Stop, Obama time.

[Selcopa]

I'll try to keep my posts obama related, I do think discussions are very relevant to an obama discussions since we have differing definitions of socialism, and defining pro's and cons of socialism will help an obama discussion as to the pro's and cons of his idealogy. If we need to make a new thread no problem, but I did want to address joe's post. And I find it funny nobody has responded to ANY of my comments directly. Even the people that agree with me . And I would like to also mention that I frequently have mentioned obama's policies(heath care, stimulus. ie its not my fault the thread got a slap on the wrist)

Ok Heartless Angel, so from what I'm seeing in your posts, you seem to have a lot of disdain for poor people. After all, almost all poor people must be poor because they are either too lazy or too stupid to fix their situation, right?

Too Lazy and Too stupid are the game breaker's for the majority of the people that are poor, but as I have said before, I would also include different life goals(maybe they want to take on the burden of other families debt, maybe they really enjoy a living on a low income and cash flow) as well as people who have made poor life decisions in the past and now are stuck in the rat race of debt and are trying to work their way out.

What about those of us who are poor, despite intelligence and busting our asses to make things better? What about those of us who genuinely Need some form of healthcare assistance, or living assistance, despite hauling ass at our jobs? People get sick, people lose jobs when they get sick, is that because they were too stupid or lazy to plan ahead and figure something out?

Well then these intelligent people that are busting there ass to make it better probably won't stay poor for relatively long now will they? Although I would have to question their planning skills if they were to get sick and lose there job and then be tragically doomed to a poor situation for life.

Take my situation for instance, I'm hauling ass at my job, making Under minimum wage, since i'm part time, and until last week, my schedule would not allow a second job unless I was willing to sleep approximately 4 to 5 hours a night, and work a 16+ hour day including commutes. I can't afford health care, nor does my employer provide it, I have multiple wisdom teeth coming in, and need to get them pulled before they mess up my bite any more than it is. However, purchasing food, gas for my car, making my loan payments for technical school, and covering my insurance as well as assisting my mother with her bills leaves me approximately 10 dollars a month for anything extra.

Well my initial reaction would be to question your intelligent decision making you alluded to earlier if you are making less than minimum wage I would say you are doing something wrong. But even your situation I would say you have plenty of room to work smarter, you said you are now able to get a second job if you wanted so thats certainly possible, other things you could do are sell Blood Plasma, takes about an hour, hour and a half max, you can do it twice a week, and you'll get paid about $30 per donation, coming out to about $240 a month. That's extra cash.
Food Stamps are an option if you aren't already getting them, I am a college student paying $375 a month plus utilities for my apartment, and I am eligible for $400 a month in food stamps, so i'm considering doing that. That's something you could pursue.
Developing a skill in your spare time is another way to make money, for me I play poker, and I can make a decent amount of money part time online at low levels, even in games where the minimum bet is $0.10
Extending on that poker, there are also people that will give you money to play, they train you and you get to keep about half your profits, you need a slight amount of experience for this, but it is an option if you seek it out. I'm currently doing this with small money games, and my backers are willing to let me play much higher games the more I prove myself to them.

All in all the one thing you did say was "Paying my mother's bills" It's great that you do this for her, and I would do the same for my mother's. But we can't pretend that it isn't discretionary spending, you could position yourself better to become successful, but you chose to help your mother out. ie, you have more opportunity then you initially presented, but you chose to help your mother out. Which is handicapping your opportunity, but you are making a conscious decision to do that.

You say that people who don't go to school are lazy and/or stupid? Again, from personal experience, without money, or a stellar credit history, it's damn near impossible to get the aid necessary to attend a Four year college. I have a two year degree and more IT certifications than you can shake a stick at, but because I'm unable to afford to attend school and earn a 4-year degree, my employment options are Severely limited. Is that my fault? yes, I could've done things differently, however then I wouldn't have had certifications, which are also desired for my field, and required for many positions. I could make more working minimum wage in town, yes. However in the long run, I need every ounce of experience in a professional environment I can get, and this is the only way to get it.

This is different from being chronically poor, you are developing a plan for the long run to be fine. Living more frugally now will benefit you later. Although what you are saying is that you need the 2 year degree, IT certifications, as well as the low paying jobs in order to actually use the 4 year degree, sounds more like you are justifying the 'wrong decisions' you admitted to earlier. Furthermore you are also making a decision of your profession not based on a ratio of success it provides to cost of getting into the profession, but you are making the decision based on other reasons. To put it simply, you are not picking one of the more optimum paths to getting out of being poor, as you have admitted yourself. But that is quite different from not having the opportunity.

It just so happens that when you're born into a poor family, and no one in your family has a good enough credit history to cosign on a student loan (Mine is actually good, because I've always paid every bill on time, and made sure everything was kept current), it's suddenly awfully goddamn hard to get an education.

Community College, Hard work, different things can accomplish this, spend time at a higher paying job, that isnt required experience for your profession, so that you are able to afford the education, which means you might have to pay out of pocket for it without a student loan.

I'm not saying socialism is the answer, though I think it's odd that our economy was in excellent shape under clinton when taxes were higher, since, you know, government services, employees, and other related things all cost money. What I'm saying is, I agree with Omni and Alpha, our system, and our society is broken, and just letting those who already have money run everything, obviously isn't going to help others find opportunities.

People with money want to have their money work for them, so they don't have to work, money doesn't have arms and legs though, so it recruits people do to it for them, ie making businesses, hiring people. You aren't suggesting that the solution is to have the government take the money from the people with money and just hand it to those without money, and say that it is giving them more opportunity now are you?
I'm not saying our system isn't broken, i'm just saying that socialist(policies that lean to the left) are not going to work, spending almost $1 Trillion dollars to garuntee that unemployment will be okay(if we didnt spend it we would have had unemployment as high as 9% oh no! oh wait, we did spend it and it still went to almost 10%, higher in michigan, represent.) There are plenty of government programs out there already, and there are plenty of charitable organizations out there already as well, we don't need more programs to bail out people, at the expense of crippling there chance to work their way out.

Also, if I recall a lot of businesses who have recovered from the recession are STILL not hiring people, because it just so happens that they can make more money by overworking the hell out of their employees. And the employees have no choice but to submit, because it's damn near impossible to find a job in some areas.

I wanted to pretend this was a joke, but I won't, they can overwork their employees because its cheaper? So like paying them overtime is cheaper than hiring a new employee, almost always wrong.
So why aren't businesses hiring? Nobody knows what is going to happen, let me ask you this. If you owned a tanning business, and you were watching the health care debate, at any point during the idealogical battles did you sit there and think "Man this healthcare bill really could harm my business?" I'm guessing not, but sure enough, they pass the bill and now tanning salons have a 15% tax levied on them, nobody has ANY idea who is going to be taxed, if you can tax tanning salons to pay for health care, ANYTHING is fair game. Thats why business CANT hire, or expand, because nobody knows who is going to get taxed next.

I want to hear some actual solutions from you, rather than just saying a bunch of stuff that you DON'T want to happen.

Tada, quite a few solutions from yours truly.

One last side note, the price of an education has not jumped because of demand, but rather because there is no risk to any loan for the school, as all federal loans are backed by the US gov't, meaning that the school can charge whatever they want, people who qualify can get the loans that they want, and the government has to pay it if people fall on hard times and can't make the payments any more, resulting in pure profit for both schools and loan companies.

