Poll
Question:
Which political ideas do you sympathyse with?
Option 1: Red Communist Party - Command economy
votes: 7
Option 2: Pink Socialist - Democrat Left (Obama, Kerry, Carter) - Welfare State
votes: 14
Option 3: Democrat Center (Clintons, LBJ) - Big Goverment
votes: 5
Option 4: Republican establishment- Big Goverment (Bushes, Romney, McCain)
votes: 2
Option 5: Constitutional Conservative - Tea Party - small goverment (Reagan, Cruz, Goldwater)
votes: 8
Well?
:lol:
What?
Its not biased...
Best. Poll. EVAH!
Some shade between pink and red.
Also there should be a Green option so we can pretend it isn't actually Red.
Quote from: derspiess on February 05, 2015, 11:57:13 AM
Also there should be a Green option so we can pretend it isn't actually Red.
Dammit, you are right.
We need to maintain the appearances.
Nobody for the Democrat center? I'm surprised.
Quote from: Siege on February 05, 2015, 12:02:38 PM
Nobody for the Democrat center? I'm surprised.
I'm somewhere between Pink Socialist and Democrat Centre, so I voted Democrat Centre to make you happy :hug:
My biggest beef is how you lump LBJ and Bubba together.
My second biggest is that you call Reagan a small government guy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 05, 2015, 12:08:58 PM
My biggest beef is how you lump LBJ and Bubba together.
I can see some similarities.
QuoteMy second biggest is that you call Reagan a small government guy.
HE TRIED
I've no idea how to vote in this poll.
Yeah, I don't get the Reagan love amongst the small government crowd. I suppose he was the last Republican president who was really charismatic, but that seems like a pretty thin criteria.
Quote from: derspiess on February 05, 2015, 11:57:13 AM
Also there should be a Green option so we can pretend it isn't actually Red.
Green + Red = Chinese Communist Party
Quote from: derspiess on February 05, 2015, 12:10:24 PM
I can see some similarities.
In terms of big government? Name one.
QuoteHE TRIED
How so?
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2015, 12:10:52 PM
I've no idea how to vote in this poll.
You are obviously GOP Establishment.
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2015, 12:10:52 PM
I've no idea how to vote in this poll.
That's because a second grader put this poll together.
Quote from: frunk on February 05, 2015, 12:11:39 PM
Yeah, I don't get the Reagan love amongst the small government crowd. I suppose he was the last Republican president who was really charismatic, but that seems like a pretty thin criteria.
He made volumes of speeches from the 60s onward advocating small government. He continued with that rhetoric through his presidency. Obviously as pragmatic as he was he had to compromise on some of those principles to get things done. You're not going to get ideological purity out of any president these days (if ever?).
Quote from: Siege on February 05, 2015, 11:52:08 AM
What?
Its not biased...
Where does George Wallace show up? Strom Thurmond? Ron Paul?
Quote from: derspiess on February 05, 2015, 12:16:29 PM
Quote from: frunk on February 05, 2015, 12:11:39 PM
Yeah, I don't get the Reagan love amongst the small government crowd. I suppose he was the last Republican president who was really charismatic, but that seems like a pretty thin criteria.
He made volumes of speeches from the 60s onward advocating small government. He continued with that rhetoric through his presidency. Obviously as pragmatic as he was he had to compromise on some of those principles to get things done. You're not going to get ideological purity out of any president these days (if ever?).
Or maybe the small government this was just bullshit. Politicians are known to do that.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2015, 12:18:16 PM
Where does George Wallace show up?
Democrat Center
QuoteStrom Thurmond?
Demoncrat Center, then Republican establishment.
QuoteRon Paul?
Constitutional Consoivative.
Quote from: derspiess on February 05, 2015, 12:16:29 PM
He made volumes of speeches from the 60s onward advocating small government. He continued with that rhetoric through his presidency. Obviously as pragmatic as he was he had to compromise on some of those principles to get things done. You're not going to get ideological purity out of any president these days (if ever?).
He oversaw a massive expansion of the military. That wasn't a compromise, that was his main deal.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2015, 12:18:16 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 05, 2015, 11:52:08 AM
What?
Its not biased...
Where does George Wallace show up? Strom Thurmond? Ron Paul?
George Wallace: Racist
Strom Thurmond: Bigot and doinked the help.
Ron Paul: Lunatic
Where does Angela Merkel, Tony Blair, Olaf Palme, Dilma Rouseff, Xi Jinping, Deng Xiaoping, and Alex Salmond show up on that scale?
Yeah, no. Try again. If Wallace a centrist democrat he would have been with LBJ. The political party he formed merged with Constitution party. So he was further right then Reagan and Goldwater. Strom Thurmond became a major Reagan ally.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 05, 2015, 12:22:13 PM
He oversaw a massive expansion of the military. That wasn't a compromise, that was his main deal.
Well, duh. We also had to be the Russians. We all signed on for that.
Quote from: Jacob on February 05, 2015, 12:26:35 PM
Where does Angela Merkel, Tony Blair, Olaf Palme, Dilma Rouseff, Xi Jinping, Deng Xiaoping, and Alex Salmond show up on that scale?
Foreigners, and thus "null vote".
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 05, 2015, 12:22:13 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 05, 2015, 12:16:29 PM
He made volumes of speeches from the 60s onward advocating small government. He continued with that rhetoric through his presidency. Obviously as pragmatic as he was he had to compromise on some of those principles to get things done. You're not going to get ideological purity out of any president these days (if ever?).
He oversaw a massive expansion of the military. That wasn't a compromise, that was his main deal.
That's the thing with "small government" conservatives: the DoD never counts.
Quote from: derspiess on February 05, 2015, 12:28:04 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 05, 2015, 12:22:13 PM
He oversaw a massive expansion of the military. That wasn't a compromise, that was his main deal.
Well, duh. We also had to be the Russians. We all signed on for that.
Small government is incompatible with the cold war. If he believed we had to compete with the Russians militarily then he can't be small government. If he says we need to do both he's either dumb or a liar. Since he focused on one and not the other I'd suggest it's the second one.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2015, 12:27:48 PM
Yeah, no. Try again.
No.
QuoteIf Wallace a centrist democrat he would have been with LBJ.
Not all centrists have to agree with each other.
QuoteThe political party he formed merged with Constitution party. So he was further right then Reagan and Goldwater.
Yep, then he became conciliatory and whatnot. On balance he was a mainstream Demoncrat. Just like good ol' ROBERT BYRD.
QuoteStrom Thurmond became a major Reagan ally.
Yep.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 05, 2015, 12:28:48 PM
That's the thing with "small government" conservatives: the DoD never counts.
Neither do Social Security and Medicare, and, until recently at least, interest on the debt, which together make up 80% of the budget.
If small government is just a euphemism for "no money for niggers," then Bubba should get top honors. He implemented an absolutely revolutionary dismantling of AFDIC.
Quote from: derspiess on February 05, 2015, 12:31:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2015, 12:27:48 PM
Yeah, no. Try again.
No.
QuoteIf Wallace a centrist democrat he would have been with LBJ.
Not all centrists have to agree with each other.
QuoteThe political party he formed merged with Constitution party. So he was further right then Reagan and Goldwater.
Yep, then he became conciliatory and whatnot. On balance he was a mainstream Demoncrat. Just like good ol' ROBERT BYRD.
QuoteStrom Thurmond became a major Reagan ally.
Yep.
Exactly what is "on the balance" a mainstream democrat? He stood in opposition to overreaching federal government and adhered to strict constitutionalism. That seems the thing of the conservative. In 1964 you could not be a mainstream democrat and be a segregationist. You had to be a right wing democrat. Too rightwing to stay in the party. This friction caused segregationist democrats to do either one of two things: Leave the party or modify their views. Most left the party.
"They're building a bridge over the Potomac for all the white liberals fleeing to Virginia" is not the words of an LBJ New Dealer. Sounds more like Siege.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 05, 2015, 12:34:29 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 05, 2015, 12:28:48 PM
That's the thing with "small government" conservatives: the DoD never counts.
Neither do Social Security and Medicare, and, until recently at least, interest on the debt, which together make up 80% of the budget.
Interest on the debt. :rolleyes:
QuoteIf small government is just a euphemism for "no money for niggers," then Bubba should get top honors. He implemented an absolutely revolutionary dismantling of AFDIC.
Of course; the only way Democrats were ever going to win the White House ever again were to coopt popular Republican platforms, and nothing was more socially popular in the late '80s/early '90s than the War on Welfare Queens.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2015, 12:50:55 PM
"They're building a bridge over the Potomac for all the white liberals fleeing to Virginia" is not the words of an LBJ New Dealer. Sounds more like Siege.
What the hell are you talking about?
I do not express myself that coherently and I consistently commit grammatical murder.
Dammit, the socialists are wining.
Quote from: Siege on February 05, 2015, 01:06:40 PM
Dammit, the socialists are wining.
Just like in the real world.
I have no idea how to vote in this poll.
Quote from: 11B4V on February 05, 2015, 12:14:23 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2015, 12:10:52 PM
I've no idea how to vote in this poll.
That's because a second grader put this poll together.
At least this second grader does not blame a crime on the victim.
Quote from: Valmy on February 05, 2015, 01:07:55 PM
I have no idea how to vote in this poll.
What a copycat!
Quote from: Valmy on February 05, 2015, 01:07:55 PM
I have no idea how to vote in this poll.
Constitutional conservative.
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2015, 01:10:38 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 05, 2015, 01:07:55 PM
I have no idea how to vote in this poll.
What a copycat!
I think the problem is he put politicians beside each category. I have a hard time saying 'like Ted Cruz? Sign me up!'
Quote from: Siege on February 05, 2015, 01:10:55 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 05, 2015, 01:07:55 PM
I have no idea how to vote in this poll.
Constitutional conservative.
Alright. Though I value civil liberties a lot more than your buddy Reagan did.
Quote from: Siege on February 05, 2015, 01:10:55 PM
Constitutional conservative.
Besides, possibly, the Obamacare penalty, what possible relationship is there between the size of government and the Constitution?
Why no non-gay options?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 05, 2015, 01:12:27 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 05, 2015, 01:10:55 PM
Constitutional conservative.
Besides, possibly, the Obamacare penalty, what possible relationship is there between the size of government and the Constitution?
That reminds me how I enjoyed some of the political signage this past election season; this one was my fave-rave:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhecker.files.wordpress.com%2F2014%2F06%2Fbouchat-delegate-9a-2014-small-2.jpg%3Fw%3D625%26amp%3Bh%3D731&hash=66e46d00dae5f87b7d808dbcb1d0df36c227f335)
LIBERTARIAN
CONSTITUTIONALIST
Quote from: Valmy on February 05, 2015, 01:11:34 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2015, 01:10:38 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 05, 2015, 01:07:55 PM
I have no idea how to vote in this poll.
What a copycat!
I think the problem is he put politicians beside each category. I have a hard time saying 'like Ted Cruz? Sign me up!'
Fair. I'm also struggling with Dem Center and Republican establishment being the two middle most options.
Obama is a socialist now? :lol:
I'm surprised there are actually more than two categories to choose from.
Quote from: Siege on February 05, 2015, 01:10:26 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on February 05, 2015, 12:14:23 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2015, 12:10:52 PM
I've no idea how to vote in this poll.
That's because a second grader put this poll together.
At least this second grader does not blame a crime on the victim.
Whatever you say tea bagger. Your obstructionist views are the problem with this country.
Quote from: Tyr on February 05, 2015, 01:25:58 PM
Obama is a socialist now? :lol:
That's how right wing nutballs see him.
Anyone disagree with the notion that Obama definitely is a big government guy?
Quote from: Tyr on February 05, 2015, 01:25:58 PM
Obama is a socialist now? :lol:
And a Muslim, a Nazi and a Maoist. He is also secretly worshiped as a God by Democrats.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 05, 2015, 01:31:30 PM
Anyone disagree with the notion that Obama definitely is a big government guy?
Well, no. But that's not particularly odd thing. Every President since Hoover was big government.
Quote from: Tyr on February 05, 2015, 01:25:58 PM
Obama is a socialist now? :lol:
That isn't a new label for him. :huh:
He's arguably a Social Democrat though, isn't he? And that's a moderate subset of Socialism.
Quote from: derspiess on February 05, 2015, 01:39:02 PM
He's arguably a Social Democrat though, isn't he? And that's a moderate subset of Socialism.
Very borderline. But then most modern western politicians are to an extent.
Quote from: derspiess on February 05, 2015, 01:39:02 PM
He's arguably a Social Democrat though, isn't he? And that's a moderate subset of Socialism.
Er, no. Social democrats still want the means of production in the hands of the workers. Obama has not said he wishes to do that.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 05, 2015, 01:31:30 PM
Anyone disagree with the notion that Obama definitely is a big government guy?
Moi.
Under Obama the headcount in the Federal government has gone down and non-entitlement spending declined. I can't think of any significant "big government" initiative other than Obamacare, and Obamacare is at its core, the old Heritage health plan. It is a way to achieve goals that are bipartisan without a single payer structure. The stimulus was in fact temporary. His rhetoric is less small government than Bubba but in terms of action I don't see a distinction.
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2015, 01:35:08 PM
Quote from: Tyr on February 05, 2015, 01:25:58 PM
Obama is a socialist now? :lol:
That isn't a new label for him. :huh:
But neither is it remotely accurate :huh:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 05, 2015, 01:57:05 PM
Moi.
