American Politics during the Obama Presidency

HR you are always crying about the poor Palestinians and their "homeland". They had a homeland under the 1949 United Nations (not US) mandated partition of then British ruled Palestine. The Palestinians threw it away by trying to destroy Israel.

Arafat walked away from a deal to give the Palestinians their own self governed homeland yet a second time.

The Palestinians don't have a homeland now because they refuse to live alongside Israel and not the other way around.

Twice the Palestinians have had the opportunity to have a self governed homeland and on both occasions have thrown it away because they wanted it ALL.

Perhaps it would be best for you to move to Gaza and help Hamas, I'm sure they could use the help on their rocket crews.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]HR you are always crying about the poor Palestinians and their "homeland". They had a homeland under the 1949 United Nations (not US) mandated partition of then British ruled Palestine. The Palestinians threw it away by trying to destroy Israel.

Arafat walked away from a deal to give the Palestinians their own self governed homeland yet a second time.

The Palestinians don't have a homeland now because they refuse to live alongside Israel and not the other way around.

Twice the Palestinians have had the opportunity to have a self governed homeland and on both occasions have thrown it away because they wanted it ALL.

Perhaps it would be best for you to move to Gaza and help Hamas, I'm sure they could use the help on their rocket crews.[/QUOTE]A factual arguement like yours is just falling on deaf ears Doppelganger. As I told Rock before, never let the facts get in the way of a good liberal ranting and raving. In a decade or so once the fog of youth has cleared Rock will use that high powered education to better use and become more objective in his reasoning. LOL.

In the mean time I understand that Rock will be taking up the native Argentine indians plight in an attempt to return what is rightfully their's. Once Argentina has been returned to Guarani rule Rock will focus on returning Canada to Inuit (eskimo) control as well. WTF, they were both there first! Time to set things right don't ya know.

Happy Mongering All.

Toymann

Mongers,

The issue under discussion here is Muslim hatred toward the United States and its causes. It is completely irrelevant whether or not the Palestinians deserve a homeland or whether they had what they wanted and blew it. The fact of the matter is that the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Palestinians current status IS the primary cause of Muslim hatred toward the US and has been for 50 years, and will continue to be so until the conflict is resolved.

To the poster who commented that US unconditional support for Israel is not in the United States' economic interests and therefore that US foreign policy is not entirely driven by such; you are absolutely right, supporting Israel is NOT in the economic interests of the US and is a complete aberration. As I mentioned in an early post, the US supports Israel as a result of intense lobbying by the disproportionally powerful Jewish influences within the highest sectors of finance and government. Supporting Israel unconditionally is in THEIR interests, NOT in those of the US.

As for the Iraqi sanctions, the US knew through experience that sanctions do not work as intended against dictatorships because the said dictator can usually re-allocate resources as he chooses to keep himself and the inner circle surrounding him dining on caviar, drinking Dom and zipping around in their European sports cars while those the regime deems unimportant starve to death. Again, whether you are in favor of the sanctions or not is actually irrelevant, the fact of the matter is that the sanctions, which did result in mass starvation of children, WERE a major (although secondary) cause of Muslim hatred toward the US in the late 90's and early 2000's.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

Desmond,

How about you leave the American politics thread to posters who can actually properly read and understand English. You are better off lurking in the Cocodrilo thread waiting for my next report about barebacking chicas.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

I am sure he could shed some light on the Middle East situation

I've heard this account in the past, but I thought that this version posted on the USASexGuide.info was one of the best worded versions I've read, and so I thought it was worth repeating here.

[quote]An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had once failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.[/quote]Could not be any simpler than that.

Remember, there is a test coming up. The mid-term election in 2010!

-----------------------------------------------

As the late Adrian Rogers said, "[i]You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.[/i]"

[QUOTE=Jackson]It's worth repeating

I've heard this account in the past, but I thought that this version posted on the USASexGuide. Info was one of the best worded versions I've read, and so I thought it was worth repeating here.[quote]An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had once failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a be. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.[/QUOTE]Could not be any simpler than that.

Remember, there is a test coming up. The mid-term election in 2010!

-----------------------------------------------

As the late Adrian Rogers said, "[I]You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.[/i]"[/QUOTE][size=3][b]What part of[red] “It's Bush's Fault” [/red]don't you understand? [/size][/b]

The first few paragraphs from this Brett Stephens WSJ opinion piece, excerpted below, provide good examples of why the words "moderate" and "Muslim" frequently don't go together, even though the media tries to make it so. I still support their right to build a mosque two blocks from the former WTC, but these examples might be an ominous warning as to who the newest "moderate Muslim" imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, really is:

Items of interest in the news media's coverage of "moderate Muslims":

• The New York Times, Oct. 19, 2001: "Imam Anwar Al-Awlaki, spiritual leader at the Dar al-Hijra mosque in Virginia, one of the nation's largest. Is held up as a new generation of Muslim leader capable of merging East and West."

• NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams, Dec. 9, 2004: "It's the TV industry's newest experiment, 'Bridges TV,' billing itself the 'American-Muslim lifestyle network,' featuring movies, documentaries, cartoons. It's the brainchild of Aasiya Hassan, an architect, and her husband, Muzzamil Hassan, a banker, who are disturbed that negative images of Muslims seem to dominate TV, especially since 9/11."

• Boston Globe editorial, Aug. 4, 2010: "The simple fact is there's nothing threatening about the proposed Islamic center, which is being spearheaded by Feisal Abdul Rauf, one of the most respected moderate Muslim leaders in the country."

See where this is going?

Most readers probably know of Awlaki as the U. S.-born imam who presided over the mosque attended by two of the 9/11 hijackers. Awlaki also served as theological mentor to Fort Hood killer Nidal Malik Hassan, would-be Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad. President Obama has authorized the military to assassinate Awlaki, now thought to be living in Yemen.

As for Bridges TV, the saccharine story told by Brian Williams and reporter Ron Allen (complete with scenes of the family's domestic bliss in their modest home in Buffalo, N. Y. Came to an abrupt end in February 2009, when Mr. Hassan beheaded his wife after she had filed for divorce, evicted him from their home, and won an order of protection. Last week, Mr. Hassan's attorney defended her client on the grounds that he was, of all things, a "battered spouse."

Now we have the controversy over the Ground Zero mosque, opponents of which are being widely branded as bigots. As, no doubt, some of them are: There are bigots in any crowd.

Then again, is it bigoted to oppose bigots? Consider an interesting historical antecedent. In 1993, a controversy similar to the current one unfolded when residents of a Washington, D. C. Suburb sought to use zoning laws to shut down the local mosque, ostensibly on grounds that it was a traffic nuisance. "Worshipers of many faiths said closing the popular mosque would amount to discrimination against one of the area's fastest growing religions," the Washington Times reported at the time.

The mosque in question? None other than the Dar al-Hijra, later to be known as the "9/11 mosque." So were the petitioners who sought to shut it down bigots? Or is it that they got a whiff of its extremism, and didn't like the smell? "We are appalled at the ill will and friction," the paper quoted one Sylvia Johnson, "who said mosque-goers have yelled at her and blocked her driveway."

[QUOTE=Punter 127][size=3][b]What part of[red] “It's Bush's Fault” [/red]don't you understand? [/size][/b][/QUOTE]I don't understand what "Bush's Fault" had to do with Jackson's story.

I [I]do[/i] understand your remark as an irrelevant and gratuitous slap in the face for our host.

[QUOTE=Westy]I don't understand what "Bush's Fault" had to do with Jackson's story.

I [I]do[/i] understand your remark as an irrelevant and gratuitous slap in the face for our host.[/QUOTE]My take is that this was an "inside joke" comment.

But to take the issue of the cultural center or mosque near Ground Zero, it is the myopic fear of Americans that are on display here. There was hatred and fear of the Japanese after Pearl Harbor in 1941. Today, we buy Toyotas and Sonys, gobble up sushi without feeling guilty and think of of the Japanese as one the great cultures and one of our strongest allies. I am not saying that this is the scenerio that will play out in the immediate future with the Muslim nations. But the populations of the Muslim world suffers from a lack of exposure and education, and they are manupilated by emotion. But it seems we are suffering some of the same symtoms, too.

IMHO, 99.9% of American Muslims love America for the same reasons you do. So, the neighborhood is changing! But change is inevitable, and nobody, even the righteous mullah Newt Gringrich, is going to be able to stop history. And so the fear, anger and disgust come from the changing of America that we once knew. The Marlboro Man has come and gone. What is important is, know thyselves.

Personally, I think it's just fine for folks to say that the mosque [I]should[/i] be built somewhere else, as long as they acknowledge the legality of building it there. Whether it's a good idea or not is another story. My own opinion is that I don't particularly care. I understand folks are worked up. But, as long as people acknowledge that they have the right to build wherever they want (zoning laws aside) then it should be perfectly legitimate to also express the opinion that it shouldn't be built there, even if it is legal.

But, I'll try to stir the pot on a similar issue: Profiling. This is one I don't understand. At what point do we, as a nation, say: At airports, it is perfectly legitimate to profile Muslims and Muslim-looking passengers?

To me, it's the same issue as when I walk down the street and a homeless guy is asking for a handout to buy food. When I was younger, I gave when I could. Having seen that most of them blow the money on drugs or booze, I rarely give anything any more. Perhaps the next guy asking me for money because he's hungry will be sincere and legit. But, he's lost the right to have me respect him because his peers have abused the privilege. In other words, rightly or wrongly, I judge him based on my experience with his peers.

Now, I understand that profiling has added depth. There's race and religion involved, and there's government action at issue rather than a private citizen choosing not to give. But, why can't we, as a nation say: This religion has been responsible for the majority of the terrorist acts and attempted terrorist acts on our soil, so they have lost the right to be viewed equally under the law, at least where profiling is concerned? True, the result will be that many completely benign Muslims might be subjected to extra screening. But, if they're looking for anyone to blame for this, it shouldn't be airport screeners or the U. S. Government. Just like the homeless guy, they have their peers to thank for these consequences. And, just like the homeless situation, we shouldn't have to go through the anti-profiling charade of searching "at random" when we know that the real threat comes from a discrete group.

Like Black Shirt, I believe that most Muslims living in America love this country. But, I might crank the percentage down to 99% rather than 99.9%. The problem is that the remaining 1% (or some fraction thereof) are psychopaths who have repeatedly demonstrated that they are capable of heinous acts in the name of their religion. I believe this will only get worse in the future. So, why can't we acknowledge this reality and stop pretending that profiling is random and based only on non-religious and non-racial factors?

To sum up what may appear to be contradictory views: I believe that any religion ought to have the right to build a house of worship near ground zero. Personally, I would tax any religion that does so, but that's another discussion. But, in terms of equal treatment, my own view is that we are entitled to take Muslim identity into account when we try to protect ourselves -- I. E. That Muslims have forfeited the right to be treated equally in this regard, if only based on hard-learned lessons.

So I guess it would be OK for the Japanese to put one of their religious shrines next to Pearl Harbor, or how about a New Black Panther recruiting station next to Gettysburg, or a Neo Nazi headquarters near Auschwitz?

The point I am trying to make is there are places which deserve reverence due to their standing in history; it is not a matter of "legal" but a matter of respect for what occurred there.

FYI, I understand the unions in New York state / city are attempting to unite behind a "no build" pledge. Last time I checked New York was a very union state and I don't think you can compel a company to do a job they are not interested in.

[QUOTE=Punter 127][size=3][b]What part of[red] “It's Bush's Fault” [/red]don't you understand? [/size][/b][/QUOTE]Punter's response was out of line, but that college economics class story is totally illogical.

If everyone were equal, there would be no more "haves" and "have-nots". Crime would disappear and everyone would get along. People would be more productive because their jobs would be less stressful and more enjoyable. Health care costs would go down and productivity up, growing the "pie" and increasing prosperity for everyone.

It really is that simple!

[QUOTE=Esten]Punter's response was out of line, but that college economics class story is totally illogical.

If everyone were equal, there would be no more "haves" and "have-nots". Crime would disappear and everyone would get along. People would be more productive because their jobs would be less stressful and more enjoyable. Health care costs would go down and productivity up, growing the "pie" and increasing prosperity for everyone.

It really is that simple![/QUOTE]It's even simpler - consider this: If you wouldn't benefit (as in "get a better grade") from your work - if you wouldn't get any more for yourself from working your @ss off, than you would from sitting on said @ss - would that have an effect on your personal motivation? If all your labors were going to "The Greater Good" and you'd get neither profit nor penalty from your labors or your lack of it - would you bust your buns anyways, or would you coast?

The students in that story DID coast. They blamed others for not working, rather than getting their own rear in gear. They EARNED their failing grades.

Are you an angel, that you would "bust your buns anyways" with no chance of personal profit? Or do you take proper pride in EARNING what you've got, and figure (as men and animals and even plants figure) that you worked hard for it and you deserve it?

History, ethology, even physiology shows that a living creature will put forth effort to gain a reward or to avoid a penalty (pain). If there's no reward to be gotten, no penalty to be avoided, creatures from planaria to [I]Homo sapiens[/i] will slack off and not give a fuck. "Crime would disappear" because nobody would have anything to steal. "People would get along" because they'd have no energy to do otherwise. But "the pie" would disappear because nobody would bother to make it.

