Silkroad Online Forums

Love it. Arguing in the face of facts, and then blatantly ignore logic and truth. Romney supporters are as sheepish as Obama supports haha

@Tasdik and Fiction
IMO..there are some things that aren't there to generate profit. for example, roads (which are given to private contractors anyways), police, fire department, schools, mails. No i'm not saying federalize all of it, I am saying they should be controlled by the local (county/city) government. Trying to privatize everything (schools, roads, mail, police) is as bad as trying to federalize everything (companies, press, etc). Big business is as bad as big (federal) government. Thats why i think the tea party (and the republican party now) is bullshit (other than their 15th century social views). They support a smaller federal government but support big business. they dont understand the corruption in smaller countries where the government is weak and the businesses (usually multi-national ones) basically control the peoples lives. if big government = corruption, big business means even more corruption, 'cause a business is run solely on profit.
Now im not sure about private roads being better than public roads. The place i live in, Fairfax County, and Loudon County nearby, both have amazing roads, and one of the best school systems in the country. Loudon and Fairfax are also one of the the richest counties based on median income (middle class) and are filled with immigrants. so yea

Now i agree that both parties are essentially the same..with a few different social issues (which wont be amended anyways). Both are big government, both are big business, both give a fuck_you to the middle class. Also both get lobbied by rich Israeli support groups and essentially suck up to anything Israel.

If i were voting this election (I can't), I would be voting for Obama, not because I believe in his economic plan will do anything for the deficit/recession, but because i think it will **** everyone over way less as compared to Romney being president. and ofcourse, social issues.

no Gary Johnson?

@thedrop

True that.

Never understood why people would trust companies more then the government. Do you really think privatizing everything will solve all the problems? Do you really want a country built solely on profit?

It's not a coincidence that the countries with both the highest welfare and prosperity are ones with a strong government.

Who is saying they want everything privatized? All we want is the federal government to do what it is constitutionally responsible to do, and nothing more. So far it is doing way more than what it is supposed to be doing, and the things it should be doing, it isn't doing. Printing currency, protecting boarders, and such things. (I mean we have a government that makes it their job to put MLB players on trial.)

So no, there is a time and place for government just like there is for the private sector. I'm gonna be completely honest... If you trust your government, you have got to be one of the most brainwashed sheep I've ever come across. lol It's just retarded to even think the government would have your best interest at heart... So naive.. You think because something is privatized that its just a bunch of greedy capitalist that want everyone's money and to ruin everyone's life. FREE MARKET(something we've never actually had in America) is controlled by the people... The vote is with the dollar. If a company is building terrible cars that are overpriced and complete pieces of shit, the consumer has the ability(responsibility) not to buy their crap. Thus the company fails, and another comes a long that can provide for the consumers needs. (no government bailing a failed business out) This has been the American way and this is how America has become such a super power in such short time.(even though we haven't had true free market)

Its been proven time after time that government only slows growth. Competition is what drives people to make better products, to have better service, to come up with that cure for cancer. Government has no competition, it has no motivation other than getting elected and getting more powah. This is why their mail service is shit, their roads suck, their medical programs are garbage, and this is why they **** everything up in the private sector when they butt in.(housing market/banks/bail outs) At the end of the day, there is no reason for them not to **** stuff up, they won't be held accountable, it's not their money, and they don't give a shyt... If you wanna argue with me, take a look at every damn empire/government that has ever been... They all go the same way.

QFT Btw: will there ever be any "competition between governments"?

I trust my government. Why should that make me a brainwashed sheep? I just look at my own government and see that they are being succesful in every way. They succeed at most things and if they fail it can be explained and founded. In fact, all the services they have privatized have all decreased in quality. But I have to say, the governemnt here is very transparant. Can't really say that about the U.S. government. I guess it really depends on what country you live in. Maybe for the U.S. a smaller government would be better, but that doesn't go for all countries.

You're either an anarchist or a brainwashed sheep. Yup.

where do you live?

Just gonna answer this right quick before checking the other comments.

It's hard to say on a world level if there will be, but in America, it was supposed to be a competition between state governments. The federal government was to have very limited powers over the states. So the state governments would have the bigger impact on people's lives. If you did not like a law in a certain state, or you thought their tax rates were too high, you could just move to another state. In this way, the country still thrives and each state is able to see what policies actually work without bringing the country to it's knees. States would compete for businesses to bring in tax revenue, to bring in tourist, to bring in people to live there, etc.

Sorry Heroo, I had no idea you were living in Switzerland.

Holland, where we thrive on the ''polder-model''.

So it comes down to trust the government or trust the people who are making millions off of ripping you off. Tough decision.

Also big business can jump ship if they put the country down the drain for their gain, government can't.

Why is this guy even posting in this thread? Who said it comes down to either big business or government? All I've said over and over, and same with Amarisa, is that the federal government should not be this big. Never said that big business is always a good thing, or that the government is always a bad thing. You're the only one spinning others' words. Stop reading into to something and just try reading it for once.

@Heroo, I dang that's even better than Switzerland. Yeah, they actually have one of the better governments. A heck of a lot more open than most governments. The thing tho I think that makes it such a good thing for your country is the culture and the people there. It works for them, but in many other countries we have a lot of entitled brats, or lazy asses that won't do anything but live off others, and crime is usually another problem. Holland is idea, but all I'm saying is that their model wouldn't work in all counties, which you probably have already started realizing that. It's same way for America, I doubt their constitution would work as well for other counties as it worked for America, and so on.

I gotta say sorry for coming off a little arrogant calling you a sheep. I was under the assumption you were from one of those over reaching typical European governments.(and I'm not saying Holland is completely without it's faults, just saying it's definitely making it's citizens lives better than worse, without breading a welfare class.)

romney coming off as a moderate that he really is as compared to the crazy right loonies.

@Fiction; sorry i havent bothered writing a reply, with school i'd rather not have to write essays on a forum, but ill get to it @_@

Talking about school, I just learned the Boston Tea Party was against government subsidies (tax cut) to East India Company (tea company) rather than a tax/increase of tax on tea. Kinda goes against their whole movement, lul

I can't wait for the fact checks after this debate

Agreed.

Though, from what I've seen, as far as who "won" the debate, people seem to be saying Romney did.

In my opinion: Romney wins on facts. Obama wins on hearts. And guess which of the two people vote with.

Not sure what Tea Party you're generalizing(I know about the Boston TP, I'm talking about these phases of the present day TP), but the current day Tea Party was a grass roots moment started by people like Ron Paul, then co-opted and turned into a republican thing. The general stance with the republican take over is some what retarded... For small central government with less spending(libertarian ideas) yet they don't want to get rid of all the biggest spending programs in the government and they want government to make moral calls(republican ideas). The original founders of today's tea party were more libertarian and when the the republicans took over they infested it with their ignorance, which intern made it a very misguided contradicting movement. Thanks in part to media outlets like Fox new who love to make it republican, and not American. Also no thanks to the left wing media that had nothing but lies to spread about the movement. Anyways I digress, the Tea Party of today had much more in common with the Boston Tea Party when it began, than it does now.

Fairly sure the fact check stated that romney told a quite a few more lies than obama did, but don't quote me on that.

What do you guys think about the us election/electoral system? I would personally not like it. If you're a democrat in Texas your vote is basically useless.

^ agreed, in my opinion the electoral college is a complete failure to this country. I want a direct democracy not indirect. If I'm voting for someone I want my vote to go to them.

I think its interesting that Romney/Ryan have been campaigning for the last 2 years on lowering taxes for the rich and a free market, and now Romney is on the podium saying regulations are necessary and he wont lower taxes on the rich cause they already have enough $. lul.

I think its agreeable that the electoral college is outdated now. From what i learned, it was made because back in the 1700s they did not have ability to count all the votes in time/ and/or crap communications which is why it was easier to elect delegates to chose the president. And btw direct democracy would be every citizen voting on every issue with no representatives, it would never work in US.

imo (and the common consensus) is that it was the vice versa. Obama talked a lot of fact/info in his timeslots, which is kinda a negative in the debate, while Romney said the exact opposite what he has been saying for the last 2 years but seemed more charismatic than his previous robot self. obama just looked tired

Well i'd guess we can all say it got hijacked, now its just owned by Koch and Rupert Murdoch. and oh god the liberal media, if only everyone watched Fox with their fair & balanced news?

I know double post, but more proof that you cant make it in US without cheating/exploiting

"No props, notes, charts, diagrams, or other writings or other tangible things may be brought into the debate by any candidate."

the honor codes in schools are basically setting them up for a life long middle class struggle

That's hilarious... Reducing "tax rates" will Just lead to economic growth.
And btw: "Rich people" should pay a higher percentage of tax.. Just because they have more to give. Don't they?
I wonder how much thought they put into this.

It would destroy any motivation for people to earn more money when in the end they'll have as much as anyone else. Not talking about people who do nothing and watch the money flow.

^

people seem to forget that 'rich' people also profit from 'poor' people getting more money and vice versa.

Yes, that's why none is better than the other.

You act like the increase would be as if, a person who makes $75k a year, only keeps 50k, then a 100k earner would also only keep 100k. A percentage like that, would be dumb as hell, but otherwise, yes, the rich should be taxed a bit more than the poor.

Main thing that needs to be done, is get rid of a ton of the loopholes they have that makes it so they don't have to pay near as much in taxes as they're supposed to.

mitt wasnt my choice but he owned obama just by telling the facts, a businessmen vs professor, man vs boy, maybe the next debate would allow teleprompters and barry would have a chance. that being said debates means fa until nov 6.

It was my understanding that alot of what Romney said in the debates weren't facts. And a professor is a boy? I don't really get that.

I watched the debates live actually and it seemed to me that Obama wasn't feeling like having a debate. It was almost as if he was counting the seconds before it was over. Didn't see any passion at all.