Lobbying

[deoxys]

After recently reading that Rick Perry came out in support of the AT&T/T-Mobile merger after AT&T gave him $500,000 (http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=5325) (I'm aware this a heavily left leaning site, I apologize for the blatant bias, I'll see if I can find a better site, here's another similar article, though (http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/207761/20110902/rick-perry-at-t-t-mobile-merger.htm)) , and having also seen him be told on video "I'm from Bank of America, we will help you out" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ii5c5WAWWJ8) by a BoA representative... I was wondering what everyone thought of lobbying and its current role in the political spectrum.

Personally, the very thought that a corporation can persuade our representatives to vote a certain way or to put forth a bill in their interest with a large sum of money pisses me off a lot. Why is it even allowed? At all? It's not right. Anyone else remember the infamous case in which our now Speaker of the House John Boehner handed out checks from a tobacco company on the house floor right before a vote in regards to tobacco regulations? Which, by the way, actually worked... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAC2xeT2yOg) (I highly recommend seeing this video)

Anyway, thoughts?

(boy I wish I could find that site that had pictures of politicians with logos on them like NASCAR drivers from the corporations they receive the biggest contributions from....)

[Talon87]

Disallowing it would only mean you drive it completely from public view. As it stands, many deals are done privately. Make it illegal to lobby publically and they'll just all go private. Illegalizing lobbying is not going to make it go away.

Benefits like the ones you detailed for Perry are not unique to politics. In the hard sciences, research studies are often sponsored or co-sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, chemical companies, agriculture companies, food companies, and so on. I was reading a paper today published by an Israeli team of biomedical researchers that had been sponsored by no fewer than five pharmaceutical companies, among them names you might recognize in Novartis and Bayer. Complicating matters, the chief scientist on the paper (i.e. the first name listed on the paper) admitted in the aptly-named "Conflicts of Interest" section of the paper that he had been on the advisory board to several of these companies and had received $500,000 in funding from one of them. This sort of thing can be very damaging in science. It is our gut instinct to not trust these studies for fear of interference from the companies and/or fear that the results are going to be altered to favor the interests of the companies' investors. When this is true, it's already bad. But when it's false, it can be bad too. It means that scientists are more inclined to turn down offers for funding from "Big Pharma" and others in order to preserve their image within the scientific community. That is to say, scientists will turn down the money because they're worried that just by accepting the money they'll lose everything they've worked hard to establish over the past 10-20 years. This means that potentially perfectly clean research funds are being turned down. This is obviously not good. In an ideal system, we could sort out clean money from dirty money. But it isn't an ideal system, unfortunately, and so the back-and-forth remains between those scientists who accept the funds and justify it by saying they're trying to find answers as rigorously as possible and those scientists who see that a paper was sponsored in part by and toss it into the discard pile. And just like with politics, you have to keep in mind: these are only the ones who report it. There are probably many research programs which receive partial funding from corporate interests and who don't report it for fear of the stigma that accepting corporate funding would bring.

While it can be a gray issue in science, I don't think it tends to be quite so gray with politics. That is to say, I think with politics the question of lobbying is closer to the "THIS IS AWFUL! :evil:" end of the spectrum than it is the "Why are we looking a gift horse in the mouth? :?" end. But I imagine it can be gray even in politics sometimes. Defense funding may be funded in part by Lockheed Martin or other aerospace companies who hope to carve out a portion of the returns (e.g. exclusive access to data gleaned from military prototypes testing). FDA studies which would benefit us all (by helping us to rule in or out numerous drug candidates for numerous diseases) might be funded in part by pharmaceutical companies who hope to gain something from the studies as well. For example, it can be in Eli Lilly's interest to fund an FDA study which scrutinizes Lilly's newest drug: because it costs the company less than funding the study completely in-house on their own, it brings the FDA seal of approval with it (assuming the drug passes), and/or it helps Lilly to promptly know to scuttle the project (assuming the drug fails). General Electric, Duke Energy, or any other number of energy companies may be motivated to fund a Department of Energy initiative to build greener houses if they think it'll help with their public relations. Can we really complain about GE helping to fund a cleaner tomorrow?

But as for congressmen getting kickbacks from companies because they vote a certain way? :? That's extremely questionable. Hard to justify [i]why :lol: when I'm physically swaying in my seat from tiredness, so I'll wrap this post up here. But I don't think legislators should be allowed to receive kickbacks and such and that if they are caught they ought to be kicked out of office or severely penalized.

For the record, not trying to defend lobbying because I think it's great or something. I'm just trying to present the idea that I don't think prohibiting corporations from having a hand in helping out is necessarily any better than allowing them to do whatever the hell they want. Middle ground, people. We have to strike a middle ground. Lobbying, bad. Allowing corporations to donate to political entities (e.g. DoE, Defense, FDA, NASA)? Fine by me, provided it's held to the same standards we'd have for corporations donating funds to private enterprises. In science, my personal view is "don't accept funding from big companies" as it's not worth introducing the bias to your study perceived by the scientific community at large nor tarnishing your reputation as a lapdog of private interests. It's important to every scientist for his word to carry weight, to have value. But I do think it's a shame that we as scientists cannot accept funding from corporations while we can accept it from taxpayers (i.e. federal funding). It would be nice to be able to accept it from both.

[Doppleganger]

Why is it even allowed? At all? It's not right.

Lobbying is a general term to refer to interest groups influencing political decisions, banning everything that could feasibly be labled as lobbying has profound implications, and opens up predecent for a lot of legal abuse.

The #1 goal of all politicians is to get re-elected, and interest groups help make that easier. In a world without organized interest, the politician has the difficulty of trying to asses majority opinion, and thus has to spend a lot of money on un-certainty. It's not necessarily a better scenario for a lot of reasons I'm not up for talking about right now.

Most electoral races are decided by simple majority, so lining up enough interests groups nets the politician that majority. The interest groups mobilize the voting populace for the politician. The interest group provides votes and the politician listens to curry those votes in the next election. Don't like it? Make your own and beat out the other groups.

Lobbying isn't monetary, that kind of influence falls under bribes/gifts, which is illegal. The money Rick Perry got was in the form of campaign contributions, which aren't any different from individuals. If George Soros donates $1,000,000 to his favourite Congressman, should that be banned because of what he does for a living?

Gonna nap for a bit...

[dosuser]

Talon, your research was funded by corporations right? Did you ever suspect the ``higher ups'' were involved in bribery or corruption?

For me, the suspicion was ever-present, but Hanlon's razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor) prevailed in the majority of cases.

[unownmew]

Disallowing it would only mean you drive it completely from public view. As it stands, many deals are done privately. Make it illegal to lobby publically and they'll just all go private. Illegalizing lobbying is not going to make it go away.

Benefits like the ones you detailed for Perry are not unique to politics. In the hard sciences, research studies are often sponsored or co-sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, chemical companies, agriculture companies, food companies, and so on. I was reading a paper today published by an Israeli team of biomedical researchers that had been sponsored by no fewer than five pharmaceutical companies, among them names you might recognize in Novartis and Bayer. Complicating matters, the chief scientist on the paper (i.e. the first name listed on the paper) admitted in the aptly-named "Conflicts of Interest" section of the paper that he had been on the advisory board to several of these companies and had received $500,000 in funding from one of them. This sort of thing can be very damaging in science. It is our gut instinct to not trust these studies for fear of interference from the companies and/or fear that the results are going to be altered to favor the interests of the companies' investors. When this is true, it's already bad. But when it's false, it can be bad too. It means that scientists are more inclined to turn down offers for funding from "Big Pharma" and others in order to preserve their image within the scientific community. That is to say, scientists will turn down the money because they're worried that just by accepting the money they'll lose everything they've worked hard to establish over the past 10-20 years. This means that potentially perfectly clean research funds are being turned down. This is obviously not good. In an ideal system, we could sort out clean money from dirty money. But it isn't an ideal system, unfortunately, and so the back-and-forth remains between those scientists who accept the funds and justify it by saying they're trying to find answers as rigorously as possible and those scientists who see that a paper was sponsored in part by and toss it into the discard pile. And just like with politics, you have to keep in mind: these are only the ones who report it. There are probably many research programs which receive partial funding from corporate interests and who don't report it for fear of the stigma that accepting corporate funding would bring.

While it can be a gray issue in science, I don't think it tends to be quite so gray with politics. That is to say, I think with politics the question of lobbying is closer to the "THIS IS AWFUL! :evil:" end of the spectrum than it is the "Why are we looking a gift horse in the mouth? :?" end. But I imagine it can be gray even in politics sometimes. Defense funding may be funded in part by Lockheed Martin or other aerospace companies who hope to carve out a portion of the returns (e.g. exclusive access to data gleaned from military prototypes testing). FDA studies which would benefit us all (by helping us to rule in or out numerous drug candidates for numerous diseases) might be funded in part by pharmaceutical companies who hope to gain something from the studies as well. For example, it can be in Eli Lilly's interest to fund an FDA study which scrutinizes Lilly's newest drug: because it costs the company less than funding the study completely in-house on their own, it brings the FDA seal of approval with it (assuming the drug passes), and/or it helps Lilly to promptly know to scuttle the project (assuming the drug fails). General Electric, Duke Energy, or any other number of energy companies may be motivated to fund a Department of Energy initiative to build greener houses if they think it'll help with their public relations. Can we really complain about GE helping to fund a cleaner tomorrow?

But as for congressmen getting kickbacks from companies because they vote a certain way? :? That's extremely questionable. Hard to justify [i]why :lol: when I'm physically swaying in my seat from tiredness, so I'll wrap this post up here. But I don't think legislators should be allowed to receive kickbacks and such and that if they are caught they ought to be kicked out of office or severely penalized.

For the record, not trying to defend lobbying because I think it's great or something. I'm just trying to present the idea that I don't think prohibiting corporations from having a hand in helping out is necessarily any better than allowing them to do whatever the hell they want. Middle ground, people. We have to strike a middle ground. Lobbying, bad. Allowing corporations to donate to political entities (e.g. DoE, Defense, FDA, NASA)? Fine by me, provided it's held to the same standards we'd have for corporations donating funds to private enterprises. In science, my personal view is "don't accept funding from big companies" as it's not worth introducing the bias to your study perceived by the scientific community at large nor tarnishing your reputation as a lapdog of private interests. It's important to every scientist for his word to carry weight, to have value. But I do think it's a shame that we as scientists cannot accept funding from corporations while we can accept it from taxpayers (i.e. federal funding). It would be nice to be able to accept it from both.
I have to agree with Talon for the most part. Lobbying is a double edged sword. On the one hand it allows people to promote their beliefs to Politicians who will then, once voted in, work to enact legislation according to the will of the people. But on the other hand, it allows greedy organizations (which do not have to be "Evil" Corporations mind you), to influence politicians to enact legislation in the organizations benefit. (For example, Green Energy and Environmentalists groups).

IMO, the solution would be, to make Lobbying and donations even more public, and remove all restrictions on it.
Why?
Because then the actual Voters (Corporations and Organizations can't vote), will see who is getting the how much money from where. If they have suspicions about the organization's agenda, or feel the candidate will not follow with the voter's ideals, they can vote against it.

Also, regarding Scientists getting federal grants, who's to say those grants are not just as much biased as a cooperation's donations? If Scientists want truly unbiased money, they'd have to appeal directly to the Citizens for donations, instead of getting it filtered through Big Brother's "National Interests."

[Talon87]

Also, regarding Scientists getting federal grants, who's to say those grants are not just as much biased as a cooperation's donations? If Scientists want truly unbiased money, they'd have to appeal directly to the Citizens for donations, instead of getting it filtered through Big Brother's "National Interests."
How are the grants "biased"? I know what you're trying to argue philosophically -- that government money may produce scientific results which further government's agenda -- but the philosophy doesn't match up with the reality. The government is not an owner of patents or a producer of commercial products in the same way / to the extent that corporations are and so the government has no interest in whether or not a particular scientific study pans or praises a product. If I write a paper which shows that a particular drug increases the chances of developing ocular cancer by 300%, the government doesn't care one way or the other. If you want to argue that the politicians have been bought off by the company who markets that drug and that for that reason they would be against such a study's results being published, well, then you've effectively reduced the problem back down to corporate interference, not federal. The only people who stand to lose from a study showing that a product is dangerous are the makers of said product. This is why corporate money funding a paper which shows that a product made by that company is safe is automatically shady -- and it's the same exact reason why federal money funding a study on the same product has no bearing whatsoever on the paper's validity. (Again: if it does have bearing, then it's because you've reduced the problem back down to politicians being bought off by companies, i.e. once again the problem is that of a particular company not wanting the damaging results of the study to go public.)

At the end of the day, the government can't "sell" (so to speak) a broken product and so it is in the government's very own best interests to make sure that they know whether something works or doesn't work. This is why the Department of Defense will be happy to know that a study done by MIT researchers shows that a particular metal alloy currently used in tanks deployed in Iraq is highly corrosive and eats through neighboring materials at a particular rate. They want to know that sort of thing so they can (a) nip it in the bud quickly in existing models and (b) remove it from the design of newer models altogether. This is in contrast with the aims of some (not all) corporations who, unlike government, actually do have the ability to sell a defective product. Why? Because they aren't the end users of said product. If I don't have diabetes, what do I care if the diabetes drug I make causes liver cancer in 30% of African-American males? If I don't have heart disease, what do I care if the contraceptive I'm pushing out increases the risk of coronary thrombosis by up to 75% in women? Basically, because they don't have a vested interest in the efficacy of their own product -- only in its success or failure as a commercial product, i.e. its ability to fly off the store shelves -- they enjoy a "luxury" (if you will) not enjoyed by the federal government. And this luxury is the primary reason why corporate funding is sketchy (particularly when it shows results favorable to the company) but that federal funding is not.

In short, I see what you're trying to argue philosophically ("if Big Corporations can do it, then why not Big Brother?") but it doesn't work that way in reality because of the fundamental differences between government and corporations.

[unownmew]

I would argue, that yes, a Government can not sell a product, and therefore cooperate interests can not be furthered by a shady grant. However, Government can sell "ideas," and stands in the way of a huge amount of increased power it can legislate for itself based on those ideas. In fact, I would say that Government as it is now, is actually in the business of selling ideas, while corporations are in the business of selling goods and services.

A politician agrees with a particular lobbying non-coporate organization's ideals, and receives money from that organization, not to convince him to look their way, but because he's already deep in with that set of ideals, which he then spends in a manner he can claims is in line with his election campaign (buying a private jet so he can travel to the various states to campaign in for example, or funding libel and slander attacks on his opponents).

Once elected, he pushes his way to get the ideas he agrees with, which are the same as the organizations' that paid him. This legislation can range from personal grants to his own pocket, or to funneling funds the organizations he agrees with so that they can grow and become more powerful, and in turn support his next election even better, or to punishing organizations he does not agree with by imposing restrictions that will cost them more money to operate. He doesn't even have to do these things overtly, he simply needs to require certain things which seem harmless enough, but in actuality, only benefit the organizations he's friendly with.

Under normal circumstances such legislation would be revealed, and the politician exposed, but, when they can work under the guise of "Solving a Terrible Problem," and "Nothing else can work," the Politician can sell his "ideas" and corruption gets all sorts of disguises it can hide behind. Global Warming, Universal Healthcare, Green Energy, Banning off-shore Oil Drilling, ect. Are all these things truly necessary? And does the legislation actually address the issues? Or are they just disguises to increase government power over it's citizens, with a fancy name that makes it sound like it's helping? Furthering the way for a Dictator to eventually take over and abolish our Republic?

[deoxys]

In fact, I would say that Government as it is now, is actually in the business of selling ideas, while corporations are in the business of selling goods and services.

I disagree. I'm curious, why do you think the government as a whole is in the business of selling ideas? Certainly there are branches of the government which are, though I'm not sure if that's what you're referring to or not. NASA immediately comes to mind, but typically they are trying to sell their ideas to the legislative branch for government funding on whatever idea it is they're pitching. As for corporations, there are some that would be against whatever the idea pitched was, for whatever reason. Maybe it would create unwanted competition, maybe it would interfere with their plans. Thankfully for them, though, all they need to do is write a check, pull aside however many congressmen or senators, and say "hey look. We like you. We want to donate to your campaigns, because hey, we're cool like that *hugs*. All we want you to do in return is review this upcoming funding vote and vote against it. We have the argument already made as to why it's bad, you just have to run with it!"


Right away, you'll have a few of those guys turn around and walk away, but then you'll have the few who are the ones saying "Add another zero to that check you've got yourself a deal", because let's face it, we're all human, we all love money, and almost anyone can be bought for the right price.

A politician agrees with a particular lobbying non-corporate organization's ideals, and receives money from that organization, not to convince him to look their way, but because he's already deep in with that set of ideals, which he then spends in a manner he can claims is in line with his election campaign (buying a private jet so he can travel to the various states to campaign in for example, or funding libel and slander attacks on his opponents).

This happens, but it doesn't happen as often as the organizations and corporations who try lobbying with politicians who are against they're ideals. Why would you need to give money to someone who already genuinely believes in your stance and is going to vote in your favor either way? It just doesn't happen as often. Sure, it most certainly does, but they're more worried about stopping the politicians who would favor against them.

Once elected, he pushes his way to get the ideas he agrees with, which are the same as the organizations' that paid him. This legislation can range from personal grants to his own pocket, or to funneling funds the organizations he agrees with so that they can grow and become more powerful, and in turn support his next election even better, or to punishing organizations he does not agree with by imposing restrictions that will cost them more money to operate. He doesn't even have to do these things overtly, he simply needs to require certain things which seem harmless enough, but in actuality, only benefit the organizations he's friendly with.

Again, I disagree. You will find a majority of legislators will not be paying organizations unless it is one they are really passionate about. Even the 'hey, I'm going to give you money, and you give me money when I'm up for re-relection, okay?' doesn't happen like you suggest it does. Legislators are given money, and in return, corporations are essentially speaking and voting through the representative, not the other way around.

Under normal circumstances such legislation would be revealed, and the politician exposed, but, when they can work under the guise of "Solving a Terrible Problem," and "Nothing else can work," the Politician can sell his "ideas" and corruption gets all sorts of disguises it can hide behind. Global Warming, Universal Healthcare, Green Energy, Banning off-shore Oil Drilling, ect. Are all these things truly necessary? And does the legislation actually address the issues? Or are they just disguises to increase government power over it's citizens, with a fancy name that makes it sound like it's helping? Furthering the way for a Dictator to eventually take over and abolish our Republic?

All of the things you mentioned are interests that many different organizations and companies have. Also, this Or are they just disguises to increase government power over it's citizens, with a fancy name that makes it sound like it's helping? Furthering the way for a Dictator to eventually take over and abolish our Republic? is really narrow minded. I know you're a Tea Partier, and that is essentially the belief of the tea party, but that is wrong. It's also funny because the 'leaders' of the tea party are also bought and paid for, so they will say whatever their money tells them to. Besides, all of that is just a bunch of scare tactics. It won't ever happen and I can't believe people think it will. And before you think I'm biased, I'm not. Believe me when I say I've listened to a very large amount of Glenn Beck, in fact, I've met the man. I'm sorry though, what he and people like him say simply isn't the truth and it's harmful to listen to. But we can open up a Tea Party debate thread for that, although like Talon said, I am not sure if it's worth it.

Basically, all of the things you mentioned have groups that are obviously for and against them. Let's use your 'banning offshore drilling' as an example. There is obviously a movement by environmentalists and others to do this, and there are obviously a great deal of politicians who believe it to be wrong, especially after what happened with the oil spill last year. Now, companies like BP and Mobil obviously don't want that to happen, because it would damage their business model. So they jump in and start lobbying with many legislators like crazy to stop it. Then you have interested parties on the opposite side of the spectrum, such as those who do want offshore drilling banned because it would help them, namely alternate power companies, who lobby politicians to vote for a ban. The same thing goes for a universal health system, medical insurance companies were scrambling like crazy to lobby against it, because if it passed, it would utterly cripple their corporations. The same thing happened in 1937 when the cotton industry lobbied to have marijuana taxed and eventually made illegal. Green energy? Same there. You have corps and organizations, again, on both sides of the aisle who lobby for and against restrictions, and this also ties in to a degree with the banning offshore drilling issue, too.

TL;DR - Money is power.

[unownmew]

I disagree. I'm curious, why do you think the government as a whole is in the business of selling ideas? Certainly there are branches of the government which are, though I'm not sure if that's what you're referring to or not. NASA immediately comes to mind, but typically they are trying to sell their ideas to the legislative branch for government funding on whatever idea it is they're pitching. As for corporations, there are some that would be against whatever the idea pitched was, for whatever reason. Maybe it would create unwanted competition, maybe it would interfere with their plans. Thankfully for them, though, all they need to do is write a check, pull aside however many congressmen or senators, and say "hey look. We like you. We want to donate to your campaigns, because hey, we're cool like that *hugs*. All we want you to do in return is review this upcoming funding vote and vote against it. We have the argument already made as to why it's bad, you just have to run with it!"
Maybe not Government as a whole, but, various political entities. The President sells his ideas in speeches to the people, so they don't outrage at the new and otherwise ridiculous regulations, and then the legislators that agree with his ideas, put together their bill, sweetening the pot for those who would otherwise vote no, and enacts (for example) government regulation 101 saying you can no longer use the incandescent bulb, but instead must use "power saving" alternatives, which on the surface appear to be "green" but really filthy up the environment by containing Mercury. Go figure.



This happens, but it doesn't happen as often as the organizations and corporations who try lobbying with politicians who are against they're ideals. Why would you need to give money to someone who already genuinely believes in your stance and is going to vote in your favor either way? It just doesn't happen as often. Sure, it most certainly does, but they're more worried about stopping the politicians who would favor against them.
No? Politician A promises benefits to organization B in return for financial support in his election, Polititican A is elected, legislates money to organization B, as well as legislation corresponding it's platform. Organization B is now loyal to Politician A, and will continue to support him as he funnels money to them so they can continue to lobby other politicians who disagree with their platform.



Again, I disagree. You will find a majority of legislators will not be paying organizations unless it is one they are really passionate about. Even the 'hey, I'm going to give you money, and you give me money when I'm up for re-relection, okay?' doesn't happen like you suggest it does. Legislators are given money, and in return, corporations are essentially speaking and voting through the representative, not the other way around.
The legislators are paying the organizations with our Tax Dollars, not their own funds. Why in the world would a politician of that sort spend his own money for votes, when he can spend ours for them?

Corperations and Organizations are the same in this area, they're all in bed together for greater power dominance.



All of the things you mentioned are interests that many different organizations and companies have. Also, this is really narrow minded. I know you're a Tea Partier, and that is essentially the belief of the tea party, but that is wrong. It's also funny because the 'leaders' of the tea party are also bought and paid for, so they will say whatever their money tells them to. Besides, all of that is just a bunch of scare tactics. It won't ever happen and I can't believe people think it will. And before you think I'm biased, I'm not. Believe me when I say I've listened to a very large amount of Glenn Beck, in fact, I've met the man. I'm sorry though, what he and people like him say simply isn't the truth and it's harmful to listen to. But we can open up a Tea Party debate thread for that, although like Talon said, I am not sure if it's worth it.
I dunno who you're getting your information, but as far as I'm aware, TEA partiers are all volunteers, and any donations they do get, is for furthering the cause. There are no "Leaders" of the TEA party, it's a genuine grass roots movement.
As for "scare tactics," I'd like to know what kind the TEA party is using?
your own vice president called us terrorist, and numerous others are saying we want to deny old people of their social security checks. Besides being an outright LIE, those are scare tactics, coming from our opponents, not us. Every genuine TEA partier is for Peaceful change in a respectful manner.

I think a TEA party debate would be good, so I can clear up some misinformation that's been being spread about us.


Basically, all of the things you mentioned have groups that are obviously for and against them. Let's use your 'banning offshore drilling' as an example. There is obviously a movement by environmentalists and others to do this, and there are obviously a great deal of politicians who believe it to be wrong, especially after what happened with the oil spill last year. Now, companies like BP and Mobil obviously don't want that to happen, because it would damage their business model. So they jump in and start lobbying with many legislators like crazy to stop it. Then you have interested parties on the opposite side of the spectrum, such as those who do want offshore drilling banned because it would help them, namely alternate power companies, who lobby politicians to vote for a ban. The same thing goes for a universal health system, medical insurance companies were scrambling like crazy to lobby against it, because if it passed, it would utterly cripple their corporations. The same thing happened in 1937 when the cotton industry lobbied to have marijuana taxed and eventually made illegal. Green energy? Same there. You have corps and organizations, again, on both sides of the aisle who lobby for and against restrictions, and this also ties in to a degree with the banning offshore drilling issue, too.

TL;DR - Money is power.
Yup, Money is Power, and Government is money.

[Milotic111]

Maybe not Government as a whole, but, various political entities. The President sells his ideas in speeches to the people, so they don't outrage at the new and otherwise ridiculous regulations, and then the legislators that agree with his ideas, put together their bill, sweetening the pot for those who would otherwise vote no, and enacts (for example) government regulation 101 saying you can no longer use the incandescent bulb, but instead must use "power saving" alternatives, which on the surface appear to be "green" but really filthy up the environment by containing Mercury. Go figure.


Which is solved by recycling them (or at least collecting them) after their use, instead of throwing them away. Also LED-light.


I dunno who you're getting your information, but as far as I'm aware, TEA partiers are all volunteers, and any donations they do get, is for furthering the cause. There are no "Leaders" of the TEA party, it's a genuine grass roots movement.



I believe Sarah Pallin asks a whole lot of money for a speech. And I somehow seriously doubt that she's spending that on the Tea Party. Might be wrong on this though, but my local newspaper said so one time. And before you say it's politically charged, I live in the Netherlands so our newspapers couldn't care less about American politics.



As for "scare tactics," I'd like to know what kind the TEA party is using?
your own vice president called us terrorist, and numerous others are saying we want to deny old people of their social security checks. Besides being an outright LIE, those are scare tactics, coming from our opponents, not us. Every genuine TEA partier is for Peaceful change in a respectful manner.


Pot, kettle, black. Both sides use scare tactics.

[unownmew]

Which is solved by recycling them (or at least collecting them) after their use, instead of throwing them away. Also LED-light.
You can recycle those lights? Where? Maybe Obama should have notified us of that, this is the first I've heard of it. What's the point in collecting dead bubs? Personally I prefer the Edison Bulb, but I heard those are going to be (or already are) outlawed.
Also, LED is Expensive.



I believe Sarah Pallin asks a whole lot of money for a speech. And I somehow seriously doubt that she's spending that on the Tea Party. Might be wrong on this though, but my local newspaper said so one time. And before you say it's politically charged, I live in the Netherlands so our newspapers couldn't care less about American politics.
Sarah Palin, after having been the running mate of the runner-up Presidential Candidate of 2008, is now a political figure, not a TEA party leader, though she does have the same views as TEA partiers, and is likely asked to speak at many of their events. Despite being Eviscerated by the left, they can't make her step down like other political figures that want to be 'liked' by the media, which pisses them off.

As for what she spends her money on, that's her business, since she's not claiming to use it support anything or anyone.



Pot, kettle, black. Both sides use scare tactics.
Yes, but the left, much much MUCH more often then the Right. If you listen to any of the Right's media outlets, the only "scaring" tactics, they use, are actual facts.

[blazeVA]

The problem with lobbying is that the normal American can not lobby. It is against the law people to contribute to campaigns, they set up a "seperate" fund for that kind of stuff. And when campaigns runs in the figure of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, the average American has no chance to be heard. And, we still have cigarette's, we rely on oil and do not try to become independent, and out educational system, health care, and other things that are essential to a working community are not working as they should.

Because of special interest parties that think they can buy politicians.

This is blaze giving his two cents.

[deoxys]

Maybe not Government as a whole, but, various political entities. The President sells his ideas in speeches to the people, so they don't outrage at the new and otherwise ridiculous regulations, and then the legislators that agree with his ideas, put together their bill, sweetening the pot for those who would otherwise vote no, and enacts (for example) government regulation 101 saying you can no longer use the incandescent bulb, but instead must use "power saving" alternatives, which on the surface appear to be "green" but really filthy up the environment by containing Mercury. Go figure.

I had a feeling you were going to use the incandescent bulb as an example. Certainly there was lobbying involved in that, and I'm not entirely sure if any of it was controversial, but what is wrong exactly with green energy? Whether or not you believe in climate change or not, green energy is ALWAYS a good thing and should be something we strive for in terms of technologically evolving. The incandescent bulb is a fantastic alternative.



No? Politician A promises benefits to organization B in return for financial support in his election, Polititican A is elected, legislates money to organization B, as well as legislation corresponding it's platform. Organization B is now loyal to Politician A, and will continue to support him as he funnels money to them so they can continue to lobby other politicians who disagree with their platform.

Well of course that happens, but that's entirely different from what it sounded like you were going on about. You worded it more or less to make it sound like companies and organizations will support politicians to further their cause simply based on the fact that they are already in support of it, not because the politician promises them benefits. There are certainly symbiotic relationships between certain politicians and orgs/companies, and while some I suppose make sense, others don't, or should even be happening.


The legislators are paying the organizations with our Tax Dollars, not their own funds. Why in the world would a politician of that sort spend his own money for votes, when he can spend ours for them?

Corperations and Organizations are the same in this area, they're all in bed together for greater power dominance.

Source?


I dunno who you're getting your information, but as far as I'm aware, TEA partiers are all volunteers, and any donations they do get, is for furthering the cause. There are no "Leaders" of the TEA party, it's a genuine grass roots movement.
As for "scare tactics," I'd like to know what kind the TEA party is using?
your own vice president called us terrorist, and numerous others are saying we want to deny old people of their social security checks. Besides being an outright LIE, those are scare tactics, coming from our opponents, not us. Every genuine TEA partier is for Peaceful change in a respectful manner.

I think a TEA party debate would be good, so I can clear up some misinformation that's been being spread about us.

First of all. 'TEA party'. I know you've made mention that this stands for 'Taxed Enough Already', but it was originally not supposed to mean that. In fact, it was supposed to be just 'Tea Party', which is a reference to the Boston Tea Party, a protest by colonists who objected to a British tax on tea in 1773 and demonstrated by dumping British tea taken from docked ships into the harbor. Anyway...

I don't know what "tea party" you're from because you're wrong about a number of things, and here's why. First of all, there's no misinformation being spread unless the tea party is wrong about their own movement. My mom is a die hard tea partier herself, so I'm quite aware of the movement and how it operates. Also, I've seen quite a lot of Fox News and somehow still have basic motor skills (I know, I don't get it either), and so there's no misinformation being spread save potentially on your side of the spectrum.

Second. I dunno who you're getting your information, but as far as I'm aware, TEA partiers are all volunteers, and any donations they do get, is for furthering the cause. There are no "Leaders" of the TEA party, it's a genuine grass roots movement.

The donations for "furthering the cause" are just for donating to GOP candidates. Which is fine, obviously, that's what you guys believe in, and there's nothing wrong with doing that.

When you say there are no leaders, though, you are gravely mistaken. Many politicians have come out and made themselves out to be a leader. The original starter of the tea party movement believe it or not was Ron Paul, and then it picked up and took off into a completely different direction that he had intended. Now you have Michelle Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Eric Cantor, and John Boehner to name a few. And let's not forget about the influence the infamous Koch family has had on the movement.


As for "scare tactics," I'd like to know what kind the TEA party is using?
your own vice president called us terrorist, and numerous others are saying we want to deny old people of their social security checks. Besides being an outright LIE, those are scare tactics, coming from our opponents, not us.

The amount of wrong emanating from this post is mind boggling. I'll break this down, piece by piece for you.

>>"I'd like to know what kind the TEA party is using?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-debt-deal-the-triumph-of-the-old-washington/2011/08/02/gIQARSFfqI_story_1.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dangerous-dealings-with-the-default-caucus/2011/07/21/gIQAktWMTI_story.html?hpid=z2

http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1217

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#Reports_of_slurs_at_health_care _reform_protests

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/13/obama-hitler-tea-party-billboard_n_645203.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/sarah-palins-pac-puts-gun_n_511433.html


This is just a few. I think I made my point, however. To be honest with you, when I originally referenced tea party scare tactics, I was also referring, on a rather broad scale, to Fox News and Glenn Beck as well, however, as much of an influence as they are on the Tea Party, I will not include their scare tactics here, unless you'd like me to? Because I will.

your own vice president called us terrorist, and numerous others are saying we want to deny old people of their social security checks.

First of all, is he not your Vice President, too, like it or not? I didn't like when Dick Cheney was VP, but whether I liked it or not, he was my Vice President. Referring to him as "your" is pretty weak. Also, whether he said that or not is still up in the air. It was allegedly reported by several media outlets that he did, and many others who were there are claiming it didn't happen. Also, it was supposed that he likened the tea party to economic terrorism. My opinion? It wouldn't surprise me if he did, and if it's true, I don't agree with it and it was wrong. However, his frustration is understandable. Tea party legislators almost destroyed the economy because they were being entirely unreasonable regarding the debt ceiling in the most irresponsible act of selfishness I think I've ever seen politicians put on display. In the article I linked to above (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-debt-deal-the-triumph-of-the-old-washington/2011/08/02/gIQARSFfqI_story_1.html), tea party Sen. Mitch McConnell said this regarding the debt deal:

"I think some of our members may have thought the default issue was a hostage you might take a chance at shooting... Most of us didn’t think that. What we did learn is this — it’s a hostage that’s worth ransoming. And it focuses the Congress on something that must be done."

Also, if you're going to throw around that argument, I can think of plenty of times in which tea partiers and republicans likened democrats with terrorists. This one immediately comes to mind; The people who are threatening not to pass the debt ceiling are our version of al Qaeda terrorists. Really.

So it's not one sided. It's a dumb argument anyway, and name calling in politics on either side of the aisle is stupid and immature tactics. Democrats and Republicans are both guilty of it and it's a dumb issue.

>>"others are saying we want to deny old people of their social security checks."

This is because, again, with the debt ceiling issue, the republicans and tea party was going to allow the country to default. See the above quote with McConnell again if you've forgotten already how republicans felt about that. If government checks didn't go out, it was basically a necessary evil in their eyes. And don't use the argument "Well, the democrats weren't giving enough." "Obama was trying to make us look bad" or "Obama was the one being selfish." No. None of those arguments work. Because they're WRONG. In fact, because of how much he gave into the tea party and republicans, many now see him as more of a republican than a democrat, which is hysterical. I'm not personally a fan of Obama myself, but even I can see the man has bent over backwards to the tea party to rid himself of this dumb illusion that he's some kind of communist dictator. He's basically spent more time trying to appeal to the tea party than his own party because of all of the bullshit. And, a bit off topic and a runaway sentence, but let's not forget about the horrid nature of the tea party politicians in Wisconsin earlier this year.


>> Besides being an outright LIE, those are scare tactics, coming from our opponents, not us.

I sincerely hope you have an open mind about all of this, as I did when I first started looking into the tea party movement myself. For the record, I regretfully voted for McCain in 2008, and I can assure you that today I am glad that he lost the race (truthfully, I wish I had written in Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich in on the ballot). But no, it isn't a lie. You just have... hopefully, had, your mind closed to it. It isn't a lie. It's true. You just need to look in the right places... if you're only getting your news from one source or a biased side of the spectrum, you're never going to be getting the full story. C-SPAN, NPR, News Hour on PBS, all are fantastic places to find your news unbiased, although many will tell you NPR is left leaning as a whole when they are in fact not, simply because they have no benefit from leaning one way or the other as they are a publicly run news source. If you still don't believe that, check this out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Npr#Allegations_of_ideological_bias). They've been accused of actually having been right wing bias, which many seem to completely over look.


>>Every genuine TEA partier is for Peaceful change in a respectful manner.

Sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of every other tea partier shouting "REVOLT WITH YOUR GUNS" in my ear :|



Whew. I'm going to go eat and not think about politics anymore...!


This is blaze giving his two cents.

FTFY

[Milotic111]

You can recycle those lights? Where? Maybe Obama should have notified us of that, this is the first I've heard of it. What's the point in collecting dead bubs? Personally I prefer the Edison Bulb, but I heard those are going to be (or already are) outlawed.
Also, LED is Expensive.


I don't know about the US, but here we collect them and take out the Mecury and other stuff that's harmful to the enviroment and use them (the mecury and other stuff that is) again. Of course not all people to that, but most do. (you have to consider them chemical waste here basically). As for LED, they're expensive now yes. However two things that not many people see. They are supposed to last at least 30 years. Even if they last just 15 (maybe 10 or even 5, too lazy to look it up) they have paid themself back because of lower electricity bills. Also when more people use they will become cheaper.

Please note that here the Edison bulb has just been completely outlawed (the higher Watt were already outlawed) and no major disaster has happened. Alternative lights work just as well, and are only a little but more expensive (well LED considerably I'll admit), and they pay themselves back.

[deoxys]

Let me cut in here really quick to say that LED lighting is getting cheaper. It's still a work in progress, but even at it's current rate it's worth it, simply because an LED light is going to last you tens of thousands more hours than a regular bulb, not to mention the cost of energy intake is much better for them.

[blazeVA]

Let me cut in here really quick to say that LED lighting is getting cheaper. It's still a work in progress, but even at it's current rate it's worth it, simply because an LED light is going to last you tens of thousands more hours than a regular bulb, not to mention the cost of energy intake is much better for them.

Incandescent bulbs are crap. They are energy inefficient, and also, they don't last for shit. And for the "mercury" inside of the fluorescent bulbs, unownmew, there is not enough mercury in one bulb to cause any sort of damage. The amount is very minimal. LED cost more, but they last much longer than the other two, and are more energy efficient than incandescent. They pay for themselves, much like solar and wind power do.

But wasn't this about lobbying?

[Milotic111]

Incandescent bulbs are crap. They are energy inefficient, and also, they don't last for shit. And for the "mercury" inside of the fluorescent bulbs, unownmew, there is not enough mercury in one bulb to cause any sort of damage. The amount is very minimal. LED cost more, but they last much longer than the other two, and are more energy efficient than incandescent. They pay for themselves, much like solar and wind power do.

But wasn't this about lobbying?

Actually agreeing with unownmew here, one fluorescent bulb may not contain enough mercury to to damage, but when thrown away in large numbers they WILL cause damage. That's why we collect them here.

Also lobbying, we don't have problems with that here:P So entirely your problem.

[unownmew]

I had a feeling you were going to use the incandescent bulb as an example. Certainly there was lobbying involved in that, and I'm not entirely sure if any of it was controversial, but what is wrong exactly with green energy? Whether or not you believe in climate change or not, green energy is ALWAYS a good thing and should be something we strive for in terms of technologically evolving. The incandescent bulb is a fantastic alternative.
Nothing's wrong with green energy, what's wrong, is forcing the people to accept it, based on iffy science, in an effort to make "Government Regulation" more and more acceptable to the public, so that when a Dictator finally takes over, people welcome him with Cheers, freely giving up their own liberties for "peace and safety." (Like what happens in Star Wars III)



Well of course that happens, but that's entirely different from what it sounded like you were going on about. You worded it more or less to make it sound like companies and organizations will support politicians to further their cause simply based on the fact that they are already in support of it, not because the politician promises them benefits. There are certainly symbiotic relationships between certain politicians and orgs/companies, and while some I suppose make sense, others don't, or should even be happening.
I believe all forms of corruption occur in Government, and it really doesn't matter what the details are, Government must be one regulated, not doing regulating.


Source?
Pork Bills. Read about them. Every single Dollar spent on "Federal" programs and bills comes out of our Tax Dollars. There's not a person alive that would pay for something themselves when they can use other people's money for it.


First of all. 'TEA party'. I know you've made mention that this stands for 'Taxed Enough Already', but it was originally not supposed to mean that. In fact, it was supposed to be just 'Tea Party', which is a reference to the Boston Tea Party, a protest by colonists who objected to a British tax on tea in 1773 and demonstrated by dumping British tea taken from docked ships into the harbor. Anyway...
It evolved from that idea of the Boston Tea Party, but when I was first made aware of it, it was already an Acronym.


I don't know what "tea party" you're from because you're wrong about a number of things, and here's why. First of all, there's no misinformation being spread unless the tea party is wrong about their own movement. My mom is a die hard tea partier herself, so I'm quite aware of the movement and how it operates. Also, I've seen quite a lot of Fox News and somehow still have basic motor skills (I know, I don't get it either), and so there's no misinformation being spread save potentially on your side of the spectrum.
If you read what I said about being a TEA partier, you'd know I also said, I'm not an official member, but simply proscribe to their core ideals. So, since you know how it operates, please educate me.


The donations for "furthering the cause" are just for donating to GOP candidates. Which is fine, obviously, that's what you guys believe in, and there's nothing wrong with doing that.

When you say there are no leaders, though, you are gravely mistaken. Many politicians have come out and made themselves out to be a leader. The original starter of the tea party movement believe it or not was Ron Paul, and then it picked up and took off into a completely different direction that he had intended. Now you have Michelle Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Eric Cantor, and John Boehner to name a few. And let's not forget about the influence the infamous Koch family has had on the movement.
Simply because someone says they are a leader, doesn't make them so. The Left media would rather people think Rush Limbaugh was the official TEA party, and Republican leader, but he's not, nor does he claim to be. He's simply an entertainer who also keeps people informed of the issues, from a conservative standpoint.
The politicians you named, are simply the Candidates that the TEA party would support, that have sway, no doubt, but they are not the leaders. As I said, the TEA party is a grass roots movement based off of certain common ideals, mostly local, with some national ties. I could start my own separate TEA party event in my town, and, so long as it promotes the same ideals as the TEA party, with the same goal, TEA partiers would attend.

Who is the Koch family?


The amount of wrong emanating from this post is mind boggling. I'll break this down, piece by piece for you.

>>"I'd like to know what kind the TEA party is using?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-debt-deal-the-triumph-of-the-old-washington/2011/08/02/gIQARSFfqI_story_1.html
I saw no scare tactics here, except the threat of US default, which has always been the left's call. Even if nothing had been reached, the Government would NOT have defaulted, in fact, it would have FORCED the government to make some serious spending cuts, in order to stay running, which the government seriously needs.
As far as I'm aware, the TEA partiers are pretty pissed at this deal, which essentially does nothing but give Obama a giant check for more spending.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dangerous-dealings-with-the-default-caucus/2011/07/21/gIQAktWMTI_story.html?hpid=z2
The same here, the left scaring people against the TEA party senators by saying they are "set on forcing the Government to default."
Which again, is a total lie, as the Government would NOT default, so long as it were to determine to CUT IT'S MASSIVE AND UNNECESSARY SPENDING. Which requires the Deomcrats, who control the senate, to do so. If Nation defaulted, it would be the fault of the democrats refusing to cut spending.

http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1217
The Republican GOP is not affiliated with the TEA party in any way, and would rather the TEA party disbanded completely.

There's no question that the Obama-as-Joker image—long a familiar icon at Tea Party rallies—is a toxic association for the GOP establishment. Oddly enough, though, that image's origins can be traced to the activist left
I have my doubts of this. I've been to a TEA party rally before, and this image was nowhere to be seen. and IMO, any TEA party activity that were to portray such a thing, would not be a real TEA party activity. Since you know more about the inner workings, please tell, is this image frequent in their rallies?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#Reports_of_slurs_at_health_care _reform_protests
So a couple of people claim that a couple of people assumed to be TEA partiers, were terribly disrespectful at a rally. I have my suspicions about some of the claims, and have even greater doubts about the people who did it being actual TEA partiers. It wouldn't be the first time the left tried to infiltrate peaceful gatherings to stir up hostility and create a bad reputation for the people they hate (conservatives). It's not like we "prevent" people from coming by checking their backgrounds and voting history.
Even if you dismiss the possiblity of a leftist implant (organized or not), you can not claim the entire party prescribes to those ideals.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/13/obama-hitler-tea-party-billboard_n_645203.html
roughly 200-person group
"That's just a waste of money, time, resources and it's not going to further our cause," said Shelby Blakely, a leaders of the Tea Party Patriots, a national group. "It's not going to help our cause. It's going to make people think that the tea party is full of a bunch of right-wing fringe people, and that's not true."
As the TEA party is not a nationally organized political entity, individuals are not prevented from doing what they feel is needed. I do not agree with their choice, and neither do many other TEA partiers.
The message of socialism however, remains a fact.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/sarah-palins-pac-puts-gun_n_511433.html
LOL? That's just charged rhetoric, there's absolutely no hint of actual threat to their lives, she's aiming to get them out of politics, not to kill them.
Granted, I can see where it could be a bit overcharged.


This is just a few. I think I made my point, however. To be honest with you, when I originally referenced tea party scare tactics, I was also referring, on a rather broad scale, to Fox News and Glenn Beck as well, however, as much of an influence as they are on the Tea Party, I will not include their scare tactics here, unless you'd like me to? Because I will.
Include Rush Limbaugh's Scare tactics please, I'm quite curious as to how I could have missed them when I listen to him often.


First of all, is he not your Vice President, too, like it or not? I didn't like when Dick Cheney was VP, but whether I liked it or not, he was my Vice President. Referring to him as "your" is pretty weak. Also, whether he said that or not is still up in the air. It was allegedly reported by several media outlets that he did, and many others who were there are claiming it didn't happen. Also, it was supposed that he likened the tea party to economic terrorism. My opinion? It wouldn't surprise me if he did, and if it's true, I don't agree with it and it was wrong. However, his frustration is understandable. Tea party legislators almost destroyed the economy because they were being entirely unreasonable regarding the debt ceiling in the most irresponsible act of selfishness I think I've ever seen politicians put on display. In the article I linked to above (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-debt-deal-the-triumph-of-the-old-washington/2011/08/02/gIQARSFfqI_story_1.html), tea party Sen. Mitch McConnell said this regarding the debt deal:
Yeah, he's my VP, I don't like it, but the only thing I can do is vote against him. Regardless, saying he was your VP was not incorrect.

I'd like to see some evidence of this "destruction of the economy," besides claims that we were going to force the Government to default, which is, plain and simple, an outright lie.



Also, if you're going to throw around that argument, I can think of plenty of times in which tea partiers and republicans likened democrats with terrorists. This one immediately comes to mind;

So it's not one sided. It's a dumb argument anyway, and name calling in politics on either side of the aisle is stupid and immature tactics. Democrats and Republicans are both guilty of it and it's a dumb issue.
If you're referring to something that was said during Bush's presidency, consider this, he wanted the ceiling raised so he could spend more on defense, to help us win the war quicker, with fewer casualties. Those who are against ending war quickly and lowering the casualty count? Make your own decision, but I consider that treason.

>>"others are saying we want to deny old people of their social security checks."

This is because, again, with the debt ceiling issue, the republicans and tea party was going to allow the country to default. See the above quote with McConnell again if you've forgotten already how republicans felt about that. If government checks didn't go out, it was basically a necessary evil in their eyes. And don't use the argument "Well, the democrats weren't giving enough." "Obama was trying to make us look bad" or "Obama was the one being selfish." No. None of those arguments work. Because they're WRONG. In fact, because of how much he gave into the tea party and republicans, many now see him as more of a republican than a democrat, which is hysterical. I'm not personally a fan of Obama myself, but even I can see the man has bent over backwards to the tea party to rid himself of this dumb illusion that he's some kind of communist dictator. He's basically spent more time trying to appeal to the tea party than his own party because of all of the bullshit. And, a bit off topic and a runaway sentence, but let's not forget about the horrid nature of the tea party politicians in Wisconsin earlier this year.
Concerning the default, you have some seriously misinformed facts there. There is no way the Government would default if the debt ceiling was not raised. Social Security checks BY LAW would have HAD to have gone out, even if the government had shut down. Those are some of the intricacies of the government you seem not to be aware of. The ONLY reason checks would not have gone out, would be if Obama himself REFUSED to sign them, or if he chose to sign checks to some other entity instead, using up the money that was left over.

Also, let me introduce you to a well kept, sneaky little secret of the US Government, it's called BASELINE BUDGETING. Basically it works like this:
By law, the budget is automatically increased for federal programs already in existence (nonnegotiable), based on the amount of money they USED (not needed, USED), the previous year.
This is meant to allow for growth based on the agency's needs. However, once the agency receives it's money, if it were to send back the excess money it didn't need that year, it would be given less money the next year, so instead of losing out on all this delicious money, it "spends" it in whatever way it can, so that it can get as much increase the next year as possible.

All these "DRASTIC CUTS" in the federal budget, don't even TOUCH the baseline, and therefore, all it does it reduce growth in the coming years, it doesn't slash anything RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW. Social Security/medicare/medicaide/Military pay/etc. checks would keep going out for quite some time, unless of course, the president refuses to sign them.


>> Besides being an outright LIE, those are scare tactics, coming from our opponents, not us.

I sincerely hope you have an open mind about all of this, as I did when I first started looking into the tea party movement myself. For the record, I regretfully voted for McCain in 2008, and I can assure you that today I am glad that he lost the race (truthfully, I wish I had written in Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich in on the ballot). But no, it isn't a lie. You just have... hopefully, had, your mind closed to it. It isn't a lie. It's true. You just need to look in the right places... if you're only getting your news from one source or a biased side of the spectrum, you're never going to be getting the full story. C-SPAN, NPR, News Hour on PBS, all are fantastic places to find your news unbiased, although many will tell you NPR is left leaning as a whole when they are in fact not, simply because they have no benefit from leaning one way or the other as they are a publicly run news source. If you still don't believe that, check this out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Npr#Allegations_of_ideological_bias). They've been accused of actually having been right wing bias, which many seem to completely over look.
*Chokes up laughing*
A FEDERALLY PAID News Program is unbiased?!?!
Public Fundings means, paid for by your taxdollars by the Government. Government, by definition, is biased.
Also, your source seems to be lacking it's citations there. ;)

>>Every genuine TEA partier is for Peaceful change in a respectful manner.

Sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of every other tea partier shouting "REVOLT WITH YOUR GUNS" in my ear :|
I've not heard them, where do you hear these? I've seen a bunch of immature comments like those at the bottom of news stories, personally, I think they're nuts, and they make us look bad. They have no bearing on the TEA party's goals of peaceful "revolution" by changing the "established" members of congress through voting them out, and voting new ones in.


However, I do have to say that, if peaceful revolution fails, the only option would be, Dictator, or Armed Revolution, akin to the American Revolution against Britain in 1776. (Which is why the left is so keen on preventing gun ownership, so they can't be ousted through peaceful or forceful means.)
Which side will you be on?

[deoxys]

http://i53.tinypic.com/2z8qo7l.gif

So... So much wrong... NPR's funding was cut by the republicans after...ugh... and... oh dear, there's a lot you don't seem to grasp about your own movement....

You're such a very elaborate troll...

I'll be gone for the day but replying later tonight or tomorrow, although I don't know if I really want to based on the closed mindedness of your responses. It honestly took me two hours to reply before, not sure I want to do that again. Gah...

[blazeVA]

Nothing's wrong with green energy, what's wrong, is forcing the people to accept it, based on iffy science, in an effort to make "Government Regulation" more and more acceptable to the public, so that when a Dictator finally takes over, people welcome him with Cheers, freely giving up their own liberties for "peace and safety." (Like what happens in Star Wars III)

If you're referring to something that was said during Bush's presidency, consider this, he wanted the ceiling raised so he could spend more on defense, to help us win the war quicker, with fewer casualties. Those who are against ending war quickly and lowering the casualty count? Make your own decision, but I consider that treason.


1) The science behind flourescent bulbs is not iffy. Seriously, how far up your ass is your head? Just taking into account that you can lower watt bulbs for the same affect as higher watt bulbs automatically makes them energy effiencent. And green. And if a country wants to take steps to make itself greener, especially since the US is one of the only countries NOT to try to lower CO2 emissions, I see no problem with it. And it is not making government control more appeal able, it actually trying to do it right. A lot of other countries have regulations in these area's and they are more Democratic than we are.


Those who are against ending war quickly and lowering the casualty count? Make your own decision, but I consider that treason.

Must I add that this war is a direct result of the first Persian Gulf war, which was fought for purely economic reasons? This war is pointless. It has gone on for too long and we need to get out troops out of there, otherwise there will be more causalities. And the money towards defense has done nothing, has it? 1 Trillion dollars for NOTHING. We spent less money in World War II. And we won. Sorry, but I am seeing Vietnam all over again.

Actually agreeing with unownmew here, one fluorescent bulb may not contain enough mercury to to damage, but when thrown away in large numbers they WILL cause damage. That's why we collect them here.

Sorry, Milo, but this show how little you know about the stuff. Mercury does not exist on surface conditions in liquid form. It almost always evaporates, going into the atmosphere. Now matter how many you throw out, it will never reach levels high enough to actually cause damage. The only problem with mercury is when it is inhaled in a concentrated gas, and also when it is present in a organic compound, which will not happen in a landfill. Sorry, but I did a research paper on the stuff, and, florescent bulbs do not contain enough mercury to cause any sort of damage.

[unownmew]

1) The science behind flourescent bulbs is not iffy. Seriously, how far up your ass is your head? Just taking into account that you can lower watt bulbs for the same affect as higher watt bulbs automatically makes them energy effiencent. And green. And if a country wants to take steps to make itself greener, especially since the US is one of the only countries NOT to try to lower CO2 emissions, I see no problem with it. And it is not making government control more appeal able, it actually trying to do it right. A lot of other countries have regulations in these area's and they are more Democratic than we are.
Not fluorescent bulbs being iffy science, Global Warming and the "requirement" for green energy, being iffy science. Nothing wrong with greater efficiency, but when it's being forced on the public, that is all sorts of wrong, regardless of the reason being correct or not.

Government regulation can not, and never will be done right. When we give a little, they take a lot. That's what corruption does. And don't you dare tell me there is no corruption in government. There's much more evidence then needed that shows that when a government gets too big and too powerful, it starts abusing that power to the detriment of it's citizens. That's not speculation, that is outright Historic FACT. That's the entire reason America rebelled against Britain, and the entire reason our government was founded the way it was, to prevent that corruption from gaining hold, as much as the people prevented it.



Must I add that this war is a direct result of the first Persian Gulf war, which was fought for purely economic reasons? This war is pointless. It has gone on for too long and we need to get out troops out of there, otherwise there will be more causalities. And the money towards defense has done nothing, has it? 1 Trillion dollars for NOTHING. We spent less money in World War II. And we won. Sorry, but I am seeing Vietnam all over again.
I do not see how protecting America from militant extremest Jihadests, committed to their ideology so much they will die for it, who will not stop until all of America burns (or collapses in on itself), is a pointless war. Or was started by some other war. They have an ideal, they will carry it out. We did nothing to incite their hated, besides being a force of freedom in the world.
I'll agree some moves may seem strange, but, unless you're on the strategic board, and know all the reasons we move our troops where they are moved, you can say nothing about what is "pointless" and what is not.

If we pull out now it WILL BE another Vietnam. We should NEVER engage in a war we are not ABSOLUTELY committed 100% to WIN. To so do, puts millions of lives at risk for no reason, and makes the sacrifices of those who do die, worthless. IMO it is treason to engage in a war with the intent to LOSE. It is no different from sending those brave men and women to a national slaughter house simply to kill them. We must finish completely what was started, or we will only have to deal with worse down the road.


Sorry, Milo, but this show how little you know about the stuff. Mercury does not exist on surface conditions in liquid form. It almost always evaporates, going into the atmosphere. Now matter how many you throw out, it will never reach levels high enough to actually cause damage. The only problem with mercury is when it is inhaled in a concentrated gas, and also when it is present in a organic compound, which will not happen in a landfill. Sorry, but I did a research paper on the stuff, and, florescent bulbs do not contain enough mercury to cause any sort of damage.
I was not aware of that, I thought Mercury was the only metal that was liquid at room temperature, not a gas.

[Talon87]

You don't seem able to make up your mind between anarchy and the Tea Party. Half of your last post was completely anarchistic. You draw this very hard, very deep line, declaring that corruption in government is inescapable and that for this reason government ought never to be allowed to tell people what to do. LOL, government telling people what to do is government. If you want to completely strip them of every tooth and claw they have, then you are advocating anarchy. And while I don't particularly care about anarchism, I do care that you turn around in the same post and PRAISE THE TEA PARTY! That's just crazy talk. Doublethink. A sign, perhaps, of brainwashing and of very shallow thinking. You try to imply that Obama is evil because he attempts to govern, then you turn right back around and plug a political party that (whether you like it or not) is populated and led by those in this country MOST eager to pass legislation against gay marriage, gay adoption, stem cell research, abortion, and a host of other issues which, were you truly an anarchist, you would be disgusted that they're trying to push.

[blazeVA]

Unown, I don't think you know how much regualtion has actually helped people and has been right. Even read the Jungle? If it was not for that book, we may as well be eating rats in our meats. Government regulation revolutionized the economy, industry, education, immigration, war, an many other things, mostly for the good, occasionally for the bad, because nothing is ever perfect. And not all people are going to take advantage of every little thing, there are governments with more government control that are perfectly fine. There is corruption in EVERY government, no matter how much control they have.

And what I meant about Vietnam is that we seem to be going nowhere. The Afghanistan has its ties with the Second Persian Gulf war, a result of the first Persian Gulf war. The first one was to keep Iraq out of Kuwait? No, that was not the reason. The reason was to keep Iraq out of Saudi Arabian oil fields. Economic all the way. And, both the Afghan and the Vietnam wars involve the United States government trying to push our government onto other people. Because, we Americans are ignorant assholes, and we are basically imperializing. Vietnam involved a weaker, less technologically advanced nation KICKING OUR ASS. Same here, though to a slightly lesser extent.

[Talon87]

The point about Vietnam and how we shouldn't pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan because too much has already been invested in these wars is an example of the sunk cost fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost_dilemma) which says:
The sunk cost fallacy is manifested when we have a greater tendency to continue an endeavour once an investment in money, effort or time has been made.
The idea at play in the minds of the victims of this fallacy is, "We've already come this far. We may as well finish what we started." The problem is, it assumes that finishing what one started is always better than cutting one's losses. And this is not true. It has to be determined on a case-by-case basis whether more damage would be incurred by leaving now versus continuing to stay.

In the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, there is unfortunately no way to predict the future. It could easily go any which way. Stay and be praised, stay and be condemned, leave and mend fences, leave and things go to hell even quicker. Any of these is possible. Current policy hopes for the first scenario to come true but with each passing day it seems that the second is what is playing out and now the only question is not if we leave but when we leave whether it'll be #3 or #4 which is how things ultimately play out.

Personally, I don't look at Iraq as a Sunk Cost situation in the first place. I brought that up because you seem to, as you have pointed to Vietnam and drawn comparisons saying "pulling out is wrong, we have to finish what we started." But in my opinion, the war was never justified and so we should have never invaded and should have immediately pulled out or made urgent arrangements to pull out when we finally ousted Bush from office. Serious charges of war crimes have been levied against Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld and were it not for their privileged positions as important men of power in the most powerful country in the world, they would probably have been brought before the Hague long ago. In any event, reality is not so easy, we did invade, and given that we already invaded the question we must ask is "Do we play it selfish and call the troops home in a bid to cut government spending? or do we play it altruistic and stay, not as propper-uppers of an artificial regime but instead as UN and Red Cross-style aid [even as an armed military presence] who go from village to village vaccinating babies, installing burners or woodstoves in homes, teaching children how to read in their native languages, teaching the willing how to speak English in order to broaden their employment opportunities, etc?" I tend to like the latter. But unfortunately a lot of people here at home are saying "BRING THE TROOPS HOME!" not for the right reasons (we should never have been over there in the first place) but for the wrong reasons (selfish desire to cut federal spending in our country's greatest time of economic crisis since the Great Depression).

[deoxys]

We should NEVER engage in a war we are not ABSOLUTELY committed 100% to WIN. To so do, puts millions of lives at risk for no reason, and makes the sacrifices of those who do die, worthless. IMO it is treason to engage in a war with the intent to LOSE. It is no different from sending those brave men and women to a national slaughter house simply to kill them. We must finish completely what was started, or we will only have to deal with worse down the road.

And just like that, I have no reason to debate with you anymore. Not wasting my time with this.

... in my opinion, the war was never justified and so we should have never invaded and should have immediately pulled out or made urgent arrangements to pull out when we finally ousted Bush from office. Serious charges of war crimes have been levied against Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld and were it not for their privileged positions as important men of power in the most powerful country in the world, they would probably have been brought before the Hague long ago.

So. Much. This.

[blazeVA]

I was not aware of that, I thought Mercury was the only metal that was liquid at room temperature, not a gas.

Eh, it is not the temperature, but the air pressure that causes it to evaporate. One thing you will learn is that pressure also has a big thing in state changes.

[unownmew]

You don't seem able to make up your mind between anarchy and the Tea Party. Half of your last post was completely anarchistic. You draw this very hard, very deep line, declaring that corruption in government is inescapable and that for this reason government ought never to be allowed to tell people what to do. LOL, government telling people what to do is government. If you want to completely strip them of every tooth and claw they have, then you are advocating anarchy. And while I don't particularly care about anarchism, I do care that you turn around in the same post and PRAISE THE TEA PARTY! That's just crazy talk. Doublethink. A sign, perhaps, of brainwashing and of very shallow thinking. You try to imply that Obama is evil because he attempts to govern, then you turn right back around and plug a political party that (whether you like it or not) is populated and led by those in this country MOST eager to pass legislation against gay marriage, gay adoption, stem cell research, abortion, and a host of other issues which, were you truly an anarchist, you would be disgusted that they're trying to push.
Anarchy?! Where in that post did I say "Abolish Government! Destroy Government!"?
Again, instead of trying to debate my points, you attempt to discredit me or my argument. Why?

Perhaps, not a sign of brainwashing, but of not being at clear to you as I thought I was?

Here's what I believe:
Government is a necessary Evil.

Government's duties are to protect the God-given rights of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, for all men and women, bond or free, black, white, red, yellow, or brown. As well as enforce laws for the protection of the state, and protection of society (such as preventing murder, and enforcing the punishment for those who murder), and protect other human rights, as set forth in the first ten amendments.
In other words, "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the Common Defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The best, most idealic form of Government the world has ever known, is the one set forth in the Constitution of the United States of America.

No government is perfect.
All governments are susceptible to corruption, and as a fact, will become corrupted at one point or another, attempting to establish itself as the ultimate power over the people it is meant to protect from such an Evil.
Regulation at certain points are necessary, however, should be enacted and enforced as minimal and as wisely as possible.
Taxes are necessary for government to function, but at a certain point reduce the wealth creation in a capitalistic society, as mid-sized businesses can not prosper if the majority of their profits are being taken for taxes and regulations. Thus a stranglehold of Taxes will kill off it's very life force, those who earn money, which are taxed.
Communism, as attempted around the world, brings unsustainability, and results in making the rich richer and the poor, poorer, as demonstrated through history.
Government must be beholden to the people, accountable for it's actions, and always thoroughly examined, otherwise, it will start to abuse it's power, and start to dictate control over it's citizens.

Unown, I don't think you know how much regualtion has actually helped people and has been right. Even read the Jungle? If it was not for that book, we may as well be eating rats in our meats. Government regulation revolutionized the economy, industry, education, immigration, war, an many other things, mostly for the good, occasionally for the bad, because nothing is ever perfect. And not all people are going to take advantage of every little thing, there are governments with more government control that are perfectly fine. There is corruption in EVERY government, no matter how much control they have.
I have not read it, but I learned about it in history. Along with child labor laws, I agree, that kind of regulation is good, however, all regulation must be examined thoroughly to see if it's "intended purpose" will actually be fulfilled, AND, if it is worth the cost it will inevitably impose upon the companies that will be regulated by it. At some point, regulation becomes excessive, and destructive, and it is the government's job to stop once that point has been reached. Why must every employer (small, medium, start-ups, and large companies) pay for every single employee's health insurance? Health insurance is not a right, and the cost to businesses with this regulation, is astronomical, small companies and start-ups will never be able to afford it, and then you get increased unemployed, and uninsured citizens because of it. Good Regulation? Or Bad?

And what I meant about Vietnam is that we seem to be going nowhere. The Afghanistan has its ties with the Second Persian Gulf war, a result of the first Persian Gulf war. The first one was to keep Iraq out of Kuwait? No, that was not the reason. The reason was to keep Iraq out of Saudi Arabian oil fields. Economic all the way. And, both the Afghan and the Vietnam wars involve the United States government trying to push our government onto other people. Because, we Americans are ignorant assholes, and we are basically imperializing. Vietnam involved a weaker, less technologically advanced nation KICKING OUR ASS. Same here, though to a slightly lesser extent.
We lost Vietnam because we did not equip our troops properly, and then we decided to pull out before the job was done. That will only delay the problem. Thankfully it's remained delayed, but, eventually we'll be forced to finish everything we, and those against us, start, whether we want to or not.

I'm not going to argue the "validity" of the Afgan war, because, not being one of the strategic officers, I can not offer their detailed assessments of the risks and benefits. Regardless, we are where we are now, and we must finish it, even if it was a "wrong" decision. "Pulling out", is not an option, it is admit to defeat. A loss which quite likely will embolden our enemies to strike us even harder in the future.

Removing dictators who ignore human rights, is never a bad decision though. Installing a puppet dictator who answers to us, while not the best decision, may be the lesser of two evils. The greater, being allowing an enemy state to build up to attack us. When it comes to decisions like this, you'll find everything is the wrong answer, and all you can do is make a decision and stick with it.

The point about Vietnam and how we shouldn't pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan because too much has already been invested in these wars is an example of the sunk cost fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost_dilemma) which says:

The idea at play in the minds of the victims of this fallacy is, "We've already come this far. We may as well finish what we started." The problem is, it assumes that finishing what one started is always better than cutting one's losses. And this is not true. It has to be determined on a case-by-case basis whether more damage would be incurred by leaving now versus continuing to stay.

In the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, there is unfortunately no way to predict the future. It could easily go any which way. Stay and be praised, stay and be condemned, leave and mend fences, leave and things go to hell even quicker. Any of these is possible. Current policy hopes for the first scenario to come true but with each passing day it seems that the second is what is playing out and now the only question is not if we leave but when we leave whether it'll be #3 or #4 which is how things ultimately play out.

Personally, I don't look at Iraq as a Sunk Cost situation in the first place. I brought that up because you seem to, as you have pointed to Vietnam and drawn comparisons saying "pulling out is wrong, we have to finish what we started." But in my opinion, the war was never justified and so we should have never invaded and should have immediately pulled out or made urgent arrangements to pull out when we finally ousted Bush from office. Serious charges of war crimes have been levied against Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld and were it not for their privileged positions as important men of power in the most powerful country in the world, they would probably have been brought before the Hague long ago. In any event, reality is not so easy, we did invade, and given that we already invaded the question we must ask is "Do we play it selfish and call the troops home in a bid to cut government spending? or do we play it altruistic and stay, not as propper-uppers of an artificial regime but instead as UN and Red Cross-style aid [even as an armed military presence] who go from village to village vaccinating babies, installing burners or woodstoves in homes, teaching children how to read in their native languages, teaching the willing how to speak English in order to broaden their employment opportunities, etc?" I tend to like the latter. But unfortunately a lot of people here at home are saying "BRING THE TROOPS HOME!" not for the right reasons (we should never have been over there in the first place) but for the wrong reasons (selfish desire to cut federal spending in our country's greatest time of economic crisis since the Great Depression).
I've addressed this above, however, I'd like to reiterate, the likely hood of the losses being even greater in the future, is much greater when you do a half job. If you do not eliminate enemies when they are but a small prick, they will fester and grow, until you are forced to either, remove the limb completely, or die. There is no negotiation with people who are dead set in hating you, so why try?

Again, I say, regardless of whether something was "justified" or "right," makes no difference, once you have made a serious decision, it is your responsibility to carry out that decision completely, or things will turn from bad to worse.
If war is declared, we damn well better be aiming to win completely. If you declare war, you'll piss off those you invaded, they don't care if you "had a sudden change of heart," and pull out quickly afterwards, they'll resent you anyhow, no matter how much you apologies and how low you bow to them, and they will then build up during "peacetime" to attack us back, and their goal WILL be to Win. And then we'll have to go to war anyway. Why should we let an enemy choose the time and location? If we have the advantage, press that advantage. If we have a goal, seize that goal. Half-measures never bring anything good, and I'm afraid, anyone who does not understand that, does not understand War. Choose one side, or the other, but once you choose, stand by your choice, to the last man. Ours or theirs.
If you rethink your choice, and find a better option, go with it, but go with it as completely as your previous choice, ceasing to follow the first.

Iraq and Afganistan are tough, in that we're not fighting a nation, but a very mobile group of terrorists who are hiding behind innocent. If our goal was to truly dominate, we could just wipe the nation and it's people off the map. However, that's not our goal, our goal is to liberate them from oppressors while eradicating the toxins swimming freely through their system.

[blazeVA]

I have not read it, but I learned about it in history. Along with child labor laws, I agree, that kind of regulation is good, however, all regulation must be examined thoroughly to see if it's "intended purpose" will actually be fulfilled, AND, if it is worth the cost it will inevitably impose upon the companies that will be regulated by it. At some point, regulation becomes excessive, and destructive, and it is the government's job to stop once that point has been reached. Why must every employer (small, medium, start-ups, and large companies) pay for every single employee's health insurance? Health insurance is not a right, and the cost to businesses with this regulation, is astronomical, small companies and start-ups will never be able to afford it, and then you get increased unemployed, and uninsured citizens because of it. Good Regulation? Or Bad?


We lost Vietnam because we did not equip our troops properly, and then we decided to pull out before the job was done. That will only delay the problem. Thankfully it's remained delayed, but, eventually we'll be forced to finish everything we, and those against us, start, whether we want to or not.

I'm not going to argue the "validity" of the Afgan war, because, not being one of the strategic officers, I can not offer their detailed assessments of the risks and benefits. Regardless, we are where we are now, and we must finish it, even if it was a "wrong" decision. "Pulling out", is not an option, it is admit to defeat. A loss which quite likely will embolden our enemies to strike us even harder in the future.

Removing dictators who ignore human rights, is never a bad decision though. Installing a puppet dictator who answers to us, while not the best decision, may be the lesser of two evils. The greater, being allowing an enemy state to build up to attack us. When it comes to decisions like this, you'll find everything is the wrong answer, and all you can do is make a decision and stick with it.


I've addressed this above, however, I'd like to reiterate, the likely hood of the losses being even greater in the future, is much greater when you do a half job. If you do not eliminate enemies when they are but a small prick, they will fester and grow, until you are forced to either, remove the limb completely, or die. There is no negotiation with people who are dead set in hating you, so why try?

Again, I say, regardless of whether something was "justified" or "right," makes no difference, once you have made a serious decision, it is your responsibility to carry out that decision completely, or things will turn from bad to worse.
If war is declared, we damn well better be aiming to win completely. If you declare war, you'll piss off those you invaded, they don't care if you "had a sudden change of heart," and pull out quickly afterwards, they'll resent you anyhow, no matter how much you apologies and how low you bow to them, and they will then build up during "peacetime" to attack us back, and their goal WILL be to Win. And then we'll have to go to war anyway. Why should we let an enemy choose the time and location? If we have the advantage, press that advantage. If we have a goal, seize that goal. Half-measures never bring anything good, and I'm afraid, anyone who does not understand that, does not understand War. Choose one side, or the other, but once you choose, stand by your choice, to the last man. Ours or theirs.
If you rethink your choice, and find a better option, go with it, but go with it as completely as your previous choice, ceasing to follow the first.

Iraq and Afganistan are tough, in that we're not fighting a nation, but a very mobile group of terrorists who are hiding behind innocent. If our goal was to truly dominate, we could just wipe the nation and it's people off the map. However, that's not our goal, our goal is to liberate them from oppressors while eradicating the toxins swimming freely through their system.

A few things. One, people have different views on the healthcare thing. I prefer the way the Canadians do it, and, "Socialized healthcare", is a scare tactic. Have you ever read anything actually true about things like socialism or communism? It is much different than the Soviet version of it.

Also, even though we invaded Vietnam, and Cambodia, we are in good relations with each of them, and it dosen't matter. And, what do you mean, it does not matter if it was wrong or right? The Crimean war was regarded as the most pointless war ever. Considering that protests over Vietnam was also a factor in withdrawing, I think your point is moot.

We lost Vietnam because we did not equip our troops properly, and then we decided to pull out before the job was done. That will only delay the problem.

First war in which helicoptors were used, as well as having superior weapons makes me laugh at this. THEY KICKED OUR ASS! Accept it. United States lost. Also, the problem has pretty much settled down since then, so you are wrong.

However, that's not our goal, our goal is to liberate them from oppressors while eradicating the toxins swimming freely through their system.

Got to keep things in perspective. Do we really have the right to say how people live, which is what we are doing? No. This war is a politically motivated war, and has nothing to do with invasions or Nazis. Yes, they attacked us, but we should just bomb them a few times and be over with it. Not invade and change everything to our liking.

Removing dictators who ignore human rights, is never a bad decision though. Installing a puppet dictator who answers to us, while not the best decision, may be the lesser of two evils. The greater, being allowing an enemy state to build up to attack us. When it comes to decisions like this, you'll find everything is the wrong answer, and all you can do is make a decision and stick with it.

Some much contradiction in this paragraph. Removing dictators that ignore human rights is a must, but putting them in is okay? Alright, Soviet.

Allowing the enemy state to attack us is generally a bad thing from a strategic standpoint, but it is not a "evil thing."

Why should we let an enemy choose the time and location? If we have the advantage, press that advantage. If we have a goal, seize that goal

This is why your statement makes no sense. We do the same, do we not? We should just not go into war in the first place, like Switzerland. :3

Everything is the wrong answer is just an excuse to excuse your actions. Making a decision and sticking with it, at times fails, which is why we withdrawed out of Vietnam. It did not work. Keeping it up would have been very bad.

[Talon87]

Anarchy?! Where in that post did I say "Abolish Government! Destroy Government!"?
Again, instead of trying to debate my points, you attempt to discredit me or my argument.
"Government regulation can not, and never will be done right." - you, about a page ago

To govern is to regulate. To regulate is to intefere with private affairs, be they business affairs, religious affairs, organizational affairs, or any other kind of affair, and to say "This is what you can and cannot do." You are saying, "The government can never regulate properly" and implying ... what? I didn't put the words in your mouth -- you practically spelled it out yourself. You are implying that "best government is no government."

At least you are when you rail against government regulation as hard as you do here. Then like I said in my original post, you seem to post along the Tea Party line the other half of the time. Like in your reply to me, where you try to explain how you are not an anarchist (fine, I don't care, I just ask that you be consistent, either be an anarchist or be a Tea Partier), you say that the best government the world has ever known is that founded by the Founding Fathers, the men who drafted together the Articles of Confederation and later the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States of America. This is the same government which specifically says in its charter (i.e. the Constitution):
The Congress shall have Power [...] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes
You read that correctly: the Federal government since George frickin' Washington has held the right to regulate businesses (which are one of many things which fall under the umbrella term "commerce"). To tell them what business practices they can and cannot do. To say "you must go green 'cause we say so" or "you must cut CO2 emissions 'cause we say so," etc. Like a fairly typical Tea Partier, you are hiding behind the Constitution like it is some impenetrable shield which will deflect all of our arguments and protect you from our logical onslaught: but the sad truth is, you're hiding behind a shield that has already stabbed you. APPARENTLY. Because you're railing against government regulation and there's just one of MANY examples in the Constitution outlining how even in George Washington's day it was 100% a-okay for the federal government to say "Here are the rules, bitches, and you'd best abide by them."

If you feel that a particular vein of government regulation is unjust or illogical, that's fine. But don't act like "DOWN WITH GOVERNMENT REGULATION! UP WITH A RETURN TO AMERICAN SENSIBILITIES OF OLDE!" makes any sort of sense. Because it doesn't. Because America has been a government which regulates ever since the Articles of Confederation produced the most ineffective, toothless government ever and the Founding Fathers realized, "Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh shit. :| If we want this new government to have any power whatsoever, we're gonna have to draft some major changes. Give it some fangs." And they did. Those fangs you're railing against were created by the same Founding Fathers and into the same Constitution you're so quick to celebrate.

I believe that this is one reason why it's tough for people to find satisfaction in debating with you. You seem to island-hop from platform to platform, setting foot on whichever island suits you best for the current argument. You can't be both a Republican and a Democrat. You can't be both a Socialist and a Fascist. And, in this case, I would say that you can't be both an anarchist and a Federalist. That's great that you want to claim that you're not, but many of the things you have written in this post would have made Alexander Hamilton's toes curl.

[blazeVA]

If you feel that a particular vein of government regulation is unjust or illogical, that's fine. But don't act like "DOWN WITH GOVERNMENT REGULATION! UP WITH A RETURN TO AMERICAN SENSIBILITIES OF OLDE!" makes any sort of sense. Because it doesn't. Because America has been a government which regulates ever since the Articles of Confederation produced the most ineffective, toothless government ever and the Founding Fathers realized, "Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh shit. :| If we want this new government to have any power whatsoever, we're gonna have to draft some major changes. Give it some fangs." And they did. Those fangs you're railing against were created by the same Founding Fathers and into the same Constitution you're so quick to celebrate.



This. so much this. The Articles of Confederation completely failed as government.

[Mozz]

Don't post mozz don't post mozz don't post mozz

/has stroke

[unownmew]

A few things. One, people have different views on the healthcare thing. I prefer the way the Canadians do it, and, "Socialized healthcare", is a scare tactic. Have you ever read anything actually true about things like socialism or communism? It is much different than the Soviet version of it.
Scare tactic or not, it's still socialized. Putting the government in complete charge of business is socialism. Why? Because, even if it states that other companies are allowed to sell healthcare, no private entity can compete with government prices and make a profit, because government can reduce prices so it takes a net loss, and supplement that with Tax funds to keep it running.
And if you think the government is going to play nice competing with private entities, you're deluding yourselves. Once they have that power, there's nothing stopping them from abusing it.

Also, even though we invaded Vietnam, and Cambodia, we are in good relations with each of them, and it dosen't matter. And, what do you mean, it does not matter if it was wrong or right? The Crimean war was regarded as the most pointless war ever. Considering that protests over Vietnam was also a factor in withdrawing, I think your point is moot.
Yes protests are one reason America chose to lose the war in Vietnam. It really is a shame, all that blood spilt for absolutely nothing. You might as well have just sent those brave men and women to a concentration camp, that's how little their sacrifice meant in the end. The survivors weren't even hailed as heros in their own country, but hated, simply for being committed to defend their country and following orders.

War does not discriminate between "Right" and "Wrong," both sides commit atrocities, and history is written by the victor. What I mean by "it does not matter," is, in a War, you have to make life and death decisions almost every day. Each decision will result in good and bad results, you most often do not have the time to comprehensively think out pros and cons or come up with alternate solutions, you simply have to make a choice, and follow through with it. Once that choice is made, you can not go back. Whether it was a right or a wrong decision depends only on the result. The only time to back out, is when you know more lives will be lost by continuing through.

The only things that can be considered, is, how few lives can be lost for the most benefit.



First war in which helicoptors were used, as well as having superior weapons makes me laugh at this. THEY KICKED OUR ASS! Accept it. United States lost. Also, the problem has pretty much settled down since then, so you are wrong.
Yes I accept the US lost, because it lost it's will to fight, and only continued the war halfheartedly until it could fully pull out. Our Men and Women bled and died for nothing. Absolutely Nothing.


Got to keep things in perspective. Do we really have the right to say how people live, which is what we are doing? No. This war is a politically motivated war, and has nothing to do with invasions or Nazis. Yes, they attacked us, but we should just bomb them a few times and be over with it. Not invade and change everything to our liking.
Think about it this way: Do we have the right to allow human abuse, when we have the power to stop it? If we can liberate a people from abuse, and allow them to choose their own path (where if they were ruled by a dictator, they could not), should we not?

It's a cheesy Spiderman line, but it's absolutely true:
"With great power, comes great responsibility."


Some much contradiction in this paragraph. Removing dictators that ignore human rights is a must, but putting them in is okay? Alright, Soviet.
I agree the two statements completely contradict each other. That's why one must choose the lesser of two evils. In our quest to liberate from tyranny, if the US is in danger, we must protect ourselves first, or our cause dies with us, and there will be no one that can save others from tyranny in the future.


Allowing the enemy state to attack us is generally a bad thing from a strategic standpoint, but it is not a "evil thing."
Yes, but as I said above, if we can not protect ourselves first, we will not be able to protect others. As much as we want to help others in need, if we fall, so will those in need.



This is why your statement makes no sense. We do the same, do we not? We should just not go into war in the first place, like Switzerland. :3
So, you're saying we should just let Terrorists bomb us all day, simply because it's better then going to war?
If someone is unilaterally at war against us, their goal, our total destruction, or enslavement, it is completely naivety to think we could resolve it through negotiations. The only choice is to bring the war to them, and wipe them out of existence. There is Good and Evil in the world, and Evil, left unchecked, will destroy the good as much as it can. Even Switzerland would be forced to declare war if someone attacked them unilaterally, unless they just wanted to roll over and die.


Everything is the wrong answer is just an excuse to excuse your actions. Making a decision and sticking with it, at times fails, which is why we withdrawed out of Vietnam. It did not work. Keeping it up would have been very bad.
No, it may be used as an excuse by some, but it truly is how war works. A bad decision could be the "most right" decision available at the time, but it does not excuse the bad decision, it only makes it tolerable.

We withdrew from Vietnam because we were not willing to do what was necessary to win. Using Helicopters is fine and all, but if we're not fighting seriously, it doesn't matter what advanced technology we use.

"Government regulation can not, and never will be done right." - you, about a page ago

To govern is to regulate. To regulate is to intefere with private affairs, be they business affairs, religious affairs, organizational affairs, or any other kind of affair, and to say "This is what you can and cannot do." You are saying, "The government can never regulate properly" and implying ... what? I didn't put the words in your mouth -- you practically spelled it out yourself. You are implying that "best government is no government."
That is as I said, you can never trust a government to regulate Correctly.
That doesn't meant government shouldn't regulate, it means the citizens should regulate what the government can and can not do with that regulatory power.

At least you are when you rail against government regulation as hard as you do here. Then like I said in my original post, you seem to post along the Tea Party line the other half of the time. Like in your reply to me, where you try to explain how you are not an anarchist (fine, I don't care, I just ask that you be consistent, either be an anarchist or be a Tea Partier), you say that the best government the world has ever known is that founded by the Founding Fathers, the men who drafted together the Articles of Confederation and later the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States of America. This is the same government which specifically says in its charter (i.e. the Constitution):

[Commerce Clause in the Constitution]

You read that correctly: the Federal government since George frickin' Washington has held the right to regulate businesses (which are one of many things which fall under the umbrella term "commerce"). To tell them what business practices they can and cannot do. To say "you must go green 'cause we say so" or "you must cut CO2 emissions 'cause we say so," etc. Like a fairly typical Tea Partier, you are hiding behind the Constitution like it is some impenetrable shield which will deflect all of our arguments and protect you from our logical onslaught: but the sad truth is, you're hiding behind a shield that has already stabbed you. APPARENTLY. Because you're railing against government regulation and there's just one of MANY examples in the Constitution outlining how even in George Washington's day it was 100% a-okay for the federal government to say "Here are the rules, bitches, and you'd best abide by them."
Yes, the federal government can regulate Commerce between the states and between other nations. It does not say it can regulate businesses, it says Commerce.
Commerce: (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Commerce)
an interchange of goods or commodities, especially on a large scale between different countries (foreign commerce) or between different parts of the same country (domestic commerce); trade; business.

1. the activity embracing all forms of the purchase and sale of goods and services

1 : the exchange or buying and selling of goods, commodities, property, or services esp. on a large scale and involving transportation from place to place

Commerce is buying and selling, and has nothing to do with the inner workings of how a business acquires products for said commerce.

It is the various interpretations of the Necessary and Proper Clause, that allows government to regulate businesses.
Here's some reading on that:
Obamacare (http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/06/23/commerce-necessary-and-proper-and-obamacare/)

[Will edit later with more evidence]

If you feel that a particular vein of government regulation is unjust or illogical, that's fine. But don't act like "DOWN WITH GOVERNMENT REGULATION! UP WITH A RETURN TO AMERICAN SENSIBILITIES OF OLDE!" makes any sort of sense. Because it doesn't. Because America has been a government which regulates ever since the Articles of Confederation produced the most ineffective, toothless government ever and the Founding Fathers realized, "Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh shit. :| If we want this new government to have any power whatsoever, we're gonna have to draft some major changes. Give it some fangs." And they did. Those fangs you're railing against were created by the same Founding Fathers and into the same Constitution you're so quick to celebrate.
I'm not railing against the fangs. Obviously the Articles of Confederation were an "off-hands" approach to attempt to unite the states, which failed completely.
I'm railing against powers the Federal Government was never given but simply assumed, which interfere with and are harmful to, citizens, the economy, and Freedom.

I believe that this is one reason why it's tough for people to find satisfaction in debating with you. You seem to island-hop from platform to platform, setting foot on whichever island suits you best for the current argument. You can't be both a Republican and a Democrat. You can't be both a Socialist and a Fascist. And, in this case, I would say that you can't be both an anarchist and a Federalist. That's great that you want to claim that you're not, but many of the things you have written in this post would have made Alexander Hamilton's toes curl.
I'm registered republican, but I am a Conservative. I apologize I'm not as good as I thought I was in getting my points across clearly. But then, the debate also helps me solidify and realize what my real beliefs are, allowing me to be more concise and clear in the future.

In an openminded debate, all parties come to realize their true beliefs, and allows for the exchange and new creation of ideas for the education of all parties. Unless someone is deadset on not changing, I can't see why a debate would not be a good idea, for anything.

This. so much this. The Articles of Confederation completely failed as government.
I completely agree.
Thankfully from this failure, came the best government known to man. It's creation more researched then any other government in the world.

[Raptor Jesus]

Thankfully from this failure, came the best government known to man. It's creation more researched then any other government in the world.

Okay. So it's the best government ever. But it should have no power whatsoever with business and other functions. And because it wants to, it's horrible.

Your viewpoints are so back and forth. One sentence you will talk about how the government is choking us and wasting our tax dollars. The next one you're saying how the government is the best one ever. It's because of statements like this we question the validity of your opinions.

[deoxys]

So, you're saying we should just let Terrorists bomb us all day, simply because it's better then going to war?
If someone is unilaterally at war against us, their goal, our total destruction, or enslavement, it is completely naivety to think we could resolve it through negotiations. The only choice is to bring the war to them, and wipe them out of existence. There is Good and Evil in the world, and Evil, left unchecked, will destroy the good as much as it can. Even Switzerland would be forced to declare war if someone attacked them unilaterally, unless they just wanted to roll over and die.


http://www.consolegames.ro/forum/attachments/f60-console-club/115627d1307525507-ninja-gaiden-3-raeg.png


--------------------------------------
http://i.imgur.com/4XojC.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/vyseq.gif

[blazeVA]

Unown, even Switzerland does not have an army. That is like saying Japan would go to war.

Also, sometimes the "rightness" of a war is what causes it to be finished or not. Sure, terrorists did bomb us. But, what about the people on Iraq, who had nothing to do with that. Saddam Hussein actually did something we could not do, which was to keep the various ethnic groups from slaughtering each other. Even here of insurrectionists? That was because of us.

The reason the terrorists bombed us in the first place was because we muddled in Middle East affairs, Isreal, Iraq, etc. The same would happen if we kept muddling in SE Asain affairs, don't you think that China would be mad?

[unownmew]

Okay. So it's the best government ever. But it should have no power whatsoever with business and other functions. And because it wants to, it's horrible.

Your viewpoints are so back and forth. One sentence you will talk about how the government is choking us and wasting our tax dollars. The next one you're saying how the government is the best one ever. It's because of statements like this we question the validity of your opinions.
Is it contradicting? I never said government should have "no power," I said it's power should be regulated by the citizens, not allowed to run rampant.

Our Constitution laid out the best form of government the world has ever known. Every other form of government pales in comparison to the freedoms our Constitution allows. However, all govenments are a necessary evil, including ours. Ours is simply the "least of those evils."

I fail to see how that is contradicting. If you could point out how it is, I'd greatly appreciate it.



Unown, even Switzerland does not have an army. That is like saying Japan would go to war.

Also, sometimes the "rightness" of a war is what causes it to be finished or not. Sure, terrorists did bomb us. But, what about the people on Iraq, who had nothing to do with that. Saddam Hussein actually did something we could not do, which was to keep the various ethnic groups from slaughtering each other. Even here of insurrectionists? That was because of us.

The reason the terrorists bombed us in the first place was because we muddled in Middle East affairs, Isreal, Iraq, etc. The same would happen if we kept muddling in SE Asain affairs, don't you think that China would be mad?
Switzerland has no army? No military equipment at all? Well, I hope they never end up in the middle of anything, otherwise, they'll be destroyed in no time. If you honestly think America should have no military, I have nothing more to say, just nicely surrender yourselves to the "mercy" of terrorists or any other hostile foreign power when they come knocking. Likely though, you won't be spared easily unless you pledge yourself to their ideals.


I'll agree that if America aggressively attacked or invaded another country for sole reasons of conquering or conquest, that war should be stopped, however, if we go to war in defense of ourselves, our allies, or to liberate a people, that war ought not to be stopped, even if some resources are plundered in the process. That does not excuse the plundering though, unless it is from our enemy.

Whether or not Saddam Hussein was able to keep the various tribes from warring, does not excuse his train of human abuses. From rape to murder, do you really think that should have been "ignored" to keep bloodfeuds in that country from sprouting up?

Terrorists hate us for more then just meddling in middle-eastern affairs. They hate everything America stands for. They hate Christianity. They hate our ally Israel. They have declared a Holy War against us and Israel, and will stop at nothing short of our ruination. There is no cure for that, no amount of cessation we can give to make them change their mind, and any cessation we do give, only gives them a greater advantage against us. What you seem not to understand is their Fervor against America, which knows no bounds. You can't sympathize with that kind of hate.

[blazeVA]

Swizerland has a small force, sort of like a large police force, but that is it. Japan can't have an army or a navy thanks to WWII, and I was in no way implying we should not have an army, stop making stupid conclusions.

[Tyranidos]

>Japan can't have an army
>Spends $41.1 billion dollars on military anyway

[Talon87]

>Japan can't have an army
>Spends $41.1 billion dollars on military anyway
"The Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes." - Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution

In other words, they renounced their right to host a military force clearly intended as an invasion force. They did not renounce their right to a defense force, hence the SDF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Self-Defense_Forces) into which they've been pouring funding. There are several reasons for this increased spending in recent years but it is in large part because the terms of the surrender, i.e. the terms for the 1947 Constitution, were not entirely one-sided. In return for giving up their right to a militant army or navy, the Japanese were promised protection via the American armed forces. Quoth the Wiki:
Japan's national defense policy has been based on maintaining the 1960 Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security with the United States, under which Japan assumed unilateral responsibility for its own internal security and the United States agreed to join in Japan's defense in the event that Japan or its territories were attacked.
In recent years, thanks to the wars started by Bush Jr., the American military has been stretched too thin. (If you want evidence of this, you need only look to Libya, what would have been our third military theater had we been able to muster the forces, equipment, funds, etc.) So the Japanese, whose Constitution still affords them the basic sovereign right to protect themselves, have been putting more money towards the SDF in recent years precisely because they fear that with a weakening American presence in the region the Chinese or the Koreans might do something. Basically, the Japanese have said, "America, you've reneged on your 1960 promise. So now all bets are off and you're damn right we're gonna do whatever it takes to protect ourselves. Sorry, but you didn't uphold your end of the agreement."

For more on this, read Wikipedia's articles on Japan's national defense policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_policy_of_Japan) and the SDF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Self-Defense_Forces). The quote towards the bottom of that first page is particularly worth your read.

[unownmew]

In recent years, thanks to the wars started by Bush Jr., the American military has been stretched too thin. (If you want evidence of this, you need only look to Libya, what would have been our third military theater had we been able to muster the forces, equipment, funds, etc.) So the Japanese, whose Constitution still affords them the basic sovereign right to protect themselves, have been putting more money towards the SDF in recent years precisely because they fear that with a weakening American presence in the region the Chinese or the Koreans might do something. Basically, the Japanese have said, "America, you've reneged on your 1960 promise. So now all bets are off and you're damn right we're gonna do whatever it takes to protect ourselves. Sorry, but you didn't uphold your end of the agreement."

Libya was entirely started by Obama, and, as far as I'm aware, opposed by many Americans. (there's no profit to it, and even if we liberate them, there's little evidence they will be on our side afterwards.)
Lybia would be a war I can fully support withdrawing from, but once we're there, we might as well do it right, which Obama is not doing.

I completely agree that America is spread too thin though.

[Talon87]

Does there have to be profit in it for the war to be justified? Humanitarian aid isn't good enough? Funny: your lot always seem to insist that Iraq wasn't about regional stability or money and was entirely about humanitarian aid and you're 100% behind that. Funny, funny, funny. :roll:

Libya, they revolted on their own first and pleaded for us to come and help. That's when we should. Too bad we only weakly did. :|

Iraq, there was no active insurrection and instead we lit the fire. Which causes everyone to blame us for establishing a puppet government rather than aiding resistance cels. War we shouldn't have done.

[blazeVA]

Libya was entirely started by Obama, and, as far as I'm aware, opposed by many Americans. (there's no profit to it, and even if we liberate them, there's little evidence they will be on our side afterwards.)
Lybia would be a war I can fully support withdrawing from, but once we're there, we might as well do it right, which Obama is not doing.

I completely agree that America is spread too thin though.

You so funny because we bombed the fuck out of Libya earlier. Like in the 1970's.

[unownmew]

Does there have to be profit in it for the war to be justified? Humanitarian aid isn't good enough? Funny: your lot always seem to insist that Iraq wasn't about regional stability or money and was entirely about humanitarian aid and you're 100% behind that. Funny, funny, funny. :roll:

Libya, they revolted on their own first and pleaded for us to come and help. That's when we should. Too bad we only weakly did. :|

Iraq, there was no active insurrection and instead we lit the fire. Which causes everyone to blame us for establishing a puppet government rather than aiding resistance cels. War we shouldn't have done.
I just got through saying humanitarian aid is reason enough to go to war. I also said, since we're there, we'd better do it Right, whereas Obama's just weakly helping out, and not leading in any manner.

The problem with Libya however, is that, We Do Not Know Who It Is We're Helping. Why do not know where their loyalties lie, nor where they get their funding. It's suspected they have ties with terrorists, and if they do, when they take over control of the government, what then? America may have another enemy.

It would have been better if we had considered everything before involving ourselves with the Civil War there, however, it is too late, and all we can do now is Kick A Old-school American Style, like back in the World Wars. (which we're not doing...)


Also, Talon, I'd like some responses to my other points I gave further up, instead of the meat of the issue simply being ignored. No counterpoints would mean, you can't disagree.


You so funny because we bombed the fuck out of Libya earlier. Like in the 1970's.
Well considering Libya isn't attacking us, but instead is in a Civil War, would likely mean, what we did back then, didn't do much to start the revolt that's happening now.
Feel free to correct me on that though with direct correlations between our actions then, and the occurrences now.

[Shuckle]

The problem with Libya however, is that, We Do Not Know Who It Is We're Helping. Why do not know where their loyalties lie, nor where they get their funding. It's suspected they have ties with terrorists, and if they do, when they take over control of the government, what then? America may have another enemy.Oh, we can't help them! They might be terrorists, and if we put them in power, they will hate us.

Confusing statement is confusing. If we help the terrorists, will that not make things a little bit better? I understand that they've done horrible things to us, but the people responsible for that are dying off. It's time to get some peace imo.

But, more importantly, how on earth did this topic come up? Thread title says, "Lobbying".

[Talon87]

"Government regulation can not, and never will be done right." - you, about a page agoThat is as I said, you can never trust a government to regulate Correctly.
That doesn't meant government shouldn't regulate, it means the citizens should regulate what the government can and can not do with that regulatory power.
This is why I didn't bother replying to you yesterday. You keep moving the line in the sand, you keep changing the grounds for discourse, and now you're even appealing to semantic insanity. You're probably thinking right now, "What did I do? :? 'Semantic insanity'? What's he talking about?", so let me tell you what you've just done in the quote I've quoted. This is you: "I never said they shouldn't regulate! Show me where I said that! I just said that if they do regulate it will never be done right. YOU chose to draw an inference from that. YOU chose to infer that when I said 'any regulation they do will blow up in their faces' that I desire to see no federal regulation. :|" Fuckin' A, are you kidding me? Are you a troll? Of course I drew an inference from that! A basic, human inference! When you say "Government can never regulate correctly," of course I conclude that you do not wish to see them regulate. Because why oh why on earth would you want to see them regulate incorrectly? So I respond to you, and you come back at me with the crazy-ass and indignant reply that you did. "I never said they shouldn't regulate! :evil: I just said that if they do regulate it's not gonna go over too well!" You're as bad as a politician. :roll: Either be in favor of government regulation or be against it. Knock it the fuck off with having one hand in the federalist cookie jar and one hand in the Tenth Amendment cookie jar. "Government can never regulate properly! :evil: ... but I still want it to regulate. :(" Madness. :roll:

As far as your arguments concerning the Tenth Amendment (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Tenth+Amendment) are concerned, you might be surprised to learn that I am sympathetic. I actually believe that the issue of states' sovereignty is a relevant one. However, the idea of states as sovereign powers was for better or worse pretty much stamped out when the South lost the Civil War and the North was able to solidify the idea of a UNITED states over a united STATES. Gone was the image of the USA as a collection of European countries or Greek city-states and in its place was an image of England with her various counties. That's all the states effectively are today -- counties of a larger parent nation, nothing more -- and I think that that is rather blatantly unconstitutional. I think it would be nice if each state were able to pass its own individual laws concerning gay marriage, child welfare, health care, so on and so forth. But unlike you, I would never in one million years call for the radical abolition or reversal of federalism. And the last thing which I would target first would be federal regulation. The FDA, the EPA, the FCC, these are all regulatory bodies which it would be devastating to see abolished in the name of Sarah Palin's war to take back Amer'ca from "Obama." (Yes, because it's clearly Obama who took it away. :roll: [/sarcasm] Ugh.)

I'm done "debating" with you on this topic, if not period, because you keep repositioning the line in the sand, you keep changing your stance whenever people take issue with the dogmatic claims you voice, and I've had enough of it. That is why I didn't reply yesterday: because I was going to basically say this and decided, "You know? No. No need to be mean. No need to be rude. No need for hurt feelings. He can take a hint." But since you asked, you received.

[blazeVA]

[i] Are you a troll?

http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs43/f/2009/150/a/f/Professional_Troll_by_DrRiptide.jpg

Sorry, but Unown, I have seen you take so many stance in this argument, either you have multiple personality disorder, or you are a troll. And not even a professional one either.

[unownmew]

Oh, we can't help them! They might be terrorists, and if we put them in power, they will hate us.

Confusing statement is confusing. If we help the terrorists, will that not make things a little bit better? I understand that they've done horrible things to us, but the people responsible for that are dying off. It's time to get some peace imo.

But, more importantly, how on earth did this topic come up? Thread title says, "Lobbying".

If the people we help, will hate us the same regardless of our help, and are simply using us to further their goals, to eventually attack us. Go figure. Unless each and every leader is eliminated, they will simply rally more to their cause.

This is why I didn't bother replying to you yesterday. You keep moving the line in the sand, you keep changing the grounds for discourse, and now you're even appealing to semantic insanity. You're probably thinking right now, "What did I do? :? 'Semantic insanity'? What's he talking about?", so let me tell you what you've just done in the quote I've quoted. This is you: "I never said they shouldn't regulate! Show me where I said that! I just said that if they do regulate it will never be done right. YOU chose to draw an inference from that. YOU chose to infer that when I said 'any regulation they do will blow up in their faces' that I desire to see no federal regulation. :|" Fuckin' A, are you kidding me? Are you a troll? Of course I drew an inference from that! A basic, human inference! When you say "Government can never regulate correctly," of course I conclude that you do not wish to see them regulate. Because why oh why on earth would you want to see them regulate incorrectly? So I respond to you, and you come back at me with the crazy-ass and indignant reply that you did. "I never said they shouldn't regulate! :evil: I just said that if they do regulate it's not gonna go over too well!" You're as bad as a politician. :roll: Either be in favor of government regulation or be against it. Knock it the fuck off with having one hand in the federalist cookie jar and one hand in the Tenth Amendment cookie jar. "Government can never regulate properly! :evil: ... but I still want it to regulate. :(" Madness. :roll:
I apologize for offending you. I felt attacked myself, because I thought I had been clear, when I apparently was not, so I again apologize for being unclear.

The Lesser of Two Evils. No government can be perfect, and it will always lean towards giving itself more powers. However a government is necessary for civilization to survive and ultimately thrive, therefore by necessity, we must accept something bad, unless we'd rather live in Anarchy, which is an even worse state to be in.

Our government is better then a monarchy, dictatorship, oligarchy, or theocracy, but that doesn't make it good. 1 + -2 is still -1, which is better then an even lower number from a different form of government (say, -4), but we're still in a bad situation, it's simply better then what we could be in otherwise.

This has been my position from the start, but I guess I've been unable to articulate that understandably, so, again, my apologies.

As far as your arguments concerning the Tenth Amendment (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Tenth+Amendment) are concerned, you might be surprised to learn that I am sympathetic. I actually believe that the issue of states' sovereignty is a relevant one. However, the idea of states as sovereign powers was for better or worse pretty much stamped out when the South lost the Civil War and the North was able to solidify the idea of a UNITED states over a united STATES. Gone was the image of the USA as a collection of European countries or Greek city-states and in its place was an image of England with her various counties. That's all the states effectively are today -- counties of a larger parent nation, nothing more -- and I think that that is rather blatantly unconstitutional. I think it would be nice if each state were able to pass its own individual laws concerning gay marriage, child welfare, health care, so on and so forth. But unlike you, I would never in one million years call for the radical abolition or reversal of federalism. And the last thing which I would target first would be federal regulation. The FDA, the EPA, the FCC, these are all regulatory bodies which it would be devastating to see abolished in the name of Sarah Palin's war to take back Amer'ca from "Obama." (Yes, because it's clearly Obama who took it away. :roll: [/sarcasm] Ugh.)
I fully support states' rights, and am grateful to know you do (at least at some level) as well.

I'm not opposed to keeping some regulatory bodies for quality protection (though if something is unconstitutional, I'd rather it get out, no questions asked, because accepting something simply because it's "good" even though it violates the law of the land, is the first step to allowing further abuses and power grabs), what I'm against is certain regulations which directly interfere with and hinder small and mid-sized business growth (which growth is the backbone of our economy), like forcing them to pay for every employee's healthcare.
I'm also for removing waste, fraud, and abuse hidden in numerous laws and regulations.

I'm done "debating" with you on this topic, if not period, because you keep repositioning the line in the sand, you keep changing your stance whenever people take issue with the dogmatic claims you voice, and I've had enough of it. That is why I didn't reply yesterday: because I was going to basically say this and decided, "You know? No. No need to be mean. No need to be rude. No need for hurt feelings. He can take a hint." But since you asked, you received.
I apologize again for being unable to articulate my views clearly and concisely, I never meant to make it seem as though I changed positions on my views, I thought I was continually clarifying misunderstandings of them.

[blazeVA]

All shall bow before BLAZEVA'S TAX PLAN FOR A HEALTHY AMERICA!!!!!!!

Tax cuts to the poor and middle class
Tax increases on upper class peoples
Uses taxes to cut the deficit.
Cut defense spending.
Use money from that for education, healthcare, social security etc.

Thank you come again.

[Tyranidos]

Cut Social Security IMO. Old people run this damn country.

[deoxys]

Sometimes I look at the way the government is run and say "Man, I can't wait until the boomer generation is out the door. Then we'll get shit done right."

And then I realize how completely wrong that is and silently weep myself to sleep.



I love how heavily this topic derailed, but it's the best derailment ever.

Also, unown, whether intentional or not, you are definitely the most effective troll ever. Congratulations. You successfully made me want to break the fuck out of my computer. No one has ever done that :)

[unownmew]

All shall bow before BLAZEVA'S TAX PLAN FOR A HEALTHY AMERICA!!!!!!!

Tax cuts to the poor and middle class
Tax increases on upper class peoples
Uses taxes to cut the deficit.
Cut defense spending.
Use money from that for education, healthcare, social security etc.

Thank you come again.
Sorry, that's not going to work, and I'll tell you why:

Rich people decorate their houses, buy yachts, private jets, mansions, sports cars, and other luxury items, which are produced by companies, companies which employ many many middle class citizens.

When the rich get taxed more, they have less money to spend on their big luxury items, so instead of spending it, they save it and buy only essentials, maybe conservatively buying a luxury item or two, just like everyone else does when they start losing money.

So, what happens when these rich people stop buying their expensive luxury items? Well, the people who make those items can't sell them any more, and they start to lose money. So to keep themselves in business, they lay off employees, middle class workers, who are now stuck without a job.

And then these jobless middle class workers conserve their money as well, since they can't afford even small luxuries anymore, as they search for a new job so even fewer things are bought. Which in turn forces businesses to downsize again, to keep afloat, turning even more middle class workers jobless.

It's a vicious spiral that only ends with dead businesses and jobless middle class workers. That's the spiral we've been going through ever since Obama's been elected, and go through every other time we have a democrat controlled congress as well. That's why Republicans continually say "Tax cuts for the rich," because it is the rich which keep our economy running, and businesses employing middle class workers.

What's more, it is mid-sized local businesses which qualify for the "Rich" tax bracket, not just huge corporations like Big Oil and Apple, but it is also the mid-sized businesses that employ the most percentage of people in the US, and yet, they barely ride the line between sink and float, extra taxes will tip them over the edge, and they can't afford it if hiring a new employee is going to cost them in the future, so they just don't hire. Which is also a part of the cause for 10%+ unemployment, not counting those who are no longer counted in the "unemployed" number when they give up and stop looking for a job altogether. Businesses not hiring due to political uncertainty, because they just don't know how much possible new regulation and taxes will cost them to run their business in the future.

This is not the entirety of the issue, but it's a basic overview. If you want more specifics I'll hunt them down for you.

Sometimes I look at the way the government is run and say "Man, I can't wait until the boomer generation is out the door. Then we'll get shit done right."

And then I realize how completely wrong that is and silently weep myself to sleep.



I love how heavily this topic derailed, but it's the best derailment ever.

Also, unown, whether intentional or not, you are definitely the most effective troll ever. Congratulations. You successfully made me want to break the fuck out of my computer. No one has ever done that :)
Just because I want to debate controversial topics, does not make me a troll.

[Shuckle]

Sorry, that's not going to work, and I'll tell you why:

Rich people decorate their houses, buy yachts, private jets, mansions, sports cars, and other luxury items, which are produced by companies, companies which employ many many middle class citizens.

When the rich get taxed more, they have less money to spend on their big luxury items, so instead of spending it, they save it and buy only essentials, maybe conservatively buying a luxury item or two, just like everyone else does when they start losing money.

So, what happens when these rich people stop buying their expensive luxury items? Well, the people who make those items can't sell them any more, and they start to lose money. So to keep themselves in business, they lay off employees, middle class workers, who are now stuck without a job.

And then these jobless middle class workers conserve their money as well, since they can't afford even small luxuries anymore, as they search for a new job so even fewer things are bought. Which in turn forces businesses to downsize again, to keep afloat, turning even more middle class workers jobless.

It's a vicious spiral that only ends with dead businesses and jobless middle class workers. That's the spiral we've been going through ever since Obama's been elected, and go through every other time we have a democrat controlled congress as well. That's why Republicans continually say "Tax cuts for the rich," because it is the rich which keep our economy running, and businesses employing middle class workers.

What's more, it is mid-sized local businesses which qualify for the "Rich" tax bracket, not just huge corporations like Big Oil and Apple, but it is also the mid-sized businesses that employ the most percentage of people in the US, and yet, they barely ride the line between sink and float, extra taxes will tip them over the edge, and they can't afford it if hiring a new employee is going to cost them in the future, so they just don't hire. Which is also a part of the cause for 10%+ unemployment, not counting those who are no longer counted in the "unemployed" number when they give up and stop looking for a job altogether. Businesses not hiring due to political uncertainty, because they just don't know how much possible new regulation and taxes will cost them to run their business in the future.

This is not the entirety of the issue, but it's a basic overview. If you want more specifics I'll hunt them down for you.This is called the Trickle Down Effect, and it doesn't exist. Rich people buying only the bare necessities of life? Pshn00b. Bill Gates himself has expressed firm approval of heavy taxation on himself if it will alleviate the burden on the populace. He's got plenty of money to burn, after all.

Which brings me to the next topic. The Trickle Down Effect, which you have so favorably referred to, doesn't exist. Rich people with tons of money tend to buy what? Foreign goods. Why buy things that are American-made? There are better countries for making luxury items all around the world, and each country has only a small portion - including America. Want a car? The rich buy Lamborghini, not Ford. Need a delicious meal? Import caviar from Russia.

Conservative point refuted a long time ago.
Just because I want to debate controversial topics, does not make me a troll.
You mean you really believe everything you've said in this thread?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UNOWNMEW'S PLAN!

1. Cut taxes to rich
2. Rich buy things
3. More jobs to people in other countries while Americans starve
4. Economy fixed!

Yay for more deficit = higher GDP!

[Mozz]

Oh cool we're talking about economics. Let me get my flavored popped corn.

[blazeVA]

This is called the Trickle Down Effect, and it doesn't exist. Rich people buying only the bare necessities of life? Pshn00b. Bill Gates himself has expressed firm approval of heavy taxation on himself if it will alleviate the burden on the populace. He's got plenty of money to burn, after all.

Which brings me to the next topic. The Trickle Down Effect, which you have so favorably referred to, doesn't exist. Rich people with tons of money tend to buy what? Foreign goods. Why buy things that are American-made? There are better countries for making luxury items all around the world, and each country has only a small portion - including America. Want a car? The rich buy Lamborghini, not Ford. Need a delicious meal? Import caviar from Russia.

Conservative point refuted a long time ago.

You mean you really believe everything you've said in this thread?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UNOWNMEW'S PLAN!

1. Cut taxes to rich
2. Rich buy things
3. More jobs to people in other countries while Americans starve
4. Economy fixed!

Yay for more deficit = higher GDP!

I think the Trickle Down effect was talked about by Ronald Reagan, and the bad effects of his economic policy are still felt today. We need more taxes to the rich......that is where most of the money is going to come in from, not from the lower and middle classes.

[unownmew]

This is called the Trickle Down Effect, and it doesn't exist. Rich people buying only the bare necessities of life? Pshn00b. Bill Gates himself has expressed firm approval of heavy taxation on himself if it will alleviate the burden on the populace. He's got plenty of money to burn, after all.

Which brings me to the next topic. The Trickle Down Effect, which you have so favorably referred to, doesn't exist. Rich people with tons of money tend to buy what? Foreign goods. Why buy things that are American-made? There are better countries for making luxury items all around the world, and each country has only a small portion - including America. Want a car? The rich buy Lamborghini, not Ford. Need a delicious meal? Import caviar from Russia.

Conservative point refuted a long time ago.
Are we talking about the "rich", or the "Super Rich"/AKA Millionaires and Billionaires?
I'm talking about the people considered "Rich" by the Tax bracket they fall into, which Obama says starts from $250,000, and ends up into the billions (That's a HUGE gap!).
Now, I'd like to clarify, those who barely make the bracket by earning around $250,000 are definitely Not going to be buying Yachts and private jets, but they do have a slight bit of leeway for luxuries others earning lower are not going to have. This leeway mostly dependent on where the families live in America, since different states have different costs of living, which could leave that $250,000 as very very little extra money left over after taxes, food, education, utilities, sales tax, and etc.
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/features/what-is-rich/income-gap-debate.html

Of course the millionaires and billionaires can afford higher taxes, but even they, if they start losing more then a comfortable amount of money, will conserve, perhaps not to the point of only buying necessities, but their buying will certainly slow down, and they'll start sheltering their income in foreign tax shelters and capital gains, so they pay even less taxes then their "claimed" tax rates.


Experiment:
Consider a small sole proprietorship business, (sole proprietors are taxed on a personal level, meaning, all profits their business makes, are considered their own personal income).
This Business makes a profit of $250500 annually.
The Business owner is taxed on the $250000 level of 39.6%, leaving $151302 to live on after federal income taxes.

