I just believe that liberalism and progressive thought run counter to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Yes; because as we all know, denying rights to homosexuals is a key element to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

You can't have liberty, after all, without treating certain members of society as subhuman. Oh wait...

In reply to Falkus (msg #513):



Who is denying rights to homosexuals?  Obama has the same stance on gay marriage as the conservatives do.

I, however, don't.  I don't believe that government has any business endorsing marriage at all.  That is a religious construct.  All marriages should be civil unions with contracts and such involved.  Once again, libertarian here.

*reads back through recent posts*  Nope.  Don't believe I ever said that conservatives are perfect.

Now let's use your same statement but change one word into two:



There.  Now you have the liberals/progressives.



This is assuming that your stereotype of evil, racist conservatives is based on fact.  A bad assumption considering that your stereotype is wrong.  So yes, I will wait for you to think this one out.

Who is denying rights to homosexuals?

In the United States, which group is more firmly in favor of homosexual rights as a whole? Liberal political groups or conservative ones? I'm not talking about individuals here.

There.  Now you have the liberals/progressives.

All I want is for the rich to be bound by the same laws that the rest of us are.

This is assuming that your stereotype of evil, racist conservatives is based on fact

How does this relate to a single thing I've posted? Where, precisely, have I stereotyped anybody? All I've done was imply that conservative political groups don't support equal rights for homosexuals; which is, as I'm sure we can all agree, a somewhat undisputed fact.

I will admit that my language was somewhat confrontational, which I apologize for. I was somewhat upset at the time of my posting.

Why the Libertarian Party of course!

Homosexual rights or homosexual marriage?  The Conservatives will give homosexuals the same rights as all Americans.  It is the Liberals who like to classify and provide special rights depending on skin color and sexual preference.  If you are talking homosexual marriage then that is a different story.



Do you mean like the top 50% of wage earners paying 98% of the taxes?  I would say the rich are bound by the same laws.  You don't seem to be able to provide how the rich are not bound to the same laws.



Oh, I thought you would consider classifying a group of people as subhuman as evil and/or racist.  I certainly do.  That would be where the stereotype comes in.



I would dispute it.  Conservatives, as a whole from what I have seen and read, do not want special rights for homosexuals.  That is an undisputed fact.  The marriage issue is a distinct disagreement based on what Conservatives believe the meaning of marriage is and the purpose it serves.  I also disagree with Conservatives and Obama on the issue but I understand that this does not make them akin to homophobes and I don't believe either considers them subhuman.

You should note that everytime a gay marriage ban bill passes that it is by such a margin that it would take both registered Democrats and registered Republicans to pass it.  It's like assuming that since a majority of Conservatives are anti-abortion that it automatically means that they hate women.
This message was last edited by the player at 17:08, Thu 23 June 2011.

I myself lean libertarian, but I still feel like I have to chirp in here ...



The 'libertarian' party/movement is still a very poorly defined thing. Most of it is an offshoot of the Republican party. Check out the '08 Libertarian presidential candidate, Bob Barr, who was a signatory on the Patriot Act. The Tea Party is also intended to be a libertarian, single-issue 'party', but it's attracting a lot of looneys and a lot of people who want anything BUT more freedom. Both of these organizations are struggling just to avoid being hijacked by neo-conservatives. Looking at organizations alone, I would not feel comfortable naming a libertarian party and saying it has a clear background of resisting undue restrictions on people. There's just too much political sabotage going on.



I'm assuming you're talking about things like affirmative action. This is a tough position, and I agree with your political position that affirmative action is ultimately destructive. However, it would be academic dishonesty to either claim it as a 'right', or to not recognize the difference between active and passive discrimination, and that while affirmative action is a form of active discrimination, it is intended to address a much more dangerous and self-perpetuating form of passive discrimination.



When the rich make 90% of the income, it seems reasonable that they pay 98% of the taxes. Even with a flat tax, you should expect that sort of a cut (and our tax system is anything but flat; it's a hump, with the middle class paying the most. How come more people don't complain about the rights of the middle class?)



I have to admit, I don't recall this, at least not in recent history. Don't feel like you need to go searching for it to justify your statement, I'm just saying. It may not be warranted to sling quite so MUCH mud right now.

I myself lean libertarian, but I still feel like I have to chirp in here ...



The 'libertarian' party/movement is still a very poorly defined thing. Most of it is an offshoot of the Republican party. Check out the '08 Libertarian presidential candidate, Bob Barr, who was a signatory on the Patriot Act. The Tea Party is also intended to be a libertarian, single-issue 'party', but it's attracting a lot of looneys and a lot of people who want anything BUT more freedom. Both of these organizations are struggling just to avoid being hijacked by neo-conservatives. Looking at organizations alone, I would not feel comfortable naming a libertarian party and saying it has a clear background of resisting undue restrictions on people. There's just too much political sabotage going on.



I'm assuming you're talking about things like affirmative action. This is a tough position, and I agree with your political position that affirmative action is ultimately destructive. However, it would be academic dishonesty to either claim it as a 'right', or to not recognize the difference between active and passive discrimination, and that while affirmative action is a form of active discrimination, it is intended to address a much more dangerous and self-perpetuating form of passive discrimination.



When the rich make 90% of the income, it seems reasonable that they pay 98% of the taxes. Even with a flat tax, you should expect that sort of a cut (and our tax system is anything but flat; it's a hump, with the middle class paying the most. How come more people don't complain about the rights of the middle class?)



I have to admit, I don't recall this, at least not in recent history. Don't feel like you need to go searching for it to justify your statement, I'm just saying. It may not be warranted to sling quite so MUCH mud right now.

And I would agree with you wholeheartedly.  The Libertarian Party, such as it is, will never be a force in politics until it can cure its Schizophrenia and produce a consistent party platform.  I also agree with the political sabotage.

That is why I find the Republican party better suited for voting purposes.  They have a great many flaws but the Democrat Party is far worse for a Libertarian.



You have assumed correctly.  But from what you are saying it is okay to discriminate when people merely "feel" they are being discriminated against.  I do not discriminate and yet why should I have a lower score in a job interview because I am white?  Governments cannot prevent the hidden prejudices of people.  Only time and proximity can do that.

Affirmative action is destructive and wrong.  You have lost some of that "leaness" by supporting it.



Once again, why?  Why should you be penalized for making more money than another?  What harm are you causing?  In fact, it is those top earners that invest in this economy and cause it to grow providing the lower 50% with jobs.  Also, the wealthy do not put pressure on the resources of the government like the less wealthy do.

And no, you are absolutely wrong about the middle class paying the most.  The wealthy pay the most.  The top 25% pay 86% of the income taxes according to the IRS.  That is up from 84% in 2000.  In 1980 the top 1% paid 19% and the tax rate for them was 70%, now with the rate at 35% they pay 39%.  The wealthy create revenue for the IRS when not overburdened with taxation.  So please, do not try to make it out like they don't pay.



Falkus merely made the insinuation that Conservatives view homosexuals as subhuman.  It is an untrue statement as a whole.  I did not sling mud I was addressing a stereotype.  Much the way I would argue with someone who tries to stereotype homosexuals.

I can't comment on which is objectively worse, since that's value judgments. I think I've made my personal position clear. And ultimately, I think that's what it comes down to. Sure, you can claim that the democratic party is all backwards due to reasons X, Y and Z (and in fact, I encourage you to do so!) What you can't really say is that that is an objective fact and anyone who disagrees with you is lying or ignorant (because, again, it comes down to value judgments), or that the Republican/Libertarian Parties are above such things.

That's ultimately all Falkus is saying. He's pointed out, rightly, that the Republican Party is trying to push restrictions on people, which would seem to be contrary to the goal of freedom. He didn't say it, but I'm sure he could make a case for how the Tea Party and the Libertarian Party are similarly tied to freedom-limiting campaigns. And as much as I wish I could call him out as ignorant or a liar, frankly, I can't. He's right. Those parties are sort of sucking at that goal. If I had more faith in the government being able to help people, I'd probably be a democrat because, while the democrat party-line is to meddle in pretty much everything, it's with the intention of maximizing actual freedom, equality and happiness.



Not at all. I also agree with you, racial quotas and so on are wrong. But the reason I think they're wrong is because it seems like a case of 'sexing it to virginity'. I do understand the intention of affirmative action, and the intention is indeed right.

In a nutshell, affirmative action recognizes there's active discrimination ('you may not get into this college because you are white!') and passive discrimination ('you may not get into this college because you attended a poor public high school in a hostile environment with drunk parents, and thusly your grades have not met our stringent criteria'). Both of them, ultimately, reduce my freedom just about equally. If I'm born poor, I don't have the 'freedom' to go to an expensive private school, and thusly my ability to exercise my freedom to go to Harvard is greatly reduced. What makes this really dangerous is that means my freedom to get a great job and pay for my kids to go to a private school is squashed, thus repeating the cycle. I think we can all agree that this situation sucks, and if you don't have the freedom to be born rich (you don't) or to be a rich kid (you don't) you should at least have the opportunity to go to a rich college, work your butt off, and provide better for your kids.

And that's the idea behind affirmative action. It's brief (5+ decades) of active discrimination designed to turn back 2+ centuries of passive (and active) discrimination.

Is it a good idea? I don't know. Seems like it has some holes. But if we look at both sides of the equation, could I say it's a reduction of freedoms? Seems like you're losing a little here and gaining a little there, the whole thing is a mess and there are definitely losers, but it seems to add up, more or less to 0 (it might fall further one way or the other based on how successful it is, but again we're coming to value judgments, so for the sake of being objective, we just kind of have to let it go.)



Imagine everyone paid a 30% income tax. Would the rich be paying more actual dollars? Of course. Because 30% of $2M is $600,000 and 30% of $20k is peanuts. At the same time, are they really paying more? No, they're paying 30%, just like everyone else. Of course, if 10% of the population is making 90% of the money, you should expect, with a flat tax, for them to be paying somewhere around 90% of the dollars of taxes. Why? Because every dollar is taxed equally.

I'm not sure what else you're suggesting. Should everyone pay $15,000 in taxes, regardless as to whether they make $20k or $200k? I don't think THAT would be fair (or realistic).



I'm refering to percentages, not actual dollars. I'm not upset that Bill Gates pays $200k in taxes. I may be upset if he pays 10% tax rate while I pay 40%, though. And that's my point. Middle class pays more per dollar in taxes than anyone else. Everyone past a certain threshold should pay a certain percent per dollar, OR even a mildly progressive tax rate (the super rich pay 45%, middle class pay 40%, poor pay 35% and so on). Right now though, in practice, the rich pay something like 30%, the middle class 45%, the poor 25% and the super poor make a profit. That doesn't make sense.




Well ... I hate to turn it around on you, but some conservatives DO view homosexuals as subhuman. Of course, you can't categorize the entire group by that. It's just like any other demographics. You have some crazies and a bunch of normal people. I don't think the Republican PARTY really cares. They've already tied themselves to the Christian Right, who has made it clear they can't support homosexual marriage, so the Republican Party really can't cater to the activist homosexual community (although they don't lose anything by burning said community either, which fortunately hasn't come up as much as it could).

You can.  I don't mind.



I have done many times.  I think my position is clear as well.



I do not believe I say any of these things other than there are some who disagree with me from a position of ignorance.  But lots of people here say it even if it is in a roundabout manner.

I actually turned in my Republican Party membership because of GW Bush and his bailout.  I will contribute to individuals but not the RNC who seems to like to act like Democrat Light.  No where do I claim the Republicans or Conservatives are perfect.  Just that they are more Libertarian and that is, I would argue, a fact.



And the Democrats aren't?  It is the type of restrictions that count.



Some government has to exist.  I just place the Democrats as the ones who wish to control and restrict more.  Our economy, and people, are suffering due to Democrat-controled government.



He could make a case but it wouldn't be correct.



I actually won't because I don't believe him to a liar and I am pretty sure he is not ignorant.  Just ignorant of certain facts.  As we all are depending on the topic.



What you have effectively done here is made the statement that you really don't care about results.  You have also dropped any pretense of being a "lean" Libertarian.  As long as you feel good about government intentions towards meddling with your life it is okay with you?  Not me.

By the way, how can the Libertarian Party and Tea Party suck if they haven't been in power?



So it is okay to discriminate if it makes you feel good.  Noted.



Actually, all affirmative action does is say, "You need 10 blacks, 6 hispanics, and, hopefully, and Native American."  That's it.  It creates resentment in places where it is believed that you only got the job due to skin color.

Look at what happened to the black community and what they had done for themselves before affirmative action.  Then take a look at what happened to them after.  Welfare and affirmative action have decimated that community.



So punish white people for the actions of some other white people 200+ years ago.  Sounds wonderful.



You mean like discriminating based on skin color?  Those kind of holes?



I don't give up my freedoms or tolerate discrimination in order to be objective.



I am suggesting that suggesting that the wealthy do not contribute or give back to society is patently false.  It is class warfare and based on envy and jealousy and serves no purprose other than to divide society and put idiot socialists in power.  I hope I am clear now.

Government should be minimal, it should be non-intrusive, and it should be Constitutional.  If it was then all of us would be far wealthier and our country would not be in the situation it is today.



Provide the ranges for your stats here.  What range is the middle class?



Actually, I don't believe you do hate to turn it around on me.  But hey, you like it.  I like it.  It's a good thing.

Some Conservatives do view homosexuals as subhuman.  As do some Democrats.  As do Muslims.  As do <add group here>.  I said, "as a whole" and I also said based on my reading and my experiences.  A blanket stereotype is a far cry from pointing out a few crazies.

You will also recall, or you won't, that GW Bush admitted to his pastor that he couldn't judge homosexuals or hate them.  Only God can judge and that is the attitude I see amongst a great many Christians.

Here you go:

http://www.goproud.org/about/

In terms of my positions:
Economically no, it isn't fair to put teh onerous tax rtes on those with teh most income in teh way it has been currently written. At the same time recognize that those who are really at the top income pay very little (ratio wise) in actual taxes because of tax shelters, write offs, and other complexities of the tax code that many people with less money either do not have the opportunity to take advantage of or do not have the professional assistance to find the loopholes.
First we need to simplify the taxes, then make them more egalitarian. Personally I prefer the idea of a sloepd combination welfare and income tax, such that each 'familly' should have an 'allowance' of about $15000+$10,000 per person that gets subracted from their effective income, then they should be taxed at (for now) 40% of that rate. So a familly of 3 earning $45,000 would have $0 in taxes, one making $25,000 a year would get $8000 from the government, while a lone executive making $120,000 a year with no familly would pay $38,000 a year in taxes.
Now when it comes to social minorities the primary right the Republicans seem willing to defend it is the right to discrimination. I have known quite a few Republicans, even some of them self-proclaimed libertarians, who believe I should not be entitled to civil rights because I am not Christian and this is a Christian country.
Which is teh predominant reason I am a registered democrat. nothing like people telling you to your face that they believe you are a second class citizen to really clarify the issues.

In reply to silveroak (msg #523):

I am more of a flat tax guy.  Everyone pays the same rate.  What you suggest is already occuring.  People who don't pay in taxes get returns.



Even though the Democrat party has historically supported discrimination?  And still does through affirmative action?  Put your money where your mouth is and show me a discriminatory bill that Republicans fought for.

Congressional records show that Democrats were opposed to passing the following laws that were introduced by Republicans to achieve civil rights for African Americans:

Civil Rights Act 1866
Reconstruction Act of 1867
Freedman Bureau Extension Act of 1866
Enforcement Act of 1870
Force Act of 1871
Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871
Civil Rights Act of 1875
Civil Rights Act of 1957
Civil Rights Act of 1960

And during the 60's Democrats fought hard to defeat the

1964 Civil Rights Act
1965 Voting Rights Acts
1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act

I believe I will stick with the Republican Party track record over the Democrat Party track record on racial rights.



Never heard that in my 42 years of life.  Not from a Republican Christian and not from a Democrat Christian.  If should point out the fact that a majority of Democrats claim Christian beliefs as well.



Nothing like being passed over for a job because you don't have the right racial/gender combination required by law either.  Yep.  That will teach us and engender better race relations!

I do think you're being a little unfair, Tlaloc. You have expressed several times in the past that you feel offended by silveroak and Falkus for making blanketed statements about Conservatives and the Republican party, and in many of those cases, that offense seems justified. However, at the same time, you make many, many blanketed statements about Liberals and the Democratic party. If you really feel that way about the Left, that's fine. That's your right. But, to be fair, it does sound like you're holding a double-standard to how you're treating the political philosophies.

For example, in message #522, you point to the example of George W. Bush in citing an instance of a Conservative who doesn't hate gay people, to defend the notion that Republicans as a whole don't hate homosexuals. It is taking a bit of a leap of faith in that it seems to represent the idea that one person can represent the entire party accurately, but if you truly believe that, so be it. However, in the very same post, you state that source of the philosophy of taxing the wealthy at a higher rate is "envy and jealousy" and that it serves solely to fuel class warfare. How is that not a blanketed statement, along the same lines of the ones you object to from the other side?

I'd rather not get into much of the current argument, if simply because it seems to border on a lot of resentful and disrespectful feelings, that which I don't feel is very condusive of debate, unless we prefer the variety of name-calling and emotional frustrations. If you wish to participate in such affairs, far be it from me to stop you, however.

However, I am rather curious. Say I buy your argument that taxing the wealthy at a higher rate is unfair, and that we should in fact have a flat tax rate. It does seem unfair at a face value, so I can accept that. And I do genuinely believe affirmative action is inherently unfair.

But, being born in a very poor family who can't afford to live in an affluent area where superior education is often available, who doesn't receive regular supplies, and who's time is divided amongst numerous siblings, doesn't seem very fair either, especially because the children themselves didn't do anything to deserve it, any more than children in wealthy families have earned their privileged of having a comfortable environment, more adequate materials, and to go to a private school that is better equipped to prepare them for success.

How, then, do we make that inquiry fair? It seemed to move your philosophy to undo the inequities of the rich, and that's legitimate. How, then, do we account for the inequities of the poor? If we just say "tough luck, the world isn't fair", can't we just say that to the rich in regards to taxing them as well?
This message was last edited by the player at 22:28, Thu 23 June 2011.

Are you suggesting this didn't happen, or that people in different regions oftentimes show different behaviors?

Additionally there is the issue that we don't go fishing in the desert- we tax teh rich because they have the money.
And most jobs are actually produced by middle class entrepeneurs, not the rich.
Also I said *social* minorities, not racial minorities- which si people who are socially outside the mainstream. No party currently defends racial discrimination, though many Republicans have taken the old racial arguments and talked about them in terms of 'black culture' and 'latino culture', to the point that in kansas under Republican legislature it was mandataory for all public teachers to take a 'cultural sensitivity' class which was essentially explaining why minorities couldn't get ahead because of their cultures...

Tlaloc, you really ... jump on a line and run with it. You seem to be all about trouncing me for positions I don't hold. There is a difference between understanding and believing something. I am trying to explain the other position so you understand. That doesn't mean I agree with it. I've never encountered someone before who, if I say 'those people believe X' says 'you are wrong for believing X!'




While I understand you haven't ever literally said it, the way you phrase your posts can be read such that it really, very heavily suggests it. If you are not trying to communicate this, I do recommend you reread your posts before posting with the understanding that other people, especially without the benefit of tone of voice and so on, may not read the same meaning you are intending to convey. (This is especially so because you come off as rather abrasive, so when talking with people, many of them will automatically be on the defensive and will assume you're writing an attack.) Just a thought, to help defuse unnecessary fights.




I wouldn't disagree with you -- and neither was Falkus. Falkus was just pointing out a point you yourself have agreed with; that the Republican Party has taken a very anti-libertarian position on homosexual marriage. So why are you beating him up for it? What are you defending?




Firstly notice that important bit, "I just place". You are making a value judgment. Yet, you throw out your value judgment as though it's cold fact and people are wrong for disagreeing with it. Again, it's coming off as arrogant, insulting and confrontational. Is there a reason you are letting yourself come off as that? Is there some goal you can only reach by stomping on toes instead of just explaining your position?

Moving on, I would agree that they want to control more. However, I wouldn't say that they want to restrict [freedoms] more. I think democrats want just as much freedom as republicans, the difference is republicans think it can be achieved through either keeping the government out, or by using the government as a monolithic enforcer of Christian morality and empirialistic politics (depending on which side of the benc they're on). Democrats think it can be achieved by the government actively enforcing it. The purpose of gun control isn't to take away guns, it's to protect our right to life. Affirmative action isn't intended to take away your right to a job, but give someone else access to the lifestyle you currently enjoy. Do I personally disagree with the idea of 'the government can enforce freedom by putting people in jail'? Definitely. But we're not talking about effectiveness, we're talking about *motives*. Democrats do not *wish* to restrict freedoms.

In fact, if I compare Republicans to Democrats, I see a lot more movements on the part of the former to restrict freedoms just to restrict freedoms than I do with the latter. Think about it.

Democrats push for pro-choice. They push for pro-homosexual marriage. They push for affirmative action (to give more freedom to the underprivileged). They push for gun control (to protect our freedom to life). They push progressive tax rates (to again give more freedom to the underprivileged). They push for health care (to protect our freedom to health care). They push for public education (to protect our freedom to an education).

Compare that to the Republicans. They push for big military to, I guess, defend our freedoms from foreign invaders (not that that's been an issue since WWII0. They push for the Patriot Act for the same. They push to prohibit gay marriages to ... I don't know. They push for pro-life to protect the fetus's freedom to life. They push religious agendas to umm... Can't help you with that one either. War on Drugs which, well, no freedom-enhancing there.

I agree that the Republican one is more *EFFECTIVE* at protecting freedom. But it's not for want of good intentions on the part of Democrats. When I'm arguing with Tycho or whoever, we aren't arguing about whether freedom is good or not. We're arguing about the best way to get it.



I started making a case for it. Like I said, the Tea Party is picking up a lot of loonies, including Palin, who is more pro-religious than pro-freedom. Libertarian party picked up Bob Barr, who voted for the Patriot Act. You yourself agreed that both of those parties are suffering from sabotage and a PR war. So yes, it is correct that they've both been tied to freedom-limiting campaigns.




No, I really don't think I've said that.

What I said was, if I believed the government was effective (whether true or not), I'd vote democrat (i.e., to rely on the government more). I generally believe people do an okay job at policing themselves, but that's partially because I've never really seen circumstances where that was the case.



Is that a real question?

How can the Green Party suck even though it's never been in power?

Because it has questionable leadership and sometimes pushes for destructive ideas.



As I said above, there's a difference between understanding a position and believing it.




Please see again the section on the difference between understanding a position and believing it.



The intention is not to punish them. And frankly, if the terrible punishment you're suffering is to be between jobs for an extra four months so someone who is trapped in a cycle of hand-to-mouth poverty can get an opportunity to work and provide for his family, well ...




I agree with your first line. I disagree with your second one.

I live in the city. Most of the people I see are literally living hand-to-mouth. Many of them work two or even three jobs, and are still struggling to make ends meet. These are good people who don't have time to see their own children because they're working two minimum-wage jobs to make rent. People who are at constant risk of violence in their homes, whose streets are filled with trash from people who literally dump it there. This is my day-to-day commute.

I don't hear these people talking about how they wish for this or that. They just want food and medicine. I don't consider 'I hope I can make my rent this month because it's awfully cold under the overpass' to be 'envy or jealousy' (or if it is, it's warranted). I don't disagree that BilL Gates has contributed significantly to our country. But whatever he's suffering due to his intense 50% tax rate is nothing compared to what these people are suffering. People are starving, and watching their children starve. You really think their goal is to put 'idiot socialists in power'? No. They just want to get food on the table, just like you do.




There is no hard definition of middle class, but ballpark figures would be $45k-$100k. Above that you have access to accountants and loopholes and your effective tax rate steadies out or drops. Below that and you get more back than you put in.

Actually i think freedom can best be achieved by a meeting of the midns between libertarians and democrats- use governemnt to achieve freedom but with minimum necessary exertion of power. Where Democrats fail it is from lack of understanding- they tend to think "we want to achieve X so lets just make a law mandating X" which of course works about as well as changing the tides by building fences.
Libertarians fail in believing that teh only thing governemnt needs to protect us from is violent crime and foreign governments, while we are on our second set of robber barons who have taken the country through economic takeover and essentially threatened the very infrastructure of freedom which enabled their own success.
Non-libertarian republicans tend to suffer from actually being diametrically opposed on principle to the goals that Democrats want to achieve. 'Freedom for all? No I want my privledges! We'll show those upity <insert minority here, or poor who unfortunately are not a minority> we'll campaign against their "special" rights movements to try and get what we have.'

I know not every one falls into this kind of category.  Though when I do think of liberals (not liberalists, there is a difference), this is what I think of as their planned perfect society.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVG64etX1XI

Be advised, this video is legit, it was created by www.forumforthefutuer.org
This organization has many large businesses who funded them and back this message.
Bank of America
Pepsi Co
Eco-UK
Time Warner
Royal Dutch Shell and Motophone


Just to name a few.

And how does corporate backing make reading of augeries more or less legitimate?
The piece is absurd, regardless of where the funding comes from.

Saw this article in the BBC today, and thought it made some really good observations:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-13906274

In particular, I really thought this bit was right on:

That's perhaps the harshest bit of the article, but I think it's bluntness hits the nail on the head.

I don't know. If someone offers me $20, I'll accept it. If someone asks me if giving $20 to strangers is a good policy, I'll tell you no. I don't think those two positions are contradictory. Turning down free money is a lot like voting in that, for the individual, it realistically has no gain. The difference is the former position has a serious penalty, and unlike voting, there isn't enough popular support for turning down benefits to have any real effect, plus that system rewards cheaters.

Now if you're talking about people who say we need to vote down all welfare systems (except those they themselves benefit from) then that's a different matter.

Just read that republican presidential candidate Herman Cain thinks that communities have the right to ban mosques.  He claims this isn't religious discrimination.

I was wondering what some of our conservative posters here thought of Cain.  Is he a serious candidate, or just someone who appeals to the fringe?  Is he someone you'd vote for if he won the republican nomination?  Are his views on Islam representative of republican thought on Islam, or is he way out on the fringe here?  Every time I hear anything about this guy, I think "is he just getting attention for being extreme, or is he really a serious candidate?"

Right now the republican bandwagon is flush with people no one knows, and people who are known but actively rejected. There's a very real possibility the republicans will lose the race solely on the grounds that they can't field anyone credible (I'm sorry Ron Paul! I love you, but you are never going to win.)

Ron Paul only went that route in order to get funding for his campaign.  Last time he ran as an independent and couldn't come up with any funds.

That's the problem with the Tea Party; their influence has made it impossible for the Republican's to field more moderate candidates. And it's moderate candidates who get elected because, at the end of the day, to win an election, the people you truly have to get on your side are the undivided voters in the middle of the political spectrum.

Appealing to your core voters is all well and good, but if you alienate the people who haven't decided who to vote for and make them vote for the other side; you're going to lose.
This message was last edited by the player at 11:17, Mon 18 July 2011.