Sad but true... [modified]
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
There was nothing knee-jerk about it.
An impartial observer would label you as spastic. :laugh:
Your silly assed, irrelevant opinion has been duly noted. Now take it elsewhere!
Tim Craig wrote:
An impartial observer would label you as spastic.
Oh, really? Tim, you have never posted anything other than knee jerk reactions to statments you disagree with. You have never once even attempted to articulate a rational defense of anything you appear to believe.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
If the US broke the system, that doesn't mean there is something wrong with us. It means there is something wrong with the system
This particular system, is that one of capitalism or has the United States been living a lie since the arrival of the industrial revolution into the United States.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Europeans
The Europeans do not always get it right, and neither do the Americans. Europe has not always been to the left of politics, many nations are right or centre-right of the political spectrum.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The underlieing problem
Won't go away while everybody is blaming everybody else. If there is to be a solution, it doesn't matter where the bloody solution comes from as long as solution works. And you Stan, you have to give it time as the solution, whatever it may entail, is not instant.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Won't go away while everybody is blaming everybody else. If there is to be a solution, it doesn't matter where the bloody solution comes from as long as solution works. And you Stan, you have to give it time as the solution, whatever it may entail, is not instant.
We Americans already have a perfectly workable solution. It worked for nearly two centuries, it worked flawlessly and led inexorably to ever greater wealth, freedom and human accomplishment. It is now demonized precisely for those very reasons. American does not need to be looking to Europe for anything. Europe has no solutions and has never had them and never will. We need to look to our own foundation, knock away the debry from 70 years of neglect, and just spruce the old place up a bit and we will be fine.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
So far you've defended him against any blame.
No, I haven't. I have repeatedly asserted my desire to have his actions investigated by congress. I simply wish to have the appropriate institutions conduct a legal process rather than associate myself with a political witch burning.
Oakman wrote:
Crap. Anyone who has read a majority of your posts in the early fall knows you have been chortling over what you predicted would be a complete meltdown. You said things to the effect that you couldn't wait for the US to fall apart.
I believe the sooner the inevitable meltdown occurs the better off we will all be. The longer the delay, the worse the ensueing chaos will be. And, yes, I also believe that, as the only workable, viable set of political principles, conservativtism would ultimately be the most likely benefactor of such an event. The flow of power to the center is going to fail precisely as it has always failed. It is not a question of if, it is a question of when.
Oakman wrote:
If true, that's no call for you to be happy about it. It flies over my house tall and true, btw.
Yet, you don't support any of the principles it was created to symbolize. How ironic...
Oakman wrote:
Nor did it ever fly over a viable nation to be betrayed by. That's why you like it.
Probably true. I am glad the South lost, Jon. Had they won, I probably would have been born into a third world economy. Of course, it looks like I'm likely to die in one anyway. So maybe it didn't really matter after all.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I have repeatedly asserted my desire to have his actions investigated by congress
And when I suggested that it might happen once he left office, your reaction was, predictably, that it would be a political witch hunt.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I believe the sooner the inevitable meltdown occurs the better off we will all be.
You admitted that you deserved to be called a traitor, by your own definition.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yet, you don't support any of the principles it was created to symbolize. How ironic...
Oh bullshit. You're the guy who arranged to stay out of combat. You're the guy who roots for people he considers America's enemies. You're the guy who thinks that everything America has stood for in the last 100 years is reprehensible.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Of course, it looks like I'm likely to die in one anyway.
Not if Obama can undo the damage Bush has done.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Won't go away while everybody is blaming everybody else. If there is to be a solution, it doesn't matter where the bloody solution comes from as long as solution works. And you Stan, you have to give it time as the solution, whatever it may entail, is not instant.
We Americans already have a perfectly workable solution. It worked for nearly two centuries, it worked flawlessly and led inexorably to ever greater wealth, freedom and human accomplishment. It is now demonized precisely for those very reasons. American does not need to be looking to Europe for anything. Europe has no solutions and has never had them and never will. We need to look to our own foundation, knock away the debry from 70 years of neglect, and just spruce the old place up a bit and we will be fine.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
We need to look to our own foundation, knock away the debry from 70 years of neglect, and just spruce the old place up a bit
. . .go back to an Agrarian economy. Re-enslave the blacks, take the vote away from women, and undo every bit of social legislation since Lincoln. . .
Stan Shannon wrote:
and we will be fine
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
Sure thing. It was originally designed to work with a relatively small group of people - 22 Senators, 59 Congressmen all representing agrarian economies that were dependent on trade with Europe to stay afloat.
And your point is what? I completely agree that the system should evolve and change to accomodate changing conditions. But mechanism were created to allow for that. Such change was expected and planned for.
Oakman wrote:
Marx must have as a time machine. In 1789, The U.S. established a system of Marxist tariffs to put an end to all that free trade b.s. the capitalists were throwing around. In 1790, the first Marxist bail-out occurred when Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison agreed that the feds would assume all state debts. Also in 1790 the Marxist patent system and copyright system were established, further restraining free trade. And in 1791, the Marxist First Bank of the U.S. (precursor to the Federal reserve Bank) was established.
Jon, is that the best you can do? If so, its pathetic. But you are the one that associated fascism with Rome and 'proved' that nazis were religious because they worshipped Wotan, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Why don't you throw in the Louisiana Purchase? All of those (with the exception of patents perhaps) were highly contentions issues. Jefferson and Madison regretted agreeing with Hamilton's tariff compromise. But simply raising taxes or tariffs does not equate to Marxism in any way at all. None of those guys were toying with the idea that it was the role of centralized government to redistribute one person's wealth to others.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I completely agree that the system should evolve and change to accomodate changing conditions
No, you don't.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Jon, is that the best you can do?
LOL. It's good enough to stymie you. Your attempts to discredit what I wrote are ineffectual and irrelevant.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Won't go away while everybody is blaming everybody else. If there is to be a solution, it doesn't matter where the bloody solution comes from as long as solution works. And you Stan, you have to give it time as the solution, whatever it may entail, is not instant.
We Americans already have a perfectly workable solution. It worked for nearly two centuries, it worked flawlessly and led inexorably to ever greater wealth, freedom and human accomplishment. It is now demonized precisely for those very reasons. American does not need to be looking to Europe for anything. Europe has no solutions and has never had them and never will. We need to look to our own foundation, knock away the debry from 70 years of neglect, and just spruce the old place up a bit and we will be fine.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
There are more people in the world besides conservatives you know? For example, libertarians, classical liberals, Objectivists.
Yes, but I was referring to conservatives. I'll let all those others speak for themselves.
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
I mean things such as murder, theft, assault...
I can understand concern for theft. But murder and assault? Who has done that?
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
A regulation refers to a law that prohibits or restricts an interaction that is mutually consenting, e.g., a minimum wage law is a regulation. Even though you and I might both agree for me to pay you $1/hour, if the law says I can't then that's a regulation. A law against theft (or fraud) is not.
And, yes, those are the kinds of regulations conservatives have problems with. They represent the government inteferring in the natual processes of capitalism. The US federal government has no constitutional authority telling two private citizens how they can arrive at some kind of financial accomodation. Nor should it have. Interference of that sort is precisely the reason we are having the kinds of financial problems that are occuring now. There is a word for a political system in which the private insitutions of a society work to achieve state defined goals. That word is fascism.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yes, but I was referring to conservatives
I wasn't.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I can understand concern for theft. But murder and assault? Who has done that?
You asked me for a definition of force. I was providing examples.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And, yes, those are the kinds of regulations conservatives have problems with. They represent the government inteferring in the natual processes of capitalism. The US federal government has no constitutional authority telling two private citizens how they can arrive at some kind of financial accomodation. Nor should it have. Interference of that sort is precisely the reason we are having the kinds of financial problems that are occuring now. There is a word for a political system in which the private insitutions of a society work to achieve state defined goals. That word is fascism.
I agree. :)
Kevin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I completely agree that the system should evolve and change to accomodate changing conditions
No, you don't.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Jon, is that the best you can do?
LOL. It's good enough to stymie you. Your attempts to discredit what I wrote are ineffectual and irrelevant.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
No, you don't.
Yes, I do.
Oakman wrote:
I wrote are ineffectual and irrelevant.
They are, in fact, completely irrelevant.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I have repeatedly asserted my desire to have his actions investigated by congress
And when I suggested that it might happen once he left office, your reaction was, predictably, that it would be a political witch hunt.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I believe the sooner the inevitable meltdown occurs the better off we will all be.
You admitted that you deserved to be called a traitor, by your own definition.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yet, you don't support any of the principles it was created to symbolize. How ironic...
Oh bullshit. You're the guy who arranged to stay out of combat. You're the guy who roots for people he considers America's enemies. You're the guy who thinks that everything America has stood for in the last 100 years is reprehensible.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Of course, it looks like I'm likely to die in one anyway.
Not if Obama can undo the damage Bush has done.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
You're the guy who roots for people he considers America's enemies.
No, I don't. That would be the democrat party.
Oakman wrote:
You're the guy who thinks that everything America has stood for in the last 100 years is reprehensible.
What we have 'stood for' in the last 100 years is largely the cause of our current crisis.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
We need to look to our own foundation, knock away the debry from 70 years of neglect, and just spruce the old place up a bit
. . .go back to an Agrarian economy. Re-enslave the blacks, take the vote away from women, and undo every bit of social legislation since Lincoln. . .
Stan Shannon wrote:
and we will be fine
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
go back to an Agrarian economy
Or its modern equivalent - free market capitalism.
Oakman wrote:
Re-enslave the bla
That would be unconstitutional.
Oakman wrote:
take the vote away from women
So would that.
Oakman wrote:
undo every bit of social legislation since Lincoln. . .
Certainly since Hoover (I distinctly said 70 years there, Jon)
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
It appears your rose tinted spectacles are so scratched that you no longer can clearly see through them. Time to buy a new pair of spectacles but this time, leave the pink tint for the ladies. :doh:
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
It appears your rose tinted spectacles are so scratched that you no longer can clearly see through them.
The success of the US is an uncontestable fact of history. The working model of small, unobtrusive government, free market capitalism, and a largly self governing society strongly committed to local government and christian ethics was proven beyond any doubt to be the best formula for a viable, free, democratic society. You simply cannot dispute that.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
An impartial observer would label you as spastic.
Oh, really? Tim, you have never posted anything other than knee jerk reactions to statments you disagree with. You have never once even attempted to articulate a rational defense of anything you appear to believe.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
fat_boy wrote:
I just like to have a dig sometimes, for a bit of fun really
But if any of us bring up the less-than-stellar French war record over the last couple of centuries, you and Karl squeal like scalded pigs.
fat_boy wrote:
Germany is receding at .9% I believe, Frane still growijng at .1% so you are wrong
The CAC 40 has lost 38.5% of its value in the last six months. The DAX has lost 36.5%. The Dow has lost 35.5%. Of course, none of them come close to Russia's 70% loss.
fat_boy wrote:
strike what I wrote and re-word it.
I'll accept your apology. You might ponder this. There was no-one from the U.S. holding a gun to any French banker ordering him to buy those insanely packaged mortgages. French bankers are just as short-sighted, just as greedy, and just as gullible as the American version. All you are complaining about when you blame the U.S. is that French bankers aren't as imaginative.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Whats alll this French stuff about? I am no more French than I am an Eskimo! OK, I live here, its a beautifuil country with excellent food. A stable society and in general a considerate and happy population.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Whats alll this French stuff about? I am no more French than I am an Eskimo! OK, I live here, its a beautifuil country with excellent food. A stable society and in general a considerate and happy population.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription