Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Why can't righties go do their jobs without whining and complaining? They whine and complain about everything. The whining and complaining never stops. They just don't know any better, they whine and complain to no end.
notice how well my little change works?
Just who is "whining and complaining" here?
Those who think every successful person in America did everything all by themselves without any help from anybody else.
Those who whine when gay couples ask for the same rights as hetero couples, as if granting equal rights to all somehow takes something away from the already privileged.
Those who whine when it is pointed out that this nation was not founded on Judeo-Christian principles.
Those who whine when they are asked to help support the less fortunate.
Those who whine when science teachers tell their children that a creation story from an ancient text is not science.
The list of whiners and complainers goes on and on. At this time it does seem to me that most of the whining is coming from those who are afraid that their previously privileged position in our society is under threat by those they consider unworthy. All aided and abetted by a well-funded noise machine whose goals will actually do more to suppress the majority than anything on the left's agenda.
Let's get something straight: It is the never ceasing whining of the LIEberrhoidals (and their subset: the Obamarrhoidals) that initiate the incessant whining. There would not have been any Anti-LIEberrhoidal RESPONSEto whining without the LEIberrhoidals initiating the whining. Example:queers whining about the concept of a marriage, in existence for millenia. When, the queers suddenly desire to change the meaning of the English word for "marriage" to suit their sexual predilection.
Another one of the many examples:There never woulda been the Anti-LIEberrhoidal RESPONSE to the whining of the Obamarrhoidals if there wasn't the DISASTROUS increase of America's entitlements from 6% in 1962 to the present 35% mostly, and certainly catastrophically, by Obama by even advertising and encouraging entitlements like food stamps.
No one rational woulda even thought of the lame concept that any enterpreneurial accomplishment woulda been thanks to "roads & bridges, public education etc., when EVERYONE benefits from this equally, and it is the SKILL, DILIGENCE, HARD WORK, CREATIVITY that is responsible for the existence of "roads, bridges, public education" because it is the tax payer dollars of the enterpreneurial spirit EARNED by the creative citizens that PAID for these "roads, bridges, public education, etc" ......NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND !!!
In short: IT IS THE TAXPAYERS, the taxed HARD WORKERS ON DIFFERENT LEVELS, THE CREATIVE IN OUR SOCIETY, THAT PAID FOR THE "ROADS, BRIDGES, PUBLIC EDUCATION, ETC..........not the ~48% of America.....MOSTLY the parasites, the moochers who DO NOT PAY ANY INCOME TAXES yet feel "ENTITLED" to take the money from those that earned the money most simply because they have the ability o breathe. And, it is the TAXPAYERS that pay for the legitimate care of those hardworking people who may be displaced by economic conditions.
BOTTOM LINE: You can't build "roads, bridges, have public education, etc., paid with the money that the PARASITES & THE MOOCHERS don't have !!!
I suppose the rumour is true that the Monumental Mendacious Fraud Obama is issuing another one of his idiotic "Redistribution of Wealth" EXECUTIVE ORDERS with respect to Olympic Gold Medals (at least for the Americans): so that the competing American Olympians don't feel sad, Obuma is issuing every American Olympian a silver medal. Of course, in this case, as with all of his other "brilliant ideas", the cost for this enterprise will be borne by the American Taxpayer.
Forget about whatever conspiracy theory you've got going there, just read the whole actual speech by Obama:
"There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
"So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the G.I. Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together."
Obviously there isn't anything offensive about that, right?
No, I don't think anything is offensive about what Obama said. It is wrong though, infrastructure exists because business owners put capital at risk and create new markets. As for Lakoff, I don't mean to suggest any conspiracy, only that Obama has stolen Lakoff's meme. Which is in essence to cloak socialism in a new lingo. We've heard others use this line:
I imagine someone at the two campaign's read Lakoff and suggested their candidates borrow from him. Seems to have worked out ok for Warren, bit of an--as a blogger I read put it--"exploding cigar" for Obama. All this emphasizes the espoused differences between the candidates, Obama wants more government and Romney wants less.
I linked the video earlier, showing it wasn't orginal. However, business did not lay out capital for roads and such and take the risk you suggest. taxes were collected and government acted to for the common good, which in turn made it so business didn't have to on their own. And frankly neither candidate really wants less. Neither party for that matter. We had republican rule for sometime and there was no serious reduction, only minor changes in which areas grew. So if you really want smaller government, and not just playing a your side game, you really don't want either party.
The only thing that concerns be about Obama's comment, and you ahd add Romney's likes to fire people comment, is how lazy we've become. We don't seem interested at all inn real issues, but in taking lies as down down dishonest lane as we can. Too much work to present a real and honest argument.
I linked the video earlier, showing it wasn't orginal. However, business did not lay out capital for roads and such and take the risk you suggest. taxes were collected and government acted to for the common good, which in turn made it so business didn't have to on their own. And frankly neither candidate really wants less. Neither party for that matter. We had republican rule for sometime and there was no serious reduction, only minor changes in which areas grew. So if you really want smaller government, and not just playing a your side game, you really don't want either party.
The only thing that concerns be about Obama's comment, and you ahd add Romney's likes to fire people comment, is how lazy we've become. We don't seem interested at all inn real issues, but in taking lies as down down dishonest lane as we can. Too much work to present a real and honest argument.
Perhaps that is because neither candidate is willing to lay out specifics on the real issues knowing that they will have to make some folks mad in the process. Where have we heard a real answer to fixing the social security problem. Most people acknowledge there are a couple of ways that are pretty easy to tease out to fix it. Which candidate will say that health care costs are rising and unsustainable and really lay out ways to get HC costs materially below the 17% of GDP it is now. Who will talk about true tax code reform, both personal income and corporate taxes.
Since neither candidate is willing to take on these issues, sites like this one are left to "debate" non serious issues.
When someone actually were to take a stand on a serious issue on this site, you have people from either side jump to name calling and any hope for reasonable debate is lost after a post or two.
I am not a great internet user, if you know of a site where real political debate occurs I would appreciate you letting me know the name.
In bold for starters it was Bush. And where have you heard from Obama that he was going fix these problem? I also bring to your attention that it was Bush and McCain that tried to reform Fanny and Freddie before the restate meltdown but got shot down.
Gotta love a noob rant lol. Hey bro, using words such as queer usually results in no one reading past that point in the post that it appeared. As it did with me.
Perhaps that is because neither candidate is willing to lay out specifics on the real issues knowing that they will have to make some folks mad in the process. Where have we heard a real answer to fixing the social security problem. Most people acknowledge there are a couple of ways that are pretty easy to tease out to fix it. Which candidate will say that health care costs are rising and unsustainable and really lay out ways to get HC costs materially below the 17% of GDP it is now. Who will talk about true tax code reform, both personal income and corporate taxes.
Since neither candidate is willing to take on these issues, sites like this one are left to "debate" non serious issues.
When someone actually were to take a stand on a serious issue on this site, you have people from either side jump to name calling and any hope for reasonable debate is lost after a post or two.
I am not a great internet user, if you know of a site where real political debate occurs I would appreciate you letting me know the name.
How did Bush and McCain try to reform fanny and freddie?
Oxley hits back at ideologues
By Greg Farrell in New York
Published: September 9 2008 19:25 | Last updated: September 9 2008 19:25
In the aftermath of the US Treasury’s decision to seize control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, critics have hit at lax oversight of the mortgage companies.
The dominant theme has been that Congress let the two government-sponsored enterprises morph into a creature that eventually threatened the US financial system. Mike Oxley will have none of it.
Instead, the Ohio Republican who headed the House financial services committee until his retirement after mid-term elections last year, blames the mess on ideologues within the White House as well as Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve.
The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr Oxley, now vice-chairman of Nasdaq.
He fumes about the criticism of his House colleagues. “All the handwringing and bedwetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this,” he says. “What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”
The House bill, the 2005 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, would have created a stronger regulator with new powers to increase capital at Fannie and Freddie, to limit their portfolios and to deal with the possibility of receivership.
Mr Oxley reached out to Barney Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the committee and now its chairman, to secure support on the other side of the aisle. But after winning bipartisan support in the House, where the bill passed by 331 to 90 votes, the legislation lacked a champion in the Senate and faced hostility from the Bush administration.
Adamant that the only solution to the problems posed by Fannie and Freddie was their privatisation, the White House attacked the bill. Mr Greenspan also weighed in, saying that the House legislation was worse than no bill at all.
“We missed a golden opportunity that would have avoided a lot of the problems we’re facing now, if we hadn’t had such a firm ideological position at the White House and the Treasury and the Fed,” Mr Oxley says.
When Hank Paulson joined the administration as Treasury secretary in 2006 he sent emissaries to Capitol Hill to explore the possibility of reaching a compromise, but to no avail.
--Financial Times
Yeah, right....
I blame Sir John Maynard Keynes.
I blame Sir John Maynard Keynes.
True.
But the political and economic idiots that follow, and put into effect that nonsense are also more than culpable.
Certainly. I just happen to be reading Where Keynes Went Wrong by Hunter Lewis which is the best deconstruction of Keynesian economics I've read since Hazlitt's The Failure of the "New Economics". Lewis boldly goes where F.A. Hayek wouldn't and describes Keynes as an "immoralist" in ch. 4. Keynes of course was a homosexual, but it was rejection of morality in general or acceptance of a nihilism that is most disturbing to me. It also explains how he came up with his famous retort to critics "in the long run, we are all dead". Saddling future generations with insurmountable debt just did not matter to him, and by advocating his economic philosophy Obama advocates his moral philosophy.
n00b:I don't know why you are insulting me by accusing me of "ranting" like a "noob" whatever that is. But I am a tolerant person, and I am aware that you queers are attempting to change the English language with a lexicon of your own.
About your bizarre sensitivity: I must apologize because I didn't know there was a PC qualification for addressing you queers. I don't remember ever broaching the subject of the sensitivity of the terms before.
I woulda thought the term "queer" which was used for decades, aptly described your abnormality and therefore acceptable. Also knowing the term "gay" I woulda thought you abnormals preferred a term that best described you. There isn't anything particularly "gay" about you.
May I suggest that what with your predilection for changing the meanings of the English language (changing the meaning of the term "marriage" to include the union of the same sexes, and abolishing the term "queer' used for decades to "gay") ..... you people evolve to the next level and adopt the term "strange" to aptly describe your abnormality and thereby maintain a consistency with REALITY.
I am sorry that in order to obfuscate the irrefutable truths involved in the exposure of LIEberrhoidal, or the subset: Obamarrhoidal bogus convolutions of REALITY...... which was the topic of my post......... to avoid facing REALITY, you deliberately pulled a cop out and changed the topic.
But, that's OK. I am a tolerant person and I understand that people will go to any lengths to avoid confronting the unpleasant truths about their bogus LIEberrhoidal (and/or Obamarrhoidal) mental gyrations.
Maybe you should read up more on Keynes' economics theories and spend less time on the tabloid stuff.
Keynes did not favor ever-growing debt. Rather, he counseled a counter-cyclical monetary policy. When the economy is sound, taxes should be raised and/or spending cut (to build a surplus) so that taxes could be lowered and/or spending raised when the economy sinks.
Unfortunately the previous administration followed just the opposite course to what Kenyes suggests: it cut taxes and increased spending during an economic expansion. That helped fuel the asset bubble and it made it much more difficult to react to the recessionary economy, as taxes were already very low and spending already quite high (and thus the debt was too hight).
"tabloid stuff"? I referenced Nobel Laureate F.A. Hayek, and economists Hunter Lewis and Henry Hazlitt. I'm sure the wiki articles you've googled are great non-"tabloid stuff", yet they would't garner a passing grade if you referenced it in an undergraduate essay.
Keynes falsely believed a 'zero' interest rate policy would liquidate debt through his non-existent 'multiplier effect' of deficit spending. Tax rates should be held high on the wealthy--not to balance budgets--but to check the inevitable outcome of his suggested policy which is inflation and/or sector bubbles, according to Keynes. He also mentioned 'social justice' reasons for keeping taxes high, but they were non sequiturs regarding macroeconomics. If you're actually familiar with Keynes (which I doubt) you know he was extremely vague and often duplicitous on almost everything he espoused--minus his zero interest rate, deficit spending philosophy, and his hallucinated "paradox of thrift".
You are definitely a Keynesian..."taxes" are "very low", spending "quite high" and "debt too hight". Like your master, you provide no specifics. This makes your economic philosophy essentially a horoscope. Tell me, what should the debt/GDP ratio be according to Keynes, what makes spending "quite high" and when are taxes "very low"?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?