more independents.

Not really 1 party.

_EW_

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-28-2009, 03:05 PM
typical liberal media bashing the military

GarfieldJL
01-28-2009, 08:48 PM
Recall that there are still 55 million GOP members in this country, and countless more independents.


Let me put it this way, who controls the House and the Senate (the senate to the point all it takes is 1 vote and the Dems can ram through whatever they want), who controls the Executive Branch. And look at who controls almost the entire media.

Adavardes
01-28-2009, 08:53 PM
Let me put it this way, who controls the House and the Senate (the senate to the point all it takes is 1 vote and the Dems can ram through whatever they want), who controls the Executive Branch. And look at who controls almost the entire media.

All this is to me is the losing party having a hissy fit about not being on top anymore. I'm just a little sick and tired of it.

Web Rider
01-28-2009, 08:53 PM
Let me put it this way, who controls the House and the Senate (the senate to the point all it takes is 1 vote and the Dems can ram through whatever they want), who controls the Executive Branch. And look at who controls almost the entire media.

Except, the Democrats are still too stupid to be that coordinated. No, I am not mindlessly bashing Democrats, they've got a GOOD thing right now, but the one thing the Democrats could never do is get together. Not like Republicans can.

jonathan7
01-28-2009, 08:53 PM
Let me put it this way, who controls the House and the Senate (the senate to the point all it takes is 1 vote and the Dems can ram through whatever they want), who controls the Executive Branch. And look at who controls almost the entire media.

So somehow while the Republicans had the president, and 8 years ago the Senate and House? (You'll have to forgive me, I am after all not American, though IIRC, when Bush got in, it was all Republican, but lost those both the House and the Senate, mid-term). So anyway, while Bush has been in power (and for 4 years with both House and Senate), the evil Democrats somehow took control of the media?

Adavardes
01-28-2009, 08:59 PM
Except, the Democrats are still too stupid to be that coordinated. No, I am not mindlessly bashing Democrats, they've got a GOOD thing right now, but the one thing the Democrats could never do is get together. Not like Republicans can.

Nothing like some bribery, corruption, and corporate nepotism to keep the good ol' boys together, eh?

And the party whose president couldn't form a coherent sentence shouldn't be calling anyone stupid, imo.

EnderWiggin
01-28-2009, 09:02 PM
Let me put it this way, who controls the House and the Senate (the senate to the point all it takes is 1 vote and the Dems can ram through whatever they want), who controls the Executive Branch. And look at who controls almost the entire media.

That'd be the will of the people, so if you want to be angry, be angry at the good ol' US of A. And baw that your party is the loser right now. It's not always been that way, it's not going to be that way forever. That's the ebb and flow of politics, my friend.

So somehow while the Republicans had the president, and 8 years ago the Senate and House? (You'll have to forgive me, I am after all not American, though IIRC, when Bush got in, it was all Republican, but lost those both the House and the Senate, mid-term). So anyway, while Bush has been in power (and for 4 years with both House and Senate), the evil Democrats somehow took control of the media?

No, you've got it J7. Don't kid yourself; you understand US politics better than many common Americans. :(

_EW_

GarfieldJL
01-28-2009, 09:14 PM
That'd be the will of the people, so if you want to be angry, be angry at the good ol' US of A. And baw that your party is the loser right now. It's not always been that way, it's not going to be that way forever. That's the ebb and flow of politics, my friend.

That explains why they're trying to shut down talk radio, and anyone else that is critical of them. That also explains why they have money in the stimulus package for ACORN?


So far, I'm seeing corruption city, attempts to shut down all opposition, a media that is so utterly in the tank it would be funny if it weren't so serious.

The Dems tried to put in 25 billion for contraceptives, and Nancy Pelosi defended it saying it would stimulate the economy by cutting costs.

EnderWiggin
01-28-2009, 09:19 PM
The Dems tried to put in 25 billion for contraceptives, and Nancy Pelosi defended it saying it would stimulate the economy by cutting costs.
I saw that on BillO too, not Pelosi's finest moment.

However, tell the whole story. That part of the stimulus package request was removed, at President Obama's request. I'm thinking that's not helping your "liberal agenda" point any ;)

and re: talk radio, Obama has said he doesn't agree with the fairness doctrine, so I'm afraid I'm not familiar with what you're referring to. Please explain/source?

_EW_

jrrtoken
01-28-2009, 09:21 PM
That explains why they're trying to shut down talk radio, and anyone else that is critical of them. That also explains why they have money in the stimulus package for ACORN?Source, cuz that sounds so utterly ridiculous.
The Dems tried to put in 25 billion for contraceptives, and Nancy Pelosi defended it saying it would stimulate the economy by cutting costs.You're taking it WAAAY out of context. Besides, that provision is out of the bill.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/01/27/1762544.aspx

And don't pull the "MSNBC IS LIBERAL!!!!!" thing on me, because you'll probably find it on Fox News as well.

Adavardes
01-28-2009, 09:23 PM
I saw that on BillO too, not Pelosi's finest moment.

However, tell the whole story. That part of the stimulus package request was removed, at President Obama's request. I'm thinking that's not helping your "liberal agenda" point any ;)

and re: talk radio, Obama has said he doesn't agree with the fairness doctrine, so I'm afraid I'm not familiar with what you're referring to. Please explain/source?

_EW_

Nope, Obama is evil, and the "loony left" is out to enslave America forever. Anything saying otherwise is a lie built by the media, which is controlled by liberal lizard people.

CONSPIRACY IS EVERYWHEREEEEEEEEEEEEE

GarfieldJL
01-28-2009, 09:33 PM
I saw that on BillO too, not Pelosi's finest moment.

No, it's just a typical Pelosi moment.


However, tell the whole story. That part of the stimulus package request was removed, at President Obama's request. I'm thinking that's not helping your "liberal agenda" point any ;)

But what about the ACORN funding in that bill, they tried this in the first stimulus bill. Obama went after it after it was brought to public attention, whether he would have supported it is unknown.


and re: talk radio, Obama has said he doesn't agree with the fairness doctrine, so I'm afraid I'm not familiar with what you're referring to. Please explain/source?


An earlier topic when I brought up Obama's choice for the chairman of the FCC, that individual is big time out for the "fairness doctrine" if you'd recall.

EnderWiggin
01-28-2009, 09:37 PM
No, it's just a typical Pelosi moment.


Come now, that's just rude.


But what about the ACORN funding in that bill, they tried this in the first stimulus bill. Obama went after it after it was brought to public attention, whether he would have supported it is unknown.


I believe it's known whether or not he would have supported it as he asked for it to be removed! That means he didn't support it. By definition.


An earlier topic when I brought up Obama's choice for the chairman of the FCC, that individual is big time out for the "fairness doctrine" if you'd recall.
No, I don't recall. But of course, I don't care, as Obama is against the fairness doctrine. Perhaps you've forgotten that he's the man upstairs when it comes to passing legislation? Like, he can stop it?

_EW_

GarfieldJL
01-28-2009, 10:23 PM
Come now, that's just rude.


Doesn't change the fact that it's probably true. Remember this is the same Pelosi that preached for bipartisanism, and then locked the Republicans out of the House of Representives so they would have no say.


I believe it's known whether or not he would have supported it as he asked for it to be removed! That means he didn't support it. By definition.

No, it isn't because Fox News exposed it first, and he wouldn't want to commit political suicide cause there would be public outrage.


No, I don't recall. But of course, I don't care, as Obama is against the fairness doctrine. Perhaps you've forgotten that he's the man upstairs when it comes to passing legislation? Like, he can stop it?

Ender, he's a politican, they tend to say one thing and actually do something else.

Oh by the way I found the post where I bring up Obama's FCC pick
http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2550530&postcount=20

Web Rider
01-29-2009, 01:43 AM
Nothing like some bribery, corruption, and corporate nepotism to keep the good ol' boys together, eh?
*shrug* They were good at shutting up, keeping their heads down, and pushing the party line.

And the party whose president couldn't form a coherent sentence shouldn't be calling anyone stupid, imo.
For the record, i'm bashing my own party, I am a Democrat. But one thing the Democrats are terrible about is working together, it's always this special interest or that special interest. Once the Democrats won, it's not "what's best for the party", it's "what's best for me."

And if it wasn't for Obama being such a uniter in his campaign, the Democrats probably would of lost again because they're all too obesessed with having THEIR president, instead of the party's president.

Tommycat
01-29-2009, 04:04 AM
Nothing like some bribery, corruption, and corporate nepotism to keep the good ol' boys together, eh?
Doesn't work for the Democrats, why expect it to work better for Republicans. Unless you are going to tell me that the Democrast are free from bribery, corruption, and corporate nepotism, that's an unfounded attack.

And the party whose president couldn't form a coherent sentence shouldn't be calling anyone stupid, imo.

How stupid does it make the Democrats who couldn't even defeat THAT president?

Truth is Web Rider is correct. When a majority of Republicans get behind something they generally all work toward that mutual goal. The Dems all start pulling in all different directions to get what they as individuals want. It lessens their power to an extent.

You may ask why the crushing loss to the Dems then. Simple. McCain wasn't really our guy. Many Republicans were really turned off by him. Heck the common thought amongst McCain voters was "hold my nose and vote for McCain." Not really a strong show of support.

GarfieldJL
01-30-2009, 12:03 PM
You may ask why the crushing loss to the Dems then. Simple. McCain wasn't really our guy. Many Republicans were really turned off by him. Heck the common thought amongst McCain voters was "hold my nose and vote for McCain." Not really a strong show of support.

Actually it was more of Obama's 10,000 press secretaries, and ridiculous campaign spending, ACORN, among other things.


Obama's push for this new stimulus package which is nothing more that giving special interests gifts, is what I was expecting clear back when he chose his Chief of Staff.

In this case the Dems may have shot themselves in the foot because Republicans proposed an alternative plan that is far less expensive, and is primarily tax cuts.

jrrtoken
01-30-2009, 12:47 PM
Obama's push for this new stimulus package which is nothing more that giving special interests gifts, is what I was expecting clear back when he chose his Chief of Staff.Of course, hey; he's a liberal, they always corrupt everything.
In this case the Dems may have shot themselves in the foot because Republicans proposed an alternative plan that is far less expensive, and is primarily tax cuts...and I'm sure that those tax cuts will be for the wealthy, much like it was for Bush.

mur'phon
01-30-2009, 03:16 PM
Of course, hey; he's a politican, they always corrupt everything.

Fixed

..and I'm sure that those tax cuts will be for the wealthy, much like it was for Bush.

While, yes, the wealthy will benefit more (it is hard to cut taxes without this happening:xp:), the tax cuts will give average Joe a fair bit of cash to spend. However, this asumes people will actually spend much of it in a downturn, which is why I'm not terribly fond of them, still, they work a lot faster than increased public spending, so all in all they should make up a significant portion of any stimulus bill.

Web Rider
01-30-2009, 03:25 PM
..and I'm sure that those tax cuts will be for the wealthy, much like it was for Bush.

Which they aren't, you can go look up the information and find out exactly which income groups are getting the best breaks, as I recall, the breaks essentially end at 250k.

GarfieldJL
01-30-2009, 04:28 PM
Of course, hey; he's a liberal, they always corrupt everything.

I was thinking more of a Chicago style Politician, cause there are a few liberals out there that I'm sure are not corrupt.


..and I'm sure that those tax cuts will be for the wealthy, much like it was for Bush.

Raising taxes and digging yourself deeper into a hole won't help the economy recover.

jrrtoken
01-30-2009, 04:43 PM
Which they aren't, you can go look up the information and find out exactly which income groups are getting the best breaks, as I recall, the breaks essentially end at 250k.True, but even those in upper range saw a tax reduction, while those at poverty level got nothing. That is absolutely not fair.
Raising taxes and digging yourself deeper into a hole won't help the economy recover. Then tax only the wealthy, the real ones who deserve to be taxed for their massive amounts of wealth. As far as I'm concerned, the poor are still getting poorer while the rich are still getting richer, which is completely backwards, IMO.

GarfieldJL
01-30-2009, 04:47 PM
True, but even those in upper range saw a tax reduction, while those at poverty level got nothing. That is absolutely not fair.

This is a tax cut, the people at poverty level DO NOT PAY TAXES!



Then tax only the wealthy, the real ones who deserve to be taxed for their massive amounts of wealth. As far as I'm concerned, the poor are still getting poorer while the rich are still getting richer, which is completely backwards, IMO.

Sorry, but that just promotes socialism/communism. There needs to be some changes but trying to punish the rich (and a lot of them gained wealth through legitimate and ethical means), just discourages people from trying to be the best they can be.

jrrtoken
01-30-2009, 04:57 PM
This is a tax cut, the people at poverty level DO NOT PAY TAXES!Alright, then what about the ones right above the poverty line? The ones who are forced to live on minimum wage, and stuggle with a failing economy. They are still subjected to taxes, and I'm sure they can barely survive these days.
Sorry, but that just promotes socialism/communism.And? A bit of socialistic practices is necessary when economic deregulation spirals out of control. Oh, and communism and socialism are two totally different things, far too often associated as one and the same.
There needs to be some changes but trying to punish the rich (and a lot of them gained wealth through legitimate and ethical means), just discourages people from trying to be the best they can be.Since when? People will always aspire to get as much money as they can, no matter what the circumstances.

GarfieldJL
01-30-2009, 05:03 PM
Alright, then what about the ones right above the poverty line? The ones who are forced to live on minimum wage, and stuggle with a failing economy. They are still subjected to taxes, and I'm sure they can barely survive these days.

The people that pay taxes should get a tax cut, the people that don't shouldn't get a check cause it isn't a tax cut then, it is welfare.


And? A bit of socialistic practices is necessary when economic deregulation spirals out of control. Oh, and communism and socialism are two totally different things, far too often associated as one and the same.

And if you looked who caused it, you'd see it was Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and others of the Democrat party, just the media lied as usual. Republicans were actually trying to get the problem fixed. I had posted about this back before the election.


Since when? People will always aspire to get as much money as they can, no matter what the circumstances.

Since the fact all the extra money will be taken away because you apparently don't deserve it cause you make over X amount a year. Where is the incentive? That's the problem with socialism.

Next I'm expecting to see an attack on either the 1st Amendment or the 2nd Amendment. The difference between Republicans and Democrats is simple, the Republicans are content to winning an election, the Dems want to win and then destroy all opposition and voices of criticism.

jrrtoken
01-30-2009, 05:09 PM
And if you looked who caused it, you'd see it was Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and others of the Democrat party, just the media lied as usual. Republicans were actually trying to get the problem fixed. I had posted about this back before the election.There is no point to blame anymore, and that fact that you always seem to blame it one "them" is will get people nowhere.
Since the fact all the extra money will be taken away because you apparently don't deserve it cause you make over X amount a year. Where is the incentive? That's the problem with socialism.You are describing a purely socialistic economy, which will never happen in the US. The US will always remain a capitalism, what matters is whether the government will institute a policy of supply-side economics as seen during Reagan, which is essentially extremely capitalist, or whether it will institute more of a mixed economy, similar to the UK.
Next I'm expecting to see an attack on either the 1st Amendment or the 2nd Amendment. The difference between Republicans and Democrats is simple, the Republicans are content to winning an election, the Dems want to win and then destroy all opposition and voices of criticism.Just when I thought we were talking about the economy, your blatent, pointless monologue explaining the evils of the Democrats and the liberals pops up yet again. As GO-TO once said, "How droll."

GarfieldJL
01-30-2009, 05:57 PM
There is no point to blame anymore, and that fact that you always seem to blame it one "them" is will get people nowhere.

There is when they are the ones that lined their pockets from it and are in charge of Government Committees responsible for the oversight.


You are describing a purely socialistic economy, which will never happen in the US. The US will always remain a capitalism, what matters is whether the government will institute a policy of supply-side economics as seen during Reagan, which is essentially extremely capitalist, or whether it will institute more of a mixed economy, similar to the UK.

Explains why 11 Democrats and every single Republican in the House of Representatives voted against the "stimulus" package.


Just when I thought we were talking about the economy, your blatent, pointless monologue explaining the evils of the Democrats and the liberals pops up yet again. As GO-TO once said, "How droll."

Let's see here, money to go to ACORN, trying to silence conservative commentators, for criticizing the Democrat bill, excuse me but the issue isn't just the economy, it's a free speech issue, among other things.

Web Rider
01-30-2009, 07:12 PM
I was thinking more of a Chicago style Politician, cause there are a few liberals out there that I'm sure are not corrupt.
Yeah because Obama is totally using his mob connections and fake congressmen to get things done. Get a grip.

True, but even those in upper range saw a tax reduction, while those at poverty level got nothing. That is absolutely not fair.
You can't give back money to people who never gave you money in the first place.

mimartin
01-30-2009, 08:29 PM
Just a reminder:
5. Repeatedly posting the same thing: This refers specifically to repeating the same point over and over in a way that becomes irritating, without an attempt to clarify a point or to contribute to the conversation. This should not be construed to mean that you are required to answer someone else's questions. If it's the same argument and doesn't contribute to the discussion, the post may be edited or deleted, and the poster may receive an infraction.
Per Jae’s reminder the other day and my deletion of someone’s post for this violation, we will be enforcing this rule. I had hoped both incidents made it clear that this rule will be enforced. Continued repeating the same argument will not be tolerated. If someone did not accept the argument the first time, they are not likely to change their minds with it being repeated over and over. Either accept that fact and move on or find different evidence they will accept. However, there is no rule in Kavar or this forum that they have to agree with you.

If you would like to report this rules violation, please include where the argument is repeated from in the remarks.

mur'phon
01-31-2009, 02:37 AM
PastramiX:
Then tax only the wealthy, the real ones who deserve to be taxed for their massive amounts of wealth. As far as I'm concerned, the poor are still getting poorer while the rich are still getting richer, which is completely backwards, IMO.

Define wealthy, too often higher tax for the wealthy end up being higher tax for those who have two jobs.

And? A bit of socialistic practices is necessary when economic deregulation spirals out of control.

When regulation (not just deregulation) spirals out of controll, I'd say that re-regulation should be the focus.
While I agree the U.S could use some more socialist policies in general, and even more during a downturn, I'm afraid that the "downturn socialism" end up permanently.

Since when? People will always aspire to get as much money as they can, no matter what the circumstances.

But there is a point where you value the time you "waste" working more than the extra cash gained from working.

GarfieldJL
Raising taxes and digging yourself deeper into a hole won't help the economy recover.

Last time I checked there wasn't much tax raising in the pipe, Yes, that'll probably change when the economy recovers, but that's unlikely to be for a while.

There needs to be some changes but trying to punish the rich (and a lot of them gained wealth through legitimate and ethical means), just discourages people from trying to be the best they can be.

If you raise the taxes too high (and in the wrong places), then yes, I agree with you. I do however believe there is room for a fair bit more (after the economy recovers). Still, keep in mind the opportunities for the less well off that can be created by increased tax revenues. In my mind people should, as far as possible, be given the same opportunities to be the best they can be, if that is worth sacrificing a few other peoples opportunities is up to each to decide.

The people that pay taxes should get a tax cut, the people that don't shouldn't get a check cause it isn't a tax cut then, it is welfare.

But for stimulus purposes they work exactly the same way, so I don't see the problem here. This of course asumes that most of the extra wellfare spending is only for the recession.

