Interesting story

quote:

Gordon Brown has broken with British convention and made clear that he favours Barack Obama as the next US President. In a departure from the usual self-denying ordinance of Prime Ministers past, Brown has written an article for The Monitor magazine in which he praises Obama's plans to get the US out of the housing slump. Referring to the anxieties facing voters across the globe during the economic slowdown, he says: "Around the world, it is progressive politicians who are grappling with these challenges....In the electrifying US Presidential campaign, it is the Democrats who are generating the ideas to help people through more difficult times. To help prevent people from losing their home, Barack Obama has proposed a Foreclosure Prevention Fund to increase emergency pre-foreclosure counselling, and help families facing repossession." There is not a single mention of McCain or his own plans to help tackle the impact of the slowdown. As this is an article written by the PM himself, no one can claim he is being quoted out of context or misrepresented. I'm sure that Number 10 will be hastily issuing messages soon to try to restore a sense of balance once the gaffe has been pointed out - but the words are out there now. Unlike T Blair (who infuriated Labour MPs by failing to attack Bush), Gordon has strong and deep links to the Dems, but as soon as he became PM he had to bury all that and be extremely careful not to endorse either candidate. A natural ally of Hillary Clinton, he has been as wowed by Obama as others in the Labour Party. Yet he must know that a McCain presidency is just as likely in a tight race. It seems in this article he just couldn't help himself and let slip what he really thought. Lets see if the Dems in the US seize on his support....

___________________
-.mK. - DONE UNIVERSITY weeeeeeeeee! says:
RITA MCNEIL CHRISTMAS SPECIAL MON @8, CTV

quote:

Originally posted by KaiLee Many doctors entering the field in US make over $250,000 so how is it fair that they get taxed higher when they're in a pile of student debts? With Obama's little plan they most certainly would and if he wants to instill this medical system for everyone then the US will need all of the doctors they can get so I don't think higher taxes because on their salaries is going to attract them.

It's useless to argue with these people because you're not even starting from the same premise.

Capitalist Logic:
1. Individuals make financial decisions according to their individual needs; this is a totally immutable fact of human nature.
2. As a result, value is always determined by the laws of supply and demand, and money naturally flows to sectors that are most highly valued.
3. Labour that is highly specialized, dangerous, or otherwise difficult to find workers for, will naturally receive higher wages.
4. Competence and diligence are rare, specialized qualities, and those most competent tend to find the most success in their chosen industry.
5. Therefore, people earning high incomes and corporations earning high profits are probably very good at what they do, and end up creating more overall wealth in society. We should be happy for them.

Socialist Logic:
1. Individuals act on their own needs only because of social norms. Even if it is human nature, they can and should learn to act according to social responsibility and other altruistic principles.
2. Inequities in value discourage legitimate competition. Therefore, money should flow to where it is needed most, in order to give everyone a chance.
3. Economics is a zero-sum game and whatever money goes to one entity is being taken away from another. Employers may exploit employees and corporations may exploit customers to raise profits.
4. Most successful people are merely lucky or inherited their wealth or title. They have to be lucky, since everybody else is working against them.
5. Therefore, financially successful people have a responsibility to share their success with the less fortunate, and successful corporations should be helping to foot the bill for "higher" causes (public health, social programs, the environment, etc.)

Of course that's super-simplified but you get the idea. You're somewhere between points 4 and 5. It's a futile argument if you already disagree on the preceding points. More importantly, he learned all of this stuff in college and has three degrees in it so it obviously has to be right.

Not that I'm not enjoying watching this unfold, but you ought to know that it's just going to go on forever until someone (probably you) gives up.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

don't know if any of you have watched it yet, but really, if you want answers on what kind of VP pick this is, just watch her first interview.

Charles Gibson interview with Sarah Palin

I'm surprised she can string a sentence together. What a farce US politics has become. Just think, she's showed about the same level of intelligence as George W in this interview, with far less independent thought, what happens if the oldest man as president goes down? Scary stuff.

___________________
Not Everyone Understands House Music, It's a Spiritual Thing, a Body Thing, a Soul Thing

quote:

Originally posted by Sly_Guy don't know if any of you have watched it yet, but really, if you want answers on what kind of VP pick this is, just watch her first interview. Charles Gibson interview with Sarah Palin

They even put up a big disclaimer that the interview was edited and that the "money shots" were taken out of context. What's your point with this?

And nobody gives a shit that McCain is "old". Seriously, get over it, we've heard that talking point so many times already. He's no more likely to die in office from old age than Obama is from being black.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut They even put up a big disclaimer that the interview was edited and that the "money shots" were taken out of context. What's your point with this? And nobody gives a shit that McCain is "old". Seriously, get over it, we've heard that talking point so many times already. He's no more likely to die in office from old age than Obama is from being black.

All I'm saying is that a someone in their 70's has less time on their biological clock. It more likely [outside of assassination] that McCain would be somehow incapacitated in office than Obama. That being said, this is the person who'd step in to fill those shoes.

