help - search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: The US Presidential Election 2012
fmforums > discussion forums > politics
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24
CyanIsland
QUOTE(ParsifalNYC @ Oct 4 2011, 22:07) *

QUOTE(CyanIsland @ Oct 4 2011, 16:12) *

and your gross government debt is 100% of GDP

I recall reading the other day that it's 86% (or thereabouts). Still worrisome, but it's been higher (right after WW2). Now if Washington would only make an honest effort to cut (eliminate?) the deficit without partisan ideology and no money influence and put the best interests of the majority of the population first then we should have no trouble coming out of it in due coarse. (I know, I'm being delusional.)

Apologies, I should have been more specific! paperbag1.gif The figures I was looking at are from the IMF's future gross government debt predictions for 2011 to 2016. The percentages for the U.S. are: 100.046 (2011) - 105.031 (2012) - 108.930 (2013) - 111.363 (2014) - 113.195 (2015) - 115.394 (2016).

BTW, is the Occupy Wall Street protest getting much coverage over there? Do you think they'll have much impact?
Kev
QUOTE
BTW, is the Occupy Wall Street protest getting much coverage over there? Do you think they'll have much impact?


The topless women are getting quite a bit of coverage.
Mister R
In what was absurdly described as breaking news Chris Christie has confirmed he won't be running for President. This is now at least the 250th time Christie has announced that he won't be running and somehow its still important news and still surprising people.
Parsifal
QUOTE(CyanIsland @ Oct 5 2011, 09:19) *

BTW, is the Occupy Wall Street protest getting much coverage over there? Do you think they'll have much impact?

It turns out that the protest is not actually being held on Wall Street (which is smart - it would look ridiculous if it was). It's centered in a small park (Tahrir Square?) across from the World Trade Center site and a short distance from the World Financial Center.

I don't watch TV news and it hasn't made the front page of the New York Times (there might have been a small blurb directing you to an article on page 16).

Here is Nicholas Kristof's take on the situation. Whether you like them or not he puts forth specific demands to the banks rather than noisy unfocused demands (e.g. the protester who calls for removing Andrew Jackson from the $20 bill because of his brutality to American Indians).
At the end of his column he says: "Much of the sloganeering at “Occupy Wall Street” is pretty silly — but so is the self-righteous sloganeering of Wall Street itself. And if a ragtag band of youthful protesters can help bring a dose of accountability and equity to our financial system, more power to them."

Noise, focused or unfocused, it is spreading and apprently it has the banks worried. I read the other day that JPMorgan Chase made a large $1million+ contribution to the NYPD to help with it's "law enforcement efforts". (Ahem!)

QUOTE

Op-Ed Columnist
The Bankers and the Revolutionaries
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: October 1, 2011

AFTER flying around the world this year to cover street protests from Cairo to Morocco, reporting on the latest “uprising” was easier: I took the subway.

The “Occupy Wall Street” movement has taken over a park in Manhattan’s financial district and turned it into a revolutionary camp. Hundreds of young people chant slogans against “banksters” or corporate tycoons. Occasionally, a few even pull off their clothes, which always draws news cameras.

“Occupy Wall Street” was initially treated as a joke, but after a couple of weeks it’s gaining traction. The crowds are still tiny by protest standards — mostly in the hundreds, swelling during periodic marches — but similar occupations are bubbling up in Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Washington. David Paterson, the former New York governor, dropped by, and labor unions are lending increasing support.

I tweeted that the protest reminded me a bit of Tahrir Square in Cairo, and that raised eyebrows. True, no bullets are whizzing around, and the movement won’t unseat any dictators. But there is the same cohort of alienated young people, and the same savvy use of Twitter and other social media to recruit more participants. Most of all, there’s a similar tide of youthful frustration with a political and economic system that protesters regard as broken, corrupt, unresponsive and unaccountable.

“This was absolutely inspired by Tahrir Square, by the Arab Spring movement,” said Tyler Combelic, 27, a Web designer from Brooklyn who is a spokesman for the occupiers. “Enough is enough!”

The protesters are dazzling in their Internet skills, and impressive in their organization. The square is divided into a reception area, a media zone, a medical clinic, a library and a cafeteria. The protesters’ Web site includes links allowing supporters anywhere in the world to go online and order pizzas (vegan preferred) from a local pizzeria that delivers them to the square.

In a tribute to the ingenuity of capitalism, the pizzeria quickly added a new item to its menu: the “OccuPie special.”

Where the movement falters is in its demands: It doesn’t really have any. The participants pursue causes that are sometimes quixotic — like the protester who calls for removing Andrew Jackson from the $20 bill because of his brutality to American Indians. So let me try to help.

I don’t share the antimarket sentiments of many of the protesters. Banks are invaluable institutions that, when functioning properly, move capital to its best use and raise living standards. But it’s also true that soaring leverage not only nurtured soaring bank profits in good years, but also soaring risks for the public in bad years.

In effect, the banks socialized risk and privatized profits. Securitizing mortgages, for example, made many bankers wealthy while ultimately leaving governments indebted and citizens homeless.

We’ve seen that inadequately regulated, too-big-to-fail banks can undermine the public interest rather than serve it — and in the last few years, banks got away with murder. It’s infuriating to see bankers who were rescued by taxpayers now moan about regulations intended to prevent the next bail-out. And it’s important that protesters spotlight rising inequality: does it feel right to anyone that the top 1 percent of Americans now possess a greater collective net worth than the entire bottom 90 percent?

