Author Topic: "A black sheriff?!": The Official Topic of Obama and New Era American Politics (Read 1880497 times)

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #9960 on:** July 29, 2010, 12:26:53 AM »

yeah, while ratigan could use a personality overhaul, he actually addresses the financial and economic shenanigans at the root of it all, whereas maddow seems to like the college intellectual hot-button issues -- their equivalents to gunz and abortions and jayzuz

Oblivion · « **Reply #9961 on:** July 29, 2010, 12:35:03 AM »

Well, in fairness, dealing with financial/business issues is Ratigan's main forte. Maddow deals with a bunch of different areas. Not that there's anything wrong with either.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #9962 on:** July 29, 2010, 01:16:47 AM »

Yeah, I said this earlier, but I just don't buy the whole "Ratigan goes easy on Republicans" argument.

Not even including this gem from the other week.

He's pretty fair across the board in terms of the vitriol spewed at guests. He leans center-right on fiscal concerns, for sure (he's a capitalist at heart) - but he's hardly a softballer on GOP guests. My issue with Ratigan is less to do with his political leanings, and more to do with the fact that he can quickly fall into the "irate talk show host yells at guest" format.

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #9963 on:** July 29, 2010, 01:37:18 AM »

The big secret about modern politics is that everything is (surprise, surprise) one big class struggle still, and until we're able to be honest about that we're just gonna keep having the same bullshit outcomes where the filthy rich get richer, the middle class continues to die and the ranks of the poor continue to swell. Of course, eventually there will be a swift and violent correction, and I want to be there for that since I missed France in the late 1700's.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #9964 on:** July 29, 2010, 02:45:40 AM »

The filthy rich have done a good job of insulating themselves; there is so much distance between the Haves and the Have-nots (in the form of multi-national companies, governments, etc.) that it is virtually impossible to correct the disproportionate distribution of wealth through physical means. I don't think you'll be able to see anything remotely like the "good 'ole years", not in our lifetimes.

Only thing I can see correcting a lot of this is a strong federal government, but ours has eroded to the point where it is basically an accessory to the robbery of working class Americans.

You can always hope for a dictatorship, I guess.

HyperZoneWasAwesome · « **Reply #9965 on:** July 29, 2010, 05:24:40 AM »

Duh.

why else is Barack Hussien Obama so popular among the welfare-class?

Olivia Wilde Homo · « **Reply #9966 on:** July 29, 2010, 07:50:39 AM »

I avoid all televised media. Feels good man.

I don't know too many liberals that are impressed with Obama these days except the cult of personality set that cares more about how funny he is or how he looked in pictures 20-30 years ago. I guess if Obama continues to disappoint, he can always have the cultist set, much like Bush always had that 30% of support in the polls in the latter years of his Presidency.

The problem is that the haves are on both sides of the aisle. Obama and his family made $5.5 million last year, hardly a salt of the earth type of character. To get someone who gives a shred of a fuck about the have nots usually requires someone who spent most of their life as a have-not and knows how it is actually like to live paycheck to paycheck. Both parties are chock full of pampered rich kids who have no real clue. Also, campaigns are so expensive these days that you need to be the butt buddy of some type of corporate interest if you want dat cash.

Beardo · « **Reply #9967 on:** July 29, 2010, 09:05:38 AM »

Quote from: T EXP on July 29, 2010, 07:50:39 AM

I avoid all televised media. Feels good man.

Me too. The shit on TV is just awful.

Another question to you guys. Are yall still mad about the Iraq and Afghanistan war? I honestly don't know.

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #9968 on:** July 29, 2010, 09:09:29 AM »

I think exasperated would be a better term. I don't think it's doing any fucking good when we keep blowing up civilians in addition to our targets. Not exactly endearing us to the Middle East at large, I'd say. And believe me, I know this is war, blah blah blah. But we're not just trying to conquer a country or hold a ridge or what the fuck ever. We're over there to try and stamp out an ideology that says we're demonic assholes or whatever and I just don't see "they killed 30 women and children in a drone attack this week... again" as a powerful bargaining chip.

Also, it's a fucking money sink. Just a total waste of money during a severe recession.

Beardo · « **Reply #9969 on:** July 29, 2010, 09:31:44 AM »

I guess I can't really argue with any of that.

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #9970 on:** July 29, 2010, 09:37:38 AM »

BU-BU-BUT WE'RE FIGHTING THEM OVER THERE SO WE DON'T HAVE TO FIGHT THEM OVER HERE!

huckleberry · « **Reply #9971 on:** July 29, 2010, 09:52:34 AM »

man.....it sure does suck to realize that trying to control an unruly empire actually costs more than money.

tiesto · « **Reply #9972 on:** July 29, 2010, 10:14:51 AM »

I think Obama is a fairly decent president (then again, that is relative... since the man in charge when I first started paying attention to politics was Dubya) held up by an absolute mess of congress. And oh yeah, there's some questionable corporate interests thrown in there too.

Olivia Wilde Homo · « **Reply #9973 on:** July 29, 2010, 11:56:39 AM »

I think bringing in people like Geithner and Summers was a sign that we weren't going to see any sort of financial reform that would amount to anything.

Not that I'm happy to see Obama turn out to be a D+ president. I think we're at a crossroads with many issues and the 2008 recession was a real good opportunity to fix things. He flushed it down the shitter and I'm not buying the excuse that it should all be laid at the feet of a 41 seat majority Senate or his handlers. That is cult of personality BS that reminds me of the cult of personality towards Miyamoto. If that is in fact the case, then Obama should vacate the position because he apparently has no leadership skills and doesn't do anything.

Eric P · « **Reply #9974 on:** July 29, 2010, 12:14:03 PM »

if nothing else, we got better presidential music from this guy than we got from dubya

[youtube=560,345][/youtube]

Oblivion · « **Reply #9975 on:** July 29, 2010, 04:13:57 PM »

Quote from: Genghis Cohen on July 29, 2010, 11:46:39 AM

Obama could have come in and raped Wall Street but instead he chose to expend all his political capital on health care reform, which was destined to be a crappy cobbled together bill because of the vitriol/misunderstandinga lot of people still have towards socialized medicine that isn't medicare. HE COULD HAVE RAPED THEM. I think that is going to be his biggest failure.

No way. A poll a few weeks ago showed Wall Street's approval ratings were slightly higher than Al Qaeda's. Like with most things, Obama didn't fight hard for a stronger bill simply cause he didn't want one.

Beardo · « **Reply #9976 on:** July 29, 2010, 04:44:44 PM »

Quote from: Oblivion on July 29, 2010, 04:13:57 PM

Quote from: Genghis Cohen on July 29, 2010, 11:46:39 AM
Obama could have come in and raped Wall Street but instead he chose to expend all his political capital on health care reform, which was destined to be a crappy cobbled together bill because of the vitriol/misunderstandinga lot of people still have towards socialized medicine that isn't medicare. HE COULD HAVE RAPED THEM. I think that is going to be his biggest failure.

No way. A poll a few weeks ago showed Wall Street's approval ratings were slightly higher than Al Qaeda's. Like with most things, Obama didn't fight hard for a stronger bill simply cause he didn't want one.

Which still makes it higher than Congress'

AdmiralViscen · « **Reply #9977 on:** July 29, 2010, 11:11:36 PM »

Quote from: Beardo on July 29, 2010, 04:44:44 PM

Quote from: Oblivion on July 29, 2010, 04:13:57 PM
Quote from: Genghis Cohen on July 29, 2010, 11:46:39 AM
Obama could have come in and raped Wall Street but instead he chose to expend all his political capital on health care reform, which was destined to be a crappy cobbled together bill because of the vitriol/misunderstandinga lot of people still have towards socialized medicine that isn't medicare. HE COULD HAVE RAPED THEM. I think that is going to be his biggest failure.

No way. A poll a few weeks ago showed Wall Street's approval ratings were slightly higher than Al Qaeda's. Like with most things, Obama didn't fight hard for a stronger bill simply cause he didn't want one.

Which still makes it higher than Congress'

Which is higher than Congressional Republicans

Beardo · « **Reply #9978 on:** July 30, 2010, 09:10:40 AM »

http://www.politico.com/click/stories/1007/snooki_v_obama_contd.html

Quote

First, Snooki took on Obama over Twitter. Then, Obama said he didn't even know who she was. And on Thursday night's second season premiere of MTV's "Jersey Shore," Snooki took the ball back, and went after Obama again.

In one scene, Snooki -- with her impressively orange tan -- broke the shocking news that she's been staying away from her home away from home: Tanning salons.

"I don’t go tanning anymore because Obama put a 10% tax on tanning. McCain would never put a 10% tax on tanning. Because he’s pale and would probably want to be tan," she said.

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #9979 on:** July 30, 2010, 09:24:29 AM »

Ok, looks like Obama has shit on lockdown if Snooki hates him.

Beardo · « **Reply #9980 on:** July 30, 2010, 09:30:58 AM »

Shit just got real.

Brehvolution · « **Reply #9981 on:** July 30, 2010, 09:42:22 AM »

Also known as The Boehner Tax.

Beardo · « **Reply #9982 on:** July 30, 2010, 10:07:35 AM »

To be fair though, McCain wanted to regulate the nutritional supplement industry. I dont think The Situation would be happy about that either

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #9983 on:** July 30, 2010, 10:29:28 AM »

I just watched Capitalism: A Love Story, and while it's full of obnoxious Michael Moore-isms (Katrina somehow gets linked to capitalism?), it did a pretty good job of showing how the wealthy and industrialists were able piggyback "capitalism" on the back of the Constitution and Judeo-Christian values.

It also shows the difference between what my folks' generation and my generation think of socialism. My folks' are intent to believe that the "S-word" means the country would spiral out of control into a communist state run by a dictator. I guess it's just because they were raised in a different era.

Beardo · « **Reply #9984 on:** July 30, 2010, 11:11:35 AM »

I wonder why Michael Moore chose to hire non union members over union IATSE workers during the filming of that? I also seem to remember a controversy involving him not letting the production crew for his Awful TV show unionize.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #9985 on:** July 30, 2010, 11:17:12 AM »

To be fair, as someone who dabbles in the industry, production unions are awful and a large reason why budgets are so ridiculous. Non-fiction media in particular rarely uses union members, because it makes it very difficult to be flexible and adaptive in the field. I was just traveling with a cable television show, and the guys they use are contract, non-union hires. They couldn't afford to produce with union guys, and the logistics would be insane.

Not to say that Moore isn't being hypocritical, because he certainly is. It's the same reason why he seems to link layoffs to GM's bankruptcy, and glorifies the creation of the auto-workers union without any of the realistic analysis of it being part of its very industry's demise.

Beardo · « **Reply #9986 on:** July 30, 2010, 11:20:34 AM »

At least we can agree that Michael moore is about bad as it gets.

Someone showed me a clip from Capitalism where he was interviewing a factory worker. It went something like this.

Moore: Why dont you just build your own factory?
Worker: We dont have the capital to build the means of production.

I just laughed. Was that supposed to be some kind of scathing commentary from the working class?

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #9987 on:** July 30, 2010, 11:24:01 AM »

My problem with Moore is that he'll take a very real, tangible issue and does enough research to create a thought-provoking argument... but then litters it with agenda-drive nonsense. There is a case to be made that capitalism, as it exists in this country, is a bad thing - but not like this.

Beardo · « **Reply #9988 on:** July 30, 2010, 11:48:26 AM »

Right, nobody is saying what we have is perfect.

He also fails to see the fallacies of his side too. In Sicko he talked about how in France they have maids come to your house and do your laundry and take care of your baby for free. Politics aside thats not even sustainable. I mean, he just thinks that we can all live in this happy society where everything is perfect and everyone is exactly equal on all levels. I used to think just like that when I was in Jr. High.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #9989 on:** July 30, 2010, 11:58:09 AM »

It's not that it's "not perfect", it's that the system that is currently in place is awful.

I don't think he believes we can live in a utopia, but he believes we can all live in a society where we have a single-payer health care system, worker's rights, transparency of financial institutions and government regulation of financial instruments. I don't see why that's not possible.

Cheebs · « **Reply #9990 on:** July 30, 2010, 12:00:07 PM »

Quote from: Beardo on July 30, 2010, 11:48:26 AM

.In Sicko he talked about how in France they have maids come to your house and do your laundry and take care of your baby for free. Politics aside thats not even sustainable.

They actually have that though.

France is kinda awesome in this way. My dad does a ton of work there for his business and the amount of time they get off is incredible. Most companies give an entire month off to their employees that doesn't come out of their vacation/sick days. He was just talking to me the other day that it's illegal in France for bosses to stress out their workers. He said one of their really good smart execs just got fired because the employees all complained he was stressing them out.

I have no idea how the country can function with all the stuff they are given like this but somehow it does.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #9991 on:** July 30, 2010, 12:01:55 PM »

And that's why France is a third-world communist dictatorship!

Cheebs · « **Reply #9992 on:** July 30, 2010, 12:02:20 PM »

:'(

And they have a first lady who still actively poses nude for magazine! They have it so good.

Cheebs · « **Reply #9993 on:** July 30, 2010, 12:04:46 PM »

edit: oops

Beardo · « **Reply #9994 on:** July 30, 2010, 12:06:11 PM »

Quote from: The Fake Shemp on July 30, 2010, 11:58:09 AM

It's not that it's "not perfect", it's that the system that is currently in place is awful.

Awefu? Pu-lease

You know how awesome we have it because of capitalism.

Quote from: The Fake Shemp on July 30, 2010, 11:58:09 AM

I don't think he believes we can live in a utopia, but he believes we can all live in a society where we have a single-payer health care system, worker's rights, transparency of financial institutions and government regulation of financial instruments. I don't see why that's not possible.

It's naive. Like I said, I used to think like Michael Moore when I was 13.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #9995 on:** July 30, 2010, 12:08:34 PM »

It's naive to think we can have things other developed nations have?

We have it so awesome because of capitalism?

... The only thing that will make this better is a compare-and-contrast with the Soviet Union or third-world nations that were properly raped by capitalism.

Beardo · « **Reply #9996 on:** July 30, 2010, 12:24:37 PM »

"Free stuff for everyone." Yup thats a completely sustainable long term plan. Good jon.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #9997 on:** July 30, 2010, 12:25:43 PM »

It's not free, you pay for it. And it works. See: almost any other developed nation.

You can't look at the wealth distribution in this country the past fifty years and tell me something is not fundamentally broken. America is pretty awesome, if you're part of the top ten percent!

Cheebs · « **Reply #9998 on:** July 30, 2010, 12:29:36 PM »

Quote from: Beardo on July 30, 2010, 12:24:37 PM

"Free stuff for everyone." Yup thats a completely sustainable long term plan. Good jon.

France, England, Canada are not sustainable?

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #9999 on:** July 30, 2010, 12:31:33 PM »

They are obviously going to collapse with their naive, goodwill-fueled fantasies of socialism!

Eric P · « **Reply #10000 on:** July 30, 2010, 12:35:10 PM »

France and England aren't in the best of financial state.

i don't know about canada, but it's canada. beaver pelts are an infinite sustainable resource so they lucked out there

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #10001 on:** July 30, 2010, 12:39:15 PM »

In case you haven't noticed, America isn't even in the best of financial shape.

Both the UK and France economies have expanded in recent months; they're having the same recession recovery pains we are. France has to change some of its worker policies to assist, but at the end of the day, its employee work force will STILL have it ten times better than Americans.

brawndolicious · « **Reply #10002 on:** July 30, 2010, 01:45:32 PM »

But before the recession, didn't France have a much higher unemployment rate than the US?

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #10003 on:** July 30, 2010, 02:13:59 PM »

France still has a higher unemployment rate, but our unemployment rate isn't even real. If you use underemployment numbers (we're at 17%), we fare far worse as a nation. Fact is, more people may technically have jobs here, but less people live comfortably or below means.

Beardo · « **Reply #10004 on:** July 30, 2010, 02:23:37 PM »

Plus obama saved like a billion jobs. That means something right?

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #10005 on:** July 30, 2010, 02:35:20 PM »

we had it best when our marginal tax rate was at its highest

eisenhower republicans who hate the rich

Beardo · « **Reply #10006 on:** July 30, 2010, 02:43:04 PM »

I dont mean to burst the bubble, but the top 15% pay something like 60-70% of all taxes. Should it be higher?

I personally think it should be law that whoever makes more than me, pays all taxes. That seems fair.

Boogie · « **Reply #10007 on:** July 30, 2010, 02:57:26 PM »

Quote from: Eric P on July 30, 2010, 12:35:10 PM

France and England aren't in the best of financial state.

i don't know about canada, but it's canada. beaver pelts are an infinite sustainable resource so they lucked out there

Ya, we're doing pretty awesome here.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #10008 on:** July 30, 2010, 03:05:00 PM »

Quote from: Beardo on July 30, 2010, 02:43:04 PM

I dont mean to burst the bubble, but the top 15% pay something like 60-70% of all taxes. Should it be higher?

Quote from: Phoenix Dark

we had it best when our marginal tax rate was at its highest

Ding ding ding!

The fact that less people are putting money into the system is indicative that the distribution of wealth is fucked up, simply because more and more people are slipping into lesser tax brackets - not evil government conspiracy! And the belief that the top earners are faithful on their taxes.

Beardo · « **Reply #10009 on:** July 30, 2010, 03:24:12 PM »

Are you denying that the top earners pay for the huge majority of taxes already?

I'm not sure where you are going.

Eric P · « **Reply #10010 on:** July 30, 2010, 03:26:42 PM »

oh, i love this talk

let's do it again!

then can we do the abortion one next?

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #10011 on:** July 30, 2010, 03:45:15 PM »

Quote from: Beardo on July 30, 2010, 03:24:12 PM

Are you denying that the top earners pay for the huge majority of taxes already? I'm not sure where you are going.

I'm not sure what you're not getting: the fact that the top tax rate is not close to historical highs, or the fact that of course that there are less people in top brackets due to the consolidation of wealth? Is this too hard for your brain to figure out?

Mandark · « **Reply #10012 on:** July 30, 2010, 03:46:45 PM »

Beardo: What percentage of GDP can the public sector be before it becomes "unsustainable"?

Oblivion · « **Reply #10013 on:** July 30, 2010, 04:39:41 PM »

Quote from: Beardo on July 30, 2010, 02:43:04 PM

I dont mean to burst the bubble, but the top 15% pay something like 60-70% of all taxes. Should it be higher?

Isn't that because the top 15% have almost all the wealth?

Also, redistribution of wealth isn't a one way street.

Dickie Dee · « **Reply #10014 on:** July 30, 2010, 05:42:23 PM »

Quote from: Beardo on July 30, 2010, 03:24:12 PM

Are you denying that the top earners pay for the huge majority of taxes already? I'm not sure where you are going.

ITT: Beardo doesn't realize top earners are already 'Winning' and any claim that they are responsible for large tax income as an argument against progressive taxation is guffaw-inducing stupidity. I mean seriously, must I hold your hand thinking this one through?

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #10015 on:** July 30, 2010, 05:44:11 PM »

bububububu laffer curve

if you tax their $3M/yr down to $2.8M/yr, they won't have enough money to pay the plebes to mow their lawns and tickle their penises

Oblivion · « **Reply #10016 on:** July 30, 2010, 05:47:15 PM »

They'll also leave the country and take their millions/billions with them. :'(

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #10017 on:** July 30, 2010, 05:48:59 PM »

like they've been doing for decades!

Eric P · « **Reply #10018 on:** July 30, 2010, 06:51:31 PM »

[youtube=560,345][/youtube]

i can't tell if using NIN's Happiness In Slavery is brilliant or not.

I'm leaning towards brilliant

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #10019 on:** July 30, 2010, 11:08:02 PM »

The only possession I own that I'm too ashamed to display in my room is Dude, Where's My Country $:-\$

fucking Michael Moore.

News:

Author Topic: "A black sheriff?!": The Official Topic of Obama and New Era American Politics (Read 1880497 times)