The Second American Revolution - We The People

[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.



Now, I would Like Midcan to respond to this... naturally, her refusal to repond, and/OR her attempt to dismiss it absent an intellectually sound, logically valid, WELL REASONED, POINT FOR POINT rebuttal, advanced in a reasonably timely manner, will constitute a CONCESSION wherein she admits, either by default or overtly through her unlikely ascension (As to ascend to the points made would require some discernable means to reason...) that her above stated position and the full scope of revisionist Left-think amounts to little more than a childish rationalization to avoid being held accoutnable for their indisputable failures.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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

Clearly you're clueless, you supported the candidacy of a Marxist Muslim, at a time when the US was at war with islam and struggling against the catastrophic effects of Marxist promoting policy set upon our financial markets... that goes without saying; but it was nice to see ya admit it... perhaps that's a good sign, but I doubt it.

Now Midcan... this is a concession that your stated position is absurd revisionist left-think... and that the fulls scope of your ideology amounts to BULLSHIT!

And I'm willing to withhold judgment... in that the act of doing so can only amplify your humiliation... and given that the act itself is a delicious IRONY in that it's ALL IN THE NAME OF FAIRNESS... to give you an EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO FULLY SUPPORT YOUR NOW, LONG SINCE DISCREDITED, SCREED...

With that said, I'll just ask you to cite ONE 'right' which the Bush administration usurped...

Wherein, of course, you'll be wholly unable to advance an valid example only ADDING to the HEAPING, STEAMING MOUND of humiliation which you're presently dropping.

 

[midcan5]

Now, I would Like Midcan to respond to this... naturally, her refusal to repond, and/OR her attempt to dismiss it absent an intellectually sound, logically valid, WELL REASONED, POINT FOR POINT rebuttal, advanced in a reasonably timely manner, will constitute a CONCESSION wherein she admits, either by default or overtly through her unlikely ascension (As to ascend to the points made would require some discernable means to reason...) that her above stated position and the full scope of revisionist Left-think amounts to little more than a childish rationalization to avoid being held accoutnable for their indisputable failures.

I'm not sure if you realize it, but you did not do a very good job of defending your hero. Ad hominem and shooting the messenger, media in this case, without addressing the content is weak at best and irrelevant in the end.

Why do wingnuts have to parse through replies with cute answers, much in upper case? Is that your idea of an answer. Do you really think upper case makes an empty point less empty?

I think had Reagan not had Alzheimer's, he may at some point realized his mistakes. He did so when it came to taxes. Had he lived to see what happened to the middle class after corporations could do as they pleased, I doubt he would have looked at his firing as a good thing. But we live in history and there are few do overs.

Why would any American cheer fellow Americans getting the axe for striking against government. I guess you fail to see the irony here. You simpletons are calling for revolution because you lost the election, but when average Americans exercise their rights, you corporate tools cheer. You are sad, confused people.

I will give you another reason why you corporate tools cheer, because ultimately you are fascists at heart, it is why you want to control a woman's life and person right to marry, but don't want government interfering in the corporate right to screw up the economy. You say freedom but you mean something entirely different.

You obviously forgot that famous line, 'it's the economy stupid.' Reagan failed the economy, Bush failed the economy, and I will grant you Carter failed the economy. Only people who did hard things helped the economy. FDR's new deal, LBJ's great society, Clinton raising taxes, history is there in Google if you doubt that.

I notice too you do not give URLs defending your position. At least share a nugget of truth from another, but maybe you can't as fantasy is just that, fantasy. And often it is in the mind of fantasist.

I still ask, for at least the third time, 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.

Principles in Collission, The right to strike v. the right to stay in business ( IUSLabor - UPF )

"...President Reagan authorized the firing of thousands of striking air traffic controllers in 1981. Although this arose under a federal law for public employees, the action set the tone for the larger society."

