login
My election eve thoughts... (Page 2)
-
No new posts
|
 2012-11-05 12:36 PM in reply to: #4484361 |
Elite  4564    Boise |  Subject: RE: My election eve thoughts...crusevegas - 2012-11-05 11:03 AM ejshowers - 2012-11-05 9:52 AM crusevegas - 2012-11-05 11:12 AM Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-11-05 9:01 AM crusevegas - 2012-11-05 11:53 AM ejshowers - 2012-11-05 8:50 AM crusevegas - 2012-11-05 10:45 AM Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-11-05 8:25 AM My .02 cents... The Tea Party has been one of the worst things to ever happen to Congress. Not so much in their stance or goals, but in their method of absolutes: "Sign a pledge to never raise taxes no matter what." "Say no to anything Democrat or Obama no matter what." "Paralyze decisions until Obama is out of the White House." "NEVER COMPROMISE." Even during the days of Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Dubya - there was pragmatism and compromise. The political rhetoric was still just as polarized, but lawmakers in Congress were still willing to do something to move forward. The GOP was center-right which is perfectly fine. You need voices on the right to counter voices on the left. But the Republican Party is in big trouble. There's too much pressure on Republicans these days to lean too far to the right. Look at what it's done to Romney: In the primaries, he had to portray himself as nearly Tea Party far right to win the nomination. And now he has to portray himself as back in the center to win the general election. But this whole "let the system collapse just so that we can blame the Deomcrats and especially Obama and get more of our people voted in" philosophy has got to go! And "our people" doesn't mean Republicans, it means far far far right-wing conservatives. I can live with either party, so long as people in Washington are willing to work together across party lines, to compromise, to be pragmatic, to work to make things better for this country for EVERYONE. Not just only the one extreme side that you represent.
Could you provide a source for this? People moving our nation towards more and more socialist polices you sound like you have no problem with. Yet those who would like to halt the advancement of socialist policies that move our nation closer what socialist countries have evil from what I've read from you here and in the past. If I'm wrong please explain.
Huh? Maybe my edit will make it more understandable for you. If not ask again. You'll have to clarify a couple of things;
1. Would you provide a source for the bolded part about the goals of the Tea Party? 2. What policies you ask, for starters Obamacare. 3. What goal are you referring to? 4. What current law is socialists, take a look at Social Security, the average American is deprived of 1/7 of his income with a promise that he may or may not get back some or all of what the Federal Govt. confiscated during his working life. What does Social Security have to do with government control of the means of production, i.e. socialism? The definition of Socialism and the goals and objectives of the Communist and Socialist Parties are pretty broad and encompassing. The definition of Socialism can be very constrictive as you appear to be trying to use it or it can be much broader especially if you look at the Socialists or Communist Parties web sites. To answer you question, it falls under the broader term of socialism, the government is controlling or confiscating 1/7 of the average Americans "production" or pay and is making a promise to possibly pay it back in full or in part at some date in the future. Take a look at the goals and objectives @ cpusa.org it's pretty in line with where our country has been going and headed in the last half century or longer. You can define "Socialist" however you want, I'm going to go with how the Socialist Party and the Communist Party here in the USA are presenting it. You can't use a party's platform. Republicans claim to represent capitalism. Therefore, capitalism is about banning abortions. Edited by JoshR 2012-11-05 12:36 PM |
| 2012-11-05 2:17 PM in reply to: #4484424 |
| Subject: RE: My election eve thoughts... JoshR - 2012-11-05 10:36 AM crusevegas - 2012-11-05 11:03 AM ejshowers - 2012-11-05 9:52 AM crusevegas - 2012-11-05 11:12 AM Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-11-05 9:01 AM crusevegas - 2012-11-05 11:53 AM ejshowers - 2012-11-05 8:50 AM crusevegas - 2012-11-05 10:45 AM Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-11-05 8:25 AM My .02 cents... The Tea Party has been one of the worst things to ever happen to Congress. Not so much in their stance or goals, but in their method of absolutes: "Sign a pledge to never raise taxes no matter what." "Say no to anything Democrat or Obama no matter what." "Paralyze decisions until Obama is out of the White House." "NEVER COMPROMISE." Even during the days of Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Dubya - there was pragmatism and compromise. The political rhetoric was still just as polarized, but lawmakers in Congress were still willing to do something to move forward. The GOP was center-right which is perfectly fine. You need voices on the right to counter voices on the left. But the Republican Party is in big trouble. There's too much pressure on Republicans these days to lean too far to the right. Look at what it's done to Romney: In the primaries, he had to portray himself as nearly Tea Party far right to win the nomination. And now he has to portray himself as back in the center to win the general election. But this whole "let the system collapse just so that we can blame the Deomcrats and especially Obama and get more of our people voted in" philosophy has got to go! And "our people" doesn't mean Republicans, it means far far far right-wing conservatives. I can live with either party, so long as people in Washington are willing to work together across party lines, to compromise, to be pragmatic, to work to make things better for this country for EVERYONE. Not just only the one extreme side that you represent.
