Pages:
Author

Topic: Obama or Romney ? - page 6. (Read 21126 times)

sr. member
Activity: 290
Merit: 250
October 19, 2012, 04:35:58 PM

Using that logic, we should have appointed congressmen and presidents too.

Atleast we have a choice between two clowns for president.  We have no choice on federal judges, or the supreme court.  Once they're in, they're in.

M

Every representative/senator/president should be chosen randomly from "real" people... they'd do less damage on accident than a career politician does on purpose.
legendary
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1001
October 19, 2012, 02:08:36 PM
Using that logic, we should have appointed congressmen and presidents too.

That way people would understand they have no say in the matter. This is little more than a pretense of choice these days.

Actually, we still DO have a choice.  Most are led to believe that they do not.  Unlike countries like china, the people still have a say in the matter, if they choose to do so, and are educated enough to know so.  The latter is the problem right now.

M
hero member
Activity: 778
Merit: 1002
October 19, 2012, 01:51:13 PM
Using that logic, we should have appointed congressmen and presidents too.

That way people would understand they have no say in the matter. This is little more than a pretense of choice these days.
donator
Activity: 1731
Merit: 1008
October 18, 2012, 07:01:22 PM
You guys should really listen to today's No Agenda show.

http://feed.nashownotes.com/rss.xml

Watching these debates, so you don't have to.
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1002
October 18, 2012, 05:57:59 PM
I disagree about the judges, unless maybe if the term limit is one term with a really long length.  Elections of people who are supposed to be objective and fair is a recipe for disaster.

Using that logic, we should have appointed congressmen and presidents too.

Atleast we have a choice between two clowns for president.  We have no choice on federal judges, or the supreme court.  Once they're in, they're in.

M

Where does it say congress or the president should be fair and objective? Wink
legendary
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1001
October 18, 2012, 05:43:56 PM
I disagree about the judges, unless maybe if the term limit is one term with a really long length.  Elections of people who are supposed to be objective and fair is a recipe for disaster.

Using that logic, we should have appointed congressmen and presidents too.

Atleast we have a choice between two clowns for president.  We have no choice on federal judges, or the supreme court.  Once they're in, they're in.

M
legendary
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1004
October 18, 2012, 05:34:34 PM
Actually, over 40% of that debt is owed to American citizens and corporations (no, they are not the same).  Love my T-Bills 

You do know it's a negative equity investment, right?

Tbills are less risk then gold (many people will disagree with that but my opinion), safer then cash and they do stop some of the loss of inflation.  Tbills are a reasonable choice forsomeone with cash savings.  I personally feel real estate is better right now due to it being undervalued but that is a risk just like gold.
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1002
October 18, 2012, 05:16:41 PM
If career politicians are an issue, why not just add term limits?  Limiting our representatives to those with independent (or family) wealth is not a good plan IMO.

Speaking of representation, did you know the house of representatives used to grow with the population?  There used to be an upper limit of 60k people per representative.  In order to be that close to direct representation today would require 30,000 representatives rather than the measly 435 we have today.  It seems to me that this is why only the powerful can influence politics... each representative has too much to handle to deal with the issues of the average constituent.

Term limits are a good idea.  Especially with lifelong appointed judges.  That, speaking of which, should be elected, not appointed.

I know about the house deal.  That's one of my responses to people who claim the census is for adequate representation of the masses.  I personally think we should have 30,000 reps.  Then absolutely NOTHING would get done unless it had to.  That'd be awesome!  No more feel good legislation!!

M

I disagree about the judges, unless maybe if the term limit is one term with a really long length.  Elections of people who are supposed to be objective and fair is a recipe for disaster.
legendary
Activity: 948
Merit: 1026
October 18, 2012, 05:04:49 PM
That equates to about 50,000 usd per person in the US.  

Actually, over 40% of that debt is owed to American citizens and corporations (no, they are not the same).  Love my T-Bills  

The Federal Reserve debt is certainly not nationalized but owed to shareholders of the NY bank.

That 6% statutory dividend looks pretty good right now.

Of course.  Backed by my faith in the American taxpayers.
...

Pretty much what I would expect from someone who uses methamphetamine as their username.

Makes a great first impression.   Wink
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
October 18, 2012, 04:50:18 PM
Of course.  Backed by my faith in the American taxpayers.
...

Pretty much what I would expect from someone who uses methamphetamine as their username.
legendary
Activity: 948
Merit: 1026
October 18, 2012, 04:49:10 PM
This means the return interest rate is lower than the rate of inflation, so it is worth less at the end than at the beginning, right? Why would anybody buy such a thing?

Capital preservation.  Minimizing risk during economic upheaval may be more important than outperforming inflation.
jr. member
Activity: 56
Merit: 1
October 18, 2012, 04:43:09 PM
That equates to about 50,000 usd per person in the US. 

Actually, over 40% of that debt is owed to American citizens and corporations (no, they are not the same).  Love my T-Bills 

The Federal Reserve debt is certainly not nationalized but owed to shareholders of the NY bank.
legendary
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1001
October 18, 2012, 04:40:41 PM
If career politicians are an issue, why not just add term limits?  Limiting our representatives to those with independent (or family) wealth is not a good plan IMO.

Speaking of representation, did you know the house of representatives used to grow with the population?  There used to be an upper limit of 60k people per representative.  In order to be that close to direct representation today would require 30,000 representatives rather than the measly 435 we have today.  It seems to me that this is why only the powerful can influence politics... each representative has too much to handle to deal with the issues of the average constituent.

Term limits are a good idea.  Especially with lifelong appointed judges.  That, speaking of which, should be elected, not appointed.

I know about the house deal.  That's one of my responses to people who claim the census is for adequate representation of the masses.  I personally think we should have 30,000 reps.  Then absolutely NOTHING would get done unless it had to.  That'd be awesome!  No more feel good legislation!!

M
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 500
October 18, 2012, 04:40:05 PM
Actually, over 40% of that debt is owed to American citizens and corporations (no, they are not the same).  Love my T-Bills 

You do know it's a negative equity investment, right?

This means the return interest rate is lower than the rate of inflation, so it is worth less at the end than at the beginning, right? Why would anybody buy such a thing?
legendary
Activity: 948
Merit: 1026
October 18, 2012, 04:37:23 PM
Of course.  Backed by my faith in the American taxpayers.
hero member
Activity: 778
Merit: 1002
October 18, 2012, 04:35:13 PM
Actually, over 40% of that debt is owed to American citizens and corporations (no, they are not the same).  Love my T-Bills 

You do know it's a negative equity investment, right?
legendary
Activity: 948
Merit: 1026
October 18, 2012, 04:33:49 PM
That equates to about 50,000 usd per person in the US. 

I can cover my part, how about you!   Grin

Actually, over 40% of that debt is owed to American citizens and corporations (no, they are not the same).  Love my T-Bills 
hero member
Activity: 778
Merit: 1002
October 18, 2012, 04:32:48 PM
It becomes much more personal (and important) when you're one of the monkeys.  I can understand throwing the gays under the bus from a percentage of population standpoint, but women? The neocons have lost their mind. 

The state has no business in marriage. Period. I will not support any legislation that defines anything to do with marriage, as it will only legitimize the states domain over it.

I'm not sure how you think women are under attack by anyone. Abortion is a matter of belief of when a person/body/fetus has enough rights to be protected against destruction. I don't fault either side for their belief in the matter.

The whole "war on women" is a fabrication. It's playing to the emotional nature or women. Don't fall for it.
jr. member
Activity: 56
Merit: 1
October 18, 2012, 04:27:10 PM
...gays and women?

It is amazing to me that the country can be $16,000,000,000,000 in debt, and the big stories of the year are Chick-fil-a and Planned Parenthood.

"Pay no attention to the impending doom, watch these dancing monkeys!"

It becomes much more personal (and important) when you're one of the monkeys.  I can understand throwing the gays under the bus from a percentage of population standpoint, but women? The neocons have lost their mind.  
Nobody is throwing women under the bus. Denying women an entitlement to contraception is not oppression in any sense of the word. What is oppressive is increasing health care costs by making everyone pay for something by government decree.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 500
October 18, 2012, 04:21:35 PM
...gays and women?

It is amazing to me that the country can be $16,000,000,000,000 in debt, and the big stories of the year are Chick-fil-a and Planned Parenthood.

"Pay no attention to the impending doom, watch these dancing monkeys!"

That equates to about 50,000 usd per person in the US. 
Pages:
Jump to: