Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/28/12 10:27 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 7/27/12 02:20 PM, Feoric wrote: So, let's cover the bases.

Unlike baseball ...you missed a few bases...but the misinformed don't know about those do they ?
1- The Fed is a Privately Owned FOR PROFIT BUSINESS

You keep screeching that like it's a rebuttal to anything Feoric said. BTW, a non-profit business must keep some money to pay off debt and compensate employees. Anything leftover is donated elsewhere or reinvested into its charitable or educational mission as a business. The Federal Reserve is a lot like that except all its profits go to the US Treasury. Also, like a non-profit, it is tax exempt.

2- THe Federal Reserve operates that it will make a guaranteed 6% profit each year , which makes & proves it is a for profit business+ (what is rarely mentioned) the member banks get to keep the interest they make on 'their loans ' & futher as per the Fed requirement that 10 % be held as a reserve & fractional banking rules (aka ponzi scheme) means they can

It's funny how you throw "Ponzi scheme" out there for shock value when in this context it's nothing like a Ponzi scheme.

Federal Reserve Statistical Rel;ease for Sept 24 2008 at 7,049 Billion dollars, 10% of that puts the American people on the fhook for interest payments on 700 Billion dollars (above 7& beyond their 6%) this is so the thieves....I mean banks can retain the reserves to accumulate interest on ten times that amount in LOANS !

You're getting yourself confused. Probably because you're just copying and pasting from http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10489 without doing much thinking of your own (not that it would help, apparently).

Saying that taxpayers are on the hook for $700 billion dollars in reserves doesn't make any sense. Neither does the paragraph you took it from. Taxpayers only pay interest on loans they take out themselves; the $700 billion dollars in bank reserves has nothing to do with interest or taxpayers.

3- The Fed does NOT get appropriations from Congress ! IT gets its money from Congress without Congressional approval by operating in " open market operations"

Feoric never said it did.

Which means whent he Treasury issues bonds & puts them into the hands of Bond Dealers...you or I would have to have "earned the money to buy them.

No, open market operations involves the buying and selling of securities to manage the demand for the dollar and keep currency value stable. No one is handed anything for free.

The Fed simply prints the money (creating it from blank paper at 6 cents per hundred dollar note) & buys the bonds Which the American TAX PAYER MUST PAY INTEREST ON!

Except that the interest the Fed gets from US securities is donated almost entirely back to the Treasury, which would not be the case with any other buyer. I don't know what you're upset about. If you're mad that the government has a huge amount of debt that will probably have to be financed by the "TAX PAYER," join the club.

Interest on your own money....greatest rippoff scam in the ENTIRE WORLD !

....HMMMM reviews its activities, that MEANS ...AFTER THE FACT, afte the Fed has done whatever it pleases, Congress can reiew it, sure sounds like the Government is in control to me !

The government can't even agree on a budget. Do you really want elected officials managing and politicizing monetary policy? You think everyone in power is out to screw you over, I can't imagine why you would want more government control over the Fed.

It doesn't say it was getting rid of the FED.
IT was breaking their monopoly by issuing Government securities (aka money) backed by silver.
Which would have destroyed the Feds , federal reserve note, on the open market, because those notes are backed by nothing, why would anyone want to own a piece of paper that is backed by nothing...when you could own one redeemable for silver or goods ?

I'd summarize it for you but you really haven't quite earned the effort so far.
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/flaherty9.html

At 7/27/12 10:20 AM, morefngdbs wrote: If you stop drinking the Kool-aide & or eating the drugs you're being force fed by those who've been elected to work on your behalf (LMFAO & ROTF ) ,,,sorry couldn't hold my composure)... your 'system' for at least a day or so & hopefully before the withdrawl effects hit you , drink some coffee & attempt to read this
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/fed_reserve.htm

Here's an article from a site that doesn't claim Jews are perpetrators of economic terrorism.
http://www.usagold.com/federalreserve.html

Now that you have a better idea of the illegal system in use & effect in your country, remember there is no reason YOUR CONGRESS couldn't have a Central Bank. IT just LEGALLY CAN NOT be a Privately Owned Bank & No interest should be paid to it for issuing currency

Dear god, man, pick up an economics textbook. It is not privately owned and your opinion that it should not collect interest payments is not based on any economic understanding whatsoever. Acting as the lender of last resort (which by definition involves interest rates) and maintaining control of the money supply are vital functions and could not be carried out anywhere near as effectively without the discount window and open market operations.

At 7/25/12 10:51 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

I just had an "inpatient heart proceedure" yesterday. I was in the hospital for 13 hours, do you know where they put me ? in a fucking hospital bed you stund moron ! They don't make you sit in a chair & they say they can do 25 proceedures in a day, that's how many they do so all 25 patients are called & arrive at the hospital at the same time, people recover at different rates.

I have no idea what you're rambling on about. All I said is that having a lot more hospital beds per capita doesn't really mean anything, and can in fact be a negative indicator. You didn't dispute this.

; read the book !

You read it, why don't you tell me what it says already?

More involved like what a self perpetuating government who's sole responsibility is to ensure its own survival & fuck the citizens its suppose to serve ?
When government becomes self serving, its way past time for a change/revolution & the existence of your country is a direct result of that principal.

What the hell are you talking about? What makes you think the US government is self-serving and is fucking its citizens? Because some people have to suffer the indignity of Medicaid?

Are you kidding me & trying to fool everyone else ????
ITs all ABOUT PROFITS BABY ! Insurance companies don't fucking care about people ...THEY CARE ABOUT PROFITS ! To have your government mandating a system that makes people pay insurance companies or pay a tax IS ALL ABOUT PROFITS ....Sweet blistering jesus how stupid & brainwashed can you possibly be to think its anything but about profit , and the Insurance lobbiests can only realise that by raping workers & businesses.... fucking one without screwing the other cuts into the PROFIT MARGIN

And it all comes out, this conspiratorial nonsense about "BIG BUSINESS" coming to get us. Let me tell you something: The health insurance industry is not that profitable, and the healthcare law will make it less so.
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/02/health-insurance-compani es-rank-88-by.html
They have about a 3% profit margin overall, which is actually below average. The healthcare law takes that further by mandating the budget structure of health insurance companies, requiring that 80% or so of all revenue be used to cover patient care. Add that to the fact that the fee for not buying insurance doesn't equal the cost of an insurance policy for several years after the insurance-tightening measures (kids staying on parent's policy until 26, mandatory policy acceptance, no termination due to health changes) kick in, and things do not look great for health insurance companies.

I've already explained this. Everyone can be cared for, they are simply choosing not to take advantage of it because they value their assets over their health.

One shouldn't have to go bankrupt in a so called leading democratic society to stay alive !

Your opinion. Your entitlement-driven, narcissist, historically ignorant opinion.

Driven from say the Huston airport to downtown lately ? looks like an abandoned war zone in may areas ! Your careful research for rebutting anyone has just turned to the rhetoric you claim we all use ... very amusing.

Would that be the interstate 45? Or Route US-59?
They both look like pretty normal highways to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1eNDDIMbDg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj1zHJt4Rj8

Of course, if you can find footage or images showing it to be a warzone, I'd love to see them. You may have to do a little research.

Presumably this money is held as interest-bearing deposits or savings and not in large sacks of currency, right? How much of that 21 trillion actually exists in reserves and how much has been lent elsewhere? It has to be a lot since the bank or institution has to find some way to pay the interest on such massive deposits.

At 7/23/12 04:10 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 7/23/12 02:58 PM, adrshepard wrote: Yeah, an opinion piece from an alternative medica outlet posted in Al-Jazeera. That's really fair and unbiased.

If you go and re read my post ,the opinion piece is about a book , one you can go & look at . so don't be lazy you don't need everything handed to you.

The piece is authored by a columnist who writes for a self-described alternative media source (i.e. purely agenda-driven) and its posted in an obviously anti-American news organization. Any opinion piece should be read skeptically, this one especially.

I'm not going to buy the book, but I assume it builds its argument from this same stuff
http://rwer.wordpress.com/category/decline-of-the-usa/

These are all loaded statistics, like "hospital beds per capita." We should be aiming for fewer hospital beds, not more; inpatient procedures are huge expenses that drive up costs. For the past decade, health organizations have been trying to provide as much outpatient (no overnight stay) care as possible because its so much cheaper and can be just as effective.

Or take a look at the comment in "practicing physicians per capita." He nails it. What is a practicing physician? Does the survey take account of secondary providers like nurse practitioners?

Just what exactly are those "8" indicators that the US fails at? It doesn't say.

And don't you find it interesting that the author would use sideways statistics like "beds per capita" to argue that we're in decline when information on health outcomes is readily available? Could it be because the health outcomes are much more attributable to the poor health choices Americans tend to make and not any failing in the healthcare system?

WHat usually isn't mentioned about societies with a more involved social system.
Particularly health care being a universal system. Isn't something government 'gives' you the working people have to pay for it.
So you are taxed & that pooled tax pays for everyone.
Seeing as we in western societies now live much longer, getting people healthy & back to being productive is less expensive than raising them from infancy.

I'll try to piece together an argument from these incoherent sentence fragments.

The so-called healthcare crisis has almost nothing to do with worker productivity. It has everything to do with the cost of managing chronic conditions and their complications. Rising insurance premiums (due in large part to rising overall healthcare costs) are far more of a threat to businesses than excessive absenteeism due to illness.

If you can pay for an enormous military, that can't even effectively take over a back water like Iraq even after 10 years ! it might be time to stop playing the war drum & start putting some of that massive military budget into infastructure & care of the American people...& not just some of them...all of them.

I've already explained this. Everyone can be cared for, they are simply choosing not to take advantage of it because they value their assets over their health.
And I swear to god if I hear one more person whine about "infrastructure..." as if we lived in Namibia or somewhere and only had dirt paths.

At 7/23/12 09:30 PM, BumFodder wrote:

lol this post completely embodies why people think Americans are stupid. In fact its so stupid I think hes trolling.

On the contrary; if you read my posts you'll learn something either from the facts I present or from the research you'll have to do to refute them.

At 7/23/12 09:34 AM, morefngdbs wrote: To all of you who believe the US health Care system is one of the best in the world.

If you believe Memorizes view of the US health care system as all roses & sunshine, be prepared to see , that isn't the truth.... it could easily be so, the USA has the capacity to be the best or one of the best in the world, but it isn't & all the America rhetoric "we're the greatest" doesn't change the facts

Lol. America is the greatest. We are the most dominant economic, military, and cultural force in the entire world. The US is also a leader in scientific development (there is no single indicator that can be used to produce rankings). To claim that we're mediocre or worse because our people only live to be 75 instead of 77 or 78, or because our educational and health demographics don't match those of the Norweigans or Swedes (whose countries are largely composed of homogenous middle to upper class white people) is just absurd.

I'll gladly take global leadership in the categories that actually matter than excel in these piddly little categories that don't mean squat.

The only real problem with our health system is the poor health habits of the people who use it.

Here is the story I just read in a (esp for Camarohuskey) legitamate publication

Yeah, an opinion piece from an alternative medica outlet posted in Al-Jazeera. That's really fair and unbiased.

At 7/19/12 02:45 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I do think in the vas majority of cases the people should not be informed. However, if there is anything to the intelligence that signifies a very high level of credibility, such to the point that the risk of an actual detonation is larger than the risk of panic, the people should be informed. These cases are extremely rare though.

I don't know. In a huge stadium with thousands of people, it'd have to be a really massive bomb or a whole lot of small ones to endanger a significant number of people, and that's far less likely than someone smuggling in a pipe bomb or something that could at most kill or injure a handful of people. Knowing that, I don't think I'd panic if I was informed, or even really want to leave if I was having a good time.

At 7/17/12 08:25 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: The number I find more interesting is the number of healthcare bills to replace Obamacare that the Republicans have passed since they took over the House.

That's not quite a fair criticism. There's no sense in trying to pass conflicting healthcare legislation, especially without any input from democrats and a sitting democratic president. Repealing the bill is just as futile, but its a lot easier and just as symbolic as drafting a comprehensive alternative. Plus, they were probaby waiting to see how the Supreme Court ruled.

Hilarious.

At 7/17/12 01:47 PM, Camarohusky wrote: So losing your home and losing your ability to get to work is merely losing one's lifestyle?

If the mortgage crisis showed anything it was that people have no idea how to tell the difference between what they need and what they want. All that's really needed in a residence is a room, a small kitchen, and a toilet. Apartments and condos are just as sufficient.

So you are telling me that the difference between a 1080i and 720p 42" TV is more important than a home or car for a poor person? Or are you telling me that the difference between a corporation being able to give a $40million golden paachute vs. a regular severance pakage is more important than a home or car of a poor person?

Who am I to say what someone else should do with the money he has earned? It's his money. Personally, I don't really give a damn about a poor person's home or car so long as he isn't starving to death, his kids have access to health and educational services, and he isn't dying of nutrition or sanitation-related diseases.

The relatively small cost of preventative care is so high compared to some (read: a shit ton) people's income that they choose to forego neded health care for something they deem more important.

That's simply not true. Office visits and basic health screenings do not wipe out savings and cause bankrupty. Eligibility for welfare benefits like SNAP and food stamps allow for a few thousand dollars in assets and savings, not counting residences, children's education savings, and fair market value for a vehicle up to a certain amount.

At 7/17/12 01:56 PM, Feoric wrote:

because for the uninsured, healthcare costs are so high they only go see a doctor when it's absolutely necessary, and sometimes even when they know it's necessary, the still refuse to go.

So society should be called upon to subsidize their terrible judgement? I don't think so.

Remember that a bankruptcy will be on your credit report and employers are now allowed to make hiring decisions based on that report. so, declaring bankruptcy can hurt your ability to simply get a job.

For a few jobs that involve the chance for embezzlement, yes. Evidence that employers will refuse to give an otherwise qualified applicant a job because of a hospital bill-induced bankruptcy (as opposed those that show irresponsible behavior like gambling or excessive credit card debt) is anecdotal at best.

Unless you're insanely rich, you're simply not going to go to the doctor regularly if you're uninsured, putting you at risk for premature death.

And like many risky behaviors, it's completely preventable.

do you have health insurance? if you do, cancel it. see if you can afford regular doctor visits and medication. then tell me if you have "access" to healthcare. you technically do, but you can't likely cannot afford it, and you'd rather eat than get a blood test.

Or I can apply for government assistance and do both.

see, that's the problem: you don't know the actual numbers we're dealing with.
let's look at the numbers then....blah blah numbers...
this is why people aren't going to see a doctor if they're uninsured. they can't afford it.

I feel a bit bad that you went to all the trouble to get those numbers when they don't refute my premise that healthcare is available through government assistance regardless of finances.

except the system in place is obviously broken so why not just go with full on UHC?

Broken? No. Expensive, sure. When it comes to our health, we are our own worst enemy. 75% of healthcare spending is driven by chronic conditions stemming largely from unhealthy behaviors like smoking, poor diet, and lack of exercise. This is straight from the CDC.

In any case, neither of you have disputed my fundamental point that a lack of health insurance does not kill anyone, but rather it's people's unwillingness to spend money on their health.

At 7/17/12 05:58 AM, Feoric wrote: to answer that question you would need to look at all of people who died of treatable ailments and see if they were uninsured at the time of death.

Congratulations, you're the latest one to be duped by liberals who have manipulated the national debate over health insurance.
Having health insurance and having access to care are completely different things. Anyone can see a doctor for any reason, regardless of his insurance status. However, liberals and democrats would rather have you believe otherwise, because directly stating the fundamental premise, that people are entitled not to claim bankruptcy and be covered under Medicaid, would be far less popular.
Everyone who died because he "lacked health insurance" is one of two things: A person whose life-saving treatment wasn't covered by Medicaid, which as far as I know is extremely rare; or a person who died from a preventable illness because at some point in his life he decided to keep the $50-$100 in his pocket rather than go see a doctor for a checkup or to look at troublesome symptoms.
Being without health insurance sucks. You can't live the way you want, and if something drastic happens, you may lose your house or your car, BUT you won't die. You will still get needed medical care. The social safety net exists specifically for that reason, and it is one of the few socialist-style programs that nearly everyone agrees is essential. The healthcare law crosses this line by changing the goal of the safety net from protecting vulnerable people's lives to protecting people's vulnerable lifestyles.
That's what I'm not okay with.

At 7/17/12 02:13 AM, Light wrote: stuff

Look at your post. Look at how much dark text there is in relation to white text. I'm asking your for specifics, asking you to make your argument with facts and reasoning, and you just reply with one sentence answers that are little more than "it's obvious," or "these people say its the case," or "the numbers show I'm right," or "I was referring to just about everything." Are you that lazy?

In relation to the number of bills being proposed in both Congresses, the Republicans sponsored fewer bills than the Democrats did.
That indicates stronger Republican partisanship to me.

You obviously have no clue how Congress works, otherwise you wouldn't make such a retarded statement.
Most of the bills passed in both Congresses and signed into law originated in the House. Even though republicans control the House in the 112th Congress, a greater percentage of democrat-sponsored (bills introduced by democrats, in case you didn't know what "sponsored" meant) made it through Congress and were enacted into law than was the case for republican-sponsored bills in the democratic-controlled house in the 111th Congress. That suggests republicans were more likely than democrats to support legislation originating from a rival party.

The president offered to sign into law huge spending cuts in exchange for a small tax hike on the wealthy.
The Republicans refused.

And which party's negotiators do you think refused to reduce the "huge" spending cuts by the "small" amount of the tax hike?

Ending the Bush-era tax cuts on people making 250k+ will help reduce the deficit, yes, but not enough to fix the credit rating.

I don't think anyone in Congress stated that the expiration of those tax cuts for the wealthy would single-handedly solve our deficit problem.

Nope, but you did. You blamed republican stubborness about taxing the wealthy for the credit downgrade, when the agencies themselves said the failure to reform Medicaid and Social Security, two major republican priorities, was the critical factor.

At 7/16/12 05:01 AM, Light wrote: The supposed existence of "death panels" in the Affordable Care Act that the Republicans oddly didn't try very hard to refute and the whole birther thing that come to mind off the top of my head.

The term "death panels" was coined by Sarah Palin, who does not serve in Congress and does not have the admiration or respect of most republicans, as far as I can tell. I can only find two republican legislators who even mentioned death panels, and they were talking about Medicaid funding for end-of-life counseling, a provision that was ultimately stricken from the healthcare bill. What pundits talk about has nothing to do with how Congress operates.

Oh, and all that fearmongering probably counts.

Fearmongering about what?

The article said, "Both issues are priorities of President Barack Obama's, and the legislation demonstrated rare bipartisan agreement in the deeply divided Congress."
That seems pretty consistent with what I've been claiming.

No, you've been claiming that republicans don't compromise and refuse to endorse anything promoted by Obama. This directly contradicts your argument.
Also, the quote said that Congress is deeply divided. It makes no claim on the intransigence of either party.

Also, according to govtrack.us, of the 136 bills so far enacted into law during the 112th Congress, 43 were sponsored by democrats. And before you say something stupid like, "sure, but that only shows how republicans pushed through their own partisan legislation and ignored that from the democrats," of the 366 bills enacted through the 111th Congress, only 53 had republican sponsorship.

That indicates extreme Republican partisanship to me.

How did you come to that conclusion? You do know that the 111th Congress had Democratic majorities in both houses, right?

They've been extraordinarily difficult in this Congress. Hell, there's a reason why our credit rating declined for the first time in U.S. history last year.

There is a reason, and it is not because of the republicans. S&P, the first rating agency to make the downgrade, cited the unwillingness of Congress to make serious deficit reduction. Regarding the eventual agreement in 2011, the agency said,
"In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability."

Medicare and Social Security reform are major Republican policy points, specifically because of their huge impact on the deficit.
Ending the Bush-era tax cuts on people making 250k+ will help reduce the deficit, yes, but not enough to fix the credit rating.

Oh really? All of the republicans?

Many, if not most.

You've just made another unfounded generalization.

Do they speak for every member of their party?

No, but to be fair, Republicans are more unified than democrats are.

You have to move past all of these generalizations.

I don't know, they seem to be accurate.

Accuracy implies precision. All you've done is make broad-based statements about republicans which are impossible to verify because you don't identify anyone.

At 7/15/12 03:31 AM, Light wrote:

At 7/14/12 02:57 PM, adrshepard wrote: It's not the same as creating problems where none exist in order to make him look bad.

I never said it was. But I still contend that they are creating such problems.

Which problems are those?

In that case, the Republicans are just as guilty for refusing to compromise on this retarded mantra of refusing to raise taxes on anyone no matter what.

Not at all. Paul Ryan and other leading republicans in budget talks have repeatedly mentioned eliminating certain tax deductions that benefit the wealthy over any other group. He's even expressed support for granting exemptions to middle-class income earners.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/296545/paul-ryan-s-gr and-compromise-nash-keune

Of course, Republicans seem to think all legislation proposed by the Democrats and the president is bad legislation. It seems like the perfect way to avoid compromise at all costs.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/29/politics/congress-highway-bill /index.html

Also, according to govtrack.us, of the 136 bills so far enacted into law during the 112th Congress, 43 were sponsored by democrats. And before you say something stupid like, "sure, but that only shows how republicans pushed through their own partisan legislation and ignored that from the democrats," of the 366 bills enacted through the 111th Congress, only 53 had republican sponsorship.

Republicans have compromised on truly pressing items. Take the student loan rate increase that was averted due to an agreement in the legislature.

The opposing party has to do its damned best to persuade the Republicans to compromise.

And Republicans have to haggle any less? It's representative government. Negotiations are supposed to be difficult.

It's disingenuous to say that the Republicans of this Congress are even somewhat inclined to working with the president and the Democrats when they've made no secret of their intent to engage in political theatrics and juvenile opposition to to just about all legislation that has been proposed by the opposing party.

Oh really? All of the republicans? Just certain ones? Do they speak for every member of their party?
You have to move past all of these generalizations.

At 7/13/12 09:23 PM, Light wrote: Anyway, it's no surprise that this Congress sucks complete ass, but you can only blame the Republicans for this state of affairs. They've openly shunned compromise and have expressed their intent to make things as difficult as they can for the president.

That's because they disagree with his priorities and goals. It's not the same as creating problems where none exist in order to make him look bad.
It's not true to say that the republicans have not tried to compromise. Deficit reduction is the greatest example. Democrats have derailed numerous potential budget agreements not because they disagreed with the cuts themselves, but because they did not increase taxes on the wealthy. That is a purely poltiical gesture.

Also, compromise for its own sake is not a good idea. Negotiating a $800 billion stimulus bill down to $400 billion is not a good agreement if the money is just going to be spent inefficiently and slowly while the long-run debt costs increase. Bad legislation should be killed, not mitigated for the sake of compromise.

Republicans have compromised on truly pressing items. Take the student loan rate increase that was averted due to an agreement in the legislature. Don't forget the payroll tax holiday that Republicans begrudingly accepted back in December 2011 or so, even though the about-face was embarrassing.

Public approval of Congress is a lot like public approval of the President. It's high when things are going well, and low when times are tough. It shouldn't be read as an objective rating of how the legislature has functioned.

At 7/3/12 11:36 AM, Camarohusky wrote: True, but unlike RomneyCare, it's pretty hard to couch outsourcing, mass layoffs, and the sending of capital overseas as good for the US. He can at least couch RomneyCare as a states' rights issue (crafted specifically for Taxachuffets).

Christ, you actually buy into that nonsense?
http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-outsourcer-overreach/

Never, ever believe what a political campaign says about a rival candidate, especially when it involves "evil big business" and the like.

As for RomneyCare, who cares? Are people who agree with Romney going to vote for Obama out of spite? They're still donating pretty well to the Romney campaign. No one expects a candidate who has to please everybody to be ideologically consistent over years and years these days.

At 6/21/12 11:04 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Providing ccontraband or illicit goods to criminal organizations is a common tactic to attempt to find out information about the enterprise. Drug are often sold to gangs and cartels in order to ascertain exactly how the system works and, if possible, gain valuable info into the hierarchy of the group.

Selling assault rifles to cartels without any means of tracking them is not a common tactic. It is completely absurd and I've yet to hear any defense of it, which makes the idea of it being a gun-control scheme seem more likely.

Second, previous administrations have equally bad things yet you aren't calling for any of their heads. What about Ashcroft and his political firings? What about Ashcroft and Rumsfeld and their end run around habeas corpus, and their detention of naturalized American Citizens without any evidence whatsover? What about Reagan and the Contras

Any number of ways to answer that. This is now, that was then. Or how about, "no one got killed when Ashcroft fired the attorneys." Or, "how can you compare a border patrol agent with a terrorist scumbag who happens to be American?"

The only reason this is an issue is because it's an election year and a sad attempt to make the administration look bad.

That doens't explain all of it. The DOJ has already been forced to retract two of its claims about the operation and its own investigation has been ongoing for over a year now with apparently no clear answers. Plus, Holder's offer of documents was only offered in exchange for essentially dropping any further congressional investigation, which is a retarded offer to make to people who are already hostile politically and have caught you making false statements, maliciously intended or not.
Holder's word that the documents show the DOJ didn't know anything just isn't good enough.

At 6/16/12 09:59 AM, Camarohusky wrote: I don't see much harm in amnesty, I actually see benefits. Then again, I know many immigrants and have gone through a visa process myself (albiet just a student one, peanuts comapared gaining US citizenship) and it fucking sucks.

I don't doubt it, but I suspect it may be deliberate in order to weed out people that aren't serious about US citizenship.

So it's a waying process against positioning ourselves to take advantage of the possible tax revenue of the illegals (the small chunk of them that make enough to be taxed)

I understand that part of it, and I'm not too upset about the possibility of legalizing the best and brightest of the illegal immigrants. But I don't think that's what this policy will be. Obama talked yesterday about "securing a stable workforce" for the agricultural sector. If we're going to use military service or higher education as an indicator, that disqualifies most of the fruit-pickers and such already. The workforce of the agricultural sector is not the same as those who are so naturalized that they are essentially citizens in all but name.

At 6/2/12 03:28 PM, theburningliberal wrote: As far as the F-35's go, keep in mind that, number one, those aircraft are expensive.

Yeah, I know, now that I've looked into it more. A real mess all the way around.

Our military has been unrivaled for almost 50 years. The Soviets were close, but the USSR is no longer around and much of the Soviet Army has been dismantled. To say that we need to continually beef up our military's overall size at this point is just ridiculous.

I don't think anyone's saying we need an increase in actual soldiers so much as continued investment in capabilities.

What we are advocating is a responsible reduction in overall size, enough to keep our military strong, but also enough to reduce the fiscal burden of operating the Armed Forces, and enough to not only defend against traditional threats

That's where the problem is. Iraq and Afghanistan were not traditional threats, yet they needed (and still do need) traditional means of support. I remember Gates talking about how anyone who wants to repeat the experience in Iraq and Afghanistan should get his head examined. He's right, except we might not always have a choice. The future US military won't be able to support another Iraq or Afghanistan, especially after the latest reduction in ground troops.

Also, you apparently conceded everything else I wrote. Just sayin.

No, I just chose not to talk about it. You yourself said the one paragraph was a tangent, and I don't feel like getting into some argument about which party doesn't compromise enough.
And even if I did concede everything, you should be gracious because I could have very easily tried to distract you with other points, or just repeated myself as though you didn't write anything in response, both things that some people around here do.

At 5/31/12 09:18 PM, theburningliberal wrote: 24 MQ-9 Reaper remotely piloted aircraft (48 in FY 12 OCO funds)
19 F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters (18)
4 CV-22 Tilt-Rotor aircraft (5)
4 MC-130J Combat Commando special operations aircraft (6)
2 AC-130J gunships (1)
1 HC-130J (3) rescue aircraft

Except for the F-35s those are all special operations or light support aircraft. I don't know where you got that list, and I doubt its inclusive, but I know that the status of the refueling fleet is tenuous, with production projected to barely keep up with scrapping or decomissioning. I also know that the F-35s are being purchased at a snail's pace considering the hundreds of f-16s and f-18s we have that its meant to replace.

Just because we are cutting programs that are meant to replace ones that still have 30 years of operative life left (like the U-2, which was supposed to be replaced by the Global Hawk) doesn't mean we are 'gutting' the military. We are streamlining the military in an acknowledgment both of the threats we currently face around the world,

I know, but just because we face counter-insurgency conflicts now doesn't mean conventional warfare is out of the question, especially for the US with its low tolerance of casualties. I'm not an analyst, I just get the impression that this is the first step in a winding down of US capabilities to the point where we don't take a leading role in world affairs.

At 6/1/12 11:00 PM, Cochises wrote: Yeah and? The CIA infiltrated the democratically, that's a term the U.S. loves to spread, and even kill for, to install a puppet dictator.

It was a tough decision to make. The CIA believed Mossadegh was going to make Iran into the puppet of the Soviet Union. Better that Iran be our puppet than the USSR's.

Really? http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/iran-cia-intro.
pdf All I did was a simple Google search.

Did you read the summary? How did the CIA's actions differ from what I said?

No, nationalization is taking back what you rightfully own, you do realize that the only way those oil industries were owned by private or foreign owners was because they seized it when they had a puppet regime in place.
It's funny how you think Iran stole their national resources, that's hilarious really.

When you contract with a foreign country to invest in your oil production then confiscate their facilities (I was wrong to say lands earlier) when you get fed up with the terms, that's stealing.

About 3,664 Iraqi civilians killed in the gulf war, still more than 9/11.

Not by miuch, and those weren't deliberate.

Your government also funded Iraqi's Saddam Hussein to attack Iran, while funnily enough, also funding Iran through Israel.

The US supported Iraq when it started looking as if Iran would be victorious--not an ideal outcome--not to start the war in the first place.
Sending arms to certain parties in Iran was intended to secure the release of American hostages. A muddled policy when viewed together, but the weapons were not enough for Iran to break the stalemate with Iraq.

At 5/31/12 09:00 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote:

You must be joking. All the CIA did was fund some propaganda and help rouse a mob or two.

-The United States began training insurgents in, and directing propaganda broadcasts into Afghanistan from Pakistan in 1978.[94] Then, in early 1979, U.S.

You already failed. If you read that paragraph it is perfectly clear I'm talking about Iran.

-the American CIA and British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) funded and led a covert operation to depose Mosaddegh with the help of military forces loyal to the Shah

Yes, and you know what they did? They bribed some Iranian newspaper editors to print propaganda and encouraged some Iranian dissidents to be more aggressive in their demonstrations. That's it.

His administration introduced a wide range of social and political reforms but is most notable for its nationalization of the Iranian oil industry

Yeah, his biggest accomplishment is stealing oil refinieries and lands from the British. That's what nationalization is; screwing over private or foreign owners of property or resource and seizing it for yourself.

I can't take you seriously, because you are full of shit. not only have the 100 000 innocent deaths already happened, but because the food for oil was to fix up the fact that the citizens were only starving because of economic sanctions. As for the death count for the Gulf War here's the estimate range for you.

You are unbelievable. You must be doing this deliberately. You say that the 100,000 deaths occured during the Gulf War, before 2001, then talk about what happened in the Iraq War that started in 2003. I think you are doing it deliberately, so screw it.

At 5/31/12 01:01 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: 1. 60 years ago a brutal dictator was installed in Iran by American intervention to replace a democratically elected leader.

You must be joking. All the CIA did was fund some propaganda and help rouse a mob or two. The only reason the Shah came to power was because he had the support of the military and a substantial portion of the population. And Mossadegh was as much a democratically elected leader as Harry Reid is the democratically elected Senate majority leader. This is conveniently left out by the popular narrative and the Iranians themselves, who've selectively forgotten their history to hide their complicity.

3. the nuclear program probably has something to do with the fact that everyone else has a nuke and the biggest military in the world is their sworn enemy.

And it's working so well for them now, isn't it? The chances of a military conflict with the US (and Israel) have never been lower, thanks to Iran's prudent decision to covertly develop a nuclear program. Combined with their rhetoric about destroying Israel ("wiping off the map" was their own translation), they obviously want nothing more than to live in peace.

4. by "a hand full of people", do you mean by any chance, the Taliban? Because that's who it was all given to. Oh yea and Bin Laden, was given CIA training.

Which has absolutely no relevance to 9/11. It wasn't CIA training and anti-air weapons that brought down the WTC, it was some machetes and a flight school.

5. before 9/11 we were already bombing the middle east into dust. the 3000 innocent people who died in 9/11 is dwarfed by the 100 000 innocent people who died in Iraq.

You are a retard. Not only are you retarded for calling Desert Storm and a few missile strikes during the Clinton years "bombing the Middle East into dust," you are even more retarded for suggesting 9/11 was retribution for "100,000" Iraqi deaths that hadn't even happened yet. That is of course unless you're talking about the Oil For Food Program and have decided to blame the US, as opposed to the UN or god forbid Saddam himself for the suffering it led to.

the cuts to the military were small, and it still has the largest share of the budget. Did you know that it is impossible to balance the budget with out cutting funding to the military even still? Maybe it is time to let the rest of the world fend for itself. One of the reasons the Soviet empire collapsed was their bloated military budget and their over involvement in the middle east. Their military was cheap too, but this military demands over $17 000 to equip just one troop.

Small? Hardly. Military spending on real capability (as opposed to veterans benefits or administration) has been gutted left and right. Most of our air force is based on aircraft designed over 30 years ago. It's only going to get worse once the automatic budget triggers go into effect, because neither party wants to touch entitlements and the Medicare cuts will only affect the supply end (doctors, hospitals, insurers). And it's clear that Obama is perfectly okay with that. He and other democrats have treated deficit reduction as little more than some political game to stick it to the rich.

At 5/29/12 08:39 PM, Camarohusky wrote: While clearly 20 Black senators would represent the black population the best, the quality of being black is not a pre-requisite to providing good and proper representation of the group.

And neither does it ensure good and proper representation. You can't say the 20 black senators would represent blacks the best any more than you could claim 20 white senators would represent them the worst.

At 5/29/12 09:12 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: And I'm not saying that a white person couldn't effectively represent a black community, I'm just saying that it would be much more difficult for a white person to do so.

Why? For the sake of argument lets say that black people in general actually face real challenges brought about by racism or poverty or whatever that white people simply don't have to deal with. What is there to prevent a white representative from helping solve these problems just as well as a black representative? Does he have to experience racism, for instance, first hand to know that it's wrong? Couldn't any one of those problems be described in objective terms and so be solved objectively?
Besides, do you really want someone whose been personally affected his entire life by a problem to be put in charge of making national policy to fix it? Too much personal investment can be a bad thing.

Ultimately, I do not think that the interests of the African American community are being properly addressed by the much too homogeneous Congress, nor do I think that the views of women are being "adequately" represented in a legislative body which is made up of 83% men.

Ok, then you have to identify the disparity between party platform policies and the beliefs of women voters. If 95% of women want federally subsidized birth control, but only 5% of all representatives support the idea, then that would give proof to your argument.

At 5/29/12 10:07 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: That aside, American interventionism is what caused a lot of these problems to begin with, and its only logical to say that using more military interventionism will just cause even more problems.

Yes, American interventionism 60 years ago (in the form of a dozen guys who passed some bribes) caused Iran to develop a secret nuclear program, and we should have just done nothing at all when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. Yeah, those stinger missiles and bomb-making training for a handful of people totally caused 9/11.

I wouldn't vote for Romney because he'll "protect" us from China and Russia. The chances of direct conflict with these countries is extremely small. I'm more worried about Obama's plan to decimate our wartime capacity in the hope that special forces operations and global cooperation can solve every problem. Increasing benefits for veterans is nice, but it doesn't make the military any more prepared to face future conflicts.

At 5/29/12 10:13 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

Striving to have our representatives more closely represent the demographics of our country is a valiant goal
Even then, it doesn't take a member of a group to adequately represent that group either.

I don't know how you can believe both of these statements. The only explanation I can think of is that you think the particular interests of a demographic group are not being represented. But then, the solution would be political action among the under or unrepresented, which wouldn't necessary lead to an even demographic ratio.

At 5/28/12 01:09 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Really? Really?? You've helt a fairly high standard so far in the conversation, but now you go and say something THAT immensely stupid? You think that because the white ruling class men buckled after HUNDREDS of years of pressure from women's rights groups and African American rights groups, they deserve all the credit?

I said nothing about who deserved credit, and you've totally missed the point. The 19th Amendment and Civil Rights Act are direct evidence against your argument that the legislature needs a certain ratio of women (or blacks) in order to properly represent the country. None of the men who voted for these acts were coereced or blackmailed; they chose to bestow rights upon women and outlaw segregation against blacks. There wasn't any need for some special system of male and female representatives (or black representatives).

It's not about an easy fix to the problems facing women, it's about making sure that a demographic that makes up half of the population receives half of the power to make decisions.

But what's the point if those decisions end up being the same? Where's the gap between what women voters want to have happen and what male representatives actually do?

Because women and men are only different as far as their point of view and their priorities. There is nothing physically or mentally different that makes a woman any less capable than a man of being a lawyer, businessperson, or politician.

Less capable, no. Less willing, maybe. Read the 2nd half of this article.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2012/04/republicans

What would be solved is the lack of representation from members of their own demographic, which is an ill in and of itself, you dickslap. But fine, you want some specifics? I think that we would be less likely to engage in future armed conflict as women are less inclined to embrace violence and bravado and more inclined to embrace diplomacy, I think that more importance would be placed on improving the educational system, and I think that reproductive rights issues (right to abortion, birth control) would be over and done with.

Those outcomes sound suspiciously like the democrat party platform. But anyway, you said above that the democratic party holds an advantage with women, which is true, but it's not absolute. If recent voter presidential polls are any indication, it runs about 60-40 Obama/Romney at the most, with plenty of variation and at least one from May putting Romney tied or ahead. So even if we were to add enough female representatives to Congress to conform to the ratio of women in the US, wouldn't you say the resulting distribution of views would look pretty much the same?

At 5/28/12 12:57 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

We've certainly made progress, but it's no thanks to the men in power. The women's rights movement has been mostly fueled by the grassroot efforts of women, not men, just as the civil rights movement was fueled by the efforts of black people, not white people.

And yet both were enabled and formally accepted by a group of white men. Women didn't create the 19th amendment, nor did blacks bring about the Civil Rights Act. There was no way either law could have been passed over the objections of men and whites, respectively, so how was this not a case of white men contrary to their gender and race in favor of women and minorities?

Still, for all the progress that has been made, there is still inequality between the genders, and thinking that it is all going to work itself out with women being involved only peripherally is incredibly naive.

How does more female legislators solve economic inequality and sexual discrimination? Represenatives make laws, and discrimination based on sex is already illegal.

Don't you think that the discussion over issues such as healthcare, education, or war might look a bit different if half of the people in charge of deciding them were women?

Nope, because the discussion is directed from the bottom up, not from the top. Politicians don't operate in a vacuum. Some bills are brought up specifically because the people of a state or interest group demand that a representative introduce it. At the very least, a politician votes in accordance with his principles and sense, which the people have approved through an election. And if he somehow fools the electorate and votes contrary to his pledged principles, he's not going to be able to win reelection in a couple years.

As briefly mentioned before, there are plenty of reasons. I'd say that culture and sexism is a big part of it; not just in Congress, but also in the professions that usually serve as stepping stones to higher office, such as lawyer or businessman.

You like to say that men and women are fundamentally different. How can you be sure that those differences don't include being less capable a lawyer or businessman? Or being less willing to take on the stress of public office?

Crazy me. Here I was thinking that having women receive fair representation in our representative democracy was a benefit in and of itself, but I see that you apparently disagree.

No, I'm saying that we already have it, and the fact you can't point to any problem women face and say "this would be solved if only there were more women legislators" tells me that I'm right.

At 5/27/12 09:08 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Clearly? You think that women do not wish that more women were in elected positions in government?

They do, but not because they think female legislators would make any real difference. They just like the idea that a woman shouldn't be afraid to go into politics merely because it's dominated by men. They say, "it'd be nice to have more women in Congress," not "we need to have more women in Congress." It's the same as white guys saying, "it'd be cool to have more white running backs in the NFL," rather than "we have to break this black monopoly on running backs."

How would you know what women think about this topic?

I can say that this is the first time I've ever heard anyone talk about the lack of women in government as inherently undemocratic or oppressive, and Newgrounds forums aren't exactly on the cutting edge of social movements.

It bothers me because I think issues that concern a certain group of people should be decided with that group being represented in the decision making process, and far too often throughout history, issues concerning women have been decided by men exclusively.

But you see, they are being represented. Like you said, women and men exist at about a 1:1 ratio. No politician can afford to blow off the albeit small list of topics identified as "women's issues." This isn't the 1950's; it isn't unheard of for a man to take an interest in women's affairs. Women are obviously voting for male candidates who reflect that. How else do you explain the relative scarcity of female politicians? Women are eligible for office and women as a bloc have practically equal voting power as men.

Hey, if you have an idea that would help introduce greater diversity into Government then I'm all for hearing it.

I do; it would abolish representative government entirely and replace it with government by popular vote. Representative government itself consolidates the views and opinions of millions into the discretion of a few hundred. It squashes diversity. Government by popular vote would preserve all diversity, even though it would be an absolute disaster.

I doubt that you could find a fix that is as easily implemented as the one I have proposed for closing the gender gap,

You could make that argument if "closing the gender gap" would have benefits equal or greater than the cost of the fix, but you haven't yet outlined any benefits, which leads me to believe this is inspired by principle more than anything else and makes any cost presumably "worth it."

At 5/27/12 01:48 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: It is ludicrous to expect members of one gender to fully understand and accurately represent the will of their constituents of the opposite gender as well as someone of that gender could.

What makes you think they aren't? Women can vote and do so in large numbers. Clearly the fact that most candidates are men does not bother them. Why does it bother you?

Just as a white person cannot know with accuracy what it is like growing up as a black person

Sure, but why even stop there? What about short people with small builds? Certainly growing up as a relative weakling would be a lot different than going through life as some handsome hulk of a man. What about the handicapped? We need at least one person in a legislature in a wheelchair to make sure the crippled aren't being overlooked. And what about the young? 18-year-olds' are citizens, too; let's make some of them senators. After all, why shouldn't our representatives should mirror every demographic variable that could conceivably affect someone's development, we can always create more seats in congress?

let's make this thread less about that plan and more about how we can strive towards a legislature that more accurately represents the country that is is tasked with governing.

So you want to talk about governance in terms of aesthetics and not reality?

At 5/26/12 09:06 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: But politics is the place where fair representation matters MOST, at least in a democracy. I don't think that it is fair that a group of people that make up half of the population makes up less than one fifth of our government.

Ok, so what would change if the government represented a perfect coorelation? What solutions are men biologically incapable of proposing that a gender-balanced legislature would enact?

You can speak about general differences between most men and most women, but these few hundred people representing the entire country are not "most men."

So I have trouble understanding why you even think this is a problem, and I strongly doubt you could think it is without placing limits on what each gender is capable of, which is pretty much the core idea of sexism.

At 5/21/12 01:46 AM, theburningliberal wrote: The standard here is a lot less than a criminal court - we don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these things will happen. We just have to be able to prove that there is a reasonable fear that indefinite detention is a possible outcome of pursuing an activity that is otherwise completely legitimate.

Maybe it depends on the bill itself, but I think Camarohusky is right as I remember the ACLU's case against FISA or warrantless wiretapping or something was thrown out because it couldn't prove that it had actually been targeted. Whether or not it could have been was irrelevant.