"...with the percentage of the private sector unionized workforce plunging from about 35 percent in the early 1950s to about eight percent today, employers are less hesitant to invoke the prospect of hiring permanent replacements."

see second paragraph

The economy in the Reagan years: the ... - Google Book Search

Reagan: Media Myth and Reality


Rights example??? are you lost?

http://www.epluribusunumblog.com/2006/09/bush-cheney-escape-war-crimes-prosecution/

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Now, I would Like Midcan to respond to this... naturally, her refusal to respond, and/OR her attempt to dismiss it absent an intellectually sound, logically valid, WELL REASONED, POINT FOR POINT rebuttal, advanced in a reasonably timely manner, will constitute a CONCESSION wherein she admits, either by default or overtly through her unlikely ascension (As to ascend to the points made would require some discernable means to reason...) that her above stated position and the full scope of revisionist Left-think amounts to little more than a childish rationalization to avoid being held accountable for their indisputable failures.

I'm not sure if you realize it, but you did not do a very good job of defending your hero. Ad hominem and shooting the messenger, media in this case, without addressing the content is weak at best and irrelevant in the end.

Why do wingnuts have to parse through replies with cute answers, much in upper case? Is that your idea of an answer. Do you really think upper case makes an empty point less empty?

LOVE the IRONY!

Upper case merely amplifies the point... as in shouting; its a tool of rhetoric designed to promote EMPHASIS!

I think had Reagan not had Alzheimer's,

MAN! You really ARE a fan of ad hominem aren'tcha?

... he may at some point realized his mistakes. He did so when it came to taxes. Had he lived to see what happened to the middle class after corporations could do as they pleased, I doubt he would have looked at his firing as a good thing. But we live in history and there are few do overs.

Reagan never retreated from the certainty that his attempt to lower the loss liability on the average American was the right thing to do... He also never retreated from his decision to firer the AT Controllers... That too, was the right thing; if not the ONLY RESPONSIBLE; the only ADULT thing to do...

Why would any American cheer fellow Americans getting the axe for striking against government.

Because they signed a CONTRACT wherein the AGREED NOT TO STRIKE... this because their position was critical to public safety and the stability of national commerce...

I guess you fail to see the irony here.

Not hardly sis... your would-be argument is STEEPED IN IRONY, as I've pointed out now on several occasions...

You simpletons are calling for revolution because you lost the election,

False... there is not a SINGLE Conservative anywhere calling for a revolution on the grounds that we lost an election... NO WHERE, No how... that is an implication of the vacuous variety which you assert for NO OTHER REASON THAN DECEPTION.... proving your intellectual means to be indiscernable and your veracity non-existent.

I will give you another reason why you corporate tools cheer, because ultimately you are fascists at heart, it is why you want to control a woman's life and person right to marry

ROFLMNAO... So fascism is a function of contesting suffrage and reproductive choices and queers needing extra-super SPECIAL rights over everyone else?

Fascinatin'... you're the first to advance such a notion; what a pity that you realized your limitations to substantiate it and decided to leave it as a baseless opinion of the flaccid variety... but you're doin' the BEST YA CAN... God bless your ignorant ass...

You say freedom but you mean something entirely different.

Do we? How so? I mean do you ever INTEND TO SUPPORT ANY OF YOUR ASSERTIONS?

In this case, as is nearly ALWAYS the case you separate FREEDOM from the responsibilities inherent in the RIGHTS WHICH MAKE IT POSSIBLE. Ya want the freedom... ya just want someone else to have to take responsibility for your freedom... In the case of the woman who wants to kill the child she conceived through HER DECISION TO ENGAGE IN SEXUAL INTERCOURSE to have the freedom to engage in sexual intercourse, and elave the innocent human being conceived through that intentional CHOICE... to bear the responsibility for that freedom; and in the case of the lowly homosexual that just wants to marry his bestest good buddy... you want THEM TO HAVE THE FREEDOM TO DO SO... you just want the culture which succumbs to the normalization of sexual deviancy to bear the responsibility FOR THEIR FREEDOM...

You obviously forgot that famous line, 'it's the economy stupid.'

Nonsense... I LOVE THAT LINE... it was a myth generated by a deceptive ideology which deceptively asserted poor economic conditions onto a period where the economy was growing by greater than 4% and US employment was greater than 95%... It's a classic case of 'deception on parade,' which is TYPICAL of propaganda promoting Leftist Popularism...

Reagan failed the economy, Bush failed the economy, and I will grant you Carter failed the economy.

LOL... MOMMA WOULD BE SO PROUD! 1.5 OUT OF A POSSIBLE 3... Right down the middle... GOOD for you Comrade Moderate...

Only people who did hard things helped the economy. FDR's new deal, LBJ's great society, Clinton raising taxes, history is there in Google if you doubt that.

One of these days you MUST find the courage to EXPLAIN your 'feelings' on just HOW increasing liability costs could POSSIBLY promote the growth of WHATEVER it is that one may be trying to GROW....

You and the gals just LOVE to make that blind assertion, but WE NEVER HEAR YOU EXPLAIN HOW IT COULD WORK, HOW YOU FEEL IT DID WORK and all ya have to do is to SHOW YOUR MATH! I mean all we want to know is the means by which you come to conclude that raising the cost of something might promote a greater volume of sales...

Which is after all the goal of economics, to grow the economy... which serves reason given the growing population; as a growing economy with expanding production is the only means to provide for more workers and to pay those workers greater compensation when they acquire more valuable skills... right?

I notice too you do not give URLs defending your position.

That's because my position is founded in sound reasoning, resting in and summed through valid logic; thus the position stands on its own merit and where someone may concur with my position and they may desire to link to my position... I simply find that I do not need the validation of ascending argument... my positions stand on immutable bed-rock principle... which is more than enough in most cases; this case being no exception.

At least share a nugget of truth from another, but maybe you can't as fantasy is just that, fantasy. And often it is in the mind of fantasist.

Fantasist... LOL... such as those who cast revised history as fact and choose to set those historical revisions aside when directly and unambiguously challenged to support them and return to vomit an ever less effective strain of the same rhetorical bile?

ROFLMNAO... As I said... my arguments come with the warranty intrinsic in the principle on which they rest and validity inherent in their reasoned calculation... and so far, in 15 years of debate, I've never had to return a single one. So it's workin' for me...

I still ask, for at least the third time, where were you so called pretend revolutionaries when Bush/Cheney/Gonzales were breaking the fundamental individual rights laws of this nation?

Of course ya do... that's because ya desperately want to ignore the direct and unambiguous challenges to SPECIFY THE POLICY OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WHICH YOU FEEL 'broke some fundamental rights...' I spoke to the inspections of Air travelers and such... I suspect that this shut your complaint to those would-be violations down, so you've decided to pretend that it wasn't answered, again, for the PURPOSES OF DECEIVING THIS BOARD.

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.

I've already adhered to your assertion that you engage in 'clueless voting...' so to do so again, would just be redundant.

Now again fellow board member's we need to give credit where credit is due... and while Midcan advances a vacuous, addle-minded deceptive screed... it IS the VERY BEST she can do. And while this impotent little rebuttal stands as little more than a concession that her entire ideology is a farce; that her most closely held ideas are simple childhood fantasies born in left-think rationalizations... historical revision of the lowest order... we should commend her for her complete abandon of any hope that she will ever being taken as a serious contributor to any discussion regarding sustainable self governance...

But hey... when it's all said and done, what Leftist is?

ROFLMNAO… You’re dismissed Midcan… ya did the VERY BEST ya could, God bless ya. And please when you’re next tempted to engage conservatives in debate… try to remember the reason why you’re not often found doing so… as while humiliating you idiots is rare entertainment… too much can appear to the average idiot to seem very close to simple abuse; and who needs that?

 

[BrianH]

Did you read it, Brian?

Sorry, I didn't realize you posted a source. Your last post threw me for a second. While the source does say that the approval rate of the stimulus package is 54%, I am not particularly enthused about believing a mass-media source for polls. If it were a Fox News poll, I wouldn't belive it either...and I bet it would say only 46% think it should pass. lol.

These polls could be correct, but I'll correct my statement by saying EVERYONE I've talked to about it doesn't support it. They think there should be some kind of spending/stimulus bill, but believe it's going to the wrong places.....

 

[twogreen2c]

This thread has been very entertaining and informative. I hope Bob Basso gets his invitation to the White House and can share the results with us. That meeting would make for a great Pay-for-View event. Better yet, I'd love to see Basso school the Congress on our Constitution.

 

[Ravi]

Did you read it, Brian?

Sorry, I didn't realize you posted a source. Your last post threw me for a second. While the source does say that the approval rate of the stimulus package is 54%, I am not particularly enthused about believing a mass-media source for polls. If it were a Fox News poll, I wouldn't belive it either...and I bet it would say only 46% think it should pass. lol.

These polls could be correct, but I'll correct my statement by saying EVERYONE I've talked to about it doesn't support it. They think there should be some kind of spending/stimulus bill, but believe it's going to the wrong places.....

I'll give you that...but most polls, so far, have Americans still in support...shakily, maybe, but that could be a result of the right wing echo chamber.

I'm just curious to know if you read the bill yourself?

 

[Ravi]

This thread has been very entertaining and informative. I hope Bob Basso gets his invitation to the White House and can share the results with us. That meeting would make for a great Pay-for-View event. Better yet, I'd love to see Basso school the Congress on our Constitution.

I thought the invitation was a done deal from what you posted.

 

[AFWife]

The proscriptions for what needs to be done are pretty much right on.

What this man appearss to be lacking is any REAL WAY to get to that happy state of affiars which most real liberals and conservative American patriots want.

A tea-letter to our representatives will scare them?

Please, do not make me laugh.

When millions of Americans went to the streets to protest the illegal and immoral war in Viet Nam, they gassed the American people, and they beat them, and the imprisoned them without charges or constitutional protections.

And many of you on this board who THINK you're patriotic Americans probably STILL applaude your government for doing that, too, don't you?

Apparently the right is just now beginning to understand what the left has ALWAYS understood about the people in POWER in AMERICA.

They are NOT conseervatives, they are NOT liberals, they are neither left nor right, they are not CAPITALISTS neither are they socialists.

They are an insiders party arrogant with power that a LOT of Americans not only give them, but continue to give them.

Take a look around you.

This nation now has more ARMED GUARDS working for corporations (the insiders' corporations, not every corporation) than the rest of the nation COMBINED. The SERVANT CLASS PROTECT THE MASTER CLASS, folks.

No TYRANT ever had any difficulty finding men willing to kill for his tyranny, and America is NO EXCEPTION to that rule of political nature.

And, while I admire our military, I do NOT think that the military BRASS (who are after all well paid members of the insiders party) are about to stand up against the criminal class which control them, either.

You say you revolution?
Well, you know, we'd all love to see your plan.
But if you talking about destruction?
Well, don't you know that you can count me out.​

The solution, the ONLY solution that will bring us the America we ALL THINK is what we want is POLTICAL REVOLUTION.

And how does that POLITICAL MOVEMENT really take hold?

Well it has to start by convincing one hell of a LOT of Americans that this is not now, nor has it EVER been a problem of liberals V conservatives.

That confusion most of you people on this board have is the result of DECADES AND DECADES of propaganda.

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

As though, the poor schmuck living next door to you is RESPONSIBLE for what EITHER PARTY's MASTERS did?!


Until you folks are ready to admit that YOU were PLAYED FOR FOOLS, until you understand that what we are living with is -- not capitalism, it's not socialism, it's not democracy, it's not communism, it's a long standing ongoing RAPE of our society by the INSIDER PARTY -- you will continue to be SLAVES to these people.

Now which of you SERVANTS who are well PAID FUNCTIONARIES to the system is willing to give up YOUR RICE BOWL?

Not a single fucking one of you will do that would be MY guess.

And that is why they will continue to win the battle for the hearts and minds of Americans until this nation is bankrupted and most of us are living like third world refugees.

This obscene ripoff by our bankers SHOULD have been all you need to understand who the bastards are.

But STILL the idiots on this board (and every one like it) think the problem is liberalism or conservatism.

You fucking idiots don't know what EITHER poltical philosophy stands for because you have been lied to, and most of you are too god damned lazy (and many of you too filled with smug conceit, too) to READ what those things actually mean.

WAke up and smell the CHAINS you folks are mostly WILLINGLY wearing.

I'm really sure you might make some decent points, but when you can't spell and use proper grammar, even on an elementary level, your whole argument becomes invalid.....as well as really annoying to read.

 

[editec]

I will give you another reason why you corporate tools cheer, because ultimately you are fascists at heart, it is why you want to control a woman's life and person right to marry, but don't want government interfering in the corporate right to screw up the economy. You say freedom but you mean something entirely different.

Spot on.

 

[twogreen2c]

This thread has been very entertaining and informative. I hope Bob Basso gets his invitation to the White House and can share the results with us. That meeting would make for a great Pay-for-View event. Better yet, I'd love to see Basso school the Congress on our Constitution.

I thought the invitation was a done deal from what you posted.

The White House requested the invitation not be made public. But now that it is, I wouldn't be surprised if they renege the invite. You think the Obama would want to give Basso more publicity? Right now he is pretty much only a Youtube star. I think the WH made a major blunder contacting Basso and expecting him not to tell anyone. So now IMO the last thing the WH wants to do is give this gentlemen mainstream media attention. Think about it, an average citizen being invited to the WH to school the President on the Constitution of the United States.

I just hope Basso didn't make any errors on his tax returns. You know you can't trust that Turbo Tax to ask you all the right questions. Just ask Geithner, he knows all about that.

 

[Ravi]

This thread has been very entertaining and informative. I hope Bob Basso gets his invitation to the White House and can share the results with us. That meeting would make for a great Pay-for-View event. Better yet, I'd love to see Basso school the Congress on our Constitution.

I thought the invitation was a done deal from what you posted.

The White House requested the invitation not be made public. But now that it is, I wouldn't be surprised if they renege the invite. You think the Obama would want to give Basso more publicity? Right now he is pretty much only a Youtube star. I think the WH made a major blunder contacting Basso and expecting him not to tell anyone. So now IMO the last thing the WH wants to do is give this gentlemen mainstream media attention. Think about it, an average citizen being invited to the WH to school the President on the Constitution of the United States.

I just hope Basso didn't make any errors on his tax returns. You know you can't trust that Turbo Tax to ask you all the right questions. Just ask Geithner, he knows all about that.

I think Basso made the entire thing up.

 

[twogreen2c]

I thought the invitation was a done deal from what you posted.

The White House requested the invitation not be made public. But now that it is, I wouldn't be surprised if they renege the invite. You think the Obama would want to give Basso more publicity? Right now he is pretty much only a Youtube star. I think the WH made a major blunder contacting Basso and expecting him not to tell anyone. So now IMO the last thing the WH wants to do is give this gentlemen mainstream media attention. Think about it, an average citizen being invited to the WH to school the President on the Constitution of the United States.

I just hope Basso didn't make any errors on his tax returns. You know you can't trust that Turbo Tax to ask you all the right questions. Just ask Geithner, he knows all about that.

I think Basso made the entire thing up.

Just when I think you can't get any dumber, you come up with a remark like that. Why don't you do a little research before opening your mouth. It will save you from the embarrassment of being wrong so many times.

 

[Ravi]

The White House requested the invitation not be made public. But now that it is, I wouldn't be surprised if they renege the invite. You think the Obama would want to give Basso more publicity? Right now he is pretty much only a Youtube star. I think the WH made a major blunder contacting Basso and expecting him not to tell anyone. So now IMO the last thing the WH wants to do is give this gentlemen mainstream media attention. Think about it, an average citizen being invited to the WH to school the President on the Constitution of the United States.

