Jump to content

The Politics Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Members

And this is supposedly a great political leader.

Please register in order to view this content

It's frightening. The economy is in trouble, so lets pray. Well, there is a great policy sure to balance all budgets. I only wish I can vote twice for this guy because his economic policies and cures are things Wharton and MIT never thought of.

I'm jewish but I too will lift up my cry to Jesus! I want to make a sound that will be made in heaven. I wasn't planning on fasting but I could stand to drop a few pounds.

And this is who they think should run for president. It's mind boggling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 45.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Vee

    6816

  • DRW50

    5988

  • DramatistDreamer

    5521

  • Khan

    3458

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

George W. Bush's biggest mistake, and yeah there were quite a few of them, yet the biggest one was not raising taxes to finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Taxes are always raised to fund wars, most notably when George H. W. Bush raised taxes, it was to fund the war in Iraq in the 90s. It did cost him the presidency, but it was also a hard reality he had to accept; to increase revenue to pay for the war in the middle east.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Hey, Q-Fan...

I'll be the first in line to contribute my fair share and certainly more if events call for it... Americans have always sacraficed for a greater good. The problem is that nobody can define what the greater good is that our money today is going to. Think about it... Stimulus money, government loans to the auto companies, GE... All of this money well-spent? I guess I personally dig in my heels when asked to contribute more when much of what we've given has already been pissed away on foolishness and nonsense. My mom is on social security and medicare and wholly recognizes that cuts to these programs are inevitable to keep them viable.

I frankly wouldn't mind a modest increase in my taxes IF the government also makes a compromise... I'm sure we could all identify numerous social programs and/or services that should be reduced or eliminated altogether. There is massive waste in government - we all know this. I'm the kind of person who would also dig in his heels and be unwilling to give more of my money to support waste... The government does NOT have a good track record spending our money wisely. In the marketplace, I don't keep buying items or paying for services that don't measure up. We should honestly demand the same from government.

This isn't a partisan issue for me... Both parties have abused the public trust and neglected their responsibilities. There was never a spending bill out of Congress that Bush didn't like and Obama's economic policies have failed miserably (Dems held Congress the first two years of Obama's presidency and could have accomplished SOMETHING if they REALLY wanted to).

But I really can't argue the substance of your post, Q-Fan... great information and I appreciate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

But that's not true at all. The 1990s were a boom time, and look what America did next: decided "why should I pay for them?" and cut taxes. Then the wars came and there was no draft and Bush bribed everyone with some dumb $600 check to go shopping, and people still didn't want to pitch in and wanted taxes even lower. Then the country went broke and instead of saying "we have to take care of everyone" conservatives want to cut the social safety net even as they refuse to raise taxes. So when it comes to modern conservative theory, where is this sacrificing for the greater good?

The joke of it all is that while conservatives bemoan welfare and government subsidies, a run down of the states that get more federal dollars than they send to Washington, is state after state the reddest of red states. The very people who hate liberals and NY and the north and see me and my state and city as socialist anti-american atheist abominations, are the very people who come around every year with their palm facing up demanding a hand out. For all the republican talk about everyone has to be self reliant, how is it that it is the republican dominated states that are charity cases, and it's broke NY and CA that send more money to Washington every year than it gets back? And then these same states that take all the liberal tax dollars turn right around and say we are not real americans and and are socialists. Well we have to be socialists, because if we didn't use the government as a way to funnel money to Podunk, Green Acres and every other hick town in some backwoods state that doesn't believe in education, they'd starve.

I have no problem with government loans to auto companies. What was the cost of the loan, $14 billion? And lets think about all the jobs and cars that money went and saved. Now think how long $14 billion lasts in Iraq and Afghanistan, a week? Maybe two? So it is priorities. Do you consider the auto industry less or more important than two weeks in Kabul? And then if you think they are both important, well, take that 14 billion and drop it in the bucket that is the money that would have been saved if the Bush tax cuts expired. I think with the auto industry Obama did good. They're still there making cars, and if we can spend a trillion to save wall street we can spend a few billion to save all those union jobs in Detroit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Well, then we have a clear and decided difference of opinion after all. That's fine... I live in California and I pay more than enough of my fair share and am unwilling to give even more to the government so that they can waste it on corporate welfare, social welfare, any war anywhere, or any other hairbrained scheme that seems to be a good idea to politicians but a bad idea to mostly the rest of us.

It was floated years ago and I say it should come back... a flat tax where everywhere pays their TRUE fair share based on a percentage of their earnings. If the government needs more to buy overpriced hammers or toilet plungers, then we all get evenly soaked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Q-Fan, I was intrigued by your federal aid to states numbers and did a search... finding differing viewpoints on this. The fact of the matter is that blue vs. red gorging at the federal trough is roughly the same. I found these numbers that differ with your view from the Washington Post:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/06/research_desk_responds_do_cons.html

And it is excerpted here:

First, I took the average amount of federal aid given to states won by Obama in 2008 versus those won by McCain. The Obama state average ($11,097,466,205.93) dwarfs that of the McCain states ($8,579,954,939.86), but that is to be expected, given that McCain's states tend to be smaller, and this measure does not take population into account. So I instead averaged the per capita aid given to each candidate's states.

While that may look dramatic, it is important to remember that a lot of federal aid to states -- Medicaid, welfare, education funds -- go disproportionately to poor cities, and Democratic states tend to be more urban than their Republican counterparts.

How you interpret the data depends on which side of the political fence you're on. All states suckle from the federal breast more than they should... it's because most of them have no clue how to govern. Of course, neither does Washington. We all get screwed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Breaking news: Congressman David Wu (D-OR) is resigning as a result of allegations over having made sexual advances towards a fundraiser's daughter.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/07/26/wu.resigns/index.html?hpt=po_bn1

Wu's district consists of the northwest corner of Oregon, including a portion of Portland. Because it is very Democratic, there is no danger of Wu's successor being a Republican.

Edited by Max
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

LMAO at Obama. I'm just shaking my head at how inept this guy is as a leader. His idea of compromise is giving Republicans everything they ask for. Every time he says the word "compromise" he's emasculated even further. He's their bitch. It's a sad for Americans that this guy is probably going to be re-elected by default.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The problem is that Obama would rather throw a lot of long-held programs under the bus in order to appear bipartisan. There is no real effort to talk to the public about how vital these programs are. Instead he has just gone along with this "let's cut waste" story, when what he knows, and what many people don't, is that those in power see "waste" as things like Social Security, Medicare, and, likely, retirement pay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Americans are screwed either way because the Republicans and the Tea party have proven that all they care about is the rich and they would drive the country into the ground to protect their tax cuts. Obama, instead of being a leader, is so worried about being re-elected, he would rather throw his own party under the bus than take a stand and truly fight for this country. Every time he deflects blame to the 'pubs proves how inept he is. Yes they're opposing him on basically every issue but this guy is being bullied into submission and literally allowing them to define his presidency instead of using his power to make the necessary changes this country needs. Bill Clinton advised him and he actually balked at the idea of using the fourteenth amendment at his disposable since he would rather cater to the same bullies who keep punching him in the face. The fact that he was willing to sacrifice medicare and social security, two staples - that at it's core - is the backbone of not only the democratic party, but the country speaks to the fact that this guy is no better than some of the Republicans. I loathe Republicans, but I can actually respect their fortitude on their principles, as loathsome as those principles are.

It's like I said, he's probably going to be re-elected but not because he deserves it but because he's the lesser of two evils. There isn't even another Democratic contender in sight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • What else? #May4th

      Please register in order to view this content

       
    • In my usual account on my most used video hosting site with the video title  DAYS 1-8-15 Will & Paul Sex This is an edit I began when I was first teaching myself to edit & at that time I couldn't make it do what I wanted it to do. I pulled it up & finished it this morning. 
    • Or Megan is shot as retaliation for Dave's unpaid gambling debts...while Julie confesses she's the biological mother of Special Guest Star Barry Bostwick's little boy.
    • Finland seemed such an odd choice for a location shoot. ATWT went to Greece and later Spain while GL had Tenerife and there were others in that timeframe. But Finland not being a known tourist destination or offering the tropical/sunny atmosphere usually associated with location shoots seems off brand. Maybe they were negotiating a deal with a tourist association and it fell through.
    • I was talking about 1986, but the glimpses of 1982 are about the same. 
    • I skimmed some of the 1982 synopses; Steve was planning on an opening an office in Finland, and I think Jim went there as part of the preparation. That probably was a big issue; AW had already gone to San Diego that year, with Rachel/Steve/Mitch. And to upstate NY with Pete and Diana. I wonder if upstate was as expensive lol  AW in 1982 has always fascinated me, because of how messy it was 
    • That makes sense. What a messy time for the show. And any changes they made were mostly for the worse.
    • The transition from Neal to Adam was very abrupt, and to be honest my theory is that the character of Neal was designed so that we think he is super shady but then it turns out that he was on the side of good all along so Neal could have seamlessly become a hero of the BCPD with no need for Adam. I don't know whether Robert Lupone was hired on a short contract or if he was fired from a longer-term contract because they decided they wanted someone who was more of a leading man type, but I can imagine a scenario where Charles Grant did both the undercover Egyptian treasure/flirt with Victoria and the straighter-arrow day to day police investigation. But in my imagined scenario the MJ prostitution plotline probably doesn't exist and instead he probably continues a relationship with Victoria. The story seems very odd to me. I assume that David Canary would have been included only because a plotline where Steve is going to Finland in which only Rachel is seen in actual Finland seems unlikely. The synopses explicitly mention that Alice can't go with Steve but would whoever was playing Alice at that time have had the kind of clout to get the remote cancelled? It also strikes me as unlikely that production would have approved the expensive location shoot and *then* cancelled it only because of jealousy. It seems more likely that they rejected it because of the expense but then the jealousy part got added to the gossip speculatively, possibly because while it was being worked out they justified not including more castmembers because of the expense. 
    • My comment has nothing to do with cast resentment, but does relate to the Finland location shoot: It may be a coincidence, but Jim Matthews died in Finland in 1982.  Hugh Marlowe's final episode was in April 1982, but the character probably didn't die untll May or June. (I'm unable to find the character's date of death, only the date of Marlowe's final episode). SInce Jim and Rachel had very little interaction after around 1975, it is unlikely Jim's death in Finland had any connection to Rachel's potential visit, but the choice to have Jim die in that location at that time is a head-scratcher.  I'm sure the writers sent Jim on an extended trip (and off-screen) because of Marlowe's illness.  But Finland seems like a strange choice considering the (then) recently cancelled location shoot.  
    • I totally understand your sloths concern about it and I agree with you. Let’s hope the show plays it’s cards right.    Further comments about the last few episodes: - I liked that one of the attendees was filming the scene. That’s realistic. I wonder if the writers will follow up with that.  - Martin and Smitty trying to drag Leslie out was very heteronormative, so perfectly in line with them two as characters lol.    As for the future: it’s obvious the Duprees will come to accept Eva one way or another, but the rivalry with Kay should be here for the long term   On the topic of acting: the only bad actors I’m seeing are Ted and Derek. Tomas hasn’t proven to be either good or bad, so far, but he’s certainly mediocre and uncharismatic. He sucks the energy out of the scenes and I don’t see any couple of women ever vying for him. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy