Re: Palin/Dobbs 2012
dave
> ....just sayin'....
> You heard it here first!
>
That would be a juicy final nail in the GOP coffin. Old Ev Dirksen must
be spinnin' in his grave.
hal
The GOP running Palin again ????
BWWWHWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAA !!!!!!!!!!
John Galt
Precisely the reaction heard from your party in 1978, when Reagan stated
his intention to run.
JG
dave
>
> Precisely the reaction heard from your party in 1978, when Reagan stated
> his intention to run.
>
> JG
As a libertarian socialist I, by definition, am an NP.
At least Reagan could speak English. And his tenure was a disaster,
BTW. You are still paying off his blunders and plunders.
John Galt
He was indeed a disaster for anyone who believes that larger government
represents some sort of solution to the ills of man.
As to your opinion of his tenure, the consensus of professional
historians and scholars differs from yours. I prefer to agree with the
more scholarly analysis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents
JG
bpnjensen
>
> JG
He was certainly a disaster for anyone who thinks that a multitrillion
dollar national debt - in 1986 dollars - was a thing worth avoiding.
Likewise, a disaster for anyone who feels that a clean environment is
superior to a filthy one.
Yes, he faced down the Soviets using (some would say abusing) the
superior GDP of the US. At the time, a big deal. Historically, of
somewhat less importance, and not without long-term ramifications.
Bruce Jensen
RHF
> > John Galt wrote:
>
> >> Precisely the reaction heard from your party in 1978, when Reagan
> >> stated his intention to run.
>
> >> JG
>
> > As a libertarian socialist I, by definition, am an NP.
>
> > At least Reagan could speak English. And his tenure was a disaster,
> > BTW. You are still paying off his blunders and plunders.
>
> He was indeed a disaster for anyone who believes that larger government
> represents some sort of solution to the ills of man.
>
> As to your opinion of his tenure, the consensus of professional
> historians and scholars differs from yours. I prefer to agree with the
> more scholarly analysis:
Historical Rankings of United States Presidents
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents
-
- JG
Interesting as to what "The Scholars Think";
and what "the ordinary people's opinion" was
of these US Presidents.
.
RHF
> On Nov 12, 11:05 am, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > dave wrote:
> > > John Galt wrote:
>
> > >> Precisely the reaction heard from your party in 1978, when Reagan
> > >> stated his intention to run.
>
> > >> JG
>
> > > As a libertarian socialist I, by definition, am an NP.
>
> > > At least Reagan could speak English. And his tenure was a disaster,
> > > BTW. You are still paying off his blunders and plunders.
>
> > He was indeed a disaster for anyone who believes that larger government
> > represents some sort of solution to the ills of man.
>
> > As to your opinion of his tenure, the consensus of professional
> > historians and scholars differs from yours. I prefer to agree with the
> > more scholarly analysis:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Pre...
>
> > JG
>
> He was certainly a disaster for anyone who thinks that a multitrillion
> dollar national debt - in 1986 dollars - was a thing worth avoiding.
> Likewise, a disaster for anyone who feels that a clean environment is
> superior to a filthy one.
>
- superior GDP of the US. At the time, a big deal. Historically, of
- somewhat less importance, and not without long-term ramifications.
-
- Bruce Jensen
Using GDP as a Weapon of War -or- Using Guns,
Bullets and Nuclear Bombs in a War . . .
gee - i vote for 'gdp' ~ RHF
? Is a Superior GDP a 'bad' thing ?
-note- China [PRC] doesn't think so . . .
? Are Jobs, Products and Services 'bad' things ?
-note- China [PRC] doesn't think so . . .
? Are Small Businesses, Family Homes and
Personal Wealth 'bad' things ?
-note- China [PRC] doesn't think so . . .
.
-ps- in Modern Russia the former Soviet Union
they don't think so either . . .
.
Yeah - I know things will be a lot better when
the USA has the Per Capita GDP of a 3nd
World Country in the range of :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World
Argentina & Croatia & Libya & Gabon.
.
John Galt
Quite. However, since the incurred deficit is very much related to the
"facing down", I think it quite clear that making the incurred debt the
most important issue during his Presidency is largely armchair
quarterbacking. You weren't going to get the "face down" taken seriously
without the military buildup. There was no way to have both.
Although regrettable, Reagan did not take the national debt to anywheres
near the maximums seen during WW2 and today, the equity markets exploded
under his economics, and the bonds floated during his tenure have
largely been paid off without consequence.
JG
>
> Bruce Jensen
John Galt
Yes. What's even more interesting, as you might have noticed, is that
historians and scholars who self describe as "liberal" and
"conservative" vary very little in their rankings.
JG
dave
http://www.sustainablemiddleclass.com/Income-inequality.html
dave
>
> Quite. However, since the incurred deficit is very much related to the
> "facing down", I think it quite clear that making the incurred debt the
> most important issue during his Presidency is largely armchair
> quarterbacking. You weren't going to get the "face down" taken seriously
> without the military buildup. There was no way to have both.
