The Second American Revolution - We The People

[Old Rocks]

Some of you folks are SO ANGRY that you want to shoot you NEIGHBORS!!!

No. Take aim at the government. Are we going to start seeing our tax dollars going towards bodyguards? AIG executive, Liddy, spoke of death threats to his employees. Next up will be an increase in threats directed at high profile Senators and White House officials. Obama speaks of a civilian security force. What, ACORN type folks? Well if they came knocking at my door, I wouldn't be greeting them with a smile. I don't trust Obama or his agenda.

But you supported the PNAC, correct?

 

[Sinatra]

Some of you folks are SO ANGRY that you want to shoot you NEIGHBORS!!!

No. Take aim at the government. Are we going to start seeing our tax dollars going towards bodyguards? AIG executive, Liddy, spoke of death threats to his employees. Next up will be an increase in threats directed at high profile Senators and White House officials. Obama speaks of a civilian security force. What, ACORN type folks? Well if they came knocking at my door, I wouldn't be greeting them with a smile. I don't trust Obama or his agenda.

But you supported the PNAC, correct?

CO2?

Water Vapor?

 

[Ravi]

Oh I get it Pubic, any law or interpretation of the law that you disagree with you deem "leftist" even when it can be shown that the right was responsible for it.

I still am not seeing how your ability to make a buck has been affected.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Oh I get it Pubic, any law or interpretation of the law that you disagree with you deem "leftist" even when it can be shown that the right was responsible for it.

I still am not seeing how your ability to make a buck has been affected.

Well of course you don't see how confiscatory taxation, adding untold liability to commerce; the printing of more worthless money against debt which they fund through the writing of bad checks could possibily interefere with ANYONE'S MEANS to earn a living. If you could understand it Ravi, you wouldn't be a LEFTIST!

Now I've seen ou complain in previous posts on other threads, throughout this board of what you sometimes refer to as 'outsourcing' where US industry has moved their manufacturing off shore... or their tech call centers or what have you...

Now you find SOMETHING wrong with that... do you not? Aren't you one of the chrmoic criers that the US government should protect US jobs? Or do you contest those people, recognizing them as idiots?

Because THAT is a symptom of precisely what I'm talking about.

A policy is a LEFTIST policy when that policy promotes the tenets and the otherwise stated goals of leftism... Where the stated goal is to fund ever expanding government through taxation and regulation... it's leftism. Where that goal is to epxand social entitlements to protected classes, at the expense of others... It's leftism. Where such policy sets aside prudent financial thresholds to protect a fatally flawed SCIENTIFIC economic $cheme designed to manipulate the markets towards empowering the left... ITS LEFTISM.

Where the government supports a scheme which can only serve to devalue the instrument through which I exchange the value of the product of my labor, it undermines my right to pursue the fulfillment of my life through the product of that labor... where the government implements policy that forces the value at which I must exchange my labor to beyond what the market is willing to pay, forcing me to accept less than what I need through the implentation of that labor, it undermines my means to exercise my rights... and so on.

That you don't understand that, has no bearing on that being so... what's more its just as so for YOU as it is for me and AGAIN... you not understading that doesn't CHANGE THAT.

Now while you likely can't understand that either... I've nonetheless taken the time, ONCE AGAIN, to explain it to you. Despite you presenting yourself as an obtuse example of you being PART OF THE PROBLEM!

 

[twogreen2c]

Some of you folks are SO ANGRY that you want to shoot you NEIGHBORS!!!

No. Take aim at the government. Are we going to start seeing our tax dollars going towards bodyguards? AIG executive, Liddy, spoke of death threats to his employees. Next up will be an increase in threats directed at high profile Senators and White House officials. Obama speaks of a civilian security force. What, ACORN type folks? Well if they came knocking at my door, I wouldn't be greeting them with a smile. I don't trust Obama or his agenda.

But you supported the PNAC, correct?

I am not familiar with this group, but went to their website and read an excerpt from their Statement of Principles (see below). I cannot say I would support their principles as a whole (see bolded text). Support would be dependent on the issues at hand, the parties involved, the consequences to the U.S. and whether it falls under our Constitutional guidelines. Intelligent arguments for or against would have to be debated by the Congress. That's the scary part.

– From the Project’s founding Statement of Principles

“As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world’s most preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievement of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

“[What we require is] a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities.

“Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership of the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of the past century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.”

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

No. Take aim at the government. Are we going to start seeing our tax dollars going towards bodyguards? AIG executive, Liddy, spoke of death threats to his employees. Next up will be an increase in threats directed at high profile Senators and White House officials. Obama speaks of a civilian security force. What, ACORN type folks? Well if they came knocking at my door, I wouldn't be greeting them with a smile. I don't trust Obama or his agenda.

