Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Lets be honest here, If Romney and Obama are the best that the USA can produce, it's no wonder the USA is going downwhill. That's not a slur against America. The UK's leaders are even worse. As I've said 100 times before, the calibre of politician is sadly lacking. Maybe societies do get the leaders they deserve?

That's the thing that's so frustrating to me. I feel like America deserves better than Obama or Romney, but everyone who would actually be good at the job has something better to do.

Maybe societies do get the leaders they deserve and that's what has led us to this point, but I would certainly hope we could do a lot better.

 Amaya wrote:
I'm more impressed by the fact he has nubile young women supporting him by offering free car washes.

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/pictures/photos-11129/pictures-i-really-like-putin-girls-car-wash/1

am i the only one who noticed the girl in the back left is holding a rose? why is she holding a rose?

Best internet pic so far:

 whembly wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Well, considering how James Hetfield is apparently a table, I'm not too surprised that conversations are being held with chairs nowadays.

What?

[whembly loves Metallica] rock on dude! \m/

You don't know that minor meme, spawned after the cross over with Lou Reed and Metallica?
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-am-the-table

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Well, considering how James Hetfield is apparently a table, I'm not too surprised that conversations are being held with chairs nowadays.

What?

[whembly loves Metallica] rock on dude! \m/

You don't know that minor meme, spawned after the cross over with Lou Reed and Metallica?
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-am-the-table

Damn... missed that one...

Since I took an arrow to the knee, I haven't been keeping up to all the memes...

And oh... Lulu sucks... bah.

 whembly wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Well, considering how James Hetfield is apparently a table, I'm not too surprised that conversations are being held with chairs nowadays.

What?

[whembly loves Metallica] rock on dude! \m/

You don't know that minor meme, spawned after the cross over with Lou Reed and Metallica?
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-am-the-table

Damn... missed that one...

Since I took an arrow to the knee, I haven't been keeping up to all the memes...

And oh... Lulu sucks... bah.

To be fair Metallica was in there prime during the 80's, I mean how many artists end there music career with there dignity completely in tact. In fact let's look at a few well-known artists later studio releases.

Pink Floyd:


The Clash:


Led Zeppelin:


Jethro Tull:

I thought Jethro Tull was just a band member Thanks for the urge to watch Armageddon again

 Jihadin wrote:
I thought Jethro Tull was just a band member Thanks for the urge to watch Armageddon again

Jethro Tull isn't band it's a name of a famous English agriculturist.

 dogma wrote:

gorgon wrote:

I think the popular vote will be fairly close, but I just don't see the electoral math working for the GOP. Too many battleground states seem to be leaning Obama's way. Heck, Obama's even up in Wisconsin.

My hope is that Romney wins the popular vote, but Obama wins on electoral votes.

Only hilarity can ensure from such an event.

I'd buy htat for a dollar.

Indeed and he made one fine Seed Drill.

Them meme is getting outta hand... but this is funny:

 CT GAMER wrote:

This makes me smile to no end.

You know, I was thinking about this at lunch today. It's sort of interesting that they decided to pick "we built it" as their campaign motto. It's fascinating to me because it's sort of predicated on a lie; that anyone can stand alone in modern society and build something themselves; and how it was excerpted from a larger speech and stripped of all context. It's a good microcosm of sorts for how the GOP is today: long on soundbites, short on facts and context and; gak, at this point, honesty. It's a little reminiscent of 4 years ago, when the GOP rallied around a man named Joe (who wasn't named Joe) who was a plumber (but not actually a plumber) who wanted to buy his bosses business (he wasn't really) and didn't want his taxes raised (they weren't). Ah well, we get the government we deserve.

Well "Put you all back in chain" platform would have been very bad

 Jihadin wrote:
Well "Put you all back in chain" platform would have been very bad

Uh... it was kinda bad dude....

And then... this... :

It just strikes me as really weird that people could get so caught up in the 'yay my political team' nonsense that they could pretend Eastwood's speach was anything other than really, really embarassing. I mean, fething hell people, at some point you just have to acknowledge reality.

 Amaya wrote:
I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic, but the second point does stand that conservative celebrities are constantly berated.

But that's bs. Clint Eastwood is massively respected.

But the guy gave a truly horrible speach, that was just unbearable to sit through. He stumbled over lines, and the talking to an empty chair thing was bizarre. He got it together at the end, but the simple fact that it was a terrible speach is true no matter how much people like to pretend their political party gets picked on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Harriticus wrote:
If you think American and Western media treats conservative celebrities the same as liberal ones, then I dunno what channels you've been watching.

