Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Scholar
#126 Old 30th Jul 2011 at 2:02 PM
"Nowhere in there did you provide the point at which, under our current system, that additional debt would get paid back." So you are suggesting that people don't want to pay off our debts, and would rather they accumulate? What naive, conspiratorial ludicrousness. Its within a nation's best interest not to be in debt; you don't need deadlines for that. And no, the Republicans are the ones so concerned about elections they're willing to sacrifice the nation for their cravings of political leverage. And before anyone goes on about Democrats, yes, they care about elections as well, of course. But they're not the ones signed ideological shackles like the no-tax Norquist pledge (which almost every single Republican in House and Senate has signed). The problem isn't the nation isn't being rational, it's that the bloody Republicans aren't living in reality. We need to raise taxes, pull our asses out of wars to cut back on those unwarranted costs, close tax loopholes, and invest huge heavily on infrastructure, which would create more jobs and stabilize the economy in the long run.

I'll be the first to say our system is broken, but that means we have to fix the system itself rather than toying with our Constitution by adding crap like a balanced budget amendment.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Advertisement
Scholar
#127 Old 31st Jul 2011 at 6:10 PM
Nekowolf: I'll simply say that I think you have an extremely one-sided view of American politics. Both parties are very ideologically rigid. You favor the Democrats, so you are willing to forgive ideological rigidity because you think they are right, but that doesn't make them any less set in their ways. Our parties have become so radically opposed to one another that bipartisanship is nearly dead. The debt debate is going on for far too long, not just because the Republicans are stubborn, but because the Democrats are, too. They're playing chicken, trying to see who will give in first, with the deadline being the point of collision. It's the way politics so often work in this country, at least currently.
Scholar
#128 Old 31st Jul 2011 at 10:13 PM Last edited by Nekowolf : 1st Aug 2011 at 1:11 AM.
You know, I'll admit that I am one sided. Because I think modern conservatism is inherently doomed to fail. First, it's traditionalist. Empires need to change, they need to adapt. It is required for societal survival of a large group of people. Old ways die, new ways are born. New laws are written, new rights are given birth, castes come and fall, new ways of government itself come and go. If we did not, we would still see burning witches as appropriate. We would still be a theocracy with heavy persecution of the minorities. We would still have slaves. Change is necessity. Traditionalism will not stand against the tides of time and the shifting sands of people.

Secondly, it's fiscally hypocritical. You cannot campaign on fiscal responsibility, then balloon deficits and throw your area under the financial bus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...ss_federal_debt

Republicans have a total debt increase (in $T) of $9.83 trillion. Democrats? $3.43 trillion. In percentages of Increase debt/GDP, Democrats consistently have lower percentages (which is good), up until Reagan, where Republicans start ballooning. Then you have the issues; they favor keeping the Bush tax cuts, they favor keeping tax loopholes, almost every single one signed Norquist's pledge. If they were truly "fiscally responsible," then they would be against all these things. So that's a total farce.

Next, they are authoritarian. They are anti-union, they are making it harder to vote, they are against gay marriage, they are legislating draconion anti-abortion bills (including having the State telling the doctor what to say under legal ramifications). You cannot criticize their candidates or the party without being eaten alive (does anyone recall Karl Rove's comments on Christina O'Donnell?).

They are heavily Christian. I really don't think I need to say much more on this. But I will. Look at Bachmann. Look at Palin. Look at Perry's prayer event. Look at, what was it, the last candidate debates, where most candidates said they don't believe in evolution (either 1. They don't, or 2. They're lying, and if they are, why?), look at some of their excuses for being against gay marriage.

Modern conservatism is doomed to fail beneath its own spiteful ways, and if given the opportunity, will drag us all down with it. And, yes, the parties can be rigid, I'll openly admit that. But at least one hasn't been walking away from negotiations. Say they're as rigid as you like. The Republicans are the ones walking away from the table, the ones who are forcing Boehner to go even -more- right on bills that wouldn't get past the Senate anyway, the ones who are refusing to budge on anything while Obama and the Democrats have conceded numerous times (mostly on budget cuts), the Republicans who are suggesting savings don't count cause they're "not really cuts," and it was Reid who put forth a bill that was within all limits of Republican demands and they still turned it down. Strangest game of chicken I've ever seen.

At first, I wondered why they couldn't just put forth a clean debt-ceiling raise bill. Now I think I know why. It wouldn't matter. Republicans would still vote it down because it doesn't have budget cuts, specifically, their budget cuts.

And I -really- want to say just how much I love Republicans, but I won't, as I'll likely get in trouble again. Let's just say it contains "salivating gratification of money-whoring tyrants"

EDIT: As rigid as I am ideologically, even I realize the importance of compromise. But, what gets me most right now, is compromise is impossible. The Tea Party-led Republicans will not compromise and adamantly refuse to do so, because of...? The Tea Party. I may hate Republicans, but I hate the Tea Party even more. They need to dispose of them, separate themselves from them. Unfortunately (or rather, fortunately, in my case), it will split their vote. So they are in quite the conundrum. Even the most ideologically passionate of people would be fools to not see how important compromise is in our system.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Scholar
#129 Old 1st Aug 2011 at 1:24 AM
Also, if the final bill has this proposed "super Congress" in it, I think it should be struck down, and Obama should be forced to use the 14th Amendment option. This "super" Congress sounds like a fucking disaster waiting to happen. Our system may be burdensome, bureaucratic, and slow, but at least it has a system of checks and balances; from what it sounds like, this "super" Congress does not.

If it is true, that if they do not come up with a budget to slash a specific amount by a given time (Thanksgiving), that entitlements would automatically be cut, then, what fucking bullshit! Here's how this will go down: the Republicans on the board would block everything until then, then cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, because FUCK YOU, THAT'S WHY.

Bills passed by this super Congress cannot be amended or filibustered. They don't neeeeeed to be for the Republicans to use this to strike at the programs they have had the most raging hard-on to destroy. All they need to do is sit there, refuse to negotiate, to do anything at all. Just sit there and bitch without passing enough to reach the set goal. That's all they need to do; sit and wait.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Scholar
#130 Old 1st Aug 2011 at 3:14 AM
Quote:
A White House fact sheet distributed to reporters shortly after the president spoke laid down the specific elements of Sunday night's deal to raise the debt ceiling:

* The president will be authorized to increase the debt limit by at least $2.1 trillion, eliminating the need for another increase until 2013.

* The first tranche of cuts will come in at nearly $1 trillion. That includes savings of $350 billion from the Base Defense Budget, which will be trimmed based off a review of overall U.S. national security policy.

* A bipartisan committee with enhanced procedural authority will be responsible for pinpointing $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction from both entitlements and tax reform, as well as other spending programs.

* The committee will have to report out legislation by November 23, 2011.
* Congress will be required to vote on Committee recommendations by December 23, 2011.

* The trigger mechanism -- should the committee's recommendations not be acted upon -- will be mandatory spending cuts. Those cuts, which will begin in January 2013, will be split 50/50 between domestic and defense spending. Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries and "low-income programs" would be exempted from those cuts.


The fact sheet goes on to note that there is another enforcement mechanism that the president possesses.

"The Bush tax cuts expire as of 1/1/2013, the same date that the spending sequester [the trigger mechanism] would go into effect," the fact sheet reads. "These two events together will force balanced deficit reduction. Absent a balanced deal, it would enable the President to use his veto pen to ensure nearly $1 trillion in additional deficit reduction by not extending the high-income tax cuts."

It's... better. But I'm still adamantly against it. It's too much power to one committee that could sit there and just make things even harder, or worse off. Not to mention it tampers with the structure of our system. Our system is broken because of law, because of procedure, not so much because of structure.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Forum Resident
#131 Old 17th Aug 2011 at 9:33 AM
Watching the Republican nomination coverage is maddening. Every. Single. Candidate. except Ron Paul continues to be a complete weasel. I'm sure the Democrats would be doing the same, if it wasn't already presumed Obama is running again. I wouldn't trust Romney, Bachmann, or whoever the hell the number three is right now.

The fact that these nominees are completely groundless in their stances makes me wonder why they have even a fraction of the supporters they do now. Yes, this is obviously my enraged opinion, but Romney is a corporate shill (corporate money goes to the people, give me a break) and Bachmann is Palin 2.0. Why Republicans don't support the guy whose stance could have actually prevented many of the issues we're plagued with now is beyond me.

Also, don't take that "father of the Tea Party movement" thing seriously. The Tea Party is packed full of social conservatives (i.e. Bible-thumpers who oppose gay marriage, want to ban gays from the military, and want ID taught alongside evolution). Ron Paul is NOT a social conservative by any extent whatsoever.

Also, I may have made it a tad too obvious who I'll be voting for next year.

"Given enough time, hydrogen starts to wonder where it came from, and where it is going." - Edward R. Harrison
Scholar
#132 Old 17th Aug 2011 at 11:47 AM
Speaking of Perry and Bachmann:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...gious-bond.html

http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/15...ng/?page=entire

Both are worth the read.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Forum Resident
#133 Old 12th Nov 2011 at 7:33 PM
Mike Tyson as Herman Cain. This is a hilarious interpretation of Cain's weird-ass commercials.
Lab Assistant
#134 Old 12th Nov 2011 at 8:06 PM
Perry is an idiot. Just listen to him speak. I even feel sorry or him.
Retired
retired moderator
#135 Old 13th Nov 2011 at 6:06 PM
Quote:
except Ron Paul


What definition of the word "weasel" are we using here?

CAW Wiki - A wiki for CAW users. Feel free to edit.

GON OUT, BACKSON, BISY BACKSON
Née whiterider
retired moderator
#136 Old 13th Nov 2011 at 6:36 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Extensa5420
No politician is ever a ... long, slender mammal that runs on four legs with fur over its body.

Don't you believe it. Give me twentyfive minutes with Google, once my head stops hurting.

What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact.
Banned
#137 Old 17th Nov 2011 at 2:54 AM
George W. Bush : Hero or Evil Little Man?
George W. Bush, the second one I believe, is on my top list of "People to Sim-lify Only to Kill Brutally and Mercilessly". I just don't understand how he runs things - or ran things, to be specific. He loved wars, claimed to hate terrorists - even though he an the Bin Laden family seem to be... Rather friendly.

Might I also add this? Aside from that, Bush - according to people, the Internet, and my own mind - is not so fond of gays, quote "A great deal is at stake in this matter," said Bush in his national radio address. "The union of a man and woman in marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, and the law can teach respect or disrespect for that institution." (About Gay Marriage law)

I don't care if he's not president anymore, I don't care if you're not even American. I want to know what you think about him. I want you to try to convince me he's a good guy. As though.

Theorist
#138 Old 17th Nov 2011 at 3:26 AM
Seriously, it's one thing to not like a president's politics, but frankly it's immature to call him friendly with Bin Laden or an evil little man... I don't pay attention to politics in general and he was elected when I was like 6 so the only comment I have on the guy is that society makes him out to be much worse than he actually is (much like any other celebrity/public figure).

Hi I'm Paul!
Lab Assistant
#139 Old 17th Nov 2011 at 3:53 AM Last edited by AngryBunny. : 17th Nov 2011 at 4:08 AM.
I'm interested to see what Americans have to say about this. I'm from Australia and most people here think Bush is a complete joke. We can't quite understand how someone as thick as a brick is still making decisions for the most powerful country in the world. Even those of us who love America (that's me!) find ourselves bashing our heads against the wall whenever this man opens his mouth. 9/11, Hurricane Katrina and the global economic meltdown all happened on his watch. That's an awful lot of world shattering events to have sitting in your in-tray. He had his followers, the "USA! USA!" chanters (aka. the warmongers, religious nutters and nationalists) who acted as though the war on terror was a football match there to be won if they just shouted loud enough. But even those patriots have shuffled off now, worried about losing their homes and their jobs. You look into Bush’s eyes and there’s nothing there. Blank. Empty. The lights are on but no one’s home. He’s racist and homophobic. He’s the epitome of the phrase ‘American idiot’.
Mad Poster
#140 Old 17th Nov 2011 at 4:08 AM
LOL
You have a point; electing him was almost a "what were you thinking?" kind of moment. Worse, it happened 2x. The place has gone mad, mad I tell ya!

Addicted to The Sims since 2000.
Forum Resident
#141 Old 17th Nov 2011 at 4:17 AM
I think we all know the answer.Because he screwed up the country......
HE'S AN EVIL LITTLE ASSHOLE!!!!!!!!
Forum Resident
#142 Old 17th Nov 2011 at 4:29 AM
Quote: Originally posted by mewichigo34
I think we all know the answer.Because he screwed up the country......
HE'S AN EVIL LITTLE ASSHOLE!!!!!!!!
NON-DEBATABLE OPINIONS, FUCK YEAH
Scholar
#143 Old 17th Nov 2011 at 7:47 AM
George W. Bush is a evil little man, but his evil side kick is Obama. Bush took our country which was almost out of debt and spirled it down deep into the red. Then came Obama who came under the guise of fixing the budget by spending trillions more.

Disclaimer: I am just being a goof ball, please ignore me if offended.
Scholar
#144 Old 17th Nov 2011 at 8:02 AM
To say that he is actively evil is a touch...misguided. Stupid, oh so Very Very Stupid, yes. Shortsighted, yes. Predujicial, most definately. But actively evil, no.

The fact that he managed to get "elected" to a second term, is only a symptom of just how broken our government is. If votes were counted person by person, and not this electoral college BS he never would have made it.

Sarcasm is a body's natural defense against stupid.
Scholar
#145 Old 17th Nov 2011 at 10:19 AM
Sorry bush is not an evil person, he's an evil monkey.

Disclaimer: I am just being a goof ball, please ignore me if offended.
Banned
#146 Old 17th Nov 2011 at 1:28 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Robodl95
Seriously, it's one thing to not like a president's politics, but frankly it's immature to call him friendly with Bin Laden or an evil little man... I don't pay attention to politics in general and he was elected when I was like 6 so the only comment I have on the guy is that society makes him out to be much worse than he actually is (much like any other celebrity/public figure).
I did not make up the Bin Laden thing. Maybe this will show you how much there is on that.
Banned
#147 Old 17th Nov 2011 at 1:30 PM
Quote: Originally posted by kattenijin
To say that he is actively evil is a touch...misguided. Stupid, oh so Very Very Stupid, yes. Shortsighted, yes. Predujicial, most definately. But actively evil, no.

The fact that he managed to get "elected" to a second term, is only a symptom of just how broken our government is. If votes were counted person by person, and not this electoral college BS he never would have made it.
Maybe just stupid. Doesn't know what's acceptable and what isn't, I suppose?
Mad Poster
#148 Old 17th Nov 2011 at 2:23 PM Last edited by RoseCity : 17th Nov 2011 at 3:21 PM.
Quote: Originally posted by 5M0K3
I did not make up the Bin Laden thing. Maybe this will show you how much there is on that.


I thought the Bush family was friendly with some of the bin Laden family - like they're 'friends' with the Saudi royals, etc. That doesn't mean Bush the Younger was best buddies with Osama bin Laden - it's a huge family. It did get them special treatment in the wake of 9/11. And of course the US government has a special relationship with Saudi Arabia - witness the fact that even though 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis, we didn't start bombing Riyadh.<sarcasm
Lab Assistant
#149 Old 17th Nov 2011 at 3:04 PM
Quote: Originally posted by AngryBunny.
I'm interested to see what Americans have to say about this. I'm from Australia and most people here think Bush is a complete joke. We can't quite understand how someone as thick as a brick is still making decisions for the most powerful country in the world. Even those of us who love America (that's me!) find ourselves bashing our heads against the wall whenever this man opens his mouth. 9/11, Hurricane Katrina and the global economic meltdown all happened on his watch. That's an awful lot of world shattering events to have sitting in your in-tray. He had his followers, the "USA! USA!" chanters (aka. the warmongers, religious nutters and nationalists) who acted as though the war on terror was a football match there to be won if they just shouted loud enough. But even those patriots have shuffled off now, worried about losing their homes and their jobs. You look into Bush’s eyes and there’s nothing there. Blank. Empty. The lights are on but no one’s home. He’s racist and homophobic. He’s the epitome of the phrase ‘American idiot’.


I'm not going to defend Bush because I really don't care. I'm just hoping Obama will be out soon and someone better will be elected.

Anyway, 9/11 didn't happen while Bush was president. It was just before. Clinton was still in office during the incident. I remember because everyone was arguing about him having sex with what's-her-name and suddenly there were news reports about the twin towers collapsing. We were too distracted with Clinton's life to notice something was coming.

What I will defend is the war Bush got us into. We were attacked first, and if we hadn't struck back it would have been taken as a sign of weakness and that we could be easily dominated. We most likely would have been attacked several more times and ended up fighting anyway. So that I support, even though I hate war.
Scholar
#150 Old 17th Nov 2011 at 3:09 PM
Bush was in office during 9/11. Presidency shifts on January 20th of the year following the election. Elections happen every 4 years, with the next being in 2012. Count backward, and you see that the election was in 2000. Bush was elected in 2000 and took office January 20th of 2001. The incident was September 11th of 2001.
 
Page 6 of 9
Back to top