GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Shocker For Crockette and MarkPrince (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1169646)

Robbie 07-05-2015 12:13 PM
Shocker For Crockette and MarkPrince
 
I watched an interview today on CNN. Jake Tapper interviewing Bernie Sanders.

I know I swore I'd never vote Dem or Republican again...but Sanders is independent running for the Democrat nomination.

He just got on my radar as a man I might vote for.

I'm basically tired of the 2 ruling parties and their bullshit lies.

Sanders is far more in-line with my more Libertarian views. And his ideas on higher taxes on the very top 1% aren't a deal-breaker. Especially when he laid out his plans on spending.

He's very progressive socially (like a libertarian), and I'm more than willing to give his more "tax and spend" brand of fiscal socialism a shot as long as it doesn't hurt job creation.

As crazy as it sounds...I'd day Sanders for President and put Trump in charge of economic issues (negotiating trade deals). lol

THAT would never happen. But it would probably actually work.

Having said all of that...we're probably gonna end up with Pres. Hillary and go through another 8 years of bullshit that drags our country down. Seems to have been that way since JFK was assassinated.

EDIT: Apologies to crockett for accidentally hitting the "e" at the end of his name.

epitome 07-05-2015 12:17 PM
It's interesting when you compare his top donors to Hillary.

Hers are all Wall St and big biz.

His are all unions.

Sly 07-05-2015 12:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by epitome (Post 20516194)
It's interesting when you compare his top donors to Hillary.

Hers are all Wall St and big biz.

His are all unions.
Clinton for Republicans vs Sanders for Democrats.

epitome 07-05-2015 12:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly (Post 20516200)
Clinton for Republicans vs Sanders for Democrats.
That's reality.

onwebcam 07-05-2015 01:02 PM
Bernie is just doing what the fake tea partiers did last go round and playing a role trying to be more centered but when all is said and done he will be the same as any of the other lifers.

SuckOnThis 07-05-2015 01:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by onwebcam (Post 20516211)
Bernie is just doing what the fake tea partiers did last go round and playing a role trying to be more centered but when all is said and done he will be the same as any of the other lifers.
:1orglaugh

Bernie has been saying the same thing for 40 years. Nothing fake about him.

Quine 07-05-2015 01:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 20516190)
and I'm more than willing to give his more "tax and spend" brand of fiscal socialism a shot as long as it doesn't hurt job creation.
That's contradictio in adjecto. Big taxes kill economy and goal of economy is to create wealth, not to create job. You can easily create jobs, for example, president can order 1 million people to build a large bridge using only spoons and forks. That'll keep them busy for a decade.

Isn't Rand Paul closer to someone who calls himself a libertarian?
Libertarians should be more resistant to populism (unlike left and right socialist). Here's an excerpt from Henry Hazlitt's masterpiece Economics in One Lesson:

Quote:
A bridge is built. If it is built to meet an insistent public demand, if it solves a traffic problem or a transportation problem otherwise insoluble, if, in short, it is even more necessary than the things for which the taxpayers would have spent their money if it had not been taxed away from them, there can be no objection. But a bridge built primarily ?to provide employment? is a different kind of bridge. When providing employment becomes the end, need becomes a subordinate consideration. ?Projects? have to be invented.

Instead of thinking only where bridges must be built, the government spenders begin to ask themselves where bridges can be built. Can they think of plausible reasons why an additional bridge should connect Easton and Weston? It soon becomes absolutely essential. Those who doubt the necessity are dismissed as obstructionists and reactionaries. Two arguments are put forward for the bridge, one of which is mainly heard before it is built, the other of which is mainly heard after it has been completed. The first argument is that it will provide employment. It will provide, say, 500 jobs for a year. The implication is that these are jobs that would not otherwise have come into existence. This is what is immediately seen. But if we have trained ourselves to look beyond immediate to secondary consequences, and beyond those who are directly benefited by a government project to others who are indirectly affected, a different picture presents itself. It is true that a particular group of bridgeworkers may receive more employment than otherwise. But the bridge has to be paid for out of taxes. For every dollar that is spent on the bridge a dollar will be taken away from taxpayers. If the bridge costs $1,000,000 the taxpayers will lose $1,000,000. They will have that much taken away from them which they would otherwise have spent on the things they needed most.

Therefore for every public job created by the bridge project a private job has been destroyed somewhere else. We can see the men employed on the bridge. We can watch them at work. The employment argument of the government spenders becomes vivid, and probably for most people convincing. But there are other things that we do not see, because, alas, they have never been permitted to come into existence. They are the jobs destroyed by the $1,000,000 taken from the taxpayers. All that has happened, at best, is that there has been a diversion of jobs because of the project. More bridge builders; fewer automobile workers, radio technicians, clothing workers, farmers. But then we come to the second argument. The bridge exists. It is, let us suppose, a beautiful and not an ugly bridge. It has come into being through the magic of government spending. Where would it have been if the obstructionists and the reactionaries had had their way? There would have been no bridge. The country would have been just that much poorer.

Here again the government spenders have the better of the argument with all those who cannot see beyond the immediate range of their physical eyes. They can see the bridge. But if they have taught themselves to look for indirect as well as direct consequences they can once more see in the eye of imagination the possibilities that have never been allowed to come into existence. They can see the unbuilt homes, the unmade cars and radios, the unmade dresses and coats, perhaps the unsold and ungrown foodstuffs. To see these uncreated things requires a kind of imagination that not many people have. We can think of these nonexistent objects once, perhaps, but we cannot keep them before our minds as we can the bridge that we pass every working day. What has happened is merely that one thing has been created instead of others.

Joshua G 07-05-2015 01:43 PM
suprised anyone takes campaign rhetoric seriously anymore. these clowns say anything. wasnt hilary & obama against gay marriage? oh yeah, they were.

pardon my cynicism its nice to see openmindedness regardless.

:)

Grapesoda 07-05-2015 03:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 20516190)
I watched an interview today on CNN. Jake Tapper interviewing Bernie Sanders.

I know I swore I'd never vote Dem or Republican again...but Sanders is independent running for the Democrat nomination.

He just got on my radar as a man I might vote for.

I'm basically tired of the 2 ruling parties and their bullshit lies.

Sanders is far more in-line with my more Libertarian views. And his ideas on higher taxes on the very top 1% aren't a deal-breaker. Especially when he laid out his plans on spending.

He's very progressive socially (like a libertarian), and I'm more than willing to give his more "tax and spend" brand of fiscal socialism a shot as long as it doesn't hurt job creation.

As crazy as it sounds...I'd day Sanders for President and put Trump in charge of economic issues (negotiating trade deals). lol

THAT would never happen. But it would probably actually work.

Having said all of that...we're probably gonna end up with Pres. Hillary and go through another 8 years of bullshit that drags our country down. Seems to have been that way since JFK was assassinated.

EDIT: Apologies to crockett for accidentally hitting the "e" at the end of his name.
our relationships with foreign countries really suffered under Hillary... 8 years Obama and then 8 years Hillary will pretty much kill the USA as a country ...

Robbie 07-05-2015 03:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quine (Post 20516222)
Big taxes kill economy and goal of economy is to create wealth, not to create job.

Isn't Rand Paul closer to someone who calls himself a libertarian?
Yes, big taxes do drive companies away. But it's not a deal breaker to me if it's done correctly. Like giving them back tax incentives to build and hire in the USA for instance or trade tariff advantages, etc.

No, Rand Paul is not closer to being a Libertarian. He uses SOME Libertarian ideas. But just like all Republicans and Democrats he isn't for real FREEDOM as our founding fathers envisioned it.

Both Rand and his dad Ron are strictly Republican through and through. The MEDIA calls them "the Libertarian wing of the Republican Party".
That's nonsense.
There is NO wing of the Republican Party that is pro-drug legalization, pro-choice, and not to mention pro-adult industry such as the Libertarians are. Being a Libertarian is all about freedom of choice as envisioned by Jefferson, Franklin, Hancock, Washington, etc.

I would suggest hunting that interview down from today. It was on CNN "State of The Union" show and Jake Tapper was hosting.

He asked Sanders about gun control for instance. And pointed out that Sanders was one of the people who voted down a bill that would have made gun manufacturers libel for murders committed with their product.

