What does this mean for me? You will always be able to play your favorite games on Kongregate. However, certain site features may suddenly stop working and leave you with a severely degraded experience.
What should I do? We strongly urge all our users to upgrade to modern browsers for a better experience and improved security.
We suggest you install the latest version of one of these browsers:
**OBAMA IS THE BEST! VOTE FOR OBAMA.**
In a secretly recorded video, Mitt Romney described his true feelings about nearly half of Americans. To a room full of his rich donors, Romney disdainfully described 47% of Americans as people who “believe they are victims” because they depend on the government for assistance with health care, social security, or food for their children – and Romney said it isn’t his job to worry about “those people.”
The 47% number includes retirees and the very elderly, who receive social security and medicare after they paid into the system for their entire lives. It includes families with disabled children who can’t work because their child requires 24-hour care; it includes disabled veterans who served their county and sacrificed their bodies and ability to support themselves.
**Mitt Romney GO BACK HOME!**
> *Originally posted by **[ohmylanta](/forums/9/topics/289927?page=35#posts-6424710):***
> > It’s the “fat cat corps” SENDING JOBS OVERSEAS that is “losing” them
> There’s an argument to be made, however, that government policies which overprice American labor force corporations to send jobs overseas to remain competitive.What “government policies” are overpricing American labor? I gonna go waaaaay out on a twig here and say that a whooooole lot of workers don’t feel their labor is “overpriced”. Who can compete w/ 3rd world labor?
3rd world labor & products are cheaper because they are….well, CHEAP…DIRTY…DANGEROUS (both to the consumer, us, & to the workers)…DON’T WORK FOR SHIT,,,,at least when compared to American products (of “yesteryear”). A friend of mine is in the plumbing business. He tells me that a large plumbing fixture corp went to China and have come back because the plumbers won’t buy China shit because they have to go back and replace it. It is well known just how bad China products are.
> To claim the loss of jobs originates from only one variable, when there were many colluding interests which culminated in 2008, is ignorant.Sorry if I “sounded” ignornat to ya. If ya notice, I didn’t say ONLY. I was giving a cursory answer to an “ignorant” statement. Of course there are many factors that influence the labor market. BUT, outsourcing of American jobs is likely by far bigger than all the others combined.
Immigration is probably very large on the list of the latter. BUT, it certainly wasn’t the American worker that “invited” them to come & take their jobs,,,& it wasn’t the “fat cats” this time. AND, ironically, most of the money (wages) paid the immigrants (by far Mexican) **STILL** goes out of country further shrinking our circular monetary flow. They send a huge proportion of their money back home to help family there. Latinos are very commitied to family. Also, the smart ones sent money to be invested in real estate so that in only a few years of laboring in America….they can go back and retire at an early age and be “well off”.
> > AND YET,,,they continue to spend millions of PRIVATE INVESTOR DOLLARS putting them up…
> The government gives green subsidies and tax cuts though, so it’s not all privately funded.I didn’t say the govt. wasn’t involved. Of course it is. The point is that ppl who actually care if they lose money are investing.> It’s also worth noting that current regulations prevent this money from being better (?) spent on more realistic solutions to the energy crisis, such as LFTRs (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors) and geothermal plants.
Of course, we are talking about the really efficient, intelligent, resourseful govt. here….lol.
> So whether those investors really think that this is the best possible investment really depends more on their political beliefs rather than economic knowledge. Nothing wrong with that, though; it’s their money.Alternative (to fossil fuel) energy is gonna be a huge whirlwind of experimentation, investment, challenges, govt. help//interference, etc. Fortunes will be made…will be lost. Nations will be built,,,others will wilt. ENERGY is the new “gold” that most interests sensible nations.
> *Originally posted by **[ohmylanta](/forums/9/topics/289927?page=35#posts-6422564):***
> > The main problem there, is how could we even begin to resell the idea of there being more realistic chouices to the citizens? I agree with Johnson’s policies (in the main, except for in healthcare), for example. But if I cast my vote that way, I’m willing to bet I’ll be the only state-registered voter to do so.
> Healthcare is definitely one thing I don’t support the libertarian approach to. Hong Kong, New Zealand, Australia, Switzerland are commonly used by them (and me) to show the potential of fiscally conservative markets; these countries are ranked higher than us in most lists of economic freedom measurement, yet they all have implemented universal healthcare. Yes, they have kept many of the good private aspects of healthcare, such as medicinal innovation, drugs and small operations, but they eliminated the problems that arise when private companies are expected to cover costs of those who get cancer, or those who have preexisting conditions for example. Unfortunately, Obama’s bill will largely not solve these problems, and I’m still curious as to whether the “penalty” for not owning health insurance is truly going to be a tax.
Actually, it was called a mandate at first. After the SC decision that it could not be called a mandate, because the government can’t use the commerce clause to mandate, the SC changed it to a tax. A tax would make it legal for the government, since taxes originate in the house. However, it is still unconstitutional as the senate originated the tax. Obama then said it was a penalty. That didn’t sound good at election time so he ignored the SC and is calling it a mandate again.
> *Originally posted by **[issendorf](/forums/9/topics/289927?page=36#posts-6427088):***
> > Strictly public funding; equal funding to all candidates
> This has been ruled unconstitutional several times – the only this will happen is if the 1st Amendment is repealed.
Really? I’d never heard about that.
I’m assuming the cases were brought by the various candidates over the years (or their respective parties), and based on something akin to the idea that “money=speech”.
Without reading the actual decisions though, all I can do is assume.
Strictly in the area of personal opinion, I think that concept is fundamentally flawed.
Free speech wasn’t meant to be interpreted as “he who spends the most gets to have a louder/broader voice”.
That’s not free speech; that’s commercial advertising.
> What “government policies” are overpricing American labor?
Minimum wage laws are a start. There are also civil rights laws which make it harder to fire employees that fall within a certain group of people, which increases the financial risk an employer is taking on.
> whooooole lot of workers don’t feel their labor is “overpriced”
Of course they don’t. Because they think that if someone tells them they can get a job and make x amount of money, they will. Because they live in a first world country, and have been lied to by politicians with good intent. If a job has to be sent overseas to some unskilled worker, then clearly the domestic work is getting too expensive for employers to handle. There are so many liabilities towards shipping jobs overseas, yet they would still rather do it. That should be a clear indicator that the current mandatory pricing and protection of unskilled American jobs is unsustainable, or at least problematic.
> 3rd world labor & products are cheaper because they are….well, CHEAP…DIRTY…DANGEROUS
And yet we still buy them, because people are willing to accept a little risk if it means a much larger production rate. It’s like the whole health and unhealthy food thing; yes there are foods which are unhealthy, but unfortunately poor people don’t have the luxury to cope with the large stream of cheap, unhealthy food being removed.
> DON’T WORK FOR SHIT
Source? Even my complicated electronic devices made in China have far more software than hardware malfunctions. They could be better but hey, that could mean that there would be way less computers and I wouldn’t get to have one at all.> It is well known just how bad China products are.
They are nowhere near the best, but that is, for the third time, ok, because it’s better that almost everyone gets something that’s a bit flimsy than only a few people getting a product that is designed much better. The rich can afford higher quality products and already buy them, the poor can’t, so why not keep a market which can provide both?
> BUT, outsourcing of American jobs is likely by far bigger than all the others combined.
I have to call bullshit on this as well. Most of our economy is invisible money (hedge funds, stocks, loans), not transactions for real products being shipped over from China. Thus, the bank/wallstreet bailout and housing bubble easily had a worse effect on our economy then the constant outsourcing of jobs.
> AND, ironically, most of the money (wages) paid the immigrants (by far Mexican) STILL goes out of country further shrinking our circular monetary flow
Lesson on economics. If someone comes into a country, participates in mutually beneficial transactions with local business, then leaves, both his country’s economy and ours benefits. If you’re a worker with an easily replaceable job, leaving the country isn’t going to hurt the economy at all, meanwhile any work they did benefits customers who felt the transaction was sufficient and the employers who made a profit. The money that they take over also is more valuable in Mexico than here, and so they are helping to improve Mexico’s economy by bringing back all this wealth. And if Mexico’s economy improves, then that’s good for the US, seeing as they are our neighbor and 3rd largest trading partner.
> The point is that ppl who actually care if they lose money are investing.
But they likely won’t lose money because of the subsidies. That’s the point; the government knows wind energy is, by nature, financially risky, so they want to provide an economic incentive to build it anyway by making it cheaper. Wind farms are essentially low volatility investments; they won’t make much money but the risk of losing much is artificially low.
> Of course, we are talking about the really efficient, intelligent, resourseful govt. here….lol.
Exactly. This needs to be addressed.
> Alternative (to fossil fuel) energy is gonna be a huge whirlwind of experimentation, investment, challenges, govt. help//interference, etc. Fortunes will be made…will be lost. Nations will be built,,,others will wilt. ENERGY is the new “gold” that most interests sensible nations.
The alternatives are already out there. Solar, geothermal, and nuclear seem the most promising to me, though for now fossil fuels will still have to exist for our vehicles. The risk on all forms of energy investments, including fossil fuels, should be present in order for the experimentation to be successful. Anything that’s going to require private and public funding doesn’t seem like a sustainable form of energy production.
> Really? I’d never heard about that.
> I’m assuming the cases were brought by the various candidates over the years (or their respective parties), and based on something akin to the idea that “money=speech”.
> Without reading the actual decisions though, all I can do is assume
I would direct you to Randall v. Sorrell or Arizona Free Enterprise v. Bennett. Randall ruled ridiculously low contribution limits unconstitutional and Arizona Free Enterprise ruled AZ’s matching funds provision unconstitutional.
And yes, they are based on money=speech as contributing to a candidate is an expression of speech. When I donate $10 to Mitt Romney, I’m making political speech. As long as we permit free political expressions (hopefully forever), then 100% publicly funded elections will never be permitted.
> Strictly in the area of personal opinion, I think that concept is fundamentally flawed.
> Free speech wasn’t meant to be interpreted as “he who spends the most gets to have a louder/broader voice”.
I personally think the megaphone analogy is flawed, but that’s a conversation for another thread.
> *Originally posted by **[JohnDoe2](/forums/9/topics/289927?page=36#posts-6429389):***
> I have the freedom of speech!
To an extent.
> Just because you love smoking and hate good things, doesn’t mean you can ruthlessly and relentlessly delete my posts!
Yeah, if it doesn’t fit into the pre-existing rues of the site and this forum that you agreed to, then it’s gonna go, no exceptions.
What’s other peoples views on the lynching of chairs? It’s obviously in reference to Clint Eastwoods GOP apperance where he pretended to berate an invisible Obama sitting on a chair.
What do you think?
A racist statement?
Not a racist statement, but still a threatening gesture?
Or just a simple jest using freedom of speech?
I myself can’t see anything funny in pretending to lynch somebody, which is essentially what that act is portraying.
If the ‘gag’ was entirely derived from Obama’s race rather than his policies, then yes it was entirely racially motivated. From your description, it was indeed based on his race. Hate speech, pure and simple.
Here is a link [No-bama](http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-nobama-chair-protest-20121005,0,1173896.story)
And I agree with you Vika, I think it is a race motivated statement…when I hear the word lynching, I automatically think of the lynchings of blacks in the South…and I’m not even American.
Wait. Just wondering here… So are you, Flabby, saying that Clint Eastwood’s whole act at the RNC was about Obama being on that chair and being lynched? The whole thing was racially motivated because he talked to a chair, you say?
A guy here in Austin lynched a chair in his front yard shortly after the RNC convention in which Clint Eastwood used an empty chair as a stand-in for Obama.
With Texas’ history of racial violence, it was pretty clearly construed as a lynching of Obama’s effigy.
> *Originally posted by **[FlabbyWoofWoof](/forums/9/topics/289927?page=36#posts-6429633):***
> What’s other peoples views on the lynching of chairs? It’s obviously in reference to Clint Eastwoods GOP appearance where he pretended to berate an invisible Obama sitting on a chair.
> What do you think?
> A racist statement?
> Not a racist statement, but still a threatening gesture?
> Or just a simple jest using freedom of speech?
> I myself can’t see anything funny in pretending to lynch somebody, which is essentially what that act is portraying.
Hmmmmmm…..I’m glad this incident has come up as we’re discussing free-speech issues.
Hanging or burning in effigy a human form—be it representative of an actual person or of a concept, nation (Uncle Sam), etc.—is “over-the-top”, vulgar, inciting speech….but yet, FREE (or it should be…obvious reasons exceptioned).
NOW, for the “hanging-chair” issue. My not being able to “step into” the minds & hearts of ppl renders me to only SPECULATE on the intentions, motives, hopes involved when these ppl are “lynching” these chairs…..OR, highly likely, Obama himself by proxy.
As has been proposed by vika & FlabbyWW & softest, there certainly can easily be seen a connection between such demonstration & racism overtones. I want it to be clear that “lynching” isn’t historically specific to only the bigoted South (U.S.). The “Old West” had lynch mobs (rope justice) and the govt//law hung ppl. Hanging is still an option in Washington state & New Hampshire.
BUT,the interesting aspect, to me anyway, about “free speech” that is often overlooked—and is being shown by “chair-gate” here—is that of “free HEARING”. Ppl are “free” hear & see what they want in a manner that can be very far from what is intended by the speaker//object. This area of miscommunication has got to be seriously controlled,,NOT BY THE “AUTHROITIES”,,but by the person them self if free speech is to have any real meaning to them.
Otherwise, merely seeing & hearing what one desires//“needs” really isn’t any too hard to obtain from even the simplest of communique. I think a lot of this is being demonstrated of late (esp. in our political campaigns) by the far right where it is using my “boogeyman concept” to control the minds of the (shall we call them…) intellectually challenged. These pundits,,,and the candidates themselves,,,use language, key words, & outright lies as speech in order to muddle their “hearing process” in order to scare the shit out of the listener rather than factually inform them. The reasons this is being done should be obvious…POWER, CONTROL, GREED.
It appears we are all subject to the foible of “spinning” both what we say & esp. what we hear. For me, a huge part of being a mature adult involves knowing about “the spin” and controlling it as much as is humanly possible.
> *Originally posted by **[Royal\_CROWn](/forums/9/topics/289927?page=35#posts-6422065):***
> I think Obama shouldn’t be president because he is ~~black~~ not american
> I still haven’t seen his birth certificate.
going through Royal\_CROWn’s posts made it painfully clear he’s a troll, But I’ll just post this anyway: [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp](http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp) It’s worth noting that if Obama wasn’t an American he couldn’t run for president. Thus if there where any credibility to this stupid long debunked viral rumor Obama’s enemies would of used it to throw him out of office ages ago.
> *Originally posted by **[jhco50](/forums/9/topics/289927?page=35#posts-6421878):***
> Polls were brought up earlier and I tried to explain that they are unreliable. This is a short article by Carl Rove, writing for the Wall Street Journal.
> Another article supporting the Rove article.
Onto more real issues. While your source articles are painfully partisan and seem to be spawned from the bowls of televised “news”, There is some truth to it. Some polls are biased and even the unbiased ones can get it wrong for one reason or another.
more on televised news: stop watching it it’s garbage, even the ones that aren’t biased. Get your news from a real source.
Here is [a good new recommendation](http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100521181149AAv19sw) (see best answer). if you don’t feel like reading It I’ll paraphrase: Fox- conservative bias, MSNBC-liberal bias, CNN-not very good, PBS -good, bbc, good gives an outsider perspective of the nation.
I’ll add my own recommendation for NPR.
> *Originally posted by **[JohnDoe2](/forums/9/topics/289927?page=36#posts-6429389):***
> I have the freedom of speech! Let me spread my message, Admin! Just because you love smoking and hate good things, doesn’t mean you can ruthlessly and relentlessly delete my posts!
back to less serious stuff. Pretty sure JohnDoe2 is just trolling us too but regardless: It’s funny when people think they have freedom of speech on a privately owned website. You have the right to create and distribute your free speech however you want, but other people don’t have to help you if they don’t want to. This is like claiming a newspaper must publish your letter because it’s free speech.
Did ya’ll see this?
> *Originally posted by **[jhco50](/forums/9/topics/289927?page=36#posts-6432219):***
> Did ya’ll see this?
Wow, that is stupid. I’m not just saying this as a democrat but as a human being I find it embarrassing that people can make a big deal out of a flag’s resemblance to blood stains. A normal human would see it and say hey: that’s a ~~rip off~~ take off on the American flag. Well admittedly I think it’s kinda ugly. But wow people will make a big deal about anything. It’s art to each their own.
By the way your not about to make an argument that our flag is made holy by the number of people who have fought and died under it are you? I guess if you take that stance it might be slightly offensive.
LOL! No, not at this time. I just thought it was interesting. It seems no matter what party you are, there are gaffs that show up. Luckily, we don’t make arguments about these gaffs…well some do, but not the intelligent ones who actually research the candidates rather than just call out a candidate because he is cool.
> *Originally posted by **[jhco50](/forums/9/topics/289927?page=36#posts-6432373):***
> LOL! No, not at this time. I just thought it was interesting. It seems no matter what party you are, there are gaffs that show up.
Very true. After all, they are all human. All subject to human error and blunder.