User Name
Password
AppleNova Forums » AppleOutsider »

Upcoming Primaries


Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
Upcoming Primaries
Thread Tools
Partial
Stallion
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Milwaukee
 
2008-02-16, 12:58

History has shown time and time again that having a strong economy and having businesses thrive is necessary for a high quality of life for the majority of citizens. High quality of life is not necessarily achieved when a strong economy exists (industrial revolution), but it has shown that the only time it is possible is when business is strong.

With that in mind, how can anyone support a regime that has historically placed tariffs and high, unnecessary "innovation" taxes on companies, and penalizes those who provide jobs?!?

Miller indirectly came out and said they're going to leave Milwaukee for a place with lower taxes and lower cost of living than Milwaukee. Look for them to end up in taxes where they can trim 6% off their operating cost due to no state income tax, as well as being able to pay their employees 20% less to compensate for the lower cost of living.

Where is the line drawn?!? What happens when all the big employers say screw Milwaukee or Chicago and their high taxes and high cost of live and move to where they can operate for significantly less?

With all the "innovation" tax floating around these days, what would happen if the 50 biggest corporations decided they are going to shut down business, and they are going to take their money and go home because it isn't worth it to pay 40-50% of their income to the government. These people work their tales off and give the greatest thing back to society of all: Jobs! What would happen if they just closed up shop and said screw the millions of people who would immediately be unemployed. Would people vote for the democrats and their big government then?!?

Obama and Hillary Clinton are two of the biggest tools around. Obama should know better than to pump more money into the ghettos being a former social worker. He knows first hand where that money goes. They're both going to raise taxes to the point that the 50k a year worker ends up paying for health care twice to support those who don't want to work hard. I for one have no desire to ever see my income taxed 40-50%, especially when I will not see any additional benefits out of it.

A fact that says it all about Obama is that 85% of people who do not have a high school diploma voted for him. All these uneducated people think the Dems are the next coming of christ because they make all these grand promises to improve their life on average Joe's dollar.

I am not convinced that all these democratic supporters are intelligent enough to know how an economy works or have ever taken an economics class. Clearly they are more concerned with social issues than with the big picture. Personally, I don't think gay rights or the right to get an abortion are going to mean a whole lot when there aren't any jobs available and the standard of living has gone down the toilet.

Make the right choice on Tuesday and vote for minimal government, minimum taxation, and minimum spending.

...and calling/e-mailing/texting ex-girlfriends on the off-chance they'll invite you over for some "old time's sake" no-strings couch gymnastics...
 
chucker
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: near Bremen, Germany
Send a message via ICQ to chucker Send a message via AIM to chucker Send a message via MSN to chucker Send a message via Yahoo to chucker Send a message via Skype™ to chucker 
2008-02-16, 13:09

Quote:
Originally Posted by tensdanny38 View Post
History has shown time and time again that having a strong economy and having businesses thrive is necessary for a high quality of life for the majority of citizens.
Citation needed.

Quote:
With that in mind, how can anyone support a regime that has historically placed tariffs and high, unnecessary "innovation" taxes on companies, and penalizes those who provide jobs?!?
Because the money from those taxes is (supposedly/ideally, at least) spent on ensuring that such quality of life can be attainable for people, by providing them with health care and other types of insurance when they need it the most.

Quote:
What would happen if they just closed up shop and said screw the millions of people who would immediately be unemployed.
The employers would go bankrupt?

You're acting as if companies hire people out of selflessness.

Quote:
Obama and Hillary Clinton are two of the biggest tools around. Obama should know better than to pump more money into the ghettos being a former social worker. He knows first hand where that money goes.
He does know: in his experience, it goes to people who work their butts off in order to help other people.

Quote:
A fact that says it all about Obama is that 85% of people who do not have a high school diploma voted for him.
Rather than blaming the victims, perhaps you should wonder how it can be in a modern, first-class country that there are people without a high school diploma at all. Don't you find that bizarre? But hey, I'm sure your almighty and noble employers will do something to fix this weird situation. Like… create schools.

Quote:
Personally, I don't think gay rights or the right to get an abortion are going to mean a whole lot when there aren't any jobs available and the standard of living has gone down the toilet.
And yet wasting government money on teaching abstinence is great, right?

Quote:
Make the right choice on Tuesday and vote for minimal government, minimum taxation, and minimum spending.
Or rather, make the right choice right now, learn some political science, and then, on Tuesday, vote for what you feel is right, rather than having some hack on an Internet forum tell you.
 
Kickaha
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2008-02-16, 13:10

Quote:
Originally Posted by tensdanny38 View Post
Make the right choice on Tuesday and vote for minimal government, minimum taxation, and minimum spending.
And what mythical candidate/party do you propose people choose for this? Doesn't exist in The Big Two.
 
turtle
Lord of the Rant.
Formerly turtle2472
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Upstate South Carolina
 
2008-02-16, 13:14

Quote:
Originally Posted by chucker View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by tensdanny38 View Post
Make the right choice on Tuesday and vote for minimal government, minimum taxation, and minimum spending.
Or rather, make the right choice right now, learn some political science, and then, on Tuesday, vote for what you feel is right, rather than having some hack on an Internet forum tell you.
I don't personally care who you vote for (though I obviously have my preference) but everyone needs to just get out and vote. If you don't vote then our system can't be as effective as it's designed to be.

Hopefully, your vote will be after some decision making process though.

Louis L'Amour, “To make democracy work, we must be a nation of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.”
Visit our archived Minecraft world! | Maybe someday I'll proof read, until then deal with it.
 
chucker
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: near Bremen, Germany
Send a message via ICQ to chucker Send a message via AIM to chucker Send a message via MSN to chucker Send a message via Yahoo to chucker Send a message via Skype™ to chucker 
2008-02-16, 13:14

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kickaha View Post
And what mythical candidate/party do you propose people choose for this? Doesn't exist in The Big Two.
Why, Ron Paul, of course! Because when you shed government of any work to do, everything suddenly starts making sense!
 
chucker
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: near Bremen, Germany
Send a message via ICQ to chucker Send a message via AIM to chucker Send a message via MSN to chucker Send a message via Yahoo to chucker Send a message via Skype™ to chucker 
2008-02-16, 13:15

Quote:
Originally Posted by turtle2472 View Post
I don't personally care who you vote for (though I obviously have my preference) but everyone needs to just get out and vote. If you don't vote then our system can't be as effective as it's designed to be.

Hopefully, your vote will be after some decision making process though.
Agreed. Unfortunately, and this isn't a US-specific problem at all, most people who do vote don't do so on an informed basis.
 
Kickaha
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2008-02-16, 13:17

Quote:
Originally Posted by chucker View Post
Why, Ron Paul, of course! Because when you shed government of any work to do, everything suddenly starts making sense!
Hey, I'd love to see more of Paul's ideas in government - but as you may notice, he's an outlier candidate, and not a serious contender, more's the pity.

So, back to the original statement, slightly edited: in the set of candidates seriously contending in The Big Two, there does not exist a minimal government candidate.

Therefore, if tensdanny38 is trying to say "Vote Republican!" he's seriously mistaken in using that as a basis. They're no better.
 
chucker
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: near Bremen, Germany
Send a message via ICQ to chucker Send a message via AIM to chucker Send a message via MSN to chucker Send a message via Yahoo to chucker Send a message via Skype™ to chucker 
2008-02-16, 13:23

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kickaha View Post
Hey, I'd love to see more of Paul's ideas in government - but as you may notice, he's an outlier candidate, and not a serious contender, more's the pity.
Shouldn't one rather vote for an unlikely candidate who happens to actually conform to one's political ideals than a likelier one who most certainly does not? ("Oh, so Paul has no chance of winning. How about Huckabee? Yeaaaaah!")

Quote:
So, back to the original statement, slightly edited: in the set of candidates seriously contending in The Big Two, there does not exist a minimal government candidate.

Therefore, if tensdanny38 is trying to say "Vote Republican!" he's seriously mistaken in using that as a basis. They're no better.
But why would they be? They're a conservative party, not a libertarian one. Ron Paul was originally, and rightly so, a member of the Libertarian party, and was even a presidential nominee in '88. He only switched to have a bigger chance of making an impact. He has very little to do with the core of the Republican party, and has frequently attacked the other nominees, despite being fellow party member.

