Discursive Political 'Bate Fest

[chefTENGU]

Speaking of get out of our house, Van Jones (one of the people Obama picked as an adviser aka czar on green jobs) was fired, well resigned as quietly as possible at 12am on Saturday night of Labor Day weekend. He once called himself a communist and signed a 9/11 truth petition for 911truth.org that I believe basically thinks the US government let the attacks happen so they'd have a reason for war. And then there was the whole comment he made at Berkley.

The next czar that people would like to be removed is the diversity czar, Mark Lloyd who I guess doesn't believe in free speech. Here's some of what he said.

"It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.
"[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance."


"In Venezuela, with Chavez, is really an incredible revolution - a democratic revolution. To begin to put in place things that are going to have an impact on the people of Venezuela.
"The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled - worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government - worked to oust him. But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country.
"And we've had complaints about this ever since."

I really wish Van Jones hadn't resigned due to being picked on by Glenn Beck. Now that he's resigned, Beck is likely to shit his pants with glee and get even more apeshit crazy.

[chefTENGU]

If this was still the Bush administration, or if Karl Rove was still working for the White House, I'd be inclined to agree with you.

[deathofcheese]

Funny you should mention that. I discovered zombietime (http://www.zombietime.com/) today (wikipedia entry here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombietime)) and read his article on John Holdren (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/). Until you posted about that guy above, I thought Holdren was who my mom was talking about in regards to "the Communist O-bah-ma appointed as a czar" this past weekend. I can't help but think that most of the flak Obama and his czars have caught come from things they said and did in the past that, unbeknownst to people who are out looking for a reason to hate the appointees, no longer are the primary motivator or even something that could be said to describe them. In regards to Holdren, he hasn't written anything THIS flammatory since the late 70s, but that's still not good enough because he personally hasn't made a statement that he doesn't hold the same views. He's released statements through spokespeople and his actions and writings since all seem to suggest he no longer holds those same extreme views that he wrote about in '77, but people are still foaming at the mouth because he apparently refuses to publicly state, from his own mouth or hand, that he no longer holds those views.

Furthermore, why is it that all of a sudden, we hear about czar this, czar that? I know Obama's going crazy with czar appointing, but he isn't the first President to appoint czars. In fact, the linking of the terms "President" and "czar" for me begins with Bush appointing a Homeland Security czar. That was pretty controversial, but surely "czars" existed before this.

[chefTENGU]

Wait, I thought that Director of Homeland Security was a cabinet position, not a "czar."

[deathofcheese]

There was some czar that Bush appointed that was criticized, but that's all I remember regarding Bush and czars. I thought it had something to do with Homeland Security, but I could be wrong.

[Arainach]

Wait, I thought that Director of Homeland Security was a cabinet position, not a "czar."It became essentially a czar because it took over every single aspect of what used to be 20 departments.

[chefTENGU]

I just wanted to say first that I deleted my posts, I don't know but I always feel bad after posting political stuff...
I hope I didn't make you feel bad...

[chefTENGU]

I split these posts (and unintentionally re-animated Ana's first post in the process) from "Think outside the two-party system!" (since they were kind of off-topic there), and gave them their own thread.

Proceed!

[chefTENGU]

I was thinking about this early this morning:

There's been a lot of back-and-forth between Democrats and Republicans over the state of the economy, placing blame and whatnot. One thing in particular is how Republicans love to credit Reagan with the prosperity America enjoyed under Clinton's administration while at the same time blaming Democratic presidents for recessions, since they say something like "well, everyone knows it takes around 10 years for those changes to kick in blah blah."

In addition, they also try to assassinate the memory of FDR by saying that his policies "deepened and lengthened" the Great Depression. There's one enormous contradiction to this, however:

The evidence cited by these folks is how "things were getting better" for the first couple of years, until about 1933 or so, when things began to go south again, on FDR's watch after some of his New Deal policies had been implemented.

However, he'd scarcely been in office. Since "we all know it takes 10 years for those changes to take effect," wouldn't the blame have to fall on Harding, Coolidge, or Hoover?

Which brings us to our current crisis and how Obama has been catching all this flak for the state of the economy. You know, "OMG he's been president for almost a year already why is our economy still in EPIC FAIL mode?"

I know nothing about economics, so I'd just like someone to make sense of all this for me. The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that NO ONE really knows how it works or is supposed to work, and we're all just guessing blindly and hoping for the best.

[Killer_Man_]

It takes a long time for the economy to change, so anything that is happening now is more likely due to the faults in the past.

[deathofcheese]

People have shorter attention spans than it takes for someone's efforts to be realized either in politics or economics. Just like how everyone's saying, "lul, this winter seems pretty cold, what happened to the so-called 'global warming' you guys were warning about?"

I'm pretty sure you're aware of how political election campaigns are run. It doesn't matter how outlandish or far-out the claim is, if it can be linked to the person you're against and doing so can make you look good, it's fair game, no matter how 'truthful' it is.

[chefTENGU]

Is it really just petty spite born out of party politics?

It's really sad to think that's true, but I suppose it must be so.

[deathofcheese]

I'm convinced that that's why the Republican party is floundering so much any more. They grew pretty complacent for the 8 years under Bush, and people began to get a very bad taste in their mouth from the things both Bush was blamed for and the things that Bush's administration was responsible for. However, since the Republicans had a pretty solid majority (I didn't ever pay attention to this, so I'm probably mistaken), they didn't care about having to stand for their beliefs and making a case to convince people that what the majority was doing was wrong. Now that the shoe's on the other foot, Republicans have lost their power because of what the people perceived to be true, and the Republicans seem to think that the best way to continue about their business is to vehemently oppose the Democrats because that's what Republicans do - fight the evil liberal psychos.

Look at the history of healthcare reform for the last several Presidents. Every time a Democrat proposes something, the Republicans are all up in arms about how it'll make big big government even bigger, and drive us all to socialism and communism, and hey, no one wants that, right?

Ugh, I think once we start getting a deadlocked Congress whose only focus is opposing the people they're ideologically different from, instead of truly worrying about what the people they're supposed to represent are concerned about, we should just throw every Senator and Representative out and force their constituencies to elect someone entirely new,

[Killer_Man_]

The problem is as well visa versa but how 'business will rule' if republicans get their way.

Not to mention I think the last 4 years or maybe 8 years of Bush. The democrats kept phillibustering(sp?) till bills died, at least, that's what i supposely was told.

[Seegtease]

However, he'd scarcely been in office. Since "we all know it takes 10 years for those changes to take effect," wouldn't the blame have to fall on Harding, Coolidge, or Hoover?

Which brings us to our current crisis and how Obama has been catching all this flak for the state of the economy. You know, "OMG he's been president for almost a year already why is our economy still in EPIC FAIL mode?"

Because, perhaps, some changes can be done rapidly, and some take 10 years. That's all there is to it.

[deathofcheese]

I had a thought recently regarding the history of the New Deal and our perception of it. Growing up reading about it, I heard how it did all this good during a time when our country really was going down the shitter (hard economic times, not runaway crazies in charge), and although some of the changes FDR proposed and implemented did have an arguable detrimental effect or a neutral effect on what they attempted to change, overall, the New Deal is supposedly what got us through the Great Depression and helped us recover afterwards. Now, however, with the recent bailouts, a lot of conservative pundits are recalling the New Deal as this disastrous economic policy that lengthened the Great Depression, made it even more hard-hitting, and gutted our system's ability to recuperate from it. Even when actual economic theories were brought into the discussion, I couldn't help but think that the people coming up with this idea only did so because it reflected what Obama did with the bailouts of the banking and automotive industry. Several times when I tried to point this out with various people I was having this discussion with, I was given the response, "Well, take a guess at who writes the history books. That's right. Liberals. Of course they'd want to distort the impacts and repercussions of a Democrat's big-spending economic plan."

[Arainach]

Not to mention I think the last 4 years or maybe 8 years of Bush. The democrats kept phillibustering(sp?) till bills died, at least, that's what i supposely was told.Err.....no. The Democrats gave in to Bush on each and every issue. The war, judicial nominees, tax breaks, you name it. The capitulated at each and every turn.

[chefTENGU]

Not to mention I think the last 4 years or maybe 8 years of Bush. The democrats kept phillibustering(sp?) till bills died, at least, that's what i supposely was told.
For most of Bush's two administrations, the Republicans had enough congressmen in office to just reconcile every bill they wanted through.

Among other things, "reconciliation" means you only need a simple majority vote to pass (i.e., at least 51) and filibustering is not allowed.

Some people have said the Democrats should do the same thing now that they have 60 seats in the Senate (Nancy Pelosi being one of them), but Obama and most Democrats have been bending over backwards to try and reach a compromise with the GOP. The republicans have simply refused to budge an inch over anything.

I had a thought recently regarding the history of the New Deal and our perception of it. Growing up reading about it, I heard how it did all this good during a time when our country really was going down the shitter (hard economic times, not runaway crazies in charge), and although some of the changes FDR proposed and implemented did have an arguable detrimental effect or a neutral effect on what they attempted to change, overall, the New Deal is supposedly what got us through the Great Depression and helped us recover afterwards. Now, however, with the recent bailouts, a lot of conservative pundits are recalling the New Deal as this disastrous economic policy that lengthened the Great Depression, made it even more hard-hitting, and gutted our system's ability to recuperate from it.
Those same conservatives will claim that what finally ended the Great Depression was World War II, which by itself makes very little sense. After all, war is one of the most economically devastating endeavors a country can undertake.

So what was it about the war that finally got us out? Keynesian economists will tell you it's because of the MASSIVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING we did in order to pay for all those soldiers, tanks, ships, and planes. That's the reason why Paulsen, Bush, Geithner, and Obama were in agreement that we needed MASSIVE GOVERNMENT BAILOUT in order to avoid total collapse last year.

Now, not everyone agrees with Keynes, which is why TARP was met with such resistance and why the ideas of bailouts continues to draw controversy.

[chefTENGU]

More than a year (and a midterm election) later, politics still stinks to high heaven. Such is life.

I spent a good portion of my morning pissed the fuck off because I saw a news clip wherein Mitch McConnell (senior senator from Kentucky, and Senate minority leader) proclaimed the new #1 priority for the Republican party. See if you can guess what it is.

Fix the economy? Nah. Put Americans back to work? Hell no. Give up? Here you go:
TOP PRIORITY #1: Prevent Barack Obama from being re-elected two years from now.

/me repeatedly bashes head against desk

Is it just me or does it seem like the Republican party has completely abandoned doing the country's work and begun unabashedly working solely for themselves?

[Killer_Man_]

I just love how people don't even realize how the system works.

EVEN if Barack wanted to turn this country upside down and turn it into socialism, communism or whatever 'he wants'.

THE SENATE AND JUDICIAL CAN STILL STOP HIM!


X_X

Besides the fact even if the republicans didn't try to not get him elected, he's not going to get elected because majority of the people disapprove of him much like Bush in his last term. :p

[chefTENGU]

Au contraire, mon frere. Our fearless leader's approval rating is sitting at about 50%. Republicans are definitely going to have to fight (i.e., fearmonger, distort, and outright lie as they've been doing) to unseat him.

And historical precedent favors the president. In the past century, every time a president's own party lost control of the legislative branch of the government during that president's first term in office, he's managed to secure re-election.

There's even a contingent of Republicans who want to try and impeach Obama. Remember what happened the last time they tried to impeach a president for the offense of "holding office while being a Democrat"? Clinton never enjoyed more popularity than when he was being taken through the wringer back in '98.

[deathofcheese]

I find it humorous that Republicans are so into fighting Democrats for the principle of it and are harping on the evil things Democrats are doing, like "shoving healthcare down our throats". I'm sure there's some basis in reality for that (what party wouldn't want to have their legislation rubber-stamped?), but really, the Democrats have resorted to pushing through things like that quickly because a) they have the ability to and are willing to use it because b) Republicans refuse to compromise, either by refusing to talk at all or by demanding the entirety of what they want, sans reasonable compromise to the other side. Meanwhile, very liberal (although I'm sure it could be a lot worse) is getting passed and both parties are very responsible for any badness that happens because of it. Fucking hell, might as well just drink...

[chefTENGU]

Hear hear.

Everything I've heard about "Obamacare," though, is that it's extremely moderate. And maybe it's because I think that anything that gives healthcare to 30 million people who otherwise would be forced to do without is a good thing, but I certainly don't feel like it was "forced down our throats." If anything, it was a struggle to keep the GOP from prying it out of our mouths.

Obama and the Democrats made a ton of concessions to the Republicans on everything from Cap n' Trade to the healthcare legislation, to the point where a good number of Democrats are pissed off at Obama for not going far enough.

Of course, if you ask any Republican spokesman, they'll say that Obama singlehandedly dismantled the last vestiges of democracy in America.

At least Obama is refusing to budge on his tax plan (i.e., extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone except for the richest 2%). Of course, the GOP considers a 4.someodd% tax increase (and by "increase," I mean "return to what tax rates were under Clinton, which was less than what they were under Reagan) on anyone making more than $250,000 a year "class warfare."

[Killer_Man_]

Dismantled what? The freedom to have health insurance or not?

As far as I know or at least what I assume. One of the bus drivers I always talk politics with. He was like, why do you think most senators are against the obamacare? Because they are 'invested' in health care. They more than likely have stocks upon stocks of it. I don't have proof but eh... IT seems when someone has money on something, they dont' want things to change so they keep getting rich from it... Or lobbyists come in and get someone elected and pay them off to make sure they do as they say or never elect them again.

[chefTENGU]

That actually has a lot to do with what's really fucked about our system.

For someone to have a fair shot at winning an election, you need an insane amount of money (one of the reasons congressmen get paid so much is because re-election campaigns are prohibitively expensive). Career politicians are all too happy to accept generous donations from lobbies and other special interests, but then there's the understanding that the politician will then fight for said lobby/interest on the floor of the House/Senate.

---------- Post added at 23:29 ---------- Previous post was at 23:25 ----------

The main problem with your bus driver's logic train is that the system that got legislated doesn't provide government-run healthcare; it mandates that everyone needs to buy the private insurance of their choice (in addition to preventing insurance companies from doing the shitty things to their customers they've been getting away with for years).

If you're intensely poor and can't afford health insurance, then the government will subsidize your premiums.

There's a lot of confusion about this issue because so many people opposed to it have been spouting nothing but lies. I think that in the next couple of years, when the meat of the legislation comes into effect, people will understand it much better.

[Killer_Man_]

That and Wisconsin wanted to, or at least used to want to spend about 80 million for a high speed train... Which everyone including our new governor told Obama, the federal transportation guy told them to fuck off and use the money to repair our roads and bridges which a lot of our roads are shit due to winter.

Though some reason IL still wants the money and to build it anyway...

[Arainach]

If Wisconsin wants to fix its roads, it can do so itself. If it wants money from the federal government, it should invest in the infrastructure they recommend - and make no mistake, America needs newer infrastructure, and a high-speed rail system is a great start to that.

[Killer_Man_]

If Wisconsin wants to fix its roads, it can do so itself. If it wants money from the federal government, it should invest in the infrastructure they recommend - and make no mistake, America needs newer infrastructure, and a high-speed rail system is a great start to that.


Wait hold on, so your saying we should accept 80 million dollars, build a high speed train that goes from Milwakee, Racine, Madison and Chicago that no one wants or possibly never use and then raise TAXES to pay for it because the feds want their money back. They tried to hike up sales/car registration/gas/whatever but we all as a state voted no and they shouldn't force something upon us when the state as a whole said no.

We've had trains that used to haul passengers but they all went out of business cause no one needed them anymore. It would only haul passengers, no cargo. If it would be able to haul both then I'd say yes but right now the answer is no.

We never asked for the money at all, the federal transportation authority or whatever you want to call him. Told Wisconsin and IL that we have to build this train to -create- jobs. We already have the amtrak that goes to all those destinations and the coach bus.

[chefTENGU]

Which "Federal Transportation Authority" are you talking about, exactly?

Ray LaHood (Republican and very rich man), the current Secretary of Transportation, has already divulged that he and Obama are in total agreement about implementing at least 4 high-speed rail lines throughout the country. If I can remember correctly, they are to service California, the South, the Midwest (which would totally be useful... hopefully something that goes from KC to Chicago then up to Minneapolis), and the Northeast Corridor (DC to NYC to Boston... BIG YES).

[Killer_Man_]

I take that back, it's 810 million...... But even then, so in the long run, even if we 'take the money' to invest it... Because they want to invest in money for it but yet in the long run they hike up taxes to 'cover' themselves. Why?

Then again... To be honest, I'll have to do some more research because all I kept hearing was that it was the high speed is only between four cities and chicago. Not across the midwest....

Eh, it doesn't matter, I voted for the democrat because Scott Walker seemed like a mud slinging dill hole who only got elected because of the whole, HEY WE ARE AGAINST RAISING TAXES AND THE HIGH SPEED VOTE FOR ME... And of course people were swayed.

I didn't agree with the rail system because EVERYONE has been talking about it was only going between Chicago, Madison, Milwaukee and Racine. With stops here and there, nothing special. I mean even our papers said that.

EDIT:

And of course there was anther issue espeically that my Dad disliked because they hired some 'spanish' company to do it instead of American workers. *shrugs* I wouldn't be using the rail system anyway.

[chefTENGU]

The government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, customs, religion, or tranquility of Mussulmen

That's from the Treaty of Tripoli, 1797; signed by President (and founding father extraordinaire) John Adams.

Why is it that we're debating nowadays whether or not America was founded as a Christian nation, when the founding fathers themselves CLEARLY did not intend it to be so?

[Arainach]

For the same reason we debate scientific theories against crackpot ideas unfounded in any empirical evidence: Most people are retarded, and if you know how to control the discussion, the actual truth doesn't matter anymore.

[chefTENGU]

I know we've thrown the idea of Obama and LaHood's high-speed rail pet project around here in Mediator's Hut a few times, and it's back in the forefront of my mind after the State of the Union address.

In case you missed it, Obama noted that work has already gotten underway on the California and Midwest systems (Fuck yeah!).

I'm excited. I know it's going to take some time before it can be done, but it's going to make getting round the Midwest a shitload easier. Ohio alone will be amazing; there'll be a high-speed rail line connecting Cincinnati to Cleveland, by way of Columbus.

Essentially, Chicago will be the center of a long network of high-speed railways into Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, and on to Missouri and Kentucky.

It looks like KC won't get the main benefit of the high-speed rail, but a supplementary regional line from KC to St. Louis will suffice to connect to the main line. In order for me and Katy to visit her folks in Cleveland, we'd have to hop on a train in KC, travel to St. Louis, transfer to the main line to Chicago, then travel from there to Cleveland by way of Toledo.

Estimated travel time: 5 hours. HOLY FUCKING SHIT. It takes about 13 goddamn hours to drive that way along I-70. Get cracking, I want my high-speed rail!

[SpaceProg]

Come down south soon plzkthx.

[chefTENGU]

South's getting one too.

There's four main areas Secy. LaHood wants to give high-speed rail to: the Northeast Corridor (Boston-NYC-Philadelphia-DC), which already has the Amtrak Acela and is quite good and fast (though I'm sure it can be improved upon).

California and the Midwest are already underway, and the South is supposed to be getting one, too.

*dig dig*

Correction, make that Southeast (http://www.sehsr.org/). I'm fairly sure the map I've linked to is the current plan, which seems like it'll work awesome. However, if they're going to take it all the way to Jacksonville, they might as well take it all the way down Florida's swampy mosquito-ridden shaft to Miami (via Orlando).

---------- Post added at 21:50 ---------- Previous post was at 21:42 ----------

Adding maps for the Midwest plan (http://www.midwesthsr.org/vision) and California plan (http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/trip_planner.aspx)

I'll say it again. HOLY FUCK. Sacramento to San Diego in less than 4 fucking hours. That's almost 600 goddamn miles.

[Killer_Man_]

Sadly, I think the Governer of our state is still fighting it. Though I didn't even vote for the guy. -.- He only won because he wouldn't raise taxes to pay for said rail way or something stupid.

[deathofcheese]

You'd think getting money from the government to build a transcontinental high-speed rail system would be right up the Tea Party's alley (read Atlas Shrugged). Guess they're waiting for someone to come up with Reardon Metal and then hoard the design from public use.

[Arainach]

You'd think getting money from the government to build a transcontinental high-speed rail system would be right up the Tea Party's alley (read Atlas Shrugged). Guess they're waiting for someone to come up with Reardon Metal and then hoard the design from public use.The intersection of "The Tea Party" and "People who have read a book" is the null set.

[chefTENGU]

Sadly, I think the Governer of our state is still fighting it. Though I didn't even vote for the guy. -.- He only won because he wouldn't raise taxes to pay for said rail way or something stupid.
Is he refusing to raise taxes, or is he refusing Federal largesse?

Because Omaba and LaHood have already spent the money they need to get this thing off the ground. Like I said, work has already begun on these projects.

(ETA: 2020. DAMMIT.)

[deathofcheese]

The intersection of "The Tea Party" and "People who have read a book" is the null set.:D

Someone must have an idea of what happened in that book. Of course I wouldn't expect everyone who harps about to have actually read the thing (people who have deserve a medal), but surely someone inside the Tea Party saw the disconnect there.

[Killer_Man_]

Is he refusing to raise taxes, or is he refusing Federal largesse?

Because Omaba and LaHood have already spent the money they need to get this thing off the ground. Like I said, work has already begun on these projects.

(ETA: 2020. DAMMIT.)

The taxes would pay for it yes, but the system as far as the 'news' have said. That if they don't make money from it, taxpayers have to PAY to keep it afloat. Which everyone didn't want.

[chefTENGU]

I just don't see how a governor can seek to interfere with a federally-mandated program. If we were talking about Wisconsin's congressmen, then yes, but I don't see how Wisconsin's governor has any sort of leg to stand on.

Perhaps he could simply refuse to sell the needed land to the federal government, but still his reasoning makes little to no sense. At least to me, anyhow.

[Killer_Man_]

This is true but can't they just say, hey we're taking the land. Here is a fair price and you'll have to suck it up.

[SpaceProg]

I am the Beast. I will eat you all.


Sorry, I'm a bit drunk. The engulfing will have to wait until the soberness. Soz....

[Gio Takahashi]

Man, the high speed rail definitely needs to go far south as Florida >.> there's already a long railroad system throughout most of eastern florida, so I don't think it should be problematic.

[Killer_Man_]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/09/feds-pull-high-speed-rail-funds-from-wisconsin-ohio/

Apparently, they pulled the funding cause they rejected the money.

[SpaceProg]

I am the Beast. I will eat you all.


Sorry, I'm a bit drunk. The engulfing will have to wait until the soberness. Soz....


Holy crap, I don't even remember posting this.

[chefTENGU]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/09/feds-pull-high-speed-rail-funds-from-wisconsin-ohio/

Apparently, they pulled the funding cause they rejected the money.
Ok. Your governor is a fucking idiot, then.

"Please take this money for a high-speed railway. It will facilitate commerce and create thousands upon thousands of jobs for your states."

"EW, NO. IT HAS OBAMASTINK ON IT."

"Suit yourself." *gives Ohio and Wisconsin's shares to the other states*

[Killer_Man_]

He basically said that it's what is wrong with the gov't that they are still over spending and blah blah blah. The only reason he's elected was because Wisconsin... Doyle I think was the last governer was going to sign in to get it worked on. He even did it on the last day of his office term but then the new governer over rode it. Basically because of the train doesn't MAKE money, the tax payers will have to pay for it... Which makes sense lol but come on really? I think that it was going to put our sales tax at 5.3% instead of 5.1%(Mine you the .1% is for the stupid stadium for the Brewers who suck) and as well put 10 bucks more on the little tags for your car. It was so minor that people just went ape shit over it.

[deathofcheese]

He basically said that it's what is wrong with the gov't that they are still over spending and blah blah blah. The only reason he's elected was because Wisconsin... Doyle I think was the last governer was going to sign in to get it worked on. He even did it on the last day of his office term but then the new governer over rode it. Basically because of the train doesn't MAKE money, the tax payers will have to pay for it... Which makes sense lol but come on really? I think that it was going to put our sales tax at 5.3% instead of 5.1%(Mine you the .1% is for the stupid stadium for the Brewers who suck) and as well put 10 bucks more on the little tags for your car. It was so minor that people just went ape shit over it.Because people are TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

[Killer_Man_]

AND GOVT IS SPENDING MORE THAN IT TAKES IN LOLOLOLOLOL!

---------- Post added at 22:19 ---------- Previous post was at 22:18 ----------

Oh and the fact that he fucked Milwaukee over because they had some company move in, made the steel and shit and now those jobs are lost now and all.

[chefTENGU]

Jon Stewart had a really good piece about this sort of problem.

Since every State is just about broke in this country, some are doing batshit insane things to save some money. Camden, NJ, one of the worst spots in the entire state (bear in mind that New Jersey is essentially a series of terrible spots) fired HALF of its police force. They're planning on making up the difference with Guardian Angels.

That's right. Camden's solution to their crime problem is to ask unarmed vigilantes for help.

Or how a lot of states are legalizing gambling establishments (mostly in the form of slots), going for the quick fix of revenue++ and jobs++ that it brings. They're ignoring the long-term detriments that gambling tends to entail (you know, the things that prompted all those laws against it in the first place).

Meanwhile, the State of Illinois has come up with the audacious solution of raising their state income tax. People (especially on Fox News) are up in arms over HOW DARE YOU RAISE TAXES BY 66%!

They fail to mention that the increase was from 3% to 5%. Not exactly a big deal.

[chefTENGU]

Look, Nintendo made a game for Michelle Bachmann.

[Killer_Man_]

I don't get it.

[chefTENGU]

I'm saying that a grade schooler knows more about science than Michelle Bachmann.

Her most egregious statement (that I've heard, anyway) was that the HPV vaccine causes mental retardation. Note that no one under the age of 10 receives the HPV vaccine.

[Killer_Man_]

Oh wel I never heard of Michelle Backmann.

[Gio Takahashi]

Oh wel I never heard of Michelle Backmann.

And she's one of the many GOP running for President next year. The election for next year is looking so awesome.

[SpaceProg]

I didn't even know Kim Jung was Il(l).

Yeah, I went there.

[Gio Takahashi]

I didn't even know Kim Jung was Il(l).

Yeah, I went there.

FYI. He's no longer Kim Jung Il, he's Kim Jung Ded.

[chefTENGU]

I was surprised to find out that Dear Leader had only been ruling North Korea since 1994. It felt like longer than that to me.

[SpaceProg]

True that. Though they say his son Kim Jong Un probably won't be much better. :-/

[chefTENGU]

Everyone's really nervous, though, since Un is the youngest son (something which is highly unusual among East Asian societies; almost always the eldest son inherits), and apparently he was only 2 years into his 10-year apprenticeship before his father's stroke.

Basically, it remains to be seen whether someone who is about my age and with about the same amount of nation-leading experience is really going to command the respect and loyalty of the North Korean senior officals, not to mention the cooperation of other world leaders. Also, he now has access to nukes.

[Killer_Man_]

I think there is going to be a big bloody coup from the older brothers.

[SpaceProg]

I'm just hoping something good comes of this... I'm sure the North Korean citizens are too.

[chefTENGU]

Things really can't get any worse. People are already eating fucking grass because there's nothing else to eat.

[SpaceProg]

There's a documentary called Kimjongilia that gives an artistic as well as vocal perspective of the plight of various North Korean citizens who escaped.

[chefTENGU]

What the fuck is wrong with Iowa? Rick "Lube-n-Shit" Santorum only 9 votes from taking first place in the state caucus?

At least Ron Paul took a very close 3rd. I think he stands to do his best ever this year.

[Stupidthing0]

i just wanna say very quickly that, especially with the next election coming soon, i will not be joining in on political debates in the forum :)

[Gio Takahashi]

Honestly I'm not even sure how I'm gonna vote. I'm pretty irked that Obama signed NDAA into law on the 31st.

[chefTENGU]

What about the act do you dislike?

He actually pared down military spending, particularly in the army and marine corps (redistributing a fair chunk of it to the navy and air force instead). Even with all the cuts in defense spending, we'll still have the largest and best-funded military in the world.

I'm *probably* voting to re-elect Obama, if only because every single one of the republican candidates being floated right now FUCKING SUCK.

However, I'm seriously tempted to write in Buddy Roemer (http://www.buddyroemer.com/), since he's the only one guaranteed not to be in any lobby's pocket.

[Arainach]

The indefinite detention part is complete bullshit. Everyone's up in arms about it applying to citizens, but that shit's not OK for anyone.

[Gio Takahashi]

The indefinite detention part is complete bullshit. Everyone's up in arms about it applying to citizens, but that shit's not OK for anyone.

This. That is my problem with NDAA.

[chefTENGU]

Ah, yes. That is a big problem, but Obama sort of proved he wasn't the answer to everyone's prayers when he first stated his support of bits of the Patriot Act.

While he's managed to piss off a good measure of the people who voted him into office, Democrats at least still seem willing to vote for him, if for no other reason than voting for any of the alternatives would be unthinkable. I don't think that any of the Republican candidates can claim such at this time, but who knows how things might shape up after a few more primaries.

[Gio Takahashi]

That's pretty much it. Could also be said that his hands were together since there was a very strong support for NDAA in congress that it was said that the veto could have been overridden.

[Killer_Man_]

That and you can't do much when the house/senate argue like children all day long.

[chefTENGU]

Seriously.

When people are more concerned about being obstructionist toward the White House instead of getting the country's business done, there's a serious problem.

[Gio Takahashi]

Seriously.

When people are more concerned about being obstructionist toward the White House instead of getting the country's business done, there's a serious problem.

This. Nothing ever gets done because the congress are too busy cockblocking each other to get things done. This is why I feel that this country needs to get out of the two party system. Permanently.

[deathofcheese]

Is it just me, or do the Republicans get less and less "electable" every year. Ugh, I hate that word, though. They get farther and farther from what they originally used to stand for. I guess it's because they think that when voting goes one way, they therefore need to be more of the opposite of that to win next time!

How about that SOPA and PIPA, though? Protest SOPA day was nice, even though all the pro-SOPA people are calling "bullshit, this is just the misinformed fringe that are trying to ruin things for everyone", especially Lamar Shithead Smith. Christ, what an asshole.

[chefTENGU]

Is it just me, or do the Republicans get less and less "electable" every year. Ugh, I hate that word, though. They get farther and farther from what they originally used to stand for. I guess it's because they think that when voting goes one way, they therefore need to be more of the opposite of that to win next time!
To be completely honest, though, the Republican party has been obsolete ever since the 14th Amendment was passed.

The Republicans got their start on a single-issue platform: stopping the spread of slavery within the United States. It's actually kind of impressive and frightening all at the same time that they went from a complete nonentity to political powerhouse in a very short span of time.

Of course, all the unrest that was going on in the country in those days was probably working in their favor, but still...

As for the more recent bullshit which I'm sure is what you were ACTUALLY talking about, I agree completely. I blame Karl Rove, the man who has said that he hopes that abortion never gets fixed because it's just such a polarizing important wedge issue.

How about that SOPA and PIPA, though? Protest SOPA day was nice, even though all the pro-SOPA people are calling "bullshit, this is just the misinformed fringe that are trying to ruin things for everyone", especially Lamar Shithead Smith. Christ, what an asshole.
It's encouraging that the protests succeeded in getting ordinary people to actually contact their representatives and raise enough hell that the issue's become completely toxic.

It's disappointing that Harry Reid and the others who want to pass this legislation are cynical enough that they intend to just delay indefinitely until people forget about it.

And it's hilarious (in a very sad way) that the mouthpieces for big business are trying to portray these hideously broken bills as the saviors of our nation, and that anyone who opposes them must be a flag-burning hippie pirate pedophile.