# Why should we vote forObama?



## JBroll (Feb 27, 2008)

No other black man could beat a white woman so hard and so many times without going to jail.

(Thank the cigar store for that one...)

Jeff


----------



## Vince (Feb 28, 2008)

this one rides the fine line between extremely poor taste and really fucking funny


----------



## Clydefrog (Feb 28, 2008)

I'll chalk it up to really fucking funny just because I loves me some Obama.

Hillaryis44.org would probably be outraged.


----------



## Vince (Feb 28, 2008)

Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?


----------



## Jongpil Yun (Feb 28, 2008)

Ignoring the rather hilarious joke, the best reason I can think of for voting for Obama is that he represents a clean foreign policy break from Bush. Pretty much everybody in every country (except Israel) wants to see Obama over Clinton or McCain.


----------



## ElRay (Feb 28, 2008)

Vince said:


> this one rides the fine line between extremely poor taste and really fucking funny


Ranks up there with "Ike Turner finally beat Tina to death."

Ray


----------



## Jason (Feb 28, 2008)

What? I laughed.


----------



## Samer (Feb 28, 2008)

Out of all the remaining candidates (not including Ron Paul) he is the only one that dosent take lobbyist money, and he is not taking money from Black Water (both Hillary and Mccain are) 

Plus he will be a warrior for our civil liberties and freedoms while rebuilding the economy and creating new jobs.


----------



## ElRay (Feb 28, 2008)

Samer said:


> Plus he will be a warrior for our civil liberties and freedoms while rebuilding the economy and creating new jobs.


It's kind of funny how similar his goals are to Ron Paul's. It just one wants to do it via bigger, more intrusive government and the other want to achieve the same goals by getting government out of our hair and back to what The Constitution gave to the government.

Ray


----------



## Samer (Feb 28, 2008)

ElRay said:


> It's kind of funny how similar his goals are to Ron Paul's. It just one wants to do it via bigger, more intrusive government and the other want to achieve the same goals by getting government out of our hair and back to what The Constitution gave to the government.
> 
> Ray



I like Ron Paul, but the only problem with him is he has great ideas but unfortunately is not electable. 

I think Obama is our best choice, and i can see Ron Paul working with Obama to achieve these goals.


----------



## ElRay (Feb 28, 2008)

Samer said:


> I like Ron Paul, but the only problem with him is he has great ideas but unfortunately is not electable.


He's definitely not coming across as a leader, which is the big thing that Obama has running for himself.

Ray


----------



## Jongpil Yun (Feb 28, 2008)

Ron Paul is also slightly crazy, vehemently anti-abortion, probably racist, and an unfortunately pious worshiper of the free market, apparently ignoring the power of public goods, the high multiplier of government spending, and the power of externalities and asymmetrical information availability to warp free market transactions away from the ideal.

Don't get me wrong, I like the guy and agree with most of what he says, but it makes it kind of hard to vote for him, given what I've just said above.


----------



## dcunning30 (Feb 28, 2008)

The problem with Obama is he's untried, he lacks a resume. Yes, he has ideas but how will he be able to accomplish implementing them? We don't know, there's no track record. Being a magazine editor or a community activist is not a resume for president. He was state senator for 2 years, and US senator for just over 2 years with 1 year running for president, so that counts just 1 year on the job. Obama is a huge unknown. Be careful for what you ask for, you just may get it.


----------



## theunforgiven246 (Feb 28, 2008)

Doesn't Ron Paul also want to make all drugs legal? I'm all for legalizing weed but heroin shouldn't be able to be bought at the store..


----------



## JBroll (Feb 28, 2008)

Because keeping it illegal is working so fucking well...

Jeff


----------



## Naren (Feb 28, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Because keeping it illegal is working so fucking well...
> 
> Jeff



Exactly dude. We should legalize sawed-off shotguns, plastic explosives, and all automatic weapons, because just look at the damage them being illegal is doing. 

In fact we should legalize everything that is causing problems. If they were legal, they wouldn't be dangerous anymore.


----------



## JBroll (Feb 28, 2008)

No, the dangers of gang violence are far greater than the dangers of shooting up. You let it be legal, people shoot up and fuck themselves up... you illegalize it and you get mobs, gangs, countries that are dominated by illegal exports... way to miss my point. On top of that, the drug war only makes the drug trade more profitable and thus more tempting and dangerous... oops.

Jeff


----------



## Naren (Feb 28, 2008)

JBroll said:


> No, the dangers of gang violence are far greater than the dangers of shooting up. You let it be legal, people shoot up and fuck themselves up... you illegalize it and you get mobs, gangs, countries that are dominated by illegal exports... way to miss my point. On top of that, the drug war only makes the drug trade more profitable and thus more tempting and dangerous... oops.
> 
> Jeff



Legalizing drugs is not going to get rid of gangs or gang violence. Drugs are not the only things they illegally deal in. Get rid of drugs and they'll be dominated by a different illegal export.


----------



## JBroll (Feb 28, 2008)

That's only a few hundred billion dollars that they're not getting, drop in the bucket...

Also, there's the issue of 'is it working'... given how much more money drug traders get when risk is increased, and how long we've been pumping resources into the problem to try to reduce it, it doesn't seem that our tactics are working.

Jeff


----------



## Naren (Feb 28, 2008)

I don't agree with legalizing a problem just because you can't get rid of it.


----------



## JBroll (Feb 28, 2008)

What about legalizing it because keeping it illegal is causing more problems than it would be if it were legal and failing miserably at solving the problem?

Jeff


----------



## Naren (Feb 28, 2008)

JBroll said:


> What about legalizing it because keeping it illegal is causing more problems than it would be if it were legal and failing miserably at solving the problem?
> 
> Jeff



I seriously doubt that is true, though. I think legalizing drugs would solve some problems, make some problems worse, and would not have any effect on other problems.

It's not like legalizing drugs would suddenly transform the US into Amsterdam overnight.


----------



## JBroll (Feb 28, 2008)

No, but a lot less of my fucking money would be wasted, law enforcement could enforce more important laws, the prison system wouldn't have so many potheads that they didn't know what to do with the child molesters, and a good chunk of the market for the produce of third-world drug lords, some of the most dangerous people in the world (no, not counting Bush...), would go away. Of course, other nations would follow suit eventually if backasswards America pulled it off...

I work at a public high school. Not a bad school, not the kind of school inspirational 'teacher changes gang members' lives by giving them Shakespeare' stories come from, not a place anyone has to be ashamed of... and in the month I've been there I already know at least five people who could get me almost anything I could name in a matter of hours. Compare that to fifty people I actually talk to regularly (to an extent beyond "Hi") there in my capacity as a tutor. And keep in mind that I'm in fucking Texas, where the judiciary system is something along the lines of 

"How do you plead?"
"Not guilty."
"Hang 'im!"

so it's not like things are lenient down here at all. This program has simply failed.

Jeff


----------



## zimbloth (Feb 28, 2008)

JBroll said:


> No, but a lot less of my fucking money would be wasted, law enforcement could enforce more important laws, the prison system wouldn't have so many potheads that they didn't know what to do with the child molesters, and a good chunk of the market for the produce of third-world drug lords, some of the most dangerous people in the world (no, not counting Bush...), would go away. Of course, other nations would follow suit eventually if backasswards America pulled it off...
> 
> I work at a public high school. Not a bad school, not the kind of school inspirational 'teacher changes gang members' lives by giving them Shakespeare' stories come from, not a place anyone has to be ashamed of... and in the month I've been there I already know at least five people who could get me almost anything I could name in a matter of hours. Compare that to fifty people I actually talk to regularly (to an extent beyond "Hi") there in my capacity as a tutor. And keep in mind that I'm in fucking Texas, where the judiciary system is something along the lines of
> 
> ...



Excellent post


----------



## Jongpil Yun (Feb 29, 2008)

On moral grounds, drugs should be legal.

On practical grounds, drugs should be legal. The criminalization of drugs is totally arbitrary, and a monumental waste of time and money. The war on drugs has failed, just like prohibition failed, and by legalizing it, many of the problems WOULD simply disappear. Funnily enough, legalizing heroin would deprive the Taliban of most of its income.


----------



## JBroll (Feb 29, 2008)

Do you support the terr'ists, Naren?

We don't take too kindly to yer kind around here...

Jef


----------



## noodles (Feb 29, 2008)

Naren said:


> I don't agree with legalizing a problem just because you can't get rid of it.



I fail to see how it was a problem before we made it illegal. Or do you support the idea that an adult shouldn't be allowed control over what he puts into his own body?

Regulating what substances people take is a gross violation of our civil liberties. If you're willing to take that step, then don't be a hypocrite about it. Outlaw tobacco and alcohol, too. While we're at it, we should get rid of caffeine, aspirin, ibuprofen, and antihistamines. After all, they're all drugs, and we're trying to be a drug free nation, right?

The way I see it, you are not going to stop people who have addictive personalities. The illegality of heroin does absolutely nothing to deter the people who really want to do it. On the contrary, the idea of "forbidden fruit" makes it that more attractive to people who would normally avoid it otherwise. Not to mention that you now have people turning over the counter medication (Sudafed) into illegal, highly addictive, and incredibly dangerous street drugs (crystal meth). Finally, you've got all the gang crime and illegal international smuggling that is supported by the draconian laws of a nation that purports to be "free".

I say we should legalize drugs, regulate the hell out of them, tax the living shit out of them, and enforce the same laws as regards to minors and operating vehicles under the influence that we apply to alcohol. We'd absolutely kill off the majority of organized crime, we put smugglers out of business, and we'd stop funding drug czars and terrorists. Unless you think we should continue to waste billions of dollars fighting a situation that is not improving. What would you think of the Iraq War if we were there since the mid seventies? Same thing, really.

I'm not saying we put heroin on the shelves. I'm just saying that we decriminalize the possession of it. How many people are going to seek out heroin from a disreputable pusher in a bad part of town, when they can simply walk into a hash bar and safely, legally get ripped out of their minds?


----------



## lordofthesewers (Feb 29, 2008)

I totally agree with everything said here about the legalization of drugs. However, the religious right and the lobbyists for organized crime would not let this happen. the evangelicals wouldn't because god has killed all their neurons and with that the organized crime would find an excuse to keep shit illegal so they can protect their huge swiss bank accounts.


----------



## JBroll (Feb 29, 2008)

lordofthesewers said:


> ...the organized crime would find an excuse to keep shit illegal so they can protect their huge swiss bank accounts.



What are they going to do, shoot another Kennedy?

[counts remaining politically active Kennedies]

Paul, you just turned a good idea into a great idea...

Jeff


----------



## Naren (Feb 29, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Do you support the terr'ists, Naren?
> 
> We don't take too kindly to yer kind around here...
> 
> Jef



How did you know?

Daaamn. I've been supportin' them since 1996.


----------



## Jongpil Yun (Feb 29, 2008)

Naren said:


> How did you know?



The Moonspeak in your avatar.


----------



## JBroll (Feb 29, 2008)

Is I can has lynching tiem?

Jeff


----------



## Naren (Feb 29, 2008)

Jongpil Yun said:


> The Moonspeak in your avatar.



"Moonspeak"? 

[action=Naren]has no idea what Jongpil is referring to.[/action]



JBroll said:


> Is I can has lynching tiem?
> 
> Jeff



Son, are you one of the terrorists? No American speaks in that thar crazy fucked up grammar. I reckon you be a terrrist.


----------



## noodles (Feb 29, 2008)

JBroll said:


> What are they going to do, shoot another Kennedy?
> 
> [counts remaining politically active Kennedies]
> 
> Paul, you just turned a good idea into a great idea...



Jeff, you're just plain evil.


----------



## JBroll (Feb 29, 2008)

You, sir, have never been to Texas...

...

... making *you* a terrrrrruist.



noodles said:


> Jeff, you're just plain evil.



Evil? No, teyaurrrrrrrrrrrists are evil. I'm a conservative.

Jeff


----------



## Naren (Feb 29, 2008)

JBroll said:


> You, sir have never been to Texas...
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



Sir, I was born in Texas. And I cannot believe that a man that talks like you do could be a Texan. In fact, I bet you're not even a man. You're probably one of those unnatural folks who thinks he's a girl. And we all know they be terrrrists.


----------



## JBroll (Feb 29, 2008)

So yer an imposter, too? You really auhre a teiurrrrhghrhrrrrrrist! Walter, git da turkeyhawk rifle, we're savin' freedum!

Jeff


----------



## lordofthesewers (Feb 29, 2008)

ahaha @ the turn the thread made.

Jeff, I was pointing out that what you and I and everyone on this forum wants to do about drugs is highly unlikely to happen, and if it happens it be will slow and in baby steps


----------



## JBroll (Feb 29, 2008)

I know, I just never pass up an opportunity to talk about killing Ted Kennedy. My CRV is getting jealous and it needs a 140,000 mile present soon...

Jeff


----------



## Naren (Feb 29, 2008)

JBroll said:


> So yer an imposter, too? You really auhre a teiurrrrhghrhrrrrrrist! Walter, git da turkeyhawk rifle, we're savin' freedum!
> 
> Jeff



So yah admit t'bein' an imposter, d'ya!? Golly gee, molly! I reckon ya got to take things into yer own hands fer freedom's sake. Seems everyone in the whole goshdarn state's a commy or an al kaider.


----------



## JBroll (Feb 29, 2008)

Naren said:


> So yah admit t'bein' an imposter, d'ya!? Golly gee, molly! I reckon ya got to take things into yer own hands fer freedom's sake. Seems everyone in the whole goshdarn state's a commy or an al kaider.



Them's faghtin' wurds! You's a teieiyaurist *ayiund!* an impostor, and I ain't none nor the nother!

Jeff


----------



## Naren (Feb 29, 2008)

Ah reckon they are, son.

Jef


----------



## Jongpil Yun (Feb 29, 2008)

If that ain't moonspeak, I don't know what is.


----------



## Naren (Feb 29, 2008)

Jongpil Yun said:


> If that ain't moonspeak, I don't know what is.



Could you explain to me what moonspeak is, sir? I've never been to the moon and I don't mean to sound stupid, but I didn't know anyone lived there, to be honest. My avatur is just an interesting design I found on the internet. I didn't know it was that - whatchamacallit.. "moonspeak"? What color are the people on the moon anyhow? Gray or blue? I reckon they're prolly terrerists too.


----------



## JBroll (Feb 29, 2008)

Ayund illiegal emmigrunts... we need a bourdre feunce!

