The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Started by truejedi3,287 pages

Here is a column by Charlie Reese that really got me out of the us vs. them mindset when it came to Republican v Democrat. The man speaks good sense.


Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code. Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices. 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the fed eral government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in Iraq, it's because they want them in Iraq.

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like 'the economy,' 'inflation,' or 'politics' that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses, provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

I've already stated this so I'll say it again. There are only two ways the government can implement this reform.

1. Raise taxes. They already want to raise them for people making over 300k. What they don't realize is this won't even begin to sustain the new healthcare system.. When they realize this, they're going to fall back to their only other option.

2. Print more money. With the amount they're going to print, it's going to further devalue the dollar, raise interest rates as well as prices for gas/oil/housing, and further detract consumer spending and consumer confidence. Once this happens, foreign investors are going to pull out of the dollar, sending US treasury securities back to America, and causing massive inflation, if not hyperinflation. Once we hit hyperinflation, it's the end game. After that it will take many many years to reform our way of economic thinking(like using classical economics rather than the inherently flawed Keynesians), and our standard of living is going to drop significantly. Americans will continue saving and pull the savings rate into double digits while the economy contracts, and we will slowly grow out of this and hopefully back to a superpower within the next 20 years.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I'm not talking about the past 8 years Lightsnake, I'm talking about the 20th century. And wait, economy having the first bright spot? ROFL!!

I don't mean to offend you LS but stick to either star wars or philosophy as you have no idea what you're talking about. "But the media reported the recession is ending lolz!!" Just stop.

As for Obama, I already predicted the double standards people like you will use. If he succeeds, it's because he's awesome. If he fails, it's Bush's fault. Bernanke is incompetent like Greenspan before him, and Obama is already at 1.4 trillion dollars in only 6 months of his presidency, driving the economy into deep, longterm depression.

Your argument here consists of....well, it's not an argument. It's an "LOL YOU TOO" in a nutshell

And yes, first bright spot. Deep, long term depression? The money Obama has spent to FIX our problems is chump change compared to the cash Bush was throwing out. Want proof?
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/06/09/business/economy/20090610-leonhardt-graphic.html
You want to blather on how Obama's responsible for the biggest deficits ever? Argue with the facts.

So, please. You want to talk about double standards? The Republicans were sure quiet the last eight years devoting to ****ing America up.

Originally posted by Lightsnake
Your argument here consists of....well, it's not an argument. It's an "LOL YOU TOO" in a nutshell

And yes, first bright spot. Deep, long term depression? The money Obama has spent to FIX our problems is chump change compared to the cash Bush was throwing out. Want proof?
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/06/09/business/economy/20090610-leonhardt-graphic.html
You want to blather on how Obama's responsible for the biggest deficits ever? Argue with the facts.

So, please. You want to talk about double standards? The Republicans were sure quiet the last eight years devoting to ****ing America up.

Thank you LS for illustrating my last point for me rather nicely.
As i just said, if you had read:

Generally when confronted with these three things, a Democrat will say: "Well, Bush had MORE lobbyists, and Bush cut taxes for rich people, and Bush had MORE pork. (respectively)"

This, my friends (lest we forget McCain) is unacceptable. If you listen to the left, they will have you believe W was the worst president in history. If this is so, how does comparing Obama to Bush help you at all? It shouldn't. Everytime you draw that sort of comparison, by your own admission you make Obama closer to the worst president of all time.

Those points are generally used to illustrate the utter hypocrisy of gaining standards the moment a Democrat got into office. Oh, and btw, far as taxes go:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/us/02unemploy.html
http://www.538host.com/taxcut2.PNG

Moreover, the issues people take umbrage with Bush over are things like invasion of Iraq, authorized use of torture, shady dealings with private military contractors, wasteful spending that absolutely dwarfs anything Obama's done, horrific foreign policy, expansion of executive power...

Originally posted by Lightsnake
Those points are generally used to illustrate the utter hypocrisy of gaining standards the moment a Democrat got into office. Oh, and btw, far as taxes go:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/us/02unemploy.html
http://www.538host.com/taxcut2.PNG

How do those 2 links help you at all? Nothing positive there, that's for sure.


