2008 Political debate thread

[Proghead3]

If you would think instead of cupping Hussein's nuts you may make something of yourself one day. Naaa..forget it...wouldn't want you to strain yourself. :Smug:

You misrepresent your sources, therefore I'm "cupping Hussien's nuts." I love conservative logic.

Good luck tomorrow.

 

[razoredge]

I dont know why some are talking about "redistrubution of money through taxes" ??? I dont recall any such proposals. I dont know why some are claiming increased taxes are going to be handed out only to lazy people ? Tax money goes many places, as far as I know the idea was in effort to balance the budget . I would think our born population would be more concerned about whats handed freely to immigrants, regardless of what their effort status is. Then yes indedd welfare is a problem, but it has been for decades and NO efforts have been made to fix the problem. The primary one being there is No work in the heavily effected areas.... which BTW were once our industrial areas. So while we promote capitalism we choose to fail to recognize that hogish capitolism sent abroad has created the large share of this problem? Bravo ! Finally I find it amusing that SOMEONE thinks the entire population of this country can have the jobs that hand out the big bucks... and that other demanding jobs should pay squat.

 

[ABQShredHead]

People who get rich rarely do so solely from the incomes of their jobs. Some do, of course, but the majority sack away money, spend wisely, and invest! The Millionaire Next Door is an excellent book to read to see how others have done it.

 

[noble savage]

It seems as if Barack Hussein Obama is the projected winner. He has 5/8 of the key states.

 

[razoredge]

People who get rich rarely do so solely from the incomes of their jobs. Some do, of course, but the majority sack away money, spend wisely, and invest! The Millionaire Next Door is an excellent book to read to see how others have done it.

So they can pay taxes on it just like everyone else. Removing capital gains tax would only make their days easier, if thats even possible, then they could also become even more selfish as the pill of greed consumes their brain. Yes its an old saying that work only makes more work and money makes money, this is the failure of capitalism. A handful of people get the money and everyone else gets the work. There are many ways in which people get "rich" then it depends on what one considers rich, speaking for myself and what I assumed by a few others it was the huge spred in wages regarding jobs that was being talked about and the various income tax brackets. I would guess you'd say that those making 25,000 a year should pay 30% on that as well, then probably critize the trailer park mentality in the next breath. There has also been mention of the extreme end of wealthy too but I dont fall for your "rarely" or that the rich are just some sort of higher order. Experience has shown the wealthy are just plain snobby, cheap when it comes to people but not their spending. I would hardly consider $750,000+ houses to be frugle the biggest thing with the wealthy is that they want to be sure those that build or contribute to that 3/4 million house, or those that perform the work under them in the work place dont get paid much.

 

[ABQShredHead]

Ever been in a 750k house? I have. They're pretty darn nice. I could enjoy living in one. It would certainly make life more enjoyable. I've been through $2M houses during the Parade of Homes, and they are super nice. Why wouldn't I want to aspire to such a residence to better not only my life but the lives of my family members? I'm working on getting there - it will be a tough road, but I'm willing to sacrifice in the short term for long term gains.

But, other people would like to live in a small, cozy house. Let them pursue that dream as they wish. They don't have to live in a $750,000 home if they don't want to.

Perhaps the wealthy are just plain snobby because they're sick of people resenting, envying, and despising them.

If "the pill of greed consumes their brain", that's something they brought on their selves, and it is something that will make them miserable in life. I don't resent them for being miserable.

 

[-Harris-]

Just got back from the polls.

I'm not sorry. Why should I be?

 

[razoredge]

Ever been in a 750k house? I have. They're pretty darn nice. I could enjoy living in one. It would certainly make life more enjoyable. I've been through $2M houses during the Parade of Homes, and they are super nice. Why wouldn't I want to aspire to such a residence to better not only my life but the lives of my family members? I'm working on getting there - it will be a tough road, but I'm willing to sacrifice in the short term for long term gains.

But, other people would like to live in a small, cozy house. Let them pursue that dream as they wish. They don't have to live in a $750,000 home if they don't want to.

