Andy9o8 2
Recommended Posts
SkyChimp 0
QuoteYou know, you made 11 - count 'em - ELEVEN - posts in a row in this thread. Not all that atypical from what I've observed.
May I recommend the decaf?
Lucky is Billary's campaign manager!
Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?!
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteFDR's entire political career was probably helped by being Teddy Roosevelt's distant relative...
Or it could be that Hoover fucked teh country so bad that even his own voted him out.
Hoover fucked the country? Do you think he was responsible for the Great Depression?
I would say he fucked the recovery from it, delaying it 10 years. The bonus army right a bell? He was so unsympathetic he make sBush look grand.
But that's just me and virtually all the rest of the country back then, to elect and reelect a man 3 more times.... I guess Hoover did something wrong and FDR did something right, but that's just the concensus of the AMericans.
Lucky... 0
QuoteHoover fucked the country? Do you think he was responsible for the Great Depression?
The dems blamed Hoover who was President at the time for only a few months.
The actions thet set the stage for the great depression were done by no other than Woodrow Wilson
Perhaps, but Hoover's ecovery was pathetic. He kept trying to cut businsses breaks hoping it would spur the economy instead of giving handouts where they were needed. You can play with tax cuts when you're trying to tweak the economy, but when you have a national disaster you need to get fundamental. Hoover wasn't that complex and too business-minded to understand this until 1000's died. The the Bonus Army deal which further exacerbated the whole mess. This was a recovery only repeated by Bush's handling of Katrina, seems they have a bit in common.
Lucky... 0
QuoteYou know, you made 11 - count 'em - ELEVEN - posts in a row in this thread. Not all that atypical from what I've observed.
May I recommend the decaf?
But who's counting?
And this response does what, provokes another reply. Perhaps you are part of the problem.
Guest
Quote
I think insecure people of both genders hate her because she has a bigger pair than most guys. Like Maggie Thatcher.
Thatcher made it on her own. That makes them different.
mh
.
"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteYou know, you made 11 - count 'em - ELEVEN - posts in a row in this thread. Not all that atypical from what I've observed.
May I recommend the decaf?
Lucky is Billary's campaign manager!
Not so much, just a voter
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteFDR's entire political career was probably helped by being Teddy Roosevelt's distant relative...
Or it could be that Hoover fucked teh country so bad that even his own voted him out.
Hoover fucked the country? Do you think he was responsible for the Great Depression?
I would say he fucked the recovery from it, delaying it 10 years. The bonus army ring a bell? He was so unsympathetic he makes Bush look grand.
It's scary what some people think. Hoover was the victim of horribly bad timing. No doubt he made some bad decisions in trying to remedy the situation, but I think the only people to claim "he fucked the country" are pretty narrow-minded or uninformed.
BTW, I edited your post to what I thought you meant. I don't want you coming back in a week saying you meant -The bonus army right a bell?
kallend 2,146
Quote
Thatcher made it on her own.
mh
.
Thatcher was initially pushed very hard by Edward Heath (a decision he came to regret).
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Lucky... 0
QuoteIt's scary what some people think.
Now that we can agree upon.
QuoteNo doubt he made some bad decisions in trying to remedy the situation,...
Uh, from the book of, "Well, Bush may have overlooked some intel, but I think he did the best he could." No, Hoover made a concerted decision to throw money at the rich businesses hoping they would fire up, but they just played very conservatively and starved the people to death. This is not an, "oops" this is an outright fuckuo that he held in place for years until he changed it too late.
Quote...but I think the only people to claim "he fucked the country" are pretty narrow-minded or uninformed.
And I think that people who that those people are closed-minded are closed-minded.
There.
He delayed food to the starving so he could give assloads of cash to businesses, had the Binus Army thrown off the property and their shanties destroyed, killed some of them, he's the consumate humanitarian, just like Bush. Throw all the sugar on it you wish, Hoover was a trainwreck via his reaction to one of the worst times in US history.
QuoteBTW, I edited your post to what I thought you meant.
You would never edit a post, no, not you
rehmwa 2
Title - "Source of the Hatred for Hillary?"
So is that to mean why is Hillary so hateful?
Seems a bit personal to me to ask that question.
Lots of people keep hate lists. Nixon was one, Homer Simpson had one, so why not Hillary too?
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
So is that to mean why is Hillary so hateful?
Seems a bit personal to me to ask that question.
Lots of people keep hate lists. Nixon was one, Homer Simpson had one, so why not Hillary too?
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
QuoteUH, I understand your vested interest, so I see why you are skewing Communism with Socialism.
Socialism = the people controlling the gov
Communism = the gov controlling everyting
Capitalism = the market controlling everything
Socialism is not Communism.
There are subtle differences between all of them - an interplay, if you will.
Communism - in theory - stands for total public ownership and rejects any private property and personal profit. Communism - in practice - stands for government control of everything. Obviously there are problems with communism - you can never get it because nobody in power voluntarily relinquishes it and the dictatorship remains (like Castro); and even if the dictator did, equal misery for all leaves nobody happy. Think of an arranged marriage - neither person probably wants it, but must put their feelings and desires aside for the benefit of the society. A modern example of communism is Jonestown.
Capitalism is private ownership of industry, property, etc, and personal profit. The problem with capitalism is that you get haves and have nots. Think of it like marriage - we choose who we want, and both sides agree to do it mutually. Others may be unhappy with the marriage ("she can do so much better") but have to suck it up. The downsides are things like Spears/Federline, i.e., "Society cannot benefit from this union."
Socialism is government control of industry and profit. It is kind of a middle ground. Socialism ensures the continuing existence of the "haves" and "Have nots" because a government run on this system has to have someone to blame and someone doing the work to support it.
You put democracy in there - but democracy is a political theory - not an economic theory. Democracies can be communist (though we've never seen one). Democracies can be socialist or even pure laissez faire capitalist. We actually haven't seen a pure democracy because it has problems.
Which is why the US has a republican form of government wherein the people elect their representatives to run the government.
You've also got dictatorships, like any of the communist experiments we've seen, and in monarchies.
QuoteWhat do we call this current admin that is spending all of our money and all of the money in the future?
I call it socialist. See where socialism gets us? It screws us and future generations.
QuoteIt's the gov doing it and it is teh right wing, so does that make the Repubs Communists or just Socialists.
Socialists. They haven't tried to starve me out, just squeeze me. Squeezing me is socialist. Starving me is communist.
QuoteI guess grossly overspending on the military is different than spending on social programs, right?
Nope. They are both socialism. The difference is that everyone pays or benefits from military spending. With social spending, the government chooses the "haves" and "have nots." There is simply no fair way to do it.
Isn't it interesting that the problems that people raise most often are problems with socialism, and not with a free market?
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Lucky... 0
QuoteCommunism - in theory - stands for total public ownership and rejects any private property and personal profit. Communism - in practice - stands for government control of everything. Obviously there are problems with communism - you can never get it because nobody in power voluntarily relinquishes it and the dictatorship remains (like Castro); and even if the dictator did, equal misery for all leaves nobody happy. Think of an arranged marriage - neither person probably wants it, but must put their feelings and desires aside for the benefit of the society. A modern example of communism is Jonestown.
I agree with all of this and is basically what I wrote: Communism = government control. I dislike virtually all of Communism.
QuoteCapitalism is private ownership of industry, property, etc, and personal profit. The problem with capitalism is that you get haves and have nots. Think of it like marriage - we choose who we want, and both sides agree to do it mutually. Others may be unhappy with the marriage ("she can do so much better") but have to suck it up. The downsides are things like Spears/Federline, i.e., "Society cannot benefit from this union."
And why do you have the have and have nots? Perhaps due to the other element of Capitalism, the market is elitist-controlled. If the gov honestly sat back and governed the corps we would have a great society. What we have is a neo-fascist system where the haves elect politicians to rule their way, rendering this free economy to a mere ponzi scheme, hence we have the haves and the have nots.
QuoteSocialism is government control of industry and profit. It is kind of a middle ground. Socialism ensures the continuing existence of the "haves" and "Have nots" because a government run on this system has to have someone to blame and someone doing the work to support it.
UH, no. Socialism, which comes in many degrees, is a system where the people govern for the people, not for the government, not for the market. This is why you have provided/guaranteed medical care in Socialist governments, it's about the people.
QuoteYou put democracy in there - but democracy is a political theory - not an economic theory. Democracies can be communist (though we've never seen one). Democracies can be socialist or even pure laissez faire capitalist. We actually haven't seen a pure democracy because it has problems.
I don't know in what context I placed it in, but Democracy is just the way officials are elected. We haven;t seen a pure (true) Democracy as it is a utopian objective, kind of like anything pure, just a place on teh scale to be used as a standard never to be achieved.
QuoteWhich is why the US has a republican form of government wherein the people elect their representatives to run the government.
I wouldn;t say that the US has a Republican form of gov due to True Democracies being rpoblem ridden. We have established it over the years.
QuoteI call it socialist. See where socialism gets us? It screws us and future generations.
You call the current admin Socialist even tho they are cutting much of the social spending and redirecting it to the Military Industrial Complex and still going 100's of billions into debt every year? Nice, but I'm not buying it. It's an out of control fascist-based money extortion machine, but to be Socialist they would have to offload the cash for social programs.
QuoteSocialists. They haven't tried to starve me out, just squeeze me. Squeezing me is socialist. Starving me is communist.
OK, so you say the right wing is Socialist then, right? Also, it's not just how the economy affects you, it's how it affects everyone based upon teh govs actions.
QuoteNope. They are both socialism. The difference is that everyone pays or benefits from military spending.
Really? 478B per year to get the world to hate us and drive us 100's of B's per year into debt is benefiting me? Please explain how, other than theoretically.
QuoteWith social spending, the government chooses the "haves" and "have nots." There is simply no fair way to do it.
Yes, providingmedical and dental care for all is grossly unfair. I'm begining to understand what you're saying now.
QuoteIsn't it interesting that the problems that people raise most often are problems with socialism, and not with a free market
Which people, Capitalist fat-cats? I think many people raise issues about no healthcare or insufficient healthcare, classims and the sort all teh time. I guess your circle doesn't discuss it much.
QuoteAnd why do you have the have and have nots?
Because some people are better at things than others. The Indianapolis Colts will get Super Bowl Rings - the only team to get it this year. They competed and won.
I found out I'm a lousy transactional attorney - a have not. I'm a damned good litigator. Coolness! So I don't do what I am bad at and I do what I'm good at. Efficiency! I cold have been a have not, but I wisened up.
QuotePerhaps due to the other element of Capitalism, the market is elitist-controlled.
I wouldn't say so, otherwise I would not be where I am. I was born poor, I've been poor my whole life, and I will be poor for the near future. I think I will ultimately be a "have" because I didn't believe those who told me I couldn't be one.
QuoteWhat we have is a neo-fascist system where the haves elect politicians to rule their way, rendering this free economy to a mere ponzi scheme, hence we have the haves and the have nots.
Last I checked, Microsoft is not entitled to a vote. Last I checked, minorities vote at a startlingly low rate. My understanding is that they don't think their vote will count, anyway, so they don't. Amazingly, if they all showed up and voted, damn, we'd see some change.
But, you can go ahead and tell people they can't, which actually implicates you in the conspiracy. Go forth and do the bidding of the fascist system. Isn't it ironic that the haves tell people to go forth and change things while you seem to indicate it's fruitless. I will be a "have" because I am actually doing something about it - like the sound barrier, the only barrier was in peoples' minds.
Quoterendering this free economy to a mere ponzi scheme,
The economy is a ponzi scheme because it ain't free.
QuoteSocialism, which comes in many degrees, is a system where the people govern for the people, not for the government, not for the market. This is why you have provided/guaranteed medical care in Socialist governments, it's about the people.
No, the government provides for the people. Actually, you are right, the people provide for the people - the government makes them. Interesting how people like John Lennon chose to live in he US because while he could Imagine a world with no possessions, he wanted to keep his.
QuoteYou call the current admin Socialist even tho they are cutting much of the social spending and redirecting it to the Military Industrial Complex and still going 100's of billions into debt every year?
Yep. Perhaps it is Socialist with a conscience upon which you disagree, but whenever a govt. funds industries, etc., it is socialist. The fact that you are bitching about medical cuts shows that we are socialist. You don't think we're socialist enough. I think we're too socialist. Your arbitrary lines are just as valid as my arbitrary lines, only I have more evidence of the failures of socialism over the last 70 years than you have of the failure of laissez faire.
Quoteto be Socialist they would have to offload the cash for social programs.
No. Soclialism is government funding and control. You argue bleeding heart socialism. I am saying that there are different types of socialism, but they are all socialism.
QuoteReally? 478B per year to get the world to hate us and drive us 100's of B's per year into debt is benefiting me? Please explain how, other than theoretically.
Other than theoretically, I cannot. But, I can also say that we all get the same costs and benefits.
Socialized medicine, on the other hand, will benefit others and fuck me up. I will either pay more for the same level of coverage I pay for now, pay more for less than the same coverage I have now, or pay less for less than the same coverage I have now. Meanwhile, I will be paying for Joe Sixpack's medical coverage. An uncovered person will be covered through no extra cost. That cost will be borne by me.
Socialism that you describe is a wealth-redistribution. You advocate wealth-redistribution. "Steal from the rich and give to the pooor." By the way, if you will recall, Robin hood stole from the nobles who only got their wealth by taxing the oblivion out of the peasants. Robin Hood got their tax money back. Chew on that.
Quoteit's not just how the economy affects you, it's how it affects everyone based upon teh govs actions.
Exactly! It affects everyone. Some win, some lose. I'd rather the government not determine whether I win or lose. I'd rather go it alone to fall flat on my face (as I have a number of times) or win (as I also have a number of times).
QuoteYes, providingmedical and dental care for all is grossly unfair. I'm begining to understand what you're saying now.
It is. How much do you pay for electricity? Let's say that Joe Sixpack pays 10 cents per kilowatt hour because he makes $40k per year and has two kids. Let's say that Jane Doe makes $14k per year and has two kids. She'll pay 3 cents per kilowatt hour. Let's say that John Roe makes $200k per year with 4 kids. He'll pay 50 cents per kilowatt hour.
Now, to me that is unfair to offer the same product for different prices to different people. Bill Gates shouldn't have to pay $300 for a gallon of milk so that Jane Doe can pay 10 cents for it.
Yet, that's what socialized medicine will do - charge people differently. Some will pay nothing for it. Others will pay plenty.
Unfairness? Yep. You betcha! Why don't you just suck my bank account for 25% per month and even out our incomes. That would be fair, wouldn't it?
It is not fair to take what somebody else has to give it to another or yourself.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
SkyChimp 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteYou know, you made 11 - count 'em - ELEVEN - posts in a row in this thread. Not all that atypical from what I've observed.
May I recommend the decaf?
Lucky is Billary's campaign manager!
Not so much, just a voter
Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?!
May I recommend the decaf?
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites