Principia Discordia

I got fooled by Obama. So help me he seemed right. Obama ran on promises of transparency, and holding accountable those that participated in the raping of our liberties since pretty much before I was born. He had all the right positions on technology and the Patent system. Despite myself, I started to have hope in the system. That things really can change.

Hope tends to addle peoples brains like that.

Since then, I've watched as he gave up his position on campaign finance reform, so that he can rake in the benefit of massive donations, watched as he decided that changing the law to allow widespread wiretapping was more important then ensuring those complicit in the last 20 years of eavesdropping are held accountable.

So I'm back here, to rant into empty cyberspace once more, and to watch and to wait. And when the messiah turns out to be another compromised politician, who will give your money to the rich, and strip away what little rights haven't been taken already; I will laugh.

And this is different than every election since the fucking ink was still wet on the constitution...HOW?

Get over it.

Sorry about the disillusionment, Requiem, but what exactly did you expect? Liberal, conservative, it really doesn't matter. By the time you're running for president, you've already been filtered through the party system. The nearest thing to honest politicians are the ones who can fund their own campaigns, or enough at least to run as an independent, but voting for an independent is essentially a waste of a vote anyway. Even if an independent could get elected, he could not get anything passed through the house or senate.

Presidents are figureheads. If you want a real change, start a revolution.

Quote from: nostalgicBadger on August 28, 2008, 08:44:07 AM
Sorry about the disillusionment, Requiem, but what exactly did you expect? Liberal, conservative, it really doesn't matter. By the time you're running for president, you've already been filtered through the party system. The nearest thing to honest politicians are the ones who can fund their own campaigns, or enough at least to run as an independent, but voting for an independent is essentially a waste of a vote anyway. Even if an independent could get elected, he could not get anything passed through the house or senate.

Presidents are figureheads. If you want a real change, start a revolution.

A friend of mine started a revolution last week.

He stole a chevy and was speeding west on some train tracks when he realized this wasn't what he wanted to do.

So he bailed out of the moving car and landed in the forest, which he couldn't get out of for a few days.

The ambulance came and took him to the psych ward. He's there now seething under a cloud of powerful drugs.


True story.

if you want a real change, change your mind.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 28, 2008, 04:20:33 AM
And this is different than every election since the fucking ink was still wet on the constitution...HOW?

Get over it.

When you're young and full of naive hope, four years feels like long enough for things to start being different. :sad:

What TGRR said.

And also, -10 pts for using the Fox News "messiah" bullshit. 

If you could do something to actually change a damn thing in our modern plutocracy - it would be forbidden.
Even if we manage to educated more people about the idiocy that runs rampant in this world of ours, it is too late. Too many people are already comfortable just dragging their body towards death, ignoring the perversion that distorted their brain; so I decided to work towards the giant collapse - the sooner it happens the better - in my naive hope that something smarter may arise from the ruins.

Well, you can either accept the inevitable and get defeated and do nothing, or you can accept the inevitable and still go on as you were before.  You have to weigh the consequences of each and see how much self-respect you get out of either.  From there you move on to continuing to give a shit or not, it's always up to you.

If EVERYONE decided that it's too difficult to deal with the consequences of giving a shit and doing something about it...and decided fuckitall, I'm done...what would happen?

Your country would become France.

In the unlikely event that everybody (without exception) chooses to be too troubled by the consequences of giving a shit and doing something about it we will probably end up without someone launching the first nuke and from there it is just a matter of minutes till enough crazy shit is flying through the air that we might as well not have to think about any other consequences ever again.
Or we just enjoy that stale, thick moment of stagnation until the first person gets bored and starts to give a shit again and does something about it.

Yet, what about those that choose to not accept the inevitable as inevitable for lack of evidence that the inevitable is in fact - inevitable?

I guess you'll have to either keep up the campaign to inform them or leave them be.

QuoteIf EVERYONE decided that it's too difficult to deal with the consequences of giving a shit and doing something about it...and decided fuckitall, I'm done...what would happen?
   

Isn't that pretty much what's going on now?

Quote from: Roo on August 28, 2008, 07:16:49 PM

QuoteIf EVERYONE decided that it's too difficult to deal with the consequences of giving a shit and doing something about it...and decided fuckitall, I'm done...what would happen?
   

Isn't that pretty much what's going on now?

Do you REALLY think that?

I think that we live in a world where most people don't give a shit about real issues and of course won't do anything about it because they are comfortable in their state of mindless ignorance.
Why worry about how to better the world when you can just choose to live in blissful ignorance? Why bother to really go through long mental processes when you can choose to just eat the brainnumbing propaganda some major publisher wants to shove down your throat? They will shove anyways, so why not just open wide and learn to not gag while they fill you up with their creamy bullshit?

Some already know too much, or gave certain things too much thought. It feels wrong somehow, to give in to the perverted ideas of modern society. In time the propaganda will have adapted and give us a new feel of what is natural; then the last bits of thought crime will be eliminated and we can all enjoy being stupid and just doing our share for the big machine.

Be it due to intelligence, pride, trauma, madness, obsession to rebel - a part of humanity won't just swallow this crap, no matter how hard it's being shoved in... These people will have be taken care of; or they will take care of the machine. Which obviously can't be allowed. The strange times are also interesting times - the final battle is already raging. Silently for some, and others are kicking and screaming until the drugs kick in again.

Meh; (yay for even more semicolons) I shouldn't just rant away without proper structure and without knowing where I am going with it. Ah well, time for my pizza; factory made of course, nicely decorated with pressed chicken, spinach and some kind of sauce - randomly puked onto it by some robot. HUZZA!

Quote from: planeswalker on August 28, 2008, 07:50:09 PM
I think that we live in a world where most people don't give a shit about real issues and of course won't do anything about it because they are comfortable in their state of mindless ignorance.
Why worry about how to better the world when you can just choose to live in blissful ignorance? Why bother to really go through long mental processes when you can choose to just eat the brainnumbing propaganda some major publisher wants to shove down your throat? They will shove anyways, so why not just open wide and learn to not gag while they fill you up with their creamy bullshit?

Some already know too much, or gave certain things too much thought. It feels wrong somehow, to give in to the perverted ideas of modern society. In time the propaganda will have adapted and give us a new feel of what is natural; then the last bits of thought crime will be eliminated and we can all enjoy being stupid and just doing our share for the big machine.

Be it due to intelligence, pride, trauma, madness, obsession to rebel - a part of humanity won't just swallow this crap, no matter how hard it's being shoved in... These people will have be taken care of; or they will take care of the machine. Which obviously can't be allowed. The strange times are also interesting times - the final battle is already raging. Silently for some, and others are kicking and screaming until the drugs kick in again.

Meh; (yay for even more semicolons) I shouldn't just rant away without proper structure and without knowing where I am going with it. Ah well, time for my pizza; factory made of course, nicely decorated with pressed chicken, spinach and some kind of sauce - randomly puked onto it by some robot. HUZZA!

I know what you are saying--I have the very same sentiments on board.  I guess I've been un/lucky enough to inspire others IRL to try to make a difference, even if in the end the experience wasn't nearly as rewarding or brought the amount of change they truly wanted.  The point for me, though, was to not just keep on keepin' on.  Because my conscience wouldn't let me.

I think what you said has held true for a long, long time.  And knowing exactly how far we've come in the information age yet how far we still have to come in the "decent behavior towards others" stage is exactly where the rubber meets the road.  There's little justification for having enough food and shelter and not giving a shit enough to try and continually make things better, except that the comforts of having enough food and shelter tend to produce exactly that reaction in the human mind.

That can be something to get butthurt about, even if it carries a large amount of hypocrisy, or it can be something to accept and move past/around/through in order to carry on with whatever it is that makes you tick.  The hard part is the momentum--hard to initiate, terribly difficult to sustain.  And again, this is another thing to get upset about, or simply accept and power through/forgive/forget.

I'm at heart an activist, so I rarely accept the defeatist attitude, though I certainly do my share of raging and venting...because I care (if you don't care, you don't bitch, amirite?).

Quote from: Jenne on August 28, 2008, 07:23:35 PM

Quote from: Roo on August 28, 2008, 07:16:49 PM

QuoteIf EVERYONE decided that it's too difficult to deal with the consequences of giving a shit and doing something about it...and decided fuckitall, I'm done...what would happen?
   

Isn't that pretty much what's going on now?

Do you REALLY think that?

I don't think EVERYONE has decided "fuckitall, I'm done", but I do think an awful lot of people have.

Quote from: Roo on August 28, 2008, 08:40:50 PM

Quote from: Jenne on August 28, 2008, 07:23:35 PM

Quote from: Roo on August 28, 2008, 07:16:49 PM

QuoteIf EVERYONE decided that it's too difficult to deal with the consequences of giving a shit and doing something about it...and decided fuckitall, I'm done...what would happen?
   

Isn't that pretty much what's going on now?

Do you REALLY think that?

I don't think EVERYONE has decided "fuckitall, I'm done", but I do think an awful lot of people have.

What difference does it make? What can people really do? Do you honestly think who you vote for is going to make any difference? The democrats selected Obama, the republicans selected McCain, and if the handful of people running this country honestly thought that either of these people was going to deviate too radically from the status quo, their names would never appear on a ballot; they would be nothing more than obscure senators, and even if they were running, you would probably never know it.

So what do you do? Voting is useless. People, short sighted as they are, look around at all of our problems and blame the current administration, as if everything would be just fine if we had elected Al Gore. Forget it. George Bush is a symptom, not the disease. The real problem is with the system itself. It's too old. It's too bloated. The Constitution was designed to govern a few colonies on the east coast, before mass media and corporations and billion dollar ad campaigns.

Obama is not your answer. Neither is McCain. The system is failing, not because it's inherently flawed, but because it has not adapted. Too many people have learned to use it for selfish gain, and too bloated is the beaurocracy to keep repairing it. History has shown us what happens, though, when the people are dissatisfied with a system that cannot be fixed.


UNDERSHAFT Vote! Bah! When you vote, you only change the names of
the cabinet. When you shoot, you pull down governments,
inaugurate new epochs, abolish old orders and set up new. Is that
historically true, Mr Learned Man, or is it not?

CUSINS. It is historically true. I loathe having to admit it. I
repudiate your sentiments. I abhor your nature. I defy you in
every possible way. Still, it is true. But it ought not to be
true.

UNDERSHAFT. Ought, ought, ought, ought, ought! Are you going to
spend your life saying ought, like the rest of our moralists?
Turn your oughts into shalls, man. Come and make explosives with
me. Whatever can blow men up can blow society up. The history of
the world is the history of those who had courage enough to
embrace this truth. Have you the courage to embrace it, Barbara?

 :lulz:
I love how this forum is swarming with thought criminals...

Like the NRA nuts say "They'll have to pry it from my cold dead fingers."  Not because I think i should HAVE to own one, just that I think I do.

How's that for thought crime?

I use a target from the shooting range I go to as a bumper sticker, with my shot group circled.

Quote from: Holding Dongs on August 28, 2008, 10:02:41 PM
Like the NRA nuts say "They'll have to pry it from my cold dead fingers."  Not because I think i should HAVE to own one, just that I think I do.

How's that for thought crime?

I use a target from the shooting range I go to as a bumper sticker, with my shot group circled.

wtf are you talking about?

Quote from: nostalgicBadger on August 28, 2008, 10:04:43 PM

Quote from: Holding Dongs on August 28, 2008, 10:02:41 PM
Like the NRA nuts say "They'll have to pry it from my cold dead fingers."  Not because I think i should HAVE to own one, just that I think I do.

