Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

So does anyone support Palin?

2456710

Posts

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Pheezer wrote: »
    is this literally just one of those party line things

    Partly.

    She's also a pro-life religious nutjob so the religious nutjob wing likes her.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Detharin wrote: »
    The sad, scary thing here is almost everyone is drinking some brand of Crazy-Aid. (it was actually flavor aid, not kool-aid. Since most of the country had no clue what flavor aid was the news just called it Kool-Aid, which is incorrect.)

    Seriously put the candidates and their VP's up there. All of the choices suck. Do you want Obama Crazy? Biden Crazy? McCain Crazy? Or Palin Crazy? All have their baggage, all have done some questionable shit, and all are going to fuck this country up in one way,shape, or form.

    So I support Palin, not because i agree with her on anything, but because I would like to wake up one morning after the state of the Union address completely hung over and be able to say "We only drank so the president would take her clothes off."

    ...have you not been paying much attention, or are you just being a contrarian?

    His middle "paragraph" there?

    Yea... I'm with him. I'm one of those terrible people who will not vote in two weeks. I'll go to the polls, and vote for Governor, Deputy Governor, Secretary of State, and the other positions up for election, but I'm not voting for president.

    If I don't believe in the candidate, I cannot in good conscience give them my vote.

    You don't believe in the platform of any of the numerous candidates for President? How is it that you can support a governor or anyone else, for that matter, who's running for office and isn't you?
    Edit: While we're talking about them individually, is there a reason we vote for President/VP and not for each one separately? We do so for Governor, and there's certainly nothing constitutionally binding a vote for both members at once.

    I'm just not sure why I couldn't say, vote McCain for President, and Biden for VP. Or hell, Obana for President, and Romney for VP. -shrug-

    12th amendment

    tea-1.jpg
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    If I don't believe in the candidate, I cannot in good conscience give them my vote.

    So instead of the guilt of responsibility you choose the deniability of inaction.

    Refusing to vote because you don't have a hard-on for a candidate is quite possibly the most retardedly ineffective form of civil disobedience this side of UC Berkeley.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Detharin wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »

    ...have you not been paying much attention, or are you just being a contrarian?

    I have been paying quite a bit of attention actually. Is their something you feel I have missed aside from my free cup of X candidate brand Crazy-Aid?

    So you're just being a contrarian, then. Gotcha.

    tea-1.jpg
  • Simon MoonSimon Moon Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    Edit: While we're talking about them individually, is there a reason we vote for President/VP and not for each one separately? We do so for Governor, and there's certainly nothing constitutionally binding a vote for both members at once.

    Yep.
    In addition, it was becoming increasingly apparent that a situation in which the Vice President had been a defeated electoral opponent of the President impeded the ability of the two to effectively work together, and could provide motivation, at least in theory, for a coup d'état (since the Vice President would succeed to the office of the President upon the removal or death of the President). The Twelfth Amendment, in having the President and Vice President elected as a ticket, eliminated this possibility.

    Steam: simon moon
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    moniker wrote: »

    So you're just being a contrarian, then. Gotcha.

    How can you be contrary when you agree with everyone that the other candidate sucks?

    I have 0 reason to vote for Obama, or McCain. They both piss me off in their own special ways. I do not think either of them is going to do a decent job, and i think whomever gets elected will fuck up this country is their own special way. On the VP front I don't like Biden, and I think Palins got serious issues.

    Which means the solution is simple, vote for someone else.

    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • SamSam Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Pheezer wrote: »
    WHO ARE THE REMAINING 51%???

    I believe only 39% actually find her favorable the others just left no opinion.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Detharin wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »

    So you're just being a contrarian, then. Gotcha.

    How can you be contrary when you agree with everyone that the other candidate sucks?

    I have 0 reason to vote for Obama, or McCain. They both piss me off in their own special ways. I do not think either of them is going to do a decent job, and i think whomever gets elected will fuck up this country is their own special way. On the VP front I don't like Biden, and I think Palins got serious issues.

    Which means the solution is simple, vote for someone else.

