American Politics

[Ocram's Razr 964]

The Canadian system is far better than what the USA has now but some politicians think that the two systems are extremely similar.

 

 

--Ocram

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The problem with the U.S. system and Obamacare is that too much was left in the hands of the private sector.  The insurance lobbies will try their best to keep it that way, and the whole thing hasn't really settled down.  When medical care becomes a "right" or "entitlement" for all, then you will have our system.

[Meg 368]

Something I am interested to hear from Americans, is why is there such a fear of universal healthcare? I know that from all accounts I've heard, "Obamacare" hasn't been the best executed attempt at a healthcare system. But Obamacare aside, I know alot of Americans are opposed to the idea of universal healthcare in general. Almost as though if your government provides you with healthcare, you're one step away from being communists or something. It doesn't make sense to me. You still pay taxes the same as we do, so don't you think paying tax should automatically give you healthcare as well?

 

 

 

 

The health care discussion has been moved

 

Carry on with discussion of American Politics . . .

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

And she's off!

 

Wonder what Hillary is up to in Iowa with all this low-key approach?  How will it sit with Iowans?

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

The logic that should stop Hillary, but won’t:

 

1. She lost to Obama already.

 

2. Based on her subsequent lack of accomplishment and misbehavior, she hasn’t proven us wrong in electing Obama over her.

 

3. No one is crazy about Obama as President anymore.

 

4. Therefore, a vote for Hillary is a vote for someone worse for President than the guy we already know we don’t want anymore.

 

///

 

The illogical reason Hillary will be elected:

1. All I care about is that a woman becomes President and she’s the only possible choice.
2. But, there are 100 million women in America who meet your only criteria.
3. Get stuffed, someone somewhere who’s more important than you has made up my mind and I’m not going to let you change it now.

///

 

A funny comment from a member of a political website. But I have a sneaky feeling Hillary will get elected solely on the grounds of being a woman, all who criticize her are obviously misogynists and will face the wrath of social media.

[Larks2242 251]

Rand Paul now accepting payments in bitcoin.

 

This guy just gets it, more I hear from him the more I like him.

However, if Ralph Nader runs, I will try to split the democrat vote in my district by voting for him. 

 

Ralph Nader is like 200 years old now, the ship has sailed, traveled the world and been decommissioned at this point.

[Larks2242 251]

 

 

I think the killer was the bit about it not being his job to worry about 47% of the population.   Seriously?  Anyone, regardless of where they are on the spectrum, is going to lose a national election after that statement

 

 

What he was saying was very true though, While people won't like to hear it, but there is a entitlement issue in this country. People make poor choices and they end up never aspiring and choosing to work at McDonalds their entire lives and then blame the government for their shortcomings.

 

Entitlement is a real issue, among lack of education people think that they should be given everything by taxpayers and they vote for who will give them the most.

 

Swaying the low income voters is almost impossible since they don't look into issues, they blindly follow whoever promises them the most.

[Duke87 1,070]

What he was saying was very true though, While people won't like to hear it, but there is a entitlement issue in this country. People make poor choices and they end up never aspiring and choosing to work at McDonalds their entire lives and then blame the government for their shortcomings.

 

Not everyone who works at McDonalds their entire life does so out of laziness or lack of aspiration. Indeed, it is entirely illogical that someone would - it's hard work for little reward. Maybe, just maybe, most of these people would work better jobs if there were better jobs available, or they had the means to undergo the training for better jobs. But, in a labor market where low paying jobs increasingly outnumber good paying middle class jobs, and where going to school costs and arm and a leg, that's not so easy.

[LexusInfernus 908]

A funny comment from a member of a political website. But I have a sneaky feeling Hillary will get elected solely on the grounds of being a woman, all who criticize her are obviously misogynists and will face the wrath of social media.

I wouldn't agree with that. There are plenty of good reasons to vote for her. She does have 25 years of experience with working in Washington. She is a good and strong politician, effective in all the ways that count. 

 

Of course, she isn't perfect, she has her fair share of failures and she made mistakes. But thats true for every politician, and when it comes to American politics and presidential elections, it hasn't been about voting who is best suited for the job for a long time, its voting for the lesser evil. And Hillary will most likely be the lesser evil, almost no matter who the Republicans put against her. 

[Sabretooth78 808]

A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Yeah, but there is little you can do when you can only vote between two evils. 

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

I just don't see how Democrats can vote for HC when she's such a Wall Street puppet. Seems like Dems are always under this illusion that only Republicans have money and connections with big business.

 

It will be pretty sad if people have to chose between a Bush or a Clinton again.

 

Here's a weird story: Chelsea Clinton is married to hedge fund manager and former Goldman Sachs banker Marc Mezvinsky. Marc's father, Edward Mezvinsky (2 term Congressman), after falling prey to 419 scams, became, himself, a conman, tapping his network of contacts and dropping the name of the Clinton family to convince unwitting marks to give him money.  He was indicted and later pleaded guilty to 31 of 69 felony charges of bank fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud.

 

Seems odd that Chelsea married the son of a man who used her family name to scam people into giving him money. I wonder what favors the two families have done for each-other. Maybe they're just in love. However, to me, something about their marriage seems very political. The Clintons, like the Bushes, appear to be setting themselves up as American nobility if not American royalty.

 

A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.

 

My thoughts exactly. I've always hated the "lesser of two evils" saying. How 'bout we get a candidate who isn't evil for a change.

 

I like Rand Paul, but I'm afraid he's selling out too much to the establishment so that he won't get blocked out of media coverage like Ron Paul was in 2008 and 2012. I'm hoping he can bring the smack-down during the debates, that's what made watching Ron Paul so fun.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

It is a shame that candidates in the U.S. are so subject to electron microscopic examination.  Speaking about the lesser of two evils, one should consider which party is more in the pocket of big business, and not get two excited about what figurehead is raised.

 

Alas, the possibility of getting a Mr. Deeds in Washington is somewhere below zero.

[Larks2242 251]

 

What he was saying was very true though, While people won't like to hear it, but there is a entitlement issue in this country. People make poor choices and they end up never aspiring and choosing to work at McDonalds their entire lives and then blame the government for their shortcomings.

 

Not everyone who works at McDonalds their entire life does so out of laziness or lack of aspiration. Indeed, it is entirely illogical that someone would - it's hard work for little reward. Maybe, just maybe, most of these people would work better jobs if there were better jobs available, or they had the means to undergo the training for better jobs. But, in a labor market where low paying jobs increasingly outnumber good paying middle class jobs, and where going to school costs and arm and a leg, that's not so easy.

 

 

While true, we need to work on training, but people are so hell bent on raising minimum wage which has devastating problems as well, raising minimum wage has a horrible effect on the country yet it is a popular opinion.

 

The founder of Burger King just recently said that the dollar menu is in danger due to the increasing costs from raising wages.

 

 

I remember when the founder of Home Depot said that he would have trouble building the company in today's world.

 

Gives good reason for Scott Walker to enter the race as he seems interested, He would put the unions back in place. 

[LexusInfernus 908]

My thoughts exactly. I've always hated the "lesser of two evils" saying. How 'bout we get a candidate who isn't evil for a change.

That would be nice right? But like I said, before you can vote for the good guy, you first need a good guy. And neither the Republicans or Democrats have one. 

 

Also, I'm not a fan of Hillary Clinton. In fact, I strongly dislike her. But if the choice is between Hillary Clinton and whatever clown the Republicans come up with, it will have to be Clinton. She is a cynical establishment politician, but at least she is not Tea Party insane and she knows how to get things done. 

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

Also, I'm not a fan of Hillary Clinton. In fact, I strongly dislike her. But if the choice is between Hillary Clinton and whatever clown the Republicans come up with, it will have to be Clinton. She is a cynical establishment politician, but at least she is not Tea Party insane and she knows how to get things done.

 

This is the Democrat talking point right now. "I don't want to vote for Hillary, but I'm going to vote for Hillary."

 

I don't think Rand Paul is that "insane", but we'll have to wait and see. Like I said, I'm waiting for the debates to see how well he contrasts against the other Republican candidates. In 2008 and 2012 Ron Paul did an amazing job at countering the Republican hawkish foreign policy and I liked his views on the economy. If Rand Paul can stand up on that stage and be the voice of reason I think he stands a chance. I'm not American so in the end it doesn't really matter. I'd just like to see someone who hasn't been chosen by the establishment like Bush, Clinton, or even Obama, to get a shot at the Whitehouse.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

As an outside observer, I can only shake my head in dismay - again. 

