Will Barack Obama win the 2012 US Election?

[HUNGHUGE11X7]

I voted for him and hoped for better results; much better. I know change takes time, but he has made some poor decisions which I can't overlook. He won't win re-election.

But here's my biggest fear...

I'm afraid this massive Tea Party movement will only keep generating hostility which in corners of America, will turn into very violent hate and that, will be acted on towards him. The results of that (and you know what I'm talking about here), will be a very dangerous class/race outcry and possible domestic bloody rebellion.

Yeah I suppose His Administration saving us from the next Great Depression and saving TRILLIONS of Dollars in American citizens' 401K's and other pensions in Wall street and not to mention saving the Auto industry, I guess these are the POOR decisions. Or maybe perhaps the sweeing Healthcare reform which has been so WRONGLY maligned by the Repugnicans to where it's nothing of what they claim !

As for the Tea-baggers that is precisely their intent but this is going to backfire on them BIG TIME and never was that more obvious than in the closeness of races in the Midterms.
They are itching to have PALOONEY as the Rep Candidate and GOD I hope she is, cause it will be so nice to see an entire map of nothing but BLUE in 2012 !

PLZ PALOONEY RUN AND NEVER GIVE UP !


~HH~

 

[B_VinylBoy]

you just gave me an intellectual hard on

Don't feel bad, Vinylboy does that to me all the time...

Thanks guys! :redface: :biggrin:

 

[dandelion]

The Republican Party is moving more and more right on the (political) spectrum and they expect the Democrats to move further right, into the center.

From my british perspective i would say ''democrats to move further right, FROM the centre''. I have no experience of US politics from living it as I do UK politics but I get the impression it is dominated by minority interests way more than is the UK. And I dont mean the interests of penniless drug addicts.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

From my british perspective i would say ''democrats to move further right, FROM the centre''. I have no experience of US politics from living it as I do UK politics but I get the impression it is dominated by minority interests way more than is the UK. And I dont mean the interests of penniless drug addicts.

Give this man a cigar.

 

[Bobgoldwae]

Obama has to accomplish much over the next two years. I know people discount the tea partiers but look what they have done with midterms...66 House seats gone to republicans and a loss of majority for dems...he is doomed...especially if he does not compromise which is not a liberal's way.

 

[ECUBiBoy]

You really have no idea just how much of yourself you give away with statements like this.

First off... "Welfarism"? "Obamaism"? You can't even find those words in any legit dictionary. Stop making shit up. It makes you look stupid.

Secondly, and the most important... you talk about not giving special rights to any specific group. If that's the case, then what makes you think you're not part of a specific group yourself that can't be deemed "special"? This is what's so inherently dishonest with your ideologies, because you go on to list several different types of groups based on sex, financial status, political belief and other character attributes and assume that the one group you belong to (which you don't name) is the group that everyone should strive to be. They're all bad and yours is the best. That's a form of bigotry, alas, when I call it that people like you love to say that I'm picking on you and that I'm calling you a name.

You also assume that your particular group (which you won't name) is "normal". Hence the implication of "special" when you list every other social group you can think of, real or fictional. This is precisely the same tactic people use when they want to imply that something is "Un-American"... and we all know how some become rather rabid with their blind loyalties to their native land. What makes you (and the group you won't name) anymore American than anyone else? What makes you (and the group you won't name) more entitled to have government do things the way you want them than anyone else? The fact is, when this country was created (or taken over by the people who first inhabited it) our founding fathers and Constitution had no regard to any of the people who would fall under the categories you list as being "special groups" such as women, minorities, religions, etc. So even saying that you're trying to "restore the country" is a load of bullshit as well, because to go backwards means that someone will eventually lose rights and privileges. All except one particular group (which you won't name). That in some ways is a form of racism, yet when I say this you want to claim I'm beating up on you and say that I'm bitter and angry.

If your argument is about true equality (something that will never be achieved), how does one approach that knowing that one particular group (which you won't name) had all of the advantages since the beginning and everyone else had to work hard, protest and fight to get the few tools to help them get to a better place? You suggest eliminating all of these entitlements, acting as if somehow they affect you when in reality they don't. Not in the least. You just don't like the ideology that a woman, minority or a poor person in this country has options to help them get back on their feet. Ignoring that the mass majority of entitlement programs out there will also help you if you also needed the help. And please... don't act like you're indestructible or think you'll never find yourself needing some kind of assistance. Many people who are now finding themselves struggling this recession thought the same thing, and look at them now.

I personally have no problem with helping out people who are struggling or need assistance. That's because I'm not greedy. Because ultimately, all of these bullshit gripes about things being "Un-American" and "special" always go back to where the dollars are held. That's why the same people who bitch about feminism, leftism, socialism, fascism, neo-conservatism, imperialism, and statism (noted fake labels removed) also bitch about the "redistribution of wealth" as if Obama is some kind of Robin Hood who plans to ransack the suburbs, take all the money and give it to a crackhead in the Marcy Street Projects in Brooklyn. That's why they bitch about the elusive "welfare queen" who somehow makes a living doing nothing living on welfare & food stamps. That's why they complain about Affirmative Action because it helps women and minorities get into college. That's why they bitch about Immigration laws because they want to make it seem as if every minority comes to our country to get our health care (even though our country doesn't even rank anywhere near the top 25) when in reality, many of the same corporations people strive to protect benefit from under-the-table labor where they hire undocumented workers and pay them less than the minimum wage. Hell, if I was going to cross the border illegally and make a living somewhere, Canada is looking better than our country right now. And no, that doesn’t make me Un-American or “special”, so you can keep all of those bullshit divisive titles to yourself. They don't apply to an independent thinker such as myself.

If this country was honestly built on the premise that everyone is equal and everyone born within it are granted the same opportunities as the next person then perhaps I would agree with your rhetoric. But beyond the air we breathe, we are not equal in the least. People like you (and the group you won’t mention) make it a point to remind everyone with your bullshit rhetoric that we’re not. And history also demonstrates this. Therefore, if you want equality then our government is obligated to help those who are struggling to make sure that gap gets closer. If you’re just a greedy bastard that doesn’t care about the person below you, then perhaps you can go on about with your rhetoric and at least the rest of us will know whom we can side with. But don’t combine the two ideals and act like they’re one in the same because that’s the ultimate form of dishonesty.

Now go ahead, ignore all of this and come back with more bullshit, divisive rhetoric. Because that’s the only thing you (and the group you won’t mention) can ever do. Seriously, you have no idea how deep this shit gets and I dwell within it on levels you can't even fathom. Perhaps this will be the clue to you (and to everyone else in that group you're too scared to mention).

People attach "ism" to the end of names and all sorts of things all the time to illustrate ideas. I'm not the first to do that. Have you not heard of Leninism, Thatcherism, or even Bushism? These are all fairly well used. You seem to despise ideas and prefer knee-jerk, emotional politics. I think it would be better to avoid the latter.

I'm not really pary of all that many groups other than friends and family. I suppose you mean to imply that I'm part of the "libertarian group." This is mis-leading though. I've said several times that I endorse libertarian ideas. This does not mean I cling to any libertarian parties (which tend to be fraught with in-fighting). It also does not mean that I want us to be ruled by libertarians. Quite the contrary, the whole point of my arguments is that I want us to be ruled by NOBODY. That's what the libertarian message is. Most others on this board believe we should continue to be ruled by the elites in Washington as we have been since time immemorial. I don't have particularly strong group ties to any political or civic organizations.

I've never made any arguments that have anything to do with the ridiculous "un-American" claims. In my experience, the only ones who spend a whole lot of time talking about "un-American" behavior are those in power. They use it as an excuse to make laws against such activity. I hope I don't need to provide the very obvious examples of this.

The entitlements do affect me. Numerous people around me take part in them. It's not even the disadvantaged who cash in on entitlements the most (as you implied in your last post). Most entitlements go to wealthy businesses, the elderly (who may or may not need it), and the politicians themselves (take a look at the lavish pensions and bonuses for being a member of Congress). Getting rid of this burden would make our country's fiscal situation a lot healthier. Once the fiscal system collapses, the monetary system will follow once other countries finally start to shed the dollar and move toward precious metals (which is already happening). Our entitlement system is unsustainable and basically amounts to theft.

I am to curious to see how much deeper (as you claim) you can get on this subject. I continue to welcome a hard-hitting discussion rather than emotions, "shut up," and "stop while you're behind" over and over again.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

People attach "ism" to the end of names and all sorts of things all the time to illustrate ideas. I'm not the first to do that. Have you not heard of Leninism, Thatcherism, or even Bushism?

Yes, and in the end they're all equally as stupid when it comes to having a serious discussion.

These are all fairly well used. You seem to despise ideas and prefer knee-jerk, emotional politics.

And this is coming from someone who wants to label everything with obvious "Un-American" labels in an attempt to position oneself as being better than the next. Excuse me while I laugh. Just what were you expecting when you label something as "Feminist" or "Leftist", just to name a few? Precisely... a reaction from those who would instantly react to such words (if they felt as if they were bad things) in hopes people would side with you. Or in more simpler terms, a "knee jerk" response.

What you do is not original, nor has never been used before as a deceptive argumentative tactic. Stop being such a hypocrite.

I'm not really pary of all that many groups other than friends and family. I suppose you mean to imply that I'm part of the "libertarian group."

Nope. Try again, although I would advise you to not try and figure it out. Its message really does apply to all if you read between the lines.

This is mis-leading though. I've said several times that I endorse libertarian ideas. This does not mean I cling to any libertarian parties (which tend to be fraught with in-fighting). It also does not mean that I want us to be ruled by libertarians. Quite the contrary, the whole point of my arguments is that I want us to be ruled by NOBODY. That's what the libertarian message is.

That's such a load of bull. There is no such thing as a country where a government provides absolute freedoms to everyone with no recourse. Essentially that would mean we would be under a lawless state where everyone has to fend for themselves, and with the absence of the most basic of rules what makes you think you'd survive one minute? Also, if you want to be ruled by NOBODY then why vote for any politicians then? That's completely adverse to the rhetoric you just spewed because you'd be placing someone in a governing position to look over your supposed absolute freedom. That wouldn't exist in a lawless state. If being a Libertarian is about being ruled by nobody as you claim, then they're a walking contradiction of ideals. But I know they're not, because I almost voted for one here in New York City by the name of Kristen Davis. Alas, she didn't run the best of campaigns even though she had great ideas.

Do you contradict yourself this much? Or do you think speaking in vague terms of empty rhetoric is going to save you in this debate?

I've never made any arguments that have anything to do with the ridiculous "un-American" claims.

Bullshit. Your entire post was completely embodied with that message.

In my experience, the only ones who spend a whole lot of time talking about "un-American" behavior are those in power. They use it as an excuse to make laws against such activity. I hope I don't need to provide the very obvious examples of this.

Not always. This isn't a tactic only reserved for people in power. It's used by practically everyone on a political scale. When it comes to providing a propagated stance for what is best for our country, the easiest way to do it is to label something you don't like with vocabulary that sounds foreign. Words like Fascist, Socialist, Marxist (or "-ism" if we're going to get anal about what you typed) instantly spark images of countries that are different than our own. And since we're supposed to be a "Democracy" and a "Capitalist" society, even though our own financial system is a huge hybrid of many different financial structures, that's supposed to be viewed as a "bad change" or a potential threat to the way everyday people live their lives. It cunningly taps into the very roots of indifference, bigotry and racism that have separated people for an eternity. This has been going on for centuries, even before you or I were born. What makes you think any of this has changed since you decided to have a political conscious?

The entitlements do affect me. Numerous people around me take part in them. It's not even the disadvantaged who cash in on entitlements the most (as you implied in your last post). Most entitlements go to wealthy businesses, the elderly (who may or may not need it), and the politicians themselves (take a look at the lavish pensions and bonuses for being a member of Congress).

With no statistics to back this, I call bullshit.

Getting rid of this burden would make our country's fiscal situation a lot healthier.

No it wouldn't. Assuming that all entitlement programs need to be eliminated is short sighted and ignorant. There are people who genuinely need them, like the poor. There are also those, like the elderly, who have contributed to these systems all their lives. THEY'RE ENTITLED TO GET THEIR SHARE TOO. Who are you to tell them otherwise? There are ways to adjust the current systems so that abuses can be found and dealt with, while people who actually play by the rules get what they need. You simply can't do that by throwing them all out the window.

Our entitlement system is unsustainable and basically amounts to theft.

Bullshit. Unless you can list particulars and prove that the majority receiving the subsidies from them are fraudulent then you have no grounds or any factual basis for this claim. This isn't a discussion just on ideas... you need facts to back your stuff up now.

I am to curious to see how much deeper (as you claim) you can get on this subject. I continue to welcome a hard-hitting discussion rather than emotions, "shut up," and "stop while you're behind" over and over again.

Well, you are "behind" in this discussion. You still have nothing but ideological rhetoric to spew with absolutely no substance. After a while, that shit starts to get old. No sense in preaching about what our nation is supposed to be like when the audience needs some kind of logical affluence to attach to it. So yes, put up or shut up. And if you can't deal with little blurbs like that and other obvious jabs, then perhaps the internet is too explicit for you? Besides having a thick dick, it also helps to have a thick skin around here. So if you got something of real relevance to say with some substance, then bring it on. If you're gonna preach about ideology then keep it to yourself because everyone is sick of seeing it.

 

[D_Myer_Dogasflees]

Rand Paul?

 

[ECUBiBoy]

Yes, and in the end they're all equally as stupid when it comes to having a serious discussion.



And this is coming from someone who wants to label everything with obvious "Un-American" labels in an attempt to position oneself as being better than the next. Excuse me while I laugh. Just what were you expecting when you label something as "Feminist" or "Leftist", just to name a few? Precisely... a reaction from those who would instantly react to such words (if they felt as if they were bad things) in hopes people would side with you. Or in more simpler terms, a "knee jerk" response.

What you do is not original, nor has never been used before as a deceptive argumentative tactic. Stop being such a hypocrite.



Nope. Try again, although I would advise you to not try and figure it out. Its message really does apply to all if you read between the lines.



That's such a load of bull. There is no such thing as a country where a government provides absolute freedoms to everyone with no recourse. Essentially that would mean we would be under a lawless state where everyone has to fend for themselves, and with the absence of the most basic of rules what makes you think you'd survive one minute? Also, if you want to be ruled by NOBODY then why vote for any politicians then? That's completely adverse to the rhetoric you just spewed because you'd be placing someone in a governing position to look over your supposed absolute freedom. That wouldn't exist in a lawless state. If being a Libertarian is about being ruled by nobody as you claim, then they're a walking contradiction of ideals. But I know they're not, because I almost voted for one here in New York City by the name of Kristen Davis. Alas, she didn't run the best of campaigns even though she had great ideas.

Do you contradict yourself this much? Or do you think speaking in vague terms of empty rhetoric is going to save you in this debate?



Bullshit. Your entire post was completely embodied with that message.



Not always. This isn't a tactic only reserved for people in power. It's used by practically everyone on a political scale. When it comes to providing a propagated stance for what is best for our country, the easiest way to do it is to label something you don't like with vocabulary that sounds foreign. Words like Fascist, Socialist, Marxist (or "-ism" if we're going to get anal about what you typed) instantly spark images of countries that are different than our own. And since we're supposed to be a "Democracy" and a "Capitalist" society, even though our own financial system is a huge hybrid of many different financial structures, that's supposed to be viewed as a "bad change" or a potential threat to the way everyday people live their lives. It cunningly taps into the very roots of indifference, bigotry and racism that have separated people for an eternity. This has been going on for centuries, even before you or I were born. What makes you think any of this has changed since you decided to have a political conscious?



With no statistics to back this, I call bullshit.



No it wouldn't. Assuming that all entitlement programs need to be eliminated is short sighted and ignorant. There are people who genuinely need them, like the poor. There are also those, like the elderly, who have contributed to these systems all their lives. THEY'RE ENTITLED TO GET THEIR SHARE TOO. Who are you to tell them otherwise? There are ways to adjust the current systems so that abuses can be found and dealt with, while people who actually play by the rules get what they need. You simply can't do that by throwing them all out the window.



Bullshit. Unless you can list particulars and prove that the majority receiving the subsidies from them are fraudulent then you have no grounds or any factual basis for this claim. This isn't a discussion just on ideas... you need facts to back your stuff up now.



Well, you are "behind" in this discussion. You still have nothing but ideological rhetoric to spew with absolutely no substance. After a while, that shit starts to get old. No sense in preaching about what our nation is supposed to be like when the audience needs some kind of logical affluence to attach to it. So yes, put up or shut up. And if you can't deal with little blurbs like that and other obvious jabs, then perhaps the internet is too explicit for you? Besides having a thick dick, it also helps to have a thick skin around here. So if you got something of real relevance to say with some substance, then bring it on. If you're gonna preach about ideology then keep it to yourself because everyone is sick of seeing it.

It's not Un-American to criticize policies and call them what they are - be they feminist, socialist, or some combination of things. There's also nothing wrong with blasting these ideologies if they seem like poor ideas. I'm not calling you Un-American, Super-American, or any other American for attacking my views. What the heck does any form of Americanism have to do with anything we've discussed?

I really have no idea what group you want to associate with me then. Is it the Republicans again? Is it the tea partiers? Neo-Nazis? Neo-Confederates?

Of course there's no country that provides absolute freedom. That's because governments CANNOT provide freedom. It's endowed to us by our very nature. We are free beings until coerced by some external force. Anarchy does not have to be a "lawless state" either. One does not need government in order to have laws. We would have much better laws, as a society and not a state, if we simply used morality as our guide (don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, and so forth). We get nothing close to justice with our fetishism for tyranny of the majority (democracy).

Why vote for any politicians? That's a good question. I don't particularly care for voting. All that participating in the process does is sanction and legitimize the monsters who take charge in government. We should all boycott the vote. This was the debate that Maxcock and I were having previously. I think democracy is as evil as any dictatorship. Madison understood this, as did Plato and many other great thinkers.

I didn't say the Un-American baiting was an exclusive tactic of those in power, just that they use it the most. Keep in mind that the Republicans and Democrats are never completely out of power either and they use this childish rhetoric virtually all the time.

Statistics are not necessary when hard logic covers everything. I don't need to provide an elaborate quantitative analysis in order to demonstrate the welfare state in this country and its emphasis on handouts for the rich. Did you not hear about the financial bailout a couple years ago? Did you not hear about the automotives bailout? Forget whether you think they're good or bad policies for a second. They're corporate welfare no matter how you slice it. If oil companies get favors, then that's welfare as well. Those are the big ones, but then you could look into several other large industries (agriculture subsidies to large agro-businesses like Monsanto, for example). Much of this is common knowledge. It's debated in the mainstream media regularly.

Even if the elderly did contribute to the various entitlement programs throughout the years, they are still not entitled to them. You are only entitled to things you have salvaged or obtained through VOLUNTARY exchange. All entitlements in the U.S., including Medicare and Social Security, are obtained through INVOLUNTARY means. You either pay the taxes for them or you go to jail. This is not social cooperation. It's extortion. Even if these were programs that worked magnificently (which they don't), it would still be fraud in principle.

Receiving ANY subisidies is fraudulent. I don't necessarily fault the recipients entirely though. It has more to do with the system. Technically, we all receive handouts insofar as we use public roads. That doesn't mean it's a just system. It's simply the one we're stuck with because of a totalitarian regime that we're too afraid to overthrow. Is that particular enough for you (public roads)?

I have thick enough skin. I just wonder why you're wasting space writing things like "you are behind in this discussion." What is this, a sporting event? It's not about keeping score. It's about getting to the bottom of the problems that plague our society (or justifying why you think some of these things are not problems) and possibly reaching solutions.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

It's not Un-American to criticize policies and call them what they are - be they feminist, socialist, or some combination of things.

I didn't say it was Un-American to criticize people. But to label them things that you know will spark fear into people is dishonest and bigoted is ignorant. You don't have to label something in order to critique it. You just choose to do so, which is your right. But to the rest of us it seems desperate and insincere.

There's also nothing wrong with blasting these ideologies if they seem like poor ideas.

Blasting ideologies for the sole purpose of doing so without any facts or specifics to make things better is nothing but hot air. I get sick of people who think everything is a bad idea but have no well thought out alternative. So you think programs that only benefit women, or "Feminism" as you so place it, are wrong. Fine. What would you do instead to ensure that these people don't lose any of the rights granted to them by the law? Don't just tell me that everything would be better if we got rid of it, like we're supposed to just trust what you say.

Seriously, do you know how to debate?

I'm not calling you Un-American, Super-American, or any other American for attacking my views. What the heck does any form of Americanism have to do with anything we've discussed?

In this country it has everything to do with it. Deliberate or not, you have an ideal of how this country should run and your rhetoric speaks to the soul of it. If you didn't care, then you wouldn't be here now arguing with me (or anyone else) about it. The problem is, some people's views on our nation have little to no regard to anyone else besides people who look or think like themselves.

I really have no idea what group you want to associate with me then. Is it the Republicans again? Is it the tea partiers? Neo-Nazis? Neo-Confederates?

Seriously, stop guessing. The answer is pretty easy, but you'll never get it if your thoughts are too partisan.

Of course there's no country that provides absolute freedom. That's because governments CANNOT provide freedom. It's endowed to us by our very nature. We are free beings until coerced by some external force. Anarchy does not have to be a "lawless state" either.

You specifically said you wanted to be ruled by NOBODY. Those were your exact words.

One does not need government in order to have laws.

So who enforces them? You think citizens with no established roles have the ability to govern themselves? You so trustworthy of your fellow man that you'd think everyone would have everyone else's best interest in mind? Hell, that doesn't even happen now in our current society. Don't kid yourself.

We would have much better laws, as a society and not a state, if we simply used morality as our guide (don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, and so forth). We get nothing close to justice with our fetishism for tyranny of the majority (democracy).

Don't kill, don't steal, don't lie. Sounds like "religion" to me. Sorry, Theocracy is for the dogs. You do realize most of the wars in this world are fueled because of people's overly zealous religious & moral beliefs? What makes a Christian's morals any better than a Buddhist's? And again, who enforces these rules if someone breaks them? In your Utopian world, if someone killed, stole or lied, what would be their just punishment and how would it be determined? Since you think a vote by majority is wrong, it doesn't leave many options left now does it?

This is what's so inherently dishonest with your ideologies. Even though our nation is run by a Democracy, not ever decision made follows that precise script. Certain things are decided upon and signed into law even without majority rule. Hell, our President can veto anything he deems inappropriate as legislation regardless if everyone in the House & Senate agreed.

Why vote for any politicians? That's a good question. I don't particularly care for voting. All that participating in the process does is sanction and legitimize the monsters who take charge in government. We should all boycott the vote.

Yeah, that's smart. Like that's actually going to do anything.
You can't convince an entire nation of people to not go to the polls on Election Day. On top of this, what makes you think our government wouldn't be able to function or provide a process to elect officials if by the one out of a quadrillionth chance a complete nationwide revolt on Election Day happen and nobody voted?

Dream on, dreamer...

This was the debate that Maxcock and I were having previously. I think democracy is as evil as any dictatorship. Madison understood this, as did Plato and many other great thinkers.

So again, if it's so evil then what is your alternative? We obviously know a lawless society where everyone is supposed to behave accordingly with some mysterious set of morals that everyone magically adheres to will never work.

Statistics are not necessary when hard logic covers everything.

ABSOLUTE bullshit.
You have to assume that your own arguments have no fault or room for question. And clearly, your ideologies are not so set in stone that they cannot be taken apart and exposed for the farces that they are. Just how arrogant are you to think you are exonerated from providing statistics to back up your claims, dude? That shit doesn't work here, especially if you want anyone to take you seriously.

I don't need to provide an elaborate quantitative analysis in order to demonstrate the welfare state in this country and its emphasis on handouts for the rich. Did you not hear about the financial bailout a couple years ago? Did you not hear about the automotives bailout? Forget whether you think they're good or bad policies for a second. They're corporate welfare no matter how you slice it. If oil companies get favors, then that's welfare as well. Those are the big ones, but then you could look into several other large industries (agriculture subsidies to large agro-businesses like Monsanto, for example). Much of this is common knowledge. It's debated in the mainstream media regularly.

You're such a lightweight. Overly generalized topics with no substance.
Yes there were bailouts, much to the chagrin of many people here (including myself). But did all of these things only benefit the rich and have absolutely no effect for citizens in our country? You act as if the corporations can fail freely with no consequences. But what about the number of jobs that are cut when big corporations fall? How do these newly unemployed people go about getting another job, especially the workers who have only been trained to do one task and have been doing so for several years? Keep in mind, you hate all entitlement programs so I'm sure Welfare, Unemployment, Food Stamps and all those other "evil programs" so I'm sure these millions of now unemployed people wouldn't be able to rely on them while they tried to regroup. Eventually they run out of money. They can't even take care of their basic necessities such as food and shelter. What do these people do now? Got an answer for this? Seriously, you talk about the bailouts. Did you REALLY pay attention to everything that was going on, or are you just spouting out more narrow minded ideological nonsense because you think it's "hard logic"?

Plenty of signs show that our economy is actually starting to heal a little bit after our government issued out these financial bailouts. We still have a long way to go, but without government intervention on certain levels we would be worse off than ever.

Even if the elderly did contribute to the various entitlement programs throughout the years, they are still not entitled to them. You are only entitled to things you have salvaged or obtained through VOLUNTARY exchange.

Apparently you have no idea how Social Security works. Either that, or you never had a job. The elderly consists of people who at one time were employed and worked everyday just like you and I. I'm not sure if you noticed this, but every time you receive a paycheck money is automatically deducted by the government for this program and many others. THIS is not voluntary... unless you want to get paid under the table, EVERYONE is required to do this. Based on what they pay into the system (as well as any other money they contribute towards it), they are ENTITLED to a certain amount of money a month after they retire until their benefits run out. Don't give me this ideological bullshit, son. Unless you want to do the stupid thing and insist that we do away with Social Security (which would be political suicide), don't even go here.

All entitlements in the U.S., including Medicare and Social Security, are obtained through INVOLUNTARY means. You either pay the taxes for them or you go to jail. This is not social cooperation. It's extortion. Even if these were programs that worked magnificently (which they don't), it would still be fraud in principle.

You see it as extortion. I see it as necessary. Because despite your "kum-by-ya" style rhetoric where everyone lives under the same rules of morality and are trustworthy enough to do what's right without any regulation, anyone with a brain knows this will NEVER happen. Greed is as real as the air we breathe. While some people would join hands with you, there will always be people who will try and bend the system and not contribute their full share. It happens now within every political, social and financial system in existence. What makes you think yours will be different?

I have thick enough skin. I just wonder why you're wasting space writing things like "you are behind in this discussion."

Well, truth be told the mass majority of your posts are a waste of space. But for some reason I still deem it necessary to respond. I mean, you did try to "piss me off" when you mentioned that the AIDS crisis was a hoax. And if you're just trying to get under people's skin, I can be just as coy about it.

What is this, a sporting event? It's not about keeping score. It's about getting to the bottom of the problems that plague our society (or justifying why you think some of these things are not problems) and possibly reaching solutions.

And sadly, none of your ideas would solve ANY problems. Too bad you don't see it.

 

[B_OtterJoq]

Oh, and one more thing, there was no AIDS crisis. It was completely over-blown for the purporse of making money for the big pharmaceutical companies.

Wow. Whatever credibility you MAY have had just completely evaporated.

 

[B_RedDude]

Gee, what about all of those AIDS-related deaths in the 15 or so years before big pharma came out with the first really effective treatments, clown?

Oh, and one more thing, there was no AIDS crisis. It was completely over-blown for the purporse of making money for the big pharmaceutical companies.

 

[At.your.cervix]

My guess is that he stands a good chance of reelection. Most Presidents who run for a second term get it. Just like most Presidents' parties lose seats in their first midterm elections. The midterm elections were really a referendum on the percieved state of the economy, not so much of one party over the other. And remember, way fewer than 1/2 the eligible voters came out to the polls.

Now, it is in the House Republican's best personal interest to get the country out of the current recession, as if not, they will leave their own careers in jeopardy. Every single one of them knows that if they cut back on taxes for the richest Americans, all that will do is increase the deficit ("trickle down economics" tripled the national debt during the Reagan years, remember; it didn't help us with the deficit during the Bush years either). If they cut back on domestic, non-defense, spending, as seems to be the current mantra up on the Hill these days, they also know that reduction in spending will come directly from eliminating domestic jobs paid for by those federal dollars, further stifling economic growth at this critical time. And if they try to dismantle the previous Democratic initiatives of the past few years, those efforts will be stopped dead in the Senate. So what will the Republican led House wind up doing? Likely partnerring with the White House to actually get us out of the economic doldrum which we're currently stuck in--to keep their own jobs. That will also make it much easier for President Obama to wind up leading this country until 2016, like it or not.

 

[ECUBiBoy]

I didn't say it was Un-American to criticize people. But to label them things that you know will spark fear into people is dishonest and bigoted is ignorant. You don't have to label something in order to critique it. You just choose to do so, which is your right. But to the rest of us it seems desperate and insincere.



Blasting ideologies for the sole purpose of doing so without any facts or specifics to make things better is nothing but hot air. I get sick of people who think everything is a bad idea but have no well thought out alternative. So you think programs that only benefit women, or "Feminism" as you so place it, are wrong. Fine. What would you do instead to ensure that these people don't lose any of the rights granted to them by the law? Don't just tell me that everything would be better if we got rid of it, like we're supposed to just trust what you say.

Seriously, do you know how to debate?



In this country it has everything to do with it. Deliberate or not, you have an ideal of how this country should run and your rhetoric speaks to the soul of it. If you didn't care, then you wouldn't be here now arguing with me (or anyone else) about it. The problem is, some people's views on our nation have little to no regard to anyone else besides people who look or think like themselves.



Seriously, stop guessing. The answer is pretty easy, but you'll never get it if your thoughts are too partisan.



You specifically said you wanted to be ruled by NOBODY. Those were your exact words.



So who enforces them? You think citizens with no established roles have the ability to govern themselves? You so trustworthy of your fellow man that you'd think everyone would have everyone else's best interest in mind? Hell, that doesn't even happen now in our current society. Don't kid yourself.



Don't kill, don't steal, don't lie. Sounds like "religion" to me. Sorry, Theocracy is for the dogs. You do realize most of the wars in this world are fueled because of people's overly zealous religious & moral beliefs? What makes a Christian's morals any better than a Buddhist's? And again, who enforces these rules if someone breaks them? In your Utopian world, if someone killed, stole or lied, what would be their just punishment and how would it be determined? Since you think a vote by majority is wrong, it doesn't leave many options left now does it?

This is what's so inherently dishonest with your ideologies. Even though our nation is run by a Democracy, not ever decision made follows that precise script. Certain things are decided upon and signed into law even without majority rule. Hell, our President can veto anything he deems inappropriate as legislation regardless if everyone in the House & Senate agreed.



Yeah, that's smart. Like that's actually going to do anything.
You can't convince an entire nation of people to not go to the polls on Election Day. On top of this, what makes you think our government wouldn't be able to function or provide a process to elect officials if by the one out of a quadrillionth chance a complete nationwide revolt on Election Day happen and nobody voted?

Dream on, dreamer...



So again, if it's so evil then what is your alternative? We obviously know a lawless society where everyone is supposed to behave accordingly with some mysterious set of morals that everyone magically adheres to will never work.



ABSOLUTE bullshit.
You have to assume that your own arguments have no fault or room for question. And clearly, your ideologies are not so set in stone that they cannot be taken apart and exposed for the farces that they are. Just how arrogant are you to think you are exonerated from providing statistics to back up your claims, dude? That shit doesn't work here, especially if you want anyone to take you seriously.



You're such a lightweight. Overly generalized topics with no substance.
Yes there were bailouts, much to the chagrin of many people here (including myself). But did all of these things only benefit the rich and have absolutely no effect for citizens in our country? You act as if the corporations can fail freely with no consequences. But what about the number of jobs that are cut when big corporations fall? How do these newly unemployed people go about getting another job, especially the workers who have only been trained to do one task and have been doing so for several years? Keep in mind, you hate all entitlement programs so I'm sure Welfare, Unemployment, Food Stamps and all those other "evil programs" so I'm sure these millions of now unemployed people wouldn't be able to rely on them while they tried to regroup. Eventually they run out of money. They can't even take care of their basic necessities such as food and shelter. What do these people do now? Got an answer for this? Seriously, you talk about the bailouts. Did you REALLY pay attention to everything that was going on, or are you just spouting out more narrow minded ideological nonsense because you think it's "hard logic"?

Plenty of signs show that our economy is actually starting to heal a little bit after our government issued out these financial bailouts. We still have a long way to go, but without government intervention on certain levels we would be worse off than ever.



Apparently you have no idea how Social Security works. Either that, or you never had a job. The elderly consists of people who at one time were employed and worked everyday just like you and I. I'm not sure if you noticed this, but every time you receive a paycheck money is automatically deducted by the government for this program and many others. THIS is not voluntary... unless you want to get paid under the table, EVERYONE is required to do this. Based on what they pay into the system (as well as any other money they contribute towards it), they are ENTITLED to a certain amount of money a month after they retire until their benefits run out. Don't give me this ideological bullshit, son. Unless you want to do the stupid thing and insist that we do away with Social Security (which would be political suicide), don't even go here.



You see it as extortion. I see it as necessary. Because despite your "kum-by-ya" style rhetoric where everyone lives under the same rules of morality and are trustworthy enough to do what's right without any regulation, anyone with a brain knows this will NEVER happen. Greed is as real as the air we breathe. While some people would join hands with you, there will always be people who will try and bend the system and not contribute their full share. It happens now within every political, social and financial system in existence. What makes you think yours will be different?



Well, truth be told the mass majority of your posts are a waste of space. But for some reason I still deem it necessary to respond. I mean, you did try to "piss me off" when you mentioned that the AIDS crisis was a hoax. And if you're just trying to get under people's skin, I can be just as coy about it.



And sadly, none of your ideas would solve ANY problems. Too bad you don't see it.

Why did you ask me what I would do for people who would "lose any of the rights granted to them by the law?" There are no such things as rights granted by the law. Rights come from our own human nature. They're grounded in what we own, chief among them is one's life itself. You don't get rights because people gather together and decide on them.

If my rhetoric speaks to how I think America should work, then what does that have to do with being Un-American? If I were Un-American, wouldn't I be spending time trying to find ways to make it not work? My views are not biased toward any group over another. I advocate a propertarian approach to society, which only works through voluntarism and cooperation. Private property levels the playing field, whereas public property distorts society by causing "tragedies of the commons." Public property is also only achievable through aggressive force, which is morally wrong (just like aggressive murder or thievery committed by private individuals is wrong).

Yes, I want to be ruled by NOBODY. You can have laws in a ruler-less (anarchist) society. It just means the laws are enforced through social cooperation and private justice.

First of all, people do not need governments in order to have "established roles," AKA division of labor. A shoemaker is still a shoemaker regardless of the political system. Secondly, laws (natural laws) do not have to be enforced by a governing body in order to be effective. Is it the government that makes people behave morally? No, it's societal expectations that keep people in line. If you act wicked, you will be outcast or rebuked one way or another. Also, you may have noticed that the government's punishments for criminals do not exactly deter them from committing them, sometimes repeatedly. A free soceity couldn't do much worse than our current system as it pertains to criminal detterance. No matter what, there's always going to be a small percentage of sociopaths who refuse to get the message (prisons do very little to stop them). I'd be happy to go into more detail about this, but I'll await your response.

Why are religious ideals bad anyway? It doesn't have to be a theocracy either. If you take a close look at the most popular religions in the world, you'll notice their moral messages are quite similar once you get beyond the ontological, spiritual, and stylistic differences. Virtually all of them speak of treating others well, not stealing, not loan-sharking, not killing unless in defense, not raping, respecting the property of others, and so forth. It's a shame people fight wars over this. The only just punishment is proportional revenge by the hand of the victim. The state never achieves this since it is never the victim.

Yes, not every decision is subject to direct democracy. Is this a good thing? We leave personal decisions related to wealth, our safety, our health, our children, and so much else up to a paternalistic board of lunatics and attention seekers. The state is horrible no matter which form it takes. Democracy and oligarchy happen to be the worst forms.

Avoiding the polls would be a good idea. Either the tyrants in charge will get the message or the social fabric will disintegrate further. Every political revolution that's occured has been a result of civil disobedience in one form or another. I see no reason why ignoring the civic duty of voting would not be a form of civil disobedience.

I do not assume my arguments cover everything. I just know that certain things are knowable through a priori, deductive reasoning (logic) and statistics is not required. It's like knowing that an equilateral triangle has three interior angles that all equal 60. You don't need statistics or any kind of measurement to determine that if you encounter a triangle with equal-length sides. If you have a problem with what I say, then it's your job to critique the premises of my argument or to question how they led me to my conclusion. Empiricism has many limitations and cannot solve every problem. Focus on the fundamentals of the problems we are discussing.

Bailing out companies does not have a positive effect on the poor. Using tax money (stolen wealth) to give to the rich does not help poor people. Where do you think the rich get their bailouts? Where else COULD they have gotten it? There money comes from devaluing the currency or raising taxes. Ruining the currency hurts those who have the least money the most (money, like any good, is subject to marginal utility). The rich, as you may have noticed, never raise taxes on themselves. If they did that, they would be in even greater need of a bailout since their funds would be depleted further. Therefore, in order for them to gain from the bailouts, they must steal from someone else. Since those bailed out already own the overwhelming majority of the wealth, they could have only gotten it from those less wealthy.

Letting the companies fail would be very difficult for a little while. This might mean a year of very painful economic conditions. However, once the market is allowed to reallocate the mis-allocations of the financial bubbles, things will turn around and people will find employment in newer, up-to-date venues. When an economy experiences a boom created by government-driven market distortions, it must experience a recession. The recession is a correction of the distortion. It's not fun, but it's the only way to avoid the several years of economic depression that come from governments trying to prop up the decadent system that boomed too much in the first place. The Great Depression was an example of not allowing the market to correct itself. Hoover and FDR forced the depression to continue by injecting stimulus into the economy and trying to save large, politcally-connected industries.

The economy is not improving for very many unless you consider the growth in millioniares amongst the bailed-out Wall Street elite. The gap between rich and poor that the socialists frequently discuss is created from their very own only policy prescriptions. The free market could hardly do worse than this in terms of inequality.

I know exactly how Social Secuirty works (and it doesn't work). You may not know but it was actually intended to be a temporary program. Also, the first social security system was invented by Otto von Bismarck as an attempt to bribe people into not emmigrating to Prussia. I'm not sure why you would think an anarchist such as myself would be concerned about "political suicide." I think the only way to save our society from a chaotic super-depression is for everyone to pull the plug on Washington entirely. If by some bizarre chance the polticians committ suicide on their own volitions, then I welcome that miracle.

How can Social Security be necessary if we survived as a country so long before it existed? Your lungs are necessary. Social Security is not. I told you it's a personal savings perversion created by monsters like FDR and von Bismarck.

 

[dandelion]

Why did you ask me what I would do for people who would "lose any of the rights granted to them by the law?" There are no such things as rights granted by the law. Rights come from our own human nature.

On the contrary, rights are things we grant to others. There is nothing innate about them. I grant the police the right to patrol the streets and arrest someone who does things I dont like. several of us got together and decided what the rules are. We decided to call that get together 'government'.

I advocate a propertarian approach to society, which only works through voluntarism and cooperation. Private property levels the playing field, whereas public property distorts society by causing "tragedies of the commons."

On the contrary, 'cooperation' is another name for 'government'. Private ownership means that something is exempted from fair distribution or limitations which are in the greater good.

Yes, I want to be ruled by NOBODY. You can have laws in a ruler-less (anarchist) society. It just means the laws are enforced through social cooperation and private justice.

Still government. Just a purer form of democracy.

A shoemaker is still a shoemaker regardless of the political system.

Not if someone comes along, stabs him and steals his shoes, he isnt. Then he's dead. The town has no shoes. The thief has a lifetimes supply.

Why are religious ideals bad anyway?

probably because they are fundamentally based upon a falsehood, which tends to distort whatever truths they have. They also tend to be spread by people who stand to benefit from them personally or use them as instruments of control.

Every political revolution that's occured has been a result of civil disobedience in one form or another.

true. But why would you then want to walk away from what you just won?

Bailing out companies does not have a positive effect on the poor.

An interesting question. I take it you mean some of the recent giant bailouts rather than ordinary ones. If they had not been bailed out then the effect would have been a transfer of wealth from someone to someone. Would you want to preserve the deposits in thos banks instead of the banks themselves, or simply let all of shareholders, creditors and depositors suffer?

Letting the companies fail would be very difficult for a little while. This might mean a year of very painful economic conditions. However, once the market is allowed to reallocate the mis-allocations of the financial bubbles, things will turn around and people will find employment in newer, up-to-date venues.

consider that most of that previosly allocated wealth was purely notional and did not really exist. After the dust has settled it will be entirely gone.

The economy is not improving for very many unless you consider the growth in millioniares amongst the bailed-out Wall Street elite. The gap between rich and poor that the socialists frequently discuss is created from their very own only policy prescriptions. The free market could hardly do worse than this in terms of inequality.

Wanna bet? but it will be interesting to see what happens when the us tries it. Do you want to be a coal miner living your life underground or spend all the hours of daylight picking cotton?

Also, the first social security system was invented by Otto von Bismarck as an attempt to bribe people into not emmigrating to Prussia.

Exactly the idea. give them just enough so they dont riot and smash your windows.

How can Social Security be necessary if we survived as a country so long before it existed?

Ah but its a much nicer country now. Thats why we have it. We dont like being knifed for our boots. Rather give the guy the price of buying them.

The reality is that we live in countries which are very rich by historical standards, but alongside countries which are just as poor as ever we were. market economics says we end up buying our shoes from some cobbler in china. he gets paid so little for shoes that no one here could live on what he makes. So no one can get a living here from making shoes. There are relatively few jobs which do still make enough money. Less of them all the time, in fact. The only way to share the take is to tax and redistribute to the poor. Increasingly, our goods are made by machine, which means few people are involved. So we have to tax the companies to get some of that wealth for the actual people here.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Seriously... no more detailed explanations. Just a few lines to further illustrate how ignorant you are. I'm sick of your ideological spouters.

Why did you ask me what I would do for people who would "lose any of the rights granted to them by the law?" There are no such things as rights granted by the law. Rights come from our own human nature. They're grounded in what we own, chief among them is one's life itself. You don't get rights because people gather together and decide on them.

Do you not think the Civil Rights Acts, the Matthew Shepard Act, Equal Rights Amendment and the like are not "laws"?

If my rhetoric speaks to how I think America should work, then what does that have to do with being Un-American? If I were Un-American, wouldn't I be spending time trying to find ways to make it not work? My views are not biased toward any group over another. I advocate a propertarian approach to society, which only works through voluntarism and cooperation. Private property levels the playing field, whereas public property distorts society by causing "tragedies of the commons." Public property is also only achievable through aggressive force, which is morally wrong (just like aggressive murder or thievery committed by private individuals is wrong).

When your beliefs unfairly discriminate or judge others based on your own uneducated bigotry, then they are Un-American.

Yes, I want to be ruled by NOBODY. You can have laws in a ruler-less (anarchist) society. It just means the laws are enforced through social cooperation and private justice.

That was already debunked before, and the fact that you're bringing it up again shows how ignorant you are. Even in your asinine scenario, someone (or some group) would have to assume the role of supervisor even if laws were enforced through social cooperation. If anyone broke a law, who would make sure the person breaking them would be properly punished for that? That would be a form of legislative jurisdiction, or a government.

First of all, people do not need governments in order to have "established roles," AKA division of labor. A shoemaker is still a shoemaker regardless of the political system. Secondly, laws (natural laws) do not have to be enforced by a governing body in order to be effective. Is it the government that makes people behave morally? No, it's societal expectations that keep people in line. If you act wicked, you will be outcast or rebuked one way or another. Also, you may have noticed that the government's punishments for criminals do not exactly deter them from committing them, sometimes repeatedly. A free soceity couldn't do much worse than our current system as it pertains to criminal detterance. No matter what, there's always going to be a small percentage of sociopaths who refuse to get the message (prisons do very little to stop them). I'd be happy to go into more detail about this, but I'll await your response.

You don't have to go into detail, because if you knew what the fuck you were talking about you would have done this already.

Why are religious ideals bad anyway? It doesn't have to be a theocracy either. If you take a close look at the most popular religions in the world, you'll notice their moral messages are quite similar once you get beyond the ontological, spiritual, and stylistic differences. Virtually all of them speak of treating others well, not stealing, not loan-sharking, not killing unless in defense, not raping, respecting the property of others, and so forth. It's a shame people fight wars over this. The only just punishment is proportional revenge by the hand of the victim. The state never achieves this since it is never the victim.

Yep... most of the basics are exactly the same between all religions, yet the followers have no problem looking at one another, denouncing them and even getting into wars over their beliefs. Haven't noticed the current religious war brewing between Christians and Muslims in our own country? Just like political parties, religions are just as corrupt and nasty as the rest. However, even though I approach issues of spirituality on an individual basis I'm not as blindly ignorant to assume that everyone can work together for the best interest of mankind. Some people just don't give a shit... just like you.

Avoiding the polls would be a good idea. Either the tyrants in charge will get the message or the social fabric will disintegrate further. Every political revolution that's occured has been a result of civil disobedience in one form or another. I see no reason why ignoring the civic duty of voting would not be a form of civil disobedience.

Not voting is useless because ANY governing body can find an alternative way to keep its system going without civil intervention. It's like saying if we woke up tomorrow and found that all the chickens in the world decided to never lay another egg out of protest, that breakfast would come to a screeching halt. How stupid are you?

I do not assume my arguments cover everything. I just know that certain things are knowable through a priori, deductive reasoning (logic) and statistics is not required. It's like knowing that an equilateral triangle has three interior angles that all equal 60. You don't need statistics or any kind of measurement to determine that if you encounter a triangle with equal-length sides. If you have a problem with what I say, then it's your job to critique the premises of my argument or to question how they led me to my conclusion. Empiricism has many limitations and cannot solve every problem. Focus on the fundamentals of the problems we are discussing.

I've already critiqued, went into detail and debunked your ideologies more than most. The only differences here is that YOU "staunchly" hold onto your beliefs so any diagram showing you any flaws don't matter. That's the problem with purely ideological discussions. The one who puts up the daydream never has to go into specifics and assumes they're speaking from some angle of absolute enlightenment. Since you want to act this vehemently dishonest and ignorant, refusing to take an HONEST look at what you believe and come up with a more logical based solution, engaging you in any form of discussion about this is completely fruitless. People like you are the reasons why our nation is fucked up right now. You'd ignore the fact that it's cold outside just because you wore a jacket that provided you a little bit of warmth, even if you saw a thermometer showing you a temperature of -15 degrees... just to hold onto a belief.

Bailing out companies does not have a positive effect on the poor. Using tax money (stolen wealth) to give to the rich does not help poor people. Where do you think the rich get their bailouts? Where else COULD they have gotten it? There money comes from devaluing the currency or raising taxes. Ruining the currency hurts those who have the least money the most (money, like any good, is subject to marginal utility). The rich, as you may have noticed, never raise taxes on themselves. If they did that, they would be in even greater need of a bailout since their funds would be depleted further. Therefore, in order for them to gain from the bailouts, they must steal from someone else. Since those bailed out already own the overwhelming majority of the wealth, they could have only gotten it from those less wealthy.

Well, they could have gotten some of the money from cutting defense spending... alas, our chicken hearted brethren who think every brown person in the world is out to kill them wouldn't go for that. But taxpayer money was used instead... and in the process, millions of people didn't lose their jobs. That is a positive effect. Also, have you seen the latest numbers from GM? They're reporting record sales & profits a few years after receiving bailout money and are paying it back. Imagine if we would have just let them fail? Actually, don't... because I honestly don't give a fuck what a limited thinker such as yourself has to say anymore.

I know exactly how Social Secuirty works (and it doesn't work). You may not know but it was actually intended to be a temporary program. Also, the first social security system was invented by Otto von Bismarck as an attempt to bribe people into not emmigrating to Prussia. I'm not sure why you would think an anarchist such as myself would be concerned about "political suicide." I think the only way to save our society from a chaotic super-depression is for everyone to pull the plug on Washington entirely. If by some bizarre chance the polticians committ suicide on their own volitions, then I welcome that miracle.

Trust me, you're not an Anarchist by any stretch of the imagination because even an Anarchist knows there's limits that need to be put in place to ensure a country doesn't go into complete disarray. You are a deluded, selfish, greedy and intellectually deceitful little kid whose let propaganda turn you inside out to the point where you're now proposing a completely illogical and unobtainable societal outcome. Calling for what it seems to be the absolute destruction of any established governing system at the expense of the people you indirectly claim to want to help does nothing but bring about irreversible chaos & destruction.

How can Social Security be necessary if we survived as a country so long before it existed? Your lungs are necessary. Social Security is not. I told you it's a personal savings perversion created by monsters like FDR and von Bismarck.

Two can play that game if the game is to propose a generic & logically dishonest argument. Case in point, we survived as a country without the internet. Our country didn't lose any ability to communicate and conduct business without it, but it sped things up tremendously and allow us as humans to work more efficiently. Social Security is a starting point for people to plan for their future retirements. It's not the first and last piece of the pie and everyone recognizes this. Deep down, you're just a greedy & clueless little child who wants to instigate a so-called "unregulated political system" under the phony guise of freedom just because you think you got what it takes to survive with nobody else's help. You act as if people who are older than you didn't have these similar thoughts. Well guess what? We all have to grow up sometimes, and so do you. And until you mature, this discussion is over. You bore me.

 

[D_Miltie Orgasmic]

Government does NOT make it easier for under-priveleged young people to go to college. The cost of higher education has sky-rocketed since the 1960's (more so than health care, automotives, and almost everything else). How is this making things easier? Have you not heard of the kinds of debt graduates are incurring these days? The standards for private lending have gone up dramatically since the recession precisely because of all the over-lending that's been stimulated over the years..

Are you dreaming? You sound like one of those lemmings who think that private, free market, capitalism has the best interests of "the people" at heart. Uncontrolled, do you really believe that banks are going to loan you money to go to school? I have to assume, given your other comments, that you think the "free market" will keep a lid on interest rates? You go to ECU -- a state school -- at a significant savings to you over attending a private school and very much at my expense as a NC taxpayer; I'm guessing you'd like to pay Duke prices to stay in Greenville.

As for the wonders of the private sector, son, if it were left up to the private sector, 1/2 of rural NC would still not have electricity....you can thank the government for that. The same argument is flying around today about internet and cell phone service in rural areas of NC...most still have dial-up internet service because we're having to wait for the gods in the private sector to find enough customers to make it "cost effective" to provide service.

What you lack is perspective and an awareness about "unintended consequences". There's no silver bullet to the problems we face, but arguing the pseudo-Liberaterian line ignores the fact that the days of "Little House on the Praire" are over for the majority of Americans. You might want to brush up on the Gilded Age too if you want to know what living conditions were like for the majority of Americans living in the unregulated, free market, bonanza that was the USA before 1933.