|
|
Rank: Polio Power!
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User
Joined: 8/1/2008
Posts: 658
Points: 81
Location: SoCal
|
Lead Salad wrote:By the way were those soviet-esque posters made by a third party or his own campaign? I think it's from an artist I don't know the name of. Not officially from the campaign I'm pretty sure. There's McCain ones like that I think.
|
|
|
Rank: You're gonna stick that where?
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User
Joined: 8/7/2008
Posts: 179
Points: 0
Location: Puyallup, Washington
|
RichardAwesome wrote:In other words, Obama stands for whatever fantasy the word "change" spawns in your mind which ultimately means he stands for nothing and promises you everything.
I'm weary of anyone that promises me the world and asks for nothing in return.
And life isn't fair. How is it fair that someone has to pay more than someone else simply because they happen to be more successful?
The freedom of the US isn't just to be successful but also to fail. It's supposed to be an open system. Isn't that what every politician is? What do you want, William Wallace to come back from the dead and lead this country? A single person that tries to bring too much change often gets shot.  Great men like him are not president material. Also, money does not equal success. Bill Gates has always been a jerk to his employees, and evades taxes any way he can. Charities or not, the man makes so much money he can't find a way to spend it all. He's successful at making money, but I'll be damned if Bill Gates has ever been successful at making friends. You don't take money from the rich help the poor because it's fair. You take money from the rich to help the poor because it's right.
|
|
|
Rank: Polio Power!
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User
Joined: 8/1/2008
Posts: 658
Points: 81
Location: SoCal
|
MarioMario wrote:RichardAwesome wrote:In other words, Obama stands for whatever fantasy the word "change" spawns in your mind which ultimately means he stands for nothing and promises you everything.
I'm weary of anyone that promises me the world and asks for nothing in return.
And life isn't fair. How is it fair that someone has to pay more than someone else simply because they happen to be more successful?
The freedom of the US isn't just to be successful but also to fail. It's supposed to be an open system. Isn't that what every politician is? What do you want, William Wallace to come back from the dead and lead this country? A single person that tries to bring too much change often gets shot. Great men like him are not president material. Also, money does not equal success. Bill Gates has always been a jerk to his employees, and evades taxes any way he can. Charities or not, the man makes so much money he can't find a way to spend it all. He's successful at making money, but I'll be damned if Bill Gates has ever been successful at making friends. You don't take money from the rich help the poor because it's fair. You take money from the rich to help the poor because it's right. I would like a politician that tells me what they will do as leaders, not promise everything and stand for nothing. Well that sucks for that person then doesn't it? Certainly didn't stop MLK Jr. from trying to create the changes he wanted, but you're making a strange comparison. Obama is not MLK Jr. He's not even on the same level. He's a double-talker that's more akin to Bill Clinton. Wealth or money certainly does equate to success. Just because Bill Gates may be an asshole doesn't mean he suddenly doesn't have the right to be ass successful as he wants to be. So tell me, how much should the government take from you to give to the poor?
|
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User, Server Admin, Administration
Joined: 3/27/2008
Posts: 1,793
Points: 3,380
Location: Arizona
|
MarioMario wrote:You don't take money from the rich help the poor because it's fair. You take money from the rich to help the poor because it's right. Well put. On a side note, do you know what would be awesome? Let companies let their employees donate a flat amount or a percentage of their paychecks towards nonprofit organizations before taxes. I'd totally sign up for that. I'd donate probably $50 per paycheck and not have to worry about providing receipts come tax time.
|
|
|
Rank: Taco Technician
Groups: Registered User, {pDs} Member
Joined: 5/9/2006
Posts: 3,948
Points: 3,636
Location: Hi-Five City
|
MarioMario wrote:RichardAwesome wrote:In other words, Obama stands for whatever fantasy the word "change" spawns in your mind which ultimately means he stands for nothing and promises you everything.
I'm weary of anyone that promises me the world and asks for nothing in return.
And life isn't fair. How is it fair that someone has to pay more than someone else simply because they happen to be more successful?
The freedom of the US isn't just to be successful but also to fail. It's supposed to be an open system. Isn't that what every politician is? What do you want, William Wallace to come back from the dead and lead this country? A single person that tries to bring too much change often gets shot. Great men like him are not president material. Also, money does not equal success. Bill Gates has always been a jerk to his employees, and evades taxes any way he can. Charities or not, the man makes so much money he can't find a way to spend it all. He's successful at making money, but I'll be damned if Bill Gates has ever been successful at making friends. You don't take money from the rich help the poor because it's fair. You take money from the rich to help the poor because it's right. Dude are you fucking kidding me microsoft is like the best company one could possibly work for.
|
|
|
Rank: Fecal Impaction For the Win!
Groups: Registered User, Server Admin
Joined: 1/13/2008
Posts: 1,509
Points: 2,004
|
Rikaelus wrote:MarioMario wrote:You don't take money from the rich help the poor because it's fair. You take money from the rich to help the poor because it's right. Well put. On a side note, do you know what would be awesome? Let companies let their employees donate a flat amount or a percentage of their paychecks towards nonprofit organizations before taxes. I'd totally sign up for that. I'd donate probably $50 per paycheck and not have to worry about providing receipts come tax time. You can already do this...it has to be set up by your company. My company allows for auto-donation pretax to the united way.
Quote:
"Who the fuck is Leon Switch and why does he know we have a dog?" - Mrs. Giller
|
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User, Server Admin, Administration
Joined: 3/27/2008
Posts: 1,793
Points: 3,380
Location: Arizona
|
Giller [GwDR wrote:]
You can already do this...it has to be set up by your company. My company allows for auto-donation pretax to the united way. ooooh.. I must seek this out.
|
|
|
Rank: Fuckstick
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User
Joined: 12/20/2007
Posts: 681
Points: 6
Location: San Antonio, TX
|
Giller [GwDR wrote:] Rikaelus wrote:MarioMario wrote:You don't take money from the rich help the poor because it's fair. You take money from the rich to help the poor because it's right. Well put. On a side note, do you know what would be awesome? Let companies let their employees donate a flat amount or a percentage of their paychecks towards nonprofit organizations before taxes. I'd totally sign up for that. I'd donate probably $50 per paycheck and not have to worry about providing receipts come tax time. You can already do this...it has to be set up by your company. My company allows for auto-donation pretax to the united way. Mine does as well, but we are required strongly encouraged to give at least 1% of our salary. I must happily do this. How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
|
|
|
Rank: Polio Power!
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User
Joined: 8/1/2008
Posts: 658
Points: 81
Location: SoCal
|
What I don't understand is that if Obama believes in wealth redistribution, why hasn't he gone around handing checks to poor families? I would figure if you actually believe in that sort of thing, you'd be giving money to poor people without needing the government to do it for you(and poorly I might add). So what gives?
|
|
|
Rank: Fuckstick
Groups: {pDs} Member, Server Admin
Joined: 5/9/2006
Posts: 775
Points: 381
|
Dick Cheney's Mechanical Heart wrote:Yay for clever (if poorly produced) propaganda. While I do agree that Wall Street has its pets on the Democratic side and they've been instrumental in breaking a variety of things from what I saw this video fails to mention the role of Republicans in the mess and totally fails to mention the role of securitizing the shitpile mortgages which is what spread the crisis into the heart of the global financial system. If this was just about subprime mortgages still it would be so much less serious, but it's beyond that now (even if it originated there). If we're going to play the blame game my vote gets distributed thusly:
75% Wall Street (and friends)
15% Republicans
10% Democrats
Alabama congressman Artur Davis issued a statement today to "Hannity & Colmes," in response to last night's airing of clips from the 2004 Congressional oversight hearing of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
“Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues, I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership, when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit that when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong. By the way, I wish my Republican colleagues would admit that they missed the early warning signs that Wall Street deregulation was overheating the securities market and promoting dangerously lax lending practices. When it comes to the debacle in our capital markets, there is much blame to go around for both sides.”
When you say friends, you do mean Democrat and Republican politicians, right? Look at the cash that these political scumbags pocketed(a list i posted in another thread). Dick, you and I are on polar opposites of the political spectrum, but I love your conviction and passion for your positions. I don't think in terms of Republicans and Democrats as they both seek the same thing, power. I tend to look at their overall performance and use labels such as liberal, moderate(lol, everyone thinks they have the middle of the road opinion, but that's a different subject) and conservative. I don't know if this is the right way to look at things, but it sure helps separate the heroes from the zeros.
|
|
|
Rank: Coathanger Abortion
Groups: {pDs} Member, Server Admin
Joined: 5/17/2006
Posts: 3,487
Points: 1,990
Location: Undisclosed Location
|
tpractice wrote:
Dick Cheney's Mechanical Heart wrote:Yay for clever (if poorly produced) propaganda. While I do agree that Wall Street has its pets on the Democratic side and they've been instrumental in breaking a variety of things from what I saw this video fails to mention the role of Republicans in the mess and totally fails to mention the role of securitizing the shitpile mortgages which is what spread the crisis into the heart of the global financial system. If this was just about subprime mortgages still it would be so much less serious, but it's beyond that now (even if it originated there). If we're going to play the blame game my vote gets distributed thusly:
75% Wall Street (and friends)
15% Republicans
10% Democrats
Alabama congressman Artur Davis issued a statement today to "Hannity & Colmes," in response to last night's airing of clips from the 2004 Congressional oversight hearing of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
“Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues, I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership, when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit that when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong. By the way, I wish my Republican colleagues would admit that they missed the early warning signs that Wall Street deregulation was overheating the securities market and promoting dangerously lax lending practices. When it comes to the debacle in our capital markets, there is much blame to go around for both sides.”
When you say friends, you do mean Democrat and Republican politicians, right? Look at the cash that these political scumbags pocketed(a list i posted in another thread). Dick, you and I are on polar opposites of the political spectrum, but I love your conviction and passion for your positions. I don't think in terms of Republicans and Democrats as they both seek the same thing, power. I tend to look at their overall performance and use labels such as liberal, moderate(lol, everyone thinks they have the middle of the road opinion, but that's a different subject) and conservative. I don't know if this is the right way to look at things, but it sure helps separate the heroes from the zeros.
The "and friends" was in reference to others in involved on the banking/finance side of things. I don't dispute that fundamentally all politicians seek power (although I think it's a lot more nuanced than that), on balance the Democrats are more prone to doing good things (or less bad things). I also generally look at ideology rather than party membership, most Democrats are actually pretty damn conservative most of the time, that's part of the problem. Even those who aren't conservative have a terrible tendency to do what they are paid to do. Biden is a great example of this, he's done a lot of great things in the Senate but whenever it comes down to it he has always been the Senator from MBNA. There is this funny mythology that the Democrats have a bunch of radicals in the party, but in reality the radicals are more marginalized than the supposedly libertarian wing of the GOP. It's the nature of our barely democratic democracy, as much as I've come to despise Nader there is truth to his argument that the Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the same coin. When it comes to what Wall Street/Big Biz wants we have always been a single party state except for a brief period during the Great Depression (and look what the fuckers did, tried to start a fucking coup to install a fascist dictatorship!). Razor wrote:Killing people is good therapy.  
|
|
|
Rank: Dutchess of Doodoo
Groups: Registered User, Server Admin, WDFNews.com Official Mapper
Joined: 6/3/2006
Posts: 2,239
Points: 330
Location: $L
|
MarioMario wrote:RichardAwesome wrote:The US isn't Sweden. I'd rather not pay the extreme taxes that come with that. Nobody says the common man has to foot the bill for something like that. Considering that the poorest of the poor don't pay taxes anyway, why not tax someone who can afford to part with the money, like the top 25 percent? I bet most of your top 25% send their kids to private schools. You wanna take this to Fuck Town?
Oh gadzooks, yes!
|
|
|
| Users browsing this topic |
|
Guest
|