A voté !

[Jazz Ad]

In case anybody cares, France is choosing a new president today.
(more accurately, the two more popular candidates. There are 2 rounds.)
The campaign for this election has been very interesting so far.
Stats say there have been more people voting so far than ever in an election.

[MrWalker]

I've read about it... apart from Le Pen and that I strongly hope that he doesn't get elected, I don't know too much about it. :)

Good luck!

[Drippin' Robin]

Hey Jazzy, who did you vote for?

[Jazz Ad]

Ségolène Royal. She's the socialist candidate.
Some of the things she defends bother me but the party that best represents my opinions (radical lefties) joined her so it was a vote by default.
Conservative right candidate is the favorite (Sarkozy), then socialists, then center right (Bayrou, for whom I could have voted), then extreme right wing (Le Pen).
Other candidates are far far away, under 5 %.
We'll see if results match stats.

[Grant Sharkey]

Royal seems a little weak to me - but i hope she gets in and learns over time.

Good luck France! Hope it works out nicely.

[Jazz Ad]

I wouldn't say she's weak. Just not used to work at such a high level.
She did an amazing job for primary elections, her first steps in the real campaign were a bit hesitant. Later on she showed a lot of potential. She uses people's emotions a lot, rather than their brains, I don't like that much.
She still got my vote, she's got a good compromise.

[Zamfir]

Here's to hoping the elections go well (i.e., implementation, if not results). :)

I don't follow it closely, but I begin to wonder if Sarkozy might not be the best option for the systemic shakeup France needs, his earlier comments regarding the riots and immigration notwithstanding. Especially on issues of employment and renewing France's commitment to improving the EU (e.g., public accountability, reforming institutional and regulatory gridlock with a view to expansion, and if much less likely, reforming the CAP...).

As much as it would be nice to see a woman win, Royal and the Socialists seem to be just offering more expensive promises they can't keep, and not much in the way of solutions to fix employment, reduce bureaucracy, or improve sluggish economic growth or relations with the US. :shrug:

On the other hand, Sarkozy won't be able to shake up things by himself. He needs full party support, and the last few center-right governing coalitions don't strike me as inspired, energetic, or coherent. ;)

I'll admit though, I don't follow the details closely, so that's just my superficial impression.

[Jazz Ad]

Conservatives have been in presidential power for 12 years now, with Sarkozy being a major character in the government team for over 5 years.
I haven't seen much shaking going on. Why would I trust them anymore ?

[lug]

I She uses people's emotions a lot, rather than their brains


You already said the radical lefties agrred with her, this statement is just redundant.







:wave:

.......flees forum

[The Lurker]

Hope your choice wins, but I don't really see sarkozy going away anytime soon......

[Grant Sharkey]

You already said the radical lefties agrred with her, this statement is just redundant.

:wave:

.......flees forum

I think i'd vote for anyone that says 'we shall not bow down to George Bush' - it's not even using my emotion - it's her using her brains. :)

[Croissant Seven]

I think i'd vote for anyone that says 'we shall not bow down to George Bush' - it's not even using my emotion - it's her using her brains. :)

That's using their hate.:)
It's a silly statement considering that at most they'd have to bow down to Bush for a year...:D
C7

[bill]

I think i'd vote for anyone that says 'we shall not bow down to George Bush' - it's not even using my emotion - it's her using her brains. :)

There has to be a Clinton joke in there someplace:dunno:

[Zamfir]

Conservatives have been in presidential power for 12 years now, with Sarkozy being a major character in the government team for over 5 years.
I haven't seen much shaking going on. Why would I trust them anymore ?

Fair enough.

But it wasn't Sarkozy calling the shots in backing down on reform initiatives before every little strike. That was Chirac, Raffarin, and Villepin.

I guess France is headed for more malaise. :(

[NotFSI]

She uses people's emotions a lot, rather than their brains, I don't like that much.


socialist...demagogue...hmm, sounds familiar...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/threecounties/content/images/2006/01/11/george_galloway_203_203x152.jpg

[Jazz Ad]

Almost 85 % of adults went to vote. That's a big lot.
http://medias.lemonde.fr/mmpub/edt/ill/2007/04/22/h_3_ill_899966_resultatsmaj-20h40.jpg

Second round in 2 weeks.
I'm quite happy so far. Coherent reults, a lot of good debates.

[lug]

I think i'd vote for anyone that says 'we shall not bow down to George Bush' - it's not even using my emotion - it's her using her brains. :)

Someone in France bows down to George Bush?!?!? WHY WASN'T I INFORMED! :mad:

[The Lurker]

That's using their hate.:)
It's a silly statement considering that at most they'd have to bow down to Bush for a year...:D
C7

better that someone is on one's knees for Clinton than for them to bow down before bush.

[beam]

Almost 85 % of adults went to vote. That's a big lot.


Hot damn that is..

[mnemosyne's lobotomy]

Almost 85 % of adults went to vote. That's a big lot.
http://medias.lemonde.fr/mmpub/edt/ill/2007/04/22/h_3_ill_899966_resultatsmaj-20h40.jpg

Second round in 2 weeks.
I'm quite happy so far. Coherent reults, a lot of good debates.

Well, thankfully LePen did NOT advance this election. I was kind of disgusted when he advanced in the last election cycle. I started to really wonder about Europe when Hader, Berlucsconi and potentially LePen might have all been presidents.

[Drippin' Robin]

85%, that REALLY is a lot.

BTW Jazz Ad - you probably voted on a voting machine that one of my friends helped to build.

[lug]

85%, that REALLY is a lot.

BTW Jazz Ad - you probably voted on a voting machine that one of my friends helped to build.