(He's also conservative on some matters, but that's hardly his main platform.)
 
Partial
Stallion
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Milwaukee
 
2008-02-16, 13:25

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kickaha View Post
And what mythical candidate/party do you propose people choose for this? Doesn't exist in The Big Two.
Agreed.
 
chucker
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: near Bremen, Germany
Send a message via ICQ to chucker Send a message via AIM to chucker Send a message via MSN to chucker Send a message via Yahoo to chucker Send a message via Skype™ to chucker 
2008-02-16, 13:27

Quote:
Originally Posted by tensdanny38 View Post
Agreed.
Huh? You haven't really answered his question. Originally, you said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by tensdanny38 View Post
Make the right choice on Tuesday and vote for minimal government, minimum taxation, and minimum spending.
So… you agree that there is no right choice to make?
 
Partial
Stallion
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Milwaukee
 
2008-02-16, 13:34

This has to be the weakest year of presidential candidates ever. When did our country become so soft that they have two people who want to hand out and help every poor joe schmo.
 
Mugge
Thunderbolt, fuck yeah!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Denmark
 
2008-02-16, 13:37

Ok. Time to open a beer... Nah, I think I'll whip some cream and make Irish coffee.

 
Partial
Stallion
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Milwaukee
 
2008-02-16, 13:39

Ron Paul is the only responsible choice. It's great that the democrats want to be self-righteous and put economics on the back end of issues, but it really doesn't matter how many equal rights there are for gays or how many abortions betty jane can have when their aren't any jobs.

Economics and the almighty dollar should be the #1 issue in people's minds. It is the driving force behind quality of life. The rest will fall into place.
 
Hassan i Sabbah
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: london and københavn
 
2008-02-16, 13:40

Yo, Mugge, fancy a Tuborg?

Edit: Or maybe let's just stick to spirits.

Last edited by Hassan i Sabbah : 2008-02-16 at 13:41. Reason: Tuborg isn't very nice beer
 
Kickaha
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2008-02-16, 13:44

Quote:
Originally Posted by chucker View Post
Shouldn't one rather vote for an unlikely candidate who happens to actually conform to one's political ideals than a likelier one who most certainly does not? ("Oh, so Paul has no chance of winning. How about Huckabee? Yeaaaaah!")
Absolutely. Which is why I was trying to ascertain what tensdenny38's point was. If it was strictly an anti-Democrat rant, then his assertion at the bottom was pointless, as it is also an anti-Republican point.

Quote:
But why would they be? They're a conservative party, not a libertarian one.
And two of their planks are fiscal conservatism, and reduced government... both of which are now just so much mouthmusic. Which brings us back to my point: if tensdanny38 was trying to say "Vote Republican!" on that basis, he's sadly mistaken and misguided.

Quote:
Ron Paul was originally, and rightly so, a member of the Libertarian party, and was even a presidential nominee in '88. He only switched to have a bigger chance of making an impact. He has very little to do with the core of the Republican party, and has frequently attacked the other nominees, despite being fellow party member.

(He's also conservative on some matters, but that's hardly his main platform.)
Ayup. I love the fact that he nails his fellow party members when they act like hypocrites.

Overall, Paul is probably the one closest to my own ideas of how government should work. I don't agree with many of his social conservative stances, but the great thing about minimal government principles is that, if he were elected, I could be fairly certain that he wouldn't be shoving them on the rest of us. Minimal government means, among other things, that a candidate can have numerous personal beliefs that I don't agree with, but I can still support their *governing* skills. You know, the thing we elect them to do.

See, while I find it really annoying that tensdanny38 are both interested in the same candidate, given that I agree with him on very damned little, and find his style to be acerbic and unwarranted, I can be fairly certain that the principles in question that draw us both mean that we don't *have* to agree on anything else, and we can just choose to let each other be. Preferably at a distance.
 
Mugge
Thunderbolt, fuck yeah!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Denmark
 
2008-02-16, 13:50

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post
Yo, Mugge, fancy a Tuborg?

Edit: Or maybe let's just stick to spirits.
Nah. You can take on if you like. But later I'll head down to our local bar and have couple of Hancock Gambinus Light (9.6%) at that point I'll probably rolling and pitching too much to type anything sensible here. Not that it ever stopped drew.

What are you doing in Copenhagen btw?

 
JohnnyTheA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
 
2008-02-16, 17:42

Quote:
Originally Posted by tensdanny38 View Post
History has shown time and time again that having a strong economy and having businesses thrive is necessary for a high quality of life for the majority of citizens. High quality of life is not necessarily achieved when a strong economy exists (industrial revolution), but it has shown that the only time it is possible is when business is strong.
Like the 19th and early 20th Century right? Business was booming then and the lot of the average guy was very bad.
Quote:

A fact that says it all about Obama is that 85% of people who do not have a high school diploma voted for him. All these uneducated people think the Dems are the next coming of christ because they make all these grand promises to improve their life on average Joe's dollar.
You should quote things more. Here is a quote that says otherwise -> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n3824058.shtml

Among white primary voters with no college degrees, Clinton won 59 percent of the vote in Virginia and 58 percent of the vote in Maryland. Obama won 57 percent and 50 percent of Virginia's and Maryland's college-educated whites.


Quote:
Make the right choice on Tuesday and vote for minimal government, minimum taxation, and minimum spending.
You mean Ron Paul then. Because he is the only one left who wants what you want (not sure when you posted originally...). The overall government footprint won't be much different under Hill, Bama, or McCain.
 
Taskiss
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
 
2008-02-16, 17:56

Quote:
Originally Posted by chucker View Post
So… you agree that there is no right choice to make?
Just because there's no choice that results in electing a candidate that represents 100% of the philosophies someone has doesn't mean there's no "right" choice.

There would have to be about 230 million candidates in November for someone to be able to vote for the "right" choice if you define it so narrowly.

real hackers don't use sigs
 
Partial
Stallion
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Milwaukee
 
2008-02-16, 18:06

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyTheA View Post
Like the 19th and early 20th Century right? Business was booming then and the lot of the average guy was very bad.
That's why I said the two are not tied hand in hand. But, historically, the only times when quality of life has been high are when the economy has also been booming. It is not necessarily the other way around.


Quote:
You should quote things more. Here is a quote that says otherwise -> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n3824058.shtml

Among white primary voters with no college degrees, Clinton won 59 percent of the vote in Virginia and 58 percent of the vote in Maryland. Obama won 57 percent and 50 percent of Virginia's and Maryland's college-educated whites.
Not having a high school diploma and not having a college degree are two entirely different things. My facts are valid. I saw them on CNN the other day.


Quote:
Originally Posted by chucker View Post
Citation needed.
I don't need to cite myself. Open a book if you don't believe me. Read about American history. You don't need to cite something that is obvious and commonly known.

Quote:
Because the money from those taxes is (supposedly/ideally, at least) spent on ensuring that such quality of life can be attainable for people, by providing them with health care and other types of insurance when they need it the most.
Look at businesses today and of the Clinton regime. What taxes went towards providing average joe with insurance when they needed it most?!? None. These taxes are way too high, and many wealthy business owners and board of directors may simply say screw it, it's not worth our time when we're taxed upwards of 50% on what we earn. Then the government would get nothing if they were to do that.

Quote:
The employers would go bankrupt?
I am fairly certain that wealthy business owners that are paying astronomical taxes could afford to live off of their previously earned income. The point is they are penalizing the providers of jobs.

Quote:
You're acting as if companies hire people out of selflessness.
No, I am saying companies are punished for being the providers of jobs. Business owners shouldn't have to pay double into social security, and pay taxes on every penny they make. They are essentially taxing their people twice.



Quote:
He does know: in his experience, it goes to people who work their butts off in order to help other people.
Laughable. I know plenty of social workers who would disagree.



Quote:
Rather than blaming the victims, perhaps you should wonder how it can be in a modern, first-class country that there are people without a high school diploma at all. Don't you find that bizarre? But hey, I'm sure your almighty and noble employers will do something to fix this weird situation. Like… create schools.
No, I don't. Not at all. If these people wouldn't get handouts and allowed to be comfortable in their position, they would strive to change. It's just like blaming the teacher when little johnny fails his class, but he fucks around all day and doesn't do his homework. I believe that giving money away to these people won't change a thing, and time has historically proven me wise.


Quote:
And yet wasting government money on teaching abstinence is great, right?
No, it's a waste of money. Sexual education is something that anyone with half a brain can learn. People know the consequences of their choices and they make them anyway. Personally, I'm of the liberal opinion of only teaching the facts about sex and letting the person figure out the rest



Quote:
Or rather, make the right choice right now, learn some political science, and then, on Tuesday, vote for what you feel is right, rather than having some hack on an Internet forum tell you.
I encourage people to do their homework. But, instead of watching CNN or reading the new york times, pick up the economist or business week. Read up on business taxes, macro and micro economics, read up on theories of why the dollar is low, and why some formerly major cities in the United States have become ghettos due to high unemployment.

...and calling/e-mailing/texting ex-girlfriends on the off-chance they'll invite you over for some "old time's sake" no-strings couch gymnastics...
 
Taskiss
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
 
2008-02-16, 18:18

Hmmm...
Quote:
Originally Posted by tensdanny38 View Post
My facts are valid. I saw them on CNN the other day.
...
I encourage people to do their homework. But, instead of watching CNN or reading the new york times, pick up the economist or business week. Read up on business taxes, macro and micro economics, read up on theories of why the dollar is low, and why some formerly major cities in the United States have become ghettos due to high unemployment.
 
Naderfan
Queen of Confrontation
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ohio
 
2008-02-16, 18:37

Historically speaking, a BIG part of the reason that the U.S. business world did so well in the 19th century is because the U.S. government did not believe in free trade and had so many high protective tariffs that industry here was free to develop and grow without foreign competition - not necessarily good for the people having to buy those products.

Additionally, many industries got a lot of help from the government. The railroads got tons of money/land from the government through things like the Homestead Act. Incidentally, a lot of those programs, like the transcontinental railroad, were passed during the Civil War, since many of the southern states had blocked their passage.

Finally, while a few individuals did extremely well (the Carnegies, the Rockefellers, etc), the majority of the country were not so fortunate. Hence the large amount of violence, agitation, and general social uneasiness (as demonstrated by things like the 8-Hour Day movement, the Pullman Strike, Homestead, Ludlow, etc.)

So, free-wheeling business does not equal great society. The end of the 19th century witnessed some severe boom/bust cycles, with depressions happening in the 1870s, 80s, and the most extreme from 1893-97. It wasn't until we as a nation adopted more Keynesian economic models that we were able to reduce the severity of these cycles.

Anyway, I just get annoyed when people make it out to sound like laissez-faire is the ultimate utopia. And yes, I read the Economist on a weekly basis, took economic courses, and follow other business news-sites, such as Bloomberg. I'm still voting for Obama.
 
Ryan
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Promise Land of Trustafarians
 
2008-02-16, 20:00

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naderfan View Post
Historically speaking, a BIG part of the reason that the U.S. business world did so well in the 19th century is because the U.S. government did not believe in free trade and had so many high protective tariffs that industry here was free to develop and grow without foreign competition - not necessarily good for the people having to buy those products.
Which ended up being one of the reasons the South seceded.

Probably not something we want to try again.

(See Nullification Crisis and South Carolina Exposition)
 
FFL
Fishhead Family Reunited
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Slightly Off Center
 
2008-02-16, 20:06

This thread is pure flamebait, and it is now done!
 
Posting Rules Navigation
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Closed

Forum Jump
Thread Tools
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Upcoming Video Cards Xaqtly Speculation and Rumors 34 2007-05-14 11:56
Core 2 Duo in Macbook Pro for upcoming semester beginn New Evangelist Speculation and Rumors 2 2006-10-09 14:58
What can we expect to see out of the upcoming iBook/Macbook Partial Speculation and Rumors 31 2006-02-20 18:47
A small clue involving the upcoming Apple 'events'? kokotah Speculation and Rumors 3 2005-09-01 23:44
Discussion of recent and upcoming movies Luca AppleOutsider 11 2004-11-30 14:35


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 19:49.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2024, AppleNova