US Elections 2012 Part I: The Primaries/Caucus

[Mr. DJ]

Originally Posted by flying ^

man... so much hatin' going on here with the speech that's otherwise refreshing, straight-shooting tellin-it-painfully-how-it-really-is, and head & shoulders above the usual drown out cut & dry speeches I'd love to see the DVD/Bluray copy of that segment!

hardly straight shooting, the man doesn't live in reality and lacks perspective

[RandySyler]

Originally Posted by Zakoo

Maybe I misunderstood you, but we call a theory something that we prove with laws, formulas, interpretations but that we can't see with our own eyes. They aren't accepted as fact, they are facts, as long as you don't have something that goes against them.

And thus we accept things that are facts as such, right? And I didn't declare that theories are facts because while some (Evolution, Plate Tectonics) are obvious and even observable with our own eyes in some areas, other theories (string theory, special relativity, quantum physics) fall under the same category but do not hold up as well as others in terms of declaring "This is right!".

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

It might take too long than it's worth but I thing than refuting each wrong thing of such ''speach'' should be done, and done with strong arguments or proofs. Othersize we are only declaring as they do, saying thing than could as well coming from a ass.

Maybe I'll dissect it after the holidays

But just to start... what we have with Boortz's commencement tirade is an undefended thesis, delivered without benefit of cross examination (meaning Boortz was not having to support or defend his assertions). It is chock full of unsupported assertions, false equivalencies, and binary reductions. It has a fair amount of misrepresentations which are the effects of being uninformed, stupid, or lying, pick one. He's a lawyer by training who is now a radio talk show host - which means he left a trade where you have to defend your statements and picked one where the mute button always wins.

================================================== ====
For an example of a Republican with a clue, have a read/listen of Colin Powell's observations (article and supporting video):
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05...blicans-video/

[Zetsubo]

This infamous speech is really just entertainment...

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Zetsubo

This infamous speech is really just entertainment...

Sooooo, he's never actually delivered the speech to a commencement? Which means the original link is a hoax.

Now, I feel the need to Snopes it.

Edit: ah, I note in the ORIGINAL LINK comment 13 near the bottom of a bunch of idiotic anti-intellectual glee posts:

http://www.boortz.com/videos/news/ne...nt-speech/vWz/
Neal Boortz Faux Commencement Speech
Neal didn’t deliver this for a commencement but he did deliver it to a happy crowd at Kennesaw State University all to benefit Make A Wish Foundation May 20, 2009.

[Zetsubo]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Sooooo, he's never actually delivered the speech to a commencement? Which means the original link is a hoax.

Now, I feel the need to Snopes it.

Edit: ah, I note in the ORIGINAL LINK comment 13 near the bottom of a bunch of idiotic anti-intellectual glee posts:

Snopes........

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Zetsubo

Snopes........

So he wrote the speech in the 1990s in response to Kermit the Frog getting to give a commencement speech...

Rofl... I think my above short summary of the problems in the speech are more than sufficient. Moving on...
=======================================
I'll lift this from a post I made responding to someone who wanted to learn how to think critically:

I know how I do it NOW.... but how to *start* it? Ever since I was a little kid, I felt an obsession with KNOWING and LEARNING so I read voraciously the non-fiction. We had a World Book Encyclopedia when I was in elementary school which I read from A-Z. If I didn't know a word, I looked it up. I'm a news junkie and I don't use the EasyBrain news - I use the news on PBS (News Hour), the PBS analysis shows, the BBC, Euro Journal, Deutsche Welk, etc.
I approach everything with the scientific method. I discard beliefs and ideas that don't hold up under cross-examination. I've changed my opinion on topics rather dramatically as I accumulate more facts on it.
I took debate in high school and college - I recommend *everyone* take debate (not just speech, though that's helpful). I also got a college degree in a discipline that oozed in the scientific method.

Science:
If you don't make mistakes, you're doing it wrong.
If you don't correct those mistakes, you're doing it really wrong.
If you can't accept that you're mistaken, then you're not doing it at all.

=================================================
Just to make this post about 3 or 4 things, I think I relate to what this guy is saying about the right wing and its mass hysteria:
http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/155...Mass_Hysteria/

[synaesthetic]

It's nice to see even hardcore conservatives backing away from the screaming lunacy that is the modern right-wing.

I don't agree with most of anything he says (other than his views on PETA, probably) but you know what they say--the enemy of my enemy is my friend. People like that leaving the GOP makes the GOP weaker, even if we'll have to fight them later on--after all, he's still Republican enough to call earned benefits "entitlements" and hilariously assumes they'll consume all tax collected in the near future, and to honestly believe that humanity isn't the driving force behind global warming... seriously, assholes, read the goddamned scientific papers. Don't read the news.

[SaintessHeart]

Ohio's white working-class voters: on the fence

If this article has any element of truth in it, I am glad finally some people stood up to say "You guys are BOTH fcked up".

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Ohio's white working-class voters: on the fence

If this article has any element of truth in it, I am glad finally some people stood up to say "You guys are BOTH fcked up".

The danger is, of course, that the majority of the country is mad at the rich, mad at the Democrats, and mad at the Republicans - the trinity of "not fixing it because we profit by it not being fixed".

Sooooo easy for it to descend into authoritarianism or "bring out the guillotines" with those ignition levels.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Sooooo easy for it to descend into authoritarianism or "bring out the guillotines" with those ignition levels.

Sadly a peasant revolt is what is required for the USA goverment to make illegal the sale of assault rifles and ammunition to civilians, that made sense more than a hundred years ago when native americans were at war with the USA, nowadays firearms are a ssold as toys so that armament industries keep making huge profits in times of peace.

[Ithekro]

Considering the original point of the "Right To Bear Arms" amendment was to have a viable defense without an Army. But also to have men able to fight if the government turns on the people (it was written shortly after a revolution against a larger nation that had taken up housing troop without permission in peoples homes and other assorted things.)

The Bill of Rights was a compromise to get the Constitution signed. It was put forth by those that wanted to limit the powers of the new government in an effort to keep the United States from doing was Britian had done to them only a decade or two prior.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Sooooo easy for it to descend into authoritarianism or "bring out the guillotines" with those ignition levels.

The ''bring out the guillotines'' option won't happen: if the situation go in that direction, it will probably go farther than that. No trials ( even trial as crazy they had for the french revolution... ), they will simply go and shoot thoses than are against them....

or than they belive are against them. I wouldn't be surprised if there would be some hypocrits bigshot at the head of such mouvement.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Considering the original point of the "Right To Bear Arms" amendment was to have a viable defense without an Army. But also to have men able to fight if the government turns on the people (it was written shortly after a revolution against a larger nation that had taken up housing troop without permission in peoples homes and other assorted things.)

In theory it is noble tought to have a peasant militia to overthrow a tiranic rregime, in reality the USA obtained its independence hiring henchmen and receiving help from Lafayette forces, with only a peasent militia an attempt to gain independence from the british would have only triggered a bloody hunt for anyone with the slightiest sympathy for the revolutionary cause.

The Bill of Rights was a compromise to get the Constitution signed. It was put forth by those that wanted to limit the powers of the new government in an effort to keep the United States from doing was Britian had done to them only a decade or two prior.

Before wwII it might have been posible for a peasant militia to overthrow a fascist regime that somehow gained control of washington. Nowadays it is but a pipe dream, the USA spends 10 times more in "defense" than all european nations combined. Fighting the urban guerrillas afganistan and irak has given insight of how to quickly and cleanly wipe out any group that attempts to overtrow the goverment. Heck, I bet several intelligence agencies will mark as "subjects of interest" anyone that reads this. Before you tell me no soldier would dare point a gun at his fellow comrades, remember the media brainwashing, you just have to label the peasat militia as something unpleasant (be it a racial, religious or political slur) and voila!