Since the fact all the extra money will be taken away because you apparently don't deserve it cause you make over X amount a year. Where is the incentive?

The incentive is that it's a higher percentage that you loose, you still earn, besides, there are more ways to tax than through income.

Explains why 11 Democrats and every single Republican in the House of Representatives voted against the "stimulus" package.

Or maybe it was because they all knew it would be passed anyway, and decided that they might as well vote against to improve their chances of re-election.

jonathan7
01-31-2009, 07:27 AM
Explains why 11 Democrats and every single Republican in the House of Representatives voted against the "stimulus" package.

I was under the impression that if a Bill passed the majority of people had voted for it? Or maybe that's me being naive.

Web Rider
01-31-2009, 03:04 PM
But there is a point where you value the time you "waste" working more than the extra cash gained from working.

The backwards-bending curve of labor. That's what overtime was invented for, heck, what vacations and days off were invented for.

GarfieldJL
01-31-2009, 03:06 PM
I was under the impression that if a Bill passed the majority of people had voted for it? Or maybe that's me being naive.

If you study the voting breakdown and the bill, you'd know that not even a single Republican voted for it, Obama is now trying to get a Republican Senator out of the Senate so he can be replaced so the Dems have complete control.

If the bill was a good bill there would have been Republicans voting for it, but it is nothing more than Nancy Pelosi's spending spree on Left-Wing agenda.

The backwards-bending curve of labor. That's what overtime was invented for, heck, what vacations and days off were invented for.

And what would be the point of overtime which is 150% of your normal pay per hour, if you get taxed extra for it so you don't see a significant increase in what you earn.

jrrtoken
01-31-2009, 03:09 PM
Define wealthy, too often higher tax for the wealthy end up being higher tax for those who have two jobs.It can be debatable, but those earning more than $250,000 annually are considered part of the higher-class.
When regulation (not just deregulation) spirals out of controll, I'd say that re-regulation should be the focus.
While I agree the U.S could use some more socialist policies in general, and even more during a downturn, I'm afraid that the "downturn socialism" end up permanently.It's possible, though I heavily doubt it. The US has had its long history of shutting up and crucifying any socialists, so I doubt that there will be any sort of "economic revolution" that will be totally socialistic.

The Doctor
01-31-2009, 03:22 PM
And what would be the point of overtime which is 150% of your normal pay per hour, if you get taxed extra for it so you don't see a significant increase in what you earn.

If you're making over $250 000 a year, you can live without the fraction of your income derived from overtime. No one, repeat, no one needs that kind of money.

EnderWiggin
01-31-2009, 05:40 PM
If you study the voting breakdown and the bill, you'd know that not even a single Republican voted for it

Means only that the republicans were being obstinate, nothing more.

Obama is now trying to get a Republican Senator out of the Senate so he can be replaced so the Dems have complete control.


Source please, and stop being sensationalist. To say that they would have complete control would be false and you know it.

_EW_

Web Rider
01-31-2009, 06:21 PM
And what would be the point of overtime which is 150% of your normal pay per hour, if you get taxed extra for it so you don't see a significant increase in what you earn.

The backward-bending curve of labor only deals with companies and their employees. The concept is that you a person will only work for so long based on their wages and what they're doing. At some point, the extra income that they would make from working more hours is less valuable than the time the worker could be spending doing other things.

So, "overtime" is an incentive to get workers to work more, in a nutshell, making extra hours more valuable to work.

Taxes only affect the workers decision if the income difference is great enough.

mur'phon
01-31-2009, 06:32 PM
If the bill was a good bill there would have been Republicans voting for it, but it is nothing more than Nancy Pelosi's spending spree on Left-Wing agenda.

Read the bill, it actually have a fair bit of tax cuts and other conservative godies in it. Add that the reps have nothing to loose by voting against it since they knew they couldn't prevent it from pasing through, and I'm inclined to believe that it was more about being able to vote against an unpopular bill without any risk.

It's possible, though I heavily doubt it. The US has had its long history of shutting up and crucifying any socialists, so I doubt that there will be any sort of "economic revolution" that will be totally socialistic.

Neither do I, but keep in mind that social spending is hard to cut back on, if it goes too far now, I don't envy the politicans faced with the bill at a time where he from an economic point of view should scale back.

SRF_Vader
01-31-2009, 09:40 PM
If you're making over $250 000 a year, you can live without the fraction of your income derived from overtime. No one, repeat, no one needs that kind of money.

Who are you to tell someone what they need and dont need? Isnt that what we call tyranny? And that's what socialism is based in. Dictating what people are allowed to have. That is not freedom. That is not what our country was founded on.



Source please, and stop being sensationalist. To say that they would have complete control would be false and you know it.

_EW_

Actually, he's right. 1 (or two) more Senators that are democrat, and the democrats *will* have complete control. Because the republicans will not only no longer be capable of fillibustering, but even if every single republican senator votes "no", the bill would still pass. That's generally seen as "Complete Control". Especially with a democrat also in the White House, and the predicted shift in favor of left-wing ideology in the Judicial branch once a few more start retiring.

Please use the "Edit" function if you want to add to a post, please don't double post. If you want to quote multiple people you can use the "multi-quote" found in the bottom right hand corner of each post. -- j7

The Doctor
01-31-2009, 09:48 PM
Who are you to tell someone what they need and dont need? Isnt that what we call tyranny? And that's what socialism is based in. Dictating what people are allowed to have. That is not freedom. That is not what our country was founded on.

It's not a matter of telling someone what they need or don't need. It's not tyranny, or anything like that. It's an indisputable fact: no one needs $250 000 a year - especially now, when there are hard working, every day people forced into unemployment and bankruptcy by circumstance alone. You cannot rationally or even intelligently attempt to deny this. It's a fact, plain and simple, and no amount of name calling, accusations, or denial can change that.

Your country (and I stress your, as it is not my country), was founded on the concepts of equal rights and opportunity for all. In times when it simply isn't possible for everyone to have the same chances as everyone else, do the ideals of your nation not demand some form of socialist policy, if only temporarily? When circumstance robs some of the chance to make a living, should not circumstances be purposely altered to shift opportunity back to those being robbed of said chance? Just something to think about.

Also, you seem to be making the all-too-common mistake of confusing socialism with communism. Before you try labeling me as a tyrannically minded communist, do some research, please. There's a considerable difference.

Jae Onasi
01-31-2009, 11:59 PM
It's not a matter of telling someone what they need or don't need. It's not tyranny, or anything like that. It's an indisputable fact: no one needs $250 000 a year - especially now, when there are hard working, every day people forced into unemployment and bankruptcy by circumstance alone. You cannot rationally or even intelligently attempt to deny this. It's a fact, plain and simple, and no amount of name calling, accusations, or denial can change that.


What if they're taking care of a medically fragile family member with a tremendous amount of medical expenses? What if someone in their family has Alzheimer's and they want to put their loved one into the best facility they can find, which costs a lot of money? What if they have several kids in college at the same time, even if it's in state tuition? What if one of their close family members died and they became the parents of the now-orphaned children? What if they have all these things going on at the same time? I can easily see where someone would need that kind of money for very legitimate reasons, and it would not be frivolous or unnecessary.

I'm going to be in the position of having older parents at the same time as kids going through college. I have no clue how I'm going to afford to afford to help them all and put away sufficient funds for retirement, all at the same time. I sure don't want the gov't telling me how much I can make or not make, or how huge of a cut they're going to take because they think that it's unacceptable to make above a certain amount.

Web Rider
02-01-2009, 03:37 AM
It's not a matter of telling someone what they need or don't need. It's not tyranny, or anything like that. It's an indisputable fact: no one needs $250 000 a year - especially now, when there are hard working, every day people forced into unemployment and bankruptcy by circumstance alone. You cannot rationally or even intelligently attempt to deny this. It's a fact, plain and simple, and no amount of name calling, accusations, or denial can change that.
I suppose that depends on what you think a person's "needs" are.

Your country (and I stress your, as it is not my country), was founded on the concepts of equal rights and opportunity for all. In times when it simply isn't possible for everyone to have the same chances as everyone else, do the ideals of your nation not demand some form of socialist policy, if only temporarily? When circumstance robs some of the chance to make a living, should not circumstances be purposely altered to shift opportunity back to those being robbed of said chance? Just something to think about.
No, not really, I think we should help those people achieve, but not by just handing them things. That teaches them nothing and the next time we hit a bump, they'll be right back to where they are now. Job training, college, but honestly, that kind of thing should be for anyone who wants it, not just the poor, I'm pretty middle class, but I have no job, only my family is helping me, and getting a job right now is like squeezing water from a stone.

Also, you seem to be making the all-too-common mistake of confusing socialism with communism. Before you try labeling me as a tyrannically minded communist, do some research, please. There's a considerable difference.
Personally, if you're going to be tyrannical about it, just do it. Don't pussyfoot about with fancy names and nice words, just wield your iron fist and smash it into the face of everything and everyone that stands in your way. It's much simpler, much more efficient than only being so controlling, to simply be completely controlling.

EnderWiggin
02-01-2009, 09:12 AM
Actually, he's right. 1 (or two) more Senators that are democrat, and the democrats *will* have complete control. Because the republicans will not only no longer be capable of fillibustering, but even if every single republican senator votes "no", the bill would still pass. That's generally seen as "Complete Control". Especially with a democrat also in the White House, and the predicted shift in favor of left-wing ideology in the Judicial branch once a few more start retiring.


I'm aware of what he meant, thanks. It still is sensationalist. And I'd also like to point out that the number of current justices appointed by a GOP president = 7 while the number of justices appointed by a Democrat president = 2. So let's just think a little bit before we start running around screaming 'Complete Control' and 'Iron Fist'.

Thanks in advance.

_EW_

Adavardes
02-02-2009, 09:52 PM
What if they're taking care of a medically fragile family member with a tremendous amount of medical expenses? What if someone in their family has Alzheimer's and they want to put their loved one into the best facility they can find, which costs a lot of money? What if they have several kids in college at the same time, even if it's in state tuition? What if one of their close family members died and they became the parents of the now-orphaned children? What if they have all these things going on at the same time? I can easily see where someone would need that kind of money for very legitimate reasons, and it would not be frivolous or unnecessary.

Socialised economy? Government regulation? Universal/Socialised medicine?

Yeah, pretty sure socialist policy pokes holes in every argument you provided. Besides, you're giving rare cases to justify an argument that applies to most 250k+ earners who just spend all their money on **** they don't need.

The Doctor
02-02-2009, 10:54 PM
I suppose that depends on what you think a person's "needs" are.
No, it doesn't.

No, not really, I think we should help those people achieve, but not by just handing them things. That teaches them nothing and the next time we hit a bump, they'll be right back to where they are now. Job training, college, but honestly, that kind of thing should be for anyone who wants it, not just the poor, I'm pretty middle class, but I have no job, only my family is helping me, and getting a job right now is like squeezing water from a stone.
I don't know if you're aiming for sympathy or what, but please don't patronise me - your story is by no means unique. I'm also jobless in the lower middle class, in a city that relies on factory labour for 80% of the population - there are literally no jobs to be found here at the moment. But I don't really see what that has to do with anything, to be honest.

And what do you expect college and job training will do, really? The core of the problem isn't lack of ability, it's lack of jobs to be trained for. You can train 5000 people to work a Toyota plant; but with no plant to send them to, doing so is less than pointless. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but Obama hasn't proposed giving the money he gathers from the 250k tax increase directly into the hands of the lower class. As far as I know he plans on pumping it into public programs and the nationalisation of healthcare, no?

Personally, if you're going to be tyrannical about it, just do it. Don't pussyfoot about with fancy names and nice words, just wield your iron fist and smash it into the face of everything and everyone that stands in your way. It's much simpler, much more efficient than only being so controlling, to simply be completely controlling.
Don't know if you're directing those statements directly at me or not, but if you are, I'm sorry you see me that way. But if standing up and speaking my mind is tyrannical, then I guess you'd be guilty of the same thing, no? Again, there's nothing tyrannical about either my statements or the way they were delivered. If you were speaking about the people my statements were in reference to (ie the above-stated difference between Socialism and Communism), and you're referring to socialists as "pussy-foot communists", then I'm going to have to be quite offended.

As for Jae's comments, Adavardes surmised any response I would have had rather succinctly.

Jae Onasi
02-03-2009, 01:39 AM
Socialised economy? Government regulation? Universal/Socialised medicine?

Yeah, pretty sure socialist policy pokes holes in every argument you provided. Besides, you're giving rare cases to justify an argument that applies to most 250k+ earners who just spend all their money on **** they don't need.
The Doctor was saying NO one needs 250k per year as an absolute. I was pointing out situations where SOME one might actually require that, and all I had to do with that argument is show that there are cases that do require a high amount of salary to meet basic needs--rarity is irrelevant to disproving that absolute. Even in countries with socialized medicine you still have to pay for some things. Caring for kids and aging parents at the same time at home is not free or subsidized by the government, either--it costs money to feed, house, and clothe everyone, drive them to doctor appointments or assorted other places, and so on. Before you call these cases rare, I would recommend checking out info on the sandwich generation--my generation is called that for good reason, and it is definitely not rare. On top of that, by the time I retire, Social Security, if it isn't bankrupt by then, will be so depleted I'll be lucky if I get a dime a month--finding alternative sources to replace social security is a requirement, not an option anymore. So far, health care in this country is not free, higher education is not free, and retirement funds by the gov't is disappearing at an alarming rate. Socialist programs may be an answer, but how is the gov't going to pay for it?

Web Rider
02-03-2009, 03:50 AM
No, it doesn't.
Yes, it does. A hundred years ago, $25k was gobs of money for a year. If you said back then "nobody needs more than $25k", you would now be faced with the harsh reality, that YES, people need more than 25K.

Even so, saying "Oh, No more than $250k" takes nothing of the economy into account. Sure, bread may be 5 dollars a loaf, but what if it was 20? If everything was 5 times more expensive(ie: the dollar was worth 1/5th of it's current value), 250K would not be very much.

As other people have presented arguments, some people need to support extended family, some people have many children. Are you going to say now that because we're not allowed to have $250k a year, we can't have ill family? We can't have large families?


I don't know if you're aiming for sympathy or what, but please don't patronise me - your story is by no means unique. I'm also jobless in the lower middle class, in a city that relies on factory labour for 80% of the population - there are literally no jobs to be found here at the moment. But I don't really see what that has to do with anything, to be honest.
I was stating that the people who's lives totally suck right now are not the only people who need help. Do I need less help? Sure, no argument. Does that change the fact that I need help? No it does not. I need money and I need a job just like everyone else. I cannot in any sense of fairness say that ONLY those who are poor need help.

And what do you expect college and job training will do, really? The core of the problem isn't lack of ability, it's lack of jobs to be trained for. You can train 5000 people to work a Toyota plant; but with no plant to send them to, doing so is less than pointless. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but Obama hasn't proposed giving the money he gathers from the 250k tax increase directly into the hands of the lower class. As far as I know he plans on pumping it into public programs and the nationalisation of healthcare, no?
Which in many ways, is the same, sure, it doesn't feel a capitalist powerhouse economy, but it does lighten the burden on people.

Don't know if you're directing those statements directly at me or not, but if you are, I'm sorry you see me that way. But if standing up and speaking my mind is tyrannical, then I guess you'd be guilty of the same thing, no? Again, there's nothing tyrannical about either my statements or the way they were delivered. If you were speaking about the people my statements were in reference to (ie the above-stated difference between Socialism and Communism), and you're referring to socialists as "pussy-foot communists", then I'm going to have to be quite offended.
If you don't think telling people what they do or do not need, how much they should or should not make, who does or does not deserve help is not tyrannical, then you need a lesson on tyranny. I'm referring to anyone who isn't willing to go the distance as "pussyfooted".

As Yoda says "Do, or do not. There is no try."

The Doctor
02-03-2009, 11:42 AM
Yes, it does. A hundred years ago, $25k was gobs of money for a year. If you said back then "nobody needs more than $25k", you would now be faced with the harsh reality, that YES, people need more than 25K.
A hundred years from now, I'll be sure to retract my statement. Until then, it stands.

Even so, saying "Oh, No more than $250k" takes nothing of the economy into account. Sure, bread may be 5 dollars a loaf, but what if it was 20? If everything was 5 times more expensive(ie: the dollar was worth 1/5th of it's current value), 250K would not be very much.
You're gonna try to use what ifs as a valid argument? Yeah, ok, if prices were five times higher than they are, then sure, $250k wouldn't be as large a sum as it is now. I'll throw another what if at you in response: what if prices were one fifth what they are now (ie the dollar is worth five times its current value), and bread only cost a buck a loaf? Or hell, let's go nuts and say that a loaf of bread costs a nickel, and everything else is similarly reduced as the currency's value increases exponentially? Then $250k would be a massive number, huh?

As other people have presented arguments, some people need to support extended family, some people have many children. Are you going to say now that because we're not allowed to have $250k a year, we can't have ill family? We can't have large families?
And as other other people have presented, socialist programs such as a socialised economy, government regulation, Universal/Socialised medicine, and the like make this argument collapse like a poorly built house of cards.

I was stating that the people who's lives totally suck right now are not the only people who need help. Do I need less help? Sure, no argument. Does that change the fact that I need help? No it does not. I need money and I need a job just like everyone else. I cannot in any sense of fairness say that ONLY those who are poor need help.
You don't think the middle class will benefit from the same programs that the poor will benefit from? It's not like Obama's public healthcare plan will only cover the poor. It will cover everyone (that is, everyone who is an American citizen, one would think). Hence the term "public".

If you don't think telling people what they do or do not need, how much they should or should not make, who does or does not deserve help is not tyrannical, then you need a lesson on tyranny. I'm referring to anyone who isn't willing to go the distance as "pussyfooted".
No one is telling these people how much they're allowed to make. No one is telling them that once they make over $250k, all of that extra money is being taken away. An individual making $260k/year will be taxed at the same rate as someone making $450k/year, and both will still have a healthy reserve for those rare situations that Jae raised earlier - until Obama's public programs are put into action, of course, at which point they'll have an even healthier reserve. A much healthier reserve than someone making minimum wage for 38 hours as week because their boss doesn't have the money to give them 40, at which point they'd qualify for benefits; or a first year teacher making about $25-30k a year, as they and civil servants make next to nothing in the States.

I say again: I am not tyrannical in my thinking any more than you are in yours. Stop trying to paint me as such.

Also, I'd like to use my own situation to debunk the argument presented by Jae, as it would seem you either have Adavardes on your ignore list, or you just missed his post refuting her claims.

My father makes (approximately, for the sake of privacy/discretion), $60k a year - considerably less than the $250k that Obama is targeting. My mother is not currently working. My brother, now almost 18, is beginning University in the fall, ideally (from his standpoint) at a school on the English coast - but until then, they're supporting both myself and my brother for at least the next year, and have supported us quite well for the past 18 years. I'm also beginning a University program soon, which my parents pledged many years ago to pay at least part of. My mother is in a two-year course at the local college, as well, aiming for a CFP designation. Her mother, my elderly Grandmother, lives alone, my Grandfather having passed on three years ago leaving a meager pension behind for her. We've had to assist her with moving bills (as she couldn't bear to live in the house where her soul mate suffered and died - a process we had to pay to see at home instead of at a hospital, by the way), maintenance bills on the new house, and even a portion of her new car, after her old POS from the middle ages died (making its kind officially extinct :xp:). They have their own personal debt as well, particularly after all the work that had to be done on the house to make it livable during the Canadian winter - new furnace, complete change in the layout of the piping for said furnace, removal of the old baseboard heating system and reparation of the subsequent drywall wholes, new flooring (as the old had to be removed to access the piping which needed to be moved), and the like.

The point is, my parents are still financially comfortable enough to be planning a remodeling of my brother's soon-to-be-vacated room, with prospects of an August vacation to the Dominican on the horizon. I say again: no one needs more than $250k a year to make it by comfortably. Particularly after the socialised programs Obama has spoken of implementing are put into action.

Adavardes
02-03-2009, 11:49 AM
So far, health care in this country is not free, higher education is not free, and retirement funds by the gov't is disappearing at an alarming rate. Socialist programs may be an answer, but how is the gov't going to pay for it?

... With all that money made from further taxation of individuals with incomes at or above 250K?

Here's the jist of why things cost so much. In a purely free-market, capitalist economy, there's no restraint on competing corporations to monopolize and compete, meaning they can make twice as much stuff at half the quality for twice the money, and still sell loads of it merely because they have almost total control over their particular niche. And, oh yes, they do, because corporations are heartless and greedy and care nothing for bleeding the people dry of every cent they have. Because the production prices are going up for consumers, prices for services also go up so they can pay for the overly-expensive corporate products they need to live. This, in turn, raises incomes to ungodly levels just so we can adhere to the price-gouging of multi-million dollar establishments.

Now, let's see what socialism does to remedy that.

It takes taxation, hard-line taxation, from the greedy companies and the individuals who simply have too much money - I'm sorry, but some individuals just have too much money - and applies that tax money to government regulation of the economy. This makes sure that prices go down considerably, and that corporate monopolies and competition (otherwise known as coporate leech behaviour) are removed from the equation so that fairness and equality can resume. Prices for products go down, and so the individuals can afford to lower the costs of their services. Most will eventually be forced down by the deflated economy, but some, medical services in particular, may still be too expensive.

What do you do then? Take more money from the corporations and rich upper-class (they have plenty to spare, trust me on this) and socialise medicine. Doctors no longer need their hefty salaries, and aren't getting them anymore either. There are similar programs for education and the like, programs that only require large funds, used properly, during their implimentation, amounts I believe can be easily found in the coffers of mister moneybags over there. If the programs are set in place by a capable man, such as Obama, I think that there won't be a need to continually fund them with exuberant amounts. The then balanced and controlled economy will make sure of that.

Add to these improvements that wealth gaps would be bridged, health would improve, education, given the right influence, would excell in quality: all things this country desperately needs. I'm sorry, but again, your argument gets holes poked in it left and right by socialist policy.

Q
02-03-2009, 02:32 PM
A couple of questions:

Where would be the incentive to design and produce better, more cost-efffective products without competition? Wouldn't quality decrease and prices increase?

Without a large salary, where would be the incentive to go through pre-med, med school, residency and internship and incur all of that school debt (as in $100k+) which then could not be paid off? Why would anyone want to become a physician under such circumstances?

As a matter of fact, why would anyone want to achieve at all if what you say comes to pass? Out of the goodness of their hearts, I suppose?

Just wondering.

Adavardes
02-03-2009, 02:49 PM
A couple of questions:

Where would be the incentive to design and produce better, more cost-efffective products without competition? Wouldn't quality decrease and prices increase?

Actually, competition has only lead to products that are cheaper to produce and of lacking quality that cost multiple times more what they're actually worth. If you take away competition and inact government control, then they make things cheaper and better-made, because they can't make too much anyway. What incentive is there to bleed us dry with ****ty products if there's no extra profit?

Without a large salary, where would be the incentive to go through pre-med, med school, residency and internship and incur all of that school debt (as in $100k+) which then could not be paid off? Why would anyone want to become a physician under such circumstances?

Call me crazy, but perhaps doctors should do it because they love helping people and saving lives? And, again, there are programs in socialist policy to make tuition a non-issue. You bring up costs but ignore the plans to alleviate them. Again.

As a matter of fact, why would anyone want to achieve at all if what you say comes to pass? Out of the goodness of their hearts, I suppose?

Just wondering.

Because it's what they want to do? Because they derive joy and pleasure from actually doing the work? Call me crazy, but I don't think pure greed has to be the driving force in society. I mean, look where it got us.

mur'phon
02-03-2009, 03:12 PM
Here's the jist of why things cost so much. In a purely free-market, capitalist economy, there's no restraint on competing corporations to monopolize and compete, meaning they can make twice as much stuff at half the quality for twice the money, and still sell loads of it merely because they have almost total control over their particular niche.

Monopolize and compeete? The whole point of monopolizing is to not need to compeete, which raises prices, lowers production, and stffles inovation. Competition on the other hand does the opposite of this.

And, oh yes, they do, because corporations are heartless and greedy and care nothing for bleeding the people dry of every cent they have.

Well, that's sorta why they exist, if you are a shareholder in a company, do you want them to not try to earn as much as possible? It is this greed that fuels competition, and with all the benefits it bring, I don't mind if greed is the motivator.

It takes taxation, hard-line taxation, from the greedy companies and the individuals who simply have too much money - I'm sorry, but some individuals just have too much money - and applies that tax money to government regulation of the economy.

Good that we both agree that regulation is needed, though we probably disagree on what kind. Just out of curiosity, who decides if someone have too much money? And what if their money is earned by expanding/starting new companies that employ hordes of people? Would you take away their incentive to create new jobs just because they have too much money?

This makes sure that prices go down considerably, and that corporate monopolies and competition (otherwise known as coporate leech behaviour) are removed from the equation so that fairness and equality can resume.

I'm not sure how one would remove both monopolies and competition, they are polar opposites, unless you mean the state should organize business like a cartell (which is ilegal now, for good reason). Untill you clarify this, I can't comment on the "prices will go down part".

What do you do then? Take more money from the corporations and rich upper-class (they have plenty to spare, trust me on this) and socialise medicine. Doctors no longer need their hefty salaries, and aren't getting them anymore either.

Another thing we agree on, health care for everyone. However, I wonder how you intend to push down doctor wages, without A: significantly reducing the number of people educating themselves as such, and B: Making the doctors who do the education head for greener pastures in other countries.

There are similar programs for education and the like, programs that only require large funds, used properly, during their implimentation,

And you believe the government would use them properly? Why would they bother?

amounts I believe can be easily found in the coffers of mister moneybags over there.

Unless you are using a far broader definition of rich than what is common, then no, they don't have that much, in adition, expect them to abandon ship(country) if you squeese them too hard.

If the programs are set in place by a capable man, such as Obama, I think that there won't be a need to continually fund them with exuberant amounts.

Obama is not the one I doubt is capable, the ones under him who actually is going to implement things I would be fare more concerned about.

The then balanced and controlled economy will make sure of that.

Care to cite any examples of a working, balanced and cotrolled economy?

Add to these improvements that wealth gaps would be bridged, health would improve, education, given the right influence, would excell in quality: all things this country desperately needs. I'm sorry, but again, your argument gets holes poked in it left and right by socialist policy.

Economy is like Swiss cheese, there are holes everywhere, though your particular chunk seems holier than Jaes chunk:xp:

Edit

Actually, competition has only lead to products that are cheaper to produce and of lacking quality that cost multiple times more what they're actually worth.

What is a product worth then if it is not what people are willing to pay for it?

If you take away competition and inact government control, then they make things cheaper and better-made, because they can't make too much anyway. What incentive is there to bleed us dry with ****ty products if there's no extra profit?

Where is the incentive in making good products, make production more eficent, develop new tech etc if you are paid the exact same amount no matter what, and don't risk seeing your company bankrupt? Ever seen the products of state controlled economies?

Because it's what they want to do?
Because they derive joy and pleasure from actually doing the work?

But if I enjoy working as a mechanic, and studdying law, what do you think I'll choose if the wages are the same?

Call me crazy, but I don't think pure greed has to be the driving force in society. I mean, look where it got us.

Technological development at the speed of light, standards of living our forefathers could only dream about, need I continue?

Q
02-03-2009, 03:35 PM
Actually, competition has only lead to products that are cheaper to produce and of lacking quality that cost multiple times more what they're actually worth.
And here I thought outsourcing did that. :p But seriously, products like that do have their niche, but they can't dominate because there is a large part of the market that is willing to pay for quality.
If you take away competition and inact government control, then they make things cheaper and better-made, because they can't make too much anyway.
With price-fixing, yes, they will be cheaper, but without competition the quality will suck because there will be no reason to improve it.
What incentive is there to bleed us dry with ****ty products if there's no extra profit?
What incentive is there to make quality products if there is no extra profit? :D
Call me crazy, but perhaps doctors should do it because they love helping people and saving lives?
They should, yes, and a lot do. The fact of the matter is that without the fat paycheck we're going to have a lot fewer doctors.
And, again, there are programs in socialist policy to make tuition a non-issue.
With what? Higher taxes? Where is all of this tax money going to come from? The percentage of the population whose income you've destroyed by eliminating competition, perhaps? :doh:
You bring up costs but ignore the plans to alleviate them. Again.
And you're ignoring reality. Again.

:iceburn:
Because it's what they want to do? Because they derive joy and pleasure from actually doing the work?
Not me. I enjoy the paycheck, not the work. That's why it's called work.
Call me crazy, but I don't think pure greed has to be the driving force in society.
You're right: it should be, but it isn't. People are more greedy than altruistic. Sad fact.
I mean, look where it got us.
If you're referring to our present financial woes, most if not all of them can be traced back to a single cause: our extremely corrupt government, more of which is hardly the answer. ;)

mimartin
02-03-2009, 03:52 PM
Actually, competition has only lead to products that are cheaper to produce and of lacking quality that cost multiple times more what they're actually worth. I get what you are trying to say, but I disagree. This goes against everything I’ve seen in academia and the real world. If you are unable to compete on price with your competition one effective alternative is product differentiation. So if your product is superior in quality or application you could use that as a selling point over price.

