If Romney gets in which country will America start a war with next?

[RGA]

Just wondering which country will be attacked in order to "help the economy." Iran seems like a pretty difficult target. Canada has lots of oil and fresh water and we do have that commie health care.:biggrin5:

[JohnMichael]

As the middle class disappears and the poor grow in greater numbers we will probably be at war with ourselves.

I think it will be Iran and I think they are already working on justification for one. Unless of course N. Korea gets a little crazy.

[RGA]

I thought Iran too but unlike Iraq - Iran has a real army - well trained and much bigger and probably already has nuclear weapons.

On the social front they're ready to set back the country 50 years in terms of human rights. They're good for the rich people though.

[noddin0ff]

Just wondering which country will be attacked in order to "help the economy." Iran seems like a pretty difficult target. Canada has lots of oil and fresh water and we do have that commie health care.:biggrin5:

Poor question. Romney's not interested in helping the economy. He's interested in shrinking government and deregulating industry. No need to go to war for that.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Poor question. Romney's not interested in helping the economy. He's interested in shrinking government and deregulating industry. No need to go to war for that.

He is not interested in shrinking anything. He is interested in neutering the government so it cannot do anything about the destruction a deregulated Industries will cause.

[Hyfi]

My guess it America will wage war with itself. We are slowly creating a class war and we need to rid ourselves of these rich snotty capitalist bastards like Willard Romney. I never trust a person who can't use his real name because he is ashamed of it.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

My guess it America will wage war with itself. We are slowly creating a class war and we need to rid ourselves of these rich snotty capitalist bastards like Willard Romney. I never trust a person who can't use his real name because he is ashamed of it.

To add to this. I never trust a politician running for office who is afraid to show his tax returns to the public. I never trust a politician who openly says that if he released specific details of his plan to turn this country around, he would not be elected. I never trust a man who off shores his IRA to protect it from taxes. Romney is a rich coward, and 1/10 the man his father was.

[thekid]

Well I guess according to this Pin Head if Obama gets re-elected we will have another war to contend with. It amazes me that people like this can even get elected dog catcher.

Texas official warns of Obama civil war - Houston Chronicle (http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Lubbock-judge-warns-of-Obama-civil-war-3807672.php)

[JohnMichael]

Well I guess according to this Pin Head if Obama gets re-elected we will have another war to contend with. It amazes me that people like this can even get elected dog catcher.

Texas official warns of Obama civil war - Houston Chronicle (http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Lubbock-judge-warns-of-Obama-civil-war-3807672.php)



Interesting there is another theory that if the wrong man is elected and the middle class continues to erode there will be civil war by 2016. I need to search for that link.

[bobsticks]

Syria

[Hyfi]

To add to this. I never trust a politician running for office who is afraid to show his tax returns to the public. I never trust a politician who openly says that if he released specific details of his plan to turn this country around, he would not be elected. I never trust a man who off shores his IRA to protect it from taxes. Romney is a rich coward, and 1/10 the man his father was.

Right on!

And I am still trying to figure out how I am in the 28% tax bracket while Romney is in the 13% or less.

I still say a flat tax is the only fair way.

[RGA]

I live in Hong Kong and there is as close to a flat Tax as you can get.
It's a sliding scale. No one pays tax on the first $100,000 (HKD or around $12,000US. The poor only make that in a year so they don't pay tax - but neither do I or any rich people.

Then it goes something like 2% on $12,001 to $13,500 then 4% then 10 etc. Stops at 15% until you get to very high dollars where it stops at 17%

There is no sales tax on anything and no tipping. Some restaurants will charge 10% service fee. (Similar to Britain).

Public sector salary increases are based on how the private sector fared and cost of living. The calculation metrics are in place to keep the public sector in line with private sector who get paid more but have more risk (in a down year the private sector employee could be forced to take a 10% pay cut - perhaps more). Public sector never takes the pay cut but earns less money -- trading security for higher potential rewards.

The calculation this year gave teachers a 5.8% salary increase. Meanwhile my union to the hilt province (B.C.) Canada were on a working strike all year battling the province for scraps and taking it up the arse in the press (and this board). And teachers got ZERO.

So now they're pissed off and like it or not it enters the classroom in some fashion no doubt creating a toxic working environment and view of government (polarizes people and creates arguments). Meanwhile in HK - the calculation is the law and A and B happened so C results. Everyone is on board. Teachers did not have to ask for the increase - they got it. Math is often absolute.

Pretty sure the cost of living went up in BC too. So if private sector isn't making money - chances are they're incompetent boobs and should be fired - and they should be hiring more Chinese since HK is growing and the west are spending money on bombs instead of education. Canada isn't spending on either except 50% pay increases to their politicians.

But this is the reason the west is falling apart.

[Feanor]

Poor question. Romney's not interested in helping the economy. He's interested in shrinking government and deregulating industry. No need to go to war for that.
Correct. And of course, lowering taxes on the Rich.

I'll remind people Republicans in recent history have shown no ACTUAL concern for reducing the budget deficits or the the debt. Since Reagan it has always been more important to arm for or fight a war and to reduce taxes on the Rich than to do these things.

Supply Side, Trickle Down, or as I call it, "Bribe the Rich" economics has had 30+ years to work but has only resulted in declining real median income, especially in the last decade. It hasn't, can't, and won't work, yet apparently more people believe that Republicans are more "fiscally responsible" and that Romney will be strong for the economy than Obama. People are idiots.

[thekid]

Correct. And of course, lowering taxes on the Rich.

I'll remind people Republicans in recent history have shown no ACTUAL concern for reducing the budget deficits or the the debt. Since Reagan it has always been more important to arm for or fight a war and to reduce taxes on the Rich than to do these things.

Supply Side, Trickle Down, or as I call it, "Bribe the Rich" economics has had 30+ years to work but has only resulted in declining real median income, especially in the last decade. It hasn't, can't, and won't work, yet apparently more people believe that Republicans are more "fiscally responsible" and that Romney will be strong for the economy than Obama. People are idiots.

While I generally believe that the Democrats and the Republicans are cut from the same cloth in their general approach to the economy for the past 30 years (short term thinking-lack of true leadership in addressing the fundamental economic issues) I just wanted to add a couple of observations.

Deficits and the size of government are not an issue when you are the party in power but are the source of all things evil when you are not the party in power. (See American Politics 1980-Present)

Romney's own behavior with his wealth illustrates the absurdity of his own economic plan. According to the proposed theory, lower taxes on the wealthy encourage investment in business thus providing more jobs and greater tax revenue. What does he do with his money??? He keeps a good portion of it in offshore bank accounts in the Cayman's and Switzerland - Not businesses. In addition because the money was kept off-shore it lowered the tax revenue to the government.

I am not aware of any good business people who decide to expand or contract their business based largely on tax policy. Market conditions, competition, technological advancements and to some degree regulatory requirements are much larger factors than tax policy to business. There is historical evidence to support this as the wealthiest people have been taxed as high as 90% during times of economic prosperity. If lower taxes actually produced substantial economic stimulus then every President who was ever faced with a recession would have just lowered the effective tax rates. Saint Ronald raised taxes several times during his time in office but this largely seems to have been forgotten.

[RGA]

Simple rule

You only get to put 1% of your net worth in off shore accounts. If you earn over $1million dollars you WILL BE AUDITED yearly. If you go over the 1% then 100% of your assets WILL BE SEIZED and sold off at auction and your bank accounts seized and taken by the government to spend on education, roads, hospitals, police, and fire.

The exception -
If you head a business - the business will be taken over and converted into a CO-OP where the employees may, if they wish, become part owners to ensure they don't lose their jobs if the owner is a douche bag and gets caught. The corrupt owner loses 100% of his rights to the company and any future earnings.

Drakonian? The rich have sucked the life out of the poor long enough. Extreme measures must be taken. You will pay to keep America going or America will take every penny you make and leave you destitute. Alternatively, the poor can rise up shoot the top 1% in the head and take it by force.

I think my plan is quite reasonable - you still get to be a mega bazilion-mazillionaire but you pay taxes and ensure the health of the entire country.

[Feanor]

...

I am not aware of any good business people who decide to expand or contract their business based largely on tax policy. Market conditions, competition, technological advancements and to some degree regulatory requirements are much larger factors than tax policy to business. There is historical evidence to support this as the wealthiest people have been taxed as high as 90% during times of economic prosperity. If lower taxes actually produced substantial economic stimulus then every President who was ever faced with a recession would have just lowered the effective tax rates. Saint Ronald raised taxes several times during his time in office but this largely seems to have been forgotten.
Stop It !!! Just too much damned common sense. :frown5:

A little more common sense will tell anyone but the staunchest idiot that it isn't lower taxes that companies need to start investing -- it's customers. The major underlying cause of the current recession is that typical Americans (and Canadians) have faced stagnant real incomes for 30 years and declines in the last decade.

[thekid]

Simple rule

You only get to put 1% of your net worth in off shore accounts. If you earn over $1million dollars you WILL BE AUDITED yearly. If you go over the 1% then 100% of your assets WILL BE SEIZED and sold off at auction and your bank accounts seized and taken by the government to spend on education, roads, hospitals, police, and fire.

The exception -
If you head a business - the business will be taken over and converted into a CO-OP where the employees may, if they wish, become part owners to ensure they don't lose their jobs if the owner is a douche bag and gets caught. The corrupt owner loses 100% of his rights to the company and any future earnings.

Drakonian? The rich have sucked the life out of the poor long enough. Extreme measures must be taken. You will pay to keep America going or America will take every penny you make and leave you destitute. Alternatively, the poor can rise up shoot the top 1% in the head and take it by force.

I think my plan is quite reasonable - you still get to be a mega bazilion-mazillionaire but you pay taxes and ensure the health of the entire country.

RGA

I will defer to you on your knowledge on % of worth allowed to be kept in off-shore accounts. What I have heard is that in the last several years once the US government started to pressure overseas banks to provide names of their US depositors that a good number of depositors pulled their money out of overseas accounts. Does not seem to be the actions of innocent people if they were in compliance with laws like the one you state.

[bobsticks]

Simple rule

You only get to put 1% of your net worth in off shore accounts. If you earn over $1million dollars you WILL BE AUDITED yearly. If you go over the 1% then 100% of your assets WILL BE SEIZED and sold off at auction and your bank accounts seized and taken by the government to spend on education, roads, hospitals, police, and fire.

The exception -
If you head a business - the business will be taken over and converted into a CO-OP where the employees may, if they wish, become part owners to ensure they don't lose their jobs if the owner is a douche bag and gets caught. The corrupt owner loses 100% of his rights to the company and any future earnings.

Drakonian? The rich have sucked the life out of the poor long enough. Extreme measures must be taken. You will pay to keep America going or America will take every penny you make and leave you destitute. Alternatively, the poor can rise up shoot the top 1% in the head and take it by force.

I think my plan is quite reasonable - you still get to be a mega bazilion-mazillionaire but you pay taxes and ensure the health of the entire country.

Richard, I almost always defer to your knowledge of music and music reproduction and I usually consider your views on politics and institutions worthy of consideration. I do that out of respect and because you present yourself in an informed and measured way.

Please consider that when I say the following:

That has to be the most ignorant post I've ever read, anywhere, anytime...

....and I've read all of SVI's posts...





,,,and Dusty Beiber too.

[Worf101]

While I generally believe that the Democrats and the Republicans are cut from the same cloth in their general approach to the economy for the past 30 years (short term thinking-lack of true leadership in addressing the fundamental economic issues) I just wanted to add a couple of observations.

Deficits and the size of government are not an issue when you are the party in power but are the source of all things evil when you are not the party in power. (See American Politics 1980-Present)

Romney's own behavior with his wealth illustrates the absurdity of his own economic plan. According to the proposed theory, lower taxes on the wealthy encourage investment in business thus providing more jobs and greater tax revenue. What does he do with his money??? He keeps a good portion of it in offshore bank accounts in the Cayman's and Switzerland - Not businesses. In addition because the money was kept off-shore it lowered the tax revenue to the government.

I am not aware of any good business people who decide to expand or contract their business based largely on tax policy. Market conditions, competition, technological advancements and to some degree regulatory requirements are much larger factors than tax policy to business. There is historical evidence to support this as the wealthiest people have been taxed as high as 90% during times of economic prosperity. If lower taxes actually produced substantial economic stimulus then every President who was ever faced with a recession would have just lowered the effective tax rates. Saint Ronald raised taxes several times during his time in office but this largely seems to have been forgotten.

Hey man... don't muddy a political discussion with facts and common sense. Don't you know how the game is played?

Worf (Registered Independent for 25 years).

[Worf101]

1. The unions overplayed their hands - Too many strikes, too many ridiculous work rules all designed to keep as many on the payroll as the camel's back would bear as opposed to doing what's best for the company and country as a whole. But those kinds of unions and contracts are now all but gone.

2. The Rise of the Multinationals - As oft predicted in dystopan SciFi since the '30's Corporations divorced of a single, physical location or forced national ties will act in the company's own self interest and thier's alone.

3. Corporations no longer need America for Manufacture.

4. Corporations no longer need America as its primary market.

5. Take 2,.3 and 4 together you have a situation where corporations, shed the American work force for cheaper overseas labour with little market consequences since they can sell all they need to China and India while paying little or no taxes here.

As one observer put it, "if this trend continues we'll be a banana republic in 20 years." The corporations only need America as a safe place to spend its money, collect its toys and provide soliders to protect their interests overseas. Behind their gated walls patrolled by private security they'll watch as the whole country/world burns. The problem with fires though is that once started they can quickly get out of hand, ask the Romanoffs if you can find one.

Worf

[Feanor]

Hummm ... well, yes.


...
1. The unions overplayed their hands - Too many strikes, too many ridiculous work rules all designed to keep as many on the payroll as the camel's back would bear as opposed to doing what's best for the company and country as a whole. But those kinds of unions and contracts are now all but gone. ...
With much regret I have to agree. I've said before that I see a problem for public sector unions were they seek to perpetuate relative wage & benefit levels that are increasingly above those of private sector workers. I believe that unions once were huge boon to American workers, but the selfish obstinacy of public sector unions in the present day brings disrepute on the history role unions -- and has become a major "wedge issue" which the Right-wing exploits to divide potential liberal/progressive voters.


...
2. The Rise of the Multinationals - As oft predicted in dystopan SciFi since the '30's Corporations divorced of a single, physical location or forced national ties will act in the company's own self interest and their's alone. ...
This is so self-evident you'd think it was superfluous to state -- and in fact its mentioned by neither Republicans (as you might expect) OR Democrats (as you might well wonder why not, except for corporate donations they still get :frown5:).


...
3. Corporations no longer need America for Manufacture.

4. Corporations no longer need America as its primary market.

5. Take 2,.3 and 4 together you have a situation where corporations, shed the American work force for cheaper overseas labour with little market consequences since they can sell all they need to China and India while paying little or no taxes here. ...
Indeed. :mad: But lets understand that the Republican policy is to accelerate this pernicious globalization by redistributing wealth from the poor & middle classes to The Rich so they can invest it offshore. [Bribe the Rich to help American to win the in the Race to the Bottom.]


...
As one observer put it, "if this trend continues we'll be a banana republic in 20 years." The corporations only need America as a safe place to spend its money, collect its toys and provide soliders to protect their interests overseas. Behind their gated walls patrolled by private security they'll watch as the whole country/world burns. The problem with fires though is that once started they can quickly get out of hand, ask the Romanoffs if you can find one.

Worf
This is the Paul Ryan / Ayn Rand vision of the future.

[RGA]

Bobsticks

I get it but at some point individual amassed wealth is a problem. It's a scale - there is only so much money and it needs to be "balanced."

What I suggest you do is take a trip to Wenzhou China and live there for one month. This is the Republican party dream scenario.

What Right wing voters don't get is that ALL public works are paid for through tax dollars. When you walk down a street and see garbage everywhere, lamp lights out, cracks in the roads, homeless people everywhere, an education system putting out massively illiterate numbers of people - that is the result of a lack of funding. It is not government lazy workers, it is not government wasting money on stupid things, it's not even government crooks stealing money. It's because all the money is going to ONE guy who buys a 50,000 square foot home, a fleet of cars, a private jet, probably tons of money on cocaine parties. And when they run a business - they make $10 billion a year but gee I can make another $3 billion if I fire all the U.S. workers and move the plant to China and have little girls work 15 hour days for peanuts.

We gave corps tax breaks to supposedly create jobs - not in China - but here. You bailed out, with your tax dollars, the automakers. I would like to see their employee list and compare U.S. full time jobs in 2012 to say 1972 and 1982. CEOs are probably 20 times richer (factoring in inflation) while employees are not.

Wenzhou is the future. The rich skirt tax laws by bribing Red Party members. Communism bought by capitalism. So the government receives no taxes - there are no street cleaners, no road fixes, no building codes that get checked, no water treatment, no food safety regulations, no pollution control standards. The U.S. is only marginally better as it is. There is no real pollution control - sure there's a law but companies don't have to follow it - they wait for a lawsuit which if they get caught killing people is lower than the cost of paying the fines and damages. So they elect to choose profit over lives. And then they often settle out of court to avoid any bad press.

These people are socio and psychopaths that run these types of companies - they are typically drawn to power and the "game" and they have powerful lobby organizations and the ability to control media (see Fox News) which convinces poor mostly semi-retarded people to vote against their interests. Give more money to the rich and they will protect you and give you a job. Rich people don't care one iota about the poor. The poor are lazy leeches who should be sterilized (it's happened and some states advocate offering women a couple hundred dollars to be sterilized). Money stays within families so a new generation is born into that easy wealth and there is no empathy for the other half cause again if you're poor you're lazy. Even though they never worked a day in their life (see Paris Hilton).


Unions were formed to protect employees from dictators. America is supposedly a free country but your boss can invade your privacy in dictator fashion. You can be fired without cause, you can be tested for drugs, smoking, alcohol. Businesses are asking for people's Facebook password - don't give it to them - you don't get hired. All the power is with the business and zero power is with the employee. A nice looking woman doesn't give the boss a blow job and you can be fired for some concocted reason they'll make up later.

Before that businessmen had 5 year olds going up chimneys to clean them for pennies - and if the kid dies - well there are more where they came from. See Dickens.

Business people care about money - that is the one thing they care about more than anything else - they may also care about their family but not your family - your family can rot so long as they get theirs. So the choice was to form unions or pull a Guillotine out and ensure they get some cake by stuffing the bosses head under the blade.

My dad who was not a big fan of unions noted that companies tend to get the union they deserve. And you probably have a union because you're screwing your employees over. I worked for a Steel Foundry in Canada for 7 years. no union - nobody even hinted at a union. That's because unlike every other shop like it - they treated people properly, paid well, etc.

If you have unions battling for better working conditions it's because you're a cheap ass owner or incompetent fool who runs an unsafe place and putting people into harm's way. If they're battling for salary it's likely because every other place selling the same crap is paying considerably more than you are. Unions will get ultra testy if you cry poverty while driving a top of the line B&W, Porsche, or flying around in a private jet and the CEO salary is $14million. You're idea of poverty may be that a "hey a B&W is no Bentley" but without the workforce you walk.

As for public sector - I've said this before. Public workers are typically on contracts. When the contract ends it's time to negotiate. That's the ONLY time you get to negotiate and so you make a list of requests.

Unlike the private sector - whatever you ask for as a union body will get into the papers. It's a negotiation - you ALWAYS ask high hoping to get half or 1/4 or hell 1/8 of whatever you ask for. if you don't ask you get zero. Government like a businessman isn't giving you something for no reason.

The major problem I have seen in education (I'm a teacher) in Canada is that the government is receiving tax money to offer families a service. that service is to provide education that will give their child (and Canada's future workforce) the tools to be competitive in a tough global world where those countries don't mess around molly coddling everyone's self-esteem.

The quality of education in the west has dropped dramatically - and it wasn't the unions - the unions never get anything anyway. When was the last time the teacher union truly got something. Teacher buying power is 50% of what it was in 1985. So teachers have taken a 50% pay cut while tripling their workload. This is just one part of government service but if education has been gutted then so to has everything else. Meanwhile the top earners are paying less taxes and because people have taken 50% pay cuts it's not like you can get more taxes from them!

And yes I get the arguments - there's a recession so you should not ask for more money - it's a global recession and I got a 5.8% raise due to cost of living. Private sector increased. If we're going to base C.O.L increases on how the private sector did only - then perhaps the reason the private sector is failing is because the kids who have gone through a weakening education system are incompetent fools who don't know how to run a business. Hong Kong who uses a science methodology of "survival of the fittest" has put ALL the resources into the best and the brightest. The best and brightest all go to schools where there are no Thugs and autistic special needs and "integration" touchy feel good BS.

So they put out brilliant people who run companies that make money. While in the West "everyone is equal" and no one knows who the hell to hire because everyone comes from mixed classes.

No in Hong Kong a company knows what high school you went to. you went to a band one school they know you're bright - you went to a band 3 they know you're suited to be a dishwasher or cab driver.

You want to fix things - public service - you want money - more taxes (or hell just equal taxes) for the rich and cut the defense budget by half. America has to get over their paranoia. No one is going to attack you - hell they've already got the oil. Asia and Europe make the best cars and stereo equipment. What the hell would they want the U.S. for? To pick up the trillions in debt?

Rich people are not creating wealth for the middle class and poor. They are creating wealth for themselves. You gotta stop that. Individual wealth caps - if the world had no billionaires we'd be better off.

[RGA]

See this is why you still need unions.

Workers are told they have to go to a mandatory event. They don't get paid to go to this event and in fact LOSE a day's pay to go to said event. Employees worry if they don't go they may get fired.

This is your possible next president - God help you. And since there is no God - you're all in big trouble if this utter sleaze bag gets in.

Murray Energy Miners Allege They Had To Give Up Pay To Attend 'Mandatory' Romney Rally (AUDIO) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/28/century-mine-romney-ohio-mandatory_n_1836674.html?fb_action_ids=45670473311 25&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=)

[Hyfi]

3. Corporations no longer need America for Manufacture.

What you missed is because of #1-The unions overplayed their hands, they have also driven up the cost of products, made it so the corps send the MFG to China to save money and NOT pay the Union wages and endless bennies.

So Unions were at one time a good thing, 100 years ago, but today they have made America into a Consumer Country and not an MFG Country.

Americans can't afford to buy American Made Products. Something does not make sense about that.

Yesterday I was listening to NPR and an interview with authors of a new book about Romney and his money. Due to his questionably legal yet immoral tactics, his IRA is worth somewhere between 20 and 100 million, 1/100 of 1%- percentile have that. The way he and the others at Bain did it was by quickly switching the investments to the ones that Bain created of businesses that they would shut down for the profits as they were doing it, but they used a blind trust or whatever the term.

He himself is the one who years ago when running against one of the Kennedys started the whole Tax Return issue and now that it has turned around on him, he claims it's an issue of privacy. A-Hole!


It's a shame Obama is killing the middle class and will continue to do so if he gets re-elected, but Romney is not the better choice of two evils. He may help me to save a little of what I have for 4 years, but someone has to pay all the outrageous debt sometime and guess who it will be? The Middle Class. We are screwed no matter what over the course of time no matter which F'ed up party has control.

[noddin0ff]

I'll lob some more random thoughts over the wall.

We shouldn't be worrying about the deficit right now. We can borrow money at historically low rates. The Gov't should be borrowing and investing in infrastructure and jobs to build it. We're missing the deal of the century by not doing this. It costs more to triage infrastructure that has failed than to prevent failure; and when it does fail, borrowing rates will most certainly be higher. Money spent now is money saved later--and that is what reduces deficits long term.

The Gov't should be paying people to work now. Teachers, police, firemen, all manner of civil servants. We should be investing in research and education. AND, we can easily do this because we can print our own money; we can print as much as we want. The Fed could shovel money into grants to State and/or Local governments. Put people to work > people buy things > companies make money > investors happy > taxes go up. Win!

Inflation? Destroy the value of the dollar? Pfft. The value of the dollar is what the world thinks it's worth. Right now it is still the most trusted currency in the world. It was put to the Treasury that it consider permitting bids for negative interest. That is allowing bidders to pay the Gov't to lend their money to the Gov't (Link (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/01/treasury-ponders-negative-interest-rates/)). The dollar is sound. Printing more of them ain't gonna hurt anything. Inflation's been under good control for over 20 years (Link (http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/HistoricalInflation.aspx)). Yes, that could change. But we're far better at controlling inflation than we are at keeping the financial sector from failing and taking everyone down with them. We shouldn't be worrying about inflation either.

In summary. Borrow money while it's cheap and invest it in infrastructure. Pay people to work. Invest in education and research. -- (That's funny... if I were a good business person that's how I'd run a successful company. Irony?)

Health Care and Social Security? If the U.S. wasn't entirely politically dysfunctional we could put a dent in it, but reality is that we have more older people and we can either provide a social safety net or have a lot of homeless and sick old people in the emergency rooms. Emergency rooms expensive, preventative care cheap. More old people; more tax money. No running from math.

Oh yeah. Wash your hands and get vaccinated.

[Worf101]

What you missed is because of #1-The unions overplayed their hands, they have also driven up the cost of products, made it so the corps send the MFG to China to save money and NOT pay the Union wages and endless bennies.

So Unions were at one time a good thing, 100 years ago, but today they have made America into a Consumer Country and not an MFG Country.

Americans can't afford to buy American Made Products. Something does not make sense about that.

Yesterday I was listening to NPR and an interview with authors of a new book about Romney and his money. Due to his questionably legal yet immoral tactics, his IRA is worth somewhere between 20 and 100 million, 1/100 of 1%- percentile have that. The way he and the others at Bain did it was by quickly switching the investments to the ones that Bain created of businesses that they would shut down for the profits as they were doing it, but they used a blind trust or whatever the term.

He himself is the one who years ago when running against one of the Kennedys started the whole Tax Return issue and now that it has turned around on him, he claims it's an issue of privacy. A-Hole!


It's a shame Obama is killing the middle class and will continue to do so if he gets re-elected, but Romney is not the better choice of two evils. He may help me to save a little of what I have for 4 years, but someone has to pay all the outrageous debt sometime and guess who it will be? The Middle Class. We are screwed no matter what over the course of time no matter which F'ed up party has control.

I believe the Corps would've left the US eventually anyway. The Unions didn't HELP, but their greed would've led them to leave eventually. The only thing about Oil depletion is that it will force some companies to return to U.S. soil as the costs of world spanning supply lines becomes prohibitive but it won't be out of a sense of patriotism or anything else that forces them to do it. I don't see your Obama - War on the Middle Class thing but you must have a reason for believing it and you don't sound like a knee-jerker by any means.

I personally think the man inherited a "no-win" situation and has done the best he could with Congress and the rich aligned against him but who's to say.
'
As for the nation's future? I personally think the Republic is finished unless we get the lobbyists and money out of it. Elected office has devolved to an exercise of raising money to get re-elected THAT and ONLY THAT matters to the average politician of either party. Citizen's United legalized bribery and as long as the situation remains that way, we're doomed as a representative democracy.

Worf

[Hyfi]

Worf, It is not a matter of Obama's war on the middle class, it's more an issue of every handout he sets up comes out of the middle class's pocket.

When people like Romney making the money he does in his sleep pays 13% or less in taxes, and I pay closer to 28% where do you see the money coming from?

[Feanor]

...
As for the nation's future? I personally think the Republic is finished unless we get the lobbyists and money out of it. Elected office has devolved to an exercise of raising money to get re-elected THAT and ONLY THAT matters to the average politician of either party. Citizen's United legalized bribery and as long as the situation remains that way, we're doomed as a representative democracy.

Worf
The USA is now a plutocracy. That was doubtful up until the US Supreme Court declared corporations = people, money = free speech, and allowed anonymous contributions, but it's a done deal now. I don't see a way back.

Well, it would take much smarter, better informed voters -- good luck with that. :frown5:

[Worf101]

Worf, It is not a matter of Obama's war on the middle class, it's more an issue of every handout he sets up comes out of the middle class's pocket.

When people like Romney making the money he does in his sleep pays 13% or less in taxes, and I pay closer to 28% where do you see the money coming from?

In some respects we are "over entitled" in some areas. However you know that when the axe falls it doesn't fall evenly. If cuts were made and EVERYONE sacrificed I could swallow some of the cost cutting rhetoric on the right. But anyone with eyes knows it doesn't work that way. Oil subsidies, agribusiness subsidies, defence contracts they all get theirs and will keep getting theirs. Because they contribute the big money

Pell grants, day care, summer jobs, school lunches, etc... all get it in the neck. If I believed for one blessed minute it would be otherwise, I'd be right with you.

Worf

[RGA]

If Corporations are deemed the problem for moving offshore why don't people get together and boycott those corporations?

We are in an internet age and you can educate people that the reason they're out of work is that corporation X dumped your jobs for foreign workers to save them money and make the board of directors hundred millionaires.

Can't boycott them all you say but you can do a series of targeted boycotts. So for 6 months no in the U.S. or Canada purchases a single Nike product of any kind - no shoes shirts etc. Or any of their subsidiary companies under different names.

That would probably decimate their corporation. And it spreads so Britain and most of Europe would go along with them.

The idea is to basically send a message to the entire corporate world that the people can shut you down. Sure not everyone will be on board but everyone doesn't need to be - just a real lot of people to make a very serious dent.

People were angry over Gas prices so I suggested the same idea to target one gas station chain such as Chevron and no one goes to a Chevron for 3 months. If it's the only one in town fine - but in most major cities there are many choices - just skip them - send a message - next time it could be Texaco and it could be for a year. Scare them. The only way to change corporate thinking is money. Convince them that doing good will make them money - or negative reinforcement through boycott is the way to go.

It's the way you get your cat off the couch, or your kid to behave like a human and not a thug.

Condition the corporations and the businesses to do our bidding - the bidding of the "national interest."

[thekid]

If Corporations are deemed the problem for moving offshore why don't people get together and boycott those corporations?

We are in an internet age and you can educate people that the reason they're out of work is that corporation X dumped your jobs for foreign workers to save them money and make the board of directors hundred millionaires.

Can't boycott them all you say but you can do a series of targeted boycotts. So for 6 months no in the U.S. or Canada purchases a single Nike product of any kind - no shoes shirts etc. Or any of their subsidiary companies under different names.

That would probably decimate their corporation. And it spreads so Britain and most of Europe would go along with them.

The idea is to basically send a message to the entire corporate world that the people can shut you down. Sure not everyone will be on board but everyone doesn't need to be - just a real lot of people to make a very serious dent.

People were angry over Gas prices so I suggested the same idea to target one gas station chain such as Chevron and no one goes to a Chevron for 3 months. If it's the only one in town fine - but in most major cities there are many choices - just skip them - send a message - next time it could be Texaco and it could be for a year. Scare them. The only way to change corporate thinking is money. Convince them that doing good will make them money - or negative reinforcement through boycott is the way to go.

It's the way you get your cat off the couch, or your kid to behave like a human and not a thug.

Condition the corporations and the businesses to do our bidding - the bidding of the "national interest."

RGA

I would agree that is a method but it is not the method. Government can end loopholes that reward moving jobs overseas or if that is too harsh then reward business that stays.

I know we compete in a global market place and that business often chases the cheapest labor costs to stay competitive but that is not always the case and often we lose jobs to countries whose governments subsidize certain industries so while it smacks of protectionism we cannot continue to export jobs.

Also I do not want to hear one more idiot spout off about how the US has the highest corporate taxes and that the key to growth here is to lower the corporate rates. Because of all the tax loopholes the actual corporate tax rate paid in the US is very competitive and among some of the lowest among the industrialized countries. Throw in the fact that many corporations have relocated key segments of their business and even their corporate offices (There are many sham offices overseas manned by only a secretary and a phone) they pay even less taxes. I am not willing to lower the taxes of any corporation that already has relocated the majority of their operations overseas. Close the loopholes and subsidies and THEN we will talk about tax rates.

[Hyfi]

If Corporations are deemed the problem for moving offshore why don't people get together and boycott those corporations?

I don't shop at Wal-Mart.


We are in an internet age and you can educate people that the reason they're out of work is that corporation X dumped your jobs for foreign workers to save them money and make the board of directors hundred millionaires.

Many of those people will never get it, internet or hammer over the head. As long as the person running for office is against abortion........that is how the majority of voters think so they won't be helping matters.



People were angry over Gas prices so I suggested the same idea to target one gas station chain such as Chevron and no one goes to a Chevron for 3 months. If it's the only one in town fine - but in most major cities there are many choices - just skip them - send a message - next time it could be Texaco and it could be for a year. Scare them. The only way to change corporate thinking is money. Convince them that doing good will make them money - or negative reinforcement through boycott is the way to go.

All people need to do is stop frivolous driving. Group several trips into one. Don't just drive around cause your bored. If it's all about supply and demand, lets create less demand. How many women do you see driving around every day in a giant SUV by themselves?

[Feanor]

...
All people need to do is stop frivolous driving. Group several trips into one. Don't just drive around cause your bored. If it's all about supply and demand, lets create less demand. How many women do you see driving around every day in a giant SUV by themselves?
Yes, and to incentivize them, our nations need to adopt fossil fuel taxes that will raise the price of gas to a level were includes the "negative externalities", principally harm to the environment, pollution, and urban congestion.

Practically speaking fossil fuel taxes will need to be phased in overtime but the process should start now.

[frenchmon]

Worf, It is not a matter of Obama's war on the middle class, it's more an issue of every handout he sets up comes out of the middle class's pocket.

When people like Romney making the money he does in his sleep pays 13% or less in taxes, and I pay closer to 28% where do you see the money coming from?

Can you give some examples? And if you're speaking stimulus, did not Bush do the same? So I think we know what that was about.

[Hyfi]

Can you give some examples? And if you're speaking stimulus, did not Bush do the same? So I think we know what that was about.

Who is going to pay more for health care so those mandated to get it do?

Who is going to pay more for cars in 12 years because of his latest 54MPG rule?

Who pays all the time in order for those less fortunate? The Middle Class always foots the bill while Billionaires find all the tax loopholes and never seem to pay their share in accordance to what the middle class pays.

Flat Tax is the only fair way. No Loopholes, no special protection, no excuses.

[Feanor]

Who is going to pay more for health care so those mandated to get it do?

Who is going to pay more for cars in 12 years because of his latest 54MPG rule?

Who pays all the time in order for those less fortunate? The Middle Class always foots the bill while Billionaires find all the tax loopholes and never seem to pay their share in accordance to what the middle class pays.

Flat Tax is the only fair way. No Loopholes, no special protection, no excuses.
No loopholes, no special protections, no excuses -- and a progressive tax rate would be even better.

[Hyfi]

a progressive tax rate[/I] would be even better.

We already have that. The more wealthy you are, the less % of taxes you have to pay.

[Feanor]

We already have that. The more wealthy you are, the less % of taxes you have to pay.
:lol::lol: ... well technically that's called "regressive" taxation.

In other counties than the good ol' US of A, people cheat on their taxes, bribe officials and politicians, etc. There are no countries I know of where so much evasion is written into the code from the get-go.

A big issue State-side is the capital gains rate of only 15% -- it's a gift to the Romney's of the land. As I understand, in some countries, such as Canada I believe, if you make your living making capital gains, then they're not capital gains but regular income and taxed as such.

[Hyfi]

:lol::lol: ... well technically that's called "regressive" taxation.

In other counties than the good ol' US of A, people cheat on their taxes, bribe officials and politicians, etc. There are no countries I know of where so much evasion is written into the code from the get-go.

A big issue State-side is the capital gains rate of only 15% -- it's a gift to the Romney's of the land. As I understand, in some countries, such as Canada I believe, if you make your living making capital gains, then they're not capital gains but regular income and taxed as such.

Yep, that is because the people who write the Tax Codes are those with money and trying not to pay taxes on it.

Below is a link to an NPR article and interview on Romney including some of the things he did to amass a 20 million dollar IRA by investing in the things that his company was putting under to make stockholders more money.

As said earlier, he was the one who started the whole Tax Return issue and now does not want to follow thru on it.

'Real Romney' Authors Dissect His Latest Campaign : NPR (http://www.npr.org/2012/08/28/160173451/real-romney-authors-dissect-his-latest-campaign)

[frenchmon]

Who is going to pay more for health care so those mandated to get it do?

Who is going to pay more for cars in 12 years because of his latest 54MPG rule?

Who pays all the time in order for those less fortunate? The Middle Class always foots the bill while Billionaires find all the tax loopholes and never seem to pay their share in accordance to what the middle class pays.

Flat Tax is the only fair way. No Loopholes, no special protection, no excuses.

I dont know that Neil Borts flat tax is the way...I wish the rich a$$ people would pay there fair share. Stop blaiming Obama for this mess....it extends back well before he got in office.

You where already paying for the scumb bag who could afford insurance but never bought it. Now I wont have to pay for him anymore.....grown a$$ peolple should be responsible for theres now they will.

The car issue....good. I wont have to pay so much to fill my car....and then it sorta works out....less in gas more for the car. The way it is now... expensive a$$ car....expensive a$$ gas.

I dont think I can blame Obama for the stupid a$$ tax problem...you know who to blame for that stupid a$$ crap.

frenchmon

[Feanor]

I dont know that Neil Borts flat tax is the way...I wish the rich a$$ people would pay there fair share. Stop blaiming Obama for this mess....it extends back well before he got in office.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, "this mess" extends back to Ronald Reagan and his "supply side", "trickle down" economics. By this theory, if you bribe the rich -- the "job creators" -- they'd invest in new business and create jobs. Really? Then how come the median income stop growing about that time and decline in the George W. years. Most of that job creation was in China.

Don't kid yourself: it wasn't Obama who began the "class warfare".

[frenchmon]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, "this mess" extends back to Ronald Reagan and his "supply side", "trickle down" economics. By this theory, if you bribe the rich -- the "job creators" -- they'd invest in new business and create jobs. Really? Then how come the median income stop growing about that time and decline in the George W. years. Most of that job creation was in China.

Don't kid yourself: it wasn't Obama who began the "class warfare".

I agree! This is the worst congress I have ever seen....and they all got dog whistles!

I could have sworn I heard on the radio news that Apple has become the biggest company in the world....and 90% of their employees are over seas but their head quarters are here in the USA.....thats part of the problem with this good old US of A!

[frenchmon]

Don't kid yourself: it wasn't Obama who began the "class warfare"

Any body who has been paying attention has seen what has happened in congress. Bills just dont get passed that would benefit the middle class. And they act like all poor people are lazy. The GOP all they do is lie......How in the hell can a car plaint close under Bush and Obama still gets the blame? And Romney is the biggest hipo out there! who in the hell are all these American People they pole every week that they say dont want health care? All the American People I know want it...and need it.

[Feanor]

.... And they act like all poor people are lazy. .....
That poor people are lazy is fundamental tenet of conservative belief everywhere in the world, but nowhere more so than in the USA.

Americans have a long-standing belief in individualism and personal initiative & hard work -- American is a land where anyone can succeed. The flip side of this coin is that those who happen not to are feckless & lazying.

And then you added the "philosophy" of Ayn Rand, (to dignify her notions with that term), whereby greed & selfishness are high virtues, and what do you get? Alan Greenspan and Paul Ryan.

[frenchmon]

That poor people are lazy is fundamental tenet of conservative belief everywhere in the world, but nowhere more so than in the USA.

Americans have a long-standing belief in individualism and personal initiative & hard work -- American is a land where anyone can succeed. The flip side of this coin is that those who happen not to are feckless & lazying.

And then you added the "philosophy" of Ayn Rand, (to dignify her attitude with that term), where by greed & selfishness are high virtues, and what do you get? Alan Greenspan and Paul Ryan.

Ryan is a flat out idiot! He lied about every topic last night. Oh I can't wait to see him in debate with Biden...that should be fun. But the sad part about this whole thing....this country has enough stupid people to put these good old boys stupid idiots in the WH....how on earth can you be so stupid to believe in different types of rape and only the the right kind of rape will fight off the sperm and not get the woman pregnant...yes Ryan also shared in that opinion., but is now try to recant....yeah real rape will fight off the sperm.....I guess they forgot about what happened during slavery.

[RGA]

Going back the union argument - who do unions hurt? Oh right - massively wealthy businessmen and corporations. Who do they help? The bottom 99%

[Feanor]

Going back the union argument - who do unions hurt? Oh right - massively wealthy businessmen and corporations. Who do they help? The bottom 99%
Don't get me wrong: I fundamentally agree. I would prefer that public sector unions (especially) moderate their demands during the current recession cum depression, if for no better reason that their "unreasonable" demands are being used by conservatives as a "wedge issue" to divide the union / non-union workers.

[RGA]

Don't get me wrong: I fundamentally agree. I would prefer that public sector unions (especially) moderate their demands during the current recession cum depression, if for no better reason that their "unreasonable" demands are being used by conservatives as a "wedge issue" to divide the union / non-union workers.

I guess but I often wonder about unreasonable demands as merely being a ploy by the elite to create a "false" advertised economy.

I guess I need it explained to me hat there is limitless money to be spent in BC on Olympics, road builds for the rich (freeway to Whistler where only the rich can afford to go) and 50% salary increases for themselves within 5 years.

Unions raise the bar for pay and benefits for competing shops or careers/jobs to follow. The place I worked for based my Accounts Payable salary increases on the "market" which included government workers (thank to statistician God for that because that's how I got annual 10% pay increases).

The typical A/P job at non union shops was between $11-$15 an hour in the mid 90s. The A/P job at BC Housing was $19.07 an hour. Not sure where they came up with the .07 but whatever.

I worked for Firestop, Seagate Software, NCompass Labs (bought by Microsoft the day I started working there) and a few others. Now the actual workload at BC Housing was higher and more demanding than the private sector positions - so you do considerably more actual work in public sector than private sector. I would also say the job is more "frustrating" in the public sector because they're zealots on double and triple checking everything and crossing every T and dotting every i. Private sector doesn't really have to live up to those standards just have to minimally meet enough standards to pass an audit should there ever be one.

Still, the point is people would complain and say - the government worker gets paid more - and I would say - instead of complaining that you don't make as much as them - why not ask why your Rolls Royce driving company owner with his private jet isn't paying you the same? Or better yet - if the government worker has it so easy then why don't you quit and get a job in the government?

At least in the government you get hired on merit not who you know. And if someone does hire someone on a "who you know" basis and they find out the person is immediately fired and everyone involved is also immediately fired. It happened in my dad's office - he worked for Veteran's Affairs - and a guy there hired his son in law and fixed the test results. It was found out - he was canned - the son in law of course was also canned - and the head of the department was canned because he knew and didn't do anything.

Sexual harassment case also had zero tolerance. Man harassed a woman - she complained to the supervisor - who told her not to follow through with charges and he would do something - he didn't do something. After 30 years they fired the harasser and they axed him for not doing anything (enough) about it.

Don't get me wrong - I hate BC Housing with a passion - the paperwork was obscene with the checking and rechecking and the multiple forms and the levels of sign off ability etc. In retrospect though at least there was less chance of crooked stuff going on - and if there was any there is a paper trail if the right people look for it.

There used to be a saying where if you were a lazy butt you could go work in the government - but man by far was that the toughest Accounts payable job I had by a mile. Just trying to wade through their application process is no small feat.

I looked at the teacher salary demand - 15% increase over 3 years. So 5% a year. I just don't see the problem with that - recession or not.

[thekid]

Yes, and to incentivize them, our nations need to adopt fossil fuel taxes that will raise the price of gas to a level were includes the "negative externalities", principally harm to the environment, pollution, and urban congestion.

Practically speaking fossil fuel taxes will need to be phased in overtime but the process should start now.

We are going to have to make a choice regarding the use of gas for fueling automobiles. We are either going to develop alternative methods for fueling cars or we are going to make a cultural shift to mass transportation. I don't see the later occurring because of a variety of factors. The search for an alternative fuel for automobiles is going to have to be a public/private venture in my opinion. The market at the moment makes it too easy to discourage development of alternative fuels. You just have to look at the sales of the Prius when gas was over $4 and what they were once it dropped back down to below $3.

[Feanor]

We are going to have to make a choice regarding the use of gas for fueling automobiles. We are either going to develop alternative methods for fueling cars or we are going to make a cultural shift to mass transportation. I don't see the later occurring because of a variety of factors. The search for an alternative fuel for automobiles is going to have to be a public/private venture in my opinion. The market at the moment makes it too easy to discourage development of alternative fuels. You just have to look at the sales of the Prius when gas was over $4 and what they were once it dropped back down to below $3.
This all true. People would flock to buy Prius if gas were $6/gal. This is exactly the effect a fossil tax would create. By the same token, if producers could get a $5/gal. equivalent for alternative fuels, they would flock to produce them.

Culture can change people especially where there's economic incentive. When Henry Ford produced the $500 Model T, people flocked to buy them which in incentivized road construction and the whole suburban life style & culture of the '50s.

[thekid]

This all true. People would flock to buy Prius if gas were $6/gal. This is exactly the effect a fossil tax would create. By the same token, if producers could get a $5/gal. equivalent for alternative fuels, they would flock to produce them.

Culture can change people especially where there's economic incentive. When Henry Ford produced the $500 Model T, people flocked to buy them which in incentivized road construction and the whole suburban life style & culture of the '50s.

The difference with your analogy on the Model T is the cost of the Model T relative to other forms of transportation at the time was that it was actually cheaper or at least comparable which is why people flocked to it. If you suddenly taxed gasoline it would in the short -term create a fair amount of economic damage and the public perception of taxes would not allow a fuel tax to be politically sustainable.The so-called "sin taxes" which have a similar purpose behind them like what you would look to achieve with a fuel tax are sustainable because it does not affect a large portion of the population.

[Feanor]

The difference with your analogy on the Model T is the cost of the Model T relative to other forms of transportation at the time was that it was actually cheaper or at least comparable which is why people flocked to it. If you suddenly taxed gasoline it would in the short -term create a fair amount of economic damage and the public perception of taxes would not allow a fuel tax to be politically sustainable.The so-called "sin taxes" which have a similar purpose behind them like what you would look to achieve with a fuel tax are sustainable because it does not affect a large portion of the population.
I hear you; and you're likely right about the public refusal. I only wanted to demonstrate that it would be a market-based way to motivate people and businesses to reduce usage.

Basically you're saying that there is no solution until the hurricanes and sea level rises wash away Florida and the Gulf Coast or supply just plain runs out. (I guess the former thanks to the discovery of frackable gas & oil.)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Who is going to pay more for health care so those mandated to get it do?

We are already paying for those without insurance via Emergency room visits. This is why premiums keep going up year over year. The more people that are uninsured, the higher those premiums go. While ACA is not perfect, it will at least slow the costs of premiums, bring more people into the system at a lower cost, and take the pressure off of emergency room as care and maintenance facility.



Who is going to pay more for cars in 12 years because of his latest 54MPG rule?

The same people that will eventually pay $5 or $6 bucks a gallon anytime somebody mentions war in a oil producing country. Or when a hurricane rolls through the Gulf of Mexico, or when there is a refinery fire. Because of increased fuel efficiency, our country is using less and less oil. We have got to get off oil, so we can stop transferring wealth to people who hate our guts.


Who pays all the time in order for those less fortunate? The Middle Class always foots the bill while Billionaires find all the tax loopholes and never seem to pay their share in accordance to what the middle class pays.

Flat Tax is the only fair way. No Loopholes, no special protection, no excuses.

I would say a progressive tax with no loopholes, no special protection and no excuses is probably a better solution. Admittedly, I am a one percenter but I paid at tax rate of 35% on my earnings. If the truth is told, the top 10% paid 71% of all taxes last year. However, they have benefited far more than anyone in the last three decades, and are the only group to see their income rise over that period. We should be paying more...a lot more. In the times when we had, the entire country benefited. I pay my full taxes. No loopholes. I take only standard deductions, and do not seek to cheat out the country that has been so good to me financially.

[thekid]

Basically you're saying that there is no solution until the hurricanes and sea level rises wash away Florida and the Gulf Coast or supply just plain runs out. (I guess the former thanks to the discovery of frackable gas & oil.)

No. I think the solution is a public/private partnership. Private industry will not seriously explore alternative fuel/electric vehicles until the market guarantees an immediate return on investment. Governments overseas pick industries they want to support in order to maximize their resources and create markets for their products. If a public/private venture could perfect an affordable vehicle that used alternative fuels (bio?) we could maintain manufacturing jobs here, increase exports and reduce carbon emissions.

My main point is that relying solely on the market or market forces has what has delayed the introduction of alternative fuel vehicles. Instead of innovation we get slogans like "Drill Baby Drill". That is not an energy plan unless the plan ecological extinction.

[Feanor]

No. I think the solution is a public/private partnership. Private industry will not seriously explore alternative fuel/electric vehicles until the market guarantees an immediate return on investment. Governments overseas pick industries they want to support in order to maximize their resources and create markets for their products. If a public/private venture could perfect an affordable vehicle that used alternative fuels (bio?) we could maintain manufacturing jobs here, increase exports and reduce carbon emissions.

My main point is that relying solely on the market or market forces has what has delayed the introduction of alternative fuel vehicles. Instead of innovation we get slogans like "Drill Baby Drill". That is not an energy plan unless the plan ecological extinction.
Well no & yes.

The discovery of "frackable" gas & oil is a huge bananza and has the potential to keep these fossil fuels cheap enough that feasible government subsidies will not make alternatives cheaper than traditional fuels.

Yes, market forces have delayed alternatives fuels -- and will continue to do so: see above. However if the "negative externalities" of coal, oil, and gas were included in the price, alternative energy types would be very competitive. This is why I like the idea of a tax of fossil fuels.

This not to say there is no place for government subsidy of alternative fuels, on the contrary. I also think there is plenty of room for mandating vehicle mileage standards.

[frenchmon]

We are already paying for those without insurance via Emergency room visits. This is why premiums keep going up year over year. The more people that are uninsured, the higher those premiums go. While ACA is not perfect, it will at least slow the costs of premiums, bring more people into the system at a lower cost, and take the pressure off of emergency room as care and maintenance facility.




The same people that will eventually pay $5 or $6 bucks a gallon anytime somebody mentions war in a oil producing country. Or when a hurricane rolls through the Gulf of Mexico, or when there is a refinery fire. Because of increased fuel efficiency, our country is using less and less oil. We have got to get off oil, so we can stop transferring wealth to people who hate our guts.



I would say a progressive tax with no loopholes, no special protection and no excuses is probably a better solution. Admittedly, I am a one percenter but I paid at tax rate of 35% on my earnings. If the truth is told, the top 10% paid 71% of all taxes last year. However, they have benefited far more than anyone in the last three decades, and are the only group to see their income rise over that period. We should be paying more...a lot more. In the times when we had, the entire country benefited. I pay my full taxes. No loopholes. I take only standard deductions, and do not seek to cheat out the country that has been so good to me financially.

Sir Terrence the Terrible;....Are you saying you are a 1%er as in the concentration of income and wealth among the top earning 1%, in America?

frenchmon

[Feanor]

Sir Terrence the Terrible;....Are you saying you are a 1%er as in the concentration of income and wealth among the top earning 1%, in America?

frenchmon
I think you can take Sir T at his word. Note he says 1%'er should be paying a lot more.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Sir Terrence the Terrible;....Are you saying you are a 1%er as in the concentration of income and wealth among the top earning 1%, in America?

frenchmon

I make just a hair over the minimum standard for what is considered a 1 percentor. I sure don't feel like one.

[thekid]

If the truth is told, the top 10% paid 71% of all taxes last year. However, they have benefited far more than anyone in the last three decades, and are the only group to see their income rise over that period. We should be paying more...a lot more. In the times when we had, the entire country benefited. I pay my full taxes. No loopholes. I take only standard deductions, and do not seek to cheat out the country that has been so good to me financially.

I appreciate and applaud your decision to not take advantage of the many loopholes that are probably at your disposal. The statistic that you cite regarding the top 10% is one that I often hear people use to defend why those in the higher income brackets already "pay more than their share". On its own it sounds quite reasonable but as with other statistics you have to put it in context. Saying they paid 71% of all taxes is not the same as saying they paid 71% of their income in taxes which is how is is often portrayed by those who quote it. The Super Rich pay millions in taxes but because of the tax loopholes available to them those millions actually represent a smaller percentage of their actual income as compared to most people.

The use of numbers like that kind of reminds me of a baseball trivia question.

Can you name the tandem of brothers who have hit the most Home Runs in baseball history?

[frenchmon]

I make just a hair over the minimum standard for what is considered a 1 percentor. I sure don't feel like one.

Cool! Can I get a loan? I need a new amp!......Just kidding. lol!

Ok...I've done a little research and for some reason I though the 1%ers where all millionairs....I see that I was completely wrong....and in the process found out I was in the top 5%. lol! And I can tell you I don't feel like that at all...why am I always broke!

[RGA]

There was an article on Yahoo that had top 1%

343,927 earnings or more in 2009 is in the top 1 percentile. Or A net worth of $8 million

But if you earn $250,000 you're in the top 3% so don't feel bad.

It's funny but I met several people on a train called the West Coast express that would take you from the burbs to Vancouver. One guy had earned top 1% money for over a decade in his job. He was bankrupt. He lost his job. But I could not understand how anyone who earned that much money for a decade could possibly be broke. He lived it up and was in a heavy mortgage and had a big truck and fancy car etc etc.

The same with the people who blow their lottery wins in a couple of years. With a fixation on having to have the best does people in. I could spend a lot lot more on the things that I buy - and when I go over my budget it's not obscenely so.

George really puts it all into perspective George Carlin Talks About "Stuff" - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvgN5gCuLac)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I appreciate and applaud your decision to not take advantage of the many loopholes that are probably at your disposal. The statistic that you cite regarding the top 10% is one that I often hear people use to defend why those in the higher income brackets already "pay more than their share". On its own it sounds quite reasonable but as with other statistics you have to put it in context. Saying they paid 71% of all taxes is not the same as saying they paid 71% of their income in taxes which is how is is often portrayed by those who quote it. The Super Rich pay millions in taxes but because of the tax loopholes available to them those millions actually represent a smaller percentage of their actual income as compared to most people.

The use of numbers like that kind of reminds me of a baseball trivia question.

Can you name the tandem of brothers who have hit the most Home Runs in baseball history?

No Kid, we absolutely should be paying more since when have been the most benefited in the last couple of decades or more. When we paid more, the country boomed which meant we made more money.

[natronforever]

Strange to read so much rancor against Mitt Romney. I'm no fan of President Obama, but at least I don't foam at the mouth spewing my discontent. I'm almost offended on his behalf to hear people assume that he cares nothing for other people - especially the poor. Even a hasty glance at his non-political past is enough to debunk such a ridiculous claim. I went to college with his youngest son. He was my next door neighbor for a couple of years. Great guy. I'm just some small town Idaho boy. His father could have built him a mansion to stay in during college, but instead he slummed it up with us commoners. So his dad has lots of money. So what?

Why do people think that the government holds the solution to all their collective and individual woes? Belittling a person because of his/her wealth is covetous and backwards-thinking. We should be happy for the successes of others, shouldn't we? Taking more from "rich people" only sates the interest of the jealous. It does nothing to improve your circumstance. Happy people are happy because they don't let some politician, media outlet, or some outside circumstance dictate their outlook and feelings. Life is tough, sure, but life is good.

[JohnMichael]

Strange to read so much rancor against Mitt Romney. I'm no fan of President Obama, but at least I don't foam at the mouth spewing my discontent. I'm almost offended on his behalf to hear people assume that he cares nothing for other people - especially the poor. Even a hasty glance at his non-political past is enough to debunk such a ridiculous claim. I went to college with his youngest son. He was my next door neighbor for a couple of years. Great guy. I'm just some small town Idaho boy. His father could have built him a mansion to stay in during college, but instead he slummed it up with us commoners. So his dad has lots of money. So what?

Why do people think that the government holds the solution to all their collective and individual woes? Belittling a person because of his/her wealth is covetous and backwards-thinking. We should be happy for the successes of others, shouldn't we? Taking more from "rich people" only sates the interest of the jealous. It does nothing to improve your circumstance. Happy people are happy because they don't let some politician, media outlet, or some outside circumstance dictate their outlook and feelings. Life is tough, sure, but life is good.



It is how he made his money and who suffered in the process. We also need to consider what he wants to destroy when he takes office. In case you have not noticed greed and deregulation has done this country no good. He is out of touch with the needs of this country and is only concerned about the wealthy and obeying the Koch brothers.

[thekid]

Strange to read so much rancor against Mitt Romney. I'm no fan of President Obama, but at least I don't foam at the mouth spewing my discontent. I'm almost offended on his behalf to hear people assume that he cares nothing for other people - especially the poor. Even a hasty glance at his non-political past is enough to debunk such a ridiculous claim. I went to college with his youngest son. He was my next door neighbor for a couple of years. Great guy. I'm just some small town Idaho boy. His father could have built him a mansion to stay in during college, but instead he slummed it up with us commoners. So his dad has lots of money. So what?

Why do people think that the government holds the solution to all their collective and individual woes? Belittling a person because of his/her wealth is covetous and backwards-thinking. We should be happy for the successes of others, shouldn't we? Taking more from "rich people" only sates the interest of the jealous. It does nothing to improve your circumstance. Happy people are happy because they don't let some politician, media outlet, or some outside circumstance dictate their outlook and feelings. Life is tough, sure, but life is good.

I think you have to separate the man's personal actions from his public policies. American political history is full of contradictions between the private/public actions of individuals. The negative ads on Romney are often over the top but I chalk that up to the Democrats desperation given the state of the economy. It is easier for the public to understand negative attacks than a serious debate on public policy. I wish it were different.

However you do have to look at his public history. When he was governor he apparently followed more mainstream policies. However like McCain in 2008 in order to secure the nomination he swung hard to the right. And like McCain in 2008 you have to be concerned about his VP pick though for different reasons. I think it is fair to say that his change on positions and his VP indicate that if he elected he would follow the lead of the House. There is a reason that the House of Representatives has a 10% approval rating by the public. Through the primaries and in the general election there is no evidence that he would stand up to the more conservative elements of the House. Their own speaker could not control the Tea Party faction on key legislation such as the debt ceiling issue which is why we have the looming fiscal/political crisis coming in December.

[Feanor]

...
Why do people think that the government holds the solution to all their collective and individual woes? Belittling a person because of his/her wealth is covetous and backwards-thinking. We should be happy for the successes of others, shouldn't we? Taking more from "rich people" only sates the interest of the jealous. It does nothing to improve your circumstance. ...
Yours seems to be the typical, anti-liberal view. For a start it is simplistic: "government holds the solution to all their collective and individual woes" just doesn't state position most liberals hold. I'm a liberal and a "progressive" in the sense that word was used in the USA 100 years ago -- someone who believes that government can take an active role to improve the lives of citizens of all economic classes.

As for notion that liberals want to seize the wealth of the (innovative, hard-working, deserving) rich and hand it over to the (lazy, feckless, undeserving) poor. This again is simplistic.

Consider rather that the Republican policy since Reagan has been frankly the opposite. To reduce taxes on the rich and regulations on business -- on the theory that thus encouraged they would invest generously in the economy. But this isn't what has happened.

Instead we have seen manufacturing take flight from North American and with it most high-paying jobs for working people. We saw the median income stale in the '80s and '90s and actually decline in the '00 (even before the crisis of '08). Also we see crumbling infrastructure and weakening schools and public services in general. We see increasing poverty while the top 10% has scooped the virtually all the benefits that remain to be had, and the top 1%, 0.1%, and 0.001% progressively larger portions of that.

What Romney wants is a continuation of the above. This is the inevitable conclusion one must draw based on the policies he and likes of Paul Ryan espouse.