The ones with Clint Eastwood and Bruce Willis on them.

 Cheesecat wrote:

To be fair Metallica was in there prime during the 80's, I mean how many artists end there music career with there dignity completely in tact.

Nirvana.

 Mannahnin wrote:
I love Clint Eastwood. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is one of my favorite films of all time, since I was a kid. I love a lot of his directorial work as well. Letters from Iwo Jima, Million Dollar Baby, and Gran Torino are all really great, even before touching the singular genius of Unforgiven.

This was really sad of him. Deeply symbolic though. Rather than being able to debate the real person and his real record, he has to resort to arguing with an empty chair representing a person who does not exist except in the imagination.

I admit when I watching the speach I did think 'well this explains why J Edgar was so disappointing'

 sebster wrote:

The ones with Clint Eastwood and Bruce Willis on them.

Also Adam Sandler, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Alice Cooper, Sylvester Stallone. I could go on.

I've come to the conclusion you can't believe anything either party says: dems convolute stuff the GOP says, and vice versa, if you want the truth you have to do your own homework. after doing my homework, i still agree with the Republicans, as the Democrats have leaned more toward Socialism and that goes against everything i beleive about being free...and honestly, they have at least given some answers, right or wrong, they are still answers. Obama is giving fewer solutions and just blaming, you cant blame your predecessor for everything forever, even after going on both the Romney website and the Obama website: Romney is a man with a plan, after searching for 3 hours neither me nor my mom could find anything resembling a plan on Obama's site. im a Libertarian and a Constitutionalist at heart, not a Liberal or Socialist. I don't know if my beliefs are correct, but i do know that the current path America is headed is not the path we should be headed. We should be prosperous, wealthy, and progressing. In all honesty, Obama has stagnated, not really doing anything but spend money that we don't have on stuff that may or may not have needed it,
my personal solution: government employees cannot make more than $80,000 a year, a flat tax rate regardless of income level (say 10%), speed up death row, increase the number of crimes that get the death penalty, privatize all healthcare, Social Security, other welfare programs, remove restrictions on oil drilling (i heard a stat somewhere that the rockies contain more oil than the entire middle east, no proof, but we do have a lot of oil that we arent using) and to maintain the worlds largest military, because we need it. run the entire government in a constant surplus, to get rid of this mountain range of debt.
simple solutions that no politician has offered because it hurts them and their ego's too much.

 jordanis wrote:
I've come to the conclusion you can't believe anything either party says: dems convolute stuff the GOP says, and vice versa, if you want the truth you have to do your own homework.

You don't say.

 jordanis wrote:

....simple solutions that no politician has offered because it hurts them and their ego's too much.

Yes, simple.

Better get ready to shut down the Military or the Department of Veterans Affairs. Good luck finding doctors or mid-level practitioners to work for you if they are capped at 80,000 or less. Why would any doctor treat soldiers in a war zone for less than half what he should be making...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Although I think that proposal can be summed up in a simple term: Feth everybody but the military.

Anybody who even remotely thinks we can reign in spending without touching the military is not worth listening to.

Although at this point I am fairly sure I am posting in a troll thread.

 d-usa wrote:
Better get ready to shut down the Military or the Department of Veterans Affairs. Good luck finding doctors or mid-level practitioners to work for you if they are capped at 80,000 or less. Why would any doctor treat soldiers in a war zone for less than half what he should be making...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Although I think that proposal can be summed up in a simple term: Feth everybody but the military.

Anybody who even remotely thinks we can reign in spending without touching the military is not worth listening to.

Although at this point I am fairly sure I am posting in a troll thread.

i said government employees, doctors are private sector, or would be. the role of government is to ensure the welfare of the people, that can be acheived 1 of a few ways, the 2 prevalent ideologies are :active generally the more liberal, and passive, by passing laws that uphold morality but otherwise stay out of the public affairs of others, i prefer the latter, because A) it creates a smaller government, B) it costs less to run (mostly because it is smaller) and is easier to maintain in check to keep it from becoming this gigantic corrupt machine that at the end of the day does less to help the welfare of the nation than it does to hurt it.
Dogma, i would appreciate if you just stop before we burn this thread to the ground as well, we have polar views on subjects and I am not in the mood to fight. Do you agree to disagree?

I agree. I am not gushing over Obama like certain press did in 2008 or certain press still does. Nor do I buy the FNC BS in favor of anything that smells Republican.

I voted for McCain too. Not because I thought he was great but he promised something tangible not dreamy
"Hope and Change" with no substance.

I don't think Obama has a clue on what to do with the economy. Frankly, the most surprising thing he has delivered on is the war on terror.

Sorry, when I look at the Democratic delivery on its 2008 promises, I am nothing but disappointed. Now it is not all their fault, a recalcitrant Republican congress holds some of the blame. But there again, the Dems forcing Obamacare down our throats without even reading the thing I find disturbing too ( and probably why the Dems got the boot in 2010).

Personally, I had a well paying job, health care and a decent 403b in 2008. In 2012 I have lost my job, lost my healthcare and am hitting my retirement to make ends meet. So I am one of those who just hope Obama will leave a little change in my pocket and not totally break me.

So there may be a bit of sour grapes when I lean toward something new instead of the rudderless Democratic plan. (Unless they hope to make me a dependent of the state...)

I don't think that the Dems will turn out the young vote anywhere near what they did in 2008. They just haven't done much to keep them energized. 10% unemployment is not going to help his cause much either. I mean 5.8% unemployment in 2008 and now averaging over 8%. Not exactly a glowing endorsement of his econimic strategy. ( And a little late in the game to blame it on his predecessor.) That may have worked in 2009 and 10 but sorry if you were the economic visionary, one would hope we could at least tread water.

The issue is the Republicans are offering a "cutback" plan whereas the Democrats are offering "free" healthcare for all and no change. So just like a juvenile dependent, I expect the American people to ignore the potential blowback from the "Ostrich" plan and vote for their allowance to remain unchanged.

 jordanis wrote:
my personal solution: government employees cannot make more than $80,000 a year, a flat tax rate regardless of income level (say 10%), speed up death row, increase the number of crimes that get the death penalty, privatize all healthcare, Social Security, other welfare programs, remove restrictions on oil drilling (i heard a stat somewhere that the rockies contain more oil than the entire middle east, no proof, but we do have a lot of oil that we arent using) and to maintain the worlds largest military, because we need it. run the entire government in a constant surplus, to get rid of this mountain range of debt.
simple solutions that no politician has offered because it hurts them and their ego's too much.

So you want to have massive organisations like the Department of Defence and Health run by people earning low level managment wages? Don't you think it is more than a little likely that you're going to end up with chronically underskilled managers in these rolls, and the waste in management will end up costing a lot more than the savings in management wages?

Have you ever had a look into the countries that attempted a flat tax? In short they went bankrupt, because when it comes to deciding how much the tax rate has to be you cannot find a balance between taking too much from the poor, and generating enough revenue to meet the basic government spending requirements of a modern economy. Which is basically why we have progressive taxation.

Healthcare in the US is privatised. And yet it costs more than it does per capita than anywhere else in the world, without delivering better outcomes.

Why do you 'need' the world's biggest army?

Look, I don't mean to be blunt but what you've posted above is just really simplistic stuff. You said people need to do their homework, and that was great advice. Please just keep reading, and try not to get too committed to any ideology before you've been fully exposed to how the world works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jordanis wrote:
i said government employees, doctors are private sector, or would be. the role of government is to ensure the welfare of the people, that can be acheived 1 of a few ways, the 2 prevalent ideologies are :active generally the more liberal, and passive, by passing laws that uphold morality but otherwise stay out of the public affairs of others, i prefer the latter, because A) it creates a smaller government, B) it costs less to run (mostly because it is smaller) and is easier to maintain in check to keep it from becoming this gigantic corrupt machine that at the end of the day does less to help the welfare of the nation than it does to hurt it.

The notion of government is so much more complex than just 'bigger' or 'smaller'. One of the really annoying things about the modern Republican party is how that 'small government' idea has corroded away their understanding of what government actually is.

I mean, here's one for you - American manufacturers in the West Coast are finding it hard to compete with locally produced goods in Europe, even though the US produces them at a much cheaper cost the cost of transport is huge due to disfunctional ports, which is the result of a breakdown in the relationship between unions and port management. So the government comes in, provides low cost loans to port management to modernise the port, and strikes an agreement to pay redundancies to union workers. The result is quicker movement of goods through ports and reduced labour overhead making US export goods more competitive.

