Support NeoGAF

[Mardak]

It also establishes and enforces safety regulations and protocols for airplanes and equipment installed on airplanes.

The libertarian position is to privatize where airlines have incentives to keep their passengers alive and airports have incentives to make sure airlines aren't doing dangerous things. Would you want to work as a pilot or flight attendant for an airline that didn't make sure its planes are safe?

And again, those are the positions and why things wouldn't just go crazy in the air.
But do you think Ron Paul would go in day one and say "Nope! No more FAA!".

Ron Paul cares about fixing the economy and cutting back government spending, and eliminating or privatizing the FAA is so low on the list with little gain when compared to reducing military spending.

 

[empty vessel]

The Size of the US Public Debt: Are the rating agencies fools or knaves?
John Weeks

It is quite possible that you believe that the US public debt is quite large. You may even think that it is dangerously large, as in "unsettling financial markets". If you harbor these beliefs it may come as a surprise that the public debt is not very large, and by any rational calculation the "burden" it imposes is tiny. ...

To summarize, when we take out what the federal government owes itself, the US public debt is a smaller proportion of GDP than the same debt measure for any other major developed country. Indeed, it is so low that it is no problem. When other obvious calculations are made, net instead of gross, public bonds held by local and state governments, you have to think, where is the problem? ...

Ah, but the problem is not the size of the debt, say the neo-Scroogians. The problem is servicing it, paying the interest. Not much a problem for the United States, I fear, as the table below shows clearly. Of the five largest developed countries, payments on the gross debt as a percentage of GDP was higher only than for Japan. By contrast, putatively frugal German government paid out considerably more than the United States Treasury, and France and the United Kingdom were far above. Even more, the interest on the net debt was just one percent of US GDP in 2010. ...

The US government is not and never has failed to meet its financial debt obligations. The obligations it has flagrantly failed to meet are providing for the education and health of its population, repairing the country's public infrastructure, and preventing state and local governments from going bankrupt, thus reducing or eliminating their ability to do their social duty. The false claims of federal default are the mechanism by which the rich and powerful, aided by the rating agencies, will further enforce the real default on social and economic justice for people in the United States of America. That is the "message" of the downgrade.​

 

[threenote]

would

 

[Oblivion]

would

For Bachshit's level of insanity, she needs to be at least 20 years younger and 4 cup sizes bustier for me to consider plowin her.

 

[Vestal]

would

Image might be a bit much given the changes in policy around here.

However the guy standing next to her, seems to be enjoying what he is seeing...

 

[empty vessel]

The libertarian position is to privatize where airlines have incentives to keep their passengers alive and airports have incentives to make sure airlines aren't doing dangerous things.

I don't understand what this has to do with air traffic control.

 

[Clevinger]

Can we stop with that fucking pic already?

 

[cartoon_soldier]

The Size of the US Public Debt: Are the rating agencies fools or knaves?
John Weeks

It is quite possible that you believe that the US public debt is quite large. You may even think that it is dangerously large, as in "unsettling financial markets". If you harbor these beliefs it may come as a surprise that the public debt is not very large, and by any rational calculation the "burden" it imposes is tiny. ...

To summarize, when we take out what the federal government owes itself, the US public debt is a smaller proportion of GDP than the same debt measure for any other major developed country. Indeed, it is so low that it is no problem. When other obvious calculations are made, net instead of gross, public bonds held by local and state governments, you have to think, where is the problem? ...

Ah, but the problem is not the size of the debt, say the neo-Scroogians. The problem is servicing it, paying the interest. Not much a problem for the United States, I fear, as the table below shows clearly. Of the five largest developed countries, payments on the gross debt as a percentage of GDP was higher only than for Japan. By contrast, putatively frugal German government paid out considerably more than the United States Treasury, and France and the United Kingdom were far above. Even more, the interest on the net debt was just one percent of US GDP in 2010. ...

