Switch to full style
A Free And Independent Scotland.
Post a reply

Re: Weekly discussion (2/15-2/22): Moore's Law - implications

Thu Apr 28, 2011 5:48 pm

Weekly discussion 16 (4/28-5/5): Birtherism and politics

Obama recently released his "long form" birth certificate. End of the birther movement? Apparently not. So, what does Spam think?

Re: Weekly discussion (4/28-5/5): Birtherism and politics

Thu Apr 28, 2011 6:32 pm

1) 1/4 of Americans are retarded.
2) Retarded Americans are immune to facts.
3) President is too black for people to accept it.

Re: Weekly discussion (4/28-5/5): Birtherism and politics

Thu Apr 28, 2011 6:36 pm

race will be an issue for as long as it takes for "reverse racism" to be discredited as an idea, which will only happen once people accept the historical precedent of SPECIFICALLY GIVING A BENEFIT TO A GROUP OF PEOPLE HISTORICALLY LACKING THAT BENEFIT in order to correct that particular social problem of inequity.

See: the denial of white privilege, the outcry against affirmative action, and really any time white americans get upset that because they personally haven't seen themselves having benefited from white privilege then the whole thing clearly never existed at all.

Re: Weekly discussion (4/28-5/5): Birtherism and politics

Fri Apr 29, 2011 3:38 am

@Q.U.: Who in the mainstream media (or even FoxNews) is making any sort of argument that Obama isn't doing a good job because he's black? I think people are making the argument that he's doing a bad job because he makes a lot of promises and then doesn't keep more than a third of them.

Re: Weekly discussion (4/28-5/5): Birtherism and politics

Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:12 am

BeeAre wrote:race will be an issue for as long as it takes for "reverse racism" to be discredited as an idea, which will only happen once people accept the historical precedent of SPECIFICALLY GIVING A BENEFIT TO A GROUP OF PEOPLE HISTORICALLY LACKING THAT BENEFIT in order to correct that particular social problem of inequity.

See: the denial of white privilege, the outcry against affirmative action, and really any time white americans get upset that because they personally haven't seen themselves having benefited from white privilege then the whole thing clearly never existed at all.


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

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

Hehe.

@Q.U.: Who in the mainstream media (or even FoxNews) is making any sort of argument that Obama isn't doing a good job because he's black? I think people are making the argument that he's doing a bad job because he makes a lot of promises and then doesn't keep more than a third of them.

Woah, he made a million promises and didn't keep a third of them? Must be the worst-president-ever!

We may begin a discussion once you quote a source summing up how many promises did Bush realise. And how many he'd made as compared to Obama. Otherwise we have no context.

Re: Weekly discussion (4/28-5/5): Birtherism and politics

Fri Apr 29, 2011 7:25 am

Image



It's not a Bush, it's a Shrubbery.



Seriously though, why do we need to compare Bush and Obama? Bush isn't Black.




Image

Re: Weekly discussion (4/28-5/5): Birtherism and politics

Fri Apr 29, 2011 3:13 pm

This debate is stupid.

Also


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... /obameter/

Here ya go.

Re: Weekly discussion (4/28-5/5): Birtherism and politics

Fri Apr 29, 2011 5:33 pm

...Did you not notice that I JUST linked that?

Re: Weekly discussion (4/28-5/5): Birtherism and politics

Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:18 pm

RuffDraft wrote:Image

It's not a Bush, it's a Shrubbery.
And it went alongside the other shrubbery, only slightly lower and to the right, with another administration down the middle.

Re: Weekly discussion (4/28-5/5): Birtherism and politics

Sat Apr 30, 2011 3:56 am

And then the next shrubbery told us he was going to undo the damage caused by the last one, but then did a lot of the same things the same, decided to send more troops overseas, send more service members to Guantanamo Bay, and decided the best way to get out of a recession was to spend our way out of it. What a sap.




FHR;LAEOOwwwww. That last pun hurt ME.

Re: Weekly discussion (4/28-5/5): Birtherism and politics

Mon May 02, 2011 1:41 am

Anyway, my initial thought on the matter was that it would have been better to wait until after the primaries to release it. Let Trump and others pull the Republican base in that direction until they picked someone to run, probably with that topic in mind. Then release it during the general campaign to discredit whoever his opponent is. But maybe that overstates his estimation of the Republican base. If proxy birtherism remains a significant influence in the primaries, it might even more effectively alienate whoever runs in the general election, though (as some of Trumps statements imply) other things might take the focus.

Or, this may have been scheduled with the killing of bin Laden to undercut broader opposition, with the national security bump a few days after the birther bump to keep up momentum. The operation was apparently planned over the same time that the birth certificate was released.

Re: Weekly discussion (4/28-5/5): Birtherism and politics

Mon May 02, 2011 1:48 am

AMERICA FUCK YEAH!!!!

Re: Weekly discussion (4/28-5/5): Birtherism and politics

Wed May 11, 2011 8:20 pm

Weekly discussion 17 (5/11-5/18): The debt ceiling

The debt ceiling is a legal cap on how big the US federal debt can get, so if it is reached while running a deficit, various things will find themselves without sufficient funds, such as payment of interest on the national debt. It's getting pretty close now. There is some controversy over whether or not it should be raised. Not raising it would be bad.

So, thoughts from Spam?

Re: Weekly discussion (5/11-5/18): The debt ceiling

Wed May 11, 2011 9:38 pm

Wait, so if we don't raise the debt cap things get messed up? Then what are we waiting for?

Re: Weekly discussion (5/11-5/18): The debt ceiling

Wed May 11, 2011 9:55 pm

I suppose it would revolve around what needs to be paid in full and what can be paid at minimum interest. A higher debt cap could help stimulate parts of the economy thats struggling.

Re: Weekly discussion (5/11-5/18): The debt ceiling

Wed May 11, 2011 10:51 pm

icha_icha_paradise wrote:Wait, so if we don't raise the debt cap things get messed up? Then what are we waiting for?
It seems that some people in Congress are looking to hold the country hostage to get political concessions.

Littlisk wrote:A higher debt cap could help stimulate parts of the economy thats struggling.
The debt ceiling has never been met. It has never served to limit government spending. Raising the ceiling represents continuing the status quo. That said, running into the debt ceiling would result in a sudden drop in government spending, which would be bad for the economy on its own. It's just that the fallout from defaulting on the debt would be so much worse that it's more in the focus.

Re: Weekly discussion (5/11-5/18): The debt ceiling

Tue May 17, 2011 1:28 am

UPDATE: Apparently the debt ceiling was reached some time on Monday. "Emergency actions" like raiding pension funds are keeping things going for now, but unless something is done, supposedly loans will start defaulting in early August.



Also, apparently the debt ceiling was reached in 2004, and such emergency measures were taken then, so we're not in uncharted territory yet. It's just that this time around, it's not a given that it will be raised in time.

Re: Weekly discussion (5/11-5/18): The debt ceiling

Tue May 17, 2011 6:16 pm

Why did we need a debt cap in the first place?

Re: Weekly discussion (5/11-5/18): The debt ceiling

Tue May 17, 2011 6:44 pm

Let's discuss the public option the GOP added to insurance companies, the one which does in fact work retroactively.

Re: Weekly discussion (5/11-5/18): The debt ceiling

Wed May 18, 2011 2:22 am

icha_icha_paradise wrote:Why did we need a debt cap in the first place?
It's not really needed, but it's there for a reason. Originally, Congress directly authorized acquisition of debt, but World War I needed a lot of stuff to be done, so Congress delegated authority on specifics while constraining total debt to a certain amount. It's supposed to be a check on the Executive branch, though it hasn't really been useful for that.

Q.U. wrote:Let's discuss the public option the GOP added to insurance companies, the one which does in fact work retroactively.
As in property insurance rather than health insurance?

Re: Weekly discussion (5/11-5/18): The debt ceiling

Wed May 18, 2011 4:09 am

As in property insurance rather than health insurance?

Exactly.

Though I'd expected that some ignorant Rep would come out yelling that the GOP doesn't support public option at all, because it's socialism/Nazism/islamofacism etc.

Re: Weekly discussion (5/11-5/18): The debt ceiling

Fri May 20, 2011 4:34 pm

Right, so, Debt Ceiling. (I'm still underway right now so I can't do the heavy research required for, say, that monster of a post in the WTFrick thread, but I can at least look at a few Googled links.)

There are pros and cons to having a debt ceiling--on the one hand, it attempts to restrict government spending and power, and impose fiscal responsibility. On the other hand, if the debt becomes high enough that no more debt can be added on legally, certain government agencies (CIA, FBI, Military, etc.) either shut down, or else basically have unpaid employees, at least until they figure out what to do. I've always held that proverbs hold the best messages; however, they also seem to be very forgettable, which is another problem: no one teaches proverbs in school anymore. What's with that? Proverbs like "A fool and his money are soon parted," or "Pay beforehand was never well served" are as essential to today's thinking as they have been in the past. And yet no one passes this wisdom on to their children. I wonder why?

@Q.U.: Why should the government not subsidize insurance companies? Explain, in detail, what is wrong with it, because I'm not sure I understand your concern.

@Val: In that first link you posted, it reads "They might want to spend so much money deliberately, to cause a collapse and then pretend to be the saviors of society, as the late Richard A. Cloward and his widow, Frances Fox Piven, told them to do 46 years ago."

I assume that if you are linking it you fully support it as credible. That said, do you believe that those in power are trying to do that? It would certainly make sense, the way things have been going.

Also, when I say "Those In Power" I'm not talking about the ones "we think" are in power. The ones who really run it.

Valhallen wrote:The debt ceiling has never been met. It has never served to limit government spending. Raising the ceiling represents continuing the status quo. That said, running into the debt ceiling would result in a sudden drop in government spending, which would be bad for the economy on its own. It's just that the fallout from defaulting on the debt would be so much worse that it's more in the focus.

So what's stopping us from cutting spending? And please don't say "the Republicans," the Democrats are just as guilty of it as they are.

Re: Weekly discussion (5/11-5/18): The debt ceiling

Fri May 20, 2011 5:12 pm

@Q.U.: Why should the government not subsidize insurance companies? Explain, in detail, what is wrong with it, because I'm not sure I understand your concern.

How is this suddenly about subsidies? Read again, I'll write slowly. GOP. ADDED. PUBLIC OPTION. TO INSURANCE. OF PROPERTY. AND IT CAN. BE APPLIED. RETROACTIVELY. SO THAT. ONE GOP SENATOR. CAN GET HIS. INSURANCE CLAIM. WHICH WAS DENIED. BY THE PRIVATE COMPANY. BY WHICH. HIS HOUSE. WAS INSURED.

THIS MEANS. PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANY. DENIES TO PAY. A REPUBLICAN. SO HE. MAKES IT. SO THAT. THE COUNTRY. WILL PAY HIM. FOR IT. ANYWAY.

YOU. READ. NOW.
http://ontd-political.livejournal.com/4170066.html

The subsidy built into that bill was one thing. Another thing was actually them admitting that they think the public option is good, but still denying to allow it in healthcare. Additionally, the retroactive part. Democrats see people lose their homes and not getting insurance claims, so they felt bad and wanted to support them. And of course, the only reason GOP helped, was because they would get paid too.

Re: Weekly discussion (5/11-5/18): The debt ceiling

Mon May 23, 2011 9:24 pm

Why are you getting angry at me? I didn't do anything. "Retroactive insurance" is a dumbass idea. I'm not the one who suggested it. And you still haven't explained why *subsidies* to insurance companies offend you. And I don't really appreciate the idea of a "Public Option," either. Giving the government more power usually leads to someone abusing that power for their own gain. It's much better to keep government relatively small, with just enough control to keep things from deteriorating to chaos.

If you don't like what someone in congress is doing, why don't you stage a protest? The first amendment gives any US Citizen the right to--oh, right, you're in that OTHER country. I forgot.

Re: Weekly discussion (5/11-5/18): The debt ceiling

Mon May 23, 2011 9:31 pm

Ruff, giving anybody more power typically leads to them abusing it for personal gain.
Corporations, being profit based, quite simply tend to do this faster.
Post a reply