Obama Vs McCain email I received.

[Kayden]

I just wanted to see what the thoughts of the Viper Pit were. Sorry about the fugly formatting, it was in a table.

We are at a cross road in the future of the United States. We can vote for Obama and go down the road to socialism with big government financed with your tax dollars. Or, we can vote for McCain and continue on the road our forefathers had in mind when they drafted our constitution. Small central government, by the people, for the people. I am extremely worried about our country. I cannot for the life of me figure out how reasonably intelligent people could vote for Obama. John McCain is not the perfect candidate. There has never been nor will there ever be a perfect candidate! John McCain is not just the lesser of two evils. He is the most qualified, through his experience. His character is beyond reproach. You know where he stands on every issue. Do you agree with him on every issue, probably not. But do you agree with him on most? We cannot look at just one or two issues. That is selfish and short sighted. We must look at the big picture. Both candidates as in all elections are making promises on issues that as President they have no control over other than influence and veto power. If you cannot see that Obama will lead us further into socialism then you slept through most of your history and economic classes. John McCain is the candidate we need at this point in our history to steer us away from socialism and keep us on the road our forefathers started. I will be deeply disappointed in the American voters if John McCain wins by anything less than a landslide! Please take the time to read below. Please share this with everyone, not just the people you know will agree, but everyone! If anything I said offends you, I am sorry but this is what I believe and it needs to be said.
~~God Bless America~~

Pay close attenion voters!!!! SIMPLE MATH:

2008 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE COMPARISON TALKING POINTS​

ISSUE
..............................................................McCAIN ......OBAMA
Favors new drilling offshore US ......................................Yes ................. No
Will appoint judges who interpret the law not make it ......Yes ................. No
Served in the US Armed Forces .....................................Yes ................. No
Amount of time served in the US Senate .................... 22 YEARS .. 173 DAYS
Will institute a socialized national health care plan............ No ................. Yes
Supports abortion throughout the pregnancy ................... No .................Yes
Would pull troops out of Iraq immediately ......................No................... Yes
Supports gun ownership rights .......................................Yes ................... No
Supports homosexual marriage ..................................... No ................... Yes
Proposed programs will mean a huge tax increase ..........No ....................Yes
Voted against making English the official language ......... No ................... Yes
Voted to give Social Security benefits to illegals ........... No .................... Yes

CAPITAL GAINS TAX ​

MCCAIN 0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax.

OBAMA 28% on profit from ALL home sales. (How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income.)

DIVIDEND TAX ​

MCCAIN 15% (no change)
OBAMA 39.6% - (How will this affect you?If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama becomes president. The experts predict that 'Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market, yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.')

INCOME TAX ​

MCCAIN
(no changes) Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $31,250

OBAMA (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts) Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750
Under Obama, your taxes could almost double!

INHERITANCE TAX ​

MCCAIN - 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax)
OBAMA Restore the inheritance tax
Many families have lost businesses, farms, ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will only lose them to these taxes.

NEW TAXES PROPOSED BY OBAMA ​

New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet. New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already) New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity) New taxes on retirement accounts, and last but not least....New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!!

You can verify the above at the following web sites:
http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/election/2008/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.taxes.html
http://elections.foxnews.com/?s=proposed+taxes
http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourworld/politics/articles/mccain_obama_offer_different_visions_on_taxes.html
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/barack_obama/
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/john_mccain/

 

[DarkSageRK]

He supports gay marriage? THAT BASTARD!

Seriously, though. I sincerely doubt the credibility of this. They didn't actually cite their information. They listed sites where you could get it from. :/

This is clearly biased and you probably shouldn't take it at face value.

 

[Kayden]

Biased email? ON THE INTERNET? =O

I thought it reeked a bit of "Good ol boy" mentality, but theres generally some glint of truth.

 

[KingBroly]

People listen to political-based emails?

 

[bigdaddy]

[quote name='KingBroly']People listen to political-based emails?[/quote]

People no, Kayden yes.

 

[RAMSTORIA]

its pretty much all true, thats why im voting for mccain and not that islamic fundalmentalist hussein obama

 

[HowStern]

Heh I actually clicked the links at the bottom and most of them say the exact opposite of what the e-mail says. Or have somethings the e-mail "forgot" to mention.
This is actually from the first link the e-mail:

"We ... need to keep the IRS from taking more of your income and making life harder for small business," said Republican John McCain at a recent town hall gathering in Portsmouth, Ohio.
Democrat Barack Obama voiced similar sentiments at a rally in Flint, Mich.: "I've ... proposed exempting all startup companies from capital gains taxes.... John McCain would tax them."
And has their whole capital-gains tax plans which are nothing like what the e-mail says.

 

[SpazX]

Haha, I think that exact email was on factcheck.org. They talked about how the links actually debunk the email itself.

All chain mails are lies, of course.

For a short debunk:

The top part is weird, mostly subjective, and when not subjective wrong

Everything about taxes is wrong, besides that about McCain (since in most instances there are no changes), except that McCain will have an inheritance tax. The difference in their inheritance tax propositions is that McCain has a higher ceiling for exemptions and different maximum rates.

 

[HotShotX]

We are at a cross road in the future of the United States.

Some of us are even pitching up tents since we lost our homes.

We can vote for Obama and go down the road to socialism with big government financed with your tax dollars.

Oh noes, BIG GOVERNMENT funded by my wittle old tax dollars? Sounds like every damn democratic government in the world. Last I checked, taking down any government wasn't exactly high on anyone's "People I'd like to with" list.

Or, we can vote for McCain and continue on the road our forefathers had in mind when they drafted our constitution.

Our forefathers absolutely love a government that completely throws the whole checks & balances system out the window. In fact, I bet they love how much religion is becoming the defining policy in this country, and you're either one of us or a terrorist because you have a difference of opinion or beliefs. Hell, it's not like we ever left another country for freedom of expression, right?

Small central government, by the people, for the people.

Unless of course we suspect you're a terrorist or unamerican, then you're not a person anymore, and we're going to wiretap the out of you.

I am extremely worried about our country.

The news anchors on Fox News seem very depressed lately so I know something is wrong.

I cannot for the life of me figure out how reasonably intelligent people could vote for Obama.

I can't understand why anyone would have a difference of opinion on the issues in this country, IT'S UNAMERICAN!

John McCain is not the perfect candidate.

His wife makes more money than him, clearly McCain is flawed.

There has never been nor will there ever be a perfect candidate!

Because Bush can't run for a 3rd term.

John McCain is not just the lesser of two evils. He is the most qualified, through his experience.

5 years in a cage for chrissakes! In the political scene, he'll give those ers in Guantanamo Bay a run for their money!

His character is beyond reproach.

Those ads however, those are some shady people.

You know where he stands on every issue.

He announces his flip-flops every few hours, so you always know where he stands....at the time.

Do you agree with him on every issue, probably not. But do you agree with him on most?

No, I don't, so I'm voting for someone who I do agree with.

We cannot look at just one or two issues. That is selfish and short sighted. We must look at the big picture.

Clearly people cannot do their own damn research, so I must take up the burden myself and enlighten these Neanderthals to the truth! I wasn't aware politics and evangelism were so closely related!

Both candidates as in all elections are making promises on issues that as President they have no control over other than influence and veto power

But they will appoint people to their cabinet who do, and you might want to vote for the guy who will appoint people who can do a decent job.

If you cannot see that Obama will lead us further into socialism then you slept through most of your history and economic classes.

Because clearly, anyone with a high school education can see that Obama is NOWHERE is the history textbooks, and is therefore, worthless to America as a politician. Only John McCain, who has spent 26 years in Congress and was present when America turned into the shit-stain that it currently is, has the maverick experience to turn us around.

John McCain is the candidate we need at this point in our history to steer us away from socialism and keep us on the road our forefathers started.

Unless of course, you completely disagree with McCain's stance on the issues, in which case, you are clearly a socialist and should go back to Socialia!

I will be deeply disappointed in the American voters if John McCain wins by anything less than a landslide!

Because, as Americans, you have absolutely no right to think or believe differently than me, and you had better cast your vote as I do, or you are Unamerican and a Terrorist! GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Please take the time to read below. Please share this with everyone, not just the people you know will agree, but everyone! If anything I said offends you, I am sorry but this is what I believe and it needs to be said.

Don't even bother to listen to others or have an intellectual debate with them on the issues, this is too important. Cram all of this down their throats and if they still refuse to vote for McCain, try to prevent them from reaching the polls on Nov. 4th. Remember, this is for your COUNTRY!

~~God Bless America~~

~~God Damn The Freedom To Vote For Whom You Want~~

Pay close attenion voters!!!!

Unless someone other than Fox News and John McCain wants your attention, they are a terrorist and you should ignore them to avoid incurring God's Wrath. Remember, God only blesses Americans.

SIMPLE MATH:

USING LOTS OF WORDS!

Seriously, people in this country spend far too much time trying to convince you to vote for their candidate rather than have an intellectual discussion on the issues. Next time you think you have a right to tell other people how to vote, go yourself. I can do my own damn research, you ing twit. (This is not directed at the OP, but for anyone who thinks cramming their beliefs down the throats of others is appropriate).

~HotShotX

 

[SpazX]

This is the factcheck.org article I might have been thinking of http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/would_obama_tax_my_profits_if_i.html

It's a version without the added text at the top and the links (I must have been thinking of another chain email with links that debunk itself).

And a good article on chain emails in general: http://www.factcheck.org/specialreports/that_chain_e-mail_your_friend_sent_to.html

 

[mykevermin]

The inheritance tax applies to no more than the 8,800 wealthiest families in the US.

It's so up there we can't even discuss it in a "top __% of US households" way.

'em. The first 4 million of inheritance funds are untaxed, so cry me a river if the remainder above that is taxed at 50%.

 

[Kayden]

Hell, I wouldn't be offended; I wish I had such well structured rants aimed at me instead of the meme intarweb vomit I get hurled at me.
[quote name='HotShotX']Some of us are even pitching up tents since we lost our homes.

Oh noes, BIG GOVERNMENT funded by my wittle old tax dollars? Sounds like every damn democratic government in the world. Last I checked, taking down any government wasn't exactly high on anyone's "People I'd like to with" list.

Our forefathers absolutely love a government that completely throws the whole checks & balances system out the window. In fact, I bet they love how much religion is becoming the defining policy in this country, and you're either one of us or a terrorist because you have a difference of opinion or beliefs. Hell, it's not like we ever left another country for freedom of expression, right?

Unless of course we suspect you're a terrorist or unamerican, then you're not a person anymore, and we're going to wiretap the out of you.

The news anchors on Fox News seem very depressed lately so I know something is wrong.

I can't understand why anyone would have a difference of opinion on the issues in this country, IT'S UNAMERICAN!

His wife makes more money than him, clearly McCain is flawed.

Because Bush can't run for a 3rd term.

5 years in a cage for chrissakes! In the political scene, he'll give those ers in Guantanamo Bay a run for their money!

Those ads however, those are some shady people.

He announces his flip-flops every few hours, so you always know where he stands....at the time.

No, I don't, so I'm voting for someone who I do agree with.

Clearly people cannot do their own damn research, so I must take up the burden myself and enlighten these Neanderthals to the truth! I wasn't aware politics and evangelism were so closely related!

But they will appoint people to their cabinet who do, and you might want to vote for the guy who will appoint people who can do a decent job.

Because clearly, anyone with a high school education can see that Obama is NOWHERE is the history textbooks, and is therefore, worthless to America as a politician. Only John McCain, who has spent 26 years in Congress and was present when America turned into the shit-stain that it currently is, has the maverick experience to turn us around.

Unless of course, you completely disagree with McCain's stance on the issues, in which case, you are clearly a socialist and should go back to Socialia!

Because, as Americans, you have absolutely no right to think or believe differently than me, and you had better cast your vote as I do, or you are Unamerican and a Terrorist! GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Don't even bother to listen to others or have an intellectual debate with them on the issues, this is too important. Cram all of this down their throats and if they still refuse to vote for McCain, try to prevent them from reaching the polls on Nov. 4th. Remember, this is for your COUNTRY!

~~God Damn The Freedom To Vote For Whom You Want~~

Unless someone other than Fox News and John McCain wants your attention, they are a terrorist and you should ignore them to avoid incurring God's Wrath. Remember, God only blesses Americans.

USING LOTS OF WORDS!

Seriously, people in this country spend far too much time trying to convince you to vote for their candidate rather than have an intellectual discussion on the issues. Next time you think you have a right to tell other people how to vote, go yourself. I can do my own damn research, you ing twit. (This is not directed at the OP, but for anyone who thinks cramming their beliefs down the throats of others is appropriate).

~HotShotX[/quote]

 

[mykevermin]

You know why, most of all, I want Barack Obama to be elected?

So I can listen to Republicans complain about the size of government and the imbalance of power favoring the executive branch.

Our entire economy could collapse, and I'd be able to survive off the nutrition gleaned from that delicious, delicious irony.

 

[thrustbucket]

[quote name='mykevermin']You know why, most of all, I want Barack Obama to be elected?

So I can listen to Republicans complain about the size of government and the imbalance of power favoring the executive branch.

Our entire economy could collapse, and I'd be able to survive off the nutrition gleaned from that delicious, delicious irony.[/QUOTE]

I give your post a red star of approval, sir.

Look, anyone that tries to tell me that Republicans, especially McCain, has a goal of small government is going to get a loud guffaw in the face. Republicans have done more government growing in the past 8 years than the past 20 combined. They have done more in just the past month than the past 5 years combined - if you consider the buyouts of fannie mae and fredie mac, etc a Republican decision.

The only difference I see between parties at this juncture is that the Democrats aren't shy about their goals, and the Republicans just lie about being different than Democrats.

 

[mykevermin]

The viewpoint from the left:

The Democrats are up front about their goals, which I admire, but prove far too often that they're a bunch of goddamned wimps, and on account of failing to properly frame any political issue, find that they kowtow to the right every time.

It's why they're voting on drilling in Congress: the right framed the issue in a romantic way, convinced people it made sense (it doesn't), chastised the Democrats for standing in the way of our freedoms and/or getting in the way of a vote - and the Democrats are always caught with their pants down, playing defense to these idiotic straw men.

So now we're voting on giving over MORE resources to the incredibly wealthy oil industry. And, in 10 years, when none of that shit pans out and gas is $14 a gallon, the Republicans will blame Democrats for not working to promote cleaner energy. And the people will be dumb enough to believe it, and the Democrats will be dumb enough to fall for the trap.

The Democrats are Wile E. Coyote, man.

 

[RAMSTORIA]

[quote name='mykevermin']

The Democrats are up front about their goals, which I admire, but prove far too often that they're a bunch of goddamned wimps, and on account of failing to properly frame any political issue, find that they kowtow to the right every time.
[/QUOTE]

I feel you on this 110%, I'd have so much more respect for the Democratic party if they actually stood their ground but the last 8 years they've been flimsier than a house of cards.

 

[thrustbucket]

[quote name='mykevermin']The viewpoint from the left:

The Democrats are up front about their goals, which I admire, but prove far too often that they're a bunch of goddamned wimps, and on account of failing to properly frame any political issue, find that they kowtow to the right every time.
[/QUOTE]

Don't you think that maybe just sometimes, that's because the positions they support are hard to sell because they just outright don't make sense to most Americans?

We already know you and I disagree on the oil thing, and why. But I'm referring to any time the Democrats "cave", in your eyes.

I actually have more and more respect for Democrats when I see this sort of thing. It shows they are more willing to reach across the aisle than Republicans. They are more likely to pick and choose compromises so congress doesn't end up stagnant with cobwebs over 10 years.

As far as I see their allowing the oil thing: I think they had some valid concerns about the oil drilling. But they failed to make a strong case on why, in this particular case, government interference made sense and was best for everyone.

Any time a Democratic position begins with "The government shouldn't let...", or "The government needs to force..." type wording, it's going to be a very tough sale on most freedom loving Americans. And therein is the reason, imo, you see what you are complaining about. Republicans get away with these things more because they simply scare the populace into getting their way.

 

[mykevermin]

[quote name='thrustbucket']Don't you think that maybe just sometimes, that's because the positions they support are hard to sell because they just outright don't make sense to most Americans[/QUOTE]

Could be. But it's also the romantic "have your cake and eat it, too" of the right, I'd say.

I saw a poll during the 2004 election that summarized the top three domestic issues in the presidential election. They were (in no particular order) government reform of health care, increased funding for education, and lower taxes.

So it's not that the Dem's plans don't make sense, but they involve the idea of sacrifice, social obligation, community support, and delayed gratification in some cases. Which are concepts that are, by and large, simply unacceptable to Americans. I agree when Cheney said "deficits don't matter," because very few people (most of y'all excluded) care or even know the size of our debt and deficits (I'm actually predicting we break $600B this year, FWIW, and probably by a long shot). They don't matter, and our country isn't concerned about sound fiscal policy or dealing with an energy crisis.

Hell, the energy crisis is a perfect example of the left's anti-romanticism. As you've read my posts before, the right's approach is to give the junkie a hit, and the left's approach is to send the junkie to rehab. All the while, the junkie doesn't think he has a problem. Given a choice, who's the junkie gonna go to?

That's an apt metaphor for the differences between the groups, IMO.

 

[thrustbucket]

[quote name='mykevermin']

Hell, the energy crisis is a perfect example of the left's anti-romanticism. As you've read my posts before, the right's approach is to give the junkie a hit, and the left's approach is to send the junkie to rehab. All the while, the junkie doesn't think he has a problem. Given a choice, who's the junkie gonna go to?

That's an apt metaphor for the differences between the groups, IMO.[/QUOTE]

I can almost see your analogy. But I do find it a little ironic that particular metaphor, imo, could be turned on Democrats so easily in several other policies (welfare and immigration to name two). Don't address the root problems, just butter the consequence. Both parties guilty.