I just hope Basso didn't make any errors on his tax returns. You know you can't trust that Turbo Tax to ask you all the right questions. Just ask Geithner, he knows all about that.

I think Basso made the entire thing up.

Just when I think you can't get any dumber, you come up with a remark like that. Why don't you do a little research before opening your mouth. It will save you from the embarrassment of being wrong so many times.

Yeah, because World Net Daily is such a credible source.

Dubya invited me to the White House all the time, but he always chickened out in the end and canceled.

 

[twogreen2c]

I think Basso made the entire thing up.

Just when I think you can't get any dumber, you come up with a remark like that. Why don't you do a little research before opening your mouth. It will save you from the embarrassment of being wrong so many times.

Yeah, because World Net Daily is such a credible source.

Dubya invited me to the White House all the time, but he always chickened out in the end and canceled.

Fool. Go put your head back in the sand. The story of Bob Basso was reported by a Hawaiian news station and I saw the video. But I'm not going to bother finding the link for you because I already know your type. You can't handle the truth.

 

[Ravi]

Just when I think you can't get any dumber, you come up with a remark like that. Why don't you do a little research before opening your mouth. It will save you from the embarrassment of being wrong so many times.

Yeah, because World Net Daily is such a credible source.

Dubya invited me to the White House all the time, but he always chickened out in the end and canceled.

Fool. Go put your head back in the sand. The story of Bob Basso was reported by a Hawaiian news station and I saw the video. But I'm not going to bother finding the link for you because I already know your type. You can't handle the truth.

Let me guess...FOX affiliate?

 

[American Horse]

Yeah, because World Net Daily is such a credible source.

Dubya invited me to the White House all the time, but he always chickened out in the end and canceled.

Fool. Go put your head back in the sand. The story of Bob Basso was reported by a Hawaiian news station and I saw the video. But I'm not going to bother finding the link for you because I already know your type. You can't handle the truth.

Let me guess...FOX affiliate?

Some people are so doctrinaire/dogmatic that they completely deny themselves any new information. Conservatives can't do that because they are so surrounded by liberal media sources that they actually do evaluate contesting ideas.

 

[Ravi]

Fool. Go put your head back in the sand. The story of Bob Basso was reported by a Hawaiian news station and I saw the video. But I'm not going to bother finding the link for you because I already know your type. You can't handle the truth.

Let me guess...FOX affiliate?

Some people are so doctrinaire/dogmatic that they completely deny themselves any new information. Conservatives can't do that because they are so surrounded by liberal media sources that they actually do evaluate contesting ideas.

Awesome...then could you show me some evidence to support this guy's claim that Obama fears his message, asked for a secretive meeting, and then canceled the meeting?

Thanks.

 

[American Horse]

Let me guess...FOX affiliate?

Some people are so doctrinaire/dogmatic that they completely deny themselves any new information. Conservatives can't do that because they are so surrounded by liberal media sources that they actually do evaluate contesting ideas.

Awesome...then could you show me some evidence to support this guy's claim that Obama fears his message, asked for a secretive meeting, and then canceled the meeting?

Thanks.

Non sequitur....

 

[twogreen2c]

Let me guess...FOX affiliate?

Some people are so doctrinaire/dogmatic that they completely deny themselves any new information. Conservatives can't do that because they are so surrounded by liberal media sources that they actually do evaluate contesting ideas.

Awesome...then could you show me some evidence to support this guy's claim that Obama fears his message, asked for a secretive meeting, and then canceled the meeting?

Thanks.

For the second time I will address your false statement claiming the meeting was secretive. Show me where I said it was a secret meeting. Stop repeating your lies. The White House requested that Basso not make the invitation public news. Basso has no motive for making up this story. And as far as the report Obama was disturbed by Basso's video message, knowing Obama's agenda, I do not find it too difficult to come to the conclusion he wouldn't be happy with Basso's video message. I didn't say Obama feared his message. You obvious hear what you want to hear.