This is the underlying reason why the "Worker's Paradise" of the Soviet Union and Communism International collapsed - because we need bread for our tummies, and the tummies of our mates and children; and "Glory To The Motherland" is an insufficient substitute. It does us no good, does our personal genetic-future survival no good, if we and our children die but The State survives. That, sadly, is the repeated and repeated result of "Equality of Results" - also stated as "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" (and the worker carries more and more slackers till he's buried under their weight and put in his grave).

Esten, it is simple, but it is the opposite of what you wrote. Communism proved the lie about equality. If everyone had to stay equal, they would drop to the lowest level. As in the classroom example, everyone else would start imitating the laziest worker. But people do not want to be equal, they want to be better. So, some would take from others and the equality would vanish.

[QUOTE=Westy]It's even simpler - consider this: If you wouldn't benefit (as in "get a better grade") from your work - if you wouldn't get any more for yourself from working your @ss off, than you would from sitting on said @ss - would that have an effect on your personal motivation? [/QUOTE]People would still be motivated to work hard, because they would have a shared purpose of maintaining and growing the pie for everyone. Kind of like an Amish community.

BTW, I got some great weed for you boys... I got it from the professor at Fox News College. We both enjoy toking up and indulging in some dry humor...

[QUOTE=Esten]If everyone were equal, there would be no more "haves" and "have-nots". Crime would disappear and everyone would get along. People would be more productive because their jobs would be less stressful and more enjoyable. Health care costs would go down and productivity up, growing the "pie" and increasing prosperity for everyone.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Esten]People would still be motivated to work hard, because they would have a shared purpose of maintaining and growing the pie for everyone. Kind of like an Amish community.[/QUOTE]Esten,

I have come to respect you for being a "True Believer", as opposed to most "Democrats" who are either "Beneficiaries" or "Vested Interests".

That having been said, I have to ask you: "[i]What color is the sky in your world?[/i]"

Anyway, your statements exemplify something that I came to understand many years ago: Liberal policies have always failed in the past, and will always fail in the future, and the reason is very simple: [b]Liberals always devise solutions to problems that are based on manifestly inaccurate models of human behavior.[/b]

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Jackson]models of human behavior.[/QUOTE]So do we really think mongers and their chicas are "models of human behavior?"

Philosopher Jackson - how's the view there up on Mount Olympus.

You are too fucking funny!

[blue]============================================

Hi Ricardo,

I can appreciate your position.

With one simple statement, I've cut right throught all your years of professional liberal bullshit, and there isn't anything funny about that.

To address your other point: Yes "mongers and their chicas" stand as a perfect demonstration of realistic "models of human behavior".

Thanks,

Jackson

Just 70 days until Election Day on Tuesday November 2nd, 2010!

[QUOTE=Esten]People would still be motivated to work hard, because they would have a shared purpose of maintaining and growing the pie for everyone. Kind of like an Amish community.[/QUOTE]More like the Soviet Union, China and Cuba. All great models of motivation through oppression.

You are suggesting that the productive portion of America's society should eat bitterness and like it for the greater good.

[quote=]If everyone were equal, there would be no more "haves" and "have-nots". Crime would disappear and everyone would get along. People would be more productive because their jobs would be less stressful and more enjoyable. Health care costs would go down and productivity up, growing the "pie" and increasing prosperity for everyone.[/QUOTE]And we could all ride unicorns into the sunset! Vote for Esten!

Our new No-nation anthem:

"Imagine there's no countries.

It isn't hard to do.

Nothing to kill or die for.

And no religion too.

Imagine all the people.

Living life in peace."

I hope I can get into one of the gulags near the ocean, I like the smell of the salt air while I toil for the greater good.

I have come to the conclusion that Esten is just toying with us. Nobody, not even Fidel Castro, could believe this equality bullshit.

Esten is probably waiting to see how long it takes us to wake up and realize that his comments are solely for comedy relief.

[QUOTE=El Alamo]I have come to the conclusion that Esten is just toying with us. Nobody, not even Fidel Castro, could believe this equality bullshit.

Esten is probably waiting to see how long it takes us to wake up and realize that his comments are solely for comedy relief.[/QUOTE]The same thought crossed my mind. No one could be that foolish. Still, if you've read this thread for a while, you might be convinced otherwise.