Sounds more like speculation, still wrong aspects though, government took over student loans so loan companies aren't really profitting from this. If you think a school is charging too much, go somewhere else, they aren't price fixing, yes schools are expensive but most have financial aid of their own, as well as the government loans now, but if you really are unable to get a loan you'll have to work hard and also shop hard for the best deals on schools. Also look for charities to help sponsor you, they are out there, and with your story you are much more likely to get a scholarship from one of them.

[Omni]

EDIT: Ok, in light of recent postings, I'll try and unhijack this topic. I just had to reply, couldn't help myself.

Can we talk about how Obama is handling Ahmedinejad and his epic trollery of the UN conference? It's been going on for days in a row now, and I think it merits some discussion.

He goes and calls Ahmedinejad hateful and offensive, "but we're still willing to have a discussion". It's the same stuff we heard at the Israeli-Palestinian talks, "we're willing to talk, but we're still ignoring the 800 lb. gorilla in the room (i.e. Hamas).

How do you think Obama's foreign policy is shaping up in light of the UN conferences? Do you think it's making him look stronger, weaker, pandering, authoritative?

Personally I think he's just treading water until the mid-terms, and THOSE are another shitstorm altogether.

(My original "NO U" post can be found below)

EDIT 2: ALSO I AM SUCH A STUPID LIBERAL YOU GUYS HOW DO I CHANGE T_T

Yep, some people are born with a financial headstart compared to others, deal with it, and who they chose to pass this benefit on to is of no concern of any of us.

Whatever happens to 90% of the wealth in this country is of no concern to us. At all. Ever. PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN.

America is not force feeding it, people are driven to get a degree and the market has responded to this demand. But already we have many areas of skilled labor that doesnt involve intense schooling. Although there are alot of online schools now.

The very fact that we have "for-profit" universities should tell you there is a vested interest in having lots of children go to college. And of course there is, have to pay maintenance costs on the buildings and buy real estate somehow. But if you don't think "college culture" is not an integral and for that matter severely glorified and propagated ideal of American society, you haven't been watching enough "Animal House" or "American Pie" or "Retarded Show About Yuppy White Kids with Problems: Laguna Beach"

Life, the right to live and not have that right be infringed on by any person domestic or overseas. Liberty, the freedom from oppression from ones own government or another countries government. Pursuit of Happiness, the right to pursue whatever avenue of happiness that person chooses. Notice it doesn't say the Right to happiness, rather to pursue it. Big difference.

Never said there was a right to happiness, brah. You're making up arguments here.

GOVERNMENT bears only the responsibility to protect its citizens(army, police) and to ensure fair play. There is no responsibility to feed or clothe its citizens, SOCIETY will take of its self provided government stays out of the way and lets society take care of itself.

Oh, so you're an anarchist I see. That or you live in a world where society and government aren't inextricably linked. Guess what determines the laws of a society? Guess who elects the people who make those laws?

See a pattern?

FYP in order to clarify, as well as agree with the statement. There are many ways to obtain favors or make deals.

I hear blowjobs have great market value these days.

False, I did not make the mistakes that put this person in the situation they are in. Nor should I be punished for it, by taxing me in order for the government to give this person a 'break'. A driven person can make it work if they have to. Sometimes people make mistakes to put themselves in positions where they are unable to get out of it themselves, as tragic as this is, it i not the government's job to help this person out.

Here we go again: "Because I deserve it!"

They obviously deserve their shitty situation and I deserve to not have to think about their shitty situation because I deserve it and that's the reason why I deserve it. "A driven person can make it work if they have to"

That's some sound logic you got there.

No, socialism forces me to buy things that I do not believe are beneficial to my personal pursuit of happiness. Socialism is the idea that the government knows how to spend your money better than you do, and needs to take as much money away from you in order to make as many decisions as it can for you.
What are taxes? Please, taxes are a form of collecting revenue for shared goods. One person buying a streetlight to light an area cannot stop other people from benefitting from this streetlight, in cases of streetlights, highways, road signs, ect. I actually believe that the private sector could still handle this better than the government. I don't hate that the government controls it(as it also regulates the flow of traffic besides the roads/lights) but it is not an essential tax. The postal service is a joke, that should be privatised as well. And electric/water are already privatised so ?????
And in your odd situation, I would devise a system with my neighbors to benefit all of us maximally with the least amount of effort, I might even provide it as a service and make a profit off of this faucet malfunction.

FedEx, UPS, privatized mail services what? Also, no, that's not what socialism is. That's Fox News' definition of socialism.

The absence of producing so many babies probably contributes as factor of determining intelligence. And no I should not be required to pay for people's birth control because they are not in a position to pay for it themselves and have been unable to find(wait for it) a charitable organization to help them to a better position. The government should not be forcing me to pay for that. I'll take my Pious tard t-shirt now thank you. If you fail at life so much that you cant afford a 16 pack of condoms for $5, Then yes, I have no problem saying you probably shouldnt be having sex and risking reproducing, with or without a condom.

Have you ever bought condoms? They're about $1 each. So a 16 pack will run $16-20 depending on where you live. Also, you shouldn't pay for their birth control, but when they have a child and cannot afford it, you will end up paying for that child inadvertently. Ever heard the phrase "nip it in the bud"? Subsidized birth control does just that.

"If you fail at life so much that you can't afford X"

This, again, is the root problem here. You don't have money? Well, you must fail at life then! Only people with lots of money are real human beings, everyone else is a failure and I don't have to worry about them. You've been fed this shitty idea that money=worth and you eat it up like filet mignon. MONEY ISN'T REAL. It's an arbitrarily designated value agreed upon by enough people over time. Numbers on a page.

Is it my fault that I pay attention to these things, instead of focusing on where and why lebron james is going, or who the next lady on The View is going to be, I chose to pay attention to something else, and is it my fault that I properly anticipate a change in the value of currency, and you didn't? I have no problem with people getting 'screwed' in this type of situation, they had the opportunity.

You can pay attention to whatever you want, man. Also, here you go making arguments out of thin air again, I don't even know what you're trying to prove here, I was making a facetious statement about dude saying "if u work u get moneys and then ur best ok".

No, it doesn't. I thought about going into more detail on this, but I found it unneccesary, it's just wrong, and anyone who thinks critically about it, will come to the same conclusion.

This is my favorite part of your whole argument, because it is so convincing and thought out, and obviously doesn't have any logical fallacies or an air of pretentious supremacy about it at all.

"I would explain to you how wrong you are, but I don't need to because anyone who is me will come to the same conclusion."

Is it right? Yes it is, there's a demand for different skills, and unfortately for railroad layers, alot of people have those skills, where as 'paper shufflers' as you call it, there aren't as many people with the skill set to pull this off, and because of that, that person can gain more than the railroader, it's called using your brain to work, not your brawn.
Is it fair the lebron james makes millions because he can throw a ball into a hoop? Yes it is, he deserves every dollar he makes, because he has a skill set that he worked on and developed, and now it reaping the benefits. Oh and also, I bet if lebron wanted to, he could go lay railroad in colorado pretty damn near as well as the colorado man, but could the colorado man do the same as lebron? Thats why lebron gets paid more.

I thought you didn't give a shit about LeBron James?

AND THERE IT IS. Look at that, Bill Gates, successful capitalist, giving away money out of the goodness of his heart(even if for PR it wouldnt matter) or Taylor Swift paying for a park for her hometown, successful people helping other people, without the governmnt forcing them to. Kind of makes that benevolence of society start to makes sense doesn't it?

He's the exception to the rule. Once again, I was being facetious.

This is a VERY liberal idea here, if somebody is successful for a longer period of time, clearly they must have done it by screwing somebody over, rich on the backs of the poor as they say. And i'm going to say this as nicely as I can, and I mean no disrespect to the one who posted this, but.
This has to be the dumbest thing posted in this thread, perhaps the entire forum, and possibly the whole internet.
Amway comes to mind as far as debunking that idea. This liberal concept irks me more then anything. Blah blah some arbitrary analysis of an arbitrary designation of value used as a qualitative example and not a quantitative one, here's some figures I made up and also another arbitrary scenario that backs it up blah blah blah oh god someone save me from teh liberalz

All I got was liberal, liberal, liberal, you're stupid, liberal, you're stupid, nah nah nah boo boo.

Keep your straw men at home, please, kthx.

Actually I don't have all that much of a problem with slavery.

If you're wondering where you lost your credibility, it's right here.

[Heartless Angel]

I WAS going to leave this alone, but I'm finding it ahrd to resist after this.

Whatever happens to 90% of the wealth in this country is of no concern to us. At all. Ever. PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN.

When 90% of the wealth is owned by another citizen who has rights to life liberty and PROPERTY; correct, it's none of your damned business. How a man spends the money that belongs to him is his business and his alone.

The very fact that we have "for-profit" universities should tell you there is a vested interest in having lots of children go to college. And of course there is, have to pay maintenance costs on the buildings and buy real estate somehow. But if you don't think "college culture" is not an integral and for that matter severely glorified and propagated ideal of American society, you haven't been watching enough "Animal House" or "American Pie" or "Retarded Show About Yuppy White Kids with Problems: Laguna Beach"

Go figure, college professors like to eat now and then too. Most businesses do expect profit in exchange for services provided. I'll agree, it really ISN'T integral to have a college culture. Employers however are looking for people who can prove themselves worthy of employment. A college degree happens to acomplish this nicely.

Never said there was a right to happiness, brah. You're making up arguments here.

No, you just implied that everyone has a right to the money they need to buy everything they want to live comfortably and happilly simply because they exist. Sort of the same thing, but not exactly, you're right.

Oh, so you're an anarchist I see. That or you live in a world where society and government aren't inextricably linked. Guess what determines the laws of a society? Guess who elects the people who make those laws?

See a pattern?

And you whine about us making up arguments? The government has certain duties and responsibilities to the well being of scoiety, indivduals have others. Here, let me argue like you for a moment. OH SO UR A TOTALITARIAN THEN? THAT OR U LIVE IN A WRLD WHER PPL CAN EXIST WITHOUT THE GOVERNMNT HOLDING THR HAND LOL. U SO DUMB.

Here we go again: "Because I deserve it!"

They obviously deserve their shitty situation and I deserve to not have to think about their shitty situation because I deserve it and that's the reason why I deserve it. "A driven person can make it work if they have to"

Again, embelishing what has been stated. Being BORN poor is not a person's fault. Remaining poor is. When you work to make something of yourself, yes, you absolutely deserve to make something of yourself. When you instead choose to sit back and bitch about how bitterly unfair life has been to you, you deserve nothing. Also, being born rich does NOT mean you deserve it, I don't recall reading this being said anywhere, so try not to change the subject to that in your next rebuttal.

Have you ever bought condoms? They're about $1 each. So a 16 pack will run $16-20 depending on where you live. Also, you shouldn't pay for their birth control, but when they have a child and cannot afford it, you will end up paying for that child inadvertently. Ever heard the phrase "nip it in the bud"? Subsidized birth control does just that.

Poor people who can't afford children and have no business rasing them keeping their legs closed also nips the problem in the bud, and at no cost. But suggesting nipping it in the bud that way apparently makes you a pious tard. But burying the problem in money, that solves everything.

"If you fail at life so much that you can't afford X"

This, again, is the root problem here. You don't have money? Well, you must fail at life then! Only people with lots of money are real human beings, everyone else is a failure and I don't have to worry about them. You've been fed this shitty idea that money=worth and you eat it up like filet mignon. MONEY ISN'T REAL. It's an arbitrarily designated value agreed upon by enough people over time. Numbers on a page.

Yes, if you don't have money, you are doing something wrong. Any moron can go get a manual labor job somewhere for shitty pay if they need money to buy a condom. No, you are a human regardless of how much money you have, you're just a human who can't afford to buy anything because you have not worked to earn the ability to buy anything, and therefore do not deserve to buy anything. And again you confuse cause and effect with equality. Money does not make your worthy, however; worthiness makes you money. You've been fed this shitty idea that existing entitles you to everything you'll ever need to be happy, and you eat it up like a filet mignon. What makes something REAL then? Money exists. Money has value. Everyone acknowledges it has value. People are more inclined to trade goods and services for money than for other goods and services. Just like any other REAL good, it's value changes with scarcity. Sounds fairly concrete to me.

You can pay attention to whatever you want, man. Also, here you go making arguments out of thin air again, I don't even know what you're trying to prove here, I was making a facetious statement about dude saying "if u work u get moneys and then ur best ok".

Making up arguments, that's REALLY funny coming from you, since so far just about everything I've seen you post has been based on a quote that was never made, an idea that was never suggested, or something you embelished to a point where it can't even be compared to the original statement.

This is my favorite part of your whole argument, because it is so convincing and thought out, and obviously doesn't have any logical fallacies or an air of pretentious supremacy about it at all.

"I would explain to you how wrong you are, but I don't need to because anyone who is me will come to the same conclusion."

Speaking of Logical fallacies, you didn't actually counter that point at all. As usual, you bury your statements in embelishment, iamginary quote, and attempted insults. Makes it hard to argue with you, because you haven't actually presented an argument.

All I got was liberal, liberal, liberal, you're stupid, liberal, you're stupid, nah nah nah boo boo.

Keep your straw men at home, please, kthx.

All I got was evil capitalist, greedy money grubbing whore, unfit to exist because you did something with your life other than bitch about how unfair it is, and expect others to do the same if they want the same results.

Keep your straw men at home, please.

If you're wondering where you lost your credibility, it's right here.

Yes, we get it, anybody with a view that differs from your own in any way is a complete imbecile with no credibility.

[Selcopa]

Sorry, most of my internet time is spent playing poker so I don't have tons of time to put in well thought out responses during those sessions, but i've got an hour in between classes thought i'd go for it.

EDIT: Ok, in light of recent postings, I'll try and unhijack this topic. I just had to reply, couldn't help myself.

Can we talk about how Obama is handling Ahmedinejad and his epic trollery of the UN conference? It's been going on for days in a row now, and I think it merits some discussion.

How do you think Obama's foreign policy is shaping up in light of the UN conferences? Do you think it's making him look stronger, weaker, pandering, authoritative?

Personally I think he's just treading water until the mid-terms, and THOSE are another shitstorm altogether.

Overall I don't hate Obama's foreign policy, he uses those drones more than tiger woods sleeps around. And I like that. But I would have liked for him to come out alot more aggressive, against this speech. I wonder what would have happened if Obama had said the things this guy said on iranian soil? So yeah credit for the drones, but I think alot of the foreign policy is kind of weak.

The very fact that we have "for-profit" universities should tell you there is a vested interest in having lots of children go to college. And of course there is, have to pay maintenance costs on the buildings and buy real estate somehow. But if you don't think "college culture" is not an integral and for that matter severely glorified and propagated ideal of American society, you haven't been watching enough "Animal House" or "American Pie" or "Retarded Show About Yuppy White Kids with Problems: Laguna Beach"

I don't see a problem with for profit universities, they are providing a service of advancing your career, and that is worth money. As we know the government is highly inefficient(never got a response on my stimulus bill analysis) meaning that it will only cost more to people, in some form of a tax, in addition, having for profit universities creates more competetion, just think about all the different colleges/universities we have.

Never said there was a right to happiness, brah. You're making up arguments here.

Your idea of reality is pretty ****ed up if you think that a society doesn't bear any responsibility for its own citizens.

You then go on to infer that government is responsible with providing a man with a car so that he can goto work, It doesn't seem to unreasonable to suspect that you believe the government should give out things(like cars) to people, because they have a right to them, as well as a right to be happy.

Oh, so you're an anarchist I see. That or you live in a world where society and government aren't inextricably linked. Guess what determines the laws of a society? Guess who elects the people who make those laws?

No I am not following you, I've established that government's role is to protect us from foreign invaders, as well as provide a playing field with fair play, also providing an honoring a currency for people to use, this doesn't make me an anarchist, it just means the governent doesn't need to be involved in the majority of the sectors it is invovled in because:
A - The government is inefficient due to no incentive to not be inefficient
B - There are charities that are in place or will be developed, society will take care of the truly motivated prospects.

I hear blowjobs have great market value these days.

Sexual Favors, while I wouldn't reccomend, is a method, car pooling somebodies kid, having a unique skill that people want and need, all ways of obtaining favors that are not neccessarily expensive(in fact even cheap) that can be done

Here we go again: "Because I deserve it!"

They obviously deserve their shitty situation and I deserve to not have to think about their shitty situation because I deserve it and that's the reason why I deserve it. "A driven person can make it work if they have to"

They did get themselves into the situation, maybe I got a head start, I shouldn't be punished for it. Likewise when they start going, they shouldn't be punished with taxes on their wages when they are trying to get out of there situation. I do deserve the situation I am in to an extent, because I do not have kids, I don't use drugs, and I am decently frugal. These are choices that I made, that people who are doing worse than me made different decisions than I did, and I should not suffer for making the right one.

FedEx, UPS, privatized mail services what? Also, no, that's not what socialism is. That's Fox News' definition of socialism.

FedEx and UPS deal with parcels, not letters, US Postal System has that, and they are losing money. Also I wasn't defining socialism, I was defining a Shared Good, you talked about what taxes are for, they are for the purchase of shared goods(police security, missle defense systems) things that you cannot stop people from benefitting without paying, so you need a way to make everyone pay. And I don't think its Fox News' definition.

Have you ever bought condoms? They're about $1 each. So a 16 pack will run $16-20 depending on where you live. Also, you shouldn't pay for their birth control, but when they have a child and cannot afford it, you will end up paying for that child inadvertently. Ever heard the phrase "nip it in the bud"? Subsidized birth control does just that.

Yeah I have, I got a 24 pack for $6 at meijers(walmart) they weren't very good as far as feeling good, but they worked, didn't break.
And idealogically I would say no I wouldn't pay for it in my system inadvertently.

This, again, is the root problem here. You don't have money? Well, you must fail at life then! Only people with lots of money are real human beings, everyone else is a failure and I don't have to worry about them. You've been fed this shitty idea that money=worth and you eat it up like filet mignon. MONEY ISN'T REAL. It's an arbitrarily designated value agreed upon by enough people over time. Numbers on a page.

The amount of money to have a basic standard of life is not out of anybody's grasp, it is not a difficult task to accomplish, so, if you are unable to obtain the most basic of standard of living, you are obviously doing something wrong, there are so many avenues of life that you can make money to reach this basic standard, that if you can't make it. Yeah I am not afraid to say that they are probably failing at some part of there life.

You can pay attention to whatever you want, man. Also, here you go making arguments out of thin air again, I don't even know what you're trying to prove here, I was making a facetious statement about dude saying "if u work u get moneys and then ur best ok".

No, you were trying to suggest that somebody can get screwed by the flow of inflation, and I still say, it is their fault for not paying attention to the market. The information is out there. Then I made a comparison to people who follow sports with extreme detail, pointing out they obviously have the additional time to read into things that can benefit them financially BUT THEY CHOOSE NOT TO, that is why it is not my fault they came on hard time. They could have anticipated this, but they didn't try to. They cared about other things more, good for them, I don't care. But don't expect me to want to bail you out when I did care.

This is my favorite part of your whole argument, because it is so convincing and thought out, and obviously doesn't have any logical fallacies or an air of pretentious supremacy about it at all.

"I would explain to you how wrong you are, but I don't need to because anyone who is me will come to the same conclusion."

you'll have to quote the arguement you presented as a stone cold obvious fact, because I remember writing that, because what I read was so absurd I thought it was a joke, but then I knew it wasn't, and if you critically thought about it, without an agenda, you would come to a similar conclusion, there were so many things wrong with it that I didn't feel the need to contest it.

I thought you didn't give a shit about LeBron James?

Clearly you missed the point, reading comprehension please. You tried to say that a man in colarado building a railroad works 'harder' than a man manipulating numbers in New York, and is that fair. I said that it was fair, using an athlete as an example of someone with a specific skill that is in demand, and comparing them to the same railroad builder, who has no skill.

He's the exception to the rule. Once again, I was being facetious.

But is he really the exception? What about Taylor Swift, Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Rich Devos, Jay Van Andel, Andre Agassi. There are TONS of successful people that give ALOT of money to charity to help out society, at a certain point, that 'exception to the rule' has to change to 'a statistical norm' and even if it is only a percentage of successful people, the amount of money they donate (because they are so stinkin wealthy) can help lots of people that need that helping hand. It is because of this statistical norm, that government should not be so directed to helping people(because remember, its inefficient anyways). And if people are spending less on taxes, guess what, they are going to increase their charitable contributions, making the donors an even higher %

If you're wondering where you lost your credibility, it's right here.

And once again, I am the problem here, we conveniently forgot to answer the part I asked on WHO sold the african slaves to people(Hint:The africans did) In a day where it was commonplace to do this. No I don't judge people for using slaves.

How did these africans get these slaves? They took over other tribes and enslaved there people, then sold the slaves. If mexico, canada, hell if anyone wants to hop on a boat and try to attack us. You know you want to Iran,Russia, and middle east. Go for it, see what happens, Hell people still do it, i'm looking at you Africa again, you still do it.

So if you want to judge me because I say "I don't care that we used slaves, and if anyone wants to try to do the same to us, they are free to try" go for it, but you really are just being blind to reality about it. You know they would do it in a second if they thought they could get away with it, i'm just meeting them with the same amount of killer instinct, and a few nukes to back it up.

As far as my credibility, my opinion on the kardashian sisters, no matter how true or false, has no bearing on the credibility of my arguments on this topic. Likewise, my opinion on slavery, and my lax attitude towards it. Does not diminish the value of the arguements I presented about other things.

[Leon]

Well, the thread's about Obama. So I'm going to post what I think about him right here.

Personally, I think he's a good man. Yeah, some decisions he's made were kind of disappointing, but overall he's done some good things. The people who bash are obviously wrong. When one thing gets old, they make something else up and slam it to the public.

For instance, I've heard time and time again that he's some sort of Muslim terrorist or something. I've read some articles that prove otherwise (I get most of my info from Facebook, so even if I wanted to reveal the source of this, it'd be pretty hard to find since those pages are always sharing links).

When Obama was running for President, a bunch of nutjobs decided to lie to the public and proclaim that Obama was going to swear on the Qu'ran on Inauguration Day. What really happened that day? Obama swore on Lincoln's Bible. That's right. He swore on a Republican's Bible. I had to point that out since most of the Obama bashing comes from the Right. Don't get me wrong, I respect the Republicans' views. But the extremists and bad examples are a good reason I'm Democrat.

