US presidential election 2012 [Archive] - Page 4 - MensTennisForums.com

US presidential election 2012

Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5

buddyholly
08-15-2012, 06:10 AM
Honestly, Obama is not doing this for votes. Hell if he were doing things for votes he would most certainly not touch this whole poisonous issue as a whole. But we need someone to touch this. We also need someone to get rid of big pharma and cut medicinal drug prices by half .

If you get rid of ''big pharma'' you get rid of the companies that develop new and better drugs. Who is going to do that after you get rid of ''big pharma.'' Please don't say, ''the government''.

orangehat
08-15-2012, 07:35 AM
If it is anything like the Canadian system it is terrible. Since I came back to Canada to live I have discovered that the only thing my doctor does other than write a prescription every three months, is refer me to specialists, where the wait time for an appointment is 3-5 months.

For one problem I told the doctor that I did not want to wait five months and asked him where I could go and see a doctor right away and pay for the appointment. He told me, "Buffalo.''

It really was a shock to me to find that there is no alternative to the government health service. I always assumed anyone who wanted could go and pay a private doctor. But there aren't any!

Actually some lefties would prefer a single-payer system not dissimilar to that of Canada/UK's system. But yes, Obama's system is not like that of Canada's.

If you get rid of ''big pharma'' you get rid of the companies that develop new and better drugs. Who is going to do that after you get rid of ''big pharma.'' Please don't say, ''the government''.

Don't be ridiculous. Look at stuff like the US gvt's ban on foreign drugs that are exactly the same but much cheaper from Europe. This all comes from big pharma lobbying. The pharmaceutical companies are making obscene profits, driving drug prices down is not going to make them go into losses, just less profits for those fat cats.

buddyholly
08-15-2012, 01:41 PM
Don't be ridiculous. Look at stuff like the US gvt's ban on foreign drugs that are exactly the same but much cheaper from Europe. This all comes from big pharma lobbying. The pharmaceutical companies are making obscene profits, driving drug prices down is not going to make them go into losses, just less profits for those fat cats.

You originally said we need to "get rid of big pharma''. Then you tell me I am ridiculous for not wanting to get rid of big pharma. But wait, you then continue by claiming that you don't really want to get rid of them either, but just want to make them continue to develop new drugs, but control their profits. Which is it? Get rid of ''big pharma'' or not get rid of ''big pharma''? Personally I would prefer that a drug company makes more profits that Federer. I can live without Federer.

So how about we also legislate less profits for those obscene fat cats Federer, Djokovic, Michael Moore, all of Hollywood in fact, various rappers, Apple, Nike, etc etc?

orangehat
08-15-2012, 04:04 PM
You originally said we need to "get rid of big pharma''. Then you tell me I am ridiculous for not wanting to get rid of big pharma. But wait, you then continue by claiming that you don't really want to get rid of them either, but just want to make them continue to develop new drugs, but control their profits. Which is it? Get rid of ''big pharma'' or not get rid of ''big pharma''? Personally I would prefer that a drug company makes more profits that Federer. I can live without Federer.

So how about we also legislate less profits for those obscene fat cats Federer, Djokovic, Michael Moore, all of Hollywood in fact, various rappers, Apple, Nike, etc etc?

You obviously insist on reading into the most likely thing that I propose. Very buddyholly-esque - oh wait. nvm :rolls:

Of course I was referring to your statement that the gvt should go into the business of developing drugs.

I don't want to "get rid" of big pharma, I want to "get rid" of them from our politicans.

You see, the difference between big pharma and Federer, Djokovic, and most of Hollywood (with the exception of Michael Moore who in itself is a different matter), is that they don't spend a sizeable chunk of their profits back into lobbying to make rules bend to their will, allowing them to make even more profits and generate a vicious cycle. But of course you wouldn't understand that. It's just like how most "independents" and rightwingers don't understand that Chick-fil-A is not about free speech.

buddyholly
08-15-2012, 04:13 PM
. It's just like how most "independents" and rightwingers don't understand that Chick-fil-A is not about free speech.

Isn't it exactly about free speech? The president of the company expressed his belief. I don't agree with him, but why can't he say it?

buddyholly
08-15-2012, 04:17 PM
You obviously insist on reading into the most likely thing that I propose. Very buddyholly-esque - oh wait. nvm :rolls:


It's just like how most "independents" and rightwingers don't understand that Chick-fil-A is not about free speech.

When you said we must get rid of ''big pharma'' I must admit I assumed you were proposing getting rid of ''big pharma.''

As for the president of Chick-fil-A, wasn't he actually exercising free speech? I don't agree with his beliefs, but that doesn't mean he can't say what he believes. If he said that minorities would not be served in his restaurants that would be a different matter. As far as I know that is not the policy.
If anyone was violating the First Amendment it was the mayors of Chicago and Boston for saying that Chick-fil-A would not be welcome in their cities. That attitude way overstepped their duties as mayor. They do not make the laws. I would say that it is usually people who call themselves left-wingers who are the first to want free speech suppressed. Because in my experience left-wingers often forget that they have are different opinions, not correct opinions.

orangehat
08-15-2012, 04:21 PM
When you said we must get rid of ''big pharma'' I must admit I assumed you were proposing getting rid of ''big pharma.''

As for the president of Chick-fil-A, wasn't he actually exercising free speech? I don't agree with his beliefs, but that doesn't mean he can't say what he feels.

Ok I wasn't clear enough regarding Chick-fil-A. I meant the boycott of Chick-fil-A. There were a lot of people arguing that a boycott should not take place because it was his free speech rights.

Dan Cathy was free to speak whatever he wanted but so were people free to boycott, considering particularly that a company arm donated $5 million USD to anti-gay purposes.

buddyholly
08-15-2012, 04:41 PM
Dan Cathy was free to speak whatever he wanted but so were people free to boycott, considering particularly that a company arm donated $5 million USD to anti-gay purposes.

Agreed. And it seems that Chick-fil-A is a family owned company, not publicly owned. So he has even more right to say what he believes, I think.

But I still do not understand what you meant by ''right-wingers don't understand that Chick-fil-A is not about free speech." Your above quote now seems to affirm that you agree it is totally about free speech.

You seem to be worried that people might be denied the freedom to boycott. I think that is completely different from people arguing about whether or not a boycott should take place. That again is just free speech. Why shouldn't people argue all day that a boycott should not take place, if they wish? They were not forcing you to go eat there. But you seem to somehow think that arguing against a boycott was wrong, when it is nothing more than an opinion different from your own. Which brings me back to your saying that people with opinions different from yours don't understand. That is an attitude that I don't understand.

orangehat
08-15-2012, 05:11 PM
Agreed. And it seems that Chick-fil-A is a family owned company, not publicly owned. So he has even more right to say what he believes, I think.

But I still do not understand what you meant by ''right-wingers don't understand that Chick-fil-A is not about free speech." Your above quote now seems to affirm that you agree it is totally about free speech.

You seem to be worried that people might be denied the freedom to boycott. I think that is completely different from people arguing about whether or not a boycott should take place. That again is just free speech. Why shouldn't people argue all day that a boycott should not take place, if they wish? They were not forcing you to go eat there. But you seem to somehow think that arguing against a boycott was wrong, when it is nothing more than an opinion different from your own. Which brings me back to your saying that people with opinions different from yours don't understand. That is an attitude that I don't understand.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

There were a lot of people arguing on the right that a boycott should not happen because of Dan Cathy's first amendment rights. You think that it's an argument on whether a boycott should happen, but I think this is the more logical argument:

A boycott should not happen because Dan Cathy has first amendment rights = boycotting because of Dan Cathy's words would be akin to denying Dan Cathy his first amendment rights. The argument becomes that if we were to boycott any organization because of it's speech (or in this case, actions), it somehow intimidates them into not making their speeches/actions, thereby "limiting" their speech. So a boycott should not happen, because it is a restriction on speech.

Furthermore, as many other people will tell you, the first amendment rights were intended to protect citizens from an oppressive government, which is hardly germane to this discussion

buddyholly
08-15-2012, 06:45 PM
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

There were a lot of people arguing on the right that a boycott should not happen because of Dan Cathy's first amendment rights. You think that it's an argument on whether a boycott should happen, but I think this is the more logical argument:

A boycott should not happen because Dan Cathy has first amendment rights = boycotting because of Dan Cathy's words would be akin to denying Dan Cathy his first amendment rights. The argument becomes that if we were to boycott any organization because of it's speech (or in this case, actions), it somehow intimidates them into not making their speeches/actions, thereby "limiting" their speech. So a boycott should not happen, because it is a restriction on speech.



It is even less clear now. I do not know what that last paragraph means. Why shouldn't someone argue that a boycott should not happen? This has nothing at all to do with not permitting a boycott to happen, which is what you seem to think the people on the right want to do. By your logic then, the people on the left should not argue in favour of a boycott. That is, nobody should make an argument of any sort, because someone will disagree with it.

The bottom line for me is that arguing that a business should not be boycotted because of the personal beliefs of the owner is a far more liberal position than calling for a boycott because you disagree with someone. I think the left would like this to be a case of denying someone service at the business based on their sexual preference. So far I have not seen any reference to that. So what is the justification for a boycott?

The references to the First Amendment were made because some mayors said that Chick-fil-A would be kept out of their cities because the owner expressed his beliefs and the mayors personally disagreed with him. In that context it is very relevant because it is a statement by the mayors of an intent to be oppressive.

orangehat
08-16-2012, 01:45 AM
It is even less clear now. I do not know what that last paragraph means. Why shouldn't someone argue that a boycott should not happen? This has nothing at all to do with not permitting a boycott to happen, which is what you seem to think the people on the right want to do. By your logic then, the people on the left should not argue in favour of a boycott. That is, nobody should make an argument of any sort, because someone will disagree with it.

The bottom line for me is that arguing that a business should not be boycotted because of the personal beliefs of the owner is a far more liberal position than calling for a boycott because you disagree with someone. I think the left would like this to be a case of denying someone service at the business based on their sexual preference. So far I have not seen any reference to that. So what is the justification for a boycott?

The references to the First Amendment were made because some mayors said that Chick-fil-A would be kept out of their cities because the owner expressed his beliefs and the mayors personally disagreed with him. In that context it is very relevant because it is a statement by the mayors of an intent to be oppressive.


No, you still haven't grasped my point.

I am not saying you shouldn't argue whether a boycott should or should not happen. If tomorrow I were to boycott any store, anyone should have the right to argue whether I should boycott.

But this is not about that. The right is arguing that a boycott should not happen because Dan Cathy has 1st amendment rights. The argument for/against a boycott in itself is not wrong. What I am objecting to is the subsequent extension of their argument. By saying that no boycott, because Dan Cathy has 1st amendment rights, they are essentially arguing that a boycott would DENY Dan Cathy his first amendment rights (because, otherwise why shouldn't there be a boycott?). This drags the whole situation into a fallacious argument, that a boycott denies 1st amendment rights. Besides, if money is now speech (Citizens united), why shouldn't a boycott be speech anyway?

No justification for a boycott? If a restaurant tomorrow says they don't think the Holocaust was real and started donating money to a pro-Nazi/anti-semitic organization whose sole purpose is to undercut and deny rights to Jewish people at every turn, but of course, still serve Jewish people in their restaurant, you think there is no justification for a boycott?

The mayors did not explicitly state that they would ban chick-fil-a from coming (except 1, but he retracted his statements later on). Not being welcome does not equate to actually banning chick-fil-A from setting up shop if they choose to do so.

buddyholly
08-16-2012, 04:52 AM
No justification for a boycott? If a restaurant tomorrow says they don't think the Holocaust was real and started donating money to a pro-Nazi/anti-semitic organization whose sole purpose is to undercut and deny rights to Jewish people at every turn, but of course, still serve Jewish people in their restaurant, you think there is no justification for a boycott?

The mayors did not explicitly state that they would ban chick-fil-a from coming (except 1, but he retracted his statements later on). Not being welcome does not equate to actually banning chick-fil-A from setting up shop if they choose to do so.

It is a personal decision. I don't think I did, but if I said there is no justification for a boycott, I mean I see no justification for me boycotting it. Other people can decide for themselves.

Your Jewish example suggests that you think Cathy's sole purpose is to undercut and deny rights to gay people. He knows he can't do that. He wants the government to do that legally, which is an entirely different thing. You may disagree with it, but that is your right.

And again, what right did a mayor have to state that the restaurant would not be welcome. Who was he speaking for? Why did he not just say that he would not eat in one? That is as much authority as he has. His statements suggest that he would be willing to over-ride the zoning laws to discriminate against a business whose owners opinions differed from his. The opposite of Liberalism.

buddyholly
08-16-2012, 04:58 AM
No, you still haven't grasped my point.

I am not saying you shouldn't argue whether a boycott should or should not happen. If tomorrow I were to boycott any store, anyone should have the right to argue whether I should boycott.

But this is not about that. The right is arguing that a boycott should not happen because Dan Cathy has 1st amendment rights. The argument for/against a boycott in itself is not wrong. What I am objecting to is the subsequent extension of their argument. By saying that no boycott, because Dan Cathy has 1st amendment rights, they are essentially arguing that a boycott would DENY Dan Cathy his first amendment rights (because, otherwise why shouldn't there be a boycott?). This drags the whole situation into a fallacious argument, that a boycott denies 1st amendment rights. Besides, if money is now speech (Citizens united), why shouldn't a boycott be speech anyway?

.

I think I have grasped the point you are trying to make. But why should the ''right'' not argue that a boycott should not happen because Dan Cathy has first amendment rights? Just because you object to it doesn't mean they shouldn't do it. They are not arguing that a boycott should be disallowed.

orangehat
08-16-2012, 05:03 AM
It is a personal decision. I don't think I did, but if I said there is no justification for a boycott, I mean I see no justification for me boycotting it. Other people can decide for themselves.

Your Jewish example suggests that you think Cathy's sole purpose is to undercut and deny rights to gay people. He knows he can't do that. He wants the government to do that legally, which is an entirely different thing. You may disagree with it, but that is your right.

And again, what right did a mayor have to state that the restaurant would not be welcome. Who was he speaking for? Why did he not just say that he would not eat in one? That is as much authority as he has. His statements suggest that he would be willing to over-ride the zoning laws to discriminate against a business whose owners opinions differed from his. The opposite of Liberalism.

And the jewish example could also be the people want the gvt to discriminate against jewish people legally. So what's your point?

I repeat, none of them, NONE OF THEM, are going to physically block Chick-fil-A from opening. You can google that.
Secondly, according to your logic no one can ever say anything anymore. Obama/Bush/Clinton cannot tell China "Your trade policies are unfair/illegal/whatever", because "who are they speaking for?" Some Americans may not agree with Obama/Bush/Clinton if they say that.

The most important point at the end is that all of them admitted they would not be able to block chick-fil-A from opening stores there if they so chose.

orangehat
08-16-2012, 05:05 AM
I think I have grasped the point you are trying to make. But why should the ''right'' not argue that a boycott should not happen because Dan Cathy has first amendment rights? Just because you object to it doesn't mean they shouldn't do it. They are not arguing that a boycott should be disallowed.

But that's essentially what they ARE arguing. If by boycotting they are denying Cathy's 1st amendment rights, it is therefore unconstitutional and should not be allowed :shrug:

buddyholly
08-16-2012, 05:32 AM
But that's essentially what they ARE arguing. If by boycotting they are denying Cathy's 1st amendment rights, it is therefore unconstitutional and should not be allowed :shrug:

I think you have lost track of reality now. How do you tell someone he is not allowed to choose to not eat at Chick-fil-A? Which is the same as telling the public they must eat at Chick-fil-A. I very much doubt that that is their argument, as you seem to think.

orangehat
08-16-2012, 05:35 AM
I think you have lost track of reality now. How do you tell someone he is not allowed to choose to not eat at Chick-fil-A? Which is the same as telling the public they must eat at Chick-fil-A. I very much doubt that that is their argument, as you seem to think.

A personal boycott is not the same as a public boycott. Just as how an individual (Dan Cathy's speech) is different from a corporation (Chick-Fil-A donating to anti-gay causes), though of course conservatives will disagree.

Corporations are people, my friend.

:rolls:

buddyholly
08-16-2012, 05:58 AM
But that's essentially what they ARE arguing. If by boycotting they are denying Cathy's 1st amendment rights, it is therefore unconstitutional and should not be allowed :shrug:

Could you just point me to where I can read about someone arguing that a boycott should not be allowed?

orangehat
08-16-2012, 06:05 AM
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/palin-chick-fil-boycott-has-chilling-effec

She doesn't say outright that it shouldn't be allowed, but she is saying that boycott is a "suppression" of free speech, which if you think about it is the same thing since you aren't allowed under the constitution to suppress free speech.

buddyholly
08-16-2012, 06:10 AM
A personal boycott is not the same as a public boycott. Just as how an individual (Dan Cathy's speech) is different from a corporation (Chick-Fil-A donating to anti-gay causes), though of course conservatives will disagree.

Corporations are people, my friend.

:rolls:

Again, I have no idea what you are talking about. Did Chick-fil-A donate to anti-gay causes or did Dan Cathay donate to anti-gay causes? (Not that being anti gay marriage is the same thing as being anti-gay, but let that pass).

Why do you describe his comments as individual and his donations as corporate? Why not describe his comments as corporate and his donations as individual?

What is the difference between a personal boycott and a public boycott. To me a public boycott is a number of people personally boycotting.

orangehat
08-16-2012, 06:13 AM
Again, I have no idea what you are talking about. Did Chick-fil-A donate to anti-gay causes or did Dan Cathay donate to anti-gay causes? (Not that being anti gay marriage is the same thing as being anti-gay, but let that pass).

Why do you describe his comments as individual and his donations as corporate? Why not describe his comments as corporate and his donations as individual?

What is the difference between a personal boycott and a public boycott. To me a public boycott is a number of people personally boycotting.

Chick-Fil-A has a charity foundation, which made the actual donation, not from Dan Cathy himself.

When Dan Cathy speaks, he speaks for himself. When his corporation donates, on the other hand, that is a different thing.

And the donations were anti-gay, not just anti-gay marriage. The donations were to a multitude of organizations like Exodus International, which is more about ex-gay therapy.

So you think the Los Angeles olympics and the Moscow olympics were "a number of countries personally boycotting?"

orangehat
08-16-2012, 06:17 AM
Oh and, a few weeks back, Amazon's founder donated $2.5 million to a pro-gay marriage organization in Washington state.

He made the donation in his personal name with his wife, not in Amazon's name. That's how it should work.

buddyholly
08-16-2012, 03:33 PM
Oh and, a few weeks back, Amazon's founder donated $2.5 million to a pro-gay marriage organization in Washington state.

He made the donation in his personal name with his wife, not in Amazon's name. That's how it should work.

Maybe you missed the point that Amazon is a publicly owned company and the founder can not speak for the company. Chick-fil-A is privately owned, so the owner can decide company policy. Whether he donates money in his own name or the company name is irrelevant, it is the same thing. That is his right. Are you saying that if Cathy donated money is his own name then you would consider all this a non-story and would not understand why the left is outraged about a man who just follows his own convictions?

I may be the most devoted atheist on MTF and would probably be appalled at Cathy's religious opinions and his desire to see those religious opinions incorporated into the legal process.
But until he does something illegal, what he does with his money is his personal decision. All I can do is make a decision whether to buy one of his chicken sandwiches or not. And from what I have learned this past week, Chick-fil-A is a standout in the fast food business for quality and service. I would make my decision based on that information and if only there was a Chick-fil-A in Toronto I would surely want to try one.

I am not about to research every manufacturer of everything I buy, to check if I approve of the company's charity donations. And I doubt you do. You probably would buy something made in a country where just being gay is a crime, without giving it a moment's thought.

Echoes
08-16-2012, 06:05 PM
He made the donation in his personal name with his wife, not in Amazon's name. That's how it should work.

:lol: How it should work is keeping your money for yourself instead of donating it to communitarian lobbies that would never improve the lives of the poorest people of your country..



By the way, a reminder:

ibsP6XN2dIo

orangehat
08-16-2012, 06:05 PM
Maybe you missed the point that Amazon is a publicly owned company and the founder can not speak for the company. Chick-fil-A is privately owned, so the owner can decide company policy. Whether he donates money in his own name or the company name is irrelevant, it is the same thing. That is his right. Are you saying that if Cathy donated money is his own name then you would consider all this a non-story and would not understand why the left is outraged about a man who just follows his own convictions?

I may be the most devoted atheist on MTF and would probably be appalled at Cathy's religious opinions and his desire to see those religious opinions incorporated into the legal process.
But until he does something illegal, what he does with his money is his personal decision. All I can do is make a decision whether to buy one of his chicken sandwiches or not. And from what I have learned this past week, Chick-fil-A is a standout in the fast food business for quality and service. I would make my decision based on that information and if only there was a Chick-fil-A in Toronto I would surely want to try one.

I am not about to research every manufacturer of everything I buy, to check if I approve of the company's charity donations. And I doubt you do. You probably would buy something made in a country where just being gay is a crime, without giving it a moment's thought.

It's not the same thing, this is why there's all this hubub about Citizen's United.

You should not be allowed to hide behind the face of your corporation, whether private or public, when making donations to political causes.
And yes, IMO if Cathy decided to donate money by himself to an anti-gay organization, this would be a non-issue (for me at least)

The argument that just because you don't check everything before you buy means this is a non-issue is problematic. Though I presume you're one of those people who think recycling/free trade/organic etc etc. is pointless. Just because a lot of people don't recycle, and their impact is far greater on the environment than your choice to recycle, doesn't mean you shouldn't recycle.

I've also heard a lot of arguments about the last point, such as "you buy petrol from middle eastern countries". Yes, it is inevitable that we have to use oil that is delivered by middle eastern countries. But if, say, Mexico started producing oil tomorrow, I would choose only to buy Mexican petrol, even if it meant paying $0.10 more a litre. Of course I still can't control where the buses and the trains get their gas from.

You shouldn't not boycott because you can't successfully boycott everyone. To argue that is silly.

orangehat
08-16-2012, 06:07 PM
:lol: How it should work is to keep your money for yourself instead of donating it to communautarist lobbies that would never improve the lives of the poorest people of that country..



By the way, a useful reminder:


I'm sure your proposed solution is the "free market" right?

Oh, I forgot, God will come down to save all of us after that.

buddyholly
08-16-2012, 10:43 PM
You should not be allowed to hide behind the face of your corporation, whether private or public, when making donations to political causes.
And yes, IMO if Cathy decided to donate money by himself to an anti-gay organization, this would be a non-issue (for me at least)

Though I presume you're one of those people who think recycling/free trade/organic etc etc. is pointless. Just because a lot of people don't recycle, and their impact is far greater on the environment than your choice to recycle, doesn't mean you shouldn't recycle.



Who was hiding? If he is the owner of Chick-fil-A and Chick-fil-A gives to a charity, it should be easy to deduce who donated the money.

I recycle, but I avoid fair trade like the plague. They have put too many small coffee farmers out of business with the fees they charge. Only the larger companies can afford the fees to buy the words ''fair trade''. Whatever it means. So the little farmer you think you are helping ends up selling out to the big companies. But a lot of people apparently feel better about drinking their coffee if it says "fair trade'' on the label, even though they have no idea how that coffee was produced.

orangehat
08-17-2012, 10:32 AM
Who was hiding? If he is the owner of Chick-fil-A and Chick-fil-A gives to a charity, it should be easy to deduce who donated the money.

I recycle, but I avoid fair trade like the plague. They have put too many small coffee farmers out of business with the fees they charge. Only the larger companies can afford the fees to buy the words ''fair trade''. Whatever it means. So the little farmer you think you are helping ends up selling out to the big companies. But a lot of people apparently feel better about drinking their coffee if it says "fair trade'' on the label, even though they have no idea how that coffee was produced.

It's not physical hiding I'm concerned about. It's hiding behind your corporate brand and using your corporation as a speakerphone for you agenda.

Ok we can discuss the benefits/negatives/what can be done better for fair trade another day.
But my original point still stands, regarding the concept of not doing smth because it's not significant enough.

buddyholly
08-17-2012, 12:42 PM
It's not physical hiding I'm concerned about. It's hiding behind your corporate brand and using your corporation as a speakerphone for you agenda.


You can be concerned all you want. Did he do anything illegal? If he acted legally, then you should direct your concerns somewhere else.

I don't think churches should be tax free, but boycotting my local church is not going to change anything, not paying taxes is legal for them.

Stensland
08-17-2012, 08:17 PM
buddyholly, what do you think of romney's tax dodging? legal, yes, but nonetheless, what do you make of it?

buddyholly
08-17-2012, 11:41 PM
If it's legal, then end of story. Doesn't everyone of wealth hire someone to reduce their taxes to the legal minimum?

Jimnik
08-18-2012, 06:01 AM
Rainy, you should apply to work for the German tax authorities. Release your frustration on tax evaders and get paid to do it. A dream job. ;)

orangehat
08-18-2012, 06:37 AM
If it's legal, then end of story. Doesn't everyone of wealth hire someone to reduce their taxes to the legal minimum?

It's also legal not to release any years of tax returns when you're running for office ...

Regenbogen
08-18-2012, 06:52 AM
I don't get why Romney wouldn't just release his tax returns unless there was something that would make him look worse than the speculation does. If he released them now and there was nothing particularly bad about them, he could paint the Democrats as slanderous liars for the rest of the campaign.

But since he's not releasing them I am dying of curiosity to know why. :p

Stensland
08-18-2012, 02:33 PM
Rainy, you should apply to work for the German tax authorities. Release your frustration on tax evaders and get paid to do it. A dream job. ;)

no, i ought to enter politics and tighten the rules for tax evaders. no possibility to pave the way to freedom by simply paying up. you get caught dodging taxes, you're serving time. :)

@ buddyholly

i'm not sure about that. it's certainly uncommon to dodge taxes via shipping wealth abroad (unless we're talking about billioniares, that's a different species).

buddyholly
08-18-2012, 02:55 PM
no, i ought to enter politics and tighten the rules for tax evaders. no possibility to pave the way to freedom by simply paying up. you get caught dodging taxes, you're serving time. :)

@ buddyholly

i'm not sure about that. it's certainly uncommon to dodge taxes via shipping wealth abroad (unless we're talking about billioniares, that's a different species).

I looked up the definition of ''tax dodge''. It is a ''legal way of paying less tax.'' So why would anyone serve time for abiding by the law? Who would not use an available tax dodge, I ask? You can't imprison the entire population.

Maybe you just need to change your definition to ''tax evasion''. But the leftist press continues to prefer ''tax dodge'' because most readers will think that is something illegal. When someone writes an article accusing Romney of tax evasion, only then will it be time to take note.

buddyholly
08-18-2012, 03:05 PM
It's also legal not to release any years of tax returns when you're running for office ...

Exactly.

Stensland
08-18-2012, 04:28 PM
I looked up the definition of ''tax dodge''. It is a ''legal way of paying less tax.''

i did not. i meant the illegal way, you're right.


Maybe you just need to change your definition to ''tax evasion''.

hereby done.

anyways, to me it's not just a matter of legal vs. illegal. what he's doing is called profiteering in my world. kinda legal, but it should be frowned upon, especially if you're running for president.

buddyholly
08-18-2012, 05:57 PM
kinda legal, but it should be frowned upon, especially if you're running for president.

It's not kinda legal, it's legal.

But neither party is going change the laws that allow tax dodges. They all have too much vested interest.

Jimnik
08-18-2012, 09:25 PM
Problem with taxes (other than the fact they're insanely high and unfair) is the complexity attached to them. Every country has a long list of special exemptions and circumstances to improve "fairness".

If you


lived abroad for more than 6 months
served in the military
are a student
are older than 65
are unemployed
are pregnant
work for the government
work for a non-profit
donated to a charity
saved a life
have children
have a disability

These are just off the top of my head and each have a sub-list of about 50 terms and conditions for clarification. In the end, the left-wing shoot themselves in the foot trying to improve what they consider "fairness". Creating all these exemptions for disadvantaged citizens opens up heaven's gate of loop-holes for tax lawyers to play with.

kafkavert
08-18-2012, 09:40 PM
I don't get why Romney wouldn't just release his tax returns unless there was something that would make him look worse than the speculation does. If he released them now and there was nothing particularly bad about them, he could paint the Democrats as slanderous liars for the rest of the campaign.

But since he's not releasing them I am dying of curiosity to know why. :p

He will not release because they will make a carnival of irrelevant details instead of talking about the economy. They are trying to frame the debate and they will fail.

fast_clay
08-18-2012, 11:28 PM
celente says the answer is a massive no vote... mass apathy...

probably works when you know the mob is sneaking up behind you...
5BpL6eQyXDs

orangehat
08-19-2012, 03:37 AM
Exactly.

You apparently miss my point.

Just because something is legal doesn't mean everyone should/will do it.

orangehat
08-19-2012, 03:37 AM
He will not release because they will make a carnival of irrelevant details instead of talking about the economy. They are trying to frame the debate and they will fail.

You mean like the whole carnival regarding Obama's birth certificate?

buddyholly
08-19-2012, 02:01 PM
You apparently miss my point.

Just because something is legal doesn't mean everyone should/will do it.

I never miss your point. But most often it is all about what you think and hardly ever about facts. Which in this instance are: because something is legal, anyone can do it. Any American can choose not to vote for Romney based on that, but running around whining, ''Show me your tax return because others did'' is a waste of time.

buddyholly
08-19-2012, 02:02 PM
You mean like the whole carnival regarding Obama's birth certificate?

Yes, that was a carnival. And it seems you now want a carnival based on Romney's wealth.

orangehat
08-20-2012, 05:43 AM
I never miss your point. But most often it is all about what you think and hardly ever about facts. Which in this instance are: because something is legal, anyone can do it. Any American can choose not to vote for Romney based on that, but running around whining, ''Show me your tax return because others did'' is a waste of time.

So if tomorrow a state, say, I don't know, Utah, says it's legal to be a polygamist and then Mitt Romney marries 5 other women you're going to say we can't talk about it because it's legal?

Yes, that was a carnival. And it seems you now want a carnival based on Romney's wealth.

No, we don't want a carnival based on Romney's wealth. We want tax returns. It's very simple.
If Romney releases his tax returns and it shows he did pay 13.smth% as he said, there's nothing more to say. We're not going to start insisting Romney's tax returns are false, nor any other stupid stuff the conservatives like to do about Obama's birth cert.

buddyholly
08-20-2012, 02:10 PM
So if tomorrow a state, say, I don't know, Utah, says it's legal to be a polygamist and then Mitt Romney marries 5 other women you're going to say we can't talk about it because it's legal?



No, we don't want a carnival based on Romney's wealth. We want tax returns. It's very simple.
If Romney releases his tax returns and it shows he did pay 13.smth% as he said, there's nothing more to say. We're not going to start insisting Romney's tax returns are false, nor any other stupid stuff the conservatives like to do about Obama's birth cert.

You can talk about it all you want. Who ever said you couldn't? It's very simple. I have no idea why you introduced that idea.

Similarly you can demand tax returns all you want. He does not have to obey. Voters are free to decide what that means to them. It's very simple.

I am at a loss to understand why you keep insisting he must do something that he does not have to do.

Stensland
08-26-2012, 12:58 PM
the gop convention is upon us.

http://www.gopconvention2012.com/

attending: virtually every republican big shot (most even got a speaking slot) except for...

not attending: bush, cheney.

blacking out the demented step-dads, i guess.

buddyholly
08-26-2012, 01:28 PM
Bush avoids hurricanes.

Stensland
08-26-2012, 01:30 PM
and cheney avoids the sun.

buddyholly
08-26-2012, 02:46 PM
Haha. Cheney no longer has the heart for it.

Gagsquet
08-26-2012, 02:58 PM
Romney would be a terrible president.

Johnny Groove
08-26-2012, 03:59 PM
Polls have them dead even at 46% a piece.

Truth is, we all know whoever has the biggest propaganda machine will win.

Me, I am waiting for the debates in October, when I can truly read the candidates.

seattletennisguy
08-27-2012, 03:41 AM
I'm voting for Romney. I don't think he'll win, but maybe he can dig us out of this economical mess.

orangehat
08-27-2012, 03:52 AM
You can talk about it all you want. Who ever said you couldn't? It's very simple. I have no idea why you introduced that idea.

Similarly you can demand tax returns all you want. He does not have to obey. Voters are free to decide what that means to them. It's very simple.

I am at a loss to understand why you keep insisting he must do something that he does not have to do.

Your argument remains circular.

You argue that he does not have to do anything if that in itself is legal, and is allowed to do stuff at whim, if it's legal.

I never said Romney HAS to do it. All I said was there are things that people wouldn't do even if it's legal, such as tax evasion (legal) when running for president, and releasing tax returns (even though you don't have to.)

At the end of the day, I never said Romney has to return tax returns. Which is why I'm confused why you insist on bringing out the "you don't have to do it because its not required" argument.

Jimnik
08-27-2012, 07:13 AM
A 2nd Obama term could be a disaster. Definitely prefer Romney this time although I'll still root for the LP.

buddyholly
08-27-2012, 11:48 AM
A sanatorial candidate who happens to be a secret service agent has just TWICE described the Secret Service as a very promiscuous job. I guess he was one of the guys in Colombia.

tripwires
08-28-2012, 04:45 AM
Tom Smith, GOP Senate Candidate: Pregnancy From [R@pe] Similar To 'Having A Baby Out Of Wedlock' (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/27/tom-smith-****_n_1834234.html)

When a reporter asked Smith to clarify what kind of situation was similar to becoming pregnant from ****, the candidate responded, "Having a baby out of wedlock."

He added, "Put yourself in a father's position. Yes, it is similar."

I guess a situation where I willingly have sex with someone and one where I am forced to have sex with someone are very similar situations. I would totally understand if my dad couldn't tell the difference between the two situations.

People like him make Republicans look like a bunch of loonies.

Smoke944
08-28-2012, 05:09 AM
Interesting edit there trip ;)

tripwires
08-28-2012, 05:21 AM
Didn't want to attract the likes of Tommy Vercetti. :p

Jimnik
08-29-2012, 12:25 AM
It's been confirmed:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19406134

Mitt Romney has been officially selected as the Republican presidential nominee at the party's national convention in Tampa, Florida.

Topspindoctor
08-29-2012, 01:48 AM
Obama to crush the opposition like he had 4 years ago :rocker2:

http://www.geekstir.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/obama_wow.jpg

Ozone
08-29-2012, 01:54 AM
Gx1Wp_uZkCA

Jimnik
08-29-2012, 02:17 AM
Betting markets have Obama @ 1.61 favourite.

http://sports.betfair.com/Index.do?mi=21311313&ex=1&origin=MRL

ibreak4coffee
08-30-2012, 06:21 AM
A 2nd Obama term could be a disaster. Definitely prefer Romney this time although I'll still root for the LP.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

buddyholly
08-30-2012, 12:26 PM
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Stensland
09-02-2012, 04:57 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivLN-AdRluo

Har-Tru
09-02-2012, 05:31 PM
ivLN-AdRluo

Fixed. ;)

buddyholly
09-03-2012, 04:08 AM
Nobody is more boring than Maher. Well, maybe Jon Stewart.

All he does is say the most boring things and people laugh and applaud because they are afraid of not being part of the ''in'' group. He makes atheists ashamed.

orangehat
09-03-2012, 04:21 AM
Nobody is more boring than Maher. Well, maybe Jon Stewart.

All he does is say the most boring things and people laugh and applaud because they are afraid of not being part of the ''in'' group. He makes atheists ashamed.

the great comedian buddyholly here to enlighten us :worship:

ballbasher101
09-04-2012, 10:22 PM
It will be a close election. Too bad both candidates can not lose. Obama and Romney are both corrupt and useless. Big business wins either way. Americans might as well stay home on the day of the election or vote for some random person off the street. A protest vote is needed, time to kick the GOP and the Democrats to the curb.

seattletennisguy
09-06-2012, 05:10 AM
It will be a close election. Too bad both candidates can not lose. Obama and Romney are both corrupt and useless. Big business wins either way. Americans might as well stay home on the day of the election or vote for some random person off the street. A protest vote is needed, time to kick the GOP and the Democrats to the curb.

Agree 100%. I'm only voting for Romney b/c it's only fair that he be given four years to try it out, seeing that the other guy hasn't done much of anything.

I'm mostly interested in local and state-wide issues. Neither candidate is talking gun control, which is a shame.

juan27
09-06-2012, 07:08 AM
obama and rommey are two disasters for me....

fast_clay
09-06-2012, 07:39 AM
c6bgwZGZiIo

ballbasher101
09-07-2012, 02:32 PM
Agree 100%. I'm only voting for Romney b/c it's only fair that he be given four years to try it out, seeing that the other guy hasn't done much of anything.

I'm mostly interested in local and state-wide issues. Neither candidate is talking gun control, which is a shame.


Romney is gonna win guaranteed. Well I did put a cheeky fiver on him ;). The economy is King so I have no idea why people think Obama has a chance here. I predict and expect a massive win for Romney.

abraxas21
09-07-2012, 04:14 PM
rommy seems like a prick but it's not like obama isn't one either.

the problem is, rommy really does seem like a big prick. i think he can easily outprick obama and he'll most likely win the election.

Tommy_Vercetti
09-07-2012, 06:04 PM
I still don't think that the press is going to allow Romney to win. The real media campaign and despicable scare tactics against McCain came right before November along with the manufactured credit crisis that somehow came to mean that Obama would and must be elected. I still never understood how people actually bought that.

Obama's 2008 campaign was basically a Las Vegas casino marketing campaign. To quote Robert De Niro in Casino: "Selling people dreams for cash." And his 2012 campaign has been all no responsibility and no plans whatsoever. Fortunately for him all that bs about how he wouldn't run if things didn't improve and didn't deserve to win unless he managed to do what he said he would has been brushed aside by the press to focus on nonsense.

The economy is most important for most voters and the Republicans have utterly failed to go after Obama on his absolute refusal help the US became more energy self-sufficient. Things that have never been brought up and really revealed Obama's true character: His truly horrifying apology and abasement tour after taking office. His jaw-dropping personal arrogance (especially when he first got elected with a completely Democrat controlled government) and would refuse to work at all with Republicans and then turned around after the next election and acted like it's some big surprise that he has entirely alienated the opposition. The fact that he refused to aid or support Iran's opposition movement in anyway while strongly condemning the incredible display of courageous Democracy in Hondorus that any American should beam at. His shameful public support for notorious black racist Henry Louis Gates and all his nonsense surrounding Trayvon Martin. And the fact that the Justice Department is now more openly racist than during segregation. How Obama has allowed Holder to stay in office is astounding, it only shows how bigoted he really is. Yet I don't hear anything about this from the Republicans. Obviously they are too cowardly to face the media backlash for going after Obama's DOJ.

Stensland
09-07-2012, 09:03 PM
glenn beck, is that you?

Tommy_Vercetti
09-07-2012, 09:11 PM
What did I say that was incorrect?

Beck is a social conservative. If you knew anything about my social politics, you would know what an ignorant and asinine joke that is.

Stensland
09-07-2012, 09:24 PM
to be honest, i stopped reading your post the exact moment you mentioned the "manufactured credit crisis." hilarious. beck used to talk about that quite a lot but it didn't catch on, no buzz whatsoever. so here you are, kind of taking me back.

Tommy_Vercetti
09-07-2012, 09:26 PM
So you just don't read anything, but make assumptions and make asinine statements. I'm surprised you don't work for a US news station.

Stensland
09-07-2012, 09:34 PM
well, you make it very easy to come up with blunt assumptions. i think i know where you stand on most issues. let's just say you're not holding back on mtf. didn't you once state you wouldn't actually care if gitmo detainees would be killed if deemed useless? somewhere along the lines, if i remember correctly. once you say stuff like this, you don't really need to say that much more.

Tommy_Vercetti
09-07-2012, 09:38 PM
Yes. I don't understand the point in continuing to feed and shelter terrorists. They are not protected under any international laws. The US has the legal and moral right to torture and execute foreign terrorists. And that's what should happen to them.

People that are so concerned about the treatment of terrorists are the ones who reveal themselves.

Thunder Hoad
09-08-2012, 07:56 AM
It's important to look at the election as a whole. There are 2 "realistic" scenarios:

Obama wins while Republicans take both the House and Senate (even if just by one seat). Then it's just a stalemate and it's four years of obstruction followed by finger pointing. Actually even if the Democrats keep the Senate by one or two seats it'll still be a deadlock. Everything vote will be like the debt ceiling game of chicken.

Romney wins and Republicans control the House and the Senate numbers are close. You'll still have obstruction but the Democrats will deal because in the end they are center right and, as wealthy as they are (relatively), not entirely unmoved by the "every successful individual is self-made" line of reasoning. So if you want the country to shift right , as GTA characters and unironic Buddy Holly-fans (or ultra-ironic Weezer-fans, I can't tell) are so inclined apparently, then Romney is the choice.

I'd go with Obama because I think a war of attrition where progress is measured by inches is better than a bipartisan move to the right.

More importantly, there's the issue of Campaign Finance Reform. If there is a party (between the two major parties) that will try to lessen the impact of Citizens United it's the Democrats. Not because they're looking out for Joe Citizen or their moral fiber or any of the nonsense they'll spew but because the ruling gives the Republicans a big advantage for future elections (it'll be a few more cycles before they can moneyball the new system of superPACs and the like). This isn't a position that they can flip on the Republicans because Republican leaders aren't stupid enough and Democrat leaders are kinda stupid (e.g. Harry Reid). So they're doing it for self-interest which coincidentally is the only time you can trust a politician even a little. In this case our interests align so that's why it's the Dems this time around.

seattletennisguy
09-09-2012, 12:57 AM
Part of the problem going into the homestretch is that the Dems appear very organized - the Hispanics, gays, African-Americans are all on board. Romney's selection of Ryan, instead of Rubio, might've cost him Florida (a big state with a lot of electorates).

Romney still isn't widely liked by the GOP, not to mention the Tea Party has further caused some divide.

The House will probably have a GOP majority, although I'm not sure about the Senate. As a whole, this election will be very interesting and regardless of who wins, it'll probably be another unproductive four years with both sides bickering like schoolchildren. Let's brace ourselves.

Whoever mentioned on this thread that Harry Reid is dumb, I agree. And, I would add Nancy Pelosi to that list. She's not the smart cookie people make her out to be.

I'm still voting for Romney, but I wish Hilary was on the ballot.

Allez
09-09-2012, 10:42 AM
Everyone is just going through the motions otherwise Obama is a lock. Romney is too boring to energise anybody to get out there and vote for him. Obama's class warfare will pay huge dividends in November. I've seen some people who are genuinely ANGRY that the rich are not paying more taxes. Ridiculous. The focus should be in expanding the economy and creating more employment rather than looking for scapegoats to dump tax increases on. As if that would make any difference. Increased "revenues" would just get wasted in some other ridiculous entitlement program. The level of stupidity of some of the voters is beyond shocking. Romney's being painted as the tax evader in chief as if his is the source of all of the country's problems. Obama will win, but there should be some serious policy changes in the next 4 years to avoid another economic meltdown. I suppose he doesn't really care so long as he has 8 years as the US President on his resume. To be honest I don't think Romney would fare any better. Different side of the same coin. The whole system's a mess.

Kiedis
09-09-2012, 06:21 PM
lol

Only Six Percent Of Scientists Are Republicans: Pew Poll

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/10/only-six-percent-of-scien_n_229382.html

Kiedis
09-09-2012, 06:39 PM
I've seen some people who are genuinely ANGRY that the rich are not paying more taxes. Ridiculous. The focus should be in expanding the economy and creating more employment rather than looking for scapegoats to dump tax increases on. As if that would make any difference. Increased "revenues" would just get wasted in some other ridiculous entitlement program. The level of stupidity of some of the voters is beyond shocking. Romney's being painted as the tax evader in chief as if his is the source of all of the country's problems.

http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/6265/lulaq.jpg

Tommy_Vercetti
09-09-2012, 07:11 PM
You know how many academics are Republican? There are many more Marxists. You think it's because of some kind of lack of intelligence or the intolerance and blackballing? You could read some interesting things on that subject. About the bullying of students with right-wing ideals. This is just another one of those ridiculous, we represent the lowest elements of society, but we are so much smarter.

The dumbest, most crime-infested areas in the US are fully represented by the Democrats. The major cities are 100% controlled by them and you see the results.

How about a poll to study how many violent criminals are Republicans? That wouldn't go over well.

Kiedis
09-09-2012, 07:17 PM
You know how many academics are Republican? You think it's because of some kind of lack of intelligence or the intolerance and blackballing? You could read some interesting things on that subject. This is just another one of those ridiculous, we represent the lowest elements of society, but we are so much smarter.

The dumbest, most crime-infested areas in the US are fully represented by the Democrats. The major cities are 100% controlled by them and you see the results.

How about a poll to study how many violent criminals are Republicans? That wouldn't go over well.

I already read some things. I read that Bible Belt leads in divorces, murders, teen pregnancy, and STD infection rates :wavey:

These are the states in bold red in election polls, aren't it?

rocketassist
09-09-2012, 07:19 PM
Vercetti just wants the black man to lose.

Tommy_Vercetti
09-09-2012, 07:20 PM
Obama or Romney is not going to make any kind of real difference.

Pirata.
09-09-2012, 09:06 PM
I'm only voting for Romney b/c it's only fair that he be given four years to try it out, seeing that the other guy hasn't done much of anything.

:haha:

http://whattheheckhasobamadonesofar.com/

Sorry if this isn't enough for you. Not sure what you think Romney is going to get done if Obama "hasn't done much of anything"

tripwires
09-10-2012, 07:22 AM
Yes. I don't understand the point in continuing to feed and shelter terrorists. They are not protected under any international laws. The US has the legal and moral right to torture and execute foreign terrorists. And that's what should happen to them.

People that are so concerned about the treatment of terrorists are the ones who reveal themselves.

You seriously need help.

Jimnik
09-10-2012, 09:15 PM
http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/6265/lulaq.jpg
Lula was and always will be a clown.

Kiedis
09-10-2012, 10:02 PM
Lula was and always will be a clown.

"Under Lula, Brazil became the world's eighth-largest economy, more than 20 million people rose out of acute poverty and Rio de Janeiro was awarded the 2016 Summer Olympics, the first time the Games will be held in South America."
— The Washington Post, October 2010

After decades as the largest foreign debtor among emerging economies, Brazil became a net creditor for the first time in January 2008.[29] By mid-2008, both Fitch ratings and S&P had elevated the classification of Brazilian debt from speculative to investment grade. Banks have had record profit in Lula's government.[30] The Lula Administration's economic policies also helped to significantly raise living standards, with the percentage of Brazilians belonging to the consumerist middle class rising from 37% to 50% of the population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luiz_In%C3%A1cio_Lula_da_Silva

I want a clown like this for the president of my country.

Jimnik
09-11-2012, 03:12 AM
Might have something to do with the 30billion barrels of oil BP and Petrobras discovered in 2007.

Brazilian GDP growth has been strong dating all the way back to 1960. The only thing Lula gets credit for is not changing an already stable government policy.

Kiedis
09-11-2012, 05:24 AM
Might have something to do with the 30billion barrels of oil BP and Petrobras discovered in 2007.


This discovery was in 2008 and sure can help Brazilians in the future, but since a country discover an oil field and can take profit of it, it take many years. Petroleum today is 8,3% of Brazil exports
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Brazil_Export_Treemap.jpg

In 2002 was 14,8%

When Lula arrives in 2002 Inflation rate was 12.53%, in 2003 was 9.30%, 2004 was 7.60%, 2005 was 5.69%, 2006 was 3.19% and so on.

Average GDP growth rate in 80's was 3%, in 90's was 1.7%, in 00's was 4.3%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Brazil

Public debt is only 41.4% of GDP in 2010 (51% in 2002).

Brazil was the 10th economy of the world at the beginning of 00's. Twelve years later is sixth largest economy.

In a time when the global economy falters, the Brazilian economy flourishes. But Lula, the president with more popular support of the history of Brazil, is a clown :rolleyes:

brithater
09-11-2012, 07:50 AM
Obama is a bigger threat on a whole host of issues and is racist IMO so it looks like I a going to support Mitt this time.

I have voted in a lot of elections and can honestly say Big O is the worst I have seen along with his whole administration. I wish Bill Clinton or George Bush were running again as they were both better than Big O. At least those two...as bad as they were didnt try to turn the whole country upside down and get everyone hating each other for various reasons.

People need to learn to leave each other the hell alone more often and this would be a better place. Therefor I am voting Against Obama this time as I feel he likes to preach division more than the elitist Romney. I think Obama is doom for US currency the way his policys plan out. The last four years under Obama have been rough for anyone not recieving some sort of governnment funding. I have seen many small business owners go by the wayside.

In the end it doesnt really mean much. One vote is pretty meaningless.

Jimnik
09-11-2012, 11:46 AM
This discovery was in 2008 and sure can help Brazilians in the future, but since a country discover an oil field and can take profit of it, it take many years. Petroleum today is 8,3% of Brazil exports
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Brazil_Export_Treemap.jpg

In 2002 was 14,8%

When Lula arrives in 2002 Inflation rate was 12.53%, in 2003 was 9.30%, 2004 was 7.60%, 2005 was 5.69%, 2006 was 3.19% and so on.

Average GDP growth rate in 80's was 3%, in 90's was 1.7%, in 00's was 4.3%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Brazil

Public debt is only 41.4% of GDP in 2010 (51% in 2002).

Brazil was the 10th economy of the world at the beginning of 00's. Twelve years later is sixth largest economy.

In a time when the global economy falters, the Brazilian economy flourishes. But Lula, the president with more popular support of the history of Brazil, is a clown :rolleyes:
You misquoted your own source, trying to bend your own statistics. According to that Wiki article average GDP growth was 3.7% in 2000s, not 4.3%.

Brazil's oil production increased from 1.5million barrels/day in 2002 to 2.5million barrels/day in 2010 [1]. The global price of oil also rose from $30 to $80 in the same period [2]. That's an oil revenue increase from $16billion (3.2%) to $73billion (4.6%) [3]. Even as a proportion of GDP, it grew nearly 50% from 2002 to 2010. That doesn't even include the indirect benefit of increased foreign investment due to oil stimulus improving consumer (both government and civilian) demand. [1] (http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=br&v=88) [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Brent_Spot_monthly.svg) [3] (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/brazil/gdp)

Several of these new oil fields were discovered long before 2008, including this one discovered by a British company in 2006: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lula_oil_field. All you need is to check the oil production curve above to see production already increased dramatically in 2006. In fact it increased from 2002 already.

Almost the entire 3rd world (developing nations) continued to boom during the global recession of 2008, yet Brazil GDP contracted 0.3%[4] (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG). China and India grew 9.2% and 8.2% respectively in the same year.

Lula's Workers Party's national share of the vote never achieved greater than 20% in either election. [5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_general_election,_2006)

It's an interesting discussion but don't bend facts to defend your opinion.

buddyholly
09-11-2012, 02:12 PM
http://whattheheckhasobamadonesofar.com/

Sorry if this isn't enough for you. Not sure what you think Romney is going to get done if Obama "hasn't done much of anything"

It is hard to get to the truth, but I keep reading that the Obama government keeps trumpeting about the jobs created during his administration, while ignoring the jobs lost. And in fact, during his administration the jobs created minus jobs lost comes to a negative.

emotion
09-11-2012, 10:56 PM
Actually, the last job report, while poor, arguably put him in positives. But the number created has been increasing since October 2009, which is really about as early as you'd see an impact

brithater
09-11-2012, 11:37 PM
America is worse off...way worse than it was 4 years ago so he has to go. It appears the US has an administration now that clearly has no idea how to budget money responsibly. The decisions (and lack of) last four years have been killing business and industry in this country. This administration also seems to have a knack for circumventing the constitution which, like it or not, the overwhelming majority of Americans still believe in.

At present the national debt is the equivilant of ever single person in the country being $50,000 in the whole. A family of four = $200,000 in debt. Nice job budgeting there elected government chumps! This administrations answer is to print more money for the most part and keep going with no approved budget. Thats just not going to work. Interesting times in that people are learning to have a better understanding of what currency actually is in society. Its not really something you can print your way out of.

We will see what Romney comes up with. If he makes things worse and the dems have a better alternative (doubtful) then in 4 years Romney will be gone as well.

Obama has been kind of an interesting ride with the currency. It reminds me of what Argentina went through years ago (and still is somewhat).

abraxas21
09-20-2012, 02:06 PM
ok, i think i figured it out. mitt romney is disdainful of anyone receiving government assistance because...
Posted on September 19, 2012

ok, i think i figured it out.

mitt romney is disdainful of anyone receiving government assistance because:

he comes from a rich and privileged background, so he's never needed or received government assistance. and
he comes from a rich and privileged background, so he's never known anyone who's needed or received government assistance.

almost everyone i know has received some sort of government assistance, whether it's student loans or small business loans or medicare or medicaid, and almost everyone i know now pays taxes and contributes to society.

i'll use myself as an example.

i was the only child of a single working mom. we struggled a lot economically, and there were times when we lived off of food stamps and social security and government assistance. and then when i went to university of connecticut and suny purchase i received pell grants and student loans.

so, according to mitt romney, i was part of the 47%: "who are dependent upon government, ... who pay no income tax. ... My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

in the last 20 years i have either personally or professionally paid millions of dollars in income taxes to the state, local, and federal government. i have employed hundreds of people, who have in turn paid income taxes and in many cases have gone on to start their own businesses.

so i think it's safe to say that the government assistance my mother and i received was money well spent. i was able to go to decent schools and get a decent education, all thanks to 'government assistance'. my mother and i were able to eat, all thanks to 'government assistance'. i was able to see doctors, all thanks to 'government assistance'. we were able to pay our rent at times thanks to 'government assistance'.

not to mention the roads, clean water, streetlights, police departments, fire departments, clean air, libraries, public transit, electricity, etc that all came from the government and enabled my mother and i to stay alive and live good, educated, safe, and healthy lives.

mitt romney came from extreme wealth. he has never once needed financial assistance from the government, as his family had millions and millions of dollars.

but there are millions and millions and millions of americans like me who didn't come from extreme wealth and who needed help with education and food and health care and shelter, but who have gone on to start businesses and pay taxes.

we are not an 'entitled' class, we are not 'dependent upon the federal government' and we do not consider ourselves 'victims'.

we are the hundreds of millions of americans who had the misfortune of not being born to millionaire parents.

so i understand why mitt romney is disdainful of government assistance, as his parents paid for everything and he never needed help being fed or educated or looked after by doctors. i understand that in mitt romney's entire life he's never known anyone who's needed student loans. he's never known anyone who needed food stamps to keep their family fed. he's never known anyone who's had to spend hours in a health clinic just to get basic medical care. he's never known anyone who couldn't pay the rent.

i understand that mitt romney grew up with phenomenal wealth and privilege but i don't understand why that leads him to contemptuously dismiss anyone (like my mother and i)who have, at times, needed government help with food and education and shelter and health care.

mitt romney is a product of wealth and privilege. that does not give him the right to loathe and dismiss the rest of us who are not the product of wealth and privilege.

oh, for some reason i was thinking of 'common people' by pulp when i heard romney's quotes.

"But still you'll never get it right,
cos when you're laid in bed at night,
watching roaches climb the wall,
if you call your Dad he could stop it all.

You'll never live like common people,
you'll never do what common people do,
you'll never fail like common people,
you'll never watch your life slide out of view."

- Common People by Pulp

- moby

the pulp reference is somewhat ackward but moby's point is spot on

orangehat
09-20-2012, 02:10 PM
Romney camp imploding, particularly the down ballots.

Good to see.

Har-Tru
09-20-2012, 02:15 PM
the pulp reference is somewhat ackward but moby's point is spot on

I thought the Pulp reference was brilliant and very to the point.

abraxas21
09-20-2012, 02:15 PM
rommy seems like a prick but it's not like obama isn't one either.

the problem is, rommy really does seem like a big prick. i think he can easily outprick obama and he'll most likely win the election.

i think i got it wrong. rommy is actually too much of a prick, too pricky to even win the yank election. that takes a lot of prickiness, mind you.

right now, the biggest campaigner for obama's clown re-election tour is rommy's big mouth

abraxas21
09-20-2012, 02:17 PM
I thought the Pulp reference was brilliant and very to the point.

i like pulp and i like that song (hell, i even bought the record some years ago) but i'd never use its lyrics in any type of un-drunk speech.

TigerTim
09-20-2012, 02:17 PM
Mitt "I would plant a dirty bomb in Chicargo" Romney

Note how he uses Obama's town, Chicargo :lol:

Punky
09-20-2012, 06:30 PM
a month and a half until the election and i think b/c of Romney's big mouth he will lose this, on the other hand If the economy continues to sputter and the oil price will leaped Obama can pack a suitcase.

anyway i cant stand obama and Romney seems rich and full of himself.

i hope the best person for the US Citizens will win

buddyholly
09-20-2012, 08:43 PM
Mitt "I would plant a dirty bomb in Chicargo" Romney

Note how he uses Obama's town, Chicargo :lol:

The ''r'' is silent.

buddyholly
09-20-2012, 08:44 PM
And invisible.

TigerTim
09-20-2012, 08:48 PM
:haha:

TigerTim
09-20-2012, 08:50 PM
Sorry :p

Ca, car, oh fuck that's Detroit :facepalm:

buddyholly
09-20-2012, 09:45 PM
i like pulp and i like that song (hell, i even bought the record some years ago) but i'd never use its lyrics in any type of un-drunk speech.

I just read that the best restaurant in Tel Aviv is ABRAXAS NORTH. You could open ABRAXAS SOUTH in Santiago and be soul buddies.

Jimnik
09-20-2012, 10:22 PM
Forget Obama and Romney. Time to let the world think outside the duopoly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_and_independent_presiden tial_candidates,_2012

President Johnson :yeah:

Much better than the 1960s democrat version.

buddyholly
09-20-2012, 10:56 PM
Wow, I had no idea this would be such a great election. I am undecided among the Naked Cowboy, Pastor Jones and the Roseanne Barr/Cindy Sheehan tickets.

allpro
09-21-2012, 04:04 AM
unlimited qe3 = 4 more years for barry 'bendover' soetoro, per the banksters.

rocketassist
09-21-2012, 04:21 AM
Four more years of Obama is a much lesser evil for the world than a Romney US administration.

Punky
09-21-2012, 04:26 AM
I just read that the best restaurant in Tel Aviv is ABRAXAS NORTH. You could open ABRAXAS SOUTH in Santiago and be soul buddies.

Lol among the top 5 and ur right...

sexybeast
09-21-2012, 02:09 PM
A turd or a douche?

Difficult choosing ahead for US voters.

abraxas21
09-22-2012, 10:21 PM
if rommy's dismissive comments about 47% of the us didn't cost him the election already, his tax evasion sure did.

good riddance, i say.

abraxas21
09-22-2012, 10:27 PM
I just read that the best restaurant in Tel Aviv is ABRAXAS NORTH.

goes to show that abraxas is a sign of quality everywhere.

TigerTim
09-22-2012, 10:30 PM
Just rewatching the brilliant film "JFK" by Oliver Stone.

Nothing changes in US politics.

buddyholly
09-22-2012, 10:41 PM
Just rewatching the brilliant film "JFK" by Oliver Stone.

Nothing changes in US politics.

It is not a documentary, you know. It is not even based on fact.

TigerTim
09-22-2012, 10:56 PM
It is not a documentary, you know. It is not even based on fact.

Of course not. But the imagery remains similar. It's all pandering to big business :shrug:

It's just as bad in the UK

buddyholly
09-23-2012, 01:05 AM
The only big business I remember is Stone's profits.

GOAT = Fed
09-23-2012, 01:11 AM
Of course not. But the imagery remains similar. It's all pandering to big business :shrug:

It's just as bad in the UK

It's all pandering to the big lobbyists.

Seriously, Lobbyists control the US/UK.

Wish I could have enough money to actually control the laws made in my country. Would be an awesome feeling.

buddyholly
09-23-2012, 02:54 AM
But what has that do do with a Stone movie?

GOAT = Fed
09-23-2012, 03:16 AM
But what has that do do with a Stone movie?

:lol:

I was just responding to Tim's comments independant of his link to Stone's film.

TigerTim
09-23-2012, 09:03 AM
Stones film implies the link to big business unhappy at their interests not being looked after in the Latin American region.

I don't know much about JFKs assassination so this may be untrue :shrug: but it sounds familiar.

buddyholly
09-23-2012, 08:32 PM
Stones film implies the link to big business unhappy at their interests not being looked after in the Latin American region.

I don't know much about JFKs assassination so this may be untrue :shrug: but it sounds familiar.

it is well known that Stone's film is a work of fiction. The ''who killed JFK?" question was the original breeding ground for conspiracy theorists. And Garrison was the original conspiracy theorist, making a career out of it. With Stone's movie based on Garrison's conspiracy theory book, it is no longer possible to differentiate between truth and fiction.

TigerTim
09-23-2012, 09:43 PM
it is well known that Stone's film is a work of fiction. The ''who killed JFK?" question was the original breeding ground for conspiracy theorists. And Garrison was the original conspiracy theorist, making a career out of it. With Stone's movie based on Garrison's conspiracy theory book, it is no longer possible to differentiate between truth and fiction.

well we will find out in 2037 :scratch: or was it 2027 :confused:

ahh well :p

Go Ron Paul :p

Jimnik
10-10-2012, 07:03 AM
Polls show dead heat in US presidential race

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2012/10/201210922248761436.html


Cool. That last debate really spiced things up.

buddyholly
10-10-2012, 02:02 PM
Polls show dead heat in US presidential race

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2012/10/201210922248761436.html


Cool. That last debate really spiced things up.

I like it that the VP debate can now make a difference.

Jimnik
10-11-2012, 01:00 AM
It brings spice to the VP debate. On the other hand, I really hope Obama doesn't get elected based on the performance of Biden. Will be interesting to see how he matches up with Ryan.

Jverweij
10-11-2012, 10:51 AM
well we will find out in 2037 :scratch: or was it 2027 :confused:

ahh well :p

Go Ron Paul :p

Hell friggin yeah!

Only politician that seems to want to do stuff genuinely different. The rest are just slightly different flavors of icecream.

Unfortunately the retarded Netherlands has decided American politics is the way to go :stomp: We are emulating the melodramatic puppet-show and nothing is ever about policies or ideals, it's all about "oh I like that guy more, so I'll vote for him".

And all this crap about the free-market.. In it's current state (with the government sort of involved) the market is not free, and all that happens is that people with money are canning people without money, so they can make more money. The US is run by a few large companies, and they are running it into the ground. I'm so thrilled that that is our great example :confused:

/rant over

buddyholly
10-11-2012, 01:51 PM
The US is run by a few large companies, and they are running it into the ground.

Care to name them? When I had malaria I hallucinated that Walt Disney owned the world. When I recovered I bought shares and have been very satisfied with the result.

Filo V.
10-12-2012, 04:14 AM
Very good debate tonight. Both guys accomplished their jobs. Ryan gave no real clear answers but he was fluid and he's smart. Biden was aggressive and was a pitbull. Ryan was a little bit too "mathematical" whereas Biden was more passionate so I think he won, but I don't see Obama getting a major bump, only 1-1.5 points if any.

jmjhb
10-12-2012, 04:17 AM
Biden won.

DEM 1-1 GOP

Filo V.
10-12-2012, 04:31 AM
CBS poll gives a clear win to Biden, CNN slight win for Ryan but within margin of error.

So, about a wash...........right now. We'll really know who won the debate on Monday.

rocketassist
10-12-2012, 04:35 AM
Biden won that from the bits I saw.

1-1 it is.

Pirata.
10-12-2012, 04:35 AM
Ron Paultards :stupid:

Biden was great tonight.

Tommy_Vercetti
10-12-2012, 05:14 AM
Biden was absolutely bizarre and unprofessional again. And really old. Ryan looked like his grandson. Exactly what they didn't need. Ryan came off as very smart and professional. Just like Romney did. And not as smarmy.

Why did Obama ever pick this guy again? I don't get it.

I still think Obama is going to take the election when something comes up at the last minute, but neither he or Biden looked good in the debates.

orangehat
10-12-2012, 05:24 AM
Ryan point blanked refused to answer any specifics, hilarious.

Biden clearly overcompensated but still comfortably won this one.

Biden is a viable choice for 2016 if none of the high-interest candidates decide to run.

Tommy_Vercetti
10-12-2012, 05:26 AM
Overcompensated? He acted like a clown. He's lucky he's a Democrat. A Republican would be ripped apart for acting like that in a debate.

Debates are always overrated. It hurt Obama less than all the complete falsehoods leveled during the summer. I still think the Democrat machine will turn out enough of the scum. Especially in the battleground states where they have assured the ability for people to vote 50 times.

