do you actually think democrats are different than republicans?

[joe]

Politicians are after the same thing as all of us: money and power for themselves. They might feel some ideological loyalty at first, but eventually it fades. Especially the higher up the political ladder they go.

People like Obama and Romney are complete rats. They will say whatever they have to say to get elected, and after that they'll do whatever gets them more money and power. They will give cabinet positions to lobbyists. They will appoint corporate big-wigs to head important cabinet positions.

No matter who gets elected president:

the wars will continue
the drug war will continue
corporations will run our regulation agencies

Republicans and Democrats are no different than one another. TRUE democrats and republicans should see that. Democrats, I totally disagree with you politically, but you're NOT STUPID! Use your head and open your eyes. Obama and 99% of all democrat congressmen are liars, cheats, and snakes. I'm not singling you out because I think the same of the republicans (I'm a libertarian anarchist at the time of posting). I'm not sure if my political views will change in 10 years, but I know one thing for damn sure.. modern day republican and democrats are the same.. damn.. thing.

But Obama supporters say.. Ya.. Obama is not perfect, but he's better than Romney. So I'll vote for Barack. That is complete BS. Not only is Obama less than perfect, he is a monster. He kills innocent people overseas as a matter of "policy." He supports the imprisonment of millions of Americans, for crimes related to non-violent drug behavior. This guy is a slap in the face to what I think modern liberals stand for. Let me know if I'm wrong.

But the thing is, Romney is no different. He doesn't support a free market, and he doesn't support ending the wars. He only wants to slow down government spending, slightly slower than Obama himself wants to. Notice, neither wants to CUT government spending. Romney just wants to slow the growth of government a TINY, MARGINAL bit more.

So, even if Romney gets elected, you're no worse off. But by voting for Obama, you are sacrificing your integrity and pride. I'm not a liberal myself, but I have enough respect for you guys, being a former democrat, to say that you're way better than scum like Obama.

The same goes for Republicans about Romney, btw. He is just as anti-capitalism as Obama, maybe slightly less so. He supports all the wars, all the sanctions, the drug war, the fed, etc. just like Obama. The problem is in America, we only have 1 political party. It's the huge government party and the slightly less huge government party, and anyone who disagrees gets shoved to the side. Any smart person, in my opinion, would refuse to vote this Autumn, no matter why they actually support.

I don't expect every person to agree with my political views, but any honest, rational person should be able to see............ Romney and Obama are jokes, and insults to our intelligence.

[RoseCity07]

Yes I do. I think there is a big difference. Democrats want things to change for the better. The right wing clearly has no interest in the rights of the middle class and poor. The right wing tries to turn the word "liberal" into a pejorative. They try to attach negativity to words like socialism as if that is the worst thing in the world.

Obama did a lot in his first two years. Then after the right wing took control of the House in the Midterm elections they started blaming Obama for not getting anything done. The republicans held the country hostage because they want to see Obama fail.

I think the right wing relies on lies and the ignorance of voters to win. If they told the truth they would never win. They always seem to be on the bad side of every issue. They appeal to evangelical Christians, the uneducated, the pro-lifers, racists, and the rich.

There is a lot of right wing propaganda being put out there by the same people who never liked Obama in the first place. When you have to lie about where Obama was born and call him a Muslim when he isn't you know you have nothing else to stand on.

I have no doubts that there is corruption in both the Democratic party and the Republican party. It's far more damaging with the right wing when you look at the evidence. I mean do you really want to compare Clinton getting a blowjob to Bush getting millions killed in an oil war which he had no legitimate reason to start?

[Nick Young]

It is obvious to me that they both want exactly the same things. They disagree on surfacey issues that dont actually matter in the grand scheme of things, such as gay marriage and abortion but otherwise they are both pretty conservative and moderate.

They only have these little surfacey issue debates to fool the retarded public into thinking their votes actually make a difference.

Don't be a fool. Look at reality.

Barack Obama is really not much different from George W. Bush in terms of what they've accomplished.

Obama has caused more war and death in 4 years and spent more on the military than Bush did in 8 years. And Bush is considered a warmonger while Obama won the nobel prize for peace:facepalm

[RoseCity07]

It is obvious to me that they both want exactly the same things. They disagree on surfacey issues that dont actually matter in the grand scheme of things, such as gay marriage and abortion but otherwise they are both pretty conservative and moderate.

They only have these little surfacey issue debates to fool the retarded public into thinking their votes actually make a difference.

Don't be a fool. Look at reality.

Barack Obama is really not much different from George W. Bush in terms of what they've accomplished.

Obama has caused more war and death in 4 years and spent more on the military than Bush did in 8 years. And Bush is considered a warmonger while Obama won the nobel prize for peace:facepalm

Please tell me how Obama has "caused" more war. Did the meaning of the word "cause" change in the English dictionary. There was a war going on when he took office. He brought that to an end like he said he would. Bush trashed the economy, got millions killed in an oil war, and basically did everything he possibly could to give millionaires tax breaks. He was a terrible president.

[Nick Young]

Yes I do. I think there is a big difference. Democrats want things to change for the better. The right wing clearly has no interest in the rights of the middle class and poor. The right wing tries to turn the word "liberal" into a pejorative. They try to attach negativity to words like socialism as if that is the worst thing in the world.

Obama did a lot in his first two years. Then after the right wing took control of the House in the Midterm elections they started blaming Obama for not getting anything done. The republicans held the country hostage because they want to see Obama fail.

I think the right wing relies on lies and the ignorance of voters to win. If they told the truth they would never win. They always seem to be on the bad side of every issue. They appeal to evangelical Christians, the uneducated, the pro-lifers, racists, and the rich.

There is a lot of right wing propaganda being put out there by the same people who never liked Obama in the first place. When you have to lie about where Obama was born and call him a Muslim when he isn't you know you have nothing else to stand on.

I have no doubts that there is corruption in both the Democratic party and the Republican party. It's far more damaging with the right wing when you look at the evidence. I mean do you really want to compare Clinton getting a blowjob to Bush getting millions killed in an oil war which he had no legitimate reason to start?
I really was happy when Obama got elected, but then I started to realize he is actually pretty evil and has lied about basically everything he promised-for example

"the day Im elected I'll shut down Gitmo, it's unconstitutional" What does Obama do? Gitmo is still going strong, with more prisoners then there ever was under the bush administration.

"I will end the war in Iraq and Afghanistan" LAWL And then mere months later you jack up the military spending and send MORE TROOPS TO IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN:facepalm


I used to think Bush was garbage. Now I realize he's not even that bad. Obama is basically exactly the same as George W. Bush, the only difference is Obama markets himself better, is just a way cooler dude and is much more charismatic.

But Bush never sent assassination drones to Yemen to assassinate US citizens for "speech crimes" in blatant violation of the US constitution. But Obama is so likeable and charismatic he can get away with this shit.


I'm not a republican or a liberal. I just don't like bullshitting liars.

For me, Clinton is the greatest president by far. Who gives a f*ck about adultery? It's his damn personal life, let him do whatever the phuck he wants on his personal time.

[Nick Young]

Please tell me how Obama has "caused" more war. Did the meaning of the word "cause" change in the English dictionary. There was a war going on when he took office. He brought that to an end like he said he would. Bush trashed the economy, got millions killed in an oil war, and basically did everything he possibly could to give millionaires tax breaks. He was a terrible president.
Obama f*cked up the economy more than bush ever did with all these bullshit bank bailouts he handed out to his friends. Obama f*cked up the economy by spending more on military than Bush ever did despite promising to end the war.

YOU THINK OBAMA ENDED THE WAR? ARE YOU DELUSIONAL? THAN WHY ARE US SOLDIERS STILL OVER THERE DYING EVERY DAY? WHY ARE MORE AND MORE TROOPS CONTINUOUSLY BEING SENT OVER THERE IF THE WAR IS OVER?:facepalm

I don't think bush was a great president. But Obama is no better. He improved our world image slightly and he gives good speeches. But otherwise he is the same as Bush.

You are refusing to look at reality

Do you know who Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan are? They are American citizens who have never been charged with even a petty crime, and Obama had assassinated and proudly announced in a speech.

George W. Bush is scum too but he never pulled off scummy bullshit like that.

How can you support a president who violates the constitution to assassinate his own citizens at a whim?


Obama boasts of assassinating American citizen in Yemen


In a speech before a military audience in Virginia Friday, President Barack Obama boasted of the role of the CIA and US special operations units in the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a 40-year-old, New Mexico-born Muslim cleric.
It marked the first time in history that an American president has publicly applauded the government’s assassination of a US citizen, who in Awlaki’s case has never been charged or indicted for any crime, much less tried and convicted in a court of law.
“The death of Awlaki is a major blow to Al Qaeda’s most active operational affiliate,” Obama said during a ceremony for the outgoing chief of US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen, at Joint Base Myer Henderson Hall in Virginia.
According to witnesses in Yemen as well as officials in Washington, Awlaki was killed by a Hellfire missile fired from a US pilotless drone as he was traveling in a convoy between Marib and al-Jawf provinces in northern Yemen.
Also killed in the strike was another US citizen, Samir Khan, a Pakistani-American who was identified as an editor of the Internet magazine, Inspire, which has been linked to Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). Several others also died in the missile strike.
US sources indicated that the operation was directed by the CIA, utilizing assets of the Pentagon’s Special Operations Command, implicating both the main US intelligence agency and the military in the extra-judicial killing of an American citizen.
In his remarks Friday, Obama charged that Awlaki “took the lead in planning and directing efforts to murder innocent Americans” and had “repeatedly called on individuals in the United States and around the globe to kill innocent men, women and children to advance a murderous agenda.”
US officials have called attention to Awlaki’s alleged email exchanges with Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who is accused of killing 13 people in a mass shooting at Fort Hood, Texas in 2009. They have also claimed that he was involved in two abortive terrorist attempts: that of the so-called “underwear bomber,” the former Nigerian student Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, accused of trying to detonate explosives aboard Northwest Flight 253 as it was landing in Detroit, Michigan on December 25, 2009, and an attempt to mail bombs to Chicago-area synagogues.
While Awlaki has made numerous videotapes advocating armed attacks on American targets both within the US and abroad, the government has presented no evidence of his alleged role in actual terrorist operations.
An earlier attempt to carry out the targeted assassination of Awlaki was made last May, just five days after the US commando raid in which Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was shot to death. As in his killing on Friday morning, the failed attempt last May was carried out with a drone missile strike.
Obama placed Awlaki on a “kill or capture” list of people targeted for assassination in January 2010 after his administration asserted a right not even claimed by the Bush White House: to carry out the summary execution of any US citizen deemed by the president to be a “specially designated global terrorist,” without presenting any evidence or securing any judicial sanction.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations issued a cautiously worded statement on the killing, repudiating Awlaki’s “incitement to violence” while calling on “our nation’s leaders to address the constitutional issues raised by the assassination of US citizens without due process of the law.”
The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights both condemned the killing. The two organizations had joined in a federal court case challenging on constitutional grounds the White House’s claim that it had the right to target US citizens for assassination. They sought to represent Awlaki’s father, a former agriculture minister and prominent member of Yemen’s ruling party, who claimed that his son was not a terrorist.
The government sought the dismissal of the suit on the grounds that it would expose state secrets and that the president had the unreviewable power to kill any American that he deemed a threat. A federal judge threw the case out last December, ruling that Awlaki’s father had no standing to bring such a claim and that the court was not qualified to question the government’s decisions on national security.
In response to Friday’s killing of Awlaki, ACLU deputy legal director Jameel Jaffer said that the “targeted killing program violates both US and international law.” He charged that under this program, “American citizens far from any battlefield can be executed by their own government without judicial process, and on the basis of standards and evidence that are kept secret not just from the public but from the courts.”
Jaffer warned, “It is a mistake to invest the President—any President—with the unreviewable power to kill any American whom he deems to present a threat to the country.”
Vince Warren, the executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said in response to Awlaki’s assassination: “The targeted assassination program that started under President Bush and expanded under the Obama administration essentially grants the executive the power to kill any US citizen deemed a threat, without any judicial oversight, or any of the rights afforded by our Constitution. If we allow such gross overreaches of power to continue, we are setting the stage for increasing erosions of civil liberties and the rule of law.”
Calling the death of Awlaki “another significant milestone” in the campaign to eliminate Al Qaeda, Obama declared in his speech Friday, “Furthermore, the success is a tribute to our intelligence community and to the efforts of Yemen and its security forces, who have worked closely with the United States over the course of several years.”
Obama further praised “the government and the people of Yemen” for having “joined the international community in a common effort against Al Qaeda.”
These statements were echoed by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. The Pentagon’s press agency quoted Panetta as saying that the murder of Awlaki was a “testament to the close cooperation between the United States and Yemen.”
On the same day that the Yemeni regime and the Obama administration announced the killing of Awlaki, over 100,000 demonstrators were in the streets of the Yemeni capital, Sanaa, calling for the downfall of the country’s US-backed dictator Ali Abdullah Saleh. Hundreds if not thousands of Yemenis have died over the last eight months, fighting for the ouster of the three-decade old regime.
President Saleh returned to Yemen just a week before the killing of Awlaki, after spending three months in Saudi Arabia recovering from wounds suffered in a rocket attack on his presidential palace.
There is mounting speculation in Yemen that the link between his return and Awlaki’s death was more than coincidental; that the regime provided assistance in the killing of the US-born cleric in return for Washington’s aid in suppressing the mass popular upheavals that have shaken the country. Last year, the Obama administration doubled US military aid to the Saleh regime.


http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/oct2011/alwa-o01.shtml

Also what is so bad about an oil war? Is there any noble cause for war? USA needs oil to survive, so we went to attack countries that have oil, now we have their oil. The Romans and other powerful nations have been doing this kind of thing throughout history. Don't get me wrong, I hate war, I dont want us to be in a war, but people always say "Oil war" to smear Bush, as if there was some acceptable kind of war instead. You are delusional if you think Obama isn't about to pull the same shit with his constant recent foreshadowing about his plans to go in to Iran.

[RoseCity07]

I really was happy when Obama got elected, but then I started to realize he is actually pretty evil and has lied about basically everything he promised-for example

"the day Im elected I'll shut down Gitmo, it's unconstitutional" What does Obama do? Gitmo is still going strong, with more prisoners then there ever was under the bush administration.

"I will end the war in Iraq and Afghanistan" LAWL And then mere months later you jack up the military spending and send MORE TROOPS TO IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN:facepalm


I used to think Bush was garbage. Now I realize he's not even that bad. Obama is basically exactly the same as George W. Bush, the only difference is Obama markets himself better, is just a way cooler dude and is much more charismatic.

But Bush never sent assassination drones to Yemen to assassinate US citizens for "speech crimes" in blatant violation of the US constitution. But Obama is so likeable and charismatic he can get away with this shit.


I'm not a republican or a liberal. I just don't like bullshitting liars.

For me, Clinton is the greatest president by far. Who gives a f*ck about adultery? It's his damn personal life, let him do whatever the phuck he wants on his personal time.

You don't like liars. Obama signed an executive order that Gitmo would be closed just as he said. It hasn't happened. So because that hasn't happened yet we are suppose to overlook everything else he has done. Obama trashed the economy? Do you really think a mess like this is as easy to clean up as it is to make?

Clinton left office and this country had a budget surplus. Then Bush started a trillion dollar war. His tax cuts helped billionaire get richer. He attacked a country that didn't eve attack us because they had oil.

Now Obama is just suppose to snap his fingers and fix everything or he's just as bad as Bush? Do you know that the right wing is constantly on Obama's ass hoping he will fail? The don't even hide it.

All they have to do is call him a socialist and that word stirs such emotional hate in people just like you that all of a sudden Romney is a better option. This country has no hope.

[Nick Young]

You don't like liars. Obama signed an executive order that Gitmo would be closed just as he said. It hasn't happened. So because that hasn't happened yet we are suppose to overlook everything else he has done. Obama trashed the economy? Do you really think a mess like this is as easy to clean up as it is to make?

Clinton left office and this country had a budget surplus. Then Bush started a trillion dollar war. His tax cuts helped billionaire get richer. He attacked a country that didn't eve attack us because they had oil.

Now Obama is just suppose to snap his fingers and fix everything or he's just as bad as Bush? Do you know that the right wing is constantly on Obama's ass hoping he will fail? The don't even hide it.

All they have to do is call him a socialist and that word stirs such emotional hate in people just like you that all of a sudden Romney is a better option. This country has no hope.


Damn you are just spewing recycled CNN/Dailyshow Obama apologist crap.

Every president in history has had to deal with hardships. How come the media does nothing but make excuses and apologize for Obama's failure?

I don't think anyone wants Obama to fail, just like they didn't want Bush to fail. Of course all Americans want to live in a successful economy with a high quality of life and lots of jobs.

But when they do fail, yeh you should expect that these guys are going to get called out by the media. If Obama was actually doing a good job, no one would be able to say shit against him.

He talks a big game but he delivers average mediocrity.

[RoseCity07]

Damn you are just spewing recycled CNN/Dailyshow Obama apologist crap.

Every president in history has had to deal with hardships. How come the media does nothing but make excuses and apologize for Obama's failure?

Can I just ask you a question? If the right wing is no different then why do they have to cheat to win? Why do they fight so hard for voter suppression? They attack Obama on issues that are completely irrelevant to what it takes to run a country.

They don't even attack Obama on any of the topics you mentioned. That's because no one buys those lies anymore. They play on emotion like true propagandists.

If your message has any merit then you don't need to cheat to win. They don't. The lie about Obama and use ad hominem attacks. There must be something redeeming about Obama if a Kenyan born, Muslim, Socialist, abortion loving, liberal can beat a Maverick in a landslide.

[Nick Young]

Can I just ask you a question? If the right wing is no different then why do they have to cheat to win? Why do they fight so hard for voter suppression? They attack Obama on issues that are completely irrelevant to what it takes to run a country.

They don't even attack Obama on any of the topics you mentioned. That's because no one buys those lies anymore. They play on emotion like true propagandists.

If your message has any merit then you don't need to cheat to win. They don't. The lie about Obama and use ad hominem attacks. There must be something redeeming about Obama if a Kenyan born, Muslim, Socialist, abortion loving, liberal can beat a Maverick in a landslide.
LAWL? Do you think that both sides don't cheat to win? Do really think that one side plays fair and honest and the other side is cheating and dirty? Do you think that the stuff democrats spew isn't propaganda either? Both sides are shameless propagandists, and you are falling for it. :facepalm

Did you know that in Europe and Asia, political analysts basically see no differences at all in the republicans and democrats? That's because they're on the outside looking in. They are able to look at things clearly without getting clouded by emotion or bias. I never gave a f*ck about politics growing up which is why I too am able to look at Republicans and Democrats and US politics with an unbiased view.

Of course there's redeeming qualities to Obama, he is charismatic and cool as hell, and he always is matched up against boring old grandpa types. That doesn't mean that he is actually better than John McCain or Mitt Romney or John Kerry or George W. Bush or any of these other clowns. He just markets himself much better. And fair enough to him, he has all-time great level charisma, too bad he doesnt have the accomplishments to back it up

[RoseCity07]

LAWL? Do you think that both sides don't cheat to win? Do really think that one side plays fair and honest and the other side is cheating and dirty? Do you think that the stuff democrats spew isn't propaganda either? Both sides are shameless propagandists, and you are falling for it. :facepalm

What propaganda am I falling for? Please link me to any story of where Obama cheated to beat McCain. In 2000 there was major evidence of fraud. Not to mention that the supreme court made a one time decision to appoint Bush as president. If Bush one then why did they stop the recount? Why is it that they don't want the most likely to vote democrat voting(rural areas)?

The most populated areas with the most concentration of educated people are blue. New York, Los Angeles, Chicago. It's all the little hick states that are red. So all those red states where no one lives no better than the major populated areas of the United States?

This feels like a religious argument where no matter how many points I make about how ridiculous religion is it just falls on deaf ears.

[RoseCity07]

Can you link me to some credible articles where a poll shows the rest of the world lumps Obama in with the right wing?

[Nick Young]

What propaganda am I falling for? Please link me to any story of where Obama cheated to beat McCain. In 2000 there was major evidence of fraud. Not to mention that the supreme court made a one time decision to appoint Bush as president. If Bush one then why did they stop the recount? Why is it that they don't want the most likely to vote democrat voting(rural areas)?

The most populated areas with the most concentration of educated people are blue. New York, Los Angeles, Chicago. It's all the little hick states that are red. So all those red states where no one lives no better than the major populated areas of the United States?

This feels like a religious argument where no matter how many points I make about how ridiculous religion is it just falls on deaf ears.
lawl thats an example of the propaganda you are falling for. "Intelligent people are democrats. Stupid rednecks are republicans. If you are intelligent and educated, vote democrat"

That is how the democrats have been marketing themselves to the american population, and for the most part, all of the "intelligent and educated" people fall for that propaganda, no questions asked, just like good little sheep.:facepalm


The rest of the world doesn't lump Obama in with the right wing. But from what I've been seeing and reading for the past years, they view both sides as extremely moderate and see Obama as more of a moderate conservative then anything.

[RoseCity07]

lawl thats an example of the propaganda you are falling for. "Intelligent people are democrats. Stupid rednecks are republicans. If you are intelligent and educated, vote democrat"

That is how the democrats have been marketing themselves to the american population, and for the most part, all of the "intelligent and educated" people fall for that propaganda, no questions asked, just like good little sheep.:facepalm


The rest of the world doesn't lump Obama in with the right wing. But from what I've been seeing and reading for the past years, they view both sides as extremely moderate and see Obama as more of a moderate conservative then anything.

I agree with that. Obama is definitely conservative. Too much so. I think the democrats are tired of him trying to kiss ass on the right wing. Clinton's popularity shot up when he told the right wing to f*ck off. In that sense Obama is a coward.

[embersyc]

You don't like liars. Obama signed an executive order that Gitmo would be closed just as he said. It hasn't happened. So because that hasn't happened yet we are suppose to overlook everything else he has done. Obama trashed the economy? Do you really think a mess like this is as easy to clean up as it is to make?

Clinton left office and this country had a budget surplus. Then Bush started a trillion dollar war. His tax cuts helped billionaire get richer. He attacked a country that didn't eve attack us because they had oil.

Now Obama is just suppose to snap his fingers and fix everything or he's just as bad as Bush? Do you know that the right wing is constantly on Obama's ass hoping he will fail? The don't even hide it.

All they have to do is call him a socialist and that word stirs such emotional hate in people just like you that all of a sudden Romney is a better option. This country has no hope.

Thank you, post of the day. It's taken us four years to turn things around, now that the housing market and economy are starting to rebound people want to go right back to the policies that drove us into the ground for eight straight years.

:biggums:

[Nick Young]

Thank you, post of the day. It's taken us four years to turn things around, now that the housing market and economy are starting to rebound people want to go right back to the policies that drove us into the ground for eight straight years.

:biggums:
lawl things aren't "turned around"

[Punpun]

They obviously aren't DIFFERENT. THEY BOTH ARE PART OF THE HUMAN RACE. I can not understand what point you are trying to prove OP ? Stating the obvious is still stating the obvious.

Oh wai, do you believe Democrats are Lizards people ?

[embersyc]

lawl things aren't "turned around"

Were you alive in 2008, were you an adult who owned a house or needed a job?

To say things haven't turned around in outright ignorant.

Have we rebounded to Clinton era prosperity? No, but it's a hell of a lot better than the last two years of Bush, when all you heard about daily was the upcoming depression.

[rufuspaul]

Bush is considered a warmonger while Obama won the nobel prize for peace:facepalm


That absolutely boggles the mind. When they gave that medal to Obama it effectively rendered the peace prize worthless.

[JtotheIzzo]

That absolutely boggles the mind. When they gave that medal to Obama it effectively rendered the peace prize worthless.

Obama got his prematurely based on his rhetoric of pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and closing Abu Graib (sp?). If he did all of those on schedule he would be worthy, I am sure the Nobelians regret their decision, I am sure there was some Burmese, Chechnyan or Sub-Saharan African that was more worthy.

Back on point, the difference between the Dems and Reps is quite simple.

Where will the final 3% of government revenue come from?

For the Democrats it will come from the rich, for the Republicans it will come from slashing social programs. ALL of their rhetoric is design to facilitate these realities, and all the social shit is just window dressing.

[Godzuki]

Originally Posted by Nick Young
Bush is considered a warmonger while Obama won the nobel prize for peace

Obama did a ton of world opinion damage control in his early presidency which most people have forgotten about. he made speeches all over the place to repair our rep after the Bush Admin made us hated abroad as war mongers, and did a hell of a job at it. that probably ties into partly why he was awarded the nobel prize, and it was every Democrats intention to get us out of the wars, too bad things are easier said than done. its dumb to me how people can only see it as black and white without factoring in any of the complexities to an immediate pullout.

i don't really get how people pretend Democrats and Republicans are the same since they're pretty much opposites. its basically a Ron Paul catch phrase people use, and those 3rd parties aren't much better especially once they get elected and realize they can't do shit without political support from Democrats and Republicans. they'll have to play some politics without the luxury of saying stuff they're going to do on some stage without being able to get the votes to enact those policies unless they have across the aisle support. If Independents want to call Democrats and Republicans the same, they might as well include their party as well once they actually step foot into office and need those votes. I can't even get over this gold standard nonsense Ron Paul and some Republicans are yapping about too, its just absurd to me how they want to take the country backwards in so many ways, and its so extreme that its to a fault. at least Obama isn't as nutty as most of them, the lesser of evils, thats what i see in every debate or most things i read.

[Rasheed1]

Obama got his prematurely based on his rhetoric of pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and closing Abu Graib (sp?). If he did all of those on schedule he would be worthy, I am sure the Nobelians regret their decision, I am sure there was some Burmese, Chechnyan or Sub-Saharan African that was more worthy.

Back on point, the difference between the Dems and Reps is quite simple.

Where will the final 3% of government revenue come from?

For the Democrats it will come from the rich, for the Republicans it will come from slashing social programs. ALL of their rhetoric is design to facilitate these realities, and all the social shit is just window dressing.

^good insight

[ILLsmak]

I disagree. Republicans are definitely worse because they hide their agenda under religion. I believe in God and morality, but I don't believe in teaching people to vote simply "against abortion" while these guys send people off to war and give tax breaks to the insanely rich.

I think they are all bad people, but I think some are better. I have a soft spot for Obama. I think he's a pretty good president. People believe that the president has power, but he doesn't. It's mostly what is behind him. The president is a figurehead. It's good to get away from the cowboy USA image and have someone eloquent.

-Smak

[rufuspaul]

Obama did a ton of world opinion damage control in his early presidency which most people have forgotten about. he made speeches all over the place to repair our rep after the Bush Admin made us hated abroad as war mongers, and did a hell of a job at it. that probably ties into partly why he was awarded the nobel prize, and it was every Democrats intention to get us out of the wars, too bad things are easier said than done. its dumb to me how people can only see it as black and white without factoring in any of the complexities to an immediate pullout.



:rolleyes: The Nobel Peace Prize for meaningless rhetoric. :facepalm

[Balla_Status]

Do people still think that Iraq was a war for oil? Iraq just topped Iran's oil production and the only two american companies invested over there are ExxonMobil and Oxy. Let me know when we americans are seeing ANY of that oil.

[Nick Young]

:rolleyes: The Nobel Peace Prize for meaningless rhetoric. :facepalm
Nobel Peace Prize for damage-control propaganda and elite oratory skills:facepalm

[Balla_Status]

Rosecity, Sanda Fluke is speaking at the DNC. Please tell me that she isn't a figure of some sort of propaganda to manipulate women into thinking republicans are really "waging a war" on women.

[JtotheIzzo]

Do people still think that Iraq was a war for oil? Iraq just topped Iran's oil production and the only two american companies invested over there are ExxonMobil and Oxy. Let me know when we americans are seeing ANY of that oil.

It was for profit, American companies (as well as Canadian, British etc...) made off like bandits providing supplies, logistics and services to all interests in Iraq, both military and private.

I wouldn't put too much stock into how much oil the US got because strategically it could be useful in that the US won't need to compete as much for pre-existing sources. With China and India gobbling up way more oil than anyone previously thought possible, the Iraqi reserves had to be 'freed' up and floated on the world market. It was paramount to how we live in the 21st century.

[kentatm]

Rosecity, Sanda Fluke is speaking at the DNC. Please tell me that she isn't a figure of some sort of propaganda to manipulate women into thinking republicans are really "waging a war" on women.


why don't you explain how her presence is nothing but propaganda since you are the one making the claim?

and why don't you explain and refute the war on women stuff since it seems to be so important to you?

[Nick Young]

War on women? Seriously? I can't believe that "educated" sheeple-whoops sorry people- are falling for shit like that:roll: :roll: :roll:

[Jello]

Bush trashed the economy and Clinton is responsible for economic prosperity? Please, clinton had little to do with the economy. Not to mention it was under clinton's watch that legislation passed enabling the naked credit pyramid scheme. Bush inherited an economy in a downswing that started six months before clinton left office. Not to mention the housing bubble, wall street fraud, and terrorists attacking our own soil causing war, and we're going to conclude democrats' economic policies are responsible when they rode a huge wave in the tech boom with little to do no obstacles or tests. :lol

[Rasheed1]

War on women? Seriously? I can't believe that "educated" sheeple-whoops sorry people- are falling for shit like that:roll: :roll: :roll:


not a hard concept to buy into when women look up and see republicans at the state level working to close out many medical options women have.

the party of "small gov" is a joke...

The seem to want small government for themselves and more government for everyone else..


they contradict their own message to such a degree that the Obama hasnt had to work hard this political season. Romney and the GOP keep giving the dems more & more ammo..


GOP is a hot mess right now :oldlol:

[BoutPractice]

They're different, yes. They have different beliefs, different philosophies of government etc.

But they don't make a difference.

That is because the American system is not a true democracy.
A flawed Constitution and its extreme interpretation by Supreme Court judges is what allowed what should have been a democracy to become tainted, but since that legal document is worshipped as if it were a religious text, the American people prefer to keep it that way.

Money controls politics. Because there is no real limit to how much politicians can spend on campaigns, the big financial institutions and corporations can essentially buy elections.
For instance, you cannot win if you don't agree to sell your soul to an oversized, overpowered and largely useless/counterproductive Wall Street.
Whatever is not bought through donations is bought through the media, particularly television, where moguls with deep pockets can feed any propaganda and misinformation they want, with no accountability.

A system based on money cannot be democratic, as democracy is defined by majority rule, whereas all the money is generally in the hands of a small minority (that's the case pretty much everywhere, including in socialist countries, so this is not a criticism of the American free market way).

(In addition, the archaic voting system for presidential elections is contrary to the elementary principle of "one man, one vote". The whole notion of a "swing state" should not exist in the first place.)

The irony of all this is that fixing those problems would be relatively easy (other countries that cap electoral budgets don't suffer from those to anywhere near the same extent) if changing the Constitution wasn't seen as a taboo.

[KevinNYC]

That absolutely boggles the mind. When they gave that medal to Obama it effectively rendered the peace prize worthless.

You know some of the other folks who won the Prize right?

[KevinNYC]

That is because the American system is not a true democracy.
A flawed Constitution and its extreme interpretation by Supreme Court judges is what allowed what should have been a democracy to become tainted,

America was never and was never intended to be a true democracry.

[BoutPractice]

But that's the point.

We shouldn't care what America was "intended" to be centuries ago. How about we stop worshipping dead people and think for ourselves so we can invent our own future?

[Take Your Lumps]

80-year study: Democrats better at economics (http://washingtonexaminer.com/80-year-study-democrats-better-at-economics/article/2505194#.UDz-EMFlTO8)


When it comes to which party is better for the economy, Republicans talk the talk, but it's Democrats who deliver the goods according to an unusual 80-year study of the impact presidents have on growth, personal wealth, the stock market and even 401ks.

The bottom line, according to Bulls, Bears and the Ballot Box: Of the five best economic presidents since Herbert Hoover, only one is a Republican. The paydirt finding: $100,000 invested during the 40 years Republicans had the White House would be worth $126,027. The same amount invested in the stock market during the Democrat's 40 years would be $3,912,210.

"Our book is a myth buster," said financial planner Bob Deitrick who co-authored Bulls, Bears with CPA and educator Lew Goldfarb.

Goldfarb blamed the conventional wisdom that Republican presidents are better economic managers on the inability of Democrats to tell their story. "Democrats stand on their message so poorly," he said. "Republicans, on the other hand, win the salesmanship merit badge every single year."

The duo stumbled on their conclusions while working on a different issue. Researching the impact of politics on stock market trends, Deitrick realized that in the last 80 years, Democrats and Republicans have held the White House 40 years each, minus President Obama's term. They came up with a ranking system based on stock market returns, personal income, economic growth and business prosperity.

The best period was during the Kennedy-Johnson years, the worst Herbert Hoover, who presided over the Great Depression. In order, the rankings are: JFK/LBJ, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Bill Clinton, Dwight Eisenhower, Harry Truman, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford, George W. Bush, and Hoover. Carter was the only Democrat in the bottom half of the list.

Theirs is a non-political book that also suggests that the Democrats have been luckier than the Republicans. Just consider that George H.W. Bush had a flat economy that was starting to surge when Clinton was elected and it roared during his term. By the time George W. Bush took over, the Clinton-era internet bubble had popped and he started two wars. For example, they write, $100,000 invested in 1993 was worth $341,894 at the end of Clinton's term. Under Bush, that $100,000 was worth $64,990 after his eight years, a difference of $277,000.

The authors omit President Obama because his four years aren't over, but they paint a conflicted economic picture of his years in office.

[dajadeed]

Yes, they are usually smarter. That is a fact. studies have shown that the higher your education level is the more likely you are to be more liberal leaning.

It makes total sense when you think about it. If you are not a rich white man, there is absolutely no reason to vote republican. Not national security, not economics, and not social issues. The right has absolutely nothing going for it other than hate and ignorance. That and rich white people.

It always cracks me up to see the "bible belt" idiots religiously voting for republicans. The very vast majority of those people voting in those states are too stupid to realize that they're voting against policies that would improve their lives.

No, I don't want to pay lower taxes and I don't want good healthcare because Obama isn't really for America. :oldlol:

[Rasheed1]

But that's the point.

We shouldn't care what America was "intended" to be centuries ago. How about we stop worshipping dead people and think for ourselves so we can invent our own future?



America isnt a democracy... Its a constitutional republic... We use democratic principles, but the majority doesnt rule.. Thats a good thing..

The constitution is important because it protects the rights of the individual in the face of the majority.

I agree with the other things you pointed out... The constitution doesnt demand limitless spending and some of the other things these politicians push for.. Politicians point to the constitution when convenient and they subvert it when it's not...

It should be updated, but in this dishonest environment, who do we trust to tamper with it?

[Nick Young]

Why do people keep continuing to ignore that Obama is now assassinating American citizens without trial for "speech crimes"?:facepalm

In my opinion, the people who blindly worship this guy and want to give him more power are just as stupid as any bible belt goat farming redneck from Appalachia.

[BoutPractice]

Rasheed1 > I would say the citizens, Iceland-style, but I realize how improbable that is.
I do believe it is the 21st century way - adding touches of collective intelligence to deadlocked processes.

[Take Your Lumps]

Let's look at some grown-up numbers...

The Dow Jones average opened at 7,949 the day Obama took office.

It now stands at 13,115 four years later. An increase of +60% in a recession.

The market was completely stagnant during Bush's first four years (change of -1%) and it dropped a whopping -25% during his final term.

Clinton's first term yielded +111%. His second term: +55%.

Democrats are killing our economy!!11

[BoutPractice]

Take Your Lumps > Obama took office after a crash, and Clinton's term coincided with a long period of prosperity.

In any case, the markets can lose everything they made over decades in one single day. They reflect irrational beliefs about the economy - even when they're corrected by the facts, they dramatically overreact to them.

[Jello]

Take Your Lumps > Obama took office after a crash, and Clinton's term coincided with a long period of prosperity.

In any case, the markets can lose everything they made over decades in one single day. They reflect irrational beliefs about the economy - even when they're corrected by the facts, they dramatically overreact to them.
Leave it to the liberals to give credence to their incumbents for a lucky stint in a cyclical economy.

[JtotheIzzo]

Why do people keep continuing to ignore that Obama is now assassinating American citizens without trial for "speech crimes"?:facepalm


Of course he is.:rolleyes:

[Rasheed1]

Wow.... Anybody read about the mine workers who recently attended a mitt romney event? :roll:

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/coal-miners-say-they-were-forced-attend-romn


So these coal miners were forced to attend a Mitt Romney event. They even lost a day's pay..

the owner is a mitt supporter and the event was mandatory :facepalm I hope Americans remember why unions are important, because if not? you'll see more of this stuff.

[Sarcastic]

80 years of data is not a lucky stint. The fact is that the Keynesian policies that are implemented under Democrats are able to offset the strong supply side policies that Republicans enact, and it keeps a happy medium for the economy.

[rufuspaul]

I hope Americans remember why unions are important, because if not? you'll see more of this stuff.


And no one supports unions more than the Democrats who are hosting their convention in a right-to-work state that the unions are boycotting. :oldlol:

[Jello]

80 years of data is not a lucky stint. The fact is that the Keynesian policies that are implemented under Democrats are able to offset the strong supply side policies that Republicans enact, and it keeps a happy medium for the economy.
lol keynesian policies or milton friedman's monetarism? Study before you comment.

[Jello]

Instead of negging, post it in here so we can get a real debate going.

[KevinNYC]

No matter who gets elected president:
the wars will continue
the drug war will continue
corporations will run our regulation agencies

I thought you were against regulation.

When you say wars which wars do you mean? Because we pulled combat troops out of Iraq which seems to be a pretty clear difference between the Repbulicans and the Democrats. It's hard to see that happening under a McCain Presidency or a Romney Presidency. (http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/10/21/8433344-republicans-criticize-obama-over-iraq-withdrawal?lite)

The Drug War has bipartisan support and is an example not of politicians simply seeking more power, but politicians responding to the demands of citizens.

Marijuana is creeping towards 50% or more favoring decriminalization, but 80% of the public is against cocaine being legal.

Large scale movement on the Drug War is going to half to come from the Right, because any Democrat who tries it without cover from the right will be slaughtered politically.
However, GQ had a report last month saying that Obama is going to take some steps in a second term. (http://www.gq.com/news-politics/blogs/death-race/2012/07/exclusive-in-his-second-term-obama-will-pivot-to-the-drug-war.html)

According to ongoing discussions with Obama aides and associates, if the president wins a second term, he plans to tackle another American war that has so far been successful only in perpetuating more misery: the four decades of The Drug War.

Don't expect miracles. There is very little the president can do by himself. And pot-smokers shouldn't expect the president to come out in favor of legalizing marijuana. But from his days as a state senator in Illinois, Obama has considered the Drug War to be a failure, a conflict that has exacerbated the problem of drug abuse, devastated entire communities, changed policing practices for the worse, and has led to a generation of young children, disproportionately black and minority, to grow up in dislocated homes, or in none at all.