How's that for thought crime?

I use a target from the shooting range I go to as a bumper sticker, with my shot group circled.

wtf are you talking about?

I am so jaundiced by this election and concerned as to where we are headed that I didn't really look at what I wrote before I wrote it.

To answer the question, I have no fucking idea.

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on August 28, 2008, 01:40:09 PM
What TGRR said.

And also, -10 pts for using the Fox News "messiah" bullshit. 

As a former Obama supporter, I can state the term 'messiah' is completely accurate in the effect he has on his followers.

Quote from: Requiem on August 28, 2008, 10:12:50 PM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on August 28, 2008, 01:40:09 PM
What TGRR said.

And also, -10 pts for using the Fox News "messiah" bullshit. 

As a former Obama supporter, I can state the term 'messiah' is completely accurate in the effect he has on his followers.

Honestly, it freaks me out.

Quote from: planeswalker on August 28, 2008, 09:47:16 PM
:lulz:
I love how this forum is swarming with thought criminals...

if only the spread of thought crime was  as viral as the spread of herd thought - baaaad discordians questioning the leeeeaders obaaaama and  mccaaaaain we haaaaave goooood choices...

Thoughtcrime will become a real problem in a few decades.

Concerning the election as european spectator and general maniac:
I think it won't really matter who is going to win - since most global politics are already initiated and are going to be steered by other means; and like pointed out above - any candidate up for vote certainly went through the system and therefor can't be changing anything too radically.
It's the same bullshit here; I've seen it in Germany and there lobby-ism is really going nuts in the recent years - and the closer I look at Sweden the more I see the same shit again and again. At least here the general populous is still going hard on the free-speech matter and in public radio you can still say what you want. Not like Germany where press-censorship is seriously trying to compete with the USA.

Quote from: nostalgicBadger on August 28, 2008, 09:33:13 PM

Quote from: Roo on August 28, 2008, 08:40:50 PM

Quote from: Jenne on August 28, 2008, 07:23:35 PM

Quote from: Roo on August 28, 2008, 07:16:49 PM

QuoteIf EVERYONE decided that it's too difficult to deal with the consequences of giving a shit and doing something about it...and decided fuckitall, I'm done...what would happen?
   

Isn't that pretty much what's going on now?

Do you REALLY think that?

I don't think EVERYONE has decided "fuckitall, I'm done", but I do think an awful lot of people have.

What difference does it make? What can people really do? Do you honestly think who you vote for is going to make any difference? The democrats selected Obama, the republicans selected McCain, and if the handful of people running this country honestly thought that either of these people was going to deviate too radically from the status quo, their names would never appear on a ballot; they would be nothing more than obscure senators, and even if they were running, you would probably never know it.

So what do you do? Voting is useless. People, short sighted as they are, look around at all of our problems and blame the current administration, as if everything would be just fine if we had elected Al Gore. Forget it. George Bush is a symptom, not the disease. The real problem is with the system itself. It's too old. It's too bloated. The Constitution was designed to govern a few colonies on the east coast, before mass media and corporations and billion dollar ad campaigns.

Obama is not your answer. Neither is McCain. The system is failing, not because it's inherently flawed, but because it has not adapted. Too many people have learned to use it for selfish gain, and too bloated is the beaurocracy to keep repairing it. History has shown us what happens, though, when the people are dissatisfied with a system that cannot be fixed.

You don't think the system started OUT this way?

I get the feeling in this thread that there's the thought there's been entropy.  That the system is on a crash-course to failure if it hasn't gotten there already.  That it's ENDED UP that way, not just going on as it has begun.

Let me tell you something:  there are still more people, better off, better educated, better fed, etc. etc. since this whole shebang started.

And now ask yourself how it started.  And then point me to where THAT was a bad thing.  (eta:  in aggregate, asshats, in aggregate--you're always going to break some eggs to make an omelet)

The trump card is always going to be the fact that this is still America.  This is still the US.  And you are all bitching because you care, and because you want it better.  You are the lie to the truthyness of "it's all going to hell in a handbasket."

I think it does matter who is going to win:  the new stats on what Bushfuck did to our bottom line point to that right off.  More Americans are in a shittier position after he took office than before.  In fact, the world is in a shittier position...so yes, it definitely fucking matters.

Does it? Things are worse in America than before Bush took office, yes, but if you think that is all because of Bush, you're failing to take basic economics into account. Economics runs in cycles, it doesn't just keep going up and plateau -- what goes up will eventually come back down, and may or may not go up again. The economy was beginning to decline at the end of Clinton's second term. Admittedly, the Iraq war probably did not help, although it is hard to say, because even though war costs money, it does tend to employ people.

Some people will always care. That doesn't mean the system isn't declining. The real issue isn't anything that happened during Bush's rule; it's the fact that Bush was reelected at all.

Quote from: nostalgicBadger on August 28, 2008, 11:35:08 PM
Does it? Things are worse in America than before Bush took office, yes, but if you think that is all because of Bush, you're failing to take basic economics into account. Economics runs in cycles, it doesn't just keep going up and plateau -- what goes up will eventually come back down, and may or may not go up again. The economy was beginning to decline at the end of Clinton's second term. Admittedly, the Iraq war probably did not help, although it is hard to say, because even though war costs money, it does tend to employ people.

Some people will always care. That doesn't mean the system isn't declining. The real issue isn't anything that happened during Bush's rule; it's the fact that Bush was reelected at all.

Who said that? Jenne certainly didn't.

Quote from: Cainad on August 28, 2008, 11:50:41 PM

Quote from: nostalgicBadger on August 28, 2008, 11:35:08 PM
Does it? Things are worse in America than before Bush took office, yes, but if you think that is all because of Bush, you're failing to take basic economics into account. Economics runs in cycles, it doesn't just keep going up and plateau -- what goes up will eventually come back down, and may or may not go up again. The economy was beginning to decline at the end of Clinton's second term. Admittedly, the Iraq war probably did not help, although it is hard to say, because even though war costs money, it does tend to employ people.

Some people will always care. That doesn't mean the system isn't declining. The real issue isn't anything that happened during Bush's rule; it's the fact that Bush was reelected at all.

Who said that? Jenne certainly didn't.

Quote from: JenneI think it does matter who is going to win:  the new stats on what Bushfuck did to our bottom line point to that right off.  More Americans are in a shittier position after he took office than before.  In fact, the world is in a shittier position...so yes, it definitely fucking matters.

Um, since when does claiming someone had an influence on something constitute placing all the blame on that person? Are you trying to say that the Bush administration has nothing to do with our current economic situation?

Quote from: Requiem on August 28, 2008, 10:12:50 PM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on August 28, 2008, 01:40:09 PM
What TGRR said.

And also, -10 pts for using the Fox News "messiah" bullshit. 

As a former Obama supporter, I can state the term 'messiah' is completely accurate in the effect he has on his followers.

It's OK. We all had faith in all that democracy bullshit at one point. But seriously, the only ways to make a difference is either getting rich and joining the corporate shadow masters who really run the show or turn to violence and decrapitate the clowns.

Quote from: nostalgicBadger on August 28, 2008, 11:35:08 PM
Does it? Things are worse in America than before Bush took office, yes, but if you think that is all because of Bush, you're failing to take basic economics into account. Economics runs in cycles, it doesn't just keep going up and plateau -- what goes up will eventually come back down, and may or may not go up again. The economy was beginning to decline at the end of Clinton's second term. Admittedly, the Iraq war probably did not help, although it is hard to say, because even though war costs money, it does tend to employ people.

Some people will always care. That doesn't mean the system isn't declining. The real issue isn't anything that happened during Bush's rule; it's the fact that Bush was reelected at all.

So spending trillions in Iraq did naught but keep the machine in place, eh? ...oh, you're "unsure" of that, yeah, right.  Heh.

So not shoring up infrastructure, even at the very crux of its decline (cf: NOLA, veteran benefits, the rust belt, etc.) so that descent is fast and sure does nothing whatsoever, eh?  ...oh, that would "happen anyway" right?  Heh.

So the decrease of the middle class, the increase of starving children, the increase of dropout rates and the crash of the housing market are NOT anything indicative of a shitty leadership but instead of an economy flushing itself?  So let's just give an extra flush and not encourage people think of this as anything but a done-deal?  Heh.

Methinks 'tis YOU who flunked legislation basics 101.  You tax the poor and give to the rich overseas, and what the fuck is gonna come back and blow dick on you?  This is NOT a cycle, and to say so is to take the blame right from the baby's mouth and put it up the public's ass.  It's pure bullshit to pretend that whoever is in power does nothing to reduce or induce, but only produces the same yet and yet again.  That's maybe 10% of the deal, otherwise we'd still be under royal edict.

That system you speak of may be on an elliptical edge, but it's not in a downward spiral.  Bush is part of that ellipsis, as is the war in Iraq...but it's not part of a general decline of the whole, just part of a time in history where hysteria overcame reason, as it usually does.  Reaction, over-reaction, reactionaryism. 

So, what you are saying, NB, seems to be that the system is so far fucked up, that the people who care aren't ever going to help, that this is a toilet that will continue to flush...so why bother?  Is that what you mean?

Quote from: Jenne on August 29, 2008, 02:09:47 AM

Quote from: nostalgicBadger on August 28, 2008, 11:35:08 PM
Does it? Things are worse in America than before Bush took office, yes, but if you think that is all because of Bush, you're failing to take basic economics into account. Economics runs in cycles, it doesn't just keep going up and plateau -- what goes up will eventually come back down, and may or may not go up again. The economy was beginning to decline at the end of Clinton's second term. Admittedly, the Iraq war probably did not help, although it is hard to say, because even though war costs money, it does tend to employ people.

Some people will always care. That doesn't mean the system isn't declining. The real issue isn't anything that happened during Bush's rule; it's the fact that Bush was reelected at all.

So spending trillions in Iraq did naught but keep the machine in place, eh? ...oh, you're "unsure" of that, yeah, right.  Heh.

So not shoring up infrastructure, even at the very crux of its decline (cf: NOLA, veteran benefits, the rust belt, etc.) so that descent is fast and sure does nothing whatsoever, eh?  ...oh, that would "happen anyway" right?  Heh.

So the decrease of the middle class, the increase of starving children, the increase of dropout rates and the crash of the housing market are NOT anything indicative of a shitty leadership but instead of an economy flushing itself?  So let's just give an extra flush and not encourage people think of this as anything but a done-deal?  Heh.

Methinks 'tis YOU who flunked legislation basics 101.  You tax the poor and give to the rich overseas, and what the fuck is gonna come back and blow dick on you?  This is NOT a cycle, and to say so is to take the blame right from the baby's mouth and put it up the public's ass.  It's pure bullshit to pretend that whoever is in power does nothing to reduce or induce, but only produces the same yet and yet again.  That's maybe 10% of the deal, otherwise we'd still be under royal edict.

That system you speak of may be on an elliptical edge, but it's not in a downward spiral.  Bush is part of that ellipsis, as is the war in Iraq...but it's not part of a general decline of the whole, just part of a time in history where hysteria overcame reason, as it usually does.  Reaction, over-reaction, reactionaryism. 

So, what you are saying, NB, seems to be that the system is so far fucked up, that the people who care aren't ever going to help, that this is a toilet that will continue to flush...so why bother?  Is that what you mean?

Wholly Chao, Jenne.

Sometimes you just bowl me over...

Quote from: lemurdue on August 29, 2008, 12:33:09 AM

Quote from: Requiem on August 28, 2008, 10:12:50 PM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on August 28, 2008, 01:40:09 PM
What TGRR said.

And also, -10 pts for using the Fox News "messiah" bullshit. 

As a former Obama supporter, I can state the term 'messiah' is completely accurate in the effect he has on his followers.

It's OK. We all had faith in all that democracy bullshit at one point. But seriously, the only ways to make a difference is either getting rich and joining the corporate shadow masters who really run the show or turn to violence and decrapitate the clowns.

K.  Y'all need to go live in motherfucking Afghanistan for a while.  Get a taste of what the democracy bullshit is about. 

Fucking whiners.

Quote from: singer on August 29, 2008, 02:20:39 AM

Quote from: Jenne on August 29, 2008, 02:09:47 AM

Quote from: nostalgicBadger on August 28, 2008, 11:35:08 PM
Does it? Things are worse in America than before Bush took office, yes, but if you think that is all because of Bush, you're failing to take basic economics into account. Economics runs in cycles, it doesn't just keep going up and plateau -- what goes up will eventually come back down, and may or may not go up again. The economy was beginning to decline at the end of Clinton's second term. Admittedly, the Iraq war probably did not help, although it is hard to say, because even though war costs money, it does tend to employ people.

Some people will always care. That doesn't mean the system isn't declining. The real issue isn't anything that happened during Bush's rule; it's the fact that Bush was reelected at all.

So spending trillions in Iraq did naught but keep the machine in place, eh? ...oh, you're "unsure" of that, yeah, right.  Heh.

So not shoring up infrastructure, even at the very crux of its decline (cf: NOLA, veteran benefits, the rust belt, etc.) so that descent is fast and sure does nothing whatsoever, eh?  ...oh, that would "happen anyway" right?  Heh.

So the decrease of the middle class, the increase of starving children, the increase of dropout rates and the crash of the housing market are NOT anything indicative of a shitty leadership but instead of an economy flushing itself?  So let's just give an extra flush and not encourage people think of this as anything but a done-deal?  Heh.

Methinks 'tis YOU who flunked legislation basics 101.  You tax the poor and give to the rich overseas, and what the fuck is gonna come back and blow dick on you?  This is NOT a cycle, and to say so is to take the blame right from the baby's mouth and put it up the public's ass.  It's pure bullshit to pretend that whoever is in power does nothing to reduce or induce, but only produces the same yet and yet again.  That's maybe 10% of the deal, otherwise we'd still be under royal edict.

That system you speak of may be on an elliptical edge, but it's not in a downward spiral.  Bush is part of that ellipsis, as is the war in Iraq...but it's not part of a general decline of the whole, just part of a time in history where hysteria overcame reason, as it usually does.  Reaction, over-reaction, reactionaryism. 

So, what you are saying, NB, seems to be that the system is so far fucked up, that the people who care aren't ever going to help, that this is a toilet that will continue to flush...so why bother?  Is that what you mean?

Wholly Chao, Jenne.

Sometimes you just bowl me over...

Hopefully, in a good way.

Sometimes, my nerves are struck, sometimes, I'm bored, SOMETIMES, I have a bailiwick.

Just not oftimes anymore. :D

Quote from: Cainad on August 28, 2008, 11:55:15 PM
Um, since when does claiming someone had an influence on something constitute placing all the blame on that person? Are you trying to say that the Bush administration has nothing to do with our current economic situation?

Didn't you get the motherfucking MEMO, Cainad?

Bush was just holding status fucking quo.

Quote from: Jenne on August 28, 2008, 11:08:14 PM
I think it does matter who is going to win:  the new stats on what Bushfuck did to our bottom line point to that right off.  More Americans are in a shittier position after he took office than before.  In fact, the world is in a shittier position...so yes, it definitely fucking matters.

Apparently you forgot about the mass layoffs and unemployment in late 2000.  Things were already shit when Bush took office.  Bush was a dismal failure at fixing things for any length of time, and may have smashed it beyond repair, but Clinton, and the fucktards in congress, are the ones that broke the economy in the first place.  What makes the current crop more qualified than the last one?

Quote from: Requiem on August 29, 2008, 02:23:47 AM

Quote from: Jenne on August 28, 2008, 11:08:14 PM
I think it does matter who is going to win:  the new stats on what Bushfuck did to our bottom line point to that right off.  More Americans are in a shittier position after he took office than before.  In fact, the world is in a shittier position...so yes, it definitely fucking matters.

Apparently you forgot about the mass layoffs and unemployment in late 2000.  Things were already shit when Bush took office.  Bush was a dismal failure at fixing things for any length of time, and may have smashed it beyond repair, but Clinton, and the fucktards in congress, are the ones that broke the economy in the first place.  What makes the current crop more qualified than the last one?

Take a look at the deficit, Buddy.

Take a look at the loss of life and limb of a whole generation of vets.

Take a look at corporate scandal after corporate scandal that got shoved by the wayside, while people go hungry, lose their houses and lose their lives to credit and housing crunches.

Oh, did I MENTION the fact that we fucked up "going green," even?  Buy-bye, Kyoto Agreement!

Blame Clinton all you fucking want to, but Bushie and his cronies didn't fix it.  They plunged it even further into the shitter and then took a dump on it, wiping their collective asses with the Constitution while they were at it.

Quote from: Jenne on August 29, 2008, 02:26:36 AM
Blame Clinton all you fucking want to, but Bushie and his cronies didn't fix it.  They plunged it even further into the shitter and then took a dump on it, wiping their collective asses with the Constitution while they were at it.

Right on!
Ha! It took damn near eight years, but i finally convinced my folks about this fact.  They were classic Repubs snowed by the neocons.... they've finally admitted that Bush has horked this whole time. 
I would also add to your list that they had the perfect opportunity to repeal arms infringement and actively ignored it.... (mebbee you don't want that rider on your list, but there it is)

Quote from: Jenne on August 29, 2008, 02:26:36 AM

Quote from: Requiem on August 29, 2008, 02:23:47 AM

Quote from: Jenne on August 28, 2008, 11:08:14 PM
I think it does matter who is going to win:  the new stats on what Bushfuck did to our bottom line point to that right off.  More Americans are in a shittier position after he took office than before.  In fact, the world is in a shittier position...so yes, it definitely fucking matters.

Apparently you forgot about the mass layoffs and unemployment in late 2000.  Things were already shit when Bush took office.  Bush was a dismal failure at fixing things for any length of time, and may have smashed it beyond repair, but Clinton, and the fucktards in congress, are the ones that broke the economy in the first place.  What makes the current crop more qualified than the last one?

Take a look at the deficit, Buddy.

Take a look at the loss of life and limb of a whole generation of vets.

Take a look at corporate scandal after corporate scandal that got shoved by the wayside, while people go hungry, lose their houses and lose their lives to credit and housing crunches.

Oh, did I MENTION the fact that we fucked up "going green," even?  Buy-bye, Kyoto Agreement!

Blame Clinton all you fucking want to, but Bushie and his cronies didn't fix it.  They plunged it even further into the shitter and then took a dump on it, wiping their collective asses with the Constitution while they were at it.

I notice you completely failing to defend the idea that democrats would do a better job.

Quote from: Requiem on August 29, 2008, 02:51:36 AM

Quote from: Jenne on August 29, 2008, 02:26:36 AM

Quote from: Requiem on August 29, 2008, 02:23:47 AM

Quote from: Jenne on August 28, 2008, 11:08:14 PM
I think it does matter who is going to win:  the new stats on what Bushfuck did to our bottom line point to that right off.  More Americans are in a shittier position after he took office than before.  In fact, the world is in a shittier position...so yes, it definitely fucking matters.

Apparently you forgot about the mass layoffs and unemployment in late 2000.  Things were already shit when Bush took office.  Bush was a dismal failure at fixing things for any length of time, and may have smashed it beyond repair, but Clinton, and the fucktards in congress, are the ones that broke the economy in the first place.  What makes the current crop more qualified than the last one?

Take a look at the deficit, Buddy.

Take a look at the loss of life and limb of a whole generation of vets.

Take a look at corporate scandal after corporate scandal that got shoved by the wayside, while people go hungry, lose their houses and lose their lives to credit and housing crunches.

Oh, did I MENTION the fact that we fucked up "going green," even?  Buy-bye, Kyoto Agreement!

Blame Clinton all you fucking want to, but Bushie and his cronies didn't fix it.  They plunged it even further into the shitter and then took a dump on it, wiping their collective asses with the Constitution while they were at it.

I notice you completely failing to defend the idea that democrats would do a better job.

The difference at this point is negligible.

Quote from: Requiem on August 29, 2008, 02:23:47 AM

Quote from: Jenne on August 28, 2008, 11:08:14 PM
I think it does matter who is going to win:  the new stats on what Bushfuck did to our bottom line point to that right off.  More Americans are in a shittier position after he took office than before.  In fact, the world is in a shittier position...so yes, it definitely fucking matters.

Apparently you forgot about the mass layoffs and unemployment in late 2000.  Things were already shit when Bush took office.  Bush was a dismal failure at fixing things for any length of time, and may have smashed it beyond repair, but Clinton, and the fucktards in congress, are the ones that broke the economy in the first place.  What makes the current crop more qualified than the last one?

Really?

How?

By moving the nation from record economic deficits to record economic surpluses including the creation of over 22 million jobs (more than any other administration)?

By lowering levels of unemployment to reflect more gainful employment for American citizens than any Republican administration?

By ushering in the highest homeownership and college enrollment rates in history?

By administrative economic policies that fostered the largest peacetime economic expansion in history?

Where was this broken economy of which you speak?

Quote from: singer on August 29, 2008, 03:09:50 AM

Quote from: Requiem on August 29, 2008, 02:23:47 AM

Quote from: Jenne on August 28, 2008, 11:08:14 PM
I think it does matter who is going to win:  the new stats on what Bushfuck did to our bottom line point to that right off.  More Americans are in a shittier position after he took office than before.  In fact, the world is in a shittier position...so yes, it definitely fucking matters.

Apparently you forgot about the mass layoffs and unemployment in late 2000.  Things were already shit when Bush took office.  Bush was a dismal failure at fixing things for any length of time, and may have smashed it beyond repair, but Clinton, and the fucktards in congress, are the ones that broke the economy in the first place.  What makes the current crop more qualified than the last one?

Really?

How?

By moving the nation from record economic deficits to record economic surpluses including the creation of over 22 million jobs (more than any other administration)?

By lowering levels of unemployment to reflect more gainful employment for American citizens than any Republican administration?

By ushering in the highest homeownership and college enrollment rates in history?

By administrative economic policies that fostered the largest peacetime economic expansion in history?

Where was this broken economy of which you speak?

Explain to me how Clinton did any of what you just gave him credit for? Aside from appointing Alan Greenspan, which began with Reagan and who Bush Sr. also appointed prior to Clinton. How did Bill Clinton "move the nation from record deficits to record economic surpluses..."? Did he invent the internet and .coms and begin the upward economic trend that was beginning at the end of Bush Sr.'s term? How did he lower unemployment? And what were the economic policies that he himself administered which brought peace and prosperity to the land? Seriously, for lack of image at hand, CITATIONS NEEDED.

