Surprised by Majority of NS Political Views.

You accuse me of falsely characterizing Obama's viewpoints, which may or may not be true depending who you ask. By the same token, Obama and the PAC's that support him have perpetuated myths like Romney likes to lay people off, Paul Ryan wants to hurt old people, and Mitt Romney doesn't care about young people because he won't make a promise that he can't keep by saying that he will free students of loan debt. Also, Obama's lack of leadership on the budget has put greater stress on the economy... His proposed FY 2013 budget was voted down by the House 414-0. Additionally, the CBO stated that Obama's budget would reduce economic output by .5 to 2.2% after five years. To me, that shows that there is bipartisan agreement that Obama is a failed leader and that his policies hurt economic growth.
 
frankly this comes across as condescending and ill-informed.

Without getting into the muck of why people gravitate towards one party or another (family, socio-economic standing, region, etc.), people "stick with" parties because, theoretically, those parties represent particular stances (in many examples, polar opposites) regarding policy, and further, the two dominant parties represent divergent ideas about what the very role of government should be.

So, you're comment that Australians vote for "whichever party has the best policies" is funny, because "best" is 100% subjective and beholden to one's perspective; shorthand for the crux of conflict that exists between liberal/conservative ideals.

Clearly, people affiliate with the party that aligns nearest with their ideals and beliefs about government's responsibilities, or as apparently enlightened, rational Aussies put it, "they vote with whichever party has the best policies". Yes, party's ideologies are constantly shifting—often subtly— they're not as static as many think, but generally speaking, at any given moment, voting "along party lines" is akin to voting for "the best policies" as viewed by that individual.

I've likened blindly ascribing to one party or another to being a diehard fan of a sports team, it can be a bit cartoonish, but I take offense to your implication that Australians are in some way superior in their voting/political savvy.

Not to mention, many people, myself included, are registered independent and vote on specific issues and with their head/heart, not just along party lines.
 
Excellent job of not responding to my challenge, and instead deflecting with errant attacks.

This is how it's done:

Myth of Mitt Romney laying people off, perpetuated by Obama?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/02/1050807/-Mitt-Romney-layoff-victim-speaks-It-was-all-about-profit-before-people

Check that date, January 2nd, initiated by a Republican, Newt Gingrich. Regardless, it's still fact.

Mitt Romney, completely unreliable on student loan debt?

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/romney-in-ohio-want-college-cant-afford-it-too-bad/

Whoops, just one month later the tune changes...

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/23/mitts_student_loan_flip_flop/

Pretty straight forward, if you're talking out both sides of your mouth, you probably don't care who you're talking to.

Paul Ryan - doesn't want to hurt old people? Nah, his plan just completely dismantles medicare and turns it into a coupon program, based on the completely faulty idea of supply and demand relating to a constant product like healthcare:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/17/barack-obama/barack-obama-ad-says-paul-ryans-medicare-plan-coul/

That link has direct quotes from his actual plan - so please don't bother to read it.

Anyway, it's par for the course. I understand it is very easy for you to get angry with reality, when reality clearly has a "liberal bias". What's that saying..... oh yea, you're entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.
 
pretty much obama doesnt care if you work or are trying to work, he just wants to give out welfare. I AINT FOR ALL DAT.
 
What the fuck are you talking about when you say that I didn't respond to your challenge. You asked me to find a non-partisan source that says that Obama's proposed/failed policies have/would hurt the economy, which I did. My response to other three attacks you made, the reason why Bain bought the businesses that they laid people off in was because they were failing in the first place... Some of these acquisitions were successful and saved jobs, and some were not, thus causing the business to fold or downsize just like would have had to before Bain bought them. I doubt if you were running a business, you would keep unprofitable divisions of your business that were weighing down your company for the sake of being nice... Simply the reality of doing business and staying solvent. On the topic of student loan debt, I would like to point out that no one forced people to take out the loans, which relates to a broader point, what ever happened to the concept of personal responsibility in this country. One easy fix I would implement to help rescue students would be to tax (Yes a conservative, proposing a new tax, GASP), the property that universities sit on, and also tax their endowments. This revenue could help create a rescue fund for students in danger of default. In response to your attacks on the Ryan Budget, I defer you to the man himself, who defends his plans with facts that are derived from non-partisan projections.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNKfbO_PvkI
 
dude obama would be the man...if everyone all wanted to work and if everyone did work. but taht's not the case so......what he's done so far....hasn't really helped. he shoulda let the economy go on it's own, instead of spending like 5 trillion to try to save it....even though nothing would've happened anyways. and then like how most democrats think that tax breaks given to the rich are bad? dat shit makes no sense. if the the rich have to pay less taxes, they can spend more money and pump that into small business (middle class) and there own business if they have one. more employees cause they have more money so they can make more shit. pay is increased because you need skilled workers to do these needed jobs, then all ppl out of work who need it have open great paying jobs in teh private sector. also a thing the democrats neglect to tell errybody, is that literally everyone is getting a tax break. not just the rich folks.

spark noted: politicians lie, i hate them that's it

oh and a ramble about the economy and obama and shit

 
This is pretty much an incoherent wall of text, and what little I can deduce from your head clearly exploding, is that you don't understand how to have an adult conversation, where you defend your opinions and back up your statements with referenced fact.

That's fine, I didn't expect you to be able to do that.

The thing that bums me out the most about this, is that you're clearly an intelligent guy - it's just that same battle of trying to get someone to think critically for themselves, instead of act critically about what they're told.

Best of luck big guy.
 
As much as I hate to jump into a side vs. side debate...

Business has thrived in this country through free market capitalism. The government coming in and sticking it's dick into every orifice of the economy is not helping. Bailing out companies that failed? You can't be much more anti business than that.

Some businesses succeed, and some fail. You can't just pick a couple and bail them out every time they crash. The ability for both success and failure is what makes this country great. That's what had even young people getting on boats crossing the ocean to a place they'd never been. The ability to make your own life. You can come over hear with no money, work your fucking ass off and make something of yourself. Does it help to be a little bit lucky?, of course, but you still have the ability to really determine the quality of life.

The government has fucked the economy. Before you bitch about blah blah that's not all obama's fault, I know that. I blame obama, bush, clinton, bush, reagan... as well.

This policy is also showed in the state of welfare. A lot of people on it that shouldn't be riding the system. There's absolutely no motivation for those people to try and work they're way out. If you want something, work for it. That's life.

I'd be interested to hear your argument of how big government with lots of interference and this nanny state we have is actually positive for business and success.

 
i dont like the idea of big government, i want to keep more of my own money, and we have found that taxing the upper class and creating these huge stimulus bills has taken more of our money the economy really hasnt gotten much better to the point where that was worth it...
 
I honestly don't know how you say that I haven't backed up my arguments, when many of the articles you cited were definitely partisan (See: NYT article).
 
Also to people who think the government should take over everything and give away free money to everyone.

Money ain't free. Everyone wants lower taxes but then everyone bitches about cutting the massively wasteful programs our government runs. But no, instead of cutting back programs, we want to tax people more. Well we want to tax people more, just not us. Lets make people with money pay for everything.

I don't understand why we can't scale back this shit. That's the problem with the way our government is running these days. No tax increase at any level should be taken lightly. The way things are going it will never go back down, just up. Every new dollar that comes in just finds itself a home in a wasteful government program. If we don't have enough room we'll just create more programs. How can you cut the taxes then? All the money coming in is already being used, I guess we'll just need to raise the taxes a little more. Yeah it's small increments but eventually it becomes substantial. Especially when we aren't even trying to scale back, we're still going balls to the wall.

 
I'm not sure how the deregulation of Wall Street, and the raping of Glass-Steagall, allowing a completely unregulated market to manipulate, lie and steal from hundreds of millions of Americans to the tune of a trillion dollars, can count as a ''nanny state''.

Unfettered free market capitalism is the death of all societies. People are inherently greedy, manipulative and selfish, and given the opportunity - they will take all they can get at the expense of all others. The last decade is the most incontrovertible evidence of that, in the history of this country.

You're also not talking apples to apples when you discuss businesses thriving in this country, and the government intervening. Our country was built off of middle class businesses, based upon labor and production. We are now a country of corporate interests, and our jobs are based upon service, not production. This is paramount in this entire discussion of economics, but it's probably a much bigger conversation than appropriate for this thread.

I read an earlier post by someone I didn't respond to, talking about how tax cuts are great because rich people then get more money, and they get to use that money to invest back into the country, small businesses, job creation, etc. Yup, that would be absolutely great in an ideal world, unfortunately this world is not ideal. The Economist had an article last year interviewing 100 millionaires over the last decade of Bush tax cuts, asking what they did with their excess money. Not a single one created a small business to help the economy. They bought yachts and harbored them off shore, they invested in gold mines in Africa, one dude installed 5,000 square foot dance floors in each one of his homes, using illegal immigrant labor.

I absolutely think everyone should work for what they receive. I don't believe in a welfare state, or that there are members of society who should just be provided for, because they cannot provide for themselves.

Now, I 100% agree with almost all of your posts so far - politicians are to blame, period. Basically from the New Deal until now, we've had a century of politicians manipulating their constituents. This isn't, nor has it ever been about abortion, or healthcare, or welfare, or education. This is about a political class willing to do whatever it takes to maintain their power and their status quo.

The converse to this, is that the electorate cannot learn and cannot change the system or our representatives, if we are not basing our decisions on fact. That is my biggest issue throughout this thread - the facts are there, the reality of what is happening is there, all you have to do is acknowledge it.
 
i read your first line or so.....

OBAMA WANT PEOPLE TO NOT WORK WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT. GIVING OUT WELFARE TO PEOPLE WHO DONT HAVE JOBS, ARENT LOOKING FOR JOBS AND HAVE NO PLAN ON GETTING A JOB...............THATS FUCKED AND HES TOTALLY DOWN WITH IT.
 
I'm not sure if you read the NYT article, but the point of that article had nothing to do with partisanship, and purely a resource for a quote of what Romney actually said. That's the abstract, critical thinking element I'm talking about. You read an article where Romney said "x" to students. You read an article a month later where Romney is saying "y" to students. You say... ''humm, what else is he contradicting himself on, and how does this relate to me?"

Then, you start to research for yourself.
 
my stance on the government and taxes has always been this..

If you have lower taxes across the board for everyone that means people have more money in their pocket which would mean they would spend more and you would be collecting taxes on more things.

My analogy is always the same, If I owned a gas station and the station next store had gas for 10 cents more, people would come to me more often. Sure I wouldnt make as much initially but after the entire day is over I bet I would see far more people than the station next store, which would put more money in my pocket at the end of the day.
 
You able to refute any of the information in those sources? When I read an article, and all of the references are from Factcheck.org or Snopes, that's about as independent as it gets!
 
If you had a flat tax system, or a consumption tax system, then you're absolutely right. We don't have that, unfortunately.

Here's the reality of that analogy: Independent gas stations don't exist. They're owned by corporate franchise entities, who all fix the price you'll pay for gas, based upon a crude price, based upon a made up fear of an irrelevant conflict in the middle east. Consumers have no choice. Supply and demand is useless.
 
Um, Glass-Steagall was signed into law in 1933. Bill Clinton was president in 1933? As far as I know, he repealed Glass-Steagall in 1999....

Good thing I fact checked that, huh asshole?
 
I mixed up my words. Bill Clinton REPEALED it, which lead to banks and investments to team up, which became the regulatory nightmare you speak of.

Don't try to pin the deregulation solely on Republicans, because I mixed up my words. You're still wrong in blaming that on the Republican party.
 
Easy there tiger. Can you quote where I blamed that on Republicans? I was simply using that as an example of us not exactly having a nanny state. That was also the post where I said that politicians as a whole are unequivocally to blame, as they don't actually represent our interests.

 
Eh, not really. It's pretty centrist, looking at the reality of what has occurred, versus what partisanship is interested in having you believe. I just happen to think the partisanship from the right is a whole lot more manipulative and devoid of fact than that from the left - doesn't mean the left isn't guilty as well.
 
You said that everything was the problem of free market capitalism.

That we shouldn't have a welfare state.

And that you agreed with 100% of my posts all in one long read.

 
No, I said that unfettered free market capitalism is doomed to fail, we shouldn't have a welfare state, and I agree 100% with your posts that politicians no longer represent the ideals of the people who elect them.

None of this is conflicting. There's an awful lot of grey area between capitalism being the sole controlling interest in a republic, and having a welfare state.
 
cool it down bro.it's not a perfect world. and not everbody worrks

i mean sure i wouldn't mind obama, but his plan in this economy isn't working out. and then we see all this shit of how the economies growing when it's not. like retail sales have been down sooo much it's cray
 
The whole "Middle Class" crap is annoying me, how do you not understand that your paycheck is not coming from the government, Its not coming from Obama, and Obama did not create the business that you are working for. People think that everyone should be equal?! This doesn't mean that you are magically bumped up into the "upper class", it means that the "upper class" loses incentive to succeed and since you work for the "upper class", you will no longer have a paycheck. Most of The Upper class worked hard to get where they're at and if they were born into it then the previous generations of that family worked hard as well.

I am not saying that I fully support the candidate for the republican party, but I do know that Obama is not the right fit. I know I will get called out on this, but Obama's "socialism" agenda is just "rebranded communism"
 
Communism is a socialist concept. The small difference is quite easy: Communism includes no monetary payment and, in its true from, has now leadership but is lead by the proletariat itself. Pure theory... Now we could argue :D
 
its an ANALOGY DUDE. So people can understand what I am saying. I think we ALL know how a gas station really works. Plus you are fucking stupid, gas stations are owned by individuals they just get no deals on gas and make almost no money on it. They make money on the shit they sell inside of the gas station. My friends dad owns 2 or 3 so really you have no clue wtf you are talking about. Acting smart is fun when you are actually smart.

Maybe I should use an analogy involving a lemonade stand next time, maybe that will be a little bit better for you??
 
Cool your titties. I wasn't intending to be condescending that is just how your political system seems to work to the rest of the world. I don't profess to be well informed about the US political system, my main source of US politics is Fox news, our news, SBS and NS which are clearly all bias. And I wasn't speaking about the independents, I was speaking about what I believed was the majority who pledge allegiance to a particular party.

Clearly 'the best party' is subjective, otherwise there would be no debate between the parties, that's the fundamental concept of voting. I was just offering up my opinion which was pointing out Americans in general seem to deviate towards particular parties rather than seeing the general picture of the parties. There are very few people in Australia who pick a political party and stick with it for majority of their life. They deviate between who they see as the best party per four year cycle. Whenever I've talked to Americans about politics they have always aligned themselves as either Republican or a Democrat whereas in Australia it is more I voted Labour, liberal or greens and changes most elections. It's not usually 'I am a liberal' or 'I am devoted to the labour party'. Whereas I know a lot of American families that the entire family has voted for the same party the majority of their lives, where here that is almost unheard of unless your family is in politics themselves.

I'm not saying the way we vote is superior, I'm not informed enough to judge. I'm merely offering up my opinion that I was surprised by the way people seem to swear allegiance to a particular party as it is so different to how voting is depicted in Australia. Also, we don't register as a specific party as you seem to imply you do? We vote at the particular election for whomever, and we say which party we vote for in order and then if you want to which politicians you want. I don't see either as inferior or superior, just that they seem to be extremely different.
 
I say vote for Donald Duck, he always gets a good share of votes in any Finnish election.

Reasons to vote for him:

1. Part-time worker

2. Sole custodian of three children

3. Knows the hardships of the fellow man

4. Internationally known

5. Diverse job background

6. Will give you honest and immediate feedback

7. Won't let you down

8. Doesn't believe in pants

9. Loved by all age groups

10. Stubborn as hell and will never give up

DUCK 2012.

Donal%20Duck%20.jpg
.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top