Obama, 4 more years?

The rich should be taxed harshly, for they did not acquire their fortune fairly.

The evidence shows most of them got their wealth not because of hard work but because of some kind of inheritance, parents paying for private school, parents giving start up capital, insider trading, war, speculation. Almost all of newly rich people became so due to real estate, insurance or finance, in other words they did nothing truely productive.

Here's a page of analysis and evidence.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-richmerit.htm

Quote:

---

Even conservatives who believe in meritocracy inadvertently acknowledge the importance of childhood social factors. One of the hottest topics today among the richest 1 percent is finding top-quality private schools for their children. But if they truly believed that merit is everything, and that social factors do not explain or promote individual success, then they should be satisfied with sending their kids to public or even inner-city schools. Of course, the very idea would horrify them -- which provides eloquent testimony as to the importance of the environment even as appraised by wealthy conservatives.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wizzup?

What is the difference between everyone saving money and everyone saving money?

---

The difference is the FEDERAL government does not have the right to force people to save money. But people should do it on their own. Especially because people will learn how to take care of themselves and be independent through this, and not rely on the FEDERAL government all the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wizzup?

Uh. In my previous post I already explained why it wasn't enough. It's not about babysitting. You owe the people there to rebuild their country which your country so kindly destroyed under the command of mr bush.

---

I did not support the war in Iraq at all. I believe it was completely frivolous. We took over Iraq in 1 month. Under Bush's paper we would have been helping them rebuild for some 3 and a half years. When I said 9 months I was talking about an extra 9 months past Bush's term.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wizzup?

Well, as far as I know you asked me if ``I was even a Catholic at all''. That implies that you think anyone who is not a catholic can't talk religion; and you were talking religion. So that implies that you're one. This entire paragraph of yours is very ... silly. It seems to me you are religious but are trying to evade admitting it somehow.

---

Maybe I did sound a bit silly here. But would I be wrong in assuming you only listened to what the media has to say about Catholicism? Or do you actually go through the work to look into matters on your own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wizzup?

I am; and so are they when they make the decision not to have a child.

However you're greatly exaggerating the consequences of abortion. Science does not back up the remarks you just made. Perhaps you've been brainwashed by your local media? :)

That and it is not up to you. You can't make the decision for them. (You feel that the government can't force you into social security but can force women into having a baby?)

---

There are many widespread studies that have been done on this. However the media refuses to put the information out there. Here is a link on it. http://www.dianedew.com/trauma.htm Surely the Department of education doesn't lie about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wizzup?

That and it is not up to you. You can't make the decision for them. (You feel that the government can't force you into social security but can force women into having a baby?)
E:
So how can you feel different about abortion?

---

When I say abortion should be illegal I mean on the state level. The Federal government should not be interfering in it. The federal government should also not force people into Social Security. However if the State governments wanted to I am fine with that. Sorry I didn't clarify.


@Yakman

The rich shouldn't be taxed harshly. Just because some get rich because of luck doesn't mean you have to be mad at them. My mom went to college and got the top scores in her class and now makes a decent living. She did this by trying hard. My cousin went to a the top aerospace engineering college in the country without any help financially from his parents. He studied hard and finished top in his class also, and now he too is also pretty rich. You can't say all rich people did not work for their money.

Quote:

---

Almost all of newly rich people became so due to real estate, insurance or finance, in other words they did nothing truely productive.

---

Well since you know how to become rich you should start working on it. I'd advise you not to invest in real estate though. Word has it the housing market is plummeting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dude1994

@Yakman

The rich shouldn't be taxed harshly. Just because some get rich because of luck doesn't mean you have to be mad at them. My mom went to college and got the top scores in her class and now makes a decent living. She did this by trying hard. My cousin went to a the top aerospace engineering college in the country without any help financially from his parents. He studied hard and finished top in his class also, and now he too is also pretty rich. You can't say all rich people did not work for their money.

---

I can name thousands of people who work really hard, only to see most of their labour be given to some CEO who got his job using his daddy's connections.


If social factors like education don't mean anything, then why do wealthy people send their kids to private schools?

Here's the link again. Your anecdotes do not win against my evidence.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-richmerit.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yakman

I can name thousands of people who work really hard, only to see most of their labour be given to some CEO who got his job using his daddy's connections.


