Republikanske motkandidater til Obama, 2012? Hvem?

[After Dark]

Sterkt å sammenligne WWII med Libya.

 

Hadde du fått med deg det jeg skrev hadde du merket deg to ting:

 

1) Jeg nevnte flere konflikter.

 

2) Poenget er at krig iblant er eneste løsningen.

 

Wow, først demoniserer du tidligere okkupasjoner fra ikke-vestlige land, for siden å legitimere USAs egne handlinger, fordi de har fiender. Du har ikke flere morsomme eksempler på din egen dobbeltmoral?

 

1) Hvilke av USAs handlinger mener du jeg har forsvart?

 

2) Det er ingen andre enn deg som kan se noen dobbeltmoral i noe av dette.

 

Back to topic: Mitt Romney ser egentlig tilbakestående ut. Men så er han jo også mormoner, så det kan jo ligge noe i det.

 

Totalt useriøst tulleavsnitt!

[After Dark]

Måling: Klart Romney-forsprang i South Carolina

 

Republikaneren Mitt Romney får en ledelse på hele 21 prosentpoeng på sine nærmeste utfordrere på en fersk meningsmåling i South Carolina.

 

En måling foretatt av Ipsos for nyhetsbyrået Reuters viser at 37 prosent av delstatens republikanske velgere sier de vil stemme på Romney, som tidligere var guvernør i Massachusetts.

 

Mitt Romney vant de to første oppgjørene, i delstatene Iowa og New Hampshire, og har seilt opp som en soleklar favoritt til å få møte Barack Obama i høstens valg.

 

http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/Maling-Klart-Romney-forsprang-i-South-Carolina-6741906.html

 

Gledelig nyhet. Får virkelig håpe han klarer dette!

[Shruggie]

Les 538 angående den målingen, du

[PcT]

Tror nok Mitt Romney er den eneste som kan utfordre Obama.

 

Selv tviler jeg på at han har noen sjanse så lenge arbeidsledighet prosenten fortsetter å dale og økonomien ser bra ut. (I et nøtteskall selvfølgelig, relativt iforhold til i sommer)

[Zaftig]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ay0UAeUmrWQ

[festen]

http://files.wallstreetfolly.com/wordpress/2008/06/warren-buffetts-no-porn-shop-operator-there-will-be-no-boob-jobs-on-the-companies-he-acquires/

[jjkoggan]

Yeah, talk down to me. That'll help! I don't need to understand WHY americans are voting against their interests, I just need to know that they are. And they are. And I do know why; as I've already explained to you it's because they're being lied to by the same people who I would guess pay you to lie and act like a fucking idiot in this thread. Whether you know that they're paying you or

not. Whether you know that ANYONE is making you or not.

 

 

Was the Nobel committee that selected Milton friedman and his ideas on free market capitalism fucking idiots manipulated by powerful elite interests to disseminate lies?

 

Are you incapable of understanding that those that disagree with your ideas can do so through careful observation and reach a different but well reasoned conclusion. Neither Marx nor friedman were idiots and ascribing to their ideas does not make one an idiot

 

The height of arrogance is to reject ideas solely because they are not your own

[Shruggie]

Once again: answering the question is what we do here, not making up bullshit to make people forget the question.

I'm not against capitalism, I'm against FUCKING UP YOUR COUNTRY! Capitalism hasn't played a part in the US since the seventies! Free markets don't exist in the US. NOW:

 

DO YOU believe that over 50 % of voting americans realize that they are voting AGAINST their own interests in EVERY GOD DAMNED election? Do you think they're pro Friedman and against Marx on principle? Or do you agree with me that they have no idea and despereately want Bill O'Reilly to tell them what to care about?

 

I'll have an answer to this question sooner or later.

Endret 16. januar 2012 av tofagerl

[jjkoggan]

You used tax cuts as an example, specifically a cut friedman supported. Low taxes and most of the fiscal issues OReilly advocates are pro-business free market principles which you claim destroys America but which Friedman followers in general believe stimulate economic growth and prosperity

 

I think most Americans can conceive of a very progressive tax that would lower taxes at the low end but are skeptical it would work out that way in reality since that has not happened on your side of the pond and the typical result is lower economic growth and unsustainable entitlements

 

Redistribution also requires trust in government and the beneficiaries of welfare, neither of which exists in a huge diverse multicultural society full of individualists These two obstacles are much greater than the arrogant and ignorant view that brainwashed ignorance is the main factor

One must stop using only one lens from the perspective you grew up with to analyze other cultures. The class structures that shaped so much of European politics didn't really exist in the same way in the USA and you can't talk in the se way about American politics without revealing ignorance

[Shruggie]

Friedman NEVER SAW the tax cuts being renewed, he was fucking dead. He may have been in favor of a time limited tax cut, but that wasn't what we were talking about.

Has not happened? In Norway if you make less than 60k a year (NOK) you pay zero taxes. None. If you earn more than that, the tax rate is 28 %. If you earn more than 490.000 you pay 9 % more than that, and after 800k it's 12%. Meaning the MAX tax rate is 40 %, and you have to make about 131k USD a year to pay it. This means that the lowest tax bracket in Norway is only 10 % lower than yours. (Or 100% if you want to be relativistic) The highest is 5 % higher than yours.

So where's the big difference? Oh, that's right. WE ACTUALLY PAY OUR TAXES instead of using accounting tricks to fuck the little man with an iron rod!

 

 

As for the typical results for introducing progressive taxes, YOU are the one with the ignorance. Since you're clearly not interested in actually discussing other countries than your own, due to your overinflamed ego or (I assume) so that you can keep calling me ignorant without ever pointing out a SINGLE thing i've been wrong about, I will have to use history to prove my point. First of all, the US had a very progressive tax right after the second world war. What was the result?

 

 

NOW, as to the class structures, we removed them ourselves! Through hard work and dedication. You know, the shit that you guys haven't done since the fifties. And we continue our work. We're just about finished with equality for gays, and are now working on other fantastic policies that make your country look like the the

 

As for using lenses, WHERE THE FUCK do I make ANY FUCKING MISTAKES in talking about the US? Or are you just pulling shit out of your ass?

 

You might want to have a look at this: http://en.wikipedia....dern_income_tax

 

Now, I WANT A FUCKING ANSWER:

DO YOU believe that over 50 % of voting americans realize that they are voting AGAINST their own interests in EVERY GOD DAMNED election? Do you think they're pro Friedman and against Marx on principle? Or do you agree with me that they have no idea and despereately want Bill O'Reilly to tell them what to care about?

Endret 16. januar 2012 av tofagerl

[erlendeg]

RP!

 

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Nordmenn-for-Ron-Paul/149946115094854

 

 

tv2 korrespondanten søndag, helt drøyt nevnte nesten alle kandidater, ikke et ord om ron paul, nok et bevis i seg selv...

[jjkoggan]

Friedman NEVER SAW the tax cuts being renewed, he was fucking dead. He may have been in favor of a time limited tax cut, but that wasn't what we were talking about.

Friedman was always in favor of reduction in taxes and expenditures and there is no reason to believe he would not support extension of the tax cut in the middle of an economic crisis. Being for low taxes and low expenditures is following Friedman's ideas, like it or not.

 

Has not happened? In Norway if you make less than 60k a year (NOK) you pay zero taxes. None. If you earn more than that, the tax rate is 28 %. If you earn more than 490.000 you pay 9 % more than that, and after 800k it's 12%. Meaning the MAX tax rate is 40 %, and you have to make about 131k USD a year to pay it. This means that the lowest tax bracket in Norway is only 10 % lower than yours. (Or 100% if you want to be relativistic) The highest is 5 % higher than yours.

So where's the big difference? Oh, that's right. WE ACTUALLY PAY OUR TAXES instead of using accounting tricks to fuck the little man with an iron rod!

Not sure what your point is here. Norway's income tax rates are more progressive-that is true, but it does not support the idea that if the USA converted to norwegian style income tax system that 50% of americans would pay fewer taxes. If anything they most would pay more taxes. This also totally ignores the multiple other taxes collected in Norway that amount to almost 50% of GDP, which is the great fear, since that is the pattern in Europe. The average personal tax rates for average europeans are much higher than the average american.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.sv

 

As for the typical results for introducing progressive taxes, YOU are the one with the ignorance. Since you're clearly not interested in actually discussing other countries than your own, due to your overinflamed ego or (I assume) so that you can keep calling me ignorant without ever pointing out a SINGLE thing i've been wrong about, I will have to use history to prove my point. First of all, the US had a very progressive tax right after the second world war. What was the result?

 

Again, I'm confused. The typical result in Europe are more overall taxes for the average person(see link above) not lower taxes for the bottom half. And yes the tax rates have varied over time in the USA with varying results. I agree with you that a more progressive tax sytem would be beneficial, but Friedman followers disagree, each able to point to valid reasons to support their theses.