Let's get back to Obama. I got a small list of accomplishments (unsurprisingly, these came from Facebook) that he's ever done. I found an entire list of 111 accomplishments, and I know he's done more. But I'm only going to give you 25, since I don't want to earn Gil posting something so big.

Feel free to prove this wrong in any way you want. I don't have the sources for this, and for the moment I don't want to look for them.

SPOILER!!:

1. Signed an Executive Order on government contracting to fight waste and abuse.

2. Signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, restoring basic protections against pay discrimination for women and other workers.

3. Renewed dialogue with NATO and other allies and partners on strategic issues.

4. Announced a plan to responsibly end the war in Iraq.

5. Provided funding to families of fallen soldiers have expenses covered to be on hand when the body arrives at Dover AFB.

6. Ended media blackout on war casualties and the return of fallen soldiers to Dover AFB.

7. Signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act which has created 2.1 million jobs (as of 12/31/09).

8. Launched Recovery.gov to track spending from the Recovery Act, an unprecedented step to provide transparency and accountability through technology.

9. Announced the "Making Home Affordable" home refinancing plan.

10. Launched a $15 billion plan to boost lending to small businesses.

11. Invested heavily in education both as a way to provide jobs now and lay the foundation for long-term prosperity.

12. Provided the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) with more than $1.4 billion to improve services to America’s Veterans.

13. Signed an Executive Order establishing the White House Office of Urban Affairs.

14. Limited lobbyist's access to the White House.

15. Issued an Presidential Memorandum to restore scientific integrity in government decision-making.

16. Answered questions at the first online town hall from the White House that were submitted and voted on transparently by the public at WhiteHouse.gov.

17. Established a central portal for Americans to find service opportunities.

18. Launched Business.gov – enabling conversation and online collaboration between small business owners, government representatives and industry experts in discussion forums relevant to starting and managing a business.

19. Appointed the first ever Federal Chief Information Officer to provide management and oversight over federal IT spending.

20. Signed the Children’s Health Insurance Reauthorization Act on February 4, 2009, which provides quality health care to 11 million kids – 4 million who were previously uninsured.

21. Issued an Executive Order repealing the Bush-Era restrictions on embryonic stem cell research.

22. Signed the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act, the first piece of comprehensive legislation aimed at improving the lives of Americans living with paralysis.

23. Announced creation of a Joint Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record for members of the U.S. Armed Forces to improve quality of medical care.

24. Ended the previous stop-loss policy that kept soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan longer than their enlistment date.

25. Committed to phasing out the expensive F-22 war plane and other outdates weapons systems, which weren't even used or needed in Iraq/Afghanistan

Not to mention that DADT was repealed in late 2010! That way, no good soldier will be denied just because of their sexual orientation.

So that's what I think. If I hear something about President Obama that doesn't make sense, I'll do some research on it. Just watch. Obama won't ruin America. It takes more than two years to clean up the mess other Presidents have made. I don't want to blame Bush for all of our problems, but I've read that we were in a surplus when Clinton left office. A surplus. When Bush left, well...just read this old article.

PolitiFact | Axelrod claims Bush saddled Obama with a big deficit

The point I posted this is because I've heard some people blaming Obama for our recession. I'm all up for pointing my finger at someone. They just got the wrong person, so I think it's pointless to blame Obama for our recession. He's only been President for two years. How do you think he feels when someone blames him for something he didn't do?

[Sasquatch]

The people who bash are obviously wrong. When one thing gets old, they make something else up and slam it to the public.

Or it could simply be that Obama does so many things that are bad for the country, and so often, that there is always something new to pick at.

For instance, I've heard time and time again that he's some sort of Muslim terrorist or something. I've read some articles that prove otherwise ...

While there's still speculation over Obama's claimed religion and claimed birthplace, those are extremely minor issues compared to the myriad policies he's enacted and he supports.

Don't get me wrong, I respect the Republicans' views. But the extremists and bad examples are a good reason I'm Democrat.

And there are absolutely no left-wing extremists?

I replied to each "accomplishment" here in bold. Figured that would save a lot of space.

SPOILER!!:

1. Signed an Executive Order on government contracting to fight waste and abuse.
-He expanded the bureaucracy to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy. And he created another office to do the same thing that multiple other offices already do.

2. Signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, restoring basic protections against pay discrimination for women and other workers.
-He signed an act that discriminates against white males by awarding salary and benefits based on sex and skin color instead of aptitude.

3. Renewed dialogue with NATO and other allies and partners on strategic issues.
-Because they've helped so much in the recent past, right? And they hold the same agendas and interests as the United States, right?

4. Announced a plan to responsibly end the war in Iraq.
-You mean the same thing Bush did two years before? Was this before or after Obama ignored his ground commanders' suggestions for a year?

5. Provided funding to families of fallen soldiers have expenses covered to be on hand when the body arrives at Dover AFB.
-Already been done. Obama simply claimed credit.

6. Ended media blackout on war casualties and the return of fallen soldiers to Dover AFB.
-So first he pretended that there was a "media blackout", then he pretended to "end" it.

7. Signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act which has created 2.1 million jobs (as of 12/31/09).
-2.1m is a huge overestimate, and even if it was anywhere near accurate, it wasn't worth the nearly trillion dollars of deficit spending that it took to "accomplish".

8. Launched Recovery.gov to track spending from the Recovery Act, an unprecedented step to provide transparency and accountability through technology.
-And still miserably failed at it, considering the fact that much of the money distributed -- and many of the jobs supposedly saved or created -- are in Congressional districts that simply do not exist.

9. Announced the "Making Home Affordable" home refinancing plan.
-... supporting more people living beyond their means and blaming it on the banks, after "bailing out" the banks that failed because they were forced to comply with policies started by Carter and expanded greatly by Clinton.

10. Launched a $15 billion plan to boost lending to small businesses.
-First, fifteen bill is chump change, especially compared to the hundreds of billions thrown away in other endeavors. Second, it's not the government's job to help small business, it's each respective small business's job to help themselves.

11. Invested heavily in education both as a way to provide jobs now and lay the foundation for long-term prosperity.
-Making all Americans -- scratch that, I mean all successful Americans -- responsible for the education of those who did not invest in their own education.

12. Provided the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) with more than $1.4 billion to improve services to America’s Veterans.
-Meaning, he signed the budget proposal. The VA is grossly underfunded, as I have seen firsthand. If he wanted to help it, he would have pushed to expand its funding further (like the previous President was trying to do, but was shutdown by Congressional Democrats), not simply signing what he was presented with.

13. Signed an Executive Order establishing the White House Office of Urban Affairs.
-Creating a larger bureaucracy to handle what was already being handled, so that he could dole out jobs to more of his friends.

14. Limited lobbyist's access to the White House.
-As much as most of us hate lobbyists, few of us will admit that we usually don't mind those who lobby in support of the same things we support. While they can be annoying, their job is to speak on behalf of their respective company's political positions, and those are supported by those who contribute to each company (by buying stock, participating in business practices, or simply donating). So lobbyists are a fourth-party way to talk to Washington about what each of us supports.

15. Issued an Presidential Memorandum to restore scientific integrity in government decision-making.
-Which was meant to accomplish exactly the opposite. If you know anything about this, it was meant only to "restore" the "science" that supports the idea of human-induced global warming/cooling/whateverthey'recallingitnow.

16. Answered questions at the first online town hall from the White House that were submitted and voted on transparently by the public at WhiteHouse.gov.
-So ... he had a townhall meeting online, answering questions impersonally that he could not be held accountable for. Congrats.

17. Established a central portal for Americans to find service opportunities.
-Translation: Expanded benefits for those who have not invested enough in their education to retain their employment.

18. Launched Business.gov – enabling conversation and online collaboration between small business owners, government representatives and industry experts in discussion forums relevant to starting and managing a business.
-Meaning, he had the taxpayers pay for a site that could have, and would have, been started otherwise by an entrepreneur. Good idea, sure. It's hard to say whether it was his idea or that of one of his many advisors, but I'd call this one neutral.

19. Appointed the first ever Federal Chief Information Officer to provide management and oversight over federal IT spending.
-Expanded bureaucracy, making taxpayers pay more for what is already being done.

20. Signed the Children’s Health Insurance Reauthorization Act on February 4, 2009, which provides quality health care to 11 million kids – 4 million who were previously uninsured.
-And all of which would receive health care anyway.

21. Issued an Executive Order repealing the Bush-Era restrictions on embryonic stem cell research.
-Completely ignoring that stem cells can be harvested from many other sources that don't require the brutal killing of a human being.

22. Signed the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act, the first piece of comprehensive legislation aimed at improving the lives of Americans living with paralysis.
-Even though there are plenty of other pieces of legislation and benefits that cover the same disabilities.

23. Announced creation of a Joint Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record for members of the U.S. Armed Forces to improve quality of medical care.
-I've had to deal with this. There is a good reason that most experienced Soldiers always keep paper copies of any medical documents.

24. Ended the previous stop-loss policy that kept soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan longer than their enlistment date.
-This was ended before Obama even got voted into office. And as much as people bitched about it, it did not breech any contract.

25. Committed to phasing out the expensive F-22 war plane and other outdates weapons systems, which weren't even used or needed in Iraq/Afghanistan
-This was recommended before Obama got into office, but the reason that America has the best military in the world is that we have the best military technology in the world.

Not to mention that DADT was repealed in late 2010! That way, no good soldier will be denied just because of their sexual orientation.

Talking to any good Soldier will help you realize why DADT was the only "fair" way to keep mission readiness. If you'd like to discuss DADT and homosexual servicemembers, however, I'd be happy to explain it all in a seperate thread.

So that's what I think. If I hear something about President Obama that doesn't make sense, I'll do some research on it.

Have you done any research, other than Facebook, on what he has done since he got into office? Honestly, why would I have to explain why some of these things are bad?

I don't want to blame Bush for all of our problems, but I've read that we were in a surplus when Clinton left office. A surplus. When Bush left, well...just read this old article.

There was a surplus when Clinton left office because he gutted funding for many vital programs to redistribute it -- including our intelligence and military communities. After the lapse in security allowed a terrorist attack to happen, the economy took a while to rebuild. Especially since it was declining into recession as Bush stepped into office, partially caused by the dot-com bubble bursting.

But have you not heard? Do you know nothing about Obama's budgets? Do you really not know that Obama has a deficit this year that is four times larger than Bush's largest deficit, and almost as large -- this year alone -- as the deficit of all of Bush's eight years combined?

[Leon]

Feels like I walked into a lion's den. But what else can I expect from the ID forum?

Or it could simply be that Obama does so many things that are bad for the country, and so often, that there is always something new to pick at.

What "things that are bad for the country" are you talking about? I know he's done some things that people became disappointed of (liberals, mostly, after he made a certain "compromise"). But I haven't heard anything "bad" that he's done for the country...except increasing the debt.

While there's still speculation over Obama's claimed religion and claimed birthplace, those are extremely minor issues compared to the myriad policies he's enacted and he supports.

This is something you and I totally agree with. I only posted it because I think picking a topic like this to use as a reason to hate Obama instead of something bad he's actually done is, well, just plain absurd.

And there are absolutely no left-wing extremists?

Sadly, yes, the left is no different when it comes to extremists. I don't know to what extent they go to to proclaim their beliefs. I've only heard of black people telling white people "We got you now" or something among those lines.

But the right-wing extremists always feel they have to bring up the Bible. I don't know what your views on Christianity are (but please bear with me here), but I'm a Christian myself and I think the extremists are just a bad example to other Christians. Some are just Bible-thumping homophobes, who'd prefer gay people to be dead. What Christ preached, above all else, is love for your fellow man. And they're doing a good job to hide that from others.

If you're an Atheist or a non-Christian, sorry to have slammed this info on you. I'm just saying I prefer left-wing extremists over people who misinterpret my religious beliefs.

I replied to each "accomplishment" here in bold. Figured that would save a lot of space.

And good job on that, too. Like I said before, I had no way of backing each accomplishment up.

Talking to any good Soldier will help you realize why DADT was the only "fair" way to keep mission readiness. If you'd like to discuss DADT and homosexual servicemembers, however, I'd be happy to explain it all in a seperate thread.

I would prefer if you send me a VM or a PM, but it's up to you. I just think it was silly to send thousands of soldiers home just because of their sexual orientation. Although, I've heard people saying over and over again "Bring [all of the soldiers] home." It's always nice to know soldiers are coming home, so I got mixed feelings in DADT, actually.

Have you done any research, other than Facebook, on what he has done since he got into office? Honestly, why would I have to explain why some of these things are bad?

No, but the pages I "Liked" always post at least one link each day. That's like at least five news pages to read. One of their latest posts is this:

Schumer: GOPers Against Health Care Reform Should Forgo Gov't Health Care | TPMDC

There was a surplus when Clinton left office because he gutted funding for many vital programs to redistribute it -- including our intelligence and military communities. After the lapse in security allowed a terrorist attack to happen, the economy took a while to rebuild. Especially since it was declining into recession as Bush stepped into office, partially caused by the dot-com bubble bursting.

You're talking about 9/11, right? I guess that a very wrong move on Clinton's part.

I did some research on the recession (used Google this time) and a lot of the info I found points out that the recession really started in late 2007. Bush took office almost seven years before that. Bush only got the blame for the recession for a year. Obama got the rest of the blame (due to the ridiculous amount of people with short-term memory).

But have you not heard? Do you know nothing about Obama's budgets? Do you really not know that Obama has a deficit this year that is four times larger than Bush's largest deficit, and almost as large -- this year alone -- as the deficit of all of Bush's eight years combined?

I have, and to be honest, I'm a little disappointed. Still, spending money over our health sure beats spending money for war. I don't know when we'll recover from the debt, if at all. I'm probably gonna have a hard time finding a job if I ever quit my current one.

But now that I think about it, I prefer to have Obama for President over anyone else, and I have my own personal reasons for that.

I have another link here, although it seems to lean in favor of the left wing. It's about the debt.

U.S. National Debt Graph + Amazing YouTube Story of the Debt

[Alpha]

Short post -- on my iPod.

I just want to establish that a government deficit, in a time of general economic recession, is not objectively bad. Indeed, it is perfectly in line with Keynesian economic theory. A surplus in times of a growing economy (Clinton, then Bush), then a deficit in the declining times (Bush's deficit was caused by low taxes and high post 9-11 expenditure). I don't blame any president for the GLOBAL economic recession -- and if Obama held a budget surplus it would only mean that the government was not taking an expansionary role and circulating money -- which is how the work recovered from the Great Depression.

I am pleased with Obama's performance by and large, and scaremongering over the deficit is ideology -- not economic fact.

[Sasquatch]

What "things that are bad for the country" are you talking about?

At least the 25 things you listed, and many more that I can think of off the top of my head. Most are probably praised by ignorant liberals as "accomplishments".

This is something you and I totally agree with. I only posted it because I think picking a topic like this to use as a reason to hate Obama instead of something bad he's actually done is, well, just plain absurd.

And instead of defending the things he's credibly attacked for, you simply point out the very few, rare instances of nutjobs calling him out on stupid things?

But the right-wing extremists always feel they have to bring up the Bible.

Some do, sure. So do some left-wing extremists. Some people will use their religion to claim it supports their political ideals. How do you think Christians who believe the Bible feel when liberals try to spout that homosexuals should be given rights specifically for their sexual preference, or that unborn children are not worthy of the right to life?

And good job on that, too. Like I said before, I had no way of backing each accomplishment up.

If you know nothing of any of the accomplishments, why spout them as "good" things?

I just think it was silly to send thousands of soldiers home just because of their sexual orientation.

And I think it's silly to expect straight combat soldiers to tolerate the special "needs" of homosexuals.

Schumer: GOPers Against Health Care Reform Should Forgo Gov't Health Care | TPMDC

First of all, it was never "health care" reform, it was health insurance. Second, the health insurance given to federal employees in general differs greatly depending on the department, and the insurance that Representatives and Senators get is far superior to anything being offered to anybody else. And third, being given something good and not wanting everybody else to be forced to pay for something bad is something to be admired, not insulted.

The taxpayers provide good health insurance to their representatives in Washington. Those representatives not supporting more money to be forcibly taken from taxpayers to pay for extremely shitty mandatory health insurance for everybody does not equal hypocrisy.

I did some research on the recession (used Google this time) and a lot of the info I found points out that the recession really started in late 2007.

The heavy recession started in late '07, but the economy had been declining for nearly a decade by then. It just got serious after the housing market crashed -- which happened because Carter and Clinton enacted and expanded, respectively, policies that forced banks to pretend that bad loans were reliable loans.

Bush took office almost seven years before that.

Bush took office in early '01.

Bush only got the blame for the recession for a year.

You mean you're not still blaming the recession on Bush? You mean the media and nearly half of the rest of America isn't still blaming the recession on Bush?

Obama got the rest of the blame (due to the ridiculous amount of people with short-term memory).

And due to the massive deficit he's already earned, the dramatic increase in debt, the ridiculous spending to accomplish nothing ...

I have, and to be honest, I'm a little disappointed. Still, spending money over our health sure beats spending money for war.

Not when "spending money over our health" will not improve our health and will instead simply force taxpayers to fund another horribly inefficient, inept government program.

I have another link here, although it seems to lean in favor of the left wing. It's about the debt.

"Seems to" have a liberal bias? Really -- you didn't notice it shouting from the computer screen, it just "seems" like it?

I just want to establish that a government deficit, in a time of general economic recession, is not objectively bad.

Sometimes a deficit is needed. Never is tripling or quadrupling a deficit needed.

Indeed, it is perfectly in line with Keynesian economic theory.

Keynes was a soft socialist. We have seen how his policies have worked, and the result is not good.

(And I know I'll have to point this out to you yet again, but just because somebody doesn't openly say that they advocate a complete overthrow of an economic system with a complete replacement of socialism doesn't mean that they do not support socialism in any way.)

I don't blame any president for the GLOBAL economic recession -- and if Obama held a budget surplus it would only mean that the government was not taking an expansionary role and circulating money -- which is how the work recovered from the Great Depression.

It's not the government's job to spur industry and growth by punishing success. It doesn't work. It's the government's job to step aside and let the capitalist economy succeed, instead of stealing from those tho try to succeed without the government's help and rewarding those who don't contribute to the growth of the economy.

I am pleased with Obama's performance by and large, and scaremongering over the deficit is ideology -- not economic fact.

Because it's simply "ideology" that states that spending much more money than you're making is a bad thing. Of course. Quit your job and keep trying to pay your bills, and see how long that works for you. And of course there's no reason to sweat the economy in regards to Obama -- everybody that blindly follows him will blame every bad thing on Bush and credit every good thing to Obama. It's already been going on for two years, why stop now?

[Alpha]

Government expenditure, regardless of what anyone thinks of it, still circulates money. If the expenditure is on war, then weapons manufacturing companies will receive income, as will their employees. If it's roads, the same applies to road workers.

After this initial stimulus, these workers then go on to spend to other sector of the economy. They will not spend all of it -- but with low interest rates set by the central bank, they will spend most of it. The businesses and employees who receive this money will also go on to spend and partially save. So what's happening is a MULTIPLIER effect, caused by the initial government stimulus.

If there was a budget surplus during a recession, the government would be taxing more money than it was distributing. In a time of recession, that would be disastrous.

Yes it requires debt -- which should be paid off in times of economic boom and government surplus.

The only important question is how large the deficit should be -- not whether or not there should be one.

Is Obama's deficit too large? I believe the answer lies in a consideration of how well the American economy could be expected to grow post-recession. This also requires a consideration of the international economy -- most significantly inflation in China. Funny that no one brings those up and instead just bash whatever president they disagree with the most.

I read (in a book co-authored by Joseph Stiglitz) that there are influential arguments in support of the perspective that an individual government has minimal influence over he macro economy. Really, it all comes down to the behavior of individuals and their confidence in the macro economic situation.

[Leon]

Had a tough day at work. I admit defeat for now on some points, so I'll just reply to certain key points.

And instead of defending the things he's credibly attacked for, you simply point out the very few, rare instances of nutjobs calling him out on stupid things?

Rare instances? I don't know where you're from, but I see it a lot.

Some do, sure. So do some left-wing extremists. Some people will use their religion to claim it supports their political ideals. How do you think Christians who believe the Bible feel when liberals try to spout that homosexuals should be given rights specifically for their sexual preference

"Specifically"? Homosexuals were just people who wanted to serve in the military. They were denied once they were asked about their sexual orientation, so the Clinton Administration came up with DADT. Liberals didn't "spout" anything until the military denied homosexuals.

I can see how Christians would feel, though, since the Bible forbids homosexual behavior. But as long as gays do what they're told in the military -- this goes for every servicemember, actually --isn't it enough to make everyone happy? I'm a Christian, but there's men out there possibly in love with other men who are protecting us. Protecting you and me. Why would I be mad at someone who's risking his life everyday just so we could be safe? The Bible says a lot of things, like "Love thy neighbor". Why deny someone who wants to fight for us?

or that unborn children are not worthy of the right to life?

I discussed this in another website. I've heard that the fetus is not alive during the first half of pregnancy. If that's the case, it would be okay to have an abortion, especially if it was unwanted or if it came from rape.

Whether it's true or not, though, I don't think it should be up to the government to decide whether or not a woman should have her baby. I can't just tell some random girl in the street to have her baby, whether she wants to or not.

I agree that people should just keep their legs closed if they don't want babies, but their business is their business. And even if those against abortion get their way -- even if abortion becomes illegal -- if a woman still doesn't want a baby, they'll just try to get it out by any means necessary. They won't care about the law if they become miserable by their choices.

If you know nothing of any of the accomplishments, why spout them as "good" things?

They may not affect you, but that doesn't mean they don't affect everybody else. One of his accomplishments was to create jobs. Perhaps the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act did not create, oh let's say, 10 million jobs, but it still created a lot of jobs, saving a lot of people from unemployment. I never said the list had big accomplishments, but it's something.

And I think it's silly to expect straight combat soldiers to tolerate the special "needs" of homosexuals.

I may not be a combat soldier, but even if I were I'd still tolerate homosexuals. But that's just me. I tolerate just about anybody....that doesn't pick on me.

