Not signed in (Sign In)

Category Filter

Welcome, Guest

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

Vanilla 1.1.8 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    •  
      CommentAuthorMr. Shelby
    • CommentTimeDec 28th 2007
     
    bluedog wanted it.

    i have, for many years (since i was at least 11 [yes i am serious]), thought of myself as a socialist. and since i have been very discouraged that there is only two parties in our government, yet all three of the english parties fit (or are more left then) our "democratic" ideas, i decided to act upon bluedog's wishes.

    so, i am a "socialist," and i am finally giving into getting (paying for) health insurance... you wonder why? i pay my taxes, why should i pay to live, and make young men lose their lives? i have no problem paying taxes, but why is a huge portion not going to our schools (and i have worked in education, and know the bullshit with that) nor any thing that is beneficiary to the american people?

    people make a country, why do WE not control it?
    •  
      CommentAuthorBuckley!
    • CommentTimeDec 28th 2007
     
    Torches and pitchforks? Will that work?The kid's gotta learn that the game never lets up.
    •  
      CommentAuthorbrunop
    • CommentTimeDec 28th 2007
     
    i'm just a plain ol' democrat--i'll vote for whoever they pick. i've always voted democratic. we live in a 2-party system. votin' 3rd party candidates is throwin' your vote away. all those suckers who voted for nader that time effectively voted for bush. that's why i never give those masspirg kid the time of day. nader started the pirgs. nader is an idiot.

    and did ya know he's rich?
    •  
      CommentAuthorbrunop
    • CommentTimeDec 28th 2007
     
    i wish bill clinton could run again. i really like bill clinton.
  1.  
    .
  2.  
    .
    •  
      CommentAuthorbrunop
    • CommentTimeDec 28th 2007
     
    alexi gigantic:
    brunop:i'm just a plain ol' democrat--i'll vote for whoever they pick. i've always voted democratic. we live in a 2-party system. votin' 3rd party candidates is throwin' your vote away. all those suckers who voted for nader that time effectively voted for bush. that's why i never give those masspirg kid the time of day. nader started the pirgs. nader is an idiot.

    and did ya know he's rich?


    no offense but you're an Idiot. No one who voted for Nader in Mass effectively voted for Bush.

    nader ran on the Green Party ticket, not the hey I'm not rich ticket, never claimed he was not rich.

    If we just accept the system that we have and do not care to try to change it for the better then we a suckers.


    i could be wrong but folks who voted for nader would have voted for gore had nader not run. and the other thing about nader is he was alway on about how there was "no difference" between republicans and democrats. there's a big fuckin' difference.

    nader is a fuckin' idiot.
    •  
      CommentAuthorbrunop
    • CommentTimeDec 28th 2007
     
    i always wondered--if ya slap an anarchist upside the head, would he call the cops?
    • CommentAuthorboundgear
    • CommentTimeDec 28th 2007 edited
     
    (edit: this was suppose to be for pete. You all got political while I was writing it and making coffee.) (But while we are at it, Edit: Nadar is funny. He's so reactionary and can't present his own point'a view without something bad going on for him to hate. Classic.)
    Not starting a fight, or questioning yo views, but I'm pretty sure that socialists are just as likely to have a military to pay for, and a insurance plan that involves some amount of paying (even if it comes from sales tax). That sounds more libertarian/anarchist than socialist as it seems you want more personal choice where your money is spent than a socialistic distributed wealth system where the social systems provided by the central gov. are controlled by the masses, rather than the individual.
    Purty sure I don't have your whole world view in the few words you gave us though.


    I'm all for bikeses. Bieks 4 all! Subsidize bikes and charge cars and I'll vote for you1!!!!
  3.  
    .
    •  
      CommentAuthorbrunop
    • CommentTimeDec 28th 2007
     
    boundgear:
    I'm all for bikeses. Bieks 4 all! Subsidize bikes and charge cars and I'll vote for you1!!!!


    +1. i'm pretty much a one-issue voter. whoever is best for the environment overall gets my vote. abortion, taxes, campaign finance, etc.--meh.

    gore would have been much different from bush. no matter what nader said.
    •  
      CommentAuthorbrunop
    • CommentTimeDec 28th 2007
     
    alexi gigantic:i could be wrong but folks who voted for nader would have voted for gore had nader not run.

    Well I wouldn't have. .


    but alexi, ya really think there's no difference between gore and bush? really?
  4.  
    .
  5.  
    I have a relatively strong Libertarian bent. The Federal government has exceeded it's constitutional mandate and the Executive branch has far overreached it's authority, polluting the Judicial branch. This poses a threat to all of us. With that said, most Libertarians I've met are right-wing conspiracy theorists.

