|
Post by Scrappy Amazon on Sept 18, 2010 19:33:02 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Phalon on Sept 19, 2010 7:02:35 GMT -6
Very interesting, Scrappy; thanks for posting the links. I don't have time right now to listen to all of it, but I listened to bits and pieces, (more than I have time for now, actually - I got sucked in), and I'll certainly get back to it later tonight. I have a great admiration for him too, and personally think he was one of the greatest leaders of our country during our lifetime.
I totally agree with your statement, too - it's something I mentioned from the beginning, even here, in a post when Obama won the election. People can't except an overnight miracle; it's just not realistic.
|
|
|
Post by Scrappy Amazon on Sept 19, 2010 11:06:23 GMT -6
He explains everything in a clear non condescending way. He needs to go work for the Pres stumping around the country just telling people to chill out. Especially the tea party people, I understand your frustration. Is it really necessary to be nasty and name calling?
|
|
|
Post by Phalon on Sept 19, 2010 20:19:03 GMT -6
<shudder> Some of the views - and/or the way the views are expressed - of some of those involved in the Tea Party movement are just plain scary.
|
|
|
Post by katina2nd on Dec 16, 2010 18:25:28 GMT -6
Much talk about WikiLeaks in the States [ or U.K ]
What are peoples thoughts on the subject, as well as Sweden's attempts to extradite Assange. Lot of coverage here, with the prevailing mood appearing to be that the Brits should refuse to hand him over.
|
|
|
Post by Phalon on Dec 16, 2010 23:11:31 GMT -6
There was a lot of talk here last week, Katina....maybe this week too, but I really haven't seen as much. It could be because I got kind of confused about the whole thing and haven't paid as much attention.
I think that if he's brought up on sexual assault charges in Sweden then he should be extradited to Sweden to stand trial for those charges.
What I don't understand completely are the accusations that the women's charges are linked to Wikileaks coverage of the leaked U.S. cable information. If the U.S. was going to prosecute him for espionage, then this would be a separate issue, and why Sweden? Isn't Sweden neutral...like a nice beige; there's nothing better than a buff Swede. Sven is quite nice, I hear.
I think I may have read too much when the story first broke, and got all kinds of conflicting information. I gave up on it completely when I got to Sarah Palin's comments. (eye-roll)
|
|
|
Post by katina2nd on Dec 17, 2010 19:37:20 GMT -6
There was a lot of talk here last week, Katina....maybe this week too, but I really haven't seen as much. It could be because I got kind of confused about the whole thing and haven't paid as much attention. I think that if he's brought up on sexual assault charges in Sweden then he should be extradited to Sweden to stand trial for those charges. Couldn't agree more, if there's any substance to the charges he should be extradited and face a trial. The thing is though [ and this may be that conflicting information you speak of ] they apparently have VERY broad terms for what constitutes sexual assault in Sweden, and it's hard to pin down exactly what the charge is, or why they're pursuing the matter so hard over an offense for which he's likely to face a fine and not imprisonment [ if you believe half of what you read ] What I don't understand completely are the accusations that the women's charges are linked to Wikileaks coverage of the leaked U.S. cable information. If the U.S. was going to prosecute him for espionage, then this would be a separate issue, and why Sweden? Isn't Sweden neutral...like a nice beige; there's nothing better than a buff Swede. Sven is quite nice, I hear. Yeah, Sweden is supposed to be neutral [ as is Sven ] but like all countries when it comes to looking after number one all that goes out the window, and I think the belief [ conspiracy theory? ] is that the U.S is leaning on Sweden and will try to have him extradited from there. I think I may have read too much when the story first broke, and got all kinds of conflicting information. I gave up on it completely when I got to Sarah Palin's comments. (eye-roll) Very worrying when two possible Presidential candidates [ Palin and Newt Gingrich ] are labeling someone a terrorist and enemy combatant who should be hunted down, I would have thought that's incitement to violence at the very least.
|
|
|
Post by Phalon on Dec 18, 2010 6:52:13 GMT -6
Yes....which is exactly why I got frustrated and stopped reading.
|
|
|
Post by Scrappy Amazon on Jan 9, 2011 23:16:26 GMT -6
Anyone been listening to the news? Not too far from my neighborhood my congresswoman was shot along with a bunch of other people by some nutball.
*sigh.....I knew something like this was going to happen. The more stressed people get the more the crazies come out of the wood work.
|
|
|
Post by Phalon on Jan 10, 2011 5:54:54 GMT -6
I kept blissfully ignorant of the news this weekend, Scrappy, but Hubs asked last night if you mentioned anything about it. From what he'd heard, the guy was a rebel without any one particular cause - just a raving lunatic without any direction in his own deranged mind except where he pointed the gun.
|
|
|
Post by stepper on Jan 11, 2011 21:04:00 GMT -6
Unfortunately, the crazies from Westboro Baptist are looking for more attention. The self-aggrandizing parish of lost souls remind me of the quote "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
|
|
|
Post by katina2nd on Dec 7, 2011 21:12:26 GMT -6
Newt Gingrich ..... NEWT GINGRICH ......... 300,000,000 people and this is the best you can throw up as a possible leader? There's a real possibility that after the next elections in the U.S of A and here in Oz we could have Gingrich and Tony Abbott as our leaders, there must be a movie there for the Farrelly brothers I'm thinking, I mean ya gotta laugh at the very notion surely.
|
|
|
Post by Phalon on Dec 9, 2011 4:29:09 GMT -6
This surprises you, Katina? Don't forget this is the country that elected Bush, not once, but twice!
Sigh.
|
|
|
Post by katina2nd on Dec 9, 2011 21:11:18 GMT -6
Yeah, guess I should be immune to what politics throws up after two terms from Bush [ and his cronies ] but surely there must be a decent alternative out there somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by stepper on Sept 1, 2012 10:57:10 GMT -6
I’m glad you found something to vote for Vickie. I’m afraid I have something to vote against.
Let’s get this out of the way first. Your friends who voting for the Libertarian Party are wasting their votes as Gary Johnson is largely unknown and unsupported. He has no chance of doing anything except spending money on a candidacy that has already failed to attract attention.
Unfortunately, for me, this is a case of voting for the lesser of two evils. I had a longer explanation going but all the reasoning behind the choice isn’t that important and boils down to this; I lost one job and 15 years seniority because Obama cut so many jobs from the DoD to help hide the cost of his healthcare program. (They cut a quarter of the contracted personnel and mirrored the money over to cover the initial Obamacare costs.) I got lucky and ended up with a decent paying job, but I’m still behind what I was previously making. It almost happened again this year for the same reason, but instead of me, they settled on a guy who had been working for civil service for nine years – his last day of being employed was yesterday. And, the national debt under Obama is unconscionable – our economy will not survive what he’s doing to it. I have responsibilities, a family to care for, and for me, Obama has gotta go. So, I'm not so much voting for Romney as I am voting against Obama.
|
|
|
Post by katina2nd on Sept 19, 2012 21:49:35 GMT -6
Unfortunately, for me, this is a case of voting for the lesser of two evils. You still think that now Step? I mean this is a guy who just called almost half the population of America parasites who, Quote ... believe that they are entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you name it. End quote. Sheesh fancy thinking you're entitled to food, let em go and scrounge through rubbish bins I say. From what I'm seeing and reading this guy appears about one small step above Bush when it comes to intelligence and compassion.
|
|
|
Post by Phalon on Sept 20, 2012 6:23:29 GMT -6
Scary thought, isn't it...the possibility of what may happen in November is much more frightening than any Halloween scare, in my mind.
|
|
|
Post by countonlybluecars on Sept 20, 2012 15:25:43 GMT -6
The prospect of a President Romney is terrifying.
|
|
|
Post by stepper on Sept 20, 2012 17:01:30 GMT -6
You still think that now Step? I mean this is a guy who just called almost half the population of America parasites who, Quote ... believe that they are entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you name it. End quote. As I said, the lesser of two evils, and to be honest, I don't understand how any American would think Obama should be president. We have a constitutional republic form of government -- O is pushing very hard to change our government to socialism. He repeatedly confirms he believes in "redistribution" which means you earn it but you give it to the government and let them figure out how you intended to donate it because as we all know, the government is better qualified to spend your earnings than you are. And you did intend to give it way, right? Here are a few examples of lies that the liberal media prefers to ignore. BTW, the incident with the Romney tape took about 5 seconds to hit all the major television stations where they gave it plenty of airtime. They aren't so anxious to air things about O. Barack Obama has been proven by more than one fact checking organization to be a habitual liar. While campaigning in Iowa, he declared that Paul Ryan was blocking the passage of a farming bill. What he ignored was that the bill passed on August 2, 2012 and Paul Ryan voted in favor of the bill. "If the Supreme Court throws out the federal health care law, it would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” Lie - it passed by a slim majority and the Supreme Court has previously thrown out federal laws. "For the first time since 1990, American manufacturers are creating new jobs.” Big time lie - The Washing Post has documented numerous such statements. "Under the White House’s budget proposal, we will not be adding more to the national debt by the middle of the decade." Huge lie “I didn’t raise taxes once." Lie - look at Obamacare. For instance, we'll be paying an additional tax for selling our homes to help fund his health plan. Otherwise, the main thrust of his plan is to allow all the Bush era tax cuts to expire. Then he gets the money and can claim it's not his fault that our tax bills went up. “The vast majority of the money I got was from small donors all across the country.” Except when he had to reveal his sources it turned out that the big donors bankrolled his campaign. “We’ve excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs.” Except that there are at least four of them. " The GOP is responsible for the Obama Jobs Bill Not Passing" This proves how blind we can be - the voting record is there for anyone to check. It was Democrats who rejected that bill. "The health care bill will not increase the deficit by one dime." Really? Gee, I guess that more than doubling of the US debt during his administration is funding what? Roads and bridges? I could go on and on, but I've found that it's really not beneficial. The candidates are campaigning primarily in a few states because the polls indicate that many people have already locked in and the election will be decided by a few "swing" states.
|
|
|
Post by scamp on Sept 20, 2012 18:49:37 GMT -6
You still think that now Step? I mean this is a guy who just called almost half the population of America parasites who, Quote ... believe that they are entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you name it. End quote. As I said, the lesser of two evils, and to be honest, I don't understand how any American would think Obama should be president. We have a constitutional republic form of government -- O is pushing very hard to change our government to socialism. He repeatedly confirms he believes in "redistribution" which means you earn it but you give it to the government and let them figure out how you intended to donate it because as we all know, the government is better qualified to spend your earnings than you are. And you did intend to give it way, right? (stuff snipped because I agree that he said/no, he said is of limited value.) Step, you do realize that both the USA's economy and government have been contained elements of capitalism and socialism for some 90 years, right? Like it or not, the inequity in the USA's distribution of wealth has grown to the breaking point. According to Congress's nonpartisan research service, as of June of this year, 50% of the USA population holds 1.1% of the nation's wealth. However, the share of total net worth of the USA held by the wealthiest 1% of American households is 34.5%. The richest 10% of US citizens control 74.5% of our national wealth. That scares me and Romney is catering to the rich. Even if I could stomach Romney's abortion platform (*all* abortions would be illegal, which means if you are a 13 year girl whose father has raped you, you must carry that fetus -- and don't tell me it doesn't happen: I was one of those 13 year old girls once), I'm not stupid enough to think any nation can survive long with such an unequal distribution of wealth. The USA has to resolve this disparity in wealth. I don't see Romney doing that.
|
|
|
Post by katina2nd on Sept 20, 2012 19:29:47 GMT -6
Scary thought, isn't it...the possibility of what may happen in November is much more frightening than any Halloween scare, in my mind. The prospect of a President Romney is terrifying. Amen to those sentiments. Hi Scamp, great to see you here. I take your points Step' I'm not a huge fan of Obama either, though the fact that he's told a few porkies [ lies ] doesn't worry me that much, he's a politician after all and that's what they do best, we just have to accept that I'm afraid. I'll just refer you to what Scamp said as I couldn't put it half as succicently as she has. The inequity in wealth is frightning, and if leaning toward socialism is one way of correcting that to some degree then I'm all for it, although what some might call socialism I prefer to call fairness, or helping those who need it, and from Romney's words I see precious little prospect of that happening.
|
|
|
Post by katina2nd on Sept 21, 2012 20:15:33 GMT -6
He repeatedly confirms he believes in "redistribution" which means you earn it but you give it to the government and let them figure out how you intended to donate it because as we all know, the government is better qualified to spend your earnings than you are. And you did intend to give it way, right? Step' I'll understand if you don't want to keep this going, politics can be a slippery slope, just that I'm interested in your definition of redistribution. You [ or Scamp ] can correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't what you're describing, that is taking more from those who can afford it to pay for services, such as the health care program, nothing more then taxation. I hear a lot about socialism, redistribution, the nanny state etc. [ gotta stop watching Fox News ] but isn't that really just a more equitable way of spreading the load. Works pretty well here in Australia by the way.
|
|
|
Post by stepper on Sept 22, 2012 20:48:47 GMT -6
Before I answer your question, let me ask one. I was watching the British International news reports that picked up on something from your neck of the woods. Do you support Wayne Swan? He gave the USA a lead-in to Minister Gillard's UN speech scheduled for next week. He said "the biggest threat to the world's biggest economy are the cranks and crazies that have taken over a part of the Republican Party." I say he was the lead-in because Gillard promptly defended the comment as appropriate.
Perhaps his words have a different connotation in Australia but here he said those voting for Romney are cranks (malicious persons) and crazies (insane, demented, lunatic, persons). I'll have you know that I'm only slightly demented and as for cranky, well, we're working on that one.
Watch for your leadership to negotiate with China for oil and use the Yen a payment. (There's a political attack on the US economy lead by China and Russia. Russia has promised unlimited oil reserves for China to sell provided they deal only in the Chinese yen. Until now, international sales of crude oil have been based on the dollar. The move by the Russian/Chinese coalition is intended to destabilize the dollar.)
Anyway - what is redistribution? First off, a quote from an Obama tape: "I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level, to make sure that everybody's got a shot." We have a progressive tax system (make more pay higher percentage of tax) and as it exists in the US it is a redistribution system – one that has existed for a long time. While we are not fond of taxation, we understand it has a legitimate purpose. What the Democrats are touting is increased levels of redistribution – meaning even higher taxes. They say they are targeting only the rich. That’s like saying I’m going to stab you with a knife, but I’m only going to stab you in the heart. Then they say the highest earners experienced the greater increase in wealth as if there's something sinister about increasing your wealth and position in life.
Redistribution in the Obama plan is taking even more from those who have incomes and giving it to those who have no or lower incomes. The highest historical tax rates in the US were in the 90 percentile area. What's the point of making $1,000,000 if the government is going to "redistribute" $900,000 of it? There's no motivation to invest in the USA when there is no profit so those who have wealth move their money elsewhere. They take jobs and investments with them very much like what is happening in France now. When you have no jobs and no investments, the economy goes stale. How do "they" fix this? They make it attractive to be here again and they start by drastically reducing the "redistribution" no matter how it's framed. Redistribution includes things like the death tax. Keep in mind this primarily affects scamp's 1.1%, but unfair is unfair even if you personally are not affected. Basically the death tax is this. You are one of those really wealthy people and, as happens to all of us, you die. The death tax "redistributes" 45% of the value of your estate. But wait, you worked for it and you had a will stating who gets what and you intended your wife and children should benefit from your lifetime of work and investing. Nope - it's not fair that you were successful and it's not fair that you should be allowed to pass all that stuff you worked for to your progeny who have no more claim to it than being kin. Basically, the government takes nearly half of your estate - and gives it to people who you forgot to mention in your will because you didn't know them. “Aha!” you say. I'll give it away before I die. You can, but only up to about $5M, and after 1 Jan this exemption is gone. After that, the government charges you 35% on anything you try to give away, for "redistribution". You have to pay a tax for the privilege of giving your possessions to your family - or anyone else.
Obama, who needs money to fund his ruinous health care plan, calls this fair and reasonable. Even though I am far outside of the 1 percenters I do not consider this fair. To his credit, he’s set it up so the worst and most odious of the costs will not be realized until he’s out of office. He’s created the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac of Healthcare.
There are numerous examples that I could give, and I suspect scamp is equally capable of presenting other opinions.
Instead, I'll quote one of our most intelligent leaders.
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
Post by katina2nd on Sept 23, 2012 9:26:31 GMT -6
Given me a fair bit to digest there mate, and one in the morning isn't the best time to start on a reply. Try posting something tomorrow ........ errr hang on, I mean later today.
|
|
|
Post by katina2nd on Sept 23, 2012 19:33:25 GMT -6
Before I answer your question, let me ask one. I was watching the British International news reports that picked up on something from your neck of the woods. Do you support Wayne Swan? He gave the USA a lead-in to Minister Gillard's UN speech scheduled for next week. He said "the biggest threat to the world's biggest economy are the cranks and crazies that have taken over a part of the Republican Party." I say he was the lead-in because Gillard promptly defended the comment as appropriate. Do I support what Wayne Swan said I guess is what you're asking, and if that's the case I'd have to answer yes, as those extreme elements that he's talking about do seem to exist within the Republican Party. Perhaps his words have a different connotation in Australia but here he said those voting for Romney are cranks (malicious persons) and crazies (insane, demented, lunatic, persons). I'll have you know that I'm only slightly demented and as for cranky, well, we're working on that one. Think it's a bit unfair to suggest he said anyone voting for Romney are c&c, the key words in what he said were "a part" of the Republican Party had been taken over [ this 'could' be as low as one percent he's talking about ] so I don't see a correlation between his speech and what Romney said if that's what you're suggesting [ feel free to slap me down if I'm wrong ] Romney stated unequivocally that forty seven percent of Obama voters are non tax payers who are dependent on the Government. Anyway - what is redistribution? First off, a quote from an Obama tape: "I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level, to make sure that everybody's got a shot." We have a progressive tax system (make more pay higher percentage of tax) and as it exists in the US it is a redistribution system – one that has existed for a long time. While we are not fond of taxation, we understand it has a legitimate purpose. What the Democrats are touting is increased levels of redistribution – meaning even higher taxes. "We have a progressive tax system (make more pay higher percentage of tax) and as it exists in the US it is a redistribution system" "What the Democrats are touting is increased levels of redistribution – meaning even higher taxes" From those words I take it that you agree with me then, it [ redistribution ] is simply another word for taxation, maybe at increased levels but still taxation never the less, and we all have to live with that unfortunatly. The way some on the right have pounced on that interview Obama gave some fourteen years ago you could be forgiven for believing he was advocating some entirely new comcept. Redistribution in the Obama plan is taking even more from those who have incomes and giving it to those who have no or lower incomes. The highest historical tax rates in the US were in the 90 percentile area. What's the point of making $1,000,000 if the government is going to "redistribute" $900,000 of it? Unless you're suggesting that Obama plans to lift taxes to 90% does that figure really apply here, from what I can find the highest tax rate is thirty five percent, or around fourteen percent if you happen to be Mitt Romney. Redistribution includes things like the death tax. Keep in mind this primarily affects scamp's 1.1%, but unfair is unfair even if you personally are not affected. Basically the death tax is this. You are one of those really wealthy people and, as happens to all of us, you die. The death tax "redistributes" 45% of the value of your estate. But wait, you worked for it and you had a will stating who gets what and you intended your wife and children should benefit from your lifetime of work and investing. Nope - it's not fair that you were successful and it's not fair that you should be allowed to pass all that stuff you worked for to your progeny who have no more claim to it than being kin. Basically, the government takes nearly half of your estate - and gives it to people who you forgot to mention in your will because you didn't know them. “Aha!” you say. I'll give it away before I die. You can, but only up to about $5M, and after 1 Jan this exemption is gone. After that, the government charges you 35% on anything you try to give away, for "redistribution". You have to pay a tax for the privilege of giving your possessions to your family - or anyone else. Forty five percent seems like a pretty hefty slug, heck it is a hefty slug, but it's not the Obama death tax scheme is it, from what I can find it seems to have been around for decades. It might not be fair, but it can't be attributed to Obama unless I'm missing something. Obama, who needs money to fund his ruinous health care plan, calls this fair and reasonable. Even though I am far outside of the 1 percenters I do not consider this fair. To his credit, he’s set it up so the worst and most odious of the costs will not be realized until he’s out of office. He’s created the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac of Healthcare. Don't know enough detail about the Obama health care plan to offer an informed opinion, except to say the American HCS appeared in drastic need of an overhaul, whether this overhaul has been for the better or not I can't say.
|
|
|
Post by stepper on Sept 24, 2012 17:10:29 GMT -6
I'll have to get back to you on this Kat. I'm still mulling scamp's puzzle when I have time and I'm not making progress. But I will get back to this.
|
|
|
Post by katina2nd on Sept 24, 2012 19:41:24 GMT -6
No worries mate, take your time.
|
|
|
Post by Mini Mia on Sept 28, 2012 17:09:42 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Scrappy Amazon on Oct 17, 2012 20:15:16 GMT -6
Ok.....most of you know I'm a knee jerk liberal bleeding heart pinko commie democrat.
All I gotta say right now is WTF!!!!!
Do they really think we are stupid?
They hate.....
Women
Unions
Gays
Poor
Immigrants
and just about everyone who isn't rich and powerful.
WTF!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by stepper on Oct 19, 2012 21:55:38 GMT -6
If you can’t be “right” (get it?), then be wrong at the top of your voice and hope people accept THAT in lieu of thoughtful, calm, consideration of the situation. First off miss snarl, your first three categories are patently ridiculous. Members of both parties have a gay ‘ole time in unions with women, have a provable history of such, and any statement to the contrary is a bald face prevarication. Additionally, neither of the main political parties has a problem with aliens. Illegal aliens however, are a different matter. Either one is law abiding or not – you can’t pick and choose which laws you deem relevant and applicable, and then assert the rest as personally offensive and unenforceable. Besides – we’ve all seen Mars Attacks! so we know what to expect from no matter what planet they’re from. That leaves us with the poor. Too many of us have had poor immigrant ancestors to seriously consider a declaration of animosity towards the less fortunate as anything other than another knee jerk liberal bleeding heart pinko commie democratic rant. As a Bible thumping church going whatcha ma call it independent, let me point out that no matter what anyone else says, there is this: Matthew 26:11 The poor you will always have with you… Actually, I believe your comment to be the cry of one who has a deep need to commune with nature and it’s wild brethren, and has been deprived of same. Well I aint got no wild nature available, but in compensation, you can have this.. You may now legitimately say WTF!!!!!
|
|