In your first paragraph you paint the picture of absent federalism or nullification, practically pre-civil war state power restored. If it'd come to that, I think the USA would cease to exist in its current form of 50 states.

2nd paragraph: Aurens hinted at the antitrust laws being too lenient. I agree that money needs to be taken out of the political process, but I don't think dissolving anti-trust instead of fixing and enforcing it is preferable.

third paragraph and following: American Dream and American Exceptionalism and Excellence have turned negative, i agree.

My rant : I think RP'S fight against selfishness is in the wrong direction, but social policies are decried as "Socialism!" too fast, succumbing to scaretactics, which sadly work. Imho, market libertarianism is a political ideology: The solution to everything is "free market!" and "Voluntary everything!"; this sounds nice, but will likely fail, because everything is too complex for a one-phrase-solution. "How will our country prosper? - Communism!"

I (think I) know how it works, I've been ideological myself, it is very nice to think one's movement as better than all other movements, and everyone else is wrong. All solutions of my movement will work, and all imperfections couldn't be helped, they who fell through the cracks did not trust the movement enough.

Isms do not hold the answer,imo, not statism, not liberalism, not communism, not fascism, not liberalism, and not conservativism. Instead of trying to see how an -ism can provide the solution, a politician should just try to find the best solution. Rant end.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Or you could just choose a state that represents your ideas and move there--where laws could prevent wanton firing, the state could have a universal health plan, etc. Problem is, people would be rebelling against their own stupidity. They would be to lazy and complacent to vote via boycott to create honest corporations...
Besides, we already have mega corps that are bleeding us dry from the throat, and then moving on. We are already in decline.
And besides that, we all note that RP is more a movement than anything. Those lazy, arrogant, cocky bastards who go day-to-day about their lives with only a care about themselves--that's what RP is fighting against. Is he doing it wrong? Sure. But that's not the point. Someone has to fight it.
"American excellency." How horrible a lie! How decadent, how evil, pure evil! That attitude is rotting us from inside out. And most Americans believe it! But RP says NO. And that is why I like him.
Off soapbox.

Whereas nation states where religion is part of the law of the land. Well look at those nations. These are isolated states that have remained in a development vacuum but got rich off selling oil. There is no freedom of speech or democracy in those states. The very fact that the first world deals with say OPEC allows the theocracy to be sustained in those nations.

Religion was a form of government for most of Europe. Then we had the enlightenment, democracy, revolution, kings, wars, history and so on. Religious denominations in Europe are now rapidly fading. This process never occured in the Middle East. Suddenly they have BILLIONS to spend on spreading their 'faith' as a form of government intervention. Saudi Arabia building schools in Pakistan that eventually created the Taliban was not an act of religious domination but a ham fisted attempt at geopolitics via religious doctrine. Because for some fucking reason the Saudis believed the Taliban would actually listen to them or something LOL. (Is this of course ignoring specific political issues of the time, USSR, evil empire, Regean, cold war, US allies with Saudi Arabia, fighting proxy wars, stinger missiles, Charlie Wilson and so on).

Saudi Arabia is cool because its such a fucking relic of government policy they have little room for any type of social policy because that is dictat by Religion. Thus their policies stem from it. They are like evil but religiously ahaha so they just fund fundamentalists everywhere thinking it will give them political clout and power when in reality it backfires. Kinda like this US thing where it's like FREEDOM FOR ALL... THROUGH FUCKING DAISY CUTTERS. To Save Iraq We have to destroy it. To save Afghanistan. We have to keep sending troops for a dubious objective. Oh wait let's pull out now. etc.

Fundamentally we have to appreciate the fact that religion is but a theory of the that explained things prior to science. With the rise of science, it tried to fight it. Finally slowly it's either merging or being eliminated or reconstituted in new ideological belief sets.

What I mean to say is that it's only through the evolution of man, knowledge and ideas that humanity has reached a point where it starts to doubt a very flawed perception of reality. First gods were manifest everywhere. Then they were nature. Then they are ghosts. Now we are supposed to believe or have faith.

Those of a stronger mental make up could possibly accept that we live and die and that is the end. Others cling to religion because it is safe. Others believe in living eternally through genes, about the only thing we consistently carry on through time.

Time will see the end of man man religions, into new constructs of stupidity, because science still, while providing much of the answers lacks many fundamental resolutions for most issues at the core of religious belief. Time will tell us all. But so far so good.

>> ^hpqp:

How did Christianity get to Europe? Conquest. To the Americas? Conquest and colonisation. To Africa? Colonisation, slave trade. To Australasia? Colonisation. Does that mean that these means have been taking place all the way 'till now? Of course not. After a few generations of growing up with the imposed religion, you forget it was imposed in the first place. Unless you were "cleansed", then there are no next generations.
Same story with Islam. Only eventual difference: violent conquest/conversion is directly condoned, one could even say "ordained", by the holy text (e.g. 2:191-3/2:216); oh, and the prophet was also a tribal leader and war general, unlike the possibly fictional Jeebs of the Christians.
I'm not saying people don't convert, just that the majority of religion's spread is through breeding and childhood indoctrination, and that the origins of the desert monotheisms' spread (especially Christianity and Islam) was conquest and colonisation so your original comment does not seem to be making any relevant point.
edit: add to that the continual use of majority pressure and intimidation, especially when religion is part of a country's legal and political system.
>> ^Farhad2000:
Naa. Islam reached 1 billion in the 21st century.
The assumption you are making is that it's been spreading at the knife edge from what the Moor times?
>> ^hpqp:
Uh, you do know that more often than not it was spread, like Christianity, at the edge of the sword, right? Conquest, colonisation, slave trade, same old same old.
>> ^Farhad2000:
Furthermore people forget that Islam represents 22% of world population. Much of it not in the Middle East. If the religion was so shit it wouldn't have taken every other religion out there.

@SDGundamX

(just so you know, I do not agree with everything Harris says, but he makes quite a few good points).

Interesting extract from this article (bold=added): http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/holy-terror


Of course, the Bible is not the only ancient text that casts a shadow over the present. The social policy that can be derived from the Koran currently poses even greater dangers. According to this text, it is the duty of every Muslim man to make war on unbelievers (Koran 9:73 and 9:123), and such men are promised eternal happiness after death. It is true that many Muslims seem inclined to ignore the Koran’s solicitations to martyrdom and jihad, but we cannot overlook the fact that many are not so inclined, and they now regularly murder innocent noncombatants for religious reasons. The phrase “the war on terrorism” is a dangerous euphemism that obscures the true cause of our troubles in the world, because we are currently at war with precisely the vision of life prescribed to all Muslims in the Koran. Anyone who reads this text will find non-Muslims vilified on nearly every page. How can we possibly expect devout Muslims to happily share power with “the friends of Satan”? How can we expect the faithful to feel about people who God himself is in the process of “mocking,” “cursing,” “shaming,” “punishing,” “scourging,” “judging,” “burning,” “annihilating,” “not forgiving,” and “not reprieving”? While there are many charges that can be fairly leveled at men like Osama bin Laden, perverting the teachings of the Koran is not among them. Why did nineteen well-educated, middle-class men trade their lives in this world for the privilege of killing thousands of our neighbors? Because they believed that they would go straight to Paradise for doing so. It is rare to find the behavior of human beings so fully and satisfactorily explained. And yet, many of us are reluctant to accept this explanation.

Religious faith is always, and everywhere, exonerated. It is now taboo in every corner of our culture to criticize a person’s religious beliefs. Consequently, we are unable to even name, much less oppose, one of the most pervasive causes of human conflict. And the fact that there are very real and consequential differences between our religious traditions is simply never discussed. Anyone who thinks that terrestrial concerns are the principal source of Muslim violence must explain why there are no Palestinian Christian suicide bombers. They, too, suffer the daily indignity of the Israeli occupation. Where, for that matter, are the Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers? The Tibetans have suffered an occupation far more brutal. Where are the throngs of Tibetans ready to perpetrate suicidal atrocities against the Chinese? They do not exist. What is the difference that makes the difference? The difference lies in the specific tenets of Islam.

It's been awhile since intro polisci, but I recall the upshot was this:

Any reasonable electoral system on a 1 dimensional spectrum (i.e. left/right)will eventually gravitate toward the preferences of the median voter. This is true of first past the post, proportional representation, and ranked preference systems.

If you model voter preferences in more dimensions (for instance one dimension on social policy, one on economic) theoretically you can have fairly chaotic and divergent results based on different electoral systems, but in practice it tends to end up near the median on each dimension anyway.

So it might feel good to be able to point to your green party representative in congress under a proportional system, or a candidate that shares your cultural background under a gerrymandered system, but you end up getting the same policies either way.

---
I can only work with proven results, not what others want things to be or theorize is possible. Obamanomics has failed to deliver prosperity, and this may be because increasing prosperity is not what it's designed to do. It could be working beautifully if its goal is to increase dependency on government and curtail American influence worldwide.

REAL American unemployment is currently 18%, not the BS that D.C. is spouting. 2 to 3% more wouldn't even register with the crew in D.C.
---

You cannot 'prove' anything in a social science. What you can do is historically look at past crises and see what worked and what didn't.

Financial crises historically have high levels of unemployment following them. This is because as in this case for the US, consumers have overspent and must spend years rebuilding their savings levels. As they rebuild them, demand is low, the demand for employees is low, and there is relatively higher unemployment.

This is historically accurate for Latin America's debt crisis in 1982, the 1990 asset bubble bust in Japan and so far entirely consistent for the financial crisis in the US.

The way you label fiscal stimulus as Obamanomics leads me to believe you think that his policies are idiosynchractic and unique. They are not. Virtually every country in the world hit by the global financial crisis has enacted the same combination of direct spending, lower taxes and looser monetary policy. You would be well advised to be aware of this.

Also, despite what you may claim, the fact that unemployment is high and has risen under Obama is not evidence that his policies have not worked. In fact again there is historical evidence to suggest the US has fared better than other countries. See the first graph below:

http://www.economist.com/node/17041738

Unemployment is measured by virtually all countries as the number of unemployed out of the proportion actively seeking work. Yes, this is not an accurate measure when previous employees have been discouraged from looking for work and have dropped out, but it is consistent with most measures used internationally.

---
Though the government obviously denies it, the origins of this financial crisis were largely the fault of government policies and meddling.

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot."

----Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Secretary of the Treasury

Keynesian economic theory does not work. It mistakes action for results. Despite enormous spending (which began as Bush was sunsetting) Obamanomics hasn't created any jobs, unless you count the temporary kick of the useless Census.

The American people have the wealth and are indeed holding onto it. There are 2 trillion dollars in assets waiting to rejoin the economy. So why don't people jump in again?

No sane business is going to invest heavily or hire workers with our leftists in power, threatening to tax everything in sight and "punish" profits. This current govt--even with the coming Republicans in January--also offers no stability or confidence, and I don't expect this to change anytime soon.

The current US Secretary of the Treasury is a tax cheat, and well before they installed the SOB they knew he was a tax cheat. Does it get any more obvious the lack of integrity and disdain for the public harbored by the crew in DC.
---

I agree that the financial crisis has much to do with government meddling. Policymakers in the US have historically encouraged the quintessential notion of homeownership frivolously and irresponsibly. At the other end equally though, predatory lending exacerbated the issue. Left to their own devices, banks knew full well that they could generate huge returns by lending, and then selling off those financial assets to wipe themselves clean of risk. They also knew that if worst came to worst, the government would bail them out as they were too integral to the functioning of the world economy. Both less intervention and more regulation was necessary to prevent what happened.

Either of these 2 factors in and of itself would have led to a crisis sooner than later, would you not agree?

I can't take a quote seriously that skips over text 3 times in 4 lines. For all you know, the original intent has been completely manipulated. For all you know (based on previous experience) this wasn't even SAID by who it's claimed to have been said by.

Besides, there is no evidence there. It is someone's opinion, without any facts, without any figures. Nothing to substantiate what is being said. I genuinely hope you don't rely on people's pure opinions as gospel and factcheck what you read.

Again, you are simply wrong the stimulus has not created jobs. It has created both permanent jobs by giving subsidies to industries, and temporary jobs to prevent skills loss from unemployed workers:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-08-30-stimulus30_CV_N.htm

Read the title of the article above.

Frankly, how is it POSSIBLE that you think it hasn't created any jobs? Where do you think the money goes? Do you think it's laundered into people's bank accounts and shipped overseas? How can you possibly think that a stimulus has not created any jobs? That the only jobs it has created are for the census is a typical right wing talking point from what I hear. Again, I implore you to consult some less idealogical sources without absolutist views.

Not to go on a tangent here, but how often have these sources you rely on information for actually lauded something that Obama has done? Do you really think it is possible that Obama has done nothing good, or let alone nothing that ideologically they would agree on? Take for example the increased drone strikes in Pakistan, relative to even Bush. This seems like a clear cut policy that right wing pundits and blogs would laud. Why is there no one mentioning this?

Or do you think that possibly, just possibly, they have an agenda or an absolutist view with which they perceive the Democrats and the left-wing that blinds them to anything that doesn't conform to their predisposed views that Democrats = bad?

Why would you want to emulate and follow the opinions of someone who cannot look at things at face value?

For your comment on why investors are not investing, they are not investing because of the debt which will worsen if taxes fall - this is historically proven as fact. But let's say for argument that taxes were drastically reduced. Demand is still low in the US though. People are still rebuilding their balance sheets. What will the multinational and wealthy corporations do with this excess revenue?

They will invest it overseas in developing markets with high growth rates. Lower taxes will be paying for growth in foreign countries. Since the money will be invested elsewhere, even less of it will be reaped back in tax revenue. Growth overseas will be rising while the US is falling further and further into debt default.

I am curious where exactly you don't agree with this logic.

I have nothing cogent to say against your notion that Democrats want to punish profits.

It does not make sense.

The buy-up of bank and auto industry stocks is being relinquished. Citibank recently bought back some of these shares, and the government made a profit. The auto industry is making a profit. There is simply no evidence that Obama wants to nationalize anything. There is no public option. The independent review committee to trim Medicare will MINIMIZE government involvement, something the right quite hypocritically, is against.

How is it not obvious that punishing profits would be bad politics? How is it not obvious that doing this would not win votes? Where is your evidence that he intends to do this? The health care plan is deficit neutral. Financial reform will reduce risk.

Will taxes have to rise? Sure, because without that, the budget will never return to neutral. This is fact. Cutting social policies by that much is not feasible. Why do you blame Obama for this and not Bush who allowed this to fester during prolonged periods of economic growth? Would you rather the problem fester while taxes are kept low and imperil the whole economy in the process? There are only those two options.

Also, I think I laid out, what is a pretty simple and logical explaining of fiscal policy, and why it works.

Where do you disagree with it?

---
Well, like you or anyone else, I'm just as likely to vote to stop the other side as promote my own. Where you live, govt is seen as a benevolent force for good. And as you can probably attest, you pay through the nose for the government services provided.

Individual > State = America

State > Individual = everywhere else

If the Republicans don't repeal or de-fund obamacare they are finished.
---

The funny this is, if I were making the same as I am not in the US, I would be paying nearly the same in taxes.

I'm a recent university grad and make 60K/year.

I pay 15% between 6-35k, and 30% between 35-60k. (4350 + 7500 = $11850)

The US income brackets are very similar.

For me they would be, 10% between 0 - $8375, 15% between $8376 - $34,000 and 25% between $34,000 - $60,000. (838 + 3844 + 6500 = 11182)

So let's see. I'm paying roughly $700 more (a bit more actually, say $1000 for argument considering the exchange rate of 0.95, but close enough) for free universal access to hospital treatment and subsidized out of hospital expenses; for generous unemployment benefits if I ever lose my job. For university cost assistance, despite the fact that I could easily pay off my university debt if I lived at home with minimal expenses in one year (It's ~25k from 5 years of study with nothing paid back yet). I hear that in the US for Ivy league schools it can be 20-30K US A YEAR. I mean that last point alone MORE THAN makes up for the difference. Frankly any of those do by themselves. I also have great job prospects being in an economy that never officially went into recession (only one quarter of negative growth) with a private sector one lined up for next year.

To sum up, I'm actually paying only 1.7% more in taxes for a WHOLE HEAP of benefits.

How is that a bad deal?

Incidentally much of our (Australia's) economic success can be attributed to good bank regulation than anything else. If you are curious I can elaborate on this.

WikiLeaks' Bottom-Line Revelation

by

Austin Bay

Julian Assange, the man behind the WikiLeaks dump of secret US State Department cables, has been frank about his reasons for releasing thousands of classified -and stolen -- documents.

Assange says he wants to seriously damage the United States. If this damage forwards America's ultimate destruction, so be it. The son of leftist America-haters, Assange was born and weaned during the Cold War. Then the wrong side won. What the superpower Soviet Union failed to do with its armies, he, a super-empowered individual, will accomplish via the information anarchy of the Internet.