Jimnik
10-12-2012, 05:33 AM
According to CNBC and CNN, Ryan was the winner.

We'll see. Wasn't particularly impressed by either of them. Biden was overly aggressive (possibly a liberal response to the first debate) and Ryan too vague and evasive.

orangehat
10-12-2012, 05:33 AM
Overcompensated? He acted like a clown. He's lucky he's a Democrat. A Republican would be ripped apart for acting like that in a debate.

Debates are always overrated. It hurt Obama less than all the complete falsehoods leveled during the summer. I still think the Democrat machine will turn out enough of the scum. Especially in the battleground states where they have assured the ability for people to vote 50 times.

:facepalm: at the Republican "the media is biased and demonizes us" conspiracy theory.

All Ryan needed to do was to answer specifics and it would make Biden look (relatively more) foolish.
Except he couldn't, because the Republican plans are utter wizardry. (i.e. make their bullshit mountain up)

Ryan needed to make his points clear and jab back at Biden, interrupt him if necessary. He didn't.

Obama falsehoods :spit:
Mitt Romney's flip flops alone are worse than all the lies Obama have said, and I haven't even started on Romney's lies.

Tommy_Vercetti
10-12-2012, 05:36 AM
What about the U.S. Senate majority leader making now proven false allegations based upon a anonymous source who would be a criminal with illegal access if he even existed and was likely didn't have any credibility at all?

You don't think the fact that Reid hasn't apologized, much less been censured is not a serious problem with double standards and lies?

Tommy_Vercetti
10-12-2012, 05:40 AM
According to CNBC and CNN, Ryan was the winner.

We'll see. Wasn't particularly impressed by either of them. Biden was overly aggressive (possibly a liberal response to the first debate) and Ryan too vague and evasive.

I don't see Ryan interrupting him and acting like an immature child (Biden) as being evasive. I agree that he should have been more aggressive. And their plans are wishful thinking. I don't know why Ryan or Romney hasn't just flat out stated that even with a super majority, the Democrats did absolutely nothing but spend and spend. No plans whatsoever for the future is the story of their campaign.

orangehat
10-12-2012, 05:53 AM
What about the U.S. Senate majority leader making now proven false allegations based upon a anonymous source who would be a criminal with illegal access if he even existed and was likely didn't have any credibility at all?

You don't think the fact that Reid hasn't apologized, much less been censured is not a serious problem with double standards and lies?

Technically he hasn't been proven false, Romney still hasn't released any tax returns from more than 3 years ago.

Now, I will admit that what Reid said is most likely false (obviously), and he shouldn't have done that (however entertaining and hilarious that was). But you can really take your hypocrisy and shove it. Republican vice president swearing at a Senator? Check. Republican vice-presidential candidate claiming that there are "death panels"? Check.

But honestly. Politicians making up facts and labelling false accusations? Hardly a new thing in american (or any other country for that matter) politics. If you really want to censure anyone, look for those making inside trading deals instead.

I don't see Ryan interrupting him and acting like an immature child (Biden) as being evasive. I agree that he should have been more aggressive. And their plans are wishful thinking. I don't know why Ryan or Romney hasn't just flat out stated that even with a super majority, the Democrats did absolutely nothing but spend and spend. No plans whatsoever for the future is the story of their campaign.

I hate this democratic supermajority nonsense.

The democrats only EVER had a 6 month period where they had a supermajority (and half of that was spent in recess)

With the remaining period, they managed to pass the healthcare bill (which under any other circumstances would not have passed)

So to argue that democrats did failed with their supermajority is nonsense.

Tommy_Vercetti
10-12-2012, 05:56 AM
So the Senate Majority leader making accusations based upon anonymous sources is hilarious and entertaining? So what, we can do that and call it entertainment and satire? I don't understand that mentality.

What Reid did was as unprecedented as it was despicable.

orangehat
10-12-2012, 06:03 AM
So the Senate Majority leader making accusations based upon anonymous sources is hilarious and entertaining? So what, we can do that and call it entertainment and satire? I don't understand that mentality.

What Reid did was as unprecedented as it was despicable.

It's hilarious and entertaining because he said what a lot of people wanted said to Mitt Romney (though it was obviously over the top).

You obviously selectively read and skated over the part where I said it was wrong.

And I see you also selectively chose to ignore the supermajority fact now.

I will say this again: Facts have a liberal bias.

allpro
10-12-2012, 06:06 AM
the democratic vice puppet provided better entertainment value than the republican vice puppet.

allpro
10-12-2012, 06:40 AM
The US world is run by a few large companies global banking cartel (central and commercial), and they are running it into the ground.

fixed.

Care to name them?

"Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world"
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html

“...the study, by a trio of complex systems theorists at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, is the first to go beyond ideology to empirically identify such a network of power. It combines the mathematics long used to model natural systems with comprehensive corporate data to map ownership among the world's transnational corporations (TNCs). The work, to be published in PLoS One, revealed a core of 1318 companies with interlocking ownerships. Each of the 1318 had ties to two or more other companies, and on average they were connected to 20. What's more, although they represented 20 per cent of global operating revenues, the 1318 appeared to collectively own through their shares the majority of the world's large blue chip and manufacturing firms - the "real" economy - representing a further 60 per cent of global revenues.”

"Reality is so complex, we must move away from dogma, whether it's conspiracy theories or free-market," says James Glattfelder. "Our analysis is reality-based."


The Network of Global Corporate Control - Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1107/1107.5728v2.pdf

Abstract
"The structure of the control network of transnational corporations affects global market competition and financial stability. So far, only small national samples were studied and there was no appropriate methodology to assess control globally. We present the first investigation of the architecture of the international ownership network, along with the computation of the control held by each global player. We find that transnational corporations form a giant bow-tie structure and that a large portion of control flows to a small tightly-knit core of financial institutions. This core can be seen as an economic 'super-entity' that raises new important issues both for researchers and policy makers."

"This is the first time a ranking of economic actors by global control is presented. Notice that many of the actors belong to the financial sector and many of the names are well-known global players. The interest of this ranking is not that it exposes unsuspected powerful players. Instead, it shows that many of the top actors belong to the core. This means they do not carry out their business in isolation but, on the contrary, they are tied together in an extremely entangled web of control. This finding is extremely important since there was no prior economic theory or empirical evidence regarding whether and how top players are connected. Finally, it should be noted that governments and natural persons are only featured further down in the list.”

Top 50 Superconnected control-holders, Country

1 BARCLAYS PLC GB
2 CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES INC US
3 FMR CORP US
4 AXA FRANCE
5 STATE STREET CORPORATION US
6 JP MORGAN CHASE & CO. US
7 LEGAL & GENERAL GROUP PLC GB
8 VANGUARD GROUP, INC., US
9 UBS AG SWITZERLAND
10 MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC. US
11 WELLINGTON MANAGEMENT CO. L.L.P. US
12 DEUTSCHE BANK AG GERMANY
13 FRANKLIN RESOURCES, INC. US
14 CREDIT SUISSE GROUP SWITZERLAND
15 WALTON ENTERPRISES LLC US
16 BANK OF NEWYORKMELLON CORP. US
17 NATIXIS FRANCE
18 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC., US
19 T. ROWEPRICE GROUP, INC. US
20 LEGG MASON, INC. US
21 MORGAN STANLEY US
22 MITSUBISHI UFJ FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. JAPAN
23 NORTHERN TRUST CORPORATION US
24 SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE FRANCE
25 BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION US
26 LLOYDS TSB GROUPPLC GB
27 INVESCOPLC GB
28 ALLIANZSE GERMANY
29 TIAA US
30 OLD MUTUAL PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY GB
31 AVIVAPLC GB
32 SCHRODERSPLC GB
33 DODGE & COX US
34 LEHMAN BROTHERS HOLDINGS, INC. US
35 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL, INC. CANADA
36 STANDARDLIFEPLC GB
37 CNCE FRANCE
38 NOMURA HOLDINGS, INC. JAPAN
39 THE DEPOSITORY TRUST COMPANY US
40 MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INSUR. US
41 INGGROEP N.V. NETHERLANDS
42 BRANDES INVESTMENT PARTNERS, L.P. US
43 UNICREDITO ITALIANO SPA ITALY
44 DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION OF JP JAPAN
45 VERENIGING AEGON NETHERLANDS
46 BNPPARIBAS FRANCE
47 AFFILIATED MANAGERS GROUP, INC. US
48 RESONA HOLDINGS, INC. JAPAN
49 CAPITAL GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC. US
50 CHINA PETROCHEMICAL GROUP CO. CHINA

banks control all major industries including oil, pharmaceuticals, food, weapons, telecoms, etc, etc. it’s just one massive cartel controlled from the top down.....'competition is sin'.

Naudio Spanlatine
10-12-2012, 06:51 AM
I think it was a tied between two guys, but I think personally Biden's reaction was so appalling and so unusual, i mean to me he looked like he had too much drinks before this debate, he was totally unprofessional tonight, i mean smirking and laughing and keep interupting Paul every single time:o. To me i thought Biden was better than this, im very disappointed that he didnt deliver it as much as i thought. I thought Paul was calm cool and collected and didn't seemed bothered even though Biden was just plain ol rude. But Biden did a hell of alot better than Obama i give him that, because i also saw the presidental debate and it was one-sided obvious from the beginning. Obama was confused, lost and didnt know what the hell he was doing at all. :tape: And the democrats and the white house still blame the youtube tape, which to me is just unbelieveably ridiculous, its like why are you keep lying to the american people. I tell you what, if Obama and Biden don't get their shit together, i dunno what will happen but it will get so dam ugly if their inconsistencies continue.

Naudio Spanlatine
10-12-2012, 06:54 AM
And im also amazed at the lady asking the questions, what about the economy, foreign policy and taxes, no one cares about the abortion and other shit they were saying. She just kept mention the abortion crap like thats the biggest problem in our country right now.

Tommy_Vercetti
10-12-2012, 07:12 AM
It's like the draft in 2004. The abortion issue comes up because some social conservatives are against it. And they try to play it off like that should be the issue that women vote on.

But that's not the President's decision anyway. They seem to miss that point. They used that constantly against Bush in 2000 and 2004. It was nonsense. He was never/could never ban abortion.

fast_clay
10-12-2012, 07:55 AM
fixed.



"Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world"
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html

“...the study, by a trio of complex systems theorists at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, is the first to go beyond ideology to empirically identify such a network of power. It combines the mathematics long used to model natural systems with comprehensive corporate data to map ownership among the world's transnational corporations (TNCs). The work, to be published in PLoS One, revealed a core of 1318 companies with interlocking ownerships. Each of the 1318 had ties to two or more other companies, and on average they were connected to 20. What's more, although they represented 20 per cent of global operating revenues, the 1318 appeared to collectively own through their shares the majority of the world's large blue chip and manufacturing firms - the "real" economy - representing a further 60 per cent of global revenues.”

"Reality is so complex, we must move away from dogma, whether it's conspiracy theories or free-market," says James Glattfelder. "Our analysis is reality-based."


The Network of Global Corporate Control - Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1107/1107.5728v2.pdf

Abstract
"The structure of the control network of transnational corporations affects global market competition and financial stability. So far, only small national samples were studied and there was no appropriate methodology to assess control globally. We present the first investigation of the architecture of the international ownership network, along with the computation of the control held by each global player. We find that transnational corporations form a giant bow-tie structure and that a large portion of control flows to a small tightly-knit core of financial institutions. This core can be seen as an economic 'super-entity' that raises new important issues both for researchers and policy makers."

"This is the first time a ranking of economic actors by global control is presented. Notice that many of the actors belong to the financial sector and many of the names are well-known global players. The interest of this ranking is not that it exposes unsuspected powerful players. Instead, it shows that many of the top actors belong to the core. This means they do not carry out their business in isolation but, on the contrary, they are tied together in an extremely entangled web of control. This finding is extremely important since there was no prior economic theory or empirical evidence regarding whether and how top players are connected. Finally, it should be noted that governments and natural persons are only featured further down in the list.”

Top 50 Superconnected control-holders, Country

1 BARCLAYS PLC GB
2 CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES INC US
3 FMR CORP US
4 AXA FRANCE
5 STATE STREET CORPORATION US
6 JP MORGAN CHASE & CO. US
7 LEGAL & GENERAL GROUP PLC GB
8 VANGUARD GROUP, INC., US
9 UBS AG SWITZERLAND
10 MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC. US
11 WELLINGTON MANAGEMENT CO. L.L.P. US
12 DEUTSCHE BANK AG GERMANY
13 FRANKLIN RESOURCES, INC. US
14 CREDIT SUISSE GROUP SWITZERLAND
15 WALTON ENTERPRISES LLC US
16 BANK OF NEWYORKMELLON CORP. US
17 NATIXIS FRANCE
18 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC., US
19 T. ROWEPRICE GROUP, INC. US
20 LEGG MASON, INC. US
21 MORGAN STANLEY US
22 MITSUBISHI UFJ FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. JAPAN
23 NORTHERN TRUST CORPORATION US
24 SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE FRANCE
25 BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION US
26 LLOYDS TSB GROUPPLC GB
27 INVESCOPLC GB
28 ALLIANZSE GERMANY
29 TIAA US
30 OLD MUTUAL PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY GB
31 AVIVAPLC GB
32 SCHRODERSPLC GB
33 DODGE & COX US
34 LEHMAN BROTHERS HOLDINGS, INC. US
35 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL, INC. CANADA
36 STANDARDLIFEPLC GB
37 CNCE FRANCE
38 NOMURA HOLDINGS, INC. JAPAN
39 THE DEPOSITORY TRUST COMPANY US
40 MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INSUR. US
41 INGGROEP N.V. NETHERLANDS
42 BRANDES INVESTMENT PARTNERS, L.P. US
43 UNICREDITO ITALIANO SPA ITALY
44 DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION OF JP JAPAN
45 VERENIGING AEGON NETHERLANDS
46 BNPPARIBAS FRANCE
47 AFFILIATED MANAGERS GROUP, INC. US
48 RESONA HOLDINGS, INC. JAPAN
49 CAPITAL GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC. US
50 CHINA PETROCHEMICAL GROUP CO. CHINA

banks control all major industries including oil, pharmaceuticals, food, weapons, telecoms, etc, etc. it’s just one massive cartel controlled from the top down.....'competition is sin'.

great post

key word: cartel ...not surprising really since the federal reserve system the west is economically governed by for the last 99yrs is the best definition of a cartel...

buddyholly
10-12-2012, 01:03 PM
fixed.



"Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world"
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html

“...the study, by a trio of complex systems theorists at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, is the first to go beyond ideology to empirically identify such a network of power. It combines the mathematics long used to model natural systems with comprehensive corporate data to map ownership among the world's transnational corporations (TNCs). The work, to be published in PLoS One, revealed a core of 1318 companies with interlocking ownerships. Each of the 1318 had ties to two or more other companies, and on average they were connected to 20. What's more, although they represented 20 per cent of global operating revenues, the 1318 appeared to collectively own through their shares the majority of the world's large blue chip and manufacturing firms - the "real" economy - representing a further 60 per cent of global revenues.”

"Reality is so complex, we must move away from dogma, whether it's conspiracy theories or free-market," says James Glattfelder. "Our analysis is reality-based."


The Network of Global Corporate Control - Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1107/1107.5728v2.pdf

Abstract
"The structure of the control network of transnational corporations affects global market competition and financial stability. So far, only small national samples were studied and there was no appropriate methodology to assess control globally. We present the first investigation of the architecture of the international ownership network, along with the computation of the control held by each global player. We find that transnational corporations form a giant bow-tie structure and that a large portion of control flows to a small tightly-knit core of financial institutions. This core can be seen as an economic 'super-entity' that raises new important issues both for researchers and policy makers."

"This is the first time a ranking of economic actors by global control is presented. Notice that many of the actors belong to the financial sector and many of the names are well-known global players. The interest of this ranking is not that it exposes unsuspected powerful players. Instead, it shows that many of the top actors belong to the core. This means they do not carry out their business in isolation but, on the contrary, they are tied together in an extremely entangled web of control. This finding is extremely important since there was no prior economic theory or empirical evidence regarding whether and how top players are connected. Finally, it should be noted that governments and natural persons are only featured further down in the list.”

