Author Topic: Random Political Thoughts  (Read 589441 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Politics
« Reply #330 on: July 20, 2012, 10:39:30 PM »
Fuck, I would join you, but I can't walk and keep a rhythm going.
Onan, you are really fucking good man. I'd love to get a beer with you but I can't bowl worth a fuck anymore. I came back to edit this a couple of minutes later and I'm still laughing.

Re: Politics
« Reply #331 on: July 20, 2012, 10:44:13 PM »
There's a fine line between Masturbators Parade and Moving Orgy.

Re: Politics
« Reply #332 on: July 20, 2012, 11:22:28 PM »
There's a fine line between Masturbators Parade and Moving Orgy.
conjuring up yet another image I find that a Moving Orgy would be a rather interesting thing to watch as the synchronizations with the varying actions (gay, lesbian, straight) would require a tremendous amount of choreography. Love making in motion ... truly a sight to behold. Do you see ten or twenty couples participating simultaneously?

Re: Politics
« Reply #333 on: July 21, 2012, 05:15:07 AM »
conjuring up yet another image I find that a Moving Orgy would be a rather interesting thing to watch as the synchronizations with the varying actions (gay, lesbian, straight) would require a tremendous amount of choreography. Love making in motion ... truly a sight to behold. Do you see ten or twenty couples participating simultaneously?

You forgot the hand lotion and hand towel vendors.

As to spectators, we need one of those directly above cameras. Like the June Taylor dancers... now that would add class.

Litmus Test Issues
« Reply #334 on: July 24, 2012, 05:54:57 PM »
Okay, I moved this to “Politics”
Gay marriage - yes
Pro choice - yes, support a woman's right to choose, but hope she chooses life
Right to own a gun - yes
Restrictions on owning assault rifles, canons, SCUD missiles, tactical nukes - yes, please
Free markets, including free trade - yes
Separation of church and state - yes
Lower taxes, less government - yes
Islamism a real threat - yes
Can't think of many other "litmus test" issues at the moment, but feel free to ask them.
Okay here are a couple:
Immigration –
Diversity –

What would the ideal ethnic make-up of X country be? (You have to pick something not just say, “it doesn’t matter")
Let’s just start with North America --
Canada:
The U.S.:
Mexico:

I am really curious, this is not just rhetorical.

Re: Politics
« Reply #335 on: July 25, 2012, 11:44:35 PM »
i think if we want to eliminate north korea as an enemy of the united states, we should begin trading with them.  i wonder... is it by their government's choice that we don't trade?  or by ours?  trade has a way of keeping humans from blowing the fuck out of one another.


oh, and with regard to the above post... i'll pass, haha.

Re: Litmus Test Issues
« Reply #336 on: July 25, 2012, 11:50:12 PM »
Okay, I moved this to “Politics”Okay here are a couple:
Immigration –
Diversity –

What would the ideal ethnic make-up of X country be? (You have to pick something not just say, “it doesn’t matter")
Let’s just start with North America --
Canada:
The U.S.:
Mexico:

I am really curious, this is not just rhetorical.
"There are only two races of people.  The decent and the indecent."
-Viktor Frankl

Re: Politics
« Reply #337 on: July 26, 2012, 12:04:17 AM »
Ideal??? like what would the best ethnic make-up be??

Well sans the great American genocide without which I wouldn't be here...well most of me... it would look like this...

Canada:Indians
The U.S.:Indians
Mexico: Mayan... indians?

Currently though I see it like this:

Canada: Every ethnicity
The U.S.: Every ethnicity
Mexico: Mostly Beaners

Re: Litmus Test Issues
« Reply #338 on: July 26, 2012, 12:26:11 AM »
"There are only two races of people.  The decent and the indecent."
-Viktor Frankl

Cop Out!   ;D 

Re: Litmus Test Issues
« Reply #339 on: July 26, 2012, 01:02:15 AM »
Ideal??? like what would the best ethnic make-up be??

Well sans the great American genocide without which I wouldn't be here...well most of me... it would look like this...

Canada:Indians
The U.S.:Indians
Mexico: Mayan... indians?

Currently though I see it like this:

Canada: Every ethnicity
The U.S.: Every ethnicity
Mexico: Mostly Beaners

I should have specified that you have to live in whatever country you are living in now.  And you have to give at least approximate percentages.  Also that as this is purely a theoretical question, do not worry about "how."  Assume some sort of instant teleportation where no one is hurt or an alternate reality being made from scratch.  It is just imagining what you think would work best.

I am guessing that you want all of North America to be 100% indigenous (presumably populated by the various groups that were here when Columbus arrived, in about the same percentages).  In this case maybe you would like to pick out the tribe/nation you would most like to be adopted into?

[BTW: Most people pick something close to what they grew up in, unless there was a lot of racial tension in their school, then they adjust their childhood experience.]

Politics
« Reply #340 on: July 26, 2012, 09:33:07 AM »
Quote
i think if we want to eliminate north korea as an enemy of the united states, we should begin trading with them.  i wonder... is it by their government's choice that we don't trade?  or by ours?  trade has a way of keeping humans from blowing the fuck out of one another.
x      x      x

So does fair and equal treatment, and playing on even ground.   8)

Re: Litmus Test Issues
« Reply #341 on: July 26, 2012, 10:17:32 AM »
Cop Out!   ;D

No it's not.  People's behavior is not dictated by their race.  I would much prefer to live in a country whose citizen's share my values rather than my skin color.  Is this question of what race would be optimal a joke?  Because it is by definition a racist question. 

Litmus Test Issues
« Reply #342 on: July 26, 2012, 10:28:08 AM »
Quote
... I would much prefer to live in a country whose citizen's share my values rather than my skin color.  Is this question of what race would be optimal a joke?  Because it is by definition a racist question.

Such a wonderful aspiration to live amongst people who share one's values.  Sadly, however, there can be discrimination even with respect to the sharing of values, not much different from discrimination due to skin color.  This is most obvious when people judge by mere appearances, photographs, images, that can be easily misconstrued. In those instances, our biases, our personal opinions, and even the roar of a bloodthirsty mob, will cause us to misconstrue --  and to cry out for a hanging! 8)

Re: Politics
« Reply #343 on: July 26, 2012, 10:31:48 AM »
Okay, I moved this to “Politics”Okay here are a couple:

Immigration – Only if the person(s) coming in will not be a burden to social services. The more technically trained the better. We don't need a bunch of barefoot peasants with ten kids looking for the maternity ward for the 11th ward of the state to be delivered. Heres a mod: Stop being so generous with allowing Chinese into this country. Most are technical thieves.
Diversity – Use the current percentile breakdown of race and ethnic origin gleaned in the last census. Gays? Don't ask and don't tell. Transvestites? Fuck no. Pedophiles? Shoot on sight.

What would the ideal ethnic make-up of X country be?
Let’s just start with North America --
Canada: Who the fuck knows? I am not a Canadian and don't give a fuck what those frogs in Quebec want.
The U.S.: 75% white. Am I a racist? No. If you're not a contributor then drop the fuck dead.
Mexico: 100% Mexican.

Re: Politics
« Reply #344 on: July 26, 2012, 11:16:23 AM »
Such a wonderful aspiration to live amongst people who share one's values.  Sadly, however, there can be discrimination even with respect to the sharing of values, not much different from discrimination due to skin color.  This is most obvious when people judge by mere appearances, photographs, images, that can be easily misconstrued. In those instances, our biases, our personal opinions, and even the roar of a bloodthirsty mob, will cause us to misconstrue --  and to cry out for a hanging! 8)

Oversoul, you may have some reassessments of me once you read my post just above this one. While I am a tolerant person, I do not like people taking advantage of the country. I am opinionated as you'll be able to tell. I do regard myself as a patriot but not a complete asshole about it. This is an overwhelmingly Euro-centric values and faith structure and the openness, freedom and opportunity best illustrate this - not just our white skin or Anglo-Saxon predominance. Diversity in religion and national origin is fine but you better learn English and become an American rather than a hypenated "you owe me something because I'm not white" person. White have had their problems in the past (mostly in the past) but our culture is one of the most embracing the world has ever seen. Don't abuse it and you're OK with me.

Politics
« Reply #345 on: July 26, 2012, 11:53:05 AM »
Oversoul, you may have some reassessments of me once you read my post just above this one. While I am a tolerant person, I do not like people taking advantage of the country. I am opinionated as you'll be able to tell. I do regard myself as a patriot but not a complete asshole about it. This is an overwhelmingly Euro-centric values and faith structure and the openness, freedom and opportunity best illustrate this - not just our white skin or Anglo-Saxon predominance. Diversity in religion and national origin is fine but you better learn English and become an American rather than a hypenated "you owe me something because I'm not white" person. White have had their problems in the past (mostly in the past) but our culture is one of the most embracing the world has ever seen. Don't abuse it and you're OK with me.

I think there is the best and the worst in men regardless of skin color.  It has nothing to do with color.  It is because of the human condition in which humanity is trapped.  But I believe that any man and all men can break free of it if they set themselves up to do it. I know there is a pure spirit within every man, even in the worst of men.


Re: Politics
« Reply #347 on: July 26, 2012, 02:35:03 PM »
Mitt Romney's attack on Barack Obama's slight grammatical misstep regarding small business is what people do in an argument when they're completely f**ked.


actually, upon closer examination, i think stewart is right.  obama's "you didn't build that" quote IS being fucking taken out of context, and pretty blatantly, too.  here's the full quote, unedited:





when you see it in this context, he's clearly saying your business didn't build roads and infrastructure.  not that you didn't build your business.  romney would be wise to leave this alone, and i regret having posted it somewhere here earlier.


i do still believe obama is a marxist, however.

Re: Politics
« Reply #348 on: July 26, 2012, 02:40:13 PM »
i'm so much happier since i gave up on politics. spare me the lines about "that's what THEY want you to do!!!!!" THEY want me to work and slave and THEY cannot prosper without it anyway, so I'll just focus on that. Less stress pays off.

Re: Politics
« Reply #349 on: July 26, 2012, 02:43:06 PM »

actually, upon closer examination, i think stewart is right.  obama's "you didn't build that" quote IS being fucking taken out of context, and pretty blatantly, too.  here's the full quote, unedited:

when you see it in this context, he's clearly saying your business didn't build roads and infrastructure.  not that you didn't build your business.  romney would be wise to leave this alone, and i regret having posted it somewhere here earlier.


i do still believe obama is a marxist, however.

Even if that is what he meant, he's still wrong, and it's still kind of saying a similar thing.  We, the businesses and taxpayers, DID build the roads and infrastructure.  We built it all, by generating the revenue that the government taxed in order to build roads.  The whole speech is antithetical to the capitalist ideals that built this country.  He's downplaying the entrepreneurial spirit that built this country and selling a line of shit about collectivism.

Re: Politics
« Reply #350 on: July 26, 2012, 02:53:12 PM »
Even if that is what he meant, he's still wrong, and it's still kind of saying a similar thing.  We, the businesses and taxpayers, DID build the roads and infrastructure.  We built it all, by generating the revenue that the government taxed in order to build roads.  The whole speech is antithetical to the capitalist ideals that built this country.  He's downplaying the entrepreneurial spirit that built this country and selling a line of shit about collectivism.


in an indirect sense i agree with you, but i'm just saying that when i listen to that full quote with context, it becomes clear they're selling it as something it perhaps isn't.

Re: Politics
« Reply #351 on: July 26, 2012, 03:01:39 PM »

in an indirect sense i agree with you, but i'm just saying that when i listen to that full quote with context, it becomes clear they're selling it as something it perhaps isn't.
Point taken.  And Romney could do a lot better than hammering on this.  Unfortunately, he won't.

Re: Politics
« Reply #352 on: July 26, 2012, 03:06:52 PM »
Yep, they kind of wrinkled what he said just a bit. The General is right in that ALL THINGS are paid for by the taxpayer who acquires the monies to send to the government by working for personal gain. The government does nothing except take what others have earned when it comes to expenditures. This idea of the "government's money" or the government did this for you is a falsehood. That road was built by the lowest bidder or the business it serves directly.

Re: Politics
« Reply #353 on: July 26, 2012, 03:25:55 PM »
He's stealing Elizabeth Warren's point, which is ultimately an argument against the Bush tax cuts, which is itself a bastardization of what trickle-down was originally supposed to be, which was highly selective tax cuts at certain times, and not the across-the-board tax cut party for the rich at the taxpayers' expense it has become.

Re: Politics
« Reply #354 on: July 26, 2012, 05:22:55 PM »

actually, upon closer examination, i think stewart is right.  obama's "you didn't build that" quote IS being fucking taken out of context, and pretty blatantly, too.  here's the full quote, unedited:



when you see it in this context, he's clearly saying your business didn't build roads and infrastructure.  not that you didn't build your business.  romney would be wise to leave this alone, and i regret having posted it somewhere here earlier.


i do still believe obama is a marxist, however.

 
 
 
Everyone already knows taxpayer money and public sector workers build bridges and roads, educate kids in schools, fight fires, police communties. Was this really the point Obama was trying to make? He must have a very low opinion of the intelligence of his supporters (and the rest of us) if he truly thought he was telling us something new.

Just listening to the speech what I still hear in those comments is a direct attack on entrepreneurship. I don't see how it can be taken any other way. He certainly wasn't encouraging it. Looking at those comments in greater context, it comes right on the heels of his comments a few days earlier that 'the private sector is doing fine' (then continuing on to say it is the public sector that is hurting). In the same week he attacked capital management and claimed Romney 'pioneered shipping jobs overseas'*.

From the beginning of his campaign in 2008 when he told Joe the Plummer he wanted to 'spread the wealth around' in responce to Joe's question about his small business tax policy, right up to denegrating the efforts of business owners in this clip, the guy has done nothing but fan class warfare. Why do we need to oh so carefully parse his words to try to make them sound like something other than what they clearly were?  If nothing else it explains why he hasn't done much to encourage job growth.



*It turns out Bain apparently 'shipped jobs overseas' in a small percentage of the businesses they worked with, and in every case that was after Romney left to run the Utah Olympics. The Obama administration then claimed Ronmey probably committed a felony for not being listed as part of Bain management at that time in SEC filings, since he was still listed on company letterhead. A felon.

So who is it that is really taking things out of context? And why should the Romney campaign not point to the Presidents own comments and hold him accountable for them?

Re: Politics
« Reply #355 on: July 26, 2012, 05:52:49 PM »
Even if that is what he meant, he's still wrong, and it's still kind of saying a similar thing.  We, the businesses and taxpayers, DID build the roads and infrastructure.  We built it all, by generating the revenue that the government taxed in order to build roads.  The whole speech is antithetical to the capitalist ideals that built this country.  He's downplaying the entrepreneurial spirit that built this country and selling a line of shit about collectivism.

Perhaps I am wrong, but you seem to suggest it is an either or situation. No business would have the wherewithal to build the US highway system. Nor would they necessarily be inclined to. But a highway system is good for all Americans; hence government built infrastructure. I know this may be simple but the way I read your post seems to say the government was just gathering an imposed penalty for making money.

Re: Politics
« Reply #356 on: July 26, 2012, 06:23:43 PM »
i think if we want to eliminate north korea as an enemy of the united states, we should begin trading with them.  i wonder... is it by their government's choice that we don't trade?  or by ours?  trade has a way of keeping humans from blowing the fuck out of one another.

 
 
NK is in large part and proxy state of China.  China likes having them around in order to have the US and our allies in the region use militarty and diplomatic resources to monitor NK and take some of the focus off of them.  The Chinese government wants a certain distraction from their own massive militarty buildup, agression towards the other countries in the area (esp the South China Sea with all that oil and natural gas), and human rights.
 
The US goal currently is to isoloate and destabilize NK.  We want them to have unilateral talks with So Korea, to stop nuclear testing, and to cease their agression.  If they agree to that - and they do from time to time - their reward is 6 way talks (NK, SK. Japan, Russia, US, China), economic aid, trade, and improved bilateral relations with SK.
 
Once in awhile when the harvest is especially bad, they make certain future promises in exchange for food and medical supplies.  This mostly ends up with the army and the promises are forgotten.
 
I personally think we should bring back all troops currently in SK and Japan asap, but not unilaterally.  As part of a larger agreement, one that greatly reduces their arsonal. 
 
If we just unilaterally withdraw troops or offer them trade with no reciprosity, that will be viewed as a sign of weakness and be destabilizing to our allies - I don't think that can be emphasized enough.  A miscalculation on thier part could be a disaster.
 
I don't mean to sound like a Cold Warrior, but those are the realities.  We really can't do anything positive without help from China in the form of pressure, or a change of heart from the NK leadership.  Maybe after the next 5 year Congress in China.  Or after the new Kim fully consolidates power in NK.
 
 

Re: Politics
« Reply #357 on: July 26, 2012, 06:32:16 PM »
Perhaps I am wrong, but you seem to suggest it is an either or situation. No business would have the wherewithal to build the US highway system. Nor would they necessarily be inclined to. But a highway system is good for all Americans; hence government built infrastructure. I know this may be simple but the way I read your post seems to say the government was just gathering an imposed penalty for making money.
That's exactly what an income tax is, a penalty for making money.  I would completely abolish income taxes if I had the power.  The economic and social effects of the income tax have been disastrous. It has enabled the federal government to expand far beyond its intended constitutional limits, regulating almost every aspect of our lives.  It takes billions of dollars out of the economy, with most taxpaying Americans giving more than one third of everything they make to the government. This destroys jobs, penalizes productive behavior, and incentivizes welfare.  Before 1913, when the income tax was introduced, the federal government operated solely from revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes.  That's what we should go back to.  America without an income tax would be far more prosperous and far more free.

Re: Politics
« Reply #358 on: July 26, 2012, 06:55:00 PM »
That's exactly what an income tax is, a penalty for making money.  I would completely abolish income taxes if I had the power.  The economic and social effects of the income tax have been disastrous. It has enabled the federal government to expand far beyond its intended constitutional limits, regulating almost every aspect of our lives.  It takes billions of dollars out of the economy, with most taxpaying Americans giving more than one third of everything they make to the government. This destroys jobs, penalizes productive behavior, and incentivizes welfare.  Before 1913, when the income tax was introduced, the federal government operated solely from revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes.  That's what we should go back to.  America without an income tax would be far more prosperous and far more free.

 
1913 - Federal Reserve established
1913 - 16th Amendment - allows collection of income tax
1913 - 17th Amendment - direct election of US Senators (previously appointed by state legislatures, the various state governments no longer had their interests represented in DC and the way was cleared for massive federal govt expansion)
1919 - 18th Amendment - prohibition
 
 
Quite a run for President Woodrow Wilson.  Maybe we should start comparing Obama to him instead of to Jimmy Carter.

Well It Sure Is...
« Reply #359 on: July 26, 2012, 07:31:44 PM »

Quote
Well it sure is...

How many times must Noory repeat this inanity during a show? The man is incompetent and talent-less. Much like the current POTUS. But, the POTUS still polls at over 40% with Depression levels of unemployment and poverty. I cannot fathom this - he should be at 4% not 40%. The media says the People still like the POTUS as a person. Ummm...Sorry. I don't like any pol "personally" that has brought my Country to its knees economically and morally and has saddled my children with immeasurable debt.


But heck, at least our military can now march in a homosexual parade in uniform...that has to count for something - right?