Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 4/17/09 01:41 AM, homor wrote: and honestly i don't think "astroturfing" is a word.

oh fuck me i'm stupid.

---

At 4/16/09 09:49 AM, HogWashSoup wrote: i have a good mind to run those people over

"i'll kill people over my petty political beliefs!"

---

I don't think that liberals understand why conservatives are irked by a "progressive" tax code. A lot of Obama supporters seem to think that poor Americans don't understand that lower taxes. I've seen two reasons why conservatives want a more even tax burden:

1. Fairness
2. Conflict. Socialized people hate any sort of psychological conflict, so naturally they are disturbed by the Marxist suggestion that wealthy people economically exploit poor people. Conservatives like the current world system (and hence want to conserve it), so they are probably more socialized then liberals on average.

A good argument against this is that the very wealthy tended to vote for Obama, so clearly they don't think that they're being overtaxed.

---

At 4/17/09 01:45 AM, homor wrote: oh fuck me i'm stupid.

Thank you, Obvious Overlord.

---

At 4/16/09 11:34 PM, KemCab wrote:

Except the man is dying of something and the gunman is holding the cure for it.

"government tampering with legally binding contracts"

But the government is not directly intervening with the contract. Either way, that's no use to keep an otherwise incompetent CEO.

Which the government has no real authority to do in fiat.

No, which is why it was done indirectly.

that is my POINT. deploying underhanded tactics to get around the law is not something a presidential administration should be resorting to, especially not as often as the obama administration has been doing. I'm sure we'll be seeing a LOT of this in the future. Can't ban guns? fine, we'll just make the price of bullets so insanely expensive that no one can afford them." Might as well just use the constitution as toilet paper and piss on the graves of the founding fathers if you're gonna try and turn America into Europe 2.0.

Of course, you'll never see how this is dangerous, as you can never find any fault in your glorious infallible leader.

If Bush did it I would be angry but I would never say he went out of his legal bounds. Hell, he didn't do that when he went into Iraq anyway.

so if BUSH does it, you would be angry. if OBAMA does it, you're fine with it.

You're bound to have protesters at any inauguration, especially if people felt you 'stole' the election from them.

bush: $42 million - "extravagant, immoral"
Obama: $140+ million - "Historic, grand, elegant"

It didn't take the long months and years that doom and gloom forecasters predicated.

ahh, yes, the doom and gloom your precious president kept shouting along with his army of reporters. The only people who said it would take years were the liberal news reporters and your glorious infallible leader. Everyone else knew it wouldn't take nearly as long.

Yet it happened in '92, and third parties routinely steal votes from the main ones.

no, I mean the system is set up for a party to actually come to power and remain that way.

As a side note, I don't see Obama getting a 2nd term.

---

At 4/17/09 09:12 AM, KemCab wrote:

It was hardly to get around the law. It's just getting the executives at the major car companies to play ball by our terms. Beggars can't be choosers.

If by "we", you mean Obama, considering only single digits of the populace believe they can run the businesses better.

Typical paranoid bullshit.

Explain death penalty for me then.

Except Obama never suspended our liberties or started a costly war for no good reason.
And neither of them ever did anything blatantly illegal.

Warrantless wiretapping which is a direct violation of the constitution.

Only Obama went one further by stating that the government is immune and can not be sued.

By Keith no less

There were more celebrities present and it was a historic inauguration that people were markedly conscious of, and even if they tried, they would HAVE to spend more than Bush did.

Excuses are fun.

You said yourself that Obama will try to plunge us deeper into a recession with the spending. You also figured that he's part of some big conspiracy to take control of the United States. Last I checked, he never said that this recession was going to last very long either.

Do you believe this level of debt is sustainable?

So you can magically see 4 years in the future?

Do you know what massive inflation means?

---

This proves how much of pussies are country has become as a collective whole. I mean the original party that were all badass, climbing onto British ships and destroying all their cargo. Now it is just a bunch of douches with signs.

---

At 4/16/09 09:26 AM, KemCab wrote: The beauty of this is that when we can't pay our debts and our economy crashes, everyone else's goes down the shitter too. The biggest thing causing this problem is Social Security and Medicare, which are only going to worsen as time goes on. But that doesn't mean that you should stop all spending to divert this crisis, because that's not going to stop the debt and it's going to shrink the economy at the same time.

It is a problem, one without an easy answer. To be honest, there's no escaping the downfall of the social welfare programs, because whether we cut it and take the hurt or wait until it gives us the hurt, we're still pretty screwed.

---

Don't you just love that a huge part of what they're protesting is irresponsible spending, yet fot these parties they purchased tens of millions of tea bags?

---

At 4/17/09 04:07 PM, Patton3 wrote: Don't you just love that a huge part of what they're protesting is irresponsible spending, yet fot these parties they purchased tens of millions of tea bags?

It was an improvement from their old plan to send barrels of pork through the mail.

---

I don't think they know that they have representation, its just that the political party that they voted for LOST. Thats democracy for you, stop bitching. Isn't kinda funny that they aren't even being taxed, but they still protest.

Silly Republicans.

---

its not about taxation without representation... every one has fucking representation. I just dont like the fact that I pay income tax + social security (which ill never see again) + medicare tax, and then I pay tax when I buy food. After all that tax, ill pay tax when I buy a car and then ill pay a tax to register the car once a year after that. Then, ill pay taxes upon buying a home and then pay property tax and school tax when I move in. You are also taxed when you purchase a marriage license. If thats not enough, then ill be glad to know that I can pay more tax when I buy gas, beer, clothing, tobacco, or anything else in a retail store. Basically, I am just glad to know that over half of the money I work for flies into the governments hands... UNLESS I choose to not spend any money on any of the above things... but wait, the US government is trying so hard to fuck up the value of the dollar that its actually a bad idea to save your money because its losing value. :O

---

I actually went to one and it was a blast. For the record, I'm not a republican, I'm not a democrat. I hate those associations and I think our 2 party system is what is killing America and creating those tax hikes. I mean who are supposed to vote for? Another guy who'll also raise our taxes? The 2 parties seem to have a trust going on where neither does anything radically different than the other, and because people won't elect third parties, we're stuck with this bullshit.

---

At 4/17/09 09:12 AM, KemCab wrote:
It was hardly to get around the law. It's just getting the executives at the major car companies to play ball by our terms. Beggars can't be choosers.

Which may not be extortion per se, but it's definitely government manipulation.

Typical paranoid bullshit.

Not really, we know the government exploits loopholes in the constitution from time to time. Literally making bullets expensive is indeed not unconstitutional.

Except Obama never suspended our liberties

Right, he didn't push through and sign Acta..................

or started a costly war for no good reason.

No, he's just finding other ways to triple the deficit.

You said yourself that Obama will try to plunge us deeper into a recession with the spending. You also figured that he's part of some big conspiracy to take control of the United States. Last I checked, he never said that this recession was going to last very long either.

He may not be trying to plunge us down further, but he's doing it regardless. As for taking control, I wouldn't put it beyond him, what with acta and stuff.

---

At 4/17/09 09:02 PM, KemCab wrote:
These 'tea parties' are nonsensical and only see their money being used in the short-term; I mean, not that they're protesting against anything specific in the first place.

Sorry, but that is pure ignorance. We want our hard earned money going to our wallets, not the fucking government. This is exactly the bullshit that we knew he'd pull when he gave his speech to Joe the Plumber, people elected him anyway, and now our hard earned dollars are being fucked over. As for your point on taxing it then giving it back, wouldn't it be simpler just to not tax and not have to give it back in the first place? I mean not everyone is going to benefit, those that qualify won't necessarily know it and apply, and like w/ food stamps and medicaid, not all who qualify and apply will even get it.

So our government is effectively taxing us, not really giving too much of it back, and furthering the ever controversial deficit. What's nonsensical is to deny this and pretend like you know what the tea parties re about, when you're not even a part of them.

Is Obama in direct control of General Motors? He just wanted an executive who was stubborn to change out. He didn't replace the CEO with a government crony. He didn't even choose the replacement. He just told them to restructure. Is that so much to ask?

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge, he did exactly nothing to UAW, which was a major part of the problem. I'm not going to pretend like GM did nothing wrong, because of course they did, no companies are perfect. But, if he did ignore UAW, which to my knowledge he did, then that is quite the problem.

All of which was done under the Patriot Act. You can't be prosecuted for violating the Constitution either, especially not in wartime.

Either way they're both tyrants.

Unless it releases public information about you against your disclosure. If people convicted on a wiretap could sue there would be no point in wiretapping. Why am I arguing about this? The Republicans barely raised their voices about the Patriot Act.

Well then, that just furthers the issue that both parties are full of shit, now doesn't it?

---

WHY DO I HAVE TO PAY TAXES

UMMM NO THEY WEREN'T RAISED THATS NOT WHAT I SAID

I JUST DON'T LIKE PAYING TAXES

---

At 4/17/09 06:27 AM, mikailus wrote: Thank you, Obvious Overlord.

oh shut up. jerk.

---

At 4/16/09 07:53 PM, Korriken wrote: *facepalm* worst analogy ever. Its more along the lines of a gunman holding a gun to a person's head and says he'll shoot if his family doesn't meet his demands.

What? That's nothing like what's happening here.

Imagine an old friend of yours drops by your house. No shirt, coke all over his nose, complete train wreck; asks you for some money to get back on his feet. You agree to give him the money, because he used to mean a lot to you. However, you put terms on it. He can't buy coke, he has to put himself in rehab, etc. That's the nature of the contract you're making with your friend. _That_ is what we're dealing with here. Nobody is holding a gun to anybody's head. These banker's put themselves knee deep in the shit, and if they want to be pulled out, they have to agree to our terms.

---

The amazement from the sheer amount of intellect within the confines of these forums never ceases to amaze me. Why, if only a handful of you lively chaps could take over the American government today and fix this bloody mess I'd be such a happy little lamb.

Thank you, mighty ones, and brilliant lot all of you. For certain your manners of debate and speech mark a new age in politics.

---

At 4/18/09 09:07 PM, Emonquente wrote: The amazement from the sheer amount of intellect within the confines of these forums never ceases to amaze me. Why, if only a handful of you lively chaps could take over the American government today and fix this bloody mess I'd be such a happy little lamb.

Thank you, mighty ones, and brilliant lot all of you. For certain your manners of debate and speech mark a new age in politics.

That'd be nice, but I get the impression of heavy sarcasm. Anyway, I was thinking, would Obama supporters be doing this if Obama had lost? I'm gonna say no, but what do you guys think?

---

What the fuck? Since when does the right-wing protest anything? And how is an even freer market going to prevent companies from bleeding people's fucking wallets? I also love the claims that it's a "grass-roots" movement, backed by the GOP and networks like FOX News. Don't they realize the Boston Tea Party was destruction of property, not a bunch of libertarians, nut-job christians, and Glenn Beck-esque fear-mongers waving a bunch of signs claiming Obama is a socialist, and that he's the next Hitler. These people don't know jack shit. Don't get me wrong, I'm no Obama supporter, nor did I support the bailouts, but fuck, these people have no solution, or any clear agenda for that matter.

---

At 4/18/09 10:03 PM, Kev-o wrote: WHARGARBL

Not having an agenda does not preclude one from being opposed to what the powers that be are doing. Aside from which, I know for a fact that not all the people attending the tea parties were Republicans - one need not be a hardened ideologue to look at the current state of our tax system and feel more than a little bit cheated.

To that end, I have translated your quote into English for comedic effect.

---

At 4/18/09 10:52 PM, dySWN wrote:
Not having an agenda does not preclude one from being opposed to what the powers that be are doing. Aside from which, I know for a fact that not all the people attending the tea parties were Republicans - one need not be a hardened ideologue to look at the current state of our tax system and feel more than a little bit cheated.

To that end, I have translated your quote into English for comedic effect.

Sure, but we can blame what the "powers that be" are doing due to the last administration. Maybe they're not all republicans, but they're all right-wingers, and even if they aren't all republicans, it's still backed by the GOP chairman, and advertised by FOX news. Of course the people have been cheated, that's the system at work, the system these people believe will save them. Capitalism has fucked them in the ass, and they don't even see it. These Tea Parties are frauds, and a way to regain support for the republican party.

Why would you listen to people who have no definite message, no real solutions, and propose less economic regulation in a time when companies are most reckless?