Jeff


----------



## noodles (Feb 29, 2008)

OK, guys, I like a good Off Topic thread as much as anyone, but this isn't Off Topic. Take the redneck jokes somewhere else. /mod


----------



## dcunning30 (Feb 29, 2008)

Yawn, legalizing drugs is a non-starter. It's not going to happen. It's too controversial. Politicians except in places like Berkeley, Ca will never support it because they will get slammed, and hard.


----------



## Lee (Feb 29, 2008)

dcunning30 said:


> Yawn, legalizing drugs is a non-starter. It's not going to happen. It's too controversial. Politicians except in places like Berkeley, Ca will never support it because they will get slammed, and hard.



I highly doubt many of the politicians in Berkeley area support legalizing drugs any more so than anywhere else nationwide. Just because it's a historically democrat-heavy area doesn't give reason to categorize it as a free-for-all.


----------



## noodles (Feb 29, 2008)

dcunning30 said:


> Yawn, legalizing drugs is a non-starter. It's not going to happen. It's too controversial. Politicians except in places like Berkeley, Ca will never support it because they will get slammed, and hard.



I beg to differ. The number of states with ballot referendums to decriminalize marijunna increases every year. True, none of them have yet passed, but they grow in support daily. Remember, as the pre-baby boomers die off, the "old folks" in this country move towards the people who used to be hippies in the 60s, junkies in the 70s, and coke heads in the 80s. That old puritanical attitude is slowly dying off.

I think I'll see a decriminalization of marijuanna in my lifetime.


----------



## Shawn (Feb 29, 2008)

Samer said:


> I like Ron Paul, but the only problem with him is he has great ideas but unfortunately is not electable.
> 
> I think Obama is our best choice, and i can see Ron Paul working with Obama to achieve these goals.



 I like Ron Paul too. I agree that Obama is a good choice too.


----------



## Samer (Feb 29, 2008)

Shawn said:


> I like Ron Paul too. I agree that Obama is a good choice too.



Hey Shawn,

I think the only 3 good choices this year were Ron Paul, Barack Obama, and Dennis Kucininch

Lucky for us Obama has a chance!


----------



## Groff (Feb 29, 2008)

Samer said:


> Hey Shawn,
> 
> I think the only 3 good choices this year were Ron Paul, Barack Obama, and Dennis Kucininch
> 
> Lucky for us Obama has a chance!



Yeah, I'm not surprised that Ron Paul didn't get far, mainly because he didn't strike me as a "conservative". Maybe a mix between a democrat and a libertarian. So it's not a shock that republicans didn't like him, and a lot of democrats (such as myself) did.


----------



## hirah (Mar 1, 2008)

slightly off topic, but has anyone read Obama's plan ?
on the surface, and in an ideal perfect world, there are a lot of good ideas. but for one, they won't work and will never get approved. and second, they will cost everyone more.
quick examples
universal health care for everyone
who pays for this? going by Obama's count, 47 million people dont have coverage. by offering a minimal plan at say $200 per month, the yearly cost for the program would be 112 billion. now add in costs to run the program. lets be way conservative and say 50,000 jobs at an average of $40,000 per year. 2 billion. lets not forget a place to put everyone. figure 500 million a year.
so far thats a minimum of 114.5 billion a year. where does it come from? 
not from pulling out of Iraq, thats not extra money.
say 30% of the population contributes to this plan. thats about $1200 a year more out of pocket.

2nd
increase minimum wage. let's face it, minimum wage is why you have a dollar menu at Mcdonalds and Walmart has low prices. by increasing minimum wage the cost of goods increases. this is only common sense, as companies will keep the same profit margin. on the flip side, the government makes money by increasing minimum wage. higher wages and higher prices equals more taxes.

i havent looked at Hilarys or McCains plan. but i'm sure they are similar in that they promise a better world to live in without an actual plan to achieve it. everything looks good on paper, and there are real issues in this country that need to be resolved. 
but how do we get there? and how much does it cost.
i want to see plan outlines and the costs associated with them. that's the only way to differentiate the candidates.
please dont flame me for my thoughts.


----------



## JBroll (Mar 1, 2008)

I have to say I think you're right on the minimum wage more than people want to admit... it's a fucked up cycle of 'we need moar money!', 'we gots moar money but our stuff is costs too much', 'we can't afford to live', 'we need moar money!' that doesn't address the problem of having too many people who can't do anything more intricate than untrained labor for one reason or another... it's another bandaid-on-a-bullet-wound solution and we're doing ourselves a disservice by pretending it's going to help things.

Jeff


----------



## noodles (Mar 1, 2008)

hirah said:


> slightly off topic, but has anyone read Obama's plan ?
> on the surface, and in an ideal perfect world, there are a lot of good ideas. but for one, they won't work and will never get approved. and second, they will cost everyone more.
> quick examples
> universal health care for everyone
> ...



Where does the money come from? Why, the wealthy, of course. 

Look at it this way: we have CEOs getting paid hundreds of millions of dollars a year. We have millionaires being taxed at lower rates than the middle class. We give corporations huge tax breaks for sending jobs out of the country. This is NOT what our system was designed to be.

The original income tax laws were designed to prevent a new aristocracy from arising out of the industrial revolution. I'm not talking about rich (guys with a few million dollars), but the wealthy (guys with hundreds of millions of dollars and up). The wealthy do not invest in the American economy. This money does not "trickle down", and it is not a "rising tide" that "lifts all boats".

Why is this? Well, it's two fold. First, above a certain wealth level, you just can't spend it all. How do you spend a billion dollars? It just becomes impossible after a while, because countries aren't for sale. There is really only so much you can buy. So, that is money that is NOT going back into the American economy. It is being taken out, never to return. Second, the wealthy shelter their money outside of American, in order to avoid paying taxes on it, and we just let them. So, that now becomes money that is not getting taxed by the federal government. The government's solution? Raise taxes, so the burden gets shifted to the middle class.

The net result is that we have exactly what our system was designed to avoid: an upper class that makes their own rules, uses their money to by influence, oppressing the lower classes, and essentially assuming the same role as the nobility of feudal Europe.

Think about it this way: if we return to taxing the rich in this country at a much higher rate (65% or more), then we can drastically lower taxes to the middle class, and eliminate the taxes of the poor entirely. Suddenly, the middle class can afford their own health care. Now we only have to worry about the poor. If we make regulations that limit that amount of money an executive officer can make--I am a fan of Drew's 20:1 rule, where the highest paid employee of the company can only make twenty times that of the lowest--then raising the minimum wage wouldn't be such a big deal, since executives would look at it as a chance to raise their own salaries, with the side benefit of curtailing the vast accumulation of wealth. If we bring back the estate and inheritance taxes, then we return the piles of accumulated wealth back into the system when someone dies.

This is called leveling the playing field for everyone. Currently, the laws are made by the people who cater to the economic top 1%. This is why we have to have discussions about entitlements. You really want to eliminate entitlements? Eliminate the accumulation of wealth. Those who most benefit from the system should do the most to support the system. The top 1% who have 85% of the wealth should pay 85% of the support costs by way of 85% of all forms of federal taxes.


----------



## noodles (Mar 1, 2008)

JBroll said:


> I have to say I think you're right on the minimum wage more than people want to admit... it's a fucked up cycle of 'we need moar money!', 'we gots moar money but our stuff is costs too much', 'we can't afford to live', 'we need moar money!' that doesn't address the problem of having too many people who can't do anything more intricate than untrained labor for one reason or another... it's another bandaid-on-a-bullet-wound solution and we're doing ourselves a disservice by pretending it's going to help things.



Sometimes, your posts really reflect the economic class you grew up in. 

Do you know why these people complain that they need more money when they can't do more than untrained labor? Because they and their parents could not afford to send them to college or trade school, and we have transitioned to a system that seeks to eliminate trained labor. Why? Because trained labor will form unions, and walk out on you, leaving your business crippled. Untrained labor can be performed for dirt cheap by the latest crop of illegal aliens to waltz across the border.

As I said in my post above, we need to level the playing field. Give that poor kid a chance to actually go to college, rather than staying poor and uneducated. I know we still need janitors, but you will ALWAYS have people who have no aspirations to move any further up the chain that that. Recognize that, and provide them with a way to earn a decent living and have health care, rather than dooming them to living in a hovel without health care and the means to support their family.

The thing that pisses me off the most about rich conservatives is their arguments that we need to fill the low wage jobs, while they want to do nothing to show their appreciation for the guys that sweep their floors and cut their grass. Man, fuck you, you arrogant piece of shit, you should take care of your employees! So, I return you to the 20:1 rule: if you want to make $150,000,000 a year as the CEO of Shell Oil, then you need to pay the guy cleaning your office $7,500,000. See that? A CEO who makes $150,000,000 in salary and bonuses makes *12,327 times the current minimum wage*.


----------



## zimbloth (Mar 1, 2008)

I like a lot of what Ron Paul has to say, especially regarding foreign policy and the like. That said, I think most young people out there who are rallying behind Ron Paul don't really know what he's about. I definitely love what he has to say in debates and on shows like Real Time w/ Bill Maher, but just do your research before getting too excited.

I only say this because he was I was going to vote for him initially, until I did some research on him and found out more about his _other _policies. I agree with him about Iraq but a lot of his domestic policies are absolutely terrible.

That said, I'm warming up a bit to Obama these days. We'll see.


----------



## Codyyy (Mar 1, 2008)

I like Ron Paul, except for a few crucial things that make me still support Obama. 

For one, Ron Paul says on his website that there should really be no standardized testing for school children. Really, that means No SAT's etc, right? He also says something to the effect of, "Who knows the most about what their children should learn? The parents." Great. So when we all get to college, with vastly different educations, we'll be fucked.


----------



## Jongpil Yun (Mar 1, 2008)

Codyyy said:


> For one, Ron Paul says on his website that there should really be no standardized testing for school children. Really, that means No SAT's etc, right? He also says something to the effect of, "Who knows the most about what their children should learn? The parents." Great. So when we all get to college, with vastly different educations, we'll be fucked.



He's talking about the required stuff like the WASL (in my state). The SAT is (as far as I know) opt-in, and not required for graduation.

On the other hand, he's absolutely, completely, dead wrong on the parents knowing what their children should learn. Parents teaching their children bullshit creationism is child abuse.


----------



## Jongpil Yun (Mar 1, 2008)

noodles said:


> Why is this? Well, it's two fold. First, above a certain wealth level, you just can't spend it all. How do you spend a billion dollars? It just becomes impossible after a while, because countries aren't for sale. There is really only so much you can buy. So, that is money that is NOT going back into the American economy. It is being taken out, never to return. Second, the wealthy shelter their money outside of American, in order to avoid paying taxes on it, and we just let them. So, that now becomes money that is not getting taxed by the federal government. The government's solution? Raise taxes, so the burden gets shifted to the middle class.



You're assuming that goods and services are the only things that money is good for. Almost no one has several billion dollars in liquid assets -- it's all tied up in their businesses and other investments.



> Think about it this way: if we return to taxing the rich in this country at a much higher rate (65% or more), then we can drastically lower taxes to the middle class, and eliminate the taxes of the poor entirely.



Obviously, since the top 1% already pay about a third of income taxes.



> Suddenly, the middle class can afford their own health care. Now we only have to worry about the poor.



I'm not sure that's going to work, and even if it did, IMO, that would be an argument for nationalized healthcare, not removing taxes on the bottom 90%.



> If we make regulations that limit that amount of money an executive officer can make--I am a fan of Drew's 20:1 rule, where the highest paid employee of the company can only make twenty times that of the lowest--then raising the minimum wage wouldn't be such a big deal, since executives would look at it as a chance to raise their own salaries, with the side benefit of curtailing the vast accumulation of wealth.



That will never work, simply because the loss of giving up America's infrastructure will be outweighed by massive cut to executive salaries. Maybe 200-1 would be reasonable (note that I'm not talking about morals).



> If we bring back the estate and inheritance taxes, then we return the piles of accumulated wealth back into the system when someone dies.



No complaints there.


----------



## Jongpil Yun (Mar 1, 2008)

noodles said:


> Do you know why these people complain that they need more money when they can't do more than untrained labor? Because they and their parents could not afford to send them to college or trade school, and we have transitioned to a system that seeks to eliminate trained labor. Why? Because trained labor will form unions, and walk out on you, leaving your business crippled. Untrained labor can be performed for dirt cheap by the latest crop of illegal aliens to waltz across the border.



I see this as an argument for better public schools, funded all the way through University level, not minimum wage.



> Man, fuck you, you arrogant piece of shit, you should take care of your employees! So, I return you to the 20:1 rule: if you want to make $150,000,000 a year as the CEO of Shell Oil, then you need to pay the guy cleaning your office $7,500,000. See that? A CEO who makes $150,000,000 in salary and bonuses makes *12,327 times the current minimum wage*.



I'm totally unconvinced by this as well. The reason a janitor gets paid minimum wage is that _anyone can do it_. The reason that van der Veer gets paid $150,000,000 is that, given the scarcity of people of his managerial skills, and the plethora of business who would like someone of his managerial skills, several of whom have revenues that would make a modestly sized nation jealous, it seems perfectly reasonable.

There is nothing innate about his managerial skills that make him worth $150m. If everybody could run a company the way he could, he'd be making $10/hr. He makes 100 times as much as your average CEO. Is he a hundred times better? No, probably twice as good, if that. Once again, it is just the scarcity of the personal resources he commands that makes him worth so much. I personally don't see anything immoral about that. IMO it shouldn't be about punishing the elite, but raising up the laity.


----------



## hirah (Mar 1, 2008)

i agree that there should not be tax breaks for the rich. but i dont think a tax of up to 65% is the answer. i think that a flat rate income based tax would be better across the board. if everyone were taxed at say 25%, it would lessen the burden on the lower to middle class. then you would have to eliminate all the bullshit tax breaks for the rich. tax social security on the full income, not to the limits we have now. 
as to the 20:1, i think that starts to tread into some seriously government control. why stop there? why not limit how much a car or house costs. or how much of a percent of your income is allowed to be spent. i think this opens up a can of worms allowing to much governmental control.
as to minimum wage, i believe everyone has the right to learn and better themselves. i think we need to put more money into education. but not throw money at it hoping to improve the situation. by improving the quality of education, you can increase the level of education. this means not passing through kids that dont know what they learn. also holding teachers accountable for actually teaching. one of my biggest peeves is grading on a bell curve. the real world doesnt work on a bell curve, why should we think we can learn that way?
i think we all want the same things, we just have different ideas on how to get there. and as much as we think we can make a difference, the truth is we are not a true democracy. we are actually a republic government. 
which does have some advantages over a true democracy.


----------



## Jongpil Yun (Mar 1, 2008)

hirah said:


> i agree that there should not be tax breaks for the rich. but i dont think a tax of up to 65% is the answer. i think that a flat rate income based tax would be better across the board. if everyone were taxed at say 25%, it would lessen the burden on the lower to middle class. then you would have to eliminate all the bullshit tax breaks for the rich. tax social security on the full income, not to the limits we have now.



Bullshit. A flat rate tax is enormously regressive. Not progressive, not "flat" in the true sense, regressive. Our current tax system, as it stands, is a bit progressive, but not as progressive as just looking at the marginal tax rates would have you think.



> as to the 20:1, i think that starts to tread into some seriously government control. why stop there? why not limit how much a car or house costs. or how much of a percent of your income is allowed to be spent. i think this opens up a can of worms allowing to much governmental control.



You know, FDR set price limits and such during WWII. Seems like it worked to me. Speaking from a purely practical standpoint. It seems to me that most free marketeers have an innately moral or dogmatic objection to socialism or a mixed economy of any kind. All I care about is how it works in practice.



> as to minimum wage, i believe everyone has the right to learn and better themselves. i think we need to put more money into education. but not throw money at it hoping to improve the situation. by improving the quality of education, you can increase the level of education. this means not passing through kids that dont know what they learn. also holding teachers accountable for actually teaching. one of my biggest peeves is grading on a bell curve. the real world doesnt work on a bell curve, why should we think we can learn that way?



Pretty much everything to do with human accomplishment approximates a normal distribution. I think we should do away with the concept of a "grade" being tied to age altogether (like 10th grade for 16 year olds, 11th grade for 17 year olds, etc). That alone would go quite a ways in improving our education system by establishing a meritocracy, and removing arbitrary barriers on both ends.

Obviously, I'm a Keynesian, demand-side style economist, but that's _only because from what I can tell, it's what works_. Look at the enormous growth that we enjoyed during FDR's reign, and for a good deal after that, and compare with the unchecked capitalism that led to the great depression in the first place, and the supply side bungling of Greenspan, and the absolutely deplorable job the IMF and related bodies are doing by enforcing rules that _do not work to promote economic growth_ on developing nations as a precondition for loans.


----------



## JBroll (Mar 1, 2008)

noodles said:


> Sometimes, your posts really reflect the economic class you grew up in.
> 
> Do you know why these people complain that they need more money when they can't do more than untrained labor? Because they and their parents could not afford to send them to college or trade school, and we have transitioned to a system that seeks to eliminate trained labor. Why? Because trained labor will form unions, and walk out on you, leaving your business crippled. Untrained labor can be performed for dirt cheap by the latest crop of illegal aliens to waltz across the border.
> 
> ...



I'm not pro-CEO-wankers, and I don't see where you got that idea. I'm insanely pro-education and would rather see trained labor. I think I was more influenced by being born into a family where my father went straight from dirt poor, working to pay his way through high school and college and helping to support his parents and their other five children to being a very important lawyer for USAA, a banking and insurance company that brings a huge amount of power and money to the city (San Antonio revolves around USAA and the military bases) and that always gets awards for customer support and other such fun stuff. Paid his way through law school at UT, worked for the state, then went to USAA... and no, before someone starts bashing him, he didn't litigate or screw people out of their money. 

He didn't need a level playing field. Oops. That said, I'm all for education; the reason I don't like minimum wage increases isn't that I want to laugh at poor people because I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth and I get to bathe in Benjamins every morning, it is simply that expecting minimum wage to be a living wage is going to make for some very uncomfortable living. It doesn't work. It doesn't level the playing field, it only drops the tide all around.

Jeff


----------



## noodles (Mar 2, 2008)

Jongpil Yun said:


> I see this as an argument for better public schools, funded all the way through University level, not minimum wage.



Where did you get that from? I was talked about a skilled labor force, not minimum wage.



> I'm totally unconvinced by this as well. The reason a janitor gets paid minimum wage is that _anyone can do it_. The reason that van der Veer gets paid $150,000,000 is that, given the scarcity of people of his managerial skills, and the plethora of business who would like someone of his managerial skills, several of whom have revenues that would make a modestly sized nation jealous, it seems perfectly reasonable.
> 
> There is nothing innate about his managerial skills that make him worth $150m. If everybody could run a company the way he could, he'd be making $10/hr. He makes 100 times as much as your average CEO. Is he a hundred times better? No, probably twice as good, if that. Once again, it is just the scarcity of the personal resources he commands that makes him worth so much. I personally don't see anything immoral about that. IMO it shouldn't be about punishing the elite, but raising up the laity.



There is no reason *anyone* should make that level of income. Period. You talk of him commanding scarce personal resources, but when you stop to think that he is making that salary on the backs of hard working Americans who need what he provides to get to work, school, the grocery store, etc, all because the oil industry fiercely lobbies to bury alternative energy sources that would force him to be competitive in the market place, then suddenly he looks less like a skilled businessman and more like a unethical predator. This is accumulation of wealth for the sake of wealth, and honestly, I find the concept of private ownership of natural resources morally repugnant. Go read up on your history, because Teddy Roosevelt handled guys like this the best way I know how: if you have the ability to negatively effect the economy of the nation, then you should be regulated. Punishing the elite? More like punishing criminal activity.


----------



## noodles (Mar 2, 2008)

hirah said:


> i agree that there should not be tax breaks for the rich. but i dont think a tax of up to 65% is the answer.



OK, let's imagine you are an "average" CEO, and you made around $5,000,000 last year. If I take 65% of what you make, then you still have $2,250,000 in the bank. So, tell me why a high tax rate is not the answer? You'd still be loaded.

If you made $25,000 last year, and I just take 5%, then you have $23,750. How would the loss of $1250 effect someone in this income bracket? When you're living paycheck to paycheck, that extra $50 is something you are most definitely going to feel. Especially with gas prices double what they were just four years ago.

It's about balance, dude. There comes a point where you don't really need any more money that you already have. The pursuit of wealth for the sake of wealth is detrimental to an economy.


----------



## JBroll (Mar 2, 2008)

Well, this one turned to piss pretty quickly. What the fuck should a government be doing with 65% of the wealthy population's money? So much for the whole 'limited government' thing...

Jeff


----------



## noodles (Mar 2, 2008)

JBroll said:


> He didn't need a level playing field. Oops. That said, I'm all for education; the reason I don't like minimum wage increases isn't that I want to laugh at poor people because I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth and I get to bathe in Benjamins every morning, it is simply that expecting minimum wage to be a living wage is going to make for some very uncomfortable living. It doesn't work. It doesn't level the playing field, it only drops the tide all around.



Yeah, and your father is the exception, not the rule. Also, if you notice, I wasn't talking about raising the minimum wage. I was talking about setting corporate income caps that are tied to the level of the lowest wage employees. If we're still talking about a healthy economy, then that means keeping money flowing through it. When an individual starts to accumulate massive amounts of wealth, then that is money that is being kept out of the economy. You can talk all you want of raising or lowering tides, but sitting on wealth is like draining the lake. It's hard for a boat to rise when their is no water for it to rise on.

We have a tax system that rewards someone for sheltering money outside of the economy. This is wrong. One should be punished for sitting on large piles of cash with stiff tax rates. That money needs to be put back into the economy. When I say tax the hell out of the rich to fund the government, drastically lower the tax rate on the middle class, and eliminate taxes for the poor, I am talking about giving money to the people that WILL spend it. Give a poor father a few extra hundred bucks a month, and he will use it to buy new clothes for his kids, maybe take his wife out to dinner. Give a middle class father a few extra hundred bucks a month, and he'll be looking at a bigger TV, maybe a nicer car. Give a millionaire a few extra million, and he will be looking for a place to keep it away from the IRS. Which of these three people will not be assisting the economy?


----------



## noodles (Mar 2, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Well, this one turned to piss pretty quickly. What the fuck should a government be doing with 65% of the wealthy population's money? So much for the whole 'limited government' thing...



Sigh...

I'm not talking about taking money from the wealthy for no reason. I'm talking about shifting the tax burden. Honestly, I just picked a number out of thin air. I don't think that the poor should pay taxes at all, and the middle class should pay less than half of what they do now. The top 1% make more now than ever in the history of this country. "Tycoons" like Carnegie and Rockefeller commanded fortunes, when adjusted for inflation, a mere fraction of what someone like Bill Gates or the Waltons are worth.


----------



## JBroll (Mar 2, 2008)

Considering that's all I originally attacked, I don't exactly see why you brought in 'the economic class I grew up in' or where you were planning to go with this... it's not like you really need too many excuses to talk about how we should tax somewhere between 50% and 90% of the income of the rich...

As for the IRS, what's so great about income that for all you know could be spent directly on the economy? Why the fuck are you actually trying to *give* more power to a bureaucracy that blows ten-and-a-half billion dollars a year on collecting money inefficiently and that has spawned billions of dollars worth of business revolving solely around figuring out how the fuck one is supposed to go about fellating that beast? I don't know how many rich motherfuckers you know who just throw money overseas and never actually do anything for their communities, but... 90% of the ones I know completely destroy that stereotype. Plus, while that money is 'out of the economy' for some time, ever notice how some people like to *retire* someday? Old rich people tend to do that, and... what do they do? Live frugally, donate generously, tip well...

It seems like you could get the same benefits of yanking away what you see as an excess of expendable income by taxing the fuck out of fancy cars and million-dollar suits. The income tax is a joke, property taxes are appalling and (at least around here, where a massive amount of revenue comes from them) really fuck the poor and middle classes... this is really not the kind of plan that seems well-thought-out to an extent greater than "Tax the rich! Fuck Yeah!" because it only spawns countless other problems... and worsens the problem of tax evasion that you seem to be all gung-ho about eliminating.

EDIT: I agree about lower and middle classes paying less, but only because I don't want to see anyone paying taxes... oops...

Jeff


----------



## JBroll (Mar 2, 2008)

Double post... 

[Oh no, my upper-class post surplus is taking valuable resources away from the poor! Burn the bourgeoisie!]

Jeff


----------



## Samer (Mar 2, 2008)

Jeff..

I know you are a Ron Paul supporter, however on the 4th are you going for Obama or Paul?


----------



## Jongpil Yun (Mar 2, 2008)

JBroll said:


> As for the IRS, what's so great about income that for all you know could be spent directly on the economy? Why the fuck are you actually trying to *give* more power to a bureaucracy that blows ten-and-a-half billion dollars a year on collecting money inefficiently and that has spawned billions of dollars worth of business revolving solely around figuring out how the fuck one is supposed to go about fellating that beast?



Allow me to quote myself a bit here:



> (Ron Paul is) ...an unfortunately pious worshiper of the free market, apparently ignoring the power of public goods, the high multiplier of government spending, and the power of externalities and asymmetrical information availability to warp free market transactions away from the ideal.



The terror that is the US government is more of a product of a divided government, corruption and pandering to corporate interests, lack of transparency, Gerrymandering, and all that good stuff.

The IRS is quite obviously screwed up, but the tax code is so screwed up precisely because the government is so beholden to corporate lobbyists, special interest groups and the like, and it being so complicated has the effect of benefiting the rich (who can afford an accountant to get them the maximum number of benefits, etc.), and punishing the poor (at least middle class people get huge tax breaks for buying housing and stuff, which, by the way, would have worked a lot better if it weren't for the atrocity of the Greenspan housing bubble -- but there are no tax breaks for renters).

Even if the Federal Government were to be remarkably inefficient in allocating resources, the enormous multiplier and lasting benefit of public works, infrastructure and the like, pretty much guarantee that it's going to outperform the public sector in providing public goods or anything with a sufficiently high number of externalities, positive OR negative.

On the other hand, we have the Federal Government distorting free trade when it generally WOULD work, but in precisely the opposite direction -- for example, my local cable monopoly, and the insane subsidies of farming that go almost entirely to enormous farming corporations at the cost of the smaller family owned farms, ONLY because the marginal cost of farming an extra acre is always lower than the average cost, hence the movement towards massive, low quality, inefficient and polluting corporations. And then we go dumping our excess cheap grain on foreign markets, with tragic effects on the mostly agrarian economies.

Even worse, we're currently moving towards a commodity bubble due to rampant speculation, which is going to hurt the poor even more.


----------



## JBroll (Mar 2, 2008)

Samer said:


> Jeff..
> 
> I know you are a Ron Paul supporter, however on the 4th are you going for Obama or Paul?



I don't support him so much as see him as the least worst of the candidates... I'm not voting for either of them.

Jeff


----------



## Samer (Mar 2, 2008)

JBroll said:


> I don't support him so much as see him as the least worst of the candidates... I'm not voting for either of them.
> 
> Jeff



Dude we need your help in Texas, be a team player


----------



## noodles (Mar 2, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Considering that's all I originally attacked, I don't exactly see why you brought in 'the economic class I grew up in' or where you were planning to go with this... it's not like you really need too many excuses to talk about how we should tax somewhere between 50% and 90% of the income of the rich...



Let's be honest, Jeff: you do have a tendency, and time, to lean towards arrogance in your libertarian views. It's not such a stretch to assume that you came from an upper middle class family, is it? 



> As for the IRS, what's so great about income that for all you know could be spent directly on the economy? Why the fuck are you actually trying to *give* more power to a bureaucracy that blows ten-and-a-half billion dollars a year on collecting money inefficiently and that has spawned billions of dollars worth of business revolving solely around figuring out how the fuck one is supposed to go about fellating that beast? I don't know how many rich motherfuckers you know who just throw money overseas and never actually do anything for their communities, but... 90% of the ones I know completely destroy that stereotype. Plus, while that money is 'out of the economy' for some time, ever notice how some people like to *retire* someday? Old rich people tend to do that, and... what do they do? Live frugally, donate generously, tip well...



I never said anything about keeping the existing tax code intact. In actuality, 
I think the tax code needs to be gutted, with most of exemptions and loop holes closed. I think the current system of rewarding debt is what gets so many people into trouble in the first place. We've got people buying houses that really shouldn't, but what choice do you really have? I'm a middle class income earner who is in no position to buy a house right now, so the IRS absolutely rapes me every April. Don't even get me started on all the loopholes and back doors available to the rich. Democrats may have invented the income tax, but the Republicans are responsible for turning it into the bloated mess it is currently.



> It seems like you could get the same benefits of yanking away what you see as an excess of expendable income by taxing the fuck out of fancy cars and million-dollar suits. The income tax is a joke, property taxes are appalling and (at least around here, where a massive amount of revenue comes from them) really fuck the poor and middle classes... this is really not the kind of plan that seems well-thought-out to an extent greater than "Tax the rich! Fuck Yeah!" because it only spawns countless other problems... and worsens the problem of tax evasion that you seem to be all gung-ho about eliminating.



I don't see what you're getting at. How are you going to replace the current income tax revenue with taxes on luxury items? That isn't going to generate enough revenue, and then the rich will simply fly over to Europe to by their sports cars and diamonds. If you replace the income tax with a national sales tax, then you begin to encourage the lower and middle classes to not make purchases, making the economy collapse in on itself.



> EDIT: I agree about lower and middle classes paying less, but only because I don't want to see anyone paying taxes... oops...



You'll get no arguments from me on this one. The problem here is that we are no longer a union of independent states. We are a large, bloated, out of touch federal government that is catering to special interests and the wealthy, and not the millions of regular citizens of this country. This is NOT what the framers of the Constitution designed the government to be. Actually, it was exactly what they were trying to avoid. I blame Lincoln and the Republican party of the time, who overstepped their legal bounds by pursuing a reckless civil war. The writings of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Mason all clearly outline the framers' thoughts on the matter: states were to be permitted to freely sever ties with the union, without fear of retribution.


----------



## noodles (Mar 2, 2008)

Samer said:


> Dude we need your help in Texas, be a team player



This attitude is a reflection of everything that is wrong with our election system.


----------



## Samer (Mar 2, 2008)

noodles said:


> This attitude is a reflection of everything that is wrong with our election system.



Well in 2000 people didn't have that attitude (people thought Bush or Gore same thing) and look what happened, it time to be militant about it and fight for our freedoms.


----------



## noodles (Mar 2, 2008)

Samer said:


> Well in 2000 people didn't have that attitude (people thought Bush or Gore same thing) and look what happened, it time to be militant about it and fight for our freedoms.



I'm not attacking your attitude. I'm simply saying that your attitude, which I completely understand and agree with, is a byproduct of our system. If we used a plurality system--where the voter ranked all available candidates by order of preference--rather than the current winner take all, then we wouldn't have to have discussions about guys like Nader ruining things for Gore. Nader supporters would go in and vote Nader/Gore/Bush, thus ensuring that a vote for their favorite candidate (Nader) was not assisting the candidate they dislike the most (Bush).


----------



## JBroll (Mar 2, 2008)

Samer said:


> Dude we need your help in Texas, be a team player



Don't worry, if Texans go Hillary it'll be either the superdelegates ruining everything or everyone wanting to get to shoot her. 



noodles said:


> Let's be honest, Jeff: you do have a tendency, and time, to lean towards arrogance in your libertarian views. It's not such a stretch to assume that you came from an upper middle class family, is it?



Didn't start upper middle class, and with as much money as we gave away we never lived that way... hell, I wound up in the shithole of UTSA because I couldn't afford to go to much of anywhere but Texas public universities and I didn't even know if I'd be able to afford living in Austin. I've never driven a car that someone else didn't put 60-120 thousand miles on, if I eat steak I have to cook it myself, never had caviar or champagne... and coming from (at least part of the time) a background like the kind of person you're complaining about (and being surrounded by them when we were still working our way up) I haven't met the kind of people you want to penalize.

As for the arrogance... that's just because I'm God, nothing personal or political.



noodles said:


> I never said anything about keeping the existing tax code intact. In actuality,
> I think the tax code needs to be gutted, with most of exemptions and loop holes closed. I think the current system of rewarding debt is what gets so many people into trouble in the first place. We've got people buying houses that really shouldn't, but what choice do you really have? I'm a middle class income earner who is in no position to buy a house right now, so the IRS absolutely rapes me every April. Don't even get me started on all the loopholes and back doors available to the rich. Democrats may have invented the income tax, but the Republicans are responsible for turning it into the bloated mess it is currently.



I could go on for literally hours on the backdoors *I* know of... and I'm living on maybe $100 a week for spending money for food and gas... the problem is that income is more easily masked than purchases, especially when literally everything is done electronically thanks to everyone being unable to do mental math. You've got a POS, a credit card bill, security cameras out the ass... harder to evade 'Why, yes, I did purchase that H3 sitting in the front yard, why do you ask?' than 'No, I didn't receive supplementary income and have it wired through middlemen to Switzerland, you must be thinking of Martine W. Prikznatch the _Fourth_' like we have now. Income taxes also penalize rich people simply for being rich, which isn't a bad thing in itself when you're a rich person paying to put distant relatives (or total strangers) through college, while the sales tax attacks the spending of money on things like century-old wines that really *don't* add back to the economy.



noodles said:


> I don't see what you're getting at. How are you going to replace the current income tax revenue with taxes on luxury items? That isn't going to generate enough revenue, and then the rich will simply fly over to Europe to by their sports cars and diamonds. If you replace the income tax with a national sales tax, then you begin to encourage the lower and middle classes to not make purchases, making the economy collapse in on itself.



VAT or sales tax on things like those sports cars and diamonds... just taxing the rich a different way. No tax on food, rent, things necessary for living (and no, caviar isn't food, it's lumpy liquid arrogance... grr...), but what you'd see me do if I could cut everything to pieces is rip back program after program to cut government size way back and pay for what little I couldn't get rid of with a sales tax on nonessentials. Hell, I'm paying a 40% sales tax on tinned pipe tobacco, time to share the fucking pain.

As for importing rich-bitch items... as much anal-probing as the FAA requires, I think that if the federal spending depended on it we could actually get a good system down for taxing imported snobbery.



noodles said:


> You'll get no arguments from me on this one. The problem here is that we are no longer a union of independent states. We are a large, bloated, out of touch federal government that is catering to special interests and the wealthy, and not the millions of regular citizens of this country. This is NOT what the framers of the Constitution designed the government to be. Actually, it was exactly what they were trying to avoid. I blame Lincoln and the Republican party of the time, who overstepped their legal bounds by pursuing a reckless civil war. The writings of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Mason all clearly outline the framers' thoughts on the matter: states were to be permitted to freely sever ties with the union, without fear of retribution.



Texas would have left the union a long time ago but it felt bad for the rest of the country... sarcasm aside, Lincoln was a bastard and everyone who came afterwards was at best a slight improvement.

Jeff


----------



## hirah (Mar 2, 2008)

isn't this thread actually pointless considering that mccain is going to win the election anyway?take this with a bit of humor, but hear me out.
here's my prediction
barck beats hillary for the nomination
obviously it's mccain and barack at this point
republicans pull out all the stops addressing him as barack hussein obama again
this is when no publicity is good publicity for barack, too late
americas perception of barack suddenly changes
right or wrong, it will happen
mccain wins the election

i just cant see this country voting for a president that will most likely be sworn in on the Koran.
this is from a purely detatched standpoint, i am not racist in the least.


----------



## Jongpil Yun (Mar 2, 2008)

hirah said:


> i just cant see this country voting for a president that will *most likely be sworn in on the Koran.*
> this is from a purely detatched standpoint, i am not racist in the least.





I really hope you're joking.

I mean, do you watch Fox News or something? Or is it just that you're in third grade?


----------



## JBroll (Mar 2, 2008)

I'm calling bullshit... the Hussein/raised Muslim/must obviously be a terrrrrrrist connection is horseshit, he's a Christian himself.

Conservatives don't even want to see McCain, and even if he's elected he'd be about three-quarters Democratic if he wanted to get anything done with the current Congress. The country is going liberal, deal with it.