Perhaps the wealthy are just plain snobby because they're sick of people resenting, envying, and despising them.

If "the pill of greed consumes their brain", that's something they brought on their selves, and it is something that will make them miserable in life. I don't resent them for being miserable.

Yes I have, my good friend just built one, I also worked framing them one summer a few years back, an entire development of them, I worked for chicken scratch and walked away after 3 months. But ya see, you bounce around like crazy, your off on a tangent now about houses and aspireing to have such. When mention of such houses was brought as a counter point to you saying the wealthy have money because they... and I quote "the majority sack away money, spend wisely" Dumping more money into a house than the majority of Americans make in a life time.... with property taxes that exceed 50% of their annual bring home income. Sorry but as I said that is not a picture of being frugle. Nor is it a picture of the poor poor overtaxed wealthy as you try to paint. At one time you are concerned of the excesses of society and the imprint it is putting on young people, then another time you will approve of excess... all according to what fits YOUR desires.

Perhaps the wealthy are just plain snobby because they're sick of people resenting, envying, and despising them.

Perhaps... yeah... thats it. Or perhaps its common that they are stingy by nature, screwing everyone in their path to get what they want. Ya see, haveing been in various sectors of the construction business the past 8 years, I have met all kinds. The nicest and by far the least stingy toward a mans labor is the middle WORKING class. I also had plenty of opportunity to get the low down on many of this areas wealthy as well as see many go bust and screw those they owed money to, some were even jailed for their fiascos. So you can try to paint it any color you want but I know better.

Jelous ? Yeah, I know all about Rush Lamebahs "class envy" line of bullshit. However as I know it takes all kinds, I know there are simply alot of people out there that just "want theirs" not someone elses, they just want to know where is their fair share.

Sorry, I will never feel a bit of sympathy for the wealthy and hope they get what they have coming some day, the day was just upon us but they were bailed, poor poor pitiful them, played games and got bit in the ass, "oh my... Dear Uncle Sam, wont you please help us, pretty pretty pweeze, we might loose the mansion ! You can straighten this all out if you stop taxing us and let us keep the whole lump sum, we'll invest in business, corporations and factories... across the borders"

 

[Ascension]

You misrepresent your sources, therefore I'm "cupping Hussien's nuts."

Actually, to get back to the crux of the argument, your source...the blog from CNN...said there was no partitioning of the country proposed by Lieden. Yet, my sources...which included an article from the Washington Post...clearly showed his proposal did include it which I highlighted.

Epic failboat on your part even with the misdirection you tried to implement. Typical of liberals...ignore the issue...try to create another issue to cover up.

 

[ABQShredHead]

I'm not at all sure what you mean by me bouncing around like crazy. You brought homes into the equation and I put in my two cents about it.

Your good friend just built a big house. For him/herself, or to sell? Do you resent him/her for building such a house, or do you think it was a good use of his/her skills?

If you're going to buy such a house, buy one that fits within your means. I do not see this as an extravagant purchase. It would be an extravagant purchase if it is above your means and you are simply trying to fit in with the Joneses. "Frugal" is about being prudent with your spending. It's not about being a cheapskate, per se; if you have the money and/or the means, why not live comfortably? Why not "share the wealth" with your own family, giving them a better life than perhaps you grew up with? Why should I give money to others (unless given in my own volition to groups and charities I feel worthwhile and contributory) instead of use that money to the benefit of my family? Why should a government decide somebody else is better entitlted to receive the money I work hard for than my own family members?

You seem to think that people who make money all fall into a certain description based on the way Rich Person X treated you in your past. That's a heavy prejudice to carry through life.

I'm not looking for any hand out from the government, and I think those who are self-reliant and able to get by on their own are not looking for it either. I don't see the wealthy crying and whining per your italicized text. In fact, it does not appear at all that you see my point on investing money for growth - growth of my one's own money and the companies that money is invested into.

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

This sums up my thoughts on the matter better than anything Ive read yet.
I was gonna vote for Bob Barr. But this time around, with an election so disgusting- one must keep a sense of humor.



Mock the Vote

Daily Article by David Heleniak | Posted on 11/3/2008

Jesse Ventura, when he's not talking about 9-11, makes a lot of sense. Describing the two party system to Larry King, he said,

[W]hat you have today is like walking into the grocery store and you go to the soft drink department, and there is only Pepsi and Coke. Those are the two you get to choose from. There is no Mountain Dew, no Root Beer, no Orange. They're both Colas; one is slightly sweeter than the other, depending on which side of the aisle you are on.

​

In an interview with Newsmax, he described politicians in the two party system as pro wrestlers.

In pro wrestling, out in front of the people, we make it look like we all hate each other and want to beat the crap out of each other, and that's how we get your money, [and get you to] come down and buy tickets. They're the same thing. Out in front of the public and the cameras, they hate each other, are going to beat the crap out of each other, but behind the scenes they're all going to dinner, cutting deals. And [they're] doing what we did, too — laughing all the way to the bank. And that to me is what you have today, in today's political world, with these two parties.

​

Jesse's right. Our political system is a farce. This year, we have running for president a warmonger who's a reluctant socialist versus a socialist who's a reluctant warmonger. We have two parties that claim they're different, but when the Establishment, the Complex, our shadowy overlords, whatever you want to call them, really want something, they get it. When the Establishment wanted the Bailout in the face of almost universal grassroots opposition, they got it. When the Complex wanted immunity to the telecoms who knowingly spied on Americans, they got it. When our shadowy overlords wanted stormtroopers to brutally stifle protesters during the party conventions, they got it.
But even if voters had a real choice — and even if the politicians followed the majority will on issues that matter — the system would still most likely be a farce. As Augustine observed, without justice, a government is nothing but a band of thieves. Augustine was writing about kingdoms, but his insight applies to democracies as well. Without justice, the ability of the subjects of a government to vote on the laws and rulers that govern them doesn't make a government any more legitimate than an unjust monarchy. And the founders of this country did not believe democracies were likely to be just.
As Walter Williams points out,

We often hear the claim that our nation is a democracy. That wasn't the vision of the founders. They saw democracy as another form of tyranny.

​

In Democracy: The God That Failed, Hans-Hermann Hoppe notes that

it is difficult to find many proponents of democracy in the history of political theory. Almost all major thinkers had nothing but contempt for democracy. Even the Founding Fathers of the U.S., nowadays considered the model of democracy, were strictly opposed to it. Without a single exception, they thought of democracy as nothing but mob-rule.

​

In order to create a just government, the founders established a constitutionally limited republic, in which the popular vote was to be just one check among many. Notably, the word "democracy" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. Yet today, the word is sacred. As election day approaches, Americans dutifully watch inane debates, respectfully watch commercials in which celebrities harangue them to "rock the vote" or other such nonsense, and compulsively ask each other who they're going to vote for.

On election day, they go to the polls as if they were receiving Holy Communion and then go through the rest of the day wearing "I Voted" stickers as if these stickers were ashes on Ash Wednesday. Pat Buchanan calls the blind reverence to and awe of the seemingly divine force of democracy "democracy worship." He notes it was the prospect of spreading democracy to the Middle East that ultimately convinced The Decider to decide on war in Iraq. So how did we get from the founder's deep suspicion of majority rule to the deification of democracy?
Once, humans lived in small bands and were free. True, life was dangerous, but no one told you what to do. As Philip Jackson explains,

Men might hunt individually or in groups. But when they cooperated, leadership was not based on official rank, but rather on one hunter proposing a group hunt and recruiting others to follow him. None were compelled to follow, however, and different hunts might have different leaders based on the relative charisma of different individuals at different times. Women needed even less coordination. With them leadership would be more a matter of the wiser or more skilled giving advice as the need arose.

​

Then came the great collusion, followed by the long oppression. As humans increased in number and food became harder to come by, bands became tribes and tribes became chiefdoms. Big Chief, hungry for power, convinced the high priest to delude the people to his consent. Big Chief was divinely appointed, they were told, and maybe even divine himself. Therefore, the people must do what he says.
Murray Rothbard (1926–1995), economist, historian, and political theorist, was one of the greatest minds of the 20th century. Perhaps Rothbard's greatest achievement was his identification of the "court intellectual." In contrast to the masses, who "do not create their own ideas, or indeed think through these ideas independently," intellectuals are society's opinion shapers. The court intellectual is the intellectual who, "in return for a share of, a junior partnership in, the power and pelf offered by the rest of the ruling class, spins the apologias for state rule with which to convince a misguided public."
Until recently, the propaganda put out by the court intellectuals was linked to traditional religion. To quote Rothbard again,

particularly potent among the intellectual handmaidens of the State was the priestly caste, cementing the powerful and terrible alliance of warrior chief and medicine man, of Throne and Altar. The State "established" the Church and conferred upon it power, prestige, and wealth extracted from its subjects. In return, the Church anointed the State with divine sanction and inculcated this sanction into the populace.

​

In the West, the myth of the divine right of kings held sway until the Enlightenment.
According to Keith Preston, "A principal achievement of the Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries was the demolition of the notion of the divine right of kings." The word "enlightenment" may conjure up images of a man sitting in the lotus position on a mountaintop, at one with the universe, but in regard to the time period, enlightenment refers not to mystical insight but to the realization that much of the received wisdom — including the myth of the divine right of kings — was a pack of lies. With the courage to question the lies and disseminate their conclusions, the writers of the Enlightenment began a revolution in thought that culminated in the Declaration of Independence.
Unfortunately, at the same time they were knocking down one pillar of the old order, another writer, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, was planting the seeds of democracy worship. In Rousseau's mystical vision of a society governed by what he called the "general will," each of us would put "his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we [would] receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole." The resulting sovereign, "being formed wholly of the individuals who compose it, neither [would have] … nor … [could] have any interest contrary to theirs; and consequently the sovereign power [would] need give no guarantee to its subjects. In his imagined world, "[t]he Sovereign, merely by virtue of what it is, [would] … always [be] what it should be."
James Bovard, who calls Rousseau the "modern state's evil prophet," contends that in promoting his concept of the "general will," Rousseau "unleashed the genie of absolute power in the name of popular sovereignty, which had hitherto been unknown."
Rousseau's concept of the general will proved irresistible to future court intellectuals, as it perfectly conflated society and state — a useful trick indeed. Rothbard wrote,

With the [subsequent] rise of democracy, it is common to hear sentiments expressed which violate virtually every tenet of reason and common sense: such as "we are the government." The useful collective term "we" has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the reality of political life. If "we are the government," then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and tyrannical; it is also "voluntary" on the part of the individual concerned. If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must he paid by taxing one group for the benefit of another, this reality of burden is obscured by saying that "we owe it to ourselves"; if the government conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then he is "doing it to himself" and therefore nothing untoward has occurred.

​

Observing the power of "the myth that says we are governing ourselves," Lew Rockwell notes that whereas "[k]ings of old would have been overthrown in short order if they had tried to grab 40 percent of people's earnings, or told them how big to make their toilet tanks, or determined how schools taught every subject," modern Americans "turn a blind eye to petty tyrannies in our midst."
As Bovard comments, it is as if "eing permitted to vote for politicians who enact unjust, oppressive new laws magically converts the stripes on prison shirts into emblems of freedom."

$28 $25

"It is difficult to find many proponents of democracy in the history of political theory."

Wise up, America. There's nothing special about 50% plus one. Truth and justice cannot be determined by a show of hands. We are not the government. Voting is not a sacrament. And as it stands today, when we're only given a choice between two Establishment-approved candidates, voting is a joke.
Voltaire, the undisputed leader of the Enlightenment, used humor and wit as two of his primary weapons, and, as Robert Ingersoll remarked, "In the presence of absurdity he laughed…" It was largely by making the divine right of kings a laughing stock that the Enlightenment writers destroyed it. It is time for us to do the same thing to the divine right of the majority.
This year, vote laughing or stay home.