 

 

NOW, as to the class structures, we removed them ourselves! Through hard work and dedication. You know, the shit that you guys haven't done since the fifties. And we continue our work. We're just about finished with equality for gays, and are now working on other fantastic policies that make your country look like the the

Yes you and european nations in general have flattened your income distribution but that does not mean that culturally or politically things have changed much. The poor man who suddenly becomes rich tends to hold on his old way of thinking, regardless of his newfound wealth. The old guard of the labor pary tends to still fights for worker's rights and views business in the same antagonistic way even though the worker's wages are almost as much as the managers. The socialist wings that you appear to belong will likely still hold on to that relationship and antagonism with business interests no matter how flat your incomes are.

There are modifications as time goes along, of course but old habits are hard to break.

 

In any event these histories affect a nation's culture and politics and are not to be ignored when trying to understand why a nation would vote a certain way. Many conservative americans would assert that Norwegians vote against themselves just as you do us. If you want to know why we or you do certain things, a lesson in history and culture is always relevant.

 

 

 

As for using lenses, WHERE THE FUCK do I make ANY FUCKING MISTAKES in talking about the US? Or are you just pulling shit out of your ass?

 

The mistake you make repeatedly is ignoring our history and culture when ascribing reasons for certain political behavior.

 

Now, I WANT A FUCKING ANSWER:

DO YOU believe that over 50 % of voting americans realize that they are voting AGAINST their own interests in EVERY GOD DAMNED election? Do you think they're pro Friedman and against Marx on principle? Or do you agree with me that they have no idea and despereately want Bill O'Reilly to tell them what to care about?

 

I think that most people inherit their political views and bend them a bit based on their own observations and experiences just as they do other values they received from their families. I think conservatives believe in free market capitalism because their parents did and I think most people who watch Bill O'Reilly already agreed with him in the first place and wouldn't vote much differently without him. Those who don't agree with him don't watch him.

 

This is the end for me for this discussion, I am tired and you appear to be unable to see beyond your own horizon for alternative views in a way that anything I say does not matter. I understand your view on america and even share some of the same concerns, it is just too simplistic, shallow and arrogant for me to continue. Someday if you live here for a while you might understand. Most norwegians never move back.

[Shruggie]

Cool. Langt bedre svar! Jeg svarer deg i morgen, jeg har hatt en helt jævlig dag.

 

Takk for at du endelig svarte på 50%-spørsmålet.

[Shruggie]

Friedman NEVER SAW the tax cuts being renewed, he was fucking dead. He may have been in favor of a time limited tax cut, but that wasn't what we were talking about.

Friedman was always in favor of reduction in taxes and expenditures and there is no reason to believe he would not support extension of the tax cut in the middle of an economic crisis. Being for low taxes and low expenditures is following Friedman's ideas, like it or not.

 

Has not happened? In Norway if you make less than 60k a year (NOK) you pay zero taxes. None. If you earn more than that, the tax rate is 28 %. If you earn more than 490.000 you pay 9 % more than that, and after 800k it's 12%. Meaning the MAX tax rate is 40 %, and you have to make about 131k USD a year to pay it. This means that the lowest tax bracket in Norway is only 10 % lower than yours. (Or 100% if you want to be relativistic) The highest is 5 % higher than yours.

So where's the big difference? Oh, that's right. WE ACTUALLY PAY OUR TAXES instead of using accounting tricks to fuck the little man with an iron rod!

Not sure what your point is here. Norway's income tax rates are more progressive-that is true, but it does not support the idea that if the USA converted to norwegian style income tax system that 50% of americans would pay fewer taxes. If anything they most would pay more taxes. This also totally ignores the multiple other taxes collected in Norway that amount to almost 50% of GDP, which is the great fear, since that is the pattern in Europe. The average personal tax rates for average europeans are much higher than the average american.

http://en.wikipedia....s_By_Country.sv

 

As for the typical results for introducing progressive taxes, YOU are the one with the ignorance. Since you're clearly not interested in actually discussing other countries than your own, due to your overinflamed ego or (I assume) so that you can keep calling me ignorant without ever pointing out a SINGLE thing i've been wrong about, I will have to use history to prove my point. First of all, the US had a very progressive tax right after the second world war. What was the result?

 

Again, I'm confused. The typical result in Europe are more overall taxes for the average person(see link above) not lower taxes for the bottom half. And yes the tax rates have varied over time in the USA with varying results. I agree with you that a more progressive tax sytem would be beneficial, but Friedman followers disagree, each able to point to valid reasons to support their theses.

