Good news...
-
The end will be near when the credit rating on U.S. government debt is no longer AAA. Until that time, I remain unconcerned.
Hasn't there already been some talk of that being down graded? Shouldn't it be?
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.
-
click[^] edit (added) I think Rush Limbaugh in above article is trying to tie this to Soroce, very speculative, and somewhat conspiratorial, but an interesting read. It does seem that the Pres. and the congress are talking the economy down. /edit
MrPlankton
The Second Amendment, the Reset Button on the Constitution --- He that lives upon hope will die fasting. Benjamin Franklinmodified on Saturday, February 21, 2009 5:16 PM
We are most definitely into tin foil hat territory, no doubt. Still, one has to wonder. Consider Obama. He has family and cultural ties of some type to virtually every area of the globe. America, Europe, Africa, Asia, the middle east. What a perfect individual to suddenly rescue the entire world from the brink of utter global economic ruin. He would emerge as probably the most significant figure in all of history - the child of the world, who literally saves the world from economic devastation. The very embodiment of leftist heroism. Throw in an end to terrorism, possibly the capture of bin Ladin, or something equally significant, and he (or who ever is pulling the strings behind the curtain) would be free to turn the future of human civiliztion into whatever they wish it to be.
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.
-
We are most definitely into tin foil hat territory, no doubt. Still, one has to wonder. Consider Obama. He has family and cultural ties of some type to virtually every area of the globe. America, Europe, Africa, Asia, the middle east. What a perfect individual to suddenly rescue the entire world from the brink of utter global economic ruin. He would emerge as probably the most significant figure in all of history - the child of the world, who literally saves the world from economic devastation. The very embodiment of leftist heroism. Throw in an end to terrorism, possibly the capture of bin Ladin, or something equally significant, and he (or who ever is pulling the strings behind the curtain) would be free to turn the future of human civiliztion into whatever they wish it to be.
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.
See, you need to realise that there is a big old world outside of the USA, and it's full of people who would not accept a one world leader, no matter how much they may like the guy. What you're suggesting couldn't happen without a pretty decent sort of war to put it into place. It's not going to happen ever, but if it did, it would not be the result of the world rushing to embrace the POTUS, no matter who it happens to be on a given day.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
See, you need to realise that there is a big old world outside of the USA, and it's full of people who would not accept a one world leader, no matter how much they may like the guy. What you're suggesting couldn't happen without a pretty decent sort of war to put it into place. It's not going to happen ever, but if it did, it would not be the result of the world rushing to embrace the POTUS, no matter who it happens to be on a given day.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
See, you need to realise that there is a big old world outside of the USA, and it's full of people who would not accept a one world leader, no matter how much they may like the guy. What you're suggesting couldn't happen without a pretty decent sort of war to put it into place. It's not going to happen ever, but if it did, it would not be the result of the world rushing to embrace the POTUS, no matter who it happens to be on a given day.
I agree completely. But he is still a young guy, a perfect candidate for UN secretary general after a succesful tenure in the oval office. The world loves this guy already. He is the guy who has rescued the United States from...well... itself, and stands poised to turn it into the wonderful, peaceful, non-threatening, social welfare state the rest of the world so desperately wants us to be. SPending money on health care for illegal aliens rather than on our military and all that. Add that to saving the entire world from economic ruin, and you have a guy who could quite concievably be acceptable to most of the decmoratic societies of the world as the first elected leader of a global government of some kind.
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.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
So do I take it that you are approving of personal debt but not government debt?
What I approve of is maximizing the opportunity for those things that can function outside the direct control of government, democratic or otherwise, to do so.
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:
What I approve of is maximizing the opportunity for those things that can function outside the direct control of government, democratic or otherwise, to do so.
What a wuss. Commit to something, Stan. You want lezzie faire or you don't. None of this "maximising the opportunity." You sound like Barney Frank, for pete's sake.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
"there is yet no prospect of a near-term resolution to the crisis." As far as I know no one has actually looked for an actual solution yet. Certainly the UK government only ever talks about protecting/preserving the dead duck economy. Just chuck more money at it and it'll be fine which of course ignores the fact that the economy largely works on made up money and not real you know actual money because there isnt enough of the real stuff to cover what the banks are dealling with even when things are going well. So as far as i am aware no one is convinced that the latest plan to just print more will make much difference. Which basically brings us to the point the the global economy is fundamentally broken and the economists may be able to paper over the cracks for a while maybe even for a good number of years but sooner or later it's gonna break completely and then and only then are people going to start thinking about doing things differently.
pseudonym67 My Articles[^] Beginning KDevelop Programming[^]
pseudonym67 wrote:
Which basically brings us to the point the the global economy is fundamentally broken and the economists may be able to paper over the cracks for a while maybe even for a good number of years but sooner or later it's gonna break completely and then and only then are people going to start thinking about doing things differently.
I'll trade you two fish for eight ears of corn
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
See, you need to realise that there is a big old world outside of the USA, and it's full of people who would not accept a one world leader, no matter how much they may like the guy. What you're suggesting couldn't happen without a pretty decent sort of war to put it into place. It's not going to happen ever, but if it did, it would not be the result of the world rushing to embrace the POTUS, no matter who it happens to be on a given day.
I agree completely. But he is still a young guy, a perfect candidate for UN secretary general after a succesful tenure in the oval office. The world loves this guy already. He is the guy who has rescued the United States from...well... itself, and stands poised to turn it into the wonderful, peaceful, non-threatening, social welfare state the rest of the world so desperately wants us to be. SPending money on health care for illegal aliens rather than on our military and all that. Add that to saving the entire world from economic ruin, and you have a guy who could quite concievably be acceptable to most of the decmoratic societies of the world as the first elected leader of a global government of some kind.
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.
In the UK there are over one million doctors, nurses and others that form our National Health Service. That number makes the UK's NHS one of the world's largest employers. But that number is dwarfed by the numbers that makes up the armed forces of the United States. So rather than spend money on USA health etc..., you would much prefer even more money spent on your military. Tell me, is for for new equipment? is it for new soldiers/sailors/airmen? How much more money do you want spent, and where do you suppose this money is coming from given the current state of Federal finances and the National Debt which incidentally Obama has suggested will be ruthlessly cut within the next few years. How big a military do you need and how big is too big?
-
pseudonym67 wrote:
then and only then are people going to start thinking about doing things differently.
And what would that be? If things really are as bad as they are made out to be, what was the cause? The only solution I can see would be to simply divide up into separate societies. Let those of us who wish to live in a free market, capitalistic, jeffersonian society do so. And let those who don't go their own way. Let the experiment run its course unrestricted. In my Jeffersonian society, we would simply outlaw socialism of any flavor. Government would only be allowed to provide for the general welfare and nothing else, the courts would have no power beyond interpretation of the actual content of the constitution. In yours you could have governmetn be the center of all economic and social decision making. Let people vote with their feet as to which society they wish to live in. And let the one that survives take 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:
Let the experiment run its course unrestricted. In my Jeffersonian society, we would simply outlaw socialism of any flavor.
Yep. Can't have any free market when it comes to ideas! That would be bad.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
See, you need to realise that there is a big old world outside of the USA, and it's full of people who would not accept a one world leader, no matter how much they may like the guy. What you're suggesting couldn't happen without a pretty decent sort of war to put it into place. It's not going to happen ever, but if it did, it would not be the result of the world rushing to embrace the POTUS, no matter who it happens to be on a given day.
I agree completely. But he is still a young guy, a perfect candidate for UN secretary general after a succesful tenure in the oval office. The world loves this guy already. He is the guy who has rescued the United States from...well... itself, and stands poised to turn it into the wonderful, peaceful, non-threatening, social welfare state the rest of the world so desperately wants us to be. SPending money on health care for illegal aliens rather than on our military and all that. Add that to saving the entire world from economic ruin, and you have a guy who could quite concievably be acceptable to most of the decmoratic societies of the world as the first elected leader of a global government of some kind.
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:
stands poised to turn it into the wonderful, peaceful, non-threatening, social welfare state the rest of the world so desperately wants us to b
The only bit we give a damn about is peaceful. The US is a very war like country, and the rest of the world pays the price.
Stan Shannon wrote:
SPending money on health care for illegal aliens rather than on our military and all that.
Again, the US is a very war like nation, but, I don't think too many people think you should give your illegals health care. You just do that because your economy runs on the bodies of illegal workers who will accept jobs that pay below the poverty line.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Add that to saving the entire world from economic ruin, and you have a guy who could quite concievably be acceptable to most of the decmoratic societies of the world as the first elected leader of a global government of some kind.
If you mean the UN, that's possible. Of course, unless the UN has an army, he won't be a global leader in any meaningful sense, just as no other UN leader has been.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
In the UK there are over one million doctors, nurses and others that form our National Health Service. That number makes the UK's NHS one of the world's largest employers. But that number is dwarfed by the numbers that makes up the armed forces of the United States. So rather than spend money on USA health etc..., you would much prefer even more money spent on your military. Tell me, is for for new equipment? is it for new soldiers/sailors/airmen? How much more money do you want spent, and where do you suppose this money is coming from given the current state of Federal finances and the National Debt which incidentally Obama has suggested will be ruthlessly cut within the next few years. How big a military do you need and how big is too big?
The US loves it's army. There is no such thing as 'too big'.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
In the UK there are over one million doctors, nurses and others that form our National Health Service. That number makes the UK's NHS one of the world's largest employers. But that number is dwarfed by the numbers that makes up the armed forces of the United States. So rather than spend money on USA health etc..., you would much prefer even more money spent on your military. Tell me, is for for new equipment? is it for new soldiers/sailors/airmen? How much more money do you want spent, and where do you suppose this money is coming from given the current state of Federal finances and the National Debt which incidentally Obama has suggested will be ruthlessly cut within the next few years. How big a military do you need and how big is too big?
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
How big a military do you need and how big is too big?
I can tell you this. The most expensive army is the one that loses.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
stands poised to turn it into the wonderful, peaceful, non-threatening, social welfare state the rest of the world so desperately wants us to b
The only bit we give a damn about is peaceful. The US is a very war like country, and the rest of the world pays the price.
Stan Shannon wrote:
SPending money on health care for illegal aliens rather than on our military and all that.
Again, the US is a very war like nation, but, I don't think too many people think you should give your illegals health care. You just do that because your economy runs on the bodies of illegal workers who will accept jobs that pay below the poverty line.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Add that to saving the entire world from economic ruin, and you have a guy who could quite concievably be acceptable to most of the decmoratic societies of the world as the first elected leader of a global government of some kind.
If you mean the UN, that's possible. Of course, unless the UN has an army, he won't be a global leader in any meaningful sense, just as no other UN leader has been.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
The US is a very war like country, and the rest of the world pays the price.
Yep, Germany and Japan certainly paid it. Australia had to put up with all those damn yanks defending it. Poor babies.
Christian Graus wrote:
You just do that because your economy runs on the bodies of illegal workers who will accept jobs that pay below the poverty line.
No, our economy founders on the bodies of illegals who poison us by not washing their hands before coming back from the bathroom - let alone on what they cost in free health care, free schooling, etc
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
How big a military do you need and how big is too big?
I can tell you this. The most expensive army is the one that loses.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Actually, it's even more sinister (or at least hypocritical) than that: Soros made his fortune of $9B as a speculator, and primarily as a short-seller. He prospers the most in a declining market, so maybe he's just trying to improve his prospects by encouraging the markets to drop.
Rob Graham wrote:
He prospers the most in a declining market,
Which means he should now have a fortune of 18B?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
The US is a very war like country, and the rest of the world pays the price.
Yep, Germany and Japan certainly paid it. Australia had to put up with all those damn yanks defending it. Poor babies.
Christian Graus wrote:
You just do that because your economy runs on the bodies of illegal workers who will accept jobs that pay below the poverty line.
No, our economy founders on the bodies of illegals who poison us by not washing their hands before coming back from the bathroom - let alone on what they cost in free health care, free schooling, etc
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
Yep, Germany and Japan certainly paid it. Australia had to put up with all those damn yanks defending it. Poor babies.
Sure - it's winning WWII that got the US all fired up into thinking it could run the world. I was thinking more of unwarranted attacks on other countries, such as Vietnam, or Iraq, that have since messed with peace in the world.
Oakman wrote:
our economy founders on the bodies of illegals who poison us by not washing their hands before coming back from the bathroom
Well, if you had some sort of civilised health care system, that might be true. :P
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
The US loves it's army. There is no such thing as 'too big'.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
The US loves it's army.
They might but from reports dating to around Oct 2006, recruitment has been falling away allegedly because of the "War on Terror" to around 90% of target. Although new incentive bonuses for recruits from $20,000 to $40,000 should rectify the target deficiency.
-
In the UK there are over one million doctors, nurses and others that form our National Health Service. That number makes the UK's NHS one of the world's largest employers. But that number is dwarfed by the numbers that makes up the armed forces of the United States. So rather than spend money on USA health etc..., you would much prefer even more money spent on your military. Tell me, is for for new equipment? is it for new soldiers/sailors/airmen? How much more money do you want spent, and where do you suppose this money is coming from given the current state of Federal finances and the National Debt which incidentally Obama has suggested will be ruthlessly cut within the next few years. How big a military do you need and how big is too big?
The US military is one of the few constitutionally sanctioned expenditures the federal government actually has. The constitution gives the US government no authority to manage any health care program. It does give it the authority to defend the country. I am for as much as it takes to ensure the nation is properly defended. Even if that means nothing goes to health care and every penny goes to the military. And, btw, thanks for validating my point. The reason you guys want so much for us to spend more on social welfare is specifically because we will have less to spend on our military. Which is odd considering that our military is the only thing protecting your own freedoms.
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:
stands poised to turn it into the wonderful, peaceful, non-threatening, social welfare state the rest of the world so desperately wants us to b
The only bit we give a damn about is peaceful. The US is a very war like country, and the rest of the world pays the price.
Stan Shannon wrote:
SPending money on health care for illegal aliens rather than on our military and all that.
Again, the US is a very war like nation, but, I don't think too many people think you should give your illegals health care. You just do that because your economy runs on the bodies of illegal workers who will accept jobs that pay below the poverty line.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Add that to saving the entire world from economic ruin, and you have a guy who could quite concievably be acceptable to most of the decmoratic societies of the world as the first elected leader of a global government of some kind.
If you mean the UN, that's possible. Of course, unless the UN has an army, he won't be a global leader in any meaningful sense, just as no other UN leader has been.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
The US is a very war like country,
Not war like enough, actually. If we had taken out the Soviets and the Chinese when we had the chance, the world would pretty much be ours right now.
Christian Graus wrote:
You just do that because your economy runs on the bodies of illegal workers who will accept jobs that pay below the poverty line.
... and the illegals form a future dependably leftist voting block.
Christian Graus wrote:
If you mean the UN, that's possible. Of course, unless the UN has an army, he won't be a global leader in any meaningful sense, just as no other UN leader has been.
That could all change very quickly.
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:
What I approve of is maximizing the opportunity for those things that can function outside the direct control of government, democratic or otherwise, to do so.
What a wuss. Commit to something, Stan. You want lezzie faire or you don't. None of this "maximising the opportunity." You sound like Barney Frank, for pete's sake.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
You want lezzie faire or you don't.
No, I don't.
Oakman wrote:
None of this "maximising the opportunity."
It is important to keep things separate from the state, to keep as much responsibility as possible out of the hands of the state and in the hands of the people. Free market capitalism is one means of doing that, as is the christian religion. Obviously the governmetn must maintain some degree of control of the legal system which binds us all. So there can be no absolute dividing line. We need the state to maintain a system of common laws, and national defense, but for much of anything else. Somehow I don't think Barney would agree with any of 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.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Let the experiment run its course unrestricted. In my Jeffersonian society, we would simply outlaw socialism of any flavor.
Yep. Can't have any free market when it comes to ideas! That would be bad.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
Can't have any free market when it comes to ideas! That would be bad.
Fine, you can have all the Nazi's, communists, theocrats that you like on your side. Any valid interpretation of the US constitution would clearly make any form of socialism unconstitutional. Thats what we should respect.
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.