12 year old? That's giving him way too much credit, I'd say his arguments amount to that of a five year old.
so this^ is what it's like when 12 year-old children get involved in politics.
so this^ is what it's like when 12 year-old children get involved in politics.
Asking who won the presidential debate is akin to asking who won a professional wrestling match. It doesn't really matter who won, it's all fixed to produce a certain result, and that result is maximized profits and increased power for the owners and promoters backstage. Obama might as well be Hulk Hogan and Mitt Romney Andre the Giant. They are performers. Politics in America is theater. It's a show. You can support Hulk Hogan or Andre the Giant all you want, but it's not going to have any effect on the final outcome, because the competition is illusory.
The interesting thing is, you can explain to an American voter the fact that professional wrestling isn't real. That the angry, violent wrestlers up in the center of the wrestling ring are best buddies backstage and aren't really hurting each other with their choreographed moves. You can explain that the whole thing is just a fraud to make money and they'll say, "I know that!". But if you try to explain to an American voter that the two presidential candidates are also putting on a show, that they represent the same moneyed interests, that the outcome of their competition is rigged and will produce the same net result they say, "No way, it's real, I know it is, the two parties represent a meaningful difference, if I support one candidate over the other he'll win and we'll get real change!".
It's such a sad, sad state of affairs in this country when the overwhelming majority of the population can't decipher reality from make-believe.
It's not real to you because you don't understand how government works, there is no one force that can make change quickly, that's not how this government was set up.
Right, the ruling elites who own and control governments don't want their system of exploitation changed too quickly on them, so they wisely implemented ways of preventing unexpected political revolution. They've built their system to change direction as slowly as the Titanic did - by design.Any kind of government change was meant to be slow. You may think its all a show and those that want their kind of change wish there were more like you because it would be easier for them to push through their agenda.
LOL, you've had too much of that "freedom and democracy" Kool-Aid to drink. Wake up already. Quit being such a dupe. Voting for one professional wrestler over another professional wrestler isn't going to change the outcome. All you are doing is playing right into the hands of the owners and promoters who are backstage counting all the money. There is no real democracy in this system. It's rigged. No matter who you vote for the outcome will be the same: More government, more war, more debt, more surveillance, more police state, more erosion of your human rights, more economic imperialism abroad, more economic controls at home, less freedom, etc...Your mentality is the reason we keep getting crappy government policies. By having the mentality that you have you allow what seems to be the same ole same ole to keep happening. While you sit on the sideline complaining that the game is rigged the cheaters continue cheating with no one to stop them or slow them down. Sitting on the sidelines doesn't affect the outcome so pull your head out of your ass and get in the game!
You come off like a college freshman who is just learning to question authority. If you are older than that, well maybe you're just a little slow developmentally.Sure I do. Our government works the same as any other Mafia works. Its function is to serve as a vehicle for the few to exploit the many. That's all organized government has ever been throughout history - control and profit.
Right, the ruling elites who own and control governments don't want their system of exploitation changed too quickly on them, so they wisely implemented ways of preventing unexpected political revolution. They've built their system to change direction as slowly as the Titanic did - by design.
LOL, you've had too much of that "freedom and democracy" Kool-Aid to drink. Wake up already. Quit being such a dupe. Voting for one professional wrestler over another professional wrestler isn't going to change the outcome. All you are doing is playing right into the hands of the owners and promoters who are backstage counting all the money. There is no real democracy in this system. It's rigged. No matter who you vote for the outcome will be the same: More government, more war, more debt, more surveillance, more police state, more erosion of your human rights, more economic imperialism abroad, more economic controls at home, less freedom, etc...
"But, but, but... what about hope and change? If only we'd all vote for this guy over this guy, we'll get hope and change! This guy will deliver if we vote for him! I can feel it! We just need to believe!".
It's not real, dude. Wake up.
How deliciously ironic.You reading comprehension sucks and I will not be repeating myself for the third time.
It's pretty simple really. If there is more incentive to do something more people will do it. What is so difficult to understand?Again, people are avoiding taxes now, show more than just a statement from your ass.
He's partly to blame because he forced banks to lower their lending standards. Exactly like I was saying.Clinton is partly to blame as was congress, whats your point? Did I say it was all Bush's fault? No, and I'll do you one better, Bush even saw that there might be a potential issue and urged congress to do something about it but nothing came from it. Another strawman by you though.
Raising taxes to 99% wouldn't harm growth? If your assertion is true it wouldn't but we know that isn't the case. You're wrong.Apparently I have to spell it out for you. Tax increases or tax decreases do not hurt growth or help it, there has been no proven correlation between the two. Do you get it now?
Yes, pretty sloppy on my part. Thank you for calling me on it. Let me correct the statement now.You just posted an article that clearly explained how capital gains taxes work and then you make this dumb ass statement. Capital gains taxes are paid when assets are sold, not bought. So that totally invalidates your point there.
If Mitt was only in it for the money he could have spent that 2.5 years making more money. He is richer than both of us (assuming on your part), he knows how to create wealth through investments. It's just stupid to suggest that Romney is running for president to lower tax rates so he can get a little more money. Instead of taking that 2.5 years and creating more businesses and making more money. It's just stupid.It must be nice living in a world where a politician can change his views and policies from week to week and it makes you all warm and fuzzy because he has been doing it for six years. Some people are greedy and all about their money and if you think Romney isn't one of those people than you don't know Mitt!
Current birth rate is around 350k a month. So being generous I think 150k a month just to break even. If we keep these job rates we will sink eventually and that is why it is getting worse.Disagree all you want but you haven't shown how things are getting worse. Regardless of who was president in the last four years we would have still had a higher population growth versus job growth. I'm curious though, how many jobs do we need per month to keep up with population growth?
Again, less regulation doesn't mean no regulation.BTW, I omitted some of them because I know the answer. Less regulation is a funny one because you say you are for less of it yet conveniently forget that less regulation (during Clinton and the Bush years) is what helped us get into this financial mess but I'm sure you don't mind so long as you get less regulations (whatever that means to you personally I don't know).
How much would oil cost if we didn't have more production? See you can't answer that either. You have a zero sum game mentality when the world doesn't work like that.No you just are incapable of using facts to back up your statements like the one above. Again, please show me how increased US oil production has led to decreased prices.
You just contradicted yourself in one sentence. If supply and demand doesn't affect oil prices when we increase supply then it doesn't affect oil prices when there is less demand. You can't have it both ways.Oil prices are controlled at the global level and anything we get here will go to the world market which still wont do anything for gas prices here unless India and China curb their use.
You come off like a college freshman who is just learning to question authority. If you are older than that, well maybe you're just a little slow developmentally.
Anyway, you'll eventually (hopefully) realize that for the most part, our politicians are just people. People who probably originally got in the political game because they wanted to make a difference.
Along the way they face crazy amounts of temptation. They ALL succumb to one degree or another, but just because a politician takes a campaign contribution and votes favorably for that contributor, it doesn't necessarily mean that politician is corrupt to the core. It depends on who, if anyone, is hurt by that vote.
Now, I'm not saying that there aren't corrupt politicians, of course there are, and there are probably quite a few. But when it comes to the Ds and Rs these days, it boils down to a basic fundamental choice. Do you believe low taxes on the rich produce jobs? If you do, Republicans are your party. If you don't, Democrats are your party. Neither party is going to change much of anything else at this point.
LOL. Politicians don't go into politics to "make a difference". That's just naive True Believer talk. Politicians go into politics because they aspire to make money and gain power.
Quick question: do you vote?
No. Voting only serves to legitimize an illegitimate system.
One-word meaningless response!
You will learn, albeit with great difficulty, that even my one word comments are fraught with terrible and haunting meaning.
:awe:
How deliciously ironic.
It's pretty simple really. If there is more incentive to do something more people will do it. What is so difficult to understand?
If you raise rates to something absurd like 99% people will act differently than if the rates were 0%. This is a drastic example but I used it only for illustration.
If gas prices are $5 vs $2 a gallon wouldn't that impact people's decisions to go on long road trips? Increased costs on individuals changes some of those individuals behavior. You sell more gas when it is cheaper than when it is more expensive. Likewise you get more transactions when it is cheaper to make them.
He's partly to blame because he forced banks to lower their lending standards. Exactly like I was saying.
So if Clinton was partially to blame you can't pin all of those job losses at the end of Bush's administration. So the numbers that you posted comparing Bush's job record vs Obama were full of shit. Thanks for finally answering this.
Raising taxes to 99% wouldn't harm growth? If your assertion is true it wouldn't but we know that isn't the case. You're wrong.
Yes, pretty sloppy on my part. Thank you for calling me on it. Let me correct the statement now.
I thought it was pretty straight forward. Obama wants to raise capital gains tax rates by 9%. This means that an investor must consider this extra 9% when considering selling an asset. The extra 9% makes it less profitable to sell an asset which would lead to less capital transactions.
So now will you answer the question?
Does increasing cap gains tax rates create more transactions or less of them?
If Mitt was only in it for the money he could have spent that 2.5 years making more money. He is richer than both of us (assuming on your part), he knows how to create wealth through investments. It's just stupid to suggest that Romney is running for president to lower tax rates so he can get a little more money. Instead of taking that 2.5 years and creating more businesses and making more money. It's just stupid.
Current birth rate is around 350k a month. So being generous I think 150k a month just to break even. If we keep these job rates we will sink eventually and that is why it is getting worse.
Again, less regulation doesn't mean no regulation.
Less regulation to me means lowering the barrier of entry into markets. For example... There are stiff penalties for painters who work on houses made before 1978 (I believe but something like that) if they don't properly take care of lead paint. Where a small paint business owner would basically be wiped out if they screw something up and get multiple violations over a few days. I don't think we should have zero regulation but taking somebody's home for an afternoon of violations probably isn't the "balanced approach".
http://bangordailynews.com/2011/05/...nes-for-endangering-children-with-lead-paint/
How much would oil cost if we didn't have more production? See you can't answer that either. You have a zero sum game mentality when the world doesn't work like that.
You just contradicted yourself in one sentence. If supply and demand doesn't affect oil prices when we increase supply then it doesn't affect oil prices when there is less demand. You can't have it both ways.
No. Voting only serves to legitimize an illegitimate system.
You will learn, with great ease, that even my one word comments are terrible and have no meaning.
Do you know what a straw man argument is?Thanks for a post full of nothing but straw man arguments and hyperbole and one citation about a regulation.
Thanks for wasting my time.
Thank god! Stay on the sidelines and keep complaining!