The disclaimer you speak of is nothing more than ABC's editting explicitly stated by the poster of the video. Besides, there isn't much to be taken "out of context"; she can't respond to specific questions is the point to be taken out from this video. He asks a question like "do we have the right to cross the Afghan-Pakistani border without explicit permission of the Pakistani to strike at Al Queda?" And her response being that of buzzword Bush-esque dogma "fight the terrorist that want to destroy us and our allies". Or when asks how her and McCain's economic policy is different than that of the GOP, she merely states "lower taxes, less government interference, smaller government" which in itself is no different than ANY Republican economic plan! Responses like that, no matter what the editting only serves to show she has the qualifications of a mule for the executive office she is now potentially in-line for.

___________________
Not Everyone Understands House Music, It's a Spiritual Thing, a Body Thing, a Soul Thing

quote:

Originally posted by Sly_Guy she can't respond to specific questions is the point to be taken out from this video.

No, the point to be taken is that anyone can be made to look stupid with enough editing.

And you're right: lower taxes, smaller government, less interference IS the general Republican platform. That's a good thing - you don't want a divided party. It's just too bad that Bush had so much trouble sticking to that platform.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

Originally posted by KaiLee Why do you feel the need to twist around words? Does it help you feel better since the point you are making is obviously ridiculous? I never said my father should get a tax break. I said he shouldn't be getting taxed higher because of his income. He worked his ass off to get where he is and how is it fair that he gets taxed higher and someone who makes $240,000 doesn't? I could care less whether or not you sympathize him. He doesn't need any sympathy he works hard because he knows that's how you get anywhere in this world. Many doctors entering the field in US make over $250,000 so how is it fair that they get taxed higher when they're in a pile of student debts? With Obama's little plan they most certainly would and if he wants to instill this medical system for everyone then the US will need all of the doctors they can get so I don't think higher taxes because on their salaries is going to attract them.

I really don't see how I'm twisting your words here. You're going on about how hard your dad works (and I'm sure he does), but he's doing quite well compared to most people and I do not believe he needs any more tax breaks. In fact, he can afford to pay the twelve dollar increase that Obama proposes for those who make $250,000 per year. Are you really that upset about twelve dollars? That's more important than a universal healthcare plan, revamped economic policy and a 180 on DISASTROUS American foreign policy? That's part of my point...people vote way too much based on getting a few hundred dollars in tax rebates. There are much larger things to consider here...you know, like this ridiculous war on terror that McCain keeps blathering on about and now thinks he can start fucking with Iran and South Korea and his VP pick is even talking about going to war with Russia!! But you're more concerned with your dad paying twelve dollars in taxes per year...it kinda proves my point.

About doctors getting taxed in the US...where do you think those doctors are going to go? So they have to pay a few more thousand dollars in taxes every year and that means they'll all just leave and the system will be broken? A lot of doctors in the US make way too much money to begin with, especially specialists and the cost of medical care in the US had led to the situation where you have about fifty million people with inadequate coverage.

My family doctor here is in the same position that you point out regarding debt. He's a younger guy who probably has about $150,000 in medical school and student living expenses. He came from a family of doctors who made him pay his own school and he doesn't ever bitch about our system. He doesn't mind paying the taxes that he pays because he believes in the institution in which he works and I respect him for that. he's still doing a hell of a lot better than most Canadians, just like your dad is doing a hell of a lot better than most Americans, even though you might think he pays too much at the moment.

___________________
"No offense, but you're stupid"

Last edited by Dj Smitty20 on Sep-13-2008 at 21:01

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut It's useless to argue with these people because you're not even starting from the same premise. Capitalist Logic: 1. Individuals make financial decisions according to their individual needs; this is a totally immutable fact of human nature. 2. As a result, value is always determined by the laws of supply and demand, and money naturally flows to sectors that are most highly valued. 3. Labour that is highly specialized, dangerous, or otherwise difficult to find workers for, will naturally receive higher wages. 4. Competence and diligence are rare, specialized qualities, and those most competent tend to find the most success in their chosen industry. 5. Therefore, people earning high incomes and corporations earning high profits are probably very good at what they do, and end up creating more overall wealth in society. We should be happy for them. Socialist Logic: 1. Individuals act on their own needs only because of social norms. Even if it is human nature, they can and should learn to act according to social responsibility and other altruistic principles. 2. Inequities in value discourage legitimate competition. Therefore, money should flow to where it is needed most, in order to give everyone a chance. 3. Economics is a zero-sum game and whatever money goes to one entity is being taken away from another. Employers may exploit employees and corporations may exploit customers to raise profits. 4. Most successful people are merely lucky or inherited their wealth or title. They have to be lucky, since everybody else is working against them. 5. Therefore, financially successful people have a responsibility to share their success with the less fortunate, and successful corporations should be helping to foot the bill for "higher" causes (public health, social programs, the environment, etc.) Of course that's super-simplified but you get the idea. You're somewhere between points 4 and 5. It's a futile argument if you already disagree on the preceding points. More importantly, he learned all of this stuff in college and has three degrees in it so it obviously has to be right. Not that I'm not enjoying watching this unfold, but you ought to know that it's just going to go on forever until someone (probably you) gives up.

