Would You Vote For Hilary?

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

1. the patriot act. yes, our representatives voted for it, but Bush seems to be its strongest advocate.

Ok, I guess this one just comes down to personal preference. If some computer program can check my email, my phone records and my bank statements...well to tell you the truth, I don't care. If it will save lives, then go for it. I have nothing to hide, so I don't care. I know many view this as horrible invasion of privacy, but IMO, this minute invasion of privacy is worth the added safety.

***

Well, I'm all for people doing whatever makes them happy. If it makes some guy happy to love another guy, then fine, do it. Just don't rub it in my face or get to take advantage of what I can. I do believe that marriage is between a man and woman and thusly they should be the ones to benefit from tax breaks, etc. I'm fine with the unity thing, but I don't think it's fair to just butt in on regular marriage's benefits. And Bush backs Civil Unions, so I don't think he's restricting anyone here. If you choose to marry another guy, you just don't get the tax break...oh well.

Quote

3. his anti-choice statements about abortion

So it would have been cool if your mother chose to not have you? It would have been fine if your best friend's mother chose to not have them? I realize accidents and crimes happen. Give a woman the first 3 months, but after that, it's their own damn fault if they haven't chosen by then.

Quote

4. his advocacy of holding people without enough evidence for a trial with regards to suspected terrorism

Well, legally they're not POWs, so he's being legal. Yes I hope the innocent ones get out of there quickly, but as much as some people like to think, these guys were not just randomly rounded up. They were taken there for one good reason or another. I doubt there's too many 100% innocent guys.

[maxmadmax 8]

Lets see....if Billary er Hillary were on fire........

Would I piss on her to put it out?

I don't think so
'cause it would be a waste of good beer......

So I can't really vote for her either.......

Don't go away mad....just go away!

[Mike111 0]

Nope (although im not American), far too untrsutworthy and not sure whether she puts her own ambitions first instead of her country...
... mind you that would depend on the other candidate... could be worse.... e.g. Her husband.



Mike

[bodypilot90 0]

not no but hell no.

[popsjumper 2]

"I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the President." --Hillary Clinton commenting on the release of subpoenaed documents.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[ViperPilot 0]

No matter how you feel, I don't think any of us will be seeing Hillary in office anytime soon. I think a minority will be elected before a woman is. That's what polling shows. Obama anyone?

[Sen.Blutarsky 0]

Quote

Obama anyone?

I want taxes reduced further and if only one candidate will commit to this he/she has my vote irrespective of party affiliation. I voted for Obama in the last election but I doubt he will lower taxes, Hillary almost certainly wouldn't lower them. Forbes anybody?


Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

[billvon 3,110]

>I want taxes reduced further and if only one candidate will commit
>to this he/she has my vote irrespective of party affiliation.

So I take it you voted for Mike Badnarik last time around?

"Reducing taxes" is like going to the bank and saying "I want my credit card bill lowered!" They would likely say "Spend less money." If we want taxes lowered, decide now what you want to give up. Wars/the military are the primary thing that would have to get cut, since most of our money goes there. Roads, air traffic control, the Center for Disease Control, education, food inspectors - take your pick. Then ask for taxes to be lowered because of the reduced spending.

Every politician claims they will 'trim the fat.' After 200 years of saying that most people don't believe them any more. Heck, Bush took your own money, sent you back a check and expected you to be grateful. It is a measure of how little people understand economics that many were.

[waltappel 1]

Quote

It is a measure of how little people understand economics that many were.

This should probably be a thread all its own, but I truly do not understand the monetary system. Since there is nothing backing the US dollar, each one is essentially an IOU or a hot check, depending on your point of view.

It seems to me like the US (and world, for that matter) economy is funcamentally based on smoke and mirrors. Am I wrong?

Walt

[Gleb 0]

Hilary comes off to me as a person who really will do whats right for her, than for the people. She is very simple minded IMO.

An example of why i dislike her:

She is supporting a women who filed a class action suit against Rockstar games (video game compnay) that states that Rockstar made a game(Grand Theft Auto: San Andres) where you shoot people and police, run people over, steal cars, and do pretty much anything you want. But actually, they dont have too much of a problem with that, they have a problem that if you download an illegal, easily obtainable mod off the internet for the computer version of the game, a short scene appears where the character will have sex.

Let me quickly explain why that makes no sense. First of all, the people that are sueing the company for having a game like that are the ones getting this game by THEMSELVES for THEIR children. the game is rated at 17+ but they will still get it for their whinny son who is 13 then go sue the company for something they have very little responsabilty for. This lawsuit is costing the company millions but in the end, Rockstar games is actually getting more attention so their games will sell better.

Sorry for the rant, but hilary just pisses me off. This is just one example of things she is responsible for that really boil my blood. BTW, i'm a democrat:)

Hell, if she was on the ballot, id vote for the communist party.

[Mike111 0]

i think youre being far too kind and nice on hilary!

[billvon 3,110]

>It seems to me like the US (and world, for that matter) economy
>is funcamentally based on smoke and mirrors.

In a way.

A US dollar is a promise that the US will give you something for that dollar. What the 'something' is keeps changing. Since exchange rates vary but usually not very rapidly, you can have some assurance that if someone gives you a dollar for a product you can turn around and give it back to someone in the US for another product of similar value. It's an abstraction that allows you to exchange goods and services more easily. Of course, the real wealth is in those goods and services; money is just a way to exchange them so you don't have to herd 75 cattle to the car dealership to buy a car.

[waltappel 1]

Quote

>It seems to me like the US (and world, for that matter) economy
>is funcamentally based on smoke and mirrors.

In a way.

A US dollar is a promise that the US will give you something for that dollar. What the 'something' is keeps changing. Since exchange rates vary but usually not very rapidly, you can have some assurance that if someone gives you a dollar for a product you can turn around and give it back to someone in the US for another product of similar value. It's an abstraction that allows you to exchange goods and services more easily. Of course, the real wealth is in those goods and services; money is just a way to exchange them so you don't have to herd 75 cattle to the car dealership to buy a car.

What I really don't understand is what that "something" is that the government is supposedly willing to give me in exchange for the dollar. As far as I can tell, there is no consistent thing backing that promise.

In past years, that something was silver or gold. Neither is the case today and, as far as I can tell, nothing has replaced either of those things.

I still consider it quite ironic that the US government is prosecuting former Enron executives--not that I think the former Enron execs being prosecuted are fine human beings (I don't)--but because it seems to me that the US government is committing a FAR larger financial fraud.

Walt

[billvon 3,110]

>What I really don't understand is what that "something" is that the
>government is supposedly willing to give me in exchange for the dollar.

They will, for example, give you a driver's license for enough of those dollars. They will even sell you land. But the government is no longer the primary means of setting the value of money, although they still play a role. It's the grocery store, and the car mechanic, and you, that set the value of money now. Odd but it works.

>but because it seems to me that the US government is committing a
>FAR larger financial fraud.

Who are they defrauding?

[AlexCrowley 0]

Quote

Give a woman the first 3 months, but after that, it's their own damn fault if they haven't chosen by then.

Urm...are you referring to 'partial birth abortions'?

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[waltappel 1]

Quote

>What I really don't understand is what that "something" is that the
>government is supposedly willing to give me in exchange for the dollar.

They will, for example, give you a driver's license for enough of those dollars. They will even sell you land.

That is why I used the term consistent when wondering what is used to back the US dollar. As far as I know, there is no consistent backing, e.g., gold, silver, mules, or whatever, used to instill an implicit value to US currency.

If I were to write a check to you, I had better be sure that there are sufficient funds in my checking account to match the value indicated on the check. That value is in US dollars. Peel away that layer of abstraction. What does the US government keep on hand that directly correlates to a value for each dollar? In past years, they used gold or silver. Now, they use nothing. Should I not be bothered by that?

Quote

But the government is no longer the primary means of setting the value of money, although they still play a role. It's the grocery store, and the car mechanic, and you, that set the value of money now. Odd but it works.

That is what bothers me--that the government prints as much money as it wants and throws it out there without doing something to make sure it has value. I realize it works but I seriously do not understand why. I generally just try not to think about it.

Quote

>but because it seems to me that the US government is committing a
>FAR larger financial fraud.

Who are they defrauding?

Anyone who has their wealth in US dollars. Ok, maybe my thinking is "old style" thinking, but you remember all the talk of the "new economy" during the internet boom.

Turned out it was a sham.

What I don't understand is how the lack of backing for the US dollar is NOT a sham.

Seems to me that I am either incapable of comprehending the answer (a possibility) or that it is in a very real sense, a fraud.

If an individual runs his finances like the US government does, it becomes criminal at some point. What I don't understand is why the US government's finances being run as a ponzi scheme is ok.

Maybe there is no anwer that would be clear to me.

Walt

[Sen.Blutarsky 0]

Quote

So I take it you voted for Mike Badnarik last time around?

"Reducing taxes" is like going to the bank and saying "I want my credit card bill lowered!" They would likely say "Spend less money."

If we want taxes lowered, decide now what you want to give up. Wars/the military are the primary thing that would have to get cut, since most of our money goes there. Roads, air traffic control, the Center for Disease Control, education, food inspectors - take your pick. Then ask for taxes to be lowered because of the reduced spending.

Every politician claims they will 'trim the fat.' After 200 years of saying that most people don't believe them any more. Heck, Bush took your own money, sent you back a check and expected you to be grateful. It is a measure of how little people understand economics that many were.

Thank you anyway but I hadn’t been soliciting advice on rudimentary economic theory let alone advocating a political faction, I tend to have abandoned that realm to the manifesto writers and politicos.

My post was a simple acknowledgement that our household frequently votes to reduce its overall taxes and we are of the belief that Senator Clinton isn’t likely to curtail historical federal “New Deal” tax creep.

The current Administration increased projected expenditures unwisely in our view, yet it lowered our overall federal tax burden. However in anticipation of the next projected political cycle, our household will redress an inherently unfair government revenue scheme which penalizes people who are willing to do what it takes to *win* in an individualistic and capitalistic society by continuing to live off one person’s income while earning, investing and accruing the other person’s income and assets offshore and outside the direct influence of Treasury. Your loss literally, we'll always find a way to prevail.


Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

[Sen.Blutarsky 0]

Quote

I voted for Obama in the last election

As disclosure I should mention I formerly and relevantly served as counsel to the Fitzgerald family despite voting for Obama. That is all.


Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

[Gleb 0]

the answer is much simpler than you make it out to be. It was already stated above. WE as a body of people, determine the value of a dollar. If all of the sudden the government started making enormous sums of money and flooding the market, inflation would occur because WE as a body of people have more money.

So initially, the people with alot of money would be able to afford more and then the vendors would raise their prices cuz people could afford to pay more.

simple as that. the government really owes us nothing for the money except the services we pay the government to do. They could raise the prices of those services to whatever they want but they have limited control over the value of the dollar itself. There is so much more to this but thats the jist:)

[happythoughts 0]

Perhaps if she shared some more recipes. I'm sure that she makes more than cookies.

Also, those blue business suits aren't what I was expecting. During the election, she wore a nice print cotton sun dress. Perhaps she is being forced to dress like a lawyer and repress her true identity.

[billvon 3,110]

>If I were to write a check to you, I had better be sure that there are
> sufficient funds in my checking account to match the value indicated
> on the check.

Ah, but if I wrote a check to you, there WOULD be nothing backing it up! I could probably buy a new car right now with my money market account. Now, if the car dealership took my check to the credit union and said "Give me the cash!" they might well say "we don't have it; we'll have it for you tomorrow." And they would (in effect) take paper money from other people to pay the dealer. It wouldn't matter, of course, because the money people have _on_paper_ doesn't change.

Take your house, if you own one. What gives you the right to own it? You didn't grow there. You have no roots in the dirt. At best your right to own the house is an abstraction, one that works because we happen to currently believe that you can privately own property and your payment for that property makes it yours.

>That is what bothers me--that the government prints as much money
> as it wants and throws it out there without doing something to make
> sure it has value.

?? They definitely don't do that. Printing money to raise money devalues it faster than anything else you can do. They do print some, but that's primarily to back their T-bills (and other instruments) and to replace damaged money.

>Anyone who has their wealth in US dollars.

?? That's what I have, mainly. US dollars, land valued in US dollars, and stocks valued in US dollars. The important thing to me is that their value stays relatively stable, and it does. As long as that happens, it doesn't matter if you're trading dollars, or chickens, or bars of gold. Bars of gold have as little intrinsic worth as a $20 bill; it is the value that people attach to gold (and $20 bills) that makes them valuable. If anything, chickens have more intrinsic value than gold because they make eggs, and you can eat eggs.

[waltappel 1]

Quote

Take your house, if you own one. What gives you the right to own it? You didn't grow there. You have no roots in the dirt. At best your right to own the house is an abstraction, one that works because we happen to currently believe that you can privately own property and your payment for that property makes it yours.

I have thought about this. What gives you the "right" to own land in this country is the ability of the government to secure that right by force, if necessary. IMO the whole concept of "owning" land is ludicrous from a conceptual standpoint. We are merely (at best) temporary caretakers.

The US government took a bunch of land by force. It also bought a bunch (e.g., the Louisana Purchase). It then gave or sold much of the land, giving various people title to pieces of land. The title, in a sense, is a contract with the government that it will enforce your property rights. Of course if the government wants your land for some reason, that goes out the window.

Your post makes sense to me, but I'm going to have to let it soak in for a while. I'm really not trying to debate the fundamentals of the monetary system, I am trying to understand them. At the moment, I feel like I'm making some progress, but that may change.

Thanks!

Walt

[ViperPilot 0]

Not to mention someone who shows selfishness, even at the smallest level, and demonstrates no understanding of our military and disdain for the same(which of course I take personal offense to) should be considered for Presidency. If she can't get simple stuff together, how can she run a country. That's part of how I see it.

[ViperPilot 0]

I'm refering to all abortions after the first trimester. If a woman hasn't made the choice to abort the fetus by the end of the 3rd trimester, then she should have no choice but to have the baby...unless the doctors say there's a good chance of it killing her, in which case it would be ok for her to still make the decision. Basically, it's just apathy if you haven't made the choice after 3 months. It's bullshit for people to go "hey I actually don't want this kid" at the 7 month period, or any period after 3 months.

[kelpdiver 2]

I agree with much of the spirit of what you said, but not quite in the details.

My sister didn't discover she was pregnant until past 5 months into the process. She was using one of the long term injectable birth controls and I guess didn't even entertain the notion. Being 500 miles away, I don't know how common that is. Certainly it wouldn't be unusual to go well over a month before noticing a missing period.

At 7 months the fetus may be viable, or is pretty close. A friend recently gave birth to her son 7 weeks early. Lacking risk to the mother, banning 3rd trimester abortions is appropriate. But I can't say the same for 2nd trimester ones.