Political Thread 2012

[DaveH]

24valvenotak;326414 wrote:
You posted a quote from Santorum in which he uses a partial Obama quote out of context and passed it off as the truth. You defended it by saying:

I didn't defend Santorums statement, I pointed out that Chuck only posted part of it.

24valvenotak;326414 wrote:
The fact that he associates consensual gay sex with polygamy, adultery, incest, and bigamy puts the nail in the coffin for me.

As Patrick Swayze said, "opinions vary"

[DaveH]

Trafik Jamz;326412 wrote:
Possibly, but they are a potential direct threat to our economy if they invade S Korea (who is going to make our shit then?)

The shitstorm that would happen around the world if N Korea went crazy would be nothing compared to what would happen if Iran did.

Trafik Jamz;326412 wrote:
I can agree with that to some extent I guess. I just wouldn't want to see someone with one overwhelming ability overlooked because of several glaring weaknesses.

Again, it's not our job to weigh whether someone's positives overrule their negatives. I'll leave that to the people in charge of the military.

Trafik Jamz;326412 wrote:
This I can agree with as well. I'm fairly sure we disagree on how to reduce the gap however (flat $ amount vs flat %)

I don't think taxes are the problem, the problem is the incredibly insane spending.

[Trafik Jamz]

DaveH;326420 wrote:
The shitstorm that would happen around the world if N Korea went crazy would be nothing compared to what would happen if Iran did.

Again, it's not our job to weigh whether someone's positives overrule their negatives. I'll leave that to the people in charge of the military.

I don't think taxes are the problem, the problem is the incredibly insane spending.

I dunno, I have this crazy feeling Iran already has a nuke or is DAMN close and is close enough to be able to create a "dirty bomb" that they will lob at our allies in the region if/when they/we attack.

You are right, taxes are not the problem (well, when some companies pay $0 they are part of the problem, but not the majority). However, most charts I've seen from the fed state that while yes, spending did increase under Obama by ~600 billion in large part due to stimulus spending (I have attached a chart from the Fed going back to the 1940's so it doesn't look like I'm just making this up) the amount being spent at present is heading down from it's peak (mostly due to stimulus money being already spent). But wait, we talk about a spiraling deficit regularly, and justly so, however a tanking economy drove up the deficit exponentially because the income didn't meet the spending obligations that have been in place for years (and in some cases decades) so laying the ENTIRE blame of a bloated deficit on one presidency is hardly fair. Had the housing market not tanked in 2007-2008 and the economy had kept on the course it was on, the deficit would not be as crazy as it is today (all other things being equal). That is a fact.

So how do we cut spending? Well, to do that the congress has to pass a bill eliminating a program and THEN the President has to sign it into law (or have his veto over-ridden in congress). As far as I know, he can not just line item cut something w/ no congressional approval. The tricky part is that no one from either side legitimately wants to cut a program as it affects their popularity with their constituents. What I'd like to see is a blanket cut of funding of 1% to 2% over EVERY program in the government relative to the prior year (if your budget was $100 last year, you get $98 this year... not 2% less than you'd planned on spending). I don't believe that any business is running at 100% efficiency, so there has to be 2% waste out there MINIMUM. The best part is that it wouldn't even necessarily defund the benefits being paid out to SS, Welfare, etc.. if they could find ways to save in their offices. I think we should cut this 1 to 2% each year until we have a balanced budget... and then go 2 years after that for good measure.

Just for the hell of it, I included the newest graph showing the number of ALL government workers through Feb 1 of 2012 as well.

More info to back my crazy theory about it being both income and spending that are causing the current crisis: http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/es/11/ES1120.pdf

Part of the problem (I think) is that spending bills are not passed with built in triggers that say "If deficit > X, then reduction in spending = Y%"

[GarageAlchemist]

Jim;326418 wrote:
Just becuase Iranians use the facade of brinkmanship to thier advantage doesn't mean they are retarded.

Everybody knows this was Kim Jong Il's plan and he exploited it sucessfully, time and time again (ever since the Korean war) and now it looks like his son is doing the same.

Ahmadinejad isn' the real power in Iran, and it was made quite clear just this past year, when he wanted to let those hikers go, but was forced by the Clerics to wait it out or dealy. These clerics are immensely rich and powerful and spout off religious bullshit to maintain complete control over Iran.

Iran is radical today, becuase of us and the UK... Iranian revolution could largely be attributed to us.

So while both the N Koreans and Iranians love to play the game of brinkmanship, neither are stupid, and really what do they have to gain by ACTUALLY nuking somebody? It's much more benifical to both of them to just the threat of nukes to get what they want.

Who's to say that we should even be backing Isreal, they commit attrocities to Muslims on a regular basis, that if the tables were switched would be instant justification for US backed involvement.

Isreal is a loose cannon, and acts unilaterally and often without serious provocation.. and they seem to escalate situations rather then wait them out. For them to be the sole nuclear power in the region defies nuclear detterence theory (which assumes all parties are rational, so a case could be made they are all bat shit crazy I guess).

But anyway, what would the rich clerics stand to gain by nuking somebody? Absolutely nothing, and they could be pretty much assured of large scale war. Russia and China would be forced to drop support (economic ties with the world vs. iran)...

The only risk that I can see from Iran having nukes, are the possibilties of a Jihadist type faction getting ahold of them. Remeber the situation in India and Pakistan in the 90's? Nukes can def. be a stabalizing force in a region if one power doesn't have the upper hand.

It is a bit difficult to say that a people (Israel, Jews) "overreact" or act unprovoked when their entire history (1000's of years) has been intertwined with with conflict and war with one specific group of people. The conflict between Jews and Muslims has been going on for so long, it is built into their culture and consciousness to be afraid of those people. It is an instinct. Like if you were living next door to a pack of tigers or lions or people that hated you and your family, and all your ancestors, and anything that has to do with you, and has attacked you repeatedly in the past, your instincts would tell you to be afraid at all times. I'm just saying, those would be pretty shitty circumstances to live under, and i'd be pretty edgy as well.

[Rexwagon]

I may have jingoism but i doubt i have ad hominem. I am just anti-liberal and I love being a patriot. I would rather be wrong and destroy an Enemy than be wrong and be destroyed.
No I am not more "badass" then smedley. But probably know more about Iran and the middle east and current affairs than he does. But I am sure that you know more than me and more than anyone else on this forum. Fuck probably more than everyone in america. I mean damn your friends with a Taxpaying Iranian that pays way more taxes than me. Thats gotta be worth infinity Points. lol

I am not fan either of people who are americans by birth or choice that live off the system and do not contribute to society and just leech. They are a cancer. ---We agree on something.

And No I am not going to watch your video. I am not saying that we need to have to go to war. But its a real possiblity and it should be on the table. I have lived war, I was wounded In iraq, have a purple heart and lost several friends in Iraq along with a cousin. But I dont regret it. I did what my country asked me to do and I would do it all over again. Right or wrong. But right and wrong is precieved differently amongst several people. Whose to say. In the end it doesnt matter

In a perfect world we could all just get along. But the world isnt perfect nor is it fair.

[thrash]

Rexwagon;326426 wrote:
In the end it doesnt matter

It matters a lot if you're one of the people that gets killed.

But the world isnt perfect nor is it fair.

That doesn't excuse intentionally being evil. Which is what I think our politicians do a lot of the time.

I can appreciate the role that the military has in being the "Executive branch" of national political willpower. But when you advocate for the same kinds of policies and people that get us IN to undeclared wars where zillions of people on all sides suffer, you can't really play the "I was doing my job" card.

You have two jobs. One is to execute the military ambitions of your country when you deploy. The second is to keep your country from deploying you for stupid reasons by voting for the right people.

The option of war with Iran IS on the table with hypothetical president Paul. If the congress declares it, that is.

[GarageAlchemist]

thrash;326428 wrote:
It matters a lot if you're one of the people that gets killed.

That doesn't excuse intentionally being evil. Which is what I think our politicians do a lot of the time.

I can appreciate the role that the military has in being the "Executive branch" of national political willpower. But when you advocate for the same kinds of policies and people that get us IN to undeclared wars where zillions of people on all sides suffer, you can't really play the "I was doing my job" card.

You have two jobs. One is to execute the military ambitions of your country when you deploy. The second is to keep your country from deploying you for stupid reasons by voting for the right people.

The option of war with Iran IS on the table with hypothetical president Paul. If the congress declares it, that is.

That's not even entirely sure anymore, the Pres can send the marines anywhere he wants for 90 days, and that is more than enough time of them over there to convince anyone that we should be there doing whatever. I'm just saying, congress doesn't need to approve to get the ball rolling on a war.

[PSiedTSi]

GarageAlchemist;326433 wrote:
That's not even entirely sure anymore, the Pres can send the marines anywhere he wants for 90 days, and that is more than enough time of them over there to convince anyone that we should be there doing whatever. I'm just saying, congress doesn't need to approve to get the ball rolling on a war.

What he is pointing out, I would assume, is the fact that Paul won't declare war because he "feels" like it. It would take a declaration from Congress(like it should)....

[24valvenotak]

DaveH;326419 wrote:
I didn't defend Santorums statement, I pointed out that Chuck only posted part of it.

As Patrick Swayze said, "opinions vary"

You did point out that he only posted part of it but you proceeded to give us your biased analysis as to what it meant based on your "research." Again, fail to see the difference between quoting something incorrectly and trying to explain to everyone what a falsely quoted statement is supposed to mean - they both promote a lie.

Patrick Swayze also fucked a ghost and made g-rated sex to a "baby" on a dance floor. I fail to see how he could further your point of what should be considered socially acceptable.

[24valvenotak]

Trafik Jamz;326421 wrote:
Part of the problem (I think) is that spending bills are not passed with built in triggers that say "If deficit > X, then reduction in spending = Y%"

A super committee was given a chance to find meaningful savings before cuts such as these take place in 2013.... It has been said over and over that very few of these will come to pass as congress will act before they take place. Built in triggers will only ruin people's chances of re-election.

[Trafik Jamz]

24valvenotak;326437 wrote:
A super committee was given a chance to find meaningful savings before cuts such as these take place in 2013.... It has been said over and over that very few of these will come to pass as congress will act before they take place. Built in triggers will only ruin people's chances of re-election.

Or make them smarter with their spending, but you are right.... neither party will allow their pet pork projects be cut by any meaningful amount.

[DaveH]

Trafik Jamz;326438 wrote:
Or make them smarter with their spending, but you are right.... neither party will allow their pet pork projects be cut by any meaningful amount.

I think the pork projects are really just a small part of the problem, the main problem is all the entitlements.

[DaveH]

24valvenotak;326436 wrote:
You did point out that he only posted part of it but you proceeded to give us your biased analysis as to what it meant based on your "research.".

LOL, my biased analysis.... I prefer to call it my opinion, but either way I think my interpretation of his entire quote is accurate. If you think my interpretation of his entire quote is incorrect, please correct me.

24valvenotak;326436 wrote:
Again, fail to see the difference between quoting something incorrectly and trying to explain to everyone what a falsely quoted statement is supposed to mean - they both promote a lie.

Really? I didn't explain what a "falsely quoted statement" is suppose to mean, I explained what a "correctly quoted statement" is suppose to mean.

"falsely quoted statement" = Chucks version

"correctly quoted statement" = the entire quote

24valvenotak;326436 wrote:
Patrick Swayze also fucked a ghost and made g-rated sex to a "baby" on a dance floor. I fail to see how he could further your point of what should be considered socially acceptable.

Yeah, but he made up for it in Roadhouse.

[Trafik Jamz]

DaveH;326440 wrote:
"falsely quoted statement" = Chucks version

"correctly quoted statement" = the entire quote

My version was abridged, but I (personally) took nothing extra away from the entire quote that I didn't get in the shortened version. I've seen the entire "He's a snob" portion of the video numerous times and my assessment still stands: He was wrong for taking what was said (by Obama), twisting it to make it sound like something entirely different was said and the irony is that both Santorum and Obama effectively want the same thing on this matter.

We've covered this before in this thread, but even Santorum admitted (on Fox News of all places) that he agreed with the President later when he was read what the President actually said.

[DaveH]

"Abridged" means shortened with the same meaning. Sorry, but your quote and the actual quote are not even close to the same meaning.

"Santorum said Obama is a snob for wanting all Americans to go to college. Meanwhile Santorum has a B.A. from Pennsylvania State University, a M.B.A. from the University of Pittsburgh and a J.D. from the Dickinson School of Law. "President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob," Santorum said."

To me (I could be crazy), this is saying Santorum is a hypocrite because he called Obama a snob and he has a bunch of college degrees.

"President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college, what a snob. There are good, decent men and women who go out and work hard every day and put their skills to test that aren't taught by some liberal college professor that (tries) to indoctrinate them."

To me (I could be crazy), this is saying that it is a putdown to blue collar workers to say that everyone needs to go to college to do well.

[GarageAlchemist]

DaveH;326440 wrote:
Yeah, but he made up for it in Roadhouse.

so true

[DaveH]

GarageAlchemist;326445 wrote:
so true

And Jeff Healey was rockin the place, double win.

[Trafik Jamz]

DaveH;326444 wrote:
"Abridged" means shortened with the same meaning. Sorry, but your quote and the actual quote are not even close to the same meaning.

"Santorum said Obama is a snob for wanting all Americans to go to college. Meanwhile Santorum has a B.A. from Pennsylvania State University, a M.B.A. from the University of Pittsburgh and a J.D. from the Dickinson School of Law. "President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob," Santorum said."

To me (I could be crazy), this is saying Santorum is a hypocrite because he called Obama a snob and he has a bunch of college degrees.

"President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college, what a snob. There are good, decent men and women who go out and work hard every day and put their skills to test that aren't taught by some liberal college professor that (tries) to indoctrinate them."

To me (I could be crazy), this is saying that it is a putdown to blue collar workers to say that everyone needs to go to college to do well.

I can see your point Dave. My point is that what he said originally is based on a lie (shortened version or not) that Obama said he wants everyone to go to college. I WILL give him credit for taking back the statement once it became apparent to him (via Fox News) that he and Obama were actually on the same page and even saying gasp that he agreed with the President.

[thrash]

Well, Obama is wrong that everyone should go to college. Doesn't seem to make Americans smarter. It does seem to make colleges dumber. When you have everyone chasing after a fixed supply of college admission spots, using borrowed money, the result is predictable. College gets way more expensive, and universities spend the money on dumb things to attract fickle student loan dollars. Like giant new stadiums, rec centers, etc. Not things that make kids better.

[DaveH]

Trafik Jamz;326449 wrote:
I can see your point Dave. My point is that what he said originally is based on a lie (shortened version or not) that Obama said he wants everyone to go to college. I WILL give him credit for taking back the statement once it became apparent to him (via Fox News) that he and Obama were actually on the same page and even saying gasp that he agreed with the President.

A "lie" assigns intent. I don't know if he lied or just made a mistake.

With that, I think we've beat this horse to death. lol

Ron Paul sure is getting his ass kicked in the primaries.

(that ought to stir the pot)