    I want to make signs that say "Join the North American Union".
    With the success of the EU, the strength of the Euro, the fictions NAU is a good idea.

    -robot[all your base are belong to us]
    • CommentAuthorbluedog
    • CommentTimeDec 28th 2007 edited
     
    1. Why do we have a 2 party system? see brunop's post above for a perfect example of why. American voters (in both traditional parties) are terrified of "wasting" their vote by voting for a third party. Until a third party actually comes a long and manages to get into power and proves to americans that it can be done, we'll be stuck with the ass and the elephant. The electoral college doesn't exactly help anything either, and it needs to be abolished.

    2. Why are we spending money on the military and not education? Far too many of our leaders have ridden the military-industrial complex (that Eisenhower warned us about back in the 60s in his farewell speech when he left office for good) to power (or have direct ties to it) and so they pander to it so it will continue to support them. Even if the current president (at any given point) isn't necessarily in bed with the defense industry, I guarantee you a significant number of congressmen are.

    3. Why do we rarely seem to control our country? Well, I can think of a few reasons for that. First, I think most of us here are looking at the world the typically liberal tinted lens of northeastern city dwellers, and we are surrounded by other people with similar values. Remember, the majority of the midwest and the south disagree with us. Second, our government has done an excellent job of cowing the American people into submission over the years, and as such isn't exactly worried about revolution and upheaval. Our government is not afraid of its people and it isn't really given reason to be.

    I agree with robot's first paragraph above (including that many libertarians are nut-jobs), not sure about the second though. I think the federal government needs to be pared back to it's original mandate of being a means of settling dispute between states, dealing with foreign relations (including defense), with the addition of managing some social programs to ensure a decent minimum standard of living and education for it's people. I realize that that all needs to be funded somehow, but I'd rather see it done as a tax on the state as a whole rather than on the individual, and perhaps also on businesses that cross state lines (I don't really think I know enough about economics to hold a truly valid and coherent opinion on economic policy, but I'm offering one anyway). I do support a strong federal justice system, because that framework is the only way we'll ever be able to manage coherently fighting crime that spans states (drug rings, weapons dealers, etc.).

    Finally I would decrease the size of our standing Army, shrink it (and streamline it, no more of this it takes 7 people to put one combat worthy boot on the ground) to where it has enough people to fight one war and some police actions (which I think would increase emphasis on special ops units), rather than the 2.5 conventional wars it was geared to fight last time I was reading about Army doctrine. Maintaining our Navy seems perfectly reasonable to me, as anyone who wants to invade us is going to have to cross a pretty large body of water (unless mexico attacks, which I doubt), and having a strong navy in each ocean makes that much less likely. I'd keep the Marines much as they are, and shrink the Air Force in proportion with the Army. I'd also train our national guard better, as that's the closest thing to a state militia we have now, which is something I very much support, as a large number of citizens with militia training are probably the one thing that can restore fear of its people to the government.

    wow. that was long.that's when I reach for my revovler...
    •  
      CommentAuthorbrunop
    • CommentTimeDec 28th 2007
     
    ^ pretty cogent though.
  6.  
    I'd pay more taxes for better social services but not to the extent one sees in France, or pre-1980's UK. But when filing taxes, beyond a certain minimum for each program, one should be able to allocate their taxes in a manner consistent with their conscience.
    -bot[all your base are belong to us]
    •  
      CommentAuthorMr. Shelby
    • CommentTimeDec 28th 2007
     
    one thing, nader may be rich, but what does that mean? it is not as though he came from money, his parents were immigrants (lebanese and egytian), one working in a textile mill. and even if an individual comes from money should not be the basis in which we react to their politics. there are a hell of a lot of poor republicans, supporting a party that does not support them, instead just humors them with "values" based politics.

    when it comes to the discussion of our two party system and throwing votes away, i do understand what you mean, but my view of politics is not centered upon just our country. i would say my ideals are anarchist/socialist though i feel there are areas of the anarchist belief that may be a little too conservative for my liking. socialism is just what i feel best describes my personal views and wants from society, but what ever a country needs to do to best serve ITS PEOPLE, i do not have any problem with. i understand that socialist countries have armed forces and can spend tax money on unneeded things, as do "democracies" (something in which we do not live in). my problem lays within capitalism, and how it is destroying what millions of workers have achieved over the centuries in regards to their rights, and the obligations of their employers.