---

At 4/18/09 11:29 PM, Kev-o wrote: Sure, but we can blame what the "powers that be" are doing due to the last administration. Maybe they're not all republicans, but they're all right-wingers, and even if they aren't all republicans, it's still backed by the GOP chairman, and advertised by FOX news. Of course the people have been cheated, that's the system at work, the system these people believe will save them. Capitalism has fucked them in the ass, and they don't even see it. These Tea Parties are frauds, and a way to regain support for the republican party.

So, in short, you're just going to repeat what you said the first time, and hope that it comes out more correct the second time around. Let my know how that works for you.

Why would you listen to people who have no definite message, no real solutions, and propose less economic regulation in a time when companies are most reckless?

I don't know. Why would you listen to anyone arguing on the internet?

---

At 4/18/09 11:36 PM, KemCab wrote:

At 4/18/09 10:52 PM, dySWN wrote: one need not be a hardened ideologue to look at the current state of our tax system and feel more than a little bit cheated.

But do they have any bright solutions? Sure, our tax system is really, really in need of reform but everyone is bound to have their own idea as to how to fix it or what they want done. Is it just wanting to pay less so that they have more in their own pockets or are they truly concerned about the country's future?

Does it really matter? You and I both agree that the tax system needs reform. Coming out in numbers to show dissatisfaction is a tried and true method to convince the folks in charge to reexamine the issue and make changes.

Most people don't have the political wherewithal or economic insight to fix the tax system (that's why we elect officials to do it for us), only that there's a problem with the way things are. Wasn't that basically the stance that led the Democrats to victory this time around in the first place?

---

At 4/18/09 11:53 PM, dySWN wrote:

So, in short, you're just going to repeat what you said the first time, and hope that it comes out more correct the second time around. Let my know how that works for you.

I don't see how I was wrong, and I definitely didn't repeat myself. But I'll take that as "I have no basis for my opinion".

I don't know. Why would you listen to anyone arguing on the internet?

Exchange of ideas.

---

At 4/18/09 04:35 PM, KemCab wrote:
But is that necessarily bad? The federal government relies on clauses in the Constitution, i.e., the Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause to get things done.

It is if they're using it to overtax and stop us from having effective home defense weapons.

At least the money will go back to the taxpayer instead of overseas.

Do you have any proof, other than the words of politicians?

He's doing it? So the economy is now spiraling deeper and deeper into a full-blown depression?

Yes

stuff about acta

Even if it doesn't change things drastically, the point is that he's really no better than Bush was.

It doesn't change the fact that you have to pay taxes,

Right, but we've been overtaxed for years, and he's making it not just worse, but drastically worse.

or the fact that we've been spending so much lately that an increase in taxes is needed to pay for the existing budget deficit.

Wrong, we have been spending a lot, yes. But, you know, we, can cut spending, it's just we never do because of whiney lobbying groups. Besides which, he's only managed to triple the deficit even with the tax hikes, so I don't even see why you point that out.

Joe the Plumber was an asshole anyway.

No Joe the Plumber was a hard working American who wants his money where it belongs, his wallet. Obama directly told him he was going to take his money and distribute it around, trying to bullshit him into believing the "less is more" principle.

If you did that, we wouldn't be able to pay for roads, blah blah blah I'm avoiding the point and trying to sidetrack you by talking about shit that we've been paying for long before Obama's tax hikes.

But seriously dude, stop trying to spin your way around the point. This is about the so called "stimulus plan", not shit we've been paying for without it and certainly don't need it for.

Not giving too much of it back? I'm going to pretend you didn't say certain things that you did now.

Avoiding the point, again. What about the part where I said not everyone who qualifies will realize it, or actually get the funds once they apply for them? Cus you know, I didn't just make that up, this is known to be true with existing government programs

He's not bailing out the union.

No shit sherlock.

Also, GM doesn't have to hire union workers. Toyota doesn't.

Too bad you're avoiding the point that it's near impossible to fire them, as well as the point that they're not exactly hired on while they're in the union.

UAW was getting too comfortable, but effectively you can't really do anything to them either.

So let me get this straight, the government can do whatever it wants to CEO's, but not UAW? Gimme a break.