Jeff


----------



## tonyhell (Mar 2, 2008)

jhbk


----------



## Lee (Mar 2, 2008)

hirah said:


> republicans pull out all the stops addressing him as barack hussein obama again
> this is when no publicity is good publicity for barack, too late
> americas perception of barack suddenly changes



That's where I think you're wrong. When Cunningham called Obama by his full name at the McCain rally (who McCain actually had met prior to then, though he denied it), it had much of the same effect that the NY Times story had on McCain. Some of the conservatives jumped to his defense even though they didn't support him, just because they viewed it as an attack from the left. Even Rush Limbaugh defended him. Rush Limbaugh defended John McCain!

Karl Rove even stated that using Obama's full name would be a bad idea, and I think it would have much the same would happen if McCain or the GOP in general started using his full name. They wouldn't do it because they figured out really quickly how bad it backfired the first time, so they won't even think of doing that again.

And what in the world gave you the idea that Barack Obama is Muslim? He is a Christian, he was sworn in on the Bible, and has talked about it in debates and has it's own section on his website.


----------



## hirah (Mar 2, 2008)

> I really hope you're joking.
> 
> I mean, do you watch Fox News or something? Or is it just that you're in third grade?


so i was misinformed as are a lot of people. no need for the third grade remark.
maybe you're just an idealistic person that believes everyones decision is based on the truth. and these are the decisions to make because they are right, no matter who the person is. hate to break it to you, but the world is not a perfect place. people make decisions based on emotions and perception,which is rarely beneficial to anyone. 
if perception doesnt matter, there wouldnt be such a big deal made about using baracks middle name.
people let their beliefs , convictions and religions get in the way of rational logical decisions.
case in point:
i don't believe that there should be "in god we trust" on U.S. currency. that has nothing to do with my religious beliefs. but i can see the issues for what they are without my personal beliefs getting in the way.
same with abortion. i might not agree with it because of my beliefs, but i support it.


----------



## Jongpil Yun (Mar 2, 2008)

hirah said:


> so i was misinformed as are a lot of people. no need for the third grade remark.



Because everything that follows is a non-sequitur, I'll just address this.

The fact that you believed, and even worse, _spread_ something so thoroughly covered and debunked as false in the media, really brings into doubt your opinion on _anything_. That's just the way it goes. If I go around spouting some bullshit about how McCain was behind the assassination of JFK, people have every right to question, if not my intellect, my sanity.

More than anything, I'm curious as to just _where the hell you heard that from_. I have never heard it from a reputable source (barring Fox News and the Madrassa bullshit, although it's redundant to say so), so that means that you must have heard it from a very disreputable source, which makes you, IMO, credulous.


----------



## JBroll (Mar 2, 2008)

hirah said:


> so i was misinformed as are a lot of people. no need for the third grade remark.
> maybe you're just an idealistic person that believes everyones decision is based on the truth. and these are the decisions to make because they are right, no matter who the person is. hate to break it to you, but the world is not a perfect place. people make decisions based on emotions and perception,which is rarely beneficial to anyone.
> if perception doesnt matter, there wouldnt be such a big deal made about using baracks middle name.
> people let their beliefs , convictions and religions get in the way of rational logical decisions.
> ...



That doesn't mean you're getting off the hook for spreading complete and total bullshit... just own up to it and move on.

Jeff


----------



## Naren (Mar 3, 2008)

JBroll said:


> That doesn't mean you're getting off the hook for spreading complete and total bullshit... just own up to it and move on.
> 
> Jeff





I was going to post a response of " WHAT THE FUCK?!" to his post when I first read it earlier today, but JP had just posted that, so I decided not to.

I almost wondered if he was being sarcastic or seeing how bizarre of a post he could make.


----------



## Azyiu (Mar 3, 2008)

I am late to this discussion and haven't read all the posts, so if what I say has already been discussed, I apologize in advance.

The main reason I don't want to see Obama in the While House is I don't want to see another admininstration as powerless since the Carter's. Obama is simply too nice, too new to play real, hard ball politics in Washington. I can see him accompishes next to nothing, or will have a very difficult time to do anything in 4 years like Carter.


----------



## JBroll (Mar 3, 2008)

It's either a twit or a twat, your call...

Jeff


----------



## TruthDose (Sep 29, 2009)

Samer said:


> Out of all the remaining candidates (not including Ron Paul) he is the only one that dosent take lobbyist money, and he is not taking money from Black Water (both Hillary and Mccain are)
> 
> Plus he will be a warrior for our civil liberties and freedoms while rebuilding the economy and creating new jobs.




HAHAHAHA that went well eh?

I'm still dead set on my original choice
Ron Paul ftw!


----------



## Rick (Sep 29, 2009)

Hi. 

Welcome to a year and a half later.


----------



## Randy (Sep 29, 2009)

Meh. He can brag all the wants. Sour grapes, and all.

So far, I'm not regretting my decision and I'm not planning on it. As an aside, it's really easy to play "I told you so..." or "What if...?" but it won't get you anywhere.


----------



## JBroll (Sep 30, 2009)

Yeah, I just randomly got thanked twice for this thread and was reminded that I simply cannot go longer than a month without cracking some inappropriate Kennedy joke.

Jeff


----------



## TruthDose (Sep 30, 2009)

Randy said:


> Meh. He can brag all the wants. Sour grapes, and all.
> 
> So far, I'm not regretting my decision and I'm not planning on it. As an aside, it's really easy to play "I told you so..." or "What if...?" but it won't get you anywhere.



I couldn't disagree more. Its essential to learn from mistakes, be it yours or another's. I'm am not at all saying you made a mistake, by being politically active. I am not playing any type of "what if...?" game either. I obviously have different views than you do, and I respect you for being true to yourself. My last comment wasn't meant to be disrespectful, I apologize for the tone.


----------



## JBroll (Sep 30, 2009)

In any case, it's about time we all collectively shut the fuck up about Ron Paul because he's a theocrat painted as a libertarian and makes *all* real libertarians look bad.

Jeff


----------



## Randy (Sep 30, 2009)

You know, it _*has*_ felt kinda like Ron Paul just turned into Ralph Nader '08. Most people I know who preached about him didn't even know what the hell he was about, but he just became the representation of everything they've ever dreamed AKA not being the other two guys.


----------



## TruthDose (Oct 1, 2009)

Randy said:


> You know, it _*has*_ felt kinda like Ron Paul just turned into Ralph Nader '08. Most people I know who preached about him didn't even know what the hell he was about, but he just became the representation of everything they've ever dreamed AKA not being the other two guys.


I agree with you there, I ask people why they like him, and they respond with a "...because you do." It makes me . I'd say his supporters are pretty polarized, educated or just plain...
And that's another thing that gets me worked up, the two party domination lol.
He is actually the Rep. of my district so, I guess I can say, I was one of the early followers. I'd really like to see him run again though, I see much more support for him, and increasing over the last year...



JBroll said:


> In any case, it's about time we all collectively shut the fuck up about Ron Paul because he's a theocrat painted as a libertarian and makes *all* real libertarians look bad.
> 
> Jeff



Notice, how he hasn't ran or claimed Libertarian since the early 80's. o_0


----------



## JBroll (Oct 1, 2009)

Right, he has been honest about that - but bazillions of his supporters and the media haven't, and many would-be 'libertarians' jumped all over him as a result.

Jeff


----------



## TruthDose (Oct 1, 2009)

JBroll said:


> Right, he has been honest about that - but bazillions of his supporters and the media haven't, and many would-be 'libertarians' jumped all over him as a result.
> 
> Jeff




I see, good point.


----------

