Flashback to the 1950s
-
Something important they pointed out in the first few minutes. Freedom for business to FAIL. The idea we're running with now that some companies are too big to be allowed to fail pisses me off.
Yep. I can't help but wonder if the government HAS to intervene, if there isn't some way that they can just dismantle these failing institutions in a way that doesn't devistate the economy. Short, temporary intervention just to protect the economy and then get the hell out. Problem is, then they'd have a dangerous precedent. But still, I have a feeling there will still be hell to pay by us all either way.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
This[^] seems oddly relevant today. I wonder when the Obama family got their first TV...
Ever read Sinclair Lewis's "It Can't Happen Here[^]?" Same pie, only baked by the left wing. When I run across agitprop like this I am reminded that very often the accuser is attributing to the accused the thing he would like to do but is afraid he couldn't pull off.
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 some truth to that. But I see wide sweeping plans on the part of the left that take us into dangerous territory. There is a growing movement inside the left who really do want socialism a-al-Chavez/Castro/Kremlin, who are driving a lot of the left's activities, stances and strategies these days. In that sense, there is a real left wing conspiracy that is very anti-American / anti-Capitalist. I've tried to see the same thing on the right, fearing that I'm just a right wing mouth piece for the evil powers that be, but I can't see it. The right wants more personal freedom, less government intrusion, and financial prosperity. That's it. The left wants "change", fundamental "change". I've tried to resist the thought, because I don't want to believe it, but I can no longer deny that the left is driving hard for socialism. And subversively at that (until recent months). But when they start talking about Fairness Doctrine, moving the census to the White House Chief of Staff, and stuffing highly socialist programs (like Daschel's health care proposal, and millions to ACORN and affiliates) into a "stimulus" bill, they're looking to force a monopoly. And God knows what else their scheming at the moment. They aren't planning to be the other half of the American political process anymore, they're planning a take over. When has the right tried anything like this? I hope to God that I'm wrong and that your dismissal is proven wise, but I don't know anymore what to expect. I have a hard time seeing this guy in office as just another 4 years of the other side running the show. It might be different if the entire world economy wasn't suspended precariously on the edge of a cliff, but I don't think so.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
There is some truth to that. But I see wide sweeping plans on the part of the left that take us into dangerous territory. There is a growing movement inside the left who really do want socialism a-al-Chavez/Castro/Kremlin, who are driving a lot of the left's activities, stances and strategies these days. In that sense, there is a real left wing conspiracy that is very anti-American / anti-Capitalist. I've tried to see the same thing on the right, fearing that I'm just a right wing mouth piece for the evil powers that be, but I can't see it. The right wants more personal freedom, less government intrusion, and financial prosperity. That's it. The left wants "change", fundamental "change". I've tried to resist the thought, because I don't want to believe it, but I can no longer deny that the left is driving hard for socialism. And subversively at that (until recent months). But when they start talking about Fairness Doctrine, moving the census to the White House Chief of Staff, and stuffing highly socialist programs (like Daschel's health care proposal, and millions to ACORN and affiliates) into a "stimulus" bill, they're looking to force a monopoly. And God knows what else their scheming at the moment. They aren't planning to be the other half of the American political process anymore, they're planning a take over. When has the right tried anything like this? I hope to God that I'm wrong and that your dismissal is proven wise, but I don't know anymore what to expect. I have a hard time seeing this guy in office as just another 4 years of the other side running the show. It might be different if the entire world economy wasn't suspended precariously on the edge of a cliff, but I don't think so.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
There is a growing movement inside the left who really do want socialism
No surprise there. Capitalism has more than a little egg on its metaphorical face right now; when the morning news is chock full of stories about all the money our rulers have been giving away to our Glorious Capitalist Leaders, it gets a bit hard to see the distinctions between all those big-C ideologies...
BoneSoft wrote:
In that sense, there is a real left wing conspiracy that is very anti-American / anti-Capitalist.
...and that's why i'd really love it if folks would stop using anti-American to mean "not slavishly devoted to the ideology that i, an American, hold dear".
-
BoneSoft wrote:
There is a growing movement inside the left who really do want socialism
No surprise there. Capitalism has more than a little egg on its metaphorical face right now; when the morning news is chock full of stories about all the money our rulers have been giving away to our Glorious Capitalist Leaders, it gets a bit hard to see the distinctions between all those big-C ideologies...
BoneSoft wrote:
In that sense, there is a real left wing conspiracy that is very anti-American / anti-Capitalist.
...and that's why i'd really love it if folks would stop using anti-American to mean "not slavishly devoted to the ideology that i, an American, hold dear".
Shog9 wrote:
Capitalism has more than a little egg on its metaphorical face right now
Correct, through (as you mentioned) government meddling. Which makes capitalism out to be the problem when government screwing with it was the problem. Too bad capitalism can't speak up and defend itself. Reagan's words come to mind, "government isn't the solution, it's the problem".
Shog9 wrote:
and that's why i'd really love it if folks would stop using anti-American to mean "not slavishly devoted to the ideology that i, an American, hold dear".
Agreed. There are certain accusations that should never be bandied lightly. Reminds me of what I was taught about weapons: never pull one unless you have every intention of using it.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
There is some truth to that. But I see wide sweeping plans on the part of the left that take us into dangerous territory. There is a growing movement inside the left who really do want socialism a-al-Chavez/Castro/Kremlin, who are driving a lot of the left's activities, stances and strategies these days. In that sense, there is a real left wing conspiracy that is very anti-American / anti-Capitalist. I've tried to see the same thing on the right, fearing that I'm just a right wing mouth piece for the evil powers that be, but I can't see it. The right wants more personal freedom, less government intrusion, and financial prosperity. That's it. The left wants "change", fundamental "change". I've tried to resist the thought, because I don't want to believe it, but I can no longer deny that the left is driving hard for socialism. And subversively at that (until recent months). But when they start talking about Fairness Doctrine, moving the census to the White House Chief of Staff, and stuffing highly socialist programs (like Daschel's health care proposal, and millions to ACORN and affiliates) into a "stimulus" bill, they're looking to force a monopoly. And God knows what else their scheming at the moment. They aren't planning to be the other half of the American political process anymore, they're planning a take over. When has the right tried anything like this? I hope to God that I'm wrong and that your dismissal is proven wise, but I don't know anymore what to expect. I have a hard time seeing this guy in office as just another 4 years of the other side running the show. It might be different if the entire world economy wasn't suspended precariously on the edge of a cliff, but I don't think so.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
I've tried to see the same thing on the right,
You're probably looking in the wrong place, Take a look at the multinationals, especially the ones that don't have to advertise on TV to move their products. Tweedledum's power brokers care just as little for the US as do Tweedledees, though their methods of controlling the population have more to do with things like making sure that there are always more people wanting to work than there are jobs available. The right you describe are mostly libertarians (if if they don't know it.) When you start looking at the Jerry Falwell's of the world, you discover a man just as enamoured of personal freedom as Hugo Chavez. Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilly all spend a great deal of their airtime talking about what they want to make illegal. Even if your (or my) prejudices mostly agree with theirs, it doesn't mean that they should be codified into law. Or look at Stan, he wants to weaken the hell out of the Federal Government and give the powers he takes away to the state government - not to individuals. (He's fulminated a number of times about how humans cannot be trusted but must be forced to do The Right Thing.) I imagine he figures that he has a decent shot of finding enough people in Indiana to form exactly the same sort of dictatorship of the majority that the left is trying for - but his personal likes and dislikes will be enforced, and what would be perfect from his point of view would be if that pesky Bill of Rights reverted to just applying to the Feds. What I see, whether I look to the left or the right, is a lot of people who are bound and determined to force everyone else to live by their rules. The idea that people can be trusted to make their own way through life, cooperating when they wish and going it alone when they wish is anathema to them. Right now, you and I are seeing bigger and stronger threats to what is left of the American way of life from the left. But that's because that last eight years led to a spectacular failure of the industrialists, religious nuts and neo-con globalists who had been trying to control the way we live. Edit When you defend Capitalism, remember that it serves dictators just as well as it serves republics. Perhaps better. /Edit
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
-
BoneSoft wrote:
I've tried to see the same thing on the right,
You're probably looking in the wrong place, Take a look at the multinationals, especially the ones that don't have to advertise on TV to move their products. Tweedledum's power brokers care just as little for the US as do Tweedledees, though their methods of controlling the population have more to do with things like making sure that there are always more people wanting to work than there are jobs available. The right you describe are mostly libertarians (if if they don't know it.) When you start looking at the Jerry Falwell's of the world, you discover a man just as enamoured of personal freedom as Hugo Chavez. Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilly all spend a great deal of their airtime talking about what they want to make illegal. Even if your (or my) prejudices mostly agree with theirs, it doesn't mean that they should be codified into law. Or look at Stan, he wants to weaken the hell out of the Federal Government and give the powers he takes away to the state government - not to individuals. (He's fulminated a number of times about how humans cannot be trusted but must be forced to do The Right Thing.) I imagine he figures that he has a decent shot of finding enough people in Indiana to form exactly the same sort of dictatorship of the majority that the left is trying for - but his personal likes and dislikes will be enforced, and what would be perfect from his point of view would be if that pesky Bill of Rights reverted to just applying to the Feds. What I see, whether I look to the left or the right, is a lot of people who are bound and determined to force everyone else to live by their rules. The idea that people can be trusted to make their own way through life, cooperating when they wish and going it alone when they wish is anathema to them. Right now, you and I are seeing bigger and stronger threats to what is left of the American way of life from the left. But that's because that last eight years led to a spectacular failure of the industrialists, religious nuts and neo-con globalists who had been trying to control the way we live. Edit When you defend Capitalism, remember that it serves dictators just as well as it serves republics. Perhaps better. /Edit
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
Some good points, most of which I lack the knowledge and will to argue against. Still, I don't see their agenda driving what I choose to take issue with. Almost all of the major issues on the left in the last 50 years are driving at one goal. I guess the evil right just isn't as organized as the evil left.
Oakman wrote:
When you defend Capitalism, remember that it serves dictators just as well as it serves republics. Perhaps better.
Exactly, because it doesn't rely on form of government is in place, it's flexible and usually productive. The one alternative can't boast any of those qualities. Socialism is best left to scholastic pursuits, or better yet just stamped out. Sure capitalism works well for dictators, but communism creates them. I don't appologize for defending the lesser of two evils when they are the only two choices.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Some good points, most of which I lack the knowledge and will to argue against. Still, I don't see their agenda driving what I choose to take issue with. Almost all of the major issues on the left in the last 50 years are driving at one goal. I guess the evil right just isn't as organized as the evil left.
Oakman wrote:
When you defend Capitalism, remember that it serves dictators just as well as it serves republics. Perhaps better.
Exactly, because it doesn't rely on form of government is in place, it's flexible and usually productive. The one alternative can't boast any of those qualities. Socialism is best left to scholastic pursuits, or better yet just stamped out. Sure capitalism works well for dictators, but communism creates them. I don't appologize for defending the lesser of two evils when they are the only two choices.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
Socialism is best left to scholastic pursuits, or better yet just stamped out. Sure capitalism works well for dictators, but communism creates them
Perhaps so, but democracy ultimately leads to socialism, almost as soon as the electorate realises it can vote itself benefits and the elected realise that they can print money without having to earn it or trade anything of value for it. And since I think you are right and socialism will give rise to a dictatorship or tightly held oligarchy, our only hope is that once the reins of government are held (too) tightly those of us who actually prefer freedom of choice will rise up and institute a more libertarian government, which will become a republic, which will become a democracy which will. . .
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 some truth to that. But I see wide sweeping plans on the part of the left that take us into dangerous territory. There is a growing movement inside the left who really do want socialism a-al-Chavez/Castro/Kremlin, who are driving a lot of the left's activities, stances and strategies these days. In that sense, there is a real left wing conspiracy that is very anti-American / anti-Capitalist. I've tried to see the same thing on the right, fearing that I'm just a right wing mouth piece for the evil powers that be, but I can't see it. The right wants more personal freedom, less government intrusion, and financial prosperity. That's it. The left wants "change", fundamental "change". I've tried to resist the thought, because I don't want to believe it, but I can no longer deny that the left is driving hard for socialism. And subversively at that (until recent months). But when they start talking about Fairness Doctrine, moving the census to the White House Chief of Staff, and stuffing highly socialist programs (like Daschel's health care proposal, and millions to ACORN and affiliates) into a "stimulus" bill, they're looking to force a monopoly. And God knows what else their scheming at the moment. They aren't planning to be the other half of the American political process anymore, they're planning a take over. When has the right tried anything like this? I hope to God that I'm wrong and that your dismissal is proven wise, but I don't know anymore what to expect. I have a hard time seeing this guy in office as just another 4 years of the other side running the show. It might be different if the entire world economy wasn't suspended precariously on the edge of a cliff, but I don't think so.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
That's so much BS I don't know where to start. A couple of points: Many on the left want a single-payer health care system in the US, like every other industrialized country has. The right pretends that this means the left wants to impose a Stalinist regime on the country. "The right wants more personal freedom, less government intrusion, and financial prosperity." Are you crazy? The Patriot Acts and the Military Commissions Act of 2006, pushed through by the right, OVERTURN the Constitution. How's that personal freedom? The right (i.e. the Bush Administration) tapped ALL our phone calls, and stored ALL our emails. How's that less government intrusion? The right DOUBLED the national debt, and undid financial regulations that led to the biggest financial disaster since the great depression. How's that financial prosperity? Listen to less Rush Limbaugh, and start reading buzzflash.com, or watching Rachel Maddow on MSNBC for a dose of some reality.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
I've tried to see the same thing on the right,
You're probably looking in the wrong place, Take a look at the multinationals, especially the ones that don't have to advertise on TV to move their products. Tweedledum's power brokers care just as little for the US as do Tweedledees, though their methods of controlling the population have more to do with things like making sure that there are always more people wanting to work than there are jobs available. The right you describe are mostly libertarians (if if they don't know it.) When you start looking at the Jerry Falwell's of the world, you discover a man just as enamoured of personal freedom as Hugo Chavez. Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilly all spend a great deal of their airtime talking about what they want to make illegal. Even if your (or my) prejudices mostly agree with theirs, it doesn't mean that they should be codified into law. Or look at Stan, he wants to weaken the hell out of the Federal Government and give the powers he takes away to the state government - not to individuals. (He's fulminated a number of times about how humans cannot be trusted but must be forced to do The Right Thing.) I imagine he figures that he has a decent shot of finding enough people in Indiana to form exactly the same sort of dictatorship of the majority that the left is trying for - but his personal likes and dislikes will be enforced, and what would be perfect from his point of view would be if that pesky Bill of Rights reverted to just applying to the Feds. What I see, whether I look to the left or the right, is a lot of people who are bound and determined to force everyone else to live by their rules. The idea that people can be trusted to make their own way through life, cooperating when they wish and going it alone when they wish is anathema to them. Right now, you and I are seeing bigger and stronger threats to what is left of the American way of life from the left. But that's because that last eight years led to a spectacular failure of the industrialists, religious nuts and neo-con globalists who had been trying to control the way we live. Edit When you defend Capitalism, remember that it serves dictators just as well as it serves republics. Perhaps better. /Edit
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
Oakman wrote:
Or look at Stan, he wants to weaken the hell out of the Federal Government and give the powers he takes away to the state government - not to individuals. (He's fulminated a number of times about how humans cannot be trusted but must be forced to do The Right Thing.) I imagine he figures that he has a decent shot of finding enough people in Indiana to form exactly the same sort of dictatorship of the majority that the left is trying for - but his personal likes and dislikes will be enforced, and what would be perfect from his point of view would be if that pesky Bill of Rights reverted to just applying to the Feds.
That power must reside somewhere or you don't have civilization at all. I want it to be in a distributed "oligarchy" (by your definition) as compared to an actual, centralized, elite, very real oligarchy by anyone's definition.
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.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Socialism is best left to scholastic pursuits, or better yet just stamped out. Sure capitalism works well for dictators, but communism creates them
Perhaps so, but democracy ultimately leads to socialism, almost as soon as the electorate realises it can vote itself benefits and the elected realise that they can print money without having to earn it or trade anything of value for it. And since I think you are right and socialism will give rise to a dictatorship or tightly held oligarchy, our only hope is that once the reins of government are held (too) tightly those of us who actually prefer freedom of choice will rise up and institute a more libertarian government, which will become a republic, which will become a democracy which will. . .
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.
Rock on brother! Viva la revolution! Where do we meet?
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Oakman wrote:
Or look at Stan, he wants to weaken the hell out of the Federal Government and give the powers he takes away to the state government - not to individuals. (He's fulminated a number of times about how humans cannot be trusted but must be forced to do The Right Thing.) I imagine he figures that he has a decent shot of finding enough people in Indiana to form exactly the same sort of dictatorship of the majority that the left is trying for - but his personal likes and dislikes will be enforced, and what would be perfect from his point of view would be if that pesky Bill of Rights reverted to just applying to the Feds.
That power must reside somewhere or you don't have civilization at all. I want it to be in a distributed "oligarchy" (by your definition) as compared to an actual, centralized, elite, very real oligarchy by anyone's definition.
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:
That power must reside somewhere or you don't have civilization at all.
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.
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.
-
Rock on brother! Viva la revolution! Where do we meet?
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
Rock on brother! Viva la revolution! Where do we meet?
Montana, where else?
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:
That power must reside somewhere or you don't have civilization at all.
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.
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.
I know of no safe repository of the ultimate power of society but people.
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.
-
That's so much BS I don't know where to start. A couple of points: Many on the left want a single-payer health care system in the US, like every other industrialized country has. The right pretends that this means the left wants to impose a Stalinist regime on the country. "The right wants more personal freedom, less government intrusion, and financial prosperity." Are you crazy? The Patriot Acts and the Military Commissions Act of 2006, pushed through by the right, OVERTURN the Constitution. How's that personal freedom? The right (i.e. the Bush Administration) tapped ALL our phone calls, and stored ALL our emails. How's that less government intrusion? The right DOUBLED the national debt, and undid financial regulations that led to the biggest financial disaster since the great depression. How's that financial prosperity? Listen to less Rush Limbaugh, and start reading buzzflash.com, or watching Rachel Maddow on MSNBC for a dose of some reality.
I don't know how else to say this so that it sinks in to you people, so read this very slowly and as many times as necessary: George Bush is not the Republican Party or the sum total of the Right. Fiscally, he's far from conservative. Rachel Maddow? Dose of reality? I watch the red-diapered hate spewer (never more than 10 minutes at a time mind you, my ears start to bleed), and I gotta say, she is by far and away the most partisan BS shoveler on planet Earth, and maybe beyond. And I mean that with all the sincerity I can muster. I would bet you hard earned money (what the hell, Uh-bama's getting what I don't loose first) that she has a poster over her bed of Che Guevara, hammer and cicle silk skivies and fantacises about Castro as she rocks herself to sleep singing the Chinese national anthem before ending the whole ritual with a hearty "Praise Allah!". I've seen bums laying in their own filth that have more credability. Are you really another one who think this is all from "deregulation"? Maybe you should tear yourself away from Comrade Madcow and get a little perspective. With all due respect. Seriously, I mean no disrespect to you personally, the mere mention of Madcow (especially adjacent to the word "reality") makes my skin burn.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Rock on brother! Viva la revolution! Where do we meet?
Montana, where else?
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.
Right, I shouldn't have needed to ask. :doh:
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
I know of no safe repository of the ultimate power of society but people.
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 know of no safe repository of the ultimate power of society but people
Note: "people" not the "elected representatives of the people acting as dictators over public and private morality while allowing the banking industry to rip off half of the citizens of the United States." Not even "the people," which seems to be your code word for a dozen or so Senators and Congressmen with whom you agree, along with the man you said was up for "National Hero" status: George W. Bush.
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.
-
I don't know how else to say this so that it sinks in to you people, so read this very slowly and as many times as necessary: George Bush is not the Republican Party or the sum total of the Right. Fiscally, he's far from conservative. Rachel Maddow? Dose of reality? I watch the red-diapered hate spewer (never more than 10 minutes at a time mind you, my ears start to bleed), and I gotta say, she is by far and away the most partisan BS shoveler on planet Earth, and maybe beyond. And I mean that with all the sincerity I can muster. I would bet you hard earned money (what the hell, Uh-bama's getting what I don't loose first) that she has a poster over her bed of Che Guevara, hammer and cicle silk skivies and fantacises about Castro as she rocks herself to sleep singing the Chinese national anthem before ending the whole ritual with a hearty "Praise Allah!". I've seen bums laying in their own filth that have more credability. Are you really another one who think this is all from "deregulation"? Maybe you should tear yourself away from Comrade Madcow and get a little perspective. With all due respect. Seriously, I mean no disrespect to you personally, the mere mention of Madcow (especially adjacent to the word "reality") makes my skin burn.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
George Bush is not the Republican Party or the sum total of the Right.
Have you told Stan? You'll break his heart.
BoneSoft wrote:
never more than 10 minutes
That's exactly 9 minutes longer than I have. She and Olbermann make quite a team, don't they?
BoneSoft wrote:
Are you really another one who think this is all from "deregulation"?
I think that we tore down all of the regulations put in place after the 1929 crash, starting in the '70's. Combining that with Nixon's pulling us off the gold standard and ushering in an era of rampant inflation -- which is about to become hyperinflation -- is definitely one of, if not the cause of the mess we 're in. One thing I am afraid a lot of conservatives just don't get is that if you have fiat money, you don't have capitalism. You can't have capitalism. You only have Parker brothers' Monopoly, writ large, with the government as both banker and player. Liberals do get it, by the way. They like it that way - especially when their team is the banker.
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.
-
I don't know how else to say this so that it sinks in to you people, so read this very slowly and as many times as necessary: George Bush is not the Republican Party or the sum total of the Right. Fiscally, he's far from conservative. Rachel Maddow? Dose of reality? I watch the red-diapered hate spewer (never more than 10 minutes at a time mind you, my ears start to bleed), and I gotta say, she is by far and away the most partisan BS shoveler on planet Earth, and maybe beyond. And I mean that with all the sincerity I can muster. I would bet you hard earned money (what the hell, Uh-bama's getting what I don't loose first) that she has a poster over her bed of Che Guevara, hammer and cicle silk skivies and fantacises about Castro as she rocks herself to sleep singing the Chinese national anthem before ending the whole ritual with a hearty "Praise Allah!". I've seen bums laying in their own filth that have more credability. Are you really another one who think this is all from "deregulation"? Maybe you should tear yourself away from Comrade Madcow and get a little perspective. With all due respect. Seriously, I mean no disrespect to you personally, the mere mention of Madcow (especially adjacent to the word "reality") makes my skin burn.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
"George Bush is not the Republican Party or the sum total of the Right." BS. The Republicans represent the right, and move in perfect lock-step with each other. The Republican congress members pushed through the Bush Administration's agenda. Their agendas are one and the same. If you haven't been paying attention and need more proof, look at the Republicans' 100% negative vote on the stimulus bill in the House. If you could make any coherent argument instead of just name calling, I might take you seriously. You're just parroting what you heard Rush Limbaugh (or a Limbaugh clone) say in the corporate media.
-
"George Bush is not the Republican Party or the sum total of the Right." BS. The Republicans represent the right, and move in perfect lock-step with each other. The Republican congress members pushed through the Bush Administration's agenda. Their agendas are one and the same. If you haven't been paying attention and need more proof, look at the Republicans' 100% negative vote on the stimulus bill in the House. If you could make any coherent argument instead of just name calling, I might take you seriously. You're just parroting what you heard Rush Limbaugh (or a Limbaugh clone) say in the corporate media.
Alan Balkany wrote:
The Republicans represent the right
To some extent. However, when Congress is in session they rarely do. Case in point, TARP. 98% of their constituants who voiced their opinion through phone, fax and email said don't do it, and they did anyway. But go ahead and believe Maddow's image of the entire right marching in jack boots. :rolleyes:
Alan Balkany wrote:
If you haven't been paying attention and need more proof, look at the Republicans' 100% negative vote on the stimulus bill in the House.
The first show of solidarity that correctly represents the right. And thank God they're finally paying attention to the people who put them in office.
Alan Balkany wrote:
If you could make any coherent argument instead of just name calling, I might take you seriously.
And now I can't take you seriously. Name calling? Are you in a personal relationship with Madcow? :rolleyes: Where did I attack you personally?
Alan Balkany wrote:
You're just parroting what you heard Rush Limbaugh (or a Limbaugh clone) say in the corporate media.
I hardly ever catch his show (need to more often). If it helps you sleep at night to believe I don't have a brain of my own, so be it. But saying that suggests that you're just parroting what you heard Madcow (or any other flamingly liberal mainstream media leftist tool) say. I'm all for productive discussion without clinging blindly to spoon fed talking points, but for that to happen you're going to have to first understand that what you've been told about the right, only by the extreme left, is more than a little biased to say the least. If you are going to happily believe that the entire right of center are money grubbing evil fascists acting in unison, then attempting discussion will do neither of us any good. The ball's in your court.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
George Bush is not the Republican Party or the sum total of the Right.
Have you told Stan? You'll break his heart.
BoneSoft wrote:
never more than 10 minutes
That's exactly 9 minutes longer than I have. She and Olbermann make quite a team, don't they?
BoneSoft wrote:
Are you really another one who think this is all from "deregulation"?
I think that we tore down all of the regulations put in place after the 1929 crash, starting in the '70's. Combining that with Nixon's pulling us off the gold standard and ushering in an era of rampant inflation -- which is about to become hyperinflation -- is definitely one of, if not the cause of the mess we 're in. One thing I am afraid a lot of conservatives just don't get is that if you have fiat money, you don't have capitalism. You can't have capitalism. You only have Parker brothers' Monopoly, writ large, with the government as both banker and player. Liberals do get it, by the way. They like it that way - especially when their team is the banker.
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:
That's exactly 9 minutes longer than I have. She and Olbermann make quite a team, don't they?
It takes diligent practice to build up a tolerance and endurance to make those subsequent 9 minutes, though I'm still not convinced it's worth the pain and effort. All in the name of perspective.
Oakman wrote:
One thing I am afraid a lot of conservatives just don't get is that if you have fiat money, you don't have capitalism. You can't have capitalism. You only have Parker brothers' Monopoly, writ large, with the government as both banker and player.
I do understand that, and I think many do. But it's the 1 trillion lbs gorilla that gets shelved because nobody knows how to remedy that problem. We're just trying to hang on to as much of the original system as possible as others tear it down piece by piece. Though progressive is the code word for socialist, it could have easily been used in the second law of thermodynamics.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.