| The Economy, The Election, Politics
- Click HERE for Original Thread
|
| ETC |
WARNING; this thread contains political discussion, if you do not want to discuss politics hit the back button.
personally i think we can discuss politics in a mature and positive way. i don't think a discussion of the economy or the election is out of place in this section of this site as a decent majority of the people here are from the U.S and both of these things affect all of us.
The vice presidential debate: my impressions
ok i watched it,,,,,, well 2/3 of it anyway. palins voice and mastery of the english language is something akin to nails scraping down a chalkboard to me. i'm not sure if her or her campaign has looked up the word maverick...... maybe they have a different dictionary. they should also look up the spelling and pronunciation of the word "nuclear", maybe it was a nod to g.w with the twanged "nuculer"..... all i can say is eight years of that was enough.
seems that palin is evidence that a large group of people prepping a candidate can shove quite a bit of rnc rhetoric in to a relatively empty head in a fairly short period of time. her only saving grace {as well as mccains} was the fact that neither of these debates was in a format that required them to elaborate on "their" views with logic or facts.
i think generally the interviews over the last year have been much more conclusive as to who has a decent grasp of what is going on in the world and of well ...... reality.
though it's not in the news cycle anymore, i still remember mccains response to *****'s assertion that tuning up your car and keeping your tires properly inflated is a good way to save energy. the response from mccain and his campaign was to make snide comments and actually have tire gauges made with "*****'s energy plan" screened on them. this was until AAA came out and said " actually these things can save americans up to 30% on energy consumption". my point in this is basically to illustrate how out of touch mccain is, this is just one of many instances where he just seems to be spouting out whatever he is told and doesn't put much if any thought into what he says. the fact that about half of what he says contradicts what he's said or done in the past says a lot about his character or memory.
THE ECONOMY:
mccain is trying desperately to distance himself from ...... himself. john mccain has said on any occasions that he is a de-regulation guy. he has stated that national healthcare should be deregulated like the banking sector [yeah, that worked}
one of his best friends phil gramm essentially wrote his economic plan. this is the former senator who basically rammed the enron loophole through congress which allowed unregulated oil speculation which drove prices through the roof. this has also basically exempted corporations from any oversight and has played a large role in the current real estate driven economic crisis. his wife wendy, former head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission also played a nice part in the whole enron fiasco, after exempting enron from oversight she took a position on their board of directors ..... but i'm sure that's just a coincidence. mr gramm now works as a vp at UBS AG , a huge swiss investment bank [another coincidence}. obtw, his campaign manager rick davis was a lobbyist for fannie and freddie and was still receiving large monthly payments until a month ago. these are some of the people he chooses to surround himself with.
the relevance there is that there is speculation that mccain would appoint gramm secretary of the treasury. i can only assume that the current practice of nepotism and instilling enabling yes men in his cabinet will continue.
i'm not sure if john mccain ever was a "maverick", if by that you mean he doesn't conform to the fiscally conservative aspect of part of his party then i guess he may have been. unfortunately that's the only part of the extreme right wing i actually agree with. basically he's flopped on every other thing that could be construed as being a maverick and has placed his allegiances with the bush administration and it's failed and sometimes illegal, immoral policies [ torture, wiretapping, partisan firing of states attorneys, appointing attorney generals that interpret the constitution and world treaties to allow illegal actions, misleading us into war, etc].
personally i don't agree on bailing out wall street with a plan that basically gives a blank check to paulson a former wall street insider who's now secretary of treasury. this guy want's no oversight in what he does with our money, this plan has no guarantees that the money will ever be repayed and that it won't just go straight in to the pockets of the guys who screwed this all up in the first place. there is not even any evidence that this money will do much of anything to stem this crisis. so basically the plan is, borrow money at interest from another country {china], give it to the morons who screwed up and hope everything is ok and that somehow the money will be payed back ........... great plan guys. how about close the speculation loophole, raise protection of fdic to $250k for insured accounts and see what happens. let the banks that acted irresponsibly fail and go from there [ a conservative republican suggested that]. i'd go further and suggest that if they acted in an illegal manner, take all their assets and return it to the people they screwed.
i think this administration has taken us down a dark and dangerous road, i think they've ruined our reputation as a country that can be counted on to do what is right. i think mccain is just an extension of this administration and it's policies.
i'm not a rabid ***** fan, i don't think he's the savior of all that is good and
moral. i do think he is intelligent and has some moral fiber and a good grasp of what this country has been and should be again. he seems to have common sense and to actually be the source of his opinions. biden is a good choice for vp
then theres the lesser of two evils argument ..... after all they are all politicians.
feel free to rip apart my opinions and arguments with well thought out counterarguments and facts. or just state your opinion about the candidates, the economy or whatever else you may want to talk about. try to keep it clean and not personally attack each other, i think tearing apart a flawed theory or opinion is perfectly acceptable and hope the moderators will give this thread some leeway |
|
|
| mtmactom |
I think Palin only answered 1 or 2 questions total, and when stuck said "lets talk energy".
The economy sucks, and i think deregulation and the current administration are completely to blame along with the war over the imaginary WMDs that has killed thousands, if we got out of Iraq, we could concentrate on Bin Laden, and nab him in no time.
How the hell can that woman even compare main street Wasilla, to most other states in the union.
Biden did his bit of politico dancing too, but at least he answered some questions.
God save us all if McCain gets elected and something happens to him.
Just my .02
Have a nice day! |
|
|
| ETC |
here's a little wiki entry about clean coal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_coal_technology
if you don't feel like reading it, basically clean coal is a blanket term used to describe using coal to generate electricity [like we've always done] but in a more responsible way. it uses emerging technologies to reduce the pollutants emitted from the stacks and the environmental impact of obtaining the fuel from the ground. what biden was saying is that if we continue to develop these techs, we can sell them to other countries like china that rely heavily on power from coal and contribute heavily to the overall pollution on the planet.
just like oil, we will still have to burn coal to generate the power we need until we can develop other means to replace it. natural gas is a good one right now, wind turbine generation is already viable and can be increased, solar can help a lot but still needs development for efficient large scale use. bio fuels have a place also. from what i can figure out, there is no silver bullet but all these things and others have great potential. we need to get off the saudi tit as it were but in order to do that we need to make the prospect of developing these techs profitable to companies so it gets done. of course that means spending money and of course noone wants to do that unless they get instant gratification on their bill, that's a large part of why we're in the pickle we're in now ....... well that and the fact that the oil companies basically bribe our elected officials to vote down any bill that would require them to spend their profits on research or pay others to come up with tech that will compete with their profits. it's got so bad that we pay these companies to go find more oil, yes we pay them to look for the stuff that they sell to us for record profits every year.
this rhetoric that democrats tax and spend still seems to work on people. i'm not sure why becasue when you look at recent history, everytime a republican administration gets in office, the economy takes a dive, unemployment goes through the roof, people who make huge sums of money pay little to no tax, the national debt skyrockets, inflation goes up and who gets to pay all that money back ? ....... that would be me and you and every other middle class worker that oh btw didn't get a tax break under the guys that promised it to us. and we get to pay the debt back with interest.
unfortunately people keep listening to this bs and voting these guys in office. seriously look at mccains voting record on all the things you keep hearing about in the news, he's basically saying he didn't do any of the things he did and hoping enough people won't bother checking to win the election. like i said, the only thing he's a maverick on is going against the fiscal conservatives in his own party, that's it.
personally i don't see a connection between being a soldier and being competent to lead this country. while you can argue that serving in the military is a service to your country, you could also argue that we havn't been in a war where our country itself was in any immediate danger since WWII. korea, vietnam, desert storm, iraq were us helping other countries, none of them threatened our continent or way of life. you can also argue that given *****s age, there wasn't a war for him to fight in except desert storm and iraq. i think that's a moot point and if it decides anything for anyone i think it's a poor choice. i'm 40 and i havn't been in a war either, i can tell you this though. if some country decides to invade us i'll be the first to load my guns and defend this country and all the people in it.
as far as the nuculer thing, i don't generally dog people for the way they talk. i know there are regional bastardizations of the english language and probably use more than i think i do. the fact is that nuclear is a word in the dictionary and nuculer isn't short for it. there is only one way to pronounce it and anything else sounds ignorant. ther are also different forums for speech, the way you talk to your friends and family is one thing, most people don't swear at work and try to sound reasonably intelligent when they go on a job interview. this is an interview for arguably the second most powerful position on the planet, i expect more from the applicant. and on a personal level, i'm tired of being embarrassed for myself and my country every time our president speaks in public.
something needs to be done about our healthcare system, between the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry our ability to get help should we need it has turned in to a golden goose for corporations. i've always worked and had insurance and basically i don't feel too secure that if i get really sick that the guys who take my money every month are going to do what they say in the large print. theres a lot of fine print that gives them the ability to not pay for basically anything they don't feel like, too many loopholes and exclusions. how many times have you seen peoples lives torn apart because a loved one got sick and the insurance company dropped them or refused to pay ? basically then your reduced to trying to sue them while your dealing with the medical issue, meantime you have to pay for the care and the lawyer and they have the dirtiest scumbag lawyers money can buy. if nothing else they can drag you in to litigation hell for ten years and bankrupt you and ruin your credit in the process.
btw, we pay for all these people who don't have insurance anyway through state and federal programs anyway so that's not a valid argument. since most of the money put in to the system is realized as profit to someone, regulating the industry could easily pay for helathcare for everyone. |
|
|
| ETC |
well the rescue, bailout, corporate welfare call it what you will plan passed.
800 + billion dollars of tax payer money and the market drops 170 points......... we're off to a great start.
i find it troubling that alot of middle class people see this as something necessary to save the economy yet they view universal healthcare as some sort of socialist welfare program for drug addicts. i think there is some ingrained class worth thing going on here with some misguided theory that since most of these people on wall street make millions of dollars that giving them money is somehow ........ justifiable ?
the part they neglected to mention is that this is more than likely just the beginning and that like the iraq war the cost will be many times this to make any real impact on the market recovering.
initial estiamtes are that this will cost every man woman and child in this country $2300 + dollars if this amount is all it takes and everything works as perfectly as it could. since they are relying heavily on the people who screwed it up to make it right, i'm not optimistic.
for those of you voting on the false premise that one party is going to be able to drag us out of this mess by not raising taxes ............. i've got some swamla ..... i mean beach front propety i'll sell you real cheap ....... that is if you've still got a job and you can get a loan. |
|
|
| tirolerpeter |
Kudos to mtmactom and ETC for two excellent summaries of our current situation. Unfortunately, the neocons will likely pull out all the stops in the next month. They will haul out "God, Guns, Gays," toss out endless references to that evil word "liberal" and launch their photon torpedoes at anything they perceive as "socialism." I have to give them credit for their ability (despite countless reality checks to the contrary) to keep to their mantra of "tax and spend Democrats" while giving away the national treasury to "Big Money" as the stock market "shakes out" (read that as "robs") small investors and retirees who were sucked into it through their 401K plans. I am retired, and actually have a pension, collect Social Security (on both of which I pay a ton of taxes) and have some 403b (like 401k) investments. My last couple of monthly statements show losses of over $18K. Luckily, I don't have to access that money for a few years yet. That is of course, assuming that some of it will still be there when I try to get some of it.
Try and imagine the added financial pain and suffering we would be seeing if Bush had actually managed to succeed in getting his Social Security Privatization plan through Congress early on in his first term. I know he was looking for more cash for his corporate sponsers to pump up the market (Which they managed to do even without that extra cash). Of course, I predicted that they would in due course, manage to engineer a "shake out" (like now) that would have made most of those funds disappear. BTW, that would actually have benefitted the Social Security Trust Fund because, after a "shake out" so many more wage slaves would have to keep working many more years to survive and not collect benefits. They would have paid in longer, and a significant percentage would/will die before they either collect or get to collect too much.