I'm confused though. You keep mentioning the minimal non-impact allowing domestic drilling will have on prices or the "crisis". But somehow, if we had kept the laws restrictive, it would have helped the problem? Nothing would change, or will change, whether we get our oil here or elsewhere. The only "sacrificial" change you speak of will come if we artificially raise oil prices through legislation to force change, if you think that's a good idea (I don't).

The reason to allow domestic drilling has little to do with lowering gas prices, and everything to do with foreign oil dependence for political reasons.

I rarely see a problem and then automatically try and figure out how we can use the government to fix it. That, to me, is what Democrats are all about that I take such issue with.

I see the governments ideal role as a referee in the soccer match of it's citizens lives. Blow the whistle when someone gets pushed on their ass by another. Kick someone out of the game if they harm another player. Instead, we have a referee that's worried about the quality of grass, enforces which shoes are worn, makes sure jersey's worn are the proper length and color, hires more referees until they outnumber players, continues to charge higher ticket prices - and often likes to change the score for whichever team seems to be losing at the time. It sucks.

 

[mykevermin]

Except that analogy is shortsighted and wholly incorrect. It's that sort of Andrew Sullivan "I call it idealist capitalism running unfettered in the free market, but you should call it blunderingly amazing naivete" philosophy of capitalism.

Remember all the times you told people to look to the Soviet Union, or China, or other communist nations, to say that communism was an inherently flawed political philosophy which, through its overrationalized approach, self-destructs due to the inherently IRrational and/or self-interested human beings? And remember how those communists said something about how those examples "didn't count" and coughed up some poorly-reasoned excuse for why the USSR wasn't "REALLY" communism, so Marx's political philosophy hasn't stood up to the test yet?

That's what your soccer analogy connotes to me, except about capitalism. Give it a rest. Laissez-faire is (1) something we're never going to completely achieve (and let's not even get into how that out of logical necessity leads into slavery and servitude, since it's not even necessary to go that far), and (2) the reason our economy is thoroughly ed such that we WISH it were as sturdy as a house of cards right now.

 

[thrustbucket]

I realize that type of capitalism is a fantasy. But, much like the war on drugs, it's something we can strive for wherever we can until it doesn't make sense.

You seem to totally forget that all forms of government are formed out of utopian ideals. Not reality. They are formed by people that know the perfect society is impossible, but they lay out a plan to best get there, knowing they'll have to make unpleasant compromises on occasion.

My main issue is that we now are very much a society of "what can our country do for us". We immediately look to the government to solve all our problems. We want the Federal government to step in and squash every little problem we perceive. We've raised an entire generation that thinks like this, wants this, and votes to further it.

I think that's bad. I realize I'm in a minority. I don't understand those that think it's good. If you think it's good, then fine, keep trucking. But my contention with the whole system is now summarized. Call it naivety if it makes you feel better, but I firmly believe it is the nature of all governments to only make problems worse or create new problems by injecting themselves as the grand solution, not better. It's clear to me, that the founding fathers believed this and so do I. So it's best to understand that when you ask for their help.

 

[mykevermin]

I think you're paying lip service to an unproven and unchallenged conservative notion - that we look to government to solve our problems all around.

Meanwhile, if you think about the problems our Republican government CREATED from 2000 to 2006, you must realize that you are part of NO SOLUTION that you claim to be by aligning yourself with right-wing political ideologies.

It's absolutely naive: look at the banking crisis and the mortgage crisis. Explain to me how the problems we have, at their root cause, are because of government involvement. It's that naive and foolish John McCain "our banking crisis is due to over-regulation by the government" statement. It's embarrassing for me to even have to address that kind of crap, let alone that someone would say that an truly (god help them) BELIEVE it.

So, take the housing crisis, take the banking crisis, and show me not how ANY government involvement led to it, but government involvement that INCREASES the oversight of government led to the crises we have, such that you can clearly demonstrate that these problems would simply not exist if government were not involved.

 

[thrustbucket]

[quote name='mykevermin']I think you're paying lip service to an unproven and unchallenged conservative notion - that we look to government to solve our problems all around.[/quote]
Just look around you the past 10 years, that's about all Americans have done.

Meanwhile, if you think about the problems our Republican government CREATED from 2000 to 2006, you must realize that you are part of NO SOLUTION that you claim to be by aligning yourself with right-wing political ideologies.

Sigh. Not surprisingly, you have started up the ol mykevermin Put-words-in-your-mouth 2000-series motor again.

I absolutely 100% agree with you about government/republicans creating problems from 2000-2006. But I've never claimed to be apart of any proposed solution by any party I know of. Nobody that I have seen in politics in my lifetime, has reflected my so-called "right-wing" political ideologies. So I can blame both Democrats and Republicans all day long, and I do, if you pay attention.

You, like so many here, fall into predictable trappings of identifying me as leaning right on many issues so somehow that means I like Republicans, I like McCain, I subscribe to modern Republican idealogy, and I want a conservative god-fearing government. Time to grow up.

It's absolutely naive: look at the banking crisis and the mortgage crisis. Explain to me how the problems we have, at their root cause, are because of government involvement. It's that naive and foolish John McCain "our banking crisis is due to over-regulation by the government" statement. It's embarrassing for me to even have to address that kind of crap, let alone that someone would say that an truly (god help them) BELIEVE it.

So, take the housing crisis, take the banking crisis, and show me not how ANY government involvement led to it, but government involvement that INCREASES the oversight of government led to the crises we have, such that you can clearly demonstrate that these problems would simply not exist if government were not involved.

Those crisis you mention are far too complicated to distill down to a simple "government involvement or not" argument. So complicated, that we likely won't know how we got here, entirely, for years in hindsight.

I would say both regulations and deregulations ultimately caused it. I would say that the core root of the problem trancends political idealogies and is rooted in greed, cronism, and power lust. All of which trickled into just the right places at the right times to benefit just the right people - of many superficial idealogies. I also believe part of it is that a financial collapse cycle was sewn into our destinies when we embraced the Federal Reserve and fractional reserve banking in 1913.

The source of this economic crisis is well above the meddling partisan politics, although each party is (as expected) using headlines to boost their cause and extend their pointed blame fingers. It's root, broadly stated, is in corruption. And if you think one party is less or more corupt than the other, then congragulations for playing their game.

If you truly believe the IDEOLOGY of either party, or even both, is responsible for this crisis, then we don't have much to debate, because you aren't just on another page, you're in another book.

Oh, and for the record, I actually DO believe that socialism/communism can work. As long as all the citizens of a country subscribe to it, there are ways to make it work, and have it be fair and stable. I don't subscribe to the philosophies that say it can't work. It's just that our country was a different experiment. An experiment, that as I see it, is now over. Yes, I think it's safe to say the grand Masonic experiment for achieving ma'at is caput.

Clearly, at least half of our citizens want to try some new hybrid experiment, and that's what we've got, and that's what we're getting. I say hybrid government. That's why politically, for the most part, I'm just an observer at this point - watching in sad but slight amusement as the parties continue to take the metallic shattered ruins of capitalism, socialism, and a smattering of marxism and attempt to weld them together with a zipo lighter.

 

[mykevermin]

[quote name='thrustbucket']Just look around you the past 10 years, that's about all Americans have done.[/quote]

For the record, I will NEVER accept "just look around" as evidence of any political or social claim. "Just look around" is a bullshit argument and you know it.

Sigh. Not surprisingly, you have started up the ol mykevermin Put-words-in-your-mouth 2000-series motor again.

I absolutely 100% agree with you about government/republicans creating problems from 2000-2006. But I've never claimed to be apart of any proposed solution by any party I know of. Nobody that I have seen in politics in my lifetime, has reflected my so-called "right-wing" political ideologies. So I can blame both Democrats and Republicans all day long, and I do, if you pay attention.

You, like so many here, fall into predictable trappings of identifying me as leaning right on many issues so somehow that means I like Republicans, I like McCain, I subscribe to modern Republican idealogy, and I want a conservative god-fearing government. Time to grow up.

No. The fact that you're going to vote for Republican candidates makes you complicit. Whether you agree with them 5% or 100% of the time, those minutiae don't show up at the ballot box. So what you feel individually is far less relevant than how you actually vote. And I don't think for a moment you would ever vote Democrat (given your boring and trite demonization of them and those who seek government to help fight against the greed of the oligarchs), nor do I think you would throw away a vote on a third party candidate. So your opinions are cute, but again, your vote installs people in power who exploit it, and you can pay all the lip service you want, condemning those YOU elected for doing what they do, all the while setting yourself to elect the next bullshit artist.

At least Charlie Brown had the sneaking suspicion that Lucy was going to yank the football out from under him.

Those crisis you mention are far too complicated to distill down to a simple "government involvement or not" argument. So complicated, that we likely won't know how we got here, entirely, for years in hindsight.

I would say both regulations and deregulations ultimately caused it. I would say that the core root of the problem trancends political idealogies and is rooted in greed, cronism, and power lust. All of which trickled into just the right places at the right times to benefit just the right people - of many superficial idealogies. I also believe part of it is that a financial collapse cycle was sewn into our destinies when we embraced the Federal Reserve and fractional reserve banking in 1913.