[QUOTE=Canitasguy]So do we really think mongers and their chicas are "models of human behavior?"

Philosopher Jackson - how's the view there up on Mount Olympus.

You are too fucking funny!

[blue]============================================

I've cut right throught all your years of professional liberal bullshit, and there isn't anything funny about that.

Yes "mongers and their chicas" stand as a perfect demonstration of realistic "models of human behavior".[/QUOTE]Did you see how today Ron Paul ripped the state-side equivalents of the Argentine Private rag-head bashers, a few million new assholes for their never-ending anti-muslim rants? And he is spot on about the war-mongers who fuel those flames! He is my new hero!

And thanks for the flattery. I am touched that you recognize me as the "professional" I am. Such a complement coming from a distinguished amateur economist, sociologist, philosopher, human behavior observer, political scientist, pundit, prognosticator, know-it-all is humbling!

(And who's Ricardo. Heheh)

Of course my last two posts were not serious.

It gets boring repeating the same political arguments and being serious all the time. I've said before I enjoy dry humor, and when Punter responded to Jackson's ridiculous college story, I decided to as well. I had a good laugh, don't know about others. I can't read what I wrote without laughing. Although it's not 100% surprising some took me seriously. There are some grains of truth in what I wrote, just like in Jackson's story. But do I really subscribe to that view - of course not and that should be obvious to anyone who has followed what I have written before.

Which brings us full circle to Jackson's story. Of course the core lesson in that story about human motivation is true. There are some logical leaps of faith but the core lesson is correct. What's ridiculous about it is linking it to "Obama's socialism" and implying this is Obama's goal and we can avoid it in the upcoming elections. LOL! This is complete misinformation, just the kind that Fox News and friends love to disemminate in their attempts to shift perception. In fact that story has been circulating for awhile, the original versions merely referenced socialism but not Obama. At some point someone decided to throw in Obama's name. Neither he nor Dems have any vision or plan to eliminate inequality. If you honestly believe they do, you have absolutely been fooled by the right wing media.

[QUOTE=Esten]Neither he nor Dems have any vision or plan to eliminate inequality.[/QUOTE]Perhaps they don't believe that they can completely "eliminate" inequality but they are sure as hell are trying and will continue to try with every last breath.

Joe the Plumber got the only honest answer Obama has ever given.

[quote=] If you honestly believe they do, you have absolutely been fooled by the right wing media.[/QUOTE]Guess I have been fooled. But I don't watch much TV and I almost never watch tv news (including Fox News)

Liberalism is a philosophy that is based upon going against human nature and the natural pursuit of individual best interests (not selfish interests) with the objective of creating a false and unnatural equilibrium of social and economic justice. What is completely mind boggling is that despite a myriad of clear historical examples of the failures and falsehoods of liberalism the liberal elites and media are able to indoctrinate new generations of believers.

WW, that is the problem with the Liberal Elites, the great majority of them are no where close to being "middle class" but they are great at telling the rest of the poor unwashed masses how things should be.

I do not recall any of the Liberal Elites who wish to lord over us coming down to the level of the average "Joe" and live what they preach for others. They believe they are not the Liberal Elite but should be the Ruling Elite since the masses don't have the sense God gave a goose and need their "enlightened" direction.

Yes I can hear one now as he wings his way over the huddled masses, who wait on his pearls of wisdom, on his private jet. "How distressing, my Perrier is tepid. Be a good man and fetch me another."

Is that you Esten?

I think some of you are simply too stubborn and set in your ways to make a real effort to understand the liberal philosophy of Dems in the US.

I'm a bit surprised at how many misconceptions I see here. But perhaps I shouldn't be, given the abundance of spin and misinformation in the right wing media.

I'm wondering if there is even a single person here who can accurately articulate - without exaggeration - the philosophy of most Dems in the US today? Walleye and Doppel have already dq'd themselves, but anyone else who wants to give it a shot please do.

[QUOTE=Esten]I think some of you are simply too stubborn and set in your ways to make a real effort to understand the liberal philosophy of Dems in the US.

I'm a bit surprised at how many misconceptions I see here. But perhaps I shouldn't be, given the abundance of spin and misinformation in the right wing media.

I'm wondering if there is even a single person here who can accurately articulate - without exaggeration - the philosophy of most Dems in the US today? Walleye and Doppel have already dq'd themselves, but anyone else who wants to give it a shot please do.[/QUOTE]I think I nailed it, without exaggeration.

The philosophy of almost all Dems, and Republicans, is to say what they need to say to get elected and vote the way they need to vote to get contributions from big donors.

Bob

[QUOTE=Esten]I think some of you are simply too stubborn and set in your ways to make a real effort to understand the liberal philosophy of Dems in the US.

I'm a bit surprised at how many misconceptions I see here. But perhaps I shouldn't be, given the abundance of spin and misinformation in the right wing media.

I'm wondering if there is even a single person here who can accurately articulate - without exaggeration - the philosophy of most Dems in the US today? Walleye and Doppel have already dq'd themselves, but anyone else who wants to give it a shot please do.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=AllIWantIsLove]The philosophy of almost all Dems, and Republicans, is to say what they need to say to get elected and vote the way they need to vote to get contributions from big donors.

Bob[/QUOTE]Which is why I am neither. I am a Conservative.

Pretty tired from my morning tennis session, and contemplating a short nap after lunch when it kind of hit me that in the last few months, we have seen electorates rejecting traditional parties and their impotence, notably England and Australia. Parties are having difficulty winning the majority of seats and have had to form coalition type of govenments. Japan have seen prime ministers come and go. All the traditional economic powers seem to have hit the ceiling with little growth and unemployment on the dinner menu. So no surprise, if the American elections reflect these same sentiments.

Gee Esten, the "right wing" media? I just love it when you use this term. The left has had the major media outlets in their pocket for years and they completely tanked for Obama in 08, yet suddenly one media outlet (Fox) at least attempts to be fair and perhaps a little "right" so they are branded the hateful "right wing media".

This sounds suspiciously like Hillary Clinton crying out about the massive right wing conspiracy regarding Bill and Monica and we all know how that one turned out.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt]Pretty tired from my morning tennis session, and contemplating a short nap after lunch when it kind of hit me that in the last few months, we have seen electorates rejecting traditional parties and their impotence, notably England and Australia. Parties are having difficulty winning the majority of seats and have had to form coalition type of govenments. Japan have seen prime ministers come and go. All the traditional economic powers seem to have hit the ceiling with little growth and unemployment on the dinner menu. So no surprise, if the American elections reflect these same sentiments.[/QUOTE]Coalition govts formed to create a majority for the purpose of "ruling" usually don't turn out too good. Similarly, changing the guy at the helm every six weeks (e. g. Japan and Italy) doesn't seem to work so well either (don't get me wrong, I want to change the guy at our helm, asap)

In my own feeble opinion, given to me by the propagandists, the best way to build a coalition is to be right (little "r") have the courage of your convictions, lead by example and take your message directly to the people and let the rudderless legislators fall in line behind you.

Unfortunately, getting elected and going to Washington makes sea glass out of men (and women) The sharp and irregular edges (both good and bad) get worn smooth and after a while. They become undistinguished.

Congressional gridlock will be coming to DC in November. That is a good thing in that it will stop (or at least slow) the runaway spending machine. Hopefully, there will be follow through in 2012 with the election of a real leader who will be historic in his (or her) own special way by being the first to actually cut spending.

New reports show Republicans' chances of winning the Senate are increasing. [url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100826/el_yblog_upshot/democrats-hold-on-the-senate-is-increasingly-at-risk[/url]

It's still a longshot, and a long way off. But, Democrats are showing that, given enough time and enough rope, they will do everything in their power to simultaneously hang themselves and step on their collective dicks -- which is no small feat. The tired 'it's all Bush's fault' excuses are now falling on deaf ears after two years of showing the public what they really meant by "change". Nonetheless, that appears to be the Dems rallying cry this fall.

Then again, Democrats have a significant funding advantage, especially after their union crook buddies at the SEIU and AFL-CIO pledged to spend $80 million to help them this fall.

Anyone who thinks the Republicans are the party of "big money" or "big corporations" is fooling themselves. Wall Street banks give far more money to Dems, as do health insurers, pharmaceutical companies, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and a host of other connected corporate lobbies. Republicans certainly get a share, but not as much as Democrats.

This administration has taken the corrupt pay-to-play politics of the shamed Gray Davis administration to new levels. Thankfully, something will be done about it in the fall. The only question is whether we're trading one batch of crooks for another, and if the new batch will be worse. It's hard to fathom "worse" than the current crop, but politicians have a way of surprising.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]I think I nailed it, without exaggeration.[/QUOTE]Of course you do. You are not only set in your ways, you are stuck in them.

There's a difference between reducing inequality and eliminating it; you seem unwilling or unable to grasp this distinction. Liberals have no inherent issue with economic inequality, it's essential for capitalism to work. What Liberals have an issue with is extreme economic inequality.

[QUOTE]What is completely mind boggling is that despite a myriad of clear historical examples of the failures and falsehoods of liberalism the liberal elites and media are able to indoctrinate new generations of believers.[/QUOTE]Hardly convincing when unrestrained capitalism just gave us the worst recession in decades.

I have some recommended reading for you. Note the part about the mixed economy and the post-war economic expansion. What I'll add that this write up omits, is that the mixed economy modern Dems favor is one mostly based on the private sector. One need look no further than the successful efforts with the US auto industry and now GM's IPO as to their commitment to a strong private sector.

Modern liberalism in the United States

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States[/url]

[QUOTE=Esten]Hardly convincing when unrestrained capitalism just gave us the worst recession in decades.[/QUOTE]For the 10,000th time, the current recession was precipitated by [u]Democratic[/u] [u]politicians[/u] who legislatively mandated the lowering of mortgage qualification standards in pursuit of their [u]liberal[/u] goal of increasing the country's percentage of home ownership.

This [u]artificial[/u] [u]distortion[/u] of the free market resulted in the unintended consequence of the housing market being flooded with new (and previously unqualified) buyers who, in competition for the same inventory of houses, resulted in an artificial run up of home prices.

It's a simple as that, and I for one am tired of liberals blaming the ensuing recession, which they perpetrated by meddling with the free market, on George W. Bush.

You can continue to foist this lie to the gullible idiots in the country, but those of us who are able to think beyond sound bites know who is really responsible.

Thanks,

Jackson

We've been through this before. Nobody forced Bear Stearns, Lehman and other Wall Street banks to take on the leverage and risk they did. When the government let Lehman fail, credit markets froze. This "financial crisis" precipitated by poor risk management and greed was the direct causal factor of the recession, not housing policies.

BTW this is my post #500. May I take a moment to say, thank you for providing this board and the open discussion we are having here.

[QUOTE=Esten]We've been through this before. Nobody forced Bear Stearns, Lehman and other Wall Street banks to take on the leverage and risk they did. When the government let Lehman fail, credit markets froze. This "financial crisis" precipitated by poor risk management and greed was the direct causal factor of the recession, not housing policies.

BTW this is my post #500. May I take a moment to say, thank you for providing this board and the open discussion we are having here.[/QUOTE]But how about the instructions to Freddie and Fannie to finance the mortgages. That was a direct instruction from the Clinton administration and the first link in the causal chain! Let's not put the cart before the horse.

Argento

[QUOTE=Esten]Of course you do. You are not only set in your ways, you are stuck in them. [/QUOTE]So, I should change my beliefs and values because they have been the same, consistently year over year? That sounds like "change for the sake of change." What a great philosophy.

[quote=]There's a difference between reducing inequality and eliminating it; you seem unwilling or unable to grasp this distinction.[/QUOTE]I believe it is you, my friend, who does not see the distinction, between enabling an individual to succeed on his own and provide for himself for life as opposed to giving him something for nothing to sate him for a day. Lao Tzu is credited with saying something like that once.

[quote=]Liberals have no inherent issue with economic inequality,[/QUOTE]Then why are they so hostile to everyone trying to make a buck, except for themselves?

[quote=] it's essential for capitalism to work. [/QUOTE]Ha! Please show me one liberal that has every conceded that point.

[quote=]What Liberals have an issue with is extreme economic inequality.[/QUOTE]Here we can agree. Prime examples include: Mssrs. Gore, Kennedy, Soros, Edwards, Clinton, Obama.

[quote=]Hardly convincing when unrestrained capitalism just gave us the worst recession in decades.[/QUOTE]There is nothing unrestrained about the US brand of capitalism. Ever heard of the IRS, FTC, FCC, EEOC, DOE, or the EPA? Any idea what their primary focii are?

[quote=]One need look no further than the successful efforts with the US auto industry and now GM's IPO as to their commitment to a strong private sector.[/QUOTE]What a brilliant example. The govt expropriated the assets of GM and Chrysler from the rightful owners (bond holders) and gave them to the auto unions. The only reason why they are trying to IPO is so that the unions can liquidate their shares to diversify away from Government Motors. I can't wait to read the S-1 (that is the primary form they must file to begin the IPO process) which among other things must include potential risks to the purchasers of the securities. I can see it now:

"Purchasers of these securities face the risk of loss of capital due to pending legislation against the company and the US Govt for the illegal seizure of private property by the govt. Further, the private property stolen from the plaintiffs consists of the assets that are the underlying value in the investment you are considering making. If the plaintiffs are successful, you will lose 100% of your investment. Don't worry however, the UAW will have already effectuated a zero-cost collar on their ownership position of the Company, therefore they will not be effected by the outcome of the litigation."

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]So, I should change my beliefs and values because they have been the same, consistently year over year? That sounds like "change for the sake of change." What a great philosophy. [/QUOTE]Absolutely not, but you should recognize and drop the numerous erroneous beliefs you have about liberals. Which you cling to, even when presented with data and information demonstrating otherwise. That is "stuck".

[QUOTE]I believe it is you, my friend, who does not see the distinction, between enabling an individual to succeed on his own and provide for himself for life as opposed to giving him something for nothing to sate him for a day. Lao Tzu is credited with saying something like that once.[/QUOTE]Don't dodge the discussion point. You stated that liberals were hell bent on eliminating inequality. Is that really your belief?

On your other point here, another erroneous belief. Liberals feel strongly about enabling individuals to succeed. There are basic things such as affordable housing, health care and education that are part of that enablement. Liberal policies are not giveaways; rather they help improve the odds of success.

[QUOTE]Ha! Please show me one liberal that has every conceded that point.[/QUOTE]Obama's own words in clarifying his remarks to Joe the Plumber:

[I]"We don't mind people getting enormously wealthy because of their skills and talents and their drive. But we always want to make sure that playing field is such where everybody who's got a good idea has a chance to succeed. Everybody's got a chance to get financing. Everybody who works hard is able to raise a family. Everybody has an opportunity if they act responsibly to send their kids to college and retire with dignity and respect."[/i]

[QUOTE]Here we can agree. Prime examples include: Mssrs. Gore, Kennedy, Soros, Edwards, Clinton, Obama. [/QUOTE]You forgot Buffet. And wealthy Dems, through their words, actions and votes, support the allocation of wealth in a manner that reduces extreme economic inequality.

[QUOTE]There is nothing unrestrained about the US brand of capitalism. Ever heard of the IRS, FTC, FCC, EEOC, DOE, or the EPA? Any idea what their primary focii are?[/QUOTE]Let me re-phrase then: [I]inadequately restrained[/i]

Have fun at the rally tomorrow.

But I like the give and take.

[QUOTE=Esten]Absolutely not, but you should recognize and drop the numerous erroneous beliefs you have about liberals. Which you cling to, even when presented with data and information demonstrating otherwise. That is "stuck". [/QUOTE]Please elaborate and enumerate (if you know what that means) on my 'erroneous beliefs."

[quote=]Don't dodge the discussion point. You stated that liberals were hell bent on eliminating inequality. Is that really your belief? [/QUOTE]You're kind of slow aren't you? I think I have stated in unequivocal terms that this is the case. My last post was on point to this fact. You have provided nothing other than a weak deflection of an excellent point (which, given the fact that you are dead wrong is probably as good as anyone could expect)

[quote=]On your other point here, another erroneous belief. Liberals feel strongly about enabling individuals to succeed. There are basic things such as affordable housing, health care and education that are part of that enablement. Liberal policies are not giveaways; rather they help improve the odds of success.

Obama's own words in clarifying his remarks to Joe the Plumber:

[I]"We don't mind people getting enormously wealthy because of their skills and talents and their drive. But we always want to make sure that playing field is such where everybody who's got a good idea has a chance to succeed. Everybody's got a chance to get financing. Everybody who works hard is able to raise a family. Everybody has an opportunity if they act responsibly to send their kids to college and retire with dignity and respect."[/i][/QUOTE]Sweet pea, I think you left out this part "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. If you've got a plumbing business, you're gonna be better off if you're gonna be better off if you've got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody's so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

[quote=]You forgot Buffet. And wealthy Dems, through their words, actions and votes, support the allocation of wealth in a manner that reduces extreme economic inequality.[/QUOTE]Their actions speak louder than words. John Kerry's attempted tax dodge on his yacht is a great example.

[quote=]Let me re-phrase then: [I]inadequately restrained[/i][/QUOTE]Whatever, keep changing what you meant. It has little meaning anyhow.

[quote=]Have fun at the rally tomorrow.[/QUOTE]What rally? I'll be celebrating MLK's "I have a dream speech." What will you be doing? Burning Reagan in effigy?