Under Wagoner, GM shares dropped over 90% and he ultimately axed any progress going on at GM,

Of course, a large chunk of that was UAW's fault, but you seems to be prancing around that little issue.

for example, not only he killed the EV1 line, but he had the cars taken from their leasers, then had them shredded and destroyed. He focused on SUVs and trucks as oil prices skyrocketed. You can't deny he was part of the problem.

Of course, I never said he was an angel, I only said that something needed to be done about UAW as well. But you're so focus on trying to cover Barrack Obama's ass that you're missing a lot of my points. A case in point:

By that logic so was Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt. Hell, anyone who suspends your liberties for a moment of necessity must be a tyrant, right?

See, you're critical of Bush for being an asshole, and he was one. But the thing is, when Barrack Obama does similar things, you go out of your way to excuse him for it.

Not to sound cliché but Obama seems to have offended both parties in some way,

Technically, but it's more like he's offended Americans in general.

At the same time, if he didn't do those things, people would criticize him for doing nothing

You're going to get criticism no matter what you do, yes. But, it's extremely rare that a politician is so disasterous, that in his first 4 months alone, he causes more controversy than the 2 presidents before him combined. 16 years of fuck ups between Clinton and Bush have already been outdone by Obama, I'd call that pretty serious.

---

At 4/19/09 12:03 AM, Kev-o wrote:

At 4/18/09 11:53 PM, dySWN wrote:

So, in short, you're just going to repeat what you said the first time, and hope that it comes out more correct the second time around. Let my know how that works for you.

I don't see how I was wrong, and I definitely didn't repeat myself. But I'll take that as "I have no basis for my opinion".

As I stated above, I supported the protests because they were a means of bringing attention to the issue of tax system convolution.

Most of us aren't accountants, and therefore don't know what can be done within the framework of the law to fix the tax code, but all the same we realize that something is wrong when our bank accounts shrink to fund the above-average pay raises that congress gives themselves almost every year, or to cover "bridge to nowhere" projects. Why should the paperwork be so complicated, or the process so exacting? Why should things like tax shelters even exist, and why does the tax burden fall so disproportionately across our collective backs?

I don't have the answer, and I doubt you do either. But I'm sure that some guy sitting in the IRS basement or some gal on the senate floor does - and if protesting is one way to spark movement on their behalf, then I'm going to support it.

---

At 4/19/09 04:02 AM, KemCab wrote:
Yeah, but it hasn't even been 100 days since he's been in office and people are still scrutinizing every decision he's made or every action his supporters make.

He took office on January 20 right? It's been over 100 days since then.

Overtax? At what point does tax become blatantly excessive?

How about when you lose a significant portion of your income to them?

And define 'effective' home defense weapons. There will never be a blanket ban on firearms thanks to the Second Amendment anyway.

Never said there would be, just saying "if" they tried such a thing it'd be bad.

Do I need proof to tell you that if I empty a bucket of water into the soil in my backyard, the water will most likely end up first draining in the nearest river rather than in the Persian Gulf?

Saying "it's obvious, I don't need proof" in the most verbose way you possibly can isn't proving a thing. Except that you don't have any proof that is.

The Dow Jones Industrial average is up nearly 6% today at 8131.33, which is funny considering that it was 1,500 points lower a few weeks ago.

Which had nothing to do with Obama FYI. In fact, in the early parts of the day, it was dropping. Gee, could it be the stimulus that was making it drop?

stuff about ACTA

And the patriot act didn't really do anything but tell authorities to go after terrorists and people who don't report them(which was already illegal because of the good samaritan law). Not only that, but Bush NEVER tried to grant amnesty for warrantless searches. You're telling me that's okay?

Again, define overtax. Does taxation put you below the poverty line?

Does it have to? What about my right to enjoy my hard earned money?

If anything, one thing we CAN cut spending on is the military.

Right, let's not cut any of those bullshit programs that aren't working because the workers are told to give only to "who needs it" and most of the allocated funds end up truncated when they give very little out because of it, just the military. Not all the pork barrel spending, not the useless programs, not the war on drugs, just the military.

Except he was not a licensed plumber in the first place,

Missing the point, again. Can you, like, stop purposely dodging the issue of, you know, heinously high taxes? I don't care what he was, he's right when he says Obama has no right to overtax him. I see you favor Ad Hominem when it suits you to engage in it though.

