Who will take on Obama in 2012?

[cinemaafficionado]

I added to my previous post, explaining how you were incorrect in your classification. As far as the USSR, as you have stated earlier it was more of a quasi fascist nation, which loosely followed Marx's writings. Also, I find it telling that you have no issue with war being waged under false pretense, because the leader of the country isn't so nice. The world's full of them, why not go after North Korea, China, and a whole host of other countries that aren't so nice under false pretense as well?

Hmmm... Actually Mr. Hu is probably the most progressive leader China has ever had and I wish he'd stay on a bit longer. Sadly though, I think he will soon be replaced by a much more controling guy.
Gadaffi had similiar aspirations as Saddam but Reagan put a quick end to that.
It's not that Saddam wasn't a nice guy, he wasn't, it was his idea of expansion- Kuwait, Iran, Syria, Lebanon ( I know, all far fetched theories ) that made him a real threat.
As far as North Korea goes, sure we'd love nothing more than to topple that dictatorship. The problem is China, who would never stand for US being right on it's borders.

[FILMFREAK087]

Hmmm... Actually Mr. Hu is probably the most progressive leader China has ever had and I wish he'd stay on a bit longer. Sadly though, I think he will soon be replaced by a much more controling guy.
Gadaffi had similiar aspirations as Saddam but Reagan put a quick end to that.
It's not that Saddam wasn't a nice guy, he wasn't, it was his idea of expansion- Kuwait, Iran, Syria, Lebanon ( I know, all far fetched theories ) that made him a real threat.
As far as North Korea goes, sure we'd love nothing more than to topple that dictatorship. The problem is China, who would never stand for US being right on it's borders.

So, if that required telling Americans that these countries were an immediate threat based on no evidence, you would be fine with that?

[DexterRiley]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_8QT1BCsHE

[cinemaafficionado]

edit: by the way, what colour level are you worried?

Who, me, worried? Whatever makes you think that. I don't worry, I do.
Whatever it takes, whatever makes me happy ( and hopefully doesn't hurt someone else in the process ).

Reality is a b..ch and then you divorce one. Life goes on. Peace!

[cinemaafficionado]

So, if that required telling Americans that these countries were an immediate threat based on no evidence, you would be fine with that?

Do you read history? How many wars have been started for less qualifying reasons? This idea that we are all one is a bunch of contoling B.S.
News flash. We are not all one and we have different interests. When everything is said and done there are the victors and the vanquished and it's the victors who write history and enjoy the spoils.
Of all the victorious countries in history, America has been the most gracious in victory and that's why it deserves special consideration.
If you are not American, you can only envy it, if you are, you can love it or leave it.

[FILMFREAK087]

Do you read history? How many wars have been started for less qualifying reasons? This idea that we are all one is a bunch of contoling B.S.
News flash. We are not all one and we have different interests. When everything is said and done there are the victors and the vanquished and it's the victors who write history and enjoy the spoils.
Of all the vitorious countries in history, America has been the most gracious in victory and that's why it deserves special consideration.
If you are not American, you can only envy it, if you are, you can love it or leave it.
The fact that wars have been initiated for petty and in some cases material reasons, justifies manipulating the public into supporting military action? So, you seem to advocate for a ruling class that has sole say in military actions, and that America's actions towards other soverign nations are inherently justified because of our military prowess and wealth, you realize that sounds a bit like fascism.

[cinemaafficionado]

So, if that required telling Americans that these countries were an immediate threat based on no evidence, you would be fine with that?

Oh, and I guess Saddam's invasion of Kuwait never happened. That's why you don't consider it evidence.

[FILMFREAK087]

Oh, and I guess Saddam's invasion of Kuwait never happened. That's why you don't consider it evidence.
We did engage him and stopped him. So we decided to retaliate in 2003 for an invasion that occurred in 1991 and we stopped? What logic are you operating under? Any excuse to invade Muslim countries?

[cinemaafficionado]

The fact that wars have been initiated for petty and in some cases material reasons, justifies manipulating the public into supporting military action? So, you seem to advocate for a ruling class that has sole say in military actions, and that America's actions towards other soverign nations are inherently justified because of our military prowess and wealth, you realize that sounds a bit like fascism.

Words and stones......... We didn't get to where we are by being docile.
We also took Germany and Japan out of the ashes and helped them become super powers, whatever the motives.
Now, even in recession, we enjoy a quality of life that's among the top in the world and if we want to keep having it, we have to protect it.
If we become lazy and complacent and ignore threats both from inside and outside, we will end up the same as many gone great civilizations before us.

[FILMFREAK087]

Words and stones......... We didn't get to where we are by being docile.
We also took Germany and Japan out of the ashes and helped them become super powers, whatever the motives.
Now, even in recession, we enjoy a quality of life that's among the top in the world and if we want to keep having it, we have to protect it.
If we become lazy and complacent and ignore threats both from inside and outside, we will end up the same as many gone great civilizations before us.

Yeah Germany was way too docile, hence why they lost WWII. Might makes right. . . and other pseudo-fascist catchphrases.

[cinemaafficionado]

We did engage him and stopped him. So we decided to retaliate in 2003 for an invasion that occurred in 1991 and we stopped? What logic are you operating under? Any excuse to invade Muslim countries?

Dude, the guy was preparing for another go at it. What do you think his biological warfare against the Kurds was all about? Do you know how many he exterminated between 2000 and 2003?
Why are you bringing up the word Muslim? Muslims also fight among themselves. What do you think Sunni and Shiite is all about?

[FILMFREAK087]

Dude, the guy was preparing for another go at it. What do you think his biological warfare against the Kurds was all about? Do you know how many he exterminated between 2000 and 2003?
Why are you bringing up the word Muslim? Muslims also fight among themselves. What do you think Sunni and Shiite is all about?

It just seems folks like yourself seem all to eager to get involved with it, granted there are times it's probably warranted but again dictatorships will exist, trying to impose Americanism on other countries through occupation only leads to more unrest and overall antiamericanism. Remember, what pissed Bin Laden off was our bases being in their homeland. Just worth acknowledging.

[cinemaafficionado]

Yeah Germany was way too docile, hence why they lost WWII. Might makes right. . . and other pseudo-fascist catchphrases.

If you want the nitty gritty, Germany lost WWII because they broke their pact with Russia and attacked it too late, so the Russian winter basically got them.
Had they not broke the pact with Russia or had they started Operation Barbarosa in April instead of in June of 1941, we all might be singing a different tune now.
There are so many ifs, there is no telling. What if Hitler intervened less and actually let his generals call all the war shots?

[cinemaafficionado]

It just seems folks like yourself seem all to eager to get involved with it, granted there are times it's probably warranted but again dictatorships will exist, trying to impose Americanism on other countries through occupation only leads to more unrest and overall antiamericanism. Remember, what pissed Bin Laden off was our bases being in their homeland. Just worth acknowledging.

Dude you are scratching the surface. Guys like Bin Laden were trained by us in Bosnia and Afghanistan long before 9/11.
It would take me more time than I have to fully explain the 20th century political global situation to you.

[DexterRiley]

If you want the nitty gritty, Germany lost WWII because they broke their pact with Russia and attacked it too late, so the Russian winter basically got them.
Had they not broke the pact with Russia or had they started Operation Barbarosa in April instead of in June of 1941, we all might be singing a different tune now.
There are so many ifs, there is no telling. What if Hitler intervened less and actually let his generals call all the war shots?

What if Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbour. America may well have sat that lil skirmish out.

[DexterRiley]

Dude, the guy was preparing for another go at it. What do you think his biological warfare against the Kurds was all about? Do you know how many he exterminated between 2000 and 2003?
Why are you bringing up the word Muslim? Muslims also fight among themselves. What do you think Sunni and Shiite is all about?

Where did Sadamm get the biological weapons in the first place? hmmmm, it will come to me.


oh thats right.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg


On February 9th, 1994, Senator Riegle delivered a report -commonly known at the Riegle Report- in which it was stated that "pathogenic (meaning 'disease producing'), toxigenic (meaning 'poisonous'), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce." It added: "These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."

The report then detailed 70 shipments (including Bacillus anthracis) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the UN inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."

Donald Riegle, Chairman of the Senate committee that authored the aforementioned Riegle Report, said:

U.N. inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs. ... The executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control sent Iraq 14 separate agents "with biological warfare significance," according to Riegle's investigators.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war

[cinemaafficionado]

Where did Sadamm get the biological weapons in the first place? hmmmm, it will come to me.


oh thats right.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg


On February 9th, 1994, Senator Riegle delivered a report -commonly known at the Riegle Report- in which it was stated that "pathogenic (meaning 'disease producing'), toxigenic (meaning 'poisonous'), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce." It added: "These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."

The report then detailed 70 shipments (including Bacillus anthracis) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the UN inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."

Donald Riegle, Chairman of the Senate committee that authored the aforementioned Riegle Report, said:

U.N. inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs. ... The executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control sent Iraq 14 separate agents "with biological warfare significance," according to Riegle's investigators.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war

Ok, so what's your point? You acknowledge he had them and he did use them. The fact that we supported dictators and installed governments and took out dictators doesn't negate the fact that in politics yesterday's friends are today's enemies and vice versa. Saddam has no one else to blame but himself for being a greedy pig and getting the fate that befell him. He did test that biological warfare and was getting ready to do more but Karma caught up with the Middle East Napoleon wannabee.
Had he been content just to enjoy his palaces in his country and avoid confrontation and expansion, had he kept the oil agreements flowing, he would now still be playing Boss of Iraq instead of pushing daisies and his crazy sons could have gone on to enjoy more rape, plunder and murder but Karma caught up with them , too.
I shed no tears for such a nice family and Iraq and the world is definitely better off without them. God works in mysterious ways and in this case He took a Budhist belief and made the US the executor of his will.

[Fiscal]

Jon Stewart nailed the Romney tapes last night.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-19-2012/chaos-on-bulls--t-mountain

[Powderfinger]

I'm just watching this Tebow report....I'm a virgin and such. America's news is worst than Australia...what a joke! When he pots his knee, he'll want some lovin..lol!

[cinemaafficionado]

Where did Sadamm get the biological weapons in the first place? hmmmm, it will come to me.


oh thats right.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg


On February 9th, 1994, Senator Riegle delivered a report -commonly known at the Riegle Report- in which it was stated that "pathogenic (meaning 'disease producing'), toxigenic (meaning 'poisonous'), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce." It added: "These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."

The report then detailed 70 shipments (including Bacillus anthracis) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the UN inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."

Donald Riegle, Chairman of the Senate committee that authored the aforementioned Riegle Report, said:

U.N. inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs. ... The executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control sent Iraq 14 separate agents "with biological warfare significance," according to Riegle's investigators.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war

By the way, that's Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand ( just in case you didn't know ).

[will.15]

For the first time, Capitol Hill Republican veterans are saying that the winner of the presidential race will be able to claim a mandate for his policies.
“This is a referendum on taxes,” Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), a senior member of the House Budget Committee, told the Washington Post late last week. “If the president wins reelection, taxes are going up” for the nation’s wealthiest households, and “there’s not a lot we can do about that.”
“I hope, obviously, the status quo doesn’t prevail” on Nov. 6,” Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., told the Post. “But if things stay as they are, and all the players are generally the same ...finding a responsible reform for Medicare is the secret to unleashing very productive talks that would put in place a balanced solution to our fiscal problems. If you deal with the Medicare issue, then Republicans are far more open to looking at revenues.”
The implications of this sudden change in tone by at least some Republicans on Capitol Hill is obvious: Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke and a raft of other policy makers and politicians have been warning for months – to little avail -- that the country was headed for a fiscal cliff that would put an enormous drag on the economy and potentially throw millions more of Americans out of work (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/06/08/Sequester-Could-Wipe-Out-More-than-a-Million-Jobs.aspx#page1).
Now, the two parties are beginning to talk about finding ways to buy time after the election to work out a grand bargain of sorts that will avert a wholesale increase in taxes and block deep automatic cuts in defense. And they are acknowledging that increased tax revenues will be on the table for discussion. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner met with House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., according to Politico. The meeting with Camp focused on the year-end expiration of tax rates.

[Sir Toose]

It's interesting to me that the ONLY two guys who have ever passed any kind of government healthcare legislation (state/federal) are the two guys on the ballot this time.

It's also interesting that both of these dudes get their money from the same general concerns (Wall Street in particular).

If you mix blue and red together you get purple and that's the color I paint this election.

We get two (pre vetted) 'selections' so people can argue about the surface stuff that doesn't matter and feel like their votes actually make a difference. It didn't matter whether McCain or Obama won the election, the wall street guys still had their concerns well represented. The same goes for this election.

My prediction: Romney will win and it will become part of his job to sell government healthcare to republicans (since Obama couldn't do it and the money people have evidently figured out how to profit from it). Taxes will go up slightly for the middle class, we'll still be at war somewhere, the economy won't change much as corporate interests continue to fleece the middle class & no one will legislate social hot button issues. FFW four more years.

In four years (unless global warming, the failed enemy, proves fatal.. or maybe 2012, the mayan prophecy wipes us all out) people will still be arguing about whether it's fair or not that the rich don't pay a few extra percentage points in taxes, gay folk will still be discriminated against, abortion will still be legal yadda yadda yadda.

The power center in America has changed. It used to be Washington, now it's Wall Street. The president (since Clinton) even makes appearances on TV shows these days for ratings (and people watching those will sit through a few commercials).

The election show is nothing more than eye candy these days. Two guys sell idealism, one way or another, 70% of the country engages in bi%ch fighting over it while nothing of value changes because the status quo is making money for the most influential/powerful people.

Anyway, off my soapbox.

[will.15]

Is the GOP Still a National Party?

By Daniel McCarthy (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/author/daniel-mccarthy) • September 24, 2012 (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-the-gop-still-a-national-party/)




http://www.theamericanconservative.com/wp-content/themes/Starkers/images/printer_famfamfam.gif (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-the-gop-still-a-national-party/?print=1)
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/wp-content/themes/Starkers/images/email_famfamfam.png (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-the-gop-still-a-national-party/?email=1)
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/wp-content/themes/Starkers/images/instapaper.png (http://www.instapaper.com/hello2?url=http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-the-gop-still-a-national-party/&title=Is+the+GOP+Still+a+National+Party%3F&description=Once+the+landslide+party%2C+Republicans+have+won+but+a+single+popular+majority+in+the+la st+20+years.)
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/800px-US_presidential_election_2004_results_by_county.jpg 2004 Presidential Election Result by County/Parish. Wikimedia Commons. (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_presidential_election_2004_results_by_county.jpg)

There are reasons to think it isn’t: Republicans have failed to win a plurality of voters (or a majority of the two-party vote) in four of the last five presidential elections. The single win was 2004, when George W. Bush was re-elected by the lowest margin of any successful incumbent since 1828 (http://mobile.nationaljournal.com/columns/political-connections/a-vicious-cycle-20120822). GOP talking points at the time touted Bush’s victory as a historic landslide because the map of sparsely populated counties he won (see above) covered almost the entire U.S. Therein lies a tale.
Republicans have enjoyed a state-level resurgence even as they have lost — and lost big — their once commanding national majority. The GOP was once the landslide party, the party of Eisenhower ’52 and ’56, Nixon ’72, and Reagan ’84. Even Bush I’s 53.4 percent in 1988 was very respectable. Reagan’s 50.7 percent in 1980 wasn’t a landslide but still demonstrated that an outright popular majority supported the Republican. In the five elections before ’92, the GOP won popular majorities in four.
The parties have almost switched places since then. The popular-vote success of the Democrats in the last five elections is less impressive: they won an outright majority only once, in 2008. Far from balancing the scales, though, this highlights all the more the magnitude of the GOP’s electoral erosion: from being a party that won with majorities, the Republicans have declined to one that loses to pluralities.
The period in which this has happened corresponds to a historic resurgence of the GOP in Congress and at the state level. There’s an intuitive connection. Significantly fewer people vote in state and congressional elections than presidential elections. The GOP base is better organized and more engaged locally than Democrats are. But this actually undercuts the party at the national level. So well organized are the GOP’s ideological constituencies that they prevail in legislative primaries and push the party’s overall identity to the right. (That’s not the same as making it more “conservative,” as I’ll explain in a minute.) These ideological groups also have a great deal of muscle at the presidential primary or caucus level, but even beyond that, their success at the legislative level means that a presidential contender’s loyalty to the GOP brand — proof that he’s not a RINO — has to be demonstrated by professions of fealty to what is an essentially regional identity, not a national one.
If it seems needlessly complicated to suggest that two effects — grassroots muscle and general party branding — have to be invoked to explain the GOP’s unsuccessful presidential branding, consider this: if the only effect in play were the strength of grassroots right-wing constituencies, you wouldn’t expect the party to consistently nominate moderates like both Bushes, Dole, McCain, and Romney. None of those nominees had impeccable conservative credentials — far from it. But once they got the nomination, they didn’t run as the moderates they were; most of them sold themselves as being at least as right as Reagan, even in the general election. At least since 2004, this is because the party has pursued a base strategy: an attempt to eke out a narrow win by getting more Republicans to the polls than Democrats, with independents — a small and difficult-to-market-to demographic — basically ignored. The party tries to leverage its regional identity and regional organization into presidential victory. It has failed four times out of five.
The Democrats are regionally weaker, but this has paradoxically helped them in presidential elections: it means that a Bill Clinton or Barack Obama is not really very beholden to base Democratic groups like black voters. Clinton and Obama certainly organize their ethnic constituencies, but when they campaign in general elections they do not relentlessly highlight minority issues that other Americans find polarizing. Oftentimes, they’re hiding or even actively downplaying those issues (think Sister Souljah, Reverend Wright, or the party’s hot-and-cold emphasis on gay rights). The Democrats are less ideologically constrained by their factional interests.
Republicans tend to have a clear establishment front-runner going into their presidential contests, and that individual pretty much always wins the nomination, in part because he usually has far more money than his opponents. Indeed, that financial advantage allows the establishment front-runner to discourage viable semi-establishment opponents — your Mitch Daniels types — from even entering the race. That leaves the ideological groups to field their own non-viable standard-bearer — Huckabee or Santorum types. Because the eventual GOP nominee pursues a base strategy, though, he winds up embarrassing himself by trying to sound “severely conservative.” He has to get religious right and Tea Party voters to turn out for him. But even if they do, they’re not enough: those constituencies don’t add up to 50 percent of the electorate. Republicans are actually closer than Democrats to being the real 47 percent party. (Though it’s more accurate to say the GOP is the 48-49 percent party and the Democrats are the 49-50 percent party.)
This isn’t all about elections, however. The policy options that Congress and the president get to consider and the intellectual life of the nation are also warped by the GOP’s “47 percent” ideology. Because conservatives over-identify with the GOP, and the GOP’s identity is determined by factional and regional ideologies, the result is that conservatives take their definition of conservatism from the party and that definition is more regional- and interest-based than philosophical. This accounts for the spectacle of the GOP periodically getting worked up about “big government” while in fact expanding government — welfare state, warfare state, banning internet gambling, you name it — whenever it’s in power. The blue state/red state psychological divide is more fundamental to the party’s understanding of the world than is any consistent view of the proper extent and uses of government.
This is also why One Nation conservatism (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/what-happened-to-the-100-percent/) or even genuinely Reaganite conservatism, with its appeal to independents and Democrats as well as the base, is impossible today. The ideology of suburbia (“porky populism (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/porky-populism/),” with its hatred of organic food and fetishistic attachment to SUVs and Wal-Mart) and the most intense expressions of heartland Protestantism, together with certain Southern good ol’ boy attitudes (less overt racism than a scratch-my-back-I’ll-scratch-yours ethos), are the matrix of GOP and “conservative” identity. The financial and neoconservative elites have designed ideologies of their own to integrate with this matrix: neocons spin their foreign policy as an expression of values (God and America are practically the same thing, aren’t they?), as a token of Protestant-Jewish solidarity (support for Israel), and as necessary for national honor and the Southern economy (wars and bases). Wall Street relies on Mitt’s 47 percent myth: the people who aren’t part of the GOP coalition are lazy and lack self-responsibility; i.e., they are sinful and un-Protestant, while the Gospel makes you rich and happy.
None of this has anything to do with the historic conservatism of Edmund Burke or John Adams, Russell Kirk or Robert Nisbet. It doesn’t even look like the capacious conservatism of Ronald Reagan. It’s a scam: it does little for values in the culture as a whole because the values in question are those of an ideological minority only interested in winning through minority-organization politics; it can’t look at big-picture economics because doing so would tick off the financial interests and get anyone who broached the question read out of conservatism by Wall Street’s coalition allies. A traditionalist or consistently libertarian critic would be perceived as speaking up for lazy immoral city-dwelling welfare queens. This fanciful identity politics, and not principled economics, is what lies behind talk about “socialism,” “big government,” and the “47 percent.” If the case were otherwise, you’d see the anti-dependency case made against the Pentagon, defense contractors, churches taking government money, and red-state recipients of all kinds of largesse. I don’t see Republicans talking about that, with a handful of exceptions whose last name is usually “Paul.”
I’m not the biggest fan of Eisenhower or Nixon, but they (and Reagan) are clearly preferable to this post-Reagan Republican Party. Those presidents won national majorities for a reason. They weren’t strict conservatives, but they certainly weren’t any less conservative than the Bushes, McCain, or Romney. They didn’t pretend they were going to abolish the welfare state — often, they didn’t even pretend they would cut the welfare state — unlike so many of today’s Republicans, who don’t follow through but do use their rhetoric to polarize. That gives us the worst of both worlds: big government plus the delusional sense within one party that it represents the antithesis of big government and may freely hate other Americans who don’t mouth the mantra. And what goes for big government goes for Judeo-Christian values, a strong national defense, and all the rest: the GOP’s rhetoric occupies a separate mental compartment from its actions, even as its voters and ideological apologists continue to believe that there is a profound moral difference between them and the rest of the country. It’s a losing strategy, and worse, it’s made the country ungovernable even as government grows.
Daniel McCarthy is the editor of The American Conservative.

[will.15]

It's interesting to me that the ONLY two guys who have ever passed any kind of government healthcare legislation (state/federal) are the two guys on the ballot this time.

It's also interesting that both of these dudes get their money from the same general concerns (Wall Street in particular).

If you mix blue and red together you get purple and that's the color I paint this election.

We get two (pre vetted) 'selections' so people can argue about the surface stuff that doesn't matter and feel like their votes actually make a difference. It didn't matter whether McCain or Obama won the election, the wall street guys still have their concerns well represented. The same goes for this election.

My prediction: Romney will win and it will become part of his job to sell government healthcare to republicans (since Obama couldn't do it and the money people have evidently figured out how to profit from it). Taxes will go up slightly for the middle class, we'll still be at war somewhere, the economy won't change much as corporate interests continue to fleece the middle class & no one will legislate social hot button issues. FFW four more years.

In four years (unless global warming, the failed enemy, proves fatal.. or maybe 2012, the mayan prophecy wipes us all out) people will still be arguing about whether it's fair or not that the rich don't pay a few extra percentage points in taxes, gay folk will still be discriminated against, abortion will still be legal yadda yadda yadda.

The power center in America has changed. It used to be Washington, now it's Wall Street. The president (since Clinton) even makes appearances on TV shows these days for ratings (and people watching those will sit through a few commercials).

The election show is nothing more than eye candy these days. Two guys sell idealism, one way or another, 70% of the country engages in bi%ch fighting over it while nothing of value changes because the status quo is making money for the most influential/powerful people.

Anyway, off my soapbox.
I gave a rep for the first sentence.

But unless something dramatic happens to change things around, Romney is toast thanks to 47 percent, which has to be the dumbest thing anyone running for President has said. That is causing the Obama bump now, not the conventions.

[Deadite]

As you can see from the above map, some states are red and some states are blue, though strangely no states are purple. This clearly represents the on-going friction between expression of self-determination versus necessary social stability, with Romney embodying the right to be rich and shallow for the sake of The Base whereas Obama embodies the hopes and dreams of everyday hopers and dreamers who dare to believe they can build cities on rock & roll. In the coming election, the fate of a nation hangs in the balance and salvation hinges on the common man's ability to distinguish hypocrisy from mediocrity. Two parties contend, each a dark vision of fear and desire painted broad across the psyche of a country running on empty, and there can be only one. May the most pettily grandiloquent win.

[Sir Toose]

I gave a rep for the first sentence.

But unless something dramatic happens to change things around, Romney is toast thanks to 47 percent, which has to be the dumbest thing anyone running for President has said. That is causing the Obama bump now, not the conventions.

You read my post, makes no difference which corporate shill takes up free residence in the whitehouse IMO.

The REAL candidates won't get on the ballot.

If Obama wins then I'm glad you'll be happy (and vise-versa).

[rauldc14]

Realistically, it won't matter who wins in my opinion. America will find a way to complain either way, yet the wheels on the bus will still go round and round.

[mastermetal777]

I never realized that there was this thread here. I don't like getting involved in politics, but I figured I'd throw my two cents out there, even thought I'm not very politically literate.

I can clearly see Obama winning another term, to be honest. I may not agree with a lot of his policies, but his economic policies seem to be working to some extent. I mean, the unemployment rate is slowly dropping. Maybe not at the rate we all anticipated, but it's something. That means more jobs are slowly being created. If less people are applying for unemployment, that usually means they're out looking for a job. Obama might not be as popular now as when he took office, but I still think he can get the job done. I blame Congress more than anything because Republicans are so damn near-sighted with Obama's policies that they just won't agree with any compromise.

As for Romney, I believe he shot himself in the foot one too many times. First, there's that off-the-cuff comment about the 47 percent and his poor scripted attempts to gloss over the situation. His policies about the economy are just what helped the recession start in 2008 when Bush was still President. Plus, I've heard his speeches without the ads in the background, and I honestly don't buy that he really "gets" what's going on. I think he'll give Obama a good fight, but in the end he's just gonna end up running again in 2016.

And those are my thoughts on the matter. As I said, I'm not entirely politically literate, so stuff like foreign policy and other things like that are lost on me. I just think Obama needs a little more time and effort in order to see his policies shine, because he has some great ideas on how to help America. They're just not being implemented properly due to a very unproductive Congress.

[wintertriangles]

Realistically, it won't matter who wins in my opinion. America will find a way to complain either way, yet the wheels on the bus will still go round and round.No country has much rubber left for these wheels mate. People aren't revolting just because they have some complaints. :rolleyes:

[Powderfinger]

Do you really want Republicans in office again? You are better than me!

http://damngoodcup.com/wp-content/uploads/dzparadise.com-Inside-Job-2010-dvdrip-single-link.jpg

[donniedarko]

EDIT: next few posts moved from The Shoutbox.

On 60 minutes Rommney said its fair that he pays same tax rate as someone making 50K

[Yoda]

On 60 minutes Rommney said its fair that he pays same tax rate as someone making 50K
If his income is purely from investments, then it is. Investments = good, so we have a tax code that encourages them. To say nothing of the fact that the invested income was taxed the first time he made it, too, at the higher rate.

All that said, we've already got threads on the election for you to drop this stuff into. If you wanna talk tax policy, I'm game.

[Powderfinger]

On 60 minutes Rommney said its fair that he pays same tax rate as someone making 50K
If his income is purely from investments, then it is. Investments = good, so we have a tax code that encourages them. To say nothing of the fact that the invested income was taxed the first time he made it, too, at the higher rate.

All that said, we've already got threads on the election for you to drop this stuff into. If you wanna talk tax policy, I'm game.

Yoda, you should have been a fighter..lol!

[will.15]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-57500221/bain-capitals-tax-breaks-are-they-legal/

[FILMFREAK087]

Boy some conservative Mitt turned out to be, doesn't he realize that giving handouts to people devastated by natural disasters, only gives them incentive to live in coastal areas. Way to create freeloaders, and promote redistribution of wealth.

I just pray that all of the people on the East coast, who have been displaced and have no homes to return to, don't accept Federal funding and increase the debt on our children.

[will.15]

In a close election that might hurt him.

[Yoda]

Disaster relief is not handouts. I know you want to act like every conservative is trying to return us to some Hobbesian state of nature, because that's a lot easier to argue with, but it isn't reality. Arguing with caricatures is what people do when they don't want to grapple with the complexities of the world.

[wintertriangles]

Boy some conservative Mitt turned out to be, doesn't he realize that giving handouts to people devastated by natural disasters, only gives them incentive to live in coastal areas. Way to create freeloaders, and promote redistribution of wealth.I never thought I'd defend Romney (christ), but really? Motives aside, this is hard to label as bad not to mention this isn't the thing increasing the debt of the country. The only people who give themselves incentives to stay on the coast are the people themselves; they could very well take that money and move inland or not take the money and move inland. People in New Orleans didn't move, but you can't blame the government for that as well. This is the kind of thinking caused by giving a sh*t about party affiliation.

[Yoda]

I'd say it's the kind of thinking caused by constantly imagining people who think differently as grotesque cartoons.

[Powderfinger]

I never thought I'd defend Romney (christ), .

Beforehand Yoda got up me, taking the Lords name in vain! Is there a double standard here or not?

[Yoda]

Er, no. I just asked you to stop swearing constantly in general. There's not a rule against it this, specifically, which is why I didn't delete anything of yours or threaten to ban you or anything.

But if you have a complaint about standards, this is hardly the place to post it, anyway.

[FILMFREAK087]

I just think it's cute when the Capitalist class, you're Clintons, Obamas, and Romney's, go to their charity events, pretending to be concerned about the downtrodden when they continually support a system predicated on exploitation and reliant on concentrating profits in the hands of property owners. I have a feeling, had he not been running he wouldn't be doing this. For sure. Political calculation.

[Yoda]

I felt so exploited reading that that I almost dropped my iPad.

[FILMFREAK087]

Yeah, I'm totally feeling exploited, reading that on my iPad.
Why don't you ask the third world laborer's who assembled your iPad, as per the profit-motive?

[Yoda]

Good idea. You can come with me, and ask them what awesome job they had lined up before. I'm sure they all quit jobs as upper middle class graphic designers to be exploited manufacturing things.

[FILMFREAK087]

Good idea. You can come with me, and ask them what awesome job they had lined up before. I'm sure they all quit jobs as upper middle class graphic designers to be exploited manufacturing things.
Yeah, utilizing underdelvoped nations with little oversight is so much better than maybe trying to increase their standard of living. That's just dumb. Offering pennies on the dollar for borderline slave labor, under threat of starvation is awesome. YAY! Capitalism!

[7thson]

Damn! - The middle-class has grown so much. We are neither homeless nor are we billionaires.. Sucks to be in the middle sometimes.

[Yoda]

Yeah, utilizing underdelvoped nations with little oversight is so much better than maybe trying to increase their standard of living. That's just dumb. Offering pennies on the dollar for borderline slave labor, under threat of starvation is awesome. YAY! Capitalism!
Giving people better jobs than they had is increasing their standard of living. That's why they're, you know, willing to take them.

[FILMFREAK087]

Giving people better jobs than they had is increasing their standard of living. That's why they're, you know, willing to take them.
So nevermind the fact that work conditions are poor, and just forget about that whole exploitation thing, you know giving less money for more labor. It's still fine, as long as they give them something, I guess. Then what do you have against Communism, that provides work for those that otherwise would be left jobless in a free market system?

[7thson]

So nevermind the fact that work conditions are poor, and just forget about that whole exploitation thing, you know giving less money for more labor. It's still fine, as long as they give them something, I guess. Then what do you have against Communism, that provides work for those that otherwise be left jobless in a free market system?

Talk about calling the kettle black - want to mow my yard for $5?

[will.15]

I just pray that all of the people on the East coast, who have been displaced and have no homes to return to, don't accept Federal funding and increase the debt on our children.
The point is Romney said, and now, so far, hiding behind an official statement that actually falls far short of a straight denial, that he would defund FEMA. He said it increases the debt on our children. He ignored reporters' questions when this broke. He is obviously hoping this storm passes him before election day.

[FILMFREAK087]

I felt so exploited reading that that I almost dropped my iPad.
Sorry, but this right here is the typical Capitalist attitude. "well, I own nice things, so my standard of living must be a baseline for all." Capitalism offers no solutions for homelessness, cures for diseases, and certainly not peace (lest we forget war profiiteering). Oh well, at least ya'll got a plasma screen.

[Yoda]

So nevermind the fact that work conditions are poor, and just forget about that whole exploitation thing, you know giving less money for more labor. It's still fine, as long as they give them something, I guess. Then what do you have against Communism, that provides work for those that otherwise would be left jobless in a free market system?
Less than what? Not less than they had, or they wouldn't take them. Which means you're trying to tell me, with a straight face, that we're hurting people by giving them better opportunities than they would otherwise have. Which is obviously an absurd conclusion.

There might be an interesting, thoughtful discussion to be had about the economies of developing nations. But you won't be able to have that discussion as long as you completely disregard actual improvements because they don't meet some utopian standard.

Here's the bottom line: manufacturing things in these nations make the lives of very poor people better. Period. Exclamation point. You don't speak for them, and it's amazing to me that people have the gall to attack the very system that's, right now, actively making their lives better than they were.

[Yoda]

Sorry, but this right here is the typical Capitalist attitude. "well, I own nice things, so my standard of living must be a baseline for all." Capitalism offers no solutions for homelessness, cures for diseases, and certainly not peace (lest we forget war profiiteering). Oh well, at least ya'll got a plasma screen.
I didn't say my standard of living was a baseline for all; you were vague and dismissive, so I responded in kind. When you decided to talk about overseas labor, I started talking about that instead. Simple.

Your allusion to homelessness and disease suggests you have a pretty weird definition of capitalism, too. It's not a universal system, and it's not supposed to cure everything which ails us, either. It seems like most of your arguments would be devastating against, I dunno, Ayn Rand. But I haven't seen her around here in awhile.

[FILMFREAK087]

Less than what? Not less than they had, or they wouldn't take them. Which means you're trying to tell me, with a straight face, that we're hurting people by giving them better opportunities than they would otherwise have. Which is obviously an absurd conclusion.

There might be an interesting, thoughtful discussion to be had about the economies of developing nations. But you won't be able to have that discussion as long as you completely disregard actual improvements because they don't meet some utopian standard.

Here's the bottom line: manufacturing things in these nations make the lives of very poor people better. Period. Exclamation point. You don't speak for them, and it's amazing to me that people have the gall to attack the very system that's, right now, actively making their lives better than they were.

You're ignoring the fact that they can barely sustain themselves on these wages. Keep pretending, that threat of hunger doesn't make you a lot more compliant to bad conditions. Not to mention, children forced to work instead of getting education. I think it's sad, you have the gall to assume this is the best they should have. If not for Capitalism, maybe the concern would be more focused on better infrastructure and education, instead of preying on desperate people.

[Yoda]

Of course the threat of hunger makes you more compliant to bad conditions. That means the opportunities are going to people who are really hungry. You know, the ones who need it most. The more amenable they are to these conditions, the more desperately they need the opportunity.

I don't think this is the best they should have. There's a whole next level to this argument that I'll gladly have with you. But that can't even take place until you recognize the simple fact that what you call "exploitation" is making their lives better.

[FILMFREAK087]

The whole point is that they cannot demand more in wages, because the entire scenario is predicated on cheap labor. If they were to do that, these companies would just move their facilities. In other words, keeping wages and standard of living down as low as possible is in the interest of the Capitalist class. Capitalism is all about keeping the laboring class down, to maximize overall profits and the wealth of the property owners. The fact that you don't have a problem with this, shows how utterly brainwashed the U.S. is into worshiping a system based on inequality.

[Yoda]

Of course they can't demand more in wages. You know how they can? If we manufacture there more. If we just stop hiring them, they go back to being even poorer. This is the reality against which you need to apply your rhetoric if it's going to have any weight.

I'll say it again: manufacturing things in these nations make the lives of very poor people better. Do you admit this, or not? Because if you do, we can (potentially) go on to have a real conversation about this. And if you don't, then you're not acknowledging basic facts and I'd just as soon pass on the whole discussion. Up to you.

[will.15]

I'm ready to call the election.

I was waiting to see if there was a clear trend toward Romney in the last week.

I don't see it.

What's more, we once again see the Romney fumble with his unwillingness to clarify his position on FEMA and hiding behind an ambiguous press release prepared by others. Maybe he could have gotten away with that if he was ahead, but he's not.

Obama gets another four years.

[AKA23]

Yoda, just because the lives of the people are being improved by doing slave labor, that doesn't mean that offering that labor is not exploitative. Of course working is better than not working at all, which is why people take these jobs, but that doesn't mean that offering them is not wrong. What matters is what people are worth, not necessarily what they are paid. Do you honestly believe that paying someone in China or India a fraction of what we do here for exactly the same work is fair, right, just, or moral? People take these jobs because they have nothing else. The working conditions are appalling. They don't have the same labor laws, child welfare protections, and other safety guarantees in other countries, but that doesn't make the lack of any of these right. If you pay someone a dollar an hour, and they accept it, does that automatically mean in your mind that this is not exploitation? Because they are marginally better off for doing this work, does that make what they are doing okay? Under your logic, it appears that the answer would be yes, but I think any moral person would have to say no. Even under your logic, it isn't as if these jobs are allowing people to thrive in their countries. They are still barely able to get by, and they work very hard. How is that fair? The worth of a person is not necessarily measured by how much they are paid, and the existence of these jobs does not make the wages they pay fair, just, or moral.

[cinemaafficionado]

I don't even know how you guys got on this topic.
What are we doing here? Comparing systems? What's right, what's wrong?People talk about morality and equality as if they were preordained.
Throughout recorded civilizaion, there's always been inequality and it will continue to be so. Now, someone can hope for utopia but that's just a dream.
We are not all the same, to begin with. Start with your own unique fingerprint and then look at your genetic code.
By their very nature, all governments are opressive and exploitative and I'll accept the one ( if I want to live in and be a part of society ) that is the least individualy oppresive. I'm comfortable with the USA.
Some people here definitely take it for granted but you should count your blessings. Love it or leave it and go somewhere where you think you will have a better life.
The irony is that it's this society that's enabled you to dream and be comfortable enough individualy so that you can focus on other societies and wish that they were the same. If they were, you wouldn't have what you have now. That's just life and human nature.

[Powderfinger]

What about Australia, we're pretty free and we can speak our mind.

[cinemaafficionado]

What about Australia, we're pretty free and we can speak our mind.

Yes, Australia is very cool and only 30 million people.

[Powderfinger]

Actually it's 21 -22 Million but you were close...lol!

[cinemaafficionado]

Well, I was in Austarlia in 2004 and then it had 20,000, 000 people, so I guessed.
According to the last sensus posted in June of 2012, there were about 21, 700,000 Australians.
How do you guys do it? I guess immigration restriction is pretty tight: only people with trades usefull to the country or people with plenty of money should qualify.
I wish it was the same in the US, but here we are supporting 20,000,000 unqualified illegals, while the truly qualified individuals take years to process and some people still wonder how we slipped from 1st economic power in the world to the number 8 spot, we currently hold.
Under Obama we increased or debt by 6 trillion dollars and got our international credit rating lowered.
Our hospitols are closing down, our public schools are overcrowded, the general learning curve significantly lowered.
This country is becoming cheaper by the minute.
Yeah, let's give Obama 4 more years to see if we can hit the number 20 spot.

[Powderfinger]

How do you guys do it? I guess immigration restriction is pretty tight: only people with trades usefull to the country or people with plenty of money should qualify.
I wish it was the same in the US, but here we are supporting 20,000,000 unqualified illegals, while the truly qualified individuals take years to process and some people still wonder how we slipped from 1st economic power in the world to the number 8 spot, we currently hold.
Under Obama we increased or debt by 6 trillion dollars and got our international credit rating lowered.
Our hospitols are closing down, our public schools are overcrowded, the general learning curve significantly lowered.
This country is becoming cheaper by the minute.
Yeah, let's give Obama 4 more years to see if we can hit the number 20 spot.

Immigration a big topic here in Oz, so much so, a lot of boat people come here. The crazy thing is, more 1 or 2 year Visa people are overcrowding our Building Industry even though their Visa has run out 3 years ago. Builders get them cheap and they don't have qualifications at all. Boat people aren't the problem at all....Though it sells newspapers and Government policy.

On Obama, well, he inherited a bad financial symptom to begin with. So much so, The U.S. were going to collapse. A 12 year war doesn't help at all. The housing market collapsed because the Bush Government were to concern about the War than people livelihood. So, that is my 2 cents worth anyway.

[cinemaafficionado]

.

On Obama, well, he inherited a bad financial symptom to begin with. So much so, The U.S. were going to collapse. A 12 year war doesn't help at all. The housing market collapsed because the Bush Government were to concern about the War than people livelihood. So, that is my 2 cents worth anyway.

Come on, can't still blame Bush for everything. Obama had 4 years to turn things around. Not only did he not deliver on lofty promises but he took the US further down in the wrong direction.
Someone would have to be in complete denial to vote for him.
Well, maybe not, if Obama was in Kenya.

[Powderfinger]

Come on, can't still blame Bush for everything. Obama had 4 years to turn things around. Not only did he not deliver on lofty promises but he took the US further down in the wrong direction.
Someone would have to be in complete denial to vote for him.
Well, maybe not, if Obama was in Kenya.

Look at the U.K. they have had 2 recession, Spain has 25% unemployment, Greece is just about gone, China is alright but not what it was beforehand, Japan isn't like the old Japan at all.

Some Americans don't understand that now it's a world economy. We have 5.2% unemployment rate, though if mining goes down the drink...well, we're F! Put it that way.

[cinemaafficionado]

Look at the U.K. they have had 2 recession, Spain has 25% unemployment, Greece is just about gone, China is alright but not what it was beforehand, Japan isn't like the old Japan at all.

Some Americans don't understand that now it's a world economy. We have 5.2% unemployment rate, though if mining goes down the drink...well, we're F! Put it that way.

Well, of course the US is dependant on the world economy, so it makes sense to be friends with China, rather than to antagonize her, as Obama has done.
As far as the US system and prevailing economy is concerned, Obama is clueless.
He has some muted social vision that is totaly inappropriate for USA.

[Powderfinger]

Well, of course the US is dependant on the world economy, so it makes sense to be friends with China, rather than to antagonize her, as Obama has done.
As far as the US system and prevailing economy is concerned, Obama is clueless.
He has some muted social vision that is totaly inappropriate for USA.

Okay China, I really don't know if you realise? China is going Hi Tech with surveillance everywhere, Australia, U.S, U.K and much more.

Put it this way: Everything is on computers now, EVERYTHING!

Obama is no economist, is Romney? Well, maybe but who will he hurt? Certainly not the rich, though the rich has to have incentives to employ more people. Taxing them it hurts everyone, including Obamas voting strength in the Polls.

[Yoda]

Yoda, just because the lives of the people are being improved by doing slave labor, that doesn't mean that offering that labor is not exploitative. Of course working is better than not working at all, which is why people take these jobs, but that doesn't mean that offering them is not wrong. What matters is what people are worth, not necessarily what they are paid. Do you honestly believe that paying someone in China or India a fraction of what we do here for exactly the same work is fair, right, just, or moral? People take these jobs because they have nothing else. The working conditions are appalling. They don't have the same labor laws, child welfare protections, and other safety guarantees in other countries, but that doesn't make the lack of any of these right. If you pay someone a dollar an hour, and they accept it, does that automatically mean in your mind that this is not exploitation? Because they are marginally better off for doing this work, does that make what they are doing okay? Under your logic, it appears that the answer would be yes, but I think any moral person would have to say no. Even under your logic, it isn't as if these jobs are allowing people to thrive in their countries. They are still barely able to get by, and they work very hard. How is that fair? The worth of a person is not necessarily measured by how much they are paid, and the existence of these jobs does not make the wages they pay fair, just, or moral.
Given that you admit the employment helps these people, isn't the assumption behind your question that the employer has some special obligation to them? That would seem to be the case, because you're being more critical of them--who are actually doing something that helps--than people who have no involvement in the situation at all. They're doing more than you or I, yes? Yet you seem to regard them as worse.

I would specifically note the word "special" here. You can make a good case that none of us--you, me, and this hypothetical employer--do as much for others as we ought to. That's certainly true. But that's a condemnation of pretty much all of humanity which, generous as it is, never gives as much as it can. It's the singling out of the employer that my question is about.

There's a lot more here, including the simple question of pragmatism, and what's going to lift these people out of poverty (spoiler alert: it's not fewer employment opportunities), but I think examining these base assumptions first would probably be most helpful.

[will.15]

With Obama drawing even in averaging the national polls, maintaining small leads in the important swing states, Romney missteps this week,and Obama getting good notices for the handling of the storm, I find it hard to believe Romney will pull an upset. He is too flawed a candidate to win a nail biter.

[FILMFREAK087]

Sorry, I have to vent about this.
You know what? I know people who collect medicare and social security benefits, for being "irresponsible," they sure had to pay into those services. Mitt Romney can kiss my ass. The sad thing is, a decent number of SS and Medicare recipients will vote for him, even after characterizing them as bums. Goes to show the intelligence of the average voter.

[FILMFREAK087]

Given that you admit the employment helps these people, isn't the assumption behind your question that the employer has some special obligation to them? That would seem to be the case, because you're being more critical of them--who are actually doing something that helps--than people who have no involvement in the situation at all. They're doing more than you or I, yes? Yet you seem to regard them as worse.

I would specifically note the word "special" here. You can make a good case that none of us--you, me, and this hypothetical employer--do as much for others as we ought to. That's certainly true. But that's a condemnation of pretty much all of humanity which, generous as it is, never gives as much as it can. It's the singling out of the employer that my question is about.

There's a lot more here, including the simple question of pragmatism, and what's going to lift these people out of poverty (spoiler alert: it's not fewer employment opportunities), but I think examining these base assumptions first would probably be most helpful.

Why do you keep ignoring the key motivating factor for taking labor to these countries, that the people are willing to accept less pay? The small amount of work they have is wholly contingent on their desperation. Maybe theoretically, they could form some kind of union and demand more wages, but if that were to happen (most likely resulting in violence), then these companies would simply search elsewhere for cheap labor. Remember how America once had a booming manufacturing industry, then as a result of labor movements and demand for higher wages, these companies sent work to underdeveloped nations with enough desperate people to manufacture their products. The irony being they can't ask for more, because what few employers they have are essentially holding all the cards. It's like revolting against the only supplier of food in your country. As you conservatives even say, labor unions and their demands drive "job creators" to foreign labor, thus proving how utterly paradoxical your argument is. Laborers have the ability to demand more, but this results in the businesses just relocating and hiring people with much lower standards of living. So, it's the laborer's fault for accepting lower wages and it's their fault for fighting for higher wages and their always being far more desperate people to utilize for labor? Do businesses have any responsibility in this at all? You know what else creates jobs for the impoverished, prostitution, but I doubt you would suggest handing out nobel prizes to pimps. Oh I forgot, wealth itself is a noble virtue in America.

[Yoda]

Sorry, I have to vent about this.
You know what? I know people who collect medicare and social security benefits, for being "irresponsible," they sure had to pay into those services. Mitt Romney can kiss my ass. The sad thing is, a decent number of SS and Medicare recipients will vote for him, even after characterizing them as bums. Goes to show the intelligence of the average voter.
Here we go again. This is another iteration in the cycle: you complain about entitlement cuts, I point out they're unsustainable, you offer no serious alternative, rinse and repeat. We've gone through this what, three times? And every time by the end you've lost your cool and insulted people who disagree with you and later apologized (to your credit)?

And I've been listening pretty closely, and I don't recall Mitt Romney calling me a bum for being part of Social Security. If this is a reference to the 47% stuff, it doesn't really work, because way more people than that pay into SS. But you've always been quite happy arguing with viewpoints you think Republicans secretly hold, so perhaps it doesn't really matter what was or wasn't said. Either way, you're going to pretend they're all heartless Randian androids, because that makes arguing with them so much easier.

[Yoda]

Why do you keep ignoring the key motivating factor for taking labor to these countries, that the people are willing to accept less pay?
I don't; to the contrary, their desperation is precisely why it's so important. This doesn't pose any problem for the arguments I'm making.

As you conservatives even say, labor unions and their demands drive "job creators" to foreign labor, thus proving how utterly paradoxical your argument is. Laborers have the ability to demand more, but this results in the businesses just relocating and hiring people with much lower standards of living. So, it's the laborer's fault for accepting lower wages and it's their fault for fighting for higher wages and their always being far more desperate people to utilize for labor?
I didn't say it was the laborer's fault for accepting lower wages. Usually their position is the result of a corrupt government.

I find it interesting that you've thought about this issue just enough to make this point, but not enough to rebut it, as you inevitably would if you kept going. If the above keeps happening...then what? We run out of places to find cheaper labor, don't we? The only reason they exist at all is because competition doesn't exist in this places already. The problem is not too much capitalism, but too little. That's the real paradox: you're mad that they can't demand better wages, but you hate the competition that will actually begin that process and allow them to.

Do businesses have any responsibility in this at all?
That's my question to you: are you saying businesses have a responsibility to pay more than is profitable? To lose money, even? To essentially be charitable? If so, why don't you or I or anyone else have the same obligation to be charitable? And, in purely pragmatic terms, what of the fact that hiring people for more enables them to hire fewer people overall? What about those desperate workers who won't get a job because the other desperate workers are now making more?

This is essentially the same argument as the arguments about the minimum wage, by the way. I have a post on this from awhile back I can link you to. It deals in the same concepts and suffers from the same fallacies.

You know what else creates jobs for the impoverished, prostitution, but I doubt you would suggest handing out nobel prizes to pimps. Oh I forgot, wealth itself is a noble virtue in America.
No, it isn't; it depends on how you obtain it. And complaining about one of the few entities actually making a positive difference in these people's lives isn't a noble virtue, either.

[FILMFREAK087]

That's my question to you: are you saying businesses have a responsibility to pay more than is profitable? To lose money, even? To essentially be charitable? If so, why don't you or I or anyone else have the same obligation to be charitable? And, in purely pragmatic terms, what of the fact that hiring people for more enables them to hire fewer people overall? What about those desperate workers who won't get a job because the other desperate workers are now making more?

This is essentially the same argument as the arguments about the minimum wage, by the way. I have a post on this from awhile back I can link you to. It deals in the same concepts and suffers from the same fallacies.


No, it isn't; it depends on how you obtain it. And complaining about one of the few entities actually making a positive difference in these people's lives isn't a noble virtue, either.

That's exactly my point, business only does what is profitable, so we have a clash of two parties with two different interests. Also, do you really think US companies are incapable of paying a wage that people can live because it is too expensive to their interest, because if that's so, then you validated my point about the laborers in these situation not being able to ask for more. So, it's building them up to potentially ask for more money, even though the entire situation, as you pointed out yourself is contingent on lower cost of labor. Two completely conflicting interests, and in the Capitalist system the one who owns the means of production is who sets the terms, so your upward mobility argument is null and void. I'm saying that Capitalism, a system based on maximizing profits for the owners of property and providers of labor, requires that laborers conform to the agreement of lower wages and fewer benefits to even have any employment, or be met with outright poverty, it's nothing more than blackmail. Those with wealth, are the ones who set the terms. The only reason working conditions improved in the 20th Century was due to the various labor movements which ultimately led to the lords on high, to simply look elsewhere. This alone should prove that yes, technically workers can ask for more, but because of a system that is predicated on placating to owners of wealth, it is a moot victory.

[Yoda]

That's exactly my point, business only does what is profitable, so we have a clash of two parties with two different interests.
Every sale that has ever taken place is a "clash of two parties with two different interests," yet the overwhelming majority of them are mutually beneficial. The fact that they each push for their own interest is precisely why the system works.

Also, do you really think US companies are incapable of paying a wage that people can live because it is too expensive to their interest, because if that's so, then you validated my point about the laborers in these situation not being able to ask for more. So, it's building them up to potentially ask for more money, even though the entire situation, as you pointed out yourself is contingent on lower cost of labor.
Indeed, in many cases these businesses can almost certainly afford higher wages for their foreign workers. They'll just have to hire fewer of them as a result. Hence my questions to you: what do you say to the workers who don't make the cut, and don't get a job at all because wagers are higher for those that have them? They can't hire everyone. Whatever the wages are or should be, according to you, lower wages generally mean you can hire more, and higher wages mean you can hire fewer.

Two completely conflicting interests, and in the Capitalist system the one who owns the means of production is who sets the terms, so your upward mobility argument is null and void.
The only situations where this is literally happening--where people literally have to accept the low wages to achieve even basic sustenance--are places where this is almost no trade and very little competition. In other words, they're not very capitalistic. The places where it happens least are generally among the richest nations in the world. So, as I keep saying, the things you're upset about are the result of too little capitalism.

Look around. Workers in capitalist nations have far more options and leverage than those in poorer nations that don't have as much business activity and engage in very little trade.

I'm saying that Capitalism, a system based on maximizing profits for the owners of property and providers of labor, requires that laborers conform to the agreement of lower wages and fewer benefits to even have any employment, or be met with outright poverty, it's nothing more than blackmail.
Blackmail operates by creating a threat and then holding it over someone. The businesses in question aren't creating the poverty that these people live in; it's preexisting, before their employment.

Those with wealth, are the ones who set the terms.
Except for the part where you have to find mutually beneficial terms to acquire or increase wealth.

The only reason working conditions improved in the 20th Century was due to the various labor movements which ultimately led to the lords on high, to simply look elsewhere. This alone should prove that yes, technically workers can ask for more, but because of a system that is predicated on placating to owners of wealth, it is a moot victory.
More than what? More than they have, sure. That can (and does) happen. More than they would otherwise have? No. Whatever money is spent on improving things like working conditions either comes out of wages, or out of reduced employment. Working conditions are essentially a benefit, just like health care or dental; you can have it included, but you're only shifting your compensation from one form to another. When people are desperate, they accept poorer working conditions because it makes higher wages possible.

So let's try a broad question: do you think it's ever reasonable for someone to decide that they'd rather have higher wages than poorer working conditions?

[DexterRiley]

And a new contender enters the arena.

Unconfirmed reports suggest Seds might be his campaign advisor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5-RpP4QDZ4

[Sexy Celebrity]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltCIEbLMaQg

Why do people still like The Simpsons? Can we kill the sacred "The Simpsons are so REAL and wholesome and well put together and warm..." BULL. Because I've been onto this show for years thinking it didn't deserve its goody two shoes status over other programs like Family Guy.

This is a funny, well put together clip, sure, but this is just... unfair. And including a Barack character with his wife's broccoli isn't equalizing the fact that the whole segment is about how Mr. Burns, the most wicked man in Springfield, is a big Mitt Romney supporter. It's unfair because The Simpsons is a huge cultural entity that can make deep impact.

If it's not unfair, then it is at least low.

Democrats are acting like there might as well not even be any elections anymore and that it should be totally their way or the highway.

[Monkeypunch]

The clip is funny because, well, Mitt Romney doesn't have the best public image. The Simpsons didn't even NEED to bring all this up because it's common knowledge. What's low is...I dunno, Ann Coulter calling the president a "retard" on twitter, Donald Trump's constant "birther" nonsense, the tea party spread rumor that the president is a Muslim, or any such conservative cheap shots. Mitt Romney is the choice of morally ambiguous billionaires, so as a satirical program, the Simpsons would have been amiss if they didn't make this joke that was staring them right in the face.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Well, I just don't think you can compare The Simpsons with Ann Coulter or even Donald Trump. The show is far more persuasive and larger in cultural scope. They certainly are free to do it, but I think it's kind of despicable.

Forget Big Bird -- it's Bart Simpson who needs to go.

[will.15]

You still have South Park. Those guys are Republicans.

[wintertriangles]

Democrats are acting like there might as well not even be any elections anymore and that it should be totally their way or the highway.Well with the Republicans being the way they are I can see why they would adopt that viewpoint but you are right that they have that affinity, which is enough to be stupid, not to mention their ideas are barely different than their counterparts.

the tea party spread rumor that the president is a Muslim, It's in his autobiography dude

[Yoda]

At one point in that clip Smithers just lists a bunch of negative things about Romney. That's not "satire." That isn't witty. It's not even a joke. And while I expect Presidential candidates to get made fun of, I expect Presidents to, too. I loved the 2000 SNL debates, because they were funny and even-handed. This is neither.

I think people on the left fail to understand what it's like to have almost all your sources of entertainment take shots at what you believe in. Sometimes in shockingly snide ways. I guarantee you that if the positions were reversed, and the overwhelming majority of media were poking fun at liberalism all the time, it'd bug the crap out of you.

[will.15]

Conservatives have tried to put on shows that make fun of liberals, but they are not very good at it.

There was that Fox News comedy show that was on for about two minutes.

[Yoda]

There is, of course, a lot more to it than that. There's a lot of creative inertia there as well. But the reason is irrelevant to the point being made, which is about the result.

[Sexy Celebrity]

At one point in that clip Smithers just lists a bunch of negative things about Romney. That's not "satire." That isn't witty. It's not even a joke.

I'm glad you mentioned this because I was thinking of stating that what I said earlier -- "This is a funny, well put together clip" -- actually isn't true. I watched the clip again and the only thing I really laughed at was Michelle Obama's broccoli snack. Everything else is just making cold statements out of these characters' mouths. It is shockingly snide. And of course they had to throw in the binders full of women thing, too, 'cause, yeah, that's so hysterical....

I bet I could have put together a funnier MoFo Beach related clip.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Apparently, last night's new episode of The Simpsons wasn't any better:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/11/05/simpsons-trashes-romney-and-his-supporters-two-days-election-day

[Nausicaä]

I thought they cancelled The Simpsons a few years back... :suspicious:

[7thson]

You still have South Park. Those guys are Republicans.

You still have Letterman - pretty much the same research that goes into each show.

[FILMFREAK087]

Doesn't the use and seeking of cheaper laborers in underdeveloped countries, disprove the argument that according to free market theory, that companies would increase salaries to attract more labor? After all, they all seem to be actively seeking the exact opposite. I mean, this logic seems even more faulty when you consider that no nation has had a zero percent unemployment rate, meaning that there's always less demand for labor, than there is for people who need work. It's just more "Capitalism is perfect and here's why," kind of arguments that have no substance.

[Yoda]

The question itself has to be corrected. You say, according to free market theory, companies should "increase salaries to attract more labor." But this depends on your baseline. Increase compared to what? More labor compared to what? They don't just mindless increase them on and on to attract more and more labor, obviously. They increase wages as much as they have to to obtain the necessary labor. It involves an increase if the current wage isn't competitive, and it involves attracting more labor if the current wage is sufficiently profitable and the business is willing to risk expanding further.

And there's never zero unemployment for two reasons. First, because even a very free market is not perfectly efficient at matching workers and employers at all times. And second, because a certain number of workers are naturally in some kind of transition at any given point. Economists call this "full employment," and though there isn't perfect agreement on what rate it is, it's always above zero, because a well-run economy is one with plenty of ongoing change. The only countries in the history of the world with zero unemployment are those that assign you jobs and don't let you change. No free country will ever have zero unemployment.

By the way, most of the best counterarguments on topics like these just involve asking yourself some very basic questions about what you're saying. For example, if your claim is that there's always unemployment because there's always more demand for jobs than there is for labor, then why would wages ever go above the legal minimum?

[Yoda]

Also, I'd like to highlight some of the questions I asked in my last post (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=854533). We're going over a lot of that same ground anyway, and I'd like to know how your worldview accounts for them.

This sort of back-and-forth is important, because despite what you seem to think the argument for capitalism is not that it's perfect; it's that it's better than everything else. So questions about what would happen under the alternatives are particularly salient.