But you supported the PNAC, correct?

I am not familiar with this group, but went to their website and read an excerpt from their Statement of Principles (see below). I cannot say I would support their principles as a whole (see bolded text). Support would be dependent on the issues at hand, the parties involved, the consequences to the U.S. and whether it falls under our Constitutional guidelines. Intelligent arguments for or against would have to be debated by the Congress. That's the scary part.

– From the Project’s founding Statement of Principles

“As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world’s most preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievement of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

“[What we require is] a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities.

“Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership of the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of the past century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.”

You've just challenged a leftist to THINK...

Thus that conversation is OVER, short a couple of tired cliches and thread bear platitudes of the vacuous variety.

PNAC advocates for the American Perspective... Thus PNAC stands as the antithesis of the ideological left, from the meek Centrists who just isn't comfortable with the idea that we should be protecting our interests over those of other people with differing ideas and the Marxist who is CERTAIN that the American perspective is WRONG; neither can tell you WHY they feel the American Perspective is wrong... but that doesn't even slow them down from implying or stating outright that it is.

 

[editec]

bla bla bla LEFTIST bla bla bla confiscatory taxes bla bla bla liberals.

yawn!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

No offense, but go fuck yourself. You claim that it is people like me that the revolution will be against. Why? Because I think the economy is worth saving? Because I didn't vote for McCain? Because I think the government should not penalize AIG employees for their bonuses? Because I think illegal immigration is a wedge issue and not the problem it is made out to be? Because I think the war in Iraq was a mistake? Why exactly are you singling me out, Gunny, what viewpoint of mine makes you claim that I am the type of people the revolution will be against?

As for your question, I have more loyalty to the country than the government...but they are both intertwined because WE are the government.

HEY! A perfect score... NO! On all of the above, you managed to COMPLETELY avoid the point.

You're part and parcel of the probem, BECAUSE YOU LACK THE MEANS TO UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM AND ADVOCATE FOR THAT WHICH PROMOTES THE PROBLEM.

For instance you state that ya feel that 'the economy is worth saving'... yet you advocate for policy THAT CAUSED THE PROBLEM and the policy for which you advocate to SAVE the economy will at BEST mask the fatal flaws which the same but previously implemented policy have created...

All of which means that you're not anything APPROACHING an American... because you have no idea what America is and you've shown NO signs of possessing the minimal intellectual means necessary to understand it. Yet you possess the means to vote and with every vote you vote AGAINST the interests of America; while proclaiming you love for her.

You're EXACTLY the problem and if a traitor is a citizen that promotes the interests of the enemies of their nation, and if enemy is that which is defined as that which seeks to or can only result in her destruction; then there's absolutely NO Evidence on the table that you've anything OTHER than a traitor to the US.

No you'll unquestionably reject this conclusion, but you'll do so through empty denials; you'll claim that 'honest people can disagree on this or that policy' and while that is a zippy cliche which serves to promote comity between two idiots who want to hide their means to lay down an effective argument for their respective positions, honest people cannot disagree on the certainty that left-think, IN EVERY CONCEIVABLE FACET of any given 'ism'... is the very antithesis of that beacon of individual liberty known as AMERICA!

 

[American Horse]

No. Take aim at the government. Are we going to start seeing our tax dollars going towards bodyguards? AIG executive, Liddy, spoke of death threats to his employees. Next up will be an increase in threats directed at high profile Senators and White House officials. Obama speaks of a civilian security force. What, ACORN type folks? Well if they came knocking at my door, I wouldn't be greeting them with a smile. I don't trust Obama or his agenda.

But you supported the PNAC, correct?

I am not familiar with this group, but went to their website and read an excerpt from their Statement of Principles (see below). I cannot say I would support their principles as a whole (see bolded text). Support would be dependent on the issues at hand, the parties involved, the consequences to the U.S. and whether it falls under our Constitutional guidelines. Intelligent arguments for or against would have to be debated by the Congress. That's the scary part.

– From the Project’s founding Statement of Principles

“As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world’s most preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievement of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

“[What we require is] a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities.

“Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership of the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of the past century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.”

Here's a 10 minute video tangential to America's leadership in the world with questions answered by John Bolton as asked by Glen Beck Take the ten minutes.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

No. Take aim at the government. Are we going to start seeing our tax dollars going towards bodyguards? AIG executive, Liddy, spoke of death threats to his employees. Next up will be an increase in threats directed at high profile Senators and White House officials. Obama speaks of a civilian security force. What, ACORN type folks? Well if they came knocking at my door, I wouldn't be greeting them with a smile. I don't trust Obama or his agenda.

But you supported the PNAC, correct?

I am not familiar with this group, but went to their website and read an excerpt from their Statement of Principles (see below). I cannot say I would support their principles as a whole (see bolded text). Support would be dependent on the issues at hand, the parties involved, the consequences to the U.S. and whether it falls under our Constitutional guidelines. Intelligent arguments for or against would have to be debated by the Congress. That's the scary part.

– From the Project’s founding Statement of Principles

“As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world’s most preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievement of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

“[What we require is] a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities.

“Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership of the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of the past century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.”

You've just challenged a leftist to THINK...

Thus that conversation is OVER, short a couple of tired cliches and thread bear platitudes of the vacuous variety.

PNAC advocates for the American Perspective... Thus PNAC stands as the antithesis of the ideological left, from the meek Centrists who just isn't comfortable with the idea that we should be protecting our interests over those of other people with differing ideas and the Marxist who is CERTAIN that the American perspective is WRONG; neither can tell you WHY they feel the American Perspective is wrong... but that doesn't even slow them down from implying or stating outright that it is.

bla bla bla LEFTIST bla bla bla confiscatory taxes bla bla bla liberals.

yawn!

bravo!

BRAAAVO!

This thread really needed a fascist to run in and prove my point by avoiding that point through the IMPLICATION that left-think is NOT the rock in the Policy road which has set the US from her principled FOUNDATION... no doubt born of a DESPERATE need to 'spread the blame to 'both sides...' (which I've already done... the right is to blame for allowing the left and their comrade centrists to place leftists in government, which has brought us to where we are... a problem which we're determined to resolve one way or another.)

Now Ed would have LOVED to have come in with a well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid argument, wherein she established that left-think is in line with the bed-rock principles that ARE the foundation of America; but she isn't capable of such, so the yawn was about all she had...

Now the good news for Ed here, is that NO ONE is capable of such, because Left-think represents the very ANTITHESIS (that means the opposite Bobo) of the principled founding of America... so there's absolutely no means to do so... PERIOD.

Great Job Ed... ya done the best ya could, God bless ya... had someone asserted that you were a fascist prone to defend left-think, you'd have run to deny it and DEMANDED that they PROVE it...

So you coming in here to prove it... Really HELPS!

Thanks...

 

[editec]

bla bla bla editec bla bla bla leftist bla bla bla wah! wah! wah!

Now go wrap yourself in the flag for somebody stupid enough to think you know what the fuck you're talking about, okay, sonny?

As long as you think the problems of our work are based on some specious theory of economics, and not based on the ongoing crime of our leaders (or both parties) you are nothing but another American dupe.

 

[Ravi]

No offense, but go fuck yourself. You claim that it is people like me that the revolution will be against. Why? Because I think the economy is worth saving? Because I didn't vote for McCain? Because I think the government should not penalize AIG employees for their bonuses? Because I think illegal immigration is a wedge issue and not the problem it is made out to be? Because I think the war in Iraq was a mistake? Why exactly are you singling me out, Gunny, what viewpoint of mine makes you claim that I am the type of people the revolution will be against?

As for your question, I have more loyalty to the country than the government...but they are both intertwined because WE are the government.

HEY! A perfect score... NO! On all of the above, you managed to COMPLETELY avoid the point.

You're part and parcel of the probem, BECAUSE YOU LACK THE MEANS TO UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM AND ADVOCATE FOR THAT WHICH PROMOTES THE PROBLEM.

For instance you state that ya feel that 'the economy is worth saving'... yet you advocate for policy THAT CAUSED THE PROBLEM and the policy for which you advocate to SAVE the economy will at BEST mask the fatal flaws which the same but previously implemented policy have created...

All of which means that you're not anything APPROACHING an American... because you have no idea what America is and you've shown NO signs of possessing the minimal intellectual means necessary to understand it. Yet you possess the means to vote and with every vote you vote AGAINST the interests of America; while proclaiming you love for her.

You're EXACTLY the problem and if a traitor is a citizen that promotes the interests of the enemies of their nation, and if enemy is that which is defined as that which seeks to or can only result in her destruction; then there's absolutely NO Evidence on the table that you've anything OTHER than a traitor to the US.

No you'll unquestionably reject this conclusion, but you'll do so through empty denials; you'll claim that 'honest people can disagree on this or that policy' and while that is a zippy cliche which serves to promote comity between two idiots who want to hide their means to lay down an effective argument for their respective positions, honest people cannot disagree on the certainty that left-think, IN EVERY CONCEIVABLE FACET of any given 'ism'... is the very antithesis of that beacon of individual liberty known as AMERICA!