So for those who want to channel their amorphous frustration into practical demands, here are several specific suggestions:

¶Impose a financial transactions tax. This would be a modest tax on financial trades, modeled on the suggestions of James Tobin, an American economist who won a Nobel Prize. The aim is in part to dampen speculative trading that creates dangerous volatility. Europe is moving toward a financial transactions tax, but the Obama administration is resisting — a reflection of its deference to Wall Street.

¶Close the “carried interest” and “founders’ stock” loopholes, which may be the most unconscionable tax breaks in America. They allow our wealthiest citizens to pay very low tax rates by pretending that their labor compensation is a capital gain.

¶Protect big banks from themselves. This means moving ahead with Basel III capital requirements and adopting the Volcker Rule to limit banks’ ability to engage in risky and speculative investments. Another sensible proposal, embraced by President Obama and a number of international experts, is the bank tax. This could be based on an institution’s size and leverage, so that bankers could pay for their cleanups — the finance equivalent of a pollution tax.

Much of the sloganeering at “Occupy Wall Street” is pretty silly — but so is the self-righteous sloganeering of Wall Street itself. And if a ragtag band of youthful protesters can help bring a dose of accountability and equity to our financial system, more power to them.


The Bankers and the Revolutionaries
CBEntr
FOX did an interview with “Occupy Wall Street” with Jesse LaGreca...this clip never made it to air ... just to clarify, this is NOT the FOX cameraperson filming, it was someone from "Occupy Wall Street" filming FOX filming Jesse. Apparently not 'fair and balanced' since even though the interview promised his voice would be heard on FOX, it was not!



REPUBLICAN Presidential Candidate Herman Cain quote: "Don't blame Wall Street. Don't blame the big banks. If you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself."
Parsifal
The "Occupy Wall Street" protest made the front page of the New York Times today.
Labor unions are now jumping on the bandwagon because the protesters are raising issues long dear to organized labor. Labor for its part wants to make sure that the protest is not just a bunch of hippies and troublemakers. At the other end, in internal discussions, some of the protesters voiced worries that if labor were perceived as trying to co-opt the movement, it might alienate the protesters and touch off a backlash.

If this side discussion continues much further it should probably get its own thread instead of being part of the US Presidential Election 2012 thread.
Parsifal
The news is so bad these days I'll throw this in for a few chuckles.

QUOTE

Op-Ed Columnist
Desperately Seeking Dalrymple
By GAIL COLLINS
Published: October 5, 2011

I know you couldn’t care less about Sarah Palin bowing out of the presidential race, but let me ask you this: Who wants to spend the next 13 months watching Mitt Romney run against Barack Obama? Can I see a show of hands?

I thought so. All of us, regardless of political persuasion, have a stake in trying to keep the Republican presidential fight going through the winter. These are tough times. (“Sesame Street” just announced it’s adding a poverty-stricken Muppet.) We need diversion.

Plus, it doesn’t look as if there’s going to be a professional basketball season. And I cannot really figure out that many ways to mention that Romney once drove to Canada with the family dog strapped to the roof of the car.

But we seem to be running out of fresh blood, and it’s only October! Surely there’s another Republican governor or ex-governor we can crown Non-Mitt of the Month. George Pataki is definitely available, and I think the country is coming to understand that what it really needs right now is another president named George.

Donald Trump seems content to be an ex-candidate, using his deep political expertise to comment on the remaining field. (“I had dinner last night with Jim Perry. I was impressed with him.”) But maybe there’s another reality TV host we can get into the race. Jeff Probst, the guy from “Survivor,” might be good. On the show, whenever a team loses a competition, he always says something like: “Kaluha Tribe, I’ve got nothing for you.” It’s sort of a signature. Think how useful that would be for a president. (“Future Social Security recipients, I’ve got nothing for you.”)

A spokesman for Probst said he was unavailable to provide extraneous details such as whether or not he is a Republican.

How about Idaho Gov. Butch Otter? I have been promoting him as a possible presidential contender, mainly because I like saying “Idaho Gov. Butch Otter.” But there’s much, much more there to recommend him. For one thing, I’m pretty sure he’d be the first president who was on the board of directors of the National Cowboy Hall of Fame.

One of Otter’s big initiatives this year was declaring the gray wolf an “emergency disaster” so people could shoot them. This could open up a useful debate on the hunting issue, which in presidential politics usually involves candidates bragging about their body count. But we could also revisit Rick Perry’s story about how he shot a coyote with his “Ruger .380 with laser sights” while jogging, and pursue a question that has been bothering all of us: Where was he carrying it?

Even better, it would give us an opportunity to relive the moment in the last presidential campaign when Romney was forced to backtrack from his efforts to portray himself as a lifelong hunter. (“I’m not a big-game hunter. I’ve made that very clear. I’ve always been a rodent and rabbit hunter. Small varmints, if you will. I began when I was 15 or so and I have hunted those kinds of varmints since then. More than two times.”)

One small downside to a Gov. Butch Otter candidacy is that he’s already endorsed Romney. But betrayal is one of the high points of any presidential campaign. The more pain, the more they entertain. It’s sort of like Hunger Games for pacifists.

Finally, and this is very important, if Gov. Butch Otter became a presidential candidate, everybody in the media would have to go to Idaho to follow him around for a while. I have never been to Idaho, so I would like that very much. In fact, if we can’t have Gov. Butch Otter, I think we should try to find a Republican governor from another state that I’ve never visited.

