|
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
that's 2 bushes, one reagan and a couple others. there are also state governors and elected officials promising bountifuls of pork.
the examples are endless, you are free to see.
|
On November 14 2012 10:10 oneofthem wrote:
that's 2 bushes, one reagan and a couple others. there are also state governors and elected officials promising bountifuls of pork.
the examples are endless, you are free to see.
Your implication is that Republicans cater to the "1%" in order to get elected. Think about what you are saying, how many votes are available to the "1%?"
|
On November 14 2012 10:04 Maxyim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 10:00 farvacola wrote:On November 14 2012 09:54 Maxyim wrote:
It's all about power in Washington. Consider how much time the President devoted to getting re-elected. The same can be said of nearly every Congressman (we can leave off people in gerrymandered districts who don't even have to try).
You are dodging my question. What incentive do Democrats have to fix the economy if this will cause them to lose their positions, particularly considering that the American People have now shown that they do not vote based on job performance? These is utterly wrong; for someone to presume an unequivocal interpretation of the election results in such a manner is tantamount to admitting flat out that their partisanry blinds them in total. the only people who think like this are being slowly excommunicated from the Republican Party as we speak. Thank god for them. How is this utterly wrong? Obama won by a landslide in a historic reelection, historic because it is the first time since the Great Depression that an incumbent POTUS, not to mention most of Congress, kept their jobs with the economy being where it is. Incidentally, the biggest gaps in the vote in favor of Obama came from groups that benefit the most from welfare and wealth redistribution. Newsflash for you - calling my post "utterly wrong" and then passive-aggressively implying that I am clueless / out of touch is NOT an argument that furthers your point in any way, shape or form.
What it does prove is that you haven't been a part of a long standing discussion of the past 4 years contained within this thread, so I apologize if I'm unwilling to do backtracking for some random dude. The ramifications of the financial crisis of 2007-2012 have been discussed ad nauseam, with a rather unusual bipartisan agreement amongst posters that things were incredibly bad; so much so that Obama's palliative economic policies seem far less impactful than they truly are. When you jump into a discussion with a presumption of a lack of acknowledgement on the part of the people who voted Obama into office in terms of his job performance, you signpost your bias with such salience that most reasonable posters are going to be inclined to simply laugh or spit at you. There is very little ground for an argument based on a total ignorance of Obama possibly having done some things right; this election is proof of that.
Edit: Have some links, do some reading, see the world!
2007-2012 Global Economic Crisis
Automotive industry crisis of 2008-2010
|
On November 14 2012 10:12 Maxyim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 10:10 oneofthem wrote:
that's 2 bushes, one reagan and a couple others. there are also state governors and elected officials promising bountifuls of pork.
the examples are endless, you are free to see. Your implication is that Republicans cater to the "1%" in order to get elected. Think about what you are saying, how many votes are available to the "1%?"
I mean, they have deep pockets though, and that money can buy advertisements to win votes.
I don't actually think that republicans cater to the 1% to get votes though. I think their policies favor the 1% naturally(low taxes, limited regulation/government) and then they cater to the rest of their base in order to ensure votes, if they didn't cater they would struggle. Like you said 1% is just 1%  .
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 14 2012 10:12 Maxyim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 10:10 oneofthem wrote:
that's 2 bushes, one reagan and a couple others. there are also state governors and elected officials promising bountifuls of pork.
the examples are endless, you are free to see. Your implication is that Republicans cater to the "1%" in order to get elected. Think about what you are saying, how many votes are available to the "1%?"
i never said they cater to them to get elected (though you are forgetting the role of money duh)
i said they betray their public minded deficit hawking appearance. there are the morally okay spending, there are the morally vile spending.
|
On November 14 2012 10:13 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 10:04 Maxyim wrote:On November 14 2012 10:00 farvacola wrote:On November 14 2012 09:54 Maxyim wrote:
It's all about power in Washington. Consider how much time the President devoted to getting re-elected. The same can be said of nearly every Congressman (we can leave off people in gerrymandered districts who don't even have to try).
You are dodging my question. What incentive do Democrats have to fix the economy if this will cause them to lose their positions, particularly considering that the American People have now shown that they do not vote based on job performance? These is utterly wrong; for someone to presume an unequivocal interpretation of the election results in such a manner is tantamount to admitting flat out that their partisanry blinds them in total. the only people who think like this are being slowly excommunicated from the Republican Party as we speak. Thank god for them. How is this utterly wrong? Obama won by a landslide in a historic reelection, historic because it is the first time since the Great Depression that an incumbent POTUS, not to mention most of Congress, kept their jobs with the economy being where it is. Incidentally, the biggest gaps in the vote in favor of Obama came from groups that benefit the most from welfare and wealth redistribution. Newsflash for you - calling my post "utterly wrong" and then passive-aggressively implying that I am clueless / out of touch is NOT an argument that furthers your point in any way, shape or form. What it does prove is that you haven't been a part of a long standing discussion of the past 4 years contained within this thread, so I apologize if I'm unwilling to do backtracking for some random dude. The ramifications of the financial crisis of 2007-2012 have been discussed ad nauseam, with a rather unusual bipartisan agreement amongst posters that things were incredibly bad; so much so that Obama's palliative economic policies seem far less impactful than they truly are. When you jump into a discussion with a presumption of a lack of acknowledgement on the part of the people who voted Obama into office in terms of his job performance, you signpost your bias with such salience that most reasonable posters are going to be inclined to simply laugh or spit at you. There is very little ground for an argument based on a total ignorance of Obama possibly having some things right; this election is proof of that.
Ahh, the "members only" argument, I love this one. I have been involved in many discussions myself over the past 4 years, discussions which you have not partaken in, therefore I dismiss your point!
I could link endless articles by economists, accountants, investors, even some professors, but I have no real interest in continuing to beat this dead horse. We lost, you won; now we all deal with the consequences.
|
On November 14 2012 10:09 Maxyim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 10:07 oneofthem wrote:
if you want to talk about intentions being revealed by actual performance, the republican's empirical lack of deficit control seems to indicate that their budget attitude is really a moral attitude about the right kinds of spending. crony corporate welfare is okay, so is spending for wars, but spending a couple % gdp on poor people, oh no sir. that's just dangerous Yes, we all know that he was not a conservative.
Bush wasn't conservative? Bush Sr. wasn't conservative? Reagan wasn't conservative? Because they all oversaw massive debt inflation. Oh, but Mitt would've been a true conservative based on his plans of cutting taxes to generate government revenue.
Schizophrenic, amnesiac politics.
|
welfare, corporate welfare in the end why don't we treat out faceless, bodiless corporations with less favor then actual people then we can talk about cutting flesh and blood people welfare.
|
On November 14 2012 10:21 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 10:09 Maxyim wrote:On November 14 2012 10:07 oneofthem wrote:
if you want to talk about intentions being revealed by actual performance, the republican's empirical lack of deficit control seems to indicate that their budget attitude is really a moral attitude about the right kinds of spending. crony corporate welfare is okay, so is spending for wars, but spending a couple % gdp on poor people, oh no sir. that's just dangerous Yes, we all know that he was not a conservative. Bush wasn't conservative? Bush Sr. wasn't conservative? Reagan wasn't conservative? Because they all oversaw massive debt inflation. Oh, but Mitt would've been a true conservative based on his plans of cutting taxes to generate government revenue. Schizophrenic, amnesiac politics.
Best to allow the disillusion and move along. The party talks big but has been only big in debt and war, best to move along.
On November 14 2012 10:21 Maxyim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 10:13 farvacola wrote:On November 14 2012 10:04 Maxyim wrote:On November 14 2012 10:00 farvacola wrote:On November 14 2012 09:54 Maxyim wrote:
It's all about power in Washington. Consider how much time the President devoted to getting re-elected. The same can be said of nearly every Congressman (we can leave off people in gerrymandered districts who don't even have to try).
You are dodging my question. What incentive do Democrats have to fix the economy if this will cause them to lose their positions, particularly considering that the American People have now shown that they do not vote based on job performance? These is utterly wrong; for someone to presume an unequivocal interpretation of the election results in such a manner is tantamount to admitting flat out that their partisanry blinds them in total. the only people who think like this are being slowly excommunicated from the Republican Party as we speak. Thank god for them. How is this utterly wrong? Obama won by a landslide in a historic reelection, historic because it is the first time since the Great Depression that an incumbent POTUS, not to mention most of Congress, kept their jobs with the economy being where it is. Incidentally, the biggest gaps in the vote in favor of Obama came from groups that benefit the most from welfare and wealth redistribution. Newsflash for you - calling my post "utterly wrong" and then passive-aggressively implying that I am clueless / out of touch is NOT an argument that furthers your point in any way, shape or form. What it does prove is that you haven't been a part of a long standing discussion of the past 4 years contained within this thread, so I apologize if I'm unwilling to do backtracking for some random dude. The ramifications of the financial crisis of 2007-2012 have been discussed ad nauseam, with a rather unusual bipartisan agreement amongst posters that things were incredibly bad; so much so that Obama's palliative economic policies seem far less impactful than they truly are. When you jump into a discussion with a presumption of a lack of acknowledgement on the part of the people who voted Obama into office in terms of his job performance, you signpost your bias with such salience that most reasonable posters are going to be inclined to simply laugh or spit at you. There is very little ground for an argument based on a total ignorance of Obama possibly having some things right; this election is proof of that. Ahh, the "members only" argument, I love this one. I have been involved in many discussions myself over the past 4 years, discussions which you have not partaken in, therefore I dismiss your point! I could link endless articles by economists, accountants, investors, even some professors, but I have no real interest in continuing to beat this dead horse. We lost, you won; now we all deal with the consequences.
Not the same list that predicted a Romney win with mounting evidence. It sounds like you're about to list Karl Rove as your leading objective speaker.
Your "endless" articles are not only finite, but small in measure... The "romney plan" was looked as a statistical improbability and ONLY worked under ridiculous growth that hasn't been seen in American history ever.
|
On November 14 2012 09:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 09:41 Maxyim wrote:On November 14 2012 09:32 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 14 2012 09:24 Maxyim wrote:On November 14 2012 09:16 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 14 2012 09:12 Maxyim wrote:On November 14 2012 09:04 semantics wrote:On November 14 2012 09:00 Maxyim wrote:
Why are you guys trying so hard to paint Ryan as a closet racist? His meaning was clear and correlates to the "47%" comments from Romney as well as exit poll data - minorities and single women voted overwhelmingly Democrat, and both of these groups are much more likely than other groups to be on welfare. In short, the American Majority has learned to vote for Santa Claus.
That tends to happen with 30 years of the middle class shrinking along with pay and benefits, while costs get passed onto the consumer and profits gets passed onto the very top of a company. Divining our economy into catering to the very rich and the lower income brackets. I would imagine that 5+ years of ~20% real unemployment / underemployment has had something to do with it as well. Unfortunately, that is almost entirely driven by people like you who demonize the "evil rich," leading them to hoard cash or go overseas rather than creating the jobs that we need. On November 14 2012 09:11 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 14 2012 09:00 Maxyim wrote:
Why are you guys trying so hard to paint Ryan as a closet racist? His meaning was clear and correlates to the "47%" comments from Romney as well as exit poll data - minorities and single women voted overwhelmingly Democrat, and both of these groups are much more likely than other groups to be on welfare. In short, the American Majority has learned to vote for Santa Claus just like the rest of the civilized world.
What a ridiculous statement. Santa Claus may be what Obama is, but it's better then the farce Romney is... Also correct me if I'm wrong but the states labeled "Republican" are most of the poorest states in America aren't they? http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/09/the-47-who-they-are-where-they-live-how-they-vote-and-why-they-matter/262506/Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't Republicans ironically be the 47%? If all of the Republicans exclusively lived within the states labeled "Republican," then yes, you would be correct, my good man. Also, may I take this time to educate you on the strawman logical fallacy? Please see here. I understand not everyone in those states ia Republican but isn't it a little bit odd the 10 poorest states are Republican at all? I mean not every richer blue state is fully Democratic to say the very least, maybe there's a correlation. But if all you have is "well not everyone there is Republican" then I suppose we can leave it as the majority of voters in those states which are the poorest are Republican and draw are own conclusions. You are adding nothing to this conversation. Nobody is talking about Romney anymore, he lost, he is most likely taking the Palin route with politics, etc, etc. OK? We get it, the 47% comment is logically unsound. Better would have been to say "people will not vote for me because I am not Santa Claus," but you will never hear a politician say this because nobody has had any balls since Reagan. You keep blindly referring to Santa Claus as the Democratic party, I'm not as much talking about the Romney comments as the general (obvious from your perception of minorities and single women) view of people who need support but it seems at least not entirely accurate when the poorest states are Republican states. So perhaps you need a more accurate summation of poor / needy begging for Obama when it seems they were looking for Romney. That is all, you don't need to bring up Romney in any manner but stop referring to Democrats or socialistic ideology faring individuals as people looking for Santa Claus when it seems that the Republican party are more fitting of that depiction. Your argument about the poorest states being Republican is invalid. Poverty levels have absolutely nothing to do with people who do not pay income taxes, particularly when you take into account that each state has a different distribution of the bottom end of the nonpayers (the ones who get a refund without paying income tax). You can keep repeating this all you want, but it will not make it any less false. People need support because the economy is in shambles. People who need support overwhelmingly vote Democrat. Tell me, what incentive do Democrats have to fix the economy. As for the Republican party being "more fitting of that depiction," give me ONE example where a Republican ran on "we will give you THIS if you vote for us" or "they will take THIS away from you if you vote for them" platforms. You think the Democrats secretly want to fuck up the country out of a strange sense of party loyalty where it doesn't matter what happens to the country as long as the Republicans lose elections in the wreckage? I'm reasonably sure the party playing obstructionism chicken with the economy was the Republicans.
True, and the Republicans have been surprisingly open about this. They've made a habit of the filibuster in congress, and many have openly said their top priority is making sure Obama isn't reelected. There are a myriad of videos, articles, and interviews that corroborate this. It almost merits its own thread (don't worry, I won't).
|
On November 14 2012 10:09 Maxyim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 10:07 oneofthem wrote:
if you want to talk about intentions being revealed by actual performance, the republican's empirical lack of deficit control seems to indicate that their budget attitude is really a moral attitude about the right kinds of spending. crony corporate welfare is okay, so is spending for wars, but spending a couple % gdp on poor people, oh no sir. that's just dangerous Bush, again? Yes, we all know that he was not a conservative.
I love the "no true Scottsman" defense.
He called himself conservative. He was elected by conservatives. He pushed forward with the standard conservative agenda of tax cuts and so forth. What the hell do you want me to call him? I'm not going to play guessing games with your own personal definition of "conservative".
|
On November 14 2012 10:44 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 10:09 Maxyim wrote:On November 14 2012 10:07 oneofthem wrote:
if you want to talk about intentions being revealed by actual performance, the republican's empirical lack of deficit control seems to indicate that their budget attitude is really a moral attitude about the right kinds of spending. crony corporate welfare is okay, so is spending for wars, but spending a couple % gdp on poor people, oh no sir. that's just dangerous Bush, again? Yes, we all know that he was not a conservative. I love the "no true Scottsman" defense. He called himself conservative. He was elected by conservatives. He pushed forward with the standard conservative agenda of tax cuts and so forth. What the hell do you want me to call him? I'm not going to play guessing games with your own personal definition of "conservative".
I like Fred :D Let's call him Fred.
I don't really know how this could really be argued. Maybe he meant "we all know that he was not a conservative" as satire but I dunno, it seems to far gone to think it was reallllllllllllllly mean't the way it was presented.
|
On November 14 2012 10:44 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 10:09 Maxyim wrote:On November 14 2012 10:07 oneofthem wrote:
if you want to talk about intentions being revealed by actual performance, the republican's empirical lack of deficit control seems to indicate that their budget attitude is really a moral attitude about the right kinds of spending. crony corporate welfare is okay, so is spending for wars, but spending a couple % gdp on poor people, oh no sir. that's just dangerous Bush, again? Yes, we all know that he was not a conservative. I love the "no true Scottsman" defense. He called himself conservative. He was elected by conservatives. He pushed forward with the standard conservative agenda of tax cuts and so forth. What the hell do you want me to call him? I'm not going to play guessing games with your own personal definition of "conservative".
I have an idea, how about we look at his record (what he ACTUALLY did)? Remember the stimulus plan of 2008? Yeah, the one that was mirrored by Obama in 2009. Bailing out private industry in direct interference of the free market is everything that conservatives stand AGAINST. There are many other examples pertaining to the policies of Bush and his administration that many better men than me have spent endless hours writing books about, feel free to do your own research.
Where do you think the Tea Party came from? The whole suggestion that supporting tax cuts automatically make someone a conservative is woefully deprived of reality.
In any event, your bit about playing "guessing games" with my personal definition is an attack against me. I did not ask you to play guessing games; I stated a fact and you objected to it by questioning my ability to state facts. That kind of posting is frowned about here; I would suggest that you tone it down.
|
On November 14 2012 10:44 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 10:09 Maxyim wrote:On November 14 2012 10:07 oneofthem wrote:
if you want to talk about intentions being revealed by actual performance, the republican's empirical lack of deficit control seems to indicate that their budget attitude is really a moral attitude about the right kinds of spending. crony corporate welfare is okay, so is spending for wars, but spending a couple % gdp on poor people, oh no sir. that's just dangerous Bush, again? Yes, we all know that he was not a conservative. I love the "no true Scottsman" defense. He called himself conservative. He was elected by conservatives. He pushed forward with the standard conservative agenda of tax cuts and so forth. What the hell do you want me to call him? I'm not going to play guessing games with your own personal definition of "conservative".
I stand by this. Maxyim, give 'em a break. George W. was fairly conservative, coming from a conservative. FAIRLY. He was by no means an exemplar of the right-wing, but it's true enough to term him a "conservative."
|
On November 14 2012 11:48 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 10:44 NicolBolas wrote:On November 14 2012 10:09 Maxyim wrote:On November 14 2012 10:07 oneofthem wrote:
if you want to talk about intentions being revealed by actual performance, the republican's empirical lack of deficit control seems to indicate that their budget attitude is really a moral attitude about the right kinds of spending. crony corporate welfare is okay, so is spending for wars, but spending a couple % gdp on poor people, oh no sir. that's just dangerous Bush, again? Yes, we all know that he was not a conservative. I love the "no true Scottsman" defense. He called himself conservative. He was elected by conservatives. He pushed forward with the standard conservative agenda of tax cuts and so forth. What the hell do you want me to call him? I'm not going to play guessing games with your own personal definition of "conservative". I stand by this. Maxyim, give 'em a break. George W. was fairly conservative, coming from a conservative. FAIRLY. He was by no means an exemplar of the right-wing, but it's true enough to term him a "conservative."
Some reading for you, then.
|
On November 14 2012 10:09 Maxyim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 10:07 oneofthem wrote:
if you want to talk about intentions being revealed by actual performance, the republican's empirical lack of deficit control seems to indicate that their budget attitude is really a moral attitude about the right kinds of spending. crony corporate welfare is okay, so is spending for wars, but spending a couple % gdp on poor people, oh no sir. that's just dangerous Bush, again? Yes, we all know that he was not a conservative. However, I will take exception with you throwing the wars in the mix; both had bipartisan support. Welfare is quite a bit more than "a couple % of gdp," in case you did not know.
Al Gore would have never invaded Iraq. He probably also wouldnt have jacked up the DoD spending from the Clinton high of 300 billion to a Bush high of 700 billion at which Obama kept it for the last 4 years.
|
On November 14 2012 11:55 Maxyim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 11:48 cLAN.Anax wrote:On November 14 2012 10:44 NicolBolas wrote:On November 14 2012 10:09 Maxyim wrote:On November 14 2012 10:07 oneofthem wrote:
if you want to talk about intentions being revealed by actual performance, the republican's empirical lack of deficit control seems to indicate that their budget attitude is really a moral attitude about the right kinds of spending. crony corporate welfare is okay, so is spending for wars, but spending a couple % gdp on poor people, oh no sir. that's just dangerous Bush, again? Yes, we all know that he was not a conservative. I love the "no true Scottsman" defense. He called himself conservative. He was elected by conservatives. He pushed forward with the standard conservative agenda of tax cuts and so forth. What the hell do you want me to call him? I'm not going to play guessing games with your own personal definition of "conservative". I stand by this. Maxyim, give 'em a break. George W. was fairly conservative, coming from a conservative. FAIRLY. He was by no means an exemplar of the right-wing, but it's true enough to term him a "conservative." Some reading for you, then.
how do you differentiate conservatives? Are you only speaking on fiscal conservatism or do you include social conservatism?
|
On November 14 2012 10:44 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 10:09 Maxyim wrote:On November 14 2012 10:07 oneofthem wrote:
if you want to talk about intentions being revealed by actual performance, the republican's empirical lack of deficit control seems to indicate that their budget attitude is really a moral attitude about the right kinds of spending. crony corporate welfare is okay, so is spending for wars, but spending a couple % gdp on poor people, oh no sir. that's just dangerous Bush, again? Yes, we all know that he was not a conservative. I love the "no true Scottsman" defense. He called himself conservative. He was elected by conservatives. He pushed forward with the standard conservative agenda of tax cuts and so forth. What the hell do you want me to call him? I'm not going to play guessing games with your own personal definition of "conservative".
Look. We all know that when things go bad, it cant be 'true' conservatives what caused it. It must have been people who tricked 'true conservatives' into voting them into power and then they were evil and abandoned 'conservative' principles and therefore all the bad things that subsequently happened has to be blamed on the lying liars and not 'conservatives' who, obviously, if elected would fix all problems because 'conservatism' clearly has well thought out, pragmatic solutions that can be easily implemented unless they are hijacked by evil lying liars.
And if you ever find yourself arguing with a communist, you just find-replace 'Conservative' with communist and you are also good to go.
|
See? This is what happens when all your words mean all the things all at once.
American politics needs some rectification of names in a bad way
|
On November 14 2012 11:56 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 11:55 Maxyim wrote:On November 14 2012 11:48 cLAN.Anax wrote:On November 14 2012 10:44 NicolBolas wrote:On November 14 2012 10:09 Maxyim wrote:On November 14 2012 10:07 oneofthem wrote:
if you want to talk about intentions being revealed by actual performance, the republican's empirical lack of deficit control seems to indicate that their budget attitude is really a moral attitude about the right kinds of spending. crony corporate welfare is okay, so is spending for wars, but spending a couple % gdp on poor people, oh no sir. that's just dangerous Bush, again? Yes, we all know that he was not a conservative. I love the "no true Scottsman" defense. He called himself conservative. He was elected by conservatives. He pushed forward with the standard conservative agenda of tax cuts and so forth. What the hell do you want me to call him? I'm not going to play guessing games with your own personal definition of "conservative". I stand by this. Maxyim, give 'em a break. George W. was fairly conservative, coming from a conservative. FAIRLY. He was by no means an exemplar of the right-wing, but it's true enough to term him a "conservative." Some reading for you, then. how do you differentiate conservatives? Are you only speaking on fiscal conservatism or do you include social conservatism?
He is referencing a flat tax nutjob's reimagining of Bush as some sort of definitive source on the president's place amongst conservatives, so take from that what you will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