Assume the business owner has a family of four, pays state and local taxes, buys food, pays for a mortgage on his house, and utilities, and invests a modest amount in retirement and future education for his kids.
Also assume he spends 1/2 of remaining income on reinvesting in his business.

How much money is left over for luxuries, or any economic good besides bare necessities?

Explain how the simplicity of the example can never be mimicked in real life.
Explain why the remaining income is dependent on the state this business operates in.

Here's some reading:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13665
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/03/the-truth-about-tax-rates-and-the-politics-of-class-warfare
http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=16673&posts=5
http://www.progress.org/2004/fold379.htm (Particularly 9, 11, and 12)
http://blogs.hbr.org/fox/2010/09/tax-plight-of-250000-crowd.html
http://understandingfiscalresponsibility.org/scottwylie/income-tax-and-the-250000-threshold



You mean you really believe everything you've said in this thread?
Everything I've said clearly, 100%. I wouldn't say something otherwise.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UNOWNMEW'S PLAN!

1. Cut taxes to rich
2. Rich buy things
3. More jobs to people in other countries while Americans starve
4. Economy fixed!

Yay for more deficit = higher GDP!
Wrong!

MY PLAN
1. Pass "Cut Cap and Balance"
2. Reduce Taxes for all citizens, including the rich
3. cut Federal spending so it's growth is limited and future deficits less expensive
4. Actually CUT Federal Spending
5. Repeal the Baseline Budget so federal growth is significantly slowed down
6. Reduce (but not completely) Federal Regulations on all Businesses
7. Return to States' Rights
8. Repeal ObamaCare
9. Cap Federal Spending to a set % of GDP so deficits can be reduced and future deficits not allowed
10. Remove Tax Loopholes to prevent Tax Shelters, so more money is gained from a lower tax rate.
11. Cut out Waste and Fraud from Government Agencies and spendings.

Simplified:
1. Pass Cut Cap and Balance Bill
2. Repeal or completely defund ObamaCare and repeal the Baseline Budgeting
3. Close Tax Loopholes, or comprehensive Tax reform, including tax rate cuts for all Americans, and broadening the tax base so more people are paying their "fair share," when originally they weren't paying at all.
4. Deregulate Business
5. Return to States' Rights
6. Watch Growth, and with it, Revenue, soar, while the debt and deficit start to fall. 8)

I think the Trickle Down effect was talked about by Ronald Reagan, and the bad effects of his economic policy are still felt today. We need more taxes to the rich......that is where most of the money is going to come in from, not from the lower and middle classes.
Even if we taxed 100% of every single American's income including, the super-rich, it would not cover our debt and deficit, and then there would be nothing left to tax, and no growth whatsoever. Taxing our way out of this deficit is not going to work, what is needed is severe Federal Spending cuts starting NOW and continuing forever (instead of starting 10 years from now when it's obvious it won't be done at that time), and a long-term plan to increase revenue without hurting growth.

I'm gunna stop explaining when Google can do such a better job:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics
Obamanomics vs Reaganomics (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/276826/obama-vs-reagan-deroy-murdock)
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/laffer-obama-reaganomics-gop/2011/08/10/id/406893
Even Obama says raising taxes in a recession is a bad idea (http://www.verumserum.com/?p=26976)

The reason Reagan ran up a deficit under his "Reaganomics", was because he ramped up Defense spending to deal with the Cold War we were in. If instead we were to cut down on all Federal Spending, the deficit would be greatly decreased under Reaganomics.

Let us not forget either, that, during the time Ronald Reagan was president, Democrats held the House of Representatives all 8 years, and Controlled the Senate for 2 years as well. That's quite the significant opposition to his policies. (Source: Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Presidents_and_control_of_Congress))
And yet he won a Landslide victory in his second term.. He must have done something right during his first term to merit such a victory.

While Obama is hovering around 38% approval, 62% disapproval? Go figure, maybe it's the policies?

[blazeVA]

A few things.

1) Generally, do not trust things on Wikipedia, as they are generally wrong.

2) Reagan did not have to handle to economic crisis that we were facing because of Bush's office. Obama did have to.

3) One of the articles you posted, the one talking about Reaganomics and Obomanomics, was pretty Republican sided, as it did not mention one thing good that actually happened. Find a more neutral article, and I might take it with a little ore leinancy.

4) One site did not look like it had anything to do with economics or politics at all. I could not tell what it was, probably why you did not directly post the link like in others. Post a site that knows what they are talking about or at least is widely known, because small-sites often have heavy political leans.

[unownmew]

A few things.

1) Generally, do not trust things on Wikipedia, as they are generally wrong.

2) Reagan did not have to handle to economic crisis that we were facing because of Bush's office. Obama did have to.

3) One of the articles you posted, the one talking about Reaganomics and Obomanomics, was pretty Republican sided, as it did not mention one thing good that actually happened. Find a more neutral article, and I might take it with a little ore leinancy.

4) One site did not look like it had anything to do with economics or politics at all. I could not tell what it was, probably why you did not directly post the link like in others. Post a site that knows what they are talking about or at least is widely known, because small-sites often have heavy political leans.

1. And here I thought people posted Wikipedia against me in the Global Warming thread. You can't have it both ways. I'll go to the sources then, if that's what you're worried about.

2. Yes, actually Reagan did have the same "Economic Crisis". And quit blaming Bush, it's getting old, Obama's 3 years into his presidency, if he can't fix "Bush's" problems by now, perhaps he's not capable, or not trying to.
Here:
Unemployment Numbers for Obama and Reagan (http://mjbehindthecurtain.wordpress.com/2011/06/08/obama-v-reagan-unemployment-first-term/)
Parallel between Obama and Reagan Unemployment numbers. (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/07/02/unemployment_numbers_context)
As you can see, They both started with generally the same unemployment numbers, by Reagan's third year, things were dropping drastically, while Obama's are barely tapering off. Do not forget that, once a person "stops looking for work," they are removed from the unemployment numbers, even if it just means they gave up trying. So expect the real numbers to be even higher then reported.

Obama had the same "Economic Crisis" Reagan had to deal with, and that's undeniable.

3. One of? I'd expect anything that criticizes Obama to be considered "Republican Sided" by someone who disagrees with it.

"It's only valid Criticism if their own party says it," is that it? Sorry, most news media are biased. They're either biased for, or against a position. So instead of worrying about whether it's "Republican Sided," or not, how about you look at the actual data presented instead, and then find out if that data presented is true or false, instead of ignoring it simply because "it comes from the opposing party's supporting website."
I'm not going to allow you to get away with ignoring valid data.
If you want to ignore it, INVALIDATE it first, with actual Facts of your own. I'm not going to claim to know everything, so, there's quite possibly something I may have missed, if you make me aware of that, I will adjust accordingly.

4. Which site is that one you're referring to? I thought I linked everything worthwhile. Are you referring to the site with the video showing Obama saying in 2009 that tax increases during a recession are bad?
Or the source material showing which political party controlled which House of Congress during president Ronald Reagan's 2 terms?
I'm thinking you mean the video site, but if i'm wrong, let me know.
Regarding that site. All you have to do is watch the video and see Obama himself say raising taxes is a bad thing. Here's an alternate link, where the video is more prominent:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGTJD0YtXSo


Now, are we finally ready to start debating Facts? Or do you want to discredit my sources some more and ignore valid data because it disagrees with you?

I've yet to have anyone directly address the actual evidences I've posted with counter facts of their own. All that's being done is talking about the sites, and saying, "No, I disagree." "No, that's not how it works, Pshn00b." "No, that site is too Republican, we can't trust that, I'm not even going to address what it says." "You can't trust Wikipedia, don't use it."

[blazeVA]

Now, are we finally ready to start debating Facts? Or do you want to discredit my sources some more and ignore valid data because it disagrees with you?

I've yet to have anyone directly address the actual evidences I've posted with counter facts of their own. All that's being done is talking about the sites, and saying, "No, I disagree." "No, that's not how it works, Pshn00b." "No, that site is too Republican, we can't trust that, I'm not even going to address what it says." "You can't trust Wikipedia, don't use it."

Obviously you have never been in an ACTUAL debate before. The air is full of people trying to discredit the others opinions and sources. If I can prove that the site you got information on Martin Luther King from origanates from a white supremicist site, then the information can not be trusted.

Also, when a site is leaning heavily towards one way, the information cannot be trusted, as it is going to be askwed in one direction. I would not post a Democratic leaning site, because of bias, which yes, all sites have, but some have more than others. Really look at a site before posting it.

[Talon87]

And quit blaming Bush, it's getting old, Obama's 3 years into his presidency, if he can't fix "Bush's" problems by now, perhaps he's not capable, or not trying to.
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e325/pjd777/bush.jpg

Your line of reasoning -- that it should be as easy to clean up a mess as it is to make one -- is so ri-goddamn-diculously stupid that even a five-year old would see the error in it. It is much easier to make messes than to clean them up. Macondo oil spill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill), took only a few months to happen (whereby "happen" we mean from time of leak onset until time of final capping), will take years for people to recover from the damage it caused to the Gulf. Fukushima earthquake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_2011_Fukushima_earthquake), took only minutes to occur, but the damage it caused will scar some people for the rest of their lives and could possibly leave a scar behind on the region itself for the next 20-30 years, all things depending on what's going on with the reactors. You break a bone in your leg in one instant, it takes you months to heal. You accidentally set fire to your home by not watching the stove, there goes $200,000 of property and for at least the next few months (if you're mega-wealthy and can afford to rebuild a new home on the spot and have it built pronto and with good foundation and everything) you get to live somewhere else. The ruination of anything is always easier to do and to do more quickly than is its repair, its cleanup.

And yet here you go and you say, "Maybe if Obama can't fix Bush's fuck-up he doesn't deserve to be President." :lol: :roll:

I've yet to have anyone directly address the actual evidences I've posted with counter facts of their own. All that's being done is talking about the sites, and saying, "No, I disagree." "No, that's not how it works, Pshn00b." "No, that site is too Republican, we can't trust that, I'm not even going to address what it says." "You can't trust Wikipedia, don't use it."
That you seriously believe this is why you're not making friends with anybody in these threads. Get your head out of your ass for 10 seconds and take a look around. While plenty of people have posted meh sources because they're too lazy to cite you anything else, sure, plenty of others have posted ample concrete sources. This is especially true in the global warming thread. I alone took 30 minutes out of my day to give you the friggin' textbook on global warming and the answers to common misconceptions about global warming and you didn't even fucking touch them. You just let the thread lay dead for several weeks before necro'ing it this morning to say "har har, one physicist doesn't agree with the other 99.9% of physicists, chemists, geologists, and climatologists who say global warming is real and is man-made! This proves it's all one big wash!" You're as bad as an Intelligent Design moron who cites Antony Flew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew) as proof positive that evolution is wrong.

But back to this thread: neither side had really posted much in the way of concrete numbers until your post before your last post. I'm sure someone more willing than I to systematically deconstruct each and every one of those links will give you the reply you seek in due time. Until then, you can't really say "NOBODY'S REPLYING TO MY NUMBERS" when you hadn't even posted any numbers until just yesterday.

[unownmew]

Obviously you have never been in an ACTUAL debate before. The air is full of people trying to discredit the others opinions and sources. If I can prove that the site you got information on Martin Luther King from origanates from a white supremicist site, then the information can not be trusted.
While that is true, I have not been to an actual debate, I can not see the productivity in discrediting sources based on "potential bias". If they have numbers and evidence to back their claims up, it shouldn't matter what their "aims" are.
If the "information" I got from that "white supremicist cite," on MLK, is available from other sources, or reproducible under the same circumstances, the evidence should stand on it's own.

Also, when a site is leaning heavily towards one way, the information cannot be trusted, as it is going to be askwed in one direction. I would not post a Democratic leaning site, because of bias, which yes, all sites have, but some have more than others. Really look at a site before posting it.
Well to be quite honest, it is my opinion, that all the large, "unbiased" "acclaimed" news sites, like CNN/MSNBC, are more or less generally in the boat with the democrat/liberal ideals. The only place to get a differing opinion are the "super right wing wacko sites," like Fox News, that are "impossible to trust".
So what should we do in that case?


Your line of reasoning -- that it should be as easy to clean up a mess as it is to make one -- is so ri-goddamn-diculously stupid that even a five-year old would see the error in it. It is much easier to make messes than to clean them up. Macondo oil spill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill), took only a few months to happen (whereby "happen" we mean from time of leak onset until time of final capping), will take years for people to recover from the damage it caused to the Gulf. Fukushima earthquake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_2011_Fukushima_earthquake), took only minutes to occur, but the damage it caused will scar some people for the rest of their lives and could possibly leave a scar behind on the region itself for the next 20-30 years, all things depending on what's going on with the reactors. You break a bone in your leg in one instant, it takes you months to heal. You accidentally set fire to your home by not watching the stove, there goes $200,000 of property and for at least the next few months (if you're mega-wealthy and can afford to rebuild a new home on the spot and have it built pronto and with good foundation and everything) you get to live somewhere else. The ruination of anything is always easier to do and to do more quickly than is its repair, its cleanup.

And yet here you go and you say, "Maybe if Obama can't fix Bush's fuck-up he doesn't deserve to be President." :lol: :roll:
Hmm, well, considering Obama is only using the exact same tactic over and over (running up a $4 trillion deficit, promoting green energy, paying off union supporters, introducing more government regulation, Obamacare, and claiming to set up "shovel ready" jobs that are paid from government money (our taxes) instead of private businesses), while we have a perfect example of how to really fix the issue from Ronald Reagan's presidency, which he refuses to even attempt seriously... (I can source those claims too if you'd like, just make the request.)

It really would seem like he doesn't WANT to fix the economy.
So, what topic would you like to debate? The advantages of Reaganonmics over Obamanomics? Or the possibility that Obama is purposely designing economic crisis to enact his extreme liberal ideals about Big Government controlling as much of then populace as possible through creation of a welfare state?

Or would you like to explain to me what exactly Bush did that screwed the economy up worse then Obamacare and Obamanomics did?


That you seriously believe this is why you're not making friends with anybody in these threads. Get your head out of your ass for 10 seconds and take a look around. While plenty of people have posted meh sources because they're too lazy to cite you anything else, sure, plenty of others have posted ample concrete sources. This is especially true in the global warming thread. I alone took 30 minutes out of my day to give you the friggin' textbook on global warming and the answers to common misconceptions about global warming and you didn't even fucking touch them. You just let the thread lay dead for several weeks before necro'ing it this morning to say "har har, one physicist doesn't agree with the other 99.9% of physicists, chemists, geologists, and climatologists who say global warming is real and is man-made! This proves it's all one big wash!" You're as bad as an Intelligent Design moron who cites Antony Flew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew) as proof positive that evolution is wrong.
I'm not in this debate to win friends. I'm not interested in "happy, lets all get along and agree."

To be honest, I quite intended to reply to your post. However, I'm in college, and things have gotten quite busy for me. and I'm writing textbooks to reply to you guys here, not to mention putting in the same amount of time researching links for you guys, which are ignored even more then yours. I still plan to address your points, though I have lost a bit of interest in the debate for the moment. That story was something Rush Limbaugh recently brought to my attention, so I wanted to share it, in no way was it meant to be my entire argument.


Regarding Numbers: I brought a whole hunking 98 page research paper which all the numbers one could ask for in the Global Warming thread, and the first significant address to it is, "the authors are involved in a controversial matter regarding a different paper, which hasn't even been resolved yet, with no verdict reached, so your information is invalid."
REALLY?!

But back to this thread: neither side had really posted much in the way of concrete numbers until your post before your last post. I'm sure someone more willing than I to systematically deconstruct each and every one of those links will give you the reply you seek in due time. Until then, you can't really say "NOBODY'S REPLYING TO MY NUMBERS" when you hadn't even posted any numbers until just yesterday.
Well, we were debating opinion until recently, but even then, I was hoping someone was going to tell me Why what I was saying wouldn't work, or Why theirs would, instead of arguing about me changing my opinion, and whether I was right or wrong. Or in some other way directly address my points instead of glossing over then with general statements. None of which happened.

So I decided to bring the real hard numbers into it myself instead of speaking my points without sources, to support my side, and like in the Global Warming thread, all people seem interested in doing is to attempt to discredit my sources without their own numbers so they don't have to actually look at the numbers I provided.