REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Ron Paul Bailout Article on CNN

POSTED BY: ANTHONYT
UPDATED: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 11:27
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4036
PAGE 1 of 3

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 5:21 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

I found this on CNN when I woke up. I'm sure it's the sort of commentary bound to create controversy and incite debate here.

--Anthony

From: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/23/paul.bailout/index.html

By Ron Paul
Special to CNN

Editor's note: Ron Paul is a Republican congressman from Texas who ran for his party's nomination for president this year. He is a doctor who specializes in obstetrics/gynecology and says he has delivered more than 4,000 babies. He served in Congress in the late 1970s and early 1980s and was elected again to Congress in 1996. Rep. Paul serves on the House Financial Services Committee.


Rep. Ron Paul says the government's solution to the crisis is the same as the cause of it -- too much government.

(CNN) -- Many Americans today are asking themselves how the economy got to be in such a bad spot.

For years they thought the economy was booming, growth was up, job numbers and productivity were increasing. Yet now we find ourselves in what is shaping up to be one of the most severe economic downturns since the Great Depression.

Unfortunately, the government's preferred solution to the crisis is the very thing that got us into this mess in the first place: government intervention.

Ever since the 1930s, the federal government has involved itself deeply in housing policy and developed numerous programs to encourage homebuilding and homeownership.

Government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were able to obtain a monopoly position in the mortgage market, especially the mortgage-backed securities market, because of the advantages bestowed upon them by the federal government.

Laws passed by Congress such as the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to make loans to previously underserved segments of their communities, thus forcing banks to lend to people who normally would be rejected as bad credit risks.

These governmental measures, combined with the Federal Reserve's loose monetary policy, led to an unsustainable housing boom. The key measure by which the Fed caused this boom was through the manipulation of interest rates, and the open market operations that accompany this lowering.

When interest rates are lowered to below what the market rate would normally be, as the Federal Reserve has done numerous times throughout this decade, it becomes much cheaper to borrow money. Longer-term and more capital-intensive projects, projects that would be unprofitable at a high interest rate, suddenly become profitable.

Because the boom comes about from an increase in the supply of money and not from demand from consumers, the result is malinvestment, a misallocation of resources into sectors in which there is insufficient demand.

In this case, this manifested itself in overbuilding in real estate. When builders realize they have overbuilt and have too many houses to sell, too many apartments to rent, or too much commercial real estate to lease, they seek to recoup as much of their money as possible, even if it means lowering prices drastically.

This lowering of prices brings the economy back into balance, equalizing supply and demand. This economic adjustment means, however that there are some winners -- in this case, those who can again find affordable housing without the need for creative mortgage products, and some losers -- builders and other sectors connected to real estate that suffer setbacks.

The government doesn't like this, however, and undertakes measures to keep prices artificially inflated. This was why the Great Depression was as long and drawn out in this country as it was.

I am afraid that policymakers today have not learned the lesson that prices must adjust to economic reality. The bailout of Fannie and Freddie, the purchase of AIG, and the latest multi-hundred billion dollar Treasury scheme all have one thing in common: They seek to prevent the liquidation of bad debt and worthless assets at market prices, and instead try to prop up those markets and keep those assets trading at prices far in excess of what any buyer would be willing to pay.

Additionally, the government's actions encourage moral hazard of the worst sort. Now that the precedent has been set, the likelihood of financial institutions to engage in riskier investment schemes is increased, because they now know that an investment position so overextended as to threaten the stability of the financial system will result in a government bailout and purchase of worthless, illiquid assets.

Using trillions of dollars of taxpayer money to purchase illusory short-term security, the government is actually ensuring even greater instability in the financial system in the long term.

The solution to the problem is to end government meddling in the market. Government intervention leads to distortions in the market, and government reacts to each distortion by enacting new laws and regulations, which create their own distortions, and so on ad infinitum.

It is time this process is put to an end. But the government cannot just sit back idly and let the bust occur. It must actively roll back stifling laws and regulations that allowed the boom to form in the first place.

The government must divorce itself of the albatross of Fannie and Freddie, balance and drastically decrease the size of the federal budget, and reduce onerous regulations on banks and credit unions that lead to structural rigidity in the financial sector.

Until the big-government apologists realize the error of their ways, and until vocal free-market advocates act in a manner which buttresses their rhetoric, I am afraid we are headed for a rough ride.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer.


"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 7, 2009 8:15 AM

JAYNEZTOWN


$78 Billion Rip-Off


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 7, 2009 8:23 AM

WHOZIT


He's 100% correct! And now Barney (The mush mouth Queen) Frank and Chris (The Drunk) Dodd are the ones who are in charge on fixing it. FYI, they're the ones who caused it! The inmates are running the Looney Bin!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 7, 2009 10:31 AM

SERGEANTX


I was reading some comments on another article about Ron Paul a couple weeks ago. One stuck with. The author spoke dismissively about Ron Paul. He said "Ron Paul may be right, but he just not a viable candidate. His positions are fringe and not in synch with mainstream public opinion." (emphasis mine)

This was meant to be a criticism of Ron Paul, but I couldn't help but see it as a sad commentary of just how deluded mainstream public opinion can be. Being right is just not popular.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 13, 2009 11:15 AM

SKYWALKEN


Congressman Paul would have been a MUCH better candidate for the GOP in 2000 and 2004 than that liberal GWB.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 13, 2009 5:35 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"For years (many Americans) thought the economy was booming, growth was up, job numbers and productivity were increasing."

That was the Bush administration line, which Ron Paul seems only too happy to parrot. But most average people didn't FEEL it was true. What they knew was that they were working harder, working longer hours, just to edge backwards over time.

I don't know who Ron Paul thinks he was speaking for, or to, when he declaimed that. It's not me or anyone I know.

Perhaps he's speaking for the nabobs in Washington ?



His little treatise goes downhill from there. Virtually ALL of the points he tries to make are not true. I just don't have time to get into them now.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 13, 2009 6:29 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
That was the Bush administration line, which Ron Paul seems only too happy to parrot. But most average people didn't FEEL it was true. What they knew was that they were working harder, working longer hours, just to edge backwards over time.


Gotta work on that reading comprehension there rue. His point, far from parroting, is that Bush was wrong.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 13, 2009 9:02 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Ron Paul is an idiot, bent on warping facts to meet his ideology... pretty much like Rapo with his head stuck up Limbaugh's ass. Virtually everything RP ays about the economy is wrong. For example his characterization of Fannie/Freddie having a monopoly on housing is 85% wrong. Yet another reason why RP won't become Prez.

I'm kinda busy right now but I'll be happy to dedconstruct his idiocy, line by line, when I have a chance.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 13, 2009 9:36 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Ron Paul is an idiot, bent on warping facts to meet his ideology...



Good answer! Good answer!

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 14, 2009 9:27 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Many Americans today are asking themselves how the economy got to be in such a bad spot. For years they thought the economy was booming, growth was up, job numbers and productivity were increasing. Yet now we find ourselves in what is shaping up to be one of the most severe economic downturns since the Great Depression. Unfortunately, the government's preferred solution to the crisis is the very thing that got us into this mess in the first place: government intervention.

Ever since the 1930s, the federal government has involved itself deeply in housing policy and developed numerous programs to encourage homebuilding and homeownership.

Government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were able to obtain a monopoly position in the mortgage market, especially the mortgage-backed securities market, because of the advantages bestowed upon them by the federal government.

Although Fannie and Freddie together held a majority of new mortgages, they only held about 15% of "at risk" loans. Also, consider that Fannie and Freddie NEVER loaned mortgages or wrote the terms of those mortgages, they only bought them AFTER the mortgages had been made by banks. http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:LHLICYRqxfEJ:www.mcclatchydc.com/
251/story/53802.html+fannie+freddie+market+share&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Quote:

Laws passed by Congress such as the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to make loans to previously underserved segments of their communities, thus forcing banks to lend to people who normally would be rejected as bad credit risks.
Again, that's utter nonsense. Banks and mortgage companies made bad loans because they were GREEDY. About 30-50% of the peeps holding mortgages with "toxic" feature would have qualified for traditional loans. But the banks thought they could loan out $ on onerous terms because they counted on the collateral - the price of the house- to keep going up. Was it stupid? Yes. Shortsighted? Yes. Greedy? Yes, yes, and yes. But the risk managers for the banks have done some soul-searching since then. You should read what they say about themselves.
Quote:

These governmental measures, combined with the Federal Reserve's loose monetary policy, led to an unsustainable housing boom.
Loose money was definitely a problem. BUT THE FEDERAL RESERVE, AS O2B KEEPS POINTING OUT, IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT! It is a private institution of banks, which was -at the time- under the control of Greenspan. Greenspan has since said that HE WAS MISTAKEN in believing that self interest would keep the banks from doing anything as stupid as they did! (And if Greenspan- a committed free-marketeer- can learn from experience, why can't Ron Paul?)
Quote:

The key measure by which the Fed caused this boom was through the manipulation of interest rates, and the open market operations that accompany this lowering. When interest rates are lowered to below what the market rate would normally be, as the Federal Reserve has done numerous times throughout this decade, it becomes much cheaper to borrow money. Longer-term and more capital-intensive projects, projects that would be unprofitable at a high interest rate, suddenly become profitable. Because the boom comes about from an increase in the supply of money and not from demand from consumers, the result is malinvestment, a misallocation of resources into sectors in which there is insufficient demand. In this case, this manifested itself in overbuilding in real estate. When builders realize they have overbuilt and have too many houses to sell, too many apartments to rent, or too much commercial real estate to lease, they seek to recoup as much of their money as possible, even if it means lowering prices drastically. This lowering of prices brings the economy back into balance, equalizing supply and demand. This economic adjustment means, however that there are some winners -- in this case, those who can again find affordable housing without the need for creative mortgage products, and some losers -- builders and other sectors connected to real estate that suffer setbacks.
Back to my two points: The Fed is NOT the government, and those toxic mortgages were crated in a burst of sheer, exhuberant, shortsighted GREED.
Quote:

The government doesn't like this, however, and undertakes measures to keep prices artificially inflated. This was why the Great Depression was as long and drawn out in this country as it was.
The reason why we run on credit and a constantly-expanding money supply is because it is required to keep capitalism from collapsing.
Quote:

I am afraid that policymakers today have not learned the lesson that prices must adjust to economic reality.
Actually, it is income distribution which must to adjust to reality. If you have a uber-class robbing everybody blind, eventually everyone will be too damn poor to buy anything. It's a bitter pill for capitalists to swallow, but it happens to be the truth. We were at 1929 inequity, and we got 1929 results.
Quote:

The bailout of Fannie and Freddie, the purchase of AIG, and the latest multi-hundred billion dollar Treasury scheme all have one thing in common: They seek to prevent the liquidation of bad debt and worthless assets at market prices, and instead try to prop up those markets and keep those assets trading at prices far in excess of what any buyer would be willing to pay.Additionally, the government's actions encourage moral hazard of the worst sort. Now that the precedent has been set, the likelihood of financial institutions to engage in riskier investment schemes is increased, because they now know that an investment position so overextended as to threaten the stability of the financial system will result in a government bailout and purchase of worthless, illiquid assets.Using trillions of dollars of taxpayer money to purchase illusory short-term security, the government is actually ensuring even greater instability in the financial system in the long term.
I agree, Frankly, I would like to see the stock market and banks fail. But that would cause the poor to suffer along with those responsible. So the only answer is to nationalize banks, since the free market fucked it up like they did health care.
Quote:

The solution to the problem is to end government meddling in the market.
Oh. MORE deregulation? Isn't that what we just tried for the past eight years? Let capitalism be capitalism? Let the banks and the investment firms and the mortgage lenders and Enron and Tyco and Madoff and whomever do whatever? Loosen the hand of gumint restraint and let self-interest govern the market? (NOTE TO SELF: THE FED IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT)
Quote:

Government intervention leads to distortions in the market, and government reacts to each distortion by enacting new laws and regulations, which create their own distortions, and so on ad infinitum.It is time this process is put to an end. But the government cannot just sit back idly and let the bust occur. It must actively roll back stifling laws and regulations that allowed the boom to form in the first place.
I thought we'd "been there, done that, got the T-shirt and mug"
Quote:

balance and drastically decrease the size of the federal budget, and reduce onerous regulations on banks and credit unions that lead to structural rigidity in the financial sector.
Oh my lord in fucking heaven! That is EXACTLY what was done. Savings banks were allowed to compete in "investment products". The SEC rolled back capitalization requirements. Complex products were traded without regulation whatsoever. I repeat: If even Greenspan can learn from experience, why can't Ron Paul?
Quote:

Until the big-government apologists realize the error of their ways, and until vocal free-market advocates act in a manner which buttresses their rhetoric, I am afraid we are headed for a rough ride.
No shit, Sherlock. We ARE headed for a rough ride. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out! So it sure doesn't add any credibility to make such a bone-headed obvious statement.

But everything else he got bass-akwards. He reminds me of the 16th century doctor who bled patients to death because he was so indoctrinated into his "treatment" he failed to see it not only wasn't working, it was making things worse.

Such utter drivel, from someone who's supposed to be smart. It's a might disappointin'!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 15, 2009 2:36 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


I suppose you feel that the trillions of dollars that are being spent today that we can never afford to pay back without defaulting on our debt and ruining the US dollars, and/or being slaves in a generation or two is a much better solution Signy?

And why are we saying that deficit spending is only about 1.5 Trillion this year when we've clearly spent or have "budgeted" twice that figure already and it's only mid-March?

If we want to be factual about deficit spending here, we're likely to see the deficit double this year alone by December 31st, and probably won't manage to cut that figure in half by 2012, let alone ever getting down to the half trillion dollar credit card bill-per-year that Obama keeps talking about.

(Before anyone claims I'm bashing their beloved Obama, might I point out that I was just as adamant against Bushes spending policies as well as 80% of the shit his administration was pulling
otherwise, and I have plenty of posts for you to browse through to prove that point)
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 15, 2009 2:52 AM

CITIZEN


I think Signym's point was that Ron Paul's solution for preventing the current economic situation is actually what caused it in the first place, so that his economic policies would do much more harm than good. That the bailouts are being done now, because people with Ron Paul's economic ideology got their way back then.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 15, 2009 3:01 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Wow... that's not true.

There hasn't been a "free" market in the US for nearly 100 years. It's been as free as Big Daddy Government allowed it to be.

"Deregulation" was bullshit, because it was still deeply regulated and only appeared to be deregulated from certain angles.


The scary thing about Ron Paul for most folk is that things would be tough NOW as opposed to later. (And they should be, given our collective idiocy and carelessness) What Obama has given us today is the promise that soon things won't be so bad, but no plans or even intentions of ever paying our debts back. He's just the next stooge in a long line of stooges who were at the helm while all of this was going on.

Kennedy, who happened to be much more conservative than any Republican administration I've lived through, tried to stop it by backing the US dollar with Silver, and we all know how that ended up.


I just laugh when I think that the Liberals preach the word of Darwinism and Survival of the Fittest as being how we got to where we are today, but every policy they enforce, whether it fiscal or social, seems to work in direct contrast with Survival of the Fittest.

Survival of the Fittest is something I absolutely believe in, by the way, I just haven't been sold that it couldn't have been the way that everything was constructed. I'm also aware of the fact that all of this very well could have been one gigantic accident..... I'm also aware of the fact that the Universe as we understand it could be just a petri dish in some high school class of beings so huge we could never in our minds understand the significance of our relative insignificance.

Just making that point about Liberals to prove a point, and I'm not in any way refuting it because of my possible believe in a God of sorts.


My thought is there should only be about half the people on the planet that there are now or less. I'm certainly not saying that it should be Americans and other choice countries over others, and I can't say that I'm aware of a means to make this happen that I wouldn't be against, I'm just saying that there are too many to support now allover. Don't go calling me Hitler Cit.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 15, 2009 3:15 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Wow... that's not true.


Actually, it's completely true. The New Deal put regulatory structures in place that prevented a major economic collapse for forty-fifty years, and over the same period the US became the biggest and most powerful economy in the world.

So much for regulation destorying America's competitiveness.
Quote:

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
"Deregulation" was bullshit, because it was still regulated and only appeared to be deregulated from certain angles.


Yes, Deregulation was bullshit, but not because it was the remaining regulations caused the problems. That's an argument that simply doesn't hold up. Say you've got a dam, and you start pulling bricks out. Water bursts through the holes and floods the village. You say "It's not the bricks we took out that caused the flood, it's that there's still bricks there!"

It makes no sense. Everywhere things were deregulated, that's where there were problems. The Savings and Loans deregulation ended with the savings and Loans crisis just a few years later. Wider banking deregulation gave us the present crisis. Feel free to believe that's not the case, that Free market ideology is always correct, regardless of how often the evidence says otherwise, but the reality of the situation really isn't with you.

It was the deregulation of industry that allowed this to happen. Assuming it was the remaining regulations that some how magically allowed corporations to take advantage of the deregulated aspects of the markets that brought us to this point, is just plain asinine.
Quote:

I just laugh when I think that the Liberals preach the word of Darwinism and survival of the fittest as being how we got to where we are today, but every policy they enforce, whether it fiscal or social, seems to work in direct contrast with Survival of the Fittest.

It's funny how people who really want to see something as funny can twist it into something that doesn't even resemble itself.

Perhaps you just don't want to see the arguments of these "liberals" so you choose not to understand them. It's easier to think your opposition is wrong if you never bother to listen to them.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 15, 2009 3:34 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
A lot of stuff...



I'm not going to argue quite a bit of that at this point, although there is a lot I don't agree with as well. You do bring up some good points, although I don't agree that they render my own unimportant or ill-informed.

I'm willing to admit that there was much good that came out of the 40-50 years you speak of. I believe that there was good to come out of all of the years and all of the administrations and US practices up until now as well.

Let us not forget the many Civil Liberty wins the people have gained and have become so accostomed to that they not only take them for granted a lot of the time, but they feel even that they are entitled to them without having to do anything but punch a card in a Diebold machine once every four years.

Many of these sociatal wins weren't met until after the date you place the fall of the American Economy.

Let us condemn the many infringements on our personal liberties, personal wealth, and the previous truth that you had to work hard to survive, in all of those years combined, and hopefully in the future do it in some place not as benign and impotent as an obscure chatroom on the outskirts of the Verse.


Quote:

Quote:

I just laugh when I think that the Liberals preach the word of Darwinism and survival of the fittest as being how we got to where we are today, but every policy they enforce, whether it fiscal or social, seems to work in direct contrast with Survival of the Fittest.


It's funny how people who really want to see something as funny can twist it into something that doesn't even resemble itself.

Perhaps you just don't want to see the arguments of these "liberals" so you choose not to understand them. It's easier to think your opposition is wrong if you never bother to listen to them.



If you included the rest of that entire spiel, you'd see that I very much agree with Survival of the Fittest. What I am speaking about here, in a more concise and easy to understand way is that every dime the Liberal way of thinking spends, and in many cases never earned, is to help people who can't help themselves.

It just seems to me to be counter intuitive to the way things have gone on this planet the last few million years or so.... Maybe I'm wrong...


The one thing we can seem to agree upon is that Bush didn't start the fire. 40-50 years would put that date right around the late eighties, early ninetys.

Surely it goes at least back to Carter though.

How many tax dollars would the Panama Canal have been brining in for us. Think of all those hard working Californians who wouldn't have had IOU's on their tax refunds.


"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 15, 2009 3:44 AM

AGENTROUKA


Just for clarification: Do you think that just because a number of liberals believe in evolution, one aspect of which is natural selection, that they should believe in survival of the fittest as a social policy?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 15, 2009 3:52 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


That is a very valid question AR, and one that doesn't have an easy answer.

Basically, all I'm doing is pointing out the irrefutable truth that we as a human society are changing the way the game has been played for millions or more years, and in only the last 100 years or so have we become so successful and made such staggering leaps and bounds at it.

Who am I to say this is not the next step of evolution? It would be one that never took place on this grand a scale as we've ever learned about on a text book.

I'm not opposed to that being the truth, I just don't like the idea of China having so much hand in our relationship and watching the National Debt blow up to find out the answer to that question. There's got to be a better way.

~6

BTW... it is a bit presumptuous to believe that all "Liberals" believe in Darwinism, just as it is for all libs to believe that all "Conservatives" think it's blasphemy.

There's a lot of middle ground we have all seemed to have lost as the puppet masters have perfected the art of divide and conquer.

Thank you for pointing out the error of my words.

PPS... I happen to believe in Evolution as well. I also happen to believe that somebody could have used that as a tool to make what we are today. Or not....

Don't you love it when people say either way that they know the answer to that question?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 15, 2009 3:58 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Many of these sociatal wins weren't met until after the date you place the fall of the American Economy.


What? I'm not sure I put a definite date on anything, and my look at it the 'fall' of the modern American economy would be the real start of deregulation, that is the 80's.

If you're referring to the New Deal, and when the US became an economic powerhouse, then it wasn't until after the second world war that the US became number one. The US political, economic and military mastery of the second half of the 20th century is much more about the damage brought on everyone else by the First and Second World Wars, rather than any sort of American "exceptionalism". Regardless, my point was you can't blame regulation for making the US economy less competitive, when it went too number one during the New Deal structures, and it's actually been losing competitiveness under Regeanite Deregulation. Seems disingenuous to me.
Quote:

Let us condemn the many infringements on our personal liberties, personal wealth, and the previous truth that you had to work hard to survive, in all of those years combined, and hopefully in the future do it in some place not as benign and impotent as an obscure chatroom on the outskirts of the Verse.

I think everything is a balance. Living with no regulatory structure means that you can 'conceptually' do anything, because there's no law saying you can't, but in reality you can do a lot less because there's big corporations with more clout, invested in preventing anyone else carving out a share for themselves, who also are unconstrained.

Point is, regulation means everyone is on the same playing field. Even though you don't have the market clout of a corporation, regulation means that both you and the corporation have to compete on your economic wits, they can't freeze you out because they're bigger and stronger than you. Too much regulation is as bad as no regulation, because then the corporation can use it's much greater political clout to regulate you out of the market, but that's not an argument for no regulation, that's an argument to get the balance right. There's too extremes, too much, and not enough, somewhere in the middle is where we need to be.
Quote:

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
It just seems to me to be counter intuitive to the way things have gone on this planet the last few million years or so.... Maybe I'm wrong...


Social policy is aimed at how we should structure civilisation, Darwinian Survival of the Fittest and Evolution, are how the natural world works.

How human dominance has worked, is not survival of the fittest. We are not the fittest species. We are weak with few natural weapons. We are dominant because we are intelligent, and stepped outside of survival of the fittest. We changed our world so that survival of the fittest no longer applies to us. That is what civilisation is. Civilisation is not the natural world, by definition. It isn't supposed to be, and we sure as hell don't want it to be. Civilisation is a construct that allows us to take control of the natural world, and it's what has allowed us to prevent survival of the fittest putting us in a lions belly.

As I said, we as a species are successful not because we are fittest, but because we're smart enough to make survival of the fittest not apply any more. That is survival of the fittest in a way, but it's survival of the fittest on OUR terms, not natures. We use the construct of civilisation so that we don't have to play by natures rules, and that is why we have been successful.

Given the purpose of civilisation, and the reasons for our dominance, it is actually social Darwinism that would seem counter intuitive. We've succeeded by side stepping the rules of the natural world, so now you (indefinite article, not you personally) want to put natures rules back in place?

EDIT:
Quote:

Surely it goes at least back to Carter though.

Actually you're right, but it was under Reagan that the movement grew strength and became guiding policy, rather than piecemeal.

PS.
The New Deal was enacted in 1933, forty or fifty years would be 70's-80's.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 15, 2009 4:30 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Many of these sociatal wins weren't met until after the date you place the fall of the American Economy.

What? I'm not sure I put a definite date on anything, and my look at it the 'fall' of the modern American economy would be the real start of deregulation, that is the 80's.




Well, you did say 40-50 years after WWII, although you didn't put an exact date on it. However your 80's reference is pretty much exactly where I put you at, so I don't see what the issue is here.

Quote:

If you're referring to the New Deal, and when the US became an economic powerhouse, then it wasn't until after the second world war that the US became number one. The US political, economic and military mastery of the second half of the 20th century is much more about the damage brought on everyone else by the First and Second World Wars, rather than any sort of American "exceptionalism". Regardless, my point was you can't blame regulation for making the US economy less competitive, when it went too number one during the New Deal structures, and it's actually been losing competitiveness under Regeanite Deregulation. Seems disingenuous to me.


Don't twist my words by using other words I agree with Cit. I actually don't disagree with anything you said there.

However, when you centrally hold most of the cards, it's easy to paint a world picture that has allowed our leaders here, until recent times, to exploit most of the rest of the world by intimidation, power, and a populous that was almost 100% behind Americanism, if still suffering from many societal ills like racism and feminism at the time.

Tell me where it's all gotten us now though? Things may not have been envisioned at the New Deal's conception the way they've turned out today, but it was one of the many stepping stones that got us all to this point.


Quote:

Quote:

Let us condemn the many infringements on our personal liberties, personal wealth, and the previous truth that you had to work hard to survive, in all of those years combined, and hopefully in the future do it in some place not as benign and impotent as an obscure chatroom on the outskirts of the Verse.


I think everything is a balance. Living with no regulatory structure means that you can 'conceptually' do anything, because there's no law saying you can't, but in reality you can do a lot less because there's big corporations with more clout, invested in preventing anyone else carving out a share for themselves, who also are unconstrained.



Sure.... and like PJ O'Rourke said, A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trusts either of them.

Who watches the Watchers Cit? How is the Government, mine, yours, and countless other countries Governments automatically any better than mob bosses that took a cut (whether voluntarily or involuntarily) and protected their neighborhoods? Larger, sure.... but better....? In the long run.......?

Quote:

Point is, regulation means everyone is on the same playing field.


Haha... now that's funny. I agree with a lot of your views on deregulation, but as a very large and all-encompassing statement, this is priceless to think that you actually believe that is true. Looks good on a piece of paper, but doesn't work in the much-less-than-perfect-world we live in.

Just ask George Harrison's ghost if the loss of "My Sweet Lord" (which is a sarcastic song, btw), was fair when any retard-rap artist out there today can "sample" any tune made by real artists out there and sell a few million albums.

Why ask a ghost? Just ask Mick Jagger if he's enjoying spending the royalties that the Verve should have been getting for "Bittersweet Symphony" the last decade.

Things just don't work right, at all, on that big a scale, ever.... There is just too much money to be made and greed, envy, gluttony and lust change the game EVERY time so even things that start out with purely benevolent intentions end up with blackened hearts that will never be satiated by any stimulus until they are disposed of. Maybe it's just the Human Condition...

Quote:

Even though you don't have the market clout of a corporation, regulation means that both you and the corporation have to compete on you're economic wits, they can't freeze you out because they're bigger and stronger than you. Too much regulation is as bad as no regulation, because then the corporation can use it's much greater political clout to regulate you out of the market, but that's not an argument for no regulation, that's an argument to get the balance right. There's too extremes, too much, and not enough, somewhere in the middle is where we need to be.


I'm up for options Cit. Short of rewiring all of mankind's circutry and making every one of us robots, show me how to get it right so people never use people again.

I'm not opposed to this at all. In fact, it's my dream.

Quote:

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
It just seems to me to be counter intuitive to the way things have gone on this planet the last few million years or so.... Maybe I'm wrong...



Quote:

Social policy is aimed at how we should structure civilisation, Darwinian Survival of the Fittest and Evolution, are how the natural world works.


Dur...

Quote:

How human dominance has worked, is not survival of the fittest.


Hehe... you almost sound like a Christian here Cit.

Quote:

We are not the fittest species. We are weak with few natural weapons. We are dominant because we are intelligent, and stepped outside of survival of the fittest.


Wow... I just believe that our intelligence makes us the fittest. What you're saying here REALLY sounds Christian Cit.

Quote:

We changed our world so that survival of the fittest no longer applies to us. That is what civilisation is. Civilisation is not the natural world, by definition. It isn't supposed to be, and we sure as hell don't want it to be. Civilisation is a construct that allows us to take control of the natural world, and it's what has allowed us to prevent survival of the fittest putting us in a lions belly.


It's also what's allowed us to create this more often than not shitty world and perpetuate it to infinity or destruction. Dem's aren't going to fix that. Go ahead and hate Reps because of the environment, but the real Conservatives actually fought for animal and ecological protection in the 70's and before.

Now we got two total polar opposites that tend to drag a majority of even the middle leaning figures in to "their way or the highway" and we really believe bullshit like "Dems love animals" and "Reps hate the environment", as a whole.

It's fucking ludicris to believe things in that state of mind, but that's all I ever see on these fucking boards aside from a few people who aren't so partisan they bleed blue or that serpent shade of red.

Quote:

As I said, we as a species are successful not because we are fittest, but because we're smart enough to make survival of the fittest not apply any more.


Now you just sound like a self-loathing Narcissus here.

Quote:

That is survival of the fittest, but it's survival of the fittest on OUR terms, not natures.


Sounds like we've gotten so good at Surviving and being the Fittest, that we truly earn the title of the Fittest that Survived, being that we are the ones who won the challenge round in Survival of the Fittest.

Quote:

We use the construct of civilisation so that we don't have to play by natures rules, and that is why we have been successful.


We were successful many generations ago in civilization. I'm talking when there were so many less of us and we were at a balance with nature and different "tribes" had a different way of viewing life and living.

I get it Cit. You Love Big Brother.

Quote:

Given the purpose of civilisation, and the reasons for our dominance, it is actually social Darwinism that is disingenuous.


You also don't believe in Darwinism at a (Human) social level (Hey kiddies.... disingenuous means lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere)

EDIT:

Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
PS.
The New Deal was enacted in 1933, forty or fifty years would be 70's-80's.



My bad... for some reason I was thinking you said WWII or the end of WWII. I stand corrected on this point. I had you about a half-full decade ahead. But you're even getting closer to my timeline with that one....

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 15, 2009 4:37 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
I think Signym's point was that Ron Paul's solution for preventing the current economic situation is actually what caused it in the first place, so that his economic policies would do much more harm than good. That the bailouts are being done now, because people with Ron Paul's economic ideology got their way back then.



I suspect we'll discover the veracity of this opinion over the next ten years or so, one way or another.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 15, 2009 4:43 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
I suspect we'll discover the veracity of this opinion over the next ten years or so, one way or another.



Yep...

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 15, 2009 5:17 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Yep...



Or maybe not. I can certainly imagine a scenario a decade from now. Let's say the economy is still in the shitter, or the recovery has been long and slow. We'll still be having the same damned argument. We'll be claiming the sluggish economy is because of the Keynsian/statist nonsense and they'll be saying it would have been much worse without it. Or the converse, the economy is booming and we're warning that it's all another bubble waiting to burst. Hell, we're still arguing over the "Great Depression" some seventy years after the fact....yada, yada, yada...

Unfortunately, there's no end to our ability to rationalize the "facts" to fit our favored narrative. It's kind of ironic really, that while the real differences tend to be in our core values (e.g. security and fairness vs. liberty and justice), the arguments tend to be over how to interpret practical outcomes. Like we're looking for proof that our values "perform" better. And I don't know about the rest of you, but that's really not the important thing with me. For example, I'd rather have a free society than a prosperous one, assuming such a choice had to be made - whereas others might say they'd rather have a society that was secure even if it sacrificed prosperity....

Am I off track here? Too much with the philosophizing?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 15, 2009 5:22 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Reminds me of a joke I heard once Sarge....


Written on a bathroom stall.....

"God is Dead" ~Nietzsche

Written right below.....

"Nietzsche is Dead" ~God


"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 15, 2009 5:28 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Jack, you think that this is all new, but we're really treading very old ground and recycling old arguments.

In the 1920s, Harding and Coolidge cut the top tax rate from 77% to 25% by 1925. This led to income inequity which was equalled only in 2008.

There were no regulations on speculating on credit. That created both a land and stock market bubble. (Roaring '20s.)

The Fed existed, but not the FDIC. And there were no liquidity requirements on banks, which were limited only by their (one would hope) PRUDENT self-interest.

One would have thought this was the PERFECT recipes for economic growth! Instead, it led to a crash of historic proportions.

At the beginning of the Great Depression of 1929 (which Herbert Hoover inherited) there was a passionate discussion on taxes, deficits, and regulation.
Quote:

Hoover was one of the most able men to be elected as President and also one of the unluckiest. He was inaugurated on 4 March 1929. Seven months later the Stock Market crashed. The new President was a believer in self-reliance and self-help and was loathe to see government intervention in economic affairs. He sought to encourage expansion through a tax cut and by urging business to expand. Spending measures passed by Congress that threatened a balanced budget were rejected. As the ranks of the unemployed swelled, Hoover's popularity plummeted. Soup kitchens became common sights. Many factories became desolate sites. The production index fell to its lowest point in the country's history
Altho the Federal Reserve existed, it did nothing to support failing banks. Hoover took your stance, and flogged that theory through his entire administration while the economy collapsed around him.

While campaiging in 1932, Roosevelt promised a balanced budget. He quickly realized that was not the answer.

Quote:

When he first took over the presidency, Roosevelt had the backing of many segments of society -- not only the general public but bankers and businessmen. The depression affected everyone. Business was hurt badly; government borrowing was far more acceptable to the business community than higher taxes. Such was the attitude until 1936, when bankers and businessmen began to change their views. As recovery began to take effect, the deficit was not considered necessary. Even though he did not favor greater debt, Roosevelt had his priorities. Convinced that deficits were temporary and not a permanent fact of fiscal life, he was exultant about the pump-priming consequences of spending.
After the economy improved, FDR tried reining in the Federal deficit

Quote:

By 1937, the depression had eased somewhat and FDR sought to balance the budget by cutting government spending. But in the fall and winter of 1937-38, conditions worsened again, partly because of these cuts, and FDR had to seek additional funds to meet the crisis. The depression didn’t actually end until the beginning of World War II when the defense economy put the unemployed who were not called to military service back to work.
Which, BTW, called for even greater deficit spending. AT one point, the Federal deficit was as high as 50% of government spending. I just shake my head sometimes. To hear Ron Paul re-propose the same policies which not only failed catastrophically in the 1920s but also failed in the 1980s and 2000s is the hallmark of a person incapable of learning from experience, or even recognizing reality. THAT is why he will never become President: his mind is ossified.

My answer wouldn't be based SOLEY on deficit spending, BTW. I'd nationalize every failed institution- including GM, AIG, Merrill (who gave themselves $3.6 BILLION dollars in bonuses just before they were rescued by BoA!) confiscate top management's holding and throw their asses in jail for fraud. I's soak the rich through taxes, immediately implement single-payer healthcare, and start rebuilding our infrastructure. That infrastructure includes PEOPLE: Instead of starving education (like Bush did), money would flow. I'd be building people UP, not tearing them down into so much effing corporate cannon-fodder.

How many times do we have to repeat the same "The free market can do everything?" nonsense? It can't, it didn't. History has a lot to teach us, but we have to be prepared to listen.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 15, 2009 5:53 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Don't twist my words by using other words I agree with Cit.


I didn't twist any of your words.
Quote:

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Tell me where it's all gotten us now though? Things may not have been envisioned at the New Deal's conception the way they've turned out today, but it was one of the many stepping stones that got us all to this point.


The New Deal didn't bring America to this point. The dismantling of the New Deal did.
Quote:

Who watches the Watchers Cit? How is the Government, mine, yours, and countless other countries Governments automatically any better than mob bosses that took a cut (whether voluntarily or involuntarily) and protected their neighborhoods? Larger, sure.... but better....? In the long run.......?

You regulate government the same as you regulate anything else.
Quote:

Haha... now that's funny. I agree with a lot of your views on deregulation, but as a very large and all-encompassing statement, this is priceless to think that you actually believe that is true. Looks good on a piece of paper, but doesn't work in the much-less-than-perfect-world we live in.

Not as funny as believing giving unrestrained power to a massive corporation will give you a level playing field. You see no law as level. Conceptually it is, in reality it is not. I'm interested in a real level one, not one we can pretend is level.
Quote:

Things just don't work right, at all, on that big a scale, ever.... There is just too much money to be made and greed, envy, gluttony and lust change the game EVERY time so even things that start out with purely benevolent intentions end up with blackened hearts that will never be satiated by any stimulus until they are disposed of. Maybe it's just the Human Condition...

I have no idea what this has to do with anything I said.



Quote:

Dur...

And yet I have to point it out.

Quote:

Wow... I just believe that our intelligence makes us the fittest. What you're saying here REALLY sounds Christian Cit.

And you REALLY sound like someone who can't support their argument. Firstly, what does me sounding like a Christian have to do with anything? Secondly, if you think what I'm saying sounds 'Christian', there's really three possibilities:
1) You don't know what Christians sound like,
2) You haven't bothered to read and certainly don't understand my post or what I'm talking about,
3) Both of the above.

Personally I suspect you were just trying to piss me off. Mission failed I'm afraid .
Quote:

It's also what's allowed us to create this more often than not shitty world and perpetuate it to infinity or destruction. Dem's aren't going to fix that. Go ahead and hate Reps because of the environment, but the real Conservatives actually fought for animal and ecological protection in the 70's and before.

No they didn't. And drop the "You love dems and hate Reps" nonsense. I'm not invested in either of you're political parties.
Quote:

Now you just sound like a self-loathing Narcissus here.

And you sound like a politician. How can one possibly be a self loathing Narcissus anyway? Narcissus was someone who loved himself to the exclusion of all others, you can't be that and self loathing at the same time, they're mutually exclusive. If you're going to try and insult me, at least use insults that make sense please.
Quote:

Sounds like we've gotten so good at Surviving and being the Fittest, that we truly earn the title of the Fittest that Survived, being that we are the ones who won the challenge round in Survival of the Fittest.

Yes, because we stopped playing natures rules. Because we created civilisation, which makes our species fitter by defending individuals that aren't.
Quote:

We were successful many generations ago in civilization. I'm talking when there were so many less of us and we were at a balance with nature and different "tribes" had a different way of viewing life and living.

Hmm, ok...
Quote:

I get it Cit. You Love Big Brother.

The more you try to insult me the more you prove you can't support your own position. I get it Jack, you've found you're Obama. Ron Paul is your messiah.
Quote:

You also don't believe in Darwinism at a (Human) social level (Hey kiddies.... disingenuous means lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere)


I don't believe in Social Darwinism, because it's imposing the physical laws on civilisation, that civilisation was created to circumnavigate, that's what I said, well done.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 15, 2009 5:57 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Unfortunately, there's no end to our ability to rationalize the "facts" to fit our favored narrative. It's kind of ironic really, that while the real differences tend to be in our core values (e.g. security and fairness vs. liberty and justice), the arguments tend to be over how to interpret practical outcomes. Like we're looking for proof that our values "perform" better. And I don't know about the rest of you, but that's really not the important thing with me. For example, I'd rather have a free society than a prosperous one, assuming such a choice had to be made - whereas others might say they'd rather have a society that was secure even if it sacrificed prosperity....


of course that applies to you as much as any one.

I don't believe getting rid of all regulations will make us free in any meaningful sense. You seem to see freedom as no one telling you you can't do something, I see freedom as being able to do something.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 15, 2009 6:00 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

What I am speaking about here, in a more concise and easy to understand way is that every dime the Liberal way of thinking spends, and in many cases never earned, is to help people who can't help themselves. It just seems to me to be counter intuitive to the way things have gone on this planet the last few million years or so.... Maybe I'm wrong...
You're absolutely wrong. Look at our biology. Human babies are helpless. They can't walk, or even HANG ON for a year... that means that at least ONE adult is tied up carrying the little bugger around for that period of time, inhibiting the caregiver's ability to find food ... Let me put it this way: It doesn't matter what a skillful hunter and manly-man the male is. If he comes home to find his baby or female dead... and that happens more times than not... the species ends.

So whether it is the elder female lugging the infant around while the mother searches for grubs or frogs or roots, or the male bringing in the game for "those who can't help themselves", survival of the human species rests on COOPERATION. It's built into our biology.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 15, 2009 6:08 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Unfortunately, there's no end to our ability to rationalize the "facts" to fit our favored narrative.
yes. But if you try an experiment several times and it still doesn't work, what does that make you? Sarge, we HAVE been there/ done that. Peeps weren't any stupider in 1929 and 1979 then than they are today: they talked about their theories. They predicted outcomes. They made conscious choices. The experiments have been run both ways. Your policies were tried. Other policies were tried. The results are in. Have been in. Several times.
Quote:

I'd rather have a free society than a prosperous one
Since that is not how most people think, If that statement is emblematic of the RP supporters, that places you in the vanishing minority. And then you wonder WHY RP doesn't get traction???



---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 15, 2009 6:13 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

For example, I'd rather have a free society than a prosperous one, assuming such a choice had to be made - whereas others might say they'd rather have a society that was secure even if it sacrificed prosperity....


But you're not being offered those choices. What you've been offered in recent years is the choice between a free society and a secure society - but never both.

Mike



The "On Fire" Economy -
The Dow closed at 10,587.60 on January 20, 2001, the day GW Bush took office. Eight years later, it closed below 8000 on the day he left office - a net loss of 25%. That's what conservatives call an economic "success".

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 15, 2009 6:14 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Reminds me of a joke I heard once Sarge....


Written on a bathroom stall.....

"God is Dead" ~Nietzsche

Written right below.....

"Nietzsche is Dead" ~God


"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack




Reminds me of a t-shirt I used to have:

"God is dead, and I want his job."




Mike



The "On Fire" Economy -
The Dow closed at 10,587.60 on January 20, 2001, the day GW Bush took office. Eight years later, it closed below 8000 on the day he left office - a net loss of 25%. That's what conservatives call an economic "success".

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 15, 2009 6:48 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

For years they thought the economy was booming, growth was up, job numbers and productivity were increasing.



I'm LOVIN' THIS !!



Ron Paul is no relation to me. Just so you know, rue, that it wasn't JUST me, and it sure as hell wasn't just some " Bush talking points " I repeated when I correctly stated the economy was on fire. For the very reasons Ron Paul stated, growth, low unemployment and increased productivity, the economy WAS expanding.

Now, if you want to base this expansion on a house of cards, blame it on borrowed $$, then have at it. But the same level of blame / credit then should be applied to Clinton's economy, which rode the coat tails of the dot com bubble.



It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

A concern of the GOP is that the people aren't informed enough to understand their policies, while a fear of the Dems is that the people ARE.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 15, 2009 7:08 AM

FREMDFIRMA


"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Ben Franklin.

I will say this, if you REALLY want to get to the root of the slide of dominos, house of cards, you have three critical periods to investigate.

1860-1877 = Political Framework
1904-1918 = Social/Legal Framework
1930-1933 = Economic Framework
2010-2015 = Epic Disaster

At this point, it's all but unavoidable, and all we can hope for is the good fortune to survive riding it out.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 15, 2009 7:14 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Rapo, mis-quoting an idiot to prove your idiocy doesn't get any points. But.... here's a clue as to the real meaning of that phrase...
Quote:

For years they thought the economy was booming
And for years "they thought Saddam had WMD. I know its your own particular mental disability to confuse opinion with fact, so I'm not going to point and laugh (too loudly).
Quote:

I'd rather have a free society than a prosperous one
Sarge, if you're now making the choice between freedom (capitalism) and prosperity, it sounds like you've given up on the idea of capitalism being the road to prosperity.
Quote:

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Ben Franklin.

AFA "freedom" is concerned... Ben was taking about political freedom. Not the freedom of the robber baron.

-------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 15, 2009 7:23 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Freedom to make what one can IS freedom, Sig. As soon as you come to understand that, you'll know what the Founders and Ben were really talking about.