Paging Gov. Jack Dalrymple of North Dakota!

North Dakota has so many jobs there’s a labor shortage. And a monster budget surplus. Of course, this is almost entirely because they’ve discovered a huge field of oil up there. But do you remember how Rick Perry keeps bragging about job creation in Texas? If Perry can take credit for oil, Gov. Jack Dalrymple of North Dakota can, too.

“And don’t pooh-pooh agriculture,” the governor mildly chided a TV interviewer.

This campaign needs more candidates who say things like “Don’t pooh-pooh agriculture.”

Now it is true that much of North Dakota’s new prosperity involves hydrofracking, a drilling method that causes environmentalists to genuinely turn green. Also, when they drill for oil, the drillers are so eager to get their hands on it that they don’t bother to capture the byproduct, wasting 100 million cubic feet of natural gas a day. “North Dakota is not as bad as Kazakhstan, but this is not what you would expect a civilized, efficient society to do,” an energy expert told Clifford Krauss of The Times.

Admittedly, “Not as Bad as Kazakhstan” isn’t the best possible state motto. But I think we could work this out over the next 10 or 20 candidate debates.

The New York Times

Link

Are you scared? cold.gif
Parsifal
I think that there should be a new amendment to the US Constitution requiring that any candidate for president, vice president or either house of Congress must first pass three exams:
1. economics
2. domestic policy
3. foreign policy
(and the exams will not be easy shaky.gif )
That way we might get some people in government who understand what they're doing.
Parsifal
In case you weren't paying attention, in recent months around the country Republican state legislators have been very successful at what Politico in June called their “push to rig the 2012 presidential election” by passing a raft of voting restrictions that will serve to disenfranchise many groups that normally vote Democratic.

A report released this week by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law included these ominous findings:

• The new laws are likely to make it “significantly harder” for more than five million eligible voters — “mostly young, minority, and low-income voters as well as voters with disabilities” — to cast ballots in 2012. They point out that that number is “larger than the margin of victory in two of the last three presidential elections.”

• “The states that have already cut back on voting rights will provide 171 electoral votes in 2012 — 63 percent of the 270 needed to win the presidency.”

• Most of the 2012 battleground states have either passed or are considering new restrictions. Some that have passed them are considering passing even more.

An example of the kind of voting restrictions that Republicans are passing are things like requiring a government-issued photo ID under the pretense of foiling voter fraud (which is negligible). It should come as no surprise that many poor people (who normally vote Democratic) don't have a driver's license or other government-issued photo ID. It's never been a problem before, but if the only way that you can win an election is to disenfranchise voters then that's what you gotta do!

The White House should be the Republicans’ for the taking. And it would look more likely if their current crop of front-runners weren’t so utterly inept and fallible.

I wonder what foreign leaders are thinking about the world's largest military power. Will they be glad or terrified that the next president will be Obambi redoux or some nutjob who will either be a danger or someone they can easily manipulate. Can you imagin Vladimir Putin or Hu Jintao negotiating with Michele Bachmann or any of the others? Should I laugh lol_2.gif or cry upset.gif ?
Parsifal
Rick Santorum, contender for the Republican presidential nomination, former senator from Pennsylvania and former President Bush's henchman against Social Security in the Senate, and is opposed to gay soldiers serving in the U.S. military has bemoaned gay soldiers who shower with "people". (I guess he doesn't consider gay soldiers to be people.) rolleyes.gif

This all came out in an interview with Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday".

It gets better:
Link

cold.gif
Roger Mellie
You're too harsh on him Parsy. If it weren't for him, we wouldn't be left with this legacy
Parsifal
QUOTE(Roger Mellie @ Oct 10 2011, 13:28) *

You're too harsh on him Parsy. If it weren't for him, we wouldn't be left with this legacy

lol_2.gif I've seen that too.
barry
QUOTE(smalltown @ Sep 28 2011, 21:43) *

Is Christie the one that thought it was a good idea to cancel the ARC Tunnel?


QUOTE
There is now a rising clammor to extradite Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi, one of the conviced masterminds of the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing. If he is brought to the US and put on trial here (after that disgraceful release from prison in Briton on "humanitarian grounds") then that will leave Obama smelling like a rose among US voters.

I don't think you'll find anyone over here that thought it was a good idea to release him, save for Scotland's gift to the world, Mr Sammond.


I am pretty sure the US waived all rights to the Scottish Court in the Netherlands with regards to charging him for the crime. And you will find there was widespread support for the release including the incumbent UK government at the time, albeit in secret with Labour being deceitful cunts in all.
paddyirl
Maybe the US could then hand over the convicted terrorist Luis Posada Carriles. I mean they both bombed airliners so I hope the US government isn't going to be hypocritical on this issue.

Parsifal
QUOTE(paddyirl @ Oct 11 2011, 08:48) *

I hope the US government isn't going to be hypocritical

Delusional, aren't you? wink.gif
Mister R
Has anyone else been following the I Don't Have The Facts To Back This Up hashtag on Twitter created by The Daily Show? It was inspired by Herman Cain who, when asked about the Occupy Wall Street protests responded with the following statement:

I don’t have facts to back this up, but I happen to believe that these demonstrations are planned and orchestrated to distract from the failed policies of the Obama administration...
paddyirl
QUOTE(ParsifalNYC @ Oct 11 2011, 16:13) *

QUOTE(paddyirl @ Oct 11 2011, 08:48) *

I hope the US government isn't going to be hypocritical

Delusional, aren't you? wink.gif


Sarcasm doesn't translate over the internet bleh.gif I should have used a rolleyes.gif I see how my post could be seen as serious lol_2.gif
JackInFla
Once again the Republican Party held another Re-Elect Obama rally ..er I mean debate last night. Keep it up boys (& Bachmann) and I predict another electoral victory for the President grindance.gif
Parsifal
QUOTE(Mister R @ Oct 11 2011, 18:33) *

Has anyone else been following the I Don't Have The Facts To Back This Up hashtag on Twitter created by The Daily Show? It was inspired by Herman Cain who, when asked about the Occupy Wall Street protests responded with the following statement:

I don’t have facts to back this up, but I happen to believe that these demonstrations are planned and orchestrated to distract from the failed policies of the Obama administration...

It would be amusing as well as terrifying if Cain won the Republican nomination. Then we would have two black men running for president which would surely give the right-wing racists heartburn. lol_2.gif
Parsifal
Another Michele Bachmann moment:

QUOTE

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) criticized President Obama's foreign policy during Tuesday night's CNN debate, saying, "Now with the president, he put us in Libya. He is now putting us in Africa. We already were stretched too thin, and he put our special operations forces in Africa," she said.

Libya, it should be noted, is in Africa.

Bachmann was referring to Obama's recent announcement that he will be sending 100 U.S. troops to Uganda to help battle rebels from the Lord's Resistance Army.

Link

Is everybody scared yet? cold.gif
Kev
I think she's pretty much a non-starter at this point.
Parsifal
That she can still have a national platform (instead of sending her off to an asylum) is disturbing.
She's just an extreme case of the whole Republican mix vying for the presidential nomination. And to think that someone like her can get elected to Congress is troubling. cold.gif

AdrienAsche:
Are there people in Minnesota who are more intelligent than Bachmann? (Please say yes. Wait! There's YOU! biggrin.gif I feel better now. There is hope in Minnesota.)
AdrienAsche
QUOTE(ParsifalNYC @ Oct 19 2011, 10:48) *

That she can still have a national platform (instead of sending her off to an asylum) is disturbing.
She's just an extreme case of the whole Republican mix vying for the presidential nomination. And to think that someone like her can get elected to Congress is troubling. cold.gif

AdrienAsche:
Are there people in Minnesota who are more intelligent than Bachmann? (Please say yes. Wait! There's YOU! biggrin.gif I feel better now. There is hope in Minnesota.)

My state's quite the mix. Another district voted the first and so far only Muslim into the House, too. AND he's black. So worry not; some parts of the state are quite progressive. Aside from my district, we really are pretty moderate.
Parsifal
During the Republican debate last week on Tuesday, Herman Cain said that the unemployed are responsible for their own plight. This claim was met with wild applause in the audience.

There was a similar audience reaction at a Republican debate in early September when CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Representative Ron Paul what we should do if a 30-year-old man who chose not to purchase health insurance suddenly found himself in need of six months of intensive care. Mr. Paul replied, “That’s what freedom is all about — taking your own risks.” Mr. Blitzer pressed him again, asking whether “society should just let him die.” And the crowd erupted with cheers and shouts of “Yeah!”

This country is becoming increasingly sick as evidenced by audience reactions at Republican debates. disgust1.gif
JackInFla
The debates have become so sick that even "Rev" Pat Robertson the homophobic TV preacher (a wacko of the highest order) said yesterday that they are committing themselves to such right-wing positions that they will be un-electable in the general election yipee.gif
Parsifal
I don't trust Obama, but I trust all of the Republican contenders a lot less. sad.gif
colonelsmut
Mitt Romney must be the luckiest politician in decades
Cain plans to introduce his greatest supporter-his wife
ezra_z
Regarding all the chickenhawk warmonger republicans*:

I watched the CBS debate yesterday, and was disgusted at some of the rhetoric regarding Iran.

The debate yesterday can be summarised like this, it consisted of candidates:

** Declaring their desire to start wars in Iran, Pakistan, and Syria;

** Rehashing their support for torture;

** Agreeing that President Obama has the right to unilaterally assassinate an American citizen without a court conviction;

** Explaining their plans to continue nation-building, policing, and occupying countries across the globe.

First of all USA has a history of political meddling in Iran, including the Shah and other operations before that.
USA surrounds Iran, you are in Afghanistan, Bahrain, Iraq. You threaten Iran EVERY DAY with military action. Your nuclear aircraft carriers are on Iran's coast. You are trying to cripple Iran's economy with sanctions.

USA is currently in conflict/occupying/attacking/intervening/meddling in Mexico, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Uganda and Pakistan.

What would you feel like if Iran surrounded the USA and had troops in Canada/Mexico, aircraft carriers off the coast of California and kept calling you terrorists and threatened to bomb you??

Iran is not stupid, they want a nuke as a deterrent so that you don't attack them. Iran won't use their nuke offensively because they know that anyone they attack would completely destroy Iran.

Then come the chickenhawks Romney, Santorum and Gingrich. Romney and his 5 children ALL avoided military service. Gingrich and Santorum didnt serve in the military either.

So here they are spouting the war propaganda lies with Iran just like they did with Iraq and its "WMD", willing to send someone else's children, husbands, wives, fathers, mothers to die in another pointless illegal war.

These douchebags are fucking disgraceful cowards pretending to be tough-guys.


*excludes Ron Paul, who is the only one against any further wars. He is also by far the most popular amongst US veterans, and has the highest amount of money donated by veterans. He should run as an independant, most of his foreign policy views are completely opposite to the GOP. Thats why mainstream media ignores him and tries to silence him. Whatever you think of Ron Paul's economic policy, he's definately right about his foreign policy of peace:
paddyirl
QUOTE(ezra_z @ Nov 13 2011, 15:54) *

*excludes Ron Paul, who is the only one against any further wars. He is also by far the most popular amongst US veterans, and has the highest amount of money donated by veterans. He should run as an independant, most of his foreign policy views are completely opposite to the GOP. Thats why mainstream media ignores him and tries to silence him. Whatever you think of Ron Paul's economic policy, he's definately right about his foreign policy of peace:


Agree with all this, he was the only one with a good foreign policy.

I only saw snippets of the debate but that no-hoper Jon Huntsman doesn't seem too bad, even though he has zero shot. See his daughters are apparently big on twitter now, Meghan McCain must be shitting herself there are new young republican daughters on the scene.
Mister R
QUOTE(JackInFla @ Oct 26 2011, 17:01) *
The debates have become so sick that even "Rev" Pat Robertson the homophobic TV preacher (a wacko of the highest order) said yesterday that they are committing themselves to such right-wing positions that they will be un-electable in the general election yipee.gif

Worth mentioning that he didn't think they were wrong to be saying any of these things merely that they can't win a electoral majority in a national election by saying them. Essentially his point was dial back the crazy until you've won the election.

QUOTE(colonelsmut @ Nov 5 2011, 17:51) *

Mitt Romney must be the luckiest politician in decades
Cain plans to introduce his greatest supporter-his wife

You say that but despite everything the Republican Party still don't want to nominate him and will cast around for anyone not named Mitt Romney to vote for. At this point you'd think that they'd finally be ready to face up to the fact that Romney is really their only credible choice given that every Romney alternative has now either refused to run or imploded in fairly spectacular style.

QUOTE(ezra_z @ Nov 13 2011, 14:54) *
Then come the chickenhawks Romney, Santorum and Gingrich. Romney and his 5 children ALL avoided military service. Gingrich and Santorum didnt serve in the military either.

This 'they didn't serve' argument annoys the hell out of me. Neither did:

John Adams
Thomas Jefferson
John Quincy Adams
Grover Cleveland
Howard Taft
Woodrow Wilson
Warren Harding
Calvin Coolidge
Herbet Hoover
Franklin Roosevelt
Bill Clinton

And that doesn't take into account President's who have had 'questionable' military service history (like Eisenhower, Polk and Madison for example). I don't know why people think military service is so important. Obama didn't serve either and he's done a pretty decent job in terms of defence if nothing else.
ezra_z
QUOTE(Mister R @ Nov 14 2011, 14:19) *

QUOTE(ezra_z @ Nov 13 2011, 14:54) *
Then come the chickenhawks Romney, Santorum and Gingrich. Romney and his 5 children ALL avoided military service. Gingrich and Santorum didnt serve in the military either.

This 'they didn't serve' argument annoys the hell out of me. Neither did:

John Adams
Thomas Jefferson
John Quincy Adams
Grover Cleveland
Howard Taft
Woodrow Wilson
Warren Harding
Calvin Coolidge
Herbet Hoover
Franklin Roosevelt
Bill Clinton

And that doesn't take into account President's who have had 'questionable' military service history (like Eisenhower, Polk and Madison for example). I don't know why people think military service is so important. Obama didn't serve either and he's done a pretty decent job in terms of defence if nothing else.


Apart from the first four, all the other socialist warmongers can burn in hell too imo.

There is a difference between legitimate defence, and illegally murdering Pakistani/Vietnamese/Afghan/Iraqi/Korean children with missiles and napalm from million dollar fighter jets and remote controlled drones.

I have a problem with tough guy politicians, who themselves have no clue about the terrible nature of wars, want to start pointless illegal wars all over the place.

Bush or Obama, Republican or Democrat its still nation building as usual. Both parties are the same, you have a false choice for a two-headed dictatorship. They argue about abortion/gay rights just to pretend you have a real choice.

Hope and change. Change we can believe in. Obama the nobel peace prize president. ROFL.
Kev
QUOTE
Apart from the first four, all the other socialist warmongers can burn in hell too imo.


If you think Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbet Hoover were socialists then you either don't know the meaning of the word or you have no idea who those presidents were. There have rarely been three more pro-business, laissez-faire presidents in US history.

And there never has been a truly socialist US president, not in the European sense of the word. imo FDR and Lyndon Johnson probably came the closest.
Mister R
QUOTE(ezra_z @ Nov 14 2011, 19:45) *
Apart from the first four, all the other socialist warmongers can burn in hell too imo.

I am somewhat amazed by just how uninformed this statement is.

For example you apparently exclude John Adams despite the fact that he's the President who built up America's army and navy (so he could fight the quasi-war with France) and that he signed the Alien and Sedition Act which essentially threatened civil war. Jefferson wasn't a whole let better either, arguably he went out of his way to create conflict with Britain. And some of the Presidents you're describing as socialist warmongers is somewhat astonishing.

QUOTE(ezra_z @ Nov 14 2011, 19:45) *
Bush or Obama, Republican or Democrat its still nation building as usual.

Only it isn't really is it. Compare and contrast Libya with Iraq or Afghanistan.
ezra_z
QUOTE(Mister R @ Nov 15 2011, 06:28) *

QUOTE(ezra_z @ Nov 14 2011, 19:45) *
Bush or Obama, Republican or Democrat its still nation building as usual.

Only it isn't really is it. Compare and contrast Libya with Iraq or Afghanistan.

Only difference is the style of propaganda in my opinion. Otherwise same. Saddam and Gaddafi were both dictator puppets of west who they propped up until they disobeyed them by thinking of going off the petrodollar standard. Then the west comes in to remove him and loot the country's gold and oil.
FMF Image

Re Hoover. Your history is wrong.
Hoover was the opposite of laissez-faire. With Hoover theres a public works spending spree (Hoovervilles, Hoover dam etc), he creates the reconstruction finance corporation which basically gives bailouts to farmers, banks(!) and other government projects. He was also the commerce secretary to coolidge in the 20s. He doubled government spending, increased every single tax! He had a "Own your own home" policy with the banks to create a housing bubble! Sound familiar Prez. Obama/Bush? Remember what all this government spending, government redistribution and bailouts led to? Yep the depression is happening again thanks to the same socialist crap.

Forced redistribution of wealth by government is socialism and socialism doesn't work.
Mister R
QUOTE(ezra_z @ Nov 15 2011, 11:36) *
Only difference is the style of propaganda in my opinion. Otherwise same. Saddam and Gaddafi were both dictator puppets of west who they propped up until they disobeyed them by thinking of going off the petrodollar standard. Then the west comes in to remove him and loot the country's gold and oil.

That’s a lovely theory the only problem with it is that the West didn’t really decide to get rid of Gaddafi. There was actually very little desire from the West to remove Gaddafi from power, which is why we didn’t immediately intervene and so many political figures did fairly dramatic u-turns on the whole situation. It wasn’t until it became abundantly clear that the Libyan people wanted to get rid of Gaddafi and that he wasn’t going to go quietly that the West made the decision to intervene and even then relatively speaking that intervention was minimal. The key difference between Libya and Afghanistan or Iraq is that it wasn’t the West nation building it was essentially the West facilitating and supporting a nation to build itself.

QUOTE
With Hoover theres a public works spending spree (Hoovervilles, Hoover dam etc)

Did you really just suggest that Hoovervilles were part of a 'public works spending spree'? You may want to look up what they actually were.

QUOTE
Forced redistribution of wealth by government is socialism and socialism doesn't work.

In fact that’s not what socialism is. I cannot stress how much this bugs me – socialism is not and never has been the simple redistribution of wealth (forced or otherwise). Socialism is actually much more concerned with the ownership of the means of production and the abolishment of hierarchies within society. That the American right in particular has been allowed to get away with reducing socialism to ‘social programs we don’t like’ is incredibly frustrating to me.

‘Obamacare’ for example is not socialism. For it to be socialism Obama would have to promoting co-operative ownership of healthcare providers and insurance companies and he isn’t. That something is funded by tax revenue does not make it socialism which is why nobody is running around declaring that the military is a socialist organisation. It is also why nobody is running around suggesting that federal and state government is socialist. The redistribution of wealth would be a socialist policy if, and only if, that redistribution were achieved by establishing co-operative ownership of the means of production (businesses) amongst workers who all then share in the profits. Or alternatively there are some socialist theories that argue the means of production should be owned and controlled exclusively by the state allowing them to insure an equal society. In that regards socialism would come from the US government taking ownership of privately owned corporations and then equally distributing the wealth those companies make. So if, for example, Obama were to endorse the notion that the federal Government should take ownership of Apple tomorrow we’d then be beginning to look at socialism but even then it wouldn’t be proper socialism (primarily because it would just be one company).

And just for the record this notion that socialism doesn’t work isn’t entirely true either.
ezra_z
QUOTE(Mister R @ Nov 15 2011, 15:04) *
QUOTE
Forced redistribution of wealth by government is socialism and socialism doesn't work.
I cannot stress how much this bugs me – socialism is not and never has been the simple redistribution of wealth (forced or otherwise). Socialism is actually much more concerned with the ownership of the means of production and the abolishment of hierarchies within society.


Means of production ARE wealth. If you have government that steals the means of production (or wealth) by force through taxes from one group, to give it to the other that is definately not laissez-faire capitalsim. Whether you call it socialism, communism, corporatism who cares. It is immoral.

You know what really bugs me? That the idiots at #occupywherever and idiots in government blame "UNREGULATED CAPITALISM" for the worlds problems. We dont have unregulated capitalism any more.
Freedom and capitalism created the middle class, it raised our standard of living to that of kings 200 years ago. Government thinks it can create wealth and improve our lives by writing laws and redistributing money, government has NO money of its own. All the money it has, it has taken by force from someone else. Government can only destroy wealth.
Sure bankers and people on unemployment benefits gain from big government redistribution, but at the expense of others who have to work harder to shoulder the burdon of paying for them.
Do you think we could transfer our health and safety laws to bangladesh, and improve workers lives there like that??
Ofcourse not. Bangladesh is still too poor to be able to implement all the safety features. All the companies would shut down if they had to comply. It is only because we are rich that we can treat our workers better. It is a consequence of our increased amount of capital that we can improve working conditions.

Obamacare again uses government FORCE to make a consumer to buy a certain product (health insurance), which is also not laissez-faire capitalism.

Free market capitalism is the solution, not the problem.

QUOTE(Mister R @ Nov 15 2011, 15:04) *
And just for the record this notion that socialism doesn’t work isn’t entirely true either.

PM me an example of where it ever worked. Look at North vs South Korea, West Berlin vs Socialist DDR East Berlin, China vs Taiwan/Hong Kong.
Capitalism works bleh.gif

Anyways this is kinda offtopic and I can;t stop myself from arguing. If you want i can send you all the letters/emails i've sent to my local political representative. Some of their responses are hillarious. Peace <3


One last thing because I cant help it: How come socialist/communist/fascist nations need to build big fences and walls to keep their people trapped and stop them from leaving? China to HK, East to West Berlin, Soviet Europe to West, North to South Korea, all of them need something to stop their people escaping? How come if government is so great everyone wants to leave for a free-er more capitalist country? Just sayin
Mister R
QUOTE(ezra_z @ Nov 15 2011, 17:10) *
Means of production ARE wealth.

It is in fact logically impossible for the means of production to be wealth because the means of production are amongst the tools used to create wealth. It is perfectly possible to have wealth without the means of production and it is perfectly possible to have the means of production without having wealth. The two concepts are not and never have been interchangeable.

QUOTE(ezra_z @ Nov 15 2011, 17:10) *
If you have government that steals the means of production (or wealth) by force through taxes from one group, to give it to the other that is definately not laissez-faire capitalsim. Whether you call it socialism, communism, corporatism who cares. It is immoral.

Firstly the Government is not stealing the means of production and they aren’t even stealing wealth (which is why the gap between the ‘rich’ and ‘poor’ has grown at such pace). Secondly I’ve not suggested that anyone was practicing laissez faire capitalism nor would I because it doesn’t work, never has worked and never will work. I would however suggest that there’s an enormous stretch of land between laissez faire capitalism and socialism and that actually 99% of people fall somewhere on that stretch of land. Thirdly the ‘redistribution of wealth’ that exists within America and western society in general really isn’t immoral and the suggestion that it is, is fairly absurd.

And finally I care what you call it. It isn’t socialism. The people enacting it are not socialists. So don’t call it socialism and don’t call them socialists. It is that simple.

QUOTE
Obamacare again uses government FORCE to make a consumer to buy a certain product (health insurance), which is also not laissez-faire capitalism.

I cannot stress how much I don’t care if its laissez faire capitalism or not (but for the record I don't think I have ever heard anyone suggest it is).

QUOTE
Free market capitalism is the solution, not the problem.

Free market capitalism isn’t the solution. It isn’t the problem either.

The idea that the market will regulate itself doesn’t work out. We’ve seen countless times that the market is simply incapable of self-control and self-regulation so why it is people continue to cling to this notion of completely free markets I don’t know. Like it or not regulation is an important part of modern economic structures and without it or with ineffective regulation the markets inevitably collapse. This notion that regulation is an inherently bad thing is a nonsense. Too much regulation or the wrong regulation certainly can be a bad thing but that doesn’t mean you throw regulation out of the window and hope that the markets will somehow pull it together.

QUOTE
PM me an example of where it ever worked...

You do realise that China has seen massive economic growth because of socialist principles, right? And then of course there’s Germany, basically the strongest economy on the Eurozone which has some pretty undeniable socialist principles under pinning it (that would make American conservatives have an absolute fit). The truth is that a lot of socialist principles are actually incredibly conducive to strong economies however, much like ‘pure capitalism’, pure socialism isn’t particularly advisable. There’s a middle ground. Capitalism has only been slightly more successful than socialism because we repeatedly stop the system from collapsing in on itself.

QUOTE
One last thing because I cant help it: How come socialist/communist/fascist nations need to build big fences and walls to keep their people trapped and stop them from leaving? China to HK, East to West Berlin, Soviet Europe to West, North to South Korea, all of them need something to stop their people escaping? How come if government is so great everyone wants to leave for a free-er more capitalist country? Just sayin

Because nobody ever wants to leave a capitalist country...?
ezra_z
QUOTE(Mister R @ Nov 15 2011, 21:11) *

You do realise that China has seen massive economic growth because of socialist principles, right? And then of course there’s Germany, basically the strongest economy on the Eurozone which has some pretty undeniable socialist principles under pinning it


Omg! Whats the point in arguing with someone who actually thinks "socialist principles" have made China and Germany rich?

What was the Mao-era then? Do socialist governments have to starve 100million people first for socialism to work??

The Chinese have a history of entrepreneurship and trade, they were a nation of merchants until the commies came. Capitalism is in their blood and the recent "boom" has been due to the introduction of "capitalist principles". Their government is still crap, and this boom will bust because of the government, but they have clearly benefited even from imperfect capitalism.

Germany may have very interfering labour laws, but the Germans are excellent capitalists who SAVE and INVEST in productive CAPITAL. Their factories and companies are so productive and competetive that they can survive the socialist labour laws.

Anyways I'm sure you're trying to wind me up because no one can be that stupid. Seriously
ezra_z
Back on topic:

Did anyone see CBS 60 Minutes on sunday?

It basically showed the disgustingly corrupt relationship between washington and big business. It showed that congressmen and senators enact policy and laws that benefit their own personal stock market investments. Or they invest according to what policy they know is coming out.

Thats what you get when you have a massive powerful government.

Its insider trading, but its legal because its the friendly, honest, accountable, elected government who are on our side. lol.
Mister R
QUOTE(ezra_z @ Nov 15 2011, 21:38) *
Omg! Whats the point in arguing with someone who actually thinks "socialist principles" have made China and Germany rich...

It is becoming increasingly clear that you have no concept of what socialism actually is.

For example within China the vast majority of financial institutions are state owned with more than 95% of the country’s banking assets also being state owned and the state has spent the past 60 years taking over privately owned banks within China. In 2008 when private business collapsed China expanded the public sector and state owned institutions significantly. These are all principles of socialism or at least some forms of socialism and they’ve allowed the Chinese economy to continue to grow.

In regards to Germany what I actually said was that as a country (and economy) they have some pretty undeniable socialist ideas underpinning them and they do.

QUOTE
What was the Mao-era then? Do socialist governments have to starve 100million people first for socialism to work??

Keep in mind that around 15% (46.2 million) of the US population were below the poverty line last year whilst 6.7% (20 million) of the population were in what’s considered ‘deep poverty’ whilst 22% of American children live in poverty. My point here is that capitalism isn’t exactly on fire when it comes to this issue either. Beyond that I’d point out that stating socialist principles and policies aren’t bad each and every time isn’t the same as endorsing them as the greatest thing in the world.

QUOTE(ezra_z @ Nov 15 2011, 22:06) *
Thats what you get when you have a massive powerful government.

Actually its not.
Parsifal
QUOTE(ezra_z @ Nov 13 2011, 09:54) *

I watched the CBS debate yesterday

Why? blink.gif
ezra_z
QUOTE(Mister R @ Nov 16 2011, 22:17) *

It is becoming increasingly clear that you have no concept of what socialism actually is.

For example within China the vast majority of financial institutions are state owned with more than 95% of the country’s banking assets also being state owned and the state has spent the past 60 years taking over privately owned banks within China. In 2008 when private business collapsed China expanded the public sector and state owned institutions significantly. These are all principles of socialism or at least some forms of socialism and they’ve allowed the Chinese economy to continue to grow.


Lol. YOU clearly have no idea. But I'm going to try to educate you since your an ignorant fool and its not your fault you got brainwashed by left wing government schools or the left wing media. I've actually worked in China, China is "communist" in name only. Their government is a corrupt bureaucracy like every big government, but their economy is NOT communist anymore.
China has no social safety net, no NHS, no Social Security, no medicare, no generous government pensions, no generous unemployment benefits, less taxation, less regulation.
It is easier and faster to start a business in China than in UK/USA. Where is the socialism?? The UK/USA are clearly more socialist economies than China. (yes china's government is called communist so what North Korea is officially the Democratic Peoples Republic but thats also just marketing propaganda)

The banking sector, which is government controlled, IS THE WORST PART OF THE CHINESE ECONOMY!! It has blown massive bubbles everywhere, and will collapse and (wrongly) get bailouts in 2012/13.

All the things the chinese government has touched, have been complete waste of tax money just like any other government scheme:
2008 Olympic stadiums are empty and loss making, empty megacities everywhere, high speed rail unsafe and underused, airports empty and underused because its so expensive ETC ETC
Worst of all the government "managed" currency, the RMB, is causing massive inflation in China, and reducing the standard of living of all chinese.

Are you so stupid you dont see a difference between USSR/Mao style government starvation which KILLED hundreds of MILLIONS and the poverty in a more capitalist society?

Ffs god help whatever country you're from.
ic1male
I'm really enjoying watching all the debates with the republican candidates. There are so many interesting people this time around. Don't agree with everything they say but I could listen to Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney forever and a day.

"My 9-9-9 plan is a BOLD plan" (Herman Cain)
sanitynotincluded
QUOTE(ic1male @ Dec 2 2011, 10:00) *

"My 9-9-9 plan is a BOLD plan" (Herman Cain)


I think Sir Humphrey would have called it courageous.
Parsifal
QUOTE(ic1male @ Dec 2 2011, 05:00) *

I'm really enjoying watching all the debates with the republican candidates. There are so many interesting people this time around. Don't agree with everything they say but I could listen to Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney forever and a day.

"My 9-9-9 plan is a BOLD plan" (Herman Cain)

I take it you enjoy comedies?

QUOTE(sanitynotincluded @ Dec 2 2011, 12:12) *

QUOTE(ic1male @ Dec 2 2011, 10:00) *

"My 9-9-9 plan is a BOLD plan" (Herman Cain)


I think Sir Humphrey would have called it courageous.

Dumping the tax burden on lower and middle income wage earners is not something that I would call "courageous". wink.gif
Kev
Personally I think they're all cuckoo for Coco Puffs.

CBEntr
QUOTE(ic1male @ Dec 2 2011, 02:00) *

"My 9-9-9 plan is a BOLD plan" (Herman Cain)

FMF Image
JackInFla
One more clown down. Cain just announces campaign suspension yipee.gif
ic1male
And there he was at the Iowa Thanksgiving Family Forum extolling his religion and faith and all the time he was allegedly committing adultery! It'll be a 6-6-6 plan for him in hell!
colonelsmut
There is despair among conservatives.Romney was cranky and peevish in a Fox News interview in Florida during the week.Newt is surging like McCain four years ago.Good week for Obama.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2013 Invision Power Services, Inc.