PDA

View Full Version : Obama on redistribution of wealth



Jerk
10/27/2008, 07:03 AM
Wow...this is amazing! If this doesn't bother you...then there's nothing left to say.

iivL4c_3pck

Okla-homey
10/27/2008, 07:42 AM
Folks can spin this any way they want. The simple fact is, at least on the day this was taped in 2001, BHO lamented the fact the Court did not go far enough by merely making equal rights the law of the land under Chief Justice Earl Warren. In this interview in 2001, BHO proposes a government that takes steps to impose economic equality. Call it "economic justice," call it "wealth redistribution," even call it <gasp>"socialism." It's the same thing. That's what he said, and that's the kind of guy who will be making national executive policy if he wins.

If that's what the American people want in their president, fair enough. If it isn't, they have a choice.

OKLA21FAN
10/27/2008, 07:44 AM
it doesn't bother me, so I guess there is nothing left to say



thread ovar!!!! :gary:

Jerk
10/27/2008, 08:25 AM
it doesn't bother me, so I guess there is nothing left to say



thread ovar!!!! :gary:

You haven't studied history much, have you? I can tell you that this has been done by other governments, and more often than not, it became a violent and oppressive affair, followed by a collapse in GDP. Zimbabwe would be an extreme example, I guess, but an example none the less. It's your country. Want to turn it into a 3rd world nation with different factions shooting at each other? Go for it.

yermom
10/27/2008, 08:26 AM
i think some of this is semantics

my thoughts on "redistribution of wealth" is slowing down the "rich get richer" trend

something like 90% of the money in this country is controlled by 10% of the population

do i think we should punish successful people? no

do i think it shouldn't be as easy for them to exploit the people who aren't? yes

OKLA21FAN
10/27/2008, 08:47 AM
You haven't studied history much, have you? I can tell you that this has been done by other governments, and more often than not, it became a violent and oppressive affair, followed by a collapse in GDP. Zimbabwe would be an extreme example, I guess, but an example none the less. It's your country. Want to turn it into a 3rd world nation with different factions shooting at each other? Go for it.


hopey hopey , change change


i'll go for it

PhiDeltBeers
10/27/2008, 09:01 AM
Anyone watch Hanitty's America last night?? Top 10 reasons why NOT to vote for BA-RACK.

85Sooner
10/27/2008, 09:17 AM
do i think it shouldn't be as easy for them to exploit the people who aren't? yes

One can't be exploited unless they allow it.

Okla-homey
10/27/2008, 09:20 AM
something like 90% of the money in this country is controlled by 10% of the population



Name an industrialized capitalist society anywhere on Earth in which this has not been the case, give or take a point or two.

The simple truth of the matter is, this is the way capitalism works. We only have all of recorded history as a guide, but attempts to redistribute and/or re-apportion those percentages generally leads to widespread bloodshed, suffering and unspeakable horrors and ultimately, failure to accomplish the goal.

batonrougesooner
10/27/2008, 09:58 AM
hell + handbasket = this country

Fraggle145
10/27/2008, 10:20 AM
One can't be exploited unless they allow it.

You mean sort of like the way the public buys its petroleum fuels? gotcha :rolleyes:

I didnt allow it, my ancestors did and now I'm paying for it.

Fraggle145
10/27/2008, 10:21 AM
i think some of this is semantics

my thoughts on "redistribution of wealth" is slowing down the "rich get richer" trend

something like 90% of the money in this country is controlled by 10% of the population

do i think we should punish successful people? no

do i think it shouldn't be as easy for them to exploit the people who aren't? yes

agreed.

Widescreen
10/27/2008, 10:30 AM
What I think is funny is how some rich people are publicly supporting Obama's tax policies (I assume so they won't look like big rich meanies) while I suspect at the same time, they're desperately looking for loopholes so they don't have to pay the increased taxes.

Yes, that's speculation but I'll be it's going on a lot right now.

OU4LIFE
10/27/2008, 10:30 AM
I know I said I wasn't going to do this...*sigh*

Methinks that if you guys were IN that 10% and trying to exploit, you'd feel a bit differently.

badger
10/27/2008, 10:33 AM
Um... is it just me, or is paying taxes in general considered redistribution of wealth?

If we were just paying the government for goods and services, wouldn't it make sense that we'd all pay the same price for the same thing? But then, the government charges more to people who make and have more money, thus... redistribution of wealth.

Fraggle145
10/27/2008, 10:48 AM
Um... is it just me, or is paying taxes in general considered redistribution of wealth?

If we were just paying the government for goods and services, wouldn't it make sense that we'd all pay the same price for the same thing? But then, the government charges more to people who make and have more money, thus... redistribution of wealth.

This also makes you ask who uses the goods and services provided by the government more?

Chuck Bao
10/27/2008, 10:50 AM
...widespread bloodshed, suffering and unspeakable horrors and ultimately, failure to accomplish the goal.

Good point, Badger.

Redistribution of wealth doesn't necessarily involve handouts. It could be in the form of actual policies proposed by both the McCain and Obama camps, such as:

Financial support for continuing education and training
Tax breaks for the middle class
Promotion and financing of home ownership
Minimum wage
Access to credit for small businesses

Okla-homey
10/27/2008, 10:53 AM
Good point, Badger.

Redistribution of wealth doesn't necessarily involve handouts. It could be in the form of actual policies proposed by both the McCain and Obama camps, such as:

Financial support for continuing education and training
Tax breaks for the middle class
Promotion and financing of home ownership
Minimum wage
Access to credit for small businesses

Smells like LBJ's "Great Society" initiatives that have been such a resounding success in eliminating poverty. Same song, 187th verse.

sooner_born_1960
10/27/2008, 10:53 AM
Promotion and financing of home ownership
Que?

Chuck Bao
10/27/2008, 11:21 AM
Smells like LBJ's "Great Society" initiatives that have been such a resounding success in eliminating poverty. Same song, 187th verse.

Ummm what? What are you saying? LBJ didn't eliminate poverty? So throw out the whole concept of fiscal support for the underprivileged?

sooner_born_1960
10/27/2008, 11:22 AM
So throw out the whole concept of fiscal support for the underprivileged?
Yes.

Chuck Bao
10/27/2008, 11:24 AM
Que?

What? Home ownership? Like that should be a bad word?

This crisis is good in a sense. Home prices should be brought down to affordable levels.

Condescending Sooner
10/27/2008, 11:30 AM
Heads in sand.

sooner_born_1960
10/27/2008, 11:30 AM
What? Home ownership? Like that should be a bad word?

This crisis is good in a sense. Home prices should be brought down to affordable levels.
If it results in more people "owning" than can afford the payments, yes.

soonerscuba
10/27/2008, 11:38 AM
Does anybody have the unedited version of this interview? There are some severe chops in that.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
10/27/2008, 11:38 AM
You mean sort of like the way the public buys its petroleum fuels? gotcha :rolleyes:

I didnt allow it, my ancestors did and now I'm paying for it.Amazing, and sad

JohnnyMack
10/27/2008, 11:40 AM
Does anybody have the unedited version of this interview? There are some severe chops in that.

The entire context seems a bit off I'll agree. I imagine Rush and Hannity are masturbating to it right now.

Fraggle145
10/27/2008, 11:43 AM
Amazing, and sad

Truth hurts.

badger
10/27/2008, 11:53 AM
Good point, Badger.

Redistribution of wealth doesn't necessarily involve handouts. It could be in the form of actual policies proposed by both the McCain and Obama camps, such as:

Financial support for continuing education and training
Tax breaks for the middle class
Promotion and financing of home ownership
Minimum wage
Access to credit for small businesses

Agreed - and like Fraggle said, who uses government's tax money more? I would argue that everybody gets a slice of the pie is some way shape or form, whether it be welfare, roads and bridges, tax write-offs for charitable donations, etc. Sure you say "But he got $25 million and I only got $25,000 on such and so right here!" Yeah, but we're in Oklahoma and he's in California, so maybe if you want your pork barrel, you should live next to the trough.

In any event, rich people pay more taxes, poor pay no taxes and middle class people pay the rest. Maybe rich people can afford to pay more, maybe everyone should pay only for what they directly benefit from, maybe we should just force everyone to work and issue everyone a government-approved paycheck at the end of the month for the exact same amount of money as the next person, but the system as it is now works.

Now if only the government would stop spending money we don't have...

Widescreen
10/27/2008, 12:00 PM
What about people getting a tax "rebate" who paid no taxes? You can't have a rebate if you paid nothing in to begin with. That is redistribution. And I don't think it's a good thing.

Okla-homey
10/27/2008, 12:02 PM
What about people getting a tax "rebate" who paid no taxes? You can't have a rebate if you paid nothing in to begin with. That is redistribution. And I don't think it's a good thing.

Exhibit A: The Earned Income Tax Credit. Pure, unadulterated government hand-out.

JohnnyMack
10/27/2008, 12:03 PM
Or when the government takes away the profits from oil companies and gives it back to its people. Pure, unadulterated government hand-out.

1890MilesToNorman
10/27/2008, 12:09 PM
Hey, I've got an idea. How about you earn your money and I will earn mine, keep your hand out of my pocket and I will keep mine out of yours. If I find your hand in my pocket your life expectancy will be greatly reduced (this goes for the government too).

Fraggle145
10/27/2008, 12:11 PM
Or when the government takes away the profits from oil companies and gives it back to its people. Pure, unadulterated government hand-out.

Who would ever do such a thing!? :eek:

badger
10/27/2008, 12:12 PM
Hey, I've got an idea. How about your earn your money and I will earn mine, keep your hand out of my pocket and I will keep mine out of yours. If I find your hand in my pocket your life expectancy will be greatly reduced (this goes for the government too).

Meh, we all have our hands in each other's pockets to some degree. I want to do my part for the country and all, whether that's paying social security that I know I'll never see again, or gas taxes that will probably be used for kiddo education and not roads.

My parents said if it helps, think of it as a "Gift to your grandparents" when my summer college job got the social security deduction every paycheck. As for the gas tax thingy, I guess I could think of it as a "Gift to all the students that will leave the state to find higher paying jobs in the next few years."

soonerhubs
10/27/2008, 12:13 PM
Hey, I've got an idea. How about you earn your money and I will earn mine, keep your hand out of my pocket and I will keep mine out of yours. If I find your hand in my pocket your life expectancy will be greatly reduced (this goes for the government too).

Sounds simple enough to me. The one thing that has made America great in the past (and hopefully the future) is my own ability to pick myself up when I fail, and try to succeed again.

Fraggle145
10/27/2008, 12:15 PM
Hey, I've got an idea. How about you earn your money and I will earn mine, keep your hand out of my pocket and I will keep mine out of yours. If I find your hand in my pocket your life expectancy will be greatly reduced (this goes for the government too).

How do you earn your money? does it rely on the infrastructure the government provides? If so, by how much?

As an extreme example: if i'm poor and walk to work or take a bus I rely less on infrastructure and have less of an impact on it than some multimillion dollar shipping company.

Widescreen
10/27/2008, 12:17 PM
My parents said if it helps, think of it as a "Gift to your grandparents" when my summer college job got the social security deduction every paycheck. As for the gas tax thingy, I guess I could think of it as a "Gift to all the students that will leave the state to find higher paying jobs in the next few years."
Well, that's a happy thought. But you know what would be better? Actually deciding for myself to give my grandparents a gift or donating to the schools rather than having some inefficient federal bureaucracy deciding how/if/when to give those "gifts".

1890MilesToNorman
10/27/2008, 12:24 PM
How do you earn your money? does it rely on the infrastructure the government provides? If so, by how much?

As an extreme example: if i'm poor and walk to work or take a bus I rely less on infrastructure and have less of an impact on it than some multimillion dollar shipping company.

I'm talking about what the gov should and should not be involved with. Infrastructure is not a federal responsibility, it is a state responsibility. The fed is responsible for the safety on the nation and little else, all other rights and powers are the responsibility of the individual states.

This stuff is all documented and not that hard to learn, it's not currently being taught in our federalized education system.

Ardmore_Sooner
10/27/2008, 12:27 PM
I'm talking about what the gov should and should not be involved with. Infrastructure is not a federal responsibility, it is a state responsibility. The fed is responsible for the safety on the nation and little else, all other rights and powers are the responsibility of the individual states.

This stuff is all documented and not that hard to learn, it's not currently being taught in our federalized education system.

Where did you get a crazy idea like that? Don't worry, all your bases will be their's soon.

Fraggle145
10/27/2008, 12:30 PM
I'm talking about what the gov should and should not be involved with. Infrastructure is not a federal responsibility, it is a state responsibility. The fed is responsible for the safety on the nation and little else, all other rights and powers are the responsibility of the individual states.

This stuff is all documented and not that hard to learn, it's not currently being taught in our federalized education system.

Right I am talking about what it is actually involved with.

Where does the state get its money for stuff like Highways? State taxes, tolls, and from the fed. I think Louisiana learned that lesson for everyone with the drinking age stuff.

1890MilesToNorman
10/27/2008, 12:31 PM
Where did you get a crazy idea like that? Don't worry, all your bases will be their's soon.

I can't remeber the name of the publication right now ;) but i'm damn sure it ain't the New York Times.

soonerscuba
10/27/2008, 12:33 PM
I'm talking about what the gov should and should not be involved with. Infrastructure is not a federal responsibility, it is a state responsibility. The fed is responsible for the safety on the nation and little else, all other rights and powers are the responsibility of the individual states.

This stuff is all documented and not that hard to learn, it's not currently being taught in our federalized education system.You do realize that interstate commerce pretty much demands federal involvement, and the schools are controlled by the states?

I won't even go into the necessary regulatory function of the Fed, which if left up to the states would be a unmitigated nightmare.

1890MilesToNorman
10/27/2008, 12:45 PM
Interstate commerce is a fed responsibility.

The interstate highway system was initially designed for national defense, something we learned from Nazi Germany during WWII.

We can argue the semantics all day long but we need to get back (way back) to the original configuration of our country.

soonerscuba
10/27/2008, 01:07 PM
Interstate commerce is a fed responsibility.

The interstate highway system was initially designed for national defense, something we learned from Nazi Germany during WWII.

We can argue the semantics all day long but we need to get back (way back) to the original configuration of our country.What, the barely stable, massive civil war inducing form of Republic that didn't become a world power until we scrapped their entire idea of government function? Thanks, but no thanks.

Also, the commerce clause existed well before the Nazis.

Stoop Dawg
10/27/2008, 01:12 PM
it doesn't bother me, so I guess there is nothing left to say

You're in the majority.


A majority of Americans — 51 percent in a poll by Gallup this past April — said they support "heavy taxes" on the rich to redistribute wealth. That is significantly higher than when the same question was asked in 1939, at the tail end of the Great Depression, when 35 percent agreed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081025/ap_on_bi_ge/sharing_the_wealth

badger
10/27/2008, 01:27 PM
Well, that's a happy thought. But you know what would be better? Actually deciding for myself to give my grandparents a gift or donating to the schools rather than having some inefficient federal bureaucracy deciding how/if/when to give those "gifts".

Well, this is United Way time, right? I'm afraid that you, too are probably discovering in your respective office that the gifts that people give of their own free will do not equal the necessity required to fund United Way programming, which people need and want.

I'm using the United Way as a generic (and real and timely) example, but there are many other cases out there.

Widescreen
10/27/2008, 01:32 PM
The United Way (and others non-profit orgs) is fine. And if I choose to give, that's great. The United Way is NOT the federal government. The United Way has oversight and has to provide numbers like the % of every dollar that actually goes where it's supposed to go. Good luck finding that kind of thing from the government.

soonerhubs
10/27/2008, 01:33 PM
Listening to Obama's Speech. Sounds a lot like Huey Long IMHO. It reminds me of a John Denver song, "Sunshine... up my ***... makes me crabby!"

JohnnyMack
10/27/2008, 01:46 PM
On October 12th, in conversation with a voter forever to be known as Joe the Plumber, Obama gave one of his fullest summaries of his tax plan. After explaining how Joe could benefit from it, whether or not he achieves his dream of owning his own plumbing business, Obama added casually, “I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” McCain and Palin have been quoting this remark ever since, offering it as prima-facie evidence of Obama’s unsuitability for office. Of course, all taxes are redistributive, in that they redistribute private resources for public purposes. But the federal income tax is (downwardly) redistributive as a matter of principle: however slightly, it softens the inequalities that are inevitable in a market economy, and it reflects the belief that the wealthy have a proportionately greater stake in the material aspects of the social order and, therefore, should give that order proportionately more material support. McCain himself probably shares this belief, and there was a time when he was willing to say so. During the 2000 campaign, on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” a young woman asked him why her father, a doctor, should be “penalized” by being “in a huge tax bracket.” McCain replied that “wealthy people can afford more” and that “the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don’t pay nearly as much as you think they do.” The exchange continued:

YOUNG WOMAN: Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism and stuff?. . .
MCCAIN: Here’s what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.

From a recent article in the New Yorker.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/11/03/081103taco_talk_hertzberg

soonerhubs
10/27/2008, 01:50 PM
From a recent article in the New Yorker.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/11/03/081103taco_talk_hertzberg
Sounds like an endorsement for the flat tax. Either way, I'd love to hear one of these candidates break down the nitty gritty.

BHO's speech is nothing but abstract double-tongued BS! I expect McCain's to be the same. So goes the life of politics.

SoonerInKCMO
10/27/2008, 01:51 PM
But the federal income tax is (downwardly) redistributive as a matter of principle: however slightly, it softens the inequalities that are inevitable in a market economy, and it reflects the belief that the wealthy have a proportionately greater stake in the material aspects of the social order and, therefore, should give that order proportionately more material support.

Amen.

Why don't the 'flat-taxers' get this? :confused:

Fraggle145
10/27/2008, 01:52 PM
From a recent article in the New Yorker.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/11/03/081103taco_talk_hertzberg

ZOMG!? THE NEW YORKER!? GODDAM LIBZ AND THE MSM IN BED TOGETHER!

THAT'S NOT TRUE!!![hairGel]

Vaevictis
10/27/2008, 01:53 PM
Amen.

Why don't the 'flat-taxers' get this? :confused:

Because it's a value judgment.

If you don't hold that value, you're not going to 'get' it.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
10/27/2008, 01:55 PM
You're in the majority.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081025/ap_on_bi_ge/sharing_the_wealthThen, it's time to FAIL. Makes you warm and fuzzy, eh?

badger
10/27/2008, 02:18 PM
The United Way (and others non-profit orgs) is fine. And if I choose to give, that's great. The United Way is NOT the federal government. The United Way has oversight and has to provide numbers like the % of every dollar that actually goes where it's supposed to go. Good luck finding that kind of thing from the government.

:mad: generic, as in just a random and NON-SPECIFIC to NON-PROFITS example. If people were not forced to pay taxes, they would not, much like people are not giving as much to the United Way as they used to, because people like to hold onto their money.

I've long wondered about the attitude of the wealthy not wanting to give more of their wealth away to solve all of the country's money problems or to help other people out, and I don't think it's greed necessarily, but rather, because people have an inherent belief that they are not responsible for others and that they can only go so far to help others. Bill Gates has billions of dollars, so why doesn't he buy the NBA team to prevent them from leaving Seattle? The Williams family has billions, so why don't they pay for Arkansas River development in Tulsa County? Simple - because it's not entirely their responsibility.

So, why do people pay less when they're not forced to? All a matter of responsibility. Why can't someone else do it?

1890MilesToNorman
10/27/2008, 02:23 PM
Badger, a lot of the non-giving comes from fraudulent activities by these groups. Charity begins at home (local community) where the folks running the charity can be scrutinized.

tommieharris91
10/27/2008, 02:24 PM
Or when the government takes away the profits from oil companies and gives it back to its people. Pure, unadulterated government hand-out.

Might as well nationalize the US oil industry if (when) that happens.

Widescreen
10/27/2008, 02:25 PM
:mad: generic, as in just a random and NON-SPECIFIC to NON-PROFITS example. If people were not forced to pay taxes, they would not, much like people are not giving as much to the United Way as they used to, because people like to hold onto their money.

I would argue that people would open their wallets more if they weren't already having so much confiscated from them.

Vaevictis
10/27/2008, 02:26 PM
Remember how I've been railing against Bush's theory of the unitary executive and his repeated power grabs? Remember how lots of 'conservatives' supported these grabs and ridiculed me for sounding the alarm?

Yeah, guys. It looks more and more like you're about to enjoy the flip-side. I hope you like it.

tommieharris91
10/27/2008, 02:28 PM
I'm talking about what the gov should and should not be involved with. Infrastructure is not a federal responsibility, it is a state responsibility. The fed is responsible for the safety on the nation and little else, all other rights and powers are the responsibility of the individual states.

This stuff is all documented and not that hard to learn, it's not currently being taught in our federalized education system.

Not quite true. Interstate highways and a few railroad systems are very necessary infrastructure spenditures necessary for a strong economy. Regulations that keep financial markets in check and make sure the flow of assets is smooth and targeted in that they get to the right people are also necessary interstate expenditures.

soonerhubs
10/27/2008, 02:37 PM
In the spirit of not starting another thread:
Here is my choice and why:
I choose McCain and Palin because...
1) as far as I can tell they propose less taxes.
2) as far as I can tell they propose a cut in government spending.
3) I feel more confident in my financial goals with McCain in the white house.
4) I feel like McCain's new financial team is some of the best minds in the world.
I have to say though, that he formed this team a little late in my opinion.
5) I don't trust Obama's comments regarding the redistribution of wealth, and I feel like he wants to give more to those who won't help themselves.
6) I listened to both speeches today, and I've done tons of homework over the past year, and I feel McCain's ideology fits mine the most.
7) I believe in earning what I work for, and I feel that too many folks who can, but won't, work are getting hand outs as it is. I believe that this should be curbed.
8) I honestly feel that more businesses will go overseas when taxes are raised.

Say what you will. I'm up for suggestions and critiques, but this is what I think and feel is best for our country. Boomer Sooner!

Fraggle145
10/27/2008, 02:40 PM
In the spirit of not starting another thread:
Here is my choice and why:
I choose McCain and Palin because...
1) as far as I can tell they propose less taxes.
2) as far as I can tell they propose a cut in government spending.
3) I feel more confident in my financial goals with McCain in the white house.
4) I feel like McCain's new financial team is some of the best minds in the world.
I have to say though, that he formed this team a little late in my opinion.
5) I don't trust Obama's comments regarding the redistribution of wealth, and I feel like he wants to give more to those who won't help themselves.
6) I listened to both speeches today, and I've done tons of homework over the past year, and I feel McCain's ideology fits mine the most.
7) I believe in earning what I work for, and I feel that too many folks who can, but won't, work are getting hand outs as it is. I believe that this should be curbed.
8) I honestly feel that more businesses will go overseas when taxes are raised.

Say what you will. I'm up for suggestions and critiques, but this is what I think and feel is best for our country. Boomer Sooner!

http://www.funnyforumpics.com/forums/Thread-Hijack/1/Hijack-Duke_Nukem_Mission.gif

:D

PalmBeachSooner1
10/27/2008, 02:42 PM
A lot of Obama voters wanting hand outs will be sadly disappointed. I plan on blaming every hurricane on Obama just like everyone has done with Bush.

Fraggle145
10/27/2008, 02:43 PM
A lot of Obama voters wanting hand outs will be sadly disappointed. I plan on blaming every hurricane on Obama just like everyone has done with Bush.

I hope they are.

Sorry global warming is already the republicans fault. ;)

1890MilesToNorman
10/27/2008, 02:45 PM
In the spirit of not starting another thread:
Here is my choice and why:
I choose McCain and Palin because...
1) as far as I can tell they propose less taxes.
2) as far as I can tell they propose a cut in government spending.
3) I feel more confident in my financial goals with McCain in the white house.
4) I feel like McCain's new financial team is some of the best minds in the world.
I have to say though, that he formed this team a little late in my opinion.
5) I don't trust Obama's comments regarding the redistribution of wealth, and I feel like he wants to give more to those who won't help themselves.
6) I listened to both speeches today, and I've done tons of homework over the past year, and I feel McCain's ideology fits mine the most.
7) I believe in earning what I work for, and I feel that too many folks who can, but won't, work are getting hand outs as it is. I believe that this should be curbed.
8) I honestly feel that more businesses will go overseas when taxes are raised.

Say what you will. I'm up for suggestions and critiques, but this is what I think and feel is best for our country. Boomer Sooner!

All this has been said before in campaigns, the problem is nothing changes no matter who is elected. Sad situation. It truly has become elections for the guy least liable to get into our lives, not for what is good for the country.

Okla-homey
10/27/2008, 02:45 PM
Remember how I've been railing against Bush's theory of the unitary executive and his repeated power grabs? Remember how lots of 'conservatives' supported these grabs and ridiculed me for sounding the alarm?

Yeah, guys. It looks more and more like you're about to enjoy the flip-side. I hope you like it.


yeah but, this involves money, and all those GOP appointed judges enjoying lifetime appointments will come in handy to put the injunctive smackdown on it if it gets too wacky.

Vaevictis
10/27/2008, 02:47 PM
yeah but, this involves money, and all those GOP appointed judges enjoying lifetime appointments will come in handy to put the injunctive smackdown on it if it gets too wacky.

Quoth Andrew Jackson: "they have made their decision, now let them enforce it."

This is, of course, the fundamental consequence of a unitary executive, which Bush has done much to advance. I think we'll get to see just how good of a job of it he's done.

yermom
10/27/2008, 02:52 PM
have any of you actually interacted much with people getting government handouts?

they aren't exactly driving Subarus in my experience.

i've eaten government cheese and peanut butter, it's not exactly some great lifestyle these people have.

there is still a whole lot of incentive to "help yourself"

tommieharris91
10/27/2008, 02:53 PM
In the spirit of not starting another thread:
Here is my choice and why:
I choose McCain and Palin because...
1) as far as I can tell they propose less taxes.
2) as far as I can tell they propose a cut in government spending.
3) I feel more confident in my financial goals with McCain in the white house.
4) I feel like McCain's new financial team is some of the best minds in the world.
I have to say though, that he formed this team a little late in my opinion.
5) I don't trust Obama's comments regarding the redistribution of wealth, and I feel like he wants to give more to those who won't help themselves.
6) I listened to both speeches today, and I've done tons of homework over the past year, and I feel McCain's ideology fits mine the most.
7) I believe in earning what I work for, and I feel that too many folks who can, but won't, work are getting hand outs as it is. I believe that this should be curbed.
8) I honestly feel that more businesses will go overseas when taxes are raised.

Say what you will. I'm up for suggestions and critiques, but this is what I think and feel is best for our country. Boomer Sooner!

1) I think you're right there.
2) I think you're right as well, but I'm leary over the Bushes and Reagan saying this and then running up government spending. This is a big reason why I can't vote for McCain.
3) Most normal thinkers (i.e. non-Marxist) would probably agree with you. by far the biggest thing that is stopping me from voting for Obama is that he wants to double the capital gains tax. This will make things tougher for anyone who wants to try to make their savings grow.
4) He changed his financial team? Who's on it now?
5) My other big problem with Obama.
6) I haven't listened to either speech, so no critique from me yet.
7) Agreed.
8) Here's where you go wrong. Obama wants tax cuts for businesses who hire American workers. However, W has been doing this all thoroughout his presidency, but the jobs keep leaving. Until the American worker is willing to get paid the slave wages that Asian workers are willing to earn, jobs will keep leaving. What's funny is that weak dollar that was running up our gas prices for awhile is one thing that was keeping jobs in the US.

Okla-homey
10/27/2008, 02:53 PM
Quoth Andrew Jackson: "they have made their decision, now let them enforce it."

This is, of course, the fundamental consequence of a unitary executive, which Bush has done much to advance. I think we'll get to see just how good of a job of it he's done.

to date, unlike Old Hick'ry, I don't recall the W administration blowing off any judicial rulings or court Orders. And you can bet the two lawyer team of BHO and Lunchbox Joe would do what the courts tell them they must.

soonerscuba
10/27/2008, 02:56 PM
to date, unlike Old Hick'ry, I don't recall the W administration blowing off any judicial rulings or court Orders. And you can bet the two lawyer team of BHO and Lunchbox Joe would do what the courts tell them they must.How are those tribunals at Gitmo going?

PalmBeachSooner1
10/27/2008, 02:59 PM
The People's Republic of America is coming unfortunately.

Okla-homey
10/27/2008, 03:00 PM
How are those tribunals at Gitmo going?

If you read the Opinions, and didn't rely on the Daily Kos, you would know they stated the detainees had to be afforded counsel and had rights under the Geneva Convention, but the tribunals could continue since they are provided for under the Convention. The adminsitration complied.

soonerscuba
10/27/2008, 03:01 PM
The People's Republic of America is coming unfortunately.Good thing you're here, we were running out of conservative chicken-littles. Help the cause and start a thread about Obama's birth certificate/socialism, nobody has done that yet.

Vaevictis
10/27/2008, 03:01 PM
to date, unlike Old Hick'ry, I don't recall the W administration blowing off any judicial rulings or court Orders.

The Bush administration has on more than one occasion instituted policy that they knew or should have known was a violation of the law (see NSA wiretaps, due process issues in Gitmo, etc). They get a court order, and under the pretense of obeying it, they do something else that they know or should know is a violation.

Then they pardon the folks involved, or go to a friendly Congress and get immunity.

It's the same thing, just a little less blatant. And if Bush had had the power base to do it the way Jackson did, I have no doubt he would have.

Bush wrote the playbook. Don't be surprised if Obama follows it, if elected.

Enjoy!

LosAngelesSooner
10/27/2008, 03:04 PM
have any of you actually interacted much with people getting government handouts?

they aren't exactly driving Subarus in my experience.

i've eaten government cheese and peanut butter, it's not exactly some great lifestyle these people have.

there is still a whole lot of incentive to "help yourself"No! No! Stop! They're watching plasmas and drinking Jack Daniels!

It's MUCH easier to generalize about how the poor are lazy and living in style off of our hard work.

Okla-homey
10/27/2008, 03:04 PM
The Bush administration has on more than one occasion instituted policy that they knew or should have known was a violation of the law (see NSA wiretaps, due process issues in Gitmo, etc). They get a court order, and under the pretense of obeying it, they do something else that they know or should know is a violation.

Then they pardon the folks involved, or go to a friendly Congress and get immunity.

It's the same thing, just a little less blatant. And if Bush had had the power base to do it the way Jackson did, I have no doubt he would have.

Bush wrote the playbook. Don't be surprised if Obama follows it, if elected.

Enjoy!

I say again, this involves MONEY, not merely the rights of shady foreigners. That will make a lot of difference.

SoonerProphet
10/27/2008, 03:07 PM
Congressional subpoenas of Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolton of the Justice Department imbroglio?

No money? I see.

Vaevictis
10/27/2008, 03:08 PM
I say again, this involves MONEY, not merely the rights of shady foreigners. That will make a lot of difference.

That's pretty much what folks thought when FDR was pushing the New Deal. How'd that work out?

PalmBeachSooner1
10/27/2008, 03:10 PM
Good thing you're here, we were running out of conservative chicken-littles. Help the cause and start a thread about Obama's birth certificate/socialism, nobody has done that yet.

Tell Reverend Wright I said hi this Sunday.

Condescending Sooner
10/27/2008, 03:12 PM
have any of you actually interacted much with people getting government handouts?

they aren't exactly driving Subarus in my experience.

i've eaten government cheese and peanut butter, it's not exactly some great lifestyle these people have.

there is still a whole lot of incentive to "help yourself"

You mean the lady in front of me at the grocery store yesterday? She used food stamps (state issued debit card) to pay for her groceries and then got in an Expedition to leave. Yeah, I feel really sorry for her.

Big Red Ron
10/27/2008, 03:13 PM
Get yer Swiss bank accounts here, get yer Swiss accounts..

Big Red Ron
10/27/2008, 03:14 PM
You mean the lady in front of me at the grocery store yesterday? She used food stamps (state issued debit card) to pay for her groceries and then got in an Expedition to leave. Yeah, I feel really sorry for her.Those people...:hot:

Vaevictis
10/27/2008, 03:15 PM
Get yer Swiss bank accounts here, get yer Swiss accounts..

Get yer green jumpsuits here, get yer green jumpsuits...

Privacy in offshore banks just ain't what it used to be.

soonerhubs
10/27/2008, 03:17 PM
have any of you actually interacted much with people getting government handouts?

they aren't exactly driving Subarus in my experience.

i've eaten government cheese and peanut butter, it's not exactly some great lifestyle these people have.

there is still a whole lot of incentive to "help yourself"

I never said their lifestyle was enviable. I just have seen where some folks find it comfortable. Comfortable enough to keep in it. Not all, but SOME folks. I've personally visited with families in the Inner City teaching them my religious beliefs in the Ghetto, and I've seen the poorest of the poor here in the U.S. I have sat in the most disgusting circumstances imaginable because I believe that I can help others' lives change.

I am friends with folks who are now homeless because they abused the welfare program rather than utilizing it to climb out of the hole. I think the fact that they are now homeless may be the wake up call that they need to climb out of the pit that is poverty. I'm not saying cut all public spending for the poor, but I am saying, don't increase it.

PalmBeachSooner1
10/27/2008, 03:19 PM
Compared to the rest of the world, there is no such thing as poor in America.

soonerscuba
10/27/2008, 03:19 PM
If you read the Opinions, and didn't rely on the Daily Kos, you would know they stated the detainees had to be afforded counsel and had rights under the Geneva Convention, but the tribunals could continue since they are provided for under the Convention. The adminsitration complied.Homey, you're a smart guy, and presumably smart enough to know I don't rely on the DailyKos for anything (basically, it's a red herring that I thought you would be above). Some of the detainees are provided the right to counsel during the pre-stages of CSRTs, however not allowed into proceedings which are secret anyway. In addition, it's blatant partisanship to argue that Bush hasn't circumvented the legal process for those in Gitmo. Even the Nazi's got a defense, who is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's attorney?

PalmBeachSooner1
10/27/2008, 03:22 PM
Poor terrorists.

The left hates Bush
Loves terrorists.

yermom
10/27/2008, 03:22 PM
You mean the lady in front of me at the grocery store yesterday? She used food stamps (state issued debit card) to pay for her groceries and then got in an Expedition to leave. Yeah, I feel really sorry for her.

she could have traded those for drugs or something :D

i'm sure there are weird exceptions, but really would you want to trade places with them?

PalmBeachSooner1
10/27/2008, 03:24 PM
I would. I've never received a handout.

Okla-homey
10/27/2008, 03:26 PM
That's pretty much what folks thought when FDR was pushing the New Deal. How'd that work out?


Well sir, it worked out for FDR because he threatened them with enlarging the Supreme Court to 15 and appointing all six of the new Justices. Those six, with the four he had already appointed, would have ensured a bullet proof majority to rubber stamp anything that got that far. This was proposed in response to the Supreme Court overturning several of his New Deal measures.

FDR's infamous Court packing Bill of 1937 would have allowed the President the power to appoint an extra Supreme Court Justice for every sitting Justice over the age of 70½.

That caused the anti-FDR faction of the Court to switch and begin to support his plethora of New Deal programs that had previously been DOA at SCOTUS.

Google "Switch in Time That Saved Nine"

Now, if you think BHO is up to that sort of thing, think again, because even if he wins, he does not enjoy the kind of popular support FDR did that emboldened him to make such a play.

Chuck Bao
10/27/2008, 03:27 PM
Get yer green jumpsuits here, get yer green jumpsuits...

Privacy in offshore banks just ain't what it used to be.

Yep, Americans are required by law to disclose all overseas bank / financial accounts if the combined total exceeds $10,000 at any point in the year.

Big Red Ron
10/27/2008, 03:29 PM
Get yer green jumpsuits here, get yer green jumpsuits...

Privacy in offshore banks just ain't what it used to be.I keep a nice sum in the islands, so I was only kind of joking. Screw wealth redistribution. Since when is a couple that earns $250k and has one kid about to start college and a new baby on the way rich?

Vaevictis
10/27/2008, 03:31 PM
Google "Switch in Time That Saved Nine"

I'm aware. It's sort of why I asked the question. The point is: A determined executive with the backing of Congress can cram this stuff through.


Now, if you think BHO is up to that sort of thing, think again, because even if he wins, he does not enjoy the kind of popular support FDR did that emboldened him to make such a play.

We'll see. It really just depends on just how determined Obama, Pelosi and crew are to force it through.

And I don't put much stock in popular support anymore. It's not like Bush had the popular support FDR did, and he's done some pretty edge-of-the-envelope stuff too.

Big Red Ron
10/27/2008, 03:32 PM
Yep, Americans are required by law to disclose all overseas bank / financial accounts if the combined total exceeds $10,000 at any point in the year.
...and that's a good thing? See, the loopholes there are just silly. A consumption tax is the only way to get rid of all of this BS.

Vaevictis
10/27/2008, 03:33 PM
Yep, Americans are required by law to disclose all overseas bank / financial accounts if the combined total exceeds $10,000 at any point in the year.

Nevermind that. I know some folks in offshore banking.

Let's just say that if you're a US citizen, the US federal government knows about your bank accounts, and the cash flows associated with them. If your banker is telling you otherwise, I'd expect you're getting told a fib.

Big Red Ron
10/27/2008, 03:33 PM
I would. I've never received a handout.
See, I respect that but there aren't many like you. There's millions of people with their hands out.:O :(

Big Red Ron
10/27/2008, 03:35 PM
Nevermind that. I know some folks in offshore banking.

Let's just say that if you're a US citizen, the US federal government knows about your bank accounts, and the cash flows associated with them. If your banker is telling you otherwise, I'd expect you're getting told a fib.Your friend is partially correct but my duel citizenship does come in handy. If you aren't fortunate enought to have been born in Italy then make accounts with 9k balances in your children's names.

soonerhubs
10/27/2008, 03:42 PM
Another reason for my vote. I forgot to post this, and it is a little generic, but I'm never comfortable with one party having all the power, and yes this included the Republicans a couple years ago.

LosAngelesSooner
10/27/2008, 03:43 PM
You mean the lady in front of me at the grocery store yesterday? She used food stamps (state issued debit card) to pay for her groceries and then got in an Expedition to leave. Yeah, I feel really sorry for her.That's complete B.S. and everyone on here knows it. Lord. Who tries to spread this crap. :rolleyes:

Vaevictis
10/27/2008, 03:46 PM
Your friend is partially correct but my duel citizenship does come in handy. If you aren't fortunate enought to have been born in Italy then make accounts with 9k balances in your children's names.

Despite that, I really wouldn't do anything that might get you jailed over it.

The CIA has feeds from several the European banking clearing houses -- including ones that handle transactions from the vaunted Swiss banks. Odds are, if they ever desired to jack you up, they could. With Obama at the helm, don't be surprised if it becomes a priority.

I can't speak to Italy specifically, but I wouldn't bet jail time on it.

Okla-homey
10/27/2008, 03:48 PM
Even the Nazi's got a defense, who is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's attorney?


Apples and oranges my friend. The Nuremberg Proceedings were not conducted under the Geneva Convention. They were conducted pursuant to indictments handed down by the several Allied governments for war crimes and administered by an international court convened for the purpose.

Now, as far as Nazi's go before the war ended, the eleven Nazi's buried at Ft. Leavenworth for crimes committed against their fellow prisonmers in US POW camps were tried and convicted by military tribunals and sentenced to hang, without the benefit of counsel. Military tribunals, or "drumhead courts martial" are well established and do not violate the Geneva Convention. A board of officers hear the evidence and make the call.

The administration's position was, and probably remains, these jihaadis aren't uniformed combatants and therefore don't even rate the protections afforded by the Geneva Conventions. I happen to agree with that assessment, and I went to law school too. The Court disagreed, plus, they get the benefit of counsel, which is more than must be afforded under the Geneva Convention for bona fide enemy troops.

PalmBeachSooner1
10/27/2008, 03:50 PM
I just find it dangerous. I like having checks and balances. I also like getting a bad reputation just for not toting the liberal lines. what a joke.

Ardmore_Sooner
10/27/2008, 03:50 PM
That's complete B.S. and everyone on here knows it. Lord. Who tries to spread this crap. :rolleyes:

Worked with a lady who was divorced and had 3 kids. She received checks every month for the kids. The problem was, the daddy still lived with her. So she was getting money every month for basically no reason.

One month she was shorted on the amount she normally got and went into a fit about it. I guess everyone is honest out in LA huh? :rolleyes:

LosAngelesSooner
10/27/2008, 03:54 PM
I just find it dangerous. I like having checks and balances. I also like getting a bad reputation just for not toting the liberal lines. what a joke.You got a bad reputation for posting stupid crap, Troll.

BTW, which REAL poster are you? I like how your spek went from deep red to green in one post. :rolleyes:

LosAngelesSooner
10/27/2008, 03:56 PM
Worked with a lady who was divorced and had 3 kids. She received checks every month for the kids. The problem was, the daddy still lived with her. So she was getting money every month for basically no reason.

One month she was shorted on the amount she normally got and went into a fit about it. I guess everyone is honest out in LA huh? :rolleyes:Did she miss a payment on her Lamborghini because of it?

I'd be pissed, too. :rolleyes:

yermom
10/27/2008, 03:56 PM
you get checks just for having kids?

Ardmore_Sooner
10/27/2008, 03:59 PM
you get checks just for having kids?

Social services/government/state benefits

Ardmore_Sooner
10/27/2008, 04:00 PM
Did she miss a payment on her Lamborghini because of it?

I'd be pissed, too. :rolleyes:

She drove a Hyundai you jerk! :P

soonerscuba
10/27/2008, 04:02 PM
Apples and oranges my friend. The Nuremberg Proceedings were not conducted under the Geneva Convention. They were conducted pursuant to indictments handed down by the several Allied governments for war crimes and administered by an international court convened for the purpose.

Now, as far as Nazi's go before the war ended, the eleven Nazi's buried at Ft. Leavenworth for crimes committed against their fellow prisonmers in US POW camps were tried and convicted by military tribunals and sentenced to hang, without the benefit of counsel. Military tribunals, or "drumhead courts martial" are well established and do not violate the Geneva Convention. A board of officers hear the evidence and make the call.

The administration's position was, and probably remains, these jihaadis aren't uniformed combatants and therefore don't even rate the protections afforded by the Geneva Conventions. I happen to agree with that assessment, and I went to law school too. The Court disagreed, plus, they get the benefit of counsel, which is more than must be afforded under the Geneva Convention for bona fide enemy troops.
I understand the argument against the detainees having defense as it relates to the Geneva Convention. You made the point that Bush hasn't circumvented the desire of the court system, to that I ask, who is KSM's attorney that he is entitled? The answer is that there is none. The legal status of those in Gitmo isn't what's being debated, it's whether or not the Bush administration has followed the will of the court system, to which I would say they have not.

PalmBeachSooner1
10/27/2008, 04:04 PM
You got a bad reputation for posting stupid crap, Troll.

BTW, which REAL poster are you? I like how your spek went from deep red to green in one post. :rolleyes:

Don't know, don't really care about this spek thing. You and I just have differing opinions on the role of government. Let's both be adults and lose the name calling though, deal?

Jerk
10/27/2008, 04:14 PM
I've been at work since I posted this, and I'm going through this thread and seeing what I've expected.

Here you have in your face evidence that Obama is, at best, AT BEST, a socialist. But if you look at all of the little things, and put everything together, the man could very well be a communist revolutionary who doesn't believe in our Constitution and believes that the ends justifies the means. There's nothing crazy about this assumption..it's right there for you to see and hear.

Here you have a simple choice: A man who is probably a Marxist, or a moderate republican who will inherent a democrat congress. If Obama wins, it will be the marriage of American liberalism and communism and the two will be inseperably tied. This Obama fellow ain't bubba Clinton (moderate liberal). He's an ideologue driven by a far left agenda that has the potential to start a civil war if he pushes it hard enough.

These ideas that Obama talks about are the kind of thing which could cause the seperation of America into two: "Jesusland" and "Western France."

Is he just going to redistribute wealth through income taxes? What about land and reality? Wealth? 401k's? Pensions?

I suppose this will be enforced by that domestic army he wants that is "just as well funded as the military."

Buy ammo and lots of it.

PalmBeachSooner1
10/27/2008, 04:17 PM
I've been at work since I posted this, and I'm going through this thread and seeing what I've expected.

Here you have in your face evidence that Obama is, at best, AT BEST, a socialist. But if you look at all of the little things, and put everything together, the man could very well be a communist revolutionary who doesn't believe in our Constitution and believes that the ends justifies the means. There's nothing crazy about this assumption..it's right there for you to see and hear.

Here you have a simple choice: A man who is probably a Marxist, or a moderate republican who will inherent a democrat congress. If Obama wins, it will be the marriage of American liberalism and communism and the two will be inseperably tied. This Obama fellow ain't bubba Clinton (moderate liberal). He's an ideologue driven by a far left agenda that has the potential to start a civil war if he pushes it hard enough.

These ideas that Obama talks about are the kind of thing which could cause the seperation of America into two: "Jesusland" and "Western France."

A great post from a fellow Edmond citizen. Well said!!

yermom
10/27/2008, 04:18 PM
we are pretty well on our way to Jesusland and Western France with the two party BS anyway

Widescreen
10/27/2008, 04:20 PM
If necessary, I'll move to the capital of Jesusland. If the choice is between that and western France, duh.