Aside from your petty attempts to toss insults mixed in w/ your revisionist history, I'll remind you EVERYONE "thought " Saddam had WMD, not just the so called 'war mongers' or Neo Cons.

EVERY gorram one thought that. Stop a moment and let that sink in for a bit.

p.s. And I didn't misquote anyone, so spare me your misplaced indignation.



It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

A concern of the GOP is that the people aren't informed enough to understand their policies, while a fear of the Dems is that the people ARE.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 15, 2009 7:36 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

EVERY gorram one thought that.
Yes Saddam "had" WMD. But we didn't invade because of WMD that he "had" up to 1990. SO everyone rought Saddam has WMD in 2002. except me. So, not "everyone" was as abyssmally stupid as you were.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 15, 2009 7:37 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
That is a very valid question AR, and one that doesn't have an easy answer.

Basically, all I'm doing is pointing out the irrefutable truth that we as a human society are changing the way the game has been played for millions or more years, and in only the last 100 years or so have we become so successful and made such staggering leaps and bounds at it.

Who am I to say this is not the next step of evolution? It would be one that never took place on this grand a scale as we've ever learned about on a text book.



But the assets of scientific progress that brought down mortality rates from disease and sickness, prolonged average life spans and improved mobility and quality of life for those with chronic conditions... those are a direct result of steady development. There was no genetic or evolutionary leap responsible, just the amassing and applying of knowledge, as we have done since forever.

The fact that we could amass this amount of knowledge is directly due to the fact that humans always tend to cooperate. Like pack or herd animals we rely on cooperation, it's our big asset, and since we cooperate on such a sophisticated level, we have managed to sustain ever growing numbers.


Since cooperation is our natural mode, though it is not untempered by territorialism and aggression, I don't think it would be very healthy for us to try and adopt a non-cooperation strategy like "survival of the fittest" to reduce our harmfully large numbers.

1) How do you measure fitness?
2) How do you suppress the natural human inclination to ease the suffering of other human beings?
3) How do you respond to the increasing anxiety of the "unfit" if they are not aided through cooperation?
4) When and how do you start cooperating again?


To me, the solution for overpopulation seems pretty simple: Just have less children.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 15, 2009 7:42 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

EVERY gorram one thought that.
Yes Saddam "had" WMD. But we didn't invade because of WMD that he "had" up to 1990. SO everyone rought Saddam has WMD in 2002. except me. So, not "everyone" was as abyssmally stupid as you were.





Funny, becasue these folks , who had access to top INTEL from 2 different administrations, came to a different conclusion than you. What vast network of intel did YOU rely on , Siggy ?


Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003




It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

A concern of the GOP is that the people aren't informed enough to understand their policies, while a fear of the Dems is that the people ARE.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 15, 2009 8:21 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Sarge, if you're now making the choice between freedom (capitalism) and prosperity, it sounds like you've given up on the idea of capitalism being the road to prosperity.



I was never on that train. Free market capitalism appeals to me because it offers a relatively benign path for people who have an excessive desire for material gain, and affords the rest of us the freedom to live how we choose. If overall prosperity is the goal, I'd guess there are systems that would drive us there more efficiently, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to live under them.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 15, 2009 8:48 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Rapo: A billion flies eat shit. Feel free to count yourself among them.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 15, 2009 8:54 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
of course that applies to you as much as any one.


Uh,yeah. That was sorta the point.

Quote:

I don't believe getting rid of all regulations will make us free in any meaningful sense.

Neither do I.
Quote:

You seem to see freedom as no one telling you you can't do something, I see freedom as being able to do something.

I've noticed that difference in perspective before. But it seems like a distortion of the concept.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 15, 2009 9:25 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
I've noticed that difference in perspective before. But it seems like a distortion of the concept.


I'd say the same for your own. As far as I can see, you might as well say you have the freedom to live on the Moon, after all there is no law saying you can't.

Just because there's no law saying you can't, doesn't mean you can. What's the point in being 'free' to do something, because there's no law against doing it, if you're prevented from doing it through some other means? How is that any workable concept of freedom?

It would seem to me that if freedom is only "no law say you can't", then it is just something you have 'on paper'. I have to say if all freedom is, is something a piece of paper says you have rather than something you actually have, then there really is no point in fighting for it.

So I'd say the concept of freedom being just having no laws barring you from something, is the distortion, because freedom is supposed to be something you have, not something you're told you're allowed.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 15, 2009 9:56 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
So I'd say the concept of freedom being just having no laws barring you from something, is the distortion, because freedom is supposed to be something you have, not something you're told you're allowed.



Well, you have the "freedom" to say that I suppose. But as far as the political concept of freedom is concerned, it's mostly understood in the sense of being free from constraint. The ability to do something is as separate issue from the political freedom to do so.

Regardless, the two concepts are different and clarity would suggest we use different words for them.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 15, 2009 10:05 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Well, you have the "freedom" to say that I suppose. But as far as the political concept of freedom is concerned, it's mostly understood in the sense of being free from constraint. The ability to do something is as separate issue from the political freedom to do so.

Regardless, the two concepts are different and clarity would suggest we use different words for them.


Actually I think the concept of political freedom includes the idea of stopping anyone taking it away or constraining it. It's not just the government that can prevent you doing something.

You seem to think I mean you're only free to live on the moon if you get free moon flights, but that's not what I mean. I mean that if you recognise you need rules and laws to prevent government from passing laws to take away a freedom, then you also need laws to prevent people other than governments taking your freedom. That the only threat to freedom isn't a tyrannical government, so removing all laws won't mean everyone is free. It'll mean a small group has 100% freedom, while everyone else has 0%. But there'll still be no laws.

EDITED.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 15, 2009 10:08 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Actually I think the concept of political freedom includes the idea of stopping anyone taking it away or constraining it. It's not just the government that can prevent you doing something.



Right. Or, rather, the that applies to the kind of freedom I'm talking about. I assume you're referring to the 'freedom from constraint' sort of freedom and not 'ability-freedom'.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 15, 2009 10:12 AM

CITIZEN


Please see edit.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 15, 2009 10:33 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
I mean that if you recognise you need rules and laws to prevent government from passing laws to take away a freedom, then you also need laws to prevent people other than governments taking your freedom. That the only threat to freedom isn't a tyrannical government, so removing all laws won't mean everyone is free. It'll mean a small group has 100% freedom, while everyone else has 0%. But there'll still be no laws.



Ok, I see what you mean. I totally agree.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 15, 2009 1:09 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


6-String

I have just enough time to address only one of your mistakes.
"I just laugh when I think that the Liberals preach the word of Darwinism and Survival of the Fittest as being how we got to where we are today ..."

Liberals DON'T believe in social Darwinism or Survival of the Fittest. (Though it's ironically true that many religious ideologues and far-right conservatives who wouldn't touch the theory of evolution if their lives depended on it do believe in social 'Darwinism'.)

So what specifically is wrong with your statement ? The question is, where to begin ...

1) The scientific theory of the evolution of species through natural selection as proposed by Darwin has nothing to do with social 'Darwinism'.
2) As social 'Darwinism' was never proposed by or supported by Darwin, I will remove Darwin's name and call it TWOAAAM. - the war of all against all meme.
3) TWOAAAM is not a scientific theory, it is a social meme.

4) TWOAAAM is actually in conflict with the theory of evolution, as Darwin never proposed direct individual conflict or competition as a mechanism of evolution. Rather he proposed that existing differences meant some could exploit one aspect of the environment better, while others could exploit a different aspect of the environment better - and so each group was successively selected for a different niche.
5) Human group cooperation is arguably THE reason for the success (numbers-wise) of the human species.
6) TWOAAAM has never been shown to be particularly helpful to the species, and is therefore not a factor in human success.

7) As a theory, the scientific theory of evolution requires as much 'belief' as the theory of gravity - which is, none.
8) Belief is antithetical to science, which seeks to constantly question. Therefore, strictly speaking, one cannot have a belief in a scientific theory.
9) OTOH belief is essential to religion, which seeks to eliminate all questions.


10) Liberals, who in general support mutual cooperation for mutual gain do not subscribe to TWOAAAM.
11) In contrast, Repubicans and Libertarians often DO support TWOAAAM.


I hope this helps you understand why your claim is literally completely untrue.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 15, 2009 1:15 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Rapo: A billion flies eat shit. Feel free to count yourself among them.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.



Now why would I ever want to stoop to your pathetically tacky level ?

I'll pass, thanks anyways.



It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

A concern of the GOP is that the people aren't informed enough to understand their policies, while a fear of the Dems is that the people ARE.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 15, 2009 1:32 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Sarge, how am I supposed to interpret I'd rather have a free society than a prosperous one? Sounds as if you're suggesting that a choice had to be made.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 15, 2009 1:50 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"I'll remind you EVERYONE "thought " Saddam had WMD, not just the so called 'war mongers' or Neo Cons."

I guess when you say 'EVERYONE', you don't count the 23 senators and 133 representatives who voted against the war as 'people' - OR the tens of miilions who demonstrated against it in the US and worldwide, OR the UN members who didn't give Bush a pass. Right ?

Oh, that's right, it's just another Rap'Fact' ™.

Senators who voted against
21 democrats
1 independent
1 repubican

Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Robert Byrd (D-WV)
Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Jon Corzine (D-NJ)
Mark Dayton (D-MN)
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Bob Graham (D-FL)
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Jim Jeffords (I-VT)
Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
the late Paul Wellstone (D-MN); Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Representatives who voted against
126 democrats
1 independent
6 repubicans

Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii)
Tom Allen (D-Maine)
Joe Baca (D-California)
Brian Baird (D-Washington)
John Baldacci (D-Maine)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin)
Gresham Barrett (R-South Carolina)
Xavier Becerra (D-California)
Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon)
David Bonior (D-Michigan)
Robert Brady (D-Pennsylvania)
Corinne Brown (D-Florida)
Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)
Lois Capps (D-California)
Michael Capuano (D-Massachusetts)
Benjamin Cardin (D-Maryland)
Julia Carson (D-Indiana)
William Clay, Jr. (D-Missouri)
Eva Clayton (D-North Carolina)
James Clyburn (D-South Carolina)
Gary Condit (D-California)
John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan)
Jerry Costello (D-Illinois)
William Coyne (D-Pennsylvania)
Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland)
Susan Davis (D-California)
Danny Davis (D-Illinois)
Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon)
Diana DeGette (D-Colorado)
Bill Delahunt (D-Massachusetts)
Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut)
John Dingell (D-Michigan)
Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas)
Mike Doyle (D-Pennsylvania)
John Duncan, Jr. (R-Tennessee)
Anna Eshoo (D-California)
Lane Evans (D-Illinois)
Sam Farr (D-California)
Chaka Fattah (D-Pennsylvania)
Bob Filner (D-California)
Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts)
Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas)
Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois)
Alice Hastings (D-Florida)
Earl Hilliard (D-Alabama)
Maurice Hinchey (D-New York)
Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas)
Rush Holt (D-New Jersey)
Mike Honda (D-California)
Darlene Hooley (D-Oregon)
John Hostettler (R-Indiana)
Amo Houghton (R-New York)
Jay Inslee (D-Washington)
Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-Illinois)
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas)
Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas)
Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio)
Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio)
Dale Kildee (D-Michigan)
Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D-Michigan)
Jerry Kleczka (D-Wisconsin)
Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio)
John LaFalce (D-New York)
James Langevin (D-Rhode Island)
Rick Larsen (D-Washington)
John Larson (D-Connecticut)
Jim Leach (R-Iowa)
Barbara Lee (D-California)
Sandy Levin (D-Michigan)
John Lewis (D-Georgia)
Bill Lipinski (D-Illinois)
Zoe Lofgren (D-California)
James Maloney (D-Connecticut)
the late Robert Matsui (D-California)
Karen McCarthy (D-Missouri)
Betty McCollum (D-Minnesota)
Jim McDermott-D-Washington)
Jim McGovern (D-Massachusetts)
Cynthia McKinney (D-Georgia)
Carrie Meek (D-Florida)
Gregory Meeks (D-New York)
Robert Menendez (D-New Jersey)
Juanita Millender-McDonald (D-California)
George Miller (D-California)
Alan Mollohan (D-West Virginia)
Jim Moran (D-Virginia)
Connie Morella (D-Maryland)
Jerrold Nadler (D-New York)
Grace Napolitano (D-California)
Richard Neal (D-Massachusetts)
Jim Oberstar (D-Minnesota)
David Obey (D-Wisconsin)
John Olver (D-Massachusetts)
Major Owens (D-New York)
Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-New Jersey)
Ed Pastor (D-Arizona)
Ron Paul (R-Texas)
Donald Payne (D-New Jersey)
Nancy Pelosi (D-California)
David Price (D-North Carolina)
Nick Rahall (D-West Virginia)
Charles Rangel (D-New York)
Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas)
Lynn Rivers (D-Michigan)
Ciro Rodriguez (D-Texas)
Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-California)
Bobby Rush (D-Illinois)
Martin Olav Sabo (D-Minnesota)
Loretta Sanchez (D-California)
Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont)
Thomas Sawyer (D-Ohio)
Jan Schakowsky (D-Illinois)
Bobby Scott (D-Virginia)
Jose Serrano (D-New York)
Louise Slaughter (D-New York)
Vic Snyder (D-Arkansas)
Hilda Solis (D-California)
Pete Stark (D-California)
Ted Strickland (D-Ohio)
Burt Stupak (Michigan)
Mike Thompson (D-California)
Bennie Thompson (D-Mississippi)
John Tierney (D-Massachusetts)
Edolphus Towns (D-New York)
Mark Udall (D-Colorado)
Tom Udall (D-New Mexico)
Nydia Velaquez (D-New York)
Pete Visclosky (D-Indiana)
Maxine Waters (D-California)
Diane Watson (D-California)
Melvin Watt (D-North Carolina)
Lynn Woolsey (D-California)
David Wu (D-Oregon)


***************************************************************

Moral of the story: Never send a dog to do a human's job.

Go to your corner ! Sit ! Bad dog !

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, November 28, 2024 17:48 - 4779 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:32 - 1163 posts
Trump, convicted of 34 felonies
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:10 - 45 posts
Salon: How to gather with grace after that election
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:04 - 1 posts
End of the world Peter Zeihan
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:59 - 215 posts
Another Putin Disaster
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:58 - 1540 posts
Kamala Harris for President
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:46 - 650 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:41 - 4847 posts
Dubai goes bankrupt, kosher Rothschilds win the spoils
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:31 - 5 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:29 - 7515 posts
Jean-Luc Brunel, fashion mogul Peter Nygard linked to Epstein
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:27 - 14 posts
All things Space
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:17 - 270 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL