US Presidential Debate and what is really important to people

[Marblehead]

The truth is that we are broke.

Not just broke. We are 16.25 trillion dollars in debt!

[joeblast]

but clinton vs bush in 2016

is a real possibility. (barf)

barf indeed. we dont need any more clintons, bushes, OR kennedys in politics.

 

dont need no spendthrifts, people that cant do math, people that think putting nightly dinner on the credit card is ok, people that think its cool to pass weapons off to all kinds of places, people that think we should restrict as much energy development as possible, people that believe in the carbon dioxide propaganda, etc, etc...

[Marblehead]

Not a fan of Gary Johnson? With his track record in New Mexico I would think he would resonate well with you as an old school conservative.

I have no idea why but his name never entered my mind as being someone to vote for. I really don't know enough about him, and didn't do the research, to even consider him. I may have voted for Ron Paul but the opportunity never arose.

[zerostao]

I am still registered as a Republican. This is because my philosophy is conservative. One must go back fifty years to see, in politics, the conservative I base my philosophy on.

 

Of course, I always vote for whoever I think would do the best job for our nation regardless of party affiliation. I am still sad that Jill didn't win.

one good thing is that jill was on the ballot here in kentucky. that would have been illegal, only a few years ago.

i understand Mh about old time conservativeness. i think i will meet up with you in the "fred" thread.

[zerostao]

barf indeed. we dont need any more clintons, bushes, OR kennedys in politics.

 

dont need no spendthrifts, people that cant do math, people that think putting nightly dinner on the credit card is ok, people that think its cool to pass weapons off to all kinds of places, people that think we should restrict as much energy development as possible, people that believe in the carbon dioxide propaganda, etc, etc...

maybe one side can find a spot for a gore on the tickett too.i doubt it, but politics is a strange landscape.

i keep saying all of this mess started in '92.it didnt really have as muc to do with who won in '92 imo but that is when the great divide began imo, rise of rush (barf) it just keeps getting messier, tho.

most folks cant do math too well, and how i have benefited from that over my college career with the coeds, just helping with homework, hmm digression there. my bad.where was i going with that?? oh yeah, most folks dont do math too well, so these crunching numbers and dollars, or what used to be dollars ideas doesnt find a ready audience out in the voting world.

anyways i am rambling here in a politics thread. better to speak of philosophy, Tao, baguazhang , qigong, breathing, self reliance, self respnsibility, how bruce lee practiced iron palm, hermit wanderings in the forest, real world stuff !

there was some movie came out in 1936, modern times with charley chaplin. i reckon it is about to find a new audience, being as it will soon become relevant again. damn i make some abstract leaps, maybe it only makes sense to me.

but hey, i do like to remind everyone that it is just another great day with Tao

[joeblast]

Everyone was saying how important Ohio was in the electoral college...

 

 

http://boe.cuyahogac...sbyPrecinct.HTM

 

In Cleveland, in some districts he did even better with an astounding 100% of the vote in dozens of locations. For example, in Cleveland's Fifth Ward, Mr. Obama won districts E, F, and G 1,337 to Mitt Romney's... 0. And in case you're wondering, Gary Johnson received more votes than Mr. Romney.

 

Well, maybe that's just a fluke. In the Ninth Ward, Mr. Obama won districts D-G with a paltry total of 1,740 to... 3. Hey, at least Romney got .2% of the vote!

Okay, what if we look at an entire Ward? No way this trend continues, right? An entire ward. Why not do the First Ward? Obama won that one 12,857 to... 94. This time Romney got .7% of the vote. He's moving up in the world!

 

In total, there are 21 districts in Cleveland where Mr. Romney received precisely 0 votes. In 23 districts, he received precisely 1 vote. And naturally, in one of the districts where Obama won 100% of the vote, there was 100% turnout. What a coincidence!

 

By the way, in case you are thinking that Romney did so poorly because maybe those districts were not very populated: Nope. In those 44 districts, Mr. Obama won 14,686 to 23. That's .16% of the vote for Romney.

----------------------------

Must be just a coincidence.

[Marblehead]

i think i will meet up with you in the "fred" thread.

Yeah, it's about time I jacked that one up again, isn't it?

[Marblehead]

He may be someone that appeals to you for future races.

I'll have to keep an eye on him in the future.

[Aetherous]

You dont seem to get it - it is pretty simple when you are presented with some near mathematical certainties...spending over a trillion more than you take in per year is a poster child for unsustainability - growth of federal entitlement programs are going to take up the entirety of tax receipts - so your solution-suggestion is simply to "raise an extra trillion per year in revenue"??? Exactly where is this money going to come from again? Sucked out of our boomin' economy??

 

Didn't you read what I wrote? We have to cut in a smart way, and raise revenue in a smart way. That is what I said.

 

Earlier in the thread, I showed an alternative source of federal revenue: the complete legalization and taxation of marijuana. That will raise 10-16 billion a year (according to an outdated 2005 report). That is just one example.

 

I think I raised the point about how our defense spending is greater than the next 13 highest spending countries COMBINED. That is an example of something to cut, slightly. In contrast...there is no need to cut something like PBS. And it would be pretty devastating to ruin student loans as Ryan wanted to do.

 

It is very possible to completely balance the budget without ruining our country. Will Obama do it? Very likely not, and I didn't vote for him. Would the losers have done it? IMO, very likely not, looking at everything they suggested during campaigning! Presidents don't have so much power as to completely destroy or save a country...Congress does. Game over, and I'm ditching class because my teacher at the moment is uninspired.

 

edit:

 

I went back, reread, and the lightbulb came on...you were referencing that video regarding how mandatory spending is higher than revenue. Okay, I see your point there (even though, still, if the mandatory spending is already unbalanced, why are we wasting so much on defense for instance? That's certainly not helping).

 

Like the professor in the video said, specific cuts aren't a solution. He was talking about a complete restructuring or rethinking of the government...not like I really want to keep engaging you in this discussion, joeblast, but do you know what that means exactly?

[gendao]

He took New Mexico from a budget deficit to a billion dollar surplus through a process of bipartisan vetoes of legislation that could not pass a basic cost benefit analysis, and he has experience starting and running his own business as well. When Ron Paul dropped out of the race he urged his supporters to support Gary. He may be someone that appeals to you for future races.

As a Libertarian from a quick glance, he appeared to be the next best thing on the ballot to Ron Paul.

Earlier in the thread, I showed an alternative source of federal revenue: the complete legalization and taxation of marijuana. That will raise 10-16 billion a year (according to an outdated 2005 report). That is just one example.

 

I think I raised the point about how our defense spending is greater than the next 13 highest spending countries COMBINED. That is an example of something to cut, slightly. In contrast...there is no need to cut something like PBS. And it would be pretty devastating to ruin student loans as Ryan wanted to do.

I agree. But as you can see, Libertarians (& maybe some other Indy's) are the only candidates who support these common sense solutions to our Real problems.

You want to instantly create green jobs, insource, massively cut water, pesticide use & tree-cutting, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and cut healthcare costs by naturally curing cancer and other chronic diseases?? Then simply Federally LEGALIZE POT!!!

But instead, the mass media and controlled opposition focus on "raising taxes or counterfeiting more funny money" as the only possible "fixes" here.

But, cutting our enormous military offense spending and global occupation in over 130 countries is NOT EVEN UP FOR REAL DISCUSSION??? Even though, that's where this discussion really needs to START!!!

And all for "defending our country" and "liberating others with freedom & democracy?"

Edited November 10, 2012 by vortex

[Aetherous]

 

Blatant racist tweet map.

[Aetherous]

For symbolism/political magick connoisseurs:

 

A curious point in the Republican Elephant’s evolution occurred in the year 2000 during the first year of George W. Bush’s administration. With virtually no notice and little if any subsequent explanation, the 3 stars in the GOP Elephant logo were inverted so that they now stood points down.

 

http://weburbanist.c...-elephant-logo/

 

 

 

Not necessarily "Satanism" in the LaVey sense...but the downward pointed star is obviously the opposite of an upright star, which is the symbol of good and mankind.

 

"After the 2000 election, the color red became associated with the GOP, although the party has not officially adopted it. That election night, for the first time, all of the major broadcast networks used the same color scheme for the electoral map: states won by Republican nominee George W. Bush were colored red"

 

http://en.wikipedia....ame_and_symbols

 

Someone has to be red...previously it was often the democrats...but why did it switch at this point in our history?

Edited November 10, 2012 by turtle shell

[Apech]

 

Blatant racist tweet map.

 

 

I saw this map ... it appeared in some British newspapers. I'm not sure thought how they allowed for the distribution of twitter use in drawing it up. But all the same its a sad thing that people still persist in racist views in 21 century. Somehow it seems instinctive in the human mind to condemn people who appear different in some way.

[gendao]

Texas Rep. Ron Paul ® edged Obama 44 to 43 in the daily tracking poll.

The marijuana legalization bill announced today by Reps. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Ron Paul (R-Texas), H.R. 2306, would repeal federal penalties for production, distribution, and possession of the drug, leaving the states free to address the issue as they see fit.

The bill amends the Controlled Substances Act so that marijuana is no longer a scheduled drug

Due to self-entitled voters and the elitist 2-party collusion that intentionally divides the populace along low-priority, emotional wedge issues, the actual people's choice was beaten by their double headed dildo.


Oh well...guess we'll raise taxes and counterfeit more money again to keep paying for this:





Well, nevermind...The People have spoken!!!
Edited November 10, 2012 by vortex

[Aetherous]

I'm not with Republican Ron Paul on the idea that America is a welfare state, and the idea that something like 53% of the country which voted for Obama is looking for handouts or have entitlement issues.

 

Only ~1.38% of our country is actually on real welfare.

 

With the upcoming changes at the end of this year, the lengthy extension on unemployment benefits will be cut. That will go part way toward helping, at least in this area.

 

"Rethinking the role of government" (aka, taking away all forms of help for people) is not a solution...that's worse than what most Repubs would suggest.

[Aetherous]

The site you linked to seems to indicate that it is 4.1%

 

To get the percentage, I took the welfare category divided by the current US population. 4.1% includes unemployment benefits and maybe food stamps.

 

I'm with you on all that you said! What is an example or rethinking welfare type programs?

[Taomeow]

[Marblehead]

[media]

Lots of luck at getting some of that.

[Aetherous]

• "The Federal government plans to take in $2.902 trillion for FY2013." (revenue)
  
• "For FY 2013, budget spending is estimated at $3.803 trillion -- much more than the revenue being taken in. A whopping 60% of the budget must go towards mandatory programs, such as Social Security, Medicare and Military Retirement benefits. These expenditures are mandated by law, and cannot be changed."
  

If these numbers are right...the mandatory programs (60% of 3.803 trillion) apparently aren't the problem in 2013 (don't know about other years). It will come to about $2.282 trillion, 0.62 trillion under our revenue.

 

edit: In another area the website says: "Mandatory Spending at $2.293 trillion in FY 2013, is 60% of the U.S. Federal Budget." So 0.609 trillion under federal revenue.

Edited November 10, 2012 by turtle shell

[AugustLeo]

@ joeblast: Dan, in post #370773 you replied to Turtle Shell:

I'm sure its mere coincidence that Obama lost every state that has a photo ID law in place.

That's not correct. Rhode Island has a voter ID law. Obama won Rhode Island.

 

AugustLeo

Edited November 11, 2012 by AugustLeo

[gendao]

Ron Paul wasn't just referring to those specifically on welfare and/or all other government assistance - but a majority population that still refuses to live within our means. Which at $16 trillion in debt, means $16 trillion in spending cuts that should be made.

Instead, they reelected a guy that added $6 trillion to our debt during his 4 years...

How & when did this start???

Interestingly, the Titanic "coincidentally" sank just the year before (1912) the FRB was formed - along with most of its most powerful opposition..

Theorists believe that this Jesuit establishment was created so that the order could loan money, shape the world landscape, and become one of the most powerful organizations in the world. Here’s how the Federal Reserve and the Titanic are connected. In 1910, seven men met on Jekyll island just off the coast of Georgia to plan the Federal Reserve Bank. Nelson Aldrich and Frank Vanderclip represented the Rockefeller (Illuminati) financial empire. Henry Davidson, Charles Norton and Benjamin Strong represented J.P. Morgan (Illuminati). Paul Warburg (Illuminati) represented the Rothschilds (Illuminati) Banking dynasty of Europe. The Rothschilds were the banking agents for the Jesuits and hold `the key to the wealth of the Roman Catholic Church.’

 

Necessary to their plans, the Federal Reserve did have some opposition; those who saw what the future would become if banking was outside of the government’s hands, the rates set by a private company such as the Fed. All the wealthy and powerful men the Jesuits wanted to get rid of were invited to take the cruise. Three of the richest and most important of these were Benjamin Guggenheim, Isador Strauss, the head of Macy’s Department Stores, and John Jacob Astor, probably the wealthiest man in the world. Their total wealth, at that time, using dollar values of their day was more than 500 million dollars. Today that amount of money would be worth nearly eleven billion dollars. These three men were coaxed and encouraged to board the floating palace. They had to be destroyed because the Jesuits knew they would use their wealth and influence to oppose a Federal Reserve Bank as well as the various wars that were being planned.

Essentially, the bankstas have done the same thing to us as we do to other impoverished countries. They loan us money, tempt us to overspend so much of it that we can't pay it back and then they got us enslaved and can exert wanton control over our country. The key here is to get the population more and more dependent on the government and to embroil it in giant expenditures (like global terr0rist occupation).

Which is why Iceland did this following their fiscal collapse (which our mass media has suppressed):

But we just voted for more of the same (more spending, more debt, more wars, printing more money, more Socialism and more 0rwellian control)...

 

And interestingly, the truth about John Lennon was...

by the time he died, John Lennon was a closet conservative embarrassed by his radical past, according to his former personal assistant. Fred Seaman claims that the former Beatle was a fan of Ronald Reagan, who went on to become America’s Republican president in 1981 and forged a close political alliance with Margaret Thatcher. ‘John, basically, made it very clear that if he were an American he would vote for Reagan because he was really sour on [Democrat] Jimmy Carter,’ he says in a documentary film.