The reporter who wrote that has very, good sources inside the Obama administration, so consider that an official leak. One thing that makes me inclined to believe is the "don't expect miracles line." A lot of the complaints in this thread seem to confuse a president with a king. Such as the bit about shutting down Guantanamo. Yes, Obama campaigned on that and had some movement on it and he was completely opposed by Congress including opposition within in his own party. Because he's not a king. You could put that down to a fight he lost. You may want to argue he didn't fight or lead on the issue and that would be correct, but as a practical politican why fight a losing cause? Especially, when his other fights were going to be so gargantuan.


Obama and 99% of all democrat congressmen are liars, cheats, and snakes.
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/images/smilies/sleeping.gif

I'm a libertarian anarchist at the time of posting
How's that working out for you? Also why would someone in the mainstream of American politics listen to an anarchist?

Not only is Obama less than perfect, he is a monster. He kills innocent people overseas as a matter of "policy."
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/images/smilies/bowdown.gif
Your derangement from reality is near complete.

He supports the imprisonment of millions of Americans, for crimes related to non-violent drug behavior.
What are your drugs of choice, Joe? Just curious.

[Nick Young]

Of course he is.:rolleyes:
LAWL, you think it's a lie?:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/jimmy-carter-attacks-barack-obama-over-assassinations-and-drone-attacks-7888925.html

Jimmy Carter is just chatting bullshit eh?:hammerhead:

[Rasheed1]

And no one supports unions more than the Democrats who are hosting their convention in a right-to-work state that the unions are boycotting. :oldlol:


yeah... thats the irony of the democrats

[Sarcastic]

yeah... thats the irony of the democrats

Kind of like the Republicans having their convention in an arena that was built with tax payer money.

[JaggerCommaMick]

Kind of like the Republicans having their convention in an arena that was built with tax payer money.


Federal tax dollars, mate?

[rufuspaul]

Kind of like the Republicans having their convention in an arena that was built with tax payer money.


Yes, exactly. The world isn't as black and white as party leaders would like us to believe. The biggest common denominator is of course lobbyist and special interest $$$$. They both gobble that shit up.

[Sarcastic]

Federal tax dollars, mate?

A shared expense is a shared expense. I am sure there is at least 1 person that voted against it in Tampa.

We are more than a collection 50 individual societies. We are 1 country, and sometimes the east has to share with the west, and the south has to share with the north. That's the price to pay to live in this society.

[Godzuki]

don't forget Republicans were pushing for big business deregulation just prior to the Enron and AIG scandals. they shut up for a while but they're still back at it since the public has somewhat forgotten about it. People acting like the administrations had little to do with the issues we've had are wrong. Democrats have been trying to regulate Wall Street harsher while Republicans keep fighting it. People just love to obfuscate between the two but there are clear distinctions in terms of policies between the two that show Republican agendas generally lean towards certain groups(rich or big business).

Its also silly to me how people automatically thinik they're the same because they're only picking and choosing some things to make Democrats look bad, but not tallying the big picture. either way we're fukked with the mentality of so many people in America with votes. they just want to bitch without a solution or taking a side. siding with the lesser of 2-3 evils is better than taking no side at all just bitching and moaning about it all....

[King Crossover]

there are massive differences and people vote based on how they are affected. take me for example: I make a lot of money and I want to keep it. So I vote Republican. Sayin it straight up. Just how it is

[rufuspaul]

Democrats have been trying to regulate Wall Street harsher


Really? How? Frank-Dodd? Give me a fukcing break. How many Wall Street big wigs have been prosecuted by the Obama administration? How have the banking and auto industries been reeled in?

[Godzuki]

Really? How? Frank-Dodd? Give me a fukcing break. How many Wall Street big wigs have been prosecuted by the Obama administration? How have the banking and auto industries been reeled in?


you act as tho they aren't trying. I can't remember the somewhat recent legislation that got shot down by Republicans to reform Wall Street but i'll try to find it, think it was around the time of Obama's last national speech. and what exactly are Republicans doing to address these financial scandals as a party? thats right they keep impeding Democratic efforts. you keep citing stuff to attack Democrats and never seem to present a solution or even a viable side to even support. its just bitching and complaining about it all.

here are a few articles showing how one sided the efforts to reform Wall Street are:

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-07-21/news/27070452_1_reform-bill-president-obama-gop-filibuster

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/19/wall-street-reform-obama-_n_1529419.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2012/0828/Obama-vs.-Romney-101-3-ways-they-differ-on-regulation/Dodd-Frank-Wall-Street-Reform-and-Consumer-Protection-Act

[BEAST Griffin]

Obama appointed a Monstanto goon for head of the FDA. :lol

What a slime bag.

[Heilige]

That absolutely boggles the mind. When they gave that medal to Obama it effectively rendered the peace prize worthless.


The prize became worthless when they gave it to Arafat.

[Hazard]

No absolutely no difference. The only thing the president does is sign off on a bill once it passes through Senate. That's why this countries political system is a Republic and not a Democracy. If a bill was presented to the people and everyone voted off on it and then it is signed by the president, then it would be a democracy. This country is too goddamn selfish and uneducated to have a functioning democracy. I think the only way to take corruption out of government is to have a dictator who genuinely wants the best for his people. That way you cant have a corrupt senate, and you cant have candidates taking lobbies to boost their campaigns. The dictator rules with an iron fist and his word is law, if you wanna blather about it you die. **** this stupid ass country, whatever happens in the next 10 years just know that you all did this to yourselves. I cant see anything good happening unfortunately. This is one of the few countries where a political protest can actually accomplish something (well not anymore (http://rt.com/usa/news/trespass-bill-obama-secret-227/)) and people decided it would be more worthwhile to argue about gay marriage and idiotic issues that shouldn't even be talked about.

[Nanners]

Yes I do. I think there is a big difference. Democrats want things to change for the better. The right wing clearly has no interest in the rights of the middle class and poor. The right wing tries to turn the word "liberal" into a pejorative. They try to attach negativity to words like socialism as if that is the worst thing in the world.

Its sad that democrats and republicans are both blind to the fact that Obama and Romney are both owned by the Exxons and Goldman Sachs of the world. There is no difference between democrat and republican politicians, there is a difference between democrat and republican voters. The democrats have good intents, you have to be a cold bastard to support guys like Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.

[IGOTGAME]

Really? How? Frank-Dodd? Give me a fukcing break. How many Wall Street big wigs have been prosecuted by the Obama administration? How have the banking and auto industries been reeled in?

Dodd Frank hasn't been put into full effect yet. I'm not a big fan of the legislation but its not fair to judge it yet.

[Ne 1]

http://oi45.tinypic.com/1e9ydu.jpg

[no pun intended]

There seems to be not much difference mainly because of the political stagnancy in Congress. After Obama was elected in '08, the Republicans were so butthurt and tried so damn hard to destroy Obama's promise of "bipartisan support." It's disheartening to see another party trying to obliterate the goals of another President by putting themselves first before him, let alone the entire country. As Sen. George Voinovich said, "If Obama was for it, we had to be against it." It's as if the party seemed obligated to deny everything Obama did in order to remain united as a faction.

[demons2005]

It's disheartening to see another party trying to obliterate the goals of another President by putting themselves first before him, let alone the entire country.

It's MUCH WORSE to see a would-be dictator with anti-colonialist views do whatever he wants. ask africa and south america how thats working out

[no pun intended]

It's MUCH WORSE to see a would-be dictator with anti-colonialist views do whatever he wants. ask africa and south america how thats working out
We can't say for the worse or better. But one thing is for sure, it would be different, and it would make Democrats and Republicans appear starkly different. Wasn't that the question?

[Patrick Chewing]

Yes I do. I think there is a big difference.


LOL stopped reading....you're a joke if you believe this.

[Take Your Lumps]

I think we are seeing the end of the modern Republican party as we have come to know it...they have strayed way too far into right-field. Young people (and an increasing number of older folks) simply do not care about what other people choose to do in their private lives and with their own bodies as long as they're not hurting others. The establishment GOP may not like it, but they will need to adopt some libertarian-leaning stances on social issues moving forward if they want to survive in America.

If they lose in November, there is absolutely no ****ing way they come back in 2016 with the same nutty platform across the board on social issues.

Take a guy like Jeb Bush - he will be smart enough to know that a sensible approach to gay rights and contraception, for example, is a good way to attract rational independently-minded voters who happen to be fiscally conservative.

In today's America, if you're a fiscal conservative, you also have to hold your nose and vote for people who in many instances are outwardly trying to legislate morality...it's ridiculous.

[joe]

KevinNYC: "Libertarian anarchist aye, how's that working for you"

Humanity is better than resorting to brutal governments. We just need to see governments fail a few more times before people are ready. I think the idea is way ahead of its time, and if humans don't wipe themselves out, it will be the next great evolution in civilization. :)

[joe]

We can't say for the worse or better. But one thing is for sure, it would be different, and it would make Democrats and Republicans appear starkly different. Wasn't that the question?

Yes we can say what's for the worse or better. Dictatorships are worse than a stubborn Congress. I say that with full confidence.

[Crystallas]

Of course I think they are different. It should be very clear.

THEY LIE ABOUT DIFFERENT THINGS!

[joe]

Its sad that democrats and republicans are both blind to the fact that Obama and Romney are both owned by the Exxons and Goldman Sachs of the world. There is no difference between democrat and republican politicians, there is a difference between democrat and republican voters. The democrats have good intents, you have to be a cold bastard to support guys like Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.

I was nodding my head until this. The democrats do not have good intentions either, man. You're projecting your own views onto the politicians. These guys are scum-suckers.

What does it take to be a good politician? You have to be a snake. You have to be able to lie to people in their face, make promises you can't keep. Shape shift from crowd to crowd.

What does it take to get high up in politics? You need connections. You need donation money from corporations. You need to pass laws that benefit those corporations, in order to keep that donation money rolling in, all the while pretending you are only out for the good of the country.

What else? You have to go to sleep, knowing that a bill you voted for is responsible for the murder of thousands of children overseas. Know that millions are rotting away in jail because of a stupid law you passed.

The traits that make a good politician, are traits that make a bad human being.

[brantonli]

KevinNYC: "Libertarian anarchist aye, how's that working for you"

Humanity is better than resorting to brutal governments. We just need to see governments fail a few more times before people are ready. I think the idea is way ahead of its time, and if humans don't wipe themselves out, it will be the next great evolution in civilization. :)


What's your opinion of Adam Smith joe? (dw it is relevant to the idea of government :) )

[joe]

What's your opinion of Adam Smith joe? (dw it is relevant to the idea of government :) )

Have never read Adam Smith, what say you?

[brantonli]

Have never read Adam Smith, what say you?


Interesting and smart guy, but I was worried you might bring him out as a libertarian icon. He basically coined the term invisible hand of the market, and gave rise to the idea that every man pursuing their selfish goals inadvertantly helps improve society as a whole. But at the same time he also wrote about being careful of monopolistic competition and the role of government in both trade and maintains fairness in the marketplace. So if you ever have libertarian friends touting Adam smith as their god, be mindful of smiths other writings too.

Btw I do agree with you, politicians are the same everywhere. In the end, their self interest matters more than the nation. I have little doubt that Obama manipulated and deceived as many people as Ryan, Romney, whoever, to get to where he is now.

but I do believe that demos and R's differ in their beliefs. Not necessarily in their intentions (their intention is almost always to get to the highest office after all) but what they will do once they get into office will differ.

[joe]

Interesting and smart guy, but I was worried you might bring him out as a libertarian icon. He basically coined the term invisible hand of the market, and gave rise to the idea that every man pursuing their selfish goals inadvertantly helps improve society as a whole. But at the same time he also wrote about being careful of monopolistic competition and the role of government in both trade and maintains fairness in the marketplace. So if you ever have libertarian friends touting Adam smith as their god, be mindful of smiths other writings too.

Btw I do agree with you, politicians are the same everywhere. In the end, their self interest matters more than the nation. I have little doubt that Obama manipulated and deceived as many people as Ryan, Romney, whoever, to get to where he is now.

Ya man, same thing with Milton Friedman. lol. He's amazing to listen to about mostly everything free-market based, then I found out he's all for central banking and crap. The Chicago school really confuses me. At least the Keynesians are straightforward.. they want to molest the economy every chance they can get. The Chicago School is all nice and friendly, then when you put your guard down they try molesting you. Wtf.

Nah most people that I listen to at least don't talk much about Adam Smith. Probably the economists they learned from, talked about Adam Smith. Or maybe one generation back, I don't even know.

What are your political beliefs these days?

[brantonli]

Truth be told, I don't really 'need' political beliefs, because I live in a place without universal suffrage (but it's not China though!) and I can't vote in anything apart from local council elections. So in a sense, my political beliefs count less than yours joe lol.

Well politically I guess I'm left wing? Tbh I don't like marijuana legalisation (alcohol was never a brilliant idea but its such an old tradition anyway) but I'm all for gay marriage.

Also, here's a rather interesting article on the current economic environment. I'm interning at an asset mang company now so I get to read loads of really up to date stuff on economics.

http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue58/Koo58.pdf

Richard Koo is the chief economist at Nomura (major Japanese securities firm) and his theory regarding the current situation is that while textbook economic says that firms always profit maximise, in the current recession, firms are actually focused on deleveraging, rather than profit maximising. The reason is because in a debt driven recession (note, not government debt, but personal and firm debt), when a firm gets into trouble, its assets and revenue stream shrink, but its liabilities (the debt) remains the same. Hence, the focus turns on minimising debt rather than maximising profits. Koo argues that in fact governments are spending enough to counter the deleveraging, which is why I think this might be of interest to you joe, since you mentioned Keynes and his 'molestation' of the economy lol.

[joe]

Truth be told, I don't really 'need' political beliefs, because I live in a place without universal suffrage (but it's not China though!) and I can't vote in anything apart from local council elections. So in a sense, my political beliefs count less than yours joe lol.

Well politically I guess I'm left wing? Tbh I don't like marijuana legalisation (alcohol was never a brilliant idea but its such an old tradition anyway) but I'm all for gay marriage.

Also, here's a rather interesting article on the current economic environment. I'm interning at an asset mang company now so I get to read loads of really up to date stuff on economics.

http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue58/Koo58.pdf

Richard Koo is the chief economist at Nomura (major Japanese securities firm) and his theory regarding the current situation is that while textbook economic says that firms always profit maximise, in the current recession, firms are actually focused on deleveraging, rather than profit maximising. The reason is because in a debt driven recession (note, not government debt, but personal and firm debt), when a firm gets into trouble, its assets and revenue stream shrink, but its liabilities (the debt) remains the same. Hence, the focus turns on minimising debt rather than maximising profits. Koo argues that in fact governments are spending enough to counter the deleveraging, which is why I think this might be of interest to you joe, since you mentioned Keynes and his 'molestation' of the economy lol.

Koo argues that in fact governments are spending enough to counter the \deleveraging, which is why I think this might be of interest to you joe, since you mentioned Keynes and his 'molestation' of the economy lol.

That really only makes sense if you buy the Keynesian line that when private spending decreases, government has to "offset" that by spending more. The private sector isn't spending money for a good reason. When the government spends more to offset it, they're just sucking up even more of our already depleted resources that otherwise could have been saved, invested, and eventually spawned new businesses. The government needs to shrink so the rest of us can actually rebuild the economy, instead of them wasting our precious resources on pointless projects/wars/empire/a millions things that nobody would ever do if they had to spend their own money and not a faceless taxpayers.

Nice gig dude, here's to hoping the internship goes well and it leads to something greater :cheers:

[DirtySanchez]

There are differences between the two....

Dems want to run programs where government helps the poor etc
Republicans want to cut programs to lower gov spending

Dems want to give tax breaks to the middle class and the average man
Republicans want to give tax breaks to corporations who can create jobs

Dems want to put regulations on corporations
Republicans want deregulations to open up the private sector

Dems support women's right to choose
Republicans take the religious route making abortion illegal

Dems are more willing to have government spend and run programs aimed at lowering the deficit
Republicans do not want government to spend in fact want to cut taxes and use that as a trickle down method to lower the deficit

I look at it like this....

8 years of Clinton economy was great country was thriving...
And we actually started cutting in to the deficit that Regans America blew up

Bush comes in for 8 years...starts two wars and the economy goes bad and the deficit blows up and we come in to a rescission

Obama comes in promises to stop the bleeding and really can not get anything done because a majority ruled republican party refuses to work with him
The country has not improved but we are a float....Barely

Now we have a choice....4 more years of Obama hoping he grows a pair
Or elect Romney who represents the party and principals who got us in this mess in the first place.

[DCL]

at the end of the day, the president of the united states is just a puppet. he's controlled by elite groups that don't give a flying fk about you.

[DirtySanchez]

What ever decision you make you are going to cheered by a few and jeered by the other few.

Thing is this country is really controlled by the media. What ever is repeated most is seen as truth.

[Ne 1]

Really, what's the difference between the DNC and GOP?

If the GOP is for less government and reduced spending ONLY when there is a Democrat in office..........

And the DNC is for civil liberty and less war and militarism ONLY when there is a Republican in office.............

Doesn't that make them the same thing?

All in all there's really very little diffence between the Democrats and the Republicans save for certain policies on rather unimportant social issues. Both parties essentially favour the status quo.

If the political spectrum was a line from one to ten, one being the most left wing, ten the most right wing, the Democrats would be at six, the Republicans at seven.

[brantonli]

Wait so Goldman, Exxon, the media, 'elite groups' control the US? So are they each fighting each other to control the US?


and joe:


That really only makes sense if you buy the Keynesian line that when private spending decreases, government has to "offset" that by spending more. The private sector isn't spending money for a good reason. When the government spends more to offset it, they're just sucking up even more of our already depleted resources that otherwise could have been saved, invested, and eventually spawned new businesses. The government needs to shrink so the rest of us can actually rebuild the economy, instead of them wasting our precious resources on pointless projects/wars/empire/a millions things that nobody would ever do if they had to spend their own money and not a faceless taxpayers.



could have been saved, invested, and eventually spawned new businesses

Um..joe did you even read what I wrote, or the article I posted? The main argument of the article is that the private sector isn't spending money, isn't investing, isn't spawning new businesses, because they are paying down their debt, and if the government/Fed hadn't stepped in and pumped the economy full of cash, the entire economy would have tanked into a Great Depression. I'll post a good example from it:

[QUOTE]To see this, consider a world where a household has an income of $1,000 and a
savings rate of 10 percent. This household would then spend $900 and save $100. In the
usual or textbook world, the saved $100 will be taken up by the financial sector and lent to a
borrower who can best use the money. When that borrower spends the $100, aggregate
expenditure totals $1,000 ($900 plus $100) against original income of $1,000, and the
economy moves on. When demand for the $100 in savings is insufficient, interest rates are
lowered, which usually prompts a borrower to take up the remaining sum. When demand is
excessive, interest rates are raised, prompting some borrowers to drop out.
In the world where the private sector is minimizing debt, however, there are no
borrowers for the saved $100 even with interest rates at zero, leaving only $900 in
expenditures. That $900 represents someone

[dude77]

I was nodding my head until this. The democrats do not have good intentions either, man. You're projecting your own views onto the politicians. These guys are scum-suckers.

What does it take to be a good politician? You have to be a snake. You have to be able to lie to people in their face, make promises you can't keep. Shape shift from crowd to crowd.