We are in a sad situation economically at present. To add to that, does anyone remember that we are fighting two wars (at least one of which should never have happened)? Maybe because I have three kids in the military, I can't seem to forget that. |
|
|
| rockhopjohn |
quote: Originally posted by tirolerpeter
I have to give them credit for their ability (despite countless reality checks to the contrary) to keep to their mantra of "tax and spend Democrats" while giving away the national treasury to "Big Money". . . | |
 |
|
|
| ETC |
that's strange, there was a post from nurse..... o forget her name that prompted part of my reply in the second post. if she deleted it for some reason that's too bad, it wasn't my intention to scare anyone away or to sound condescending.
anyway, gotta love that graphic. look at the government sites that record our economic history and you'll see it basically tells the same tale, hence my confusion at peoples gullibility when it comes to the rhetoric of the rnc most recently spouted by the ever so eloquent sarah palin.
i didn't get to watch the whole debate last night but i recorded it and will comment more when i know for sure what was said.
i can say a few things though.
to john mccain- stop calling us your friends ...... i for one am not. personally i don't hang out with self rightious religious extremists like sarah palin , john hagee and others.
i don't hang out with people like phil gramm who use the power we give them to manipulate our laws to benefit himself and the super rich corporate types he considers his friends.
stop saying you "feel our pain" ..... you cannot possibly feel our pain when between you and your wife you earn around 7 million dollars a year and own more homes than you can recall. i doubt very seriously if you have filled the gas tank on a car on your own dime in the last 26 years or so. funny you didn't call out your buddy phil when he called us a "nation of whiners". this man is so far out of touch it makes me ill.
stop that condescending tone of voice followed by that creepy fake smile when you speak. it makes you look like an animated puppet.
stop saying "my record is superb or perfect or speaks for itself" .......... we have computers we can check these things and your record is nothing to be proud of.
i'll watch the whole thing and see what my impression is but if it's anythign like the first twenty minutes i'm sure it will be painful. |
|
|
| neutron |
quote: Originally posted by rockhopjohn
| |
Be careful here. This cartoon is talking about budget surplus, not number of dollars spent by the government. If you overbudget your departments and they don't spend all the money it's a surplus.
Government spending has hugely increased under ALL presidential terms starting during the Cold War. However, Democrats seem to have paid down more debt during their terms (e.g. the national debt rises at a slower rate), while Republicans increase the debt usually through defense spending.
Either way, the taxpayer is the one who works off this debt and the interest.
This all being said in broad strokes, of course, coming from a relatively limited research window. (See: National Debt by U.S. Presidential Terms)
I honestly have to wonder if there's really a difference between either party running the country. The outcomes never seem to satisfy anyone. |
|
|
| tirolerpeter |
Regardless of the abilities of either O'bama (thats Irish isn't it?) or McCain, the consequences of the greed driven behavior on the part of every sector of our business and financial leaders has left us in a mess that neither one will be able to fix for a long time. It is astounding that McCain keeps talking about "incompetence and corruption" in Washington, and how only he has a "plan" (still totally secret to me) for dealing with it. Where was he while this was developing. He sounds like Rip Van Winkle who woke up afters years of snoozing to find the world changed.
In regard to Health Insurance; as with so many things in life: "The devil is in the details." I disagree with ***** that bolstering private HI plans is the way to go. They all burn up around 25% of all the premium dollars that they collect in administrative costs; not to mention multi-million dollar salaries for their executives. They are also ruthless when it comes to "disallowing" services and procedures as "unnecessary." Of course this is done by some non -medically trained claims processor following some sort of "guidlines" in a policy manual. While the patient suffers, he/she is invited to "appeal" those "determinations." That is usually during a period when that very patient is sick, weak, and demoralized, both by their medical problem and their inability to get/pay for treatment. Virtually every claim my health care providers submit, is meant with either an initial denial, or a succession of "requests for additional informatiion" that causes incredible delays in payment. I would guess that each provider ultimately waits six to eight months to get some "discounted" payment.
On the other hand, McCain's $2,500 tax credit to buy coverage is total BS. That amount will buy you pathetically little coverage. I have paid an average of $600/month ($7,200/year)for individual coverage for my adult daughter for the last 36 months. Do the math! To top that off, as a retiree I am in the fortunate position of having HI coverage for me and my wife paid for by my former employer. (That is the "little people's version of a "golden parachute" that was negotiated by my employment in a job that actually had a union that looked out for me.) McCain's plan would tax those those benefits. So, on the one hand I would get a $5K (joint) "tax credit" and then on the other, I would pay taxes on what my former employer pays out for my coverage. Hmmm?..."The lord giveth, and the lord taketh away."
McCain tries to project a "fatherly image" and constantly refers to that presidential saint (at least to neocons) Ronald Reagan. Reagan and his "tax cutters" (I call them the "don't tax and still spend" Republicans) discovered that there was a huge amount of money in the Social Security Trust Fund. When they discovered that treasure trove they immediately started to spend the money and replace it with I.O.U's. (Remember Bush's incessant whining of how there really was no money in the fund, just IOU's in a file cabinet, and how we needed to create "private accounts" to "protect" our citizens?) Well, his "sainted" predecessor is responsible for that. If McCain keeps cutting taxes according to his plan, we will see the deficit skyrocket even further. That means that our government will have to print money to pay the bills. That is a guaranteed way to generate inflation. We will ultimately have pockets full of paper that won't buy anything. That prospect has me very worried. I don't have the luxury of earning more to make up for lost purchasing power. If I were a millionaire or married to one, I guess I would be OK. But, that isn't my place in life. For an old guy, he sure doesn't understand where us "oldsters" live. |
|
|
| 06baja spt |
| Palin should have brought up 1 of Biden's earlier proposals of diving Iraq up into 3 sectors along ethic and religious lines.That was a good one,and would have made it more interesting.Oh well. |
|
|
| jereg |
For what it's worth:
I created a little game for myself to play while watching the debate last night. Feel free to employ this during the next debate.
When a question was asked and answered fully by the candidate, I awarded 2 points.
If the candidate answered partially, then switched to another subject or attacked the other candidate, I awarded 1 point.
If the candidate didn't answer the question at all, instead just repeated a prepared statement, I awarded 0 points.
If a candidate stated they wouldn't answer the question as Palin did during the last debate, I subtracted 2 points. No one did that last night.
This is of course subjective. Points are given on how I evaluate responses, nothing else. I didn't care if an answer was vague or even stupid, it just had to address the question.
My score last night, McCain 16, ***** 32.
Try it during the next debate. It may surprise you. |
|
|
| rsrocket1 |
Here's a better one:
Everybody takes a drink when a candidate mentions the word "change", "fair", or "common man".
Or each time a candidate's nose grows.
Caution: Do this at home or with a designated driver. |
|
|
| ported |
| Ever wonder why the US dropped the gold standard? Could it be that it made the rest of the planet partially responsible for irresponsible spending and corporate greed because the world economy is based on the US dollar? |
|
|
| waynerd |
I can't believe we've come to this point and have two complete and total idiots as a choice for President...a very important choice.
McCain is not a maverick, but more "cowboy", shooting from the hip. I like my taxes where they are compared where they could be, however fighting a war on two fronts, and now paying for this massive corporate welfare plan, it doesn't seem prudent. His cowboy attitude may not be such a good thing in international affairs. Palin seems to have been a "bold" choice, seeming to bring appeal to the party, much like Dan Quayle was supposed to with Bush #41. We know where THAT one went.
O'Bama's plan to only tax the rich and corporations will only hurt the "little guy", as the taxes won't be "absorbed", but merely passed along in higher prices paid by the little guys. Add to that, the new "stimulus package" on top of the corporate welfare program we'll have to pay for, that will probably be the first piece of nonsense he signs. His lack of international experience isn't such a big deal ( let's face it, WHO has experience at being President of the United States, except an ex-President), but some of his opinions and past decisions are questionable. Biden was a "safe" choice for VP. I don't like *****'s first steps toward socialized medicine (it seemingly works so well for Canada, though, I haven't heard much about it lately). He wants to pull out of Iraq and focus on Afganistan, but that will come back to bite us later ( um Afganistan II, anyone??).
Both are bickering back and forth on "the record" of voting, but most bills are so full of BS, that they could be voting for something contained in a bill that they don't agree with, but in order to get the "good" thing though, they've got to vote for the "bad" thing, too. If they vote against something for the "bad" thing, it's held against them for voting against the "good" thing.
The executive and legislative branches have both failed this country. If i hear "the past eight years..." one more time, I'll puke. It started WAY before that. What we need will never happen. Term limits: If these morons weren't always trying to get re-elected, we'd be much better off. They'd look at the long term effects of what they're doing, instead of the short term of the next election. Line item veto: Eliminate the BS and "pork" that gets packaged with things that are needed or necessary.
Solutions? I dunno. I don't get paid the big bucks to think of these things, but I sure wish SOMEBODY would. We're at the end of the rollercoaster ride, and it seems somebody forgot to finish the tracks.
Just my .02. |
|
|
| bheinz57 |
Bumper sticker seen on the way home from work today:
McCain Palin
Hero and a Hottie
Brian |
|
|
| ETC |
all good points,
regarding the last sentiment of governmental fault; while it may seem by proxy that i support all of *****s ideas and plans due to the fact that i completely disagree with everything john mccain says and thinks [which may be different in the last ten minutes so maybe i totally agree with him now], this isn't the case. neither do i place blame completely on the shoulders of the republican party.rather, like most of you chalk it up to a basic failure of the system we have and all those involved, the driving factor of course being greed.
though parts of this economic failure can be traced back to reagan, bush 1, clinton, one could argue that during six of the last eight years the republican party had veto proof majority and could have "righted" all the wrongs. personally that's where i get my disproportionate blame theory from, though most of my disgust is equally distributed.
john mccain, his running mate, his surrogates and his campaign continue to prove to me their ignorance, irrationality, incoherence and irrelevance by not having anything regarding a mission statement and resorting entirely on attacking the opposition with a personal smear campaign. this of course will only work on stupid people who are blinded by their irrational fears and phobias but unfortunately we have quite a lot of those in this country.
the markets keep dropping like a stone......... but wait ....... mccain unveiled his solution ........ "my friends [i vomit] .... my plan , and it's my plan not senator *****s or bidens, my friends [again] my plan is to buy up all the bad mortgages so americans can keep their homes" ..........
you have got to be $^#%#%# kidding me....... i watched a mccain town hall meeting where one of his ignorant questioners said in essence that he's tired of all this socialism and that mccain needs to save our country from it.........apparently this idiot needs to look up socialism in the redneck dikshunery so he might realize that the banking bailout and mccains proposed purchasing of the "bad mortgages" is exactly that.
his proposal is to buy all failed mortgages at face value and to renegotiate the loan at the new lesser appraised value. who loses ? that would be all of us who didn't buy houses we couldn't afford and didn't get loans that were already beyond our budgets or that were interest only or adjustable rates. who gains ? banks because they get paid the non existent value of the property and the people who overextended themselves ....... what do we get ? well my property dropped in value from its peak but, i didn't pull all the equity out to go buy toys and go on vacation so since my property still far exceeds what i paid for it and i left the equity in the property ....... all i get is to pay part of that bill to pay for everyone elses stuff ......... awesome, great plan john , think of that all by yourself ? glad you " feel my pain" and are "looking out for all americans" . these things reward greed and ignorance and punish those of us who act responsibly with our finances.
if you are playing drinking games during the next debate, please don't take a shot every time mccain says "my friends" ....... i fear for your safety.
for anyone who defends the choice of palin as a vp and don't think her ability is relevant, ask yourself or other this question. if for some reason john mccain could not continue as a candidate and sarah palin was moved to candidate for president with someone else as vp......... would you still vote for her ?
. |
|
|
| tirolerpeter |
ETC: "john mccain, his running mate, his surrogates and his campaign continue to prove to me their ignorance, irrationality, incoherence and irrelevance by not having anything regarding a mission statement and resorting entirely on attacking the opposition with a personal smear campaign. this of course will only work on stupid people who are blinded by their irrational fears and phobias but unfortunately we have quite a lot of those in this country."
A lack of even basic understanding of economic principles is the norm among our citizens. They have nothing left to lean on for comfort other than their simplistic belief in slogans such as "tax and spend," or characterizing anything else that they cannot understand as "socialism." And, it is a common human impulse for those suffering from "fear" to become angry and look for a scapegoat.
ETC: "the markets keep dropping like a stone......... but wait ....... mccain unveiled his solution ........ "my friends [i vomit] .... my plan , and it's my plan not senator *****s or bidens, my friends [again] my plan is to buy up all the bad mortgages so americans can keep their homes" ..........
Will he buy them up at current values, or at their new "market values?"
ETC: "you have got to be $^#%#%# kidding me....... i watched a mccain town hall meeting where one of his ignorant questioners said in essence that he's tired of all this socialism and that mccain needs to save our country from it.........apparently this idiot needs to look up socialism in the redneck dikshunery so he might realize that the banking bailout and mccains proposed purchasing of the "bad mortgages" is exactly that."
I saw that guy. This is "Mr. America" (aka Joe Sixpack) speaking. I'm sure his comment was totally spontaneous and not "scripted" by the "Town Meeting" organizers for McCain's benefit. :-) The key here is not to actually remember the stupidity of his comment, but rather, to feel his anger and give McCain something to feed on for his follow-up comment.
ETC: "his proposal is to buy all failed mortgages at face value and to renegotiate the loan at the new lesser appraised value. who loses ? that would be all of us who didn't buy houses we couldn't afford and didn't get loans that were already beyond our budgets or that were interest only or adjustable rates. who gains ? banks because they get paid the non existent value of the property and the people who overextended themselves ....... what do we get ? well my property dropped in value from its peak but, i didn't pull all the equity out to go buy toys and go on vacation so since my property still far exceeds what i paid for it and i left the equity in the property ....... all i get is to pay part of that bill to pay for everyone elses stuff ......... awesome, great plan john , think of that all by yourself ? glad you " feel my pain" and are "looking out for all americans" . these things reward greed and ignorance and punish those of us who act responsibly with our finances."
This is really the crux of the matter. It is, once again, not about helping the average worker, it is about saving the bankers and their investors. I bought a house 16 months ago. I invested $310 K cash and took out a $260 K mortgage. My mortgage bank (CountryWide) is now pestering me to "refinance" at a rate that is less than .24% lower then what I currently am paying. It is hard to believe that they have my interests in mind since the spread between my "new" and old rate would be less than .24%, and they are borrowing the money from the Feds at 1.5%. They would be working with more then a 4.75% spread to give me a .24% "savings." Of course, the additional closing costs would take nearly six years to recover. They must think I am stupid. Yes! They do. Americans have been taking out stupid loans for years, so why not keep them on that track? Fortunately, despite a loss of "market value" in the neighborhood of $100K to my house in those 16 months, I can well afford both my current mortgage, and to live decently. On the other hand, that could change if this economic slide continues. |
|
|
| cougar |
Fantasy and Science Fiction.
Remember a politician will say and do anything to get elected.
I look directly at what they do while in office and how it affects my paycheck, cost, and quality of living.
Remember what role each “member” of government plays and how they function or dysfunction with others and the people they supposedly represent.
If you wish to point fingers, how did a democrat controlled congress allow (or cause) record oil prices? The captain can’t control the ship if the crew collectively mutinies. And now that an election is drawing near, why are those record oil prices free falling? |
|
|
| The_Lizard |
| Dang if we could just get $4/gallon gas again, the economy would go back to normal *G* |
|
|
| cougar |
| Sense we are all bank owners now, we can afford $10 a gallon gas. |
|
|
| Hooray |
on the matter of the debates:
both gentleman irk me in their mannerisms.
McCain cant look ***** in the eye, he cant seem to remove a certain part of Gen. Petraeus out of his mouth, and he has the posture of a cardboard box
*****s voice just pisses me off. he always does this little thing with his hands when trying to make a point and he gazes at McCain with some **** eating grin all the time |
|
|
| ETC |
let me qualify this with the statement that i've been extremely pissed for the last two years about the "democratically controlled" congress and their unwillingness to b-slap bush and his cronies. their are two reasons for this of course, one being the lack of "veto proof majority" and the other being not wanting to "rock the boat" and push the right leaning independents all the way to the right for this election. bush has taken every liberty with this unwillingness and as usual used the "troops" ,, "ultra patriotism" and fear mongering to continue hacking away at the constitution and to fund his and cheneys haliburton retirement fund.
sorry got off on a rant there ... so anyway... given the lack of veto proof majority i'm not sure exactly how congress was supposed to reign in the speculation that drove oil prices through the roof. there were a couple recent hurricanes that disrupted refining but even still the general consensus seems to point to speculation.
as for the "captain" ........ more like a lame duck following the rats off the sinking ship and grabbing everything that isn't bolted down on the way off. imho it was that lame duck that blew the hole in the ship in the first place.
basically this whole fiasco has been caused by a complete lack of oversight on the actions of the markets. something should stand out in peoples minds, the fact that john mccain has always been for no regulation in the private sector.
that smile on *****s face is disbelief at the bs mccain is trying to shove down peoples throats. personally i havn't been smiling when i watch mccain, i'm sickened by the fact that he's stooping to these levels. i have said that i used to have some sense of respect for the man, that's gone.
i saw today that he finally had the guts to shut down the wingnuts at his rally that were calling ***** a "muslim" and a "terrorist" ...... about time. i havn't noticed palin following suite yet.
speaking of palin, seems her state congress found her guilty of using her political power to settle a personal matter. all the right wing pundits are saying it was orchestrated by ***** but the reality is that this was already in progress when she was named mccains vp choice. mccain sent his attorneys up there to shut it down and they did for awhile. turns out the people that called for this investigation were mostly republicans ........
as far as the bailout, AIG just showed why i was against it. these guys are so crooked, they just can't help themselves. even after being bailed out for 85 million and asking for 34.5 million more, they decide to use our money to give themselves a day at the spa for $400k ..... unbelievable the size of the sacks on these guys .................. |
|
|
| Hooray |
quote: Originally posted by ETC
let me qualify this with the statement that i've been extremely pissed for the last two years about the "democratically controlled" congress and their unwillingness to b-slap bush and his cronies. their are two reasons for this of course, one being the lack of "veto proof majority" and the other being not wanting to "rock the boat" and push the right leaning independents all the way to the right for this election. bush has taken every liberty with this unwillingness and as usual used the "troops" ,, "ultra patriotism" and fear mongering to continue hacking away at the constitution and to fund his and cheneys haliburton retirement fund.
sorry got off on a rant there ... so anyway... given the lack of veto proof majority i'm not sure exactly how congress was supposed to reign in the speculation that drove oil prices through the roof. there were a couple recent hurricanes that disrupted refining but even still the general consensus seems to point to speculation.
as for the "captain" ........ more like a lame duck following the rats off the sinking ship and grabbing everything that isn't bolted down on the way off. imho it was that lame duck that blew the hole in the ship in the first place.
basically this whole fiasco has been caused by a complete lack of oversight on the actions of the markets. something should stand out in peoples minds, the fact that john mccain has always been for no regulation in the private sector.
that smile on *****s face is disbelief at the bs mccain is trying to shove down peoples throats. personally i havn't been smiling when i watch mccain, i'm sickened by the fact that he's stooping to these levels. i have said that i used to have some sense of respect for the man, that's gone.
i saw today that he finally had the guts to shut down the wingnuts at his rally that were calling ***** a "muslim" and a "terrorist" ...... about time. i havn't noticed palin following suite yet.
speaking of palin, seems her state congress found her guilty of using her political power to settle a personal matter. all the right wing pundits are saying it was orchestrated by ***** but the reality is that this was already in progress when she was named mccains vp choice. mccain sent his attorneys up there to shut it down and they did for awhile. turns out the people that called for this investigation were mostly republicans ........
as far as the bailout, AIG just showed why i was against it. these guys are so crooked, they just can't help themselves. even after being bailed out for 85 million and asking for 34.5 million more, they decide to use our money to give themselves a day at the spa for $400k ..... unbelievable the size of the sacks on these guys .................. | |
as a matter of correction on the AIG statement
AIG group chief executive officer Edward Liddy has hit back at press reports of AIG executives living it up at an expensive corporate 'jolly' days after the insurer's bailout.
In a letter to Henry Paulson, secretary of the treasury, he said: "I am writing to clarify an issue that was discussed at a hearing held yesterday by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
"At the hearing, a recent business event held by an AIG subsidiary was mischaracterised as an “Executive Retreat” held right after receiving the $85bn loan credit facility from the New York Fed. The event in question was held by one of AIG’s insurance subsidiaries for independent life insurance agents – not for AIG employees – who were top business producers for the company.
"The vast majority of the attendees were independent business people and their guests, not AIG employees. Indeed, of the more than 100 attendees, only 10 were employees of one of our insurance subsidiaries who attended to represent their company.
"Not a single corporate executive from AIG headquarters attended. While this sort of gathering has been standard practice in our industry for many years and was planned many months before the Federal Reserve's loan to AIG, we understand that our company is now facing very different challenges – and that we owe our employees and the American public new standards and approaches. |
|
|
| ETC |
i notice he didn't claim that AIG didn't pay for the function. regardless of who benefited from the function if AIG footed the bill with money loaned from the taxpayers to shore up their financial obligations i'd say it's still a gross misuse of funds. whether the function was preplanned or not isn't relevant.
this statement doesn't explain the situation, it's sounds more like a "we're sorry, we didn't know" or more like, "we're sorry, we didn't know anyone would find out"
i'll be the first to defend anyone or any company wrongly accused of wrong doing.
but, these don't appear to be "good guys" who are innocent victims of circumstance. this seems to be another instance of corporate greed winning out over common sense and good business practices. another instance of a company being highly leveraged in risky securities with no offsetting capitol. they intentionally withheld information about these exposures from everyone until the whole house of cards collapsed.
the companies and banks you see that are still "in good shape" may have dabbled in these securities but had the business sense to limit their exposure.
sorry, no pity for these guys, their investors and shareholders maybe but not the guys at the helm. |
|
|
| Button |
| Blah . . . Blah . . . Blah . . . BLAH!-!-! |
|
|
| ETC |
yeah, why would we want to talk about this stuff, it's just the future of the country everyone claims to love so much.
we all need to talk about this stuff, not just here, not just on partisan websites that just exist to reinforce peoples prejudices, but everywhere you go.
people constantly claim to love this country, if you love something you take of it and don't just let it fall apart around you. denial that there is a problem is not taking care of it.
if it's not readily apparent by looking at the news, our countries well being is completely intertwined with our economy. what for instance are we going to do if we get in a "real war" ? borrow money from communist china to finance it ? what if the war is with china ? not out of the question if we don't figure out this energy thing. only so much oil to go around and they want it as bad as we do.
but i guess everything will take care of itself no matter who we vote for or how much we let corporate america get away with ................. |
|
|
| rockhopjohn |
| Personally. . .I would prefer to make my decisions based on their commercials. I am sure both candidates are very honest, and would never twist anything out of proportion. ;) |
|
|
| ETC |
the sad thing is they do it because it because it works which in itself is a sad commentary about the intelligence of much of our country.
do you see commercials and think " who are they targeting with this inane garbage " ? ......... that's who it works on ............
they hear it on a commercial, tune in to fox "news" [and only fox news] who parrot the same partisan rhetoric and they're sold. mccain, palin and their mouthpieces have been yammering on the same crap for the last month and a half and even though it's been shown to be baseless, they keep saying it. their base doesn't seem to care whether it's true or not, as long as it fits their preconceived prejudice.
the ***** camp has shown extreme restraint in not counter attacking though there are literally piles of ammo just laying around to throw back. good tactic as far as i' concerned, stay on subject and don't let them draw you in to a $*%& throwing match.
mccain is foolish for allowing this to happen, he already has his racist base in the bag and all this does is destroy any sense of respect the rest of us might have had for him.
i honestly can't believe anyone would want that job given the state of things and the fact that he will be blamed for all the residual fallout from the last 8 years. |
|
|
| 06baja spt |
| Another sad sideshow of this election is the glaring dissappearance of unbiased journalism.(on TV anyway,the biggest source for most) You got Fox for McCain, & NBC,ABC,CNN,CBS,MSNBC for *****.Outright rooting in some cases.It's a scary thing,especially if your Republican. |
|
|
| outbackredux |
quote: Originally posted by mtmactom
IHave a nice day! | |
we could concentrate on Bin Laden, and nab him in no time.
Nab Bin Laden in no time!?!?! It took 18 years to nab the unibomber and he was here in the USA not hiding in the badlands of Afgan. / Pakistan. It took over a year to nab that guy in VA. that took off into the mountains. Bin Laden is going to die by accident or old age. What's ***** the man who wants to talk to the terrorists going to do? Talk Bin Laden into giving himself up? Maybe he can talk him to death. We need a president who is willing to shoot the nukes we've been building for the last 60 years. We don't have such a man running. We are in big trouble. Many more lives are going to be lost before these islamofacists are defeated. Don't
make the mistake of thinking they have or will go away. They won't, at least not until they've cut our throats. |
|
|
| outbackredux |
quote: Originally posted by 06baja spt
Another sad sideshow of this election is the glaring dissappearance of unbiased journalism.(on TV anyway,the biggest source for most) You got Fox for McCain, & NBC,ABC,CNN,CBS,MSNBC for *****.Outright rooting in some cases.It's a scary thing,especially if your Republican. | |
It's a scary thing if your an American!! |
|
|
| ETC |
who exactly are we supposed to shoot these nukes at ?
the terrorists may have support from several middle eastern countries but just because the countries religious dictator supports them that doesn't mean that even the majority of the country does so ........ who do we shoot ? do we pick a country we don't like [like bush did] and just blow them off the face of the planet ? then do we hope that china, pakistan, russia etc just ignore the fact that we just violated every treaty on the planet ?
most of the countries we call our "friends" in the middle east are not democracies, many of them like saudi arabia we've helped dictators stay in power because securing oil is much more important to us than the peoples civil rights.
we did it with iran and the shah, then when he was deposed by the ayotullah saddam became our buddy, then there's egypt etc.
personally i don't need an angry ill tempered trigger happy nutjob with his finger on the button.
there is bias in media, it does require some checking to filter out the bs, we all have google buttons and brains, it's not that hard. the hard part for most is leaving their prejudice out of the equation, if they're not willing to do that there is no point in even watching the debates as their mind is already made up and they are just looking for justification for their decision. this of course is not "putting country first" but i've seen people justify even more ridiculous ideas.
mccain seems much more concerned with slinging manufactured mud than talking about real issues. i'm not sure who this is supposed to work on since we all have the ability to check the facts on his charges. i'm not real big on polls but the ones i've seen are showing that after 8 years of fear and lies people are getting sick of this sort of thing. |
|
|
| outbackredux |
who exactly are we supposed to shoot these nukes at ?
