President Obama

[Pixel_Outlaw]

Hurray a modern day Robin Hood!
Taxing the "rich" (who have crazy jobs and businesses) and giving to the poor (who will spend it on drugs/boos while they brood the second generation babies with their run away dads). All while raising taxes and getting rid of those nasty gun owners.

Oops did I just step in political poo-poo?

I don't wish him ill I just hope he puts America before other countries. A president must take care of his own country first then aid others as needed.

I respect the office fully and I respect him as the incoming president. I only hope that his plans make America a country that can stand as an independent nation with liberty and justice for all. I wish him success, people who do not wish him success are wishing America failure. I define success as prosperity for the hard working patriots of our country.

[Twiddle]

because when tax cuts have no effect on the lower classes (the lower and middle classes spend more of their income by proportion and this is responsible for the majority of the economy's circulation in the US) and cut funding for education (surprise surprise you get shitty workers) and jobs are cut to appease investors (causing unemployment and lower wages across the board) it's completely patriotic 5/5 goon sir

Want to encourage something? Keep the taxes as low as possible. For instance, the internet economy - almost completely untaxed in America, and it grew much faster than brick and mortar businesses as a result!

thanks to network neutrality

let's think about how well off the internet would be if you could only see time warner sites in time warner cable and have a speed of 8kb/sec browsing and downloading from itunes

[Neon]

I still think Clinton was the smart choice for the Democrats.

So you'd rather have Ms.-Regulation messing with game content: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/1 ... uld-c.html

I'd sooner vote for Palin than I would for that hypocritical, conniving, and ugly mess.

Did I say that? Read the whole post before commenting plz

Does it really matter if he's Christian or Muslim?

Yes. It would be hilarious if he revealed that he was a secret Muslim after being elected to a second term. Everyone would get all mad but they couldn't do anything about it. I need to make a million dollars so I can bribe him to do that, that would be awesome. Other than that I don't really care.

[Twiddle]

Yes. It would be hilarious if he revealed that he was a secret Muslim after being elected to a second term. Everyone would get all mad but they couldn't do anything about it. I need to make a million dollars so I can bribe him to do that, that would be awesome. Other than that I don't really care.

that requires you to make


$250,000


a year

[Michaelm]

I define success as prosperity for the hard working patriots of our country.

I would define success as prosperity for everyone, not just the dipshits who only work hard if they can keep all the money for themselves and just sit there and grumble as soon as their efforts are used for the greater good.
In fact I would also define success as getting completely rid of those dipshits.

[professor ganson]

For all the people who like to use the term "unamerican", wouldn't it be unamerican not to like Obama, a hard-working guy from a modest background, a good family man who cares about the welfare of others, devoted to a life of service for his country?

And anti-american sentiments around the world just decreased enormously. We are now in a certain respect a role-model for all the European countries who were previously looking down on us.

I am actually proud to be an American (as silly as that sounds). The system actually works to a degree: with checks and balances and term limits, idiots like Bush and thugs like Cheney can only do so much damage. And our citizens are so diverse and innovative. Intolerance is a reality, but much less of an issue than elsewhere.

[Michaelm]

We are now in a certain respect a role-model for all the European countries who were previously looking down on us.

Yeah, you've got that right !
If only those stupid Dutchies could vote with their brain instead of their shoved in monotheistic doctrine.
Today word came out that those fairy tale loving fools want to close all coffeeshops in the Netherlands.
They really want to criminalize something that gives the user a greater love of human beings and make them cooperate better while defending their stupid doctrine that gives believers plenty of reasons to kill human beings.
Monotheist == (Monotheist)Murderer;
Or atleast an indirect one !

[Neon]

Yes. It would be hilarious if he revealed that he was a secret Muslim after being elected to a second term. Everyone would get all mad but they couldn't do anything about it. I need to make a million dollars so I can bribe him to do that, that would be awesome. Other than that I don't really care.

that requires you to make


$250,000


a year

WHAT IF I MAKE 250 MILLION IN A SINGLE DAY BY WINNING THE LOTTERY BITCH

WHAT IF

[BulletMagnet]

Want to encourage something? Keep the taxes as low as possible.

That's fine as far as it goes, and no liberal will argue with you on it, but I would argue that simply cutting taxes and regulations do not in and of themselves guarantee increased performance or prosperity. Obviously government should let business do its own thing to the largest extent possible - IF the business shows that it can do so without taking undue advantage of the freedom it's granted (i.e. unsafe workplace standards, pay/benefit cuts for workers as executives get bonuses, environmental hazards, tax loopholes/offshore accounts, etc.) - however, I find that conservatives have far more tolerance for "questionable" business practices than I do, no matter what it comes at the expense of, including the well-being of the nation at large, and continue to insist on more and more cuts no matter what the results are. On its face, all I can wring from a stance like that, when you get right down to it, is pure, unrepentant self-interest to the point of malice.

Keep in mind, I've tried to keep this conversation on an economic level because I'm not a conservative. My thoughts best corresponds with libertarianism.

When I call you our your tenets "conservative," I'm talking solely about the economic side of things, which, by definition, is conservative for libertarian types ("social" issues, on the other hand, are more liberal). I know I'm overgeneralizing a bit, but whenever I say "conservative" here I'm referring to the low-taxes/less-regulation/etc. economic mindset, that's all.

As well, with Bush's record-low approval ratings, you should also note that this means a substantial number of conservatives don't approve of him either.

Most of them certainly took their sweet time to catch on, and I've been labeled a Commie terrorist sympathizer enough times to know.

Again, we are a little vague, but what are the dumb decisions people are making with their freedom? Which freedom? Which decision?

As an example I might cite the recent economic crisis, in particular the mortgage mess - ask any conservative who's to blame, and he'll immediately say that it's the fault of stupid poor people taking on debts that they could never afford to repay, and now dragging down the honest, hardworking "play by the rules" types with them. As I've said before, I would place at least as much of the blame on the economic establishment, who not only were overeager to get people to take out their bad loans but refused to sufficiently educate their clients on what they were really getting into (and bristle at the thought of being required by law to do so), but as you'd expect such thoughts are almost without exception ignored. So instead of reining in the financial sector what do free-marketers suggest? Giving them even MORE slack, since if the market was TRULY free then businesses would have self-regulated and none of this would have happened - Acid King posted a link to an article insisting on this in a different thread. From here, it looks to me like the more no-strings-attached freedom you give business the more it will abuse it, but again, such thoughts simply aren't valid to free-marketers by and large. As I expand upon below, they CAN'T be.

Some institutions, like mail, communication, education, and health care require government intervention and control, while taking a business-like stance to stay competitive and relevant.

The fact that you typed this proves, if nothing else, that you don't toe the line 100 percent when it comes to free-market ideology - though I'm not saying that as a putdown, as I don't stick to the liberal (not Democratic, I'm not party-affiliated) "stock" stance on everything either. I'm sure you're aware, though, that "true-blue" free-marketers would look down on you for holding such a viewpoint - they insist that EVERYTHING will perform better when privatized and deregulated, as any acknowledged exceptions to their dogma will blast a huge hole in their ideology. Obviously you're not as inflexible, but these are, however you slice it, the assumptions that drive conservative economic thought, and aim to deny as many people as possible anything remotely resembling a "safety net" or any such thing. To put it another way, if you think they want to rewind past FDR, keep going - they call Teddy Roosevelt a Socialist.

The Eisenhower Interstate system is never given enough credit for what an economic boon it has been to this country.

Heh, it's always amused me how Republicans are so eager to look to a deficit-inflating kook like Reagan with such unquestioning reverence, but hardly ever make mention of Eisenhower, who departed from many of their key tenets (in short, he actually believed that government could help people if run competently, and that the Army isn't the only department worth funding) and was still very successful on most fronts. Not only that, but they have the cojones to reach back even further and call themselves "the party of Lincoln"...I'm somewhat curious as to which Presidents, if any, Libertarians look back on with some amount of fondness...

There is an awful lot that government blows money on that I disagree with

As I've said before I (and anyone else with a brain in their head) completely agree (especially on the pork), though as has already been pointed out, most of this out-of-control spending you cite has happened under supposedly "fiscally conservative" Presidents - unlike some others, however, this doesn't surprise me, as those same people simply don't believe (or say they don't) that government can ever work, so they don't concern themselves with running it competently. Then when things go down the crapper, that and their cronies can say "See? Told you! We need to deregulate more!" Heads they win, tails we lose - after seeing this sort of performance again and again I simply can't bring myself to take self-righteous claims of "fiscal conservatism" seriously, much less support those who run on them.

The Federal Government needs the strength to exert enough control to successfully exist, but let the reigns loose enough for States and individuals to grow.

Again, this is a basic tenet of how the country is set up, and no one's arguing with it - however, once more I must note, most of the so-called "conservatives" who are so big on "states' rights" are just as eager to complain about individual states' taxes or regulations as they are about the federal government's (in my state, you should hear the radio guys go on about property taxes and the evil teachers' unions, in particular) - in short, despite all their talk of "making our country strong" and all that, all they really care about is being left to do whatever they please, everyone else be damned. I just keep seeing the same central theme underneath everything else, and can't comprehend how it's supposed to be good for anyone except those rich and powerful enough to never need help from anyone (well, until their multi-billion dollar firms go under thanks to their own incompetence, anyway).

That's why the Founders agreed on banning Taxation Without Representation, for instance.

Well, we do still have the District of Columbia, and they still have their bumper stickers.

I fucked up.

I got a good laugh out of that.

[TriggerHeartExelica]

Hurray a modern day Robin Hood!
Taxing the "rich" (who have crazy jobs and businesses) and giving to the poor (who will spend it on drugs/boos while they brood the second generation babies with their run away dads). All while raising taxes and getting rid of those nasty gun owners.

Oops did I just step in political poo-poo?

I don't wish him ill I just hope he puts America before other countries. A president must take care of his own country first then aid others as needed.

I respect the office fully and I respect him as the incoming president. I only hope that his plans make America a country that can stand as an independent nation with liberty and justice for all. I wish him success, people who do not wish him success are wishing America failure. I define success as prosperity for the hard working patriots of our country.

See you are stereotyping which just shows your ignorance. Not everyone who would benefit from wealth redistribution is a druggie nor do they pop out kids left and right. Did it ever occur to you that we have already been practicing wealth distribution for the past 8 years? The only difference is this time instead of it flowing up to the rich, it will flow down to the poor which has expanded its pool quite a bit in these past 8 years.

[Twiddle]

but they have the cojones to reach back even further and call themselves "the party of Lincoln"...I'm somewhat curious as to which Presidents, if any, Libertarians look back on with some amount of fondness...

herbert hoover (lol)

also liberterians hate lincoln because of STATES RIGHTS despite the fact that it actually meant "BRING BACK SLAVERY" up until the 1950s where its meaning was obfuscated thanks to ayn rand

[Octopod]

Ayn Rand was a fucking cunt.

[Stormwatch]

I'm somewhat curious as to which Presidents, if any, Libertarians look back on with some amount of fondness...

None actually elected (recently), but would-have-kicked-ass? Barry Goldwater and Ron Paul.

[The n00b]

hmm a most confusing election. It seems this time the liberals want to cut taxes while curtailing government spending(ie cut out all the war mongering and corporate welfare).

Meanwhile the so called conservatives want to cut taxes for some yet ramp up government spending. Don't argue with me that these conservatives are really neocons because I have yet to see a real conservative vote anything but republican.

The new liberal is the old conservative.

Oh yeah and I'm waiting for Ron Paul to just quit already. A half-black president is pretty much the stuff of his worst nightmares.

[Acid King]

but they have the cojones to reach back even further and call themselves "the party of Lincoln"...I'm somewhat curious as to which Presidents, if any, Libertarians look back on with some amount of fondness...

Probably Thomas Jefferson... but we can go with Hoover because LOLASDASFSASDF.

[Twiddle]

i'm not even joking your fellow economic liberterians love hoover

[Never_Scurred]

[Udderdude]

OMG OBAMA = ANTICHRIST

hahahaha that site is fucking hilarious

[Acid King]

i'm not even joking your fellow economic liberterians love hoover

I've seen libertarians defend Hoover, but I've never seen anyone actively say he was their favorite president.

[Ed Oscuro]

Are those real Libertarians or just the ones who don't know that shit was in disorder back then?

Also, update on Senator Lieberman's fate:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/09/ ... topstories

Reid (and the Democrats, although I think this didn't really require much coordination to do right, up to this point) is playing this one by the book:

STICK
1. Thrash Lieberman publicly for what he did and turn the heat on to make it clear that this sort of thing is not appreciated (Reid can do this because he's not the President-elect)

CARROT
2. Discuss the "glass being half full" and acknowledge Lieberman's value to the party for voting the right way on issues most of the time

OFFER HE CAN'T REFUSE
3. Let Lieberman stay (and possibly keep his chairmanship?)

HAPPY DAYS ARE HERE AGAIN
4. The Democrats keep (the other) Joe the Senator (from Connecticut) (THE RACE TO SIxTY) and everybody's happy (or sufficiently knuckled under) - rank and file order is maintained. Magnaminity in victory.

I have a feeling that Lieberman's issue was a personal one, and he made it clear that was the case from what he said. Getting people past that will be possible enough, if not easy, if the President-elect and the Congressional Democrats stick to the kid gloves theory of bipartisanship. Always an interesting pattern of events to watch.

I have to wonder if Lieberman or anybody else in Congress fell for the story that Lieberman might have been kicked out of the DNC, but that's a moot point now since I don't see this episode repeating itself and there also has been a historic rapid change in tone from leaders all across the political spectrum, particularly Republicans. But it will also be refreshing if, say, Nancy Pelosi wouldn't repeat the sort of talk she gave right before the first vote on the financial rescue package.

[Ed Oscuro]

Yes. It would be hilarious if he revealed that he was a secret Muslim after being elected to a second term. Everyone would get all mad but they couldn't do anything about it. I need to make a million dollars so I can bribe him to do that, that would be awesome. Other than that I don't really care.

that requires you to make


$250,000


a year

WHAT IF I MAKE 250 MILLION IN A SINGLE DAY BY WINNING THE LOTTERY BITCH

WHAT IF

You're accepting handouts and living off society's largesse

Ayn Rand was a fucking cunt.

So I'm discovering.

check dat podium sign
OMG OBAMA IS ALREADY ACTING AS IF HE'S THE PRESIDENT

WTF DON'T VOTE 4 DIS UPITY CLOWN

[Acid King]

Are those real Libertarians or just the ones who don't know that shit was in disorder back then?

From what I've read, I'd say it leans toward saying that he takes an unfairly large share of the blame for the depression while FDR takes too much credit for "fixing" it. I've never been too interested in that period of time, so you'd have to read the stuff for yourself and decide how credible the arguments are.

[Stormwatch]

According to Friedman, FDR's "New Deal" actually deepened and extended the depression.

[Twiddle]

Yes, because making things worse will fix them

well i guess people rioting, looting, killing and eating each other will fix the amount of people that need to be governed

[Randorama]

Hitomi Tanaka celebrated Obama's election by finally going from Gravure to serious (well more or less) AV starlet, btw.

[Zebra Airforce]

Talk about a well shaped waist and hip!

[Octopod]

Hitomi Tanaka celebrated Obama's election by finally going from Gravure to serious (well more or less) AV starlet, btw.

Just googled her. Yum.

[sven666]

http://www.sofmap.com/images/product/la ... 578044.jpg <-NSFW

i dont know, im all for a little freakshow every now and then but i dont think giant doughy mammaries do it for me?

ed: altho i guess it cant be all bad if her teamed up with obama is what it takes to bring randorama out of hiding

[evil_ash_xero]

Jesus Christ!

[BulletMagnet]

From what I've read, I'd say it leans toward saying that he takes an unfairly large share of the blame for the depression while FDR takes too much credit for "fixing" it.

This morning Krugman has an op-ed which makes more or less the same claims about FDR and his policies as you make about conservative economic theory in general - in short, that whatever shortcomings his efforts had were due not to the fundamentals of his ideas, but that he wasn't able to go far enough with them, and they were "imperfect" and "sabotaged" (not his exact words) as a result. So both sides insist that for the best results their ideals need to be taken "all the way," and that any screw-ups in their partial execution are due to either a lack of willpower to go far enough or the obstructionist efforts of the opposition - does either have the data to back up its assertions, or is it all theoretical at this point?