Republicans

[capsulecorpjx]

This is how Republicans think. Prove me wrong:

Only Republicans think that being educated and acting professionally is considered "elitist" and is a political liability.

Only a Republican can think it's ok to embezzle $150,000 to buy personal clothing as long as it is donated to charity later.

Only a Republican can think a TAX CUT for the Working Class is "Socialist", but a trillion dollar bail-out to bankers is not.

Only a Republican can think that a Christian candidate who has talked about the need to separate Church and State, and not to take scriptures too literally, be accused of being a secret orthodox Muslim.

Only a Republican can buy into the idea that an unlicensed divorced Plumber will be taxed more under a plan to cut-taxes for those making less than $250,000.

[Xanith]

Sure Ill take this on.

Only Republicans think that being educated and acting professionally is considered "elitist" and is a political liability.

Untrue. You label someone as an elitist because they talk one way to their constituents and then when you don’t think you are being reordered you state how people are simply clinging to their guns and their religion with antipathy to those who are not like them. That is a perfect definition of an elitist. One who purports support for the lower class to their faces yet secretly despises them.

Only a Republican can think it's ok to embezzle $150,000 to buy personal clothing as long as it is donated to charity later.

Clothing is part of a campaign expense and there is nothing illegal about spending money to outfit someone. No law broken means there is no embezzlement. I never heard anyone complain about Hillary’s 10k pants suits. All of a sudden clothing is a major issue?

Only a Republican can think a TAX CUT for the Working Class is "Socialist", but a trillion dollar bail-out to bankers is not.

No handing out money to people who don’t pay any taxes in the first place is no tax cut and purely a Socialistic idea. That is Obama’s plan, as he puts it “spreading the weath around”. I recently heard a tape of him giving a speech in 2001 describing his angst about the civil rights movement and how he wished it had included income redistribution (spreading the weath around). Leave no mistake about it, in his life he has surrounded himself with communists (in college Saul Alinsky) and radicals (Bill Ares and Rev Wright) he is a pure Socialist (if not a Marxist, from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs).

Only a Republican can think that a Christian candidate who has talked about the need to separate Church and State, and not to take scriptures too literally, be accused of being a secret orthodox Muslim.

If you read Obama’s own book he clearly states that he was drawn to the Muslim faith (and even dabbled in it early in his life), and how some of his friends at his church that he was going too was a clear supporter of Luis Farakan. Other than that the only people that think he is a secret orthodox Muslim are those kook bloggers who like to spread conspiracy theories. The Republican Party has never said or asserted such things, just as you can’t hold Democrats responsible for every left wing kook out there, so you can’t hold Republicans for the same.

Only a Republican can buy into the idea that an unlicensed divorced Plumber will be taxed more under a plan to cut-taxes for those making less than $250,000.

I don’t know if you are too young to remember but Bill Clinton also promised a middle class tax cut before he got elected. For some strange reason he never got around to it, even when the economy was doing good. Democrats have a long long history of saying one thing about taxes and doing another, especially when it comes to taxes on businesses. Increasing the minimum wage (as Obama wants to do), and raising taxes on those evil rich businesses will all have adverse effects on the economy and on jobs. All you have to do is take a look at history and Obama’s record to find out what he is actually going to do with taxes. I can’t believe people are actually falling for his 250,000 line, you would think after countless broken promises and a long history of raising taxes people would actually learn.

X

[Kasracer]

This is how Republicans think. Prove me wrong:

Well that was just a load of flame and FUD. By posting this I assume that you are:

• Someone who recites everything you hear about the Republican party if it's bad (regardless if it's true)
• Someone who ignores the issues of the Democratic party (regardless if they're true)
• Someone who likes to stereotype
• Someone who is an angry liberal

In all seriousness the only reason to post what you posted was to spread FUD. Anyone could see that the items you posted are not true (regardless of party affiliation).

There are major problems in both parties. To pretend otherwise is a fallacy.

[System_Error]

I was going to type a nice long message, but I don't see a reason to when your post is consumed by such ignorance and blind bias that everyone can see. As long as someone has that liberal/democrat label, they have your vote.

If I was like that, then I would honestly vote for the other party, not my own. Whichever moron gets to be president next will be faced with decisions and situations that will make them very unpopular by the end of their presidential term.

In my opinion, both candidates suck. That's all there is too it. I don't see that you could (largely) argue in favor of McCain unless you just don't want Obama elected. I also don't think you can (largely) argue in favor of Obama unless you are retarded enough to believe his message of change and hope. Both are terrible candidates. Both are going to screw up.

Whoever is elected next will have the majority of their supporters either criticizing them greatly or not supporting them a year or two down the road. So you people that carry around signs, bumper sticks and act like it's a football team you are following to the super bowl really baffle me.

[Shaggy Hiker]

If I was like that, then I would honestly vote for the other party, not my own. Whichever moron gets to be president next will be faced with decisions and situations that will make them very unpopular by the end of their presidential term.

Amen. It doesn't have to turn out that way (Roosevelt was popular enough to get re-elected repeatedly), but if I had to bet on it, that's certainly the way I'd bet.

In my opinion, both candidates suck. That's all there is too it. I don't see that you could (largely) argue in favor of McCain unless you just don't want Obama elected. I also don't think you can (largely) argue in favor of Obama unless you are retarded enough to believe his message of change and hope. Both are terrible candidates. Both are going to screw up.

I don't really agree with this. I think both candidates have some excellent qualities, and are probably the best we can do under our system of voting. Oddly, they may be the best we can do anyways. How many people would really support anybody who I fully agreed with? How about somebody that Xanith fully agreed with? Every member of this forum is also a member of at least one fringe group, and our views are unlikely to be reflected in the majority.

However, I actually like these two candidates. There has been a period of coasting and/or reactionary politics since the mid 70's. Maybe it has always been that way, but you don't really need visionary leadership when things are going pretty well. The rampant fiscal mismanagement that we have gotten away with since the 80s has really had little or no impact on us because the period has been one of mild downturns interspersed into some great financial upswings. Being president during that time was sort of like picking good stocks in the late 90's: While some people might have done better, pretty nearly anybody could do an adequate job.

Now we may be facing a need for real leadership. Are these two candidates ideal for real leadership? Not a chance, but then again, who is? Obama might very well lead. We've drawn some good leaders from inexperience. McCain is rash and prone to being hot headed, but rash has been a compliment applied to several of our past leaders. Who else is there? Name a visionary leader who has a prayer of getting elected? I can name several who could get elected, but who would be very unlikely to turn anything around. Now we have two who are likely to follow interesting courses. Will they be the right courses? We can't be sure, and we never have been before.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Untrue. You label someone as an elitist because they talk one way to their constituents and then when you don’t think you are being reordered you state how people are simply clinging to their guns and their religion with antipathy to those who are not like them. That is a perfect definition of an elitist. One who purports support for the lower class to their faces yet secretly despises them.

That statement requires that gun fanatics and religious folks are the lower class. I can think of a few who would disagree with that. Are those types typically lower class? My perception is that those who are very vocal on either issue are not lower class by any definition. Of course, the quote is from Obama, and the groups you mention are not likely to support him.

Clothing is part of a campaign expense and there is nothing illegal about spending money to outfit someone.

A couple points. One, John Edwards was flayed for a pair of $400 haircuts, and this has blown those haircuts out of the water. If the cost is ten times as high (one report had 4k for hair styling in that total bill). The other point is that some of the stores are saying that they certainly haven't sold that much to any campaign, as it would be extraordinary even for them. Which introduces the bizarre suggestion that reporting that the money was spent on clothes was covering up for something even more outrageous.

No law broken means there is no embezzlement.

True, not embezzlement. There is some question about violating finance laws, but it is irrelevant, since nobody cares.

I never heard anyone complain about Hillary’s 10k pants suits. All of a sudden clothing is a major issue?

Hillary is a multi-millionaire who can buy whatever she wants. However, clothing has ALWAYS been a major issue for female politicians. There were people on this very forum attacking Hillary for her looks and clothes, and this place is a bit more intellectual than most. It's a sad commentary on our society, but this is not "all of a sudden".

I don’t know if you are too young to remember but Bill Clinton also promised a middle class tax cut before he got elected. For some strange reason he never got around to it, even when the economy was doing good. Democrats have a long long history of saying one thing about taxes and doing another, especially when it comes to taxes on businesses.

So does everybody else. People expect the candidates to state what they will do. Presidents don't introduce legislation. They can certainly twist arms to get certain legislation introduced, but that's a tricky game, especially when the house is held by the opposition party, as was the case for Clinton from 94 on.

Nobody should take campaign promises seriously in the specifics. Those statements are only promises for the ignorant. For the rest of people, campaign promises should be suggestions as to the general philosophy that will be pursued. On this issue, I would say that it comes down to whether or not you buy into Trickle-Down economics or not. Obama doesn't appear to, while McCain does, but not strongly. I've already stated that I think the concept is an ignorant conept foisted on an ignorant public by ignorant or greedy people.

[System_Error]

I don't really agree with this. I think both candidates have some excellent qualities, and are probably the best we can do under our system of voting. Oddly, they may be the best we can do anyways. How many people would really support anybody who I fully agreed with? How about somebody that Xanith fully agreed with? Every member of this forum is also a member of at least one fringe group, and our views are unlikely to be reflected in the majority.

OK ok ok... So my statement was a little stretched. I am just not very optimistic about this next term and don't see that either candidate will do the glorious works we all want to see. Then again, that's me making a broad statement based on my judgment again. I'm sure there's at least one person in this nation that will be satisfied at the end of this next term.

[dbasnett]

i find humor in the "Experience" discussion. where do you get experience for having responsibility for the "BUTTON"? my issue with McCain is his age / health and his pick for vp.

i remember the uproar over JFK and he did OK. he even managed not to start WWIII, and it was a lot more dicey than what is going on today.

[Shaggy Hiker]

OK ok ok... So my statement was a little stretched. I am just not very optimistic about this next term and don't see that either candidate will do the glorious works we all want to see. Then again, that's me making a broad statement based on my judgment again. I'm sure there's at least one person in this nation that will be satisfied at the end of this next term.

I'm sufficiently pessimistic about our economic situation that I would be willing to say that if our heads are above water after four years then the incumbent will have done well. I just don't like the convergence of a few trend lines.

[capsulecorpjx]

Sure Ill take this on.



Untrue. You label someone as an elitist because they talk one way to their constituents and then when you don’t think you are being reordered you state how people are simply clinging to their guns and their religion with antipathy to those who are not like them. That is a perfect definition of an elitist. One who purports support for the lower class to their faces yet secretly despises them.




Clothing is part of a campaign expense and there is nothing illegal about spending money to outfit someone. No law broken means there is no embezzlement. I never heard anyone complain about Hillary’s 10k pants suits. All of a sudden clothing is a major issue?




No handing out money to people who don’t pay any taxes in the first place is no tax cut and purely a Socialistic idea. That is Obama’s plan, as he puts it “spreading the weath around”. I recently heard a tape of him giving a speech in 2001 describing his angst about the civil rights movement and how he wished it had included income redistribution (spreading the weath around). Leave no mistake about it, in his life he has surrounded himself with communists (in college Saul Alinsky) and radicals (Bill Ares and Rev Wright) he is a pure Socialist (if not a Marxist, from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs).



If you read Obama’s own book he clearly states that he was drawn to the Muslim faith (and even dabbled in it early in his life), and how some of his friends at his church that he was going too was a clear supporter of Luis Farakan. Other than that the only people that think he is a secret orthodox Muslim are those kook bloggers who like to spread conspiracy theories. The Republican Party has never said or asserted such things, just as you can’t hold Democrats responsible for every left wing kook out there, so you can’t hold Republicans for the same.



I don’t know if you are too young to remember but Bill Clinton also promised a middle class tax cut before he got elected. For some strange reason he never got around to it, even when the economy was doing good. Democrats have a long long history of saying one thing about taxes and doing another, especially when it comes to taxes on businesses. Increasing the minimum wage (as Obama wants to do), and raising taxes on those evil rich businesses will all have adverse effects on the economy and on jobs. All you have to do is take a look at history and Obama’s record to find out what he is actually going to do with taxes. I can’t believe people are actually falling for his 250,000 line, you would think after countless broken promises and a long history of raising taxes people would actually learn.

X

touché

[Xanith]

touché

Thats more of a response than I expected, thanks

X

[dbasnett]

From the AP "...The IRS has estimated that the tax gap — the difference between taxes owed and taxes actually paid — at about $290 billion a year. Of that, about 57 percent comes from individuals understating incomes or overstating deductions and exemptions...."

I wonder if most of that is from people making more or less than $100,000 per year?

[Xanith]

That statement requires that gun fanatics and religious folks are the lower class. I can think of a few who would disagree with that. Are those types typically lower class? My perception is that those who are very vocal on either issue are not lower class by any definition. Of course, the quote is from Obama, and the groups you mention are not likely to support him.

Obama is an elitist. Everyone making less than he or does not have the education he thinks he has is what I meant as “lower class” (as Obama would see it). Also I would hope the president of the US supports all the people he represents, not just the people that vote for him, that is what I meant by constituency, the American people he is running for president to represent (which includes people with guns and religious people).

A couple points. One, John Edwards was flayed for a pair of $400 haircuts, and this has blown those haircuts out of the water. If the cost is ten times as high (one report had 4k for hair styling in that total bill). The other point is that some of the stores are saying that they certainly haven't sold that much to any campaign, as it would be extraordinary even for them. Which introduces the bizarre suggestion that reporting that the money was spent on clothes was covering up for something even more outrageous.

Maybe it was spent on makeup? How outrageous! I’m sorry if I just can’t get bent out of shape by spending some money on making Palin look good. I highly doubt she had the wardrobe to hit the campaign trail for a presidential campaign, so they got some clothes to make her look good. The only people who seem to care never gave money to the RNC or any Republican anyway. Talk about a nothing issue. Yet on the other hand no one seems upset that the Obama campaign gave 800k to Acorn (a real issue), or how Obama won’t release the names of all his donors for some reason…

Hillary is a multi-millionaire who can buy whatever she wants. However, clothing has ALWAYS been a major issue for female politicians. There were people on this very forum attacking Hillary for her looks and clothes, and this place is a bit more intellectual than most. It's a sad commentary on our society, but this is not "all of a sudden".

I have never heard anyone ever make a big deal out of wardrobe before or the costs associated with it, for male or female candidates. So it is all of a sudden an issue. We are not talking about people on message boards or blogs but the media, as I have seen a lot of idiotic things covered on blogs before that the media doesn’t go near.

So does everybody else. People expect the candidates to state what they will do. Presidents don't introduce legislation. They can certainly twist arms to get certain legislation introduced, but that's a tricky game, especially when the house is held by the opposition party, as was the case for Clinton from 94 on.

Clinton failed to keep his promise. So will Obama. I can guarantee simply based on history that I will be paying more taxes after Obama leaves office (if he ever gets in), than I am paying right now. If Obama gets elected the Democrats will control both houses and the presidency. It is likely they will have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate which will lead to another round of Socialism like we got with the New Deal and the Great Society programs. That giant flushing sound you hear isn’t jobs going overseas it’s the American way of life going down the tubes.

Nobody should take campaign promises seriously in the specifics. Those statements are only promises for the ignorant. For the rest of people, campaign promises should be suggestions as to the general philosophy that will be pursued. On this issue, I would say that it comes down to whether or not you buy into Trickle-Down economics or not. Obama doesn't appear to, while McCain does, but not strongly. I've already stated that I think the concept is an ignorant conept foisted on an ignorant public by ignorant or greedy people.

Obama believes is Trickle-Up economics. Now I understand how trickle down economics works and its principals but I need someone to explain to me how giving money to people creates jobs or economic prosperity, when every other country that it has been tried leads to the exact opposite?