It's probably rigged.


:D

[Jazz Ad]

Yeah several towns including mine had voting machines.
Basically a touchscreen with pictures to point.
I don't like them. Way way too easy to manipulate.
Good old envelopes in a glass box are the way to go.

[Zamfir]

Almost 85 % of adults went to vote.

Holy shit. Why so high, even for Europe?

Americans, take note. ;)

[Drippin' Robin]

Holy shit. Why so high, even for Europe?


In France it's called 'The Day of Constitutional Complaining' ;)

[DubBassMan]

I was out and about in Clermont-Ferrand yesterday (and Vichy) and I saw loads of people out to vote, in my appalling french I did converse with a few, and got some much more intelligent responses than I would in either the UK or the USA.

What amazed me is how much of the manifesto/policy they knew, and how they were concerned about it becoming a popularity contest in future years.

It already IS this in the UK, and definitely the US, that's what I like about France, so many people who actually studied this properly, despite the fact that most of them were "winging it" and deciding at the polling booth.

JA, how much of the historic Vichy nature still exists in France? ie. the Nationalist/nazi sympathetic nature seen during the war? I'm just curious as a lot of people I spoke to were expressing Socialist views and saying they'd probably vote for Royal!?

dBM.

[Jazz Ad]

Well first, many were affraid that Le Pen would make it to the 2nd turn. It happened 5 years ago mostly because a lot of people didn't bother going to vote.

Then there was a huge campaign done by politicians, artists and TV channels to incitate citizens to register and express themselves. They realized that a lot of people never even bothered registering. It became automatic as soon as you reach 18, new elector cards were printed for everyone. Almost 15 % were first time voters.

Finally the campaign was really interesting. Medias did a great job, even top 40 music radios invited candidates and supporters to explain their program and ideas. The main candidates are brilliant and brought a lot of debates on the table. It was a big democratic fest. :)

I'm not completely happy about the results but find very comforting that so many people went to vote. France was very depressed in the last years. Not so brilliant economy, decreasing international influence. The 2 main candidates are 50 yo which is young for politicians in France. It might be the beginning of a new era.

Vichy style, extremely conservative, xenophobic right wing had 2 candidates, Le Pen and De Villiers. They made 12-13 %. Some people vote for them as a form of protest though, without really supporting their ideas. Their popularity is decreasing but you can't expect them to really go away.

[cdb]

Almost 85 % of adults went to vote. That's a big lot.


Second round in 2 weeks.
I'm quite happy so far. Coherent reults, a lot of good debates.

85% is great turnout!! Now thats democracy at work!!

[DubBassMan]

I'm not completely happy about the results but find very comforting that so many people went to vote. France was very depressed in the last years. Not so brilliant economy, decreasing international influence. The 2 main candidates are 50 yo which is young for politicians in France. It might be the beginning of a new era.

Vichy style, extremely conservative, xenophobic right wing had 2 candidates, Le Pen and De Villiers. They made 12-13 %. Some people vote for them as a form of protest though, without really supporting their ideas. Their popularity is decreasing but you can't expect them to really go away.

85% is an extraordinary turnout! I think that probably rivals South Africa in 1994, but I'm not sure without any figures!

I did see a lot posters for La Pen and Sarkozy, about 2 for Beyrou and some for De Villiers (whose name I didn't recognise at first, until I read one of them), but a lot more people seemed to be voting for Royal. I think perhaps the Right is a bit more scary to people in France, if only the same were true over here.

dBM.

[Jazz Ad]

Tada !
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/images/sarkozy_1.jpg

53 %, it's a clear choice, with 85 % turnout again. People want him it seems, which is beyond me.
We have legislative elections witihn a month, to elect deputies.

[The Lurker]

hooray for sarkozy:(

[bassesofalessergod]

yeah sarkozy! friend to the americans!

[lug]

yeah sarkozy! friend to the americans!


So you are saying we can go back to French Fries instead of Freedom Fries? This truely IS agreat day! :thumbsup:

[bassesofalessergod]

http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/4572/monopolysarkozysarkostiquesark.gif

[NotFSI]

http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/4572/monopolysarkozysarkostiquesark.gif

:rofl:

[Croissant Seven]

53 %, it's a clear choice, with 85 % turnout again. People want him it seems, which is beyond me.


I just had a flashback to 2004.:D
Expect the opposing side to complain that it's not a large enough margin to say whether or not the people really wanted him as president, that the election was stolen, and that investigations need to be launched.:wave:
C7

[MBIYF]

bah!

[Jazz Ad]

I just had a flashback to 2004.:D
Expect the opposing side to complain that it's not a large enough margin to say whether or not the people really wanted him as president, that the election was stolen, and that investigations need to be launched.:wave:
C7NOt bound to happen around here.

[Croissant Seven]

NOt bound to happen around here.

Is that because French liberals consider 53% a majority?:D
C7

[King Kashue]

I just had a flashback to 2004.:D
Expect the opposing side to complain that it's not a large enough margin to say whether or not the people really wanted him as president, that the election was stolen, and that investigations need to be launched.:wave:
C7

Is that because French liberals consider 53% a majority?:D
C7

Or maybe they just remember 2004 correctly :D

Bush got 50.7% of the popular vote, Kerry got 48.3%...

A margin of 2.5%...


Sarkozy got 53.06%, and Royal got 46.94%...

A margin of 6.12%...Nearly two and a half times as large.

[Croissant Seven]

Or maybe they just remember 2004 correctly :D

Bush got 50.7% of the popular vote, Kerry got 48.3%...

A margin of 2.5%...


Sarkozy got 53.06%, and Royal got 46.94%...

A margin of 6.12%...Nearly two and a half times as large.

50.7%...still a majority.:P

And what does it say when the French vote down a Socialist by a larger margin than the Americans did?:smack:
C7

[NotFSI]

50.7%...still a majority.:P

And what does it say when the French vote down a Socialist by a larger margin than the Americans did?:smack:
C7

When was a Socialist candidate fielded in the US presidential elections? :confused:

[bassmama]

I wouldn't say she's weak. Just not used to work at such a high level.
She did an amazing job for primary elections, her first steps in the real campaign were a bit hesitant. Later on she showed a lot of potential. She uses people's emotions a lot, rather than their brains, I don't like that much.
She still got my vote, she's got a good compromise.

You know it's too bad she lost. I pretty much consider myself a socialist.
I don't think there is any harm in appealing to people's emotions. I think it is just as important as appealling to the intellect. Why do people not think emotions are important?

[NotFSI]

You know it's too bad she lost. I pretty much consider myself a socialist.
I don't think there is any harm in appealing to people's emotions. I think it is just as important as appealling to the intellect. Why do people not think emotions are important?

"Yes, a Jedi's strength flows from the Force. But beware of the dark side. Anger, fear, aggression. The dark side of the Force, are they. Easily they flow, quick to join you in a fight. If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny. Consume you, it will... as it did Obi-Wan's apprentice."

[lug]

The win gave Sarkozy a strong mandate for his vision of France's future: He wants to free up labor markets, calls France's 35-hour work week absurd and plans tougher measures on crime and immigration.
source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070507/ap_on_re_eu/france_election


HA! GET BACK TO WORK, FRENCHIES!

[Drippin' Robin]

Ah, back to full-time complaining!

[citizenralph]

When was a Socialist candidate fielded in the US presidential elections? :confused:
Every 4 years! You may know them as democrats.

[bassmama]

Every 4 years! You may know them as democrats.

US democrats? Socialists? Hah!

[citizenralph]

You know it's too bad she lost. I pretty much consider myself a socialist.
I don't think there is any harm in appealing to people's emotions. I think it is just as important as appealling to the intellect. Why do people not think emotions are important?
I emotionally hate the government taking my money and giving it to some lazy union hippie dufus.

[bassmama]

I emotionally hate the government taking my money and giving it to some lazy union hippie dufus.

MINE MINE MINE, AND FURTHERMORE, ME!!!!
to hell with the rest of the world as far as I care.

That's what I'm hearing.

[Drippin' Robin]

Yeah, socialism is a great way to run a country.

[The Lurker]

Every 4 years! You may know them as democrats.

Ok, that's a comparison that really hasn't got a leg to stand on. :rolleyes:

[beam]

I emotionally hate the government taking my money and giving it to some lazy union hippie dufus.

Funny, I feel the same way about the government telling me what I can and can't do with my personal life :)

Actually, I feel that way about them telling me what I can't do with my personal life OR my money, as long as I'm not inflicting harm on anyone.

[citizenralph]

MINE MINE MINE, AND FURTHERMORE, ME!!!!
to hell with the rest of the world as far as I care.

That's what I'm hearing.
Exactly! Thats what I hear too. "you have that? Give it to me. It's MINE" There are too many needy and deserving people in the world. I know this and I am happy to help out. What I don't need is the government taking my money and deciding who should get it.

[lug]

Exactly! Thats what I hear too. "you have that? Give it to me. It's MINE" There are too many needy and deserving people in the world. I know this and I am happy to help out. What I don't need is the government taking my money and deciding who should get it.


..and doing it in an exceedingly inefficient manner!

[bassmama]

Exactly! Thats what I hear too. "you have that? Give it to me. It's MINE" There are too many needy and deserving people in the world. I know this and I am happy to help out. What I don't need is the government taking my money and deciding who should get it.
I agree that the "governing" of our tax money needs severe reform. I do not think most people are willing to part with ANY $ voluntarily. You may be an exception there. I don't understand why americans think they are entitled to all the good things our tax dollars pay for yet they don't feel that they should contribute financially.

[beam]

I do not think most people are willing to part with ANY $ voluntarily. You may be an exception there. I don't understand why americans think they are entitled to all the good things our tax dollars pay for yet they don't feel that they should contribute financially.

Well, I'd disagree with you on the first part.
Especially if most Americans had more of their paycheck to do with as they see fit. It's our money afterall.

I'm not opposed to paying for the things that we need, I'm really not. I'm opposed to the mismanaged process that governs it. This will start me on the whole "getting rid of income tax" bit, but even if we kept the system the way it is....There is quite a bit of tax money our government spends that it is either mismanaging...or shouldn't be spending at all. IMO, of course.

[bassmama]

Well, I'd disagree with you on the first part.
Especially if most Americans had more of their paycheck to do with as they see fit. It's our money afterall.

I'm not opposed to paying for the things that we need, I'm really not. I'm opposed to the mismanaged process that governs it. This will start me on the whole "getting rid of income tax" bit, but even if we kept the system the way it is....There is quite a bit of tax money our government spends that it is either mismanaging...or shouldn't be spending at all. IMO, of course.

i wish there was a way we could have more control over what our $ was spent on. the current system blows.
i don't think getting rid of income tax is the answer but i largely agree with you.

[bassmama]

Yeah, socialism is a great way to run a country.
oh god i should have known this would happen.
i'm outta this thread now.

[cdb]

..and doing it in an exceedingly inefficient manner!

I agree. Too many no-bid contracts for defense contractors.

[beam]

i wish there was a way we could have more control over what our $ was spent on. the current system blows.
i don't think getting rid of income tax is the answer but i largely agree with you.

I think it's worth a shot :)

oh god i should have known this would happen.
i'm outta this thread now.

Well, it kind of has a really high failure rate..
The only shot it really has is on a really local level. On a national level, bad things tend to happen very quickly.

[lug]

Getting rid of income tax and replacing it with a national sales tax would be the best thing they coulds do, IMNSHO.

[beam]

Getting rid of income tax and replacing it with a national sales tax would be the best thing they coulds do, IMNSHO.

Agreed.

[Drippin' Robin]

Well, it kind of has a really high failure rate..
The only shot it really has is on a really local level. On a national level, bad things tend to happen very quickly.

It's a great idea. Too bad it's enforced by humans, that kinda ruins the whole idea.

[bassmama]

I think it's worth a shot :)



Well, it kind of has a really high failure rate..
The only shot it really has is on a really local level. On a national level, bad things tend to happen very quickly.
I don't think that having a socialist government is the answer. I like and agree with many of the philosophies of socialism.
I don't think any governments of past or future are doing it or have done it 100% right.
I have a pretty grim view of politics.
I just try to hold fast to my ideals and live by them.

[burdizzos]

All forms of gov't will work perfectly with the "correct" people in charge.

Sadly, everyone's definition of "correct" is different.

Since people are inherently imperfect, the very best that a group of people can do is determine which rights are inviolable and create a gov't whose top priority is protecting those rights.


Personally, I do not believe that liberty can exist without private property rights. That is the key difference between the philosophies of socialism and libertarianism.

[bassmama]

All forms of gov't will work perfectly with the "correct" people in charge.

Sadly, everyone's definition of "correct" is different.

Since people are inherently imperfect, the very best that a group of people can do is determine which rights are inviolable and create a gov't whose top priority is protecting those rights.


Personally, I do not believe that liberty can exist without private property rights. That is the key difference between the philosophies of socialism and libertarianism.

I do believe in personal property rights so I guess maybe I am not a socialist. What I do believe is that everyone should contribute part of their wealth to better society as a whole. I think that those who CAN contribute more SHOULD contribute more. I think that some people were not lucky enough to be born with the faculties and abilities to support themselves and that we should care enough about those people to help them out. No i don't think that we should give "lazy hippies" and "druggies" a "free ride". I think that EVERYONE deserves health care. I think that we should be able to decide where our money is spent. I think that I should have a little form to send in with my taxes that tells the govt what % of my money to put in each department of government.

[burdizzos]

If people got to tell the gov't how to spend their money, then lots of things that are necessities would go unfunded simply because people don't know about them.

If people were given a list of items and asked to place percentages next to them with respect to how they thought those items should be funded, there would still be underfunding. Nevermind the fact that those in the lower tax brackets would almost never have their percentages add up to 100. ;)


You think everyone deserves healthcare, I agree. However, your definition of healthcare as it applies to what people deserve and mine are very different. A service is not an inalienable right.

[bassmama]

your definition of healthcare as it applies to what people deserve and mine are very different.

how do you know what my definition of healthcare as it applies to what people deserve is?

[NotFSI]

I do believe in personal property rights so I guess maybe I am not a socialist. What I do believe is that everyone should contribute part of their wealth to better society as a whole. I think that those who CAN contribute more SHOULD contribute more. I think that some people were not lucky enough to be born with the faculties and abilities to support themselves and that we should care enough about those people to help them out. No i don't think that we should give "lazy hippies" and "druggies" a "free ride". I think that EVERYONE deserves health care. I think that we should be able to decide where our money is spent. I think that I should have a little form to send in with my taxes that tells the govt what % of my money to put in each department of government.

Sounds like social-democracy to me (except for the bit about choosing where your tax money goes, I'm not sure that would be a workable system mainly for the reasons outlined by burdizzos)

[burdizzos]

how do you know what my definition of healthcare as it applies to what people deserve is?

I'm making an assumption based on your past posts.

I do not know exactly what your stance is, but I'd bet my paycheck that it is different than mine.

[bassmama]

I'm making an assumption based on your past posts.

I do not know exactly what your stance is, but I'd bet my paycheck that it is different than mine.

mm-hmm, making assumptions huh...
YOU DON'T KNOW ME!!!



ok you're probably right;)

[bassmama]

Sounds like social-democracy to me (except for the bit about choosing where your tax money goes, I'm not sure that would be a workable system mainly for the reasons outlined by burdizzos)

so maybe I'm a social democrat then? I need to study up on my political science, but then... I hate politics.

i don't think that what i said would really be a workable system. of course that is an extremely simplified (and idealistic) version of what i think might be a possibly workable system.
I hate politics.

[beam]

I hate politics.

Read more about it.
Then you'll really hate it ;)

[bassmama]

Read more about it.
Then you'll really hate it ;)

I have to keep myself from reading too much about it or talking too much about it or this happens :freak:

[beam]

I have to keep myself from reading too much about it or talking too much about it or this happens :freak:

Discussion is the good part though :)

[burdizzos]

so maybe I'm a social democrat then? I need to study up on my political science, but then... I hate politics.

i don't think that what i said would really be a workable system. of course that is an extremely simplified (and idealistic) version of what i think might be a possibly workable system.
I hate politics.

I have to keep myself from reading too much about it or talking too much about it or this happens :freak:


Then it's probably a bad idea to make political comments on a board full of people who love to discuss the topic at ridiculous length.

You should just have a stock comment that sums up your beliefs. "I think the government should legislate peace and make unhappiness a crime."

[burdizzos]

Back on topic, how much difference will this actually make for France?

Are the parties so different in France that this election will result in tremendous policy shifts that will border on revolution?

[Jamacuco]

Regardless of the results, I think the French people should be proud of their participation rate.

At least people care enough to vote!

[Drippin' Robin]

Regardless of the results, I think the French people should be proud of their participation rate.

At least people care enough to vote!

Yup!

I think a 50.7% majority with a turnout of 85% says more than a 60% majority with a 40% turnout.

I'm curious as to what will happen. Royal painted a picture of doom if Sarkozy would win, with repeats of those horrible suburban riots.

[bassmama]

Then it's probably a bad idea to make political comments on a board full of people who love to discuss the topic at ridiculous length.

You should just have a stock comment that sums up your beliefs. "I think the government should legislate peace and make unhappiness a crime."

you know my better judgement tries to tell me to stay out of political threads but then my passion won't let me.

legislate peace and make unhappiness a crime?
:rofl:

seriously though, I am a moody bitch, if they made unhappiness a crime I'd be in trouble.

also, I don't think it would be possible to summarize my political views (which are always evolving) in a soundbite.

[Jugghaid]

I do believe in personal property rights so I guess maybe I am not a socialist. What I do believe is that everyone should contribute part of their wealth to better society as a whole. I think that those who CAN contribute more SHOULD contribute more. I think that some people were not lucky enough to be born with the faculties and abilities to support themselves and that we should care enough about those people to help them out. No i don't think that we should give "lazy hippies" and "druggies" a "free ride". I think that EVERYONE deserves health care. I think that we should be able to decide where our money is spent. I think that I should have a little form to send in with my taxes that tells the govt what % of my money to put in each department of government.

Coupla points.

1. Most people DO contribute part of their income and/or wealth to charitable organizations. Especially those who have more to give. And it's a lot omore effective than "government mandated charirties" (see entitlement programs).

2. On the EVERYONE deserves healthcare thing. No one in this country is turned away at county hospitals. They are not allowed to. Where the disparity comes in the is level and quality of that healthcare. Try going to a VA facility. If you are a partially or totaly disabled veteran, you typically will have to wait 6-8 weeks to get an appointment unless you can get in early on a cancellation. By that time, whatever was wrong with you probably isn't anymore. But if you are an illegal alien, you can walk into county general and use the emergency room for "well care" (runny nose, flu, etc) and no one will tell you that you can't.

I feel that everyone is entitled to a certain level of healthcare, but not everyone is entitled to the SAME level of healthcare. It costs money. The more money you have, the better healthcare you can afford. It has always been that way and probably always will be that way. And the minimum level of healthcare in this country beats the BEST healthcare in most places in this world. So nobody really has anything to bitch about. ;)

3. If you want more say in how your tax dollars are spent, you can't just throw up your hands and say "I hate politics". You have to be part of the solution.

[bassmama]

Regardless of the results, I think the French people should be proud of their participation rate.

At least people care enough to vote!

no doubt!

[Jugghaid]

Regardless of the results, I think the French people should be proud of their participation rate.

At least people care enough to vote!


I would have to agree. They should be very very proud of that kind of turnout.

[burdizzos]

also, I don't think it would be possible to summarize my political views (which are always evolving) in a soundbite.

That's kind of my point. If your views are constantly changing, but staying rooted in the same philosophy that the haves owe the have nots, then posting one liner comments is nearly pointless. It only serves to spark up discussion among the other ebassists. ;)

[bassmama]

Coupla points.

1. Most people DO contribute part of their income and/or wealth to charitable organizations. Especially those who have more to give. And it's a lot omore effective than "government mandated charirties" (see entitlement programs).

3. If you want more say in how your tax dollars are spent, you can't just throw up your hands and say "I hate politics". You have to be part of the solution.


"most" people contribute? Really?



regarding number 3. You are absolutely right. I should be more involved. I should be part of the solution. It is hard for me to get past the frustration I feel (I am a worrisome-anxious-stressed out type person) with the way things stand and I mostly feel helpless against it.

[bassmama]

That's kind of my point. If your views are constantly changing, but staying rooted in the same philosophy that the haves owe the have nots, then posting one liner comments is nearly pointless. It only serves to spark up discussion among the other ebassists. ;)

oh my god.

i do not feel that the haves owe the have nots that is far too simplistic and noit fair for you to summarize me that way.

i don't have time in between taking care of my kids and household to post more than ore or a few lines.

I apologize deeply for sparking up discussion.

[burdizzos]

I feel that everyone is entitled to a certain level of healthcare, but not everyone is entitled to the SAME level of healthcare. It costs money. The more money you have, the better healthcare you can afford. It has always been that way and probably always will be that way. And the minimum level of healthcare in this country beats the BEST healthcare in most places in this world. So nobody really has anything to bitch about. ;)


Without surprise, I agree.

Where should the gov't draw the line for what is considered healthcare? Should the gov't pay for fertility? Cosmetic surgery? Gastric bypass? Sterilization?(I'd totally support that one, incidentally) ;)

[burdizzos]

"most" people contribute? Really?


I donate 5% of my annual income to a couple of charities that I believe are important. There used to be three, but the overhead cost on the third went higher than I thought reasonable.

oh my god.

i do not feel that the haves owe the have nots that is far too simplistic and noit fair for you to summarize me that way.

i don't have time in between taking care of my kids and household to post more than ore or a few lines.

I apologize deeply for sparking up discussion.

It is simplistic, but it's fundamentally accurrate.

[burdizzos]

I completely disagree and that is the difference between you and me.

So you do not think that any form of wealth redistribution is valid?

You really should look up the definition of socialist before making a statement like, "I pretty much consider myself a socialist."



Or is it that you don't want to simplify it to that degree because it somehow makes your philosophy seem intellectually void despite the fact that you do not wish to spend the time required to understand politics, as you stated in this thread.


The difference between the two of us is that I don't make statements that I cannot back up.

[NotFSI]

Yup!

I think a 50.7% majority with a turnout of 85% says more than a 60% majority with a 40% turnout.

I'm curious as to what will happen. Royal painted a picture of doom if Sarkozy would win, with repeats of those horrible suburban riots.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6357899.stm

Judging by that he doesn't seem that right wing...put it this way, I think he'd be considered a fringe lunatic leftist by, say, the US Green Party ;)


You really should look up the definition of socialist before making a statement like, "I pretty much consider myself a socialist."


+1

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialism

so·cial·ism (ssh-lzm)
n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Doesn't sound too promising...

[burdizzos]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6357899.stm

Judging by that he doesn't seem that right wing...put it this way, I think he'd be considered a fringe lunatic leftist by, say, the US Green Party ;)




Interesting, based on that information there really isn't much difference.

I'd put that guy between the Greens and the Democrats in this country.

His stance on Nuclear power makes him a right wing nut bag to the Green party. ;)

[NotFSI]

Interesting, based on that information there really isn't much difference.

I'd put that guy between the Greens and the Democrats in this country.

His stance on Nuclear power makes him a right wing nut bag to the Green party. ;)

Well they're quite big on their nuclear power...we import about 2% of our electricity consumption from France (always a fun fact to bring up at parties)

[bassmama]

So you do not think that any form of wealth redistribution is valid?

You really should look up the definition of socialist before making a statement like, "I pretty much consider myself a socialist."



Or is it that you don't want to simplify it to that degree because it somehow makes your philosophy seem intellectually void despite the fact that you do not wish to spend the time required to understand politics, as you stated in this thread.


The difference between the two of us is that I don't make statements that I cannot back up.

OK, maybe you will all think that my philosophy is intellectually void, but since I am getting so much venom spewed at me I do not wish to further this conversation. I was trying to be friendly about my discussion and I feel that I am being PERSONALLY attacked.


I do not wish to continue being personally attacked.

[burdizzos]

I made no personal attacks.

You said yourself:
so maybe I'm a social democrat then? I need to study up on my political science, but then... I hate politics.

i don't think that what i said would really be a workable system. of course that is an extremely simplified (and idealistic) version of what i think might be a possibly workable system.
I hate politics.

and then

I have to keep myself from reading too much about it or talking too much about it or this happens :freak:

I did not say that you were intellectually void, I said that painting it that way makes your philosophy seem intellectually void.

You don't want to do your homework regarding your political leanings, but you see no problem with making statements like

I pretty much consider myself a socialist.


and

US democrats? Socialists? Hah!

If you don't want to get into political discussions, then don't comment, especially if you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Jugghaid]

"most" people contribute? Really?



regarding number 3. You are absolutely right. I should be more involved. I should be part of the solution. It is hard for me to get past the frustration I feel (I am a worrisome-anxious-stressed out type person) with the way things stand and I mostly feel helpless against it.

Most people in this country.....yes. either through charities, donating their money and/or time. Through their churches. Salvation army guy at the grocery store, etc etc etc. I don't think I know of anyone personally who doesn't. It just depends on how much.

Like Burdizzos, I give quite a bit to charity every year. So does my company. I have 2 charities that I specifically single out to give to based on the work they do and the efficiency at which they do it (i.e. the percentage of funds actually going to the people who need it and not administrative costs).

Now what the government does is basically take about 10% of my income and gives it to people and gets basically zero return. Entitlement programs have proven to not work and in fact create a cycle of dependence. That's why we have 2nd and 3rd generation welfare families. It also falls into their plan of creating a dependent class as a voting bloc.

Look at what happened during 9/11 and the Tsunami a few years ago. They actually said "stop sending money, we have enough". We don't rely on our government, as a people, to do the right thing. We do it ourselves. I think T-Broom and some others loaded up a truck for the Katrina victims full of water and supplies. That's what americans do.

Government wasted the money on ineffective bullshit. That is why it doesn't work. That is why it won't work. People accomplish things, beaurocracy slows things down. Pretty simple. Taht is why the LAST people I would turn health care over to are politicians.

[bassmama]

I made no personal attacks.

You said yourself:


and then



I did not say that you were intellectually void, I said that painting it that way makes your philosophy seem intellectually void.

You don't want to do your homework regarding your political leanings, but you see no problem with making statements like



and



If you don't want to get into political discussions, then don't comment, especially if you have no idea what you are talking about.

You don't think it's a personal attack to tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about?


OK.


I wasn't trying to get into a political debate. Just trying to make a little light conversation.

I never claimed to be a political expert but I am not an idiot (read between the lines "you have no idea what you're talking about")
I know enough to have opinions. I may not have represented myself 100% accurately by saying I am pretty much a socialist even though I do subscribe to many of the major philosophies associated with it.

I still maintain that I was being nice and you are being nasty to me.

No need to get nasty.

Just the same (and yes I'm aware that I've said this before) I won't be getting into any political discussion on this board again.
I thought I'd be able to get away with a few benign comments without it turning into an uproar but apparently I can't make a comment that you and other political enthusiasts disagree with without being raked over the coals.

This was really a big waste of time wasn't it.

[Jugghaid]

You don't think it's a personal attack to tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about?


OK.


I wasn't trying to get into a political debate. Just trying to make a little light conversation.

I never claimed to be a political expert but I am not an idiot (read between the lines "you have no idea what you're talking about")
I know enough to have opinions. I may not have represented myself 100% accurately by saying I am pretty much a socialist even though I do subscribe to many of the major philosophies associated with it.

I still maintain that I was being nice and you are being nasty to me.

No need to get nasty.

Just the same (and yes I'm aware that I've said this before) I won't be getting into any political discussion on this board again.
I thought I'd be able to get away with a few benign comments without it turning into an uproar but apparently I can't make a comment that you and other political enthusiasts disagree with without being raked over the coals.

This was really a big waste of time wasn't it.


Oh come on now. Telling someone they are wrong or uninformed or have no idea what they are talking about (when that is an accurate assesment) isn't being nasty. In fact for Burdizzos, that was extremely restrained. He's simply pointing out that what you may think is socialism, in fact really isn't. That's not a personal attack at all.



Here's a personal attack:

SHUT UP BURDIZZOS YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE!!!! :D

[burdizzos]

I'm not being nasty at all.

You call yourself "pretty much a socialist" and then go on to say that you are in favor of personal property rights and you don't think the haves owe the have nots anything.


Saying that you have no idea what you are talking about is putting it gently.

[burdizzos]

SHUT UP BURDIZZOS YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE!!!! :D

Fuck off, you dirty pig fucking bastard.

[Jugghaid]

Fuck off, you dirty pig fucking bastard.

It wasn't a pig. It was a ham and I removed the bone. ;)

[bassmama]

well I live by the golden rule.

i treat others as i would have them treat me.

i do not go out of my way to try to make people feel stupid.

i think there are a few of you being extremely rude.

i'm sure you have more political knowledge than i.

so fucking kill me.

i have no answers.

at the end of the day i'd truly rather be a nice person than anything else.







i've asked allan to delete my profile because i'm sick of being trashed on.





most of you were really nice to me so thanks!!!

[citizenralph]

well I live by the golden rule.

i treat others as i would have them treat me.

i do not go out of my way to try to make people feel stupid.

i think there are a few of you being extremely rude.

i'm sure you have more political knowledge than i.

so ing kill me.

i have no answers.

at the end of the day i'd truly rather be a nice person than anything else.







i've asked allan to delete my profile because i'm sick of being trashed on.





most of you were really nice to me so thanks!!!
No! I thought this thread was a good example of how much we are really alike even though we would describe ourselves as opposites. I really like you Rachel and hope you stick around. I'm not much of a political expert either and appreciate the lighter side of the conversation. I know it get tough sometimes when some people whip out their superior intellect and smack you down. Just don't take it personally and perhaps learn a little as some of these guys don't have much else to do other than research on the internet. And that alone I find amusing.

[NotFSI]

i've asked allan to delete my profile because i'm sick of being trashed on.



Who's trashing on you? I'll beat them up!

[bassmama]

Who's trashing on you? I'll beat them up!

maybe i'm just having a really sensitive day but I'm feeling like the whole 3rd and 4th pages of this thread are trashing on me.

maybe i'm just a girl and this is the way boys talk to each other.

i think you guys could disagree more ploitely.

[bassmama]

No! I thought this thread was a good example of how much we are really alike even though we would describe ourselves as opposites. I really like you Rachel and hope you stick around. I'm not much of a political expert either and appreciate the lighter side of the conversation. I know it get tough sometimes when some people whip out their superior intellect and smack you down. Just don't take it personally and perhaps learn a little as some of these guys don't have much else to do other than research on the internet. And that alone I find amusing.
thanks:)

[Jugghaid]

maybe i'm just having a really sensitive day but I'm feeling like the whole 3rd and 4th pages of this thread are trashing on me.

maybe i'm just a girl and this is the way boys talk to each other.

i think you guys could disagree more ploitely.

I am offended that now you have made this sexist. :D:D


j/k.....I really hope you don't think I was trashing on you at all. I somply stated that most people I know do in fact give to charity. :confused:

[Jazz Ad]

Would they do it without the government's action ?
Like, if it didn't get them a huge tax rebate ?

[bassmama]

I am offended that now you have made this sexist. :D:D


j/k.....I really hope you don't think I was trashing on you at all. I somply stated that most people I know do in fact give to charity. :confused:



I am not saying anyone is sexist.

I feel that if you and or burzidos and whoever disagrees with me thinks that I am undereducated on a particular subject there are much more polite ways to inform me.

I'm glad to know that you were not intentionally trying to trash on me.

As I said I suppose I may be too sensitive.

[Jugghaid]

Would they do it without the government's action ?
Like, if it didn't get them a huge tax rebate ?

Yup.

In fact the IRS changed the rules and made a ton of charitable donations non-tax deductible. No real effect on charitable giving.

In fact, about the only reason I even claimed anything was to take the money out of the wasteful hands of the government and give more to the people that actually do GOOD with it.

Realistically, if I give $10,000 to charity, i would only see about 10% of that back, tops, in tax savings. Even less now.

Not exactly HUGE by any means.

Now if I gave $10,000 to charity and got a tax benefit in my pocket of $12,000 (and not about $900 which it really is) then it would make a lot more sense.

[Jazz Ad]

Realistically, if I give $10,000 to charity, i would only see about 10% of that back, tops, in tax savings. Even less now.

Not exactly HUGE by any means.

Now if I gave $10,000 to charity and got a tax benefit in my pocket of $12,000 (and not about $900 which it really is) then it would make a lot more sense.It must be because it's late and I worked hard today, I don't understand the meaning of this.
I will read it again tomorrow and maybe even comment on it. :D

[burdizzos]

Would they do it without the government's action ?
Like, if it didn't get them a huge tax rebate ?


I don't claim half of my donations.

As for the tax situation, it really isn't that big of a deal. Here's how it works:

If I donate $2000 and claim it on my taxes and my income is $60000, then I pay income taxes on $58000 rather than $60000, it isn't a huge difference. the result is less than $500 is taxes paid. So for a $2000 donation, I'd get $500 in return.

[Jugghaid]

It must be because it's late and I worked hard today, I don't understand the meaning of this.
I will read it again tomorrow and maybe even comment on it. :D

Okay, I can summarize in between now and then for you though.

Here is an example:

If I give $10,000 to charities, I can then (to a point) deduct that amount from my declared income. Not my tax bill. This is provided that these are qualified charitable contributions in the first place. Let's assume they are.

So if I made $154,800 this year, my tax bill for the year would be $37,675.50(I'm going with a fairly high income as a lot of this discussion goes to "the rich" usually).

Now, if I was to declare this and get the tax benefit from it, here's how it would work.

My adjusted gross income would now be $144,800. My tax bill for the year would be $34.875.50. My net tax savings would be $2800.

Howevver if I just took the standard deduction (and not claimed this on my taxes), my standard deduction would be $5150. Therefore my adjusted income would be $149,650. and my tax bill would be $36233.50. My net tax savings would be $1442. That means the real difference in tax savings in this case (a single guy making that income with no other deductions) I would get back 14% of what I gave. That means that $8558 of that $10,000 came out of my pocket and the rest came out of the government coffers which I paid into in the first place. Factor in the 28% of the $5150 I would be getting back anyway and my true net gain is minimal.

Doesn't sound like the best investment to me. When you count in all the other deductions (mortgage interest, education expenses, health care costs, business expenses etc etc etc) it becomes minimised even more as a percentage of what you can deduct.

If I'm married, that standard deduction goes up even higher so there's even less effect unless you have over $10k in other deductions.

Best case scenario is that if I made over $336,500 per year and already met my standard deduction, and gave $10,000 I would get 33% of that back, or still be out of pocket $6700. No one MAKES money by giving to charity.


Charity is charity.

[cdb]

well I live by the golden rule.

i treat others as i would have them treat me.

i do not go out of my way to try to make people feel stupid.

i've asked allan to delete my profile because i'm sick of being trashed on.
!

Nice job, dickheads! :super:

[burdizzos]

*sets sights on cdb*

[cdb]

*sets sights on cdb*

Ha! You got NOTHING, you giant southern pussy!

[lug]

Ha! You got NOTHING, you giant southern pussy!

Hey! I'm WAY bigger than him! :mad:

[Croissant Seven]

So if I made $154,800 this year, my tax bill for the year would be $37,675.50(I'm going with a fairly high income as a lot of this discussion goes to "the rich" usually).


Shut up Jugghaid. The rich don't pay taxes.:right:

[burdizzos]

Ha! You got NOTHING, you giant southern pussy!

This from the guy who was too chicken shit to come meet me when I was in Philly.

[burdizzos]

Those French folks are pissed. (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/07/news/protest.php)


I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the Gore and Kerry supporters for simply crying after the last couple of elections rather than taking to the streets and rioting.

Sure the US is a barbaric nation under fascist rule, but we only riot over important shit, like Cabbage Patch Kids and American Idol.

[Drippin' Robin]

I'm taking a stab in the dark right now, but I think there would've been rioting regardless of which candidate had won.

Disenfranchised folks need surprisingly little tickling to start throwing stones and setting fire to cars.

[burdizzos]

Why are the people of France so eager to riot?

I'm guessing that it is less one percent of the population who would actually take to the streets with stones in hand, but what's got those folks so angry.

[Drippin' Robin]

Why are the people of France so eager to riot?

I'm guessing that it is less one percent of the population who would actually take to the streets with stones in hand, but what's got those folks so angry.

Meh, it's a strange phenomenon here in Europe.

Point is, there are a bunch of hardcore rioters. A few months ago, some guy was shot by a police officer in a Dutch city. 'Riots' ensued. When the police locked that particular area of town, the riots went to almost zero. When they analyzed the surveillance camera pictures, they concluded the following:

Almost all instigators of the riots were actually not even from that neighbourhood. They weren't even from that town. They just travelled there to have a bit of the ol' stone chucking and car burning, because they love to make a mess. They didn't even know what they were rioting for, they just liked to be an 'anarchist' apparently.

[burdizzos]

So it's the WTO protest corwd just looking for an excuse to wreck shit. Nice.

[Drippin' Robin]

So it's the WTO protest corwd just looking for an excuse to wreck shit. Nice.

Not necessarily. Football hooligans and other assorted scum like to drop by for a stone or two.

[NotFSI]

Why are the people of France so eager to riot?


Because it's fun?

[burdizzos]

Not necessarily. Football hooligans and other assorted scum like to drop by for a stone or two.

Shit, no wonder guns are illegal over there.

WTF is wrong with Europeans? Why can't they act in a civil manner like Americans?


;)

[NotFSI]

Shit, no wonder guns are illegal over there.

WTF is wrong with Europeans? Why can't they act in a civil manner like Americans?


;)

Well we're not allowed to have wars with each other any more so we have to find other ways to entertain ourselves

[Drippin' Robin]

Shit, no wonder guns are illegal over there.

WTF is wrong with Europeans? Why can't they act in a civil manner like Americans?


;)

Makes me think of the scene in 300 where they're spearing all the living casualties of the battle at Thermopylae and this one dude says "there's no reason why we shouldn't be civil" with half an apple in his mouth, driving his spear through some unfortunate Persian.

Oh yeah.. and shut the fuck up, capitalist imperialist swine! Go and eat a big mac and wash it down with a dustbin full of coca-cola! ;)