Page 14 of 20 FirstFirst ... 4910111213141516171819 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 280 of 398
  1. #261  
    Populist socialism thrown in. Wow, 40% of Americans do not pay federal income tax. Obama wants to take money from people who make a specific amount and above and give money to those 40% of Americans - money from the government is nothing short of welfare and for most of us, that equates to socialism.
  2. #262  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Sorry, but you're wrong. The current troubles in the US are not due to pure capitalism (which like pure communism doesn't always scale well, although it usually scales better), since we are far from a pure capitalist economy. They're due to greed trying to mitigate the costs of eutopian ideals (every man a homeowner with nothing down!!). Also, the USSR was never really any sort of Communism. It was a form of Socialism, but I don't see how anything that scale could be called pure Socialism.
    Maybe I should have been a bit more clear, but I did not mean to imply that the US is a pure capitalist state, but it is one of the most capitalist ones..
    And the current credit crisis is partly because of that, because banks could do whatever they wanted (within the law) the greed factor won it over the market forces and as a result lots of people got burned...
    If there had been some level of constraints (which level is another far more complicated discussion, so I'm trying to keep this on a theory basis only) some of this could have been prevented.
    Same applies with the USSR, they were probably the most socialist/communist state (together with China) and the system clearly didnt work...to be honest I surprised china still works as well as it does, but I think there are far more capitalistic forces in China then they care to admit.
    Problem with socialism/communism is the same as with capitalism but in a different way: greed and lazyness of some people..
    If you are not challenged to work you get lazy, but people by nature are greedy so they will try to get ahead of the crowd, hence the phylosophy breaking down..

    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    I'm still trying to figure out how to become Einstein's benevolent dictator.
    Just wait till Palin becomes president
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  3. #263  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    FWIW, he's not _from_ there per se, but I'll let him explain further.
    True, I was born and raised in the Netherlands (hence the dutch flag in my avatar) but have lived in Sydney from 2000-2004 and now live in Reading, UK...
    Used to work for a big US company so visited the US (if you can call California US that is ) a number of times and have literally traveled around the word.

    A bit of a global citizen I guess..

    The area around Reading is very nice indeed... Reading itself isnt the prettiest town, but it has improved hugely since I first visited it in 1997..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  4. #264  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT View Post
    And the current credit crisis is partly because of that, because banks could do whatever they wanted (within the law) the greed factor won it over the market forces and as a result lots of people got burned...
    Well, to my perspective, the other part of the problem is that banks were pressured to lend money to sectors which they traditionally hadn't and under conditions which do not lend themselves to sustainability. When people are getting into housing with no equity in it, there's not as much incentive to find a way to keep making payments. They tried to find ways to mitigate those risks and came up with the derivatives they did. There's only so high that you can build a house of cards, though.
    Just wait till Palin becomes president
    I said benevolent, not malevolent.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  5. #265  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Well, to my perspective, the other part of the problem is that banks were pressured to lend money to sectors which they traditionally hadn't and under conditions which do not lend themselves to sustainability. When people are getting into housing with no equity in it, there's not as much incentive to find a way to keep making payments. They tried to find ways to mitigate those risks and came up with the derivatives they did. There's only so high that you can build a house of cards, though.
    very true, I never got those deals in the first place.. but then again I never believed the 'invest in brick they will allways improve their value' which just doesnt sound right to me, all things tend to go in a wave motion: up and down.. if you claim something just goes up that sounds like an artificial price drive to me, and those bubbles tend to bust in the end...
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  6.    #266  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Noonan thinks Palin is an *****, but she hasn't endorsed Obama - unless there was some interview this weekend I'm not aware of.

    And Powell waited 'til the winner was clear before choosing sides.

    McShame would have killed to get Powell's endorsement -- whenever it would have been given.

    Sam -- what is your reaction to all these prominent respected conservatives either conspicuously endorsing Obama -- or at the very least doing it indirectly ??

    Me, I am more than a little shocked -- flabbergasted even.

    Its as though the intellectual foundation of conservative thought has suddenly abandoned their party and denounced its current incarnation.

    Its a party that has been distilled down to its core element: evangelical christians, the uncurious, and the uninformed.

    In retrospect Palin was a grave error -- one that was largely aimed at corraling that base, while not anticipating how toxic she'd be to everyone else.

    She was an atrocious pick for so very many reasons -- but most especially because of how it contradicted the very theme of experience McShame had been using with much effect against Obama -- as well as the fact that it called into question McShame's own judgement when he was attempting to attack Obama's.

    During the short Presidential campaign, McShame has wasted many days defending and explaining Palin -- time that potentially could have been used to promote his own ideas and his agenda. (if he has them).

    Linsay Graham is who, in retrospect, he should have picked.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  7. #267  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT View Post
    True, I was born and raised in the Netherlands (hence the dutch flag in my avatar) but have lived in Sydney from 2000-2004 and now live in Reading, UK...
    Used to work for a big US company so visited the US (if you can call California US that is ) a number of times and have literally traveled around the word.

