What a stupid stupid game American politics is. Buy an audience, get them to applaud stupidity and win over millions of christians. Hopefully I'm not missing anything out there.

Americas Power Elite didn't invent the game. They just perfected it.

>> ^ghark:

What a stupid stupid game American politics is. Buy an audience, get them to applaud stupidity and win over millions of christians. Hopefully I'm not missing anything out there.

Take the Obama path to its logical conclusion.

Socialism always fails. We've got more than enough of it here in America already. The ultimate goal of socialists is to create a central power which ultimately controls all resources and property (and thus all freedom). Of course, the good socialists don't consider themselves superior to the people they control, it's just someone has to step in and regulate everything (while staying immune to the laws they inflict on others).

The Soviet Union tried all this already under the label communism, which is socialism without a second chance for dissenters. With natural resources far more massive than the USA's, the CCCP had to import grain.

Drug Prohibition started out small and trivial. The American income tax (a commmunist gift) started out small and trivial. The federal government started out small and trivial.

The left's tax addiction stops HERE AND NOW.

A. Obama isn't a socialist.
B. Socialism doesn't always fail.
C. That's not the ultimate goal of socialism.
D. You don't know what communism is. Hint: Your description of Socialism's ultimate goal is pretty close, except Communism doesn't intend to control all freedoms, just economic ones. That's still not Socialism, though. Socialists by definition aren't communists.
E. Japan, Hong Kong, and a slew of other countries must import food, too. Their economies are failures?! Your economic analysis is a sham.
F. If you're comparing the Soviet Union's economic system to what Democrats and Obama envision, go right ahead. Most democrats don't envision an economy much different than what you have now. The rich paying 40% top marginal tax rate instead of 35% isn't Socialist. It's certainly more socialist, but if that's socialism, what was the US when the rich paid over 90% in income tax in the 1950s? You know, during that time when McCarthyism was looking for anyone and anything to accuse of being a Communist?

Seriously....

>> ^quantumushroom:

Take the Obama path to its logical conclusion.
Socialism always fails. We've got more than enough of it here in America already. The ultimate goal of socialists is to create a central power which ultimately controls all resources and property (and thus all freedom). Of course, the good socialists don't consider themselves superior to the people they control, it's just someone has to step in and regulate everything (while staying immune to the laws they inflict on others).
The Soviet Union tried all this already under the label communism, which is socialism without a second chance for dissenters. With natural resources far more massive than the USA's, the CCCP had to import grain.
Drug Prohibition started out small and trivial. The American income tax (a commmunist gift) started out small and trivial. The federal government started out small and trivial.
The left's tax addiction stops HERE AND NOW.

If you want to have a great country, you have to pay for it. Echoing the last point, 90% tax rates on the rich is how we got the space program, the internet, an interstate highway system, just to name 3. All three of these things are essential to modern commerce, yet none of it was developed by private industry.

Now, instead of wanting to mimic those successes, some of the shortsighted rich want to turn America into some banana republic, where government only exists for protecting the property of the rich. If republicans had their way in the 20th century, our economic and technological progress would be stuch in the 1920s.

I would have no problem with these jokers advocating a no additional revenues approach, if they'd be honest with the voters about what their cuts would do. Maybe we should have a constitutional amendment that in order to get on the ballot, you have to present a budget for the next 4 years and let the CBO score it.

I'm not sure that information would change the minds of these folks though. They have their own media that would convince them that the dismantlement of social security and medicare is a good thing. If they decide that's what they want, I'm past trying to "save" them from themselves.

I live in a state that would probably institute these social programs itself if the feds dropped the ball. States built highways and funded research institutions before the federal government ever did. You jerks in Kansas want a voucher instead of medicare, go for it. You want to starve your education and infrastructure? Great, you'll just be cheaper labor for the entrepreneurs who graduate from our functioning schools.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Take the Obama path to its logical conclusion.
Socialism always fails. We've got more than enough of it here in America already. The ultimate goal of socialists is to create a central power which ultimately controls all resources and property (and thus all freedom). Of course, the good socialists don't consider themselves superior to the people they control, it's just someone has to step in and regulate everything (while staying immune to the laws they inflict on others).
The Soviet Union tried all this already under the label communism, which is socialism without a second chance for dissenters. With natural resources far more massive than the USA's, the CCCP had to import grain.
Drug Prohibition started out small and trivial. The American income tax (a commmunist gift) started out small and trivial. The federal government started out small and trivial.
The left's tax addiction stops HERE AND NOW.

Many countries the world over import grain because of fiscal reasons but it's a little more complicated than you might think. The real problem is getting water. See this story:


http://www.npr.org/2011/08/12/139579616/feeding-a-hotter-more-crowded-planet

Snippet: "The reason for that is the - is that it takes 1,000 tons of water to produce one ton of grain. So if you need to import water, the most efficient way to do it is with grain."

I'm really not even going to touch QM's BS... it's simply not worth it.

What this video shows is how incredibly hopeless the situation really is.

The moderator goes out of his way to suggest that its an incredibly unbalanced deal in this is hypothetical... favoring them... and not one of these idiots could even approach it with the slightest degree of open-mindedness... you know a placating "Well... i think we need to consider all options but it would have to be a very small '1' in that 10/1... hahaha..."

I used to be excited about getting to vote... i'm so completely dejected at this point...

this is all about rallying the base. So take consolation in that. Of course they all raise their hand. Once it comes down to the general election, They'll change their tune.

One of the many reasons John McCain lost is because he doubled down on the whole "The fundamentals of our economy are strong" nonsense.