I'm not giving Bush Sr. credit for the economic trends of the 1990's either, I'm just trying to point out, once again, that economics have almost nothing to do with the president, and that the belief that they do is a misconception of the general population who know nothing about economics. Economics is a tide: presidents can make some waves, but no president in the history of the US has ever singehandedly turned the tide.

Didncha KNOW, Singer, that every prezident gets a broked-up system, so why should or WOULD he make a difference--for better OR good?  Every prezitator is just an asshole in a suit!  They all suck ass, and they all do no good for Amurrika and her worthless denizens.  Fuck the system--burn it all down!  DOWN RAINS THE SHIT! DOWN RAINS THE SHIT!  OY OY OY!

New slogan for the age:  Fuck America, it's in the hole anyway!(tm)

Quote from: nostalgicBadger on August 29, 2008, 03:24:05 AM

Quote from: singer on August 29, 2008, 03:09:50 AM

Quote from: Requiem on August 29, 2008, 02:23:47 AM

Quote from: Jenne on August 28, 2008, 11:08:14 PM
I think it does matter who is going to win:  the new stats on what Bushfuck did to our bottom line point to that right off.  More Americans are in a shittier position after he took office than before.  In fact, the world is in a shittier position...so yes, it definitely fucking matters.

Apparently you forgot about the mass layoffs and unemployment in late 2000.  Things were already shit when Bush took office.  Bush was a dismal failure at fixing things for any length of time, and may have smashed it beyond repair, but Clinton, and the fucktards in congress, are the ones that broke the economy in the first place.  What makes the current crop more qualified than the last one?

Really?

How?

By moving the nation from record economic deficits to record economic surpluses including the creation of over 22 million jobs (more than any other administration)?

By lowering levels of unemployment to reflect more gainful employment for American citizens than any Republican administration?

By ushering in the highest homeownership and college enrollment rates in history?

By administrative economic policies that fostered the largest peacetime economic expansion in history?

Where was this broken economy of which you speak?

Explain to me how Clinton did any of what you just gave him credit for? Aside from appointing Alan Greenspan, which began with Reagan and who Bush Sr. also appointed prior to Clinton. How did Bill Clinton "move the nation from record deficits to record economic surpluses..."? Did he invent the internet and .coms and begin the upward economic trend that was beginning at the end of Bush Sr.'s term? How did he lower unemployment? And what were the economic policies that he himself administered which brought peace and prosperity to the land? Seriously, for lack of image at hand, CITATIONS NEEDED.

I'm not giving Bush Sr. credit for the economic trends of the 1990's either, I'm just trying to point out, once again, that economics have almost nothing to do with the president, and that the belief that they do is a misconception of the general population who know nothing about economics. Economics is a tide: presidents can make some waves, but no president in the history of the US has ever singehandedly turned the tide.

Bull.  Shit.

And, I'll see you your citations needed and raise you a paddling down River of Denial.

You can't just respond to an argument with "bullshit" and be convincing, you know.
You don't actually have any credibility, any formal education in economics to my knowledge, I don't even know that you've studied economics independently, and maybe you were just born smart enough to know it all a priori, but from what you've said so far, I have no reason to believe that's true.

Quote from: Jenne on August 29, 2008, 02:20:45 AM

Quote from: lemurdue on August 29, 2008, 12:33:09 AM

Quote from: Requiem on August 28, 2008, 10:12:50 PM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on August 28, 2008, 01:40:09 PM
What TGRR said.

And also, -10 pts for using the Fox News "messiah" bullshit. 

As a former Obama supporter, I can state the term 'messiah' is completely accurate in the effect he has on his followers.

It's OK. We all had faith in all that democracy bullshit at one point. But seriously, the only ways to make a difference is either getting rich and joining the corporate shadow masters who really run the show or turn to violence and decrapitate the clowns.

K.  Y'all need to go live in motherfucking Afghanistan for a while.  Get a taste of what the democracy bullshit is about. 

Fucking whiners.

:?

Quote from: nostalgicBadger on August 29, 2008, 03:33:56 AM
You can't just respond to an argument with "bullshit" and be convincing, you know.
You don't actually have any credibility, any formal education in economics to my knowledge, I don't even know that you've studied economics independently, and maybe you were just born smart enough to know it all a priori, but from what you've said so far, I have no reason to believe that's true.

O rly?  Ha!  I just did.  Onus is on YOU to prove your argument.  HOW did Bush NOT affect our government policies?  How did Clinton TANK everything and leave only dregs for Bushie to slurp up?  Or how did either do neither?  Show ME that the president is ineffectual.  Do it.  I'm practically begging you.

And no, I won't google.  You are expounding a bullshit argument.  That a nation's leader does NOT affect social and political and fiscal policy.  The economy is a runaway car with a brick on the gaspedal...fuck that.  You're wrong.  Dead fucking wrong.

So I call bullshit.

Show me where Bush hasn't undone anything that was good out of the 90's.  Show me where are rights are ALL the SAME as they were in 2000.  Show me where the banks, the taxes and the housing are the SAME.  That his vetoes, that his bullshit powergrab tactics, cronyism and isolating of the US geopolitically has NOT cost us ONE DAMNED THING.

See, I'm even going easy on you and not asking you to show me what's better, like a hardcore Democrat would do.  No, I'm calling bullshit on your premise that the seat in the White House is a placeholder.

I actually don't care who is Democrat or Republican--to me they are all pigs in the same room, some tagged blue, some red.  Very few untagged but they snort and have curly tails just the same.

However, to deny the possibility that the agenda, the mindset, the forward motion and direction that movement is in of the person in power, and in power in the most powerful and richest country on the Earf, is just an empty, meaningless pile of bull...wow, you've basically shot to shit any premise that government matters at all. 

By the bye:  economics is only one little part of the body politic.  You cannot rely upon it as a science (cough!) or as a rubric for the testing of social change and upheaval, let alone how a people are governed inside-and-out.  What you do, essentially, when you rely on economics to point you in the "correct" legislative direction, is you blatantly deny that there are any other forces that supply change, maintain what's already there or protect what's necessary and already existing.  Economics does not measure everything human, so it's no wonder to me at all that if this is how you go about these judging things, you are so very very in the wrong.

As for my so-called credentials.  I don't need to prove a goddammed thing to you.  Let's just say my opinion is informed.

Quote from: lemurdue on August 29, 2008, 03:36:05 AM

Quote from: Jenne on August 29, 2008, 02:20:45 AM

Quote from: lemurdue on August 29, 2008, 12:33:09 AM

Quote from: Requiem on August 28, 2008, 10:12:50 PM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on August 28, 2008, 01:40:09 PM
What TGRR said.

And also, -10 pts for using the Fox News "messiah" bullshit. 

As a former Obama supporter, I can state the term 'messiah' is completely accurate in the effect he has on his followers.

It's OK. We all had faith in all that democracy bullshit at one point. But seriously, the only ways to make a difference is either getting rich and joining the corporate shadow masters who really run the show or turn to violence and decrapitate the clowns.

K.  Y'all need to go live in motherfucking Afghanistan for a while.  Get a taste of what the democracy bullshit is about. 

Fucking whiners.

:?

I'm not kidding.

When the post office stops delivering your mail, when you can't tell anyone who asks for someone on the phone where someone has gone for fear they'll try and find them to capture them and torture them, when your banks only take your money if you're rich, when the police only stop harrassing you with bribes, when you have to sell your boys and/or girls to 1) the local pimp 2) the local nabob and/or 3) the local sweatshop in order to make ends meet/not be killed, when your relatives don't turn you in for bullshit treason reasons only because you feed them, when the stores are empty, when money is so devalued that it takes a YEAR'S worth or more of wages to buy necessities...

THEN you can whine about what bullshit democracy is.

Quote from: Jenne on August 29, 2008, 03:53:48 AM

Quote from: lemurdue on August 29, 2008, 03:36:05 AM

Quote from: Jenne on August 29, 2008, 02:20:45 AM

Quote from: lemurdue on August 29, 2008, 12:33:09 AM

Quote from: Requiem on August 28, 2008, 10:12:50 PM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on August 28, 2008, 01:40:09 PM
What TGRR said.

And also, -10 pts for using the Fox News "messiah" bullshit. 

As a former Obama supporter, I can state the term 'messiah' is completely accurate in the effect he has on his followers.

It's OK. We all had faith in all that democracy bullshit at one point. But seriously, the only ways to make a difference is either getting rich and joining the corporate shadow masters who really run the show or turn to violence and decrapitate the clowns.

K.  Y'all need to go live in motherfucking Afghanistan for a while.  Get a taste of what the democracy bullshit is about. 

Fucking whiners.

:?

I'm not kidding.

When the post office stops delivering your mail, when you can't tell anyone who asks for someone on the phone where someone has gone for fear they'll try and find them to capture them and torture them, when your banks only take your money if you're rich, when the police only stop harrassing you with bribes, when you have to sell your boys and/or girls to 1) the local pimp 2) the local nabob and/or 3) the local sweatshop in order to make ends meet/not be killed, when your relatives don't turn you in for bullshit treason reasons only because you feed them, when the stores are empty, when money is so devalued that it takes a YEAR'S worth or more of wages to buy necessities...

THEN you can whine about what bullshit democracy is.

Seriously, I'm trying to think how all those things DO NOT already exist in democratic societies. I work the news wire and half the shit you mentioned is reported all the time, often in just one state.

Me, I can't wait until we're the pets of a higher from of life.

Quote from: Jenne on August 29, 2008, 03:51:01 AM

Quote from: nostalgicBadger on August 29, 2008, 03:33:56 AM
You can't just respond to an argument with "bullshit" and be convincing, you know.
You don't actually have any credibility, any formal education in economics to my knowledge, I don't even know that you've studied economics independently, and maybe you were just born smart enough to know it all a priori, but from what you've said so far, I have no reason to believe that's true.

O rly?  Ha!  I just did.  Onus is on YOU to prove your argument.  HOW did Bush NOT affect our government policies?  How did Clinton TANK everything and leave only dregs for Bushie to slurp up?  Or how did either do neither?  Show ME that the president is ineffectual.  Do it.  I'm practically begging you.

And no, I won't google.  You are expounding a bullshit argument.  That a nation's leader does NOT affect social and political and fiscal policy.  The economy is a runaway car with a brick on the gaspedal...fuck that.  You're wrong.  Dead fucking wrong.

So I call bullshit.

Show me where Bush hasn't undone anything that was good out of the 90's.  Show me where are rights are ALL the SAME as they were in 2000.  Show me where the banks, the taxes and the housing are the SAME.  That his vetoes, that his bullshit powergrab tactics, cronyism and isolating of the US geopolitically has NOT cost us ONE DAMNED THING.

See, I'm even going easy on you and not asking you to show me what's better, like a hardcore Democrat would do.  No, I'm calling bullshit on your premise that the seat in the White House is a placeholder.

I actually don't care who is Democrat or Republican--to me they are all pigs in the same room, some tagged blue, some red.  Very few untagged but they snort and have curly tails just the same.

However, to deny the possibility that the agenda, the mindset, the forward motion and direction that movement is in of the person in power, and in power in the most powerful and richest country on the Earf, is just an empty, meaningless pile of bull...wow, you've basically shot to shit any premise that government matters at all. 

By the bye:  economics is only one little part of the body politic.  You cannot rely upon it as a science (cough!) or as a rubric for the testing of social change and upheaval, let alone how a people are governed inside-and-out.  What you do, essentially, when you rely on economics to point you in the "correct" legislative direction, is you blatantly deny that there are any other forces that supply change, maintain what's already there or protect what's necessary and already existing.  Economics does not measure everything human, so it's no wonder to me at all that if this is how you go about these judging things, you are so very very in the wrong.

As for my so-called credentials.  I don't need to prove a goddammed thing to you.  Let's just say my opinion is informed.

Oh, sure, government matter - government makes laws.
However, who owns those politicians, democrats and republicans alike?

Obama is owned.
McCain is owned.

George Bush is owned.
John Kerry is owned.
Al Gore is owned.

Who you vote for doesn't matter. They're all somebody's puppet. That best you can hope to do is elect the most merciful master.

Quote from: nostalgicBadger on August 29, 2008, 03:24:05 AM
I'm not giving Bush Sr. credit for the economic trends of the 1990's either, I'm just trying to point out, once again, that economics have almost nothing to do with the president, and that the belief that they do is a misconception of the general population who know nothing about economics. Economics is a tide: presidents can make some waves, but no president in the history of the US has ever singehandedly turned the tide.

I'll make a deal with you.

I'll say "FDR (good) and Woodrow Wilson (bad)" and you'll stop being a neo-con apologist.

Quote from: lemurdue on August 29, 2008, 04:17:08 AM

Quote from: Jenne on August 29, 2008, 03:53:48 AM

Quote from: lemurdue on August 29, 2008, 03:36:05 AM

Quote from: Jenne on August 29, 2008, 02:20:45 AM

Quote from: lemurdue on August 29, 2008, 12:33:09 AM

Quote from: Requiem on August 28, 2008, 10:12:50 PM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on August 28, 2008, 01:40:09 PM
What TGRR said.

And also, -10 pts for using the Fox News "messiah" bullshit. 

As a former Obama supporter, I can state the term 'messiah' is completely accurate in the effect he has on his followers.

It's OK. We all had faith in all that democracy bullshit at one point. But seriously, the only ways to make a difference is either getting rich and joining the corporate shadow masters who really run the show or turn to violence and decrapitate the clowns.

K.  Y'all need to go live in motherfucking Afghanistan for a while.  Get a taste of what the democracy bullshit is about. 

Fucking whiners.

:?

I'm not kidding.

When the post office stops delivering your mail, when you can't tell anyone who asks for someone on the phone where someone has gone for fear they'll try and find them to capture them and torture them, when your banks only take your money if you're rich, when the police only stop harrassing you with bribes, when you have to sell your boys and/or girls to 1) the local pimp 2) the local nabob and/or 3) the local sweatshop in order to make ends meet/not be killed, when your relatives don't turn you in for bullshit treason reasons only because you feed them, when the stores are empty, when money is so devalued that it takes a YEAR'S worth or more of wages to buy necessities...

THEN you can whine about what bullshit democracy is.

Seriously, I'm trying to think how all those things DO NOT already exist in democratic societies. I work the news wire and half the shit you mentioned is reported all the time, often in just one state.

Me, I can't wait until we're the pets of a higher from of life.

Heh.  You don't work that newswire ENOUGH--you need some motherfucking perspective.

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 29, 2008, 04:56:33 AM

Quote from: nostalgicBadger on August 29, 2008, 03:24:05 AM
I'm not giving Bush Sr. credit for the economic trends of the 1990's either, I'm just trying to point out, once again, that economics have almost nothing to do with the president, and that the belief that they do is a misconception of the general population who know nothing about economics. Economics is a tide: presidents can make some waves, but no president in the history of the US has ever singehandedly turned the tide.

I'll make a deal with you.

I'll say "FDR (good) and Woodrow Wilson (bad)" and you'll stop being a neo-con apologist.

8 gajillion portraits of adolf hitler modded by ECH: if you're going to bust yourself out as a troll, the least you can do is find an amusing pic to imagebomb the thread with

Quote from: nostalgicBadger on August 29, 2008, 04:44:54 AM

Quote from: Jenne on August 29, 2008, 03:51:01 AM

Quote from: nostalgicBadger on August 29, 2008, 03:33:56 AM
You can't just respond to an argument with "bullshit" and be convincing, you know.
You don't actually have any credibility, any formal education in economics to my knowledge, I don't even know that you've studied economics independently, and maybe you were just born smart enough to know it all a priori, but from what you've said so far, I have no reason to believe that's true.

O rly?  Ha!  I just did.  Onus is on YOU to prove your argument.  HOW did Bush NOT affect our government policies?  How did Clinton TANK everything and leave only dregs for Bushie to slurp up?  Or how did either do neither?  Show ME that the president is ineffectual.  Do it.  I'm practically begging you.

And no, I won't google.  You are expounding a bullshit argument.  That a nation's leader does NOT affect social and political and fiscal policy.  The economy is a runaway car with a brick on the gaspedal...fuck that.  You're wrong.  Dead fucking wrong.

So I call bullshit.

Show me where Bush hasn't undone anything that was good out of the 90's.  Show me where are rights are ALL the SAME as they were in 2000.  Show me where the banks, the taxes and the housing are the SAME.  That his vetoes, that his bullshit powergrab tactics, cronyism and isolating of the US geopolitically has NOT cost us ONE DAMNED THING.

See, I'm even going easy on you and not asking you to show me what's better, like a hardcore Democrat would do.  No, I'm calling bullshit on your premise that the seat in the White House is a placeholder.

I actually don't care who is Democrat or Republican--to me they are all pigs in the same room, some tagged blue, some red.  Very few untagged but they snort and have curly tails just the same.

However, to deny the possibility that the agenda, the mindset, the forward motion and direction that movement is in of the person in power, and in power in the most powerful and richest country on the Earf, is just an empty, meaningless pile of bull...wow, you've basically shot to shit any premise that government matters at all. 

By the bye:  economics is only one little part of the body politic.  You cannot rely upon it as a science (cough!) or as a rubric for the testing of social change and upheaval, let alone how a people are governed inside-and-out.  What you do, essentially, when you rely on economics to point you in the "correct" legislative direction, is you blatantly deny that there are any other forces that supply change, maintain what's already there or protect what's necessary and already existing.  Economics does not measure everything human, so it's no wonder to me at all that if this is how you go about these judging things, you are so very very in the wrong.

As for my so-called credentials.  I don't need to prove a goddammed thing to you.  Let's just say my opinion is informed.

Oh, sure, government matter - government makes laws.
However, who owns those politicians, democrats and republicans alike?

Obama is owned.
McCain is owned.

George Bush is owned.
John Kerry is owned.
Al Gore is owned.

Who you vote for doesn't matter. They're all somebody's puppet. That best you can hope to do is elect the most merciful master.

They are influenced, yes, but they, truly, are the ultimate puppetmasters.  They are subject to influences, moreso than we can possibly imagine.  With so many fingers in so many pies, it would be impossible NOT to be.  Especially now that the age of technology has made information so much more ready-to-hand than it has been formerly.

But if you REALLY think that a president has NO sway in how a government is run, that he BLINDLY signs off or doesn't sign off on things that turn the page of history in time, then you really need to start reading some American history.  Read how wars are waged in backrooms of the Oval Office before they even are whispered of in the halls of the Pentagon.  How stocks went up and bills were drawn because of a mere half-hour press conference.  This is not always at the behest or whim of a politico or a board of executives...it is usually a small group of very powerful, savvy and well-educated white men who through privelege have risen to the very tippy top of the pile.  The president, chief among them.

Just because George Dubya was more of a pawn than a High Priest doesn't mean he didn't wield a large stick when he wanted.  And he did so alot, if tales of those who've since retired from service to their "kind and country" are to be believed.  He's a "mad warrior" with a crazed look in his eye much like the religious zealots of yesteryear.  He's a national jihadist, really, in a lot of ways.  To say that such a person has no real power other than his functionality is to really miss the mark.  The fact that he has held so firm in every way and gotten things so far down in the nub shows exactly how intractable he can be...

And now the power of Dubya is quite reversed...for he holds in his hands the key to Republican doom...unfortunately, McCain seems hell bent on repeating its shape...I hope everyone who thinks he's the better choice will realize that the pain they are feeling at having Dubya this past decade will not lessen and will indeed continue on if they vote for status quo.

Quote from: nostalgicBadger on August 29, 2008, 05:06:40 AM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 29, 2008, 04:56:33 AM

Quote from: nostalgicBadger on August 29, 2008, 03:24:05 AM
I'm not giving Bush Sr. credit for the economic trends of the 1990's either, I'm just trying to point out, once again, that economics have almost nothing to do with the president, and that the belief that they do is a misconception of the general population who know nothing about economics. Economics is a tide: presidents can make some waves, but no president in the history of the US has ever singehandedly turned the tide.

I'll make a deal with you.

I'll say "FDR (good) and Woodrow Wilson (bad)" and you'll stop being a neo-con apologist.

[spam]

A simple "fuck off" would have done.

I think the troll was trying to say that FDR couldn't have turned the economy around without hitler's help.

too bad the New Deal was in place LONG before America got involved in WW2.

Quote from: Jenne on August 29, 2008, 03:25:51 AM

Quote from: nostalgicBadger on August 29, 2008, 03:24:05 AM


Explain to me how Clinton did any of what you just gave him credit for? Aside from appointing Alan Greenspan, which began with Reagan and who Bush Sr. also appointed prior to Clinton. How did Bill Clinton "move the nation from record deficits to record economic surpluses..."? Did he invent the internet and .coms and begin the upward economic trend that was beginning at the end of Bush Sr.'s term? How did he lower unemployment? And what were the economic policies that he himself administered which brought peace and prosperity to the land? Seriously, for lack of image at hand, CITATIONS NEEDED.

I'm not giving Bush Sr. credit for the economic trends of the 1990's either, I'm just trying to point out, once again, that economics have almost nothing to do with the president, and that the belief that they do is a misconception of the general population who know nothing about economics. Economics is a tide: presidents can make some waves, but no president in the history of the US has ever singehandedly turned the tide.

Bull.  Shit.

And, I'll see you your citations needed and raise you a paddling down River of Denial.

Didn't you *just* say Clinton wasn't responsible for the crashes in 2000?  Are presidents responsible for the economy or not?

As for how it happened.  Putting a heavy load on short term capital gains tax trashed investor confidence.  (note I'm not saying taxes are bad, or taxing the rich is bad, just the STCG fucks things up, also keep in mind that this was a record breaking tax hike, little chance to adjust), businesses in turn, did their usual short sighted panicky BS, usually involving layoffs or price hikes, to get that quarters profits up in the name of the stock prices.  A couple years roll by, profits are down because of said stupid decisions, and they did it again, it'll keep happening until the market realizes that short term profits are a bad investment, or the dipshits that keep doing it finally get tossed out on their asses for running too many businesses into the ground.  Along with 8 digit severance packages of course.

All of this of course, starts us on the long road to the US dollar being worth less than Canadian, as international markets realize the US has gone mad.

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 29, 2008, 05:47:52 AM
I think the troll was trying to say that FDR couldn't have turned the economy around without hitler's help.

too bad the New Deal was in place LONG before America got involved in WW2.

High school textbooks like the New Deal much more than most economists. There is correlation, but not necessarily causation, between the New Deal and America's recovery from the Depression. Take a look back over the history of America's economy and you will notice a trend of roughly 17 year economic cycles on average (from peak to peak). There are two ways to interpret this phenomenon, and which you prefer most likely depends on whether you consider politics or economics to be a more influential force: either a politician has gracefully rescued America every time there has been an economic downturn caused by whomever served two terms before him (else fairly consistent timing of the cycle is purely coincidental), or politics is itself dictated by the stability of the market. By my own reasoning, the latter seems the more rational interpretation. Obviously some of your reason differs from mine, and may in fact be valid, but nobody arguing with me has demonstrated to me any reasoning nearly solid enough to be convincing. Believe me, I am perfectly willing to be convinced, only ad hominems and idealistic rants won't do it. Of course there is the old standby, "but nB, why would I care to convince you?" Good question. If you don't, though, why not stop wasting your time? You must have better things to do than sit around jerking off to how much you all disagree with me.

and East Coast Hustle, those are pretty gross words to put in my mouth, particularly considering that if that had been what I meant, the argument would have directly contradicted my position, which is that economic highs and lows would happen entirely independently of political influence. Again, this does not mean that politicians can't have an influence, but you would be hard pressed to find proof that any politician has singlehandedly turned the tide. Google the topic. You'll find a lot of interesting studies. The spam was just a nod to Godwin's Law in response to my being called a NeoCon because somebody happens to disagree with me. On pd.com, calling somebody a NeoCon is roughly equivalent to calling somebody a nazi. I'm still not impressed, and the only people who are "convinced" are people who already agreed with you anyway. Congratulations.

Finally, Roger, I have seen you spam threads for lesser reasons. Hypocrisy is not becoming of you.
Don't edit my posts. Don't be a pussy. If you're going to abuse your mod priveliges, quit fucking around and just ban me. I mean, you can't have Discordians who think differently from yourself running around, can you? Shit no.

Roger didn't edit your posts.

Man, you can barely read what happened in a thread, and yet you expect us to take you seriously because you took Economics 101?

:lulz:

Since my understanding of economics, especially US-economics is not the best and therefor mostly irrelevant here I went back to just lurking;(!) but I must say that it has been a most delicious read so far. Keep it going, I might get to add something again later again...

(http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/3297/118848632442ka8.jpg)

Quote from: nostalgicBadger on August 29, 2008, 09:24:45 AMHigh school textbooks like the New Deal much more than most economists. There is correlation, but not necessarily causation, between the New Deal and America's recovery from the Depression. Take a look back over the history of America's economy and you will notice a trend of roughly 17 year economic cycles on average (from peak to peak). There are two ways to interpret this phenomenon, and which you prefer most likely depends on whether you consider politics or economics to be a more influential force: either a politician has gracefully rescued America every time there has been an economic downturn caused by whomever served two terms before him (else fairly consistent timing of the cycle is purely coincidental), or politics is itself dictated by the stability of the market.

first, i don't think it's an either/or case, and you are being terribly shortsighted for suggesting otherwise.

second, i don't see how "politics is itself dictated by the stability of the market" explains a 17-year cycle, unless you're going to say "apparently, the market has a 17 year cycle", which sounds as less like a rational explanation as the other one.

Meh, my knowledge of Economics is sketchy at best, but I did notice something someone said about every President inheriting a fucked up system.

As I see things this will ALWAYS be true, in some sense.

Here in the U.K., no party that has won an election has ever failed to win the next one. They often fail at the third election.

Meaning (for example) the Tories run the country for a decade, then start to fall apart into blatant corruption, and an ever increasing amount of policies that are designed to look good to the electorate so that they can win the next election.

Predictably, they lose the election to Labour.

Labour can now claim that they have to "undo" the "damage" done by the previous Government, and can ride that for the next 5 or so years, even being able to claim during the next election that the Tories did such a bad job at Governing that Labour is STILL trying to sort out the mess, and therefore the Tories are still completely unelectable. They predictably go on to win this second election.

At this point, Labour HAS to show some kind of improvement in the economy, and in other areas of Governance, or they will lose the third election.

You can switch the party names around, it's always the same.

This is not "cyclical economics", this is political spin playing on the opponents different Economic policies. Each time a party comes into power, they will attack the state the other party left the economy in, and rely on it to win at least a second term.

Quote from: Requiem on August 29, 2008, 06:49:39 AM

Quote from: Jenne on August 29, 2008, 03:25:51 AM

Quote from: nostalgicBadger on August 29, 2008, 03:24:05 AM


Explain to me how Clinton did any of what you just gave him credit for? Aside from appointing Alan Greenspan, which began with Reagan and who Bush Sr. also appointed prior to Clinton. How did Bill Clinton "move the nation from record deficits to record economic surpluses..."? Did he invent the internet and .coms and begin the upward economic trend that was beginning at the end of Bush Sr.'s term? How did he lower unemployment? And what were the economic policies that he himself administered which brought peace and prosperity to the land? Seriously, for lack of image at hand, CITATIONS NEEDED.

I'm not giving Bush Sr. credit for the economic trends of the 1990's either, I'm just trying to point out, once again, that economics have almost nothing to do with the president, and that the belief that they do is a misconception of the general population who know nothing about economics. Economics is a tide: presidents can make some waves, but no president in the history of the US has ever singehandedly turned the tide.

Bull.  Shit.

And, I'll see you your citations needed and raise you a paddling down River of Denial.

Didn't you *just* say Clinton wasn't responsible for the crashes in 2000?  Are presidents responsible for the economy or not?

As for how it happened.  Putting a heavy load on short term capital gains tax trashed investor confidence.  (note I'm not saying taxes are bad, or taxing the rich is bad, just the STCG fucks things up, also keep in mind that this was a record breaking tax hike, little chance to adjust), businesses in turn, did their usual short sighted panicky BS, usually involving layoffs or price hikes, to get that quarters profits up in the name of the stock prices.  A couple years roll by, profits are down because of said stupid decisions, and they did it again, it'll keep happening until the market realizes that short term profits are a bad investment, or the dipshits that keep doing it finally get tossed out on their asses for running too many businesses into the ground.  Along with 8 digit severance packages of course.

All of this of course, starts us on the long road to the US dollar being worth less than Canadian, as international markets realize the US has gone mad.

No, I didn't.  Please point me to where I said Clinton was responsible for nothing.  I think you mistake my own argument for NB's.

And I agree we basically tanked a large part of the American economy (CA's own included, as this is how the majority of its fiscal budget is determined--capital gains taxes, which again means that our state's economy is tied in directly to the stock market...risky business indeed, that) due to reliance on a short-term gain.  However, I have yet to say that economics do not impinge on fiscal policy and vice-versa.  There are roles public policy for each, and many times the balance is tipped either way in some attempt at compensation for perceived shortcomings in what's already there.

Be that as it may, to say that economics solely drives public policy is a lie and a fallacy.  It's used to shore it up, prop it up and give it a foundation AT TIMES...but it's not a stand-alone rubric, and to suggest so is really laughable in the extreme.

But I see your OWN argument must NOT be that presidents don't do fuck all while in power, otherwise you would not have tried to stick me with the above.  Clinton has certainly had his shortcomings (bombings done in the name of "justice" while you are screaming "LIE!  I didn't have sexual relations with that woman!" for starters...and that's the tip of the iceberg), but, and let me be crystal on this point:

HE WAS NO FUCKING GEORGE DUBYA BUSH.

Quote from: nostalgicBadger on August 29, 2008, 09:24:45 AM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 29, 2008, 05:47:52 AM
I think the troll was trying to say that FDR couldn't have turned the economy around without hitler's help.

too bad the New Deal was in place LONG before America got involved in WW2.

High school textbooks like the New Deal much more than most economists. There is correlation, but not necessarily causation, between the New Deal and America's recovery from the Depression. Take a look back over the history of America's economy and you will notice a trend of roughly 17 year economic cycles on average (from peak to peak). There are two ways to interpret this phenomenon, and which you prefer most likely depends on whether you consider politics or economics to be a more influential force: either a politician has gracefully rescued America every time there has been an economic downturn caused by whomever served two terms before him (else fairly consistent timing of the cycle is purely coincidental), or politics is itself dictated by the stability of the market. By my own reasoning, the latter seems the more rational interpretation. Obviously some of your reason differs from mine, and may in fact be valid, but nobody arguing with me has demonstrated to me any reasoning nearly solid enough to be convincing. Believe me, I am perfectly willing to be convinced, only ad hominems and idealistic rants won't do it. Of course there is the old standby, "but nB, why would I care to convince you?" Good question. If you don't, though, why not stop wasting your time? You must have better things to do than sit around jerking off to how much you all disagree with me.

and East Coast Hustle, those are pretty gross words to put in my mouth, particularly considering that if that had been what I meant, the argument would have directly contradicted my position, which is that economic highs and lows would happen entirely independently of political influence. Again, this does not mean that politicians can't have an influence, but you would be hard pressed to find proof that any politician has singlehandedly turned the tide. Google the topic. You'll find a lot of interesting studies. The spam was just a nod to Godwin's Law in response to my being called a NeoCon because somebody happens to disagree with me. On pd.com, calling somebody a NeoCon is roughly equivalent to calling somebody a nazi. I'm still not impressed, and the only people who are "convinced" are people who already agreed with you anyway. Congratulations.

Finally, Roger, I have seen you spam threads for lesser reasons. Hypocrisy is not becoming of you.
Don't edit my posts. Don't be a pussy. If you're going to abuse your mod priveliges, quit fucking around and just ban me. I mean, you can't have Discordians who think differently from yourself running around, can you? Shit no.

Wow you whine alot.

And everything you said sounds like some pat-answer from some "other" h.s. textbook.  Whose theory is it that it's a 17-year cycle?  That one I *will* google.  You apparently have drunk some economist's koolaid.  You DO know, don't you, that economists only focus on one side of the picture?  That they are not PAID to look at anything else but the supply-and-demand side?  That it's the geologists, anthro, law, health and science and poli sci guys that jolt them aside and add to the whole picture?

A large part of what the body politic does and is about has very much to do with goods and services and payment of such.  But to say that all public policy, all legislation has to do with where people buy their groceries, where they bank, where they find their happy places when they jerk off (as you so eloquently put it), is all ONLY tied to  and reliant on $$$$ is a falsehood.  Political influence is so much more than just the money.

I suggest you read up on it some.

Why do I get the feeling nB learnt economics from Milton Friedman's Big Book of Economic Bed Time Stories?

I mean, apart from the fact he gained his economic 'knowledge' in the US, where Chicago school hacks proliferate.

Quote from: Cain on August 29, 2008, 01:36:42 PM
Why do I get the feeling nB learnt economics from Milton Friedman's Big Book of Economic Bed Time Stories?

because it's the only one with the proper use of semicolons?

First off; nB, it was quite rude to image bomb a thread where there was actually a decent conversation going on.  True, TTM often image bombs, but it's usually in fluff/troll threads, or where the debate had broken down.  It's all in the timing.

Second:  While Clinton might not have fucked the economy directly, the deregulation of the housing market started under his watch.  I would say he's partially responsible for the bubble, which looked great until its inevitable burst.

Not to say that W Bush didn't decide to cut a hole in the nation's economy and fuck the wound; just that the issue is a bit more nuanced, as always, than either/or positions.

Quote from: Requiem on August 28, 2008, 10:12:50 PM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on August 28, 2008, 01:40:09 PM
What TGRR said.

And also, -10 pts for using the Fox News "messiah" bullshit. 

As a former Obama supporter, I can state the term 'messiah' is completely accurate in the effect he has on his followers.