    A bit of a global citizen I guess..

    The area around Reading is very nice indeed... Reading itself isnt the prettiest town, but it has improved hugely since I first visited it in 1997..
    Your posts are off topic... kinda surprised.... lol

    BARYE has a nice topic on the credit crisis... if you want to call it a topic.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  8. #268  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Populist socialism thrown in. Wow, 40% of Americans do not pay federal income tax. Obama wants to take money from people who make a specific amount and above and give money to those 40% of Americans - money from the government is nothing short of welfare and for most of us, that equates to socialism.
    And again, you don't understand what is being stated. What you are saying sounds like it was quoted off Republican radio/tv ads.

    You can do better than that, I bet. Okay, I'd only bet 1 cent... I don't think you can do better. lol

    Not to mention that the middle class would have a tax increase under mccain, or did you miss that? It is true, no matter how you slice or dice it... sorry to burst your bubble...

    No matter where you are at, America needs the middle class to support our "system." Obama wants to build that middle class, unlike mccain and bush who want to destroy the middle class.

    Under bush we all have jobs... well, the jobs don't pay as much. But that is lost in the rhetoric. Spending has went up. That is lost as well. The middle class is kicking the bucket under bush... and will do the same under McSame.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  9. #269  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    Your posts are off topic... kinda surprised.... lol.
    It is the off topic subforum after all and this thread didnt suffer too much because of it.. and it may explain where I'm comming from a bit (both litterally and also as a figure of speech)
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  10. #270  
    And under Obama, what do we really have? You stated he is an unknown, no history, never reached across the aisle, et cetera. What we do have is the word of a tax reduction, well the way I read it is that he wants to give tax benefits to people who do not pay taxes - that equates to welfare.

    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    And again, you don't understand what is being stated. What you are saying sounds like it was quoted off Republican radio/tv ads.

    You can do better than that, I bet. Okay, I'd only bet 1 cent... I don't think you can do better. lol

    Not to mention that the middle class would have a tax increase under mccain, or did you miss that? It is true, no matter how you slice or dice it... sorry to burst your bubble...

    No matter where you are at, America needs the middle class to support our "system." Obama wants to build that middle class, unlike mccain and bush who want to destroy the middle class.

    Under bush we all have jobs... well, the jobs don't pay as much. But that is lost in the rhetoric. Spending has went up. That is lost as well. The middle class is kicking the bucket under bush... and will do the same under McSame.
  11. #271  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    And under Obama, what do we really have? You stated he is an unknown, no history, never reached across the aisle, et cetera. What we do have is the word of a tax reduction, well the way I read it is that he wants to give tax benefits to people who do not pay taxes - that equates to welfare.
    I found a fair site and article.


    Overall, the Tax Policy Center said people with very high incomes would benefit the most under McCain's proposal, while low- and middle-income taxpayers would see larger tax breaks under Obama's plan and wealthy taxpayers would see their taxes increase.
    http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourworld/p..._vs_mccain_tax

    By the way, you have no argument...
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  12. #272  
    Another neo-con going to jail. Ba bye bad guy.

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/...ors/index.html
  13. #273  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    Sam -- what is your reaction to all these prominent respected conservatives either conspicuously endorsing Obama -- or at the very least doing it indirectly ??

    Me, I am more than a little shocked -- flabbergasted even.

    Its as though the intellectual foundation of conservative thought has suddenly abandoned their party and denounced its current incarnation.
    I wasn't shocked, because I feel the same way. It’s actually refreshing to see intellectual honesty prevail over blind party loyalty.

    Palin was an awful choice. She's not ready to be President. I thought her several years of executive experience was a good thing, and her lack of exposure to the national stage wasn't a deal breaker in itself; a lot of governors do fine as President. But she clearly has a weak command of the issues, and she’d have no credibility as a leader against Congress, with the military, or as the leader of the free world. The Couric interview was horrifying, and her recent focus on education for special needs children makes me think she'd do fine as a First Lady.

    I said many months ago that I didn't trust Obama on foreign policy and national security. And I still don't. I also said that I'd consider voting for him if two things happened: 1) He picks Biden as his running mate, and 2) conditions in Iraq improve sufficiently that his plans to withdraw don't create chaos in Iraq and the Middle East. Biden will give him good advice, but Iraq isn't there yet. But I may just give him a pass given the alternative could lead to a Palin Presidency. Obama made some irresponsible promises to the anti-war left in order to get the nomination, but he's a smart guy, and hopefully he can create some wiggle room (like he has many times in the past) to allow himself to do the right thing.

    Aside from Noonan and Powell, I’m not familiar with the reasoning of the group you mentioned. It would surprise me if it had anything to do with an abandonment of principles or a rejection of the party platform.


    I read recently that Bloomberg was high on McCain’s short list. In retrospect, he would have given McCain credibility in areas where he has none.
  14. #274  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Another neo-con going to jail. Ba bye bad guy.

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/...ors/index.html
    Why do you call him a neo-conservative?

    I've never seen him at any of the meetings.
  15. #275  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Why do you call him a neo-conservative?

    I've never seen him at any of the meetings.
    Well then you obviously aren't high ranking enough.

    Let's hope his new wife, Bubba, doesn't get his stuff all caught up Ted's "series of tubes" whilst he sits in jail.
  16. #276  
    Oh sam...you had me at "intellectual honesty prevail over blind party loyalty".

    (seriously...great post)
  17.    #277  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    I wasn't shocked, because I feel the same way. It’s actually refreshing to see intellectual honesty prevail over blind party loyalty.

    Palin was an awful choice. She's not ready to be President. I thought her several years of executive experience was a good thing, and her lack of exposure to the national stage wasn't a deal breaker in itself; a lot of governors do fine as President. But she clearly has a weak command of the issues, and she’d have no credibility as a leader against Congress, with the military, or as the leader of the free world. The Couric interview was horrifying, and her recent focus on education for special needs children makes me think she'd do fine as a First Lady.

    I said many months ago that I didn't trust Obama on foreign policy and national security. And I still don't. I also said that I'd consider voting for him if two things happened: 1) He picks Biden as his running mate, and 2) conditions in Iraq improve sufficiently that his plans to withdraw don't create chaos in Iraq and the Middle East. Biden will give him good advice, but Iraq isn't there yet. But I may just give him a pass given the alternative could lead to a Palin Presidency. Obama made some irresponsible promises to the anti-war left in order to get the nomination, but he's a smart guy, and hopefully he can create some wiggle room (like he has many times in the past) to allow himself to do the right thing.

    Aside from Noonan and Powell, I’m not familiar with the reasoning of the group you mentioned. It would surprise me if it had anything to do with an abandonment of principles or a rejection of the party platform.


    I read recently that Bloomberg was high on McCain’s short list. In retrospect, he would have given McCain credibility in areas where he has none.
    interesting, thoughtful post.

    Bloomberg, Powell -- both would have been great choices.

    Neither were available to McShame.

    He wanted Lieberman or Gov. Ridge --but the evangelical right vetoed those guys because they were pro choice.

    Party grey beards advocated for Governors Pawlenty, Crist, or Romney -- but apparently McShame didn't like any of them personally enough.

    Graham overcomes all those hurdles.

    He's one of McShame's closest friends, a good speaker, knowledgable, confident -- even sometimes a "maverick"-- and in comparison to McShame, youthful.

    Lots of people are now bemoaning not having Gov. Silly Puddy (romney) on the ticket given the economic meltdown. Or having Crist or Ridge who could have won their own states of Fl. or Pa.

    Romney has always been the most overrated politician in america -- I'm skeptical as to how he would have played.

    Maybe Ridge or Crist could have won their states -- but angry evangelicals would have stayed home had Ridge been the nominee.

    Bloomberg, Powell are both pro choice -- and neither indicated any willingness to be McShame's VP.

    Pawlenty seems like a serious guy -- but he's also unknown nationally.

    None of any of this gives any justification or rationale whatever for Palin. Surely she must rank as one of history's greatest blunders.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  18. #278  
    The source of the article I read was a lengthy article in the NYT yesterday on the McCain campaign. I hope to make time this week to read it.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/ma...pagewanted=all

    It mentions that they were discussing VP possibilities just a week before the convention, and among the possible candidates was Bloomberg. That must mean that Bloomberg at least was interviewed and expressed a strong interest in the VP slot, and maybe even submitted financial statements and other documents, no?


    I never really understood the appeal of Ridge. He never seemed impressive as head of Homeland Security. I do like Graham a lot though.

    It's not too late. If McCain dumps Palin this week, he'd have a real shot. Perhaps all that talk of going rogue is setting us up for the real October surprise?
  19. #279  
    mod,
    Thanks, but um, you still didn't answer my question. Why is Stevens a neo-con? Is that just your short-hand derogatory term for Republicans? Or is that label based on actual knowledge of neo-con policies and how Stevens fits into that category? Do you think all Republicans are neo-cons?
  20. #280  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    mod,
    Thanks, but um, you still didn't answer my question. Why is Stevens a neo-con? Is that just your short-hand derogatory term for Republicans? Or is that label based on actual knowledge of neo-con policies and how Stevens fits into that category? Do you think all Republicans are neo-cons?
    sam,

    Thanks, but um, you'll need to define what you think neoconservatism is if you intend to lure me into this debate. The term has taken on new meaning over a number of years but since you think you have me painted in some corner over something as silly as the term neo-con, by all means - define it.

    And no, I don't think all Republicans are neo-cons at all. But again, if you want to fight this out then lay down a definition (to which I might disagree, but we have to start somewhere) so we have some boundaries for the discussion and we'll have a go.

Posting Permissions