Sucking Grover's cock may win you the GOP nod, but that won't win you the general.

Bill Maher said it best, GOP primaries are all about who is the biggest wife-fucker, anti-tax, pro-Christian Nation pundit.

Democratic primaries are not immune to this mentality either.

A. Obama isn't a socialist.

He sure as hell isn't a free market capitalist and is no supporter of individual rights. His answer to every problem is higher taxes (if he had the balls to confess it's his goal) more spending and MOAR government.

B. Socialism doesn't always fail.

Historically it's been around in one form or another and sooner or later always falls prey to human nature. Private property rights are the bane of socialists.

C. That's not the ultimate goal of socialism.

Not on paper, but that's what it ends up being. The State > Individual at all times. Rights that can be revoked by the State at any time due to not being natural born rights are a fraud.

D. You don't know what communism is. Hint: Your description of Socialism's ultimate goal is pretty close, except Communism doesn't intend to control all freedoms, just economic ones. That's still not Socialism, though. Socialists by definition aren't communists.

Semantics. When the State owns all property, they own you. When the State dictates who may or may not receive health care, they own you.

E. Japan, Hong Kong, and a slew of other countries must import food, too. Their economies are failures?! Your economic analysis is a sham.

Also answering Jigga----I made no claim of a full analysis with pie graphs---the point is this: Russia has far more natural resources than the United States, yet communism failed. Shitty state-made products (tech stolen from USA), long lines for basic staples like bread and gulags for critics.

F. If you're comparing the Soviet Union's economic system to what Democrats and Obama envision, go right ahead.

Most democrats don't envision an economy much different than what you have now. The rich paying 40% top marginal tax rate instead of 35% isn't Socialist. It's certainly more socialist, but if that's socialism, what was the US when the rich paid over 90% in income tax in the 1950s? You know, during that time when McCarthyism was looking for anyone and anything to accuse of being a Communist?

Social Security started as protection for a very small part of the populace and expanded to cover more and more year after year. The original architects of Medicare and Medicaid probably didn't imagine leviathan programs losing 60 billion dollars a year to fraud, waste and abuse. But here we are!

Why wouldn't I share the wonderful leftist vision of the future? Because the left measures social programs based on what they're supposed to do, not how well they do. The left also views life as rich versus poor instead of right versus wrong. This fugue is played every day 'round here. "The rich are evil because their gains are ill-gotten, the poor are innocent victims of exploitation."

You're fooling yourselves if you think taxing the evil rich at 90% tomorrow will change anything. This isn't 1950. The evil rich will simply transfer the bulk of their wealth, investing in other countries. Why would anyone have an incentive to start businesses or create jobs if the federal mafia is going to confiscate most of their profits?

And hero, your little dig at the end of your post indicates you don't have much faith in your answers.


Hey gang, you're skeptical about these candidates? I'm here to tell you I'm not buying what you're selling either. I don't trust the results of the left's good intentions or even that their intentions are good.

A. He's a moderate. He believes in the free market most of the time, and seeks gov't intervention when the market fails. That's truly what the US has been since the 1920s. And no, his answer to everything isn't higher taxes.

B. You mean pure gov't control of all economic resources tends to fail?! EUREKA! Hey, you know what other economic system tends to fail due to human nature? CAPITALISM! Eventually, everyone does what's in their own best interests regardless of others, which destroys the common good, which hurts everyone. You know, like businesses polluting the environment because it's cheaper for them, but hurts everyone. Or ratings agencies, paid by the banks, to rate their crappy derivates as AAA. Or businesses having working conditions so poor that it threatens people's lives because it's cheaper. Or businesses producing crappy goods because it's cheaper to do it that way, to the point they threaten lives. Or...

Guess what that means?

*GASP* Neither ideology is right 100% of the time! Which is EXACTLY why I've slammed you and other ideologues repeatedly.

C. That's not what it ends up being. Most of Western Europe has been fairly socialist for decades. They've never come close to Communism in all that time. It's plain historical fact.

The reality is no major communist country has ever come about gradually. Russia, China, Vietnam, North Korea, East Germany, Poland, other eastern countries, not a single one was a gradual move from
Socialism to Communism. Not a single one. You're full of crap.

D. It's not semantics. There's a distinction between Socialism and Communism. Period. The two mean different things. And no, just because the state makes decisions about medical care, they don't "own" you. Why medical care? Why is that the determination between communism and capitalism? Ridiculous. And even with the Health Care Reform Bill, the gov't doesn't even have even a majority of the control for what medical care you receive.

E. Russia was also not a truly communist state. It was a communist dictatorship, with a corrupt gov't, which had nothing to do with the fact they were communist. Plenty of "capitalist" gov'ts failed too because of corruption.

I will agree that Communism doesn't tend to work either, but we also learned after 1929 neither does almost complete capitalism. Most Americans did anyway, save a select few like you. And this still isn't an argument against a mixed economy anyway.

F. Oh, hell no. You're not gonna change the subject to Social Security. You keep making Obama wanting to raise taxes a few percent on the rich as if it's a move to pure socialism, and of course, as you so hilariously put it, that might as well be Communism. That doesn't make the US socialist, communist, or any of the sort. Saying that crap is ridiculous. That's my point. You're not gonna dodge this by bringing up Social Security.

I have no faith in my answers because a cursory look at history proves every single one of them. I have facts instead. I don't vehemently argue and insist someone is dead wrong unless what they're saying is utterly absurd.

*length=33

A video length identical to the current length was specified - ignoring length request by ReverendTed.