Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Why the GOP must be stopped
- Thread starter Mr. dB
- Start date
TrueLiberal
New member
Federal spending increased to record highs under Reagan. Reagan railed against "tax and spend" Democrats, but himself was a "borrow and spend" Republican. The economy also flourished under Reagan. This has more to do with the Federal Reserve drastically increasing interests rates during the watch of Paul Volcker than anything Reagan did though.
Headholio
New member
Great piece you quote dB. A lot of great lines in a couple of paragraphs, like;
and
Republican politics of the 80s to hurt America and Americans just as true today.
And;
McConnell amounts to nothing more than a traitor the way he whines about the deficit and sucks rich peoples dicks at the same time.
and
Republican politics of the 80s to hurt America and Americans just as true today.
And;
McConnell amounts to nothing more than a traitor the way he whines about the deficit and sucks rich peoples dicks at the same time.
TrueLiberal
New member
The Trickle down economics does work if you live in a free market capitalist economy. Trickle down economics sets the environment for a surplus of wealth which can be reinvested in the economy to set the environment for even greater wealth. If you take surplus wealth, tax it, then redistribute it to people who do not produce wealth you reduce further wealth production because there is less capital available for saving and investment. If you take surplus wealth, tax it, then redistribute it you also create a disincentive for entrepreneurs to produce. Why would anyone want to produce wealth if the government is just going to tax it and give it away to another business or somebody else?
Headholio
New member
I think true liberal is a fraud.
Trickle down was an experiment that did not work. If you make the argument that it's because our market is not free, then I have to disagree because that has nothing to do with it.
History shows us that pandering to the rich is very effective at doing one thing: Making the rich richer. Taxes would have to be much much higher to squash innovation or capitalist drive. How do I know? Because Americas greatest years have been during times of much much higher tax rates than the current rates.
The market in fact is too free. So free that corporate ass kissing resulted only in corporate elite increasing their own salary's 10 fold and using the rest of their tax savings to invest in slave labor overseas. Republicans believe in trickle down to third world countries, and then propose an economic model that would make us third world as well.
mrplunkey
New member
That is just awesome.
We spent decades abusing the commerce clause to justify government intervention to the point where there are precious free markets left in the US. Really the only hope for true entrepreneurs is to find a technology that moves so fast the government can't understand it yet (and therefore screw it up). That's how computers, cell phones, social networking and a number of other technological successes escaped early government intervention. But alas, like anything else, government will eventually get hold of it and screw it up (i.e. cars, energy, airlines).
But you keep thinking that markets are "too free". Maybe speech is too free too.
Yeah, he was disgraced by his association with a policy that you GOP jock sniffers still support.
Who said anything about socialism?
mrplunkey
New member
Don't be so angry!
Just hope we "GOP jock sniffers" stay at least partially invested in America long enough to pay off those social security and Medicare benefits you're about to enjoy -- because the libtards sure aren't going to fit the bill.
How does it feel to be on the cusp of cashing-in on a ponzi scheme where you get $3 of benefit for every $1 you paid in? Is there the slightest pang of guilt when you see that 25 year old struggling to get by knowing that he's paying for your benefits that he'll never receive? How does that reconcile with the liberal notion of "fairness" and "equity"?
TrueLiberal
New member
Free market capitalism doesn't pander to the rich. It allows the economy to function in an orderly fashion which allows people to trade labor and goods freely. To 'pander' implies that there is some outside agent acting on the economy, therefore when the rich are 'pandered' to, you don't have a free market.
Trickle down economics has a history of working. When America and Britain had very close to free markets, the standard of living of most men grew by leaps and bounds. The average life expectancy increased, population increased, and opportunities for social mobility increased.
Your observation regarding high tax rates leading to progress are incorrect. Americas greatest economic booms follow deceases in tax rates. For instance Americas greatest economic boom happened in the late 40's and 50's when the tax rate was rolled back. America has one of the three highest corporate tax rates in the world. If your theory regarding tax rates resulting in productivity are true, why is America a net import country with high unemployment shedding jobs? Shouldn't the economy be booming and industry expanding? Ever her of The Industrial Revolution? There was an effective zero percent tax rate during this time. The government supported itself primarily on tariffs and fees. Are you going to assert that The Industrial Revolution wasn't one of the most economically productive eras in history?
You keep mentioning corporations, but corporations as you talk about them are not the product of free market capitalism. Corporations can't exist in free market capitalism because corporations are legal entities created and enforced by the government. Corporations are legal shells that shield the members from criminal and civil responsibility for their actions. That means the government is tampering with the economy to maintain corporation, hence no free market.
"Trickle down" isn't an "experiment". It is an emergent order that occurs when wealth is produced. In order to expand wealth, the entrepreneur must create more jobs and industries. This expansion benefits booth the entrepreneur, the employee, and the consumer.
The economy is over regulated. It's extremely difficult and expensive to start a business in America. This means only the very well financed (rich) can start a business. Your beloved regulations therefore in part cause the problems you are attributing to the free market. I witnessed my father close the doors of his business due to over regulation. He hit economic hard times and no longer wanted to deal with government regulations such as unemployment insurance, workers comp, OSHA fines, etc. Your beloved regulations were instrumental in my father shutting down his 41 year old business and the ensuing layoff of 75 full time employees.
themondtster
New member
Exactly how I feel most of the time. The government and politicians have a hand in everything now. The branches and groups supposed to monitor said corporations and industries are headed by ex CEOs, relatives, or in some way have a personal relationship or benefit. So how can a fair judgement, punishment, or regulation be imposed. Just like the bail outs. To me a capitalist free market would let them fail, be bought out by someone else, and ran more efficiently and everyone would stil have their jobs. Instead we reward failure. Did your fathers business get a bailout....no because the politicians and the corporate leaders(who really run this country) didn't have any stake in it.
Last edited:
mrplunkey
New member
You seem like a smart bor, which is why it's surprising you included such a plunkey-esque display of ignorance of basic verifiable facts in your post.
Top income tax rate in 1930: 25%
"" 1940: 81%
"" 1945: 94%
"" 1950: 91%
Top corporate tax rate in 1930: 12%
"" 1940: 24%
"" 1945: 40%
"" 1950: 42%
the tax debate is a bullshit debate anyway. the rich in this country don't pay their fair share, not even close.. Romney is worth 250M and he pays 14% and that is only because he overpaid knowing he would have to disclose.. i bet if you look at his prior returns its in the single digits and even at 0. the poor don't pay federal taxes, but pay out of their ass in local taxes.. sales taxes, taxes on cig/alcohol, property taxes through their rent... the middle class pay out of their ass in federal taxes getting taken out of their paychecks. so the solution is cut local taxes by giving more money to local governments and tell them if they don't cut local taxes you will cut off federal money, cut federal taxes on the middle class (payroll taxes which the R's are against), and close loopholes so the rich can't cheat the system.. and if some rich fuck sends millions to the caymans charge their ass a fee to transfer that money, if they want to get a briefcase and not declare that money then confiscate it and then fine them and throw them in prison, just like they do in Asian countries when you try to smuggle metals and give the rat 15% as a reward. until they pay their fine they can stay in prison. and yes lets have an estate tax and make it easier to nail tax cheats. so sick of these rich 18 year olds spooning off of daddy's success and claiming they made the money on their own, even though they showed a loss the year before on their taxes. make it easier to prosecute tax attorney's and accountants too. way too much abuse going on
cliff notes: so basically we are cutting taxes across the board, cutting spending at the federal level and giving money back to local govt's, and closing loopholes and punishing cheats. can't both parties agree on that? but no we are too divided and have to fight on every little thing and can't compromise on common sense. so we continue to reward cheats and the honest man who pays taxes every week out of his paycheck gets screwed.
cliff notes: so basically we are cutting taxes across the board, cutting spending at the federal level and giving money back to local govt's, and closing loopholes and punishing cheats. can't both parties agree on that? but no we are too divided and have to fight on every little thing and can't compromise on common sense. so we continue to reward cheats and the honest man who pays taxes every week out of his paycheck gets screwed.
both are centrist parties but the republicans have moved way to the right in recent years thanks to super PAC's and the influence of the Koch brothers, Adelson and other billionaires helping to elect people who will fight for their interests .. you can't say both parties are the same anymore. no such thing as a liberal republican anymore, they've been wiped away. but there are still conservative democrats, just look at a state like Arkansas which still has a democratic state senate and legislature. same with Kentucky and WV too. those are very very very very conservative states but the state governors are democrats and were elected in landslides.
TrueLiberal
New member
You aren't factoring the tax loopholes. There were so many tax loopholes that the effective corporate tax rate was much lower than the percentages that you are citing. It's my mistake. I should have said "effective tax rate".
Are the rich really different? | The Economist
For instance many large American corporations such as General Electric effectively pay a negative tax rate. General Electric's deductions exceed General Electric's Corporate tax
NYT Is Superb On General Electric's Tax Avoidance : CJR
This jives with common sense. If corporations really paid 42% of their profits in taxes, why would they want to do business in America? What would be the motive if your profits after taxation were so meager?
Last edited:
Hold on - are you suggesting that the effective corporate tax rate was lower back in the 40's and 50's than it is now?
Really? If so, you're wrong.
Correct and also kudos to your other post above regarding the fallacy of only talking about tax rates. Just one piece of the puzzle.
TrueLiberal
New member
I'm not wrong. There were far more allowed deductions in the 40's and 50's. The initial rate increased from the 30's, but what corporations actually paid in general was lower.
I'm not suggesting the tax rate was lower in the '40's and '50's. Mainly what I am implying is that you have to look past crude numbers like percentage rates to figure out what corporations actually pay. You have to factor in deductions. Did you not look at the links I provided? GE pays effectively nothing in corporate taxes currently due to tax deductions.
As a side note corporations never actually pay the corporate tax. The employees and the consumer pay the corporate tax. Corporations will factor the taxes charged into the cost of their product to maintain a certain profit margin. Taxes, insurance, benefits, etc. in the end are paid for by reductions in employee salary and an increase in the price of products. If the corporations just ate the cost of the taxes and benefits they would be unprofitable and go out of business.
You're supporting my argument. GE pays nothing now. The effective corporate tax rate in 2011 was 12%, the lowest rate since they began even recording this type of data.
Corporations were paying a higher effective tax rate in the 40s and 50s than they are now.
Im a Leninist-Dragoist
TrueLiberal
New member
I think that we are misunderstanding each other and agreeing on many things. My point about GE was to show that what a corporation pays in taxes is different than the assessed tax rates.
The marginal rate was higher in the 40's and 50's, but I can't find an effective rate. Can you link me to the effective tax rates of the '30's, '40s, and '50s? I'm also not finding uniform consensus on the present effective corporate tax rate. So far I've seen it listed anywhere between 12% ad 25%. I hate spreading disinformation.
Me too. Data for the effective rate only began being collected in the late 50's I believe. I would suggest looking at corporate tax revenue as a % of GDP but honestly that may be misleading.
Here is a WSJ article showing the CBO 2011 corporate effective tax rate: Tax Break Pushes Corporate Taxes to Just 12.1% of Profits, Lowest Level in 40 Years - WSJ.com
12.1%
What we DO know is that the effective corporate tax rate averaged about 25% from 1986 - 2008.
So yes, you and I agree on this: the fact that US corporations are paying the lowest effective rate in recorded history combined with the fact that their profits are at a 60 year high means that maybe something needs a fixin.
TrueLiberal
New member
I have nothing against record profits. I think record profits are a good thing in general. What I would have a problem with is how those profits are gained. If record profits are gained by offloading expenses from the corporation onto other companies and taxpayers or accepting subsidies I would view that as a negative. Maximum wealth generation doesn't occur in this case. Money is taken from one entity's pocket and put into another entity's pocket through bureaucratic thievery.
jnevin
New member
Aaaand, you're retarded.
kx250rider
New member
The Republicans to whom you refer, were given a bowl of sh*t to work with... Democrat LBJ stuck Nixon with the Viet Nam war and all it's bills, and Ford wasn't in office long enough to do much, then Jimmy Farter came in and annihilated the whole defense contractor industry, (which not only made us weaklings in the eyes of the Middle East, and set off the late 70s-early 80s recession), all of which was dumped on Reagan & Bush Sr. to try to fix. By Bush Sr's second term, we were in pretty good shape... Cold War over, gas $1.25/gallon, and everyone with a job could afford a house. Then comes Clinton and the whole Iraq WMD thing, which he gave Bush Jr. to deal with, and Bush floundered around with it unsuccessfully, and now Obama is trying to pound the last couple nails in the coffin.
Charles
Charles
Bush Sr only had one term, unless youre actually referring to clintons first term, in which case yes, we were in good shape. Even more so his 2nd term
that's the democratic platform - socialism,
"When the people realize that they can vote them self a raise, or salary the Republic is finished"
Democratic = mob rule
where is the false statement here??
TrueLiberal
New member
America fell into a recession under Nixon. It lasted through Ford and Carter and spilled into Reagan's first term. Nixon removed the gold standard and expanded the money supply causing inflation. Nixon responded by enacting wage and price controls which caused shortages.
The WMD farce occurred under GW Bush, not Clinton. It was a bullshit pretense to start a United Nations conquest. The original Gulf Invasion was started by GW's daddy.
I find the Middle East perplexing. For decades The United States has been routinely bombing it, destabilizing it's countries, assassinating and deposing it's leaders to set up vicious puppet governments, propping up bloodthirsty dictators and autocrats, killing it's citizens with sanctions, pillaging it's natural resources, and people blame the Middle East for fighting back.
Obama is definitely working some nails into the coffin. He's the biggest war monger of them all. Obama is also a traitor and I mean this in a legal sense, not just an emotional sense. His secretary of defense, Leon Panetta, recently told congress that the military now receives it's orders through the UN. This means that Obama has sold out to foreign interests.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSzZAOQnYFI
Last edited:
How is that different from "investment"?
Investors willingly give their money to be invested. Taxes are involuntary confiscations against peoples will.
Headholio
New member
That's a good point. Most people never knew, or don't remember, that the imaginary WMD's were Clintons fault!!!!! Bwaaahhhhh haaaaa !!!!!!!!!!!
mrplunkey
New member
mrplunkey
New member
1) People choose to make investments. People "choose" to pay taxes at the end of a gun.
2) When investments go bad, investors should lose their money. But if you're the government, you just steal the wealth and future from the next generation.
You always purport to have a sense of fairness, so tell me this: Exactly how fair is it that you are about to cash-out on your share of the ponzi scheme? You've talked about everyone paying their "fair share" to make society better. Couldn't your "fair share" be dramatic reductions in your Medicare and SS windfall so future generations have a chance? You've got what, 20 years left? What about today's youth that have 50-70 years ahead of them? Shouldn't you lead by example?
What does that have to do with iraq WMDs
Headholio
New member
All of it. You really can't be stupid enough to believe that tripe.
mrplunkey
New member
Bush Sr. signed a perfectly valid cease fire that included arms inspections and a number of other conditions. So while Bubba got his hummers, he led Saddam & company to believe we were all good. Bush Jr. takes over and has to deal with Clinton's mess.
I didn't like the way the WMD thing went down more than anyone else. But there were plenty of people at the time who believed they existed. The interesting part is how the anti-Bush crowd ignore the legal cease fire agreement that Saddam was willingly violating. And if you violate the agreement that stopped your original ass-kicking, then guess what? The ass-kicking gets to start all over again.
Another lane change from Plunkey, what a surprise. You were knocking the scheme where people collect $3 for every $1 they put in, then when I asked how that was different from investment, you changed the subject to the way the taxes are collected.
mrplunkey
New member
That's the part you don't understand.
You will be collecting $3 for every $1 they put in at today's current rate.
Let me put this in a way that a non-financial person can understand:
1) You made "investments" (the time value of money) that now cover $1 out of $3 of your upcoming health care costs. And even that is a scam, because that money was stolen and spent even long before it was gathered.
2) The other $2 of those $3 are paid directly off the backs of today's workers.
So are you happy taking bread, health care and homes from these people? Or will you revert to your standard answer, which is to blame someone else and expect them to pick up your tab?
So when I was (still am) paying into the system, how much were my parents' generation using?
mrplunkey
New member
Your parents didn't have government the ponzi scheme in place. Instead they were busy being ruggedly individualists suffering through depressions and winning world wars. Then the mememememe boomers came along, decided being a hippy was fun, voted themselves a bunch of freebies, then voted-in politicians who spent the money and now expect the government to bail them out.
Today's boomers are the same ones who repeatedly pulled the same voting levers year after year supporting the same politicians that stole their money. So now the big question is: Do we renegotiate the overly rich deal they were given or do we just steal it from the next generation?
Which way do you lean?
Are you saying that my parents did not pay into, nor benefit from, Social Security and Medicare? That is a false claim.
And the Hippies were mostly from the pre-Baby Boom generation, born between about 1938-1944. In 1966-1967, the very oldest Baby Boomers were only about 18-21 years old, barely even old enough to tag along behind the Hippies.
You need to bone up on your history.
mrplunkey
New member
Of course they did. But they aren't lifetime "invested" like the poor souls who you'll be taking money from.
I keep answering your questions. Now answer at least one of mine: How do you feel about taking those extra $2 from today's youth? I want to hear how your sense of fairness reconciles with the harsh reality that their opportunities are limited by your entitlements. Should the guys who cashed-out a week before Bernie Madoff was arrested get to keep all their money too?
Social Security was enacted in 1935, before either of my parents ever entered the work force, so they were fully invested in that. Medicare was enacted in 1965, about 23 years before my parents reached 65, so while they weren't paying into it for their whole working lives, they did pay in for more than half.
So in a way, they paid in less than I will, but still drew the full benefit. Which I guess I helped pay for. I'm okay with that.
First of all, I don't know the veracity of your numbers, and suspect that you've spun them to support your agenda. And have you factored in the ~20% of Americans who die before they reach 65? They pay in without ever receiving anything apart from the small death benefit. Is that 2.9% tax really limiting anyone's opportunities?
mrplunkey
New member
The fund pays out $3 for ever $1 it collects, even when adjusted for the time value of money. That's why Medicare is going broke. And I'm sure you'll dismiss it as spin, but it's not me saying that -- it's the MEDICARE AUDITORS. If you'd change the channel off MSNBC sometime, you'd see stories like that.
And now... you've dodged the question several times. So let's try this again:
I keep answering your questions. Now answer at least one of mine: How do you feel about taking those extra $2 from today's youth? I want to hear how your sense of fairness reconciles with the harsh reality that their opportunities are limited by your entitlements. Should the guys who cashed-out a week before Bernie Madoff was arrested get to keep all their money too?
Is anyone going after the guys who cashed out a week before Madoff was arrested? And what does it have to do with this discussion.
Regarding your ridiculous, loaded question, I guess I feel fine about soaking today's youth. Maybe I wouldn't have to, though, if the GOP assholes would stop holding the US political process hostage, and actually allow our programs to be funded.
BTW, I'm not suggesting that conservatism as a political philosophy must be crushed, just the GOP. Conservatism and liberalism need each other as a system of checks and balances, neither can be allowed to run free.
mrplunkey
New member
Of course they are. Did you not know that?
Better them than you, eh? Gotta get it while you can.
Just remember your position next time you castigate some corporate fat cat for protecting their own interests.
Headholio
New member
Plunkey is .....wrong again! Anyone surprised?
Actually, receipts have always exceeded expenditures from 1982 to 2010. Here's a table showing that.
Social Security Trust Funds
In 2011, expenditures exceeded income for the first time since 1982. There are plenty of ideas of how to turn that around and keep SS sovent. Even if we do nothing, trust fund reserves are projected to last through 2033.