Could you provide a source for this? People moving our nation towards more and more socialist polices you sound like you have no problem with. Yet those who would like to halt the advancement of socialist policies that move our nation closer what socialist countries have evil from what I've read from you here and in the past. If I'm wrong please explain.
Huh? Maybe my edit will make it more understandable for you. If not ask again. You'll have to clarify a couple of things;
1. Would you provide a source for the bolded part about the goals of the Tea Party? 2. What policies you ask, for starters Obamacare. 3. What goal are you referring to? 4. What current law is socialists, take a look at Social Security, the average American is deprived of 1/7 of his income with a promise that he may or may not get back some or all of what the Federal Govt. confiscated during his working life. What does Social Security have to do with government control of the means of production, i.e. socialism? The definition of Socialism and the goals and objectives of the Communist and Socialist Parties are pretty broad and encompassing. The definition of Socialism can be very constrictive as you appear to be trying to use it or it can be much broader especially if you look at the Socialists or Communist Parties web sites. To answer you question, it falls under the broader term of socialism, the government is controlling or confiscating 1/7 of the average Americans "production" or pay and is making a promise to possibly pay it back in full or in part at some date in the future. Take a look at the goals and objectives @ cpusa.org it's pretty in line with where our country has been going and headed in the last half century or longer. You can define "Socialist" however you want, I'm going to go with how the Socialist Party and the Communist Party here in the USA are presenting it. You can't use a party's platform. Republicans claim to represent capitalism. Therefore, capitalism is about banning abortions. Ok how about if we use Merriam Webster socialism
noun (Concise Encyclopedia)System of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control; also, the political movements aimed at putting that system into practice. Because “social control” may be interpreted in widely diverging ways, socialism ranges from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal. The term was first used to describe the doctrines of Charles Fourier, Henri de Saint-Simon, and Robert Owen, who emphasized noncoercive communities of people working noncompetitively for the spiritual and physical well-being of all (see utopian socialism). Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, seeing socialism as a transition state between capitalism and communism, appropriated what they found useful in socialist movements to develop their “scientific socialism.” In the 20th century, the Soviet Union was the principal model of strictly centralized socialism, while Sweden and Denmark were well-known for their noncommunist socialism. See also collectivism, communitarianism, social democracy. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
|
| 2012-11-05 2:24 PM in reply to: #4484387 |
| Subject: RE: My election eve thoughts... BrianRunsPhilly - 2012-11-05 10:11 AM crusevegas - 2012-11-05 1:03 PM ejshowers - 2012-11-05 9:52 AM crusevegas - 2012-11-05 11:12 AM Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-11-05 9:01 AM crusevegas - 2012-11-05 11:53 AM ejshowers - 2012-11-05 8:50 AM crusevegas - 2012-11-05 10:45 AM Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-11-05 8:25 AM My .02 cents... The Tea Party has been one of the worst things to ever happen to Congress. Not so much in their stance or goals, but in their method of absolutes: "Sign a pledge to never raise taxes no matter what." "Say no to anything Democrat or Obama no matter what." "Paralyze decisions until Obama is out of the White House." "NEVER COMPROMISE." Even during the days of Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Dubya - there was pragmatism and compromise. The political rhetoric was still just as polarized, but lawmakers in Congress were still willing to do something to move forward. The GOP was center-right which is perfectly fine. You need voices on the right to counter voices on the left. But the Republican Party is in big trouble. There's too much pressure on Republicans these days to lean too far to the right. Look at what it's done to Romney: In the primaries, he had to portray himself as nearly Tea Party far right to win the nomination. And now he has to portray himself as back in the center to win the general election. But this whole "let the system collapse just so that we can blame the Deomcrats and especially Obama and get more of our people voted in" philosophy has got to go! And "our people" doesn't mean Republicans, it means far far far right-wing conservatives. I can live with either party, so long as people in Washington are willing to work together across party lines, to compromise, to be pragmatic, to work to make things better for this country for EVERYONE. Not just only the one extreme side that you represent.
Could you provide a source for this? People moving our nation towards more and more socialist polices you sound like you have no problem with. Yet those who would like to halt the advancement of socialist policies that move our nation closer what socialist countries have evil from what I've read from you here and in the past. If I'm wrong please explain.
Huh? Maybe my edit will make it more understandable for you. If not ask again. You'll have to clarify a couple of things;
1. Would you provide a source for the bolded part about the goals of the Tea Party? 2. What policies you ask, for starters Obamacare. 3. What goal are you referring to? 4. What current law is socialists, take a look at Social Security, the average American is deprived of 1/7 of his income with a promise that he may or may not get back some or all of what the Federal Govt. confiscated during his working life. What does Social Security have to do with government control of the means of production, i.e. socialism? The definition of Socialism and the goals and objectives of the Communist and Socialist Parties are pretty broad and encompassing. The definition of Socialism can be very constrictive as you appear to be trying to use it or it can be much broader especially if you look at the Socialists or Communist Parties web sites. To answer you question, it falls under the broader term of socialism, the government is controlling or confiscating 1/7 of the average Americans "production" or pay and is making a promise to possibly pay it back in full or in part at some date in the future. Take a look at the goals and objectives @ cpusa.org it's pretty in line with where our country has been going and headed in the last half century or longer. You can define "Socialist" however you want, I'm going to go with how the Socialist Party and the Communist Party here in the USA are presenting it. I just looked at the cpusa website and their faq. Some of their views, i.e. equal rights, environment, etc. can also be found in the Democrat and Republican Party platforms. Others, such as the replacement of capitalism and nationalization of industry - I just don't see how you can say we're moving in that direction. If anything, we've become more of a capitalist society. What percent of GM does the Federal Govt. own? How how much was taken from bond holders in the auto bailout and favored treatment to Union Workers given? How much money was given to Business that were too big to fail in the last 10 years? Do we have more or fewer Federal Govt. programs giving more or fewer $$ today than we did 10 years ago? Could you give me some examples that show we are a more free or capitalist society today than 10 years ago? How much money have we lost "investing" in campaign donors Green Energy? |
| 2012-11-05 3:11 PM in reply to: #4484672 |
Master 2277 Lake Norman, NC | Subject: RE: My election eve thoughts... crusevegas - 2012-11-05 3:24 PM What percent of GM does the Federal Govt. own? 26%, DOWN from 61%. And the sale of 35% of preferred stock netted the government $13.6 billion in returns. No private institutions were going to loan to GM to save them in bankruptcy. There could never been any "guarantee". It was either step in with a temporary government purchase or watch tens of millions of Americans get laid off. The Second Depression would've been crushing. Socialist act? Maybe. Many other countires do the same with their auto manufacturers? Yes. Temporary as we sell it back off to the free market? Most definitely! Bad example. How how much was taken from bond holders in the auto bailout and favored treatment to Union Workers given? You're trying to say favored treatment has been given to the UAW? In 1979, the UAW had 1.5 million members. Today, less than 350,000. The GM and Chrysler bankruptcies crushed the UAW and they gave in to massive concessions. Can't really use them as an excuse anymore. The past? Sure! Today, hardly. How much money was given to Business that were too big to fail in the last 10 years? Too much! Are you arguing that the government should never have let businesses grow over the past 40 years to get "too big to fail"? Isn't that sort of "socialist". Or just that we should've let those business fail on their own and watch the world come crumbling down as well? Google "commercial paper", "break the buck" and September 16, 2008. Do we have more or fewer Federal Govt. programs giving more or fewer $$ today than we did 10 years ago? Homeland Security, the biggest growth in government was a Bush baby. Could you give me some examples that show we are a more free or capitalist society today than 10 years ago? You're free to carry firearms in US National Parks now. How much money have we lost "investing" in campaign donors Green Energy? 5 out of 63 have filed for bankruptcy. Just five. We're talking about $500 million in total. About 8% loss to 92% gain and a mere 5% of the Dept. of Energy budget. EVERY ADMINISTRATION AND GOVERNMENT INVESTS IN PRIVATE COMPANIES. It's not "socilist", it's "national security" and "national self-sustaining". The government builds railroads and funds bridges. The government buys power from private producers. Nope, not socialist. |
| 2012-11-05 7:04 PM in reply to: #4484770 |
Pro 4838 | Subject: RE: My election eve thoughts... Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-11-05 3:11 PM crusevegas - 2012-11-05 3:24 PM What percent of GM does the Federal Govt. own? 26%, DOWN from 61%. And the sale of 35% of preferred stock netted the government $13.6 billion in returns. No private institutions were going to loan to GM to save them in bankruptcy. There could never been any "guarantee". It was either step in with a temporary government purchase or watch tens of millions of Americans get laid off. The Second Depression would've been crushing. Socialist act? Maybe. Many other countires do the same with their auto manufacturers? Yes. Temporary as we sell it back off to the free market? Most definitely! Bad example. How how much was taken from bond holders in the auto bailout and favored treatment to Union Workers given? You're trying to say favored treatment has been given to the UAW? In 1979, the UAW had 1.5 million members. Today, less than 350,000. The GM and Chrysler bankruptcies crushed the UAW and they gave in to massive concessions. Can't really use them as an excuse anymore. The past? Sure! Today, hardly. How much money was given to Business that were too big to fail in the last 10 years? Too much! Are you arguing that the government should never have let businesses grow over the past 40 years to get "too big to fail"? Isn't that sort of "socialist". Or just that we should've let those business fail on their own and watch the world come crumbling down as well? Google "commercial paper", "break the buck" and September 16, 2008. Do we have more or fewer Federal Govt. programs giving more or fewer $$ today than we did 10 years ago? Homeland Security, the biggest growth in government was a Bush baby. Could you give me some examples that show we are a more free or capitalist society today than 10 years ago? You're free to carry firearms in US National Parks now. How much money have we lost "investing" in campaign donors Green Energy? 5 out of 63 have filed for bankruptcy. Just five. We're talking about $500 million in total. About 8% loss to 92% gain and a mere 5% of the Dept. of Energy budget. EVERY ADMINISTRATION AND GOVERNMENT INVESTS IN PRIVATE COMPANIES. It's not "socilist", it's "national security" and "national self-sustaining". The government builds railroads and funds bridges. The government buys power from private producers. Nope, not socialist. So you're voting for Romney. |
| 2012-11-05 8:37 PM in reply to: #4483844 |
Expert 1690 | Subject: RE: My election eve thoughts... Before this completely deteriorates into a D v R debate, Id like to add to the original discussion. Think about how uneducated the majority of voters are? Would you like to present these uneducated masses with more options? It's hard enough to find the truth in what just two candidates say, I dont think anyone has enough time to research 4-5 candidates. It would become even harder to hit the magic 270 mark and the congress would then end up decided nearly every election. Either that or the incumbent would have such an advantage that he/she would always be guaranteed a second term. |
| 2012-11-05 9:08 PM in reply to: #4483844 |
Master 2447 White Oak, Texas | Subject: RE: My election eve thoughts... Well aside from all that dpes anyone have a prediction |
| 2012-11-05 10:12 PM in reply to: #4485294 |
| Subject: RE: My election eve thoughts... CBarnes - 2012-11-05 7:08 PM Well aside from all that dpes anyone have a prediction Obama |
| 2012-11-05 10:44 PM in reply to: #4484770 |
| Subject: RE: My election eve thoughts... Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-11-05 1:11 PM crusevegas - 2012-11-05 3:24 PM What percent of GM does the Federal Govt. own? 26%, DOWN from 61%. And the sale of 35% of preferred stock netted the government $13.6 billion in returns. No private institutions were going to loan to GM to save them in bankruptcy. There could never been any "guarantee". It was either step in with a temporary government purchase or watch tens of millions of Americans get laid off. The Second Depression would've been crushing. Socialist act? Maybe. Many other countires do the same with their auto manufacturers? Yes. Temporary as we sell it back off to the free market? Most definitely! Bad example. Bad example, for your case maybe, it's NOT the governments job to support failing business models. How how much was taken from bond holders in the auto bailout and favored treatment to Union Workers given? You're trying to say favored treatment has been given to the UAW? In 1979, the UAW had 1.5 million members. Today, less than 350,000. The GM and Chrysler bankruptcies crushed the UAW and they gave in to massive concessions. Can't really use them as an excuse anymore. The past? Sure! Today, hardly. You can huff and puff about the declining union membership, just an example of another failed business model. And YES they were given special treatment and the Bond holders got screwed by Obama. How much money was given to Business that were too big to fail in the last 10 years? Too much! Are you arguing that the government should never have let businesses grow over the past 40 years to get "too big to fail"? Isn't that sort of "socialist". Or just that we should've let those business fail on their own and watch the world come crumbling down as well? Google "commercial paper", "break the buck" and September 16, 2008. A big part of why they so big and it's so hard for smaller companies to start up and compete with them is due to favorable legislation and lobbyists looking out for the big banks and financial institutions. Do we have more or fewer Federal Govt. programs giving more or fewer $$ today than we did 10 years ago? Homeland Security, the biggest growth in government was a Bush baby. I've been pretty consistent in my criticism of the Federal Govt. in General, Bush yes he put in more than his share of socialist polices, the 2008 bailout and the prescription drug plan are two that come to mind. His overreach of the Patriot act and including the Illegal Gambling clause in it which lead to the USA being one of the only nations unable to play poker online go to my point of our overreaching Federal Govt. We use to be a model of Freedom around the world, I don't believe that can be said with the same degree of certainty today. Could you give me some examples that show we are a more free or capitalist society today than 10 years ago? You're free to carry firearms in US National Parks now. If I stole your car a few years ago and then returned it to you after having used it for that period of time would you feel you got a new benefit? If this isn't clear what I'm getting at you might want to take a look at the second amendment How much money have we lost "investing" in campaign donors Green Energy? 5 out of 63 have filed for bankruptcy. Just five. We're talking about $500 million in total. About 8% loss to 92% gain and a mere 5% of the Dept. of Energy budget. EVERY ADMINISTRATION AND GOVERNMENT INVESTS IN PRIVATE COMPANIES. It's not "socilist", it's "national security" and "national self-sustaining". The government builds railroads and funds bridges. The government buys power from private producers. Nope, not socialist. 8% so far. Our government propping up business is socialists in the strictest sense. Any government is going to be comprised of some type of social or socialist programs, our Federal Govt. has jumped the shark long ago and it's getting worse, you can deny it. But it sounds like you actually want more socialism in our country. I would still appreciate it if you would back up your claims about the Tea Party or feel free to retract them if you can't.
|
| 2012-11-05 11:21 PM in reply to: #4483844 |
Elite 3972 Reno | Subject: RE: My election eve thoughts... |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK