U.S. politics isolation tank

[JMohegan]

Have you ever talked to real people or had sources other than MSNBC and Air America? You really believe that people vote republican because they don't want to pay your extra 4% tax should they ever become rich? Most people realize rich people pretty much fund the government as it is and pay well over 50% percent of their income in taxes when you add all the state, local, and sales taxes plus all the fees the government likes to tack on every time a dollar exchanges hands.

I'd track down the video of real-person Joe the Plumber chatting with Senator Obama, if I thought you'd actually watch it.

I think people vote republican for reasons that vary considerably.

The key word here dude, is work. They can go home and read the NYT's and suck boy on boy cock all night. Just don't tell.

It would be understandable if they said: Hey, you're at work, no visiting any non-work-related websites!

That's not what they said. They are blocking access to the NYT, but allowing access to, say, the Washington Times - because they don't like what the NYT published. That's creepy, man. That's just creepy as fuck.

 

[teknight]

That's not what they said. They are blocking access to the NYT, but allowing access to, say, the Washington Times - because they don't like what the NYT published. That's creepy, man. That's just creepy as fuck.

Unfortunately, you give up all semblance of democracy when you join the military, regardless of how the state you're serving is ranked by Transparency International.

 

[WriterDom]

I'd track down the video of real-person Joe the Plumber chatting with Senator Obama, if I thought you'd actually watch it.

I think people vote republican for reasons that vary considerably.


It would be understandable if they said: Hey, you're at work, no visiting any non-work-related websites!

That's not what they said. They are blocking access to the NYT, but allowing access to, say, the Washington Times - because they don't like what the NYT published. That's creepy, man. That's just creepy as fuck.

I think we all know Joe and what happened to him for asking The One a question. Joe doesn't speak for everyone, you know. Just himself. I remember it pretty well. Obama saying we need to spread the wealth around. All I see that Obama has done is spread the unemployment around.

I know, it's not Obama's fault but Clinton's economy was all due to Bill's great leadership. Funny how that works.



They blocked the sites that contained leaked documents. That's all. Don't have a hissy fit. And yes, most of the time the NYTs is creepy.

Congressman on C-Span today said the exercise, I don't want to call it a war and offend the Muslims we are blowing up, in Afghanistan is costing 12 billion a month. Wow, that's two Obama tax cuts for the rich a year. Why don't we get the fuck out of there and save a few dollars? I thought you liberals were pacifists?

Besides the human toll. You know more NATO troops have died since Obama took over the war than the entire eight years of Bush.

 

[JMohegan]

I think we all know Joe and what happened to him for asking The One a question. Joe doesn't speak for everyone, you know. Just himself. I remember it pretty well. Obama saying we need to spread the wealth around. All I see that Obama has done is spread the unemployment around.

That's what I thought. You remember candidate Obama's statement, pulled out of context and played ad nauseum by Fox et al.

As for what happened to Joe, John McCain plucked him from the obscurity he so richly deserved and made him a symbol of his campaign. Leading to inevitable embarrassment for both the plumber and the septuagenarian.

 

[Netzach]

What are we, China now? Holy shit.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704694004576019944121568506.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

This isn't that weird. The military often blacks out sites for personnel when they feel like it. "Common knowledge" often isn't especially if you're somewhere you can't say where there are bugs in your bread.

 

[Netzach]

Have you ever talked to real people or had sources other than MSNBC and Air America? You really believe that people vote republican because they don't want to pay your extra 4% tax should they ever become rich? Most people realize rich people pretty much fund the government as it is and pay well over 50% percent of their income in taxes when you add all the state, local, and sales taxes plus all the fees the government likes to tack on every time a dollar exchanges hands.

The reason the democrats enjoyed the worse asskicking since 1938 is the same reason the republicans were kicked out of power. Because they spend money like a whore on crack. Not only that, but the democrats said lets spend unprecedented amounts and the unemployment rate will fall. Well, guess what. It went the other way. So now we have Obama the tax cutter. At least he's pragmatic.

It doesn't matter. You can sit in the back of the bus until another generation comes along that you can sell this socialistic crap to. It's already dying in Europe. I hope they bury it upside down so you all can kiss Karl Marx's ass one last time.

Please tell me what this idyllic world looks like. There are no poors because they are all dead, old people don't have to eat cat food, and everyone makes 250K per annum, schools teach - what skills exactly, and with what is the GNP generated?

The fantasy that we all have a shot to clear 100K per year let alone 250 is just that - a delusional fantasy. It's selling crack to uneducated 12 year olds.

Ask most people what "rich" means and they say "1 million" or something idiotic like that. "Rich" is a controlling interest run by a fraction of the population so small that redistribution starts to sound more patriotic than the desire to keep paying taxes to support the kings. The 6th graders are still buying those lick em dots from the local thugs and feeling gooood.

 

[Netzach]

The reason the democrats enjoyed the worse asskicking since 1938 is the same reason the republicans were kicked out of power. Because they spend money like a whore on crack.

How do republicans spend money?

Other than raiding campaigns for closets and lesbian domination shows?

Oh wait, I know how republicans spend money. My state will be on the map for " large things collapsing" by the time TPaw takes to the campaign trail.

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

Have you ever talked to real people or had sources other than MSNBC and Air America? You really believe that people vote republican because they don't want to pay your extra 4% tax should they ever become rich? Most people realize rich people pretty much fund the government as it is and pay well over 50% percent of their income in taxes when you add all the state, local, and sales taxes plus all the fees the government likes to tack on every time a dollar exchanges hands.

The reason we vote Republican is because government is evil. They want my guns, they want to give my money to crackheads and let gays teach atheism and abortion in our schools. Also, I love America and believe in freedom. And I'm against class warfare; that's not the freedom that America is about! So-called rich people are against taxes, and so am I, so we stand for freedom and you hate America and freedom and God and let's get back to what this country was founded on, which is not gays and waste, I can tell you that, but instead freedom. Also, Obama is black.

The reason the democrats enjoyed the worse asskicking since 1938 is the same reason the republicans were kicked out of power. Because they spend money like a whore on crack.

Really? A Pew poll on people's national priorities, taken between Obama's election and his inauguration, shows "Deficit Reduction" coming in 9th on the list of people's concerns. That would be way behind "Jobs," of course, but also behind "Education," "Energy," and "Health Care" and barely edging out "Helping the Poor," and "Health Insurance."

I have no doubt that you were concerned about Bush's deficits, but the American people didn't really seem to care about deficits until they were Democratic deficits.

It doesn't matter. You can sit in the back of the bus until another generation comes along that you can sell this socialistic crap to. It's already dying in Europe. I hope they bury it upside down so you all can kiss Karl Marx's ass one last time.

You do realize that trying to get a few of the foxes out of the energy/environmental henhouse, attempting to plug some of the holes that gave us a financial crisis and adopting health care reform that Mitt Romney and Dick Nixon espoused is not "socialism," don't you? I mean, you do know the difference between a regulated free market and socialism, right? Fuck, I'm pretty sure Reagan would be attacked from the right today! What we have today is a block or two from Karl Rove's house, and not even in Karl Marx's zip code.

 

[Netzach]

You do realize that trying to get a few of the foxes out of the energy/environmental henhouse, attempting to plug some of the holes that gave us a financial crisis and adopting health care reform that Mitt Romney and Dick Nixon espoused is not "socialism," don't you? I mean, you do know the difference between a regulated free market and socialism, right?

Here is an irony.

An unregulated market: Do you like the superiority of Chinese products? Wanna swallow this charm?

Also: real Marxism.

Yes, Swedish-style democracy will kill us all.

 

[midwestyankee]

The reason we vote Republican is because government is evil. They want my guns, they want to give my money to crackheads and let gays teach atheism and abortion in our schools. Also, I love America and believe in freedom. And I'm against class warfare; that's not the freedom that America is about! So-called rich people are against taxes, and so am I, so we stand for freedom and you hate America and freedom and God and let's get back to what this country was founded on, which is not gays and waste, I can tell you that, but instead freedom. Also, Obama is black.



Really? A Pew poll on people's national priorities, taken between Obama's election and his inauguration, shows "Deficit Reduction" coming in 9th on the list of people's concerns. That would be way behind "Jobs," of course, but also behind "Education," "Energy," and "Health Care" and barely edging out "Helping the Poor," and "Health Insurance."

I have no doubt that you were concerned about Bush's deficits, but the American people didn't really seem to care about deficits until they were Democratic deficits.



You do realize that trying to get a few of the foxes out of the energy/environmental henhouse, attempting to plug some of the holes that gave us a financial crisis and adopting health care reform that Mitt Romney and Dick Nixon espoused is not "socialism," don't you? I mean, you do know the difference between a regulated free market and socialism, right? Fuck, I'm pretty sure Reagan would be attacked from the right today! What we have today is a block or two from Karl Rove's house, and not even in Karl Marx's zip code.

DGE, you might as well save your pixels.

 

[rosco rathbone]

A little light entertainment....

http://www.redstate.com/laborunionr...t-or-not-mexico-is-americas-next-afghanistan/

 

[Netzach]

A little light entertainment....

http://www.redstate.com/laborunionr...t-or-not-mexico-is-americas-next-afghanistan/

Interesting isn't it?

So what's happening is now that we've been world police comfortably for a decade it's on to the next sovereignty so long as our "interests" are being involved.

Sounds familiar.

However, in this case, you can certainly see the other side to this. It's not like Juarez is *new* news. It's not like this doesn't affect us. It's probably something that could have used more attention over the last 30 years, but we were happy to back the PRI no matter how bad it smelled.

So Teddy Roosevelt fantasies are looming large again. Nothing new.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Interesting isn't it?

So what's happening is now that we've been world police comfortably for a decade it's on to the next sovereignty so long as our "interests" are being involved.

Sounds familiar.

However, in this case, you can certainly see the other side to this. It's not like Juarez is *new* news. It's not like this doesn't affect us. It's probably something that could have used more attention over the last 30 years, but we were happy to back the PRI no matter how bad it smelled.

So Teddy Roosevelt fantasies are looming large again. Nothing new.

I've been saying tongue-in-cheek for years that we ought to invade and turn the northern Mexican states into a "free enterprise buffer zone" under control of a (US-dominated) NAFTA Administration with minimal regulations and no taxes. Once again reality outpaces irony.

 

[midwestyankee]

A little light entertainment....

http://www.redstate.com/laborunionr...t-or-not-mexico-is-americas-next-afghanistan/

Imperial hubris knows no bounds, especially when it might mean big-ass profits for Halliburton and friends.

 

[teknight]

I hate to be the pro druggie at any time..but, you know, the war on drugs has turned into a civil war. Cool, huh?

Alas, what would be the consequences of decriminalizing the drug trade at this point? The cartels would probably still duke it out for the money...although, decriminalized drugs would probably be cheaper since there'd be no risk associated with their transportation. Where does the mark up on drugs come from, other than the end product being an inelastic good? And yet, drug prices fluctuate with supply (going up when there's a shortage and down when there's a glut)

*goes off to ponder the econ of drugs*

 

[midwestyankee]

Study Confirms that Fox News Makes You Stupid

All the truth, from a truly fair and balanced survey.

And face it, any time you can read the entire survey along with a complete explanation of the survey's methodology, you know you're looking at something done objectively. All the rest like to hide their questions and methodology.

 

[teknight]

All the truth, from a truly fair and balanced survey.

And face it, any time you can read the entire survey along with a complete explanation of the survey's methodology, you know you're looking at something done objectively. All the rest like to hide their questions and methodology.

Damn. Democracy sucks!
Quote from your link:

Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely), most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points), the economy is getting worse (26 points), most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points), the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points), their own income taxes have gone up (14 points), the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points), when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points) and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points). The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it--though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican.

 

[WriterDom]

It would be much easier to build a fence on the southern end of Mexico rather than the north. It shouldn't take long to take it over. 72 hours tops. At the same time we (Peacefully) take over Canada. Butter them up by giving them the choicest properties in Mexico. Meanwhile, we send about 50 million Mexicans into Canada to build settlements and harvest the resources. Responsibly harvest that is. You know, replanting and green stuff. It could even be seasonal work since the winters are so harsh. Unless they want to winter over and get free health care.

Call it the American Union. After about twenty years we'd have to push on south into South America since they are pretty much commies anyway. All the way to the Brazilian border. Brazil will probably be superpower by then, but we can work with them. They make love, not war.

 

[intothewoods]

And now for some levity: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-14-2010/the-best-f--king-news-team-won-t-stop-ever

 

[WriterDom]

Oh stop with the job saved bullshit. Didn't Joe Biden make that up? Please tell me no one else in this country is that ignorant. Lets stop with that nonsense and count things that are countable like job gains and job loses.

Obama didn't suck that bad. Yeah, the democrats lost 63 net seats in the House, but the total seats saved by the stimulus bill was 131. That makes as much sense.

And we don't know how much Romney/ObamaCare will cost. I believe I posted a link where RomneyCare is already costing twice as much in Mass And if that's true, well, that's really great for a government estimate. Usually they are off by 3 or 4 times the amount.

 

[Homburg]

You do realize that trying to get a few of the foxes out of the energy/environmental henhouse, attempting to plug some of the holes that gave us a financial crisis and adopting health care reform that Mitt Romney and Dick Nixon espoused is not "socialism," don't you? I mean, you do know the difference between a regulated free market and socialism, right? Fuck, I'm pretty sure Reagan would be attacked from the right today! What we have today is a block or two from Karl Rove's house, and not even in Karl Marx's zip code.

This.

--

A little light entertainment....

http://www.redstate.com/laborunionr...t-or-not-mexico-is-americas-next-afghanistan/

Or we could save untold lives, and untold billions and billions of dollars and just decriminalise drugs. Pull the rug out from under the whole lot of them and watch the whole collapse.

--

I hate to be the pro druggie at any time..but, you know, the war on drugs has turned into a civil war. Cool, huh?

Alas, what would be the consequences of decriminalizing the drug trade at this point? The cartels would probably still duke it out for the money...although, decriminalized drugs would probably be cheaper since there'd be no risk associated with their transportation. Where does the mark up on drugs come from, other than the end product being an inelastic good? And yet, drug prices fluctuate with supply (going up when there's a shortage and down when there's a glut)

*goes off to ponder the econ of drugs*

It's actually really fascinating stuff. There are examples of countries that have decriminalised drugs. Portugal is one, off the top of my head. While they're suffering right now, it's due to the general economic malaise in Europe, not due to drugs running rampant.

--

It would be much easier to build a fence on the southern end of Mexico rather than the north. It shouldn't take long to take it over. 72 hours tops. At the same time we (Peacefully) take over Canada. Butter them up by giving them the choicest properties in Mexico. Meanwhile, we send about 50 million Mexicans into Canada to build settlements and harvest the resources. Responsibly harvest that is. You know, replanting and green stuff. It could even be seasonal work since the winters are so harsh. Unless they want to winter over and get free health care.

Call it the American Union. After about twenty years we'd have to push on south into South America since they are pretty much commies anyway. All the way to the Brazilian border. Brazil will probably be superpower by then, but we can work with them. They make love, not war.

This is a doubly amusing idea coming from you given that taking over Canada would swing us left so damned hard that no republican would ever get into office again.

 

[teknight]

Or we could save untold lives, and untold billions and billions of dollars and just decriminalise drugs. Pull the rug out from under the whole lot of them and watch the whole collapse.

It's actually really fascinating stuff. There are examples of countries that have decriminalised drugs. Portugal is one, off the top of my head. While they're suffering right now, it's due to the general economic malaise in Europe, not due to drugs running rampant.

I did not know about Portugal...and I was ready to swear up and down about Denmark (doesn't seem to be the case AT ALL ). Thanks for that.
For anyone that wants to read up on it, here's an article from Time magazine about decriminalization in Portugal.

Back to your first point (as quoted by me): I wonder if legalizing drugs wouldn't intensify the drug war at this point? I mean, if prices went down (assuming that the illegality of drugs and the risk that entails is what drives up prices), there'd be fewer profits, so the competition for those profits would ramp up. I mean, it probably would quiet down after a point...


Damn, I don't like making pro drug arguments, much as I believe they should be decriminalized...

 

[Homburg]

I did not know about Portugal...and I was ready to swear up and down about Denmark (doesn't seem to be the case AT ALL ). Thanks for that.
For anyone that wants to read up on it, here's an article from Time magazine about decriminalization in Portugal.

Back to your first point (as quoted by me): I wonder if legalizing drugs wouldn't intensify the drug war at this point? I mean, if prices went down (assuming that the illegality of drugs and the risk that entails is what drives up prices), there'd be fewer profits, so the competition for those profits would ramp up. I mean, it probably would quiet down after a point...


Damn, I don't like making pro drug arguments, much as I believe they should be decriminalized...

Sure, there would be an enormous flare-up of violence, guaranteed, and the cartels in existence now would scramble to legitimise their business to ensure cashflow. And, sadly, they would likely win, and retain control, so the same fuckheads at the top now would still be rolling in money.

Where the major difference would lie would be the middle and lower level traffickers. They would simply be ass out and their money flow would utterly stop. They will not be able to get jobs in the newly legalised drug industry because they won't have the background. In all likelihood, they'll move into other forms of crime, or something like meth, which is locally produceable. They won't suddenly go straight, but they also will have nowhere near the money/resources available as they do now. It will also obviate the cause of turf wars, as they won't have a need to hold said turf. It won't be as valuable.

I would personally expect a spate of violence and unrest. Transition is never ever easy. I would also not expect crime to magically disappear. It won't. Look to prohibition. The mafia was built by money and power through trafficking of alcohol. Their existing infrastructure did not go away, but it did lessen. Their violence levels likewise dropped significantly.

 

[intothewoods]

I swear I don't get all my news and information from The Daily Show and Colbert Report.

What the fuck, seriously: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-december-16-2010/worst-responders

But his is just funny: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-co.../december-16-2010/jesus-is-a-liberal-democrat

You don't want to mess with Stephen Colbert on Christianity. He teaches Sunday School!

 

[WriterDom]

We could give a tax credit to democrat congressmen to stay home and get a Twitter when a vote is up and vote by email. I know you people think tax credits are the same as tax cuts so that would be a good thing.

Nothing is going to pass the House anyway in the next two years that isn't going to meet the veto pen. No real point in having an office staff in Washington either. For what? Speeches on C-Span that no one in their right mind gives a shit about? In fact, I agree with Jindal that the House could be a part time job. Like it is in Georgia. 40 days out of the year. Build military barracks and house them two to a room for 40 days. That would bring some humility to them, anyway. Maybe they would retire at 65 instead of "working" until they were 123.