Dude, you're still the guy who thinks Bush and McCain aren't neoconservatives.

Don't you think it's possible to blend the two streams together? Canada is a capitalist society with socialist programs...why is that a bad thing? All you ever do is bitch and whine about "socialists" and left wingers, bla bla bla. It's like you came right out of 1950s McCarthyism.

People running corporations are very good at what they do eh? Hmm...tell that to the executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who just had their companies taken over by the federal government after piss poor management. In a lot of cases, white collar salaries are fucking ridiculous.

Why do you ridicule my education all the time? I went to university by the way, not college. Big difference. I might be able to take that as a sign that you aren't educated at all, but who knows.

___________________
"No offense, but you're stupid"

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut No, the point to be taken is that anyone can be made to look stupid with enough editing. And you're right: lower taxes, smaller government, less interference IS the general Republican platform. That's a good thing - you don't want a divided party. It's just too bad that Bush had so much trouble sticking to that platform.

The level of editting your thinking of would leave Sarah Pilan looking like Isaac Hayes in his ceremonial removal from South Park. It's not like they cut her off in the middle of her sentences to string together completely different responses, nor changed the questions after she was interviewed, nor cut and pasted her responses from one question to another. She looked bad, and it was her own fault.

As for the response of the Republican economic platform, the question was how would her strategy differ from the GOP, clearly she didn't answer that question either. It was a fair question, the US economy isn't doing so well, so her response was to fix it by offering no difference in strategy to the ones who brought it to it's current state?

___________________
Not Everyone Understands House Music, It's a Spiritual Thing, a Body Thing, a Soul Thing

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Smitty20 I really don't see how I'm twisting your words here. You're going on about how hard your dad works (and I'm sure he does), but he's doing quite well compared to most people and I do not believe he needs any more tax breaks. In fact, he can afford to pay the twelve dollar increase that Obama proposes for those who make $250,000 per year. Are you really that upset about twelve dollars? That's more important than a universal healthcare plan, revamped economic policy and a 180 on DISASTROUS American foreign policy? That's part of my point...people vote way too much based on getting a few hundred dollars in tax rebates. There are much larger things to consider here...you know, like this ridiculous war on terror that McCain keeps blathering on about and now thinks he can start fucking with Iran and South Korea and his VP pick is even talking about going to war with Russia!! But you're more concerned with your dad paying twelve dollars in taxes per year...it kinda proves my point.

Could you provide me with proof that it's only twelve more dollars in taxes?

By the way, I don't have a completely capitalist mind point. It would be great to see affordable health care for everyone in the US. My parents struggled to pay for doctors bills at one point like so many other Americans.

I just don't think Obama's drastic plans of change are the smartest idea for the economy right now. Even if only the big guys and corporations get taxed the little guys still pay for it with higher prices and cut wages for workers.

His idea may sound great when he says it but those corporations and big wigs still have to make money somehow, right?

___________________
-.mK. - DONE UNIVERSITY weeeeeeeeee! says:
RITA MCNEIL CHRISTMAS SPECIAL MON @8, CTV

Well, the Republicans have turned the election into whom the voters find more similar rather than a discussion of who can run America better the next four years. It was actually brilliant to select Palin, as it stirred religious voters to come out to vote for McCain rather than to abstain the process. They have to keep Palin away from the public as much as possible until November, which they have to a degree. If the democrats can turn the media and voters back to the issues facing America in the next couple of months, then the Democrats will win. GOP will win if the focus remains on likeability. Kinda scary on how people vote, but that is how it is. As for hearing issues like the economy, it makes me laugh reading these posts. It is true, Democrats have presided better if you measure by GDP than the GOP over the last 60 years or so. About 1.5% better give or take each year. Study was in the NY Times done by some professor. Uh, what else, the drilling for oil bit in the USA. Assuming the US does drill everywhere, the amount of barrels pulled from the ground is negligible enough that OPEC can offset that by reducing their output by less than 2 million barrels per day. That wouldn't see a change in oil price at all. However, the US would save roughly $30 billion a year once they ramp it all up. I did have respect for Diginut, I thought he was smart and clever, but after the socialist/capitalist list, you're just clever.

___________________
May you live every day of your life - Jonathan Swift

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Smitty20 I might be able to take that as a sign that you aren't educated at all, but who knows.

hahahhahahahaha

(that was a slightly silly comment to make)

___________________
We are the kids of the quiet revolution, and we fight for a new quiet concept of evolution. We play house music.

Last edited by slingshot on Sep-14-2008 at 03:43