ysupenguins.com ...fan home for YSU Sports

Non-YSU Sports and Other => General BS => Topic started by: go guins on June 07, 2016, 09:42:38 AM

Title: Good for USA, bad for YSU
Post by: go guins on June 07, 2016, 09:42:38 AM
I am hearing a ton of talk about Sherrod Brown for Hillary's VP.  That could easily lead to YSU loosing Jim Tressel to the US Senate. 
Title: Re: Good for USA, bad for YSU
Post by: penguinpower on June 07, 2016, 09:47:06 AM
I am hearing a ton of talk about Sherrod Brown for Hillary's VP.  That could easily lead to YSU loosing Jim Tressel to the US Senate.

I met Sherrod Brown.  Dude is as dumb as a box of rocks.  Hopefully not true.
Title: Re: Good for USA, bad for YSU
Post by: go guins on June 07, 2016, 09:59:46 AM

[/quote]

I met Sherrod Brown.  Dude is as dumb as a box of rocks.  Hopefully not true.
[/quote]
That's what you want in a VP.  The chief job is to go to funerals around the world!
Frankly I thing JT would make a better Governor than Senator, but right now I’m thrilled to have him as YSU President!
Title: Re: Good for USA, bad for YSU
Post by: guinpen on June 07, 2016, 08:39:44 PM
I am hearing a ton of talk about Sherrod Brown for Hillary's VP.  That could easily lead to YSU loosing Jim Tressel to the US Senate.

I sure hope so, for Trumps sake. Maybe she can ask him via email!
Title: Re: Good for USA, bad for YSU
Post by: go guins on June 08, 2016, 04:12:54 PM
I am hearing a ton of talk about Sherrod Brown for Hillary's VP.  That could easily lead to YSU loosing Jim Tressel to the US Senate.

I sure hope so, for Trumps sake. Maybe she can ask him via email!
E-Mail, Nice one quinpen! 
Title: Re: Good for USA, bad for YSU
Post by: ValleyTalk on June 08, 2016, 06:17:37 PM
Tressel is a Republican. Much more likely Timmy Ryan runs as Dem. I'd take Tressel over Ryan any day.
Title: Re: Good for USA, bad for YSU
Post by: Penguin Nation on June 08, 2016, 07:29:00 PM
i would agree her VP pick is Brown.  If she carries Ohio, she if president...as profoundly disturbing as that would be.  I think Tressel waits until 2018 to run for governor...and he'll get Kasich's endorsement...quid pro quo....doubt JT will try for Brown's vacated Senate seat but who knows.
Title: Re: Good for USA, bad for YSU
Post by: go guins on June 09, 2016, 04:13:02 PM
Tressel is a Republican. Much more likely Timmy Ryan runs as Dem. I'd take Tressel over Ryan any day.
The point is this: Hillary takes Brown as a VP candidate to help carry Ohio in the election which would just about a$$ure her election.  The governor would appoint a replacement which would be a Republican and yes JT is a Republican.  That's why Harry Reid is so against Brown as VP.  He doesn’t want to lose a Democratic seat.
Title: Re: Good for USA, bad for YSU
Post by: go guins on June 09, 2016, 04:15:20 PM
i would agree her VP pick is Brown.  If she carries Ohio, she if president...as profoundly disturbing as that would be.  I think Tressel waits until 2018 to run for governor...and he'll get Kasich's endorsement...quid pro quo....doubt JT will try for Brown's vacated Senate seat but who knows.
But if Hillary takes Brown, Kasick can appoint JT to the Senate, he doesn't need to run. He would then run in a couple years as the incumbent.
Title: Re: Good for USA, bad for YSU
Post by: IAA Fan on June 10, 2016, 08:49:54 AM
Brown cannot carry a tune, let alone the state of Ohio. Clinton already has OH because of her last name. The only person that stands a chance to beat her in Ohio might have been Busch or Kasich & VP candidate status will not be enough for the reds to capture the Buckeye vote. Clinton needs the elderly and also the jewish religion vote in the state of Florida. As a dem she has the latter, now needs to work on scaring the elderly and promote the freebies for them found in socialized medicine. Same stuff the dems have been excelling at for 50+ years ... it's in the bag.

Her other way in is Virginia. The Reps in that state sat on their a$$e$ and drained/developed the Chesapeake area. In the mean time the blues went up and got all of the wealthy libs from New England to "move on down", nullifying the vote of that new district that reps thought was going to be red and also reducing the red vote in the three surrounding districts. Then the blues went after every PFC/SFC (traditional dems) in our services to declare their voting state as Virginia, as opposed to their state of origin {which traditionally is a southern (red) state}; which is legal. Meanwhile, all of the reds scratched their heads trying to figure out how such a traditional state voted for Obama & why the south did not carry the white house vote.

The reds in this country need to stop going after the old Reagan dems and start appealing to young people with brains and immigrants. This means less 3rd-world military conflict and FOX news channel; more pro-red social media and toilet television.
Title: Re: Good for USA, bad for YSU
Post by: go guins on June 10, 2016, 09:44:11 AM
1AA, i was wondering when you would move this.  Only question is, do you have some catagory with lower expectations than "General BS"  Maybe just an "Inane BS"? 

Just screwing around killing time.  This is going to be a LONG 82 days!
Title: Re: Good for USA, bad for YSU
Post by: Penguin Nation on June 11, 2016, 08:28:40 AM
i would agree her VP pick is Brown.  If she carries Ohio, she if president...as profoundly disturbing as that would be.  I think Tressel waits until 2018 to run for governor...and he'll get Kasich's endorsement...quid pro quo....doubt JT will try for Brown's vacated Senate seat but who knows.
But if Hillary takes Brown, Kasick can appoint JT to the Senate, he doesn't need to run. He would then run in a couple years as the incumbent.

Good point.  Very true.  But my hunch is JT would rather be back in Cbus and wants to build an executive resume at YSU for a few more years, but if appointed Senator to fill a void....I very highly doubt he'd decline it.
Title: Re: Good for USA, bad for YSU
Post by: Penguin Nation on June 11, 2016, 08:43:20 AM
First...let's celebrate Hillary's likely nomination:

https://www.facebook.com/Reason.Magazine/videos/10153639649689117/

FWIW, She's not the first female nominee, Jill Stein was the Green Party nominee in 2012.  The first electoral college votes for a female were for a Libertarian Party candidate in 1972.

Regarding the GOP, they've lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections.  They are dead as a national party and really only a regional party, and only able to win some statewide and local races.

But who cares, we only needed one pro-war, pro-debt, pro-entitlement political party...which the Dems excel at.

The Libertarian Party's candidate, Governor Gary Johnson, is polling in double figures versus Trump and Clinton, and will be the only other candidate on the ballot in all states (actually Ohio was hard to get on as Kasich fought hard to keep the LP off the ballot).  He is the only anti-war, anti-debt, anti-Prohibition, anti-surveillance state candidate on the ballot....and the clear choice for me.
Title: Re: Good for USA, bad for YSU
Post by: go guins on June 13, 2016, 09:32:06 AM
Read a note the other day from someone who couldn't decide whether to vote for: "the liar who's economic plan just doesn't add up" or to vote for the: "the liar who's economic plan just doesn't add up."  I hate to throw away a vote on "none of the above", but I guess it's Johnson for me too.
Title: Re: Good for USA, bad for YSU
Post by: Penguin Nation on June 13, 2016, 01:29:47 PM
Read a note the other day from someone who couldn't decide whether to vote for: "the liar who's economic plan just doesn't add up" or to vote for the: "the liar who's economic plan just doesn't add up."  I hate to throw away a vote on "none of the above", but I guess it's Johnson for me too.

Yep.  I just couldn't fathom voting any other way.  It is amazing how the polls have taken off.  A Fox News poll has Johnson leading HRC amongst independents, and the only candidate gaining amongst all voters.

Johnson was fiscally conservative when he was governor of NM for two terms, especially when you consider what bills the legislature was sending him. He vetoed over 700 (!) of them.  Same with his running mate, Governor Weld, who was also fiscally conservative for a state like MA.  Both governors have more executive experience than Trump or Clinton combined x2.  For me, the decision is a slam dunk.
Title: Re: Good for USA, bad for YSU
Post by: go guins on June 13, 2016, 01:46:21 PM
Read a note the other day from someone who couldn't decide whether to vote for: "the liar who's economic plan just doesn't add up" or to vote for the: "the liar who's economic plan just doesn't add up."  I hate to throw away a vote on "none of the above", but I guess it's Johnson for me too.

Yep.  I just couldn't fathom voting any other way.  It is amazing how the polls have taken off.  A Fox News poll has Johnson leading HRC amongst independents, and the only candidate gaining amongst all voters.

Johnson was fiscally conservative when he was governor of NM for two terms, especially when you consider what bills the legislature was sending him. He vetoed over 700 (!) of them.  Same with his running mate, Governor Weld, who was also fiscally conservative for a state like MA.  Both governors have more executive experience than Trump or Clinton combined x2.  For me, the decision is a slam dunk.

All I can say is I sure as hell hope Bo Pelini does a much better job picking winners than you and I!!!
We are going to loose by a combined 0 - 530   I hope the Quins do MUCH better!
Title: Re: Good for USA, bad for YSU
Post by: Penguin Nation on June 13, 2016, 03:46:39 PM
Read a note the other day from someone who couldn't decide whether to vote for: "the liar who's economic plan just doesn't add up" or to vote for the: "the liar who's economic plan just doesn't add up."  I hate to throw away a vote on "none of the above", but I guess it's Johnson for me too.

Yep.  I just couldn't fathom voting any other way.  It is amazing how the polls have taken off.  A Fox News poll has Johnson leading HRC amongst independents, and the only candidate gaining amongst all voters.

Johnson was fiscally conservative when he was governor of NM for two terms, especially when you consider what bills the legislature was sending him. He vetoed over 700 (!) of them.  Same with his running mate, Governor Weld, who was also fiscally conservative for a state like MA.  Both governors have more executive experience than Trump or Clinton combined x2.  For me, the decision is a slam dunk.

All I can say is I sure as hell hope Bo Pelini does a much better job picking winners than you and I!!!
We are going to loose by a combined 0 - 530   I hope the Quins do MUCH better!

I don't know.....I'm feelin its going to be a big year.....the D's and R's have picked the most unpopular candidates they could find.....Bo actually has tougher competition to face!
Title: Re: Good for USA, bad for YSU
Post by: IAA Fan on June 13, 2016, 06:34:00 PM
I am very anti-3rd-party candidates. We are a bi-partisan system, yet we continually allow 3rd-party candidates to sway elections. If we want to be parliamentary system then do it, until then they should banned. All of the higher-level courts ban them from most any activity when challenged ...debates, forums, etc..

Look at Sanders. The guy runs off to Israel, then when he realizes he does not like living in a non-oil producing desert ..he rushes back and joins the socialist party. I mean, anyone else would lose their citizenship! The guy is not even a dem, but he desires the blue nomination? Don't get me wrong, I think anyone can run, but they have to do it as a dem or rep ...no other options; so your libertarians jump jump off a tall bridge into a dry river as far as I am concerned. Especially when you consider the fact that we no longer choose our party nominee's behind closed doors ...which I am also in favor of.
Title: Re: Good for USA, bad for YSU
Post by: Penguin Nation on June 13, 2016, 10:02:33 PM
I am very anti-3rd-party candidates. We are a bi-partisan system, yet we continually allow 3rd-party candidates to sway elections. If we want to be parliamentary system then do it, until then they should banned. All of the higher-level courts ban them from most any activity when challenged ...debates, forums, etc..

Look at Sanders. The guy runs off to Israel, then when he realizes he does not like living in a non-oil producing desert ..he rushes back and joins the socialist party. I mean, anyone else would lose their citizenship! The guy is not even a dem, but he desires the blue nomination? Don't get me wrong, I think anyone can run, but they have to do it as a dem or rep ...no other options; so your libertarians jump jump off a tall bridge into a dry river as far as I am concerned. Especially when you consider the fact that we no longer choose our party nominee's behind closed doors ...which I am also in favor of.

The CO GOP caucus was as closed doors as it gets!  It is very true that the two parties try to maintain their duopoly and limit the voters exposure to other options, ideas, and solutions.

The two parties are so similar that there really is only a one party system. For example, both BHO and GWB doubled the national debt, created a new entitlement, were both pro-Patriot Act and pro-NDAA, and loved war.  The Libertarian Party IS the second party.

Gary Johnson is very close to being high enough in the polls (15%) to be in the debates.  If he is, finally, people will hear a fresh voice and fresh ideas that don't involve bombs, confiscatory taxation, prohibition, and big government.  Otherwise, the GOP and DSP will just get away with blaming each other for their collective and  colossal failures.

-----“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”

--John Adams
Title: Re: Good for USA, bad for YSU
Post by: IAA Fan on June 14, 2016, 07:12:15 AM
Then let him do as Sanders did ...run for the blue (or in his case red) nomination. This idea of realizing that you have no chance, then creating your own party is such a joke. It would be like the old SMS from the Gateway Football Conference (the one that never finished above last place). Imagine them deciding that they wanted to to be cla$$ified as the "Archway Conference" champ and demand a play-off spot with a 3-8 record. Their claim was that their option ball made things unfair in a conference that ran pro-set offenses & option fans deserved a choice.

I think the party chairmen should walk up to the mic and announce the winner at the convention & walk off. Just because you feel the Libertarian party is the "second party" does not make it so ..clearly it is not. The irony of a libertarian running as a party candidate is humorous; does that not tell you that he is not truly a libertarian right there? It is red or blue ...take your pick and run. The president is not supposed to represent us, he is supposed to lead us.

The media is your enemy. They elect your leaders. What choices did they give American's this year? The media loves Trump ...until he wins ...now they are bad-mouthing the guy while crying all the way home to mommy. Hillary should be charged with treason and conspiracy for her failures as SOS. Sanders should be living back in Israel where he belongs and wanted to be ...making his movies & thus not even qualify for a US candidate. Do not waste your vote on another person, the libertarian platform is as anti-American as it gets. Just walk in there and write your own name on the ballot.
Title: Re: Good for USA, bad for YSU
Post by: go guins on June 14, 2016, 08:23:27 AM
" until then they should banned."
Because you want a dictatorship?  Democracy is obsolete?  I couldn't disagree more. 

"All of the higher-level courts ban them from most any activity when challenged ...debates, forums, etc.."
That simply is NOT true.  You sound like Paladin, just making sh** up!

"What choices did they give American's this year? The media loves Trump"
1AA, you do realize that is a fair election a couple years ago we voted to keep smoking that stuff illegal?

"Libertarian platform is as anti-American as it gets."
Yes Paladin #2, and you can demonstrate that by noting what planks in their platform? 
Title: Re: Good for USA, bad for YSU
Post by: IAA Fan on June 14, 2016, 11:50:33 AM
We are not simply a democracy. Our form of government is a socialist democracy, with the type (or format) being BI-partisan. It is the type of government that determines policy. Yes, I am not an idiot, I understand reality and the fact that most of the time bi-partisanship is not a mature and harmonious pursuit of lofty ideals ... rather a model for lack of accomplishment; but it does suggest an attempt by our founders to have something beyond the worthless stalemate of a confederation that was known as the British parliament. Yet even England, after experiencing the total destruction of the British Commonwealth, Made an attempt to become a bi-partisan government back in the 1920's, under the Labour and Conservative parties. Why support additional parties and permit their lack of required representation?

Libertarian is a really a confederate form of government that is considered non-partisan. The power is is divided by areas/regions (such as the states, cities and other districts in America). A true libertarian believes that the central form of government exists only to support these areas. The problem is that under a libertarian form of government, the central (what we call federal) government is too weak to truly support it's individual areas. Aside from the fall of the British Commonwealth, look at the Confederate States of America. Confederacies (I am including libertarian governments here) can never get enough power to tax (or create wealth), so they cannot even defend themselves. Confederate nations go to war as individual states armies, instead of one national force. This is fine if you are protecting yourself from enemies within, but not from an attack outside. Look how Sana Ana conquered most of US Southwest.

I do apologize for my age, as since the 2004 elections, the courts have been kinder to 3rd-parties, but Go Guins, you claim to be older, so surely you remember Ralph Nader and his fight all the way to the US supreme court in 2000? Prior to 2004, almost no infringement by 3rd-parties was permitted ...as our courts acknowledged our nation's fundamental design. Since around 2000, liberals in the US government have sought to redistrict our courts, forcing a political dependency on our legal system that is not acceptable ..at least at the lower-levels (common pleas) where guilt or innocence is determined. The US is  10-years away from divided by court districts with the supreme court exercising law ...as opposed to determining it.

AS to the Libertarian platform, it is a vague and useless as any other, but here are some specifics they dropped in that I find un-American, unconstitutional and illegal:
1.   The abolition of all banking control at any government or agency level. Although I am certainly no fan of the federal reserve, I believe in true value …so much so that want the US back on a standard (i.e.: silver). Yet is it not ironic that libertarians feel the government should provide for any financial disasters. Typical libertarian, give me services, but I owe you no taxes to pay for them.
2.   Their platform added complete freedom of expression (unlimited) back in 2000, which is why Nader switched to the green party. This includes child porn and the elimination of any media rating system.
3.   The abolition of the department of Energy.
4.   They add a platform just last year to end operations of war, which although I do not agree with, I can respect. Then they add a ridiculous quote calling for the closure of all US military bases on foreign soil. Which I guess is fine if you feel your nation will never go to war against another nation.
5.   They believe in military as a defense only and solely provided to America. Then when questioned, they agree that the US should be part of the allied league of nations. Which makes no sense.
I do realize that today a party is just a means to get elected, but people should be educated on what they vote for. Do you realize that the language in the libertarian platform actually used “Obamacare” and “Romneycare”? That’s real intellectual. They are both socialized medicine.


Don't get me wrong, I would champion many ideas in their platform, but I favor a strong central government, with distributed authority to the state and local governments.
Title: Re: Good for USA, bad for YSU
Post by: Penguin Nation on June 14, 2016, 12:58:20 PM
The actual LP platform:

https://www.lp.org/platform

If I could condense it, it would be this:  self-ownership.  You own yourself.  No one owns you.  You don't own anyone.  You don't have a rightful claim on anyone or their property.  No one has a rightful claim on you or your property.

Stemming from that is the non-aggression principle:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

These principles stem from the Enlightenment, where writers such as Locke, Montesquieu, and de Tocqueville (and many more), proposed the (at the time) absurd notion that humans are equal and have natural rights, and challenged the "Divine Right of Kings."

Today we have unfortunately regressed to a pre-Enlightment mentality.  So much so that many people  cannot comprehend theories such as "self-ownership."

So to argue against Libertarian philosophy is to argue against non-aggression and self-ownership.

How has a non-Libertarian government performed? Let's look:

Domestically:  http://www.usdebtclock.org/

That clock is a time bomb, FYI.

Internationally:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/02/greatest-threat-world-peace-country_n_4531824.html

The DSP and GOP have collectively caused such immense harm that a half awake public would never fathom casting a vote for them ever again.

Anyway, 1AA, I'm not going to address each point directly, except fot your last.  But we now have a "strong central government."  How is that working out?  Do you think it needs to be stronger still?

My suggestion would be to consider the power of the free markets, which is something we've not had for a century in the US due to regulation, licensing, taxation, and the Fed.
Title: Re: Good for USA, bad for YSU
Post by: IAA Fan on June 14, 2016, 03:59:20 PM
Nation, I strongly agree in the free market system, but with the loss of Christianity in the American business world, true capitalism is gone. People in the US today think only about getting "their piece of the pie" ...as opposed to the true capitalist principles of increased product quality, lower product prices and ma$$ distribution. This has zero to do with the federal government, or any government for that matter.

PS: Why would you quote Wikipedia and the laughable Huffington Post?  :) you don't sound that left to me? Every time I hear that moronic woman I see the bear's wife from "The Cleveland Show".

Our issue's today stem from the individual's mistaken thoughts that the federal government is designed to represent them ...which I think goes part and parcel to what you are trying to say. Our forefather's had brilliant views on separation of powers and the branches of government; we have gotten away from it.

You and I are on the same side in this one. I am just not willing to divest away from our need to remain bi-partisan. You should encourage this man to run for the red party & support him.

I agree that we need agency reform ...which includes the fed. I also feel strongly in the old Steve Forbes flat tax plan ...flat taxes on all income, all purchases, the only exceptions being income from government  investment grade bonds targeted for debt reduction. Forbes is a very smart man and America missed a chance to have a real quality businessman in the white-house.
Title: Re: Good for USA, bad for YSU
Post by: Penguin Nation on June 15, 2016, 11:33:40 AM
1AA---

I don't care for Arriana Huffington either, at all, but she reports on things the MSM does not, such as:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-considine/us-depleted-uranium-as-ma_b_3812888.html

The MSM censors information to the extent that it is propaganda.  You could follow MSM 24/7/365 and become so indoctrinated that you are less informed (actually misinformed) than if you never followed the news at all.  In addition to Huff Po, the Guardian, Intercept, Daily Mail, and Independent are good sources of non-filtered actual news...including news about large scale war crimes that you and I are funding:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/toxic-legacy-of-us-a$$ault-on-fallujah-worse-than-hiroshima-2034065.html

The MSM coverage of the Orlando Ma$$acre is particularly atrocious.

The GOP wants to double down on US genocide overseas, which actually creates more terrorists, rather than making anyone safer.  Cruz promised to, "turn the sand into gla$$."  Trump vowed to, "bomb the sh** out of them."  The Dems are just as bad.  Obama escalated drone bombings and has intervened in more countries than Bush.  It's lunacy, its counterproductive, its unaffordable, its immoral, and therefore I can't support either party.

If you like Steve Forbes, then maybe you'd also like Gary Johnson, who started a handyman business that grew into a major corporation.  Governor Johnson knows what its like to start and grow a business.  He was in the GOP until 2012 but like Dr. Ron Paul or his son Rand, really just don't fit into the GOP socially conservative/big government template.  Gary is not perfect, and wasn't my first choice for the LP nomination, but geez, he is the only sane choice compared to Trump and Clinton.

Agree true capitalism is long gone.....which is why it is funny when SJW's blame capitalism for anything.

I think the flat tax is an improvement, but I would prefer elimination of the income tax and replace it with either an indirect tax (like a VAT)  or a consumption tax.  I moved from MN (7.5% income tax!) to FL (no income tax), and now I am able to keep so much more of the $$ I labor for, and fiscally FL is doing reasonable well.  I still have family in Ytown, who are paying both a state and city income tax.  Insane!   Any income tax is a penalty/fine for working....which is a counterproductive and bizarre public policy. You want to encourage productivity/GDP growth....everything stems from that.  Gary Johnson is the only candidate favoring elimination of the income tax.

Anyway...I'm hoping Trump and Clinton won't steal too many votes from the real candidate.....Gary Johnson. :D
Title: Re: Good for USA, bad for YSU
Post by: IAA Fan on June 15, 2016, 01:50:31 PM
Her paper seldom reports news and she is clearly being paid for the stories she runs. Look at BO, the first thing he does is change the name from "al queda" to "ISIS" ...just so he would not have to fight Bush's war. Clearly leading by media ..not ability.

He and Bush (although mostly Obama) refuse to attack a nation, so they fight some lunatic war against a theoretical army of radical religious "nuts". Every one knows the smart thing to do is what CHaney laid out for Bush and the campaign did start out that way. This is to establish the nationality of captured or dead terrorists and attack that nation (or nations). You simply go to the country (as we did with Afghanistan), tell them they are with us or against ...then give them a set of rules that must be followed if they chose to be with us (fight terrorist in their nation, destroy all terrorists facilities or let us do it, etc.), or 2. level the country, take the oil and control the markets.  Instead, we go in and capture the country with the world's 3rd-largest supply of oil reserves and leave the oil? To the victor goes the spoils of war. If we are going to lose our men, at least we should get something for it.
Title: Re: Good for USA, bad for YSU
Post by: go guins on June 15, 2016, 04:15:16 PM
This is all very depressing and I appoligize for starting the thread. 
I am going back to Penguins Football and the only side trips will be other sports topics.
Again, sorry
Go Quins

(I'm not suggesting you guys drop the thread, I'm just saying "I'm out")