Forums » The Lounge » Read Thread

Anybody catch it? I just finished watching it and I can honestly say that I agreed with a lot of what he said.

I thought it was typical class warfare crap.  He talks about colleges and how they should cut costs yet does nothing, initiates nothing but he knows it panders to his withering young supporters.  A lot of 18-25 year olds are unemployed and starting to get a REAL education about failed politics.  Obama's policies have destroyed these peoples greenest years.  He talked about fixing immigration----as if there is something to stop him.  It was a laugh riot considering the Fast and Furious debacle.  I especially love the line about no bailouts or handouts.  It was almost comedic under the shadow of Solyndra.  Obama spends 2 billion helping Brazil find and harvest oil then he pisses off Brazil and they sell the oil to China.  We diss our Canadian friends by playing games with their economy over the Keystone pipeline and they sell their oil to China.  In the same breath he talks about energy and conservation.  I cant wait until this ass hat is in the rear view mirror of history.

And if dogs and cats could get along I might be able to get to sleep at night, I bet they get along before the parties do :P

Anywho, who would you lean towards in the election, even if you're not committed?

Democrats: stalls everything so nothing gets done then releases prisoners at end of their term

Republicans: tries to remedy the situation for the rich, along with a hidden egg, screwing up the future then releases " " " " " "

Independent: doesn't care about country, focuses on local and state benefits

Pragmatist: tries to compromise, except, can't help but screw things up anyway

Extremist: want changes too much too fast, (I.E. SOPA/PIPA)

Socialist: another word for pragmatist

Communist: the manifesto was not made for government, for poltics maybe, but no structural integrity

Enlightened Democracy: lawl?

Technically Communism was the last stage of socialism where it finally went political... except for the fact that the whole government is supposed to dissolve lol. An interesting thing about "independants" is that they almost always lean a certain way, and so 9 times out of ten they will still vote for the same party they always have. Even when I considered myself an independant (I realize now that I really wasn't) I always supported the Republicans when it came down to the two final candidates.

Unless Ron Paul wins the primaries, I would vote for Obama.

It doesn't matter though, I'm only 15 :(

I was months off being eighteen for the last federal election in Australia, I know the feeling. With that being said, there were no good candidates to pick from, both the Liberal and Labor party had basically the exact same policies (it actually resulted in a hung parliament as no party had a majority, that's how confused Australia was). Voting's compulsory here.

Compulsory?  That blows!  I think I'd vote for Mickey Mouse just to show 'em what for.

I think the only thing worse than an Obama second term would be if Obama died and Joe Biden was in charge.  Of the four Republicans I'll probably put on a nose pin when I vote.  There isn't a conservative in the bunch.  I look forward to Mark Rubio to run in the future. 

Agreed on the first paragraph. I see where they're coming from, voting being an important process and all, but if you don't want to vote, you shouldn't have to. As long as you don't complain about the President afterwords I'm fine if you don't vote (you referring to the voter)

They would unfreeze Walt Disney?

I wouldn't want an anti-semite running our country...

Email that to the creators of South Park, it sounds up their alley

Bo, this is my jaded opinion and probably stems from my distrust of the government or the onset of paranoia....I think they make voting compulsory to legitimize the election.  If you participate you think that the results are real.  I have doubts about some elections.  I think cheating is chronic.  As I watch the Republican elections I see how the media cuts out Paul from the spotlight in the media and how all the channels dismiss him outright.  The only time you see him is when they want to tear down the frontrunner.  He never gets his due. 

Look at what the press did to Hillary Clinton in the primaries.  Look at how they shredded Sarah Palin.  Do we really field the best candidate or do political parties select them for us?  Once the fix is in and the votes are cast people feel warm and fuzzy that they played a part even if the system is rigged. 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122805666

Sorry, ^ just for those who didn't know.

My school had a mock republican primary for the statistics class or something like that, but they only took those that would be old enough to vote by the election so I didn't get to go. Ron Paul lost to Romney by one vote...

Everyone liked Ron Paul because of the changes he wanted and talked about, but once you look into his policies, you'll feel like he's screwing with us. I think every candidate has a booklet of potential policies, away from the general debates. The reason for this is because it would take too much time to go over all the important things regarding policy and decision making, not to mention air time, so generally, it becomes a popularity vote rather than rationale voting. Besides, who the fuck wants to read a few hundred page essay written by the staff of candidate in accordance for each candidate? Hell, I think they even stopped producing those booklets.

of the candidate*

Yes. :D

I think he is spot on with eliminating those 5 departments.  Homeland Security is a joke.  The EPA is politicized and a job killing entity.  The Department of Education is redundant because the states have the same departments doing the same thing.  The Department of Education alone is a scam.  Why should the majority of states be forced to pay for the few states with failing education?  If Texas had its money in Texas Education and not in the coffers of Illinois or California we'd all have computers and kindles in our classrooms.  Cutting these bloated anchors is the most sane idea he has. 

And on top of that, most of the money that is gotten for the schools comes from the local or state level anyway. In Hoover (A city outside of Birmingham) they have all of their property tax going to education, and they have the biggest and most maintained schools in the state. Where I live the politicians just kinda fucked around and now we don't even have money to let the students use books.

Jplague---you make a greater tax base from having more jobs.  Less demand for taxes equate to more money for business to expand and that means more jobs.  They will find jobs. You aren't advocating that we keep useless industries employed do you?  What happened to the carraige and buggywhip makers long ago when the automobile came along?

Bo--I'd say that where schools get money varies from state to state and location to location.   I just understand why I have to pay for your city's mismanagement of its schools.  Ron Paul would not approve and I think I agree with him on this.  Failure is a great teaching tool.  The average school administrator makes more than a three star general.  That is obscene in my opinion.  They make more than the average CEO but without the results. 

If all they know how to do is bullshit people then all the better to fire them.  Trust me losing your house and starving are very motivating to finding a new job.  I've been in that unemployment line many times. 

I don't recall saying that others should pay taxes for my school district, you do know that I was advocating the abolishment of the Department of Education because most of the work is done on the local or state level anyway, which means the federal level is just wasting resources to look like it's helping right?

However, while I don't think someone in Minnesota should pay for my schools, I think that the people zoned for that  public school should pay taxes into education, seeing as they are the ones that the money would be used for. That would be where my Hoover property tax example came in. Of course, if they're enrolled in Private school there'd be some kind of exception I'm sure, but that's just what my ideal educational system would be like.

Sorry--that comment was more a statement than an accusation.  I'm talking about the concept of having to pay for another state's corruption that you have no control over.  It is taxation without representation if you think about it.  I can vote a local out of office or complain at a town meeting.  I can't go to Chicago hundreds of miles away and have any political clout.  Kapeesh? 

The other problem I have is that the Constitution sets education as a state power.  If you get money from the Fed Govt. then it circumvents states rights.  Statewide testing is a good example.  If you don't play ball with the government then you lose funding.  When you are the governor of a state and you stand to lose a couple thousand jobs because the Feds don't like somehting you will see governers scramble so as to not appear "anti-education" by not complying with the Feds and losing money or jobs.  It kills state sovereignty. 

And the Federal government doesn't even help that much, at least not comparatively. They split up the money given to the educational budget and send it to certain schools. However, you can't send that much money to all the different schools, it won't be enough to go around (one of the main reasons socialism fails). One year only 12 schools in the nation got federal funding, which means thereare hundreds more that still aren't affected, if not thousands.