Thread: Obama's getting it done son!

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The U.N. inspectors had such good psychic ability that they could detect the nonexistence of weapons? How did they do that? Not finding something proves its nonexistence? Going on intelligence from the Clinton Administration, the Senate (Democrats included), the CIA, and five other governments is "lying"?

Uh... during the Clinton administration there were WMDs in Iraq, they didn't finish dismantling them until 1998. What other governments were those? Every other government agreed with the UN, which was the reason that no one fully backed the US in the war.

I was "brainwashed" into liking McDondalds? What I remember is eating their food when I was about two years old and loving it.

a 2 year old is weak minded, doing really good advertising on a weak minded person is essentially the definition of brainwashing

So, what exactly are you proposing? Do you want to ban tobacco and transfat?

Um... trans fats are illegal. And yes. People always bitch that using corn for ethanol will create a food shortage. Corn and Tobacco thrive in the exact same climate. One is essentially poison, the other is alternative energy. I don't see the dilemma.

The more money the rich have, the more people they are going to hire. Do you deny that?

No, as I've said many times, the rich do not create jobs, their companies do, and the companies have a completely separate tax code. And no, having more money creates more low paid jobs and higher revenues, most of which goes into the salaries of the top 5% of the company. Conservative philosophy on business taxes is like playing chess and thinking one move ahead, whereas liberal business philosophy is like playing chess and thinking 5 moves ahead.

Higher taxes on the corporations creates tax breaks for the middle class (which ist he driving force of the economy). The middle class will then spend more, which goes back into the companies, which then increases their revenues, which in turn creates more jobs. No one is denying that companies having more money creates jobs, but giving it to them, while taxing the middle class more steeply creates a bottleneck.

The fact that greed is one of the major forces of people is the principle behind capitalism and a fact totally overlooked by socialism.

And capitalism. Trickle down economics does not work because of it.

There was a tax increase?

College students paid taxes for the first time in American history. The federal tax rate jumped 14% in Bush's 2nd term and the debt continued to skyrocket. Did you forget that or did you watch Fox the whole time and never heard of it? You do realize that the national debt will eventually have to be paid off right? Obama will raise taxes. Don't blame him though, every liberal in the world told you that a runaway military budget would eventually cause a tax hike. Who does it is irrelevant, it's paying for Bush's war, it's Bush's tax hike. You keep dodging this question: Where do you think the military's money comes from?

Why do you ignore Barney Frank and Maxine Waters' pressure to lower loan standards? That is the main problem at the root of the mess. Do you even acknowledge its existence? AIG and other companies at the top of the economy suffered tremendously because people who should not have gotten loans in the first place could not pay back their loans. When the top falls, the whole system starts crumbling, hence the bailouts. Right?

Ever heard of the Community Reinvestment Act? It was passed by the Clinton administration and it gave loans to poor people... with a low interest rate, so that it could be paid off. And people below a certain point could not qualify, or would be helped by the government. Bush's congress kept the part about giving loans to poor people, but took away the interest rate cap, the government aid, and the restrictions of who qualified. Barney Frank supported the bailout, he doesn't know shit about economics. Bailouts don't work, but neither do placing high interest rates on people who can't afford them.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Uh... during the Clinton administration there were WMDs in Iraq, they didn't finish dismantling them until 1998. What other governments were those? Every other government agreed with the UN, which was the reason that no one fully backed the US in the war.

How do you know he had dismantled? He never demonstrated the destruction of all of the weapons, which he was required to do under the ceasefire. How do you know he dismantled?

Some of the other countries were countries that refused to help us because they have douche governments when it comes to fighting necessary fights. I think the other five were Israel, Britain, China, Germany, and France.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

a 2 year old is weak minded, doing really good advertising on a weak minded person is essentially the definition of brainwashing

I didn't have my driver's license or a bike then. My parents took me, and I wanted to go back again and again because the food tasted awesome. That is not brainwashing. It is the selling of a desirable product. It is why they are so enormously successful.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Um... trans fats are illegal. And yes. People always bitch that using corn for ethanol will create a food shortage. Corn and Tobacco thrive in the exact same climate. One is essentially poison, the other is alternative energy. I don't see the dilemma.

