[Mongoose]

I'm starting to think we should have a dedicated political forum with the pirate filter as a permanent fixture.  It'd help take everyone down a peg or three.

[General Battuta]

It is pretty awesome.

[peterv]

Give me a break hearties!   I can hardly read th' normal english

[Rick James]

I'm startin' t' think we should have a dedicated political forum with th' pirate filter as a permanent fixture.  It'd help take everyone down a peg or three.  

I like this idea.

[Akalabeth Angel]

If you're going to complain about health care, perhaps you should be aware that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama put health care reform at the top of their agendas. Clinton, in particular, had an incredibly comprehensive plan for health care reform.

        Clinton and Obama's so-called plans rely heavily on subsidies. The insurance companies, are already making bucket loads of money, and both their plans call to subsidize those companies???? Are you serious?
         
         Oh, and btw, if you didn't know the government or the Federeal reserve, whoever just bailed out some corporation for several TRILLION dollars. And you support a plan where the government pays insurance companies or whoever, money so that everyone can get a plan? Please.

Why obama's health care plan sucks:
http://ezinearticles.com/?Top-Five-Reasons-Why-Barack-Obamas-Health-Plan-Will-Make-You-Sick&id=1430568

[General Battuta]

I think you're starting to catch on: there is an objection to everything and everyone. No one can agree on a perfect solution.

It's easy to scream about what everyone is doing wrong (which you've achieved so far.) Once you realize that everyone is doing it wrong, then you'll start to realize how complicated these issues are.

[Nuclear1]

AIG is one of the largest insurance companies in the world. Allowing it to go under would drastically affect the US economy and the international scene as well, and would possibly be one of the worst mistakes any President could ever make.

Government normally should stay out of the economy, but when it does start to go down the ****ters, a little bit of government control and assistance can save it.

[General Battuta]

Yeah, I've been reading a bunch of articles about how better government regulation would probably have stopped the current economic crisis in the US. They're saying that no matter who gets elected there will be more regulation.

[Akalabeth Angel]

AIG is one of the largest insurance companies in the world. Allowing it to go under would drastically affect the US economy and the international scene as well, and would possibly be one of the worst mistakes any President could ever make.

Government normally should stay out of the economy, but when it does start to go down the ****ters, a little bit of government control and assistance can save it.

         AIG cost what, 65 Billion . . . the other company they bailed out can cost you upwards of 5 TRILLION dollars according to Ron Paul. That's freaking crazy man.

         And the fact is, the government doesn't normally stay out of the economy. They hand out corporate bailouts all the time. What's worse, bailing or buying some failing company? Or having the entire worldwide collapse of the dollar monetary system?

[Nuclear1]

         And the fact is, the government doesn't normally stay out of the economy. They hand out corporate bailouts all the time. What's worse, bailing or buying some failing company? Or having the entire worldwide collapse of the dollar monetary system?

No, I know it doesn't, and anyone who believes it should stay completely out is mad.  The government has to regulate business practices and be ready to protect key businesses from going down the tubes, lest the US or world economies suffer as a result. 

Believe me, I don't believe communism or complete state control of the economy, but reckless business practices and stock trading once resulted in the greatest economic tragedy the world faced in the 20th century.  There needs to be a compromise between laissez-faire and state control, one that currently exists in the US.  Does it need to be strengthened a little bit?  Maybe.

Ron Paul, unfortunately, opposes any government regulation of the economy, despite the fact that it may be government regulation that will save the economy in the near future.  Libertarianism's a great philosophy, but it's impracticable. 

[Akalabeth Angel]

Ron Paul, unfortunately, opposes any government regulation of the economy, despite the fact that it may be government regulation that will save the economy in the near future.  Libertarianism's a great philosophy, but it's impracticable. 

         The government doesn't regulate the economy, the Federal Reserve does. A private institution.

         In fact, you're wrong on that point in more ways than one. Ron Paul advocates Congress taking on its constitutional authority and responsibility to print money. The US economy is regulated by the printing of money. When the Federal Reserve says they're lowering interest rates, what they're really saying is that they're printing more money and that the influx of money is going to devalue the dollar and therefore interest rates or somesuch nonsense. If the government, being congress, actually took on its governmental responsibilities that regulation of interest rates and the economy would be up to them.



         Btw, it's interesting to note that the only modern President who passed a bill or somesuch to print money on a silver standard rather than the fiat system, or the dollar standard, in place. The only president to do that was assassinated 5 months later.

[General Battuta]

It's not nonsense, it makes perfect sense. I thought it was nonsense, but then I took a great econ course from a good professor.

[Akalabeth Angel]

It's not nonsense, it makes perfect sense. I thought it was nonsense, but then I took a great econ course from a good professor.

       Thankyou for completely ignoring the point that Ron Paul advocates government regulation rather than regulation by a private institution.

[General Battuta]

Actually, uh, I'd rather have it be regulated by a private institution.

The Fed isn't subject to the pressure of reelection. Congress is constantly monkeying with economic policy to get the best economic results in election years at the expense of long-term performance.

In computer-science terms (inexpertly put, I know), a government regulation program would be a greedy search algorith, forever looking for short-term optima at the expense of the long term. The Fed, on the other hand, is far more stable and reliable -- a real strategist.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Actually, uh, I'd rather have it be regulated by a private institution.

The Fed isn't subject to the pressure of reelection. Congress is constantly monkeying with economic policy to get the best economic results in election years at the expense of long-term performance.

   The Fed isn't subject to accountability or transparency either.

In computer-science terms (inexpertly put, I know), a government regulation program would be a greedy search algorith, forever looking for short-term optima at the expense of the long term. The Fed, on the other hand, is far more stable and reliable -- a real strategist.

   I'll bet they are.
   You're basically living in a monarchy where the US economy is controlled by the privileged elite. Who gained their power not through the divine right of God but the fact that they're daddies and mommies were money barons.

   Why do you think you went to war in Iraq? To help the Iraqi people? To safeguard america. No, you went to war for the benefit of American corporations. Rich guys, with lots of power, and no public accountability, who likely also have some influence if not a chair on the Federal Reserve.

   Enjoy your liberty.

[General Battuta]

   You're basically living in a monarchy where the US economy is controlled by the privileged elite. Who gained their power not through the divine right of God but the fact that they're daddies and mommies were money barons.

   Why do you think you went to war in Iraq? To help the Iraqi people? To safeguard america. No, you went to war for the benefit of American corporations. Rich guys, with lots of power, and no public accountability, who likely also have some influence if not a chair on the Federal Reserve.

Remember how I said I was a canvasser who'd talked to thousands of people?

Well, I hate to break it to you, but most Americans believe exactly what you say. People just differ on what to do about it.

You seem determined to find something to be outraged about. Carry on, if you must.

[Akalabeth Angel]

   You're basically living in a monarchy where the US economy is controlled by the privileged elite. Who gained their power not through the divine right of God but the fact that they're daddies and mommies were money barons.

   Why do you think you went to war in Iraq? To help the Iraqi people? To safeguard america. No, you went to war for the benefit of American corporations. Rich guys, with lots of power, and no public accountability, who likely also have some influence if not a chair on the Federal Reserve.

Remember how I said I was a canvasser who'd talked to thousands of people?

Well, I hate to break it to you, but most Americans believe exactly what you say. People just differ on what to do about it.

You seem determined to find something to be outraged about. Carry on, if you must.

     And you see determined to find nothing to be outraged about.
    Carry on.

    If you're complacent with the current reality of your country then more lack of power and lack of civil liberties to you.
 

[General Battuta]

Uh, nooo...remember how I worked as a canvasser?

That means I went out the door and signed up to raise money for a political candidate who I believed would change things. You can want to change things without being outraged; outrage just makes you biased and prevents you from thinking tactically.

I want my civil liberties back. The fact that my methods for achieving that goal differ from yours doesn't mean that either of us are dumb, just that we have different ideas and standards.

You have my respect. I hope I have yours.

And being a canvasser is hard, hard work, so don't take any cheap shots at that kind of job. I doubt you've ever gotten that involved!

[Akalabeth Angel]

Uh, nooo...remember how I worked as a canvasser?

That means I went out the door and signed up to raise money for a political candidate who I believed would change things. You can want to change things without being outraged; outrage just makes you biased and prevents you from thinking tactically.

I want my civil liberties back. The fact that my methods for achieving that goal differ from yours doesn't mean that either of us are dumb, just that we have different ideas and standards.

     I'm sure canvassing is a crapload a work and you're to be commended for it. But why a person spends so much time and energy for a candidate because they believe they'll do the "least damage" doesn't quite compute in my mind.

And yeah,  here's your quote in its entirety.
I support Obama because I believe he'll do the least damage, and because he's respected overseas, so he may help repair America's global reputation.

     But anyway, I'm not American. So whatever, americans can elect who they chose (or don't chose). And the rest of the world (ie me) will live with the consequences of that whether they are positive or otherwise.

[Stormkeeper]

   You're basically living in a monarchy where the US economy is controlled by the privileged elite. Who gained their power not through the divine right of God but the fact that they're daddies and mommies were money barons.

No one rules through the divine right of God. They just think they do. 'Divine right of God' is a reason that has been used for some of the bloodiest wars in history, and both Musilims and Christians are responsible for some of them.

     I'm sure canvassing is a crapload a work and you're to be commended for it. But why a person spends so much time and energy for a candidate because they believe they'll do the "least damage" doesn't quite compute in my mind.

Because even the smallest grain of rice can tip the scales.

Israel/Palestine - QUIT TAKING SIDES.

Easier said than done. As it stands, America is doing little more than military posturing. They don't control the Israeli forces, and definitely not the Palestinian militants. And peace isn't something easily achieved in the Middle East.

Iraq - Get out of the damn country and leave them alone

And create a power vacuum that can be filled by any Tom Dick and Harry with sufficient charisma to gather people to his cause? At this point in time, the American presence imposes order, however minor, in a country whose security and armed forces are not yet up to scratch. For now, I have nothing against the American presence in Iraq. In the future however, if Iraqi forces are sufficiently able to handle the numerous militants in the Middle East, then I can see no further use for American forces in Iraq.

Your own country - quit buying guns, tanks, and missiles and try spending a LITTLE bit more money on education, infrastructure, clean drinking water, healthcare . . . oh wait, not healthcare, you already spend more than anyone else in the world, despite the fact people have to pay for it themselve and despite the fact many people die because they don't have healthcare. So try, changing your healthcare system, so it's actual a system for people rather than a system for private corporations to make money.

Any country's primary concern will be security. Having the best healthcare, education or infrastructure in the world isn't worth a damn if you're military is basically a paper tiger. I don't know much about the healthcare system in America, so I'll leave it at that.

In the end, between the two candidates, I'd much rather have Obama, simply on the fact that like what Battuta said, that Obama would do less damage than McCain.