    So you are going to vote? Never mind.

    tea-1.jpg
  • Jealous DevaJealous Deva Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    My mother supports her, because she is "Down to earth, and knows what it's like to be a normal person". I don't really understand it, My mom doesn't really have the same personal believes as Palin.

    I've mentioned this in another thread (one of the earlier election threads I think)...

    A lot of us despise the current state of American politics. We hate that the most of the people holding office are politicians, and believe that those seats should be held by farmers, businessmen, soldiers, and "full-time" parents. To a lot of people, Palin is one of those non-politician politicians, and that's what they like.

    I'm not saying I agree that she is, but I think that's why a lot of people like her.


    So what you are saying is that rather than having the marginally qualified politicians we have now, people would rather have completely unqualified politicians?


    I've never gotten this. When Wall Street crashes no one calls for the CEO's of major companies to be replaced by short order cooks, why is it that when the nation has problems all of the sudden people think the perfect solution is to replace the people running it with random jackoffs off the street?


    Health care access in this country is at an alltime low, lets replace the doctors with auto mechanics!

  • King RiptorKing Riptor Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Fucking Ohio

    You know we all kid around and say this town needs to be fire bombed but I seriously think the world would be a better place if that town was fire bombed.

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited October 2008
    why is it that when the nation has problems all of the sudden people think the perfect solution is to replace the people running it with random jackoffs off the street?

    1) Different=Scary

    2) Stupid people don't realize how stupid they are

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    why is it that when the nation has problems all of the sudden people think the perfect solution is to replace the people running it with random jackoffs off the street?

    1) Different=Scary

    2) Stupid people don't realize how stupid they are

    They're bums, and we enjoy throwing bums out.

    They had a shot, they could'a been contenda's.

    tea-1.jpg
  • SamSam Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    MikeMan wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Pheezer wrote: »
    WHO ARE THE REMAINING 51%???

    Yeah.

    It's stats like that that make me want to fucking firebomb half the country to do the world a favor.

    That presumes 51% of the other people were decided. A lot of them are probably not paying attention. Also, she's at 60% negative with women.

    Stats like that, though.

    Like, there's still 20 something percent of the country that doesn't disapprove of the job Bush is doing or doesn't know enough to judge him. 20 SOMETHING PERCENT.

    That's millions and millions of clueless, ignorant, scary individuals, if the polls are to be believed. It's absolutely horrifying.

    There are people that actually hold the Clinton admin more responsible for the crisis than Bush.
    I have a friend (though I'm really getting to not want to talk to him after he went into republican self destruct mode in a manner that reflects the party itself) who made the argument against open mindedness, quoted verbatim from his dad who would "shut you down in debating cause he's so smart": Open mindedness is dangerous, cause if your mind is like your brain, and you don't have a top closing it anything will just fall in and out and you'll be in disarray but if you stick firmly with having a set mind you'll focus better.

    Also, we might need change but we can't just elect a radical muslim cause what if that change is socialism? Then we are all screwed forever.

  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    moniker wrote: »

    So you are going to vote? Never mind.

    Of course I am going to vote. How can i bitch about what whomever wins does unless I actively took steps to oppose them? Staying home and not voting is really the only bad move. Sure whomever I vote for is probably going to lose. However it bothers me that Americans do not vote.

    How else are you supposed to be able to say while the country goes to shit, "Don't blame me, I voted for Kotos."

    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • TalTal Registered User
    edited October 2008
    Pheezer wrote: »
    Your username is making me hungry.

    What the fuck is a PUMA?

    Kind of like a cougar, only younger. Pumas still have a bit of speed left in them. Maybe mid 30s.



    Yeah yeah, I know it was answered, but you guys dropped the ball on that one. But thanks for the serious answer. I missed out on that term.


    And something else I may have missed out on...

    I was driving to work this morning and I saw a McCain / Palin sign in a yard. Except this wasn't the typical general star theme sign I normally see. It was a red / blue horizontal stripe with the names McCain and Sarah.

    Did we move to a first name basis or something?

