The 2012 US Presidential Election

Quoted from Ledbetter

I've been fantastic brother!

I've got one I'm writing right now but won't be done for a few. Will give you a shout when it is.

How about you? Something up here you would like for me to have a go at?

Opinions!

You nailed it Andrew. Everyone seems as though if you (for some reason) are not completely in line with everything the media is churning out, then you are a fucking loon.

I'm personally sick of it!

No, I don't think every illegal immigrant should be automatically given the rights that Americans have fought and died for.

No, I don't support same sex marriage.

No, I don't think we should bankrupt our country by handing out free EVERYTHING to lazy none working fuckers who defraud the system.

Yes, I do think it's the best country on earth.

And YES! If you do work your as$ off, you can make something of yourself here.

I'm just very tired of all of the self entitlement going around that says, give me what I want and give me what you have.

FUCK THAT!!!

Go out and work for it like I do!

Thats the AMERICAN WAY!!!

Shawn.....><

Make sure you send it over when you need some fresh eyes.

Unfortunately not being doing much writing 'cos i'm busy producing, line producing, runnering, and production assitantering all types of stuff. Plenty of time on shoots just learning so much. Best thing any writer can do, IMO.

Shawn, what I love about your comments there is the fact you don't try to tear down the opposing views but lay out what you believe in and think. That's the way it should be. Totally respect you laying it down like that - people know where you stand. Healthy debate starts from that point!

I had this long diatribe but I deleted it. When you disagree with both sides, bad things happen. But Shawn and I are decently close (about 70%).

I was born and raised a Republican and mostly always will be. I will vote for Romney although I hate when the religious side of republicans rears its ugly head. I am so not religious and this always shapes the way many Republicans feel in certain topics.

I do, however, believe in their economics. I know the rich find ways to avoid taxes, but so do the poor. I'm middle-class all the way. I'm one of the grunts who help keep this country afloat, but I've always aspired to be wealthy. If I ever get there, it would piss me off after all of the hard work to have the government take it and give it to the poor.( not because I'm that much of a greedy bastard, but because I don't trust the government with money. Look at social security, It'll be gone when most of us retire).

I was always a fan of the flat tax rate... you pay 17% if you make 10 million, you pay 17% if you make ten thousand. That'll never happen. Several hundred thousand accountants will instantly be looking for new careers.

I also fear what Obama can do as a second term president. When he no longer has to fear re-election. If he gets a majority in the house and senate, he'll push his healthcare through. I don't believe in it at all.

On the other hand, he did get Osama. I'll always credit our service men and women first and foremost for that, but he did have the balls to give the go-ahead to invade Pakistan. That could've been a disaster. Can't wait to see the film on this.

Government is stagnant. It's designed to be that way. No matter who gets elected it always moves slow. I'll still wake up and go to work in the morning. I'll still be bitching when tax season comes.

James

Considering the mess he inherited from the previous administration, I think Obama has done about as well as anyone else would have. He's also done more for the protection and advancement of my people's rights than any of the previous Presidents combined, so I'm a little biased toward him anyway. Having said that, I still recognize that he is and always will be only one thing: a politician, which means that he cannot be truly trusted. With anything. Ever.

On the other hand, it's impossible for me to take Romney seriously on anything. Every single time he's on TV all I can do is wonder if he's wearing his magic underwear. Romney's a boorish, bigoted, unintelligent, misogynist zealot. I wouldn't trust him with my dog let alone a government.

In my opinion, Obama will take it. Maybe he'll do some crazy stuff in his second term since re-election won't be a worry for him, or maybe he'll surprise us all and do something great (although this seems unlikely). And in the meantime, it might be a good idea for the Republicans to put someone up there who doesn't just want to give America back to God.

Hey Led,

To clarify my careless writing, I was referring specifically to Romney, who as I say is a strong believer in American exceptionalism (or so I understand). I would see that as an unfortunate perspective for a US president at this time.

I don't know enough about American healthcare to comment on that specific issue (somehow I get the sense that I didn't quite get the whole picture from Michael Moore...); as for Canadian healthcare, all I can say is that my personal experience of it has always been highly positive.

I would though contest the claim that Americans don't want to spread democracy. Isn't it fair to say that spreading liberty and democracy to the oppressed people of the world has been a fairly significant and fairly successful justification for many of the conflicts the U.S. has involved itself in over the last century? It seems to me that Romney's just the kinda guy to believe in that sort of thing. Then again, Obama probably is too. I feel a little aloof up here, but I think if I lived in the States I'd probably feel much the same way Balt does.

If I could vote I'd have to bite my lip and vote for Obama, no matter how nauseating it would make me feel, but Romney is a Mormon, I could never vote for someone who believes in such a dopey religion, I mean Jesus Christ, you have to have some kind of retardation to actually believe in something so silly, and that's not even an opinion that's a fact, I mean most realigions are goofy, but I can handle baptists, even catholics, but Mormonism, C'mon, it's just as realistic as Santa or the tooth fairy, so in the end I could not vote for someone who believes in fairy tails. And it's scary there are people that would.

Being a bleeding heart libertarian myself I can honestly say I'm most dissatisfied with both candidates.

Quoted from Hugh Hoyland

Being a bleeding heart libertarian myself I can honestly say I'm most dissatisfied with both candidates.

And isn't it sad how Libertarian thinking was basically the original Tea Party thinking, but somehow got hijacked and turned into far right thinking? Libertarians want less government in our lives. They don't care who's gay or who's doing what, but somehow it's now far right extremism. :-/

Quoted from Heretic

I would though contest the claim that Americans don't want to spread democracy. Isn't it fair to say that spreading liberty and democracy to the oppressed people of the world has been a fairly significant and fairly successful justification for many of the conflicts the U.S. has involved itself in over the last century?

Wonderfully said.

And that is exactly what America is founded on.

At this point though, many of us are simply trying to hold on to that principle while it still exist.

Shawn.....><

At least you guys discuss your politics, no matter how dopey your pollies are.

Over here, our country is run by fuckwits, no matter who we vote in. People have had enough of millions of dollars of taxpayers sent overseas to countries like Indonesia. We have fucking boat people coming in every week, wasting more of our money. Some detention centers are like hotels with pay tv, meanwhile we have Aussies starving on the streets and homeless in all major cities.

If our govt acted the same in other countries, they would have been over run and executed years ago.

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2012/08/17/pizza-franchise-creates-not-after-dark-delivery-rule-in-detroit-after-driver-shot/

http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/california-the-road-warrior-is-here/

Canaries in the coalmine. Detroit, Chicago, state of California. This is blue state America. That's what's at stake.

Greece. Spain.

Then there's the treasonous divulging of secrets for political gain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-Xfti7qtT0

Jeff Bush for President!

Quoted from Grandma Bear

Unfortunately thats what happens and has happened to honest movements in this nation for a long time, they get hijacked (usually by the status quo). But I still think there are many people who want less government and more individual freedom.

Quoted from Pale Yellow

Jeff Bush for President!

THIS is what we need. Another Bush in the whitehouse. I could imagine some atrocious reviews for some of the bills in the hopper.

James

Jeff Bush would tax orphans.

Quoted from leitskev

Jeff Bush would tax orphans.

And any writer who does their slugs wrong...

Those would be thrown in Guantanamo!

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all.

I'd like to start by saying that my cabinet will be comprised of former orphans, who I rescued and took off the lonely street they were living on.

Jagermeister will become our national drink.

And finally, UFC events will be free to all who know how to construct a strong sentence with proper punctuation.

Thank you for your time.

His cabinet will be all female, all bikini, all the time.

State of the Union will be biggest party of the year.

Quoted from leitskev

Then there's the treasonous divulging of secrets for political gain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-Xfti7qtT0

Kev,

Dam good points made here. What he's done to the confidence of the American people with regards to the office of the President and selling out secrets is astounding.

There is a huge differience in making political decisions and making decisions based soley for political gain.

Shawn.....><

To give up intelligence secrets that put the country's security at risk, just to pick up a point or two in the polls...we've never seen anything like this administration. Except maybe when Clinton gave high tech secrets to the Chinese because the Chinese were funneling money into his campaign. But even that seemed more like a blunder than a coherent effort.

I remember that!

When Clinton arrived with dozen of C-130 planes and greeted the Chineese Prime Minister at Tinian square.

I threw up a little...

Shawn.....><

I don't remember all the details, but there was a Chinese American... Huang maybe? who got convicted. He was taking money from the Chinese government. And the
Clinton's approved a technology transfer, through a Chinese company related to this character, that sent technology that could be used to guide missiles against the west coast. Treason has a long history in certain circles.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/stories/satellite123198.htm
This article only identifies a businessman named Schwartz, a big Dem contributor whose company gave tech to the Chinese, approved by Clinton. But I definitely remember that the Chinese were caught funneling money to Bill Clinton's campaign. And the connection continues as in 2008 another Chinese American was caught bundling Chinese money to Hillary. Dirty people.

I think it's fairly goofy to talk about one particular president or one particular party being dirty or disillusioning the American people or anything of that nature. Surely the only difference between any of them is how often or how completely their actions are exposed. To me, having confidence that any party in the States or Canada is acting completely legally is fatuous. I don't really care, either; I guess the question for me is whether they seem to be trying to act justly. Of course, often they don't.

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

I don't have confidence in either party. Probably in any party. In the US, while I don't like the red staters, they are far less of a threat to freedom and opportunity than the blues. Far less.

Both parties are corrupt. But the party that is built around the idea that the never ending expansion of government is a desirable thing is always going to be more corrupt. People that look to make their fortune through influence and connections will tend to flock there.

In modern history, we have never seen the level of corruption we see now. That's because of the size of the spending. BTW, much of the corruption I am referring to is legal, so will never be cited in prosecution. You bundle millions for the President, and his Dept of Energy happens to give your company a huge stimulus loan, unless one can show quid pro quo, it's legal. This admin has done more of that by far than any other, more than all others combined actually.

edit: other differences that matter

education: even many liberals are discovering that it's the unions that have utterly destroyed American school systems.
cost of healthcare: frivolous law suits are a huge factor. Blue party won't address because the American Trial Lawyers Association is one of their biggest donors, and along with the teachers unions, owns them.
regulations/energy policy: doing more damage to the middle class and to the economy than any other government policy. You want to open a small business? Good luck with the red tape.

These are real differences that have short and long term impact.

Obviously Mitt Romney is a now punchline (as well as an amusing hashtag: RomneyShambles) in the birthplace of punchlines after his comical howler re: the Olympics; however, this article and superb response to Mitt's rank hypocrisy needs as many eyes as possible: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79866.html?hp=l4

Quoted Text

Romney's campaign has been predicated on negativity from the beginning, Axelrod says. He got the nomination by eviscerating his opponents with negative media and then complained that they whined about it.

He challenged the president's patriotism and stood mute when a woman accused the president of treason. And now he is moralizing on the tone of the campaign? It's absurd. It's pious nonsense.

Personally, I'm to the point of simply voting out the incumbents. They've all jacked us up real nicely, and while the new one might not be much better than the old one, at least we can get a new one and hope he does something better. And if he doesn't, we'll just get another new one.

And Obama is only well spoken when he has his teleprompter. Set him free and the man will put his foot in his mouth quicker than Dubya will error in grammar.

Quoted Text

I've been fantastic brother!

I've got one I'm writing right now but won't be done for a few. Will give you a shout when it is.

How about you? Something up here you would like for me to have a go at?

Opinions!

You nailed it Andrew. Everyone seems as though if you (for some reason) are not completely in line with everything the media is churning out, then you are a F**king loon.

I'm personally sick of it!

No, I don't think every illegal immigrant should be automatically given the rights that Americans have fought and died for.

No, I don't support same sex marriage.

No, I don't think we should bankrupt our country by handing out free EVERYTHING to lazy none working f****rs who defraud the system.

Yes, I do think it's the best country on earth.

And YES! If you do work your as$ off, you can make something of yourself here.

I'm just very tired of all of the self entitlement going around that says, give me what I want and give me what you have.

f*** THAT!!!

Go out and work for it like I do!

Thats the AMERICAN WAY!!!

Shawn.....><

After this summary, I thought I'd add my own - these are, of course, just my own opinions:

- Tough to summarise on the multi-faceted immigration debate, but an amnesty (although potentially incentive for bad behaviour and a message to those who sit it out long enough) is the sensible, practical solution.

- Completely support same sex marriage. I do, however, believe no religious institution should be forced to carry out ceremonies against their will.

- I support raising taxes on the very richest in society (which by implication means no tax hike on the middle class), on top of a more transparent system that eliminates the type of loopholes that make Romney filthy rich. I reject the notion that it will reduce investment, especially in lieu of actual evidence.

- All for tax reduction across the board once a fair, one rule for all tax system is in place. Reducing top rates and effectively rewarding bad behaviour for gaming the rules before implementing a more transparent system is obviously arse backwards. I also support more scrutiny of the distinctions between tax avoidance and tax evasion.

- The social democracies in Scandinavia carry debt to GDP ratios of 20-30% whereas the biggest advocates of the Friedman school of thought (UK and US) carry 80%+. It's just not working and it needs to be changed. We should also bear in mind Obama's proposing a return to Clinton rates - a period the Republicans now champion.

- I would vote in favour of retaining US levels of spending at the very least (a very different argument for allocation). To inject fact-based analysis into the equation, US spending on welfare as a proportion of GDP hovers around the 15% of GDP mark. Denmark and Sweden equals roughly 30%. The argument put forth about welfare spending and tax rates is plainly illogical. No one denies the need for efficiencies in welfare spending and the desire to not encourage idleness, but for the far right to project the US as a country besieged by welfare costs is demonstrably false.

- I think the US is a great country, but I don't think any country should try and qualify itself as the best in the world. Sorkin wrote (and Daniels delivered) a sharp riposte to this thinking.

- I support a strong union presence and collective bargaining. The idea of sitting a representative on the board remuneration meetings is common sense, too.

There are many other views, but I don't have the time to post them all!

Welcome to Detroit, the future of America under the creeping tide of Leftism.

http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/17404

http://www.inquisitr.com/242581/half-of-detroit-street-lights-to-go-dark/

Streets are dark, crime out of control, neighborhoods in huge swaths of the city abandoned. And yet the bureaucracy continues to bloat. They can't even get ride of the 'horseshoer' , despite having no horses.

Conservatives can slow the tide, but not stop it. Nothing it seems can stop it. The Tea Party movement is the closest, but it tends to get distracted by side issues like abortion, which are not what it was originally about. Leftism is the cancer of civilization for which there is no cure. Except the end of that civilization. Makes for good dystopian scripts though!

Kev,

The amount of sensationalism you managed to squeeze out of that strenuously narrow evidence is admirable.

Here's the Wiki page for that Peace Index thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Peace_Index

Michigan, where crime is out of control, is right down among the worst...just above South Carolina, Alabama, Texas, Nevada, and Louisiana. Somehow, though, I'm assuming you don't conclude that therefore the "Rightism" that informs most of those states is a cancer on civilization. I wouldn't either, since that's silly. Detroit as a sample size is a little small, I think, to be supporting claims about an entire political ideology.

I'm constantly confused by your claims regarding "all liberals" or "all leftists." Can you explain, simply, the view or views common to "all leftists" that are inherently wrong or harmful?

Well, being that I live in a blue state that shall remain nameless (Massachusetts), we have, quite possibly, the worst functioning state government in the country. It only improved in the slightest with Teddy and Barney Frank gone but as long as "Mumbles" is still the mayor of Boston and Deval is still the governor, new taxes will be added wherever they can make them and their will will be imposed.

Personally, I think having an overwhelming majority of either side is a bad thing because it eliminates compromise. No side should get exactly what they want, whenever they want. How can you have checks and balances that way?

This is the type fo positive ad that generates enthusiasm:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/08/20/president_obama_weve_come_too_far_to_turn_back_now.html

Spot on, IMO, and well said, IMO, Bill: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/08/23/clear_choice_-_obama_for_america_tv_ad.html

Mr. Blonde, I didn't know you were a fellow Masshole. I grew up in Lawrence. The bar I owned was in Worcester. And I agree with you that one party domination can really cause problems, whatever the party. I still live near Lawrence, and what a disaster it is. Just another poster child for the dangers of big government and social planning.

You live in the trifecta from "L" (Lowell, Lawrence and Lynn), huh? I'm on the south shore and it's not exactly peaches and cream here, either.

Yeah, Blonde, Lynn is not really part of it though. Lowell, Lawrence, Haverhill. Merrimack River cities.

Chris, just saw your question, sorry about delay. I went to your link, and have little comment on something like that. A peace index? Really? I will say that the prime determining factor for statistical compilations like that are usually demographics. But there are other factors, such as how stats are gathered in the first place.

If you really disagree with me on this, take your next vacation to one of those places: Detroit, Camden, N.J, Chicago, Baltimore, Philly.

I will say that it's not just Detroit: it's most major American cities, the southern half of California. Areas that were once prosperous that have been brought down by decades of corruption, unionism, faulty social engineering, failing educational policies. We spend exponentially more on government and receive significantly less in return.

The road to hell is paved with you know what. Just because certain policies may sound well intentioned does not mean they achieve what they set out to. Results matter.

I won't be able to vote until the next presidential election due to my current residency status, but I'd like to say that I don't trust Obama or Romney in almost anything they say, so I don't know who I'd support even if I could vote. I hope Ron Paul keeps running just so he can make it harder on both of them. :P

At least it can't be any worse than the Mexican elections earlier this year.

--Julio

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKv-dXHhtMs

This is undeniably true.

Don't forget that of the last 32 years, Republicans have spent 20 in the White House. So when you hear those blaming the Democrats, and principally, Barack Obama for the economic mess, remember that Republicans have held the White House for 62% of the last 32 years.

Why what, Andrew? Why the Republicans? I don't believe in either party, but because this country was designed as a two-party system (Independents, Libertarians, Green, Rainbow, Nazis, they only exist to stop a final tally from being 51-49), I go with the one I agree with more.

See, a lot of what the Democrats' social foundation is built on is good ideas. I mean, they have welfare, unions, all public service jobs and believe everyone should have a fair chance. That's great. Here's the problem. They've all devolved into some kind of clusterfuck.

Welfare was originally designed as a leg-up for people who fell on hard times. Now, it's being used as a crutch by people who are too lazy to work. They bounce around from one social program to the other; Medicaid, SSI, Section 8, food stamps and then there's these women (I understand it, but hard-working women should be disgusted by this) who intentionally get pregnant time and time again so they can continue to collect SSI until the kid reaches 5-6 years old and they begin the cycle again. The system was a friendly thought, but it was never going to work the way it was intended to.

Next, we've got unions. Their job is to stand up for the worker against... well, getting screwed. The trouble is that they've changing into stonewallers who threaten with strikes first instead of trying to work out deals and who make it hard to fire people who aren't competent at their jobs. Have you seen how far a police officer has to go before he's reprimanded or fired? And, you have teachers who have been at the game so long, they've become complacent because when cuts do happen, their seniority keeps them at the top of the food chain. You know, I believe in cops, teachers, firefighters, etc. The problem with unions is they make it a challenge to separate the good ones from the bad ones.

Democrats also believe in giving everyone a fair shot. That's great. I agree with that. However, Republicans (regular people, not my scumbag business interests) agree with that as well. Where we differ is how we get there. Now, I'm going to stereotype here (I hope it's a stereotype and not truly accurate) and say that Democrats' ideas of giving everyone a fair chance is to take all the money from the rich bastards of this country and give everyone in the country a million dollars. Republicans' idea of this is just to be born and try and make as much money as you can during your lifetime.

The reason why I stereotyped there is because money matters are way too complicated to be debated in a simple paragraph on a screenwriting site. The point is that, in general, that's the concept that's being played out by the two candidates right now. Either be given all the money you want or work for it, but if you don't make it, "Oh well".

I could go on and on about the issues. I'm not a hardcore righty (after all, I believe in abortion so I'm fucked as far as the Republicans are concerned) but they mesh with my beliefs a little bit better than the Democrats do.

Sorry, I was referring to Clint Eastwood's bizarre speech at the RNC. He was called Blondie in The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.

Still, at least it's there for everyone to see that the gripes the Republicans have with Obama is in actual fact with thin air. Clint did a great job of crystalising the paranoia and fallacy of the guy they created: imaginary, invisible Obama, rather than the centrist he is. Clint's in the tank for Obama after all!

Good post, Blonde. I'm pretty much with you. Social liberal, fiscal conservative. With common sense limitations of both.

Example of common sense limitation on the social side: I don't think there should be discrimination against gays, but I don't think the government should be engaged in social engineering in the school systems.

I don't think government should be involved in private family decisions, whether that's abortion, or how children are raised and educated.

Example of common sense limitation on fiscal side: the nanny state has become a huge threat to both freedom and economic opportunity. Having the government involved in every type of economic decision, creating huge, self serving and self generating layers of bureaucracy(which is what O is doing) is a disaster. It will change our civilization, and not for the better.

But, we do need government: food inspectors, military, that kind of thing. And there should be some kind of safety net, such as social security.

As far as the economic mess, neither Bush not Obama created it. To some degree it is the result of unintended consequences of a variety of developments. Regulation can play a role in limiting future catastrophes, but there are dangers in regulation. The process can be abused and corrupted(look up O lackey Gov Corzine) or can do far more harm than good(Dodd Frank).

One thing almost everyone, even many honest liberals, now agree on: the government meddling in the real estate market by pushing mortgages to people who shouldn't have them played the biggest role in creating the problem. It was well intentioned, but in the end, it hurt far more people than it helped, by destroying the world economy, or almost. There should be a lesson in that about government planning and overreach. But this is not a lesson Obama and his type will ever learn.

Capitalist economies are cyclical. There are bubbles and busts. The trick is to limit the duration of the busts. The current bust has gone on far longer that they normally do. Let's compare to 2001. Bush took over as the dotcom bubble was busting. Phony accounting had lead to an overvaluation of companies in the late 90s. This helped Clinton, but it was built on illusion. It crashed in 2000. Bush had to deal with it.

And while things were still precarious, we had 9/11. So a double shot. And yet, things did turn around, the economy was pretty smooth for up until 2008.

Compare to today. We had our bust in 2008. Where is the bounce back four years later? It hasn't really happened.

Stimulus might have worked if it came in the form of a tax rebate. But instead Obama used most of it to reward cronies and attempt his version of a planned economy(GM, green energy). Which did not encourage sound economic activity.

Plus, with Obamacare, growing regulations, anti-business policies in federal departments, and an unsure tax situation, businesses are afraid to plan future activity. So there is no growth.

No President is responsible for creating a recession. But there is evidence that Presidential policies can prolong one.

Quoted from leitskev

One thing almost everyone, even many honest liberals, now agree on: the government meddling in the real estate market by pushing mortgages to people who shouldn't have them played the biggest role in creating the problem. It was well intentioned, but in the end, it hurt far more people than it helped, by destroying the world economy, or almost. There should be a lesson in that about government planning and overreach. But this is not a lesson Obama and his type will ever learn.

The assertion that the GFC was predicated on (what you failed to mention but have stated before) the Democratic Congress of the '06 mid-terms forcing lenders to provide mortgages is factually incorrect. Yes, the subprime bubble collapsed - and proved to be the trigger for a GLOBAL mountain of debt - but you're engineering an ideological slant peddled by far right-types that has no groundng in fact. Nobody credible in economics advances this theory (conservative or liberal) or "agree" on it as fact. It's disingenuous to say so. You are, of course, allowed whatever theory you like for explaining the GFC, but don't report it as a fact when it's patently not.

Clinton bequeathed Bush a surplus, whilst Bush handed Obama an economy heading off the cliff after a GLOBAL financial crisis. Do not downplay the enormity of what faced GLOBAL politicians in late 2008. The fallout we're seeing to this day in Europe and the States is a direct consequence of the GFC. To suggest what was handed to Obama was a cylical 'bust' is, again, patently false. To equate it with the dotcom bubble is beyond obscure.

I'm Canadian so I may not have all the facts at my disposal. But for what it's worth, The Right keeps belittling Obama for not pulling the nation out of recession after his four years. I bet the U.S. would have been a lot better off had Americans not had an impatient knee-jerk reaction and voted in a Republican congress. Let's face it, it is largely due to the Republican Iron Curtain that the President cannot function for the betterment of the nation. Partisan politics is what has prolonged the economic agony, not Obama.

I've written a post that clarifies my views on the election and what it means for Britain: http://bit.ly/ODSMeB

Just my opinion, of course.

Question: Do people know that Wall Street backed Obama in 2008 overwhelmingly? It's true. Look it up. Why is that?

Obama spent almost double what McCain did. Do people know that?

Obama received barrels of cash not only from Wall Street, but from many big businesses, such as GE, British Petroleum, and so on. Why? I thought Republicans are the party of big business?

Even a clock, which is correct twice a day, has a better record than some who argue here.

The Clinton surplus: this surplus was unanticipated even by Clinton. It was achieved because of unexpected growth in GNP. What achieved this growth?

3 things: first, Clinton's budgets, particularly stating in 1994, were modest. There is something to be said for gridlock. In 1994, for the first time in decades, a Republican Congress was elected, a reaction to the more liberal policies of Clinton's first 2 years. The result was a moderation of Clinton, who had originally campaigned as a moderate anyway.

The second spur to growth was the dotcom boom.

The third spur, and people need to remember this, was the faulty accounting(which had nothing to do with Clinton) that allowed the boom to continue past its natural cycle. We should have had a natural recession in the late 90s. But the faulty accounting allowed the boom to continue, based on inflated numbers. The cooked books were inevitably discovered around 2000(remember Enron, Global Com?), and the bubble burst. Bush had to deal with it. It was not Clinton's fault!! But nonetheless, Bush did inherit a mess, and only a highly filtered lens would allow someone to forget that.

the housing bubble: like the Depression, these things are complicated and will be argued over forever. But the simple truth is that like most recessions, a bubble fueled by speculation is at the heart. In this case, it was real estate.

The Community Reinvestment Act was passed in 1977. But it was not pushed until the Clinton years. And I am old enough to remember it well. Studies were in the paper very day criticizing banks for not lending to minorities. These studies were not allowed to take into consideration credit worthiness, which should be a warning to what was to come. So the feds pushed hard on banks. And Fanny and Freddy became heavy players, eventually holding backing most of the mortgages in the country.

Basically, the government demanded banks back mortgages to people that shouldn't have got them. Combined with deregulation on how banks could invest, package and trade these mortgages(in 1997, under Clinton), and with the government essentially backing these through Fanny and Freddy and their army of lobbyists, the biggest bubble in history was created. I have oversimplified slightly here, but this is not my theory. It's supported by most economists, and there's a great book that came out a couple years ago by a NYT writer detailing this, I forget the name.

The bursting bubble caused the recession. No one seriously argues this. People can talk about the role of regulation, rightfully so, but it all goes back to the real estate bubble.

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/fannie-mae-freddie-mac-credit-crisis.asp#axzz25Jn1ajPk

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/05/bill_clinton_and_the_housing_b.html

Google is your friend. You will find all this on pretty much any financial website. But be careful. The Lefties don't like blaming the bubble. Why?

Mostly because they would have to admit the bubble was fueled initially by government action. And they LIKE government. They really, really do. So they don't like this explanation at all. Much more fun to say Wall Street is evil and Bush is a stupid lackey.

Could Bush have done something to prevent the collapse? Yes, possibly. For one thing, he could have reformed Fanny and Freddy. And he even made an attempt at that. But those quasi govt companies had bought off people like Frank and Dodd. Frank's boyfriend ran Fanny and made many millions. Liberals were not going to agree to reform of those agencies.

What else could he have done? There were regulatory changes he could have and should have made. Easier to see in hindsight. Too complicated to go into here.

Finally, there is the matter of Andrew putting things in peoples mouths that he shouldn't. In this case, words: "The assertion that the GFC was predicated on (what you failed to mention but have stated before) the Democratic Congress of the '06 mid-terms forcing lenders to provide mortgages is factually incorrect"

Never said or thought it. Forcing lenders, or more accurately, creating pressures and incentives to push this lending, began in the Clinton years. No one questions this, except maybe fools at places like MotherEarth. Once the ball got rolling, people realized they could make money, especially with their friends in Congress backing things because they were "too big to fail".

Don't trust me on these things. Do your own research. But don't go to left wing blogs that will twist reality to fit what they imagine.

Tale from Politico.com

This was said about Repub convention: "It has to do with, first of all the real lack of authentic and honest representation of diversity."

I asked the person if they actually watched any of it, because more than half of the speakers were either minority, female, or both.

Surprisingly, he knew this, and listed the speakers. He said I must have a "narrow definition" of minorities, and that these were not real minorities, but "minstrels".

So when liberals watch Condaleeza Rice speak, they must put on special glasses that enable them to see a pasty white man speaking. This is how eager they are to distort reality. They won't even believe their lying eyes.

Wow, you're a humourless so-and-so.

No point attempting to dissuade you of your points of view. But no one with a command of the facts and a unbiased mind will begin to equate the dotcom bubble with the events of late 2008.

If I have to, I will go back to the index of discussions on this very site that will disprove this:

"Finally, there is the matter of Andrew putting things in peoples mouths that he shouldn't. In this case, words: "The assertion that the GFC was predicated on (what you failed to mention but have stated before) the Democratic Congress of the '06 mid-terms forcing lenders to provide mortgages is factually incorrect"

It is comments like this that blow apart your I'm not a Repubican argument:

"So when liberals watch Condaleeza Rice speak, they must put on special glasses that enable them to see a pasty white man speaking. This is how eager they are to distort reality. They won't even believe their lying eyes."

This is well known:

"Question: Do people know that Wall Street backed Obama in 2008 overwhelmingly? It's true. Look it up. Why is that?

Obama spent almost double what McCain did. Do people know that?

Obama received barrels of cash not only from Wall Street, but from many big businesses, such as GE, British Petroleum, and so on. Why? I thought Republicans are the party of big business?"

But as Google is your friend, I'm sure you're able to find out how much was raised by small donors as a % of the total pie.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/03/with-landmark-lawsuit-barack-obama-pushed-banks-to-give-subprime-loans-to-chicagos-african-americans/

I think this thread may be a bad idea, as everyone has different political views and this can only lead to disagreement between members.

Anyway, if i was in America I would vote for Bart Simpson for President and Barney Rubble for Vice, which fictional character would you vote for ????

Hee Hee Just to turn things on it's face.

Dr. House as prez. Hopefully his running mate is Jessica Alba.

found it

http://www.amazon.com/Reckless-Endangerment-Outsized-Corruption-Armageddon/dp/1455851620

Economist uses great examples to explain how government and established businesses join forces to suppress new business and eliminate competition. This is why Big Business has become more and more Democrat over the years.

http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2012/09/05/inority_viewby_walter_e_williamsrelease_wednesday_september_5_2012

Massachusetts judge orders killer in jail be given sex change, paid for by the state.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/04/health/massachusetts-sex-change-surgery-inmate/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

Quoted Text

"So when liberals watch Condaleeza Rice speak, they must put on special glasses that enable them to see a pasty white man speaking. This is how eager they are to distort reality. They won't even believe their lying eyes."

(Andrew's reply) This is well known:

So Andrew really does think Condaleeza Rice is a pasty white man. Maybe he should write a short about her unmasking. Maybe Dick Cheney is really underneath. Isn't Dick behind everything, Andrew? And Halliburton? Come on, you know that's your dream. Admit it.

And go ahead, look through old posts. I never said the Democrat Congress of 2006 began the sub prime lending to unqualified buyers, or however you choose to word it. Barney Frank did stand in the way of any reform at that time, but this push began under Clinton in the 1990s. Go ahead, search all you want. Or even better, just keep making stuff up.

Quoted from leitskev

I know that, frankly, you're nuts, but you're either too dumb or too mischievous to realise you attached my response to the wrong quote. Nice try, though, mate. I clearly said it's well known that Obama received big bucks from business. Here's the evidence below (I'm assuming you know what ":" denotes, but assume you don't apologise 'cos you think you're right about everything):

"This is well known:

"Question: Do people know that Wall Street backed Obama in 2008 overwhelmingly? It's true. Look it up. Why is that?

Obama spent almost double what McCain did. Do people know that?

Obama received barrels of cash not only from Wall Street, but from many big businesses, such as GE, British Petroleum, and so on. Why? I thought Republicans are the party of big business?"

But as Google is your friend, I'm sure you're able to find out how much was raised by small donors as a % of the total pie."

That you think big business aligns with the Democrats shows you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. It's embarrassing. I have no time or inclination to debate with you. Cheerio, old chap.

As you can tell from the posts, I avoided addressing your comments, Andrew, until you brought me into the conversation, once again putting words in my mouth.(see your comments about 2006 and mortgages). When you adopt the fictional reality on which you base your world views, that's one thing. But when you again begin making up things that I said, that's another.

I did mistakenly quote box your comment above. That was due to the jumbled and uninteresting nature of your remarks. If you think your comments about quotation marks make you clever, well, you really do live in a bubble.

Don't expect an apology. I dealt respectfully with your arguments in the past, even though they were not so much arguments as slogans plucked off Leftist websites. Incoherent, unimaginative, unoriginal...but they were your beliefs, so I respected them.

I didn't much care for your hit and run manner of argument, where you simply change the subject when faced with counter arguments or contradictory facts. I understood, though, because I know how important these beliefs are to your sense of self and your perceived moral superiority.

But you began to cross a line recently with your personal remarks, so the personal regard I held for you faded just like your world view does under the light of reality. You may lack the time to debate with me, but you also lack the ammunition and the firepower. Enjoy the bubble.

Dudes,

I will lock this thread if it starts to get personal. So keep it about the candidates and the issues.

Thanks.

100 years from now DEMs and the GOP will still be arguing in circles over these same issues.... and it will never change. no one will ever waver...

the other side is always evil and corrupted with liars and going to result in the death of the country.

its pointless.

^^ Well, as pointless as anything else! Well-conducted political debate is at least as useful a mental exercise as a sporting match is a physical exercise. Disagreement is good. Examination, and hopefully self-examination, is as worthwhile as most things, I think.

The kind of argument you describe, though, which makes sweeping claims about the opposing side, does tend towards the useless, I agree.

Another withering attack from the attacker. If you trace back through our 'discussions', you'll see 95% of it revolves around me attempting to fend off attack after attack on 'liberals'. Like the contradictory attack that the Democrats regulate business to death whilst also stating above that the Democrats grow big business. Or equating the situation Bush inherited to the situation Obama inherited - that's one of my personal faves. Or that Britain is soon to fall under sharia law. Or that anything bad that has happened ever is down to 'leftism'. Or that all liberals secretly support Hitler. Or that all liberals are anti-Semitic. I could go on, but nothing will dissuade you of the - baseless - arrogant triumphalism that sums up this comment:

Quoted from kevin

You may lack the time to debate with me, but you also lack the ammunition and the firepower.

The endless copy and paste platitudes like:

Quoted from kevin

I understood, though, because I know how important these beliefs are to your sense of self and your perceived moral superiority.

Quoted from kevin

That was due to the jumbled and uninteresting nature of your remarks.

are delivered with such a delicious irony.

At the end of the day, any person not inhabiting the far right like you can peruse the 'discussions' and make their own mind up.

The day that you bring what you believe to the table, rather than ascribing all that in bad in the world to liberals, is the day I'll bring my ammunition and firepower. Until that day, I really am signing off now.

Long time ago here at SS in some other political thread where people argued extensively especially left vs right, there was a test everyone could take to see where your thoughts placed you on a political map. (wish I could find that test) Interestingly enough, most people ended up being libertarians.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

Yeah, I ended up halfway down on libertarian right.

I found it a little odd that Obama was halfway up on authoritarian right, though...

See how some people choose to debate?

I say dogs wag their tails when they are happy.

He says, no, cats are finicky.

And I'm left scratching my head. What does that have to do with dogs?

I ask if he knows that Wall St gave overwhelmingly to Obama in 2008, and if he knows why?

He says a record number of small donors contributed to the campaign.

So? What does that have to do with why Wall St gave so much to the campaign?

Obama's people have been pointing out the small donors for 4 years. They doth protest too much, clearly. They don't want people to know about the big business money and financial institution money that flowed in.

But I will address the small donations. Who were these donors? do they identify them? Because it seems to me that there were 2 large interest groups that wanted Obama in office. One was the financial industries who wanted to make sure Tarp money continued to protect their investments. Yes, Bush began Tarp, but Republicans were hesitant, reluctant. It was clear they would not give any more. The Dems, on the other hand, embraced it. It was the greatest thing since sneakers to them. Why? Because it put the government in control, with all the strings attached. And they LIKE government control. That's their defining philosophy.

The second group that had a huge stake was the millions of government workers. And here is where your small donors likely come from. Trust me, here in my state, Massachusetts, government workers know how it works. You want to play you have to pay. Government workers are expected to contribute every year to their Democrat benefactors. They are also expected to show up at party rallies and fundraisers, and get a lot of grief from bosses when they don't. Here are your Obama contributors. Why so much in 2008? They knew what was at stake. Government has grown mighty fat, and it was time for some fat slicing. That means them. They ponied up.

Below is a very well considered piece explaining how Clinton dramatically increased the deregulation begun under Reagan, and bragged about it many times. This deregulation was in great part a reason for the success of the economy under his administration, but it ultimately contributed to the collapse of 2008.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/05/to-save-obama-clinton-ignores-his-own-deregulation-moves/

I think it's fair to conclude that a balance between regulation and freedom in financial markets is wise. How exactly to achieve that balance is difficult, especially since the financial industry is always changing, so rules that apply in 1980 will be utterly useless in 1990.

The problem with Dodd Frank is that it's an intrusive patchwork designed by special interests and Left wing agenda setters. It harms small financial businesses, so therefor helps the big boys eager to suppress their competition. Personally, Frank and Dodd were both corrupt and completely in bed(in Frank's case literally) with big financial players that rewarded them for letting them write the legislation.

Quoted from Grandma Bear

I'd be left libertarian...sharing my spot with the likes of Ghandi, the Dalai Lama and Nelson Mandela.

Basically the perfect place to be for a fully realised human being. ;D

Sort of obvious that people should be free and treat each other and the environment with respect, but it seems a hard philosophy to put into a political system.

lol, "liberals secretly support Hitler"?

You are too much. Boy, I actually have to thank you. I needed that! Oh, man, that's good.

In America, liberals hated Hitler...but not until 1941. They weren't moved much on the subject until then.

They started hating Hitler in June of 1941. I'm sure you know what happened then. Their precious Soviet Union was invaded. I've read the NYT editorials. Liberals were outraged when Hitler did that, calling the US to break isolation. No one messes with the collectives.

Curious if there are any undecideds/independents who were swayed or impacted by Clinton's speech last night?

Quoted from Andrew

Curious if there are any undecideds/independents who were swayed or impacted by Clinton's speech last night?

I was. He killed it with his opening line...

Was really hoping to stay out of this discussion, but I really can't help but to chime in.

First, I'll state that I'm a libertarian. Secondly, I'm happy this thread is more of a discussion and less of a debate. One of the many reasons I hate politics is because people don't ever talk about politics. They fight over them. Surpisingly, this thread is pretty mild mannered (except for a few spouts here and there).

Taking this point a bit further...

I firmly believe that talking politics pointless. It's incredibly trite and accomplishes nothing. Literally nothing. When was the last time you've convinced someone to switch sides? It won't happen and never will. So why do we talk politics? Because we all want to be heard. It's a bit of an ego trip, but more of a characteristic. Politics are just an excuse for people to argue about something.

People who argue about politics are simply repeating what they've heard. They get fodder from their family, television stations, etc and argue those points. But those points aren't facts. In fact, I don't believe in facts when it comes to politics. Everything's so biased these days. And parties lie all the time. You can't trust your anchormen any more than your politicians. It's sad quite frankly. But it's true. Just look at the speeches presented at the Republican and Democratic National Conventions. Sure members of the same party will defend their candidate, saying that facts were embellished. But it's just a cover up for saying that their leaders lied.

This will be my final word on the matter. I don't care what you are, Republican or Democrat. As long as you're true to yourself, that's all that matters. Don't believe in something just because your party believes in it. Heck, I don't agree with the Libertarian party 100% of the time. And neither should you. Quit blindly following your leaders, parents, party, media, etc. Realize that those individuals DO NOT have your best interest in mind.

Clint said it best. Our leaders need to remember that they work for us. And Clinton was right on point. Progress is made when Democrats and Republicans come together.

Happy discussing everyone. And whatever happens come November, it really won't matter two s hits.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/bill-clinton-dnc-speech-fact-check-finds-president-claims-compromise-a-stretch-article-1.1153053

Above is the Associated Press, which leans Left generally, fact checking of Clinton's speech. They mention many of the things I have discussed here: the bursting bubble and looming crisis at the end of the Clinton administration, and the deregulation in 1997 which led to the collapse of 2008.

Great speech from John Kerry. You learn that the best way to deal with the ridiculous is to ridicule it. That said, the substance is there as well. The Bin Laden quote is a great rebuttal to this silly Reaganising. Old Ronald himself wouldn't have voted for this lot. It's well known how poorly Margaret Thatcher regards Sarah Palin and the Tea Party. And when Thatcher starts to feel cuddly, you know it's gone too far.

And it's worth repeating what Bill said: No president could've cleaned up the mess that was left by the Republicans in 4 years.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u8WtLqKJcTk

Quoted from leitskev

Above is the Associated Press, which leans Left generally, fact checking of Clinton's speech.

Funny but from where I sit ALL US press leans right. There is no meaningful left in the US.

"We are not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers."

What did Bush do to create the economic mess?

"They drove us into a ditch".

Those bastards! How dare they! But wait, what did they do again?

"They drove us into a ditch. Are ya deaf, son?"

Ditch, yeah, got it. But what does that mean? What specifically did they do?

"They made a mess, boy. Halliburton, Dick Cheney for God's sake."

So it was Cheney?

"It was Bush. Drove us right into a ditch. Now they wanna do it again."

Ok, if you could, what policies of theirs drove us into a ditch?"

They took money from the poor, gave it to the rich.

How dare they! Wait, how did they do that? So the rich made money off the collapse?

"They drove us into a ditch, boy. Where you been?"

Ok, obviously I'm the slow one here and and it's me that can't keep up with you. But how are you gonna get us out of the ditch again?

"Gotta clean up the mess. My turn to drive. Ain't gonna give you no keys back. You crazy?"

I must be.

Facts are stubborn things. Don't let them get in the way of a good story.

So you have no idea how Bush drove us into a ditch?

"Deregulation."

But that started under...

"Ditch!!"

You didn't let me finish.

"Sorry. I get excited sometimes. Where's my 'no justice, no peace' sign?"

So back to the ditch.

"It was Wall Street, those fat cat mothers."

Then why did they give so overwhelmingly in 2008 to...

"Ditch!"

And why is the current DOJ refusing to file charges against...

"Cheney! Halliburton!"

And why did Dem Governor Corzine, who almost became the Treasurer, and is a close adviser, get away with...

"Tax breaks for the rich!"

But what happened to those peoples money? Thousands lost their life savings, Corzine broke the law, and no charges. In fact, he's still a top campaign bundler for...

"They took the money, those greedy guys with yachts that don't pay taxes."

John Kerry?

"No, not him. He's one of us. We're the good guys."

One last question. You keep adding more and more layers of government, making it bigger and bigger. Is that good for the country?

"I don't care. Every one of 'em votes for us. Don't you get it? Eventually they'll be enough of them that we won't need elections. There won't be enough to vote for the other party."

But is that kind of government good?

"Sure it is. What little happiness there is in this miserable world, that comes from government. Your wife make you happy at night? She didn't do that. Government did. Showed her how. Your kid hug you in the morning? That was government and the FCC, with the help of television. You enjoy your little business you run there? You didn't build that. We did. Czech Republic never did invade the US did it, now? That's 'cause of us and the department of defense(spits on ground)."

The Czechs? You mean the Soviet Union?

"Don't you be talking about the Soviet Union like that!!"

Sorry. I forgot.

"You just relax and let us do the driving. Matter of fact, why don't you just get out and walk. I'm tired of listening to you. This is a community. You don't want to ride with us, you just leave. We don't like you and your questions anyhow."

This thread is like watching the tennis !!!

The ball goes in one direction then back again.

Where will it end ???? DUECE.

Alex

Treason.

Thomas Donilon is the National Security Advisor. This is a cabinet level position, the equivalent of of the head of the CIA. The job's qualifications are such that people appointed generally have a lifetime of experience in intelligence gathering work.

Below is Donilon's wiki profile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_E._Donilon

There's almost nothing on it. To say this is the most inexperienced and unqualified person to occupy this post does not do it justice.

Compare to Bush's NSA advisor, Condoleeza Rice.

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

Donilon worked his entire career as a Democratic political operative. That's it. Period.

You will find one other thing on his resume. He worked 6 years as a lobbyist for Fannie Mae. Which meant he got to keep doing what he was doing, for a boat load of money. And his years at Fannie happened to be the years when it was becoming obvious Fannie needed reform. If life were a Batman movie, this guy is pretty close to a cartoon villain. It gets worse though.

Right now, as head of NSA, he is making about 172K a year. But he's also collecting a lifetime pension of 148k from Fannie! For being a lobbyist for 6 years! For being one of those corrupt cartoon characters responsible for the real estate bubble!

But that's not the end of the story. I wish. Donilon works at the highest level of government, has access to all of our secrets. How a President could be so irresponsible or careless to put a man like that in this position is hard to fathom, whatever party you belong to. But what has emerged is truly unbelievable.

Recently, classified information has been leaked which clearly puts lives in danger and puts the nation's security at risk. And what was the purpose of these leaks? One purpose: to make the President look tough. That's it. There is no other motive. There is no other benefit. Even Democratic Senator Feinstein has expressed her outrage. It is absolutely unprecedented in American history that an administration would systematically leak information that critically damages national security just to make a President look tough in an election year.

Evidence is now strong that a good chunk of this leaking has come right from Donilon.

Which might explain why the President put a political operative in this kind of position in the first place.

I believe the Constitutional definition of treason is "high crimes and misdemeanors". This probably does not meet that. If the President authorizes the release of national secrets, it is perfectly legal.

But in language we all understand, when a President deliberately puts lives and national security at risk just to further his political career, only one word suffices: treason.

copied and pasted from an article:

False Narrative: We were losing 800,000 jobs a month when President Obama took office; his policies stopped the bleeding and put us on the path to recovery.

Rebuttal: Job losses in the last recession peaked at 741,000 (not 800,000) the month President Obama was sworn in. Job losses immediately started a steady decline when he took office, before the president even had the chance to pass his stimulus plan. The recession ended in June 2009, when stimulus spending had barely begun. Obama likes to imply that without his stimulus, we would have continued to hemorrhage jobs at the same rate that was occurring when he became president. The timeline proves otherwise; credit for reversing the damage more likely goes to the emergency measures put in place by Bush. But while Obama cannot take credit for ending the recession, he can certainly take credit for what liberal CBS News calls “the worst economic recovery that America has ever had.”

End paste

"But the ditch?! What about the ditch? Bush drove us into a ditch, and I had to get us out."

What about unemployment?

"It went up more than we expected, but it's coming down."

Yes, but it only looks like it's coming down. That's because more and more people are dropping out of the workforce. Were it not for that, unemployment would be over 11%.

"But we need more time. Do you wanna go back to the policies that created the mess?"

Which policies.

"Tax breaks for the rich."

Are you saying an across the board tax cut for everyone, say of 10%, is a tax cut for the rich?

"Yup. It's a cut for the rich, cause they make more."

What's that hanging from your rear view mirror?

"That's my Nobel."

Maybe you should throw it in the river like John Kerry did. Or did he?

"You tryin' to swiftboat me? Cause I'm no John Kerry."

You got that going for ya, I'll give you that.

It's easy to cut, paste, and parrot other peoples comments, to quibble over numbers - insignificant ones at that ... 741,000 Vs 800,000. Really, is that a point of argument?

If so, as a simple observer, you lose.

Pretty silly, Seven. If you read the thread, you'll see cutting and pasting is a very small part of my arguments. Very. I only do it so people won't think it's just me throwing stuff out there.

Yes, you are a simple observer.

You're the type whose very thoughts are cut and pasted, lifted from others. It's the party line of the irrational, of those who in their paranoia, see a liberal behind every tree, a convenient scapegoat, someone to blame.

You see, Seven, that is not an argument you are making. It's just an emotional outburst. Would you like a tissue?

Quoted from leitskev

You see, Seven, that is not an argument you are making. It's just an emotional outburst. Would you like a tissue?

I've no interest in engaging in a political argument. If I want your opinion, I'll watch Fox news.

Thanks

I guess you did need a tissue. Hope you feel better.

Using an act of terrorism as a political football is beneath Mitt Romney. Pretty sure he'll reflect on today's press conference with deep regret. In the heat of the race, he's kowtowed to poor advice once more. Nobody sensible thinks Obama is apologetic for American values, beliefs or is attempting to engineer a socialist takeover. Obviously these far right types don't realise socialism was intended as a stage to communism, which never intended for government takeover. It's always amusing to see these people unaware the intended goal of communism was to the contrary. Then again, to actually try and understand another view is compromise, and compromise is supposedly bad.

When even Rupert Murdoch can see Mitt Romney is pandering to a far right extremist crowd - that will lose him the election - you know it's gone far too far. The crazies really are running the asylum in the Republican Part right now. The upshot, of course, for the Republicans is it'll give them a reason to ignore this vicious little crowd and turn to a more nuanced conservatism like the One Nation Tories of Disraeli and the Republicanism of Eisenhower.

I will avoid any comment on the wisdom of Romney's remarks. Or whether his complaint is legit.

But a curious thing did happen.

First, the media portrayed the remarks as ill timed and political.

But then it changed for some reason, and I watched it all day, mostly on CNN. Eventually it was the White House reaction to these remarks that did in fact come under pressure.

And as proof: the White House began putting out the explanation that the remarks were unauthorized and had been put out by the embassy, or by lower level State Dept staff. In other words, they were dancing to distance themselves from the very statement Romney was criticizing. Strange, huh?

I do want to comment on Hillary's presser. She says they are just baffled, simply baffled. How could people who we supported just turn on us like that?

Liberals are often baffled. They think if you help people out they will love you for it. I'm not saying we shouldn't help people out, but don't expect love in return. Helping people out only creates a perception that they are lower than you...and they resent it. Not to mention that these people will hate us no matter what we do. To not understand that is to confuse reality with some kind of wishy washy feel good movie.

We are witnessing great (and meaningless) political theater.

Every four years, two minority political parties spend hundred of millions of dollars collected from special interests. They use this money to flood our senses with meaningless sound bites and photo ops. None of which have anything to do with how they will actually mismanage our Nation, ignore the will of the majority or pursue their own (not our) agenda.

Both parties want their turn to waste our money, devalue our currency, enrich their supporters and feed their deficit spending addiction.

Both parties are phantom choices. Both parties are opposite sides of the same coin.

If you take off your political party bias colored glasses, you can see both parties have essentially produced the same results since the end of WW2; more debt, more war, more speicial interest enrichment and more inflation. While they are lving large at great public expense and pointing their fingers at each other.

America, we are at war with two minority political parties and they are winning.

We can now flush and go back to sleep.

XL

You couldnt have said it better IMO.

The question is when will it ever end?

HGW

Quoted from XL

Nothing wrong with being a cynic, but it's fair to say that we wouldn't live in the same world now if important elections like Carter/Reagan or Bush/Gore had gone differently - and that's not taking a particular favourtism to the political colour. The very fabric of their intended policies were different, as would the trajectories the reverse results may have engendered.

You did say post-WW2, but imagine that Chamberlain had been replaced by Churchill prior to the derided 'appeasement policy'. The world would potentially be very different now. These are, of course, all hypotheticals, but to lazily suggest the party in charge doesn't matter sits uneasily with me - it's all a little conspiratorial.

I've always maintained that both parties in the States, and the two major parties in the UK for that matter, want to better society - they simply have different priorities and means of enacting those priorities.

So, to say that both parties are useless is one thing (and you very could well be right - I'm just putting forward the alternative argument), but to say it's a false choice and doesn't matter either way is something I fundamentally disagree with.

The paths offered by Romney and Obama really are very different. I get that you're saying the results of any election is an oscillating scale of gargantuan waste either way (and therefore doesn't matter as you reason who wins), before being cancelled out next time around when the other side wins, but the analysis must consider the alternative reality that failed to materialise to fully comprehend the impact of elections.

All my opinion, of course.

The paths offered by both Romney and Obama are just words.

Obama promised, vowed and pledged to do many things. What he did was piss away $5T dollars and print enough fiat currency to rise gas and groceries to nose bleed high.

Point being, there is a serious disconnect between campaign promises and what you get in America with zero accountability.

The real breakdown in this country began with Reagan, the father of modern Voodoo Economics. Reagan quadrupled the National Debt to kick start the economy and Nixon stopped currency convertibility to gold by Executive Order. The rest is history.

Reagan showed those who followed what serious mischief could be done with deficit spending and Nixon paid for the Viet Nam War by printing fiat currency. Deficit Spending and Currency Devaluation are the Kiss of Death to any nation. No country can survive decades of this type of financial mismanagment.

The long sugar rush is over. The federal goverment now prints money to pay the interest on the money they already owe.

Quoted from XL

The paths offered by both Romney and Obama are just words.

Obama promised, vowed and pledged to do many things. What he did was piss away $5T dollars and print enough fiat currency to rise gas and groceries to nose bleed high.

Point being, there is a serious disconnect between campaign promises and what you get in America with zero accountability.

The real breakdown in this country began with Reagan, the father of modern Voodoo Economics. Reagan quadrupled the National Debt to kick start the economy and Nixon stopped currency convertibility to gold by Executive Order…The rest is history.

Reagan showed those who followed what serious mischief could be done with deficit spending and currency devaluation.

Think it's fair to say you're not partisan!

The bipartisan government in America works form themselves and the best paying special interests.

We The People do not have respresentation in Washington.

Government Of, For and By the People are words without substance or meaning.

There will always be parties, and powerful interests will always accrue to and influence one side of the other.

This "WE THE PEOPLE" does not exist as some separate entity that everyone is screwing. People have different concerns and different ideas about how things should be done. There will never be one party that represents "the people".

Reagonomics worked, but did to a degree set a bad example. Borrowing money temporarily in order to enact general tax reductions does stimulate growth. If managed right, that growth pays back the money borrowed.

That's the real story of Clinton. The growth created by Reagan eventually turned into a surplus under Clinton. Yes, there was a recession and a slow down in between, but overall it was 2 decades of growth unleashed by reduced taxes and reduced regulation. And had not spending gone up, the surpluses would have appeared much earlier. Bottom line: it worked. There is really no question about it. If Carter had won that election, we'd be living in a much, much poorer world today.

But XL is right in that some people have misused things by over pumping the fed in order to stimulate growth. I think part of this motivation is political survival, and both parties are guilty. Because of pensions, a large percentage of Americans now have a stake in the stock market. And using the fed to keep the market afloat has become political necessity. But as XL said, this leads to inflation when over used, which hurts people who depend on savings or wages.

BTW, under Reagan, the fed considered its primary goal as fighting inflation.

This is an interesting article for Republicans: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81132_Page2.html

While I don't agree on his analysis of Obama, anyone with a bit of sense about them can read between the lines on how he views this embarrassing set of far right "dimwits" that characterises the Republican Party right now.

Quoted from XL

The real breakdown in this country began with Reagan

Quite rightly, this is not an endorsement of Reganomics.

Very funny subsequent attempt to try and twist around the meaning, though.

I didn't take it as an endorsement. I tried to find points of common ground with someone who seems like a very pleasant and educated gentleman.

But there is no serious question that Reagan turned things around. It was about as dramatic and poignant example of a group of leaders saying they will do something, doing it, and then have having it work spectacularly.

Lefties don't like it. And they've done everything in their power to twist things to suggest otherwise. Just like their Lefty forebears twisted reality in the 1930s in trying to spin the Soviet Union as a wonderful place. Thousands of American idealists went there as a result and died in Stalin's camps. The price for liberal fantasy can be heavy.

Quoted from Andrew

Nothing wrong with being a cynic.

You say tomato, I say potato...Cynic or realist, in American politics there is no difference.

Just glanced through your linked article, Andrew. Not a bad article, I agree with much of it. You do understand, though, that this guy is criticizing Bush and Romney for being...yup...too much like the Democrats.

He's criticizing the Republicans for being too liberal! This guy is a conservative purist. A tea party type. You did read it, right? Are you joining the tea party now? Good for you!

From the article:

"I remain convinced that if more conservatives had spoken up earlier during the Age of Bush, the routs Republicans endured in 2006 and 2008 could have been avoided. Nancy Pelosi would have never been speaker and Barack Obama would be working on his fourth autobiography instead of his second term. But Republicans chose instead to shut their mouths, circle the wagons and compromise their values.

Margaret Thatcher was tough and unapologetic about what she believed. Ronald Reagan was tough and unapologetic about what he believed. They won their campaigns, changed their party and transformed their countries because they were conservatives who dared to tell voters they planned to radically transform their governments. They got elected and did just that."

You think this guy is criticizing Romney and Bush for being a dimwit from the far right? lol lol lol

edit: I just saw it was Scarborough who wrote! He's the former Republican Congressman who is the conservative on MSNBC.

Quoted from leitskev

You think this guy is criticizing Romney and Bush for being a dimwit from the far right? lol lol lol

No, and I didn't say that.

What I did say was: "While I don't agree on his analysis of Obama, anyone with a bit of sense about them can read between the lines on how he views this embarrassing set of far right "dimwits" that characterises the Republican Party right now."

Demonstrably different from the conclusion you took from my comment. As you'll see from my previous comments, I believe Mitt Romney is beholden to a far right base that will lose him the election. Unlike you, I don't think I can etch-a-sketch each time I post. I also place a bit of faith in someone staying on the same page of a conversation, as opposed to twisting words and trying to tease out subverted meanings.

Joe Scarborough is on record as saying the tea party/far right are a joke. He looks at someone like Rick Santorum and sees a political joke. Trying to tease out a message that he was voicing in 2003 what the tea party/far right started doing since '09 is obtuse and flat wrong. He's actually said that in 4 years time the Republican Party will look back on their primary season this year as an embarrassment. Like the vast majority of the planet, he views the far right as a stain on your party. It's why he's referred to as a RINO. If you think his point - in the selectively chosen quote you put up here - is an endorsement of far right politics, you haven't read the article.

Also, don't be surprised that I read right-wing commentary - I see it as a way to challenge myself and my views. Same as anyone else with a bit of sense. It's only extremists who shutdown compromise and alternative views.

Quoted from leitskev

Seeing as you think Scarborough is a "tea party type", this is just too good an opportunity to poke fun at this miscalculation of yours a little (all done in a British jesting way):

http://www.businessinsider.com/scarborough-to-tea-party-just-shut-the-hell-up-and-stay-in-your-mothers-basement-2012-6

I'll update intermittently when I have the time.

I'll be kind and acknowledge this from you: "edit: I just saw it was Scarborough who wrote! He's the former Republican Congressman who is the conservative on MSNBC. "

Even though you didn't retract: "You do understand, though, that this guy is criticizing Bush and Romney for being...yup...too much like the Democrats.

He's criticizing the Republicans for being too liberal! This guy is a conservative purist. A tea party type."

I understand that, before I mention this, it is two days old and has already been touched upon but I must've somehow glossed over the first time around.

Quoted from Andrew

I've always maintained that both parties in the States...want to better society - they simply have different priorities and means of enacting those priorities.

Are you serious? Neither one gives a fuck about bettering society. That's not their job. Their job, as the government at any level (local, state, federal, what have you), is to keep whatever power they've already accumulated and expand it wherever possible. Both Democrats and Republicans want the government to be in charge of everything.

The only reason the parties exist is, as you said, "they simply have different priorities and means of enacting those priorities."

Liberals want every aspect of their life run by the federal government. They want to be told what to eat, wear, where to go and just give their paycheck (from their government job) over in an "Everything is ours"-type mentality. Final ruling: Communist Dictatorship.

Conservatives have a very similar future, with two major glaring differences. They wouldn't want every aspect of their life run by the federal government (but it wouldn't matter because if you went against their rules, you'd likely be executed). The other is that you would have no paycheck to hand over because there would be no true jobs for the people on the bottom. Only the rich would have the money and everyone on the bottom would have to turn to crime, just to survive. Final ruling: Fascist Plutocracy.

Wanna know why I don't trust any politician I see? That's why. No politician in the country (United States) makes it to either Governor, House, Senate or Presidency without selling off their beliefs to the highest bidder.

Since the time when George Washington took office in 1789, nothing has changed about our government and nothing will. This country is, was and will always be run by a group of old, white guys (back in their day, they were the only ones allowed to vote, anyway) who control all the money in this country and they can shut it down anytime they please. And, for anyone who's going to say, "Well, what about Barack Obama? He's not white." That's true, he's not white. He's also not in charge of this country. I mean, raise your hands--anyone--if you believe the President is actually the person in charge of the United States of America. It's not so much a problem that you believe that as it is that it's not even remotely close to being true.

Ironically, Scarborough is kind of like Romney, or John Kerry on the Dem side. He's the kind of guy that puts his finger in the air, sees what way the wind is blowing, then chooses a direction. That's why most conservatives don't trust him.

BTW, I had just heard the other day that he is considering a run for President in 2016. So that article in Politico(which is allied with MSNBC and therefore generally has a strong liberal bias) is just an attempt by Joe to set himself up, differentiate himself from Bush and Romney. It's just more politics.

But clearly his argument suggests Bush and Romney are too liberal. They are inclined to spend too much and do other things in an attempt to win over the center, in contrast to Thatcher and Reagan who stood on their principles.

Scarborough may have a negative opinion of the Tea Party. Or he may not, because remember, he's a guy who wants to please, and he works with diehard Leftists at MSNBC.

Whatever the case, he is arguing that Bush and Romney are not conservative enough. Joe's positions are Tea Party-like, and I am entertained that you posted a link to this article in trying to argue that Romney is a far right dim wit.

I don't care for Romney. He was governor of my state, I never cared for him. I always called him "the conservative John Kerry". His position can change by the hour. He says what he thinks people want to hear.

But he is no dim wit, and he's not a bigot. He's not even conservative. Trust me on that last one. The guy's pretty liberal. If you are a liberal, he's the Republican you want to win.

He's also competent. Unlike Obama, he will go to his daily intelligence briefings. His golf bag will get dusty, if he has one. He will go to work every day and do the job.

How the Libyan consulate could have had no security(except 30 Libyans, who ran away) is inconceivable. How there could be no security on 9/11 is mind blowing. And now it looks like they had a warning of trouble 48 hrs before, but didn't even alert the embassies.

We've already seen corruption on a scale not seen in a century in this White House, in some ways, on a scale never before seen. Now we are witnessing complete incompetency. The President golfs and campaigns. That's about what one would expect from someone whose only job was as a community organizer, and had no executive experience.

And no, he was not a Constitutional Scholar. He taught a 2 hour seminar on community organizing related law. That's it. He's not a professor.

He was a no show kind of Senator that lead on no issues, did nothing remotely important. He gives speeches. That's it. He's a bright guy, but he never had to have a job, so now that he does, he's lost.

"Conservatives have a very similar future... would have no paycheck to hand over because there would be no true jobs for the people on the bottom. Only the rich would have the money and everyone on the bottom would have to turn to crime, just to survive. Final ruling: Fascist Plutocracy."

Blond, that conservative simply does not exist anywhere other than a Hollywood set. He just doesn't.

The poor don't pay taxes. How are the rich(and I am not rich) taking their money?

"Since the time when George Washington took office in 1789, nothing has changed about our government and nothing will. This country is, was and will always be run by a group of old, white guys."

More Hollywood movie type stuff. One thing about this country people don't understand: social mobility is still the dominant factor. The powerful families from 1800 have no power now. None. Today's richest are generally people that made their own fortune. There are plenty who might be living off fortunes their parents made. But if you track it over the generations, the super rich families usually evenatually fall back, and new families rise.

