You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 04, 2016, 08:32:02 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: The American Menace (war on "Terror," Iraq, rotating Others)  (Read 3368 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline kylieTopic starter

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Has this actually managed to escape this section so far?  I'm hardly going to begin just now...  Except for the topic heading.

But, I was just introduced to this short clip and recommend it.  (Warning, there may be minor pop-ups, but nothing devastating.)
 
http://www.heavy.com/heavy.php?channel=stinkyBush&partner=aff31

Check out "Coalition of the Willing."

I figure it's a nice play on nostalgia and US Republican claims to provide secure, 'manly' entertainment for the masses.  A sexualized spoof of sickly gendered power. 

Some of the other clips on that site may be amusing, too.





« Last Edit: June 29, 2006, 06:29:24 AM by kylie »

Offline robitusinz

  • A lil 'tussin makes everything better.
  • Knight
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2005
  • Location: Miami, FL
  • Gender: Male
  • Makes you feel good...tastes like candy.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The American Menace (war on "Terror," Iraq, rotating Others)
« Reply #1 on: June 29, 2006, 11:54:11 AM »
I'm willing to be the majority of the people on this site swing to the left, thus there probably won't be much debate here.

Offline Swedish Steel

Re: The American Menace (war on "Terror," Iraq, rotating Others)
« Reply #2 on: June 29, 2006, 11:56:17 AM »
You'd be suprised. :)

Offline robitusinz

  • A lil 'tussin makes everything better.
  • Knight
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2005
  • Location: Miami, FL
  • Gender: Male
  • Makes you feel good...tastes like candy.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The American Menace (war on "Terror," Iraq, rotating Others)
« Reply #3 on: June 29, 2006, 12:00:35 PM »
I dunno, that sounds like an interesting topic in and of itself.

Offline Apple of Eris

Re: The American Menace (war on "Terror," Iraq, rotating Others)
« Reply #4 on: June 29, 2006, 12:12:49 PM »
And here I thought I'd escape these threads by hangingout here rather than over on NationStates :P

Offline kylieTopic starter

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: The American Menace (war on "Terror," Iraq, rotating Others)
« Reply #5 on: June 29, 2006, 02:54:58 PM »
*shrugs*  If nothing else, perhaps check out the heavy.com thing because it's erotica-styled.

Offline robitusinz

  • A lil 'tussin makes everything better.
  • Knight
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2005
  • Location: Miami, FL
  • Gender: Male
  • Makes you feel good...tastes like candy.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The American Menace (war on "Terror," Iraq, rotating Others)
« Reply #6 on: June 29, 2006, 03:21:41 PM »
Oh, I saw it.  LOL.  It's funny.  Not really safe for work, though.

Offline Zakharra

Re: The American Menace (war on "Terror," Iraq, rotating Others)
« Reply #7 on: June 30, 2006, 12:28:08 AM »
 I used to be heavily right(Republican), but since I started my HRT, I am more center. I see some benefits of the liberal way, but I also see the benefits of conservative thinking too. Still though, I'd style myself more Repub lican than Democrate. Mainly because the Demos are so damned stupid and nasty(the leaders of the party, not the base)

Offline kylieTopic starter

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: The American Menace (war on "Terror," Iraq, rotating Others)
« Reply #8 on: June 30, 2006, 05:30:20 AM »
Hmm.  Honestly, I'm a little surprised you put such a broad statement in here.

I'd _like_ to think it's possible to separate Republican social platforms from interest in corporate imperialism in the Middle East. But actually...  I see a pattern for porking up the wealthy few at the expense of the rest of the world, whether it's class war in the US or "development" approaches on the international scene.

That said, I haven't heard many Democrats in office clamoring for an end to the war, until quite recently.  Of course, it took Vietnam a few years to get old, too.  Sigh.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2006, 05:33:15 AM by kylie »

Offline Zakharra

Re: The American Menace (war on "Terror," Iraq, rotating Others)
« Reply #9 on: June 30, 2006, 09:01:50 AM »
 I'm not too happy about any politicians at this point. I dislike them all. but the Republicans have saomething to stand for. The Democrates don't. Other than vague things and wanting to end the war in Iraq. IE cut and run. 

 The few things the Demos do stand for are taxing the rich (defined as people making money. If you already have it, like trust fund kids, you are safe from taxation), ever increasing social programs. There's never enough money or the programs don't cover enough people. Not making our enemies hate us. IE talk and doNOT do anything to annoy them and NEVER give out any consequences. IE appeasement ansd never fight them.

 I dispise people like that for if they were in charge, I seriously doubt Afghanistan would have been invaded and they would pull out after loosing obly a few people in combat. Kind of like how the Demos and liberals in the US want us to do  now. 2500 deaths is unheard of for the increbibly few deaths that have been suffered in any war the US has fought. Yet a certain party wants us to run away...

Offline MadPanda

  • Grand High Exquisitor and Errant Knave-in-Chief
  • Knight
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2005
  • Location: Somewhere Near The Emerald City...
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm letting my anima out of her box to frolic...
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The American Menace (war on "Terror," Iraq, rotating Others)
« Reply #10 on: June 30, 2006, 11:36:29 AM »
Instead of parroting the talking points you hear so often in the so-called Liberal Media, have you bothered to read the Democratic Party platform?  Or do you prefer to just sip the Kool Aid and blame the other guy for daring to suggest that things aren't going so swimmingly?

(And Dems, that applies to you, too...as rich a target as the man is, not all criticisms have been valid, and way too many of them are stuck in the beltway mindset.)

If taxing the rich bothers you so much, just remember who's going to have to pay  for the deficit that the party of 'leaner government' and 'fiscal responsibility' has managed to accumulate.  Also remember who votes themselves a pay raise on a regular basis...but won't raise minimum wage.  Try paying off your new tax load when you're stuck in the $7-10 dollar an hour bracket.

But no, the problem is the Democrats, of course.  It has to be.  It's their fault policy is failing, isn't it?   ::) 

Offline Zakharra

Re: The American Menace (war on "Terror," Iraq, rotating Others)
« Reply #11 on: June 30, 2006, 11:48:03 PM »
  Most of the income taxes are paid by the rich. Well over 50%. 

 The lines I said about cutting and running are from  the Senators and the Democratic party chairman, Howard Dean. They did not say cut and run persay, but 'redeploying' is the same thing when they want it now, or on a known time table.

 The tax cuts have helped the economy alot. Look at it. Unemployment is at a nearl,y unheard of low, under 5%. Which has been in the past called 'full employment' That's as good as anything Clinton did in his 2 terms. Plus tax revenue is higher than expected. The lowering of the capital gains has resulted in more people spending their gains and the government getting more money thru the increase of buying and selling. In short, increased economic wealth. Everything is looking up for the economy.

 I don't like the fact that Congress can vote themselves a pay raise. That's wrong in my book.

 Democrates; they have many answers to problem, but in the last 60 years, how often have they controlled both Houses of Congress and the White House? And has any of their programs ever done what they said it would? The war on poverty? Has not worked. All they seem to be able to do is use race and the wealth card to go after their opponents. They also ingage more in tearing a person apart than debating facts of issues.

 They have had several closed door meeting to decide what their core values are and they still have not come up with any that can sell to the public.

Offline Sugarman (hal)

  • Mind is the perfection of love making, the heart guides its course.
  • At Rest
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2006
  • Location: Iím lost! Iíve gone looking for myself.
  • Gender: Male
  • Free Tibet
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The American Menace (war on "Terror," Iraq, rotating Others)
« Reply #12 on: July 01, 2006, 12:22:47 AM »
Has this actually managed to escape this section so far?† I'm hardly going to begin just now...† Except for the topic heading.

But, I was just introduced to this short clip and recommend it.† (Warning, there may be minor pop-ups, but nothing devastating.)
 
http://www.heavy.com/heavy.php?channel=stinkyBush&partner=aff31

Check out "Coalition of the Willing."

I figure it's a nice play on nostalgia and US Republican claims to provide secure, 'manly' entertainment for the masses.† A sexualized spoof of sickly gendered power.†

Some of the other clips on that site may be amusing, too.








That was cool... But still staying liberal. Was tempting though.

Offline kylieTopic starter

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: The American Menace (war on "Terror," Iraq, rotating Others)
« Reply #13 on: July 01, 2006, 04:23:52 AM »
The tax cuts have helped the economy alot. Look at it. Unemployment is at a nearl,y unheard of low, under 5%. Which has been in the past called 'full employment' That's as good as anything Clinton did in his 2 terms. Plus tax revenue is higher than expected.

My understanding is that some debate the jobs-created figure, so it may even be negative?  More to the point, that most of the jobs created pay less than the ones that were lost.  Sure, we have a booming service sector where many people can work for $7-8/hour.  It might be better than nothing, but that isn't the pay rate of many jobs in manufacturing or leading sector technology.  The jobs we have now are often concentrated among temporary labor or entry-level positions that do not get benefits like health insurance.  (Personally, I think service labor is simply undervalued.) 

Tax revenue would also go up if taxes have increased 'enough' on the middle class, because there are more of them than the really wealthy.  But that is money that often goes into servicing the growing national debt or paying for war.  Not so likely to go into social programs or creating new business, if you look at the distribution of national spending.  And tax revenue is also not the same as savings.  Savings might help more with the debt in the long term.  (Clinton didn't turn a surplus into such a massive deficit...)  As it is, interest rates and inflation just keep climbing faster than wages.

« Last Edit: July 01, 2006, 05:01:44 AM by kylie »

Offline Zakharra

Re: The American Menace (war on "Terror," Iraq, rotating Others)
« Reply #14 on: July 01, 2006, 09:08:50 AM »
 Interest rates are still very low. Especially compared to the 70's and 80's.  Look at the total unemployment figures. It is under 5%. Which has been used in the past by all administrations to  indicate full employment. Suddenly that isn't a good standard anymore?  ??? It was good enough for Clinton, why not Bush?

 The types of jobs are changing because what the US does is changing. That is a constant. Things are always changing. If you have a lower paying job, it's your job to either stay in it or find a better one. That may mean moving to another area with better job oppertunaties though.  Entry level is called that for a reason. Entry level= low pay. Makes sense to me. It's not intended to supply a wage for a family. Never was.

 Tax revenue goes up with increased economic activity. Right now the poor don't pay im\ncome tax. It's the middle class and upper classes that pay for it. If less of the middle class pay income taxes that leaves it to the wealthier people who are earning money to pay it. Which is a unfair burden on them and unfair taxation. Right now, it is just above 50% of the US tax payers that pay taxes. It would not take much for that to go below 50%.

 Since the tax cut (for the rich  ::)  ) was enacted, tyhe over all tax reciepts have gone up. That's been proven.

 The surp;us that /clinton had never existed. It was a paper surplus that could have if the economy had not tanked in  the last years of his administration. There was a mild recession when the Presidency changed hands. Then 9-11 hit and further depressed it. Wages are going up, and the inflation and interest are, but thhose two are at a much lower level than at nearly eny time in US history.         

Offline Elvi

Re: The American Menace (war on "Terror," Iraq, rotating Others)
« Reply #15 on: July 01, 2006, 09:11:59 AM »
And here I thought I'd escape these threads by hangingout here rather than over on NationStates :P

You're on Nation states?

Well I won't comment on the quality of the debating methods on there, but I have a nice lickle community over there in my own liddle region.
Nice kids they are, we have fun and ignore the boards apart from a brief sojurn into a role play thread.

Offline Apple of Eris

Re: The American Menace (war on "Terror," Iraq, rotating Others)
« Reply #16 on: July 01, 2006, 09:21:18 AM »
I only roleplay there now. *nods*

Offline MadPanda

  • Grand High Exquisitor and Errant Knave-in-Chief
  • Knight
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2005
  • Location: Somewhere Near The Emerald City...
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm letting my anima out of her box to frolic...
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The American Menace (war on "Terror," Iraq, rotating Others)
« Reply #17 on: July 01, 2006, 11:52:09 AM »
† Most of the income taxes are paid by the rich. Well over 50%.†

Funny.  They also seem to have the most loopholes.  And the shadiest accountants.  And defraud FEMA.  You tax the rich 'cause they're the ones with the money.  This does not change the fact that the burden falls heaviest on anyone in the Middle Class...period.

The lines I said about cutting and running are from† the Senators and the Democratic party chairman, Howard Dean. They did not say cut and run persay, but 'redeploying' is the same thing when they want it now, or on a known time table.

Nixon cut and ran in Vietnam.  Reagan cut and ran in Beiruit.  Do you also hold them in contempt?  Where is the line between acknowledging a failed policy and redeploying, and 'cut and run'?   

The tax cuts have helped the economy alot. Look at it. Unemployment is at a nearl,y unheard of low, under 5%. Which has been in the past called 'full employment' That's as good as anything Clinton did in his 2 terms. Plus tax revenue is higher than expected. The lowering of the capital gains has resulted in more people spending their gains and the government getting more money thru the increase of buying and selling. In short, increased economic wealth. Everything is looking up for the economy.

Yeah, right.  Two words: deficit spending.  Make that three words: massive deficit spending.  You're going to be paying this off for a long, long time...and short term gains in the face of long term problems are not good policy.  Period.  Regardless of who does it.

I don't like the fact that Congress can vote themselves a pay raise. That's wrong in my book.

Well, there we agree...but you might want to have a good, long look at some of the pork-barreling done by your beloved GOP.  There's a lot of it this time 'round, and it's pretty disgusting.  It would be disgusting no matter who did it.

I'm all for taxing those who can afford the greater burden, but only if it's necessary.  I'm also for keeping the tightest possible overwatch on government spending across the board so that it isn't necessary all the time--pork is just another form of corruption, and the public trust is not a free-for-all buffet!  Greater accountability is needed at every level...and if that means we need to borrow the Japanese approach of cutting the CEO's pay when the company does poorly, so be it. 

Democrates; they have many answers to problem, but in the last 60 years, how often have they controlled both Houses of Congress and the White House? And has any of their programs ever done what they said it would? The war on poverty? Has not worked. All they seem to be able to do is use race and the wealth card to go after their opponents.

As if the Republicans don't have their own failures, miserable failures, and cheap shots.  No Child Left Behind?  Faith-based services?  Don't get me started on the state of scientific research under current policy.  The DHS is, at best, clunky and unmanageable in ways that even the old institutions couldn't manage.  They've botched more, and more spectacularly, in the last six years than Clinton and Bush I combined.  That's saying something.

They also ingage more in tearing a person apart than debating facts of issues.

You may not have been paying attention, but this is precisely what the darlings of the Republican Right have been doing all along.  This is what the Republicans have done to anyone who dared suggest that certain policies were a bad idea, or (gasp) that warrantless wiretaps may not have been okay, or (double gasp) that the President might not have certain authority.  Civil dissent has become demonized, and your beloved Republicans bear much of the blame for this.

They have had several closed door meeting to decide what their core values are and they still have not come up with any that can sell to the public.

The Democrats still won 49% of the popular vote in 2004 in spite of dirty tricks by the Swifties and other Rovean shenanigans.  They're selling to almost half the public!  And you claim they have nothing?  Given that the Republicans might well have lost without dirty tricks and shenanigans (Ohio, anyone?), that says much about their core values...which in any case they have now betrayed most thoroughly.

The old GOP had more integrity than the current incarnation.  I hate to say it, but I kind of miss old dinosaurs like Goldwater and Dole right about now.

Offline kylieTopic starter

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: The American Menace (war on "Terror," Iraq, rotating Others)
« Reply #18 on: July 01, 2006, 04:17:12 PM »

 The types of jobs are changing because what the US does is changing. That is a constant. Things are always changing. If you have a lower paying job, it's your job to either stay in it or find a better one. That may mean moving to another area with better job oppertunaties though.  Entry level is called that for a reason. Entry level= low pay. Makes sense to me. It's not intended to supply a wage for a family. Never was.
 

First, wouldn't this suggest that people with entry level jobs should never have families? 

If you put it all together, if you have a low paying job, and the economy does not shift to make that job pay much more, how do you get enough funds to move to a better area and/or retrain?  Lots of people have a hard time dealing with the demands of the job or two that they have at low wages, much less accomplishing anything else. 

On the other hand, if the economy shifts too fast, sure you can take out a loan and retrain, but by the time you're trained the stuff you learned may not pay.  Yesterday, Japanese and IT were all the rage -- today, it might be Chinese and biotechnology.  Unless you expect the whole country to 'act independent' by training for some "reliable" white collar job, let's say various branches of medicine...  But then there might be a glut of medical graduates, and too many people training for other tasks to be accomplished.   

All the risk falls with the little guy.  The people with deep pockets can leverage larger loans, or shift funds between investments and corporations to favor whole different industries.  Or they can invest in whatever economy has the laxest labor laws on a given day.  Your average person cannot do this, and has less inside information about where big money is looking to go next.






Offline Soulsemmer

Re: The American Menace (war on "Terror," Iraq, rotating Others)
« Reply #19 on: July 01, 2006, 05:16:15 PM »
Dear god in heaven, must... stay... away...

Offline Zakharra

Re: The American Menace (war on "Terror," Iraq, rotating Others)
« Reply #20 on: July 01, 2006, 11:54:08 PM »
 
Quote
Funny.  They also seem to have the most loopholes.  And the shadiest accountants.  And defraud FEMA.  You tax the rich 'cause they're the ones with the money.  This does not change the fact that the burden falls heaviest on anyone in the Middle Class...period.

 Wrong. Look at the IRS Income tax site. Somewhere on it is a listing of who pays the most income taxes and it is not the middle class. It's the wealthy.

 
Quote
Nixon cut and ran in Vietnam.  Reagan cut and ran in Beiruit.  Do you also hold them in contempt?  Where is the line between acknowledging a failed policy and redeploying, and 'cut and run'?   
Quote

 Nixon got the war at the end of a badly run one. Poloticians running wars failed in Vietman. RTegan.. I didn't like him leaving Beruit, but that was not a war we were in.  Clinton, in Somalia, just ran. He did not want to take any causualties and hurt his image.

 
Quote
Yeah, right.  Two words: deficit spending.  Make that three words: massive deficit spending.  You're going to be paying this off for a long, long time...and short term gains in the face of long term problems are not good policy.  Period.  Regardless of who does it.

 Deficit spending is not what is making the economy do good. The tax cut has worked. Period. Deficit spending is something else entirely and I agree it's far to much.

 
Quote
Well, there we agree...but you might want to have a good, long look at some of the pork-barreling done by your beloved GOP.  There's a lot of it this time 'round, and it's pretty disgusting.  It would be disgusting no matter who did it.

I'm all for taxing those who can afford the greater burden, but only if it's necessary.  I'm also for keeping the tightest possible overwatch on government spending across the board so that it isn't necessary all the time--pork is just another form of corruption, and the public trust is not a free-for-all buffet!  Greater accountability is needed at every level...and if that means we need to borrow the Japanese approach of cutting the CEO's pay when the company does poorly, so be it.

 I'm in full agreement there. Pork barrel politics is way out of control.

 
Quote
As if the Republicans don't have their own failures, miserable failures, and cheap shots.  No Child Left Behind?  Faith-based services?  Don't get me started on the state of scientific research under current policy.  The DHS is, at best, clunky and unmanageable in ways that even the old institutions couldn't manage.  They've botched more, and more spectacularly, in the last six years than Clinton and Bush I combined.  That's saying something.

 Many are badly run, they can be done better. Hopefully they could be, but I do not see how they could be run better under a Democratic administration.

 
Quote
You may not have been paying attention, but this is precisely what the darlings of the Republican Right have been doing all along.  This is what the Republicans have done to anyone who dared suggest that certain policies were a bad idea, or (gasp) that warrantless wiretaps may not have been okay, or (double gasp) that the President might not have certain authority.  Civil dissent has become demonized, and your beloved Republicans bear much of the blame for this.

 The print media and TV networks are far more viscious to Republicans than the opposite. I do agree that there are some Repubs that do it too, but the amount of personal attacks by Democrate and liberal pundits, politicians, bloggers and such is far more. The current chairman of the DNC, Howard Dean. Look at what he says on a fairly regular basis. It's not anything that seems sane. He spouts off(some would say he shoots his mouth off) about people on things that are not taken well at all by many people.

 
Quote
The Democrats still won 49% of the popular vote in 2004 in spite of dirty tricks by the Swifties and other Rovean shenanigans.  They're selling to almost half the public!  And you claim they have nothing?  Given that the Republicans might well have lost without dirty tricks and shenanigans (Ohio, anyone?), that says much about their core values...which in any case they have now betrayed most thoroughly.

 And they still lost. bush won. Get over it. He won't be running again. In 2000, the Democrates were hating the Electorial Collage, then in '04, they were hating the popular vote. Since the Democrates lost in both races. No Democrate has gotten over 50% of the vote in about 3-4 decades. Clinton never got over that. Bush, as much as he's hated, legitimately won both elections.

 
Quote
First, wouldn't this suggest that people with entry level jobs should never have families? 

 It's called entry level for a reason. You are entering the workforce at that place of business at the bottom. A starting position.

Offline kylieTopic starter

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: The American Menace (war on "Terror," Iraq, rotating Others)
« Reply #21 on: July 02, 2006, 04:46:09 AM »
Quote
In 2000, the Democrates were hating the Electorial Collage, then in '04, they were hating the popular vote.
 

I was overseas during 2000 and didn't follow it real closely...  But I have to admit that part sounds amusing, by itself. 

However for 2004, are you talking about the popular vote in Ohio -- one that would have determined the Electoral College outcome?  Or something else?

Quote
No Democrate has gotten over 50% of the vote in about 3-4 decades. Clinton never got over that. Bush, as much as he's hated, legitimately won both elections.


The whole matter of hanging chads and Florida injunctions by intimately connected Republican officials was ethically if not legally questionable.  You fall back on the letter of the law so much...  America being a land of lawsuits, I rather wonder if you won't be trapped by a law you feel has unjust effects on you someday. 

It also helped Bush that Gore didn't decide to extend the legal challenge further when it was his option to do so.  I guess some Democrats can do some things you like, too.  Such as give up.  ;)

Quote

 It's called entry level for a reason. You are entering the workforce at that place of business at the bottom. A starting position.


Yes, but if the economy changes quickly enough to disrupt certain large industries, then anyone is liable to end up reduced to a starting position.  That doesn't make it real safe for anyone to have children around for long.  Unless they were perhaps extremely wealthy to begin with. 

I'm just trying to suggest that unless people have sufficient control and information, they cannot really protect themselves from a situation where it becomes difficult to support a family while the minimum wage is low.  I'm not personally so fixated on securing a family now, but it seems lots of people are interested in that.   
« Last Edit: July 02, 2006, 04:49:02 AM by kylie »

Offline Zakharra

Re: The American Menace (war on "Terror," Iraq, rotating Others)
« Reply #22 on: July 02, 2006, 10:21:34 AM »
Quote
Yes, but if the economy changes quickly enough to disrupt certain large industries, then anyone is liable to end up reduced to a starting position.  That doesn't make it real safe for anyone to have children around for long.  Unless they were perhaps extremely wealthy to begin with.

I'm just trying to suggest that unless people have sufficient control and information, they cannot really protect themselves from a situation where it becomes difficult to support a family while the minimum wage is low.  I'm not personally so fixated on securing a family now, but it seems lots of people are interested in that. 

 No one can adequately protect themselves unless they have alot of money stashed away. The only other way to  reduce that chance is to have a government controllled economy. Which would be what the liberal/Democrates want. More of a european style government and economy. An economy I note that is not doing too well there. High unemployment. inflation and interest.

 
Quote
The whole matter of hanging chads and Florida injunctions by intimately connected Republican officials was ethically if not legally questionable.  You fall back on the letter of the law so much...  America being a land of lawsuits, I rather wonder if you won't be trapped by a law you feel has unjust effects on you someday.

It also helped Bush that Gore didn't decide to extend the legal challenge further when it was his option to do so.  I guess some Democrats can do some things you like, too.  Such as give up

  In both elections Democrates have complained about Republican cheating. Oddly enough the places they say the Repubs cheated are in Democratic controlled areas. In 2000, the two or three counties that were under dispute where Democratic controlled. The polls were run by Democrates, not Republicans. It seems the Demos could not cheat well enough to get the election.

 Same thing for the '04 election. The Demos were not able to get what they wanted. Remember that the exit polls had Kerry winning, yet when the results came out alot of people didn;t believe tham and wanted to have it recounted and the exit polls used as the result. Not the population's will.

Offline kylieTopic starter

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: The American Menace (war on "Terror," Iraq, rotating Others)
« Reply #23 on: July 02, 2006, 06:09:59 PM »
Quote

More of a european style government and economy. An economy I note that is not doing too well there. High unemployment. inflation and interest.



Well, let's ask the Europeans around...  Would you prefer to adopt the American economic model?


Quote

Oddly enough the places they say the Repubs cheated are in Democratic controlled areas. In 2000, the two or three counties that were under dispute where Democratic controlled. The polls were run by Democrates, not Republicans. It seems the Demos could not cheat well enough to get the election.


I don't see why the Republicans, if they're going to cheat at all, would _not_ consider cheating in Democratic areas.  By your logic, they should be certain of winning areas where they had the most influence, already.  Actually, by your logic, there is no point in cheating unless a race is tied.  A dubious historical proposition.   

More to the point, I suspect it is easier for the party that has all the resources of holding federal office (and also Florida office) to rig an election.  That isn't conclusive, but it would suggest that probability might favor a pro-Republican cheat even in a Democrat-leaning area.

Quote

Same thing for the '04 election. The Demos were not able to get what they wanted. Remember that the exit polls had Kerry winning, yet when the results came out alot of people didn;t believe tham and wanted to have it recounted and the exit polls used as the result. Not the population's will.


You keep saying you just want everything legal.  In that case, if there is a legal procedure for a recount and even one person activates it, it isn't consistent to argue.  Anyway, the whole point of a recount is to make sure popular will was tabulated correctly.  If there are significant doubts ("a lot of people" you said), then someone else can stand up and say, fraud, illegitimate leadership.  Better to try and resolve the doubts at least once, I figure.   
« Last Edit: July 02, 2006, 06:12:48 PM by kylie »

Offline MadPanda

  • Grand High Exquisitor and Errant Knave-in-Chief
  • Knight
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2005
  • Location: Somewhere Near The Emerald City...
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm letting my anima out of her box to frolic...
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The American Menace (war on "Terror," Iraq, rotating Others)
« Reply #24 on: July 02, 2006, 09:31:35 PM »
By your logic, my lass, Nixon cut and ran.  He officially became President in 1969, but the war wasn't really over until 1973.  That's not 'coming in at the tail end'.  That war was unpopular for some very good reasons.† And Reagan cut and ran, too: Beiruit wasn't declared?  Big deal.  We still had troops committed.† Now, you say Clinton should not have cut and run, but would you have supported remaining on-site all this time with the attendant costs?† Even though our involvement in Somalia (which, like Beiruit, wasn't declared) was George Bush's idea?  Why, that's like saying Nixon should have stayed the course in Vietnam!† And even though the House and Senate were preparing resolutions demanding the troops be withdrawn?† AND would have flayed him alive if he'd ignored them?† You call it cut and run if it's a Democrat, but not if it's a Republican.

You didn't answer my other question, though: when is it acknowledging failure and moving on, and when is it 'cut-and-run'?  Explain that one to me, please.

As for the economy...cutting taxes while increasing spending is a Bad Move, no matter who does it, no matter when, no matter the conditions.† Deficits must be paid off.† And with about 45% of our current debt in the hands of overseas creditors, that's not a good thing.† Sooner or later, your lovely little tax cut will have to be repealed.  It's a simple matter of when.

The middle class bears the bulk of the burden...not individually, perhaps, but in circumstance, placement, and timing.  Take 50% from someone who makes $12 million a year, and they're mostly fine.  Take 50% from someone who makes $50,000 a year, and they're hurting.  This is why a flat tax, while very attractive, isn't necessarily going to work well.  Is it fair?  Nope.  It might not even be just.  The rich, who can afford to pay more, do. And of course they whine about it, which is their right.  But since Red states are net consumers of Federal money, and Blue states are net producers, maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing to cut the tap to the slackers...

I wonder if you know about the effect of tax cheats on revenue: folks who cheat on their taxes cost us a whole lot of money, every year.  If they ponied up, your tax rate would likely go down...so long as nobody kept racking up expenditures by, say, starting a war (they're expensive!).
« Last Edit: July 02, 2006, 10:16:45 PM by MadPanda »