The source of this economic crisis is well above the meddling partisan politics, although each party is (as expected) using headlines to boost their cause and extend their pointed blame fingers. It's root, broadly stated, is in corruption. And if you think one party is less or more corupt than the other, then congragulations for playing their game.

If you truly believe the IDEOLOGY of either party, or even both, is responsible for this crisis, then we don't have much to debate, because you aren't just on another page, you're in another book.

Oh, and for the record, I actually DO believe that socialism/communism can work. As long as all the citizens of a country subscribe to it, there are ways to make it work, and have it be fair and stable. I don't subscribe to the philosophies that say it can't work. It's just that our country was a different experiment. An experiment, that as I see it, is now over. Yes, I think it's safe to say the grand Masonic experiment for achieving ma'at is caput.

Clearly, at least half of our citizens want to try some new hybrid experiment, and that's what we've got, and that's what we're getting. I say hybrid government. That's why politically, for the most part, I'm just an observer at this point - watching in sad but slight amusement as the parties continue to take capitalism, socialism, and a smattering of marxism and attempt to weld them together with a zipo lighter.

So you're admitting that the current crises we're in are responsible, to some degree, from capitalism being capitalism? Yet you're in favor of no-government all-capitalism as a political philosophy that will solve all problems?

wow. Just checkin'. I see two corrupt kinds of institutions (corporations and government) and want them to be better controlled on both sides - while you see the very same kinds of corrupt institutions, and seem to think one needs to be harmed and controlled while the other should be let go.

again, wow.

 

[thrustbucket]

[quote name='mykevermin']For the record, I will NEVER accept "just look around" as evidence of any political or social claim. "Just look around" is a bullshit argument and you know it.[/quote]
Sigh. Oh, I'll play your game and spell it out for you.

As an example, all the legislation after 9/11 made out of fear, allowed by the American people. The patriot act, etc. Happy?

No. The fact that you're going to vote for Republican candidates makes you complicit. Whether you agree with them 5% or 100% of the time, those minutiae don't show up at the ballot box. So what you feel individually is far less relevant than how you actually vote. And I don't think for a moment you would ever vote Democrat (given your boring and trite demonization of them and those who seek government to help fight against the greed of the oligarchs), nor do I think you would throw away a vote on a third party candidate. So your opinions are cute, but again, your vote installs people in power who exploit it, and you can pay all the lip service you want, condemning those YOU elected for doing what they do, all the while setting yourself to elect the next bullshit artist.

When did I ever say I was going to vote Republican? As it stands now, I don't intend to vote. And if I do, I will vote for a throw-away third party like Bob Barr, just so I feel justified in making these kinds of arguments.

Maybe you and most of the country still feels it's worthwhile to seek out which of the two parties are presenting the least of two evils to vote for, but I'm getting passed that. As long as the American people are convinced that these two parties have them by the balls, all is lost, imo. Picking the least shitty of the shitty still leaves you with shit. Enjoy that choice. Savor it. Get bumper stickers for it and join the trend.

So you're admitting that the current crises we're in are responsible, to some degree, from capitalism being capitalism? Yet you're in favor of no-government all-capitalism as a political philosophy that will solve all problems?

Oversimplifying and continuing to run the word-in-mouth motor doesn't really help your argument.

If you want to say things like... the creation of the Federal Reserve, are "capitalistic" actions, which is arguable, then sure.

You make it sound like Capitalism begats corruption, or somehow IS accepting corruption. Which I do not believe. They are two separate things. The severe moral decay at every level of society that's occurred in this country over the last 100 years is the primary cause of corruption.

Capitalism doesn't work and can't work unless the majority of it's participants "play fair". See Russia.

wow. Just checkin'. I see two corrupt kinds of institutions (corporations and government) and want them to be better controlled on both sides - while you see the very same kinds of corrupt institutions, and seem to think one needs to be harmed and controlled while the other should be let go.

again, wow.

Corporations and government are two entities that are destined to always be corrupt. Maybe we should start looking for solutions with that in mind. Giving one corrupt org more power than the other to try and achieve balance is a fools errand, don't you think? Essentially that's the only real difference between Democrats and Republicans. One wants you to believe government is more corrupt than corporations, and the other wants you to believe the opposite. You've made it clear which you believe. But maybe they are both right?

It seems you are operating under the assumption that it's better to give more power to the government, because you still believe we can steer the government, unlike corporations, right?

Oh I know, lets just completely eliminate corporations, and make government the only corp. That way we only have to worry about one corrupt institution, but we can feel better with the comfortable (ignorant) belief that we the people have total control of the government through the election process. Would that make you happy? This country is far enough gone that I'd be all for it, just to for pure entertainment value.

Setting up a Democracy 101: First, get the people to believe in the electoral process. The one that can install all the real power in unelectable positions, while maintaining that illusion, wins.

 

[mykevermin]

I'm a little let down that you went to all that effort to spell out a post so wanting for substance and to have me feel no obligation to respond to any of the nonsense it contains.

I won't insult your intelligence by acknowledging that what you posted is something you truly believe.

[quote name='thrustbucket']Capitalism doesn't work and can't work unless the majority of it's participants "play fair". See Russia.[/QUOTE]

Do a search for my earlier post in this thread, from earlier today, likening your political philosophy to the naivete of Andrew Sullivan's conservatism. Read it again. That's what I have to about that.

 

[thrustbucket]

I wouldn't expect an intelligent person to respond to something that there isn't a response for.

I too, am a little let down though, I go through all the trouble of trying to pretend you might have something new and substantive to respond to, and I don't even get a reach around when you decide to me.

Edit: Because I try to maintain class and respect for most of my fellow forum members, I went through the trouble of looking up this Andrew Sullivan, to try and decode exactly what the hell you are going on about. After reading through the wikipedia entry about him:

Sullivan is a classical libertarian conservative who has argued that the Republican Party has abandoned true conservative principles.[8] He views true conservatism as classical libertarian conservative, where economic control of a citizen’s daily life by the government is very limited. However, this style of conservatism differs from classic libertarianism in that some governmental control or regulation is acceptable in order to preserve a functional society as it currently exists. Stances on social or cultural issues, under this style of conservatism, resemble the stances of classical libertarianism or modern U.S. liberalism. While stances on foreign policy are more hawkish than classic libertarianism, this style of conservatism differs from current neo-conservatism and arguably more closely resemble U.S. liberalism from the early 1930’s up until the late 1960’s. In the foreign policy sphere, Sullivan's foreign policy views have become somewhat less hawkish following the difficulties of the Iraq War.[citation needed]
After supporting George W. Bush in the 2000 Presidential election, he endorsed Senator John Kerry for President in 2004. In 2006, he supported the Democratic Party's takeover of Congress. His political philosophy includes a broad range of traditional conservative positions: He favors a flat tax, limited government, privatization of social security, and a strong military, and he opposes welfare state programs such as socialized medicine. However, on a number of controversial public issues, including same-sex marriage and capital punishment, he takes a position typically shared by those on the left of the U.S. political spectrum. His position on abortion is more mixed; saying that he personally finds it immoral and favors overturning Roe v. Wade, but he can accept legalized abortions in the first trimester. Sullivan endorsed Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic Nomination in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election, and Rep. Ron Paul for the Republican nomination. On his blog, Sullivan has been highly favorable toward Obama, and has denounced McCain for running misleading campaign advertisements.

That's all it really says about his political views, other than some more specific recent stuff.
I find little similarity in his views to mine, from that.

[quote name='mykevermin']
Except that analogy is shortsighted and wholly incorrect. It's that sort of Andrew Sullivan "I call it idealist capitalism running unfettered in the free market, but you should call it blunderingly amazing naivete" philosophy of capitalism.

Remember all the times you told people to look to the Soviet Union, or China, or other communist nations, to say that communism was an inherently flawed political philosophy which, through its overrationalized approach, self-destructs due to the inherently IRrational and/or self-interested human beings? And remember how those communists said something about how those examples "didn't count" and coughed up some poorly-reasoned excuse for why the USSR wasn't "REALLY" communism, so Marx's political philosophy hasn't stood up to the test yet?[/quote]

Going by what you said in your previous post, about this character, I surmise that he thinks Russia continues to fail because of self-interested folks, and your retort to that is that it applies to capitalism too. I agree. So what? You have yet to answer how giving more power to what you yourself recognize as a flawed, self interested, wholly unsavable entity is an answer to problems.

Perhaps in the future, if you want to respond to a post with a comparison to someone, maybe you can post articles or blogs as examples of their views, rather than "Your sounding like X, who is lame", especially when you also want to follow up with hypocritical critiques of their posts lacking substance or containing nonsense.

Criticism without rising above what your critical about, just reeks of more hypocritical elitist-flavored condescension we've come to expect.

 

[mykevermin]

Well, if anything it was a little too "Dennis Miller" for my tastes. Doesn't change my point.

 

[thrustbucket]

Oh, I guess you are saying I used way too many analogies....

 

[mykevermin]

No, my own post.