McDonalds is selling their trans fat foods illegally?

Originally Posted by ninja9578

No, as I've said many times, the rich do not create jobs, their companies do, and the companies have a completely separate tax code. And no, having more money creates more low paid jobs and higher revenues, most of which goes into the salaries of the top 5% of the company. Conservative philosophy on business taxes is like playing chess and thinking one move ahead, whereas liberal business philosophy is like playing chess and thinking 5 moves ahead.

They own the companies. It is their money. The more money they have in their pockets/banks, the more new businesses they can create. Have you noticed how people who get rich acting or playing sports very often start their own businesses? Why might that be??????????? In the cases of corporations, which are owned by shareholders, the more money the ownerS make, the more they stimulate the economy.

So, if the rich had less money, they would pay their employees more money?

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Higher taxes on the corporations creates tax breaks for the middle class (which ist he driving force of the economy). The middle class will then spend more, which goes back into the companies, which then increases their revenues, which in turn creates more jobs. No one is denying that companies having more money creates jobs, but giving it to them, while taxing the middle class more steeply creates a bottleneck.

I want taxes on the middle class to be lowered too. The same principles apply.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

And capitalism. Trickle down economics does not work because of it.

Why is the United States such a success story?

Why did the Soviet Union collapse?

Originally Posted by ninja9578

College students paid taxes for the first time in American history. The federal tax rate jumped 14% in Bush's 2nd term and the debt continued to skyrocket. Did you forget that or did you watch Fox the whole time and never heard of it? You do realize that the national debt will eventually have to be paid off right? Obama will raise taxes. Don't blame him though, every liberal in the world told you that a runaway military budget would eventually cause a tax hike. Who does it is irrelevant, it's paying for Bush's war, it's Bush's tax hike. You keep dodging this question: Where do you think the military's money comes from?

Bush is not much of a fiscal conservative. Didn't Keith Olbermann tell you that?

The military's money comes from taxes, which we should have. That does not mean we can't cut your socialist nonsense and lower taxes.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Ever heard of the Community Reinvestment Act? It was passed by the Clinton administration and it gave loans to poor people... with a low interest rate, so that it could be paid off. And people below a certain point could not qualify, or would be helped by the government. Bush's congress kept the part about giving loans to poor people, but took away the interest rate cap, the government aid, and the restrictions of who qualified. Barney Frank supported the bailout, he doesn't know shit about economics. Bailouts don't work, but neither do placing high interest rates on people who can't afford them.

I don't know why you keep trying to attack me with Bush. He is a fucking dildo. He is not even a fiscal conservative. Drop it about Bush. But... he did not create the problem. He apparently did make it worse.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

How do you know he had dismantled? He never demonstrated the destruction of all of the weapons, which he was required to do under the ceasefire. How do you know he dismantled?

Some of the other countries were countries that refused to help us because they have douche governments when it comes to fighting necessary fights. I think the other five were Israel, Britain, China, Germany, and France.

No, they had governments run by intelligent people and knew that spending money on a stupid war is a stupid idea.

I didn't have my driver's license or a bike then. My parents took me, and I wanted to go back again and again because the food tasted awesome. That is not brainwashing. It is the selling of a desirable product. It is why they are so enormously successful.

The human body is evolutionally repulsed by large amounts of fat. It only tastes good once you're already addicted to it. It's desirable because it's addictive, not because of it's taste.

McDonalds is selling their trans fat foods illegally?

McDonalds doesn't sell trans fats in places where it's banned: http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/ne...fats-from-menu

They own the companies. It is their money. The more money they have in their pockets/banks, the more new businesses they can create. Have you noticed how people who get rich acting or playing sports very often start their own businesses? Why might that be??????????? In the cases of corporations, which are owned by shareholders, the more money the ownerS make, the more they stimulate the economy.

No, the more the people spend the more they stimulate the economy. You're talking about the effect, not the cause.

So, if the rich had less money, they would pay their employees more money?

If their employees don't get tax breaks, how will they buy things which is the companies revenue?

I want taxes on the middle class to be lowered too. The same principles apply.

You supported a war that put the country 11 trillion dollars in debt, you can't have both.

Why is the United States such a success story?

You do realize that the biggest economic growths in the last 100 years were during FDR, JFK, and Clinton, while the biggest economic declines were during W, Reagan, and Nixon right? Three of the presidents I mentioned were tax and spend liberals, three of them were trickle down economics and big military. Lets see if we can match then up.

Why did the Soviet Union collapse?

They had a runaway military budget and a pure communist rule that caused the working class and the upper class to be poor, which created little wealth, and therefore no money to support their insane military budget.

Bush is not much of a fiscal conservative. Didn't Keith Olbermann tell you that?

Name one Republican in the past 100 years that was a fiscal conservative. The word "Conservative" when talking about republican politicians does not mean financial conservative. It did at one time, but now it refers to their backwards religious views. Every republican supports a huge government and will spend as much money on the military as they want with no regards to where the money comes from.

The military's money comes from taxes, which we should have. That does not mean we can't cut your socialist nonsense and lower taxes.

Then how do you plan to pay for it? The idea that future generations will pay for it is just stupid. The amount of money that was spent in Iraq alone could have sent every single American to college, given every single American 30 years worth of health care, or created millions of jobs and depleted the country's carbon footprint if it had been invested in alternative energy.

You do realize that the biggest economic growths in the last 100 years were during FDR, JFK, and Clinton, while the biggest economic declines were during W, Reagan, and Nixon right? Three of the presidents I mentioned were tax and spend liberals, three of them were trickle down economics and big military. Lets see if we can match then up.

I just wanted to add that this does not prove capitalism fails, it proves capitalism thrives. Capitalism isn't about spending money you don't have, it's about gaining money from investors, using that money to help your corporation grow and rake in more profits for you and your investors, and repeating this process over and over again eventually building something big and strong.

Assuming you wanted to prove UM's ideas about capitalism wrong by responding to his input, I'd say you're wrongly correlating political ideals with economic systems.

No, who said capitalism is wrong? Capitalism is strong, I believe (correctly) that in order to work it has to be controlled, UM believes (incorrectly) that is should be unrestrained.

Under FDR, JFK, and Clinton the government itself acted in a capitalistic way by investing in public works projects, which created thousands of jobs. The people who are looking for jobs aren't college educated white collars worker that corporations will hire, they are uneducated, blue collars works and will only be hired for building things. during FDR it was roads and bridges (New Deal), under Kennedy it was steel and materials (for the space agency,) and under Clinton it was a combination of utilities and some alternative energies.

Trickle down economics is not capitalism, it's capitalism without restraint. Tax and Spend is not socialism, it's capitalism with restraints.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

The human body is evolutionally repulsed by large amounts of fat. It only tastes good once you're already addicted to it. It's desirable because it's addictive, not because of it's taste.

That is a major generalization. Lots of people love fat. People eat it in the first place because it is desirable. They get addicted to it because it is desirable. Are you claiming that people don't like the taste of it at first but eat it any way? Are you claiming you know better than I do whether or not I like the taste of McDonalds' food? I love the taste of it. Fact.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

McDonalds doesn't sell trans fats in places where it's banned: http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/ne...fats-from-menu

That's freedom for you.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

No, the more the people spend the more they stimulate the economy. You're talking about the effect, not the cause.

The more money a person has, the more money the person spends. Do you honestly deny that?

Originally Posted by ninja9578

If their employees don't get tax breaks, how will they buy things which is the companies revenue?

You're preaching to the Pope.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

You supported a war that put the country 11 trillion dollars in debt, you can't have both.

You can if you cut the real garbage. Besides, such large scale wars of ours are rare, as they should be. This is an isolated revolutionary event taking place. Your socialist programs are not.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

You do realize that the biggest economic growths in the last 100 years were during FDR, JFK, and Clinton, while the biggest economic declines were during W, Reagan, and Nixon right? Three of the presidents I mentioned were tax and spend liberals, three of them were trickle down economics and big military. Lets see if we can match then up.

That does not answer my question. I asked you why the United States is such a success.

Congress makes laws, not presidents. Besides, Republicans suck too. You are preaching to the Pope again. I just think Republicans don't suck AS bad economically as Democrats. Both factions of the Republicratic Party suck. You don't have to keep telling me that one of them does. Why do you?

Originally Posted by ninja9578

They had a runaway military budget and a pure communist rule that caused the working class and the upper class to be poor, which created little wealth, and therefore no money to support their insane military budget.

What' the problem with pure communist rule?

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Name one Republican in the past 100 years that was a fiscal conservative. The word "Conservative" when talking about republican politicians does not mean financial conservative. It did at one time, but now it refers to their backwards religious views. Every republican supports a huge government and will spend as much money on the military as they want with no regards to where the money comes from.

You are such a Republicrat!!!!!!! Get this black and white thinking out of your head! I AM NOT A FUCKING REPUBLICAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Then how do you plan to pay for it? The idea that future generations will pay for it is just stupid. The amount of money that was spent in Iraq alone could have sent every single American to college, given every single American 30 years worth of health care, or created millions of jobs and depleted the country's carbon footprint if it had been invested in alternative energy.

I already told you I believe in cutting a lot. Did you see where I said I believe in taxes? I am seriously questioning whether you are reading my posts. Are you? If not, I don't want to continue this. I can talk to a brick wall without even getting on the internet.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Capitalism is strong, I believe (correctly) that in order to work it has to be controlled, UM believes (incorrectly) that is should be unrestrained.

I told you several times in this thread and several times in others that I don't believe that. This is ridiculous. Are you a troll?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That is a major generalization. Lots of people love fat. People eat it in the first place because it is desirable. They get addicted to it because it is desirable. Are you claiming that people don't like the taste of it at first but eat it any way? Are you claiming you know better than I do whether or not I like the taste of McDonalds' food? I love the taste of it. Fact.

No, it's a matter of deception. Tell a child something tastes good enough times, no matter how badly it tastes, they will say they like it. Kids are suggestible, and when they eat it they tell themselves that they like it. Autosuggestion is just as powerful as external suggestion.

That's freedom for you.

For someone who believes in paying for health care, you should be more grateful for that.

The more money a person has, the more money the person spends. Do you honestly deny that?

You missed the point entirely. Trickle down economics doesn't give people more money, there is no trickle down. It's like communism, a great idea that fails miserably in practice.

You can if you cut the real garbage. Besides, such large scale wars of ours are rare, as they should be. This is an isolated revolutionary event taking place. Your socialist programs are not.

My "socialist" programs are in practice all over the world and have never lead to a national downfall. Unlimited military power however has brought down the most powerful countries over and over again.

That does not answer my question. I asked you why the United States is such a success.

Because every 4 years we get a new president. The conservatives create an enormous debt and build up the military, the liberals pay the debt off and create a surplus and cut the military down. The US is such a success because the liberal governments get more done than the conservative ones. 2 steps forwards for 1 step backwards will result in progression.

Congress makes laws, not presidents. Besides, Republicans suck too. You are preaching to the Pope again. I just think Republicans don't suck AS bad economically as Democrats. Both factions of the Republicratic Party suck. You don't have to keep telling me that one of them does. Why do you?

The red tape for the ways banks lend money was taken down in 2002, a red president and a red congress.

What' the problem with pure communist rule?

It doesn't work. Greed consumes people, same problem as capitalism. Oddly enough, the solution lies with a combination of both. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

You are such a Republicrat!!!!!!! Get this black and white thinking out of your head! I AM NOT A FUCKING REPUBLICAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I never called you one. I called the congress and president that you supported republican. I always call you conservative. You can stop telling me that people around you call you liberal. You live in Mississippi, extreme conservatives calling you liberal makes you a moderate conservative.

I already told you I believe in cutting a lot. Did you see where I said I believe in taxes? I am seriously questioning whether you are reading my posts. Are you? If not, I don't want to continue this. I can talk to a brick wall without even getting on the internet.

You believe in cutting taxes for both rich and poor and everyone in between though. You can't run a government with not enough taxes. Someone has to pay off the 11 trillion dollar national debt. The middle class is the force behind our economy. The upper class create jobs... but the amount that they are taxed does not cause cutbacks, people not buying their products does. Taxing the middle class causes people to buy less, so the corporations have less money, so people loose their jobs.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

No, it's a matter of deception. Tell a child something tastes good enough times, no matter how badly it tastes, they will say they like it. Kids are suggestible, and when they eat it they tell themselves that they like it. Autosuggestion is just as powerful as external suggestion.

So I was mindfucked into thinking I thought it tasted good when I actually thought it tasted bad? Why didn't that work with broccoli?

Originally Posted by ninja9578

For someone who believes in paying for health care, you should be more grateful for that.

No way. Whether or not I eat trans fat is my decision, not the government's.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

You missed the point entirely. Trickle down economics doesn't give people more money, there is no trickle down. It's like communism, a great idea that fails miserably in practice.

I didn't miss anything. You left out what results in more spending. The more money people have, the more they spend... and the more money other people get, and the more they spend... and the moe money other people get... etc. Business expansion results in job expansion and company effectiveness/inventiveness. It works.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

My "socialist" programs are in practice all over the world and have never lead to a national downfall. Unlimited military power however has brought down the most powerful countries over and over again.

We are the most successful country in the world.

I don't believe in "unlimited" military power.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Because every 4 years we get a new president. The conservatives create an enormous debt and build up the military, the liberals pay the debt off and create a surplus and cut the military down. The US is such a success because the liberal governments get more done than the conservative ones. 2 steps forwards for 1 step backwards will result in progression.

The United States is the only country with liberals in the government? Or are you saying we have the most liberal government? Both are false. It must be something else, which is our world's highest level of capitalism.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

The red tape for the ways banks lend money was taken down in 2002, a red president and a red congress.

That was a problem, just like the problem the red tape should have been there to stop.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

It doesn't work. Greed consumes people, same problem as capitalism. Oddly enough, the solution lies with a combination of both. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

But the capitalist component needs to be far stronger than the socialist component. That is the secret of our success.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

I never called you one. I called the congress and president that you supported republican. I always call you conservative. You can stop telling me that people around you call you liberal. You live in Mississippi, extreme conservatives calling you liberal makes you a moderate conservative.

Tell me what is "moderately conservative" about supporting the legality of all drugs, American flag desecration, gay marriage, interracial marriage, prostitution, polygamy, the end of dry counties, the end of strip club zoning ordinances, 100% separation of church and state, abortion, and pornography.

I supported some of Bush's policies, clearly not all of them. I didn't even support most of them. I am a free thinker, not a cult member.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

You believe in cutting taxes for both rich and poor and everyone in between though. You can't run a government with not enough taxes. Someone has to pay off the 11 trillion dollar national debt. The middle class is the force behind our economy. The upper class create jobs... but the amount that they are taxed does not cause cutbacks, people not buying their products does. Taxing the middle class causes people to buy less, so the corporations have less money, so people loose their jobs.

They should all get tax cuts, and lots and lots of government crocks of shit need to go away. Also, tax reductions can result in a better economy that results in more tax revenue even though the percentages are reduced.

That's enough you two.

We're supposed to be talking about weed here.