To make SS work, what we need is to fund it, and educate people about it, so they don't believe stupid lies like Punkey is throwing around all the time.
I miss RS
A most worthy adversary
Nice, but I think he was talking about Medicare numbers, got any stats for that? 'Cause I suspect his numbers for that were loaded too.
Headholio
New member
I don't think he quite knows which he was talking about, just like he doesn't seem to know the difference between Al Queda and Saddam Huessein
With regard to WMD's:
And then
lol
But back to Medicare, of course Plunkey loaded the numbers:
Hospital insurance was negative by 27B, disability Ins down by 26B, SS up by 95B, and supplemental health up by 8B for 2011.
You can also see for the net of these trust funds combined was a gain for 2011 (95-26-27+8 = around 50B)
3 Bucks out for every dollar in? Nope.
How about long term outlook? Well I wonder if Plunkey is factoring in the huge benefit of Obamacare?
there are lots of ways to make our vital social safety needs financially viable. the problem is that republicans don't want to.
Lots of good info in here:
Trustees Report Summary
Mr. db...
"Why the GOP must be stopped"...really? Umm...zip up your fly my friend, your partisanship is showing. Jesus...Do I need to whack some of you kiddies upside the head with a smart stick? If you guys are the future of America...The more I'm convinced that we're fucked.
"Why the GOP must be stopped"...really? Umm...zip up your fly my friend, your partisanship is showing. Jesus...Do I need to whack some of you kiddies upside the head with a smart stick? If you guys are the future of America...The more I'm convinced that we're fucked.
50 year olds are are "punks" to this old guy.
White people are bankrupting Social Security. You're living too long!!! You people need to take up smoking again, smoking crack rock, playing in traffic, all that shit.
I could destroy this argument on so many levels, but I'm not sure if I want to as I find myself bemused while simultaneously amused at the delivery...Well played my friend. Tell me more.
You need The Man to look the other way while yellow people (or green people) import mind altering substances (like that aerosol can stuff or glue) to keep whites in the suburbs for generations.
lololol@ keepin whites in the burbs
fuck Im tired, thats hilarious to me
fuck Im tired, thats hilarious to me
Headholio
New member
Acting smart isn't the same as being smart. Bemused? Hmmph.
I'm not positive, but I think there MIGHT have been some humor in Dial Tone's suggestion that whites need to smoke more crack and play in traffic.
If you really have that smart stick, start whacking.
55
Even worse lol
I'm not really "for" the DNC so much except that they are place markers for anything that is "not GOP". The GOP is truly disasterous. Just read the Stockman article at the head of this thread.
Fair enough, but I still read your statement as a veiled attempt to obfuscate your partisanship. The GOP disastrous, huh? OK...I would not even begin to dispute the allegation (and I am a former Reagan Republican), however, how can you even throw in with a party (the DNC) and an administration that has contributed to the largest expansion of Federal power in the history of the US? This administration has successfully prosecuted, imprisoned, and seized more properties from individuals for growing marijuana in the 1st 3 years of being in power than the Bush administration did in the entire 8 years he (Bush) held the Executive Office.
The DNC and this administration is every bit as "pro war" as the GOP, and some might argue even more so. In fact, I just read today that we're going to permanently station 13,500 troops in Kuwait (thanks to a bipartisan effort) so that we, the US, can respond expeditiously in the event of hostilities in the region. Sounds like a "prelude to war" if you ask me. Of course, this carries the blessing of the Obama Administration and more specifically, his Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.
"All Hail American Empire"
The President's Administration does this?
Its the "on my watch" theory biting you again bor. Gotta have a hard fast metric for determining how any given administration is going. For presidents its the day they are inaugurated to the day they leave office. Sorry but thats just the way it is.
There you go, its pretty damn easy isnt it.
Obama killed bin laden, bush didnt.
Eli has two superbowl rings, Peyton only has 1.
Question For The Day: "What branch of the Federal Gov't does the Department of Justice belong to?"
Quite frankly my friend, I'm somewhat disappointed that a person of your age would not "automatically" know this. I'm sure that since you're 55 you know when and why the Department of Education was created and which administration spearheaded it, yes?
And why are we over there killing the Taliban? Because we're a bunch of pussies afraid of some people living in Stone Age conditions that threaten a 1st world Superpower?
Methinks you've been brainwashed by the media/gov't/corporate machine.
Wake up and begin thinking for yourself...or relegate yourself to a mindless automaton that takes your marching orders from your TV.
Wait a minute. I owe you an apology. I just now realized that you are European. I would not expect that you would know the "Separation of Powers" and all the machinations of the US Federal government. I automatically assumed that you were quite vocal about US politics that you were American.
Please accept my apology.
I didn't know Arkansas was in Europe?
(The "Europe" flag is because the next F1 race is the European Grand Prix at Valencia, Spain.)
I still didn't know that the President and his Administration were directly involved in illegal drug prosecutions?
Ah...OK...Then I will cut you no slack. Shame on you for not knowing. You shouldn't be debating politics if you don't even know the differences between the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branches. IMO you shouldn't even be voting if you don't know such fundamental operations of the Federal government. Let me guess....you went went to public school, yes?
Youll never guess what he does for a living either.
My general opinion of the "Typical American" is already bad enough. I think I'd rather not know for the time being.
Just please tell me he doesn't "teach" children (which would reaffirm my belief why we, as Americans, are doomed.).
County tax collector
I love you
mrplunkey
New member
Bary deserves full and genuine credit for killing terrorists. No back-handed compliments, no insinuation, no "but"s.
He also innovated the concept of blowing them the hell up instead of capturing them and creating a detainee problem.
ONE OF Einstein's colleagues asked him for his telephone number one day. Einstein reached for a telephone directory and looked it up. "You don't remember your own number?" the man asked, startled.
"No," Einstein answered. "Why should I memorize something I can so easily get from a book?"
In fact, Einstein claimed never to memorize anything which could be looked up in less than two minutes.
Me thinks you feel the need to impress people by commenting on shit people never said. I don't believe we should have ever gone there in the first place. Feel free to point out where I have. However, if we are there wasting taxpayer dollars then we need to kill some people.
Oh rest assured, I don't know if you do or not. I am basing my reply on your immediate statement that you favor Obama's "track record" of killing a bunch of Stone Age tribesmen. I'm not sure what you mean by if we're wasting taxpayer dollars then we need to kill people. Could you please clarify who it is that we should be killing? If it's the politicians, then I can get behind that.
But let's get back to Obama's track record of killing Taliban. To what end? If you don't feel we should have gone there initially (which I feel as well), then why get behind a POTUS that is still there...for what?
I'll tell you what...This POTUS is using the American men and women in uniform to protect corporate interests abroad...period. This POTUS, in conjunction with the media and corporate interests, is feeding the populace "propaganda" to make us "believe" we are overseas in the name of national security....right. Meanwhile, we have an open border between us and Mexico.
I said it earlier and I feel it bears repeating; The largest copper mine in the world now resides in Afghanistan. China has exclusive rights to it. China provides the workers (Chinese nationals) while the US military provides the "security". Why? Well let's play it out to "End Game", shall we? The US provides the security for the extraction and processing of the ore. Said ore is shipped off to China for refinement that eventually ends up in the circuit board of our iPhones and iPads. The American consumer wins...at the expense of corporate interests paid in the blood of a few young American men and women.
I didn't sleep through jr. high civics class. So "The Administration", i.e. the Executive Branch, has WHAT to do with drug enforcement, as you claimed?
Non sequitur, but I'll respond. IMHO, if one is to engage in political debate, one should have a basic and fundamental understanding as to why and how government operates. Again, IMHO, I believe that if one does not have these "core" understanding(s) then one should not be even voting.
Nothing infuriates me more than when I hear some dumbfuck American say they voted for a politician simply because the "like" said politician. I take my politics seriously. I investigate a candidates track record. I frequent the Congress website(s) and associated sites to find out who voted on pieces of legislation. Why? Because when I cast my vote, my vote is an informed one. If more Americans did this maybe we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.
We can point fingers all we want, but truth be told, we are at fault for the mess we're in. And it's because we Americans can't be bothered to avail ourselves of the facts before casting our votes...Hell...we don't even know how our government operates! But we can always "look it up in a book" I suppose. **grin**
Headholio
New member
Simply Dave you have some interesting points of view, but if you are anti-war and pro-marijuana, I don't know how you can knock DB or anyone else for favoring the democratic option. Sure the dems are still effed up politicians, but how do you think you would like Mitt Romney making decisions about marijuana and war?
I agree with you that Obama's change in policy on medical marijuana is wrong, but comparing enforcement between Bush and Obama is misleading, because the medical marijuana industry has exploded since Bush left office. There is just a lot more to enforce now. Not that he should. He is fucking with a non-problem, in my opinion.
Patently incorrect. I assure you that my wife and I are well connected in the MMJ industry. We know suppliers of dispensaries. We know Jorge Cervantes personally. My wife is here as I'm typing this and she wants me to let you know that nothing could be further from the truth. Dispensaries in CA are all but completely shutdown. My wife is the county representative for Collective Patient Resources. I implore you to look them up on FB. There you will find the information of which I speak.
Under Obama's watch, more people have been prosecuted, imprisoned, and their properties seized than under Bush.
I will assume this is a joke, yes? But OK...I'll play along. Let's try this again, shall we?
What Federal agency is responsible for enforcing Federal law? That would be the Department of Justice, would it not? The Department of Justice falls under the pervue of the Executive Branch. The "Top Cop" in the Dept. of Justice is Eric Holder. Who is Holder's boss? None other than President Obama. Now, all we need is one more piece to tie it all together. There is a component of the DoJ called the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) and they are the folks we see in flak jackets and armed to the teeth raiding dispensaries and hauling citizens off to holding cells.
Claim? Hardly...This is fact. The Executive Branch oversees the operations, and has the option to enforce or not, drug policy. All it would take is for Obama to tell Holder to "back off" enforcing Federal drug law(s) regarding MMJ and it would cease. He has not exercised that option and in fact ramped up enforcement of Federal drug policies regarding MMJ. Don't take my word for it. Go to my wife's FB page (Collective Patient Resources) and see for yourself.
Here's but one of the articles you will find...
Feds Raid Oakland's Oaksterdam | NBC Bay Area
I almost overlooked this question. First off, I can assure you that I will call someone on their ideologies if I feel they are basing their opinion(s) on misinformation/propaganda/partisanship. I will call neocons and liberals alike. I "share the love". Like I said, I take my politics EXTREMELY seriously as does my wife. She is a brilliant woman and we have, almost daily, regular political discussion that will sometimes get quite heated as she is a bit more "left" than I.
As for Romney...In a nutshell, Romney is a piece of shit. I met Romney at a Business Convention a couple of years back in Bakersfield. I listened to his speech and after exhaustive analysis of his talking points, it was all just political rhetoric. But there's no surprise there.
But I digress..How do I think I'd like Romney making the same decisions? Romney's stance on MMJ and war is the same as Obama's. Romney is a piece of shit as is Obama. Romney will probably take the election but at least when we go to war with Iran I'll be able to sleep well knowing that there will be no blood on my hands because I voted 3rd party.
I was a "brown shirt", goose stepping Republican for many years. It took me quite sometime to philosophically was that stench from my psyche. Today, I refuse to participate in the murder of sovereign peoples. Today I refuse to participate in the occupation of sovereign nations and the killing of American men/women for the sake of corporate interests under the guise of spreading "Freedom and Democracy" or "National Security". Today, I exercise my 1st Amendment rights and I speak against my government. I speak publicly against local government (in fact, I should dig up my last Letter To The Editor in my local paper. Some of you may like it.). But when I speak, when I vote...I do it from a position of knowledge as best I can.
Here's a perfect example of why I hold politicians accountable. This is a "Letter To The Editor" of our county paper that I sent after listening to a bunch of criminals called the Board of Supervisors try to tell me that I should be "thankful"...
Similar threads