 

The political system in the U.S. has gone off the rails, probably as far back as JFK or even earlier.  The current incumbent members of congress are bent on keeping their seats rather than governing the country and are more concerned with their perks and entitlements than they are with their constituents.  Given the current situation, a clean sweep of incumbents would be advisable, but probably cannot be accomplished, even slightly.  The sheeple are asleep.

[Larks2242 251]

 

Also, I'm not a fan of Hillary Clinton. In fact, I strongly dislike her. But if the choice is between Hillary Clinton and whatever clown the Republicans come up with, it will have to be Clinton. She is a cynical establishment politician, but at least she is not Tea Party insane and she knows how to get things done.

 

This is the Democrat talking point right now. "I don't want to vote for Hillary, but I'm going to vote for Hillary."

 

I don't think Rand Paul is that "insane", but we'll have to wait and see. Like I said, I'm waiting for the debates to see how well he contrasts against the other Republican candidates. In 2008 and 2012 Ron Paul did an amazing job at countering the Republican hawkish foreign policy and I liked his views on the economy. If Rand Paul can stand up on that stage and be the voice of reason I think he stands a chance. I'm not American so in the end it doesn't really matter. I'd just like to see someone who hasn't been chosen by the establishment like Bush, Clinton, or even Obama, to get a shot at the Whitehouse.

 

 

Sadly both sides are slamming Rand Paul right now with ads saying he isn't aggressive enough on Iran and would be hesitant to start a war if need be.

 

This new ad campaign is trying to discredit him by tying him to Obama, As we all know from the last cycle being tied to Obama is a political death warrant.

[Duke87 1,070]

Yeah, but there is little you can do when you can only vote between two evils. 

 

Well there will be more than two candidates on the ballot...

 

 

While true, we need to work on training, but people are so hell bent on raising minimum wage which has devastating problems as well, raising minimum wage has a horrible effect on the country yet it is a popular opinion.

 

The founder of Burger King just recently said that the dollar menu is in danger due to the increasing costs from raising wages.

 

The "dollar menu" is in danger no matter what because of this little thing called inflation. A business that never raises its prices gets cheaper and cheaper year by year. Employees that never get raises get poorer year after year.

 

As for the minimum wage, here's a fun little graph. Note how, when you adjust for inflation, the federal minimum wage is actually lower today than it was in the 1960s and 70s. A raise to $10 or so would put it on par with what it was then.

 

And while raising the minimum wage will have some impact on the labor market, it also comes with some substantial benefits - if people at the lower end of the income spectrum make more money, they require less in welfare spending, which saves taxpayers money. Indeed, if families can be pushed above the poverty line by such a raise, then it also has the benefit of bolstering income tax revenues. Not to mention that, in a consumer based economy, people having money to spend is necessary for it to thrive. A business can't sell anything if people can't afford to buy it. Stagnant/anemic wages are one key reason why Darden Restaurants (owner of Red Lobster among other chains) hasn't been doing so hot lately. They're losing customers because people can't afford to go out for dinner anymore. This is good for the economy how?

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

Yeah, but there is little you can do when you can only vote between two evils. 

 

Why vote for someone evil, or "lesser" evil. Isn't that supporting their evilness? That's just legitimizing tryanny because you have some tiny say in the matter. Quite clever really, as long as there is the option of choice, regardless of how futile it is, even opponents of a system will accept said system because of choice.

 

 

 

Yeah, but there is little you can do when you can only vote between two evils. 

 

Well there will be more than two candidates on the ballot...

 

 

While true, we need to work on training, but people are so hell bent on raising minimum wage which has devastating problems as well, raising minimum wage has a horrible effect on the country yet it is a popular opinion.

 

The founder of Burger King just recently said that the dollar menu is in danger due to the increasing costs from raising wages.

 

The "dollar menu" is in danger no matter what because of this little thing called inflation. A business that never raises its prices gets cheaper and cheaper year by year. Employees that never get raises get poorer year after year.