  • ShadowfireShadowfire Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    My mother supports her, because she is "Down to earth, and knows what it's like to be a normal person". I don't really understand it, My mom doesn't really have the same personal believes as Palin.

    I've mentioned this in another thread (one of the earlier election threads I think)...

    A lot of us despise the current state of American politics. We hate that the most of the people holding office are politicians, and believe that those seats should be held by farmers, businessmen, soldiers, and "full-time" parents. To a lot of people, Palin is one of those non-politician politicians, and that's what they like.

    I'm not saying I agree that she is, but I think that's why a lot of people like her.


    So what you are saying is that rather than having the marginally qualified politicians we have now, people would rather have completely unqualified politicians?


    I've never gotten this. When Wall Street crashes no one calls for the CEO's of major companies to be replaced by short order cooks, why is it that when the nation has problems all of the sudden people think the perfect solution is to replace the people running it with random jackoffs off the street?


    Health care access in this country is at an alltime low, lets replace the doctors with auto mechanics!

    So what the fuck do politicians know about such things?

    What I'm getting at is:

    Guy who knows what to say to get elected vs. guy who knows how to run a business.
    -Or-
    Guy who knows what to say to get elected vs. guy who knows what it takes to operate as a soldier.
    -Or-
    Woman who knows what to say to get elected vs. woman who knows what is required of farmers to plant, grow, and harvest crops.
    etc etc...

    Edit: And health care -access- in the country has little to do with the doctors, and more to do with the administrators and insurers. And, you know, the costs...

    steam_sig.png
    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Being able to get elected tends to come with such strange powers as Leadership, which is rather important in a democracy, where laws are passed by being able to talk people into doing things.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • KazhiimKazhiim __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2008
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    guy who knows how to run a business.
    -Or-
    guy who knows what it takes to operate as a soldier.
    -Or-
    woman who knows what is required of farmers to plant, grow, and harvest crops.
    etc etc...

    None of these people would make a good president. Maybe the business guy. He should stick to state politics.

    lost_sig2.png
  • ShadowfireShadowfire Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Kazhiim wrote: »
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    guy who knows how to run a business.
    -Or-
    guy who knows what it takes to operate as a soldier.
    -Or-
    woman who knows what is required of farmers to plant, grow, and harvest crops.
    etc etc...

    None of these people would make a good president. Maybe the business guy. He should stick to state politics.

    Why? More appropriately, how is someone who is a career politician more qualified to make decisions on how businesses should run than a businessman? Insert the same for the other fields mentioned.

    steam_sig.png
    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
  • JebusUDJebusUD Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    I don't care if your options are "Bin Laden vs. Stalin"

    I think I would vote Bin Laden.

    You haven't given me a reason to steer clear of you!
  • Jealous DevaJealous Deva Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    Kazhiim wrote: »
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    guy who knows how to run a business.
    -Or-
    guy who knows what it takes to operate as a soldier.
    -Or-
    woman who knows what is required of farmers to plant, grow, and harvest crops.
    etc etc...

    None of these people would make a good president. Maybe the business guy. He should stick to state politics.

    Why? More appropriately, how is someone who is a career politician more qualified to make decisions on how businesses should run than a businessman? Insert the same for the other fields mentioned.



    Maybe the fact that many of these career politicians happen to not only have years of experience actually running government as things like mayors, governors, cabinet members, legislators, etc? Or the fact that the vast majority of politicians are actually on their second career and have extensive exectutive experience being things like businessmen, military officers, attorneys, etc? Because you know you don't just get out of college as a poli sci major and run for congress.

    You seem to have this wierd idea that credentials and background currently have nothing to do with getting elected right now and everything is based on charisma alone, which is bunk, if it wasn't then all our politicians would be hollywood actors.

  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited October 2008

    You seem to have this wierd idea that credentials and background currently have nothing to do with getting elected right now and everything is based on charisma alone, which is bunk, if it wasn't then all our politicians would be holywood actors.

    It is an easy mistake to make consider both our current line up, and how our media seems to make it more a popularity contest than *gasp* actually focusing on the issues.

    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • Jealous DevaJealous Deva Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Detharin wrote: »

    You seem to have this wierd idea that credentials and background currently have nothing to do with getting elected right now and everything is based on charisma alone, which is bunk, if it wasn't then all our politicians would be holywood actors.

    It is an easy mistake to make consider both our current line up, and how our media seems to make it more a popularity contest than *gasp* actually focusing on the issues.

    ...

    Because no one in this election has brought up experience and qualifications on either side, and the media has absolutely not spent the last 3 months talking about the economy.

    I mean you never see polls on tv asking people how they feel about how a candidate is qualified to run foreign policy, the economy, the military, etc. That's totally not been an issue at all.


    Edit: Protip: No matter when you are reading this, someone on CNN, MSNBC, even Fox is talking about the issues. This has been the most issue-focused presidential election in years, with the most distinct candidate positions in years. If you really think that no one in this election has covered the issues and that this is an empty popularity contest, the problem isn't with the media, the problem is with YOU.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Ann Arbor, MichiganRegistered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Being able to get elected tends to come with such strange powers as Leadership, which is rather important in a democracy, where laws are passed by being able to talk people into doing things.

    And charisma and the ability to give a bitchin' speech converting people to your point of view so they bug their congresscritters to actually pass whatever is you want passed. And what not.

    Actual individual policy expertise is not the best thing to have in a President. What you want is a curious mind, quick learner, persuasive person with good judgment.

  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    ...

    Because no one in this election has brought up experience and qualifications on either side, and the media has absolutely not spent the last 3 months talking about the economy.

    I mean you never see polls on tv asking people how they feel about how a candidate is qualified to run foreign policy, the economy, the military, etc. That's totally not been an issue at all.


    Edit: Protip: No matter when you are reading this, someone on CNN, MSNBC, even Fox is talking about the issues. This has been the most issue-focused presidential election in years, with the most distinct candidate positions in years. If you really think that no one in this election has covered the issues and that this is an empty popularity contest, the problem isn't with the media, the problem is with YOU.

    After researching both candidates, listened to the media bullshit gets real old real quick when all you get are feel good platitudes. Show me what you want to do, and where your going to get the money. Frankly all ive heard from both sides is how wonderful they are, how shitty the other guys is, smoke, and mirrors. Which one is planning to balance the budget?

    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • ED!ED! Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Richy wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Supposedly she has a 49% negative rating, which is a record high for VP candidates.
    All the analysis I've read recently say Palin hurt McCain's chances more than anything else during the election. including McCain's support for Bush. Voters are actually more troubled by McCain's relation to Palin than to his relation to Bush.

    I mean, at least Bush has remained hidden away during the election so as not to hurt McCain. Palin has been front-center, and McCain has to spend more time each day cleaning up her messes than actually campaigning.

    What the hell? Where are you getting this from? Seriously.
    Refusing to vote because you don't have a hard-on for a candidate is quite possibly the most retardedly ineffective form of civil disobedience this side of UC Berkeley.

    I'm sorry but thats ridiculous. Sure no one is going to know they didn't vote - except for themselves. Reason and motive enough for me. Where does it say that a person has to buy into what either party is selling? That's why you get all this "lesser of two evils" bullshit, with folks convincing themselves that the choice they are making is the right choice.

    "Get the hell out of me" - [ex]girlfriend
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Ann Arbor, MichiganRegistered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Detharin wrote: »
    ...

    Because no one in this election has brought up experience and qualifications on either side, and the media has absolutely not spent the last 3 months talking about the economy.

    I mean you never see polls on tv asking people how they feel about how a candidate is qualified to run foreign policy, the economy, the military, etc. That's totally not been an issue at all.


    Edit: Protip: No matter when you are reading this, someone on CNN, MSNBC, even Fox is talking about the issues. This has been the most issue-focused presidential election in years, with the most distinct candidate positions in years. If you really think that no one in this election has covered the issues and that this is an empty popularity contest, the problem isn't with the media, the problem is with YOU.

    After researching both candidates, listened to the media bullshit gets real old real quick when all you get are feel good platitudes. Show me what you want to do, and where your going to get the money. Frankly all ive heard from both sides is how wonderful they are, how shitty the other guys is, smoke, and mirrors. Which one is planning to balance the budget?

    Neither because balancing the budget in a recession is really really dumb. A recession is when you need the government spending like a drunken sailor to trigger economic growth. Of course McCain lies about this, or is a neo-Hooverite. It's not entirely clear which one.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Ann Arbor, MichiganRegistered User regular
    edited October 2008
    ED! wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Supposedly she has a 49% negative rating, which is a record high for VP candidates.
    All the analysis I've read recently say Palin hurt McCain's chances more than anything else during the election. including McCain's support for Bush. Voters are actually more troubled by McCain's relation to Palin than to his relation to Bush.

    I mean, at least Bush has remained hidden away during the election so as not to hurt McCain. Palin has been front-center, and McCain has to spend more time each day cleaning up her messes than actually campaigning.

    What the hell? Where are you getting this from? Seriously.

    The write up of the latest NBC/WSJ poll, which says this:
    Now, Palin’s qualifications to be president rank as voters’ top concern about McCain’s candidacy - ahead of continuing President Bush’s policies, enacting economic policies that only benefit the rich and keeping too high of a troop presence in Iraq.

  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Neither because balancing the budget in a recession is really really dumb. A recession is when you need the government spending like a drunken sailor to trigger economic growth. Of course McCain lies about this, or is a neo-Hooverite. It's not entirely clear which one.

    We would not be in a recession if not for the completely shitty policies of previous years democrat and republican alike. Quick how do we get out of this hole, i know Lets spend our way out!

    Why are we in a housing crisis? Let see, policies to loosen lending to people that we knew could not afford them. However one party wanted to put people in homes, even if they could not afford them. Hey lets go invade iraq, why? No one is really sure these days, heck the one thing we do know is that it was not WMD's.

    However lets just gloss over everyone's little fuckups and listen as the party line screams things will be better. What is going to happen is things are going to get worse, and then things are going to make a large amount of people unhappy. Who we vote for is largely going to determine who is miserable, but neither side is going to make anyone happy.

    But at least we can drink until Palin gets naked right?

    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2008
    I feel that, ironically, my atheist, anti-gay rights, anti-choice father typifies why the people that like Palin. He likes how "feisty" and "forward" and "honest" she is.

    Spoiler:
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Ann Arbor, MichiganRegistered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Detharin wrote: »
    Neither because balancing the budget in a recession is really really dumb. A recession is when you need the government spending like a drunken sailor to trigger economic growth. Of course McCain lies about this, or is a neo-Hooverite. It's not entirely clear which one.

    We would not be in a recession if not for the completely shitty policies of previous years democrat and republican alike. Quick how do we get out of this hole, i know Lets spend our way out!

    Why are we in a housing crisis? Let see, policies to loosen lending to people that we knew could not afford them. However one party wanted to put people in homes, even if they could not afford them. Hey lets go invade iraq, why? No one is really sure these days, heck the one thing we do know is that it was not WMD's.

    However lets just gloss over everyone's little fuckups and listen as the party line screams things will be better. What is going to happen is things are going to get worse, and then things are going to make a large amount of people unhappy. Who we vote for is largely going to determine who is miserable, but neither side is going to make anyone happy.

    But at least we can drink until Palin gets naked right?

    Simple (not entirely well versed in economics) version:

    Recessions fucking suck. However, Depressions suck more. So you try to avoid that.

    Now, a key aspect of a recession/depression is that people aren't making as much money anymore. So they can't afford to have as many workers. Who then can't buy things. So people make less money and you get a damn death spiral without some kind of outside force.

    Add to that that a lot of states have balanced budget amendments where they have to balance the budget and a ton of state based services are going to be horribly underfunded. The same story applies to county and municipal governments. This is a bad bad situation.

    Now the federal government has two options at this point. It can 1) do what Hoover did and rely on the business cycle to eventually bring us out of the problem. 2) It can intervene, giving a ton of money to state/local governments, commissioning public works projects to get people working, cut taxes on the people who will turn around and spend that money, etc etc etc.

    Now, we have empirical evidence for what these two options do. Option 1 leads to the worst depression in the country's history. Option 2 when in the midst of said depression stabilized it and then made things better, but by no means great. The goal here is to intervene before shit gets really bad so the whole depression thing doesn't happen.

    And yeah, it's going to cost a lot of money. And yeah, this will add to the debt. And yeah, this is the result of the stupid policies of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, and Congress for the last 30 years. However, the immediate thing to do is to fix the crisis so we don't have a (more) serious catastrophe. The nice thing about the intervention is that this country desperately needs infrastructure improvements. We need broadband internet access through the country, we need to fix our bridges and roads, we really need to create a meaningful passenger rail service. These kinds of things can kick start a bad economy.

    Meanwhile, we're going to have solve the nation's larger problems. The biggest of these things is without a doubt our reliance on a fossil fuel energy economy. So we need to invest in and incentivize green technologies. The nice thing about doing this is that clean energy is the next big boom industry. Much like IT in the 90s and the first half of this decade, green companies can drive the country ahead for a decade or more. We also need to fix our shameful health care system. There are reasonably simple things to dramatically improve efficiencies (getting medical records digitized, for example), but there are also larger fairness issues we're going to have to work out. And I won't even start on education as I could write about that, but suffice to stay it has to be improved, I think the Democrats (well, specifically Obama) have better (though by no means perfect) ideas to improve it.

    All of this, yes, costs money. The idea is to prime the pump so to speak with government incentives to develop the new green industries and improving our health care system so we're not spending so much per patient and investing in students so that we have an educated, productive work force to invent these green technologies. Then at that point, you have a much better situation where you can work on balancing the budget and saving us from the debt our parents and grandparents have racked up in our names. But our fundamental problems have to come first or it's meaningless.

    EDIT: If it's not obvious that's my domestic case for Obama.

  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2008
    Detharin wrote: »
    Neither because balancing the budget in a recession is really really dumb. A recession is when you need the government spending like a drunken sailor to trigger economic growth. Of course McCain lies about this, or is a neo-Hooverite. It's not entirely clear which one.

    We would not be in a recession if not for the completely shitty policies of previous years democrat and republican alike. Quick how do we get out of this hole, i know Lets spend our way out!

    Why are we in a housing crisis? Let see, policies to loosen lending to people that we knew could not afford them. However one party wanted to put people in homes, even if they could not afford them. Hey lets go invade iraq, why? No one is really sure these days, heck the one thing we do know is that it was not WMD's.

    However lets just gloss over everyone's little fuckups and listen as the party line screams things will be better. What is going to happen is things are going to get worse, and then things are going to make a large amount of people unhappy. Who we vote for is largely going to determine who is miserable, but neither side is going to make anyone happy.

    But at least we can drink until Palin gets naked right?

    And with this you prove that you know nothing about Keynesian economics or the housing markets. Bravo,good sir, bravo.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • DalbozDalboz Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Detharin wrote: »
    Neither because balancing the budget in a recession is really really dumb. A recession is when you need the government spending like a drunken sailor to trigger economic growth. Of course McCain lies about this, or is a neo-Hooverite. It's not entirely clear which one.

    We would not be in a recession if not for the completely shitty policies of previous years democrat and republican alike. Quick how do we get out of this hole, i know Lets spend our way out!

    Why are we in a housing crisis? Let see, policies to loosen lending to people that we knew could not afford them. However one party wanted to put people in homes, even if they could not afford them. Hey lets go invade iraq, why? No one is really sure these days, heck the one thing we do know is that it was not WMD's.

    However lets just gloss over everyone's little fuckups and listen as the party line screams things will be better. What is going to happen is things are going to get worse, and then things are going to make a large amount of people unhappy. Who we vote for is largely going to determine who is miserable, but neither side is going to make anyone happy.

    But at least we can drink until Palin gets naked right?

    And with this you prove that you know nothing about Keynesian economics or the housing markets. Bravo,good sir, bravo.

    No, flooding the market with cheap money right now will at best be putting on a band-aid after you cut off your arm. It will just lead to further devaluation of the dollar for something that really does need to cycle itself out for us to truly come out of it. The New Deal only gave a slight ease to the economy during the Depression. What actually brought us out of it was mobilizing for WWII.

  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Stuff

    The problem comes in that we are now a global economy, where as in previous recessions we were much less integrated into the world market. We dump money at the problem, we weaken the only recently strengthening dollar. The bail out of freddie and fannie was more to reestablish foreign faith in our market than anything else. Hell the fact that banks are so leery to lend, even to each other is a sure sign to everyone that shit has already hit the fan. They are already talking another tax refund, and we saw how well that fixed things. Lets dump money at it. We are headed toward recession and its driving the world ahead of us. We really need to reestablish confidence in the market, the last thing we want to do is weaken the dollar right now.

    The truth is we need to buckle down and get ready for a recession. The shitty policies of both democrats and republicans of the last 30 years is what lead us to where we are. Sure you want to start taking that money and putting people to work upgrading our infrastructure. That would be great except at this point people are expecting a check, not a shit job for a check. Hell i REALLY wish we could do it. It might drive the work ethic we need back into some people.

    However the solution we need is not to tax the rich and throw money at the poor. We need to support business, tighten our belts, and weather the storm. That is really more of a republican agenda. That is not a endorsement of McCain, as i do not endorse him. Aside from the Obama-aid I've seen little from him that impresses me. I do not feel either candidate is the man for the job.

    Anyway I'm to tired to write a long term economic plan right now. The short is we need to focus on stimulating business, while moving to get people working as soon as possible, and avoid just printing money to throw at the problem.

    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    My mother supports her, because she is "Down to earth, and knows what it's like to be a normal person". I don't really understand it, My mom doesn't really have the same personal believes as Palin.

    I've mentioned this in another thread (one of the earlier election threads I think)...

    A lot of us despise the current state of American politics. We hate that the most of the people holding office are politicians, and believe that those seats should be held by farmers, businessmen, soldiers, and "full-time" parents. To a lot of people, Palin is one of those non-politician politicians, and that's what they like.

    I'm not saying I agree that she is, but I think that's why a lot of people like her.

    Tell her you want nobody but the greatest minds in the country ruling. Only smart people should be president.

    steam_sig.png
  • MrIamMeMrIamMe Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Oh god I hope Palin wins.

    I'll sit across the ocean and get even more giggles than the bush era!

    American people = nice
    American politicians = funnier than comedy channel

    The enemy of my enemy is my cannon-fodder, we are NOT friends.
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Pheezer wrote: »
    Who sees Palin speaking and agrees that she's fit to be president?

    Oh that's right I went to President. Because there's a good chance that she'd find herself holding the reins at some point. Is she qualified to be president?

    If the President's doctors can keep Dick Cheney, whose heart has a dozen scars on it already, alive as VP for eight years, they'll make sure McCain lasts at least four. Back in 1999, did anyone here really expect Cheney would make it the whole way through?

    Angryspider2_zps663851d1.jpg
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited October 2008
    MrIamMe wrote: »
    Oh god I hope Palin wins.

    I'll sit across the ocean and get even more giggles than the bush era!

    American people = nice
    American politicians = funnier than comedy channel

    Unless you live in a hut already, I assure you, you do not want 8 more years of America's Funniest Politicians.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    No shit... it stops being schadenfreude and starts being masochism when we take you down with us.

    "Adios, mofo" -- TX Gov Rick Perry (R)
  • SamSam Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Pheezer wrote: »
    Who sees Palin speaking and agrees that she's fit to be president?

    Oh that's right I went to President. Because there's a good chance that she'd find herself holding the reins at some point. Is she qualified to be president?

    If the President's doctors can keep Dick Cheney, whose heart has a dozen scars on it already, alive as VP for eight years, they'll make sure McCain lasts at least four. Back in 1999, did anyone here really expect Cheney would make it the whole way through?

    Cheney wasn't 72 and hasn't gone through any significant physical trauma in his lifetime.

This discussion has been closed.