If social factors like education don't mean anything, then why do wealthy people send their kids to private schools?

Here's the link again. Your anecdotes do not win against my evidence.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-richmerit.htm

---

There will always be CEO's who own earn a disproportional amount of money as compared to their employee's. That's life.

I've never attended private school so I can't tell you whether or not they receive a better education, but I can tell you that public education is good if you actually try. It served me well and I'm now in a masters program at a state university. It served my father well, first person in his family to go to college.

If people...

1. Don't get pregnant, get a girl pregnant before they can afford it.
2. Actually try hard in high school, go to college and complete their education.
3. Stay out of trouble i.e don't do drugs, serve jail time ect.

they can advance their lives and earn more money. Anyone saying other wise are just saying excuses as to why their lives suck. Our government gives loans out to people who can't afford college.

People can cite family issues, health reasons, ect. But in the end, its a excuse. You hear all the time of success stories of people who wanted something and they went out and EARNED it. Sadly I think people have become dependent on others to succeed and want everything handed to them.

Edit: I just looked at your link and honestly just stopped reading. Besides the CEO pay part, which I agree with but will never change, the rest is a Boohoo story. You do get ahead in life by trying hard. If you don't like it here, go live in china and work in a sweat shop where they are all equal. Believe it or not we do have it great here in America. If it wasn't great, people wouldn't be immigrating here constantly.

Edit:Edit: Just thought I would throw my two cents in on the abortion subject.

Abortion should be handled on the state level. Not federal.

Disclaimer: I'm not one of those crazy people who hand out fliers and scream outside of abortion clinics, I don't go to church, I consider myself a Libertarian.

When you preform a abortion, your killing a life. Anyone that says other wise are kidding themselves. If that thing in your stomach stays there for 9 months, a newborn baby will be born. That being said, I support a woman's choice to make that decision within a certain time frame. Its a very blurry line and certainly one that is debatable. Ive never been in a situation that I had to make that call, and hope I never do.

But if women have the right to end a life because its their body, surely the government would have to allow all drugs to be consumed, because everyone has a right to do what they want with their body now if abortion is allowed.

Edit:Edit:Edit @Yakman

Do you know the difference between military spending and defense spending? I agree that we need to cut military spending. i.e. The US needs to stop nation building, not be stationed in countries in Germany, Japan, South Korea. The US currently has troops stationed in a crazy amount of countries, and it makes us no safer. If a country threatens us, carpet bomb them and beat them into submission like we did the Germans and Japanese.

National DEFENSE however should be upheld at all costs however and not a nickle should be taken from it.

More people should read Marx's works tbh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dude1994

The difference is the FEDERAL government does not have the right to force people to save money. But people should do it on their own. Especially because people will learn how to take care of themselves and be independent through this, and not rely on the FEDERAL government all the time.

---

I don't really understand the difference between goverment per state or just federal in this context. However, are you sure that it is completely mandatory? Here in the Netherlands you generally save up for your old days, but you can choose not to - depending on where you work. (Mostly you can choose not to)

In a sense the government is providing guidelines and not completely forcing you to save your money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dude1994

I did not support the war in Iraq at all. I believe it was completely frivolous. We took over Iraq in 1 month. Under Bush's paper we would have been helping them rebuild for some 3 and a half years. When I said 9 months I was talking about an extra 9 months past Bush's term.

---

I can't really comment on this any more. I just don't believe Obama is doing the wrong things by keeping troops there for an extended period of time. I don't know if I Bush would have done it any differently nor do I think that it would be good to redraw the troops too quickly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dude1994

Maybe I did sound a bit silly here. But would I be wrong in assuming you only listened to what the media has to say about Catholicism? Or do you actually go through the work to look into matters on your own.

---

Yes, I've done quite some study when it comes to religion and science. the fact that I referenced a book ( yeah, I could reference multiple :p ) could have given that away. I have however, never read the bible itself because I see no point to do so. I know most of the points by reading other books.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dude1994

There are many widespread studies that have been done on this. However the media refuses to put the information out there. Here is a link on it. http://www.dianedew.com/trauma.htm Surely the Department of education doesn't lie about it.

---

Quoting Wikipedia here: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#Mental_health):

Quote:

---

Mental health
Main article: Abortion and mental health

The current scientific consensus holds that there is no causal relationship between abortion and mental-health problems.[71] While women most frequently feel relieved after the procedure,[34] some factors in a woman's life, such as emotional attachment to the pregnancy, lack of social support, or pre-existing psychiatric illness increase the likelihood of experiencing negative feelings after an abortion.[72] The American Psychological Association has concluded that a single abortion is not a threat to women's mental health, and that women are no more likely to have mental-health problems after a first-trimester abortion than after carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term.[73][74] Similarly, abortions performed after the first trimester because of fetal abnormalities are not thought to cause mental-health problems.[75]

Some studies have disagreed with above conclusions; other researchers and professional organizations have noted that such studies typically fail to use appropriate comparison groups, do not adequately account for confounding variables, and improperly account for pre-existing mental health complications.[note 3] Some proposed negative psychological effects of abortion have been referred to by anti-abortion advocates as a separate condition called "post-abortion syndrome", which is not recognized by any medical or psychological organization.[76]

---

And more (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortio...mental_health):

Quote:

---

The relationship between induced abortion and mental health is an area of political controversy.[1][2] Expert groups have found no scientific evidence of a causal relationship between abortion and poor mental health. For women with unplanned pregnancies, the risk of mental-health problems is equal whether they carry the pregnancy to term or undergo an abortion.[3][4][5] Pre-existing factors in a woman's life, such as emotional attachment to the pregnancy, lack of social support, pre-existing psychiatric illness, and conservative views on abortion increase the likelihood of experiencing negative feelings after an abortion.[6][7][8]

---

I'm not sure if you can blame the media for ``not letting people know about the risks'', as it's implied that there are very little mental risks. If there simply are no risks (even though you may or may not believe so), the media shouldn't report that there are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dude1994

When I say abortion should be illegal I mean on the state level. The Federal government should not be interfering in it. The federal government should also not force people into Social Security. However if the State governments wanted to I am fine with that. Sorry I didn't clarify.

---

I'm not sure I follow the difference that it makes. Should I compare to Europe? Where the EU is the federal government and the states are individual countries?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dude1994

The rich shouldn't be taxed harshly. Just because some get rich because of luck doesn't mean you have to be mad at them. My mom went to college and got the top scores in her class and now makes a decent living. She did this by trying hard. My cousin went to a the top aerospace engineering college in the country without any help financially from his parents. He studied hard and finished top in his class also, and now he too is also pretty rich. You can't say all rich people did not work for their money.

---

The point is not being mad at them, the point is that they're treated differently by having to pay a lot less tax!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dude1994

I'd also like to point out that EVERYONE in America has the opportunity to earn a decent wage and make a decent living. Its just that some people choose not too either because of laziness or they don't care.

---

Lol'd. How about someone without limbs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Markus

Lol'd. How about someone without limbs.

---

Who lost them because he was hit by a drunk millionaire in his car. He also got no money because the millionaire had much better lawyers.
E: And had no health insurance because he didn't think he needed one and rather got that iPhone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Echo_

More people should read Marx's works tbh

---

Which of these countries do you want to go live in?

The following countries had governments at some point in the 20th century who at least nominally adhered to Marxism:[27] Albania, Afghanistan, Angola, Benin, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Republic of Congo, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Ethiopia, Grenada, Hungary, Laos, Moldova, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, North Korea, Poland, Romania, Russia, the USSR and its republics, South Yemen, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, Vietnam. In addition, the Indian states of Kerala, Tripura and West Bengal have had Marxist governments, but change takes place in the government due to electoral process. Some of these governments such as in Venezuela, Nicaragua, Chile, Moldova and parts of India have been democratic in nature and maintained regular multiparty elections.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wizzup?

Who lost them because he was hit by a drunk millionaire in his car. He also got no money because the millionaire had much better lawyers.
E: And had no health insurance because he didn't think he needed one and rather got that iPhone.

---

Lol. Stupid Apple. I knew you could be my only weakness!!!!!

On topic though I don't think he could take care of himself with health care. Unless somehow that millionaire was nice an bought him robotic limbs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dude1994

Lol. Stupid Apple. I knew you could be my only weakness!!!!!

On topic though I don't think he could take care of himself with health care. Unless somehow that millionaire was nice an bought him robotic limbs

---

My health care insurance covers practically everything. I make heavy use of it. I'm chronically ill (nothing terminal; it's a skin disease) and if I had to pay for all the medicine myself I'd probably be living on the streets by now. It's a hereditary disease btw. Can't help it. :)

Aww. I'm sorry man. I'm not against health care lol. Just health care forced by the federal government. Technically its not even here yet so I'll get this back on topic?

I think it will be hard for anyone to beat Obama.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by officialpubbing

Which of these countries do you want to go live in?

The following countries had governments at some point in the 20th century who at least nominally adhered to Marxism:[27] Albania, Afghanistan, Angola, Benin, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Republic of Congo, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Ethiopia, Grenada, Hungary, Laos, Moldova, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, North Korea, Poland, Romania, Russia, the USSR and its republics, South Yemen, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, Vietnam. In addition, the Indian states of Kerala, Tripura and West Bengal have had Marxist governments, but change takes place in the government due to electoral process. Some of these governments such as in Venezuela, Nicaragua, Chile, Moldova and parts of India have been democratic in nature and maintained regular multiparty elections.

---

A lot of the countries you mentioned were either Stalinist or Maoist. You have to keep in mind that a lot of these countries improved greatly since their revolutions, I'll use China and Cuba as an example.

Cuba has a great healthcare system, they have the one of the highest life expectancies in the Third World. They are also one of the first third world countries to be able to participate in a military conflict overseas, they sent troops to Africa to help out there.

China has also improved, they are taking over the market and may even take the United States' place as "the country on top".

I consider myself more of a Trotskyist anyways...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Echo_

A lot of the countries you mentioned were either Stalinist or Maoist. You have to keep in mind that a lot of these countries improved greatly since their revolutions, I'll use China and Cuba as an example.

Cuba has a great healthcare system, they have the one of the highest life expectancies in the Third World. They are also one of the first third world countries to be able to participate in a military conflict overseas, they sent troops to Africa to help out there.

China has also improved, they are taking over the market and may even take the United States' place as "the country on top".

I consider myself more of a Trotskyist anyways...

---

If its so great to live in Cuba why do they risk their lives to sneak out on ghetto ships and try to deliver children in american waters so they have anchor babies?

And if it's so good in China, why does the government sensor everything? Surely the people in China must know they have it going great and would shun western ways if they were exposed to them.

The rich commit far more crime than the lower classes. Street criminals stole $15.3 billion[1] in 1993, but white collar-criminals embezzled $200 billion[2]. Street criminals murdered 23,271 people that year, but the decisions of profit-driven corporations murdered at least 318,368 (through pollution, consumer and worker safety violations, etc.) Corporations deserve blame for these deaths because they lobby for and enact policies which drive up these death rates. Virtually all other rich countries have higher safeguards and lower death rates.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-poorcrime.htm

It's disgusting we let the rich get away with these crimes, if a lower class person did them they would be banged up in prison so fast.
Yet even in this thread we see people willing to help the rich screw up America even more (even though they themselves are not rich.)

Here are the references (for I've noticed many of you don't scroll to the bottom to see the citations to evidence)
[1] U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Population-at-Risk Rates and Selected Crime Indicators, 1993. Does not include figures for vandalism; white collar equivalent of vandalism would be pollution.
[2] Steve Albrecht, "Fraud in Governmental Entities: The Perpetrators and the Types of Fraud," Government Finance Review 7 (6), 1991, pp. 27-30.

It pains me to say this, but I will not be voting in this next presidential election. I personally do not agree with a lot of Obama's issues, but Romney isn't a saint himself. I find it very sad that the best republican candidate to emerge was Mitt Romney... and the democrats said they needed change....

Quote:

---

The rich commit far more crime than the lower classes. Street criminals stole $15.3 billion[1] in 1993, but white collar-criminals embezzled $200 billion[2]. Street criminals murdered 23,271 people that year, but the decisions of profit-driven corporations murdered at least 318,368 (through pollution, consumer and worker safety violations, etc.) Corporations deserve blame for these deaths because they lobby for and enact policies which drive up these death rates. Virtually all other rich countries have higher safeguards and lower death rates.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-poorcrime.htm

It's disgusting we let the rich get away with these crimes, if a lower class person did them they would be banged up in prison so fast.
Yet even in this thread we see people willing to help the rich screw up America even more (even though they themselves are not rich.)

---

Why do you have such a huge problem with the richer people? White collar doesn't mean rich. It just means administrative/managerial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yakman

It's disgusting we let the rich get away with these crimes, if a lower class person did them they would be banged up in prison so fast.
Yet even in this thread we see people willing to help the rich screw up America even more (even though they themselves are not rich.)

---

If people commit crimes, they should be punished. My agreement with you ends there.

From my point of your view, you hate success. You hate the idea of someone getting ahead by using their money in a way to benefit themselves and their families. You hate the idea that those individuals would try to keep as much of that money to themselves.

If I had that much money, I would do the same thing. I would horde the hell out of my cash, and set my family up for the foreseeable future. I would try my best to see my children be wealthy when they come of age. If I wanted a life of helping people, I would work for a terrible salary as a social worker or join the peace core.

The biggest laugh out of all of this however is that despite all of your general ranting against people with wealth and republicans, Obama is accepting the same cash from wealthy individuals and large corporations to fund his re-election campaign. If you want to rage about something, go rant about our politicians who follow the money, instead of voting for their constituency back at home whom they represent.

On President Obama and the constitution. Your rights that you have lost since he has taken office.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/04/pr...al-violations/

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/...ervatives.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2847870/posts

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/more-obam...ion-shredding/

http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/alarms-ov...ution-surging/

http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/alarms-ov...ution-surging/

Read more people. Please I beg you all to read and actually think about what's getting jacked up in our country before it's too late. I also didn't even cover the Trespassing Act passed in Feb 12 which takes away more freedom of speech. Or the state of emergency that the president declared based on the Iran nuclear weapons program. Under NDAA which was signed on DEC 31(Really on new years eve) allows him to send us to war without congress consent. This with the Korean and syrian issues popping up. You want an end to Afghan war well say hello to the next 3 wars if we continue in this direction.



RON PAUL 2012

While I really like that Ron Paul actually speaks about important issues that other politicians are too scared to address, there's no way he'll become the President at the moment. I don't know if I'd prefer him to Obama or not honestly, but I think his campaign has been a breath of fresh air, since politics in general infuriates me.

I just wish more people who actually care about the state of the country would run for office and try to actually act on the issues that are important. Instead we have a Congress filled with lifetime politicians who won't make decisions on polarizing issues (social security, anyone?) because it could affect their reelection and instead try to pass bills backed by large, powerful lobbyist groups that will negatively affect Americans without fully understanding what the consequences are (SOPA/PIPA/CISPA?). And the majority of our current batch of presidential candidates are incredibly out of tune with the majority of Americans and seem like greedy and selfish people. It's quite sad to see that someone like Santorum could get any headway in the political process at all. Sorry that I went slightly off topic, but man politics can get me worked up...

I agree with many of the people going against Obama. I will be very disappointed if he gets re-elected.

For one is the health care which everyone knows about.

Another big reason that I don't think anyone mentioned was the stimulus package that Obama and his advisers came up with at the beginning of his term. It was one of the worst governmental decisions I have ever witnessed. Hundreds of millions of dollars spent on studies and researches that were very insignificant to helping the mass people. Also the jobs it did create were mostly governmental jobs. What about the small business owners and private business sectors?
Now it threw us in a debt 3x of what it was if not more. So much for the next generation, who is going to be screwed with massive taxes.
There are so many more points why he shouldn't serve another two years and so very few why he should.
That's just my 2cents.

Definitely better than Romney. And btw, he's 11% black.

Yachoman can rejoice: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/us...egal.html?_r=2

Quote:

---

In an election that is all but certain to turn on the slowly recovering economy and its persistently high jobless rate, Mr. Obama’s stand nonetheless injects a volatile social issue into the campaign debate and puts him at even sharper odds with his presumptive Republican rival, Mitt Romney, who opposes same-sex marriage and favors an amendment to the United States Constitution to forbid it.

---

Once again, global welfare profits from same sex marriage. How can anyone be against it? It's none of the opponents business.

California outlawed same sex marriage with a vote of the people. So obviously most of the liberals in California are against it. But then one judge decided he could over turn the vote of the PEOPLE. Where is this country heading??? One ruled by the judicial branch? I thought we were a republic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dude1994

California outlawed same sex marriage with a vote of the people. So obviously most of the liberals in California are against it. But then one judge decided he could over turn the vote of the PEOPLE. Where is this country heading??? One ruled by the judicial branch? I thought we were a republic.

---

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

PS: People outlawing same sex marriage seems to violate the principles of freedom to me. How's that for the American dream?
PPS: Vote of the PEOPLE somehow sounds socialistic... :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dude1994

Why do you have such a huge problem with the richer people? White collar doesn't mean rich. It just means administrative/managerial.

---

Managerial people don't lobby congress so that their corporations will be allowed to pollute our planet, poison our air, cause climate chaos with CO2.
Corporations deserve blame for many workplace deaths because they lobby for and enact policies which drive up these death rates. Virtually all other rich countries have higher safeguards and lower death rates.

Management might literally wear white collars, but in my view they're just as working class as everybody else because they are still forced to live by selling their labour, in return they still get less than what their labour is worth.

I have a problem with the rich (although I'd prefer to call them capitalists or the bourgeois but not many people know what that means) because they have huge amounts of unaccountable power. Their interests do not align with most people's. They want higher profits for them and lower wages for us, they want longer working hours, less environmental regulation, they want education and healthcare only open to those who can pay.

Rich people should be taxed on their WEALTH, not their income.

Also, people saying that the healthcare proposal will fine you. Yeah, they will, but in the proposal they made it a non criminal offense and the government can't force you to pay. So basically it's like a parent telling a child to stop jumping on the sofa and that's it. The IRS won't hold anything against you, can't throw you in jail, nothing will happen to you if you don't pay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by officialpubbing

From my point of your view, you hate success. You hate the idea of someone getting ahead by using their money in a way to benefit themselves and their families. You hate the idea that those individuals would try to keep as much of that money to themselves.

---

Thank you for telling me what I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by officialpubbing

If I had that much money, I would do the same thing. I would horde the hell out of my cash, and set my family up for the foreseeable future. I would try my best to see my children be wealthy when they come of age. If I wanted a life of helping people, I would work for a terrible salary as a social worker or join the peace core.

---

It seems to me you're quite selfish and greedy. No surprise really, capitalism facilitates and glorifies and celebrates greed.
You qualify "If I had that much money", which means you're probably in the same economic situation as almost everybody else. It's quite sad you don't realise the rich want different things to you and me, they don't want any of us to become successful, they only want us to work ghastly long hours in shitty jobs while drawing as low a salary as possible.

If everyone does this, your children won't have a world worth living in. With climate change reducing the number of people this planet can support, they'll find it much more difficult to live, they certainly won't enjoy the standard of living many of us have today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by officialpubbing

The biggest laugh out of all of this however is that despite all of your general ranting against people with wealth and republicans, Obama is accepting the same cash from wealthy individuals and large corporations to fund his re-election campaign. If you want to rage about something, go rant about our politicians who follow the money, instead of voting for their constituency back at home whom they represent.

---

Indeed, Obama is hardly better than the rest of them. I've never said otherwise and I'll tell anyone who'll listen. The capitalist system has corrupted your democracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dude1994

I'd also like to point out that EVERYONE in America has the opportunity to earn a decent wage and make a decent living. Its just that some people choose not too either because of laziness or they don't care.

---

Are you from America!? If so you must be blind. Honestly, sad to see many Americans arguing with 'non-americans', especially since the latter group is 'right', IMO anyways.

I'm 21 years old with a 4 year old son and girlfriend that I support. I work 60+ hours a week for $8.50 an hour, no paid overtime (yes it's illegal, but he doesn't tax my overtime). That's the best possible thing I can find right now. Maybe you come from a wealthier area than I, or perhaps just an all around more fortunate area than I; regardless, do not say "EVERYONE" has an equal opportunity at employment.

I could go off for ~1 hour about how sick it makes me people still look down on others with tattoos and how many jobs I haven't gotten because of that, but that's another story..


One last thing; if Mitt Romney wins this election, I am leaving the U.S. with my family without a doubt. I have never seen such a clueless 'pawn' who is the definition of a "follower" with no mind of his own and has absolutely no place running this country. I'll stop my self there.


Ron Paul 2012!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dude1994

I'd also like to point out that EVERYONE in America has the opportunity to earn a decent wage and make a decent living. Its just that some people choose not too either because of laziness or they don't care.

---

Yep, that's what causes recessions. Huge worldwide bouts of laziness!

I don't know about the re-election though...
Now with his release of support of Gay Marriage, (TBH COULD CARE LESS)
but think about it, are there more gay couples than hardcore protestants/rednecks?
They have no faith in Obama anymore!
Personally I'd still re-elect but this could have been a rough shot...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yakman

Yep, that's what causes recessions. Huge worldwide bouts of laziness!

---

the fedaral reserve system is what caused recession, it gave private banks the rights to print money for the government. so when the government needed money they borrowed from the private banks. So basically the government borrows money from them to fund the gorvernment and then has to pay intrest. So to pay these intrests the government then inposes TAX on the american people and the circle carries on, they keep borrowing and we the people have to keeping paying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NCDS

Are you from America!? If so you must be blind. Honestly, sad to see many Americans arguing with 'non-americans', especially since the latter group is 'right', IMO anyways.

I'm 21 years old with a 4 year old son and girlfriend that I support. I work 60+ hours a week for $8.50 an hour, no paid overtime (yes it's illegal, but he doesn't tax my overtime). That's the best possible thing I can find right now. Maybe you come from a wealthier area than I, or perhaps just an all around more fortunate area than I; regardless, do not say "EVERYONE" has an equal opportunity at employment.

I could go off for ~1 hour about how sick it makes me people still look down on others with tattoos and how many jobs I haven't gotten because of that, but that's another story..


One last thing; if Mitt Romney wins this election, I am leaving the U.S. with my family without a doubt. I have never seen such a clueless 'pawn' who is the definition of a "follower" with no mind of his own and has absolutely no place running this country. I'll stop my self there.


Ron Paul 2012!

---

I am American.

I would love Ron Paul to win. I would definitely vote for him over any of the other republicans.

America's minimum wage is much higher than most other countries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gillzo

the fedaral reserve system is what caused recession, it gave private banks the rights to print money for the government. so when the government needed money they borrowed from the private banks. So basically the government borrows money from them to fund the gorvernment and then has to pay intrest. So to pay these intrests the government then inposes TAX on the american people and the circle carries on, they keep borrowing and we the people have to keeping paying.

---

Nice to know the Right are unified, first they claim laziness causes unemployment and recessions, then they claim it was the Fed.


The Fed was founded in 1913, so according to your theory there should be no recessions before 1913.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States
I count no less than 28 recessions(!) between the years 1797 and 1913.

But don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.



Video from June 2010

@yakman i meant to say inflation not recession i get them mixed up lol.

people need to wake up and stop being drones!

Ill stick with the system that got us #1 in the world. Going down the same path Europe has with their cradle to grave mentality has done them wonders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by officialpubbing

Ill stick with the system that got us #1 in the world. Going down the same path Europe has with their cradle to grave mentality has done them wonders.

---

If by that you mean our constitution and how things were before the terrorists became a "problem" then I agree. Our current system is not what lead us to being a prosperous nation... If you didn't notice the trend, the opposite is happening right now... Do you really think currency comes out of nowhere? You can print as much of it as you want but eventually it will lose value, our economy will crash and the the defecation will hit the oscillation. Too many people are living in a fantasy world and think these things will never happen. The Obama administration doesn't care, they're just going to blame previous administrations and leave the problems for the next one to try to deal with. If you really think Mitt Romney is going to cut spending or reduce government you are sorely mistaken. On top of that, I highly doubt he cares about your rights/civil liberties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saiga

If by that you mean our constitution and how things were before the terrorists became a "problem" then I agree. Our current system is not what lead us to being a prosperous nation... If you didn't notice the trend, the opposite is happening right now... Do you really think currency comes out of nowhere? You can print as much of it as you want but eventually it will lose value, our economy will crash and the the defecation will hit the oscillation. Too many people are living in a fantasy world and think these things will never happen. The Obama administration doesn't care, they're just going to blame previous administrations and leave the problems for the next one to try to deal with. If you really think Mitt Romney is going to cut spending or reduce government you are sorely mistaken. On top of that, I highly doubt he cares about your rights/civil liberties.

---

Ron Paul 2012 :spot:

Ron Paul!!!!!

I think Obama has done some good things, but he's also made a lot of mistakes. I think every president has messed something up. I don't like the fact he's changing his views just to get the public's vote, which is why I would vote for Romney.