Political discussion thread

Epignosis wrote: timothy leary wrote: Epignosis wrote: Americans should hide their money to avoid taxation.  Taxation is theft.  Weeee.  So it is okay for big profitable corporations to avoid taxes by parking billions of american dollars in offshore accounts to avoid paying taxes on that money while the family man has to pay up. I am not asking about whether taxation is theft which I will readily agree with. (Fixin yer quote) The average family man doesn't pay up.  He gets a tax credit.  EITC.  MWP.  Additional Child Tax Credit. 47% not only pay no federal income taxes- they get a check back.

I pay about $4,500 per year in federal taxes, not including social security and medicare.  Of course, I'm neither average or a family man.  You don't hear me ing about taxes, except maybe about the possibility I paid more than Romney did, because he hid all of his money in offshore accounts. 

The Doctor wrote: Epignosis wrote: timothy leary wrote: Epignosis wrote: Americans should hide their money to avoid taxation.  Taxation is theft.  Weeee.  So it is okay for big profitable corporations to avoid taxes by parking billions of american dollars in offshore accounts to avoid paying taxes on that money while the family man has to pay up. I am not asking about whether taxation is theft which I will readily agree with. (Fixin yer quote) The average family man doesn't pay up.  He gets a tax credit.  EITC.  MWP.  Additional Child Tax Credit. 47% not only pay no federal income taxes- they get a check back. I pay about $4,500 per year in federal taxes, not including social security and medicare.  Of course, I'm neither average or a family man.  You don't hear me ing about taxes, except maybe about the possibility I paid more than Romney did, because he hid all of his money in offshore accounts.

Maybe you should start, friend.

^oh good one. I like that alternate title a lot.

thellama73 wrote: Either the polls are wrong or the cult of personality is now more important to people than their own personal well-being. Sadly, I expect it's the latter.

You're making two wrong assumptions here:

• That people think Obama is somehow damaging their well-being. Believe it or not, there are people who are satisfied with Obama's record. I'm not an American, but I am among those people. Think what you may of Obama, but I think it's a stretch to say he will harm your own personal well-being. Same goes for Romney, by the way.
  
• That just because you're dissatisfied with the incumbent, you should vote for the challenger. This only makes sense as long as you're convinced that the challenger will actually do better. Sadly, many people don't seem to aware of this.

Blacksword wrote: People haven't twigged yet. One guy makes an appaling mess of an economy, and starts illegal wars, so you vote in another guy, who continues the same economic policy as his predecessor, and bizzarrely expands the parameters of some legislation his predecessor brought in, even though he campaigned on repealing it. People don't notice this, because he's a nice guy. He gives people cell phones.

Well, the question to ask here is: What got the economy in this mess, was it something that Bush did and did Obama continue doing it? The fact that Obama continued some of Bush's policies doesn't make him a bad guy unless you believe that the ones he continued were the bad ones.

Blacksword wrote: I've always felt politicians should be judged on what they do, not what they say. After all, they all say the same thing, but in slightly different ways.

I judge Obama exclusively by what he does. I usually don't get to hear what he says.

HarbouringTheSoul wrote: Blacksword wrote: People haven't twigged yet. One guy makes an appaling mess of an economy, and starts illegal wars, so you vote in another guy, who continues the same economic policy as his predecessor, and bizzarrely expands the parameters of some legislation his predecessor brought in, even though he campaigned on repealing it. People don't notice this, because he's a nice guy. He gives people cell phones. Well, the question to ask here is: What got the economy in this mess, was it something that Bush did and did Obama continue doing it? The fact that Obama continued some of Bush's policies doesn't make him a bad guy unless you believe that the ones he continued were the bad ones. Blacksword wrote: I've always felt politicians should be judged on what they do, not what they say. After all, they all say the same thing, but in slightly different ways. I judge Obama exclusively by what he does. I usually don't get to hear what he says.

The blame for the economy can be pinned on multiple administrations. The democrats for over spending and the republicans for repealing legislation that prevented the global investment banks from gambling away quadrillions in derivatives, only for the debt to then be dumped on the people. Oh, and over spending, especially on the military.

In short, neither Obama or Romney have any control whatsoever over the economy. The PRIVATE Federal Reserve conducts the issuance and printing of money, and as recent history has shown will put the fear of God into congress about what will happen, if they are not granted the power of unlimited QE. All either guy can do is make vapid promises to the electorate about '"getting America back to work" and improving the standard of living for "hard working families" even though both parties have facilitated the export of US jobs overseas to where labour costs are cheaper, taking away employment for "hard working families"

Then there's foreign policy. Both parties committed to "bringing the troops home from Afghanistan" While Obama quietly assembles the biggest naval armarda in the Persian Gulf, ever seen in that region, Romney speaks of direct action on Iran. Romney speaks of un conditional support for Israel, while Obama funds and supports known Islamic militants in Syria and Libya.

Their means may be different, but I'm certain their ends are identical.

HarbouringTheSoul wrote: thellama73 wrote: Either the polls are wrong or the cult of personality is now more important to people than their own personal well-being. Sadly, I expect it's the latter. You're making two wrong assumptions here: That people think Obama is somehow damaging their well-being. Believe it or not, there are people who are satisfied with Obama's record. I'm not an American, but I am among those people. Think what you may of Obama, but I think it's a stretch to say he will harm your own personal well-being. Same goes for Romney, by the way. That just because you're dissatisfied with the incumbent, you should vote for the challenger. This only makes sense as long as you're convinced that the challenger will actually do better. Sadly, many people don't seem to aware of this.

I suspect many people abroad support Obama because they care very little about the US Constitution, which a President swears to uphold.  Our President has trampled our nation's fundamental code.

Dean wrote: Epignosis wrote: HarbouringTheSoul wrote: thellama73 wrote: Either the polls are wrong or the cult of personality is now more important to people than their own personal well-being. Sadly, I expect it's the latter. You're making two wrong assumptions here: That people think Obama is somehow damaging their well-being. Believe it or not, there are people who are satisfied with Obama's record. I'm not an American, but I am among those people. Think what you may of Obama, but I think it's a stretch to say he will harm your own personal well-being. Same goes for Romney, by the way. That just because you're dissatisfied with the incumbent, you should vote for the challenger. This only makes sense as long as you're convinced that the challenger will actually do better. Sadly, many people don't seem to aware of this. I suspect many people abroad support Obama because they care very little about the US Constitution, which a President swears to uphold.  Our President has trampled our nation's fundamental code. Very little → 0

Edited by tamijo - November 05 2012 at 07:18

§1 - the power should be equaly devided amongst the Bakers and the Plantage Owners.

Epignosis wrote: HarbouringTheSoul wrote: thellama73 wrote: Either the polls are wrong or the cult of personality is now more important to people than their own personal well-being. Sadly, I expect it's the latter. You're making two wrong assumptions here: That people think Obama is somehow damaging their well-being. Believe it or not, there are people who are satisfied with Obama's record. I'm not an American, but I am among those people. Think what you may of Obama, but I think it's a stretch to say he will harm your own personal well-being. Same goes for Romney, by the way. That just because you're dissatisfied with the incumbent, you should vote for the challenger. This only makes sense as long as you're convinced that the challenger will actually do better. Sadly, many people don't seem to aware of this. <font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="3">I suspect many people abroad support Obama because they care very little about the US Constitution, which a President swears to uphold.  Our President has trampled our nation's fundamental code.

Most of us prefer Obama, because he's not Bush. It's that simple really.

That said, our liberal media is very pro Obama, and anti Romney. The BBC and Channel 4 don't really make much effort to conceal their bias either. You won't see one comdey panel show in the UK where Obama is lampooned in any way at all, but Romney is mocked regularly. News programs NEVER analyse Obama's record. Libya is never menetioned. The National Defence Authroisation act is never mentioned. Congress agreeing to unlimited QE is never mentioned.

As for the US constitution, you're probably right, no one abroad gives a damn about your rights to free speech, and to bear arms. It's not so much that they don't care, it's that most people probably don't know what a constitution is and what it's for.