Without completion there are no incentives in quantity, quality or innovations.
If you take away competition and inact government control, then they make things cheaper and better-made, because they can't make too much anyway. Without competition, what incentives are there to make better or cheaper products? Now if I don’t like the toilet paper I’m using I can choice from numerous other toilet paper brands. However, if you limited it to one, then no matter the cost or the quality, I’m going to buy that brand because the alternative is unacceptable to me.

Tommycat
02-05-2009, 12:42 AM
A person making over $250k a year employs people.

He might buy a new car every year. If it's a foreign(made) make, it at least gives money to the dealership in the US, as well as to the sales person. If it's a domestic(made), the benefits are obvious.

If he buys a new house, that means construction jobs. Lots of them.

Rich tend to not want to clean up their houses, but like to have a clean house. They would rather pay someone. That's a maid's position.

They like art. That's an artist getting paid(or an auction house).

If you're talking about strictly need. Our economy is based around buying things that we don't really need.

Jae Onasi
02-05-2009, 03:56 PM
I'm a doctor. I'm never going to be a filthy rich plastic surgeon and make 900 zillion bucks a year. Fine. I work where I do because I like what I do, even though I could make 3 times more working in a number of places far away from family. My choice. However, why should I put off 11 years of earning wages to go to school, working my butt off in a way that only a small percentage of the population can (being a doctor isn't a job everyone can learn to do or wants to do), to take a crap wage no better than the burger-flipping job I had during college? Furthermore, do you have any idea what malpractice insurance costs every year? I'm lucky that I don't have to pay nearly as much as some of my colleagues. Neurosurgeons and OB/GYNs have to pay 100,000 dollars a year _just_ for malpractice insurance because of the higher risk of lawsuits (someone has in imperfect baby, it of course is the doctor's fault, not their own if they smoked and did drugs while pregnant). Are you planning on doctor immunity to lawsuits along with giving them the crap wage?

I'm not asking to make an obscene wage, but my skills, knowledge, and yes, work, because doing that job is definitely NOT effortless, are worth a hell of a lot more in salary than the housecleaning job I did at a hotel when I was a student. If the gov't comes in and says "Oh, your salary is capped at x" and my taxes increase dramatically, I don't care how much I love seeing my patients, I'm out of there. It's not worth the cost of driving to and from work, daycare expenses, keeping up my license and malpractic insurance, the cost of required continuing education (which is NOT cheap), and the increased taxes at the higher end of the tax bracket. I don't work for free. If I wanted a mindless burger-flipping salary, I'd go work at McDonald's again where I wouldn't have responsibility for people's sight and sometimes even their lives. If I'm going to spend time and money maintaining a high level of expertise for my patients via journals/continuing ed classes/etc., and deal with the work involved in seeing patients--some of whom are nice, some of whom are complete a-holes, have a high level of responsibility (if I make a mistake flipping a burger, big deal, I get another out of the freezer. I make a mistake in diagnosis? Someone can go blind.), then I expect to be paid in accordance with those increased skills, knowledge, and level of responsibility. Otherwise, I'd just as soon stay home and have fun with my kids.

jonathan7
02-05-2009, 04:00 PM
Doctors work very hard, and get a salary that is indicative of the intelligence and dedication that is needed to become one. If you lower the amount paid you may well lower the standard of care you receive, I for one would rather receive the best health care I can get, and as such that means Doctors being rewarded for their work.

Now things maybe different in the U.S. but my dad is a doctor; he is a GP (family doctor) and the government gets away with making him work illegal hours (i.e. 13 hour days) because he's technically self employed; so he deserves his money. Furthermore if we are going to moan about wages, why don't we moan about the wages professional sports men and woman get; who in reality don't do anything important, where as doctors save lives; fact.

mur'phon
02-05-2009, 04:54 PM
Sportsmen does something important, they make a lot of money for their owners. Money which they make because we are willing to pay, directly or indirectly to watch them. If they make ridicolus amounts of money, it is only because we let them. Is it fair to the doctors, and others who do more "worthy" things? No, but the only ones who can change it is us, as consumers.

Yar-El
02-08-2009, 11:51 AM
Obama will fail at the whole wage caping. Why? Bilderberg will deal with him. The executive branch of the US government is no longer the top dog, and it hasn't been that way for years. Obama can make threats; however, he will face a very powerful set of individuals. I'm talking about bottomless pockets of influence and resources. This is where Obama's inexperiences will ruin him. I call them the modernday Bilderberg; however, they could have many other names. Bilderberg, Aluminarty, Skull and Bones, etc... It doesn't matter what they are called. They are very powerful men and women. Obama is a small fish playing in a shark pool.

mur'phon
02-08-2009, 12:28 PM
Why would he fail at passing a law capping wages? It's a popular measure especially with democrats but also many republicans. It's a wonderfull bill to support, popular with the people, and it won't have any effect in practice. Besides, from what I know it would only apply to firms bailed out in the future, so don't see why anyone would want to fight a bill they aren't afected by.

Yar-El
02-08-2009, 02:10 PM
I must have crossed lines here. Regulating companies who benefit from a bailout is good; however, Bernie Mac and the Secretary of Treasury also made another comment. They feel it may be important to regulate and place a salary cap on all US companies.

mur'phon
02-08-2009, 02:40 PM
Still, it's not as if they won't weasel around any laws, my points still stand.

jonathan7
02-08-2009, 02:52 PM
What did people make of the recent marriage of Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae?

Det. Bart Lasiter
02-08-2009, 03:09 PM
Obama will fail at the whole wage caping. Why? Bilderberg will deal with him. The executive branch of the US government is no longer the top dog, and it hasn't been that way for years. Obama can make threats; however, he will face a very powerful set of individuals. I'm talking about bottomless pockets of influence and resources. This is where Obama's inexperiences will ruin him. I call them the modernday Bilderberg; however, they could have many other names. Bilderberg, Aluminarty, Skull and Bones, etc... It doesn't matter what they are called. They are very powerful men and women. Obama is a small fish playing in a shark pool.It's Illuminati, get your evil secret societies with plans of world domination straight or no one's gonna take you seriously.

http://illuminati-icons.blogspot.com/

Jae Onasi
02-08-2009, 05:11 PM
Bernie Mac (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Mac) was an incredibly talented comedien who sadly died of complications from pneumonia and sarcoidosis last August. I doubt he had a lot to say in September when the banking meltdown happened.

Yar-El
02-09-2009, 09:02 AM
Bernie Mac (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Mac) was an incredibly talented comedien who sadly died of complications from pneumonia and sarcoidosis last August. I doubt he had a lot to say in September when the banking meltdown happened.
I made such a mistake. :D I need to look up the articles again. Sorry. :lol:

Yar-El
02-20-2009, 09:05 PM
MSNBC Article - Obama: No rights for Bagram prisoners (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29308012/)
Sides with Bush, says detainees can't challenge detention in U.S. courts

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration, siding with the Bush White House, contended Friday that detainees in Afghanistan have no constitutional rights

In a two-sentence court filing, the Justice Department said it agreed that detainees at Bagram Airfield cannot use U.S. courts to challenge their detention. The filing shocked human rights attorneys.

"The hope we all had in President Obama to lead us on a different path has not turned out as we'd hoped," said Tina Monshipour Foster, a human rights attorney representing a detainee at the Bagram Airfield. "We all expected better."

The Supreme Court last summer gave al-Qaida and Taliban suspects held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the right to challenge their detention. With about 600 detainees at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan and thousands more held in Iraq, courts are grappling with whether they, too, can sue to be released.

Three months after the Supreme Court's ruling on Guantanamo Bay, four Afghan citizens being detained at Bagram tried to challenge their detentions in U.S. District Court in Washington. Court filings alleged that the U.S. military had held them without charges, repeatedly interrogating them without any means to contact an attorney. Their petition was filed by relatives on their behalf since they had no way of getting access to the legal system.

The military has determined that all the detainees at Bagram are "enemy combatants." The Bush administration said in a response to the petition last year that the enemy combatant status of the Bagram detainees is reviewed every six months, taking into consideration classified intelligence and testimony from those involved in their capture and interrogation.


Embracing Bush policy
After Barack Obama took office, a federal judge in Washington gave the new administration a month to decide whether it wanted to stand by Bush's legal argument. Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd says the filing speaks for itself.

"They've now embraced the Bush policy that you can create prisons outside the law," said Jonathan Hafetz, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who has represented several detainees.

The Justice Department argues that Bagram is different from Guantanamo Bay because it is in an overseas war zone and the prisoners there are being held as part of an ongoing military action. The government argues that releasing enemy combatants into the Afghan war zone, or even diverting U.S. personnel there to consider their legal cases, could threaten security.

It's not the first time that the Obama administration has used a Bush administration legal argument after promising to review it. Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder announced a review of every court case in which the Bush administration invoked the state secrets privilege, a separate legal tool it used to have lawsuits thrown out rather than reveal secrets.

The same day, however, Justice Department attorney Douglas Letter cited that privilege in asking an appeals court to uphold dismissal of a suit accusing a Boeing Co. subsidiary of illegally helping the CIA fly suspected terrorists to allied foreign nations that tortured them.

Letter said that Obama officials approved his argument.

Darth Avlectus
02-23-2009, 03:52 AM
OH? Well I cannot exactly say that I am surprised it turned out like this. This war is too big. I had the feeling it would end up taking a turn like this. I seriously hate when I'm right.