 

The dollar menu has also suffered from an inflation war of attrition. You buy things worth a dollar but their quantity is much less. That's how companies selling food and drink keep prices the same by selling less. Stealth inflation baby.

 

But that's the price we all pay for the exponential growth model. We need more money in the system to pay for interest in debt. Where does nearly all money come from? Banks issuing credit, loans and mortgages. But that's more interest to pay off. Welcome to the debt monster. A monster of exponentially increasing proportions. It's really funny how everyone is scratching their heads wondering why there is never enough money going around and why this problem is growing with each passing year.

 

There's a simple solution to this, and it cuts down on the taxes to: get the government to print all the money and make banks actually banks: savings, deposits and of course actual capital to loan out. Encourage saving and preserve the value of the currency. Finally make sure inflation closely tracks the GDP of a country. Otherwise it's exponential inflation or large periods of deflation.

 

The time for governments outsourcing their most vital duty of creating the monetary supply to banks must end. Money for the people, of the people, by the people.

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

We wouldn't need a national minimum wage law if our CEOs weren't all in a race with each other for two things: volume and the cheapest possible costs.  So yeah, everyone gets screwed except those guys at the very top who figured out how to make a few extra pennies from each transaction.  It worked so well for Roger Smith in the 80s.  There are executives and accountants following his example as we speak, and making ridiculous piles of cash for it.  Then they have their friends in Congress protect them with regulation, or worse, "deregulation" which actually has come to mean something closer to "protecting our monopoly through clever legislation."

[LexusInfernus 908]

Well there will be more than two candidates on the ballot...

Technically yes, but we both know that in practical terms, US presidential elections are between two candidates. But by all means, vote for a third party that you think isn't evil. If enough people do it, who knows. 

 

Why vote for someone evil, or "lesser" evil. Isn't that supporting their evilness? That's just legitimizing tryanny because you have some tiny say in the matter. Quite clever really, as long as there is the option of choice, regardless of how futile it is, even opponents of a system will accept said system because of choice.

Well, you shouldn't take evil here as literal evil. Neither Clinton or the Republican candidate are actual tyrants (although....some of those Tea Party idiots? The things they say.....definitely tyrants.). But really, if you are presented with two choices, both of them bad, wouldn't go with the one that is the least bad? I mean, you could of course refuse to choose, but that just means that someone else makes the choice for you. Is that a preferable alternative? 

 

Of course, it would be best if you could influence the set of choices you have, and in the United States you actually can. But that is exactly the moment most people decide that they are fine with letting other people make the choices for them. If the voter turnout for the primary elections was the same as for the presidential elections, you could be sure that those Tea Party idiots wouldn't even be deemed as having a realistic chance of winning. And in the Democratic primaries we might have some serious options beside Hillary Clinton. But no one votes during the primaries, so we end up with two bad choices during the presidential elections. 

 

There's a simple solution to this, and it cuts down on the taxes to: get the government to print all the money and make banks actually banks: savings, deposits and of course actual capital to loan out. Encourage saving and preserve the value of the currency. Finally make sure inflation closely tracks the GDP of a country. Otherwise it's exponential inflation or large periods of deflation.

And as with all 'simple' solutions to complex problems, they don't work. First of all, the idea that inflation is somehow out of control, that is just not the case. In fact, the current US inflation rate is somewhere between 0 and 2%. That is a very stable inflation rate. 

 

Second of all, giving the power to print money to governments is a historically bad idea. Its giving power of money creation to people who are patently ignorant of how the economy works and who have a vested interest in printing money. Why? Because governments have debts, and it won't take long before some idiot politician decides that an easy way to get rid of all that pesky debt is by turning on the money printers and just print the debt away. The result would be instant hyperinflation, a global economic crash as the dollar becomes worthless, every money lender to the US losing billions of dollars, the end of the dollar as the back up currency of the world and the end of the dominant position of the US in the global economy. This is the reason why we have central banks with the power to create money that are independent from the government, because they are controlled by people who know a thing or two about the economy and who know what a disaster it would be if they just printed money like that. 

 

Third of all, how are the current banks not the kind of banks you propose they should be? You can save money with banks, you can place deposits and you can take out loans (a mortgage is a loan with a fancy name). Unless you mean those banks should also stop being investment banks so they can't use their clients money to speculate. In which case, I agree with you, investment banks and consumer banks should be separated once again. Though I don't see how that would affect inflation in any way. 

 

Last of all, encouraging savings only works if you raise the interest rate. But it also means taking money out of the economy (money on the bank is not money spend on buying stuff) and when the economy is show fragile, doing that might just send it into another recession, because sales would drop. Though I do agree with you that the interest rates, especially in Europe are dangerously low.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

 

 

<snip>

 

Sadly both sides are slamming Rand Paul right now with ads saying he isn't aggressive enough on Iran and would be hesitant to start a war if need be.

 

This new ad campaign is trying to discredit him by tying him to Obama, As we all know from the last cycle being tied to Obama is a political death warrant.

 

"would be hesitant to start a war".  My goodness!  What are you saying?  Are you a war monger?  You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake.  If you don't "lose" it, you will be impoverished.  War of any kind these days is inconceivable, and all the foolish adventuring going on in recent years is a remnant of WW II.  What do you suppose would happen if the real arsenal were unleashed?

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

And as with all 'simple' solutions to complex problems, they don't work. First of all, the idea that inflation is somehow out of control, that is just not the case. In fact, the current US inflation rate is somewhere between 0 and 2%. That is a very stable inflation rate. 

 

Second of all, giving the power to print money to governments is a historically bad idea. Its giving power of money creation to people who are patently ignorant of how the economy works and who have a vested interest in printing money. Why? Because governments have debts, and it won't take long before some idiot politician decides that an easy way to get rid of all that pesky debt is by turning on the money printers and just print the debt away. The result would be instant hyperinflation, a global economic crash as the dollar becomes worthless, every money lender to the US losing billions of dollars, the end of the dollar as the back up currency of the world and the end of the dominant position of the US in the global economy. This is the reason why we have central banks with the power to create money that are independent from the government, because they are controlled by people who know a thing or two about the economy and who know what a disaster it would be if they just printed money like that. 

 

Inflation is out of control because things are getting more expensive, a single unit of currency is buying less and to get the things they want people are becoming more indebted. It is not hyperinflation but the squeeze is there and the noose is tightening. An economy that relies on always increasing house prices, stock prices, consumption and more credit is not stable. In the past periods of deflation were normal. Deflation is not this doomsday thing, just look at Japan.

 

A government should be like a central bank in that it can't go bankrupt and it controls the entire monetary supply via a government-controlled central bank. Also commercial banks do print money pretty willy-nilly, it's called subprime and the housing bubble. Banks are far more volatile than governments and now, the big ones, use governments to write off losses. The 2008/2009 financial crisis shows that banks are highly reckless and even more so now because they have been bailed out.

 

Central banks are now above the law, they run the country because they are owned by the large private banks. Right now banks are in the process of hoarding all the world's assets. Depositors are punished, saving is looked down upon while risky behaviour is approved of. In Europe things are getting truly weird. A few banks are now charging a negative interest rate for loans, the negative interest rate pays off the principal amount meaning that you will make money after paying off a loan! Even Japan, financially messed up Japan, is not as messed up as that!

 

Governments would not be in so much debt if they had never promised so much. Pensions that beat inflation? Well where is that money going to come from? There is not enough money to go around, that's why pension programs are being scaled back in an effort to reduce unfunded liabilities mounting to the tens of trillions of dollars in the USA. Meanwhile more government debt is added, taxes are increased, more money is created and more inflation arises. I'm 23 but I don't expect to collect a substantial pension when I retire, or even there being no pension to collect at all the way things are going. Entitlements are exacerbating the trend towards bankruptcy. Now do you see why constant inflation is such a problem?

 

We are all sinking into bankruptcy because of this insane economic system that can only function with exponential growth. Exponential to pay off the interest for all the money created. But the banks issue out more money via debt. Nearly all money comes from debt, even foreign capital inflows come from money that was originally created by the banks when issuing credit. All at interest! The banks demand money from a system that does not have the total money to pay off every debt and liability. That's why recessions happen when banks stop issuing debt, it's that interest which sucks money out of the system and destroys it. It vanishes with nary a trace. This is the debt monster.