 

 

NOW, as to the class structures, we removed them ourselves! Through hard work and dedication. You know, the shit that you guys haven't done since the fifties. And we continue our work. We're just about finished with equality for gays, and are now working on other fantastic policies that make your country look like the the

Yes you and european nations in general have flattened your income distribution but that does not mean that culturally or politically things have changed much. The poor man who suddenly becomes rich tends to hold on his old way of thinking, regardless of his newfound wealth. The old guard of the labor pary tends to still fights for worker's rights and views business in the same antagonistic way even though the worker's wages are almost as much as the managers. The socialist wings that you appear to belong will likely still hold on to that relationship and antagonism with business interests no matter how flat your incomes are.

There are modifications as time goes along, of course but old habits are hard to break.

 

In any event these histories affect a nation's culture and politics and are not to be ignored when trying to understand why a nation would vote a certain way. Many conservative americans would assert that Norwegians vote against themselves just as you do us. If you want to know why we or you do certain things, a lesson in history and culture is always relevant.

 

 

 

As for using lenses, WHERE THE FUCK do I make ANY FUCKING MISTAKES in talking about the US? Or are you just pulling shit out of your ass?

 

The mistake you make repeatedly is ignoring our history and culture when ascribing reasons for certain political behavior.

 

Now, I WANT A FUCKING ANSWER:

DO YOU believe that over 50 % of voting americans realize that they are voting AGAINST their own interests in EVERY GOD DAMNED election? Do you think they're pro Friedman and against Marx on principle? Or do you agree with me that they have no idea and despereately want Bill O'Reilly to tell them what to care about?

 

I think that most people inherit their political views and bend them a bit based on their own observations and experiences just as they do other values they received from their families. I think conservatives believe in free market capitalism because their parents did and I think most people who watch Bill O'Reilly already agreed with him in the first place and wouldn't vote much differently without him. Those who don't agree with him don't watch him.

 

This is the end for me for this discussion, I am tired and you appear to be unable to see beyond your own horizon for alternative views in a way that anything I say does not matter. I understand your view on america and even share some of the same concerns, it is just too simplistic, shallow and arrogant for me to continue. Someday if you live here for a while you might understand. Most norwegians never move back.

 

1. Friedman: Of course he was for lower taxes, but he was also for the free market. There's no free market in the US, so lowering taxes is completely useless. As shown by the economy after the cuts; it didn't help one bit.

 

2. Taxes in Norway vs. US. I'm primarily talking about income taxes, which is what we call taxes. Everything else we call avgifter, which is like fees, but a little more than that. For example MVA which is an avgift. The difference is that the taxes are mandatory, while you can actually abstain from MVA by not buying anything. There's a small but important difference there. If you want to buy a new car, you have to pay MVA. If you buy a used one, you don't.

Of course you also have to pay MVA on food, which I personally am strongly against, but at least the rate is lower. (15% vs. 25%)

Anyway, my point here is that people in Norway pay taxes. And if you don't, the media finds out about it because we publicize all income and taxes. This would of course never be possible in the US, and perhaps it shouldn't be, but the effect is that a huge burden of shame is put upon people who try to cheat the rest of us by not paying their share. Unlike in the US, where you get away with shit like this: http://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/presidentvalg-2012/artikkel.php?artid=10075838

 

3. This is a misunderstanding. We pay taxes in, but we get a lot of it back. The first, and most obvious way this happens, is by the Trygdesystem. If you get hurt or sick and can't work for the rest of your life, you're good. You'll be supported by the people who do work. If you have children, you get an automatic payout from the government. If you need to buy medications, after the co-pay of 1880nok they're free. If you want to ride the bus, they're highly [word escapes me, but the companies get paid by the state]. If you get cancer, the treatment is free.

 

The fact is that the bottom earners in Norway get MORE back from the state than they pay in. Not all of it is in the form of cash of course, but free medicine, social support payments, and the safety net of the Trygdesystem is something that the US could never afford to pay for. In fact, without these helping hands from the society at large, many norwegians would never be able to afford food. Because most of the "bottom earners" are actually without work, so their only source of income is from the state. Note that they still have to pay taxes though, that's why it looks like Norwegians pay a lot of taxes: we pay in NO MATTER WHAT, but most of it comes right back through other sources. We don't pay more net taxes, we pay FAR less.

 

And here's the kicker: it's cheaper. Norway pays far less than the US does for healthcare, schooling, roads and everything else. Even if you're not a socialist, you can't argue against results: we can afford more social care than you can.

 

4. This would be very interesting to discuss, as I'm a history student, but it's not relevant to the thread. Let me just point out one name. Gunnar Knudsen. He was a prime minister a hundred years ago who worked hard for the idea that Norway should be a cooperative society, where everyone worked their best FOR everyone else. Everyone pays, everyone works, and everyone helps. Note also that he was a liberal.

 

5. Name one of these mistakes.

 

6. I agree with your point here, but you don't seem to understand mine. My point isn't that people just vote the way their parents did, my point is that people vote the way OTHERS do. Americans don't actually read politics, they don't know what socialism is, they just know that the people on TV yell the word in an angry tone, and therefore it must be bad. Americans don't know what's good for them, because they're being treated to a political show. There's no actual political discussion in the current primaries, everyone's just yelling about completely unimportant stuff like sweatervests, anti-gay propaganda and other bullshit.

 

In Norway, there's never really been a political discussion about homosexuals. Not because we don't care, but because it is SO FAR from an actual political issue that we don't spend time on it. Instead we spend time on financial politics, immigration politics and other stuff that actually is worth spending time on.

 

As for me not understanding the US, you're full of crap. I've never lived in the US, but I watch TV from the US, I read papers from the US, and I've got many friends from there. In fact, I understand the US far better than you do Norway.

[After Dark]

Ber velgerne stemme på kandidat som trakk seg

 

Komikeren Stephen Colbert er for sent ute til å registrere seg som kandidat til nominasjonsvalget i South Carolina. Nå har han funnet en løsning.

 

http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/usavalg/Ber-velgerne-stemme-pa-kandidat-som-trakk-seg-6743588.html

 

Tåpeligheter. Man skal være god for å klare å lage en spøk utav temaer som dette. Michael Moore har lykkes godt både med bøker og filmer, men dette var bare latterlig.

 

Dette betaler Mitt Romney i skatt

 

Snaue 15 prosent betaler den republikanske presidentkandiaten skatt av sine millioninntekter.

 

http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/Dette-betaler-Mitt-Romney-i-skatt-6743746.html

 

I disse amerikanske valgene gjøres det jo ofte store saker utav rykter og bagateller. Blir spennende å se om noen vil forsøke å gjøre noe utav dette.

 

Tilbaketog 
for Obamas storstilte 
planer

 

Høye kostnader, svinnende politisk støtte og krangel om hvor sporene skal gå, har satt utviklingen av lyntog i USA kraftig tilbake.

 

http://www.aftenposten.no/fakta/innsikt/Tilbaketog-for-Obamas-storstilte-planer-6743702.html

 

Det ser ikke akkurat ut til å gå bra for Obama for tiden. Enda et prosjekt som kan gå i vasken...

 

Røykbombe kastet mot Det hvite hus

 

Det hvite hus ble sperret av tirsdag kveld etter at det som så ut til å være ei røykbombe, ble kastet inn mot presidentboligen.

 

http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/Roykbombe-kastet-mot-Det-hvite-hus-6743868.html

 

Ikke akkurat tegnet på popularitet...

[Blåbær]

Ber velgerne stemme på kandidat som trakk seg

 

Komikeren Stephen Colbert er for sent ute til å registrere seg som kandidat til nominasjonsvalget i South Carolina. Nå har han funnet en løsning.

 

http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/usavalg/Ber-velgerne-stemme-pa-kandidat-som-trakk-seg-6743588.html

 

Tåpeligheter. Man skal være god for å klare å lage en spøk utav temaer som dette. Michael Moore har lykkes godt både med bøker og filmer, men dette var bare latterlig.

Nå må du roe deg ned litt, Colbert er en konservativ kandidat, så jeg ser ikke hvorfor du sammenligner han med Micheal Moore. Men nå har du også glemt hvorfor han har valgt å "stille" som kandidat, og grunnen til det var meningsmålinger som visste at han allerede var mer populær enn Jon Huntsmann, så det var derfor han kommet ut slik han har gjort. Og for presisere enda litt mer, så har han ikke stilt opp til valg men har laget en såkalt exploratory committee som undersøker mulighetene for å stille, han har altså ikke avgjort om han skal stille eller ei.

 

Ett annen poeng med dette er å vise hvordan valgsystemet fungerer i USA, spesielt med tanke på at firmaer = mennesker (i følge høyestesrett i USA) og dermed kan de bruke i prinsippet uendelig mye penger i valgkampen samtidig som man ingen får vite hvor pengene kommer ifra.

[Shruggie]

Dude, det er ikke akkurat en hemmelighet at han ikke er en seriøs kandidat.

[Blåbær]

Seriøs eller ei, han har støtte i befolkningen.

[Shruggie]

Jeg mener at han ikke mener det seriøst.

[Spenol]

Colbert er en liberal demokrat som parodierer konservative talking heads fra Fox News (nærmere bestemt Bill O'Reilly). Kandidaturet er ikke seriøst, og de som støtter ham er ikke konservative. Det hele er et publisitetsstunt.