 

[razoredge]

Bouncing around like carzy, as in going off the point of the reason something was brought up. Which you are still doing with talking about buying what is within your means and all else, I was simply saying dont sit and say the wealthy have the money because they save it all. Spending X amount on an oversize trophy with exorbitant taxes proves this in not the case. The arguement exists that realestate in the form of a home is increasing equity, however in recent decades its been proven that after a life of taxes {and interest} on a home no money is made by the homeowner, quick flip during the past extravaganza was another story but let me say the key word is extravaganza. Dont speak of the poor societal influences on children when raising them in excess is = , you are currently saying lush makes for a good life and this is not necessarily the case, as per the many mentions of the spoiled burbies.

No Im dont resent my friend for his house. In fact I did the clearing for it and manage the forest on the piece of property he bought. I also offered some sound advise on the layout of his house, septic and driveway based on the lay of the land he was dealing with, which he fought me on until someone {"higher up"} he apparently respected more agreed, but thats my life long buddy, we are the closest thing to real brothers either of us have... so I know him well and what to expect. Pictures of us playing music together were posted on the picture thread. No he did not use his skills, it was built by people in the business, who he knows from being in the business, he did do a little bit of tapeing but admitted to me that hes been out of the labor part of that skill long enough and is older enough that it would have taken him forever to do it himself. A point I make for a reason that I dont imagine will sink home. But whats to expect?

Why should a government decide somebody else is better entitlted to receive the money I work hard for than my own family members?

As I stated this morning I have no idea where this proposal comes from and why it is being presented as such. I dont see any hand outs. The working poor are simply taxed less so they can get by. However in the mean time the working poor are siting and wondering why their incomes have been dormant for 15-20 years while others have skyrocketed. With this I really dont see your talking about what you have "worked hard for" as bearing any relevance, are you of the opinion that you are the only one that worked hard, or that the wealthy you are saying you aspire to are the only ones that "work hard" ? Give me a break... the scales are way too far out of balance and many, many people want to see it brought back to sanity. You say you dont want any handouts but you were up in a tizzy when the first bailout proposal was shot down, the bailout was a handout for bankers and investors, nothing more, nothing less. Once again because you apparently missed it and I qoute from a pretty cool old Crack the Sky song. "We dont want your money... we want mine", I can only hope you know the correct way to interpret that phrase and/or concept.

 

[Kenneth R.]

I am so pumped that by this time tomorrow, all this rhetoric will just be hot air.

 

[Marwen]

Then may tomorrow swiftly come.

 

[Proghead3]

Actually, to get back to the crux of the argument, your source...the blog from CNN...said there was no partitioning of the country proposed by Lieden. Yet, my sources...which included an article from the Washington Post...clearly showed his proposal did include it which I highlighted.

Epic failboat on your part even with the misdirection you tried to implement. Typical of liberals...ignore the issue...try to create another issue to cover up.

The crux of my argument was the CNN blog? I'm just as happy using your source, you know, the one you plagarised to "prove" your point.

If you would think instead of cupping Sidney's nuts you may make something of yourself one day. Naaa..forget it...wouldn't want you to strain yourself.

 

[J-Dubya 777]

I am so pumped that by this time tomorrow, all this rhetoric will just be hot air.

Then I can finally close this thread! :Smokedev:

But before I do, I NEVER expected this thread to remain active for more than a week. Kudos to the people who have contributed to it and remained MOSTLY civil.

(This does NOT mean the "Hot Chicks" thread is coming back!)

 

[Jax]

I'll second this. Thanks for behaving (for the most part), folks.

 

[symphonyXjapan]

Now that Obama has won Ohio Karl Rove and the "big boys" on Fox news are saying good things about him. Just thought it was pretty funny that they are now saying that Obama has been more in the center than to the left after a year of calling him every liberal name in the book, including a socialist?

It just goes to show all the lies they threw out in order to get a republican into office....

 

[Meedleyx10]

Well, congrats to Obama it looks like.

 

[Beelzebub]

YES!!!