NationStates Jolt Archive

Consider this an "in before the dog-pile" post.

GnI has expressed his opinion discreetly and within the rules. If you don't feel you can do that, don't post.

Hachiyaku, the tone of your post is trolling. If you'd written neutrally, the content would have been legitimate discussion topics. Take this as a friendly(ish) warning.

And, to the usual suspects: if you reply to the points raised, deal with the post content, not the style and not the poster.

Trolling generally isn't worth replying to, but I'll go through a few of these that I can answer off the top of my head (since sourcing obviously isn't necessary here).


4.) My Family Has Strong Ties To African Freedom –
LIAR, your cousin Raila Odinga has created
mass violence in attempting to overturn a legitimate election in 2007, in Kenya. It is the first widespread violence in decades.

Odinga has claimed to be related to Obama. Obama has never confirmed that. And since Odinga waited until Obama was a contender for president to make that little announcement, I highly doubt that they are closely related.

5.) My Grandmother Has Always Been A Christian
LIAR, she does her daily Salat prayers at 5am according to her own interviews. According to the
New York Times: "I am a strong believer of the Islamic faith," Ms. Obama, 85, said in a recent interview in Kenya.' Not to mention, Christianity wouldn't allow her to have been one of 14 wives to 1 man.


Hmmm, could it be that he was talking about his other grandmother? The one that helped raise him?

People do have two grandmothers, you know.

6.) My Name is African Swahili –
LIAR, your name is Arabic and 'Baraka'
(from which Barack came) means 'blessed' in that language. Hussein is also Arabic and so is Obama.

babynames.com has Barack listed as being African. Of course, the two could be related - there has been back and forth movement between Africa and the Arabian Peninsula.

Obama is a name that came out of the Luo tribe in Kenya.

Possibly etymology here: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_meaning_of_the_name_Obama

7.) I Never Practiced Islam –
LIAR, you practiced it daily at school, where you were registered as a Muslim and kept that faith for 31 years, until your wife made you change, so you could run for
office.

31 years, eh? And he's been a member of a Christian church for 20. So he must be 51 or older, right?

8. ) My School In Indonesia Was Christian -
LIAR, you were registered as Muslim there and got in trouble in Koranic Studies for making faces (check
your own book).

He went to both a Catholic school and an Indonesian public school that was predominantly Muslim.

12.) I Blame My Early Drug Use On Ethnic Confusion -
LIAR, you were quite content in high school to be Barry Obama, no mention of Kenya and no mention of struggle to identify - your classmates said you were
just fine.

LOL. Yup. Obama can't possibly have gone through ethnic confusion. Random internet person who has never met him says so!

19.) I Was A Constitutional Lawyer –
LIAR , you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.

He did have other jobs, you know.

24.) I Took On The Asbestos Altgeld Gardens Mess –
LIAR , you were part of a large group of
people who remedied Altgeld Gardens. You failed to mention anyone else but yourself, in your books.

Wow, someone hasn't read the books.

Hint: Yes, other people are mentioned.

28.) No One Contacted Canada About NAFTA -
LIAR , the Candian Government issued the names and a memo of the conversation your campaign had with
them.

Actually, even the Canadian government admitted that it was not a conversation with the campaign.

30.) I Am Not Acting As President Yet –
LIAR ,after the NAFTA Memo, a dead terrorist in the FARC, in Colombia, was found with a letter stating how You and he were working together on getting FARC
recognized officially.

Yes, because we should believe anything and everything a member of a terrorist organization says.

Did you know that a member of FARC told me that Bush is his gay lover?

31.) I Didn't Run Ads In Florida –
LIAR , you allowed national ads to run 8-12 times per day for two weeks - and you still lost.

This has never been said. He did say that he didn't campaign in Florida. The campaign checked with the DNC to see if the national ads were allowable and were told yes.

32.) I Won Michian - ,
LIAR no you didn't.

Again, this claim has never been made.

33.) I won Nevada –
LIAR , no you did not.

By delegates, he did.

42.) My Campaign Never Took Over MySpace -
LIAR , Tom, who started MySpace issued a warning about this advertising to MySpace clients.

Wait...what? Obama took over MySpace?

45.) I Have Always Been Against Iraq –
LIAR , you weren't in office to vote against it AND you have voted to fund it every single time, unlike Kucinich, who seems to be out gutting you Obama. You also seem to be stepping back from your departure date - AGAIN.

Hmmm...you mean the speech he gave opposing war in Iraq before Congress voted to authorize Bush's power to go to war there doesn't count as being against it?

48.) I Am As Patriotic As Anyone –
YOU LIAR, you won't wear a flag pin and you don't even know how to put your hand
over your heart during the National Anthem.

You put your hand over your heart during the pledge, not the national anthem.

Are all of these people unpatriotic? http://youtube.com/watch?v=5_rbjY6egaI

10.) Because I Lived In Indonesia, I Have More Foreign Experience –
LIAR, you were there from the ages of 6 to 10, and couldn't even speak the language. What did you learn?

Common personal characteristics of TCKs (children who grow up in this world)

* Large world view
* Language acquisition
* Can be cultural bridges
* Rootlessness—“Home” is everywhere and nowhere
* Restlessness
* Sense of belonging is often in relationship to others of similar background rather than shared race or ethnicity alone
http://www.crossculturalkid.org/cck.htm

The rest is just http://www.fuckedgaijin.com/forums/images/smilies/icon_rolleyes2.gif

Snip.

If only you gave us 50 reasons why you continue to spout the same tripe, day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day... (And yes, 50 times. What? I can go Five-Oh too.)

Exactly.Prove it?
http://www.waynebesen.com/uploaded_images/john_mccain-745143.jpg

Didn't he say he was aware of it... but doesn't know how to use it, or something?

yeah, he's utterly computer illiterate.

but he knows that kids today use the newfangled contraptions all the time. also, that they won't stay off his many and various lawns.

yeah, he's utterly computer illiterate.

but he knows that kids today use the newfangled contraptions all the time. also, that they won't stay off his many and various lawns.

To me, being computer illiterate, in this day-and-age, is a much scarier prospect than just being old. But - from what I can gather, Mike Gravel is the only politician who has really shown any computer savvy of late, and it didn't do him much good. :D

McCain is perfectly healthy, and has the physicals to show it. His ninety-four year old mother is perfectly healthy, and has the physicals to show it. Health is genetic, and McCain lives a healthy lifestyle (the man still jogs for chrissakes!) so the danger of him being unfit for command is slim to none.

Physical health isn't the only issue. McCain has lost a step in the past decade. Watching the difference in the debates of 2008, and the debates of 2000, I'd say that the fact that he has a harder time understanding others is related to his age. He didn't get whiter, more male, more stupid, taller, shorter, or any non-relevant attribute. He did get older. And it's very common for people his age to begin losing some mental attributes even if they're healthy.

Why is that you're not allowed to be a doctor over 65, a lawyer, and any number of other jobs where you retire, but we can't mention that McCain would be forced to retire in ANY job that wasn't political.

If only you gave us 50 reasons why you continue to spout the same tripe, day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day... (And yes, 50 times. What? I can go Five-Oh too.)

Erm this is one of the few time i have ever posted soemthing about the US election? So I can't be repeating tripe if i never do it?

If you're going to spam us with stuff you found on some other site, you should really at least cite your source.

Of course, even that might not actually support any of the claims. In other words - this post isn't worth a real response.

If you want to re-write it in your own words, credit your sources.. or, at least, show some evidence, you might get a response. As it is - this is spam.

Meh I'd rather not.

Physical health isn't the only issue. McCain has lost a step in the past decade. Watching the difference in the debates of 2008, and the debates of 2000, I'd say that the fact that he has a harder time understanding others is related to his age. He didn't get whiter, more male, more stupid, taller, shorter, or any non-relevant attribute. He did get older. And it's very common for people his age to begin losing some mental attributes even if they're healthy.

Why is that you're not allowed to be a doctor over 65, a lawyer, and any number of other jobs where you retire, but we can't mention that McCain would be forced to retire in ANY job that wasn't political.

Speaking of old guys, the Senate has a long tradition of letting them die on the job in their 80s and 90s.

Ted Kennedy should be forced to retire immediately. I've seen what happens to glioma patients, and you can't tell me that after some radiation through his skull and some resection (that's REMOVAL) of brain tissue that he's going to be in complete possession of his mental faculties.

Erm this is one of the few time i have ever posted soemthing about the US election? So I can't be repeating tripe if i never do it?

This... is not as strong an argument as you may think.

http://www.jibjab.com/originals/time_for_some_campaignin

:whistles the tune over and over and over:

Anybody know what song their parodying?

Nope. I like the message though. :)

its bob dylans "the times they are a changin'"

if you dont know it. look it up, its worth listening to.

Bob Dylan, "The times they are a-changin" (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=9vou4qUu5YY)

EDIT: dammit, beat me to it.

Any of y'all listen to the Capitol Steps? They do some pretty funny parody, too.

Any of y'all listen to the Capitol Steps? They do some pretty funny parody, too.

Seen them live.

Speaking of old guys, the Senate has a long tradition of letting them die on the job in their 80s and 90s.

Ted Kennedy should be forced to retire immediately. I've seen what happens to glioma patients, and you can't tell me that after some radiation through his skull and some resection (that's REMOVAL) of brain tissue that he's going to be in complete possession of his mental faculties.

I agree. There are many senators that really aren't fit for office at the time they take their "leave".

Erm this is one of the few time i have ever posted soemthing about the US election? So I can't be repeating tripe if i never do it?

Actually, you are.

See, the list you posted was obviously taken from either a chain e-mail, a website, or some other source clearly not your own, and it is quite clearly tripe from the massive amount of misinformation, misinterpretation, and outright lies.

Therefore, you are, in fact, repeating tripe.

Actually, you are.

See, the list you posted was obviously taken from either a chain e-mail, a website, or some other source clearly not your own, and it is quite clearly tripe from the massive amount of misinformation, misinterpretation, and outright lies.

Therefore, you are, in fact, repeating tripe.

Wait, I thought that if someone posts something you disagree with, it's automatically "repeating tripe"...

Wait, I thought that if someone posts something you disagree with, it's automatically "repeating tripe"...

You also seem to think that outright lies are merely something "I disagree with".

Wait, I thought that if someone posts something you disagree with, it's automatically "repeating tripe"...

That may be how you look at it, but it's not how I look at it. It's only tripe when it's pretty obviously a bunch of crap, as that list was. (As you well know, no matter how much you'll try to lie your way out of it.)

Consider this an "in before the dog-pile" post.

GnI has expressed his opinion discreetly and within the rules. If you don't feel you can do that, don't post.<snip>

And, to the usual suspects: if you reply to the points raised, deal with the post content, not the style and not the poster.

Missed this, didja, guys?

Hotwife, Heikoku, Kyronea, it would be appreciated if, in the kindness of your hearts, you could find it within yourselves -- not that I want to inhibit your youthful fervour, of course, but ... you would make an old lady very happy if you'd just

SHADDUP!

about Hachihyaku's debating methods and get back on-topic.

I suppose the proper modly way of saying this is, "Play nice".

This mess with mortgage loans is getting to the point where I'd vote for the first candidate that promised to privatize Fannie and Freddie. The US government has no need to be in the loan underwriting business.

Conversely, I can't bring myself to vote for anyone that would continue to prop them up with an unlimited line of credit to my pocket.

Why is that you're not allowed to be a doctor over 65, a lawyer, and any number of other jobs where you retire, but we can't mention that McCain would be forced to retire in ANY job that wasn't political.

You mean all except for where none of this is true? There is no obligation to retire as a doctor or a lawyer at 65. In fact almost the entire US Supreme Court are in thier 70s and 80s. You may not always agree with thier decisions but noone would argue that the SC justices are too old and incapable of making critical and logical decisions.

Seen them live.
Well, you live out that way... I have to be content with holiday broadcasts and streaming audio.

Ever see "The Seldom Scene"?

Well, you live out that way... I have to be content with holiday broadcasts and streaming audio.

Ever see "The Seldom Scene"?

At the Birchmere, yes.

This mess with mortgage loans is getting to the point where I'd vote for the first candidate that promised to privatize Fannie and Freddie. The US government has no need to be in the loan underwriting business.


And the alternative would be to have the companies that hold half of the mortgages in the Country fail and then what? Whos going to give a home loan to Joe and Mary Smith who are now in thier early 20s and want to start a new life out in the big world?

And the alternative would be to have the companies that hold half of the mortgages in the Country fail and then what? Whos going to give a home loan to Joe and Mary Smith who are now in thier early 20s and want to start a new life out in the big world?

No one, unless Joe and Mary have 25% down payment in hand.

No one, unless Joe and Mary have 25% down payment in hand.

Exactly and how does someone who is 20 years old and wants to buy a modest house come up with 50k cash?

Exactly and how does someone who is 20 years old and wants to buy a modest house come up with 50k cash?

Join the Army at 18, serve 4 years, get the VA Loan.

You would be 22, not 20. But it works.

Join the Army at 18, serve 4 years, get the VA Loan.

You would be 22, not 20. But it works.

Great, then your out of the Army and have no way to make the payments with a High School education.

And maybe its just me, but there should be roads to home ownership that dont involve the chance of you being blown up or shot.

Great, then your out of the Army and have no way to make the payments with a High School education.

The Army pays for you to go to college as well. It's called the GI Bill.

The Army pays for you to go to college as well. It's called the GI Bill.
Mary's going to be pretty pissed off after 4 years of Joe being away in the army, followed by 3 years of being surrounded by college girls and not, say, her, no?

The Army pays for you to go to college as well. It's called the GI Bill.

Well unless the Army wants to invade Fannie Mae itself this is not a sustainable policy for broad home ownership.

Well unless the Army wants to invade Fannie Mae itself this is not a sustainable policy for broad home ownership.

Worked for me.

The Army pays for you to go to college as well. It's called the GI Bill.

They pay a portion of it, not all of it. They're trying to change that now, but McCain is against it.

They pay a portion of it, not all of it. They're trying to change that now, but McCain is against it.

It's a capped sum. If you go to certain colleges or universities, it's a portion. In other places, it's more than enough.

You can also get money added at the time of enlistment (educational bonuses).

Additionally, if you qualify, you can get a full ride scholarship by pursuing ROTC in college (and serving 4 to 6 years when you get out).

The military also sends some enlisted (Air Force) and officers to college, graduate programs, and post-graduate programs, on the stipluation of owing some years of service. A lot of engineering types are needed by the military. These programs are fully paid regardless of cost.

They pay a portion of it, not all of it. They're trying to change that now, but McCain is against it.

Keep in mind that he's only against how the Democrats plan to fund that - it's a poison pill that they know he can't vote for, even when he wants to raise the benefit.

The Armys new Motto: If the bullets dont kill you, we will give you a loan!

The Armys new Motto: If the bullets dont kill you, we will give you a loan!

It's not new. It's as old as WWII.

Your odds of getting killed are fairly low, especially if you are in a non-combat specialty, or assigned to a service like the Navy or Air Force.

Right now, just being a young black male living in Washington DC is substantially more dangerous than being in the infantry in Afghanistan or Iraq.

I think a lot of people have the perception that combat is as lethal as it was in WW I - when it isn't.

Keep in mind that he's only against how the Democrats plan to fund that - it's a poison pill that they know he can't vote for, even when he wants to raise the benefit.

Really? Last I read about it he was bitching about what it'd do to retention rates. Perhaps he figured out it'd be a boon to recruiting and didn't actually want to change his position.

Besides, who cares how you're going to pay for things. God knows the Republicans don't. Let the next generation worry about it right?

Really? Last I read about it he was bitching about what it'd do to retention rates. Perhaps he figured out it'd be a boon to recruiting and didn't actually want to change his position.

Besides, who cares how you're going to pay for things. God knows the Republicans don't. Let the next generation worry about it right?

The Democrats don't care how it will be paid for, either. Both parties engage in excessive deficit spending.

Worked for me.

And your suggestion for the other 329 million Americans that arnt in the Army?

The Democrats don't care how it will be paid for, either. Both parties engage in excessive deficit spending.

Well it's a choice between tax and spend and tax cut and spend. One of those increases the deficit fast, and the other does it really REALLY fast.

And the alternative would be to have the companies that hold half of the mortgages in the Country fail and then what? Whos going to give a home loan to Joe and Mary Smith who are now in thier early 20s and want to start a new life out in the big world?

I don't care how old they are. If they want a mortgage, they can save for a down payment. Or negotiate down payment assistance with the seller. Or take a second mortgage for a down payment. Or pay extra for a lower down payment. But a down payment does mean that they are more committed to making future payments on the house.

It's not the government's business to underwrite any loans. The private markets can do that better. And the private lenders can do even better if the government doesn't hamper them with restrictions that make it more "fair".

And your suggestion for the other 329 million Americans that arnt in the Army?

There aren't 329 million potential households.

There also isn't 5 trillion dollars sitting around in government coffers ready to be loaned out - that would be five times the available annual budget (let's raise the taxes five times over, shall we?).

As it is, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can only secure a touch over 1% of the actual 5 trillion dollars - they're assuming that a very small number goes into foreclosure.

Exceed that number, and poof - it blows up like a Ponzi scheme.

Nothing any government on the planet could prevent. And not everyone deserves a loan - if they can't pay it back you're asking the government to pay it off - in essence, raising the chances the whole scheme blows up.

Which it is...

There's nothing that either Obama or McCain (or anyone else for that matter) can do to stop this.

The private markets can do that better. And the private lenders can do even better if the government doesn't hamper them with restrictions that make it more "fair".

And we're in this sub-prime mortgage fiasco why?

I don't care how old they are. If they want a mortgage, they can save for a down payment.

Your absolutly right. How long would you guess it will take you to save up say 50k cash above and beyond bills, children, taxes, medical expences, unemployment and saving for college.

Or negotiate down payment assistance with the seller.

So now the seller is supposed to pay for purchasers down payments? Umm no.

Or take a second mortgage for a down payment.

Second mortgage on what? A house you dont own? What bank is willing to grant a second mortgage if they wont grant a first?

Or pay extra for a lower down payment.

Yes. this is called a subprime mortgage. Do we need to get into the problems with this?

It's not the government's business to underwrite any loans. The private markets can do that better. And the private lenders can do even better if the government doesn't hamper them with restrictions that make it more "fair".

As has already been stated, the private market has failed in a spectacular fashion in this respect.

This mess with mortgage loans is getting to the point where I'd vote for the first candidate that promised to privatize Fannie and Freddie. The US government has no need to be in the loan underwriting business.

Conversely, I can't bring myself to vote for anyone that would continue to prop them up with an unlimited line of credit to my pocket.

The problem, of course, is that this delightful situation exists and must be dealt with. If the government doesn't prop Freddie and Fannie, they'd fold, and with the whole Indymac scenario, and maybe 150 other banks ready to fall... and allowing for the fact that Freddie and Fannie covers something like just better than half of all the mortgages in America on their own, your economic preferences are way, way, WAY down on a very long list.

What we've got now is a mortgage crisis. In your vision of a perfect world, this would be a mortgage apocalypse.

The private markets can do that better. And the private lenders can do even better if the government doesn't hamper them with restrictions that make it more "fair".

While that sounds wonderful in theory, the problem is that - while, in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice - in practice, there is.

In other words, reality (and it's now well-established liberal bias) disagrees with your rosey-tinted fantasy.

I tend to pay attention to the issues rather than the rhetoric, so I've been missing an apparent treasure trove.

""Did you hear the one about the woman who is attacked on the street by a gorilla, beaten senseless, raped repeatedly and left to die? When she finally regains consciousness and tries to speak, her doctor leans over to hear her sigh contently and to feebly ask, 'Where is that marvelous ape?'"


""Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?" "Because her father is Janet Reno." "

""The French remind me a little bit of an aging actress of the 1940s who is still trying to dine out on her looks but doesn't have the face for it," "

"And I stopped beating my wife just a couple of weeks ago," "

"'The nice thing about Alzheimer's is you get to hide your own Easter eggs.'"

" "you little jerk... You're drafted." "

Not to mention a recent genocide jab at Iran.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you would-be-president McCain. Just what we need. Another Prince Philip.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080717/pl_politico/11823


(Oh, and: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Philip,_Duke_of_Edinburgh, for our American cousins).

Keep in mind that he's only against how the Democrats plan to fund that - it's a poison pill that they know he can't vote for, even when he wants to raise the benefit.
That's not true. He is against the whole concept, because it might encourage soldiers to leave at the end of their tours rather than re-enlisting.

noone would argue that the SC justices are too old and incapable of making critical and logical decisions.
NO-ONE would say that??? I think you are grossly mistaken.

Edit: HA! That was my post 2000!

And the alternative would be to have the companies that hold half of the mortgages in the Country fail and then what? Whos going to give a home loan to Joe and Mary Smith who are now in thier early 20s and want to start a new life out in the big world?

Well Joe and Mary Smith can't really afford the house then, can they? So they are shit out of luck, and no amount of market distortion created by the federal government will really change that fact.

In fact, look at the mess right now. All those Joe and Marys are in houses that are going to bankrupt them, meanwhile financial meltdown continues apace. A great deal of that shit can be laid at the door of Fannie and Freddie. (And barney frank).

And we're in this sub-prime mortgage fiasco why?
In my opinion? Because the lenders weren't allowed to discriminate against people that couldn't afford loans.

The problem, of course, is that this delightful situation exists and must be dealt with. If the government doesn't prop Freddie and Fannie, they'd fold, and with the whole Indymac scenario, and maybe 150 other banks ready to fall... and allowing for the fact that Freddie and Fannie covers something like just better than half of all the mortgages in America on their own, your economic preferences are way, way, WAY down on a very long list.

What we've got now is a mortgage crisis. In your vision of a perfect world, this would be a mortgage apocalypse.
Nonsense. Fannie and Freddie both have plenty of triple A business to attract private investors. Houses still need to be financed and private underwriting is the way to go.

Indymac, though, was a crisis entirely created by Chuckie Schumer...

Your absolutly right. How long would you guess it will take you to save up say 50k cash above and beyond bills, children, taxes, medical expences, unemployment and saving for college.



So now the seller is supposed to pay for purchasers down payments? Umm no.



Second mortgage on what? A house you dont own? What bank is willing to grant a second mortgage if they wont grant a first?



Yes. this is called a subprime mortgage. Do we need to get into the problems with this?



As has already been stated, the private market has failed in a spectacular fashion in this respect.
You really haven't been around much, have you.
Sellers do provide down payment assistance from time to time. They also pay buyers closing costs. Usually that comes at a higher selling price. Banks do grant seconds on new purchases. And not all instances of paying down interest are sub-prime mortgages.

Then there's the big problem of commitment. Without some equity in the property, "owners" are less likely to stick with the payments. If a prospective buyer can't manage a down payment, then they can't afford the property. It's as simple as that. They have NO right to purchase property at my expense. (Not unless I'm the seller and I want to make concessions.)

There sure aren't many jokes about Obama, or even by Obama... In fact, there aren't many jokes at all during this campaign.
In 2006, this was funny. Although it's not about Obama, it gives you an idea of how far we've sunk.

You know, education--if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq.


Apparently, this isn't funny.

http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/nyorker.jpg


But this is...
http://i.realone.com/assets/rn/img/7/7/4/9/21129477-21129481-slarge.jpg

One has to look very hard to find ANY politically correct jokes that you can tell about Obama. Here is one

Barack Obama and a kangaroo pull up to a gas station. The gas station attendant takes one look at the kangaroo and says, "You know, we don't get many kangaroos here." Barack Obama replies, "At these prices, I'm not surprised. That's why we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil."

If humor was a requirement for office, I don't think Obama would qualify. In fact, if he's elected we're in for a lot of years of humorless reporting of his antics.

Nonsense. Fannie and Freddie both have plenty of triple A business to attract private investors.


So what's with the current bailout?

It's not happening because it doesn't fit your dreamworld view of American economics?

There sure aren't many jokes about Obama, or even by Obama... In fact, there aren't many jokes at all during this campaign.
In 2006, this was funny. Although it's not about Obama, it gives you an idea of how far we've sunk.

You know, education--if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq.


Apparently, this isn't funny.

http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/nyorker.jpg


But this is...
http://i.realone.com/assets/rn/img/7/7/4/9/21129477-21129481-slarge.jpg

One has to look very hard to find ANY politically correct jokes that you can tell about Obama. Here is one

Barack Obama and a kangaroo pull up to a gas station. The gas station attendant takes one look at the kangaroo and says, "You know, we don't get many kangaroos here." Barack Obama replies, "At these prices, I'm not surprised. That's why we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil."

If humor was a requirement for office, I don't think Obama would qualify. In fact, if he's elected we're in for a lot of years of humorless reporting of his antics.

I get the feeling you're the only person that even reads your posts, and even you aren't sure what you're talking about.

What you talking about, Willis?

It's not happening because it doesn't fit your dreamworld view of American economics?

Everyone seems to miss the point that Fannie and Freddie made homes less affordable, not more.

And there is no bailout yet. Just some jibber jabber about the discount window which is completely useless for both of those companies b/c its the wrong duration.

When the bailout comes, it won't help homeowners either. It will be purely a guarantee of the debt. Commons and preferreds will get zero, and the mortgage ladder will be pulled up anyway. The only reason why its an issue with congress is because much of fannie/freddie debt is held by foreign central banks with a wink that it was 'as good' as federal debt. Defaulting on it would make things extremely problematic for the government.

Congress has never given a fuck about the affordability of houses, and the GSEs have been used since 1993 as little more than a way of funding 'stimulus' packages through the back door.

The good news is that mortgage rates are likely to go much higher and larger downpayments will be required. This in fact is very good for first time buyers.

Snip.

So, let me get this straight: You don't care about McCain NOT saying that he took offense at the cartoon depicting Obama as a terrorist, but you want US to take offense about a cartoon depicting McCain as "Macaulay Culkin, POW"?

So, no. Just no. McCain isn't obligated to speak out for Obama, and Obama isn't obligated to speak out for McCain. You saying that Obama has an obligation to speak out for McCain while McCain has none for Obama is just silly.

Please.

You really haven't been around much, have you.

Hmm lets see i own 120 units and I dont live in Georgia. I even had a NYS brokers licence until I let it expire. Im guessing all that means i havnt been around much.

Sellers do provide down payment assistance from time to time. They also pay buyers closing costs. Usually that comes at a higher selling price.

Banks will frequently not grant a loan to someone who has not provided the down payment on thier own accord. This is why they ask to see a copy of your bank account statement for several months previous to the deal to insure its actually your money.

Banks do grant seconds on new purchases. And not all instances of paying down interest are sub-prime mortgages.

Why would a bank loan you money on a second mortgage to pay for a downpayment on thier own first mortgage? Your putting the horse before the cart. You cant even get a second mortgage without actually owning the house first and you cant own the house without making a down payment.

Then there's the big problem of commitment. Without some equity in the property, "owners" are less likely to stick with the payments. If a prospective buyer can't manage a down payment, then they can't afford the property. It's as simple as that. They have NO right to purchase property at my expense. (Not unless I'm the seller and I want to make concessions.)

This is true. However, if the loan market collapses equity wont mean anything unless you happen to have 100% of the purchase price in cash. It will also become far more difficult to take out equity loans you already have in your home for future investment. Business loans will dry up and this will lead to less employment and the cycle worsens.

If a prospective buyer can't manage a down payment, then they can't afford the property. It's as simple as that.

....except it isn't. My husband and I didn't make a down payment, and we've had no problem making our mortgage payments. So it clearly isn't true that an inability to make a down payment equates to an inability to afford the property. It just means that we didn't yet have enough money saved for a lump sum payment, but we were (and still are) making enough to make payments.

Why would a bank loan you money on a second mortgage to pay for a downpayment on thier own first mortgage? Your putting the horse before the cart. You cant even get a second mortgage without actually owning the house first and you cant own the house without making a down payment.


It's called a no doc 80/20 piggyback. Often done through mortgage brokers, not by the bank directly. Quite a common practice in days of yore, b/c you could use it to cheat on the PMI. What happens is that the house is appraised at 105% purchase (or thereabouts), and then a first is taken with one bank and the second with another.

It's past page 20(at least with MY standards)! Doesn't anyone remember the 20 page rule in which if a thread goes past 20 pages, it turns into a spamfest? Hrmph. Seems i'm the only one who doesn't care about politics unless called on. And even then I give a half-assed opinion.

Hmm lets see i own 120 units and I dont live in Georgia. I even had a NYS brokers licence until I let it expire. Im guessing all that means i havnt been around much.



Banks will frequently not grant a loan to someone who has not provided the down payment on thier own accord. This is why they ask to see a copy of your bank account statement for several months previous to the deal to insure its actually your money.



Why would a bank loan you money on a second mortgage to pay for a downpayment on thier own first mortgage? Your putting the horse before the cart. You cant even get a second mortgage without actually owning the house first and you cant own the house without making a down payment.

Clearly New York State has some loose requirements for a broker's llcense. Or you are just making up qualifications and experience to mask your ignorance... All of your disagreements are just plain wrong.

....except it isn't. My husband and I didn't make a down payment, and we've had no problem making our mortgage payments. So it clearly isn't true that an inability to make a down payment equates to an inability to afford the property. It just means that we didn't yet have enough money saved for a lump sum payment, but we were (and still are) making enough to make payments.
Oh dear! There's an exception... Stop the presses!

But you still have minimal equity in the property, thus no real reason not to abandon it if things go south for you. That's the best reason to require a decent down payment.

Clearly New York State has some loose requirements for a broker's llcense. Or you are just making up qualifications and experience to mask your ignorance... All of your disagreements are just plain wrong.

Is this how you debate an issue? Throw out an insult then tell me im wrong with absolutley nothing support to your statement whatsoever?

No poopyhead IM right so PHTTT!! Is that more down to your level?

Is this how you debate an issue? Throw out an insult then tell me im wrong with absolutley nothing support to your statement whatsoever?

No poopyhead IM right so PHTTT!! Is that more down to your level?
Well, when someone claims experience in a field -- such as lending, then has absolutely no knowledge of basic practices -- such as down payment assistance or using a equity loan for a down payment, then there just isn't much common ground for discussion.

And what have you used to support your statements besides some dubious qualifications?

Go ask your Mom or Dad about what I've been describing.

Well, when someone claims experience in a field -- such as lending, then has absolutely no knowledge of basic practices -- such as down payment assistance or using a equity loan for a down payment, then there just isn't much common ground for discussion.

And what have you used to support your statements besides some dubious qualifications?

Go ask your Mom or Dad about what I've been describing.

LOL im 40 years old and have been in real estate my entire life and own entire apartment complexes.

This has hardly been an in depth conversation about financing options nor is that relevant to the topic at hand other then tightening of credit thru the failure of a Fanny Mae would have a tremendous negative impact on the US economy mkay?

It's called a no doc 80/20 piggyback. Often done through mortgage brokers, not by the bank directly. Quite a common practice in days of yore, b/c you could use it to cheat on the PMI. What happens is that the house is appraised at 105% purchase (or thereabouts), and then a first is taken with one bank and the second with another.

True but those loans were at about 12% and subprime as subprime can be. Like you said, this is a no go now these days.

LOL im 40 years old and have been in real estate my entire life and own entire apartment complexes.

This has hardly been an in depth conversation about financing options nor is that relevant to the topic at hand other then tightening of credit thru the failure of a Fanny Mae would have a tremendous negative impact on the US economy mkay?
*sigh*
Read and learn.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Banking/HomeFinancing/WhyYouNeedAHomeDownPayment.aspx

http://www.lendingtree.com/smartborrower/Down-payments/Down-payment-assistance-programs.aspx

And private lenders would love to have the good business that Fannie and Freddie both deal in. Their failure would be a good thing -- even in the short run. Don't buy into all you read on the DailyKos.

And private lenders would love to have the good business that Fannie and Freddie both deal in. Their failure would be a good thing -- even in the short run. Don't buy into all you read on the DailyKos.

Yes because companies that lose 80% of thier value in a month and have to be rescued by the Government or fail are just FILLED with good business. I wonder if any of them had down payments?

If your suggesting that companies would like to pick over a carcass, im sure they would. However if either failed, there wouldnt be much of a banking system period left and the easy pickings remaining would be the least of the Nations problems.

True but those loans were at about 12% and subprime as subprime can be. Like you said, this is a no go now these days.

Not really, the first would be a typical alt-a, though very often a neg-am option arm, or an IO arm w/teaser, so the interest rate on that would typically be sub 7, with initial payments much lower. The second, like all seconds would be higher, but not twelve percent. (It could also be done with a prime or agency conforming mortgage for the first, but people who could qualify for those rarely needed this kind of thing).

As long as the mortgagee's FICO was above 680 (660 for some lenders) it all sold as 'near' prime paper.

Cash back at closing was even available (for moving expenses and such).

So for a while, it was actually 'cheaper' to buy a house than rent, insofar as the amount of ready cash needed was concerned.

This is of course the real joker in the mortgage mess. Only subprime has really defaulted at the present time. There are a whole shitload more defaults coming down the pike. This really hasn't started yet.

(Even now you can even still get a zero down if you qualify for FHA loans if you use a downpayment assistance program, though underwriting standards have returned, so it is considerably more difficult than it used to be).

Naturally, a great part of the blame for this mess - which will lead to massive financial pain for the US - can be laid at the feet of fannie and freddie, and the reckless (criminal!) oversight of the congress starting in 1993.

Not really, the first would be a typical alt-a, though very often a neg-am option arm, or an IO arm w/teaser, so the interest rate on that would typically be sub 7, with initial payments much lower. The second, like all seconds would be higher, but not twelve percent. (It could also be done with a prime or agency conforming mortgage for the first, but people who could qualify for those rarely needed this kind of thing).


Your telling me that having to borrow from a second mortgage(from the same house) at a high rate to get the downpayment for the first loan isnt considered a subprime mortgage in the overall scheme of things? Wow. No wonder everything is collapsing.

Your telling me that having to borrow from a second mortgage(from the same house) at a high rate to get the downpayment for the first loan isnt considered a subprime mortgage in the overall scheme of things? Wow. No wonder everything is collapsing.

That's right. People - including most of the media, and many politicians - don't understand that subprime is a term of art. It simply refers to mortgages written for people with a FICO of less than around 660. (The exact number varies depending upon a number of factors).

A no-doc ninja loan which is neg. am (meaning the lowest optional monthly payment is LESS than the accrued interest for that month, the balance being added to the principle) written for someone with a credit score of 750 would not be considered subprime. Even though the chances of default in that case, absent refinancing, approach about 90%.

The only reason why subprime defaulted first is because the 'teaser' period is much shorter than with alt-a paper.

And this is why shorting financials and banks has been profitable. And as I indicated, it's not nearly over, the housing market won't stabilize until 2011 at the very earliest. As such it will drag the rest of the economy down the shitter with it. My price target on the dow within the next twelve months is below 9,000 (and that's being conservative).

Oh dear! There's an exception... Stop the presses!

...which means that the statement isn't necessarily true and it thus isn't "as simple as that."

But you still have minimal equity in the property, thus no real reason not to abandon it if things go south for you. That's the best reason to require a decent down payment.

Keeping my home and good credit are reasons enough for me to make sure my mortgage is paid on time each month.

Well, when someone claims experience in a field -- such as lending...

You both look the same to me. As far as I know, you're both 28 year old virgins with overhanging rootbeer guts, a full collection of starwars figures (in mint packaging), and a nice desres in mommy's basement.

You might want to bear that in mind when you try to throw around weight in an online forum.

...which means that the statement isn't necessarily true and it thus isn't "as simple as that."


Oooh. Snap. Bitten in the ass by a carelessly tossed absolute.

...which means that the statement isn't necessarily true and it thus isn't "as simple as that."



Keeping my home and good credit are reasons enough for me to make sure my mortgage is paid on time each month.
You do understand that it's possible to make a generalized statement that doesn't exclude the possibility of an exception, don't you? Social and economic problems aren't like mathematical proofs.

You both look the same to me. As far as I know, you're both 28 year old virgins with overhanging rootbeer guts, a full collection of starwars figures (in mint packaging), and a nice desres in mommy's basement.

You might want to bear that in mind when you try to throw around weight in an online forum.
Sure. My thoughts exactly. But my purpose in this sidebar isn't to impress you, but to educate IF in matters that he should know about as a big-time real estate investor.

So, I provided two instances of mainstream advice that recommended exactly what I described. IF decided to pass those by, but Lacadaemon has pretty much picked up the torch and continued to school our "broker".

Sure. My thoughts exactly. But my purpose in this sidebar isn't to impress you, but to educate IF in matters that he should know about as a big-time real estate investor.

Please dont do me any favors.

So, I provided two instances of mainstream advice that recommended exactly what I described. IF decided to pass those by, but Lacadaemon has pretty much picked up the torch and continued to school our "broker".

Your running around trying to school people? What are you 8 years old? Im here to have reasonably intelligent conversation and discussion and Lacadaemon is just that. Your on the opposite side of the spectrum and the exact reason why there are laws preventing minors from voting.

You do understand that it's possible to make a generalized statement that doesn't exclude the possibility of an exception, don't you?

Ah.

Like "People from Georgia are retarded"?

Please dont do me any favors.



Your running around trying to school people? What are you 8 years old? Im here to have reasonably intelligent conversation and discussion and Lacadaemon is just that. Your on the opposite side of the spectrum and the exact reason why there are laws preventing minors from voting.

Some people should learn to quit while they're ahead. Given the claims you've made and how distant from reality they are, you might just choose to agree to disagree.

There's a saying, when you can't see anything but the hole you're in, stop digging.

I have to say I'm amused that the party that has claimed that the Dems want to pull our pants down by setting a timeline in Iraq are now proposing a "time horizon".

You know what a horizon is, Republicans? A line. Your leadership doesn't respect its constituents enough to think you know what a synonym is.

You mean all except for where none of this is true? There is no obligation to retire as a doctor or a lawyer at 65. In fact almost the entire US Supreme Court are in thier 70s and 80s. You may not always agree with thier decisions but noone would argue that the SC justices are too old and incapable of making critical and logical decisions.

Which would be relevant if they weren't political appointees. You won't find many 72-year-old lawyers at firms they don't own.

Jackson Kirk Grimmes 08!
;)
Oh and:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/96/218744419_9479313702.jpg

Your leadership doesn't respect its constituents enough to think you know what a synonym is.

To be sure, a fair number of them does not.

I have to say I'm amused that the party that has claimed that the Dems want to pull our pants down by setting a timeline in Iraq are now proposing a "time horizon".

You know what a horizon is, Republicans? A line. Your leadership doesn't respect its constituents enough to think you know what a synonym is.

To be fair Jocabia, the Iraqi government is asking for a timeline so it does make sense.

I have to say I'm amused that the party that has claimed that the Dems want to pull our pants down by setting a timeline in Iraq are now proposing a "time horizon".

You know what a horizon is, Republicans? A line. Your leadership doesn't respect its constituents enough to think you know what a synonym is.
Look back over the last eight years... The Republican leadership has repeatedly alienated itself from the membership by trying to adopt Democratic issues as their own. These have been nothing more than misguided efforts to become more popular in traditional Democratic voter groups. NCLB was the first of those, the big drug supplement for Medicare was another. With conditions improving in Iraq and elections upcoming, why shouldn't the party try to grab this issue, as well?

And if we want to carry the analogy of a horizon to its extreme, well you never do get to the horizon.

Look back over the last eight years... The Republican leadership has repeatedly alienated itself from the membership by trying to adopt Democratic issues as their own. These have been nothing more than misguided efforts to become more popular in traditional Democratic voter groups. NCLB was the first of those, the big drug supplement for Medicare was another. With conditions improving in Iraq and elections upcoming, why shouldn't the party try to grab this issue, as well?

And if we want to carry the analogy of a horizon to its extreme, well you never do get to the horizon.

Except for the fact that we have constently maintained that we will leave when they ask us to. Now they are requesting a timetable. As such, to keep a promise to the Iraqis...

Except for the fact that we have constently maintained that we will leave when they ask us to. Now they are requesting a timetable. As such, to keep a promise to the Iraqis...
Believe me, I don't have any problems with leaving that place. I suspect there is more detail or nuance to Maliki's request, but I'd be very happy if we had no presence at all in that part of the world.

The only thing that would be better that just leaving would be to detonate a few nukes in SWA after we leave as a way of celebrating.

I have to say I'm amused that the party that has claimed that the Dems want to pull our pants down by setting a timeline in Iraq are now proposing a "time horizon".

You know what a horizon is, Republicans? A line. Your leadership doesn't respect its constituents enough to think you know what a synonym is.Eh, like the Republicans are the first to introduce euphemisms for their less-attractive policies. Like "redeployment," "contribution" (Clinton code-language for taxes) or "states' rights."

The only thing that would be better that just leaving would be to detonate a few nukes in SWA after we leave as a way of celebrating.

So, sexual gratification killing in Namibia? Or sexual gratification killing somewhere else?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South-West_Africa

To be fair Jocabia, the Iraqi government is asking for a timeline so it does make sense.

So who is better prepared to deal with such things? People who called for a timeline already or people who said we should never make a timeline.

Some Dems and the Iraqis are on the same page (also some of the Republicans). The people who realized this without having to be told, who realized that the war would be difficult without being told, who realized we should have focused on terrorism and not a vendetta without being told are the people who should be running our country now.

That's not McCain for damn sure.

Except for the fact that we have constently maintained that we will leave when they ask us to. Now they are requesting a timetable. As such, to keep a promise to the Iraqis...

A better promise to have kept would have been to not enter till they asked us to. Or at least provoked us.

The claim made by many, many Republicans that setting a timetable, any timetable, gives the terrorists hope. That they flopped on this issue isn't particularly surprising, seeing as they were utterly wrong.

The only thing that would be better that just leaving would be to detonate a few nukes in SWA after we leave as a way of celebrating.

You know, I've always argued against the exclusions in American politics. I've always argued that it's unjust to bar someone from running for office.

Thanks for changing my mind. I've never been so glad there are mechanisms keeping some people powerless.

The claim made by many, many Republicans that setting a timetable, any timetable, gives the terrorists hope. That they flopped on this issue isn't particularly surprising, seeing as they were utterly wrong.

Except for the fact that things are getting better and that a major Sunni Party bloc has rejoined the government after a year's absence. So really...there is no flip flopping here. Maliki has requested that the US begin to think about a time table and as such, the debate has started. Obama said 16 month withdraw plan and Maliki said that would be about right.

So really...it is time to debate a timetable and I agree with Maliki.

Except for the fact that things are getting better and that a major Sunni Party bloc has rejoined the government after a year's absence. So really...there is no flip flopping here. Maliki has requested that the US begin to think about a time table and as such, the debate has started. Obama said 16 month withdraw plan and Maliki said that would be about right.

So really...it is time to debate a timetable and I agree with Maliki.

ohmygod 2 weeks to the wedding!

where are you going on your honeymoon?

ohmygod 2 weeks to the wedding!

where are you going on your honeymoon?

Walt Disney World in Orlando Florida for a week.

Walt Disney World in Orlando Florida for a week.

nice! i hope you have good weather.

Except for the fact that things are getting better and that a major Sunni Party bloc has rejoined the government after a year's absence. So really...there is no flip flopping here. Maliki has requested that the US begin to think about a time table and as such, the debate has started. Obama said 16 month withdraw plan and Maliki said that would be about right.

So really...it is time to debate a timetable and I agree with Maliki.

The Republican line up until now has been that setting any timetable at all would make the terrorists bolder and would be unequivocally a BAD IDEA.

It wasn't "when certain conditions are met, we can discuss a timetable" because, again, the setting of conditions was considered an unequivocally BAD IDEA that would help the turrists!

Walt Disney World in Orlando Florida for a week.

Honeymoon in Disneyworld? Really? o_O

Except for the fact that we have constently maintained that we will leave when they ask us to. Now they are requesting a timetable. As such, to keep a promise to the Iraqis...
Now that I think about it a little, you're exactly right. We have always maintained just that. And here, we've always thought that an official request by the Iraqi government would be a nice way to disengage.

We've only been asked in the press up to this point, by a few legislators. This is the first time that anyone representing the entire government has done the asking...

Early congratulations and have fun at Disney. Do you know how the fast passes work? If you do, I don't need to say anymore, but if not, they make the park a much more enjoyable place and you need to figure them out. One other thing -- GO TO THE CUSTOMER SERVICES AT EACH PARK and TELL THEM YOU'RE NEWLYWEDS. You never know what might happen... I guarantee that any random acts of happiness will only make things more fun for you.

The Republican line up until now has been that setting any timetable at all would make the terrorists bolder and would be unequivocally a BAD IDEA.