 

in his final months Lennon was not the left-wing militant worshipped by many of his fans. ‘He was a very different person back in 1979 and 80 than he’d been when he wrote Imagine,’ he says.

 

‘By 1979 he looked back on that guy and was embarrassed by that guy’s naivete.

“John embark[ed] in [sic] some really brutal arguments” with the assistant’s communist uncle, making it “pretty obvious [that] he had moved away from his earlier radicalism.” Lennon “was a very different person back in 1979 and ‘80 than he’d been when he wrote ‘Imagine,’”

 

By 1980, Lennon had long since soured on the radical leftist politics of his youth, telling Playboy’s David Sheff in his last major interview that he “dabbled in so-called politics in the late ‘60s and ‘70s more out of guilt than anything. Guilt for being rich, and guilt thinking that perhaps love and peace isn’t enough and you have to go and get shot or something, or get punched in the face, to prove I’m one of the people. I was doing it against my instincts.”

 

Disillusioned with harsh, overreaching Yippies like Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman, Lennon now emphasized individual responsibility rather than collective political action. “Produce your own dream,” he told Sheff. “If you want to save Peru, go save Peru. It’s quite possible to do anything, but not if you put it on the leaders and the parking meters. Don’t expect Carter or Reagan or John Lennon or Yoko Ono or Bob Dylan or Jesus Christ to come and do it for you. You have to do it yourself.”

 

Lennon’s self-reliant streak made him skeptical of pop-culture charity efforts—and even foreign aid. When Sheff pointed out that a Beatles reunion could raise “$200 million [for] a poverty-stricken country in South America," Lennon balked. “I am not going to get locked in that business of saving the world on stage,” he said. “The show is always a mess and the artist always comes off badly… [Plus] America has poured billions into places like that. It doesn’t mean a damn thing. After they’ve eaten that meal, then what? It lasts for only a day. After the $200 million is gone, then what? It goes round and round in circles.”

 

Given his libertarian leanings

...that he actually had (or developed) a Libertarian-leaning conservative streak stressing individual responsibility over government/1%er dependence by his last years... Edited November 11, 2012 by vortex

[Aetherous]

Ron Paul wasn't just referring to those specifically on welfare and/or all other government assistance - but a majority population that still refuses to live within our means. Which at $16 trillion in debt, means $16 trillion in spending cuts that should be made.

 

I know he wasn't just referring to those specifically on welfare...and because of that, I totally disagree with that point of view. With most of our population working hard, it was a ridiculous comment. The majority of American population is just trying to get by, and had nothing to do with our country getting 16 trillion in debt. Having laws that protect the poor and help those who need it, and having hard working Americans vote in favor of such laws, are not the problem.

 

I'm not so keen on Libertarian conservative ideas...everyone for themselves, no government help? Recipe for disaster. I totally don't buy that Libertarians are a party separate from Republicans. Same shit, different name.

 

I'm with you on Obama doing too many things that subvert the Constitution and "legally" control our lives. I'm with you on what Iceland did, and the corruption of the bankstas.

[joeblast]

Number of Americans using the food stamp program: 46,670,373

Percent of population on food stamp program: 14 %

 

You cant really assert that this or that isnt welfare - it is government assistance. There's tons of different programs and one can be eligible for a few at a time.

 

Federal grants represent roughly a third of all the state's revenue.

 

 

The federal government is far too large, far too expensive, far too inefficient, and has far too many of "its own interests." That drop in tax receipts for the states is basically lost business, lost productivity.

Edited November 11, 2012 by joeblast

[GrandmasterP]

**** Moderation Team Message ****

 

In the spirit of maintaining healthy political debate, please refrain from making any ad hominem attacks on other posters ... for instance I don't think the term 'half weasel' is acceptable.

 

People may hold opposing and entrenched views and will argue their ground. This is ok. I hope we are all anti-racist, this board is, and that that we can agree on human grounds not to sling mud around in this respect, as it is likely to get out of hand.

 

Thanks.

 

 

 

**** Mod Message Ends ****

 

 

...........

Wouldn't calling someone a half weasel be more species-ist than racist?

 

We have weasels round here and they are cute if rather fierce little creatures.

One ran across the lane in front of our house just his week, it had a pigeon in its mouth. Pigeon was about four times the size of the weasel, and very dead.

[Apech]

...........

Wouldn't calling someone a half weasel be more species-ist than racist?

 

We have weasels round here and they are cute if rather fierce little creatures.

One ran across the lane in front of our house just his week, it had a pigeon in its mouth. Pigeon was about four times the size of the weasel, and very dead.

 

Stoat, ferret, weasel we are all brothers under the fur.