Sanders said that gun use and ownership in his home state of Vermont is completely the opposite of what guns are used for in a place like Chicago for instance. And he pointed out that 99.9% of legal gun owners have never used their guns for anything wrong.
He then said that making gun manufacturers libel would be the same as saying that if a person used a hammer to kill someone, then you could sue the company that made the hammer.

And he's right.

I'm open minded about things. And I am really, really wanting this country to stop electing people who just fucking lie and then do the exact opposite of what they promised.

I know everyone on here is anti-Trump for instance. But with Trump and Sanders...they are telling you exactly what they are going to do.

The American people seem to like it better when politicians lie to them and sell them a sweet story of unicorns and rainbows.

I'd rather hear it straight with no bullshit or political correctness garbage.

2MuchMark 07-05-2015 03:23 PM
You're a good guy, Sir Robbie.

crockett 07-05-2015 03:32 PM
Sanders is by far the most intouch candidate whom is running. They keep calling him far left or radical, but IMO he speaks the most sense out of any of them..he's just speaking with common sense with a perspective which help the people, not just lobbyist or big business.

dyna mo 07-05-2015 03:53 PM
it's too bad jim webb is getting overlooked. he's my #1 dem candidate.

ReggieDurango 07-05-2015 06:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grapesoda (Post 20516267)
our relationships with foreign countries really suffered under Hillary... 8 years Obama and then 8 years Hillary will pretty much kill the USA as a country ...
Hahaha yeah the foreign relations were so much better under Bush!
(Sarcasm)

baddog 07-05-2015 07:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReggieDurango (Post 20516358)
Hahaha yeah the foreign relations were so much better under Bush!
(Sarcasm)
Great argument.

Robbie 07-05-2015 07:40 PM
Yeah, I hope that Bush isn't the benchmark that people are shooting for! lol

ReggieDurango 07-05-2015 08:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by baddog (Post 20516374)
Great argument.
This is supposed to be an argument?

Bladewire 07-05-2015 08:14 PM



It's great to have our own individual political views but we are all on the same team.

Any party, at any time, will throw adult under the bus at the drop of a hat. Don't forget that!

In the end, we are all on the same team :thumbsup

Robbie 07-05-2015 10:07 PM
Bladewire, back a couple of years ago at Internext we had a special guest speaker at the CEO dinner.
That guest speaker was Libertarian Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson's Vice Presidential running mate Judge Jim Gray.
He's a prominent pro-marijuana legalization Judge out of California.

And believe it or not...he said exactly what you just said...EXCEPT, that he also told us that he was on our side (adult).
He said that the Libertarian Party was 100% for freedom of speech. And that they would END the obscenity laws that have been used for so many years against people in the adult industry to seize our property and ruin people's lives and throw them in jail.

It was a pretty impressive sight to have a Vice Presidential pick of a national party actually come to a porn convention and talk to us.

I could NEVER imagine a Democrat or Republican party running mate (the number 2 guy in the party) EVER having the guts to make a public appearance and speak to a group of CEO's in the adult industry.

He was totally dismissive of Republicans and Democrats and couldn't believe that they get away with treating adults in this country like they are children.
I was impressed.

ReggieDurango 07-08-2015 01:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 20516442)
Bladewire, back a couple of years ago at Internext we had a special guest speaker at the CEO dinner.
That guest speaker was Libertarian Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson's Vice Presidential running mate Judge Jim Gray.
He's a prominent pro-marijuana legalization Judge out of California.

And believe it or not...he said exactly what you just said...EXCEPT, that he also told us that he was on our side (adult).
He said that the Libertarian Party was 100% for freedom of speech. And that they would END the obscenity laws that have been used for so many years against people in the adult industry to seize our property and ruin people's lives and throw them in jail.

It was a pretty impressive sight to have a Vice Presidential pick of a national party actually come to a porn convention and talk to us.

I could NEVER imagine a Democrat or Republican party running mate (the number 2 guy in the party) EVER having the guts to make a public appearance and speak to a group of CEO's in the adult industry.

He was totally dismissive of Republicans and Democrats and couldn't believe that they get away with treating adults in this country like they are children.
I was impressed.
You should convince Judge Jim Gray to run for Pres!


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:16 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc