UPNetwork  

Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-06-2011, 01:36 PM   #26
Tyranidos
beebooboobopbooboobop
 
Tyranidos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Krusty Krab
Posts: 3,800
Send a message via AIM to Tyranidos Send a message via MSN to Tyranidos
Tyranitar

Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeVA View Post
Legit, there are peooke who believe this.
What the fuck is peooke?
__________________
Tyranidos is offline  
Old 12-06-2011, 02:11 PM   #27
Loki
The Path of Now & Forever
 
Loki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,304
Herman Cain
Pros: Quoted Pokemon The Movie: 2000
Cons: Quoted Pokemon The Movie: 2000

Too bad he dropped out. I woulda loved a President quoting Pokemon in every speech.

These are quotes I had looked forward to hearing from Herman Cain's speeches:

"There's no sense in going out of your way just to get somebody to like you." - Ash Ketchum

"We have a proud tradition of failure to uphold" - James, Team Rocket

"Jigglypuff, Jigglyyyypuff. Jigglypuff, Jigglyyyy. Jigglypuff, Jigglyyypuff. Jigglypuff Jiggly. JIgglypuff, Jigglypuff, Jigglypuff, Jiggly. Jiggly Jigglypuff Jigglypuff, Jigglypuff. Jigglypuff, Jigglyyypuff. Jigglypuff, Jiggly. Jigglypuff, Jigglyyypuff. Jigglypuff Jiggly." - Jigglypuff
Loki is offline  
Old 12-06-2011, 02:24 PM   #28
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyranidos View Post
Guys, unownmew has stated that most of his news comes from Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. That pretty much explains everything and really makes it difficult to have a reasonable debate with the guy. It also doesn't really help when all we are actually doing is insulting unwonmew's intelligence more than anything.

That being said, unownmew, please consider reading news from a variety of sources before bringing up arguments. I'm fully aware that all news is inherently biased, but getting a good range of news from both sides helps clear the picture.
I don't understand why it would be difficult to be reasonable against any person's opinion, unless one is a complete ideologue for the opposing viewpoint who does not want to be educated.

But you are correct, insulting my intelligence will get you nowhere, and is usually the sign of a lost argument. I'm willing to have reasonable debate, on substance, but when all I get is persecution for my viewpoint, it really just solidifies my beliefs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by deoxys View Post
You should probably read up on what provoked such attacks

The US knew exactly what they were getting themselves into and in fact knew Pearl Harbor was an inevitability, and used it to allow us to be dragged headfirst into WWII
You know, you're probably right. I guess I had too much faith in the public education system believing what I was taught would be true. But if that's the case, what other things could easily have been done with the system?

Unfortunately, individual truth, can only be determined by limited input and analysis, based upon already learned knowledge, which is still predicated upon previous analysis and input. Ultimately, much of what is considered "truth," can only be had on faith, and personal experience and experimentation.

Is the earth flat? Lots of people say so, but I've never circled it myself, so I have to take the evidence and make a decision on which belief to espouse to.

Is the sun really there and really a big ball of gas? Or maybe it's just an extremely elaborate skybox? I've never been in space, nor seen and experienced it's size or heat. Lots of people say it is a big ball of gas, and tout their satellite photos as proof. Do I take their evidence at face value, or maybe they're just lying to me?

Obviously these are absurd examples, but the point is still there. Everything we haven't experienced ourselves, we can only make a decision to believe on faith or not.

So, Is Rush Limbaugh wrong? Is Sean Hannity wrong? Is Conservatism wrong?
Ultimately Rush and Sean get all their news from other sources, they just report what interests them, or they feel needs to be exposed. What they do do, is relate it to other instances of the same, and base their opinions on their personal experiences and instances of the same in other places.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
You're deluded.
Course I am. Everyone is. You can't be alive without having had some sort of delusion given to you, be it either during your raising, during your schooling, or during your adult life. Everyone has them, if we didn't, we'd all be exactly the same, knowing every truth from every lie.
unownmew is offline  
Old 12-06-2011, 02:49 PM   #29
Tyranidos
beebooboobopbooboobop
 
Tyranidos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Krusty Krab
Posts: 3,800
Send a message via AIM to Tyranidos Send a message via MSN to Tyranidos
Tyranitar

Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
What they do do
snicker
__________________
Tyranidos is offline  
Old 12-07-2011, 03:02 AM   #30
Silver Wind
breezy metallics~
 
Silver Wind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: you don't have to be lonely, at farmersonly.com
Posts: 916
Enjoying Your Online Porn? Thank Newt Gingrich

Aside from the Republican debates I had no idea who this man was, so I did a little googling and came across this unavoidable article. Who knew this guy potentially saved the lives of a nation of horny teenaged Americans and middle aged men named Britney.

__________________

Spoiler: show

Fizzy Bubbles
° ° ° °
° ° ° °

Last edited by Silver Wind; 12-07-2011 at 03:04 AM.
Silver Wind is offline  
Old 12-07-2011, 06:03 PM   #31
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Texas Governor: Rick Perry
Pros:
Fellow Texan, and my ideal candidate uh.....who gives a crap where he is from
Obviously I do. You know, he's my Governor and all already. Though, that brings up a new con: If he becomes president, we'll have to find another governor that'll do what he did.
Quote:
Whether he is partly responsible for Texas' friendly business climate and increased job growth, or not, he at least knew enough not to mess with the pre-existing policies that helped create it. so, he does not lead? so, leaders should just keep everything the same even though the world economy changes? This is stupid.
On the contrary, the Laws of Economics and true principles will never change, no matter how much damage you try to do to them, or how badly you wish they'd go away.

I was addressing a common complaint about him with this comment.
Quote:
True Rags to Riches story (Small Farmer to potential President) this is nice and all, but....
but what? Obviously he knows a thing or two about the American Dream.
Quote:
A man of Faith, and unashamed of it. being religious has nothing to do with it
I guess you were unaware that, every president so far in history has been a Christian, or at least professed to be so. I'd prefer that this remained the case, and, if I know he has strong Christian faith, I know he'll do the right thing for this country, at least most of the time.