>
Bullshit. The Soviets were finished when Carter tricked them into
Afghanistan in 1979. You gotta quit drinking the Kool Aid.
dave
>
> I thought it was the collaborated efforts of the CIA and the Franklin
> mint to produce an acceptable fake 100 Ruble note and distribute
> thousands of them throughout the Soviet Union that helped to destroy the
> Russian economy, combined with Mikhail Sergeyovich Gorbachev's
> introduction of his policies of Glasnost and Perestroika. Along with all
> this came a European Renaissance and the ultimate fall of the Berlin Wall
> in spite of Ronald Wilson Reagan trying to usurp credit. The elimination
> of the Berlin Wall would have happened under James Earl Carter, had it
> not been for John Bayard Anderson diluting his chances for a second term.
I voted for Anderson. No way Carter was going to take Texas anyway.
Gregg
> On Nov 12, 11:05 am, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > dave wrote:
> > > John Galt wrote:
>
> > >> Precisely the reaction heard from your party in 1978, when Reagan
> > >> stated his intention to run.
>
> > >> JG
>
> > > As a libertarian socialist I, by definition, am an NP.
>
> > > At least Reagan could speak English. And his tenure was a disaster,
> > > BTW. You are still paying off his blunders and plunders.
>
> > He was indeed a disaster for anyone who believes that larger government
> > represents some sort of solution to the ills of man.
>
> > As to your opinion of his tenure, the consensus of professional
> > historians and scholars differs from yours. I prefer to agree with the
> > more scholarly analysis:
>
> -
> - JG
>
> Interesting as to what "The Scholars Think";
> and what "the ordinary people's opinion" was
> of these US Presidents.
>
> - Show quoted text -
That is a great link RHF, I've been reading over two hours on that.
I would think if you were to actually read every highlighted president
it would take you a month to knock it out. :-)
I saved it to continue at another time, thanks.
John Galt
ROTF. "Carter tricked them into Afghanistan."
You gotta quit drinking the Kool Aid.
And you need to start being honest. I was an adult during the period.
There was no public discourse about any pending economic dissolution of
the Soviet Union, and since Reagan ran on a platform of increased
military spending because of the demonstrated Soviet imperialism, it
obviously would have been raised during the campaign by Carter and the
Democrat Doves. It was not.
JG
John Galt
What story is that? Do you believe that government has, as its
objective, to dictate the incomes of its citizens?
I'd disagree. That's more of a Soviet notion than one to be found in a
free society. Are you a communist?
JG
dave
>
> And you need to start being honest. I was an adult during the period.
> There was no public discourse about any pending economic dissolution of
> the Soviet Union, and since Reagan ran on a platform of increased
> military spending because of the demonstrated Soviet imperialism, it
> obviously would have been raised during the campaign by Carter and the
> Democrat Doves. It was not.
>
> JG
I was a major market radio news director during the period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
(this is from your CIA)
"The Failing System
From the mid-1970s to the eve of Gorbachev's assumption of party
leadership in the spring of 1985, the CIA portrayed a Soviet Union
plagued by a deteriorating economy and intensifying societal problems.
CIA products described the growing political tensions resulting from
these failures, the prospect that sooner or later a Soviet leadership
would be forced to confront these issues, and the uncertainty over what
form this confrontation would take.
These products include the unclassified testimony from each of DCI
Admiral Stansfield Turner's annual appearances before the JEC from 1977
through 1980 (Appendix A, references 1-4)--part of the "annual public
reports" cited by the HPSCI Review Committee. Turner's testimony and the
written submissions for these hearings described a "bleak" Soviet
economy for which continued decline through most of the 1980s was
"inevitable." The hearing reports include:
* CIA descriptions of how badly Soviet economic performance lagged
behind that of the West and the prospect that Soviet leaders would be
forced to confront growing conflicts between civilian and military uses
of resources and investment.
* CIA assessments that the Brezhnev leadership recognized the
potential for larger political repercussions from the economic failure;
that the Brezhnev regime (and possibly even an initial successor) was
nonetheless likely to attempt to muddle through rather than confront the
politically difficult choices necessary to deal with the decline; that
muddling through was not a viable option for the longer term; and that
by the mid-1980s the economic picture "might look so dismal" that a
post-Brezhnev leadership might coalesce behind policies that could
include "structural reforms."
Other unclassified CIA publications disseminated in 1977 and 1980
(Appendix A, references 5 and 6) presented the same picture of a
deteriorating economy that ultimately could provoke more radical policies.
From the late 1970s through the early 1980s, CIA produced several
papers addressing the prospects for "serious economic and political
problems" arising from the combined effect of growing consumer
discontent, ethnic divisions, a corrupt and incompetent political
system, and widespread cynicism among a populace for whom the system had
failed to deliver on its promises. (Appendix A, references 7 and 8 and
10-13). One of these papers, for example, described the problems
stemming from "long continued investment priorities favoring heavy
industry and defense, coupled with a rigid and cumbersome system of
economic organization" which "have combined to produce a consumer sector
that not only lags behind both the West and Eastern Europe, but also is
in many ways primitive, grossly unbalanced, and in massive disequilibrium":
* These products portrayed a Soviet leadership caught in a
descending spiral: declining productivity was depressing the economy,
which aggravated the cynicism and alienation of the populace; this in
turn further reduced productivity.
* CIA concluded that this "vicious circle" was potentially more
significant for the 1980s than "anything the regime has had to cope with
in the past three decades," and that the leadership and elites were
fully aware they confronted major problems.
* The analyses repeated the judgment that the Brezhnev regime and
the Andropov/Chernyenko successions were likely to rely on the
traditional Soviet instruments for controlling unrest and imposing
"discipline," but that such approaches would not hold for the longer
term in the face of a Soviet populace that was becoming less pliable and
more demanding."
dave
>
> What story is that? Do you believe that government has, as its
> objective, to dictate the incomes of its citizens?
>
> I'd disagree. That's more of a Soviet notion than one to be found in a
> free society. Are you a communist?
>
> JG
>
prevent a permanent aristocracy, while benefiting society in general.
That is a concept from our Founders (who were way smarter than Ayn Rand.)
dxAce
dave wrote:
> >
> > What story is that? Do you believe that government has, as its
> > objective, to dictate the incomes of its citizens?
> >
> > I'd disagree. That's more of a Soviet notion than one to be found in a
> > free society. Are you a communist?
> >
> > JG
> >
> I am an socialist libertarian.
And, a drug addled 'tard boy!
dxAce
dave wrote:
> John Galt wrote:
>
> >
> > And you need to start being honest. I was an adult during the period.
> > There was no public discourse about any pending economic dissolution of
> > the Soviet Union, and since Reagan ran on a platform of increased
> > military spending because of the demonstrated Soviet imperialism, it
> > obviously would have been raised during the campaign by Carter and the
> > Democrat Doves. It was not.
> >
> > JG
>
> I was a major market radio news director during the period.
Drugs put an end to that, boy?
John Galt
> John Galt wrote:
>
>>
>> And you need to start being honest. I was an adult during the period.
>> There was no public discourse about any pending economic dissolution
>> of the Soviet Union, and since Reagan ran on a platform of increased
>> military spending because of the demonstrated Soviet imperialism, it
>> obviously would have been raised during the campaign by Carter and the
>> Democrat Doves. It was not.
>>
>> JG
>
> I was a major market radio news director during the period.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
See above. You may wish to focus your attention on the term "public"
prior to "discourse." These issues were not front-and-center during the
1980 presidential campaign, which is the relevant issue.
JG
John Galt
>
>>
>> What story is that? Do you believe that government has, as its
>> objective, to dictate the incomes of its citizens?
>>
>> I'd disagree. That's more of a Soviet notion than one to be found in a
>> free society. Are you a communist?
>>
>> JG
>>
> I am an socialist libertarian.
A strong central goverment is antithetical to libertarianism.
High taxes were supposed to be used to
> prevent a permanent aristocracy, while benefiting society in general.
> That is a concept from our Founders
Interesting theory. One would have through it would not have taken us,
then, 150 years to come up with the notion of income taxation.
(who were way smarter than Ayn Rand.)
Does that sort of "cheap shot" make you feel better about yourself and
your views?
JG
John Galt
JG
dave
>> I was a major market radio news director during the period.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
>
> See above. You may wish to focus your attention on the term "public"
> prior to "discourse." These issues were not front-and-center during the
> 1980 presidential campaign, which is the relevant issue.
>
> JG
It was a secret.
Do you remember Iran-Contra? Reagan had more convicted staffers than
any president since Grant probably.
dave
> Interesting theory. One would have through it would not have taken us,
> then, 150 years to come up with the notion of income taxation.
>
> (who were way smarter than Ayn Rand.)
>
> Does that sort of "cheap shot" make you feel better about yourself and
> your views?
>
> JG
>
Totally. I don't believe in any government larger than a community.
FYI, the entire cost of the Federal government was at one time paid for
by tariffs and duties.
Thom Hartmann may intrigue you. He has people from the Ayn Rand
Institute on his program regularly. I was kind of philosophically
adrift when I ran across Hartmann's radio show on XM back in 2002. I am
not in lock-step with him, but he helped me get my bearings. Very lucid.
dave
> dxAce wrote:
>>
>>
>> And, a drug addled 'tard boy!
>>
>>
> Precisely what I was thinking.
>
> JG
There you go again...
John Galt
> John Galt wrote:
>
>>> I was a major market radio news director during the period.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
>>
>> See above. You may wish to focus your attention on the term "public"
>> prior to "discourse." These issues were not front-and-center during
>> the 1980 presidential campaign, which is the relevant issue.
>>
>> JG
>
> It was a secret.
Exactly the point. The candidate Reagan ran, in part, on a platform of
rebuilding the military in the face of increasing Soviet imperialism. IN
HINDSIGHT, history appears to show that the USSR would have caved in on
its own over time. That's fine, but it's hardly Reagan's fault that he
was unable to see into the future. (Although his wife tried her best.)
>
>
> Do you remember Iran-Contra? Reagan had more convicted staffers than
> any president since Grant probably.
Nixon wins that metric, but Reagan had his share.
However, if you use that metric, the best president in modern times was
GW Bush, with zero convictions from the Cabinet or key staff.
I'm guessing you dislike that fact.
JG
John Galt
> John Galt wrote:
>
>> Interesting theory. One would have through it would not have taken us,
>> then, 150 years to come up with the notion of income taxation.
>>
>> (who were way smarter than Ayn Rand.)
>>
>> Does that sort of "cheap shot" make you feel better about yourself and
>> your views?
>>
>> JG
>>
>
> Totally. I don't believe in any government larger than a community.
That would be Galt's Gulch, then.
