Re: OT very political
Michael
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> I am not a big fan but did you see that Bill Clinton came out & is
> supporting Michelle Bachmann after the Iow State Fair? When I saw this
> picture I realized why.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3ftz87t
i think bachman and palin are both national embarrassments. none the
less, the media's photojournalist hatchet job on bachman is as yellow
as it is execrable. chris christie gets the same treatment... there
are never any flattering photos of christie that come out in the
press. they do their best to portray him as an ogre.
John C TX
Michael the media likes embarrassing everyone. I think this picture
was hysterical.
Deadmeat
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> supporting Michelle Bachmann after the Iow State Fair? When I saw this
> picture I realized why.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3ftz87t
>
>
>
Michael
i dont think bachman found the photograph to be hysterical. it is not
a respectful or flattering photo. and I think you are off the mark by
suggesting that the media is prome to embarr-ass everyone equally.
the media has a social agenda. libtards and ignorant bible belt kooks
dont need any help making stupid ass judgements.
Papa Carl
"Michael" <mjd...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:9bbab0cd-2c87-4e7d...@fe21g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
Michael...you need to do one HELL of a lot of Photoshopping to create any
kind of flattering picture of Christie...it is simply not possible, he's a
whale and getting bigger by the day. Soon he will need to embrace Arab garb
to accomodate his size. Wear a tent.
Papa Carl
And neither do the folks in your camp...she did it, they took a picture.
How sensitive is she when she goes off???? Not very.
By the way...did you hear that right after the earthquake the other day the
Republican House members convened to create a new piece of legislation?
It's designed to rename the geographic fault that runs underneath Washington
DC. It will be renamed "Obama's Fault"....
Deadmeat
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> supporting Michelle Bachmann after the Iow State Fair? When I saw this
> picture I realized why.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3ftz87t
>
>
>
I don't know if this made it before but this is a good one too:
Michael
> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
let me make one thing clear... i am not in the bachman camp. i am not
in the palin camp. they are both national embarrassments. i was not
being pro left or pro right. my "zing" was purely against media
bias. for the record... my own political ideal is a social
libertarian society with a free market economy that is presided over
by an *effective* governing/control body of some sort that has
national interest in mind and understands the importance of a middle
class and domestic industry. marxist ideals produce as much dead
weight as run away capitalism or "neo feudalism" where big business
and special interest wind up with more political power than the
legislators and "elected" politicians. i'm not by any means saying we
throw capitalism away. just put the breaks on the neo lordships. i do
think the federal reserve system needs to go. a return to currency
based on a commodity standard would help to end a perpetual state of
debt, inflation and boom/bust cyccles that do little to help the
middle class and everything to help the band of self interested
individuals the make a killing at the expense of national econimic
health. i will also say yet one more time.. people who argue left
vs. right or democrat vs. republican in today's world don't have any
idea where the snake is coiled
Papa Carl
Calm down...we don't disagree and I do not argue along those lines...I think
neither of them have a feakin clue what would really be best for the Nation
and the World. We need future thinkers for the future..not old worn out
crap that didn't work the first time around or caused the problems we are
trying to solve. I'm only saying that if these plastic public figures put
themselves into the roles they chose...and are as nasty as they are...they
take what they get...the media is not the media...it is merely a function of
the larger structure that drives Wall Street and the rest of the mess. It's
all for profit at any cost and without any regard for consequences. I'm
agreeing with you...I like your ter neo-feudalism, because that is what it
is.
Ray O'Hara
"Papa Carl" <papa...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:rZCdnUCw9PiBgMTT...@giganews.com...
you are a moron. "free market" read up on robber barons and see what "free
market" means in reality.
your ilk are clueless about what you think would be paradise.
Ray O'Hara
>
> "Michael" <mjd...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:9bbab0cd-2c87-4e7d...@fe21g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 26, 9:26 am, "JohnC\(TX\)" <johnctxjetss...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> X-No-Archive: Yes
>>
>> I am not a big fan but did you see that Bill Clinton came out & is
>> supporting Michelle Bachmann after the Iow State Fair? When I saw this
>> picture I realized why.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/3ftz87t
>
> i think bachman and palin are both national embarrassments. none the
> less, the media's photojournalist hatchet job on bachman is as yellow
> as it is execrable. chris christie gets the same treatment... there
> are never any flattering photos of christie that come out in the
> press. they do their best to portray him as an ogre.
>
she plays dirty and lies at the drop of a question. she accepts government
farm subsidies while she rails agains money for social programs.
she deserves everything she gets, same for Palin, they want to play in the
big leagues but don't pick on them and funny you never complained when it
was Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi getting it.
so fuck off Karl. you're outrage is very selective.
Michael
> "Papa Carl" <papa.c...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:Eo6dnZHxQtxobMrT...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
read carefully, nimrod
MZ
> "Papa Carl" <papa.c...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:rZCdnUCw9PiBgMTT...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Oh, please educate us, Ray. "Robber barons" really sounds like an
objective analysis.
Papa Carl
"MZ" <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote in message
news:986cfc02-184e-43df...@d18g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Yeah...I did real a lot of that, actually was a history major. Seems to me
that was NOT a free market at all. As a matter of fact, that's why they got
the name "Robber Barons"....oh well.
Papa Carl
read carefully, nimrod
Michael...he NEVER read any history....just block him and don't give the
buffoon the attention he desires. He obviously does not read what you
write.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
lolz... he makes a few entertaining comments every now and then...
even a good football post at least once a year :-)
I think, though... the era of the "robber baron" is an ideal period to
study in this day age. The Teddy Roosevelt administration too. We
could use Teddy right now. I don’t want to get too far off campus
here or make myself out to be a "black shirt", but some of the
economic policies of Mussolini prior to and during the depression are
fairly intriguing. Again... This is not a vote for totalitarianism,
but it is worth a quick study if you have the time. Italy faired
better than most every other country during the depression. Large
scale economic corruption/profiteering as well as organized crime was
just about stamped out. All this took place inside of a free market
with private ownership. They had a guy that could step in and lord it
over on any economic/financial body if their operations were judged to
be corrupt or a detriment to national interests. What would be more
dangerous ??? An “Il Duce’ economy” or letting the modern day “Robber
Corporations” have their way instead ???
MZ
Mussolini's economy was almost the polar opposite of what's commonly
referred to as "free market".
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
mark... "free market" is subjective. if you want to define "free
market" as a "laissez fair" market, the "Duce'" economy was opposite
of that. a "free market economy" would have never seen the
destruction of class conflicts in favor of a collective national
interest. And it was all by means of private ownership. in fact, duce’
wiped out a good chunk of state owned industry because it was a real
dog. what I should say is "a market with private ownership and open
competition and not “free market”. That was an asinine description of
the duce’ economy. also... unlike commie state controlled and state
owned economy, the "Duce'" economy left experts in place to run their
affairs. the government did NOT own business but, the government
dictated terms and could change things in a day with the stroke of a
pen. Still there was the all important private ownership and open
competition. the way currency was handled was also effective. one
thing i always protest over, is when people call our modern
"corporatism" a "fascist" economy. Not even close... we have the
opposite of a "fascist duce' economy". in this day and age, the
corporations and big business do the dictating and the government does
the listening. It would have been interesting to see how it played
out if duce’ wasn’t convinced that the Nazis would win the war. WW II
made fdr’s economic folly look good and it put the devil’s stamp on
all of duce’s economic policy
Papa Carl
How about a Nation of laws that really was that and followed and enforced
them?
Michael
it was not unlawful when the US auto industry cut their own throats in
the 1970's
in was not unlawful when harvard MBA types took over well run
companies in the 1980's, got rid of the people that knew what they
were doing, and subsequently lined thier pockets by means of tearing
national business fixtures down to the ground.
Economic policy that guarantees a trade imbalance is not unlawful
Allowing companies to uproot in favor of slave labor is not unlawful
it was no unlawful when clinton repealed glass stegall
sub prime lending was not unlawful.
bundling and selling sub prime loans was not unlawful
a federal reserve bank with an inflationary currency system is not
unlawful
federal reserve officers making money circulating devalued currency is
not unlawful
oh... i have to stop... i need to vomit.
Papa Carl
Most of these are decision made because a system lacked the guidance to
prevent it. What you are going on about was a lack of laws and
supervision...we make stupd regulations that are so long and tedious mainly
because they were designed to be broken. Why not have real Laws and
guidelines that prevent this crap from happening and take care of the needs
of the Nation?
MZ
Better yet, why not stop facilitating these things directly through
public policy? Most of these things that Michael lists are actually
end goals of the system, not accidental byproducts. The inflation and
the housing boom items are probably the best examples of this.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
papa... those things are motivated by self interest even though the
people behind those things knew they would not work out to the benefit
of national interest. forgive me if i am telling you things you
already know, but if you make a study of the decisions and practices
inside the US auto industry during the 1970's you'll get sick to your
stomach leering how a very small hand full of people made out well for
themselves by running the countries staple industry into the ground. a
pile of other capitol industries were taken down along with the auto
industry as well. then, have a look at the "go go 80's". a pile of
well staffed and intelligently run companies (important ones) were
torn apart by a few jerk-off's with mba's that walked away with lord
high money by picking the wallets off the dead bodies. those two
disastrous episodes were a whole box of nails in the national economic
coffin... the point i'm trying to make is that it is interesting to me
to consider an economy like the one we had if it was presided over by
a Duce' type character. State owned marxist BS is a dead end.
Private ownership and capitalistic competition is a must...
unrestrained capitalism built the country... BUT... unrestrained
capitalism as i described above is sure to be as destructive as it was
constructive during the developmental stage. the idea that we need to
follow laws is not sufficient. we had plenty of laws and the stuff I
mentioned above still occurred. what seems interesting to me is a
democratic and libertarian country with a capitalistic economy where
by the economy and only the economy was presided over by an economic
Duce’ of some sort. if you attempt to bundle and sell sub prime
lemons, the Duce comes to your office and makes you drink a gallon of
castor oil. the "guidance" you speak of will never come from laws.
especially, once big money and *special* interest gets a hold of the
political mechanism as has happened here
Papa Carl
Oh yeah..quite true.
Papa Carl
I hear you....we are just doomed then. Maybe we need to start with election
reform and election finance reform...or else it is just an olligarchy of
some sort and it's all over.
MZ
Michael, have you read Michael Lind's latest column at salon.com?
It's similar to the sort of things you're talking about re: markets
and Mussolini. It's an interesting take -- one which I think he
engages in a lot of distortions to make his point -- but still might
be worth a read.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
election reform would be an excellent place to start... of course, the
puppetmasters would get in the way. i already know who will win the
next prez election. a lap dog. name or party not important
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
This one below ???
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/08/30/lind_libertariansim
IMHO, the model of a "free" socially liberal republic with a privately
owned, yet "fascist" economic/market system is an interesting one.
being a huge fan of social liberties and one who despises tyrannical
government control, i have never been the lest bit a proponent of
anything that resembles a totalitarian state. Still... I have always
been intrigued by the economic component of duce's fascist state.
going back to what i was saying before... unrestrained capitalism was
ideal during the developmental stage of america. it pretty much built
the country. now we have a totally different social and economic
dynamic. most evety time a president was "encouraged" to lift a
restriction, (glass stegall for instance)it turned out to be a
disaster. recently, we've seen offenders rewarded with governmen money
(bail-outs). keeping the lid off the cookie jar now ensures that we'll
have a concentrated accumulation and imbalance of wealth that is every
bit as parasitic as the fruits of marxism. i am not talking about
people that make a few million a year. i am talking about a lord high
concentration of wealth. The ability to infringe on free enterprise
and liberty. What is the practical difference between the muzzle of
Mao’s gun and the ability to buy off a government ???
MZ
>
> IMHO, the model of a "free" socially liberal republic with a privately
> owned, yet "fascist" economic/market system is an interesting one.
> being a huge fan of social liberties and one who despises tyrannical
> government control, i have never been the lest bit a proponent of
> anything that resembles a totalitarian state. Still... I have always
> been intrigued by the economic component of duce's fascist state.
> going back to what i was saying before... unrestrained capitalism was
> ideal during the developmental stage of america. it pretty much built
> the country. now we have a totally different social and economic
> dynamic. most evety time a president was "encouraged" to lift a
> restriction, (glass stegall for instance)it turned out to be a
> disaster. recently, we've seen offenders rewarded with governmen money
> (bail-outs). keeping the lid off the cookie jar now ensures that we'll
> have a concentrated accumulation and imbalance of wealth that is every
> bit as parasitic as the fruits of marxism. i am not talking about
> people that make a few million a year. i am talking about a lord high
> concentration of wealth. The ability to infringe on free enterprise
> and liberty. What is the practical difference between the muzzle of
> Mao’s gun and the ability to buy off a government ???
Yeah, that's why I thought that would be an interesting article for
you. But like I said, his facts are not accurate (e.g. he attributes
stuff to Von Mises that was just inaccurate...). Still, the article
shows that the idea that your brand of "libertarianism" could adopt a
"fascist" economic system is evidently shared by other people.
[Just not the ones he's citing. :) ]
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
he blew it with Von Mises, but his goof did not distract from the
larger point... nice to see others thinking. imho, a good start to
getting things on the right track would be moving away from the
federal reserve system and transitioning to commodity backed currency.
then we decide on how much castor oil to give wall street and run away
corporations
Johnny Morongo
A bit like locking the barn door after the horse is stolen, no?