starting to get More into politics now That i can vote
- Thread starter Saltair's Finest
- Start date
And actually mine was a hypothetical .. I really don't lend money. I typically only invest in ventures that I directly control. I hate having someone elses intellect and drive determine my returns .. but I know most don't operate that way.
hahaha .. well, that's one place, I spose.
Who is the 'rich?' Those that directy received bail-out should pay it back .. 100%. The rich in general, though, shouldn't have to pay in anymore (as a %) than anyone else, imo.
Your logic is faulty. Based on your "facts" there is no way to determine whether Repubs do or do not support subsidies for poor people.
#3 was just oddly worded/placed.
What if someone gets a zero percent interest loan, and uses it to buy assets at 10 cents on the dollar in a crisis he helped create, while benefiting from inside information from his contacts in Congress and banking regulators, while leveraged up 30 to 1 and risking none of his own money. When he pays back his zero percent loan, is it all even?
My logic is not faulty. i did not say what you said I said in the quote you quoted.
However, elsewhere, a Republican, Beantown I think it was, said that he resented subsidies to poor people, while not showing any similar resentment over subsidies to rich people.
I think this is a common Republican attitude.
Last edited:
Nowhere, and I generally agree with the portions you bolded. However, this doesn't mean the system is too corrupt for the necessary stimulus to work as you stated. It's not a question of if it's necessary, but of how to go about doing it that gives us the best return while minimizing corruption. (and if any ultra-right/libertarian doesn't think stimulus was necessary in 2008 then I'll point them to their daddy, Mr. Hayek).
Defining the rich is for society to decide.
All business owners benefit from stimulus, and those who do the most business benefit the most. They can pay back this benefit as it saved their asses from failure. Isn't this more than a fair request? We stimulate business demand, save from social chaos, increase instability within the system through ballooning government deficits, push business margins through the roof thus transferring wealth from the working class to the business class via policy that was bought and paid for by the business class, and we can't tax that money back?
I don't care to debate the merits, but I stand with America's tradition of a graduated taxation system that was in opposition to the King's Land Serfdom model preceding it.
These are topics that require too much in-depth talk in order to get a simple point across. Too much history, too many layers .. I'm bowing out because it's actually easier to talk bb and even religion than politics on a message board. Respect to all y'all!
Beantown cannot be relied upon to make a coherent argument for or against subsidies for any demographic.
Virtually any study of the history of American journalism indicates that this is flat-out dead wrong. Couldn't be more wrong.
Standard journalistic practices have always vacillated between completely absurd and corrupt/criminal. There is virtually nothing unique about how it's handled today vs. how it has been handled historically. Any difference on this front is with you, not with reporting practices. Even investigations that are heralded today as the pinnacle of modern investigative journalism were marked with extreme unethical practices, such as blackmail of sources and reporter plants of evidence to generate stories that affected investigations. Major criminal and civil matters have always been greatly shaped by media coverage, at least as far back as the colonial era.
As a side note, what is your basis for saying that newspapers have a liberal bias? Do you not read the Wall Street Journal or the leading state newspapers in approximately 35 of the US states today? Or are you just focusing on the New York Times editorial page and parroting something you've heard?
but now it seems the massive majority of reporting is written as an opinion piece, with carying degrees of transparency. It's so difficult to sift through all the BS for the truth now that it's pathetic. You fact-find what one says, find it doesn't line up with other truths .. only to find out those truths were slanted as well.
I'm not a right-wing nut .. I'm a guy who hates how powerful, yet unrestricted, the media has become in shaping our belief systems.[/QUOTE]
^^ Understand that kicky .. but with each new news station that pops onto the tv guide, becomes more competition, more shock-journalism ..
I can agree to disagree with everyone on this board .. but no way anyone will convince me that the vast majority of media personnel aren't under extreme pressure to gain ears and eyeballs ... and will spin, create, and exaggerate as necessary.
I can agree to disagree with everyone on this board .. but no way anyone will convince me that the vast majority of media personnel aren't under extreme pressure to gain ears and eyeballs ... and will spin, create, and exaggerate as necessary.
Saltair's Finest
Active Member
sirkickyass, I read your post and a few minutes later was on Twitter trying to find out how Gordon Hayward and favors Were doing with Team USA and this d-bag twitter.com/#!/poormanscommish was the only one Who did. His profile says he is a reporter for The Warriors and he tweeted a pic of Kyrie Irving and was like 'OJ Mayo still reps USC' then had all these tweets about How like OJ was killin And stuff. But I looked it up and OJ Mayo isnt on Team USA or the other team with Hayward and Favors and Irving is. So he was watchin Irving this whole time and tweeting about how sick OJ Mayo is ha ha ha what an r-tard
I thought of u cuz u Said all media has always been awful Not much changed I guess
I thought of u cuz u Said all media has always been awful Not much changed I guess
It depends on how you define reporter. Someone could be reporting things to their followers.
In general theory you may want to...
Vote Republican if:
Are more pro-life
Like the death penalty
Want corporations to have more power/influence on us than government
Want less government (programs)
Want the government to decide what morals you should have
Its up the the individual to get their own health care, higher education, and social programs (they are not a priority)
Miltary power, and funding is a high priority
Less taxes in general, less tax on the rich, tax refunds higher
Vote Democrat if:
You are more pro-choice
You want the government to run things more than corporations/big business
The government should help people that can't afford education, health care, and social programs(using your tax dollars)
Put moral issues into the hands of the people
Homosexuals should be able to marry like Heterosexuals
You agree we should be taxed more to pay for programs/health care/ education etc etc
(wealthy taxed at higher rate)
Best of luck to you. It's good to know what you are voting for, and be honest about it.
The two party system doesn't offer enough choice. It would be nice to see more variation.
The parties are always changing too. Republicans used to be more for staying out of your personal business, and were pro-choice.
Now aligned with Christians, they have taken on a whole new feel. Democrats are more into use of force, and have continued the Bush tax cuts.
The saddest thing is that both sides refuse to really work together. We spend hundreds of millions of dollars on campaigns that mean very little in the end.
There is too much demonising, and lack of bipartisanship. It is the biggest weakness right now imo.
Saltair's Finest
Active Member
my Dad emailed me a link to this today cuz I was asking him about Politics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MG5E3mznFdU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MG5E3mznFdU