US Prez Election 2012 Thread - Opinions and Discussions

[Warren Dew]

The freedom of the individual. A corporate entity is not an individual.

Economic freedom has nothing to do with corporations. Taxation is the primary way in which economic freedom is infringed.

If people were forced to work for the government without pay for 3 months of the year, liberals would be up in arms about violations of individual rights. Yet, liberals are perfectly willing to do the same thing by imposing 25% income taxes.

[Coito ergo sum]

The freedom of the individual. A corporate entity is not an individual.

Economic freedom has nothing to do with corporations. Taxation is the primary way in which economic freedom is infringed.

If people were forced to work for the government without pay for 3 months of the year, liberals would be up in arms about violations of individual rights. Yet, liberals are perfectly willing to do the same thing by imposing 25% income taxes.

Well, and corporations are just groups of people or individuals acting in a corporate capacity, a partnership capacity, or otherwise as a business.

One needs to be quite careful about "getting what one wishes for" when one advocates denying people who operate through corporate forms any fundamental rights. Some corporations, for example, are non-profits - like PETA, for example.

PETA is a corporation.

Does PETA not have any rights? Can PETA exercise freedom of speech? Can the State stop PETA from spending money on advertising? Lobbying?

[Hermit]

Taxation is the primary way in which economic freedom is infringed.

If people were forced to work for the government without pay for 3 months of the year, liberals would be up in arms about violations of individual rights. Yet, liberals are perfectly willing to do the same thing by imposing 25% income taxes.

They don't work for the government as such. At least not in Australia. They pay taxes in exchange for public roads, the police service, defense forces and so on. In short, they pool money in the form of paying taxes in order to provide themselves with facilities and services that they could not obtain if they tried to do so individually.

[Coito ergo sum]

Bad news Democrats _ 2012 could be worse than 2010
Email this Story

Nov 9, 5:03 PM (ET)

By CHARLES BABINGTON

(AP) In this April 28, 2010 file photo, Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb. meets with reporters on Capitol...
Full Image


WASHINGTON (AP) - Last week's election was bad for Democrats. The next one could be worse. Senate Democrats running in 2012 will be trying to hold their jobs in states where Republicans just scored major congressional and gubernatorial victories - Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, New Mexico and Virginia.
The Democrats' problems don't end with senators.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20101109/D9JCSAI80.html

[Coito ergo sum]

President number 45? http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/11/11 ... -nearly-9/

[Ian]

President number 45? http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/11/11 ... -nearly-9/

Nah. Veep material at best. How's this guy going to get through the primaries?

[Coito ergo sum]

President number 45? http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/11/11 ... -nearly-9/

Nah. Veep material at best.

Insanely popular in NJ, and for a Republican that's an eyebrow raising accomplishment. NJ is so blue they're purple.

And, he is really gettin' the job done up there.

[Feck]

Wow 8 pages !let me know when you you realise why most of the world laughs at Republicans ,I'm not lumping you in with them , but the stupid Obama bashing that seems to be going on in America is quite comical ,the fact that Tea party seems to actually be a well supported movement just confirms that truth honesty and history have been thrown away in favour of ill informed nationalist rhetoric .Your declared support of individual rights is in stark contrast to your assumption that that what is best for companies esp big global companies is best for the people .

I would like you to explain how a whole industry of health insurance can profitably exist without all of their costs and profits being taken from the money that people pay for their health care ?

[Coito ergo sum]

Wow 8 pages !let me know when you you realise why most of the world laughs at Republicans ,

Most of you over in Europe don't really know what you're talking about. But, needless to say - they just won quite number of victories 10 days ago.

I'm not lumping you in with them , but the stupid Obama bashing that seems to be going on in America is quite comical ,

Bashing?

Well, it's not just going on over here.

the fact that Tea party seems to actually be a well supported movement just confirms that truth honesty and history have been thrown away in favour of ill informed nationalist rhetoric .Your declared support of individual rights is in stark contrast to your assumption that that what is best for companies esp big global companies is best for the people .

I've never once stated or implied that I think that what is best for companies is best for the people.

I would like you to explain how a whole industry of health insurance can profitably exist without all of their costs and profits being taken from the money that people pay for their health care ?

That's a rather incoherent question, but I think you're asking me to explain how the health insurance industry can make profits without all the "costs and profits" being ten from the money people pay for health insurance premiums.

The short answer is that they can't. People pay for health insurance by paying premiums. A "premium" is the "price" at which a health insurance policy is sold. How else would it work? Health insurance companies charge people premiums. They use the premiums to pay fixed and variable costs, like overhead, salaries, operating costs, etc., any money not going for day-to-day operating costs is invested to try to make some interest. Then they take total revenues and subtract out the cost of doing business and that leaves the gross profit margin. Some of that has to go back into the business for a variety of reasons, some is paid out in taxes, and that leaves a net profit, which can be distributed to the shareholders as dividends, or stored as liquid capital on hand, bonused out to employees, or a number of other things.

Are you under the impression that your health care in your country is "cost free?" Not paid for?

[Coito ergo sum]

Down to 39% in some polls: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washing ... palin.html

[eXcommunicate]

Down to 39% in some polls: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washing ... palin.html

sigh

The top comment on that article:

Is anyone really surprised by these numbers?

Maybe some closet Marxist who wants the Feds to control every aspect of our lives. Or, how about a communist that believes every person works for the common good?

Yeah, those and others who think along those lines.

The closer we get to '12 the more Palin will beat Obamunist.

Watch...

Obama is slightly right of center. Just because he is a mile to the left of you, does not make him a Marxist.

As to my opinion about the 2012 election; if we thought the 2004 and 2008 elections were bad, 2012 will look like the Civil War by comparison. Citizens United and the collapse of campaign finance reform will bury all major candidates in a chunky salsa of grime and gore. Somehow I doubt how this will be a good thing for our Democratic Republic.

[Coito ergo sum]

[

Obama is slightly right of center.

Depends where you put the center. In American politics, he is pretty far left.

Just because he is a mile to the left of you, does not make him a Marxist.

I didn't write the article, nor did the article call him a Marxist. That's some crackpot posting a comment.

As to my opinion about the 2012 election; if we thought the 2004 and 2008 elections were bad, 2012 will look like the Civil War by comparison. Citizens United and the collapse of campaign finance reform will bury all major candidates in a chunky salsa of grime and gore. Somehow I doubt how this will be a good thing for our Democratic Republic.

How long did that campaign finance reform even remain in effect? Did it actually serve to make campaigns less gory? Doesn't seem so.

That campaign finance reform was a sham, and didn't really do anything it was ostensibly offered to do.

[eXcommunicate]

Obama is slightly right of center.

Depends where you put the center. In American politics, he is pretty far left.

I put the center in as objective of a position as I can. The Libertarian Party's 'Political Compass,' while not perfect by any stretch, places him in the upper-right quadrant (Right-Authoritarian), but not by much. I tend to agree. Likewise they place Kucinich and others exactly where one would expect as well.

Just because he is a mile to the left of you, does not make him a Marxist.

I didn't write the article, nor did the article call him a Marxist. That's some crackpot posting a comment.

I was speaking rhetorically to the crackpot.

As to my opinion about the 2012 election; if we thought the 2004 and 2008 elections were bad, 2012 will look like the Civil War by comparison. Citizens United and the collapse of campaign finance reform will bury all major candidates in a chunky salsa of grime and gore. Somehow I doubt how this will be a good thing for our Democratic Republic.

How long did that campaign finance reform even remain in effect? Did it actually serve to make campaigns less gory? Doesn't seem so.

That campaign finance reform was a sham, and didn't really do anything it was ostensibly offered to do.

My lament wasn't over any specific piece of legislation, but rather the collapse of any campaign finance reform movement in Congress (and likewise the electorate).

[Coito ergo sum]

Obama is slightly right of center.

Depends where you put the center. In American politics, he is pretty far left.

I put the center in as objective of a position as I can. The Libertarian Party's 'Political Compass,' while not perfect by any stretch, places him in the upper-right quadrant (Right-Authoritarian), but not by much. I tend to agree. Likewise they place Kucinich and others exactly one would expect as well.

Just because he is a mile to the left of you, does not make him a Marxist.

I didn't write the article, nor did the article call him a Marxist. That's some crackpot posting a comment.

I was speaking rhetorically to the crackpot.

As to my opinion about the 2012 election; if we thought the 2004 and 2008 elections were bad, 2012 will look like the Civil War by comparison. Citizens United and the collapse of campaign finance reform will bury all major candidates in a chunky salsa of grime and gore. Somehow I doubt how this will be a good thing for our Democratic Republic.

How long did that campaign finance reform even remain in effect? Did it actually serve to make campaigns less gory? Doesn't seem so.

That campaign finance reform was a sham, and didn't really do anything it was ostensibly offered to do.

My lament wasn't over any specific piece of legislation, but rather the collapse of any campaign finance reform movement in Congress (and likewise the electorate).

I think the debate over where he is on the political spectrum is completely irrelevant. Calling him right or left doesn't change what he is in favor of, and if you read what his "'druthers" are, he ain't right. He's a pragmatist, of course, but if you gave him his wishes - his wildest dreams - do you think he'd be a moderate rightist? I don't. I'm going by what he has said he wants, not by what he achieves.

Also, I think the public doesn't understand what "campaign finance reform" is beyond some vague notion that there is something wrong with the way campaigns are financed and that if we "reform" it, we'll make it better. Beyond that, the electorate hardly knows who the Vice President is and thinks the Constitution says whatever they approve of and prohibits everything they don't like.

[eXcommunicate]

I'm going by what he has said he wants, not by what he achieves.

And oddly enough I am going by what he has attempted to do or has done, rather than by what I think may be in his heart.

Also, I think the public doesn't understand what "campaign finance reform" is beyond some vague notion that there is something wrong with the way campaigns are financed and that if we "reform" it, we'll make it better. Beyond that, the electorate hardly knows who the Vice President is and thinks the Constitution says whatever they approve of and prohibits everything they don't like.

No disagreement.

But be a politician and come out with a specific plan for reform and you will get destroyed. Be as vague as possible. Even when you are specific odds are less than 50/50 whether the MSM will report upon it (let alone objectively).