Capital markets are what made the US a super-power. Investment spurred growth and technological advance and created a standard of living that is the envy of the rest of the world. Now for some reason we need “change”? While you might distain economic policies that favor investment and capital generation it is far superior to a system based on socialism(Obama’s economic plan).

X

[dbasnett]

"Obama believes is Trickle-Up economics. Now I understand how trickle down economics works and its principals but I need someone to explain to me how giving money to people creates jobs or economic prosperity, when every other country that it has been tried leads to the exact opposite?"

They don't have WalMart. There was a story here about how busy walmart was after the rebate checks started coming in. but for it to trickle up instead of trickle to china the products have to be made here.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Obama is an elitist. Everyone making less than he or does not have the education he thinks he has is what I meant as “lower class” (as Obama would see it). Also I would hope the president of the US supports all the people he represents, not just the people that vote for him, that is what I meant by constituency, the American people he is running for president to represent (which includes people with guns and religious people).

Technically, he's right. He's never been shy about admitting that he's rich. He's not as rich as the Clintons, Bushes, or McCains, but he's rich and he acknowledges it. When was the last time we didn't elect a rich guy?

As for class, it's a loaded word that communicates the wrong thing to different people, and shouldn't be used. If you like to communicate well, then don't use this word. If you don't care how you communicate...then you are in the vast majority of this country. We are always using words that are wildly subjective, and assuming that our listner understands them in the same way that we are using them. I'm currently fighting that battle at work, as it turns out that if you use the word Mandatory in a program, people have different understandings as to what it means, yet I have not found a viable alternative...but that's a whole different issue. In general, I have spent a fair amount of time looking at how differential meanings to words cause differential understandings of situations.

Maybe it was spent on makeup? How outrageous! I’m sorry if I just can’t get bent out of shape by spending some money on making Palin look good. I highly doubt she had the wardrobe to hit the campaign trail for a presidential campaign, so they got some clothes to make her look good. The only people who seem to care never gave money to the RNC or any Republican anyway. Talk about a nothing issue. Yet on the other hand no one seems upset that the Obama campaign gave 800k to Acorn (a real issue), or how Obama won’t release the names of all his donors for some reason…

The R's went after Edwards for $800 worth of hair cuts. The Ds went after Palin for many times as much. I don't like either. It would be hypocritical to complain about one and not about the other. If you objected to the attacks on Edwards, then your position here is quite proper.

I have never heard anyone ever make a big deal out of wardrobe before or the costs associated with it, for male or female candidates. So it is all of a sudden an issue. We are not talking about people on message boards or blogs but the media, as I have seen a lot of idiotic things covered on blogs before that the media doesn’t go near.

Really? Do you remember about a year back when the headlines were ranting about Hillary wearing a slightly low-cut blouse to the Senate? Have you not noticed that when discussing an appearance by any female candidate there are notes on how she is dressed? Do you remember the flap (and later auction) of Nancy Reagan's dresses, or Laura Bush's attire for a trip to Russia? There's nothing new here.

Clinton failed to keep his promise. So will Obama.

Well, DUH!! So did W, so did his father, so did Reagan. If you want a president who scrupulously adhered to his campaign rhetoric, you have to go back to Carter.

Obama believes is Trickle-Up economics. Now I understand how trickle down economics works and its principals but I need someone to explain to me how giving money to people creates jobs or economic prosperity, when every other country that it has been tried leads to the exact opposite?

X

I was thinking about that today. As you may have seen in a different thread, I'm disgusted by both Trickle Down and Trickle Up, but here's the assumption to both:

Trickle Down: Target tax breaks to wealthy investors and businesses and you will get more economic investment and more jobs. You may. Of course, some of those rich folks will take that money and invest in Italian sports cars or vacations on the Riviera. Others will take that money and give it to charities for Africa. Others will take that money and invest it in American companies. Others will take that money and use it to move businesses offshore.

The one thing you can be certain of when you give money to the wealthy is that they don't NEED it, so they will invest it in something. Since they tend to be more cosmopolitan and philanthropically oriented, those investments may help America, or they may help some other country.

Trickle Up: Target tax breaks to the most needy or the middle class (either tend to be included, but exactly what constitutes the 'middle class' is hard to say). Since the poor NEED the money, targeting tax cuts to them means that they will spend more. The reason for this is very simple: They spend every penny they get. For the middle class, the situation is more complicated, since they may not NEED money, so they will either spend all of it, or invest some of it.

What does this do to the economy? Let's see...this is capitalism, so more people buying more crap is going to boost the economy. That's the principle behind those stimulus checks. Give the money to the poor or the lower middle class, and they won't be spending it on Italian sports cars, nor will they be investing in the offshoring of business, nor will they be giving the money to overseas charities (at least not very much).


So in both cases, you give the money to one group and it goes back into the economy. In the case of the rich, the hope is that they will use it to get richer and cause more jobs to be created, which may happen, or it may not. In the case of the poor, the money will go to buying more stuff. Period! The poor don't have fancy investments, they don't do lots of overseas travel, and they aren't going to take that extra money and burn it for heat. They spend, and that's what the economy is built on.

Trickle Down economics is largely based on the idea that this is the ONLY way that extra cash can enter the economy. That's patently absurd, but it's based on the assumption that people don't think about it. The only economic theory that DOESN'T boost the economy is the one where you take a whole pile of cash and bury it in a landfill. If you provide X as Trickle Down versus X as Trickle Up, then in both cases you are providing X into the economy. The only difference I see is that in Trickle Down, you are hoping (or at least pretending to, since it is rich people who are voting themselves a tax break) that the benefit trickles down. Some of it will, some of it will trickle down to Europe, Africa, or Asia. In Trickle Up, you are boosting the consumer base, and that can be targeted largely to the US.

[GaryMazzone]

Ah but if you are buying stuff made overseas to start with doesn't a good bit of that money still trickle overseas?

[capsulecorpjx]

Ah but if you are buying stuff made overseas to start with doesn't a good bit of that money still trickle overseas?

Trickle-Down is completely worthless. Only an idiot would invest their extra money into a weak economy that has no demand for products.

The wealthy who gets the money in the Trickle-Down theory would invest their cash over-seas or speculate in commodities.

Trickle-Up in the form of a "rebate check" is worthless too. It's like giving a million people a grain of rice. Everyone will still be hungry.
Plus, much of the money will be respent on Foreign goods.

The only solution is creating government jobs, public works projects (repair roads, bridges). Now you're giving a thousand grains of rice to a thousand people. Those people won't be hungry, and once the economy is started back up, other people will eat too.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Ah but if you are buying stuff made overseas to start with doesn't a good bit of that money still trickle overseas?

In a global economy: Yes, but that's irrelevant to a discussion about Trickle Up vs Trickle Down.

Everything is the economy. There is a set of dollars, and everybody spends them on something. If you invest, then the dollars are going to something (buying debt, in one form or another), whereas if you buy stuff the dollars are going to something. If you pay your taxes your dollars are going to something, too.

Give tax breaks to one group and that group will get a direct benefit, while many other groups will get indirect benefits and penalties. The indirect benefits and the penalties will often be hard to quantify, especially if they are more than one step removed from the direct benefit. This is the principle of chaos.

The theory behind Trickle Down is that giving the direct benefit to a bunch of rich folks will create incidental benefits for all others. The subtext is that it was really the 'others' that you were trying to benefit, or else the theory would be called 'Give Money to the Rich Theory'. It really doesn't matter what you call it, you are trying to increase the economy by reducing taxes, and that will shift the shells around just as well as any other theory would.

For all theories there will be direct beneficiaries and indirect results that can't be quantified. Trickle Down Theory sets the rich as being the direct recipients, and everybody else as indirect. Only the direct recipients receive a quantifiable benefit, everybody else receives a benefit so murky that proponents of the move can claim whatever they want. Little wonder that the party of rich business interests has chosen that they be the direct recipients, but I have no idea whether this was actually done as a cynical cash grab, or if they really were dumb as posts.

The take home message is that EVERY tax break will have a direct recipient and a bunch of indirect beneficiaries who can neither be enumerated nor evaluated. If you want to benefit one particular group, then make them the direct recipients and let the indirect fend. This is how it works in every chaotic system, whether food webs, economics, or other.

[FunkyDexter]

The only solution is creating government jobs, public works projects (repair roads, bridges). Now you're giving a thousand grains of rice to a thousand people. Those people won't be hungry, and once the economy is started back up, other people will eat too.

Broadly I agree with you. The only thing that worries me about this aproach is it can actually interfere with the individual ability to find a job in the private sector. Years ago a freind of mine had his benefit stopped when he missed job club because he was attending an interview. Needless to say the decision got overturned but it does demonstrate what can happen if the principle of keeping the unemployed busy gets applied too zealously.

I can't really comment on the welfare system in the US but I don't object much to the UK model. The benefits an indivdual receives are actually pretty low (unless they're willing to commit major fraud which is another matter entirely) and I don't believe they act as an incentive to remaining unemployed. What I do think keeps people in unemployment is the general malaise and lack of a sense of self worth that the state engenders. I know quite a lot of people who were unemplyed in their early twenties (I must admt to having signed on myslef for about a year when I probably could have found work if I'd really tried). A few of those people are still unemployed and lead pretty miserable lives. The rest of us got jobs, found ourselves much more fulfilled and never looked back. It wasn't the money that kept us working (well, it might have helped a bit), it was the validation we received from our colleagues and the sense of being part of something. I found myself unemployed again for about a month 5 or 6 years ago - it was an unbelievably depressing experience and completely shattered my self image.

On that basis, if I was to change something in the British system it would be to somehow get the unemployed involved in something. Public works seem like a good idea, though given my experience of such things they're usually just as dull and stigmatised as unemployment itself. If they could be made into a positive experience, though, I think they could do a lot of good.

[SurfDemon]

Investment spurred growth and technological advance and created a standard of living that is the envy of the rest of the world.

This struck me as interesting. I've been down to the states alot in the last few months, and although every American I met (almost) was super nice, I did notice that the Republican leaning ones did tend to be quite substantially ill-informed on the rest of the world, which makes me wonder are they concentrating all of their effort on internal events (and therefore super informed on US stuff) or are they just poorly informed on all aspects of the world including the US.

The reason I say this is that I heard a very similar comment to the one above from a chap who also proclaimed that it was illegal for me to have two passports (I have British and Canadian passports - quite legally I might addd), that the Arabs in Iran where spoiling for world war III (quite apart from the fact that they are mainly Persian), that the French were all cowards and as stated above, that the rest of the world was envious of the US standard of living and it's freedom..... this last bit almost made me gag. Violent crime, lack of public health care, sports based education schemes , rampant religon, warmongering leaders and an utter lack of respect from the world community..... yeah, the rest of the world is soooo envious. This chap asked why I didn't immigrate to the US (I'm the right colour apparently to be allowed into the country), I was polite enough to just say "gun control", that got me labelled as one of those crazy liberals from Canada.....

[homer13j]

I did notice that the Republican leaning ones did tend to be quite substantially ill-informed on the rest of the world

Most Americans are "substantially ill-informed on the rest of the world." I would argue that the most ill-informed among us tend to be products of our public school system which happens to have virtually no "Republican leaning" faculty at all. I wouldn't make broad generalizations based on the ill-informed opinions of one redneck Republican.

Violent crime

You will notice that pretty much all of our violent crime occurs in decaying cities where Republicans hold very little political power, if any, and have not for many decades now. I lived for several years in rural Pennsylvania where almost everyone is well-armed, "gun control" means using both hands to aim and there is no violent crime at all outside of the occasional bar fight. Blame legal gun owners all you like, but keep in mind they're not the ones shooting up inner-city street corners.

lack of public health care

Looking at the Canadian and British models I say this is a very good thing.

yeah, the rest of the world is soooo envious

Lighten up, Francis. Your liberal "tolerance" is showing.

[SurfDemon]

Most Americans are "substantially ill-informed on the rest of the world." I would argue that the most ill-informed among us tend to be products of our public school system which happens to have virtually no "Republican leaning" faculty at all. I wouldn't make broad generalizations based on the ill-informed opinions of one redneck Republican.

I met a couple of different people who knew what was going on. One was even aware that Canada had an election that day (Maddona's divorce made headline news though ). Both where pro-Obama (although, the devils advocate in me made me argue for McCain when I was talking to them.... I'm quite contrary really).

You will notice that pretty much all of our violent crime occurs in decaying cities where Republicans hold very little political power, if any, and have not for many decades now. I lived for several years in rural Pennsylvania where almost everyone is well-armed, "gun control" means using both hands to aim and there is no violent crime at all outside of the occasional bar fight. Blame legal gun owners all you like, but keep in mind they're not the ones shooting up inner-city street corners.

Yes, like shooting trick or treating kids..... I would be genuinely interested to see some stats on this (honestly). Thanks.

Looking at the Canadian and British models I say this is a very good thing.

Then we will have to agree to disagree.

Lighten up, Francis. Your liberal "tolerance" is showing.

Strangely enough I refuse to be pigeon holed as a liberal or conservative. As mentioned before I don't think the complexities of the worlds political systems can be reduced down to two camps.

I was merely making the observation that in my recent extensive travels of the states, where conversation was dominated by the elections, it appeared to me that the republicans where quite poorly informed on a number of issues. And by poorly informed, I don't mean that they disagreed with me, but that they were wrong on a number of basic world facts. Which kinda undermines their whole point of view.

What it boils down to is that when I was talking to Obama supporters I was arguing for McCain, and when talking to McCain supporters I was arguing for Obama.... the Obama supporters where way better informed. Strangely enough almost no one seeemed to approve of the bank bail out (depending on whether they viewed it as a hand out for the rich bankers or a step towards socialism), yet that one of the few current policy decisions I agree with....

[homer13j]

I met a couple of different people who knew what was going on. One was even aware that Canada had an election that day (Maddona's divorce made headline news though ).

The mainstream media in America doesn't report much on other countries (yes, including Canada and her elections) except when U.S. troops get killed in unpopular conflicts.

Yes, like shooting trick or treating kids..... I would be genuinely interested to see some stats on this (honestly). Thanks.

Googling "U.S. violent crime statistics" should get you started...

During my college days I got a job working for a small newspaper in Mercer County, PA. I quickly found that pretty much all the crime in the county occurred in a public housing project in the city of Farrell. So that's where I started out getting my stories - it was quite easy. On my third night on the job I was called into the editor's office and told in no uncertain terms "stay the hell out of Farrell." None of my stories from the projects were ever printed. Every night the newsroom police scanner would crackle with the Farrell projects' violent crimes yet all were ignored. But any stories that didn't involve minorities were dutifully reported on every time.

Here's a challenge for you: Next Saturday night we are supposed to have pretty good weather here. Listen to Cleveland.com's police scanner between midnight and 3am EST and note all the robberies, gang violence, drug activity, etc. Then on Sunday go to Cleveland.com's metro news and see if you can find any of those crimes actually being reported. You should find the lack of reporting just as appalling and disgraceful as I do.

But the minute some random nutcase shoots a kid it automatically makes national headlines with reporters breathlessly editorializing about how Americans can't be trusted with guns.

2008 is being called "the year the media's integrity died." I say it's merely the year in which most people quit ignoring the maggots on it's rotting corpse.

Strangely enough I refuse to be pigeon holed as a liberal or conservative.

No need to "pigeon hole" you... Your political bias is quite clear. I find it highly amusing when liberal idealists bristle when referred to by the dreaded "L" word...

[SurfDemon]

2008 is being called "the year the media's integrity died." I say it's merely the year in which most people quit ignoring the maggots on it's rotting corpse.

I agree with that. It particularly riles me when I see major newspapers endorsing certain candidates.... what the heck? I would stop buying any such newspaper out of principle (regardless of which candidate they endorse).

No need to "pigeon hole" you... Your political bias is quite clear. I find it highly amusing when liberal idealists bristle when referred to by the dreaded "L" word...

Luckily we've been over this before. Thinking that Bush is a war-mongering idiot does not make me a liberal, it just makes me reasonably smart..... If I was voting in the US this year it would be a hard choice. I think that either way you are going to get an excellent president. I think the only thing that would swing it is that I would be worried McCain would kick the bucket and Palin would get in, and she is too much of a religous nut-job for my liking.

Link: Palin saying that the US attacking Iraq is God`s plan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aYnPG-JIUI

Unfortunately whichever one gets in is going to have to try and clear up Bush`s mess, and that is a nigh-impossible task, so they will probably be recorded in history as a poor president... which is a shame, because like I say they are both excellent choices (IMHO).

[System_Error]

Palin would get in, and she is too much of a religous nut-job for my liking.

Are you familiar with the church Obama used to attend?

Unfortunately whichever one gets in is going to have to try and clear up Bush`s mess, and that is a nigh-impossible task, so they will probably be recorded in history as a poor president... which is a shame, because like I say they are both excellent choices (IMHO).

I think Obama has a better chance of escaping the title of a poor president - not because he would do anything different, but because the anger and disapproval of Bush won't carry over to Obama (which I think would carry over to McCain). So as long as he doesn't make our situation any worse, he's got a good chance of coming out on a more positive note than McCain ever would.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I think Obama has a better chance of escaping the title of a poor president - not because he would do anything different, but because the anger and disapproval of Bush won't carry over to Obama (which I think would carry over to McCain). So as long as he doesn't make our situation any worse, he's got a good chance of coming out on a more positive note than McCain ever would.

That's a good point. McCain would get tarred with the McSame brush as long as the economy doesn't suddenly turn rosy.

[SurfDemon]

Are you familiar with the church Obama used to attend?

Very true.

I think Obama has a better chance of escaping the title of a poor president - not because he would do anything different, but because the anger and disapproval of Bush won't carry over to Obama (which I think would carry over to McCain). So as long as he doesn't make our situation any worse, he's got a good chance of coming out on a more positive note than McCain ever would.

I agree, which is very unfair for McCain.

On a lighter note, I see that someone was distributing leaflets saying that due to the large amount of voter turnout that people will now be able to vote over two days, with Republicans voting on the Tuesday and Democrats on the Wednesday. Well, you've got to hand it to them, it's quite clever .

[System_Error]

Very true.


I agree, which is very unfair for McCain.

On a lighter note, I see that someone was distributing leaflets saying that due to the large amount of voter turnout that people will now be able to vote over two days, with Republicans voting on the Tuesday and Democrats on the Wednesday. Well, you've got to hand it to them, it's quite clever .

Not to take away from anything you just said, but honestly I think the media is doing the same sort of tactic. I get the sense they are showing Obama's lead margin much larger than it really is to keep some of the opposing side from voting. - Could be wrong. We will find out soon enough.

Hopefully no one is foolish enough to believe the race is over before election day as even started.

[Shaggy Hiker]

As an increasing percentage of the population is moving to cell-only lifestyles, the phone surveys are becoming increasingly skewed. I heard a talk today from a pollster who was saying that they are getting a handle on it, but I fail to see how that is possible to do without bias, and I didn't hear a good answer.

On the other hand, I believe the cell-only category is highly biased young, which tends to be pro-Obama, and tends not to vote. Maybe the latter outweighs the former.

[SurfDemon]

...honestly I think the media is doing the same sort of tactic. I get the sense they are showing Obama's lead margin much larger than it really is to keep some of the opposing side from voting.

True, but it could also be construed the otherway, an assumption that Obama is going to win might induce apathy amongst his supporters and a lower turnout.

Eitherway, it's going to be an interesting race to watch. I suspect Obama will win, but I bet McCain gives him a good run for his money... I am certain of one thing though, voter turnout is going to be very high.... which can only be a good thing

[capsulecorpjx]

True, but it could also be construed the otherway, an assumption that Obama is going to win might induce apathy amongst his supporters and a lower turnout.

Eitherway, it's going to be an interesting race to watch. I suspect Obama will win, but I bet McCain gives him a good run for his money... I am certain of one thing though, voter turnout is going to be very high.... which can only be a good thing

I actually think McCain will win (bradley effect). He'll croak of old age on his first day of office, and we'll be stuck with an ignorant embezzeler who thinks the Earth is 5,000 years old.

[SurfDemon]

As an increasing percentage of the population is moving to cell-only lifestyles, the phone surveys are becoming increasingly skewed. I heard a talk today from a pollster who was saying that they are getting a handle on it, but I fail to see how that is possible to do without bias, and I didn't hear a good answer.

On the other hand, I believe the cell-only category is highly biased young, which tends to be pro-Obama, and tends not to vote. Maybe the latter outweighs the former.

Yes, that's the inherent danger in all polls, you only get the person who's got time to kill or political motivation to answer the poll.

It's also back to the old scientific experiment dilhemma. By measuring something (and publishing the outcome) you could easily change the thing you are measuring. So, a phone poll shows that Obama's in the lead in a particular state, well that poll result may well spur on McCains campaign to pour some more money into advertising in that state.

It's very complex, and it will be interesting see how (in)accurate the polls are this time around.

[capsulecorpjx]

Yes, that's the inherent danger in all polls, you only get the person who's got time to kill or political motivation to answer the poll.

It's also back to the old scientific experiment dilhemma. By measuring something (and publishing the outcome) you could easily change the thing you are measuring. So, a phone poll shows that Obama's in the lead in a particular state, well that poll result may well spur on McCains campaign to pour some more money into advertising in that state.

It's very complex, and it will be interesting see how (in)accurate the polls are this time around.

Quantum mechanics?

[SurfDemon]

Quantum plumbers more like.....

[Shaggy Hiker]

It's also back to the old scientific experiment dilhemma. By measuring something (and publishing the outcome) you could easily change the thing you are measuring.

That's mostly only in social and political science. My fish really don't give a rat's rear end what I figure out.

So, a phone poll shows that Obama's in the lead in a particular state, well that poll result may well spur on McCains campaign to pour some more money into advertising in that state.

If McCain had money to pour he'd be pouring it.


Back before the advent of polling, which wasn't really feasible before the phone became common (polling happened before phones were ubiquitous, which meant that polls were conducted on the subset that had phones: The rich, which had predictable results), people really had no idea how the country felt, and could only guage how things were going based on their circle of friends. Since people tend to hang with like minded people, this meant that people were generally clueless about how elections would really turn out. Therefore, people could, and did, bet on the outcomes. We could do that now, too, but the bets would have to be handicapped.

[Xanith]

This struck me as interesting. I've been down to the states alot in the last few months, and although every American I met (almost) was super nice, I did notice that the Republican leaning ones did tend to be quite substantially ill-informed on the rest of the world, which makes me wonder are they concentrating all of their effort on internal events (and therefore super informed on US stuff) or are they just poorly informed on all aspects of the world including the US.

The reason I say this is that I heard a very similar comment to the one above from a chap who also proclaimed that it was illegal for me to have two passports (I have British and Canadian passports - quite legally I might addd), that the Arabs in Iran where spoiling for world war III (quite apart from the fact that they are mainly Persian), that the French were all cowards and as stated above, that the rest of the world was envious of the US standard of living and it's freedom..... this last bit almost made me gag. Violent crime, lack of public health care, sports based education schemes , rampant religon, warmongering leaders and an utter lack of respect from the world community..... yeah, the rest of the world is soooo envious. This chap asked why I didn't immigrate to the US (I'm the right colour apparently to be allowed into the country), I was polite enough to just say "gun control", that got me labelled as one of those crazy liberals from Canada.....

Well I am glad you can form your opinion about a whole country from a handful of people you meet while visiting. I have visited every state in this country (aside from Hawaii) and I have to say that most people are different depending on what area of the country you are in. That is why I find it hard to believe and difficult that you can form an opinion about an entire country simply from meeting a handful of people from one area.

I think you have a lot of misconceptions about the United States as well as buying into some stereotypes that are generally put forth in the foreign media. One might say that it is almost comical if it wasn’t so sad. For someone who chides Americans on their lack of knowledge of other countries, yet puts forth stereotypes and generalizations formed by interactions with a handful of people, I find to be a tad hypocritical.


X

[SurfDemon]

Well I am glad you can form your opinion about a whole country from a handful of people you meet while visiting. I have visited every state in this country (aside from Hawaii) and I have to say that most people are different depending on what area of the country you are in. That is why I find it hard to believe and difficult that you can form an opinion about an entire country simply from meeting a handful of people from one area.

I think you have a lot of misconceptions about the United States as well as buying into some stereotypes that are generally put forth in the foreign media. One might say that it is almost comical if it wasn’t so sad. For someone who chides Americans on their lack of knowledge of other countries, yet puts forth stereotypes and generalizations formed by interactions with a handful of people, I find to be a tad hypocritical.


X

Actually I was in Denver, Chicago, New York, South Carolina and Texas.... I think I did mention that I've been down there a fair amount in the last two months....

[homer13j]

Thinking that Bush is a war-mongering idiot does not make me a liberal

Yes, of course.

It has nothing to do with the fact that you consistently take the left-wing position on EVERY issue posted on this board.

It has nothing to do with the fact that you like to stick your nose into America's business in order to lecture us on how we shouldn't stick our nose into other countries' business.

It has nothing to do with your elitist, "government-knows-best" attitude.

And it certainly has nothing to do with your distaste for America, Americans, and the opinions Republican Americans.

Yes, that's right, it's all about your opinion of a conflict that your country has absolutely nothing to do with.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc...

Call yourself a "moderate" all you want. It doesn't make it any more true than if I call myself a purple pterodactyl.

If you have one saving grace it's that your not yet as perpetually angry and bitter as capsulecorpjx.

[homer13j]

I actually think McCain will win (bradley effect). He'll croak of old age on his first day of office, and we'll be stuck with an ignorant embezzeler who thinks the Earth is 5,000 years old.

6,000.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I never noticed a distaste for America in his posts, just a critique of the faults we have. However, for everybodies enjoyment, here's a fairly good test that will place you in a four quadrant ranking. The left/right thing is wholly inadequate, as most of you would probably agree, and a 2D ranking isn't all that much better (twice as good?), but at least this test isn't based on five questions, as some of them are.

The shortcomings of this test is that every question is asked only once. I can see from my own reactions to some of the questions that I would have answered differently if the questions had been worded just slightly different. A better survey would ask the same question in slightly different ways to rule out biases based on misunderstanding or misinterpretation of one specific wording. Nonetheless, it's not bad for what it costs (which is nothing, in case you were wondering).

http://www.politicalcompass.org/


And in case anybody here doubted where my score fell, find the point for Ghandi, and my point would overlap his. I'm not too upset about that.