Socialism On The March

37 replies [Last post]
Provocative Put's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-10-14

I believe that high on the list of reasons the stock market continues
to tank is the expectation that socialists will be in power and
socialism doesn't play well with the investment world.

So that you're up to date on what is being talked about I offer this
four minute glimpse into who appears to be our next president. 
What he has to say strikes terror into the hearts of decent people in
this country.

If you're in this business and vote for him you're too stupid to be allowed to live.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

Provocative Put's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-10-14

Consider this.  What would happen if Nancy Pelosi decides that our
oil companies should be owned by government instead of stockholders?

What if Harry Reid agrees, as do 59 other socialist leaning Senators?

Do you think President Obama would sign such a law?

UNDERMINDED's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-10-14

Its simply terrifying.
 
"Man is not free unless government is limited"
-Ronald Reagan

now_indy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-07-28

“Democracy should be more than two coyotes and a rabbit voting on what to have for dinner.” ~ Ronald Reagan

 
Why can't people see that?!  Obama is playing to the coyotes (people who make under $250k) against the rabbits (people who make over $250k).
 
Where is Reagan when you need him?

snaggletooth's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-07-13

now_indy wrote:“Democracy should be more than two coyotes and a rabbit voting on what to have for dinner.” ~ Ronald Reagan

 
Why can't people see that?!  Obama is playing to the coyotes (people who make under $250k) against the rabbits (people who make over $250k).
 
Where is Reagan when you need him?
 
Umm, dead, unfortunately...

anabuhabkuss's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-02

Provocative Put wrote:I believe that high on the list of reasons the stock market continues to tank is the expectation that socialists will be in power and socialism doesn't play well with the investment world.So that you're up to date on what is being talked about I offer this four minute glimpse into who appears to be our next president.  If you're in this business and vote for him you're too stupid to be allowed to live.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck
 
Or it could be because we have a housing and credit crunch? Just a hunch to consider when one doesn't ponder your baseless theories that paint you to be nothing but an unnecessary extremist taking up precious Oxygen.
 
Provocative Put wrote: What he has to say strikes terror into the hearts of decent people in this country.
 
Proof please? (ie Findings of the surveys you conducted with a group of "decent" people etc. Thanks.
Provocative Put wrote: Consider this.  What would happen if Nancy Pelosi decides that our oil companies should be owned by government instead of stockholders?What if Harry Reid agrees, as do 59 other socialist leaning Senators?Do you think President Obama would sign such a law?
Why would I consider this and how is it a much more fruitful needless hypothetical than what would happen if Provocative Put finally came out and admitted to the rumors of his acting out on fantasies with little boys?
 
How?
 
I mean seriously, you are a delusional conspiracy theorist who needs a reality check in the form of a shotgun blast to the face.

Indyone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-31

This election signifies, as much as anything, why some founding fathers felt that democracy could not survive long-term.  I don't recall which one said it, but one reason democracy was expected to fail by some scholars and leaders of the revolutionary era, was that the public would feel compelled to vote itself largess from the government treasury to the extent that the government would eventually be bankrupted.  This appears to be a real possibilty with a Democrat sweep.  Frankly, the spending over the last eight years leaves Republicans without an effective counterpoint and the election essentially goes to the candidate promising the most goodies and speaking the most eloquently.  Some days, even John McCain sounds like a Democrat.
 
Fundamentally, I cannot vote for a man who has chosen to associate with domestic terrorists, orgainizations active in voter fraud and religious hate-mongers.  Fundamentally, I cannot vote for a man who has shown no mercy towards unborn children.  Fundamentally, I cannot vote for a man who rewards apathy and sloth by spreading the wealth around.  Fundamentally, I cannot vote for a man who intends to try to tax the country into prosperity.  Fundamentally, I cannot vote for a man with far less executive experience than Sarah Palin.
 
Fundamentally, I cannot vote for a man who would bring our troops home prematurely, creating a haven and breeding ground for future terrorists to come here and re-visit 9-11 on us all over again.  His own VP candidate expects that we will be tested in the first six months of his presidency.  That job is close to finished...let's finish it and then withdraw.  This timetable crap is one of the dumbest military ideas I've ever heard and underscores Obama's complete ignorance of military operations.  What if congress had told George Washington that if he couldn't get a complete victory in four years, that we would end the war and re-subject ourselves to the rule of the crown?  What do you suppose the British military would have done upon hearing such nonsense?  Do you think that it's possible that terrorists in Iraq are simply biding their time waiting for the day that Obama clears the way for them to overthrow the fledgling democratic government and install an Iran-style theocracy in it's place?
 
The Republican party shares very much in the blame for what we face today.  Had they showed more fiscal restraint over the last eight years and acted more like traditional Republicans, they might have had a chance.  I'm not at all convinced that they put forth the best candidate, but it may well have not mattered.  The electorate appears determined to put an unproven socialist in the oval office, so we're just going to have to suck it up and endure the next four years.  This man is a far cry from Bill Clinton, who, aside from being an amoral toad, was at least a centrist and governed fairly effectively as one.
 
I'll be voting in an apparently hopeless cause, for John McCain.  At least I'll be able to say with a clear conscience that I bear no responsibility for the mess known as the Obama years.  God help us all...or at least those of us who didn't vote for the Chosen One...

anabuhabkuss's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-02

indyone wrote:At least I'll be able to say with a clear conscience that I bear no responsibility for the mess known as the Obama years.  God help us all...
 
That's funny; that's exactly what people said about Gore to justify a Bush administration. No offense but..you don't have a crystal ball. Don't fear a future that has yet to or might never happen.
 
indyone wrote:This timetable crap is one of the dumbest military ideas I've ever heard and underscores Obama's complete ignorance of military operations. 
 
Not to be rude, but you're a financial advisor. I'll put my faith in a candidate who has Colin Powell's (someone who has really challenged the GOP) ear rather than someone who doesn't (ie. You, GOP, girl working at the GAP, etc).
 
Fundamentally,  are you voting for someone who has voted 90% of the time with one of the worst administrations in history (and that's saying something with regard to having Nixon included) just because you know little about Obama's interaction with Ayer? The guilty by association is getting really freaking immature to hear/read about from other people. If someone I know spews hatred bigotry that he/she held in for so long that automatically makes me racist? The words racist/terrorist and associate are not mutually exclusive, yeah?
 
Fundamentally, the fact that you put Palin at a better light than Obama is kinda embarrassing (and quite frankly, the executive experience is only a fraction of a much bigger puzzle that should be considered). You're talking about a woman who blames Catie Couric for being stumped on live national television, an interview, that asked specific questions on foreign policy and the economy none of which Palin had any answers to. Did Palin's executive experience pan out for her to answer questions that are fundamentally more important than most of the hypotheticals that you posted? Might I remind you that executive experience and good intentions are also NOT mutually exclusive (looks at CEOS amidst current crisis). I wonder, given her experience why the hell would her own party want her out of the lim light that they shone? Hmm. Again, deal breaker? Maybe not, just another peice ina  much bigger puzzle that you're overlooking.
 
The problem with our electoral system, is it allows people like you to make decisions based on no merit. Just because I don't like Carlos in Payroll, doesn't mean I never get my checks on time. **** we still have a long ways to go as a nation. What next? A muslim won't be qualified to be president? Oh wait...
 
 
 

Rugby's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-06-06

anabuhabkuss wrote:  
I mean seriously, you are a delusional conspiracy theorist who needs a reality check in the form of a shotgun blast to the face.Instead of your angry rants, why don't you post about the subject of the thread...socialism ideals and Obama.You don't come across as very thoughtful or intelligent with this off subject ranting and attacks.   If its all BS, debunk it.  Have a look at your star VP candidate, Joe Biden, in recent interviews with FL and Philly news affiliates discussing Marx, socialism etc.  His reaction can't be helpful to O campaign down the stretch.... This and the just surfaced Obama 2001 audio interview with more  "wealth distributions" pontificating could make this a nail biter versus a landslide next TUES.IMHO though...The market seems to be telling us that Obama is likely going to win and it does not like it.  THe WSJ wrote something about the deleveraging of capitalism with liberal Obama ideals (wealth dist.) and Dem. majority in the House and Senate.   

HymanRoth's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-08-25

anabuhabkuss wrote: 
Fundamentally,  are you voting for someone who has voted 90% of the time with one of the worst administrations in history (and that's saying something with regard to having Nixon included) just because you know little about Obama's interaction with Ayer? The guilty by association is getting really freaking immature to hear/read about from other people. If someone I know spews hatred bigotry that he/she held in for so long that automatically makes me racist? The words racist/terrorist and associate are not mutually exclusive, yeah?
 
Fundamentally, the fact that you put Palin at a better light than Obama is kinda embarrassing (and quite frankly, the executive experience is only a fraction of a much bigger puzzle that should be considered).  Please explain to us your objective evidence that the current administration is "one of the worst in history"....or are you just repeating something you heard on TV?Guilt by association?  How about lying?  Obama attended Wright's UCC church for 20 years, was married by Jeremiah Wright, and his children were baptized by Jeremiah Wright.So when was Obama lying?  When he claimed that he never realized that Wright promoted such racially divisive, hateful, and ridiculuous positions(We deserved 9/11 and maybe worse...the Federal government create AIDs to attack his people, to name a few), or was he lying when he claimed he was an active member of Wright's congregation.  Which was it?Either way, he's lying.  Do you really feel good about supporting an inexperienced politician who is lying to you BEFORE he even gets elected?How do you know that he isn't lying when he says he will only raise taxes on the top 5% of income earners?

bspears's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-11-08

Yah but..he's one helluva orator. I mean, he can talk and talk and talk and not say shit.  I heard a clip of him and Hillary being questioned by Charlie Gibson?? on capital gains taxation.  He wants to increase and Charlie was pointing out how the Gov brings in more when they cut the tax and a lot less when they raised in the 80's.  He glossed over the question and wants the distribution to be fair and wants money for universal health and infrastructure.  He wants to raise capital gains, bring in less tax money and spend more money.  WHAT A DUMBASS.  I BET HIS WIFE WIPES HIS PUSSY ASS!!!!

Indyone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-31

anabuhabkuss wrote:indyone wrote:At least I'll be able to say with a clear conscience that I bear no responsibility for the mess known as the Obama years.  God help us all...
 
That's funny; that's exactly what people said about Gore to justify a Bush administration. No offense but..you don't have a crystal ball. Don't fear a future that has yet to or might never happen. I don't believe you had a crystal ball in 2000 either, but you're certainly acting like it today.  Sure, that's a fine justification to give the reins fo the world's biggest economy to a Harvard educated lawyer with essentially two years of senate experience. 
 
indyone wrote:This timetable crap is one of the dumbest military ideas I've ever heard and underscores Obama's complete ignorance of military operations. 
 
Not to be rude, but you're a financial advisor. I'll put my faith in a candidate who has Colin Powell's (someone who has really challenged the GOP) ear rather than someone who doesn't (ie. You, GOP, girl working at the GAP, etc). ...and I'll try not to be rude back, but I have serious doubts that Colin Powell, even though he's in the tank for Barack, would think that a timetable to exit Iraq, whether or not the job is done is actually a good idea.  As I said earlier, do you think it would have been a good idea to put a victory deadline on the American Revolution?  I'll trust John McCain's military judgement to someone's who's never donned a uniform.  If you think an arbitrary exit timetable is a good idea, please...enlighten me as to why. 
Fundamentally,  are you voting for someone who has voted 90% of the time with one of the worst administrations in history (and that's saying something with regard to having Nixon included) just because you know little about Obama's interaction with Ayer? The guilty by association is getting really freaking immature to hear/read about from other people. If someone I know spews hatred bigotry that he/she held in for so long that automatically makes me racist? The words racist/terrorist and associate are not mutually exclusive, yeah?  Ummm, yeah.  I have a serious problem with many of Obama's associations.  One I could have overlooked, but the list just keeps growing.  Character is important to me and what's immature is ignoring all the flaws and just voting for the rock star because he's exciting and different.  I'm not saying your doing that, but it's interesting to see the interviews of Obama supporters who have no idea what his platform actually is.  If you tell me that you're not the least bit troubled by some of the folks that Barack has been associated with, then it's my opinion that you're the one making decisions without any merit.
 
Fundamentally, the fact that you put Palin at a better light than Obama is kinda embarrassing (and quite frankly, the executive experience is only a fraction of a much bigger puzzle that should be considered). I simply stated a fact there.  Obama is seriously lacking in executive experience and apparently that doesn't at all bother at least the bulk of his supporters who are more than willing to overlook what I see as a pretty serious concern.  It's not simply the lack of executive experience, it's the lack of almost any relevant experience.  Surely you can't think that Obama is battle-tested and ready to serve as president when you look at his resume with an objective eye.  You're talking about a woman who blames Catie Couric for being stumped on live national television, an interview, that asked specific questions on foreign policy and the economy none of which Palin had any answers to. Did Palin's executive experience pan out for her to answer questions that are fundamentally more important than most of the hypotheticals that you posted? I think your suppositions are a stretch to put it mildly.  Yes, the media would like you to think that she's completely incapable of running a shoe store, probably because she was initially seen as a serious threat to Barack's star power.  I don't expect you to believe that the bulk of the media behaved in a partisan manner with plenty of "gotcha" questions for Sarah Palin while lobbing softballs at Obama...no...that never happened.  What still amazes me is that she's getting all that attention and she's not even at the top of the ticket.  Might I remind you that executive experience and good intentions are also NOT mutually exclusive (looks at CEOS amidst current crisis). Based on your premise, this sentence makes no sense at all.  You're essentially saying that experienced executives usually mean to do right.  What's your point here?  I wonder, given her experience why the hell would her own party want her out of the lim light that they shone? Interesting...I see her doing a lot of events these days...she's hardly out of the limelight.  Hmm. Again, deal breaker? Maybe not, just another peice ina  much bigger puzzle that you're overlooking.  I'm curious as to what puzzle you are actually looking at.  My puzzle is trying to figure out how we are at the threshold of electing a breath-takingly inexperienced first-term senator to the highest office in the land.  Where did all of the support money come from?  Who is shaping his agenda and platform?  Where is the money for all of the goodies in his speeches going to come from?  One thing for certain, it will be very interesting to see how many of these promises made to get elected are actually kept.
 
The problem with our electoral system, is it allows people like you to make decisions based on no merit. Actually, it's had the opposite effect on me as I've aged.  When I was young, I supported people because they were new/fresh or more interesting, etc.  I didn't really take that much time to consider whath their actual policy positions were.  That kind of thinking is what got Jimmy Carter elected and If I were 20 years younger, I'd probably be fairly clueless about most issues and vote for Obama primarily based on the excitement he's able to generate.  You can accuse me of making decisions not based on merit, but actually a merit-based system is what I've come to prefer...not a system that redistributes my wealth to those unwilling to make their own way.  I'm fine with helping those in need, but just sending a check to everyone, whether they pay taxes or not is not a merit system.  It's more or less just buying votes.  Just because I don't like Carlos in Payroll, doesn't mean I never get my checks on time. **** we still have a long ways to go as a nation. What next? A muslim won't be qualified to be president? Oh wait...You can accuse me of being a racist or discriminating according to religion, but accusations stand far from the truth.  I was prepared to vote for a Mormon, and I'm not a Mormon.  I simply found that, on merit, he appeared to be the best qualified candidate for the office, something I have most assuredly not seen out of the chosen one.  If I were wanting someone to deliver a stirring speech to whip up patriotic fervor, or something similar, I'd hire Barack.  Judging the oval office to be above his pay grade is simply an opinion that I'm comfortable in sharing.  It doesn't make me a racist or a bigot or any thing of the sort.  If you want to see some evidence of racism in Barack's favor, look no farther than the 93% of African Americans that support his candidacy.  Not anywhere close to 93% of Caucasians support McCain. [/quote]
 
I'll concede the presidency to your candidate...and I'll hope like heck that all you intelligent Obama supporters are right about your man's ability to run the country.  I'm not going to threaten to leave the country or anything stupid like that if he's elected, but neither will I blindly accept everything he says as words from the Messiah.

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

OMG!OMG!OMG!OMG!OMG!OMG!OMG!OMG!OMG!OMG!OMG!OMG!OMG!OMG!OMG!OMG!OMG!
 

One of you actually said something positive about Bill Clinton
 
It's over-the world has come to an end.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

anabuhabkuss wrote:indyone wrote:At least I'll be able to say with a clear conscience that I bear no responsibility for the mess known as the Obama years.  God help us all...
 
That's funny; that's exactly what people said about Gore to justify a Bush administration. No offense but..you don't have a crystal ball. Don't fear a future that has yet to or might never happen.
 
indyone wrote:This timetable crap is one of the dumbest military ideas I've ever heard and underscores Obama's complete ignorance of military operations. 
 
Not to be rude, but you're a financial advisor. I'll put my faith in a candidate who has Colin Powell's (someone who has really challenged the GOP) ear rather than someone who doesn't (ie. You, GOP, girl working at the GAP, etc).
 
Fundamentally,  are you voting for someone who has voted 90% of the time with one of the worst administrations in history This is one the things about this election that bothers me the most.  I do not believe that Bush has been a good president, nor do I approve of his spending, but let's place blame where it is due for the current fiasco and truly look at Bush's policies. 
 
Bush was handed a recession and a bear market when he took office.  Please tell me how his policies caused this.  Add in the fact of 9/11, it made it all worse.  Clinton's handling of Bin Laden and Al Queda could have been much better.  What did Bush's policies do?  How about a 5 year bull market. 
 
Let's look at the root cause of what we are going through now.  DELEVERAGING.  LACK OF CREDIT.  Who caused this?  Clinton started the ball rolling when he repealed the Glass-Steagal act.  Made it worse when he determined that owning a house made you an upstanding citizen instead of the other way around and told Fannie and Freddie to give loans to just about anyone.  This led to leverage on a scale we have never seen, and a real estate market bubble of enormous size.  BTW, McCain started talking TWO YEARS ago about reining in Freddie and Fannie.  Where was Osama (not a typing error)?  He was enjoying their campaign contributions.  The scariest part is Clinton was a centrist, Osama has to look to the right to see the far left.  HIS OWN RUNNING MATE SAID HE WAS NOT QUALIFIED.  HE WILL TAKE MONEY AWAY FROM THOSE WHO EARNED IT AND GIVE IT TO THOSE LOOKING FOR A HANDOUT.  MORE TO FOLLOW ON THAT. (and that's saying something with regard to having Nixon included) just because you know little about Obama's interaction with Ayer? The guilty by association is getting really freaking immature to hear/read about from other people. If someone I know spews hatred bigotry that he/she held in for so long that automatically makes me racist? The words racist/terrorist and associate are not mutually exclusive, yeah?
 
Fundamentally, the fact that you put Palin at a better light than Obama is kinda embarrassing (and quite frankly, the executive experience is only a fraction of a much bigger puzzle that should be considered). You're talking about a woman who blames Catie Couric for being stumped on live national television, an interview, that asked specific questions on foreign policy and the economy none of which Palin had any answers to. Did Palin's executive experience pan out for her to answer questions that are fundamentally more important than most of the hypotheticals that you posted? Might I remind you that executive experience and good intentions are also NOT mutually exclusive (looks at CEOS amidst current crisis). I wonder, given her experience why the hell would her own party want her out of the lim light that they shone? Hmm. Again, deal breaker? Maybe not, just another peice ina  much bigger puzzle that you're overlooking.
 
The problem with our electoral system, is it allows people like you to make decisions based on no merit. Just because I don't like Carlos in Payroll, doesn't mean I never get my checks on time. **** we still have a long ways to go as a nation. What next? A muslim won't be qualified to be president? Oh wait...
 
 
 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

INTERESTING READ
 
Paving the Road to France
 
It is hard to imagine that markets are not being affected by the potential for major changes in US tax policy.  Senator Obama says he wants tax rates back where they were in 2000, while Senator McCain says he wants to keep income tax rates down to a maximum of 35%.  With both the House and Senate in Democratic control, Mr. Obama will have an easier time following through on his plans than Mr. McCain.
 
Mr. Obama has also said he wants to push up tax rates on investment and does not agree that corporate tax rates should be cut.  Senator Obama’s proposals would not only harm the investment landscape, but they would also make the tax system substantially more “progressive.”  In particular, Mr. Obama wants to raise taxes on “the rich,” but “cut” taxes for 95% of Americans.  He does this by giving $500 to anyone who is in the workforce and earns between $8,000 and $75,000 per year.  In addition, he would use tax credits to further subsidize daycare, college, and unwed (working) parents.
 
In many cases, these are not really tax cuts at all but spending programs dressed up as “tax cuts.”  The IRS will send out the check rather than some other government agency.  This is a modern day version of the negative income tax, and it would make the burden of taxes fall even more heavily on those with higher incomes.  This is hard to imagine.
 
In 2005, the most recent year available, the top 1% of households (by income) paid 39% of all income taxes.  The top 40% of households paid 99% of income taxes.
 
These percentages surpass late 1970s levels when the top income tax rate was 70%.  Some say that looking at just income taxes overstates the burden on the wealthy, but when Social Security, Medicare, corporate, and excise taxes are included, the top 40% of income earners still pay a whopping 86% of the overall federal tax burden.
 
Senator Obama apparently believes that this is not enough.  His tax plan would make the system even more progressive and would push the US perilously close to the “tipping point,” when more than 50% of Americans would pay no income taxes at all.
 
One implication is that, in any given year, most potential voters will have no direct stake in the federal government spending responsibly.  Another is that the federal budget will depend even more on the strength of the economy.  Periods of relatively fast economic growth will lead to soaring revenue, while slower growth (or recession) will cause sharper declines.
 
In the end, the kind of progressivity proposed by Mr. Obama is not sustainable over the long run.  Policymakers, hungry for revenue to finance further expansions in government spending – like national health care, or just meeting the huge unfunded liabilities already built into Social Security and Medicare – will eventually find that upscale taxpayers are tapped out and that the only way to get more revenue is to tax the middle class.
 
After all, the government is so big that it cannot possibly fund itself on just the rich.  For example, if the US government confiscated the total wealth of the Forbes 400 – a total of $1.6 trillion – it could only finance the US budget for about 6 months.  And if it did that it would take away billions in charity money such as that pushed into the Gates Foundation by Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.  So, the only way to generate more money is to tax the middle class.
 
One way to do that would be to introduce Western Europe’s favorite tax: the Value Added Tax.  This would actually tax the middle class even more than if marginal income taxes were raised, while making the tax code less progressive.
 
In the end, it is clear that financial markets have many things to fear.  Income redistribution, like France and other social welfare states, leads the list.

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

The longer this goes the more ludicrous it gets.
 
Bush just socialized the banking system and not a peep on this thread about that. But wait a minute, give the money to the people instead of the corporations OMGOMGOMG it's socialism run amuck! It's the end of the country.
 
You guys are funny. your short and curlys are so twisted your like a dog chasing its tail.
 
And on that money bush handed out, the ink isn't even dry on the checks yet and those mother effers are already stealing the money. 25 mil for two weeks work? PNC using 5bil of its 7bil hand out to buy another bank. Yeah, lets keep doing that instead of helping real people who need real help.
 
 
 
 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

BondGuy wrote:The longer this goes the more ludicrous it gets.
 
Bush just socialized the banking system and not a peep on this thread about that. But wait a minute, give the money to the people instead of the corporations OMGOMGOMG it's socialism run amuck! It's the end of the country.
 
You guys are funny. your short and curlys are so twisted your like a dog chasing its tail.
 
And on that money bush handed out, the ink isn't even dry on the checks yet and those mother effers are already stealing the money. 25 mil for two weeks work? PNC using 5bil of its 7bil hand out to buy another bank. Yeah, lets keep doing that instead of helping real people who need real help.
 
 
 
 
 
I thought Congress held the checkbook.  Bush signed the law, but what other choice did he have?  Fighting and throwing away the election that the Republicans already have a slim (ok very slim) chance in?  Bush has not been a good president, but is a far better choice than socialism and don't forget who caused the problems.  Let's give them some press.

Rugby's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-06-06

OK,  BG-  Lets power up Frank, Pelosi, Dodd, Reid, Biden..Obama...as suitable replacements versus the Socialist lame duck Pres. Bush...You want to keep these players in the game...???   I'm sure they'll do the right things for the country...right  They've been asleep at the switch for varying tenures and can be pegged for this mess we're in as much as W.  Lets give these political hacks (bafoons) expanded authority to the good work of the people. There is some meaningful change you can believe in.Somewhat of topic-  I saw this Obama lawn sign for sale on web.  http://signs.cafepress.com/item/joke-yard-sign/313409969To be fair they have a "Left" side of site with items ripping on McCain/Palin.   

Provocative Put's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-10-14

BondGuy wrote:The longer this goes the more ludicrous it gets.
 
Bush just socialized the banking system and not a peep on this
thread about that. But wait a minute, give the money to the people
instead of the corporations OMGOMGOMG it's socialism run amuck! It's
the end of the country.
 
You guys are funny. your short and curlys are so twisted your like a dog chasing its tail.
 
And on that money bush handed out, the ink isn't even dry on the
checks yet and those mother effers are already stealing the money.
25 mil for two weeks work? PNC using 5bil of its 7bil hand out to buy
another bank. Yeah, lets keep doing that instead of helping real people
who need real help.

 

The banks have not been socialized. What has happened is government has
been used to provide the deep pockets that are necessary to buy the
mortgages, sort the good from the bad, resell the good and hold the bad
till the collateral is repossed or the debtors dump the house to avoid
foreclosure.

Should the banking industry just stop what it does because they've been
involved in government actions to support the banks?  I think
not.  I was also not offended by the resort meeting that AIG held,
nor do I think the one that was cancelled should have been
cancelled.  One of them was a rewards trip for top producers--any
sales organization needs to reward its stars, even if the company is in
financial difficulty.

What would be an example of "real people in need of real help" that is being denied?

HymanRoth's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-08-25

BondGuy wrote:The longer this goes the more ludicrous it gets.
 
Bush just socialized the banking system and not a peep on this thread about that. But wait a minute, give the money to the people instead of the corporations OMGOMGOMG it's socialism run amuck! It's the end of the country.
 
You guys are funny. your short and curlys are so twisted your like a dog chasing its tail.
 
And on that money bush handed out, the ink isn't even dry on the checks yet and those mother effers are already stealing the money. 25 mil for two weeks work? PNC using 5bil of its 7bil hand out to buy another bank. Yeah, lets keep doing that instead of helping real people who need real help.
 
 
 
 OK who stole 25 mil?  Help me out here....

Provocative Put's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-10-14

HymanRoth wrote: OK who stole 25 mil?  Help me out here....

Just liberal whining.  The guy who was hired to be the CEO at
Washington Mutual had a contract requiring a $25 million (actually I
think it's 22) severance package.

Within two weeks WAMU was taken over and he was terminated.

Last I heard the status of his package was in doubt.

Liberals hate the idea of contracts being honored.  Dishonesty is the core of everything they believe.

anabuhabkuss's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-02

Indyone,
 
I didn't mean to target you solely and be mean. I thank you for the clarification on your position.

anabuhabkuss's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-02

HymanRoth wrote: So when was Obama lying?  When he claimed that he never realized that Wright promoted such racially divisive, hateful, and ridiculuous positions(We deserved 9/11 and maybe worse...the Federal government create AIDs to attack his people, to name a few), or was he lying when he claimed he was an active member of Wright's congregation.  Which was it?
 
*sigh*, I dunno you tell me since you were obviously in the same f'n room with the two of them for over 20 years. And why you're at it, please kindly refresh my memory about relationships I had with my colleagues, associates and relatives since obviously you listened in on those conversations as well.
 
Thanks.

HymanRoth's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-08-25

anabuhabkuss wrote:HymanRoth wrote: So when was Obama lying?  When he claimed that he never realized that Wright promoted such racially divisive, hateful, and ridiculuous positions(We deserved 9/11 and maybe worse...the Federal government create AIDs to attack his people, to name a few), or was he lying when he claimed he was an active member of Wright's congregation.  Which was it?
 
*sigh*, I dunno you tell me since you were obviously in the same f'n room with the two of them for over 20 years. And why you're at it, please kindly refresh my memory about relationships I had with my colleagues, associates and relatives since obviously you listened in on those conversations as well.
 
Thanks.You're missing the point.  Your buddy Barack has hung himself up in his own lies by contradicting himself.Either he's lying when he said he was actively involved in that congregation all those years, because otherwise he certainly would have known about the nature of Rev. Wright's "theology" of hatred, or he's lying when he claimed he'd never heard Wright espouse such views.

now_indy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-07-28

I hate to bring Hitler into this, but here goes:
 
It is not truth that matters, but victory.Adolf Hitler
 
What luck for rulers, that men do not think.Adolf Hitler
 
The victor will never be asked if he told the truth.Adolf Hitler
 
The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force.Adolf Hitler
 
I thought those were appropriate.  I believe Obama and Biden are blatantly lying to the American people, and the national press is letting them do it.  If they get in, the world will be VERY different in four years, and not for the better. 
 
Obama, keep the change.

gvf's picture
gvf
Offline
Joined: 2008-07-01

Now_Indy, Do you recommend Gold?  Or should I just cash out and buy guns? 

Provocative Put's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-10-14

gvf wrote:
Now_Indy, Do you recommend Gold?  Or should I just cash out and buy guns? 

It must have been about 1979--I was on the regional staff, doing seminars all over the country.

It was Tampa--a big group, perhaps 500.  We were talking about how to deal with economic crisis.

There was a guy who at some point stood up and walked to the front.  Odd, but I didn't stop him.

He turned around to the group and in a loud voice announced, "This guy
is full of crap.  All you need is a storm cellar, gold, canned
goods and a shotgun to blow their ass away if they try to take your
gold or canned goods."

Some guy hollered back, "Who are they?"  The guy just stared at him and said, "You know who I'm talking about."

When you lose control of a seminar you never know what will happen.

HymanRoth's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-08-25

now_indy wrote:I hate to bring Hitler into this, but here goes:
 
It is not truth that matters, but victory.Adolf Hitler
 
What luck for rulers, that men do not think.Adolf Hitler
 
The victor will never be asked if he told the truth.Adolf Hitler
 
The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force.Adolf Hitler
 
I thought those were appropriate.  I believe Obama and Biden are blatantly lying to the American people, and the national press is letting them do it.  If they get in, the world will be VERY different in four years, and not for the better. 
 
Obama, keep the change.Isn't there supposed to be some sort of 'internet rule' that when you bring up Hitler the thread ends?

bspears's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-11-08

We can all blame Mike Ditka for this bullshit we're in. If he would've man'd up and run against Obama a few years back, we'd won and  Obama would be running some quasi not for profit in the lower ward of South Chicago. 

snaggletooth's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-07-13

HymanRoth wrote: Isn't there supposed to be some sort of 'internet rule' that when you bring up Hitler the thread ends?
 
How does one even have that many Hitler quotes in their back pocket?

now_indy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-07-28

snaggletooth wrote:HymanRoth wrote: Isn't there supposed to be some sort of 'internet rule' that when you bring up Hitler the thread ends?
 
How does one even have that many Hitler quotes in their back pocket?
 
The internet is a wonderful thing...
 
As for the gold and guns, I do have the latter, and am thinking of buying more. Not because of a revolution, but in case Obama clamps down on gun purchases during his regime administration.
 
I am hoping that the Dems can screw it up so bad in two years that the Republicans can clean house in 2010. Let's just hope that no Justices die in the next four years!

GWB43's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-07-31

Its not enough ta vote fo' McCain Everyone in Congress mus' jet as well

glass man's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-09-23

I know it's popular to bash Obama but...
 
If the man is an idiot why is Warren Buffett backing him??
Would Buffett really back a socialist??
 
Or is the socialist claim just the republicans bashing the democrats like they always do?
 
By the way, cut throat 1890's style capitalism isn't much better than socialism.  We put the kids back to work in the sweatshops, let a few crooked CEOs have the power, and let power flow upward into fewer and fewer hands.
 
We need capitalism with a safety net and sensible regulations.
 
We aren't living in the 1790's anymore.  We aren't 13 farming colonies.  Laissez Faire theory is great in the textbook but breaks down in real life for the same reasons socialism breaks down - human greed.
 
I am a Republican by the way but I am disenchanted with them right now. 

Johnny Roast Beef's picture
Joined: 2008-02-12

glass man wrote:I know it's popular to bash Obama but...
 
If the man is an idiot why is Warren Buffett backing him??
Would Buffett really back a socialist?
 
Noone ever said he waas an idiot...they said he was a socialist.  Is it possible they think alike?  Just because someone has had tremendous success as an investor over the years does not mean he can't share Obama's views.  Who the hell knows what makes anyone tick?   

now_indy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-07-28

I think Buffett has "rich guilt." That is where you actually feel bad that you are so successful. He bought in to Obama's speeches of how he can help the under $250k crowd.

now_indy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-07-28

Here's a test:
 
Weigh your heart against your brain.
 
If your heart weighs more (you use emotions to make decisions), then you are a liberal.
 
If your brain weighs more (you use facts to make decisions), then you are a conservative.
 
It's not that liberals don't have a brain, or that conservatives don't have a heart, it's just that one always has more pull. For some it's the heart, for some it's the brain.

2wheeledbeemer's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-10-10

Most of the stuff I've read about Buffett puts him solidly in the "socially progressive" category.  I remember seeing somewhere that he and his wife were really heavily into the Planned Parenthood agenda, fwiw.

Please or Register to post comments.

Industry Newsletters
Investment Category Sponsor Links

 

Careers Category Sponsor Links

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×