Several things are highly amusing here. First the knee-jerk blaming Obama for anything and everything. Not very bright but highly predicable. Second, the invocation of socialism by those who obviously do not know the meaning of the word. If they had read and just possibly understood the article, both of which seem unlikely, they would see that the lack of regulation is what effectively guarantees a crash.
Rick
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis
I actually have to agree in part, socialism as we know it now is not actually the definition of socialsm, but because we use the term in the modern way I say socialism to describe what is occuring now. There actually hasn't been a single true socialist country so far.
Saving the empovershed by empoverishing their counterparts will empoverish the whole.
Socialism is defined as the worker having control of the means of production. You can make up definitions all you want, but nothing even remotely close to socialism has happened in America.Quote by: ironeagle
Of course our economic system will come to a crashing halt. We can't keep printing pieces of paper and calling it money. The real question I have to ask is, how best do I ride out the coming crash? Sure, we ought to address the root causes of our current situation, but is that really the best solution for us as individuals? I'm 65, my mortgage is paid off, I have only a few more payments to make on the car. I'm not rich, but I now get SS, and my needs and wants are reasonable. I have a few bucks in the bank, am in relative good health. In short, I'm comfortable right where I am. To me, the real political choice is between the two major parties and someone like Ron Paul. The two major parties will do their best to look out for their patrons, but that means they will also do their best to keep the game of musical chairs going. Ron Paul, on the other hand, might simply shut off the music and initiate an immediate collapse. I believe the moral and ethical thing to do would be to try and address the economic issues we face by a return to the basics, ala Ron Paul, but I also believe I can maintain my lifestyle, ride out the current economic crises, and be deceased by the time our financial system goes totally into the toilet, along with the social upheaval that would be concurrent. Seems to me that it's the young that support obama and his policies, ok, fuck 'em, they can pay for them. I plan to be gone when the bill comes due, and the check for my funeral will probably bounce.
BTW, two and a half dry martinis assisted in this posting.
I upped my income, up yours.
Go look at "How the Other Half Lives", then please tell me again how going "back to the basics" is a good idea.I believe the moral and ethical thing to do would be to try and address the economic issues we face by a return to the basics, ala Ron Paul
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
-- Stephen Crane
Link?
I upped my income, up yours.
http://www.authentichistory.com/1898...strations.html
<3 unrestrained capitalism
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
-- Stephen Crane
Oh yeah, I'm sure those ancient pictures are just exactly what Ron Paul has in mind when he says he wants to return to the basics of the Constitutional.
I upped my income, up yours.
That's the point. Paul is so ignorant of the effects of his own policies that he doesn't realize where they would lead. Certainly a return to the Gilded Age is a reasonable assumption to make. What in a libertarian world would stop the rich and the corporations from doing this to the poor and downtrodden? Seriously. No welfare if Mom loses her job. No regulations to stop Coke from forcing all its employees to purchase Coke products using Coke bucks. No safety rules designed to prevent Dad from working seventeen hour shifts.
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
-- Stephen Crane
So...when did the Socialists start ruining America? In the 1890s when the mainstream parties realized that a lot of the stuff the Socialists had been calling for for decades was probably a good idea? In the 1930s when the government finally started doing something about the bankers who had run the country into the ground?Lies, America a capitolist nation did not start failing until socialis started ruining it, so one could say mixing capitolism with shots of socialism is ruining America, but since also no socialist nation has worked either and ours did until shot with socialism I can only conclude capitolism does work until the socialist ruin it.
But truth, Hajjaj was convinced, held many layers.
I don't make up the definitions of anything I use the words as the community does like everyone else does and it's blatant socialist theft in modern terms. Even if we don't use the word socialist the acts are still illegal because they are unconstitutional and undermine freedom, democracy and capitolism. Capitolism is the form of government and society of this nation, redistribution of wealth is not allowed here (even thought the nanny government does it anyways).
Saving the empovershed by empoverishing their counterparts will empoverish the whole.
Everyone else is making counterpoints to your fundamental argument, so I will stick to your ridiculous verbiage. See, just because conservatives use a word in a different context, it doesn't make it proper or sensible. You also seem to believe capitalism is the government, which is just patently ridiculous. It's a economic system, not a governmental system, and it certainly isn't our "society". You could say that our society is reflection of our economic system, but you can't claim it is our society. It's hard to take you seriously when you blatantly misuse words.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks