Overtly Political and OT: Palin, Chairman MaObama, Financial Crisis, and Political Idiocy
steve
idiocy is raging. Im putting in my 2 cents and then Im bowing out.
This is truly a frightening moment in the political history of this country.
Over the past 20-30 years the US govt has accelerated it's support for
irresponsible behavior in the marketplace. A perverse incentive structure
in the nature of govt guarantees without mitigating controls has finally
lead to a virtual collapse of our financial markets. The causes are clear
to anyone with two brain cells to rub together, but, unfortunately that
seems to be a small and powerless minority. The very people who caused the
crisis now point fingers at the market they themselves perverted and
shamelessly feign outrage. It's beyond sickening. Both presidential
candidates are spouting mindless populism and ignoring the root causes.
Bush and Congress have, in a panic, opted to do exactly the wrong thing in
socializing the losses, further debasing the currency, spending wildly, and
continuing to support irresponsible buying and lending. If anyone was under
the impression that constitutional limits on govt power still had any
meaning, the recent govt activity should disabuse them of that misguided
notion. This is demonstrably a govt of men and not laws.
All this is happening as the backdrop to another frightening phenomenon,
that being the cult of personality surrounding Chairman MaObama. Children
march in his name and sing his praises ("Obama will bring us freedom") and
vast adoring crowds cheer his vague promises. His language is truly
Orwellian (tax increases are "spending cuts", and govt payments to
non-taxpayers are "tax cuts"). This man, quite obviously hostile to
liberty, seems likely, now, to be our next president. McCain would be bad
enough, but Obama will be a disaster from which we may never recover.
Collectivist advances in govt power are almost impossible to reverse, and
Obama promises nothing else. I hope the American people will have the sense
to elect McCain, by far the lesser of the two evils, but now, especially
with the prospect of massive voter fraud looming, that seems unlikely.
Palin, no doubt a decent person with sound values, quoted Ronald Reagan
during he VP debate. To wit:
“Freedom is never more than a generation away from extinction. We didn’t
pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for,
protected, and handed on for them to do the same.”
It's obvious to me that we have failed to pass the lesson of freedom to our
children. Future generations will pay the price. This great experiment in
liberty may soon be over, as defeat is snatched from the jaws of victory.
steve
--
We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We
laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate
and bid the geldings to be fruitful. - C.S. Lewis
Howard Brazee
>This is truly a frightening moment in the political history of this country.
They all are.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Kingo Gondo
I knew you couldn't resist. Your type are notoriously bad at suppressing
their urges.
TBerk
Your outlook is decidedly one sided, and might I add full of Fear,
Doubt, and Uncertainty in it's expression of your thoughts & feelings.
What do they call it when you 1st decide your truth, then go about
finding examples to fit your foregone conclusion?
TBerk
steve
On 9-Oct-2008, TBerk <bayar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Your outlook is decidedly one sided, and might I add full of Fear,
> Doubt, and Uncertainty in it's expression of your thoughts & feelings.
The one side is my own, of course. Im expressing my opinion.
Fear, certainly, and with good reason.
Doubt and uncertainty? Only over the outcome of the upcoming election. Of
the rest I have little doubt.
> What do they call it when you 1st decide your truth, then go about
> finding examples to fit your foregone conclusion?
Im stating my conclusions and little else. That doesnt mean thay arent
based on sound judgement.
And, to answer your question, I usually call people who do as you describe
"liberals", though your description does apply to some conservatives as
well.
Halmyre
>
> Palin, no doubt a decent person with sound values,
That's MICHAEL Palin you're thinking of. However, Sarah Palin is the one
who's running for VP.
--
Halmyre
That's you that is.
Kingo Gondo
"TBerk" <bayar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gclj1i$i3q$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
Maybe one of these broads is Mrs. steve:
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/129370.html
calvin
who thinks McCain is the lesser of two evils should
give up and not bother to vote. That's what Obama
supporters and their media are doing their best to
make happen. Only one poll matters. Four years
ago the Kerry supporters and their media were trying
to discourage Bush voters even on election day, with
their skewed reporting of exit polls.
'MAObama', I like that. I still have my copy of Mao's
Little Red Book, from back in the 60's, but never expected
to be needing it here in the U.S. We're now in great
danger of becoming the People's State of America, though.
Kingo Gondo
"calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:e4ed0821-d248-4c79...@s20g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Yeah, he might socialize the financial system or something.
You guys just can't help yourselves here, seriously.
Personally, I voting for George Wallace. Keep your dime.
Death From Above
it's all very pathetic, but see it this way. some cons thought it was
end of the world in 1992 when clinton got into office, but clinton
didn't do much damage. in fact, he was a better conservative than the
disatrous bush. (helen and)bob and I both said mccain should have
won the GOP nomination in 2000. cons with went with moron bush and
well... look what happened.
yes, obama has radical ideas but this is the US. he won't be able to
do much. if he wins, he'll prolly be re-elected in 2012 because
economy will rebound by then.
but, he can't do much damage as he won't be fuhrer--though he wants to
be. also, after the honeymoon is over, people will blame HIM for all
the problem.
we'll get to play political dunk the negro. it'll be fun.
actually, GOP would be in much better shape IF it listened to mccain
back in 2001 when he opposed tax cuts for the rich. and, too bad
mccain switched his position on the issue because that is his achilles
heel. when the economy suffers, people get angry at rich people.
now, you know and i know that it's better to have money stay in the
private sector than in gubment, but it's not good politics. to win,
you gotta play politics. only 10% of americans supported tax cuts for
the rich!