Is that big or little government?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DAaddict wrote:
I don't think that the Dems will turn out the young vote anywhere near what they did in 2008. They just haven't done much to keep them energized. 10% unemployment is not going to help his cause much either. I mean 5.8% unemployment in 2008 and now averaging over 8%. Not exactly a glowing endorsement of his econimic strategy. ( And a little late in the game to blame it on his predecessor.) That may have worked in 2009 and 10 but sorry if you were the economic visionary, one would hope we could at least tread water.

I'm sorry to hear you've lost your job, but I am really puzzled as to when this idea appeared that economies were supposed to cycle from bust to economic growth within two years.

 sebster wrote:

 jordanis wrote:
my personal solution: government employees cannot make more than $80,000 a year, a flat tax rate regardless of income level (say 10%), speed up death row, increase the number of crimes that get the death penalty, privatize all healthcare, Social Security, other welfare programs, remove restrictions on oil drilling (i heard a stat somewhere that the rockies contain more oil than the entire middle east, no proof, but we do have a lot of oil that we arent using) and to maintain the worlds largest military, because we need it. run the entire government in a constant surplus, to get rid of this mountain range of debt.
simple solutions that no politician has offered because it hurts them and their ego's too much.

So you want to have massive organisations like the Department of Defence and Health run by people earning low level managment wages? Don't you think it is more than a little likely that you're going to end up with chronically underskilled managers in these rolls, and the waste in management will end up costing a lot more than the savings in management wages?

Have you ever had a look into the countries that attempted a flat tax? In short they went bankrupt, because when it comes to deciding how much the tax rate has to be you cannot find a balance between taking too much from the poor, and generating enough revenue to meet the basic government spending requirements of a modern economy. Which is basically why we have progressive taxation.

Healthcare in the US is privatised. And yet it costs more than it does per capita than anywhere else in the world, without delivering better outcomes.

Why do you 'need' the world's biggest army?

Look, I don't mean to be blunt but what you've posted above is just really simplistic stuff. You said people need to do their homework, and that was great advice. Please just keep reading, and try not to get too committed to any ideology before you've been fully exposed to how the world works.

so maybe my number wasnt the best to use, but my argument is still valid, government employees that determine their own pay grade (or very easily work together across the checks and balances put in place to prevent corruption) is unacceptable, maybe the better option would be to have all pay raises for each representative or Senator to be voted on in their state, not by committee or however they do it now (and abuse it) because i beleive most if not all politicians are overpaid for doing usually not a whole lot to deserve it....being in a position of power should be an almost volunteer situation. and to be fair, a vast amount of government programs could be cancelled and made into private sector entities (not so much the military as many others) with equal if not better success than the current government run programs

I'm sorry to hear you've lost your job, but I am really puzzled as to when this idea appeared that economies were supposed to cycle from bust to economic growth within two years

Ahh 2008 to 2012 is 4years. Now I am not taking the simplistic view that it is ALL Obama's fault. As a matter of fact the new jobs numbers are currently taking a little up tick. I am just saying if I were grading him, I would currently be giving him a D+ or a C-. Not an absolute failure but very underwhelming.

So I apologize for my view through rose colored glasses but the no-change stay-as-you-go Democratic plan doesn't inspire me.

DAaddict wrote:

I don't think that the Dems will turn out the young vote anywhere near what they did in 2008. They just haven't done much to keep them energized. 10% unemployment is not going to help his cause much either. I mean 5.8% unemployment in 2008 and now averaging over 8%. Not exactly a glowing endorsement of his econimic strategy. ( And a little late in the game to blame it on his predecessor.) That may have worked in 2009 and 10 but sorry if you were the economic visionary, one would hope we could at least tread water.

Really? You think that this is his economic strategy's fault?

That's a bad statement. It really is.

The issue is the Republicans are offering a "cutback" plan whereas the Democrats are offering "free" healthcare for all and no change. So just like a juvenile dependent, I expect the American people to ignore the potential blowback from the "Ostrich" plan and vote for their allowance to remain unchanged.

I find it hilarious that you talk about "forcing Obamacare down our throats without even reading the thing" and not pointing out that the "cutback plan" is a godawful abomination of an idea.

 sebster wrote:
Look, I don't mean to be blunt but what you've posted above is just really simplistic stuff. You said people need to do their homework, and that was great advice. Please just keep reading, and try not to get too committed to any ideology before you've been fully exposed to how the world works.

I'm not saying I agree with everything he posted, or that there should be a government salary cap at $80,000, but you need to do your homework sebster, if you think $80,000 a year is "low level management wages."

I'm not saying $80,000 a year for one person is extremely rich, but it's not "low" anything, especially when they get government benefits on top of it.