namelesstavern.net

I couldn't help but chuckle at this, in a good way, hopefully not a double post:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-caGkwSR ... r_embedded

.

Tikker wrote:yeah, was worth a chuckle




I wonder what politics would be like if 80%+ of people voted?

Conservatives would NEVER get elected. All of the people that the right thinks get the left elected do not even vote. Almost half of the poor population do not vote and a large chunk of the young population as well.

voter turnout hit 56% in 2008 and that was the highest it's been in almost 60 years

isidewith.com shows that if every voter knew exactly what their candidates stood for, the race would actually be between Obama and Johnson

Tossica wrote:

Tikker wrote:yeah, was worth a chuckle

I wonder what politics would be like if 80%+ of people voted?

Conservatives would NEVER get elected. All of the people that the right thinks get the left elected do not even vote. Almost half of the poor population do not vote and a large chunk of the young population as well.

Probably true. Then we'd have massive new taxes, sky high inflation, no middle class, and every election could be decided by these people:

herp derp random regurgitated conservative bullshit

Lyion wrote:Probably true. Then we'd have massive new taxes, sky high inflation, no middle class, and every election could be decided by these people:
*snip* (we don't need to see him in duplicate)

You mean like the massive taxes we pay now that only the richest in the country don't pay into through write-off loopholes, the non-existent middle class we have currently, the $4 a gallon gas prices causing everything else in the country to inflate to ridiculous amounts, and teabilly republitard "morans," the oil tycoons, the pharmaceutical companies, and all the rest of the greedy assholes that are currently help fuel RMoney and Lyin' Ryan now to secure their own agendas?

Dear Lord... we can't have that

If only the Dems had a recent legislative supermajority and controlled the executive so they could fix the deficit and tax loopholes and pass any legislation they want... Oh wait. They did.

If only one party favored a flat, fair tax and not the lawyer riddled mess we currently have. Oh wait, they do.

Obama has just as many wealthy donors as Romney. The rich jewish vote ain't for the GOP, and even after the Dems owned the ranch these people still do not pay any taxes, just like GE doesn't.

My biggest issue is as a vet and a non union taxpayer the Dems hate me. Anyone who thinks otherwise is buying into the tripe and not looking at the simple statistical numbers. Anyone who pays taxes will pay more with the Dems agenda. I believe in smaller government, not more bureaucracy. I still laugh at the Dem convention where they had their patriotic tribute to the military... Showing Russian Warships and Turkish Fighter Jets. GG there, douchebags.

Obama will probably be re-elected by a combination of people who couldn't tell one what the capital of their own state is and who think the social safety net should include cell phones and weed, and wealthy Jewish bankers and lawyers laughing all the way to the bank because they know he is in their pocket and will ensure the gravy train continues. Sadly, so is Romney, but at least my taxes probably won't go up as much with him.

No doubt Romney is a fuckstick. However, so is Obama. Forgive me if I choose the lesser of two evils.

Lyion wrote:My biggest issue is as a vet and a non union taxpayer the Dems hate me.

I guess your indignation for "entitlement programs" ends right at the moment you feel entitled to something.

Lyion wrote:If only one party favored a flat, fair tax and not the lawyer riddled mess we currently have. Oh wait, they do.

Obama will probably be re-elected by a combination of people who couldn't tell one what the capital of their own state is and who think the social safety net should include cell phones and weed, and wealthy Jewish bankers and lawyers laughing all the way to the bank because they know he is in their pocket and will ensure the gravy train continues. Sadly, so is Romney, but at least my taxes probably won't go up as much with him.

1) Flat taxes aren't "fair". They are regressive, and hit people at the lower end of the income spectrum proportionally harder than those at the top end. Someone who is making 25k a year can much less afford to lose 10% of their income than someone making 250k. Taxes in this country have *ALWAYS* been progressive for just that reason.

2) I am *NONE* of those things you list, yet I am voting for Obama. Hyperbole much?

3) At this point, Obama isn't calling for raising taxes on anyone but the top bracket, so unless you are there, your taxes aren't going up. (Well, unless you use a shit-ton of deductions and loopholes that are going to get taken out, I guess.) And hell, even if they DID let the entirety of the Bush tax cut package expire, who the fuck cares? THE HORROR! Paying what we paid under Clinton! Because the economy was SO bad in the mid-late 90s, amirite? Yeesh. We CANNOT fix the deficit strictly by cutting. It just won't work. New revenues are essential. Bush Sr. understood that, which is why he agreed to necessary tax increases during his term.

-Arlos

Lyion wrote:If only the Dems had a recent legislative supermajority and controlled the executive so they could fix the deficit and tax loopholes and pass any legislation they want... Oh wait. They did.

If only one party favored a flat, fair tax and not the lawyer riddled mess we currently have. Oh wait, they do.

Obama has just as many wealthy donors as Romney. The rich jewish vote ain't for the GOP, and even after the Dems owned the ranch these people still do not pay any taxes, just like GE doesn't.

My biggest issue is as a vet and a non union taxpayer the Dems hate me. Anyone who thinks otherwise is buying into the tripe and not looking at the simple statistical numbers. Anyone who pays taxes will pay more with the Dems agenda. I believe in smaller government, not more bureaucracy. I still laugh at the Dem convention where they had their patriotic tribute to the military... Showing Russian Warships and Turkish Fighter Jets. GG there, douchebags.

Obama will probably be re-elected by a combination of people who couldn't tell one what the capital of their own state is and who think the social safety net should include cell phones and weed, and wealthy Jewish bankers and lawyers laughing all the way to the bank because they know he is in their pocket and will ensure the gravy train continues. Sadly, so is Romney, but at least my taxes probably won't go up as much with him.

No doubt Romney is a fuckstick. However, so is Obama. Forgive me if I choose the lesser of two evils.

Obama had a "super majority" for a total of about 4 non consecutive months due to senators dying (Kennedy), being delayed in actually sitting in their seats due to recounts (Franken), etc. Crock of shit, right wing propaganda bullshit.

Lyion wrote:If only the Dems had a recent legislative supermajority and controlled the executive so they could fix the deficit and tax loopholes and pass any legislation they want... Oh wait. They did.

No. They didn't.
http://current.com/shows/the-war-room/v ... ermajority

If you actually believe that, in that mish-mash of sporadic dem super majority, they would have been able to fix jack shit, then you're as delusional as Romney's magic underpants. They barely were able to get the healthcare act in place.

Fact check me. Go ahead. I did.

Lyion wrote:My biggest issue is as a vet and a non union taxpayer the Dems hate me. Anyone who thinks otherwise is buying into the tripe and not looking at the simple statistical numbers.

Let me stop you right there...
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/vo ... nate/2/193

Lyion, my dad was a Vietnam vet, and my husband is a veteran as well. It's been made quite clear over the past 30 years - it's the Republicans who don't give a shit about veterans for all the word vomit they spew.

dang i was gonna call bullshit on lyion's "supermajority" myth but i got beaten to it

twice

There is no supermajority 'myth'. It was a fact. Even after Scott Brown was elected they still had 59 votes and controlled *everything* and could have done tax reform easily with the amount of moderate Republicans in the Senate. Ted Kennedy was almost immediately replaced by Paul Kirk, another Democrat. Obamacare was passed via a supermajority. Not a single Republican voted for it. It would not have passed without that. Perhaps if they had done tax reform they wouldn't have lost a Senate seat in that bastion of conservatism, Massachusetts, which is the real reason their supermajority ended. There was no *barely* about their super majority. It was limited, but so is everything in life.

Triel, Perhaps the GOP doesn't care about Vets, but at least they have the common courtesy not to show Russian Warships and Turkish fighter planes in their 'tributes'. Especially when their party has the Commander in Chief.

Without 60 seats, there is no filibuster proof super majority. The Repubs have filibustered a record number of times and even gone as far as voting against policies they WROTE THEMSELVES in order to make sure as little gets done as possible during this administration. Fuck them.

Tikker wrote:I wonder what politics would be like if 80%+ of people voted?

I kind of wonder what would happen if no one voted. I think it'd be a safe assumption that it would be more interesting than if 80%+ did.

Equally improbable, but still more interesting.

I still can't believe you people are fighting over fingerpointing.

Both sides are utterly disgusting. Fuck politicians and rich people. (same thing)

Yea but sadly one of those 2 groups has to be in power. Im not really into obama or the democrats as I have said countless times but the republican party in its current state needs to stay out of power until they have they shit together. Tax cuts and jesus isnt an answer to our problems and I dont even want to hear it as a suggestion

Harrison wrote:I still can't believe you people are fighting over fingerpointing.

Both sides are utterly disgusting. Fuck politicians and rich people. (same thing)

during the debate tonight between kerrey and fischer for the NE senate seat being vacated by ben nelson, kerrey said "i would save $1B right off the bat by going after congressional pay, pension, and benefits"

he also argued for a 12 year max limit for serving in congress and an abolishment of partisan officials in both houses, i.e. majority/minority leaders (in NE we have a nonpartisan single-house system)


he said some stupid shit too, but damn i bet harry reid's eyebrows flew right off his head

Harrison wrote:I still can't believe you people are fighting over fingerpointing.

Both sides are utterly disgusting. Fuck politicians and rich people. (same thing)

Pretty much. I don't have any issues with them, but I understand the difference between D and R is very little. I enjoy discussing current events, and as flawed as our system is it remains pretty good. Politics is about power and theater. This video is just more of that. Heck, Jeffrey Katzenberger who runs Dreamworks, who pays no taxes via creating shell companies for their movies as do almost all Hollywood movie studios is Obama's biggest bundler. If you want to know what exactly is wrong with our 'progressive' tax system, realize according to movie studio accounting, Star Wars has yet to make a profit.

There are some good changes recently, though. I'm pleased the GOP is moving away from the religious right somewhat and more towards libertarianism. Their stance on Internet freedom is good. I'm happy the DNC is moving more towards fiscal control and is eyeing outsourcing as the problem it is for our country. I like the fact the EPA has more teeth under the Dems. Both sides are hypocrits on abortion, the death penalty, and gun control, though. I despise debating these as the answers to me are rather simple: No 'regular' abortions after 10 weeks, period. No death penalty, period. No semi automatic weapons and vastly regulate the sales of guns and ammo. Heaven forbid we solve these issues as they are huge moneymakers for both political parties.

I can't remember just how many D and R politicians go to Washington to be 'independent', be an agent of 'change', or to 'fix' things. It's all bullshit used car salesmanship. It's all about wedge issues and raising money. There are a lot of Americans doing wonderful things to help the world. Most are working in poor countries with no publicity and not seeking power and certainly not involved in politics. Every time a political campaign calls begging for money, I just tell them my extra cash goes to St Jude. Is their candidate and his positions more important than helping out sick kids? I have yet to get a good answer from either party that their 'change' is more important than that place's 'normal'.

I am having fun with the political stats calls living in Ohio. Every time I get one I invent a new identity in regards to my political leanings. Yesterday I was a Republican voting for Obama due to Romney's business past. Last week I was a Democrat voting for Romney due to Obama being too conservative. Good luck with those statistics you pollster fucks.

There's no incentive for our system to change from the way it currently operates.

By actively engaging as a part of "the team", you're exactly where they want you to be. They're energized by your throwing of your voice across the aether at the other side. Your discontent with their rivals is their bread and butter. And the more discontent you are, the better they eat. Their lifeline is the idea that you are able to do something and think that your action has some significant measure of causal efficacy or meaning.

As long as everyone (or at least almost everyone) thinks that this is doing something, then it’s doing something, even if in a very limited fashion, not the least of which is keeping you thinking that it's doing something. Buying into the system as it stands. Adapting yourself to its form, rather than trying to force it to adapt to yours.

It's a beautiful, elegant, self-fulfilling, circular, perpetual Rube Goldberg machine. And you're a tiny cog in it, turning vigorously away, every day, and they absolutely love you for it.

That is insofar as they can love anything other than themselves. They really don't have to do much, as long as they present the appearance that they're doing something. That's usually enough.

This machine mostly takes care of itself -- it's self-monitoring and self-correcting. It runs off of its own power, which it always produces in the right amounts to keep itself running. The internal parts of the machine that conflict with each other generate this power. It thrives on conflict, as long as it's not an amount of conflict so great that it would be a threat to itself. If one side gains a little bit too much power over the other, then the machine adjusts itself to find the proper balance and maintain parity.

Only if the cogs in the machine stopped turning would the machine ever be in any danger of cessation. And that will never happen, because it runs contrary to the basic nature of the way the cogs in the machine work. They're going to work at cross-purposes, and counter each other, and cancel each other out, and they're supposed to do this. Occasionally, cogs will fall out of the machine, into the void. Cogs will also occasionally annihilate one another, often capriciously. This is by design. New cogs will be created to replace the ones that were broken or destroyed.

And it's okay, because the machine also has a measure of self-awareness -- its own neural network, a form of collective consciousness that lies deep below its surface, and it knows that there isn't much in the way of a better alternative to itself, at least not in any sense that the cogs would be willing to accept or endure. In this way, the machine manifests a longevity and vitality through a smug (for a machine) self-assuredness. As long as there are cogs, and the cogs keep turning, there will be a machine.

So welcome, welcome to the machine.

If the Repuglicans could keep the Jesus shit out of politics, I'd have far less issue with many of their policies.

Lyion wrote:

Harrison wrote:I still can't believe you people are fighting over fingerpointing.

Both sides are utterly disgusting. Fuck politicians and rich people. (same thing)

Pretty much. I don't have any issues with them, but I understand the difference between D and R is very little. I enjoy discussing current events, and as flawed as our system is it remains pretty good. Politics is about power and theater. This video is just more of that. Heck, Jeffrey Katzenberger who runs Dreamworks, who pays no taxes via creating shell companies for their movies as do almost all Hollywood movie studios is Obama's biggest bundler. If you want to know what exactly is wrong with our 'progressive' tax system, realize according to movie studio accounting, Star Wars has yet to make a profit.

There are some good changes recently, though. I'm pleased the GOP is moving away from the religious right somewhat and more towards libertarianism. Their stance on Internet freedom is good. I'm happy the DNC is moving more towards fiscal control and is eyeing outsourcing as the problem it is for our country. I like the fact the EPA has more teeth under the Dems. Both sides are hypocrits on abortion, the death penalty, and gun control, though. I despise debating these as the answers to me are rather simple: No 'regular' abortions after 10 weeks, period. No death penalty, period. No semi automatic weapons and vastly regulate the sales of guns and ammo. Heaven forbid we solve these issues as they are huge moneymakers for both political parties.

I can't remember just how many D and R politicians go to Washington to be 'independent', be an agent of 'change', or to 'fix' things. It's all bullshit used car salesmanship. It's all about wedge issues and raising money. There are a lot of Americans doing wonderful things to help the world. Most are working in poor countries with no publicity and not seeking power and certainly not involved in politics. Every time a political campaign calls begging for money, I just tell them my extra cash goes to St Jude. Is their candidate and his positions more important than helping out sick kids? I have yet to get a good answer from either party that their 'change' is more important than that place's 'normal'.

I am having fun with the political stats calls living in Ohio. Every time I get one I invent a new identity in regards to my political leanings. Yesterday I was a Republican voting for Obama due to Romney's business past. Last week I was a Democrat voting for Romney due to Obama being too conservative. Good luck with those statistics you pollster fucks.

this is my favorite lyion post probably ever.

See, I don't see it like that. I don't think people get into politics because they're power hungry assholes. I think they do it because they want to make a difference and because they care about politics. Problem is you can't get anywhere without playing the game. And once you start you just become a cog in the machine. It's no different here. Things could be better. People could be held accountable for lying. Voters could be smarter. But that's never going to happen, here or there, or anywhere.

I try not to measure politicians by my moral standards anyway. I don't have to spend an afternoon with the people I elect. They just have to do a good job. Character issues play way to big a part in politics IMO.