Let me get this straight.  A candidate has actually evoked strong feelings and passions in people, to the point where they want to be involved in the political process, instead of just being wedged into their Cheetoh encrustec couch, and you wanna go and label them as mindless worshippers?  Has it ever crossed your, oh so enlightened mind, that perhaps, just perhaps, people are so tired of blubbering flesh bags like Bush and Cheney being in charge for 8 years that people are hankering for a different kind of leadership?  Do you expect them to get all hot and bothered by McCain who is all too willing to follow in the footsteps of the man who tarred and feathered his character in 2000?  Do you expect them go get excited about Ralph Nader?  Do you expect them to get excited by Bob fucking Barr? 

Is he going to create some monumental, earth shattering change?  Of course not.  And the Obama supporters I've met and talked to know that.  No, what Obama represents is an end to the monumental suck and fail policies of George W. Bush. 

So go ahead and label that fervor with some tired Fox News talkpoint cliche.  But clearly, sir, you have no fucking idea of what you are talking about. 

Quote from: nostalgicBadger on August 28, 2008, 10:20:01 PM

Quote from: Requiem on August 28, 2008, 10:12:50 PM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on August 28, 2008, 01:40:09 PM
What TGRR said.

And also, -10 pts for using the Fox News "messiah" bullshit. 

As a former Obama supporter, I can state the term 'messiah' is completely accurate in the effect he has on his followers.

Honestly, it freaks me out.

Great political insight! 

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on August 29, 2008, 02:45:38 PM

Quote from: Requiem on August 28, 2008, 10:12:50 PM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on August 28, 2008, 01:40:09 PM
What TGRR said.

And also, -10 pts for using the Fox News "messiah" bullshit. 

As a former Obama supporter, I can state the term 'messiah' is completely accurate in the effect he has on his followers.

Let me get this straight.  A candidate has actually evoked strong feelings and passions in people, to the point where they want to be involved in the political process, instead of just being wedged into their Cheetoh encrustec couch, and you wanna go and label them as mindless worshippers?  Has it ever crossed your, oh so enlightened mind, that perhaps, just perhaps, people are so tired of blubbering flesh bags like Bush and Cheney being in charge for 8 years that people are hankering for a different kind of leadership?  Do you expect them to get all hot and bothered by McCain who is all too willing to follow in the footsteps of the man who tarred and feathered his character in 2000?  Do you expect them go get excited about Ralph Nader?  Do you expect them to get excited by Bob fucking Barr? 

Is he going to create some monumental, earth shattering change?  Of course not.  And the Obama supporters I've met and talked to know that.  No, what Obama represents is an end to the monumental suck and fail policies of George W. Bush. 

So go ahead and label that fervor with some tired Fox News talkpoint cliche.  But clearly, sir, you have no fucking idea of what you are talking about. 

I've never spoken to such people either.  I know that theoretically they exist, but they are a minority.  Most Obama supporters I know and have conversed with are, as you say, sick of the last 8 years and see a chance for something that is not four more of the same, and are riding that chance as far as it will go and as hard as they can.

Amusingly, the messiah/cultist meme originated on the Clinton/PUMA sites....who have created their own cargo cult around the figure of Hillary.  Its an interesting case of projection.

Hillary as cargo cult... That's brilliant, Cain.

Quote from: LMNO on August 29, 2008, 03:05:30 PM
Hillary as cargo cult... That's brilliant, Cain.

Well the pro-Clinton bloggers who went on to form PUMA are essentially just that.  Its totally removed from cause and effect.  They care more about Clinton as a political figure than they do for her policies - which are closer to Obama than McCain, who they now support.  Its cargo cultism all the way.  They literally watch her speeches for coded messages to show her disapproval of Obama, even when she is praising him.

Its bizzare and a little sad.  And the best reason to pick on PUMA, bar none.

It should be noted that many PUMAs are Cougars.

Quote from: LMNO on August 29, 2008, 03:54:40 PM
It should be noted that many PUMAs are Cougars.

:potd:

Ugh.  I HATE that word.

PUMA?

Quote from: Cain on August 29, 2008, 03:49:38 PM

Quote from: LMNO on August 29, 2008, 03:05:30 PM
Hillary as cargo cult... That's brilliant, Cain.

Well the pro-Clinton bloggers who went on to form PUMA are essentially just that.  Its totally removed from cause and effect.  They care more about Clinton as a political figure than they do for her policies - which are closer to Obama than McCain, who they now support.  Its cargo cultism all the way.  They literally watch her speeches for coded messages to show her disapproval of Obama, even when she is praising him.

Its bizzare and a little sad.  And the best reason to pick on PUMA, bar none.

Yeah, they make fun of those people on the Daily Show all the time.  It's hilarious.  They keep asking them "ARE YOU HEALED YET?"

Quote from: LMNO on August 29, 2008, 03:58:35 PM
PUMA?

:p

Hey, before I got married, I often enjoyed the company of older women.

...

I ain't got no shame in my game.






LMNO
-love my sweet little scatgranny.

:lulz:

Jeez, I leave this thread for less than 24 hours and this is what happens? Fuckin' hell.

Quote from: Cainad on August 29, 2008, 04:52:24 PM
Jeez, I leave this thread for less than 24 hours and this is what happens? Fuckin' hell.

I smell Bratwurst.

Quote from: nostalgicBadger on August 29, 2008, 09:24:45 AM
Finally, Roger, I have seen you spam threads for lesser reasons. Hypocrisy is not becoming of you.
Don't edit my posts. Don't be a pussy. If you're going to abuse your mod priveliges, quit fucking around and just ban me. I mean, you can't have Discordians who think differently from yourself running around, can you? Shit no.

wow, you're a fuckin genius, aren't you?

:lulz:

I'm the one who edited your spam post, fuckchops. Like it says right in the post itself.

But thanks for shitting on Roger for no reason. I enjoy seeing him rip apart assholes like you.

also, in case anyone hasn't figured it out yet, NostalgicBadger is an old poster in new guise.

(http://www.biojobblog.com/surprise(1).jpg)

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 29, 2008, 05:38:54 PM

Quote from: nostalgicBadger on August 29, 2008, 09:24:45 AM
Finally, Roger, I have seen you spam threads for lesser reasons. Hypocrisy is not becoming of you.
Don't edit my posts. Don't be a pussy. If you're going to abuse your mod priveliges, quit fucking around and just ban me. I mean, you can't have Discordians who think differently from yourself running around, can you? Shit no.

wow, you're a fuckin genius, aren't you?

:lulz:

I'm the one who edited your spam post, fuckchops. Like it says right in the post itself.

But thanks for shitting on Roger for no reason. I enjoy seeing him rip apart assholes like you.

also, in case anyone hasn't figured it out yet, NostalgicBadger is an old poster in new guise.

Like, how old? Anyone I would know?

I have a couple of suspicions.

Quote from: Jenne on August 29, 2008, 01:26:12 PM

HE WAS NO FUCKING GEORGE DUBYA BUSH.

A monkey could have done a better job than W, being better than him is not an accomplishment.

Quote from: Jenne on August 29, 2008, 01:26:12 PM

No, I didn't.  Please point me to where I said Clinton was responsible for nothing.  I think you mistake my own argument for NB's.

Actually, it was Singer that said that, apologies.

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on August 29, 2008, 05:57:11 PM
I have a couple of suspicions.

I'm trying to think back to all the right-wing nutjobs who hate semicolons... but I'm coming up with nothing...

I'm thinking of maybe a poet with Lupus? 

IS IT LUPUS?  IT'S LUPUS ISN'T IT???
                          \
(http://www.churchhopping.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/george-costanza.jpg)

Quote from: Requiem on August 29, 2008, 05:59:54 PM

Quote from: Jenne on August 29, 2008, 01:26:12 PM

HE WAS NO FUCKING GEORGE DUBYA BUSH.

A monkey could have done a better job than W, being better than him is not an accomplishment.

Missing the motherfucking POINT itt.

Quote from: Cainad on August 29, 2008, 05:53:17 PM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 29, 2008, 05:38:54 PM

Quote from: nostalgicBadger on August 29, 2008, 09:24:45 AM
Finally, Roger, I have seen you spam threads for lesser reasons. Hypocrisy is not becoming of you.
Don't edit my posts. Don't be a pussy. If you're going to abuse your mod priveliges, quit fucking around and just ban me. I mean, you can't have Discordians who think differently from yourself running around, can you? Shit no.

wow, you're a fuckin genius, aren't you?

:lulz:

I'm the one who edited your spam post, fuckchops. Like it says right in the post itself.

But thanks for shitting on Roger for no reason. I enjoy seeing him rip apart assholes like you.

also, in case anyone hasn't figured it out yet, NostalgicBadger is an old poster in new guise.

Like, how old? Anyone I would know?

I have a feeling from a while ago.  Or when I was off the board for a while.

Quote from: Hoopla on August 29, 2008, 06:16:11 PM
IS IT LUPUS?  IT'S LUPUS ISN'T IT???
                          \
(http://www.churchhopping.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/george-costanza.jpg)

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/83/282142172_43004266f5.jpg?v=0)

Fuck.



I just figured it out.



Ruh Roh!

eh, I'm backing off of that suspicion now.  profile says he's from Pennsylvania, I think the poet with lupus was from the other side of the Atlantic wasn't he? 

Quote from: Requiem on August 29, 2008, 06:05:43 PM

Quote from: Jenne on August 29, 2008, 01:26:12 PM

No, I didn't.  Please point me to where I said Clinton was responsible for nothing.  I think you mistake my own argument for NB's.

Actually, it was Singer that said that, apologies.

No... what singer asked was how in all the indicators of unprecedented economic success were you able to determine that Clinton was responsible for  "breaking" the economy.

You answered by shadowboxing with an un-offered assertion that Clinton was responsible for the success.

I love politics, its one of those topics that really shows off our BiP/Reality Tunnel/Subjective Reality Filters.

GWB is not responsible for the Internet Bubble Burst, nor 9/11. These two things hurt the US economy more than anything else in 01/02. Bush further fucked things up by running headlong into ill-planned, expensive wars, while at the same time enacting tax cuts... thus leaving us with a crazy deficit. Though to be honest, we would have had a crazy deficit with these wars, tax cut or no.

To lay the economy on Bush, Clinton or any other president seems shortsighted to me. The economy is far more complex than that sort of simplistic view.

However, to claim that it doesn't matter who the president is, seems to miss one very important lesson from the past 8 years. Under GWB, American citizens were held without trial. Under GWB, non-Americans were held without trial, some of whom were kidnapped and tortured. Under GWB, we invaded a sovereign nation under false pretenses. Under GWB, the PATRIOT ACT was passed. Now, it's possible, that under Gore or Kerry these same things would have happened. However, I think that's probably untrue... both Gore and Kerry have a different frame of reference than GWB, and would not have been so willing to trounce civil liberties and International treaties.

Of course, Al and John could have seriously fucked us in some other manner. Perhaps they would have pulled a Clinton and just fired a couple missiles in the general direction of Osama and left him alone to plan for the future. Maybe they would have raised taxes to help turn America green, and the Internet Bubble, 9/11 and the Housing Bubble would have dropped the bottom out and instead of a recession, we could be looking at a full blown depression. Or, since the GOP was in control of the House and Senate, maybe we would have just had total gridlock, and accomplished nothing over the past 6-8 years.

It's insane, I think, to believe that it doesn't matter which individual is President. All individuals are different and will react differently to challenges. Some reactions are good, some bad... it matters. It's also insane, I think, to believe that it does matter which party is in power. The two parties are extremely close in most of their views and where they differ, there are good arguments for both sides.

From what I've seen, either of the individuals running would be a far better person than GWB as President. McCain, is not GWB II (no matter what the media wants to spew) and Obama isn't the messiah (no matter what FOX wants to spew). Neither of them are the antichrist, neither of them are likely to bring about the downfall of the entire nation and neither of them seem likely to summon Shub-Niggurath, Cthulhu or Yog Sothoth.

McCain, unlike Bush, seems capable of separating rhetoric from sanity. That's why he was against the tax cuts Bush pushed through... tax cuts during war = Stupid.

Obama, unlike Gore and Kerry, has Charisma, presence and (unlike GWB) eloquence. He has experienced life as a normal American, something many of the contenders seem to have never experienced.

McCain is not perfect, he seems set on 'winning' in Iraq, whatever the hell that means. However, I can see the view, that since we fucked up, killed their leader, destroyed their government and their infrastructure... and set a bunch of crazy people loose with plenty of excuses to hate on us, them, anyone... maybe we should clean up the mess we made. I don't know that we can, but I do see the point.

Obama also is not perfect... he's had very little experience and that could be particularly bad... especially with the current situation in Eastern Europe. IIRC, Kennedy's inexperience led to some tense moments a couple decades ago.

More than who the President will be, I have concerns with who the citizenry will be. Political opinions have turned neighbors into enemies. NeoCon, Pinko, Fascist, Nazi... not all that different from Nigger, Kraut, Jap, Chink or Gook.

Latte Liberals and Gun Toting NeoCons are both Americans and are both probably intelligent humans. It's a shame that so many seem to forget that.

what about gun-toting liberals?

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 29, 2008, 08:35:28 PM
what about gun-toting liberals?

NOT TO BE TRUSTED.
  \
:nigel:

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 29, 2008, 08:35:28 PM
what about gun-toting liberals?

Stop messing with the lineality of others' stereotypes, ECH!




(lineality may/may not be a word...I'm lazy)

Quote from: LMNO on August 29, 2008, 08:41:27 PM

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 29, 2008, 08:35:28 PM
what about gun-toting liberals?

NOT TO BE TRUSTED.
  \
:nigel:

WHY is the tag for that : nigel : (wiffout spaces)?

because that's what it was at FC.

it predates the poster known as Nigel by a LONG time.

ah

in the interest of unity, I have tracked down somebody that nearly everyone can find a reason to hate.

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

That article fails to mention that Harry Reid is also an original member of the Rocky Horror Picture Show fan club.

Quote from: Requiem on August 30, 2008, 06:59:23 PM
in the interest of unity, I have tracked down somebody that nearly everyone can find a reason to hate.

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

That pussy?  I don't HATE him.  He isn't WORTHY of my hate.

He is like a garden slug.  The only reason you don't casually step on him is that he'd be an even bigger mess.

Quote from: Hoopla on August 31, 2008, 05:31:22 PM
That article fails to mention that Harry Reid is also an original member of the Rocky Horror Picture Show fan club.

It's wikipedia.  Fix this.

Quote from: Ratatosk on August 29, 2008, 06:54:48 PM
I love politics, its one of those topics that really shows off our BiP/Reality Tunnel/Subjective Reality Filters.

GWB is not responsible for the Internet Bubble Burst, nor 9/11. These two things hurt the US economy more than anything else in 01/02. Bush further fucked things up by running headlong into ill-planned, expensive wars, while at the same time enacting tax cuts... thus leaving us with a crazy deficit. Though to be honest, we would have had a crazy deficit with these wars, tax cut or no.

To lay the economy on Bush, Clinton or any other president seems shortsighted to me. The economy is far more complex than that sort of simplistic view.

However, to claim that it doesn't matter who the president is, seems to miss one very important lesson from the past 8 years. Under GWB, American citizens were held without trial. Under GWB, non-Americans were held without trial, some of whom were kidnapped and tortured. Under GWB, we invaded a sovereign nation under false pretenses. Under GWB, the PATRIOT ACT was passed. Now, it's possible, that under Gore or Kerry these same things would have happened. However, I think that's probably untrue... both Gore and Kerry have a different frame of reference than GWB, and would not have been so willing to trounce civil liberties and International treaties.

Of course, Al and John could have seriously fucked us in some other manner. Perhaps they would have pulled a Clinton and just fired a couple missiles in the general direction of Osama and left him alone to plan for the future. Maybe they would have raised taxes to help turn America green, and the Internet Bubble, 9/11 and the Housing Bubble would have dropped the bottom out and instead of a recession, we could be looking at a full blown depression. Or, since the GOP was in control of the House and Senate, maybe we would have just had total gridlock, and accomplished nothing over the past 6-8 years.

It's insane, I think, to believe that it doesn't matter which individual is President. All individuals are different and will react differently to challenges. Some reactions are good, some bad... it matters. It's also insane, I think, to believe that it does matter which party is in power. The two parties are extremely close in most of their views and where they differ, there are good arguments for both sides.

From what I've seen, either of the individuals running would be a far better person than GWB as President. McCain, is not GWB II (no matter what the media wants to spew) and Obama isn't the messiah (no matter what FOX wants to spew). Neither of them are the antichrist, neither of them are likely to bring about the downfall of the entire nation and neither of them seem likely to summon Shub-Niggurath, Cthulhu or Yog Sothoth.

McCain, unlike Bush, seems capable of separating rhetoric from sanity. That's why he was against the tax cuts Bush pushed through... tax cuts during war = Stupid.

Obama, unlike Gore and Kerry, has Charisma, presence and (unlike GWB) eloquence. He has experienced life as a normal American, something many of the contenders seem to have never experienced.

McCain is not perfect, he seems set on 'winning' in Iraq, whatever the hell that means. However, I can see the view, that since we fucked up, killed their leader, destroyed their government and their infrastructure... and set a bunch of crazy people loose with plenty of excuses to hate on us, them, anyone... maybe we should clean up the mess we made. I don't know that we can, but I do see the point.

Obama also is not perfect... he's had very little experience and that could be particularly bad... especially with the current situation in Eastern Europe. IIRC, Kennedy's inexperience led to some tense moments a couple decades ago.

More than who the President will be, I have concerns with who the citizenry will be. Political opinions have turned neighbors into enemies. NeoCon, Pinko, Fascist, Nazi... not all that different from Nigger, Kraut, Jap, Chink or Gook.

Latte Liberals and Gun Toting NeoCons are both Americans and are both probably intelligent humans. It's a shame that so many seem to forget that.

<insert smarmy, semi-on-topic response here>

<insert condescension and/or personal insult here>

Quote from: Ratatosk on August 29, 2008, 06:54:48 PM
It's insane, I think, to believe that it doesn't matter which individual is President. All individuals are different and will react differently to challenges. Some reactions are good, some bad... it matters. It's also insane, I think, to believe that it does matter which party is in power. The two parties are extremely close in most of their views and where they differ, there are good arguments for both sides.

From what I've seen, either of the individuals running would be a far better person than GWB as President. McCain, is not GWB II (no matter what the media wants to spew) and Obama isn't the messiah (no matter what FOX wants to spew). Neither of them are the antichrist, neither of them are likely to bring about the downfall of the entire nation and neither of them seem likely to summon Shub-Niggurath, Cthulhu or Yog Sothoth.

McCain, unlike Bush, seems capable of separating rhetoric from sanity. That's why he was against the tax cuts Bush pushed through... tax cuts during war = Stupid.

Obama, unlike Gore and Kerry, has Charisma, presence and (unlike GWB) eloquence. He has experienced life as a normal American, something many of the contenders seem to have never experienced.

McCain is not perfect, he seems set on 'winning' in Iraq, whatever the hell that means. However, I can see the view, that since we fucked up, killed their leader, destroyed their government and their infrastructure... and set a bunch of crazy people loose with plenty of excuses to hate on us, them, anyone... maybe we should clean up the mess we made. I don't know that we can, but I do see the point.

Obama also is not perfect... he's had very little experience and that could be particularly bad... especially with the current situation in Eastern Europe. IIRC, Kennedy's inexperience led to some tense moments a couple decades ago.

More than who the President will be, I have concerns with who the citizenry will be. Political opinions have turned neighbors into enemies. NeoCon, Pinko, Fascist, Nazi... not all that different from Nigger, Kraut, Jap, Chink or Gook.

Latte Liberals and Gun Toting NeoCons are both Americans and are both probably intelligent humans. It's a shame that so many seem to forget that.

False equivalency.  Sounds nice on paper, doesn't match up to the reality of events.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=183509&title=barack-obama-he-completes-us

"Everytime Barack Obama speaks, an angel has an orgasm..."

Quote from: Jenne on August 31, 2008, 07:30:06 PM
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=183509&title=barack-obama-he-completes-us

"Everytime Barack Obama speaks, an angel has an orgasm..."

That was beyond ridiculous.

Quote from: nostalgicBadger on August 28, 2008, 08:44:07 AM
Sorry about the disillusionment, Requiem, but what exactly did you expect? Liberal, conservative, it really doesn't matter. By the time you're running for president, you've already been filtered through the party system. The nearest thing to honest politicians are the ones who can fund their own campaigns, or enough at least to run as an independent, but voting for an independent is essentially a waste of a vote anyway. Even if an independent could get elected, he could not get anything passed through the house or senate.

Presidents are figureheads. If you want a real change, start a revolution.

How can you go from saying eitehr party democrat or republican are essentially the same to saying voting for an independant is a waste?

WHAT THE FUCK.

Getting an independant a minority government means one main thing to me, the people actually give a FUCK about waht goes on.   Once tehy are in power as a minority government, they will have an awesome platform for the next election cycle.  ie. LOOK AT THESE FUCKTARDS, THEY AREN'T ALLOWING ANYTHING TO PASS.   vote them out...  which will hopefully cause more fuck tards to give a fuck about government.

Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 28, 2008, 03:55:21 AM
I got fooled by Obama. So help me he seemed right. Obama ran on promises of transparency, and holding accountable those that participated in the raping of our liberties since pretty much before I was born. He had all the right positions on technology and the Patent system. Despite myself, I started to have hope in the system. That things really can change.

Hope tends to addle peoples brains like that.

Since then, I've watched as he gave up his position on campaign finance reform, so that he can rake in the benefit of massive donations, watched as he decided that changing the law to allow widespread wiretapping was more important then ensuring those complicit in the last 20 years of eavesdropping are held accountable.

So I'm back here, to rant into empty cyberspace once more, and to watch and to wait. And when the messiah turns out to be another compromised politician, who will give your money to the rich, and strip away what little rights haven't been taken already; I will laugh.

Remember when people were disappointed by Obama?

Pepperidge Farms remembers.

Quote from: nostalgicBadger on August 29, 2008, 09:24:45 AM
Finally, Roger, I have seen you spam threads for lesser reasons. Hypocrisy is not becoming of you.
Don't edit my posts. Don't be a pussy. If you're going to abuse your mod priveliges, quit fucking around and just ban me. I mean, you can't have Discordians who think differently from yourself running around, can you? Shit no.

It's been 12 years, and I still have no idea what the fuck was going on, or how I was responsible for it.

you were the fool (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df7sjWqzAWc)

Oh man... I understand it hurts and you think about it all the time
I don't like seeing these mean comments... if somebody wants to share their thoughts and feelings you shouldn't make them feel bad about it... that's not what the forum is for...
it all seems devastating sometimes and it's right to speak up and be confident...
don't let others ruin that for you, stay strong you've got this!