The economy is worth saving. How it it is saved is a matter for debate. Financial companies should be regulated so this doesn't happen again. You are free to call me un-American as you please, that doesn't make it true. I swear, you are some kind of troll that works for the DNC to further make Republicans look like howling morons.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

bla bla bla editec bla bla bla leftist bla bla bla wah! wah! wah!

Now go wrap yourself in the flag for somebody stupid enough to think you know what the fuck you're talking about, okay, sonny?

As long as you think the problems of our work are based on some specious theory of economics, and not based on the ongoing crime of our leaders (or both parties) you are nothing but another American dupe.

Ed, while I know that you're threatened by this thread pointing out the failure of your most closely held beliefs... and ya desperately need to change the subject; but the fact remains that the centrist 'Mixed Economy" advocates have DESTABLILIZED the US economy by introducing, rather intentionally so, the INHERENT INSTABILITY COMMON TO SOCIALIST POLICY...

And I know that you'd LOVE to advance an intellectually sound, logically valid argument to contest that fact... but you're simply not capable of doing so....

Now I'd like ot limit your humiliation here, but we can't do that if you keep returning with these flaccid little post which in effect scream: My NAME IS ED and I'm a DUMBASS!

So maybe you should just shush and go find a thread where they're discussing family recipes for a nice hot chilly or how best to build a compost system...

 

[twogreen2c]

Chill out, Pubic. He was arguing that a revolution would be valid since the majority is against current governmental policies. I was merely pointing out that the majority isn't at that point.

But please list what you believe the government is currently doing that is destroying your means to engage in commerce or your means to exercise your right to pursue the fulfillment of your life through the fruit of your labor. And please don't respond with one of your typical hysterical verbose rants...give me one or two concrete examples.

Printing money against no measured value, with which they fund government dent instruments and with which they BUY THOSE DEBT INSTRUMENTS WHICH ARE BASED UPON BAD DEBT.

Claiming the power to seize private property on dubious grounds of 'rights of the collective.'

Redefining their means to tax business on ever declining scales of minutie, such as cap and trade...

Stuff like that...

I'm not familiar with the last one, but the first two haven't happened...and I fail to see how any of them restricts your ability to make a buck.

Wow Ravi. You need to come out from under that rock.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I generally don't get into long debates with conservatives

Roflmnao..

Anyone that has ever read your work can appreciate how you've come to that decision... and this departure from that learned behavior is going to put you right back on track... so not to worry...

when you are dealing with small children you cannot convince them with reason they are wrong as any parent knows.

WHEW! Aint THAT THE TRUTH! The key is to recognize that you're intellectual limitations will always leave you as the child in these discussions... and to fight that certainty is just not healthy. You're a leftist Midcan and the ideological Left is the political means by which the STUPID advance their voice... and you know this, yet you keep returning only to realize greater and greater levels of humiliation...

And conservatives are mostly(?) children as their beliefs are founded in myth and imaginary people.

And yes... this is where it all starts, with these flacclid little pricks, which you shove fruitlessly against the whole of knowledge, only to find frustration, leading you to ever deeper levels of eternal impotence.

So let's get to it...

But I will address Ronnie and debt, I was there and saw firsthand the negative effect he had on America.

Oh good... I was there too...

For those who point to Carter, Google stagflation and Nixon/Ford. Carter inherited a mess. Clinton inherited a mess.

Lets set aside the google sources... and your implication which projects an empty validation of your conclusion and recognize what ya just said...

'Carter Inherited Stagflation...'

Let's assume for the sake of argument that this is correct... Carter's economic policy, of confiscatory taxation, absurd regulation and encouraging ridiculous Fed policy COULD ONLY HAVE EXACERBATED INFLATION (That means it made it worse... Bobo)

I'm sure the blind will question the sources and not the content, but hey, you know what they say about ducks.

Huh... so you're advancing a fallacious defense of your dubious sources, to offset any criticism that they're simply revising history in an overt act of deception? While disengenuous and openly deceitful, tactically it's all ya have... isn't it? So it serves reason.

"In the Reagan years, more federal debt was added than in the entire prior history of the United States." Richard Darman (Reagan advisor)

"In the Reagan Years"... Golly, is it ME, ir are ya running to use that quote to imply something ENTIRELY distinct from what it actually says?

I mean it says "In the Reagan Years"... which is to say that it SPECIFICALLY does NOT SAY: "REAGAN ADDED MORE DEBT..."

Let's move on, I just wanted to clear that misnomer up while it was fresh...

"Early in his presidency, Reagan chose as his economic advisors a group that espoused a radical economic theory called "supply-side."

Radical? Huh... So supply and demand is a Radical notion of economics? Well that can't possibly be any clue that the veracity of your source is doubtful... and you were worried.

The supply-siders told Reagan that if he gave tax cuts to the top brackets (the wealthiest individuals) the positive effects would "trickle down" to everyone else. Tax cuts, they argued, would produce so much growth in the economy that America could simply outgrow its deficits. Reagan bought into supply-side theory, which is why in 1981 he predicted that there would be a "drastic reduction in the deficit."

Actually, the truth is that Reagan was not being so advised, as much as this was Reagan's own recognition of the immutable certainty, that reducing economic drag, which is otherwise induced on the economy by the liability of high taxation, would induce greater gains in production, due to the reduction in economic drag cutting the certainty of losses to risked capital, induced by that tax liability, promoting economic growth... it's a certainty in nature and can produce no other potential effect. Which as is always the case in a valid calculation, the inverse is just as true; induce more drag through greater tax liability and you'll REDUCE production... If you doubt that... just look at any market place and observe the a product cycle... The housing market is a great example... when mortgages were plentiful due to the imprudent reduction of lending thresholds, induced by the left, housing was relatively cheap... and being in high demand these reductions in mortgages threshold exponentially expanded the size of the qualified market...

Of course over the 5 year spand of peak idiocy, the average price of a house in the best markets shot from under 100,000 to over 600,000 for THE SAME HOUSE.

Now you WERE THERE MIDCAN... what happened to that MARKET? What was the trickle down effect of increasing liability in the housing market?

I'm sure you'll agree that the HOUSING MARKET COLLAPSED when the cost of buying a house was no longer sustainable by the stark majority of the market... it had nothing to do with available credit ... as credit was WIDELY AVIALABLE... it had everything to do
with DEMAND DROPPING LIKE A STONE... everyone that had previously wanted a house, had one, and that meant that the only people left buying were the speculators and the market had exploded beyond the means of the market's average buyer to justify the risk of buying at those highly inflated prices... thus there was NO DEMAND FOR CREDIT, thus the ENORMOUS VOLUME OF fees which the credit maket had been enjoying dried up and the party was over... the only fees coming in was the principle payments on the TRILLIONS IN COIN THAT THEY HAD BORROWED, so they could LOAN IT and they did not have the capital reserves to manage those liabilities... which was bad enough... but when the collapse of demand DEVALUED THE PROPERTIES ON WHICH THOSE MORTAGES WERE BASED... they turned to the vehicles which they had used to offset the potential for loss against unforeseen risks, AKA: INSURANCE... (That points to AIG Bobo) the whole house of cards came crashing down... ONCE AGAIN PROVING THE ABSURDITY THAT IS FRACTIONAL BANKING... (Bobo that is a SCIENTIFIC FORMULA of the LEFT) Now that is a demonstration of inflation... the devaluation of the asset or that which secures the assets, and who can we point to here and reasonably assess as being responsible for creating this inflation?? (This is asking who sets the rate on available credit... who sets the threshold of required reserves against realized liabilities and so on? Who demanded that the financial markets set aside their own actuarial thresholds in the name of fairness, etc?) See: the Federal Reserve.

However, Reagan soon discovered that his supply-side advisors were wrong. Tax cuts, instead of reducing the deficit, caused the deficit to balloon. After 1981, Reagan made no more rosy predictions regarding the deficit."

ROFLMNAO... Well sure... because "EVERYONE KNOWS" that reducing liability on the market will naturally require Congress to SPEND more money.... which is the ONLY POTENTIAL SOURCE FOR DEFICIT SPENDING.


Economic Policy - The Reagan Years

You should contact your geocity source and explain that their stated conclusion is a non sequitur, thus it's logically invalid and is thus NOT intellectually sound.

"[In]1985 US Becomes Debtor Nation For the first time since 1914, the United States owed more money to foreigners than it was owed."

Golly... 1914? That's so Odd... I mean the Fed was created in 1913... But hey, let's not get side tracked on that one... as that wouldn't even BE FAIR!

"Reagan's spending grew the size of government and set the stage for runaway government spending which has now taken our national debt to $9.2 trillion and has seen the U.S. shift from the largest creditor nation to the largest debtor nation. It could be said that Reagan's legacy was leading this nation down the path to bankruptcy (to which we have now arrived)."
American Chronicle | Even Reagan Was No Ronald Reagan

ROFLMNAO... It never ceases to amaze me how the left drapes itself in "American' this or that, when they are working so hard behind that name to undermine America...

Reagan in fact spent most of his Presidency trying to get the leftist controlled congress to CUT spending... which they not only refused to do, but when in 1984 Reagan established a compromise for a dollar for dollar spending cut for every dollar in tax increase that THE LEFTIST LEGISLATURE DEMANDED... the congress took the tax increase, but never cut one red cent of SPENDING instead INCEASED their un-constitutional Social Spending... which of course had been designed into the budgets ever since LBJs "the Great Society" with mandatory increases of 3-5% PER YEAR for their various faux wars... Crime and Poverty, etc...

Reagan's only increase in the scope of the US government, which wasn't an increase at all, but is one the left chronically demands to be such, was President Reagan's constitutional mandate to provide for the common defense; which he dutifully tended to through the building of a sufficient military to kick the shit out of the Soviets if they failed to heed Nature's warnings to not screw with America. Of course this was expensive, as the Ford and Carter Administrations, particularly Jimma Catta... had EVISCERATED US MILITARY READINESS...

(The above is from a conservative? weird stuff these conservatives.lol)

Your source was not a conservative... and to pretend he was just sets to lie any notion that presumes that you're as intelligent as a bag of nails.

"Mr. Reagan also helped redistribute American income and wealth with a bold assault on American labor.

There's no means to redistribute wealth through an assault on labor... as labor is not a source of wealth, thus attacking labor, presumably to strip them of their wealth would be a colossal fool's errand... so once again your source is found basing their argument upon the invalid reasoning of a non sequitur...

In 1981 he summarily fired 12,000 air traffic controllers who went on strike for better working conditions.

Well... Reagan didn't fire them because they went on strike, per se... he fired them because their contract expressly prohibited them going on strike; thus they violated that contract, and when this was explained to them and they refused to adhere to their contractual obligations, Reagan, THEIR BOSS, canned their collective asses ON THEIR HAVING VIOALTED THEIR CONTRACT...

And man I LOVED IT... I literally stood up and cheered as did everyone in our ready room when they heard that news... It was WONDERFUL to see an actual American back in the White House REJECTING the addle-minded left and their 'we-be-victims' bullshit...

This ushered in a new and dark era of labor relations, with employers now free to "permanently replace" striking workers. The median real wage failed to grow during the decade of the 1980s.

Yeah, having to live up to one's contractual agreements can really put a damper on the children of the left who prefer to ignore RESPONSIBILITY...

Now I would LOVE to hear how you square this direct and unambiguous Leftists flight from responsibility as the action of ADULTS; given your assertion at the outset of this now long since discredited screed... (It's all coming back to her now kids... she's remembering why she rarely debates conservatives at any depth... it JUST NEVER GOES WELL!)

The Reagan revolution caused even more economic damage internationally, for example by changing policy at the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. Thus began the era of "structural adjustment" -- a set of economic policies that has become so discredited worldwide that the IMF and World Bank no longer use the term. The 1980s became "the lost decade" for Latin America, the region most affected by Washington's foreign economic policy. Income per person actually shrank for the decade, a rare historical event, and the region has yet to come close to its pre-1980s growth rates."

Yes that's right because the Fed prefers the Fractional Reserves policy which the meltdown the financial markets are presently reeling... Reagan sought to simply adjust the structure of the reserves and that of course lead to a strong US dollar and the Europeans HATED THAT! ... Which is the basis behind the: "a set of economic policies that has become so discredited worldwide..." comment.

And yeah... those changes have been set aside, the reserve thresholds returned to leftist margins and the US Dollar is all but worthless... GREAT JOB KIDS!

Ronald Reagan's Legacy

ROFl... Oh "Common Dreams"... the original "Progressive Echo-Chamber"... Always nice to kick their ball into the street... I appreciate-cha bringing them in... that was a hoot!

"Reagan's first tax proposal, for example, had previously been endorsed by the Democratic Congress beginning in 1978, and the general structure of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 was first proposed by two junior Democratic members of Congress in 1982. Similarly, the "monetarist experiment" to control inflation was initiated in October 1979, following Carter's appointment of Paul Volcker as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. The bipartisan support of these policies permitted Reagan to implement more radical changes than in other areas of economic policy."

Reaganomics, by William A. Niskanen: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

ROFLMNAO... Oh GOD that's precious... WHAT "FIRST TAX PROPOSAL?" Your quote didn't specify... Are we to believe that you're suggesting that Reagan ripped the Democrats off when he first proposed his tax cuts, the one's you just spent 500 words lamenting? Or are ya speaking of the Tax increases of 86? Which were again a result of a negotiated dollar for dollar CUT IN SPENDING, which the leftist legislature FAILED TO IMPLEMENT? (That means they lied, Bobo...)

"Reagan left three major adverse legacies at the end of his second term. First, the privately held federal debt increased from 22.3 percent of GDP to 38.1 percent and, despite the record peacetime expansion, the federal deficit in Reagan's last budget was still 2.9 percent of GDP. Second, the failure to address the savings and loan problem early led to an additional debt of about $125 billion. Third, the administration added more trade barriers than any administration since Hoover. The share of U.S. imports subject to some form of trade restraint increased from 12 percent in 1980 to 23 percent in 1988." from above

Well this is displaced accountability on parade... REAGAN SPENT 8 YEARS TRYING TO GET CONGRESS TO CUT SPENDING... THE CONGRESS REFUSED... CONGRESS IS THE ONLY PARTY IN THE US GOVERNMENT THAT CAN SPEND A DIME FROM THE US FEDERAL TREASURY... PERIOD. Every PENNY OF FEDERAL MONEY THAT IS SPENT IS AUTHORIXED BY CONGRESS... So this entire SCREED tries to lay the blame for CONGRESSIONAL SPENDING ON A PRESIDENT WHO FOUGHT FOR 8 YEARS TO GET THAT CONGRESS TO CUT SPENDING....

"[Reagan] opposed to the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was the same year that Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney were slaughtered. As president, he actually tried to weaken the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He opposed a national holiday for the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He tried to get rid of the federal ban on tax exemptions for private schools that practiced racial discrimination. And in 1988, he vetoed a bill to expand the reach of federal civil rights legislation....

ROFLMNAO...

This is deceit of the highest order... Reagan was not even in the federal government in 1964, his contest of the legislation was one regarding THE SPENDING THAT IT PRODUCED... THE SPENDING WHICH WAS STILL BEING EXANADED WHEN HE TOOK OFFICE 16 YEARS LATER...

Congress overrode the veto.

Which stands in evidence OF CONGRESS EXPANDING SPENDING IN DEFIANCE OF REAGAN'S VETO WHICH WAS DESIGNED TO CUT SPENDING...

Reagan also vetoed the imposition of sanctions on the apartheid regime in South Africa. Congress overrode that veto, too."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/opinion/13herbert.html?_r=1

Yes, he did... again on grounds that it was COSTING US MONEY... where again the LEFT voted to INCREASE SPENDING IN DEFIANCE OF REAGAN'S ATTEMPT TO CUT SPENDING...

Reagan's legacy from others
Salon.com Politics | The Reagan legacy
The Reagan Legacy
Ronald Reagan's Legacy
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opinion/21krugman.html
graphs
Hale "Bonddad" Stewart: Ronald Reagan: Fiscal Disaster

Salon, the nation, thethirdworldtraveler, the huffington post and the NY TIMES...

ROFLMNAO... Sweet mother, how Pravda managed to miss that litanny of propaganda is known ONLY to you...

"Remember Reagan; respect him. But don't let them make you revere him. He was a divider, not a uniter." Rick Perlstein

Yessir... Mr. Reagan definitely did not apologize for his innate understanding of the Rights and responsibilities intrinsic to the foundation of America and that DEFINITELY Divided the Anti-Americans from the Americans... which was his goal...

But it cannot be argued that Mr. Reagan did not succeed in UNITING Americans against the addle-minded subversives of the ideological left.

Now go lick your wounds dipshit... and remember your place from now on.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

No offense, but go fuck yourself. You claim that it is people like me that the revolution will be against. Why? Because I think the economy is worth saving? Because I didn't vote for McCain? Because I think the government should not penalize AIG employees for their bonuses? Because I think illegal immigration is a wedge issue and not the problem it is made out to be? Because I think the war in Iraq was a mistake? Why exactly are you singling me out, Gunny, what viewpoint of mine makes you claim that I am the type of people the revolution will be against?

As for your question, I have more loyalty to the country than the government...but they are both intertwined because WE are the government.

HEY! A perfect score... NO! On all of the above, you managed to COMPLETELY avoid the point.

You're part and parcel of the probem, BECAUSE YOU LACK THE MEANS TO UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM AND ADVOCATE FOR THAT WHICH PROMOTES THE PROBLEM.

For instance you state that ya feel that 'the economy is worth saving'... yet you advocate for policy THAT CAUSED THE PROBLEM and the policy for which you advocate to SAVE the economy will at BEST mask the fatal flaws which the same but previously implemented policy have created...

All of which means that you're not anything APPROACHING an American... because you have no idea what America is and you've shown NO signs of possessing the minimal intellectual means necessary to understand it. Yet you possess the means to vote and with every vote you vote AGAINST the interests of America; while proclaiming you love for her.

You're EXACTLY the problem and if a traitor is a citizen that promotes the interests of the enemies of their nation, and if enemy is that which is defined as that which seeks to or can only result in her destruction; then there's absolutely NO Evidence on the table that you've anything OTHER than a traitor to the US.

No you'll unquestionably reject this conclusion, but you'll do so through empty denials; you'll claim that 'honest people can disagree on this or that policy' and while that is a zippy cliche which serves to promote comity between two idiots who want to hide their means to lay down an effective argument for their respective positions, honest people cannot disagree on the certainty that left-think, IN EVERY CONCEIVABLE FACET of any given 'ism'... is the very antithesis of that beacon of individual liberty known as AMERICA!

The economy is worth saving. How it it is saved is a matter for debate. Financial companies should be regulated so this doesn't happen again. You are free to call me un-American as you please, that doesn't make it true. I swear, you are some kind of troll that works for the DNC to further make Republicans look like howling morons.

Yeah... that's right, it's 'debatable' that policy which caused the problem, such as the 'regulations imparted upon the financial markets which caused them to lower their actuarial thresholds in the name of FAIRNESS'... should be considered as a means to 'save the economny'... BRILLIANT!

You are un-patriotic, IF patriotism is defined as someone who SUPPORTS the best interests of their country. Ya see Ravi... advocating for policy which has historically threatened one's country is NOT a trait which indicates "SUPPORT FOR THE BEST INTERESTS OF ONE'S COUNTRY..."

And for what it's worth, I could not POSSIBLY care LESS about what you are anyother leftist feels about me and my stated reasoning... that you oppose my reasoning merely proves conclusively that my reasoing is right on target.

 

[BrianH]

I don't think you are right, Brian. Most Americans support the stimulus package.

Support for stimulus plan slips, poll finds - CNN.com

That "most PEOPLE" support a given policy IN NO WAY ESTABLISHES THAT SUCH POLICY IS A VIRTUOUS AND PRUDENT DECISION WHICH BEST SERVES THE INTERESTS OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY...

If 98% of "THE PEOPLE" voted to BURN DOWN THE SUM OF ALL MEANS OF FOOD PRODUCTION... that would not be a virtuous and prudent decision in support of individual liberty either.

So this idiotic notion that "majority RULES" is BULLSHIT, where that majority does NOT SERVE THE PRINCIPLES ON WHICH THEIR MEANS TO GOVERN RESTS... The left doesn't have a right to destroy the US currency, just because they were elected to a majority.

PERIOD.

And this all hinges on the certainty that NO ACTION BY ANY INDIVIDUAL OF SOME OF INDIVIDUAL CAN RIGHTFULLY USURP THE MEANS OF OTHERS TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS. And when your actions destroy my means to engage in commerce... you've indisputably usurped my means to exercise my right to pursue the fulfillment of my life through the fruit of my labor.

And that's a problem... Now you claim you have a majority and that this makes you right... well if you idiots keep pushing this freedom killing policy, you had better hope you've a majority and one which has the means to defend thsemselves from that very well regulated 'minority' who you'll have THROUGHLY pissed off and who will be in no mood to hear your snotty fallacious retorts, let alone to accept them as a viable defense.

But far be it from me to offer an opinion designed to PREVENT hostility... you just keep advancing that 'let them eat cake' attitude, Marie... and we'll see how it plays out.

Chill out, Pubic. He was arguing that a revolution would be valid since the majority is against current governmental policies. I was merely pointing out that the majority isn't at that point.

But please list what you believe the government is currently doing that is destroying your means to engage in commerce or your means to exercise your right to pursue the fulfillment of your life through the fruit of your labor. And please don't respond with one of your typical hysterical verbose rants...give me one or two concrete examples.

I'll agree that most people support A stimulus package. But most people haven't read the current package, and did not read the previous packages. How can someone support something they know nothing about. Hell, I'd bet that many of our congressmen and women didn't read it. I support some sort of stimulus package, but do not support the current one that is being passed.

 

[Ravi]

Did you read it, Brian?

 

[midcan5]

Listen all you swinging Cheneys, these 'thanks' for inane nonsense constitute the greatest circle jerk I have witnessed in recent years. LOL

But I still ask, where were you so called pretend revolutionaries when Bush/Cheney/Gonzales were breaking the fundamental individual rights laws of this nation? Or are you all revolutionaries on the far left. Probably you are confusing ideologies or are such blind partisans you are clueless. I vote clueless.

When Change Is Not Enough: The Seven Steps To Revolution | OurFuture.org

 

[editec]

I'll agree that most people support A stimulus package. But most people haven't read the current package, and did not read the previous packages. How can someone support something they know nothing about. Hell, I'd bet that many of our congressmen and women didn't read it. I support some sort of stimulus package, but do not support the current one that is being passed.

Based on what little most of us (myself included ) CAN know of it, I think you've about summed up what we're facing.

I certainly cannot support anything that keeps the terribly flawed system we had going, that's for damned sure.

And since I see nothing in this plan that changes any of the fundamental problems that are bankrupting this nation, and since this TARP program seems designed to make Americans even more indebted to the masters of the financial universe, I surely do NOT support the plan as I understand it.