When Mitt Romney becomes president.... *FLUX THREAD!*

[Heysaboda]

Give me your White House vision.
MR: I'd like it to be open and have people feel welcome there. I don't just mean touring it, but also come to the East Room and see a performance of some kind.

Like what?
MR: Well, I would certainly want to hear from the Beach Boys, even though I know it's not the same group it used to be.

http://www.parade.com/news/2012/08/26-conversation-with-the-romneys.html

Mitty may as well try again in 2016, when pigs fly out of Brooce (a-hole) Johnstone's budt

hardee hardee har har har

[Magic Transistor Radio]

  Obama has not earned a second term; Romney does not merit a first. Tired of the same old? Consider the quixotic campaign of Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson.

I don't want to tell you what to think, but wouldn't it be better if Ron Paul ran as the third candidate? With a libertarian, or constitution party member as the running mate?

Mate, its a two party system. Jesus Christ could run as an independent candidate and struggle in the US.

In this political climate, Jesus Christ would be considered way too liberal to win. 

Jesus on taxes, he would say "who's picture and name is on the $1 bill? Washington. Therefore give to Washington what is Washingtons. And give to God what is God's"

On war "Our fight is not against flesh and blood, but principalities and powers"

On the Beach Boys "Our Prayer is a good song, but Never Learn Not to Love was written by a follower of demons"

On the Beatles "Elenour Rigby was a Godly woman. But Lucy in the Sky was of the devil"

On Andrew G Doe "This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased. He knows all things"

[GreatUrduPoet]

  Obama has not earned a second term; Romney does not merit a first. Tired of the same old? Consider the quixotic campaign of Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson.

I don't want to tell you what to think, but wouldn't it be better if Ron Paul ran as the third candidate? With a libertarian, or constitution party member as the running mate?

Mate, its a two party system. Jesus Christ could run as an independent candidate and struggle in the US.

In this political climate, Jesus Christ would be considered way too liberal to win. 

I don't think that Jesus Christ advocated increasing GOVERNMENT control over individual wealth and personal liberty. Try again. 

[GreatUrduPoet]

Funny story about HOW Obama got into Harvard:

http://www.blablabla

Also interesting that EVERY SINGLE ONE of Obama's other academic records are all now sealed.
Of course John Kerry's military records are still sealed to the pubic as well...yes, even now in 2012,
EIGHT YEARS after his failed Presidential run.

Steve Stills: "Paranoia strikes deep..."

You forget that Stephen Stills was actually correct...the LAPD were indeed targeting 'longhairs' for harassment on the Sunset Strip.
Just because you feel paranoid doesn't mean that there isn't somebody out to do you harm.

[hypehat]

  Obama has not earned a second term; Romney does not merit a first. Tired of the same old? Consider the quixotic campaign of Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson.

I don't want to tell you what to think, but wouldn't it be better if Ron Paul ran as the third candidate? With a libertarian, or constitution party member as the running mate?

Mate, its a two party system. Jesus Christ could run as an independent candidate and struggle in the US.

In this political climate, Jesus Christ would be considered way too liberal to win. 

I don't think that Jesus Christ advocated increasing GOVERNMENT control over individual wealth and personal liberty. Try again. 

Sure he did! Jesus Christ = Son of God. God = ultimate authority, or 'government' if you will. Throwing money lenders out of the temple = curtailing individual wealth and personal liberty (and the small businesses beloved of rightwing anti-socialist rhetoric, no less) because it is not the will of God.


Which is to say, try not taking peoples jokes too seriously. Try again 

[Jason]

Johnson, as far as I'm concerned, has a particularly monstrous ideology and supports shifting power from the public to private tyrannies. He opposes Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. His Libertarianism also makes him anti-child labor laws, believing it would be fine to put 10 year olds to work for a few dollars an hour. These are heinous, barbaric, and dangerous views, in my opinion.

I hear that Gary Johnson drinks smoothies made from aborted foetuses and plans to burn all the clinically obese citizens for fuel.

You're right, 10 year olds should be paid an hourly wage.

Well, if they're working they should be paid right?

They shouldn't be working - that's what child labor laws are about, not about securing wages for children.

So basically children in third world countries should be condemned to death because sweatshops are "immoral"? $4 an hour is better than the usual going rates over there, you know.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Johnson, as far as I'm concerned, has a particularly monstrous ideology and supports shifting power from the public to private tyrannies. He opposes Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. His Libertarianism also makes him anti-child labor laws, believing it would be fine to put 10 year olds to work for a few dollars an hour. These are heinous, barbaric, and dangerous views, in my opinion.

I hear that Gary Johnson drinks smoothies made from aborted foetuses and plans to burn all the clinically obese citizens for fuel.

You're right, 10 year olds should be paid an hourly wage.

Well, if they're working they should be paid right?

They shouldn't be working - that's what child labor laws are about, not about securing wages for children.

So basically children in third world countries should be condemned to death because sweatshops are "immoral"? $4 an hour is better than the usual going rates over there, you know.

First of all, I was unaware that Gary Johnson's policies on child labor would have any effect on the child labor policies of third world countries.

Putting that aside, yes, if you are a moral person, you would be opposed to sweat shops in third world countries and you would also know that there are solutions available that don't involve condemning children to death. Since current sweatshops are often a consequence of countries following strict IMF and World Bank policies, one easy solution would be to stop following them. And, in fact, it's no surprise that you ultimately see these wretched labor conditions in countries that have had the free market shoved down their throats and places where the country has had to put aside nationalizing its resources in favor of opening up their markets for foreign use. You do away with that and let people embrace their own system, you're likely to see less of a need for sweatshops throughout the world - and there indeed was less of a need for them in these countries before they started liberalizing their economic system - and people working for "the usual going rates" in these countries that have suffered dramatically as a result of Western influence. But of course, someone like Gary Johnson would never admit to this because he very much supports the kind of system that inevitably leads to these wretched labor conditions, as does any other significant figure in the US libertarian movement.

[Jason]

Fair enough, but I don't see Americans wanting to pay $3000 for their XBox 360s and PlayStation 3s. Maybe the Appletards will pay $3000 for their iPhone/iPad/iPod nonsense, but they're just kids who live with their parents at the age of 40 anyway...

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Fair enough, but I don't see Americans wanting to pay $3000 for their XBox 360s and PlayStation 3s. Maybe the Appletards will pay $3000 for their iPhone/iPad/iPod nonsense, but they're just kids who live with their parents at the age of 40 anyway...

If that's the price of not exploiting people then so be it, but keep in mind that sweatshop labor does not happen so that manufacturers can lower retail price - it happens so that profits can grow larger.

[Jason]

Well, you can't have it both ways. But the cost of goods will always be relative to the cost of labor. Contrary to popular belief, capitalism makes things cheaper, not more expensive. If you want expensive goods, fine. But much of the rest of the world doesn't.

Of course, the liberal community (not referring to you, R&R) has BIG PROBLEMS with ideological consistency. Case in point...Apple liberals. "We hate big corporations exploiting children in third world countries...let's plan our next bongo jam via Twitter posted from our iPhones!"

[Chocolate Shake Man]

But the cost of goods will always be relative to the cost of labor.

Sort of. The cost of goods is a consequence not just of labor costs but also capital costs and also the rate of profit, which depends on some kind of knowledge of the surplus value.

Contrary to popular belief, capitalism makes things cheaper, not more expensive.

What would be cheapest would be to abolish capitalism and exchange commodities at a value rate rather than a price.

[Jason]

But the cost of goods will always be relative to the cost of labor.

Sort of. The cost of goods is a consequence not just of labor costs but also capital costs and also the rate of profit, which depends on some kind of knowledge of the surplus value.

Absolutely.

Contrary to popular belief, capitalism makes things cheaper, not more expensive.

What would be cheapest would be to abolish capitalism and exchange commodities at a value rate rather than a price.

Well, that's what capitalism is all about. The demands of the marketplace. Prices are not etched in stone. They fluctuate. Nothing is for certain. It all goes back to supply and demand. If people are going to go after businesses who make a product using cheap labor but refuse to stop patronizing those companies, there's a problem. I don't think there will ever be an instance where anyone operates a business without wanting to maximize profit. It's human nature.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

But the rate of profit is crucial - it means that the price of a product can remain the same while the cost of labor can alter drastically. Ultimately, the owner wants to get away with paying for as little for labor as possible in order to maximize profits, not to keep exchange value or price low.

Well, that's what capitalism is all about. The demands of the marketplace. Prices are not etched in stone. They fluctuate. Nothing is for certain. It all goes back to supply and demand.

No, capitalism is in no way about exchanging commodities at a value rate. In fact, the existence of capitalism depends on people confusing price with value. In a capitalist framework, one is supposed to forget the fact that commodities have a value. As I have noted before, value can’t be determined based on supply and demand. Supply and demand can cause prices to fluctuate around value but what gives a product value is the necessary labor time that went into it. This confusion between price and value is a consequence of capitalism and, in fact, conceals the very nature of how we create things and why. If we truly understood what made an item valuable, we would recognize the inherent exploitative nature of the capitalist economy.

I don't think there will ever be an instance where anyone operates a business without wanting to maximize profit. It's human nature.

How is it human nature? Within the United States, the first sentence is correct, because privately owned businesses are in many ways forced to maximize profit. In fact, the history suggests that this kind of economic is so anti-human nature that people had to be forced either by violence, threat of violence, or by laws to adhere to the principles that have today become so standard that people can actually get away with thinking that they are part of human nature.

[I. Spaceman]

The threat of violence IS human nature.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

The threat of violence IS human nature.

I'm not sure what that means.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

It's human nature to want to hurt others to get ahead. That's how I took it.

As for Gary Johnson...dude... completely misreading what he said concerning the child labor laws (back in April of 2011, mind you). He's not advocating sweat shops.

n a recent interview, Johnson has stated his desire to start loosening the country’s child labor laws, which, while continuing to protect minors, will also prevent the curtailing of the spirit of entrepreneurship among our youths.

Scott Keyes: Do you think it’s overreach or do you think it’s fair game to say, for instance, Mike Lee said that child labor laws are probably unconstitutional?

Gary Johnson: Back to unconstitutional. I think there are a lot of kids today, let’s say 13 year-olds, 10 year-olds, that have better knowledge of computers than a 70 year-old. And because of our child labor laws, you can’t pay one of those 10 year-olds, 13 year-olds for a few dollars an hour to help out the 70 year-old with their computer, their computer problems, which might exist if we didn’t have child labor laws.

Scott Keyes: So it might be better to rein in some of those child labor laws, if I’m hearing you correctly?

Gary Johnson: Well, by rein in, the unintended consequence of child labor laws is that we don’t have the entrepreneurial sense with our kids that perhaps existed when I was a 13 year-old, pitching papers and mowing lawns. If there weren’t any child labor laws and you could pay, I use the example of the kid fixing your computer for a couple dollars an hour, is that taking advantage of a child or is that giving a child a real motivation and an understanding of earning money and providing a good or a service? And then on the other side of that, besides child labor laws, there’s the whole notion of you retire and you can’t go back to work for the 75 year-old or the 80 year-old who still has contributions to make.

Scott Keyes: And bills to pay, certainly.

Gary Johnson: And bills to pay. But if all these labor laws were loosened up, you’d have that phenomenon that exists, in a good way.

That is completely different from advocating sweat shops. This will prevent idiocy like this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPKUUH7ytUo

[Chocolate Shake Man]

It's human nature to want to hurt others to get ahead. That's how I took it.

Yeah, well, human nature is simply a term that gets thrown around a lot. As far as I'm concerned you can preface just about anything with "It's human nature to" and it would all be equally convincing.

As for Gary Johnson...dude... completely misreading what he said concerning the child labor laws (back in April of 2011, mind you). He's not advocating sweat shops.

Look back. I never suggested that he advocated sweat shops. In fact, I suggested the exact opposite. After TRBB brought up sweatshops for the first time in this discussion, I said the following: "I was unaware that Gary Johnson's policies on child labor would have any effect on the child labor policies of third world countries." In fact, what I did say about Gary Johnson's policy on child labor bears a striking resemblance to the quotation you provided. Sweat shops have nothing to do with what Gary Johnson was talking about - I outright said as much. Nevertheless, what I also said is true - Gary Johnson does advocate for the kind of economic structure under which sweatshops typically flourish, but that is apart from his ideas on child labor, which are in and of themselves astoundingly ignorant or at least depend on other people being ignorant as to why child labor laws came into existence in the first place. Remember that with his little example of the 10 year old being paid to fix computers, he is not simply talking about helping out grandpa and getting some money from grandpa for a job well done. There's nothing illegal about that scenario and child labor laws have nothing to do with that nor could law be enforced in such a scenario. Same can be said for, say, a kid mowing the lawn for allowance money and newspaper routes. These things aren't breaking laws either even though he name checks both, a firm indication that he either doesn't know what the child labor laws are, or that he is being intentionally deceptive. What he's actually ultimately talking about are children being hired for wage labor and the only reason a child would be hired for wage labor is because they are cheap and easily exploitable - which is exactly the reason why they were used before labor laws came to be and is exactly the reason why they are still being used in countries with these "looser" laws that he's advocating. Since children may already mow laws, pitch newspapers, babysit, work in many businesses owned by their parents, etc., with the current child labor laws, exactly what kind of jobs do you think they will be doing after they "loosen" these laws? Again, Johnson's view demands an enormous historical blindspot and a real confusion over the law as it stands today.

That is completely different from advocating sweat shops. This will prevent idiocy like this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPKUUH7ytUo

No, it wouldn't. I agree that shutting down the lemonade stand is ridiculous. And the reason why it was shut down had exactly nothing to do with child labor laws so ultimately this example is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. There is certainly no child labor law that stands in the way of kids operating a lemonade stand.

I mean, seriously, is this what Gary Johnson is leading us to believe?

[Magic Transistor Radio]

I think capitalism is good. But what we have in the US right now is NOT free capitalism. Everyone should live under the same rules. Unfortunately, the wealthy class are in bed with the government. Democrats and republicans! There are billionaires that pay less taxes then I do at $30K. And the government insists on bailing out failing companies. If they fail, let them die. The market doesn't want your company anymore because it sucks. So go bankrupt and allow rising competitors flourish which the market deems worthy. Not who the government deems worthy!!

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I think capitalism is good. But what we have in the US right now is NOT free capitalism. Everyone should live under the same rules. Unfortunately, the wealthy class are in bed with the government. Democrats and republicans! There are billionaires that pay less taxes then I do at $30K. And the government insists on bailing out failing companies. If they fail, let them die. The market doesn't want your company anymore because it sucks. So go bankrupt and allow rising competitors flourish which the market deems worthy. Not who the government deems worthy!!

Amen

[hypehat]

To change this from our normal handwringing of GIVE A sh*t, MAN vs. LEAVE ME ALONE....


Did anyone watch Clinton last night? That was some top shelf oratory there.

[Cabinessenceking]

You know the guys would just totally take the gig, too.

I know that playing the White House is an honor, but I could see these guys welcoming in Romney at his inaugural, and it really flips my wig.  Sometimes, sometimes, I have these moments where I am pulled away from the art, where I just realize the total discrepancy between myself and these fellows.  Mind you, with most of the bands I love, I don't have this problem.  Ever.  Now I realize that every one of the band members live in a tax bracket I'm likely to never even sniff, and I'm sure that living one's life in abject luxury every day must have it's effect, but I honestly don't believe it's the money, per se (even with other acts as absurdly wealthy and successful as the Beach Boys that I enjoy - my beloved Beatles, for example - I don't have this issue), but man, the more I think about it, there's something that just rubs me the wrong way with some of the things I see and hear.  Though I do get a positive feeling, in this regard, from Brian and (very much) from Al, I just can't shake the feeling that the most relatable fellas in the band are the ones who are already gone.

The plus side is that the guys have been generous with thier musical output, and as far as I can tell, have taken some very positive steps over the past few years to give the fans what we want to hear (something the folks over at NIRVANA, LLC could stand to learn from), leading to things like my high hopes for Made in California. I really don't mean to bad-mouth anybody.  I know nobody's perfect.  I love the music.  I suppose I just feel that since some of the group have been millionaires for so long (with at least one never knowing finacial hard times at all), that they make it seen as though they are really out of touch with the common man.  Honestly, I'm not bitter, and I'm probably making a mountain out of a mole hill, but it just hits me sometimes.

Maybe I'm the only one.

Would you be saying all this if they played at the White House for the 'common man' Barack Obama?

At least the man has known a life without a father, and upbringing in impoverished Jakarta and yet he still made himself into the man he is today by perseverence and academic excellence (somehow he managed to get into Harvard from nowhere). The alternative, Mitt Romney comes from a wealthy family with a strong political history.

I find it funny that people would want to put Obama down as a out of touch, when he, like Bill, cam from nowhere and did it all. The republicans are far more dynastic.

Funny story about HOW Obama got into Harvard:

http://www.nevilleawards.com/obama_harvard.shtml

Also interesting that EVERY SINGLE ONE of Obama's other academic records are all now sealed.
Of course John Kerry's military records are still sealed to the pubic as well...yes, even now in 2012,
EIGHT YEARS after his failed Presidential run.

LOLOLO we have a muslim jihad conspiracy member on the board!!!!!











No, but that is fucking depressing that you even bothered commenting with such useless material T_T

[GreatUrduPoet]

You know the guys would just totally take the gig, too.

I know that playing the White House is an honor, but I could see these guys welcoming in Romney at his inaugural, and it really flips my wig.  Sometimes, sometimes, I have these moments where I am pulled away from the art, where I just realize the total discrepancy between myself and these fellows.  Mind you, with most of the bands I love, I don't have this problem.  Ever.  Now I realize that every one of the band members live in a tax bracket I'm likely to never even sniff, and I'm sure that living one's life in abject luxury every day must have it's effect, but I honestly don't believe it's the money, per se (even with other acts as absurdly wealthy and successful as the Beach Boys that I enjoy - my beloved Beatles, for example - I don't have this issue), but man, the more I think about it, there's something that just rubs me the wrong way with some of the things I see and hear.  Though I do get a positive feeling, in this regard, from Brian and (very much) from Al, I just can't shake the feeling that the most relatable fellas in the band are the ones who are already gone.

The plus side is that the guys have been generous with thier musical output, and as far as I can tell, have taken some very positive steps over the past few years to give the fans what we want to hear (something the folks over at NIRVANA, LLC could stand to learn from), leading to things like my high hopes for Made in California. I really don't mean to bad-mouth anybody.  I know nobody's perfect.  I love the music.  I suppose I just feel that since some of the group have been millionaires for so long (with at least one never knowing finacial hard times at all), that they make it seen as though they are really out of touch with the common man.  Honestly, I'm not bitter, and I'm probably making a mountain out of a mole hill, but it just hits me sometimes.

Maybe I'm the only one.

Would you be saying all this if they played at the White House for the 'common man' Barack Obama?

At least the man has known a life without a father, and upbringing in impoverished Jakarta and yet he still made himself into the man he is today by perseverence and academic excellence (somehow he managed to get into Harvard from nowhere). The alternative, Mitt Romney comes from a wealthy family with a strong political history.

I find it funny that people would want to put Obama down as a out of touch, when he, like Bill, cam from nowhere and did it all. The republicans are far more dynastic.

Funny story about HOW Obama got into Harvard:

http://www.nevilleawards.com/obama_harvard.shtml

Also interesting that EVERY SINGLE ONE of Obama's other academic records are all now sealed.
Of course John Kerry's military records are still sealed to the pubic as well...yes, even now in 2012,
EIGHT YEARS after his failed Presidential run.

LOLOLO we have a muslim jihad conspiracy member on the board!!!!!











No, but that is f***ing depressing that you even bothered commenting with such useless material T_T

That's right , soon-to-be Dhimi...nothing to see here. Horse-blinders are the hippest fashion accessory for both parties these days.

[GreatUrduPoet]

To change this from our normal handwringing of GIVE A sh*t, MAN vs. LEAVE ME ALONE....


Did anyone watch Clinton last night? That was some top shelf oratory there.

Bill hasn't lost his touch. That man could "talk the cigar right into the White House intern".

[GreatUrduPoet]

I think capitalism is good. But what we have in the US right now is NOT free capitalism. Everyone should live under the same rules. Unfortunately, the wealthy class are in bed with the government. Democrats and republicans! There are billionaires that pay less taxes then I do at $30K. And the government insists on bailing out failing companies. If they fail, let them die. The market doesn't want your company anymore because it sucks. So go bankrupt and allow rising competitors flourish which the market deems worthy. Not who the government deems worthy!!

Sarah Palin/Rand Paul 2016...I'm not mocking you, I'm dead serious.

[I. Spaceman]

The threat of violence IS human nature.

I'm not sure what that means.

Then you have so disappeared up your own theological existence that you have lost contact with how life really is.