|
On August 17 2011 05:47 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 05:45 TheGlassface wrote:
How many of these people signed that pledge for no new taxes?
Does anyone here know? During the Fox News debate each and every one (Perry wasn't there but 1000000% chance he is anti taxes based on what he has said and done) said they wouldn't take a deal that was 10 to 1 Spending cuts to Tax increases. They are all against it.
I guarantee you that some, if not all of them, would take a 10 to 1 deal, particularly if it involved significant tax reform (ie not just raising rates necessarily, but significantly adjusting the tax structure). They just can't say they would would take that deal right now because it would end their campaigns immediately. The next day someone would be screaming from the rooftops that X candidate wanted to raise everyone's taxes. I don't really blame them for avoiding political suicide.
...and before any of you say, "well that's hypocritical/disingenuous," don't pretend that democrats don't do the same thing all of the time. In fact, they're ultimately doing the same thing right now whenever they say that they'll never touch Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. They've already broken that pledge by passing Obamacare and stripping $500 billion from Medicare. They've also done it in the recent debt deal (go look at the automatic cuts if the super-committee fails). They'll do it again in the near future out of necessity.
|
Oh I absolutely agree with that. They had to raise their hands during the debate just because of the audience. Things will change once they have to appeal to a wider audience in the general (where i'm sure this clip will be played).
I'm not sure about Perry though. I honestly think he is so against taxes and so entrenched in his position that he is the one who could actually turn down the deal no matter what.
|
On August 17 2011 05:19 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 04:47 abominare wrote:On August 17 2011 03:45 GameTime wrote:
For me, Paul supports:
-Lowering taxes
-Actually cutting spending in entitlement programs
-Ending all our wars
-Dramatically reducing our military presence around the world/Not policing the world
-Putting America back on the gold standard/fighting inflation
-The constitution
He opposes:
-Bailouts
-Quantitative Easing
-The new health care bill
-Big government
He has a proven track record in congress and is the most consistent candidate in this whole race. I don't see how you don't vote for him, no one else even comes close. Because I wont go in to how ron paul is a disaster with economics. Heres some less cheery facts about him. Ron Paul Is For: Abolishing Public Education Allowing states to create fundamentalist governments and imposing mandatory religion Destroying America's ability to trade with foreign nations Ron Paul is Against: The 14th Amendment The 1st Amendment The 17th Amendment The man is a complete loon, for some one who talks about the constitution so much he has serious issues with it. Hes classified often as a libertarian, but the better classification is that hes a fundamental neo-confederate. He's a complete nut. He's against them because there's been many cases where the Federal government has intruded on private lives as a result of them. The man believes in States rights to decide things like freedom of religion, privacy, sexual behaviour and so on and so forth. He has reason for resisting them, not because he's just a 'loon'. The man is fiercely pro-life and anti-abortion, yet believes the States have the right to make those decisions. I have absolutely nothing but respect for a person that can sit in the political theatre and admit something like that.
Just because you can deem a reason to your insanity doesn't make it a legitimate cause. The insanity here is he thinks its unconstitutional (rather we should ignore the constitution) that the federal government has a role in protecting the rights of its citizens and that state governments should be allowed to trample whatever rights they feel like.
It's insanity because people clamoring to states rights lost the debate during the framing of the constitution and then 80 years later lost one of the bloodiest wars in American history over the same damn idea, that states have the right to limit and take away rights of citizens.
States have proven time and time again that they're terrible stewards of rights just as the framers realized when they were writing the constitution, and this asshole has the audacity to evoke their names on his crusade to destroy the rights of americans.
|
Just thinking about the election gets me all worried and I start theory crafting.
Being a moderate-liberal I would want the least electable republican candidate to win the primary. Someone like Bachman, who Obama would have the easiest time campaigning against. But then again, I shudder to think of the consequence if Bachman somehow actually beat him in the general election.
It's like gambling lol. Either a moderate-republican wins the primary, someone who has a better chance of winning but someone I could live with in the white house. Or a radical republican wins the primary, someone who is a longshot against Obama but someone whos potential in the white house scares the fuck out of me.
|
On August 17 2011 05:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 05:47 On_Slaught wrote:On August 17 2011 05:45 TheGlassface wrote:
How many of these people signed that pledge for no new taxes?
Does anyone here know? During the Fox News debate each and every one (Perry wasn't there but 1000000% chance he is anti taxes based on what he has said and done) said they wouldn't take a deal that was 10 to 1 Spending cuts to Tax increases. They are all against it. I guarantee you that some, if not all of them, would take a 10 to 1 deal, particularly if it involved significant tax reform (ie not just raising rates necessarily, but significantly adjusting the tax structure). They just can't say they would would take that deal right now because it would end their campaigns immediately. The next day someone would be screaming from the rooftops that X candidate wanted to raise everyone's taxes. I don't really blame them for avoiding political suicide. ...and before any of you say, "well that's hypocritical/disingenuous," don't pretend that democrats don't do the same thing all of the time. In fact, they're ultimately doing the same thing right now whenever they say that they'll never touch Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. They've already broken that pledge by passing Obamacare and stripping $500 billion from Medicare. They've also done it in the recent debt deal (go look at the automatic cuts if the super-committee fails). They'll do it again in the near future out of necessity.
Yah but even if presented the opportunity, they will still reject it. Republican party is now being overrun with political extremists to the point where the Speaker and Party Whip have trouble passing their own bill.
|
On August 17 2011 03:41 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 01:36 Bacon-X wrote:
I just took a political science class. We were taught that the higher you go with education (ex. Phd, or a doctorate) the more liberal you become. This pretty much says republicans are stupid. So, this is what you were "taught", huh ? Did you apply any critical thinking of your own ? How about: Consider some of the greatest minds and success stories throughout history. Were they "highly educated" by the system, or were they self-educated, such as Abraham Lincoln, Bill Gates, Albert Einstein, etc. I'm not convinced that the most intelligent people are the ones with the PhD's, but the ones with the best ideas.
Bill Gates went to Harvard. Albert Einstein had a PhD from the University of Zurich. There are certainly intelligent people without PhDs, but PhDs are what so often gives them the base of knowledge they need to come up with NEW ideas in their field.
PhD's require large amounts of money being invested in not only the education itself, but in the opportunity cost of delaying the commencement of an income-earning career. Conservatives are more ... fiscally conservative and are less likely to take that option. Does that choice make conservatives inherently stupid ? I think not. How many "highly educated" liberals are unable to find work these days ? Do you think they are pissed that they can't get jobs because "stupid" Republicans took their jobs while they were pursuing their "advanced degrees" ?
What are the fields of study in which PhD's are commonplace ? The areas where people pursue PhD's are either planning to become teachers (professors) in that area or they are involved in social services, etc. These are not the job creation types. On the other hand, business-related areas of study have little use for PhD to enter the workplace. PhD's in these areas are mainly only needed to become professors. Do you need a PhD in computer science to become successful in that area ? Nope. Spanning across the various areas of study relating to learning a field and getting out there and making a living, a PhD is not only not required, but a waste of time and money.
Here you are betrayed by your ignorance of the education system, as you completely ignore the overwhelming number one reason people pursue PhDs: research. (Also, do you even know what Social Services means? I'm not convinced you do...) You're correct that you don't need a PhD in Computer Science to get a job in computer science. Hell, you don't even really need a bachelor's to be a code monkey. But you are completely wrong in assuming that these people are creating jobs or that people with PhDs do not. Bill Gates is a one in a million success story; the reality is that the vast majority of people with no more than a bachelor's degree do not employ anyone and are responsible for exactly 0 jobs created, ever. On the other hand, PhD powered research, whether conducted publicly at a research university or privately at a place like Bell Labs is responsible for spawning entire INDUSTRIES and creating MILLIONS of jobs in this country alone. Among other things, research at Bell Labs has resulted in the creation of the transistor (without which modern computers would not exist), the laser, the C programming language and it's derivative, C++ (The two languages that power most of the world's computer programs), and the CCD sensor (the type of circuit that detects the image in nearly every digital camera in the world). By their nature, PhD research results in the creation of NEW knowledge in a field, the practical applications of which very often result in industry growth and job creation. The PhDs may not in every case be directly employing the people working in their field, but make no mistake, if it wasn't for them, there wouldn't be a field at all.
Also, your "theory" that the higher educated are losing jobs and wages to the lower educated is pretty much flat-out wrong. Unemployment and Wages by Education Level.
Finally, has anyone who thinks Republicans are stupid ever just stopped to consider why so many people are Republican ? It can't be just the rich because the richest 1% pay more income taxes than 95% of the population, and there are far more Repubs than just 1% that don't want income taxes raised. Is it because Republicans tend to understand that raising corporate tax rates simply makes American companies less competitive than their foreign rivals ? Is it because Republicans tend to understand that most of the job creation in this country is through small business and Democratic regulation and desire to raise taxes makes it much more difficult for small businesses to operate and grow in this country ? Is it because Republicans tend to understand that all the restrictions on oil drilling in this country, not only hurts the employment of Americans in that sector of the economy, but forces us to pay other countries to drill in their own land and off-shore instead of retaining that income in the U.S. ?
None of these areas require higher education to understand, but an ability to think for yourself instead of what you were "taught" in your one political science class.
I'm pretty sure most Republicans don't understand these things at all, some of which have some truth to them, some of which don't. I'm pretty sure most Republicans are Republicans because they are either evangelical Christians who are completely against abortion and teaching evolution and caring for the environment and think Democrats are the devil, or because they've been convinced that they're living in a dreamworld where trickle-down economics is effective at producing economic growth.
|
Everytime I think of Ron Paul...I think of the movie Bruno. 
|
So many of these people are actually insane, but from what I've seen Cain takes the prize. Hoping he gets the nomination... that will be one hell of a show. haha
Who's considered candidates who can possibly go all the way so far? I know Bachmann won the first whatever and Romney has one of the strongest financial positions.
|
United States44230 Posts
On August 17 2011 05:57 thehitman wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 05:22 Turenne wrote:On August 17 2011 05:20 thehitman wrote:On August 17 2011 05:11 OsoVega wrote:
I'm quite conflicted to be honest. I am a supporter or Ron Paul's economic and social policies but not his foreign policy. What is so great about occupying countries and killing innocent woman and children? Don't say terrorists, because it has always been the USA putting people in power in the middle east and it was the USA that created the mujahedins. Even if real "terrorists" wanted to kill Americans its because USA is there occupying their land. Just as you would be pissed if the Germans or whoever occupied Canada and bombed you 24/7 for 10 years. USA is responsible for putting Saddam, Musharik, Gaddafi, etc... in power. The USA with NATO backed allies appointed all the people in power there. And if you actually go to Afghanistan you would actually see that they are as generous and normal people as anybody. You can even talk English openly and there is 0% of an aggression from anyone. The ones who may have a wish to kill Americans are people who've lost their whole families, houses, livestock and everything else to one of the plane attacks and have nothing left to live for, so they want revenge on Americans for destroying his whole life. Proof please. http://www.foil.org/resources/9-11/Brzezinski-980115-interview.htmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein"Iraq was a strategic buffer state for the United States against the Soviet Union, and Saddam was often seen as an anti-Soviet leader in the 1960s and 1970s. Some even suggested that John F. Kennedy's administration supported the Ba'ath party's takeover.[26] Although Saddam was al-Bakr's deputy, he was a strong behind-the-scenes party politician. Al-Bakr was the older and more prestigious of the two, but by 1969 Saddam Hussein clearly had become the moving force behind the party." http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/![[image loading]](http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg) http://links.org.au/node/2179European leaders flocked to Libya with greedy businesspeople hanging on to their coat tails and before long several European oil companies were back in business, with banks, airlines and hotel chains following. Former British Labour PM Tony Blair and scandal-plagued, right-wing Italian President Silvio Berlusconi played leading roles in the process.- Apart from the first few lines of propaganda and obvious dramatization the rest of the article is 99% accurate. Better get educated about the massive fraud that is going on in the USA and half of the European Union countries. And this fraud is purported by the business elites, the massively corrupt politicians. Right now its worst in the USA and Britain.
The US very much did not put Gaddafi in power. They liked the previous monarchy, Gadaffi spent most of his time in power trying to spread pan-Arabicism and hating on the West. He funded terrorism, Arab extremism and Muslim extremism. He gave real military aid to the IRA in Ireland and sponsored other warlords in Africa. About the only thing he wasn't was a communist which was enough to keep him from getting forcefully ousted from power. However it didn't stop attempts on his life made by the west. The US has their fair share of puppets in oil rich regimes but Gadaffi is not one of them.
The fact that he's tried to rewrite his image in the last decade and had some photos taken with Blair doesn't erase the 40 years previous to that.
|
On August 17 2011 05:27 Uncultured wrote:
If we don't get Paul into office I've lost faith in humanity.
Never give up, never surrender 
On August 17 2011 06:04 GrimmJ wrote:Everytime I think of Ron Paul...I think of the movie Bruno.
lol
|
It truly is a pathetic line up.
Republicans shouldnt even try to win anyway. THe next 5 years are going to suck. They should just sit it out and cruise in easily in 2016.
|
On August 17 2011 05:59 On_Slaught wrote:
Oh I absolutely agree with that. They had to raise their hands during the debate just because of the audience. Things will change once they have to appeal to a wider audience in the general (where i'm sure this clip will be played).
I'm not sure about Perry though. I honestly think he is so against taxes and so entrenched in his position that he is the one who could actually turn down the deal no matter what.
Rick Perry is my governor. Thats right I'm a Texan. Let me teach you about how politics in Texas work. Every couple years we vote for a new governor, a job that has exceedingly little power compared to of governor jobs in the country (we rank about 48-49 in terms power of governors)Nonetheless you can still cause some serious damage in that position.
The only requirement to run for governor is that you be the sleeziest, dirtiest, most corrupt and generally douchiest person in the state. Having collected the names of 3 or 4 douches we attempt to pick the least of the three* (that way you can always say atleast we didn't elect that jerk)
Despite how scummy and corrupt that man is, his only opponents have been worse an thus the only real way we can get him out of that position with clear conscience is promote him, to president of the united states.
So in short, sorry guys but we need him out of here.
P.S. It was the same reasoning for getting George W. Bush out of the governor seat and into the whitehouse.
*the fourth is a democrat but we arent allowed to vote for them in the general election
|
On August 17 2011 05:43 Cloud9157 wrote:
Oh, and btw, Huntsman will not run against Obama. Tradition is that the president is never ran against by his own party, and I don't think Democrats will let that happen.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here, but Huntsman is a Republican.
|
On August 17 2011 06:02 jcarlson08 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 03:41 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 01:36 Bacon-X wrote:
I just took a political science class. We were taught that the higher you go with education (ex. Phd, or a doctorate) the more liberal you become. This pretty much says republicans are stupid. So, this is what you were "taught", huh ? Did you apply any critical thinking of your own ? How about: Consider some of the greatest minds and success stories throughout history. Were they "highly educated" by the system, or were they self-educated, such as Abraham Lincoln, Bill Gates, Albert Einstein, etc. I'm not convinced that the most intelligent people are the ones with the PhD's, but the ones with the best ideas. Bill Gates went to Harvard. Albert Einstein had a PhD from the University of Zurich. There are certainly intelligent people without PhDs, but PhDs are what so often gives them the base of knowledge they need to come up with NEW ideas in their field. Show nested quote +
PhD's require large amounts of money being invested in not only the education itself, but in the opportunity cost of delaying the commencement of an income-earning career. Conservatives are more ... fiscally conservative and are less likely to take that option. Does that choice make conservatives inherently stupid ? I think not. How many "highly educated" liberals are unable to find work these days ? Do you think they are pissed that they can't get jobs because "stupid" Republicans took their jobs while they were pursuing their "advanced degrees" ?
What are the fields of study in which PhD's are commonplace ? The areas where people pursue PhD's are either planning to become teachers (professors) in that area or they are involved in social services, etc. These are not the job creation types. On the other hand, business-related areas of study have little use for PhD to enter the workplace. PhD's in these areas are mainly only needed to become professors. Do you need a PhD in computer science to become successful in that area ? Nope. Spanning across the various areas of study relating to learning a field and getting out there and making a living, a PhD is not only not required, but a waste of time and money.
Here you are betrayed by your ignorance of the education system, as you completely ignore the overwhelming number one reason people pursue PhDs: research. (Also, do you even know what Social Services means? I'm not convinced you do...) You're correct that you don't need a PhD in Computer Science to get a job in computer science. Hell, you don't even really need a bachelor's to be a code monkey. But you are completely wrong in assuming that these people are creating jobs or that people with PhDs do not. Bill Gates is a one in a million success story; the reality is that the vast majority of people with no more than a bachelor's degree do not employ anyone and are responsible for exactly 0 jobs created, ever. On the other hand, PhD powered research, whether conducted publicly at a research university or privately at a place like Bell Labs is responsible for spawning entire INDUSTRIES and creating MILLIONS of jobs in this country alone. Among other things, research at Bell Labs has resulted in the creation of the transistor (without which modern computers would not exist), the laser, the C programming language and it's derivative, C++ (The two languages that power most of the world's computer programs), and the CCD sensor (the type of circuit that detects the image in nearly every digital camera in the world). By their nature, PhD research results in the creation of NEW knowledge in a field, the practical applications of which very often result in industry growth and job creation. The PhDs may not in every case be directly employing the people working in their field, but make no mistake, if it wasn't for them, there wouldn't be a field at all. Also, your "theory" that the higher educated are losing jobs and wages to the lower educated is pretty much flat-out wrong. Unemployment and Wages by Education Level. Show nested quote +
Finally, has anyone who thinks Republicans are stupid ever just stopped to consider why so many people are Republican ? It can't be just the rich because the richest 1% pay more income taxes than 95% of the population, and there are far more Repubs than just 1% that don't want income taxes raised. Is it because Republicans tend to understand that raising corporate tax rates simply makes American companies less competitive than their foreign rivals ? Is it because Republicans tend to understand that most of the job creation in this country is through small business and Democratic regulation and desire to raise taxes makes it much more difficult for small businesses to operate and grow in this country ? Is it because Republicans tend to understand that all the restrictions on oil drilling in this country, not only hurts the employment of Americans in that sector of the economy, but forces us to pay other countries to drill in their own land and off-shore instead of retaining that income in the U.S. ?
None of these areas require higher education to understand, but an ability to think for yourself instead of what you were "taught" in your one political science class.
I'm pretty sure most Republicans don't understand these things at all, some of which have some truth to them, some of which don't. I'm pretty sure most Republicans are Republicans because they are either evangelical Christians who are completely against abortion and teaching evolution and caring for the environment and think Democrats are the devil, or because they've been convinced that they're living in a dreamworld where trickle-down economics is effective at producing economic growth.
Just regarding the intelligence correlation to education: my understanding of it is actually that it's strongly dependent upon the topic of study as well. For obvious reasons, PhD candidates in economics/business tend to be substantially more conservative than an average biology grad student.
I'm not questioning the general existence of the correlation, but your presentation of it is unnecessarily aggressive. In the words of Lars-Erik Nelson, "The problem is not liberalism. The problem is not conservatism. The problem is bullshit."
|
On August 17 2011 06:02 jcarlson08 wrote:
Here you are betrayed by your ignorance of the education system, as you completely ignore the overwhelming number one reason people pursue PhDs: research. (Also, do you even know what Social Services means? I'm not convinced you do...) You're correct that you don't need a PhD in Computer Science to get a job in computer science. Hell, you don't even really need a bachelor's to be a code monkey. But you are completely wrong in assuming that these people are creating jobs or that people with PhDs do not.
There are many small businesses engaged in software engineering across this country, and they provide jobs, as small businesses tend to do.
Bill Gates is a one in a million success story; the reality is that the vast majority of people with no more than a bachelor's degree do not employ anyone and are responsible for exactly 0 jobs created, ever. On the other hand, PhD powered research, whether conducted publicly at a research university or privately at a place like Bell Labs is responsible for spawning entire INDUSTRIES and creating MILLIONS of jobs in this country alone. Among other things, research at Bell Labs has resulted in the creation of the transistor (without which modern computers would not exist), the laser, the C programming language and it's derivative, C++ (The two languages that power most of the world's computer programs), and the CCD sensor (the type of circuit that detects the image in nearly every digital camera in the world). By their nature, PhD research results in the creation of NEW knowledge in a field, the practical applications of which very often result in industry growth and job creation. The PhDs may not in every case be directly employing the people working in their field, but make no mistake, if it wasn't for them, there wouldn't be a field at all.
You refer to Bell Labs R&D to prove that people pursuing PhD's generate jobs ? Those jobs are created by Bell Labs.
|
On August 17 2011 05:38 Xinder wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 04:53 Multifail wrote:
Obama could have been one of the nation's best presidents, the timing for him is just horrible and timing is everything in politics (as in most things), and he knew that going in to it. But for most people, the fact that the US economy is still in trouble is his fault, even though it is more a problem of eight years of stupid combined with the fact that most Americans are just plain uncompetitive in a global economy. $20 bills didn't start growing in their garden a year after he was elected, and for most people that is a failure. This makes me laugh. At what point in a presidents term does the economy become his responsibility? Please enlighten me to this as I kinda figured that after being in office for 4 years the economy becomes your responsibility? Guess it's always the other guys fault if he was a disliked president then just blame him. Why blame the savior of the country? Obama the first black president!
![[image loading]](http://cdn.debtdeflation.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/080911_0325_TheReturnof4.png)
You should blame the little red line.
|
On August 17 2011 05:39 xDaunt wrote:
Anyone who thinks that Perry can't beat Obama is fooling themselves. Obama is very beatable right now by most anyone, and he'd lose in a landslide if the election is this November. However, he has a solid year to turn things around. Let's see what he makes of it.
Here's what I don't understand. Obama has been on his bus tour the past couple days telling us about a "plan" he has for the economy and jobs. He's been in office for 2 1/2 years, people are out of work, but he has a plan. He promises to tell us ... in September ... WTF. Who believes this guy ?
|
ron paul is the only sensible candidate for the GOP. but the media is just going to ignore him. The other day on fox they brought him up for about 15 seconds and despite him losing by less then 1% to bachman in the strawpoll.. the guy says.. Listen guys.. hes not gonna win. so dont look there.
|
On August 17 2011 06:16 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 05:39 xDaunt wrote:
Anyone who thinks that Perry can't beat Obama is fooling themselves. Obama is very beatable right now by most anyone, and he'd lose in a landslide if the election is this November. However, he has a solid year to turn things around. Let's see what he makes of it.
Here's what I don't understand. Obama has been on his bus tour the past couple days telling us about a "plan" he has for the economy and jobs. He's been in office for 2 1/2 years, people are out of work, but he has a plan. He promises to tell us ... in September ... WTF. Who believes this guy ?
The unpleasant truth, Kaitlin, is that neither party is politically prepared to do what's necessary to solve the two-part problem of the U.S. economy. Don't fool yourself either way!
|
Still trying to figure out who is the least fucked up, but I can't make my mind.
I'm scared by all of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
