Call the USA election [Archive] - Unicyclist Community

feel the light

2008-01-07, 03:33 AM

Obama's big problem was doubt that a black man can win. Taking the Hill by 9 points in a white state is huge. He will win the nom by bashing Hill, advocating himself as the agent of change, while Hill is old money. Edwards will finish near Hill, and will get the Veep cause Hill has stronger negatives in the general election, she has the highest neg ratings. Edwards will be a more natural choice. Mr. Agent of change can't run that way with old Hill Dog chained around his collar. So it's for sure Obama- Edwards.

Romney has no chance. He got elected Gov of Mass. because they don't care about religion there, they like money. The Mormon thing is just plain screwy to the Baptist base of the blues party. That's why Huck is rising, he makes stupid republicans feel smart and correct in their heads. Huck can't pick Mr. 911 cause he's actually a godless liberal wrapped in a war flag. Mc Cain is the perfect match, and I think he will poll as well as Mr. 911. He is the strongest, centrist guy on the blue team, the man to have in the general election.

So there you have it. The Dem's will win cause the overall electorate is 70 % opposed to Bush, and a Huck- Mc Cain "stay the course while praising Jesus" rap will get 40% of the popular vote, tops.

Ron Paul will continue to pull 10 % +. But he won't place better then third by the end, and won't get the veep cause he's not a team player.

cowsrutterlysexy

2008-01-07, 04:02 AM

I'm gonna have to say Obama and Clinton, Romney and Huckabee.
Democrats take all, the country wants change.

sutton629

2008-01-07, 04:21 AM

Hmm, interesting. Does that mean OJ would have been president? Would he have been impeached too or would he have been able to get away with it?

both Bill and OJ got off with it so yeah I think he would get away with it.

yoopers

2008-01-07, 04:38 AM

I'm gonna have to say Obama and Clinton, Romney and Huckabee.
Democrats take all, the country wants change.
Every election, everyone screams for change. Change, change, change. It's quite the buzzword, always the same, always annoying, and forever screamed by the gullible. It's the only thing that doesn't change.

Here's my new year's resolution. I for one don't want change. I will not be part of this trend of brainless blather. I hearby vow to eliminate the word "change" from my vocabulary until after the election next November.

cowsrutterlysexy

2008-01-07, 04:41 AM

Every election, everyone screams for change. Change, change, change. It's quite the buzzword, always the same, always annoying, and forever screamed by the gullible. It's the only thing that doesn't change.

Here's my new year's resolution. I for one don't want change. I will not be part of this trend of brainless blather. I hearby vow to eliminate the word "change" from my vocabulary until after the election next November.
good thought....
I said the country, that doesn't necessarily mean change.
I just want the war to end.

yoopers

2008-01-07, 04:45 AM

good thought....
I said the country, that doesn't necessarily mean change.
I just want the war to end.
Ah, a one-topic voter, eh? Same here.

cowsrutterlysexy

2008-01-07, 04:47 AM

well, a one topic thinker anyway.

yoopers

2008-01-07, 04:48 AM

well, a one topic thinker anyway.
Well, truthfulness is always best. I won't try to chang....oops, you almost caught me...I mean, persuade you to develop another avenue of thought.

MuniAddict

2008-01-07, 04:52 AM

Hmm, interesting. Does that mean OJ would have been president? Would he have been impeached too or would he have been able to get away with it?I think the implication was that OJ would have murdered her instead of Nichole Brown, thus, no more Hillary.

johnfoss

2008-01-07, 06:36 AM

Change, change, change. It's quite the buzzword, always the same, always annoying, and forever screamed by the gullible. It's the only thing that doesn't change.I thought it was screamed *to* the gullible. Yes, a lot of us want change. Question is, will we get it? Even from a candidate that wants to make a lot of changes, there still has to be cooperation. The "old guard" and the corporate world are often forces against change, so the battle will be an interesting one.

I'd offer a prediction but I'm still trying to figure out why so many Americans voted for W. in 2004...

feel the light

2008-01-07, 07:21 AM

LOL !:) Politics is a complex , often not so fun, argumentative subject. The point of MY THREAD, LOL :) is not to cause debate about candidates, but rather , to test prediction abilities.

Anyway, thanks to all posters, there will be some political ranting, etc.;)

I am hoping that people on this forum will take a shot at predicting the future. Explaining why is optional, but kinda interesting. There are other threads to talk about who you would vote for. This thread is about what you think the rest of the idiots (hey, they elected Bush Co. twice !:rolleyes: ) will do. This is your chance to play crystal ball. So take a shot. Just remember that you can predict the victory of someone you wouldn't vote for. This is about how shiny your crystal ball is, not about what you want or believe. So take a shot.:) Non USA riders can play as well. I am sure many of you have opinions on the wisdom of the Yankee voter.

yoopers

2008-01-07, 02:51 PM

I thought it was screamed *to* the gullible. Yes, a lot of us want change. Question is, will we get it? Even from a candidate that wants to make a lot of changes, there still has to be cooperation. The "old guard" and the corporate world are often forces against change, so the battle will be an interesting one.Yep, I stand corrected, John. Thanks.

As I tell my boys, anyone can claim anything in a TV commercial.

I'd offer a prediction but I'm still trying to figure out why so many Americans voted for W. in 2004...
Probably because he was screaming, "Change, change, change!" Typical Americanism; grass is always greener, gimme, gimme, gimme what I want NOW!, if I don't like it or it doesn't make ME happy, I'll dispose of it and move on until I get what I want, fast food & instant potatoes are best, yellow lights mean get out of the way because I'm more important than you, and "I don't care if I'm 12 and you're 79, I'm still going to call you by your first name.

steveyo

2008-01-07, 03:06 PM

My prediction:

Edwards/Obama v. McCain/Huckabee

Oddly enough, Dick Cheney will win.

AlanChambers

2008-01-07, 04:48 PM

In a fair election, the American public are sick to death of Republican lies and duplicity. They want some Democratic lies for a change - at least those mainly involve minor personal indiscretions rather than the non-existence of WMDs.

In the real election, Diebold et al will win. Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything. No one likes to think their elections are rigged, but who in their right mind would design a voting machine with no paper audit trail, and who would accept top secret software with such an astonishingly poor defect record? Something fishy here.

Not much to choose between the candidates, anyway. None of them will do anything that is not sanctioned by the corporate lobbies and AIPAC. Even so, Democrats would be far preferable to the theocratically-inspired Republicans.

Al

Spoonthumb

2008-01-07, 04:51 PM

In a fair election, the American public are sick to death of Republican lies and duplicity.

lol if i remember right it was hillary clinton who was"agianst the war before she voted for it" Lol she wouldnt be a bad canidate if she would actually make up her mind on some issues

steveyo

2008-01-07, 05:05 PM

lol if i remember right it was hillary clinton who was"agianst the war before she voted for it"
That was Kerry.

Spoonthumb

2008-01-07, 05:19 PM

That was Kerry.

i know kerry said it but i could have sworn clinton said something similar...anyways

feelthelight is probably right, Mcain and huckabee and Obama and edwards. Republicans take it

Gilby

2008-01-07, 05:20 PM

Not much to choose between the candidates, anyway. None of them will do anything that is not sanctioned by the corporate lobbies and AIPAC. Ahem, have I told you about Ron Paul yet?

Bondo

2008-01-07, 05:49 PM

Magic Eight ball says:

Hillary/Obama -VS- McCain/Huckabee.

and so do I...

AlanChambers

2008-01-07, 11:42 PM

Gilby said: Ahem, have I told you about Ron Paul yet?

Hmmm.... I don't think it is really necessary to rehearse my opinions of the frontier fantasies at the core of libertarian politics.

Al

BillyTheMountain

2008-01-08, 12:19 AM

Magic Eight ball says:

Hillary/Obama -VS- McCain/Huckabee.

and so do I...

Hillary/Obama?!

He'd be a fool to select her as a running mate.

My prediction: the new boss will be the same as the old boss.

UniTyler

2008-01-08, 12:25 AM

My prediction: the new boss will be the same as the old boss.

Literally? Now that's scary, yet surprisingly possible.

cowsrutterlysexy

2008-01-13, 11:51 PM

Hillary/Obama?!

He'd be a fool to select her as a running mate.

Sure, but if he did they could rack up a whole bunch of votes..

maestro8

2008-01-14, 02:23 AM

I predict that, no matter who is elected, there will still be many people b!tching and whining about our president. Status quo.

feel the light

2008-01-14, 04:57 PM

http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/01/14/edwards-takes-sides-in-clinton-controversy/
Now as long as Huck can ride the Colbert bump over SC, I should be looking good.:)

yoopers

2008-01-14, 05:56 PM

I predict that, no matter who is elected, there will still be many people whining about our president. Status quo.
I also predict that, no matter who is elected, in four years, the 'change-worshipping' crowd will scream for change all over again.

yoopers

2008-01-24, 12:39 PM

I also predict that, no matter who is elected, in four years, the 'change-worshipping' crowd will scream for change all over again.
This is great!

http://youtube.com/hmatkin

GILD

2008-01-24, 01:04 PM

I think it was 'Yer Old Pal Yerky' (used to write a stunning political blog, now defunct) who dismissed the possibility of a third term for George W Bush with the chilling 'the hand will want to switch puppets'.

UniBrier

2008-01-24, 01:43 PM

This is great! Good one!

Unfortunately I don't think any of them are talking about a little more change in my pocket.

Prediction: Fred Thompson won't be our next prez.

wobbling bear

2008-01-24, 02:06 PM

as stated in the economist newspaper europeans are interested by this election but:
- they do not know many candidates
- know that whatever the candidate they like best he/she will be defending America's interests (so europe's sympathy is pointless).

as far as I know I appreciate McCain (but do not know Romney)
and Clinton or Obama (but do not know much about Edwards).

alas we tend to snob many personalities because of culture clash:
Huckabee sent us wondering ... for him abortion is a public problem but poverty is a private thing ... in most of Europe we think the reverse is true.

steveyo

2008-01-24, 02:28 PM

Huckabee sent us wondering ... for him abortion is a public problem but poverty is a private thing ... in most of Europe we think the reverse is true.+2!

Rumor has is that Huckabee will choose Jesus Christ as his running mate. Then, if something happens to Huck, we'll have our first Jewish president!:D

Wheel Rider

2008-01-24, 05:52 PM

LOL !:) Politics is a complex , often not so fun, argumentative subject. The point of MY THREAD, LOL :) is not to cause debate about candidates, but rather , to test prediction abilities.
....

My prediction is the Republican party will win. Clinton or Obama will get the Democrat nomination and when election day comes the American voters will not support a "minority".

This reflects my prediction, not necessarily my views.

phlegm

2008-01-24, 06:06 PM

Aren't women a majority? Or does Hillary not count as a woman? :D

johnfoss

2008-01-24, 08:14 PM

My prediction is the Republican party will win. Clinton or Obama will get the Democrat nomination and when election day comes the American voters will not support a "minority".Chilling, and I can see it happening also. A lot of us vote for silly reasons. If you're voting for a party, a sex, a color or a religion, pardon me for saying so but I don't think you're looking at the big picture.

People always bitch and whine about the president, even during the time between the election and the swearing-in. In most cases these people voted for a party and the winner was from the other one. They don't give the individual a chance.

For those of you who get to vote in this upcoming election, please do two things:
1. Actually vote
2. Pick the person you think will be best for this country, not just for you

On second thought, if you *do* plan on voting for a party, a religion, a sex or a color, kindly skip #1.

Prediction:
This electorate was dumb enough to vote for George W. on the second go-round. There's no telling what they'll come up with this time. And then there's the possibility of tampering after the voting is done...

forrestunifreak

2008-01-24, 08:15 PM

My prediction is the Republican party will win. Clinton or Obama will get the Democrat nomination and when election day comes the American voters will not support a "minority".

This reflects my prediction, not necessarily my views.

I predict the Republican nominee will win, whoever it may be, not because the two leading democrats are a "minority" but because they just aren't electable enough. Hillary Clinton is hated by an awful lot of people, supposedly even a large amount of Democrats don't like her.

Barrack Obama is a hollow shell who's main issue is the word "change", and although he is popular with that now, it will hurt him in the general election.

phlegm

2008-01-24, 11:32 PM

Hillary Clinton is hated by an awful lot of people, supposedly even a large amount of Democrats don't like her.

Yeah, but if she were to win the party vote, depending on whom the Republican candidate turns out to be, I wouldn't be surprised if those hating Democrats put their hatred aside. I know I would definitely pick her over at least some of the Republicans, and I'm registered independent.

Barrack Obama is a hollow shell who's main issue is the word "change", and although he is popular with that now, it will hurt him in the general election.

How do you know his popularity will fade if he makes it to the general election? I'm sorry, but it sounds like you're just repeating what you heard a political commentator say.

forrestunifreak

2008-01-24, 11:39 PM

Yeah, but if she were to win the party vote, depending on whom the Republican candidate turns out to be, I wouldn't be surprised if those hating Democrats put their hatred aside.

Haha, true, you may be right there.

How do you know his popularity will fade if he makes it to the general election? I'm sorry, but it sounds like you're just repeating what you heard a political commentator say.

Actually I'm not. I just typed out the first thing that came to my head. I don't know anything, that's just what my "feeling" is, that some of the less liberal undecideds and independents will sway the other way in the general election.

At least I sure hope so. ;)

steveyo

2008-01-24, 11:56 PM

Barrack Obama is a hollow shell ...You, a pro-Bush guy, says that about Obama?

I couldn't disagree more. The man is intelligent, articulate, and has many good, innovative ideas.

An example is that he puts a high priority on retooling US Auto factories to make more efficient cars. And he proposes offering incentives that reward forest owners, farmers, and ranchers when they plant trees, restore grasslands, or undertake farming practices that capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

He's also strong on education, particularly that of the youngest children. The lack of good day-care and comprehensive pre-school programs is a leading indicator of major problems later in life like drugs and crime. Obama is proposing Early Learning Challenge Grants to promote state "zero to five" efforts and help states move toward voluntary, universal pre-school.

He also has many other solid plans and proposals. He is far from an empty shell. Gather your own information instead of regurgitating what you're told by others.

Finally, an important thing about him, or Clinton, or McCain, for that matter, is that they're not lazy, incurious people. Any of them would remain deeply involved and interested in pressing issues, like, say, a intelligence report entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike US".

johnfoss

2008-01-25, 12:16 AM

Funny how the ads at the bottom of the page reflect the content on the page. The last two I've seen (in this thread) were both about choosing candidates.

I don't think Forrest is too worried about who the Democrats will nominate. I figure him for voting by party regardless of who wins the nominations. Forrest, will you be 18 in time to vote?

I think Obama needs to focus on more taglines than "Change" for the reasons Yoopers explained. Change by itself is generic, and doesn't say where it's going. If it's away from W. it's a good direction but that's still pretty vague. But W. did not run a campaign for change in 2004, did he? He's been all about staying the course. I'm for changing course.

UniBrier

2008-01-25, 04:06 PM

a little more change in my pocket.I posted that yesterday and this ran in today's comics. Coincidence? I think not. They're watching us...

.

forrestunifreak

2008-01-25, 04:26 PM

The man is intelligent, articulate, and has many good, innovative ideas.

Finally, an important thing about him, or Clinton, or McCain, for that matter, is that they're not lazy, incurious people.

Agreed.

Although you'd better be careful calling Obama articulate, that's grounds for racism right there. :rolleyes:

mornish

2008-01-25, 04:30 PM

It would be really scary if Huckabee won.

GO HILLDAWG!

:)

forrestunifreak

2008-01-25, 04:48 PM

I don't think Forrest is too worried about who the Democrats will nominate. I figure him for voting by party regardless of who wins the nominations. Forrest, will you be 18 in time to vote?

Well, Obama probably worries me more, I think he could be harder to beat in the general election. But we'll just have to wait and see.

In this election I would take any one of the republican candidates over any one of the democrat candidates any day.
I care about the conservative issues, the values, the principals, not the party. However unlikely, I would have no problems voting for a democrat should the situation arise. Although there is no one in the democratic party I know of that I would willingly vote for, unless it was choosing the lesser of two evils, so to speak.

Yes sir, I turn 18 on April 22. I'm not sure exactly when the Montana primaries are, but supposedly Montana is going to do some kind of caucus this election. I will be voting in the general election at least, even if it means choosing the lesser of two evils. With the remaining Rep. candidates, a less then ideal nominee sounds pretty likely for me. I dare say, most of them aren't conservative enough in some areas.

JJuggle

2008-01-25, 04:51 PM

I would have no problems voting for a democrat should the situation arise.
You may get lucky and David Duke will run again as a democrat. (Boy was this a low blow).

Spoonthumb

2008-01-25, 04:51 PM

I dare say, most of them aren't conservative enough in some areas.

true dat

Wheel Rider

2008-01-25, 09:23 PM

... unless it was choosing the lesser of two evils, so to speak.
...
Sadly, I think that is how most people vote.

phlegm

2008-01-25, 09:40 PM

GO HILLDAWG!

Watch out for the snuke? :p

Spoonthumb

2008-01-28, 05:02 PM

I am scared of both Hillary and Obama. Out of all the democratic canidates Edwards is the one who scares me the least. Mitt Romny scares me too. I hope that it ends up with McCain and Julieonne (sp).

forrestunifreak

2008-01-28, 05:59 PM

I am scared of both Hillary and Obama. Out of all the democratic canidates Edwards is the one who scares me the least. Mitt Romny scares me too. I hope that it ends up with McCain and Julieonne (sp).

Apart from the mormon thing, why don't you like Romney?

Edwards doesn't seem to have a chance.

johnfoss

2008-01-28, 06:36 PM

I am scared of both Hillary and Obama. Out of all the democratic canidates Edwards is the one who scares me the least.With the guy we currently have in office, how can *any* of those candidates be scary? :p Even McCain doesn't scare me. Thanks to term limits we finally get "somebody else."

"Apart from the Mormon thing?" I would have no problems trusting a president with a Mormon background (as much as anyone else). Do people really think he'd try to turn the country Mormon? Really? A good president uses his religious background as a foundation for hopefully making good decisions. When I hear fear of the "Mormon guy" it sounds like people fearing what they don't understand.

Please people, try to evaluate these candidates based on their platform values and actual record of past performance. It would help if we had a say in their cabinets as well, but we don't so those are the aspects that should matter the most.

Gilby

2008-01-28, 08:14 PM

With the guy we currently have in office, how can *any* of those candidates be scary? :p
You'd be wise to take your own advice and actually look at these guys, cause they are very scary.

Please people, try to evaluate these candidates based on their platform values and actual record of past performance. It would help if we had a say in their cabinets as well, but we don't so those are the aspects that should matter the most.
Just cross off all the people who are neoconservatives or progressives.

forrestunifreak

2008-01-28, 08:20 PM

Please people, try to evaluate these candidates based on their platform values and actual record of past performance.

I am. I like Mitt Romney best out of the remaining candidates for that very reason.

phlegm

2008-01-28, 08:26 PM

I like collectivism in moderation. What's so scary about associating with other people?

Gilby

2008-01-28, 08:34 PM

I like collectivism in moderation. What's so scary about associating with other people? Nothing when it's entirely voluntary.

phlegm

2008-01-28, 08:39 PM

Nothing when it's entirely voluntary.

Is this like being forced to share the trails with non-unicyclists?

Gilby

2008-01-28, 08:59 PM

Is this like being forced to share the trails with non-unicyclists?

Who owns the property? If I own the property and am forced to allow someone else to use it, then that's not voluntary. If some private entity owns the property and allows use with certain terms, nobody is being forced because you are voluntarily using it under those terms.

We're talking about collectivism as a political philosophy, not as voluntary associations.

phlegm

2008-01-28, 09:05 PM

Who owns the property?

How do you define property ownership? A mob came from somewhere else and kicked the natives out? Now, property ownership depends upon being in a high enough economic class (mob). The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. Isn't it just mob rule?

Gilby

2008-01-28, 09:17 PM

How do you define property ownership? A mob came from somewhere else and kicked the natives out? Now, property ownership depends upon being in a high enough economic class (mob). The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. Isn't it just mob rule?
Yes, that is mob rule. In a free society, property ownership wouldn't be obtained through force.

In a free soceity, property ownership comes by homesteading the property, that means nobody else was using it before and your use of that property now makes it yours.

As for mob rule, yes, that is exactly what democracy is. I don't support democracy, which is also a form of collectivism. I support the Philosophy of Liberty (http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PhilosophyOfLiberty-english_music.swf).

critter

2008-01-28, 09:20 PM

John McCain came to my house once, that I know of. I was living at the parents house in AZ. I was home alone watching TV. He rang on my door bell. I opened. He shook my hand and asked me if I had any questions for him. I told him "no". THen he said something like "blah blah blah". I said ," Good Luck.":p
That's when he got elected Senator for the 1st time. circa '80s or late '70s:confused:

I'll call for him!!!..... so this story can grow and grow.

phlegm

2008-01-28, 09:51 PM

In a free soceity, property ownership comes by homesteading the property, that means nobody else was using it before and your use of that property now makes it yours.

Where is there land that nobody else has used? Antarctica?

I'm going to sneak up Half Dome and make my claim while no one is looking! :D

feel the light

2008-01-29, 07:43 AM

It's not looking so good for Huck. I am especially surprised by Mc Cain's resurgent strength. Mormon's are so flaky, even Christians will notice. But Mitt may very well power through super Tuesday. O. K. , I'm not so good with my republican crystal ball. But I do take some pleasure in forecasting Mr. 911 dieing a terrible death in my state. Single digit terror.

I'm looking better with my bro Obama. Edwards has to survive super Tuesday, and stay in the race. Otherwise Obama will pick Ophara to run with. Just kidding, but he may go with a wild card VP choice, if Edwards cans it after Tuesday.
If Edwards pulls hopelessly small on Tuesday, but stays in anyway, you will know why.:cool:

AlanChambers

2008-01-29, 01:38 PM

In a free soceity, property ownership comes by homesteading the property, that means nobody else was using it before and your use of that property now makes it yours.

So what level of resources is required to support 6 billion (and growing) people enjoying this type of freedom? Does the Earth have such resources? How big is a homestead anyway? Who decides? Is it finders keepers for the first billion people and the rest have to go without? This doesn't sound very practical to me.

Say everyone gets a tiny patch, and your patch is less productive than your neighbour's. You can't feed yourself no matter how hard you work, and your neighbour doesn't have quite enough to sell some to you (assuming you had resources to pay). You can starve or you can steal (or worse). From this point, it is not long before your idealistic political notions are replaced by rather more pragmatic survival instincts. If you want to live, that is.

Of course, you're free to move to an empty planet, aren't you, just as soon as the enormous collective enterprises of finding it, terraforming it, and creating transport links to it are complete, and assuming you can sell your unproductive land for enough money to pay for the ticket. :)

Purest fantasy.

Al

Gilby

2008-01-29, 04:23 PM

So what level of resources is required to support 6 billion (and growing) people enjoying this type of freedom? Does the Earth have such resources? How big is a homestead anyway? Who decides? Is it finders keepers for the first billion people and the rest have to go without? This doesn't sound very practical to me.

The freedom of property ownership? Well, if they made it out of the womb, their is apparently enough resources for them to own property, that being their body. From their use of their labor, they can acquire more property.

It's not about finder's keepers, but about actually putting effort into the property. Mixing your labor with an object to produce something to satisfy your needs. For example, clearing and cultivating unused land. How much you decide to use is up to how much you think you need. You're not going to do it to more land than you need because that would be a waste of your efforts.

Purest fantasy.

I'm waiting to hear your explanation of how property ownership comes into being and who has ultimate authority to determine it.

AlanChambers

2008-01-29, 06:14 PM

The freedom of property ownership? Well, if they made it out of the womb, their is apparently enough resources for them to own property, that being their body. From their use of their labor, they can acquire more property.

You seem to be saying that a person should sink or swim from the moment of birth based on their own efforts. Good luck with that. A baby requires food and a lot of other stuff but does not have the ability to acquire these things through labour. A child requires an education to improve its earnings potential, so I guess it has to fit classes in between shifts climbing up chimneys to pay for them.

In fact, I'd have thought the mother would own the child, since it is the product of *her* labours (no pun intended). She has expended resources to allow the child to grow inside her. A family would seem to be a strongly collective organisation - and the obligations are not always entirely voluntary - are we getting rid of those too? I guess when the mother needs a bit of extra cash she is free to sell her child into slavery, or for meat.

Anyway, my point was that there is only so much property to go around. This invariably becomes concentrated in the hands of a few, especially when the polity employs no regulation of this. There are going to be conflicts over resources whenever they are limited. How are these conflicts to be resolved?

Your position appears to be ideological: an attempt to propose a coherent political philosophy out of a personal desire to have noone else telling you what to do. I can see why this is desirable, but that doesn't mean your ideology actually is coherent, nor that it will work if applied in practice. It appears, like Marxism (also with some desirable goals), to be at odds with human nature. We are social apes. We evolved this behaviour because it was beneficial to us as selfish individuals. Surely a society, any society, by definition entails a certain amount of collectivism as well as individualism. Properly managed, it can make life better for everyone.

I'm not a conservative, but I found this article quite interesting: http://www.amconmag.com/2005_03_14/article1.html

Al

Gilby

2008-01-29, 09:09 PM

In fact, I'd have thought the mother would own the child, since it is the product of *her* labours (no pun intended). She has expended resources to allow the child to grow inside her. A family would seem to be a strongly collective organisation - and the obligations are not always entirely voluntary - are we getting rid of those too? I guess when the mother needs a bit of extra cash she is free to sell her child into slavery, or for meat.

No, a parent does not own a child, they are simply the trustee or guardian of the child. A child does have the inalienable rights to life, liberty and property.

Anyway, my point was that there is only so much property to go around. This invariably becomes concentrated in the hands of a few, especially when the polity employs no regulation of this. There are going to be conflicts over resources whenever they are limited. How are these conflicts to be resolved?

Concentration of property happens from the use of force and coercion. Not possible if we adhered to liberty.

Surely a society, any society, by definition entails a certain amount of collectivism as well as individualism. Properly managed, it can make life better for everyone.

Voluntary associations are completely acceptable, and that is called individualism. Forcing people to be associated is collectivism.

I'm not a conservative, but I found this article quite interesting: http://www.amconmag.com/2005_03_14/article1.html

That author appears clueless as to what libertarianism is.

AlanChambers

2008-01-29, 10:30 PM

That author appears clueless as to what libertarianism is.

I had a feeling this would be your response. Ho hum.

AlanChambers

2008-01-29, 10:55 PM

Concentration of property happens from the use of force and coercion. Not possible if we adhered to liberty.

Do you know any people who would do this? No matter how dire their circumstances?

What happens if your hard-working libertarian neighbours suffer an environmental catastrophe not of their making which means they will starve? The destruction of their property is irrevocable. None of the other libertarians in the area, including you, choose to help or offer work, or anything, which is their prerogative. No one saw fit to create a voluntary collective organisation for just this sort of situation. Oh well, I guess that's too bad.

Of course, the impoverished guys are now free to starve to death but, looking over your fence, they consider some radical non-libertarian survival strategies. If you are lucky, they will only steal from you.

Are you seriously suggesting that real human beings in extremis are going to be worried about your property rights? It seems inconceivable to me.

Al

Gilby

2008-01-30, 12:47 PM

What happens if your hard-working libertarian neighbours suffer an environmental catastrophe not of their making which means they will starve? The destruction of their property is irrevocable. None of the other libertarians in the area, including you, choose to help or offer work, or anything, which is their prerogative. No one saw fit to create a voluntary collective organisation for just this sort of situation. Oh well, I guess that's too bad.

You have a very low view of humanity.

Regardless of if there is a collective organization or not, the situation is not going to change if nobody is going to help out.

Of course, the impoverished guys are now free to starve to death but, looking over your fence, they consider some radical non-libertarian survival strategies. If you are lucky, they will only steal from you.

Assuming that I took the unlikely position in your example, I can defend my property.

Are you seriously suggesting that real human beings in extremis are going to be worried about your property rights? It seems inconceivable to me.

Again, people are going to defend their property, and yes, voluntary association with others can be part of accomplishing that.

You are expanding the term collectivism to include more than what is meant by it in comparison to individualism. Individualism isn't about selfishness and ignorance as you appear to be implying with your examples.

You can find out more about collectivism v. individualism at:
http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=left_right&refpage=issues

Or look at this more in depth article:
http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/pdf/futurecalling1.pdf
which is also explained in video, but with some annoying music, at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJqSsrFDiSA

AlanChambers

2008-01-30, 03:03 PM

You have a very low view of humanity.

Not really, though I am frequently disappointed. I have become rather cynical through experience and reading rather than as an a priori position. Many millions of people died unnecessarily, or were murdered, during the last century, because they did not fit the prevailing ideology or because that ideology was arrant nonsense leading to disastrous policies. Ideologues are bad for humanity.

We've seen what happens when rich employers are not coerced into taking steps to ensure the health and safety of their employees. It wasn't pretty. You may argue that the workers freely entered into their contracts but, in fact, there was no other employer in town. The employees were effectively coerced into accepting dangerous working conditions. The avoidance of impinging on others' right is more difficult that you seem to think.

Nothing I have read so far about libertarianism has convinced me that it is anything more than just another utopian fantasy. It looks a lot like a recipe for some kind of feudalism, but I'll look at your links. How do you propose to get from where we are to this free society?

Assuming that I took the unlikely position in your example, I can defend my property.

Naturally. Being shot at by the rich has been the lot of the poor for millenia. I think we can do better. It seems to me that this philosophy has more to do with protecting property than protecting freedom.

Al

http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~james/politics/libcrit.txt

Gilby

2008-01-30, 04:32 PM

Not really, though I am frequently disappointed. I have become rather cynical through experience and reading rather than as an a priori position. Many millions of people died unnecessarily, or were murdered, during the last century, because they did not fit the prevailing ideology or because that ideology was arrant nonsense leading to disastrous policies. Ideologues are bad for humanity.
You sound like a libertarian there.

We've seen what happens when rich employers are not coerced into taking steps to ensure the health and safety of their employees. It wasn't pretty.
This happens in a very oppressed society, but for the most part not in a free society.

You may argue that the workers freely entered into their contracts but, in fact, there was no other employer in town. The employees were effectively coerced into accepting dangerous working conditions.
And let me guess that your example includes a situation where they were unable to migrate elsewhere? In other words your example is that of totalitarianism instead of a free society.

Yes, keeping a society free is not the easiest, but at least you are starting at freedom.

Nothing I have read so far about libertarianism has convinced me that it is anything more than just another utopian fantasy. It looks a lot like a recipe for some kind of feudalism, but I'll look at your links. How do you propose to get from where we are to this free society?
Libertarianism is the opposite of feudalism. It's all about protect the rights of the largest minority there is, that being the individual.

How do you propose to get from where we are to this free society?
It'll either come by an economic collapse or a revolution. The problem with an economic collapse is that it's also possible to go the other direction as well. As for a revolution, it can happen peacefully by using the current system to make changes, or it can happen through war. It happened before in the US in 1776. There was an attempt to do it peacefully, but that didn't work and it lead to war. We then made a libertarian form of government, with the exception of the whole slavery issue (but there were measures to allow it to be abolished later).

At least today, we are supposed to be a libertarian society according to our founding documents, The Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution for the United States of America.

Today, that revolution is being attempted by getting Ron Paul elected President. So far that looks promising, as he has the most active supporters on the ground which should help him get many delegates to lead us into a brokered convention in September since nobody will have a majority of delegates. It's not an easy task as the mainstream media has been ignoring Ron Paul since the beginning of the month, which is when the primaries and caucuses started.

It seems to me that this philosophy has more to do with protecting property than protecting freedom.
What is freedom? Being free to use your body as you see fit? Having the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness protected? What philosophy does that?

Libertarianism focuses on property as that is the basis of freedom because everyone should own their own body and enjoy the fruits and happiness resulting from their own labor.

http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~james/politics/libcrit.txt (http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/%7Ejames/politics/libcrit.txt)
I stopped reading when I saw their claim that Reagan was libertarian. Nope. He's one of the neoconservatives. Maybe I'll look at it later.

TrialsUni

2008-01-30, 05:26 PM

Call the election? I'll call it hijacked by the mainstream media!

Isn't clear to any half-aware American that elections are being rigged every step of the way?

The media is so biased and definitely controlled by their corporate backers and lobbyists. There's really nothing anyone can do at this point, since in our culture media and entertainment have nearly completely merged. I mean, take for example that of all of the major events going on in the world, one of the most broadcast topics has been that of Britney Spears. Why all of the concentration on her? Why should we care? Since when did world news become Entertainment Tonight, or the E! channel? Pathetic! It's clearly evident that they enjoy assisting in ruining a person who was a mediocre talent at best, for their own financial gain and glory.

In line with Guy Debord, the mainstream media commodifies spectacles in this Society of the Spectacle. The spectacles don't even have to have spectacular traits. Look at our celebrities who have public platforms for which to take a stand on issues and be true leaders, and they have nothing to say. They're just 1-dimensional characters.

The one thing we can all do is turn the television to another channel. Don't listen to anymore of that depressing bull and exploitative infotainment disguised as important information and fact.

The mainstream media promotes things like ethnocentrism, rural pastoralism, and consumerism.

I'm sorry to rant, but I'm extremely pissed that the media is not giving Ron Paul fair coverage. It's ridiculous! And when they do talk about him they don't want to face the real issues of what he stands for they want to criticize him with vagueness saying totally subjective things like, "His followers are a bunch of crazy people." If they want to cover the election, then cover the COMPLETE election, or don't cover it at all.

Do your job media!

Bondo

2008-01-30, 06:25 PM

... "His followers are a bunch of crazy people."

I think you have proved it quite nicely.
:)

Believe me, I like Ron Paul too but the reality is he doesn't have a chance. The media is just focusing on the canidates that have the largest followings, and the best chance at being their parties' choice.

Do your job media!

The media's "job" is to make money for their shareholders. They do that by trying to attract the largest audience they can.

Explain, please, how and why the media is "rigging" this election?

MuniAddict

2008-01-30, 06:38 PM

UniBrier

2008-01-30, 07:22 PM

tens of millions and millions of $$$ ... accumulated from supporters he could be running national ads/commercials day & night! Don't you find it ironic that all that campaign money one sends to their preferred party or candidate ends up in the same pockets:

The Media's.

Not only do they get to report the news, they get to profit from all the mud slinging paid for by the participants. You can have your cake and eat it too.

Gilby

2008-01-30, 07:33 PM

Believe me, I like Ron Paul too but the reality is he doesn't have a chance. The media is just focusing on the canidates that have the largest followings, and the best chance at being their parties' choice.
Which explains why Giuliani was considered the front runner by the mainstream media?

Ron Paul won the most straw polls of any candidate. He has the most spontaneous meetup groups of any candidate. He has the most individual donators of any candidate.

How do you determine the candidates that have the largest followings?

The media's "job" is to make money for their shareholders. They do that by trying to attract the largest audience they can.
They are also owned by large stakeholders in the military industrial complex. In other words, a large portion of their profits are in the form of corporate welfare.

Explain, please, how and why the media is "rigging" this election?
See attached pictures. The media also gives Ron Paul the least amount of time of any candidate in the debates.
24859
24860
24861
24862

Bondo

2008-01-30, 08:50 PM

Which explains why Giuliani was considered the front runner by the mainstream media?
He hasn't been considered a front-runner in a long time.

Ron Paul won the most straw polls of any candidate. He has the most spontaneous meetup groups of any candidate. He has the most individual donators of any candidate. Donators maybe, but in donations he is still lagging way behind the others.(to date Ron Paul raised 8 million, Romney 62 million $$)

How do you determine the candidates that have the largest followings?
Campaign donations, Delegates from caucuses and primaries.
I think the charts and screenclips you posted answers your own question.

They are also owned by large stakeholders in the military industrial complex. In other words, a large portion of their profits are in the form of corporate welfare.
links? I'm not I understand what you mean by "corporate welfare". If that was the case Why are the corporations not for a strong libertarian candidate? We're on the same side Gilby, I'm not being a dick, I'm genuinely curious.

This is politics as usual...I just don't see some vast-media-conspiracy here.

Ron is big on the internet, but in the real world of ratings no one wants to hear about him. Stories about Hillary and Obama bring the viewer's in.

AlanChambers

2008-01-30, 09:13 PM

You sound like a libertarian there.

Nope. I sound like a liberal. I took the test. Definitely liberal.

And let me guess that your example includes a situation where they were unable to migrate elsewhere? In other words your example is that of totalitarianism instead of a free society.

I read this article by Sharon Harris (http://www.theadvocates.org/library/gentle-hand.html) and wondered what she had been smoking. Farmers in the UK (as everywhere), are currently at the mercy of large corporations such as Wal-Mart. This has nothing to do with government interference and everything to do with unfettered markets. Wal-Mart has enormous economic power, economies of scale and is essentially the only game in town. Farmers must sell their produce at bargain basement prices or they will not sell it at all. If they sell it direct to the public, Wal-Mart undercuts them.

Harris suggests that cattlemen working long hours is an example of cooperation resulting from freedom. What I see is people being forced to work long hours because the "free" market is cornered by a greedy cartel which is not prepared to pay a fair price for beef. This "free" market of yours will create unending toil, poverty and powerlessness for the majority. The suggestion that it will do otherwise is wishful thinking.

So Wal-Mart is a totalitarian government? Could be, but it is the direct consequence of allowing an unfettered market place of unequal players. Corporations serve the interests of the bottom line. Taking out competition is what they do. Without regulation, there is soon only one player or a small cartel. I agree that Wal-Mart is coercive, but how could it be otherwise? Your society sounds like an unstable equilibrium.

To use the "smiley face at Wal-Mart" as an indication that it is a Good Thing is frankly laughable. As for customer service, I invite Ms Harris to visit my local Tesco.

I will endeavour to read more articles from this site. But if they are as full of wishful thinking, exaggerations, one-sided anecdotes as this was, I may have to, respectfully, stop. It has all the hallmarks of a secular religion, if you ask me, exactly like Marxism.

Today, that revolution is being attempted by getting Ron Paul elected President.

Good luck with that.

maestro8

2008-01-30, 09:53 PM

The media also gives Ron Paul the least amount of time of any candidate in the debates.
Maybe you can help me out here... I've been reading through the "equal time rule (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/47/chapters/5/subchapters/iii/parts/i/sections/section_315.html)" but haven't found the part where they need to actually "give" time to a candidate.

As far as I can tell they must extend the same offer to all candidates, but I don't see any requirement that they must pay the same attention to each candidate.

Make note that this rule does not apply to news coverage... only to actual appearances of the candidate... so, the news can report on who they want for as long as they want, if I'm reading the law correctly.

If my assumption is correct, and there is no law saying every candidate deserves a "fair amount" of coverage, then what does it matter that "the media" covers the election as it likes?

If I wrote in "Alfred E. Neumann" on my primary ballot, does that mean he deserves equal coverage too? Let's say I declare my cat is running for president, should he get the same amount of media attention?

JJuggle

2008-01-30, 10:02 PM

Let's say I declare my cat is running for president, should he get the same amount of media attention?
You have a 35 year old cat?

Or does it just have to be 5 since that's 35 in human years?

maestro8

2008-01-30, 10:07 PM

This is politics as usual...I just don't see some vast-media-conspiracy here.
I agree... but I've been hearing this same claim from many Paul-bots across the Internet.

Apparently the Ron Paul Central Command and Control site is spreading cries of "conspiracy" across its network, and the Paul-bots are immediately donning their tinfoil hats, jumping on their blogs, and crying foul... without any substance to their claims.

Give me some reason for a conspiracy, give me some possible suspects involved, give me a method by which this conspiracy would be carried out, and maybe I'd give some merit to their claims... alas, none.

maestro8

2008-01-30, 10:09 PM

You have a 35 year old cat?

Or does it just have to be 5 since that's 35 in human years?

The latter.

Honestly, he'd be an excellent candidate, since he'd do absolutely nothing while in office. No embarrassing meetings with foreign delegates, no vetoes of critical legislation, no pardons or cover-ups, just... nothing!

What do you think?

JJuggle

2008-01-30, 10:35 PM

The latter.

Honestly, he'd be an excellent candidate, since he'd do absolutely nothing while in office. No embarrassing meetings with foreign delegates, no vetoes of critical legislation, no pardons or cover-ups, just... nothing!

What do you think?
I think that if he has any, he'd probably lick his balls. Certainly his ass.

I suppose that might be refreshingly unpresidential.

Also, does he have a history of catnip (ab)use? If so, has he at least discussed it in an inspirational book?

Ohcrazyone

2008-01-30, 10:48 PM

maestro8

2008-01-31, 01:13 AM

I think that if he has any, he'd probably lick his balls. Certainly his ass. I suppose that might be refreshingly unpresidential.
Bill Clinton might disagree with you... although he enlisted an aide to help him with said activity.

Also, does he have a history of catnip (ab)use? If so, has he at least discussed it in an inspirational book?
He takes no interest in the stuff. Not even the laser pointer. His only jollies come from licking the dirty dishes in the sink when we're not looking.

And if he could write, the only thing he would write would be a post-it reading "moar food pleez".

JJuggle

2008-01-31, 02:18 AM

"moar food pleez".
Why exactly is it that cats can spell food but no other words?

Gilby

2008-01-31, 03:43 AM

Donators maybe, but in donations he is still lagging way behind the others.(to date Ron Paul raised 8 million, Romney 62 million $$)
To date, Ron Paul has raised $31 million. Nice try. And Romney's "donations" includes a large portion from his personal fortune.

And I would give more credit to individuals that donate instead of the fundraising done through bundling and lobbyists, like the other candidates.

Campaign donations, Delegates from caucuses and primaries.
I think the charts and screenclips you posted answers your own question.
The media clips show that Ron Paul was excluded or minimized in them, when his record in the caucuses/primaries and in fundraising is better than some of the others that were listed. Even when he performed better in the particular caucus he was not listed except for in the small section at the bottom.

I'm not I understand what you mean by "corporate welfare". If that was the case Why are the corporations not for a strong libertarian candidate?

Corporations that get a lot of their funds from the government, such as the military industrial complex, would never support a candidate that wants to end the warfare or many of the other programs that lets the market be open for new businesses to compete, because then there would be less need for the goods these companies make.

Gilby

2008-01-31, 01:44 PM

Nope. I sound like a liberal. I took the test. Definitely liberal.
Cool. I'm a liberal too. But liberal has changed to so many different meanings now days that it just a bad label to apply to anything. It used to mean individual liberty. Now, in the US, it means socialism, which I can't accept.

I read this article by Sharon Harris (http://www.theadvocates.org/library/gentle-hand.html) and wondered what she had been smoking. Farmers in the UK (as everywhere), are currently at the mercy of large corporations such as Wal-Mart. This has nothing to do with government interference and everything to do with unfettered markets. Wal-Mart has enormous economic power, economies of scale and is essentially the only game in town. Farmers must sell their produce at bargain basement prices or they will not sell it at all. If they sell it direct to the public, Wal-Mart undercuts them.
This sounds more like a supply issue, if the supply of the produce is too large, then yes, the buyer has a lot more leverage to get a cheaper price. This is simply the market telling the farmer to farm something else or alocate his resources elsewhere.

However, that's in a free market. We don't live in a free market here in the US, and I doubt it is any better in the UK. The laws and regulations here in the US favor the very large corporate farms over the small family farms.

So Wal-Mart is a totalitarian government? Could be, but it is the direct consequence of allowing an unfettered market place of unequal players. Corporations serve the interests of the bottom line. Taking out competition is what they do. Without regulation, there is soon only one player or a small cartel. I agree that Wal-Mart is coercive, but how could it be otherwise? Your society sounds like an unstable equilibrium.
See, the problem here is that you are claiming problems with the market now, but again it's not a free market. Corporations collude together with the government to impose restrictions on smaller companies and upstarts. Through regulation, you prevent entry, and therefore you end up with one player or your cartel. This is called corporatism, which is simply a soft form of fascism.

wobbling bear

2008-01-31, 02:22 PM

equal opportunities: once candidates have a reasonnable following (how to judge that?) they should be allowed equal time on tv.
Now why do they have to pay? if I were a mayor in a city I would say :" come the public facilities are open to all candidates ... you do not have to payfor those! ".
I feel Paulistas on this forum will shriek as this being "socialism" (or other "ism" they are so fond of) so I see a contradiction here.
financial equality for candidates: making your point is a public service.
and BTW I knew at least a prime minister (in a democratic country) whose profession was "metal worker" ... how many of those around now?

AlanChambers

2008-02-01, 01:31 AM

Now, in the US, it means socialism

Yes, I consider myself a socialist. I doubt it means the same thing in the US, where the two main political parties are Far Right and Further Right. It probably rhymes with anti-christ. I value public institutions such as health, education, welfare and the BBC. This is based on the pragmatic observation that they are far, far superior to what we had before, which was little or nothing, unless you were rich. But nothing is perfect, and I dislike waste, bureaucracy and corruption as much as the next person - but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

See, the problem here is that you are claiming problems with the market now, but again it's not a free market.

But corporations are allowed in a libertarian society, right? Just not government. I observe that they are quite good at colluding with each other even when the government is actually trying to restrain them for the benefit of society. No government, no restraint: monopolist's delight. Unrestrained private power will lead to fascism.

I rather get the feeling that no counter-examples based on the experiences of Mankind in any historical polity will bear any weight with you. The opposite is true, of course - apparently favourable examples from history are always valid in libertarian arguments. I feel the same way when talking to creationists.

I really wonder whether Sharon Harris has actually read and understood Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations". Two seconds of effort found this comment on Wikipedia (so it must be True ;) ) concerning the invisible hand:

"Contrary to common misconceptions, Smith did not assert that all self-interested labor necessarily benefits society, or that all public goods are produced through self-interested labor. His proposal is merely that in a free market, people usually tend to produce goods desired by their neighbours. The tragedy of the commons is an example where self-interest tends to bring an unwanted result."

I don't think Smith claimed the invisible hand was "gentle" either, as Harris asserts. He simply observed that self-interest exists, and that the working of the market can be understood to some extent in terms of self-interest. So when libertarians write such blatant propaganda as Harris does, you've got to wonder if they are not just another bunch of ranting ideologues.

When I studied economics as part of my accountancy qualification (many moons ago), simplistic models such as those offered by libertarians were used to gain some understanding of markets, and to suggest possible interventions to achieve policy aims such as full employment or low inflation. The problem is the models are idealised - the real economy is an exceedingly complex entity with poorly understood emergent properties, side-effects and unintended consequences.

Libertarians have apparently solved these problems. They understand markets perfectly. They can speak with utter certainty of the outcomes of their policies. The arrogance is palpable. Are you really so sure that this pipe-dream won't bite you?

This is called corporatism, which is simply a soft form of fascism.

You have somewhat bent the meaning of this term to suit your purposes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism.

Al

wobbling bear

2008-02-01, 08:25 AM

But corporations are allowed in a libertarian society, right? Just not government. I observe that they are quite good at colluding with each other even when the government is actually trying to restrain them for the benefit of society.
I fully support the whole previous arguments by AlanChambers.
I have been both a governement and big corporation employee and I can bring precise testimony on how "free entreprises" are not playing the game of liberalism (though they pretend to do), how they are warping competition (against government interventions), how "class prejudice" is playing a big role in corporation policies.
the fragile balance between the forces of consumerism, governement, entreprise is to be enhanced but not thrown away because of simplistic assertions.

AlanChambers

2008-02-01, 12:10 PM

I fully support the whole previous arguments by AlanChambers.

High praise indeed. Thank you.

AlanChambers

2008-02-01, 12:20 PM

JJuggle

2008-02-01, 12:44 PM

On a different topic: does it now seem likely that Clinton and Obama will run on the same ticket, with them now only vying for who gets to be prez and who gets to be veep? And will this backfire for the Dems: racists refusing Obama in either role, sexists refusing Clinton in either role?
I think this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/us/politics/30south.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=tennessee+obama+clinton+arkansas&st=nyt&oref=slogin) would argue against that being a workable strategy.

GILD

2008-02-01, 01:40 PM

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/tokens_and_treasures/images/thumb_socks_in_oval_office.gif

I is in ur Ovil Ofis.

Making lawz an shit.

AlanChambers

2008-02-01, 01:52 PM

I think this would argue against that being a workable strategy.

"Anyone but Obama-Osama"

What a charming community. Wonder when they last had a lynchin'. ;-)

johnfoss

2008-02-01, 09:57 PM

And will this backfire for the Dems: racists refusing Obama in either role, sexists refusing Clinton in either role? Hopefully most of the racists and sexists are voting Republican, though the article JJuggle linked to suggests otherwise. They're proud to live in a town that's birthplace of an American president, yet afraid to seriously consider a candidate of color. They appear to not see the difference between any brown people, or any Muslims for that matter.

This country could probably use a Muslim president. It would probably put an instant stop to a lot of the terrorist threat against us. Unless of course if the guy wasn't "Muslim enough"....

forrestunifreak

2008-02-01, 10:15 PM

What about the racists and sexists that will vote for Obama or Clinton because he's black or she's a woman?

JJuggle

2008-02-01, 10:23 PM

What about the racists and sexists that will vote for Obama or Clinton because he's black or she's a woman?
I do not believe that voting for Clinton only because she is a woman or Obama because he is black is the best reason to choose a candidate. However, affinity for those like you does not make you a racist or a sexist. Antipathy for those who are not like you does.

And in any event, one can hardly harshly judge those who have been waiting for a moment like this for so long for taking advantage of it.

TrialsUni

2008-02-01, 11:00 PM

I think you have proved it quite nicely.
:)

Believe me, I like Ron Paul too but the reality is he doesn't have a chance. The media is just focusing on the canidates that have the largest followings, and the best chance at being their parties' choice.

The media's "job" is to make money for their shareholders. They do that by trying to attract the largest audience they can.

Explain, please, how and why the media is "rigging" this election?

And how was that point even proved? By your statement you've done nothing but agreed with me in my view that the media have tried to discredit dr. paul and his followers, some going as subjectively far as to outright label them crazy people.

Ron Paul does have a chance. He got second place out in Nevada, for one. There's a large Paul following in my county. Gilby already corrected the amount of money that the Paul campaign has pulled in. He has a LARGE amount of money, and it HAD to come from somewhere, didn't it?

My point was that Ron Paul has a chance, but the media won't let him have one. Ron Paul is the most honest and consistent out of all of those big bunch of corporate softies! Oh they all like to make big partisan promises that they end up breaking because of their corporate backers and lobbyists. Welcome to the companies that control Washington like it was Hollywood. We might as well vote for lobbyists since they ultimately throw the most weight and call the shots of what goes on in this country.

Well, according to you the media is no longer journalism, and that's not its job. It ought to be it's job, to bring people the news, to make people aware of things that are going on in the world, not decide who they should vote for. And i agree with that comment. We can all take back journalism in any medium into our own hands.

I've read several articles, and have seen headlines appear on even sites like google about supposed voter/voting fraud in different states and counties. Don't know what's come of any of that yet, but the topic's come across my vision on both google and my town's paper several times in the last few weeks.

Sure, I don't agree with everything Paul stands for, but I like his views far more than any one else's. We should vote for someone different this time around instead of the USUAL DUDS who grow monotonous.

Screw it, I don't even know why I wrote this other than to bring up more talk on Paul and make everyone aware of what the major media has been doing...It all comes down to the electoral college anyway--a rather false sense of the freedom to vote have we, methinks.

Gilby

2008-02-02, 12:31 AM

Yes, I consider myself a socialist.

The difference between your ideology and mine is that you want to impose it on everyone, whereas, I want to be free to choose to either be in a voluntary association or not. You reject this idea that individuals have inherent rights and instead that the rights are given by the central power. In other words, government isn't instituted by the consent of the governed, but only by part of the governed.

But corporations are allowed in a libertarian society, right?

No, corporations would not exist. A corporation is an entity that has incorporated itself into another entity, that being the government. The prime benefit for corporations is the limited liability provided. In a libertarian society, the limited liability would be provided through insurance where the costs are incurred by the owners of the entity, instead of by taxing the public. They would be subject to regulation by the insurance company as a result to keep them in compliance.

Just not government. I observe that they are quite good at colluding with each other even when the government is actually trying to restrain them for the benefit of society. No government, no restraint: monopolist's delight. Unrestrained private power will lead to fascism.

You seem to think that there are no restrictions in a libertarian society. The basic principle is that you cannot infringe the property of another and you should honor your contracts. This does protect you from fraud and other infringements against you. There is a court system so that justice can be had.

I rather get the feeling that no counter-examples based on the experiences of Mankind in any historical polity will bear any weight with you. The opposite is true, of course - apparently favourable examples from history are always valid in libertarian arguments. I feel the same way when talking to creationists.

Where is this favorable example? I have yet to see one that allowed freedom.

Are you really so sure that this pipe-dream won't bite you?

There is no Utopian society, but yes, I am sure that allowing one to make their own decisions is best.

You have somewhat bent the meaning of this term to suit your purposes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism.

That looks exactly like what I meant.

Gilby

2008-02-02, 12:31 AM

Gilby already corrected the amount of money that the Paul campaign has pulled in. He has a LARGE amount of money, and it HAD to come from somewhere, didn't it?

