Michelle Bachman is an evil cunt

[vamos scorcho]

insane. what we're going to see is the becoming of politicians as internet users. this is wild.

 

what i mean is, Obama and friends are going to have to adapt. and if they do, they will see that they are not liked very much by anybody. in fact, the word on the entire internet is that the choices are NOT LIKED!

 

they will have to adapt. and I personally have faith that they will. the internet makes it a global situation. it's unbelievable how 'new' it is.

 

I really don't understand libertarianism clearly enough to have an opinion. I'm pretty skeptical whether or not most people should have opinions either, haha.

 

Most people shouldn't, probably including myself, which is why I am launching a website that will hopefully help inform people of our political climate today. I just conceptualized the idea and am working with other passionate people on how to move forward. But I think it will be immensely beneficial for helping citizens understand the issues and where both parties stand as well as your local candidates etc.

 

really good idea!

[hardcode]

i dont like to involve myself in conversations such as this, and the only reason i looked in here is cause i havent smoked herb in 25 hours (taking today off) im sorry but showing a picture of a couple kids who were killed on accident and thinking that this is some kind of proof of obama's inadequacy as president is pretty dumb.

[SR4]

i dont like to involve myself in conversations such as this, and the only reason i looked in here is cause i havent smoked herb in 25 hours (taking today off) im sorry but showing a picture of a couple kids who were killed on accident and thinking that this is some kind of proof of obama's inadequacy as president is pretty dumb.

 

you're right. knowing that he failed to end any of the pre-existing wars, expanded to another theater of war, reneged on most of his election platform promises, and failing to push through his most basic requests in a democratic Senate is proof of his inadequacy.

[hardcode]

whatever.

[SR4]

i know. it doesn't make a difference.

[hardcode]

whatever.

[SR4]

whatever.

[hardcode]

im so sure

[SR4]

what is this i dont even

[J3FF3R00]

lol

[vamos scorcho]

haha.

[chenGOD]

For anyone seriously considering supporting ron paul, think about what his libertarian policies combined with a Republican controlled congress would do to your welfare as an individual. Yes non-interventionism would be great (although I notice whilst you do receive some criticism for that, the willingness of nations to sell to you hasn't decreased at all), but if you had to choose between say - pulling out of iraq or unemployment insurance (Austrians don't believe in UI benefits, because hey, the market always clears and you'll get your job back, albeit at a lower wage) what would you choose? How about regulation of the financial market so that when companies decide to get together and fuck your economy deep in the ass there's at least the possibility of punishment? Yeah well Paul voted against your Sarbanes-Oxley act. As to sticking to his principles, for such a staunch advocate of non-government interference in the market, he's certainly not afraid to earmark request that will benefit his constituency in the state of Texas: http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2008/04/ron-pauls-earmark-requests-for-fy2009/

 

Yeah, non-interventionism would be great, but the drawdown of US troops wherever they are stationed around the globe (and the US has bases in a lot of countries) isn't gonna happen on Paul's watch anymore than it is on Obama. Here's an interesting article on the removal of US troops from Iraq.

At least with Obama, you have a fighting chance of having medical coverage. And sure some of the promises he's kept a blind mule with no testicles could have kept, but again, at least he's putting forth the appearance of effort for the average 'murican.

[SR4]

if i had to choose between withdrawal from all wars (not just Iraq, fuck that proposal) and cutting unemployment insurance, I would do it. That's just me though.

 

Paul probably voted against the Sarbanes-Oxley Act because it would never be enforced anyway. Do you see a great number of these companies ever held responsible for gross negligence? Im not saying I agree with this principle, but I can certainly understand the view: Lets pass another act in which we pay for a govt. inquiry into negligent business practices. Isn't the government supposed to be doing that in the first place? Has the passage of the act effected the ways in which the securities market runs? Would you consider it a success since its passage? Considering new IPO's are scared shitless to start up versus the continued abuse of pre-existing mega-corps, I'd have to say it hasn't changed much.

 

 

Now I do agree with saying that Paul's wanting little to no government intervention in business is naive. But considering the govt. is practically rewarding formerly American industry by outsourcing itself, there seems to be a conflict of interest. There's not an easy solution either way you look at it.

 

 

I think where I have problems with most of this personally is that there are laws already in place to prevent things like these from happening. They are hardly ever enforced, and if they are, they find one stoolie to go down while the others bailout. The answer isn't to draft legislation for another law which won't be enforced.

 

As for Obama, fair point I suppose...on that account, I refuse to support anyone that does not acknowledge the repeal of the pat act, and withdrawal as absolutely necessary for this country to survive. (Please run Kucinich)

[chenGOD]

So you're saying that complete inaction in terms of regulating the financial markets (which is what Paul proposed, he's on record as saying something like "markets will take care of the situation") is better than enacting a law which actually has seen some success? PDF here from Umaryland

Instead of simply saying new IPOs are scared shitless, wouldn't it be better to look at actual numbers? Here are two links worth perusing:

http://www.hoovers.com/about/press-releases/100000320-1.html (shows increases in IPOs until 2008)

http://www.hoovers.com/about/press-releases/100000407-1.html (shows a decrease in IPOs in 2001, pre-SOX)

And anyways, fewer IPOs simply means less chance for investors to chase invisible money up and down the stock market based on how the traders are feeling about a company.

 

I'd rather that instead of immediate withdrawal, the US troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan cede control of operations to the UN, and work hard with local authorities to have all troops (not just combat) out by March 31st of next year. If Kucinich or Howard Dean were to run, hat would offer some real progressive choice - but they're not.

[SR4]

i see from that there were some nice returns...what about after 2008? still going strong? why the sudden decline in '08? had nothing to do with abuse in the financial sector? what did the bill ultimately gain? I see the numbers went from hundreds to tens in a matter of years...surely that isn't just coincidental. There were tens prior to the passage of the bill, then post 2002 went into the hundreds, but sank down again come 2008. So based on the stats I am seeing, this was a short-term stop gap that is now another antiquated relic of enforceable market restrictions...but after the Enron scandal, I can certainly empathize with the American public pushing the legislation to do anything it could to make itself look like it was policing the market...but its a band aid over a dam fissure.

 

 

from the wiki of course:

 

The Commission's final report was initially due to Congress on December 15, 2010, but was not released until January 27, 2011.^[10] The Commission concluded that "the crisis was avoidable and was caused by: Widespread failures in financial regulation, including the Federal Reserve’s failure to stem the tide of toxic mortgages; Dramatic breakdowns in corporate governance including too many financial firms acting recklessly and taking on too much risk; An explosive mix of excessive borrowing and risk by households and Wall Street that put the financial system on a collision course with crisis; Key policy makers ill prepared for the crisis, lacking a full understanding of the financial system they oversaw; and systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all levels.“^[4][11]

 

This quote doesn't seem to illustrate that the collapse occurred due to lack of legislation, but of the failure to enforce the legislation that already existed.

 

LOL, I understand wanting to give it to the UN. But the UN is less and less willing to support our wild shoot em up's since the Bush admin. Is there evidence that the UN would undoubtedly be willing to take up such an enormous expenditure, weighing on other already economically strained and politically disillusioned European states? It seems pretty doubtful...its as if the US would say "Hey, UN, we can't afford our own fight/peacekeeping mission anymore, you guys take care of it." This seems just as idealistic as most other alternatives I have heard mentioned here.

 

 

i have to say, this thread is depressing as hell.

[Guest disparaissant]

i said a couple pages ago that im done with this, nothing is going to convince me to trust paul just like nothing is going to convince me to vote for obama again. the sheer amount of fucking assumptions you paultards make is ridiculous. ive not endorsed anything obama's done, i've merely taken umbrage with the idea what we shouldn't discuss bachmann because obama is bad. that's fucking idiotic and i stand by that statement fully. whoever said you think the government is a monarchy is fucking right, good lord you have literally no concept of how things actually work whatsoever, do you?

 

and smettingham and karma, where have i said i support obama or claimed i would vote for him? i just wouldn't vote for paul because it's too much of a tradeoff imo. if you can't respect that, just say so, don't act like im endorsing mass murder, because i'm absolutely not.

[SR4]

i said a couple pages ago that im done with this, nothing is going to convince me to trust paul just like nothing is going to convince me to vote for obama again. the sheer amount of fucking assumptions you paultards make is ridiculous. ive not endorsed anything obama's done, i've merely taken umbrage with the idea what we shouldn't discuss bachmann because obama is bad. that's fucking idiotic and i stand by that statement fully. whoever said you think the government is a monarchy is fucking right, good lord you have literally no concept of how things actually work whatsoever, do you?

 

and smettingham and karma, where have i said i support obama or claimed i would vote for him? i just wouldn't vote for paul because it's too much of a tradeoff imo. if you can't respect that, just say so, don't act like im endorsing mass murder, because i'm absolutely not.

 

i have no qualms with you. i dont think i have mentioned you, but if so I apologize for coming off that way, was not my intention. I personally feel like I was being attacked from all sides about supporting the crazy candidate. calling me a "paultard" isn't exactly endearing either.

 

My personal ethics dictate that abstaining from war, especially if it is "unjustified" (nonetheless trying to argue for such a thing as a "just war") is the most important thing I look for from a presidential platform right now. Everything else can take a backseat, or remain on the tertiary. War is so common among Americans that the utter devastation and lives lost gets lost in translation. Seeing as Paul is the only presidential candidate that I know of that wants to end the wars, I would have to ultimately back him or no one at all.

 

i guess what i mean to say is, who are you addressing exactly?

[karmakramer]

diss, I asked you who you were supporting, never did I infer you were a obama supporter. I may have used obama as an example to contrast paul but thats only because he is the current status quo

[Guest disparaissant]

fair enough it just seems like this argument keeps getting dragged back to obama vs paul and i keep trying to say its not about that but it goes right back but y'alls right. i just can't make that tradeoff, if you can, fine. i'm not really worried about him winning, no offense. and the paultard thing was over the line, i apologise.

 

mostly just amazed at awepittance. really dude?

[SR4]

i think we should all have a tug of war to settle this

[Guest disparaissant]

research is fine and all but there's really no evidence that could support the idea that no one should talk about anyone but the person who awepittance currently thinks is the Most Evil.

[SR4]

Id probably go with Palin at this juncture then. Pure snake oil salesman. People love her like they loved Glenn Beck....even moreso.

[goDel]

Ron Paul? What was his stance on the American Debt issue recently?

 

In times likes this, under these circumstances his principles would have brought the US economy back to medieval levels. Even raising the debt ceiling only brought one rating agency to downgrade the status. Guess what not raising the debt ceiling would have done.

 

I wouldn't call Paul the only real option for a presidential candidacy. He's either going to stick to his principles (and probably destroy the little economic perspective the us currently has), or fold like a piece of paper into line.

[SR4]

Ron Paul? What was his stance on the American Debt issue recently?

 

In times likes this, under these circumstances his principles would have brought the US economy back to medieval levels. Even raising the debt ceiling only brought one rating agency to downgrade the status. Guess what not raising the debt ceiling would have done.

 

I wouldn't call Paul the only real option for a presidential candidacy. He's either going to stick to his principles (and probably destroy the little economic perspective the us currently has), or fold like a piece of paper into line.

 

 

ethical principles on war, etc. etc. we have been through this.

 

look, ive said it already, im gonna stop on this topic from now on. the end of the wars take priority over any other point of issue right now. say or think what you want about me, but i'm not backing down from that.

[goDel]

Ron Paul? What was his stance on the American Debt issue recently?

 

In times likes this, under these circumstances his principles would have brought the US economy back to medieval levels. Even raising the debt ceiling only brought one rating agency to downgrade the status. Guess what not raising the debt ceiling would have done.

 

I wouldn't call Paul the only real option for a presidential candidacy. He's either going to stick to his principles (and probably destroy the little economic perspective the us currently has), or fold like a piece of paper into line.

 

 

ethical principles on war, etc. etc. we have been through this.

 

care to point me to the posts? it's difficult keeping track in these longwinded discussions.

also, at the current moment i would be more interested in his principles on economy than war. seems to me war is not the biggest of all problems. killing the war will probably also kill a piece of the american economy as well.

 

sorry if i keep running away from the murdered children/war issue.