Moreover, the issues people take umbrage with Bush over are things like invasion of Iraq,

Voted on and passed by a margin of 77 to 23 and 296 to 133 respectively:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/


authorized use of torture

Done to 3. Count em 3 terrorists.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/feb/06/nation/na-terror6

Oh, and known about, and approved by speaker of the house nancy pelosi.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/pelosi-cia-misled-congress-over-waterboarding/


shady dealings with private military contractors,

His personal dealings? Really? The POTUS's personal under-the-table dealings with military contractors. Right. Try the Pentagon. Conspire much?
Also: Define shady.


wasteful spending that absolutely dwarfs anything Obama's done,

Show me wasteful: And before you post war prices, you might as well know that Obama has already signed more spending than the entire cost of the Iraq war, so you better have some more wasteful spending besides that.

Think AIG bailout...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25164.html


horrific foreign policy,

sounds pretty subjective right there, prove it.


expansion of executive power...

Public Healthcare? Stimulus packages? Government now owns a controlling share of GM for crying out loud? don't make me laugh.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/05/11/ceo-confirms-treasury-is-calling-shots-at-gm/

I'll end it right here and now.

I spent 5 months of my life canvassing here in Vegas for the Obama campaign and I'm not about to let some conservative come in my thread and say "BLAH BLAH OBAMAS JUST AS BAD AS BUSH" and play the name game. Like **** man... I feel like going on a movie forum is a rather liberal thing anyway, so check your opinions about politics at the door. This isn't about KC Masterpiece vs. Bullseye Barbecue sauce, It's a social, feel good kind of thread.

I hate to be blunt but ****, arguing over politics on a movie forum. Shit, It's not like your opinion is gonna be read by people who matter.

Originally posted by Lightsnake
Your argument here consists of....well, it's not an argument. It's an "LOL YOU TOO" in a nutshell

And yes, first bright spot. Deep, long term depression? The money Obama has spent to FIX our problems is chump change compared to the cash Bush was throwing out. Want proof?
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/06/09/business/economy/20090610-leonhardt-graphic.html
You want to blather on how Obama's responsible for the biggest deficits ever? Argue with the facts.

So, please. You want to talk about double standards? The Republicans were sure quiet the last eight years devoting to ****ing America up.

I rest my case Lightsnake. I've posted LOTS of proof the past 3 pages, and your only proof is....A NYTimes article? Do you even KNOW what an economic recovery consists of or are you just following blindly?
The Democrats have ****ed up this country for most of the 20th century with their Keynesian economics. Please don't participate in threads you have business being in.

Originally posted by Lightsnake
Those points are generally used to illustrate the utter hypocrisy of gaining standards the moment a Democrat got into office. Oh, and btw, far as taxes go:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/us/02unemploy.html
http://www.538host.com/taxcut2.PNG

Moreover, the issues people take umbrage with Bush over are things like invasion of Iraq, authorized use of torture, shady dealings with private military contractors, wasteful spending that absolutely dwarfs anything Obama's done, horrific foreign policy, expansion of executive power...

And under Obama, he's expanding the money supply to epic proportions while bringing this economy down. What he's doing is no different or better than Bush, and he's doing it on a bigger scale. "But he's trying to get everyone healtchare!!!" Wow, so?

The unemployment keeps going up(real unemployment not nominal, what the government reports to increase consumer confidence). What do these tax credits do? Oh that's right, stimulate spending for consumers who don't have money and should be saving. What sound economic policy! Lets fix this economy by paying old debts with new debts! It's called a ponzi scheme LS, and I'm sure you know what that is.

Again, do not come in here with a bullshit NYtimes article because you might as well not type. These stimulus packages have been nothing short of a disaster and the tax increase that is possibly going to happen with the new healthcare plan is absolutely ridiculous.

Originally posted by truejedi
How do those 2 links help you at all? Nothing positive there, that's for sure.