 

Now, if a frugal government creates all the money the system needs without imposing interest, it can use the central bank to build capital reserves to be issued to private banks, who will use that capital to issue credit. Currency devaluation is inevitable since debts have to be repaid and the international standing of a currency will be knocked. Eventually though the value, in other currencies/commodities, will stabilise as the value of this currency is based on the productivity of the people, the countries resources and the government's frugality. Failure in any one of the three will result in runaway inflation.

 

Abraham Lincoln and his government imposed this system to both fund the Union Government and pay back debts. Without this the Union Government would have wound up bankrupt as the banks at the time were willing to loan money at extortionate rates: 30 to 40%. For two years (1862-1864) the USN (United States Note) plummeted in their nominal value in gold. Then when it become very obvious that the Unionists were going to win, the USN rapidly gained in value, in gold, despite more units of currency in circulation. I don't know the full technical details, but what I do know is that the Union Government created currency for use in the economy and for paying debts.

 

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

 

A large nation has to step forward and do this to take the first step towards slaying the debt monster.

 

///

 

The reason why I say this is because nearly everyone is talking about the problem but not really the cause(s) of this problem. Even worse, in both the USA and the UK, not one party makes any mention of this money creation problem. Every time it is always glossed over with talk of more taxes, austerity and budget cuts while really dealt with more government debt and more inflation to shrink the debt. If we don't even recognise the problem in the first place, a monetary reset -- believe it is coming soon -- will occur and the same core system will be restored and the debt monster resurrected. We have to break this cycle to achieve true liberty, restore sound governance, phase out this materialistic mentality and find more balance with this planet.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

 

Well there will be more than two candidates on the ballot...

Technically yes, but we both know that in practical terms, US presidential elections are between two candidates. But by all means, vote for a third party that you think isn't evil. If enough people do it, who knows. 

 

Why vote for someone evil, or "lesser" evil. Isn't that supporting their evilness? That's just legitimizing tryanny because you have some tiny say in the matter. Quite clever really, as long as there is the option of choice, regardless of how futile it is, even opponents of a system will accept said system because of choice.

Well, you shouldn't take evil here as literal evil. Neither Clinton or the Republican candidate are actual tyrants (although....some of those Tea Party idiots? The things they say.....definitely tyrants.).

 

Uhm, Hillary Clinton is actually, literally, evil. She has lots and lots of skeletons in her closet. Check out Hillary Clinton Exposed. I know it is a partisan documentary and you should take some of the things they say with a grain of salt, but there are kernels of truth in there. Also check out The Mena Connection which exposes how Bill Clinton was involved with Iran Contra. The Clintons are literally more hardcore corrupt than the Underwoods in House of Cards (the Bushes are also, but we're talking about Clinton right now).

 

Also, please show me some of the "tyrannical" things any of the Tea Party presidential candidates have said.

[Larks2242 251]

 

 

 

<snip>

 

Sadly both sides are slamming Rand Paul right now with ads saying he isn't aggressive enough on Iran and would be hesitant to start a war if need be.

 

This new ad campaign is trying to discredit him by tying him to Obama, As we all know from the last cycle being tied to Obama is a political death warrant.

 

"would be hesitant to start a war".  My goodness!  What are you saying?  Are you a war monger?  You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake.  If you don't "lose" it, you will be impoverished.  War of any kind these days is inconceivable, and all the foolish adventuring going on in recent years is a remnant of WW II.  What do you suppose would happen if the real arsenal were unleashed?

 

 

You missed my sarcasm, I'm for Rand Paul as president, I was commenting on the PACs trying to instill fear that he would allow the country to be in danger rather then declare war on another country.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Well, when I am being that sarcastic, I usually quote it with skitties ( :kitty: ), and you have said some rather radical things before. 

 

I am really cheesed off with the games apps people lately who seem to be promoting war games far too much.  War is not funny, nor a game.  People really do get killed in ways that make anyone's blood run cold.  Disembowelment is only one of the very nasty things that can happen, to say nothing of being cut in two or being blown to unrecognizable pieces.  All these kids that are so avid to play war games should be taken on a tour of a local abattoir so they can get a taste of what a battle field smells like.  All kids should learn the real lyric to "When Johnny Comes Marching Home".  It is available in a recording by Joan Baez with the original title of "Johnny, I Hardly Knew Ye".

 

Anyway, how do the members feel about the new Kansas welfare rules?

 

This is almost as Draconian as the old rules in Saskatchewan before WW II where you had to prove you were starving before you could even get on welfare.  On the other hand, perhaps someone got really pissed off with the result of an audit.

[Sabretooth78 808]

Also, please show me some of the "tyrannical" things any of the Tea Party presidential candidates have said.

 

 

There are plenty of examples, mostly as they apply their unending obsession in interfering with peoples' personal lives.  A good example of such would be Gov. Christie's recent declaration that he would go after the legal (in their states) pot users in CO and WA.  Blatant disregard for the 10th amendment not to mention doubling down on an utter failure that keeps on kicking (the drug war aka the police state's best friend).  He's the same one who a year or so ago said that the recent strain of libertarianism making its way into the GOP was "dangerous for America" (or something to that effect; I don't remember the exact wording).  Of course the fool backed away from that statement once he got slammed for it.

 

Granted, tyrannical things are more in line with neocon ideology, but that's basically what the tea party has become (its original antithesis, ironically).  As a disclaimer, I'm a fan of the tea party - as it existed as a grassroots entity before the republican establishment felt threatened by it and co-opted it.  Nowadays the name is about as tarnished as "global warming" has become.

[Larks2242 251]

 

I am really cheesed off with the games apps people lately who seem to be promoting war games far too much.  War is not funny, nor a game.  People really do get killed in ways that make anyone's blood run cold.  Disembowelment is only one of the very nasty things that can happen, to say nothing of being cut in two or being blown to unrecognizable pieces.  All these kids that are so avid to play war games should be taken on a tour of a local abattoir so they can get a taste of what a battle field smells like.  All kids should learn the real lyric to "When Johnny Comes Marching Home".  It is available in a recording by Joan Baez with the original title of "Johnny, I Hardly Knew Ye".

 

 

There is more to these games then just war, Yeah Call of Duty is one if not the best selling game series of all time, and yeah I do rather enjoy playing it, but the reasons I enjoy playing it is not due to me liking war. Its do to competing with friends. It's all about the Kill/Death ratio and who is better then the other person. We play for bragging rights, not because we want to simulate a battlefield.

 

You want to see dismemberment, Checkout the tralier for the new Mortal Kombat X that released on Tuesday.

 

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Well, when I am being that sarcastic, I usually quote it with skitties ( :kitty: ), and you have said some rather radical things before. 

 

I am really cheesed off with the games apps people lately who seem to be promoting war games far too much.  War is not funny, nor a game.  People really do get killed in ways that make anyone's blood run cold.  Disembowelment is only one of the very nasty things that can happen, to say nothing of being cut in two or being blown to unrecognizable pieces.  All these kids that are so avid to play war games should be taken on a tour of a local abattoir so they can get a taste of what a battle field smells like.  All kids should learn the real lyric to "When Johnny Comes Marching Home".  It is available in a recording by Joan Baez with the original title of "Johnny, I Hardly Knew Ye".

 

Anyway, how do the members feel about the new Kansas welfare rules?

 

This is almost as Draconian as the old rules in Saskatchewan before WW II where you had to prove you were starving before you could even get on welfare.  On the other hand, perhaps someone got really pissed off with the result of an audit.

1. The way I read Larks' post was that he did not like the smear campaign against Rand Paul because he knows war is not always the right idea.

2. There are plenty of games that show gore.

3. I am in favor of the welfare rules of Kansas. Why buy luxuries like movie tickets when you can hardly afford to pay for nutritious food? As a matter-of-fact, I have been advocating for a couple years for a guaranteed minimum income that comes as Nutrition Credits, and Housing Credits. All citizens should be able to eat nutritious food and live with a roof over their heads but in order to prevent hyperinflation, we must not give away free money that can be spent on luxuries (then we just have starving people stupidly wasting money for entertainment). That combined with money-based minimum wage means that workers can buy luxuries and no one goes starving.

 

--Ocram