Quote:
Almost Radical plans to Reform the National Government, too many to list individually a lot of his plans are bullshit, like reforming the EPA, getting rid of the department of education(when our kids are dumb enough as it is. Some of them are good. His "audits" are going to cost so much money it is not even funny
Care to describe why you think they're BS?
What's bad about Reforming the EPA? They're much to restrictive on businesses as they are now.
A lot of good the Department of Education is doing us now. Government should not be directly involved with education. It's just as easy for Government to Brainwash as it is for private schools, and I'd prefer to have a choice in which school gets to brainwash my kids with what values.
His audits may cost money, but in the long run, cutting out the wasteful spending, wasteful unelected government agencies, and removing restrictive regulations, will end up saving the American taxpayer billions, and shrink the government down to where it ought to be.
Quote:
End Base-line Budgeting elab please
I'm accused of being fed lies and mis-information by Rush Limbaugh, and yet you don't even know this simple little fact? He was the one who educated me on it. Oh, it's quite the tricky little detail in government, I'll tell you. Gives politicians so much spin power it's not funny.
Baseline Budgeting
Quote:
Changes that merely slow the growth of federal spending programs have often been described as cuts in spending, when in reality they are actually reductions in the rate of spending growth.
Quote:
Flat Tax no
What in the world is wrong with a simple flat tax? Do you want to have to pay lawyers in order to file your taxes since they're so complicated? (And lets not ignore that your personal taxes get the "Easy" forms, and numerous other entities have to deal with so much more complexity, it's not even funny.
Quote:
Pro-gun Hi, welcome to Columbine
That has not, nor ever will be a good reason for gun control.
Imagine for example that one of the other students at Columbine, a mentally healthy and responsible one, or even a teacher, also had a gun on that fateful day, and knew how to use it. I give the killers, 5 shots, due to the surprise factor, before they're gunned down and the crisis completely avoided.
Unlike you, I don't hold so much faith in Public Law Enforcement Officers, they will always arrive too late. And a nation without the gall to defend itself against injustices and hostilities, is a nation that deserves neither freedom, nor safety.

Quote:
Defend the Border this is good
Glad we can agree on something!
Quote:
Realizes the Country is in a dire situation and don't we all know that :P
Most, but not all, especially not most Washington elites. What we disagree with, is the root cause of the situation, and the correct solution for it.
Quote:
Cons:
Stalled in the debates, and hasn't been able to regain momentum effectively since.
3 controversial Policy decisions made as governor that may bite him later. (immigration, a Government mandated vaccine, and, ...? ) so, he made a vaccine that you had to take so you could be healthy. This is SO bad. :P
It's a major deal to some Republican voters, and it's not the vaccine, it's the government mandate that people hate, so I thought I'd mention it. I'm not effected, nor do I think it was such a bad thing.

Quote:
Former Speaker of the House: Newt Gingrich
Pros:
Will enforce against illegal Immigration in as a feaseable manner as possible. alright, makes sense
Glad we can agree on something else.
Quote:
Knows how government works (which can be used to make it work as efficiently as possible) and government is corrupt, right?
Of course it is, but only because people in it and some laws are corrupt, As founded it's the least corrupt system in the world. And he seems like he's one of the least corrupt, based on his past record. (not perfect by any stretch though, but that's asking the impossible anyway)
Quote:
optional flat tax no
elab
Quote:
remove imposing regulations on business what is imposing?
Where they can do things, what things that can do, and some things they are required to do that cuts in on their profits, for minimal return, or based on a lie.
Quote:
balance the budget if he is a republican, this won't happen
Yeah, because Democrats have been SOO successful, and SOO enthusiastic for cutting, capping, and balancing the budget.
Quote:
repeal Obama Care so, no Canada?
no, none. no Nationalized healthcare.
Quote:
reform entitlements elab please
Entitlements
Basically the government gives money away to people it thinks deserve it.
Another source.
Quote:
make businesses more competitive with those around the world. if this is going to happen, then minimum wage needs to go lower.
Or we could cut their taxes, and make them have to comply with fewer rules, so they pay less to work here then in any other country.
Minumum Wage used to be $5.50 an hour anyway. Unfortunately, inflation, taxes, and other prices went up, so such a wage is unfeasible, and close to impossible to live on nowadays. I remember getting paid just above minimum wage a few years ago, then I got a hefty raise, and then government raised the Minimum wage to just under what I was paid again..
Quote:
All-American Energy he is good here
Glad we can agree, but you are aware he's referring mostly to National Oil Deposits and allowing more drilling, instead of relying on Foreign oil markets, right?
Quote:
Will protect life and Religious liberty religion should not be a factor
Should ALWAYS be a factor. I don't want the atheist religion forced on me by government. I want freedom to practice how I see fit. (Which includes putting the 10 Commandments in a courtroom, saying "under God" in the pledge, and singing Christmas songs with Jesus in school, and displaying the nativity in public.)
Freedom OF Religion is not freedom FROM religion.
Quote:
Willing to accept input from We the People like this is going to happen
It's already happening. Newt's Contract with America
Quote:
already working on legislation/executive orders to be enacted when/if he becomes president (He's on the ball!) he is PROACTIVE! finally
yes yes he is!
Quote:
Secure the Border by Jan 1, 2014, "By any means necessary" sounds like the most recent part of legislation for battlefield U.S.A.
May sound like it, but it's more likely going to be, a wall, predator drones, and border troops.
Quote:
Transfer Power from the government back to the states not too much, okay ;)
Only as much as the constitution says so.
("All other powers not delegated to the national government are reserved for the states.")
Quote:
Seems aware the Country is in a dire situation. WE ALL KNOW THIS!
Good!
Other issues
Cons:
Quote:
has supported Man-made Global Warming in the past (a debate for another time) this is not a con. This is a pro. Because it is true.
Like I said, I'm analyzing for myself, it's a con for me and many other Republicans, but if you like it, good, you can vote for him on it.
Quote:
has been associated with the legislature in the past (so he's "tainted") ME FOR PRES!
You'd be better then Obama, for sure, but others are better suited, and they fit the constitutional requirements.
Quote:
has supported the healthcare mandate in the past this is good.
Good for you, bad for me. you like it, you can vote for him on it.

Edit: Thanks Tyranidos

Last edited by unownmew; 12-07-2011 at 06:17 PM.
unownmew is offline  
Old 12-07-2011, 06:12 PM   #32
Tyranidos
beebooboobopbooboobop
 
Tyranidos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Krusty Krab
Posts: 3,800
Send a message via AIM to Tyranidos Send a message via MSN to Tyranidos
*border
__________________
Tyranidos is offline  
Old 12-07-2011, 06:16 PM   #33
Shuckle
Problematic Fave
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
*winces every time federal-sponsored education is mentioned*

As long as the Dept. of Education continues to stand, more and more schools will have four-day weeks. Gerridofit. You have extra legislation that only gets in the way of allowing the damn schools to run themselves.

With the Dept. of Education, the same policies that are meant for poor kids in Harlem are being implemented for normal kids with no problems at all in, say, Florida, who are then forced to abide by the same stupid restrictions as everyone else in the country.

Gerridofit.

Not to mention that because it's federally regulated there's nothing the states can do about it. 'Slike Iraq - a total nightmare that needs to end as soon as possible.

States for Education - Woo!

However, this is the only thing I think Perry does right and he probably is not going to get elected ever. He's a bit like Sarah Palin now. Right now I support Obama and I think if the extremists on the right let go of him he can actually do something.

Like, talk to Boehner and come up with another reasonable and well-thought-out plan to fix the deficit and ensure the safety of the entire country and maybe Congress can approve it this time D:<
__________________
Shuckle is offline  
Old 12-07-2011, 06:25 PM   #34
Jerichi
プラスチック♡ラブ
 
Jerichi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,766
What's wrong with federally standardized education? It ensures that all occupants of the United States who are attending schools are held up to the same standards and given (roughly) the same level of education as everywhere else.

I mean, in practice, since the US is such a large scale, it probably would be a bit of a nightmare to fund, but federal level education definitely has its advantages and could potentially bring us up in the world as a country if we can boast that we have a universally high level of education like the Japanese or many European nations.

Skipping a little back and ahead for this question for unownmew: What do you think of Hillary Clinton?
__________________


私のことを消して本気で愛さないで 恋なんてただのゲーム 楽しめばそれでいい
閉ざした心を飾る 派手なドレスも靴も 孤独の友達

asbwffb

[jerichi]
Jerichi is offline  
Old 12-07-2011, 06:30 PM   #35
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuckle View Post
*winces every time federal-sponsored education is mentioned*

As long as the Dept. of Education continues to stand, more and more schools will have four-day weeks. Gerridofit. You have extra legislation that only gets in the way of allowing the damn schools to run themselves.

With the Dept. of Education, the same policies that are meant for poor kids in Harlem are being implemented for normal kids with no problems at all in, say, Florida, who are then forced to abide by the same stupid restrictions as everyone else in the country.

Gerridofit.

Not to mention that because it's federally regulated there's nothing the states can do about it. 'Slike Iraq - a total nightmare that needs to end as soon as possible.

States for Education - Woo!

However, this is the only thing I think Perry does right and he probably is not going to get elected ever. He's a bit like Sarah Palin now. Right now I support Obama and I think if the extremists on the right let go of him he can actually do something.

Like, talk to Boehner and come up with another reasonable and well-thought-out plan to fix the deficit and ensure the safety of the entire country and maybe Congress can approve it this time D:<
I agree with your sentiment on Education.

I don't understand in that case, why you would support Obama. If anyone is going to give states their rights, it'll be conservatives. Most Republican are more concerned with being seen as "moderate" and compromizing, while the solution democrats usually have for any problem is, more centralized Government, and more control over people's lives.

Unfortunately yes Perry's currently stalled, but that doesn't mean he can't win the nomination later. Cain used to be in the lead, till he was bombarded with unfounded accusations and quit. Now Newt's up in the polls an getting a vetting. It's still anybody's game until the primaries. If you like Perry, vote for him in your state primary, and donate to his campaign.
unownmew is offline  
Old 12-07-2011, 06:35 PM   #36
Tyranidos
beebooboobopbooboobop
 
Tyranidos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Krusty Krab
Posts: 3,800
Send a message via AIM to Tyranidos Send a message via MSN to Tyranidos
Tyranitar

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerichi View Post
What's wrong with federally standardized education? It ensures that all occupants of the United States who are attending schools are held up to the same standards and given (roughly) the same level of education as everywhere else.

I mean, in practice, since the US is such a large scale, it probably would be a bit of a nightmare to fund, but federal level education definitely has its advantages and could potentially bring us up in the world as a country if we can boast that we have a universally high level of education like the Japanese or many European nations.

Skipping a little back and ahead for this question for unownmew: What do you think of Hillary Clinton?
You think NCLB is a good idea?
__________________
Tyranidos is offline  
Old 12-07-2011, 06:42 PM   #37
Jerichi
プラスチック♡ラブ
 
Jerichi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyranidos View Post
You think NCLB is a good idea?
In theory, yes, but it was implemented in a totally backwards manner and poorly funded. Don't scold bad schools; encourage good ones. Schools will fight for increased funding but putting them under the pressure of losing their jobs due to poor performance just causes teacher-driven cheating (like what happened in the lovely city of Atlanta last spring!) and other under-the-table activities which undermine the idea of education altogether.

It's not as much NCLB that I think is a good idea as much as I think setting national standards for education is a good idea. If we can boast a well-educated populous, suddenly Americans become a lot more appealing and America itself is going to be a better place, I'd hope.
__________________


私のことを消して本気で愛さないで 恋なんてただのゲーム 楽しめばそれでいい
閉ざした心を飾る 派手なドレスも靴も 孤独の友達

asbwffb

[jerichi]
Jerichi is offline  
Old 12-07-2011, 06:43 PM   #38
GrJackass
Night Man
 
GrJackass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,371
granted i skimmed this, but all i see is the biggest hoodwinking on the fucking planet

democrats? republicans? both garbage, but they somehow divided and conquered the american public to turn on themselves instead of the shit system we have :/

as for the pro/con obama, i honestly don't see him being any different than any other politician. as i see it, people are mostly pissed at him because he was supposed to be different but one simply cannot walk into Mordor without playing the scumbag "politics" of politics.
__________________
I'm an old school Poke-BALLER.

”Fee, fie, foe, fum the End are Near at thou Bobbum. Time me open Bobbum Van trunk, for ruin Bobbum wif Equipmunk.”
GrJackass is offline  
Old 12-07-2011, 06:51 PM   #39
Jerichi
プラスチック♡ラブ
 
Jerichi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,766
For those who feel similarly to Gr or are generally dissatisfied with how the American voting process is set up, here's an interesting series of videos describing why the American political system is essentially fundamentally flawed using cute pictures of animals and simple explanations.
__________________


私のことを消して本気で愛さないで 恋なんてただのゲーム 楽しめばそれでいい
閉ざした心を飾る 派手なドレスも靴も 孤独の友達

asbwffb

[jerichi]
Jerichi is offline  
Old 12-07-2011, 06:56 PM   #40
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerichi View Post
In theory, yes, but it was implemented in a totally backwards manner and poorly funded. Don't scold bad schools; encourage good ones. Schools will fight for increased funding but putting them under the pressure of losing their jobs due to poor performance just causes teacher-driven cheating (like what happened in the lovely city of Atlanta last spring!) and other under-the-table activities which undermine the idea of education altogether.

It's not as much NCLB that I think is a good idea as much as I think setting national standards for education is a good idea. If we can boast a well-educated populous, suddenly Americans become a lot more appealing and America itself is going to be a better place, I'd hope.
The problem is that this is a nice idea in theory but in practice we're not all created equal. And what No Child Left Behind basically declares is, "A class can only accomplish as much as its weakest link" because the teacher has to spend inordinate amounts of time on the weakest link, has to curtail the curriculum to suit the needs of the weakest link, so on and so forth. If you don't do that, then yes, by definition you have to cheat and you have to make it so that it looks like the idiot student actually passed with flying colors when really he did not. And that's because, per its motto, no child is to be "left behind" (i.e. flunked). So you either rig the grading system (bad) or else you give it your utmost trying to teach European history to a pothead skaterboi while the rest of the class just sits there chitchatting and being bored (also bad).

The truth of the matter is, the best educational system would be one which bars failing students from moving on into upper-level courses but without stigmatizing it as much as current society does. People are so afraid of failing and what it will mean for them at home (a beating?), at school (humiliation?), and after they graduate (people assuming they're stupid because their age doesn't match their grade level). To me, this is the problem. A kid should not be passed on to the next level of coursework if he genuinely doesn't understand what's going on, but neither should he be "held back a grade" because of it. Perhaps education reform needs to see us make it so that kids graduate at age 18 regardless and that, at the end of that road, they can opt in (or opt out) of staying on to complete what in today's world we consider to be the bare minimum requirements for a high school diploma or whether they want to enter the work force immediately. That way, there's less of a stigma attached. You're still with the kids who are your age and you're not kept an entire grade level behind just because you struggled with one or two topics (e.g. kid struggles with math but is an honors student in English and history).

Perhaps another reform change worth considering is the artificial reimplementation of apprenticeships or specialized education starting even from a very young age. Part of the reason we moved away from that model of education was because we wanted to (as the saying goes) broaden children's horizons. We wanted to let the explore all the possibilities of what they could become when they grow up and let them have a good shot at picking a career path in which they excel and in which they can be happy. But this system is really only beneficial for (1) those honors kids who ace everything or else (2) those stoner kids who get C's and D's in everything. For everybody else -- for all the kids who have particular strengths and particular weaknesses -- I'm not sure this model of education always works best. Maybe it does. I dunno. I'm not an education theory Ph.D. holder and I most definitely personally benefited from the status quo. But sometimes I wonder if maybe kids at the age of 12/13 should already be being shuffled off onto specialization tracks. If someone's life is music, do they really need to study calculus or chemistry?
Talon87 is offline  
Old 12-07-2011, 06:57 PM   #41
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerichi View Post
What's wrong with federally standardized education? It ensures that all occupants of the United States who are attending schools are held up to the same standards and given (roughly) the same level of education as everywhere else.

When performance is standardized and evaluated on test scores...
Ok, lets make sure everyone is receiving a quality, and standard education. How do we evaluate this?

Quote:
I mean, in practice, since the US is such a large scale, it probably would be a bit of a nightmare to fund, but federal level education definitely has its advantages and could potentially bring us up in the world as a country if we can boast that we have a universally high level of education like the Japanese or many European nations.
We've had Federal Level Education for years now, and where are we ranked with regards to education?

Having certain standards is all well and good, but if you make schools compete with each other, they will naturally try to provide the highest quality for the lowest cost, in order to attract customers. When everyone does the same thing, you can't choose from the good or the bad.
Why is it that most Universities are private, if public and standardized education is the best method?

If Japan has such a high level of education, perhaps instead of going "federal", we should try to emulate their system. Which, if I'm not mistaken, is utilizes competition between schools

Quote:
Skipping a little back and ahead for this question for unownmew: What do you think of Hillary Clinton?
She's safer then Obama, but still worse then any Republican. I would much rather have had her as president, since at least she, isn't dead-set on "fundamentally changing" our Constitution with radical socialist ideals as fast as possible.

Although, I do have to thank Obama for one thing, and that is exposing what liberalism truly is, and being the reason for America's mobilization against it (sweeping TEA party victory in the House of Representatives). If it weren't for him, I doubt government corruption would ever be exposed as deeply as it has in our lifetime.


And I'll pose a question back:
What do you think of Michelle Bachmann?

(BTW, I like your Avatar)
unownmew is offline  
Old 12-07-2011, 07:15 PM   #42
Jerichi
プラスチック♡ラブ
 
Jerichi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,766
>Education

If you read my next post, you'll see that I pretty much agree with you totally and actually reference the article you posted (it was a pretty big thing where I live, considering it's only an hour south).

>What do you think of Michelle Bachmann?

Quite honestly, I don't care about her policy because I think she's a homophobe and is hardly eloquent enough to hold her own on the domestic stage, let alone the international. There are so many better candidates for the first female president and I think she's doing the country a disservice.

I don't necessarily think that Hillary Clinton is a better candidate but she does have solid federal and international experience. I don't really remember any of her stances on social or economic issues (though I do recall not really caring for her economic policy proposals), but she definitely looks good as a candidate as far as ethos goes.

Frankly, there's no woman who's presented herself that seems to me as a good candidate for a female president. I really hope there will be soon, Republican or Democrat, but as it stands, no one really fits the bill. Hillary is close but she's got some unappealing elements to her as well that I'm not a huge fan of (including her husband being president at one point, not that I have a problem with Bill).

>Talon

I pretty much agree with you but that kind of individualized attention is neigh impossible to execute on a large scale or in a way that actually accounts for talents early enough so that when the kids get to high school or college they don't decide that they've made a huge mistake. People change, and locking them into a path early on can be a bit crippling personally.

I dunno, maybe I'm jumping to conclusions a bit. The model seems to work fairly well in Japan so who's to say it won't work here?
__________________


私のことを消して本気で愛さないで 恋なんてただのゲーム 楽しめばそれでいい
閉ざした心を飾る 派手なドレスも靴も 孤独の友達

asbwffb

[jerichi]

Last edited by Jerichi; 12-07-2011 at 07:17 PM.
Jerichi is offline  
Old 12-07-2011, 08:50 PM   #43
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrJackass View Post
granted i skimmed this, but all i see is the biggest hoodwinking on the fucking planet

democrats? republicans? both garbage, but they somehow divided and conquered the american public to turn on themselves instead of the shit system we have :/

as for the pro/con obama, i honestly don't see him being any different than any other politician. as i see it, people are mostly pissed at him because he was supposed to be different but one simply cannot walk into Mordor without playing the scumbag "politics" of politics.
I'm curious what you find to be so fundamentally wrong with our system of government.

I agree though, that Obama is the "same kind of Politician" people hate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
[Profound comments on the education system]
I completely agree with you here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerichi View Post
>Education

If you read my next post, you'll see that I pretty much agree with you totally and actually reference the article you posted (it was a pretty big thing where I live, considering it's only an hour south).

Yes, I noticed it, you wrote it while I was writing my own.

Quote:
>What do you think of Michelle Bachmann?

Quite honestly, I don't care about her policy because I think she's a homophobe and is hardly eloquent enough to hold her own on the domestic stage, let alone the international. There are so many better candidates for the first female president and I think she's doing the country a disservice.
I've heard this statement before, so, I finally decided to do a bit of research on it.

Some fair criticism, I think, though the topic opens up a whole other can of worms, which I'd rather not get into in this thread.

To stay on point:
She is against gays even though one of her own family members is one: Whatever you may think about the issue of homosexuality, this is also a proof that she will not compromise on her convictions, which is an ideal quality in any leader, and will prove useful in an environment we've all agreed is fraught with corruption.

She is prejudiced against them: the only evidence I see here for this claim, is she supported not giving marriage rights to homosexuals, which, by the way, Marriage, is not a right to be given by government. She may not like them, she may not support them, and she may do things in her power to change them, but does this mean she will deny them their constitutional rights, like Blacks have had done to them? I'm sure every president has had a person or persons they disliked.

Also, please do not abuse the word homophobe. A Phobia is an irrational fear, and anxiety disorder, something that should be completely understandable and accepted, instead of demonized. Instead of being prejudiced against Homosexuals (which we're told they have no control over), we're prejudiced against people who may actually have a true phobia (which they do no control over), how is that any better of us?

Quote:
I don't necessarily think that Hillary Clinton is a better candidate but she does have solid federal and international experience. I don't really remember any of her stances on social or economic issues (though I do recall not really caring for her economic policy proposals), but she definitely looks good as a candidate as far as ethos goes.

Frankly, there's no woman who's presented herself that seems to me as a good candidate for a female president. I really hope there will be soon, Republican or Democrat, but as it stands, no one really fits the bill. Hillary is close but she's got some unappealing elements to her as well that I'm not a huge fan of (including her husband being president at one point, not that I have a problem with Bill).
I don't remember her specific positions either, but I know she's democrat, so I'm aware of the general overlay she'll follow. She's definitely presidential, and I don't hate her as a person, but I don't want her ideals in the White House.

Personally, I think Sarah Palin would make a great president. She has solid, unyielding convictions, loves this country, has a very animate and cheerful personality, doesn't care a bit about how people portray her, and can be identified with by many people. She also has conservative principles.



Quote:
I pretty much agree with you but that kind of individualized attention is neigh impossible to execute on a large scale or in a way that actually accounts for talents early enough so that when the kids get to high school or college they don't decide that they've made a huge mistake. People change, and locking them into a path early on can be a bit crippling personally.

I dunno, maybe I'm jumping to conclusions a bit. The model seems to work fairly well in Japan so who's to say it won't work here?
I believe a private, competitive system, that picks up on all the things Talon said, would be the best, especially bringing back apprenticeships and trade skills, and focusing on people's strengths early on. The compromise with your ideas, would be to ensure no one is absolutely "locked" into their chosen fields, by allowing transfers between schools without requirements.

Though, that's strangely similar to our current university system...


Also, Japanese schools actually compete with each other, which is probably a large factor in their good performance.

Last edited by unownmew; 12-07-2011 at 08:52 PM.
unownmew is offline  
Old 12-07-2011, 09:14 PM   #44
Tyranidos
beebooboobopbooboobop
 
Tyranidos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Krusty Krab
Posts: 3,800
Send a message via AIM to Tyranidos Send a message via MSN to Tyranidos
In regards to the education ordeal, I think having some sort of competition is necessary. Americans have become quite soft and butthurt if something doesn't go their way. Parents especially, nowadays, have a knack for blaming schools for their shitty kids' behavior and stupidity.
__________________
Tyranidos is offline  
Old 12-07-2011, 09:50 PM   #45
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
I agree with you on that. Though I believe also there are still people who actually care about the education their kids get and raise their kids in such a way that a poor education doesn't mess them up.
unownmew is offline  
Old 12-08-2011, 05:06 AM   #46
Lonely Cubone
Gee, Brain...
 
Lonely Cubone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,103
Send a message via MSN to Lonely Cubone
Admittedly there's not been a huge amount of coverage of the Republican nominees race over here (the actual election will get plenty though) but is Newt Gingrich really a possibility? Dude has more skeletons in his closet than clothes.

Surely there must be a Republican governor somewhere with a little more gravitas?
Lonely Cubone is offline  
Old 12-08-2011, 07:52 AM   #47
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
And this is why Obama will handily win re-election.
Talon87 is offline  
Old 12-08-2011, 03:34 PM   #48
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonely Cubone View Post
Admittedly there's not been a huge amount of coverage of the Republican nominees race over here (the actual election will get plenty though) but is Newt Gingrich really a possibility? Dude has more skeletons in his closet than clothes.

Surely there must be a Republican governor somewhere with a little more gravitas?
Perry's my first choice, and he's a Republican Governor

Of course, if Newt has such skeletons, it's best they come out now, instead of after if he gets the nomination, so voters are immune to it.
Obama's already planning on $1 Billion in hate campaign so, it doesn't matter who the nominee is, he'll still get hammered hard, with true and false information.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
And this is why Obama will handily win re-election.
Don't discount the race just yet, there are numerous people who disagree fundamentally with Obama's policies, and will go to great lengths to ensure he is beaten in the election, specifically, by voting against him, and educating the public around them of the truth.
unownmew is offline  
Old 12-08-2011, 03:35 PM   #49
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
You're crazy enough to be sent to a psych ward and locked up for a good long while if you honestly believe that this nation would elect Newt Gingrich over Barack Obama.
Talon87 is offline  
Old 12-08-2011, 03:36 PM   #50
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
I also think Obama's latest speech, is a defining moment in his campaign.


[Rant over Obama's Kansas Speech]
[Warning: Very Long]
Spoiler: show
Obama's Kansas Speech
Quote:
After all that's happened, after the worst economic crisis, the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, they want to return to the same practices that got us into this mess. In fact, they want to go back to the same policies that stacked the deck against middle-class Americans for way too many years. And their philosophy is simple: We are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules.
As a matter offFact, we are, and many Americans know this. It's not that the deck is stacked against anyone, it's just not stacked in favor of anyone either, except those who are willing to do the actual work to make it so.
Self Interest has always, and will always, feed more mouths then Charity. I know that's harsh to say, but that's just the way things are.
Of course, selfishness and greed are bad and should be limited and Charity encouraged, but that's not the point, working in your own self interest, will always improve your life, and most of the time, improves the lives of others around you as well.

Quote:
Factories where people thought they would retire suddenly picked up and went overseas, where workers were cheaper. Steel mills that needed 100 – or 1,000 employees are now able to do the same work with 100 employees, so layoffs too often became permanent, not just a temporary part of the business cycle. And these changes didn't just affect blue-collar workers. If you were a bank teller or a phone operator or a travel agent, you saw many in your profession replaced by ATMs and the internet.
Ridiculous. There's still human tellers at my bank, even though it has 2 ATMS in the same building, and a drive-up ATM outside.
What jobs may have been lost to an ATM, have also been regained in numbers exceeding, for: building the ATM, programming the ATM, and servicing the ATM.

The internet caused lost jobs? On the contrary, the internet has created an explosion of jobs, and is responsible for a massive portion of economic growth around the entire world.

Quote:
Now, just as there was in Teddy Roosevelt's time, there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let's respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. "The market will take care of everything," they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes – especially for the wealthy – our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn't trickle down, well, that's the price of liberty.
Now, it's a simple theory. And we have to admit, it's one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That's in America's DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. But here's the problem: It doesn't work. It has never worked. It didn't work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It's not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the 50s and 60s. And it didn't work when we tried it during the last decade. I mean, understand, it's not as if we haven't tried this theory.
He's deluded.
The markets WILL take care of everything, so long as companies are required to compete. It's always worked, and it always will work. The suit and shoes he's wearing, Air Force One he rides around in, weapons his security force carry, the pens he signs fancy bills with, All are a testament of the proof of success of Rugged Individualism, and the Capitalist system.

The laws of Economics are called laws for a reason, because they are tried and true, infallible, and without exception. The only time they could fail, is when there is outside interference forcing and changing certain things in unnatural ways (AKA Government) It's That Simple.

Quote:
Remember in those years, in 2001 and 2003, Congress passed two of the most expensive tax cuts for the wealthy in history. And what did it get us? The slowest job growth in half a century. Massive deficits that have made it much harder to pay for the investments that built this country and provided the basic security that helped millions of Americans reach and stay in the middle class – things like education and infrastructure, science and technology, Medicare and social security.
Um, what?
Massive deficits are always due to government spending beyond it's means, that means, to keep deficits out, government needs to limit it's spending to what it takes in. Lower taxes means less money going to the government to spend and waste, which will also naturally limit the government in it's scope of power and abuses, so long as it's required to stay within those bounds of spending.

Investments that built this country: education, infrastructure, medicare and social security. Huh? .....!
*Brain Explodes*
Human ingenuity, rugged individualism, limited government, freedom and liberty built this country. What a terrible world we must have lived do before Medicare, social security, and massive infrastructure spending? Are you telling me America was never great and powerful until that time?

Quote:
Remember that in those same years, thanks to some of the same folks who are now running Congress, we had weak regulation, we had little oversight, and what did it get us? Insurance companies that jacked up people's premiums with impunity and denied care to patients who were sick, mortgage lenders that tricked families into buying homes they couldn't afford, a financial sector where irresponsibility and lack of basic oversight nearly destroyed our entire economy.
On the contrary, the government itself heavily emphasized and encouraged, giving loans to people who they knew could never pay them back. In interest of their own security, these loans were then offloaded to keep the risk from getting back to them.

Quote:
But there's an even more fundamental issue at stake. This kind of gaping inequality gives lie to the promise that's at the very heart of America: that this is a place where you can make it if you try. We tell people – we tell our kids – that in this country, even if you're born with nothing, work hard and you can get into the middle class. We tell them that your children will have a chance to do even better than you do. That's why immigrants from around the world historically have flocked to our shores.

And yet, over the last few decades, the rungs on the ladder of opportunity have grown farther and farther apart, and the middle class has shrunk. You know, a few years after World War II, a child who was born into poverty had a slightly better than 50-50 chance of becoming middle class as an adult. By 1980, that chance had fallen to around 40%. And if the trend of rising inequality over the last few decades continues, it's estimated that a child born today will only have a one-in-three chance of making it to the middle class – 33%.
The reason for this gap, is the government sustaining poverty levels with unconditional welfare for the "under-priviledged," instead of promoting the poor to elevate themselves through hard work and self interest. Nobody owes anybody a living except yourself. Yeah, it's hard, but it's not impossible, and it's quite often those poor people who worked hard that become the successful rich that "need to pay their fair share of taxes!! "

Quote:
It's heartbreaking enough that there are millions of working families in this country who are now forced to take their children to food banks for a decent meal. But the idea that those children might not have a chance to climb out of that situation and back into the middle class, no matter how hard they work? That's inexcusable. It is wrong. It flies in the face of everything that we stand for.
That's the case now, because companies aren't hiring. They're not hiring because the future is uncertain, it's called Risk Management. If the worker they hire today costs them a safe amount, but then Obamacare kicks in and doubles that cost on all their employees, due to the mandates, they'll lose money, and quite possibly go bankrupt. Isn't that nice? It's safer to just wait it out, which is exactly what they're doing.

It is heartbreaking though, and inexcusable for the president to be supporting such policies that are causing it.

Quote:
The race we want to win, the race we can win is a race to the top – the race for good jobs that pay well and offer middle-class security. Businesses will create those jobs in countries with the highest-skilled, highest-educated workers, the most advanced transportation and communication, the strongest commitment to research and technology.
That is so wrong, it's not funny. I've taken Business Management, so, I know a little bit about this field.
Businesses will create jobs, where it's profitable to do so. Nothing more, nothing less. It's pointless to house your company in a place that has the highest skilled workers, if the profits coming in, are lower then the expenses being paid out to these skilled workers. That's called running your business at a loss. It's what Solyndra did, and it's neither sustainable, nor effective, that's how you go bankrupt.

You can make the greatest Doo-dad in the history of Doodads, but if people are only willing to pay a similar cost as the other doodads, which have much lower manufacturing costs, you're going to be eating tiny profits at best, and negative profits most likely. Small profits means less money to re-invest in your company to keep on top of trends and keep up with rapidly advancing technology. Over time, even if you don't go belly up, you'll find that your competitors are advancing and improving at a much faster rate, and leaving you in the dust, which will even further reduce your profits.

Tell me, would you buy an Iphone of any generation, if it had cost you $1,000+?
That's about how much it would have had to cost if it have been made entirely in America. It would have to have been reserved to being a luxury for the rich (but if you keep taxing the rich to force them into equality with the middle class, there'll be no initial customers for those expensive, technological advances that improve everyone's lives).

Quote:
But we need to meet the moment. We've got to up our game. We need to remember that we can only do that together. It starts by making education a national mission – a national mission. Government and businesses, parents and citisens. In this economy, a higher education is the surest route to the middle class.
I have to split it here..

"In this economy," well how about we fix the economy so there's other routes to middle class, and RICH!
Many of the "Rich" people, never graduated college... That's got to say a lot.
Quote:
The unemployment rate for Americans with a college degree or more is about half the national average. And their incomes are twice as high as those who don't have a high school diploma. Which means we shouldn't be laying off good teachers right now – we should be hiring them. We shouldn't be expecting less of our schools –- we should be demanding more. We shouldn't be making it harder to afford college – we should be a country where everyone has a chance to go and doesn't rack up $100,000 of debt just because they went.
So how do you propose we do that then Mr. Barrock? What tax fundings, or credit cards are we going to be using, when we're already over $4 Trillion, that is, over $4,000,000,000,000.00 USD, and ever growing, in debt?
Who are you going to tax? The Entire Populace of the Rich, are never going to be able to pay that back for you, even if you taxed them at 100%. You'll need to force Middle Class citizens to pay more too. Perhaps we should make the poor pay some too? We're still going to be nowhere near close to paying it off, and it's only going to get harder if You keep spending money on programs, teachers, infrastructure, foreign aid, and other bureaucracies at the regular rate.

Have you, per chance, heard the term, "MAXED OUT"? I certainly wish I could borrow $4 Trillion, that is, $4,000,000,000,000.00 USD, in under the course of 2 years, like you have. You can't keep borrowing money from people who don't have it, it just won't work. There will eventually come a time, if we keep spending like we have, where all this, all we have, will crumble around us, and we will be left with the stark and painful reality. We can only kick the can down the road for so long. Of course, it probably won't come under your presidency, so kicking the can further is all well and good for your own personal benefit, interest and electability. Someone needs to address it, if we wish to remain a country for any period of time later in the future.
It's not going to be pretty when it is addressed and many people will hate who ever does it with a dire passion, maybe even to 1-term or assassination, but it will be absolutely necessary, and much preferable to total societal collapse. It is much more respectable to do the right thing and be hated for it, then to curry favor by doing the wrong things

So, instead of worrying about what government can do for us in a dire situation, worry about how much more dire the situation later will be if certain things are not addressed ASAP! Let the people figure out how to solve people problems (economics), and let government work on real government problems (corruption and debt).

Quote:
Today, manufacturers and other companies are setting up shop in the places with the best infrastructure to ship their products, move their workers, communicate with the rest of the world. And that's why the over 1 million construction workers who lost their jobs when the housing market collapsed, they shouldn't be sitting at home with nothing to do. They should be rebuilding our roads and our bridges, laying down faster railroads and broadband, modernizing our schools – all the things other countries are already doing to attract good jobs and businesses to their shores.
No, they should be working for private companies to build private buildings and houses. Isn't the current government allowance for infrastructure enough? I've not seen much need for rebuilding in my area. Though my Community College is expanding the parking lot to accommodate a larger number of students, it's not being "modernized" at all, nor does it need it.

Quote:
Of course, those productive investments cost money. They're not free. And so we've also paid for these investments by asking everybody to do their fair share. Look, if we had unlimited resources, no one would ever have to pay any taxes and we would never have to cut any spending. But we don't have unlimited resources. And so we have to set priorities. If we want a strong middle class, then our tax code must reflect our values. We have to make choices.
Yeah, so, make the REAL hard choice, CUT spending, AND Taxes. With a Butcher's Cleaver, not an exacto-knife! I'm all for having people pay their fair share. But what is Fair share? 10%? 20%? 50%? 70%?
What about those people who don't pay at all? Lets make EVERYONE pay something, not just the rich. That includes your "Poor" coddled voters who receive tax-free benefits, and continually vote you in to keep those benefits up.

Quote:
But in order to structurally close the deficit, get our fiscal house in order, we have to decide what our priorities are. Now, most immediately, short term, we need to extend a payroll tax cut that's set to expire at the end of this month. If we don't do that, 160 million Americans, including most of the people here, will see their taxes go up by an average of $1,000 starting in January and it would badly weaken our recovery. That's the short term.
L-O-freaking-L
For one, the payroll tax is what pays for Social Security and Medicare, so you're cutting on Seniors' benefits, yet you're always saying it's us Republicans that want to see them suffer.

For two, if tax cuts are so important, why do you keep proposing tax increases in your proposed legislation?

Quote:
In the long term, we have to rethink our tax system more fundamentally. We have to ask ourselves: Do we want to make the investments we need in things like education and research and high-tech manufacturing – all those things that helped make us an economic superpower? Or do we want to keep in place the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans in our country? Because we can't afford to do both. That is not politics. That's just math.
Your math is full of missing variables.
Cutting spending, will also allow you to keep tax cuts in place.

It's the free market, not government that ought to be doing the investing in education, research and technology, which frees up millions of Dollars for the government to use on other things, all the while, not needing to raise taxes on anyone.

Also, Tax cuts are not a cost, even though they're rated as such by certain government agencies. Strictly speaking, with certain numbers, yeah, it's a cost, but, that money that is not lost to the black hole which is government is instead re-invested in the free market, and opens up further growth which results in more taxable profit overall.

Quote:
Keep in mind, when President Clinton first proposed these tax increases, folks in Congress predicted they would kill jobs and lead to another recession. Instead, our economy created nearly 23 million jobs and we eliminated the deficit. Today, the wealthiest Americans are paying the lowest taxes in over half a century. This isn't like in the early 50s, when the top tax rate was over 90%. This isn't even like the early 80s, when the top tax rate was about 70%. Under President Clinton, the top rate was only about 39%. Today, thanks to loopholes and shelters, a quarter of all millionaires now pay lower tax rates than millions of you, millions of middle-class families. Some billionaires have a tax rate as low as 1%. One percent.
An extremely dubious claim, one I would call an outright lie.
obama's Speech rated 3 Pinoccios, by the Washington Post

Quote:
That is the height of unfairness. It is wrong. It's wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker, maybe earns $50,000 a year, should pay a higher tax rate than somebody raking in $50m. It's wrong for Warren Buffett's secretary to pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. And by the way, Warren Buffett agrees with me. So do most Americans – Democrats, independents and Republicans. And I know that many of our wealthiest citisens would agree to contribute a little more if it meant reducing the deficit and strengthening the economy that made their success possible.
Because Buffets primary income is in capital gains, and he pays himself a smaller salary then his secretary. Way to try mislead the public Obama, but fortunately, there are people who know the truth.

Quote:
This isn't about class warfare. This is about the nation's welfare. It's about making choices that benefit not just the people who've done fantastically well over the last few decades, but that benefits the middle class, and those fighting to get into the middle class, and the economy as a whole.
It's Entirely about class warefare. Anytime one class is pitted against another class (the RICH need to pay their fair share, like the middle class does), it's class warfare.
Quote:
Finally, a strong middle class can only exist in an economy where everyone plays by the same rules, from Wall Street to Main Street. As infuriating as it was for all of us, we rescued our major banks from collapse, not only because a full-blown financial meltdown would have sent us into a second Depression, but because we need a strong, healthy financial sector in this country.
Hate to break it to you Barrock, but we do all play by the same rules, except for your donators and friends, of course. Everyone is equally accountable under the same laws. If Warren Buffet's Secretary received her income through capital gains, she'd have just the same tax rate as he.
She has just the same basic opportunity to build a business and get rich He had.
The only Deck stacking, and unfairness, stems from Government, which legislates exemptions and in-equal application of rules for their buddies.

The fairest tax would be to have the same tax rate for everyone, regardless of income.

Quote:
If you're a big bank or risky financial institution, you now have to write out a "living will" that details exactly how you'll pay the bills if you fail, so that taxpayers are never again on the hook for Wall Street's mistakes. There are also limits on the sise of banks and new abilities for regulators to dismantle a firm that is going under. The new law bans banks from making risky bets with their customers' deposits, and it takes away big bonuses and paydays from failed CEOs, while giving shareholders a say on executive salaries.
We'd never have been on the hook if YOU Barrock, had let Economics run it's course and let the banks Fail, instead of propping them up with our money!

Quote:
I'll give you a specific example. For the first time in history, the reforms that we passed put in place a consumer watchdog who is charged with protecting everyday Americans from being taken advantage of by mortgage lenders or payday lenders or debt collectors. And the man we nominated for the post, Richard Cordray, is a former attorney general of Ohio who has the support of most attorney generals, both Democrat and Republican, throughout the country. Nobody claims he's not qualified.
Great! Another unelected, unaccountable, Government Official that's going to be in charge of drafting laws, rules and regulations, for the Public, WITHOUT Their voices being heard or considered.


Barrock, you do well at feigning Conservatism and putting it under a different lable, but you can't keep your true views from oozing out, and it's your works now, not your words, like last time, that will determine if America wants you or not.
You are a government official. That means you work for us collectively. Consider this a serious reprimand from your employer: Either, Stop Campaigning, Stop making speeches, and Start working hard at doing what the country really needs, instead of just talking about it and dong the wrong things, or You're Fired!
unownmew is offline  
Closed Thread

Lower Navigation
Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:52 PM.


Design By: Miner Skinz.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.