[ganbaru]

Romney Courts Trump’s Dollars, but Shuns His Message
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...is-message/?hp

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Frenchie

You said you didn't want to nationalise the banks. Dismissing the debt would mean the government takes it on and decides to declare bankruptcy. This means an appalling credit rating (You think the downgrade was bad? Then this option wouldn't leave the US with one at all).

Sorry for the late reply Frenchie, I have been very busy as of late.

No, it means the government nullifies the debts, meaning they do not have to be paid back.
Specifically I was speaking of the housing market in the US due to the continuing of the housing crisis.

A bad credit rating means less foreign investment in US institutions/infrastructure/businesses.

Our credit rating is already falling and may fall again, so the bailout isn't working.
The point of allowing the banks to fail is so that they can be broken up and the system fixed.

It’s time to break up the big banks


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...vQU_story.html

What a great idea.. Except the US Government will still owe all that money to foreign governments because the banks use offshore funds. So you want them to forgive all US Debt and default on their debt obligations? See bad credit rating and why that is bad for business. If you think all that stupid delaying in Congress to raise the debt ceiling led to a significant decrease of the US' credit rating, you have no idea what an actual bankruptcy filing would do.

How would that be any different than when the US forgave the WWII debt the European nations owed?
Or when Clinton forgave the debt poor countries owed us?
Or Japan forgiving the debt of Myanmar?
Besides, the rest of the world is so in debt that a reset of the system might help all countries in the long run.
China's debt right now is worse than Europe's.
So a US debt forgiveness isn't at all a rogue or outlandish idea.

I don't think all the congression "delaying" caused the credit rating drop.
It is the state of our economy and the out of control spending that cost us our AAA rating.

Here's a good example of what I'm talking about (forgive the source of the article).

Forgive Us Our Debts?


http://www.weeklystandard.com/articl...ts_645182.html

Except waiving everyone's debts doesn't 'create' money. Money always comes from somewhere. In this case, someone's bank account. You're a saver? You're screwed because you'll never get that money back. If you're a business and you have your money in the bank? Gone. How do you pay your employees into their accounts now? Cash? What if you have 200 employees? How about 10,000 employees? What if you have 20,000?

Except that backing the money with something of value (like a basket of commodities or precious metals) does increase the buying power of people's savings. Unless the government forces an exchange rate that is excessive, the money people have will increase its value and thus what goods can be purchased with it.
Therefore, money in people's private bank accounts isn't gone.
Unless you are assuming that the banks wouldn't be able to pay it back?
In that case all the assets of the bank (including the private assets of the trustees and owners) would have to be seized and the US Treasury would have to cover the rest.
The increase in the buying power of money through specie will simply allow the currency to buy more at the new exchange rate.
For example, if the value of 1 dollar is currently 1/40 of an ounce of silver and you set the country back to the method of "set weights and measures" as per the constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 5. The Congress shall have Power...To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.) to a ratio of 1 dollar per 1 ounce silver you increase the buying power/value of 1 paper dollar by 40 times its current exhange rate.

Would that destroy the current financial system as it exists?
Possibly.
Do I care?
Nope.
Why?
Because it is hopelessly broken and corrupt right now and if things don't turn around soon a collapse will ensue anyway.
It needs to be completely overhauled.

The money you get from not having to pay your house anymore isn't cash. If you want to sell in this environment, then you will have to compete with thousands of homeowners trying to sell their houses. It means housing prices will drop because of higher supply.
Even if you do sell your house, how long will it last before you find a new job amid much higher unemployment?

If you own the home outright then you have disposable cash, and that stimulates the economiy.
The idea that one needs to sell ones home after the debt is forgiven doesn't make sense.
If you own the home outright, then why bother selling if you don't have to.
If, as you say, housing prices drop due to supply on the market, then so be it.
The market is not a static system, it will change.
However, not having to pay a morgage payment each month is beneficial to the homeowner (who would truly be an owner without owing anything to a bank) and that is far more important than a drop in housing prices.

