Mr. Heartbreak Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Santorum reminds me of Neidermeyer, the guy in Animal House who gets dragged by his own horse. Link to post Share on other sites
Sweet Papa Crimbo Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 unless we're talking about santorum, who actually is evil, vile, disgusting, repulsive, a disgrace to humanity, etc. Oh yeah,...he's a real Adolph Hitler or Josef Stalin. Get some perspective. He is someone whom you disagree with. Link to post Share on other sites
ih8music Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Oh yeah,...he's a real Adolph Hitler or Josef Stalin. Get some perspective. He is someone whom you disagree with. As a straight man, yes - I can dispassionately say that I simply disagree with Santorum's views on women's reproductive rights & homosexuality. However, if I were a woman or gay, I don't think I could be so dispassionate about someone who thinks so little of me. Link to post Share on other sites
Sweet Papa Crimbo Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 As a straight man, yes - I can dispassionately say that I simply disagree with Santorum's views on women's reproductive rights & homosexuality. However, if I were a woman or gay, I don't think I could be so dispassionate about someone who thinks so little of me. Being Wrong is a right that every human has and fully partakes of at one time or another. Link to post Share on other sites
Sparky speaks Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 It's pretty obvious that I support my running mate Ron Paul for president. Even Stevie Wonder or Lassie would notice that. I will not vote for any of the others. If for some strange reason Ron Paul or his son end up on the ticket with Romney, I might reconsider, for reasons that I wouldn't want to publicly admit. For Crow, who already gets it and for others who would like to understand or learn something about Libertarianism and where Ron Paul is coming from... Link to post Share on other sites
EstimtedProphet Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Link to post Share on other sites
Sparky speaks Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I came across this article today. I think we can all agree with his premise that spending is the problem. The problem for many of you is the solution he offers at the end. But, I don't think you can have it both ways, as most politicians and some of you, believe... Spending, not Taxation, Is the Problemby Jacob G. Hornberger With President Obama and various Republican presidential candidates competing to reduce corporate income taxes, it must be election time. Do you ever feel like you’re living in a Latin American country, where the presidential candidates are notorious for offering all sorts of political candy to the voters during the campaign season? The whole notion of reducing taxes is, of course, ridiculous. Why? Because as Milton Friedman pointed out, the real level of taxation is the amount of money the government is spending. Whatever the government is spending is what the government must collect in taxes. Thus, when spending exceeds tax revenues and the government lowers taxes on one group, another group will have to make up the difference with increased taxes. Suppose, for example, the government is spending $100,000. Suppose that there are three groups in society. Group A is paying $50,000 in taxes. Group B is paying $30,000. Group C is paying $20,000. The amount of ax revenues equals the amount of federal spending. During campaign season, in the attempt to garner votes, presidential candidates promise to lower taxes for people in Group A by $20,000. But that’s not all. The candidates also promise to deliver additional government welfare to all three groups, the total cost of which will be $30,000. The mainstream media cheers! The voters are ecstatic. This is absolutely fantastic! Reduced taxes and increased benefits! Would could be better than that? We have the best presidential candidates in the whole world! But there is obviously a big problem. With the campaign promises, government expenditures will total $130,000 (including the additional $30,000 in welfare benefits) while tax receipts (including the $30,000 reduction in taxes for Group A) now total $70,000. That’s a $60,000 deficit.. Since government gets its money through taxation, that’s obviously a problem. The government must get the additional $60,000 from someone. By lowering taxes on Group A, the government must increase taxes on Groups A or B to cover the difference. Of course, the government could go into the capital markets and borrow the money, which is what the U.S. government, the Greek government, and many other governments have been doing for a long time. But that only delays the inevitable. When the bonds come due, taxes must be imposed on people to pay off the amount borrowed. Another course of action, one that the U.S. government has used for decades, is simply to print the money rather than impose higher taxes on those people in Groups B and C. That’s where the Federal Reserve, or central bank, comes into play. Its job is to enable public officials to pay off government debt in money that then constantly falls in value due to its ever-increasing supply. That’s, in fact, why the value of the U.S. dollar is worth only a fraction of what it was worth when the Fed was established. It’s also why Americans are now relegating to using coins consisting of cheap alloys rather than gold and silver. The bad money drove out the good money. The obvious benefit to inflation is that it enables politicians to promise tax cuts and welfare increases without overt tax increases to make up the difference. Politicians know that the mainstream media and most voters will look upon them as fantastic magicians who clearly love the people. When prices begin rising in response to the debased currency, the politicians know that the mainstream media and most people will never figure out that it is the government’s doing. They’ll inevitably blame the rising prices on “big corporations,” “greed,” or “market forces.” The real problem facing our nation is the out-of-control spending — spending that far exceeds the amount of taxes being collected. That has led and continued to lead to out-of- control debt, which inevitably leads to inflationary debasement of the money supply by the Federal Reserve. As long as spending continues to soar, the economic problems facing the American people will continue to grow, just as they will continue to grow for the people of Greece. The best solution out of this morass, however, is not just to cut federal spending so that it equals tax revenues. Instead, the time has come for Americans to challenging the entire welfare-state paradigm and warfare-state paradigm that have brought us so many problems. Repealing and dismantling both the welfare state and the warfare state would mean no more socialist programs, including Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and no more overseas military empire or domestic military industrial complex. It would mean no more Federal Reserve. And it was mean no more income taxation, rendering moot political promises to reduce income taxes at election time. http://www.fff.org/blog/index.asp Link to post Share on other sites
LouieB Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 That clip isn't long enough. So what did the panelist say? LouieB Link to post Share on other sites
Shakespeare In The Alley Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Oh yeah,...he's a real Adolph Hitler or Josef Stalin. Get some perspective. He is someone whom you disagree with.if you go out of your way to paint an innocent group of people as inferior and seek laws stating as such (much like Hitler did, since you brought him up), then yes, you are a repulsive human being. it's more than just "being wrong." i'm a straight male, but that doesn't (and shouldn't) stop me from thinking someone with that kind of vendetta is a truly awful person. Link to post Share on other sites
LouieB Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Yes, Rick Santorum is a human being, but he is pretty bent. You can think it is sad, but the guy is pretty dangerous at this point. It is just amazing that he has gone from being kicked out of office by his constituents to a stones throw from inhabiting the Oval Office. LouieB Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Heartbreak Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Where they stand now, as far as delegates, total votes, etc:http://elections.huffingtonpost.comPretty pathetic for Ron Paul, I must say. Only 19 delegates, the smallest amount; 338,000 votes, also the smallest amount. This isn't the mainstream media or the Republican establishment ignoring poor Ron. It's Republican primary voters.Give him props, though: he's raised $31,083,281, second only to Romney. And he's got plenty of Facebook likes. Link to post Share on other sites
gogo Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I forget who said this, but someone I follow tweeted yesterday that "If Santorum weren't such a disgusting, vile homophobe, he'd actually be kind of a charming Bad News Bears story." Link to post Share on other sites
IRememberDBoon Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 sparky it would be cool if you were pro paul but you spew ten tons of shit about the president and 99 percent of it is just that Link to post Share on other sites
Sparky speaks Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Are you a relative of his? Calm down. This is America where for the time being you can still criticize your government and your leaders. If Abraham Lincoln was president now, I'd be posting the same articles. Do you follow blindly and accept everything that is put out there by the bureau of information? I hate to tell you this, but I feel he's one of the worst presidents in our nation's history. Of course, only time will tell, but that's how I feel and I believe many will agree if they aren't already getting that feeling. I voted for the dude. I admit I had my reservations at the time, but what was the alternative? I've explained this before. It has taken me many years of studying U.S. history and politics, which by the way is my job, to reach to this point in my thinking about such matters. I don't expect you or any one else here to suddenly see things through the prism I view things now. All you can do is continue to be intellectually curious, learn all you can and be willing to chuck old beliefs when you come to the the realization they were flawed or not properly thought out. Tomorrow, I might change my thinking about on a certain issue after reading an article or something in a book. Who knows? I just present the facts as I see them now. I don't have all the answers but neither do you. Don't be so hostile. I read all the articles and watch all the videos people post here in support of Obama but most of the time I've seen all that stuff hundreds of times before and at one time agreed with or believed a lot of it. I used to think socialism was the answer when I studied politics in college. I never voted for a Republican in my life. At one time I thought T.R. and FDR were two of the greatest presidents of all time. Now, I'm a Calvin Coolidge man. We have become a socialist country ruled by corporate and banking oligarchs. We are headed for big trouble probably sooner than later. Our freedoms and our Constitution are being trampled and free enterprise has been replaced by corporatism which is fast approaching fascism. I don't expect you to agree with this. I resisted facing the truth for decades. All the things that made America great are being destroyed and Obama is one of those architects of destruction. But other than that I'm sure he's a nice guy. Don't worry. Your man will win again. The oligarchs are quite happy with the job he is doing for them... Link to post Share on other sites
Sparky speaks Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Romney-Paul deal in the works? Will Rand Paul Become Mitt Romney's Running Mate? At the start of this month, I stated the below and then asked a question: Dr. Paul's delegates will be very important in choosing the Republican nominee. Romney, and the others, will want those delegates desperately. This is why it is more important than ever to keep up the effort to get the Ron Paul votes out. Every additional delegate that Dr. Paul walks into the convention with will make him that much stronger in terms of negotiating power. The key question than becomes, what does Dr. Paul demand for his delegates? Could the answer be Rand Paul as a vice-presidential candidate? News stories have been popping up reporting on the warm relationship between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Those kinds of things don't happen by accident. It's probably a signal to call the dogs off Dr. Paul. Not to promote Dr. Paul, but simply to call off the attacks. Something could be brewing, and now this from FOX News:On Wednesday, Chuck Todd, NBC News’ political director and host of MSNBC’s “Daily Rundown,” rhetorically asked: “Just what has Romney promised Ron Paul.” Nobody knows if some sort of bargain has been made, but it is interesting that Rep. Ron Paul has never really attacked Mitt Romney, yet he has frequently attacked more conservative candidates at just the moment they were beginning to pose a threat to Romney. (For example, consider his latest ad, attacking Rick Santorum.) The timing has been noticeable. Now, a Kentucky media outlet, WFPL News, might be offering us a clue: Kentucky’s junior senator says it would be an honor to be considered as a possible running mate for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. … After a speech in Louisville today, [sen. Rand] Paul held that door firmly open, saying he wants to be part of the national debate. … “I don’t know if I can answer that question, but I can say it would be an honor to be considered,” he said.Mitt Romney needs the Tea Party voters, Rand Paul could deliver them. Link to post Share on other sites
Sweet Papa Crimbo Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Are you a relative of his? Calm down. This is America where for the time being you can still criticize your government and your leaders. If Abraham Lincoln was president now, I'd be posting the same articles. Do you follow blindly and accept everything that is put out there by the bureau of information? I hate to tell you this, but I feel he's one of the worst presidents in our nation's history. Of course, only time will tell, but that's how I feel and I believe many will agree if they aren't already getting that feeling. I voted for the dude. I admit I had my reservations at the time, but what was the alternative? I've explained this before. It has taken me many years of studying U.S. history and politics, which by the way is my job, to reach to this point in my thinking about such matters. I don't expect you or any one else here to suddenly see things through the prism I view things now. All you can do is continue to be intellectually curious, learn all you can and be willing to chuck old beliefs when you come to the the realization they were flawed or not properly thought out. Tomorrow, I might change my thinking about on a certain issue after reading an article or something in a book. Who knows? I just present the facts as I see them now. I don't have all the answers but neither do you. Don't be so hostile. I read all the articles and watch all the videos people post here in support of Obama but most of the time I've seen all that stuff hundreds of times before and at one time agreed with or believed a lot of it. I used to think socialism was the answer when I studied politics in college. I never voted for a Republican in my life. At one time I thought T.R. and FDR were two of the greatest presidents of all time. Now, I'm a Calvin Coolidge man. We have become a socialist country ruled by corporate and banking oligarchs. We are headed for big trouble probably sooner than later. Our freedoms and our Constitution are being trampled and free enterprise has been replaced by corporatism which is fast approaching fascism. I don't expect you to agree with this. I resisted facing the truth for decades. All the things that made America great are being destroyed and Obama is one of those architects of destruction. But other than that I'm sure he's a nice guy. Don't worry. Your man will win again. The oligarchs are quite happy with the job he is doing for them... I was about to make a long post about the eventual convergence of the tea party and occupy wall street in a full spectrum rejection of the oligarchs. However, it will never happen. The political parties and media are fully invested in the status quo. I've been reading a lot of Chris Hedges lately and watching Libertarian videos. The mainstream has found a really effective was to squelch any critical thought on issues...ridicule.I have been thinking about the very nature of our involvements in foreign wars and the basic fact that almost every President since Truman has been guilty of war crimes. (Pro-active wars of aggression folks).But nobody cares.All one can do is follow the dictates of their personal beliefs, continue to educate themselves (with all points of view), be willing to admit when they are wrong and be willing to state their firm, but polite dissent.We are all guilty because we all acquiesce.There's no doubt in my mind that President Obama will be re-elected. But second terms are never successful or fruitful.I wonder if Tony Rezko will get a presidential pardon? Romney-Paul deal in the works? Will Rand Paul Become Mitt Romney's Running Mate? At the start of this month, I stated the below and then asked a question: Dr. Paul's delegates will be very important in choosing the Republican nominee. Romney, and the others, will want those delegates desperately. This is why it is more important than ever to keep up the effort to get the Ron Paul votes out. Every additional delegate that Dr. Paul walks into the convention with will make him that much stronger in terms of negotiating power. The key question than becomes, what does Dr. Paul demand for his delegates? Could the answer be Rand Paul as a vice-presidential candidate? News stories have been popping up reporting on the warm relationship between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Those kinds of things don't happen by accident. It's probably a signal to call the dogs off Dr. Paul. Not to promote Dr. Paul, but simply to call off the attacks. Something could be brewing, and now this from FOX News:On Wednesday, Chuck Todd, NBC News’ political director and host of MSNBC’s “Daily Rundown,” rhetorically asked: “Just what has Romney promised Ron Paul.” Nobody knows if some sort of bargain has been made, but it is interesting that Rep. Ron Paul has never really attacked Mitt Romney, yet he has frequently attacked more conservative candidates at just the moment they were beginning to pose a threat to Romney. (For example, consider his latest ad, attacking Rick Santorum.) The timing has been noticeable. Now, a Kentucky media outlet, WFPL News, might be offering us a clue: Kentucky’s junior senator says it would be an honor to be considered as a possible running mate for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. … After a speech in Louisville today, [sen. Rand] Paul held that door firmly open, saying he wants to be part of the national debate. … “I don’t know if I can answer that question, but I can say it would be an honor to be considered,” he said.Mitt Romney needs the Tea Party voters, Rand Paul could deliver them. God...the co-opting of the dissenters has begun in earnest. Link to post Share on other sites
IRememberDBoon Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 im sorry you believed socialism is the answer. i dont know anyone else that thinks that. i started college as a member of the young republicans. worked for a couple of campaigns even. the environmental question is what turned me around but either way the democratic party deserves another look from you. dont believe everything you read on the internet. im a DC guy that was a govt and politics major at george mason university so im gonna go ahead and say we are on an even field on that one. you should be proud of your passion, but take a second look at what the president and pelosi and reid want to do. i think theres common ground there that is perverted by the media. Link to post Share on other sites
Sparky speaks Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 im sorry you believed socialism is the answer. i dont know anyone else that thinks that. dont believe everything you read on the internet. I was eighteen... Obama does. ("I think, when you spread the wealth around, it's a good thing." Obama to Joe the plumber) Collectivism and statism is the reality today in the United States, unfortunately. We have a strange mix of corporatism (fascism) and a planned economy (socialism). Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. A hat tip to Crow for turning us on to Penn and Teller's videos... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9j3_Ki6R3z0 Don't believe everything you see on MSNBC... http://www.mediaowners.com/ Link to post Share on other sites
IRememberDBoon Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 i think the answer to joe the plumber perfectly states the presidents philosophy. funny spark you and fox took out one bit (i dont think your quote is right) but check out the exchange and then tell me whos right Link to post Share on other sites
Sparky speaks Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Actions speak louder than words... Taking Stock of Obama’s Dividend Tax Hike Proposal Written by Michael Tennant In his 2013 budget proposal, President Barack Obama is asking for what amounts to a tripling of the corporate dividends tax rate for high-income earners (individuals and households with annual incomes exceeding $200,000 and $250,000, respectively). If it were just a typical attack on the wealthy, with the usual negative side effects of transferring cash from job creators to politicians, it would be bad enough. But a huge hike in the dividend tax rate will have ripple effects throughout the economy, discouraging investments, depressing stock prices, and reducing dividend payments — all of which will harm Americans at every income level. Link:http://thenewamerican.com/economy/markets-mainmenu-45/10964-taking-stock-of-obamas-dividend-tax-hike-proposal Link to post Share on other sites
ih8music Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 ... and yet every fiscal conservative's hero, Ronald Reagan, believed that capital gains should be taxed at a rate equal to ordinary income (he raised them from 20% to 28%). Was he trying to cripple the economy and discourage investment? Or was he just trying to make tax rates fair (to prevent extremely wealthy people from hiding behind corporate shells to evade taxes)? Link to post Share on other sites
lost highway Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Actions speak louder than words... Taking Stock of Obama’s Dividend Tax Hike Proposal Written by Michael Tennant In his 2013 budget proposal, President Barack Obama is asking for what amounts to a tripling of the corporate dividends tax rate for high-income earners (individuals and households with annual incomes exceeding $200,000 and $250,000, respectively). If it were just a typical attack on the wealthy, with the usual negative side effects of transferring cash from job creators to politicians, it would be bad enough. But a huge hike in the dividend tax rate will have ripple effects throughout the economy, discouraging investments, depressing stock prices, and reducing dividend payments — all of which will harm Americans at every income level. I am all for wealthy people getting their dividends taxed at a higher rate. I know some wealthy people who are too. Have you ever considered that some "job creators" don't create many jobs. We live in a country dying for green energy and high speed rail let's create some jobs there. We live in a country where a high school science teacher is trying to teach photosynthesis to 38 second language learners, that looks like a job waiting to happen. Taxes should not be abused, or misused, but any time our country is ready to invest in its betterment (and not in a war) I'm in line with my cut. Canada has relatively low tax rates (compared to the rest of the world) and people there don't have to refuse ambulances for fear of going bankrupt. Germany has relatively high taxes (much higher than ours) and they are one of the more economically stable countries in the world. The main thing that has hurt them is their relationship with us, and with the Eurozone, but they weathered that storm far better than neighbors Spain and Italy. Link to post Share on other sites
Sparky speaks Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Why do you all argue for higher taxes? Let us keep what we earn. Let us decide how to spend it. I don't care about other countries and their tax rates. Let your wealthy friends send a check to the government if they want to pay higher taxes. The government spends too much, it places too many restrictions on the people who are looking to start up businesses, it taxes those who create jobs to the point where they have moved over seas or makes them reluctant to invest at all. This country was created based on the idea of free enterprise not collectivism. We are now a socialist country following the same path of destruction followed by the USSR, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain and all the other failed collectivist and statist countries of Europe. The entrepreneurial spirit has been crushed. Good luck getting a job form those 51% who are receiving some form of government assistance that you all are so willing to tax others to pay for. This is unsustainable... I know most of you will never read this because of who wrote it, but give it a try. He makes some very good points... Did 'The Great Society' Ruin Society? by Patrick J. Buchanan "Today ... 67.3 million Americans – from college students to retirees to welfare beneficiaries – depend on the federal government for housing, food, income, student aid or other assistance. ... The United States reached another milestone in 2010. For the first time in history, half the population pays no federal income taxes." The 19th century statesman John C. Calhoun warned against allowing government to divide us into "tax-payers and tax-consumers." This, he said, "would give rise to two parties and to violent conflicts and struggles between them, to obtain the control of the government." We are there, Mr. Calhoun, we are there. Read whole article:http://www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan219.html THE VOTE PUMP http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u24nH03NccI Link to post Share on other sites
Sparky speaks Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 I remember John Stewart talking about someone with ideals becoming president. He gets sworn in and starts making plans to change things. Then he gets taken in a back room and the people that actually run the country are there saying something along the lines of "ok, this is the way it really works". I'm starting to think there is much truth to that. Although it could be the fact that I'm reading "Griftopia" by Matt Taibbi right now and it's actually scarier than Salems lot. I think this is where that idea comes from. The first minute... Link to post Share on other sites
Sparky speaks Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Interesting take on the world economic crisis with some nice eye candy to help you digest what is being discussed. It appears to go way beyond the debate being discussed here in this thread... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXNqgk5XzA8 It looks like both sides of our debate are losing according to this article... Creeping Fascism, Part One: Return of the Company Town All of which makes the left/right divide irrelevant, because both ideologies are getting what they want as well as what they fear. The left wants a big, active government and fears corporate control, while the right (including libertarians) wants free enterprise and fears government control. Yet as things are playing out we’re getting the worst of both: pervasive government and corporate dictatorships controlling huge sections of our lives. Whether we call it fascism or totalitarianism or neo-feudalism, the end result will be indistinguishable on the ground. Link:http://dollarcollapse.com/creeping-fascism/creeping-fascism-part-one-return-of-the-company-town/ Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts