My Morning Jacket

Off-Topic => Off-Topic Ramblings => Topic started by: headhunter on Sep 06, 2012, 08:19 PM

Title: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: headhunter on Sep 06, 2012, 08:19 PM
Big election coming up. Remember to Register and to VOTE!

http://90days90reasons.com/10.php (http://90days90reasons.com/10.php)

Another reason I love MMJ.

Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Sticky Icky Green Stuff on Sep 06, 2012, 08:56 PM
mmm, politics.  my favz.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: el_chode on Sep 06, 2012, 09:20 PM
Now, more than ever, the Youth have no reason to vote. Abandoned by one party, and entirely ignored by another, it is the younger generation that bears all the burden and none of the benefit for one of the first times in decades.

That's my party-neutral platform.

The answer is not "don't vote", it's do what the youth did in 2008 and prove they are a force to be reckoned with by voting elsewhere. Libertarian, Green, Socialist, whatever...anything but the status quo.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Sticky Icky Green Stuff on Sep 06, 2012, 09:54 PM
Now, more than ever, the Youth have no reason to vote. Abandoned by one party, and entirely ignored by another, it is the younger generation that bears all the burden and none of the benefit for one of the first times in decades.

That's my party-neutral platform.

The answer is not "don't vote", it's do what the youth did in 2008 and prove they are a force to be reckoned with by voting elsewhere. Libertarian, Green, Socialist, whatever...anything but the status quo.

not until 2016.  can't chance the repubs pushing more shit like citizens united and shit thru.  ride out the next 4years then when people do not feel apathetic and helpless start the turn towards a more progressive third party.  the tea party needs to be checked then wrecked and run out of congress first before we can get a move on things.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: exist10z on Sep 07, 2012, 01:24 AM
Now, more than ever, the Youth have no reason to vote. Abandoned by one party, and entirely ignored by another, it is the younger generation that bears all the burden and none of the benefit for one of the first times in decades.

That's my party-neutral platform.

The answer is not "don't vote", it's do what the youth did in 2008 and prove they are a force to be reckoned with by voting elsewhere. Libertarian, Green, Socialist, whatever...anything but the status quo.

not until 2016.  can't chance the repubs pushing more shit like citizens united and shit thru.  ride out the next 4years then when people do not feel apathetic and helpless start the turn towards a more progressive third party.  the tea party needs to be checked then wrecked and run out of congress first before we can get a move on things.

Sticky nailed this, just keep saying it.

The lesser of two evils really is much much lesser.

I support fully the idea of a truly progressive party, or system more like some of those in Europe, where multiple perspectives and parties all have a seat at the table, but that isn't what we have in this election.  Allowing the Republicans to win this election, who frankly aren't our fathers' Republicans anymore, but a bunch of radical theocratic fascist, bent on allowing corporations to dominate our democracy (sorry to offend any Republicans, especially any 'old time' Republicans who may not see themselves this way), would be pretty dreadful long term.

I see a lot of this these days, this equivalency idea - both parties are the same, they are just as bad.  No, they aren't.  One party will be significantly worse for America (unless of course you're stinking rich or believe that 'god hates fags'), and not voting for the only party available to keep them from taking power completely, isn't making a statement or moving us forward, it's cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Sorry for the politics, but I didn't start the thread...
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: iLikeBeer on Sep 07, 2012, 09:42 AM
I get the point about one party being the lesser of two evils, but I just can't get past the fact that they are both evil?!  I know the tea baggers are far worse, but the fact remains that until these two parties can figure out a way to come together for the betterment of the country as a WHOLE, it's we the people that TRULY run this country that will continue to suffer!!!

I'm so sick of hearing campaign promisses that aren't kept.  I'm sick of watching these politicians tell us one thing to gain our vote and then completely stab us in the back once they reach office like our glorious Gov. Strickland attepted to do here in Ohio?!   :rolleyes:   :angry: 

I honestly don't see any hope on the horizon and I don't know what the solution is to fix this broken system that is our government.  I've become so disillusioned with the entire political system and I honestly have no urge to vote at all...
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Ruckus on Sep 07, 2012, 09:50 AM
I hate donkeys and elephants.  Except for a handful of times, I haven't voted blue or red where a viable 3rd party candidate was on the ticket since I was eligible to vote.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Jon T. on Sep 07, 2012, 10:03 AM
Just let me say anyone that would vote for Obama is not a true American. The man does not believe in God or America !! If he is re-elected America as we know it will not exist. I feel sorry for our children & ESP. Our grandchildren!!!!

Mitt Romney might show more than two years of tax's if Obama would show his real birth certificate!!!
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Jon T. on Sep 07, 2012, 10:16 AM
 :grin: :grin: :grin:

Both of these nuggets come courtesy of status updates that came through my feed last night.  Unfortunately, they are both from my aunt.   :embarrassed:
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Devil Ledbetter on Sep 07, 2012, 10:41 AM
:grin: :grin: :grin:

Both of these nuggets come courtesy of status updates that came through my feed last night.  Unfortunately, they are both from my aunt.   :embarrassed:
  :shocked: Oh dear. Her quotes are so loaded with logical failure I wouldn't know where to start.

What is a "true American"? Does it require belief in God? Just any God, or does it also have to be that one particular God on a Stick?

Also, if voting Obama and not believing in God means I'm not a U.S. citizen, then I should not have to pay federal taxes. I mean, Quality Americans shouldn't want my filthy atheist lucre going into the saintly gov't coffers anyway, right?

Facebook is painful right now.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Jon T. on Sep 07, 2012, 10:55 AM
:grin: :grin: :grin:

Both of these nuggets come courtesy of status updates that came through my feed last night.  Unfortunately, they are both from my aunt.   :embarrassed:
  :shocked: Oh dear. Her quotes are so loaded with logical failure I wouldn't know where to start.

What is a "true American"? Does it require belief in God? Just any God, or does it also have to be that one particular God on a Stick?

Also, if voting Obama and not believing in God means I'm not a U.S. citizen, then I should not have to pay federal taxes. I mean, Quality Americans shouldn't want my filthy atheist lucre going into the saintly gov't coffers anyway, right?

Facebook is painful right now.

It's embarrassing.  I try to stay clear of political debates and I don't really post a lot on FB, but when I see dumb shit like this, it takes all I have to not say anything.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Devil Ledbetter on Sep 07, 2012, 11:00 AM
I am pretty quiet about my politics on Facebook. I have strong opinions that no doubt would offend people I have no wish to offend, and meanwhile it wouldn't change their minds anyway.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: e_wind on Sep 07, 2012, 11:21 AM


I see a lot of this these days, this equivalency idea - both parties are the same, they are just as bad.  No, they aren't.  One party will be significantly worse for America (unless of course you're stinking rich or believe that 'god hates fags'), and not voting for the only party available to keep them from taking power completely, isn't making a statement or moving us forward, it's cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Sorry for the politics, but I didn't start the thread...



I DO think that both of the parties have candidates that lean more toward the center, because thats the only way to possible persuade people to switch sides. I also agree that Obama is FAR less evil, and the current Repubs are gravitating away from the center and becoming terrifyingly radical (and fucking STUPID).

I also think a vote for a 3rd party is a vote kept from Obama, which is scary, and is why I'll vote for  Obama again, and probably vote Dem the rest of my life.


I support fully the idea of a truly progressive party, or system more like some of those in Europe, where multiple perspectives and parties all have a seat at the table, but that isn't what we have in this election.  Allowing the Republicans to win this election, who frankly aren't our fathers' Republicans anymore, but a bunch of radical theocratic fascist, bent on allowing corporations to dominate our democracy (sorry to offend any Republicans, especially any 'old time' Republicans who may not see themselves this way), would be pretty dreadful long term.

This is too true, and at times scary. What I think (and hope) will happen, is that all the people out there that are younger, like myself, will realize this over time and slowly the Dem side will grow, and keep them in power for long enough for it to matter. Less and less of the future generations are going to be uber-rich, and therefor (hopefully) not support the Tea Party psychos.




I'd like to see how everything would turn out if we did away with the electoral college. Theres no doubt that that is only reason any ones vote wouldnt matter. I know for sure that my state will go Romney, which discourages me from even voting (though I will anyway).
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: ItBeats4Jew on Sep 07, 2012, 01:12 PM
I'd like to see how everything would turn out if we did away with the electoral college. Theres no doubt that that is only reason any ones vote wouldnt matter. I know for sure that my state will go Romney, which discourages me from even voting (though I will anyway).
[/quote]


there's not even any campaigning in my state (only the largest state in the union by population!) because it will almost always be blue.  sure i vote that way too, but it would be nice if candidates came out here for reasons other than raising cash.  electoral college should've been scrapped after the bush/gore fiasco. 
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: exist10z on Sep 07, 2012, 02:08 PM
I get the point about one party being the lesser of two evils, but I just can't get past the fact that they are both evil?!  I know the tea baggers are far worse, but the fact remains that until these two parties can figure out a way to come together for the betterment of the country as a WHOLE, it's we the people that TRULY run this country that will continue to suffer!!!

I'm so sick of hearing campaign promisses that aren't kept.  I'm sick of watching these politicians tell us one thing to gain our vote and then completely stab us in the back once they reach office like our glorious Gov. Strickland attepted to do here in Ohio?!   :rolleyes:   :angry: 

I honestly don't see any hope on the horizon and I don't know what the solution is to fix this broken system that is our government.  I've become so disillusioned with the entire political system and I honestly have no urge to vote at all...

This frustration is completely understandable, and I feel it too; however, it is important to recognize the situation of Democratic politicians.  I find it distasteful to have to defend them, because I don't think they defend themselves enough, or fight enough for what they believe (if they actually believe it), which makes it difficult for me to muster much support.  But, all politicians, and Democrats in particular, are in a position where they have to play to the fear of the electorate, have to take corporate money and appease the über-wealthy, and have to sacrifice their principles (assuming they have some) in order to even be elected.

Do I think all Democratic politicians are true populist who care about 'the people', the environment, minority rights, etc., etc., no - of course not.  Do they take campaign contributions, cede interest to lobbyist, and cave constantly, yes - they do.  But consider the alternative.  Without taking these distastful contributions, they would never get elected, and they would have no voice whatsoever.  If they implemented every regulation they feel would be truly beneficial, they risk losing the contributions of businesses that would suffer, and hence never being elected in the first place.  We're in an untenable situation, where money clearly controls everything, and as much as I would like Democratic politicians to stand up and take a firm position against this, that would not be wise.  If you don't like citizens united, if you don't like money determining elections, asking Democrats to take a principled stand against it would not be helpful, it would simply eliminate any small resistance they are able to mount.

Obstructionism also shouldn't be discounted, even the limited progress Democrats think they could make without serious donor or electorate repercussions, is blocked at every turn by Republicans.  Republicans who are true believers, Republicans who aren't acting because it's the only way they can get elected and retain any power, but because the have a system already rigged to favor their world-view.  The 'money is power' idea is not only what they believe, but what they embrace.

Anyway, this is just how I see it, and I'm no Democrat.  I simply don't want to live in a country where money and religion are held up as the ideal, the highest good.  If I thought not voting or voting for a third party would be helpful, then I would be the first to pull the lever, but I don't.  I will continue to support the only viable opposition to what I think is a frightening surge in conservatism.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Shug on Sep 07, 2012, 02:27 PM
I've thought, for many years, that campaign finance reform is crucial to re-establishing a democracy in our country (because let's face it, we do not have a fucking democracy in the US where elections are bought by special interest groups/PACs/the corporations behind them).  Making how much money you spend a non-factor in getting elected, in my view, is super important to democracy. 
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: iLikeBeer on Sep 07, 2012, 02:35 PM
GREAT point Shug!   :beer:
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Devil Ledbetter on Sep 07, 2012, 02:48 PM
there's not even any campaigning in my state (only the largest state in the union by population!) because it will almost always be blue.  sure i vote that way too, but it would be nice if candidates came out here for reasons other than raising cash.  electoral college should've been scrapped after the bush/gore fiasco.
I live in a swing state (Michigan). While I can sympathize with feeling your vote is taken for granted, trust me when I say it's no picnic being "courted" by opposing politicians. My mailbox is crammed full of political crap, my answering machine clogged with robocalls, and you can't turn on the television or radio without being bombarded with negative campaign ads. It gets really old, really fast. I can't believe it's only early September. I am already sick to death of the whole thing. I think I'd like to take a sabbatical in some other country for the entire second half of 2016, but maybe I can get away with taking a sabbatical in a blue state.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: headhunter on Sep 07, 2012, 03:22 PM
there's not even any campaigning in my state (only the largest state in the union by population!) because it will almost always be blue.  sure i vote that way too, but it would be nice if candidates came out here for reasons other than raising cash.  electoral college should've been scrapped after the bush/gore fiasco.
I live in a swing state (Michigan). While I can sympathize with feeling your vote is taken for granted, trust me when I say it's no picnic being "courted" by opposing politicians. My mailbox is crammed full of political crap, my answering machine clogged with robocalls, and you can't turn on the television or radio without being bombarded with negative campaign ads. It gets really old, really fast. I can't believe it's only early September. I am already sick to death of the whole thing. I think I'd like to take a sabbatical in some other country for the entire second half of 2016, but maybe I can get away with taking a sabbatical in a blue state.

I'm happy living in a blue state (new york) but my office is located directly across the street from the Headquarters of News Corp and Fox News and that presents it's own set of problems!  Right Wing Propaganda every day even where there is no election coming up.


Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Devil Ledbetter on Sep 07, 2012, 03:45 PM
I'm finding it very disheartening that my socially very liberal, atheist boss is voting Romney/Ryan because he's afraid if he doesn't, he'll have to pay more than 15% tax on his sizable dividends. :angry:

Worse, my socially liberal parents have read Obama's America (book the movie 2016 is based on) and somehow fallen for it hook, line and sinker. My mom was trying to talk me into reading it. "Everyone of voting age should read it! It will change the way you vote!"

Told her I had a teenage daughter: I can't vote for a team that thinks fertilized eggs are people and wants to outlaw birth control. What about minorities? Atheists? Gays? I asked her.

And she actually said, "Oh, all of that can be fixed later."  :shocked:  :shocked:  :shocked:

It was all I could do not to stick my hand out and say "Hi, I'm Devil, your lifelong feminist daughter. I don't believe we've met."
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Shug on Sep 07, 2012, 04:06 PM
I think I know how you feel, Devil Led.  Until the election is over, I won't go to my Mom's house with her fundamentalist Christian husband's Fox News/Focus On The Family bullshit all over the place and forget about my brother, who converted to ultra-orthodox Catholicism (Opus Dei) years ago.  About all I can talk about with either of them without getting really upset is the weather.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: ItBeats4Jew on Sep 07, 2012, 04:24 PM
I think I know how you feel, Devil Led.  Until the election is over, I won't go to my Mom's house with her fundamentalist Christian husband's Fox News/Focus On The Family bullshit all over the place and forget about my brother, who converted to ultra-orthodox Catholicism (Opus Dei) years ago.  About all I can talk about with either of them without getting really upset is the weather.

Opus Dei?!!!  I thought that was just a fictional thing created by Dan Brown ;)
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Devil Ledbetter on Sep 07, 2012, 04:32 PM
I think I know how you feel, Devil Led.  Until the election is over, I won't go to my Mom's house with her fundamentalist Christian husband's Fox News/Focus On The Family bullshit all over the place and forget about my brother, who converted to ultra-orthodox Catholicism (Opus Dei) years ago.  About all I can talk about with either of them without getting really upset is the weather.

Opus Dei?!!!  I thought that was just a fictional thing created by Dan Brown ;)
I have this friend .... okay, a wife of a friend, who is a practically a shiite Catholic. She will find a way to work the words "Holy Father" into any conversation. She's worse than me with David Gilmour.

Needless to say I haven't approached her about politics. I'm sure she thinks I'm satan incarnate.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: exist10z on Sep 07, 2012, 04:43 PM
I'm finding it very disheartening that my socially very liberal, atheist boss is voting Romney/Ryan because he's afraid if he doesn't, he'll have to pay more than 15% tax on his sizable dividends. :angry:

Worse, my socially liberal parents have read Obama's America (book the movie 2016 is based on) and somehow fallen for it hook, line and sinker. My mom was trying to talk me into reading it. "Everyone of voting age should read it! It will change the way you vote!"

Told her I had a teenage daughter: I can't vote for a team that thinks fertilized eggs are people and wants to outlaw birth control. What about minorities? Atheists? Gays? I asked her.

And she actually said, "Oh, all of that can be fixed later."  :shocked:  :shocked:  :shocked:

It was all I could do not to stick my hand out and say "Hi, I'm Devil, your lifelong feminist daughter. I don't believe we've met."

Not sure how much this will help, and I am sure you already know this, but there is a biological and evolutionary component to people's conservatism.  I face the same thing with people important to me, people who I love, and instead of simply believing they are selfish (they are) and heartless (they aren't), I try to remind myself that they are simply doing what evolution dictates.

Conservatism is a species protectant mechanism, trying to keep the most for yourself and those most genetically similar, is what organisms are 'supposed' to do.  I try to remember this fact, when trying to understand fiscal conservatives.  I try to remember this fact, when trying to understand how a social liberal could vote conservative.  Protecting yourself and your own, is a powerful and ingrained biological force.  It's also something taken advantage of by conservative politicians, this is obvious, as the fear mongering and denigration of 'the other' predominates their message.

I think I can make the case that it's short sighted, and that caring about others (the planet, animals, etc.) will ultimately lead to better results for all, including the individual.  But it's difficult to get past the primal fear and biology. 
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: BH on Sep 07, 2012, 05:10 PM
I've thought, for many years, that campaign finance reform is crucial to re-establishing a democracy in our country (because let's face it, we do not have a fucking democracy in the US where elections are bought by special interest groups/PACs/the corporations behind them).  Making how much money you spend a non-factor in getting elected, in my view, is super important to democracy.

this!!!!

Imagine if you took all of the intelligent people working in politics and government across the country and change their agenda to, *gasp*, "working together to make the country a better place!"   Oh, what we could accomplish as a human race I can't even imagine.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Devil Ledbetter on Sep 07, 2012, 05:26 PM
I'm finding it very disheartening that my socially very liberal, atheist boss is voting Romney/Ryan because he's afraid if he doesn't, he'll have to pay more than 15% tax on his sizable dividends. :angry:

Worse, my socially liberal parents have read Obama's America (book the movie 2016 is based on) and somehow fallen for it hook, line and sinker. My mom was trying to talk me into reading it. "Everyone of voting age should read it! It will change the way you vote!"

Told her I had a teenage daughter: I can't vote for a team that thinks fertilized eggs are people and wants to outlaw birth control. What about minorities? Atheists? Gays? I asked her.

And she actually said, "Oh, all of that can be fixed later."  :shocked:  :shocked:  :shocked:

It was all I could do not to stick my hand out and say "Hi, I'm Devil, your lifelong feminist daughter. I don't believe we've met."

Not sure how much this will help, and I am sure you already know this, but there is a biological and evolutionary component to people's conservatism.  I face the same thing with people important to me, people who I love, and instead of simply believing they are selfish (they are) and heartless (they aren't), I try to remind myself that they are simply doing what evolution dictates.

Conservatism is a species protectant mechanism, trying to keep the most for yourself and those most genetically similar, is what organisms are 'supposed' to do.  I try to remember this fact, when trying to understand fiscal conservatives.  I try to remember this fact, when trying to understand how a social liberal could vote conservative.  Protecting yourself and your own, is a powerful and ingrained biological force.  It's also something taken advantage of by conservative politicians, this is obvious, as the fear mongering and denigration of 'the other' predominates their message.

I think I can make the case that it's short sighted, and that caring about others (the planet, animals, etc.) will ultimately lead to better results for all, including the individual.  But it's difficult to get past the primal fear and biology.
It actually does help.

What bothered me about my mom, especially, was not so much losing her liberal vote--I respect her right to vote however she's sees fit-- but that she honestly thought she could talk me into voting against my conscience. She knows me. She knows what a jackbooted feminist liberal I am. That she thought she could have me read some book of right wing propaganda and that I'd respond by throwing everything I stand for out the window? That actually hurt my feelings.




Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Shug on Sep 07, 2012, 05:34 PM

Not sure how much this will help, and I am sure you already know this, but there is a biological and evolutionary component to people's conservatism.  I face the same thing with people important to me, people who I love, and instead of simply believing they are selfish (they are) and heartless (they aren't), I try to remind myself that they are simply doing what evolution dictates.

Conservatism is a species protectant mechanism, trying to keep the most for yourself and those most genetically similar, is what organisms are 'supposed' to do.  I try to remember this fact, when trying to understand fiscal conservatives.  I try to remember this fact, when trying to understand how a social liberal could vote conservative.  Protecting yourself and your own, is a powerful and ingrained biological force.  It's also something taken advantage of by conservative politicians, this is obvious, as the fear mongering and denigration of 'the other' predominates their message.

I think I can make the case that it's short sighted, and that caring about others (the planet, animals, etc.) will ultimately lead to better results for all, including the individual.  But it's difficult to get past the primal fear and biology.

Good point and well stated.  I think its important to distinguish between a healthy survival instinct that all animals have and an unhealthy expression of that instinct as greedy, selfish behavior.  I do believe that greed is a disease currently destroying our society/country and that the root of greed is the fear that there will not be enough resources for me and mine.  (ie "not only am I going to take care of myself and my immediate group over all others, but I'm going to try to stockpile so much wealth/access to resources that insure our survival/maintain our extravagant lifestyle that the chances of my resources running out are minimized").  Its really hard to teach people that there is enough of everything for everydoby (well, if population control is addressed) if we are smart about how we consume and replenish and share resources because their survival instincts keep them vigilant about the possibility of running out.  Its hard to teach people that we really are all in this together and helping someone else is, in an indirect way, helping everyone.  I don't understand why the so called "spiritual" institutions don't teach this doctrine.  Maybe humans have not evolved enough to be ready to accept it.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Sticky Icky Green Stuff on Sep 07, 2012, 06:38 PM
:grin: :grin: :grin:

Both of these nuggets come courtesy of status updates that came through my feed last night.  Unfortunately, they are both from my aunt.   :embarrassed:

i can relate completely.  it seems everyday somebody I know says some new random bullshit about why Obama is so bad and anti-christian, etc. 

today this old dude at my work said he's not voting for neither romney or obama.  I asked "why?" he said "because I don't like either of them".  and replied "what exactly don't you like about Obama". and his response was "He apologized for America".  and I  said "what?  who cares, we're the largest terrorist organization in the world, we have the largest military in the world and we've killed 10's of thousands of people.  I'm glad he apologized.".  he rambled on again about how the US NEVER should have to apologize for it's actions, and I laughed then he stopped talking and turned around in his chair so his back would be facing me.  haha, it's wtf dude?

my mom's side is crazy christians.  my aunt and her husband are full blown creationists.  literalists of the bible.  I was trying to talk to their son last saturday at my sisters wedding just about life and whatever.  we started talking about God, Heaven, Hell, etc.  his dad, my uncle in-law, kept whispering in my cousins ear telling him what to say.  I was wasted so after a few times I looked at my uncle and said "Hey Johnny(my cousin), tell your dad that if he whispers in your ear one more time I'm going to punch him in his fucking face..."  it was awesome dude.  I can't tell you with words how great it felt to get it off my chest after years of biting my tongue. 

my main point that I was trying to get across to my cousin was to think for himself because he's being bred into idiocy.  I'm tired of religious bullshit and people who are factually wrong about history.   those idiots are essentially what empowers these fuck nuts. 

the Mayans were right on some level, a consciousness change is coming and I think it's going to be mans transition from religion to science as the new way to explain and express our existence.  when you can carbon date the stories of jesus christ and they weren't written until 100-400years after his death that should set off a red flag for people.  but they shrug it off.  the fact that science didn't exist until after the bible was written should be  a huge red flag for the people who take the bible literally.  if you stay stuck in that ancient bronze age mentality you deny science the ability to explain the metaphors.  which is what that book is, allegory.  this isn't my opinion, it's fucking fact.  even the high ups at the Vatican admit to that.  these little non-denominational churches are nothing more than mini-cults.  I've gotta stop or I'll rant forever.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: el_chode on Sep 08, 2012, 06:19 PM
If you think that Obama's campaign isn't financed by rich millionaires that are so popular to hate, then you really need to re-evaluate your position on things.

Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.

If you truly believe your vote to be valuable, then why waste it by voting against a candidate instead of for a candidate? It's an election, not a referendum. Or at least, that's how it should be. But if that's the case, you're falling for the GOP tactic since they (a) know Romney is weak and (b) are trying to make this an election a referendum on Obama. They WANT you to make your decision binary; they WANT you to only vote for Obama if you don't like Romney, or better, vote for Romney only if you don't like Obama. You're playing into the game like a rabbit into a box as the rich donors on both sides get ready to yank that stick out.

If you don't vote your conscience then you are just as much a part of the problem.

And for what it's worth (and I'm sticking my neck out here) most Republicans aren't gay-hating religious fundamentalists anymore than most Democrats are pot-smoking hippies. It's a stereotype perpetuated by both sides - the left as an elephant to pin a tail on; the right as the squeakiest wheel.

And for those of you who say they're not all the same - they both do nothing to fix the fact that the younger generation is getting fucked in every hole in order to support the eldest generation who paid the least amount in taxes and want the most amount in return.

This isn't a battle of the 1% vs the 99%; it never was. It's a battle of the ballooning majority trying to get theirs and taking advantage of generations they believe to be out of touch and apathetic. And the best part is...we vote with them out of fear of the spectre of a "more evil other side". If you honestly believe that Mitt Romney is only getting elected to help out his rich buddies, you're just as foolish as the Romney supporter who believes Obama just wants to get elected to put everyone on welfare. No one is that evil; no one is that single-track minded.

Both sides do nothing to end an endless war on drugs and brown skinned people (usually at the same time). Both sides do nothing to address domestic surveillance or gov't transparency (in fact, the Dem's removed these things from their official platform this year). Both sides do NOTHING to reinforce our civil rights. We claim to want to check the budget while the TSA expands and operation thinthread archives our emails. And we still believe that one side is better than the other if only because of an effective marketing campaign of bumper sticker sized slogans and feel good mantras when, in fact, no one has done anything in a decade to address the slide in income and civil security (instead we just shit our pants over perceived threats to national security).

A slide I directly blame on the oldest generation (as an admitted ageist) as they have had the most voting power for the longest time.

And I know many of you are older than me. I'm not talking about you...in fact, if you know the words to Bastards of Young you're pretty much in the same boat - and I submit that song as proof that this has been at least 25 years in the making; 25 years spanning Dem and GOP control; 25 years of both sides running a train on multiple generations while doing nothing to address immigration (since having more workers is a great way to help support an aging population).

Now if you'll excuse me, I'll go back to working to help pay off my excessive student debt that goes into the pockets of wealthy donors who use my generation as a personal piggy bank!
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Sticky Icky Green Stuff on Sep 08, 2012, 07:28 PM
chode let me say I agree with most all of what you're saying.  and you're right on a lot of stuff but i think there's a piece of the puzzle missing in your view. 

you're absolutely right about us voting for evil either way.  but there are levels to this.  all down the line all the way to your local sheriff.  and on that local level is where you make the change.

one or two votes for president either way won't make a difference but I've gotta agree with what previous people have said.  any vote for a third party presidential candidate is a vote for romney straight up.  he's the underdog.  you lessen obamas advantage.  whether it matters or not if him or obama is president is your choice to make. 

but when it gets down to those sheriffs, and judges, and senators or house dudes.  your vote fucking matters hugely.  when it comes to ballot initiatives and stuff like legalizing marijuana your vote fucking matters so so so so so so sooo much.  these social issues are up to our vote. 

government moves slow in the first place.  and i highly doubt congress will be anymore supportive of the president if he's re-elected.  faster change would be great but there's that 60vote fillabuster bullshit.  it should 51votes or whatever, simple majority.  grover norquist and his pledges should be locked in a cell in the basement of the deepest cave in the world.  sheldon adelson and his newt love cocksucking ball licking dick can go to hell.  the koch brothers and their billions of dollars, their creation of the tea party.  these are ALL conservative organizations.  hardcore capitalist, roll back the regulations and let us make you our slaves type shit.  this is the first election where money will matter.  even michael moore thinks romney's going to win simply because of money:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/30/michael-moore-mitt-romney_n_1843824.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/30/michael-moore-mitt-romney_n_1843824.html)
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: exist10z on Sep 08, 2012, 07:30 PM
If you think that Obama's campaign isn't financed by rich millionaires that are so popular to hate, then you really need to re-evaluate your position on things.

Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.

If you truly believe your vote to be valuable, then why waste it by voting against a candidate instead of for a candidate? It's an election, not a referendum. Or at least, that's how it should be. But if that's the case, you're falling for the GOP tactic since they (a) know Romney is weak and (b) are trying to make this an election a referendum on Obama. They WANT you to make your decision binary; they WANT you to only vote for Obama if you don't like Romney, or better, vote for Romney only if you don't like Obama. You're playing into the game like a rabbit into a box as the rich donors on both sides get ready to yank that stick out.

If you don't vote your conscience then you are just as much a part of the problem.

And for what it's worth (and I'm sticking my neck out here) most Republicans aren't gay-hating religious fundamentalists anymore than most Democrats are pot-smoking hippies. It's a stereotype perpetuated by both sides - the left as an elephant to pin a tail on; the right as the squeakiest wheel.

And for those of you who say they're not all the same - they both do nothing to fix the fact that the younger generation is getting fucked in every hole in order to support the eldest generation who paid the least amount in taxes and want the most amount in return.

This isn't a battle of the 1% vs the 99%; it never was. It's a battle of the ballooning majority trying to get theirs and taking advantage of generations they believe to be out of touch and apathetic. And the best part is...we vote with them out of fear of the spectre of a "more evil other side". If you honestly believe that Mitt Romney is only getting elected to help out his rich buddies, you're just as foolish as the Romney supporter who believes Obama just wants to get elected to put everyone on welfare. No one is that evil; no one is that single-track minded.

Both sides do nothing to end an endless war on drugs and brown skinned people (usually at the same time). Both sides do nothing to address domestic surveillance or gov't transparency (in fact, the Dem's removed these things from their official platform this year). Both sides do NOTHING to reinforce our civil rights. We claim to want to check the budget while the TSA expands and operation thinthread archives our emails. And we still believe that one side is better than the other if only because of an effective marketing campaign of bumper sticker sized slogans and feel good mantras when, in fact, no one has done anything in a decade to address the slide in income and civil security (instead we just shit our pants over perceived threats to national security).

A slide I directly blame on the oldest generation (as an admitted ageist) as they have had the most voting power for the longest time.

And I know many of you are older than me. I'm not talking about you...in fact, if you know the words to Bastards of Young you're pretty much in the same boat - and I submit that song as proof that this has been at least 25 years in the making; 25 years spanning Dem and GOP control; 25 years of both sides running a train on multiple generations while doing nothing to address immigration (since having more workers is a great way to help support an aging population).

Now if you'll excuse me, I'll go back to working to help pay off my excessive student debt that goes into the pockets of wealthy donors who use my generation as a personal piggy bank!

A few facts, and a few good points, but ultimately full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

I am not going to bother re-writing everything I already wrote, as I suppose at least some of this is directed at me as a rebuttle anyway, and a re-rebuttle would just be a waste of time.  However, a few points.

Your tone (admittedly difficult to assess on the interwebs) and admission of 'ageism', added to what I assume was supposed to be a humorously vitriolic last paragraph, leads me to conclude you are speaking more from emotion than reason.  This is understandable.

Having said that, your point about 'most Republicans aren't...' is both absolutely factually correct and unemotionally well reasoned.  Of course they aren't.  And as I said previously, they aren't bad people either. I would (did) argue they are either A) led by a biological/genetic evolutionary imperative, B) or simply misguided and mislead.

You mention a 'ballooning majority', where it appears you are referencing older people (have no idea how you delineate 'old' - age wise, but I suspect you are referring to Baby Boomers).  It is not physically possible for a human being to 'balloon' from anywhere, these are people who were already alive and have now grown older.  Eventually, assuming you grow older (you can certainly lessen this chance by continuing to dissuade people from participating to the best of their ability in the electoral process, but I'll get to that), you will see that you are still 'you', just older.  In the same way 'most Republicans aren't...', your grouping of older people, and ascribing to them a greedy selfish lack of care about the young, is misguided.

That being said, there are plenty of people out to get all that they can - at others expense, restrict your choices, subjugate 'brown people' (and women), increase military spending and police powers, and generally force you to conform to their world-view.  They're called Republicans. 

So if you think a vote against them is wasted, don't vote.  If you think you're just a tool of 'the man' (the 'Baby Boomer boogie man' I suppose) and falling into their scheme somehow by voting, then don't vote.  If you can't grasp the fact that one side really is less harmful, that they might even be helpful if they weren't constantly obstructed and forced to play the other sides game, then don't vote.  Or vote Green.  Or vote Socialist (which is actually how I'd vote, if I thought it would help).  Or just 'stick it to em' by not voting at all, that'll show them.

Seriously, I know you must be young(er), as you said as much, but throwing a tantrum never solved anything.  Incremental change, hell - even slowing a downhill slide, is better than just giving up.  Think about the generations that will come after you, and don't be guilty of the same self-centeredness with which you condemn 'the older generations'.  Maybe things won't get better during my lifetime (I'm 43) or yours, but throwing in the towel isn't going to help. 

It can get worse...
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Jon T. on Sep 08, 2012, 08:38 PM
way too much reasoning in here.  I'm going back to Facebook.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: exist10z on Sep 08, 2012, 09:18 PM
chode let me say I agree with most all of what you're saying.  and you're right on a lot of stuff but i think there's a piece of the puzzle missing in your view. 

you're absolutely right about us voting for evil either way.  but there are levels to this.  all down the line all the way to your local sheriff.  and on that local level is where you make the change.

one or two votes for president either way won't make a difference but I've gotta agree with what previous people have said.  any vote for a third party presidential candidate is a vote for romney straight up.  he's the underdog.  you lessen obamas advantage.  whether it matters or not if him or obama is president is your choice to make. 

but when it gets down to those sheriffs, and judges, and senators or house dudes.  your vote fucking matters hugely.  when it comes to ballot initiatives and stuff like legalizing marijuana your vote fucking matters so so so so so so sooo much.  these social issues are up to our vote. 

government moves slow in the first place.  and i highly doubt congress will be anymore supportive of the president if he's re-elected.  faster change would be great but there's that 60vote fillabuster bullshit.  it should 51votes or whatever, simple majority.  grover norquist and his pledges should be locked in a cell in the basement of the deepest cave in the world.  sheldon adelson and his newt love cocksucking ball licking dick can go to hell.  the koch brothers and their billions of dollars, their creation of the tea party.  these are ALL conservative organizations.  hardcore capitalist, roll back the regulations and let us make you our slaves type shit.  this is the first election where money will matter.  even michael moore thinks romney's going to win simply because of money:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/30/michael-moore-mitt-romney_n_1843824.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/30/michael-moore-mitt-romney_n_1843824.html)

Sticky, making a lot of good sense.

I wish I had seen your post before I bothered writing mine.  You said it all just as well, if not better.  The bit about Norquist, The Kochs, Adelson, and the filibuster issue are details I didn't bother to attempt conveying (And I likely wouldn't have done so as colorfully as you anyway  :thumbsup:), but they should drive the point home for anyone who bothers to educate themselves.

Well done.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Sticky Icky Green Stuff on Sep 09, 2012, 12:46 AM
right on exist.  I think we posted at the same time pretty much.   I think everybody sorta gets it but the way the power system is setup makes some of the facts twisted.  especially when the politicians are flat out lying in full force. 

eh, this election will be interesting.  bring on the fuckin debates.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Sticky Icky Green Stuff on Sep 09, 2012, 12:47 AM
I forgot Karl Rove, he's a big one too.  fucking dickwads.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Sticky Icky Green Stuff on Sep 09, 2012, 12:52 AM
and we really haven't even talked about the major voter suppression going down led by the republifucks.   the dismantling of unions.  the destruction and privatization of schools.  this election the republicans are so fucked that they've been running as fake democrats in multiple states.  Michigan, Wisconsin, etc.

this shit just isn't happening on the left right now.  not even sort of as intense. 
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Fully on Sep 09, 2012, 09:52 AM
I have to agree with sticky about the importance of voting at the state and local level. Two years ago the Tea Party gained control of TN's legislature. They spent their first year in control attacking teachers. They introduced no legislation that would improve conditions in the classroom for students. In fact, their Republican governor appointed a guy to be head of the Dept. of Education who wants to repeal class size mandates. Ask any teacher you know how
U h that helps children to learn. All of them will tell you that it does the opposite. Last year, they realized that many of them would soon be running for re-election so they backed off the teachers, firemen, and policemen, but the damage has already been done. It's important not to let the sumbitches in the door to begin with, but on e they are in and have shown their true colors, vote them out.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Fully on Sep 09, 2012, 09:54 AM
Also, typing on a phone is not my strongest form of communication.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: el_chode on Sep 09, 2012, 08:54 PM
I try not to rebut any one person as to avoid misconstrued forms of  tu quoque type arguments, and that's not an allegation against anyone who has directly replied to me. And my wall of text was written dehydrated and somewhat buzzed. But whatever lubes up the gears.

However, I must speak on a few points that have ALWAYS bugged me:

- a vote for a third party is a vote taken from/given to x:
it's never a vote against anyone; it's never a penalty. a vote is a vote and if it does something, great. If it gets marginalized or zero-summed because of the larger politics, well, it didn't matter much anyway, did it? Better to express my conscience than vote on fear; it's better to vote proactively than reactively. it is binary thought that gets us into these systems of robopolitics. Besides, it is the tea party that takes votes away from Romney, if anything at all. and if your margins between candidates are so thin that you're afraid the slightest sneeze will blow over your house of cards, then your battle is already lost; you're ruining it for yourself.

- ballooning populations:
my point was that there's always been a balloon, which is why i fault them - they've had the power to make choices for this long, and they've used that power for evil, not good.

- dismantling of unions: you'll notice the rhetoric here is generalized for a reason - most union-bashing is against bloated public sector unions. Private sector unions are generally left alone. Not always - but here in NJ, the "working class" that make up the "middle class" are typically blue collar union types - the same people (and, by proxy, unions) being milked dry by many public sector unions that are mismanaged and riding out legacy costs. In other words, the war on unions is often led by unions. That's not to say our teachers haven't taken collateral damage as a result, but it's something that needs to be nuanced (and the debate isn't). Though a Wisconsin law prohibiting all collective bargaining is a different beast altogether. But as I said, nuance.

- voter fraud/discrimination: please look up gerrymandering in any blue/red stronghold. it's the oldest form of voter disenfranchisement and it's on both sides. Here in NJ, the running joke is that Democrats in Hudson county will vote early, vote often, and vote early and often twice. Of course, a NJ Democrat is the epitome of corruption and the reason why everyone thinks of NJ as corrupt. Same thing when we have armed thugs around certain precincts making their presence known. It doesn't have to happen through legislative acts (I also just had a training on election crime in anticipation of the coming elections, but keep in mind, NJ is generally a Blue State, so of course our corruption is skewed blue).

- immigration & unions: keep in mind the war on drugs has been perpetrated just as much by democrats; the war on immigrants took a major blow in the late 80s due to democrats fear of pissing off the unions due to an influx of cheap, legal labor. It's just as bad on both sides, and only because we keep voting out of fear and blaming anyone who doesn't play by these rules as "apathetic" or having "tantrums". Both sides suck for civil rights. It was the democrats who passed DOMA. They like to preach equality but rarely deliver. If anything, it has been the voters who deliver equality, not the politicians. While the DREAM act was a good step in a great direction, it's still not that much for the big picture. While the GOP does still fear sharia law for some reason, pretending they're the only ones does nothing but hurt the cause on both sides.

And, as a general concept, voting isn't a boomer "game" or "their scheme"; it has been their tool against the rest, to vote themselves a piggy bank. Look at the names of the people you all cite as agents as corruption and destruction - what generation do they claim to represent? what generation are they (generally) on the tail end of?

The tactics of the republicans have always been fear tactics. Fear of terror, fear of a black president, fear of a welfare society. And what do you all do? Play right into that while claiming it's better than letting the other guy win. Voting by fear. And that has been my point, and (for reasons may be blamed on the reader or the writer), I have never advocated against participation. My angle here is to participate and encourage participation. But if you only have one vote, why waste it on a compromised candidate? Why waste it on a platform you largely disagree with but disagree with less than the other side? If you are going to participate, why do so half-assed? Make it count.

Change will never come if we consistently compromise.

And for what it's worth, Michael Moore is a know-nothing twat and I think Obama will do just fine in November, absent some national tragedy he fucks up. In fact, I'd wager the only real effect of money is to buy the votes of minds paralyzed by fear and willing to believe the talking points of one side over the other. What I put forward here and before is a plea to move beyond that. Avoid the DailyKos as much as Fox News and of course never read the Huffington Post.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Idiot Redneck on Sep 09, 2012, 11:17 PM
A vote for "The Man" is always just that...a vote for "The Man". I agree with those the Grateful Dead once sided with, "Vote For Nobody!".
http://youtu.be/QT0OJEFlq7A (http://youtu.be/QT0OJEFlq7A)
Go to this Internet site for more.
http://www.nobodyforpresident.org/index2012.html (http://www.nobodyforpresident.org/index2012.html)
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Sticky Icky Green Stuff on Sep 09, 2012, 11:31 PM
chode chode chode.  the thing is I agree with you 98percent on everything you've said.

I agree voting straight democrat really doesn't do much to help the country. 

president this term for 2012 is Obama/Biden vs Romney/Ryan  that's what it is, you can vote for Ron Paul or Gary Johnson but that vote could be used to help push the obvious top shelf candidate.  all things aside it's whether or not you want romney as your president.  that's what your votes for THIS election, not every election just this one.  If you don't want Obama, any vote for anyone else helps romney.  it's not illogical, or saying your vote doesn't matter it's just what's up with that current race.

the entire reason ron paul was elected is because of local, grass root voting.  same with a bernie sanders.  but not rand paul, he sold out to the republicans like a lot of the tea party. that should be acknowledged.  over and over again.

the union shit is specifically directed at teachers currently.  more specifically the purpose being the privatization of school.  the transition into making them "private" charter schools.  it's happening in detroit with varying results.  the thing about privatization is once you have a private school you don't have to follow any government regulation relating to education.  there should be a balance.  they want to destroy tenure, they want to destroy pensions that have been paid into for years, decades.  it's a simple idea, privatize, hire less skilled workers, get rid of good teachers that cost more for less good teachers and then when the less good teachers fuck up fire them and re-hire new, shitty teachers.  totally makes sense.  and is soo worth it.  sike.  fuck that. shit.

it's not fraud that's the problem it's voter suppression.  gerrymandering goes on on both sides for sure.  here in michigan the republican just gerrymandered the fuck out of shit and fucked the butt on a lot of shit. the "S" district" or "Super District" they created is a great example of bullshit.  it's happened, it's a conservative attempt to rig the vote this time in their advantage, if the dems did it I'd be just as pissed but they didn't do it this time.

michael moore's opinion was a guess, nothing more nothing less.  just like your opinion.  it's all the same.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: exist10z on Sep 09, 2012, 11:33 PM
I try not to rebut any one person as to avoid misconstrued forms of  tu quoque type arguments, and that's not an allegation against anyone who has directly replied to me. And my wall of text was written dehydrated and somewhat buzzed. But whatever lubes up the gears.

However, I must speak on a few points that have ALWAYS bugged me:

- a vote for a third party is a vote taken from/given to x:
it's never a vote against anyone; it's never a penalty. a vote is a vote and if it does something, great. If it gets marginalized or zero-summed because of the larger politics, well, it didn't matter much anyway, did it? Better to express my conscience than vote on fear; it's better to vote proactively than reactively. it is binary thought that gets us into these systems of robopolitics. Besides, it is the tea party that takes votes away from Romney, if anything at all. and if your margins between candidates are so thin that you're afraid the slightest sneeze will blow over your house of cards, then your battle is already lost; you're ruining it for yourself.

- ballooning populations:
my point was that there's always been a balloon, which is why i fault them - they've had the power to make choices for this long, and they've used that power for evil, not good.

- dismantling of unions: you'll notice the rhetoric here is generalized for a reason - most union-bashing is against bloated public sector unions. Private sector unions are generally left alone. Not always - but here in NJ, the "working class" that make up the "middle class" are typically blue collar union types - the same people (and, by proxy, unions) being milked dry by many public sector unions that are mismanaged and riding out legacy costs. In other words, the war on unions is often led by unions. That's not to say our teachers haven't taken collateral damage as a result, but it's something that needs to be nuanced (and the debate isn't). Though a Wisconsin law prohibiting all collective bargaining is a different beast altogether. But as I said, nuance.

- voter fraud/discrimination: please look up gerrymandering in any blue/red stronghold. it's the oldest form of voter disenfranchisement and it's on both sides. Here in NJ, the running joke is that Democrats in Hudson county will vote early, vote often, and vote early and often twice. Of course, a NJ Democrat is the epitome of corruption and the reason why everyone thinks of NJ as corrupt. Same thing when we have armed thugs around certain precincts making their presence known. It doesn't have to happen through legislative acts (I also just had a training on election crime in anticipation of the coming elections, but keep in mind, NJ is generally a Blue State, so of course our corruption is skewed blue).

- immigration & unions: keep in mind the war on drugs has been perpetrated just as much by democrats; the war on immigrants took a major blow in the late 80s due to democrats fear of pissing off the unions due to an influx of cheap, legal labor. It's just as bad on both sides, and only because we keep voting out of fear and blaming anyone who doesn't play by these rules as "apathetic" or having "tantrums". Both sides suck for civil rights. It was the democrats who passed DOMA. They like to preach equality but rarely deliver. If anything, it has been the voters who deliver equality, not the politicians. While the DREAM act was a good step in a great direction, it's still not that much for the big picture. While the GOP does still fear sharia law for some reason, pretending they're the only ones does nothing but hurt the cause on both sides.

And, as a general concept, voting isn't a boomer "game" or "their scheme"; it has been their tool against the rest, to vote themselves a piggy bank. Look at the names of the people you all cite as agents as corruption and destruction - what generation do they claim to represent? what generation are they (generally) on the tail end of?

The tactics of the republicans have always been fear tactics. Fear of terror, fear of a black president, fear of a welfare society. And what do you all do? Play right into that while claiming it's better than letting the other guy win. Voting by fear. And that has been my point, and (for reasons may be blamed on the reader or the writer), I have never advocated against participation. My angle here is to participate and encourage participation. But if you only have one vote, why waste it on a compromised candidate? Why waste it on a platform you largely disagree with but disagree with less than the other side? If you are going to participate, why do so half-assed? Make it count.

Change will never come if we consistently compromise.

And for what it's worth, Michael Moore is a know-nothing twat and I think Obama will do just fine in November, absent some national tragedy he fucks up. In fact, I'd wager the only real effect of money is to buy the votes of minds paralyzed by fear and willing to believe the talking points of one side over the other. What I put forward here and before is a plea to move beyond that. Avoid the DailyKos as much as Fox News and of course never read the Huffington Post.

You're a sharp cat.  I am not sure you represented your position, or yourself, well with your first post (and you say as much here), but there is a lot of substance in this particular entry and I want to digest it before responding.

I am fairly certain that I am still going to disagree with much of it conceptually and philosophically (if not substantively), but I want to give it some thought before replying off the cuff.

Good stuff though...
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: exist10z on Sep 10, 2012, 07:04 PM
Alright, so I spent the last twelve hours considering some of the points raised on this thread (not really), and think I am ready to respond.  Although again, it appears Sticky beat me to the punch to some extent, I do have a few thoughts that might illuminate my position.

While I am not going to attempt a line by line rebuttle of el_chode, as some things are beyond the scope of my knowledge and much of it I actually agree with, there are areas where I think the logic is faulty.  I want to preface this by saying that I appreciate anyone who has a passion for productive change.  I also appreciate that there are people with differing points of view and that what I think and believe may actually be incorrect.  I was actually a fiscally conservative Republican when I was younger (never socially conservative) and have radically changed my position on many issues during the last ten years (a reversal of the conventional wisdom - young = liberal, older = conservative).  Because of this, I realize that not only might my positions change, but that I will subsequently recognize my previous positions as incorrect or indefensible.  Paraphrasing Muhammed Ali, If my positions are the same at 50 as they were at 20, I've wasted 30 years. So...

Again with the voting.  Do I support and endorse everything the Democrats do?  No, not at all, but I don't consider it compromising my principles to vote for them.  Frankly, as I said, I'd vote Socialist if I thought they had a chance to win, but even if they did, and I did, I am fairly certain I still wouldn't be in complete agreement with their platform.  I am not sure anyone thinks exactly like me.  I don't think voting democratic is a 'vote on fear', it's a vote on logic.  I understand that at this point, with regard to presidential politics, we only have two choices, and one choice is much more in line with my thinking than the other.  Simple really, no fear involved.  It's not a compromise or a 'reactive' vote, it's a vote for the person I think will do what is more closely aligned with my positions.  To vote for a third party, even if there were a third party more closely aligned with my positions, would still be a wasted vote, because they can't win.

As I think Sticky pointed out, and what the Tea Party clearly illustrates, is that what you would call 'proactive' votes, can be effective when applied to lower level races.  You can count on the Tea Party voting for Romney, not because they love him, but because they hate him less than they hate Obama.  On the other hand, when it comes to local elections, or congressional or senatorial races, they use their votes to elect true believers.  In this way they exert more influence than their numbers would suggest they could.

There are plenty of Baby Boomers and older Americans in general, that likely support the same issues as you.  As people age, they generally become more conservative - death, safety and security, etc., but don't forget, these were the same people who were the hippies in the sixties.  What percentage still hold progressive values?  I have no idea, but I think it is short sighted to paint them all with the same brush.  You dismissed the idea earlier that it was the 1% vs. the 99%, but I think that idea is more accurate than you realize.  I am guessing one of your chief complaints, is that you will be required to fund Social Security and Medicare, which is legitimate.  However, with regard to the real division being between the 'haves' and the 'have nots', part of that issue is related to income caps on contributions.  Those who get the greatest benefit, the highest SS for instance, are likely to have the best health care, be healthier in general, and live the longest, and subsequently end up taking much more out of Social Security than they ever contributed (because they only had to contribute up to a certain level of income).

I don't live in Jersey, so I can't really speak about gerryandering or 'voter fraud' in the state, but something you said did jump out at me.  You said that the joke about Democrats is - vote early, vote often and vote early and often twice.  As all evidence I have seen indicates that the incidence of voter fraud is low enough as to be almost statistically non-existent, I am going to venture a guess that this is a Republican joke.  And to take it a step further, it's exactly the sort of joke, or maybe propaganda is a better word, that's spread on Fox daily.  Of course gerrymandering exists, and both parties participate, but to dismiss the current Republican voter suppression efforts with these arguments is disingenuous.

I have more, but I have to go watch football.  I am a good Merican...
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Sticky Icky Green Stuff on Sep 11, 2012, 04:46 PM
we've all got our views of things exist.  sorry if I interrupted your potential smackdown of the chode.  chode thinks he's a bad ass because he's a lawyer so I would have enjoyed a feverishness argument.   :beer:
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: el_chode on Sep 11, 2012, 06:34 PM
I, too, have moved from a very conservative view point as a teenager (which i equate with teenage chest puffing) to a strange position, one that I describe as a monitored capitalist. The best way i can describe is that capitalism only works when there is meaningful competition. Wal*Mart, to me, is anti-capitalist. Too Big To Fail is anti-capitalist. It means regulation is required for capitalism to exist - there is a place between socialism and teaparty capitalism, and it requires regulated markets.

My conservative years were marked as believing it made my dick bigger and impressed the ladies to be all like "FUCK YEA DEATH PENALTY IS AWESSSOMMEEEE LET THEM ALL FRY". Then I went to college and read those book things and everything changed. Then I became a lawyer on the off chance Sticky ever needed one on permanent retainer or to argue on the Internet. My student loans are now justified!

And as far as boomers & medicare/social security go, i resent them for smoking all the weed then making it illegal. OK not really, but i do resent them for one specific element - I believe they have voted themselves the lowest tax rates over the past 30 years in American history, then vote to preserve their entitlements while making it impossible for my generation to ever really get a step on the ladder of success. They vote in low taxes, then rant and rave about how taxes are too high on them still and how they don't need them, so no one needs a functioning government. I resent the ones like the guy here in NJ who just made outdoor smoking illegal because he's got emphysema and likes to go outside (emphysema from being a 2 pack/day smoker his whole life). I don't care if it's more pleasant now - what a douche!

It's the same thing that Gen_X felt 15-20 years ago, at the hands of the same people. And it's not that I don't want to pay in to medicare and social security - it's that I'd like politicians to stop borrowing out of MY pension (especially since I don't make enough to save a lot) in order to pay for the ridiculously high pension to these people while at the same time double-fucking me by not developing a rational way to pay for medicare and social security. That's not right, plain and simple.

Meanwhile, my private health care keeps going up because all we do is worry about whether people are insured and not whether the insurance is actual functional, so any potential pay raise that anyone gets is immediately consumed by some paper pusher at AETNA, who then denies a claim for not being within the conventional price range for such claims.

As far as the war on teachers - while I hate to come down on the side of anti-education, if I hear one more teacher here bitch and moan about how they don't get paid enough (they get paid more than me) and how they get an automatic pay increase for getting a superfluous masters degree in absolutely nothing, I'm gonna scream. In NJ, the rhetoric got twisted though - the teachers got some flak, true, but the superintendents are the battlefield. Six figure salaries on the public dime? Gimme a break. Especially since most have less classroom time than actual teachers.

The NJ Democrat joke about vote fraud is not a republican joke. It's more of a collective sigh here in NJ because we're so used to corruption. Our state capitol mayor just got arrested for corruption. We had the 34 politicians in a sting 4 years ago. We have a famous political family from down south who runs the NJ version of the Koch brothers in NJ. It's just the thing in NJ really. Our Republican leader is more famous for being fat than a real ignoramus like the rest of them. Hell, he even had a Ramadan dinner at the state house. I guess my point on that is that even Democrats joke about Democrats here.

Anyway, I'm not dismissing these voter ID things. I'm dismissing the binary thought system so many people have that their preferred political brand is innocent of the allegations they put forth against the other side.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: el_chode on Sep 11, 2012, 09:30 PM
If this link works, it should explain my dilemma in graphical format.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/crowdchart.php?showform=&Rick+Santorum=7%2C8.5%2C-115&Newt+Gingrich=8%2C7.5&Mitt+Romney=7%2C6.5%2C7%2C10&Ron+Paul=9%2C-1%2C10%2C10&Barack+Obama=6%2C6%2C-118%2C10&You=-1.62,-5.44 (http://www.politicalcompass.org/crowdchart.php?showform=&Rick+Santorum=7%2C8.5%2C-115&Newt+Gingrich=8%2C7.5&Mitt+Romney=7%2C6.5%2C7%2C10&Ron+Paul=9%2C-1%2C10%2C10&Barack+Obama=6%2C6%2C-118%2C10&You=-1.62,-5.44)
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: exist10z on Sep 12, 2012, 04:10 PM
So el_chode, you're a Keynesian?  I wouldn't have any real disagreement with you if that's the case.  I like to say I am a Socialist, for the same reason I like to say I'm an atheist, it cuts out the bullshit - makes a firm demarcation.  In reality, I suppose I am a democratic socialist, Scandinavian style, and not opposed to private ownership or some semblance of a free market.

My 'socialist' ideals are very utopian, and I recognize not particularly practical given the current global economic/political climate (not to mention the complete demonization of the entire concept here in the U.S.).  However, some redistribution is not only in order, but required at this point, if any sort of Capitalism is to thrive again. 

If a tiny minority of the world population control almost all the wealth (more true in most/some countries than others), I have become convinced that Capitalism as we have known it is doomed.  What I don't understand, is why those most fervently capitalist haven't come to the same conclusion.

The very wealthy can (and do) only consume so much stuff; they only need so much food, so much fuel, so many clothes, so many consumer goods, etc.  At some point the remaining 80-95-99% (pick a number you like) have to be able to continue to purchase things, otherwise the producers (Capitalist) will need to produce less and less, and will need less and less employees to produce less goods and services, and because of the expanded labor force - will be able to pay the employees they do need less and less.  Clearly this is already happening, and is basically a death spiral for Capitalism.  But maybe I'm wrong...

This obviously ties into two of the issues you brought up, taxes and the public sector.  First, on taxes, unless I misunderstood you, I think you are on point.  It's almost comical that we have people bitching about taxes at this point, and a political party (Republicans) that have basically signed on to not raise taxes under any circumstances.  Taxes are historically low, and have been for thirty years.  You pointed this out, 'blaming' the Baby Boomers for voting themselves the lower taxes.  Your point here is mostly correct, given that with age, income generally increases.  However, I would argue that it is really only a small percentage of Boomers who actually benefit from the lowering of marginal tax rates and investment income, but that the majority has simply been propogandized into believing lower taxes benefit them.  I was a financial advisor for 12 years, and our big sell with clients was to help them 'avoid taxes', but honestly, not working with multi-millionaires (but most of them were Boomers with over 100k) there really isn't much you can do.  They can't take advantage of any of the 'breaks' on a large scale, like say.... uh, a Mitt Romney.

I am a big advocate of the public sector, without caveat.  Here's my reasoning, which maybe someone can poke holes in, but I've yet to encounter them (the someone or the holes).  The government is a non-profit, period.  It doesn't 'save' money, obviously, just look at the debt.  Is it inefficient? Yes. Are people 'over-paid'? Yes. Do people skate by, underperform, and generally game the system?  Absolutely.  I say, who cares.  Unlike the wealthy, who benefit by paying less taxes and then save the tax savings, government employees USE the money.  They buy things.  It's a rare public sector employee who makes over 250k annually, and they aren't just banking the money in Switzerland or the Bahamas.  They use it to live, they buy cars and food, rent hotels, buy clothes, and generally do things that require other people (private sector people) to have jobs.  This promotes the system, the Capitalist system.  And we need tax dollars to pay them, this is what's lost in the conversation.  The same reasoning also applies to those receiving government assistance, but to an even greater extent, they REALLY are using every last dollar they get, and those dollars provide jobs for workers.

So, what about the idea that lower taxes encourages 'investment' and helps the job-creators?  Bullshit.  I have owned 3 businesses that employed people, I never hired more people because taxes were lower (or stopped if they were higher).  Hiring decisions are made based on need, if you have more customers, need more product, you hire, period.  You would think this would be self evident, just ask anyone who owns a business, but of course it's drowned out by the propoganda.  You hire people when you need more employees, you need more employees only when you have more business, you have more business only when you have customers to pay.  Public sector employees buy stuff and they pay.  Cut them out, lower their wages, disband their unions, cut their funding (tax cuts), you get less customers.  What we have now, is Capitalism run-amuk, and it's eating itself.

Anyway, I've got more, but thinking about this bullshit is threatening to take away from my happiness about going to the Wiltern tonight to see the greatest live rock-n-roll band in the world, so I'll stop for now...

Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: bbill on Sep 12, 2012, 05:57 PM
This has been a great thread to read, and I wish I had the time to contribute.

I am a big advocate of the public sector, without caveat.  Here's my reasoning, which maybe someone can poke holes in, but I've yet to encounter them (the someone or the holes).  The government is a non-profit, period.  It doesn't 'save' money, obviously, just look at the debt.  Is it inefficient? Yes. Are people 'over-paid'? Yes. Do people skate by, underperform, and generally game the system?  Absolutely.  I say, who cares.  Unlike the wealthy, who benefit by paying less taxes and then save the tax savings, government employees USE the money.  They buy things.  It's a rare public sector employee who makes over 250k annually, and they aren't just banking the money in Switzerland or the Bahamas.  They use it to live, they buy cars and food, rent hotels, buy clothes, and generally do things that require other people (private sector people) to have jobs.  This promotes the system, the Capitalist system.  And we need tax dollars to pay them, this is what's lost in the conversation.  The same reasoning also applies to those receiving government assistance, but to an even greater extent, they REALLY are using every last dollar they get, and those dollars provide jobs for workers.

I kind of like this reasoning, but would argue that almost without exception, government employees are overpaid relative to their private sector counterparts if you consider something like a $ paid per "unit of production" comparison. Throughout the federal gov't beauracracy and military the waste is sickening. If a 10% reduction in gov't payroll corresponded to a direct reduction to income taxes, the money would still make it's way to consumer markets. I'm all for giving people to ability to work (Ron Paul's proposal to eliminate those fed departments was just irresponsible), but federal employee salaries (and entitlements) need to be recalibrated to the actual work being done.

Also, what are some good online political news and editorial resources that you guys like?
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: exist10z on Sep 12, 2012, 06:33 PM
This has been a great thread to read, and I wish I had the time to contribute.

I am a big advocate of the public sector, without caveat.  Here's my reasoning, which maybe someone can poke holes in, but I've yet to encounter them (the someone or the holes).  The government is a non-profit, period.  It doesn't 'save' money, obviously, just look at the debt.  Is it inefficient? Yes. Are people 'over-paid'? Yes. Do people skate by, underperform, and generally game the system?  Absolutely.  I say, who cares.  Unlike the wealthy, who benefit by paying less taxes and then save the tax savings, government employees USE the money.  They buy things.  It's a rare public sector employee who makes over 250k annually, and they aren't just banking the money in Switzerland or the Bahamas.  They use it to live, they buy cars and food, rent hotels, buy clothes, and generally do things that require other people (private sector people) to have jobs.  This promotes the system, the Capitalist system.  And we need tax dollars to pay them, this is what's lost in the conversation.  The same reasoning also applies to those receiving government assistance, but to an even greater extent, they REALLY are using every last dollar they get, and those dollars provide jobs for workers.

I kind of like this reasoning, but would argue that almost without exception, government employees are overpaid relative to their private sector counterparts if you consider something like a $ paid per "unit of production" comparison. Throughout the federal gov't beauracracy and military the waste is sickening. If a 10% reduction in gov't payroll corresponded to a direct reduction to income taxes, the money would still make it's way to consumer markets. I'm all for giving people to ability to work (Ron Paul's proposal to eliminate those fed departments was just irresponsible), but federal employee salaries (and entitlements) need to be recalibrated to the actual work being done.

Also, what are some good online political news and editorial resources that you guys like?

Hey bbill, don't worry about contributing here, just trade me your best fantasy players cheap, that's all you need to worry about. :grin:

Ok, some things to address, but later, I really do need to get to the Wiltern now...

Oh, but real fast, and el_chode already dismissed this with prejudice, but I do look at The Huffington Post, not everything, there's a lot of shit on there, but there is some intelligent commentary and opinion as well.  I particularly like Robert Reich and Paul Krugman, both of whom contribute to HuffPo, and you can find Krugman at The New York Times as well.  I am guessing el_chode is gonna dismiss them as 'part of the system', but I think they are fairly insightful.  I also check Slate.com and sometimes read The Nation.  Hope that helps, I may be undermining my credibility (like I had any), for sure I'm opening myself up to be called a sucker by el_chode by revealing this...
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: el_chode on Sep 12, 2012, 09:29 PM
This has been a great thread to read, and I wish I had the time to contribute.

I am a big advocate of the public sector, without caveat.  Here's my reasoning, which maybe someone can poke holes in, but I've yet to encounter them (the someone or the holes).  The government is a non-profit, period.  It doesn't 'save' money, obviously, just look at the debt.  Is it inefficient? Yes. Are people 'over-paid'? Yes. Do people skate by, underperform, and generally game the system?  Absolutely.  I say, who cares.  Unlike the wealthy, who benefit by paying less taxes and then save the tax savings, government employees USE the money.  They buy things.  It's a rare public sector employee who makes over 250k annually, and they aren't just banking the money in Switzerland or the Bahamas.  They use it to live, they buy cars and food, rent hotels, buy clothes, and generally do things that require other people (private sector people) to have jobs.  This promotes the system, the Capitalist system.  And we need tax dollars to pay them, this is what's lost in the conversation.  The same reasoning also applies to those receiving government assistance, but to an even greater extent, they REALLY are using every last dollar they get, and those dollars provide jobs for workers.

I kind of like this reasoning, but would argue that almost without exception, government employees are overpaid relative to their private sector counterparts if you consider something like a $ paid per "unit of production" comparison. Throughout the federal gov't beauracracy and military the waste is sickening. If a 10% reduction in gov't payroll corresponded to a direct reduction to income taxes, the money would still make it's way to consumer markets. I'm all for giving people to ability to work (Ron Paul's proposal to eliminate those fed departments was just irresponsible), but federal employee salaries (and entitlements) need to be recalibrated to the actual work being done.

Also, what are some good online political news and editorial resources that you guys like?

I am fluish right now, and I will return to reply to exist probably tomorrow, but I want to point something out since this seems to be in my wheelhouse.

I am public employee.
I make less than most teachers in my state (though, not less than many in inner city schools. I am not sure as to the salaries of teachers in Newark though I could look it up)
By way of comparison, I make about half as much as those who are technically "below" me in rank...or something like that, I never really understood how that works. Though I wouldn't advocate a pay cut for them since they are narcotics detectives in Newark and stuff. Maybe a retirement pension at 50 is a bit much, but it's more of a statement on how my state pays its legal minds.

Do I add to the economy? Not necessarily directly - putting people in jail is arguably a drain. Then again, getting restitution to a family out a couple hundred thousand or a small business taken by a dirty bookie arguably keeps said business afloat. Making life safer increases property value, stuff like that. One could also argue that every defense attorney that drowns me in discovery requests is wasting state money - but the philosopher in me says if it makes the execution of justice more efficient, then its a wash.

Getting paid more would be nice, but I never took the job expecting to be rolling in dough and I will never achieve the same level pay as many of my private sector adversaries.

I don't support HuffPo because it's a tabloid rag that abuses desperate college graduates for cheap content. Being a geek first and foremost I typically get my outrage first from ArsTechnica, Wired, and BoingBoing. The rest is a selection of Podcasts from the NPR and most often I read the Atlantic. I learn my economics from Krugman, though I don't always agree with some non-economic points he makes (typically it's an agreement on premise but perhaps not conclusion).

I have a problem with Slate where I always find the headlines intriguing and the writing to be extremely awful and boring and I stop reading. I don't know why...except sometimes Yglesias. Oh and of course I read Dear Prudence.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Fully on Sep 12, 2012, 09:47 PM
Just wanted to mention that I'm a public sector employee and I will never come close to making 250k ever. Also, Chode is correct about law enforcement. They always seem to make less than teachers. There is bloat in the public sector, but it isn't the teachers or the average law enforcement. It's management. The head of my school system makes a very tidy salary, the people that work at the State Dept. of Ed make great money too even though most of what they do is come up with new ways to justify that their job even exists. We always have a new plan put in place by someone at the state dept. that needs to keep making it look like their job is important. The teacher in the classroom, the firemen, and the police and detectives aren't getting rich or even close to it. While none of us took our jobs because making money was the main priority, it can be rather frustrating when we see other people who went into private sector professions who graduated at the same time we did making five times as much or more than what we make. And if you are a teacher, you also get classified as being lazy and "bad" which is probably better than being in law enforcement and possibly shot or being a fireman and possibly burnt to a crisp.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: bbill on Sep 13, 2012, 11:51 AM
:grin: I knew I shouldn't have opened my big mouth!

I was mostly talking about employees of the federal government, though there are tons of overpaid people at state and municipal levels also. My first sentence of what I'd originally written wasn't too clear and was too definitive. Teachers and law enforcement usually have very specific tasks and timelines, so waste isn't as much of an issue for the people "in the trenches" doing that work. But as Fully pointed out, the staff to support the administrative and management side of government at any level is where the waste is usually found.

I'm actually pretty republican (little 'r' used purposefully) in the sense that I feel our central, federal government should be limited and that the states should be the creators and providers of policy and programs to suit their residents (this would still depend on federal funding of course). I'm not against raising taxes, but I am against government waste. I live in Sacramento, the capital of the biggest shit show in the country, and I see and read about horrible wastes of time and money in my state's government operations all the time. The employees of my state deserve to work, but the ones down in the buildings surrounding the capital don't deserve to get paid what they do for what they're actually producing. I realize this is another horribly general statement, but for the most part it's true.

Chode, what do you do? Do you work for a county, or the state of NJ?
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: exist10z on Sep 13, 2012, 12:40 PM
Ok, just have to jump back in real quick, more detailed points later.

So, bbill, that's sort of exactly what I was trying to argue against.  I always, always, always, hear this argument, and while the substance is factual (government is wasteful, inefficient), I believe that those making the argument, not just you bbill, don't properly interpret the outcome of this so called 'waste'. While this is probably the most common argument for smaller government, I don't think most who make it consider the alternative.  So let me try to explain my position again.

Ok, in the private sector, corporations hire employees to facilitate the making of money (for the corporations owners or shareholders), the making of money is the ONLY goal of the corporation.  It is the entire purpose of the corporation, the reason for its existence is to make as much profit as possible.  Corporations, by their very nature, must be as efficient as possible.  This means they will depress wages whenever possible, cut employees (hence wage cost) whenever possible, and off-shore production and services if those can be provided more cheaply elsewhere.  This is all fine of course, if you own the corporation.  Not so good, if you are trying to run another business that relies on the purchasing power of the other corporations' employees.  Since we are specifically addressing public vs. private sector employment here, I am not even going to even get into the lack of corporate concern for the environment, occupational safety, and general societal advancement, except to say that it isn't concerned about these things at all, and by its very nature - make as much profit as possible, corporations never will be concerned about these things.  If you have Netflix, check out a documentary call The Corporation.

So, we have private sector corporations that are as efficient as possible, and a public sector that is notoriously inefficient ('wasteful').  This is the argument, always.  Reduce the public sector, all those f-ing bureaucrats pushing paper and living off the taxpayer.  But here's the thing - who cares?  They are making money, then spending that money back out in the overall economy, which is providing jobs.  So what, we should just lay them all off, become more streamlined in government?  Why?  What is the fascination in this country with efficiency?  It's fucking over-rated.  Look, you start shrinking government, you're going to have bigger problems than we already have. You start trying to make government more efficient (like corporations), it's only going to collapse the system even faster.  That's fine with me, I am hoping for a Socialist revolution before I die, but I don't think that is the goal of most of the people who make this argument.

So government is inefficient and ineffectual, think of the alternative.  If everything was private and run for a profit, eventually we wouldn't have any employees at all (as they are just a cost corporations are trying to avoid and reduce in search of profit) and the few that might remain would be getting paid almost nothing, as the potential labor force would be much larger than the available jobs, driving down wages (this is already happening now - capitalist death spiral).  With fewer and fewer people having a source of income, or an income that provides for their needs, corporations would be able to reduce their labor force even further, because they would need to produce less products and services (again, happening now - capitalist death spiral).  This is where the public sector comes in, and whether it is efficient or wasteful is of no real concern, the point is it provides people an income which they can use to circulate back into the economy.  Lowering taxes and reducing regulation does not provide more jobs or circulate job creation spurring income back into the economy, it simply lines the already full pockets of the owners of the corporations (since they already have more than they need, the money doesn't circulate and create jobs, it just stays in the pocket/bank).  But wasteful government employees create private sector jobs, because they spend their money, increasing demand.

These principles, which I think hold all the time, are particularly true during periods of economic contraction and recession (now), as the private sector has no incentive to create jobs, they have fewer customers.  But the government can and should hire, to spur consumption and hence private sector hiring need.

Anyway, this idea is just a it more detailed version of what I wrote earlier, and I still haven't seen a decent refutation. 
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: bbill on Sep 13, 2012, 12:49 PM
I'm not saying the government should be more efficient. I'm saying that where applicable, they should be paid less because they do less. That money can be redistributed, via income tax cuts, to all middle and lower income earners.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Ruckus on Sep 13, 2012, 01:14 PM
Ok, just have to jump back in real quick, more detailed points later.

So, bbill, that's sort of exactly what I was trying to argue against.  I always, always, always, hear this argument, and while the substance is factual (government is wasteful, inefficient), I believe that those making the argument, not just you bbill, don't properly interpret the outcome of this so called 'waste'. While this is probably the most common argument for smaller government, I don't think most who make it consider the alternative.  So let me try to explain again.

Ok, in the private sector, corporations hire employees to facilitate the making of money (for the corporations owners or shareholders), the making of money is the ONLY goal of the corporation.  It is the entire purpose of the corporation, the reason for its existence is to make as much profit as possible.  Corporations, by their very nature, must be as efficient as possible.  This means they will depress wages whenever possible, cut employees (hence wage cost) whenever possible, and off-shore production and services if those can be provided more cheaply elsewhere.  This is all fine of course, if you own the corporation.  Not so good, if you are trying to run another business that relies on the purchasing power of other corporations employees.  Since we are specifically addressing public vs. private sector employment here, I am not even going to get into the lack of corporate concern for the environment, occupational safety, and general societal advancement, except to say that it isn't concerned about these things at all, and by its very nature - make as much profit as possible, corporations never will be concerned about these things.  If you have Netflix, check out a documentary call The Corporation.

So, we have private sector corporations that are as efficient as possible, and a public sector that is notoriously inefficient ('wasteful').  This is the argument, always.  Reduce the public sector, all those f-ing bureaucrats pushing paper and living off the taxpayer.  But here's the thing - who cares?  They are making money, then spending that money back out in the overall economy, which is providing jobs.  So what, we should just lay them all off, become more streamlined in government?  Why?  What is the fascination in this country with efficiency?  It's fucking over-rated.  Look, you start shrinking government, you're going to have bigger problems than we already have. You start trying to make government more efficient (like corporations), it's only going to collapse the system even faster.  That's fine with me, I am hoping for a Socialist revolution before I die, but I don't think that the goal of most of the people who make this argument.

So government is inefficient and ineffectual, think of the alternative.  If everything was private and run for a profit, eventually we wouldn't have any employees at all (as they are just a cost corporations are trying to avoid and reduce im search of profit) and the few that might remain would be getting paid almost nothing, as the potential labor force would be much larger than the available jobs, driving down wages (this is already happening now - capitalist death spiral).  With fewer and fewer people having a source of income, or an income that provides for their needs, corporations would be able to reduce their labor force even further, because they would need to produce less products and services (again, happening now - capitalist death spiral).  This is where the public sector comes in, and whether it is efficient or wasteful is of no concern, the point is it provides people an income which they can use to circulate back into the economy.

Anyway, this idea is just a it more detailed version of what I wrote earlier, and I still haven't seen a decent refutation.
Stop pushing paper and get back to work! :bath:  Or get ready for another kick ass Wiltern show damnit!

I agree with much of what you have to say exist.  I think that most people that work in the private sector very much understand the nature of the corporation but look at the hard work they put in and want to keep more of it.  Of course our infatuation with efficiency is that our system is predicated upon it.  Whether the public sector functions efficiently or not, it is in their best interest that the private sector does so that it maintains a competitive advantage globally.

I agree with your desire for a socialist revolution.  Our policy has so long been detached from the needs of the masses that I'm not sure the current disconnect can ever be bridged.  Our education system still believes that teaching Shakespeare and graduating from 12th grade is relevant to obtaining gainful employment when alternate education systems should be in place teaching more relevant fields from a much younger age.  Mechanization, outsourcing, and computers have long removed mid level jobs that can never be brought back and yet we bicker over meaningless federal policy.

Bbill.  Yes there is waste in government but I will vouch for many who I have worked with that outwork their pay and then some.  The Clinton led privatization of government revolution appeased many of you (r)epublicans only to accelerate corruption and waste.

Vive la Revolution!
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: bbill on Sep 13, 2012, 01:44 PM
You fuckin' hippies!

I'm not advocating privitizing government jobs, and that money I was saying to cut from payroll and redistribute as tax cuts, I would be just as (well not just as) happy to have that go to new government job creation. I am PRO-WORKING more than just about anything else when it comes to how government affects our lives. I want people to have the ability to work.

Here's some data from the CA state controller's office:

Number of total active employees working for the state: 221,673
Amount of gross wages paid annually: $17,900,300,256.00

That's an average salary of $80,750 a year (with some overly simplified assumptions for full and part time workers, but the order of magnitude is accurate). Some people earn that money based on the work they accomplish and produce, but most don't. A comparison to the production of the private sector isn't fair because the expectations of both sides is completely different, but we're all being paid the same dollars and work is work.

Ten percent cut off of that $17 billion payroll could help create a few jobs. I'm not making this up:  http://www.sco.ca.gov/ppsd_empinfo_demo.html (http://www.sco.ca.gov/ppsd_empinfo_demo.html)
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Fully on Sep 13, 2012, 01:48 PM
Ok, just have to jump back in real quick, more detailed points later.

So, bbill, that's sort of exactly what I was trying to argue against.  I always, always, always, hear this argument, and while the substance is factual (government is wasteful, inefficient), I believe that those making the argument, not just you bbill, don't properly interpret the outcome of this so called 'waste'. While this is probably the most common argument for smaller government, I don't think most who make it consider the alternative.  So let me try to explain again.

Ok, in the private sector, corporations hire employees to facilitate the making of money (for the corporations owners or shareholders), the making of money is the ONLY goal of the corporation.  It is the entire purpose of the corporation, the reason for its existence is to make as much profit as possible.  Corporations, by their very nature, must be as efficient as possible.  This means they will depress wages whenever possible, cut employees (hence wage cost) whenever possible, and off-shore production and services if those can be provided more cheaply elsewhere.  This is all fine of course, if you own the corporation.  Not so good, if you are trying to run another business that relies on the purchasing power of other corporations employees.  Since we are specifically addressing public vs. private sector employment here, I am not even going to get into the lack of corporate concern for the environment, occupational safety, and general societal advancement, except to say that it isn't concerned about these things at all, and by its very nature - make as much profit as possible, corporations never will be concerned about these things.  If you have Netflix, check out a documentary call The Corporation.

So, we have private sector corporations that are as efficient as possible, and a public sector that is notoriously inefficient ('wasteful').  This is the argument, always.  Reduce the public sector, all those f-ing bureaucrats pushing paper and living off the taxpayer.  But here's the thing - who cares?  They are making money, then spending that money back out in the overall economy, which is providing jobs.  So what, we should just lay them all off, become more streamlined in government?  Why?  What is the fascination in this country with efficiency?  It's fucking over-rated.  Look, you start shrinking government, you're going to have bigger problems than we already have. You start trying to make government more efficient (like corporations), it's only going to collapse the system even faster.  That's fine with me, I am hoping for a Socialist revolution before I die, but I don't think that the goal of most of the people who make this argument.

So government is inefficient and ineffectual, think of the alternative.  If everything was private and run for a profit, eventually we wouldn't have any employees at all (as they are just a cost corporations are trying to avoid and reduce im search of profit) and the few that might remain would be getting paid almost nothing, as the potential labor force would be much larger than the available jobs, driving down wages (this is already happening now - capitalist death spiral).  With fewer and fewer people having a source of income, or an income that provides for their needs, corporations would be able to reduce their labor force even further, because they would need to produce less products and services (again, happening now - capitalist death spiral).  This is where the public sector comes in, and whether it is efficient or wasteful is of no concern, the point is it provides people an income which they can use to circulate back into the economy.

Anyway, this idea is just a it more detailed version of what I wrote earlier, and I still haven't seen a decent refutation.
Stop pushing paper and get back to work! :bath:  Or get ready for another kick ass Wiltern show damnit!

I agree with much of what you have to say exist.  I think that most people that work in the private sector very much understand the nature of the corporation but look at the hard work they put in and want to keep more of it.  Of course our infatuation with efficiency is that our system is predicated upon it.  Whether the public sector functions efficiently or not, it is in their best interest that the private sector does so that it maintains a competitive advantage globally.

I agree with your desire for a socialist revolution.  Our policy has so long been detached from the needs of the masses that I'm not sure the current disconnect can ever be bridged.  Our education system still believes that teaching Shakespeare and graduating from 12th grade is relevant to obtaining gainful employment when alternate education systems should be in place teaching more relevant fields from a much younger age.  Mechanization, outsourcing, and computers have long removed mid level jobs that can never be brought back and yet we bicker over meaningless federal policy.

Bbill.  Yes there is waste in government but I will vouch for many who I have worked with that outwork their pay and then some.  The Clinton led privatization of government revolution appeased many of you (r)epublicans only to accelerate corruption and waste.

Vive la Revolution!

Oh no, you didn't!  :shocked:
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Ruckus on Sep 13, 2012, 01:49 PM
You fuckin' hippies!

I'm not advocating privitizing government jobs, and that money I was saying to cut from payroll and redistribute as tax cuts, I would be just as (well not just as) happy to have that go to new government job creation. I am PRO-WORKING more than just about anything else when it comes to how government affects our lives. I want people to have the ability to work.

Here's some data from the CA state controller's office:

Number of total active employees working for the state: 221,673
Amount of gross wages paid annually: $17,900,300,256.00

That's an average salary of $80,750 a year (with some overly simplified assumptions for full and part time workers, but the order of magnitude is accurate). Some people earn that money based on the work they accomplish and produce, but most don't. A comparison to the production of the private sector isn't fair because the expectations of both sides is completely different, but we're all being paid the same dollars and work is work.

Ten percent cut off of that $17 billion payroll could help create a few jobs. I'm not making this up:  http://www.sco.ca.gov/ppsd_empinfo_demo.html (http://www.sco.ca.gov/ppsd_empinfo_demo.html)
There's no way the mean salary of a CA state employee exceeds $80,000?!  That either excludes contracted employees from the former, includes contracted wages from the latter, or both.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Ruckus on Sep 13, 2012, 01:53 PM
Ok, just have to jump back in real quick, more detailed points later.

So, bbill, that's sort of exactly what I was trying to argue against.  I always, always, always, hear this argument, and while the substance is factual (government is wasteful, inefficient), I believe that those making the argument, not just you bbill, don't properly interpret the outcome of this so called 'waste'. While this is probably the most common argument for smaller government, I don't think most who make it consider the alternative.  So let me try to explain again.

Ok, in the private sector, corporations hire employees to facilitate the making of money (for the corporations owners or shareholders), the making of money is the ONLY goal of the corporation.  It is the entire purpose of the corporation, the reason for its existence is to make as much profit as possible.  Corporations, by their very nature, must be as efficient as possible.  This means they will depress wages whenever possible, cut employees (hence wage cost) whenever possible, and off-shore production and services if those can be provided more cheaply elsewhere.  This is all fine of course, if you own the corporation.  Not so good, if you are trying to run another business that relies on the purchasing power of other corporations employees.  Since we are specifically addressing public vs. private sector employment here, I am not even going to get into the lack of corporate concern for the environment, occupational safety, and general societal advancement, except to say that it isn't concerned about these things at all, and by its very nature - make as much profit as possible, corporations never will be concerned about these things.  If you have Netflix, check out a documentary call The Corporation.

So, we have private sector corporations that are as efficient as possible, and a public sector that is notoriously inefficient ('wasteful').  This is the argument, always.  Reduce the public sector, all those f-ing bureaucrats pushing paper and living off the taxpayer.  But here's the thing - who cares?  They are making money, then spending that money back out in the overall economy, which is providing jobs.  So what, we should just lay them all off, become more streamlined in government?  Why?  What is the fascination in this country with efficiency?  It's fucking over-rated.  Look, you start shrinking government, you're going to have bigger problems than we already have. You start trying to make government more efficient (like corporations), it's only going to collapse the system even faster.  That's fine with me, I am hoping for a Socialist revolution before I die, but I don't think that the goal of most of the people who make this argument.

So government is inefficient and ineffectual, think of the alternative.  If everything was private and run for a profit, eventually we wouldn't have any employees at all (as they are just a cost corporations are trying to avoid and reduce im search of profit) and the few that might remain would be getting paid almost nothing, as the potential labor force would be much larger than the available jobs, driving down wages (this is already happening now - capitalist death spiral).  With fewer and fewer people having a source of income, or an income that provides for their needs, corporations would be able to reduce their labor force even further, because they would need to produce less products and services (again, happening now - capitalist death spiral).  This is where the public sector comes in, and whether it is efficient or wasteful is of no concern, the point is it provides people an income which they can use to circulate back into the economy.

Anyway, this idea is just a it more detailed version of what I wrote earlier, and I still haven't seen a decent refutation.
Stop pushing paper and get back to work! :bath:  Or get ready for another kick ass Wiltern show damnit!

I agree with much of what you have to say exist.  I think that most people that work in the private sector very much understand the nature of the corporation but look at the hard work they put in and want to keep more of it.  Of course our infatuation with efficiency is that our system is predicated upon it.  Whether the public sector functions efficiently or not, it is in their best interest that the private sector does so that it maintains a competitive advantage globally.

I agree with your desire for a socialist revolution.  Our policy has so long been detached from the needs of the masses that I'm not sure the current disconnect can ever be bridged.  Our education system still believes that teaching Shakespeare and graduating from 12th grade is relevant to obtaining gainful employment when alternate education systems should be in place teaching more relevant fields from a much younger age.  Mechanization, outsourcing, and computers have long removed mid level jobs that can never be brought back and yet we bicker over meaningless federal policy.

Bbill.  Yes there is waste in government but I will vouch for many who I have worked with that outwork their pay and then some.  The Clinton led privatization of government revolution appeased many of you (r)epublicans only to accelerate corruption and waste.

Vive la Revolution!

Oh no, you didn't!  :shocked:
:evil:
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: bbill on Sep 13, 2012, 01:56 PM
You fuckin' hippies!

I'm not advocating privitizing government jobs, and that money I was saying to cut from payroll and redistribute as tax cuts, I would be just as (well not just as) happy to have that go to new government job creation. I am PRO-WORKING more than just about anything else when it comes to how government affects our lives. I want people to have the ability to work.

Here's some data from the CA state controller's office:

Number of total active employees working for the state: 221,673
Amount of gross wages paid annually: $17,900,300,256.00

That's an average salary of $80,750 a year (with some overly simplified assumptions for full and part time workers, but the order of magnitude is accurate). Some people earn that money based on the work they accomplish and produce, but most don't. A comparison to the production of the private sector isn't fair because the expectations of both sides is completely different, but we're all being paid the same dollars and work is work.

Ten percent cut off of that $17 billion payroll could help create a few jobs. I'm not making this up:  http://www.sco.ca.gov/ppsd_empinfo_demo.html (http://www.sco.ca.gov/ppsd_empinfo_demo.html)
There's no way the mean salary of a CA state employee exceeds $80,000?!  That either excludes contracted employees from the former, includes contracted wages from the latter, or both.

Yeah, that does seem high... :rolleyes: It does exclude CSU employees, of which there are 47,000. That brings the avg annual down to $66,600. But even if it was less than that, it SHOULD be less than that, imo. The gross payout from the Controller's office is accurate though, and a reduction of that would be a significant amount of cash that should be better used elsewhere.

EDIT: State average is $67,929.59 per this Sac Bee study: http://www.sacbee.com/statepay/ (http://www.sacbee.com/statepay/)

Hover over the state average bar on the salaries earned chart. Jeff Tedford (Cal Coach) is the highest paid state worker! Go beat OSU and earn that money!  :grin:
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: exist10z on Sep 13, 2012, 02:20 PM
I don't doubt that 80k figure for CA employees, but again - WHO CARES.

I think my point is still being missed to some extent.  I am in CA right now, and my wife (our breadwinner :shocked:) makes a just bit under that 80k figure, and I can tell you that with the cost of living, it doesn't make for a lot of socking money away in the Caymans.  These people, and I don't care if they are literally sitting around with their thumbs up their asses, these 'wasteful' government employees are spending all that money.  They are spending it on food (which provides jobs for supermarket workers, truck drivers, sub-shop owners), on clothes (jobs for retail employees, not manufacturing of course, that has all been sent overseas to increase profit margins for corporations - see earlier post), and on entertainment (like seeing MMJ at the Wiltern - security, ticketing, etc.).  Government workers, regardless of how much they make or what they actually do, spend the money.  This helps the economy and necessitates hiring. 

I am all for tax breaks, people making under 100k shouldn't be paying any taxes at all.  But people making over 5 million should be paying 90% on everything over that amount.  And state taxes should be progressive, just like federal. For fuck sake, how much of a pig do you have to be?  How much shit do you need?

Look, I know all the arguments.  You can't disincentivise people, the rich will move, why should the government get the fruit of their hard work, blah, blah, blah.  All bullshit.  We  should incentivize people, we do, you make more money, you have more money, regardless of your tax rate, period.  What, someone is gonna just stop making money over a certain point because they have to pay more taxes on the higher amount?  Bullshit.  They still get more money.  This old canard about people lowering their income, or reducing their productivity, because of taxes is absurd - so you get to keep 10% over 5mil., so you make 10 and you get an extra 500k, what, you don't want it? They're gonna move?  Where, Mexico? Stop them.  Don't let people avoid the taxes, it's not that difficult, it can be done, we just don't have the political will.  So, you're stinking rich and want to live in the great state of California?  Pay up.  Because it is great, but it ain't cheap.  Want to shift your residence to Montana? Nope, not gonna let you, not if you're gonna own property here, not of you're gonna generate income here, we're gonna get it.  Because we're gonna hire more government workers to sit with their thumbs up their asses, because they are going to spend the money, not sock it away in the bank because they already have 4 houses and 7 cars.

If you're a small business owner and you have any sense, which admittedly is probably a pretty small percentage, you want higher (progressive) taxes and more government workers.  You want this, because these people will actually buy your shit.  If you're a small business selling t-shirts or ice cream cones, rich people only need so many shirts and so many cones, once they get theirs, if no one else has any money, you aren't selling anymore shirts or cones. You want this, because a truly progressive tax system won't hurt you of you're making a couple hundred grand.

What is so complicated about this?  Do I live in a country filled with delusional people?  Oh, actually I do, I see them lining up in front of churches every Sunday...

Just thought I'd throw a little religion into the political talk, politics isn't controversial enough. :evil:
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: bbill on Sep 13, 2012, 02:40 PM
If you're a small business owner and you have any sense, which admittedly is probably a pretty small percentage, you want higher (progressive) taxes and more government workers.  You want this, because these people will actually buy your shit.  If you're a small business selling t-shirt or ice cream cones, rich people only meed so many shirts and so many cones, once they get theirs, if mo one else has any money, you aren't selling anymore shirts or cones. You want this, because a truly progressive tax system won't hurt you of you're making a couple hundred grand.

How many socialist small business owners have any sense? :evil:

This idea might work in a government town like Sacramento, but not most other places. There wouldn't proportionately be enough government workers buying your goods or services to offset the higher taxes being paid, unless your business was across the street from an office where they were working.

Socialism is a nice idea, but it will never work in modern America, at least, not in the form I'm guessing you hope it will.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Sticky Icky Green Stuff on Sep 14, 2012, 12:06 AM
Majorities of Republicans believe that President Obama:

Is a socialist (67%)
Wants to take away Americans' right to own guns (61%)
Is a Muslim (57%)
Wants to turn over the sovereignty of the United States to a one world government (51%); and
Has done many things that are unconstitutional (55%).

Also large numbers of Republicans also believe that President Obama:

Resents America's heritage (47%)
Does what Wall Street and the bankers tell him to do (40%)
Was not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president (45%)
Is the "domestic enemy that the U.S. Constitution speaks of" (45%)
Is a racist (42%)
Want to use an economic collapse or terrorist attack as an excuse to take dictatorial powers (41%)
Is doing many of the things that Hitler did (38%).

Even more remarkable perhaps, fully 24% of Republicans believe that "he may be the Anti-Christ" and 22% believe "he wants the terrorists to win."

While few Democrats believe any of these things, the proportions of Independents who do so are close to the national averages.

One big surprise is that many more Republicans (40%) than Democrats (15%) believe the president does what Wall Street and the bankers tell him to do.

Quote
http://web.archive.org/web/20100414124156/http://news.harrisinteractive.com/profiles/investor/ResLibraryView.asp?BzID=1963&ResLibraryID=37050&Category=1777 (http://web.archive.org/web/20100414124156/http://news.harrisinteractive.com/profiles/investor/ResLibraryView.asp?BzID=1963&ResLibraryID=37050&Category=1777)
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: bbill on Sep 14, 2012, 11:54 AM
:grin: I hope that wasn't aimed at me, Sticky!

I'm not a registerred Republican, not aligned with any party. I do agree with some big picture ideas of the traditional GOP platform, though I've never voted for a Republican presidential candidate. I also agree with Chode about 3rd party candidates, and that it's never a good time to compromise your vote. The argument to back the lesser to avoid the greater of two evils will be the same every four years - Ryan might be running in 2016. The economy is not going to get that much better by that time and the right will still be campaigning on budget and tax cuts and the fiscal failures of Obama, still using the same fear tactics. 3rd party acceptance will never be gained if potential backers can't get out of the cycle of casting a half-hearted vote in defense every four years.

I've voted 3rd party in most of the presidential elections, and will probably do so this time as well. I won't be voting for Mittens though!  :grin:
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: bbill on Sep 14, 2012, 11:59 AM
http://www.motherjones.com/ (http://www.motherjones.com/)

I used to have a subscription. It was a gift from a hippie uncle of mine!  :grin:

Thanks for the other recommendations.  :beer:
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Sticky Icky Green Stuff on Oct 06, 2012, 01:35 AM
so obama blew at those debates.  and mitt lied his balls off.  and jim lerher sucked cock.  such a shame.  how you guys voting this fall?
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Sticky Icky Green Stuff on Oct 09, 2012, 11:11 AM
pussies, let's get relevant and up to date with this thread and start talking about daily shit more often.  people should start posting news stories up in this piece.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Rufus T. Firefly on Oct 09, 2012, 12:07 PM
I don't doubt that 80k figure for CA employees, but again - WHO CARES.

I think my point is still being missed to some extent.  I am in CA right now, and my wife (our breadwinner :shocked:) makes a just bit under that 80k figure, and I can tell you that with the cost of living, it doesn't make for a lot of socking money away in the Caymans.  These people, and I don't care if they are literally sitting around with their thumbs up their asses, these 'wasteful' government employees are spending all that money.  They are spending it on food (which provides jobs for supermarket workers, truck drivers, sub-shop owners), on clothes (jobs for retail employees, not manufacturing of course, that has all been sent overseas to increase profit margins for corporations - see earlier post), and on entertainment (like seeing MMJ at the Wiltern - security, ticketing, etc.).  Government workers, regardless of how much they make or what they actually do, spend the money.  This helps the economy and necessitates hiring. 

I am all for tax breaks, people making under 100k shouldn't be paying any taxes at all.  But people making over 5 million should be paying 90% on everything over that amount.  And state taxes should be progressive, just like federal. For fuck sake, how much of a pig do you have to be?  How much shit do you need?

Look, I know all the arguments.  You can't disincentivise people, the rich will move, why should the government get the fruit of their hard work, blah, blah, blah.  All bullshit.  We  should incentivize people, we do, you make more money, you have more money, regardless of your tax rate, period. What, someone is gonna just stop making money over a certain point because they have to pay more taxes on the higher amount?  Bullshit.  They still get more money.  This old canard about people lowering their income, or reducing their productivity, because of taxes is absurd - so you get to keep 10% over 5mil., so you make 10 and you get an extra 500k, what, you don't want it? They're gonna move?  Where, Mexico? Stop them.  Don't let people avoid the taxes, it's not that difficult, it can be done, we just don't have the political will.  So, you're stinking rich and want to live in the great state of California?  Pay up.  Because it is great, but it ain't cheap.  Want to shift your residence to Montana? Nope, not gonna let you, not if you're gonna own property here, not of you're gonna generate income here, we're gonna get it.  Because we're gonna hire more government workers to sit with their thumbs up their asses, because they are going to spend the money, not sock it away in the bank because they already have 4 houses and 7 cars.

If you're a small business owner and you have any sense, which admittedly is probably a pretty small percentage, you want higher (progressive) taxes and more government workers.  You want this, because these people will actually buy your shit.  If you're a small business selling t-shirts or ice cream cones, rich people only need so many shirts and so many cones, once they get theirs, if no one else has any money, you aren't selling anymore shirts or cones. You want this, because a truly progressive tax system won't hurt you of you're making a couple hundred grand.

What is so complicated about this?  Do I live in a country filled with delusional people?  Oh, actually I do, I see them lining up in front of churches every Sunday...

Just thought I'd throw a little religion into the political talk, politics isn't controversial enough. :evil:
I like this argument a lot. I tend to explain it in a different manner which is simply if I could earn a dollar but had to give twenty five cents away how many of those dollars would one work for. Obviously that questions answer is different for everyone but at some point in time the law of diminishing returns kicks in and I guess one decides to not work for the additional money. But therein lies the rub with the conservative thinking. If that person does leave parts of their market place unserved or under-served there will be this big hole that will remain unfilled.  You know there will be another person hungry for earnings that will be ready to take their place.

And in a country where incomes are becoming more and more disproportionate maybe letting the smaller, hungrier guy have a greater opportunity would be a better idea.

Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: exist10z on Oct 09, 2012, 03:49 PM
Alright Sticky, I'll jump back in, though since each post takes me forever to write, I wasn't sorry to see this thread cool off a bit.  I had extra time for things like eating, sleeping, and setting churches on fire.

So I read a piece on slate.com (where el-chode said he goes to read Dear Prudence, which made me laugh, since that's my favorite part of the site) claiming the Republicans were the party of racism.  It referenced the 'southern strategy' (if you're not familiar, google it) of course, and basically made the case that at its core, the GOP is only really viable because they have locked up the racist vote in the South, assuring a minimum of 100 electoral votes.  If those were even remotely in play, there really wouldn't be a political race at all.  Naturally the piece mentioned word and stereotype usage by both Republican politicians and pundits - racial 'dog whistles'. I figured all of this was already fairly evident - that the racist vote went Republican appears obvious on it's face, and it probably is among those who pay attention to politics, but the fact that it isn't openly acknowledged is interesting for a number of reasons.

I read another article (can't remember where or the source), talking about the unwillingness of the 'media' to tell the truth.  Of course this is a matter of perspective, as a conservative will tell you that the 'main stream media' lies/obfuscates for Democrats, while anyone who isn't a hard line GOP partisan will quickly realize that Fox/Rush/Beck et al. are spinning a view of events that bears no resemblance to reality.  But that was sort of the point of the article, that there is so much equivocation, that almost no media outlet is willing to simply say - 'that's a bullshit lie'.  All opinions have to be given credence, in the name of fairness - truth be damned.

So quickly, on the presidential debate.  To think that Obama was trying to hue as closely to literal truth as possible (when he could be bothered to pay attention or make an effort), is self-deluding.  Of course he wanted to paint a picture favorable to his positions.  While Romney, wanting also to do the same - paint a picture of himself that would be most electable, had to stray further from the truth.  Ok, he had to outright lie.  Why?  Because what he actually wants, what he actually believes, is less like what the people he needs to vote for him want or need.  Unless filtered through the right wing deception machine (where everything is socialism, Muslim, the other, unAmerican, baby-killing, anti-religious), what Obama wants for America is generally what the majority of Americans want, even those that don't know it.  The majority of Americans aren't ultra-wealthy, Mormon (or of any strange or fundamentalist religion), big business backing, environment destroying, oligarchs.  Romney's core beliefs and policies (and those of Ryan for that matter), if explained in a vacuum to the majority of Americans - including a large percentage who will vote for him, are not particularly palatable.  But they aren't explained in a vacuum, they are explained by a right wing propaganda machine, or by friends and pastors at churches, or through 'viral' videos emailed from true believers and created by party operatives. This is money at work, grassroots as astro-turf, top down reality.

Mitt Romney can talk about wanting to create jobs, but everything he has ever done in his life, his creed, is to create wealth not jobs.  For a business-man, a true capitalist, it's about profits and wealth creation, it's their religion, there is no higher good.  This is done by reducing cost wherever possible, period - just crack an economics text, it's all right there (unless maybe it was written by Keynes or Mill, but even then it is acknowledged).  To reduce costs, to increase profits, you don't create jobs, you create efficiency, which more often than not indicates eliminating jobs.  When Romney talks about caring about jobs or creating jobs, he is either lying or abandoning everything he has ever believed.  But no one in the main stream press would dare point this out, because that would be challenging the veracity of his claims, and they don't like to do that, it appears partisan.  Telling the truth is partisan, if one side is lying.

So anyway, back to the racism.  I just read another article (on Huffpo, another favorite of el-chode), as reported here in LA on KTVU, about a guy in Santa Clara who had an anti-Obama display in front of his house.  It included a suggestion to go back to Kenya, a chair with watermelons and a noose on it, and a Romney sign behind hanging on a fence.  What to think of this?  Could the story be a fake?  This is what I suspect will be posited, if it is even mentioned at all by Republicans, but they spoke to the homeowner and he said 'I think it speaks for itself'.  It appears to be a real and sincere display (assuming we don't find out it's Democrat, attempting political sabotage), so what does this say about an institutional Republican racism?  Not everything, but something.  Are all Republicans racist?  Clearly not.  Are a high percentage of Republicans racist?  I would say no, not obviously anyway, but it depends on how far you extend your definition of racism.  Is thinking that whites have earned their place through great business achievement and hard work ('you didn't build this') racist?  If you consider the role of African slaves, Asian laborers, and the theft of the land from Native-Americans, then maybe just that seemingly innocuous position is racist.  I would say so, but that's my position now, it wasn't always.  Failing to acknowledge the contribution of other races and taking all the credit (and lucre) is racist to me, but that is admittedly extending the definition.

Alright, so I have probably brought up enough issues for one post, but I want to try to summarize.  Is the main-stream media, so despised by conservatives, really giving us a full and honest accounting of the world around us?  Republicans would, and do, say 'no!' And I would agree.  But I think they are giving the Republicans much too much credit, not too little.  I think this equivocation, this acceptance of nonsense and non-reality, is the real problem.  Just so I can add a bit more controversy to this post, I want to point out that every time there is a natural disaster or tragedy, I have to see - unchallenged by a rationality I would like from my 'news', people thanking 'god' or relating how they 'prayed' and were saved.  They never, not once, not a single time in my recollection, cut back to the newscast and have the anchor note, 'well, isn't that an absurd reaction, why would this so-called god have saved you and not your neighbors?'.  But we don't do that, because one person's view of reality, whether supported by evidence or not, is just as valid as another persons, no matter how much evidence they have (equivocation).  In relation to our political discourse, and how we receive and assess all information, this is a harmful tendency.  Are some things up for debate, are there legitimate differences of opinion?  Absolutely.  But there are also truths and non-truths, and conflating them does none of us any good.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: bbill on Oct 09, 2012, 05:48 PM
how you guys voting this fall?

Not sure yet, but I've read a little bit about T.J. O'Hara and he sounds pretty solid. I just wish I could find out more about him.

http://ivn.us/2012/09/24/an-interview-with-tj-ohara-the-modern-whig-party-candidate/ (http://ivn.us/2012/09/24/an-interview-with-tj-ohara-the-modern-whig-party-candidate/)
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: bartel on Oct 09, 2012, 08:34 PM
voting for obama for sure..
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: e_wind on Oct 10, 2012, 10:56 AM
Well, since Kentucky is not in play whatsoever again this election year (The Republicans have it won no matter what), I don't really know what to do with my vote. I usually vote for the Democrat or some other third party candidate (I don't make enough money to be a REAL Republican and would NEVER vote for those $@!#$ anyway). In all my years of voting for the President, I had never voted for the winner...until 2008 when I did vote for Barack Obama. I just felt it was a little special and wanted to be a part of history in the making. With that said, I probably would have really voted for Cynthia McKinney, but she didn't make the ballot in Kentucky.

Back to next month...I just don't know...Obama or a write in...maybe John Calipari! Yeah! That's The Ticket!

felt like I was writing this myself until the Calipari statement  :tongue:

But yeah, being in KY makes this a hard vote. Hard to care and hard to decide. I'll probably vote for Obama, but since it doesn't matter regardless, I may go 3rd party.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: exist10z on Oct 10, 2012, 12:58 PM
Funny, reading these last two posts (e-wind and mr.white), I was thinking about how I argued against voting third party.  Of course my caveat was, 'if you live in a state where it matters', which neither of you do.  Same goes for me, voting in either CA or MD.  I would stick with my position, and argue it until the end, if you live in OH, FL, PA, etc.

But it did get me thinking about the popular vote.  You often hear lamentation about the prospect of a candidate winning the presidency without winning the popular vote, and it admittedly bothers me as well - on the surface.  However, if you think about all the Dems who vote in GOP states, and Repubs who vote in Democratic states, and the prospect (likelihood?) that they vote third party if they aren't entirely enthusiastic about one of the major party candidates, or simply want to make a statement about the dominance of the two party system, I am not sure we ever have a true representation of what the popular vote might be otherwise.

This is probably obvious, but I hadn't ever really thought about it in that way before.  Clearly it's irrelevant, as we have an electoral system, the 'fairness' of which could be argued as well, but it is interesting.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Sticky Icky Green Stuff on Oct 10, 2012, 07:53 PM
Well, since Kentucky is not in play whatsoever again this election year (The Republicans have it won no matter what), I don't really know what to do with my vote. I usually vote for the Democrat or some other third party candidate (I don't make enough money to be a REAL Republican and would NEVER vote for those $@!#$ anyway). In all my years of voting for the President, I had never voted for the winner...until 2008 when I did vote for Barack Obama. I just felt it was a little special and wanted to be a part of history in the making. With that said, I probably would have really voted for Cynthia McKinney, but she didn't make the ballot in Kentucky.

Back to next month...I just don't know...Obama or a write in...maybe John Calipari! Yeah! That's The Ticket!

felt like I was writing this myself until the Calipari statement  :tongue:

But yeah, being in KY makes this a hard vote. Hard to care and hard to decide. I'll probably vote for Obama, but since it doesn't matter regardless, I may go 3rd party.

I think it matters this year how you vote for sure.  especially in a state like KY.  if there wasn't a douchebag prosecutor up for re-election here that's a democrat I'd probably just vote straight democrat and be done with it.  Obama has been winning and a third party candidate will not win the presidency so ultimately any vote that isn't for Obama helps Romney.

now the rest of the shit is a completely different story.  judges, sheriffs, ballot initiatives, etc. those are all things that we effect in a huge way by voting.  mostly because there is such a small number of the US public that votes.  when only 50-60percent (being generous) of the electorate votes in you're not going to get any type of consensus or feel what the entire country wants. 

and to your last comment exist, i'm sort of in the boat of getting rid of the electoral college all together.  first we'd need to make voting mandatory and then we could dissolve it.  after that it would be a lot much easier to get the money out of politics.  to end corporate personhood,  the power of lobbyists and special interests, etc.  it's too radical for most of the country and the argument people against it would make is that states like NY would become too powerful.  I'm not convinced that would happen if voting is mandatory and twice as many people are voting or are involved in the process.  if people don't support any of the candidates they should still have to cast a blank vote or something along those lines, imo.

and to your earlier point, the hatred towards Obama is 90percent drive by racism.  there's just no way around it.  "Obama's not christian enough, I'm voting for a mormon".  "Obama apologizes for the US, we never have to apologize".  "Obama wants to weaken our military!", etc etc.  these are all perception/emotional votes based on, well, personal bias.  it's not just the south either.  the biggest pivot I've noticed lately from romney supports is the military aspect of shit even tho Obama killed Bin Laden and like the top 30terrorists who were alive during his first few years. 

Romney doesn't have an argument or a real plan, at least not one that he's presented to we the people.  his numbers are bunk.  his original tax plan was proven to be bunk by economists.  really all it does it give the upper bracket a huge tax break and raise taxes on the rest of us.  the conservatives even had senors convinced Romney would be kinder to them when it comes to medicare and health insurance.  under romney's plan insurance companies are still allowed to deny you for pre-existing conditions, even tho he said in the debates that they weren't.  if you have insurance thru your job for example and you lose your job, you lose your insurance and can be denied.  that doesn't happen with obamacare.  romney brought up the "death panel" palin bullshit, when really it's just a board put in place to make sure premiums do not spike, they have no control over the quality of care.  or romney's lie that 23percent of the country is unemployed.  he included part time workers and senor citizens in that number.  it's lie after fucking lie.   

tomorrow night will be interesting.  hopefully biden lays the smack down on paul ryan, I fucking can't stand that little lying piece of shit.  I've got low expectations tho, Paul Ryan is sure to bs his way thru the entire thing, I just hope ol' Joe calls him on shit.

anybody who votes Romney or Republican, unless you're rich, you are voting against your own personal interest.  that's just how it is this year.  if you don't believe me  and think I'm being a liberal hack just look what Bush/Cheney did with the surplus they were given.  10trillion+ in debt by the end of their 8years and they started with a fairly juicy SURPLUS, people bitch at obama for the 5 or 6trillion he had to drop to invest, bail out, and essentially fix a runaway train that was flying off the tracks taking the entire world with it.  now they want to put fuckers in power who are worse than the bush/cheney style repubs.  the 2010 congress is the most bullshit group of people I've ever seen in my life run this country.  it's sad and embarassing, to think any normal, working day person would want to give those douchebags the keys back is beyond me.  I'll never be able to vote republican again after bush->2010->this years voter suppression tactics.  they are a party of bigotry and racism, that is without a doubt true. 
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: exist10z on Oct 10, 2012, 08:16 PM
You need to stop being so sensible Sticky, and start watching some Fox news...

 :thumbsup:
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Sticky Icky Green Stuff on Oct 10, 2012, 08:40 PM
for sure dude, I can see where you're comin' from.  low information voters suck.  racism sucks.  your state is beautiful but you've made me disheartened about the people.   is there a solution to make the state less polarized other than waiting out the old people?
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Sticky Icky Green Stuff on Oct 10, 2012, 08:47 PM
KY is a big coal/natural gas state right?  that would make sense as to why it's red as fuck.  then add racists.  michigan is purple we change our minds often. 
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: exist10z on Oct 10, 2012, 09:46 PM
Instead of Red and Blue, maybe we should just go back to Gray and Blue, because that's pretty much how it is anyway.  Only thing is, the North won the far/North West and the South won the Central/North middle.  There could never be another civil war right...

Because that was like a hundred and fifty years ago, which in relation to human history is like forever, and because in this day and age people don't still kill people over these sorts of things do they?  There aren't civil wars in other countries or anything. I jest. I hope.

Seriously though, if you read response posts other places, there's some wild/fanatical/delusional people out there, and they have guns.  Of course we've all mentioned it, but the propoganda machine stirring them up just doesn't care.  Too many examples to mention.  Interestingly, O'Reilly just a couple days ago said something to the effect (pot, meet kettle) that there are those on the right who stir things up and are inflammatory just for the money and ratings.  Clearly we know this is true, but it was interesting coming from him.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Sticky Icky Green Stuff on Oct 10, 2012, 09:48 PM
it really is strange how the working folk were brainwashed into thinking unions are bad.  fucking nuts really.  union workers only make up like 7 to 14percent of the workforce, they are no threat to anybody.  unions are fucking bad ass.  I'm a union man myself.  it's the balls.  hopefully, this shift that's happening ripples across the entire country.  there are dense areas of douchebags, sure.  but overall the people in this country are very similar to each other no matter where you're from.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Sticky Icky Green Stuff on Oct 10, 2012, 09:50 PM
that was me trying to be an optimist.  can't wait for the debates tomorrow.  paul ryan is going to get dissed on so hard regardless.  best. day. everz.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: exist10z on Oct 10, 2012, 10:24 PM
You never know with Biden, he's a wild card, he's likely to say anything.

As for unions, they have been undermined since they began.  I assume you've read A People's History of The United States by Howard Zinn, and the documentary The Corporation is also great.

Bottom line, Capitalism, the corporate structure, is based on deriving the most profits possible, at any cost - which indicates less cost.  No company or CEO ever wanted unions, no stockholders ever wanted unions, no wealthy people ever wanted unions.  The whole system is set up to funnel money upwards.  The rise of unions only briefly slowed that down, but then they were able to use the Red Scare - and FEAR, of the Soviets, to demonize anything that could be tied to 'socialism' even tangentially.  Essentially anything that didn't benefit the bottom line was a socialist plot.

It's been a brilliantly devious concoction of fear and propaganda, psychology and theology (the socialist are atheists remember), with a dash of racism and xenophobia.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Sticky Icky Green Stuff on Oct 10, 2012, 10:29 PM
You never know with Biden, he's a wild card, he's likely to say anything.

As for unions, they have been undermined since they began.  I assume you've read A People's History of The United States by Howard Zinn, and the documentary The Corporation is also great.

Bottom line, Capitalism, the corporate structure, is based on deriving the most profits possible, at any cost - which indicates less cost.  No company or CEO ever wanted unions, no stockholders ever wanted unions, no wealthy people ever wanted unions.  The whole system is set up to funnel money upwards.  The rise of unions only briefly slowed that down, but then they were able to use the Red Scare - and FEAR, of the Soviets, to demonize anything that could be tied to 'socialism' even tangentially.  Essentially anything that didn't benefit the bottom line was a socialist plot.

It's been a brilliantly devious concoction of fear and propaganda, psychology and theology (the socialist are atheists remember), with a dash of racism and xenophobia.

I think chomsky has indoctrinated both of us bruh. 
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Sticky Icky Green Stuff on Oct 10, 2012, 11:24 PM
Instead of Red and Blue, maybe we should just go back to Gray and Blue, because that's pretty much how it is anyway.  Only thing is, the North won the far/North West and the South won the Central/North middle.  There could never be another civil war right...

Because that was like a hundred and fifty years ago, which in relation to human history is like forever, and because in this day and age people don't still kill people over these sorts of things do they?  There aren't civil wars in other countries or anything. I jest. I hope.

Seriously though, if you read response posts other places, there's some wild/fanatical/delusional people out there, and they have guns.  Of course we've all mentioned it, but the propoganda machine stirring them up just doesn't care.  Too many examples to mention.  Interestingly, O'Reilly just a couple days ago said something to the effect (pot, meet kettle) that there are those on the right who stir things up and are inflammatory just for the money and ratings.  Clearly we know this is true, but it was interesting coming from him.

see I don't agree with the red/blue defines entire regions of people thing.  in mr. whites case, he's a nice dude.  we even bro's on facebook (hit it up at stickyicky greenstuff) and that's why I don't want to be lazy and just say "oh the south is racist and pissed about the civil war, that's the reason".  it's much more complex and you know it my bruthur.

this is where I pivot.

fuck slavery, black folks have only been able to vote for the last 50years or so and people are still trying to suppress their voice.  that's almost worse.  it's 2012.  the black community is so united and powerful but in so many cases they aren't born into privilege.   it's just not the same for black folks in the US.  which is sad because they've been here as long as we've been killing indians. 

which brings us to something we need to really press until it starts to be discussed:

setting a living wage, not a minimum wage. a minimum wage is impossible to live off of, a living wage would cure the minimum wage flaws.  a minimum pay level that allows people to pay their rent, eat, get hospital care, and take care of their kids without having to worry about dying. or their family starving. 

a living wage is how you make an intensely strong middle class. 



Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: exist10z on Oct 10, 2012, 11:52 PM
Yeah, I forgot to mention Chomsky...

No, I hope I didn't misrepresent my thoughts by over-generalizing (I often do), of course there's great people in the south and mid-west.  I am in Orange County right now, if these people could just kill the poor and melt them down to fuel their Range Rovers - they might, California is far from perfect, but as far as the electoral system, that's the way it's broken down.  It's broken down electorally as if the North/South had fought the civil war to a stalemate, and the South picked up a few mid/North-central western states and the North picked up the far/North West.

Yeah, a living wage would be great, but not only aren't we getting that under the Capitalist system, we have strong push back against the freaking MINIMUM WAGE by Republicans - that's just mind-blowingly malicious I don't know how they can sleep at night.  Again, it all comes back to the system.  Look at the 'socialist' democracies, for the most part - happy, happy, happy.  Here, angry, angry, angry.  The system is set up to promote consumption and division - you need more, the other guy is keeping you from getting it, everything is a competition.  It's ugly.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: johnnYYac on Oct 11, 2012, 11:09 AM
Would anyone have interest in using the Roll Call chat room during tonight's vice-presidential debate?

You have to be a Roll Call member to access this, I'm afraid.  :tongue:

Here's the link: http://mymorningjacket.com/chat (http://mymorningjacket.com/chat)

I'll open the chat room at 7:45 pm EDT, though anyone "opens" the chat room once they go to the link, so feel free to use it any time.

For those who don't have Roll Call but would like to participate in a chat, let us know of other suggestions. 
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Tracy 2112 on Oct 11, 2012, 12:46 PM
"Eye Of The Sparrow" — A Bad Lip Reading of the First 2012 Presidential Debate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlwilbVYvUg#ws)
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: johnnYYac on Oct 11, 2012, 01:02 PM
"Eye Of The Sparrow" — A Bad Lip Reading of the First 2012 Presidential Debate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlwilbVYvUg#ws)
That is some funny shit!
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Sticky Icky Green Stuff on Oct 11, 2012, 01:54 PM
Would anyone have interest in using the Roll Call chat room during tonight's vice-presidential debate?

You have to be a Roll Call member to access this, I'm afraid.  :tongue:

Here's the link: http://mymorningjacket.com/chat (http://mymorningjacket.com/chat)

I'll open the chat room at 7:45 pm EDT, though anyone "opens" the chat room once they go to the link, so feel free to use it any time.

For those who don't have Roll Call but would like to participate in a chat, let us know of other suggestions.


no.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Shug on Oct 11, 2012, 01:55 PM
I fucking LOVE it when I agree with you, Sticky!!!  :thumbsup:

I think it matters this year how you vote for sure.  especially in a state like KY.  if there wasn't a douchebag prosecutor up for re-election here that's a democrat I'd probably just vote straight democrat and be done with it.  Obama has been winning and a third party candidate will not win the presidency so ultimately any vote that isn't for Obama helps Romney.

now the rest of the shit is a completely different story.  judges, sheriffs, ballot initiatives, etc. those are all things that we effect in a huge way by voting.  mostly because there is such a small number of the US public that votes.  when only 50-60percent (being generous) of the electorate votes in you're not going to get any type of consensus or feel what the entire country wants. 

and to your last comment exist, i'm sort of in the boat of getting rid of the electoral college all together.  first we'd need to make voting mandatory and then we could dissolve it.  after that it would be a lot much easier to get the money out of politics.  to end corporate personhood,  the power of lobbyists and special interests, etc.  it's too radical for most of the country and the argument people against it would make is that states like NY would become too powerful.  I'm not convinced that would happen if voting is mandatory and twice as many people are voting or are involved in the process.  if people don't support any of the candidates they should still have to cast a blank vote or something along those lines, imo.

and to your earlier point, the hatred towards Obama is 90percent drive by racism.  there's just no way around it.  "Obama's not christian enough, I'm voting for a mormon".  "Obama apologizes for the US, we never have to apologize".  "Obama wants to weaken our military!", etc etc.  these are all perception/emotional votes based on, well, personal bias.  it's not just the south either.  the biggest pivot I've noticed lately from romney supports is the military aspect of shit even tho Obama killed Bin Laden and like the top 30terrorists who were alive during his first few years. 

Romney doesn't have an argument or a real plan, at least not one that he's presented to we the people.  his numbers are bunk.  his original tax plan was proven to be bunk by economists.  really all it does it give the upper bracket a huge tax break and raise taxes on the rest of us.  the conservatives even had senors convinced Romney would be kinder to them when it comes to medicare and health insurance.  under romney's plan insurance companies are still allowed to deny you for pre-existing conditions, even tho he said in the debates that they weren't.  if you have insurance thru your job for example and you lose your job, you lose your insurance and can be denied.  that doesn't happen with obamacare.  romney brought up the "death panel" palin bullshit, when really it's just a board put in place to make sure premiums do not spike, they have no control over the quality of care.  or romney's lie that 23percent of the country is unemployed.  he included part time workers and senor citizens in that number.  it's lie after fucking lie.   

tomorrow night will be interesting.  hopefully biden lays the smack down on paul ryan, I fucking can't stand that little lying piece of shit.  I've got low expectations tho, Paul Ryan is sure to bs his way thru the entire thing, I just hope ol' Joe calls him on shit.

anybody who votes Romney or Republican, unless you're rich, you are voting against your own personal interest.  that's just how it is this year.  if you don't believe me  and think I'm being a liberal hack just look what Bush/Cheney did with the surplus they were given.  10trillion+ in debt by the end of their 8years and they started with a fairly juicy SURPLUS, people bitch at obama for the 5 or 6trillion he had to drop to invest, bail out, and essentially fix a runaway train that was flying off the tracks taking the entire world with it.  now they want to put fuckers in power who are worse than the bush/cheney style repubs.  the 2010 congress is the most bullshit group of people I've ever seen in my life run this country.  it's sad and embarassing, to think any normal, working day person would want to give those douchebags the keys back is beyond me.  I'll never be able to vote republican again after bush->2010->this years voter suppression tactics.  they are a party of bigotry and racism, that is without a doubt true.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: el_chode on Oct 11, 2012, 06:36 PM
Sticky you have elected prosecutors there? I can't imagine doing my job if I were elected.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Sticky Icky Green Stuff on Oct 11, 2012, 07:48 PM
Sticky you have elected prosecutors there? I can't imagine doing my job if I were elected.

county prosecutor is elected every whatever many years.   they buddy up with the sheriffs all the way up to the judges, etc.  here they've been going against marijuana hardcore reagan style lately.  it's fucked.  we had multiple votes and shit was approved by the citizens.  the cops/prosecutors/judges are fuckers here. 
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: el_chode on Oct 12, 2012, 05:36 PM
Sticky you have elected prosecutors there? I can't imagine doing my job if I were elected.

county prosecutor is elected every whatever many years.   they buddy up with the sheriffs all the way up to the judges, etc.  here they've been going against marijuana hardcore reagan style lately.  it's fucked.  we had multiple votes and shit was approved by the citizens.  the cops/prosecutors/judges are fuckers here.

As imperfect as it is, that is also why I prefer appointed officials in law enforcement. They may be cronies, but they're typically consistent cronies.

This article highlights my biggest beef. I'm glad our judges here in NJ are appointed...even the ones I don't agree with.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/would-you-trust-these-state-justices-to-review-your-case/262480/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/would-you-trust-these-state-justices-to-review-your-case/262480/)
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Sticky Icky Green Stuff on Oct 15, 2012, 12:50 AM
Sticky you have elected prosecutors there? I can't imagine doing my job if I were elected.

county prosecutor is elected every whatever many years.   they buddy up with the sheriffs all the way up to the judges, etc.  here they've been going against marijuana hardcore reagan style lately.  it's fucked.  we had multiple votes and shit was approved by the citizens.  the cops/prosecutors/judges are fuckers here.

As imperfect as it is, that is also why I prefer appointed officials in law enforcement. They may be cronies, but they're typically consistent cronies.

This article highlights my biggest beef. I'm glad our judges here in NJ are appointed...even the ones I don't agree with.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/would-you-trust-these-state-justices-to-review-your-case/262480/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/would-you-trust-these-state-justices-to-review-your-case/262480/)

I wish shit was legit here.  Oakland County Michigan is was one of the wealthiest counties in the entire country.  it use to be like 3rd.  I'm pretty sure that's why shit's all fucked.  it's a micro example of the large picture of things.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: exist10z on Oct 16, 2012, 11:36 PM
With the lies flying, the gloves come off... :beer:
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: headhunter on Oct 17, 2012, 01:42 PM
With the lies flying, the gloves come off... :beer:

why were there no questions asked about abortion rights in the debate last night?
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: johnnYYac on Oct 17, 2012, 01:51 PM
Binders of Women... a Mormon love story.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Tracy 2112 on Oct 17, 2012, 02:18 PM
(http://www.nationalmemo.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/best_of_the_binders_full_of_women_mitt_romney_meme-165218.jpg)
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Jon T. on Oct 17, 2012, 02:25 PM
(http://www.nationalmemo.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/best_of_the_binders_full_of_women_mitt_romney_meme-165218.jpg)

sorry to sidetrack here, but if "binder" read "blender" that would be awesome.  That's all.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Sticky Icky Green Stuff on Oct 21, 2012, 08:36 PM
Old image by Alex Grey

(http://i1149.photobucket.com/albums/o583/Darkstarflashes/obama_alex_grey.jpg)

that is a bad ass picture for sure.  I'd like to see the romney robot version of it. 
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: bbill on Oct 22, 2012, 12:31 PM
You want badass?! Paul Ryan will give you badass!!!

(http://images.politico.com/global/2012/10/121011_paul_ryan_time_mag_328.jpg)

What a douche!  :grin:
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Kenny76 on Oct 22, 2012, 05:15 PM
I am happy to have read some very good arguments for why it's best to vote for "the lesser of two evils".  I still understand the "vote your conscience" argument... I voted for the Green Party ticket in both 2000 and 2004... but I think it's a weaker argument today, especially given that the differences between Romney and Obama are greater than the differences between Bush and Gore were... and in retrospect, the differences between Bush and Gore seem pretty great now.

I get that it's difficult to vote for any candidate that doesn't have the same convictions, and worse, may be guilty of things that you consider evil (are either Obama or Romney going to stop Monsanto? sadly, not a chance.), but I think we have a duty to stop greater evils when we have that choice.

I happened to have recently published an article about 'third parties' and their current usefulness... and this looks like (basically is) shameless self-promotion, but it's directly related to this conversation, so here it is:  http://kennethpauloconnor.com/articles/why-third-parties-havent-earned-their-place-on-the-national-stage.html (http://kennethpauloconnor.com/articles/why-third-parties-havent-earned-their-place-on-the-national-stage.html)  :cool:
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Shug on Oct 22, 2012, 05:27 PM
"We can all agree, like all of these third parties agree, that government needs to get out of the hands of special interest groups. We can all agree that corporations have too much power in government. We all can agree that government needs to be much more reflective of the people it represents."

Who exactly is this "we" of which you write?  I don't think Romney/Ryan, Fox News and all that gang are a part of that "we".  It seems to me that they want corporations (US and multi-national) to have more power and centralized government to have less and they want government to represent the rich, not the majority of citizens.

Not meaning to ignore all the good points in your article.  I wish the quote above were true, if it were things wouldn't be so scary right now.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Kenny76 on Oct 22, 2012, 05:31 PM
"We can all agree, like all of these third parties agree, that government needs to get out of the hands of special interest groups. We can all agree that corporations have too much power in government. We all can agree that government needs to be much more reflective of the people it represents."

Who exactly is this "we" of which you write?  I don't think Romney/Ryan, Fox News and all that gang are a part of that "we".  It seems to me that they want corporations (US and multi-national) to have more power and centralized government to have less and they want government to represent the rich, not the majority of citizens.

Not meaning to ignore all the good points in your article.  I wish the quote above were true, if it were things wouldn't be so scary right now.

'We the people' is who I meant, and you're right, they are not with the people.  They can be, but they're not choosing to be.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Sticky Icky Green Stuff on Oct 22, 2012, 06:30 PM
You want badass?! Paul Ryan will give you badass!!!

(http://images.politico.com/global/2012/10/121011_paul_ryan_time_mag_328.jpg)

What a douche!  :grin:

I heard he can run soooo fast...
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Sticky Icky Green Stuff on Oct 22, 2012, 06:36 PM
I am happy to have read some very good arguments for why it's best to vote for "the lesser of two evils".  I still understand the "vote your conscience" argument... I voted for the Green Party ticket in both 2000 and 2004... but I think it's a weaker argument today, especially given that the differences between Romney and Obama are greater than the differences between Bush and Gore were... and in retrospect, the differences between Bush and Gore seem pretty great now.

I get that it's difficult to vote for any candidate that doesn't have the same convictions, and worse, may be guilty of things that you consider evil (are either Obama or Romney going to stop Monsanto? sadly, not a chance.), but I think we have a duty to stop greater evils when we have that choice.

I happened to have recently published an article about 'third parties' and their current usefulness... and this looks like (basically is) shameless self-promotion, but it's directly related to this conversation, so here it is:  http://kennethpauloconnor.com/articles/why-third-parties-havent-earned-their-place-on-the-national-stage.html (http://kennethpauloconnor.com/articles/why-third-parties-havent-earned-their-place-on-the-national-stage.html)  :cool:

yeah, this year it's straight up two different styles of bruh up there.

1.) mitt romney is a venture capitalist dick.

or

2.) the first black president for a second term. 

growth might be slow, but there is growth.  small steps.  down with these insane, heartless, right wing ideologues.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Sticky Icky Green Stuff on Oct 22, 2012, 06:48 PM
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/05/barack-obama/obama-says-romney-would-spend-2-trilllion-military/ (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/05/barack-obama/obama-says-romney-would-spend-2-trilllion-military/)
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: johnnYYac on Oct 22, 2012, 07:08 PM
http://www.spin.com/#articles/jim-jame-my-morning-jacket-health-care-election-2012 (http://www.spin.com/#articles/jim-jame-my-morning-jacket-health-care-election-2012)
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: LeanneP on Oct 22, 2012, 10:18 PM
http://www.spin.com/#articles/jim-jame-my-morning-jacket-health-care-election-2012 (http://www.spin.com/#articles/jim-jame-my-morning-jacket-health-care-election-2012)

As a doula, I love that Jim specifically mentions legalizing home birth midwifery in Kentucky and beyond. Could I love that guy more? The answer is yes!
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Northern Neighbour on Oct 22, 2012, 10:32 PM
Awesome closing address by Obama.  Really, really fantastic.

And Johnny, you should vote for Romney because he loves teachers.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: exist10z on Oct 23, 2012, 12:08 AM
Awesome closing address by Obama.  Really, really fantastic.

And Johnny, you should vote for Romney because he loves teachers.

Better watch out, Romney's secret plan for 'energy independence', after lining every available U.S. shoreline's horizon with drilling rigs, is to invade Canada and steal your rescources.  Then he's gonna repeal your Obamacare...
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Sticky Icky Green Stuff on Oct 23, 2012, 01:03 AM
people can say what they want about the other debates I guess but tonights was a clear win for obama.  romney loves reagan way too much. 
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: headhunter on Oct 23, 2012, 09:07 AM
Obama looked great and Mitt looked like he was just trying to run out the clock and avoid saying something stupid.

And it was another disaster for the Moderating team.  Another no-show.

Time to stop worrying about undecided voters.  If someone doesn't know who they want at this point, they are probably not going to vote anyway.  The differences are pretty obvious.

Time to focus on getting your supporters to get to the polls.

Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: el_chode on Oct 23, 2012, 10:54 PM
Everyone's still mum on the concept of the president ordering the execution of American citizens without the slightest bit of judicial oversight or pesky due process. No biggie - did Michelle have sleeves on tonight? And how crazy did Romney's son look?!
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: exist10z on Oct 23, 2012, 11:27 PM
Everyone's still mum on the concept of the president ordering the execution of American citizens without the slightest bit of judicial oversight or pesky due process. No biggie - did Michelle have sleeves on tonight? And how crazy did Romney's son look?!

Yeah, I have a few minutes for a rant, haven't done one in a couple weeks.  I am guessing you still want to ding O in the service of a third party?  I've argued against this, and I still would, but my points have been made, refer to earlier posts.  So, I'll jump over to your side, but way further, as I really am way further; but I'm also a dedicated realist, who realizes voting for Obama is the best course of action right now.

Ok, so you got me fired up a bit with that mock about Michelle and Romney's son, because I've been wondering the same thing lately.  Wondering about Americans' outrage.  So much 'we' (not me) are outraged about - our declining position in the world, how high our taxes are, what's with kids these days, can't we just leave religion alone, the deficit, why are gas prices so high, why aren't drugs legal, and on and on; but you know what we aren't fired up about (not you chode, you are, and a small segment is) as a general rule, killing people.  Killing poor brown people specifically.  You never see that headline on the news, 'Poll Shows Majority of Americans Willing to Pay Higher Gas Prices And Higher Taxes In Order To Stop Killing Brown People'.  Never see that.  Never.  Because you know what, sadly, the majority of Americans aren't willing to pay higher gas prices or higher taxes to save the lives of brown people (foreigners in general, but especially brown foreigners).  And that's fucked up.

Yah, yeah, I haven't drawn any direct corollary there, and that wasn't my intent, there isn't one exactly.  Those things aren't related, except in this sense: the things we are so worried about are trivial, when compared to the things we don't care about - that are the foundations of humanity.

So, you're worried about executing Americans w/o due process and judicial oversight?  Why is this your pet cause (I know why, the LAW) el-chode?  Seriously?  How about executions in general?  Ever.  Do I want to personally torture and cut to ribbons the maniac that rapes and kills a 10 year old girl?  Yeah, I kinda do.  If I can just be sure it was him right, 100% certain, no reasonable doubt, red-handed.  But the thing is, I don't want to do it, because then that can be stretched out, the parameters widened.  Why not outrage at capital punishment in general?  Because everyone wants to kill that maniac, everyone wants 'justice', and they assume the system works, but it doesn't.  Innocent people have been executed.  That is never acceptable.  The opportunity to exact revenge/justice on a thousand sadistic barbarous murderers, will never be worth the life of one innocent.  Yeah, I changed the subject a little, but it's my rant, and I was curious about your selective outrage.

Damn, I have more, but that took me twenty minutes, later...

P.S. - I am 43 and I struggle to think of one thing that has made me proud of America during my lifetime.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: sweatboard on Oct 23, 2012, 11:33 PM
I don't care how many people it kills.....I'm so over paying $50 a tank as opposed to $45
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: sweatboard on Oct 23, 2012, 11:35 PM
I don't care how many people it kills.....I'm so over paying $50 a tank as opposed to $45

That's like one less snickers bar a week.   :evil:
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: sweatboard on Oct 24, 2012, 12:27 AM
I seriously believe that if if you just put $5 in your empty tank it doesn't last as long as the first $5 you put into a full tank.  Just one more measure of control.  Right?
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: exist10z on Oct 24, 2012, 12:38 AM
I seriously believe that if if you just put $5 in your empty tank it doesn't last as long as the first $5 you put into a full tank.  Just one more measure of control.  Right?

Don't worry about the gas prices, eventually the Republicans will buy complete control of the government (or have their mindless minions take it by force) and they will fix the gas prices.  After they've sucked up all the fossil fuels, lining every natural vista and coastline horizon with oil rigs, they'll figure out a way to simply turn the poor into fuel.  They'll have them lined up thinking they're getting food, but instead funnel them into a machine that turns them into fuel.  Soylent Fuel is people!

Seriously, I have often wondered, with all the money Republicans want to spend on bombs we don't need, and all the money they want to cut from services for the poor and needy, why not just solve both problems.  They can just drop the bombs on the poor, problem solved!  We're doing it everywhere else in the world, let's bring this successful policy to America.  Watch out inner cities...
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: sweatboard on Oct 24, 2012, 12:47 AM
I was dumb enough to think that the GOP was DEAD after the last ellection.  But no, here they come again with some other slick talking CEO/Politician douchebag, that has a shit ton of money behind them, pretending that they have the best intrest of poor flag waving rednecks at heart. 

Why won't they just DIE already?
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: sweatboard on Oct 24, 2012, 02:19 AM
I seriously believe that if if you just put $5 in your empty tank it doesn't last as long as the first $5 you put into a full tank.  Just one more measure of control.  Right?

Don't worry about the gas prices, eventually the Republicans will buy complete control of the government (or have their mindless minions take it by force) and they will fix the gas prices.  After they've sucked up all the fossil fuels, lining every natural vista and coastline horizon with oil rigs, they'll figure out a way to simply turn the poor into fuel.  They'll have them lined up thinking they're getting food, but instead funnel them into a machine that turns them into fuel.  Soylent Fuel is people!

Seriously, I have often wondered, with all the money Republicans want to spend on bombs we don't need, and all the money they want to cut from services for the poor and needy, why not just solve both problems.  They can just drop the bombs on the poor, problem solved!  We're doing it everywhere else in the world, let's bring this successful policy to America.  Watch out inner cities...

exactly, The plan Romney has to "balance the budget" more or less envolves dropping a bomb on the inner cities and poor rural areas.  He just can't say it yet cause it would piss off a lot of people, including me....but I can read between his lines. 
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: el_chode on Oct 24, 2012, 06:32 AM
I seriously believe that if if you just put $5 in your empty tank it doesn't last as long as the first $5 you put into a full tank.  Just one more measure of control.  Right?

I've researched this...a full tank, though adding significant weight to the vehicle, also lowers the chasis in a proportional matter to make it slightly more aerodynamic. So the proper question is whether this design feature of a car is a republican maneuver to keep you buying more gas when you don't need it.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: el_chode on Oct 24, 2012, 06:44 AM
Everyone's still mum on the concept of the president ordering the execution of American citizens without the slightest bit of judicial oversight or pesky due process. No biggie - did Michelle have sleeves on tonight? And how crazy did Romney's son look?!

Yeah, I have a few minutes for a rant, haven't done one in a couple weeks.  I am guessing you still want to ding O in the service of a third party?  I've argued against this, and I still would, but my points have been made, refer to earlier posts.  So, I'll jump over to your side, but way further, as I really am way further; but I'm also a dedicated realist, who realizes voting for Obama is the best course of action right now.

Ok, so you got me fired up a bit with that mock about Michelle and Romney's son, because I've been wondering the same thing lately.  Wondering about Americans' outrage.  So much 'we' (not me) are outraged about - our declining position in the world, how high our taxes are, what's with kids these days, can't we just leave religion alone, the deficit, why are gas prices so high, why aren't drugs legal, and on and on; but you know what we aren't fired up about (not you chode, you are, and a small segment is) as a general rule, killing people.  Killing poor brown people specifically.  You never see that headline on the news, 'Poll Shows Majority of Americans Willing to Pay Higher Gas Prices And Higher Taxes In Order To Stop Killing Brown People'.  Never see that.  Never.  Because you know what, sadly, the majority of Americans aren't willing to pay higher gas prices or higher taxes to save the lives of brown people (foreigners in general, but especially brown foreigners).  And that's fucked up.

Yah, yeah, I haven't drawn any direct corollary there, and that wasn't my intent, there isn't one exactly.  Those things aren't related, except in this sense: the things we are so worried about are trivial, when compared to the things we don't care about - that are the foundations of humanity.

So, you're worried about executing Americans w/o due process and judicial oversight?  Why is this your pet cause (I know why, the LAW) el-chode?  Seriously?  How about executions in general?  Ever.  Do I want to personally torture and cut to ribbons the maniac that rapes and kills a 10 year old girl?  Yeah, I kinda do.  If I can just be sure it was him right, 100% certain, no reasonable doubt, red-handed.  But the thing is, I don't want to do it, because then that can be stretched out, the parameters widened.  Why not outrage at capital punishment in general?  Because everyone wants to kill that maniac, everyone wants 'justice', and they assume the system works, but it doesn't.  Innocent people have been executed.  That is never acceptable.  The opportunity to exact revenge/justice on a thousand sadistic barbarous murderers, will never be worth the life of one innocent.  Yeah, I changed the subject a little, but it's my rant, and I was curious about your selective outrage.

Damn, I have more, but that took me twenty minutes, later...

P.S. - I am 43 and I struggle to think of one thing that has made me proud of America during my lifetime.

Yes I ding Obama on this because guess who never did this? W. Difference: Obama is a constitutional scholar and stands by the decision (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/13/in-assassinating-anwar-al-awlaki-obama-left-the-constitution-behind.html).

I submit: the case of Anwar Al-Walaki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Aulaqi) (or however your translation wants to spell it).

As far as killings in general, I do not believe the death penalty is appropriate in 99.9% of cases. As far as it being a pet cause...well just because the majority of people are dunces doesn't mean I can't (a) get pissed about that or (b) I should stop caring.

The president is the most powerful man in the world. SOME citizens hold him accountable...it's the function of an open government. And he must be held accountable despite the ridiculousness of the other guy and whether or not you prefer a (D) or an (R) after his name. Blind allegiance and excusing someone simply because you think he's 1% more less evil than the next guy is just as problematic as treating the candidacy like a beauty pageant.

As for things I'm proud of this country for - I'm about 4 hours shy of 30 years on this planet, and if there's one thing I learned it's that pride in your country was awesome in the 80s when the ruskies were out to get us but it is the foundation for accusations of believing in American exceptionalism these days. But off the top of my head, I'd like to thank our supposedly anti-science country for allowing me to live in a world where I can look at a photograph and slowly realize it's from a location no human has ever been and is not even of this planet.

(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Admin/BkFill/Default_image_group/2012/9/1/1346493578016/Curiosity-on-Mars-010.jpg)

Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: exist10z on Oct 24, 2012, 11:35 AM
Happy birthday el-chode.

Alright, space exploration, I'll give you that one.  So, there's one thing about which I'm proud.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Sticky Icky Green Stuff on Oct 31, 2012, 12:52 AM
when you step back and look at how polarized we are and how much propaganda is out there it's really scary that we're the most powerful country in the world.  it's scary because the public, overall when it comes to politics is ignorant, apathetic, or emotionally attached to stupid shit with no real awareness of how things actually work.  "what does bain do?", "what's the 14th amendment?" etc.  people just don't know this shit. 

even when presented hard facts and studies, emotion takes over.  it's drivel.  which leads to the queston, who is really making our decisions?  as of today, it appears grover norquist is.  we're so fucked.  and it's not because we're powerless, it's because we act helpless.  we act like victims.  it's time to put up or shut up.  to smack that fat dick down on that mother fuckin mouth.   
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Sticky Icky Green Stuff on Oct 31, 2012, 06:38 PM
http://harpers.org/print/?pid=225772 (http://harpers.org/print/?pid=225772)
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: exist10z on Oct 31, 2012, 09:53 PM
Yeah thanks Sticky, that was depressing. :undecided:

So we're bought and sold, it's over, I guess many of us already realize this (not nearly enough of course). 

It's interesting that the article didn't mention that a group of Romney's former Bain cohorts, now a private equity firm, bought the company supplying the voting machines for large portions of Ohio.  At least I didn't see it mentioned, it was a long article.

It's depressing really, and I found it particularly interesting the point they made about the stalwarts of the left being unwilling to comment on the issue.  I feel the same way.  I feel like even suggesting it lumps me I with conspiracy theorist, who I think are generally out of touch (some more than others).  Maybe I also am being a bit of an ostrich, I really don't want to think it has gone that far, that it could be THAT corrupt.  But that's just being naive.  Of course it could, there's literally trillions of dollars at stake, entire countries have been leveled for less.

I like to think of myself as a radical, a radical of the mind.  My thoughts are out of the ordinary, out of step with the vast majority, but maybe my actions aren't far enough out of step.  I have continually argued that voting for a third party is pointless and a wasted vote (which I still think), but maybe voting at all is pointless.  Maybe it's time for the revolution.  It's certainly getting closer, and there'll be no stopping it eventually anyway.

Maybe the best thing to do it just let them win, hope they win, that the neo-cons and oligarchs take all the power, in order to bring what will ultimately be a painful change, sooner rather than later.  They're gonna take it all anyway, why fight it.  I suck at linking, but George Carlin has a great bit about this which I am sure you have heard, and he nails it.

People have short memories, and combined with difficulty imagining the future, this works against civilization.  No one can imagine a revolution here, it could never happen, would never happen.  In the past 250 years, there have been multiple major revolutions completely upending political and societal norms (French, Russian, and for those with short memories, Middle East) and I think it is clear this will need to happen again.  And will happen again. 

It has been demonstrated, that you can only perpetuate unbridled greed for so long, before those you are depriving have had enough.  The more these elections are rigged, either directly, or by simply purchasing victory, the closer we come to the breaking point.

Maybe Obama will win, who knows.  But I assume that everything that can be done to prevent him winning is being done, from 'benign' lies and media manipulation, to outright fraud.  Although even if he does, the system isn't changing, and money isn't going to lose in the end, money never loses.  If you want to beat money, you're gonna have to shed blood.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Sticky Icky Green Stuff on Oct 31, 2012, 10:51 PM
tis the year of buying state constitutions, trying to privatize teachers/schools, trying to destroy unions overall.  prop 6 in michigan is straight up a propaganda campaign paid for by one family to block the new international bridge crossing to canada. 

they've spent 40times more on ads than the people against.  800k is what the no votes could get together.  matty spend like 31million one ads for one proposal.   it's some of the huge corruption is recent political history:

http://www.wdet.org/shows/craig-fahle-show/episode/podcast-wednesday-october-31-2012/ (http://www.wdet.org/shows/craig-fahle-show/episode/podcast-wednesday-october-31-2012/)
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: exist10z on Oct 31, 2012, 11:08 PM
It's going on here in California as well.  Prop 32, for which multiple ads play on every TV station (thankfully, at least some for opposition), basically strips the ability of unions to contribute to political campaigns. 

Prop 32 is couched as 'Keeping Special Interest and Corporate Money Out of Politics', but that's not what it does.  It doesn't stop corporations from contributing to campaigns (it's sponsored by corporate interests), it just stops unions and other groups from contributing.  I read an article saying that if it passes, and they are flooding the airwaves with ads to get it passed, it will be just another death blow for unions all across the country. Other states will follow.

This isn't stopping, it's picking up steam, the money is grabbing more money as fast as it can.  One way to do that is to lower wages. 
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: exist10z on Oct 31, 2012, 11:30 PM
That first Carlin link wasn't the one I was referencing, and I couldn't get the second one to work.  But he's great.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Tracy 2112 on Nov 05, 2012, 11:59 PM
Wont Get Fooled Again (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp6-wG5LLqE#)
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: BH on Nov 07, 2012, 12:11 PM
Wow.   Big day for Dems, Gays and Potheads!     

I think we should award Twitter with the MVP award.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: rincon on Nov 07, 2012, 02:31 PM
(http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm38/hewlett61/bronco.jpg)
Bronco Bama
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: rincon on Nov 07, 2012, 02:52 PM
Watching Fox news last night the anchor was talking about how well Romney did in the first debate, and the most substantive thing he could come up with was Romney looked at Obama the whole time, and Obama did not look at Romney. This is the look Romney had the whole debate, and this is what I was thinking every time they showed it.(http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm38/hewlett61/romney.jpg)     And this is taken as a plus?
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: BH on Nov 07, 2012, 05:32 PM
It sure is quiet in the forum today..????

I'm assuming everyone is packing to move to Colorado?
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Ruckus on Nov 07, 2012, 08:14 PM
Just wanted to add that last night was the proudest I've ever been as a Marylander having lived here for 11 years now.  We became the first state to approve a state sanctioned gay marriage law via referendum.  Go Maryland!
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: rincon on Nov 07, 2012, 08:27 PM
As a straight man who has some difficulty imagining or watching 2 men together, I agree 100%. It is not about me.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: exist10z on Nov 07, 2012, 08:44 PM
Just wanted to add that last night was the proudest I've ever been as a Marylander having lived here for 11 years now.  We became the first state to approve a state sanctioned gay marriage law via referendum.  Go Maryland!

Born and raised, couldn't be prouder.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: exist10z on Nov 07, 2012, 08:49 PM
So many great moments last night.  I switched over to Fox right after it was called, and watching Rove lose his shit was priceless.  Just the realization that the bulk of Americans (and the number is only growing) just don't want their brand of repressive dictatorial bigotry/homophobia/xenophobia/misogyny/dogma.  Really was nice to see.

Nice job Americans, I generally think you are mentally challenged, but you did well. :beer:
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: rincon on Nov 07, 2012, 09:06 PM
Just wanted to add that last night was the proudest I've ever been as a Marylander having lived here for 11 years now.  We became the first state to approve a state sanctioned gay marriage law via referendum.  Go Maryland!

Born and raised, couldn't be prouder.
Are you Mc'Nulty?
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: iLikeBeer on Nov 08, 2012, 02:11 PM
Just wanted to add that last night was the proudest I've ever been as a Marylander having lived here for 11 years now.  We became the first state to approve a state sanctioned gay marriage law via referendum.  Go Maryland!

I'm pretty proud of Colorado and Washington (state) myself...  :thumbsup: 

I keeeed, I keeeed. 

Go Maryland!  Nice job!   :thumbsup:   :beer:
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: smhoffmann02 on Nov 08, 2012, 02:45 PM
Just wanted to add that last night was the proudest I've ever been as a Marylander having lived here for 11 years now.  We became the first state to approve a state sanctioned gay marriage law via referendum.  Go Maryland!

Born and raised, couldn't be prouder.

Right on!  I hope it sets the stage for the rest of the country...
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: el_chode on Nov 13, 2012, 09:40 PM
So general Petraeus was brought down in part by the FBI accessing his email account without a warrant. OH SNAP
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: bbill on Nov 26, 2012, 04:16 PM
Sticky would be stoked, but probably wouldn't admit it on the internet (too internet-tough). Then he'd call Norquist names:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/11/26/the-gops-read-my-lips-moment/?hpid=z1 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/11/26/the-gops-read-my-lips-moment/?hpid=z1)

Ol' Grover is toxic for political compromise. I say "good for the four that took their names off his list."
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Tracy 2112 on Nov 27, 2012, 11:01 AM
Ladies and Gentlemen, Tom Ricks stars in one of the shortest interviews ever:

Tom Ricks Criticizes Fox Coverage Of Benghazi Attacks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbUz3pIPmTY#ws)
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Taterbug on Nov 27, 2012, 11:39 AM
Ladies and Gentlemen, Tom Ricks stars in one of the shortest interviews ever:

Tom Ricks Criticizes Fox Coverage Of Benghazi Attacks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbUz3pIPmTY#ws)

oh no he di'int ,   How dare he question THE Fair & Balanced Network.   Where is Hannity when you need him ?
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: rincon on Nov 28, 2012, 08:43 AM
I just can't understand WHY IN THE WORLD so many people in America still watch Fixed News...Fake News...Fox Noise! They lie so much, it is unreal!
I watch it a few hours a month just so I can form my own opinion of it, other than just bashing them without ever watching it. Some of the people I know that slam it the most have never even watched it, and get offended when asked if they ever do. Seems hypocritical to me. It was HIGHLY entertaining on election night.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Jaimoe on Nov 28, 2012, 09:53 PM
Disturbing photos, but rightfully so. My friend served in the US military during the Persian Gulf War. He made it through ok, but died senselessly in a drunk driving accident - along with his buddies - in the early '90s coming back to the base after a bender (he wasn't the one behind the wheel). I miss him. He alluded to some of the horrors he saw over there and carried a picture of me and my sister with him into battle. 

I get FOX spreading outrageous lies, but I don't understand why socialism gets muddied up in all of this. We all live with forms of socialism in our everday lives. Pea-brains seem not to know this, and certainly don't know the difference between socialism and communism.

Sincerely,

Your socialist, capitalist, non-pacifist tree-hugging north of the border cousin.

On a municipal note, Toronto's despised mayor was just throwm out of office for a conflict of interest charge. Awesome! 
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Jaimoe on Nov 28, 2012, 11:39 PM
The American-made motto, "All for one and one for all", doesn't seem to exist anymore, or it's getting hammered as the years go on. It's starting to be: "Me for me and too bad for the rest of you".

Hey, Canada is led by the Progressive Conservative federal government, but even some of their most right-wing policies would seem kinda centrist compared to the US. And all the provinces and territories are headed by premiers of one of the three political parties (the Green Party only has one seat in Parliament and no elected premier), which instill even more sets of values and rules. Ontario has a minority Liberal government, but to us, liberals are more planted in the middle ideologically. Quebec elected a minority separtist government, but it tends to lean left on many issues.

What this all means is that we neighbours to the north generally look like left wingers to you folks, but I see more and more divide going as the PCs try to shape Canada in PM Harper's image.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: rincon on Nov 29, 2012, 12:34 AM
Mr. White stated, "Just for the record; I served in the U.S. Navy on a guided-missile cruiser during the first war with Iraq back in 1991. We were there for the entire run-up to the war (late Oct. to Jan.) and left as soon as there was a cease fire (March, I think) to go into the shipyards for overdue maintanence. My ship launched the first Tomahawk missile of the entire war. I served my nation without question. I was there before the 1991 war during the Iran-Iraq war (my tour there was in 1988-1989) and later for another tour of the Persian Gulf in 1992 to keep an eye on the place. So, my views are not merely from the couch."

You have clearly made some valid points. If this post was in response to my comment about people who never have watched Fox news criticizing it, you don't fit that category. It was more intended for the less informed who simply parrot what others tell them, and have no real examples of the ridiculous/criminal propaganda of that network.

Ironically my father, who was a missile officer with 30 years Naval experience, was weapons officer on the Norton Sound in the 70's which main objective was testing the Tomahawk Missile. I was having one of the most important conversations of my life with him in 1991, when on the TV, tuned into CNN, the initial attack on Baghdad started. The newscasters, including Bernard Shaw, who reported from a hotel, stated there was no indication where the bombs were coming from. there were 2 reasons for that. Stealth bombers, and the tomahawk. My father knew at that moment that over 25 years of his Navy career, plus private sector contracting, was getting its first real world test. Something to be proud of? In one sense, clearly it was. In another sense, after watching a few episodes of Oliver Stones Untold History of the US, maybe it is nothing to be proud about at all. Just more destruction in the name of "Freedom".
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Jaimoe on Nov 29, 2012, 03:21 PM
Hey Mr. White, I don't know how you can stand being subjected to bad forms of biased and sanitized US-centric news on a daily, hourly, minute-by-minute basis. Most if not all US newscasts on the major networks are horrible. CNN is terrible, your nightly newscasts on the Big Four are tightly-produced entertainment packages set-up to not get folks riled up too much at dinnertime. Although the Canadian Progressive Conservative government tries to dismantle the CBC through budget cuts (the CBC is publically funded), we still get balanced and indepth domestic and world news coverage every day. The BBC is even better, although it doesn't look to the US as much. The CBC does great US news. Folks that live near the US-Canada border know what I'm talking about. Does anyone watch news via PBS?
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Jaimoe on Nov 29, 2012, 04:34 PM
I'm not familiar with Trio. The CBC has a few documentary programs that are great. I've seen some amazing docs about the Afghanistan war. Also, it's long-running CBC doc program, The Fifth Estate, is terrific. It's in the vein of 60 Minutes (without mugging hosts), although only focusses on one story. CTV (privately owned CBC rival - I work for them) also has a great doc program called W5.   
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Jaimoe on Nov 29, 2012, 07:35 PM
Once Bravo and NBC got involved, no wonder it disappeared.

The CBC has its own doc and arts channel. Also check out CBC News Network online. CBC Bold is a good arts/news channel too.

CBC Radio-One is online. It has lots of great programming (both arts and news, plus some great music shows). Radio and TV are equal with the CBC and both are vital to the fabric and identity of Canada as a nation. On a related note, if you like indie rock, CBC Radio-Two and CBC Radio-Three are required listening.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: rincon on Nov 30, 2012, 01:24 AM
Democracy Now. Amy Goodman. She ranks right up with John Stewart, Bill Maher, and Noam Chomsky who will dig into any issue however controversial, yet ignore the scientific evidence that CLEARLY PROVES the US governments account of 911 is pure bullshit. I refer to them as pressure relief for the left. I put my sometime heroes Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow in the same category. If they truly speak what they know, they will be ostracized by their corporations and  peers. None of them got the balls to say what they really know.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Jaimoe on Nov 30, 2012, 01:31 AM
Democracy Now. Amy Goodman. She ranks right up with John Stewart, Bill Maher, and Noam Chomsky who will dig into any issue however controversial, yet ignore the scientific evidence that CLEARLY PROVES the US governments account of 911 is pure bullshit. I refer to them as pressure relief for the left. I put my sometime heroes Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow in the same category. If they truly speak what they know, they will be ostracized by their corporations and  peers. None of them got the balls to say what they really know.

Traditionally, media is controlled by the right or is at least conservative by nature. No wonder they don't shoot from the hip.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: rincon on Nov 30, 2012, 01:49 AM
Yet in the US the delusion is the media is controlled by the left. The entertainment news may be left, but the hard core politics is clearly right wing. The Iraq invasion is an extremely embarrassing example to prove that.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: LeanneP on Nov 30, 2012, 10:12 AM
Yet in the US the delusion is the media is controlled by the left. The entertainment news may be left, but the hard core politics is clearly right wing. The Iraq invasion is an extremely embarrassing example to prove that.

Yes, yes! Very true!

I think it's good to remember that the editors and reporters are probably all heavily lefty, for the most part, but the management are right wingers or at least know how to get the uncritical masses stirred up and buying papers while also treading lightly around tough topics in order to preserve their access to right wing stars and newsmakers.

That being said, I have a story about how the news turned someone...

In Canada, we have the Sun News Media Corp and they started what we often refer to as Fox News North. My cousin has worked for Sun first in print and now on their TV station, for many years. When we were in our early 20s we were close and definitely lefty liberal types. The years of working for Sun, however, has turned him almost tea party right wing. It's scary.

My Grandmother and I watched his network debut and both shut off the TV part way through with our jaws on the floor wondering what happened to him. I've had mutual friends email and ask if they're memories of a young progressive guy were false because his politics had become to disgusting. And the guy lives those politics, too. Sad.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Jaimoe on Dec 01, 2012, 12:48 AM
Leanne, the TV ratings for SUN TV are miniscule and the newspaper chain is losing money. Nuff said.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: LeanneP on Dec 01, 2012, 12:52 AM
Well, that's a comfort. I thought the paper was bad but the network is crazy pants. While I hope my cousin can always support his family, I do hope Sun News Channel tanks.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Jaimoe on Dec 01, 2012, 01:49 AM
I'm talking ratings in the hundreds per hour.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Grizzly Mom on Nov 14, 2016, 07:05 PM
If this is not appropriate, please take this down, just don't take away my roll call status.

Since the world seems to be moving in a faster pace in the direction of crazy, I feel compelled to reach out to the MMJ community and explore options on how to redirect the energy back to the start. It's all well and true that half of the country voted for a lunatic, and many may be racist, uneducated, and reality tv enthusiast; we can't lose sight that they need an intervention. I have yet to speak to my family members that voted for the Orange King, I am just waiting for my emotions to die down before I try to help them. But mark my words, one day I will help them see the light, one day.
Until then I will join in and protest the election, I will protest the black snake going through the Sioux land at Standing Rock Reservation. I will continue to call my Politicians, Email the President, Call the White House. And never give up hope. Because right now, hope is getting me through today. See you at the next show. And for the people going to Jim James solo show in DC on 11/19 please stop by The National Monument from 10-3pm, we are staging a demonstration for Standing Rock and doing some peaceful stuff to make room in this city for love. Help me shake things up, not burn things up, let's be classy DC.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: headhunter on Nov 15, 2016, 09:01 AM

Good for you Grizzly Mom.  It is indeed dangerous and insane when the foxes are in charge of the hen house.

Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: ditty on Nov 15, 2016, 11:29 AM
CALL congress; find your reps here http://www.whoismyrepresentative.com/ They have to answer the phone.  Be polite.  Most have a "form" letter for email replies.  Facebook and Twitter are mostly ineffective and all they do is remove harassing comments.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: bhyman on Jan 27, 2017, 07:36 AM
How about some music mixed with politics??? Go Roger go, but be careful poking that hornet's nest.

Would be a nice cover at OBH3...

Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: MMJ_fanatic on Apr 16, 2017, 01:30 PM
"A Plea to Drumpf Fans: This Man is Dangerous - President Donald Drumpf is not just lying to you and me—now he’s lying to himself." - Keith Olbermann

How is that piece of excrement still working in TV--must be some irrelevant network begging for viewers...
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: MMJ_fanatic on Oct 08, 2017, 03:10 PM
I thought political threads were banned from this forum?!?
Well since y'all started it I'm gonna say right up front that President Trump got my vote and my wife's vote last year.  Better than that mutliple fellon Hillbilly Clinton or that pie-in-the-sky socialist hypocrite Bernie by miles and miles.  This guy knows how to negotiate without apologies and wants what is best for America and it people.  Olberman is a POS propagandist and I can't understand how people still hire him.  You want to resist something?  How about resisting grater confiscation of your paycheck to pay for bs programs that go to so many leeches, how about resisting turning a blind eye to bankrupt state governments that think its better to pay for future voters than to use the tax monies that come in responsibly oh and it the mean time they reap the extra added surprise of massive hepatitis outbreaks thanks to people living and toileting on their streets.  I could go on but liberal lack-of-think speech wears me out.  Wonder if this'll get locked or dumped now
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: johnnYYac on Oct 08, 2017, 11:17 PM
I won't dump it, but I'm a bit disappointed. Seems we should stick to music as much as possible. We decided to create a political thread to contain such discussion, though this one was posted by a relative newcomer who seemed to have some shit to unload. Seems you do, too, MMJ_fanatic. I wholeheartedly disagree with your position, having been an active supporter of Bernie and gladly voting for Hilary. Congrats on getting your guy elected, albeit with a little help from Comey and Russia. While you're celebrating, I'm in fear for our country, and the world at large, with this "fucking moron" in the Oval Office. Perhaps history will be the best judge.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: walterfredo on Oct 09, 2017, 12:48 AM
@MMJ_fanatic, would you (and your wife) have voted for him if he grabbed your mother’s, wife’s or daughter’s pussy?
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: MMJ_fanatic on Oct 09, 2017, 09:45 AM
albeit with a little help from Comey and Russia.
(http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/63polara/notThisShitAgain.gif)

Come on John!  You can't really still think this was anything but a wholesale repudiation of Hillbilly (and her mysoginist pedophile husband) who also happens to be a hapless leader (check with the families of the Benghazi victims on that one) who lies to cover her own ineptitude!  How do you like Bernie's new houses and that multiple 100K car he tools around in while failing to pay his staff minimum wage?  Meanwhile our wonderful commander in chief is refusing his salary in favor of trying to get Anerica back on track for Americans first.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: MMJ_fanatic on Oct 09, 2017, 09:47 AM
@MMJ_fanatic, would you (and your wife) have voted for him if he grabbed your mother’s, wife’s or daughter’s pussy?
(http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/63polara/notThisShitAgain.gif)

Meanwhile you were throwing your vote to a criminal liar whose husband has grabbed more p***y than most of mankind
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: MMJ_fanatic on Oct 09, 2017, 09:52 AM
Drumpf is a racist, and Cenk lays it out for those who have been lying to themselves and just don't want to admit it. This makes them racists as well.

Edit/Update:
In case some are confused or just need reminding, all members of this band, My Morning Jacket, are dead set against Drumpf and his racist and hateful agenda. That is just a simple fact. Sorry to have burst some of your bubbles or caused your snowflake to melt.

(http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/63polara/notThisShitAgain.gif)

Gee yea Cenk is totally unbiased  :rolleyes:
Everything the left TRIES to throw at PRESIDENT Trump fails to stick and its just laughable....Meanwhile Hillbilly Clinton and her oversexed parasite have ruined SOOOO many lives its justice finally served that she was at least soundly defeated since nobody has the sack to indict her in DC

Oha and it's OK that the boys in MMJ like Demonrats, most people do when they are young and impressionable.  Still LOVE, LOVE, LOVE their music (though mainly the 1st 5) and NO it's not a heartbreaker/bubble burster that they are temporarily enamored with the left. :grin:
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: walterfredo on Oct 09, 2017, 10:06 AM
I guess my post was deleted so I’ll ask again (because I’m very curious) with less explicit lingo... @MMJ_fanatic, would you and your wife have voted for this man if he had grabbed your wife’s, daughter’s or mother’s p#%^y?


P.S. Hillary received 3 million more votes that trump. That is being soundly defeated?
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: MMJ_fanatic on Oct 09, 2017, 10:12 AM
I guess my post was deleted so I’ll ask again (because I’m very curious) with less explicit lingo... @MMJ_fanatic, would you and your wife have voted for this man if he had grabbed your wife’s, daughter’s or mother’s p#%^y?

Nope it was in the "Carziness in our world" and I replied there. AND:
(http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/63polara/Bill_1.jpg)

Oh yea and you can't believe what you read in the slanted MSM as far as how many vote Hillbilly received--recounts actually TOOK votes away from her and returned them to President Trump.  Time to stop sucking sour grapes and get behind the movement that is MAGA.  As bad as Obama was he faced nothing like President Trump has in his first 8 months
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: MMJ_fanatic on Oct 09, 2017, 10:16 AM
Oh, and one more thing:
(http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/63polara/Obadick.jpg)
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: MMJ_fanatic on Oct 09, 2017, 10:20 AM
And a wonderful new item from the minds of liberals (actually the knig of liberals Jerry Brown):

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/10/09/intentionally-infecting-others-with-hiv-no-longer-a-felony-in-california/

How lovely, great job by all!
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: walterfredo on Oct 09, 2017, 10:23 AM
Ahh yes, breitbart News.  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: MMJ_fanatic on Oct 09, 2017, 10:26 AM
Ahh yes, breitbart News.  :thumbsup:
The source doesn't change the fact that this happened for real in CA--check any source you want.  Brown is flushing a beautiful part of the US down the toilet with his policies.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: walterfredo on Oct 09, 2017, 10:43 AM
Looks like this thread will now serve as a case study for the very question posed in the subject line.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: walterfredo on Oct 09, 2017, 10:44 AM
I’m a CA native and inhabitant. I wish Jerry Brown was our president.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: sillyboob on Oct 09, 2017, 11:17 AM
HRC received 65,844,610 popular votes
Trump received 62,979,636 popular votes
A difference of 2.86 million votes

The electoral college voted Trump in
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: MMJ_fanatic on Oct 09, 2017, 12:30 PM
HRC received 65,844,610 popular votes
Trump received 62,979,636 popular votes
A difference of 2.86 million votes

The electoral college voted Trump in

Source?  Probably the "Daily KOS" or "Huff PO"  Not buying it sorry
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: MMJ_fanatic on Oct 09, 2017, 12:32 PM
You're right--Liberalism is a mental disorder--right now its manifesting as "Trump Derangement Syndrome" in which people afflicted run around professing how much better a criminal would be running the country than somebody who actually can get things done.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: walterfredo on Oct 09, 2017, 12:34 PM
We now live in a country where facts no longer matter to a portion of the population.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: ditty on Oct 09, 2017, 02:56 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016


Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: MMJ_fanatic on Oct 09, 2017, 04:25 PM
"Drumpf whined that Puerto Rico hurricane Maria relief was “throwing the budget out of whack.” No mention of the budgetary impacts of Harvey and Irma."


"On his way out of the White House on Tuesday, Trump incorrectly claimed that roads on Puerto Rico have been cleared and congratulated himself on doing what he dubiously claimed was “a great job.”
Then he called on residents of the hurricane-pummeled island — many of whom lack electricity, access to water and sewage treatment after a Category 4 storm hit nearly two weeks ago — to give the federal government a hand.
“We need their truck drivers,” Trump said. “Their drivers have to start driving trucks. We have to do that, so at a local level they have to give us more help.”
A U.S. labor union told CNN on Saturday that the island is facing not only a shortage of diesel fuel, a necessity for powering the trucks, but also a possible shortage of the vehicles themselves.
“It is unclear if there are trucks available to move the containers, fuel to operate the trucks or road access to the distribution centers,” the Teamsters union said.”

SO? if its a fact its a fact.  He still doing 1000% better at handling all the crises that have occurred so far than Obummer did in his wasted 8 years.  The response complaints in PR were all due to failures at their end with Teamsters doing a great job screwing the people who needed the supplies
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: MMJ_fanatic on Oct 09, 2017, 04:26 PM
We now live in a country where facts no longer matter to a portion of the population.

You want fact?  President Trump WON 30 states for a total of 302 electoral votes.  Pack up the sour grapes and get to work getting behind our country
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: MMJ_fanatic on Oct 09, 2017, 04:27 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016



See my last post to correct the thinking here
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: walterfredo on Oct 09, 2017, 05:06 PM
An over-aggressive, rude, name-calling trump supporter. Who would'a guessed?

 
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: parkervb on Oct 09, 2017, 05:10 PM
HRC received 65,844,610 popular votes
Trump received 62,979,636 popular votes
A difference of 2.86 million votes

The electoral college voted Trump in

Source?  Probably the "Daily KOS" or "Huff PO"  Not buying it sorry

do the National Archives still count as a relevant source?

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2016/election-results.html

Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: sillyboob on Oct 09, 2017, 05:43 PM
HRC received 65,844,610 popular votes
Trump received 62,979,636 popular votes
A difference of 2.86 million votes

The electoral college voted Trump in

Source?  Probably the "Daily KOS" or "Huff PO"  Not buying it sorry

do the National Archives still count as a relevant source?

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2016/election-results.html



Different source, but Trump still loses by over 2.8 million popular votes.  Basically, the equivalent of the total population of Nevada or Kansas.  One person, one vote?  Not at all.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: walterfredo on Oct 09, 2017, 05:58 PM
One person, one vote?  Not at all.

I feel similar about the electoral college as I do the second amendment. Both are antiquated, no longer serve their original intended purpose, and should be abolished (or in the case of the latter, if not abolished majorly revised).
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: sillyboob on Oct 09, 2017, 06:26 PM
One person, one vote?  Not at all.

I feel similar about the electoral college as I do the second amendment. Both are antiquated, no longer serve their original intended purpose, and should be abolished (or in the case of the latter, if not abolished majorly revised).

Hear, hear walterfredo.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: MMJ_fanatic on Oct 10, 2017, 08:03 AM
An over-aggressive, rude, name-calling trump supporter. Who would'a guessed?

 
Inaccurate again--I have called nobody names, just been extremely direct cuz I'm sick of the false propaganda pumping out of liberals and their toady news organizations.  If you think direct is over aggressive and rude then maybe you should take some time and figure out how you actually feel about the truth instead of putting it on me
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: MMJ_fanatic on Oct 10, 2017, 08:04 AM
“Republican strategist Steve Schmidt went on a full-throttle tear against President Trump on Tuesday for using his feud with the NFL to advance his “disgusting,” divisive political machinations.

Schmidt joined MSNBC Live and told Stephanie Ruhle that Trump committed the “greatest affront to the flag” by using it to attack athletes who kneel before the National Anthem. Schmidt said that even though he disagrees with Colin Kaepernick’s actions as a form of protest, it must still be recognized as part of his right to freedom of expression.

“To see him try to hijack this symbol, to wrap himself in it for the purposes — pre-meditatively, purposely of dividing the country is the most disgusting thing I’ve seen in my lifetime,” said Schmidt. “What Donald Trump is doing here is as terrible a thing, and maybe the most terrible thing, that has ever been done to this country by a President of the United States. Despicable doesn’t begin to describe it.”


Blah blah blah ho-hum.  Remember when Obummer went golfing during the floods down south--so much more riveting
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: MMJ_fanatic on Oct 10, 2017, 08:05 AM
One person, one vote?  Not at all.

I feel similar about the electoral college as I do the second amendment. Both are antiquated, no longer serve their original intended purpose, and should be abolished (or in the case of the latter, if not abolished majorly revised).

Hear, hear walterfredo.
And yet if the shoe was on the other foot and Hillbilly Clinton got in b/c of the electoral college you'd be exulting their extreme wisdom in seating the annointed on her throne
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: sillyboob on Oct 10, 2017, 10:42 AM
One person, one vote?  Not at all.

How on earth do you know how anyone, other than yourself, would feel?  You don't, so stop
One person, one vote?  Not at all.

I feel similar about the electoral college as I do the second amendment. Both are antiquated, no longer serve their original intended purpose, and should be abolished (or in the case of the latter, if not abolished majorly revised).

Hear, hear walterfredo.
And yet if the shoe was on the other foot and Hillbilly Clinton got in b/c of the electoral college you'd be exulting their extreme wisdom in seating the annointed on her throne

I feel similar about the electoral college as I do the second amendment. Both are antiquated, no longer serve their original intended purpose, and should be abolished (or in the case of the latter, if not abolished majorly revised).

Hear, hear walterfredo.
And yet if the shoe was on the other foot and Hillbilly Clinton got in b/c of the electoral college you'd be exulting their extreme wisdom in seating the annointed on her throne

fanatic - You have no idea what my response would be to any situation, so DO NOT try to speak for me. 
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: MMJ_fanatic on Oct 10, 2017, 10:55 AM
"To bring it back to Donald Drumpf, it’s like, sure you can lie your way into the White House. You can lie your way through all this stuff. But sooner or later it’s going to bite you in the ass. Or it’s gonna bite us all in the ass.

This song is definitely both anti-Drumpf and anti-politics, but I don’t like to speak in specific terms because I hope that my music could be just as appropriate 20 years from now. But you look at Donald Drumpf, and it’s like how could any self-respecting person get behind this person? And it’s just insane. I feel like Michelle Obama summed it up so beautifully when she said it’s not politics anymore. It’s about love. It’s about how do we make sure this crazy guy is not president? Hillary Clinton is not perfect, but of course, I want her to win because I want the earth to survive and I want us to all be here."

– Jim James (November 4, 2016 – 4 days before the 2016 Presidential Election)

... and from what I've seen and heard in person, in recordings, and in print from Jim and other members of the band, their opinions have only been reinforced by Drumpf's actions as the "so-called-president".

Never forget whose band page we are lucky enough to visit.


What does all this rambling even mean?  That if you don't have the same views as the guys in the band you have no business following them?  Or is it that you think if you fall into lock step with the band members' views it somehow makes you a superior fan versus those who don't have the same views?  What a crock of rotted maggot infest s**t.  If that's what you truly believe I don't know what to say except I've been around here pulling for these guys a lot longer than you including being an active member of the street team and promoting their shows when they were still playing the small rooms and travelling in a van, buying their entire cd library for family and friends to spread the face melting magic far and wide, and hosting a listening party for the release of Okonokos.  I don't care what the views are of the bands I love I love them for their music and how it makes me feel and for who they are as individuals.  Each of these guys has their own beautiful light about them and I'll never tire of listening to them. 'Nuff said
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: MMJ_fanatic on Oct 10, 2017, 10:56 AM
One person, one vote?  Not at all.

How on earth do you know how anyone, other than yourself, would feel?  You don't, so stop
One person, one vote?  Not at all.

I feel similar about the electoral college as I do the second amendment. Both are antiquated, no longer serve their original intended purpose, and should be abolished (or in the case of the latter, if not abolished majorly revised).

Hear, hear walterfredo.
And yet if the shoe was on the other foot and Hillbilly Clinton got in b/c of the electoral college you'd be exulting their extreme wisdom in seating the annointed on her throne

I feel similar about the electoral college as I do the second amendment. Both are antiquated, no longer serve their original intended purpose, and should be abolished (or in the case of the latter, if not abolished majorly revised).

Hear, hear walterfredo.
And yet if the shoe was on the other foot and Hillbilly Clinton got in b/c of the electoral college you'd be exulting their extreme wisdom in seating the annointed on her throne

fanatic - You have no idea what my response would be to any situation, so DO NOT try to speak for me. 

Oh dear!  I "assumed" a response  :grin:
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: MMJ_fanatic on Oct 10, 2017, 10:57 AM
Drumpf backed a loser and now is trying to erase the evidence. Ana Kasparian, Bren Mankiewicz, Michael Shure, the hosts of The Young Turks, break it down.

“(CNN)Returning from a high-dollar fundraiser in Manhattan on Tuesday evening, an infuriated President Donald Drumpf watched aboard Air Force One as Fox News called the Alabama Senate primary for Roy Moore against Drumpf's favored candidate, Luther Strange.

What ensued was a barrage of angry venting at his political team and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who had consolidated establishment GOP support behind Strange.

Drumpf, officials and informal advisers say, felt misled by McConnell and his political team, who encouraged him to endorse and campaign for Strange.

Drumpf praised Moore to reporters on Wednesday.

"I'm very happy with him, and I have to say Luther came a long way from the time I endorsed him and he ran a good race, but Roy ran a really great race," the President told reporters on the White House South Lawn before departing for Indiana.
Drumpf said he'd never met Moore.
Even before Strange's loss on Tuesday, Drumpf expressed misgivings about getting behind the candidate, who he deemed too "low energy." Drumpf fretted the endorsement made him appear weak, cowed by an establishment that he'd openly rebuffed during his own campaign.

His concerns were only exacerbated by the endorsement of Moore by his former chief strategist Steve Bannon, who made a highly visible push for Moore as the anti-GOP-establishment candidate.”

Hosts: Ana Kasparian, Bren Mankiewicz, Michael Shure

Cast: Ana Kasparian, Bren Mankiewicz, Michael Shure

***

The Largest Online News Show in the World. Hosted by Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian. LIVE STREAMING weekdays 6-8pm ET. http://www.tytnetwork.com/live

Young Turk (n), 1. Young progressive or insurgent member of an institution, movement, or political party. 2. Young person who rebels against authority or societal expectations. (American Heritage Dictionary)

Download audio and video of the full two hour show on-demand + the members-only post game show by becoming a member at http://www.tytnetwork.com/join/. Your membership supports the day to day operations and is vital for our continued success and growth.

Another non story!  The successful candidate is still conservative so who really cares!
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: MMJ_fanatic on Oct 10, 2017, 11:00 AM
https://democracynow.org - At a campaign rally in Huntsville, Alabama, on Friday evening, Trump lashed out at players who have joined a growing protest movement started by former 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick against racial injustice, kneeling during the national anthem ahead of games. We get response from former NFL player Donté Stallworth, who spent 10 years in the league and is now a sports commentator, who says, "We can’t allow the president to hijack this conversation and make it all about him."

Democracy Now! is an independent global news hour that airs weekdays on nearly 1,400 TV and radio stations Monday through Friday. Watch our livestream 8-9AM ET: https://democracynow.org


Oh No! Somebody criticized the snowflake NFL players!  I'm not watching a single game this year and I hope my Patriots dynasty doesn't even make a 0.500 record this year.  My country is way more important than these jerks--GO protest on your day off see if you draw any attention.  I mean would you go eat at a restaurant if all the wait staff was rotesting on the job and getting in your face about their issues while you tried to eat?  Nope
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: johnnYYac on Oct 10, 2017, 01:07 PM
albeit with a little help from Comey and Russia.
Come on John!  You can't really still think this was anything but a wholesale repudiation of Hillbilly (and her mysoginist pedophile husband) who also happens to be a hapless leader (check with the families of the Benghazi victims on that one) who lies to cover her own ineptitude!  How do you like Bernie's new houses and that multiple 100K car he tools around in while failing to pay his staff minimum wage?  Meanwhile our wonderful commander in chief is refusing his salary in favor of trying to get Anerica back on track for Americans first.
You're THAT gullible?

http://www.snopes.com/bernie-sanders-audi-8/
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: johnnYYac on Oct 10, 2017, 01:10 PM
"while failing to pay his staff minimum wage"

Those stubborn facts and details...

http://www.snopes.com/sanders-interns-minimum-wage/
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: millerjustin on Oct 10, 2017, 01:21 PM
just wow.  but pretty typical for lots of unfounded Clinton "facts" get thrown around when people ask basic and honest questions about our current President's behavior and abilities (or lack thereof). 

I'd love to hear MMJ Fanatic provide a detailed response outlining the great things Trump has accomplished in 9 months as President.  I'll wait. 

And don't forget the parts about international stability, championing successful legislation, and setting an example for leadership throughout the world?  Oh, and please let's not forget about how he supports racial equality and is so effective in pulling American's together as a people - that's surely going to be the best part!

Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: walterfredo on Oct 10, 2017, 01:48 PM
facts do not matter whatsoever with this administration and its followers. They make up their own, and then those are the new facts. Or as they say...alternate facts.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: MMJ_fanatic on Oct 10, 2017, 03:43 PM
albeit with a little help from Comey and Russia.
Come on John!  You can't really still think this was anything but a wholesale repudiation of Hillbilly (and her mysoginist pedophile husband) who also happens to be a hapless leader (check with the families of the Benghazi victims on that one) who lies to cover her own ineptitude!  How do you like Bernie's new houses and that multiple 100K car he tools around in while failing to pay his staff minimum wage?  Meanwhile our wonderful commander in chief is refusing his salary in favor of trying to get Anerica back on track for Americans first.
You're THAT gullible?

http://www.snopes.com/bernie-sanders-audi-8/
John--SNOPES has been debunked as unreliable c'mon man
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: MMJ_fanatic on Oct 10, 2017, 03:50 PM
just wow.  but pretty typical for lots of unfounded Clinton "facts" get thrown around when people ask basic and honest questions about our current President's behavior and abilities (or lack thereof). 

I'd love to hear MMJ Fanatic provide a detailed response outlining the great things Trump has accomplished in 9 months as President.  I'll wait. 

And don't forget the parts about international stability, championing successful legislation, and setting an example for leadership throughout the world?  Oh, and please let's not forget about how he supports racial equality and is so effective in pulling American's together as a people - that's surely going to be the best part!


How about destroying ISIS with improved rules of engagement?  How about superb disaster response to 3 different hurricane sites?  How about putting himself out there to meet and support the massacre survivors in Las Vegas?  How about policies that are kickstarting the economy and knocking unemployment numbers down to an 8 year low?  How about policies that have put >$4 trillion back into our economy.  Iknow this all news to lots of people who only watch things like the daily show or this week with John watever-his-name-is but hey are just some of the impacts President Trump has had in just 8 months
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: MMJ_fanatic on Oct 10, 2017, 03:51 PM
...alternate facts.

Like the "facts" on Snopes, right?
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: MMJ_fanatic on Oct 10, 2017, 03:52 PM
Not sure one sentence reminding people of the moral and at times political views of MMJ constitutes "rambling". Also, goodbye.
It's Jim's opinion, which he's entitled too, but doesn't mean he's necessarily correct.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: parkervb on Oct 10, 2017, 04:58 PM
albeit with a little help from Comey and Russia.
Come on John!  You can't really still think this was anything but a wholesale repudiation of Hillbilly (and her mysoginist pedophile husband) who also happens to be a hapless leader (check with the families of the Benghazi victims on that one) who lies to cover her own ineptitude!  How do you like Bernie's new houses and that multiple 100K car he tools around in while failing to pay his staff minimum wage?  Meanwhile our wonderful commander in chief is refusing his salary in favor of trying to get Anerica back on track for Americans first.
You're THAT gullible?

http://www.snopes.com/bernie-sanders-audi-8/
John--SNOPES has been debunked as unreliable c'mon man
which reliable source do you get your claims from?
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: parkervb on Oct 10, 2017, 05:15 PM
Based on the videos coming out of PR, I think superb would be a strong word choice. There's a group of vets documenting their work there and they posted a video on Saturday where they stated they only had one meal and 6 bottles of water per family to distribute. Meanwhile, Trump is taking a victory lap on Twitter. (look up Jason Maddy on Facebook to see what I am talking about)

In addition, many of the gains against ISIS began before he took office (the gains in civilian deaths could be contributed to the new ROE as well, the battle for Mosul began Oct and their supposed caliphate had been shrinking for months) and there's no chance he's getting those unemployment #'s without the gains made over the previous 8 years.

And yes, the stock market is way up but he'd be wise to not take credit for it less he want to take the blame when it crashes.

The reduction in border crossings is something I think that can be attributed to DJT-driven policies so I don't want it to seem that I am incapable of giving him credit. I just think any truly honest assessment should account for things that began before he took office. From an economic standpoint, he was handed a far greater situation than his predecessor. I think that's indisputable.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: walterfredo on Oct 10, 2017, 05:16 PM
which reliable source do you get your claims from?

I'm going to go with Russian-funded Facebook adds.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: parkervb on Oct 11, 2017, 10:10 AM
Not sure one sentence reminding people of the moral and at times political views of MMJ constitutes "rambling". Also, goodbye.
It's Jim's opinion, which he's entitled too, but doesn't mean he's necessarily correct.
keep that thought in mind when you're saying things like liberal think is a mental disease...
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: millerjustin on Oct 11, 2017, 10:17 AM
just wow.  but pretty typical for lots of unfounded Clinton "facts" get thrown around when people ask basic and honest questions about our current President's behavior and abilities (or lack thereof). 

I'd love to hear MMJ Fanatic provide a detailed response outlining the great things Trump has accomplished in 9 months as President.  I'll wait. 

And don't forget the parts about international stability, championing successful legislation, and setting an example for leadership throughout the world?  Oh, and please let's not forget about how he supports racial equality and is so effective in pulling American's together as a people - that's surely going to be the best part!


How about destroying ISIS with improved rules of engagement?  How about superb disaster response to 3 different hurricane sites?  How about putting himself out there to meet and support the massacre survivors in Las Vegas?  How about policies that are kickstarting the economy and knocking unemployment numbers down to an 8 year low?  How about policies that have put >$4 trillion back into our economy.  Iknow this all news to lots of people who only watch things like the daily show or this week with John watever-his-name-is but hey are just some of the impacts President Trump has had in just 8 months

yeah, I'm sure tossing paper towels into the press pool saved lots of lives in PR.  And there's nothing any President can do to change the economy in 9 months, so you're pulling that out of your arse (FYI - Trump's first Federal Budget year just started, so Obama's policies have driven any and ALL statistics until about a month ago).

I'm not going to get sucked into this any further, man - I just feel sad that you're somehow inclined to defend Trump - and how this squares with being a fan of Jim James baffles me.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: Taterbug on Oct 11, 2017, 12:53 PM
“You also had some very fine people on both sides,”   

That's all I got  :)

Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: johnnYYac on Oct 11, 2017, 03:11 PM
albeit with a little help from Comey and Russia.
Come on John!  You can't really still think this was anything but a wholesale repudiation of Hillbilly (and her mysoginist pedophile husband) who also happens to be a hapless leader (check with the families of the Benghazi victims on that one) who lies to cover her own ineptitude!  How do you like Bernie's new houses and that multiple 100K car he tools around in while failing to pay his staff minimum wage?  Meanwhile our wonderful commander in chief is refusing his salary in favor of trying to get Anerica back on track for Americans first.
You're THAT gullible?

http://www.snopes.com/bernie-sanders-audi-8/
John--SNOPES has been debunked as unreliable c'mon man
By who? Answer: everyone, which suggests to me they are dismissed by folks like you who get their weak points exposed as bullshit.

http://www.snopes.com/info/notes/politics.asp

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/snopescom/
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: MMJ_fanatic on Oct 11, 2017, 03:12 PM
just wow.  but pretty typical for lots of unfounded Clinton "facts" get thrown around when people ask basic and honest questions about our current President's behavior and abilities (or lack thereof). 

I'd love to hear MMJ Fanatic provide a detailed response outlining the great things Trump has accomplished in 9 months as President.  I'll wait. 

And don't forget the parts about international stability, championing successful legislation, and setting an example for leadership throughout the world?  Oh, and please let's not forget about how he supports racial equality and is so effective in pulling American's together as a people - that's surely going to be the best part!


How about destroying ISIS with improved rules of engagement?  How about superb disaster response to 3 different hurricane sites?  How about putting himself out there to meet and support the massacre survivors in Las Vegas?  How about policies that are kickstarting the economy and knocking unemployment numbers down to an 8 year low?  How about policies that have put >$4 trillion back into our economy.  Iknow this all news to lots of people who only watch things like the daily show or this week with John watever-his-name-is but hey are just some of the impacts President Trump has had in just 8 months

yeah, I'm sure tossing paper towels into the press pool saved lots of lives in PR.  And there's nothing any President can do to change the economy in 9 months, so you're pulling that out of your arse (FYI - Trump's first Federal Budget year just started, so Obama's policies have driven any and ALL statistics until about a month ago).

I'm not going to get sucked into this any further, man - I just feel sad that you're somehow inclined to defend Trump - and how this squares with being a fan of Jim James baffles me.
You're flat wrong--he's made many changes the economy is responding positively too--go check Stuart Varney's website if you think the 4+ trillion number is a figment. 
Not sure what you're smoking to issue a comment like that about being a fan and being conservative but opinions, as they say, are like assholes--"if you wanna come off like one feel free to attack people personally when you disagree with facts they present that challenge your vesion of reality"
I've been here on this forum and promoting MMJ a lot longer than you so you can take your judgment about me as a fan a shove it all the way to your molars.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: MMJ_fanatic on Oct 11, 2017, 03:13 PM
albeit with a little help from Comey and Russia.
Come on John!  You can't really still think this was anything but a wholesale repudiation of Hillbilly (and her mysoginist pedophile husband) who also happens to be a hapless leader (check with the families of the Benghazi victims on that one) who lies to cover her own ineptitude!  How do you like Bernie's new houses and that multiple 100K car he tools around in while failing to pay his staff minimum wage?  Meanwhile our wonderful commander in chief is refusing his salary in favor of trying to get Anerica back on track for Americans first.
You're THAT gullible?

http://www.snopes.com/bernie-sanders-audi-8/
John--SNOPES has been debunked as unreliable c'mon man
By who? Answer: everyone, which suggests to me they are dismissed by folks like you who get their weak points exposed as bullshit.

http://www.snopes.com/info/notes/politics.asp
They are flat unreliable and biased :
https://wearechange.org/shady-fact-checking-sources-snopes-politifact-debunked/
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: MMJ_fanatic on Oct 11, 2017, 03:23 PM
Not sure one sentence reminding people of the moral and at times political views of MMJ constitutes "rambling". Also, goodbye.
It's Jim's opinion, which he's entitled too, but doesn't mean he's necessarily correct.
keep that thought in mind when you're saying things like liberal think is a mental disease...

Sorry but all these posts insinuating that fans of the band who hold the same views politically as the band does are somehow magically superior to those who have differing opinions is just ridiculous and specious.  The point of this site (used to be) celebrating the greatness of this magical group and it worked.  Somewhere the site decided to let this type of thread in and that the majority of forums ban:  political threads.  Nuff said let's all get back to MMJ love
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: johnnYYac on Oct 11, 2017, 03:41 PM
FYI, I've merged the two political threads into this one.

I agree that political discourse, or whatever these last few days have been, might not be welcomed on a forum dedicated to My Morning Jacket. However, the 1st Amendment exists and many fans of MMJ are politically active and opinionated.

As always, keep it respectful and keep it here.

Oh, and Trump sucks bigly!

Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: millerjustin on Oct 12, 2017, 12:41 PM
just wow.  but pretty typical for lots of unfounded Clinton "facts" get thrown around when people ask basic and honest questions about our current President's behavior and abilities (or lack thereof). 

I'd love to hear MMJ Fanatic provide a detailed response outlining the great things Trump has accomplished in 9 months as President.  I'll wait. 

And don't forget the parts about international stability, championing successful legislation, and setting an example for leadership throughout the world?  Oh, and please let's not forget about how he supports racial equality and is so effective in pulling American's together as a people - that's surely going to be the best part!


How about destroying ISIS with improved rules of engagement?  How about superb disaster response to 3 different hurricane sites?  How about putting himself out there to meet and support the massacre survivors in Las Vegas?  How about policies that are kickstarting the economy and knocking unemployment numbers down to an 8 year low?  How about policies that have put >$4 trillion back into our economy.  Iknow this all news to lots of people who only watch things like the daily show or this week with John watever-his-name-is but hey are just some of the impacts President Trump has had in just 8 months

yeah, I'm sure tossing paper towels into the press pool saved lots of lives in PR.  And there's nothing any President can do to change the economy in 9 months, so you're pulling that out of your arse (FYI - Trump's first Federal Budget year just started, so Obama's policies have driven any and ALL statistics until about a month ago).

I'm not going to get sucked into this any further, man - I just feel sad that you're somehow inclined to defend Trump - and how this squares with being a fan of Jim James baffles me.
You're flat wrong--he's made many changes the economy is responding positively too--go check Stuart Varney's website if you think the 4+ trillion number is a figment. 
Not sure what you're smoking to issue a comment like that about being a fan and being conservative but opinions, as they say, are like assholes--"if you wanna come off like one feel free to attack people personally when you disagree with facts they present that challenge your vesion of reality"
I've been here on this forum and promoting MMJ a lot longer than you so you can take your judgment about me as a fan a shove it all the way to your molars.

I live in Albany - feel free to stop by any time and we can finish this discussion in person.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: millerjustin on Oct 12, 2017, 01:40 PM
millerjustin, seems the white supremacist sympathizer/enabler who keeps denigrating people who don't seem to want to jump on the racist/nationalistic bandwagon they are espousing is having a moment of psychic crisis/breakdown right now. They are engaging in a lot of projection. I've never tried to brag on here as to what kind of super-fan I may or may not be, however, they seemed to be convinced that my simple comments reminding them (and anyone else who might not know or remember) that all the members of MMJ (and most of the bands, friends, family members they hang out with) are against racist, sexist, xenophobic, bigoted, Drumpf. I was making this point to emphasize the fact that dogging and degrading the mass amount of MMJ fans on here who are either liberal, left-leaning, or even Progressive, is suggesting they are idiots and fools and need to forget what they know to be the truth and fall in line with the new racist ideology that has gained temporary control of our national government. I never said I'm a superior fan or even mentioned anything remotely approaching this. I never said I was better than anyone else or have done anything to support MMJ more than them. Seems they were heavily involved with the early promotion and success of MMJ (said so in a couple of posts/replies), so I must bow to their seniority.

I've got to get back to work but will revisit this a bit later.

yeah, apparently getting into MMJ first totally rationalizes any viewpoint and belligerent behavior, right? 

Thanks Mr. White - we're on the same page buddy.  No need to engage with this fool any more.  The most likely ironic part is that he's advocating against his own self-interests and/or overcompensating for inherent racist leanings (and/or Trump-like hands lol)
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: johnnYYac on Oct 12, 2017, 04:06 PM
The thing is, I've always liked MMJ_fanatic as a Jacket fan and Forum pal. He's a fellow New Englander and I'm pretty sure we've met before. We can still use our shared love of MMJ as the basis of a friendship, despite disagreeing about politics.

Still, this is a My Morning Jacket fan forum, and the band is politically active. Having one thread to contain political discussions and debate seems reasonable.

One thing I've learned is that even liberals need to get out of their bubble, try to coax conservatives out of theirs, and have a dialog to find common ground. I don't believe the mainstream media is "fake", but we should free ourselves from 24 hour "Breaking News" and listen to each other... with love and respect.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: millerjustin on Oct 12, 2017, 04:42 PM
The thing is, I've always liked MMJ_fanatic as a Jacket fan and Forum pal. He's a fellow New Englander and I'm pretty sure we've met before. We can still use our shared love of MMJ as the basis of a friendship, despite disagreeing about politics.

Still, this is a My Morning Jacket fan forum, and the band is politically active. Having one thread to contain political discussions and debate seems reasonable.

One thing I've learned is that even liberals need to get out of their bubble, try to coax conservatives out of theirs, and have a dialog to find common ground. I don't believe the mainstream media is "fake", but we should free ourselves from 24 hour "Breaking News" and listen to each other... with love and respect.

AMEN John!  thx for the reminder - I wasn't being the person Jim knows I can be lol
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: walterfredo on Oct 20, 2017, 02:33 AM
Most of us believe that this is wrong.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: walterfredo on Dec 12, 2017, 10:38 PM
Well done Alabama! It appears only 49% of you want a pedophile...who thinks homosexuality should be a crime, and Muslims should be banned from the govt, and that all the amendments after the 10th should be repealed...representing you. Impressive.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: MMJ_fanatic on Jan 22, 2018, 04:04 PM



And there's nothing any President can do to change the economy in 9 months,

I'm not going to get sucked into this any further, man - I just feel sad that you're somehow inclined to defend Trump - and how this squares with being a fan of Jim James baffles me.



I live in Albany - feel free to stop by any time and we can finish this discussion in person.

Again you're just flat wrongg--all of the policy changes he's brought, taking the handcuffs of industry has done nothing if not build the consumer confidence and drive these market surges--my 401k is a testimony. 
As far as where you live--I could give a shit.  I live in Oxford MA whoo hoo come get me snowflake

The whole point about fandom was you all attacking me for having my own opinions, that don't necessarily line up with Jim James and "How can you possibly be a fan".....well that's a bullshit attack as big as any liberal bullshit attacke I've ever heard.  Try read back in the thread before attacking to maybe see where I was trying to persuade the staff here to avoid political threads as so many of the other forums I visit do, so we can focus on the band, their greatness, and wonder of good music
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: MMJ_fanatic on Jan 22, 2018, 04:06 PM


Sorry but all these posts insinuating that fans of the band who hold the same views politically as the band does are somehow magically superior to those who have differing opinions is just ridiculous and specious.  The point of this site (used to be) celebrating the greatness of this magical group and it worked.  Somewhere the site decided to let this type of thread in and that the majority of forums ban:  political threads.  Nuff said let's all get back to MMJ love

Here's just a reminder
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: walterfredo on Jan 22, 2018, 08:34 PM
if you're happy with the current state of our economy, and the health of your 401K, you can thank the Obama administration.

Trump inherited a healthy, strong economy surging upward. Just like Obama inherited an economy in shambles which had nothing to do with him and everything to do with the previous administration. Of course Trump likes to take credit for it. He likes to take all credit for the good things, and blame the past administration for all the not-so-good things.

Anyhow, we should be thankful for the previous administration for the current health of our economy.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: MMJ_fanatic on Jan 23, 2018, 06:57 AM
if you're happy with the current state of our economy, and the health of your 401K, you can thank the Obama administration.

Trump inherited a healthy, strong economy surging upward. Just like Obama inherited an economy in shambles which had nothing to do with him and everything to do with the previous administration. Of course Trump likes to take credit for it. He likes to take all credit for the good things, and blame the past administration for all the not-so-good things.

Anyhow, we should be thankful for the previous administration for the current health of our economy.

INCORRECT  All the executive orders and industry restricitions Obummer put in place was choking off industry.  With the measures President Trump has taken the markets are feeling more confident about Ameircan industry now that companies are bringing jobs back to the states period, but by all means fantasize that the community organizer who's never run a business magically fixed the economy by choking  off industry with regulation good luck.  P.S.--remember Hillary saying she was going to kill coal jobs, well Guess what?  PRESIDENT Trump prevented that and is even hading their keys back to them so thay can run full throttle.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: walterfredo on Jan 23, 2018, 10:25 AM
Why I even responded, I do not know. Clearly you know better than the majority of respected economists.

Let me guess, all these scientists are wrong about climate change too?
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: walterfredo on Oct 05, 2018, 11:03 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=60&v=iphKlXj-kyE
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: parkervb on Oct 08, 2018, 10:19 AM
if you're happy with the current state of our economy, and the health of your 401K, you can thank the Obama administration.

Trump inherited a healthy, strong economy surging upward. Just like Obama inherited an economy in shambles which had nothing to do with him and everything to do with the previous administration. Of course Trump likes to take credit for it. He likes to take all credit for the good things, and blame the past administration for all the not-so-good things.

Anyhow, we should be thankful for the previous administration for the current health of our economy.

INCORRECT  All the executive orders and industry restricitions Obummer put in place was choking off industry.  With the measures President Trump has taken the markets are feeling more confident about Ameircan industry now that companies are bringing jobs back to the states period, but by all means fantasize that the community organizer who's never run a business magically fixed the economy by choking  off industry with regulation good luck.  P.S.--remember Hillary saying she was going to kill coal jobs, well Guess what?  PRESIDENT Trump prevented that and is even hading their keys back to them so thay can run full throttle.

just so we're clear on coal....it's added 2k jobs this year.

The total jobs is about 53k so even at full throttle they won't even keep pace with the legal cannabis industry at 121k jobs (that just so happens is being threatened under the Trump Admin).

Natural gas killed coal, not Obama. But you're not trying to hear that are you?
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: APR on Oct 08, 2018, 11:32 PM
if you're happy with the current state of our economy, and the health of your 401K, you can thank the Obama administration.

Trump inherited a healthy, strong economy surging upward. Just like Obama inherited an economy in shambles which had nothing to do with him and everything to do with the previous administration. Of course Trump likes to take credit for it. He likes to take all credit for the good things, and blame the past administration for all the not-so-good things.

Anyhow, we should be thankful for the previous administration for the current health of our economy.

INCORRECT  All the executive orders and industry restricitions Obummer put in place was choking off industry.  With the measures President Trump has taken the markets are feeling more confident about Ameircan industry now that companies are bringing jobs back to the states period, but by all means fantasize that the community organizer who's never run a business magically fixed the economy by choking  off industry with regulation good luck.  P.S.--remember Hillary saying she was going to kill coal jobs, well Guess what?  PRESIDENT Trump prevented that and is even hading their keys back to them so thay can run full throttle.

just so we're clear on coal....it's added 2k jobs this year.

The total jobs is about 53k so even at full throttle they won't even keep pace with the legal cannabis industry at 121k jobs (that just so happens is being threatened under the Trump Admin).

Natural gas killed coal, not Obama. But you're not trying to hear that are you?


Would be future coal miners will live a longer, healthier lives by simply not working in the mines when demand dwindles naturally.  The market and the world (like most of  Europe already) will drift away from coal naturally and eventually just because technology that isn't a century old will be cheaper and healthier for the workers and the rest of society.  Will a political party artificially boost pay phone booth building contractors and VHS tape suppliers to save those jobs too?
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: walterfredo on Nov 21, 2018, 07:52 PM
I lived in Chico for many years, and my old roommate and very good friend lost his home in Paradise. This fire has really hit home for me as I have strong ties to the area. How anyone can make something so devastating and deadly into a political shitshow is truly beyond me. Rake  the forest? Way to go genius. Brilliant.

And really, this????

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2018/nov/19/pleasure-what-a-name-trump-confused-over-fire-hit-town-paradise-video

Is there a bigger complete fuck-wad on this entire earth?
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: sillyboob on Nov 22, 2018, 06:06 PM
Nope.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: walterfredo on Nov 26, 2018, 09:45 PM
Holy shit! He tweeted today suggesting a state-run media network. This just insane. And f’n terrifying.
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: sillyboob on Nov 27, 2018, 10:37 AM
Holy shit! He tweeted today suggesting a state-run media network. This just insane. And f’n terrifying.

Ministry of Truth
Title: Re: DANGER! - Political Thread
Post by: iLikeBeer on Nov 28, 2018, 12:13 PM
Holy shit! He tweeted today suggesting a state-run media network. This just insane. And f’n terrifying.
Holy shit! He tweeted today suggesting a state-run media network. This just insane. And f’n terrifying.
No wonder this dipshit seems to get along so well with Kim Jong il?!?!