chemvictim wrote:Some marines peed on some Taliban guys and we are all shocked and horrified and making our solemn-serious-face on the tv news. I know I'm being insensitive, but...this just doesn't seem like such a huge deal to me. It's okay to KILL them, but not to pee on them?

Edit: heh, I didn't see Kyle's post before.

Internet high five? I think so.

kylemittskus wrote:What did we learn today class? The gov't, and their stupid "help," stops capitalism, motivation for a cheaper, better product, and puts us in financial crisis. Thoughts?

I think in principle you have some valid points, but there are other factors that distort this sort of thing. A new BD player or plasma TV is a pure luxury, especially when newly introduced. When it comes to technology there are always people who want to be on the bleeding edge and will pay ridiculous premiums for devices that are (relatively) useless at the time.

When you're talking about a vehicle, for many people it's not a luxury. They can afford to spend $x on their vehicle and want to get one that will last a long time. More environmentally friendly vehicles most often will cost significantly more than their non-friendly counterparts for equal performance, so most people will not buy them. (Except in the Bay Area, where tons of original generation Prius are around.) It seems analogous to a tragedy of the commons situation - people agree environmental awareness and protection are important, but are happy to leave it to the other guy. The government fostering goals that are worthwhile and beneficial seems like a wise use of government power, since it is unlikely the free market would let these technologies come to the forefront. The development time until you get sufficient economies of scale may never present a solid business case. Then you've destroyed the planet, but the government didn't distort the market.

The environmental issue is different, and one I think you and I would substantially disagree about.(Have we had a discussion about global warming/govt issues surrounding environment, etc.?) My point was merely that govt monetary intervention stifles companies' potential progress. And that is exactly what I see happening with the university system. I see it with the college I teach at. If the govt will front the money, the colleges will continue to take it. And test just how much the govt will pay. My friend said the other day -- in reference to health care, but it applies here -- that capital is a bad thing when it isn't really "earned." Schools do worse, get paid more, rinse, repeat.

chemvictim wrote:The abortion debate is pretty tired here, but I thought this was interesting. The parents of a pregnant 14-year-old want her to get an abortion and she doesn't want to. I can understand the parents' feelings since they will have to care for this baby, but I still think the final decision should be left to the pregnant person. Sparky in particular, what do you think? We've disagreed on parents' rights before. This is essentially a medical decision, I guess, and so would be made by the parents? But it seems so distasteful to force the girl to have an abortion.

14??? What child is mature enough at 14 to understand the ramifications of being pregnant as well as the health hazards involved?

"Research in several countries has shown ... a young person's brain is not fully developed until after the teenage years have passed". Not only their brain, but their bodies are still developing as well. IIRC, many of the deaths due to pregnancy used to be due to the early age of the mother, and that their birth canal had not fully developed yet.

Plus, one side is claiming she is not mentally capable, but that's up to the experts to decide.

MarkDaSpark wrote:14??? What child is mature enough at 14 to understand the ramifications of being pregnant as well as the health hazards involved?

"Research in several countries has shown ... a young person's brain is not fully developed until after the teenage years have passed". Not only their brain, but their bodies are still developing as well. IIRC, many of the deaths due to pregnancy used to be due to the early age of the mother, and that their birth canal had not fully developed yet.

Plus, one side is claiming she is not mentally capable, but that's up to the experts to decide.

Good points.

MarkDaSpark wrote:14??? What child is mature enough at 14 to understand the ramifications of being pregnant as well as the health hazards involved?

"Research in several countries has shown ... a young person's brain is not fully developed until after the teenage years have passed". Not only their brain, but their bodies are still developing as well. IIRC, many of the deaths due to pregnancy used to be due to the early age of the mother, and that their birth canal had not fully developed yet.

Plus, one side is claiming she is not mentally capable, but that's up to the experts to decide.

Actually, a huge amount of birth deaths were caused by differing factors depending on what period you'r referencing. From the 17th into the 19th century, the second most common cause of deaths of mother and child was puerperal fever that was being spread by the doctors themselves (TB was first)! Oh, how far we've come.

Nevertheless, I completely agree that no child is even remotely able to comprehend the ramifications of pregnancy, even at 17 or 18, let alone 14. So, in this case, you're ok with the abortion? I guess I don't know your overarching thoughts on the abortion issue as a whole. Personally, I don't know how I feel about the parents trying to "force" the daughter to get an abortion. They'll certainly be the primary care takers of the kid... thinking, thinking.

kylemittskus wrote:I agree. And I don't think Edlada said Chic can't donate that money; just that doing so was, in his opinion, the definition of intolerance. And I agree. Now, I think everyone has every right to be intolerant of anyone they so choose, which is where I agree with Canon that the gov't should protect the rights of both sides equally. This is OBVIOUSLY not happening in the current system.

I also agree with Canon's aside. Shorten the primaries, F the electoral college, and have an open, majority-rules vote.

The electoral college is a fundamental and necessary part of the system. It's far better than the alternatives, especially in a close election. Instead of having a florida recount, we have a nationwide recount.

PetiteSirah wrote:The electoral college is a fundamental and necessary part of the system. It's far better than the alternatives, especially in a close election. Instead of having a florida recount, we have a nationwide recount.

This may be a very dumb question, but why? IIRC, there have been four times in the electoral college history when the majority vote and the electoral college didn't match, in essence, putting a president into office whom we didn't vote for by majority. Off to do a bit of research here...

Edit: looks like 3, not 4 times: 1876, 1888, and 2000. These 3 instances seem to be in direct opposition to the system that we supposedly are part of -- democracy.

kylemittskus wrote:This may be a very dumb question, but why? IIRC, there have been four times in the electoral college history when the majority vote and the electoral college didn't match, in essence, putting a president into office whom we didn't vote for by majority. Off to do a bit of research here...

Edit: looks like 3, not 4 times: 1876, 1888, and 2000. These 3 instances seem to be in direct opposition to the system that we supposedly are part of -- democracy.

You make a fundamental error in saying our system is a "democracy".

Our system was designed as a representative republic made up of sovereign states. You know this of course, but probably think it's irrelevant. But, it's not.

In our system, as it actually exists, each state has a number of votes for president, equal to the number of senators and representatives so it's not exactly proportional to population. In fact, it gives a bit more weight to the smaller states individually and rather more collectively. They're not about to give this up.

Edit 1-15 It looks like 36 states + DC have greater weight than their population would suggest via the electoral college Voters per Elector by State 2008 and 2004. Chances of a successful Constitutional Amendment to change the current system are 0.

Probably because of my historical training, I've never found direct, pure majoritarian democracy at all appealing. The republics that have fared best historically have balanced fairly broad political participation (though not universal) with varying degrees of according some deference to wealth or vested interest in the continuation of the society.

I know that we aren't actually a true democracy. Someone get sarcasm font invented! Your last paragraph is going to take some thinking. I think that this question dove tails with the many conversations about the voting population, who should vote, etc. I may be quickly on my way to changing my mind here on this issue...

kylemittskus wrote:I know that we aren't actually a true democracy. Someone get sarcasm font invented! Your last paragraph is going to take some thinking. I think that this question dove tails with the many conversations about the voting population, who should vote, etc. I may be quickly on my way to changing my mind here on this issue...

The question of how widely the franchise should extend has become as much a third rail of political life in the West as Social Security.

However, just as we are having to face questions about Social Security (and other entitlements) because we simply haven't the money to continue things as they are indefinitely, the massive failures of governance (see, e.g., Detroit, Illinois, California, Greece) which have resulted from universal suffrage combined with more and more voters receiving government subsidies and fewer and fewer paying taxes, are very like to lead to a re-evaluation of just who should vote.

Most people like the idea of universal suffrage, but more and more people are recognizing that simply letting a majority vote themselves benefits at the expense of the minority is not sustainable.

If you want to have a sustainable welfare state in a representative republic, I think you have to limit the franchise to whose pay for it.

If you want to have universal adult suffrage in a sustainable representative republic, I think you have to limit the number of citizens who root in the public trough without paying for it.

