You got me. See, I admit it.Originally Posted by Reality_Check
I should have said "Liberal". Bloomberg is a liberal, imo he just put an (R) next to his name so he could ride Guiliani's coattails.
Is very uneasy
You got me. See, I admit it.
I should have said "Liberal". Bloomberg is a liberal, imo he just put an (R) next to his name so he could ride Guiliani's coattails.
When given the choice between big business and big government, choose big business. Big business never threw millions of people into gas chambers, but big government did.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men" -Samuel Adams
Is very uneasy
I don't love it, I have it for protection. Also, I don't exactly live in the city, and I have outdoor cats. And coyotes are an issue. If I see one of those, I'll shoot it too, just like Rick Perry did.
My wife is scared of shotguns, so I do not have one of those.
I'm sorry for your loss as well.
When given the choice between big business and big government, choose big business. Big business never threw millions of people into gas chambers, but big government did.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men" -Samuel Adams
O R’LYEH? IA, R’LYEH!
Pragmatics is going for what you *think* is possible. You and Obama merely disagree with what is possible/likely. That is a function of civil discourse and public debate.
And arguing Keynesian economics is a "proven failure" is reaching ALOT.
Datapoints..
1.) There has NEVER been a truly Misean economic system practiced by a large industrial country. Feel free to refute this if you can but it's just the truth.
2.) During the period where the main economic thought in the US was Keynesian the economy and American world power has expanded dramatically.
3.) Consequently since one can argue a positive example for Keynesian economics with no countervailing existing positive example for Misean thought...
You can't argue Keynesian economics is a "proven failure" in that sense.
Goverment interventions (whether the tyranny of kings or the interference of legislatures and/or the central bank) have ALWAYS been with us.
I'm way more worried about Citizens United and the giving of Constitutional freedoms to artificial "creations of law" like the limited liability corporations.We agree. However, I'm curious as to whether you are concerned that the 4 liberal Justices voted for the Chicago ban, and against the US Constitution.
Simply put.. it's easier to hide or resist gun control attempts at the grass roots level (especially when I and so many other Americans own and use firearms) than it is to resist the insidious and defuse effect of corrupt corporations on the social contract and political discourse of the Republic.
"The first stage is to get the Gang( hard, solid power). every movement should be done with full power and in hard way, also need to get the twisting and wrapping power, whole body's tendon and bones need to be stretched to get the Gang( hard) power. "
-Bi Tianzou -
Is very uneasy
Oh geez, not the old "well it hasn't worked yet because the right people haven't been in charge" argument.
Well, Obama was supposed to be the one who had all the answers. If he's not the "right guy", who is? And we can see his failure everyday. You have seen the horrible economic news that's come out the past week or so, right?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/07/0...ex.html?hpt=T2
Why so? You do realize a corporation is just a legal entity created by "The People", right? And as such they deserve the same Constitutional freedoms as The People. And courts have repeatedly agreed with me on this issue.
When given the choice between big business and big government, choose big business. Big business never threw millions of people into gas chambers, but big government did.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men" -Samuel Adams
Registered User
why do you shoot the coyote? To protect your cats?
Keep them indoors, save your cat and the coyote.
Senseless concern for life, same as the guy robbing you with a gun.
I would rather have more coyotes on the earth and less *******s.
Was Bush's stimulus a success either?
Instead of giving billions to the banks and AIG, each legal US family should have received $30K in 2 types of vouchers, one for credit card payments and one towards mortgage. People could have paid off debt, reduced their mortgage and then would have had more money in their pockets to purchase things and stimulate the economy.
The money paid to CC or mortgage companies would have gone back to the banking industry so they would have gotten all the money just the same as if the government just gave it to them but this way it would have helped the PEOPLE.
That would be my stimulus proposal.
O R’LYEH? IA, R’LYEH!
No you are not understanding what I am saying (probably because you lack the education in economics and history).Oh geez, not the old "well it hasn't worked yet because the right people haven't been in charge" argument.
Well, Obama was supposed to be the one who had all the answers. If he's not the "right guy", who is? And we can see his failure everyday. You have seen the horrible economic news that's come out the past week or so, right?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/07/0...ex.html?hpt=T2
Austrian economics (i.e. the libertarian solution) have NOT been practiced by ANY of the parties in power. Not the Americans, not Europe, not Democrats nor Republicans.
I am as sympathetic as anyone to anti-Keynesian positions.. but you cannot say that an "untried" program (i.e. the Austrian one) is "proven". It isn't. It is "yet to be tested".
I'm of the opinion it should be tested.. but that won't happen under ANY likely regime (Demos or the GOP). One wants to boost aggregate demand via welfare, one via warfare.
Remember the phrase "We are all Keynesians now!" ?
I hate Bush because he was an enemy of peace, not because he was some paragon of Austrian economic theory. He was a "big spender".. he just put it on the national credit card instead of "raising the price of government to the taxpayers directly" (i.e. increasing taxes).
No a corporation is a legal entity created by an act of the legislature. It has no natural lifespan and can be perpetual. It cannot be held in prison etc.Why so? You do realize a corporation is just a legal entity created by "The People", right? And as such they deserve the same Constitutional freedoms as The People. And courts have repeatedly agreed with me on this issue.
Corporations were only notional entities created by legislatures for enterprises seen to assist in the common good... at least originally.
The courts may agree with you, but does that make it desirable? No. No more than pro-lifers should sit down and shut up because of Roe vs. Wade.
"The first stage is to get the Gang( hard, solid power). every movement should be done with full power and in hard way, also need to get the twisting and wrapping power, whole body's tendon and bones need to be stretched to get the Gang( hard) power. "
-Bi Tianzou -
Is very uneasy
The cats choose to be free, so I don't intrude on their freedom. That's how I live life. I do what I can to protect them, but I won't force them to live life in way they do not want to live life.
Bush never had a stimulus. He bailed out AIG, I believe.
Are you crazy?
And fyi, we didn't literally GIVE them the money. It's SUPPOSED to be paid back. At this time, it looks like GM might pull it off, as well as some of the financial institutions who were bailed out (I'm not up to date on the financial institutions as I should be). It looks like the bailout money for Chrysler will be thrown down the toilet, however.
So you know, I was against ANY bailouts or 'stimulus'. And by stimulus, I mean it in the sense of Gov't spending in order to attempt to jumpstart the economy. It failed during the Great Depression, and it failed this time. However, FDR at least lowered unemployment with his spending, Obama actually raised unemployment with his.
I say let the bussinesses who made bad decisions fail. The ones who didn't screw up will take their places by growing by using the sound business practices they already had in place. As for stimulus, tax cuts have worked everytime they are tried. Emulate success, not failure. It's common sense.
When given the choice between big business and big government, choose big business. Big business never threw millions of people into gas chambers, but big government did.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men" -Samuel Adams
Is very uneasy
Yeah, us History majors are clueless about history.
Speaking of history, can you show me some instances where massive Gov't entitlement and social spending has pulled a country out of a recession/depression? We know tax cuts have, so can you show where the liberal way has worked?
Yeah, we know you hate Bush based on the body count. So in your book he must rank up there with other horrible Presidents with huge body counts like FDR, Lincoln, and Wilson.
Are you saying tax increases are the answer right now?
US courts (including the Supreme Court) have repeatedly said they have the same rights as The People. Like it or not, it is what it is.
Actually the stockholders, CEO, and Officers of the corp can be put in prison (after a trial by their peers, of course), so it looks like the courts are consistant here.
Of course it has to pay taxes (on top of the income taxes and other taxes the stockholders who make up the corp pay), it can be sued, etc.
Agreed.
However, I do agree with the rights given corporations by the courts.
When given the choice between big business and big government, choose big business. Big business never threw millions of people into gas chambers, but big government did.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men" -Samuel Adams
Registered User
but this is a perfect setup of the dynamics of federal vs states and their respective responsiblities. Sadly I think the 2nd Amendment is flawed because based on the timeframe of its creation, right to bear arms in the same sentence as 'milital' related to that era.
No doubt citizens SHOULD have the right to protect themselves but does this mean in many cases the stockpiling of AK-47s, RPGs and other weaponry are accepted under that amendment. I realize that being in a free society, you can buy what you want but my own limited assessment is that when I compare gun/ammunition sales to sales of other commodities in the market, there is definately NO RECESSION in that area so Obama has exceeded the marketplace expectations in the spurring of gun sales in the local communities. So how can Obama be bad for America when you can buy as many guns as you can afford under the law?
Is very uneasy
Agreed. At their time, "militia" was simply a gathering of The People who were armed to defend themselves, their homes, their State, and their Country.
I feel The People should have every right to automatic weapons. RPG, anti-air missiles, etc are a different, complicated issue.
See, in the Founders day the average American was better armed than the armies of that time in terms of small arms. The Pennsylvania long rifle for example was far superior to rifles of that era carried by the British, yet the Founders did not ban that superior weaponry. They actually encouraged it by saying an armed populace was a check against an overbearing Government.
Gun sales are up because many fear Obama is anti-gun and because firearm sales typically go up in recessions/depressions as people fear crime more during those times. I've only recently began carrying a pistol in my car, and it's because I do worry more about crime than I did just a few years ago.
When given the choice between big business and big government, choose big business. Big business never threw millions of people into gas chambers, but big government did.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men" -Samuel Adams
Registered User
guns sales are up because of idiots like limbaugh and beck brainwashing people to go buy them before the govt. takes it away.
Just like they told people to go stock up on rice because there will be a shortage of food in the usa.
http://blogs.kansascity.com/crime_sc...copkiller.html
WESTFIELD, Mass. — An 8-year-old boy died after accidentally shooting himself in the head while firing an Uzi submachine gun under adult supervision at a gun fair.
O R’LYEH? IA, R’LYEH!
Point blank question, please answer it.. please point to a historical example of a modern industrialized country which applied a strict Austrian perspective to their monetary and regulatory policy.Yeah, us History majors are clueless about history.
Speaking of history, can you show me some instances where massive Gov't entitlement and social spending has pulled a country out of a recession/depression? We know tax cuts have, so can you show where the liberal way has worked?
When I said "you may lack the education in history and economics" I am referring specifically to Austrian school econ and fiscal history. I've asked you several times and you keep dodging the question.
Where is the "counter-example" to what you call the "liberal way" (i.e. a Keynesian economic view where government steers/regulates/bullies the markets)?
Even the GOP and the conservatives in Europe are aghast at implementing the policy recommendations of von Mises, Rothbard and Hayek (i.e. the real libertarians).
Hard money and no fiat currency? A total end to all farm subsidies? No mandatory professional licensure of any kind? Austerity government?
No significant standing military (you can't really afford it if you want anything else without fiat currency and inflationary structures).
NOBODY has implemented the total program, or really even come close. Thatcher didn't. Reagan didn't. Bush and Nixon certainly didn't.
There is far less real substantive difference between the liberals you hate and the "conservatives" I hate.
And in answer to your question.. most economists would say FDR fixed the Great Depression by the entitlements and welfare. My personal view is that the problematic responses at that time went WAY deeper that FDR spending a bunch of money.
"The first stage is to get the Gang( hard, solid power). every movement should be done with full power and in hard way, also need to get the twisting and wrapping power, whole body's tendon and bones need to be stretched to get the Gang( hard) power. "
-Bi Tianzou -
Is very uneasy
You go ahead and say that. It's true to a degree, but you cannot discount the bad economy.
This example proves MY poit. See, the guy who shot the two officers was a convicted felon. That means it was illegal for him to possess a firearm. YET HE DID. So the existing gun laws were ok, the criminal just chose to break those laws. How would more laws have stopped the guy from carrying that gun? You know they would not have. But more gun laws will create more unarmed victims for human garbage like this guy. Am I making sense?
And Bernie Goetz shot 4 guys attempting to mug him. It cuts both ways, but I want the right to defend myself.
Of course we have accidents, but that one is the parent's fault, not the gun's. I have guns, and I keep them in a room where my friends children who come over are not allowed in. I do not have kids of my own.
When given the choice between big business and big government, choose big business. Big business never threw millions of people into gas chambers, but big government did.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men" -Samuel Adams
Is very uneasy
I cannot at this time, as I do not fuly understand that policy.
Reaganomics.
When Reagan took office we had double-digit inflation, record high interest rates, and high unemployment. Aside from 1982, he had a roaring economy. And 1982 had high unemployment because Reagan had to raise interest rates (still well below Carter's record levels) to combat inflation. Once inflation susided Reagan was able to cut interest rates and by 1983 the lost jobs had returned.
Reagan also predicted the USSR would bankrupt themselves, and he was right on that one too.
To a degree. I consider myself a "Consitutionalist". In terms of political Parties, I identify closest with the Libertarian Party, but I admit even they are not perfect (unlike the Obama zombies who can see no wrong in his policies).
Actually most agree WWII ended the Depression. When FDR cut Gov't spending in 1937, unemployment rose to levels HIGHER than it was pre-New Deal. It only fell to pre-Depression levels after we entered WWII.
http://www.shmoop.com/great-depression/statistics.html
When given the choice between big business and big government, choose big business. Big business never threw millions of people into gas chambers, but big government did.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men" -Samuel Adams
Bad the Fukc Ass
I'm going to go buy a gun.
For whoso comes amongst many shall one day find that no one man is by so far the mightiest of all.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