If Assange's history-shaping goal seems grandiose and detached from reality, indeed it is. However, once you understand the man's religion, his megalomania and solipsism become a bit more comprehensible if even more reprehensible.

Like other anti-American cranks on the planet, Assange holds firm in his warped faith that the U.S. is the leading source of global evil. The roots of this religion run deep, beginning with 18th century European aristocrats who despised the American Revolution. The anti-Americanism of Nazis, communists, tribalists, anarchists and now militant Islamists all rehash the same tropes, with their semi-schizoid baseline being the U.S. is simultaneously a vast authoritarian conspiracy and a heterogeneous menagerie of infidel-cowboy-capitalist idiots who dogmatically resist enlightened social policies.

Assange argues his revelations will force this conglomerate American monster to become more secretive and authoritarian. Limiting access to information, in order to stop future leaks, will reduce the monster's secretive and authoritarian effectiveness. The monster's "security state" will dumb down, and --here's the moment of religious rapture in Assange's prophecy -- this will increase global justice.

Assange also links this shackling of America to creating peace. Don't snicker too long. There are a lot of tenured gray-haired profs with ponytails who teach this dreck at notable universities and get paid for it.

Assange understands media grandstanding, but he doesn't understand people and certainly doesn't understand how American diplomats contribute to maintaining peace.

U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates understands people and diplomacy, and his assessment of Assange's info dump is as clear as it is historically and psychologically informed. At the Pentagon last week, Gates said: "The fact is, governments deal with the United States because it's in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us and not because they believe we can keep secrets. Many governments -- some governments -- deal with us because they fear us, some because they respect us, most because they need us. We are still essentially, as has been said before, the indispensable nation."

Gates added that the cables were "embarrassing" and "awkward," but the ultimate effects on policy would be "modest."

Pray that Gates is right about modest impact, but right now and for at least the next six months, the world confronts the possibility of a nuclear war in East Asia ignited by North Korean aggression. This is a time period when the world absolutely needs close -- and trustworthy -- cooperation between the U.S. and China. A big war in Korea could kill millions but will guarantee a global economic depression. Leaked cables discuss corruption in China's Communist Party and names hypocritical party elites.

Even if the information is accurate, this is a case where revealed candor damages personal relationships among key U.S. diplomatic personnel and Chinese leaders. China is a face culture, and the leaders have lost face. A mature appreciation of the common danger should override personal anger, but another leak revealed that China sees North Korea as a "spoiled child" and that it believes Korea will ultimately be reunited with South Korea absorbing the North. This revelation weakens China's political leverage with North Korea at a moment when any leverage is precious.

Assange, of course, did not consider how he increased the threat to the lives of millions of Korean, Japanese and Chinese when he dumped his filched documents. His faith-based narrative of American evil excludes the possibility that American diplomats are collaborating with China to avoid war and eventually put an end to North Korea's armed brinksmanship without a nuclear explosion.

Here's WikiLeaks' bottom-line revelation: Assange and ideologues like him promote an ignorant and destructive solipsism that has nothing to do with peace and justice but a lot to do with sociopathic narcissism.

I agree with you BK. I knew from the campaign that Obama wasn't going to be a savior. Politics today are designed to favor the big money interests (read Corporate and especially Investment Bankers).

I voted for him because I knew that things would be much, much worse under the direction of that old white guy and his barbie doll.

But if we had a better election system, something that would allow more than the two current parties, I would have voted for somebody like Paul, who really isn't a Republican. There's a guy who would make some changes. I didn't care for some of his social policies, but that guy knows finances.

Would that not then mean that ... Sarah Palin is Constitutionally prohibited from becoming ... President or Vice President of the United States of America?

Well - if you want to play the rhetorical game of strict denotative definitions - then "insurrection" would mean Barak Obama should be tossed out today. An insurrection is simply "resistance against civil authority or an established government", right? As a civil rights activist Obama as resisted the government. The entire Democrat resisted an established government during GWB. The Republicans are doing it right now under Obama. You know what? The more I think about it, the more I like this goofball textpert interpretation. It essentially means that NOBODY is allowed to run for political office. Throw them all out. Good riddance.

The teabagger movement ... was founded by old skool conservative republican, Dick Armey

It would be more accurate to say that Dick Armey supported the already existent Tea Party in the same way Democrats supported the anti-war movement. Under GWB, a grassroots movement got going that was opposed to the way the Iraq war was handled. This true representation of the national mood was aided and abetted by Democrats. Democrats "astroturfed" the bejeezus out of the anti-war movement. It was politically exigent, as well as a philosophical position they agreed with.

Republicans are trying to do the same thing with the Tea Party. The Tea Party is grassroots. It is filled with citizens who hate debt and deficits - who want balanced budgets & fiscal restraint at the federal level. It is Republicans, Independants, and even Democrats for whom sound fiscal policy is a critical issue. But Republicans for years flapped thier lips about fiscal conservatism (even though they don't practice it much). Of course the GOP is going to foster & foment a movement that they politically sympathize with.

The Tea Party movement is about fiscal conservatism. They want balanced budgets, reduced spending, and limited federal power. In that sense they agree with some libertarian principles, but aren't interested in the social policies that make the libertarian party such a collection of oddballs. Neither are they interested in the "Republican party" except as a vehicle to slam the brakes on Obama & Democrats. If the GOP thinks they can just use the Tea Party like a wet-wipe and then go on to be a bunch of fiscal idiots like Bush, then they will find the TP to be an unreliable ally.

People as stupid as you are why this problem exists.

Wow. How can I compete with such powerful logic? I'll humor you even as I pull the lever for the trapdoor under your feet.

That Rush Limbaugh can spew hatred all day long and then claim that the empathetic, tree-hugging, peace-loving liberals are the evil party and there are sheep that hear this abortion of logic and actually BELIEVE it, that's what's causing the problem.

But liberals are not peace-loving, they're surrender-loving in the hopes surrender will bring peace. Oops, the jihadists hate Obama and Iran continues to build nukes, so I guess the liberal appeasement plan aint' working (again).

Rush Limbaugh? You've never heard him for more than 3 minutes, and then only heavily filtered through who knows what "unbiased" media sources.

These extremists and their brainwashed followers are an extremely small minority. You are consistently delusional, so it's no surprise you've decided that you're some how a great driving force in national politics. You lost that election. You got raped in that election. RAPED. The national climate hasn't changed THAT much, even despite your never-ending draw of the victim card and spewing of baseless hatred and lies.

There was no Obama landslide, and running an asshole RINO like McCain only proves that fakeservatives don't win elections. The Republigoons ignore conservative principles at their own peril. Liberals run 95% of the media, including hollywood and teacher-democrat-unionized government schools, and still solidly HALF the country remains conservative. Message FAIL?

As for "hatred", for a liberal to accuse anyone of such a thing has been played out for 4 decades now. Any disagreement with the lefty Party Line earns the dissenter the "hatred" label. It's tiresome, and liberals look especially stupid when accusing someone like Limbaugh of "hatred" while bending over backwards to give terrorists American legal rights.

There are kooks threatening every President. The MSM now play up the kooks threatening Obama just like they played down the kooks threatening Bush.


We all know that if the economy recovers under Obama that you're going to credit Dubya. We already know that, because that's the pattern with absolutists who don't give a shit about reality, and you're obviously brainwashed by a couple of them. Never mind that you're judging the man on policies that have barely had any time to make an effect. And who even knows what social policies you're talking about, since practically nothing has really changed on that front.

The economy will only recover in spite of Obamarx, who is encouraging this recession. See, he is a bitter, angry leftist radical, but you can only see this by the company he keeps (and hires). He keeps the Kool Menthol head and lets his goons, tax cheats and maoists do the dirty work of undermining the Constitution and taxing the people into poverty.

Obummer thinks this high unemployment is punishing those evil capitalists who took more than their fair share. He NEEDS chaos to thrive, just like Scum Emmanuel said: never let a crisis go to waste.

The Treasury is printing Monopoly money and the high price of gold proves confidence in the dollar is shitting the kiddie pool. Hyperinflation is inevitable. Obama? He doesn't give a damn. I salute the people who oppose degrading America into a socialist swamp akin to the dying nations of Europe.

>> ^quantumushroom:
The art of misdirection. While the radical left-wing moonbat media (all but FOX) makes this yet another exploitive Rahm Emmanuel-level "crisis", Obama's failed economic and social policies stack up like dirty dishes. You can't just sweep 10% unemployment and kissing Arab tyrant ass at the expense of Israel under the rug.
Welcome back, Carter!


People as stupid as you are why this problem exists.

That Rush Limbaugh can spew hatred all day long and then claim that the empathetic, tree-hugging, peace-loving liberals are the evil party and there are sheep that hear this abortion of logic and actually BELIEVE it, that's what's causing the problem.

These extremists and their brainwashed followers are an extremely small minority. You are consistently delusional, so it's no surprise you've decided that you're some how a great driving force in national politics. You lost that election. You got raped in that election. RAPED. The national climate hasn't changed THAT much, even despite your never-ending draw of the victim card and spewing of baseless hatred and lies.

We all know that if the economy recovers under Obama that you're going to credit Dubya. We already know that, because that's the pattern with absolutists who don't give a shit about reality, and you're obviously brainwashed by a couple of them. Never mind that you're judging the man on policies that have barely had any time to make an effect. And who even knows what social policies you're talking about, since practically nothing has really changed on that front.

Please, sit down and stfu and next time you deem us worthy to share in your delusional world, please bring some solid proof to back up the dreck. tia

>> ^TheFreak:
The world needs more angry Weiners.


Exacly, just like the ones on the town hall meetings

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Well - you may like him but this video gives no cause to do so. 1. He makes a generic claim ('everyone is going to pay less'). 2. He supplies only shoddy assertions and unfounded opinions to justify his claim (we're magically going to save 10%). 3. He ignores the CBO report that says the plan is will not save even 0.001% (let alone 10%). 4. He ignores the fact that Medicare & Medicaid are two of the most colossal failures in the annals of US social policy, both continually teetering on the edge of insolvency and routinely costing tens of billions more than they are budgeted for. 5. Then he goes and says private insurance doesn't help anyone to get health care.
At best, he's a tool. More likely, he's a neolib useful idiot.


You're right too!!!
just like the ones that I remember

1- We're going to win the war in Iraq
2- Yes we're 100% he has WMD

politicians always telling the truth!!!
and the stupid dumb asses cock sucker that always think their "side" is the correct one, isint that right " Winstonfield_littlepacker"

Well - you may like him but this video gives no cause to do so. 1. He makes a generic claim ('everyone is going to pay less'). 2. He supplies only shoddy assertions and unfounded opinions to justify his claim (we're magically going to save 10%). 3. He ignores the CBO report that says the plan is will not save even 0.001% (let alone 10%). 4. He ignores the fact that Medicare & Medicaid are two of the most colossal failures in the annals of US social policy, both continually teetering on the edge of insolvency and routinely costing tens of billions more than they are budgeted for. 5. Then he goes and says private insurance doesn't help anyone to get health care.

At best, he's a tool. More likely, he's a neolib useful idiot.

^The difference is, blankfist, that spoco and me both think and reason that having guns around in such enormous numbers as in the USA facilitates more violence. We've got the impression that for some reason there's this downward spiral in your country, where guns create shootings and shootings cause more gun purchases. Is this notion really that absurd? And I get that for now, when crime rates remain as high as they may be in your neighborhood, it feels safer to have the gun when you think the burglar will have one, too. But if crime in your area was suddenly reduced some 90%, wouldn't you say most people would feel less need for having a gun at their home? I think that supports my theory.

As far as solutions are concerned, I don't think a simple ban on all firearms would solve the problem - I think programs for increase in overall safety and some much-needed social policy (yes, America NEEDS more socialism) are the key.

Besides, you may have been taught not to mess with loaded guns, but how many kids disregard whatever their parents forbid and go for it when they get the chance?

^Holy crap netrunner. I just don't have time to read this right now. Just having skimmed it, there is a major flaw in your arguement. Intentions are worthless. The proof is in the pudding.

I'll get back to it, though.


(You know, if you could squash some of the prejudice that you hold against republicans and conservatives, you could be a valuable asset to the entire country when debating social policy.)

The art of misdirection. While the radical left-wing moonbat media (all but FOX) makes this yet another exploitive Rahm Emmanuel-level "crisis", Obama's failed economic and social policies stack up like dirty dishes. You can't just sweep 10% unemployment and kissing Arab tyrant ass at the expense of Israel under the rug.

Welcome back, Carter!