Four more years!

[Bean Bag]

I was talking about on a freaking plane! A cramped enclosed space where kids and the elderly and the infirm have to all share the same canned air....C'mon, man!  I'm not for banning smoking in bars or outdoors. Not at all. There is always a line where one's ideology is tested and this separates the sociopaths from the rest of us...... Always..... As does this board.

Oh, I know what you meant.    I was just saying I'm always hesitant to take any such action.  Even though I probably agree with you about on smokes on a plane.  I'm just not so sure about taking any actions of the sort... and would veto it myself.  Precisely because it "never ends there."  It creates a precedent.  It emboldens our lesser selves.  "Let the f***ing airlines deal with it..." would be my ruling.  And they would.  Smoke free flights.

But... in today's society, something is always going to offend somebody.  Trans fats.  Cell phone brain tumors.  20 oz sodas.  Our society today -- I think -- does not have the perspective to be respectful to other people.  Sadly, nor do our elected and appointed officials.  We're very much an island society that is living, ironically "all up in people's grill."

It's been beaten into our culture that THIS is how you deal with things.  It's happening bro...

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Please don't call me bro. This isn't a frat house or a sports bar.

And if you had your way, the plane wouldn't even make it into the air because there would be no airline regulation or maintenance standards that were strictly enforced.

[Bean Bag]

Please don't call me bro. This isn't a frat house or a sports bar.

Sorry.  You keep changing your name, man.  Can I say "man?"  You called me that... so I thought it would be cool.  So what causal term of affection do you prefer?

And if you had your way, the plane wouldn't even make it into the air because there would be no airline regulation or maintenance standards that were strictly enforced.

C'mon "insert name" I thought we were just talking about smokes on a plane!   

Remember, I posted earlier -- in this very thread -- about the scale.  1 2 3 4 5.  Five = total anarchy.  I surmised that we've shaved off 4 and 5.  So... now the 3's are like, totally extreme far right.

I'm really not trying to be difficult.     I'm just not sure our nation understands the box it's opened.  Ban this!  Ban that!  I think, we've gone "3."  We're soft.  We can't take it.  We've quit.  We're babies, ready for the harvest.  (What?)  We're no longer tolerant.  We're intolerant.  We're offended.  We're offendable.

None of this applies to me, of course, but society.  Does such a view point offend?    Don't answer... I know.

[SMiLE Brian]

Could we just have one right wing politics thread, the sandbox is clogged with three threads ranting about the "communists" already. I am tired of this "us and them" mentality that is killing america right now.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

You have no coherent point of view to offend with. And being blatantly simplistic and narrow minded is not being difficult.......just idiotic.

So, if I lived next door to you and you were blasting bestiality porn loudly at all hours of the night and I knocked on your door and you screamed at me "It's my goshdarn house, and you're on my porch, therefore you are trespassing" and you went to grab your shotgun. What is the situation here? Yes, it's your house and I've no right to tell you or order you to keep the porn down, however I live next door on the same street, therefore I have the right to at least ask you to please keep it down. If this is invading your right, then you are a psychopath and are afraid that next I'll be demanding you switch to straight porn and next you'll be afraid I'll be confiscating your VCR, and then and then and then...... That's what this country has become...

[Bean Bag]

What are you talking about!!!???   

[Dunderhead]

Please don't call me bro. This isn't a frat house or a sports bar.

And if you had your way, the plane wouldn't even make it into the air because there would be no airline regulation or maintenance standards that were strictly enforced.

What?

[Bean Bag]

Could we just have one right wing politics thread, the sandbox is clogged with three threads ranting about the "communists" already. I am tired of this "us and them" mentality that is killing america right now.

Ok, ok.  This is... what, the third call today (?) for having only "one right-wing thread?"     Let me address that.  Is there only three? -- nevermind... you want only one, right?  Ok...

First... I'm tired of it too.

Second... I agree that an "us and them" mentality is killing America.  Sort of.  Actually it's just the "them."  They're killing America.

Third... "us and them" is exactly what it's all about.  Pinder mentioned (in one of these "sandbox clogging" right wing threads) that there's no liberals, leftists... or nothing.  He said it was just corporatists, fascists, and all the rest of us.  Or something like that.  Doesn't matter he was way off.     It's more simple than that.  It's just us and them.  It's "them" and "the rest of us."  (Ok. Pinder was right about "the rest of us" part).


Oh and lest I forget... before anyone says I'm stupid for "believing something so complex... could be so simple."  I'll save the sandbox another right wing thread -- and get to the point.  It's actually not simple.  It's still just "them" and "the rest of us" but it's not simple.  You know why?  Here's why:  most people don't even know which side they're on.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

OMG, am I  starting to believe that I'm actually Mike Pinder?

[Bean Bag]

Obama supporters shocked, angry at new tax increases
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/6/obama-supporters-shocked-angry-new-tax-increases/

"Sometimes, watching a Democrat learn something is wonderful, like seeing the family dog finally sit and stay at your command.  'My paycheck just went down by an amount that I don’t feel comfortable with. I guarantee this decrease is gonna’ hurt me more than the increase in income taxes will hurt those making over 400 grand. What happened?'

Shocker. Democrats who supported the president’s re-election just had NO idea that his steadfast pledge to raise taxes meant that he was really going to raise taxes. They thought he planned to just hit those filthy “1 percenters,”'

Soooo... is story this funny or sad to you?

On one hand yes, it's funny to watch clueless people walk into a wall.   Hee-hee.  I like slapstick.  But it's sad how naive people are... and even more sad that they VOTE and drag me and millions of innocent, hardworking families (but mostly me) along for the ride.

I vote sad.    I simply can't afford to pay for people's first-grade-level, life-lessons.  Can you?  I applaud people learning, and don't want to disparage the process of learning... but I'm strapped, I can't afford it -- financially.  And while watching people walk into walls and such is funny... I really don't like to walk into walls much myself.  I prefer to look up now and then and avoid life's obvious obstacles.  What about you guys?



(PS:  If you want to vote "C:  this is just a lie, it's not happening... the story is a complete fabrication of Conservatives... be my guest.  But, please.. watch out for walls.)

[the captain]

The payroll tax "holiday"--which is the increase people are seeing--is something that the president initiated, renewed, and intended to renew. Republicans resisted that, and thus that tax holiday ended and that tax went to its previous rate as part of the eventual compromise. It wasn't some sneaky backdoor way for the president to raise taxes on lower and middle earners.

On the positive side, this tax funds Social Security, which most (non-Tea Party) people agree is a worthwhile program...

[Jason]

I find it more amusing than anything...but I don't run off of the assumption that Obamatards actually listen to what comes out of his mouth. The way they stare at him you'd swear he was the second coming of Jesus Christ or something. As if we needed any more proof that statism is a religion...

[the captain]

While my political views are more often liberal than not, I agree that the way people projected their utopia on a relatively centrist candidate, then are shocked when he acts like a typical centrist president, is funny.

[Jason]

Obama is "relatively centrist"? He's another George W. Bush.

[the captain]

On many issues, I agree. So I guess it all depends on your issues of focus (and frame of reference, since people with further right views think of him as the farthest left president ever, while most of my liberal friends think he is basically a traditional Republican living in a right-trending landscape). I guess what I mean is, between the past 30 years' worth of Republican and Democratic views, if all averaged out issue by issue, I'd say he ends up pretty close to the middle. On a broader political spectrum, or even just thinking about political philosophies (as opposed to ruling on American issue by issue with Republican or Democratic positions), that would be a different story.

[Bean Bag]

I think Obama's very radical.  I believe he'll continue to demonstrate this -- with acceleration -- over the next 4 years.  His entire reign reminds me of the last few horrific weeks of the George W Bush presidency.  Everything turned upside down.  Rock, rock roll... plymouth rock rollover.  Bailouts, gov't take-overs.  Billions of dollars turned into nickels and dimes.  Right before our eyes.  Trillions, gone!  It was like the biggest heist in American history... and everyone was left stunned.

It's been like one extended, long nightmare since October 2008.  And everyone's confused, the smoke still hasn't cleared.  No one knows what to do.  It's been a nightmare to live through this.  It's like the devil snapped his fingers and everyone was mystified, can't see through the smoke.

What really gets me about Obama though is the lying.  I've never heard anyone lie so openly like him.  Yet be so openly radical and honest about his evil plans at other times.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4  Obama:  "Under my plan, energy prices would necessarily skyrocket."   What you say?  I use energy all the time, pal... are you, mad?  This is bananas, guys.  Not just his madcap "ideas" -- but shouldn't saying something like that damn a politician from office?  Used to.  But... no.  Satan's cloud of mystery, mystifies all!  *POOF!*

 

Seriously.  Stop and think.  Can you win friends by telling people they suck?  Can you pick up chicks by telling them you're gonna smack them in their fat, ugly face?  Can you buy a car and tell the salesman, "I won't pay you a nickel -- and you'll like it!?!?"  Guys... this is weird sh*t!    This is some weird sh*t going on right now.

[Jason]

Because Obama's racist white liberal supporters will always respond to those who criticize the Dear Leader with cries of "racist", therefore he conceivably will get away with murder.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

On many issues, I agree. So I guess it all depends on your issues of focus (and frame of reference, since people with further right views think of him as the farthest left president ever, while most of my liberal friends think he is basically a traditional Republican living in a right-trending landscape). I guess what I mean is, between the past 30 years' worth of Republican and Democratic views, if all averaged out issue by issue, I'd say he ends up pretty close to the middle. On a broader political spectrum, or even just thinking about political philosophies (as opposed to ruling on American issue by issue with Republican or Democratic positions), that would be a different story.

I think that's basically correct - Obama is right of centre, certainly, but nowhere near George W. Bush who was a reactionary right-wing extremist. In order to put this in the proper perspective, Obama's central tax plan (the last I heard) was to raise the highest individual income tax rates to 39.6 percent from 35 percent (this is quite apart from the nonsense over this holiday tax issue which I'm unaware of what makes it an issue). Compare this to revered right-wing Presidents. So Eisenhower, for example, did the proper thing and lowered the top income tax - he lowered it from 92 percent to 91 percent. The percentage remained in the 70s with Nixon. Much of this was a consequence of the fact that the rate was at its lowest (25%) just before the crash of 1929, and it was understood that it was a lack of regulation on the elite institutions that caused the collapse, just as was the case in 2008. The fact is the problem is not that Obama wants to raise taxes. Ultimately, government spending has slowed down to levels unseen since the 50s under Obama and his tax rate come nowhere near the extremely high levels that were seen in perhaps the most prosperous times in American history. The problem is that the public has been brainwashed into hysteria so that they hate the decisions that may even only trivially have negative effects on the elite members of society and they have been conditioned to the extent that the history that I mentioned has been erased in the most obviously Orwellian fashion so that these minimal changes look positively socialist.

[Dunderhead]

I think we should stop using "soft" facts in political discourse, "most agreed that X was caused by Y". Causal relationships cannot be speculated about, and the social sciences are not a "hard" science, economics included. To try and insinuate that low taxes on the rich or 'deregulation' somehow caused some financial crisis is highly contentious when there's an equally, if not more convincing case to be made that low interest rates and the excess of credit caused the overspeculation. I actually get the impression that, if the consensus does count for anything, it's actually moving in just that direction.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I think we should stop using "soft" facts in political discourse, "most agreed that X was caused by Y". Causal relationships cannot be speculated about, and the social sciences are not a "hard" science, economics included. To try and insinuate that low taxes on the rich or 'deregulation' somehow caused some financial crisis is highly contentious when there's an equally, if not more convincing case to be made that low interest rates and the excess of credit caused the overspeculation. I actually get the impression that, if the consensus does count for anything, it's actually moving in just that direction.

Sorry but I don't get that impression at all. In fact, just about every serious study I've seen on the matter generally accepts as a given the conclusions of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission which cited “Widespread failures in financial regulation” as a leading factor in the crisis. And the reason why these conclusions are accepted is because it is the most rational conclusion one can reach. Remember that it was understood that a central factor behind the crash of 1929 was precisely the banks making too many high risk loans for securities speculation or as one bank President stated, "reaping the natural fruit of the orgy of speculation in which millions of people have indulged." The crash followed what was considered to be a "speculative boom" in which more than 8.5 billion was out on loan.

It was understood immediately that regulations were needed to distinguish commercial banks from investment banks and prevent banks from turning into hedge funds – hence the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 and others in the same period. These regulations in fact worked and it is interesting to note what happened once neo-liberal policies came into effect which saw the general dismantling of these regulations. The US government had been deregulating the financial institutions on a wide scale in the 1970s, including the Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act which led directly to the Savings and Loan crisis in the late 80s. When the Clinton Administration repealed Glass-Steagall in the 90s he did so knowing full well of its effect in preventing major crises post-crash of 29 but they added some caveat about how these were different times and the economy was different now than it was then, or some sort of lip-service on behalf of the nation’s elite. What happened of course was perfectly predictable as the system very quickly reverted back to a pre-1929 status with the creation of yet another speculative boom. Interestingly enough the same situation was going on in the population at large so as neo-liberal policies worked to dismantle New Deal welfare policies, the gap between the rich and the poor essentially worked its way back to pre-1929 levels as well.

And, of course, the consequences of all this was perfectly predictable. These regulations which separated commercial and investment banks and placed limitations on interest rates and loans by banks would have outright prevented financial institutions from using off-balance sheet securitization and derivatives and creating shadow banking systems to mask the excessive risks being taken with mortgage lending which is precisely what caused the crisis. To pretend now as if this was the result of anything other than de-regulation is to live in a fantasy world where, quite simply, history doesn’t exist. Again, I refer you to Orwell and 1984, where there is never any past, only continuous present and the past becomes whatever we want so that we are never wrong in the present.

That’s something like what’s going on when we act as if deregulation had nothing to do with any of this. In reality though, the history of capitalism is generally found to be that the free market is inherently bound to fail but it can make a small group of people lots of money. So markets are de-regulated for a period, serving the interests of the wealthy elite and when it inevitably fails, the public pays for it and the public will always be the safety net for the excessive risks and whims of the extremely wealthy and then they are made to be outraged whenever anyone suggests raising taxes on the wealthy. Again a real testament to the power of indoctrination.

[Dunderhead]

Sorry but I don't get that impression at all. In fact, just about every serious study I've seen on the matter generally accepts as a given the conclusions of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission which cited “Widespread failures in financial regulation” as a leading factor in the crisis.

You read econ research papers for fun?

[Bean Bag]

Because Obama's racist white liberal supporters will always respond to those who criticize the Dear Leader with cries of "racist", therefore he conceivably will get away with murder.

It's interesting what's going on now.  As I talk to people -- Obama supporters, leftist, whatever -- they do realize we're in the fiscal toilet.  They know we're out of money.  Curious.  Do they not make the connection as to WHY -- or more to the point -- WHO or WHAT ideology/practice is responsible?

Is Newsweek magazine is right? -- we're all Socialists now?  Do they want this?  Well... people flirt with dumb sh-t all the time... and they sure don't like to be told they're dumb while they're doing it.  So it's possible.  For now we're socialists.  In our society's collectively regressed state of mind -- it's the Rich who are to blame.  Yes, that's it... the people who are succeeding are responsible for ... wait for it... failing.    Makes total sense!  Up really is down!!

Anyway... Obama, on his steed, is gonna "fix 'er."  To those of regressed inclination -- yes, that's right -- you really can have candy and soda for dinner.  If that's what they want, that's what they get.

The hangover is going to be epic.  The bathroom is going to smell bad.  But... who cares.  You can't have any ice cream until you finish your Slurpee!  Detroit is the goal.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I'll finish my slurpee. It's only fair since you've drank all the kool-aid

[Bean Bag]

   Ahhh!!  Toilets are all stopped up... poo everywhere!!

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Cool-Air and Slurpees have that effect I guess