Top 50 Superconnected control-holders, Country

1 BARCLAYS PLC GB
2 CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES INC US
3 FMR CORP US
4 AXA FRANCE
5 STATE STREET CORPORATION US
6 JP MORGAN CHASE & CO. US
7 LEGAL & GENERAL GROUP PLC GB
8 VANGUARD GROUP, INC., US
9 UBS AG SWITZERLAND
10 MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC. US
11 WELLINGTON MANAGEMENT CO. L.L.P. US
12 DEUTSCHE BANK AG GERMANY
13 FRANKLIN RESOURCES, INC. US
14 CREDIT SUISSE GROUP SWITZERLAND
15 WALTON ENTERPRISES LLC US
16 BANK OF NEWYORKMELLON CORP. US
17 NATIXIS FRANCE
18 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC., US
19 T. ROWEPRICE GROUP, INC. US
20 LEGG MASON, INC. US
21 MORGAN STANLEY US
22 MITSUBISHI UFJ FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. JAPAN
23 NORTHERN TRUST CORPORATION US
24 SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE FRANCE
25 BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION US
26 LLOYDS TSB GROUPPLC GB
27 INVESCOPLC GB
28 ALLIANZSE GERMANY
29 TIAA US
30 OLD MUTUAL PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY GB
31 AVIVAPLC GB
32 SCHRODERSPLC GB
33 DODGE & COX US
34 LEHMAN BROTHERS HOLDINGS, INC. US
35 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL, INC. CANADA
36 STANDARDLIFEPLC GB
37 CNCE FRANCE
38 NOMURA HOLDINGS, INC. JAPAN
39 THE DEPOSITORY TRUST COMPANY US
40 MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INSUR. US
41 INGGROEP N.V. NETHERLANDS
42 BRANDES INVESTMENT PARTNERS, L.P. US
43 UNICREDITO ITALIANO SPA ITALY
44 DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION OF JP JAPAN
45 VERENIGING AEGON NETHERLANDS
46 BNPPARIBAS FRANCE
47 AFFILIATED MANAGERS GROUP, INC. US
48 RESONA HOLDINGS, INC. JAPAN
49 CAPITAL GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC. US
50 CHINA PETROCHEMICAL GROUP CO. CHINA

banks control all major industries including oil, pharmaceuticals, food, weapons, telecoms, etc, etc. it’s just one massive cartel controlled from the top down.....'competition is sin'.

The first report concludes that wealth attracts wealth and this is natural. There is no conspiracy. And I think all of these companies are publically owned. So in reality the public controls everything.
The second report is academic gobbledeygook. Just read the last paragraph. Totally meaningless jargon.

buddyholly
10-12-2012, 01:10 PM
Biden clearly overcompensated but still comfortably won this one.



Even if you say it often enough, it still won't be true.

From what I am reading, Biden is being criticised across the board for giving the impression that he thinks eye rolling and snickering are debate tactics. It was obvious from the start that Biden's mission for the evening was to counteract Obama's disinterest in any kind of speech that doesn't involve a teleprompter. But when it is forced disdain, it is glaringly obvious.

Filo V.
10-12-2012, 02:07 PM
Virtually everyone says it's about even with both bases being happy, so you libertarian assholes can shove it. Gary Johnson will destroy Romney's chances of winning, Ron Paul nut huggers. And Biden's "behavior" alone will not supersede the obvious fact Ryan lacked substance. Ryan is all soundbites.

Punky
10-12-2012, 04:39 PM
i was sure Biden will kick Ryan's ass..

who would have thought?

i think Biden was looking Arrogant, smug and too pleased with himself so he might "won" but ppl thought it was so uncall for so he lost

orangehat
10-12-2012, 05:00 PM
Even if you say it often enough, it still won't be true.

From what I am reading, Biden is being criticised across the board for giving the impression that he thinks eye rolling and snickering are debate tactics. It was obvious from the start that Biden's mission for the evening was to counteract Obama's disinterest in any kind of speech that doesn't involve a teleprompter. But when it is forced disdain, it is glaringly obvious.

Obviously buddyholly not sharing a strong relationship with the facts, as usual.

Most polls of voters had Biden ahead, and those that had him ahead were by larger margins than polls showing ryan ahead.

Furthermore, Larry Sabato, Taegan Goddard both agree that Biden won comfortably. Fox news called it a "tie" which essentially means Biden won.

Almost everyone agrees that Biden probably went overboard, but Ryan's abject refusal to answer any specifics as well as implicit advocation for the overturning of Roe v. Wade meant Biden came across as much more solid than Ryan did.

tangerine_dream
10-12-2012, 06:40 PM
We all knew Obama was an empty suit and Biden was a buffoon, but to see these facts crystalized on national TV in front of the world, without the benefit of the media sweeping their lies, blunders and gaffes under the rug like they usually do, was disturbing to watch. And to think that this Hope and Change tag team of Dweedledum and Dweedledee are in charge of the most powerful nation in the world? God help us. :scared:

Oh, and on top of that the EU won the Nobel Peace Prize. Bahaha. :superlol:

buddyholly
10-12-2012, 07:03 PM
Obviously buddyholly not sharing a strong relationship with the facts, as usual.

Most polls of voters had Biden ahead, and those that had him ahead were by larger margins than polls showing ryan ahead.

Furthermore, Larry Sabato, Taegan Goddard both agree that Biden won comfortably. Fox news called it a "tie" which essentially means Biden won.

Almost everyone agrees that Biden probably went overboard, but Ryan's abject refusal to answer any specifics as well as implicit advocation for the overturning of Roe v. Wade meant Biden came across as much more solid than Ryan did.

What facts? You were the one that said Biden won comfortably. When you talk of ''most polls of voters had Biden ahead'', which ones are you talking about? I can't find them. A single, very anomalous, CBS poll is hardly ''most.''

Jimnik
10-12-2012, 09:46 PM
I see orangeclown still can't tell the difference between fact and liberal opinion.

buddyholly
10-13-2012, 06:30 PM
Obviously buddyholly not sharing a strong relationship with the facts, as usual.

Most polls of voters had Biden ahead, and those that had him ahead were by larger margins than polls showing ryan ahead.
.

Just finished watching my tape. I tried to be neutral, but Biden's determination to laugh and grin and interrupt in an attempt to balance Obama's indifference was just so forced. I could not properly listen to the candidates because of Biden's visual antics. And oh, that bad make-up job, another distraction.

allpro
10-13-2012, 09:09 PM
The first report concludes that wealth attracts wealth and this is natural. There is no conspiracy.

to conclude there can be no conspiracy on the basis that “wealth attracts wealth and this is natural” is naive. the recent liebor (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9568087/RBS-traders-boasted-of-Libor-cartel.html) scandal serves as yet another example of criminal conspiracy activity among bankers.

And I think all of these companies are publically owned. So in reality the public controls everything.

being a publicly traded company has little to do with anything, and the idea that “the public controls everything” is absurd. banks dictate because nothing happens without the blessings of money.

The second report is academic gobbledeygook. Just read the last paragraph. Totally meaningless jargon.

i find it ironic that a scientist such as yourself would dismiss the empirical data as “academic gobbledygook” and “meaningless jargon”. you can’t deny facts and over 200 years of banking history just because they don’t fit your worldview. it’s a shame the researchers aren’t able to connect more dots vis-a-vis the shadow banking system.

buddyholly
10-13-2012, 10:34 PM
i find it ironic that a scientist such as yourself would dismiss the empirical data as “academic gobbledygook” and “meaningless jargon”. you can’t deny facts and over 200 years of banking history just because they don’t fit your worldview. it’s a shame the researchers aren’t able to connect more dots vis-a-vis the shadow banking system.

It looks like you already know what their research should have found and are just annoyed that the researchers were unable to show that you are right. You could have saved them a lot of effort. Great science.
.................................................. ............connect these!

allpro
10-13-2012, 10:56 PM
It looks like you already know what their research should have found and are just annoyed that the researchers were unable to show that you are right. You could have saved them a lot of effort. Great science.
.................................................. ............connect these!

now you're just being silly, buddy. i'm not annoyed and the study clearly indicates that a 'super-entity' which influences a vastly disproportionate share of the worlds economy does indeed exist.

"In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network," says Glattfelder. Most were financial institutions."

buddyholly
10-14-2012, 01:20 AM
to conclude there can be no conspiracy on the basis that “wealth attracts wealth and this is natural” is naive.

Yes, I was being silly, because this is the conclusion of the first report you linked. So now you call it a naive conclusion. Why did you link it then? Or did you maybe just link the article because of its headline and without reading it in its entirety?

allpro
10-14-2012, 02:57 AM
Yes, I was being silly, because this is the conclusion of the first report you linked. So now you call it a naive conclusion. Why did you link it then? Or did you maybe just link the article because of its headline and without reading it in its entirety?

you’re confused, buddy. there’s only one study and i posted the article linking to the study because it contained a brief synopsis and some additional commentary. the “conclusion” you’re referring to were comments from a dan braha of NECSI who wasn't even involved in the study, and yes, i disagree with his statements as well. one of the actual "conclusions" from the researchers (glattfelder) was that “we may need global anti-trust rules, which now exist only at a national level, to limit over-connection among TNCs.” and yes, i read the entire article and posted it because the actual study has too much "academic gobbledygook" for the average MTFer.

buddyholly
10-14-2012, 01:04 PM
you’re confused, buddy. there’s only one study

I'm confused? Where did I say there was more than one study?

But that aside, the first report, article or study that you linked concludes that it is natural for wealth to gravitate to wealth and there is no evidence of any transnational conspiracy, just a free market at work. This does not mean things will not go wrong at times, but it is still a superior system to a controlled economy when things always go wrong. And if you limit ''overconnecting of TNCs'' then someone has to decide what connections are allowed, which means a controlled economy.

allpro
10-15-2012, 03:07 AM
I'm confused? Where did I say there was more than one study?

“The first report concludes that wealth attracts wealth and this is natural.”

“The second report is academic gobbledeygook.”

“because this is the conclusion of the first report you linked.”


But that aside, the first report, article or study that you linked concludes that it is natural for wealth to gravitate to wealth and there is no evidence of any transnational conspiracy, just a free market at work. This does not mean things will not go wrong at times, but it is still a superior system to a controlled economy when things always go wrong. And if you limit ''overconnecting of TNCs'' then someone has to decide what connections are allowed, which means a controlled economy.

i quoted glattfelder’s global anti-trust recommendations to highlight just how powerful and interconnected the global banking cartel is. i’m not advocating another supranational economic governing body to regulate business, and whether it’s the eu, nau, un, nwo, imf, world bank, etc., i strongly oppose all forms of globalization and unified currency that seek to strip away national sovereignty/identity and appoint unelected leaders.

beyond that, you and i have a fundamentally different view of history. i believe major world events such as wars, depressions, revolutions, etc. are planned and orchestrated by global elites to further consolidate their money power and achieve total control (i.e. new world order (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYZksdzVxic&feature=plcp)). historical events happen for a reason and are known to those in power, but they hide the real agenda and convince the masses that the conspiracy doesn’t exist. they’re successful because moral human beings can't fathom the idea that their leaders would intentionally create incredibly destructive acts against their fellow man.

"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, it was planned that way."
-FDR

"The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes."
-Benjamin Disraeli

buddyholly
10-15-2012, 04:51 AM
“The first report concludes that wealth attracts wealth and this is natural.”

“The second report is academic gobbledeygook.”

“because this is the conclusion of the first report you linked.”





beyond that, you and i have a fundamentally different view of history. i believe major world events such as wars, depressions, revolutions, etc. are planned and orchestrated by global elites to further consolidate their money power and achieve total control (i.e. new world order (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYZksdzVxic&feature=plcp)). historical events happen for a reason and are known to those in power, but they hide the real agenda and convince the masses that the conspiracy doesn’t exist. they’re successful because moral human beings can't fathom the idea that their leaders would intentionally create incredibly destructive acts against their fellow man.



OK, so I didn't say there was more than one study. I thought you were trying to differentiate between a study (original research) and a report (news article). Now I don't know why you deny that you gave two links.

And yes, we do have a fundamentally different view of history. You seem to have got your view from reading 1984 and watching conspiracy theory youtube clips.

Oh wait, ..............I just checked that youtube video you linked (new world order) and it is a talk by some nutcase in Manitoba about how all past and future history is ALREADY PROPHESIZED in the bible. We are even more than fundamentally opposed then, if that is possible. I can't really talk to someone who believes world history is to be found in the bible.

I was puzzled as to why it claimed to be a 6000 year study of secret societies - then I realized, oh yeah, the world began 6000 years ago, so this is a study of the entire history of the world, no less.

And all this now boils down to you having to blame the banking industry for everything, because you imagine the bible told you so and you have to make everything in the real world fit some ancient work of fiction.! What I could never understand is why the bible could not have saved all the speculation and misinterpretation if it wanted to prophesize a world war in 1939 by just saying that there will be a world war in 1939. Why couldn't your god just say what he meant in plain English instead of all the gobbledeygook?

fast_clay
10-15-2012, 06:17 AM
the winners write history until the revolution when people still continue to want to know about the same old thing...truth...or is it power...never can tell...

don't worry about buddyholly, his perspective is a bit special...

allpro
10-15-2012, 07:06 AM
OK, so I didn't say there was more than one study. I thought you were trying to differentiate between a study (original research) and a report (news article). Now I don't know why you deny that you gave two links.

And yes, we do have a fundamentally different view of history. You seem to have got your view from reading 1984 and watching conspiracy theory youtube clips.

Oh wait, ..............I just checked that youtube video you linked (new world order) and it is a talk by some nutcase in Manitoba about how all past and future history is ALREADY PROPHESIZED in the bible. We are even more than fundamentally opposed then, if that is possible. I can't really talk to someone who believes world history is to be found in the bible.

I was puzzled as to why it claimed to be a 6000 year study of secret societies - then I realized, oh yeah, the world began 6000 years ago, so this is a study of the entire history of the world, no less.

And all this now boils down to you having to blame the banking industry for everything, because you imagine the bible told you so and you have to make everything in the real world fit some ancient work of fiction.! What I could never understand is why the bible could not have saved all the speculation and misinterpretation if it wanted to prophesize a world war in 1939 by just saying that there will be a world war in 1939. Why couldn't your god just say what he meant in plain English instead of all the gobbledeygook?

relax, buddy. i’m not here to proselytize and i posted that video because it presents the historical record (using source documents) in a clear, concise manner. if the mere mention of christianity upsets you that much, check out carroll quigley’s landmark work tragedy and hope (http://archive.org/stream/TragedyAndHope_501/CarrollQuigley-TragedyAndHope_djvu.txt).

don't worry about buddyholly, his perspective is a bit special...
special needs, that is. the dude's a total clown.

buddyholly
10-15-2012, 01:26 PM
relax, buddy. i’m not here to proselytize and i posted that video because it presents the historical record (using source documents) in a clear, concise manner. if the mere mention of christianity upsets you that much, check out carroll quigley’s landmark work tragedy and hope (http://archive.org/stream/TragedyAndHope_501/CarrollQuigley-TragedyAndHope_djvu.txt).



The mere mention of Christianity doesn't upset me, but when one side of an argument is based on biblical writings then I see no point in continuing with it, because until the issue of whether biblical writings have any validity is settled, the argument can not begin. If I used the writings of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as the basis of my argument you would no doubt call me crazy. Yet they would have as much validity as the writings you purport to use - namely, NONE.

buddyholly
10-15-2012, 01:27 PM
relax, buddy. i’m not here to proselytize and i posted that video because it presents the historical record (using source documents) in a clear, concise manner. if the mere mention of christianity upsets you that much, check out carroll quigley’s landmark work tragedy and hope (http://archive.org/stream/TragedyAndHope_501/CarrollQuigley-TragedyAndHope_djvu.txt).


special needs, that is. the dude's a total clown.

Because I don't have an imaginary friend, I suppose. When an argument runs out of steam, ignore the argument and resort to calling your opponent a clown. Pathetic and puerile.

You may or may not have noticed that while people like fast clay enjoy taking digs at me, they are careful to not actually admit credence of your crackpot views.

Jverweij
10-16-2012, 11:12 AM
The first report concludes that wealth attracts wealth and this is natural. There is no conspiracy. And I think all of these companies are publically owned. So in reality the public controls everything.
The second report is academic gobbledeygook. Just read the last paragraph. Totally meaningless jargon.

I see it has been named for me. Nobody is talking about a conspiracy. This is just the way our system works. Just saying that if you think either the politicians or the people are in control, you are deluding yourself. Money talks, money decides.

EDIT: It would appear people here ARE talking about a conspiracy.. I would like to distance myself from that. Until evidence proves otherwise, all conspiracy theories are complete and utter fiction. I'm fine with people pursuing them though.

Topspinfetishist
10-21-2012, 04:24 PM
As many of you may know, Salt Lake City, Utah, is the Mecca of the Mormon religion, and Mitt Romney is a Mormon. However, the Salt Lake Tribune has just endorsed Barack Obama over Mitt Romney for president. This Op-Ed makes the best, most concise, case that I've seen why Obama should be re-elected, and why Romney doesn't deserve to be president. If you agree, PASS IT ON.

Link to original: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/55019844-82/romney-obama-state-president.html.csp

Tribune Endorsement: Too Many Mitts

Obama has earned another term

First Published Oct 19 2012 12:13 pm • Updated 3 hours ago

Nowhere has Mitt Romney’s pursuit of the presidency been more warmly welcomed or closely followed than here in Utah. The Republican nominee’s political and religious pedigrees, his adeptly bipartisan governorship of a Democratic state, and his head for business and the bottom line all inspire admiration and hope in our largely Mormon, Republican, business-friendly state.

But it was Romney’s singular role in rescuing Utah’s organization of the 2002 Olympics from a cesspool of scandal, and his oversight of the most successful Winter Games on record, that make him the Beehive State’s favorite adopted son. After all, Romney managed to save the state from ignominy, turning the extravaganza into a showcase for the matchless landscapes, volunteerism and efficiency that told the world what is best and most beautiful about Utah and its people.

In short, this is the Mitt Romney we knew, or thought we knew, as one of us.

Sadly, it is not the only Romney, as his campaign for the White House has made abundantly clear, first in his servile courtship of the tea party in order to win the nomination, and now as the party’s shape-shifting nominee. From his embrace of the party’s radical right wing, to subsequent portrayals of himself as a moderate champion of the middle class, Romney has raised the most frequently asked question of the campaign: "Who is this guy, really, and what in the world does he truly believe?"

The evidence suggests no clear answer, or at least one that would survive Romney’s next speech or sound bite. Politicians routinely tailor their words to suit an audience. Romney, though, is shameless, lavishing vastly diverse audiences with words, any words, they would trade their votes to hear.

More troubling, Romney has repeatedly refused to share specifics of his radical plan to simultaneously reduce the debt, get rid of Obamacare (or, as he now says, only part of it), make a voucher program of Medicare, slash taxes and spending, and thereby create millions of new jobs. To claim, as Romney does, that he would offset his tax and spending cuts (except for billions more for the military) by doing away with tax deductions and exemptions is utterly meaningless without identifying which and how many would get the ax. Absent those specifics, his promise of a balanced budget simply does not pencil out.

If this portrait of a Romney willing to say anything to get elected seems harsh, we need only revisit his branding of 47 percent of Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, yet feel victimized and entitled to government assistance. His job, he told a group of wealthy donors, "is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Where, we ask, is the pragmatic, inclusive Romney, the Massachusetts governor who left the state with a model health care plan in place, the Romney who led Utah to Olympic glory? That Romney skedaddled and is nowhere to be found.

And what of the president Romney would replace? For four years, President Barack Obama has attempted, with varying degrees of success, to pull the nation out of its worst financial meltdown since the Great Depression, a deepening crisis he inherited the day he took office.

In the first months of his presidency, Obama acted decisively to stimulate the economy. His leadership was essential to passage of the badly needed American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Though Republicans criticize the stimulus for failing to create jobs, it clearly helped stop the hemorrhaging of public sector jobs. The Utah Legislature used hundreds of millions in stimulus funds to plug holes in the state’s budget.

The president also acted wisely to bail out the auto industry, which has since come roaring back. Romney, in so many words, said the carmakers should sink if they can’t swim.

Obama’s most noteworthy achievement, passage of his signature Affordable Care Act, also proved, in its timing, his greatest blunder. The set of comprehensive health insurance reforms aimed at extending health care coverage to all Americans was signed 14 months into his term after a ferocious fight in Congress that sapped the new president’s political capital and destroyed any chance for bipartisan cooperation on the shredded economy.

Obama’s foreign policy record is perhaps his strongest suit, especially compared to Romney’s bellicose posture toward Russia and China and his inflammatory rhetoric regarding Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Obama’s measured reliance on tough economic embargoes to bring Iran to heel, and his equally measured disengagement from the war in Afghanistan, are examples of a nuanced approach to international affairs. The glaring exception, still unfolding, was the administration’s failure to protect the lives of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, and to quickly come clean about it.

In considering which candidate to endorse, The Salt Lake Tribune editorial board had hoped that Romney would exhibit the same talents for organization, pragmatic problem solving and inspired leadership that he displayed here more than a decade ago. Instead, we have watched him morph into a friend of the far right, then tack toward the center with breathtaking aplomb. Through a pair of presidential debates, Romney’s domestic agenda remains bereft of detail and worthy of mistrust.

Therefore, our endorsement must go to the incumbent, a competent leader who, against tough odds, has guided the country through catastrophe and set a course that, while rocky, is pointing toward a brighter day. The president has earned a second term. Romney, in whatever guise, does not deserve a first.

buddyholly
10-21-2012, 04:46 PM
The Tribune endorsed Obama in 2008 and McCain won by a landslide, almost 2-1.

So, if history is a guide, this is good news for Romney. Being a Mormon, he might win 3-1 this time around.

Just saying!

Har-Tru
10-21-2012, 05:41 PM
Not even the most reputable polling firms are conducting polls in Utah. They seem to think, very rightly, it would be a waste of time and resources.

Topspinfetishist
10-21-2012, 06:00 PM
None of that is the point. The point is that, of all daily newspapers, The Salt Lake Tribune editorial board has laid out, in the most concise terms, the best case for Obama and against Romney. The art of compelling concision is a rare attribute. If you agree, then you should take advantage of their communicative skills and pass it on.

buddyholly
10-21-2012, 06:03 PM
None of that is the point. The point is that, of all daily newspapers, The Salt Lake Tribune has laid out, in the most concise terms, the best case for Obama and against Romney.

If Mormonism is not the point, then why is a repeat of their 2008 endorsement of Obama shocking to you? The thread title hoists you on your own petard, I'm afraid. What prompted you to think the Tribune would switch horses this time around, if not Mormonism?

Why did you not choose as a title, "Tribune Endorses Obama Again. No Surprise."

Topspinfetishist
10-21-2012, 06:19 PM
If Mormonism is not the point, then why is a repeat of their 2008 endorsement of Obama shocking to you? The thread title hoists you on your own petard, I'm afraid. What prompted you to think the Tribune would switch horses this time around, if not Mormonism?

Why did you not choose as a title, "Tribune Endorses Obama Again. No Surprise."

Mormonism is part of the point. I didn't say it wasn't. What happens in the rest of Utah is not the point.

buddyholly
10-21-2012, 06:23 PM
Mormonism is part of the point. I didn't say it wasn't. What happens in the rest of Utah is not the point.

None of what is the point then? You said none of that is the point, in reply to Har-Tru and I posting about Mormonism in Utah. When somone says ''none of that'' most people assume that means there are no parts.

I mean, even your opening line informs us that the point of this thread is about Mormonism in Utah first, and the Tribune's endorsement in the light of that fact.

I repeat, what shocked you?

Topspinfetishist
10-21-2012, 06:53 PM
None of what is the point then? You said none of that is the point, in reply to Har-Tru and I posting about Mormonism in Utah. When somone says ''none of that'' most people assume that means there are no parts.

I mean, even your opening line informs us that the point of this thread is about Mormonism in Utah first, and the Tribune's endorsement in the light of that fact.

I repeat, what shocked you?

Your point was that The Salt Lake Tribune endorsed Obama in 2008 and he still lost in Utah by 2:1, and that, because Romney is a Mormon, he is likely to lose in Utah by 3:1. Har-Tru's post about polling in Utah is even more inapposite.

The point of my posting this op-ed (both express and implied), has nothing to do with how well Obama will do in Utah. Rather, it is that a conservative newspaper, from a Mormon community, has set out the best argument I've seen yet why Obama deserves another term and why Romney does not deserve to be president at all. The fact that The Salt Lake Tribune is a conservative newspaper, from a Mormon community, serves to lend credibility to their opinion since their position is in opposition to the interests of one of their own.

buddyholly
10-21-2012, 07:31 PM
The point of my posting this op-ed (both express and implied), has nothing to do with how well Obama will do in Utah. Rather, it is that a conservative newspaper, from a Mormon community, has set out the best argument I've seen yet why Obama deserves another term and why Romney does not deserve to be president at all. The fact that The Salt Lake Tribune is a conservative newspaper, from a Mormon community, serves to lend credibility to their opinion since their position is in opposition to the interests of one of their own.

It endorsed Obama last time and in Salt Lake he beat McCain. So there is no political shock that I can see. And you say that the paper is conservative, yet all the references I can find say that the editorial board of the paper is Liberal. So I think you just made a wrong assumption there, based on your ''idea'' of what the paper must be.
Salt Lake City is less than 50% Mormon by population and the paper is not owned in Salt Lake City, so Romney is not at all one of their own.

So really, the only shock here is your attempt at a shock title for your thread.

Topspinfetishist
10-21-2012, 08:09 PM
It endorsed Obama last time and in Salt Lake he beat McCain. So there is no political shock that I can see. And you say that the paper is conservative, yet all the references I can find say that the editorial board of the paper is Liberal. So I think you just made a wrong assumption there, based on your ''idea'' of what the paper must be.
Salt Lake City is less than 50% Mormon by population and the paper is not owned in Salt Lake City, so Romney is not at all one of their own.

So really, the only shock here is your attempt at a shock title for your thread.

Utah is 70% Mormon, SLC is 50% Mormon. Utah votes republican by the largest margin of any state. Utah is the most conservative, republican, state in the U.S., and Salt Lake City, founded by the Mormons to be a Mormon community and sanctuary from persecution by other christians, is the capital of Utah, and the influence of Mormons on both state and local politics is both overhwelming and undeniable.

I submit that it is axiomatic that the endorsement of the largest newspaper in the captital city of the most conservative, republican, Mormon, state in the U.S., in favor of a liberal leaning, Democratic incombant president, over a conservative, republican, Mormon, candidate, is, ipso facto, shocking.

Your numerous attempts to divert attention from the point of the article - that Obama deserves another term, and that Romney does not, with all manner of subterfuge and non-sequiturs - including trying to focus on the title of this thread rather than the substance of the article - serve only to reveal your political biases. You are from Lubbock, Texas after all.

buddyholly
10-21-2012, 08:18 PM
Utah is 70% Mormon, SLC is 50% Mormon. Utah is the most conservative, republican, state in the U.S., and Salt Lake City, founded by the Mormons to be a Mormon community and sanctuary from persecution by other christians, is the capital of Utah, and the influence of Mormons on both state and local politics is both overhwelming and undeniable.

I submit that it is axiomatic that the endorsement of the largest newspaper in the captital city of the most conservative, republican, Mormon, state in the U.S., in favor of a liberal leaning, Democratic incombant president, over a conservative, republican, Mormon, candidate, is, ipso facto, shocking.


The Liberal Salt Lake Tribune endorsed Obama, not the Republican Mormon state of Utah. I submit that the fact that a Liberal newspaper endorsed the same Liberal candidate as they endorsed four years ago is ipso facto, somewhat routine.

But if you think I am from Lubbock, Texas, then I have shocking news for you.

Topspinfetishist
10-21-2012, 08:41 PM
The Liberal Salt Lake Tribune endorsed Obama, not the Republican Mormon state of Utah. I submit that the fact that a Liberal newspaper endorsed the same Liberal candidate as they endorsed four years ago is ipso facto, somewhat routine.

But if you think I am from Lubbock, Texas, then I have shocking news for you.

If the Salt Lake Tribune is "liberal" then why is it the largest selling newspaper in the capital city of the most conservative, republican, Mormon, state in the U.S.? It might not have been shocking that it endorsed Obama over a bumbling, blathering fool like John McCain. But, Romney is a devout Mormon, whose mother was born in SLC, Romney himself went to college in SLC, he met his wife and married her in SLC, and he rescued the foundering Winter Olympics in SLC. And yet, the largest selling daily newspaper in SLC endorsed his opponent on explicit substantive grounds.

[crickets]

I also notice that after 5 posts trying to derail the point of this thread and the article, you have yet to address a single substantive fact cited in the article, Mr. Lubbock, Texas.

buddyholly
10-21-2012, 10:28 PM
If the Salt Lake Tribune is "liberal" then why is it the largest selling newspaper in the capital city of the most conservative, republican, Mormon, state in the U.S.?

[crickets]

I also notice that after 5 posts trying to derail the point of this thread and the article, you have yet to address a single substantive fact cited in the article, Mr. Lubbock, Texas.

Simply put, the Salt Lake Tribune is liberal because its editorial policy is liberal.

You need to stop being unable to differentiate between the state and the city. You are stuck in your own percieved truth that everybody in Salt Lake is conservative, republican and Mormon. Salt Lake voted marginally for Obama in the last election, so the conservative, republican label does not seem to apply. Salt Lake is less than 50% Mormon and it is estimated that even of the people identifying themselves as Mormon, less than half follow the church. So the Mormon label is misleading.

I have not even read the article. I am not interested in the substantive facts in the article. They have nothing to do with whether or not the endorsment is shocking. If you had titled your thread ''Liberal Newspaper Endorses Obama Again'' I probably would not have opened it.

Topspinfetishist
10-22-2012, 02:44 AM
Simply put, the Salt Lake Tribune is liberal because its editorial policy is liberal.

You need to stop being unable to differentiate between the state and the city. You are stuck in your own percieved truth that everybody in Salt Lake is conservative, republican and Mormon. Salt Lake voted marginally for Obama in the last election, so the conservative, republican label does not seem to apply. Salt Lake is less than 50% Mormon and it is estimated that even of the people identifying themselves as Mormon, less than half follow the church. So the Mormon label is misleading.

I have not even read the article. I am not interested in the substantive facts in the article. They have nothing to do with whether or not the endorsment is shocking. If you had titled your thread ''Liberal Newspaper Endorses Obama Again'' I probably would not have opened it.

Whether or not the endorsement is shocking is irrelevant to the point of this thread. The substantive grounds why Obama deserves another term and Romney does not deserve a first term, is the point of the article and this thread. If you have not read the article, then you are a troll with nothing of value to add to this thread, and your sole purpose is to derail and sidetrack substantive discussion of the issues.

Further, unless you work for the Salt Lake Tribune, you have no knowledge of their editorial policies. Like the republican you are, you just make it up as you go along. I submit that, perhaps, they are merely one of the rare, conservative, republican, newspapers that rejects the daily talking points propaganda of the corporate, fascist, republican owned main stream media and their bobble head villagers, and rather, elects to deal in the truth - something that seems to be of little value to you.

buddyholly
10-22-2012, 03:41 AM
Further, unless you work for the Salt Lake Tribune, you have no knowledge of their editorial policies. Like the republican you are, you just make it up as you go along. I submit that, perhaps, they are merely one of the rare, conservative, republican, newspapers that rejects the daily talking points propaganda of the corporate, fascist, republican owned main stream media and their bobble head villagers, and rather, elects to deal in the truth - something that seems to be of little value to you.

Why do you get personal when you are stuck? I am not even American, much less Republican. Why do you say ''perhaps''? They publish every day. Yet, after ridiculing me for making stuff up, you immediately continue by making up for yourself what their editorial policy ''perhaps'' might be, based on a single editorial.

It is a simple matter to quickly check the internet to find a newspaper's editorial policy. Since they publish an editorial every day, a rhesus monkey could figure out their editorial policy in a week. Clearly you didn't do your homework.

PS Maybe you haven't noticed that without my interest, this thread is going nowhere. Nobody seems to care.

abraxas21
10-22-2012, 04:42 AM
i initially thought BH was a republican sympathizer but with little time i realized he probably considers the american republican party too lefty for his liking.

Topspinfetishist
10-22-2012, 06:18 AM
If find this to be a compelling case against the Etch-a-Sketch candidate:

"Sadly, it is not the only Romney, as his campaign for the White House has made abundantly clear, first in his servile courtship of the tea party in order to win the nomination, and now as the party’s shape-shifting nominee. From his embrace of the party’s radical right wing, to subsequent portrayals of himself as a moderate champion of the middle class, Romney has raised the most frequently asked question of the campaign: "Who is this guy, really, and what in the world does he truly believe?"

"The evidence suggests no clear answer, or at least one that would survive Romney’s next speech or sound bite. Politicians routinely tailor their words to suit an audience. Romney, though, is shameless, lavishing vastly diverse audiences with words, any words, they would trade their votes to hear.

"More troubling, Romney has repeatedly refused to share specifics of his radical plan to simultaneously reduce the debt, get rid of Obamacare (or, as he now says, only part of it), make a voucher program of Medicare, slash taxes and spending, and thereby create millions of new jobs. To claim, as Romney does, that he would offset his tax and spending cuts (except for billions more for the military) by doing away with tax deductions and exemptions is utterly meaningless without identifying which and how many would get the ax. Absent those specifics, his promise of a balanced budget simply does not pencil out.

"If this portrait of a Romney willing to say anything to get elected seems harsh, we need only revisit his branding of 47 percent of Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, yet feel victimized and entitled to government assistance. His job, he told a group of wealthy donors, "is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

"Where, we ask, is the pragmatic, inclusive Romney, the Massachusetts governor who left the state with a model health care plan in place, the Romney who led Utah to Olympic glory? That Romney skedaddled and is nowhere to be found."

************************************************

The answer is, he doesn't exist. Romney is a chameleon who will say anything to anyone to get a vote. The question is begged, why does a capitalist exploiter like Mitt Romney seek a relatively low paying public office? I submit that Romney, like the Bush family, seeks public office for the opportunity to exploit the public trust for private gain. He has no interest in public service, only in self service. It wouldn't surprise me to know that Romney has already heavily invested in war contractors like Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, et al. If Romney can find his way to the White House, the U.S. will be in a new war shortly thereafter.

buddyholly
10-22-2012, 01:19 PM
Wow, who censored a bunch of posts in this thread about the correct use of ''your'' and ''you're''? This place is turning into some kind of socialist Gulag. Somebody must have paid someone off to remove all the posts he found embarrassing. Sort of like Obama trying to cover up the Benghazi scandal.

Topspinfetishist
10-22-2012, 04:29 PM
Hmmm! It seems that my thread about the Salt Lake Tribune endorsement of Obama has been merged with the numerous irrelevant non-sequiturs deleted. Well done, moderators.

I am also quite pleased with The Salt Lake Tribune's concise and HONEST assessment of Obama's first term as president of the United States, a rare demonstration of journalistic independence and integrity in the age of consolidated, corporate controlled, fascist, talking points, main stream media.

BRAVO SLT:

************************************************

"And what of the president Romney would replace? For four years, President Barack Obama has attempted, with varying degrees of success, to pull the nation out of its worst financial meltdown since the Great Depression, a deepening crisis he inherited the day he took office.

"In the first months of his presidency, Obama acted decisively to stimulate the economy. His leadership was essential to passage of the badly needed American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Though Republicans criticize the stimulus for failing to create jobs, it clearly helped stop the hemorrhaging of public sector jobs. The Utah Legislature used hundreds of millions in stimulus funds to plug holes in the state’s budget.

"The president also acted wisely to bail out the auto industry, which has since come roaring back. Romney, in so many words, said the carmakers should sink if they can’t swim.

"Obama’s most noteworthy achievement, passage of his signature Affordable Care Act, also proved, in its timing, his greatest blunder. The set of comprehensive health insurance reforms aimed at extending health care coverage to all Americans was signed 14 months into his term after a ferocious fight in Congress that sapped the new president’s political capital and destroyed any chance for bipartisan cooperation on the shredded economy.

"Obama’s foreign policy record is perhaps his strongest suit, especially compared to Romney’s bellicose posture toward Russia and China and his inflammatory rhetoric regarding Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Obama’s measured reliance on tough economic embargoes to bring Iran to heel, and his equally measured disengagement from the war in Afghanistan, are examples of a nuanced approach to international affairs. The glaring exception, still unfolding, was the administration’s failure to protect the lives of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, and to quickly come clean about it."

************************************************** ********

Magnificently stated.

Filo V.
10-22-2012, 06:01 PM
Foreign policy debate tonight. Obama's strategy is to make Romney look extreme. Romney wants to make Obama look incompetent and tie things back to the economy. Should be very interesting.

Jimnik
10-22-2012, 07:27 PM
Glad foreign policy is finally brought up but there's a reason it was almost left out of the first two debates. These days Americans are worried about jobs, not terrorist or nuclear threats. Surely even Romney has to let go trying to big up the military.

Topspinfetishist
10-22-2012, 07:41 PM
Glad foreign policy is finally brought up but there's a reason it was almost left out of the first two debates. These days Americans are worried about jobs, not terrorist or nuclear threats. Surely even Romney has to let go trying to big up the military.

Perhaps you missed one of my commentaries to the Salt Lake Tribune endorsement of Obama. I'll reproduce it for you below. I'm guessing Romney already has a vested interest in war, just in case he wins:

The answer is, he doesn't exist. Romney is a chameleon who will say anything to anyone to get a vote. The question is begged, why does a capitalist exploiter like Mitt Romney seek a relatively low paying public office? I submit that Romney, like the Bush family, seeks public office for the opportunity to exploit the public trust for private gain. He has no interest in public service, only in self service. It wouldn't surprise me to know that Romney has already heavily invested in war contractors like Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, et al. If Romney can find his way to the White House, the U.S. will be in a new war shortly thereafter.

Punky
10-22-2012, 07:44 PM
i was sure obama has this easily but now i'm not sure..

Tommy_Vercetti
10-22-2012, 08:23 PM
He might lose the popular vote, but his people are too good at finding votes in close elections. I don't think there's a chance he'll lose.

Looner
10-22-2012, 08:29 PM
Shame I can't watch this or rather will refuse to as it's on far too late here (starts at 2am).

Topspinfetishist
10-22-2012, 09:04 PM
He might lose the popular vote, but his people are too good at finding votes in close elections. I don't think there's a chance he'll lose.

If it's close, Obama has no chance. In 2004, an estimated 5 million+ voters were either denied the right to vote altogether, or were forced to cast a provisional ballots that were not counted. This year, in addition to the usual tactics such as black box (paperless), voting machine tampering (ie: Deibold), sending out voter registrations with the wrong election date on the Spanish side, etc., etc., almost half of the states (with republican governors), have passed voter suppression laws, intended to make it difficult for the poor and minorities to vote who typically vote Democratic, in an attempt to steal another national election.

Tommy_Vercetti
10-22-2012, 09:12 PM
That is such complete conspiracy bs. You're the reason I don't believe in democracy. That's Nation of Islam propaganda crap there.

The dead vote 100% for Democrats, as do people who vote 50 times. Ohio, Florida in particular will have a lot of people come out of the grave for Obama.

Al Franken was elected by the dead and by "finding votes" after the election was over. If it's close, they will take every battleground state.

buddyholly
10-22-2012, 09:27 PM
i initially thought BH was a republican sympathizer but with little time i realized he probably considers the american republican party too lefty for his liking.

Are you writing a doctoral thesis on me? You sure do a lot of research.

TigerTim
10-22-2012, 09:29 PM
Shame I can't watch this or rather will refuse to as it's on far too late here (starts at 2am).

takeaway pizza + shots for the drinking game = fun :D

Looner
10-23-2012, 02:07 AM
So ended up watching :/. Anyone else?

Topspindoctor
10-23-2012, 02:49 AM
I can't seem to understand why people outside US care about yank presidential elections.

Sham Kay
10-23-2012, 02:53 AM
It's a free cure for insomnia

Looner
10-23-2012, 03:06 AM
I can't seem to understand why people outside US care about yank presidential elections.

It's a free show :shrug:.

Sham Kay
10-23-2012, 03:13 AM
Pretty predictable stuff. America is the no.1 nation, and everyone better listen to us.

I've heard "we have to kill the bad guys" at least five times. Such quality debating.

Filo V.
10-23-2012, 03:14 AM
Romney keeps agreeing with Obama's policies.

Sham Kay
10-23-2012, 03:15 AM
But no Obama care *sob*

Pirata.
10-23-2012, 03:16 AM
"Mr. President, America has not dictated to other nations. We have freed them from dictators."

Willard.

Filo V.
10-23-2012, 03:19 AM
Romney is stuttering A LOT. Very weak performance. Basically repeating what Obama says.

Filo V.
10-23-2012, 03:21 AM
"Mr. President, America has not dictated to other nations. We have freed them from dictators."

Willard.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbu078JJWX1rioycbo1_400.gif

buddyholly
10-23-2012, 03:37 AM
Romney keeps agreeing with Obama's policies.
Or you could say Obama has the same ideas as Romney.

Pirata.
10-23-2012, 03:40 AM
Barack Federer def. Willard Murray 0-6, 6-4, 6-1

Filo V.
10-23-2012, 03:41 AM
That was a mediocre debate. Poor performance from Romney, but he did well at the end, attacking Obama's economic record. That's his ace in the hole. He has nothing else at his disposal.

Filo V.
10-23-2012, 03:43 AM
Or you could say Obama has the same ideas as Romney.Obama is the president.

Filo V.
10-23-2012, 03:44 AM
Saying "I agree with the president" 50 times is not a winning strategy.

emotion
10-23-2012, 03:44 AM
Good debate for Obama. Or, as always in this campaign between 2 poor debaters, bad for Romney (Though VP debate was a work of art, especially from Biden).
Still, good result

J99
10-23-2012, 03:45 AM
Saying "I agree with the president" 50 times is not a winning strategy.

Or is it...

Looner
10-23-2012, 03:45 AM
Lol at the ABC editor saying Romney won :facepalm:. Best thing about Romney is his smirk.

http://i877.photobucket.com/albums/ab336/AntienElessar/120531_romney_smile_605_ap.jpg

emotion
10-23-2012, 04:13 AM
CBS News ‏@CBSNews

BREAKING: CBS NEWS INSTANT POLL Who won the #Debate? OBAMA: 53%; ROMNEY: 23%, TIE: 24% (Margin of Error: 4%; Sample Size: 521)

abraxas21
10-23-2012, 04:45 AM
I can't seem to understand why people outside US care about yank presidential elections.

because american home and foreign policy affects the rest of the world more than any other country on earth?

Filo V.
10-23-2012, 04:48 AM
Obama won every instant poll. CNN poll, which is overrepresented by Republicans and Independents, +8 Obama. ABC, almost +40 for Obama. PPP poll, +11 Obama in swing states.

But this was a foreign policy debate, so the question is if Obama's wins these past two debates can reverse or at least recoup some of the damage done after debate #1. We'll see.

Jimnik
10-23-2012, 04:55 AM
Barack Federer def. Willard Murray 0-6, 6-4, 6-1
Only because they played on clay (the last set anyway).

Filo V.
10-23-2012, 04:59 AM
Romney played it safe, which was all he wanted to do. Not look extreme. Not scare people. But he didn't convince anyone to vote for him, either.

Jverweij
10-23-2012, 07:28 AM
This debate was boring as hell. Can't believe I stayed up for this. I've never seen a Republican and a Democrat agreeing on pretty much everything. Obama had to put words into Romney's mouth in order to distance himself from Romney :facepalm:

I get really tired of the holier than thou attitude from the American politicians btw. Constantly pretending like the world is their sandbox, and we all need them yadayada. Even when they are trying to be respectful towards other countries, they are actually being condenscending.

Henry Chinaski
10-23-2012, 08:10 AM
funny what passes for foreign policy "debate" in the usa.

actually it's not funny at all.

Topspinfetishist
10-23-2012, 04:42 PM
funny what passes for foreign policy "debate" in the usa.

actually it's not funny at all.

They didn't have General Electric's permission to discuss foreign policy in any detail. No doubt, had one of them ventured too close to any substantive remarks, Bob Shieffer would have had to pull out the Walther 9mm from under his seat and shoot the offender before anything significant was disclosed.

allpro
10-24-2012, 02:03 AM
no need to vote....looks like obama already won.

cbs affiliate KPHO in phoenix, 10-19-12
http://i.imgur.com/8V8c6.png
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze4TG4x31fc&hd=1


abc affiliate WCPO in cincinnati, 10-20-12
http://i.imgur.com/ROqCS.png
http://media2.wcpo.com/html/elections/elections.html

rocketassist
10-24-2012, 02:47 AM
This presidential election is gonna be like a slam final between Djokovic and someone like Troicki.

Obama in three easy sets.

Pirata.
10-24-2012, 05:27 PM
Only because they played on clay (the last set anyway).

First set on Shanghai-like hard courts, second on grass, third on clay :lol:

abraxas21
10-24-2012, 06:21 PM
This presidential election is gonna be like a slam final between Djokovic and someone like Troicki.

Obama in three easy sets.

are you also implying that romney will perform sexual favours on obama after the results come out?

abraxas21
10-24-2012, 06:22 PM
btw, do we know for sure romney is american and wasn't born in mexico? has he shown his birth certificate yet?

oh shit, i forgot, he's white

Topspinfetishist
10-24-2012, 06:55 PM
btw, do we know for sure romney is american and wasn't born in mexico? has he shown his birth certificate yet?

oh shit, i forgot, he's white

He's definitely got that slick back latin 'doo going on. A pencil thin moustache would seal the deal. Then he would be Meester Meet Rrrromney.

Pirata.
10-27-2012, 06:55 PM
http://www.isidewith.com/

Good website to see where you match up with the candidates on the issues. I got 90% Obama, 86% Jill Stein and 6% Romney :lol:

buddyholly
10-27-2012, 07:21 PM
I completely agree with Gary Johnson.

Which is probably why nobody knows who he is.

Jimnik
10-28-2012, 01:42 AM
Thanks for the link Pirata. :yeah:

http://imgs.isidewith.com/results-image/188367413.jpg

Absolutely spot on. :worship:

buddyholly
10-28-2012, 01:11 PM
They just gave British MP's a little math test.

A SHOCKING 47% of Tories (right wing) got it wrong. A not-so-shocking 77% of Labour (left wing) got it wrong. And the Greenies didn't answer because they don't believe exams are a good way to judge peoples' abilities.

Filo V.
10-29-2012, 04:32 AM
State to state and internal polls have the numbers looking like this:

Ohio=Slight lead to Obama but tightening. Now basically tied after Obama had a comfortable lead. But Obama has a major lead in early and absentee votes that may pull him through.

Colorado=Very even to slight lead for Obama. Gary Johnson could play a major factor in this state given there is an amendment for legalizing marijuana on the ballot. Latino vote is pushing lead for Obama.

Iowa=Lead for Obama but not a surefire win. Another state where Obama has the lead in early and absentee voting.

North Carolina=Almost assured win for Romney. Was even, but after the first debate, Romney surged ahead.

Virginia=Completely split 50-50. Slight lead to Obama at the most, but this is a state that will go down to the wire.

Florida=Both sides are effectively admitting that this is going to go to Romney, but the Latino vote may make this a surprise win for Obama.

New Hampshire=Lead for Obama, and a likely win.

Arizona=Was close at one point but now is comfortably a win for Romney.

Wisconsin=Lead for Obama, probably will win the state, but Romney has seen movement in this state and his team believes they can snatch this one. This is a state to watch for Romney supporters hoping he's gonna pull off the upset.

So that's where we're at right now. Ohio is super crucial as is Colorado. This election will almost definitely come down to those two states. And both states are totally in the balance. Given Obama has held a lead or tied with Romney throughout the entire election season and has the major early vote lead, he's the likely winner of the state, but it's not assured.

There are also a reported 90-100 million Americans who aren't going to vote, and the overwhelming majority of those are pro-Obama. So what this really is coming down to is, Obama has the advantages, but people are unhappy, dissatisfied, and apathetic. People are apathetic and as a result, we're seeing people either not voting or voting for Romney because they want change.

Romney theoretically should win this election, but he likely wont because he's not a credible candidate. This is basically shit vs. shit in the eyes of most.

buddyholly
11-02-2012, 12:04 AM
999 posts here and nobody put it as elegantly as little Abigail.

Seen the youtube video? Someone please post it here.

When asked why she started crying in the car while her mother was listening to public radio, she wailed, "I'm sick and tired of Bronco Bamma and Mitt Romney.''

Filo V.
11-02-2012, 12:17 AM
7ufkCzmR7PQ

Why they showed the same clip three times, I don't know, but I know millions are crying along with her.