Presidential Election: 2012

[Strittan]

Plus, you seem to be hinting that you would be fine if creationism being taught was outlawed (it is taught in private religious and home schooling curriculum). I would have an equal amount of issue with that as I would if it were forced to be taught. I may have read your feelings on that issue incorrectly, so please correct me if I am wrong.

Yes, you did read my feelings incorrectly.

They should be taught that creationism exists, what it means, and that it's a possible explaination, although it's unlikely. It should not be taught in biology classes as facts though, that's all I'm saying.

 

[Omnis]

Pretty much. The Republicans are so focused on the immediate win that they can't see their politics driving the country into the ground. The war mongering alone is what worries me most. The Democrats can't grow a backbone and fight for what's right, and in the end, they wasted two years with a mandate where they could have accomplished almost anything.

My only hope is that 2012 is a bloodbath for incumbents. December has been a frustrating month as a young man who generally votes Democrat, watching my expectations begin to fall apart with the NDAA and SOPA. It will be interesting to see how the next few months work out, with the primaries begging in just a week or two, and the race to the middle with each candidate. Between OWS and the Tea Party, voting rights issues, disenfranchised Democrats AND Republicans... This could either be the most interesting election in recent memory, or one of the absolute worst.

I'll be voting for Ron Paul again in the primaries, as usual. After that, we'll see how it goes.

Nothing will change until we turn over county committeemen and women across the country. They're the deciders.

 

[TankAss95]

Yes, you did read my feelings incorrectly.

They should be taught that creationism exists, what it means, and that it's a possible explaination, although it's unlikely. It should not be taught in biology classes as facts though, that's all I'm saying.

I've never been taught creationism in biology at all, only religious studies. We were taught evolution, too (a little) as being fact.
In my opinion in school you should be taught the basis of the teachings for the major world religions. Wether you accept any of it or not is irrelevant, it's just good to learn about it to understand different peoples beliefs and culture.
I remember we were being told about Yin Yang. I think dualism, polytheism and animism are a load if crap (I can't remember but I think Yin Yang is dualist) but it was great to learn it.

 

[YSSMAN]

Nothing will change until we turn over county committeemen and women across the country. They're the deciders.

I can't necessarily speak for Florida, but I know that in the case of Michigan, its getting extremely hard to vote out incumbents thanks to the changes in our federal and state level districts, in addition to an increasingly apathetic voter base. As more cities and counties are taken over by the Governors office for financial management, the loss of actual representation is going to kill a lot of motivation for regular voters in the east side.

Long story short, #OccupyEverything.

 

[FoolKiller]

They should be taught that creationism exists, what it means, and that it's a possible explaination, although it's unlikely. It should not be taught in biology classes as facts though, that's all I'm saying.

You would allow more than most public school systems in the US. But the outcomes range from ignoring creationism and religion altogether to putting stickers on textbooks that discuss evolution that say it is a theory that some might not agree with. But in no way is creationism taught in public funded schools.

Universities are different, as they have varying courses on religious studies. I have taken both an Old Testament course and an Islamic studies course. But they are structured as a study of historical cultures. You have to go to religious schools to get anything more.

December has been a frustrating month as a young man who generally votes Democrat, watching my expectations begin to fall apart with the NDAA and SOPA.

You know those slippery slopes us libertarian minded individuals keep going on about?

 

[Omnis]

I can't necessarily speak for Florida, but I know that in the case of Michigan, its getting extremely hard to vote out incumbents thanks to the changes in our federal and state level districts, in addition to an increasingly apathetic voter base. As more cities and counties are taken over by the Governors office for financial management, the loss of actual representation is going to kill a lot of motivation for regular voters in the east side.

Long story short, #OccupyEverything.

Naw man you don't get it. County committeemen decide who gets to run. If none of the counties give the party endorsement to Candidate X, then they can't run.

 

[Strittan]

You would allow more than most public school systems in the US. But the outcomes range from ignoring creationism and religion altogether to putting stickers on textbooks that discuss evolution that say it is a theory that some might not agree with. But in no way is creationism taught in public funded schools.

Fair enough.

 

[Keef]

I donated $20.12 to The Campaign yesterday. I feel like a smug libertarian now, it's great.

Too bad I don't have $250,000 laying around or I'd donate that too. If I was rich I'd Paypal everybody I know $2500 and ask them to donate it because apparently no individual can donate more than that.

 

[ChaosStar79]

But in no way is creationism taught in public funded schools.

This is mostly true, however my public high school (Boone Co HS) in 9th/10th grade taught a "Bible as literature" class. So while they didn't teach it as being science or religion, but it was very much a study of the bible and it's stories.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Cenk finally gets it:

I don't like the guy still, it's him and other types that couldn't get it through their head and do this everytime a new president is elected. You always have a massive group that says this guy is going to change things...really??? How about you shoot me in the knee cap because that garbage is beyond anything a sane person should say. Cenk was junk riding Obama for a long time and you saw it on Young Turks along with that dumb female reporter that had no idea what she was saying. Then you have Cenk that was on MSNBC and those people were blowing up Obama more. I'm not a right side person cause this is the same crap that the right did with the Iraq war and that got us far didn't it. Point is people should be more cautious about Public officials/Political figures and realize that this crap goes on all the time and has been for awhile.

I suggest you learn some stuff about American public schools before trying this line of logic again. Creationism is rarely, if ever, taught in public schools.

Plus, you seem to be hinting that you would be fine if creationism being taught was outlawed (it is taught in private religious and home schooling curriculum). I would have an equal amount of issue with that as I would if it were forced to be taught. I may have read your feelings on that issue incorrectly, so please correct me if I am wrong.

The one thing I find interesting in all of this is that I pointed out Ron Paul's views on abortion and gay marriage as well, and yet the evolution issue is the one that seems to suddenly create issues with people. If you are willing to let your vote be swayed by his views of evolution because you think it somehow would affect his role as president I strongly suggest you look at these two other personal views he holds compared to how he has voted on them.

You haven't, and from what I've seen from said user he doesn't know much about politics and seems to just pull little tid bits from what we say to form an opinion for who knows what. Also I don't know if it's a foreign misconception, but you are correct I have never been to one public school (grade school, high school and university) that teaches you anything about Creationism, so for a foreigner to say that about our Country is wrong, and it's funny he doesn't say that you got that part wrong about what he says he just skips over it all together.

 

[YSSMAN]

You know those slippery slopes us libertarian minded individuals keep going on about?

These are the kinds of things that drive me crazy, regardless of the politics behind them. The NDAA, at the very least, can be challenged and overturned based on previous court cases put before SCOTUS, but we'll see how that one works. As for SOPA, we're allowing people who already do not understand the technology make rules about that technology. With fancy naming, and a complete media blackout, too few people know what's going on. In that situation, we're crossing into unexplored territory with unexplored consequences.

In the end, it can all be looked at in a wide variety of ways. The good news is that things like this motivate the young people, they're angry, and they're looking toward people like Ron Paul for answers. If he can win in Iowa, we're off to a good start in 2012.

Naw man you don't get it. County committeemen decide who gets to run. If none of the counties give the party endorsement to Candidate X, then they can't run.

I was unaware you were discussing the party commissioners, I immediately jumped to local politics.

As far as the Michigan GOP is concerned, its pretty much ran by the DeVos and Van Andel families from right here in Kent County. They've thrown their dollars behind Romney, and so too will the rest of the state GOP. So much of our system is based on party patronage, changing it that easily would be tough.

I have no idea how different Florida is. You guys have to declare your party before you vote, right?

 

[FoolKiller]

As for SOPA, we're allowing people who already do not understand the technology make rules about that technology. With fancy naming, and a complete media blackout, too few people know what's going on. In that situation, we're crossing into unexplored territory with unexplored consequences.

You just defined how probably 90% of regulations are created, and they are often done behind closed doors, written in and by committees or departments of unelected officials. You think anyone on a Congressional committees has experience in what they oversee? Occasionally you get a businessman in Congress that will create a business regulation, but outside of the businesses he worked in he still has no experience. You think when regulations on things like lightbulbs or food products are passed that anyone voting on them are electricians or food scientists? Are building regulations created and voted on by structural engineers? No. All regulations are passed by people who do not properly understand the topic to regulate it based on the advise of supposed experts.

If you think SOPA is a rare example of guys not knowing the topic listening to the business interests with large lobbying groups over the technicians who work in dark cubicles you are wrong. SOPA is business as usual.

 

[Dapper]

So I skimmed through Bill Clinton's new book today and was really surprised at the overall message. I think I am the last person who has written in this thread that needs to read it though.

 

[Keef]

Why would the rest of us need to read something Bill Clinton wrote? Does he have tips for getting worked from under my desk?

 

[Dapper]

Why would the rest of us need to read something Bill Clinton wrote? Does he have tips for getting worked from under my desk?

Who else has been successful lately?

 

[Swift]

Who else has been successful lately?

How do you measure success?

 

[Tornado]

Why would the rest of us need to read something Bill Clinton wrote? Does he have tips for getting worked from under my desk?

I think I know what he's talking about:

 

[Keef]

How do you measure success?

With a ruler. Always on top; no cheating!

 

[FoolKiller]

Who else has been successful lately?

This is the same book where he talks about deregulation being bad for the economy, and then stands by repealing Glass-Steagall?

Sounds like a hypocrite handbook.

 

[Dapper]

How do you measure success?

Do you dispute Billy was generally more successful than other recent presidents? Plus he was picking up where a Bush left off.

This is the same book where he talks about deregulation being bad for the economy, and then stands by repealing Glass-Steagall?

Sounds like a hypocrite handbook.

How ironic coming from the antigoverment side... besides, it had little effect on where the economy is today and it did not remove all the other banking regulations.

 

[FoolKiller]

How ironic coming from the antigoverment side... besides, it had little effect on where the economy is today and it did not remove all the other banking regulations.

Ironic how? I pointed out his hypocrisy, nothing more. I challenge you to find where I gave an opinion either way on his two conflicting positions.

And I suggest you bother actually reading my link. It is debated both ways as to what effect it had on the housing market bubble (Again, note that I am giving no opinion either way here). Clinton chooses to ignore half the debate.

And here is the conundrum for you. If you say those who disagree with Clinton are wrong, you would be speaking most prominently of Elizabeth Warren, who President Obama had as a senior member of his staff and as special advisor to the secretary of treasury, thus meaning if Clinton is right then President Obama has appointed people who do not know what they are talking about to be one of his senior economic advisors (if this is the case it wouldn't be the first, or second, time Obama has made questionable appointments).

 

[Dapper]

Ironic how? I pointed out his hypocrisy, nothing more. I challenge you to find where I gave an opinion either way on his two conflicting positions.

You fundamentally do not know what you are talking about. All you know is he repealed some legislation and nothing about it's impact. There is no room left for you to find hypocrisy.

Whether you agree or disagree with that decision to repeal GS it is ironic. Either you are arguing for regulation,which would be obviously ironic, or that he was right, ironic because you shouldn't argue with who is right.

And I suggest you bother actually reading my link. It is debated both ways as to what effect it had on the housing market bubble (Again, note that I am giving no opinion either way here). Clinton chooses to ignore half the debate.

What? How is being on one side of a debate ignoring the other?

And here is the conundrum for you. If you say those who disagree with Clinton are wrong, you would be speaking most prominently of Elizabeth Warren, who President Obama had as a senior member of his staff and as special advisor to the secretary of treasury, thus meaning if Clinton is right then President Obama has appointed people who do not know what they are talking about to be one of his senior economic advisors (if this is the case it wouldn't be the first, or second, time Obama has made questionable appointments).

More stuff that is just wrong. According to your source, she said it "contributed" to the financial meltdown, not caused it. Like gravity contributes to me falling, but the rock I tripped on caused me to fall.

But this is all ignoring reality. Find out what purpose GS was serving and who made it that way before you discuss the repeal in 1999, early 80's was the real end of the glass-steagall act. And then understand what happened after Clinton left office concerning the SEC and other regulations. Of course, all the while disregarding the fact most other rich countries have no law such as glass-steagall and they have avoided what the US went through.

But one key part of the repeal doesn't sound so deregulatory-

The legislation preserves the regulatory structure in Washington and gives the Federal Reserve and the Office of Comptroller of the Currency roles in regulating new financial conglomerates. The Securities and Exchange Commission will oversee securities operations at any bank, and the states will continue to regulate insurance.

So GS being repealed contributed to the great recession, but it was because of Bush dropping the ball- messing up what Billy put in place- when he took office. Clinton had it set up to work, but he didn't expect a Bush to follow him.

 

[FoolKiller]

You fundamentally do not know what you are talking about. All you know is he repealed some legislation and nothing about it's impact. There is no room left for you to find hypocrisy.

I am not saying that his action then versus his stance on banking deregulation now is hypocrisy. I am saying that in a book, he authored (or had ghost written), he says to do one thing and defends when he did the opposite.

Whether you agree or disagree with that decision to repeal GS it is ironic. Either you are arguing for regulation,which would be obviously ironic, or that he was right, ironic because you shouldn't argue with who is right.

So, you can't call someone a hypocrite if you agree with one of two related things they did/said and disagree with the other? I am pretty sure that is why you would call someone a hypocrite

What? How is being on one side of a debate ignoring the other?

He claims not enough government influence is part of the problem. He reduced government influence in one area. You are right he isn't ignoring the other side. He actually felt it important enough to address the criticism in his book. I wonder why he felt it that important if any criticism is just simply incorrect or misunderstood. I would hazard because current top economic figures in the government said it contributed.

More stuff that is just wrong. According to your source, she said it "contributed" to the financial meltdown, not caused it.

Did I say she said it caused it?

Does he say his actions are justified despite having contributed? If he says it had no negative effects then he disagrees with her statement.

 

[Dapper]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/opinion/gop-monetary-madness.html

A brief snip-

One popular Austrian commentator who has advised Mr. Paul, Peter Schiff, even warned (on Glenn Beck’s TV show) of the possibility of Zimbabwe-style hyperinflation in the near future.

So here we are, three years later. How’s it going? Inflation has fluctuated, but, at the end of the day, consumer prices have risen just 4.5 percent, meaning an average annual inflation rate of only 1.5 percent. Who could have predicted that printing so much money would cause so little inflation? Well, I could. And did. And so did others who understood the Keynesian economics Mr. Paul reviles. But Mr. Paul’s supporters continue to claim, somehow, that he has been right about everything.

edit- And gold is down 11% just this month.

 

[FoolKiller]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/opinion/gop-monetary-madness.html

A brief snip-

edit- And gold is down 11% just this month.

Here is a quote from a book written by the 1986 Nobel Prize winning economist, James Buchanan.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php?title=1097&Itemid=27

The Keynesian advocates failed to see that, if their theory of debt burden is correct, the benefits of public spending are always available without cost merely by resort to borrowing, and without regard to the phase of the economic cycle. If there is no transfer of cost onto taxpayers in future periods (whether these be the same or different from current taxpayers), and if bond purchasers voluntarily transfer funds to government in exchange for promises of future interest and amortization payments, there is no cost to anyone in society at the time public spending is carried out. Only the benefits of such spending remain. The economic analogue to the perpetual motion machine would have been found.

It won't happen in the short term. We always pass the crap on to the future. Krugman is making the same error Buchanan pointed out in 1977.

But hey, dismiss the only guy who predicted, in the 2007 debates, that a housing/banking related economic collapse would occur. It worked out then.

 

[Keef]

[youtubehd]8Rv0Z5SNrF4[/youtubehd]

 

[Omnis]

It was either going to result in hyperinflation Japanese zombie economy.

 

[Dotini]

Libertarians and Paul fans will love this: "Paul Has Already Won!"
http://www.thedailybell.com/3417/Ron-Paul-Has-Already-Won

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

Edit: Ron Paul vows free bananas!!
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/31/satire-ron-paul-vows-free-bananas-in-2012/

 

[FoolKiller]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...ama-signs-act-to-allow-detention-of-citizens/

In his last official act of business in 2011, President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act from his vacation rental in Kailua, Hawaii. In a statement, the president said he did so with reservations about key provisions in the law — including a controversial component that would allow the military to indefinitely detain terror suspects, including American citizens arrested in the United States, without charge.

The legislation has drawn severe criticism from civil liberties groups, many Democrats, along with Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, who called it “a slip into tyranny.” Recently two retired four-star Marine generals called on the president to veto the bill in a New York Times op-ed, deeming it “misguided and unnecessary.”

“Due process would be a thing of the past,” wrote Gens Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar. “Current law empowers the military to detain people caught on the battlefield, but this provision would expand the battlefield to include the United States – and hand Osama bin Laden an unearned victory long after his well-earned demise.”

Newt Gingrich claims that Ron Paul is worse than Obama, yet, of the candidates, only Ron Paul has publicly opposed the greatest attack on the Bill of Rights and the liberty of US citizens since The Patriot Act. It sounds to me like Ron Paul is the only candidate better than Obama

And Obama now has his own Patriot Act. HOPE!!! CHANGE!!!

What a way to end 2011.

 

[Keef]

I don't even want to talk about this stuff anymore. I already know what's wrong with the country - everything - and all I can do is try to get people on my side, finish school and get a job, and make enough money to arm myself to the teeth so when the military starts walking around door to door confiscating weapons I can take care of business.

I try to stay optimistic that our society will change for the better and we will become great again, but as I sit here, I'm sad to say that I'm not looking forward to living a long life in my own country.

What a way to start 2012.