90 replies to this topic

[All_In]

"Never before in the modern era has America seemed so broken, its beacon-like “American dream” which has drawn so many to its shores, so elusive.Today some 24 million Americans are out of work.Nearly 50 per cent of all citizens live in households that depend on some form of government benefit.And the country’s housing market remains a train wreck in agonizing slow motion. One in every four American homeowners are “underwater” to use the parlance of our times, owing more on their mortgages than their homes are actually worth."a lot of pretty scary stats for america in this article...http://www.thestar.c...-dream-is-dying

[hblask]

All_In, on Monday, January 30th, 2012, 11:00 AM, said:

Nearly 50 per cent of all citizens live in households that depend on some form of government benefit.

Receive <> depend on.But I agree, the statists are destroying the American dream. It's time to unleash the only engine of economic growth the world has ever seen, and we are instead emulating the troubled European countries.

[akoff]

All_In, on Monday, January 30th, 2012, 9:00 AM, said:

"Never before in the modern era has America seemed so broken, its beacon-like "American dream" which has drawn so many to its shores, so elusive.Today some 24 million Americans are out of work.Nearly 50 per cent of all citizens live in households that depend on some form of government benefit.And the country's housing market remains a train wreck in agonizing slow motion. One in every four American homeowners are "underwater" to use the parlance of our times, owing more on their mortgages than their homes are actually worth."a lot of pretty scary stats for america in this article...http://www.thestar.c...-dream-is-dying

only because we allow it. if people were responsible for themselves...and forced to live with the results we would make better choices.

[vbnautilus]

hblask, on Monday, January 30th, 2012, 10:57 AM, said:

Receive <> depend on.But I agree, the statists are destroying the American dream. It's time to unleash the only engine of economic growth the world has ever seen, and we are instead emulating the troubled European countries.

I think it's time to get over the idea that perpetual growth is a positive thing.

[AmScray]

vbnautilus, on Monday, January 30th, 2012, 11:09 AM, said:

I think it's time to get over the idea that perpetual growth is a positive thing.

Absent that, we have to institute population control and end immigration, or severely lower our standard of living. Growth should always, at a bare-ass minimum, track population.

[colonel Feathers]

All_In, on Monday, January 30th, 2012, 9:00 AM, said:

"Never before in the modern era has America seemed so broken, its beacon-like “American dream” which has drawn so many to its shores, so elusive.Today some 24 million Americans are out of work.Nearly 50 per cent of all citizens live in households that depend on some form of government benefit.And the country’s housing market remains a train wreck in agonizing slow motion. One in every four American homeowners are “underwater” to use the parlance of our times, owing more on their mortgages than their homes are actually worth."a lot of pretty scary stats for america in this article...http://www.thestar.c...-dream-is-dying

Please print this out, and send copies to our mexican boarder.

[hblask]

colonel Feathers, on Monday, January 30th, 2012, 3:08 PM, said:

Please print this out, and send copies to our mexican boarder.

I had a Mexican boarder once. Always paid the rent, kept things clean, nice guy.

[colonel Feathers]

hblask, on Monday, January 30th, 2012, 2:57 PM, said:

I had a Mexican boarder once. Always paid the rent, kept things clean, nice guy.

Not your boarder, ours.oh wait, bwaahhaaaaaa, never claimed I could spe[[.

[CaneBrain]

Citizens United could easily end the America we knew. Of ALL the super PAC money donated (hundreds of millions) 47% came from 22 individual people. Totally what the founders envisioned; a small cabal of billionaires controlling the bulk of the media buys for the Presidency.Or as Henry calls it the free marketplace of ideas. This is what happens when you let conservative activist judges overrule a 100 years of precedent.

[hblask]

CaneBrain, on Friday, February 3rd, 2012, 8:24 PM, said:

Citizens United could easily end the America we knew. Of ALL the super PAC money donated (hundreds of millions) 47% came from 22 individual people. Totally what the founders envisioned; a small cabal of billionaires controlling the bulk of the media buys for the Presidency.Or as Henry calls it the free marketplace of ideas. This is what happens when you let conservative activist judges overrule a 100 years of precedent.

I'm not afraid of information. People who are afraid should probably reconsider their ideas rather than try to silence the ideas of others.

[CaneBrain]

hblask, on Friday, February 3rd, 2012, 10:15 PM, said:

I'm not afraid of information. People who are afraid should probably reconsider their ideas rather than try to silence the ideas of others.

Yeah because the ability to control which information gets on tv doesn't play into this at all. :icon_hand:90% of the ads in FL were negative. It's not information; it's a small group of people leading prolonged smear campaigns on tv. Watching you support this madness while simultaneously wondering why Gary Johnson can't get more attention is beyond hilarious. Almost as funny as the next time you deride crony capitalism while supporting a decision that reinforces crony capitalism as much as any one thing can.

[hblask]

CaneBrain, on Friday, February 3rd, 2012, 9:18 PM, said:

Yeah because the ability to control which information gets on tv doesn't play into this at all. :icon_hand:90% of the ads in FL were negative. It's not information; it's a small group of people leading prolonged smear campaigns on tv. Watching you support this madness while simultaneously wondering why Gary Johnson can't get more attention is beyond hilarious. Almost as funny as the next time you deride crony capitalism while supporting a decision that reinforces crony capitalism as much as any one thing can.

Johnson supports free speech, too.If you take away individuals and groups of individuals right to speak, then who decides? The billionaire owners of the MSM. As someone who tends to agree with the MSM, I can see why that would be an improvement for you, but those of us with minority voices want a means to compete with billionaire media owners.

[CaneBrain]

And instead we just added a few billionaires to the equation. You have not gained any means. And the Gary johnson's of the world have an even more of an uphill battle to climb. If you think this has somehow balanced out the MSM, you are being beyond naive. All it's done is give billionaires more power.Casting this as a free speech issue is hilarious. I'd love to see where Gary Johnson said 22 billionaires making negative ads (that just swung FL in a week) is a triumph of free speech. Getting rid of crony capitalism just got a lot harder. Any argument that it didn't is an outright lie.Not letting a small group of people run endless negative ads doesn't equal "taking away individuals right to speak" in reality town.....though I'm sure specious nonsense like that is what got Citizens United ruled in the first place. The sheer volume and percentage of negative ads is shattering records this election cycle but that's probably just a coincidence.Also, I don't agree at all with highest rated MSM news station, fox news. Oh, you were shoveling more BS and pretending conservatives don't have a voice in the media.

[hblask]

CaneBrain, on Friday, February 3rd, 2012, 9:52 PM, said:

And instead we just added a few billionaires to the equation. You have not gained any means. And the Gary johnson's of the world have an even more of an uphill battle to climb. If you think this has somehow balanced out the MSM, you are being beyond naive. All it's done is give billionaires more power.Casting this as a free speech issue is hilarious. I'd love to see where Gary Johnson said 22 billionaires making negative ads (that just swung FL in a week) is a triumph of free speech. Getting rid of crony capitalism just got a lot harder. Any argument that it didn't is an outright lie.

Look at Ron Paul. He's not a billionaire, and the MSM hates him. Without the ability of lots of people to spend lots of money supporting his message, we STILL would not have heard of him. He is around because of the ability of people and groups to pool their money to help him get his message out. The MSM, which you seem to trust to do the job, is STILL putting out headlines like "Romney wins first, Gingrich third, Santorum fourth". No, I will not sit around and hope your pals at MSNBC finally realize the folly of their insane policy prescriptions or pay attention to someone other than official party approved candidates. I want a chance to be heard, too.Having 100 millionaires get their message out is better than having two or three billionaire media owners dictate the message.As for "negative" ads, there was a university study that measured content in negative vs positive ads, and the negative ads had many times more information per minute than the positive ads. If you think about it, you'll see it's true. A typical positive ad: "Nobody loves America like Candidate A. He loves America so much he cries just thinking about it. He will make the American dream come true." A typical negative ad: "Candidate B sponsored a bill that would allow police to kill the homeless people for no reason. He supported a bill that gave $1M to the company that employed him for the last 4 years before he took office."Yeah, I'll take the negative ads, thanks.

[CaneBrain]

Don't worry, I'm sure that all the statistics showing that Citizens United has accomplished the further concentration of political power in the hands of billionaires is an outlier. Going forward, it will give us all more of a voice.Want to buy a bridge? I'll give you a good deal.

[CaneBrain]

Casting Ron Paul as a winner from Citizens United? Omfg, delusions ahoy! What a pyrrhic victory. He gets his message out ever so slightly, Romney and other candidates who are far more big money friendly get access to the kind of money that ensures Ron Paul will never realistically compete.Gingrich had all the momentum, then Romney flooded FL with super PAC money and carried the state easily. If your goal is to help centrist establishment candidates, good plan!Keep pretending I love MSNBC and am against citizens united because I'm pro-media though. It's adorable.

[hblask]

CaneBrain, on Friday, February 3rd, 2012, 10:04 PM, said:

Don't worry, I'm sure that all the statistics showing that Citizens United has accomplished the further concentration of political power in the hands of billionaires is an outlier. Going forward, it will give us all more of a voice.Want to buy a bridge? I'll give you a good deal.

I've seen several university reports that prove that CU has basically had no effect. There are many reasons for this, the main one being money alone doesn't buy elections. Again, since you agree with the MSM, you are probably blind to the problem. But I guarantee that the rules incumbents make to "clean up elections" will always, 100% of the time, protect incumbents and silence minority voices. If CU had gone the other way, all we'd know about the candidates is how patriotic they are and how much they love their country, way more than anyone else, and that liberals are super-duper smart and we should always vote for them. And Ron Paul would still be unknown.Free speech matters because the rest of us deserve a voice, too.

[hblask]

The ultimate proof is really quite clear: the people with power and those who support the people with power hate the Citizen's United decision; the people who are on the outside looking in love the Citizen's United decision. From this, it should be obvious who it helps and who it hurts.

[CaneBrain]

Yeah because CU's passage created Fox News? The argument that there is no big media station pumping conservative candidates and thoughts is obviously false so repeating it isn't persuasive.It's better than parroting "we deserve a voice too" after admitting that CU gives 100 millionaires a voice, not "you".It's better than pretending no one knew who Ron Paul was pre CU. (lol, seriously?)It's better than countering the fact that money just bought FL's primary for Mitt.But it's still pretty bad. Like pretending CU was a win for a candidate who will never attract big money. I hope for your sake the new Facebook billionaires are huge Ron Paul fans.

[CaneBrain]

hblask, on Friday, February 3rd, 2012, 11:22 PM, said:

The ultimate proof is really quite clear: the people with power and those who support the people with power hate the Citizen's United decision; the people who are on the outside looking in love the Citizen's United decision. From this, it should be obvious who it helps and who it hurts.

Yeah all those billionaires with no power love CU. I don't think proof means what you think it means. All those poor billionaires on the outside looking in finally get a chance to have a voice. Lol. How about some non-crazy logic. CU allowed 22 people to make about 100 million plus dollars worth of ad buys. Therefore, those 22 people and the candidates they support like CU. People who don't think 22 people should get to wield that kind of power don't like CU.I'm still laughing at the assertion that Ron Paul was completely unknown in 2008. Thank god Shelden Adelsen is allowed to spend 20 million dollars on anti-Romney ads for Newt. Without that ability, no one would know who Ron Paul is!