OK, I just can't help it. I gotta point out some ironies......wait ironies? No no no. Wait.........Nah, this isn't credible. YAR! You've been rousting racoons again! Haven't you?! Where did you come up with this....thisss.....this dreg?!
:swear:


WASHINGTON - The Obama administration, siding with the Bush White House, contended Friday that detainees in Afghanistan have no constitutional rights

In a two-sentence court filing, the Justice Department said it agreed that detainees at Bagram Airfield cannot use U.S. courts to challenge their detention. The filing shocked human rights attorneys.

"The hope we all had in President Obama to lead us on a different path has not turned out as we'd hoped," said Tina Monshipour Foster, a human rights attorney representing a detainee at the Bagram Airfield. "We all expected better."

If it is any consolation, hope is a dirty word because you can be let down.
Sorry he did not make your expectations.

I guess the Obama administration changed its mind??? Maybe???
...Nah, he's just going with the flow like every president has done. :shades2: Gotta play it cool. Right? Gotta...

...Wait, I thought he promised that his administration wasn't going to do the politics and BS like all the administrations before it? :confused:
He did. Big surprise there. The world is not as rosy as we've painted it. He's only human. This is politics.

The military has determined that all the detainees at Bagram are "enemy combatants." The Bush administration said in a response to the petition last year that the enemy combatant status of the Bagram detainees is reviewed every six months, taking into consideration classified intelligence and testimony from those involved in their capture and interrogation.

No ****? So you mean they may actually know legitimate things about the combatants that the average American doesn't?
[mimicks Anakin/Vader's voice] LIAR!

Embracing Bush policy
After Barack Obama took office, a federal judge in Washington gave the new administration a month to decide whether it wanted to stand by Bush's legal argument. Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd says the filing speaks for itself.
A whole month to deliberate? He promised on the campaign trail that he'd close 'em all down immediately once in office.

Such a shame isn't it? ...NO? They actually needed that month because this is such a delicate matter? Well okay then. Maybe it is a necessity to have these prisons. Maybe a month just isn't enough time to decide? Just a reminder: It is lives we are talking about here after all. Also, torture is an atrocity is it not?

Seriously. BTW, remember, we also promised to be better in our decision making process than George Bush's regime, like not taking too long.

Not that this is any big deal. Don't sweat the small stuff. Be cool, now. Be cool. :shades2:

"They've now embraced the Bush policy that you can create prisons outside the law," said Jonathan Hafetz, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who has represented several detainees.

Hmm. From the ACLU, huh? Now that's saying something.

The Justice Department argues that Bagram is different from Guantanamo Bay because it is in an overseas war zone and the prisoners there are being held as part of an ongoing military action.
Hmm. Maybe I'm off my hinges, but does any this sound the least bit familiar at all? :confused:
The government argues that releasing enemy combatants into the Afghan war zone, or even diverting U.S. personnel there to consider their legal cases, could threaten security.
:dozey: No. Seriously, now. Where have I heard something like this before? I could swear I'm having a Deja-Vu right now.
It's not the first time that the Obama administration has used a Bush administration legal argument after promising to review it. This early on in the administration? Let us hope he will seriously live up to his promises to at least review the policies, then. Eventually.....

So...Trust his judgement. ......Just like we trusted all of our idol presidents.

Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder announced a review of every court case in which the Bush administration invoked the state secrets privilege, a separate legal tool it used to have lawsuits thrown out rather than reveal secrets.

Now why would they need to have that? Seriously? Why would they do that? Wait a minute. Why didn't we hear about this as it hppened just like on the campaign trail? 'Cuz, oh no, the media would never favor anyone. It's totally objective despite the fact it is a corporate business run by humans--people with their own opinions and agendas.

The same day, however, Justice Department attorney Douglas Letter cited that privilege in asking an appeals court to uphold dismissal of a suit accusing a Boeing Co. subsidiary of illegally helping the CIA fly suspected terrorists to allied foreign nations that tortured them.

Letter said that Obama officials approved his argument.

Wait he approved it? Maybe there actually is a legitimate need for it, then. Well, that or he is just as corrupt as anyone else in politics.

...Boeing? Funny. Wasn't that company sorta contributing to Obama's campaign??? Funny how they disguised their company name's font to be like Bose to seem more family friendly, isn't it? Ironic. He talks of closing one prison for its attrocities while keeping the other open. Also ironic.

No no no--he never took any money form them. It's a lie! They are a military corporation!

All in all, though, I saw this coming. I was right to be cynical. Promises to close these facilities down wile in the middle of a war, even if it is being dragged out, are most likely false. Though, I won't dock anyone points for having hope: Admittedly, there were many who had hoped George Bush was going to start doing things to stabilize the economy and to make it competitive again. Didn't pan out there now, did it?

It was nice to cling to the belief and all, but now that reality has kicked in, it's time to get real.

For some this is affirmation that the threat was real; for others this may be confirmation that you can't trust politicians because, well, they lie. Whoops. Guess America really stepped in it this time.

Either way, I saw incoming this for miles out. :dozey:

Yar-El
02-23-2009, 09:34 AM
:rofl:
Hope, Change, and Obama will save your soul! Testify!

What a joke.
:rofl:

I kind of thought Obama would have to embrace some of Bush Doctrine. Wait! Didn't he run and win an election taking a stance against Bush's policies? :lol:

I agree with most of the Bush Doctrine. Why? We are dealing with a foreign threat, and it is getting bigger day by day. We need these facilities open; however, I hope the prisoners get a fair trial for credibility sake.

Yar-El
02-23-2009, 10:09 AM
Did you people know some of the stimulus package will hit its peak in 2014?

Newsweek Article - Obama's Stimulus: A Colossal Waste? (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/obamas_stunted_economic_stimul.html)

Look at the numbers. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that about $200 billion will be spent in 2011 or later -- after it would do the most good. For starters, there's $8 billion for high-speed rail. "Everyone is saying this is (for) high-speed rail between Los Angeles and Las Vegas -- I don't know," says Ray Scheppach, executive director of the National Governors Association. Whatever's done, the design and construction will occupy many years. It's not a quick stimulus.

Then there's $20.8 billion for improved health information technology -- more electronic records and the like. Probably most people regard this as desirable, but here, too, changes occur slowly. The CBO expects only 3 percent of the money ($595 million) to be spent in fiscal 2009 and 2010. The peak year of projected spending is 2014 at $14.2 billion.

Big projects take time. They're included in the stimulus because Obama and Democratic congressional leaders are using the legislation to advance many political priorities instead of just spurring the economy. At his news conference, Obama argued (inaccurately) that the two goals don't conflict. Consider, he said, the retrofitting of federal buildings to make them more energy efficient. "We're creating jobs immediately," he said.

Yes -- but not many. The stimulus package includes $5.5 billion for overhauling federal buildings. The CBO estimates that only 23 percent of that would be spent in 2009 and 2010.

Worse, the economic impact of the stimulus is already smaller than advertised. The package includes an obscure tax provision: a "patch" for the alternative minimum tax (AMT). This protects many middle-class Americans against higher taxes and, on paper, adds $85 billion of "stimulus" in 2009 and 2010. One problem: "It's not stimulus," says Len Burman of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. "(Congress was) going to do it anyway. They do it every year." Strip out the AMT patch, and the stimulus drops to about $700 billion, with almost 30 percent spent after 2010.

The purpose of the stimulus is to minimize declines in one part of the economy from dragging other sectors down. The next big vulnerable sector seems to be state and local governments. Weakening tax payments create massive budget shortfalls. From now until the end of fiscal 2011, these may total $350 billion, says the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a liberal advocacy group. Required to balance their budgets, states face huge pressures to cut spending and jobs or to raise taxes. All would worsen the recession and deepen pessimism.
My question is simple - How do you expand government when there is no money, and it is already short on funding its current programs? People are out of jobs, so the weakening tax payments are going to happen. No job, no money, no buying luxury products.

Thanks for moving the thread Jae.

Jae Onasi
02-23-2009, 10:13 AM
Political threads need to go in the Hot topics forum. Thanks.

Yar-El
02-23-2009, 10:37 AM
Okay, this is my last thread in this section for the day. I want others to share their articles, so I'm going to hold back on adding more today. I think this article is a good read; thus, I wanted to share it with you. This is not a Obama bashing thread in anyway. I'm looking at where he currently measures up compared to other presidents. Things will change as we move forward, but it is interesting to see he is at the same level as George W. Bush.

Article - Obama's Approval Ratings in Context (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/what_happened_to_the_hopemonge.html)

Here's a fact that will probably shock you: Americans today have the same level of confidence in President Obama as they had in George W. Bush after his first month in office. According to Gallup, Obama’'s public approval rating currently stands at 63 percent, only a point above George W. Bush in late February 2001.

Few modern presidents have been greeted with such lofty expectations as Obama. That Obama now stands where Bush did eight years ago, on the eve of his first address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, serves as a reminder of how quickly the demands of the presidency can sober even the most talented politicians.

It's long been said that presidents are only as powerful as their public perception. Already, President Obama has lost a measure of his hopefulness at the moment he most requires it. The public seems to have noticed. And there are some in Washington who speculate that Obama's standing could still worsen.

"Obama is in a much weaker position than his poll numbers suggest and I think that the whole thing could collapse on him sooner rather than later," Doug Schoen, one of Bill Clinton's former pollsters, said.

That remains to be seen. But even at this early stage, Obama has already assumed a good deal of risk. With his first major legislative accomplishment, a $787 billion dollar economic stimulus bill, he has taken ownership of an economy that could quickly worsen.


President Obama Job Approval
RCP Average
Approve 63.2
Disapprove 28.6
Spread +34.6

Congressional Job Approval
RCP Average
Approve 33.4
Disapprove 60.0
Spread -26.6

Direction of Country
RCP Average
Right Direction 32.3
Wrong Track 59.3
Spread -27.0

mur'phon
02-23-2009, 01:09 PM
Yes, the stimulus contains a lot of things which give the wrong incentives, not work, and not work at the right time. However, with the current situation being as bad as it is, the economy is still likely to need the boost once it hits, even if it happens later. In adition, getting the damned thing through the house and senate meant that compromises had to be made.

My question is simple - How do you expand government when there is no money, and it is already short on funding its current programs?

By runing a defecit.

Yar-El
02-23-2009, 01:32 PM
By runing a defecit.
I'm completely ignorant at this point. How does running a defecit cure the economy?

mur'phon
02-23-2009, 02:53 PM
Read up on Keynesian economics, though your question was strictly how to expand government without having the money.

Yar-El
02-23-2009, 03:24 PM
Read up on Keynesian economics, though your question was strictly how to expand government without having the money.
I was caught between two conversations. Sorry about my mix up. Thanks I will look into Keynesian economics.

Web Rider
02-23-2009, 06:09 PM
You mean, in the first month of Obama's presidency, he hasn't saved the world!? But I thought he was the black superman!

http://img.wonkette.com/assets/resources/2008/01/black_superman.jpg

Darth Avlectus
02-25-2009, 08:46 PM
Yes, the stimulus contains a lot of things which give the wrong incentives, not work, and not work at the right time. However, with the current situation being as bad as it is, the economy is still likely to need the boost once it hits, even if it happens later. In adition, getting the damned thing through the house and senate meant that compromises had to be made.
True. I'm glad to see at least someone isn't painting the shutters w.r.t. POV.

Long term is better. However, there is no real way to predict it, I think. Not with rock solid certainty, anyway.

[Biting Sarcasm]: AT LAST! My father will finally be able to get the knee replacement, now deteriorating to need for double knee replacement, he has sorely needed.
:dozey:
Yeah, that is if he qualifies.


By runing a defecit.
Ugh.

Read up on Keynesian economics, though your question was strictly how to expand government without having the money.

I seem to remember something about that in my educational coverage of economics. I'll have to brush up. Thanks.

You mean, in the first month of Obama's presidency, he hasn't saved the world!? But I thought he was the black superman!

http://img.wonkette.com/assets/resources/2008/01/black_superman.jpg

:laughing:
:lol: :rofl:

Hey, it's good to see that although you don't always agree with political views to the right, you are willing to be frank about it and make us laugh wihle doing it.

Adavardes
02-25-2009, 10:30 PM
:laughing:
:lol: :rofl:

Hey, it's good to see that although you don't always agree with political views to the right, you are willing to be frank about it and make us laugh wihle doing it.

I think the purpose of that was to criticise Yar-El for expecting so much of him so fast, not to somehow bolster a right-wing opinion. But that's just what I got from it.

Tommycat
02-26-2009, 02:48 AM
I think the purpose of that was to criticise Yar-El for expecting so much of him so fast, not to somehow bolster a right-wing opinion. But that's just what I got from it.

I think it was a little from column A and a little from column B. The picture kinda seems to bolster the black Superman that the media appeared to make him out to be.

Honestly it isn't the Republicans and conservatives that are expecting huge successes from him. It's the Liberals and the media that are expecting him to be the savior. Conservatives expect him to be a failure.

Then there are people like myself, that tend to be conservative, but understand that he can't do everything in the first part of his first year. We know he has a long row to hoe.

Web Rider
02-26-2009, 03:06 AM
Hey, it's good to see that although you don't always agree with political views to the right, you are willing to be frank about it and make us laugh wihle doing it.

Board needs some humor, feels like a graveyard or a prison sometimes.

I think the purpose of that was to criticise Yar-El for expecting so much of him so fast, not to somehow bolster a right-wing opinion. But that's just what I got from it.

Yeah, not him in particular, but anyone who's going to admonish Obama for not fixing the country yet. The President, regardless of who they are, can only do so much, in the end it's going to be us who fix the country.

I think it was a little from column A and a little from column B. The picture kinda seems to bolster the black Superman that the media appeared to make him out to be.
The picture, and the statement, were sarcastic, to poke fun at people berating Obama and the media's image of them.

Jae Onasi
02-26-2009, 05:04 PM
There's no one on the planet who could change the economic crisis in the first month of their Presidency, especially a crisis of this magnitude. Super-Obama couldn't, Super-McCain couldn't, Super-whoever couldn't. Anyone who thinks we can fix a recession in a month needs to do some homework on recessions to learn more about them. :)

jrrtoken
02-26-2009, 06:42 PM
There's no one on the planet who could change the economic crisis in the first month of their Presidency, especially a crisis of this magnitude. Super-Obama couldn't, Super-McCain couldn't, Super-whoever couldn't.Super-FDR did, with some major help from Super-Tojo bombing Pearl Harbor.

Darth Avlectus
02-26-2009, 10:19 PM
I grind *all* presidents. Nobody gets by me unscathed. I'll find a reason, regardless what political alignment they are.

I think the purpose of that was to criticise Yar-El for expecting so much of him so fast, not to somehow bolster a right-wing opinion. But that's just what I got from it.
:dozey::dozey::dozey:
Lighten up. I've seen enough about his posts to figure out what kind of guy he is. I didn't think he was bolstering right wing opinions either--just picking up on humor elements as they are sorely needed around here.
And a praise to him for being a real sport about it. Is that a crime? Not last I checked.

Board needs some humor, feels like a graveyard or a prison sometimes. Thank you. Praises again, good fellow, for an honest assessment. o_Q

Yeah, not him in particular, but anyone who's going to admonish Obama for not fixing the country yet. The President, regardless of who they are, can only do so much, in the end it's going to be us who fix the country. The picture, and the statement, were sarcastic, to poke fun at people berating Obama and the media's image of them.
Down to earth. Civil. I like that. In all fairness, there are those on both sides of the aisle. Anyone expecting unrealistic things was being suckered in.

There's no one on the planet who could change the economic crisis in the first month of their Presidency, especially a crisis of this magnitude. Super-Obama couldn't, Super-McCain couldn't, Super-whoever couldn't. Anyone who thinks we can fix a recession in a month needs to do some homework on recessions to learn more about them. :)
:3heart::3heart::3heart:

Recessions move far too slow for anyone to be able to do anything about it immediately. Even if you take your power and flood everything with immediate $$$. What's more is that long term is not always so certain as many things can go wrong in the meantime.

This is just pragmatic common sense.

Jae Onasi
02-27-2009, 12:17 AM
Super-FDR did, with some major help from Super-Tojo bombing Pearl Harbor.

FDR was elected in '32, Pearl Harbor wasn't til Dec 7, 1941. :)

Tommycat
02-27-2009, 03:05 AM
FDR was elected in '32, Pearl Harbor wasn't til Dec 7, 1941. :)

nine years, one month... close enough :p

jrrtoken
02-27-2009, 11:24 AM
FDR was elected in '32, Pearl Harbor wasn't til Dec 7, 1941. :)Yeah, but the Great Fepression was still essentially in effect until WWII; that's when thousands of new jobs were created to help the war effort, essentially jumpstarting the economy. In hindsight, you can say that Imperial Japan helped bring the US out of the Depression.

Astor
02-27-2009, 02:48 PM
Obama Outlines Iraq Withdrawal. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7914061.stm)

OMG, i'm so totally annoyed that he didn't bring the troops home three months ago like he should have. Four weeks in and the Liberals have already ruined the country. :xp:

Just like he should have fixed the banking crisis back in 2005. :p

Tommycat
02-28-2009, 06:16 AM
Obama Outlines Iraq Withdrawal. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7914061.stm)

OMG, i'm so totally annoyed that he didn't bring the troops home three months ago like he should have. Four weeks in and the Liberals have already ruined the country. :xp:

Just like he should have fixed the banking crisis back in 2005. :p

Woah... so you're ok with another 3 years in Iraq? And it's actually Democrats who are expressing that he isn't doing enough. Republicans don't like the withdrawal timeline. Dems think it's too slow.

oh and unlike the first claim, he actually could have helped with the banking crisis earlier.. you know because he was in the senate.... Not saying he had any real power or the actual ability to do it single handedly, heck bush couldn't and he was the president. He still needed congress to do something. Theoretically we should be coming out of a recession, but Bush helped to delay the inevitable(which in turn made it worse) through government action. Similar to how Obama is trying to prop the economy up again with government action. I'm pretty sure that this will have a similar effect. But what do I know.. I'm just yer average guy.

mur'phon
02-28-2009, 08:01 AM
Theoretically we should be coming out of a recession, but Bush helped to delay the inevitable(which in turn made it worse) through government action.

The problem with Bush wasn't government action, it was that he flipped a coin before doing things. Nothing like leting some huge lenders go down in flames while saving others if you want to make the market think you're a crackpot.

Similar to how Obama is trying to prop the economy up again with government action.

Partly agree, some of what he does is neccesary if uncomfortable (bailing out the financial sector for instance), other parts are foolish though at least more comfortable(bailing out carmakers for instance).

Tommycat
03-01-2009, 02:09 AM
The problem with Bush wasn't government action, it was that he flipped a coin before doing things. Nothing like leting some huge lenders go down in flames while saving others if you want to make the market think you're a crackpot.
Actually to be frank, I feel that the economy would have recovered faster had Bush not tried saving the ones he did. I think the prior administration did too much, and hurt the ecomony more than inaction would have. granted the economy would have been collapsing earlier, which would have hurt election results. But then I'm just a partisan thinking the Republicans can do no wrong LOL...

Partly agree, some of what he does is neccesary if uncomfortable (bailing out the financial sector for instance), other parts are foolish though at least more comfortable(bailing out carmakers for instance).
The majority of the stuff in the stimulus is there to make us feel better, but in reality will hurt the economy even worse. I am not expecting this recession to end for a while. If you have a job, hold on to it like it's gold. Save your cash as much as possible.