If someone goes out and doesn't want to work or live responsibly, invests much of his income into narcotics, doesn't value education, has numerous children...is he oppressed? Does the successful family that lives responsibly, creates wealth...do they owe that guy something?

In this country, if you work hard, or you have talent, if you live responsibly, you will get ahead. There's good luck and bad luck, and there are people with advantages and disadvantages. But you will make it if you want to.

And Republicans want you to make it. They just don't think anyone is doing you a favor by making you completely dependent on the federal government. That only entrenches your poverty, encourages the behavior that created it in the first place.

I actually agree with Andrew: usually the matter is two different opinions about how best to help people make it. One side thinks the government needs to be heavily involved. The other side thinks that just creates dependency and exacerbates the problem, even creates it.

Human beings are not so bad that anyone wants to see someone else suffering and living in poverty. When you start thinking that, it's a dangerous road.

You might think I demonize liberals. I don't. I might blame them a lot, but I think they mean well. Understand that conservatives mean well also, and give to charities, even if you exclude church giving, at a much higher rate than liberals. Numerous studies support this. Conservatives care, they want to help, they just don't trust government.

Quoted from kev

I actually agree with Andrew

*Sends over a cyber-5*

That cyber five spilled my coffee! Easy!

Something different...

Since we have both writers and filmmakers here at SS, what do you think about people rioting because a film that offends Muhammed? Should we take their feelings seriously enough not to make films like that or should we as creative people write/film whatever we feel like?

It doesn't sound like the guy was a real film maker. He was someone stirring up trouble, and the whole thing turns out to be very mysterious too.

It's his right to make the film. And shame on people who murder and riot and invade embassies because of one guy's unknown youtube video.

I personally would not make a film that's only purpose was to stir up violence.

But I respect anyone's right to make whatever film they want. And ironically the people rioting are just confirming the opinion of the film makers.

I agree with you.

I'll tell you, in my town, Gainesville FL, we're getting pretty tired of Terry Jones! I drive by his church every day. It's three miles from my house. Everyone has the right to free speech, but how many people have died because of him spouting off and burning the Koran?

Pia,

There's lots of crazy, fucking people out there. Those fringe lunatics that the world would be better off without. Terry Jones certainly fits into that category.

Seriously, three miles away?

Yeah, that Jones guy, hopefully he'll get real justice in the next life, if there is one.

We're on a roll, Kev! I agree with you. *Steadies hand for a 5...*

Totally support the guy's right to make the film, but find it disturbing he sets put to offend people. He's no filmmaker, but simply an attention seeker.

Try and find an article from yesterday's London Evening Standard by a guy called Ed Hasan (I think that's his name - on phone at min, but will post link later if you can't find it) that argues the film is wrong, but so is the ridiculously disproportionate response from rioters who need to wise up and realise criticism is a two-way street. Muslim extremists like to criticise the West but cannot accept it back. Unfortunately, lost amongst all the story is that of the locals who helped out. Really great article.

And that Terry guy is a hoot - someone should write a script about him!

Quoted from Mr. Blonde

Seriously, three miles away?

Yep, I see him every now and then at stores and stuff. He's tall and skinny. likes to wear jeans, boots and biker shirts...

I was behind him in line at Subway after the koran burning incident. I was so mad and wanted to say something, but I didn't. Neither did anyone else. People here are starting to get really tired of him. At least he didn't get any attention from media when he had a lifesize Obama doll hanging from the gallows right in front of the church. Btw, his stupid church is in the middle of a neighborhood!

Sorry, Ed Husain: http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/muslims-must-see-the-west-is-not-at-war-with-islam-8135054.html

You guys have some funky churches down there. Why would they hang the Messiah?

Quoted from Andrew

We're on a roll, Kev! I agree with you.

Ah...the lion and the lamb.

And thus, a humble moderator's day is made.

We can't let Bert off that easy.

Quoted from leitskev

We can't let Bert off that easy.

Too close for missiles, I'm switching to guns...

Over a film? Are you insane? These folks don't have enough money to buy food thanks to the world wide inflation caused by central banks trying to save their fellow Banksters and Deficit Addicted Governments. One in million saw the film.

I don't think the film is available, just a trailer on Youtube. And Youtube shut it down in those countries.

Add this to your statement XL: ethanol produced by farmers because of govt incentive programs have also contributed to food inflation.

Once again, the govt intervenes to "help", new special interests are created, and people suffer. And, as Al Gore admitted, it did not lesson carbon emissions at all.

I was skeptical about the premise of the Iraq war. The idea was that if democracy could be established there, a peaceful nation, friendly to the west, and allied with America, would emerge.

Bush, the neo-cons, and people like McCain are naive on one very important thing: they think that "liberating" a people from a dictator will make them grateful to you.

Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama share this dangerous misconception. And four people died in Libya as a result.

The consulate in Libya, one of the most dangerous places in the world, was protected by how many Americans while the ambassador was present? One: a navy seal, who may or may not have been armed.

What did they rely on for protection? 30 Libyans who manned the walls. And who ran at the first sign of trouble. And who probably cooperated with the attackers.

We trusted our security to that? On 9/11 to boot? Are you serious?

This is what badly flawed and naive thinking does. The ambassador had helped the revolutionaries. So they'll protect him, right? That's what Hillary assumed. And that's why she was so completely baffled in her press conference the other day.

We went to Bosnia to save Muslims from genocide. And we did. Meanwhile Bin Laden was planning his attack because we had bases in Saudi Arabia...there to protect Muslims(and our interests, of course). And on 9/11, the Muslim world cheered.

When you need someone to "liberate" you, it reminds you of your secondary status, of your dependent state. And no one likes to see themselves that way. The Islamic world looks around and sees that while the rest of the world produces technology and literature and medicine and science, it produces nothing. This is difficult for them to swallow. So the mind twists things, looks for devils to blame. Just like the trench coat mafia type kids in high school who blame everyone else because the cheerleaders don't pay attention to them.

I am not saying we should not help people who try to liberate themselves. Stopping the genocide in Bosnia was a good thing. Maybe democracy will take root in Iraq and in Libya. Helping people develop modern institutions is a noble goal.

But don't expect them to like you for it. They won't. They will hate you, so be prepared to live with that.

part II: apology tours don't work

There is no serious question, despite what fact checkers claimed, that Obama's world tour at the start of his administration was an apology tour. You don't have to say "I'm sorry" to apologize. We know that as screenwriters.

The tone of that tour was intended by the Pres and understood by every country as an apology tour. He was saying, "yes, my country has committed great evils in the past, but I'm here now."

Hillary brought a "reset" button to Russia, telling them in effect, 'bad old W is gone; we're much more reasonable."

And they backed it with action to show they were serious. We had long signed an agreement promising to place missile defense in Poland, and they had been our most faithful ally. But we stabbed them in the back, backed out on the defense in order to appease the Russians.

Was the result that the Russians have been more cooperative with Obama?

lol

The Russians have been twice as assertive. They saw Obama's gestures as signs of weakness, and they moved to take advantage. The world is a more dangerous place because of it.

Obama apologized to every Islamic country. He stopped in Turkey, Egypt, etc, and told them there is a new America now, one which will "listen" to their concerns and feel their pain.

The result? They love us now? They support our policies in the world?

lol

They hate us even more! And they oppose us even more. And the world is a more dangerous place.

I'd be all for apology tours if they worked. They don't. The world sees it as weakness. That's human nature. You can't govern when you don't understand human nature. It's time for these people to step aside before more damage is done.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/15/world/meast/libya-diplomats-warning/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Despite warnings from Libyans about the precarious state of security in Libya, despite warnings from intelligence people about growing anger about an anti-Islam film, and despite the fact that it was 9/11, there was minimal security. A handful of Americans at best.

Why?

The closest official reason I have been able to find is that the State Department was concerned during the last year how a heavy security detail would look to the Libyans, who they did not wish to offend. Hillary did not want a visible military or police presence.

The second reason we can conclude from her press conference, in which she expressed her bafflement: she figured the Libyans would be grateful to Americans who helped them and would protect them.

Furthermore, not only was the security presence at the embassy in Egypt not increased for 9/11, as one would expect. It appears to have been drastically reduced in the hopes of avoiding "an incident". The Egyptians on the scene were quite a bit surprised when the protesters arrived and found the normal security had been stood down.

QUESTION: Do we REALLY want these people running our foreign policy? Would you trust these people to run your business? To provide security for your family?

Hillary seems like an very intelligent and hard working Secretary. So why is she so inept? Dangerously inept?

It's because of her naive Progressive ideology. We need people to see the world how it is, not how their Hollywood fantasy ideals create it for them. They need to go away and let the adults back in before more people get hurt.

Can you think of any examples, Kev, of when an American leader's conservative ideology may have led to unnecessary deaths?

So you must agree with me then, Chris, that the mistakes I mentioned led to deaths?

Depends what you mean by conservative and how far back you want to go. As said above, I am skeptical about the Iraq war, always was. But this was an abandonment of Bush's prior conservative principles, which hold that nation building is not our mission in the world.

9/11 changed Bush. He sought a lasting solution, a BIG solution. WWII, his father's war, guided his thinking. If Bush was correct, eventually Iraq will settle down and become a stable democracy, which will spread through the Middle East. And it will have been worth it.

If he was wrong, many thousands died for nothing.

But in general, conservative principles are grounded on practical experience and reality, not a dreamy view of the world and human nature. They are not pessimistic principles. American conservatives are optimistic that when people embrace freedom, democracy, and capitalism, they will thrive. They are only skeptical that all people will automatically embrace such things. They are skeptical of forcing these ideas on everyone, especially cultures with a very different value system.

Conservatives would have had Marines on the walls. Some of those storming the walls and trying to get in might have died. More likely, seeing Marines, they would not have stormed the walls.

edit: man, they still love their commie dictators, lol!

NPR story paints Putin's staged photos in a friendly light.

http://www.npr.org/2012/09/15/161169007/putin-turns-photo-ops-into-soviet-style-agitprop

Still on the payroll, I guess.

From this day forward, I will never look at the Muslim faith the same.

For years, I’ve heard “we're peaceful” and I wanted to believe it but the last few days have completely changed my mind.

I see TENS OF THOUSANDS of Muslims acting like riotous, out of control animals unleashing hate and venom on everything in their paths.

As we speak, riots have broken out in over twenty countries and spreading like wildfire.

And for what?

A trailer?

Are you kidding me???

It seems this has been simmering just beneath the surface for some time now, and all it took was the slightest bit of fuel to powder keg it.

That doesn’t sound like too much of a peaceful religion to me. It sounds like a religion that has been planning for an event like this to come all along as though they were waiting for it.

And before you say it, YES, I KNOW, they were insulted. Okay! I get that!!

But isn’t the true measure of a faith, its ability to take insults and show the compassion, love, and resolve embedded in that faith?

Look at the Jewish faith and the years of attacks and yet, continue to hold fast to peaceful principles.

These last few days have really tipped the Muslim hand as to what they are really all about.

And it’s ugly!!!

Shawn.....><

Quoted from leitskev

I was skeptical about the premise of the Iraq war. The idea was that if democracy could be established there, a peaceful nation, friendly to the west, and allied with America, would emerge.

Not so much a premise as a tactic.

Quoted from leitskev

Bush, the neo-cons, and people like McCain are naive on one very important thing: they think that "liberating" a people from a dictator will make them grateful to you.

But you need a line to feed to the press, don't you?

Quoted from leitskev

When you need someone to "liberate" you, it reminds you of your secondary status, of your dependent state. And no one likes to see themselves that way. The Islamic world looks around and sees that while the rest of the world produces technology and literature and medicine and science, it produces nothing. This is difficult for them to swallow. So the mind twists things, looks for devils to blame.

But understanding the mindset of the people you are attempting to liberate is central.
1) The Imam don't encourage independent thought. As much as the US think liberation is needed, so ten to that amount, Islam believes the opposite -- because belief is the stronger of the functions.
2) The Islamic system failed long, long ago, and has been hanging on by the skin of its teeth. Communism gave up the fight, because it didn't carry the religious element along side it. You can't simply say about a system that demands devotion 'oh, okay, not so great, let's ditch it' -- that's called a political system. Islam deliberately entwined its religion with its political as it recognized the power of such a system. You can't stand up and say to 'xxx' millions "sorry, let's have a rethink".

I agree Simon. It's a huge problem. The ideas of democracy and freedom are Western, and are rooted in the separation of church and state. Sharia does not allow such a distinction.

Let's get two things straight:

1) Obama's administration (or its nuanced foreign policy) is not responsible for the actions of the extremists that murdered 4 innocents in Libya. Those who argue this steadfastly hold Americans to their own responsibilities and actions, and yet absolve these terrorists of taking responsibility for their actions. Illogical and partisan. Supposedly the "liberals" are the ones in fantasy. By this absurd token, Bush's administration was responsible for 9/11. Quite frankly, it's disgusting to see Americans belittle themselves and their ideals in pursuit of political gain.

2) The Musilms who are currently protesting are as indicative of the faith as fundamentalist Christians who picket abortion clinics and throw hate bombs at women taking a decision that will stay with them for their lives - that these religious zealots exacerbate this pain is disgusting. True neanderthals. So, those extremist Muslims simply inhabit the same warped world as the extremist Christians. I argued and posted a link that Muslims do need to grow a thicker skin, but you can't help but feel sorry for the moderates when they encounter such a lack of nuance from Islamophobes.

Andrew confused one thing, got one thing right.

No one said Obama is responsible for the actions of the extremists. No one absolves the terrorists of responsibility.

What I blame the current admin for(whether O, or Hillary, or both) is the appalling, non-existent security in one of the most dangerous and unstable areas of the world, an area known to have al quada activity, and on 9/11 of all times.

We left the security of the ambassador to 30 Libyans. That is unfathomable.

Even worse, it was the policy assumptions that led to this disastrous decision:

the assumptions:
1) a heavy American security presence will make us look bad, will offend the Libyans and damage relations. So let's let the Libyans handle security.

2) the Libyans are grateful for our aid in the overthrow of Khaddafi, so we can count on them.

These misguided assumptions resulted in the consulate being easily overthrown...in minutes. Ideas have consequences. We cannot afford these naive ABC after school special notions about the world.

What Andrew got right, or kind of right:

True, have to be careful about judging a large group, culture, or faith based on the actions of a small minority.

But Andrew should also keep in mind that wherever the moderates are, they are very, very quiet. While only a small minority participate in terrorist activity, there seems to be a very wide sympathy for this activity. And this activity is remarkably widespread. Take for example the Philippines.

The Philippines are 99 percent Catholic. But they have a long standing group of revolutionaries which are among the most violent in the world, and which engage in the tactic of killing and abducting innocent civilians and foreigners. And this revolutionary group is Islamic.

We can take take the subcontinent of India and compare Pakistan to India, and which culture is more violent and intolerant.

Islam clearly has stuff that it has to work out. The religion needs to evolve if it's people are gonna progress. I root for that evolution. There are beautiful things about the religion. But we should not be naive. That's how embassies get stormed.

UPDATE: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/09/16/Tapper-To-US-Ambassador-To-UN-Why-Are-We-Impotent

Jake Tapper of ABC asks questions the admin just can't answer. For example:
The President promised four years ago to repair relations with the Islamic world(thus his famous apology tour, and his borderline hostility to Israel). Why does it seem the Islamic world hates us even more now than they did 4 years ago? Why does it seem we are powerless in the face of this?

And then we watch the dance. She says we are not powerless, Obama himself called the Egyptian President and asked him to increase security, and the problem was solved.

Tapper wondered why it took 2 days for O to do this. And I wonder why he had to do it all if we had succeeded in repairing our relationship over the last 4 years.

BTW: this same tendency to have well intended by naive assumptions about human nature, which causes so much havoc in foreign policy, also is what undermines the economy, and does tremendous damage to the working classes.

UPDATE 2: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/16/Susan-Rice-Refuses-To-Answer-Questions-About-Lack-Of-Marines-Free-Speech

Admi ambassador to the UN was an absolute embarrassment on ABC this morning. Asked repeatedly why there were no Marines in Libya, she kept punting. The closest she came to an answer was, "Our presence in Tripoli, as in Benghazi, is relatively new as you will recall. We've been back post-Revolution only for a matter of months."

She actually said that!

This administration is not unique. The naive assumptions that guide them are those commonly held by Progressive academia. That's why this thinking is prevalent in the State Department, which generally consists of Ivy League liberals.

Look, they're all kinds of cute at the protest rallies with their hacky sacks and Birken Stocks. But when this kind of naive thinking drives government policy, bad things happen, people die, and the world becomes a more dangerous place.

Again, the exact same argument could be put forth regards 9/11 and the Bush administration's foreign policy. Michael Moore is lambasted as a conspiracy theorist for suggesting Bush was negligent. So the same argument coming from the other side regards Obama's administration and supposed "liberal thinking" must be treated in the same way. So to shoehorn a popular phrase of my mother's: "What's good for the goose is good for the gander".

Obama's drone campaign is more than an inconvenience to the neocons caricature of a peacenik, Ivy League Liberal-type. Let us not forget these same irresponsible, misguided chaps led us to war in Iraq and now seek to replicate the disaster in Iran.

Anyway, to utilise two of my favourite examples of American political parlance, see this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/opinion/sunday/dont-tell-anyone-but-the-stimulus-worked.html?_r=1

If the electorate takes this message on board, "the Romney campaign is toast" - it also suggests that "the dog won't eat the dog food" when it comes to swing states buying Romney's alternative economic plans.

I'll read the article later when I get home.

But you are understating Moore's position, and really misstating it.

Moore does not accuse Bush of being "negligent". He implies with his film that Bush was somehow "behind" 9/11. That's why his film alludes to some pipeline the Bush oil people wanted to build through Afghanistan.

Moore essentially accuses Bush of either planning or at the very least deliberately allowing 9/11 as an excuse for him to go to war.

No one is accusing Obama of that. And mistakes happen, so I don't think a President can be held responsible for everything.

But this was a case not of negligence, but of outrageously bad policy that was a direct result of these naive assumptions.

And almost a week later, the administration people are frankly still acting like children, trying to dance and cover. There is ample evidence they were warned, but they continue to lie and deny. There is overwhelming evidence that this attack had a high degree of planning, and they continue to deny this and call it "spontaneous".

The best we can hope for and say about the situation is this: the antidote to liberalism is reality. They are getting a heavy dose of it now. They have shown some ability to adapt in the past. For example, Guantanamo remains open, and the trials never took place in New York(they never took place, actually).

But liberalism often proves quite resistant to reality. That is its defining attribute. Like a religion, it's founded on faith in certain, often inconsistent precepts.

Will Obama outgrow his liberalism in a second term? Maybe. He won't have any reason to remain beholden to party. But odds are against it. He has too much self esteem invested in this ideology.

Quoted from leitskev

I don't know much about the Libya business. The way you tell the story, it certainly sounds as though things could have been handled differently. What I'm unclear on, as always, is how you move from specific example -- Hillary's purported mistake -- to a blanket statement about an ideology. You mention Bush and the Iraq war -- I might as easily say, why is George Bush so inept? It's because of his conservative ideology. He needed to step down and let the adults -- say, Kucinich or Obama, as politicians opposed to the initial invasion -- take charge before more people got hurt.

(But I don't).

My question, above was the following: I'm constantly confused by your claims regarding "all liberals" or "all leftists." Can you explain, simply, the view or views common to "all leftists" that are inherently wrong or harmful?

Or perhaps, to "all Socialists," or something?

I'll take a quick shot, Chris, but that's a question that requires a careful answer, and I'm pressed for time.

Liberals like government. They really like it. They have an enormous faith in government solutions to problems big and small. They think human society should be re-engineered and manged by those of superior talent and disposition. Namely, them.

They dislike patriotism, however. They don't trust it. They consider it vulgar. Every liberal I knew in college and later despised the flag and the national anthem. They like other people's flags, though. That's celebrating diversity, and that's people clinging to their heritage.

Consistent with both of these themes, they have a reverence for the United Nations and are strangely blind to its weakness and even the dangers of this type of international body. They don't understand that the UN is not a bunch of countries jointly trying to solve world problems. It consists of member countries each pursing its own ends.

They see the world as divided between the oppressed and the oppressors. Countries or individuals that are successful could only have achieved their success by oppressing others.

Countries or individuals that are unsuccessful, unproductive or poor are only in that state because they have been oppressed.

Therefore the role of government is to intervene, by redistributing, or by creating institutions that protect the oppressed, and ultimately re-engineer, under their benevolent guidance.

Often there are contradictory impulses. For example, women's rights are a high priority, and for that reason they despise what they see as conservative institutions in the west, such as the Catholic Church. But yet their self image of being supremely tolerant of non-western cultures(the oppressed) means they have a complete blind spot when it comes to the severe oppression of women in the Islamic world. This really gives away the game as far as the liberal mindset.

In the case of Libya, there were no Marines protecting the consulate because liberals are extremely worried about offending people of color, who are among the oppressed and have a special class with liberals.

There were also no Marines because Liberals don't tend to understand human motives in terms of their experience, but rather in some idealistic term dictated by how they would like to see the world.

They see themselves nobly riding to the rescue of the oppressed(this is what gives them their self worth) and assume that the "oppressed" will be grateful. They don't understand that if the third world was suddenly in control of the world, they would slaughter the liberals first. They think because they patronize third world minorities, those patronized will love them. But they are hated for the patronage, though they accept it.

And before anyone say it, this has nothing to do with genetics or race. These forces are all cultural and historical.

Chris, can you really explain in any other way how they left the embassy in Libya essentially unguarded on 9/11 of all times? It was not negligence. It was not because Obama does not go to his daily intelligence briefings and spends too much time campaigning( well, maybe that contributed). It's because their understanding of human nature is dictated by idealistic and naive assumptions.

Well, Romney really is toast now. The 47% tapes have finished him, much like the recording of Gordon Brown with "bigoted woman".

Regards the daily intelligence briefings... Obama is simply following the exact same approach to meetings as Clinton did. No dereliction of duty and no one was making a fuss back in the '90s.

The Romney campaign inquest begins tonight, though, after the 47% tapes. He was going to lose anyway, but these tapes will (rightly or wrongly) finish him.

what are the 47% tapes? you lost me.

UPDATE: Found it. Probably will do damage. These things don't hurt Obama when they happen, because they are barely reported by the media. But when it's a Repug, it gets reported over and over for days.

To be fair, "you didn't build that" got an awful lot of coverage. These comments always get massive airtime. The problem with this Romney error is that it taps straight in to what people feel uneasy about with him: he doesn't give a shit about the working and middle classes. It's a catastrophic revelation for his campaign - I almost feel sorry for him.

Do you agree with his conclusion?

Saw a rogue report it was Jimmy Carter's grandson that leaked the video but can only assume that's bunk.

I agree, actually

I heard the Carter thing too.

It plays into people's fears about Romney.

You never hear me sing the guy's praises. I live in the state where he was governor. Ironically, he brought universal healthcare to this state, believe it or not.

The problem with Romney is not that he doesn't care, or that he's very ideological. The problem is he says what he thinks will get him elected. It's hard to know if he really believes in anything. I've always called him the Republican John Kerry.

I never understood his campaign management. He does an interview last month where he talks about him and Anne buying shirts at Costco. Yeah, right.

Why not just come out and say this: I had it pretty good growing up. My dad was governor, I went to all the best schools. I had all the advantages. But I worked my ass off when I got out of school. And I've worked my ass off my whole life. I built a great American company that launched and saved businesses, produced thousands of jobs. I became governor of a Democrat state, and worked with the other side to get things done. I'm a lousy dancer, I stink at golf, I'm the opposite of cool. But if you elect me President, I'll go to work every day, get the country back on its feet, and undo the damage of the last four years.

The things he foolishly got caught saying had much truth to them. Half the country doesn't pay taxes. But it's even worse. Many who do pay taxes work for the government. Many make six figures. But they will mostly vote Democrat. So it's not just about people who get a welfare type check from the govt. It's people who get a pay check. And we're getting close to a tipping point where too many depend on the government either for work or the entitlement.

Yeah, his campaign has been mismanaged and Romney himself must take responsibility for that. To my mind, its that lack of inner conviction that makes him such a poor politician. Probably a lovely man, but I fundamentally disagree with his economic plans and this leak confirms (at least in my mind) that the Obama campaign has his number.

You know, I agree that if he had played up his background much like the Kennedys did, he would be viewed differently. Whether he's played it down because he falsely believes he's self-made like someone born on the lower rungs of society, or because he's running scared of how the left may view him, it's clear he's not made of the right kind of stuff. For all his faults, Bush had the fortitude to be decisive and see through his agenda. Ditto Reagan, Clinton, Obama. All of these guys have something Romney doesn't. It's probably that inner conviction, I don't know.

As a counter to Romney's 47% stance, have a butchers at this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/18/romneys-47-percent-us-election

Romney is lacking in the inner conviction. That's why the Republicans tried to nominate just about anyone else in the primaries. In the end, they all had issues. Cain would have got the nomination were it not for his infidelity and lying about it. But he was flawed, of course, barely able to point to Europe on a map.

There are great young Republicans emerging. But the current crop of Presidential candidates was weak. The Tea Parties have really driven some exceptional new talent into office.

will read link later, got a meeting

prepare to have your mind blown:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/17/British-Firm-Provided-Benghazi-Security-Under-No-Bullets-Rules-of-Engagement

Andrew: will read your link tomorrow; got home late.

Addressing Andrew's link:

I've seen the stats in similar articles. No question a lot of those, particularly the elderly, vote Republican, and if taken seriously Romney's strategy is foolish.

Although clearly Romney was addressing people in a private gathering, people who pay a boatload in taxes, so his remarks were tailored for that crowd.

I don't excuse the remarks, and it's unbelievable that in today's day and age Romney does not realize that everyone has a camera in his pocket now. You have to expect that everything you say has a chance of making it to youtube.

But you can look at the numbers a different way as well. While many of those in the 47% pay no income tax because they are retired, there are also millions who DO pay income tax, but will mostly vote Democrat because they work for the government. When you add up government workers with those getting assistance from the government, it's a big number. Then throw in unions and companies that depend on an expanding government for their business. You're still not at 47%, but now throw in the environmentalist groups, the private school/guilt riddled liberals, and minorities, and you're over 50%. Well over it.

Fortunately, not everyone votes with their own selfish interest in mind. Not every federal employee or local teacher will vote Democrat. Many federal employees will care more about their country. Many teachers care more about their students and quietly understand the unions/Democrats have destroyed the school systems.

No, Andrew, I don't like Romney at all. Never have. I don't know what drives him. Maybe he has to prove to his dead father that he can live up to expectations by being President. W Bush had to have a big war to prove worthy of his father, a WWII hero.

In practical terms, Romney's malleability means he will work with the other side. I saw that in my state. He will compromise, which can be troubling, because it will mean government will continue expanding. But if one is a liberal, Romney really is not to be feared in any way. The day to day of government will be better managed, the economy will improve, foreign policy won't change much.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/chapter-ii-the-myth-of-the-rock-star-professor/article/2508418#.UFs8lo1lS80

Look at the participation numbers toward the bottom of the article. At Chicago Law School, Obama was a lecturer, not a professor, certainly not teaching "Constitutional law". He taught 3 courses, all standard Progressive stuff dealing with race and advocacy. That's it.

Faculty were expected to participate in the intellectual life of the school, to plan curricula. He did none of these things. He did next to nothing.

In the state legislature, he voted "present" more than any other legislature. In my state, Massachusetts, this usually means the legislator is not actually there, but has a colleague indicate present. Of course, sometimes it means the legislator wants to avoid a public position.

In the US Senate, again, he was a leader in voting "present", and also a leader in missing votes. He missed an astounding 24% of roll calls(average Senator is 2%).

Now as President he misses about 40% of his Daily Intelligence Briefings, and is criticized by both parties as being unavailable for legislators.

But he has three times the campaign events as Bush did, golfs constantly, and always has time for Letterman, The View, and Jay Z.

The empty chair image really works. This guy just isn't there, and never has been his whole career. Except for campaigning.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-never-anti-american-protest-benghazi-only-planned-attack_652761.html

CBS news reports that witnesses say there was not protest at the Libyan embassy. It was just a straightforward attack.

http://www.washingtonguardian.com/revising-libya-story

The 2 Navy Seals that died trying to protect the ambassador were NOT assigned to him. They just jumped in to help.

Essentially, the ambassador had effectively ZERO security. In one of the most dangerous areas of the world. And apparently the ambassador had mentioned weeks ago that he was in Al Quda's crosshairs. AND...the Libyan government had warned for weeks that security was a problem.

Can any of our liberal friends here explain this? Are you just gonna chalk it up to "Oops!"?

And as we've seen so many times before, the administration is in FULL cover-up mode. Watch any press conference. Even CBS said in its report that the investigation will be designed to conclude after the election.

If you're American, do you really want these people in charge of national security?

If you are not American, and I understand many of the non-Americans here essentially don't like the US, but do you really think that the world is a safer place with an incompetent and impotent United States?

Quoted from kev

If you are not American, and I understand many of the non-Americans here essentially don't like the US, but do you really think that the world is a safer place with an incompetent and impotent United States?

Don't know anyone on the board who's anti-American, but if it's aimed at me, it couldn't be further from the truth. I like the States big time. Ever since heading over at 10 years old, I became enamoured by the big picture thinking that is largely lacking in the UK. It just aligns with how I view the world. America will always attract criticism (as she herself dishes it out - and criticism is a two-way street) as Britain has for its historical impact. When two nations are as geopolitically active as these two, egos will be scruffed up. Par for the course. To equate disagreement with anti-Americanism is obtuse.

The sources (esp Breibart) are highly partisan, so obviously of dubious quality. If it's revealed by credible sources (and yes, that's a mainstream media source, 'cos let's face it, they will expose big errors eventually), I will be equally as disappointed in the tactical errors as you evidently are, but at the moment it's conjecture with a slant - not a basis to admonish the Obama Administration's foreign policy unconditionally.

Quoted from Kevin

Although clearly Romney was addressing people in a private gathering, people who pay a boatload in taxes, so his remarks were tailored for that crowd.

Relatively speaking, it's no higher than other members (who earn considerably less) of the cherished 53%. Check out Robert Reich's blog for some statistical data on levels of high income earners paying little to no tax. Point accepted that he's a partisan Democrat.

Quoted from Kevin

Many teachers care more about their students and quietly understand the unions/Democrats have destroyed the school systems.

Obviously there's no statiscal evidence of this claim. I'd be interested in any empirical studies that may back it up, but certainly know of no paradigm shifting studies. This is, of course, not just an American debate but a global debate. Look at the relatively strong union membership in Australia. Their economy (and reasons for this can be debated) largely remained unaffected by the GFC. The income inequality is also far less. So there's no commonality behind the claim that unions destroy any industry or profession. It's a conservative talking point. I'm not a union man per se, but any body that stands for the working man (who is as a part of a company's success as any suit) cannot be easily dismissed without facts. The notion that the lower skilled labour force is disposable fuels much of the thinking that barriers (unions) to getting rid of it are "getting in the way".

What you fail to address is the single greatest economic issue in the last generation, which is globalisation. Look at the Indian protests today at their PM opening up for foreign retailers. People are suspcious of it. The fact is that when companies are faced in competitive industries with shrinking bottom lines, they will - where possible - look to outsource jobs in an effort to cut costs and become more profitable. The resultant vacuum leaves people out of work and is exacerbated by a dearth of alternative jobs. Then you get "dependency" and welfare costs rise. As Clinton said, no one party has the monopoly on good ideas. But we all know the problems, so working together to solve them is the only suitable conclusion. That takes compromise and an open mind.

Now, you can of course argue that outcourcing is down to wages being too high in the homeland (although evidently not high enough to deal with rising living costs and inflation) fuelled by union interference. And that's a debate worth having, but to enter that debate with the conclusion unions are to blame makes no sense. The fundamental question is what kind of America do you want to live in? The benchmark of your country was the 'American Dream' and the largest middle class in the world. Everyone agrees that's in danger. There's a difference of opinion on how to rollback the losses of the last 30 years. However, it's a multi-faceted, complicated problem that cannot be described by blaming government, unions, big business, greed or whatever other conclusion you will see - it's naturally a conflation of all these issues and more. It's not a time for the blame game but for problem solving. And that's why the anger is there on both sides. The Republicans blame the supposedly government loving liberals, and the Democrats blame the supposedly intransigent, social Darwinist conservatives. There's no doubt an element of truth in both arguments, but there's also a lot of false conclusions too.

Robert Reich is not only a partisan, but he's an extreme liberal who has always been, shall we say, selective in data he uses. I would not trust any economic data he uses for arguments, no more than I would Krugman. More on this later.

I don't use Breitbart as a source. I might use his link if it shows mainstream video, such as from CBS, which it does here. I have not given any information on this that even the administration would argue. They will equivocate and change the subject, but the basic facts are not in dispute, and Jake Tapper of ABC has been dogged in asking these questions.

The stuff I am telling you about security in Libya is all over the news. Pick your source: CNN, Fox, the networks, the British papers. It ain't hard to find. There was no security, and though Carney is asked this every day, he deflects by saying "an investigation is under way". Watch him today.

Andrew, even liberals have caught on to the fact that Teachers unions have destroyed the education system. I could spend a day explaining it, but there is so much information in the public domain, why should I? Several life long liberals have done documentaries in the last couple years on this. What do you think a charter school is? Essentially it's a public school that has special permission to operate outside the union rules. They perform light years better than the regular schools. And families are desperate to get there kids into them. Meanwhile, unions do EVERYTHING they can to appose them.

There is a difference between private sector and public sector unions. Since a business's purpose is to make money, it's reasonable that workers should have protection. But a government entity does not exist to make money. There's no reason for public unions. Unlike a private union, public unions conspire with their bosses to take public money. Even FDR thought public unions would be a bad idea.

I can't speak to Australia, I know nothing about it's economy. Generally speaking, two things to keep in mind about the "income inequality" thing.

First, measuring such a thing is fraught with problems. Even assuming you had honest researchers, such a thing would be difficult to measure. And seldom if ever are there honest researchers. Generally the people that measure such a thing either deliberately or subconsciously build in a bias, and the bias is always from the Left, because they are the ones obsessed with it.

Second, a shrinking income gap usually results from this: a shrinking economy. A growing economy produces a larger gap. That is statistically so, but even more, it's common sense. When the economy is strong, productive people do better.

You are correct I did not address globalization. It's a very difficult problem. To be honest, I am very unsure what is the best way to handle many of the problems that arise with it. I would agree with your general approach that it is not a problem that one philosophy or ideology will fix, and requires some compromise.

But government programs are already in place for these things. And government bureaucracies are like monsters that feed and grow on their own once birthed. Look at the Ethanol program in the US, which has increased carbon emissions AND increased world food costs. It's a lose lose situation, but they will never go away now.

The never expanding size and scope of government is a real and present threat to freedom. Poverty is preferable to enserfment.

As far as the rolling back the "losses of the last 30 years", this is a fiction created by Leftwingers. The Left could not accept the pronounced success of Reagan and Thatcher, so they play with numbers, like Reich, to create the reality they want. Let me give you an example.(And I don't have time to cite sources, sorry. But one can see how this works)

It has been said that under Reagan, the poverty rate increased dramatically for blacks. So Reagan's economy was terrible for them.

I can show you easily how this was wrong, and it really matters to understand why.

It's true that statistically black poverty rates increased. But something else is true statistically: a dramatic and unprecedented number of black families moved into the middle class. They found the American dream.

How can both things be true? Easy, and this is why statistics are dangerous, and you have to be careful.

Single parent birth rates among blacks skyrocketed in the 1980s. There was also the crack epidemic, but the main thing throwing the numbers was the millions of babies living in poverty to single mothers. The increased poverty rate was due entirely to this birth rate. And none of this had anything to do with Reaganomics. Nothing. If anything, it was a product of the social welfare experiments launched by Johnson.

So blacks did very well under Reagan. My best friend's family loved Reagan for that very reason. They remain Republicans to this day.

If you could go back and time and prevent Reagan's election, the single parent birth rate would still occur. But the economic expansion might not(I would say would not). Hundreds of thousands of black families would remain in poverty as a result. I wouldn't want that on my conscience. So I'd be careful what stats you look to and what conclusions you draw.

Let's get some perspective on the Robert Reich thing... he's a former member of the Clinton Administration - a third wayer. You describe him like he's George McGovern. if we're on the partisan scale, he's nowhere compared to a Thomas Sowell or the Breitbart jokers. Also, he has a strong and respected command of economics, just like the Nobel Prize winning Krugman. To dismiss guys of this calibre who cite actual figures and data (unlike the hack that is Sowell) is to ignore reality.

Kev, you can't say "even liberals" have caught on to the supposed fact that teachers unions have destroyed the education system in the US. I'm all ears for reputable sources and information that demonstrates any liberals (or independents for that matter) solely blame teachers unions for the alleged destruction of the US education system. That's a painfully one-sided conclusion that is just not true.

Public or private sector unions. Yes, you can slice them if you wish, but to this point you've lumped them in together. So now you're saying that private sector unions are good and it's the public sector unions only that are naughty? I am, of course, being facetious. Unions are there to protect incomes but also working conditions. Judging from your assessment of the Obama government, isn't it wise for these guys to protect themselves from "the liberals"? I cannot agree with your conclusion that public sector unions collude with middle management to steal money from the public purse. Sure, you can pervert their motivations, but it doesn't make it so. To conclude this is to essentially agree with the nonsense that Romney put out there about government dependency for 47% of Americans.

Kev, if you don't think there's been an exacerbation of income inequality (the raw measure being the income between those at the top and those at the bottom) you are not looking at the figures. This is undeniable. To debate the causes of this is one thing, but to debate the existence is to bury your head in the sand. Worry not, it's not a uniquely American trend.

Regards a growing economy equalling a widened gap as a natural consequence, I have seen Tony Blair (another darned liberal and proud) argue the same thing. There is some legitimacy in this idea. Fact of the matter is, however, that a kid born into this world should not have their opportunity decided by the luck of the birth draw. What action (if any and that's the debate) we should take is the discussion - not trying to hide away the inequalities in our societies. What is certainly true (and both Romney and Obama are pushing this same idea) is that the American Dream is slipping away. There are inequalities greater today than in 1979 and we must acknowledge them.

Was Reagan good for any one particular group? Well, his policies (intended or not) were certainly good for the wealthy. These are all issues for debate, but to buy into the notion that Reagan performed economic miracles is to ignore the deficits that started under his watch (and continue to this day) and a sharp rise in income inequality. As I always say... this is my opinion. And that is all.

I don't think I've ever met two people more in tune with their political sides than you two.

I mean that sincerely my friends.

The exchange you guys have going on is deep.

I'm impressed.

Shawn.....><

Andrew, Reich ran for governor in my state. He's a professor at Harvard. I've watched him speak on TV hundreds of times and read his editorials. It's not just that he's a partisan, though that is not the word I used. He's a hard core ideologue. He does things with stats similar to Krugman, and similar to what I explained with black poverty under Reagan. It's not honest scholarship.

Juan Williams is one of the liberals who has done a documentary about the schools, and suggesting the unions are the problem. There was a 2 hr movie/documentary put out by a liberal 2 years ago about the same, but I can't recall it at the moment.

There are many reputable books on the subject.

But again, there's common logic. And let's start with the charter schools, what they are, why they work.

Andrew, unions are there to bargain collectively. For whatever that can achieve.

Who said anything about middle management? Unions bargain with elected officials for more money. And they give direct campaign contributions to those same officials. Is that not the definition of corruption? What is so hard to understand?

"The Gap". You don't seem to want to understand. There was no RISE in income inequality under Reagan. This a statistical fiction. It's exactly as I pointed out with the black population.

Black poverty grew, and the gaps between blacks and and the rich grew. But that is not because of economic conditions. It's because of the explosion in birth rates. Most of these infants were born without an income. This really is the cause Andrew, the COMPLETE cause. Look it up.

And the exact same thing is true of the population at large. You take away the increased birth rates among single mothers, poof, the gap disappears.

I've tried to explain how silly this "gap" is. Let's say there are 10 families on your block, and their incomes range from 20K a year to 300k. If everyone's income goes up by 10% next year, the "gap" grew larger. If everyone's income goes down by 10%, the gap was reduced. Go ahead, get your calculator out. Try it.

Come on, man, don't be fooled by this crap.

I am old enough to remember the 1980s. When Reagan took over, we had high unemployment, AND high inflation. It was a disaster, and people thought it would never end. Lberals said Reagan's plan would make it worse, and people would suffer.

But after a period of adjustment(about a year and half, if I recall), things turned around big time. The economy roared. Trust me, everyone benefited. I was just joining the job market then, and I SAW the change. Man, did wages go up fast! If things had stayed the way they were under Carter, God, what a different world we'd live in.

Twenty years from now, if we manage to get Obama out, we'll be saying the same thing.

I remember the frustration of liberals when the Reagan economy soared. God, that tortured them. But they had their old standby: the gap.

And the news broke out the homeless stories every night. Man, what a fictional world liberals can create. Not that there aren't homeless, but have you heard about any lately?

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/20/questions-raised-about-protest-ahead-of-benghazi-attack/?hpt=hp_t1

As is often the case, Fox News first broke this story. A couple days later CBS picked it up. Now finally the administration is changing its tune.

It turns out there may not have even been a protest at the Libyan embassy!

For those of you out there that attack Fox News, you have to understand that there are a lot of important stories that would never get covered otherwise. All of the networks, CNN, and of course MSNBC, have forgotten their media role to be truth tellers to power. I could live with the fact that these groups all see things from a liberal angle, but I'm sorry to say the problem is much more severe. In choosing what to cover and investigate and what not to, these "journalists" have become advocates who are really just activists. Any story that might hurt this administration is purposely buried. The list of examples goes on and on, and if you watch closely, there is strong evidence in every broadcast. I really don't know how this people sleep at night. Doesn't honesty count for anything anymore?

First off, read this today and thought it was interesting: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/09/21/state_of_the_race_part_3_winning_by_losing_115526.html

Quoted from Kevin

"The Gap". You don't seem to want to understand. There was no RISE in income inequality under Reagan. This a statistical fiction. It's exactly as I pointed out with the black population.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

The thing that perplexes me is that you talk about the '80s as if it's a unique period of economic growth in the American experience, hence justifying the praise you heap on Reagan. So why do you not lavish the same praise on Clinton? You've talked about Reagan laying the groundwork for the Clinton economy - so by the same token, you can argue that Carter laid the foundation for Reagan. Fact is, capitalist economies are cyclical and to some degree we must acknowledge that there's an element of luck.

What happens when the economy roars under Obama in his second term - will you wholeheartedly back his policies? My point is that from what I see in your post, you ascribe much of the success of that period's economic performance through your prism and the emotional entanglements - as opposed to a policy-led explanation of why Reagan was supposedly successful above all others. What are these policy-led principles of the Reagan era that explain the performance you talk of? What distinguishes it from the supposedly flawed policies of liberals?

On the Fox point, ironically I was going to post a clip of O'Reilly talking about the election on his Talking Points section (must have been 19th or 20th) and he said we can't know if Obama or Romney's economic policies will be successful - that was definitely a little less partisan than usual.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuEOOCTmR-k

Here you go, Andrew. This is called Waiting For Superman.

A highly acclaimed documentary. The director is a liberal. And the film lays the blame on our school systems demise clearly at the feet of the unions.

For two reasons: immense bureaucracy, and the inability to remove bad teachers.

"For generations, experts blamed failing schools on failing neighborhoods. But reformers now believe failing neighborhoods are in fact the product of failing schools."

Note in section 4 the damage of bad teachers to long term education.

At 5 min mark in part 4, you see a black principle discuss when a reformer sent a kid in school with a hidden camera. He recorded kids playing craps in class, teachers doing nothing, reading the paper. When they asked the principle what he was gonna do, he said "fire them, of course". But his admins in the back were signaling him. "You can't fire anybody," they told him. He fired them. The unions won, forced him to rehire the teachers with back pay.

Whole neighborhoods, whole generations have been lost to union destroyed school systems.

We spend in the US over $9000 per student per year on education. In my state, it's 11k. In Washington DC, it's over 20K. All money down the union drain.

"You can get tenure basically if you continue to breathe for two years." Principal.

Michelle Rhee was appointed in Washington, DC. in 2009 by the new black mayor. She knew the problem was addressing the "vast bureaucracy", and she took it on.

Despite enormous success, after four years, the "machine"(unions, corruptocrats) managed to vote out the reform mayor and replace him with someone who would restore the corrupt system. The new mayor fired Rhee first thing.

There are things in life we don't know, problems that it's hard to know how to solve. How do we keep Iran from developing nukes? How do we help victims of globalization?

But some things we know without question.

- the education system is failing badly
- generations are being lost(which has other huge costs for the welfare state)
- we spend more per student than imaginable, and funding has skyrocketed over the last 40 years, so money is NOT the issue
- the problem is a huge monster of a bureaucracy that makes reform impossible; and the inability to fire bad teachers. These are under the control of the unions.
- the teachers unions are a HUGE component of the Dem party. Along with the trial lawyers association, they are the biggest contributors, and many delegates are in the union itself. The Democrat Party is inseparable from the union, even though they are occasionally forced to fight it, such as in Chicago. This is considered an inhouse squabble.
- you want to reform the school system...well, let logic fill in the blank for you. A vote for a Democratic candidate is a vote for the union. And another lost generation.

(And I am leaving out the damage that liberal teaching methods that value esteem over results have done to students.)

But, on the bright side, all those lost kids will need: prison guards, parole officers, welfare workers, food stamp bureaucracies, and on and on. More layers of government bureaucracy. All unionized! All channeling money to The Party.

And an army of people rolling out again this November to vote, unable to read, except to check the box with the D. Rock on! Power to the people!

Not much time to go into Reaganomics at the moment.

I am glad you finally recognized the cyclical nature of the capitalist economy.

The economic malaise that Reagan found was more than just a downturn. It was a "stagnation". Normally downturns are deflationary periods. But in the late 70s, we had no growth, high unemployment, AND inflation.

And this had been going on a while. I recession is normally a correction that occurs when the economy overheats, which sooner or later it does when the economy is strong.

That was not the case in the late 70s. It was something far deeper, far more entrenched.

If memory serves me, first Reagan tightened the money supply to control inflation. They warned this would create a brief period of heightened recession, but that it was necessary to right the ship. And this happened as they said.

But the other part of their plan was an across the board tax cut. The idea was to put capital into people's hands. Deregulate so capital could move. And once inflation was under control, reduce interest rates.

It worked dramatically. For the next 27 years.

But other problems have worked their way into the system. The fed no longer sees its purpose as protecting people's savings by controlling inflation. Now they see their purpose as propping up the stock market. And that's dangerous.

I expect that if Obama is reelected, the economy will continue to rebound. But it will come to resemble what saw under Carter: weak growth, high unemployment, and soon, high inflation.

Now, if we have a Republican congress, and he works with them like Clinton did in 1994, that might be limited. There is little sign if Obama doing this, but it could happen.

Much safer to just get him out of office.

Skimmed through the article: pressed for time(have to do some work; this is play)

Yes, we don't know what McCain would have done, and he might have been just as bad in many ways. Conservatives don't trust McCain for many reasons. He's generally in honorable man, but can be very liberal, excuse the word.

Keep in mind the business of government, though, is done at the agency level(Department in Britain). And Obama appointed radical left wingers to every possible position. The damage from those will last decades and be difficult to undo.

McCain would not have appointed these kind of people. They don't exist in the Republican Party.

As for losing the election having a long term benefit for Republicans down the road...so what? Maybe. I don't care. I don't care about Republicans political fortunes. I care about the country. And the damage from Obama will last generations.

As for the debt: yes, it's a problem whichever party wins. But here's the key: growth.

That's the only way out. That's how Clinton got out, and that's why it took him by surprise. Because fast growth means much more revenue for the government, without changing rates.

Tax cuts lead to growth. That connection is proven beyond doubt. Tax increases lead to the opposite.

But what about Clinton? didn't he raise taxes?

Yes. But not much. So it is possible to have modest increases and have growth. But history does not support it as being likely. And we had the dotcom bubble fueling growth in the 90s. Hard to repeat that bit of luck.

UPDATE: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_71.htm#.UGG3041lS80

For 2 decades people have been leaving one of the most attractive places in the world, a place that people used to dream of moving to. Why? Blue state policies. And it's the productive people who leave. Those that depend on the government for goodies and those that work for the government are who remain. This is the future, and it ain't pretty.

UPDATE 2: Can someone explain to me how Reagan's policies hurt the working class? Anyone? Anyone?

Since no one disputes the growth achieved under Reagan, all we hear about from liberals is the "Gap". Can someone tell me what the mechanism is for this gap? Since Reagan lowered tax rates for everyone, and since he managed to keep fuel prices at record lows, and inflation completely under control, how exactly is it that Reagan managed to rob working people of their money and slip it to rich folk?

Was it magic? I mean there must be some mechanism that transferred wealth from the working man to "the man". It isn't just something that liberals take on faith, is it?

Well, I assume you consider Sicko to be the authority on healthcare that you consider Waiting For Superman to be for education. Credit for posting a link as requested. I understand the argument but disagree with it.

Quoted from Kevin

Despite enormous success, after four years, the "machine"(unions, corruptocrats) managed to vote out the reform mayor and replace him with someone who would restore the corrupt system. The new mayor fired Rhee first thing.

There are things in life we don't know, problems that it's hard to know how to solve. How do we keep Iran from developing nukes? How do we help victims of globalization?

But some things we know without question.

- the education system is failing badly
- generations are being lost(which has other huge costs for the welfare state)
- we spend more per student than imaginable, and funding has skyrocketed over the last 40 years, so money is NOT the issue
- the problem is a huge monster of a bureaucracy that makes reform impossible; and the inability to fire bad teachers. These are under the control of the unions.
- the teachers unions are a HUGE component of the Dem party. Along with the trial lawyers association, they are the biggest contributors, and many delegates are in the union itself. The Democrat Party is inseparable from the union, even though they are occasionally forced to fight it, such as in Chicago. This is considered an inhouse squabble.
- you want to reform the school system...well, let logic fill in the blank for you. A vote for a Democratic candidate is a vote for the union. And another lost generation.

(And I am leaving out the damage that liberal teaching methods that value esteem over results have done to students.)

But, on the bright side, all those lost kids will need: prison guards, parole officers, welfare workers, food stamp bureaucracies, and on and on. More layers of government bureaucracy. All unionized! All channeling money to The Party.

And an army of people rolling out again this November to vote, unable to read, except to check the box with the D. Rock on! Power to the people!

Are you writing the sequel to Hunger Games or being serious?

Quoted from Kevin

Now, if we have a Republican congress, and he works with them like Clinton did in 1994, that might be limited. There is little sign if Obama doing this, but it could happen.

Obams has had nothing resembling help from the Republicans in this Congress. It's one of the major reasons that they're losing the Presidential election. Obama is on the right side of the argument, smarter than the leading Republicans and has been given every help by their refusal to be sensible.

REAGAN

The Laffer curve is bunk. The argument conservatives have been supplying for the last 30 or so years is that lower rates result in higher revenue. So give this money back to those who have plenty so that they can invest it in to the economy and therefore create wealth for all. The very idea is at odds with the meritocratic ideals of the US. What it's tacitly advocating is to consolidate wealth in the hands of the wealthy who will then bestow their charitable nous to help us all out. You grow an economy by instituting both long and short term measures. You have a vibrant, strong and growing economy when you have people competing on a level playing field; where you have people able to reach their potential. You don't achieve it by concentrating wealth in the hands of the few whilst stifling the ability to reach potential by slashing spending that helps achieve it. By all means it's fine to debate how to spend that money and how to generate the opportunities. But the current Republicans are suggesting taking away funding for opportunity and calling for people to simply "work harder". This article says it much better than I: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/24/mitt-romney-self-creation-myth

No, what happened under Reagan is that the lower income earners started to pay a higher relative rate whilst the 'wealth generators' paid a lower rate to 'spur the economy'. A reduction of 70 to 28% no less. In addition to that, the Reagan administation cut opportunity spending, while unjustly increasing defence spending. This combination hit the lower income person and exacerbated the inequality. It's as simple as that. So while GDP grew, the appropriation of it was skewed towards those at the top by virtue of their reduced tax rates. Lest we forget the growth of debt under Reagan. You're explaining away of this is at odds with the man himself who considered it a major disappointment - so obviously not an intended or necessary evil.

The problem for Republicans now is they believe not just in a smaller government but a smaller state of opportunity aided by government. This is out of step with the vast majority of Americans, so they must dress up this ideology in increasingly obscure tactics. They know the electorate will not eat the dog food when they know what's actually being proposed. In the minds of Republicans it makes sense to cut taxes and lower revenues because they don't believe in the spending on creating opportunity because it jars with their ideals of rugged individualism. The American people disagree and will vote Obama in. The sensible thing for Republicans will be to move away from these ideas and instead focus on a consensus that government DOES PLAY A ROLE IN INCREASING SOCIAL MOBILITY and that the argument really is about how to spend the money - not if the money should be spent in the first place.

Sicko vs Superman: (coming to a theater soon?)

A key difference between Sicko and Waiting for Superman: Sicko is a Left wing film written by a Left Winger. Waiting for Super is also written by a Left winger, though its conclusions are conservative.

Waiting for Super is by a liberal who took an honest and in depth look at the problem and came up with a surprising conclusion. That gives it a ton of credibility.

Reaganomics: Andrew vs Kevin

Kevin's view: General, across the board tax cuts created an engine for growth that lasted decades(with ordinary adjustments called recessions). The high growth benefited everyone. The wealthy may have accrued more wealth, but the real benefit was to the working man, who had vastly superior opportunities to rise up the ladder if he was so inclined, and as far as his talents and hard work could take him.

This engine of growth was also maintained by common sense deregulation and sound fiscal policy designed to avoid inflation.

Deficit spending was the result of a compromise between Congressional Democrats and Reagan. Military spending was increased, and social programs were NOT cut. So in a sense, the deficit spending paid for the military increase in the face of tax cuts.

While deficit spending is something you want to be careful about, when it achieves high rates of GDP, it's justified and in the end pays for itself. It is stimulus spending by tax cut, as opposed to stimulus by government spending(though of course there was milit spending).

Andrews view:

Though tax cuts benefited the working class directly, and though the working class benefited from the economic expansion, these benefits were somehow offset by a reduction in some "state of opportunity".

I'm not sure where this reduction in opportunity was, so I'll have to take a stab. Though social programs were not harmed in the 1980s, or at any time after, Andrew would argue that they could have been increased. More could have been spent on job training or education.

Since we already had deficit spending, let's assume Andrew would pay for these by eliminating the tax cuts for the rich, but maintaining them for the poor.

He might also propose direct transfers of wealth from the rich to the poor; massive government jobs programs; or heavy government investment in industry. I hope to God he's not foolish enough to propose these proven socialistic failures, and I give him the benefit of the doubt. So let's just look at the more modest solutions above.

job training and education: there is a limit to what can be achieved with these government solutions. There is a point where you no longer get an investment on your dollar. The greatest determiner of success has to do with internal qualities within the individual, such as desire to succeed. That is not to say these programs don't have a value, but that value is limited. As we see with education, we pour more and more money into it, but have worse results. And in socialistic European countries, much resources are poured into these things, and yet there is chronic unemployment that lasts decades.

paying for the programs: even assuming the same level of deficit, taxing the super rich is not enough. The middle class would have to be taxed. It's well established that at some point, the rich begin hiding money, or have no interest in making any more. That's what the Laffer curve is about. If you taxed the rich at 100%, starting next year, the rich would pay NO taxes. Why would they make money if it was all taxed?

economic impact: there is no doubt that after the Reagan program was intitiated, it began a period of growth that many thought impossible. The question is could that growth have been achieved without the Reagan program?

Well, if you could go back and time, and you really cared about opportunity for the poor, would you mess with what you know worked? Growth provides infinitely more opportunity than all government programs combined. I hope I don't have to prove that. Anyone who has ever looked for a job knows that. Even liberals. Those few that had to look for jobs anyway.

But let's say you're time machine could bring you back again if you screwed it up. Ok, here's what would have happened:

With less incentive to make money, less money would be made. So no high growth would have been achieved. Which means less money for your social programs.

Businesses like Microsoft and Apple might never have occurred. Because more and more the government would have stepped into the process. I remember the Democrats(Dick Gephardt) wanting the government to take over the microchip industry. This was before Intel, which would never have formed.

Instead of individuals and businesses pursing profit based on doing a thing better, they would have pursued political connections(like the Soviet Union; and like Obama's green energy program). Productivity would have declined dramatically. We'd be living in a very different world.

done my best:

Ok, Andrew. Up to you to explain it better. I have some questions that might help.

-- How does lowering everyone's taxes transfer wealth from the poor to the wealthy? What is the mechanism? Is there some Sheriff of Nottingham that takes money from the poor and gives it to the rich?

-- What is this reduced "state of opportunity" you were talking about? I've tried to guess above, but I have no idea how you consider high growth to be less opportunity.

Andrew, lok at the mental gymnastics you are performing to try to explain how working people were worse off paying less taxes, having the same benefits, and having a booming economy. When you find yourself having to perform such feats of creativity, that should be a warning that something irrational is driving your argument.

Which leads us to:

Unions in the Education system:

I've now explained to you exactly how teachers unions harm the schools: a) no way to get rid of bad teachers; b) huge, unresponsive bureaucracy.

This was demonstrated very effectively in a video you probably didn't watch.

You don't refute my points. You don't provide any counter arguments. Boy, this feels familiar.

It's as though you hold your hands to your ears and say "I do believe in teacher's unions, I do believe in teacher's unions, I do believe in teacher's unions."

Like the Lion from Oz. And what did he lack?

This is where the real problem lies. You are able, but completely unwilling, to apply rigorous analysis to any investigation which risks supporting conclusions that run counter to your sacred assumptions.

I would like to see you freed from whatever constraints prevent you from looking deeply into things that might discomfit you or your intellectual presumptions.

Quoted from leitskev

As we see with education, we pour more and more money into it, but have worse results. And in socialistic European countries, much resources are poured into these things, and yet there is chronic unemployment that lasts decades.

Beg pardon?

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

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-unemployed-youth-cost-their-countries-2012-1

Obviously more info is needed. And measuring these things can be tricky, because only people that have looked for a job in the last 4 weeks count as unemployed.

And certain countries have extremely high unemployment, like Spain, which distorts the overall number.

I am curious how easy it is for a young person entering the job market to get a job. Maybe someone from Europe could help.

If my information turns out to be outdated or wrong, I'm happy to correct and learn. Thanks, Chris.

You can dress up the reality and cast aspersions upon my analysis all you like in order to fit comfily within the notion that somehow liberals decry success and seek a socialist takeover - but it doesn't make it so. Your framing of my points are couched within a very simple mindset: Reagan cleaned up a mess created singlehandedly by Jimmy Carter; that Bill Clinton's economic growth was the product of Reagan's work (facilitated further by the conservative takeover of Congress) and that Barack Obama is singlehandedly dismantling American notions of meritocratic ideals with his socialist goals. So when you rigidly cling to this outlook, it's understandable you think any failure to agree with it fully lacks a substantive, 'rigorous analysis' because the worldview you hold is so obviously correct.

On Planet Earth, shades of grey tear these notions to pieces. You can't take Reagan's presidency in isolation; you can't blame the decade-long economic turmoil of the '70s and pin it on Carter's lapel; you can't claim with any real credibility that the debt Reagan bequeathed to Bush helped spur Clinton's recovery; and you can't claim that Barack Obama is to blame for the current economic turmoil unless you ignore what's come before.

It's not the 1980s anymore. These days have gone. Sound policy is pragmatic, based on reality and not enshrined in thoughts of the halcyon days of Reagan. This is more than old-fashioned - it's reckless, poor policymaking. That's why the current crop of Republicans advocating a return to Reagan (and on steroids for that matter) without caveats is why they'll lose. For example, Romney refuses to highlight the loopholes he'll close in order to facilitate the $5trillion tax cut. This is a key plank upon which he claims the policy will be revenue neutral. He calls for shedding regulations Obama has supposedly foisted upon the American people (although I'm not sure anyone can name what these are aside from the ludicrous suggestion Obamacare is), reducing tax rates and cutting spending to eventually facilitate "broadening the tax base" because "eliminating dependency" will make people "work harder". It's ridiculous and he's the one attempting to perform mental gymnastics to explain why disproportionately hurting lower income voters will grow the economy whilst rewarding the higher income voters with lavish tax cuts will actually deliver results.

Do you think Europe is a homogenous single state? Because you sure act like you do. Europe is the birthplace of nationalist, right-wing fascism and is currently seeing shoots of this disgusting philosophy as we speak. It's not some socialist haven as you purport. Europe foolishly embarked on a deficit reduction policy in several countries and that has proved disastrous. The UK has slipped in to a double dip recession because the Tories slashed spending and directly shifted the trajectory of our economy - once they sneaked in through the backdoor at the election - by turning a small economic recovery from the Labour government to another recession. You were talking about growth the other day - a word Keynes advocates much more in recovery than Friedman - and this cannot come about when you slash spending. There needs to be demand. It's simple.

On the Tory point... Margaret Thatcher is largely viewed unfavourably in the UK, as are her economic policies. The great trick of the Reaganites is that they were able to project a much more positive message with their swingeing cuts and lavish tax cuts. They were great marketers - Thatcher and the Tories? Not so much. I have a number of Tory friends and they amusingly refuse to align their politics with Republicans and instead insist that the Democrats are the moral and actual equivalents of the Tories in the UK. It's laughable when you guys consider the Democrats as de facto socialists. Part of what fuels this Tory equation is the abhorrent social views held by Republicans. I see you disowned these views and consider yourself socially liberal, but you cannot take the views of a party in isolation. Why do you hit the Democrats so hard on their economic views you disagree with but fail to do the same with the Republicans when you disagree with their social views?

On the unemployment figures... it's no surprise that the Scandinavian countries perform so well - in spite of their high taxes and huge government spending on welfare and opportunity.

I disagree with most of Republican social views to a degree. But I sympathize to a degree also.

Regardless of the specifics of my position on that, it's largely an irrelevant part of policy discussion. There is no 'war on women'. Neither is there a war on gays or minorities. These are fringe issues at best. They become something people talk about, but little more than that.

Roe vs Wade has been in place for 40 years. It's unlikely to go anywhere.

And while I am not with the Republicans on many social issues, I'm often not with the Dems either. Gay marriage? Yeah, fine. Let people live their own lives. But hate crimes? Give me a break. What goes on in Canada and Europe is an infringement of free speech. I don't understand why give up their freedoms so easily.

Of course there are shades of gray, but you have to establish principles first.

As far as Thatcher's popularity: I'm not sure why you have a tendency to equate popularity with an evaluation of effectiveness.

Look, even you have to admit(though you probbaly won't) that Left wing/liberal/progressivism(you choose the word you prefer) absolutely dominates certain influential spheres: media, education, academia.

In the US, if it were not for Fox News and the internet, a large viewpoint would be completely blocked out. Important information would be kept from the public. The media bias is seldom innocent anymore, but has become more and more manipulative. It's evident every single night in the stories they choose to cover and the way they cover them.

This has enormous influence on opinion. How could it not?

And this has happened before in your country, and it was not liberals behind it. In the 1930s Churchill was extremely unpopular. Buit that didn't make him wrong, did it?

Chruchill was also a vicitim, and remains so, of Left Wing smear. In his younger days, Chruchill became a progressive. His poilicies were very much so. But because of his upper class roots, and perhaps because his progressivism was not quite radical enough, he was and is portrayed as some kind of arch conservative.

Opinion is an easy thing to manipulate.

Also:

This is not living in the past when we talk about the 80s. Here is how the argument is framed:

Starting in 1932 we had FDR for 12 years. We had a revolutionary change in policy from 1932 until 1952. The size, scale and reach of the government became a dramatically different thing.

The effects of that revolution were not essentially adjusted until Reagan in the 1980s. Congresss remained Democrat. Huge bureaucracies did not go away, and these independent agencies tend to expand on their own.

Reagan did not undo the revolution, but he provided the first challenge to this unchecked government expansion. And that debate is the main one today: whether to have a huge intrusive government or not.

But you have not answered any of the questions raised:

-- what is the mechanism for transferring wealth from the poor or the working class to the wealthy? You can't ignore this, because it goes to the heart of what you keep repeating about the "gap" between the rich and the poor. You meantion a "state of opportunity". Explain that, please.

-- and you never explained how unions don't hurt the schools. I've given you the reasons and the evidence, and the independent video. I take there will once again be no argument, just something taken on faith? Unions = good, so there?

Quoted from Kevin

But you have not answered any of the questions raised:

-- what is the mechanism for transferring wealth from the poor or the working class to the wealthy? You can't ignore this, because it goes to the heart of what you keep repeating about the "gap" between the rich and the poor. You meantion a "state of opportunity". Explain that, please.

-- and you never explained how unions don't hurt the schools. I've given you the reasons and the evidence, and the independent video. I take there will once again be no argument, just something taken on faith? Unions = good, so there?

Q1. Who said anything about transferring wealth? The very connotations of that suggest a transfer from the deserving to the undeserving. Don't believe in transferring wealth, so am not sure what you even mean. A state of opportunity is a simple phrase I used to describe a state whereby people are able to access opportunity - and that government and the people reach a consensus that this is interwoven into the fabric of the social construct. Case in point being Scandinavia. People of great wealth pay high taxes to increase opportunity, so that your chances in life are not at the whim of the birth lottery.

Q2. Whoa. Calm down, son. You're the one putting ideas out there that would alter the accepted conventional wisdom, so the way it works is that the onus is on you, not me. You want to shake up what is accepted by many - i.e. that unions are not the sole reason for the breakdown of the US education system - so prove it to me with something other than partisan, cut and paste ideology. I don't believe you can attribute the failings entirely on teacher unions - a view held by the majority. If it wasn't, the onus on would be on me.

Obama Voters get free phones
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tpAOwJvTOio

Q 1: you have implied that the Reagan approach, cutting taxes, somehow created a "gap".

If by that you mean that everyone did better, but the wealthy prospered even more...then I can only conclude you would rather the poor suffer in order to prevent a growing "gap".

I mean, all incomes rise under a growing economy. Opportunity is greater for everyone.

I can tell you a story from my personal history. I hit the job market in 1982 when things were still bad. Minimum wage was 3.25 I think. And there were these great debates by hand wringing liberals about raising it to 3.75.

In 1984, I got a job for 4.00 an hour. Then went to college.
In 1985 that summer I got a job at $5.00 in a warehouse unloading trucks.
In 1986 I got a job in a factory paying 6.75 an hour!

So much for the hand wringing minimum wage debate. It was the growing economy that changed things. And not just with the wages. Companies needed workers, so thety had to treat people right or face a shortage.

The only way this gap you always refer to is a problem is if somehow money is being taken from working people. If everyone is benefitting, do you really want to mess with that? Do you even have the right to?

These liberal ideas don't help the working man. If liberal ideas had remained in place in the early 1980s, we would have had a managed economy. No doubt they would have raised the minimum wage, maybe even to $4. It would have been harder to find a job, you would have needed political connections or some other corruption, and we never would have seen the 6.75 an hr later. Howver, people would have thought the liberals were looking out for them.

And this is how it was in America from the 1930s until the 1980s! You wanted a "good job", like driving a bus, or collecting tolls, you paid your local Democratic politician for it. And it wasn't cheap. In my state, they poiliticans were bold ebough to have a shpping list where each job was priced. Payments cash only.

Get the G-d D-mn governt out of the way! People will always do better.

Q2: conventional wisdom is that unions make the school system better? On what freaking planet? That's the best you got?

And when did I day unions were the sole reason? There are other reasons. I've already mentioned the failed liberal orthodoxy that prevails where self esteem trumps actually learning something. But obviously there are elements of the breakdown of the family and society that are a factor.

Nonethess, I've made the argument why the unions do damage. They are easy arguments to understand, so you have no excuse. Calling something cut and paste is just more evidence that you simply have no answer. Nothing. Empty. No bullets in the chamber.

Ever notice that doesn't happen to me? I always give you specific reasons. I don't duck the issues you raise. And I meet them with real arguements, not amorphous expressions like "well, em, it's a gray area,' or 'people in my country see it different,' or 'it's cut and paste', or 'that's just homespun'...or whatever else you want to use to disguise your lack of real argument with.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444180004578018534242887950.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Complete incompetance. Thorough dishonesty.

4 Libyans and 5 Americans were the security in Banghazzi. No fire extinguishers in the compound.

No Marines there or in the embassy in Tripoli.

Numerous attacks and warnings of attacks in the months leading to this. And this attack was on 9/11!

4 days after the ambassador was killed, we still had not secured the compound. That's how CNN got the ambassador's journal. What else fell into terrorist hands?

Ground reports say there was no protest rally. Apparently the administration has known it was Al Queda since within 24 hours.

The lies they feed us are to protect Obama's image as the guy who "got Bin Laden".

And to protect Hillary's future Presidential aspirations.

To be honest, I didn't get chance to reply to the Churchill stuff earlier... Churchill is a hero in the UK. He was voted out in a landslide straight after the war, but his successor wouldn't even be known by many of today's 20 somethings - even though he instituted the greatest domestic success in British history: the NHS.

That's what you call "a victim" of politics.

Right. At least you're using the term Democrat now rather than liberal. But seriously, I cannot believe you actually believe this:

Quoted from kevin

You wanted a "good job", like driving a bus, or collecting tolls, you paid your local Democratic politician for it. And it wasn't cheap. In my state, they poiliticans were bold ebough to have a shpping list where each job was priced. Payments cash only.

Secretly you must be British and highly adept with the power of irony and sarcasm. You cannot believe this to be true. I refuse to accept you do.

We're back on the Reagan thing as a means of justfying the current Republican platform?

Quoted from kevin

The only way this gap you always refer to is a problem is if somehow money is being taken from working people. If everyone is benefitting, do you really want to mess with that? Do you even have the right to?

Excuse me for acknowledging the elephant in the room, but everyone was not benefitting under Reagan, and they certainly wouldn't under Romney. Your point sounded good until I realised it was not true.

On the wages thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Real_Wages_1964-2004.gif

This is what Clinton was talking about with depressed wages in 1992 and why Romney "doesn't want to return to Reagan/Bush" - that sure was a funny quote in the Romney/Kennedy debate.

I thought tax revenues (as per the Laffer curve) would increase commensurate with lower tax rates? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:CBO_Revenues_Outlays_Percentage_GDP.svg&page=1

Reagan financed his 'miracle' with debt - lots of it. As you guys would say: period. Here's a debt chart for you: http://bit.ly/SFjLuQ

All of those links are available on Wikipedia. Presumably you're aware this can be edited by both liberals and conservatives - and yet those stats stay there. Think on.

I don't really know what you are saying when you talk of the Reagan miracle. It's kind of obtuse to even be having the discussion of whether or not income inequality grew under Reagan. It's kind of like banging my head against the wall. Check out the % of people living under the poverty line in the year Reagan entered and the year he left.

Reagan shifted the tax burden. You think that's right. I think that's wrong. Romney seeks to shift the tax burden in the way Reagan did. You think that's right. I think that's wrong. I agree with Obama's view: you don't grow the economy by enriching the wealthy with tax cuts, but by empowering the middle class with increased spending power where they can't become indebted to the point it creates bubbles like that seen leading up to 2008. Fact is that the middle class have been iiving paycheck to paycheck for 30 years and struggling to make ends meet and keep your theory alive.

What does this mean? It ultimately means that the rich have to pay more, and actually pay more - not just dodge it with loopholes. The counter to the rich paying more is that they're less inclinded to invest. What bunk. If that's the case, they cleary do not deserve the entrepreneurial tag they bestow upon themselves and should get out of the way of real entrepreneurs. Perhaps if the super rich (and I include tax dodging companies in this) were made to play by the same rules as the rest of us, they'd understand the true meaning of being told to "work harder". It all flies in the face of the reasons they give for getting tax cuts.

The minimum wage debate? it's an interesting one. I see it from both sides. On the one hand, you've got the argument that a rate in place can actually institute lower wages because it benchmarks pay, whereas on the other hand you have to draw the line somewhere to ensure people are not being paid slave labour wages like those in China. Sure, the argument could be that's impossible in the West, but not really. There are some unscrupulous types out there.

Quoted from kevin

Q2: conventional wisdom is that unions make the school system better? On what freaking planet? That's the best you got?"

I said the exact opposite. What I actually said was:

Quoted from kevin

You're the one putting ideas out there that would alter the accepted conventional wisdom, so the way it works is that the onus is on you, not me. You want to shake up what is accepted by many - i.e. that unions are not the sole reason for the breakdown of the US education system - so prove it to me with something other than partisan, cut and paste ideology.

On this:

Quoted from kevin

Nonethess, I've made the argument why the unions do damage. They are easy arguments to understand, so you have no excuse. Calling something cut and paste is just more evidence that you simply have no answer. Nothing. Empty. No bullets in the chamber.

I just want to continue the gun analogy to say: I'm just a straight shooter, Kev. I see no real merit in your argument that liberals (to give you credit and extend the reasons beyond "just" liberal teaching unions) are to blame for the education system in the US. It beggars belief that you decry my supposed inability to debate when you're so unabashed in your partianship. And yes, I think it's cut and paste ideology!

Well said, son: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/09/27/obama_for_america_tv_ad_president_obama_outlines_his_economic_plan.html

Quoted from President Barack Obama

During the last weeks of this campaign there will be debates, speeches and more ads. But if I could sit down with you in your living room or around the kitchen table here's what I'd say:

When I took office we were losing nearly 800,000 jobs a month and were mired in Iraq. Today I believe that as a nation we are moving forward again. But we have much more to do to get folks back to work and make the middle class secure again.

Now, Governor Romney believes that with that even bigger tax cuts for the wealthy and fewer regulations on Wall Street all of us will prosper. In other words he'd double down on the same trickle down policies that led to the crisis in the first place. So what's my plan?

First, we create a million new manufacturing jobs and help businesses double their exports. Give tax breaks to companies that invest in America, not that ship jobs overseas.

Second, we cut our oil imports in half and produce more American-made energy, oil, clean-coal, natural gas, and new resources like wind, solar and bio-fuels—all while doubling the fuel efficiencies of cars and trucks.

Third, we insure that we maintain the best workforce in the world by preparing 100,000 additional math and science teachers. Training 2 million Americans with the job skills they need at our community colleges. Cutting the growth of tuition in half and expanding student aid so more Americans can afford it.

Fourth, a balanced plan to reduce our deficit by four trillion dollars over the next decade on top of the trillion in spending we've already cut, I'd ask the wealthy to pay a little more. And as we end the war in Afghanistan let's apply half the savings to pay down our debt and use the rest for some nation building right here at home.

It's time for a new economic patriotism. Rooted in the belief that growing our economy begins with a strong, thriving middle class. Read my plan. Compare it to Governor Romney's and decide for yourself. Thanks for listening.

Read the President's plan: http://OFA.BO/SAzDgd

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/some-administration-officials-were-concerned-about-initial-white-house-push-blaming-benghazi-attack-on-mob-video/

Again the lies crumble. They can no longer get the mainstream press to play along.

An admininstratrion has not lied and mislead so consistently as these guys since Nixon.

You watch the press conferences, and even network liberals know they are lying. Just watch their faces.

Carney needs a b!tch slap.

UPDATE ON OBAMA PHONES:

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/subsidized-cell-phone-program-nearly-doubles-in-oh/nRDqC/

1 million free cell phones just in the "must win" state of Ohio.

I'm not saying that phones are necessarily a bad idea, as they have become essential for many things. But who do you imagine these folks vote for?

UPDATE: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/09/30/Fifty-Year-Old-Burger-Joint-Forced-To-Close-Because-Counters-Too-Tall

As a business owner, I saw this kind of thing all the time. Regulations used to close businesses because someone has an agenda, or because bueaucrats don't understand the unintended consequences of their regulations.

In this case, a 50 year hamburger joint is being closed because it's counters are too high for the handicapped.

You see, it's easy for people who don't understand business to pass rules and make people pay the costs. Bureaucrats, and their natural ally, Democrats, don't understand that. They live off the public trouch.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/white-house-has-no-comment-on-house-gopers-assertions-that-libyan-mission-requested-security-prior-to-91112-attack/

Looks like the coverup is falling apart now. They are trying to delay giving answers until after the election, and the media tried to assist in that effort, but there are just enough honest journalists left, like Jake Tapper of ABC, to keep digging.

Will they sacrifice Hillary? Normally, yes. They usually look for a fall guy. But the Clintons have a lot of dirt on Obama. And this would ruin her chances in 2016. So I don't think that's an option.

Apparently security was so bad in Libya that family members of security staff were begging them to quit. Repeated requests were made to the State Department to increase security. Why didn't they increase it? Why has all this been covered up? Why has the administration been so blatant in what can only be called lies?

This story isn't over.

Rather than posting spurious, preposterous claims about Libya that are entirely part of last minute, we're-doing-this-cos-we're-losing-the-argument electioneering from the Republicans, perhaps you can respond to my post at the bottom of page 12 that shredded your Reagan hypothesis.

We both know I drank your milkshake, Kevin.

Quoted from leitskev

Again the lies crumble.

I generally avoid this thread like the plague, unless there is trouble brewing.

But these hater-hind-sight attacks of yours just leave me baffled, Kev.  So congrats, I guess, in that you have drawn me in.  At least for a bit.

I think you are a smart guy -- don't get me wrong -- and lord knows you spend more time researching this stuff than me.

But post 9/11 there were just as many, if not more, "after the fact" folks who pointed their finger at Bush, and presented plenty of evidence -- much of it compelling -- that all the dots were in place for anyone willing to connect them.  And they claimed that Bush had failed us somehow.

This magic-8-ball diplomacy sword you are weilding cuts both ways, and it isn't even fair, really, to call someone out on their fortune-telling skills in the first place.

Isn't the Bush crew every bit as culpable (and in your eyes, incompetent) as Obama here?  And to an even far worse extent?

If not, what is the point you are making?

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/electoral-map
http://owni.eu/2012/09/13/the-week-in-data-17/obama-romney/

First Andrew, later Bert. Pressed for time.

Is this the what you are referring to?

No, what happened under Reagan is that the lower income earners started to pay a higher relative rate whilst the 'wealth generators' paid a lower rate to 'spur the economy'. A reduction of 70 to 28% no less. In addition to that, the Reagan administation cut opportunity spending, while unjustly increasing defence spending. _ Andrew

I'm really not sure. Kind of ironic. I've answered pretty much every point you've ever made. Certainly covered every point. And yet here is a typical sample of how you deal with my points.

Kevin: teachers unions are the primary reason for the destruction of the American school system.
Andrew: why?
Kevin: Because they make it impossible to fire bad teachers, and they encourage huge, inflexible bureaucracies that resist any attempt at change.
Andrew: so says you.
(Kevin provides a link to an award winning documentary establishing this and explains there are actually numerous other films and books on the subject)
Andrew: well, that's just some crazy conservative.
Kevin: no, actually it was a liberal reformer, and this is just what his research happened to find.
CRICKETTS
Andrew: so hows the weather over there?
Kevin: fine. But what do you say to my points.
Andrew: Bush lied, people died.
Kevin: Yeah, but what about the unions?
Andrew: well, I don't have to respond to your points, the burden is on you to prove it to me, since all my friends at the cafe think the teachers unions are dandy.

This is generally how our discussions go, on any topic.

So back to Reagan.
Kevin: all people had their taxes reduced. It was an across the board cut.
Andrew: yes, but there was less opportunity for the poor.
Kevin: how so? the economy grew at record rates? Wages rose dramatically as did job opportunities. Unemployment was also at record lows.
Andrew: yes, but the relative rate paid by the poor increased.
Kevin: relative rate? who the F cares!! How does that effect the poor? Are ya daft, son?
Andrew: well, maybe a little, but usually just on weekends around closing time.
Kevin: the poor had lower rates...and more opportunity(growing economy). What more could you do for them?
Andrew: well, if we stuck it to the rich, then I'd feel better.
Kevin: nice as that would be, taxing the rich at those rates, 70%, had a disastrous impact on the economy. And because of it, the poor suffered. The only way they could improve their lot in life was by bribing their local politician.
Andrew: power to the people!
Kevin: millions of people worked there way from poverty to the middle class under this growing economy. You would rather that had not happened just so you can punish the rich?
Andrew: wanna drink my milkshake?
Kevin: I don't know what that means, but no thanks.

You see, Andrew would rather punish the rich even if it meant everyone else suffered too. Nothing satisfies like sticking it to the rich!

What he doesn't understand is that while his system of sticking it to the rich, while decreasing the "gap" between the rich and the poor, does something else. It locks the poor in place. And the rich. It makes the poor a permanent class dependent on the rich, with little chance of working their way up.

Who benefits from that? Well, the rich do, actually. But aside from that, there is someone else who does: the bureaucracy!

We need a mighty army of administrators to take the money from the rich and use it to run the world. We need managers to run the serfs, bosses to manage the plantation. And who are those bosses? Liberals! Of course, the wise and heroic government class who live to take care of the rest of us. And who got all the dachas in the Soviet Union? The government class! Good times!

Bert, I'll lay out the facts, and you decide, and please be honest, if this is a case of hindsight dot connecting.

1) the Libyan consulate and the embassador were protected by 5 Americans and 3 or 4 Libyans. There may have been more Libyan guards at the gate, but they abandoned ship. There was no forced entry. We don't even know if those protecting the ambassador were armed! Essentially, the consulate had no protection, despite the existence of well armed militia in the area.

http://news.yahoo.com/libya-consulate-light-security-154241257.html

2) Libya is one of the most violent places in the world, with numerous factions vying for power since the fall of Khaddafi, some al queda affiliated. Benghazi was one of the hotbeds for this violence.

3) this was 9/11

4) the ambassador and other embassy staff seemed to have been begging for more security. There were numerous incidents and attacks in the months leading up to this.

Now I ask you, is this the same as connecting the dots on 9/11? An unprotected consulate, on the anniversary of 9/11, in one of the most dangerous areas of the world, infested by al quada, and a place that has the spotlight of American foreign policy on it? If this happened under Bush, I'd be pissed.

But let's take the discussion further.

Why did the administration spend two weeks out and out lying about this? And is that relevant for the election?

The evidence is now firm: the admin has said for 2 weeks there was no prior intelligence. This is now shown to be a lie. They said the attack was a protest gone bad. It now seems there was not a protest at all, and the administration knew this within 24 hrs.

I want to address one more thing: the "hater" comment.

Were you a Bush hater? A Reagan hater?

I don't hate Obama. I would rather hang out with him than Romney. The guy brews beer!!(if that's true). When I watch Obama speak, I am inclined to like the guy. He has that effect on me. I couldn't stand John F'n Kerry, but Obama seems likable to me. He has a nice family, he seems like a cool guy.

It's what he is doing that I hate. What he wants to turn this country into.

It's like when someone sells you a car. You might like the salesman, and the free coffee, the friendly staff. But you have to take the blinders off to make sure he doesn't stick you with a lemon. Or Andrew's milkshake.

Quoted from kevin

You see, Andrew would rather punish the rich even if it meant everyone else suffered too. Nothing satisfies like sticking it to the rich!

Right. 'Cos that's exactly my view. You cheapen yourself with some frivolous, sophomoric analysis.

I know that you have an entirely unjustified gargantuan regard for your own debating skills, but this is ridiculous:

Quoted from kevin

Kevin: teachers unions are the primary reason for the destruction of the American school system.
Andrew: why?
Kevin: Because they make it impossible to fire bad teachers, and they encourage huge, inflexible bureaucracies that resist any attempt at change.
Andrew: so says you.
(Kevin provides a link to an award winning documentary establishing this and explains there are actually numerous other films and books on the subject)
Andrew: well, that's just some crazy conservative.
Kevin: no, actually it was a liberal reformer, and this is just what his research happened to find.
CRICKETTS
Andrew: so hows the weather over there?
Kevin: fine. But what do you say to my points.
Andrew: Bush lied, people died.
Kevin: Yeah, but what about the unions?
Andrew: well, I don't have to respond to your points, the burden is on you to prove it to me, since all my friends at the cafe think the teachers unions are dandy.

This is generally how our discussions go, on any topic.

So back to Reagan.
Kevin: all people had their taxes reduced. It was an across the board cut.
Andrew: yes, but there was less opportunity for the poor.
Kevin: how so? the economy grew at record rates? Wages rose dramatically as did job opportunities. Unemployment was also at record lows.
Andrew: yes, but the relative rate paid by the poor increased.
Kevin: relative rate? who the F cares!! How does that effect the poor? Are ya daft, son?
Andrew: well, maybe a little, but usually just on weekends around closing time.
Kevin: the poor had lower rates...and more opportunity(growing economy). What more could you do for them?
Andrew: well, if we stuck it to the rich, then I'd feel better.
Kevin: nice as that would be, taxing the rich at those rates, 70%, had a disastrous impact on the economy. And because of it, the poor suffered. The only way they could improve their lot in life was by bribing their local politician.
Andrew: power to the people!
Kevin: millions of people worked there way from poverty to the middle class under this growing economy. You would rather that had not happened just so you can punish the rich?
Andrew: wanna drink my milkshake?
Kevin: I don't know what that means, but no thanks.

With all due respect, that reeks of immaturity. Really poor 'skipping town' when it gets to the nitty gritty. You do realise that it's more than just me baffled by your brand of tea party paranoia and nonsensical theorising on the economy and foreign affairs, right? The thread is peppered with people chiming in to voice bemusement at your ridiculous posting.

To be fair, I think I've had enough of your obtuse condescension when it's quite clear you're not smart - you're just ridiculous. I'm sorry to be harsh, but you're a man in his late 40s (or at least that's how old you look) and you post conspiratorial nonsense on a regular basis and then try to polish your reputation with paragraphs like the above. It's beyond absurd. Quite frankly, I feel sorry for you, I really do. I've attempted to engage you and reason with you with rational debate and you still default to nonsense like the above.

And the milkshake line is a reference to There Will Be Blood.

Let me make this real easy for you:

Quoted from myself

Contained therein are three links that blow to shreds your blind positing of Reagan growing the economy equitably. And please, for your own good, stop trying to present yourself as something you're not. It'll truly help you an awful lot.

Quoted from leitskev

Bert, I'll lay out the facts, and you decide, and please be honest

Honest responses:

1) Dangerous circumstances, to be sure
2) But one of hundreds, really
3) But just another day, really
4) I will cold-heartedly scratch this one as barely relevant

Quoted from leitskev

Now I ask you, is this the same as connecting the dots on 9/11?

Nope.  Not even close.

But my real point is the scenario itself.  It is so easy to pop up after the fact and criticize what somebody "should have seen coming."  I mean, how much stuff would any president have on their radar on any given day?

This was tragic, and maybe even predictable -- but it was not predetermined or certain by any means -- and exploiting this as an election year argument seems (to me) most unsavory.  That is the only reason I called you out on it.  I wish people would stop doing it.

As if Obama wanted it to happen and did it on purpose, you know?

Quoted from leitskev

But let's take the discussion further.

OK, but not much further. I really dislike getting too involved in these discussions.

Quoted from leitskev

Were you a Bush hater?

Ha! In the interests of full disclosure -- yeah, big time. His actions during his administration sickened me. His defiantly uninformed stance on important scientific issues didn’t help, either. Only because you asked, though, and ducking the question would be unseemly. But that is not a discussion I will have here.

Maybe over a few milkshakes, though.

I really do not do politics over the internet. I'm surprised I am even here at all.

Will get back to you later, Andrew, but you should know that several people have messaged support and encouragement. They stay out because they know full well how liberals are. Arguments cross quickly into personal insults, and usually into flights of fancy. As evidenced once again in your recent post.

What conspiracy have I ever proposed? No conspiracy is required for a bad philosophy to have a negative impact on peoples lives. It's just bad thinking, pure and simple.

Quoted from leitskev

They stay out because they know full well how liberals are.

Stoppit!

;D

(But really, I think the generalizations are unfortunate).

The conservative party in Australia is the Liberals and I know full well how they are.

I'm liberal
with food & drink
until I'm full.

And then I liberally
violate the can.

I just have not had any time to research so I can give you links. But I can discuss.

declining wages in the 1980s:

Labor is subject to the same forces of supply and demand as anything else. So if we have low unemployment, as we did in the 80s once the recession ended, this should lead to higher wages. Higher demand, higher prices.

Did this happen?

Well, we do have official statistics that seem to show declining real wages, something which persisted until the end of the 90s. What's going on?

Economists have always struggled to explain this. As with any macro statistical representation, numbers are subject to various interpretations. One thing virtually all serious economists agree on, even those that dislike the Reagan policies, is that these statistics are NOT a reflection of Reagan's policies.

Few people would argue that a booming economy and low unemployment would result in anything other than higher wages.

So how do we explain the stats?

Several possible explanations.

1) demographics: The children of baby boomers were hitting the job market, and younger people entering the work force make less.

2) technological innovation: technology has eliminated many mid-level jobs.

3) immigration: immigration reached numbers not seen since the 1920s. Immigrants make less money.

4) service economy: the long term trend of the US switching from industrial economy to a service economy.

I realize I have not probably satisfied your objection on lower wages. But common sense is almost irrefutable in this case. High growth in the economy and low unemployment clearly create pressure for higher wages, so most economists(not politically motivated ones, of course) agree that the decline in real wages is due to factors that are independent of economic policy and don't provide a relevant picture.

If I have time to research, I will look for links, but I have some stuff going on related to Nicholl's which is chewing up my time.

Regarding the laffer: your graph proves the effectiveness of the laffer curve!

Don't you see that?

Taxes were dramatically cut, across the board, yet revenue stayed more or less the same.

Now, that does leave the problem of the deficit. I'm a little surprised to hear this is a major concern of yours, and that being the case, I assume you are for Romney, since Obama's deficits make all previous ones look like nothing.

I am not arguing for the Reagan deficits being a good thing. They were mostly the result of compromise with Congress. They didn't cut discretionary spending, but they increased military spending, and implemented tax cuts. Thus a deficit.

If I have more time, I will try to research for sources.

NOTE: Chris, what can I tell you? I do get these messages from people. As a general rule, a conservative will argue politics with you, but then be happy to have a drink with you later. Many liberals, however, don't want to know someone once they find out they are even a little conservative. This may be generalizing, but it's also generally true.

This is a liberal leaning forum here. And movie making is a liberal industry. To speak out as a conservative is perceived as being risky.

FINAL NOTE: What is this crap, Andrew, of looking up someone's picture and then trying to disparage him based on age, or whatever you had in mind? What's wrong with you? You think because I few liberals support your position, surprise surprise, that justifies that? I am going to assume something got into you and you regret that. I'm not bothered by it, but disappointed in you.

Quoted from leitskev

NOTE: Chris, what can I tell you? I do get these messages from people. As a general rule, a conservative will argue politics with you, but then be happy to have a drink with you later. Many liberals, however, don't want to know someone once they find out they are even a little conservative. This may be generalizing, but it's also generally true.

This is a liberal leaning forum here. And movie making is a liberal industry. To speak out as a conservative is perceived as being risky.

The qualifiers are all I ask! Fair enough 8) Statements about "all" so-and-sos just tend to get my hackles up.

I don't have many friends with strong conservative viewpoints (family, though, I suppose). That really bothers me, actually. Never good to be consistently amongst homogeneous perspectives. But I'll have a drink or two with anyone!

Call it what you want...

Last night’s debate was a one man a$$ whooping.

Romney mopped the floor with Obama

and it was beautiful

like a breath of fresh American air...

Shawn.....><

Chris, if we lived near each other, I'd gladly have a drink or two! I have great respect for your work and opinions.

I read an article not too long ago(can't find it now), an essay by a liberal woman in New York who married a guy that turned out to be somewhat conservative. While they were dating, his politics were unknown. Never came up. All her friends loved him.

Some time after they were married, he revealed that he supported W Bush. He wasn't some Bible thumping guy, he just agreed more or less with W's approach.

She loved him, so it didn't matter to her. However, she did admit that had she known it before, she would never have dated him.

But it gets worse. When he came a little more out of his shell about his political leanings, things changed with their friends. The couple were now avoided at parties, or not invited to them.

And this caused her to do some soul searching. She realized that before her husband, she really did not know any conservatives. And if she found out someone was, she no longer wanted anything to do with them. She assumed conservatives were vile, loathsome creatures that didn't care about their fellow man.

Not every liberal thinks this way. But she had to be honest with herself: most do.

And this is one reason conservatives stay quiet here. Which Andrew takes as some kind of confirmation. But the conservatives know they will be ostracized, especially in this field.

I know it too, but sometimes I can't help myself. It is probably time for me to go back in the conservative closet, though. The Nicholl's list has been published, and I am getting contacts now. I can't let it be known that I lean conservative. It's a career killer.

I do have say on the debate: wow, biggest ass kicking in debate history. Even liberals are saying this. Leaving aside Romney, could the President have looked any worse? Couldn't look into the camera, didn't want to be there, nervous, boring. Weak. He looked weak. No wonder Putin pushes him around.

Even Bill Maher said: "I never thought I'd say this, but he really does need his teleprompter."

Let's start off with the serious stuff:

Quoted from kevin

Labor is subject to the same forces of supply and demand as anything else. So if we have low unemployment, as we did in the 80s once the recession ended, this should lead to higher wages. Higher demand, higher prices.

Did this happen?

Well, we do have official statistics that seem to show declining real wages, something which persisted until the end of the 90s. What's going on?

Economists have always struggled to explain this. As with any macro statistical representation, numbers are subject to various interpretations. One thing virtually all serious economists agree on, even those that dislike the Reagan policies, is that these statistics are NOT a reflection of Reagan's policies.

Few people would argue that a booming economy and low unemployment would result in anything other than higher wages.

So how do we explain the stats?

Several possible explanations.

1) demographics: The children of baby boomers were hitting the job market, and younger people entering the work force make less.

2) technological innovation: technology has eliminated many mid-level jobs.

3) immigration: immigration reached numbers not seen since the 1920s. Immigrants make less money.

4) service economy: the long term trend of the US switching from industrial economy to a service economy.

I realize I have not probably satisfied your objection on lower wages. But common sense is almost irrefutable in this case. High growth in the economy and low unemployment clearly create pressure for higher wages, so most economists(not politically motivated ones, of course) agree that the decline in real wages is due to factors that are independent of economic policy and don't provide a relevant picture.

If I have time to research, I will look for links, but I have some stuff going on related to Nicholl's which is chewing up my time.

The reason I posted a link to declining wages under Reagan is because you falsely claimed everyone benefitted under Reagan, which everyone knows is false - confronted with the figures, you've just waffled for a few paragraphs and said nothing to refute it. Presumably your new stance that economics "are NOT a reflection of [enter politican here] policies", you'll refrain from your all out assault on Obama - or perhaps not. No shock there. You posited something and I debunked it.

Once again:

Quoted from kevin

Regarding the laffer: your graph proves the effectiveness of the laffer curve!

Don't you see that?

Taxes were dramatically cut, across the board, yet revenue stayed more or less the same.

The Laffer curve predicts revenue WILL INCREASE with lower, less prohibitive rates - that chart shows that claim to be false. As you see, the revenues remained "more or less the same" - which is not the principle for lowering rates. Taken in conjunction with the declining average wages under Reagan, the picture of increased income inequality becomes clear. This is something you disputed and I've debunked you again.

The deficit:

Quoted from kevin

I am not arguing for the Reagan deficits being a good thing. They were mostly the result of compromise with Congress. They didn't cut discretionary spending, but they increased military spending, and implemented tax cuts. Thus a deficit.

Changed your tune from previous responses here - simply because there's no answer to it. What you lambast Obama for is what you must lambast Reagan for.

This:

Quoted from kevin

This is a liberal leaning forum here. And movie making is a liberal industry. To speak out as a conservative is perceived as being risky.

No. God, you're such a victim, man. Nobody has any problem with conservatives. People have a problem with generalisations that are not even an accepted truism or are obscure ways of cherry picking to arrive at a predestined conclusion, like this:

Quoted from kevin

I read an article not too long ago(can't find it now), an essay by a liberal woman in New York who married a guy that turned out to be somewhat conservative. While they were dating, his politics were unknown. Never came up. All her friends loved him.

Some time after they were married, he revealed that he supported W Bush. He wasn't some Bible thumping guy, he just agreed more or less with W's approach.

She loved him, so it didn't matter to her. However, she did admit that had she known it before, she would never have dated him.

But it gets worse. When he came a little more out of his shell about his political leanings, things changed with their friends. The couple were now avoided at parties, or not invited to them.

And this caused her to do some soul searching. She realized that before her husband, she really did not know any conservatives. And if she found out someone was, she no longer wanted anything to do with them. She assumed conservatives were vile, loathsome creatures that didn't care about their fellow man.

Not every liberal thinks this way. But she had to be honest with herself: most do.

And this is one reason conservatives stay quiet here. Which Andrew takes as some kind of confirmation. But the conservatives know they will be ostracized, especially in this field.

And no one assumes that article was present in anything other than a "severely conservative" publication. And no one assumes, like you, (other than fellow tea partiers) that liberals won't drink with conservatives. That comment is almost as pitiful as the time you tried to say black people don't like liberals.

This:

Quoted from kevin

The Nicholl's list has been published, and I am getting contacts now. I can't let it be known that I lean conservative. It's a career killer.

First off, congrats and best of luck with it.

But... You lean conservative? YOU LEAN CONSERVATIVE? Remarkable lack of self-awareness. You're not even a conservative. You're a far right conspiratorial tea partier - massive difference. Eisenhower was a conservative. You're Reagan and then some.

And finally this:

Quoted from kevin

FINAL NOTE: What is this cr**, Andrew, of looking up someone's picture and then trying to disparage him based on age, or whatever you had in mind? What's wrong with you? You think because I few liberals support your position, surprise surprise, that justifies that? I am going to assume something got into you and you regret that. I'm not bothered by it, but disappointed in you.

Bit weird that you jump to the conclusion I'm "looking up someone's picture". No, Kevin, I wouldn't look you up - I just remember you posting a picture on SIMPLY SCRIPTS of you with Phil and Janet. I wasn't disparaging your position based on your aged face - I was simply mocking you and equating your age with expectations of a little more maturity. I don't need to disparage your aged face to highlight your ridiculous positions - you do that all by yourself.

Sorry to burst the bubble as well... but nothing "got into" me and in no way do I regret teasing you and dishing it out a little as you've been doing for some time with your warped perceptions of how much information you possess and your supposed superiority in debating - tacitly legitimated by way of age. I simply turned your own perceived strength (age) and shone a light on it when we assess some of the immature comments you've flooded this thread (and many others) with. Most of our discussions revolve around you spouting several odd positions and me trying to pacify you. But, I thought I'd turn your own tactics on you and correctly assumed your ego would be in bed with huge sensitivities - which it is.

And as for "several people" messaging you with support and encouragement? Well, sometimes you've got to be cruel to be kind. Judging from your rather muted response (and professional concerns), it appears I may have knocked some sense in to you. By all means let's debate serious political matters, but don't expect to act irrationally and to be treated rationally. If you can't take the heat of your own actions, Kevin, then it's definitely best you stay out of the kitchen.

Quoted from Ledbetter

Call it what you want...

Last night’s debate was a one man a$$ whooping.

Romney mopped the floor with Obama

and it was beautiful

like a breath of fresh American air...

Shawn.....><

Glad you enjoyed it!

Good night for Romney - he attacked very well. Obama was too timid in defending his positions and going after some of the false claims from Romney i.e. his tax cuts which he referred to as "tax relief" being unfunded.

We definitely disagree on this, but I believe Obama to be on the right side of the argument and if he can effectively respond in debates 2 & 3, it'll smudge out the gains from debate 1. Also, the precedent has been set whereby challengers do very well in opening debates (Reagan '84, Bush '04) but it won't necessarily translate to votes.

Romney still supports:

- An unfunded (no details other than vague pledges to close unspecified loopholes) tax cut that will permanently reduce the top rate to 28%, resulting in a "broadening of the tax base" or in layman's terms: more taxes from the 47%.
- Voucherising Medicare and therefore endangering an "entitlement" program people have funded throughout their working lives, and;
- This is before we even get on to foreign policy - the chances of war with Iran will increase enormously under a President Romney. That would be a disaster just like Iraq.

As always, these are just my opinions.

Looks like you both have kinda wringed this shammy out…

I commend you both but it looks like this has become more personal than it was intended to be for both of you.

You both have everyone here respect for a kick a$$ debate and I for one have learned a lot from both of you.

I sure would hate to see this end on a sour note for either of you.

GREAT JOB GUYS!

Shawn…..><

"I don't need to disparage your aged face to highlight your ridiculous positions - you do that all by yourself." _ Andrew

I should think this is proof enough, Andrew. If you were winning the argument, there would be no need to go there. What's next? Gonna tell me mother wears army boots? You've outed yourself for what you are.

"You're a far right conspiratorial tea partier - massive difference. Eisenhower was a conservative. You're Reagan and then some." _ Andrew

Let's see. As you know, I am pro choice, ok with gay marriage, support social security, support reasonable regulations of the financial industry. I have never once advocated any conspiracy, unless you have some special Andrew definition of the word. I would say those positions put me pretty close to the middle. What you don't understand is there is a difference between advocating certain positions strongly and in adopting extreme positions. None of my positions are extreme, but again, you've outed yourself with your petulant name calling. Should we fight at recess?

refuted my points? I don't think so.

laffer curve: cutting taxes significantly but not having a corresponding fall in revenue proves the primary argument of the theory. If it were not true, cutting taxes would only result in less government revenue. Try again.

falling wages: again, this requires a little sophistication, which is difficult when you're talking to someone who simply believes Bush drove the economy into a ditch.

Statistics don't always tell the story you think they tell, unless you take a deeper look. Is it really your position that high economic growth and low unemployment will create declining wages? Is it really? I mean put aside the partisan desire to prove a point, just for a moment...is that really your position?

I've already showed you early how stats can be deceiving. For example, blacks moved into the middle class in record numbers in the 1980s. And yet black poverty levels increased. How to explain this inconsistency? Easy. Dramatic rise in birth rates to single mothers. Which had nothing to do with Reagan.

People who drink 6 cups of coffee a day are more likely to develop heart disease. So coffee must lead to heart disease, right? Not so fast. People who drink 6 cups of coffee are also more likely to smoke, to drink heavy, to work in pressure jobs, to work in a sedentary position, and so on.

There are causes to the statistics that seem to show a decline in wages in the 1980s. Do you want to look into those causes? Or do you want to accept that high economic growth and low unemployment somehow reverses the law of supply and demand and leads to lower wages? You can choose your position, but if you ignore your partisan leanings and follow logic, you will look for a deeper explanation for those stats.

The deficit. Again, Obama's deficit does not seem to bother you. But I don't want to follow the same hypocrisy you have. I will not defend the Reagan deficits. They pale in comparison to Obama, and they were the result of a compromise with Democrats in Congress, but I won't defend them.

I am not completely against deficit spending. I think as a temporary fix, it can be useful to stimulate an economy. Using these deficits to stimulate the economy through tax cuts is more efficient, as it pumps money instantly into the economy. Obviously it is more fair as well.

Using deficits to stimulate with spending is more of a problem. As Obama found out, there is no such thing as "shovel ready" projects. Getting all that money into the economy was difficult.

And it leads to corruption, as well as rewarding poor economic behavior. That's why Obama spent it foolishly on green projects, and most of that went to companies that contributed heavily to his campaign, rather than those on a sound footing. Terrible policy.

Spending was also used to prop up government institutions that had been making poor financial decisions for decades. So instead of this being a chance to stop wasteful spending, it just entrenched it further.

Even the most ardent fans of Reagan are not fans of the deficit he ran. But could anyone with a sound mind compare that to what is going on now? Have you looked at the scale of spending? Man, we're similar to Spain, and Greece. More failed liberal states.

taking the heat: For the most, I'm just going to let the record above speak for itself. I did tease you with a fictional dialogue. I expected you might reply in kind.

When you started talking about my picture, and my age, well, that's a little weird, Andrew. The internet is an anonymous place. Janet took the pictures, and I'm fine with that, but those were posted a year ago. Really weird, dude. And then you doubled down with talk of an aged face, or whatever. You're going to some weird places, and sound a little unhinged to be honest. Not one to be talking about heat, by any means. Sorry if I upset you.

Shawn, a good to excuse to stop. This is becoming too time consuming. I'll let Andrew get the last word if he likes, but then I'm out.

Maybe just for a week, though! Maybe I'll come back once a week in the hopes of furthering Andrew's growth!

I won't even speak on policies since this whole thing seems like a timesuck of arguments no one will ever win. Opinions won't be changed.

Romney spoke better. But he said less.

He kept saying he was going to create jobs and all these buzz words without explaining how. As Obama pointed out, he kept talking about all the things he is going to repeal on his first day in office, but never explained what he will replace them with.

Obama did not make much eye contact with Romney, which gives audiences the impression of weakness, so, even though Romney seemed to be sweating a little more, he still looked in control when he looked Obama in the eye throughout the debate.

I honestly think that Americans expect a president to come in and make the world all hugs and smiles in four years and it's ridiculous. Obama obviously didn't do that and another 4 years won't do it either. Go ahead and give Romney 8 years and it won't happen.

People get hung up on things that presidents have little control over when they really should be sweating the small stuff. Things that will change our day to day lives while the president is in office.

Obviously the big picture is extremely important, but no single president is going to fix those things when the parties only work to harm one another. It's pathetic.

Quoted from leitskev

You're flat out wrong on the wages and tax revenue issues. No shame in it, but you should stop wriggling when all you do is further the fact you're wrong.

There's not an awful lot to say to dissuade you from your stances when you're so indebted to delusion on a great many points - both political and personal.

I'll give you credit for playing the victim card with such evident relish, though. You have become a personification of the Etch A Sketch we've heard so much of this campaign. For you, each post is in isolation and you bear no responsibility for any previous positions or conspiratorial posts, like your unreasonable views on Libya where you feel you've unearthed a conspiracy; namely a government cover up by evil old Obama.

And hell, I'm happy to triple down on your aged face when it makes you get so sanctimonious. Most amusing.

Oh, and:

Quoted from kevin

Sorry if I upset you.

you keep believing that, sweetie - perhaps I'll print this off and place in that Kevin scrapbook I've been building up all my life.

Enjoy your week away from the thread. And seriously, good luck with Nicholl's.

Print Topic