Teran, Iran Iran is terror central, has been since 1979, Nuke em now.
The badlands where OB is hiding Nuke it now.
Demascs, Syria Nuke em now.
Then sit back and enjoy the whining!! I'm serious about this. We need to take the strongest action we can now while no other country can challenge us. |
|
|
| rockhopjohn |
quote: Originally posted by outbackredux
who exactly are we supposed to shoot these nukes at ?
Teran, Iran Iran is terror central, has been since 1979, Nuke em now.
The badlands where OB is hiding Nuke it now.
Demascs, Syria Nuke em now.
Then sit back and enjoy the whining!! I'm serious about this. We need to take the strongest action we can now while no other country can challenge us. | |
Wowzers. Sounds like a great way to bring the entire world down on us. You want to put an end to America that is a sure fire plan. Right now we are only fighting a tiny fraction of extremists, but you plan would turn the entire Muslim community into extremists. I usually respect other peoples opinions, but you must be one of those fruitcakes McCain is having to whack with a tennis racket at the Republican rallies.
McCain Supporter: "I can't trust *****, I. . .I . . I've read about him and uh . . he's uhhh. . .he's an arab."
McCain: "no. . .no.. . .No ma'am, No he's not, he's a decent family man, a citizen that I just happen to have some issues with in this campaign." |
|
|
| tirolerpeter |
quote: Originally posted by outbackredux
who exactly are we supposed to shoot these nukes at ?
Teran, Iran Iran is terror central, has been since 1979, Nuke em now.
The badlands where OB is hiding Nuke it now.
Demascs, Syria Nuke em now.
Then sit back and enjoy the whining!! I'm serious about this. We need to take the strongest action we can now while no other country can challenge us. | |
Who is this guy? Does he have the slightest clue of the ramifications of "nuking" countries we disagree with? Aside from the moral issues, doesn't he realize that "nuking" is the national equivalent to a "suicide bomber?" If you "nuked" Damscus the fallout would likely poison most of Israel. That sounds like a great way to "save" an ally.
This is totally moronic:
"We need to take the strongest action we can now while no other country can challenge us."
Does he think our military is strong enough to stop every threat to us, despite the fact that we haven't been able to suppress "insurgents" in Iraq and haven't captured Bin Laden? If Russia were to supply a few terrorist groups with nukes, there is no way for us to stop them from bringing them in to the US. He must really believe that Reagan's SDI actually works.
This guy has never been a soldier, or if he has, he served in some rear echelon or state-side base. In Vietnam we called them "Rear Echelon Mother F-----kers" They think Rambo and the 1000 round magazine in his weapon are real. This is typical adolescent Neocon thinking.
There are no simple solutions to many international problems. Frustration causes immature people to seek simple solutions that do not take into account the "blowback" that those "solutions" can generate. I'm glad he is not one of the candidates. McCain scares me enough. |
|
|
| outbackredux |
We don't disagree with these countries they are actively trying to undermine and eventually destroy our country or they actively support those that would destory us.
These are acts of war. Just because some nice man or woman isn't telling you this at 6:00PM doesn't mean it's not happening. These countries have been at war with us since 1979, it's way past time to stop it.
This should scare you. This is life or death. I'd perfer their deaths and our lives. They've said over and over they want it the other way. The only reason they haven't nuked us is because they don't have nukes yet. The day they get'em they'll use'em on us and say do it to them first. Then they'll take us seriously. |
|
|
| tirolerpeter |
quote: Originally posted by outbackredux
We don't disagree with these countries they are actively trying to undermine and eventually destroy our country or they actively support those that would destory us.
These are acts of war. Just because some nice man or woman isn't telling you this at 6:00PM doesn't mean it's not happening. These countries have been at war with us since 1979, it's way past time to stop it.
This should scare you. This is life or death. I'd perfer their deaths and our lives. They've said over and over they want it the other way. The only reason they haven't nuked us is because they don't have nukes yet. The day they get'em they'll use'em on us and say do it to them first. Then they'll take us seriously. | |
What ???????????????
By this logic we should have "Nuked" the USSR back in the early 1950's.
PS: What does that first sentence actually say? |
|
|
| outbackredux |
| No, we should have nuked the USSR in 1946. It'd be a diffferent world today. |
|
|
| 06baja spt |
| As a conservative,non-religious,tree-hugging,pro-choice,subaru driving Republican: I hope as much as anyone on earth we never have to see nukes used again. |
|
|
| rockhopjohn |
quote: Originally posted by 06baja spt
As a conservative,non-religious,tree-hugging,pro-choice,subaru driving Republican: I hope as much as anyone on earth we never have to see nukes used again. | |
So YOU'RE the one. :9:
j/k
It is a shame that the so many of the people we hear from on a political front are on the polar opposite ends of the spectrum, and not the people in the middle, like most of us average joes. |
|
|
| ETC |
wow, someone has been watching the show 24 and thinks it's a documentary and not some neocon wetdream.
what exactly happened in 1979 ?
from what i can gather, the majority of iran's people are are very pro western and not aligned with their "supreme leader" [religious nut job] Ali Khamenei who shouldn't be confused with the "publicly elected" nut job president Ahmadinejad. though the people of this country enjoy more civil rights and freedoms of say ..... saudi arabia, they still are under the thumb of an extremist religious dictator. to say that the person in charge of a country is representative of the majority of the populations views is well ...... wrong, look at us.
"while no other country can challenge us"- i listed three countries with nuclear capability already. nukes aside, with the financial state of our country do you really think we could sustain any sort of conventional war for more than a couple months ?
. this bs fiasco bush lied us into in iraq has depleted any sense of empathy our "allies" might feel for us should we get into another war, i've a feeling even the british would tell us to get stuffed at this point.
the "war on terror" is the same as "the war on drugs" as it is not a winnable endeavor. there will always be fringe factions of other countries that hate us for whatever reason and feel justified in attacking us. that isn't to say that steps shouldn't be taken to reduce the chances of these attacks but the idea that having a "war on terror" and actively invading other countries makes us safer is moronic. the people that know these regions best agree that our current policies actually create more unrest and is a recruitment tool for the jihadist leaders.
there is no easy way to say it so i'll just say it. since before the time frame you reference as the start of these countries "hating us", our country has actively manipulated governments and instilled and supported dictators that ruled these countries by force and denied the people even basic civil rights. in other words, they don't as "W" put it "hate us for our freedom" they hate us for a host of other reasons. add a bit of ridiculous religious fervor and tell them "god is on your side and he wants you to kill the infidels" and you get what we've got.
some people just don't "get over it". we got over japan attacking us, europe got over germany attacking them numerous times, we just move on. do they have a reason to be pissed ? yeah probably. we're they justified in attacking us ? no, there are other avenues to resolve disputes that are much more effective.
the only way to reduce the risk of these fringe groups is to start acting like the benevolent superpower we imagine ourselves to be. to lead by example by helping others gain the freedoms we enjoy, but to help them gain these freedoms on their own terms, not by force. to actually abide by treaties we sign and not torture people or invade countries that do not threaten us. by not doing only what is financially beneficial to us but to do what is right. to not let our religious nuts take over and try to impose their will on us as well as others. to not let our government do illegal and immoral acts in our name and to punish those leaders who feel they are above our laws and commit such acts.
only then will people realize we are not a threat to them and help us weed out these psychos.
[steps off soapbox] |
|
|
| outbackredux |
| In 1979 Iran attacked and took over our embassy in Teran and held Americans there for 444 days. That was a act of war. They should have been dealt with then. We had however a smiling fool in the White House name of Jimmy Carter so nothing was done except talk for 6 months. Then after the Iranians had the building wired to explode that fool decided to launch a ill fated rescue mission that left planes, choppers and American bodies on the desert in Iran. There have been dozens of attacks on Americans and our property since then all supported by Iran. It's not our fault that the good people of Iran have allowed relgious nuts to take over their country. Our problem is that these nuts seek to destroy our country, and act on that desire. People like yourself can deny the danger we are in right up until some murderer in a dirty nightshirt cuts your head off. It doesn't change a thing. |
|
|
| ETC |
again, oversimplifying a complex history in the region.
intelligent leaders don't run off half cocked and start wars without exhausting all other solutions.
weighing the loss of a relative few hostages against the potential losses of a full out war with a country that we heavily armored for a long period of time couldn't have ben easy for "ole smiling face". easy to armchair quarterback what should have been done decades later.
read this, decent explanation of our history with iran and our motivations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax |
|
|
| tirolerpeter |
quote: Originally posted by ETC
again, oversimplifying a complex history in the region.
intelligent leaders don't run off half cocked and start wars without exhausting all other solutions.
weighing the loss of a relative few hostages against the potential losses of a full out war with a country that we heavily armored for a long period of time couldn't have ben easy for "ole smiling face". easy to armchair quarterback what should have been done decades later.
read this, decent explanation of our history with iran and our motivations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax | |
You are wasting your time ETC. Why would someone who hasn't gone beyond FOX news and some of their Neocon "analysts" bother to read even a Wikipedia sized write-up about a complex relationship that has stretched over at least 60 years. The US, GB, and USSR "borrowed" Iran's territory during WWII to create a safe supply line for war materials we shipped to the USSR since Germany had control of Europe and we need Russia to be able to keep fighting them, and Japan prevented re-supply from the Pacific Ocean. Later, the United States "installed" the Shah to his imperial throne over the Iranians. There could just be a bit of resentment stemming from all of that. You think? |
|
|
| ETC |
yeah i get that alot.
i remember when i was a kid and knew everything i had some very strong misguided opinions of "how the world is". fortunately i had enough intelligent people around me to tell me to research the topic before i form an opinion.
some people aren't interested in facts, they would rather let their ego make their decisions based on baseless preconceived notions and odd leaps of "logic" ; we good, they bad, kill them.
that is by no means a complete explanation but i figured i could relate the information all day and it would just be seen as commie rhetoric. sometimes when people read it somewhere it makes a bigger impact.
the whole bin laden thing is not as deep we supported the afghanis against russia, he fought in that conflict [sort of an ally], when time came to defend saudi arabia he offered his services and the king declined in lieu of our protection, he didn't like the fact that the "infidels" were defending his homeland, got his little feelings hurt and since he's too much of a pussy to go against the king, he directs all his anger at us.
i'm fairly sure if they wanted to they could easily find and take him out but they don't have to. we keep buying oil from them and they probably just consider him a minor nuisance.
i'll keep trying to talk what i consider sense to people, if it helps one person out then it's worth the effort.
i understand the potential threats we face on this planet, i'm not sure those that buy in to this "terrorists are the biggest threat to this nation" notion do.
here's a little homework for you, go to the fbi website and look up violent murder numbers for americans against americans. then google terrorist attacks on the us and compare the two numbers. you might be surprised at who is actually more of a threat to you.
osama bin laden said "the way to destroy this giant is to attack it's economy". the attacks of 9/11 did little in itself to hurt our economy. our own citizens greed and the misguided retribution against iraq have come much closer to making his dream come true. i fear another one will finish the job. |
|
|
| outbackredux |
| There's very little complexity here. They are bad, they kill the innocent of ANY religion or race. They've killed more Musilms then we have and aren't done yet. I know plenty of good Muslims who have come here to the US from all over the middle east, they are terrorfied of those SOBs. That's why they come here, thinking they're going to be safe. We are good, we help people and countries when disasters hit them feeding and saving people wholesale. They later tell us how rotten we are, and next time disaster strikes we're there again helping them out. We allow people to cross out boarders illegally then we give them welfare, food stamps and other help when we should be throwing them out of here. We make other countries rich buying oil and gas from them when we could and should be using our own of which we have plenty. America is the most benevolent country in the history of the planet. As far as our military. If people knew what kind of weapons and the amount of weapons we have they would be amazed. The only reason we have taken so long to win in Iraq is because we didn't unleash the full might of our military for fear of killing more civilans. These thugs run into a Mosque and we sit outside worrying about damaging the building. When the enemy occupies a building, it becomes a fort and a target for ariel or artillery bombarment. No solider should be going into a building to fight these scum, the building should be leveled. I'd rather we kill a thousand civilans than one American solider die. This country is all guys like me have, if not for the US I'd probably be a slave to some commie government somewhere. I'll stick by our country no matter what we need to do to survive. You guys can wring your hands over what the rest of the world thinks, not me. |
|
|
| ETC |
who exactly are "they" ? any specific groups or people ?
noone is arguing that there are dangerous murderers in the world, "they" are not all muslim, "they" are in every country in the world, some of "them" are in this country and some of "them" blew up a building in oklahoma.
what you are suggesting is doing heart surgery with a backhoe. it is not even conceivable to eradicate these type of people from every country in the world, we can't even identify and get rid of the ones in this country. to even attempt to do it on a worldwide scale without the cooperation of other decent people in other countries is pointless.
the iraq war was and is probably the biggest setback in the fight against terrorists. we had the sympathy of the world and the opportunity to use that sympathy to help capture, charge and pass judgement on the people who planned the attack against us. that opportunity was squandered by an idiot with illusions of a legacy.
some may not care about the rest of the worlds opinion of us, most of us do. most of us realize that these groups of people that hate and murder are small and we do not judge entire societies by the actions of a few. we hope in return that others realize that the actions our government takes in our name is not always representative of our wishs, which, if you think about it is a lot to ask when you consider that we elect the people in charge and some others do not have that opportunity. some of these as i mentioned don't have that opportunity due in part to our country meddling in their politics for our benefit either politically or economically or both.
i love this country as much as anyone here. i know the good stuff about our history and the bad, still i wouldn't live anywhere else. to deny the things we've done is counterproductive, to claim we are perfect and that we a completely innocent victims in anything that happens is delusional. to justify torture and to erode our rights, deny others rights and suspend the laws that make our country what it is in the name of fear is cowardice. |
|
|
| ETC |
well this is interesting, basically it says that treasury secretary paulson is buying up the banking industry so they can control the market. even financial institutions that aren't in trouble are being forced to accept funds. these institutions don't want the funds because it implies that they are part of this fiasco and undermines investor confidence.
so let me get this straight, they borrowed 700 billion and it appears a couple hundred billion more and are forcing banks to take it so they can lend it back to us. there doesn't seem to be any contract for them to comply with actually resuming lending money to anyone so ....... wtf ? . this so contradicts even basic economics that mind brain started to hurt when i read it.
this does totally reinforce that the worth of a countries currency is all in our minds, you think it's worth a dollar so it's worth a dollar , there is no other basis for it's value.
it appears from the article that they are using money borrowed under our names to shore up foreign banks too. though with all the obfuscation in the banking industry, who really knows who owns what anymore.
guess i'll actually have to go read that whole bail out plan.
does this whole thing seem ridiculous to everyone or is it just me and a few million other people in this country ?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...av=rss_business
the same republican party that calls national healthcare "socialist" now says it's ok for the government to force private companies to sell interest in their companies to the government which in turn gives the government the right to dictate their business decisions and practices. isn't this socialism ? isn't that what the government scared this country with for decades ?
do they just make this $&%( up as they go along ?
let me guess, "if you're not with the plan, you're not a patriot" "complete governmental control of private entities is as american as apple pie"
any of this sound familiar ?
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a unifying cause.
4. Supremacy of the military.
5. Rampant Sexism.
6. Controlled Mass Media.
7. Obsession with National Security.
8. Religion and Government are intertwined.
9. Corporate Power is protected.
10. Labor Power is suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption.
14. Fraudulent Elections.
these are the 14 defining characteristics of fascism .....
. |
|
|
| outbackredux |
Don't make the mistake of thinking that todays republican party is anything but socialism lite. While the dems are pure socialist and make no effort to hide it, the repubs try to mask their socialism. We are definetly in the later stages of socialism.
When did a perscription drug program become repbulican? Now the banks. Bush is not a conservitive neither is McCain. They are "backup" socialist for when the real ones don't get elected. The US is marching towards socialism while the rest of the world has discovered it doesn't work and is moving away from it. I fear someday you younger people will see this great country reduced to a third world nation. Thankfully I'm old enough so I'll be gone by the time that happens. Good Luck! |
|
|
| ETC |
medicare and the prescription drug benefit is a moot point but, the guy that lied about it's cost and convinced conservatives to pass it was appointed by w and worked for his dad so i'm guessing he's a republican.
that wasn't really my point
personally i think healthcare should be available for everyone, it already is to an extent and we already pay for it. hospitals rarely if ever turn anyone in dire need away and that cost is passed on to those who do pay. most people without insurance use the emergency rooms like a private doctors office which increases costs of service dramatically and reduces the ability of these er's to function in the capacity they were designed for, emergencies. we would probably pay less in the long run if everyone was covered.
on paper capitalism, democracy, socialism, all work, the limiting factors in the success of any of them are greed and ego. there's always people who will hijack a system and use it to their own ends. we've never seen the concepts applied honestly so result is not proof of concept.
like all civilizations we've allowed those we trust to govern too much leeway in their power and been loathe to "bitch slap" them when they get out of line. only the most egregious offenders are prosecuted and they won't touch a president no matter what he does [so much for equality]. generally since they are all part of the same group they get pardoned anyway so there is no downside for them. look at the whole scooter libby thing, appoint a fall guy, pardon him, every gets off scott free.
my point i guess was that all governments use irrational fear to herd the sheep in whatever direction best suites their agenda. labeling something then creating a stigma around it, be it socialism, drug use, homosexuality, patriotism ..... whatever are just distractions from reality and the things that actually effect our lives on a day to day basis. honestly, what's more important to anyone, a stoned, socialist homo or the fact that the government has completely failed us ? . yet people are so stupid all they have to do is say "homos getting married is a threat to your marriage" and the sheep go hrrrmph " those ***s aren't getting married, that'll be the end of the world as we know it" ... who cares, i'm married and i don't give a rats a$$ about it.
maybe everyone should wake up, turn off their ego, their prejudice, their irrational fear and look at what really effects their lives in reality not just in their imaginations. |
|
|
| outbackredux |
quote: Originally posted by ETC
medicare and the prescription drug benefit is a moot point but, the guy that lied about it's cost and convinced conservatives to pass it was appointed by w and worked for his dad so i'm guessing he's a republican.
that wasn't really my point
personally i think healthcare should be available for everyone, it already is to an extent and we already pay for it. hospitals rarely if ever turn anyone in dire need away and that cost is passed on to those who do pay. most people without insurance use the emergency rooms like a private doctors office which increases costs of service dramatically and reduces the ability of these er's to function in the capacity they were designed for, emergencies. we would probably pay less in the long run if everyone was covered.
on paper capitalism, democracy, socialism, all work, the limiting factors in the success of any of them are greed and ego. there's always people who will hijack a system and use it to their own ends. we've never seen the concepts applied honestly so result is not proof of concept.
like all civilizations we've allowed those we trust to govern too much leeway in their power and been loathe to "bitch slap" them when they get out of line. only the most egregious offenders are prosecuted and they won't touch a president no matter what he does [so much for equality]. generally since they are all part of the same group they get pardoned anyway so there is no downside for them. look at the whole scooter libby thing, appoint a fall guy, pardon him, every gets off scott free.
my point i guess was that all governments use irrational fear to herd the sheep in whatever direction best suites their agenda. labeling something then creating a stigma around it, be it socialism, drug use, homosexuality, patriotism ..... whatever are just distractions from reality and the things that actually effect our lives on a day to day basis. honestly, what's more important to anyone, a stoned, socialist homo or the fact that the government has completely failed us ? . yet people are so stupid all they have to do is say "homos getting married is a threat to your marriage" and the sheep go hrrrmph " those ***s aren't getting married, that'll be the end of the world as we know it" ... who cares, i'm married and i don't give a rats a$$ about it.
maybe everyone should wake up, turn off their ego, their prejudice, their irrational fear and look at what really effects their lives in reality not just in their imaginations. | |
Conservatives do not support or vote for such things as medicare and the prescription drug benefits. If you look at the congressional record of whom voted for and against these "benefits" you will see that the 12 or so conservatives that were in the house at the time voted against the drug benefit.
The only reason capitialism hasn't worked well is because of lefist government intervention. True capitalism doesn't need much intervention. If companies do wrong and get caught someone(s) should go to jail and lose their assets, and/or the companies should be allowed to fail. Just the opposite of what's going on now. McCain and ***** were tripping over each other to get back to DC to vote FOR the bailout which Bush proposed and supported. So you find the conservative capitalist in that seceniro. I don't know how old you are but if you weren't an adult paying bills and taxes when Jimmy Carter was president then lived thru the Ronald Reagan years you haven't seen socialism lite or its real contrast with true conservatism .
It seems we will have to go thru the Jimmey Carter mess again this time with *****. Then hopefully a real conservative like Reagan will come along again and pull the country out of its "malise" and liked to Carter put.
Homo marriage isn't possible. This is more government intervention. I'm a Catholic. In that church marriage is a holy sacrament. In a society where we have a seperation of religion and govt. why do people need to get a license rom the govt. to practice a part of their religion? If the govt. weren't involved and didn't give tax bennies to married people it wouldn't be an issue. The homos want the equal rights of access to tax bennies and I don't blame them. They are not wrong, the tax bennies to married couples is what's wrong. The other issues involved could be resolved with legal arrangments. No we don't need more or bigger govt. we still need smaller and less.
If you think health care is expensive now, wait until we get universal coverage! Not onlt will it cost more we'll also get less of it. |
|
|
| ETC |
suffice it to say that on most every point we completely disagree.
reaganomics is not true conservatism though for some reason he is their poster boy. he did not dramatically reduce taxes though he kept saying he was, just renamed them fees and and stopped some tax loopholes which is actually increasing taxes. he did not really deregulate anything but he did take credit for some deregulation that was enacted under the carter administration. he did not lower the national debt or the deficit and actually had the national debt limit raised with the grudging consent of real conservatives in congress. he did not lower spending he actually doubled it over the worst years of carter. he did not support or encourage free market exchange he actually encouraged nationalism, protectionism, import relief [whatever you want to call it ]. i can go on and on but the point is the debt, deficit, spending, tax revenues all went up so how is that conservatism and how was the economy in better shape ? anyone can say whatever they want but there is historical record and it completely disproves the theory.
i agree that there should be a complete separation of church and state. i agree that there shouldn't be an increased tax benefit to married couples or for children. you should be able to file jointly but you should only get twice the amount of a single person filing alone. there should be any incentive for people to pop out kids they can't afford and i think people with kids should pay for their own kids to go to school, might make people think twice about how many they have.
i don't have a problem with national healthcare as i think in the long run it'll actually be cheaper for all of us. like i've stated before, i havn't found an insurance company that i trust to not "screw me when i'm down". they are all for profit companies and like unregulated banks i don't trust them to "do the right thing" if it goes against their bottom line.
in a perfect fantasy world, capitalism needs little intervention or regulation. in the real world people are greedy scumbags who'll sell their mothers dialysis machine for a buck so they can bet it on a 50 to one at the track. i'd say that whole theory of leftist government intervention is without merit. economic oversight is more or less leftist or socialist than any other law that governs private citizens, you can argue the necessity or validity but the current crisis has shown why it is needed. the lack of any meaningful regulation in the banking industry combined with greed is mostly what got us here. it can be blamed in part on clinton and the forced subprime lending but the reality is that lack of oversight in loan products and the greed by some lenders in offering ridiculously low rates to borrowers with little to no income or assets in an attempt to capture that business then packaging those loans as solid investments to be sold off was more the problem. oversight on these matters would have dramatically reduced the impact of this whole fiasco. some banks acted more responsibly, you could see which ones by their stock prices. i think as explained in that article you'll see all those lines blurred about who did what in an attempt by the government to get us all to forget who did what and to keep unearned confidence in many of these institutions. |
|
|
| outbackredux |
It's not that we disagree its your foggy recollection of past events that make it seem that way.
Reagan didn't even have a repub. congress during his 1st four years and only the senate was repub during his 2nd term, even that doesn't mean they were conservatives. So there was no time during his terms where conservatives were in the majortiy. So your recollection is not so good. He lowered the top tax rate from 70% to 28% that is usually considered a dramatic reduction. That's why all those loop holes exsited, a 70% rate wasn't realist so loopholes were created to bring the actual rate paid went down.
The only branch of govt that can cut or raise spending is the house "all bills of atainment shall originate in the house of reps". So put correctly he couldn't convince the leftists in the house to cut spending. The tax cuts did however increase, I think even doubled the revenues (actual $$$) going into the treasury. The increase in the debt was the result of the leftists in congress putting pork (earmarks) in bills they knew he would not veto. (See the 180 billion dollars extra in the bailout for example. ) Personally I think he should have pigeon holed those bills so they would have became law without his signture.
As far as universal healthcare it doesn't work anywhere eles in the world where it is implmented I don't see why anyone would think it'll work here. |
|
|
| ETC |
i should have clarified, he didn't cut taxes for 95% of people. not being a millionaire i tend to forget when they get to keep more money. the increased tax revenues were from exactly what i said, renaming tax increases something else. familiar politics, torture becomes enhanced interrogation ............
so what your saying is that the country was no better off as a whole and reagan never accomplished anything he said he would, yet somehow because he had "good intentions" he became the poster boy for conservative economics .....
by what measure are you judging whether or not something works ?
like socialism, using an example of a concept failing for anything other than a complete failure of the concept is not valid. it's like saying "my marriage failed so noone elses could possibly succeed". better to rationalize it against the corrupt, ridiculous system we have now and see which is worse.
personally i think all americans deserve the right to get medical care. i think they deserve to have something to eat and a place to sleep. i hear people say how wonderful this country is how much they love it, i hear a lot of these people say "i'm not paying for these lazy good for nothings to blah blah blah."" . i think it's disgusting that in a country as strong as ours with the financial superiority we've enjoyed for so many years that we have so many homeless people, homeless vets, homeless kids ...... we shouldn't even have homeless pets.
how about we stop sending anyone anywhere in the world any money until we take care of our own. i'd rather help a needy american than a needy _____ any day.
if we improve the health and education of the people of our own country, we strengthen the country. of course it might jeopardize the system we have now where the super rich get richer on the backs of the rest but, i'm willing to give up that system.
my recollection is fine and we do disagree on even some of the most basic issues, but that's ok |
|
|
| outbackredux |
i should have clarified, he didn't cut taxes for 95% of people.
Wrong the taxes were across the board everyone who paid taxes got a cut. The more you paid (rich) the bigger the dollar amount you got.
so what your saying is that the country was no better off as a whole and reagan never accomplished anything he said he would, yet somehow because he had "good intentions" he became the poster boy for conservative economics .....
Wrong The inflation rate went from double digits to single. Mortage rates went from 16% -18% down to low teens - high single numbers. Unemployment went from double digits to single.
by what measure are you judging whether or not something works ?
Whether people are happy with it
By the amount of Canadians who come here for medical care thery can't get for "free" in their own country.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...-treatment.html
personally i think all americans deserve the right to get medical care. i think they deserve to have something to eat and a place to sleep.
You are intitled to your opinion. However I checked the constitution and there is no right to med care, food, or housing in there. You know of the constitution, it defines our rights and restricts the powers of our government
how about we stop sending anyone anywhere in the world any money until we take care of our own. i'd rather help a needy american than a needy _____ any day.
Be careful that sounds a little on the conservative side. Where's your compassion? :rolleyes:
if we improve the health and education of the people of our own country, we strengthen the country. of course it might jeopardize the system we have now where the super rich get richer on the backs of the rest but, i'm willing to give up that system.
Taking more money from people for a uni healthcare sys will only weaken us,
and degrade what is a healthcare system that is the envy of the world.
I never understood how the rich get richer on the backs of the poor when the poor doesn't have any money. I'm a working class guy shipyard, auto mech. I've never had the experience of a rich guy trying to rob me. Some poorly dressed guy did try one time. I hope he had health insurance.
my recollection is fine and we do disagree on even some of the most basic issues, but that's ok
No your recollection is very faulty on the eightys anyway but yes it's ok we disagree. |
|
|
| tirolerpeter |
ETC, you nailed it here:
"in a perfect fantasy world, capitalism needs little intervention or regulation. in the real world people are greedy scumbags who'll sell their mothers dialysis machine for a buck so they can bet it on a 50 to one at the track."
oubackredux is describing and apparently pining for a social, political, and economic system that Enlightenment Philosophers described as living in "a state of nature."
Unfortunately, counting on the good intentions of individuals, or the operation of a "free market" is a totally unrealistic fantasy. The strong will subjegate the weak, and businesses will move toward monopoly to the detriment of most people in society. We do need a "social contract" that is enforced by a mutually agreed on governmental system. I understand the desire to be "left alone by government." Of course that rapidly fades when, unrestrained by regulations, someone exercizes their "freedom" by opening a nightclub or recycling plant next to your suburban home. Also, the Norman Rockwell vision of "The Family Doctor" selflessly coming to sit at your bedside is also part of that fantasy. Even then (whenever "then" was) only people with $$$$ could get "Doc" to come to their home. We do need major reforms in how we provide health care to our citizens. It isn't going to be done by organizations focused on profit. |
|
|
| outbackredux |
Unfortunately, counting on the good intentions of individuals, or the operation of a "free market" is a totally unrealistic fantasy. The strong will subjegate the weak, and businesses will move toward monopoly to the detriment of most people in society. We do need a "social contract" that is enforced by a mutually agreed on governmental system.
You need to reread at least part my post: "If companies do wrong and get caught someone(s) should go to jail and lose their assets, and/or the companies should be allowed to fail. "
That called consquences, it's what makes people behave. Giving the crooks in silk suits 700 billon dollars is not the way to see that it never happens again. Seizing their assets and/or jailing them I suspect would work much better and probably be cheaper. I don't advocate letting people run wild. However the government shouldn't be threating banks to make loans to people who can't repay.
Or lowering the standards of loans so the banks almost can't refuse anyone. That's the intervetion I'm talking about. It's one of the reasons we are in this mess now.
Markets do work, gasoline is going down is that an accident or is it market forces at work because people are using less? Houses are getting cheaper is that because there are now more houses than people who can buy them or is this another happy accident?
People say they love this country then they start talking about changing the very basis that this country was founded. I'm:confused: |
|
|
| ETC |
i guess we can keep arguing reaganomics though it's completely irrelevant to anything at this point.
there is something to be said for infusing massive amounts of borrowed money in to the economy for making certain numbers look better, as has been evidenced in the last 8 years as well as during part of reagans term. 700 bil to 3 tril. largest debtor nation seems to ring a bell.
the average unemployment rate during carters term according to the dept of labor was 6.5, reagans was 7.5.
inflation was on the downslide when reagan took office, volcker had a lot to do with that and he started as fed under carter. miller was an abysmal failure.
please explain to this layman how tax's fell across the board [40% at the top] yet tax revenues went up dramatically ?
i'm not saying that the economy under reagan was horrible, at this point it doesn't matter. if parts of what was done worked, great, lets do it again ..... but, lets look at it rationally and not take the entire policy of the time as some economic holy grail.
our healthcare system is the envy of the world ? ....... third world maybe. unless we are talking about availability of advanced services without regard to cost or the ability of the average american to pay for these services.
in order for the people responsible for this economic crisis to face criminal charges relies completely on the premise that they did anything illegal. their lobbyists have done a pretty good job of bribing our elected officials to deregulate [decriminalize] pretty much everything they could be charged with. this was and is bipartisan greed.
gas prices rise and fall, much of the rise was due not to supply and demand but to speculation on wall st and other world trading centers.
we all know why house prices are dropping. i'm not sure that americans [even stupid ones] losing their homes is a check in the win column for the economy. a big part of the reason it didn't take a nose dive years ago is the spending power that the equity in their homes gave people. remember w's answer to how we can all help in the war effort " go shopping" ........ that along with the infusion of trillions of dollars in chinese credit made the books not look so bad. kinda like borrowing money on a credit card and putting it in your bank account, "hey look, i'm not broke"
never said i wasn't a conservative, never said i don't own guns, a lifted gas guzzling truck, offroad vehicles, or i was against the death penalty, i don't think prostitution and marijuana should be illegal [i think they should both be taxed], i'm an environmentalist who thinks we should be able to use it for recreation as long as we don't trash it [huge fines for offenders], i think everyone should be able to believe in whatever religion they want until as long as they don't try to legislate my rights or morals based on their beliefs. i'm one of those anomalies who doesn't align with any particular party or group just so i can feel like i'm part of something. if i think a republican, dem or independent has a better grasp of reality and is more honest i'll vote for them.
funny how we're the most benevolent superpower in the world as evidenced by our charity to other countries but the excuse for not helping needy americans is that it isn't required by the constitution. our current administration doesn't seem to have much use for the constitution anyway ..... except wiping their #$* with it. |
|
|
| outbackredux |
| Your're right you have the God given right can contuine to deny reality. |
|
|
| Woodstock20723 |
Before you post any reply to this message please watch the entire video. It's only 5:45 and presents a microcosm of the health care issue. Please consider this info when during the next elections and each candidates stance at all levels of government.
Let me say that no system is perfect and the law of unintended consequences must be remembered. No matter what type of health care is implemented someone will get left out at sometime. Most people I know don't get the care they need through their own stubborn attitudes. The old, "I don't go that doctor unless I'm ________". Fill in the blank from there. Or they don't eat properly or exercise in the least then end up needing bypass surgery. Citizens at all economic levels could solve a lot of their own health issues by taking better care of themselves in their daily lives. Junk food costs just as much as healthier alternatives in most cases. When you eat better you eat less due to higher nutritional content than vs. junk food alternatives.
I have lived under the military health care system before Tri-Care and choice is the first thing that is removed. I believe that each citizen bears the responsibility for their own health, not a bureaucrat. I can't bear the thought of my families lives being held in the hands of a government official. The idea of being powerless in this type of situation is as frightening as anything I can imagine.
http://www.freemarketcure.com/brainsurgery.php
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/936 |
|
|
| onyxtape |
quote: Originally posted by outbackredux
You need to reread at least part my post: "If companies do wrong and get caught someone(s) should go to jail and lose their assets, and/or the companies should be allowed to fail. "
That called consquences, it's what makes people behave. Giving the crooks in silk suits 700 billon dollars is not the way to see that it never happens again. Seizing their assets and/or jailing them I suspect would work much better and probably be cheaper. I don't advocate letting people run wild. However the government shouldn't be threating banks to make loans to people who can't repay.
Or lowering the standards of loans so the banks almost can't refuse anyone. That's the intervetion I'm talking about. It's one of the reasons we are in this mess now.
Markets do work, gasoline is going down is that an accident or is it market forces at work because people are using less? Houses are getting cheaper is that because there are now more houses than people who can buy them or is this another happy accident?
People say they love this country then they start talking about changing the very basis that this country was founded. I'm:confused: | |
If you want total unregulated capitalism, go live in mainland China. It's as close as you're going to get to what you seek in your desired level of government intervention in business. Businesses there have very little oversight in labor laws, environmental impact, or quality control. This is why it's "cheap" to manufacture over there, despite 20% labor cost increases annually.
The consequences will eventually come to the greedy companies over there willing to sell tainted products for slim margins. But only after a good number of people die and obscene amounts of profits are made over it. I doubt you would sing the same song if your own child died from the use of an unregulated product. |
|
|
| ETC |
woodstock- point taken about the pitfalls of a government regulated single payer system. given a microsecond, any of us can google horror stories of insurance co denied care for paying members of their plans.
this however is a moot point since neither mccain or *****'s healthcare plans are single payer plans that require government approval of procedures or prohibit people from paying completely outside any system for anything.
this like wall street is another case where some oversight by regulation can improve the system we have by reducing the ability of these companies to deny claims. many of these companies have been proven through leaked internal memos and former employees to have policies that mandate denial of claims as part of their business plan.
amazingly some factions of our government are continually successful in keeping the system as it is by calling anything like a change, socialism or welfare.
somehow the terms aren't applied to corporate bailouts which are actually a form of socialism and supported by the republican party as a whole.
speaking of socialism, seems mccains latest and greatest smear campaign is that somehow along with being a terrorist, an elitist, a muslim, unqualified, and i forget all the others ...... he's now a socialist.
sarah palin keeps telling us that she likes to talk to "real americans".... wtf ? who are these "real americans" ? is that some code phrase for racist, bigoted, extremists ? i guess her rational is that over half the country at this point is being fooled by terrorist and it's going to take "her" people to put a stop to it and make the rest of us impressionable idiots "see the light" . maybe she can have her voodoo doctor break the spell we have on us.
so what do we call a "capitalist society" where the largest richest companies are openly allowed to bribe the people we allow to dictate policy and make laws ? i'd say that's a socialist society without the name. the only real difference in the two is that in a textbook socialist society the wealth is equally distributed. what we have is more aligned with the much maligned examples of socialism that were used to scare our country back in the day.
the last eight years have been a huge step in that direction in that those at the top of the system have orchestrated a huge power grab that can only be compared to a dictatorship. the misuse of power and the appointment of unqualified and totally subservient individuals in positions to enable the assault on the rights of our citizens and our constitution and the laws we all agree to abide by, with complete impunity. these guys have played half this country against the other half for so long, all the while doing whatever they want and stuffing their pockets ..... you'd think we'd know the game by now. |
|
|
| tirolerpeter |
| Great analysis ETC. We have all been brainwashed (I know, I taught history and economics for over thirty years.) by our education system into thinking we are so "free." We are, in fact, mostly "wage slaves" at the mercy of powerful corporate interests that "own" the political system. They let us run around and debate the merits of various candidates when in reality, even they are powerless against the immense wealth of the corporate elite. I would love to see the lobbyists tarred and feathered and run out of town. |
|
|
| outbackredux |
| onyxtape, Do you know what happens to business exc. and government officals that get caught tainting food or other products, or taking bribes in China? They receive 1 22 caliber bullet behind the ear or they are hung by the neck. I don't say we should do it here, though it is tempting. That stuff is bad of business. I suspect we'll see less of it in the future,as the Chinese weed their bad apples out. |
|
|
| Woodstock20723 |
quote: Originally posted by ETC
this however is a moot point since neither mccain or *****'s healthcare plans are single payer plans | |
Didn't say either candidate did. But many other politicians up for election this term do. Something to consider.
quote: Originally posted by ETC
some oversight by regulation can improve the system | |
Some oversight is probably due. Although if I subscribed to what you say below it is all for naught. The insurance companies will simply bribe government officials to maintain the status quo. Net result would be no change for us.
quote: Originally posted by ETC
amazingly some factions of our government are continually successful in keeping the system as it is by calling anything like a change, socialism or welfare. | |
If the change is in fact socialist it deserves to be called such. Does it not? Those who believe in socialist policies shouldn't be ashamed and attempt to call them by another name.
quote: Originally posted by ETC
somehow the terms aren't applied to corporate bailouts which are actually a form of socialism and supported by the republican party as a whole. | |
I don't agree with corporate bailouts at all. Businesses should be allowed to succeed or fail on their own. Detroit is currently begging for their own handout. I say good riddance.
quote: Originally posted by ETC
...he's now a socialist. | |
I do think ***** holds many socialist beliefs. That is of course his right to do so.
quote: Originally posted by ETC
who are these "real americans" ? is that some code phrase for racist, bigoted, extremists ? | |
Not sure I follow what you are trying to say here. Perhaps your could clarify.
quote: Originally posted by ETC
so what do we call a "capitalist society" where the largest richest companies are openly allowed to bribe the people we allow to dictate policy and make laws ? i'd say that's a socialist society without the name. | |
Bribery of a public official is a criminal offense in any governmental system and should be tried as such. I do however think that term limits, especially at the state legislature and congressional levels would help in this regard. Public office was never meant to be a lifelong career. New members culled from common citizens without ties to any special interests could effect some change.
quote: Originally posted by ETC
the only real difference in the two is that in a textbook socialist society the wealth is equally distributed. what we have is more aligned with the much maligned examples of socialism that were used to scare our country back in the day. | |
Yes wealth is equally distributed but you are omitting a key component. The fact that in a radical socialist state the government owns all production of goods. No private businesses. Seeing as most people in this country are in fact employed by small business I find socialist policies in this regard suspect.
Not sure I follow the last part as the USSR was communist not socialist. There is a profound difference with in the concept of property ownership in each at least in theory if not in practice.
quote: Originally posted by ETC
the last eight years have been a huge step in that direction in that those at the top of the system have orchestrated a huge power grab that can only be compared to a dictatorship. the misuse of power and the appointment of unqualified and totally subservient individuals in positions to enable the assault on the rights of our citizens and our constitution and the laws we all agree to abide by, with complete impunity. these guys have played half this country against the other half for so long, all the while doing whatever they want and stuffing their pockets ..... you'd think we'd know the game by now. | |
Please don't let your hatred of one man push you too far in one direction or the other. He is out of office regardless of what happens this November. Being someone who has worked at and/or with some of the agencies you refer to I agree with some of what you write. The TSA and DHS are completely unnecessary entities, I hope they are disbanded soon. I don't like or agree with some of the new activities. I will say that many are misunderstood by the public and the media as only partial information is available. Don't forget also the Congress was complicit in most of these decisions which would not have been possible without their approval. They can also propose legislation to roll back these activities any time they wish. Don't hold your breath though. The game is that officials from both parties, not all of course, take advantage. No one has the patent on that trick.
p.s. I didn't 'google' the link I posted. It was sent via email to me from a friend. It is not the first time I have seen such stories from north of the border. Any Canadians that could provide insight as to how common this problem is it would be appreciated. |
|
|
| ETC |
good response,
in regard to my understanding of issues, problems, historical relevance and who as a whole is responsible. realize that though i do go off on the occasional foam at the mouth rant, i do know that there are more people that were complicit in these acts.
btw, it's not one man that pisses me off. cheney, rumsfeld, wolfowitz, rove, rice, gonzales, and others all have my disgust. i find my self grudgingly allowing most of the democratic congress a pass [at least as far as reigning in w] as they didn't have the majority for 6 years and for the last didn't have veto proof majority. they still suck, don't get me wrong, if they had grown a set and really wanted to ,they could have made a huge difference.
very hard to include the nuances of every opinion, argument or statement in every post. i already feel like i'm writing a book everytime i start typing and just the economy is a potential endless series of point counterpoint.
but i'll give it a shot.
quote response
1
point taken, i always look at all candidates policies before voting.
2
yes we need to expose lobbyists for what they are and treat the practice as criminal attempts to subvert our democratic process. accepting bribes is just as bad, no passes for politicians accepting them.
3
we all live under social contract wherein we give up some sense of individualism in order to function. we have social water systems, sewers, transportation, legal systems etc where this benefits most of us most of the time. whether these are private or public entities they are regulated and overseen by rules that help keep us safe. i'm not sure why when it comes to healthcare that this all of a sudden is an issue. food and product safety is regulated by the government and what is that but preventative healthcare ?
4
the house already passed a 25 billion dollar bailout plan for detroit, they havn't got the money yet but it was put through while we were all watching wall street tumble.
5
as i said above, we all hold some socialist beliefs. it's just become a stigmatized word used to attack people and incite a reaction from stupid people.
6
palin seems to be insinuating that some citizens are "real" and some are not. that somehow the people that go to her rallies are "real americans" and the ones that don't are somehow less. considering the tone of the campaign, the accusations and the shouting radicals that seem to get applause and acceptance at the rallies rather than getting reprimanded and run out on a rail i'd say there is an "us against them" theme being played out.
7
i'm for term limits
8
if the government is acting as a patsy for the corporations, the lines are blurred as to whether there is much difference between the government owning the means of production vs private ownership where they get to write all the rules. if they all get paid what is the point in transferring ownership.
9
should have changed the name to uscr then huh ? my point though i did blend the two similar concepts is that rather than being like either of the two actual concepts our result is closer to the failed examples of both concepts which were plagued by greed and the reluctance of those in power to relinquish it.
10
already went there .
the human condition
“If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”
solzhenitsyn
. |
|
|
| outbackredux |
ETC, I really don't understand why you keep referring to the republicans as conservatives or using them as examples of what conservatives should or shouldn't do or be like. Bush killed the conservative movment. He has been so affective that he has been able to trick much of the population into thinking he is a conservative while killing it.
If you go back and read my posts you'll find I called the bailout socalist many times, beacuse it is. Being conservative isn't beleiving in giving tax money to corporations but not to private citizens. In a nutshell it's beleiving in the power of the induvidal to make the best decsions for themsleves and their families and relying on ones self to solve problems without asking our fellows citizens for a handout.
Dependence can only result in slavery. |
|
|
| ETC |
uh ....... what ?
aren't conservatives generally considered part of the republican party ?
don't most right wing neocons lump all ultra left wing liberals in to the democratic party ?
i know on economic issues true conservatives differ greatly from what's in office now but it seems in many aspects they veer further right on other issues.
sucks being pidgeonholed with people you don't agree with doesn't it ;] |
|
|
| outbackredux |
aren't conservatives generally considered part of the republican party ?
Since Bush killed conservativism in the republican party that would be incorrect.
don't most right wing neocons lump all ultra left wing liberals in to the democratic party ?
Neo is a prefix signaling a "new" form. So again they are not conservatives.
While its true that all dems aren't ultra left wing liberals it's also true that most ultra left wing liberals are dems.
i know on economic issues true conservatives differ greatly from what's in office now but it seems in many aspects they veer further right on other issues.
Now that's a fair statement. I know I've taken polictcal tests that put me to the right of Rush Limbaugh but to the left of Jesse Helms. |
|
|
| ETC |
so where's the "old school conservative" candidate ?
actually from what you said it sounds like the libertarian platform but without all those pesky freedoms like the right to choose, equal rights based on race, religion, sexual orientation etc ............... |
|
|
| outbackredux |
so where's the "old school conservative" candidate ?
Now we get to the heart of the matter there is/are none at least running.
George Allen, JC Wyatts come close or closer than McCain anyway.
actually from what you said it sounds like the libertarian platform but without all those pesky freedoms like the right to choose, equal rights based on race, religion, sexual orientation etc ............... I'm not sure I understand what this means.
As I said before the constitution is the guide. Take a look at the first 10 amendments. Every one of those rights when practiced as intented do not abridge anybody eles rights.
Now look at the "right to choose" If a man impregnates a woman that fetus, baby etc...... is half his. If the woman has the baby he is responsible for child support regardless wether or not he "wanted" the child. However if he wants the child and the woman doesn't he has no say ("read right") as to what happens to that fetus. This is why the right to choose is a phony made up right, because if it is practiced as intended it deprives men of their right to "choose" but subjects them to the responsibilty of parnethood regardless of his choice based on the fact that the child is his. Is that clear? Is it fair? Is it American? I don't think so. |
|
|
| ETC |
basically that's a diversionary argument.
a man has a right not to have sex with the woman in the first place so i'd consider that a right to choose. if a man doesn't want a child he has the right to have a vasectomy which will exclude him from that situation.
i'd take issue with the"half his" part, half the genetics maybe but in reality 99.999% of the actual child is derived from the tissue of the mother so i'd say the old "possession is 9/10 th's" adage applies.
most pro lifers are even against termination even in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother. is that constitutional ? is that right ?
but, by your logic, abortion should be legal if both the parents agree.
nice try twisting the facts so it's "un american" by absolving the man of any responsibility of where he sticks his pickle. |
|
|
| outbackredux |
a man has a right not to have sex What and a woman doesn't?
It's half his by the fact that he must pay if the child is born. Using your thinking the woman should pay 9/10 of the cost.
I never said it shouldn't be legal. I said it was a phony right. Things can be legal without being a right. Rights come from our creator not our government.
If the 2nd amendment were treated the same as the right to choose we'd be requried to carry a gun and if you couldn't afford one then the government whould buy one for you. |
|
|
| ETC |
i thought my point was pretty clear
yes men and woman [at least in this country] have the right to not have sex.
kinda makes the argument that you should have a pretty good idea of who you're jumping in the sack with and what their attitude will be should something happen.
as noted their are steps to take to make this outcome an impossibility, if some choose not to take those steps then according to law the responsibilities are clear. if one chooses not to accept these risks then they have the choice to not to engage in these activities.
guess if your rights come from your creator you can try asking him to represent you in court should these rights happen to differ from the rights allowed by our legal system.
the rights most people claim come from their creator actually come from the governing bodies of the religion they belong to.
if a fetus gestated outside the body i might have a different opinion about a womans right of dominion over it, but, since it is a part of her i believe that decisions regarding it are ultimately hers. |
|
|
| Mylläri |
I've been a Green Party member since 2005, currently I'm a lead part of a Congressional Campaign. Rodger Jennings for IL 12th Congressional District that is :D Believe what you want, but my guy does have a great chance in defeating the incumbent Democrat and the lackluster Republican. Our candidate is the only one actively campaigning, the other two have yet to do anything other than run under the premise that they represent a major party and people should vote for them because of that. As has been proven by the ***** campaign, if you have a good ground game with plenty of dedicated people you can stir up a fervor with your campaign. I have thoroughly enjoyed all the parades, fairs, canvassing, and all the other time I've dedicated to this campaign. It has been a blast and personally rewarding to know that I've made an effort towards making a true difference.
If anyone is interested...
www.rodgerjennings.org
Candidate Debate: http://www.thesouthern.com/multimed...TS/JENNINGS.mp3
That all being said, I'm not really to interested in any other political horse race. I'm not convinced that *****, McCain, Palin, or Biden will do anything as President that will truly progress America to where it really should be. All have far too much "Big Money Influence" which will ultimately steer them away from helping the Middle Class and below :rolleyes: |
|
|
| outbackredux |
That all being said, I'm not really to interested in any other political horse race. I'm not convinced that *****, McCain, Palin, or Biden will do anything as President that will truly progress America to where it really should be. All have far too much "Big Money Influence" which will ultimately steer them away from helping the Middle Class and below :rolleyes: [/B][/QUOTE]
As a life long member of the middle class the only "help" I want from government is to stay out of my life and pockets, the rest I can handle, thanks. |
|
|
| ETC |
there are different levels of corruption.
while it's true that any politician needs the support of the corporate world to some extent, the question is how much of their souls did they sell ?
for someone interested in grass roots campaigns, one would think you would recognize that *****'s is more of one than any campaign in most of our lifetimes. i can't say how much of that support is based completely on his policies and goals vs the total disgust with what we've seen from our current admin. a good deal of the money he's spending is from small donations from average people.
i think it goes a bit deeper than just not interfering with our personal lives, there's a lot of damage control to be done on almost every front from the economy to world policy.
while it's important to pay attention to local elections so our communities interests are looked after, these people don't set the tone for the direction the nation proceeds in.
we have two choices. one seems to be saying everythings ok it just needs a little tweaking and the other says we need to take a sharp turn away from the way we've been doing things and the way we've been acting. get involved, don't get involved, like it or don't, we have two choices and on basic direction there does seem to be a huge difference.
***** strikes me as someone who will put intelligent qualified people in positions that matter rather than filling them with people who will do whatever he says. i may be wrong but i doubt it.
mccain strikes me as someone who doesn't seem to know what's going on at any given moment so i'm not sure he would even know who the best person for the job is. the more i watch him the more detached from reality he seems.
. |
|
|
| Button |
| Blah . . . Blah . . . Blah . . . |
|
|
| outbackredux |
***** strikes me as someone who will put intelligent qualified people in positions that matter rather than filling them with people who will do whatever he says. i may be wrong but i doubt it.
Lenin strikes me as someone who will put intelligent qualified people in positions that matter rather than filling them with people who will do whatever he says. i may be wrong but i doubt it comrade. |
|
|
| Mudge |
I suspect that any significant change will only occur, as Myllari's post implies, at the local level and then building up. The candidates generally who are held accountable are those who have to face the people day in and day out at the post office and the market. That's why the Greens and the Libertarians are making some inroads here in Maine--again on a local level. Too, the local Republicrats have to articulate more clearly and concretely their positions, which they are doing here(unlike what seems to be happening in Illinois).
If Americans would cast off the narcotic generated by the corporate media every four years--called the presidential election--we actually might move things in a positive direction. Alas, turnout for local elections is (generously) only 50% of the turnout during the hyped-up presidential elections. |
|
|
| tirolerpeter |
quote: Originally posted by outbackredux
Lenin strikes me as someone who will put intelligent qualified people in positions that matter rather than filling them with people who will do whatever he says. i may be wrong but i doubt it comrade. | |
I thought Lenin was "stuffed and trussed" in that Mausoleum in Red Square? Although I heard there were plans to cremate him and stick him in a niche in the wall of the Kremlin. Did he come back from the dead? Is there something you are not telling us? |
|
|
| ETC |
i saw a show on discovery or history channel about the great lengths they went/go through to stop the decomposition of that body. got a creepy feeling about the whole thing.
seems all political discussions at some point reach the hitler, stalin, lenin, mao comparison stage. usually it's when nothing else sticks and someone doesn't have any thing of substance left to say.
it's strange how we simultaneously live in the "greatest nation on earth" yet everyone in our elected government is "all the same". people seem to have the attitude that democracy is the best form of government yet they say it's pointless to vote or discuss it because it doesn't work.
seems like the citizens of the "greatest nation on earth" would not be content to live under these circumstances and would do everything in their power to change to system to one that is more toward the ideal.
maybe we as a people should strive for a "none of the above" slot on the ballot. if everyone is so discontent with the choices they are given they could vote none of the above and different candidates would have to be put forth. in the interim we could just outsource the position to some guy in india [that might motivate people to act ].
"under socialism man takes advantage of man, under capitalism, the reverse is true" |
|
|
| outbackredux |
quote: Originally posted by ETC
i saw a show on discovery or history channel about the great lengths they went/go through to stop the decomposition of that body. got a creepy feeling about the whole thing.
seems all political discussions at some point reach the hitler, stalin, lenin, mao comparison stage. usually it's when nothing else sticks and someone doesn't have any thing of substance left to say.
Brevity is the soul of wit.
it's strange how we simultaneously live in the "greatest nation on earth" yet everyone in our elected government is "all the same". people seem to have the attitude that democracy is the best form of government yet they say it's pointless to vote or discuss it because it doesn't work.
Democracy is a lynch job. We have a rep. republic, if we can keep it.
seems like the citizens of the "greatest nation on earth" would not be content to live under these circumstances and would do everything in their power to change to system to one that is more toward the ideal.
maybe we as a people should strive for a "none of the above" slot on the ballot. if everyone is so discontent with the choices they are given they could vote none of the above and different candidates would have to be put forth. in the interim we could just outsource the position to some guy in india [that might motivate people to act ].
If he's given a copy of the constitution and told to follow it he might do a better job.
"under socialism man takes advantage of man, under capitalism, the reverse is true" | |
|
|
|
| ETC |
democracy, socialism, communism etc are concepts and only that. these concepts cannot factor in the myriad of ways that the human condition can throw a wrench in to the machine.
greed, power lust, perceived divine entitlement, apathy and on and on all have played a part in the historical perceptions of "failed" political systems.
the constitution is only as good as the people that live under it. we've seen again and again how easy it is for politicians to circumvent it, ignore it, or just trample all over it at will with no repercussions. w has done it for 8 years and he'll never be held accountable for his actions. this in itself shows our disrespect for the piece of paper so often quoted under the pretense of holding it in high esteem. everyone cries about their rights and freedoms then without blinking and eye give them up out of fear.
apparently palin thinks that one of the basic ideals of controlling the distribution of power in this country doesn't exist. she thinks as vp she will be in control of congress...... she doesn't realize that she's going to have to fight lobbyists for that job ;] |
|
|
| outbackredux |
| This concept of communism has been the cause of over 100 million deaths, and the lose of freedom of hundreds millions more. Other than the right to keep and bear arms what rights have we lost? The fact that we're doing this is proof that most of our rights are still intact. In China we'd be turned into the government already, and waiting for excution. |
|
|
| ETC |
actually the flawed implementation of a concept is to blame for the results you mention. don't blame the recipe for the results.
we have the right to keep and bear arms, i have proof times 8 in my safe, all registered and noone has come to take them from me.
our right to privacy has been infringed upon illegally with the spying program.
if accidentally or otherwise labeled a terrorist under recent policy one could theoretically be detained without charges and held indefinitely.
why are you comparing us to china ? what is the relevance of a comparison between the two ? |
|
|
| outbackredux |
quote: Originally posted by ETC
actually the flawed implementation of a concept is to blame for the results you mention. don't blame the recipe for the results.
The recipe is excatly the problem. The concept of money taxed from one citizen then given to another is why we are in the mess we are in today. This was never the case in this country until FDR stacked the Supreme Court with lefties, now like the cancer it is it has continued to eat away at the foundation of freedom. To say nothing of other issues like the absoulte loss of individual liberties, and the right to choose your own destiny. The concept as you called it has failed everywhere it's tried.
we have the right to keep and bear arms, i have proof times 8 in my safe, all registered and noone has come to take them from me.
If you had the right you speak of they wouldn't need to be register!!
our right to privacy has been infringed upon illegally with the spying program.
Prove it.
if accidentally or otherwise labeled a terrorist under recent policy one could theoretically be detained without charges and held indefinitely.
Prove it. Cite an example of this to me. Could've might be not good enough
why are you comparing us to china ? what is the relevance of a comparison
between the two ? | |
If we continue to go towards a more socialist from of government we will become more like China. Heck a couple dem AG's said they were going to proscute anyone lying about *****. How's that for a comparision? Not ***** and/or McCain just *****. Countries like the old ussr and toadys China are the end of the socialism road. |
|
|
| ETC |
again, the ussr and china are not textbook examples of socialism but poor executions of a concept
since the initial introduction of democracy it has included socialistic aspects that are just part of societal living.
labeling something "socialism" is just a political attempt to capitalize on fear keywords to gain public support against something. how about we call "socialized healthcare "....... "freedom care" or "patriot care" or some other stupid patriotic frenzy inspiring thing ?. worked to expand presidential power and to circumvent the constitution.
then there's the argument that says that using other countries as examples of what we could do is very unpatriotic. are we saying that we couldn't do a better job of it than the french ? cuba ? ..... assuming we can't do a better job of anything than the chinese is insulting.
what a couple assumed democratic attorneys might have pales by comparison to the fact that the republicans fired a bunch of them for not following partisan instruction and investigating non existent voter violations against the democratic party. or how about bush appointing patsy gonzales to make whatever he wanted to do legal. i can go on but the fact is that most of the AGs refuse to be part of this partisan bs and follow the laws to the best of their abilities.
we can argue one against the other forever. the truth is that while our system functions, it does so poorly. it isn't because the concept isn't relatively sound, like socialism, it's the execution and the injection of "the human condition" that causes the problems. our greatest asset, individualism, is also our achilles heel when it comes to living together. |
|
|
| outbackredux |
again, the ussr and china are not textbook examples of socialism but poor executions of a concept
We will not agree on this point. Conditions such as the ussr china n korea..... are the unadvoidable end to socialism. That is why it is the enemy of our system and also why it is always doomed to fail. It's not a matter of whether we can execute the concept correctly. If the concept is executed correctly its envinable end is suppression, control and eratication of individual liberties, central control of the economy and eventually our lives. Or like Iceland bankruptcy.
Those AG's who were fired were just fired. The AG's I referred to want to put people in JAIL!! That's a big difference to me anyway.
The US has the same system of govt. it had 250 years ago. No other country on the planet can say the same. When something better comes along it'll happen here in the good ole US of A. |
|
|
| outbackredux |
U.S. attacks inside Syria
A U.S. official confirmed the attack targeted what he said were elements of arobust foreign fighter logistics network operating in Syria and that due to Syrian inaction the U.S. was now "taking matters into our own hands."
Wasn't Damascus on my target list for nuking?
who exactly are we supposed to shoot these nukes at ?
Teran, Iran Iran is terror central, has been since 1979, Nuke em now.
The badlands where OB is hiding Nuke it now.
Damasucs, Syria Nuke em now. Yep here it is!!
Then sit back and enjoy the whining!! I'm serious about this. We need to take the strongest action we can now while no other country can challenge us. |
|
|
| tirolerpeter |
quote: Originally posted by outbackredux
U.S. attacks inside Syria
A U.S. official confirmed the attack targeted what he said were elements of arobust foreign fighter logistics network operating in Syria and that due to Syrian inaction the U.S. was now "taking matters into our own hands."
Wasn't Damascus on my target list for nuking?
who exactly are we supposed to shoot these nukes at ?
Teran, Iran Iran is terror central, has been since 1979, Nuke em now.
The badlands where OB is hiding Nuke it now.
Damasucs, Syria Nuke em now. Yep here it is!!
Then sit back and enjoy the whining!! I'm serious about this. We need to take the strongest action we can now while no other country can challenge us. | |
The only place we should use a nuke is to stick one up your necon butt. You sound like my brother-in-law who had "serious doubts" about our involvement in Vietnam until his "Draft Lottery Number" came up in the high 300's and completely eliminated him from the possibility of being drafted. He promptly decided that his doubts were wrong, and we should have sent in more men (We had 560,00 there during my tour,) and "Nuked" Hanoi. My son is currently in the middle of those "badlands" chasing OB. If our incompetent neocon President and his "gung ho" draft-dodging (fellow chickenhawk) Vice President had actually read some history they would have known that they should have finished one war before starting another in Iraq (If at all?). They had the Taliban on the run and then stripped Afghanistan of troops and equipment to screw around in the quagmire of Iraq. They diverted our military from its primary mission of chasing terrorists to pursue some fantasy about "spreading democracy" to a religiously split tribal culture that is hundreds of years from internalizing anything that faintly resembles "democracy." But wait, that war is going to pay for itself from oil revenues and very shortly they will be throwing candy and flowers at our troops instead of IED's.
BTW, when will you be volunteering, since you seem so anxious to get into the fight? |
|
|
| outbackredux |
I volunteered in 1968 when everyone eles was burning their drafts cards, waving the foot print of the American chicken and running off to Canada. God bless your son.
Bring him home send in the nukes! |
|
|
| tirolerpeter |
quote: Originally posted by outbackredux
I volunteered in 1968 when everyone eles was burning their drafts cards, waving the foot print of the American chicken and running off to Canada. God bless your son.
Bring him home send in the nukes! | |
Some of my budies never came home from the war because they died. I visit them at The Wall whenever I get a chance. Others, like you never came home emotionally. They fantasize simple solutions to complex problems. A "simple solution" is to blow or beat things up. Guys who sound like you make me wonder if I should give up my guns just to keep them out of your hands.
Your PM is a GEM:
Too bad Bush and Cheney weren't as patriotic back in 68 as they claim to be today. Do you feel like you got used by those neocon Chickenhawks? That could be the source of your anger and frustration. |
|
|
| outbackredux |
That's a legimate invite anytime you feel up to it you can take me up on it.
The use of nukes will prevent the lose of lives among our troops. Having a son involved in this you should realize this. But apprentally your head is where you'd
need a window installed in your stomach to see clearly.
BTW ours buddies didn't die they were killed by the enemy. One dies from cancer when someone is shot, stabbed or blown up they are killed. |
|
|
| The_Lizard |
| Thread locked. We didn't build this board for members to trade abuse. Take it off this board and watch your asses on other threads. |
|
|
|
|