What does it take to get high up in politics? You need connections. You need donation money from corporations. You need to pass laws that benefit those corporations, in order to keep that donation money rolling in, all the while pretending you are only out for the good of the country.

What else? You have to go to sleep, knowing that a bill you voted for is responsible for the murder of thousands of children overseas. Know that millions are rotting away in jail because of a stupid law you passed.

The traits that make a good politician, are traits that make a bad human being.

sadly, this post hits the nail on the head

[oh the horror]

I used to think there was a difference...and then you know what? I became an adult.

[JaggerCommaMick]

I used to think there was a difference...and then you know what? I became an adult.

Indeed, mate, there is no difference between the two political parties and how they govern (at least with regards to the most critical issues).

There is a bit of a distinction between the types of people who typically make up each party. Heres the difference:

Republicans have a silly, ideological, delusional view of the after life.
Democrats have a silly, ideological, delusional view of real life.

Theyre two opposite sides of the very same coin. They cant deal with facts that are inconvenient to their feelings. Both live willfully in a state of denial.

[DeuceWallaces]

If you honestly can't see the difference then it's likely you don't have a real life consisting of a job, family, education, career, etc. where the consequences are very real.

[JaggerCommaMick]

If you honestly can't see the difference then it's likely you don't have a real life consisting of a job, family, education, career, etc. where the consequences are very real.


Mate, why dont you extrapolate? You arent actually giving any opinion or analysis here. Its just a dramatic (for effect) interjection of something (purposely) vague, and meaningless.

Pretty standard for you though, chap. Is anyone supposed to deduce you have a clue, based on that ambiguous nonsense? Is that what its about? You have no intellect or principle, you just use phony techniques of illusion to try and create an image of being savvy? Nothin you say ever has any actual substance to it. Youre an artful dodger, the definition of hollow rhetoric

Explain what the difference is, mate, that you believe everyone 'should be able to see'.

Go ahead, mate, we'll all wait

[IGOTGAME]

If you honestly can't see the difference then it's likely you don't have a real life consisting of a job, family, education, career, etc. where the consequences are very real.

this.

[joe]

Wait so Goldman, Exxon, the media, 'elite groups' control the US? So are they each fighting each other to control the US?


and joe:






Um..joe did you even read what I wrote, or the article I posted? The main argument of the article is that the private sector isn't spending money, isn't investing, isn't spawning new businesses, because they are paying down their debt, and if the government/Fed hadn't stepped in and pumped the economy full of cash, the entire economy would have tanked into a Great Depression. I'll post a good example from it:

But I'm saying in response, there's likely a good reason that the private sector isn't spending money right now. If business feels the need to pay down debt right now, there's nothing "wrong" about that that the government needs to "correct" or "even out."

This line of reasoning only makes sense if you accept that high aggregate spending creates good economies. Or, that you heal recessions by boosting spending, even if it's by the government. (Isn't that what a lot in the mainstream think? Pardon moi if I am wrong about that.) I don't buy that. I think we need to let the free market work (as best as it can in this mixed, regulated, centrally banked economy). Let the businesses pay down debt, let them re-structure themselves, allow people to save money, etc. All of those things will happen in time. If it isn't happening now, there's a good reason, and the government (or anyone for that matter) is far too stupid and mortal to understand the intricate challenges all of these businesses might be facing.

We all know the businesses eventually want to expand, sell more products, hire more people, etc. That's their goal.. to become bigger. If they apparently aren't working towards those ends, we should assume there's a good reason. For the government to just step in and spend money, is such a simple (to use a nice word), arrogant, and ignorant thing to do (a little more harsh). No man or group of men is smart enough to centrally control, steer, or direct an economy. Welllll.. they can direct it straight towards the ground. But none of us want that, aye ;) It would take an omniscient God to centrally control the economy. Bernanke and Obama to me fall just short of that.

The Fed has only delayed the depression. It's coming amigo. When the US economy is looking like Greece and Spain's, will you read some Murray Rothbard for me :D. ????

[KevinNYC]

KevinNYC: "Libertarian anarchist aye, how's that working for you"

Humanity is better than resorting to brutal governments. We just need to see governments fail a few more times before people are ready. I think the idea is way ahead of its time, and if humans don't wipe themselves out, it will be the next great evolution in civilization. :)

Joe, you seem to have one view of human nature, if those humans are a government and one view if those people are not part of a government.

It's really big distortion that you have. You seem to think that people join governments and they then become brutal. Whereas live in places that are actually anarchies is almost invariably more brutal than live under most governments here on earth. Without government who protects the weak from preying on the strong? The reason humanity moved towards its current form of governments is because of their experiences with anarchy.

You seem to lack the ability to discern because any government and totalitarianism.

[JaggerCommaMick]

this.


Its to be expected that "Mr Race Card" himself aligns with Mr Meaningless BS. The most empty rhetoric and class propaganda here always comes from the ardent democrats.

They must run out of Vagisil stock very quickly where you two chaps live, eh mates?

[Balla_Status]

If you honestly can't see the difference then it's likely you don't have a real life consisting of a job, family, education, career, etc. where the consequences are very real.

I have all of those and agree there isn't much a difference. Well, I don't have a family.

[JaggerCommaMick]

I have all of those and agree there isn't much a difference. Well, I don't have a family.

Youre were an orphan, mate?

[Balla_Status]

Youre were an orphan, mate?

Depends on your definition of family...I have no wife or kids but parents, brother, cousins, etc. I do have.

[JaggerCommaMick]

Depends on your definition of family...I have no wife or kids but parents, brother, cousins, etc. I do have.


I got ya mate, Im just pullin ya kippers. Youre in a family, you just aint the patriarch of your own family yet, aye?

[Ne 1]

If you honestly can't see the difference then it's likely you don't have a real life consisting of a job, family, education, career, etc. where the consequences are very real.

These are the main differences...

People on the left support:
- Government regulated economy
- United Nations led military actions
- Using Eminent Domain for private gain
- Taxpayer funding of government charities
- Special treatment for select minorities

People on the right support:
- Government regulated morality
- Military adventurism (Nation Building)
- War on Drugs
- Taxpayer funding of faith-based charities
- Special treatment for select corporations

[kentatm]

These are the main differences...

People on the left support:
- Government regulated economy
- United Nations led military actions
- Using Eminent Domain for private gain
- Taxpayer funding of government charities
- Special treatment for select minorities

People on the right support:
- Government regulated morality
- Military adventurism (Nation Building)
- War on Drugs
- Taxpayer funding of faith-based charities
- Special treatment for select corporations

Republicans use eminent domain for private gain all the time too. That one is abused by both sides.

[BEAST Griffin]

Both parties are tools to make sure the productive keep running on a tread mill that powers the escalator of parasitic rich people.

[IGOTGAME]

Do you think abortion is important? Immigration? Expansion of presidental powers? Tax structure? Economic policy?

Plus there will be supreme court seats opening up that will have great consequence on the country. If you don't see how the decisions of your government impact your life and the lives of others than ur ignorant. and, yes there is a divergence between the parties.

[MJ23forever]

Yes I do. I think there is a big difference. Democrats want things to change for the better. The right wing clearly has no interest in the rights of the middle class and poor. The right wing tries to turn the word "liberal" into a pejorative. They try to attach negativity to words like socialism as if that is the worst thing in the world.

Obama did a lot in his first two years. Then after the right wing took control of the House in the Midterm elections they started blaming Obama for not getting anything done. The republicans held the country hostage because they want to see Obama fail.

I think the right wing relies on lies and the ignorance of voters to win. If they told the truth they would never win. They always seem to be on the bad side of every issue. They appeal to evangelical Christians, the uneducated, the pro-lifers, racists, and the rich.

There is a lot of right wing propaganda being put out there by the same people who never liked Obama in the first place. When you have to lie about where Obama was born and call him a Muslim when he isn't you know you have nothing else to stand on.

I have no doubts that there is corruption in both the Democratic party and the Republican party. It's far more damaging with the right wing when you look at the evidence. I mean do you really want to compare Clinton getting a blowjob to Bush getting millions killed in an oil war which he had no legitimate reason to start?

>complains about the use of liberal as a pejorative
>uses terms like Christian, pro-lifer, and "the rich" as pejoratives

This is why the term liberal IS a pejorative.

[DonDadda59]

I try to stay apolitical for this very reason. Seems to me that with the exception of a few hard liners and neo-cons, modern democrats and republicans are only really separated by who they pander to for votes and funds. A guy like Mitt Romney changes his 'stances' and 'beliefs' according to who is in front of him. One day he's authoring a bill for 'socialized medicine', the next day he's bashing Obama for doing more or less the same thing. When he gives an interview one day where he's asked about the abortion issue- he's pro life, next week he's 'still developing a fully-formed position' on the matter.

Dude reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9e9T3DNAdaI :oldlol:


Thank you, post of the day. It's taken us four years to turn things around, now that the housing market and economy are starting to rebound people want to go right back to the policies that drove us into the ground for eight straight years.

:biggums:

That's the one thing I really can't wrap my mind around. We've seen the kind of catastrophe that these policies (namely deregulation) can cause, yet a large number of people are screaming 'yeah, it blew up in our faces then... but let's try it one more time'. That is the definition of insanity. The 'trickle down' and laissez-faire approach CLEARLY is not good for the economy. This isn't really a theoretical claim, we just saw first hand what that results in... yet certain factions want a repeat? :confusedshrug:

At least Obama did something to reverse the harm done by the Graham-Leahy fiasco and put up some regulations to make sure the white collar criminals in Wall Street aren't given carte blanche to play roulette with the economy again. He deserves credit for that at the very least.

[DonDadda59]

Really? How? Frank-Dodd? Give me a fukcing break. How many Wall Street big wigs have been prosecuted by the Obama administration? How have the banking and auto industries been reeled in?

Excellent points. Like you said, it's not really as black and white as the party bosses and media make it seem. Both dem and republicans are in bed with the lobbyists, special interests, etc. They aren't going to prosecute the guys who contribute millions to their campaign funds (and personal bank accounts). A lot of big bank/investment fund heads basically played black jack with people's money or acted in the same manner as mafia loan sharks with exorbitant secret rates. Then when they lost their hand and everyday people lost their houses because they couldn't pay the vig, none of these big wigs were held accountable. Instead, many of them were rewarded with bail outs.

We should've had Nuremberg-like trials for these criminals, but instead they were rewarded with even more money... and some wanted to give them more freedom to do with it as they like :wtf:

[JaggerCommaMick]

We should've had Nuremberg-like trials for these criminals, but instead they were rewarded with even more money... and some wanted to give them more freedom to do with it as they like :wtf:


Well mate anyone who did anything illegal certanly should have been brought to justice. However mate, "taking risks" typically aint illegal. If someone invests significant money with a bank or broker, dont you think that person should keep up to date on what kind of business they practice? Then they can decide for themself if its worth the risk. People taking their business elsewhere is what breeds competition and drives better results.

Every time 'ordinary people' behave lazily or ignorantly, democrats want to smooth it over with regulations, taxes, mandates, etc on 'big' targets simply because typically democrats are young, low or middle income, or minority. Also typically less ambitious. Those are the people who can be easily rallied against 'big wigs' even if both the ordinary guy and the big wig are operating at the same degree of competence, morality, an so forth.

I have never heard a democrat suggest an individual take more responsibility for anything. All it is, mates, is paranoid nonsense about the system, wall street, republicans, and of course the antecedent to all of global mankind's ills - george w bush. Excuses for not payin attention, excuses for not bein involved, excuses for not bein learned, excuses for making bad decisions. These are absolved by the Democrat's creed. Because who will vote for someone who says your mess is your fault, mate? Why not just blame a rch guy, huh? Class warfare is the Democrat rope a dope, used the same way as religious intimidation is used by the far right. Two parties competing against each other, you think they aint both usin trickeration?

Laughin me arse off at "democrats are good, way better, its just republicans that are bad"

People who are blindly Democrats mate are no different than blind evangelists. They aint analyzing anything objectively mate, they just see a group they want to belong to and hence they sing the chorus word for word. Typically with hubris and vitriol. DeuceWallaces is the lerfect example of a bloke who thinks his political party affiliation demonstrates his intelligence. Well ill tell ya, mate, it certainly does, but not in such a way as he should like.

[Jello]

Excellent points. Like you said, it's not really as black and white as the party bosses and media make it seem. Both dem and republicans are in bed with the lobbyists, special interests, etc. They aren't going to prosecute the guys who contribute millions to their campaign funds (and personal bank accounts). A lot of big bank/investment fund heads basically played black jack with people's money or acted in the same manner as mafia loan sharks with exorbitant secret rates. Then when they lost their hand and everyday people lost their houses because they couldn't pay the vig, none of these big wigs were held accountable. Instead, many of them were rewarded with bail outs.

We should've had Nuremberg-like trials for these criminals, but instead they were rewarded with even more money... and some wanted to give them more freedom to do with it as they like :wtf:
You completely forgot about fannie and freddie. The private banks that didn't buy into fannie and freddie's scheme seemed to do just fine.

[Jello]

What's funny is these bad loans were forced upon banks by the "help poor people buy houses" democrats because fannie and freddie refused to buy up notes from banks that didn't bundle a certain percentage of these bad loans. The banks accused of not caring about poor people did just fine while those who bought into the scheme were stuck with toxic notes when fannie and freddie went bust.

[JaggerCommaMick]

What's funny is these bad loans were forced upon banks by the "help poor people buy houses" democrats because fannie and freddie refused to buy up notes from banks that didn't bundle a certain percentage of these bad loans. The banks accused of not caring about poor people did just fine while those who bought into the scheme were stuck with toxic notes when fannie and freddie went bust.


Yeah well guess what mate, theyre just bloody racists. Makin a sound business decision is racist. Workin at a bank is racist, man. Going to the gym I think is racist too, if a Republican does it. Its just all so racist, mate! GAWD! (Mate, Im actually satiring a white bloke who goes Democrat). GAWD everything is just so racist, its not fair, eliminating all this racism needs to be American priority number 1, and 2 and 3 all the way to a hundred! I cant sleep at night if even one person makes an innocent joke about race (if theyre white) because thats not allowed! Its too racist and dammit mate, being sensitive is all we should care about. Every Republican is racist and people that have money are racist and corporations are definitely racist and the media is racist, and gawd oh GAWD this is like the most important thing in the world, NOT TO BE RACIST!



Sorry, mates, Sarcastic was visitin me flat and got hold of me computer.

[IGOTGAME]

What's funny is these bad loans were forced upon banks by the "help poor people buy houses" democrats because fannie and freddie refused to buy up notes from banks that didn't bundle a certain percentage of these bad loans. The banks accused of not caring about poor people did just fine while those who bought into the scheme were stuck with toxic notes when fannie and freddie went bust.

the loans themselves were not bad. The lack of regulation, which allowed for predatory lending was the problem.

It had nothing to do with banks not" caring about poor people," it had everything to do with banks making their bottom line.

[Jello]

the loans themselves were not bad. The lack of regulation, which allowed for predatory lending was the problem.

It had nothing to do with banks not" caring about poor people," it had everything to do with banks making their bottom line.
Sorry but when the fine print is in front of you and you fail to understand it; you can't accuse banks of "predatory lending." There is no concession for lack of responsibility and laziness.

Of course it had to do with banks making their bottom line, but the democrats encouraged it. Was it greed that caused banks to make loans that they knew poor people couldn't pay back? or was it the fact that fannie and freddie forced it by creating artificial demand and were backed by the treasury. Banks weren't making these loans before democrats started turning the gears.

[IGOTGAME]

Sorry but when the fine print is in front of you and you fail to understand it; you can't accuse banks of "predatory lending." There is no concession for lack of responsibility and laziness.

Of course it had to do with banks making their bottom line, but the democrats encouraged it. Was it greed that caused banks to make loans that they knew poor people couldn't pay back? or was it the fact that fannie and freddie forced it by creating artificial demand and were backed by the treasury. Banks weren't making these loans before democrats started turning the gears.

Freddie and Fannie can't "force" anything...if they knew that people most likely couldn't pay back their loans and didn't accurately explain the loans --> then they acted deceptively.

I'm not for the bailout because everyone I knew was aware of this bubble. But, there really wasn't a non-radical way of handling it at the time. People can play Monday Morning quarterback all they want but no one would have the balls to play a radical card in that time of crisis.

[DirtySanchez]

The Republican party has lost me after 8 years of Bush.
Since then they have not made any case what so ever to get back my vote. The Tea party only keeps me realizing how out of touch the party has become.

[joe]

Joe, you seem to have one view of human nature, if those humans are a government and one view if those people are not part of a government.

It's really big distortion that you have. You seem to think that people join governments and they then become brutal. Whereas live in places that are actually anarchies is almost invariably more brutal than live under most governments here on earth. Without government who protects the weak from preying on the strong? The reason humanity moved towards its current form of governments is because of their experiences with anarchy.

You seem to lack the ability to discern because any government and totalitarianism.

I don't agree with your assessment of how I think.

I don't think that government employees are the only brutal people. I think brutal people use the power of government to bully the rest of us. Not all government employees are evil, certainly not like teachers or firefighters. But when you talk about high-level politicians, TSA agents, high-level bureaucrats... yes, I do think a certain "type" of person is attracted to these jobs. And not a good type.


The reason humanity moved towards its current form of governments is because of their experiences with anarchy.

What proof do you have of this? If you plan to say the current existence of governments, I can just as easily say governments came about against the will of the people to begin with. Unless you have actual evidence? If so I'd love to read it, no BS. I'm always open to new information, except when I'm tired or I have work the next day ;).


You seem to lack the ability to discern because any government and totalitarianism

I'm assuming you meant 'between.' I totally disagree with this. Some governments are worse than others, no doubt about it. That doesn't mean I have to actually like being governed.


Without government who protects the weak from preying on the strong?

Do you really think current governments do that right now?

Human society is cooperative by nature, not combative. Free markets and capitalism are about cooperating with others, and improving the living conditions of your fellow man. In return you make a profit. That's how this thing works. The weak don't need government to protect them, what they need is for government to 1) stop taxing them and 2) stop log-jamming capitalism with monopoly money and regulations.

Are there criminals, bad people, rapists, other governments, muggers, carjackers, thugs, out there in the world? Yes. Why do we need government to stop them? Humans can build fricken planes and laptops, but we can't create private, free market security? Hosh-posh. Honestly, I am not even concerned about this. If there was no government tomorrow, there would be private police within 1 week. To me it's an insult to humanity to suggest otherwise.




Whereas live in places that are actually anarchies is almost invariably more brutal than live under most governments here on earth.


Maybe. That doesn't mean it couldn't work under the right circumstances. I personally don't think we've seen a good test case for capitalist-anarchy yet, and probably never will. Most (if not all) stateless societies come about by the collapse of current regimes, hardly an ideal situation. The people in these countries don't have any belief in a stateless society, they're just thrust into one against their will. For example, I don't think simply abolishing the US government right now is a good idea. As much as I dislike our governments actions, the American people are not ready for that. Not only are they dependent on the government financially, but they still believe in it philosophically. Suddenly removing government from a society like that is guaranteed to end miserably.

For any form of anarchy to succeed, it would take an entire society to simultaneously recognize how destructive a force government truly is exactly the same time. Sound impossible? Well, just 400-500 years ago, Europeans had some pretty whacky beliefs. Over time those beliefs changed. Religion was a lot more important, they accepted Kings as deities, etc. Who's to say that in 500 years, people won't have realized that governments themselves are just rubbish?

[D.J.]

The only thing that differs is the name of the party. Bottom line...poiticians on both sides don't give a flying f*ck about you or I.