Also, most rich folks today are liberal. they got fancy education, PC
indoctrination since kindergarten, and want to pay more taxes. and
many superrich are liberal jews. so, bring on the Jew Tax. I say
leave small business alone--those who make up to 3 million a year.
But, i don't mind raising the tax rate for the bill gates and warren
buffetts. if the gubment doesn't take their money, they'll fund huge
liberal foundations and organizations which will do even more damage.
look at ford foundation, rockefellar foundation, etc. all paid for
by capitalism but pushing socialism.
Death From Above
also, steve, GOP may be finished because the honkey race is vanishing.
you're one of the last of proud white breed. last of the honkicans.
David Oberman
>But, i don't mind raising the tax rate for the bill gates and warren
>buffetts.
How about lowering it for everybody? What the HELL are our "leaders"
spending so much on, year in, year out??!!
Stop SPENDING trillions, & we can all keep more of our $$!!
calvin
wrote:
> ... i don't mind raising the tax rate for the bill gates and warren
> buffetts. ...
Their money is all invested. Raising their taxes means
lessening their investments, which takes away from
the economy. (Our money in the bank is all invested too.)
The people seem to think rich people are like Scrooge McDuck,
keeping their money in cash in their basements, because
they like to dive around in it like a porpoise, burrow through it
like a gopher, and toss it up in the air and let it land on their
heads.
TBerk
> And, to answer your question, I usually call people who do as you describe
> "liberals", though your description does apply to some conservatives as
> well.
>
> steve
yeah. that is what I thought.
Jim Beaver
"steve" <st...@steve.com> wrote in message
news:hWoHk.1431$JJ4...@newsfe06.iad...
> Ive been absent from OT politics here for a few weeks, but I see that the
> idiocy is raging. Im putting in my 2 cents and then Im bowing out.
>
> that being the cult of personality surrounding Chairman MaObama. Children
> march in his name and sing his praises ("Obama will bring us freedom") and
> vast adoring crowds cheer his vague promises. His language is truly
> Orwellian (tax increases are "spending cuts", and govt payments to
> non-taxpayers are "tax cuts"). This man, quite obviously hostile to
> liberty, seems likely, now, to be our next president. McCain would be bad
> enough, but Obama will be a disaster from which we may never recover.
> Collectivist advances in govt power are almost impossible to reverse, and
> Obama promises nothing else. I hope the American people will have the
> sense
> to elect McCain, by far the lesser of the two evils, but now, especially
> with the prospect of massive voter fraud looming, that seems unlikely.
They said the same stuff about Franklin Roosevelt, who, like him or hate
him, managed to save this country from something not terribly dissimilar to
what we now face, far better than his 1932 opponent would have done (if that
opponent could have done so at all). Love FDR or hate him, we somehow
managed to muddle through 13 years of his administration during tougher
times than these. So chin up, Steve, "its" not as bad as you think, pal,
even if the "worst" happens and the crazy guy loses.
Jim Beaver
Howard Brazee
<cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>> ... i don't mind raising the tax rate for the bill gates and warren
>> buffetts. ...
>
>Their money is all invested. Raising their taxes means
>lessening their investments, which takes away from
>the economy. (Our money in the bank is all invested too.)
True. I suppose they could try to tax foreign investments more than
domestic.
>The people seem to think rich people are like Scrooge McDuck,
>keeping their money in cash in their basements, because
>they like to dive around in it like a porpoise, burrow through it
>like a gopher, and toss it up in the air and let it land on their
>heads.
True again.
But all taxation has this kind of cost, including the tax of a deficit
budget. The question isn't which tax doesn't hurt, nor which is far
- it's how the state can get its money with the least cost to the
politicians, the voters, and to our economy.
calvin
> ... So chin up, Steve, "its" not as bad as you think, pal,
> even if the "worst" happens and the crazy guy loses.
It's a shame McCain was the best the Republicans could
nominate, when better choices were running (Giuliani and
Romney), but he at least would make better judicial nominations
than Obama, protect the country from terrorism better than
Obama, and handle the hostile countries better than Obama.
The Roosevelt analogy is meaningless. For an analogy to be
apt, the situation has to be the same, not just broadly
similar in one or two ways.
Kingo Gondo
turn this invitation to pull this NG down into the unbearable muck already
surrounding us here in the U (for now) S of A into something at least
marginally on-topic:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-first-momen.html
Thank me at your convenience.
David Oberman
>It's a shame McCain was the best the Republicans could
>nominate, when better choices were running (Giuliani and
>Romney), but he at least would make better judicial nominations
>than Obama, protect the country from terrorism better than
>Obama
I don't share others' enormous fear of terrorism. Terrorism isn't the
only violent crime I'm afraid of; in fact, it's the violent crime I'm
probably least afraid of. Consequently, I'm disappointed that I
haven't heard any of these politicians running for pres talk much --
if at all -- about violent crime & thuggery closer to me this past
year.
steve
On 10-Oct-2008, "Jim Beaver" <jumb...@prodigy.spam> wrote:
> > to elect McCain, by far the lesser of the two evils, but now, especially
> > with the prospect of massive voter fraud looming, that seems unlikely.
>
> They said the same stuff about Franklin Roosevelt, who, like him or hate
> him, managed to save this country from something not terribly dissimilar
> to
> what we now face, far better than his 1932 opponent would have done (if
> that
> opponent could have done so at all).
Hi Jim:
That is the popular understanding of FDR and TGD, but it is, in a word,
bullshit. FDRs policies only exacerbated and prolonged the depression. The
NRA, giving the govt power over prices and wages (that power being liberally
exercised), high tax rates, aggressive monetarism, massive govt spending and
wealth redistribution programs, plus the general economic uncertainty
created by unpredictable govt policy all contributed to the depression. In
fact, TGD was largely caused by competitive monetarist policies between the
US and european countries (attempting to manipulate exchange rates for
purposes of international trade). The lesson, not learned to this day, is
that an economy will operate and recover best with the least govt
intervention and therefore the fewest variables for investors and businesses
to contend with.
The time for inaction is now!
FDRs enduring popularity is evidence that the public is ignorant of
economics and responds positively to aggressive, improper actions in the
face of economic crisis. The govt cannot be trusted with that sort of
power, because it will be misused to satisfy an ignorant public. The
founding fathers got so much of it right, and subsequent generations have
fucked it up so badly.
> Love FDR or hate him, we somehow
> managed to muddle through 13 years of his administration during tougher
> times than these. So chin up, Steve, "its" not as bad as you think, pal,
> even if the "worst" happens and the crazy guy loses.
Im no fan of McCain, but he's far from crazy. What I fear from MaObama is
long term and damaging changes...perhaps the most important is the prospect
of as many as 3 SC Nominations. But lets not forget higher taxes, greater
wealth redistribution, health care and other impositions of govt power in
the market, as well as surrendering much of our sovereignty to the UN and
foreign govts. The guy just doesnt understand and/or believe in liberty.
David Oberman
The great Karen Black. I had forgotten about that movie. Is there a
... window open in that cockpit?
This is the one where the small plane hits the jumbo, right, & the
jumbo just keeps sailing along?
Okierazorbacker
>
> How about lowering it for everybody? What the HELL are our "leaders"
> spending so much on, year in, year out??!!
>
> Stop SPENDING trillions, & we can all keep more of our $$!!
As a former government employee who worked hard to get a real job and
get out of it, I can promise that you'd be amazed at the wasteful
games played by agencies who spend hard each year to make sure their
budget doesn't get cut. They have to show that they've spent the
previous fiscal year's budget, else they don't need it. That's just
the tip of the iceberg.
Okierazorbacker
>
> It's a shame McCain was the best the Republicans could
> nominate
I've been hoping for years that McCain would win the nomination. He's
the closest thing to Teddy Roosevelt we've had since, well, TR
himself. Despite what the GOP is forcing into his campaign, a McCain
presidency would move this nation closer to bipartisanship in some
ways, a move in the right direction rather than all this bickering.
Sheesh.
More on the REAL reasons why there's such bickering: Go to
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0453549/ and click "Watch it." 80
minutes. Worth every second.
David Oberman
>As a former government employee who worked hard to get a real job and
>get out of it, I can promise that you'd be amazed at the wasteful
>games played by agencies who spend hard each year to make sure their
>budget doesn't get cut. They have to show that they've spent the
>previous fiscal year's budget, else they don't need it. That's just
>the tip of the iceberg.
I believe you. It accords with what I saw when I worked part time at
the U.S. Department of Agriculture while I was an undergrad: extreme
waste & shocking laziness (the secretary used to nap on the sofa in
the kitchen ... just whenever). There's extreme waste & shocking
laziness at the company I work for now (a Fortune 500 firm), but at
least it's self-funded (except for possible subsidies).
David Oberman
>I've been hoping for years that McCain would win the nomination. He's
>the closest thing to Teddy Roosevelt we've had since, well, TR
>himself. Despite what the GOP is forcing into his campaign, a McCain
>presidency would move this nation closer to bipartisanship in some
>ways, a move in the right direction rather than all this bickering.
I don't like him. He favors trickle-down views, whereas I favor
trickle-up views (stop taxing the masses of consumers & they will buy
more products made by corporations, thus enriching them with fat
profits).
Jim Beaver
---------------
The point that seems to have fallen out of the responses is that Steve's
claims that the end of the Republic is near are pretty familiar to anyone
who knows or remembers the ones during the 1932 election, and about as dire
in fact now as those were then. Tough times ahead, but the sky isn't
falling. Even if "that one" wins.
Jim Beaver
steve
On 10-Oct-2008, "Jim Beaver" <jumb...@prodigy.spam> wrote:
> The point that seems to have fallen out of the responses is that Steve's
> claims that the end of the Republic is near are pretty familiar to anyone
> who knows or remembers the ones during the 1932 election, and about as
> dire
> in fact now as those were then. Tough times ahead, but the sky isn't
> falling. Even if "that one" wins.
Jim, you dont understand. The sky DID fall under FDR. It just took a long
time to reach the ground (about now). This is all just the inevitable
consequence of a rejection of constitutional govt. FDR was a bastard.
Hayek was right. Read "The Road to Serfdom".
