Printable View
Read the full articleQuote:
By next week at the latest, I plan to stop compulsively watching political news for a while and get back to morbid and funny vampire and angst television, fall movies, non-political social commentary, entertaining misbehavior, music and hot naked counterculture...
Thanks. For some reason it didn't record for me.
Yeah same here. I'm glad it's over. Back to spooky town. :thumb:
OEC
I understand that everyone has been pretty on edge lately and it shouldn't be 120% to the exclusion of all else that is fun and entertaining, but a lot of people have this notion that they should only pay attention to politics once every four years for a month and that it doesn't matter the rest of the time. I think that people should be politically informed all the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morning Glory
I agree on all counts.
Speaking for only myself, I've been beyond informed and into obsessedland. And there are areas I can impact more than national politics, so I shouldn't forget everything else.
I think I'm not alone in having been uber-wrapped up in this election.
nope, you're not.
I'll be concentrating on a lot of local issues as well. There is already a fundraiser I'm planning to do a show for. I just need a rest right now. I'm cool with the overall results. I can't deny prop. 8 really hurt. I'm at peace with it all though. Need a break.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amelia G
OEC
This makes me insanely happy
:mdance:
Hahaha...catchy tune:)
Am I the only one who feels cheated that this thread isn't about Rob Lowe and Demi Moore?
Hey O'Reilly, Donald Trump called; He wants his hair piece back.
If you think about it, Obama winning is probably the greatest thing to happen to the likes of O'Reilly and Limbaugh. They're gonna have so much shit to really bitch about now. Every move Obama makes is gonna be fodder for these guys to kill a half an hour or more on their shows.
Ummm...Aren't you the guy that says it doesn't really matter. No matter who's in power, the common man will always be fucked and there is nothing we can do about it. If you really believe this than why even pay attention?Quote:
Originally Posted by Morning Glory
Haha! Rob's penis movie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Mironiuk
Because I want to know how I am getting fucked, of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajax Knucklebones
That was kind of tongue in cheek. I don't necessarily think that all people in power are out to do harm, but you know what they say about corruption. I think that a politician's priorities reside foremost in trying to stay in power or acquire more and to appeal towards the other powerful people that put them there in the first place. Which is why government is always in favor of more spending, bigger government, big business and generally puts these things before the interests of the common people. That doesn't mean that they can't or won't do anything that is beneficial.
I think that Obama is going to be better for most of the people in this country than john McCain would have been, but I don't think that is the primary reason that he won. It's because Bush and the republican parties policies were short sighted and they were ultimately bad for the rest of the people that run society, in particular the economy.
Yes. :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Buster Friendly
Well, I've always believed the "government does what benefits government", but part of that is in order for them to stay in power they HAVE to do certain things for the common man or he/she will not vote for the politician again. That's why I believe that it's better to not take such a lax way of thinking when it comes to politics. The more lax society stays, the more the government will fuck us because nobody is standing up and saying "What the fuck are you doing?"
At the same point though, I also want to elect a politician that is smarter than the average man when it comes to politics and isn't afraid to go "against" the common man when the politician KNOWS the right thing to do might not be what everybody wants. Case in point...The $700 billion dollar bailout. I KNOW almost everybody on this site was against it. I know a big majority of Americans were against it. But, you see, that's where my banker knowledge comes in. One of the big reasons why America went into the Great Depression was that when the banks were in trouble in the late 20's and early 30's, the government, much like today's society, said , "Fuck them! They made there bed, now lie in it." The problem was though that by not helping the banks ALL society got fucked. This time around the government learned that if they don't bailout the banks, the same depression would inevidibly happen. Both Obama and McCain went against what society wanted because they both were intelligent enough to know that sometimes what the common man wants isn't always what's best for the entire country. Think about it....Either one of them could have voted against the bill just to get more votes in the election and it probably could have helped them easily win the presidency. Instead, they went against the popular view for the greater good of all of us. Now, of course, the real tricky part is electing an official with enough intelligence to realize when this must be done. Bush...Well...He was a fuckin' moron and wrongly got us involved in the whole Iraq thing. Hopefully Obama is smarter than Bush (Which I think he most definietly is) and will only go against the common man's beliefs when it is really necessary.
But still....As Americans I do believe it is our duty to keep a watch on these politicians. Our forefathers were VERY big on this idea. They always believed that if the American politicians were truly screwing us than as Americans it was our DUTY to revolt and actually create a true revolution if need be. I really think our forefathers were cool as shit. Most of them were super rich but at the same time they REALLY had all our best interests in mind when the Bill of Rights and the Constitution were created. They could have easily turned America into a place that would only be good to their own kind (the rich), but instead really wanted everybody to at least be able to aspire to a better life than what the British had given us.
: Steps off his soapbox: : Holds hat out for donations for his cause:
I pretty much agree with you Ajax, but we have different perspectives about the bailout and the founding fathers. But that's OK.
When Bush got reelected it really disillusioned me about the political process.
Well...Listen...I've done all kind of reading on true history and the truth about alot of our founding fathers to know they really weren't as glorious as history makes them out to be, but really, in the end, alot of what they did, they could have gone a different way and REALLY fucked the common man. How many times does a revolution happen and in the end, except for a new leader, everything is pretty much than same as before the revolution happened? Happens all the time.
As far as the bailout...I get it. If I weren't in the shit (banking) I'd probably think the same way most people think. And believe me...The more I look at this bailout, the more I realize how the mom and pop banks are still as just fucked as before and only the big banks will really come out ahead in all of this, but one thing about Bernacki is this guy ruthlessly studied the in's and out's of the Great American Depression his whole life and really is an expert when it comes to trying to avoid one. I really don't actually like the guy, but if anybody if going to do their best to avoid one, I really think this is the guy. REALLY. Everything he's done so far in all of this, all the infusions and shit, is exactly what scholars have realized since the end of the Great Depression what the government should have done in the late 20's to have avoided that era. Will it all work? Only time will tell, but at least they're trying to learn from past errors and really trying to do the opposite of what government did before the depression happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajax Knucklebones
Because it was clear that the bailout was going to have the votes to pass, if either McCain or Obama had voted against it, then it would have cost them votes by showing that they might not have the juice they would need to lead, even though a president automatically has more juice than a senator.
So far, the economy has worsened since the so-called bailout, with the exception of the price of gas and the price of gas seems pretty unrelated to welfare for large banks and insurance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Mironiuk
I love you.
It'll pass.
Or was that St. Elmo's Fire?
I'm sure the South Park boys thought of the Brat Pack when naming the episode.
How could it show they don't have enough juice voting against it since the majority of Americans (such as yourself) were against the bailout?Quote:
Originally Posted by Amelia G
And yes...You're right...The economy has not gotten better, but has worsened...But...It hasn't gone in the shitter yet as opposed to say a depression.
We'll never agree on this Amelia, but, everything the government is doing right now has been done to prevent the same kind of depression we saw over 80 years ago. Everything I read by economic scholars is that the government is basically, by the numbers, doing everything the government did not do before the depression. To the point that these same scholars think that, yes, this will be a deep recession, but due to what the government is doing, will not be a depression. They all say that if the government did not take these measures, we probably would have gone into a depression.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajax Knucklebones
If the bailout still passes, despite an Obama or McCain vote against, it would have made that candidate appear too weak to take on Washington. Just part of why it was so scummy to put the bailout through so close to such an important election.
Everyone I know, who has worked as an economist for the government, thinks it was and is a bad idea, designed to reroute wealth and stave off nothing.
***If the bailout still passes, despite an Obama or McCain vote against, it would have made that candidate appear too weak to take on Washington. Just part of why it was so scummy to put the bailout through so close to such an important election.***Quote:
Originally Posted by Amelia G
So, in America's general public's eye, if a politician votes against something that is not wanted by the common man, but it still passes, then they are seen as weak by us and can not lead? Obama stated over and over that he would have never voted for the Iraq war, yet almost 100% of his constituents did. Did we seem to hold this against him? I think back when it was first voted on, we probably would have, but only because we were so full of "patriotism" that we were cult-taught that by doing so was unpatriotic. Other than that, If he voted against it and we were, as majority, against it, I don't see how we would hold this against him in voting him in as president, if the rest of the government was all for it.
As far as who you've spoken with, don't know what to tell you. It's just that over and over again, everything I read, seems to say that the government is doing everything that the past government (right before the great depression) did not do. They are doing this to avoid a depression. Believe me, I'm no Republican and this sure as shit isn't helping my bank one fuckin' bit. It's just what I've been reading on the topic.
Like I said, we will never agree on this. Only time will tell who is right in the end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajax Knucklebones
People like Kucinich and Paul were dismissed as not having the pull in Washington to enact real change if elected. I think past voting history, from before someone was particularly on the national stage, is very different from a current vote which would demonstrate whether they were or were not able to make their viewpoint pass in the here and now.
Both Democrats and Republicans voted for the bailout, so I don't think it is really a partisan issue. I don't post on partisan issues.
What do you mean about Obama's constituents voting for the Iraq war? I don't think that was put to referendum anywhere.
I've been drinking and I meant fellow senators, not constituents which voted like this:
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 ) Vote Number: 237Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AMRequired For Majority: 1/2Vote Result: Joint Resolution PassedMeasure Number: H.J.Res. 114Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.Vote Counts:YEAs77NAYs23
As far as how Americans in general thought about the invasion:
A USA Today/Gallup Poll indicated that 75% of US citizens felt the US did not make a mistake in sending troops to Iraq in March 2003
Yes...Not close to 100%, but a very large majority and all because of "patriotism". I remember myself thinking back then that none it it makes any sense (as far as the invasion) yet to go against this idea was seen as "unpatriotic".
I think that they voted on the bailout purely because they had no fucking clue what to do and like everyone else in Washington they jumped on the first idea that came along just so that they could say they did something.
Even if one of them had opposed it, their line of thinking might be: 'If I'm wrong and it's a success and my opponent voted for it than that would put him in better standing than me. but if I'm right and it fails, since it's getting passed by the majority anyway, than I can blame them for it.' I think it was a safe bet.
It also probably didn't hurt that wall street was asking for it too. Once again going back to what I said. A pol isn't going to burn that bridge no matter what the public wants, and it showed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morning Glory
:yeeaaahh:
That just made my day:thumb:Quote:
Originally Posted by Buster Friendly