The Politics Thread...

[monicaei]

Anti-climatic and kinda lame... Unless there was pie involved. In which case you win

[melbrod]

And I think now I will go sleep my unexpected calories off.

I did NOT have the munchies, in case you're wondering.

[ssgharkness020147]

After reading the drama of the last few days, I think its safe to say I could have a more constructive conversation with a jihadist than a liberal.

[EmilyB]

Oh, liberal! I've always wanted to ask, how do the democrats and republicans compare to the liberals and conservatives in Canada?

Same crap different name? Who is your Liberal?

[Dictator]

Originally Posted by monicaei

I want to write off my boat as a business expense. it makes as much sense as a horse (unless you are a farmer, I guess).



Are you a socialist? Old people don't need healthcare at a reduced rate. Let them purchase it on the free market using the age based sliding scale published by the insurance companies the rest of us do.

In answer to your question, No I am not a Socialist are you?

Medicare also covers the disabled and that portion of Medicare is projected to go bankrupt in 2016 maybe they will then go on Obamacare.

You could be right it may be better for Seniors to drop Medicare and go to Obamacare. I don't believe Obamacare could refuse to insure them since that would be a Civil Rights violation. That would be an interesting development.

Currently Sears is talking about dropping health care and also a Restaurant Chain called Olive Gardens.

[Dictator]

Originally Posted by EmilyB

You have no idea how happy most of us are about the results of this election.

Dear America,
Please vote for Obama. Granted, we're Canadian so can't tell you - but hell, we live right next door and as Trudeau said "Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt." We would rather we lived next to an Obama pacyderm than a Romney one

Why how is Obama better for Canada

[Dictator]

Originally Posted by EmilyB

Our prime minister wants to sell it to China. We don't.

So, PLEASE, PLEASE I'm begging you, buy our oil............

Romney wanted to buy Canadian Oil

[ssgharkness020147]

Originally Posted by EmilyB

Oh, liberal! I've always wanted to ask, how do the democrats and republicans compare to the liberals and conservatives in Canada?

Same crap different name? Who is your Liberal?

Don't quote me on it, but I believe our liberal's are the same. In the US the Democrats are the liberals, if I remember correctly the Democrats in the US parallel many of the same lines as the Canadian Liberal party.

[RottenVonSpotten]

Originally Posted by ssgharkness020147

After reading the drama of the last few days, I think its safe to say I could have a more constructive conversation with a jihadist than a liberal.

The feeling is mutual.

Luckily for you, conservatives have more in common with jihadists than liberals do.

[dobermansrule]

Originally Posted by RottenVonSpotten

The feeling is mutual.

Luckily for you, conservatives have more in common with jihadists than liberals do.

then you misunderstand true conservatism. Conservatism is all about enabling people through the use of their brains and rational thought. Not depending on someone else to bring them to their personal points of enlightenment. True conservatism has nothing to do with religious zealots.

and to add - the Republican Party is NOT the conservative party. Not anymore.

[dobermansrule]

Originally Posted by monicaei

Well done DB. I'm impressed. I figured you for a young nitwit. I was incorrect.

Now go ask the gay couple with the dog (whose names you never bothered to learn) who lives next door... Who the "man" is and report back?

they don't live next door... a couple streets over.

and it's not hard to figure you out

[dobermansrule]

Originally Posted by EmilyB

You have no idea how happy most of us are about the results of this election.

Dear America,
Please vote for Obama. Granted, we're Canadian so can't tell you - but hell, we live right next door and as Trudeau said "Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt." We would rather we lived next to an Obama pacyderm than a Romney one

hey... we'll do one better - take him. Please. Why should we south of the border be the only ones to achieve eutopia. oh... scratch that.. Canada is already there. So Obama is our savior to achieve what you guys already have. I see the light.

[dobermansrule]

Originally Posted by melbrod

Dear Canada,

If you like Obama so much, you may have him.

Signed,
A Disaffected American

(I'm not going to make obvious rejoinder that while Romney's party mascot is indeed a pachyderm, Obama's is an a.........you know the rest, I'm sure.)



But, you know, I'm thinking as I write this, that it's nice to live in a country where I can write something like this without fear of repris.........hang on a second, someone's knocking at the door.......I'll be right back.........
LOL

don't worry, the internet is monitored.

[Jennie ATX]

Meh, all this liberal vs. conservative junk is just rhetoric. All of the powers that be like to keep us at each other's throats so we can blame the other guy when sh*t goes south, and the fat cats laugh all the way to the bank. No matter who gets elected America will still be policing the world, meddling with countries they have no business meddling with, killing foreign citizens in drone attacks, chipping away at our civil liberties, spending entirely too much money (and I don't believe for one second that Republicans would have solved our fiscal problems, the debt soared under Reagan and Bush 2 and frankly you cannot refuse to tax the rich and corporations while spending billions invading foreign countries and expect to decrease the debt). This is an interesting chart as it shows the national debt under each president by capita and also by percentage of GDP. PresidentialDebt.org - U.S. National Deby by Presidential Term Note that the debt as a percentage of GDP really only decreased under Carter and Clinton, and the year-over-year growth of the debt fell dramatically under Obama and Clinton, but none of the others.

Anywho, none of this will stop until we elect somebody OUTSIDE of the major parties. This guy pretty much wrote exactly what I thought about the election, particularly points #3 and 4:

Election Day Perspective: 6 Things to Keep in Mind - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic

[dobermansrule]

Originally Posted by Jennie ATX

Meh, all this liberal vs. conservative junk is just rhetoric. All of the powers that be like to keep us at each other's throats so we can blame the other guy when sh*t goes south, and the fat cats laugh all the way to the bank. No matter who gets elected America will still be policing the world, meddling with countries they have no business meddling with, killing foreign citizens in drone attacks, chipping away at our civil liberties, spending entirely too much money (and I don't believe for one second that Republicans would have solved our fiscal problems, the debt soared under Reagan and Bush 2 and frankly you cannot refuse to tax the rich and corporations while spending billions invading foreign countries and expect to decrease the debt). This is an interesting chart as it shows the national debt under each president by capita and also by percentage of GDP. PresidentialDebt.org - U.S. National Deby by Presidential Term Note that the debt as a percentage of GDP really only decreased under Carter and Clinton, and the year-over-year growth of the debt fell dramatically under Obama and Clinton, but none of the others.

Anywho, none of this will stop until we elect somebody OUTSIDE of the major parties. This guy pretty much wrote exactly what I thought about the election, particularly points #3 and 4:

Election Day Perspective: 6 Things to Keep in Mind - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic

refreshing blast of fresh air

however, a third party President will be powerless given the gang in Congress. Third party president would be a lame duck at the start. Unfortunately.

Now.. if we take your candidate and empower the Torches and Pitchforks Party (my party) to go clean house - then maybe we'd have something.

[dobermansrule]

Originally Posted by Jennie ATX

Meh, all this liberal vs. conservative junk is just rhetoric. All of the powers that be like to keep us at each other's throats so we can blame the other guy when sh*t goes south, and the fat cats laugh all the way to the bank. No matter who gets elected America will still be policing the world, meddling with countries they have no business meddling with, killing foreign citizens in drone attacks, chipping away at our civil liberties, spending entirely too much money (and I don't believe for one second that Republicans would have solved our fiscal problems, the debt soared under Reagan and Bush 2 and frankly you cannot refuse to tax the rich and corporations while spending billions invading foreign countries and expect to decrease the debt). This is an interesting chart as it shows the national debt under each president by capita and also by percentage of GDP. PresidentialDebt.org - U.S. National Deby by Presidential Term Note that the debt as a percentage of GDP really only decreased under Carter and Clinton, and the year-over-year growth of the debt fell dramatically under Obama and Clinton, but none of the others.

Anywho, none of this will stop until we elect somebody OUTSIDE of the major parties. This guy pretty much wrote exactly what I thought about the election, particularly points #3 and 4:

Election Day Perspective: 6 Things to Keep in Mind - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic

interesting table in that link.. would like to also see Congress majority.. Reagan was blessed with Tip ONeal in those days. Congress really spends the money. and in Carter days, the Federal Reserve policy was not the same as today.

and, if I read the table correctly, debt is now 100% of GDP. That is President-agnostic.. just something that is unavoidable and will only grow. The snowball can't be stopped.

and wow... interest expense.. 3% of our GDP goes to pay interest on the debt... no wonder the men behind the curtain want to keep interest rates so low.

[RottenVonSpotten]

Originally Posted by dobermansrule

then you misunderstand true conservatism. Conservatism is all about enabling people through the use of their brains and rational thought. Not depending on someone else to bring them to their personal points of enlightenment. True conservatism has nothing to do with religious zealots.

and to add - the Republican Party is NOT the conservative party. Not anymore.

I meant it in the context of how the word is used in present day, not the historical meaning of the word.

[dobermansrule]

Originally Posted by RottenVonSpotten

I meant it in the context of how the word is used in present day, not the historical meaning of the word.

Understood. I consider myself a conservative wannabee... but not a "Republican conservative".

Being a true conservative is hard. It's far easier to be liberal - every time I get to a pain-point in thinking, just spout a liberalism:

"oh.... just give them what they want"
"WTH - we're the richest nation on earth, everybody should have free healthcare"
"stop pissing off the Muslim's - we got what we deserved"

Liberalism is easy.

[dobermansrule]

ok, let's think this through. My brain is stuck.

What does it mean - really mean - to have national public debt as large as the gross domestic product ?

I know what it means on the surface - we as a nation owe as much as we generate in a year. Generate 15 trillion, we owe 15 trillion.

And the debt is projected to only grow out into perpetuity. GDP is sputtering along at what, 2 - 3 % growth.

It sounds bad. I know it wouldn't be good if the average household finances were run that way. But for a major country - what are the implications?

what is the fiscal cliff?

I can see news clips from Europe - protests in France, public worker strikes - Greece - protests over austerity measures...

Someone at work commented that we owe the debt to ourselves. Hmmm. That's partly true. The Federal Reserve does buy a good bit of the US treasuries at auctions - called monetizing the debt. But other countries, like China, still buy some of our debt (through Treasury auctions). Federal Reserve doesn't really care what yield is on the debt - they buy it to keep it on the books as assets to keep fiat money going. Outside buyers of the debt keep buying it, albeit less, at shrinking interest rates. What's in it for them? Certainly not as an investment at sub-1% yields.

At what point do the wheels fall off? or, are we special and this can just go on and on? Are we the piper? Everybody else seems to have to pay the piper - but us.

[melbrod]

Ever since Europeans first arrived here, we've been living off the fat of the land--abundant resources, rich virgin lands, plenty of space to expand into, a reasonably well educated and vigorous populace---but that is used up now.

Our soils are depleted, our resources of metal, oil, timber, etc. are either diminished or harder to get, we are more crowded (here in the west, even water is limited), our education system is no better or is even worse than that of the rest of the world, our commerce and work habits have become degraded as we grow more and more used to living as number 1.

We have been a richer country than the rest of the world because we have had more to begin with.

We have grown used to having the best, but we don't necessarily want to do the work it takes to get what we want. We expect riches; we deserve riches; someone who has them must share them with us.

Broad generalization, of course.

But the tipping point is here, or soon to arrive--when the number of people who expect to "share" the wealth (without contributing to it themselves) is larger than the number of people who have the wealth and are expected to "give" to the needy, the first can overrule the latter and grab whatever they want--legally, by the power of the ballot box.

The weakness of a democracy.

[RottenVonSpotten]

Originally Posted by dobermansrule

Understood. I consider myself a conservative wannabee... but not a "Republican conservative".

Being a true conservative is hard. It's far easier to be liberal - every time I get to a pain-point in thinking, just spout a liberalism:

"oh.... just give them what they want"
"WTH - we're the richest nation on earth, everybody should have free healthcare"
"stop pissing off the Muslim's - we got what we deserved"

Liberalism is easy.

So is being condescending.

If you want to play a game with over generalizations, I'm in:

"Climate change is a hoax and a way for the liberal media to control masses"

"Clean air and water are overrated"

"Why don't we just bomb the b******"

"Little Susie, Oscar lives in a trash can because he is lazy and unmotivated"

[dobermansrule]

Originally Posted by RottenVonSpotten

So is being condescending.

If you want to play a game with over generalizations, I'm in:

"Climate change is a hoax and a way for the liberal media to control masses"

"Clean air and water are overrated"

"Why don't we just bomb the b******"

"Little Susie, Oscar lives in a trash can because he is lazy and unmotivated"

not sure who's quotes those are - certainly not true conservative points again, true conservative thought is hard.

Were someone to sit down and be intellectually honest with themselves - democrat or republican or independent - and address your first bullet, climate change.. one would have to conclude that there is climate change. There always has been. One would have to consider climate change of today in the context of natural cycles and the impact of industrialization and nature. It's just as intellectually dishonest to say in a sweeping statement like liberals are want to do that climate change is because of man and automobiles and emissions as it is for a radio talk show junky to say what your first bullet says. The truth is out there - somewhere.

[dobermansrule]

Originally Posted by RottenVonSpotten

So is being condescending.

If you want to play a game with over generalizations, I'm in:

"Climate change is a hoax and a way for the liberal media to control masses"

"Clean air and water are overrated"

"Why don't we just bomb the b******"

"Little Susie, Oscar lives in a trash can because he is lazy and unmotivated"

and I don't think I'm over generalizing. I've heard it said on liberal talk shows, TV and on this very forum the points I stated.

[dobermansrule]

Originally Posted by melbrod

Ever since Europeans first arrived here, we've been living off the fat of the land--abundant resources, rich virgin lands, plenty of space to expand into, a reasonably well educated and vigorous populace---but that is used up now.

Our soils are depleted, our resources of metal, oil, timber, etc. are either diminished or harder to get, we are more crowded (here in the west, even water is limited), our education system is no better or is even worse than that of the rest of the world, our commerce and work habits have become degraded as we grow more and more used to living as number 1.

We have been a richer country than the rest of the world because we have had more to begin with.

We have grown used to having the best, but we don't necessarily want to do the work it takes to get what we want. We expect riches; we deserve riches; someone who has them must share them with us.

Broad generalization, of course.

But the tipping point is here, or soon to arrive--when the number of people who expect to "share" the wealth (without contributing to it themselves) is larger than the number of people who have the wealth and are expected to "give" to the needy, the first can overrule the latter and grab whatever they want--legally, by the power of the ballot box.

The weakness of a democracy.

I think you just described the path any country takes - just my armchair view of history. Human nature is all I can chalk it up to. There has to be a reason that for centuries the masses were ruled - by emperors, kings, queens, dictators. Democracy in it's US form is a relatively new experiment - and it's failing. Trying to tie this thought back to my original point about fiscal cliff... it's always been a few controlling all the wealth at the expense of sheeples - throughout history. Even communism failed - that was supposed to be the pure allocation of everything to the people, wasn't it?

[RottenVonSpotten]

Originally Posted by dobermansrule

not sure who's quotes those are - certainly not true conservative points again, true conservative thought is hard.

Were someone to sit down and be intellectually honest with themselves - democrat or republican or independent - and address your first bullet, climate change.. one would have to conclude that there is climate change. There always has been. One would have to consider climate change of today in the context of natural cycles and the impact of industrialization and nature. It's just as intellectually dishonest to say in a sweeping statement like liberals are want to do that climate change is because of man and automobiles and emissions as it is for a radio talk show junky to say what your first bullet says. The truth is out there - somewhere.

Lol. Okay when I refer to conservative, I mean the everyday Republican.

I agree with your second point, but - and I'll use the correct word here - a lot of republicans did not believe climate change was real for a very long time and I bet there are plenty out there that still don't believe in it....in fact, I'm pretty sure some of them are our elected officials.

My issue with your liberalisms is that they are general, in my opinion. As an example, I am liberal but do not believe in free healthcare. Here comes the nonpolitically correct side of me:I think fat people, people that aren't health conscious, and smokers shouldn't be allowed to have free healthcare. I also don't believe in just giving people what they want. Unfortunately for me, I am my own party. I did vow to myself that after this election, I will only be voting third party.