    the parties in our country are not inclusive to the entire population, and do not offer many choices. they are not as labor friendly as they should be. one says "no war" yet does not vote against it, the other say "lower taxes" yet raises them. neither party, in my opinion is actually set up for its constituency and actually tends to ignore them until election time is around. we live in a republic, we have elected officials that are not bound to their voters, besides getting the votes... we all know how stupid the system is, and the voters are.

    i do not want to say my idea of politics is better then yours, and i would not die for them either. i am saying that these ideas are mine at the moment, and are ever changing based on my surroundings (not to say i'd be a staunch conservative if i were rich). i feel that political discourse is healthy for society, for us. but when fighting occurs, grous like the fascists end up in power do to the manipulative nature of ultra right wing ideals, and the ease of which individuals follow. our two party system is a power struggle, not a government for the people.

    sorry, i ramble, and am not a good writer.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMorgie
    • CommentTimeDec 28th 2007
     
    bluedog: Maintaining our Navy seems perfectly reasonable to me, as anyone who wants to invade us is going to have to cross a pretty large body of water (unless mexico attacks, which I doubt), and having a strong navy in each ocean makes that much less likely.


    Psh.. what if canada try's to burn down the Whitehouse again?
    •  
      CommentAuthorbrunop
    • CommentTimeDec 28th 2007
     
    vis a vis ralph nader--where'd he get the money? is he on corporate boards? does he take a big salary from whatever "non-profit" he runs?

    and al gore (who i like kinda) livin' in a huge energy suckin' house. it's just him and his ol' lady since his kids live on their own (presumably).

    and "populist" john edwards (whose house i've seen bein' constructed outside of chapel hill) livin' in somethin' like 25,000 sq feet. i just don't dig hypocrits.

    and these are democrats (of which i am one).

    and that senator from idaho always railin' against gays and then playin' gay footsie in that airport bathroom and buttyfuckin' male prostitutes.

    it goes on and on.

    i'll still vote for democrats.
  7.  
    .
    •  
      CommentAuthorbrunop
    • CommentTimeDec 28th 2007
     
    ^ dude! you dated chicks wif dat much skrill? shit! i like poor chicks. ya buy 'em a burrito and yer in like flynn!!
    • CommentAuthorbluedog
    • CommentTimeDec 28th 2007
     
    Morgie:
    bluedog: Maintaining our Navy seems perfectly reasonable to me, as anyone who wants to invade us is going to have to cross a pretty large body of water (unless mexico attacks, which I doubt), and having a strong navy in each ocean makes that much less likely.


    Psh.. what if canada try's to burn down the Whitehouse again?


    Bring it. You wouldn't make it past the border. I'll pit your polar bear cavalry against our northern hicks in pick up trucks any day.that's when I reach for my revovler...
    •  
      CommentAuthorMorgie
    • CommentTimeDec 28th 2007
     
    bluedog:
    Morgie:
    bluedog: Maintaining our Navy seems perfectly reasonable to me, as anyone who wants to invade us is going to have to cross a pretty large body of water (unless mexico attacks, which I doubt), and having a strong navy in each ocean makes that much less likely.


    Psh.. what if canada try's to burn down the Whitehouse again?


    Bring it. You wouldn't make it past the border. I'll pit your polar bear cavalry against our northern hicks in pick up trucks any day.


    Oh shit, a challenge! I'm burn'n down the Whitehouse soon as I get back!


    *Oh crap now I'm not getting let back in the country, Dough!
    • CommentAuthorkanst
    • CommentTimeDec 29th 2007
     
    I dont particularly have a definite politcal belief. That, to me, is the problem with a two party system. If more people had a chance at the presidency I would have a better chance of finding someone who lines up with my beliefs better.

    If we lived in a perfect world I think Socialism would be the perfect system. But we dont live in a perfect world, people are lazy and greedy and thus socialism in ad of itself wont work. However I wish we bought more into socialist ideas. For one I dont get how we can have citizens without healthcare. I would have no qualms about paying more taxes if I knew it went to keeping my fellow citizens healthy and not to funding a war I dont agree with.

    Socially I think people should stop worrying about other peoples business. I am not gay, I dont ever plan on owning a gun, and I would never want my gf to have an abortion, however I think people should have the right to choose on these issues themselves. If you want to have an abortion why is it my business to say you dont. If I could find a candidate who was pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, anti gun-control, pro socialized medicine, and who planned to increase spending on education and science I would be psyched...however I doubt I will ever get that.
    • CommentAuthorJonNania
    • CommentTimeDec 29th 2007
     
    In the famous words of men smarter than I - Screeching Weasel - "Politics are boring. Politics are fucking boring."
    •  
      CommentAuthorMungoRocks
    • CommentTimeDec 29th 2007
     
    brunop:i always wondered--if ya slap an anarchist upside the head, would he call the cops?

    Try it. I'm easy enough to find. :-)

    Politically, I'm kind of an anarcho-fascist.dongpincher 1000
    •  
      CommentAuthorMorgie
    • CommentTimeDec 30th 2007
     
    they let anarchists in the military?!?
    • CommentAuthormeatball
    • CommentTimeDec 30th 2007
     
    vote smart. vote s-mart.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMr. Shelby
    • CommentTimeDec 31st 2007
     
    ^+1
    meatball:vote smart. vote s-mart.
    • CommentAuthordubblaster
    • CommentTimeDec 31st 2007 edited
     
    Well, when the end of 2012 rolls around, we won't have to worry about a political parties anymore. It'll be total anarchy whether you like it or not. Get ready, fellas.

    I think our current political system, as it currently stands, is mostly a huge act/game/put-on. I try to stay conscious on it's consequences and impact our world without getting too emotionally caught up in it. It's just too easy to get pissed off thinking about the total f'in outrage we've witnessed over the past several years (and maybe the last 40 years if you dig deep enough).

    Perhaps some folks just need a social club to reinforce their superficial identities with? I mean, why else do people knowingly participate with a system that props up liars and hypocrites? Maybe because it makes us feel a little better, knowing that the clowns in office are no better than ourselves?

    ps: www.democracynow.org

    EDIT:
    pss, one more: www.montalk.netA man becometh what he thinketh.
    • CommentAuthorgc
    • CommentTimeDec 31st 2007
     
    i'm into this: http://www.vermontrepublic.org/gone
    •  
      CommentAuthorbrunop
    • CommentTimeJan 8th 2008
     
    i think i'm gonna vote for obama. in case you're innersted. but i'd vote for hillary clinton if she would come out and promise to let bill clinton run everything. edwards pisses me off cuz he's always on about rich folks takin' advantage of poor folks and he lives in literally the biggest fuckin' house in north carolina. and kucinich believes in aliens.

    and friends don't let friends vote for republicans.
    • CommentAuthorboundgear
    • CommentTimeJan 8th 2008
     
    I hate to completely agree, but I do. And Edwards was my boy 4 years ago. I thought he would show up with his big boy pants on and learn from 04's debacle, and just be who he is, and run on a simple and diverse platform. Nope. One trick pony. yawn. Obama it is.

    If nh, and iowa go Obama, that just leaves white flight areas like Northern Virginia and Maryland (the DC burbs and places like it) to be racist.
    •  
      CommentAuthorbrunop
    • CommentTimeJan 8th 2008
     
    ^yeah i liked edwards in the past but for some reason i can't get past the house. people who live in huge houses piss me off more than suv's.
    • CommentAuthorboundgear
    • CommentTimeJan 8th 2008
     
    If I were being complicated, I'd love to register to vote rep. and then vote for huckabee. That wack job won Iowa! I love it. Sit any dem nominee down in a national debate against him, and it would be a slaughter.


    A Sargent Slaughter that is...
  8.  
    .
    •  
      CommentAuthorbshea81
    • CommentTimeJan 8th 2008 edited
     
    just to clear things up regarding nader 'stealing' the election from gore. we have an electoral college, not a system where 'most votes win.' so yes, if people in close race states voted nader, it may have fucked over gore, but in states like mass, we should definitely be voting third party. i was campaigning for la bamba in new hampshire recently, but i'll vote green party.fool me once, shame on me. fool me twice, i guess im into trannies
    • CommentAuthorgone
    • CommentTimeJan 8th 2008
     
    dublickitt:Well, when the end of 2012 rolls around, we won't have to worry about a political parties anymore. It'll be Mayan Apocalypse whether you like it or not. Get ready, fellas.


    Am I the only person worried about this?

    Because I am really worried.

    "But I won't be worried long."
  9.  
    So.... to bring this thread back from the dead...


    THOUGHTS ON THE Supreme Court decision regarding the Affordable Care Act?clockwork ted: this is my favorite thread. sweet BJ alexi!
    • CommentAuthor•••
    • CommentTimeJun 28th 2012
     
    feels good man
    • CommentAuthorObo
    • CommentTimeJun 28th 2012
     
    It really shouldn't have been controversial. Healthcare is rather clearly interstate commerce, so the commerce clause applies. And just for precedent, James Madison (one of the guys around for the Constitution) wanted an insurance mandate for bridge builders -- precisely because no one would insure them because the benz was making so many of them sick. These aren't new ideas, as the GOP themselves supported this whole plan a decade ago.

