only want to talk economics part of this - nm

• You know what gets me? - anon
  • I am against that, as well - Kendra
    • and I am sorry for your situation! - Kendra
  • so sorry - cj
    • Thank you, CJ - - anon
  • My biggest concern is National Security. Obama - MANY radical friends... scary,wrong for USA.nm
    • only want to talk economics part of this - nm - anon
      • Enjoying my freedom until Obama gets in. - Free to talk of what I wish. nm

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

http://ca.youtube.com/user/weneedmccain

This video explains Obama's economic policies better than I can...

Finally - someone who can describe what's going on/happening that I can understand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djgH9wA-JSU

The poster is correct. I don't know why you insist on living in a dream world. I used to respect your comments but I see you really don't understand how supply and emand and/or government really works.

You think everything is a joke. Well, are you going to be laughing when taxes are so high you have a choice to eat or pay taxes?

Are you going to laugh when the country is broke (whopps - that has already happened) and they can't even guarantee FDIC backing for any money you have in the back or IRAs?

Are you going to laugh when other countries commit terrorist attacks on our country; i.e., N. Korea, Iran, etc.?

Are you going to laugh when this country finally crosses into fascism whereas you will seriously have no rights?

Keep laughing BB. The joke will be on you sooner or later, as the country slowly goes down the tubes unless you start boning up on the reality happening right under your nose and start fighting against it.

There are many different ideas or systems of how an economy should be run. The two most common are capitalism and socialism. They are very different in how they view who runs the economy. Most economies have ideas from both systems, but tend to be more of one than the other.

Capitalism is the economic system based on private or corporate ownership of, production and distribution of goods. It has always existed to some extent in all civilizations but was written about formally by Adam Smith in his book "The Wealth of Nations" in 1776. Capitalists favor a system of free enterprise which means the government should not interfere in the economy - that the laws of supply and demand will make sure that the ecnomy runs most efficiently in meeting people's needs. Capitalism is characterized by competition in which there is rivalry in supplying or getting an economic service or good. Sellers compete with other sellers, and buyers with other buyers. The buyers seek the best possible deal in purchasing goods and the sellers look to make the best possible sale allowing them the most profit.

Socialism is an economic theory or idea that states that the government or the state should be in charge of economic planning, production and distribution of goods. This contrasts with capitalism where free markets predonimate and property is privately owned. Socielism tends to favor cooperation whereas capitalism is characterized by competition.

The theories of socialism first arose in the late eighteenth century in response to the Industrial Revolution where factory owners were becoming wealthy and the workers impoverished. Thus, workers wanted a greater share in the wealth that factories were making. Later a form of socialism called communism sprang up based on the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Communism advocates class struggle and revolution to establish a society of cooperation with strong government control. Communism predominated in the former Soviet Union and much of Eastern Europe at one time. Today it predominates in China and Cuba, but its influence has lessened.

http://www.mcwdn.org/ECONOMICS/CapSoc.html

socially acceptable behavior without looking at the influences that set those standards.  Christianity is what determined homosexuality to be unacceptable.  It is the dominant factor in this debate as far as the US goes.  The US generally accepted christianity as the norm some time ago in this country.  In doing so it automatically put people in the sinner and non-sinner brackets.  Homosexuals were obviously put into the sinning bracket.  That is why they have been put in the closet.  Not because "it's just not natural," but because it's a sin. 

And that's where I have a problem with the whole thing.  Since we are not a theocracy, religious concepts have no place in determining something as personal as marriage.  For that matter, I also think it's absolutely absurd that govt weighs in on this issue.  I think it's a personal choice, not for the church and not for the govt.

I do not get.

Me need new insult, yes.

It was simply an exaggerated example to make a point about the subjectiveness of deciding what constitutes an observation versus an insult.  I think that was obvious to most people.  Regarding your snide observation, no I do not talk like that.  As I said it was an example.

Perhaps your other boards do not have such a marked slant.  And shall I make an observation on the tedious repetition that is found in your milieu's absolutely ENDLESS recitation of the evils of liberals, just to mention a few?  ONe doesn't even need to read the content of the posts, merely scan the subject lines and the repetition is obvious.

You said:

There are things that the poster felt needed to be said, and you see, this is a liberal board. 

As it has been said ad nauseam, anyone can post on this board.  Liberals post on the conservative board as well.  I must have been absent the day you were named moderator.

You said: 

You have a habit of mis-representing the facts, of twisting them to fit your agenda and your conscience. 

 On the basis of what, three posts, you say I have a habit of misrepresenting the facts and twisting them to fit my agenda and m conscience.  Pot calling the kettle black, I would say.  You posted erroneous information, represented it as fact, and I called you on it.  If anyone's conscience should be bothering them, that would be you.

You say most of the people of the U.S. were against slavery.  At different points in history that may or may not have been true, there weren't a lot of nationwide polls back then.  Could you share your facts?  Just the facts, ma'am. 

I again refer you to history.  History is full of the people who opposed slavery.  We are at war right now as a country but as it is perfectly clear, is it not, that the whole country is not behind the war. 

The fact is though that slavery was perfectly legal for 100 years in this country.  Try twisting that one.  That's what I mean when I say this country condoned slavery.  But I think that was obvious to most folks.

Because it is legal does not mean all the people in the country condone it.  Abortion is legal in this country but I sure as heck do not condone it.  That doesn't mean I bomb abortion clinics or stand outside them and ridicule the people using them.  But I do not condone it, nor do many others.  I follow the laws of the land but I do make sure with my vote and in other ways to work to see that law gone.  And I think that is obvious to most folks as well. 

Secondly, you say this was Congress's war just as much as Bush's.  Well, we know that is not true either.  It was Bush and his cronies that planned this war, probably even before 9/11.  There was erroneous evidence presented to Congress that led them to okay military action.

I really am incredulous that there are still people who buy that nonsense.  Erroneous evidence presented to Congress?  The Senate Intelligence Committee had the very same information the Bush administration had.  And if all those congresspeople are so ignorant they could be *fooled* into buying into lies (if there were any, which there is no proof there were) that led the country into war, then I would think, for the love of pete, that you would be equally as incensed at them.   What proof do you have that Bush and his cronies planned anything?  None, because there is none.  As you said, just the FACTS, ma'am.  

  If your daughter came home from school and stated that the neighbor girl beat her up you would might believe the evidence.  However, do you not change your course of action if it turns out the neighbor girl didn't do the actual damage? 

I believe you twist and arrange the evidence so you don't feel guilty about this utter madness and endless slaughter we know as Iraq as you similarly defend the US government role in the slaughter of indigenous peoples.

There you go again.  First, my friend, I do not feel guilty.  I have nothing to feel guilty about.  I support the American military and I certainly support the war on terrorism.  I do not readily forget 3000 people dying.  I will never forget watching those people jump out of that building to avoid being incinerated and for what?  Simply because they were Americans.  How easily you seem to blow that off.

And I did not defend the US government role in the slaughter of indigenous peoples.  I did not defend slavery.  Both were wrong.  Abortion is wrong, but they happen every day, and they happen NOW.  There is no longer slavery and there is no longer the slaugher of indigenous peoples.   Why does it not bother you that it is legal to slaughter upwards or over a million babies unborn babies every year?  Why don't you get involved to stop that?

My whole point is that the US is indeed a great and often noble and generous country.  I really want it to stay that way though and powerful people have a way of corrupting the moral values that have sustained this country for so long. 

Excuse me yet again...but that is exactly what I said.  The moral values that the country was founded upon and have sustained and how far we have gotten from that.  But I guess we are talking about two different sets of moral values.  What set are you talking about?

 The US has taken some pretty bad detours along the way but fortunately common sense and good character have generally won out in the long run.  Complacency and acceptance of corrupt power is always a threat though and that's why we need to QUESTION always those that are in near-absolute power.  I firmly believe that those who question are the MOST patriotic.

I never said questioning was unpatriotic.  What is unpatriotic in my view and always will be is suggesting that any American soldier died in vain.  What I think is unpatriotic is while we have men and women dying in combat, no matter who sent them there or for what reason, we owe them the respect to, if we cannot support their mission, to not go public with rampant criticism and for the love of everything Holy not to suggest publically that they are fighting and dying for nothing.  Not only do I think that is unpatriotic, I think it is selfish and mean.  Doesn't mean you or anyone else can't grouse about it friends in the privacy of a home, but to go public with it where friends, family and loved ones of soldiers who have died there, were injured there and continue to fight there can read it.  I don't know why some people (not naming anyone in particular) cannot just hold all that in until the troops come home.  Then if they want to dissect it, take it apart, malign it or whatever, our troops are home and no longer in harm's way.

It is rhetoric like you are repeating that Al Qaeda loves to hear, and their greatest propaganda tool.  Playing right into their hands.  And yes, giving that upper hand to the enemy is to me, yes, unpatriotic.

proves my point.  To believe that all media except Fox is biased and that they were forced to chose the LEAST biased is franky cult-talk  He did not try to trick her.  he asked her straight out "what do you thank about the Bush Doctrine?" This is the definine doctrine of the Bush years that will be remembered in history.  She did not know it.  If she where honest, she would have said "I am not familar with it." Instead, she squirmed in her seat, thrust out her chin and tried to bluff him into giving her a hint. 

He had his glasses on the end of his nose because he is over 40 and wears reading glasses like most older men.  You knew that.  You are trying to distract from the point again. 

You never have anything good to say about McCain.  You are focused on your hatred for Obama and frankly, it is creepy.

9/11/2001:  We all talk about 9/11.  How Pres. Bush should have known.  We did lose a lot of lives that day.  It was truly a sad day.  However, what about the World Trade Center bombing back in ྙ when Clinton was the pres.  That was by Islamic extremists.  Or about the US Embassy bombings in ྞ....also while Bill was in office suspect to have been coordinated by Osama Bin Laden.  Or the USS Cole incident in 2000 and once again Bill was in the White House and once again Osama was the suspect in the planning.  All these terrorists acts but the one people shout out about the most in 9/11 and how Bush is to blame.  Why?  Because more lives were lost in this one than with the other ones.  Weren't they all still terrorist attacks?  If Clinton had stood up and done something during his term....maybe 9/11 would not have happened at all but yet the blame all falls upon Bush.

Katrina:  Once again all Bush's faults and therefore all republicans faults.  Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff was the "federal official with the power to mobilize a massive federal response to Hurricane Katrina, [and] could have ordered federal agencies into action without any request from state or local officials."  "If you go back to August 27th," President Bush had already "declared a state of emergency in the state of Louisiana under Title V of the Stafford Act, ... Ergo, Katrina became an Incident of National Significance on August 27th -- two days before the storm. But Chertoff apparently didn't realize this and waited till a day after [on August 30th] to make the determination on his own, one that according to the flow chart had already been made."  Honestly though, if you live in a place that is well below sea level and you hear a really bit storm is coming your way.....common sense.....you get the heck out of dodge.

Iraq war:  The reason for the war was this:  The military objectives of the invasion were; end the Hussein regime; eliminate weapons of mass destruction; eliminate Islamic terrorists; obtain intelligence on terrorist networks; distribute humanitarian aid; secure Iraq’s oil infrastructure; and assist in creating a representative government as a model for other Middle East nations

As for Wall Street:  Firms such as Goldman Sachs and Lehman not only made billions of dollars packaging and selling these toxic loans, they also wagered with their own capital that the values of these investments would decline, further raising their profits. If any other industries engaged in such knowingly unscrupulous activities, there would be an immediate federal investigation.

At the same time, federal regulatory agencies such as the SEC stood idly by as Wall Street took advantage of the investment public during both the Internet and the housing bubbles. The SEC took almost no action against Wall Street after the dot-com implosion. And in the midst of the housing bubble, in 2006, only the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency pushed for any level of regulation to address subprime lending.

One has to wonder why Treasury secretaries under Presidents Clinton and Bush -- Robert Rubin and Hank Paulson, respectively -- took no action to curb these abuses. It certainly was not because they did not understand Wall Street's practices -- both are former chief executives of Goldman Sachs. And why has Congress been so silent? The Wall Street investment banking firms, their executives, their families and their political action committees contribute more to U.S. Senate and House campaigns than any other industry in America. By sprinkling some of its massive gains into the pockets of our elected officials, Wall Street bought itself protection from any tough government enforcement.

This is no doubt the same reason why so many members of Congress were consistently blocking attempts to reform and downsize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are essentially giant, undercapitalized hedge funds. These two entities have been huge money machines for Democrats in both the House and the Senate, many of whom recently had the gall to ask why these companies hadn't been reformed in the past. Nor should several Republican congressmen and Senators who likewise contributed to watering down legislation aimed at reforming these institutions be let off the hook.

nm

don't read em

effort, it turned out to be a partisan effort (dems against pubs again).

Speaker Pelosi struck the tone of partisanship in this. Failure of Speaker Pelosi .... failure to listen, failure to lead.

94 dems voted NO!

They're going back to the drawing table.

He's for no taxes..  Obama would NEVER agree to that.

http://parks4staterep.com/2008/10/24/a-tale-of-two-debates/#more-64