2008 TTLG Mock presidential election. Poll included

Fringe on 2/11/2008 at 02:34

Greenspan has a charter membership in the illuminati, so he doesn't count.

He's just a plant trying to convince those AMERICANS WHO REFUSE TO BE SHEEP! :o

Ghostly Apparition on 2/11/2008 at 02:58

Quote Posted by Fringe

Greenspan has a charter membership in the illuminati, so he doesn't count.

He's just a plant trying to convince those AMERICANS WHO REFUSE TO BE SHEEP! :o

You have a charter membership in the tin-foil-hat society so you don't count either.

fett on 2/11/2008 at 03:17

Zing!

Stereoprismatic on 2/11/2008 at 04:43

Quote Posted by Ghostly Apparition

"Free up the markets, get the government regulation out"
"The free market handles anything better than government can"
This is the line you're actually going to stick with eh? After the economic meltdown we've seen over the last months, I'm surprised you can say that with a straight face.
Well, its been proven wrong time and time again and here is the conservative
economic guru stating as much that he was wrong! Got that? Get it through your thick skull, deregulation is EPIC FAIL!
(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html?hp)

Read that. Its demonstrative proof the free markets and deregulation doesn't work. Greenspan says so himself.

Oh, please. Read Greenspan's essay "Gold and Economic Freedom" ((http://www.usagold.com/gildedopinion/greenspan.html)) and get a clue. The man is one of the prime people responsible for the housing mess, but not because he didn't regulate enough. Back in the 60s when he wrote that paper, he still seemed to believe in the gold standard, but once he became involved with the system, he turned his back on it. That should tell you something. The banksters take care of their own, and no one else. Greenspan either couldn't see past his own fed chairman glory, or he just knew and didn't care because he was making millions if not billions.

It's an absolutely insane fallacy to claim that the free market caused this mess. My above post referenced the Community Reinvestment Act, which allowed the federal government to pressure banks to loan to people who would never be able to pay in full. The problem is government, not the free market. Anyone who claims so is either a status quo shill or grossly misinformed.

It's the federal reserve that should be regulated, not the banks. Just as I stated before, when the central bank determines artificial interest rates, it causes people to make unsound decisions all over the board, from the home loan people to consumers. Market regulation isn't going to fix a monetary and banking system that's insolvent. Check the vids in my above post to learn about the Federal Reserve. It's not something that's taught in high school, and there's absolutely no defense for what they've done to the American Economy.

Here's a few specific articles about Greenspan:

(http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul236.html)

(http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north615.html)

(http://www.mises.org/story/1985)

Gryzemuis on 2/11/2008 at 05:32

Quote Posted by howie

I was really surprized by the worlds comments for Obama. I was just wondering how the rest of the world, on this forum, feels about Obama after watching the video?

I don't know how that video influenced the world.
But it is very clear how the world is thinking about Obama versus McCain.
There was a website where foreigners could vote. You could see the results per country. Almost all countries voted for Obama, with a 80%/-20% win, I believe.

I couldn't find that website so quickly.
But I did find this article:
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/17/uselections2008-barackobama1)

For me it's simple. I compare 8 years of Clinton with 8 years of Bush. The difference is huge. It's unbelievable, if you really look at it. And the whole world changed because of 2 things:

1) Bin Laden bombed the Trade Center. Small deal.
2) Bush tells the world: "you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists". Big deal.

Pure fascism. You blackmail others to follow you. No questions asked. No discussion allowed. You silently follow the leader, or you are the bad guy and will feel the consequences. The result is a world-wide athmosphere of fear. People split, not united. ("I am a uniter, not a divider." My ass).

Oh, and while the US goverment bled their own population for every penny they got ($700B warmoney going from taxpayers into the hands of the military industry and oil industry), the neocon's buddies on Wallstreet ran away with the jackpot.

Really. The whole world wants the Republican out of the way. For as long as possible. We want the Clinton years back. American republican voter's who can't see that are really blind. They might hate Clinton and the Democrats, but for 95% of republican voters, the Clinton years were miles above what Bush brought them. Too dumb to see.

Oh, and about Socialism and Communism. If you don't know the difference between them, maybe you shouldn't discuss it. It makes you look like a clueless fool.

Haplo on 2/11/2008 at 06:44

Quote Posted by LittleFlower

But it is very clear how the world is thinking about Obama versus McCain.
There was a website where foreigners could vote. You could see the results per country. Almost all countries voted for Obama, with a 80%/-20% win, I believe.

I couldn't find that website so quickly.

This one:

Quote Posted by Haplo

Our poll result is not very far from this one:

(http://www.iftheworldcouldvote.com/)

heywood on 2/11/2008 at 15:13

Quote Posted by DDL

To be honest, I always found it astounding that a nation as advanced as the US had no real form of universal healthcare. Medical aid should be a right, not a privilege.

The government funded parts of the US health care system were intended to be a safety net. The government covers the poor, elderly, military, and veterans. And hospitals are required to provide emergency care to anybody regardless of their coverage or ability to pay. Traditionally, everything else was paid for by employers. Taken together, the public and private parts of the system used to provide more or less universal coverage, but that's not true anymore. We have a growing number of uninsured and we have to fix that.

Regarding your other point, I would say health care is not a right or a privilege but a <em>need</em>, like food, water, clothing, and shelter. A good government looks after the welfare of its people but shouldn't be the sole source of its needs. That's why I support government intervention to get everybody covered but not nationalizing the health care industry.

To me, nationalizing health care is as extreme a measure as nationalizing the production & distribution of food and clothing. I assume that people in the UK wouldn't want to eat the same food and wear the same clothing as everybody else and live in government housing. So I'm surprised they would accept a one size fits all health care system. A lot of Americans are used to having a say in their own health care and are loathe to give up choices. I know I am.

I could only accept a government run system similar to the British NHS or US VA system if it were the absolute last choice. It's the nuclear option for health care.

thefonz on 2/11/2008 at 16:42

Something just occured to me:

How many Americans do you think would support Tina Fey over the REAL Sarah Palin?

Just a thought :cheeky:

Try as hard as I could, but my significant other sent off her absentee ballot in favour of McCain. Grr.

Obama ftw, however did anyone see the Sky News interview with Ron Silver this morning? Very interesting and I liked how they compared it to the Season 6/7 election in the West Wing...heh.

DDL on 2/11/2008 at 17:05

Quote Posted by heywood

To me, nationalizing health care is as extreme a measure as nationalizing the production & distribution of food and clothing. I assume that people in the UK wouldn't want to eat the same food and wear the same clothing as everybody else and live in government housing. So I'm surprised they would accept a one size fits all health care system. A lot of Americans are used to having a say in their own health care and are loathe to give up choices. I know I am.

There's nothing to stop you using private healthcare if you want to, you just don't have to. Of course, if you can't afford private treatment (or don't feel like it's worth the extra money), there's still free healthcare.

Same as education: you can pay for a private school, or just go to a free one.

Same as housing, in fact: if you're actually too poor to afford to buy or rent, there are council owned buildings the government will allocate to you. They're usually shitty, sure, but they're free for as long as you're honestly incapable of affording your own place.

It's not forced on anyone, but it's there if it's needed.

BEAR on 2/11/2008 at 17:14

You guys realize that nobody is talking about abolishing free enterprise in the healthcare industry right? Obama is not really even advocating nationalizing the health care industry either, the plan is most all of the healthcare system will stay the same (besides hopefully forcing them to upgrade and be more efficient).

The thinking I've come to is this: free enterprise is great when it corresponds to quality of service. When quality of service does not go along with making money, you are going to get fucked. If fucking you gets free enterprise more money, you are getting fucked. Thats why non-profit or government run healthcare seems like a good way to go, because it seems too important to just be another business with a bottom line. The problem is that government and non-profits have trouble being as efficient, because they are not as motivated.

I guess its a toss up, but watching Sicko and seeing about the sad shit that has gone on in America in the name of profit makes me think some things are more important, and this is one of them.