LA Times: Ron Paul was biggest GOP fundraiser last quarter (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/02/news-shocker-ro.html?cid=99529752)

Huckabee will be out soon as he is broke. Rommey has a large $250 million personal fortune so I bet he won't give up. And with McCain winning so far in the primaries, he probably has gotten a lot of donations recently to pump him through longer. It's going to be a brokered convention between McCain, Romney and Paul, and I think Ron Paul will win it since he has the advantage after those delegates that are required to vote for their state chosen candidate on the first round will switch to Paul.

He should also get a nice bump when his soon to be released book (http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Manifesto-Ron-Paul/dp/0446537519/) hits the NYT bestseller list... already #3 on Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/).

So my prediction is Paul/Williams v. Obama/Edwards.

Bondo

2008-02-03, 07:38 PM

And how was that point even proved? By your statement you've done nothing but agreed with me in my view that the media have tried to discredit dr. paul and his followers, some going as subjectively far as to outright label them crazy people.
Ignoring is not discrediting. The media ignores Paul yes, because he has no chance.

Ron Paul does have a chance. He got second place out in Nevada, for one. There's a large Paul following in my county. Gilby already corrected the amount of money that the Paul campaign has pulled in. He has a LARGE amount of money, and it HAD to come from somewhere, didn't it?
Yeah...your county will win the election for him. Second in Nevada, by a third of what Romney got and only one delegate more that McCain...hardley a sweeping victory. He is still a faint fourth in most every other primary/Caucus.

According to this site Ron Paul had 8 million when I posted, Today after the 4th Quarter results are in he has 28 million, still third.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp
I don't pull numbers out of my ass. I'm curious as to where Gilby got his figure. I'm sure it's a valid number, a touch inflated, even according to the
LA Times article he himself posted.

My point was that Ron Paul has a chance, but the media won't let him have one. Ron Paul is the most honest and consistent out of all of those big bunch of corporate softies! Oh they all like to make big partisan promises that they end up breaking because of their corporate backers and lobbyists. Welcome to the companies that control Washington like it was Hollywood. We might as well vote for lobbyists since they ultimately throw the most weight and call the shots of what goes on in this country.

A libertarian has as much chance as a green party representative making it to the White House. Believe me, I wish it was different too. Pragmatically speaking he doesn't have a shot.

Well, according to you the media is no longer journalism, and that's not its job. It ought to be it's job, to bring people the news, to make people aware of things that are going on in the world, not decide who they should vote for. And i agree with that comment. We can all take back journalism in any medium into our own hands.
Agreed...mainstream news is entertainment. Dictated by ratings. Quit watching the news shows and quit buying the products advertised. Vote with your dollar.

I've read several articles, and have seen headlines appear on even sites like google about supposed voter/voting fraud in different states and counties. Don't know what's come of any of that yet, but the topic's come across my vision on both google and my town's paper several times in the last few weeks.

Sure, I don't agree with everything Paul stands for, but I like his views far more than any one else's. We should vote for someone different this time around instead of the USUAL DUDS who grow monotonous.
Agreed, but once again, it won't happen. We are stuck with staus quo/politics as usual, I'm afraid.

wobbling bear

2008-02-03, 08:58 PM

the good news it that McCain, Obama, Clinton are all decent people. So now you are not going to get an amateur....

wobbling bear

2008-02-03, 09:04 PM

T
No, corporations would not exist. A corporation is an entity that has incorporated itself into another entity, that being the government.
are you kidding? or do you believe in conspiracy theories?
I can assure you that, though I know of big corporations that lobby induly government and though you are right in the sense that many corporations have some incestuous relashionships with governement ... they all want NO government! - my corporation is even incorporated in a tax haven!-

Gilby

2008-02-03, 09:50 PM

are you kidding? or do you believe in conspiracy theories?
I can assure you that, though I know of big corporations that lobby induly government and though you are right in the sense that many corporations have some incestuous relashionships with governement ... they all want NO government! - my corporation is even incorporated in a tax haven!-

Um, I was just defining what a corporation is. One can form an entity on their own and we call those trusts. One can form an entity with the permission of a government chartering it, we call those corporations. The term itself says what it is. It's no conspiracy theory, it's simply a setup that is beneficial for the entity, which like I mentioned before, that primary benefit is that of limited liability.

Gilby

2008-02-03, 09:55 PM

According to this site Ron Paul had 8 million when I posted, Today after the 4th Quarter results are in he has 28 million, still third.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp
I don't pull numbers out of my ass. I'm curious as to where Gilby got his figure. I'm sure it's a valid number, a touch inflated, even according to the
LA Times article he himself posted.
You said that to date, he had $8 million. That figure was from January 1 to October 31. Not to date. Last quarter he got about $20 million more, and at the time of my post, he had about $3 million this quarter. Bringing it to $31 million. Though now, it's reached $33 million.

Look at the cash on hand figures, especially in comparison to the debts figures, on that opensecrets site.

Oh, and I think the troops want to come home:
Dr. Paul Receives More Military Donations Than All Other Republicans Combined (http://people.ronpaul2008.com/campaign-updates/2008/02/03/dr-paul-receives-more-military-donations-than-all-other-republicans-combined/)

Bondo

2008-02-03, 11:24 PM

Whatever...I said "to Date" because the source put it that way. They have since updated the numbers.
31 million is still 3rd place in the republican fund raising. Romney (not counting his own contributions) raised 52 million.

Lets look at actual delegates:
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/delegates/index.html

Hmmm...McCain has 89 confirmed delegates...Ron Paul = 0, nada, nothing, no one.

You can twist my sources, and posts all you want. My original assertion and Fact is Ron Paul has no chance.

Why should the media give him any more attention than they already do?
There is no conspiracy here...

Gilby

2008-02-04, 04:29 AM

Hmmm...McCain has 89 confirmed delegates...Ron Paul = 0, nada, nothing, no one. That source is incorrect. They obviously don't know how some of the states operate. He would have some delegates. Try another source and see the disparity. He would have delegates in Iowa, Nevada, and some in the Louisiana caucus.

It must be that when one piece of data doesn't suit your needs, you use another metric... and yet we still have 95% of the country to do their primary or caucus.

AlanChambers

2008-02-04, 11:26 AM

The difference between your ideology and mine is that you want to impose it on everyone

I don't believe I follow an ideology. I simply observe which forms of governance have historically tended to make for the happiest societies. This has always appeared to me to be a middle ground where public institutions, civil liberties and private interests are balanced. This is a very difficult balancing act, of course. I believe these pragmatic observations to be consistent with socialist ideals, but I could be wrong and the label is irrelevant.

It was the blind application of ideology by the faithful which led to the greatest unhappiness in the last century. The societies imposed by Marxist-Leninist ideologues were ultimately no different from the societies created by "free" market neocon ideologues: the poor and the powerless were shafted big time. It is of concern that one of the leading lights of neocon economics, Friedrich von Hayek, is also important to the libertarian movement.

A corporation is an entity that has incorporated itself into another entity, that being the government.

An ideological statement of a political axiom, if ever I read one, but I see you call it a definition, so I'll say only that the definition I learned in Company Law was different.

I find it interesting that the libertarian economist Murray N. Rothbard says the opposite to you about corporations in a libertarian society (quote here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability). He proposes a mechanism through which limited liability would arise.

The basic principle is that you cannot infringe the property of another and you should honor your contracts.

You seem to think this cannot be achieved without a government apparatus. What is to prevent my neighbour from developing or purchasing nuclear arms? As I understand it, he is perfectly entitled to do these things as long as he does not use them (in acts of aggression). One day he decides the time has come to throw his weight around little. Unless the state is pretty damn powerful, or puts restrictions on his freedom to own nukes - both anathema to you - how am I going to enforce my contracts with him? What is to prevent him deciding he has a better form of governance, with him as the king? Who is going to stop him? Let me guess - everyone else has nukes too.

Of course the example is ridiculous. It is meant to be. But I want to know how this disastrous arms race is to be avoided without pre-emptively coercing my neighbour.

Where is this favorable example? I have yet to see one that allowed freedom.

Well Sharon Harris, for example, in the very first article I read by her, used a number of real-world examples and anecdotes in order to justify her utopian notions about the "invisible hand" in a free market. She ignored or discounted anything which might not have been supportive to her case. Where I come from, that is called propaganda, a form of disinformation primarily intended to coerce the wider population by misleading them. I find the irony delicious.

I am reading increasingly widely on libertarianism, including both supportive and critical articles. To be frank, I find the whole enterprise naive in the extreme. IMHO it is a simplistic political and economic philosophy which ignores human nature and, if implemented (imposed coercively?) by the faithful, will surely lead to a great deal of unhappiness for the majority. It seems to me to be a secular religion followed primarily by middle class Americans who hark back to the creation myths of the US frontier.

I think on that note I'll find something more interesting to read about.

Al

AlanChambers

2008-02-04, 12:32 PM

You seem to think this cannot be achieved without a government apparatus.

Oops. Typo.

You seem to think this *can* be achieved without a government apparatus.

feel the light

2008-02-05, 08:30 AM

I will use that as my leader, it was my thread starting prediction.

Huck looks on the outs, I must eat one Iowa corn fed crow for that one. Seems Mc Cain is the new Mr. 911. He won't pick Huck to run with, so now I say it's Mc Cain-?, against Obama- Edwards.

Sure, I forecast that Edwards would stay in for super Tuesday. Now my crystal ball says Stewart (daily show), was right, Edwards pulls more votes from Obama, then he does from Hillary. Edwards was the "not Hillary" vote. So he pulls quietly out of the race, so that his man Obama will win tomorrow. Then he gets to be veep wannabe again. Edwards is very happy with this plan. Not that he will say so now, but to run for veep, and win, will be a very refreshing change for Mr. Edwards.:)

yoopers

2008-02-05, 01:23 PM

No relation (thankfully).

wobbling bear

2008-02-07, 12:22 PM

http://d.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/ng/ne/chappatte/20080207/11/201164163-la-presidentielle-us-se-precise.jpg?x=436&y=324&sig=QvoDjD2NkcT_46erk.ILCg--
(sorry the author is a french speaking Swiss)

monkeyman

2008-02-07, 09:43 PM

...so, how about that Mitt Romney?

steveyo

2008-02-07, 11:53 PM

...so, how about that Mitt Romney?

Romney: ”If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.”

So long, Mitt. Nice parting shot at the dems.

forrestunifreak

2008-02-08, 01:19 AM

...so, how about that Mitt Romney?

Kinda strange that Huckabee and Paul are still in, when they were behind Romney...

How about that John McCain? Now we'll end up with a liberal nominee on both sides. How wonderful.

steveyo

2008-02-08, 01:30 AM

How about that John McCain? Now we'll end up with a liberal nominee on both sides. How wonderful.McCain is a hawk, or at least he claims to be. Don't worry, if he gets in he'll keep us busy in wars and he'll keep the defense contractors and oilmen rich.