Voted on and passed by a margin of 77 to 23 and 296 to 133 respectively:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

Done to 3. Count em 3 terrorists.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/feb/06/nation/na-terror6

Oh, and known about, and approved by speaker of the house nancy pelosi.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/pelosi-cia-misled-congress-over-waterboarding/

His personal dealings? Really? The POTUS's personal under-the-table dealings with military contractors. Right. Try the Pentagon. Conspire much?
Also: Define shady.

Show me wasteful: And before you post war prices, you might as well know that Obama has already signed more spending than the entire cost of the Iraq war, so you better have some more wasteful spending besides that.

Think AIG bailout...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25164.html

sounds pretty subjective right there, prove it.

Public Healthcare? Stimulus packages? Government now owns a controlling share of GM for crying out loud? don't make me laugh.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/05/11/ceo-confirms-treasury-is-calling-shots-at-gm/

He doesn't understand economics. His whole argument is based on a NYTimes article and blind optimism.

My num. 1 reason for not wanting health care reform to potentially save lives and end pain is simply i don't think that our government will be able to afford it without raising taxes, and i don't want to pay more taxes value money more than human life.

Asshat 😒

Originally posted by Nephthys
Asshat 😒

sticks and stones love.

( remember what the bananas mean!)

💃 💃 💃 💃 💃

Originally posted by truejedi
How do those 2 links help you at all? Nothing positive there, that's for sure.

They show a tax cut for over 95 percent of working households

Voted on and passed by a margin of 77 to 23 and 296 to 133 respectively:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/


and then mismanaged horribly by the Bush administration, along with rather faulty intelligence.


Done to 3. Count em 3 terrorists.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/feb/06/nation/na-terror6

Oh, and known about, and approved by speaker of the house nancy pelosi.

So, violating the law is okay if you only do it to three people.


His personal dealings? Really? The POTUS's personal under-the-table dealings with military contractors. Right. Try the Pentagon. Conspire much?
Also: Define shady.

When you hire out companies like Blackwater for Iraq, it goes beyond 'personal dealings.' Especially given the numerous war crimes from Blackwater and the current allegations against Eric Prince

Show me wasteful: And before you post war prices, you might as well know that Obama has already signed more spending than the entire cost of the Iraq war, so you better have some more wasteful spending besides that.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/06/09/business/economy/20090610-leonhardt-graphic.html
Sums it up just as well

Think AIG bailout...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25164.html

sounds pretty subjective right there, prove it.


Have you been paying attention the last eight years? Obviously not.


Public Healthcare? Stimulus packages? Government now owns a controlling share of GM for crying out loud? don't make me laugh.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/05/11/ceo-confirms-treasury-is-calling-shots-at-gm/


Your point being?

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I rest my case Lightsnake. I've posted LOTS of proof the past 3 pages, and your only proof is....A NYTimes article? Do you even KNOW what an economic recovery consists of or are you just following blindly?
The Democrats have ****ed up this country for most of the 20th century with their Keynesian economics. Please don't participate in threads you have business being in.

"I've posted proof! LOTS OF PROOF! LOTS! LOOOOOTS!"
Despite it being torn apart by Red, and while you offer nothing of substance in return.

Oh, and this is what we call "Ad hominem." You squeal about the source while ignoring the argument completely. The democrats messed the country up with the economics? Who was it who gave us a surplus and economic prosperity after George HW Bush inherited a massive date from all of Reagan's spending and wasteful programs (Which conservatives conveniently ignore)? Right. Clinton. The 'tax and spend' liberal Democrat.

Do you know what economic recovery consists of? OR are you just going to move the goal posts?

And under Obama, he's expanding the money supply to epic proportions while bringing this economy down. What he's doing is no different or better than Bush, and he's doing it on a bigger scale. "But he's trying to get everyone healtchare!!!" Wow, so?

The unemployment keeps going up(real unemployment not nominal, what the government reports to increase consumer confidence). What do these tax credits do? Oh that's right, stimulate spending for consumers who don't have money and should be saving. What sound economic policy! Lets fix this economy by paying old debts with new debts! It's called a ponzi scheme LS, and I'm sure you know what that is.

Again, do not come in here with a bullshit NYtimes article because you might as well not type. These stimulus packages have been nothing short of a disaster and the tax increase that is possibly going to happen with the new healthcare plan is absolutely ridiculous.

Again. Bringing down the economy? Sounds like someone's getting all his opinions from Fox News. Yeah, it's a bit different from Bush and what you're saying seems to be supported only by right wing talking points as opposed to reality.

Unemployment keeps going up? It just went down, actually. And again. Suddenly republicans have standards on economics when the Democrats are in power. They sure as hell didn't mind voting for Bush's bail out.

Once again: an ad hominem. "WAAAH! DON'T YOU DARE POST AN NYT ARTICLE THAT DID NOTHING MORE THAN POST A GRAPH!" Attacking it rather than actually address what's IN IT. You know. Actual statistics.

You're screeching about disaster and cats lying with dogs while ignoring basic things. When analysts are actually saying it looks to be turning aorund, you throw a fit about the evil liberal media. Post a graph that shows, point blank, the spendings compared to the last eight years, you squeal about the New York times.

What an intellectually dishonest child you are at heart.

Originally posted by Lightsnake
They show a tax cut for over 95 percent of working households

Do you have any idea what tax cuts do to a country that isn't producing any kind of real wealth anymore? I didn't think so.

and then mismanaged horribly by the Bush administration, along with rather faulty intelligence.

Which was expanded upon by Obama and his lapdog Bernanke who decided that the answer to all of our national debt problems and credit crisis was....To print more money!

So, violating the law is okay if you only do it to three people.

Apparently you think it's ok to collapse America.. Ah the double standards.

When you hire out companies like Blackwater for Iraq, it goes beyond 'personal dealings.' Especially given the numerous war crimes from Blackwater and the current allegations against Eric Prince

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/06/09/business/economy/20090610-leonhardt-graphic.html
Sums it up just as well

Have you been paying attention the last eight years? Obviously not.

Your point being?

I love how you divert attention from the real issues. The misdirection is hilarious. Don't argue what you don't understand.

Originally posted by Lightsnake
"I've posted proof! LOTS OF PROOF! LOTS! LOOOOOTS!"
Despite it being torn apart by Red, and while you offer nothing of substance in return.

Actually Red never argued with me, but your desperation is obvious.

Oh, and this is what we call "Ad hominem." You squeal about the source while ignoring the argument completely. The democrats messed the country up with the economics? Who was it who gave us a surplus and economic prosperity after George HW Bush inherited a massive date from all of Reagan's spending and wasteful programs (Which conservatives conveniently ignore)? Right. Clinton. The 'tax and spend' liberal Democrat.

You don't have an argument. You're arguing out of ignorance and telling yourself your argument holds water.

Regan also created more additional jobs than any president in history and his only apparent fault was increasing defense spending during the apex of the cold war. Clinton was also responsible for removing realistic loan standards from banks and as a direct result of this hilarious policy, we have had a credit crisis and now a credit crunch. Go Clinton!

Do you know what economic recovery consists of? OR are you just going to move the goal posts?

Of course I do. Go back 2 pages and read, otherwise stfu since you don't know what you're talking about other than "READ NYTIMES!!!"

Again. Bringing down the economy? Sounds like someone's getting all his opinions from Fox News. Yeah, it's a bit different from Bush and what you're saying seems to be supported only by right wing talking points as opposed to reality.

I don't watch Foxnews champ, and the same would apply to CNN. Oh wait, is that wrong? Double standards? And you're telling me out of the left and right wing, the RIGHT is opposed to reality? Way to stereotype the incompetent left.

Unemployment keeps going up? It just went down, actually. And again. Suddenly republicans have standards on economics when the Democrats are in power. They sure as hell didn't mind voting for Bush's bail out.

Actually, unemployment didn't go down. Then again you don't know how to do any kind of research. There are no more jobs to cut. What's that? Unemployment benefit claims are being reduced? Could it be that after 18 months, those same people aren't counted in the BLS? Wow

Once again: an ad hominem. "WAAAH! DON'T YOU DARE POST AN NYT ARTICLE THAT DID NOTHING MORE THAN POST A GRAPH!" Attacking it rather than actually address what's IN IT. You know. Actual statistics.

Yes, I've addressed statistics as it pertains entirely to the argument that our economy is headed for disaster. You're telling me there's a bright light because....NYTimes reported it? Good lord..

You're screeching about disaster and cats lying with dogs while ignoring basic things. When analysts are actually saying it looks to be turning aorund, you throw a fit about the evil liberal media. Post a graph that shows, point blank, the spendings compared to the last eight years, you squeal about the New York times.

This isn't about liberal and conservative crap, otherwise I would give a detailed history of all the amazing accomplishments achieved by the leftist economists.

What an intellectually dishonest child you are at heart.

You definitely have balls arguing something you don't understand. Keep up the good work though. Or perhaps you need to start with intro to Macro and learn basic concepts.

Lets look at the trade surplus, or should we say deficit. Obama is simply owning this devastation. Now lightsnake, what happens when imports fall slower than exports? An even higher trade deficit!!! We're at our world record pace going right now. We stopped producing in
the 60s/70s and started consuming and it's lead us to this. Next.

What happened with Clinton in office? High inflation! Then it miraculously went down with Bush until he started spending like a cheerleader. They're both morons for that.

Increased a buttload with Obama's stimulus plans that tried to stimulate consumer spending with money the consumer didn't have!

^That is self explanatory. Now tell me oh wise one. What has Obama done that's been remotely good? How are you going to stimulate consumer spending when your total debt including medicare and SS is approaching 50 trillion dollars, and you can't sustain that debt because you are still consuming more than you are producing? What's Obama's answer? More consumption! More spending! Less production. Get your head out of your ass.

Originally posted by Lightsnake
They show a tax cut for over 95 percent of working households

and then mismanaged horribly by the Bush administration, along with rather faulty intelligence.

So, violating the law is okay if you only do it to three people.

When you hire out companies like Blackwater for Iraq, it goes beyond 'personal dealings.' Especially given the numerous war crimes from Blackwater and the current allegations against Eric Prince

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/06/09/business/economy/20090610-leonhardt-graphic.html
Sums it up just as well

Have you been paying attention the last eight years? Obviously not.

Your point being?

Lightsnake, i mean you no disrespect, none with my next sentence, but you obviously don't have any idea what you are talking about. I respect your right to have an opinion different than mine, but I don't think you are a follower of politics. For this reason, i'm going to cease rebutting your posts regarding politics. You aren't going to change your mind, and you really offer nothing of substance in return.

To put simply, your NY times article is at best skewed, at worst, wrong and purposely misleading. That is still the only bit of proof you offered in defense of our current President.
I don't like Obama, I didn't like Bush. They both had serious problems, and have made stupid decisions, however, an honest analysis of spending shows that Obama has put federal spending through the roof. Not Bush.
Bush spent too much, i don't deny it, and i loathe him for it. HOwever Obama has and is on pace to spend much much more.

I'm not a fan of the ex-President Bush, but i pick legitimate reasons for disliking him, rather than repeating the same campaign drivel handed out like candy by liberals preying on the innocent.

Once again, no disrespect at all, I'd go to war and fight and die for your right to hold the opinions that you do. I just wish you would take a more objective look at the information available, and learn for yourself what your reasons are for your political stance, instead of repeating everything you hear from fringe elements.

I really believe more people would have the attitude expressed in that article i already posted by Charley Reese if they did so.

Good day to you sir.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Asshat 😒

oh, and don't get me wrong DE, i give a pretty decent percentage of my income to charities to help the needy. I do believe in helping people, and whenever anyone i know is in serious financial trouble because of medical needs, i help them the best i can. It might not be much, but i do what i can. I just think i am better off deciding where my money can go than the government can. I'm not a fan of taxes. Not giving money to sick people. So there was no need for the name-calling. You jumped to conclusions, and didn't even send me any bananas of love at the end of your post.

💃 💃 💃 💃

( or were they bananas of peace? oh well...)

Pot. Kettle. Black.

I'm trying not to say anything I'll regret, but REALLY?

You want to talk about objective examination of the evidence? You want to play the 'Think for yourself' card?

Canopy of Ice, anyone?