That's why establishment politicians will continue to pander to you.



Sure. In Europe there are plenty of protests when government chooses to reduce aspects of government spending. What would be interesting to see is if these are genuine reductions or simply reductions in the rate of increase. Reductions in the rate of increase in spending in the US are routinely described as cuts. So deceptive.



Although terribly demonstrated, the following will be an example of ignoring your post.

[/cricket]



So now you're comparing international trade policy with domestic politics? All while providing no substance? Okay, I'll concede your convoluted international opinion.



To be honest I have real people to talk with that generally agree with typical American values. I engage in debate here since it is so rare to find normal people that share the views of those such as yours.

but what are typical American values? The United States is such a varied place, that there is no one set of values you could realy call "American" without implying that a large portion of the population is unamerican.

Move out of hicksville and you'll find that normal people have quite varied opinions about a lot of things.

I'm talking about illegal immigrants, genius.

Actually this is kind of why I don't agree with the closing speech of the return to sanity show. Yes we all do mostly get along in daily life, we all make small concessions that help things run smooth. However as was stated the values and opinions found in this country are SO varied that the same really cannot be done in politics without every incumbent being booted out for pissing everyone off in their attempts to "reach across the isle", and make small concessions. Not that incumbents being booted is really a bad thing.

I'm not saying we have to get rid of Wookie forever. But can't we ban him just a little bit, like we did last time his trolling got out of hand?

Protests in Europe in countries like Greece, Spain, and the UK are a product of their environment, not a fundamental protest against less spending as a concept of "good governance". Most of these countries are in dire economic straights, or already were in dire economic straights, and they had to cut back on their unsustainable provision of certain public services which helped weaken their position in the first place.

If you are going to put your faith in the government like many European countries have decided too, you ultimately are putting yourself at the mercy of their decision. I'm not commenting on whether that's right or wrong, but it just comes with the deal. When you are fed what are some pretty good public sector wages/benefits for your entire life and half your employed people are government employed, you are very reluctant to give them up when the time comes that you need to cut back. I'm sure I'd be pissed, but it comes with the territory.

Sure, except most of them will agree that they're being screwed. And it's probable that I've lived in a more diverse assortment of places than you. Also, you shouldn't disparage place simply due to geography.

So I have an honest question. How does one beng opposed to illegal immigration make one racist? Millions of people from country x come into country y and are willing to work for less than the federally mandated minimum wage in country y(or at least for much less than is reasonably charged by locals in country y) an entire industry that used to provide good paying jobs in country y is no longer viable. Why is it considered racist that citizens of country y are angry at the people from country x?

I am going to guess you are painting with a broad brush to make a point. Or do you really think that being against illegal immigration makes you inherently racist?

And yes I can clearly see the irony in a staunch free market capitalist complaining about someone undercutting them.

That's not really fair. I mean, sure, billions of Americans fled to Canada to get free health care prior to 2010 but now that all Americans have free health care we are repatriating trillions every month.

because checking ID based on skin tone is racist

It doesn't, of course. The basic fact is that most Americans want the problem of immigration security fixed before the illegal population is addressed. Once the underlying problems are dealt with most likely the illegals will be offered the opportunity to be documented and put on a tiered path to residency and citizenship. In fact it would appear that that is the "right wing" position. The leftist position is so radical that they won't even consider that.

Herpdederp! Yes that is clearly what I was referring to. Incidentally when it is often easier to tell who's ID should be checked based on their actions than on their skin tone I think your argument loses some significance.

actions such as buying some tortillas

Nope you will find plenty of different people buying tortillas; people who were born here, came here on work or student visas as well as some who are here ilegally. but I doubt you will find many legal residents looking for work in front of the home depo by my work regardless of the color of their skin. In fact I dare say you could cover everyone out there in blue tarps and STILL make an accurate assumption about their legal status.

I'm white, I'm not American. I kinda wonder If I could just walk into one of those voter stations, make sure I'm wearing a republican sticker or something, and get in without ID.

A. You're not "most of them", don't speak for them.
B. Irrelevant, since you seem unable to absorb said cultures.
C. I'm not, I'm basing all of it solely on you. But perhaps I gave you too much credit, maybe it's not your location that makes you a brick wall to the facts and opinions of others, but just your head.

Why even bother? Just ban this moron. Wookie's arguments are consistently illogically invalid. I mean in terms of predicate calculus. You can prove that some of the things he says cannot be true in any possible form. I don't know how many non-sequiturs I've seen him make where he thinks it's some sort of well reasoned argument.

Wait did I really read someone type out "lamestream media" unironically in this thread?

Yeeesh.

Yeah dude. Hipsters. They take postmodernism seriously.

It's postpostmodernism really.

(I was on that persons side but thats not the point)

A. That's kind of a hard thing to argue this election day.
B. Says you. Of course you've never seen me in any environment separate from the ether of cyberspace.
C. Yeah, it's my head. I live in a pretty nice college town, right now.



Most likely wearing any political memorabilia, especially republican, would draw negative attention. However whether or not you would be allowed to vote would depend on the state laws regarding ID or registration. In some cases you would be able to vote and others no. Also, some would allow you to cast a provisional ballot until it can be determined that you are eligible or voted for democrats.

Kroko, its more like

Basically all of your election results have p>0.5 for being a result of coin tosses vs. actual ballots, so who gives a **** anyway? Your system is a joke and ultimately the elites will pick whoever they want.

"Most" people are ****ing stupid. If Wookie06 really does speak for "most" people it just proves he's King Moron of Retard Hill.

So, Obama is a Keynesian! I knew it!

Nice hill wookie, nice hill.

Yes, thank you, the hill looks very nice tonight. We'll have to keep working hard but I believe we will take more hills in the future.