The US government is not and never has failed to meet its financial debt obligations. The obligations it has flagrantly failed to meet are providing for the education and health of its population, repairing the country's public infrastructure, and preventing state and local governments from going bankrupt, thus reducing or eliminating their ability to do their social duty. The false claims of federal default are the mechanism by which the rich and powerful, aided by the rating agencies, will further enforce the real default on social and economic justice for people in the United States of America. That is the "message" of the downgrade.​

The European nations also have a greater debt as a percentage of GDP and Per Capita. I wouldn't say the US debt is nothing to be tackled, but the establishment and media have talked themselves into believing that reducing the deficit is the answer to everything.

 

[sc0la]

The libertarian position is to privatize where airlines have incentives to keep their passengers alive and airports have incentives to make sure airlines aren't doing dangerous things. Would you want to work as a pilot or flight attendant for an airline that didn't make sure its planes are safe?

They only have an incentive for safety in so much as it doesn't negatively affect their profits.

The fallacy is that the safest actions are always the most profitable, they are not. To the extent they could be systemically unsafe and maintain profits they would probably do so. Indeed they would have a responsibility to their shareholders to do so.

 

[xxxstylzxxx]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2011/08/Corndog1-384x288.jpg[IMG]


would[/QUOTE]

Just don't expect to get it back.

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

"Would you like to know more?"

Hahahahaha. I love it.

 

[Wall]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/opinion/sunday/Friedman-a-theory-of-everyting-sort-of.html

I really like this editorial. It kind of explains why unemployment may never reach such low levels again. Basically there's too many people to do the jobs that need to be done. Basic industries like farming and manufacturing once employed so many more people, but because of technological advances they can be done much more efficiently with newer methods and machines. There's a recent article that Flextronics, the company that builds iPads and iPhones is going to be putting in 1,000,000 machines in the next few years and laying off tens of thousands of their workers.

That leaves the service sector, but without easy credit and bubbles, what kind of jobs can you do that don't produce anything? There of course will always be a large service sector, but with a burgeoning population and advances in efficiency due to technology, it seems like there will always be a surplus of people vs. jobs that need to be filled.

Tom Friedman.............

When this country was founded the vast majority of people were farmers or engaged in agricultural work in some way. Now, the percentage of the work force engaged in agriculture is under 5 percent. The above article easily could have been written during the time when we were making the transition from an agricultural to an industrial workforce - and it would have been as wrong then as it is now. What actually happened was that, as jobs on farms began to disappear new jobs in the industrial economy were created. A similar thing will happen, and has been happening, as we have transitioned away from an economy where the majority of the workforce was engaged in manufacturing to where the majority of the workforce was engaged in service jobs. The transition Friedman is talking about is not new, its been ongoing since the seventies.

Here is the unemployment rate since the end of WW2:

Notice how we manged to have relatively low unemployment during the post war era, after we underwent the transition from an agricultural to an industrial economy.

Also, notice how we managed to have lower unemployment even during the 90's and 00's, after we started to undergo the transition to a service sector economy.

Here is a graph the proportion of the civilian population that is employed. It undermines Thomas Friedman's point even further.

Notice how the proportion of the population working actually jumped during the 80's and 90's, when the transition from an industrial to service economy was ongoing and the economy was becoming increasingly globalized. If Friedman's thesis were correct, the proportion of Americans employed during this time would have shrunk. (the change was due to an for two incomes to support a family and changing social values regarding the role of woman)

Finally, and most disturbingly, Friedman is factually incorrect here:

Tom Friedman ....... governments no longer can afford generous welfare support or cheap credit to be used to buy a home for nothing down — which created a lot of manual labor in construction and retail. Alas, for the 50 years after World War II, to be a president, mayor, governor or university president meant, more often than not, giving things away to people. Today, it means taking things away from people.

and here

So let’s review: We are increasingly taking easy credit

Interest rates on mortgages are at historic lows, as are interest rates in general. The programs the U.S. government involves itself in to support home-ownership constitute a tiny portion of the Federal budget, and the forces keeping interest rates low mostly don't even involve government spending. Interest rates are low because there is little demand for new borrowing and the Federal reserve is keeping the interest rates on its lending at zero. That doesn't have anything to do with what the government can and cannot afford.

 

[KHarvey16]

The libertarian position is to privatize where airlines have incentives to keep their passengers alive and airports have incentives to make sure airlines aren't doing dangerous things. Would you want to work as a pilot or flight attendant for an airline that didn't make sure its planes are safe?

And again, those are the positions and why things wouldn't just go crazy in the air.
But do you think Ron Paul would go in day one and say "Nope! No more FAA!".

Ron Paul cares about fixing the economy and cutting back government spending, and eliminating or privatizing the FAA is so low on the list with little gain when compared to reducing military spending.

So if I make airplanes, or if I make TV's that go on the backs of seats in airplanes, or equipment that controls the engine on an airplane, I have to make certification with every individual airline a part of my design process? What if what I make doesn't go on planes that are operated by airlines? I now have to get certified by who? And how could self-certification ever be acceptable?

I'm not concerned with what kind of priority it is. Whether it's a top priority or something a libertarian would do when he's done with everything else, it's still a terrible, unworkable idea. And when that terrible, unworkable idea is the logical conclusion of a particular ideology, it should cause someone to question at least some portion of that ideology.

 

[Mardak]

I don't understand what this has to do with air traffic control.

KHarvey16 was pointing out that Nav Canada only handled Air Traffic and was asking about the other responsibilities of the FAA.

But even looking at just air traffic, would an airport want landings and take-offs to be a free-for-all where one airplane from one airline is so close to another? Private property is another core idea for libertarians, and airlines that don't follow safety rules set by the airport can be kicked out by the airport not only from the runway but from the terminals, check-in counters, baggage claim, etc.

 

[Ether_Snake]

The Size of the US Public Debt: Are the rating agencies fools or knaves?
John Weeks

It is quite possible that you believe that the US public debt is quite large. You may even think that it is dangerously large, as in "unsettling financial markets". If you harbor these beliefs it may come as a surprise that the public debt is not very large, and by any rational calculation the "burden" it imposes is tiny. ...

To summarize, when we take out what the federal government owes itself, the US public debt is a smaller proportion of GDP than the same debt measure for any other major developed country. Indeed, it is so low that it is no problem. When other obvious calculations are made, net instead of gross, public bonds held by local and state governments, you have to think, where is the problem? ...

Ah, but the problem is not the size of the debt, say the neo-Scroogians. The problem is servicing it, paying the interest. Not much a problem for the United States, I fear, as the table below shows clearly. Of the five largest developed countries, payments on the gross debt as a percentage of GDP was higher only than for Japan. By contrast, putatively frugal German government paid out considerably more than the United States Treasury, and France and the United Kingdom were far above. Even more, the interest on the net debt was just one percent of US GDP in 2010. ...

The US government is not and never has failed to meet its financial debt obligations. The obligations it has flagrantly failed to meet are providing for the education and health of its population, repairing the country's public infrastructure, and preventing state and local governments from going bankrupt, thus reducing or eliminating their ability to do their social duty. The false claims of federal default are the mechanism by which the rich and powerful, aided by the rating agencies, will further enforce the real default on social and economic justice for people in the United States of America. That is the "message" of the downgrade.​

This one is good too:

Obama and the Weimar Republic:
"History does not repeat itself, but it can rhyme"

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

Begun it has

He looks like Charlie Sheen.

 

[Dude Abides]

Hur hur hur Michele Bachmann eating a corn dog! I'd let her eat MY corn dog hur hur hur.

 

[Oblivion]

Also,

The Chronicles of Poligaf, the Mormon, the Witch, and the Warmonger

Really? No one else liked this?

 

[Hylian7]

would

If she uses her teeth like that on other things, than NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPE.

Just something else to add to the list of things I wouldn't want Michelle Bachmann doing, with "Being in the White House" on the top.

 

[speculawyer]

Personally, I'd like to see a pantheist President.

Bill Moyers 2016!

 

[Clevinger]

Hur hur hur Michele Bachmann eating a corn dog! I'd let her eat MY corn dog hur hur hur.

hur hur, sure looks like she's enjoying it, hur hur hur

 

[Ether_Snake]

BTW guys I wrote about how I think the US economy should be turned around here:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=30086237&postcount=9041

Basically, there should be a lot of focus on de-urbanization. Technology allows people to work away from the cities. This is vital to increase demand and balance the economy away from the property market.

When you live away from the city, you need to build your own, figuratively speaking. This creates demand, and leads to creativity, innovation, and emancipation.

If demand rises significantly, then production capacity will have to rise to meet demand to reach optimal productivity levels, and to raise production capacity you need spending. This leads to inflation and a strong economy. This is what the US government should be focused on when it comes to spending.

 

[Mardak]

I have to make certification with every individual airline a part of my design process?

If that's what you want to do, then sure. But you seem pretty smart and would try to streamline the process and gain an advantage over other competitors in the market. You would push for some standard or common baseline that multiple airlines would approve of.

Or perhaps you would work with the airplane manufacturers directly where they can approve of your TVs and when the airplane is sold to individual airlines, the airplane company will take care of reaching out to airlines as they would have needed to when finding customers. "Safe planes with built in entertainment!"

What if what I make doesn't go on planes that are operated by airlines? I now have to get certified by who? And how could self-certification ever be acceptable?

Certification for what exactly? Electromagnetic radiation properties? Unless you're the only person making TVs, there are likely existing standards that other TV manufacturers follow. Customers buy from retail stores like Best Buy, and Best Buy by proxy purchases the TVs in bulk from TV companies based on their qualities.

 

[quaere]

The libertarian position is to privatize where airlines have incentives to keep their passengers alive and airports have incentives to make sure airlines aren't doing dangerous things. Would you want to work as a pilot or flight attendant for an airline that didn't make sure its planes are safe?

And again, those are the positions and why things wouldn't just go crazy in the air.
But do you think Ron Paul would go in day one and say "Nope! No more FAA!".

Ron Paul cares about fixing the economy and cutting back government spending, and eliminating or privatizing the FAA is so low on the list with little gain when compared to reducing military spending.

Reality...plane crash...

Airline - it was the plane!
Airline manufacturer - it was the engine!
Engine manufacturer - commissions a study with an "independent" corporation to conduct an "investigation".
"Independent" report - it was due to faulty parts manufactured by a contractor in Mexico.
Engine manufacturer - "We take safety very seriously and have fired this contractor and put into place strict standards for our new contractor."
Public/flight crew - very confused, keep on flying, no one takes any responsibility.

 

[RustyNails]

Also,



Really? No one else liked this?

I think that's good for next year, because their chronicling won't really kick into gear by at least by February 2012. Poligaf 2012: Chronicles of the Mormon, the Witch, the Warmonger and their quest for Teabags

 

[maximum360]

Can we stop with that fucking pic already?

Agreed.

 

[Oblivion]

I think that's good for next year, because their chronicling won't really kick into gear by at least by February 2012. Poligaf 2012: Chronicles of the Mormon, the Witch, the Warmonger and their quest for Teabags

I can always count on you, Rusty. <3

 

[Nerevar]

When you live away from the city, you need to build your own, figuratively speaking. This creates demand, and leads to creativity, innovation, and emancipation.

Can you please elaborate on what you mean by "when you live away from the city you need to build your own"? Because to me that seems to make absolutely no sense. The world is become dramatically more urban as time moves forward, de-urbanizing is generally a point brought up by agriculturists who believe we should reject technology and live in the country growing our own food.

 

[TacticalFox88]

I think that's good for next year, because their chronicling won't really kick into gear by at least by February 2012. Poligaf 2012: Chronicles of the Mormon, the Witch, the Warmonger and their quest for Teabags

I take credit for starting it. You guys just finished it.

 

[Mardak]

Reality...plane crash...

Airline - it was the FAA! They're supposed to have done the work for me
Plane manufacturer - it was the FAA! I only purchased parts that the FAA approved
Engine manufacturer - I was just following FAA guidelines!

Solution? Give FAA more money so each individual part of the process can offload even more blame. But we'll likely just get more bureaucracy.

 

[KHarvey16]

If that's what you want to do, then sure. But you seem pretty smart and would try to streamline the process and gain an advantage over other competitors in the market. You would push for some standard or common baseline that multiple airlines would approve of.

Or perhaps you would work with the airplane manufacturers directly where they can approve of your TVs and when the airplane is sold to individual airlines, the airplane company will take care of reaching out to airlines as they would have needed to when finding customers. "Safe planes with built in entertainment!"

So essentially the manufacturers will regulate themselves? When you introduce a profit side of the equation into safety, you get a simple calculation. Is the probability and cost of x happening worth spending y? That's a great calculation for a business looking to make money, but a shitty one for the guy on the plane where x happens.

Certification for what exactly? Electromagnetic radiation properties? Unless you're the only person making TVs, there are likely existing standards that other TV manufacturers follow. Customers buy from retail stores like Best Buy, and Best Buy by proxy purchases the TVs in bulk from TV companies based on their qualities.

The differences between a TV in your living room and a TV in an airplane are too numerous to list, all driven by there being a completely different set of applicable standards in place. What does a TV in a seat do when the plane is hit by lightning? The manufacturer must consider that in the design phase and must test that for certification. The electromagnetic radiation you mention is another area where requirements are completely different. To put it mildly things cannot radiate inside an airplane as much as they can in your home.

In the case of a piece of equipment that actually matters in the context of flight safety(and there are hundreds of such pieces of equipment, from the engine controls to the avionics to the fuel pumps), there is nothing analogous in the consumer world. It's all specialized for its given job and, like everything else, for the necessary environmental and safety requirements. The application of these requirements cannot be a matter of dollars and cents.

 

[Sinoox]

Why anyone would want Obama to get reelected is beyond me. Where is the change we were promised? Things are exactly the same... wait no they're worse! He's blatantly disobeyed the constitution time and time again, gone against his own word to the people and continues to spread these pointless wars.

America wants a real difference, that's why they voted Obama. The only way they're going to get real change is by supporting Ron's message to begin changing the philosophy of government. It's just sad that you group him in with all the other politicians and give a completely illegitimate reason for not voting for him. Watch a few things on Paul, don't eat the bullshit the media gives you. They're dishonest and bias, they've admitted it themselves.

If America can't wake up and understand the importance of following the guidelines our founding fathers put forth then we really do deserve to go bankrupt and collapse. I want no part of a country so stubborn and reckless.

 

[Mike M]

Airline - it was the FAA! They're supposed to have done the work for me
Plane manufacturer - it was the FAA! I only purchased parts that the FAA approved
Engine manufacturer - I was just following FAA guidelines!

Solution? Give FAA more money so each individual part of the process can offload even more blame. But we'll likely just get more bureaucracy.

It's almost as though you're unaware that airplane crashes are not strictly hypothetical constructs...

 

[ToxicAdam]

Let them all expire ... 60 percent of America would pay less than 3 dollars a day.

 

[besada]

Bill Moyers 2016!

Is Moyers pantheistic? I was thinking of reanimating Walt Whitman. I'd vote for Moyers regardless of his religious beliefs.

 

[RustyNails]

Airline - it was the FAA! They're supposed to have done the work for me
Plane manufacturer - it was the FAA! I only purchased parts that the FAA approved
Engine manufacturer - I was just following FAA guidelines!

Solution? Give FAA more money so each individual part of the process can offload even more blame. But we'll likely just get more bureaucracy.

Really, plane crashes are blamed on FAA? Can you show me the error rate of FAA, and number of plane crashes that occurred due to people just following FAA guidelines? I doubt it's more than a handful. FAA can't be held responsible for engine failures and human errors. In fact, FAA is probably the most pro-active government body when it comes to following guidelines and safety regulations for airplanes.

It's almost as though you're unaware that airplane crashes are not strictly hypothetical constructs...

You will hit this wall while arguing with any Libertarian. Trust me, I've had my share of experiences. By now, I just play along.

 

[Macam]

Tom Friedman.............

Fun fact: Even at $5 a pop for his two most popular books via a special deal on Amazon's Kindle versions, I couldn't be bothered to spend the money, let alone the time, to read through Friedman's tripe. The guy is so in love with himself that, being in New York, the man just needs to come out and marry himself.

And I can't believe we're arguing this libertarian nonsense again. Ron Paul cares about fixing the economy? Ron Paul cares about Ron Paul. Why, you could say he has Friedman syndrome.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Why anyone would want Obama to get reelected is beyond me. Where is the change we were promised? Things are exactly the same... wait no they're worse! He's blatantly disobeyed the constitution time and time again, gone against his own word to the people and continues to spread these pointless wars.

America wants a real difference, that's why they voted Obama. The only way they're going to get real change is by supporting Ron's message to begin changing the philosophy of government. It's just sad that you group him in with all the other politicians and give a completely illegitimate reason for not voting for him. Watch a few things on Paul, don't eat the bullshit the media gives you. They're dishonest and bias, they've admitted it themselves.

If America can't wake up and understand the importance of following the guidelines our founding fathers put forth then we really do deserve to go bankrupt and collapse. I want no part of a country so stubborn and reckless.

Kind of hard to change a country who willfully accepts ignorance.

 

[besada]

It's almost as though you're unaware that airplane crashes are not strictly hypothetical constructs...

Like all libertarians, he's sure the market will solve all those problems once a few hundred people are killed by them. Someday I'll meet a libertarian that doesn't sound like every other libertarian I've met. Someday.

 

[quaere]

Airline - it was the FAA! They're supposed to have done the work for me
Plane manufacturer - it was the FAA! I only purchased parts that the FAA approved
Engine manufacturer - I was just following FAA guidelines!
FAA - you're suspended from flying, morons.

Fixed.

One of these scenarios results in this not happening again. One of them uses the free market to choose safe airlines, and works on the third crash, maybe, after avenues for deflecting and obfuscating blame have been exhausted.

 

[speculawyer]

He looks like Charlie Sheen.

His reasoning is pretty much on par with Charlie Sheen as well.

 

[speculawyer]

Airline - it was the FAA! They're supposed to have done the work for me
Plane manufacturer - it was the FAA! I only purchased parts that the FAA approved
Engine manufacturer - I was just following FAA guidelines!

Solution? Give FAA more money so each individual part of the process can offload even more blame. But we'll likely just get more bureaucracy.

That is absolutely the most pathetic thing I've read lately. Seriously dude, get real.

 

[Nerevar]

Why anyone would want Obama to get reelected is beyond me. Where is the change we were promised? Things are exactly the same... wait no they're worse! He's blatantly disobeyed the constitution time and time again, gone against his own word to the people and continues to spread these pointless wars.

America wants a real difference, that's why they voted Obama. The only way they're going to get real change is by supporting Ron's message to begin changing the philosophy of government. It's just sad that you group him in with all the other politicians and give a completely illegitimate reason for not voting for him. Watch a few things on Paul, don't eat the bullshit the media gives you. They're dishonest and bias, they've admitted it themselves.

If America can't wake up and understand the importance of following the guidelines our founding fathers put forth then we really do deserve to go bankrupt and collapse. I want no part of a country so stubborn and reckless.

if you're so fed up with America, feel free to move to a country that practices Ron Paul's policies of a strong interventionist military, constitutionally mandated religious morality, and a severely limited federal government; like Pakistan.

Also, good luck trying to convince anyone who supported Obama to support Ron Paul. I'd imagine you'd have to be pretty brain-dead politically to switch your allegience from a centrist liberal self-proclaimed "unity" candidate to a radical, right-wing nutcase like Ron Paul whose platform seems to be dismantling the American government.

 

[speculawyer]

http://i.min.us/ixfj4i5C.png


Let them all expire ... 60 percent of America would pay less than 3 dollars a day.

That is what I said back during the filibuster issue. Obama is a pussy.

 

[speculawyer]

Fun fact: Even at $5 a pop for his two most popular books via a special deal on Amazon's Kindle versions, I couldn't be bothered to spend the money, let alone the time, to read through Friedman's tripe. The guy is so in love with himself that, being in New York, the man just needs to come out and marry himself.

Well suck on this.

Spoiler

I agree with some stuff but he is a completely over-rated hack.

 

[Mardak]

he's sure the market will solve all those problems once a few hundred people are killed by them

Why does someone need to die for the market to change? You make it seem like the only way for a plane to fail is catastrophically.

There's a good reason why planes have two engines. If one manufacturer's engine forces an airline to spend more money on maintenance or repair or replacement, they will find another provider that makes better, more efficient engines.

 

[Mike M]

Like all libertarians, he's sure the market will solve all those problems once a few hundred people are killed by them. Someday I'll meet a libertarian that doesn't sound like every other libertarian I've met. Someday.

I'm not even talking about believing that the free market would sort it out, just his depiction of what happens after a crash under the auspices of the FAA.

It's not as though planes don't crash and the FAA is merely a proposal being worked on in congress. We KNOW what the aftermath of a plane crash is like, and it ain't like that.

 

[mj1108]

Why anyone would want Obama to get reelected is beyond me. Where is the change we were promised? Things are exactly the same... wait no they're worse! He's blatantly disobeyed the constitution time and time again, gone against his own word to the people and continues to spread these pointless wars.

America wants a real difference, that's why they voted Obama. The only way they're going to get real change is by supporting Ron's message to begin changing the philosophy of government. It's just sad that you group him in with all the other politicians and give a completely illegitimate reason for not voting for him. Watch a few things on Paul, don't eat the bullshit the media gives you. They're dishonest and bias, they've admitted it themselves.

If America can't wake up and understand the importance of following the guidelines our founding fathers put forth then we really do deserve to go bankrupt and collapse. I want no part of a country so stubborn and reckless.

We would have had some real change if it wasn't for the "Party of No" aka "The Obstructionist Party", "The Party That Won't Compromise".

If you think re-electing Obama is a bad idea -- electing an extreme right wing/Teatard would be even worse.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Why anyone would want Obama to get reelected is beyond me. Where is the change we were promised? Things are exactly the same... wait no they're worse! He's blatantly disobeyed the constitution time and time again, gone against his own word to the people and continues to spread these pointless wars.

America wants a real difference, that's why they voted Obama. The only way they're going to get real change is by supporting Ron's message to begin changing the philosophy of government. It's just sad that you group him in with all the other politicians and give a completely illegitimate reason for not voting for him. Watch a few things on Paul, don't eat the bullshit the media gives you. They're dishonest and bias, they've admitted it themselves.

If America can't wake up and understand the importance of following the guidelines our founding fathers put forth then we really do deserve to go bankrupt and collapse. I want no part of a country so stubborn and reckless.

So time to repeal Civil Rights Act?

 

[ToxicAdam]

That is what I said back during the filibuster issue. Obama is a pussy.

I don't know why I bother harping on the subject. Even if he wins the 2012 election and Democrats win the House, he still will extend them in some manner.

His two year extension of the tax cuts cost as much as the entire stimulus bill (according to the CBO). Nothing to show for it.