[RGA]

Here is a Republican poster from 1956.

This used to be the Republican Party perspective and should still be for any half way intelligent person. If that poster came out to today the current nutbar right wing would call it commie lefty socialist doom is upon us.

[Hyfi]

Here is a Republican poster from 1956.

This used to be the Republican Party perspective and should still be for any half way intelligent person. If that poster came out to today the current nutbar right wing would call it commie lefty socialist doom is upon us.

Now it would say

Worst prosperity in history even with several wars we should not have been in
Over 66,000,000 UN-Employed
Lower Take-Home Pay in history
Least amount of Job Security
Least amount of Job Opportunities
More time lost because of Unionized Strikes
Social Security all but dead

Vote Republican to keep these the same as usual

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Strange to read so much rancor against Mitt Romney. I'm no fan of President Obama, but at least I don't foam at the mouth spewing my discontent. I'm almost offended on his behalf to hear people assume that he cares nothing for other people - especially the poor. Even a hasty glance at his non-political past is enough to debunk such a ridiculous claim. I went to college with his youngest son. He was my next door neighbor for a couple of years. Great guy. I'm just some small town Idaho boy. His father could have built him a mansion to stay in during college, but instead he slummed it up with us commoners. So his dad has lots of money. So what?

What this tells me is your bias is showing more than your common sense. It is not about Mitts wealth IMO, it is about what he intends to do with the middle and lower class that concerns me. It is what he intends to do to the poor and least among us that concerns me. Mitt is probably a great guy, and so it Obama as I have met him once on his book tour. But those that guide and influence both are evil as hell in their intentions, but I think Romney more so that Obama.



Why do people think that the government holds the solution to all their collective and individual woes? Belittling a person because of his/her wealth is covetous and backwards-thinking. We should be happy for the successes of others, shouldn't we? Taking more from "rich people" only sates the interest of the jealous. It does nothing to improve your circumstance. Happy people are happy because they don't let some politician, media outlet, or some outside circumstance dictate their outlook and feelings. Life is tough, sure, but life is good.

This statement wreaks of BS. The government plays a pretty significant role in all of our lives. The interstate freeway you travel on, that is the fed. Social security and Medicare(two very VERY popular programs) are the federal government. Disaster Relief, the federal government. Consumer protection, now the role of the feds thanks to Obama. The very idea of free market is a corroboration of many pieces, the private sector, the public sector, consumers, judges, and I could go on. You don't have to be jealous to understand that our government as conspired against the average citizen, and for the rich and corporation in this country. The statistics spell this out pretty starkly.

Statistics spell things out pretty clearly. If you were born poor, you will most likely die poor, If you were born middle class, there is a huge probably that you will remain middle class, or fall into the lower class. if you were born rich, then you will most likely die rich. So don't think that just because a rich person tells you that hard work can make you rich, it can't. That fallacy has been studied, and profoundly debunked.

[thekid]

One of the things that amazes me in regards to all the talk of big government is that governement spending on social programs such as Medicaid-Medicare etc. are examples of how government mismanages money because of the amount of fraud that occurs in these program.

However when comes to Defense department and defense spending somehow those same arguements are not made. We have seen the IG's reports of waste (fraud?) over in Afghanistan and Iraq. We also are aware of the $200 hammers and $600 toilet seats.

If people are going to make an argument for reduction of government spending they need to be consistent and that is not what we see. I live in an area which is basically dependent on military spending. Paul Ryan was just here assuring everyone that they will not have to worry about any cuts in the defense spending under a Romney/Ryan administration.

[dingus]

Strange to read so much rancor against Mitt Romney.

strange that you find it surprising. see KB Toys, Hertz, Dunkin, American Pad and Paper, and his dealings with junk bond king Mike Milken are just a few reasons to despise the scumbag.

[natronforever]

This statement wreaks of BS.

This statement reeks of illiteracy, which in turn has wreaked havoc on your spelling.

Glad to know you got to know President Obama so intimately at a book signing.

Is there some correlation between audiophilia and liberalism? Perhaps were I to upgrade my very modest gear I'd become embittered toward "crony capitalists" and surrender to lazy statistics that limit my life's status to that into which I was unwittingly born. Haha. God bless America. I'm happy to provide a touch of dissension. Plus, don't forget that as a Mormon myself I'm pretty required to vote for Gov. Romney.

[Feanor]

One of the things that amazes me in regards to all the talk of big government is that governement spending on social programs such as Medicaid-Medicare etc. are examples of how government mismanages money because of the amount of fraud that occurs in these program.

However when comes to Defense department and defense spending somehow those same arguements are not made. We have seen the IG's reports of waste (fraud?) over in Afghanistan and Iraq. We also are aware of the $200 hammers and $600 toilet seats.

If people are going to make an argument for reduction of government spending they need to be consistent and that is not what we see. I live in an area which is basically dependent on military spending. Paul Ryan was just here assuring everyone that they will not have to worry about any cuts in the defense spending under a Romney/Ryan administration.
I've never fully grasped the fraud argument against government -- nor the waste & mismanagement argument either.

Do these happen? Of course. They happen in private businesses too, where executives and managers work their own organizations for personal advantage.

The solution for government is the same as for business: proper oversight. This isn't one-time reform but continuous process. Seek out the relatively honest & well-informed politicians. Yes, relatively: supporting politicians is always a matter of selecting the least bad.

[dingus]

...don't forget that as a Mormon myself I'm pretty required to vote for Gov. Romney.

and also not required to do any thinking or decision making for yourself. such is life inside a cult.

[RGA]

and also not required to do any thinking or decision making for yourself. such is life inside a cult.

Precisely what Hitler needed - and ultimately got. Spread fear and do it long enough and you can convince people to go with a cult leader no matter what sinister act he has planned. Attacking countries for no good reason (ahem Iraq) for example.

From a Republican President smarter than the entire Right wing republican party COMBINED.

[Feanor]

...
Is there some correlation between audiophilia and liberalism? ...
Trust me: that I haven't noticed.


...
Perhaps were I to upgrade my very modest gear I'd become embittered toward "crony capitalists" and surrender to lazy statistics that limit my life's status to that into which I was unwittingly born. Haha. God bless America. I'm happy to provide a touch of dissension. Plus, don't forget that as a Mormon myself I'm pretty required to vote for Gov. Romney.
God bless American indeed. It's sad to watch while a great nation transitions from a democracy to a plutocracy.

The LDS Church is the almost as big a scam as Scientology. (But only slightly worse than most other flavors of religion.)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

This statement reeks of illiteracy, which in turn has wreaked havoc on your spelling.

Yes, I am just illiterate enough to poke holes the size of Texas in your thoughtless points.


Glad to know you got to know President Obama so intimately at a book signing.

Is there some correlation between audiophilia and liberalism? Perhaps were I to upgrade my very modest gear I'd become embittered toward "crony capitalists" and surrender to lazy statistics that limit my life's status to that into which I was unwittingly born. Haha. God bless America. I'm happy to provide a touch of dissension. Plus, don't forget that as a Mormon myself I'm pretty required to vote for Gov. Romney.

So based on that last statement, you Mormons are not allowed to think for yourself. God does not want Robots, but the Mormon Church does. I wouldn't last ten milliseconds in the Mormon Church, and somehow that makes me really happy.

Maybe your name should be Robby instead.

[Hyfi]

Steel Cage....here we come

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Steel Cage....here we come


Nooooooooooooooooo its cold in there.

[dingus]

....God bless American indeed. It's sad to watch while a great nation transitions from a democracy to a plutocracy.

The LDS Church is the almost as big a scam as Scientology. (But only slightly worse than most other flavors of religion.)

the stupidity of the masses is even worse than that. the religious right would have a Christian based theocracy, but they dont understand that Mormonism is a cult and not a Christian faith.

[Smokey]

If you guys think Democrats and Republicans are that much different, think again. Check out this video where Edward Griffin make a good argument (start at 4 minute mark) that whomever is in the whitehouse, the major policies willl be the same.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/jAdu0N1-tvU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[dingus]

If you guys think Democrats and Republicans are that much different, think again. Check out this video where Edward Griffin make a good argument (start at 4 minute mark) that whomever is in the whitehouse, the major policies willl be the same.

i think thats a fair assessment. Obama is a status quo politician and has continued with most of the Bush Administration policies that he inherited and i dont see that changing if he wins a 2nd term. even though the Republicans have spread out more to the right in recent years, historically Dems and Reps have been mostly moderate leaning parties.

[natronforever]

Sir Terrence,
Glad to see you proofread your last post. Also, you seem to know just as much about my religion as you do about sarcasm. Lighten up.

Dingus,
Wait, so now I'm a non-Christian cultist? Yawn. Tell me something I haven't already heard. Mainstream Christians are among the most ardent in asserting that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not Christian, like it matters. Prostestantism must have some sort of copyright on the term, I guess. Telling me I'm not a Christian doesn't make me any less so. Frankly, the honor isn't yours to extend or deny. Sling mud all you want, if it makes you feel better. Believe me, I can take it. But when you're through, and ready to stop being so bitter, I'll send you some missionaries to serve you the special conversion Kool-Aid. Mmmmm, it's delicious. Drink up, brother.

[dingus]

...Wait, so now I'm a non-Christian cultist? Yawn. Tell me something I haven't already heard. Mainstream Christians are among the most ardent in asserting that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not Christian, like it matters. Prostestantism must have some sort of copyright on the term, I guess. Telling me I'm not a Christian doesn't make me any less so. Frankly, the honor isn't yours to extend or deny. Sling mud all you want, if it makes you feel better. Believe me, I can take it....

the mud i've slung has been aimed squarely at Romney, not for his religious beliefs, but for his business conduct.

you said it yourself, you are obligated to cast your vote for Mitt the twit. what Christian religions are making it their business to follow you into the voting booth? Mormons dont have private lives. their activity and behavior are monitored. teams are sent to your door (invited or not) and conduct interviews to make sure you are in compliance. there is a chain of command that must be obeyed, so if the Bishop tells you to do something stupid like quit your job, you must. your finances are monitored, and not just to ensure that you are tithing properly. your diet, dress, entertainment, who you are friends with, when and where you attend services are all restricted at all times. you cant just decide to quit, or resign from the church, they decide if you are still a member or not.

a religious organization that monitors and controls the private lives and finances of its members and forces membership on them despite their personal wishes, yeah thats a cult. plus you guys get into some really weird stuff too. the magic underwear. rites conducted on behalf of the dead, no matter if the deceased had ever heard of Mormonism. a mother is rendered subordinate to her son when he achieves the proper rank in the Priesthood as early as age 16. until fairly recently, apparently God was a racist. the belief that God engaged in physical sexual intercourse with Mary, which means he has a physical penis. its really bizarre, if God has a functioning penis does he also have a functioning anus? whats it like in the Mormon universe when God urinates, farts, or takes dump?

and then there is the anti-Christian doctrine where Mormonism invalidates itself as a Christian faith, just follow each point to its logical conclusion. the belief that Mormonism is the only true Christian faith, all others are false. that God was once a man and Mormons can become Gods themselves. that the Book of Mormon and the Bible that tells of Christ are the true word of God, yet the Sacrifice of the Cross as recorded in the Bible is insufficient for Salvation. this stuff is off the top of my head, i'm sure there is more i am not aware of.

[RGA]

The Mormon faith is nuts but I don't think mainstream Christianity can take any high ground on crazy. Different crazy but still crazy. The only difference between religion and cult is the size of membership.


Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

See that's crazy - and let's not even start with Catholics - draws in the pedophiles like crazy.

Maher on Catholicism - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGpK5g1-gwQ)

[Hyfi]

It's a real shame but from my experience, most peoples political views are their religion, and the other way around. What ever happened to separation of Church and State.

I don't give a rats ass if the candidate is Atheist or Buddhist. If they can run the country and keep it all in check, that is all that matters to me, as long as they themselves don't make political decisions based on religious brainwashing beliefs.

[Feanor]

Sir Terrence,
Glad to see you proofread your last post. Also, you seem to know just as much about my religion as you do about sarcasm. Lighten up.

Dingus,
Wait, so now I'm a non-Christian cultist? Yawn. Tell me something I haven't already heard. Mainstream Christians are among the most ardent in asserting that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not Christian, like it matters. Prostestantism must have some sort of copyright on the term, I guess. Telling me I'm not a Christian doesn't make me any less so. Frankly, the honor isn't yours to extend or deny. Sling mud all you want, if it makes you feel better. Believe me, I can take it. But when you're through, and ready to stop being so bitter, I'll send you some missionaries to serve you the special conversion Kool-Aid. Mmmmm, it's delicious. Drink up, brother.
The Book of Mormon is transparently a fabrication & fraud perpetrated by Joseph Smith. Assuredly there never were any "latter-day saints". This is what makes the LDS Church a "cult" and scam.

Personally I draw a pretty fine and grey line between cults and religions. They are both delusion, it's just the cults involve the element of fraud vs. just sincere if delusionary belief.

Yes, true: I have no problem insulting people's "religions". My Bad.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Sir Terrence,
Glad to see you proofread your last post. Also, you seem to know just as much about my religion as you do about sarcasm. Lighten up.



I am not much for sarcasm when it sounds more like condescension. The less I know about your racist religion, the better off I am. Your fore leaders had wonderful things to say about Blacks in the past.

Mormons and Black Skin (http://www.christiandefense.org/mor_black.htm)

Not much here to be so lofty over........please troll somewhere else. .

[noddin0ff]

Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by ea talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

Now you're just making' sh*t up. Where in the Bible does it say Christ ate brains?

[GMichael]

Now you're just making' sh*t up. Where in the Bible does it say Christ ate brains?

Not all zombies eat brains. Some of us like toast with PB&J.

[frenchmon]

You guys should really just leave a mans God and religion out of it. That is the ultimate thread killer in my opinion.

[RGA]

Now you're just making' sh*t up. Where in the Bible does it say Christ ate brains?

Everything is symbolic - you have to be somewhat brainless to buy into it - so yup Braaaaaains - are being left inside the church. :14:

[bobsticks]

You guys should really just leave a mans God and religion out of it. That is the ultimate thread killer in my opinion.

I'd be all for that if men would leave their religions out of my politics.

[Smokey]

i think thats a fair assessment. Obama is a status quo politician and has continued with most of the Bush Administration policies that he inherited and i dont see that changing if he wins a 2nd term.

Yes, I feel the pain already. When Obama came into office, cigarettes prices almost double (from $30 to $50 a carlton) due to new taxes :cryin:

And when the new health care law go into effect, it mean more taxes from the poor and working class pockets since if you don't have health insurance (which most poor poeple can't affort), IRS will fine you. That means on top of all the financial troubles one have, they will owe money to the government also :)

[dean_martin]

Yes, I feel the pain already. When Obama came into office, cigarettes prices almost double (from $30 to $50 a carlton) due to new taxes :cryin:

And when the new health care law go into effect, it mean more taxes from the poor and working class pockets since if you don't have health insurance (which most poor poeple can't affort), IRS will fine you. That means on top of all the financial troubles one have, they will owe money to the government also :)

Parts of the new health care law are already in effect. My sons are still covered under my family plan because of the new health care law. It has saved us quite a bit of money and my premiums haven't gone up. I have no complaints.

[dingus]

Yes, I feel the pain already. When Obama came into office, cigarettes prices almost double (from $30 to $50 a carlton) due to new taxes :cryin:

And when the new health care law go into effect, it mean more taxes from the poor and working class pockets since if you don't have health insurance (which most poor poeple can't affort), IRS will fine you. That means on top of all the financial troubles one have, they will owe money to the government also :)

federal taxes are levied by the Congress....

[Smokey]

Parts of the new health care law are already in effect. My sons are still covered under my family plan because of the new health care law. It has saved us quite a bit of money and my premiums haven't gone up. I have no complaints.

Lets see how this new law will work out with the poor and those that can not afford health insurance.


federal taxes are levied by the Congress...

But it was Obama who signed the tax hike in February 2009. Former president George Bush vetoed it.

Biggest U.S. tax hike on tobacco takes effect - USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2009-03-31-cigarettetax_N.htm)

[RGA]

You can't take religion out of it. When you believe in the total insanity of the Mormon faith it says a LOT about the individual who believes it. I don't want nutbars with their finger on the biggest trigger in the world. I would rather have a Cat in charge of the country than Romney.

smokey - stop smoking.

I am a lefty from Canada but it is bothersome to see young people (under 40) smoke. I get old geezers - they got addicted and it's difficult to quit but lung cancer from smoking is one of the most expensive medical treatments that government (me) has to pay for because some putz thinks it's cool. The least they can do is pay a hefty tax so that when they get their operation they will have helped PAY for their future operation.

There should also be a MASSIVE increase (for tax) on High Fructose Corn Syrup. This is costing the system massive sums of money. in heart attacks and diabetes all the way down to things like Gout.

The U.S. medical system is one of those compromises - they should have pretty much copied the Canadian System. The Canadian system "mostly" works. I would make the case that the system if completely 100% copied in the US would actually work MUCH better in the US because of much denser populations. The big drain on Canada is transportation to small communities - suck money. You can't put a full out facility in a tiny town so you have to fly them everywhere - including the U.S. because it's faster to get them there than to a Canadian hospital in some cases - and Canada pays the full American hospital bill (which is probably jacked up once they know a country is footing the bill).

Doctors in the States would make similar money - but they'd cut their workloads by at LEAST 1/2 and would not have to hire staff to deal with HMO's. Everyone in the U.S. would have a LOT LESS stress - you will never lose your home because of a medical bill, less stressed people means less people shooting 20 people in a theater because they can actually afford the schizo pills and actually have a doctor who is not overburdened and can take more time on each case. Too many mentally ill walking the streets who should not be. It's not perfect in Canada - either but the problem in Canada is the lack of humanpower to cover a wide enough net. That's less so in the States.

And we don't pay the taxes you might think we pay either.

Here is the Income tax rate in 2012 in Canada (the first $10k is tax free)

15% on the first $42,707 of taxable income, +
22% on the next $42,707 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $42,707 up to $85,414), +
26% on the next $46,992 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $85,414 up to $132,406), +
29% of taxable income over $132,406.

This is not a bad trade for free medical, highways, fire, etc etc.

[Feanor]

Yes, I feel the pain already. When Obama came into office, cigarettes prices almost double (from $30 to $50 a carlton) due to new taxes :cryin: ...
But smoking is a choice, eh? So you can easily (?) avoid the tax.


...
And when the new health care law go into effect, it mean more taxes from the poor and working class pockets since if you don't have health insurance (which most poor poeple can't affort), IRS will fine you. That means on top of all the financial troubles one have, they will owe money to the government also :)
This is a puzzling perspectivve. First, health insurance is a good thing I'd think. True, with an acute problem you can stumble into an emergency department, but what about preventive and routine care? People die because they don't have insurance.

Further, under the ACA, you actually have a choice. Don't want to buy insurance, pay a tax. (Don't want to pay the tax, buy insurance.) Initially the tax/penalty will be very low.

Under our Canadian systems, (each province has its own), typically people pay no premiums. The systems are funded from general tax revenues. Given the poor play lower taxes, they have negligible extra burden on account of healthcare.

Suck this up, my friend: the USA needs a universal healthcare system like all other developed countries. You guys down there need to stop being stupid about his.

The Medicare funding problem in the USA is a self-inflicted. The problem is caused by (1) ageing populations, (unavoidable), and (2) general healthcare costs increasing far about inflation or the GDP, (definitely avoidable). The latter is caused by for-profit insurance and for-profit delivery. N.B. it's a lie that Obama is de-funding of Medicare; Medicare will be made cheaper by spreading costs to the ACA expanded coverage.

[frenchmon]

Yes, I feel the pain already. When Obama came into office, cigarettes prices almost double (from $30 to $50 a carlton) due to new taxes :cryin:

And when the new health care law go into effect, it mean more taxes from the poor and working class pockets since if you don't have health insurance (which most poor poeple can't affort), IRS will fine you. That means on top of all the financial troubles one have, they will owe money to the government also :)

You see Smokey...that simply is not true.....for those who can't afford it, like the poor, there is something called hardship. And for those who can afford it but don't purchase, they will have to pay the penalty, no one else....the way its stands now, you are paying for all the dead beats.

[frenchmon]

federal taxes are levied by the Congress....

The funny this is...when the Health Care as proposed by President Obama first hit congress....it had no mandate....it was the republican congress that suggested the mandate, hoping it would be turned down...so it was added and now they are crying because it back fired.

[frenchmon]

Lets see how this new law will work out with the poor and those that can not afford health insurance.

You need to educate your self on this issue




But it was Obama who signed the tax hike in February 2009. Former president George Bush vetoed it.

Biggest U.S. tax hike on tobacco takes effect - USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2009-03-31-cigarettetax_N.htm)

What better way to get you to stop using something that has addicted you to its harmful effects.....the Person who signed it into law is/was also a smoker.....what a great example for you. Saves your health and your wallet....its your choice.....poor health and an empty wallet, or better health and more money in your wallet. Don't get mad at the President for making it clear for you.

[frenchmon]

Just wondering which country will be attacked in order to "help the economy." Iran seems like a pretty difficult target. Canada has lots of oil and fresh water and we do have that commie health care.:biggrin5:

"If Romney gets in which country will America start a war with next?"


Well I for one don't think Romney will get in....

[dingus]

"If Romney gets in which country will America start a war with next?"
the USA obviously... (though its been ongoing for some time now).


...the USA needs a universal healthcare system like all other developed countries. You guys down there need to stop being stupid about his.

as a US citizen, i am as puzzled about our lack of health care as those in other countries. its more than stupid... its this way solely to profit from the misery of others, which is insidiously evil . i dont care who you are or where you are in the economic landscape, anyone who doesnt believe that universal access to quality comprehensive health care is a fundamental right, is either just plain cruel, ignorant, a complete idiot, an evil greedy bastard or a combination thereof. our borders are surrounded by proven working models, we need only decide to adopt the policy.

[frenchmon]

the USA obviously... (though its been ongoing for some time now).



as a US citizen, i am as puzzled about our lack of health care as those in other countries. its more than stupid... its this way solely to profit from the misery of others, which is insidiously evil . i dont care who you are or where you are in the economic landscape, anyone who doesnt believe that universal access to quality comprehensive health care is a fundamental right, is either just plain cruel, ignorant, a complete idiot, an evil greedy bastard or a combination thereof. our borders are surrounded by proven working models, we need only decide to adopt the policy.

+1:thumbsup::thumbsup:

[ellisr63]

How true this all is... What a shame.

[RGA]

One other little picture - it's odd the lefty presidents are said to not care about the military (Clinton made Fox News look stupid but that's easy)

Still Obama VS Romney

[RGA]

It may be that even the Mormons don't trust Romney - some are claiming that Romney has lied for 20 years to the Mormon church about his finances - and he may be "shunned" by them. According to the comment section anyway.

Romney smiles about American soldier deaths. Yup - sociopath - not surprised.

Romney Smiles At News Of American Deaths In Libya (IMAGE) | Addicting Info (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/09/12/romney-smiles-american-deaths-libya-image/)

[Feanor]

It may be that even the Mormons don't trust Romney - some are claiming that Romney has lied for 20 years to the Mormon church about his finances - and he may be "shunned" by them. According to the comment section anyway.
...
Don't worry about it. If you gives as much to the LDS Church as he says he does, their attitude will be remarkably forgiving.

[markw]

According this link (http://www.ijreview.com/2012/09/16082-breaking-mob-burns-u-s-flag-in-front-of-american-embassy-in-london/) it looks like the entire muzzie world has declared war on us. Nobody can be dumb enough to think this is all because of a movie that hasn't even been released yet.

Funny, I don't recall such rancor directed towards us in 2008, even after four years of the evil Bush. It looks like the anointed one stuck his male appendage in a real hornet's nest. Whoever wins this election will certainly have their hands full.

And then our illustrious leader has one of his flying monkeys make the speech embedded in this link (http://freebeacon.com/carney-protests-not-directed-at-the-united-states/)???

What's really scary is that some will actually believe it.

So, we're forced to ask ourselves: "Are we better of than we were four years ago?" What do you think?

Bankrupt green company executives and union auto workers need not answer.

[Feanor]

According this link (http://www.ijreview.com/2012/09/16082-breaking-mob-burns-u-s-flag-in-front-of-american-embassy-in-london/) it looks like the entire muzzie world has declared war on us. Nobody can be dumb enough to think this is all because of a movie that hasn't even been released yet.

Funny, I don't recall such rancor directed towards us in 2008, even after four years of the evil Bush. ...
You're right that the rancor isn't just caused by this one movie. However if you don't recall the like directed at the USA back in 2008, you must have being napping at the time.

What has changed is that the rancor isn't suppressed today as it was back then by dictators in places like Libya and Egypt.

[dingus]

.... So, we're forced to ask ourselves: "Are we better of than we were four years ago?" What do you think? ...

really? nobody is forcing me to ask that or any other question. you're just trotting out the prescribed talking point. i think that particular question only has relevance to people who want to maintain the political status quo.

[markw]

You're right that the rancor isn't just caused by this one movie. However if you don't recall the like directed at the USA back in 2008, you must have being napping at the time.

What has changed is that the rancor isn't suppressed today as it was back then by dictators in places like Libya and Egypt.So, you're saying that brutal, oppressive, dictatorships are the only thing that works in the ME?

Perhaps that's so, but don't you find it odd that two countries we helped "liberate" were the first to stab us in the back?

First, there's Libya, who we helped free from Qaddafi, and we allowed them to oust (by inaction) Mubarak in Egypt, one of our oldest allies. ...and then all the little duckies fell in line.

Boy, Obama sure can pick 'em, can't he? Whose side is this schmuck on, anyway.

And, no, the e was not this hatred in 2008. I was alive and sentient then. Apparently, you were under the influence of some strong meds if you think it was this ugly.

[markw]

really? nobody is forcing me to ask that or any other question. you're just trotting out the prescribed talking point. i think that particular question only has relevance to people who want to maintain the political status quo.You've got quite a provincial view of this whole situation, haven't you?

In case you haven't notice the current political status quo, both domestic and foreign, is heading straight down at 32 fps squared. ...unless, of course you're one of the beneficiaries of the ill-fated stimulus monies.

[dingus]

You've got quite a provincial view of this whole situation, haven't you?

In case you haven't notice the current political status quo, both domestic and foreign, is heading straight down at 32 fps squared. ...unless, of course you're one of the beneficiaries of the ill-fated stimulus monies.

you Faux News much?

that political status quo isnt going to change much, if at all, regardless of who wins the white house.

[Feanor]

So, you're saying that brutal, oppressive, dictatorships are the only thing that works in the ME? ...
No, and I didn't say that -- on the contrary.

By the "thing that works" I guess you mean what suppresses latent anti-Americanism? I don't call that working. Hello! the dictators' suppression increased anti-Americanism.


...
Perhaps that's so, but don't you find it odd that two countries we helped "liberate" were the first to stab us in the back?

First, there's Libya, who we helped free from Qaddafi, and we allowed them to oust (by inaction) Mubarak in Egypt, one of our oldest allies. ...and then all the little duckies fell in line. ....
The USA can take credit for everything that happens in the world. Equally there are things it can't prevent happening, whether good or bad. But this isn't for lack of trying.

In fact trying to trying control things in various countries in aid of supposed "American interests" is precisely what has provoked the anti-American we see today, that provoked 9-11, and that will continue until the USA adopts a radically different approach to foreign affairs. And mere acceptance, passive or active, of the overthrow of a few dictators won't be enough.

[frenchmon]

So, you're saying that brutal, oppressive, dictatorships are the only thing that works in the ME?

Perhaps that's so, but don't you find it odd that two countries we helped "liberate" were the first to stab us in the back?

First, there's Libya, who we helped free from Qaddafi, and we allowed them to oust (by inaction) Mubarak in Egypt, one of our oldest allies. ...and then all the little duckies fell in line.

Boy, Obama sure can pick 'em, can't he? Whose side is this schmuck on, anyway.

And, no, the e was not this hatred in 2008. I was alive and sentient then. Apparently, you were under the influence of some strong meds if you think it was this ugly.

I betcha you think Obama is a Muslim don't you?

[frenchmon]

No, and I didn't say that -- on the contrary.

By the "thing that works" I guess you mean what suppresses latent anti-Americanism? I don't call that working. Hello! the dictators' suppression increased anti-Americanism.


The USA can take credit for everything that happens in the world. Equally there are things it can't prevent happening, whether good or bad. But this isn't for lack of trying.

In fact trying to trying control things in various countries in aid of supposed "American interests" is precisely what has provoked the anti-American we see today, that provoked 9-11, and that will continue until the USA adopts a radically different approach to foreign affairs. And mere acceptance, passive or active, of the overthrow of a few dictators won't be enough.



+1:thumbsup:

[markw]

No, and I didn't say that -- on the contraryYeah, you did. Man up.


By the "thing that works" I guess you mean what suppresses latent anti-Americanism? I don't call that working. Hello! the dictators' suppression increased anti-AmericanismNo, I mean killing anyone they don't agree with. Saddam was no friend of Iran if I recall correctly and even tried to take Kuait and was preparing to move on Saudi Arabia. Did your dementia wipe that from your memory?


The USA can take credit for everything that happens in the world.If you're referring t our turning the tide of WW1 and WW2, casting an umbrella (and manning it with our troops) over all of Europe (and Canada) for over sixty years, rebuilding Germany, Japan and a goodly portion of the rest of the world, then I thank you for noticing it.


Equally there are things it can't prevent happening, whether good or bad. [I]But this isn't for lack of trying.Well, like I said in my initial post, since he threw Mubarak under the bus and helped Libya oust Quadaffi to play kissy-face with the muzzies, we'll never know. Let's just say that whan it comes for his choice who to back here, he "chose unwisely". And IIRC, wasn't Canada in charge of the attack on Libya? Youse guyz got to wear big daddy's shoes and play with his big guns, just like the big boys. How did it feel?


In fact trying to trying control things in various countries in aid of supposed "American interests" is precisely what has provoked the anti-American we see today, that provoked 9-11, and that will continue until the USA adopts a radically different approach to foreign affairs. And mere acceptance, passive or active, of the overthrow of a few dictators won't be enough.Let's be honest here. Our work has kept you, and the rest of the world, safe for over sixty years so far. ...but you gained more than the rest of the world by your proximity to us and safely cowering in our shadow. Don't try to play the all-wise-and-knowing guru when your participation in world affairs amounts essentially to a fart in a windstorm. That goes for you personally as well. Jealousy is an ugly emotion.

It's a good thing that most of your country sees the truth. They know how much they have benefited from us. Of course, very few post here.

[Feanor]

...
Let's be honest here. Our work has kept you, and the rest of the world, safe for over sixty years so far. ...but you gained more than the rest of the world by your proximity to us and safely cowering in our shadow. Don't try to play the all-wise-and-knowing guru when your participation in world affairs amounts essentially to a fart in a windstorm. That goes for you personally as well. Jealousy is an ugly emotion.

It's a good thing that most of your country sees the truth. They know how much they have benefited from us. Of course, very few post here.
This is the astonishing thing that a few Americans, such as you, feel they can so handily dismiss criticism of the USA as being purely ingratitude or jealousy. That is, despite the truth that the criticisms comprise, they are nevertheless invalid on this account.

This is numb-brained, bigoted anti-intellectualism at its worst.

[dingus]

This is the astonishing thing that a few Americans, such as you, feel they can so handily dismiss criticism of the USA as being purely ingratitude or jealousy. That is, despite the truth that the criticisms comprise, they are nevertheless invalid on this account.

This is numb-brained, bigoted anti-intellectualism at its worst.

and good old-fashioned American arrogance at its best...

yes, some honesty would help. the absurdity of the situation would be laughable if it werent so dire. the core of the problems lies primarily with apathy and ignorance on behalf of the US populace. add to that the strategy of divide and conquer the citizenry by our 2 major political parties, an inept and corrupt Congress, the commonplace practice of buying legislation, its plain to see that things aint about to get better any time soon.

[markw]

This is the astonishing thing that a few Americans, such as you, feel they can so handily dismiss criticism of the USA as being purely ingratitude or jealousy. That is, despite the truth that the criticisms comprise, they are nevertheless invalid on this account.

This is numb-brained, bigoted anti-intellectualism at its worst.We can take justified criticism but when this country has done so much good for so many, it's aggravating to see how those that benefited from it are so quick to turn on it. As for you, I can almost sense some semblance of life in your flaccid manhood whenever you're typing out,with trembling hands,your latest diatribe vilifying the US. Does it make you feel like almost a man again?

But.since this forum has become less of a useful audio forum, at least it serves some good as a venting post for a few canadians who like to trash the US, much like fleas biting the dog that provides them with their life.

As for dingles, how has Obama done anything to improve the situation for the common person?. All I can see he's done is raise the unemployment rate, given stimulus money to his campaign contributors, put totally useless people in positions of power and given the bankers a free ride, not to mention that he's saddled my grand-kids with debt that they most likely be able to pay off in their lifetime. Oh yeah, and he's made friends with the Arab world, just like he promised he would do before the election

[Feanor]

...
As for dingles, how has Obama done anything to improve the situation for the common person?. All I can see he's done is raise the unemployment rate, given stimulus money to his campaign contributors, put totally useless people in positions of power and given the bankers a free ride, not to mention that he's saddled my grand-kids with debt that they most likely be able to pay off in their lifetime. Oh yeah, and he's made friends with the Arab world, just like he promised he would do before the election
Whatever, but elect Romney and he will make things worse in every way that I can think of.

An austerity fiscal policy designed to pander to international finance combined with a Neocon foreign policy will sink the USA.

[markw]

Whatever, but elect Romney and he will make things worse in every way that I can think of.Your thought process is so full of bile and bitter hatred for the US that it's of no concern to me or anyone that's in a position to take it seriously, if there is any. Like I said, I see this forum is a public service to let you vent rather than get hold of a gun and start picking off Americans.


An austerity fiscal policy designed to pander to international finance combined with a Neocon foreign policy will sink the USA.And the giveaway policy barry sweet-toe embarked on is better? He's out to bankrupt us in case you haven't noticed. ...and our current foreign policy is so much better than four years ago? Really? REALLY?

Yeah, your thinking is a laugh. I'm glad that nobody outside of here takes you seriously and actually, I'm not too sure they don't just like to get you all wound up just to watch you spin like a dreidel. I know I do.

[Feanor]

Your thought process is so full of bile and bitter hatred for the US that it's of no concern to me or anyone that's in a position to take it seriously, if there is any. Like I said, I see this forum is a public service to let you vent rather than get hold of a gun and start picking off Americans.
....
Amazing hypocrisy ... yet somehow I suspect that you, in child-like guilelessness, are sincere.

[dingus]

....As for dingles, how has Obama done anything to improve the situation for the common person?. All I can see he's done is raise the unemployment rate, given stimulus money to his campaign contributors, put totally useless people in positions of power and given the bankers a free ride, not to mention that he's saddled my grand-kids with debt that they most likely be able to pay off in their lifetime. Oh yeah, and he's made friends with the Arab world, just like he promised he would do before the election

keep on trotting out the inane talking points, it makes you sound like a wacko tea-bagger. do you think that because i am anti Romney, then i must be pro Obama? the only thing i've said about Obama is that he's a status quo politician, and i dont see either him or Mitt the Twit doing anything for the common person. he's carried forward most of the Bush Administration policies. as for the points you've listed above, yeah, he's carried all of those forward from the Bush Administration as well.

its the idiot masses, toeing the party line that have allowed us to get into this mess. you need to aim much higher than thinking that your party being better than the other party is good enough. both the Republican and Democratic parties are pathetic and despicable. together they have effectively sacrificed the common good solely for the sake of beating the other side. neither is deserving of your respect or support.

[markw]

HERE (http://gripgov.com/) ya go. Learn something.

It's called the lesser of two evils. Ever heard of that?

I'm not exacly pro Romney, but after the way Obama made things so much worse in his short time in office and seeing his appointments, I sure want him out before he can do even more damage and instill more of his America weakening agenda.

Now, if someone better came along, I'd be open to suggestion but to keep this loser in simply because of his charisma, color,r party affiliation, or whatever is simply stupid. It's too bad the MSM considered to assassinate Ron Paul.

Oh, you might want to take in 2016 Obama's America. It brings up some interesting points.

[GMichael]

So, I guess a group hug is out of the question then? :shocked::idea:

[RGA]

I've never really understood Anti-Americanism. It seems to imply that Feanor and I guess me hate Americans. Seriously?

It's like saying I hate Chinese people because I don't like their government. But I have no ill will to the people because they are ruled by regime.

Mark raises fair points - one that the U.S. does do a lot of good around the world. People may argue that it comes at a price etc - but it DOES come. Everyone is quick to jump on the negatives and slow to pay a compliment.

I've said before that I felt that democrats were better suited to a world stage in the "perception" department. Not necessarily reality but certainly for travelers abroad. In Asia which is financial U.S. hotbed and ally Americans would be spit on (literally) just for walking down the street (Under the Bush regime).

I lived in Seoul and knew many members of the U.S. military and U.S. teachers working and living in South Korea. (This is an ally and a big ally of the U.S.) U.S. foreign policy and Bush basically turned friends into enemies. Some Korean friends truly believe that the U.S. fuels the north south conflict to be able to keep their presence in South Korea and close to China - not to mention giving Americans jobs in the army/navy/airforce.

The stupid thing about this spitting or anti-americanism was that without exception the Americans were all wonderful, friendly, hospitable, open and downright "nice" people (hell I dated an American Girl there for 6 months). The two worst people I've ever met in all my years worked at my school there and they were Canadian. In fact the other 4 Canadians were uptight rejects as well. The only three people I liked were Americans and me (you gotta like yourself since you have to live with you for a long time).

I think the issue is not anti-amricanism - I think the term should be "Anti-Republicansim" and even that term is unfair since The republicans of yesteryear was a completely different animal than what the party has become.

I think everyone has to be "critical" of the people in charge. I absolutely HATE the group that is running my province and I HATE the people running the country. If an American said he hated our PM and our leaders I would not view that as an Anit-Canadian comment but an Anti-government comment.

Plenty of Americans HATE our medical systems - but that's just it - they criticize the Canadian Health Plan and taxes and military but I don't view that as Anti-Canadian - that's anti-program and anti-policy.

There were thousands and thousands of Americans throughout history who have stood up to fight the U.S government policy or State level policy from slavery to the Vietnam War. These Americans were not Anti-American - they were anti-policy. They stood up and said no more.

Take Abortion - a touchy subject - currently legal. It is not Anti-American to say the law sucks and I want legal abortion to end. I am pro-choice but there are plenty of very strong arguments well reasoned for Pro-Life. It's not anti-American to fight a law you see as wrong.

The unfortunate thing for the U.S. is that they are essentially the big boy on the ball field. It's like when you choose your line-up and you see the big kid you want him to bat clean-up. The U.S. has HUGE influence on a world stage and thus other countries and their policy and their people are greatly affected. Indeed, Americans abroad may get spit on or not (or worse) based on who is elected.

Certainly, Americans have to vote their own self interest and not vote based on what some guy in South Korea or Germany or Japan think.

If you really believe that Romney is honest, true to his word, cares about the middle class and poor, and wants to line American's pockets not just the rich then he may be your man.

The bottom line is most Americans living abroad IMO are worldly. If they're not doing missionary work - they tend to be lefties. Even in the U.S. Military which surprised me I confess.

The governments don't really drastically change policy so at the end of the day what is the "real" argument?


Personally I think it has absolutely nothing to do with employment rates - 6% or 11% - really who cares - it only matters to the people in those percents. If you are one of the 6% you are mad - if you're in the 11% you are mad. If you're not you don't much care other than it's a talking point in an argument.


What it's really about is domestic conservative policy and the bible versus the liberal sex crazed lefty world they;'re afraid to support.

Left wing voters tend to be in the following camp:

Pro Gay Marriage or at least would not oppose it.
Pro Stem Cell Research
Pro-Choice
Talk first and shoot only if absolutely necessary
Soft on soft drugs - Marijuana
What you do or who you do in your home (assuming legal age and consent) is fine by us.
Free speech - against government or religion
Evidence and trials - detention with evidence and no torture.
Evolution is fact and they accept it as such.
It's true that people kill people not guns but people can kill a lot more people with automatic guns. A hunting rifle to go hunting - seems reasonable - Uzies do not.
Separation of church and state. Ccurrently 7 U.S States BAN anyone who is Atheist from holding Public Office.
Anti-death penalty
Medical for all (not profiting on the suffering of others).
Global Warming is real
No Racial Profiling
Your a girl who is trapped in a man's body and wants the operation we're sympathetic to your plight we won't lynch you.
You want to be gay in the Army or on a football team we could care less.



Basically the above list is pretty much what a lefty or democrat believes in. There will be exceptions with some of them but not many. So why does everyone blather on about the economy - the president barely makes a blip on that. It's the domestic stuff where I suspect the votes in any country truly come from.

Seriously, can any person of religious right wing conviction POSSIBLY EVER vote for the left and the above list? Seriously. It's not that the Mormon poster is voting Romney because he's a Mormon - he said that because it was a polite way to say - there is no way I am voting for a pro-choice, Gay is OK party.

It's just not going to ever happen. I don't care if Obama kills another Bin Laden and reduces the employment rate to absolute 0 and eliminates all disease and cures the common cold - he's fine with Gay Marriage and Pro Choice and that's the end of the discussion. You WILL NOT get a righty vote no matter what the hell else you do.

This is the reason none of the right wing voters even acknowledge what a horrific mess Bush left Obama or that Obama could not undue some of the later Bush policies.

But it's the list above that gets the votes - nothing to do with money.

[Hyfi]

We have billboards here all over the place that say "Obama supports Gay Marriage and Abortion. Do you?"

So I guess the Romney billboard would say "Romney is prejudiced, anti-Gay, and against women's rights. Are you?"

If people actually vote for a President with Gay Marriage and Abortion as the deciding factor, the country is in bigger trouble than you think.

As far as "Am I better off now than 4 years ago?"

Yes I am. The market has stabilized and come back and I am now making back my losses and also gains in my investments. My job is pretty secure. I am not sure what the Romney camp is talking about when they say all Americans are worse off then 4 years ago.

[JohnMichael]

We have billboards here all over the place that say "Obama supports Gay Marriage and Abortion. Do you?"

So I guess the Romney billboard would say "Romney is prejudiced, anti-Gay, and against women's rights. Are you?"

If people actually vote for a President with Gay Marriage and Abortion as the deciding factor, the country is in bigger trouble than you think.

As far as "Am I better off now than 4 years ago?"

Yes I am. The market has stabilized and come back and I am now making back my losses and also gains in my investments. My job is pretty secure. I am not sure what the Romney camp is talking about when they say all Americans are worse off then 4 years ago.

I agree!

[Feanor]

I've never really understood Anti-Americanism. It seems to imply that Feanor and I guess me hate Americans. Seriously?
...
Seriously enough, it seems.

It's easier for some blind nationalist in the USA to dismiss criticism of their government's policies as hatred of, ungratitude towards, or jealousy of Americans than to defend these policies -- to others or themselves -- with facts and logic. When truth is painful so many of us prefer delusion.

Blind nationalism is by no means restricted to the USA. We see some of that in the current China - Japan dispute, although I think some of is orchestrated by their governments, especially in China's case.

Blind religionism, of course, is behind many problems in the Middle East, etc.. IMHO, there has never a more totally specious issue than religion, although it's often just a red-herring issue by local politicians.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

HERE (http://gripgov.com/) ya go. Learn something.

It's called the lesser of two evils. Ever heard of that?

I'm not exacly pro Romney, but after the way Obama made things so much worse in his short time in office and seeing his appointments, I sure want him out before he can do even more damage and instill more of his America weakening agenda.

Now, if someone better came along, I'd be open to suggestion but to keep this loser in simply because of his charisma, color,r party affiliation, or whatever is simply stupid. It's too bad the MSM considered to assassinate Ron Paul.

Oh, you might want to take in 2016 Obama's America. It brings up some interesting points.

Mark, I would like to remind you of something. When Obama took office we were losing 800,000 jobs per month, and the economy was in free fall. Obama did not make things much worse, he stemmed losses, and actually added more jobs than all of the Republican President's in the last 4 decades. The problem here is we have added jobs, but not enough to bring us back to where we were before he took office. That is not the President's fault, that is the fault of a do more with less corporate mentality. Look at the stock market, and corporate profits. If we are going to turn this around, then there needs to be a system wide restructuring of how we do business. Currently you have corporations sitting on huge piles of cash, and you have the wealth gap still widening. This is a result of policy decisions mad over a long period of time. Anyone who tells you they can fix long term structural problems in four years, they are lying through their teeth. Romney's plans(what little that has been revealed) will add to the budget deficit, and will do nothing to create jobs for middle class Americans. As long as the middle class stay weak and shrinking, the longer this country will be in financial doldrums. You cannot keep giving tax cuts to people like me, I DON'T NEED IT!!

Look at this graph on job creation since Obama has been in office.

U.S. Job Creation Nears Four-Year High (http://www.gallup.com/poll/154406/job-creation-nears-four-year-high.aspx)

That line is going up, not down. It is just not going up fast enough for most, especially for those unemployed.

Don't know why you brought up color, a persons color does not pay bills. It does not create jobs, and I think it is insulting to think ANYONE would vote for somebody based on their color. I voted for Obama because of his policies, proposals and idea's. I still think he is on the right road with his policies, but believe he needs more time to finish what he started. I don't care who is in office right now, they cannot undo the damage that has been done in such a short time. That is not realistic at all.

One major structural issue is this idea that American workers are no longer qualified to do the jobs employers want. That is a bald face lie. The reality is they think we get paid too much, so they look to foreign worker via the H1-B program, and our politicians continue to allow this to happen. We have seen wages job drastically in the last decade, but really rapidly in the last 4 years.

The biggest problem we have is the poor and middle class keep sending rich folks to represent them in Washington DC. When they get there, they vote their own self interest instead of ours. We also have FAR FAR too much money in politics, and that is driving the decision making process. Romney thinks the middle class is those who make $200-250,000 dollars, and that is how skewed his perspective is being rich all of your life. How can he possibly understand what it means to struggle to put food on the table? He refuses to release his tax records IN FULL(what is he hiding), and refuses to provide any detail on how he we get this country back on its feet(they won't elect me he says). How can I trust him? He didn't exactly set Massachusetts on fire in the job creation category, so how do you know his plans will actually work..

You cannot just blame Obama for every bad thing happening in this country. The problem is FAR bigger than Obama, and far more complex as well. But one thing you are right about, our choices are the lesser of two evils.

[JohnMichael]

Mark, I would like to remind you of something. When Obama took office we were losing 800,000 jobs per month, and the economy was in free fall. Obama did not make things much worse, he stemmed losses, and actually added more jobs than all of the Republican President's in the last 4 decades. The problem here is we have added jobs, but not enough to bring us back to where we were before he took office. That is not the President's fault, that is the fault of a do more with less corporate mentality. Look at the stock market, and corporate profits. If we are going to turn this around, then there needs to be a system wide restructuring of how we do business. Currently you have corporations sitting on huge piles of cash, and you have the wealth gap still widening. This is a result of policy decisions mad over a long period of time. Anyone who tells you they can fix long term structural problems in four years, they are lying through their teeth. Romney's plans(what little that has been revealed) will add to the budget deficit, and will do nothing to create jobs for middle class Americans. As long as the middle class stay weak and shrinking, the longer this country will be in financial doldrums. You cannot keep giving tax cuts to people like me, I DON'T NEED IT!!

Look at this graph on job creation since Obama has been in office.

U.S. Job Creation Nears Four-Year High (http://www.gallup.com/poll/154406/job-creation-nears-four-year-high.aspx)

That line is going up, not down. It is just not going up fast enough for most, especially for those unemployed.

Don't know why you brought up color, a persons color does not pay bills. It does not create jobs, and I think it is insulting to think ANYONE would vote for somebody based on their color. I voted for Obama because of his policies, proposals and idea's. I still think he is on the right road with his policies, but believe he needs more time to finish what he started. I don't care who is in office right now, they cannot undo the damage that has been done in such a short time. That is not realistic at all.

One major structural issue is this idea that American workers are no longer qualified to do the jobs employers want. That is a bald face lie. The reality is they think we get paid too much, so they look to foreign worker via the H1-B program, and our politicians continue to allow this to happen. We have seen wages job drastically in the last decade, but really rapidly in the last 4 years.

The biggest problem we have is the poor and middle class keep sending rich folks to represent them in Washington DC. When they get there, they vote their own self interest instead of ours. We also have FAR FAR too much money in politics, and that is driving the decision making process. Romney thinks the middle class is those who make $200-250,000 dollars, and that is how skewed his perspective is being rich all of your life. How can he possibly understand what it means to struggle to put food on the table? He refuses to release his tax records IN FULL(what is he hiding), and refuses to provide any detail on how he we get this country back on its feet(they won't elect me he says). How can I trust him? He didn't exactly set Massachusetts on fire in the job creation category, so how do you know his plans will actually work..

You cannot just blame Obama for every bad thing happening in this country. The problem is FAR bigger than Obama, and far more complex as well. But one thing you are right about, our choices are the lesser of two evils.



A very good post and I agree.

[markw]

And, from the performance over the last four years, I'm ready to give the new guy a chance.

Unemployment is up, The Auto manufacturers were given to the unions while the secured bondholders that kept them alive for the previous years were laid down on the floor anon their stomachs and brutally taken, the big bankers got their bonus', Various (not just Solyndra) green companies (who, coincidentally, were also Obama's bundlers) were given billions of dollars between them and then went bankrupt, Holder and Napolitano have opened the floodgates to illegals and Holder want to prosecute the states who want to do for themselves for doing what the federal government is constitutionally obligated to do but refuses, has put us under martial law, instituted indefinite detention yet complained about Bush's patriot act, and the only jobs being created involve asking "Do you want fries with that", twice as many Americans died in Afghanistan in Obama's 3 1/2 years than under Bush's seven, and, from this last week, we can see how much the "real" theocratic countries countries love us.

Yeah, I think we're due for a change. We had hope but that got us nowhere.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

And, from the performance over the last four years, I'm ready to give the new guy a chance.

Unemployment is up, The Auto manufacturers were given to the unions while the secured bondholders that kept them alive for the previous years were laid down on the floor anon their stomachs and brutally taken, the big bankers got their bonus', Various (not just Solyndra) green companies (who, coincidentally, were also Obama's bundlers) were given billions of dollars between them and then went bankrupt, Holder and Napolitano have opened the floodgates to illegals and Holder want to prosecute the states who want to do for themselves for doing what the federal government is constitutionally obligated to do but refuses, has put us under martial law, instituted indefinite detention yet complained about Bush's patriot act, and the only jobs being created involve asking "Do you want fries with that", twice as many Americans died in Afghanistan in Obama's 3 1/2 years than under Bush's seven, and, from this last week, we can see how much the "real" theocratic countries countries love us.

Yeah, I think we're due for a change. We had hope but that got us nowhere.

A very typical Republican response. In the face of facts, they cover their ears and go nah, nah, nah, nah.

All of this is not about jobs, it is about your own moral compass and majoring in minors.

[dingus]

HERE (http://gripgov.com/) ya go. Learn something.

It's called the lesser of two evils. Ever heard of that?
thats rich. you come off like a complete ignoramus unable to think for yourself, spouting the spoon-fed talking points as if they have any substance, and i need to learn something? you need to learn some basics civics and find out what the duties of holding public office entail.

if you want to see improvement in our domestic and foreign affairs and in the social and econ-political arenas, then picking from the lesser of the evils is not good enough, especially when choosing candidates from the same old sources. the system is rigged and neither the Republican nor Democratic party represent any substantive change.


I'm not exacly pro Romney, ...
yeah, you exactly are pro Romney. supporting his election and a stated intention to vote for him, by definition makes you a proponent for him.


And, from the performance over the last four years, I'm ready to give the new guy a chance.
wake up! he's not the new guy! he's the same old guy that brought us to this point. why would you vote against your own self interest?

[markw]

A very typical Republican response. In the face of facts, they cover their ears and go nah, nah, nah, nah.

All of this is not about jobs, it is about your own moral compass and majoring in minors.And might I respond that that's quite a typical liberal response?

That's all right. You've got yours. Screw those that don't.

FWIW, I think that the rich should pay proportinately more and capital gains should be taxed at the regular tax rate but ya can't have everything.

[markw]

thats rich. you come off like a complete ignoramus unable to think for yourself, spouting the spoon-fed talking points as if they have any substance, and i need to learn something? you need to learn some basics civics and find out what the duties of holding public office entail.

if you want to see improvement in our domestic and foreign affairs and in the social and econ-political arenas, then picking from the lesser of the evils is not good enough, especially when choosing candidates from the same old sources. the system is rigged and neither the Republican nor Democratic party represent any substantive change.


yeah, you exactly are pro Romney. supporting his election and a stated intention to vote for him, by definition makes you a proponent for him.


wake up! he's not the new guy! he's the same old guy that brought us to this point. why would you vote against your own self interest?You're an idiot. Firemen don't go into a burning building and throw gasoline on itlike your idol did.

[dingus]

You're an idiot. Firemen don't go into a burning building and throw gasoline on itlike your idol did.

i've made it quite clear that i am no fan or supporter of Obama, yet you appear to be unable to understand this simple fact. along with all the other ridiculous responses you've dumped in this thread, your consistent hypocrisy and self contradicting statements, you have confirmed that you are not a rational person.

[markw]

I'm rational enough to know that if the car is headed for a cliff to turn the wheel, even if I'm not 100% sure where it's gonna go.

[Hyfi]

Don't know why you brought up color, a persons color does not pay bills. It does not create jobs, and I think it is insulting to think ANYONE would vote for somebody based on their color. I voted for Obama because of his policies, proposals and idea's. I still think he is on the right road with his policies, but believe he needs more time to finish what he started. I don't care who is in office right now, they cannot undo the damage that has been done in such a short time. That is not realistic at all.



I know this is going to come off as racist but I'm gonna say it anyway because I think it's true.

If you don't believe that the a large portion of the black population voted for Obama because he was black, you live under a rock.

It is absolutely no different than when they added Sarah Palin to the ticket to draw the female vote. The only problem with that move was she is an idiot and even most of the women in the US could see that.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I know this is going to come off as racist but I'm gonna say it anyway because I think it's true.

If you don't believe that the a large portion of the black population voted for Obama because he was black, you live under a rock.

It is absolutely no different than when they added Sarah Palin to the ticket to draw the female vote. The only problem with that move was she is an idiot and even most of the women in the US could see that.

I don't think your comment was racist, it was ignorant and fact less. Can you show me some proof your statement is true?

I know a lot of black people, and I mean A LOT. The vote Democrat most certainly, but they don't vote a skin color or race. What you think is true may not be true at all. Unless you can show me some stat's or survey that say's your "truth" is true - then it is just "truth" that lies between your own ears.

Remember Herman Cain was black, and so is Clarence Thomas, do you see blacks flocking to them? Hell no!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

And might I respond that that's quite a typical liberal response?

You can say anything you want, and usually do.


That's all right. You've got yours. Screw those that don't.

Remember those are your words. I would never say such a thing, and don't even believe in the narrow-minded way of thinking. Interesting it would come from you though.


FWIW, I think that the rich should pay proportinately more and capital gains should be taxed at the regular tax rate but ya can't have everything.

The way things are going, you never going to get this because rich people are in charge.

[Feanor]

I'm rational enough to know that if the car is headed for a cliff to turn the wheel, even if I'm not 100% sure where it's gonna go.
Let me ask a question: specifically which of Romney's policies will "turn the wheel" and why will they work better than Obama's?

I can understand that many people are disappointed with Obama, even most people in some degree. Heck, even I as ungrateful, jealous Canadian am rather disappointed with him. But the rational question isn't how badly Obama has done -- or even will do -- but will Romney do any better?

My expectation of your response is low given your previous comments. Please don't confirm my expectation by fatuously replying, Romney couldn't do any worse!, or words to that effect.

[Hyfi]

Remember Herman Cain was black

I don't have your survey and one was probably not taken.

Herman Cain is a corrupt moron, Obama is not. And, As far as I am concerned, Obama is not black, he is Half White.

[texlle]

Well, Herman Cain may serve as a bad example, but the combination of a black presidential nominee AND his democratic party affiliation may explain record minority voter turn out in 2008. I think this provides some merit to Hyfi's argument. Do I really need to reference a specific source here?

[Hyfi]

Well, Herman Cain may serve as a bad example, but the combination of a black presidential nominee AND his democratic party affiliation may explain record minority voter turn out in 2008. I think this provides some merit to Hyfi's argument. Do I really need to reference a specific source here?

Dissecting the 2008 Electorate: Most Diverse in U.S. History | Pew Hispanic Center (http://www.pewhispanic.org/2009/04/30/dissecting-the-2008-electorate-most-diverse-in-us-history/)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/us/politics/21vote.html

Passionate race drives a massive turnout - USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-11-04-voterturnout_N.htm)

I guess I could go on and on with links so my statements were not ignorant nor fact-less and anyone who wants to say otherwise still lives under a rock in a dream world.

If both candidates were all white, you would have NEVER seen the record turnout among black voters.

[noddin0ff]

And, from the performance over the last four years, I'm ready to give the new guy a chance.

Unemployment is up,

No. Unemployment is down since sh*t hit the fan late 2008 due to the collapse. We should all be able to agree that Obama didn't cause the collapse (if we were reasonable).

LINK TO OBVIOUS GRAPH (http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=country:US&fdim_y=seasonality:S&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment+rate#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=unemployment_rate&fdim_y=seasonality:S&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:US&ifdim=country&tstart=1232254800000&tend=1342584000000&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false)


has put us under martial law, instituted indefinite detention yet complained about Bush's patriot act

Obama extended key provisions of the Patriot Act. The 'putting' and 'instituting' were done prior. Obama didn't undo the existing practice of indefinite detention, but he didn't institute it either. And, according to Wiki there were 2 prior reauthorizations of the Patriot Act in 2005 and 2006. Hmmm... Both prior to 2008. huh.

"The USA PATRIOT Act was reauthorized by three bills. The first, the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005, was passed by both houses of Congress in July 2005. This bill reauthorized provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. It created new provisions relating to the death penalty for terrorists,[170] enhancing security at seaports,[171] new measures to combat the financing of terrorism,[172] new powers for the Secret Service,[173] anti-Methamphetamine initiatives[174] and a number of other miscellaneous provisions. The second reauthorization act, the USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006, amended the first and was passed in February 2006."

Obama did reauthorize in 2010 a temporary extension.

"On Saturday, February 27, 2010, President Barack Obama signed into law legislation that would temporarily extend for one year, three controversial provisions of the Patriot Act that had been set to expire:[177] [178] [179]

Authorize court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones.
Allow court-approved seizure of records and property in anti-terrorism operations.
Permit surveillance against a so-called lone wolf, a non-U.S. citizen engaged in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group."

Hmmm. authorize court approved... You're going to damn that?


and the only jobs being created involve asking "Do you want fries with that"

The way the federal government creates jobs (if you'll first concede that the Fed is in fact a job creator, which is counter to right-wing dogma) is to spend money to get stuff done. Want jobs? spend money. Want spend money? accept that deficit is not the problem, and build infrastructure. Don't listen to Tea Party.


twice as many Americans died in Afghanistan in Obama's 3 1/2 years than under Bush's seven
Um. Bush launched an unnecessary war with Iraq and neglected Afghanistan. If Bush had focused on job 1, maybe we wouldn't have still been in Afghanistan and Bush would have been re-elected.