It wasn't "when certain conditions are met, we can discuss a timetable" because, again, the setting of conditions was considered an unequivocally BAD IDEA that would help the turrists!
You're right about the time table, but as far as leaving... We have stated that as a sovereign nation, we would honor their request to leave. It's just now been made.
For example... And I'm sure there are more.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070524.html

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You say you want nothing short of victory, that leaving Iraq would be catastrophic; you once again mentioned al Qaeda. Does that mean that you are willing to leave American troops there, no matter what the Iraqi government does? I know this is a question we've asked before, but you can begin it with a "yes" or "no."

THE PRESIDENT: We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It's their government's choice. If they were to say, leave, we would leave.

Except for the fact that things are getting better and that a major Sunni Party bloc has rejoined the government after a year's absence. So really...there is no flip flopping here. Maliki has requested that the US begin to think about a time table and as such, the debate has started. Obama said 16 month withdraw plan and Maliki said that would be about right.

So really...it is time to debate a timetable and I agree with Maliki.

It's flip-flopping when you say there can never be a timetable and then you make one. And they know it's flip-flopping, which is why they won't call it a timeline. That's the reason for the euphemism.

The fact that things change and you have to change with the evidence is something the Republican government argued against. The major arguing point for the current administration is that if you tell it's wrong, you're out.

Now that I think about it a little, you're exactly right. We have always maintained just that. And here, we've always thought that an official request by the Iraqi government would be a nice way to disengage.

We've only been asked in the press up to this point, by a few legislators. This is the first time that anyone representing the entire government has done the asking...

Indeed.

Early congratulations and have fun at Disney. Do you know how the fast passes work? If you do, I don't need to say anymore, but if not, they make the park a much more enjoyable place and you need to figure them out. One other thing -- GO TO THE CUSTOMER SERVICES AT EACH PARK and TELL THEM YOU'RE NEWLYWEDS. You never know what might happen... I guarantee that any random acts of happiness will only make things more fun for you.

We will do just that :)

It's flip-flopping when you say there can never be a timetable and then you make one. And they know it's flip-flopping, which is why they won't call it a timeline. That's the reason for the euphemism.

The fact that things change and you have to change with the evidence is something the Republican government argued against. The major arguing point for the current administration is that if you tell it's wrong, you're out.

Out of curiousity.. is the 'win in Iraq' rhetoric being modified similarly, I wonder?

Is 'a win in Iraq' now going to be... well, just that we leave? (Making several years of rhetoric even more pointless than usual?)

I'm impressed the current regime has the stones to be bouncing phrases like 'flip-flopping' around again, to be honest.

Each is a heartless bastard that wants to leech my income from me and give it to welfare cheats as a cheap ploy to buy votes. I support none of the candidates.

I support Cobra Commander, because I'm just that kind of person.
In fairness though, out of all the joke candidates you put there Bob Barr is coolest. But you have to face that facts: Cobra Commander is the only real candidate that will take the office of President seriously.

Richard Stallman '08!

Each is a heartless bastard that wants to leech my income from me and give it to welfare cheats as a cheap ploy to buy votes. I support none of the candidates.

You realize that welfare is a part of capitalism and that it will never disappear right? It's needed because capitalism requires an army of 'reserve labor', unemployed and on welfare, in order to replace the current workers on a lower wage. You see, this is how it works, the current workers demand a wage rise, the owner says screw you, fires them all and hires from the 'reserve' at a lower rate of pay.

I also dealt with this in the other thread, at many times in our life we are 'declassed', when we are young our parents and/or the government pay for our subsistence etc. Now it doesn't matter where this money comes from, it can be leeched either from our parents wages or those of other wages through government welfare, the desired result is the same: to get us educated to become a worker and enter a pool of exploitable labor commodity. 'Education', paid for by leeching out of the wages of other workers, is like a business investment, think of it like this: the owner gives his workers a good wage and they spent it giving their children a good education, which makes them into good labor commodities to be exploited in the future. Same way police protect private property, and are paid for by leeching out of the public purse.

The whole welfare system is based around upholding capitalism.

That's nice bullcrap you're shoving there Andaras, but here isn't the the thread to argue the merits of capitalism or communism.
The main reason I am not communist is that I don't like the term comrade, it puts a knot in my under wear.

EDIT: And just so you know, the welfare system hinders the capitalist machine from providing for the world along with tariffs, safety regulations, and any laws concerning the economy. The welfare system is inherently socialist.

The welfare system is inherently socialist.
That's because you American nitwits have been brainwashed since birth that anything slightly 'left' is instantly COMMUNIST!!!!

Seriously, a brain would be nice.

I didn't say communist, I said socialist. There's a difference.
Democrats are socialist, Soviets are communist.

I didn't say communist, I said socialist. There's a difference.
Democrats are socialist, Soviets are communist.

No, their is no difference, that is because you have been brainwashed that social-capitalism, welfare-capitalism or socialist capitalism (all the same thing) is communist. Marx (I doubt you have read him) actually opposed all these endless silly definition-games, he simply said 'Communism is the doctrine for the conditions for liberation of the working class'. Here is what Marx had to say on 'socialist capitalism':

2. Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism

A part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social grievances in order to secure the continued existence of bourgeois society.

To this section belong economists, philanthropists, humanitarians, improvers of the condition of the working class, organizers of charity, members of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics, hole-and-corner reformers of every imaginable kind. This form of socialism has, moreover, been worked out into complete systems.

We may cite Proudhon’s Philosophis de la Misère as an example of this form.

The Socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society, minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat. The bourgeoisie naturally conceives the world in which it is supreme to be the best; and bourgeois Socialism develops this comfortable conception into various more or less complete systems. In requiring the proletariat to carry out such a system, and thereby to march straightway into the social New Jerusalem, it but requires in reality, that the proletariat should remain within the bounds of existing society, but should cast away all its hateful ideas concerning the bourgeoisie.

A second, and more practical, but less systematic, form of this Socialism sought to depreciate every revolutionary movement in the eyes of the working class by showing that no mere political reform, but only a change in the material conditions of existence, in economical relations, could be of any advantage to them. By changes in the material conditions of existence, this form of Socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be affected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based on the continued existence of these relations; reforms, therefore, that in no respect affect the relations between capital and labour, but, at the best, lessen the cost, and simplify the administrative work, of bourgeois government.

Bourgeois Socialism attains adequate expression when, and only when, it becomes a mere figure of speech.

Free trade: for the benefit of the working class. Protective duties: for the benefit of the working class. Prison Reform: for the benefit of the working class. This is the last word and the only seriously meant word of bourgeois socialism.

It is summed up in the phrase: the bourgeois is a bourgeois — for the benefit of the working class.
Sound familiar?

I see where you are coming from, but I think it's more of a misunderstanding than brainwashing.
If it was brainwashing I wouldn't be willing to accept I've had this misunderstanding.

I just find your attitude a bit unnerving, but maybe I was harsh to begin with. Not all Americans are brainwashed idiots. Some Americans want change, maybe not Obama type change, but they do want it.

I personally want capitalism in it's purest form without government interference(like minimum wage, corporate welfare, etc). What keeps the rich richer and the poor poorer is the government, not capitalism. Capitalism is what happens when humans are free to own themselves, items, and land and are free to do whatever they want with those things as long as they don't infringe on another person's right to do so.

I also find that the communist demonizing of those in the upper class is a bit scary, it's almost like people need an evil to focus their hatred at. Rich people are people too, even though they may have an unfair advantage provided by the government.

But yeah, let's get back on topic. COBRA COMMANDER FOR PRESIDENT!

I am a Republican and will be voting for John McCain. Simple as that.

I am a Republican and will be voting for John McCain. Simple as that.

I can't think of a worse reason, to be honest. Especially since there hasn't been a 'Republican' candidate worthy of the name in... I don't know how long.

Small government? Fiscal responsibility? Like... Reagan... or Bush?

I can't think of a worse reason, to be honest. Especially since there hasn't been a 'Republican' candidate worthy of the name in... I don't know how long.

Small government? Fiscal responsibility? Like... Reagan... or Bush?

Gingrich.

The Republicans were never good, Lincoln strengthened the national government, suspended habeas corpus, instituted a draft, etc.
We haven't had a good president, I can safely say, since Washington.
And even he may be a stretch, I just like him because everyone wanted him to be president and he just kind of "did his duty". He had the balls to resist power, most career politicians today wouldn't.

I am a Republican and will be voting for John McCain. Simple as that.

Careful. Wouldn't want to actually make decisions based on policy. Definitely pick who you support based on what letter they have next to their name. And definitely miss sarcasm when you see it.

Careful. Wouldn't want to actually make decisions based on policy. Definitely pick who you support based on what letter they have next to their name. And definitely miss sarcasm when you see it.

When the hell did I say I was voting for him because he is republican?

The question the Poll asked is what party your part of and who you are voting for. It never asked to give any reasons.

The question the Poll asked is what party your part of and who you are voting for. It never asked to give any reasons.

Actually, all it asks is who you would vote for and gives the party of the candidate.

You volunteered the information on your own party affiliation.

The Republicans were never good, Lincoln strengthened the national government, suspended habeas corpus, instituted a draft, etc.
We haven't had a good president, I can safely say, since Washington.
And even he may be a stretch, I just like him because everyone wanted him to be president and he just kind of "did his duty". He had the balls to resist power, most career politicians today wouldn't.

While I (certainly) don't agree with all his decisions, FDR would probably be a better choice than Washington. So, 'safely say' might not be as conclusive as you imagine.

When the hell did I say I was voting for him because he is republican?

The question the Poll asked is what party your part of and who you are voting for. It never asked to give any reasons.

You drew the connection yourself... you said: "I am a Republican and will be voting for John McCain. Simple as that".

The 'simple as that' bit, implies that the one factor is causative to the other.

I didn't say communist, I said socialist. There's a difference.
Democrats are socialist, Soviets are communist.

Democrats are center-right. There is no viable political party in the U.S. that is in any way socialist. Honestly, I don't know which is worse: you with your McCarthy-era "ZOMG! Commies! Burn them!" BS or Andaras and his actually defending Stalin. Stalin, Tito, Hoxha, Ceauşescu, Pol Pot, Castro, Mao. They were all monsters every bit as much the likes of Perón, Somoza, Batitsta, Trujillo, Duvalier, the Shah and Pinochet were. And one more thing "Living Freedom Land". Not every policy or person you disagree with or don't like is "inherently socialist". The implication that you are some sort of final arbiter of what is or is not Communism -- particularly when you have such a skewed view of it -- is extremely arrogant.

You drew the connection yourself... you said: "I am a Republican and will be voting for John McCain. Simple as that".

The 'simple as that' bit, implies that the one factor is causative to the other.


Sorry for the confusion.

I will vote for a non republican candidate if he fits my views, but Obama is a socialist, so he will not get my vote.


McCain isn't all that great, but he is better than Obama.

While I (certainly) don't agree with all his decisions, FDR would probably be a better choice than Washington. So, 'safely say' might not be as conclusive as you imagine.
The man who was so power hungry he had 8 terms, really?
Not to mention he made the New Deal. And he was president when we went into WWII, one of the most unnecessary wars of history.
I really think Washington was better.

Democrats are center-right. There is no viable political party in the U.S. that is in any way socialist. Honestly, I don't know which is worse: you with your McCarthy-era "ZOMG! Commies! Burn them!" BS or Andaras and his actually defending Stalin. Stalin, Tito, Hoxha, Ceauşescu, Pol Pot, Castro, Mao. They were all monsters every bit as much the likes of Perón, Somoza, Batitsta, Trujillo, Duvalier, the Shah and Pinochet were. And one more thing "Living Freedom Land". Not every policy or person you disagree with or don't like is "inherently socialist". The implication that you are some sort of final arbiter of what is or is not Communism -- particularly when you have such a skewed view of it -- is extremely arrogant.
Just because I don't agree with communism doesn't mean I'm automatically a McCarthy "KILLEE THE COMMIES!" kind of guy. That's more uber-conservative territory.
I do get a little disheveled when communists, socialists, or whatever try to misrepresent capitalism as evil when it's just what happens when people are free to do whatever they want with themselves, their things, and their land. People should be fighting government interference in the market, not try to abolish the market.

And, I probably have a skewed view of anything and everything, it's only recently have I tried to adopt a kind of Cosmopolitan-Libertarian outlook on life. I have been trying to shun labels like American from myself and consider my self Human, a citizen of the world, instead.

..but Obama is a socialist, so he will not get my vote.


Obama is a socialist in the same way that cheese is a vegetable.

I do get a little disheveled when communists, socialists, or whatever try to misrepresent capitalism as evil when it's just what happens when people are free to do whatever they want with themselves, their things, and their land. People should be fighting government interference in the market, not try to abolish the market.

It isn't that capitalism is evil. It's that people, left unchecked, do evil things.

It's the problem with pure capitalism or pure socialism. Both systems rely on human beings to be better than they've ever been. Hence the reason that something in between works out better in th end.

And, I probably have a skewed view of anything and everything,

You would have to in order to declare Barack Obama a socialist.

The man who was so power hungry he had 8 terms
WWII, one of the most unnecessary wars of history.

Go to remedial US History. Go directly to remedial US History. Do not pass high school. Do not collect a high school diploma.

Oops, I didn't mean to say he had 8 terms. He had 4. I get confused when I think about numbers in Historical context sometimes.
And also, WWII wasn't necessary. defending ourselves from attack is and was necessary, but sending troops into foreign lands was a bad and inherently Imperial idea.
It isn't that capitalism is evil. It's that people, left unchecked, do evil things.

It's the problem with pure capitalism or pure socialism. Both systems rely on human beings to be better than they've ever been. Hence the reason that something in between works out better in th end.

Not necessarily, if things start out right the hand of the free market, (supply, demand, etc) will supply those checks. And usually people will establish something in between if left to their own devices. People will have charities, communes, etc in a lassiez-faire style capitalistic system. Corporation also won't get as big without government subsidy, so we won't have a rule by big business.
I personally see it as the ultimate form of democracy, money being the ballots.

Also: Everyone has a skewed view of the world, what's uber liberal to me may seem just right to you.

Oops, I didn't mean to say he had 8 terms. He had 4. I get confused when I think about numbers in Historical context sometimes.

16 vs 34... big difference

And also, WWII wasn't necessary. defending ourselves from attack is and was necessary, but sending troops into foreign lands was a bad and inherently Imperial idea.

Have you actually covered WWII yet in school? If you have, you've failed.

Not necessarily, if things start out right the hand of the free market, (supply, demand, etc) will supply those checks. And usually people will establish something in between if left to their own devices. People will have charities, communes, etc in a lassiez-faire style capitalistic system. Corporation also won't get as big without government subsidy, so we won't have a rule by big business.
I personally see it as the ultimate form of democracy, money being the ballots.

Prove it. Don't just say the theory says that's what would happen; I understand the theory. Prove that it would happen. Because otherwise, I consider it an unacceptable risk to leave no restraints on business interests. How do you know business wouldn't get too big and too powerful? Show me an example of pure lassez-faire capitalism that produced no ill side effects, like increased wage gaps, environmental degredation, or the like. And explain just how "capitalism" and "democracy" are synonymous.

16 vs 34... big difference

Meh.


Have you actually covered WWII yet in school? If you have, you've failed.
How so?
And school doesn't equal intelligence, Wikipedia is a lot more fun way to learn stuff(especially history).

I mean, Hitler was a maniac, but given enough time the mighty British Empire and the Soviets could have wiped him out. The Japs did bomb us, but that constituted only more naval and air defense in Pacific coastal areas and our national waters.
We didn't have to go into all out war, just better defense.

EDIT:
Prove it. Don't just say the theory says that's what would happen; I understand the theory. Prove that it would happen. Because otherwise, I consider it an unacceptable risk to leave no restraints on business interests. How do you know business wouldn't get too big and too powerful? Show me an example of pure lassez-faire capitalism that produced no ill side effects, like increased wage gaps, environmental degredation, or the like. And explain just how "capitalism" and "democracy" are synonymous.
I can show you the adverse effects of government intervention, but so far there are very few tangible results from good pure lassez-faire capitalism namely because nobody has ever tried it out.

And capitalism and democracy aren't "synonymous", I never said that. I think that a world with no nation-states and private business taking it's role is akin to democracy, I'm just trying to sound all idealistic and neat. Good speeches aren't made from technical manuals.

I have to say, more wage gaps aren't inherently a bad thing. Wage gaps will be there in a lassiez-faire capitalist society. Without minimum wage workers, as has been demonstrated time and time again, will have more jobs. Maybe not as high paying, but more jobs will be there, and they won't be starvation wages because people won't work for starvation wages. It's not human nature to work a penny-a-day unless a penny will feed you for a day. Otherwise it's a waste of energy. Also workers unions will be there, maybe not with as much political power, but workers will be able to have a voice.

Also, the reason businesses are so big is from government subsidies and regulations favoring them. The corporate welfare state is a bigger enemy to capitalism than human welfare state.
If it wasn't for subsidies we wouldn't have Wal-Marts in every town.
Or McDonalds.
Or Sears.

The taking away of those subsidies would drive them into a smaller, more sustainable, size.

I mean, the world I'm thinking of won't be perfect, no world will be.
Humans are humans.

When the hell did I say I was voting for him because he is republican?

The question the Poll asked is what party your part of and who you are voting for. It never asked to give any reasons.

No, it doesn't. It asks who you will vote for. You implied, unintentionally or not, that your being a republican is why you were voting for McCain. "Simple as that" indicates there's nothing else to ask, becuase you'd already said who you're voting for and why. Reread what you wrote.

Not necessarily, if things start out right the hand of the free market, (supply, demand, etc) will supply those checks.

This is a very idealistic viewpoint. But it simply doesn't work that way. Supply and demand is not a magic bullet.

Corporation also won't get as big without government subsidy, so we won't have a rule by big business.

Like in the 1800's or early 1900's?

The truth of the matter is that, outside of certain regulations, corporations do grow quite large and they essentially end up with complete control over their workers.

It would be nice if the workers really had equal power, but they don't - because their survival depends on their jobs. This gives those who run the business a great deal of power over them - power that can (and quite often is, if allowed) be used in harmful manners.

I personally see it as the ultimate form of democracy, money being the ballots.

Not democracy. If money is the "ballots", as you put it, it is an oligarchy at best. Those with the most money rule. Those with little of it have so little power in reference as to be inconsequential.

Also: Everyone has a skewed view of the world, what's uber liberal to me may seem just right to you.

It is possible to put things in perspective by comparison, however. If Obama is a "socialist" to you, I'm not sure what you'd call the vast majority of the world.

Oops, I didn't mean to say he had 8 terms. He had 4. I get confused when I think about numbers in Historical context sometimes.
And also, WWII wasn't necessary. defending ourselves from attack is and was necessary, but sending troops into foreign lands was a bad and inherently Imperial idea.

Not necessarily, if things start out right the hand of the free market, (supply, demand, etc) will supply those checks. And usually people will establish something in between if left to their own devices. People will have charities, communes, etc in a lassiez-faire style capitalistic system. Corporation also won't get as big without government subsidy, so we won't have a rule by big business.
I personally see it as the ultimate form of democracy, money being the ballots.

Also: Everyone has a skewed view of the world, what's uber liberal to me may seem just right to you.

Just because what you're describing has never worked in history isn't reason to find something wrong with it. Just like the fact that my glass has ever flown up when I hold it over the floor and let go doesn't mean I shouldn't guarantee to you that gravity actually pulls things upward.

Not democracy. If money is the "ballots", as you put it, it is an oligarchy at best. Those with the most money rule. Those with little of it have so little power in reference as to be inconsequential.

History tells us that when money is the ballot, those who already have power and money create a system where it's impossible to shift that balance. They are unassailable except with military might, which is why armed revolution has always been necessary to change such things.

The truth is that the only true way that individuals have power that is not socialist is a meritocracy. The problem with a meritocracy is who decides what merits matter?

Just because what you're describing has never worked in history isn't reason to find something wrong with it. Just like the fact that my glass has ever flown up when I hold it over the floor and let go doesn't mean I shouldn't guarantee to you that gravity actually pulls things upward.

Enjoy being delusional about the facts of science? Gravity is rather incontrovertible.

The reason that Communism doesn't work is because people don't work that way. Few, if anyone, really sees their work as equal in value to everyone else's, regardless of occupation. And few are so selfless that they'll give you the shirt off their backs over and over and over again for nothing in return.

So, Communist states have to force people to do these things. Indoctrination of children, re-education camps for adults (or the firing squad, or forced starvation - pick your historical reference). Taking property by force "in the name of the Party".

And aren't Party leaders just more bosses? Who in essence hold and direct all use of property and capital?

It hasn't worked, and it won't work. Unless you're postulating a change in human nature that is as unlikely as the suspension of gravity on this planet.

History tells us that when money is the ballot, those who already have power and money create a system where it's impossible to shift that balance. They are unassailable except with military might, which is why armed revolution has always been necessary to change such things.

The truth is that the only true way that individuals have power that is not socialist is a meritocracy. The problem with a meritocracy is who decides what merits matter?

Not to mention how one goes about setting up the level playing field to begin with.

Not to mention how one goes about setting up the level playing field to begin with.

Yes, of course.

Dempublicents1:
Those people were getting a high standard of living in the Gilded Age. Coming from farms to cities was a big step, and maybe the world wasn't all that ready for a Revolution of Industry. The Infrastructure wasn't ready for mass immigration into cities so what do you expect to happen?
But those people had roofs over their head, many times enough food to survive, and they chose to move from farms to cities themselves. If they didn't read the fine print it's all their fault.

Jocabia:
I really don't get what you are trying to say in response to my WWII comments, please rephrase.

And there would be other forms of power besides money, people could band together and use their labor(which is worth money) as a bargaining chip. They could criminally prosecute people with money if they has done something wrong.
And I personally would be more then happy to see the big companies knocked down a peg or two in transition to true capitalism. And not to mention fiat money would be worthless anyway, therefore people with gold, silver, and commodities would be the rich ones.
Bill Gates would probably be middle class if fiat money suddenly became worthless.

Enjoy being delusional about the facts of science? Gravity is rather incontrovertible.

The reason that Communism doesn't work is because people don't work that way. Few, if anyone, really sees their work as equal in value to everyone else's, regardless of occupation. And few are so selfless that they'll give you the shirt off their backs over and over and over again for nothing in return.

So, Communist states have to force people to do these things. Indoctrination of children, re-education camps for adults (or the firing squad, or forced starvation - pick your historical reference). Taking property by force "in the name of the Party".

And aren't Party leaders just more bosses? Who in essence hold and direct all use of property and capital?

It hasn't worked, and it won't work. Unless you're postulating a change in human nature that is as unlikely as the suspension of gravity on this planet.

Reading comprehension got you down? Don't fret. It's not that uncommon and they have classes that will help.

Why would I mention reading comprehension? Because where in my post did mention communism. Where did I defend it? When in the history of NSG have I ever said I support communism? Go ahead. I'll wait.

We were discussing capitalism and whether, if left to its own devices, it would turn out as described by our friend there.

As far as my point, gravity is "rather incontrovertible" because there has never been an example of something disobeying the law of gravity. Similarly, there has never been a capitalist system that turned out the way our little friend described. The evidence that he is wrong is fairly thick and demonstrative. Now if you'd like to speak to that point let me know.

Jocabia:
I really don't get what you are trying to say in response to my WWII comments, please rephrase.

And there would be other forms of power besides money, people could band together and use their labor(which is worth money) as a bargaining chip. They could criminally prosecute people with money if they has done something wrong.
And I personally would be more then happy to see the big companies knocked down a peg or two in transition to true capitalism. And not to mention fiat money would be worthless anyway, therefore people with gold, silver, and commodities would be the rich ones.
Bill Gates would probably be middle class if fiat money suddenly became worthless.

They could not band together because employers used to make it a fireable offense to even discuss doing so. The employers pressure the system to prevent workers from gathering any rights. As far as prosecuting those with money, then you're contradicting yourself. You described a system where government does not get involved in capitalism. In that system, no prosecution.

There would be private courts, so if a man with money violated common law he would be liable for redressing grievances.

And I have never heard of a time where controversial opinions weren't looked down upon by others Jocabia, of course the employers would fire them, it's their right!
But if you fire enough people, you don't have any workers. Want to hire more, nobody will take the job because you are a stingy idiot who doesn't pay enough.
And as for no capitalist system ever turning out like I have described: There's never been one without the crutch and tyranny of government interference, as far as I can tell.

There's also never been one without the crutch and tyranny of government interference, as far as I can tell.

Given your historical expertise, "as far as you can tell" isn't worth much.

The fact is you've not described one free from interference either. A free market eventually forms a government of sorts that allows those with power, those with the most votes, to ensure they maintain that power. It's in their interest and you've not created any kind of barrier to them ensuring there is never a shift. There is nothing to prevent them from gathering more power, from stop innovation that might hurt their marketshare, from preventing competition. A totally free market by nature cannot exist. Because in the absense of barriers to prevent further interference, it becomes in the interest of those with all the power to interfere with the market.

There would be private courts, so if a man with money violated common law he would be liable for redressing grievances.

And I have never heard of a time where controversial opinions weren't looked down upon by others Jocabia, of course the employers would fire them, it's their right!
But if you fire enough people, you don't have any workers. Want to hire more, nobody will take the job because you are a stingy idiot who doesn't pay enough.
And as for no capitalist system ever turning out like I have described: There's never been one without the crutch and tyranny of government interference, as far as I can tell.

Uh, private courts? Who runs these private courts? Who prevents them from being corrupted? Where do they come from and how are they enforced?

Your opinions aren't controversial. They're old.

Your description isn't how things work. Jobs aren't any more endless that workers are. As competition dies away in the marketplace, so it does in the job marketplace. A monopoly on available jobs is as corrupting as a monopoly on goods. And both happen in a free market system completely unregulated.

But if the basic tenets of society and agreed upon common law was against it then nobody would let them control anything beyond their property. Other companies, whose best interest was to keep freedom, would put them back in their place. Not to mention the majority of society would be pretty pissed Corporation A was bombing Corporation B so they would fight back or at least boycott them.

And there's a chance it won't work, but in my book government regulation and even governments in general have only done a mediocre job at best.

But if the basic tenets of society and agreed upon common law was against it then nobody would let them control anything beyond their property. Other companies, whose best interest was to keep freedom, would put them back in their place. Not to mention the majority of society would be pretty pissed Corporation A was bombing Corporation B so they would fight back or at least boycott them.

And there's a chance it won't work, but in my book government regulation and even governments in general have only done a mediocre job at best.

You're talking about government regulation? What do you think the tenets of society are? Agreed upon common law? Those are just simpler forms of government. Other companies? If they're companies, their best interest is to make money. If the large corporations hold all the money, then it's in EVERY company's best interest to suck up to them

There's not a change it won't work. There's no chance it will. It's illogical and completely flies in the face of the original premise, the free market. Regulation automatically contradicts a free market.

Hey LFL, we already tried this anyway, back in the 1800s. :P


It failed hard.

The reason that Communism doesn't work is because people don't work that way. Few, if anyone, really sees their work as equal in value to everyone else's, regardless of occupation. And few are so selfless that they'll give you the shirt off their backs over and over and over again for nothing in return.

Indeed. Most people aren't willing to work hard for only what they need. There needs to be incentive to excel, because doing so isn't enough incentive in and of itself for most people.

Of course, pure capitalism also doesn't work because people simply don't work that way either. In order for it to work, all employers would have to be selfless enough to pay decent wages of their own accord. In reality, they'll pay as little as they can get away with - and the workers who depend on some sort of job to survive will take less than they need just to have something. Company owners would also be willing to allow fair competition, rather than doing everything in their power to lock out any newcomers. Again, not a reality.

Hence the reason that what human beings really need is something in between.


Those people were getting a high standard of living in the Gilded Age. Coming from farms to cities was a big step, and maybe the world wasn't all that ready for a Revolution of Industry. The Infrastructure wasn't ready for mass immigration into cities so what do you expect to happen?
But those people had roofs over their head, many times enough food to survive, and they chose to move from farms to cities themselves. If they didn't read the fine print it's all their fault.

You aren't very aware of corporate practices back then, are you?

Corporations would essentially enslave workers by paying them in credits that could only be used at the company store and for company housing. The people had to survive, so they accepted it, but it meant that they were perpetually in debt to the people providing for their welfare - and thus unable to leave or find something better.

On top of that, conditions within factories and the like were atrocious. Health of the employees simply wasn't a concern and, again, this was their livelihood so they had to put up with it.

And there would be other forms of power besides money, people could band together and use their labor(which is worth money) as a bargaining chip. They could criminally prosecute people with money if they has done something wrong.

....both things that require regulations. In order for the something to be subject to criminal prosecution, it would have to be illegal. Thus, the government would be regulating corporate practices.

And banding together requires legal protections as well. Otherwise, you get the Pinkertons.

And I personally would be more then happy to see the big companies knocked down a peg or two in transition to true capitalism. And not to mention fiat money would be worthless anyway, therefore people with gold, silver, and commodities would be the rich ones.
Bill Gates would probably be middle class if fiat money suddenly became worthless.

Ah yes. Let's bankrupt basically everyone in the world for this new dystopian ideal world! The only people with any power and wealth should be the ones with things we have arbitrarily declared to have great worth!

They could not band together because employers used to make it a fireable offense to even discuss doing so. The employers pressure the system to prevent workers from gathering any rights. As far as prosecuting those with money, then you're contradicting yourself. You described a system where government does not get involved in capitalism. In that system, no prosecution.

Precisely. A pure capitalist system places all of the power in the hands of the rich. And they will do what is in their power to keep it that way.

Enjoy being delusional about the facts of science? Gravity is rather incontrovertible.


Irony doesn't just mean 'made of iron'.

Gravity is only as 'incontrovertible' as Jocabia explained it was. It hasn't yet been 'controverted', but that doesn't mean it can't or won't. Indeed, our entire understanding of what 'gravity' is and how it 'works' could change entirely at any point. That's the great strength of science.

Personally, I don't believe in 'gravity'. I think the world just sucks.

There would be private courts...

What you are describing is basically a new form of feudalism. And, I don't know if you have any real idea of how 'justice' is handled in feudal societies...?

Your 'private courts' have to be maintained somehow... and those that maintain them have disproportionate power over them, yes? See the problem yet?

The Republicans were never good, Lincoln strengthened the national government, suspended habeas corpus, instituted a draft, etc.

All because of a little thing called a Rebellion by the Confederate States who started the friggin war.

We haven't had a good president, I can safely say, since Washington.

Debatable.

And even he may be a stretch, I just like him because everyone wanted him to be president and he just kind of "did his duty". He had the balls to resist power, most career politicians today wouldn't.

That is a sad and sorry truth.

The man who was so power hungry he had 8 terms, really?

Nice sarcasm.

Not to mention he made the New Deal. And he was president when we went into WWII, one of the most unnecessary wars of history.

You mean the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor had nothing to do with our full military involvement?

I really think Washington was better.

Lincoln.

And also, WWII wasn't necessary. defending ourselves from attack is and was necessary, but sending troops into foreign lands was a bad and inherently Imperial idea.

So we should never have attacked Hitler after he declared war on us then? Or how about Italy when the Fascists declared war on us? We did not declare war on them.

Maybe you should brush up on what the term ally means.

How so?
And school doesn't equal intelligence, Wikipedia is a lot more fun way to learn stuff(especially history).

There is your problem. When you study, use other sources besides wikipedia. It can be altered by pretty much anyone with an account.

I mean, Hitler was a maniac, but given enough time the mighty British Empire and the Soviets could have wiped him out.

You do realize that we supplied the Soviet Union with equipment because they could not produce it right? And the Brits? Please. They did not have the manpower to actually do what was needed.

The Japs did bomb us, but that constituted only more naval and air defense in Pacific coastal areas and our national waters.
We didn't have to go into all out war, just better defense.

So we should have just ignored the attack? We have a pacifist here ladies and gentlemen.

You mean the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor


This part is, unfortunately, wrong.


...had nothing to do with our full military involvement

And, this part, unfortunately, is right.


They did not have the manpower to actually do what was needed.


And this part is funny. Seriously, you guys turned up half-cocked, four years late. If you'd waited till you were ready, you'd have missed the party completely. Hitler's warmachine was bogged down, failing-or-close-to on just about every front. And, if you look at battles where Americans were left responsible for their own actions (with rare exceptions), they got massacred.

You could argue that Yanks bailed out everyone else from having to bury a load of their OWN people, I suppose....

You realize that welfare is a part of capitalism and that it will never disappear right? It's needed because capitalism requires an army of 'reserve labor', unemployed and on welfare, in order to replace the current workers on a lower wage. You see, this is how it works, the current workers demand a wage rise, the owner says screw you, fires them all and hires from the 'reserve' at a lower rate of pay.

I also dealt with this in the other thread, at many times in our life we are 'declassed', when we are young our parents and/or the government pay for our subsistence etc. Now it doesn't matter where this money comes from, it can be leeched either from our parents wages or those of other wages through government welfare, the desired result is the same: to get us educated to become a worker and enter a pool of exploitable labor commodity. 'Education', paid for by leeching out of the wages of other workers, is like a business investment, think of it like this: the owner gives his workers a good wage and they spent it giving their children a good education, which makes them into good labor commodities to be exploited in the future. Same way police protect private property, and are paid for by leeching out of the public purse.

The whole welfare system is based around upholding capitalism.

Your rants are as boring as they are silly. But thanks for playing.

What you are describing is basically a new form of feudalism.

That's a good thing.

See the problem yet?

No. Do you?

Precisely. A pure capitalist system places all of the power in the hands of the rich. And they will do what is in their power to keep it that way.

How absurd. I don't suppose you plan on presenting any "evidence" of this claim? I won't hold my breath.

That's a good thing.

HUH? :confused:



No. Do you?

The 12th Century called. They're ready for you to return now.

The 12th Century called. They're ready for you to return now.

Too bad. My time machine is broken.

How absurd. I don't suppose you plan on presenting any "evidence" of this claim? I won't hold my breath.

Considering the fact that you just lauded feudalism, which is exactly what I said here, I'm not really sure why you are complaining.

You clearly like the idea of a society in which all power is contained in the hands of the few while the rest toil away to keep them there.

That's a good thing.


Rigidly controlled immobile class structures are a good thing? Or the 'effective slavery' element? Or, just that a few have plenty, and most have nothing?

Which particular aspect was the 'good' bit?


No. Do you?

Yes. And you've admitted you don't. So - I guess that's it. Which is good, because I really didn't see how you were going to defend your 'argument'.

Considering the fact that you just lauded feudalism, which is exactly what I said here, I'm not really sure why you are complaining.

You clearly like the idea of a society in which all power is contained in the hands of the few while the rest toil away to keep them there.

I think you killed it.....

And this part is funny. Seriously, you guys turned up half-cocked, four years late. If you'd waited till you were ready, you'd have missed the party completely. Hitler's warmachine was bogged down, failing-or-close-to on just about every front. And, if you look at battles where Americans were left responsible for their own actions (with rare exceptions), they got massacred.

You could argue that Yanks bailed out everyone else from having to bury a load of their OWN people, I suppose....

Really? I'm interested in seeing some evidence on this. I find it hard to believe we were that incompetent. Also, while obviously our involvement was not required to actually save anyone, I'm not so sure it wasn't extremely useful. We did, after all, handle the Japanese mostly by ourselves, and I think our additional manpower and industrial power certainly helped aid the British in breaking through the German's fortress Europe. Oh, they'd have fallen to the Soviets either way, but I'm honestly curious as to whether the British would have gotten as far into Europe without us.

Again, not saying we were required to win the war. I'm saying that while correcting the ridiculous upplay of many Americans we shouldn't accidentally downplay American involvement too much. (And, of course, I could always be wrong about what I'm saying here.)

And this part is funny. Seriously, you guys turned up half-cocked, four years late. If you'd waited till you were ready, you'd have missed the party completely. Hitler's warmachine was bogged down, failing-or-close-to on just about every front. And, if you look at battles where Americans were left responsible for their own actions (with rare exceptions), they got massacred.

You could argue that Yanks bailed out everyone else from having to bury a load of their OWN people, I suppose....

Oh? Well, for starters, the time Hitler invaded Poland to the US declaration of war only amounts to 2 1/2 years. When the US first entered the war, Hitler's warmachine was still seemingly invincible, with neither Stalingrad or Tunis having yet taken place. Britain was still holed up on its island and Russia was in full retreat. The outcome of the war was very dubious at that time, and the US presence did a hell of a lot to tip the scale in the allies' favor. Not that we fought the whole war, the British and the Russians were vital beyond belief, but your complete downplay of US involvement strains credibility.

And massacred when responsible for our own actions? You mean like Okinawa, Guadalcanal, and Midway, right? Because we were completely massacred there...right...

Guys, if it's that fascinating, start another thread. This one's about the US election. 'mkay?

And, this part, unfortunately, is right.And this part is funny. Seriously, you guys turned up half-cocked, four years late. If you'd waited till you were ready, you'd have missed the party completely.

If it were up to us, we would not have gotten involved in Europe at all. Hitler and Mussolini should not have declared war on us. They only did so because of Axis Treaty.

Hitler's warmachine was bogged down, failing-or-close-to on just about every front.

Africa and his invasion of the USSR was just beginning to actually turn against them when Pearl Harbor went down.

And, if you look at battles where Americans were left responsible for their own actions (with rare exceptions), they got massacred.

Funny. You really really are funny to read this early in the morning.

You could argue that Yanks bailed out everyone else from having to bury a load of their OWN people, I suppose....

:rolleyes:

I heard Obama answer a question about his (non) support for the surge in Iraq. The question was "...knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?"

His answer was so unintelligible that I had to look for transcripts. I found a story from ABC, instead.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5417331&page=1

"These kinds of hypotheticals are very difficult," he said. "Hindsight is 20/20. But I think that what I am absolutely convinced of is, at that time, we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one that I just disagreed with, and one that I continue to disagree with -- is to look narrowly at Iraq and not focus on these broader issues."

That's almost as bad as the Barbie-doll answer we heard from Miss Somebody in a recent beauty pageant. I think Obama means "No". So, even with the demonstrated success of the surge, he would still vote against it.

I hope his handlers prepare him a little better before his next public appearance.

Its interesting that during a time when Obama is getting all the campaigning and getting all the press - good and bad - McCain is actually closing the gap from a few weeks ago.

I heard Obama answer a question about his (non) support for the surge in Iraq. The question was "...knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?"

His answer was so unintelligible that I had to look for transcripts. I found a story from ABC, instead.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5417331&page=1

That's almost as bad as the Barbie-doll answer we heard from Miss Somebody in a recent beauty pageant. I think Obama means "No". So, even with the demonstrated success of the surge, he would still vote against it.

I hope his handlers prepare him a little better before his next public appearance.
Short term success does not mean long-term success. The surge so far is not looking so good for long-term, and since long-term is what actually matters...

Short term success does not mean long-term success. The surge so far is not looking so good for long-term, and since long-term is what actually matters...

Well, then he could have just said that rather than babbling on and on and basically saying nothing, and assuming that most Americans would be too stupid to notice that he was making an idiot of himself.

Well, okay, most Americans probably were too stupid to notice...

Well, then he could have just said that rather than babbling on and on and basically saying nothing, and assuming that most Americans would be too stupid to notice that he was making an idiot of himself.

Well, okay, most Americans probably were too stupid to notice...

Looked to me like he was trying to explain why he thinks the way he thinks. What's wrong with that?

Short term success does not mean long-term success. The surge so far is not looking so good for long-term, and since long-term is what actually matters...
How so?

Iraqis are managing Iraqi affairs more and more. Al-Qaida seems to be on the ropes in Iraq. Surge troops are coming home. Even the MSM has started to grudgingly admit success.

What is it you know?

Looked to me like he was trying to explain why he thinks the way he thinks. What's wrong with that?
The fact that it came out as incomprehensible ibberish.

The fact that it came out as incomprehensible ibberish.

Ibberish?

Ibberish?
See, I've been infected...

See, I've been infected...

*sprays you with Lysol*

If the commercials are anything to go by, you should be fine in like twenty seconds.

Looked to me like he was trying to explain why he thinks the way he thinks. What's wrong with that?

The fact that he was spewing nonsensical bullshit. All I ever seem to hear from Obama is empty rhetoric of "CHANGE! CHANGE! CHANGE! YES WE CAN!" that he reads from a teleprompter, or idiotic babble such as what we are talking about. He's nothing without prewritten speeches or prompting. It's no wonder that he's been too much of a coward to face off against McCain in a debate yet. Sorry, but as much as I dislike McSame, I am far from impressed by Obama.

Iraqis are managing Iraqi affairs more and more. Al-Qaida seems to be on the ropes in Iraq.


Yay! Things are possibly heading back to where they were before we screwed them up! Go us!

The fact that he was spewing nonsensical bullshit. All I ever seem to hear from Obama is empty rhetoric of "CHANGE! CHANGE! CHANGE! YES WE CAN!" that he reads from a teleprompter, or idiotic babble such as what we are talking about. He's nothing without prewritten speeches or prompting. It's no wonder that he's been too much of a coward to face off against McCain in a debate yet. Sorry, but as much as I dislike McSame, I am far from impressed by Obama.

Is it true that McCain wasn't born in the contiguous US?

Is it true that McCain wasn't born in the contiguous US?

Anything but the Chewbacca Defense! (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChewbaccaDefense) o.o

Is it true that McCain wasn't born in the contiguous US?
Correct. He was born in the Panama Canal Zone (his parents were career military, and stationed there). It raises some constitutional questions about his eligibility, although most don't consider those questions to be very serious.

The fact that he was spewing nonsensical bullshit. All I ever seem to hear from Obama is empty rhetoric of "CHANGE! CHANGE! CHANGE! YES WE CAN!" that he reads from a teleprompter, or idiotic babble such as what we are talking about. He's nothing without prewritten speeches or prompting. It's no wonder that he's been too much of a coward to face off against McCain in a debate yet. Sorry, but as much as I dislike McSame, I am far from impressed by Obama.

Then don't vote for him, I guess, but it seems a little lame. It's not like you have no way of knowing what his views are; they're all over the place, most notably his website. Don't vote for him because you don't like his views; if you think he's a bad speaker, that seems like a different issue. I guess it depends on whether you're looking for somebody with impressive views or impressive speeches. (And I'm certainly not assuming you'll think Obama's views are impressive. Just really giving a big "who cares?" to the issue of his speeches.)

I think McCain is a decent speaker (except when he's making terrible off-color jokes). He doesn't take himself too seriously, and he seems pretty easygoing. However, I don't care about any of this. I disagree with his views, and doesn't this seem like the most important thing? I mean, I can completely understand your complaints about Obama. I don't share them, but I understand them. But is this really what you're basing your opinion on so far? I certainly don't know you, but I'll bet you're a better thinker than that.

Correct. He was born in the Panama Canal Zone (his parents were career military, and stationed there). It raises some constitutional questions about his eligibility, although most don't consider those questions to be very serious.

It seems curious that people can be arguing the relative merits of debate style, the content of stump speeches... whether or not one candidate uses a teleprompter (which is SO important)... when one of the candidates MIGHT not even be eligible to be in the competition.

Shouldn't that little issue be sorted before we worry too much about rhetoric?

Then don't vote for him, I guess, but it seems a little lame. It's not like you have no way of knowing what his views are; they're all over the place, most notably his website. Don't vote for him because you don't like his views; if you think he's a bad speaker, that seems like a different issue. I guess it depends on whether you're looking for somebody with impressive views or impressive speeches. (And I'm certainly not assuming you'll think Obama's views are impressive. Just really giving a big "who cares?" to the issue of his speeches.)

I think McCain is a decent speaker (except when he's making terrible off-color jokes). He doesn't take himself too seriously, and he seems pretty easygoing. However, I don't care about any of this. I disagree with his views, and doesn't this seem like the most important thing? I mean, I can completely understand your complaints about Obama. I don't share them, but I understand them. But is this really what you're basing your opinion on so far? I certainly don't know you, but I'll bet you're a better thinker than that.
Well, I don't care for his policies, either, with the exception of his protectionist views on trade (tariffs, getting rid of NAFTA). McCain's policies are better in some regards, annoyingly similar in other regards, and worse in some cases, in my opinion.

My points are as follows:

1.) I know Obama's policies, but I can't help but feel that he is attempting to brainwash Americans who aren't as assertive or motivated as I am, who will hear only his rhetoric.

2.) As I said above, both have policies I like and dislike, though McCain is ahead in my opinion (since I’m further to the right on most issues). With that established, I tend to look for other qualities in the candidates. I am of the belief that the skill of leadership is very important in a president. That skill includes the things that I mentioned in previous posts, and Obama simply doesn’t have it. He’s a charlatan of a leader who would get ripped apart by hostile foreign leaders and would embarrass the country. That is my opinion.

Anything but the Chewbacca Defense! (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChewbaccaDefense) o.o

"Chewbacca's Dilemma: No matter what you say in an argument, no matter how intelligently and clearly you word your rebuttals and assertions, your opponent will always perceive whatever you say to be a Chewbacca Defense.

The point I made actually relates directly, as I explained in my next post.

Correct. He was born in the Panama Canal Zone (his parents were career military, and stationed there). It raises some constitutional questions about his eligibility, although most don't consider those questions to be very serious.

Considering that under US law, he was born an American Citizen...

"Chewbacca's Dilemma: No matter what you say in an argument, no matter how intelligently and clearly you word your rebuttals and assertions, your opponent will always perceive whatever you say to be a Chewbacca Defense.

The point I made actually relates directly, as I explained in my next post.

Your point didn't relate at all to the post of mine in which you had initially quoted. It was more like:

Person A: "Yeah, I think Obama is a useless public speaker without a teleprompter, blah blah blah, etc, etc..."

Person B: "Yeah, but McCain might not be eligible to run because of where he was born."

Sorry, but those two statements are not connected, other than the fact that both refer to a presidential candidate. It was a classic subject shift.

Your point didn't relate at all to the post of mine in which you had initially quoted. It was more like:

Person A: "Yeah, I think Obama is a useless public speaker without a teleprompter, blah blah blah, etc, etc..."

Person B: "Yeah, but McCain might not be eligible to run because of where he was born."

Sorry, but those two statements are not connected, other than the fact that both refer to a presidential candidate. It was a classic subject shift.

No, no, no, my friend. Your reasons for not thinking that Obama is fit for the job are pure opinion. In contrast, Obama might be the only one of the two voices that actually deserves to even be there. By which token, your dismay at his rehtorical style may appear just a little superficial, no?

Considering that under US law, he was born an American Citizen...

I think the question might be about whether or not that's enough. Theoretically, an Iranian born in the American Embassy in Tehran could claim to have been born an American Citizen (maybe? Not sure), because of the sovereign territory arrangement of embassies...

So... are there 'citizens' and 'citizens'? (Well, obviously there are - since US law discriminates between native-born-citizens and non-native-born-citizens). Is it enough to just claim the citizenship... shouldn't you have to be 'born here' too?

I think the question might be about whether or not that's enough. Theoretically, an Iranian born in the American Embassy in Tehran could claim to have been born an American Citizen (maybe? Not sure), because of the sovereign territory arrangement of embassies...

Actually...no they would not be considered US Citizens. They would be considered Iranian Citizens.

... are there 'citizens' and 'citizens'? (Well, obviously there are - since US law discriminates between native-born-citizens and non-native-born-citizens). Is it enough to just claim the citizenship... shouldn't you have to be 'born here' too?

He was since the PCZ was American territory.

No, no, no, my friend. Your reasons for not thinking that Obama is fit for the job are pure opinion. In contrast, Obama might be the only one of the two voices that actually deserves to even be there. By which token, your dismay at his rehtorical style may appear just a little superficial, no?

No, sorry. This connection that you claim between the two subjects is void, and borders on idiotic, for two reasons.

Reason one: because your assertion is bullshit. McCain wouldn't have gotten that far if his candidacy was illegal, anyway.

Reason two: I was discussing the subject of, assuming that both candidates are legitimate, which has more skills as a speaker and a leader. You simply just tried to shift the subject to whether or not McCain could legally run. It is not the same topic. Honestly, yours wasn't so much a topic as pointless slander, anyway.

Therefore, your actions can be easily seen as a classic subject shift. I would go as far as to say that it was a desperate attempt to throw up smoke to cover one of your favor's candidate's major faults by clouding the issue with random bullshit... but that's just me.

Well, I don't care for his policies, either, with the exception of his protectionist views on trade (tariffs, getting rid of NAFTA). McCain's policies are better in some regards, annoyingly similar in other regards, and worse in some cases, in my opinion.

My points are as follows:

1.) I know Obama's policies, but I can't help but feel that he is attempting to brainwash Americans who aren't as assertive or motivated as I am, who will hear only his rhetoric.

2.) As I said above, both have policies I like and dislike, though McCain is ahead in my opinion (since I’m further to the right on most issues). With that established, I tend to look for other qualities in the candidates. I am of the belief that the skill of leadership is very important in a president. That skill includes the things that I mentioned in previous posts, and Obama simply doesn’t have it. He’s a charlatan of a leader who would get ripped apart by hostile foreign leaders and would embarrass the country. That is my opinion.

In response to 1: I don't think highlighting the best of one's policies or the best of one's rhetoric can count as "brainwashing." Perhaps he doesn't speak to the heart of issues as often as McCain, but this is just a strategy. This says little or nothing, I think, about his governance. After all, we saw what happened when Kerry tried to stick with talking about the issues in his campaign. He was beat by the candidate who was the more interesting, more inspiring speaker. (This is not to say that he lost solely because of it, but it cannot be denied that he had the reputation of being boring and uninspiring.) I would say that in terms of speaking on issues, McCain is slightly better than Bush when he was campaigning, and Obama is probably on par with Bush. It is certainly a strategy to which you may object (though I view it as a bit of a shame if you do), but it's not "brainwashing."

A second point in response to 1: It could easily be argued that Obama is trusting the populace more than other candidates. Obama gives his stump speeches in order to show his personality, and he trusts people to care enough to find out his views. He certainly touches on his views in his speeches, but perhaps he trusts voters to find the specifics. If this is the case, it can hardly be viewed as a negative, and could plausibly be a positive for his campaign.

In response to 2: You'll have to define your conception of "leadership" more clearly. In this case, you have two possible leaders, both with meritous views. One is very inspirational, but less substantive in his views. He doesn't lay out the particulars of his plans or ideas, but he has a way of motivating people. The other is less inspirational, but covers more specifics and is more substantive in his speeches. Now, the people being led have access to the specifics of the plans by plenty of other means; even if the details are not covered in speeches, it is entirely possible for the population to find the details. It would seem to me that the first leader would be the one to follow -- the one who makes people want to act and achieve through his speeches. He has ideas, and has a way of getting them implemented. The second leader, while he has good ideas, only reinforces those ideas with speeches and doesn't inspire -- doesn't lead, if you will. There is no modicum of action for the second leader. It seems like if leadership is what you value, Obama is the way to go, but as I said, you'll have to give me your definition of "leadership."


Also, as an aside, your use of terms like "brainwashing" and "charlatan" make it somewhat difficult to assume you're open to debate and make you appear to be a propaganda-monger. Just a friendly heads up. ;)

Actually...no they would not be considered US Citizens. They would be considered Iranian Citizens.


Why? Embassy soil counts as part of whatever sovereign territory it is an embassy for, doesn't it?


He was since the PCZ was American territory.

Which doesn't mean he was born in this country, now, does it?

No, sorry. This connection that you claim between the two subjects is void, and borders on idiotic, for two reasons.


Start with a logical fallacy. Ad hominem doesn't make a strong argument, my friend.

But, you're not the first person to try to use this kind of bullyboy insult technique to try to batten down responses. The irony here, of course, is your earlier play of the Chewbacca Defence card.


Reason one: because your assertion is bullshit. McCain wouldn't have gotten that far if his candidacy was illegal, anyway.


Why? If it's debatable, but they thought they could get away with it, I have no doubts one of the two main parties would push a trick like that. Based on the last few elections, actually sticking to the facts has often been shown to be anathema, anyway.


Reason two: I was discussing the subject of, assuming that both candidates are legitimate, which has more skills as a speaker and a leader.


Mainly as a speaker, I think - unless teleprompters are now the mark of a bad leader. And - honestly - what would you be able to base the assertion of 'a good leader' on?


You simply just tried to shift the subject to whether or not McCain could legally run. It is not the same topic. Honestly, yours wasn't so much a topic as pointless slander, anyway.


The topic (if you'd care to look at the title, and the OP) is not as tight as you think it is. You decide to run a rather narrow discussion about your assessment of Obama's spoken words... well, okay. But, this thread is broader than that. And not everyone will indulge your desire to finesse the discussion to minute details, when there could be bigger - arguably more important - issues.


Therefore, your actions can be easily seen as a classic subject shift. I would go as far as to say that it was a desperate attempt to throw up smoke to cover one of your favor's candidate's major faults by...


Obama isn't my favoured candidate. My favoured candidate didn't even make it to the primary stages.


...clouding the issue with random bullshit... but that's just me.

Yessir.

Why? Embassy soil counts as part of whatever sovereign territory it is an embassy for, doesn't it?

Only to a point.

Which doesn't mean he was born in this country, now, does it?

Actually yes it does mean he was.

Only to a point.


Which point would that be?

Attacking an embassy counts as an attack on sovereign territory, doesn't it? It can be construed as an act of war, no?


Actually yes it does mean he was.

So you could have a Puerto Rican president? A president born in Guam?

I don't think I believe you.

Which point would that be?

Attacking an embassy counts as an attack on sovereign territory, doesn't it? It can be construed as an act of war, no?

Yes and no.

So you could have a Puerto Rican president? A president born in Guam?

I don't think I believe you.

According to the law, they are American citizens so yes. The Constitution says nothing about being born in the United States. All it says is that you have to be a natural born citizen of the United States. Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, these are all American Territories and the people born there are considered US Citizens. So yes, they can become President in accordance with the US Constitution Article II.

Yes and no.


Equivocation?


According to the law, they are American citizens so yes. The Constitution says nothing about being born in the United States. All it says is that you have to be a natural born citizen of the United States. Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, these are all American Territories and the people born there are considered US Citizens. So yes, they can become President in accordance with the US Constitution Article II.

Being able to claim American citizenship is not necessarily the same as being a 'natural born citizen of the United States'.

Is that the exact wording? It's a while since I looked into this, so I don't rightly recall. Does it specify that you only have to be capable of claiming citizenship at birth, or is it something that can be read into it?

Being able to claim American citizenship is not necessarily the same as being a 'natural born citizen of the United States'.

Is that the exact wording? It's a while since I looked into this, so I don't rightly recall. Does it specify that you only have to be capable of claiming citizenship at birth, or is it something that can be read into it?

There was never any question over Barry Goldwater's eligibility. (At least none that I have heard). And he was born in a federal territory. I assume things would be the same for Puerto Ricans.

Yes and no.



According to the law, they are American citizens so yes. The Constitution says nothing about being born in the United States. All it says is that you have to be a natural born citizen of the United States. Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, these are all American Territories and the people born there are considered US Citizens. So yes, they can become President in accordance with the US Constitution Article II.
But you know, a year after McCain was born, Congress passed a law conferring citizenship on children of American parents born in the Canal Zone after 1904, and it made John McCain a citizen just before his first birthday. One year too late to be a "natural born" citizen according to some nit-pickers.

Here's a link to a story about the latest challenge to this non-issue.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/us/politics/11mccain.html?_r=1&partner=rssuserland&oref=slogin

There was never any question over Barry Goldwater's eligibility. (At least none that I have heard). And he was born in a federal territory. I assume things would be the same for Puerto Ricans.

Ah, but was there 'never any question' because it was examined and resolved that way... or because it just slipped under the radar?

But you know, a year after McCain was born, Congress passed a law conferring citizenship on children of American parents born in the Canal Zone after 1904, and it made John McCain a citizen just before his first birthday. One year too late to be a "natural born" citizen according to some nit-pickers.

Here's a link to a story about the latest challenge to this non-issue.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/us/politics/11mccain.html?_r=1&partner=rssuserland&oref=slogin

Nitpicking? Non-issue?

Personally, I don't think being born somewhere else should disqualify you from being president. I think that someone who - Arnie, for example - has opted to CHOOSE to come here and put in the work, is arguably much BETTER suited for the office than someone who is here by an accident of birth.

On the other hand - if you are going to have laws that discriminate on people because of their nation of origin, you should at least make sure they are applied evenly.

Being able to claim American citizenship is not necessarily the same as being a 'natural born citizen of the United States'.

Is that the exact wording?

Yes it is the correct wording.

It's a while since I looked into this, so I don't rightly recall. Does it specify that you only have to be capable of claiming citizenship at birth, or is it something that can be read into it?

A natural born citizen of the United States is all. As such, those born in Guam, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico can legally run for president as they are naturally born citizens of the United States.

Yes it is the correct wording.


The exact wording is: "you have to be a natural born citizen of the United States"...?

It doesn't sound like the stilted phrasing I remember....


A natural born citizen of the United States is all. As such, those born in Guam, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico can legally run for president as they are naturally born citizens of the United States.

Ah. So, McCain wouldn't, then? Since his status changed after his birth?

Yay! Things are possibly heading back to where they were before we screwed them up! Go us!
Yep, minus one despotic and murderous family that ruined the country long before we allowed the national art gallery to be looted...

And minus 500 TONS of yellowcake uranium -- tell me was Saddam about to start on a nuclear power program? There are a grand total of zero right now.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/07/iraq.uranium/index.html

And this makes me wonder what it was that Joe Wilson was doing when he decided Iraq had no yellowcake uranium.

Nitpicking? Non-issue?

Personally, I don't think being born somewhere else should disqualify you from being president. I think that someone who - Arnie, for example - has opted to CHOOSE to come here and put in the work, is arguably much BETTER suited for the office than someone who is here by an accident of birth.

On the other hand - if you are going to have laws that discriminate on people because of their nation of origin, you should at least make sure they are applied evenly.

Y'all let me know when this issue actually gets some traction. Okay?

Yep, minus one despotic and murderous family that ruined the country long before we allowed the national art gallery to be looted...


And you're in favour of that, are you? The violent overthrow by external aggressors, of governments seen to be less-than-democratic?

Of course, there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq, and they had law, and electricity, and water, etc. So - basically, after occupying their nation for half a decade, we've almost got them back to where they were before we invaded them?


And minus 500 TONS of yellowcake uranium -- tell me was Saddam about to start on a nuclear power program? There are a grand total of zero right now.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/07/iraq.uranium/index.html

And this makes me wonder what it was that Joe Wilson was doing when he decided Iraq had no yellowcake uranium.

Have you got any idea what you are talking about?

Even that article says it was unenriched. Even that article says it's a commonly traded commodity. I don't see that the article says anywhere how they KNOW the yellowcake 'dated back' that far... maybe the CIA is using Iraq as a staging area for materials trading, for all we know.

But... relevence?

Y'all let me know when this issue actually gets some traction. Okay?

Sure. Why would you be interested in a constitutional matter, after all, eh?

Or, only when it suits your agenda?

Yep, minus one despotic and murderous family that ruined the country long before we allowed the national art gallery to be looted...

And minus 500 TONS of yellowcake uranium -- tell me was Saddam about to start on a nuclear power program? There are a grand total of zero right now.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/07/iraq.uranium/index.html

And this makes me wonder what it was that Joe Wilson was doing when he decided Iraq had no yellowcake uranium.

I say we do this everywhere. I mean, there are no international laws against aggressively attacking a sovereign nation and removing their government under false pretenses.

As long as somewhere along the way we can make up a reason why we did it, it's okay. Right?

It's not like we caused the deaths of 100's of thousands of people in the process. What's that matter so long as we THINK we're right, yeah?

I say we do this everywhere. I mean, there are no international laws against aggressively attacking a sovereign nation and removing their government under false pretenses.

As long as somewhere along the way we can make up a reason why we did it, it's okay. Right?

It's not like we caused the deaths of 100's of thousands of people in the process. What's that matter so long as we THINK we're right, yeah?
If I had to make the decision on 9/12/2001 whether or not to invade Iraq, based on what we now know, I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to decide in favor of the invasion.

If I had to make the decision on 9/12/2001 whether or not to invade Iraq, based on what we now know, I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to decide in favor of the invasion.

Knowing that they had nothing to do with it, that Al Qaeda (who were responsible) didn't have a foothold there, that it was going to bring the US to the brink of bankruptcy, and that it was going to reduce our standing on the world stage to somewhere in the area usually reserved for the sorts of bugs that eat excrement... you would still go ahead?

This is why the right to vote should have some kind of test attached.

This is why the right to vote should have some kind of test attached.
Who would determine eligibility? What would stop the people in power from using it to cement themselves in place and render the whole point of voting meaningless?

Who would determine eligibility? What would stop the people in power from using it to cement themselves in place and render the whole point of voting meaningless?

I would determine eligibility, because I think all the main parties are as corrupt as one another, so I don't give a shit who gets in.

If I had to make the decision on 9/12/2001 whether or not to invade Iraq, based on what we now know, I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to decide in favor of the invasion.

Good to know you value human life at such a level. I wonder, if the invasion had the same effect but happened in the town your parents live, same answer?

I think the question might be about whether or not that's enough. Theoretically, an Iranian born in the American Embassy in Tehran could claim to have been born an American Citizen (maybe? Not sure), because of the sovereign territory arrangement of embassies...

So... are there 'citizens' and 'citizens'? (Well, obviously there are - since US law discriminates between native-born-citizens and non-native-born-citizens). Is it enough to just claim the citizenship... shouldn't you have to be 'born here' too?

You have to be a natural-born citizen which, as far as most people are concerned means "born as a citizen."

Given the number of military members who have children born in different countries, I think this question has been pretty well settled for quite some time now. We really don't treat our military members well enough as it is. Giving them the reward of not allowing their children to be considered natural-born citizens if they happen to be stationed elsewhere when the child is born isn't exactly somewhere most people want to go. And if the question wasn't already settled, Congress stated their opinion on it not so long ago. I highly doubt that the courts would go against it.

There are many valid reasons to oppose McCain. "ZOMG HIS PARENTS WERE STATIONED IN PANAMA WHEN HE WAS BORN!!!!!!" is not one of them.

You have to be a natural-born citizen which, as far as most people are concerned means "born as a citizen."

Given the number of military members who have children born in different countries, I think this question has been pretty well settled for quite some time now. We really don't treat our military members well enough as it is. Giving them the reward of not allowing their children to be considered natural-born citizens if they happen to be stationed elsewhere when the child is born isn't exactly somewhere most people want to go. And if the question wasn't already settled, Congress stated their opinion on it not so long ago. I highly doubt that the courts would go against it.

There are many valid reasons to oppose McCain. "ZOMG HIS PARENTS WERE STATIONED IN PANAMA WHEN HE WAS BORN!!!!!!" is not one of them.

But McCain wasn't born as a citizen. Right? His status was amended later?

There are many valid reasons to oppose McCain. His parents being stationed in Panama could (should?) turn out to be a reason why it should be irrelevent.

As to whether or not we treat our military well enough, that's a matter for debate - but it's a different debate to this one.

Good to know you value human life at such a level. I wonder, if the invasion had the same effect but happened in the town your parents live, same answer?
That's a hypothetical question that just can't be answered. Clearly my own interests are what happens to citizens of this country first. Saddam had plenty of chances and plenty of time to protect the citizens in Iraq.

I would determine eligibility, because I think all the main parties are as corrupt as one another, so I don't give a shit who gets in.

Erm...can you provide a decent resume for the position?

But McCain wasn't born as a citizen. Right? His status was amended later?

There are many valid reasons to oppose McCain. His parents being stationed in Panama could (should?) turn out to be a reason why it should be irrelevent.

As to whether or not we treat our military well enough, that's a matter for debate - but it's a different debate to this one.

Actually, he was. There is precedent. First, Goldwater was also born overseas. Second, the actually meaning of the phrase at the time of the writing wasn't born within the borders. It made room for those who are overseas in official roles from the US. McCain's parents quite obviously fit that position.

Moreover, whether or not YOU think it's valid, no court in the land is going to deny that the children of those serving the government of the US are not citizens upon birth.

Check out many of the dictionaries of that time. Most of them, unsurprisingly, from your own country where we got common law from.

That's a hypothetical question that just can't be answered. Clearly my own interests are what happens to citizens of this country first. Saddam had plenty of chances and plenty of time to protect the citizens in Iraq.

Are you even listening to yourself? Seriously? You already said previously that you considered removing Saddam Hussein as a plus because of his abuse of his citizenry.

Yet you would favor, despite knowing what we know, an invasion all over again, an invasion that would cost hundreds of thousands in Iraqi lives?

That's a hypothetical question that just can't be answered. Clearly my own interests are what happens to citizens of this country first. Saddam had plenty of chances and plenty of time to protect the citizens in Iraq.

So, in other words, you're not interested in answering honestly. Obviously, had the half a million non-soldiers who have died at the hands of incompetence been in this country, there's not a person here who would support it and you know it. You don't have to admit, but it would lend to your credibility.

It's easy to be cavalier about the lives of other people's brothers, sisters, babies, mothers, fathers, etc.

Yes, Saddam had plent of chances to protect the citizens of Iraq. How proud it makes me that who he needed to protect them was from the US. Doesn't that make you proud? That when Iraqi parents were talking to their children about the many threats in the world that among them were people like you who don't value their lives. People like you who would happily send the good reputation that I and others fought for down the shitter. People like you who don't know what diplomacy is.

Are you even listening to yourself? Seriously? You already said previously that you considered removing Saddam Hussein as a plus because of his abuse of his citizenry.

Yet you would favor, despite knowing what we know, an invasion all over again, an invasion that would cost hundreds of thousands in Iraqi lives?

You missed a part of that. He points out that Saddam should have protected those citizens. It's us that he's talking about protecting those citizens from. We just swapped abusers.

So, in other words, you're not interested in answering honestly. Obviously, had the half a million non-soldiers who have died at the hands of incompetence been in this country, there's not a person here who would support it and you know it. You don't have to admit, but it would lend to your credibility.

It's easy to be cavalier about the lives of other people's brothers, sisters, babies, mothers, fathers, etc.

Yes, Saddam had plent of chances to protect the citizens of Iraq. How proud it makes me that who he needed to protect them was from the US. Doesn't that make you proud? That when Iraqi parents were talking to their children about the many threats in the world that among them were people like you who don't value their lives. People like you who would happily send the good reputation that I and others fought for down the shitter. People like you who don't know what diplomacy is.
Why don't you just make it a round MILLION Iraqis that were killed by coalition forces. You can't back up 100,000, so just be even more preposterous. Civilians do die during battle. It sucks. I don't like having killed soldiers, let alone civilians, but I would rather have it this way than to read about the bombing at Sears in the mall where my kid works. Or to read about the T shootings where another kid lives. That hasn't happened and it's solely because of our decision to fight terrorists in A-stan and Iraq.

Now you can whine about whatever you like, but I'm sure you're glad that you don't have to look twice at the guy in the long coat getting on the bus with you.

That hasn't happened and it's solely because of our decision to fight terrorists in A-stan and Iraq.




Source?


Itll be tough, because there are boundless amounts of evidence that there werent terrorists in Iraq until we showed up.

Why don't you just make it a round MILLION Iraqis that were killed by coalition forces. You can't back up 100,000, so just be even more preposterous. Civilians do die during battle. It sucks. I don't like having killed soldiers, let alone civilians, but I would rather have it this way than to read about the bombing at Sears in the mall where my kid works. Or to read about the T shootings where another kid lives. That hasn't happened and it's solely because of our decision to fight terrorists in A-stan and Iraq.

Now you can whine about whatever you like, but I'm sure you're glad that you don't have to look twice at the guy in the long coat getting on the bus with you.

Not much of a reader, huh? I didn't say killed by coalition forces. However, they were killed as a result of a war WE started.

And now we've reached the heart of it. Iraqi lives are not equal to American lives. Good to know. So, how many Iraqi lives are worth protecting your son? 1? 5? 1000? 1000000? You realize that's the same argument terrorists make, right? That they kill us to protect their children from American agression. All we did in Iraq is make their argument accurate.

It's amusing that you continue to base your argument on the utter nonsense that Iraq had anything to do with terrorism. The only reason there is still a threat from Al-Queda is because our unfortunate President took his eye of the ball.

You missed a part of that. He points out that Saddam should have protected those citizens. It's us that he's talking about protecting those citizens from. We just swapped abusers.

And here I thought I was so clever. Damn!

Myrmi is clearly out of touch with reality. I am very glad he is not in my government nor would I want him in my government.

That's a hypothetical question that just can't be answered. Clearly my own interests are what happens to citizens of this country first. Saddam had plenty of chances and plenty of time to protect the citizens in Iraq.

Surely the assumption that you could make the same decision Bush did, knowing then what you know now.... is a hypothetical question that either can or cannot be answered to exactly the same degree as this one?

Jocabia suspected hypocrisy in your approach, methinks... so he made the issue a little closer to home, and you prevaricate. Looks like he was right.

And here I thought I was so clever. Damn!

Myrmi is clearly out of touch with reality. I am very glad he is not in my government nor would I want him in my government.
Well, we do agree on one thing. I guess you'll never be voting in Georgia elections. And the thought of that pleases me to no end.

Source?


Itll be tough, because there are boundless amounts of evidence that there werent terrorists in Iraq until we showed up.

I wouldn't be that certain. There were terrorists in Iraq before we showed up.

Our showing up simply increased the number and variety by one hundred fold or more.

Erm...can you provide a decent resume for the position?

You mean "I don't give a shit" isn't good enough? Damn - I thought that would clinch it.

I don't have a criminal record, I'm afraid. Curses... I'm so unsuited for high office.

Actually, he was. There is precedent. First, Goldwater was also born overseas. Second, the actually meaning of the phrase at the time of the writing wasn't born within the borders. It made room for those who are overseas in official roles from the US. McCain's parents quite obviously fit that position.

Moreover, whether or not YOU think it's valid, no court in the land is going to deny that the children of those serving the government of the US are not citizens upon birth.

Check out many of the dictionaries of that time. Most of them, unsurprisingly, from your own country where we got common law from.

Ah... then it's a 'living constitution' issue... which means we'll never get a hard-and-fast ruling on it.

It's not a matter of whether I think it's valid - I have little weight in this arena - but some constitutional experts seem to be debating it's merits.

Surely the assumption that you could make the same decision Bush did, knowing then what you know now.... is a hypothetical question that either can or cannot be answered to exactly the same degree as this one?

Jocabia suspected hypocrisy in your approach, methinks... so he made the issue a little closer to home, and you prevaricate. Looks like he was right.

I love how in one thread he's talking about how he thinks there is no value to understanding other cultures or their languages and in another he's arguing that people from other cultures have no value relative to people in this one. Very consistently racist that is.

Hmmm... not sure racist is the right word. See the people who thinks aren't "really" people are people born elsewhere. So it's not race that matters. But where you happen to have been born.

Well, we do agree on one thing. I guess you'll never be voting in Georgia elections. And the thought of that pleases me to no end.
I'm not sure I see the connection to my statement. Sounds to me like you disagree with me, not agree with me.

You mean "I don't give a shit" isn't good enough? Damn - I thought that would clinch it.

I don't have a criminal record, I'm afraid. Curses... I'm so unsuited for high office.
Nah, you got the position.

Why don't you just make it a round MILLION Iraqis that were killed by coalition forces. You can't back up 100,000, so just be even more preposterous. Civilians do die during battle. It sucks. I don't like having killed soldiers, let alone civilians, but I would rather have it this way than to read about the bombing at Sears in the mall where my kid works. Or to read about the T shootings where another kid lives. That hasn't happened and it's solely because of our decision to fight terrorists in A-stan and Iraq.

Now you can whine about whatever you like, but I'm sure you're glad that you don't have to look twice at the guy in the long coat getting on the bus with you.

Wow. You said a mouthful.

Let me recap. This is my wording, so you might quibble it, but that's okay - you're just going to be seeing what your argument currently looks like to an outside (to whit: me)

1) So long as it's foreigners getting killed, it's okay.

2) Killing civilians is okay, if you have a military objective.

3) Rather 'them' than 'us'.

4) The only casualties that count, are the ones you can prove are directly resulting from American fire.

5) There is no homegrown terrorism.

6) That there is some verifiable (negative) link between terrorism in this country, and occupation of Iraq.


I'm not sure how to respond to your foreign and domestic policy stances without someone citing me for Godwin.

I love how in one thread he's talking about how he thinks there is no value to understanding other cultures or their languages and in another he's arguing that people from other cultures have no value relative to people in this one. Very consistently racist that is.

Hmmm... not sure racist is the right word. See the people who thinks aren't "really" people are people born elsewhere. So it's not race that matters. But where you happen to have been born.

Thats called US-centrism. Or just being a douche.

Well, we do agree on one thing. I guess you'll never be voting in Georgia elections. And the thought of that pleases me to no end.

I will be, though.

I bet that thought makes you all happy in your bathing suit region.

I love how in one thread he's talking about how he thinks there is no value to understanding other cultures or their languages and in another he's arguing that people from other cultures have no value relative to people in this one. Very consistently racist that is.

Hmmm... not sure racist is the right word. See the people who thinks aren't "really" people are people born elsewhere. So it's not race that matters. But where you happen to have been born.

"I can do no wrong"? I don't know if there's a name for the kind of -ism. Nationalism? Patriotism (to the militant degree?) All-foreigners-are-worthless-mongrels-ism?

It's "America is best" to it's (il)logical conclusion. Jingo-ism? Is that it?

"I can do no wrong"? I don't know if there's a name for the kind of -ism. Nationalism? Patriotism (to the militant degree?) All-foreigners-are-worthless-mongrels-ism?

It's "America is best" to it's (il)logical conclusion. Jingo-ism? Is that it?



Nationalism.

Nah, you got the position.

I'd like to turn it down. The reason why I may never run for office is that I know I'd be better at it than most people doing it, because I don't want to do it.

On the other hand, though...

"I can do no wrong"? I don't know if there's a name for the kind of -ism. Nationalism? Patriotism (to the militant degree?) All-foreigners-are-worthless-mongrels-ism?

It's "America is best" to it's (il)logical conclusion. Jingo-ism? Is that it?

Spread-eagleism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingoism

During the 19th century in the United States, journalists called this attitude spread-eagleism.

Spread-eagleism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingoism

Awesome.