James_Potter

2008-02-08, 01:37 AM

McCain is a hawk, or at least he claims to be. Don't worry, if he gets in he'll keep us busy in wars and he'll keep the defense contractors and oilmen rich.
I remember reading somewhere, CNN I think, that Ann Coulter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_coulter) said she would vote for Clinton before McCain.
I know she's like completely insane, and all, but if she thinks that McCain is more liberal than Clinton....

steveyo

2008-02-08, 01:41 AM

forrestunifreak

2008-02-08, 01:48 AM

I believe she was partially joking.

Her reasoning is though, if we're gonna have a liberal in office, to ruin the economy, impose bigger government and taxes, and so on and so forth, then why not let it be a member of the democratic party instead of a "republican", putting the blame on the republican party?

McCain is a hawk, or at least he claims to be.
I'm not sure about a hawk, but he is a RINO....

JJuggle

2008-02-08, 01:58 AM

Here are her words: (http://www.anncoulter.com/)

"If Hillary is elected president, we'll have a four-year disaster, with Republicans ferociously opposing her, followed by Republicans zooming back into power, as we did in 1980 and 1994, and 2000. (I also predict more Oval Office incidents with female interns.)

If McCain is elected president, we'll have a four-year disaster, with the Republicans in Congress co-opted by "our" president, followed by 30 years of Democratic rule.

There's your choice, America."

steveyo

2008-02-08, 02:35 AM

... if we're gonna have a liberal in office, to ruin the economy, ...and Bush and Cheney did what to the economy?

... impose bigger government ...and Bush and Cheney spent how much more than every other administration? True, they gave the money to their friends, but their government is THE biggest, and ironically, least effective.

forrestunifreak

2008-02-08, 03:05 AM

...and Bush and Cheney did what to the economy?

I never said I approved of everything Bush/Cheney do. Bush isn't exactly the true conservative either, although I believe he's quite a bit better then McCain.

Do you think more more big government programs, spending and initiatives, plus more taxes, would really help the economy?

augustdreamt

2008-02-08, 03:28 AM

What about the racists and sexists that will vote for Obama or Clinton because he's black or she's a woman?

Voting for someone that you believe has had similar or common life experiences due to a factor you share (race or gender or whatever else), and thus may take perceived common issues more into consideration when legislating, is hardly racist. Women don't want women's issues ignored (as they generally are), and some of them believe that another woman is the prime candidate because she has a better chance of understanding experiences that are unique to women. Likewise for people of color. I don't think it's a great idea for your vote to be solely influenced by race or gender, but there are plenty of single-issue voters out there; I don't feel like this is more or less "wrong" than someone basing their vote solely on a candidate's stance on foreign policy.

monkeyman

2008-02-08, 04:09 AM

Romney: ”If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.”

So long, Mitt. Nice parting shot at the dems.

Yeah. That was a bit less than classy.

john_childs

2008-02-08, 05:01 AM

wobbling bear

2008-02-08, 08:53 AM

McCain is a hawk, or at least he claims to be.
his "militaristic" views may be understood another way: once the wine is out of the barrel you ought to drink it to the last drop. That is: you messed things up in Irak now you cannot leave without cleaning the mess.
are there other ways? is he overdoing it in an imperialistic view: isn't that a bit too much lacking confidence in Iraqis themselves? the debate is open.
I discovered McCain when he campaigned against the abuse of money in political campaigns : you need this kind of politiCain that adresses some fundamental flaws in the system.

steveyo

2008-02-08, 12:54 PM

Do you think more more big government programs, spending and initiatives, plus more taxes, would really help the economy?If the amount of money Bush/Cheney paid to Haliburton and their ilk in Iraq had been spent solely on initiatives to develop alternate sources of energy, we might no longer need oil. Tax burdens on the ultra rich would not hurt the economy, and certainly no more than the burden of debt will in the longer haul. IMO. :rolleyes:

Gilby

2008-02-08, 03:24 PM

Tax burdens on the ultra rich would not hurt the economy,
Oh, by the way, you're fired.

Now that you have lots of time on your hands... what exactly do the ultra-rich hold their assets in, or use it for?

and certainly no more than the burden of debt will in the longer haul. IMO. :rolleyes:
You may be correct, but isn't there the no government spending option? Which means not stealing from others, not inflating the money supply, and not going into debt?

Also, how much can you siphon off the ultra rich? Combined, it's not close to the trillions that would've been spent.

steveyo

2008-02-08, 04:17 PM

... what exactly do the ultra-rich hold their assets in, or use it for?They don't spend it, they add it to their large savings accounts. Does it really make a difference whether they have $900 million in the bank or $500 million?

A tax cut when the administration is spending ever more (and spending it has recently meant giving scads of it to their ultra-wealthy industry supporters) is nothing short of insane. That tax cut saves the ultra-wealthy huge amounts more than the middle class, so they can sock away millions more in savings.

Also, your ideas of government and tax and mine are so removed from each others', it leaves us comparing apples to meteorites.

johnfoss

2008-02-08, 06:18 PM

I remember reading somewhere, CNN I think, that Ann Coulter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_coulter) said she would vote for Clinton before McCain.
I know she's like completely insane, and all, but if she thinks that McCain is more liberal than Clinton....She's the only person I can think of who's both very funny and for-real scary at the same time. I'd like to see her voting for Clinton, though I hope her choice will be McCain vs. Obama. That will probably give her the excuse to not vote Democrat.

...if we're gonna have a liberal in office, to ruin the economy...Woah there. Do you mean to ruin it more, less, or about the same amount as W. and crew? The economy's already ruined, so that part shouldn't be counted against whoever takes over in January. Remember what the economy was like when W. started? Be honest now...

If the amount of money Bush/Cheney paid to Haliburton and their ilk in Iraq had been spent solely on initiatives to develop alternate sources of energy, we might no longer need oil.That's a bit of a stretch, but perhaps a better question would be whether it would have been better for us to *not* invade Iraq and *not* create a "cottage terrorist industry" over there. Instead, continue our work in Afghanistan (remember that diabetic guy?) and maybe pay a little more for oil. Or maybe pay a lot less for oil due to *less* instability in the region. In any case what hasn't gone to Haliburton and the war industry in general would mostly still be in our bank, thousands of people wouldn't be dead, and our National Guards would be able to do more if a hurricane were to hit the Gulf coast or something.

Yes, the current rebate/refund from the Federal government is considered a joke, even on some of the conservative talk radio shows I've heard. One guy likened it to taking buckets of water from the deep end of the pool and pouring them into the shallow end and hoping to make it deeper. If people were to do *smart* things with the money it might help a bit, but some of them are just going to put it toward big screen TVs and otherwise run up their credit card debt even further. It's one of the dumbest ideas I've heard, but somehow not a surprise in the final year of this presidency.

peleschramm

2008-02-08, 06:28 PM

I think Clinton will win, though I prefer Obama. I'm fine with both.

Gilby

2008-02-08, 07:08 PM

They don't spend it, they add it to their large savings accounts. Does it really make a difference whether they have $900 million in the bank or $500 million?

So you think they hold greenbacks? Yeah right.

Most of their net worth is held in the companies they created that made them ultra rich. That company is using that asset to produce things you and I use and they create jobs within that company and outside.

The other question is, what is ultra-rich and how much is the total amount of money you can get from these ultra rich if you took most all their assets?

A tax cut when the administration is spending ever more (and spending it has recently meant giving scads of it to their ultra-wealthy industry supporters) is nothing short of insane. That tax cut saves the ultra-wealthy huge amounts more than the middle class, so they can sock away millions more in savings.

See, you mention a little about the spending, but you seem to think the problem is the tax cuts. That we need more taxes.

Whereas, I think the problem is the spending to begin with. Yes, I advocate getting rid of the Federal Reserve and the income tax, because together they create the large trough of money that the government can give to the "ultra-wealthy industry supporters" and other special interests.

If the federal government stuck to the constitution and only received it's funding through excise taxes and direct taxes on the States, then there wouldn't be this large concentration of money to be doled out to the special interests and the federal government would have to stick to its limited purpose and the States and local communities can handle the rest of what people ask from their government.

nick

2008-02-08, 08:49 PM

Not that I'm going to go back and read all the posts in this thread, but...

My Plan for the Nations Economy (A realistic view)!

- Cut military spending by 90%.

Get the US out of everywhere. Taxes go down, a few more people enter the private sector work force, people get paid more slightly per hour of work, but work slightly less hours. We can still spend money R+D'ing useful things, not weapons.

- Cut government bail outs and tax breaks to companies where the CEO makes more than $500,000 a year.

If the state of CT needs to spend millions of dollars buying machine tools for UTC, why in the hell is the CEO making so damn much? Shouldn't he take a pay cut?

- Cut government spending and investigation into Major League Sports.

Honestly, I don't care about them. I'm sick of contributing to multi milliondall player bonuses. And I'd rather see super human mutants hitting home runs every at bat than have the governmnet investigating steroid use.

- Drasticly cut down the amount of logging done inside the US, tax the hell out of lumber being brought in from outside the US.

We don't need so much new construction. Clearly, make it more exspensive, and there won't be so much of it. Encurages more sustainable and enviornmentally friendly building methods.

-Drasticly cut the amount of mining done inside the us, tax the hell out of mined materials being brought in from outside the US.

See above.

- Leagalize and then tax the hell out of drugs.

Search for my previously detailed drug leagalization plan.

- Install easy pass nation wide, automate it as much as possible. (very important!)

I just can't stand government waste, and this is such a blatant example of it.

- Increase spending on public transportation, but no more shady back ally deals with contractors.

We don't need to repave 8 lane highways every 3 years, we need to put in efficient bus lines and trains. The politicians handling the big dig should be sent to prison for a long time.

- Increase spending on research for renewable energy, and recycling (not down-cycling).

Obviously.

- Increase spending on eductaion, all levels. No more publicly funded athletic scholarships. More publicly funded acedemic scholarships.

Obviously.

----------------

My Plan for the Nations Economy (A dreamers view)!

- Read "Parecon" This is a good start.

peleschramm

2008-02-08, 09:13 PM

Gilby

2008-02-10, 01:51 AM

...so, how about that Mitt Romney?
Hahaha... in his speech, the main focus was to not let the anti-war crowd win... in other words, he was threatened by a Ron Paul win in a brokered convention. Even the LA times agrees: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/02/ron-paul-forces.html

Yeah, this means it will be harder for Ron Paul to win, as he had the best chance in a brokered convention.

What is for sure is that McCain cannot win against Hillary or Obama. Ron Paul is the only Republican that can win against them. In 2012, we will be fed up with the Democrats and their endless warfare (which will then be in Pakistan, Iran, and much of the rest of the middle east). This will be the prime time for Ron Paul to win the republican ticket, as the public will now see that the war is not a Republican thing anymore.

Of course that assumes the US government will last that long. I'm pessimistic on the US government surviving the economic crisis that is likely to result pretty soon here.

feel the light

2008-02-10, 06:02 PM

Paul has been predicting the imminent collapse of our fiat system since I was in high school. I just got an offer to join AARP yesterday LOL.

Now that the dollar has declined against the Euro, the economic climate has changed. Caterpillar construction equipment now costs less then Kubota. John Deer has the same problem. Gonna have to expand to meet new demand. Thankfully, with our fiat dollar system, there is credit available for them to do so. Boeing has all product sold for the next 5 years. Suddenly AirBus isn't very competitive. Jobs that went overseas are coming back. Ford is making money ! Harley was making money before, but now they can be sold
overseas for less then a Jap knock off !

The high price of oil is a blessing in disguise. New green tech that was to expensive to pay to develop against 1 $ gas, is drawing massive investment now. I see a bright future, the horizon covered with carbon composite windmills, and the air fresh and clean.:)

Perhaps that was Paul's problem. He predicted disaster, unless we move back to the economic system we had before the great depression. Disaster is not a crowd pleaser. That, and the fact that actual economists consider him a populoust crack pot. He has been dead wrong in all his economic predictions for his entire career. And he is soon to die of old age. I say let's bury him in a gold coffin !:)

Det-riot

2008-02-10, 08:39 PM

That, and the fact that actual economists consider him a populoust crack pot.

Ron Paul isnt a populsit, but other than that i mostly agree with you, except maybe im a little less optimistic. But any way you look at it we need the government to provide strong social programs to boost the economy.

Gilby

2008-02-10, 08:43 PM

Now that the dollar has declined against the Euro, the economic climate has changed.

...

Thankfully, with our fiat dollar system, there is credit available for them to do so.

To summarize:
Problem: Inflation.
Solution: Inflate!

Anyone else see a problem with this? The rich credit-worthy people get credit, while the poor and middle class will suffer with higher prices, lack of pay raises, and a devaluation of their savings.

Det-riot

2008-02-10, 08:45 PM

Anyone else see a problem with this? The rich credit-worthy people get credit, while the poor and middle class will suffer with higher prices, lack of pay raises, a devaluation of their savings.
That's why the government steps in and helps support the people who can not get a foot in the door because the system is oppressive

Gilby

2008-02-10, 08:50 PM

That's why the government steps in and helps support the people who can not get a foot in the door because the system is oppressive

Hehe... The solution to government oppression is more government programs.

Det-riot

2008-02-10, 08:56 PM

Hehe... The solution to government oppression is more government programs.
yup

Gilby

2008-02-11, 02:49 PM

yup Let's start by giving everyone $600! Fresh off the printing presses.

wobbling bear

2008-02-11, 03:23 PM

In 2012, we will be fed up with the Democrats ....
wait a minute: "next time I will run too! ": http://d.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/ng/ne/chappatte/20080211/11/2190734483-obama-hillary-et-les-autres.jpg?x=437&y=324&sig=zfMQhWbedfI3EaUfFQANAQ--

Det-riot

2008-02-12, 01:35 AM

Let's start by giving everyone $600! Fresh off the printing presses.
you know what i meant. Lets take an extra 5% in non-avoidable taxes, from households that make over $150,000 a year, which the government then allocates to bureau in cities with poverty problems. Of course there will be more organization that that, but i think you get the idea

Wheel Rider

2008-06-05, 12:24 AM

Time to re-call this thread and your election predictions....

feel the light

2008-06-05, 02:19 AM

GILD

2008-06-05, 09:27 AM

Obama will win a sickeningly staged election.
They'll use him to scare the bejesus out of the 'ordinary people' so when they start some draconian machivelisms to get Arny elligible for 2012 nobody will bat an eye.

When he gets elected, it'll be a good time to make for the hills.

johnfoss

2008-06-05, 08:44 PM

Obama will win a sickeningly staged election.The way I see it, the democrats need two "staged" presidential elections to even the score.

Why staged? Why can't people just elect a candidate with enough of a margin for it to be obvious? Yeah, I know...

maestro8

2008-06-06, 01:18 AM

when they start some draconian machivelisms to get Arny elligible for 2012 nobody will bat an eye.
Whoa, GILD, I didn't see that tinfoil hat on you, there.

Why hate the Governator? He's been cleaning up shop here in California, after the messes left by Pete Wilson and Gray Davis.

GILD

2008-06-06, 07:43 AM

Why staged?

Apologies, I probably meant something along the lines of 'stage-managed' rather.
I'm not suggesting it'll be rigged, just diebolded.

Maestro. Enron. 'Nuff said.

AlanChambers

2008-06-06, 08:00 AM

I'm not suggesting it'll be rigged, just diebolded.

Isn't that the same thing? Diebold: Helping America to Vote Republican.

BluntRM

2008-06-06, 01:35 PM

Has anyone answered "escalated international tensions leads to martial law and a suspension of elections", yet? If not, that's my call, but probably not, but maybe.

GILD

2008-06-06, 01:48 PM

Ooooh, well played sir!

BluntRM

2008-06-06, 04:12 PM

A couple of years ago, an associate found this billboard hilarious:

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/x/_/bush_ourleader.jpg

Of course, in German that's "unser Führer" or as a first person possessive "mein Führer", which I can't say with out mentally hearing Dr. Strangelove's voice.

http://www.digital-rights.net/images/strangelove.jpg

Edit: I prefer to address my corporate/political overlords as mein liege, Peter Sellers doesn't inspire the same goose in my step.

feel the light

2008-06-16, 08:02 AM

Right on the front page of yahoo, an article talking about how the GOP is gonna get pretty desperate by their Sept convention. There is no exact rule that says Mc Cain must be the GOP candidate, even if he's down 15 % on Obama by Sept.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20080616/cm_huffpost/107236

I think Mc Same likes to change, yet parts of him never will. Always a rebel within the GOP, he will not step aside unless he is dying. And then only if he dies before the convention.

In this way, Hillary and Mc Cain won't quit if there is a chance for them to reach the driveway of the white house breathing. The above article shows that my poll call in my previous post is shaping up to be true.:) It will be fairly obvious to everyone going into the GOP tent in Sept., that it is shaping up to be a dark day in Mudville if they send Mc Casey to bat.:)

john_childs

2008-06-16, 08:53 AM

feel the light

2008-06-16, 11:59 PM

Steve Rosenbaum has been working with User-Generated Content since he created MTV UNfiltered in 1995. Since then, he's been in and out of
mainstream media, producing films for HBO, A&E, National Geographic,
CNN, and Discovery. Now, as the founder and CEO of Magnify.net, he builds websites for user-created content communities. - from his bio.

The article appeared on Yahoo. He may have sold it first to Huff post, I don't know. It any event, it wasn't written by Huffington, and makes no political points left or right.

It is precisely what this thread is about, seeing the pres future. I think he made the first scenario prediction of the possibility Mc Cain won't get the GOP nom, in the case he badly trails Obama at that point.

Gilby

2008-06-17, 07:37 PM

Perot for President! http://perotcharts.com/

UniBrier

2008-06-17, 08:36 PM

Perot for President!Looking for a R.P. (H.)R.P ticket?

critter

2008-06-18, 11:44 PM

feel the light

2008-06-30, 07:19 AM

Every day. Just as I predicted.:D It will be obvious by convention time. The media will have lot's of talking heads going on about "what will the GOP do ?", in August.

Have you seen this new vid ?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=3gwqEneBKUs&feature=related

Gilby

2008-07-01, 02:43 PM

My prediction: The government will get reelected.

As sad as that will be... it doesn't even take a majority to vote for this to happen.

vanpaun

2008-07-01, 02:54 PM

That is so true Gilby, So True. They should change the voting age to Voting IQ that would be better! :)

pt1uni

2008-07-01, 03:45 PM

I predict some rich, dishonest, politician will win!!! I have a pretty good track record at these predictions too!:D

BillyTheMountain

2008-07-07, 12:27 AM

obama will get re-elected, even though he's getting his a-- kicked for trying to let the wiretappers off the hook.

the Bush administration was not tough on crime, unless you consider changing the laws to legalize crime. How would that work for a campaign slogan?

feel the light

2008-08-16, 12:02 AM

I called it Obama- Edwards vs Huckabee- Mcain, I think.:rolleyes:

Edwards is out, for Blonding on the side. A normally commendable hobby , but he's out for veep.:o

I wanted to see what you all think about the veep choice.

I will call Huckabee for the elephants, like a poker player, trying to hold onto my early bet. :)

I'm not seeing anything for Obama's veep. My trusty crystal ball looks like milk.

BluntRM

2008-10-31, 06:51 PM

YouTube - You Can Vote However You Like

The kids from the Ron Clark Academy performing live "You Can Vote However You Like," a parody to TI's "Whatever You Like". Atlanta Georgia Ron Clark Academy.
for full interview click
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEKNAZ...
Lyrics:

Obama on the left
McCain on the right
We can talk politics all night
And you can vote however you like
You can vote however you like, yeah

Democratic left
Republican right
November 4th we decide
And you can vote however you like
You can vote however you like, yeah

(McCain supporters)
McCain is the man
Fought for us in Vietnam
You know if anyone can
Help our country he can
Taxes droppin low
Dont you know oils gonna flow
Drill it low
I'll show our economy will grow

McCain's the best candidate
With Palin as his running mate
They'll fight for gun rights, pro life,
The conservative right
Our future is bright
Better economy in site
And all the world will feel our military might

(Obama supporters)
But McCain and Bush are real close right
They vote alike and keep it tight
Obama's new, he's younger too
The Middle Class he will help you
He'll bring a change, he's got the brains
McCain and Bush are just the same
You are to blame, Iraq's a shame
Four more years would be insane

Lower your Taxes - you know Obama Won't
PROTECT THE LOWER CLASS - You know McCain won't!
Have enough experience - you know that they don't
STOP GLOBAL WARMING - you know that you won't

I want Obama
FORGET OBAMA
Stick with McCain and you're going to have some drama
We need it
HE'LL BRING IT
He'll be it
YOU'LL SEE IT
We'll do it
GET TO IT
Let's move it
DO IT!

Obama on the left
McCain on the right
We can talk politics all night
And you can vote however you like
You can vote however you like, yeah

Democratic left
Republican right
November 4th we decide
And you can vote however you like, I said
You can vote however you like, yeah

I'm talking big pipe lines, and low gas prices
Below $2.00 that would be nice

But to do it right we gotta start today
Finding renewable ways that are here to stay

I want Obama
FORGET OBAMA,
Stick wit McCain you gone have some drama
MORE WAR IN IRAQ
Iran he will attack
CAN'T BRING OUR TROOPS BACK
We gotta vote Barack!

Obama on the left
McCain on the right
We can talk politics all night
And you can vote however you like, I said
You can vote however you like, yeah

Democratic left
Republican right
November 4th we decide
And you can vote however you like, I said
You can vote however you like, yeah