Under Obama the headcount in the Federal government has gone down and non-entitlement spending declined.
Are you including DoD?
QuoteI can't think of any significant "big government" initiative other than Obamacare, and Obamacare is at its core, the old Heritage health plan. It is a way to achieve goals that are bipartisan without a single payer structure. The stimulus was in fact temporary. His rhetoric is less small government than Bubba but in terms of action I don't see a distinction.
I can think of a number of less significant ones that were realized (home insulation, mortgage refinance, buying GM and Chrysler for the UAW, Race to the Top, Common Core, Obamaphones(!), filling the donut hole) and he has proposed free juco for everyone and more free money for Schumer families with children.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2015, 01:43:25 PM
Er, no. Social democrats still want the means of production in the hands of the workers. Obama has not said he wishes to do that.
I don't think Social Democrats have wanted the means of production in the hands of the workers for at least three or four decades, if not more.
Social Democrats, in my perception, seem to be primarily about strong worker protections (minimum wage, union rights, labour laws et. al.) and substantial redistribution (i.e. taxation, various benefit schemes) in the pursuit mitigating wealth inequality. They also often have a preference for public ownership in the service of the public interest.
Nothing about the means of producition in the hands of workers... that's for straight up Socialists.
Also non-entitlement spending has declined presumably because of the sequester.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 05, 2015, 12:28:48 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 05, 2015, 12:22:13 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 05, 2015, 12:16:29 PM
He made volumes of speeches from the 60s onward advocating small government. He continued with that rhetoric through his presidency. Obviously as pragmatic as he was he had to compromise on some of those principles to get things done. You're not going to get ideological purity out of any president these days (if ever?).
He oversaw a massive expansion of the military. That wasn't a compromise, that was his main deal.
That's the thing with "small government" conservatives: the DoD never counts.
Actually, I wouldn't mind us having a smaller army and maybe a smaller air force. But I want a bigger navy, maybe even with a few of the battleships Neil so loves.
Quote from: Jacob on February 05, 2015, 02:14:23 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2015, 01:43:25 PM
Er, no. Social democrats still want the means of production in the hands of the workers. Obama has not said he wishes to do that.
I don't think Social Democrats have wanted the means of production in the hands of the workers for at least three or four decades, if not more.
Social Democrats, in my perception, seem to be primarily about strong worker protections (minimum wage, union rights, labour laws et. al.) and substantial redistribution (i.e. taxation, various benefit schemes) in the pursuit mitigating wealth inequality. They also often have a preference for public ownership in the service of the public interest.
Nothing about the means of producition in the hands of workers... that's for straight up Socialists.
It was my impression they were moving toward a socialist program through democratic means, but if you are right they really can't be describted as Socialist anymore, and Derspeiss (and the whole of the GOP) is still wrong.
Quote from: dps on February 05, 2015, 02:56:24 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 05, 2015, 12:28:48 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 05, 2015, 12:22:13 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 05, 2015, 12:16:29 PM
He made volumes of speeches from the 60s onward advocating small government. He continued with that rhetoric through his presidency. Obviously as pragmatic as he was he had to compromise on some of those principles to get things done. You're not going to get ideological purity out of any president these days (if ever?).
He oversaw a massive expansion of the military. That wasn't a compromise, that was his main deal.
That's the thing with "small government" conservatives: the DoD never counts.
Actually, I wouldn't mind us having a smaller army and maybe a smaller air force. But I want a bigger navy, maybe even with a few of the battleships Neil so loves.
Battleships are very inefective in the modern battlefield.
I would rather have more ship-killers, like attack subs.
And carriers are the ultimate force projection platform.
Battleships are only good for target practice.
Quote from: Siege on February 05, 2015, 03:02:53 PM
Quote from: dps on February 05, 2015, 02:56:24 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 05, 2015, 12:28:48 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 05, 2015, 12:22:13 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 05, 2015, 12:16:29 PM
He made volumes of speeches from the 60s onward advocating small government. He continued with that rhetoric through his presidency. Obviously as pragmatic as he was he had to compromise on some of those principles to get things done. You're not going to get ideological purity out of any president these days (if ever?).
He oversaw a massive expansion of the military. That wasn't a compromise, that was his main deal.
That's the thing with "small government" conservatives: the DoD never counts.
Actually, I wouldn't mind us having a smaller army and maybe a smaller air force. But I want a bigger navy, maybe even with a few of the battleships Neil so loves.
Battleships are very inefective in the modern battlefield.
I would rather have more ship-killers, like attack subs.
And carriers are the ultimate force projection platform.
Battleships are only good for target practice.
I would say all of them are ineffective on a battlefield. They really need a sea to operate in.
I'm fairly right-wing, one nation pro-Europe Heathite Tory, so I don't really have anywhere to select on the poll. :bowler:
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2015, 03:07:02 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 05, 2015, 03:02:53 PM
Quote from: dps on February 05, 2015, 02:56:24 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 05, 2015, 12:28:48 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 05, 2015, 12:22:13 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 05, 2015, 12:16:29 PM
He made volumes of speeches from the 60s onward advocating small government. He continued with that rhetoric through his presidency. Obviously as pragmatic as he was he had to compromise on some of those principles to get things done. You're not going to get ideological purity out of any president these days (if ever?).
He oversaw a massive expansion of the military. That wasn't a compromise, that was his main deal.
That's the thing with "small government" conservatives: the DoD never counts.
Actually, I wouldn't mind us having a smaller army and maybe a smaller air force. But I want a bigger navy, maybe even with a few of the battleships Neil so loves.
Battleships are very inefective in the modern battlefield.
I would rather have more ship-killers, like attack subs.
And carriers are the ultimate force projection platform.
Battleships are only good for target practice.
I would say all of them are ineffective on a battlefield. They really need a sea to operate in.
Yeah, when they're on a battlefield, they're kind of immobile.
If the Yamato had reached Okinawa the war wouldn't have ended until '46, maybe '47.
Goldwater would punch Siege in the nuts.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2015, 03:07:02 PM
I would say all of them are ineffective on a battlefield. They really need a sea to operate in.
:D
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 05, 2015, 03:22:50 PM
Goldwater would punch Siege in the nuts.
Sure.
He and what army.
There is no Hitler. :(
Quote from: Siege on February 05, 2015, 03:40:25 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 05, 2015, 03:22:50 PM
Goldwater would punch Siege in the nuts.
Sure.
He and what army.
He'd have your CO make you stand there and take a punch to the nuts.
Quote from: Martinus on February 05, 2015, 03:42:11 PM
There is no Hitler. :(
Martinus: Do not try and bend the Hitler. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth.
Neo: What truth?
Martinus: There is no Hitler.
Neo: There is no Hitler?
Martinus: Then you'll see, that it is not the Hitler that bends, it is only yourself.
Quote from: Siege on February 05, 2015, 03:40:25 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 05, 2015, 03:22:50 PM
Goldwater would punch Siege in the nuts.
Sure.
He and what army.
As a Major General, I suspect a substantial one.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 05, 2015, 03:46:27 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 05, 2015, 03:40:25 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 05, 2015, 03:22:50 PM
Goldwater would punch Siege in the nuts.
Sure.
He and what army.
He'd have your CO make you stand there and take a punch to the nuts.
That would be hazing, and therefore an unlawful order.
I am only required to obey lawful orders.
My CO orders me to squash muslim babies, it is my duty to disobey such an order.
The old "I was just following orders" is not defense in a court martial.
Quote from: Siege on February 05, 2015, 03:51:00 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 05, 2015, 03:46:27 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 05, 2015, 03:40:25 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 05, 2015, 03:22:50 PM
Goldwater would punch Siege in the nuts.
Sure.
He and what army.
He'd have your CO make you stand there and take a punch to the nuts.
That would be hazing, and therefore an unlawful order.
I am only required to obey lawful orders.
My CO orders me to squash muslim babies, it is my duty to disobey such an order.
The old "I was just following orders" is not defense in a court martial.
You'd be making baby wine in a flash.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 05, 2015, 04:02:29 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 05, 2015, 03:51:00 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 05, 2015, 03:46:27 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 05, 2015, 03:40:25 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 05, 2015, 03:22:50 PM
Goldwater would punch Siege in the nuts.
Sure.
He and what army.
He'd have your CO make you stand there and take a punch to the nuts.
That would be hazing, and therefore an unlawful order.
I am only required to obey lawful orders.
My CO orders me to squash muslim babies, it is my duty to disobey such an order.
The old "I was just following orders" is not defense in a court martial.
You'd be making baby wine in a flash.
I won't.
It is illegal and immoral, against the army values.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2015, 04:20:43 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 05, 2015, 04:04:59 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2015, 03:49:20 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 05, 2015, 03:40:25 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 05, 2015, 03:22:50 PM
Goldwater would punch Siege in the nuts.
Sure.
He and what army.
As a Major General, I suspect a substantial one.
Air Force :contract:
I think he was made a Major general before the Air Force began.
He was an officer in the AF when it was still part of the Army, but I don't think he made general until it became a separate service. Not sure about that though.
