LucasForums

LucasForums (http://www.lucasforums.com/index.php)
-   Kavar's Corner (http://www.lucasforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=698)
-   -   Restore Sanity Rally (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=205451)

Ping 09-17-2010 08:39 PM

Restore Sanity Rally
 
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...restore-sanity

I have to agree with Stewart here, though chances are I may not make it. Thoughts? Comments?

mimartin 09-20-2010 12:35 PM

Wait, is he saying Obama is not Hitler?

http://www.papamiket.com/wp-content/...ama_hitler.jpg

But he has the same little mustache. :confused:

Q 09-20-2010 12:40 PM

Million moderate march, huh? Sounds like a good idea.

Tommycat 09-22-2010 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mimartin (Post 2749794)
Wait, is he saying Obama is not Hitler?

http://www.papamiket.com/wp-content/...ama_hitler.jpg

But he has the same little mustache. :confused:

Something's wrong... he was also saying that Bush is not Hitler.
http://mugsysrapsheet.com/4blog/Bush...-(SanFran).jpg
Same mustache....

It's funny how quickly people forget how much they pointed and laughed at the idiots calling <political figure> Hitler when it was their guy, when they cheer for the idiot calling <opposition political figure> Hitler.

Of course they still use it even when laughing at those they oppose using it.
http://www.politicsplus.org/blog/wp-..._News_Nazi.jpg

mimartin 09-22-2010 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommycat;2749940It's funny how quickly people forget how much they pointed and laughed at the idiots calling <political figure> Hitler when it was their guy, when they cheer for the idiot calling <opposition political figure> Hitler.[/Quote

Show me where I cheered when someone was calling Bush Hitler? BTW I was a idiot when I voted for Bush the first time against Gore.

Tommycat 09-22-2010 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mimartin (Post 2749943)
Show me where I cheered when someone was calling Bush Hitler? BTW I was a idiot when I voted for Bush the first time against Gore.

Actually, I was talking about the idiot in your picture. Note: Bush being called Hitler came before Obama being called Hitler. People like Beck and Limbaugh who derided those waving signs calling Bush Hitler, yet today call Obama Hitler. Or people who now call AZ a Nazi state who laughed at those who called Obama Hitler.

To be blatantly honest here, I dislike when anyone calls someone a Nazi without them either being a) an actual Nazi, or b) actually committing(or attempting) genocide.

mimartin 09-22-2010 01:19 PM

Got it.

The mentality that it is alright for my side to do something, but not the other side to do it seems to be the point of the rally. It is always easier to attack something and attempt to instill fear towards the opposition rather come up with your own plan to solve the problems of this nation. Saying the other side is destroying this nation and/or calling them names while saying you will bring this country back to the 1950’s when this country was great does nothing to solve the real problems this country faces. Not only that, but there is a large segment of this country that rightfully want to have nothing more to do with 1950’s America. Both sides need to come up with a plan to solve our problem and end the name calling, rhetoric and just plain lying.

I’ll go back to what my grandmother use to say, if someone wants to sells you a diamond ring for a dollar, then you have a ring not worth a dollar.

Arcesious 09-23-2010 04:19 PM

It's a good idea, but are the people that will be marching actually moderate? If you're moderate/independent like me, you wouldn't be so strongly opinionated about the government to be part of a march.

I have seen enough extreme liberals and extreme republicans for a lifetime though. My opinions cross over both sides. For example: yes to gay rights, no to legalization of marijuana, etc, etc.

I like the idea being socialism, but I think that capitalism is a more progressive system of economics - so I agree somewhat with republic-leaning economic policies, but also like the idea of a balanced, stable economy.

You could call me a moderate, near-independent liberal.

mimartin 09-23-2010 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcesious (Post 2750061)
I like the idea being socialism, but I think that capitalism is a more progressive system of economics - so I agree somewhat with republic-leaning economic policies, but also like the idea of a balanced, stable economy.

You're falling for the far-right rhetoric right there. Being a liberal or supporting government oversight does not make someone a socialist.

http://www.qando.net/wp-content/uplo...lism-chart.png

Arcesious 09-24-2010 12:55 AM

I'm no economist, but as I understand it, risk is profitable. These ups and downs in the stock market can be a good thing. I kind of like capitalism because its like evolution. But on a social level that's probably a bad idea.

I have noticed some compelling arguments about how the wealthy top percent of the US controls a ridiculous amount of the wealth though...

Just how dependent upon government will this nation become? In some ways, I'm glad to see the government having such little control over the economy, but in another way I'm sad to see such crazy exploitation of the system, and would like see a more decisive, controlling government. History seems to show that no 'perfect' solution lasts for long - all empires fall, eventually one extreme flips over to the other.

To me, free-market capitalism seems like its the perfect way to run an economy - due to its ability to grow. But at the same time it has such great consequences to the common man and the world.

I can't make up my mind about things, it seems.

mimartin 09-24-2010 02:05 AM

And my believing in oversight does not mean one is a socialist. Without oversight and government regulations companies will become more concern with stock price and less about the public and more importantly the company’s long-term viability. All they worry about is the short-term stock price. In the classroom we are taught that companies will do the right thing because they should be worried about the company long-term goals and more importantly the long-term goals of the investors, however as we have seen in recent years that is not the case. With golden parachutes CEO are getting now days, why worry about playing by the rules if they are caught you get a few million as their good-bye kiss.

I’m all for the free-market, however that does not mean I’m against oversight, such as the Securities and Exchange commission or the EPA and I assure you I am not a socialist or communist. Without oversight you get things like Enron, BP, Madoff, AIG…

Tommycat 09-24-2010 12:24 PM

Couple things mimartin:
Enron was just straight ignoring the laws so oversight meant nothing(More specifically Arthur Andersen was misleading customers with the same kind of accounting that Clinton used to create the "Budget surplus").
BP was ignoring the laws specifically safety regulations.
Madoff ignoring the laws, and spending quality time in a federally funded house with a few "friends" for it.
AIG... That's one where you actually see oversight working.

EPA was actually started by President Nixon. I have my problems with the EPA, but mostly equipment requirements rather than the actual emissions requirements.

Personally what I want is less government involvement in MY life. For instance one area the Republican party and myself tend to break is the issue of abortion. The government should not be getting involved in what people do to their own bodies(though I think Roe v Wade was feds overturning state laws its the state laws I had a problem with). And another id their stance on Gay Marriage. You can't control who you love any more than you can control the weather.

Of course my biggest concern with the Dems is the whole class warfare thing. It sounds an awful lot like the things Lenin said just before they seized the bankers assets, and killed them in Russia. It sounds like justifications for taking what the poor feel they are owed(Not Hitler-esque as the Republican talking heads may have you believe, but more Leninist).

Edit: I should probably note here that I am not calling the Democrats Commies. I am however concerned with the way the class warfare flag keeps getting raised at every speech and rally to sway people in a similar fashion to the way it was just prior to the Bolshevik revolt.

mimartin 09-24-2010 02:34 PM

:rolleyes: Got it, ignoring the laws is the excuse. It has nothing to do with government oversight. Let pull all the police off the streets and then if someone gets killed it isn't the lack of oversights fault, but that people disobeyed the laws. Some people are always going to ignore laws and regulations. So you can accept that or you can expect someone to enforce those laws and regulations.

Lack of a fire department would also mean smaller government too. Of course you may want some government involvement when your house is on fire.

With any government oversight, Enron could have been caught. Yes, both Arthur Andersen and Enron were misleading investors. However, if anyone with the SEC commission would have taken more than a superficial look at Enron’s Balance Sheet, then they would have found the discrepancies long before Enron had milked investors of billions. Hell if, Senator Phil Gramm R co-sponsor of Gramm-Latta Budget and husband of Wendy Lee Gramm who was on the board of directors of Enron and the Audit Committee, would have looked at the books, he should have been able to spot the discrepancies. I know because as a lowly grad-student from some backwater university near Houston I did my thesis on the scandal and I was able to spot the discrepancies in their SEC files for the 10 previous years enough to make an A.

What would have happen if inspectors would have actually inspected the rig and seen the cost cutting measures that violated safety codes before the blow out? With BP record in the gulf coast area, especially the Texas City Plant, government inspectors should be inspecting them constantly.

Point is being in favor of police on the street, food inspectors, or government oversight does not make someone a Socialist!

Tommycat 09-24-2010 06:06 PM

mimartin: You are falling into the same trap the government always uses to get more money from people. "Oh NOES!!! If we cut budgets, police and fire departments and teachers lose jobs!" It's the same thing as when you have to take a pay cut(as MILLIONS of people have) and saying that you now have to shut off water to keep the cable TV on. There are lots of things the government could cut back on to shrink the size of it without sacrificing necessary services. I mean really the government pulled in $2.1TRILLION in revenue last year... Surely they can cut some military research programs to save us a few hundred billion somewhere.

Not to mention, I want LESS involvement in MY(as in directly relating to ME) life. I cited specific examples but since you decided to go for the shock value of "ZOMG!!! Get rid of everything the government does for you?" I guess I have to be more thorough. Necessary functions of the government are outlined in the Constitution. They have no business telling people not to get married if they want to. They have no business telling people they HAVE to get health insurance(Auto insurance is different in that you can have your license revoked because driving on the roads is a privilege, not a right, despite how necessary that privilege is).

And it's no surprise you caught what the oversight teams missed. You were looking for it knowing it was there. Throw in about a thousand or more companies that one of whom may or may not have violated SEC laws, and see how well you can spot it.

I wasn't saying that lack of oversight would fix it. Chances are high it would happen more frequently. IE the reason the EPA was instituted in the first place in that companies were dumping toxic waste into community drinking water supplies. I was saying that these examples are the opposite in that they show how even with regulations and oversight it still happens and oversight worked. The bad people get caught. It's sorta like using Three mile island to show how safeguards failed(when in fact the safeguards worked, unlike Chernobyl). Perhaps I misunderstood your examples. Were they meant to show how lack of oversight led to those companies flat out ignoring the law? Because oversight was supposed to be in place, but even so they got away with it for a long time.

Ping 09-24-2010 07:21 PM

Let me just say this: the less government, the fewer benefits we get. And compared to European governments, our government isn't too big.

These aren't opinions, they're proven facts. Whether you think this leaves people better or worse off is your opinion.

mimartin 09-24-2010 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommycat (Post 2750148)
mimartin: You are falling into the same trap the government always uses to get more money from people.

Nope I'm not falling into that trap. You seem to be the one falling into a trap. I'm all for smaller government, but not at the cost of the government not being able to do their jobs. SEC, EPA, Veteran Affairs should be cut long after things like congressional staff.

My examples are where we have the laws and regulations in place, yet we under fund things like the Border Patrol, Food and Drug Administration, SEC, EPA… then moan when they are unable to do their jobs.

Q 09-24-2010 08:02 PM

I'm in the middle where I think that there definitely should be oversight/regulation, but it should be done efficiently and honestly (which any government seems to have a very hard time doing) so that it can be kept to a minimum and still remain effective. In a nutshell, there needs to be some sort of non-government oversight of the government oversight.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:13 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.