Plus, not all homosexuals feel they have to proclaim their sexual orientation to everyone they meet. I don't think most of them would say anything unless they were asked.

Bush took office in early '01.

Yeah, in January of 2001, right? Which is why I said "almost seven years". The heavy recession started in December 2007. Or six years, eleven months after Bush took office. Which explains the "almost" part.

I don't know if you were trying to correct me, it's hard to tell by what you said on the quote above. But I rarely fail on my math, and it's correct right now.

You mean you're not still blaming the recession on Bush? You mean the media and nearly half of the rest of America isn't still blaming the recession on Bush?

Maybe you didn't read the sentence after the one where I said that Bush got blamed for only a year. I meant to say, Bush got blamed for only a year, and once Obama became President, people started pinning the blame on him. Which is why I believe lots of people have short-term memory. They don't listen to what the media says about Bush.

I don't blame Bush entirely for the recession. I just blame him for making things worse.

And due to the massive deficit he's already earned, the dramatic increase in debt, the ridiculous spending to accomplish nothing ...

He could accomplish "nothing" as you call it because Republicans in Congress have opposed just about every idea Obama had proposed. And now that they occupy the majority of the House, don't expect much done.

Not when "spending money over our health" will not improve our health and will instead simply force taxpayers to fund another horribly inefficient, inept government program.

Remind me why spending money for our health is a bad move. That's all I'll ask for from this particular point.

"Seems to" have a liberal bias? Really -- you didn't notice it shouting from the computer screen, it just "seems" like it?

You don't have to be a jerk (or sound like one at least), or people will just stop reading, ignore you, and move on. I appreciate you trying to be blunt, but there is a line between being blunt and just sounding like a jerk.

Yeah, it does have a liberal bias. But would you have read it if I just said "This article leans a lot in favor to the left-wing."? Sorry for my lack of honesty, btw.

[Heartless Angel]

Rare instances? I don't know where you're from, but I see it a lot.

You see it alot everywhere from both sides. Welcome to politics mate lol.

"Specifically"? Homosexuals were just people who wanted to serve in the military. They were denied once they were asked about their sexual orientation, so the Clinton Administration came up with DADT. Liberals didn't "spout" anything until the military denied homosexuals.

I can see how Christians would feel, though, since the Bible forbids homosexual behavior. But as long as gays do what they're told in the military -- this goes for every servicemember, actually --isn't it enough to make everyone happy? I'm a Christian, but there's men out there possibly in love with other men who are protecting us. Protecting you and me. Why would I be mad at someone who's risking his life everyday just so we could be safe? The Bible says a lot of things, like "Love thy neighbor". Why deny someone who wants to fight for us?

I can't claim to understand myself, since I'm not at all religious, but I'd iamgine one feels rather uncomfortable sharing barracks with something they feel is a living breathing violation of their beliefs.

Tolerant beliefs aren't objectively better than intolerant ones, so you can't ignore the positions of those who don't accept everybody.

Knowing each others sexual orientations just gives soldiers extra crap to think about, which doesn't help anybody. Asking Gays and hardcore religious people to work together in that setting and ignore their differences is like asking a PETA member to trust the neighborhood butcher/hunting enthusiat with his life. He's not going to feel too confident in that, whether he has good reason to or not, and that lack of faith in each other weakens a group as a whole.

Now that isn't to say DADT was a perfect solution, but there was a reason for it.

I discussed this in another website. I've heard that the fetus is not alive during the first half of pregnancy. If that's the case, it would be okay to have an abortion, especially if it was unwanted or if it came from rape.

Using a definition of "alive" tailor made to justify abortion, yes. I'm not really anti abortion myself (least not in all cases, I certainly don't think any slut who gets knocked up should be able to walk in and kill off their mistake to avoid taking responsibility), but it's still completely wrong to say it isn't alive.

Whether it's true or not, though, I don't think it should be up to the government to decide whether or not a woman should have her baby. I can't just tell some random girl in the street to have her baby, whether she wants to or not.

Again, to some extent I agree, but overall not really. For cases of rape, faulty birth control, preganacies that endanger the mother, etcetera, I'm fine with abortion. What I'm NOT fine with is some random whores getting knocked up due to irresponsible sex, and brushing off responsibility by terminating the life they're in the process of creating.

I agree that people should just keep their legs closed if they don't want babies, but their business is their business. And even if those against abortion get their way -- even if abortion becomes illegal -- if a woman still doesn't want a baby, they'll just try to get it out by any means necessary. They won't care about the law if they become miserable by their choices.

There are tons of people who mind their own business until some pesky law interfers with it. If they still want to go on with their business, they ignore the law and do as they please. We call these people criminals. The fact that people break laws is not a reason not to have them.

They may not affect you, but that doesn't mean they don't affect everybody else. One of his accomplishments was to create jobs. Perhaps the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act did not create, oh let's say, 10 million jobs, but it still created a lot of jobs, saving a lot of people from unemployment. I never said the list had big accomplishments, but it's something.

The problem is that they affect everybody. Unfortunately that doesn't mean they HELP everybody. Every president has "something" they've done right... or at least tolerably decent. That doesn't make you a good president, nor is it deserving of praise.

I may not be a combat soldier, but even if I were I'd still tolerate homosexuals. But that's just me. I tolerate just about anybody....that doesn't pick on me.

You may. Again, your beliefs. Because they work for you, does not mean they work for the Army as a whole. Your beliefs are not inherently superior to anyone else's just because they're nicer.

Plus, not all homosexuals feel they have to proclaim their sexual orientation to everyone they meet. I don't think most of them would say anything unless they were asked.

And this is pretty much the point of DADT. You don't go around telling people you're gay, and don't make it obvious, you can get into the military just fine. And it even went so far a to say nobody could come out and interrogate you to see if you were gay just for the hell of it. Again, it doesn't work perfectly, but that was the very idea behind it.

Maybe you didn't read the sentence after the one where I said that Bush got blamed for only a year. I meant to say, Bush got blamed for only a year, and once Obama became President, people started pinning the blame on him. Which is why I believe lots of people have short-term memory. They don't listen to what the media says about Bush.

I don't blame Bush entirely for the recession. I just blame him for making things worse.

People started pinning the blame on him, because he's been activiely endeavoring to make the problem worse for most of us to help the very bottom percentage of society. His policies have put us further into debt, so we blame the further debt on him. However, like all politicians, Obama denies all responsibility for anything bad and passes the blame to the most recent leader of an opposing party. Isn't it funny how politicians like to claim any negatives of a leader's term seem to come from and last however long it's been since the opposing party last left power, yet any positive changes were the result of something that happened during the current leader's term? That's not how it actually works, it's just another political blame game for public support.

He could accomplish "nothing" as you call it because Republicans in Congress have opposed just about every idea Obama had proposed. And now that they occupy the majority of the House, don't expect much done.

Yes, it's obviously the Republican's fault nothing is acomplished, because since Obama's election, they've held a suffiecient majority in the house and senate to contro- oh wait... no, they haven't. The Democratic party has (until recently) had the ability to force pretty much anything they wanted through if they wanted it badly enough.

Remind me why spending money for our health is a bad move. That's all I'll ask for from this particular point.

Becuase it's not spending THEIR money for OUR health, as in every one of us. It's spending OUR money for a very small percentage of people's health, at the cost of downgrading our own AND higher prices for it. It's also costing jobs, hurting businesses, and downgrading the overall quality of medical care in the country. Those of us who actually pay for this shit aren't getting a damned thing out of it. Our health is not the government's business in the first place.