>
> FYI, the entire cost of the Federal government was at one time paid for
> by tariffs and duties.
Never completely true. The government used to borrow in the debt market
to fund various things. Read up on what Lincoln had to do to finance the
Civil War. Fascinating read. If not for a single Jewish bond salesman,
there might not have ever been a war.
>
> Thom Hartmann may intrigue you.
Whatever floats your boat. I support free markets and getting the
government the hell out of the way. Hartmann doesn't.
JG
Poetic Justice
He's trying to be cute..... so he used an oxymoron.
Socialism is 180 degrees out of phase with Libertarians. Both Socially
and economically.
Beam Me Up Scotty
That is not Libertarian, Libertarians believe that individuals seeking
their own best interest, will also benefit society in general.
Government will seek to benefit the government, so high taxes will
benefit the government that is spending that tax for their own best
interest.
John Galt
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:41:41 -0600, John Galt wrote:
>
>> dave wrote:
>>> any president since Grant probably.
>> Nixon wins that metric, but Reagan had his share.
>>
>> However, if you use that metric, the best president in modern times was
>> GW Bush, with zero convictions from the Cabinet or key staff.
>
> activity against the former criminal regime of the Bushco gang.
Without reason to think otherwise, I suspect the reason has more to do
with a lack of actionable evidence. Criminal courts still run on a
beyond-reasonable-doubt standard, and it is highly unlikely that
anything related to the decisioning around the Iraqi invasion would meet
that standard.
JG
>
>> I'm guessing you dislike that fact.
>
> I doubt anyone is thrilled by Bush's residue, except maybe the heavily
> moneyed sorts that are able to finesse those bailout ransoms the
> taxpayers are being hit with.
dxAce
Toxic wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:41:41 -0600, John Galt wrote:
>
> > dave wrote:
> >> Do you remember Iran-Contra? Reagan had more convicted staffers than
> >> any president since Grant probably.
> >
> > Nixon wins that metric, but Reagan had his share.
> >
> > However, if you use that metric, the best president in modern times was
> > GW Bush, with zero convictions from the Cabinet or key staff.
>
> So far the economic distraction has served to stall any prosecutorial
> activity against the former criminal regime of the Bushco gang.
I've a feeling that someday, the criminal regime of the Obamaco gang will
provide much fodder for discussion here!
cuh...@webtv.net
I was in that Company in Vietnam in 1964.
Crank UP the Volume.Listen to that Drum tappin!
cuhulin
cuh...@webtv.net
(so I can stash a lot of my old things up there) I done deeeeeecided I
will lay some new fiberglass insulation up there.My old house was built
in 1947 and whatever kind of insulation that is up there, (I don't think
it is fiberglass) it has packed wayyyy down.
Talk about Dusty up there in that attic, hooooooo weee! I bought a
respirator mask thingy at the Lowe's store, (about thirty sompin
dollars) I am going to strap it on when I climb my ladder, going up
there.
cuhulin
hudley...@hotmail.com
> .... tHe_PC_JelLlLy BeAn!! .! !!! . wrote:
>
> > ....just sayin'....
> > You heard it here first!
>
> That would be a juicy final nail in the GOP coffin. Old Ev Dirksen must
> be spinnin' in his grave.
Levi Johnston's custody suit will probably last into the election
campaign, too. He's already revealed she doesn't really hunt, can't
even hold a gun correctly.
hudley...@hotmail.com
> As to your opinion of his tenure, the consensus of professional
> historians and scholars differs from yours. I prefer to agree with the
> more scholarly analysis:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Pre...
>
> JG
Any fool/believer in voodoo economics can call themself an historian.
Hudley Pearse
hudley...@hotmail.com
> On Nov 12, 11:05 am, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > dave wrote:
> > > John Galt wrote:
>
> > >> stated his intention to run.
>
> > >> JG
>
> > > As a libertarian socialist I, by definition, am an NP.
>
> > > At least Reagan could speak English. And his tenure was a disaster,
> > > BTW. You are still paying off his blunders and plunders.
>
> > He was indeed a disaster for anyone who believes that larger government
> > represents some sort of solution to the ills of man.
>
> > As to your opinion of his tenure, the consensus of professional
> > historians and scholars differs from yours. I prefer to agree with the
> > more scholarly analysis:
>
> -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Pre...
> -
> - JG
>
> Interesting as to what "The Scholars Think";
> and what "the ordinary people's opinion" was
> of these US Presidents.
> .
Real scholars do not use Wikipedia.
Hudley Pearse
dave
> dave wrote:
>>
>> Do you remember Iran-Contra? Reagan had more convicted staffers than
>> any president since Grant probably.
>
> Nixon wins that metric, but Reagan had his share.
>
> However, if you use that metric, the best president in modern times was
> GW Bush, with zero convictions from the Cabinet or key staff.
>
> I'm guessing you dislike that fact.
>
> JG
>
You obviously don't remember Iran Contra. Herbert Pappy Bush never gets
any mess on himself. Too bad about Bill Casey.
dave
>
> Whatever floats your boat. I support free markets and getting the
> government the hell out of the way. Hartmann doesn't.
>
> JG
"...Greenspan, 82, acknowledged under questioning that he had made a
�mistake� in believing that banks, operating in their own self-interest,
would do what was necessary to protect their shareholders and
institutions. Greenspan called that �a flaw in the model ... that
defines how the world works.�...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27335454/
So much for what you support.
dave
...In almost every case, the socialist movement has been divided along
authoritarian, and libertarian lines. The anarchists on the libertarian
side, and the Jacobins, Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists, and reformist
state-socialists on the authoritarian side. (And liberals more or less
split down the middle.)...
John Galt
> John Galt wrote:
>> dave wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Do you remember Iran-Contra? Reagan had more convicted staffers than
>>> any president since Grant probably.
>>
>> Nixon wins that metric, but Reagan had his share.
>>
>> However, if you use that metric, the best president in modern times
>> was GW Bush, with zero convictions from the Cabinet or key staff.
>>
>> I'm guessing you dislike that fact.
>>
>> JG
>>
>
> You obviously don't remember Iran Contra.
I do very well. He wasn't under discussion.
JG
John Galt
Not in the least. A flaw in the model doesn't mean you throw the model
away. You fix the flaw and move on. Greenspan went on to declare his
continued faith in the free market system.
So much for your puerile response.
JG
dxAce
John Galt wrote:
> dave wrote:
> > John Galt wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Whatever floats your boat. I support free markets and getting the
> >> government the hell out of the way. Hartmann doesn't.
> >>
> >> JG
> >
> >
> > "...Greenspan, 82, acknowledged under questioning that he had made a
> > �mistake� in believing that banks, operating in their own self-interest,
> > would do what was necessary to protect their shareholders and
> > institutions. Greenspan called that �a flaw in the model ... that
> > defines how the world works.�...
> >
> > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27335454/
> >
> > So much for what you support.
>
> Not in the least. A flaw in the model doesn't mean you throw the model
> away. You fix the flaw and move on. Greenspan went on to declare his
> continued faith in the free market system.
>
> So much for your puerile response.
It was a drug addled response as well!
He needs to be moved along to another country where he'd be much happier right
out of the box.
Hopey, hopey, changey, changey, lies right across some border!
dave
I didn't say I agree with the Founders' concept of stifling inherited
wealth and preventing blood dynasties because I am a libertarian.
Libertarian just means favoring less government (and hierarchical
power trips in general). In a fascist state like the one we have now,
government and business are one, so to bring down either, you have to
kill them both.
I consider libertarian socialism as an ideal or Utopian concept, that
will never again be fully achieved. But it's a great camera platform
for my perspective and it helps to clarify the absurdity of what passes
for civilization today.
John Galt
2 dimensional political models are too simplistic to capture the
nuances. I can see that it would be attractive to those who need to boil
the world down into simplistic chunks, but that's not how it works.
Much better is this view, which does show the correct relationship
between libertarians and anarchists (which is sharing only a distrust of
goverment and no other motivations).
http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.htm
Or this:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2
JG
dave
>> Nixon wins that metric, but Reagan had his share.
>>
>> However, if you use that metric, the best president in modern times was
>> GW Bush, with zero convictions from the Cabinet or key staff.
>
Irving Lewis "Scooter" Libby
cuh...@webtv.net
cuh...@webtv.net
DUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMB
ASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
www.rense.com/general88/simple.htm
Seeee, I Fixed the title of that article.
cuhulin, the Fixer
Beam Me Up Scotty
> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>> dave wrote:
>>>> What story is that? Do you believe that government has, as its
>>>> objective, to dictate the incomes of its citizens?
>>>>
>>>> I'd disagree. That's more of a Soviet notion than one to be found in a
>>>> free society. Are you a communist?
>>>>
>>>> JG
>>>>
>>> I am an socialist libertarian. High taxes were supposed to be used to
>>> prevent a permanent aristocracy, while benefiting society in general.
>>> That is a concept from our Founders (who were way smarter than Ayn
>>> Rand.)
>>
>> That is not Libertarian, Libertarians believe that individuals seeking
>> their own best interest, will also benefit society in general.
>>
>> Government will seek to benefit the government, so high taxes will
>> benefit the government that is spending that tax for their own best
>> interest.
>
> I didn't say I agree with the Founders' concept of stifling inherited
> wealth and preventing blood dynasties because I am a libertarian.
>
> Libertarian just means favoring less government (and hierarchical power
Libertarianism results in less government because of it's belief in
individual rights....
It's not libertarianism that means less government, it's the beliefs
that they follow that mean more freedom, and that results in less
government intrusions.
> trips in general). In a fascist state like the one we have now,
> government and business are one, so to bring down either, you have to
> kill them both.
Government over regulates and is causing us all problems such as high
unemployment and mortgage failures where government interferes it
creates problems, the more government interferes the more problems we have.
> I consider libertarian socialism as an ideal or Utopian concept, that
It's an Oxymoron
> will never again be fully achieved. But it's a great camera platform
Freedom is Libertarian, and it may be gone for ever, Socialism has never
worked and was extinct before it ever lived.
> for my perspective and it helps to clarify the absurdity of what passes
> for civilization today.
It is as absurd as todays civilization...
Government is taking freedoms, every freedom taken away is a step away
from freedom and a step away from Libertarianism.
I can't see Libertarians connected to socialism, they seem to be polar
opposites.
I can follow Democrat to Liberal to Socialist to Marxist to fascist to
Communist.
I can see Anarchist to Libertarian
--
Sid9
"John Galt" <kad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:VryLm.214489$Jp1....@en-nntp-06.dc1.easynews.com...
.
Incompetence is not illegal!
John Galt
JG
Poetic Justice
In government it is mandatory!!
Michael Coburn
> dave wrote:
>> John Galt wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Whatever floats your boat. I support free markets and getting the
>>> government the hell out of the way. Hartmann doesn't.
>>>
>>> JG
>>
>>
>> "...Greenspan, 82, acknowledged under questioning that he had made a
>> “mistake” in believing that banks, operating in their own
>> self-interest, would do what was necessary to protect their
>> shareholders and institutions. Greenspan called that “a flaw in the
>> model ... that defines how the world works.”...
>>
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27335454/
>>
>> So much for what you support.
>
> Not in the least. A flaw in the model doesn't mean you throw the model
> away. You fix the flaw and move on. Greenspan went on to declare his
> continued faith in the free market system.
>
> So much for your puerile response.
The flaw cannot be fixed but through proper regulation. Ans if that
means isolationism then so be it.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
dave
>
> Freedom is Libertarian, and it may be gone for ever, Socialism has never
> worked and was extinct before it ever lived.
>
What? Don't tell the Europeans.
cuh...@webtv.net
EVERYBODY in government is INCOMPETENT!
Not only that, they (''they'') Are NINCOMPOOPS too!
cuhulin
Beam Me Up Scotty
Europe has been relying on the USA to generate the wealth to keep Europe
free for the last 70 years.
We made their Socialism work, as we fail so shall their Socialism.
--
cuh...@webtv.net
www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=278206
At first, I thought it was Profit Stair.
Lets me git back tu mah ''rat killin'.Sawing sheets of 4' by 8' plywood
strayte uppa teh middle (ya got to hit it in the middle if ya wants to
git a little) and puttin em in mah attic so ahh kin stash ah lot of mah
junk uppa thar.Ahh bort six more sheets uv plywood atz teh Lowe's store
tahdey.
cuhulin
John Galt
Why not? They're not socialist. They're social democracies.
HUGE difference.
JG
Sid9
"Poetic Justice" <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com> wrote in message
news:jODLm.33032$W77....@newsfe11.iad...
.
That's the "Amiable Dunce's" theory...remember him?
Reagan?
Then there was the plain old dunce, bush,jr who appointed fdools where
ever he could so he would look better...
Ashcroft, of the blue drape, Gonzales of the poor memory, and the FEMA
guy....the EPA people, Rumsfeld, the tactician, last but not least he
chose Cheney to be his boss.
Reagan taught you that the "government" was your enemy...If you
believed it you're a fool.
A majority of us elected people who are our neighbors to run our
government...you don't like them?
Campaign against them at election time and vote against them.
I M @ good guy
Sure, maybe they can vote to end the high sales tax.
dave
"...modern social democracy has deviated from socialism, and supports
the idea of a mixed economy which incorporates elements of both
socialism and capitalism.[2] Social democrats aim to reform capitalism
democratically through state regulation and the creation of programs
that work to counteract or remove the social injustice and
inefficiencies they see as inherent in capitalism. A product of this
effort has been the modern democratic welfare state. This approach
significantly differs from traditional socialism, which aims to replace
the capitalist system entirely with a new economic system characterized
by either state or direct worker ownership of the means of production.
In many countries, social democrats continue to exist alongside
democratic socialists, who stand to the left of them on the political
spectrum. The two movements sometimes operate within the same political
party, such as the Brazilian Workers' Party[3] and the French Socialist
Party. In recent years, several social democratic parties (in
particular, the British Labour Party) have embraced more centrist, Third
Way policy positions. This development has generated considerable
controversy..."
dave
> "Poetic Justice" <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com> wrote in message
> .
> .
> That's the "Amiable Dunce's" theory...remember him?
>
> Reagan?
>
> Then there was the plain old dunce, bush,jr who appointed fdools where
> ever he could so he would look better...
> Ashcroft, of the blue drape, Gonzales of the poor memory, and the FEMA
> guy....the EPA people, Rumsfeld, the tactician, last but not least he
> chose Cheney to be his boss.
>
> Reagan taught you that the "government" was your enemy...If you
> believed it you're a fool.
>
> A majority of us elected people who are our neighbors to run our
> government...you don't like them?
>
> Campaign against them at election time and vote against them.
>
>
>
>
>
As weird as he was, Ashcroft refused to give Bush unlimited power.
Sid9
"dave" <da...@dave.dave> wrote in message
news:4aff3a80$0$28760$bd46...@news.dslextreme.com...
.
Ashcroft was part bush,jr's "matched set"
.
.
The wrecking crew of America.
Clairbear
september.org:
Still wrong after all these years, sidney
Your stupid slanders based on DNC myths are making you look stupid
Beam Me Up Scotty
Do you think the Europeans will decide to defend themselves and pay for
their Socialism?
How will that work? They barely have any economy as it is... Add in
the 20% it will cost to keep a real army and they will be pushing 95%
taxes for the average worker. It will also drop their GDP to a -19.5% GDP.
--
John Galt
And they do. Various countries have lowered the VAT over the last few
years in response to the economic downturn.
The also mess with the income tax rates. 25 years ago, I was writing
compensation plans for sales reps in Sweden. The challenge was how to
compensate high wage earners in a country where the government was going
to take 93% of what I paid them above a certain point. So, you paid them
with perks that the goverment doesn't tax: a better company car, fully
paid for vacations, etc.
Now, the highest income tax rate in Sweden is 57%. Big difference.
JG
>
>
>
>
>
>
John Galt
Correct. However, the core difference is that social democrats recognize
that government ownership of the means of production is, at its core,
counterproductive to a prosperous society. (Even though they may very
well own certain productive processes deemed essential to society, they
do so not because they think they can improve their efficiency, but
because they feel it necessary to prioritize the process differenly than
the free market would allot.)
Socialists refuse to recognize this.
JG
John Galt
> John Galt wrote:
>> dave wrote:
>>> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>>
>>>> Freedom is Libertarian, and it may be gone for ever, Socialism has never
>>>> worked and was extinct before it ever lived.
>>>>
>>> What? Don't tell the Europeans.
>> Why not? They're not socialist. They're social democracies.
>>
>> HUGE difference.
>>
>> JG
>>
>
>
> Do you think the Europeans will decide to defend themselves and pay for
> their Socialism?
Eventually, yes. The younger generation in Europe is much more concerned
about fiscal responsibility (and sustainable social welfare systems)
than their parents are.
It would of course help if the US would grow a pair and tell them that
they're no longer going to contribute substantially to NATO.
>
> How will that work? They barely have any economy as it is... Add in
> the 20% it will cost to keep a real army and they will be pushing 95%
> taxes for the average worker. It will also drop their GDP to a -19.5% GDP.
They've created a generational mess. It will take them time to work out
of it.
JG
RHF
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 15:50:00 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
>
> <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>
> >Europe has been relying on the USA to generate the wealth to keep Europe
> >free for the last 70 years.
>
> >We made their Socialism work, as we fail so shall their Socialism.
>
- You wouldn't know a socialist if one kicked you.
Goose Stepping is a good indication . . .
http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/uniforms2/goose-step.jpg
National "Socialist" German Worker's Party (NSDAP)
-aka- The NAZIs
.
RHF
> John Galt wrote:
> > dave wrote:
> >> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>
> >>> Freedom is Libertarian, and it may be gone for ever, Socialism has never
> >>> worked and was extinct before it ever lived.
>
> >> What? Don't tell the Europeans.
>
> > Why not? They're not socialist. They're social democracies.
>
> > HUGE difference.
>
> > JG
>
> "...modern social democracy has deviated from socialism, and supports
> the idea of a mixed economy which incorporates elements of both
> socialism and capitalism.[2] Social democrats aim to reform capitalism
> democratically through state regulation and the creation of programs
> that work to counteract or remove the social injustice and
> inefficiencies they see as inherent in capitalism. A product of this
> effort has been the modern democratic welfare state. This approach
> significantly differs from traditional socialism, which aims to replace
> the capitalist system entirely with a new economic system characterized
> by either state or direct worker ownership of the means of production.
- In many countries, social democrats continue to exist alongside
- democratic socialists, who stand to the left of them on the
political
- spectrum. The two movements sometimes operate within the same
political
- party, such as the Brazilian Workers' Party[3] and the French
Socialist
- Party. In recent years, several social democratic parties (in
- particular, the British Labour Party) have embraced more centrist,
Third
- Way policy positions. This development has generated considerable
- controversy..."
-source-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
.
RHF
recognize
- that government ownership of the means of production is, at its
core,
- counterproductive to a prosperous society. (Even though they may
very
- well own certain productive processes deemed essential to society,
they
- do so not because they think they can improve their efficiency, but
- because they feel it necessary to prioritize the process differenly
than
- the free market would allot.)
-
- Socialists refuse to recognize this.
-
- JG
Sort of like a Government Enterprise being Taxed
by the very same Government.
Imagine -if- the IRS had to Pay a Corporate Income
Tax on the Income Taxes that it Collected from
the Tax Payers.
Tax Payers = Share Holders in the Government.
Then imagine the IRS Paying a Dividend to the
American Tax Payers for the Taxes that they
had Paid from the Taxes that the IRS had Paid
on those very same Taxes.
Hey Socialism can Create Money Through
Taxes-On-Taxes with no external inputs.
what goes around comes around ~ RHF
.
RHF
The Europeans do not have the Will and the
Capital to Fully Defend themselves on their
own.
Once the USA is Bankrupt in the next Decade
and can no longer support it's Military and resigns
as a Global Peacekeeper: The Europeans will be
at the 'mercy' of Russia, China, India and OPEC.
USA is Bankruptcy will happen when the US Dollar
is Devaluated to 20~25 Cents on the Dollar if 'we'
Americans are Lucky -or- to 5~10 Cents on the
Dollar if 'we' Americans are Unlucky.
~ RHF
.
dave
dave
>> GDP.
>
> They've created a generational mess. It will take them time to work out
> of it.
>
> JG
You apparently live in a parallel universe. May I ask where you get
your news from?
John Galt
I travel extensively for work in Europe, talk just as extensively about
these issues to my colleagues, and have relatives who live and work in
Belgium, Germany, Sweden, The Netherlands, Austria, and Italy.
So, the answer to your question is "I go there and talk to people who
live there", which is always advantageous to really understanding what
is happening on the ground, considering the challenged and adversarial
nature of much of the European media.
I would suggest that if you DON'T go there and talk to people, and
instead rely on the european and US media, you are going to be a bit
challenged in your understanding of european issues.
JG
dave
> dave wrote:
>>
>> You apparently live in a parallel universe. May I ask where you get
>> your news from?
>
> I travel extensively for work in Europe, talk just as extensively about
> these issues to my colleagues, and have relatives who live and work in
> Belgium, Germany, Sweden, The Netherlands, Austria, and Italy.
>
> So, the answer to your question is "I go there and talk to people who
> live there", which is always advantageous to really understanding what
> is happening on the ground, considering the challenged and adversarial
> nature of much of the European media.
>
> I would suggest that if you DON'T go there and talk to people, and
> instead rely on the european and US media, you are going to be a bit
> challenged in your understanding of european issues.
>
> JG
>
So you don't have any news provider of record to rely upon? I would
feel really lost in such a situation. Adrift even.
Beam Me Up Scotty
But the government has to print the money.....
> what goes around comes around ~ RHF
> .
--
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Nov 14, 3:36 pm, smor...@board.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 15:50:00 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
>>
>> <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Europe has been relying on the USA to generate the wealth to keep Europe
>>> free for the last 70 years.
>>> We made their Socialism work, as we fail so shall their Socialism.
>> You dingbat
>
> - You wouldn't know a socialist if one kicked you.
>
Like we paid for the military security of Europe and Europe decided to
give their people government health care, soon they'll be paying for
their own military and their own health care.
We will be in the toilet and Europe will get no subsidy to prop up their
Socialist systems.
Obama will bankrupt America and by doing so he will bankrupt the entire
Socialist world we supported.
--
Beam Me Up Scotty
> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>> John Galt wrote:
>>> dave wrote:
>>>> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Freedom is Libertarian, and it may be gone for ever, Socialism has
>>>>> never
>>>>> worked and was extinct before it ever lived.
>>>>>
>>>> What? Don't tell the Europeans.
>>> Why not? They're not socialist. They're social democracies.
>>>
>>> HUGE difference.
>>>
>>> JG
>>>
>>
>>
>> Do you think the Europeans will decide to defend themselves and pay for
>> their Socialism?
>
> Eventually, yes. The younger generation in Europe is much more concerned
> about fiscal responsibility (and sustainable social welfare systems)
> than their parents are.
>
Oxymoron: "sustainable Social welfare"
> It would of course help if the US would grow a pair and tell them that
> they're no longer going to contribute substantially to NATO.
NATO the UN, World bank and S. KOREA Sending our "industry" abroad
and now the redistrobution of our last income producing industry of
health care.
The Progressives have run every other industry from our shores with
government intrusion into the free markets and taxes.
>>
>> How will that work? They barely have any economy as it is... Add in
>> the 20% it will cost to keep a real army and they will be pushing 95%
>> taxes for the average worker. It will also drop their GDP to a -19.5%
>> GDP.
>
> They've created a generational mess. It will take them time to work out
> of it.
>
It will mean Depression until they retool for capitalism. You can't
spend others money when they no longer have any. At that point you get
depression and it will linger for decades.
> JG
--
BDK
ac37b5...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, rhf-new...@pacbell.net
says...
BWHAHAHA! That's funny, unless you were serious, and I would bet you
are.
--
BDK..
Leader of the nonexistent paid shills.
Non Jew Jew Club founding member.
Former number one Kook Magnet, title passed to Iarnrod.
Michael Coburn
The "federalists" of the 1780's were actually the "unionists". If the
English language is held to account the "anti-federalist" were the true
defenders of the federation described in the "Articles of Confederation"
and the so called "federlists" were the "unionists". By adopting the
moniker of "federalist" these unionists left the true federalist with a
serious political problem and forced them to the defensive posture of
being against something as opposed to _for_ something. They became the
"anti-federalists". It is much the same thing with the "National
Socialist German Workers Party".
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html
The movement led by the "National Socialist German Worker's Party" was
fascist just as the movement of the federalists was actually unionist and
the opposite of true federalism. Ain't politics grand?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
Michael Coburn
The rightarded refuse to understand that government is simply NOT a
business. Government is not supposed to make a profit and it is not
actually advisable for government to operate without _SMALL_ deficits.
Beam Me Up Scotty
GDP
0.9% (2008 est.)
country comparison to the world: 181
3% (2007 est.)
3.4% (2006 est.)
Expect as they use their GDP for military that it will fall and it is
generally within the margin of error so it will be flat to negative GDP.
--
dxAce
Bob Dobbs wrote:
> smo...@board.com wrote:
> >On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 07:11:14 -0600, John Galt
> ><kad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> You apparently live in a parallel universe. May I ask where you get
> >>> your news from?
> >>
> >>I travel extensively for work in Europe, talk just as extensively about
> >>these issues to my colleagues, and have relatives who live and work in
> >>Belgium, Germany, Sweden, The Netherlands, Austria, and Italy.
> >
> >Ah, yes
> >
> >Anecdotal evidence
> >
> >How quaint
>
> From folk who's politeness encourages them to say
> what they think the Yank wants to hear.
Reminds one of your boy Obama.
By the way, he's been seen bowing again!
What a clown 'tard!