Zappa.com

The Official Frank Zappa Messageboards
It is currently Tue Sep 02, 2014 4:08 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 478 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 20  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: re: easy money
PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 3:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:20 pm
Posts: 214
slime.oofytv.set wrote:
Image

your admirers in the street
gotta hoot and stamp their feet
in the heat from your physique
as you twinkle by in python sneakers


EASY MONAAAAAAAAAAY!

_________________
Image

Pudding
Delicious


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 7:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5692
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
<cue intro to Pink Floyd song "Money">
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 10:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3541
Location: Vancouver, BC
tweedle-dumb wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
If Capitalism was allowed to fully function again...most of our problems today would recede and/or be eliminated...


yeah...like black people, hispanics, asians, poor people, native Americans, middle eastern people, women, non-Republicans...and well, basically everybody to the left of extreme right. :roll:

We've seen this script play out before and it aways has the same conclusion. :roll:


No, not like that. But it's cute that you're still tryin' to win the argument, despite the FACT we both know you never will. :wink:

Thinman wrote:
Vancouver and the surrounding BC is indeed a beautiful and convenient little area. I know. I have been there. A person who has never left that area and has never seen anything else, can of course come to wrong conclusions about the rest of the world (and reality).


Translation:

I don't have a hope in hell at winning a political debate or any debate for that matter with Disco Boy, so I'll just resort to throwing insults in his direction instead.

Oh...and btw, I've travelled outside of Vancouver and BC several times. :wink:

Caputh wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
That's NOT what I said and is only PART of the proof I provided.

What I said was that whenever free market principles have been established, whether during part of the Industrial Revolution, virtually all of the Roaring Twenties, Mussolini's Italy of the early-mid '20s and more recently with Chile, they've WORKED and WORKED WELL, despite not being utopian systems, and have led to extremely low unemployment rates & high GDP, etc. This is regardless of the fact that some countries like Italy and Chile had fascist dictators like Mussolini & Pinochet in power at the time... :roll:


Yes, they work fairly well in fascist regimes, when you can arrest your opponents, violently crush anyone asking for a higher wage or, in the case of Pinochet, shoot large numbers in football stadiums.
The same logic is employed by many neo-Nazis to claim that Hitler got rid of unemployment, built the Autobahn etc. This is working well!


You conveniently forgot to point out (like I pointed out above) that they also have worked well in non-fascist regimes. Not to mention, that you knew damn well when I listed the above countries where free market principles have been established and WORKED WELL, that it was strictly the economic systems of those countries I was referring to. :roll:

Caputh wrote:
BTW the repeated use of the rolling eyeball pumpkin, whilst possibly expressing an honest emotion, does tend to conjure up the vision of a tract-selling weirdo, with his eyes glued to the inside of his skull, desperately in need of the services of an optician. I'm sure this impression is neither fair, nor accurate.


You mean the type of tract-selling weirdo that spins his web of deceptively sinuous misinterpretations about my statements? Here it is again, just for you...:roll:

A rope leash wrote:
SPACEBROTHER forum entity's list of folks that would be "eliminated" under free capitalism is totally ridiculous. The implication is that only white men benefit from capitalism, which is untrue, and is basically a racist statement in itself.

For one thing, without capitalism there would be fewer opportunities for wealth. Unions would go kaput, as there is no point in bargaining for something that is not there. These folks who are "suffering" under capitalism would suffer even more under socialism. While it can be argued that under our current capitalism some folks do better than others, under a strict socialism most folks would do worse. At least the opportunity is there for these peoples.

Blacks have done well with capitalism. Native Americans are getting rich with casinos. Middle-Easterners? I have yet to meet one that is poor. Women? Most of them are doing better than I am, and I'm a middle-aged white guy.

But, without the socialistic safety net, the lives of a lot of people would be much worse, and we would see blatant poverty throughout our country. If big money did not benefit from welfare programs, there would be no welfare programs, and we would see suffering in the street on a scale that is hard to imagine.

As it turns out, the combination of capitalism and socialism that we have in the USA is working fairly well. Going all in with one system or the other would be a mistake. Capitalism builds and destroys, but we need work. Socialism stagnates and drains, but we need to make sure everyone is fed.


Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want to see ALL socialistic policies that are in place completely eliminated. It's just that I would like to see the elimination of a Mixed Economy to point where the re-adoption of free market principles declares the economic system a Capitalist Economy and hence would get us back on track much sooner than later. Because I agree we do need a "healthy dose" of socialistic policies in society, since not everyone can strictly rely on themselves in all stages of life. Even people who are mostly Libertarians like myself can understand that.

I guess you could argue that the particular type of Mixed Economy we live in today is working "fairly well." But I would argue that it's not really working that well at all since all the economic growth happening today is ARTIFICIAL because of the 3 BILLION+ being borrowed per day by the US' creditors and the now $85 BILLION per month being printed by the Fed. And also since it's going to get MUCH worse once the Currency/Treasuries Bubble bursts because of the above factors in the next few years. It may be too late now and we may have to wait until the Currency/Treasuries Bubble does burst in order to correct the problem, but the economy would be in a much quicker recovery mode if free market principles were re-adopted and Government interference in the markets was virtually eliminated. This way, Corporatism would have to relinquish their stranglehold over Government. This is what Ron Paul has been trying to get people to realize for decades now and why he was fucked over by the Republicans at the GOP Convention last summer...

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 2:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4757
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
Disco Boy wrote:
You conveniently forgot to point out (like I pointed out above) that they also have worked well in non-fascist regimes. Not to mention, that you knew damn well when I listed the above countries where free market principles have been established and WORKED WELL, that it was strictly the economic systems of those countries I was referring to. :roll:


Ah, but I don't think you can divorce the political terror employed by Mussolini and Pinochet from their economic policies. For example, both introduced massive wage reductions during the periods under discussion. Resistance against such wage reductions was minimal. Why? Because people knew that they would be picked up by the secret police or convieniently disappear and all the union leaders had been arrested. In Mussolini's case it was only after the murder of Matteoti in 1924 that protest came to a head and, in fact, he was nearly deposed; this was also probably a contributing factor in his change of economic and political tack in 1925. I don't think it does your argument any good therefore by taking either Pinochet or Mussolini as examples.

I think, btw, that you have a better argument for the industrial revolution. In case you didn't know it (I'm sure you did), you belong to the "optimist" school of historical thought - an accepted view. I tend towards the "pessimist" view myself, but you're entitled to your opinion.



Disco Boy wrote:
You mean the type of tract-selling weirdo that spins his web of deceptively sinuous misinterpretations about my statements?


Your fame has yet to reach the German streets, I'm afraid. At least, no tract-selling weirdo has yet to accost me in the street with the latest on Disco Boy's theories. :wink:

In a sense, however, you are correct in that I do blur the lines. This is basically because I think the lines are quite often blurred. It is my opinion that a number of possible interpretations of political and historical events are possible, so long as one produces evidence to support these theories. An example would be cold war theory and the three schools of thought "Traditionalists" (basically, the USSR started it), the "Revisionists" (basically, the USA started it) and the "Post-Revisionists" (mutual miscomprehension was the major cause, but both sides contributed). Now, all three, IMO, have valid points to make, yet all three do not fit for every situation. Thus, I tend to weigh up the evidence in individual situations e.g. The Greek Revolution, followed by the Truman Doctrine, followed by the Marshall Plan and try and decide which theory fits best. If one dogmatically paints oneself into a corner (e.g. the "Revisionist" interpretation of the takeover of Poland by the USSR is pretty tortuous), I find that one has really divorced oneself from the truth.
Sticking doggedly with one theory when one flies in the face of evidence is like trying to put together a jigsaw when the pieces don't fit IMO.

Disco Boy wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want to see ALL socialistic policies that are in place completely eliminated...I guess you could argue that the particular type of Mixed Economy we live in today is working "fairly well."


Wow, that's new!

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Last edited by Caputh on Thu Apr 04, 2013 7:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 6:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:11 am
Posts: 1023
Location: North German Wasteland
Disco Boy wrote:
Thinman wrote:
Vancouver and the surrounding BC is indeed a beautiful and convenient little area. I know. I have been there. A person who has never left that area and has never seen anything else, can of course come to wrong conclusions about the rest of the world (and reality).


Translation:

I don't have a hope in hell at winning a political debate or any debate for that matter with Disco Boy, so I'll just resort to throwing insults in his direction instead.

Disco Boy wrote:
Don't get me wrong, …

WTF? You are just making yourself a complete ridiculous fool. On the other hand, it's never too late to learn.

Disco Boy wrote:
… I wouldn't want to see ALL socialistic policies that are in place completely eliminated. It's just that I would like to see the elimination of a Mixed Economy to point where the re-adoption of free market principles declares the economic system a Capitalist Economy and hence would get us back on track much sooner than later. Because I agree we do need a "healthy dose" of socialistic policies in society, since not everyone can strictly rely on themselves in all stages of life. Even people who are mostly Libertarians like myself can understand that.

And for that conclusion all the trouble of the last weeks/month? Now you know why I had no interest in discussing anything with you. You qualify as a troll. Or did you just get sick and/or lost your job and had to exchange theory with reality?

Th.

_________________
Active forum member since 2005 - R E T I R E D from public forum activity in 2013


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 7:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 1806
A strict Libertarian view would not allow government financial help for poor people. Ron Paul has often spoke of how church charities and such used to take care of the impoverished. I don't think that sort of thing is practical now days, and since the Constitution does "provide for the general welfare of the people", it think most Libertarians would accept giving financial help for the poor, especially when they understand how it also helps business.

The thing is, we could do all sorts of things if it wasn't for the monetary system and its need for constant war spending.

My own personal view of the current situation pretty much goes back to the Great Depression. Stimulus programs as they are now designed do not put enough people back to work. It's not like there isn't stuff that needs to be done, it's just that business is not willing to pay to have it done. I speak mostly of crumbling infrastructure. What we need is a good old government civilian corps, like FDR did, fixing up things no matter who benefits. Once we get money back into the hands of the common people, their spending it will bring back the economy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 2:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:48 pm
Posts: 19520
Location: Somewhere in time
We elected the President Blacky McBlackman the obstructionist republicans should move the fuck out of the way and let him do his thing, if it doesn't work elect a republican next time... :idea:

They just don't want to take any chance of him being successful, therefore they will not let anything happen... :P

Even when he adopts the republican ideas, they are against them, I don't think they're even trying to cover their tracks anymore... :wink:

:smoke:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 3:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5692
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
Precisely. 8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 4:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 1806
That's pretty much just American politics. The Democrats should have taken a page from the Republican playbook back in 2001, when the Republicans pushed through the USA PATRIOT Act, took us to war with Iraq and everyone else, and invented a Nazi-style "homeland security" apparatus. They could have stood in the way of the bank bailouts, too...but they didn't.

Because Democrats are weak. No backbone. Even when they are totally in power, they don't do what they say they want to do. Even when they can block something the Republicans are doing, they don't...because really, it's all a charade to make sure big money gets what they want.

Things will have to get pretty bad before we get an FDR style jobs program.

...and I think things will get pretty bad. Things been going downhill for me now going on seven years. I don't blame Democrats or Republicans, because they are two sides of the same coin. It's a show to make us think we are getting what we want...and when we don't get what we want, there is someone to blame...the "other".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 4:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:20 pm
Posts: 214
A rope leash wrote:
It's a show to make us think we are getting what we want...and when we don't get what we want, there is someone to blame...the "other".


Seems to Mexicans and gays these last few years lol

_________________
Image

Pudding
Delicious


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 6:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:55 pm
Posts: 2233
A rope leash wrote:
Because Democrats are weak. No backbone. Even when they are totally in power, they don't do what they say they want to do.

You already made a much better point earlier. It had a lot more depth and seemed more honest. Why are you making these lesser, ultimately meaningless points now? You already nailed it.

Who the fuck is still playing the democrat/republican game (as if they are not all in it together) in 2013? Zappa fans? It's ludicrous and redundant to attack either political party at this point. We are living in tragic times. It's not some silly debate. It's our lives. So why lower ourselves to the level of the common herd mentality? The power on both sides answer to the same higher power. And I don't mean god.

The way forward is probably going to be endless war.

Whoever is willing to hurt the most people will have the most money.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 7:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 1806
I made "lesser, ultimately meaningless points" because I was speaking to SPACEBROTHER forum entity and plook.

So that they could understand.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 7:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5692
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
Humanity has been in a constant perpetual state of war for as long as humans evolved far enough to have emotions of fear, greed and the basic survival instinct.

I simplified the concept to even more of a basic elementary level for a roped dope douchebag entity.





I'd bet you Slimes fifty bucks that neither of you have heard the term Neolithic Warfare until you just read my post...

http://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/f ... lithic.htm


and another source...

Quote:
War and the culture of war were invented early in prehistory, but they did not involve slavery or the state, and there was no economy based on exploitation, serfs, etc. or the development of internal repression (the internal culture of war) to maintain the power of a ruling class. And hence the usefulness of war during prehistory was quite different from its usefulness later on after the development of the state, as will be discussed later.

Apparently warfare was widespread by the time of the Neolithic period, judging from archeological data on the extensive fortification of early settlements and the widespread existence of weaponry.

http://www.culture-of-peace.info/books/ ... y-war.html




Let the piling on commence.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 8:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3541
Location: Vancouver, BC
Caputh wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
You conveniently forgot to point out (like I pointed out above) that they also have worked well in non-fascist regimes. Not to mention, that you knew damn well when I listed the above countries where free market principles have been established and WORKED WELL, that it was strictly the economic systems of those countries I was referring to. :roll:


Ah, but I don't think you can divorce the political terror employed by Mussolini and Pinochet from their economic policies.


Give me a break. ONCE AGAIN, my points are regarding the differences of said economic systems.

Caputh wrote:
Your fame has yet to reach the German streets, I'm afraid. At least, no tract-selling weirdo has yet to accost me in the street with the latest on Disco Boy's theories. :wink:


Theories? I'm talking about actual events and situations.

Caputh wrote:
In a sense, however, you are correct in that I do blur the lines. This is basically because I think the lines are quite often blurred. It is my opinion that a number of possible interpretations of political and historical events are possible, so long as one produces evidence to support these theories.


Yes, you do. But I don't think it's because you think, "the lines are quite often blurred."

Caputh wrote:
Sticking doggedly with one theory when one flies in the face of evidence is like trying to put together a jigsaw when the pieces don't fit IMO.


Absolutely. Maybe you should take your own advice sometime?

Caputh wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want to see ALL socialistic policies that are in place completely eliminated...I guess you could argue that the particular type of Mixed Economy we live in today is working "fairly well."


Wow, that's new!


Well, I never said I was 100% Libertarian (neither is Ron Paul). I've stated on numerous occasions that after taking a test, I found out that I was 91% Libertarian.

Thinman wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
Thinman wrote:
Vancouver and the surrounding BC is indeed a beautiful and convenient little area. I know. I have been there. A person who has never left that area and has never seen anything else, can of course come to wrong conclusions about the rest of the world (and reality).


Translation:

I don't have a hope in hell at winning a political debate or any debate for that matter with Disco Boy, so I'll just resort to throwing insults in his direction instead.

Disco Boy wrote:
Don't get me wrong, …

WTF? You are just making yourself a complete ridiculous fool. On the other hand, it's never too late to learn.


Wtf are you talking about now? YOU are the one who can't back up your points but yet continue to shit-sling crap at me. And YOU are the one completely misinterpreting my statements.

Thinman wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
… I wouldn't want to see ALL socialistic policies that are in place completely eliminated. It's just that I would like to see the elimination of a Mixed Economy to point where the re-adoption of free market principles declares the economic system a Capitalist Economy and hence would get us back on track much sooner than later. Because I agree we do need a "healthy dose" of socialistic policies in society, since not everyone can strictly rely on themselves in all stages of life. Even people who are mostly Libertarians like myself can understand that.

And for that conclusion all the trouble of the last weeks/month? Now you know why I had no interest in discussing anything with you. You qualify as a troll. Or did you just get sick and/or lost your job and had to exchange theory with reality?

Th.


ONCE AGAIN, I never said I was 100% Libertarian (neither is Ron Paul). I've stated on numerous occasions that after taking a test, I found out that I was 91% Libertarian. So don't blame me for your shortcomings and failures to read what I've already written multiple times.

Plook wrote:
We elected the President Blacky McBlackman the obstructionist republicans should move the fuck out of the way and let him do his thing, if it doesn't work elect a republican next time... :idea:

They just don't want to take any chance of him being successful, therefore they will not let anything happen... :P

Even when he adopts the republican ideas, they are against them, I don't think they're even trying to cover their tracks anymore... :wink:

:smoke:


It absolutely astonishes me that you trust Obama, despite the fact he's COMPLETELY full of shit (re-read his 2008 platform and how's contradicted himself regarding just about every single campaign promise) and doesn't have a clue what he's doing, not to mention that he isn't capable of taking responsibility for his actions to save his life.

And not that I support most Republicans (if any) but why are you blaming them all for the Obama Administration's shortcomings and incredibly destructive policies, especially since they're just as worse as the Bush Jnr. Administration's policies?! In fact, I can almost guarantee you once the Currency/Treasuries Bubble bursts within the next few years and we experience what a Depression is for the first time in our lives, Americans will be electing a Republican President in 2016, almost no matter who it is and for very obvious reasons...

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 9:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5692
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
Oxymoron Boy wrote:
In fact, I can almost guarantee you once the Currency/Treasuries Bubble bursts within the next few years and we experience what a Depression is for the first time in our lives, Americans will be electing a Republican President in 2016, almost no matter who it is and for very obvious reasons...



So basically, your inclusion of the words "almost guarantee", and "almost no matter who it is" , guarantee's that if neither of your almost predictions come true by 2016, your out will be that you never said that they actually would happen?


What exactly is an almost guarantee anyways? Is it like an almost fact that may or may not actually be factual, depending on the precision of the predictive outcome? A pre-emptive flip flop perhaps? :lol:

Caputh has alluded to that trait about you, quite cleverly I have to say, without directly coming out and saying it. Kudos to him! 8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 12:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4757
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
Disco Boy wrote:


Caputh wrote:
Your fame has yet to reach the German streets, I'm afraid. At least, no tract-selling weirdo has yet to accost me in the street with the latest on Disco Boy's theories. :wink:


Theories? I'm talking about actual events and situations.


Actually that's quite a nice definition of a tract-selling weirdo - somebody who thinks that what others call theories are facts. Add the rolling eyeballs and Bob's your uncle.

Caputh wrote:
In a sense, however, you are correct in that I do blur the lines. This is basically because I think the lines are quite often blurred. It is my opinion that a number of possible interpretations of political and historical events are possible, so long as one produces evidence to support these theories.


Disco Boy wrote:
Yes, you do. But I don't think it's because you think, "the lines are quite often blurred."


Once again, I find it a bit unbelievable that you should believe that you know better what I believe than what I believe that I believe.

Caputh wrote:
Sticking doggedly with one theory when one flies in the face of evidence is like trying to put together a jigsaw when the pieces don't fit IMO.


Disco Boy wrote:
Absolutely. Maybe you should take your own advice sometime?


I'll do my best in future...

Disco Boy wrote:
Well, I never said I was 100% Libertarian (neither is Ron Paul). I've stated on numerous occasions that after taking a test, I found out that I was 91% Libertarian.


I'm sorry to say that I must have missed this. Careless me. Let's get this straight; you had to take a test to find out that you were 9% Socialist? Or were you 3% Socialist, 1% Conservative, 2% Fascist, 0.5% Nazi, 2% Liberal and 0.5% Anarchist? Give us the details!

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 7:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:35 am
Posts: 425
downer mydnyte wrote:
The way forward is probably going to be endless war.

Whoever is willing to hurt the most people will have the most money.


Major wars have occurred roughly once every 20 years, so they are not quite endless, just recurring over different reasons. And the next war will be an acutal currency WAR when when U.S. dollar turns to shit and nations will stop trading and buying oil with U.S. currency. Check out how much bullion China is buying. They'll be coming out on top.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 7:47 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 3484
If the USA goes bankrupt the world goes bankrupt.

_________________
Confusion will be my epitaph


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 7:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:48 pm
Posts: 19520
Location: Somewhere in time
A rope leash wrote:
So that they could understand.


Really...I know I'm not the sharpest pencil in the box, but politics... :smoke:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 7:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:48 pm
Posts: 19520
Location: Somewhere in time
Disco Boy wrote:
Plook wrote:
We elected the President Blacky McBlackman the obstructionist republicans should move the fuck out of the way and let him do his thing, if it doesn't work elect a republican next time... :idea:

They just don't want to take any chance of him being successful, therefore they will not let anything happen... :P

Even when he adopts the republican ideas, they are against them, I don't think they're even trying to cover their tracks anymore... :wink:

:smoke:


It absolutely astonishes me that you trust Obama, despite the fact he's COMPLETELY full of shit (re-read his 2008 platform and how's contradicted himself regarding just about every single campaign promise) and doesn't have a clue what he's doing, not to mention that he isn't capable of taking responsibility for his actions to save his life.

And not that I support most Republicans (if any) but why are you blaming them all for the Obama Administration's shortcomings and incredibly destructive policies, especially since they're just as worse as the Bush Jnr. Administration's policies?! In fact, I can almost guarantee you once the Currency/Treasuries Bubble bursts within the next few years and we experience what a Depression is for the first time in our lives, Americans will be electing a Republican President in 2016, almost no matter who it is and for very obvious reasons...



Who knows this could be a big smoke screen, but he should at least have the opportunity to attempt the changes he wants to try to fix things, not giving that opportunity is not doing any good.

He changed what he has done you say compared top what he ran on in 2008, I'm sticking to NS briefings as being the cause although due to they nature of the material we will never know, but it is the logical explanation for someone to do something different than what they did for the previous 25 years.

:smoke:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 7:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:03 pm
Posts: 5908
Location: Pouting for you? Punky Meadows, pouting for you?!!
BRAVO SIERRA wrote:
If the USA goes bankrupt the world goes bankrupt.
A tad sycophantic.

_________________
The way I see it Barry, this should be a very dynamite show.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 9:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3541
Location: Vancouver, BC
tweedle-dumb wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
In fact, I can almost guarantee you once the Currency/Treasuries Bubble bursts within the next few years and we experience what a Depression is for the first time in our lives, Americans will be electing a Republican President in 2016, almost no matter who it is and for very obvious reasons...



So basically, your inclusion of the words "almost guarantee", and "almost no matter who it is" , guarantee's that if neither of your almost predictions come true by 2016, your out will be that you never said that they actually would happen?


Holy shit?! You're actually correct about something for a change! Right on! :shock:

tweedle-dumb wrote:
What exactly is an almost guarantee anyways? Is it like an almost fact that may or may not actually be factual, depending on the precision of the predictive outcome? A pre-emptive flip flop perhaps? :lol:


It means what I said it means. Nothing more. Nothing less.

tweedle-dumb wrote:
Caputh has alluded to that trait about you, quite cleverly I have to say, without directly coming out and saying it. Kudos to him! 8)


Caputh is the KING of alluding to and weaselling his way out of things... :roll:

Caputh wrote:
Actually that's quite a nice definition of a tract-selling weirdo - somebody who thinks that what others call theories are facts. Add the rolling eyeballs and Bob's your uncle.


Talking about actual events and situations is not a defintion of a tract-selling weirdo.

Caputh wrote:
Once again, I find it a bit unbelievable that you should believe that you know better what I believe than what I believe that I believe.


Where did I say that?

Caputh wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
Absolutely. Maybe you should take your own advice sometime?


I'll do my best in future...


I have no doubt you will.

Caputh wrote:
I'm sorry to say that I must have missed this. Careless me. Let's get this straight; you had to take a test to find out that you were 9% Socialist? Or were you 3% Socialist, 1% Conservative, 2% Fascist, 0.5% Nazi, 2% Liberal and 0.5% Anarchist? Give us the details!


I never said I had to take a test. I took the test because I saw it online somewhere and I was curious. I already knew I wasn't 100% Libertarian, smart ass.

Plook wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
It absolutely astonishes me that you trust Obama, despite the fact he's COMPLETELY full of shit (re-read his 2008 platform and how's contradicted himself regarding just about every single campaign promise) and doesn't have a clue what he's doing, not to mention that he isn't capable of taking responsibility for his actions to save his life.

And not that I support most Republicans (if any) but why are you blaming them all for the Obama Administration's shortcomings and incredibly destructive policies, especially since they're just as worse as the Bush Jnr. Administration's policies?! In fact, I can almost guarantee you once the Currency/Treasuries Bubble bursts within the next few years and we experience what a Depression is for the first time in our lives, Americans will be electing a Republican President in 2016, almost no matter who it is and for very obvious reasons...



Who knows this could be a big smoke screen, but he should at least have the opportunity to attempt the changes he wants to try to fix things, not giving that opportunity is not doing any good.

He changed what he has done you say compared top what he ran on in 2008, I'm sticking to NS briefings as being the cause although due to they nature of the material we will never know, but it is the logical explanation for someone to do something different than what they did for the previous 25 years.

:smoke:


I'm glad you're at least getting a little smarter, because it obviously IS a big smoke screen.

The Obama Administration has had over 4 years to provide positive change but they consistently and insidiously have contributed to the downfall of the US. And it undeniably just keeps getting worse with each passing year. While there are of course some parts of Obama's 2008 platform that he's had to change due to the NSB, to use that as an excuse for ALL of Obama's flip-flopping, fraudulent behaviour and utter BS is extremely weak and beyond laughable at this point. Especially since with an excuse like that, the Bush Jnr. Administration's (or any administration's) actions could be justified... :roll:

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 9:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:48 pm
Posts: 19520
Location: Somewhere in time
First off the republicans have been obstructionist since he got in, there is not denying that and they remain so.

second no one likes a good conspiracy more than me, but there is no common thread or value to the end game.

Last, he did not close Gitmo and apparently will not, there is no upside to this for him...why...from there you have the extention of Afganastan that could have ended at least 2 years earlier and the drones...they know something and they are keeping a tight lid on it...


:smoke:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 10:04 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 3484
polydigm wrote:
BRAVO SIERRA wrote:
If the USA goes bankrupt the world goes bankrupt.
A tad sycophantic.

I seems you are misusing this word, I am stating a fact, you obviously have a shallow grasp of world economics.

_________________
Confusion will be my epitaph


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 10:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5692
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
China's rapid economic growth would likely be enough to thwart any complete global market collapse as a result of a major collapse in the US economy.


Everybody can thank Tricky Dick Nixon and his and his political party's business buddies for being the first to sell us out - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/china/time ... ne6nf.html


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 478 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 20  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: The Forum Killed Arkay and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group