Either can work. But, what we have seen over the past 90-odd years as the franchise has been broadened, there have been increasing appeals by politicians to expand the state's largesse and an increasing willingness by a larger electorate to vote themselves subsidies. What seemed like a fair and reasonable safety net for a few, the cost of which was spread over a broad tax base, growed like Topsy into the lumbering behemoth we know and loathe today.

It's just not possible to have a sustainable representative republic with a significant welfare state and universal suffrage.

I would love to see the reactions of the general public when we seriously made an effort to cut welfare or revoke the voting rights of those who receive it, don't pay taxes, don't own property, or don't fit another deciding factor. I think people -- perhaps myself included due to what I've always been told and have never questioned until now -- believe that they have the right to vote, unequivocally, and for everything. The entitlement to welfare is something I don't even come close to feeling and something most of us here find quite repugnant.

kylemittskus wrote:I would love to see the reactions of the general public when we seriously made an effort to cut welfare or revoke the voting rights of those who receive it, don't pay taxes, don't own property, or don't fit another deciding factor. I think people -- perhaps myself included due to what I've always been told and have never questioned until now -- believe that they have the right to vote, unequivocally, and for everything. The entitlement to welfare is something I don't even come close to feeling and something most of us here find quite repugnant.

You're probably correct that the public will not want to hear about it. But, when the country runs out of money (real soon, now...), there won't be a political conversation about dealing with entitlements rationally. They'll be cut pretty much across the board.

As much as I would theoretically prefer no welfare state at all, I think the country as a whole would be better off if we had a rational conversation about the welfare state and moved first to means test it generally, with the ultimate goal of limiting it to the 'deserving' poor - the proverbial widows and orphans and the truly disabled.

Each community could, and probably would, be fairly generous to those in its midst the community knew and selected as recipients, and monitored their behavior.

rpm wrote:You're probably correct that the public will not want to hear about it. But, when the country runs out of money (real soon, now...), there won't be a political conversation about dealing with entitlements rationally. They'll be cut pretty much across the board.

As much as I would theoretically prefer no welfare state at all, I think the country as a whole would be better off if we had a rational conversation about the welfare state and moved first to means test it generally, with the ultimate goal of limiting it to the 'deserving' poor - the proverbial widows and orphans and the truly disabled.

Each community could, and probably would, be fairly generous to those in its midst the community knew and selected as recipients, and monitored their behavior.

I agree with all of this. I think any rational discussion with those on the left with regard to welfare is pie in the sky, though. It's what we always say around here: everyone wants cuts; just don't cut the stuff they care about.

kylemittskus wrote:I agree with all of this. I think any rational discussion with those on the left with regard to welfare is pie in the sky, though. It's what we always say around here: everyone wants cuts; just don't cut the stuff they care about.

What would you cut? The obvious ones are SS, medicare, medicaid since they're so huge. I don't know, however, how much cash is going in versus going out for those programs. It seems that ideally SS and medicare should be self-sustaining. Wasn't that the whole idea? I'd like to know how big the gap is and how much we need to adjust from both sides to meet it.

chemvictim wrote:What would you cut? The obvious ones are SS, medicare, medicaid since they're so huge. I don't know, however, how much cash is going in versus going out for those programs. It seems that ideally SS and medicare should be self-sustaining. Wasn't that the whole idea? I'd like to know how big the gap is and how much we need to adjust from both sides to meet it.

For FY2010 (it's worse now), total receipts from Social Security and social insurance payments were ~$865 billion and total spending on social security and medicare was ~$1.493 trillion. So, they're not even close to self-sustaining, so cuts to make them self-sufficent would be massive. Remember, to be self-sustaining over time, SS/SI would have to take in today enough to cover future payments.

This is why we need to means test and limit all social programs to the truly needy - but there will never be political support for the current level of SS/SI taxation to support only 1/3 or 1/2 of the people who have to pay into it. Very insidious.

And, of course, that's why it will go on until it can't go on, and collapses. Leaving many people much worse off than they would be with a phased shift to a means-tested system and thence to a 'deserving poor' program.

People make life choices based on expectations - the only reform that is not hugely disruptive would be relatively gradual. But, politically, the left is not willing to touch it because they don't want to shrink the welfare state, and the right won't touch it because many of their voters are older and have ordered their lives on the expectation of receiving the SS benefits.

There are no good, easy solutions to the mess we've gotten ourselves into with expanded social security and medicare. Medicare is the product of the Johnson administration, as is the vast expansion of social security through automatic cost of living increases well above true inflation rates.

I remember the debates at the time fairly vividly, and I remember conservatives and libertarian-oriented people claiming it would destroy our medical system, result in socialized medicine, and bankrupt the country. The liberals (lefties still called themselves liberals then) scoffed and laughed.

When an objective history of the folly of the 20th century is written, liberals and the left will have virtually everything to answer for.

rpm wrote:For FY2010 (it's worse now), total receipts from Social Security and social insurance payments were ~$865 billion and total spending on social security and medicare was ~$1.493 trillion. So, they're not even close to self-sustaining, so cuts to make them self-sufficent would be massive. Remember, to be self-sustaining over time, SS/SI would have to take in today enough to cover future payments.

Were they self-sustaining at one time? I mean, was it broken from the start or did we break it later?

I was going to answer the question the exact same way as RPM just did. It's so interesting how close we are on fiscal issues and so far apart on social ones.

Anyway, I would absolutely cut the welfare system we have created. I'm in CA and we have one of the worst systems there is. I don't remember the numbers but we pay out multiple times per capita the amount as any other state. I, however, would also cut other programs, as well. I think -- and I am going to get disagreement here, I believe -- that our "defense system" (clever rhetoric) is far too large. Certainly we need one, but the rate that it has grown since 9/11, a type of jerk-reaction, is IMO, insane. It has become a behemoth and I don't believe it's necessary. Our navy is larger in weight (ships, weapons, people, etc.) than the next seven largest navies combine. We could shrink it to pre-9/11 size, when we were safe and fine -- no size military could stop a grass-roots, non-technological, attack like that no matter how much we want it to. Cut one, cut all. When the two largest bubbles are welfare programs and "defense," those are a great place to start. There needs to be cuts made to many other programs, as well. The list could literally go on for pages, but when you're fighting a enemy, go for the biggest stuff first; it will hurt the most.

chemvictim wrote:Were they self-sustaining at one time? I mean, was it broken from the start or did we break it later?

In theory, social security was supposed to be self-sustaining, and perhaps was when (1) there were 5 workers for every recipient, unlike now when there are 3 (with fewer coming in the future as the boomers hit retirement) and (2) benefits were modest.

Medicare was always a pure welfare program for the elderly and (with medicaid) for the poor.

Social security has been a problem since the Johnson years which saw it expand, medicare and medicaid have been a problem since their inception.

some fun facts from SSA:

(keep in mind that Social Security was initially created in 1935, then extensively revamped in 1965 when Medicare and Medicaid were created, and continues to evolve quite a bit more frequently than most are aware)

life expectancy as part of social security Still and all, the system was for a relatively small minority as initially created. Best part from this page: "Increases in life expectancy are a factor in the long-range financing of Social Security; but other factors, such as the sheer size of the "baby boom" generation, and the relative proportion of workers to beneficiaries, are larger determinants of Social Security's future financial condition"

SSA Trust Fund balances. Note it was almost insolvent more than once and "immediate" action was taken. Also note that this is on a CURRENT CASH BALANCE basis. What is not clear is expected cummulative cash flow projections.

2009 SSA Financial report. Of particular note is page 17 of the pdf (9 of the report) which shows inability to pay full benefits (under current law) in 2037. Also page 18 (10) shows the expected number of workers (payers) compared with retirees (beneficiaries) dropping.

For a detailed look at how it developed and evolved.

A listing and details of the law's evolution Key changes in 1939, 1965, 1972, 1983.

This is really interesting. I don't understand it entirely -- PS could help hugely in this area -- but from what I gather, F this. Regulating the internet? F you big gov't. (I think.)

kylemittskus wrote:This is really interesting. I don't understand it entirely -- PS could help hugely in this area -- but from what I gather, F this. Regulating the internet? F you big gov't. (I think.)

"F you" was about as far as I got, too. If PS chimes in to tell us what a good idea this is, I'm gonna faint.

kylemittskus wrote:This is really interesting. I don't understand it entirely -- PS could help hugely in this area -- but from what I gather, F this. Regulating the internet? F you big gov't. (I think.)

Don't know about PS, but rpm's reaction is F this S. F you wannabe fuehrer. F you big government. Oh, and the camel you rode in on.

kylemittskus wrote:I know that we aren't actually a true democracy. Someone get sarcasm font invented! Your last paragraph is going to take some thinking. I think that this question dove tails with the many conversations about the voting population, who should vote, etc. I may be quickly on my way to changing my mind here on this issue...

[bowtie] words [/bowtie] there ya go, all wrapped up neat

rpm wrote:Don't know about PS, but rpm's reaction is F this S. F you wannabe fuehrer. F you big government. Oh, and the camel you rode in on.

I'll supply the stepladder for the camel. I hate censorship. I don't see why they censor anything. If a tv show wants to curse, show boobies, or whatever. Go for it. Regular TV is NEVER gonna show that kind of stuff in prime time. You know why? People wont' watch the Potty Emergency. The MARKET will act as the Censors, Govmint won't need to. You know what I listen to in my car when the kids are with me? The Laurie Berkner Band Pandora Station. All kids music, all the time. I don't want my kids to sing Rhianna or Lady Gaga songs, so we don't listen to them. I CONTROL the content my kids see and hear. Harder with Radio and TV, INCREDIBLY EASY on the internet.

Now, with licensed blah blah and Piracy. If its yours, I'm allowed to ridicule it. Comedians are basically exempt from that kinda crap because it is Satire! Hell, with the laws now, don't you basically have to find out your copyright, whatever has been infringed and take action before anyone cares? Don't put the onus on the net, keep the onus on the individual to prove damages. Wakkos, every one of them, and the collective we are just gonna keep voting em in. If I win the lottery, I'm buying an island somewhere warm and tropical. You are all invited to live there in a truly representative government. We will NOT have universal suffrage (nor suffering) and ZERO social programs.

rpm wrote:Don't know about PS, but rpm's reaction is F this S. F you wannabe fuehrer. F you big government. Oh, and the camel you rode in on.

SOPA is sponsored by a Republican. Republicans are supposed to be the anti-big government folks, right? I am confused.

I watched a little bit of a Romney speech the other day. It was pathetic, just a lot of snark and complaining with no mention of how he'd do any better. He complained that Obama wants to cut Medicare. damn liberal commmies, wanting to cut social programs...wait. Again, I am confused.

It seems that liberals and conservatives are getting all mixed up with each other, and they do NOT go together like peanut butter and chocolate.

bhodilee wrote:I'll supply the stepladder for the camel.

I am an animal lover and I cannot condone camel abuse.

chemvictim wrote:SOPA is sponsored by a Republican. Republicans are supposed to be the anti-big government folks, right? I am confused.

I watched a little bit of a Romney speech the other day. It was pathetic, just a lot of snark and complaining with no mention of how he'd do any better. He complained that Obama wants to cut Medicare. damn liberal commmies, wanting to cut social programs...wait. Again, I am confused.

It seems that liberals and conservatives are getting all mixed up with each other, and they do NOT go together like peanut butter and chocolate.

The clown sponsoring it is a republican from hollywood. 'nuff said.

Not all republicans are sensible - one of the beefs classical liberals like me have with the republican establishment is that many of them are just hacks who want to run the money machine themselves instead of the democrats. boooo.

as for bambi cutting medicare, the issue is he's doing it dishonestly and for the purpose of funding his other government run health care scheme - this is bad, too. we'd be far better off if LBJ hadn't succeeded in foisting medicare on us, but now that people have relied on it for 2 generations, you can't just cut it - you have to make an effort to phase it out so that people can adjust their expectations.

what we need is intelligent decision-making, not f'ing Peter to f' Paul.

chemvictim wrote:SOPA is sponsored by a Republican. Republicans are supposed to be the anti-big government folks, right? I am confused.

I watched a little bit of a Romney speech the other day. It was pathetic, just a lot of snark and complaining with no mention of how he'd do any better. He complained that Obama wants to cut Medicare. damn liberal commmies, wanting to cut social programs...wait. Again, I am confused.

It seems that liberals and conservatives are getting all mixed up with each other, and they do NOT go together like peanut butter and chocolate.

Keep in mind, he's campaigning. Nothing he says right now is likely to be what he actually believes. He needs old people. Old People like Medicare. He doesn't have a prayer though. It's like asking someone what kind of cancer they want.

chemvictim wrote:I am an animal lover and I cannot condone camel abuse.

Keep in mind, there isn't one person in all of Congress with a set of balls or a Bubba Bo Bob Brain. The camel will be safe.

rpm wrote:The clown sponsoring it is a republican from hollywood. 'nuff said.

Not all republicans are sensible - one of the beefs classical liberals like me have with the republican establishment is that many of them are just hacks who want to run the money machine themselves instead of the democrats. boooo.

as for bambi cutting medicare, the issue is he's doing it dishonestly and for the purpose of funding his other government run health care scheme - this is bad, too. we'd be far better off if LBJ hadn't succeeded in foisting medicare on us, but now that people have relied on it for 2 generations, you can't just cut it - you have to make an effort to phase it out so that people can adjust their expectations.

what we need is intelligent decision-making, not f'ing Peter to f' Paul.

Agreed, most Republicans dont' want Peter to f Paul

The sad thing is, most of America doesn't want these cuts. They know we need them, but they don't want them. Nobody wants to do something that will make their life harder. Potty Emergency, that's the whole reason I work here. I hate the place. I hate the highly useless Pinkys I work with, but changing jobs would be an inconvenience, so here I am. And since we'll never elect people who will commit career suicide to do the right thing (and even if we did the leeches would just overturn it in a few years) we're basically screwed until we HAVE to change. Ask Rome how well that worked.

rpm wrote:The clown sponsoring it is a republican from hollywood. 'nuff said.

Not all republicans are sensible - one of the beefs classical liberals like me have with the republican establishment is that many of them are just hacks who want to run the money machine themselves instead of the democrats. boooo.

as for bambi cutting medicare, the issue is he's doing it dishonestly and for the purpose of funding his other government run health care scheme - this is bad, too. we'd be far better off if LBJ hadn't succeeded in foisting medicare on us, but now that people have relied on it for 2 generations, you can't just cut it - you have to make an effort to phase it out so that people can adjust their expectations.

what we need is intelligent decision-making, not f'ing Peter to f' Paul.

All good points, fair enough. And I like that last bit.

The more I see of Romney the less I like him, and I wasn't that fond of him to begin with. It looks like he will be the nominee, at least so far. Does anybody here actually like him? Does he have any redeeming characteristics?

chemvictim wrote:All good points, fair enough. And I like that last bit.

The more I see of Romney the less I like him, and I wasn't that fond of him to begin with. It looks like he will be the nominee, at least so far. Does anybody here actually like him? Does he have any redeeming characteristics?

He's not Obama.

As much as I'm not sure about the candidates, none of them are as bad as Obama.

chemvictim wrote:All good points, fair enough. And I like that last bit.

The more I see of Romney the less I like him, and I wasn't that fond of him to begin with. It looks like he will be the nominee, at least so far. Does anybody here actually like him? Does he have any redeeming characteristics?

Redeeming characteristics? He's apparently led an upright personal life (no trivial thing among politicians, even conservatives - think Newt!) and he believes in hard work and capitalism.

The few people I know who've met him say he's likable in person and more impressive one-on-one than on stage. Haven't met him, so 'dunno.

I don't think it's so much a question of like, as it is trust - conservatives and classical liberals like me don't trust Romney very far because of the liberal positions he's taken from time to time, (depending on which ones float your boat) whether it's on abortion, RomneyCare, guns, or, welfare.

A note, there was recent criticism of Romney related to a program to get old cars, with insurance, etc. to poor people who didn't have access to public transportation. Apparently it pissed some people off (duh!) and didn't work very well. That's too bad, because I thought it was an innovative idea. Far better to subsidize a few thousand cars, than to add more layers of public transportation infrastructure where the demand is insufficient to warrant spending the money.

Sometimes innovative ideas don't work. That shouldn't deter us from trying them in an environment, such as a state, where they can be kept reasonable in scale and reversed if they don't work out.

MarkDaSpark wrote:He's not Obama.

As much as I'm not sure about the candidates, none of them are as bad as Obama.

I like Obama, because to me he's a sort of messiah figure. I really think if people don't like him, they're harboring some internalized racism. Republicans are like that, you know? Okay, bring it on. *cringes*

(for those who don't know me, I'm just trying to give Sparky a chuckle this morning, I don't want to bring down a Potty Emergency from the rest of you)

chemvictim wrote:I like Obama, because to me he's a sort of messiah figure. I really think if people don't like him, they're harboring some internalized racism. Republicans are like that, you know? Okay, bring it on. *cringes*

(for those who don't know me, I'm just trying to give Sparky a chuckle this morning, I don't want to bring down a Potty Emergency from the rest of you)

I like to listen to him talk. He's a great speaker. I always get all excited and then I realize, oh wait, that's not gonna work. Sad really. I'm a complete social liberal though so on one hand, I actually really do like him, but from a fiscal side I'm conservative, so I hate him too. I do like him better than Romney though. He just seems like a complete Hello Nurse! in funny undies. Plus, he's going to be as ineffective as Obama and I don't want him in specifically because I fear a possible Republican President and Republican Congress. I think whichever party holds the big office shouldn't hold Congress. You get agendathons like the Democrats pulled a few years ago. Ugh.

bhodilee wrote:I like to listen to him talk. He's a great speaker. I always get all excited and then I realize, oh wait, that's not gonna work. Sad really. I'm a complete social liberal though so on one hand, I actually really do like him, but from a fiscal side I'm conservative, so I hate him too. I do like him better than Romney though. He just seems like a complete Hello Nurse! in funny undies. Plus, he's going to be as ineffective as Obama and I don't want him in specifically because I fear a possible Republican President and Republican Congress. I think whichever party holds the big office shouldn't hold Congress. You get agendathons like the Democrats pulled a few years ago. Ugh.

The problem with this is that unless the damage of Obama I is undone, the country is f*cked.

chemvictim wrote:I like Obama, because to me he's a sort of messiah figure. I really think if people don't like him, they're harboring some internalized racism. Republicans are like that, you know? Okay, bring it on. *cringes*

(for those who don't know me, I'm just trying to give Sparky a chuckle this morning, I don't want to bring down a Potty Emergency from the rest of you)

Those are scary words. They bring thoughts of "Anti-Christ" to mind.

New food for thought: Why is it that when someone doesn't like an old white dude, it's normal and they're entitled to their opinion of them, but when someone doesn't like a man of color, even if it's for the same reasons as the old white dude, suddenly they're "harboring internalized racism" and it's suddenly all about the color of the skin?

cheron98 wrote:Those are scary words. They bring thoughts of "Anti-Christ" to mind.

New food for thought: Why is it that when someone doesn't like an old white dude, it's normal and they're entitled to their opinion of them, but when someone doesn't like a man of color, even if it's for the same reasons as the old white dude, suddenly they're "harboring internalized racism" and it's suddenly all about the color of the skin?

Because if it weren't, the entire 'race industry' would no longer have any reason to exist and no one would pay any money or attention to them. Just think of the rice bowls that would be broken if people acknowledged that we're a mostly color-blind society today and that the best way to move further in that direction is to avoid racializing most things and marginalize those of any color who try to centralize race.

Unfortunately, most of those who would be harmed are the "professional" minority spokesmen and their white fellow-travelers.

rpm wrote:The problem with this is that unless the damage of Obama I is undone, the country is f*cked.

So we undo Obama I and make way for Mit I? I dunno, I've got a strong Devil you Know vibe this time around.

Mit is just...um...gosh I don't even know. The best thing I can say is, for a politician he's not a total sleaze. He's just kind of know it all douchey. Like me, but with better hair.

Wouldn't it be lovely if there was a candidate somewhere, ANYWHERE, that inspired some confidence. Even if that confidence was "I don't think he'll make it any worse?"