PDA

View Full Version : Beck on Soros



menmon
11-12-2010, 08:59 AM
My General Contractor is one of Beck's IDIOTS!!!!

A few nights ago, he tells me I have to listen to what Beck is saying about George Soros. Real Scary stuff, he says. How George Soros is an evil man that is going to take down America because he has already done this to five other countries. I told him he was an idiot for believing this!!!

To begin with, George Soros can not get control of enough currency to bring down our currency, so rest easy! Right now, we don't want a strong dollar because it will cost jobs, so Beck is full of himself again and only trying to take the focus off the fact that the world isn't changing because we have republicans back in control.

George Soros to begin with is a capitalist at its finest, and yes he has played havic on small poorly managed countries. However, his actions have done more good than bad because he has forced the political abuse out of these countries by grabing them by the balls (their money). Yes he is a champion for the poor, or as some would phrase it, a good humanitarian.

In summary, Beck can't sell fear about democrats anymore, so he chooses someone to paint as a vilian because he has found that fear sells! Please wake up to this man's game!

david gibson
11-12-2010, 10:25 AM
your stance on soros is very revealing. they are at opposite ends of the spectrum for certain, but if i had to choose i would lean right, away from soros, every time. beck is hardly painting an innocent man with the villain brush here. but then again, you are far left and support moveon.org so i am not surprised you like soros.

but ultimately its shame on you. soros is vehemently anti-gun ownership. dont you own and use guns? dont you feel a little hypocritical supporting this man after reading this?:

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=151

"When Soros and OSI decided to start spending great sums of money on anti-gun research and advocacy, they went in search of an experienced activist to guide the effort. Soros came up with Rebecca Peters, a central figure in disarming the people of Australia, and a leader in the effort to ban all handguns and most long guns."


and just a few more titbits on this poor innocent man being made to look like a villain:

>>>>>
As a financier, Soros—one of the world's wealthiest men, whose fortune has been estimated at $7 billion—made his first billion in 1992 betting against the British pound and thereby hastening its disastrous devaluation. Since then he has greatly leveraged his fortune as a shrewd investor, a prescient trend spotter and savvy manager of the Quantum Fund. He has been accused of destabilizing world currencies and wrecking the economies of nations, notably in Malaysia and Thailand. A French court convicted him of insider trading and fined him $2.3 million in 2002.

And he has put his money where his mouth is, giving what has been called the largest single political contribution in American history—$10 million to an anti-Bush political-action group, America Coming Together (ACT). (See "Getting out the liberal vote," page 23.) ACT has generated bad press in several so-called presidential battleground states by filling the ranks of get-out-the-vote workers with convicted felons, including individuals convicted of assault and sex offenses.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

and the list goes on and on.

now who needs waking up?

menmon
11-12-2010, 10:40 AM
your stance on soros is very revealing. they are at opposite ends of the spectrum for certain, but if i had to choose i would lean right, away from soros, every time. beck is hardly painting an innocent man with the villain brush here. but then again, you are far left and support moveon.org so i am not surprised you like soros.

but ultimately its shame on you. soros is vehemently anti-gun ownership. dont you own and use guns? dont you feel a little hypocritical supporting this man after reading this?:

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=151

"When Soros and OSI decided to start spending great sums of money on anti-gun research and advocacy, they went in search of an experienced activist to guide the effort. Soros came up with Rebecca Peters, a central figure in disarming the people of Australia, and a leader in the effort to ban all handguns and most long guns."


and just a few more titbits on this poor innocent man being made to look like a villain:

>>>>>
As a financier, Soros—one of the world's wealthiest men, whose fortune has been estimated at $7 billion—made his first billion in 1992 betting against the British pound and thereby hastening its disastrous devaluation. Since then he has greatly leveraged his fortune as a shrewd investor, a prescient trend spotter and savvy manager of the Quantum Fund. He has been accused of destabilizing world currencies and wrecking the economies of nations, notably in Malaysia and Thailand. A French court convicted him of insider trading and fined him $2.3 million in 2002.

And he has put his money where his mouth is, giving what has been called the largest single political contribution in American history—$10 million to an anti-Bush political-action group, America Coming Together (ACT). (See "Getting out the liberal vote," page 23.) ACT has generated bad press in several so-called presidential battleground states by filling the ranks of get-out-the-vote workers with convicted felons, including individuals convicted of assault and sex offenses.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

and the list goes on and on.

now who needs waking up?

Obviously you tuned into Beck.

First of all, I could careless about George Soros. All he did to the pound was force it where it was headed anyway. So he is doing what his investors want him to do and that is make them money. If the system will allow bad things to happen, then there is a problem with the system. That is the wonderful thing about capitalism. You can change the rules but not the game.

So the man is anti-gun, he has a right to his opinion. What does that have to do with me.

david gibson
11-12-2010, 11:49 AM
Obviously you tuned into Beck.

First of all, I could careless about George Soros. All he did to the pound was force it where it was headed anyway. So he is doing what his investors want him to do and that is make them money. If the system will allow bad things to happen, then there is a problem with the system. That is the wonderful thing about capitalism. You can change the rules but not the game.

So the man is anti-gun, he has a right to his opinion. What does that have to do with me.

sorry, you are wrong. i do not watch beck.

"So the man is anti-gun, he has a right to his opinion. What does that have to do with me"
hmmm....really? of course we all have a right to our opinions, but he is spending millions and millions to try to deny us the right to own guns, use guns to hunt, and even hunt itself. and you shrug that off. wow.

so if you want to herald a man that is against your rights to hunt and is fighting to take your guns away, so be it. most here would find the folly in that. as looney as glenn beck is, he champions an increase in individual rights. so, if the choice were between the two, i would be having lunch with beck over soros any day.

thats all. continue to support your enemy, its your right! (or do you not hunt?)

YardleyLabs
11-12-2010, 11:59 AM
your stance on soros is very revealing. they are at opposite ends of the spectrum for certain, but if i had to choose i would lean right, away from soros, every time. beck is hardly painting an innocent man with the villain brush here. but then again, you are far left and support moveon.org so i am not surprised you like soros.

but ultimately its shame on you. soros is vehemently anti-gun ownership. dont you own and use guns? dont you feel a little hypocritical supporting this man after reading this?:

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=151

"When Soros and OSI decided to start spending great sums of money on anti-gun research and advocacy, they went in search of an experienced activist to guide the effort. Soros came up with Rebecca Peters, a central figure in disarming the people of Australia, and a leader in the effort to ban all handguns and most long guns."


and just a few more titbits on this poor innocent man being made to look like a villain:

>>>>>
As a financier, Soros—one of the world's wealthiest men, whose fortune has been estimated at $7 billion—made his first billion in 1992 betting against the British pound and thereby hastening its disastrous devaluation. Since then he has greatly leveraged his fortune as a shrewd investor, a prescient trend spotter and savvy manager of the Quantum Fund. He has been accused of destabilizing world currencies and wrecking the economies of nations, notably in Malaysia and Thailand. A French court convicted him of insider trading and fined him $2.3 million in 2002.

And he has put his money where his mouth is, giving what has been called the largest single political contribution in American history—$10 million to an anti-Bush political-action group, America Coming Together (ACT). (See "Getting out the liberal vote," page 23.) ACT has generated bad press in several so-called presidential battleground states by filling the ranks of get-out-the-vote workers with convicted felons, including individuals convicted of assault and sex offenses.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

and the list goes on and on.

now who needs waking up?
I don't have time to go through all the detail (fighting a deadline) but...


One issue -- even if it's gun ownership -- doesn't determine how I will respond to an individual. I am vehemently pro-choice, but have voted for equally pro-life candidates. I support gun rights, but oppose the NRA and have supported people who oppose gun rights.
When Soros bet that the British pound would be devalued, his personal fortune was already estimated at more than $10 billion. The British pound was being devalued because it was not worth what the official exchange rate said. It was public knowledge that devaluation was almost certain even as the Bank of England poured reserves in to try to prop up the pound. Soros bet the other way and made over $1 billion for himself and his partners in the process by betting $10 billion (i.e. he made 10%). The pound would have been devalued with or without his help. The money he made came from investors betting on the other side, one of which was the Bank of England, which had a lot more money than Soros and his partners.
The insider trading conviction was a bit of a joke since the investment position he took had been reported in the public press before he took it. However, Gallic pride can sometimes trump justice.
Soros stayed out of politics in the US (he provided extensive aid to anti-Communist groups in eastern Europe) until he decided that the Bush Presidency was destroying the US and taking the rest of the world with it. Since he launched his efforts to fight against Bush's reelection in 2004, he is estimated to have spent $10's of millions on political causes. However, he still hasn't spent as much as the Koch brothers have reportedly spent in the same period (over $100 million), and he, unlike them, has been very open about what he has spent and why.
"Getting out the vote" only works if the voters are registered and eligible to vote to begin with. Besides, in congress, getting convicted felons to come together for political purposes is simply called having lunch on K Street.:rolleyes: Any efforts to get out the vote will bring out the good and the bad. The most egregious cases of voter fraud in this country have always originated with systematic efforts by election boards to disenfranchise valid voters under the banner of fraud prevention.
George Soros' wealth has been going down in recent years as he has given billions to non-political charitable causes in the US and around the world. Would that Rupert Murdoch and the Koch brothers (who are comparably wealthy) would do the same.

david gibson
11-12-2010, 12:20 PM
[QUOTE=YardleyLabs;703619]I don't have time to go through all the detail (fighting a deadline) but...

good. and i dont have time nor inclination to read your biased
defense of soros.

menmon
11-12-2010, 01:19 PM
[QUOTE=YardleyLabs;703619]I don't have time to go through all the detail (fighting a deadline) but...

good. and i dont have time nor inclination to read your biased
defense of soros.

Everyone has their right to opinions. Lets scare you some more so that you will write a bigger check to the NRA. George Soros may dislike guns, but he is not alone. If money is all it took to change things, much would be different. He has made a lot of money and has the right to spend it anyway he wants as long as he does not infringe on my rights. I'm so tired of people being tared and feather if they disagree with you.

I disagree with most of you, but you have that right, and I'll drink a beer with any of you and respect you. I had a good friend that does not talk to me anymore because we disagree over politics. That's his right, just like I have the right to disagree too.

menmon
11-12-2010, 01:48 PM
I don't have time to go through all the detail (fighting a deadline) but...


One issue -- even if it's gun ownership -- doesn't determine how I will respond to an individual. I am vehemently pro-choice, but have voted for equally pro-life candidates. I support gun rights, but oppose the NRA and have supported people who oppose gun rights.
When Soros bet that the British pound would be devalued, his personal fortune was already estimated at more than $10 billion. The British pound was being devalued because it was not worth what the official exchange rate said. It was public knowledge that devaluation was almost certain even as the Bank of England poured reserves in to try to prop up the pound. Soros bet the other way and made over $1 billion for himself and his partners in the process by betting $10 billion (i.e. he made 10%). The pound would have been devalued with or without his help. The money he made came from investors betting on the other side, one of which was the Bank of England, which had a lot more money than Soros and his partners.
The insider trading conviction was a bit of a joke since the investment position he took had been reported in the public press before he took it. However, Gallic pride can sometimes trump justice.
Soros stayed out of politics in the US (he provided extensive aid to anti-Communist groups in eastern Europe) until he decided that the Bush Presidency was destroying the US and taking the rest of the world with it. Since he launched his efforts to fight against Bush's reelection in 2004, he is estimated to have spent $10's of millions on political causes. However, he still hasn't spent as much as the Koch brothers have reportedly spent in the same period (over $100 million), and he, unlike them, has been very open about what he has spent and why.
"Getting out the vote" only works if the voters are registered and eligible to vote to begin with. Besides, in congress, getting convicted felons to come together for political purposes is simply called having lunch on K Street.:rolleyes: Any efforts to get out the vote will bring out the good and the bad. The most egregious cases of voter fraud in this country have always originated with systematic efforts by election boards to disenfranchise valid voters under the banner of fraud prevention.
George Soros' wealth has been going down in recent years as he has given billions to non-political charitable causes in the US and around the world. Would that Rupert Murdoch and the Koch brothers (who are comparably wealthy) would do the same.

Jeff I just looked at your photography and it is awesome! Would love to have you shot me and my dogs some day!

BrianW
11-13-2010, 10:04 AM
I don't have time to go through all the detail (fighting a deadline) but...
One issue -- even if it's gun ownership -- doesn't determine how I will respond to an individual. I am vehemently pro-choice, but have voted for equally pro-life candidates. I support gun rights, but... have supported people who oppose gun rights. :confused:

Interesting comment on your philosophy and the way you place it right up there #1.
You trust people who don't trust you - those that would oppose one of your most basic human rights, your life & that of defending it, along with your family, & property?
And vote for them/send them financial support in order for them to do so? :shock:

Amazing!

Terri
11-13-2010, 12:22 PM
[QUOTE=david gibson;703625]

Everyone has their right to opinions. Lets scare you some more so that you will write a bigger check to the NRA. George Soros may dislike guns, but he is not alone. If money is all it took to change things, much would be different. He has made a lot of money and has the right to spend it anyway he wants as long as he does not infringe on my rights. I'm so tired of people being tared and feather if they disagree with you.

I disagree with most of you, but you have that right, and I'll drink a beer with any of you and respect you. I had a good friend that does not talk to me anymore because we disagree over politics. That's his right, just like I have the right to disagree too.

I think you miss your own point- George Soros is trying to infringe on your (my) rights. He wants to take away your(my) right to own a gun. You may not really care about owning a gun but other people care about that right. Understand no one wants their rights infringed on so respect my right to own a gun and I will respect your right to not own a gun. Just think about it a little longer.


Just saying,

Terri

Uncle Bill
11-13-2010, 01:20 PM
[quote=sambo;703640]

I think you miss the your own point- George Soros is trying to infringe on your (my) rights. He wants to take away your(my) right to own a gun. You may not really care about owning a gun but other people care about that right. Understand no one wants their rights infringed on so respect my right to own a gun and I will respect your right to not own a gun. Just think about it a little longer.


Just saying,

Terri


You are making a joke, right Terri? I mean, that last line is a real leg-slapper....you expect the Oracle of Ihop to 'THINK'????:confused:

Why would he suddenly start now?

UB

Tim Thomas
11-13-2010, 02:04 PM
[QUOTE=Uncle Bill;703951][quote=Terri;703938]


Oracle of Ihop


Now that is funny!!!!!!!

YardleyLabs
11-13-2010, 02:05 PM
Interesting comment on your philosophy and the way you place it right up there #1.
You trust people who don't trust you - those that would oppose one of your most basic human rights, your life & that of defending it, along with your family, & property?
And vote for them/send them financial support in order for them to do so? :shock:

Amazing!
My comment is based on the fact that in supporting a politician or a political group, there are always elements of compromise. For those who seek to lead voters around by their noses, the fundamental strategy is to convince your intended audience to focus on a "wedge" issue so that they will ignore all the trash that might be linked to it. Life vs Choice and Guns vs Gun Control are both wedge issues used brilliantly by both sides to get people to stop thinking. While those issues are both important to me, neither is important enough to outweigh all other considerations.

Tim Thomas
11-13-2010, 02:16 PM
Guns vs Gun Control are both wedge issues used brilliantly by both sides to get people to stop thinking. While those issues are both important to me, neither is important enough to outweigh all other considerations.

Really???!!!!!

You don't mean that!

BonMallari
11-13-2010, 02:48 PM
for those that are somewhat sympathetic to gun control, it sure is going to be hard to shoot that pheasant flyer in the last series using the Thunder 1000 simulator...I like my chances at bringing it down with my Remington 1100 :p

YardleyLabs
11-13-2010, 02:53 PM
Really???!!!!!

You don't mean that!
I do.

And if I had to pick between two candidates who were equal except for the fact that one was pro-choice, anti-gun, and the other was pro-gun and anti choice, I would go with the first.

We are not at risk in the current political environment or seeing any significant gun control adopted, but we are at risk of having the government decide to begin telling people that they cannot make their own reproductive decisions without government approval. My primary interest in having citizen ownership of guns is to act as a deterrent against just that type of government overreaching.

If the political climate were reversed, my vote would flip accordingly. Quite frankly I believe ideologues are the enemy of democracy. I don't care it the ideology is left or right, I will vote for pragmatists instead. In the 60's and 70,s, that attitude made me the "enemy" (in their eyes) of the left. Today, it makes me the "enemy" (in their eyes) of the right. I don't have much affection for either.;-)

Tim Thomas
11-13-2010, 04:27 PM
I do.

And if I had to pick between two candidates who were equal except for the fact that one was pro-choice, anti-gun, and the other was pro-gun and anti choice, I would go with the first.

If by anti choice you mean pro life, then we'll never need to be concerned/hopeful you'd go with the "flip".

Dem's will always lean pro choice/anti gun....interestingly, that's the only "choice" they want you or I to have. ;)

Uncle Bill
11-13-2010, 04:30 PM
"If the political climate were reversed, my vote would flip accordingly. Quite frankly I believe ideologues are the enemy of democracy. I don't care it the ideology is left or right, I will vote for pragmatists instead. In the 60's and 70,s, that attitude made me the "enemy" (in their eyes) of the left. Today, it makes me the "enemy" (in their eyes) of the right. I don't have much affection for either.:wink:"


Guess again, Yardley. You don't have a clue what "pragmatism" is...what you 'think' it is, in anyone else's eyes, it's known as hypocrisy. And you can imagine how much affection we have for your views.

UB

david gibson
11-13-2010, 04:47 PM
If by anti choice you mean pro life, then we'll never need to be concerned/hopeful you'd go with the "flip".

Dem's will always lean pro choice/anti gun....interestingly, that's the only "choice" they want you or I to have. ;)

so true. well sais.

hey - is that new baby of yours big enough to throw birds yet?

sparrows maybe? ;-)

Tim Thomas
11-13-2010, 04:56 PM
so true. well sais.

hey - is that new baby of yours big enough to throw birds yet?

sparrows maybe? ;-)

Not quite yet...she gets a kick out of watching me throw......oh, she does have the "hup,hup,hup,hup" and "good girl" down though. I'm so proud! Just got to teach her to use the clicker.;-)

YardleyLabs
11-13-2010, 05:28 PM
"If the political climate were reversed, my vote would flip accordingly. Quite frankly I believe ideologues are the enemy of democracy. I don't care it the ideology is left or right, I will vote for pragmatists instead. In the 60's and 70,s, that attitude made me the "enemy" (in their eyes) of the left. Today, it makes me the "enemy" (in their eyes) of the right. I don't have much affection for either.:wink:"


Guess again, Yardley. You don't have a clue what "pragmatism" is...what you 'think' it is, in anyone else's eyes, it's known as hypocrisy. And you can imagine how much affection we have for your views.

UBYou make my point perfectly. Those being led by single issues are the true "sheeple," to use your term.


If by anti choice you mean pro life, then we'll never need to be concerned/hopeful you'd go with the "flip".

Dem's will always lean pro choice/anti gun....interestingly, that's the only "choice" they want you or I to have. ;)Well, my Senator, Bob Casey, is pro-life, pro-gun, a Democrat, and I vote for him. Go figure.:rolleyes:

Tim Thomas
11-13-2010, 05:31 PM
Well, my Senator, Bob Casey, is pro-life, pro-gun, a Democrat, and I vote for him. Go figure.:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

Where do I send the $$.

dnf777
11-13-2010, 07:41 PM
Well, my Senator, Bob Casey, is pro-life, pro-gun, a Democrat, and I vote for him. Go figure.:rolleyes:

Being a Pennsylvanian, I think my view of politics is different from most of the country. I saw all the men at our deer camp talking about coal mine strikes from as far back as I remember. This is a very pro-gun, pro-hunting, pro-union area, between the United Steelworkers and UMWA. Not the stereotype I'm used to hearing insulted here all the time.

menmon
11-15-2010, 10:25 AM
[quote=Terri;703938]


You are making a joke, right Terri? I mean, that last line is a real leg-slapper....you expect the Oracle of Ihop to 'THINK'????:confused:

Why would he suddenly start now?

UB

Uncle Bill, you should think a little bit too. I like my guns and want the right to have them. Having said that, there are people who have experience bad from guns and don't want people to have guns. They have rights too, and I realize that. So to assure that I'm able to keep my guns, gun owners need to be more responsible, in other words, quit treating them as toys.

I believe that being a more responsible gun owner will assure my right to guns more so. George Soros is not going to cost me my guns, I'm that smart. But, guns in the hands of stupidity will.

menmon
11-15-2010, 10:27 AM
My comment is based on the fact that in supporting a politician or a political group, there are always elements of compromise. For those who seek to lead voters around by their noses, the fundamental strategy is to convince your intended audience to focus on a "wedge" issue so that they will ignore all the trash that might be linked to it. Life vs Choice and Guns vs Gun Control are both wedge issues used brilliantly by both sides to get people to stop thinking. While those issues are both important to me, neither is important enough to outweigh all other considerations.

You nailed it. So lets scare them about guns so I can get them to vote for me when the other guy has more of their interest.

david gibson
11-15-2010, 10:49 AM
Being a Pennsylvanian, I think my view of politics is different from most of the country. I saw all the men at our deer camp talking about coal mine strikes from as far back as I remember. This is a very pro-gun, pro-hunting, pro-union area, between the United Steelworkers and UMWA. Not the stereotype I'm used to hearing insulted here all the time.

i think there are more reasons that just that:rolleyes:

menmon
11-15-2010, 01:18 PM
The main reason Soros is being vilianized is because he opposed Bush in the 2004 election. If you don't agree you are evil. That is the republican M.O.

dixidawg
11-15-2010, 01:25 PM
[quote=Uncle Bill;703951]

Uncle Bill, you should think a little bit too. I like my guns and want the right to have them. Having said that, there are people who have experience bad from guns and don't want people to have guns. They have rights too, and I realize that. So to assure that I'm able to keep my guns, gun owners need to be more responsible, in other words, quit treating them as toys.

I believe that being a more responsible gun owner will assure my right to guns more so. George Soros is not going to cost me my guns, I'm that smart. But, guns in the hands of stupidity will.


Which amendment of the constitution would that one be?

menmon
11-15-2010, 01:47 PM
[quote=sambo;704536]


Which amendment of the constitution would that one be?

I know there is a 2nd amendment that gives us the right. Keep abusing it and see what happens. Just remember, more americans don't own guns than do.

road kill
11-15-2010, 01:49 PM
The main reason Soros is being vilianized is because he opposed Bush in the 2004 election. If you don't agree you are evil. That is the republican M.O.

Yeah Sambo, you're right, George Soros is one of the really good guys in the world today!!
He has nothing but America's best interests in mind!!:rolleyes:


RK

dixidawg
11-15-2010, 01:53 PM
[quote=dixidawg;704645]

I know there is a 2nd amendment that gives us the right. Keep abusing it and see what happens. Just remember, more americans don't own guns than do.


Utter nonsense. The VAST majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens.

How about dealing with the PEOPLE that misuse guns rather than the guns themselves?

menmon
11-15-2010, 02:08 PM
Yeah Sambo, you're right, George Soros is one of the really good guys in the world today!!
He has nothing but America's best interests in mind!!:rolleyes:


RK

He opposed Bush...bad guy right?

menmon
11-15-2010, 02:09 PM
[quote=sambo;704653]


Utter nonsense. The VAST majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens.

How about dealing with the PEOPLE that misuse guns rather than the guns themselves?

Swooooosh...went over your head!

dixidawg
11-15-2010, 02:41 PM
[quote=dixidawg;704656]

Swooooosh...went over your head!


Really? You think your aim is that bad?


Do you feel the same way about the first amendment?

I know there is a 1st amendment that gives us the right. Keep abusing it and see what happens. Just remember, more americans believe one way than another?


Most Americans believe in the Constitution. It is not a popularity contest. That seems to be going over your head.

road kill
11-15-2010, 03:04 PM
He opposed Bush...bad guy right?


He opposed Bush...good guy right??:D


RK

BonMallari
11-15-2010, 03:28 PM
He opposed Bush...bad guy right?

Warren Buffet and Bill Gates opposed Bush, but neither one of them spews the same contempt for the US that Soros does..and both have more money than Soros

menmon
11-15-2010, 03:59 PM
[quote=sambo;704664]


Really? You think your aim is that bad?


Do you feel the same way about the first amendment?

I know there is a 1st amendment that gives us the right. Keep abusing it and see what happens. Just remember, more americans believe one way than another?


Most Americans believe in the Constitution. It is not a popularity contest. That seems to be going over your head.

It gets challenged all the time too, and it has been restricted some too.

I know all the talk (people kill not guns). That is a true statement. Problem though is irresponsible people can buy guns. That is what will cost us all our guns one day. George Soros is not the only person that does not like guns. Probably has something to do with a family member getting killed by a gun. Ask the parents that have lost kids at school shooting, gang wars, etc. Again irresponsible people with guns or irresponsible parents, accidents, whatever.

As gun owners, we should be more responsible and want others to be so, and quit hiding behind the 2nd amendment. There is a real responsibility to gun ownership. We don't need more regulation, we need to regulate ourselves. We need to win our neighbors trust.

menmon
11-15-2010, 04:01 PM
Warren Buffet and Bill Gates opposed Bush, but neither one of them spews the same contempt for the US that Soros does..and both have more money than Soros

Who cares...is my point!

Julie R.
11-15-2010, 04:48 PM
George Soros is not the only person that does not like guns. Probably has something to do with a family member getting killed by a gun. Ask the parents that have lost kids at school shooting, gang wars, etc. Again irresponsible people with guns or irresponsible parents, accidents, whatever.

How horrible to live in fear of roving packs of wild guns breaking loose from their trigger locks and safes and scaring, maiming and killing innocent people. :rolleyes:


As gun owners, we should be more responsible and want others to be so, and quit hiding behind the 2nd amendment. There is a real responsibility to gun ownership. We don't need more regulation, we need to regulate ourselves. We need to win our neighbors trust.

Riiiiiiight Sambo; that's genius! Irresponsible gun owners are the cause of all the gun violence and gun deaths. http://i490.photobucket.com/albums/rr266/MouseOnAFeedsack/Smilies/SARCASM.gif Well here's a news flash for you: we don't need to win our neighbors' trust, as long as we have our constitutional right to bear arms. We need to be able to legally own a gun in case our neighbor is a criminal and wants to rob, rape or kill us. No person or law is ever going to make criminals responsible gun owners. Laws only restrict the law abiding and make it easier for criminals to prey on them.

dixidawg
11-15-2010, 05:10 PM
[quote=dixidawg;704675]

It gets challenged all the time too, and it has been restricted some too.

The more it gets challenged the less restrictive it will become re Heller and MacDonald.

I know all the talk (people kill not guns). That is a true statement. Problem though is irresponsible people can buy guns. That is what will cost us all our guns one day. George Soros is not the only person that does not like guns. Probably has something to do with a family member getting killed by a gun. Ask the parents that have lost kids at school shooting, gang wars, etc. Again irresponsible people with guns or irresponsible parents, accidents, whatever.

School shootings and gang violence have NOTHING to do with guns or responsibility. School shootings are done by psychopaths. Gang members have rap sheets a mile long and are still out on the street. Until our legal system decides to truly "get tough on crime" and actually "get tough on criminals" nothing will change. Blaming the guns is pure folly.


As gun owners, we should be more responsible and want others to be so, and quit hiding behind the 2nd amendment. There is a real responsibility to gun ownership. We don't need more regulation, we need to regulate ourselves. We need to win our neighbors trust.

I am not my brother's keeper. I am responsible for me and me only. It all goes back to my previous post about the vast majority of people being responsible citizens. Punish those that criminally misuse to the full extent of the law. Leave everyone else alone.




See inline above

Cody Covey
11-15-2010, 05:23 PM
[QUOTE=dixidawg;704675]

It gets challenged all the time too, and it has been restricted some too.

I know all the talk (people kill not guns). That is a true statement. Problem though is irresponsible people can buy guns. That is what will cost us all our guns one day. George Soros is not the only person that does not like guns. Probably has something to do with a family member getting killed by a gun. Ask the parents that have lost kids at school shooting, gang wars, etc. Again irresponsible people with guns or irresponsible parents, accidents, whatever.

As gun owners, we should be more responsible and want others to be so, and quit hiding behind the 2nd amendment. There is a real responsibility to gun ownership. We don't need more regulation, we need to regulate ourselves. We need to win our neighbors trust.Yes and of course the answer is to force law abiding people to not have a means to protect themselves. I know I get so mad that we have nukes, I mean our enemies have nukes so the obvious solution is to get rid of our own!
/sarcasm

Just think if at one of those school shoots just one law abiding gun owner had carried a gun that day...A lot less people would have died I am pretty certain of that.

road kill
11-15-2010, 05:42 PM
The progressives are not worried about criminals having guns.

They are worried about free men having guns!!


Get it??



RK

dnf777
11-15-2010, 06:02 PM
The progressives are not worried about criminals having guns.

They are worried about free men having guns!!


Get it??

RK

Much like many republicans easing up on anti-gay issues, the progressives seem to be easing up on gun-control issues, with a few notable exceptions. ie Brady Inc.

I think they learned that in America, taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens always has been, and always will be a losing political hot potato(e).

david gibson
11-15-2010, 07:12 PM
Much like many republicans easing up on anti-gay issues, the progressives seem to be easing up on gun-control issues, with a few notable exceptions. ie Brady Inc.

I think they learned that in America, taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens always has been, and always will be a losing political hot potato(e).

fallacy.

if we "conservatives" lose to the gay issue, so what? how does that hurt ME? i really dont care if two guys want to hunker down together, my life is changed none by that. so you are safe dnf.

if we lose to the 2nd amendment - well, different story. My life will be SEVERELY affected.

so reps easing on gay issues is no where near the same as dems easing on gun issues.

dnf777
11-16-2010, 04:39 AM
fallacy.

if we "conservatives" lose to the gay issue, so what? how does that hurt ME? i really dont care if two guys want to hunker down together, my life is changed none by that. so you are safe dnf.

if we lose to the 2nd amendment - well, different story. My life will be SEVERELY affected.

so reps easing on gay issues is no where near the same as dems easing on gun issues.

Thank you for saying what progressives have been saying all along! Your side keeps saying things like gay rights are a "threat to the institution of marriage". I have said all along that DIVORCE is a much bigger threat to marriage that whatever two guys or gals do down the block!

But how do you imply that the RIGHT to keep and bear arms is anywhere equivalent to the "right" to deny millions of citizens their civil rights? What are you talking about "losing"?? Only a RWE would think its their right to take away someone's rights because they don't agree with you.

I merely pointed out two issues where I think the parties are both wrong. And that in both cases, the moderate wings of both parties are backing off. I infer GUARANTEEING the rights to both groups, while you support one's rights, and the taking of the other's. Do we live in a free country or not? It has to be free for everyone. Something about equal protection.

Buzz
11-16-2010, 08:12 AM
I stopped giving money to the NRA a long time ago. I feel that we are about as likely to lose our 2nd amendment rights as it is that h e double l will freeze over. The NRA is all about fanning the flames of fear to keep those dollars rolling in. We'll keep our rights with or without them. I'll spend my money somewhere more productive.

dixidawg
11-16-2010, 08:15 AM
What gun rights organizations do you support if not the NRA?

dnf777
11-16-2010, 08:33 AM
I stopped giving money to the NRA a long time ago. I feel that we are about as likely to lose our 2nd amendment rights as it is that h e double l will freeze over. The NRA is all about fanning the flames of fear to keep those dollars rolling in. We'll keep our rights with or without them. I'll spend my money somewhere more productive.

They got my chunk of change in the form of life dues when I thought they really needed it. I won't drop my membership, but they don't get anymore annual contributions from me, except for specific or local issues, on an as-needed basis.

There is a fine line between supporting pro-gun candidates (who are usually, but not always republican) and blatantly supporting a national political party. I think they crossed that line under the current leadership. It was easy to forgive during the assault-weapons ban, and I supported them at that point. Right now however, I think the economy is a bigger threat to gun ownership than legislation. Nobody will be able to afford guns, let alone NRA dues with all our jobs being sold out overseas! I am not a single-issue voter, and have trouble with the ties between LaPierre, Cox, and the NRC.

BrianW
11-16-2010, 09:53 AM
We are not at risk in the current political environment or seeing any significant gun control adopted,

I feel that we are about as likely to lose our 2nd amendment rights as it is that h e double l will freeze over.... We'll keep our rights with or without them

I hope your pragmatic definitions of "risk" & "likelihood" don't came back to bite us in our "crisis management driven" state of governance; where no one wants to let one go to waste and there always seems to "just "magically" be a solution already drawn up. Look at the right to privacy and whats happened to it over both the last administrations, with PATRIOT Act & cell phone/internet monitoring. Imo, The main reason people aren't up in arms revolting is because the gov didn't physically take something away like a firearm, just leaving you with the feeling that you've been violated like a TSA pat down.

This Administration's arrogance & ineptitude on so many issues and levels leaves me with no confidence about the crisis on our southern border & terrorism. Let that blow up, in one or more of the possibilities, and it could be "game on" with many of our rights.
Katrina confiscations were just a "temporary restriction" on liberty & security, and besides that was a loooonnng time ago, right Buzz? There were no principles involved? :rolleyes:
The NRA didn't have any reason at all to go to court, fight for NOLA gun owners rights and to help get their weapons back, just fanning flames? I'm sure they would have gotten their guns back eventually. I see that as a great reason not to be pragmatic and put anti-gun poli's in office for any reason, much less current political climate.

Sorry, when a wildfire erupts is not when you start putting the fire dept together and buying equipment. But that's ok guys, the gun rights groups have got your backs, even if you don't appreciate it.

dixidawg
11-16-2010, 10:12 AM
Great post!

While there may currently be no appetite for new gun control legislation at the national level, the state and local governments have no such delusions. Many are continually pushing their agenda. Not to mention those states that already have onerous and likely unconstitutional laws already on the books.

pat addis
11-16-2010, 11:32 AM
My General Contractor is one of Beck's IDIOTS!!!!

A few nights ago, he tells me I have to listen to what Beck is saying about George Soros. Real Scary stuff, he says. How George Soros is an evil man that is going to take down America because he has already done this to five other countries. I told him he was an idiot for believing this!!!

To begin with, George Soros can not get control of enough currency to bring down our currency, so rest easy! Right now, we don't want a strong dollar because it will cost jobs, so Beck is full of himself again and only trying to take the focus off the fact that the world isn't changing because we have republicans back in control.

George Soros to begin with is a capitalist at its finest, and yes he has played havic on small poorly managed countries. However, his actions have done more good than bad because he has forced the political abuse out of these countries by grabing them by the balls (their money). Yes he is a champion for the poor, or as some would phrase it, a good humanitarian.

In summary, Beck can't sell fear about democrats anymore, so he chooses someone to paint as a vilian because he has found that fear sells! Please wake up to this man's game!

when glenn beck plays soros own words and he said he manipulated their own currency and wants to do the same to the us currency.i watch glenn at times and he playes these peoples own words thats when it gets scary.

Clint Watts
11-16-2010, 08:28 PM
when glenn beck plays soros own words and he said he manipulated their own currency and wants to do the same to the us currency.i watch glenn at times and he playes these peoples own words thats when it gets scary.

I don't typically watch Beck, but one thing I notice on this site is personal attacks on Beck and his listeners. Waiting for them to attack Beck on his facts, will most likely be waiting a long time.

Clint Watts
12-05-2010, 02:56 PM
Still waiting

Buzz
12-05-2010, 05:31 PM
Still waiting

I started a thread just for you. Apparently you didn't see it and i'm not going to try and dig it up. I'm in Texas training my dog and surfing on an iPod, not an easy task. My fingers are too fat for this thing.

depittydawg
12-05-2010, 06:36 PM
I don't typically watch Beck, but one thing I notice on this site is personal attacks on Beck and his listeners. Waiting for them to attack Beck on his facts, will most likely be waiting a long time.

Are you serious? I'm pretty sure I've posted a response to this more than once. I suggest media matters / glenn beck for a search. You'll get all you could ever dream of.

road kill
12-05-2010, 06:41 PM
Are you serious? I'm pretty sure I've posted a response to this more than once. I suggest media matters / glenn beck for a search. You'll get all you could ever dream of.

HHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Who funds "media matters?"

You are hilarious........


RK

dnf777
12-05-2010, 06:47 PM
I started a thread just for you. Apparently you didn't see it and i'm not going to try and dig it up. I'm in Texas training my dog and surfing on an iPod, not an easy task. My fingers are too fat for this thing.

Remember the "pinch and expand" function. Only way I can hit my target!

road kill
12-06-2010, 03:03 PM
HHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Who funds "media matters?"

You are hilarious........


RK

Buehler....Buehler.....anyone????


RK

Clint Watts
12-07-2010, 11:53 PM
Media Matters, are you serious? Whats next, the Huffington Post. Thanks for the easy win.

menmon
12-08-2010, 02:22 PM
when glenn beck plays soros own words and he said he manipulated their own currency and wants to do the same to the us currency.i watch glenn at times and he playes these peoples own words thats when it gets scary.

Thank fors realizing that and saying so. He plays plays on words to cause fear, so people think they have to stay tuned into his show.

gman0046
12-08-2010, 02:53 PM
I feel sorry for you sambo. You are mentally challenged. What did you ever do in a bank?

menmon
12-08-2010, 03:28 PM
I feel sorry for you sambo. You are mentally challenged. What did you ever do in a bank?

Currently I'm responsible for a portfolio of commercial loans of about $300MM.

"Mentally Challenged" sounds like Beck talk. Shit he has you guys talking like him now! Dude you need help!!! Quick!!!!

depittydawg
12-08-2010, 08:28 PM
HHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Who funds "media matters?"

You are hilarious........


RK

Who founded and continues to run Media Matters to this day? Look it up. In fact, I'll do it for you.

David Brock (born November 2, 1962) is an American journalist and author and the founder of Media Matters for America. He was a conservative journalist during the 1990s[1] gaining notoriety for his book The Real Anita Hill and authoring the Troopergate story, which led to Paula Jones filing a lawsuit against Bill Clinton. At the start of the Presidency of George W. Bush his views shifted significantly towards the left. He founded Media Matters for America, a non-profit organization that describes itself as a "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."[2]

david gibson
12-08-2010, 08:40 PM
road kill asked:

"Who funds "media matters?"

"you replied:


Who founded and continues to run Media Matters to this day? Look it up. In fact, I'll do it for you.

David Brock (born November 2, 1962) is an American journalist and author and the founder of Media Matters for America. He was a conservative journalist during the 1990s[1] gaining notoriety for his book The Real Anita Hill and authoring the Troopergate story, which led to Paula Jones filing a lawsuit against Bill Clinton. At the start of the Presidency of George W. Bush his views shifted significantly towards the left. He founded Media Matters for America, a non-profit organization that describes itself as a "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."[2]

please tell me you are not that stupid. the extra "o" you added was not a typo on RKs part. "fund" and "found" are two very different words.

ok, now answer the question. who FUNDS media matters?

you do understand the difference, dont you? you have plenty of time to google the words and save face, but the damage is done. LOL!

depittydawg
12-08-2010, 08:56 PM
Media Matters, are you serious? Whats next, the Huffington Post. Thanks for the easy win.

Easy win? I've never seen the Glenn Beck show. I've heard and read about the lies he spews and you folks contested it so I took a look. Not only is the guy a liar, he isn't even entertaining. Why anyone would waste their time with this guy is beyond me.

Facts are facts and lies are lies. Pick your source but follow the truth. Anybody, I mean ANYBODY, who doesn't realize that Glen Beck is NOT a reliable source of truthful information simply hasn't done their homework. Here is a short list of false claims made by the Beckster.

Hard to argue with this :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tg673tl4zPA

http://joechianakas.wordpress.com/2010/07/09/glen-becks-lies-and-why-we-should-worry-about-his-university/

Heres a long list of Beck Lies on camera for anyone who is interested.

david gibson
12-08-2010, 09:12 PM
Easy win? I've never seen the Glenn Beck show. I've heard and read about the lies he spews and you folks contested it so I took a look. Not only is the guy a liar, he isn't even entertaining. Why anyone would waste their time with this guy is beyond me.

Facts are facts and lies are lies. Pick your source but follow the truth. Anybody, I mean ANYBODY, who doesn't realize that Glen Beck is NOT a reliable source of truthful information simply hasn't done their homework. Here is a short list of false claims made by the Beckster.

Hard to argue with this :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tg673tl4zPA

http://joechianakas.wordpress.com/2010/07/09/glen-becks-lies-and-why-we-should-worry-about-his-university/

Heres a long list of Beck Lies on camera for anyone who is interested.

you dont know the difference between fund and found so why would i ever listen to anything you ever say again?

depittydawg
12-08-2010, 09:24 PM
you dont know the difference between fund and found so why would i ever listen to anything you ever say again?

If your interested in the truth, which I know you are not, do your own research and it will be as plain as the STUPID ASS sign you carry around with you wherever you go.

david gibson
12-08-2010, 10:19 PM
If your interested in the truth, which I know you are not, do your own research and it will be as plain as the STUPID ASS sign you carry around with you wherever you go.

huh???

truth is your liberal blogs? you are the one not interested in the truth behind who funds media matters. i havent even commented on beck, i just pointed out that you dont know the difference between FUND and FOUND. you embarrassed yourself with that today.
and you call me a stupid ass?

i just read that volley between you and RK again - here - i'll show you:

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,
RK:

Who funds "media matters?"

You:

Who founded and continues to run Media Matters to this day? Look it up. In fact, I'll do it for you.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

LOL!!!!!


but what is truly scary and not at all laughable is that you own guns. now that is frightening.

depittydawg
12-08-2010, 11:00 PM
huh???

truth is your liberal blogs? you are the one not interested in the truth behind who funds media matters. i havent even commented on beck, i just pointed out that you dont know the difference between FUND and FOUND. you embarrassed yourself with that today.
and you call me a stupid ass?

i just read that volley between you and RK again - here - i'll show you:

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,
RK:

Who funds "media matters?"

You:

Who founded and continues to run Media Matters to this day? Look it up. In fact, I'll do it for you.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

LOL!!!!!


but what is truly scary and not at all laughable is that you own guns. now that is frightening.

I apologize for the Stupid Ass sign comment David. It was uncalled for.

BrianW
12-09-2010, 08:51 AM
Easy win? I've never seen the Glenn Beck show. I've heard and read about the lies he spews and you folks contested it so I took a look. Not only is the guy a liar, he isn't even entertaining. Why anyone would waste their time with this guy is beyond me.

Facts are facts and lies are lies. Pick your source but follow the truth. Anybody, I mean ANYBODY, who doesn't realize that Glen Beck is NOT a reliable source of truthful information simply hasn't done their homework. Here is a short list of false claims made by the Beckster.

Just an observation but so many folks claim "I've never seen/heard" the show(s) but are experts "about it" and its "blind followers" of the "savior" etc. If you have ever watched more than a couple minutes of the opening monologue, you might have heard a statement to this effect: "Don't trust what I'm saying here. Go look it up for yourself, read the history book(s)..."
Hardly the mantra of a "messiah". Does someone like Olbermann tell you to go check his sources? (I'll state right here I don't watch that show, hence my question) Do you care at all about any of the things that Beck has reported correctly?

As far as "reliable sources" of "truthful information", do we really want to discuss the veracity of the MSM and the usual media mouthpieces? How many times are there retractions issued on one of the back pages of a newspaper or at the end of the 11 PM news when not many folks are listening for all the errors (false claims) reported as "fact"?
If you don't want to watch Glenn that's fine and your choice. Of course you're not going to find him "entertaining", you're a self described progressive and he's the antithesis of that! Why don't you go watch Elliot Spitzer over on CNN instead for your news/entertainment, now there's a fine figure of a man who deserves to be on nationwide cable TV?!

Clint Watts
12-09-2010, 11:52 PM
I apologize for the Stupid Ass sign comment David. It was uncalled for.

When a liberal loses an argument they resort to name calling. Your true colors are showing. Suprised you havn't called someone a rascist yet.

Cody Covey
12-10-2010, 12:27 AM
The problem with Glen Beck who i used to watch very occasionally when he first went to fox news is he is a sell out. He used to be funny and pretty entertaining. Now he has found a niche. He knows he can scare conservatives, especially evangelicals, with stupid crap that is barely true at best. When he went away from just talking about the issues with democrats, which is easy and would've had material for days, he started with his very christian, very end of the world, very democrats are anarchists mantra and lost pretty much all credibility

This from a conservative regards...

depittydawg
12-11-2010, 01:15 AM
When a liberal loses an argument they resort to name calling. Your true colors are showing. Suprised you havn't called someone a rascist yet.

Uh right. I've been slammed here 10X easily for every time I retaliate. I have the decency to apologize and you slam me for that. So I ask you, who is showing their colors?

depittydawg
12-11-2010, 01:29 AM
Just an observation but so many folks claim "I've never seen/heard" the show(s) but are experts "about it" and its "blind followers" of the "savior" etc. If you have ever watched more than a couple minutes of the opening monologue, you might have heard a statement to this effect: "Don't trust what I'm saying here. Go look it up for yourself, read the history book(s)..."
Hardly the mantra of a "messiah". Does someone like Olbermann tell you to go check his sources? (I'll state right here I don't watch that show, hence my question) Do you care at all about any of the things that Beck has reported correctly?

As far as "reliable sources" of "truthful information", do we really want to discuss the veracity of the MSM and the usual media mouthpieces? How many times are there retractions issued on one of the back pages of a newspaper or at the end of the 11 PM news when not many folks are listening for all the errors (false claims) reported as "fact"?
If you don't want to watch Glenn that's fine and your choice. Of course you're not going to find him "entertaining", you're a self described progressive and he's the antithesis of that! Why don't you go watch Elliot Spitzer over on CNN instead for your news/entertainment, now there's a fine figure of a man who deserves to be on nationwide cable TV?!

Well I can tell you this. I don't watch the cable TV shows. They are entertainers first and foremost. I don't enjoy that type of entertainment and only a fool uses these sites for his news source.
I listen to progressives on the radio sometimes and I listen to the conservatives. The progressives are generally more focused on issues and pretty much hold to debating them. The conservatives drift much more toward emotional tirades, insults and flat out lies. As is so often the case around here, many of today's conservatives, for whatever reason, rapidly personalize debate away from issues and toward personal attacks. Try to find any discussion around here including Yardley, DNF, Myself, and a few others who argue the liberal perspective that we are not subject to personal attacks, usually very early and often during a discussion.
Also, I can't find any intellectually based conservative talk out there anymore. While on the progressive side there is some. Hartman comes to mind. I don't always agree with what he says but he doesn't lie, make up crap, or distort the way the conservatives do on the radio.

I'm not saying progressives don't need to be verified. Any information should be verified, especially if it comes out of the mouth of someone who is earning a paycheck by mustering your attention.

mjh345
12-11-2010, 02:07 PM
The problem with Glen Beck who i used to watch very occasionally when he first went to fox news is he is a sell out. He used to be funny and pretty entertaining. Now he has found a niche. He knows he can scare conservatives, especially evangelicals, with stupid crap that is barely true at best. When he went away from just talking about the issues with democrats, which is easy and would've had material for days, he started with his very christian, very end of the world, very democrats are anarchists mantra and lost pretty much all credibility

This from a conservative regards...

What amazes me is how easy it is to scare[fool] the conservatives and evangelicals, who claim to be intelligent.

$200,000,000/day trip by Obama regards

dnf777
12-11-2010, 02:18 PM
When a liberal loses an argument they resort to name calling. Your true colors are showing. Suprised you havn't called someone a rascist yet.

LMAO!!

That's a good one!

BrianW
12-12-2010, 09:58 AM
Well I can tell you this. I don't watch the cable TV shows. They are entertainers first and foremost. I don't enjoy that type of entertainment and only a fool uses these sites for hisnews source.
I listen to progressives on the radio sometimes and I listen to the conservatives. The progressives are generally more focused on issues and pretty much hold to debating them. The conservatives drift much more toward emotional tirades, insults and flat out lies. As is so often the case around here, many of today's conservatives, for whatever reason, rapidly personalize debate away from issues and toward personal attacks. Try to find any discussion around here including Yardley, DNF, Myself, and a few others who argue the liberal perspective that we are not subject to personal attacks, usually very early and often during a discussion.
Also, I can't find any intellectually based conservative talk out there anymore. While on the progressive side there is some. Hartman comes to mind. I don't always agree with what he says but he doesn't lie, make up crap, or distort the way the conservatives do on the radio.

I'm not saying progressives don't need to be verified. Any information should be verified, especially if it comes out of the mouth of someone who is earning a paycheck by mustering your attention.
So where do you get your news information, if not from cable and only sometimes to radio? The Big 3?
One problem I see and hear is that progressives often get emotional when conservatives speak intellectually, say on the budget/deficit or education and try to intellectualize moral issues. I'm sure you see it much the other way around, being on the other side of the prism. Just to use Thom Hartmann as an example, I've listened to "Brunch with Bernie", his weekly segment with the "Independent" from Vermont. :rolleyes: I hope that not what you're referring to as "intellectual discussion"?

depittydawg
12-12-2010, 01:35 PM
So where do you get your news information, if not from cable and only sometimes to radio? The Big 3?
One problem I see and hear is that progressives often get emotional when conservatives speak intellectually, say on the budget/deficit or education and try to intellectualize moral issues. I'm sure you see it much the other way around, being on the other side of the prism. Just to use Thom Hartmann as an example, I've listened to "Brunch with Bernie", his weekly segment with the "Independent" from Vermont. :rolleyes: I hope that not what you're referring to as "intellectual discussion"?

I get my information from news sources online, several of them, I tune into Public Broadcasting occasionally when I want the simple facts or intellectual debate. I watch the big 3 seldom, but once in a while. I also get information from coursing forums such as this one where individuals share sources and insights. Never has so much information, good and bad, been available to anyone willing to look for it.

I am very interested in tapping into this "intellectual conservatism" that you refer to. Where is it?

Your example of the latest "tax" proposals are a case in point. Personally, I have very little representation of my position in this one. I don't think they should be extending unemployment benefits again. And I don't think they should be extending the tax cuts for anybody while we are running such unhealthy deficits. As is usual, neither side can convince the other to make cuts that affect their votes or sugar daddy's, so we get HUGE deficits that nobody can pay for but the political bosses get what they wanted. It's disgusting.

I have contempt for simplistic minded individuals that seem to have forgotten what public responsibility is. They have forgotten what accountability is. And they have become completely negligent in holding political servants responsible for acting on behalf of the people whom they are hired to represent. In many cases people seem to have substituted the responsibility of citizenship in a democracy for fanatical participation in the political arena that more closely resembles a Friday Night HS Football contest than a public forum for debate and compromise.

The difference between me, and most on this board, is that I don't see the Republican party as any better than the Democratic party. In fact, they are much more dangerous. I see neither party as responsive to the needs and desires of American citizens. And unfortunately, most American citizens are either incapable of discerning what it happening or simply don't care.

menmon
12-13-2010, 10:26 AM
Anything but SPIN!!!!!

I weed out the facts and then think for myself. I also consider the person talkings agenda too. That will point me towards how I should be looking at it. If it is on fox, I'm pretty sure why it is being spun the way it is. The liberal media is not very loud right now. When the republicans take office in Jan. they will probablly come with a louder spin too.

Again anything but SPIN!!!

road kill
12-13-2010, 10:35 AM
Anything but SPIN!!!!!

I weed out the facts and then think for myself. I also consider the person talkings agenda too. That will point me towards how I should be looking at it. If it is on fox, I'm pretty sure why it is being spun the way it is. The liberal media is not very loud right now. When the republicans take office in Jan. they will probablly come with a louder spin too.

Again anything but SPIN!!!

Really?

Who funds Media Matters???:D


RK

Cody Covey
12-13-2010, 11:05 AM
Well I can tell you this. I don't watch the cable TV shows. They are entertainers first and foremost. I don't enjoy that type of entertainment and only a fool uses these sites for his news source.
I listen to progressives on the radio sometimes and I listen to the conservatives. The progressives are generally more focused on issues and pretty much hold to debating them. The conservatives drift much more toward emotional tirades, insults and flat out lies. As is so often the case around here, many of today's conservatives, for whatever reason, rapidly personalize debate away from issues and toward personal attacks. Try to find any discussion around here including Yardley, DNF, Myself, and a few others who argue the liberal perspective that we are not subject to personal attacks, usually very early and often during a discussion.
Also, I can't find any intellectually based conservative talk out there anymore. While on the progressive side there is some. Hartman comes to mind. I don't always agree with what he says but he doesn't lie, make up crap, or distort the way the conservatives do on the radio.

I'm not saying progressives don't need to be verified. Any information should be verified, especially if it comes out of the mouth of someone who is earning a paycheck by mustering your attention.
See what's interesting to me (I have actually been thinking about this a lot lately) is that I think the exact same but towards democrats. I have been wondering if maybe we just misunderstand each other. Democrats and Republicans are always using the same arguments towards each other. But then I feel democrats are always jumping to the emotional argument instead of the logical one. Like now with unemployment benefits where people have had the ability to not work and get paid for 2 YEARS and if following the bare minimum of the law they would have needed to apply for at least 300 jobs and some how I am supposed to feel sorry for them? No if they want to work they can get off their ass and work. It may not be their dream job but they can certainly do something and bring in money. I have come to the conclusion that democrats and republicans will never agree and I for one do not want compromise. I find it very amusing that when republicans vote no they are the party of no but when democrats do it, EVEN against the will of their leader, the president, they are just sticking up for what they believe in.

ducknwork
12-13-2010, 11:13 AM
And I don't think they should be extending the tax cuts for anybody while we are running such unhealthy deficits.

While that sounds great and all...I really don't think now is a good time to give people less money in their paychecks. It's hard enough for regular people to afford basic living expenses as it is...Let's not take more money and make it more difficult. The only thing that will do is force people to further reduce their discretionary spending...What effect do you think that will have on the economy? (not rhetorical, please answer...)

Consumers have to buy goods in order to keep people employed throughout the supply chain, from the manufacturer to the distributor to the marketing group to the retail store owners to the cashier that rings it up...less goods being purchased will mean that someone in that chain will have to lose their job.

Buzz
12-13-2010, 11:26 AM
While that sounds great and all...I really don't think now is a good time to give people less money in their paychecks. It's hard enough for regular people to afford basic living expenses as it is...Let's not take more money and make it more difficult. The only thing that will do is force people to further reduce their discretionary spending...What effect do you think that will have on the economy? (not rhetorical, please answer...)

Consumers have to buy goods in order to keep people employed throughout the supply chain, from the manufacturer to the distributor to the marketing group to the retail store owners to the cashier that rings it up...less goods being purchased will mean that someone in that chain will have to lose their job.

This sounds like a demand side argument. Do you feel that a 3% tax increase on the top 2% will result in them struggling to afford basic living expenses? Giving them tax cuts is a supply side argument. Giving them tax cuts will not persuade them to hire anyone or invest in their businesses because no on in their right mind would spend to increase capacity when they already have a production overcapacity.

depittydawg
12-13-2010, 09:38 PM
See what's interesting to me (I have actually been thinking about this a lot lately) is that I think the exact same but towards democrats. I have been wondering if maybe we just misunderstand each other. Democrats and Republicans are always using the same arguments towards each other. But then I feel democrats are always jumping to the emotional argument instead of the logical one. Like now with unemployment benefits where people have had the ability to not work and get paid for 2 YEARS and if following the bare minimum of the law they would have needed to apply for at least 300 jobs and some how I am supposed to feel sorry for them? No if they want to work they can get off their ass and work. It may not be their dream job but they can certainly do something and bring in money. I have come to the conclusion that democrats and republicans will never agree and I for one do not want compromise. I find it very amusing that when republicans vote no they are the party of no but when democrats do it, EVEN against the will of their leader, the president, they are just sticking up for what they believe in.

When have the Democrats ever voted No (or yes for that matter) as a block? I completely agree re: unemployment benefits. Anything beyond a year is welfare.

depittydawg
12-13-2010, 09:48 PM
While that sounds great and all...I really don't think now is a good time to give people less money in their paychecks. It's hard enough for regular people to afford basic living expenses as it is...Let's not take more money and make it more difficult. The only thing that will do is force people to further reduce their discretionary spending...What effect do you think that will have on the economy? (not rhetorical, please answer...)

Consumers have to buy goods in order to keep people employed throughout the supply chain, from the manufacturer to the distributor to the marketing group to the retail store owners to the cashier that rings it up...less goods being purchased will mean that someone in that chain will have to lose their job.

The "tax breaks" for the middle class amounted to something like 300 dollars a year. I'm all in favor of lower taxes, but it must be graduated. The reason we are running deficits, and the reason the tax burden weighs so heavy on the middle class is because the Wealthy have reduced their tax payments significantly over the last 30 years or so.
So long as the middle class (the largest voting bloc in the nation) continues to elect republicans and conservative democrats who refuse to tax those that can afford it, and so long as they also continue to spend more money than they have, I'm afraid the middle class must pay.

Cody Covey
12-14-2010, 12:15 AM
When have the Democrats ever voted No (or yes for that matter) as a block? I completely agree re: unemployment benefits. Anything beyond a year is welfare.
They aren't even letting the vote happen (last i heard anyway) for the compromise between obama and republicans. But don't worry they are just standing for what they believe is right.

ducknwork
12-14-2010, 06:55 AM
This sounds like a demand side argument. Do you feel that a 3% tax increase on the top 2% will result in them struggling to afford basic living expenses? Giving them tax cuts is a supply side argument. Giving them tax cuts will not persuade them to hire anyone or invest in their businesses because no on in their right mind would spend to increase capacity when they already have a production overcapacity.

In theory, it makes sense that if an employer has more money available, they could pay more people. That is undeniable. Whether it happens or not...who knows...Although, we do know that when an employer has less money, they have no choice but to reduce headcount in order to remain profitable.

Also, at what point do the 'rich' decide that America is not the environment they want their money in due to excessive taxes? There must be some magic number where they decide to take their money elsewhere in order to keep more of it. What does that do to our economy? Instead of getting X% of millions or billions...Uncle Sam gets 0%. Big problem for the US, I'd say...

Lastly, I really don't think it is right for one group, regardless of financial status, to support other groups of people. The Robin Hood theory just doesn't cut it for me. Wealthy people should not be 'punished' for being successful by the govt seizing more and more of their money. Sure, I think the govt has a right to a certain amount, (don't know what that amount is...) but it becomes wrong at a certain % level to continue to take more and more.

ducknwork
12-14-2010, 06:58 AM
The "tax breaks" for the middle class amounted to something like 300 dollars a year. I'm all in favor of lower taxes, but it must be graduated. The reason we are running deficits, and the reason the tax burden weighs so heavy on the middle class is because the Wealthy have reduced their tax payments significantly over the last 30 years or so.
So long as the middle class (the largest voting bloc in the nation) continues to elect republicans and conservative democrats who refuse to tax those that can afford it, and so long as they also continue to spend more money than they have, I'm afraid the middle class must pay.

So are you saying that $300/year isn't worth bothering with? That we might as well just pay it because it's a small amount? I know one thing for sure, I can stimulate the economy quite a bit if someone hands me $300...Would you go to the grocery store and see identical items next to each other on the shelf and pay $3 for one as opposed to $2.50 for the other because it's just a few cents? And as I have always heard, it's better off in my pocket than theirs!

Buzz
12-14-2010, 08:36 AM
In theory, it makes sense that if an employer has more money available, they could pay more people. That is undeniable. Whether it happens or not...who knows...Although, we do know that when an employer has less money, they have no choice but to reduce headcount in order to remain profitable.

Also, at what point do the 'rich' decide that America is not the environment they want their money in due to excessive taxes? There must be some magic number where they decide to take their money elsewhere in order to keep more of it. What does that do to our economy? Instead of getting X% of millions or billions...Uncle Sam gets 0%. Big problem for the US, I'd say...

Lastly, I really don't think it is right for one group, regardless of financial status, to support other groups of people. The Robin Hood theory just doesn't cut it for me. Wealthy people should not be 'punished' for being successful by the govt seizing more and more of their money. Sure, I think the govt has a right to a certain amount, (don't know what that amount is...) but it becomes wrong at a certain % level to continue to take more and more.



Luke 21:1-4 (New International Version, ©2010)

Luke 21

The Widow’s Offering

1 As Jesus looked up, he saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. 2 He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. 3 “Truly I tell you,” he said, “this poor widow has put in more than all the others. 4 All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.”

road kill
12-14-2010, 08:49 AM
Luke 21:1-4 (New International Version, ©2010)

Luke 21

The Widow’s Offering

1 As Jesus looked up, he saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. 2 He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. 3 “Truly I tell you,” he said, “this poor widow has put in more than all the others. 4 All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.”

Hey Buzz, keep going, there is a lot of good reading in that book.
You are headed in the right direction!!:D


RK

IowaBayDog
12-14-2010, 09:47 AM
Luke 21:1-4 (New International Version, ©2010)

Luke 21

The Widow’s Offering

1 As Jesus looked up, he saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. 2 He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. 3 “Truly I tell you,” he said, “this poor widow has put in more than all the others. 4 All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.”


Sounds good to me. Lets raise taxes on the bottom 50% freeloaders that aren't paying anything in taxes.

Buzz
12-14-2010, 09:53 AM
Hey Buzz, keep going, there is a lot of good reading in that book.
You are headed in the right direction!!:D


RK


I know. Ten years of Catholic School regards...

ducknwork
12-14-2010, 10:44 AM
Luke 21:1-4 (New International Version, ©2010)

Luke 21

The Widow’s Offering

1 As Jesus looked up, he saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. 2 He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. 3 “Truly I tell you,” he said, “this poor widow has put in more than all the others. 4 All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.”

That's excellent Buzz...I completely agree. BUT....


Government taxes are not equivalent to gifts or tithes...

So are you trying to say that I have a better chance of going to heaven by paying higher taxes?

road kill
12-14-2010, 10:46 AM
Soooo......does anyone want to tell me WHO funds Media Matters??

Standing by.....

RK

menmon
12-14-2010, 11:39 AM
In theory, it makes sense that if an employer has more money available, they could pay more people. That is undeniable. Whether it happens or not...who knows...Although, we do know that when an employer has less money, they have no choice but to reduce headcount in order to remain profitable.

Also, at what point do the 'rich' decide that America is not the environment they want their money in due to excessive taxes? There must be some magic number where they decide to take their money elsewhere in order to keep more of it. What does that do to our economy? Instead of getting X% of millions or billions...Uncle Sam gets 0%. Big problem for the US, I'd say...

Lastly, I really don't think it is right for one group, regardless of financial status, to support other groups of people. The Robin Hood theory just doesn't cut it for me. Wealthy people should not be 'punished' for being successful by the govt seizing more and more of their money. Sure, I think the govt has a right to a certain amount, (don't know what that amount is...) but it becomes wrong at a certain % level to continue to take more and more.

First of all....the wage they pay an employee is 100% deductable. So when a company adds employees, they reduce their tax burden by reducing their profit. Hopefully, the employee helps them generate more sales so they make more profit. That is a good problem to have, so uncle sam takes a little bigger piece of the profit, it does not discourage the employer from wanting to make more. In fact, it probably encourages growth.

menmon
12-14-2010, 11:45 AM
That's excellent Buzz...I completely agree. BUT....


Government taxes are not equivalent to gifts or tithes...

So are you trying to say that I have a better chance of going to heaven by paying higher taxes?

No what he is saying is Jesus is progressive and thinks those blessed with more should carry a bigger burden. My understanding is that we should try to be Christ Like....The definition of a Christian.

david gibson
12-14-2010, 11:56 AM
No what he is saying is Jesus is progressive and thinks those blessed with more should carry a bigger burden. My understanding is that we should try to be Christ Like....The definition of a Christian.

the problem i have with this is that it also means that those who work harder end up carrying the burden for the lazy. just because i work harder to afford more for myself doesnt mean i should have to share it with those who choose not to do so. "working harder" is not syonomous with "blessed".

so what you are really saying is "those who are blessed with the aptitude to work harder should carry the burden for those who were not blessed with the desire to better themselves"

now THAT is the true progressive doctrine.

Buzz
12-14-2010, 12:00 PM
So are you trying to say that I have a better chance of going to heaven by paying higher taxes?


No. What Sambo said. I think if you're making more than $20,000 a month after deductions, you can probably do a little more to shoulder the load of operating a society than someone who must take food off the table in order to pay. I'm sure our kids will appreciate that we borrowed money from China to fund tax cuts.

menmon
12-14-2010, 12:02 PM
the problem i have with this is that it also means that those who work harder end up carrying the burden for the lazy. just because i work harder to afford more for myself doesnt mean i should have to share it with those who choose not to do so. "working harder" is not syonomous with "blessed".

so what you are really saying is "those who are blessed with the aptitude to work harder should carry the burden for those who were not blessed with the desire to better themselves"

now THAT is the true progressive doctrine.

The Lord says that the meek will inherit the earth. I'm sure you have heard the protacal son story. God made them that way and he wants us to take care of them. I bet you don't tithe 10% either.

road kill
12-14-2010, 12:03 PM
No. What Sambo said. I think if you're making more than $20,000 a month after deductions, you can probably do a little more to shoulder the load of operating a society than someone who must take food off the table in order to pay. I'm sure our kids will appreciate that we borrowed money from China to fund EXCESSIVE SPENDING.


Fixed!!;-)


RK

menmon
12-14-2010, 12:20 PM
No. What Sambo said. I think if you're making more than $20,000 a month after deductions, you can probably do a little more to shoulder the load of operating a society than someone who must take food off the table in order to pay. I'm sure our kids will appreciate that we borrowed money from China to fund tax cuts and excesssive spending.

Now it is fixed!

dnf777
12-14-2010, 12:30 PM
Sounds good to me. Lets raise taxes on the bottom 50% freeloaders that aren't paying anything in taxes.

How bout the upper 50% of fortune 500 companies that don't pay any taxes either while creating jobs in Mexico?

Buzz
12-14-2010, 01:26 PM
Now it is fixed!

Glad you guys are looking out for me.:)

ducknwork
12-14-2010, 09:50 PM
No. What Sambo said. I think if you're making more than $20,000 a month after deductions, you can probably do a little more to shoulder the load of operating a society than someone who must take food off the table in order to pay. I'm sure our kids will appreciate that we borrowed money from China to fund tax cuts.


If you are implying that the money that we are paying to the govt is to take care of those who need help...then think about this passage...
If the purpose of the money is to care for the needy (which is what God calls us to do), then we shouldn't be giving the money to the govt to do that...the money meant to care for others would be better off given to charity...(that's what Jesus is saying...)


Matthew 22:15-22 (New International Version, ©2010)



15 Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16 They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17 Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax[a] to Caesar or not?”
18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, 20 and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”

21 “Caesar’s,” they replied.

Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

22 When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.

Buzz
12-15-2010, 07:57 AM
If you are implying that the money that we are paying to the govt is to take care of those who need help...then think about this passage...



I think you're missing my point. I didn't say a word about taking care of people who need help.

But since you brought it up, consider, when do people need help the most? During hard times. During this recession charities have taken a huge hit in donations (you can look it up). So when times are toughest, charities are least able to help.

Franco
12-15-2010, 08:26 AM
Since several of y'all are quoting the New Testament in regards to taking care of the poor, shouldn't y'all be taking a vow of poverty and giving up all your worldly possessions and serve mankind fulltime? Or, do you just like the parts of it that suit you?

I am against raising taxes when there is so much waste by our Federal goverment. A goverment that has proven we can't afford! Instead of a debate on taxes, why not cut the Fed Governement and start running the country within a budget?

I know, it is a novel idea but instead of trying to tax or borrow the money so that the Feds can waste it, lets just cut the budget!

Buzz
12-15-2010, 09:55 AM
I know, it is a novel idea but instead of trying to tax or borrow the money so that the Feds can waste it, lets just cut the budget!

Don't worry, that day of reckoning is coming. I am convinced that it is a goal of the Republicans to force the government into default, or something close to it. Then there will be no choice, the programs they hated since the new deal will be decimated.

I figure that I have an extra 1/2 million to save to make up for social security. The problem is, there is no amount of money that I can probably save to make up for the loss of medicare. Medical costs will break us all.

ducknwork
12-15-2010, 10:49 AM
I didn't say a word about taking care of people who need help.



What is the govt going to do with our tax money?

mjh345
12-15-2010, 11:54 AM
What is the govt going to do with our tax money?

Wouldn't this qualify as a question wrapped in an enigma, wraped in mystery?

caryalsobrook
12-15-2010, 07:45 PM
Don't worry, that day of reckoning is coming. I am convinced that it is a goal of the Republicans to force the government into default, or something close to it. Then there will be no choice, the programs they hated since the new deal will be decimated.

I figure that I have an extra 1/2 million to save to make up for social security. The problem is, there is no amount of money that I can probably save to make up for the loss of medicare. Medical costs will break us all.

Nobody has to force the gov into default, they aare doing a pretty good job of it without any help from the Republicans.

depittydawg
12-15-2010, 07:54 PM
Nobody has to force the gov into default, they aare doing a pretty good job of it without any help from the Republicans.

"without the help of Republicans". How do you justify this statement. It makes absolutely no sense. Republican leadership in the White House and in congress, over the last 30 years has done more to bankrupt the Federal Government than any other force. At best, you can say they are on equal terms with Democrats but that is a long stretch.

Franco
12-15-2010, 08:05 PM
In my book, there isn't much difference between Dems and Repubs as they have both done an excellent job of screwing up!

Both parties have failed the American people. We have indivdual states addressing what the Feds should have been like; Arizona/immigration, Oklahoma/banning Saria Law, California/near legalization of MJ.

There is no leadership in DC which is a failure of the electorate.

Buzz
12-15-2010, 10:41 PM
In my book, there isn't much difference between Dems and Repubs as they have both done an excellent job of screwing up!

Both parties have failed the American people. We have indivdual states addressing what the Feds should have been like; Arizona/immigration, Oklahoma/banning Saria Law, California/near legalization of MJ.

There is no leadership in DC which is a failure of the electorate.


You seriously think that the federal government is negligent in not passing a law that specifically bans the application of sharia law in the US?

dnf777
12-16-2010, 04:53 AM
In my book, there isn't much difference between Dems and Repubs as they have both done an excellent job of screwing up!

Both parties have failed the American people. We have indivdual states addressing what the Feds should have been like; Arizona/immigration, Oklahoma/banning Saria Law, California/near legalization of MJ.

There is no leadership in DC which is a failure of the electorate.


Was the repeal of prohibition another failure of gov't to protect us from ourselves? (in reference to MJ)

Not to rekindle that old thread, but the gov't got it wrong. I'd rather see all those DWI guys and gals who kill and maim people, sitting at home eating nachos watching Beavis and Butthead. But I digress. :(

BrianW
12-16-2010, 07:46 AM
You seriously think that the federal government is negligent in not passing a law that specifically bans the application of sharia law in the US?
I think that a Federal ban on "sharia" would be one of those "feel good - do nothing" laws they're so good at wasting their time on.
Article 3 Section 1: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
A sharia court is already effectively "banned" until/unless Congress establishes one in my view.

caryalsobrook
12-16-2010, 07:48 AM
"without the help of Republicans". How do you justify this statement. It makes absolutely no sense. Republican leadership in the White House and in congress, over the last 30 years has done more to bankrupt the Federal Government than any other force. At best, you can say they are on equal terms with Democrats but that is a long stretch.

The last time I looked, thegov is made up of Republicans and Democrats. Oh, I forgot Sen Sanders of Vermont, a self described socialist who votes with Democrats almost all the time. Joe Lieberman an independent who votes most of the time with the Democrats.

Since 1960 dem presidents 22 years rep presidents 28 years. At 67 years of age, the only time I can remember that the Republicans controlled the House began during Clinton's Presidency with Newt as the speaker. Republiccans have controlled the Senate more than once but not nearly as many years as have the Democrats. Don't get me wrong, the Republicans deserve a share of the blame, especially during the last 10 years. but the rest of the time the dems have done an excellent job of deficit spending beginning with Lyndon Johnson's great society program with the help of a dem house and a dem senate. That program was touted to end all poverty in the US. Trillions of dollars and 45 years later, we still have the same arguements for the same policies to end poverty. Can't we figure out that continuing the same policies gives the same outcome? Evidently not.

BrianW
12-16-2010, 08:16 AM
Nobody has to force the gov into default, they are doing a pretty good job of it without any help from the Republicans.


"without the help of Republicans". How do you justify this statement. It makes absolutely no sense. Republican leadership in the White House and in congress, over the last 30 years has done more to bankrupt the Federal Government than any other force. At best, you can say they are on equal terms with Democrats but that is a long stretch.

I'm pretty sure Cary is referring to the present Congress, with the Dems in the current majority that is trying to get this presently 1.1 trillion dollar, 2000 page + omnibus spending bill passed despite that 40 cents our of every dollar is borrowed and continues with the "pedal to the metal" path to default.
We don't have the additional money anymore for federal beaver management, federal studies to develop virus free cranberries, and all the other crap spelled "earmarks" in this p.o.s. but here they are proving they don't know what the letters c-u-t mean & trying to give it one last gasp before Jan 4.
Moody's says they're going to downgrade our AAA rating if cuts aren't made but the powers that are, right now, can't seem to be bothered with that.

Buzz
12-16-2010, 08:33 AM
Moody's says they're going to downgrade our AAA rating if cuts aren't made but the powers that are, right now, can't seem to be bothered with that.

Moody's made that statement in response to the tax cut deal currently working its way through congress.

Look forward to a wholesale gutting of Social Security, justified by a federal fiscal crisis engineered through tax cuts. Just picture elderly beggars in every mall and grocery store parking lot. That is what the Bush tax cuts really represent, misery for elderly Americans, just so conservatives can have the satisfaction of burying Roosevelt.

Franco
12-16-2010, 09:03 AM
You seriously think that the federal government is negligent in not passing a law that specifically bans the application of sharia law in the US?




Yes! Because it sends a clear message that we are not open to thier way of justice. That if they don't like it, then don't migrate to the USA.

Lets face it, anyone that wants Sharia Law is not only a radical Muslim but, wants to change our culture!

caryalsobrook
12-16-2010, 09:33 AM
Moody's made that statement in response to the tax cut deal currently working its way through congress.

Look forward to a wholesale gutting of Social Security, justified by a federal fiscal crisis engineered through tax cuts. Just picture elderly beggars in every mall and grocery store parking lot. That is what the Bush tax cuts really represent, misery for elderly Americans, just so conservatives can have the satisfaction of burying Roosevelt.

I don't know how you can say that tax cuts and i assume that not letting the tax rates established during the Bust presidency expire is a tax cut. Social Security is funded by the payroll tax and has not been changed since the Reagan administration at which time the payroll tax was raised to its current level. I may be wrong but as I understand it, by law, general revenue cannot be used to fund Social Security.
All you have to do is look at the numbers. There are not enough people today let alone in the future to sustain Social Security benefits. Too many people riding in the wagon and not enough people pulling it. The sad fact is that the gov has spent today the contrbution that people have made to social security in expectation that the money would lbe here when they retire. Instead the gov has spent it making it the greatest ponzi scheme in this country's history and now the people who have paid into it will not have the benefits promised. Sorry that is just the facts and the numbers verify them. What a mess the gov has created by promising something that can't be delivered.

david gibson
12-16-2010, 09:34 AM
Yes! Because it sends a clear message that we are not open to thier way of justice. That if they don't like it, then don't migrate to the USA.

Lets face it, anyone that wants Sharia Law is not only a radical Muslim but, wants to change our culture!

oh now Franco, you are a religious intollerant racist!

welcome!

Franco
12-16-2010, 09:41 AM
oh now Franco, you are a religious intollerant racist!

welcome!

I consider it a badge of honor;-)

The American people have been asleep for the last 65 years, trusting thier government to do what is correct and they have let us down in most facets big time!

Buzz
12-16-2010, 10:43 AM
I don't know how you can say that tax cuts and i assume that not letting the tax rates established during the Bust presidency expire is a tax cut. Social Security is funded by the payroll tax and has not been changed since the Reagan administration at which time the payroll tax was raised to its current level. I may be wrong but as I understand it, by law, general revenue cannot be used to fund Social Security.
All you have to do is look at the numbers. There are not enough people today let alone in the future to sustain Social Security benefits. Too many people riding in the wagon and not enough people pulling it. The sad fact is that the gov has spent today the contrbution that people have made to social security in expectation that the money would lbe here when they retire. Instead the gov has spent it making it the greatest ponzi scheme in this country's history and now the people who have paid into it will not have the benefits promised. Sorry that is just the facts and the numbers verify them. What a mess the gov has created by promising something that can't be delivered.

I think you know that over the years, payroll taxes not needed to pay current beneficiaries were put into the "social security trust fund." Unlike private pension funds, this fund does not hold any marketable assets. It holds non-negotiable US Treasury Bonds and US Securities backed by "the full faith and credit of the US Government. The federal government includes securities within this "fund" in the overall national debt. These are not real assets that can be drawn down in the future to pay benefits. Instead they are claims that will have to be funded by increasing taxes or borrowing money from the public, otherwise benefits will have to be cut.

Actions that threaten the solvency of the US Government increase the likelihood that they will default on their obligations to future beneficiaries.

caryalsobrook
12-16-2010, 11:06 AM
I think you know that over the years, payroll taxes not needed to pay current beneficiaries were put into the "social security trust fund." Unlike private pension funds, this fund does not hold any marketable assets. It holds non-negotiable US Treasury Bonds and US Securities backed by "the full faith and credit of the US Government. The federal government includes securities within this "fund" in the overall national debt. These are not real assets that can be drawn down in the future to pay benefits. Instead they are claims that will have to be funded by increasing taxes or borrowing money from the public, otherwise benefits will have to be cut.

Actions that threaten the solvency of the US Government increase the likelihood that they will default on their obligations to future beneficiaries.

Even asuming the gov is good for the reserve of the SS trust fund, it already has a negative drain today. At its current rate it is projected to run out by about 2017l. Given an economic recoveryl, it still runs out within the next 20 years. The numbers don't lie. As I said, general revenue cannot be used to pay for SS. Ops who pays attention to law in the gov:). Payroll taxes wil have to be raised to sustain SS (less people pulling the wagon and more people riding in it and living longer) and income taxes will have to be raised to repay the SS trust fund. I suspect a needs test for SS in the near future- maybe if you have retiremant income equal or greater than your SS benefits, then you will not receive SS at all, no matter how much you paid into it. Happy days to come in the future. Makes you really want to save for your retirement and save for additional comfort if they needs test for SS benefits.

menmon
12-16-2010, 01:22 PM
Since several of y'all are quoting the New Testament in regards to taking care of the poor, shouldn't y'all be taking a vow of poverty and giving up all your worldly possessions and serve mankind fulltime? Or, do you just like the parts of it that suit you?

I am against raising taxes when there is so much waste by our Federal goverment. A goverment that has proven we can't afford! Instead of a debate on taxes, why not cut the Fed Governement and start running the country within a budget?

I know, it is a novel idea but instead of trying to tax or borrow the money so that the Feds can waste it, lets just cut the budget!

But you elected those that wasted it and you pay for their mistakes whether you like it or not.

Franco
12-16-2010, 01:43 PM
But you elected those that wasted it and you pay for their mistakes whether you like it or not.


I didn't vote for Clinton or Obama. I did vote for Bush43 but given the alternatives of Gore and Kerry, I hate to think where we would have been had Bush 43 lost. Had Gore been in charge during 911 we would probably be paying billions in tribute to Bin Laudin's thugs.

I've never voted for a Democrat to represent my state except for the last election.

I've always been against entitlements and other government feel-good waste projects and I was against nation building in Iraq and A'Stan from the beginning so, blame someone else.

Oh, and I am also against all the bailouts. I knew we were headed for a financial crash and have been telling people for years that the crooks are in charge and they mostly work on Wall St. and I refuse to own any stock until we get some meaningful banking reform.

!!!

menmon
12-16-2010, 01:48 PM
The last time I looked, thegov is made up of Republicans and Democrats. Oh, I forgot Sen Sanders of Vermont, a self described socialist who votes with Democrats almost all the time. Joe Lieberman an independent who votes most of the time with the Democrats.

Since 1960 dem presidents 22 years rep presidents 28 years. At 67 years of age, the only time I can remember that the Republicans controlled the House began during Clinton's Presidency with Newt as the speaker. Republiccans have controlled the Senate more than once but not nearly as many years as have the Democrats. Don't get me wrong, the Republicans deserve a share of the blame, especially during the last 10 years. but the rest of the time the dems have done an excellent job of deficit spending beginning with Lyndon Johnson's great society program with the help of a dem house and a dem senate. That program was touted to end all poverty in the US. Trillions of dollars and 45 years later, we still have the same arguements for the same policies to end poverty. Can't we figure out that continuing the same policies gives the same outcome? Evidently not.

For the record, the national debt started ballooning during Regan when the republicans got a senate majority. Since then, they have had more control that anytime over the last 200 years, and they have not done anything about deficits or debt.

menmon
12-16-2010, 01:50 PM
I didn't vote for Clinton or Obama. I did vote for Bush43 but given the alternatives of Gore and Kerry, I hate to think where we would have been had Bush 43 lost. Had Gore been in charge during 911 we would probably be paying billions in tribute to Bin Laudin's thugs.

I've never voted for a Democrat to represent my state except for the last election.

I've always been against entitlements and other government feel-good waste projects and I was against nation building in Iraq and A'Stan from the beginning so, blame someone else.

Oh, and I am also against all the bailouts. I knew we were headed for a financial crash and have been telling people for years that the crooks are in charge and they mostly work on Wall St. and I refuse to own any stock until we get some meaningful banking reform.

!!!


I don't agree with most of what has been spent but it still has to be paid back even though I may have not voted for it.

Franco
12-16-2010, 01:50 PM
For the record, the national debt started ballooning during Regan when the republicans got a senate majority. Since then, they have had more control that anytime over the last 200 years, and they have not done anything about deficits or debt.

Much of that debt was a result of the entitlment/welfare state created by LBJ. And, it is Reagan.

Franco
12-16-2010, 01:57 PM
I don't agree with most of what has been spent but it still has to be paid back even though I may have not voted for it.

Just don't blame me for it!

I am an old fashioned conservative/libetarian.

I believe the only thing the Fed Gooberment should be involved in is;
Protecting the Constitution
Protecting its citizens
Maintaining an infastructure for commerce
Protecting our boarders

PERIOD!

menmon
12-16-2010, 02:07 PM
Since several of y'all are quoting the New Testament in regards to taking care of the poor, shouldn't y'all be taking a vow of poverty and giving up all your worldly possessions and serve mankind fulltime? Or, do you just like the parts of it that suit you?

I am against raising taxes when there is so much waste by our Federal goverment. A goverment that has proven we can't afford! Instead of a debate on taxes, why not cut the Fed Governement and start running the country within a budget?

I know, it is a novel idea but instead of trying to tax or borrow the money so that the Feds can waste it, lets just cut the budget!

FYI - If I'm fortunate enough to leave something behind it is willed to the Shriners Hospitals.

menmon
12-16-2010, 02:13 PM
Much of that debt was a result of the entitlment/welfare state created by LBJ. And, it is Reagan.

I agree LBJ played a big hand, but I'm pretty sure he thought those that followed him would be responsible, too.

Buzz
12-16-2010, 02:24 PM
My philosophy in a nutshell.

None of the spending I agree with contributed in any way to our debt.
What caused it was the spending that I disagree with.:-x ;-)

dnf777
12-16-2010, 02:29 PM
My philosophy in a nutshell.

None of the spending I agree with contributed in any way to our debt.
What caused it was the spending that I disagree with.:-x ;-)

That's an interesting take. Pretty much what I think too, now that you put it that way. Its sad that we're being taxed, to pay for the republican's spending, all the while being called "tax and spenders"! :(

BrianW
12-16-2010, 02:29 PM
Moody's made that statement in response to the tax cut deal currently working its way through congress. .
I realize this is ancient news from all the back in March, Moody’s Says U.S. Debt Could Test Triple-A Rating
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/16/business/global/16rating.html , but they are concerned about the debt in general, not just tax rate maintenance & continuation of UI benefits.
A downgrade would affect more than American pride. The bigger risk would be to the country’s ability to keep borrowing money on extremely favorable terms, and therefore to keep spending more money than it takes in from tax revenue.

caryalsobrook
12-16-2010, 02:38 PM
For the record, the national debt started ballooning during Regan when the republicans got a senate majority. Since then, they have had more control that anytime over the last 200 years, and they have not done anything about deficits or debt.

For the record, the democrats had control of the House for all of Reagan's 2 terms and had a senate majority his last term. Score House Democrats 100% house Republicans 0% , Senate Democrats 50% Senate Republicans 50%. Total Score Democrats 75%-Republicans 25%.
Don't get me wrong, it surely can be argued that the Republicans were little or no different than the Democrats. As a percent of GDP, Gov. expenditures have only risen slightly since 1960 with the exception of the current president and legislative branch. Discretionary spending under these 2 has risen over 70% in the last 2 years and spending in 2009 as a percent of GDP rose in the year 2009 more than it had in the total of all years since 1980. I didn't go back any further.
Without a doubt, entitlements(non discretionary spending) are the driving force in the national debt and no amount of tax increases will offset them. The numbers don't lie and it is only a matter of time before this fact will become evident.

Buzz
12-16-2010, 02:43 PM
Regarding a "surge" in government spending vs. spending as a percent of GDP - fractions have denominators...

http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/govcurrpercent.PNG


http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/govcurr.PNG

caryalsobrook
12-16-2010, 03:38 PM
Regarding a "surge" in government spending vs. spending as a percent of GDP - fractions have denominators...

http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/govcurrpercent.PNG


http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/govcurr.PNG

lBuzz your graph of 2008 and 2009 are deceptive if not an outright lie. The TARP money appropriated in 2008 (800 billion) under bush is shown as an expenditure under Bush. Most with the exception of that given to Fanny Mae, Freddy Mac, GM, and Chrysler has been repaid but still shows as an expenditure under Bush. The repayment of this money is reflected as income under Obama and is shown as a reduction of the debt in 2009 and 2010. Bush loans it out and it goes as an expense, Obama collects it and it goes as revenue during his administration. As I said discretionary expenditures have risen OVER 70% since Obama took office.

road kill
12-16-2010, 03:41 PM
Regarding a "surge" in government spending vs. spending as a percent of GDP - fractions have denominators...

http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/govcurrpercent.PNG


http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/govcurr.PNG

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.":D



RK

menmon
12-16-2010, 03:50 PM
For the record, the democrats had control of the House for all of Reagan's 2 terms and had a senate majority his last term. Score House Democrats 100% house Republicans 0% , Senate Democrats 50% Senate Republicans 50%. Total Score Democrats 75%-Republicans 25%.
Don't get me wrong, it surely can be argued that the Republicans were little or no different than the Democrats. As a percent of GDP, Gov. expenditures have only risen slightly since 1960 with the exception of the current president and legislative branch. Discretionary spending under these 2 has risen over 70% in the last 2 years and spending in 2009 as a percent of GDP rose in the year 2009 more than it had in the total of all years since 1980. I didn't go back any further.
Without a doubt, entitlements(non discretionary spending) are the driving force in the national debt and no amount of tax increases will offset them. The numbers don't lie and it is only a matter of time before this fact will become evident.

read my post again...it says the senate

menmon
12-16-2010, 03:55 PM
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.":D



RK

RK

Your graph says it all. If you will look close the spending suge quits when Obama took office. yes it has continued to rise but nothing like what it did during bush's rein

Sambo

Buzz
12-16-2010, 04:36 PM
RK

Your graph says it all. If you will look close the spending suge quits when Obama took office. yes it has continued to rise but nothing like what it did during bush's rein

Sambo

And if we'd have had growth of say 3 or 3.5% over that period, the spending as a percent of GDP would have been WAY flatter. Denominators have consequences!

caryalsobrook
12-16-2010, 04:56 PM
read my post again...it says the senate

I saw that and itwas quite misleading, sort of like saying your team scored 100 points, neglecting to mention that my team scored 110 pts don't you think??

menmon
12-17-2010, 01:56 PM
I saw that and itwas quite misleading, sort of like saying your team scored 100 points, neglecting to mention that my team scored 110 pts don't you think??

What was misleading about Reagan spending like a drucken sailor. And his senate majority letting him do it.

caryalsobrook
12-17-2010, 04:29 PM
What was misleading about Reagan spending like a drucken sailor. And his senate majority letting him do it.

Let me try again to make this as plain as possible. The DEMOCRATS controlled the senate HALF of Reagan's presidency and controlled the House ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of his presidency. It takes BOTH houses to pass an appropriations bill. I suspect you would not see any DIFFERENCE in spending between the 4 years that the republicans controlled the senate and the democrats controlled the house and the 4 years that the democrats controlled both houses. I certainly will agree that the government spent too much money during Reagan's presidency. I will say that if you would catagorize Reagan as spending money like a drunken sailer, then I would say that our current president and curent house and senate are spending money like democrat lunitics. Oh I know it is Bush's fault, well if that is the case then it wasn't Reagan's fault, it was CARTER'S fault(a little stupidity for humor's sake-lets always blame someone else for our own failure, why not we have a gov that rewards failure and punishes success- great concept)

depittydawg
12-17-2010, 08:54 PM
Let me try again to make this as plain as possible. The DEMOCRATS controlled the senate HALF of Reagan's presidency and controlled the House ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of his presidency. It takes BOTH houses to pass an appropriations bill. I suspect you would not see any DIFFERENCE in spending between the 4 years that the republicans controlled the senate and the democrats controlled the house and the 4 years that the democrats controlled both houses. I certainly will agree that the government spent too much money during Reagan's presidency. I will say that if you would catagorize Reagan as spending money like a drunken sailer, then I would say that our current president and curent house and senate are spending money like democrat lunitics. Oh I know it is Bush's fault, well if that is the case then it wasn't Reagan's fault, it was CARTER'S fault(a little stupidity for humor's sake-lets always blame someone else for our own failure, why not we have a gov that rewards failure and punishes success- great concept)

You are correct. What Reagan, and the congress' of that day gave us was the concept that everybody can have anything they want and nobody needs to worry about paying for it. This legacy has been followed right up to this very week. by the current White House buffoon and Congressional Crooks.
Dick Cheney, "As Reagan taught us, deficits don't matter".