Jim Beaver
"Okierazorbacker" <okieraz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8ba71ba6-51b7-4c9a...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
RESPONSE:
I haven't watched this yet (thanks for the recommendation -- it looks
interesting) -- can't find the "Watch It" button. But I noticed amid a
number of very complimentary opinions posted at the site this one. I wonder
about your reaction to it:
"This documentary is fundamentally misleading in its characterization of the
"split" that divides Americans politically by focusing almost exclusively on
relatively meaningless "hot button" issues like abortion and homosexuality,
while ignoring real class, gender, and racial disparity.
Roe v. Wade is not going to be overturned ever. For politicians to pretend
otherwise for the sake of mobilizing ignorant voters is disingenuous, just
like this movie's insistence that abortion is a politically significant
issue on the national level, one that divides our political spectrum, is
also disingenuous. Similarly homosexuality is not an issue at the national
level. The personal opinions of politicians have little bearing on the
legislative reality, which is that at this time neither party will act
either to further expand or restrict the definition of marriage. No one is
pushing for equal rights for gays, and no one is pushing for a
constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
The documentary contains a number of short historical lessons for the
viewer's apparent edification (so he can contextualize the current "split"
with the halcyon days of yore) which are fundamentally inaccurate. For
instance, in order to buttress the reality of the "split" as a modern
phenomenon, electoral maps for the past 100 years or so of presidential
elections are shown with the current red/blue color scheme. Not
surprisingly, the red/blue states shift somewhat from election to election
and substantially at certain times. What is not mentioned at all is that
during these shifts it was the nature of the political parties themselves
that changed, not the voters. The South overwhelmingly voted Democratic
during most of the twentieth century, until Republicans co-opted the racial
and evangelical platform issues important to Southerners. Subtler changes in
party platforms during this time are also ignored. Another example of
historical inaccuracy is the depiction of the religion of the founding
fathers. It's suggested that there is a great deal of confusion concerning
the religion of the founding fathers (and there is amongst many people, but
not historians). Thomas Jefferson is painted as a devoutly religious man who
compiled his own bible but nonetheless (and confusedly, it seems) is
sometimes considered an atheist. What is not mentioned is that his "bible"
contains only the moral teachings of Jesus, with the complete expurgation of
miracles and everything else Jefferson considered spurious, because
Jefferson was in fact a deist, more or less the eighteenth century
equivalent of the modern atheist.
There are several more instances like this, which contribute overall to an
extremely simplified picture of America as divided along meaningful partisan
lines. Certainly America IS divided along partisan lines to the extent that
politicians have been very successful in getting people to vote primarily on
social "issues." But in fact the Democratic and Republican parties are both
right of center compared to the parties of every other Western
industrialized nation. They are both free market capitalist parties who
employ aggressive foreign policy. The split between them is grossly
exaggerated.
This documentary should have focused on the political agenda of deceiving
voters into believing in the existence of a real political schism but
instead merely furthers that agenda by reinforcing this deception."
Curious as to your thoughts, re the film.
Jim Beaver
Howard Brazee
<dobe...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
>I don't share others' enormous fear of terrorism. Terrorism isn't the
>only violent crime I'm afraid of; in fact, it's the violent crime I'm
>probably least afraid of. Consequently, I'm disappointed that I
>haven't heard any of these politicians running for pres talk much --
>if at all -- about violent crime & thuggery closer to me this past
>year.
It's OK, pretty soon, everything the politicians don't like will be
called "terrorism".
Howard Brazee
<okieraz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I've been hoping for years that McCain would win the nomination. He's
>the closest thing to Teddy Roosevelt we've had since, well, TR
>himself. Despite what the GOP is forcing into his campaign, a McCain
>presidency would move this nation closer to bipartisanship in some
>ways, a move in the right direction rather than all this bickering.
>Sheesh.
What he promises and what Obama promises are awfully similar. More
war and more borrowing are at the top of the list. I voted
Democratic this time because I believed I needed to respond against
the current administration, and because I believe much of the
following:
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/23316912/makebelieve_maverick/print
There's no way I trust the Republicans to roll back the clock to their
previous values of small government, individual freedoms, the
Constitution, no foreign wars, and fiscal responsibility. They
spend as much as the Democrats, only more gets spent overseas. To
pay for it, they borrow, which is worse than taxing. And Obama is
promising he will do the same thing!
Howard Brazee
>Jim, you dont understand. The sky DID fall under FDR. It just took a long
>time to reach the ground (about now). This is all just the inevitable
>consequence of a rejection of constitutional govt. FDR was a bastard.
So why haven't the Republicans gotten rid of what FDR did? Where's
the public support to repeal FDR's New Deal?
Instead, both parties are buying up big business, hoping we will call
the other party communist. Both candidates are running under the
same platforms, called change - to continue borrowing, to continue
fighting foreign wars, and to continue bailing out Big Business.
(Lincoln did more to increase the power of the feds than FDR did).
steve
On 10-Oct-2008, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> So why haven't the Republicans gotten rid of what FDR did? Where's
> the public support to repeal FDR's New Deal?
I repeat myself:
"FDRs enduring popularity is evidence that the public is ignorant of
economics and responds positively to aggressive, improper actions in the
face of economic crisis. The govt cannot be trusted with that sort of
power, because it will be misused to satisfy an ignorant public. The
founding fathers got so much of it right, and subsequent generations have
fucked it up so badly."
If the public was capable of learning anything, they woud have learned from
social security that govt simply cannot act responsibly. The situation is
even more hopeless when you have homeless people registering to vote in
exchange for a pck of cigs. Informed voter.
> Instead, both parties are buying up big business, hoping we will call
> the other party communist. Both candidates are running under the
> same platforms, called change - to continue borrowing, to continue
> fighting foreign wars, and to continue bailing out Big Business.
Amen (mostly).
McCain is (by far) the lesser of two evils... but the lesser of two evils
is...evil.
Sad choice, and we seem to be fucking even that up.
Howard Brazee
>> Instead, both parties are buying up big business, hoping we will call
>> the other party communist. Both candidates are running under the
>> same platforms, called change - to continue borrowing, to continue
>> fighting foreign wars, and to continue bailing out Big Business.
>
>Amen (mostly).
>
>McCain is (by far) the lesser of two evils... but the lesser of two evils
>is...evil.
His promises aren't to spend less. His promises aren't to tax less
(although that doesn't matter, when the difference is made up by
borrowing). They both want to bail out Big Business. What makes
him (by far) the lesser of two evils?
If the following is halfway true and not another Swift Boat lie,
McCain is not someone I would trust:
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/23316912/makebelieve_maverick/print
David Oberman
>What he promises and what Obama promises are awfully similar. More
>war and more borrowing are at the top of the list. I voted
>Democratic this time because I believed I needed to respond against
>the current administration, and because I believe much of the
>following:
>
>http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/23316912/makebelieve_maverick/print
Yikes! McCain doesn't behave well in that article.
Death From Above
That would be nice, but we have an underclass permanently dependent on
welfare.
Also, with globalization and cheap illegal labor, many working class
people lost jobs and are looking to government.
And, we have very rich and highly educated class who've been taught to
believe that it's 'socially just' for the rich to pay higher taxes and
expand gubment.
Some people want bigger government because they have less and want
more freebies. Some people want bigger government because they want
power as well as money. Many rich people think politics and government
are cleaner and more honorable than 'money-grubbing' business. They
wanna make the money in the private sector but wanna enter the
mandarin/patrician class that deals with Ideas and work for 'social
good'. It's all very silly, but that's how it goes. (Also, as we've
seen with Al Gore or Franklin Raines, the easiest way to make a
fortune is to do business with the government or non-for-profit
organizations.)
What was true of Rome and Beijing long ago is still true for us
today. Once people become rich, they want to hold onto power through
politics. Political power is easier to keep than economic power. New
businesses easily knock off old businesses, but politicians and
bureaucrats--and judges--hold power for a LOOOOONG time.
Also, keep in mind that kids of rich folks tend to be less
intelligent, less hungry for success. They are less fit for dog-eat-
dog business so they go into politics which favors the privileged.
Look at Ted Kennedy. Look at Dubya. Look at Dan Quayle.
Their grandparents or parents were hard, driven, and tough men, but
teddy, dubby, and danny were mediocrites who could only have succeeded
in business with the backing of the rich.
It's due to the bimbo factor. Smart successful men marry pretty women.
Most pretty women are not that bright. So, their kids are only half as
smart. And, since they were born with a silver spoon in their mouths,
they are not cut out for the tough sport of business. So, there's
politics.
There is the also the conceit that while businessmen ONLY care about
money, the intellectual class and bureaucrat mandarins care about
ideas, about social good, and etc, etc. Recall that Confucians looked
down on merchants and idealized the scholar-bureaucrat. Some good
that did for China! Communism was just more of the same crap.
Death From Above
I agree with this to some extent. And, I''m ideally not for raising
taxes on the rich or anyone.
BUT, buffett and gates INSIST they wanna pay more taxes. indeed, they
feel they have more money than they can possibly spend or invest. Why
else would Buffett donate most of his fortune to dumbass charity? And,
Gates is pouring billions and billions into AFrica and other places.
You call that investment? Ideally, they should spend all their money
to invest in new areas. But, much of it goes to stupid shit.
1. Stupidass charities for negroes in Africa who are SOOO dumb that
they cannot even make mosquito nets for theyselves. And, they fuc* all
over the place, spread AIDS, and we're supposed to pay for it. Gates
has poured billions to help the negroes, not invest in our future.
2. Much of superrich money goes into foundations, and almost all of
them support leftwing agendas. Look at Carnegie endowment. Ford
foundation. This foundation, that foundation. All founded by rich
man's money. What do these gazillions found? Leftwing ideas. Many
superrich have more money than they can spend or know how to invest.
They set up stupid foundations with it and empower leftists. Or, they
give it away to negroes in Africa. After Gates and Buffett die, would
you rather have their fortunes be taxed and spent or sit in
foundations forever to fund leftwingers? Rockefellar foundation is
still around. So, is Nobel prize foundation. And they do what? Fund
leftists forever and ever.
3. Many superrich 'invest' stupidly--they speculate in stupid
schemes. Instead of investing wisely in some new technology for
longterm good, they look for shortterm gains. What does the recent
financial crash tell you? Who lent Americans all that money to be
spent stupidly? The rich people on Wall Street, the rich chinamen,
the rich Arabs flush in oil money, etc. I don't mind the superrich
investing wisely for longterm good. But, many just wanna play the
market or play games. So, while stock prices were going skyhigh in
the late 90s, gazillions of bucks were being wasted in useless
internet stocks. And, in the past 4 yrs, gazillions were pumped into
the housing sector so that morons could buy houses with no payment
down and no job.
You see, the superrich have more money than they can spend. They put
their money in this bank, that lending or investment firm, etc. And,
the people who do the investing care mostly about shortterm profit.
So, much of the money pour into whatever happens to be HOT, whether
it's internet bubble or crazy housing pyramic schemes. Result? Wham.
Well, it's like this. Jews make up 2% of US population. 40% of top
500 richest in US are Jews. They are mostly democratic and say rich
should pay more taxes. Also, even most non-Jew rich are democrats.
Also, most doctors and lawyers are democrats. The majority of the
affluent are liberals. Rich folks get fancy education, and fancy
colleges are run by leftists--many of them Jews. So, if that's how the
rich think, I say make them pay more taxes.
I say protect the small businessmen who do REAL work. The hell with
the superrich who care more about African negroes than us. The hell
with superrich who care more about buidling factories overseas and
giving aid to overseas folks.
The new conservatism must be fascist. It must be national capitalism.
It must be moral capitalism. And, it should offer some conditional
socialism. Those who receive from government MUST be obligated to
social service or community work.
calvin
wrote:
> On Oct 9, 11:01 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > On Oct 9, 10:44 pm, Death From Above <cerebureaucr...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > ... i don't mind raising the tax rate for the bill gates and warren
> > > buffetts. ...
>
> > Their money is all invested. Raising their taxes means
> > lessening their investments, which takes away from
> > the economy. (Our money in the bank is all invested too.)
>
> > The people seem to think rich people are like Scrooge McDuck,
> > keeping their money in cash in their basements, because
> > they like to dive around in it like a porpoise, burrow through it
> > like a gopher, and toss it up in the air and let it land on their
> > heads.
>
> I agree with this to some extent. And, I''m ideally not for raising
> taxes on the rich or anyone.
What you say following that point is interesting, but your
insistence on mixing in racism and anti-semiticism with
it makes the thought of making a conversation of it out
of the question.
LMC Society
>
Calvicus, Liberal Jews look down on you. They think you are a lowlife
repug pile of scum. Liberal Jews are 90% of Jews. Now, I aint got
nothing against a jew as a jew. but, i don't like jews who look down
on me. so, why do you respect jews who look down on you? liberal jews
are virulently anti-goyite. so, why are you slavishly pro-jewite?
we should embrace good jews but not bad jews. bad jews hate you and
me. 90% of jews are democratic. 50% of funds for dem party come from
lib jews who make up less than 2% of US population.
and look where jewish finance capitalism got us.
Okierazorbacker
>
> This documentary should have focused on the political agenda of deceiving
> voters into believing in the existence of a real political schism but
> instead merely furthers that agenda by reinforcing this deception."
>
> Curious as to your thoughts, re the film.
>
schism"? C'mon, we all know that voicing certain political opinions
in certain company is like farting in public. Some of us aren't shy
about doing that, but the cacophony that results can be excruciating.
The writer of the article does make some valid points, but seems to
miss the real value of this film, which is that it takes a truly
neutral approach, neither demonizing nor lionizing either side. The
filmmaker has managed to take those issues that do raise the
temperature and get past that to the process itself in a way that I've
not seen before. I can see groups of people watching this film and
actually dialoguing about the things that we wrestle with in the
political arena, and maybe a small step toward a bridge being built in
many cases.
I'm a moderate conservative, which should surprise no one, but the
reason I consider myself moderate is that I recognize the need for an
opposing viewpoint. Some of the things espoused by liberals go
against some of what I believe, but I would rather we coexist and
balance each other than for either side to get too much power. That
way lies fascism.
Okierazorbacker
Okierazorbacker
>
> Calvicus, Liberal Jews look down on you.
It is said that Dinsdale was a gentleman; he bought his mother flowers
and, what's more, he knew how to treat a female impersonator.
Jim Beaver
> And oh yeah, the "Watch It" button is on the left below the DVD art.
Ah. It's greyed out on my computer. Maybe because I'm in Canada. Lots of
stuff like that. Can't even seem to get The Daily Show.
Jim Beaver
steve
On 10-Oct-2008, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> >McCain is (by far) the lesser of two evils... but the lesser of two evils
> >is...evil.
>
> His promises aren't to spend less.
First let me say that there is always a gulf between promises and delivery.
But McCain does promise, in vague terms, to spend less.
> His promises aren't to tax less
> (although that doesn't matter, when the difference is made up by
> borrowing).
Wrong again. MaObama is happy to let tax cuts expire, plus he promises tax
hikes on biz and upper income folks. Those are promises I believe.
> They both want to bail out Big Business.
Sadly, true.
> What makes
> him (by far) the lesser of two evils?
Not much time, at the moment, but the biggest difference is in philosophy
and where that pilosophy will take the two. MaObama is a collectivist and a
political thug. He'll attack speech and he will increase the power of govt
generally. McCain is no collectivist, but he does make it up as he goes
along. At least he isnt dedicated to destroying liberty.
steve
Howard Brazee
>Not much time, at the moment, but the biggest difference is in philosophy
>and where that pilosophy will take the two.
You mean because one calls himself a Democrat and the other calls
himself a Republican?
>MaObama is a collectivist and a
>political thug. He'll attack speech and he will increase the power of govt
>generally.
Attack speech? What has he said or done to indicate he would do
that? Political thug? What did he say or do to indicate he's
that?
>McCain is no collectivist, but he does make it up as he goes
>along. At least he isnt dedicated to destroying liberty.
Neither was Bush, until 9-11.
What liberty has Obama indicated he would destroy that McCain has not?
calvin
> What liberty has Obama indicated he would destroy that McCain has not?
He doesn't have to indicate it for it to be inevitable.
But you are right that there is little difference
between McCain and Obama. McCain says he
will nominate Constitutional judges and justices,
but he likely will cave in the end, and he wouldn't
get them past Congress in any case. The
Republicans really blew their chance (in everything
except Court appointments). They couldn't even
get rid of the death tax, and they couldn't even get
Bush's tax cuts made permanent. Though they
got rid of Saddam, they did it in the most costly
way possible, in American lives and money. The
battle has been lost. The left consciously ruins
everything, and the right unconsciously ruins every-
thing. U.S.A. R.I.P.
Anim8rFSK
David Oberman <dobe...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
Which Universal HD is showing a lot this month.
--
Third root canal - averted.
Hip Hip Hurrah!
Howard Brazee
<cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>He doesn't have to indicate it for it to be inevitable.
>But you are right that there is little difference
>between McCain and Obama. McCain says he
>will nominate Constitutional judges and justices,
>but he likely will cave in the end, and he wouldn't
>get them past Congress in any case. The
>Republicans really blew their chance (in everything
>except Court appointments). They couldn't even
>get rid of the death tax, and they couldn't even get
>Bush's tax cuts made permanent. Though they
>got rid of Saddam, they did it in the most costly
>way possible, in American lives and money. The
>battle has been lost. The left consciously ruins
>everything, and the right unconsciously ruins every-
>thing. U.S.A. R.I.P.
I wonder how many avid Republicans are holding their noses, and voting
Democratic - hoping that this is a term where nothing good will happen
anyway and they want it to be on the Democrats' watch.
The Republicans won both houses with significant margins right after
FDR died. Then they were unable to do anything with that victory,
and 2 years later, Truman and the Democrats won. Such a thing can
happen again - with either candidate winning this year.
Both candidates are running for *change*, but the changes they promise
appear to be very small indeed.
calvin
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 07:46:44 -0700 (PDT), calvin
> <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> >He doesn't have to indicate it for it to be inevitable.
> >But you are right that there is little difference
> >between McCain and Obama. McCain says he
> >will nominate Constitutional judges and justices,
> >but he likely will cave in the end, and he wouldn't
> >get them past Congress in any case. The
> >Republicans really blew their chance (in everything
> >except Court appointments). They couldn't even
> >get rid of the death tax, and they couldn't even get
> >Bush's tax cuts made permanent. Though they
> >got rid of Saddam, they did it in the most costly
> >way possible, in American lives and money. The
> >battle has been lost. The left consciously ruins
> >everything, and the right unconsciously ruins every-
> >thing. U.S.A. R.I.P.
And I forgot to mention that the Republicans had a
chance to fix the illegal immigration problem, but
failed to do that too (out of fear).
And of course they had a chance to fix the insane housing
mortgage situation, foisted on us by the left, but didn't
fix that either, and now are having to take the blame for it
unfairly, assuring victory for the Democrats.
So we on the right are getting what we deserve, though
not for the reasons that the left thinks we deserve it.
Stone me
"Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:ear1f45n4brd8q414...@4ax.com...
The change will be that banks will once again run on real capital. That
capital will be sucked back out of the economy and that will reduce any
spending plans, perhaps to nothing. At least for one Term.
Stone me.
steve
On 11-Oct-2008, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> >Not much time, at the moment, but the biggest difference is in philosophy
> >and where that pilosophy will take the two.
>
> You mean because one calls himself a Democrat and the other calls
> himself a Republican?
Do you know anything about MaObamas political history and associations?
> >MaObama is a collectivist and a
> >political thug. He'll attack speech and he will increase the power of
> >govt
> >generally.
>
> Attack speech? What has he said or done to indicate he would do
> that? Political thug? What did he say or do to indicate he's
> that?
Speech: His request to the justice dept to investigate Stanley Kurtz (how
will MaObama use the justice dept when he is thier boss?), his "truth squad"
of prosecutors ready to charge libel, the tactics of his supporters (at his
specific urging) to silence crtitics on radio. Which segs nicely to...
Thuggery: Tactics employed to pressure banks to make bad loans, forcing his
opponenets off the ballot in his state senate race, etc. You really should
look into this stuff, yourself. Obama was schooled in Chicago politics.
That says it all.
> >McCain is no collectivist, but he does make it up as he goes
> >along. At least he isnt dedicated to destroying liberty.
>
> Neither was Bush, until 9-11.
I wont disagree with criticism of the Patriot act and the like, but I wont
go as far as you in my criticism of Bush, generally.
> What liberty has Obama indicated he would destroy that McCain has not?
Look at his health care plan, as just one example.
the savage cabbage
> I agree with everything steve wrote. However, no one
> who thinks McCain is the lesser of two evils should
> give up and not bother to vote. That's what Obama
> supporters and their media are doing their best to
> make happen. Only one poll matters. Four years
> ago the Kerry supporters and their media were trying
> to discourage Bush voters even on election day, with
> their skewed reporting of exit polls.
>
> 'MAObama', I like that. I still have my copy of Mao's
> Little Red Book, from back in the 60's, but never expected
> to be needing it here in the U.S. We're now in great
> danger of becoming the People's State of America, though.
It would be nice to say liberals are out of their minds to have
nominated a fraud like Obama. He really is a punk. But,
remember Republicans nominated a fraud like Bush and then re-elected
him! Republicans who chose Bush over a quality candidate like McCain
in 2000 have no right to complain about Obama, though Obama is really
a phony.
Anyway, I'll bet Republicans wish they had lost the 2004 election. If
Kerry were in the white house right now, Republicans would see a
landslide for their guy this november. Oh well.
In a way, Bush beat McCain twice. First in 2000 by pandering to the
superrich in Wall Street and to social con morons down soooooouth.
Then Bush beat McCain again in 2008 by totally trashing the Republican
brand. Poor Mac.
the savage cabbage
> >buffetts.
>
> How about lowering it for everybody? What the HELL are our "leaders"
> spending so much on, year in, year out??!!
>
> Stop SPENDING trillions, & we can all keep more of our $$!!
They don't spend. They WASTE. There's NO END to wasting money that you
don't earn but simply tax from earners.
but, it must be said that globalism and cheap illegal labor allowed
some people to get much much richer than others. the middle really
did hurt under bush, but i don't see how it will do any better under
dems.
the savage cabbage
> calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> >It's a shame McCain was the best the Republicans could
> >Romney), but he at least would make better judicial nominations
> >than Obama, protect the country from terrorism better than
> >Obama
>
> I don't share others' enormous fear of terrorism. Terrorism isn't the
> only violent crime I'm afraid of; in fact, it's the violent crime I'm
> probably least afraid of. Consequently, I'm disappointed that I
> haven't heard any of these politicians running for pres talk much --
> if at all -- about violent crime & thuggery closer to me this past
> year.
crime is a less of an issue because clinton's policy on crime was very
conservative. he locked A LOT of people up.
so, crime did drop in many areas and become a non-issue for many.
also, the vast white flight migration that happened in the 60s and 70s
removed most white people from bad areas. as for 'white trash' who
still get hurt by crime, the liberal media elite just don't care.
also, terrorism is an easier issue because the enemy is The Other.
it's us against them. but, even criminals are supposed be part of
america, and so the idea of us vs them criminals sound 'racist'.
by the way, while it's true that obama is a socialist, how much more
socialist than bush can he get? bush was NOT a conservative. it's
funny that clinton proved to far far more conservative than bush on
many things. come to think of it, nixon's policies too were very
liberal. politics is surreal.
the savage cabbage
> Okierazorbacker <okierazorbac...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >I've been hoping for years that McCain would win the nomination. He's
> >the closest thing to Teddy Roosevelt we've had since, well, TR
> >himself. Despite what the GOP is forcing into his campaign, a McCain
> >presidency would move this nation closer to bipartisanship in some
> >ways, a move in the right direction rather than all this bickering.
>
> trickle-up views (stop taxing the masses of consumers & they will buy
> more products made by corporations, thus enriching them with fat
> profits).
mccain is a fine man. he's not about trickle down. he's about the rich
guys not colluding to do bad stuff like we just saw. Teddy Roosevelt
was a great man. he was an american fascist democrat. he loved
health and exercise, nature, fairness, and hard work and etc. he was
a true patriot. he busted trusts.
mccain is for real capitalism, not finance capitalism. finance is
absolutely necessary as our money needs to be managed. but, finance
does NOT create wealth. It manages, allocates, and invests wealth.
But, when financialists play games with pyramid schemes, we all
suffer.
look at japan. japanese worked so hard in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s to
build up their wealth, but their financialists played with the money
and ruined the economy from which japan still hasn't recovered from.
Howard Brazee
<animal...@live.com> wrote:
>crime is a less of an issue because clinton's policy on crime was very
>conservative. he locked A LOT of people up.
>so, crime did drop in many areas and become a non-issue for many.
>also, the vast white flight migration that happened in the 60s and 70s
>removed most white people from bad areas. as for 'white trash' who
>still get hurt by crime, the liberal media elite just don't care.
The book:
Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything
has a much more interesting explanation.
the savage cabbage
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:46:27 -0700 (PDT), the savage cabbage
>
> >crime is a less of an issue because clinton's policy on crime was very
> >conservative. he locked A LOT of people up.
> >so, crime did drop in many areas and become a non-issue for many.
> >also, the vast white flight migration that happened in the 60s and 70s
> >removed most white people from bad areas. as for 'white trash' who
> >still get hurt by crime, the liberal media elite just don't care.
>
> The book:
> Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything
> has a much more interesting explanation.
>
Is that about how abortion reduced the number of black babies who grew
up to be criminals?
Howard Brazee
<animal...@live.com> wrote:
>> The book:
>> Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything
>> has a much more interesting explanation.
>>
>
>
>Is that about how abortion reduced the number of black babies who grew
>up to be criminals?
I don't recall them using the word "black" in their observation.
the savage cabbage
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 18:12:36 -0700 (PDT), the savage cabbage
>
> >> The book:
> >> Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything
> >> has a much more interesting explanation.
>
> >Is that about how abortion reduced the number of black babies who grew
> >up to be criminals?
>
> I don't recall them using the word "black" in their observation.
>
was it 'african american'?