1. Hi there, Guest

    Only registered users can really experience what DLP has to offer. Many forums are only accessible if you have an account. Why don't you register?
    Dismiss Notice

U.S. Election 2012 - The Issues

Discussion in 'Politics' started by AnvariX, Aug 30, 2012.

  1. AnvariX

    AnvariX Second Year

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Messages:
    73
    Location:
    Florida
    Well, with the RNC almost concluded and the DNC due to begin soon, I thought it might be an ideal time to attempt to have a respectful discussion on American politics, especially in regards to the two primary parties and their respective candidates; keyword, respectful.

    Ambitious, huh?

    As you can see from my post count, I haven't made many posts here, despite my years of membership. Any posts I have made are going to be in regards to Shezza's stories, Joe's stories, a few games or a variety of TV Shows. Having said that, I've followed a lot of the "real world" threads and some of the political threads and have ultimately gained a pervasive sense that most DLPers fall along the moderate/liberal side of the inevitable political scale. I'll state up front that while I dislike being associated with either one of the two primary political parties, I typically vote Republican; I would, personally, consider myself a libertarian/fiscal conservative.

    To that end, and in light of the particular audience (that I, at least, perceive) here at DLP, I'd like to - hopefully - spark a good, spirited and, most importantly, respectful debate. I am quite honestly interested in reading your various responses and thoughts, especially as I believe myself to be something approximating the minority opinion here, on this particular forum.

    -----

    I'll start by saying that on November 6, I'll be voting for the Romney/Ryan ticket; let me expound upon that by also clearly stating that I am thoroughly unexcited about the prospect of a President Romney. A large part of what I've read about him on this very forum, I agree with wholeheartedly. He is a tremendous flip-flopper; saying whatever is necessary at a particular moment in time to appeal to the present demographic. It is my opinion that such a weak presence of conviction is emblematic of one of two different potential faults; either he is not a strong leader, or he is conniving to win the presidency by any means necessary and we cannot have any ease of mind regarding his true opinions on the great political issues of our current time. Either scenario is disquieting to me, on a personal level. It doesn't help that he is not a very personally engaging man.

    The primary reason I will be voting for the Romney/Ryan ticket, however, is summed up rather accurately by a particular piece of Congressman Ryan's speech last night at the Republican National Convention in Tampe,
    As I identified above, I am first and foremost concerned with our economy, debt and deficit. Congressman Paul highlighted what, to me, is an extraordinary failure of the Obama administration in prioritizing realistic spending expectations.

    I am against most entitlement programs not for social reasons - it is not that I am unsympathetic or uncaring - but for fiscal reasons. I believe we need massive spending cuts, and entitlement programs are at the top of my list. The Department of Defense is right below them, so stop frothing at the mouth at the idea of a conservative wanting spending cuts. Our military does not need all the money we force upon them and, indeed, their leaders do not seem to even want all of it. I would pull out of Afghanistan in a heartbeat. Sinkhole of money. I'm not even opposed to the idea of marginal tax raises, to help get us out of this hole, but I am wildly and passionately against the notion that some have to pay for all.

    Allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to expire would put a modest dent in the annual deficit, but without extraordinary spending cuts accompanying them, it's really a rather perfunctory measure. Even raising taxes on the wealthiest American to absurd (to most of us - I think there might be one or two of you on here who would simply nod your head...) levels would still not bail us out of the situation we are in. The rich are simply not rich enough to counteract $15,000,000,000,000.00 in debt and an annual deficit of x>$1,000,000,000,000.00. We cannot continue to spend more than we produce, and enabling people to continue to not have to contribute is anti-productive at best and an eventual felling blow at worst.

    Are any of you opposed to spending cuts across the board? Entitlement programs, the Department of Defense, the Department of Education, etc? If in conjunction with modest tax raises? Are you OK with instituting measures to attempt to curb the costs of entitlement programs, such as drug testing those who apply for welfare, etc... keeping the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 in place as is; stating that at least 50% of welfare cases per state must follow federal guidelines on seeking and/or actually working to maintain welfare benefits? This was a Clinton sponsored law that Obama is using executive fiat to circumvent, allowing states to waive the work requirement; essentially giving away money without requiring that a person make effort to help provide for themselves. ***Full disclosure: this has only fairly recently been announced, so we haven't seen the full effect or how many states will take up the offer - but it's this sort of thing that makes my blood boil, personally.***

    I want to avoid getting into other issues besides the economy (a bit of a catch-22, as almost every other potentially volatile issue ties back to the economy) as this post is already long enough... but I'd be interested in hearing some thoughts on how to get the economy under control, specifically with regards to spending, debt and deficit.

    I'd also be interested in discussion regarding the current extraordinary level of volatility, hostility and refusal to cooperate both in government (primarily Congress) but also more and more noticeable amongst the general American populace. It's hard not to notice when I pull up Facebook how my liberal friends from college are mocking, attacking, belittling and disregarding absolutely anything coming from the GOP, RNC or conservatives at large as being absolutely usless; likewise, many of my fellow conservative friends on Facebook would, apparently, vote for the world's largest ball of dryer lint if it meant getting Obama out of office. Is there any hope for reversing this trend?

    ...If not, are just fucked six ways from Sunday?
     
  2. Xiph0

    Xiph0 Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    9,035
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    People's Republic of California
    Hard to take you seriously when you spend 90% of your post lamenting about welfare queens and supporting initiatives [like drug testing] that aren't actually based on anything except trying to edge a few people out of social programs because they smoked a joint.

    Also hard to take you seriously when your first suggestion to fixing the deficit in a time of recession is putting taxes on the upper bracket back to an exceedingly low level (the pre-Bush tax cut level was <40%) rather than actually raising them and earmarking the money for infrastructure spending [or even direct distribution to states/counties so they can stop firing police/teachers/fire en masse].

    You can't fix the economy by spending cuts, and you can't pay the deficit off without fixing the economy first. Fix the economy, tax revenues bounce back, then pay the deficit off. And cut where it won't hurt our economy to cut - which is, frankly, the military. Social programs, like it or not, keep money flowing into the private sector. They're spending their money on bills, the grocery store, etc.

    An economy like ours needs cash in circulation and trading hands. For the last ~4 years the banks have been hording the shit and people have been getting laid off in huge numbers and losing their homes, so no one's that eager to spend anything on anything. They don't know if their jobs will be their tomorrow because the entire corporate structure is essentially in shit-pants mode. No spending = the entire economy slows down = businesses have less to hire with [or to justify hiring with, as the situation goes]. Know what consistently keeps cash flowing through the economy? Public sector jobs - police, fire, teachers, construction, etc.

    You cannot talk seriously about fixing the country unless you talk about physically fixing the country. Infrastructure spending, not spending cuts. Paying down the debt can be done at low-to-modest levels until the economy has recovered more fully, because then we'll simply be in a better position to do so. Cut spending and all you do is cede the game to emerging markets like China and India.
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2012
  3. Cteatus

    Cteatus Seventh Year

    Joined:
    May 24, 2010
    Messages:
    211
    Location:
    Texas
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2012
  4. Giovanni

    Giovanni God of Scotch

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    8,605
    Location:
    Gilligan's Island
    So really, you don't actually want to have a discussion of the election, so much as you want to have a discussion of the US National debt and Government expenditures as a percentage of gross domestic product, and how Romney-Ryan will use budget magic to make these go down. Unfortunately, having read Mr. Ryan's proposed budget, I'm not really sure how that is going to happen since Mr. Ryan neglected to tell us where he's getting the money for his tax cuts. Sounds legit, right Ezra?

    Then, of course, there is the Big Lie of Mitt Romney's campaign -- that his tax plan is revenue neutral. And some additional explanation from Brookings.

    I'm voting for Romney/Ryan, but you can't expect me to say that I think they'll be better for the economy than the Presidency of Barack Obama. On the subject of the economy, remember the debt ceiling crisis that Paul Ryan and his Congressional allies helped to orchestrate last summer? I sure do.

    Oh, and if you want to know why Liberals and Democrats have (after a decade of resistance) given up and stooped to the level of Republicans in terms of political non-cooperation and negative attacks, I can think of a few examples.

    Also, he was Born in the USA. Just sayin'.
     
  5. Silens Cursor

    Silens Cursor The Silencer DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2008
    Messages:
    2,069
    Location:
    The other side of reality
    Xiph is spot on here on terms of the economics - at this point, greater government spending and more money circulating in the economy is essential if the US is to avoid the growing stagnation that's crippling the EU right now. That sort of money is going to come through government spending and a boost to consumer confidence - neither of which is going to come from increased tax cuts to the 'job creators', none of whom have bothered to inject the economy with any sort of growth, but have bothered to dump billions of dollars into SuperPACs to 'ensure' Obama won't win.

    But AnvariX, I've got a few questions for you. You call yourself a Republican, and you're clearly parroting the inaccurate garbage that the Republican Party has been spewing for the past three years. But the economy isn't the only issue in the US today, so how can you justify things like:

    -Ryan's pathological lying (this is so evident FOX fucking noted it)

    -Ryan's plan for the economy (that's an award-winning economist, btw)

    -the astounding misogyny backed by the Republican Party in candidates like Alan Arkin, who feels he understands women's bodies better than they do and who uses terms like 'legitimate rape' (Romney spoke in disapproval, but if he wanted to send a message, he should have ejected the man from the campaign ASAP)

    -the increased voter ID laws meant less to suppress voter fraud and more for suppressing young and minority voters in Democratic states, all backed by Republican candidates

    -the general lunacy of the Tea Party congressmen and women supported by the GOP, to the point where being a moderate Republican is tantamount to treason

    -the fact that the Republican Party has lost any vestige of reason by catering to the dangerously deluded far-right, the asinine theocratic fringe, and the anti-intellectual scum that festers in America like so much hyper-masculine racist mildew.

    AnvariX, you've been badly misinformed, and I can't stress much more how much of a FUCKING IMBECILIC decision it would be to vote Republican in this coming election. Even though Obama has failed in some elements to bring anything close to success and prosperity back to the US (then again, look what was handed off to him), the policies and platform supported by Romney and Ryan (nebulous as they are) are terrifying bad. If you vote Republican in 2012, or if you stay home and don't vote...

    Well, you'll be dragging the US backwards. And the US going backwards is only good for the loathsome fuckskulls who think trickle-down economics is viable, abortion in the case of rape should be illegal, evolution is a lie, and everyone who isn't a white, heterosexual wealthy male should have their basic democratic rights stripped away. At this point, it's that simple. The US is more polarized than ever before, and even though I'm not American myself, I know who I'd vote for in the coming election. Yeah, I know Obama's not perfect, but at this point, compared with the alternative, I'll choose the ass over the deranged, psychotic elephant.
     
  6. Lindsey

    Lindsey Headmaster DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,075
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    And this is the problem with America. The fact we judge everyone based on their damn party affiliations. If you are a Republican, you have to be against gays, abortion and a religious freak. If you are a Democrat, you have to be bad with money, always raising taxes and an Atheist. And, of course, people have to be judgmental (and rude) to people with different ideologies from themselves.

    For my primaries for my state, I voted half Republican and half Democrat. I voted on the person (or people) running and not what the damn party says. I mean... Come on... Republicans and Democrats are practically the same party except with a couple differing ideologies.

    Regardless who is elected, the chances of the President doing anything to really change things are slim to none. People need to realize the President does very little in terms of running the country. His main source of power is the people. People like him = more things getting fixed. You want to change things?

    CHANGE THE PEOPLE IN THE CONGRESS! People REALLY need to learn how the Congress works and seriously look into the people they vote for.

    Now, I am probably going to vote for Obama this term, even though I would have not voted for him in 2008. This is because Obama cannot run for re-election, and therefore might actually fulfill some of his promises rather than just trying to make more money to become re-elected.

    Presidents, as a whole, tend to get more shit done if they get a second term.
     
  7. justbrowsing

    justbrowsing Seventh Year

    Joined:
    May 17, 2009
    Messages:
    281
    Seems like an odd version of respect.
     
  8. Silens Cursor

    Silens Cursor The Silencer DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2008
    Messages:
    2,069
    Location:
    The other side of reality
    I'm not judging him, I'm judging his opinion - there's a difference. His opinion on the economy is badly misled, as I said, but that's not my real issue with his post.

    No, he then goes and says that he doesn't want to consider issues outside of the economy, because the economy is front and center. Nominally, I'd agree with this, and nominally I'd agree with Lindsey that most politicians are pretty much the same, all things considered, and that the President doesn't really shape the national discourse all that much...

    Except the presidency going on right now is stark evidence to the contrary, if only because he's the leader of his party and he is the figurehead that shapes the debate. I agree that Congress should be the ones making the decisions, but over the past decades there has been an extreme growth of executive power within governments (and yeah, I'll blame Obama as much for this as I'll blame Bush). That means that the president has more power to shape party policy and Congress as a whole, to say nothing of the Supreme Court.

    But fine, let's take the Presidental candidates out of the equation entirely - it would be intellectually dishonest of me to say I could support the Republican party in its current state, particularly considering the Congressmen they're putting forward and the batshit insane policies and beliefs put forward by that party, particularly the catering to the dangerous lunatic fringe of America. If you're deemed a moderate in that party, if you're willing to collaborate across the aisle, you're deemed traitorous. To see how much the GOP has been subsumed by radicals is mind-boggling.

    And you're asking me not be judgemental of people who can see their representatives make critically misinformed decisions and horrible statements of prejudice and stupidity, and then still vote for them?

    Yeah, maybe not all of the Republican electorate are racist dumbshits - I can accept that. Giovanni's voting Republican because he feels Obama betrayed the gay community (and he did). I don't agree with his choice, but it's valid and it's backed by some coherent reason, and even though I vehemently stress that the choice might be misguided, I respect his choice, and his freedom to make that choice.

    The GOP and their ilk do not respect the American people to make any choice - that's why the flotilla of voter ID laws are being passed, to disenfranchise voters in swing states that vote Democrat. When governors come out and say, 'This'll win the state for the GOP', you can tell that they have no intention of preventing the possibility of voter fraud (for all of the tiny percentage of cases that has happened. That, along with Romney's silent support of the anti-intellectual policies and dumbshits in his party, Ryan's horribly misguided economic plan, and the party's embrace of jingoistic, misogynist, borderline racist and theocratic policies mean that given the choice, I could never vote for them.

    And if I'm being completely honest, I don't see how anybody using reason could make an completely informed decision and vote for them either. I know all of this makes me sound like some sort of party hack or a blowhard in the vein of Olbermann, but frankly, having kept a close eye on politics over the past four years and watched what the US has mutated into, I don't see how I could come to any other conclusions.
     
  9. Perspicacity

    Perspicacity High Score: 3,994 Prestige DLP Supporter DLP Gold Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    974
    Location:
    Where idiots are not legally permitted to vote
    High Score:
    3,994
    I thought the OP was a troll. It's been awhile since I posted in Politics, but are people really this misinformed?

    Really? And in a swing state?

    I get the Obama hate, but do you really dig so much the Romney/Tea Party double-down? Or the return of the Neocons? As a protest vote, Gary Johnson would be better--having met the guy, I can say he seems to be one of the few Libertarians who come off as likeable and not pimply nineteen year olds Rand fetishists who never moved out of their parents' basements. Must be the pot.
     
  10. Giovanni

    Giovanni God of Scotch

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    8,605
    Location:
    Gilligan's Island
    In a swing state where the turnout universe is somewhere 2.3-2.8 million, the probability of your ballot being the one that tips the balance one way or the other is relatively small. I'd actually be okay with the return of the Neocons -- so far as civil liberties are concerned, they are actually more Moderate that the current President.

    As for the Tea Party, it would suck to give them a 7-2 Majority on the Supreme Court. Maybe Barack Obama and his Liberal allies should have thought of that before they knifed LGBTs, Latinos, and Civil Libertarians in the back for three years. The only way you get heard in coalition politics though is by being willing to vote for the other side if you are betrayed by your coalition.
     
  11. Narf

    Narf Administrator Admin DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    5,074
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Yet the other side actively opposes LGBT rights. Your logic is confusing.
     
  12. AnvariX

    AnvariX Second Year

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Messages:
    73
    Location:
    Florida
    Seems I stirred up the proverbial hornet's nest...

    I'm employed and, like the vast majority of employed Americans, I was drug tested when I was hired and probably will be screened again every few years, as my company requires - I'm not sure how often as I don't care, I don't use drugs. If private businesses are allowed to screen their employees on the basis of drug usage - tax-paying members of society - and this is a rather entrenched system in the private and public sector, why is it such an immediately dismissive idea for welfare recipients? My employer can screen me, you can damn well hedge your bets that the government screens their employees but the moment we try to say that maybe we should screen those who receive tax dollars, it's suddenly worth that derogatory tone you utilized? Aren't most Americans, conservative and liberal alike, outraged when we find out businesses and organizations misappropriate tax dollars for illegal and/or morally questionable activities? Why can we not have that same attitude towards individual citizens? I'm all for individual freedoms and for the most part, I take a "government back off" approach to what people can and cannot do on a personal basis... but the moment you accept tax dollars, I don't think it's such a radical idea that the tax payers get a basic sense of accountability.

    Furthermore, no, I don't believe that a majority of individuals on welfare are habitual drug users - but, why should we not weigh the fact that at least some are using drugs against them receiving the government's aid? It doesn't matter whether it's just a "few people... [who] smoked a joint" or whether they use harder drugs - they are knowingly breaking U.S. Federal Law. Why the hell should I not have a right to become a little indignant that there are some individuals on welfare who are breaking the law without a care on one hand, yet aching to benefit from the law on the other, when it suits there needs?

    Moving onto the issue of taxation, yes, it's true that allowing the Bush-era Tax Cuts to expire would - I believe, I'm not looking it up right now - put the tax range for the wealthiest Americans sitting back at around 35-38% if I recall correctly. You consider 38 cents on the dollar an "exceedingly low" level? I am genuinely curious what you would consider an acceptable level of taxation for the wealthiest bracket and, further, what you might define that highest bracket at, based on minimum household and/or individual income.

    Cteatus, I wasn't merely parroting the FOX News/Romney campaign rote on the welfare reform - I specifically noted that it is, indeed, a waiver.

    Silens, I never once mentioned increased tax cuts to the wealthy - I actually said I'm willing to entertain increasing taxes for the limited purpose of helping us get out of the hole that we are in... but only, of course, if it is accompanied by spending cuts. After the debt situation begins to look less bleak I would want to revisit the issue.

    Further, you are incorrect: I never once called myself a Republican. What I actually said was that I dislike party affiliations, I consider myself of a libertarian/fiscal conservative nature and that, more often than not, that leads me to vote Republican. I'm not sure what, precisely, you think I'm parroting, but if you think a balanced budget and attempting to control spending are concepts that have only been bandied about in the "last three years" and only by the Republican party, well... I'll attribute that to the fact that you note that you've only really followed politics closely for the last four years. These are concepts that have always been of paramount importance to libertarians and, more importantly, they used to be jointly important to both Republicans and Democrats; apparently you've never studied politics prior to the Bush-era.

    To your points... I don't know if you followed your Fox News article source to Politifact but, if you did, they highlight that,
    So... it sounds to me as if they basically agree that the reasoning is both that the debt is too large AND that agreement could not be reached... which is the fault of both parties, not just one... Having said that, I do not support utilizing the debt ceiling as political ransom, as the Republicans did. Neither did I support the duplicitous means in which the Democrats passed the Healthcare bill in the Senate. Both sides do shady shit. What a newsflash.

    You found a YouTube video of an economist saying he doesn't support Ryan's budgetary plans... really? Here is a U.S. News & World Report article published this month with more than 400 economists endorsing the Romney/Ryan economic plan... five of whom are Nobel Laureates. Yeah, guess what... economists have political leanings too, and finding one, ten or a thousand that say the Ryan model is bad doesn't mean that there aren't others just as qualified who say the opposite thing... He said, she said is a rather sophomoric line of argument.

    I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that when you said "Alan Arkin" you actually meant Todd Akin since, you know... Alan Arkin is a 78 year old former actor and not a political candidate... I'll further assume that this lapse in knowledge of the person in question is complimented by the lack of knowledge that virtually the entire Republican party, both elected officials and candidates, condemned Todd Akin and exerted as much pressure as they could to convince him to drop out. Whether Hannity, Limbaugh or any of those other blowhard idiots tried is another matter, but still...

    The Tea Party are, yes, for the most party idiots. I agree with you there.

    "the fact that the Republican Party has lost any vestige of reason by catering to the dangerously deluded far-right, the asinine theocratic fringe, and the anti-intellectual scum that festers in America like so much hyper-masculine racist mildew"

    That I won't dignify with a response, because it's childish. I don't particularly care for political parties, as I already stated. However, having said that, I don't sit here and denigrate either party. Yes, I lean conservative. To me, though it may be difficult for you to believe, the liberal-leaning members of the Democratic party are just as outlandish as the rabid right are to you - but your vitriol is nothing short of prepubescent.

    "AnvariX, you've been badly misinformed, and I can't stress much more how much of a FUCKING IMBECILIC decision it would be to vote Republican in this coming election."

    Thanks. I'll take the opinion of the guy who confused a 78 year old actor with an, admittedly, imbecilic political candidate really close to heart.

    "Yeah, I know Obama's not perfect, but at this point, compared with the alternative, I'll choose the ass over the deranged, psychotic elephant."

    Cute. Thanks for really adding to the discussion with your well thought out and reasoned arguments.

    --

    Lindsey,

    "CHANGE THE PEOPLE IN THE CONGRESS! People REALLY need to learn how the Congress works and seriously look into the people they vote for."

    Couldn't agree more!
     
  13. Giovanni

    Giovanni God of Scotch

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    8,605
    Location:
    Gilligan's Island
    What he defines it as is irrelevant, as the only thing that matters in this conversation is how the IRS defines it. On the subject of people offering definitions though, people generally tend to think wealth is distributed more evenly than it actually is. I'd also observe that most people would consider 13.9% on over 15 million earned to be exceedingly low.

    Most people would also wonder if Mr. Romney's Swiss Bank Account was one of the ones covered by the IRS' immunity offer to tax cheats made in 2009. Too bad we won't know, since Romney won't release the tax returns.

    I think it's funny that, having argued that you wanted a discussion of the issues unclouded by incivility, you've studiously avoided actually engaging with 1) The 4.5 Trillion dollar donut hole in the Ryan Budget, 2) The Brookings Institution's observation that Mr. Romney's campaign is based on an enormous falsehood, and 3) Apologizing for your original post which demanded a respectful debate and which then proceeded to be immensely disrespectful.

    What the Democrats did to pass the ACA was a legitimate procedural move which, until the Republicans had a hysterical case of the vapors over, had been relatively uncontroversial. Naturally, you follow it up with a "pox on both your houses" statement. Creating a moral equivalence between using a legitimate procedural maneuver and threatening to implode the nation's economy is the type of thing I would expect from a Libertarian.

    What year of college are you in, because I hear the Clown College of Insincere Centrists is still accepting applications.

    Sree: The Republicans have a pretty terrible platform for gay rights, this is not in doubt. If you want to rehash the other threads wherein we established that Barack Obama has done fuck all for gay rights (when not actually sabotaging the cause) for most of his first term, we can do that. Given that both candidates are functionally the same in what they stand for and what they would like to do, I'm not persuaded that voting for Obama is the right decision for advancing the cause.
     
  14. samkar

    samkar Temporarily Banhammered

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2010
    Messages:
    820
    I'm quite surprised why you would think the president makes any difference about the civil liberties being razed to the ground. DHS was installed under Bush after "11/9" based on long time prepared laws by the system. You don't just create such 187 pages of new sensitive legislative act and get it signed in roughly 10 weeks after the "event". Obama only implemented the next steps in the system's agenda as Romney will too if he gets elected.

    I think the only realistic hope with a different president is delaying what's going on because the new president's posse needs some time to get adjusted.
     
  15. Giovanni

    Giovanni God of Scotch

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    8,605
    Location:
    Gilligan's Island
    It wouldn't be a thread in #Politics without a conspiracy theory from samkar.
     
  16. samkar

    samkar Temporarily Banhammered

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2010
    Messages:
    820
    What do you perceive as the actual conspiracy theory here? Is it my comment about the convenient quick Homeland Security Act or that the president candidates are limited to the agenda set by the system elites?
     
  17. Narf

    Narf Administrator Admin DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    5,074
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Gio: I think there's a difference between a president being opposed to gay rights and a president who is too scared/cockblocked from doing anything for gay rights.
     
  18. Augustine

    Augustine Squib

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2010
    Messages:
    19
    It seems to me AnvariX is simplifying drug users when he says
    I just want to clear a few things up for you with the use of a thought experiment.

    You argue correctly, that private businesses are within their rights to screen for drug use in their employees, the employee has a contractual obligation to the company to not do their job while impaired by drugs.

    However the Employee surely has some recourse if, before his screening, someone pins him to the ground and injects him with drugs, or if someone while he was out at a party spikes his drink - or if someone, (unknown by our hero, as he has never smelt pot) smoked some weed - which he believed to be a cigarette while standing near by him at a party. We can all recognise that - The Circumstances here invalidate his drug tests and therefore should not result in the loss of his job.

    Here is the slight leap and hopefully you can see the validity of the comparison. Large amounts of drug users on welfare, are from the lowest socio-economic background, which means they are born and live in areas where there is a ready availability of drugs, societal pressures, lack of education on the actual affects of drugs. As such circumstances beyond their control, make drug use and addiction highly likely.

    The analogy falls down when you say but yes they always have a choice - however I would point you towards thinkers such as Freud, Marx, Darwin, Keynes and even Jesus Christ, who say that people are not as in control of their actions and choices as they would like to think due to their - childhood, their economic class, their biology (crack babies being an example? not sure if they exist) and above all else their lack of all information.

    Tl;dr Drug users, especially those who need welfare, are often those who have been pushed or nudged by environmental factors to drug use. As such to deny them welfare is to not recognize how lucky we are not to be in their situation. I'm not saying we shouldn't drug test by the way - but it is impractical to drug test everyone who receives welfare - but drug use shouldn't invalidate your claim to welfare, it should perhaps come with some stipulations in regards to attending meetings/rehab but to strip welfare from someone because they use drugs fails to recognize why people on welfare use drugs.

    Also you understand how marginal rates of tax work right? Its not 38 cents on every dollar only 38 cents on every dollar you earn over 150,000. I for one am in the UK and know people who were happy to pay the marginal rate of 50p per 1 GBP over 100,000 as we're all in the together ( I hate that the conservatives have used this as a slogan to fool lower income earners into suffering more to pay off debt - it really should be a rallying call to those high earners who realize that a cohesive society and balanced budget is good for them in the long run)

    I wouldn't mind Romney if it was the Romney who was Governor - but since hes had to shift to the right socially as the base of the republican party is mental and also because he has the downright worst vp candidate in Ryan (just because he talks about the budget doesn't mean he knows shit about economics - in fact his budgets have proved he knows jack shit) - I would vote Obama and hope that his victory forces the GOP to move to the center in the next election.
     
  19. Giovanni

    Giovanni God of Scotch

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    8,605
    Location:
    Gilligan's Island
    Obama could have fooled me when he sent Jim Messina to the Hill in an effort to stop the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. Good thing that attempt ended up failing.
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2012
  20. AnvariX

    AnvariX Second Year

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Messages:
    73
    Location:
    Florida
    First of all, I agree - Romney ought to release his tax returns, at least for the last few years. That isn't an unreasonable expectation of candidates who expect to be voted into the high office.

    I haven't read the Brookings Institution's report and it's late, but I'll read it tomorrow and post some thoughts after I've digested it... I skimmed the FAQ article you linked, looks interesting.

    My second post was a bit disrespectful, perhaps... but I'm sorry, Silens' post was little more than bombastic rantings denigrating those who hold a different opinion than himself. The entirety of his first post focused only on disparaging the conservative viewpoint without actually extolling on the solutions proffered by those politicians that he does support.

    You're right... it had been relatively uncontroversial because in a more sane congressional era, Senators knew when it was legitimate to utilize reconciliation, and not. You are aware the Clinton wanted to pass his healthcare reform in 1993 utilizing reconciliation in the Senate and was, in turn, told that a healthcare reform bill was outside of the intended scope of reconciliation, right? So, then, it might actually be a little more controversial than you think when another Senate chooses to pass it under that very procedure because it is the only option available to them.

    Graduated from college four years ago... I'm not familiar with the Clown College of Insincere Centrists, so I'll let you hang on to that application of yours.

    The fuck? Congress voted on a 2,000 page (more or less) healthcare bill without even reading it... Rushing things through Congress is practically tradition; it isn't conspiracy, it's stupidity.

    I'd be totally cool with allowing them access to welfare for a limited time, conditionally by attendance at rehab sessions, or some such solution. So long as their is SOME semblance of accountability. However, I think there also needs to be a maximum number of times someone is allowed this chance... having someone habitually take advantage of it is the same sort of disrespect to the law.

    Don't care too much what goes on in people's bedrooms... although I think it best that all persons, straight or gay, follow some basic, decent PDA rules.
     
Loading...