I dont remember feeling offended. To an extent. An example of where i dont support it (of many others) is utilities. Theyre naturally more efficient as monopolies, but they cant ne allowed to set their own prices. No. Our public education system is based on draconian methods that were essential to society over a humdred years ago. Our public edication system needs a makeover, not an assassination. Yes. We did just fine without it. I think its a good ideA, but poor execution. No. We do need a government to protect us from foreign incaders. Cant provide that for free. Yes. And this is really where i identify most with Paul. I am well aware. I believe i explained that i dont agree with everything he does, but i believed he was what our country needed most at the time. Lets also not forget bringing all our troops home. This was my #2 reason for supporting Paul (and why so many other vets do). Paul believes our troops should be defending our nation at home from forwign invaders, not meddling in other countries' problems. Thank you for asking instead of assuming. ️
I pretty much nailed it on the head when I assumed cheese was for Paul due to a few issues rather than being a strict libertarian Everyone likes to point fingers at one party or the other. When really it is a combination of their lack of bipartisanship. If they could work together things would improve the U.S. I do know one thing is for sure. THE TAX RATES ARE TOO DAMN HIGH! I work a minimum wage job while I am going to college to be a radiologist. I do not have to work, I could live off my mommy while I go to college, but I was taught to work for what I get. Anyways, for 45 hours I grossed $340. I was pleased with that. It's an easy job and I'm not an idiot who expects $12 an hour for minimum wages. However, when I saw the taxes they took out, I was pissed! $52 out of the $340 I made. That's pretty shitty. I worked almost 7 full hours (an entire shift on a slow day) just to give my money to a crack whore with 10 kids that won't work. I would be lying if I said I wasn't super pissed. Meanwhile, wealthy politicians receive tax breaks and exemptions.
Moose you are so hypocritical. You say early in your wall of dribble that objectivism is non existent. How can the reader interpret this when you often belittle and shut down debate that does not suit either your narrow perception of the world or your self interest. Ohh the irony.
You're upset at the wrong people. Here's where the Federal government gets its money 34% comes from payroll taxes. 10% comes from corporate income taxes. Here's where the money used to come from. In the mid 50's the numbers were reversed. About 35% came from corporate income taxes and only 10% came from payroll taxes. Here's what's been happening with wages. Wages shrank from 54% of GDP to 43%. Corporate profits doubled from 5% to 10% of GDP. In the meantime, corporations are paying less taxes on those profits. You're not paying more so that lazy people can collect a check. You're paying more so that multi billion corporations can pay less. Welfare is a dog whistle politicians use to distract you from where the money is really going. It's made easier by the fact that welfare spending always increases during recessions. And that's when people are the most resentful because they're making less money and they see welfare spending going up. But that's what it's designed to do. When times get hard the safety net kicks in to pick up the slack. Welfare spending is actually going down as the economy improves, but it's still going be higher than normal until employment reaches it's normal level. Republicans had a great time calling Obama the "food stamp president" but the truth is food stamp and other welfare spending would have gone up no matter who got elected because we were in a recession. They get away with it because most people don't understand how the system works.
#VoxPitch #SalonPitch Can't help but feel like I'm reading regurgitated Salon and Vox talking points with a certain someone's posts. "The Democrats lost the midterm in a wave...and why that's a good thing."
Gosh, that snappy comeback just totally devastated my whole argument. Here's what amuses me about you. You come here and post nonsensical rhetoric you've read on some right wing site or heard on Fox, then when I refute it with actual data and hard numbers, your typical response is some lame ass comment. Up your game, Bucky. Don't whine about "regurgitated Salon and Vox talking points". Prove me wrong.
Buckeye do you think things will get better in the next two years ? Will there be any great comprise to allow some actual bipartisan bills to pass ? I don't think that's likely the republicans don't seem to think compromise is a good thing and the democrats won't either so nothing gets done . Meanwhile your president is trying to achieve the things he said he would do via executive order which seems to be heading into a big legal fur ball once the republicans find a lawyer who will say yes to suing the president who can actually win.
I dint think you Americans want comoromise, if Americans wanted "things to get done" in Washington, or they wanted people to work together, they would have simply elected more democrats.
Yeah, lets talk about that. After waiting over 500 days for the Republican House to vote on an immigration bill which passed the Senate by a margin of 68-32 (14 Republicans voted for it) the President plans to use executive authority to take action on it next week. There's plenty of precedent for what he plans to do. He's going use his constructional authority to implement what's called "deferred action". Now Republicans are going to call it "amnesty" for PR purposes and fire up their base like Bucky, but the two aren't the same. Amnesty makes you immune from prosecution. Deferred action doesn't. It's basically means they aren't going to prosecute you right now, but they can later if they so choose. It defers action. It's been done before. In 1987 the Reagan administration granted a blanket deferral of deportation for millions of children under 18 who were living in a two-parent household with both parents legalizing, or with a single parent who was legalizing. In 1990 after the House failed to act on a Senate immigration bill (just like they are now) GHW Bush administratively implemented the Senate bill’s provisions himself using the same procedure, deferred action, which covered 40% of the 3.5 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. at the time. In both cases, there was never any question whether or not Reagan or Bush had the authority to do it. There were no threats to shut down the government. There were no demands for impeachment. So now that Obama plans to use the same procedure what do the Republicans say? "Nearly two-thirds of Republicans favored impeachment in a recent YouGov poll. Palin said that Obama's lawlessness on illegal immigration, which impacts Americans of all backgrounds and races--including legal immigrants--was the tipping point for her to call for Obama's impeachment" http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... ec-Actions Texas lawmaker: GOP could impeach Obama over immigration http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... ma-acts-on So when Reagan and Bush did it there was no question about their constitutional authority. Nobody was suing them. Nobody wanted to impeach them. But now if Obama does it, it's "lawlessness" and grounds for impeachment. And this is why we can't have nice things.
Why does anyone take Sarah Palin seriously? She's a hot head who wants to reignite the Cold War. We all know she's worthless.
Black Dragon. I agree with your last point. The entire difference between the two scenarios is the poltical landscape has completely changed in the last 20 years mainly due to and through the utilization of 24 hour news / media and political op ed's being reported as news rather than the reality of the actual events as news.
OK. I'll bite. You accuse me a shutting down debate in topics that don't hold to my "narrow" world view (as if you think you know me so very well). I'll go over a few things here, even though it won't change your mind. I am a Lutheran, yet, just this week I fished a thread out if the GY (placed there by a different moderator) that was defending an athiest point of view. It used satire as its tool. Instead of just deleting the thread, I had really thoughtful discussions with folks, including word waster. Am I an atheist? Nope. Did I let the thread run? Yep. Did I mock people on that thread? Nope. Lets talk about people with differing world views. Black-dragon is clearly of a differing political bend than me. He's even from a different country. Do I mock him? Nope. Do I delete his threads? Nope. Do I disagree with him? Frequently. Do I respect him? Yep. Your attacking of my NPR article as drivel, or my interpretation of it, places you in a minority, as lots of people on this thread are holding thoughtful discussions. So, what do I shut down and attack in forums? Mmmmmm...... Spam. I kill lots of that. Most reasonable players want a clean AT board. Who am I to determine what a spammy thread is? Well, ATA has given me the authority to determine what stays and what doesn't, and the community at large keeps me in check. If I were as bad as you say, my presence in forums would not be tolerated. I also shut down blatant trolling. Again, most functional people would like to engage in a conversation with out having some monkey in the background Throwing verbal feces at everyone. Trolls are not only disruptive, they are destructive to this app. I suspect the real thrust for your hate is because I shut you down door both spam and trolling violations before, (regarding the betting of "arrows" in a past promo) and you've never forgiven me for it. (Don't worry, I sleep well) Who am I to determine weather or not you needed that ban? 1. You posted a thread with massive amounts of misinformation. Not "opinions" mind you, but honest to goodness misinformation. What you were doing was akin to Swabias "castle code" and that wasn't tolerated either. 2. You ignored moderator locks. Ignoring moderator locks is a ToU violation,name is is thus because you are to use the support email to appeal decisions. Vomiting up thread after thread after thread after its been locked is not the way to deal with things. That's what we call "spam". 3. You were one of (correction, you the ONLY) troll throwing feces and not even attempting to engage in any discussion that remotely resembled reason. So, there ya go. Am I objective? Nope. As I stated earlier, no one is. Am I fair? Yes. Anyone in forum who is willing to out even a minimal amount of thought I to what he/she is doing (I set the bar low) and can follow ToU will be allowed to have a say. And, if you think I'm unfair, you may request my removal as a moderator. I've been here, modding over 3 years now, sand neither ATA nor the public at large, has driven me out in a rail, so, I must be doing something right.
This raging lunatic accurately predicted the current situations in Ukraine and Iraq before they even unfolded due to Obama's previous stance and stated foreign policy goals. This "Tea Party Crazy" even understood the way the world worked better than Obama and his best men. Does she want to reignite the Cold War? Or does she simply recognize Russia for the threat it is? Something the Left mocked Mitt Romney over in 2012 and then had to watch Russia invade Ukraine on the heels of their jokes. But maybe that's not entirely fair, it's possible they both understood the implications of certain stances on issues, but maybe one wanted the outcome and one did not. Or maybe one simply did not care and one did. Not to mention she governed a state... "Worthless" yep.
Palin had a brilliant career in Alaska. She was a gifted politician. However, when she went national, she didn't do her self any favors. Yea, she was assassinated by the press, but, lots of republicans are, and they survive. Palin was poorly served, both by her handlers and her own judgement. Now, post election, she's the gift that keeps on giving for the left. She makes her career now, more or less, by pissing people off and driving polarization. I'd enjoy seeing palin be out out to pasture. She's more detriment than good.
Were talking about the same modern Sarah Palin who constantly make claims and apologizes for not "researching" her "facts" on an almost bi-weekly basis now publicly right? We know Russia is a powerhouse, they are not a direct threat like she suggested though. Also everyone knew the Iraq pull out wasn't going to be pretty. Neither was Vietnam and the amount of correlations with those wars is ridiculous. She in the past might've been effective, I don't claim to know such. I do see her currently making a fool of herself consistently though in the present. Follow her on her Twitter to track her constant apologies on trash she makes up on the moment and preaches as fact.
They have 24 hours of air time to fill, so they fill it with crap. And like Moose was saying, sensationalism sells. If it bleeds, it leads. Cable news is basically worthless. They're aren't journalists. They're lazy uniformed talk show hosts looking to get a sound bite they can sensationalize in order to increase their ratings. It takes about 30 seconds to look up the legal definitions of amnesty and deferred action and it hardly takes a genius to understand the difference. Watch next week and how many talking heads use the word amnesty. Why? Because they know it'll provoke a greater emotional response and draw in viewers. Accurately informing the public isn't a priority. Ratings are.