Jerk
10/27/2008, 04:22 PM
Oh, and for those of you who think I've gone of the deep end about his domestic security force:


"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

You cannot redistribute wealth on the scale he wants without a little muscle.

JohnnyMack
10/27/2008, 04:22 PM
I've been at work since I posted this, and I'm going through this thread and seeing what I've expected.

Here you have in your face evidence that Obama is, at best, AT BEST, a socialist. But if you look at all of the little things, and put everything together, the man could very well be a communist revolutionary who doesn't believe in our Constitution and believes that the ends justifies the means. There's nothing crazy about this assumption..it's right there for you to see and hear.

Here you have a simple choice: A man who is probably a Marxist, or a moderate republican who will inherent a democrat congress. If Obama wins, it will be the marriage of American liberalism and communism and the two will be inseperably tied. This Obama fellow ain't bubba Clinton (moderate liberal). He's an ideologue driven by a far left agenda that has the potential to start a civil war if he pushes it hard enough.

These ideas that Obama talks about are the kind of thing which could cause the seperation of America into two: "Jesusland" and "Western France."

Is he just going to redistribute wealth through income taxes? What about land and reality? Wealth? 401k's? Pensions?

I suppose this will be enforced by that domestic army he wants that is "just as well funded as the military."

Buy ammo and lots of it.

Some days you sound more bat**** crazy than other days. Today you sound really bat**** crazy.

Vaevictis
10/27/2008, 04:24 PM
Dear Conservative Posters,

In your haste to support Bush, you permitted him to concentrate power in the executive. Some of you even supported doing away with the filibuster. I tried to warn you that this was a bad idea. Now you see why.

Try to remember it the next time conservatives are in control.

Sincerely,

Vaevictis

Jerk
10/27/2008, 04:26 PM
Some days you sound more bat**** crazy than other days. Today you sound really bat**** crazy.

You have no idea what you're about to do. No clue. You're brainwashed by a smooth talker.

Jerk
10/27/2008, 04:28 PM
Some days you sound more bat**** crazy than other days. Today you sound really bat**** crazy.

I hope you can afford reparation payments. Maybe your 401k will suffice.

LosAngelesSooner
10/27/2008, 04:28 PM
Don't know, don't really care about this spek thing. You and I just have differing opinions on the role of government. Let's both be adults and lose the name calling though, deal?I'm not calling you names. I'm acknowledging the fact that you're a Troll.

Which you are.

JohnnyMack
10/27/2008, 04:28 PM
I hope you can afford reparation payments. Maybe your 401k will suffice.

They can have the ****ing thing! :D

LosAngelesSooner
10/27/2008, 04:31 PM
Some days you sound more bat**** crazy than other days. Today you sound really bat**** crazy.
Lord...Amen, Hallelujah.

PalmBeachSooner1
10/27/2008, 04:34 PM
You see the left never debates the topic at hand, they call you a troll instead or call you stupid.

Do you on the left not believe he wants redistribution or do you just not care?

Jerk
10/27/2008, 04:36 PM
Lord...Amen, Hallelujah.

I might be nuts but I've studied a lot of history.

JohnnyMack
10/27/2008, 04:38 PM
I might be nuts but I've studied a lot of history.

Watching Red Dawn doesn't count. :P

PalmBeachSooner1
10/27/2008, 04:39 PM
That was actually funny.

Vaevictis
10/27/2008, 04:39 PM
Do you on the left not believe he wants redistribution or do you just not care?

Um, if you're talking to 'the left', isn't it pretty much part of the definition that at least to some extent redistribution of wealth is desirable?

Jerk
10/27/2008, 04:41 PM
Watching Red Dawn doesn't count. :P

No, but evidently Nakita Kruschev was right.


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

IB4OU2
10/27/2008, 04:41 PM
Watching Red Dawn doesn't count. :P


Wolverines!

Jerk
10/27/2008, 04:42 PM
Um, if you're talking to 'the left', isn't it pretty much part of the definition that at least to some extent redistribution of wealth is desirable?

Income? Land? 401k's? Pensions? Homes? How far do you guys want to go?

PalmBeachSooner1
10/27/2008, 04:43 PM
Um, if you're talking to 'the left', isn't it pretty much part of the definition that at least to some extent redistribution of wealth is desirable?

So you DO favor socialism. So why are our assertions that Obama feels the same way being so heavily dismissed?

JohnnyMack
10/27/2008, 04:44 PM
Income? Land? 401k's? Pensions? Homes? How far do you guys want to go?

All your stuff are belong to us!!!!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LosAngelesSooner
10/27/2008, 04:45 PM
I might be nuts but I've studied a lot of history.What does that have to do with the price of Cashews in Rhodesia?

soonerhubs
10/27/2008, 04:45 PM
All your stuff are belong to us!!!!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Squeezing blood from a turnip. Enjoy! :D

Jerk
10/27/2008, 04:45 PM
All your stuff are belong to us!!!!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


You can have the ammo first :D

PalmBeachSooner1
10/27/2008, 04:46 PM
A party full of welfare beggars. LOL

Go earn it yourselves.

Jerk
10/27/2008, 04:52 PM
And one more thing, how can I not be paranoid after watching that video? Ok, so I'm crazy. Did Obama just say what I thought he said in the interview? Maybe I've lost my mind. Wait, I watched it again. My God, he thinks that wealth (property, wealth, land, etc) need to be redistributed to make everyone equal. Isn't what they do in places like North Korea? Okay, yeah, I think I have the right to be a tad bit concerned.

The enforcement of a serious redistributive plan will be violent.

PalmBeachSooner1
10/27/2008, 04:54 PM
And one more thing, how can I not be paranoid after watching that video? Ok, so I'm crazy. Did Obama just say what I thought he said in the interview? Maybe I've lost my mind. Wait, I watched it again. My God, he thinks that wealth (property, wealth, land, etc) need to be redistributed to make everyone equal. Isn't what they do in places like North Korea? Okay, yeah, I think I have the right to be a tad bit concerned.

The enforcement of a serious redistributive plan will be violent.

They don't care Jerk. He speaks well. They're brainwashed.

Jerk
10/27/2008, 05:00 PM
They don't care Jerk. He speaks well. They're brainwashed.

All they need to do is crack open a history book. The history of Ukraine after the reds took over would suffice.

Do they not teach this stuff in school anymore?

PalmBeachSooner1
10/27/2008, 05:01 PM
You and I are likely a little older. I don't think they teach the history of Marxism these days.

Vaevictis
10/27/2008, 05:02 PM
Income? Land? 401k's? Pensions? Homes? How far do you guys want to go?

Depends on the person. My point of view:

Karl Marx was right. If you allow too much concentration of wealth, you will have some kind of revolution and a massive redistribution of wealth, probably at gunpoint. The promise that you might also get wealthy if you work hard is powerful, but is by itself insufficient.

Ideally, I would want the redistribution to be the level sufficient to preserve stability.

I do not consider it a coincidence that after 8 years of Bush's policies which generally had the effect of concentrating wealth, we seem to be on the verge of installing a government that swings sharply in the other direction. To me, it is simply cause and effect. If Obama goes too far, it'll swing the other way in 4 or 8 years.

Hopefully, we don't swing so far that the whole thing breaks.

JohnnyMack
10/27/2008, 05:04 PM
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Obama_advisor_pushes_back_on_redistribution.html

Vaevictis
10/27/2008, 05:06 PM
Seriously guys, there's a reason why I warned about Bush's efforts to concentrate power and the Republican Senate's efforts to do away with the filibuster. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, I think you might finally understand. You want checks and balances folks.

PalmBeachSooner1
10/27/2008, 05:07 PM
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Obama_advisor_pushes_back_on_redistribution.html


Too bad our DB's cant backpeddle this fast.

Jerk
10/27/2008, 05:10 PM
Depends on the person. My point of view:

Karl Marx was right. If you allow too much concentration of wealth, you will have some kind of revolution and a massive redistribution of wealth, probably at gunpoint. The promise that you might also get wealthy if you work hard is powerful, but is by itself insufficient.
.

This is not a 3rd world country, Vaev. I would understand this if we were in some place like Mexico where you have a small minority of super rich and everyone else is dirt-floor starving poor. Anyone who is responsible (not a druggie) and able (not handicapped) can get a 60k/yr job. I'm not saying they can if they're a mom with 8 kids, but anyone who is willing to be away from home and work their *** off can.

I'm middle class, and I'm happy with it. And so are most people. The way to lift up the poor is not to destroy this.

soonerhubs
10/27/2008, 05:14 PM
I hear Obama propose raising tax rates for the rich, and I've seen that McCain will have higher tax rates for the Middle Class relative to Obama's plan.

Okay now I have a question: What if a candidate proposed EQUAL tax rates across the board? Is that a terrible idea? Wouldn't you win both parties? Doesn't it seem the most fair? I know Neil Boortz has suggested it, but I honestly wonder why this idea isn't more explored.

Jerk
10/27/2008, 05:15 PM
You and I are likely a little older. I don't think they teach the history of Marxism these days.

Evidently, we're just paranoid from watching Red Dawn. All leftist revolutions in the past have been followed by peace, love, and free dope for everyone.

Fraggle145
10/27/2008, 05:18 PM
Evidently, we're just paranoid from watching Red Dawn. All leftist revolutions in the past have been followed by peace, love, and free dope for everyone.

Free dope handouts? IN. ;)

Vaevictis
10/27/2008, 05:19 PM
This is not a 3rd world country, Vaev. I would understand this if we were in some place like Mexico where you have a small minority of super rich and everyone else is dirt-floor starving poor. Anyone who is responsible (not a druggie) and able (not handicapped) can get a 60k/yr job. I'm not saying they can if they're a mom with 8 kids, but anyone who is willing to be away from home and work their *** off can.

... and I would argue that part of the reason that we aren't like Mexico in that regard is because we have some reasonable wealth redistribution programs that work.


I'm middle class, and I'm happy with it. And so are most people. The way to lift up the poor is not to destroy this.

I don't disagree. But, this is why we have checks and balances, and aside from policy differences, why I was so critical of the Republican party's attempts from 2000-2006 to destroy or weaken them.

If you're right about Obama, he's going to have an easier time because of those efforts.

LosAngelesSooner
10/27/2008, 05:26 PM
Depends on the person. My point of view:

Karl Marx was right. If you allow too much concentration of wealth, you will have some kind of revolution and a massive redistribution of wealth, probably at gunpoint. The promise that you might also get wealthy if you work hard is powerful, but is by itself insufficient.

Ideally, I would want the redistribution to be the level sufficient to preserve stability.

I do not consider it a coincidence that after 8 years of Bush's policies which generally had the effect of concentrating wealth, we seem to be on the verge of installing a government that swings sharply in the other direction. To me, it is simply cause and effect. If Obama goes too far, it'll swing the other way in 4 or 8 years.

Hopefully, we don't swing so far that the whole thing breaks.I studied history, too.

The French had a little "redistribution of wealth" when the rich got too rich and there wasn't a middle class anymore. Funny thing...this "socialist" act lead to them becomming a Democracy.

And it wasn't exactly "bloodless."

yermom
10/27/2008, 05:27 PM
This is not a 3rd world country, Vaev. I would understand this if we were in some place like Mexico where you have a small minority of super rich and everyone else is dirt-floor starving poor. Anyone who is responsible (not a druggie) and able (not handicapped) can get a 60k/yr job. I'm not saying they can if they're a mom with 8 kids, but anyone who is willing to be away from home and work their *** off can.

I'm middle class, and I'm happy with it. And so are most people. The way to lift up the poor is not to destroy this.

i don't know a lot of people that make that kind of money

and it's not from lack of work ethic

that includes lots of people with at least one degree, maybe more

seriously, give me some examples. i've got some friends that need jobs ;)

Okla-homey
10/27/2008, 05:28 PM
I understand the argument against the detainees having defense as it relates to the Geneva Convention. You made the point that Bush hasn't circumvented the desire of the court system, to that I ask, who is KSM's attorney that he is entitled? The answer is that there is none. The legal status of those in Gitmo isn't what's being debated, it's whether or not the Bush administration has followed the will of the court system, to which I would say they have not.

Has KSM been tried yet? When he is, he'll have counsel. In the meantime, he has access to counsel. Not a classic "his lawyer" kinda deal like you would be entitled if you were indicted or charged with a crime that carried jail time and couldn't afford a lawyer. Heck, American GI's who get in trouble aren't entitled to counsel when they are required to stand tall before the man, even though in those meetings, commanders decide whether or not to bring formal charges and mete out non-judicial punishment which can involve incarceration.

You can't shoehorn the American criminal justice system and all your rights as a US citizen into this situation. It doesn't fit, as noted by the Court.

soonerhubs
10/27/2008, 05:31 PM
I hear Obama propose raising tax rates for the rich, and I've seen that McCain will have higher tax rates for the Middle Class relative to Obama's plan.

Okay now I have a question: What if a candidate proposed EQUAL tax rates across the board? Is that a terrible idea? Wouldn't you win both parties? Doesn't it seem the most fair? I know Neil Boortz has suggested it, but I honestly wonder why this idea isn't more explored.

:pop:

picasso
10/27/2008, 05:32 PM
is there really no middle class any more? I heard 11% is gone? is this true? I also heard the upper middle class gained the same amount?

I don't want Joe Millionaire's money. unless he's going to buy my product.

soonerscuba
10/27/2008, 05:33 PM
Okay now I have a question: What if a candidate proposed EQUAL tax rates across the board? Is that a terrible idea? Wouldn't you win both parties? Doesn't it seem the most fair? I know Neil Boortz has suggested it, but I honestly wonder why this idea isn't more explored.Because it would sign, seal and deliver the government to Democrats forever. The flat tax is actually regressive in that it assumes income tax is the only tax one pays. So basically, if you have person A who makes $50,000/y and person B who makes $100,000/y and they both go to the store to buy a gallon of milk which is $1.50 and has a sales tax of 7%. The tax on the milk represents a larger percentage of income for person A under a flat tax system, and progressive tax system makes an attempt to smooth things out a bit.

I might be on board with a consumption tax, but that would mean there would be some pretty drastic changes with state tax commissions that I don't think would be feasible as a solution.

Jerk
10/27/2008, 05:36 PM
seriously, give me some examples. i've got some friends that need jobs ;)

MWD - Oilfield - 100,000k plus. No college degree required.

CLD truck driver - 40k - first year. Experienced drivers can work local (home every day) and make more. I saw an ad in the paper two weeks ago for a heavy equipment hauler, 65k salary plus bonuses

If your friends can do sales, then they have a whole world of opportunity in front of them. I tried, and sucked, but some people are amazing at it.

Crane operators make a lot of money.

Contract wielders are (or at least, were to the last of my knowledge) making almost around $90/hr in the oilfield.

Anything offshore makes a ****load of cash.

That's just some I can think of.

tommieharris91
10/27/2008, 05:37 PM
Because it would sign, seal and deliver the government to Democrats forever.

So why don't they do this?

soonerscuba
10/27/2008, 05:43 PM
Has KSM been tried yet? When he is, he'll have counsel. In the meantime, he has access to counsel. Not a classic "his lawyer" kinda deal like you would be entitled if you were indicted or charged with a crime that carried jail time and couldn't afford a lawyer. Heck, American GI's who get in trouble aren't entitled to counsel when they are required to stand tall before the man, even though in those meetings, commanders decide whether or not to bring formal charges and mete out non-judicial punishment which can involve incarceration.

You can't shoehorn the American criminal justice system and all your rights as a US citizen into this situation. It doesn't fit, as noted by the Court.The trial started in March, KSM, along with 13 others were placed for CSRT without access to any sort of counsel as prescribed by the SCOTUS. Listen, I don't really care one way or another as to what happens to these people, I just don't like the notion that somehow Bush has been in compliance to US law in regards to what is going on down there. I know that's totally different than US Criminal system, but I personally don't see the issue with allowing some sort of counsel, my guess is that it would embarrass the administration.

Widescreen
10/27/2008, 05:43 PM
I'm totally against a flat tax. I work in the tax software industry and I'd lose my job. All hail the IRS! :D

soonerhubs
10/27/2008, 05:45 PM
I'm totally against a flat tax. I work in the tax software industry and I'd lose my job. All hail the IRS! :D

Don't neg me bro! ;)

PalmBeachSooner1
10/27/2008, 05:48 PM
http://www.wftv.com/video/17790025/index.html

Someone in the media actually addresses this..

Okla-homey
10/27/2008, 05:49 PM
Depends on the person. My point of view:

Karl Marx was right. If you allow too much concentration of wealth, you will have some kind of revolution and a massive redistribution of wealth, probably at gunpoint. The promise that you might also get wealthy if you work hard is powerful, but is by itself insufficient.

Ideally, I would want the redistribution to be the level sufficient to preserve stability.

I do not consider it a coincidence that after 8 years of Bush's policies which generally had the effect of concentrating wealth, we seem to be on the verge of installing a government that swings sharply in the other direction. To me, it is simply cause and effect. If Obama goes too far, it'll swing the other way in 4 or 8 years.

Hopefully, we don't swing so far that the whole thing breaks.

There was a guy named Frederick Jackson Turner who developed this thing he called the Frontier Thesis. I learned about it way back in undergrad when I took a nineteenth century US history class.

Prof. Turner posited that we have not heretofore been wracked by revolutions because the disaffected and disenfranchised could always pack up and move West where land was plentiful and a guy could start fresh irrespective of his background.

Nowadays, that won't work. See, the urban poor would have no clue how to support themselves even if free land in the wilderness were available. Thus, maybe we're due some kind of cataclysmic upheaval before too much longer.

If it happens, I reckon Oklahoma is a pretty good spot to ride it out, since we don't have big populations of the downtrodden like populate the Blue States. After all, that's pretty much why those states are blue in the first place, notwithstanding the claims of their elites they are more enlightened than us here in Jesusland/Flyover Country.

Jerk
10/27/2008, 05:56 PM
I studied history, too.

The French had a little "redistribution of wealth" when the rich got too rich and there wasn't a middle class anymore. Funny thing...this "socialist" act lead to them becomming a Democracy.

And it wasn't exactly "bloodless."

Again, we're not Mexico. We're not 18th century France. We're not some 3rd world s**t-hole with a wealthy despot and a bunch of starving subjects. I don't know how you can take this example and apply it to modern America.

Even our poor are rich compared to other nations. How many telephones, TVs, DVD players, etc, do you think are in most 'poor' people's homes? You can't compare this to the absolute destitute in Bangladesh.

LosAngelesSooner
10/27/2008, 05:59 PM
You're right on 2 points:

1) They didn't have TVs and DVD players in 18th century France.

2) It's not a perfect comparison. Mainly because OUR populace is MUCH more well armed and capable of destruction than either 18th century France or Mexico.

Jerk
10/27/2008, 06:06 PM
You're right on 2 points:

1) They didn't have TVs and DVD players in 18th century France.

2) It's not a perfect comparison. Mainly because OUR populace is MUCH more well armed and capable of destruction than either 18th century France or Mexico.

My point is that we already have a system that works fine: A representative government with a constitution that limits government power over the individual. We don't need to **** it up with a bunch of Marxists ideas.

soonerscuba
10/27/2008, 06:46 PM
2) It's not a perfect comparison. Mainly because OUR populace is MUCH more well armed and capable of destruction than either 18th century FranceSorry man, but I totally and completely disagree with this, there's a reason it was called the Reign of Terror. The various factions executed ~30,000 people, keep in mind this is executed by the state, I don't think Americans have the stomach for such a thing.

Stoop Dawg
10/27/2008, 07:34 PM
My point is that we already have a system that works fine: A representative government with a constitution that limits government power over the individual. We don't need to **** it up with a bunch of Marxists ideas.

Jerk is usually, well, a Jerk (no offense, you picked the name), but I'm having a hard time NOT agreeing with him here. The French Revolution was about more than just economics. The problems were also political and social. If you weren't nobility, you had almost NO chance of being anything other than poor - and no say in the government.

On the contrary, the "poor" in the U.S. have ample opportunity to turn things around. Is it hard? Yeah. But the deck is actually stacked in your favor - mostly due to *existing* govt programs (education, welfare, social security, etc.).

Now, I guess it's important to make a distinction between so-called "generational poverty" and "situational poverty". Govt programs the provide money for a short time in order to help people get by are useful for people who find themselves in "situational poverty" - the loss of a job, death of primary wage earner, or some combination of extra-ordinary circumstances have put them in a bad financial situation. These people have the knowledge and "know how" to work their way out. Probably the vast majority of the people who post here would be in that category. If you somehow found yourself in poverty it wouldn't take too long for you to get back out. You know the "rules", have a support system (family, friends, church), and have role models around you. There is a stigma to being poor in your world. It's something to be avoided.

Generational poverty, on the other hand, is being born into poverty. It's all you know. And, all of your friends & family are poor too. It's not even necessarily a "bad" thing. That's not to say that you enjoy being poor, but there is no stigma surrounding it because everyone else is poor too. Not only is there no stigma to taking food stamps, as someone else mentioned it's actually acceptable (expected?) to be upset if you DON'T get it (or get all of it).

For these people, simply giving them more money isn't going to solve anything. It's not just lack of money that keeps people in poverty. They lack support systems (family, role models), information (how do you even go about applying for college), and critical thinking skills (how do my actions impact my future circumstances). Simply giving them more money won't solve these problems.

The thing that's hard for most "wealthy" and "middle class" people to understand is that the social rules for those living in poverty are radically different. It is said that the poor live in the present, the middle class lives for the future, and the wealthy live for the past (tradition, legacy). For the poor, money is to be spent. For the middle class, money is to be managed. For the wealthy, money is to be saved & invested.

And no, I didn't just make this stuff up. Most of it is taken from "A Framework for Understanding Poverty" by Ruby K. Payne, Ph.D.

Jerk
10/27/2008, 07:40 PM
Jerk is usually, well, a Jerk (no offense, you picked the name), but I'm having a hard time NOT agreeing with him here. The French Revolution was about more than just economics. The problems were also political and social. If you weren't nobility, you had almost NO chance of being anything other than poor - and no say in the government.

On the contrary, the "poor" in the U.S. have ample opportunity to turn things around. Is it hard? Yeah. But the deck is actually stacked in your favor - mostly due to *existing* govt programs (education, welfare, social security, etc.).

Now, I guess it's important to make a distinction between so-called "generational poverty" and "situational poverty". Govt programs the provide money for a short time in order to help people get by are useful for people who find themselves in "situational poverty" - the loss of a job, death of primary wage earner, or some combination of extra-ordinary circumstances have put them in a bad financial situation. These people have the knowledge and "know how" to work their way out. Probably the vast majority of the people who post here would be in that category. If you somehow found yourself in poverty it wouldn't take too long for you to get back out. You know the "rules", have a support system (family, friends, church), and have role models around you. There is a stigma to being poor in your world. It's something to be avoided.

Generational poverty, on the other hand, is being born into poverty. It's all you know. And, all of your friends & family are poor too. It's not even necessarily a "bad" thing. That's not to say that you enjoy being poor, but there is no stigma surrounding it because everyone else is poor too. Not only is there no stigma to taking food stamps, as someone else mentioned it's actually acceptable (expected?) to be upset if you DON'T get it (or get all of it).

For these people, simply giving them more money isn't going to solve anything. It's not just lack of money that keeps people in poverty. They lack support systems (family, role models), information (how do you even go about applying for college), and critical thinking skills (how do my actions impact my future circumstances). Simply giving them more money won't solve these problems.

The thing that's hard for most "wealthy" and "middle class" people to understand is that the social rules for those living in poverty are radically different. It is said that the poor live in the present, the middle class lives for the future, and the wealthy live for the past (tradition, legacy). For the poor, money is to be spent. For the middle class, money is to be managed. For the wealthy, money is to be saved & invested.

And no, I didn't just make this stuff up. Most of it is taken from "A Framework for Understanding Poverty" by Ruby K. Payne, Ph.D.

Ok, who stole his password and logged on to his account?

PalmBeachSooner1
10/27/2008, 08:04 PM
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y215/FAUALUM29/obamabubble.jpg

jkjsooner
10/27/2008, 10:17 PM
When McCain suggested putting a "floor under housing prices" what he proposed essentially amounts to one of the largest government led redistributions of wealth in our history. Ironically, this is a redistribution to homeowners many (anyone who has owned over five years) of whom already have hundreds of thousands of dollars of equity at the expense of the younger generation who are essentially priced out of housing.

Now, logic will lead anyone to conclude that no amount of government intervention can keep a housing pricing structure that is fundamentally flawed but McCain seems to want to try....

I suspect (hope) that McCain doesn't really want that much government intervention but if that's true then that makes me question his integrity.

JLEW1818
10/27/2008, 10:56 PM
Obama wants to take care of American people

LET AMERICANS TAKE CARE OF THEIR DAMN SELF! IF YOU CANT SUPPORT A DAMN KID THEN DONT HAVE ONE DAMMIT

LosAngelesSooner
10/28/2008, 12:35 PM
Obama wants to take care of American people

LET AMERICANS TAKE CARE OF THEIR DAMN SELF! IF YOU CANT SUPPORT A DAMN KID THEN DONT HAVE ONE DAMMIT
:les:YEAH, EVERYONE! STOP MAKIN' BABIES!1!!1!

LosAngelesSooner
10/28/2008, 12:38 PM
Sorry man, but I totally and completely disagree with this, there's a reason it was called the Reign of Terror. The various factions executed ~30,000 people, keep in mind this is executed by the state, I don't think Americans have the stomach for such a thing.Okay, somehow what I've said is starting to get twisted around.

I don't think for a second that the U.S. population is going to "rise up in revolt."

My only point with the above quotation is that "if we wanted to" the American population is better armed and more capable (read: of making big bombs and viruses) of killing massive amounts of people if we chose to. That's all.

Again, I don't THINK it's gonna happen, or anything. But my point in bringing up the French Revolution was that it was a "socialist redistribution of wealth via violence" that lead to the birth of Democracy in Europe.

Tulsa_Fireman
10/28/2008, 12:41 PM
Again, I don't THINK it's gonna happen, or anything. But my point in bringing up the French Revolution was that it was a "socialist redistribution of wealth via violence" that lead to the birth of Democracy in Europe.

Wasn't the birth of democracy in Europe in Athenian Greece?

LosAngelesSooner
10/28/2008, 01:30 PM
Wasn't the birth of democracy in Europe in Athenian Greece?Not in modern times. France is credited with being the birthplace of Democracy in Europe.

Frozen Sooner
10/28/2008, 02:36 PM
Obama wants to take care of American people

LET AMERICANS TAKE CARE OF THEIR DAMN SELF! IF YOU CANT SUPPORT A DAMN KID THEN DONT HAVE ONE DAMMIT

So I assume you support a woman's right to choose?

stoopified
10/28/2008, 04:25 PM
:mad: generic, as in just a random and NON-SPECIFIC to NON-PROFITS example. If people were not forced to pay taxes, they would not, much like people are not giving as much to the United Way as they used to, because people like to hold onto their money.

I've long wondered about the attitude of the wealthy not wanting to give more of their wealth away to solve all of the country's money problems or to help other people out, and I don't think it's greed necessarily, but rather, because people have an inherent belief that they are not responsible for others and that they can only go so far to help others. Bill Gates has billions of dollars, so why doesn't he buy the NBA team to prevent them from leaving Seattle? The Williams family has billions, so why don't they pay for Arkansas River development in Tulsa County? Simple - because it's not entirely their responsibility.

So, why do people pay less when they're not forced to? All a matter of responsibility. Why can't someone else do it?So simple,yet so many people don't understand or refuse to accept it.

Tulsa_Fireman
10/28/2008, 04:33 PM
So I assume you support a woman's right to choose?

Hmmmm. Should I A) have a baby and give it up for adoption, or B) have it sucked out of my uterus with a shop vac as it's chopped up into little pieces.

Dilemma, dilemma!

Fraggle145
10/28/2008, 04:36 PM
Hmmmm. Should I A) have a baby and give it up for adoption, or B) have it sucked out of my uterus with a shop vac as it's chopped up into little pieces.

Dilemma, dilemma!

Why do you hate shop vacs?

Okla-homey
10/28/2008, 04:38 PM
Not in modern times. France is credited with being the birthplace of Democracy in Europe.

which is poppycock.

Iceland had a representative democracy by 930AD. And Icelandic chicks are hawter too.

Tulsa_Fireman
10/28/2008, 04:42 PM
Insert typical Bjork comment here.

http://news.softpedia.com/images/news2/Bjork-s-Swan-Dress-Will-Be-Auctioned-For-Charity-2.jpg

SoonerInKCMO
10/28/2008, 04:43 PM
Hmmmm. Should I A) have a baby and give it up for adoption, or B) have it sucked out of my uterus with a shop vac as it's chopped up into little pieces.

Dilemma, dilemma!

A number of studies I read back in the '90s for a psychology class meta-study indicated that option B was better for the woman's long-term mental health. Not saying that abortion is a desirable outcome - just pointing out that adoption ain't that great for the mother either.



* Yes, I do realize that nearly all of the adoptions from the period I was looking at were closed, and that many these days are open, and that this would possibly lead to different results in a study done today.

Frozen Sooner
10/28/2008, 04:44 PM
Hmmmm. Should I A) have a baby and give it up for adoption, or B) have it sucked out of my uterus with a shop vac as it's chopped up into little pieces.

Dilemma, dilemma!

You have a uterus?

Who's gonna support all those babies given up for adoption? Oh, right. Tax dollars.

Condescending Sooner
10/28/2008, 04:49 PM
You have a uterus?

Who's gonna support all those babies given up for adoption? Oh, right. Tax dollars.


Umm.... destitute people usually aren't big into adopting babies.

Frozen Sooner
10/28/2008, 04:50 PM
Umm.... destitute people usually aren't big into adopting babies.

People in general aren't really all that big on adopting babies.

Soonrboy
10/28/2008, 04:52 PM
Umm.... destitute people usually aren't big into adopting babies.

and every child that is given up for adoption is adopted immediately.

SoonerProphet
10/28/2008, 04:52 PM
Umm.... destitute people usually aren't big into adopting babies.


Ummm...how about the ones who do not find adoptive parents and live off state dollars?

Condescending Sooner
10/28/2008, 04:58 PM
The ones who are given up as infants are almost always adopted quckly.

The orphans lingering about are usually the ones given up or taken away later on.

Vaevictis
10/28/2008, 04:58 PM
Umm.... destitute people usually aren't big into adopting babies.

No, but a lot sure don't mind the check that comes with fostering them.

LosAngelesSooner
10/28/2008, 04:59 PM
And Icelandic chicks are hawter too.This...I cannot argue with. :D

Condescending Sooner
10/28/2008, 04:59 PM
People in general aren't really all that big on adopting babies.



Yes people LOVE adopting babies, older kids, not so much.

yermom
10/28/2008, 05:04 PM
well, white ones...

jkjsooner
10/28/2008, 06:28 PM
and every child that is given up for adoption is adopted immediately.

In the age of abortion that is true. Prior to legal abortions this was not true at all.

And this is only true if by child you mean infant. Not the case for older children...

85Sooner
10/28/2008, 06:50 PM
[QUOTE=SoonerInKCMO;2464237]A number of studies I read back in the '90s for a psychology class meta-study indicated that option B was better for the woman's long-term mental health. Not saying that abortion is a desirable outcome - just pointing out that adoption ain't that great for the mother either.



and since then studies have indicated that they were flat out wrong about that in regards to womens long term mental health.

85Sooner
10/28/2008, 06:52 PM
You're right on 2 points:

2) It's not a perfect comparison. Mainly because OUR populace is MUCH more well armed and capable of destruction than either 18th century France or Mexico.

Thank God.

85Sooner
10/28/2008, 06:57 PM
I hear Obama propose raising tax rates for the rich, and I've seen that McCain will have higher tax rates for the Middle Class relative to Obama's plan.

Okay now I have a question: What if a candidate proposed EQUAL tax rates across the board? Is that a terrible idea? Wouldn't you win both parties? Doesn't it seem the most fair? I know Neil Boortz has suggested it, but I honestly wonder why this idea isn't more explored.

Boortz supports the "fair tax" HB25 which is not based on "Income". Income can be defined in too many ways with regard to the tax code today.

The Fair tax basically eliminates all taxes on business and ends withholding while charging a 23 cent sales tax for all "new" purchases.

Thus a 100.00 item that already has an embedded tax of 21% would now cost 79.00 and then add the sales tax 23.00 for the new total of 102.00.

However, you will get all of your check. Everyone pays the tax based on what they spend. High earners, low earners, illegals etc....
Additionally, low income earners would recieve rebates on the tax.

soonerhubs
10/28/2008, 06:58 PM
Boortz supports the "fair tax" HB25 which is not based on "Income". Income can be defined in too many ways with regard to the tax code today.

The Fair tax basically eliminates all taxes on business and ends withholding while charging a 23 cent sales tax for all "new" purchases.

Thus a 100.00 item that already has an embedded tax of 21% would now cost 79.00 and then add the sales tax 23.00 for the new total of 102.00.

However, you will get all of your check. Everyone pays the tax based on what they spend. High earners, low earners, illegals etc....
Additionally, low income earners would recieve rebates on the tax.

Thanks. I couldn't remember which one he supported.

swardboy
10/28/2008, 07:35 PM
Lord Obama preaches "trickle up."

Gravity be damned!

jkjsooner
10/28/2008, 07:46 PM
Boortz supports the "fair tax" HB25 which is not based on "Income". Income can be defined in too many ways with regard to the tax code today.

The Fair tax basically eliminates all taxes on business and ends withholding while charging a 23 cent sales tax for all "new" purchases.

Thus a 100.00 item that already has an embedded tax of 21% would now cost 79.00 and then add the sales tax 23.00 for the new total of 102.00.

However, you will get all of your check. Everyone pays the tax based on what they spend. High earners, low earners, illegals etc....
Additionally, low income earners would recieve rebates on the tax.

Sales tax has so many problems. Millionaires spend a much lower percent of their net worth / income than do poor people. This would create a highly regressive tax. Poor people are forced to spend their entire income just to survive so their effective tax rate would be much higher than the rich.

At the mininum you would have to exclude some necessities.

This brings me to the other really big problem. A sales tax as the primary tax would discourage the flow of money and be a large drag on the economy as those who could, start hoarding money. I know I am just cheap enough that I would spend as little as possible and, consequently, pay as little as possible. Any economist would say that that is good for me but horrible for the economy.

Okla-homey
10/28/2008, 07:55 PM
You have a uterus?

Who's gonna support all those babies given up for adoption? Oh, right. Tax dollars.

No Delbert. Loving couples who are financially able to support a child who are a) unable to have their own, or b) loving parents who have biological children who want to add to their family and help society at the same time.

Do you have any idea how difficult it is to adopt a child in this country?

jkjsooner
10/28/2008, 07:59 PM
Do you have any idea how difficult it is to adopt a child in this country?

Do you realize that if history is any indication we would have the exact opposite problem (unwanted children) without abortion.

My gut tells me that legalizing abortion is wrong. My gut also tells me that a fertilized egg that is less complex than the average bacteria is not yet a life. But, anyway, I just want all the facts out there.

With abortion it is very hard to adopt.
Without abortion we did have unwanted children.

Frozen Sooner
10/28/2008, 08:05 PM
No Delbert. Loving couples who are financially able to support a child who are a) unable to have their own, or b) loving parents who have biological children who want to add to their family and help society at the same time.

Do you have any idea how difficult it is to adopt a child in this country?

Are you honestly claiming that 100% (or 90% or 80%) of all children given up for adoption if there were no abortion would be adopted?

Really?

'Cause if you are, you're high.

Okla-homey
10/28/2008, 08:05 PM
Here are my final thoughts on the presumptive president. Today, I borrowed a copy of Dreams of My Father and spent a couple hours in it.

It's a sort of memoir and blueprint for the society BHO envisions. I was struck by the notion that in it, BHO lays out his beliefs and intents, just as Hitler did in Mein Kampf. Now, I AM NOT comparing BHO to Hitler. I am, however, asserting that we can tell a great deal about BHO's worldview from his book's pages just as the German people could have seen how Hitler's brain was wired had they taken the time to read Mein Kampf.

Unfortunately, we as a people haven't taken the time to get into it Dreams of My Father. In its pages, there are two recurring themes: 1) race and 2) economic justice/wealth redistribution (a/k/a socialism). Instead, we are swept along by his rock star image fed by an adoring press.

So, in the end, we have been warned. By the man himself.

Okla-homey
10/28/2008, 08:07 PM
Are you honestly claiming that 100% (or 90% or 80%) of all children given up for adoption if there were no abortion would be adopted?

Really?

'Cause if you are, you're high.

I think it's entirely possible.

Frozen Sooner
10/28/2008, 08:08 PM
Mssr. Dickens might have a thing or two to say about that.

Hint:

There's children today in the United States that don't get adopted. Yes, even infants.

Okla-homey
10/28/2008, 08:10 PM
Do you realize that if history is any indication we would have the exact opposite problem (unwanted children) without abortion.

My gut tells me that legalizing abortion is wrong. My gut also tells me that a fertilized egg that is less complex than the average bacteria is not yet a life. But, anyway, I just want all the facts out there.

With abortion it is very hard to adopt.
Without abortion we did have unwanted children.


History is not particularly relevant to this debate since historically, reliable and cheap means of birth control were not widely available. They are now.

Okla-homey
10/28/2008, 08:12 PM
Mssr. Dickens might have a thing or two to say about that.

Hint:

There's children today in the United States that don't get adopted. Yes, even infants.

In Dickens world, there were no condoms, IUD's, Depo shots, vasectomies, tube-tying or birth control pills.

Frozen Sooner
10/28/2008, 08:14 PM
And in today's world there are infants who go unadopted.

In today's world the same people who want to outlaw abortion also want to outlaw contraception. Maybe not you, but how many pharmacies refuse to sell legally prescribed birth-control pills?

Okla-homey
10/28/2008, 08:16 PM
And in today's world there are infants who go unadopted.

In today's world the same people who want to outlaw abortion also want to outlaw contraception. Maybe not you, but how many pharmacies refuse to sell legally prescribed birth-control pills?

I'm not aware of any pharmacists who have problems selling birth control pills. There are pharmacists who have ethical/moral problems with selling abortifacents. I have a colleague who wrote a paper on the matter. According to her, the "morning after pill"/RU486 is controversial but shouldn't be. Any woman who thinks she's preggers following an indiscretion need only take a about a half dozen of her prescribed birth control pills and accomplish precisely the same end. The problem is, women want RU486 on demand. Frankly, I don't have a problem with it. I do have a problem with abortion after the first trimester. At that point, its a child.

If not, how do square the fact that under Oklahoma law, you murder a pregant woman and you can be charged with two homicides. Ditto manslaughter and criminal negligence that results in the death of a fetus.

jkjsooner
10/28/2008, 08:16 PM
History is not particularly relevant to this debate since historically, reliable and cheap means of birth control were not widely available. They are now.

Point taken.

soonerhubs
10/28/2008, 08:16 PM
Not taking sides on the Adoption Issue, but here's a link to the Census Bureau's Excel File regarding children in Foster Care. (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/08s0561.xls)

Frozen Sooner
10/28/2008, 08:26 PM
I'm not aware of any pharmacists who have problems selling birth control pills. There are pharmacists who have ethical/moral problems with selling abortifacents. I have a colleague who wrote a paper on the matter. According to her, the "morning after pill"/RU486 is controversial but shouldn't be. Any woman who thinks she's preggers following an indiscretion need only take a about a half dozen of her prescribed birth control pills and accomplish precisely the same end. The problem is, women want RU486 on demand. Frankly, I don't have a problem with it. I do have a problem with abortion after the first trimester. At that point, its a child.

If not, how do square the fact that under Oklahoma law, you murder a pregant woman and you can be charged with two homicides. Ditto manslaughter and criminal negligence that results in the death of a fetus.

You may not be aware of it, but it's out there.

I think we may have common ground on the first trimester dealio with (for me) the exception being the health of the mother or catastrophic deformity (catastrophic meaning the child has a very slim chance of survival and no chance of recovery). Contrary to Senator McCain's thinking, I happen to think that the health of the mother is an important issue and isn't a smokescreen.

However, the argument wasn't whether abortion in any particular trimester is wrong, it was whether or a potential child who was aborted would end up being taken care of by the state and thus your tax dollars and mine.

Okla-homey
10/28/2008, 08:32 PM
You may not be aware of it, but it's out there.

I think we may have common ground on the first trimester dealio with (for me) the exception being the health of the mother or catastrophic deformity (catastrophic meaning the child has a very slim chance of survival and no chance of recovery). Contrary to Senator McCain's thinking, I happen to think that the health of the mother is an important issue and isn't a smokescreen.

As you will learn young Padiwan, the devil is in the details. The "health of the mother" piece became controversial because abortion proponents insist on including emotional health in addition to physical health of the mother. My esposita who has been a baby catcher for over a quarter century tells me less than two percent of all pregnancies pose a physical health risk to a woman. Those ladies should have a choice. OTOH, I don't think women who are "seriously bummed" because they're pregant should be lumped into that class.

soonerhubs
10/28/2008, 08:37 PM
Perhaps if we (The government) actually funded a Sex Education program that was found to be statistically effective we could reduce both abortions and adoptions.

NEWSFLASH: Teaching safe sex does NOT increase rates of sexual activity in teenagers.

Okla-homey
10/28/2008, 08:39 PM
Perhaps if we (The government) actually funded a Sex Education program that was found to be statistically effective we could reduce both abortions and adoptions.

NEWSFLASH: Teaching safe sex does NOT increase rates of sexual activity in teenagers.

Call me a Nazi, but I still favor mandatory depo shots for all unmarried women under age 24.

soonerhubs
10/28/2008, 08:41 PM
Call me a Nazi, but I still favor mandatory depo shots for all unmarried women under age 24.

The Mrs used to tell me stories of Docs that would offer free tubal ligations to meth heads and other societal leeches.

Those Doctors deserve medals of honor IMHO.

Frozen Sooner
10/28/2008, 09:04 PM
My esposita who has been a baby catcher for over a quarter century tells me less than two percent of all pregnancies pose a physical health risk to a woman. Those ladies should have a choice.

Damn right.

LosAngelesSooner
10/28/2008, 09:25 PM
Lord Obama preaches "trickle up."

Gravity be damned!You DO realize, just for the sake of being honest, that MONEY is not WATER.

The same laws don't apply. ;)

JohnnyMack
10/29/2008, 11:16 AM
http://www.slate.com/id/2203237/

Wonder if maybe our smart lawyerin' types could read this and tell me if they think she's on to something with this?

picasso
10/29/2008, 12:24 PM
how many years did we work to defeat communism? 60 or so?

:texan:

badger
10/29/2008, 12:30 PM
how many years did we work to defeat communism? 60 or so?

:texan:

Ever since the end of WW2, so about 60 years, but considering China and Cuba, it is not by any means defeated yet :(

NYC Poke
10/29/2008, 12:32 PM
Yes, she's onto something. She explains it pretty well. There's also a good discussion (referenced in the Slate piece) of the issue on Volokh Conspiracy, a blog written by law professors. For those tempted to dismiss anything written in Slate due to its membership in the Official Liberal Media Conspiracy, and if you're genuinely concerned that Obama's remarks reveal him to be a closet socialist (as opposed to those just exploiting this for sound bite purposes to generate hysteria), check out the Volokh piece. David Bernstein, its author, is a Law & Econ guy, i.e., not a lib.

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_10_26-2008_11_01.shtml#1225104785

badger
10/29/2008, 12:34 PM
Another word on communism in Cuba, as compliments of The Simpsons:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESs91BLxLLk
It is in Spanish, so here's a translation:
Fidel Castro: Comrads, our nation is completely bankrupt! We have no choice but to abandon communism!
Castro's Aide #1, Castro's Associates: [sigh]
Fidel Castro: I know, I know, I know... but we all knew from day one this mumbo jumbo wouldn't fly! I'll call Washington and tell them they won.
Castro's Aide #1: But presidente, America tried to kill you!
Fidel Castro: Ah, they're not so bad. They even named a street after me in San Francisco!
[Aide #2 whispers something into his ear]
Fidel Castro: It's full of what?

(One of Castro's workers tells him some men with a trillion dollar bill are here to see him.)

Mr. Burns: Oh, so the island's not for sale, eh? Well, will you at least
permit us to live in your socialist paradise?
Castro: You talking about Cuba?


Mr. Burns: All we ask is preferential treatment because of my fabulous wealth!
[Burns holds the trillion dollar bill up.]
Castro: May I see?
Mr. Burns: Ho ho ho, see with your eyes, not with your hands!
Castro: Please, we are all amigos here!
Homer: Mr. Burns.. I think we can trust the president of Cuba..
Mr. Burns: [hands it to Castro, and waits a couple of seconds.] Now, give it
back...
Castro: Give what back?
Mr. Burns: D'ohh...

soonerhubs
10/29/2008, 12:37 PM
Ever since the end of WW2, so about 60 years, but considering China and Cuba, it is not by any means defeated yet :(

The ironic thing is that China's survival was based on it's transition to a more capitalistic model.