So you want the upper class to have bodyguards, nice houses, a surplus of food, healthcare, and a spaceship because they have the funds to?

 

They already have this stuff today, Turkey.

 

And you want the poor, who may have been born to a poor family (so not their fault) to be starving, homeless, without any way to get treated if they fall ill, and uneducated BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT?

 

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. :dozey:

 

No, what I'm telling you is that the market incentivizes increased production of things poor people need while force doesn't.

 

So when the provision of food, housing, healthcare, and education isn't monopolized/paid for with stolen funds, the price of these things naturally falls over time (because entrepreneurs have an incentive to discover ways to lower their price so the maximum # of people can buy them).

 

Governments have no incentive to reduce prices. They also have no incentive to provide the service at all - they just do it for cultural reasons, on occasion. There are many news stories about cops ignoring people who need their help, teachers not giving a crap about their students, firefighters allowing houses to burn down, and presidents starting unnecessary wars in the Middle East.

 

Government is a mechanism to transfer money from the productive class to the parasitical class. The parasitical class uses the media and the monopolized school system to propagandize in its favor (claiming the poor would starve and the rich would eat all the food or whatever. Or maybe we won't have roads because only Obama knows the secret recipe to make asphault).

 

EDIT:

 

Now you're talking about unions. Go make another thread to bitch about that in.

 

No I'm talking about rent seeking behavior. Nobody likes competition.

BUMB

 

I like rainbows and science :awesome:

So ... just have to say that Michele Bachmann is scary.

 

She claims the Founding Father's of the US extinguished slavery:

"We were all the same!" Yep, all equal. Poor and rich, black and white. Except of course gay people, because according to her homosexuality is "sexual dysfunction," "sexual identity disorders," and "personal enslavement" that leads to "sexual anarchy."

 

She likes to say weird things to make the democrats look bad, such as "I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out then under another Democrat president Jimmy Carter. And I'm not blaming this on President Obama, I just think it's an interesting coincidence." - Pajamas TV

Okay ..... Carter was president from 1977 to 1981. Swine Flu broke out in early 1976. Gerald Ford was the president back then ... he was a republican. :thinking: So, what was her point again?

 

She congratulated Elvis Presley with his birthday on the date he died. Way to go.

 

... a state that doesn't exist anymore since 1991.

 

Erhm, the movie star John Wayne wasn't, but the serial killer John Wayne was ... she has that kind of spirit? Scary, I tell ya.

 

Gays are really not that bad. Look, they send a letter of apology to Amy Koch for ruining her marriage. That's kind :nice:

She is a horrible, horrible woman.

So did she actually end her campaign or?

Seems she did. Huzzah!

Yep she did.

raise da roof

PARTY IN THE USA

Ahhh, Michelle Bachman has dropped out of the race. I can cancel my pending visa to live in Canada now.

Bachman/Palin 2016!

sorry is in french

 

Palin :

 

http://anniceris.blogspot.com/2008/09/beyond-palin.html

 

http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=42638

BUMB

 

I like rainbows and science :awesome:

So ... just have to say that Michele Bachmann is scary.

 

She claims the Founding Father's of the US extinguished slavery:

"We were all the same!" Yep, all equal. Poor and rich, black and white. Except of course gay people, because according to her homosexuality is "sexual dysfunction," "sexual identity disorders," and "personal enslavement" that leads to "sexual anarchy."

 

The founding fathers, like she said, did work tirelessly to end slavery, although they couldn't because the people had become so dependent on the slaves that ending slavery at that time would only cause more problems. When she said "They worked until slavery was eliminated" She didn't mean the founding fathers ended slavery. She meant the founding fathers would not stop working until slavery was ended.

 

The founding fathers didn't keep slavery because they believed blacks were less than human. It was because at that time, we needed them. It was choosing the lesser of two evils.

 

The reporter in this video talked about how Japanese Americans were treated poorly in WWII. Michelle was talking about the time of the founding fathers. Long before WWII.

 

Michelle has never said Gays were less human than anyone else. She only believes that being Gay is a disorder. Disorders don't make anyone less than equal with everyone else.

Making homosexuality more of a mental disorder creates all kinds of problems as mental disorders already have a terrible social stigma around them. Ergo, yes, in this society having a disorder makes you seen as less than equal.

Why dont you use ad block?

The only Bachman I like it Bachman Turner Overdrive! :cool: The rest can go Bach.:P

 

The right-wingnuts though do spend an awful lot of time demonizing gays, that's such a backwards thing to do. It's as though they need someone to hate, to redirect attention to for all the frustration their adherents sense in life; a boogie-man to be afraid of, or to try and make a monoculture out of a land of diversity.

The only Bachman I like it Bachman Turner Overdrive! :cool: The rest can go Bach.:P

 

The right-wingnuts though do spend an awful lot of time demonizing gays, that's such a backwards thing to do. It's as though they need someone to hate, to redirect attention to for all the frustration their adherents sense in life; a boogie-man to be afraid of, or to try and make a monoculture out of a land of diversity.

 

I'm a libertarian. I agree with Republican fiscal issues. I think the government should be very small. HOWEVER, lately, I have refused to vote Republican on the grounds that a lot of their platform is centered around bigotry: An outdated doctrine that more and more people are dismissing as bullshit. Republicans need a re-assessment. Their social platform is too dated.

 

HOWEVER, when voting for the federal government, we're choosing a person to run FISCAL issues, not social ones. The federal government's job doesn't encompass that. That's why when dumbasses like Michelle Bachmann come up and say "GUYZ IM GONNA OUTLAW GAY MARRIAGE LOLOLOL" it's stupid because she has no such power. Idiot.

 

I usually vote Republican for federal office because generally they have a better, more prosperous fiscal setup. And, seeing that it's essentially a fact that by getting that far in politics, you're a douchebag, it doesn't matter because the American government is set up to minimize damage by said bigots and morons.

 

I always vote Democrat for state government because the way they set up fiscal barriers works well for local state governments, but not international commerce. Plus, social change occurs on a state-by-state basis. That's why X number of states allow gay marriage and Y amount doesn't.

 

The only exception I'll make to this rule is if a genuinely BAD person is running. Like, I wouldn't vote for Bachmann because she's a fucking bigot. I don't need hateful people representing my country. Most Republicans aren't that bad in the social realm. But Palin/Bachmann/Santorum are.

 

Ron Paul FTW

Paul is coming in 2nd for NH polls. If he gets second place it'll be hard for the media to keep ignoring him. On Fox they are focusing more on Gengrich who did horrible in Iowa and is polling horrible in New Hampshire, yet the media still pretends it's just him, Romney and Santorum in the lead.

Paul is coming in 2nd for NH polls. If he gets second place it'll be hard for the media to keep ignoring him. On Fox they are focusing more on Gengrich who did horrible in Iowa and is polling horrible in New Hampshire, yet the media still pretends it's just him, Romney and Santorum in the lead.

 

Do you actually think Ron Paul will win the GOP nomination, let alone the general election? Paul does not have a high ceiling of support and many of his views are toxic to the GOP base. Paul's best chance was in Iowa and he couldn't quite pull through. Just take a look at Paul's coalition of voters - it's highly unstable.

 

It's looking inevitable that Romney will be the GOP nominee. Not only does he have a seemingly insurmountable lead in New Hampshire, PPP polling in South Carolina today shows Romney in the lead by 10 percentage points over both Santorum + Gingrich (in fact, they were the only three candidates to receive support in double digits). If Romney is somehow able to maintain that lead in SC, then the GOP primaries are effectively over.

 

Finally, Rasmussen polling shows Romney as the only GOP candidate that would be in contention with Obama (it's currently 42-42). None of the other GOP candidates are able to equal Obama's support in a head-to-head matchup.

I saw some polls a few weeks ago showing Paul had the best chance to beat Obama out of all of them. Paul would do quite well with independents and soft Democrats if he got the nomination. And the Independents decide the election. So the polls I saw I think show he's the best one to put against Obama..the only one that oculd take him on. Many Democrats are "quitting" the party and becoming independents. But he won't. You can't go against the media and big money candidates. Paul is leading a movement more than being a candidate and it's gaining a lot of power. Compared to 2008, it's amazing how well he's doing. There is a clear change going on and I hope this is just the start. I understand if it works, it will take a while.

 

I agree and Romney will get the nomination and he'll lose to Obama. Which is sad because Obama isn't popular with the majority but against Romney he will be. How well Paul is doing is a black eye to the mainstream Republicans and the media.

 

The codeine I had to take is kicking my ass. I'm going to bed.

Ron Paul is the only chance America has of getting rid of Obama. But watch, the Republicans will shoot themselves in the foot once again and nominate someone like Romney.

Ron Paul is the only chance America has of getting rid of Obama. But watch, the Republicans will shoot themselves in the foot once again and nominate someone like Romney.

 

What makes you say that? As stated before, Ron Paul has an absolute low ceiling of support. His numbers will nowhere be close to what he received in Iowa, the state he had the best chance of winning. Given the nature of Ron Paul's coalition of voters, he would have absolutely no chance of winning the GOP nomination, let alone the general election.

 

Rasmussen polling numbers from January 5th (aka yesterday) show that Romney is the only GOP candidate that would reach Obama's numbers in a head-to-head matchup were the elections to be held today. Just last week, Romney was leading Obama 45% to 39%. He remains the only GOP candidate to lead Obama in more than one survey. Moreover, if we were to somehow assume Ron Paul magically became the GOP nominee, his differentials in battleground states lag behind those of Romney, let alone Obama.

 

The only interesting question right now is whether or not Romney is able to win South Carolina. If he maintains the 10% lead, then the GOP race is over.

^ Well, those polls are essentially just relative to the registered Republicans voting in caucuses and primaries and stuff: Not the general populous.

 

I think Kiame has a point. One that I don't care to go into because when I get into politics I don't go to sleep.

 

:escaping:

^ Well, those polls are essentially just relative to the registered Republicans voting in caucuses and primaries and stuff: Not the general populous.

 

Well, the Rasmussen poll I listed is actually reflective of the general populous, not just the registered Republicans. The PPP analysis posted on Jan 4th is even more interesting: they point out that Romney's numbers against Obama are probably being underestimated because of the undecided Republicans. Accounting for these voters would result in a 283-255 Romney win.

 

Don't get me wrong: it's too early to say Romney will definitely be the GOP nominee or that he'll win against Obama. In fact, Obama is in very good shape for reelection: he has 255 electoral votes locked up in states with at least a 5 point average poll lead in 2011. If he can win just one out of Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina that puts him over 270.

 

However, it's simply incorrect to say that Ron Paul represents the best chance of getting rid of Obama. Ron Paul's well-documented low ceiling + fragile coalition would lead to a landslide Obama victory. Of all the GOP candidates, Romney clearly has the best shot of beating Obama.

The only exception I'll make to this rule is if a genuinely BAD person is running. Like, I wouldn't vote for Bachmann because she's a fucking bigot. I don't need hateful people representing my country. Most Republicans aren't that bad in the social realm. But Palin/Bachmann/Santorum are.

 

Ron Paul FTW

 

anyway. Elections are rigged anyway and the money always wins.

Ron Paul is the only chance America has of getting rid of Obama. But watch, the Republicans will shoot themselves in the foot once again and nominate someone like Romney.

 

I agree. He appeals to not only Republicans, but Independents (which ultimately decides the elections), and some Democrats too.

 

He is by far the candidate I want to see win.