Okay, consider it this way. If Obama gives you a couple thousand bucks to spend in tax relief, you have an incentive to use that money. If it works, the economy will pick back up because people are putting more money into it, hence jobs will increase, wages will improve, your stocks will do better, and you can pay for it later because you have a lot more money to spare. This is the basis of Keynesian economics.

I can definitely see merit to this way of thinking. There is a small problem I have with this though, and that is the assumption that it will play out the way it is supposed to. I can't help but think that this is nothing more than a nice thought. BUT, if it does work, it works.

You know, you really should just talk like this instead of trying to spin, dodge, and tap dance your way around the issue itself. Seriously, I know you're a smart guy, you don't need to try diverting me with bullshit.

Because it's underfunded already. It's not a money machine and it's overburdened as is.

Ok, where's the evidence that foodstamps, section 8, and medicaid is underfunded. It's my understanding that they are overfunded if anything, but if I'm wrong I'm wrong. However, I need evidence.

They're not a money-making enterprise in the same sense as GM is, so why would they need to reorganize?

Not per se, but they do have drastically over inflated benefits and stuff.

Yet GM doesn't have to make so many concessions to them-

I don't know the specifics, but even so, gutting UAW needs to be done.

not to mention that they weren't profitable anyway because they refused to go with consumer demand.

Part of which was UAW's fault. They didn't want to negotiate car prices for instance, because they were paying UAW so much.

stuff about "Do whatever it wants"?

But that's missing the point. I'm saying for him to put weight on GM alone is wrong.

Wages weren't the only thing that caused the problem.

No, not at all, but it was a huge part of it.

Something needs to be done? First of all, the UAW endorsed Obama. On one hand, he's a hypocrite because he doesn't do anything about the union, but if he does, he's a backstabber.

Okay so you think any time someone supports a politician who wins, it's perfectly excusable for the politician to ignore the problems they cause and serve their interests? Funny, we're quick to criticize politicians for being in the pockets of corporations, but being in the pockets of overinflated unions that have 50 billion dollar resorts is perfectly acceptable because it makes them non-backstabbers?

Second, WHAT needs to be done?

Tell them to stop demanding so much benefits that car companies who employ them can't profit?

All they did was grab management by the balls to negotiate for better wages,

....and benefits to the point that it was near impossible for GM to profit.

and with the stimulus plan in action, it would be counterproductive in the sense that a large part of that plan is to give the consumer more buying power, which you can't do if you force them to cut pay.

Of course, the UAW didn't exactly lack for "buying power" and didn't need any help in the first place, which you are ignoring.

Similar things? Hell, it's not like he suspended the Bill of Rights or anything in the, what, not even three months that he's been in office so far?

January to April = 4 months. And yeah, he totally isn't going for bypassing police warrants, or ACTA, or suspension of habeous corpus(sp?), oh wait, yeah he is.

Personally I was never critical about the Patriot Act in general, and if anything, the reorganization and consolidation of investigative federal agencies was one of the few GOOD things to come out of Bush's presidency.

Ok, then I suppose I was wrong on that point.

As opposed to Canadians?

As in, people of any affiliation are starting to hate him. I know democrats who went to the Tea Party with me.

Disastrous? What exactly has he done that was completely disastrous? Nothing happened of note during other presidents' first days in office because few people cared after the media hype of elections. Hell, Bush didn't really do anything before 9/11.

Maybe so, but there's already people threatening an eventual revelotion(the significance of the tea parties) if shit doesn't turn around. Sure, people have talked about it on Clinton and Bush, but they've been isolated incidents. Not a HUGE mass of organized people. Even the Governers' offices are openly rebelling.

But this is the first black president and EVERYONE wants to see what he'll do and how he'll deal with the situation. He is scrutinized in every detail- could you blame him for any controversy?

You are being racist, judgemental, and self-righteous. This has nothing to do with his race, and frankly, it is very bigoted of you to even bring that up.

That's a pretty bold claim. Obama never had an affair or started a war.

Just a possible brewing revolution.

---

A slight correction, I miscalculated the days and months, so go ahead and ignore what I said about that.