Quick Google for the record ~4800 military deaths in Iraq. 2021 in Afghanstan (with 1646 since 2008 inclusive). source IRAQ (http://icasualties.org/Iraq/Fatalities.aspx), AFGHANISTAN (http://icasualties.org/oef/)

Score: Bush 5175 ; Obama 1646
Who was sending our soldiers to die for just cause?


Yeah, I think we're due for a change. We had hope but that got us nowhere.

And apparently we have rhetoric taking us backward

[Hyfi]

Hey, another point for the question are we better of than 4 years ago.

In September of 08, the market crashed and I lost lots of money like everyone else.

Exactly who was the President in September of 2008?

Yeah, that's right, GW Bushwacker was the President and now 4 years after the current President inherited that mess, where is the market? At an all time high!

So why does the Romney camp keep asking that question and saying we are worse off now when his own party was the problem and cause of the whole reason people did become worse off as an effect of the Republicans? You would think that his Math Wiz running mate could do the 4 year math problem and realize the answer was Bush, not Obama being the president when we all became worse off.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Well, Herman Cain may serve as a bad example, but the combination of a black presidential nominee AND his democratic party affiliation may explain record minority voter turn out in 2008. I think this provides some merit to Hyfi's argument. Do I really need to reference a specific source here?


Yes, I would like for you to reference a specific source that says all black people who voted for Obama did so because of his race. Black people are not stupid. His message of hope and change must have resonated with them as much as his race did, or Herman Cain would have gotten the same kind of support from Black folks.

Not one of HiFy links point to Obama race as being the driving force for black to vote for him. But this was said of his support by blacks



Obama's opposition to the Iraq war and plans to revive the economy were part of his appeal to blacks, along with "the emotional component" of helping him make history.

Did anyone see race in any of that?

[dingus]

I'm rational enough to know that if the car is headed for a cliff to turn the wheel, even if I'm not 100% sure where it's gonna go.

rather than head in another direction without know where you are going, the rational action would be to apply the brakes and stop the car. even though your analogy has no correlation to your ability to rationalize, i do appreciate the admission that you havent got a clue.

[Feanor]

Hey, another point for the question are we better of than 4 years ago.

In September of 08, the market crashed and I lost lots of money like everyone else.

Exactly who was the President in September of 2008?

Yeah, that's right, GW Bushwacker was the President and now 4 years after the current President inherited that mess, where is the market? At an all time high!

So why does the Romney camp keep asking that question and saying we are worse off now when his own party was the problem and cause of the whole reason people did become worse off as an effect of the Republicans? You would think that his Math Wiz running mate could do the 4 year math problem and realize the answer was Bush, not Obama being the president when we all became worse off.
"Are you better off than you were four years ago?" The Republicans aren't looking for reasoned response, they want a "gut" response -- and they're hoping for it from a lot of those 47% that Romney denounced as freeloaders.

[texlle]

Yes, I would like for you to reference a specific source that says all black people who voted for Obama did so because of his race. Black people are not stupid. His message of hope and change must have resonated with them as much as his race did, or Herman Cain would have gotten the same kind of support from Black folks.

Not one of HiFy links point to Obama race as being the driving force for black to vote for him. But this was said of his support by blacks




Did anyone see race in any of that?

Good lord, you're taking my quote way way out of context here. I am not by any means whatsoever saying black people are stupid, nor am I saying Obama's race was responsible for every minority vote in the 2008 election. Although, I am inferring that much of the difference between the 2008 minority voter turn out and every single election year previously since the 15th amendment was enacted, was attributed by Obama's race.

[markw]

rather than head in another direction without know where you are going, the rational action would be to apply the brakes and stop the car. even though your analogy has no correlation to your ability to rationalize, i do appreciate the admission that you havent got a clue.As you know, this jalopyn has no brakes. It's gonna keep on going. Now,if you have some wa to stop it, please share or at least admit that you think trying to be cuts shows intelligence. Trust me, it doesn't. It just shows desperation.

I will saty this much: At least Mitt knows that,as a businessman,one simply cannot spend mone and depend on borroeing from the future to pa for today. Something this administration cannot seem to grasp.

And, claiming government jobs as improving the job creation figures is as valid as Bernake printing more money to solve the financial crisis. It's all economic smoke and mirrors, but I don't expect Obama's acolytes to be able to grasp that concept. ...just worship at his feet. That's what he's counting on.

[dingus]

As you know, this jalopyn has no brakes. It's gonna keep on going. Now,if you have some wa to stop it, please share or at least admit that you think trying to be cuts shows intelligence. Trust me, it doesn't. It just shows desperation.

I will saty this much: At least Mitt knows that,as a businessman,one simply cannot spend mone and depend on borroeing from the future to pa for today. Something this administration cannot seem to grasp.

And, claiming government jobs as improving the job creation figures is as valid as Bernake printing more money to solve the financial crisis. It's all economic smoke and mirrors, but I don't expect Obama's acolytes to be able to grasp that concept. ...just worship at his feet. That's what he's counting on.

it was your stupid analogy, you might have stipulated the brakes when you first forwarded it, or were you making it retroactive like Mitt did with his retirement from Bain? i'd like to respond to the rest of your post, but just like your views on the topics being discussed in this thread, its largely indecipherable.

[noddin0ff]

I will saty this much: At least Mitt knows that,as a businessman,one simply cannot spend mone and depend on borroeing from the future to pa for today. Something this administration cannot seem to grasp.

Actually, your assumption is dead wrong with respect to the Federal government. The Gov't is not a business. It's wrong-headed rhetoric that the Gov't should run like a business; and this hyperventilation and wrong thinking about federal deficits, I argue, is slowing our recovery. The Fed is a currency creator. It's impossible for the US to be unable to pay dollar denominated debt. There is zero risk that we will not be able to pay our Social Security obligations, for instance. States, Municipalities, Businesses and individuals can't print money and do need to be budget conscious. The Fed is not constrained this way. Thus, we shouldn't hyperventilate about deficits and balanced budget. We should worry about priorities. In this case, at this time, the priority should be jobs. Politically both parties are failing us, but I'll blame the right for hyperventilating.

Slate article puts it well: Out of money? No way (http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/09/05/out_of_money_no_way_america_can_never_run_out_of_m oney_.html)
"this assertion that America is "out of money" has become an all-purpose crutch through which Reason can push an ideological agenda of skepticism about programs without actually making the case in its particulars. But it's simply not true that we're out of money. Many states and municipalities are up against hard budget constraints, but the US government has the ability to create US currency in unlimited quantities. It hasn't run out of money and won't ever run out of money. It would be nice for people to understand this point separately from controversies over whether public sector programs are wise or just. In principle, the US government could print up or borrow a ton of money, hand it to state governments, and then have all the money used to cut taxes rather than to finance programs. This would not be possible in a world where the US government faced a hard budget constraint but, fortunately, we don't face any such constraint. The possible downside to a policy of greater reliance on money-finance or debt-finance is that it might make holding dollar-denominated financial assets less attractive to foreigners. That, in turn, would make imported goods more expensive domestically and American-made goods cheaper on foreign markets. If the United States were already at full employment that would be a very bad tradeoff, amount to a decline in average American living standards. But at a time of mass unemployment, it looks like a pretty good tradeoff that should raise per capita output and average incomes."


And, claiming government jobs as improving the job creation figures is as valid as Bernake printing more money to solve the financial crisis. It's all economic smoke and mirrors, but I don't expect Obama's acolytes to be able to grasp that concept. ...just worship at his feet. That's what he's counting on.

For reasons stated above, the real 'smoke and mirrors' are the erroneous beliefs that the US has a deficit problem that supersedes the jobs problem. Printing money to solve economic problems is entirely valid and is precisely what we intentionally enabled by leaving the gold standard. I'm not saying we should print money and hand it to people to spend on TVs. We should print, or borrow at low interest (which amounts to printing money over time, cause the Gov't can't pay back dollar denominated interest without making more dollars), money and use it to buy stuff we need like infrastructure, fire and police protection, teachers, healthcare… that amount to a sound investment in the future that will ultimately promote healthy private sector growth, and in the short term save jobs.

Can you really argue that funding jobs doesn't improve the job creation figures? Jobs are jobs. When unemployment is high, it's idiotic to rabidly enact spending cuts that result in job loss and loss of infrastructure for our future. What's so hard to grasp about that?

[markw]

it was your stupid analogy, you might have stipulated the brakes when you first forwarded it, or were you making it retroactive like Mitt did with his retirement from Bain? i'd like to respond to the rest of your post, but just like your views on the topics being discussed in this thread, its largely indecipherable.That's the best you've got? You try to twist a clear analogy to try to make a point and think you're clever? ...and then get all huffy when yo're called on it? Ha!

Well, that explains why the rest was incomprehensible to you. I've been trying to talk sense to moron who hasn't a clue on the way tis whole thing works.

We're done, dingles. Have fun. Try again when you've got a clue.

[dingus]

That's the best you've got? You try to twist a clear analogy to try to make a point and think you're clever? ...and then get all huffy when yo're called on it? Ha!

Well, that explains why the rest was incomprehensible to you. I've been trying to talk sense to moron who hasn't a clue on the way tis whole thing works.

We're done, dingles. Have fun. Try again when you've got a clue.

you should have quit when you weren't so far behind...

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Good lord, you're taking my quote way way out of context here. I am not by any means whatsoever saying black people are stupid, nor am I saying Obama's race was responsible for every minority vote in the 2008 election. Although, I am inferring that much of the difference between the 2008 minority voter turn out and every single election year previously since the 15th amendment was enacted, was attributed by Obama's race.

Good Lord, you need to prove your inference, or it is nothing more than something you crapped out of your bum, and on to this page. Make a one on one comparison that each black person who voted for Obama did so because of the color of his skin. Discount that Obama team voter registration efforts did not reflect minority voter participation as opposed to his race.

Here is the reality my friend. Obama's team was just better at voter registration at all levels, and that was the major reason for a high minority voter turn out. Nobody in history has courted minorities or the young like Obama's team has. That is a fact. Ignore that reality in favor of race, then you have to provide proof that race played a major role in minority voter turn out. Otherwise, you think the black vote is monolithic, narrow minded, and ignorant.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Actually, your assumption is dead wrong with respect to the Federal government. The Gov't is not a business. It's wrong-headed rhetoric that the Gov't should run like a business; and this hyperventilation and wrong thinking about federal deficits, I argue, is slowing our recovery. The Fed is a currency creator. It's impossible for the US to be unable to pay dollar denominated debt. There is zero risk that we will not be able to pay our Social Security obligations, for instance. States, Municipalities, Businesses and individuals can't print money and do need to be budget conscious. The Fed is not constrained this way. Thus, we shouldn't hyperventilate about deficits and balanced budget. We should worry about priorities. In this case, at this time, the priority should be jobs. Politically both parties are failing us, but I'll blame the right for hyperventilating.

Slate article puts it well: Out of money? No way (http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/09/05/out_of_money_no_way_america_can_never_run_out_of_m oney_.html)
"this assertion that America is "out of money" has become an all-purpose crutch through which Reason can push an ideological agenda of skepticism about programs without actually making the case in its particulars. But it's simply not true that we're out of money. Many states and municipalities are up against hard budget constraints, but the US government has the ability to create US currency in unlimited quantities. It hasn't run out of money and won't ever run out of money. It would be nice for people to understand this point separately from controversies over whether public sector programs are wise or just. In principle, the US government could print up or borrow a ton of money, hand it to state governments, and then have all the money used to cut taxes rather than to finance programs. This would not be possible in a world where the US government faced a hard budget constraint but, fortunately, we don't face any such constraint. The possible downside to a policy of greater reliance on money-finance or debt-finance is that it might make holding dollar-denominated financial assets less attractive to foreigners. That, in turn, would make imported goods more expensive domestically and American-made goods cheaper on foreign markets. If the United States were already at full employment that would be a very bad tradeoff, amount to a decline in average American living standards. But at a time of mass unemployment, it looks like a pretty good tradeoff that should raise per capita output and average incomes."



For reasons stated above, the real 'smoke and mirrors' are the erroneous beliefs that the US has a deficit problem that supersedes the jobs problem. Printing money to solve economic problems is entirely valid and is precisely what we intentionally enabled by leaving the gold standard. I'm not saying we should print money and hand it to people to spend on TVs. We should print, or borrow at low interest (which amounts to printing money over time, cause the Gov't can't pay back dollar denominated interest without making more dollars), money and use it to buy stuff we need like infrastructure, fire and police protection, teachers, healthcare… that amount to a sound investment in the future that will ultimately promote healthy private sector growth, and in the short term save jobs.

Can you really argue that funding jobs doesn't improve the job creation figures? Jobs are jobs. When unemployment is high, it's idiotic to rabidly enact spending cuts that result in job loss and loss of infrastructure for our future. What's so hard to grasp about that?

+1 x 10,000. No wait, x 40,000.

[texlle]

Good Lord, you need to prove your inference, or it is nothing more than something you crapped out of your bum, and on to this page. Make a one on one comparison that each black person who voted for Obama did so because of the color of his skin. Discount that Obama team voter registration efforts did not reflect minority voter participation as opposed to his race.

Here is the reality my friend. Obama's team was just better at voter registration at all levels, and that was the major reason for a high minority voter turn out. Nobody in history has courted minorities or the young like Obama's team has. That is a fact. Ignore that reality in favor of race, then you have to provide proof that race played a major role in minority voter turn out. Otherwise, you think the black vote is monolithic, narrow minded, and ignorant.

Sure makes you wonder exactly why the 08 Obama campaign focused so heavily on reaching out to the minority populous. Though I don't see the basis of being "better at voter registration" as ANY more substantial than the manner in which you regard mine. It's not your concern though, as a 1%-er, as you have reminded us numerous times. Must be good for your ego, which seems to be the only truth you've presented thus far.

[Feanor]

"In the long run we are all dead" ~ John Maynard Keynes

Before we worry too much about the debt we're leaving to our children, we & the kids need to survive 'till tomorrow. Austerity, such as we see in Greece, Spain, and the UK, is slowing those economies to a crawl. For one thing, slowing economies generate less government revenue, making it even harder to service debt. The Republican concept of deep spending cuts and no tax increases is austerity and will have the same effect in the USA.

Despite high debt, Britain, Japan, and the USA continued to enjoy low interest rates because their debts are denominated in their own currencies -- and creditors know they need never default. The Greek and Spanish situation is different and default is quite possible because their debt is in Euros, not their own sovereign currencies.

But also note that in the USA there is a statutory debt ceiling so that conceivably the USA might have to refuse to honor obligations even though it could. This law is completely ludicrous and there is practically no other country in the world that has such a law.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Sure makes you wonder exactly why the 08 Obama campaign focused so heavily on reaching out to the minority populous. Though I don't see the basis of being "better at voter registration" as ANY more substantial than the manner in which you regard mine. It's not your concern though, as a 1%-er, as you have reminded us numerous times. Must be good for your ego, which seems to be the only truth you've presented thus far.

You are not very bright if you cannot figure this out. He focused on reaching out to minorities because he understood from his days in Chicago that most politicians dismiss this voting block as insignificant. If you didn't see the basis for Obama better at voter registration, then you are as blind as a bat. Let's look at some facts here. In 2004, there were 55 million unregistered voters - mostly minorities based on the research of the National Research Committee. 55 million that have not committed to either party. It is easy to see why Obama wanted to tap into a group that did not participate in the process.

Now let's address your claims. In a October 2008 NBC/Wallstreet poll of registered voters, 2% said race made them more likely to vote for Obama. 4% said were less likely, and 2% were not sure. Race was not a major factor for the remaining 92%

20% of AA voters and 8% of white voters considered race the single most important factor. That means 80% of AA, and 92% of whites did not think race was all that important.

17% where enthusiastic about Obama being the first AA(or mixed President, 70% did not care, and 13% had reservations about his race.

Based on this example, you race argument falls flat on its face. So your claims are as I have said, basically between your own ears. There is nothing truly factual about them.

Lastly, if you read my comments regarding the 1%, you would have kept your silly ignorant clap trap to yourself. You are a prime example of jealously of the 1%, which is pretty damn counterproductive. I paid my own way through college in cash by getting a damn job(no loans whatsoever), got my degree in a field I was passionate about, succeeded in it, spent and invested my money wisely, inherited a few dilapidated properties I fixed up(not to mention the ones I have purchased myself), open my own post production studio(which is doing VERY well), and set my kids up so they could benefit from what I built. I pay ALL of my taxes, do not seek any kind of shelter or hidden deductions, and I firmly believe(as I have stated numerous times) that I should pay more taxes to help benefit the country that has been so very good to me. So don't cowardly like throw my success in my face, I earned mine by hard work. Maybe going in the future, you should sit down(like I did) and figure out your passion, and turn it into success like I did. This would be far more beneficial to you than to try to paint me with a negative brush. I have nothing to be ashamed of, but you sure in the hell do. Not one damn thing was given to me that I did not in some way earn. Your comments wreak of being a sore loser, and a immature jealous fool.

[markw]

you should have quit when you weren't so far behind...Well,when it comes to behinds I guess you're the expert. You've shown me that your ignorance knows no bounds.

[markw]

Actually, your assumption is dead wrong with respect to the Federal government. The Gov't is not a business. It's wrong-headed rhetoric that the Gov't should run like a business; and this hyperventilation and wrong thinking about federal deficits, I argue, is slowing our recovery. The Fed is a currency creator. It's impossible for the US to be unable to pay dollar denominated debt. There is zero risk that we will not be able to pay our Social Security obligations, for instance. States, Municipalities, Businesses and individuals can't print money and do need to be budget conscious. The Fed is not constrained this way. Thus, we shouldn't hyperventilate about deficits and balanced budget. We should worry about priorities. In this case, at this time, the priority should be jobs. Politically both parties are failing us, but I'll blame the right for hyperventilating.

Slate article puts it well: Out of money? No way (http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/09/05/out_of_money_no_way_america_can_never_run_out_of_m oney_.html)
"this assertion that America is "out of money" has become an all-purpose crutch through which Reason can push an ideological agenda of skepticism about programs without actually making the case in its particulars. But it's simply not true that we're out of money. Many states and municipalities are up against hard budget constraints, but the US government has the ability to create US currency in unlimited quantities. It hasn't run out of money and won't ever run out of money. It would be nice for people to understand this point separately from controversies over whether public sector programs are wise or just. In principle, the US government could print up or borrow a ton of money, hand it to state governments, and then have all the money used to cut taxes rather than to finance programs. This would not be possible in a world where the US government faced a hard budget constraint but, fortunately, we don't face any such constraint. The possible downside to a policy of greater reliance on money-finance or debt-finance is that it might make holding dollar-denominated financial assets less attractive to foreigners. That, in turn, would make imported goods more expensive domestically and American-made goods cheaper on foreign markets. If the United States were already at full employment that would be a very bad tradeoff, amount to a decline in average American living standards. But at a time of mass unemployment, it looks like a pretty good tradeoff that should raise per capita output and average incomes."



For reasons stated above, the real 'smoke and mirrors' are the erroneous beliefs that the US has a deficit problem that supersedes the jobs problem. Printing money to solve economic problems is entirely valid and is precisely what we intentionally enabled by leaving the gold standard. I'm not saying we should print money and hand it to people to spend on TVs. We should print, or borrow at low interest (which amounts to printing money over time, cause the Gov't can't pay back dollar denominated interest without making more dollars), money and use it to buy stuff we need like infrastructure, fire and police protection, teachers, healthcare… that amount to a sound investment in the future that will ultimately promote healthy private sector growth, and in the short term save jobs.

Can you really argue that funding jobs doesn't improve the job creation figures? Jobs are jobs. When unemployment is high, it's idiotic to rabidly enact spending cuts that result in job loss and loss of infrastructure for our future. What's so hard to grasp about that?To put this in perspective, public sector mean the workers to be paid by taxpayer money. They are not paid by any profits generated. The more there are, the more tax money is needed.

Where does the government get this money? They don't generate profits, do they?

Unless the job market is self-sustaining, or private sector with workers paid from the profits of business, it's another form of a government subsidy. Where are these private sector jobs? I guess you are all fortunate in that nobody in your circle of friends is ready, willing, and able to find work, or is forced to work at below their potential.

And, as for that stimlus money, many foreign countries did well with it (http://obamanomicsoutsourced.com/) but yet I know many skilled workers who would kill for an opportunity at these jobs.

So,where are these private sector jobs.

As for "shovel ready" jobs, I don't kow about the rest of the vcountry, but here they all went to companies that are unionized and their hiring is closed. So, how is that not a payback for votes?

As for stimilus monies, why is GM, who we,the taxpayers bailed out building a new plant in mexico (http://news.yahoo.com/gm-announces-production-chevrolet-trax-mexico-183928459--sector.html) to employ 1,000 workers when there's many more unemployed American taxpayers that could use those jobs?

Likewise, here' (http://www.voanews.com/content/automaker-chrysler-opens-570-million-plant-in-mexico-106368999/164134.html) another 570 jobs created in Mexico thanks to Chrysler. That's their 6th plant there.

Gee, that's some thanks for the bailout, guys. Why not take our money AND send our jobs out?

...and they come up here for free medical care!

But, if you say the labor rate is cheaper there, why are we using taxpayer dollars to keep the overpaid union workers in jobs? They had no qualms about forcibly raping the secured bondolders for pennies on the dollar when the takeover went down. Why not the workers as well? Could it be simply another payback for votes and, in effect, they are simply another taxpayer-funded job in disguise while the real profits are made (and kept) out of the country? If it's not profitable, why keep them on life support? That's against the principles of Obamacare' deat panels.

GM is already half moved to Cina and it's only a matter of time before we're inconsequential.

...all this and more by obama's hand.

I could go on but, if you've got any concern for your fellow Ameicans, you can see were this is going. The money that is suppoed to help us is helping everyone BUT us.

[texlle]

You are not very bright if you cannot figure this out. He focused on reaching out to minorities because he understood from his days in Chicago that most politicians dismiss this voting block as insignificant. If you didn't see the basis for Obama better at voter registration, then you are as blind as a bat. Let's look at some facts here. In 2004, there were 55 million unregistered voters - mostly minorities based on the research of the National Research Committee. 55 million that have not committed to either party. It is easy to see why Obama wanted to tap into a group that did not participate in the process.

Now let's address your claims. In a October 2008 NBC/Wallstreet poll of registered voters, 2% said race made them more likely to vote for Obama. 4% said were less likely, and 2% were not sure. Race was not a major factor for the remaining 92%

20% of AA voters and 8% of white voters considered race the single most important factor. That means 80% of AA, and 92% of whites did not think race was all that important.

17% where enthusiastic about Obama being the first AA(or mixed President, 70% did not care, and 13% had reservations about his race.

Based on this example, you race argument falls flat on its face. So your claims are as I have said, basically between your own ears. There is nothing truly factual about them.

Lastly, if you read my comments regarding the 1%, you would have kept your silly ignorant clap trap to yourself. You are a prime example of jealously of the 1%, which is pretty damn counterproductive. I paid my own way through college in cash by getting a damn job(no loans whatsoever), got my degree in a field I was passionate about, succeeded in it, spent and invested my money wisely, inherited a few dilapidated properties I fixed up(not to mention the ones I have purchased myself), open my own post production studio(which is doing VERY well), and set my kids up so they could benefit from what I built. I pay ALL of my taxes, do not seek any kind of shelter or hidden deductions, and I firmly believe(as I have stated numerous times) that I should pay more taxes to help benefit the country that has been so very good to me. So don't cowardly like throw my success in my face, I earned mine by hard work. Maybe going in the future, you should sit down(like I did) and figure out your passion, and turn it into success like I did. This would be far more beneficial to you than to try to paint me with a negative brush. I have nothing to be ashamed of, but you sure in the hell do. Not one damn thing was given to me that I did not in some way earn. Your comments wreak of being a sore loser, and a immature jealous fool.

Terrence, I don't need to prove my accomplishments to you. I'm glad you feel that your success grants you justification to **** on anyone you don't know. It just makes your argument that you are an honest, civil individual that much more laughable. I just found it funny that you tend to refer to yourself rather than referring to the collective 1% whenever possible. I did not imply a deeper meaning, though that didn't stop you from constructing one and defending your lifelong achievements. Bravo. Markw's method of replacing civil debate with puerile belittling has influenced you well to be able to even associate with lowly morons like the rest of us non-achievers. You look just like old man Lebowski right about now, if you get the reference.

Let's begin with your YOUR source. NBC. Certainly the least biased media outlet from which one can gather data, right? Ha. I'd like to put your mention of voter percentage to use since you failed to do so by following it (though not comparing it) with a completely different ****ing statistic! And you have the nerve to relentlessly insult MY intelligence? Anyway, here are some stats from census.gov.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p20-562.pdf

There was a 5 million registered voter increase between 2004 and 2008. Of those, roughly 2 million were black. This correlates to a 4.7% increase in black votes, as shown in the data. Of blacks who voted, those aged 18-24 saw an increase of 8.3% which was unprecedented for this specific demographic in election history. As far as proving that this increase is directly resultant of this demographic's preference for a candidate's race is murky. Why were registered black voters so heavily courted? Simply because they showed a relatively low rate of involvement?

Here's an interesting study that attempts to correlate the efficacy of campaign mobilization (calls, knocking on doors, public speeches, etc) on increased black voter turnout.

https://webspace.utexas.edu/tsp228/www/Philpot,%20Shaw,%20and%20McGowen.pdf

Though the many, many variables (group identity, interest) and themes compared in this study can be inconclusive in corroborating the scientist's hypothesis of the effect of campaign mobilization on black voter turnout, it can be argued that the presence of a black candidate can lead to an increase in black voter turnout.


A related strand of research looks at political participation when a Black
candidate is on the ballot and largely confirms the Black empowerment literature.
For instance, a precinct-level analysis of Cook County, IL elections in
1998 demonstrated that “the African-American residual vote rate in electoral
contests with black candidates is less than half the rate in contests without
black candidates” (Herron and Sekhon 2005, 154). Similarly, Atkins, DeZee,
and Eckert (1985), who also use aggregate data, found that in a low-salience,
nonpartisan election featuring a Black candidate, turnout in Black precincts
was on average higher than it was during a comparable election with twoWhite
candidates.

Notice that these studies posit—more or less explicitly—a model of turnout.
Black candidates increase political interest among Black voters, which increases
a sense of shared racial identity and the desire to support someone from
one’s own group, which increases voting. The presence of a Black candidate
may also increase Blacks’ sense of political efficacy, which has an additional
independent and positive effect on turnout. Given this model, it is not surprising
that other research finds that racial identification and other race-relevant considerations
are significant predictors of self-reported voting (Tate 1993; Chong
and Rogers 2005).

To sum, race-relevant considerations appear to significantly influence Black
voter turnout during elections in which an African American is seeking elected
office. That’s not to say, however, that race-relevant considerations are the
only predictors of voter turnout in these circumstances. For example, membership
to Black civic and religious organizations consistently matter as well
(Gurin, Hatchett, and Jackson 1989; Tate 1993; Dawson 1994). But whether
our hypothesis is correct—that contact by political parties might also be an
important factor in boosting Black voter turnout in elections featuring Black
candidates—has yet to be examined with data from 2008.

It can be proven that ideologies and interests central to the black voting populous give rise to a cohesiveness among black voters. That their achieved greater presence in American politics since the days of civil rights pioneering correlates to a heightened interest in voting among blacks to further common interests.

Regarding your NBC poll, few people truly admit to racial bias. It's a fact. Most surveying agencies don't rely on the credibility of such reported data.

However, I do find it interesting that lately Obama has been personally appearing at Hispanic and female oriented events, but has sent Joe Biden to events largely attended by blacks, in some cases represented by the NAACP. Some might say he thinks he has the black vote in the bag, but I will continue to question the validity of that, while relying on quantifiable evidence that may merely point in that direction.

[Feanor]

...
Now let's address your claims. In a October 2008 NBC/Wallstreet poll of registered voters, 2% said race made them more likely to vote for Obama. 4% said were less likely, and 2% were not sure. Race was not a major factor for the remaining 92%

20% of AA voters and 8% of white voters considered race the single most important factor. That means 80% of AA, and 92% of whites did not think race was all that important.

17% where enthusiastic about Obama being the first AA(or mixed President, 70% did not care, and 13% had reservations about his race.
...
But bear in mind that what people say conditions their vote and what actually conditions their vote are two different things.

People are aware of what is presently politically correct and that is what they tend to say in polls, etc., to avoid public disapprobation. However what they actually feel and how they will act or vote when nobody is looking, is another matter. (BTW, I've been an unusually candid person all my life and it has got me into a lot of trouble.)

[RGA]

Personally I don't think it matters much if a segment of people vote for a politician based on race - for every black person who voted for Obama because he's black there were probably 4 people who would not vote for Obama simply because he's black.

As I said earlier in the post - people of "ultra" religious faith will vote Republican - it does not matter what the facts re or the money or job markets or whatever.

If a right wing Christian voter lost his job under a Romney presidency and Romney LAUGHED at him and TOLD him he was happy about moving the job to China the right wing voter would STILL vote for Romney...

There is no fact or number or argument or logic that will EVER sway a right wing voter to vote democrat - PERIOD.

No one of good morality or social conscience on the left could ever vote for Romney. The right wing is immoral and filled with hate evidence here - and the right wing son of a Veteran will STILL vote Romney.

[texlle]

Well Obama would have won the popular vote anyway even if he had the turnout that John Kerry did in 2004. The likelihood of and rationale behind members of an ethnic group who vote for a political candidate of the same ethnic background is a topic that I find particularly interesting. That's all.

Feanor, I was reading another study where a group tried to eliminate the untruthful answering bias in determining how important race was in a voter's decision by state by using commonly searched google keywords per region. The internet is one of the few places where one can express racist sentiments without coming under hostile criticism. The study counted the number of times certain words were searched in google (the n-word was a big one). Apparently, Southern Mississippi and upstate New York were two of the most "racist" states found.

[noddin0ff]

Where does the government get this money? They don't generate profits, do they?

I admit to struggling with the technical details but here's my take on where money comes from: The dollar stork.

Ok. no. The government gets money by printing it then loaning it out or paying for stuff with it and then collecting it back in taxes. Actually, they don't technically need to collect it back in taxes or even have to go through the effort of printing it. All they do is add a number. To paraphrase from Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_dollar#cite_note-57), if the Fed wants to increase the supply of money it buys stuff (e.g. Treasury Bonds) from banks in exchange for dollars. In making this purchase, the Fed credits the banks 'reserve' account (ie. an account the bank has with the Fed). No money is transferred. It is simply a credit. A number is changed in the banks balance and BAM, PRESTO, SHAZAM money is created de novo. Hard to believe, isn't it.

Summary: Money is made by the Government from thin air to buy stuff the Gov't wants.


To put this in perspective, public sector mean the workers to be paid by taxpayer money. They are not paid by any profits generated. The more there are, the more tax money is needed.

Ok. profit is a ridiculous concept to apply to the Gov't, it's just wrong-headed to think that way for reasons I've put forth already. However, yes, we use tax money to allocate resources for things we want. It is true that if we printed new money for everything that our hearts desire, then money would be worthless. We tax and therefor there is a cost associated with our allocation decisions. That's why we want to make good ones. However, if we need it, we can buy it with magic money. My opinion is we need to buy jobs.

I value government services. I vote for people who value the services I value. I pay taxes for those services. I don't want services cut for multiple reasons. The big one currently is because cutting government services results in people getting fired and those people happen to be doing things I care about like teaching, putting out fires, building roads, running our courts, maintaining the rule of law, preserving our natural resources, etc. etc. and other Gov't stuff.

I agree more tax money is needed. I think we have had irresponsible tax breaks, primarily favoring the very well off, that should be reversed and I think trickle-down economics is a crock of sh*t. But the problem right now is jobs. Not tax revenue.


Unless the job market is self-sustaining, or private sector with workers paid from the profits of business, it's another form of a government subsidy. Where are these private sector jobs? I guess you are all fortunate in that nobody in your circle of friends is ready, willing, and able to find work, or is forced to work at below their potential.

We let go at least 10% of our group this year due to lack of funds. I count myself fortunate to still have a job. I would work below my potential, absolutely. However, our sector tends to lag a few years behind the trends so I expect that more layoffs are coming and we'll be slower to recover them.

Beyond that I can't figure out what you point is. If the Gov't builds a road, private contractors build it. If Medicare pays doctor bills, private doctors see the patient. If a retiree spends his Social Security check it's likely going to pay private sector people for services. I don't count any of that as a subsidy. I see it as taxes performing public good and providing civil services. People pay people for stuff.



And, as for that stimlus money, many foreign countries did well with it but yet I know many skilled workers who would kill for an opportunity at these jobs.

So,where are these private sector jobs.

As for "shovel ready" jobs, I don't kow about the rest of the vcountry, but here they all went to companies that are unionized and their hiring is closed. So, how is that not a payback for votes?

As for stimilus monies, why is GM, who we,the taxpayers bailed out building a new plant in mexico to employ 1,000 workers when there's many more unemployed American taxpayers that could use those jobs?

Likewise, here' another 570 jobs created in Mexico thanks to Chrysler. That's their 6th plant there.

Gee, that's some thanks for the bailout, guys. Why not take our money AND send our jobs out?

...and they come up here for free medical care!

But, if you say the labor rate is cheaper there, why are we using taxpayer dollars to keep the overpaid union workers in jobs? They had no qualms about forcibly raping the secured bondolders for pennies on the dollar when the takeover went down. Why not the workers as well? Could it be simply another payback for votes and, in effect, they are simply another taxpayer-funded job in disguise while the real profits are made (and kept) out of the country? If it's not profitable, why keep them on life support? That's against the principles of Obamacare' deat panels.

GM is already half moved to Cina and it's only a matter of time before we're inconsequential.

...all this and more by obama's hand.

I could go on but, if you've got any concern for your fellow Ameicans, you can see were this is going. The money that is suppoed to help us is helping everyone BUT us.

I am concerned about my fellow Americans. That's why I believe we should be spending to keep them working, educated, healthy and safe. That's why I believe in social safety nets and universal health care.

Certainly I can see why you are angry here. You seem to be both anti union and anti business. And, I don't see how Obama is responsible for GM's corporate decisions. Or how Obama is responsible for workers exercising their right to unionize. Or how Obama is responsible for people wanting to come to the US for a better life. I wasn't a fan of either the auto or the financial bailout on principle, but when compared to the collapse of a large portion of the US auto industry or the world banking system it was the right choice. With perfect hindsight it could've been done better, but that's hindsight for you.

[Worf101]

Well Obama would have won the popular vote anyway even if he had the turnout that John Kerry did in 2004. The likelihood of and rationale behind members of an ethnic group who vote for a political candidate of the same ethnic background is a topic that I find particularly interesting. That's all.

Feanor, I was reading another study where a group tried to eliminate the untruthful answering bias in determining how important race was in a voter's decision by state by using commonly searched google keywords per region. The internet is one of the few places where one can express racist sentiments without coming under hostile criticism. The study counted the number of times certain words were searched in google (the n-word was a big one). Apparently, Southern Mississippi and upstate New York were two of the most "racist" states found.

I've lived and worked in "upstate New York" most of my adult life. When I wasn't here I was in the service or working briefly in North Carolina.... I've told people for years that there are "more Confederate flags in upstate New York than most Southern States". I've worked in the north and the south, only in the Adirondack Region of NY was I openly called "ni**er", "sambo", everything but a child of god by people in passing cars. They have a deep felt and genuine hate for black people "up there" which I find all the more hilarious because there are few minorities up there! It's not like Blacks were leaving the citites in droves to come to Glens Falls, Chili or Harrisville NY and pissing people off up there. We're not particularly big fans of snow and cold.

My experiences were primarily during the 70's and early 80's when upstate NY'ers still believed that fiction that their hard earned tax dollars were supporting "welfare queens in NY City". Annually they called for NY to become its own state. It wasn't until manufacturing and agriculture left and facts began to emerge that in actuality, NY City's been supporting the impoverished rural counties of upstate forever. You don't hear this "cut em loose" rhetoric much anymore. In actuality, NY City should cut upstate off if just to teach a lesson in humility. But make no mistake about it, I could've told you about upstate without doing any exhaustive internet search. All those cold winters spent indoors, with nothing to do but watch bad T.V. (when the power wasn't out) and hate on people you never come in contact with have produced some truly twisted people up there. .

Recently there've been an influx of "survivalists" who are up there sharpening their knives and reloading their amma in anticipation of the "race war" or the "zombiepocalypse".....


Sing it everybody....

"I love New York...."

Worf

[Hyfi]

But bear in mind that what people say conditions their vote and what actually conditions their vote are two different things.

People are aware of what is presently politically correct and that is what they tend to say in polls, etc., to avoid public disapprobation. However what they actually feel and how they will act or vote when nobody is looking, is another matter. (BTW, I've been an unusually candid person all my life and it has got me into a lot of trouble.)

That reminds me of when Clinton got elected the first time around. Everyone looked at each other said I didn't vote for him did you? And then the second time around he got re-elected, and everyone looked at each other and said I didn't vote for him, did you?

But someone voted for him both times and I guess they then lied about actually voting for him because he was elected twice.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Terrence, I don't need to prove my accomplishments to you. I'm glad you feel that your success grants you justification to **** on anyone you don't know. It just makes your argument that you are an honest, civil individual that much more laughable. I just found it funny that you tend to refer to yourself rather than referring to the collective 1% whenever possible. I did not imply a deeper meaning, though that didn't stop you from constructing one and defending your lifelong achievements. Bravo. Markw's method of replacing civil debate with puerile belittling has influenced you well to be able to even associate with lowly morons like the rest of us non-achievers. You look just like old man Lebowski right about now, if you get the reference.

You really needs some help, you have some real issues. No, you don't need to prove your accomplishments to me, and you don't have any damn right to negatively knock mine. What you said was stupid as hell, out of context, and nothing more than an opportunity(far outside of the discussion) to take what personal issues you have with me out into the open. Get a life bruh....you have passive/aggressive on steroids going here. This discussion had turned to voting patterns, and you twisted it into a personal attack, and some jealous tirade about my success. How pitiful is that? You sound jealous, and that is pretty sad. I cannot speak for the collective 1%, because we don't all live the same lifestyle. I can only speak for me and how I live. I started off dirt poor in college, as my parents refused to invest in an education that included a degree in Film. When I came to Los Angeles, I had enough money for one year at USC via a scholarship, and $100 dollars in cash in my pocket. I worked my freakin a$$ off, so I am not going to let some online MF criticize or pass judgement on my success.

You really need to stand back and be less personal, and stay on topic if that is not too difficult for you.

I have never used my success to do anything on this forum or any other. Nobody knows my success, I have never discussed it on this forum, or any other. My experience is far more important, and that is what I emphasize when participating here. Maybe you should do the same if you really have something to offer.


Let's begin with your YOUR source. NBC. Certainly the least biased media outlet from which one can gather data, right? Ha. I'd like to put your mention of voter percentage to use since you failed to do so by following it (though not comparing it) with a completely different ****ing statistic! And you have the nerve to relentlessly insult MY intelligence? Anyway, here are some stats from census.gov.

Not really interested in your opinion of a network. NBC did not do the poll, they just reported what the survey revealed.


http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p20-562.pdf

There was a 5 million registered voter increase between 2004 and 2008. Of those, roughly 2 million were black. This correlates to a 4.7% increase in black votes, as shown in the data. Of blacks who voted, those aged 18-24 saw an increase of 8.3% which was unprecedented for this specific demographic in election history. As far as proving that this increase is directly resultant of this demographic's preference for a candidate's race is murky. Why were registered black voters so heavily courted? Simply because they showed a relatively low rate of involvement?

Here's an interesting study that attempts to correlate the efficacy of campaign mobilization (calls, knocking on doors, public speeches, etc) on increased black voter turnout.

https://webspace.utexas.edu/tsp228/www/Philpot,%20Shaw,%20and%20McGowen.pdf

Though the many, many variables (group identity, interest) and themes compared in this study can be inconclusive in corroborating the scientist's hypothesis of the effect of campaign mobilization on black voter turnout, it can be argued that the presence of a black candidate can lead to an increase in black voter turnout.



It can be proven that ideologies and interests central to the black voting populous give rise to a cohesiveness among black voters. That their achieved greater presence in American politics since the days of civil rights pioneering correlates to a heightened interest in voting among blacks to further common interests.

Regarding your NBC poll, few people truly admit to racial bias. It's a fact. Most surveying agencies don't rely on the credibility of such reported data.

However, I do find it interesting that lately Obama has been personally appearing at Hispanic and female oriented events, but has sent Joe Biden to events largely attended by blacks, in some cases represented by the NAACP. Some might say he thinks he has the black vote in the bag, but I will continue to question the validity of that, while relying on quantifiable evidence that may merely point in that direction.

So this is what you present to me as evidence that race ONLY drives a person to vote. This is somebody's analysis, not evidence of anything. This can be folded backwards as well. If this is what you use, then logic dictates that whites since this country started where doing exactly the same thing. For 233 years, whites have voted for white males as President, and since they are the majority, we have had white male Presidents. It wasn't the message that drove that vote, it was who was the most eloquent, good looking and most Presidential, which excluded all non whites from admission to the game. . It wasn't that some Black, Asian, or Latino male or female out there was not good looking or eloquent, it's just they weren't.....well white.

Do you think that is a fair assessment? I would say so which makes you a hypocrite for dogging blacks for something whites have been doing for two centuries plus. Upon first blush this would make your comments racist, but I am not going to put that on you. I think your comments are stupid and ignorant, not to mention short sighted and narrow minded.

Lastly, if race is the driving force behind voting patterns, why didn't Jessie Jackson(twice no less) get a huge amount of support from blacks when he ran for President? Well, I'll tell you why since I know you will have trouble figuring it out. He was not ELECTABLE! Why didn't black's galvanize behind Sharpton in 2004? NOT ELECTABLE and partially because he was not trusted as well. They did get behind Shirley Chisholm in 72, and they(and we know who I mean) tried to kill her three times. They didn't support Lenora Fulani as an independent candidate in 92. So this kind of blows a gigantic hole in your stupid comment. History shows that if a Black candidate does not have a message(or a plan) that appeals to the Blacks, they will not support them. Black folks are not sheeple, and not monolithic in thought or opinions. That is a indisputable fact. To add, that goes for Hispanics as well.

By the way hypocrite, Romney has been courting both females and Hispanics as well. If you have anymore stupid points to make, please keep them to yourself - I am bored.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

But bear in mind that what people say conditions their vote and what actually conditions their vote are two different things.

I agree. this however applies to all races that participate in the voting process.


People are aware of what is presently politically correct and that is what they tend to say in polls, etc., to avoid public disapprobation. However what they actually feel and how they will act or vote when nobody is looking, is another matter. (BTW, I've been an unusually candid person all my life and it has got me into a lot of trouble.)

Once again I agree with you if we are talking about person Identified polls and opinions. Polls like these are conducted anonymously which is why 6% of people surveyed would have a racial preference both ways. This is why the over whelming amount of folks who did not care about race is so important.

[texlle]

Terrence, you are the epitome of a flailing idiot. Though that may be a discredit to idiots since many of them know how to read. Some can even think critically before they act. I suppose using proper grammar and spelling would be a bit much to ask of you. This has regressed exactly as I expected.

[RGA]

The poor and middle class should vote democrat if they have any sense - that is also true in Canada. Trickle down turned out to be a lie and didn't work. And basically that is the only right wing plan with different names - similar to intelligent design which is the same wrong belief with a different name.

Looking at the African American voter - most likely would lean left because most are in the poor and middle class. Let's face it this is a part of the population that was and is and will continue to be treated poorly by white America (and Canada). Barack Obama is running for president so given the history of the U.S. I would bet my bottom dollar that many African American voters who don't bother to turn out to the voting booths - decided that time to turn out and vote.

I don't think however that Obama would convert ultra religious right wing African Americans to vote for him simply because of race.

Remember all of the people who voted George W liked him because they felt they could have a beer with the guy. He's just as dumb as the average drunken hick with an IQ of 95 (maybe). While Al Gore came off as a robot.

I watched the early debates back then and I said George was going to win. (Granted Jeb arguably help fix it).

Still Gore looked like a used car dealer in the suit and used university and high school words correctly. We couldn't have that. We need a gun happy shoot first, hang em first type in charge. The state of Texas after all has a lovely track record of killing prisoners who were found guilty by dubious methods and killing prisoners that have been proven through DNA to be innocent. But that's science and science is of the devil to trick good Christians from killing as many African American prisoners as they can - there's probably a bible verse that Falwell told them is ok.

Bill Maher on The Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfHD36sWQBo&feature=related)

[frenchmon]

We have billboards here all over the place that say "Obama supports Gay Marriage and Abortion. Do you?"

So I guess the Romney billboard would say "Romney is prejudiced, anti-Gay, and against women's rights. Are you?"

If people actually vote for a President with Gay Marriage and Abortion as the deciding factor, the country is in bigger trouble than you think.

As far as "Am I better off now than 4 years ago?"

Yes I am. The market has stabilized and come back and I am now making back my losses and also gains in my investments. My job is pretty secure. I am not sure what the Romney camp is talking about when they say all Americans are worse off then 4 years ago.

Good points!

[frenchmon]

Mark, I would like to remind you of something. When Obama took office we were losing 800,000 jobs per month, and the economy was in free fall. Obama did not make things much worse, he stemmed losses, and actually added more jobs than all of the Republican President's in the last 4 decades. The problem here is we have added jobs, but not enough to bring us back to where we were before he took office. That is not the President's fault, that is the fault of a do more with less corporate mentality. Look at the stock market, and corporate profits. If we are going to turn this around, then there needs to be a system wide restructuring of how we do business. Currently you have corporations sitting on huge piles of cash, and you have the wealth gap still widening. This is a result of policy decisions mad over a long period of time. Anyone who tells you they can fix long term structural problems in four years, they are lying through their teeth. Romney's plans(what little that has been revealed) will add to the budget deficit, and will do nothing to create jobs for middle class Americans. As long as the middle class stay weak and shrinking, the longer this country will be in financial doldrums. You cannot keep giving tax cuts to people like me, I DON'T NEED IT!!

Look at this graph on job creation since Obama has been in office.

U.S. Job Creation Nears Four-Year High (http://www.gallup.com/poll/154406/job-creation-nears-four-year-high.aspx)

That line is going up, not down. It is just not going up fast enough for most, especially for those unemployed.

Don't know why you brought up color, a persons color does not pay bills. It does not create jobs, and I think it is insulting to think ANYONE would vote for somebody based on their color. I voted for Obama because of his policies, proposals and idea's. I still think he is on the right road with his policies, but believe he needs more time to finish what he started. I don't care who is in office right now, they cannot undo the damage that has been done in such a short time. That is not realistic at all.

One major structural issue is this idea that American workers are no longer qualified to do the jobs employers want. That is a bald face lie. The reality is they think we get paid too much, so they look to foreign worker via the H1-B program, and our politicians continue to allow this to happen. We have seen wages job drastically in the last decade, but really rapidly in the last 4 years.

The biggest problem we have is the poor and middle class keep sending rich folks to represent them in Washington DC. When they get there, they vote their own self interest instead of ours. We also have FAR FAR too much money in politics, and that is driving the decision making process. Romney thinks the middle class is those who make $200-250,000 dollars, and that is how skewed his perspective is being rich all of your life. How can he possibly understand what it means to struggle to put food on the table? He refuses to release his tax records IN FULL(what is he hiding), and refuses to provide any detail on how he we get this country back on its feet(they won't elect me he says). How can I trust him? He didn't exactly set Massachusetts on fire in the job creation category, so how do you know his plans will actually work..

You cannot just blame Obama for every bad thing happening in this country. The problem is FAR bigger than Obama, and far more complex as well. But one thing you are right about, our choices are the lesser of two evils.

Dang man...I started to post similar thoughts but I've been down these roads before with guys like him.....It seems like he is one of those angry guys who spout off about "taking our country back" and talk about "taking our freedoms back", but when you ask them back from what or whom, they don't have an answer..... Good post man!

[frenchmon]

And, from the performance over the last four years, I'm ready to give the new guy a chance.

Unemployment is up, The Auto manufacturers were given to the unions while the secured bondholders that kept them alive for the previous years were laid down on the floor anon their stomachs and brutally taken, the big bankers got their bonus', Various (not just Solyndra) green companies (who, coincidentally, were also Obama's bundlers) were given billions of dollars between them and then went bankrupt, Holder and Napolitano have opened the floodgates to illegals and Holder want to prosecute the states who want to do for themselves for doing what the federal government is constitutionally obligated to do but refuses, has put us under martial law, instituted indefinite detention yet complained about Bush's patriot act, and the only jobs being created involve asking "Do you want fries with that", twice as many Americans died in Afghanistan in Obama's 3 1/2 years than under Bush's seven, and, from this last week, we can see how much the "real" theocratic countries countries love us.

Yeah, I think we're due for a change. We had hope but that got us nowhere.


Yeah...just as I thought.....dude, you had better stop listening to FOX news, and stay off of Sean Hannity's blog!

[frenchmon]

I'm rational enough to know that if the car is headed for a cliff to turn the wheel, even if I'm not 100% sure where it's gonna go.

Oh yeah, your rational and at the same time having been placed on record in this thread as saying you are willing to give Romney a shot. Yeah you're a smart guy.

[Hyfi]

I'm rational enough to know that if the car is headed for a cliff to turn the wheel, even if I'm not 100% sure where it's gonna go.

Shoulda bought a squirrel

[frenchmon]

I know this is going to come off as racist but I'm gonna say it anyway because I think it's true.

If you don't believe that the a large portion of the black population voted for Obama because he was black, you live under a rock.

It is absolutely no different than when they added Sarah Palin to the ticket to draw the female vote. The only problem with that move was she is an idiot and even most of the women in the US could see that.

Hyfi.....I think you know by now I am a black man. I am a middle class black man living in St. Louis, in a $300.000 house. In New Your or LA, my house would cost 1.5 Million im told. I have not always been middle class, I had to work my way up. My parents where on welfare, and got off through a lots of hard work. I was born in a loving home with both parents in the ghetto, in the projects.

And I can tell you from a black perspective, the greater majority of blacks always vote democratic party no matter what color the candidate. You want to know why? Because most black people think the republican party is about helping the rich. I will say some of the younger generation who never voted before did register and vote because Obama seemed to be a cool black man who could relate to them...but if Obama was white and still acted like he does, they still would have voted for him. Most blacks see nothing but broken promises from every President and especially republican presidents.

Its not that a lot of them don't want to work, its that they have been schit on so many times they give up. I can tell you as a black man how hard it is for a black man. Im sure you heard a lot of that stuff that's been said about blacks being lazy, don't want to work, all they want is a government hand outs? As a black man, I can tell you some of that does go on in the black community. You know why? Because after you have been schit on all your life by trying to do right, you get sick and tired. I am not saying one should give up, nor am I making excuses, but one can only take so much. I know a lot of white guys who are very very cool. But most white guys did not know what its like being a black guy in America.....until recently. I say that because a lot of poor white guys are starting to see how blacks are angry...but it has nothing to do with skin tone but the shrinking middle class. There are white guys now taking advantage of the free government benefits as well as blacks now....even more so than blacks...and they are getting tired of getting schit on by the rich as well.

I don't care what any body says, most blacks born into poverty don't have a chance. Even those who go to school and get a job like I did, have a harder time getting ahead in the work place just because we are black. I work in corporate America, and so does my wife. But we are passed over time and time again for promotions due to the color of our skin while being more qualified than our white co worker with less skills.

[markw]

So, tell me where are the real jobs? Apparantly, nobody here knows any qualified people who are ready, willing, and able to, but can't find work. Where is this utopia? Apparantly,everyone here is comfy with their expensive toys and doesn't have contact wit those in need

As for the stock market and investments, doesn't anyone here think a lot of the middle class are now living day to day and can't afford to play the market? Any idea ow many who worked hard all these years have had to cash them in to survive?

Yeah,ienjoy your toys..

Let the illegals in and give 'evmevery thing they need while they work under the table, therby taking taxpaying jobs away and lowering the going rate for labor. I don't see the government jumping on te employeers, do you? Hoccum Obama doesn't do that but rather opens the borders and turns a blind eye to tem? Hoccum he prosecutes the states who do for temselves what the government is supposed to do but refuses?? .

Obama is leading this country, and it's handout-dependent people,to financial disaster and not only can nobody see it,they cheer him on. He'sa one percenter too, and will keep that way.

Remember, one percentere, jus tbecause you do't HAVE to pay taxes, supposedly to help others, that doesn't mean you can't give your own personal money to them. There's no law that says you have to hoard it just because you think you're not taxed enough, and then complain they don't tax you enough.

That's like the kid who killed his parents asking for lienicy because e's an orphan.




Mark be very careful!

[frenchmon]

I don't have your survey and one was probably not taken.

Herman Cain is a corrupt moron, Obama is not. And, As far as I am concerned, Obama is not black, he is Half White.

Man....so to you what is a black man?

[frenchmon]

Dissecting the 2008 Electorate: Most Diverse in U.S. History | Pew Hispanic Center (http://www.pewhispanic.org/2009/04/30/dissecting-the-2008-electorate-most-diverse-in-us-history/)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/us/politics/21vote.html

Passionate race drives a massive turnout - USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-11-04-voterturnout_N.htm)

I guess I could go on and on with links so my statements were not ignorant nor fact-less and anyone who wants to say otherwise still lives under a rock in a dream world.

If both candidates were all white, you would have NEVER seen the record turnout among black voters.

Do you think the younger generation that never votes have anything to do with it? I say yes. Its a known fact that the young voters and college students turned out in record numbers for Obama.

[markw]

I don't care what any body says, most blacks born into poverty don't have a chance. Even those who go to school and get a job like I did, have a harder time getting ahead in the work place just because we are black. I work in corporate America, and so does my wife. But we are passed over time and time again for promotions due to the color of our skin while being more qualified than our white co worker with less skills.Sorry, you're about three decades to late to play the race card. I guess you've never seen, or been aware of, affirmitive action at work. It's another name for legalized reverse discrimination

From my experience over the past 50 years, and others as well, minorities are promoted, and hired over white people nowadays. If they are on the ball, play the game, and are willing to work, trust me, they will get ahead over white people. The deck are stacked in their favor.

I have a friend who worked for ATT in the '90s. Over 20 years ago, ATT embarked on an initiative to hire and promote minorities over whites and went so far as to email about an open job interview session to only those of color. The only way this came to light is that a white friend of my buddy's got one of them by accident. Not knowing any better, he showed up at te meeting, noriced he was different than everyone else, and was asked to leave by te HR rep conducting te meeting. No reason given. When he complained to HR, they tried to dance around it, but he was let goshortly afterwards.

Wachovia passed over a part time white teller with experience (a relative) for a full time position in the branch in which e had been working for almost two years. When he first heard about the opening, he asked for the full time position. His superiors in that branch wanted him and expected him to get it. Corporate said no. Their excuse was he didn't have enough experience. So,what do tey do? They hire a black girl off the street wit no experience, That she got fired within a month for stealing is of no consequence. So,what do tey do? Do they promote my realtive who ad been doing a great job for almost two years? No. They do the exact same ting, but she goes out on maternity leave within six months and never came back. My relative had left by that time.

And, the state police are talking about lowering their standards on background cecks because somesay tat tey are unfair to blacks.. Huh??? So, crimes comitted in the past should be overlooked simply because of skin color? Heck, they've already lowered the tests and give preference to them simply to keep their numbers up..

So, no, I have no issue with color, but, please, don't try to play the victim. The most qualified, regardless of color, should get te job. Period.

But, seriously, you're a few decades to late to pull that one off. Not that I'm saying youre not qualified (as are many of many colors are), but I'm pretty sure it helped you get were you are, even if ypu don't know or are willing to admit it. That's the reality of the game today.

But, I'm sure a lot here will dispute tis. I expect nothing less from this site.

Well, I'm sure I made a lot of friends with this one

[frenchmon]

Frenchy, you're an idiot, and an inarticulate one at that. You chose your moniker wisely. NAmed after surrender monkeys hwo ad to be saved by a real country twice in the last century.

So, tell me where are the real jobs? Apparantly, nobody here knows any qualified people who are ready, willing, and able to, but can't find work. Where is this utopia? Apparantly,everyone here is comfy with their expensive toys and doesn't have contact wit those in need

As for the stock market and investments, doesn't anyone here think a lot of the middle class are now living day to day and can't afford to play the market? Any idea ow many who worked hard all these years have had to cash them in to survive?

Yeah,ienjoy your toys..

Let the illegals in and give 'evmevery thing they need while they work under the table, therby taking taxpaying jobs away and lowering the going rate for labor. I don't see the government jumping on te employeers, do you? Hoccum Obama doesn't do that but rather opens the borders and turns a blind eye to tem? Hoccum he prosecutes the states who do for temselves what the government is supposed to do but refuses?? .

Obama is leading this country, and it's handout-dependent people,to financial disaster and not only can nobody see it,they cheer him on. He'sa one percenter too, and will keep that way.

Remember, one percentere, jus tbecause you do't HAVE to pay taxes, supposedly to help others, that doesn't mean you can't give your own personal money to them. There's no law that says you have to hoard it just because you think you're not taxed enough, and then complain they don't tax you enough.

That's like the kid who killed his parents asking for lienicy because e's an orphan.

Hahahahaha....thats ok.. i've been called worse. But we all know you are about as smart as a rock. You're the kind that like to hide behind forums like this and spit out your garbage, but in the real world you will get your A$$ kicked. You are less than a man you A$$ hole.

[frenchmon]

Sorry, you're about three decades to late to play the race card. I guess you've never seen, or been aware of, affirmitive action at work. It's another name for legalized reverse discrimination

From my experience over the past 50 years, and others as well, minorities are promoted, and hired over white people nowadays. If they are on the ball, play the game, and are willing to work, trust me, they will get ahead over white people. The deck are stacked in their favor.

I have a friend who worked for ATT in the '90s. Over 20 years ago, ATT embarked on an initiative to hire and promote minorities over whites and went so far as to email about an open job interview session to only those of color. The only way this came to light is that a white friend of my buddy's got one of them by accident. Not knowing any better, he showed up at te meeting, noriced he was different than everyone else, and was asked to leave by te HR rep conducting te meeting. No reason given. When he complained to HR, they tried to dance around it, but he was let goshortly afterwards.

Wachovia passed over a part time white teller with experience (a relative) for a full time position in the branch in which e had been working for almost two years. When he first heard about the opening, he asked for the full time position. His superiors in that branch wanted him and expected him to get it. Corporate said no. Their excuse was he didn't have enough experience. So,what do tey do? They hire a black girl off the street wit no experience, That she got fired within a month for stealing is of no consequence. So,what do tey do? Do they promote my realtive who ad been doing a great job for almost two years? No. They do the exact same ting, but she goes out on maternity leave within six months and never came back. My relative had left by that time.

And, the state police are talking about lowering their standards on background cecks because somesay tat tey are unfair to blacks.. Huh??? So, crimes comitted in the past should be overlooked simply because of skin color? Heck, they've already lowered the tests and give preference to them simply to keep their numbers up..

So, no, I have no issue with color, but, please, don't try to play the victim. The most qualified, regardless of color, should get te job. Period.

But, seriously, you're a few decades to late to pull that one off. Not that I'm saying youre not qualified (as are many of many colors are), but I'm pretty sure it helped you get were you are, even if ypu don't know or are willing to admit it. That's the reality of the game today.

But, I'm sure a lot here will dispute tis. I expect nothing less from this site.

Well, I'm sure I made a lot of friends with this one

Just as I thought...you missed the point of that posting entirely.

[markw]

Just as I thought...you missed the point of that posting entirely.No, I didn't. I just responded to your whining.

FWIW, I was born in Newark (ever hear of that city?), live ten minutes away, married a woman of color from there, and still have family there. They know me and we've discussed this at length. They see my point and agree. Odds are they woud consider your post whining as well. They know the opportunities available.

You want better? for "your people"?, Get that buffon in the WH go create real jobs for these people, not just give 'em food stamps and keep 'em dependent on the system.

So, what WAS your point? Educate me...

[Hyfi]

Frenchmon,

I won't quote everything one by one but here are some responses.

I am not prejudice and know that all black people are not lazy. There are plenty of white, hispanic, and others that are also lazy and always looking for handouts too.

The reason that the turnout was what it is is because it was a HISTORIC election year and a BLACK (half white) MAN was running. This extra turnout would not have happened if it was McCain vs Biden, they would not have cared. Obama gave them something to believe in, similar to when the masses backed Hitler out of desperation. ( know that is not the best comparison but when people get in that way, they latch on to whatever starts sounding good and a way out)

The younger generation did step it up, nobody is saying that ALL black voted for Obama, we are saying that there is a really good percentage that came out of the woodworks because they had a chance to vote for a Black President.

More Women are voting now because they can get to vote for Women. Believe me, if the Lesbian population has a Lesbian Woman to vote for, they surely will. They try to give all their business to other Lesbians as much as possible where it actually becomes reverse discrimination.

As far as jobs go, my company has been trying to hire for many positions and with all the people out of work, we have a real hard time finding qualified people of any race. We will go thru a hundred resumes to interview 5 people and out of those five, we will be lucky if two of them can pass the technical interview that is given by myself and 2 other senior analysts.

We cannot chance hiring someone who will not be able to train up and start working within 2 months, or those with attitudes or other HR issues in the past.

This is what I think of Cain
"Herman Cain accused by two women of inappropriate behavior"
That and the rest of the scandal.

That does not mean that ALL are bad. Just like ALL white people are not rich.


I am the youngest of 5 kids. My parents had nothing. They borrowed money from my dad's parents to buy us meager xmas presents and paid it back over the year. I looked around at what was going on and decided not to follow in others footsteps, but to make my own. I chose to go to a Tech High School half way into the ghetto as opposed to the the regular high school in my own area. I learned a trade, worked full time in January of senior year on co-op program. Started in Tool Design, became a Journeyman Toolmaker, then a Machine Designer. At 42, I went to college for the first time and graduated with a 3.975 GPA and now work for a Global Pharma Software company.

Nobody gave me anything either and I'm tired of that same old poor me crap from everyone. If you want something, you can find ways to do it.

[markw]

Hahahahaha....thats ok.. i've been called worse. But we all know you are about as smart as a rock. You're the kind that like to hide behind forums like this and spit out your garbage, but in the real world you will get your A$$ kicked. You are less than a man you A$$ hole.And you really think you made it all on your own. ...right.

[frenchmon]

Frenchmon,

I won't quote everything one by one but here are some responses.

I am not prejudice and know that all black people are not lazy. There are plenty of white, hispanic, and others that are also lazy and always looking for handouts too.

Hyfi...I know you are not prejudice...hope I didn't give you that impression.


The reason that the turnout was what it is is because it was a HISTORIC election year and a BLACK (half white) MAN was running.

I agree it was historic, but why the half white remark? It just seems odd that you include that remark.


This extra turnout would not have happened if it was McCain vs Biden, they would not have cared. Obama gave them something to believe in, similar to when the masses backed Hitler out of desperation. ( know that is not the best comparison but when people get in that way, they latch on to whatever starts sounding good and a way out)

The younger generation did step it up, nobody is saying that ALL black voted for Obama, we are saying that there is a really good percentage that came out of the woodworks because they had a chance to vote for a Black President.

It was not only a black man, but a black man who was smart, had a great family with a black smart wife and smart black kids. Cain would not have got such support. Obama seemed like a great black story. The Black community saw this as their real shot at putting a respectable black in the white house and people came out in groves to vote for him....but Blacks couldn't do it alone, many whites saw that same things as blacks did and also came out in groves. I see nothing wrong with that. There was a certain attraction there.


More Women are voting now because they can get to vote for Women. Believe me, if the Lesbian population has a Lesbian Woman to vote for, they surely will. They try to give all their business to other Lesbians as much as possible where it actually becomes reverse discrimination. Agreed.


As far as jobs go, my company has been trying to hire for many positions and with all the people out of work, we have a real hard time finding qualified people of any race. We will go thru a hundred resumes to interview 5 people and out of those five, we will be lucky if two of them can pass the technical interview that is given by myself and 2 other senior analysts.

We cannot chance hiring someone who will not be able to train up and start working within 2 months, or those with attitudes or other HR issues in the past.

I don't doubt those things are happening...and most people in today's world may not be seeking such tech skills... but my story is true as well. Some of those who really want to work, simply can't find jobs for whatever reasons. And some just don't get a fair chance.


This is what I think of Cain
"Herman Cain accused by two women of inappropriate behavior"
That and the rest of the scandal.

That does not mean that ALL are bad. Just like ALL white people are not rich.

I see Cain as an idiot! I have no respect for him or his buddy Neal Bartz



I am the youngest of 5 kids. My parents had nothing. They borrowed money from my dad's parents to buy us meager xmas presents and paid it back over the year. I looked around at what was going on and decided not to follow in others footsteps, but to make my own. I chose to go to a Tech High School half way into the ghetto as opposed to the the regular high school in my own area. I learned a trade, worked full time in January of senior year on co-op program. Started in Tool Design, became a Journeyman Toolmaker, then a Machine Designer. At 42, I went to college for the first time and graduated with a 3.975 GPA and now work for a Global Pharma Software company.

Nobody gave me anything either and I'm tired of that same old poor me crap from everyone. If you want something, you can find ways to do it.

Its a good thing you and I where successful Hyfi. But tell me....do you really think every body who has tried honestly to get ahead....has gotten ahead??? I mean, do you honestly think every body who has went to school, graduated with good grades and tried to get a job has gotten a job? Do you think there are people who deserve to say "poor me"? Please answer me that last question. Because with your last statement, you kinda seem to be in agreement with those republicans who say if you can't pull yourself up by your boot straps, you are nothing but a lazy bumb....but I don't think you really believe that.

[frenchmon]

No, I didn't. I just responded to your whining.

FWIW, I was born in Newark (ever hear of that city?), live ten minutes away, married a woman of color from there, and still have family there. They know me and we've discussed this at length. They see my point and agree. Odds are they woud consider your post whining as well. They know the opportunities available.

You want better? for "your people"?, Get that buffon in the WH go create real jobs for these people, not just give 'em food stamps and keep 'em dependent on the system.

So, what WAS your point? Educate me...

Your are an idiot....I don't give a rats behind about who thinks im whinning......there are more whites on government aid than blacks. Tell me genius...whats your solution to the jobs problem?

[frenchmon]

And you really think you made it all on your own. ...right.

Oh and btw....I've only seen you spout stuff the extremist on the right spout out. Are you really a Romney supporter? I honestly think you should stick to audio.

[Hyfi]

I agree it was historic, but why the half white remark? It just seems odd that you include that remark.

Sorry, but I don't agree with how it is determined and I do not see him as a Black Man, I see him as Half Black and Half White because that is the reality.

Answer me this, why is it that if a White person has 1 ounce of Black blood in him is considered a Black man AND if a Black man has an ounce of White blood in him, why is he still a Black man?

You see, it makes no sense, he is what he is, Half White and Half Black.




It was not only a black man, but a black man who was smart, had a great family with a black smart wife and smart black kids. Cain would not have got such support. Obama seemed like a great black story. The Black community saw this as their real shot at putting a respectable black in the white house and people came out in groves to vote for him....but Blacks couldn't do it alone, many whites saw that same things as blacks did and also came out in groves. I see nothing wrong with that. There was a certain attraction there.

You just confirmed my original statement that the Black population came out like never before to try and elect the first Black President. Now if sir T can only admit the same thing.....




I don't doubt those things are happening...and most people in today's world may not be seeking such tech skills... but my story is true as well. Some of those who really want to work, simply can't find jobs for whatever reasons. And some just don't get a fair chance.

The ones who are not getting the good chances are those with their pants falling down, hat on sideways, tattoos all over their face-neck-head, facial piercings all over and so on.

The ones not getting a chance are those who just take the first no and claim they didn't get a chance.

When I got out of school a few years back and applied for the job I have now, I was interviewed with 6 other people at the same time. I blew them all away but because of the stupid spot on applications as to what you made at your last job, I did not get hired even though I expected to take a pay cut. They hired someone less qualified because he was cheaper. So what did I do about it? I emailed or called or both every week until they hired me. It's called persistence, which is lacking in today's society.




Its a good thing you and I where successful Hyfi. But tell me....do you really think every body who has tried honestly to get ahead....has gotten ahead??? I mean, do you honestly think every body who has went to school, graduated with good grades and tried to get a job has gotten a job? Do you think there are people who deserve to say "poor me"? Please answer me that last question. Because with your last statement, you kinda seem to be in agreement with those republicans who say if you can't pull yourself up by your boot straps, you are nothing but a lazy bumb....but I don't think you really believe that.

Unfortunately, not everyone is always 100% successful. But not everyone gives up either.

There is no reason people cannot get together and clean up their own street and neighborhood. No reason they cannot dress and speak properly in coherent complete sentences. No reason they cannot take initiative and learn something new on their own. With computers, knowledge is endless. Before you say not everyone has one, they are at the Free Library for use.

I am not saying they are all lazy but you are appearing to make excuses for some. Just because you don't get the dream job is no reason to become a criminal. Have you watched the local news lately, 20 minutes of murders every morning here in Philly. When they show the pics of the suspects, well thats where the stereotypes come from.

[markw]

Your are an idiot....I don't give a rats behind about who thinks im whinning......there are more whites on government aid than blacks. Tell me genius...whats your solution to the jobs problem?Well, perhaps not whining. More like hubris. Think about this: You may not have done it by yourself: Affirmative Action may have done it for you. Sound familiar? I just pointed out a hars reality that you might not want to hear, but that doesn't alter the fact that it exists.

As for that bolded statement, you can't be serious, can you? And you say you made it all by yourself?

Let's look at that statement, shall we?

As for your statement, you're100% correct ...if we just look at the raw numbers.

Welfare consists of 37% whites and only 35% blacks. There, you win.

But, when we look at the overall population of the US where it's 72% white and 12% black, that sort of makes those raw numbers somewhat meaningless, doesn't it?

Do I really have to do the math for you to show you the fallacy of your misleading comment? You really didn't expect to be called on it?

Remember, frenchy, you're the one that made race/welfare the big issue here, not me, so don't give me shiite about this.

BTW, this place is a already threshing floor for conservatives and Christians. It's nice of you to throw race into that morass.

FWIW, as for the 2008 elections, of the blacks who voted, 96% voted for Obama. What would your statistics professor make of that?

As for jobs, dunno offhand, but giving stimulus money only to have it used to create factories and jobs overseas (or to companies who go belly up shortly afterwards) by the recipients sure doesn't seem to be a great idea. Maybe give it to proven companies with a real chance of expansion that would be legally obligated to expand here and employ more Americans (as opposed to shaky green startups that just happened to be owned by Democratic bundlers)?

A lot of new companies nee dtrained technical (not necessarially degreed) people to operate the new generation of manufacturing machines. How about giving that stimlilus money to these companies to partner with local schools to train the next generation of their workers instead of simply looking overseas for an H1B solution. Here's (http://www.project10.info/DetailPage.php?MainPageID=139&PageCategory=A-Z%20Library%20or%20Terms&PageSubCategory=None) a good place to start. "

[frenchmon]

Sorry, but I don't agree with how it is determined and I do not see him as a Black Man, I see him as Half Black and Half White because that is the reality.

Answer me this, why is it that if a White person has 1 ounce of Black blood in him is considered a Black man AND if a Black man has an ounce of White blood in him, why is he still a Black man?

I have often wondered that myself Hyfi....but you know what? maybe its because there are lots of people who look white or who look black but they are really a mix of the two. During slavery there was a lot of black slave owners having sex with the slave females. So today you really dont know who is who, so its called either black or white.


You see, it makes no sense, he is what he is, Half White and Half Black.

He's another one for you...why are blacks called African Americans? And why not call whites European Americans?


You just confirmed my original statement that the Black population came out like never before to try and elect the first Black President. Now if sir T can only admit the same thing.....

Its because you see only the reason of blackness and nothing else....Sir T and I don't only that as being the most important factor as you seem to be.





The ones who are not getting the good chances are those with their pants falling down, hat on sideways, tattoos all over their face-neck-head, facial piercings all over and so on.

The ones not getting a chance are those who just take the first no and claim they didn't get a chance.

You see.... typical and closed minded.....You have just changed my perception of you. You generalized all people into that one group.


When I got out of school a few years back and applied for the job I have now, I was interviewed with 6 other people at the same time. I blew them all away but because of the stupid spot on applications as to what you made at your last job, I did not get hired even though I expected to take a pay cut. They hired someone less qualified because he was cheaper. So what did I do about it? I emailed or called or both every week until they hired me. It's called persistence, which is lacking in today's society.

Yeah....your experience is every body's experience, yeah I gotcha now. I know good hard working mothers out there who got laid off during the recession and looked for what seemed like forever to find decent work but was reduced to nothing and having to settle for Burger King and White Castle jobs just to keep the car from repo and the lites on. I guess you never saw the 60minutes program about the professional people out of work and now taking jobs mowing grass. Hyfi, I really see ya now.


Unfortunately, not everyone is always 100% successful. But not everyone gives up either.

And if that same person whom you say gives up after a while take govnment aide, you call them lazy...is that it hyfi?


There is no reason people cannot get together and clean up their own street and neighborhood. No reason they cannot dress and speak properly in coherent complete sentences. No reason they cannot take initiative and learn something new on their own. With computers, knowledge is endless. Before you say not everyone has one, they are at the Free Library for use.

So you think all people who cant find work are like this? If you do, your problem is bigger than I thought .


I am not saying they are all lazy but you are appearing to make excuses for some. Just because you don't get the dream job is no reason to become a criminal. Have you watched the local news lately, 20 minutes of murders every morning here in Philly. When they show the pics of the suspects, well thats where the stereotypes come from.

Who said anything about hoodlums? Is that where your mind goes in a subject like this? You start generalizing people Hyfi? Listen, there are good honest people out here who are out of work and can't get a break. I'm not talking about criminals. I live in St. Louis and I see the stuff daily on the news...black guys as well as white guys...they don't want to do anything but rob steal cheat and kill....im not even speaking about that BS....im talking about good honest people who want to work but cant get ahead...and now have to catch a bus to go to work in the morning.

[Hyfi]

French,

I know things are tough all over. I actually consider myself VERY lucky right now that I made my way into a niche environment after being forced to change my career due to needing 4 different surgeries from work related repetitive stress injuries.

Maybe I did generalize a little too much, maybe more because of the media than personal experience. I admittedly live in a mostly white area but there are plenty of successful blacks here also.

Over the years, I have also been laid off 5 times and it was hard to get another job. Today's situation is indeed worse than ever and I know plenty of white people in the same boat.

I also never said using what has been earned over the years of working if one gets laid off is wrong or lazy, you are putting words in my mouth. The problem is those that are born into it and just perpetuate it. I don't know how many times I see on the news single mothers crying the blues but pregnant with a 4th or 5th child, no husband and so on. It's not a white or black issue, it's an issue of stupidity. Don't pump out babies you can't afford to take care of.

Now as far as job creation goes, how can any job be created out of thin air? Who pays for that job to be created? You and I from our taxes right. The real trouble is that businesses need to feel more secure and profitable so they add jobs on their own. You can't just pull a job and bennies out of your ass, it has to be paid for.

My wife also exhausted her unemployment benefits after losing her 2 part time jobs in the same week a few years ago. She cannot physically do what she was trained to do anymore as a full time job and there were no part time jobs to be had for all the same reasons we are talking about. The difference is that she worked for 25 years straight and never used the handouts that she paid into until then. How many people white or black do it this way? She earned it, not everyone does but they expect it anyway.

Accept for the Health Care crap Obama is forcing on us, I am a whole lot more for him and the Dems than I am for Romney and the Repubs, even though I am a HAVE. I do want the gap to be lessened and I am willing to be part of that.

You can have any opinion of me you like. Nothing ever comes across right on these forums or in chat boxes. I do generalize sometimes but I guess I am as brainwashed about that as the next guy is always claiming to be the victim, white or black.

The only thing I tried to say is that if the person running for president was just another career Whitey, you would have never seen the historical increase in black voters. I will bet you anything that they would not have bothered if they thought it would turn out to be the same ole same ole. I don't understand why it is so hard for a black person to just admit that. They certainly did not all register to vote republican now did they or the result would have been a little different.

[frenchmon]

Hyfi....it's a known fact that corporate America will not release money for job creation because they don't trust the economy right know. I know that's BS. They are looking after their own greed....as soon as the office of President is back under the republican banner they will hire. That's why it's hard to get jobs...and Intellegent people who are in the know understand this...it just not fair. That's not what this country should be about, but it is.

As an adult professional I've been back to the heart of the slums and ghettos here and in Durahm NC. It's sad to see unresponsiible adults who have never ever known anything....nothing in their heads whatsoever except the art of the con game, selfishness and the skill of being a hoodlum. In St. Louis its not only blacks its also whites....and in Carolina you can add Mexicans to that list. I don't feel sorry for them, it's their way of life. But don't think that's all that live there in the slums...they are also full of good decent people who work jobs that only pay minimum wages. There are people with master degrees living in some of Americas slums and can't get a job other than a janitor job. I know a guy who has a masters degree and has to work for close to minimum wages. If you ride down to the ghettos you will see people getting up in 30 digress cold in the winter months to catch a bus to work and after they leave after 8 hours pay go to a second job. I know people like that. I just hate it when we start generalizing. also you mentioned those with tattoos....I work in IT....those guys get hired in those types of jobs...lol! I have a few working with me. yes their jeans are hanging low....hat side ways but they are IT techs. Go figure.

Let's admit that some blacks did vote for President Obama only because he was black. But at the same time, would you say many whites want him out for those same reasons? Because I know for a fact that many whites hate the fact that this country is ran by a black man and want him out.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Terrence, you are the epitome of a flailing idiot. Though that may be a discredit to idiots since many of them know how to read. Some can even think critically before they act. I suppose using proper grammar and spelling would be a bit much to ask of you. This has regressed exactly as I expected.

When people have nothing further to say(because they have been shut down) they resort to deflection to things such as spelling and grammar - and sidestep the actual topic.

If this has regressed into exactly what you expected, then maybe you should not have gotten personal on an issue that was not personal. In other words, it was your stupid a$$ choice of words that sent it in this direction. In the future, perhaps you should keep your stupid a$$ on topic, and not seek to attack others that you don't like.

Now piss off.......

[frenchmon]

Well, perhaps not whining. More like hubris. Think about this: You may not have done it by yourself: Affirmative Action may have done it for you. Sound familiar? I just pointed out a hars reality that you might not want to hear, but that doesn't alter the fact that it exists.

As for that bolded statement, you can't be serious, can you? And you say you made it all by yourself?

Let's look at that statement, shall we?

As for your statement, you're100% correct ...if we just look at the raw numbers.

Welfare consists of 37% whites and only 35% blacks. There, you win.

But, when we look at the overall population of the US where it's 72% white and 12% black, that sort of makes those raw numbers somewhat meaningless, doesn't it?

Do I really have to do the math for you to show you the fallacy of your misleading comment? You really didn't expect to be called on it?

Remember, frenchy, you're the one that made race/welfare the big issue here, not me, so don't give me shiite about this.

BTW, this place is a already threshing floor for conservatives and Christians. It's nice of you to throw race into that morass.

FWIW, as for the 2008 elections, of the blacks who voted, 96% voted for Obama. What would your statistics professor make of that?

As for jobs, dunno offhand, but giving stimulus money only to have it used to create factories and jobs overseas (or to companies who go belly up shortly afterwards) by the recipients sure doesn't seem to be a great idea. Maybe give it to proven companies with a real chance of expansion that would be legally obligated to expand here and employ more Americans (as opposed to shaky green startups that just happened to be owned by Democratic bundlers)?

A lot of new companies nee dtrained technical (not necessarially degreed) people to operate the new generation of manufacturing machines. How about giving that stimlilus money to these companies to partner with local schools to train the next generation of their workers instead of simply looking overseas for an H1B solution. Here's (http://www.project10.info/DetailPage.php?MainPageID=139&PageCategory=A-Z%20Library%20or%20Terms&PageSubCategory=None) a good place to start. "

so from looking at your numbers of those on ware fair what does that tell you?

[markw]

so from looking at your numbers of those on ware fair what does that tell you?Look, if you've got nothing to say, please do so.

[frenchmon]

Look, if you've got nothing to say, please do so.

What difference does that make...when you say something that's worth giving an answer I will respond....so far with the numbers you ain't made a point.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Shoulda bought a squirrel


LOLOLOLOL....Been watching Rat Race lately....LOLOLOLOL. I need to give you a greenie for this!

[frenchmon]

Now you're self righteous.... Like you have never had any typo's. Such a hypo!

[Hyfi]

Let's admit that some blacks did vote for President Obama only because he was black. But at the same time, would you say many whites want him out for those same reasons? Because I know for a fact that many whites hate the fact that this country is ran by a black man and want him out.

This has never been in question. Sure there are plenty of whites that will vote against a black person, but you have been trying to say that black people did not vote for Obama because he was black. I call bull**** on that.

[frenchmon]

This has never been in question. Sure there are plenty of whites that will vote against a black person, but you have been trying to say that black people did not vote for Obama because he was black. I call bull**** on that.

oh sorry about that....I thought i said that it was not only because he was black but black and smart also....I will man up....well for the record, yes there was many who voted because he was black only and I know some of the very people who did.

[markw]

What difference does that make...when you say something that's worth giving an answer I will respond....so far with the numbers you ain't made a point.If so, you should be able to interpert those numbers and see how foolish they make your initial statement about welfare recipients is.

Anybody with fairly rudimentary math skills could see the point I was making.

After all, you made it all the way up the corporate ladder based purely on your brains, right? This should be a snap!

Remember, you brought it up, not me. :D

[Hyfi]

oh sorry about that....I thought i said that it was not only because he was black but black and smart also....I will man up....well for the record, yes there was many who voted because he was black only and I know some of the very people who did.

Then we are friends again?

I hate politics and the rift it causes between friends, similar to religion.

I like the fact that not only is he smart, he is my age and can relate more to reality than the 70ish geezers who always run. They are all so out of touch it aint funny. He was also a working man and not a silver coke spoon ahole like Romney hiding behind every loophole he can find.

[frenchmon]

Heck man...we all still boys....I won't let stupid subjects like politics and opinions devide us...and that goes for MarkW as well. I only called him an idiot as it relates to politics, but at the end of the day and into the next is all behind us. I would hope we can all still talk audio and all....As far as Obama as well a Joe Scarborough on Morning Joe, I feel like I can hang out with both those guys and have a good time...and yeah we are all in the same age bracket. Part of Obamas appeal is he can relate to common folk. If you look at his speeches he seems to be a comedian at times...real down to earth.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You just confirmed my original statement that the Black population came out like never before to try and elect the first Black President. Now if sir T can only admit the same thing.....

No Hyfi, I think you have mistaken my point. There have been other blacks that have been candidates for President, and Black folks did not support them. Skin color ALONE does not drive the Black vote, but Blacks are impressed with a smart, eloquent black man with a great personal story, and a great message. If color was the biggest driving force, then Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, Herman Cain, and others would have had broad support from Blacks. They didn't. There has to be more than skin color involved, and that is the point I was making.

Obama has it all. He has swag, a brain, is cool as a cucumber, and Martin Luther King like speaking skills. He is young, good looking, and has so many great attributes, everyone regardless of race was knocked out by him - including myself. I still am mighty impressed with what he has done, even if I didn't agree with it.

Unlike most folks, I read his personal story, so I was not disappointed when he made decisions that I didn't like. I was not expect anything different than what I got from him.

[RGA]

The problem with statistics is they are often held in a vacuum. In other words there are no reasons given.

The reason there is a higher percentage of African Americans on welfare is because white America with all the power don't hire them.

And HOW do we know the above is true? Because if it were NOT true there would be no need for and implementation of "Affirmative Action" The reason for that program was because White America is so racists and so fearful of Black America that they would not hire them even if they were 3 times more qualified.

This is the same reason why the prison population is disproportionately black (and also more "later proven" innocent black men have been released with DNA evidence) . Lots of luck getting a decent job with a criminal record.

At the very least we can say Black America has more of an excuse for being on Welfare than White America.


"Affirmative Action" is a double edged sword. Yes it helps give minorities a job in company X. They have to meet a quota of hires.

But here's the problem - once you are IN the company getting the promotion is much tougher. Why? Because many company execs will feel the minority was hire "merely" based on the colour of their skin and NOT because they're a good employee. Incidentally this also applied to women for many years as well.

This is referred to as the "Glass Ceiling." Yes the store has to hire 10% minority or whatever but it doesn't have to promote you.

The Minority person could be far more deserving but if the owner of the company is a racist then the minority will never get promoted. OR if the execs are not racist but think the minority was hired for skin color they will not get promoted.

Hell White women have a tough enough time getting the same pay for the same job - so if you're a black woman I can't imagine how tough that is.

And forget jobs in America - a white American teacher can go work overseas in South Korea or China etc - no problem - male or female. A black man or woman? You can pretty much forget it.

A black teacher got off the plane at the airport and when the school saw him they cancelled the job on the spot. Refused to hire him. Now in most Asian countries when you apply for a teaching job they demand a photo.

There was a black woman I met who was a teacher in Seoul and she noted that it depends on the school. Obviously she had a job - but that's just it - it depends on the school - maybe 1 school in 50 would be willing to hire a black person. And i have met numerous Nigerian well educated teachers that can't get teaching jobs. Their English is better English than Canadian or American "Simplified English" and many of them have Masters and PhD levels in Education. Two strikes against them - they're black and they're from Africa not America or Canada or Australia/England. One school hire a German guy to teach English (I met him - he was a pretty white guy who could barely speak English - had no degree - but he was white and from Europe). sickening really.

One school principal said to me that "its because they're private schools and the parents don't want their kids to speak English like a gangster." After all their view of America is what is in the movies which spoon feeds stereotypes galore. That one school would have to "convince" the parents. I also noticed that that one black female teacher I met looked Halle Berry like with a great body and looks - no matter the colour of skin - can often break down some of those racial walls. (ahem Monster's Ball speaking of Berry).

I live in BC where there are not many black folks but we do have a lot of First Nation people and there is affirmative action and also a glass ceiling.

I agree with mark that the best person should get the job. I think everyone wants the best person to get the job whether they're white or minority. The reason Affirmative Action began was because that was not happening (especially in the south). If 9 out of 10 companies had racist owners then lot's of luck they would hire a black person. The guy or girl could have an IQ of 180 and a PhD from Harvard and lose the job to a twice inbred IQ of 56 quasi-moron because he's white.

There are serious problems with AA as a program. The fire department in BC for example wants more female minorities. The problem with this is they have lowered some of the standards in physical attributes required - namely strength.

The problem is that a fire fighter used to always have to be able to have enough strength to pull their injured partner from a fire. So if the partner is 6'5 and 250lbs plus gear - you have to be able to pull that man out from the fire.

Hiring a 5'0 105lb middle eastern girl may fit the AA objective of hiring minority females but it isn't safe.

The male firefighter if partnered with this woman can now actually refuse to go into a fire because his safety is as at risk. So Affirmative Action taken to this level now means that houses will burn down because the firefighters can stand outside because their partner is too weak to pull anyone to safety.

The same ting has happened to the police force - the weight lifting requirements were considerably reduced and/or abolished. Most police work doesn't require weight lifting so you could sort of see this one and females often bring other assets to the table in negotiation tactics that are valuable (some but not all guys have that but perps psychologically can react more favourably to females). But firefighting is a different animal and the requirement needs to be met not lowered.

With AA there should not be a quota of hires - because it opens the door to hire unqualified people over qualified ones. The person should always be qualified for the job. So if the state quota demands that 10% of your workforce be a minority and you only have 5% that should be OK if you have documentary evidence that says that no other qualified people applied. The Job demands a Bachelor of Arts Degree and you had 10 applicants and only 5 had the English degree and you hired all 5 then you should not have to hire 5 other people because they're a minority over 5 white people who have the Bachelor of Arts.

That said if the minority quota is 10% of staff must be minority to reflect population and the job advertisement says Bachelor of Arts Degree required and the minority has the Bachelor of Arts degree they should get hired in numbers to meet the state quota. Even if that means hiring the Bachelor of Arts holder OVER a white guy with a PhD. Why? Because the job you are hiring for doesn't need a PhD and if it did that should have been the minimum standard in the advertisement.

[JohnMichael]

Let us be very careful how we speak to one another.

[markw]

RGA, your speaking on racism in America as a canadian who lives and works in Hong Kong, has never lived or worked in the US, and wasn't even born when this racial **** it the fan in the 60's, makes your usual pomposity pale by comparison.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

For only the second time in my Audioreview history, I actually agree with RGA.

Who saw that coming.......

[markw]

For only the second time in my Audioreview history, I actually agree with RGA.

Who saw that coming.......Coming from someone who would fling open the borders, why am I not surprised.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Coming from someone who would fling open the borders, why am I not surprised.


I think you are comprehension challenged with my position. I am all for border security as long as it actually exists. So far we have failed in that respect because we have an estimated 11-20k illegal immigrants in this country. Let's be real Mark, you cannot deport them all, that is financially not feasible. The only practical solution is to give those who are here a pathway to citizenship, while fully securing the borders at the same time.( I seriously doubt our resolve to do that even now). Any idea of deporting all illegals is illogical and silly.

So Mark, your highly right wing fanatical filters has forsaken you on this issue. I want the gates better managed, but not thrown open. Unlike you, I am aware that immigration plays a huge role in the future economics of any country. You need a workforce that regenerates itself from time to time, or the entire workforce gets too old, and holds back economic development in the future. Japan is a prime example of that.

Not everyone's opinion fall's at the walls of the room. Some of us are standing firmly in the middle with nobody to dance with.

[markw]

Why should those that sneak into the country illegally be rewarded and given preference over those that have played by the rules to get here? That doesn't make sense. I know quite a few legal aliens who played the game who bristle at that thought, and rightfully so.

Yes, we can deport them. Yes,we can prevent a goodly portion from coming here if these bozos in the federal government would do what they are constitutionally obligated to do. Yet, instead of doing that, when the states take it upon themselves to do what the feds refuse to do, the feds take them to court.

So, who are they protecting? The citizens of the US who they are constitutionally obligated to protect, or the illegals?

But, when they get caught, while awaiting trial and/or deportation, I envision a ready labor force that can be utilized on farms, digging ditches, and other menial tasks. Why make breaking the law a painless slap on the wrist and a free trip home, only to come back again? In the old days, chain gangs were all the rage. It might be time for a resurgence.

[Feanor]

Why should those that sneak into the country illegally be rewarded and given preference over those that have played by the rules to get here? That doesn't make sense. I know quite a few legal aliens who played the game who bristle at that thought, and rightfully so.

Yes, we can deport them. Yes,we can prevent a goodly portion from coming here if these bozos in the federal government would do what they are constitutionally obligated to do. Yet, instead of doing that, when the states take it upon themselves to do what the feds refuse to do, the feds take them to court.

So, who are they protecting? The citizens of the US who they are constitutionally obligated to protect, or the illegals?

But, when they get caught, while awaiting trial and/or deportation, I envision a ready labor force that can be utilized on farms, digging ditches, and other menial tasks. Why make breaking the law a painless slap on the wrist and a free trip home, only to come back again? In the old days, chain gangs were all the rage. It might be time for a resurgence.
I think this is all quite irrelevant. The are influential interest groups that do not want the illegal folks deported, and did not wanted their entry prevented in the first place.

Don't forget that many businessmen & farmers want workers whom they can pay very low wages while providing no benefits or employee protections. Damn those government regulations, labor unions, and meddling worker advocates! Ayn Rand saw no virtue in immigration restrictions and Paul Ryan probably secretly feels that way too.

Illegal immigration is the unacknowledged divide that separates economic from social conservatives in the Republican Party.

[JohnMichael]

The problem with statistics is they are often held in a vacuum. In other words there are no reasons given.

The reason there is a higher percentage of African Americans on welfare is because white America with all the power don't hire them.

And HOW do we know the above is true? Because if it were NOT true there would be no need for and implementation of "Affirmative Action" The reason for that program was because White America is so racists and so fearful of Black America that they would not hire them even if they were 3 times more qualified.

This is the same reason why the prison population is disproportionately black (and also more "later proven" innocent black men have been released with DNA evidence) . Lots of luck getting a decent job with a criminal record.

At the very least we can say Black America has more of an excuse for being on Welfare than White America.


"Affirmative Action" is a double edged sword. Yes it helps give minorities a job in company X. They have to meet a quota of hires.

But here's the problem - once you are IN the company getting the promotion is much tougher. Why? Because many company execs will feel the minority was hire "merely" based on the colour of their skin and NOT because they're a good employee. Incidentally this also applied to women for many years as well.

This is referred to as the "Glass Ceiling." Yes the store has to hire 10% minority or whatever but it doesn't have to promote you.

The Minority person could be far more deserving but if the owner of the company is a racist then the minority will never get promoted. OR if the execs are not racist but think the minority was hired for skin color they will not get promoted.

Hell White women have a tough enough time getting the same pay for the same job - so if you're a black woman I can't imagine how tough that is.

And forget jobs in America - a white American teacher can go work overseas in South Korea or China etc - no problem - male or female. A black man or woman? You can pretty much forget it.

A black teacher got off the plane at the airport and when the school saw him they cancelled the job on the spot. Refused to hire him. Now in most Asian countries when you apply for a teaching job they demand a photo.

There was a black woman I met who was a teacher in Seoul and she noted that it depends on the school. Obviously she had a job - but that's just it - it depends on the school - maybe 1 school in 50 would be willing to hire a black person. And i have met numerous Nigerian well educated teachers that can't get teaching jobs. Their English is better English than Canadian or American "Simplified English" and many of them have Masters and PhD levels in Education. Two strikes against them - they're black and they're from Africa not America or Canada or Australia/England. One school hire a German guy to teach English (I met him - he was a pretty white guy who could barely speak English - had no degree - but he was white and from Europe). sickening really.

One school principal said to me that "its because they're private schools and the parents don't want their kids to speak English like a gangster." After all their view of America is what is in the movies which spoon feeds stereotypes galore. That one school would have to "convince" the parents. I also noticed that that one black female teacher I met looked Halle Berry like with a great body and looks - no matter the colour of skin - can often break down some of those racial walls. (ahem Monster's Ball speaking of Berry).

I live in BC where there are not many black folks but we do have a lot of First Nation people and there is affirmative action and also a glass ceiling.

I agree with mark that the best person should get the job. I think everyone wants the best person to get the job whether they're white or minority. The reason Affirmative Action began was because that was not happening (especially in the south). If 9 out of 10 companies had racist owners then lot's of luck they would hire a black person. The guy or girl could have an IQ of 180 and a PhD from Harvard and lose the job to a twice inbred IQ of 56 quasi-moron because he's white.

There are serious problems with AA as a program. The fire department in BC for example wants more female minorities. The problem with this is they have lowered some of the standards in physical attributes required - namely strength.

The problem is that a fire fighter used to always have to be able to have enough strength to pull their injured partner from a fire. So if the partner is 6'5 and 250lbs plus gear - you have to be able to pull that man out from the fire.

Hiring a 5'0 105lb middle eastern girl may fit the AA objective of hiring minority females but it isn't safe.

The male firefighter if partnered with this woman can now actually refuse to go into a fire because his safety is as at risk. So Affirmative Action taken to this level now means that houses will burn down because the firefighters can stand outside because their partner is too weak to pull anyone to safety.

The same ting has happened to the police force - the weight lifting requirements were considerably reduced and/or abolished. Most police work doesn't require weight lifting so you could sort of see this one and females often bring other assets to the table in negotiation tactics that are valuable (some but not all guys have that but perps psychologically can react more favourably to females). But firefighting is a different animal and the requirement needs to be met not lowered.

With AA there should not be a quota of hires - because it opens the door to hire unqualified people over qualified ones. The person should always be qualified for the job. So if the state quota demands that 10% of your workforce be a minority and you only have 5% that should be OK if you have documentary evidence that says that no other qualified people applied. The Job demands a Bachelor of Arts Degree and you had 10 applicants and only 5 had the English degree and you hired all 5 then you should not have to hire 5 other people because they're a minority over 5 white people who have the Bachelor of Arts.

That said if the minority quota is 10% of staff must be minority to reflect population and the job advertisement says Bachelor of Arts Degree required and the minority has the Bachelor of Arts degree they should get hired in numbers to meet the state quota. Even if that means hiring the Bachelor of Arts holder OVER a white guy with a PhD. Why? Because the job you are hiring for doesn't need a PhD and if it did that should have been the minimum standard in the advertisement.




I agree this is a good post and brings up many issues.

[Feanor]

...
That said if the minority quota is 10% of staff must be minority to reflect population and the job advertisement says Bachelor of Arts Degree required and the minority has the Bachelor of Arts degree they should get hired in numbers to meet the state quota. Even if that means hiring the Bachelor of Arts holder OVER a white guy with a PhD. Why? Because the job you are hiring for doesn't need a PhD and if it did that should have been the minimum standard in the advertisement.
You make many good points throughout this post, RGA, but in the end I believe that the time for "affirmative action" and quotas based on race is drawing to an end in North American.

I feel that both the employer and the prospective employee deserve that the best qualified person be selected. (I note that in various of your examples from Asia, it is not the best qualified that are select -- this is wrong of course.)

The problem in North American today is increasingly not race but income, (allowing that there is still a lot of correlation between race and income). It is largely family money that determines quality of education, and this affects not only private schools but also public schools. Most public school funding depends on the local tax base. In the USA top private universities not only have high entrance standards but also charge 2-3+ times the tuition of public universities -- this despite that most of them such huge endowment funds that they could actually stay in the black offering free tuition.

Meanwhile many employers favor applicants who have graduated from prestigious universities, sometimes without regard to actual degree content. E.g. say you want to be a Wall Street securities trader with the potential of earning millions a year. A PHD in finance isn't what the Wall Street firms are looking for: What you need is just need a bachelor degree from a top ivy league school and a relatively high class standing. The Wall Street will firm provide you with the 2-3 months of training necessary to be a trader.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Why should those that sneak into the country illegally be rewarded and given preference over those that have played by the rules to get here? That doesn't make sense. I know quite a few legal aliens who played the game who bristle at that thought, and rightfully so.

I am not so sure the people that hire them had this calculus in mind. They see a worker willing to work hard for minimum wage, and that is all they see.

Mark, there is no way around it. Because our government cannot come up with a comprehensive immigration policy for so long, illegals are here, and entrenched into society. When you start talking about deporting them all, think about the amount of money that would have to be spent to get the job done. It would be enormous sum, a HUGE sum of money. With our infrastructure in the condition it is in(nobody wants to talk about that until they hit a car damaging pothole), I don't want to spend money on chasing about of people around. It is easier and cheaper to give them a path to citizenship.

We allowed this problem to exist, and now we have to deal with the cost of fixing it.


Yes, we can deport them. Yes,we can prevent a goodly portion from coming here if these bozos in the federal government would do what they are constitutionally obligated to do. Yet, instead of doing that, when the states take it upon themselves to do what the feds refuse to do, the feds take them to court.

I can name four states that shot themselves in the foot trying to do what the Federal government is supposed to do. California, Georgia, Alabama, and Arizona. Tourist or Agriculture states. Now the businesses in those states are complaining they cannot get enough workers to harvest, or to do service work in a hotel. Individual state laws are not all the same, and what is needed is a comprehensive universal law the fits all states. So far we have seen individual state laws that have hurt the states themselves.


So, who are they protecting? The citizens of the US who they are constitutionally obligated to protect, or the illegals?

Both until we get a unified federal law for all.


But, when they get caught, while awaiting trial and/or deportation, I envision a ready labor force that can be utilized on farms, digging ditches, and other menial tasks. Why make breaking the law a painless slap on the wrist and a free trip home, only to come back again? In the old days, chain gangs were all the rage. It might be time for a resurgence.

Mark, we are not in the old days - we are in the 21st century. Catch up with us will you please?

You cannot turn those awaiting trial or deportation into slaves. There is such thing as international laws right? Your thinking is the old way, and it will not work today. Our country would be the laughing stock of the world(not to mention lost respect) if we ever tried to do this.

[frenchmon]

Look, if you've got nothing to say, please do so.

The point I was try to get you to see is blacks are hired far less than whites. Thus the numbers.

[Hyfi]

The point I was try to get you to see is blacks are hired far less than whites. Thus the numbers.

Could that just be an issue of logistics? There are nowhere near the same number of Blacks vs Whites in the US so it would appear always that whites are hired more. Just sayin....

[JohnMichael]

Could that just be an issue of logistics? There are nowhere near the same number of Blacks vs Whites in the US so it would appear always that whites are hired more. Just sayin....



Look at unemployment rates among different minorities compared to whites. Also look at rates among the young looking for summer jobs. If there was no bias the unemployment rates would be the same. I am at work on my iPhone so I cannot link to the figures.

Speaking of prejudice being gay can limit your job opportunities. The interview can be going well when all of a sudden the thought I might be gay enters their mind and all of a sudden the tone changes and the interview ends abruptly. Or I get the job and when a new manager starts and he hears the news all of a sudden I am unemployed. I have shared this before but when working at the local hospital someone was writing death threats to me. They were always on the walls of the lockerroom where we changed into our scrubs. When I reported the events to my VP I was told I could expect those things since I chose to be different. We also had a nurse that helped train new employees and she would tell male employees that I was gay. She would tell them to come to her if they had any problem with me. Always good when someone plants the seed of potential problems.

[Hyfi]

Look at unemployment rates among different minorities compared to whites. Also look at rates among the young looking for summer jobs. If there was no bias the unemployment rates would be the same. I am at work on my iPhone so I cannot link to the figures.

Speaking of prejudice being gay can limit your job opportunities. The interview can be going well when all of a sudden the thought I might be gay enters their mind and all of a sudden the tone changes and the interview ends abruptly. Or I get the job and when a new manager starts and he hears the news all of a sudden I am unemployed. I have shared this before but when working at the local hospital someone was writing death threats to me. They were always on the walls of the lockerroom where we changed into our scrubs. When I reported the events to my VP I was told I could expect those things since I chose to be different. We also had a nurse that helped train new employees and she would tell male employees that I was gay. She would tell them to come to her if they had any problem with me. Always good when someone plants the seed of potential problems.

That all sucks for sure and should not be an issue.

We hired someone a few years ago and I knew the first time I saw him. A few months later, we were all addressed by HR that this person was in the middle of a sex change and we now had to address the person as a female. They did have her use a different bathroom for the interim but after a short time used the ladies room with all the other females.

Unfortunately, Gay is not a race issue, it is a brainwashed religious issue, which in turn is ones political view and it all just keeps snowballing (don't read anything into that please)

[JohnMichael]

That all sucks for sure and should not be an issue.

We hired someone a few years ago and I knew the first time I saw him. A few months later, we were all addressed by HR that this person was in the middle of a sex change and we now had to address the person as a female. They did have her use a different bathroom for the interim but after a short time used the ladies room with all the other females.

Unfortunately, Gay is not a race issue, it is a brainwashed religious issue, which in turn is ones political view and it all just keeps snowballing (don't read anything into that please)



Just to clarify a male to female transgendered person is only considered gay if she is attracted to women. If the person identifies as female while in a male body she would be considered straight. A sad figure is that 50% of transgendered folks are either murdered or commit suicide. It is a tough struggle to transition.

[frenchmon]

Could that just be an issue of logistics? There are nowhere near the same number of Blacks vs Whites in the US so it would appear always that whites are hired more. Just sayin....

The biggest major factor behind blacks and higher unemployment is race...... strong evidence of bias in the work place.....research shows that black and white job candidates had been sent after the same jobs and the white candidate has been more likely to be called for an interview or offered a job. There is a documentary on Netfix...I forget the name, but it showed bias can even determine the response to resumes with an Miriam or a Rich was likely by a far number to get a call more so than a Jamal or Lakesha. Im not making this stuff up. Its out there. My wife who is black and a high ranking excutuve at a global company has to deal with "The Good old boys network" daily. She has two strikes as far as they are concerned..being black and female. The problems begain when her company purchased another company down south. When they took on their executives they had a good old boy network of older white men who could not stand the fact of a female and a black female who had power. Long story short, what ever decission she made, they opposed her. They put pressure on her to get her out of the company....the reason why we moved to the mid-west was due to my wife seeing the hand writting on the wall and deciding to transfer to a nother state before they forced her out. But luckly their ways caught up with them and they have been forced out and my wife has been asked to move back if she desires.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

The biggest major factor behind blacks and higher unemployment is race...... strong evidence of bias in the work place.....research shows that black and white job candidates had been sent after the same jobs and the white candidate has been more likely to be called for an interview or offered a job. There is a documentary on Netfix...I forget the name, but it showed bias can even determine the response to resumes with an Miriam or a Rich was likely by a far number to get a call more so than a Jamal or Lakesha. Im not making this stuff up. Its out there. My wife who is black and a high ranking excutuve at a global company has to deal with "The Good old boys network" daily. She has two strikes as far as they are concerned..being black and female. The problems begain when her company purchased another company down south. When they took on their executives they had a good old boy network of older white men who could not stand the fact of a female and a black female who had power. Long story short, what ever decission she made, they opposed her. They put pressure on her to get her out of the company....the reason why we moved to the mid-west was due to my wife seeing the hand writting on the wall and deciding to transfer to a nother state before they forced her out. But luckly their ways caught up with them and they have been forced out and my wife has been asked to move back if she desires.

Very good post. 20/20 Also did a survey on race with similar results. If you have a race or culture specific name, you can just forget it. I even found out from my white close friend is HR that they even have codes that distinguished one race from another without a hint of doing so.

I remember my experience in getting hired at Paramount. I was the only Hispanic when hired, and nobody wanted to work on the same dubbing stage as I did. They(white guys) thought because of my race nobody would hire me to do anything, so they did not want to work with me. Those guys were pretty surprised when my dubbing stage made three times as much money as their's did. I did not have any trouble attracting partners after that.

I am so sorely reminded of the racial punishment Obama has had to endure. I have never seen so many racists come out of the woodwork. Racism use to be subtle, but not now.

[frenchmon]

Oh its still in the open. When we lived down in Carolina, there was a cross burning, and this was in 2007. There was also hate mail regarding Blacks and Hispanics (North Carolina has a very large Hispanic population) put into mail boxes. When I moved here in 2008, a year later in one of the small towns outside of St. Louis there was a KKK rally trying to get people to join. I mean they had pillow cases on their heads and the whole out fit. They where in the down town area with people standing around looking on. It was also on the news with the local news crew interviewing people who where standing around looking on in amazement. Some people where upset that it was going on....and others where laughing at those in white sheets. One girl interview said "I can't believe they are doing this...its 2009 and they are out here with sheets on their head!" She went on to say..."no body cares about that any more! That is so old school." People where angry and teen aged kids where laughing. It was comical, but sad at the same time.

[RGA]

I think it's better to know who the racists are - it's the subtle ones that in the end do the most damage in my view.

I never quite get racists - for every "complaint" these dimwits tout about people of some other race you can point to a white guy who is just as bad if not worse.

I suppose I've been fortunate where I have grown up where race was never as big an issue as in many places. Sure British Columbia has their share of racist redneck KKK wannabes but they usually live in the Bible belt of the province (funny how the racists are always clutching Bibles).

Certainly there are racists comments that the First Nations are alcoholics, Asians can't drive etc. The stereotypes often have a grain of truth. There is higher than average alcoholism rates in FN peoples but then if someone took my kids away from me and sent them off to a white man's home and school I might get depressed and drink. One thing is a causal factor for another.

Hitler's Nazis were brilliant at this systemic steretype creation that Jews were dirty subhuman rats. Well over a 9-10 year span you take families strip them of all their worldly possessions, home etc and stick them in a Ghetto over nearly a decade - gee suddenly your clothes are tattered, you're penniless and you can't get soap - you begin to look the stereotype while Hitler can say "see they're not like us."

That's the key thing to all of these problems - the "they aren't like us" and being taught to FEAR anything that isn't the same. If you're not in the top 70-80% of something then you're "weird" and depending on what it is we better shoot first and ask questions later.

The chubby person is automatically viewed as lazy, African Americans are all gangsters, Mexican Americans are lazy (and I am ignorant on this since it seems to me that these people are really screwed over and work 15 hours a day in the fields for no money - how exactly are they lazy? And the maids and servers I've had direct experience with vacationing in the U.S. all seem to be working their assess off.

The reality is that we all make judgments about people based on all sorts of things - nurture is a tough thing to combat - media, parents, religion (or lack of one), friends, education systems, or just ignorance etc create many of those stereotypes.

The Gay Man is making a choice to be Gay. God is anti-Gay.

If you grow up with parents beating this into your head at age 3 to current. The town priest is telling you this - your Christian friends tell you this, your teacher let's his belief slip out the odd time in class supporting this same thing and you live in a hick town that is anti-science and just plain retarded (teaching creationism/intelligent design as a viable theory), your girlfriend also makes comments that support this then what chance in hell do you possibly have when you are 30 years old to be convinced any differently?

You can show them evidence that a part of the brain of gay men is the same as a female which indicates 100% that if you are gay you were born that way. There is no if and or but about it.

The problem though is that the mind of the brainwashed religious masses can't ever accept that. You see the reason is that even if they're somewhat bright people - they're faith hinges on numerous retarded fallacies of logic. God created all MANKIND (err Humankind - God wasn't much for woman or inclusion apparently) in his image then that means God created GAY men. But the religious whack-a-doodles can't accept that FACT because that would mean God deliberately created Gay men and therefore it can't be sinful.

Rather than simply admit that the ordinary humans on earth who wrote the bible made a mistake in interpretation or lost in translation - they instead decide to stare the FACTS straight in the face and say - science is always wrong and must be the work of the devil.

There would be less of these intolerance and race issues if there were no bibles and churches.

[frenchmon]

RGA...you where doing good until you got to this part:


God created all MANKIND (err Humankind - God wasn't much for woman or inclusion apparently) in his image then that means God created GAY men. But the religious whack-a-doodles can't accept that FACT because that would mean God deliberately created Gay men and therefore it can't be sinful.

Rather than simply admit that the ordinary humans on earth who wrote the bible made a mistake in interpretation or lost in translation - they instead decide to stare the FACTS straight in the face and say - science is always wrong and must be the work of the devil.

There would be less of these intolerance and race issues if there were no bibles and churches.

I dont agree with any thing in that quote. Don't know if this is the place to talk religion though.

[JohnMichael]

RGA...you where doing good until you got to this part:



I dont agree with any thing in that quote. Don't know if this is the place to talk religion though.



What part do you not agree? If you believe god made us all then god made me as I am. I am hoping you do not think it is a choice. As far as bibles are concerned there are mistranslations. Theological scholars consider the King James version to have the greatest number of errors.

[Feanor]

RGA...you where doing good until you got to this part:


...
There would be less of these intolerance and race issues if there were no bibles and churches.

I dont agree with any thing in that quote. Don't know if this is the place to talk religion though.
When I was young, (long ago), it was considered impolite to raise discussion of either religion OR politics. This is still a great rule if you want to harmony & blissful relations. It isn't such a great rule if you what to get to bottom of what's wrong with the world. When I hear religionists suggest we shouldn't discuss religion, I hear a "No Contest" plea.

The fact is that homosexual actions are strongly condemned in the Old Testament. (Sorry, that isn't a fact you can twist.) Same for Orthodox Judaism today. The New Testament seems to condemn male & female homosexual practices in several places, although some references are debatable. It's interesting, though, that two must significant characters there, Jesus and Paul, were unmarried Jew and it was very exceptional for a Jew to be unmarried by age 30 -- but that might not mean anything, eh?. It's also noteworthy that Paul was a more that bit of a misogynist.

Where Mitt the Chameleon is concerned, I note the LDS Church was historically considered Blacks & Gays condemned of God, but favor plural marriage, i.e. 1 man + 1 or more women but not the other way around.

[JohnMichael]

The fact is that homosexual actions are strongly condemned in the Old Testament. (Sorry, that isn't a fact you can twist.) Same for Orthodox Judaism today. The New Testament seems to condemn male & female homosexual practices in several places, although some references are debatable. It's interesting, though, that two must significant characters there, Jesus and Paul, were unmarried Jew and it was very exceptional for a Jew to be unmarried by age 30 -- but that might not mean anything, eh?. It's also noteworthy that Paul was a more that bit of a misogynist.




The old story of Sodom and Gamorrah is one that is now considered to be in error. It used to be taught that the cities were destroyed due to sexual practice. Now it is thought that a messenger of god was rejected and killed and that was the reason for the destruction.

The old testament is jewish law and history. Many of the laws regarding sexual practice were to continue the race and faith. That is why birth control, masturbation and any sex act not for reproduction were against the law.

I follow what Jesus said about homosexuality. Oh wait he never spoke on the matter.

[Hyfi]

I follow what Jesus said about homosexuality. Oh wait he never spoke on the matter.

Even if he did speak about it, it would have been edited out just like all the other stuff they changed to make it the greatest story ever told.

[JohnMichael]

Even if he did speak about it, it would have been edited out just like all the other stuff they changed to make it the greatest story ever told.



I find it interesting to read Gospels that were not chosen to be in the bible. The Dead Sea Scrolls are quite interesting for the information they contain. The scrolls tell a slightly different story. I have always enjoyed biblical history even though I am not a believer. The TV shows I enjoy are the ones who try to find out what really happened such as Noah and his Ark. I think there is a lot of hyperbole in the bible. I do agree with what Jesus taught and try to follow his example. I find I do not need church or religion to live that way.

[Hyfi]

I find it interesting to read Gospels that were not chosen to be in the bible. The Dead Sea Scrolls are quite interesting for the information they contain. The scrolls tell a slightly different story. I have always enjoyed biblical history even though I am not a believer. The TV shows I enjoy are the ones who try to find out what really happened such as Noah and his Ark. I think there is a lot of hyperbole in the bible. I do agree with what Jesus taught and try to follow his example. I find I do not need church or religion to live that way.

I have the book of the scrolls. They also contain books that ARE in the Bible but are written way differently than how they were edited for inclusion into the bible.

It was all manipulated to read the way it does as a basis for controlling the masses and all the made up rituals and beliefs.

[JohnMichael]

I have the book of the scrolls. They also contain books that ARE in the Bible but are written way differently than how they were edited for inclusion into the bible.

It was all manipulated to read the way it does as a basis for controlling the masses and all the made up rituals and beliefs.


We are in agreement. If I had to pick a favorite miracle from the bible it is the changing of water into wine. I hope a little bit every time I turn on the cold water.

[Hyfi]

We are in agreement. If I had to pick a favorite miracle from the bible it is the changing of water into wine. I hope a little bit every time I turn on the cold water.

That is a funny one, the whole deal is that when wine was stored in the containers, it leached into the porous material. When they added water into the containers, some of the wine and sediments leached back out into the water and they called it wine. It was no miracle, just what would normally happen anytime you add water to a container that is porous and previously contained something else.

[JohnMichael]

That is a funny one, the whole deal is that when wine was stored in the containers, it leached into the porous material. When they added water into the containers, some of the wine and sediments leached back out into the water and they called it wine. It was no miracle, just what would normally happen anytime you add water to a container that is porous and previously contained something else.


I find it interesting to learn what happened before men exaggerated it. In all fairness they may not have understood what happened but I always doubted that water turned instantly into wine. When he fed the masses with loaves and fishes were the fish smoked or did they eat sushi?

[Feanor]

The old story of Sodom and Gamorrah is one that is now considered to be in error. It used to be taught that the cities were destroyed due to sexual practice. Now it is thought that a messenger of god was rejected and killed and that was the reason for the destruction.

The old testament is jewish law and history. Many of the laws regarding sexual practice were to continue the race and faith. That is why birth control, masturbation and any sex act not for reproduction were against the law.

I follow what Jesus said about homosexuality. Oh wait he never spoke on the matter.
That's right, in the canonical gospels Jesus said nothing in his own words that can be reasonably construed as against homosexuality. Principally it was Paul who condemned it in Romans I.

As a non-believer, the only moral injunction from the Bible I consider compelling is, "Do to (or for) others what you would have them do to (or for) you". This covers a lot of ground and isn't specific as to gender or sexual preference.

[JohnMichael]

That's right, in the canonical gospels Jesus said nothing in his own words that can be reasonably construed as against homosexuality. Principally it was Paul who condemned it in Romans I.

As a non-believer, the only moral injunction from the Bible I consider compelling is, "Do to (or for) others what you would have them do to (or for) you". This covers a lot of ground and isn't specific as to gender or sexual preference.



I agree we should all follow Luke 6:31. Life would be better for all.

[frenchmon]

1) God created all MANKIND (err Humankind - God wasn't much for woman or inclusion apparently)

It appears you are saying God was not for a woman.

2) that means God created GAY men.

You attribute to God something thats not true.

3) But the religious whack-a-doodles can't accept that FACT because that would mean God deliberately created Gay men and therefore it can't be sinful.

You fail to see every one on this planet is sinful...straight and gay.

4)Rather than simply admit that the ordinary humans on earth who wrote the bible made a mistake in interpretation or lost in translation - they instead decide to stare the FACTS straight in the face and say - science is always wrong and must be the work of the devil.

This last remark is totally stupid...you dont even realise what you are saying.
__________________

[frenchmon]

What part do you not agree? If you believe god made us all then god made me as I am. I am hoping you do not think it is a choice. As far as bibles are concerned there are mistranslations. Theological scholars consider the King od James version to have the greatest number of errors.

JM...when you say God made you as you are...what do you mean by that?

[Hyfi]

I find it interesting to learn what happened before men exaggerated it. In all fairness they may not have understood what happened but I always doubted that water turned instantly into wine. When he fed the masses with loaves and fishes were the fish smoked or did they eat sushi?

Again it is all correspondences. Every sect had their own code or way of saying something which had another meaning or correspondence.

What more than likely is the meaning is that they were taught to fish and bake bread and take care of themselves; more so than someone walked up and down the line of masses handing out a smelly fish and stale loaf of bread in one day.

[JohnMichael]

JM...when you say God made you as you are...what do you mean by that?



If you believe we are children of god then as a child of god I am as he intended. He gave me the gift of loving a man instead of a woaman. My desires are a natural part of me as are yours. You could no more change than I could. We are as god intended us or we are biology in all it's wonderful variations.

[Hyfi]

JM...when you say God made you as you are...what do you mean by that?

do you really have to ask that?

Many people are born wired differently than the masses and there is not much they can do about it but attempt to live with it amongst people who blame them for the wiring they got from God, if that is what one believes.

Do you realize that many children are born with both sets of gear and many times the parents make the wrong choice.

[JohnMichael]

Again it is all correspondences. Every sect had their own code or way of saying something which had another meaning or correspondence.

What more than likely is the meaning is that they were taught to fish and bake bread and take care of themselves; more so than someone walked up and down the line of masses handing out a smelly fish and stale loaf of bread in one day.



I know the bible is full of symbolism such as the numbers 7 and 40. In my readings I have never been a bible literalist.