Unemployment has nothing to do with forgiveness of housing debt.
In fact, if you don't have a house payment you can take a job that pays less and still make ends meet.
So again, forgiveness of the housing debt would have been better than bailing out the banks.
And let's be honest here, what would have really happened if the banks were forced to pay for what they had done?
The banks would have broken up into smaller banks and the government could easily have made this transition as painless for the citizenry as possible.

The environment you're describing is not conducive to any sort of business, large or small. Bad credit ratings, lack of foreign investment, no confidence in banks means less ways to pay your employees, high inflation rates, high unemployment.

We already live in what you are describing right now, so your fear of overhauling the current financial system seems a bit unwarranted.
Considering none of us have ever seen the kind of environment I'm talking about put into practice, making predictions of doom and gloom are premature at best.

The bailout was just fine. It's the conditions that needed to be ironed out properly and were diluted by constant lobbying. The problem is the wrench, not the wheel.

TARP was a failure.

I agree on all anti-monopoly or dual monopoly regulations. In fact, anything that gives a company unfair advantages when facing competitors should be seriously looked at.

I am happy we agree.

On that we agree then.

Excellent.

[ganbaru]

As governor, Romney picked winners and losers of his own
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...84T05F20120530

[Bri]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

No, it means the government nullifies the debts, meaning they do not have to be paid back.
Specifically I was speaking of the housing market in the US due to the[URL="http://www.dsnews.com/articles/housing-crisis-continues-to-batter-nations-homeownership-rate-2011-04-27"] continuing of the housing crisis.

Frenchie already said it, debt isn't owned by banks, but by savers and current accounts. Banks are just the middle men, that is their purpose (monetary transmission mechanism). Wiping out debt is simply wealth redistribution. You take money from savers and give it to those with debts.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

How would that be any different than when the US forgave the WWII debt the European nations owed?
Or when Clinton forgave the debt poor countries owed us?
Or Japan forgiving the debt of Myanmar?
Besides, the rest of the world is so in debt that a reset of the system might help all countries in the long run.
China's debt right now is worse than Europe's.
So a US debt forgiveness isn't at all a rogue or outlandish idea.

Main difference from the previous examples is the sheer scale, US external debt stands at about 15 trillion. You're asking the rest of the world to forgive one of the richest nations it's debts at the expense of their own people?

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Except that backing the money with something of value (like a basket of commodities or precious metals) does increase the buying power of people's savings. Unless the government forces an exchange rate that is excessive, the money people have will increase its value and thus what goods can be purchased with it.
Therefore, money in people's private bank accounts isn't gone.
Unless you are assuming that the banks wouldn't be able to pay it back?
In that case all the assets of the bank (including the private assets of the trustees and owners) would have to be seized and the US Treasury would have to cover the rest.

You've forgiven all debt and now the government compensates savers with a new species backed currency. Either the government has now taken on all the private debt (about 35 trillion) or added this amount to the money supply. In the latter case the money supply will increase from 20 trillion to 55 trillion. That's 275% inflation instantly. Essentially shifting wealth from people with savings to people with fixed assets. You can set the denomination of your new currency all you like but prices of goods will change accordingly and those determine the purchasing power.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Bri

You've forgiven all debt and now the government compensates savers with a new species backed currency. Either the government has now taken on all the private debt (about 35 trillion) or added this amount to the money supply. In the latter case the money supply will increase from 20 trillion to 55 trillion. That's 275% inflation instantly. Essentially shifting wealth from people with savings to people with fixed assets. You can set the denomination of your new currency all you like but prices of goods will change accordingly and those determine the purchasing power.

That's basically what all the gold and silver bugs are counting on.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

That's basically what all the gold and silver bugs are counting on.

Which is very sad because they would not become 1 cent richer, everybody else would become 275% (at least, because thi might trigger a domino effect that might increase the devaluation, remember all those dollars floating around, what happens when nobody else wants them and return them to the us?) poorer which to the untrained eye might make it look like they are richer (look, I have more money than everybody else). I talk from experience since we had our fill of inflation and currency devaluation in the late part of the 20th century and the end result was that our economy shrank, no ands, ifs or buts.