Quote from: Siege on February 05, 2015, 03:47:25 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 05, 2015, 03:42:11 PM
There is no Hitler. :(
Martinus: Do not try and bend the Hitler. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth.
Neo: What truth?
Martinus: There is no Hitler.
Neo: There is no Hitler?
Martinus: Then you'll see, that it is not the Hitler that bends, it is only yourself.
Bend it Like Hitler sounds like a terrible parody film.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 05, 2015, 02:04:41 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 05, 2015, 01:57:05 PM
Moi.
Under Obama the headcount in the Federal government has gone down and non-entitlement spending declined.
Are you including DoD?
Yes
Total federal outlays in nominal terms went from $3.517 trillion for 2009 to $3.506 trillion for 2014 (they are projected to increase in 2015). On-budget only there is a decline from 3.0 trillion to 2.8 trillion. In % of GDP terms, the decrease is from 24% to just over 20%. Even if you go back pre-recession to 2007 or 2008 to get a "normal" baseline there is virtually no change in federal spending/GDP.
Quotehome insulation, mortgage refinance, buying GM and Chrysler for the UAW, Race to the Top, Common Core, Obamaphones(!), filling the donut hole) and he has proposed free juco for everyone and more free money for Schumer families with children.
This is a mix of small potatoes stuff (home insulation, race to the top, "Obamaphones" (actually a Bush era program!)) and one shot responses to the financial crisis (GM and mortgage refi). Common Core isn't "big government" and is not in fact in federal initiative. As a case for being a big government guy a la LBJ it isn't that compelling.
The last SOTU was more in that mold, but the context is a new Congress he knows will reject the spending proposals. It is just political fodder for Hillary's fund raising effort.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 05, 2015, 07:15:14 PM
"Obamaphones" (actually a Bush era program!))
And doesn't use a single tax dollar anyway.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 05, 2015, 07:18:45 PM
And doesn't use a single tax dollar anyway.
It uses nothing but tax dollars. :huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 05, 2015, 07:19:50 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 05, 2015, 07:18:45 PM
And doesn't use a single tax dollar anyway.
It uses nothing but tax dollars. :huh:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp
QuoteThe Lifeline program is not directly subsidized by taxpayer monies. It is paid for out of the federal Universal Service Fund (USF) through a fee assessed against telecommunications service providers, who may or may not pass those costs along to their customers:
All telecommunications service providers and certain other providers of telecommunications must contribute to the federal USF based on a percentage of their interstate and international end-user telecommunications revenues. These companies include wireline phone companies, wireless phone companies, paging service companies and certain Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers.
Some consumers may notice a "Universal Service" line item on their telephone bills. This line item appears when a company chooses to recover its USF contributions directly from its customers by billing them this charge. The FCC does not require this charge to be passed on to customers. Each company makes a business decision about whether and how to assess charges to recover its Universal Service costs. These charges usually appear as a percentage of the consumer's phone bill. Companies that choose to collect Universal Service fees from their customers cannot collect an amount that exceeds their contribution to the USF. They also cannot collect any fees from a Lifeline program participant.
Well . . . it is a charge applied by the government to a private entity, and the incidence of that has to fall somewhere. But it hardly makes the case out for Obama (or bush or whoever was responsible for it) to be an apostle of BIG G.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 05, 2015, 07:19:50 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 05, 2015, 07:18:45 PM
And doesn't use a single tax dollar anyway.
It uses nothing but tax dollars. :huh:
Wrong, FOXNewsboi.
QuoteWhere does the money for Lifeline subsidy come from? You.
Take a look at your phone bill and you'll see a charge -- typically a few dollars a month -- for payments to the "Universal Service Fund." That's the umbrella program covering various ventures, including Lifeline, that are designed to make telephone communications universally available to all Americans.
The government requires most telecoms to pay into the fund. The carriers then typically pass the costs on to their customers as a monthly surcharge. Last year, Lifeline accounted for 20% of the $8.1 billion Universal Service Fund distributed to support connections for rural areas, schools, hospitals and low-income individuals.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/26/technology/mobile/tracfone-free-phones/
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 05, 2015, 07:25:35 PM
Well . . . it is a charge applied by the government to a private entity, and the incidence of that has to fall somewhere. But it hardly makes the case out for Obama (or bush or whoever was responsible for it) to be an apostle of BIG G.
But it's not a tax. Just like one doesn't have to take a shitty no-paying job that keeps one in working poverty, one is not required to pay into it by having a telephone. See how that goes both ways?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 05, 2015, 07:25:35 PM
Well . . . it is a charge applied by the government to a private entity, and the incidence of that has to fall somewhere. But it hardly makes the case out for Obama (or bush or whoever was responsible for it) to be an apostle of BIG G.
He must be; his name starts with a big B too, has an I in it and whilst it doesn't have two Gs, it does have four, count them four As ! Damn, what other proof do you need?
Truth is we haven't had a big government President since LBJ. Or a small government one. There have been differences in priorities and emphasis within the budget but the overall size of the federal government in the economy has remained pretty stable aside from cyclical fluctuation.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 05, 2015, 07:30:46 PM
But it's not a tax. Just like one doesn't have to take a shitty no-paying job that keeps one in working poverty, one is not required to pay into it by having a telephone. See how that goes both ways?
One is not required to have a job, so income tax is...not a tax?
Voted Red Communist, obviously. Just for fun.
Voted Red Communist because it's true.
Voted Pink Socialist cause I want to take rich people's money away. :menace:
Quote from: dps on February 05, 2015, 02:56:24 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 05, 2015, 12:28:48 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 05, 2015, 12:22:13 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 05, 2015, 12:16:29 PM
He made volumes of speeches from the 60s onward advocating small government. He continued with that rhetoric through his presidency. Obviously as pragmatic as he was he had to compromise on some of those principles to get things done. You're not going to get ideological purity out of any president these days (if ever?).
He oversaw a massive expansion of the military. That wasn't a compromise, that was his main deal.
That's the thing with "small government" conservatives: the DoD never counts.
Actually, I wouldn't mind us having a smaller army and maybe a smaller air force. But I want a bigger navy, maybe even with a few of the battleships Neil so loves.
POTM
Quote from: dps on February 05, 2015, 04:35:44 PM
He was an officer in the AF when it was still part of the Army, but I don't think he made general until it became a separate service. Not sure about that though.
He was a lieutenant colonel in the USAAF. He didn't make major general until he was in the Air Force reserves.
The world would be a better place if the USAF was shoved back under the Army.
Also, I voted Pink Socialist. I'm probably somewhere in there between that and Center Democrat, but I wanted to keep as much distance as possible between myself and the Tea Party types.
So, you hate freedom.
I hate some forms of freedom. :)
Quote from: Razgovory on February 06, 2015, 04:28:29 PM
I hate some forms of freedom. :)
I know you do.
I can tell from a mile away when I am in the precense of an elitist, autocratic pig that thinks he knows better than the masses, and the end justify his means.
(https://hernandoheckler.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/1939781_700645863320511_968597330_n.jpg)
Also, she's a lesbian.
Quote from: Siege on February 08, 2015, 03:32:26 AM
I can tell from a mile away when I am in the precense of an elitist, autocratic pig that thinks he knows better than the masses, and the end justify his means.
A mile away, huh. So this sense is always there, or at least any time you're not by yourself in remote wilderness?
Quote from: Siege on February 08, 2015, 04:01:20 AM
(https://hernandoheckler.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/1939781_700645863320511_968597330_n.jpg)
If there is proper gun control, this deranged man would not have a gun in the first place.
Quote from: Siege on February 06, 2015, 01:46:28 PM
So, you hate freedom.
I hate the idea that freedom is some kind of overriding concern. It's a nice thing but other things are more important, such as public safety and order, providing a decent standard of living to your people, fostering a sense of community.
Quote from: Siege on February 08, 2015, 03:32:26 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 06, 2015, 04:28:29 PM
I hate some forms of freedom. :)
I know you do.
I can tell from a mile away when I am in the precense of an elitist, autocratic pig that thinks he knows better than the masses, and the end justify his means.
Do you hate some freedoms?
He hates the freedom you and I and Malthus have to eat pork, because he is envious.
Quote from: Monoriu on February 08, 2015, 06:11:44 AM
If there is proper gun control, this deranged man would not have a gun in the first place.
Nah, criminals can always get guns somehow, even if they have to rent them.
Quote from: Neil on February 08, 2015, 09:36:37 AM
Quote from: Siege on February 06, 2015, 01:46:28 PM
So, you hate freedom.
I hate the idea that freedom is some kind of overriding concern. It's a nice thing but other things are more important, such as public safety and order, providing a decent standard of living to your people, fostering a sense of community.
Yep. "Freedom" is a preposterously overrated concept, and could only realistically apply in the limitless world of gods. We are constrained by so many forces, especially by biological ones but scarcely less by social ones, that freedom from government intervention as a no-questions-asked principle is senseless.
Quote from: dps on February 08, 2015, 05:37:38 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on February 08, 2015, 06:11:44 AM
If there is proper gun control, this deranged man would not have a gun in the first place.
Nah, criminals can always get guns somehow, even if they have to rent them.
In that case, the gun controls aren't tough enough.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 08, 2015, 11:36:43 AM
He hates the freedom you and I and Malthus have to eat pork, because he is envious.
Going through life never knowing what BBQ pork, ribs, etc tastes like. I feel sad for him. Frankly it's just un-American.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.miniat.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F08%2Fpork-ribs.jpg&hash=b28d686028bfae2831480501e772986efcf39def)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fassets-s3.mensjournal.com%2Fimg%2Fessential%2Fpulled-pork-for-the-perfect-southern-barbeque%2F618_348_pulled-pork-for-the-perfect-southern-barbeque.jpg&hash=21029af2338166bda79c41799c983179fa719141)
Quote from: Syt on February 08, 2015, 04:09:16 AM
Also, she's a lesbian.
I know.
So what? Do you ahve anything against lesbians?
Do you think lesbians do not have/deserve the right to defend themselves?
Quote from: 11B4V on February 08, 2015, 07:34:04 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 08, 2015, 11:36:43 AM
He hates the freedom you and I and Malthus have to eat pork, because he is envious.
Going through life never knowing what BBQ pork, ribs, etc tastes like. I feel sad for him. Frankly it's just un-American.
At least I am not a traitor to the uniform I wear. Unlike you.
I might not eat pork, but I have defended with my life the right for you to do so.
And fuck you, bithc.
Quote from: Monoriu on February 08, 2015, 07:17:22 PM
Quote from: dps on February 08, 2015, 05:37:38 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on February 08, 2015, 06:11:44 AM
If there is proper gun control, this deranged man would not have a gun in the first place.
Nah, criminals can always get guns somehow, even if they have to rent them.
In that case, the gun controls aren't tough enough.
You trust in goverment is appalling.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 08, 2015, 11:36:43 AM
He hates the freedom you and I and Malthus have to eat pork, because he is envious.
I cherish your freedom to do as you will.
Quote from: Siege on February 09, 2015, 03:21:08 PM
You trust in goverment is appalling.
Yet you trust the government to treat brutally everybody it judges guilty of a crime :hmm:
QuoteI cherish your freedom to do as you will.
Thanks. Our ability to eat the sandwiches we want has been under constant fire.
Quote from: Siege on February 09, 2015, 03:21:53 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 08, 2015, 11:36:43 AM
He hates the freedom you and I and Malthus have to eat pork, because he is envious.
I cherish your freedom to do as you will.
Seriously is there any freedoms you don't ascribe to? Also you are the government. Who do you think pays your sorry ass?
Quote from: Razgovory on February 09, 2015, 03:37:47 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 09, 2015, 03:21:53 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 08, 2015, 11:36:43 AM
He hates the freedom you and I and Malthus have to eat pork, because he is envious.
I cherish your freedom to do as you will.
Seriously is there any freedoms you don't ascribe to? Also you are the government. Who do you think pays your sorry ass?
The people, the taxpayer, pays my sorry ass, not the goverment.
And I can't think of any freedom I would not support, as long as we understand it does not affect other people.
Quote from: Siege on February 09, 2015, 03:44:13 PM
The people, the taxpayer, pays my sorry ass, not the goverment.
I think almost every single person in the government could say that.
I envision Siegy's "Freedom" being much like George Michael's.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diYAc7gB-0A
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.
Quote from: Siege on February 09, 2015, 03:44:13 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 09, 2015, 03:37:47 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 09, 2015, 03:21:53 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 08, 2015, 11:36:43 AM
He hates the freedom you and I and Malthus have to eat pork, because he is envious.
I cherish your freedom to do as you will.
Seriously is there any freedoms you don't ascribe to? Also you are the government. Who do you think pays your sorry ass?
The people, the taxpayer, pays my sorry ass, not the goverment.
And I can't think of any freedom I would not support, as long as we understand it does not affect other people.
So you would open the borders completely? Free movement of people? Freedom to sell military secrets? Freedom to walk around with suicide bomber vests? Freedom to avoid safety regulations? Freedom from government inspection of food and labeling requirements? The freedom to sell you food with lead and mercury in it without having to tell you before hand? Freedom to violate contracts at will with no repercussion? "affecting" other people is a meaningless statement. Pretty much everything you do affects someone else. If you buy a loaf a bread it "affects" the person you buy it from. It affects anyone else who wishes to buy a loaf of bread since there will be one loaf of bread less to buy.
I'm fairly certain that your checks come from the Treasury department, not average Joes handing you gold coins on the street.