    That said, I'm glad that SCOTUS didn't turn into total asshats about it. I can't wait to read Scalia's dissent to see if he can use slavery in a positive way to tell us why this is unconstitutional (which is what he did in his dissent about Arizona's SB1070 "paper's please" law)I ONLY WEAR CAMPY CONDOMS WITH WHITE WRAPS - joeyfresh
  10.  
    Obo:It really shouldn't have been controversial. Healthcare is rather clearly interstate commerce, so the commerce clause applies. And just for precedent, James Madison (one of the guys around for the Constitution) wanted an insurance mandate for bridge builders -- precisely because no one would insure them because the benz was making so many of them sick. These aren't new ideas, as the GOP themselves supported this whole plan a decade ago.

    That said, I'm glad that SCOTUS didn't turn into total asshats about it. I can't wait to read Scalia's dissent to see if he can use slavery in a positive way to tell us why this is unconstitutional (which is what he did in his dissent about Arizona's SB1070 "paper's please" law)

    ^Yes.

    I will add one other issue. The Supreme Court has done a number of things recently to really undermine their credibility with the population at large. The biggest ones were Citizen's United and the Strip Search issues. These decisions have left large swaths of the population feeling that the Supreme Court is just "out of touch" with how the real world operates. In full disclosure, my personal politics are as far to the left as the eye can see, and I am an attorney (albeit an unemployed one). All this said, my guess is that the Health Care decision is going to further undermine the credibility of the Supreme Court, but this time that impact will be mostly couched within the right-wing. I wonder how long it will be before someone tags Roberts, and the rest of the Court, as "activist."

    Also note, that what the Supreme Court really did today was uphold the right of the government to TAX people who do not have health insurance. It does NOT mandate that everyone will now have equal and adequate access to health care. Yes, a huge improvement over what was in place before, but we are not yet Germany, Sweden, etc.All you white kids look alike when you're still covered in baby fat, so I was getting bored with the non-stop WASP parade.
    • CommentAuthorJimmyJ
    • CommentTimeJun 28th 2012
     
    so i did a bit of research and this seems like exactly the same thing we have back in australia. but we call it the medicare levy.
    and no one gives a fuck.
    as far as i understand there's a tax especially for universal health services, and if you get your own insurance, you're exempt from the tax. makes sense to me.

    people here seem to care about some really inane things and not about others. (conversely there are plenty of things that are worth caring about that we don't back home for some reason).


    i must say i'm looking forward to seeing this election cycle play it's course while konwing i can pretty much go home whenever i want.
  11.  
    JimmyJ:and no one gives a fuck.

    Well, yeah, but we have a BLACK man in the WHITE house with a funny sounding name, who also happens to be a SOCIALIST. Hence, bring out the fireworks.All you white kids look alike when you're still covered in baby fat, so I was getting bored with the non-stop WASP parade.
  12.  
    chr|s sedition:
    JimmyJ:and no one gives a fuck.

    Well, yeah, but we have a BLACK man in the WHITE house with a funny sounding name, who also happens to be a SOCIALIST. Hence, bring out the fireworks.


    Don't forget that he wasn't even born in the US!clockwork ted: this is my favorite thread. sweet BJ alexi!
    • CommentAuthorObo
    • CommentTimeJun 28th 2012
     
    I think Robert's defending the mandate as a tax is just a political move so he doesn't have to stand on the Commerce Clause (since the administration's lawyer had the failure of his career making his case)I ONLY WEAR CAMPY CONDOMS WITH WHITE WRAPS - joeyfresh
  13.  
    The court has a long history of finding reasonable sounding outs when they don't want to make a particular decision. I'm a little surprised the majority thought this wasn't similar to Wickard v Filburn, but I suppose Roberts didn't want to take responsibility for further expanding the reach of the Commerce Clause (yet again).
  14.  
    I'm really surprised this thread doesn't see more life to it. Two great quotes I saw this week:

    "There is something horrifically wrong when the biggest threat to the U.S. economy is the U.S. Congress."

    "Congress praising itself for averting the cliff is like a an arsonist getting an award for putting out a fire he started."

    And then there is recent gun control concerns...I have mixed feelings on that one.All you white kids look alike when you're still covered in baby fat, so I was getting bored with the non-stop WASP parade.
  15.  
    I think there's probably a reasonable way of dealing with the last one: more stringent background checks and closing the gun show loophole. I'm not saying it will stop the next Newtown, but both are reasonable policies that should already be in place. Not sure what to do about limiting the size of clips/people possessing assault rifles as there are already so many out there.