Hoping for the worst

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, things are getting better; and, yes, we had a terrorist attacks. And, yes, the domestic casualties due to terrorism in Bush's first year was 100 times greater than those in BHO's first year. Let's keep issues in context, folks.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Continuing to post on poor retail numbers, employment/unemployment rates, economic trends, etc. isn't "Hoping for the worst in America," it's merely showing people that life isn't cotton candy, bunnies, and rainbows all day long. Reality has to be faced sooner or later.

Considering that every Democrat and leftist in sight was screeching that we were "in a recession" - if not a depression, from some of the loonier ones - a full year before we even had ONE quarter without growth, it's pretty rich to hear one of them now pissing her pants because conservatives/Republicans are daring to talk about bad news that's actually happening.

Of course, there are many excellent reasons that I have Maggie on ignore, and her utter hypocrisy is just one of them.

 

[Wry Catcher]

A free economy allows for pure competiton with safeguards to prevent monopolies while promoting the development of oligopolies.

Yes...oligopolies will do for the economy a lot more than any government regulations.

For the record: Oligopolies, the market condition that exists when there are few sellers, as a result of which they can greatly influence price and other market factors.
And how do oligopolies differ from cartels, or better yet, who is to prevent the few sellers from conspiring to reduce producton, raise prices and increase profits?
PS, And who benefits from such a system, and how?

Oligopolies, in a pure competition environment have the few major players that set the price and the multitude of smaller players that follow the lead. It eliminates those that try to undercut and opens the door for the smaller players to enter the marketplace with a proven business model to follow and allow for the possibility of become a larger player if one chooses.

In an oligopoly, the ability for one to overprice is completely eliminated and such is best for pure competition. In essence, demand is allowed to dictate price so the consumer is in control.

Telecommunications is an excellent example of this. No one can complain about the cost of telephone use, nor can anyone say that a new player is unable to break into the market.

Sorry for the late response, I went to the gym.
You state, "in a pure competition environment"; where in the world has that ever existed?
That queston aside, have you ever been to a small town where Wal-Mart opened its doors? The local small business disappeared, the real estate they once occupied is vacant and the former small business owners have either left town or are now greeters at the Wal-Mart.
That aside too, there is no "Free Market", not now, not ever, in a developed economy. If a free market existed, free in the sense that there were no taxes and no regulations, chaos would prevail because there would few laws, and those that existed would have no one 'disinterested party' (a cop) to settle disputes.
But, let' also set aside archetypes. Answer my first question (and if you have because I've not read beyond the post to which i'm responding, I'm sorry). The first question was:
What is a "Free Market"? I've argued that in all developed and most developing countries there exists a mixed economy. Prove me wrong (and if need be, I will define for you what a mixed economy is).

 

[jillian]

Thats rich! After you guys spent eight years basing you strategy on how bad things were and using it to get into power you go around and claim the other side is doing it to you.

BTW, is things getting better? And have we had a terrorist attack? Yes and Yes so that means that Obama sucks and you know it.

really, nutbar? is that why everyone threw their support behind baby bush after 9.11? or did he have a 90% approval rating b/c the big bad liberals were pretending to hope for him to succeed?

stop projecting

 

[Annie]

As I scan through some of the threads today, posted by the usual vicious extremists, I'm getting the sense that these people are actually eager for another al-Qaeda attack on American soil, one that would do as much devastation as 911, just to "prove" that Obama failed to prevent an attack, as was alleged personally against Bush in 2001--just to get even.

Short of reviewing the entire background of events leading to the attacks of 911, there was a lot that wasn't known on a large scale about the capabilities of terrorists pre-2001. But before it happened, I can't think of anyone who was hoping such an attack would happen just because they didn't like George W. Bush.

I get the impression that some so-called "Americans" who post here would just love for the economy to totally tank, so they can then laugh and high-five their fellow jerkoffs that the whole thing is Obama's fault.

They gleefully post how bad retail numbers are, how unemployment keeps rising, and pooh-pooh any of the encouraging barometers. These negative arm-chair politicos don't want to know anything about the history leading up to the economic crisis nor admit that it was years in the making. They constantly see the glass as half-empty and pray that it stays that way, just so they can blame Obama, period.

Is that what you people believe it means to think like an American these days? Our ancestors who forged this country through thick and thin and weathered all sorts of threats from foreign enemies and economic downturns are turning in their graves over the current ATTITUDES of so-called "Americans" whose only desire for America is to tear it down.

Well I'm one American who thinks that YOUR version of what it means to be an American makes me sick to my stomach.

MM, I'm curious if you are now saying those from the 'left' that did this ad nauseam to Bush and tied McCain to such, were wrong? Or is it just that Obama plays by different parameters?

I want the homeland safe, wth, I want every place safe and free from attacks. I want 'no more war.' I certainly want unemployment down and the economy up. I want all children to go to school in safe buildings, free from worry of any sort of attack, whether from crazies out to kill massive numbers or gang bangers. I would love to see everyone have a safe, secure home. No poverty, no hunger, no needs unmet. I can live with unmet wants, but needs?

The air of anger and discourse has existed for over a decade, which I've already alluded to. But, as someone pointed out, it never began immediately after an inauguration until now. Probably more and more people having access to inflammatory junk on the Internet plays a huge part. For example, I often will try to find the real source for some story making the rounds, and I will need to weed through several Google pages of mis or disinformation put up on the Internet about the story before I actually get to a few facts, which often prove that the followup stories have conveniently omitted something or embellished the story to suit the political agenda of whoever published it.

It would be so much more informative if you gave examples of what you are saying. In this particular instance, your thread, there are accusations without any sources, even from this site. You claim that there are numerous threads found in certain forums, without your naming the threads. Why? I'm left with the impression that it's spin for Obama.

 

[WillowTree]

As I scan through some of the threads today, posted by the usual vicious extremists, I'm getting the sense that these people are actually eager for another al-Qaeda attack on American soil, one that would do as much devastation as 911, just to "prove" that Obama failed to prevent an attack, as was alleged personally against Bush in 2001--just to get even.

Short of reviewing the entire background of events leading to the attacks of 911, there was a lot that wasn't known on a large scale about the capabilities of terrorists pre-2001. But before it happened, I can't think of anyone who was hoping such an attack would happen just because they didn't like George W. Bush.

I get the impression that some so-called "Americans" who post here would just love for the economy to totally tank, so they can then laugh and high-five their fellow jerkoffs that the whole thing is Obama's fault.

They gleefully post how bad retail numbers are, how unemployment keeps rising, and pooh-pooh any of the encouraging barometers. These negative arm-chair politicos don't want to know anything about the history leading up to the economic crisis nor admit that it was years in the making. They constantly see the glass as half-empty and pray that it stays that way, just so they can blame Obama, period.

Is that what you people believe it means to think like an American these days? Our ancestors who forged this country through thick and thin and weathered all sorts of threats from foreign enemies and economic downturns are turning in their graves over the current ATTITUDES of so-called "Americans" whose only desire for America is to tear it down.

Well I'm one American who thinks that YOUR version of what it means to be an American makes me sick to my stomach.

MM, I'm curious if you are now saying those from the 'left' that did this ad nauseam to Bush and tied McCain to such, were wrong? Or is it just that Obama plays by different parameters?

I want the homeland safe, wth, I want every place safe and free from attacks. I want 'no more war.' I certainly want unemployment down and the economy up. I want all children to go to school in safe buildings, free from worry of any sort of attack, whether from crazies out to kill massive numbers or gang bangers. I would love to see everyone have a safe, secure home. No poverty, no hunger, no needs unmet. I can live with unmet wants, but needs?

The air of anger and discourse has existed for over a decade, which I've already alluded to. But, as someone pointed out, it never began immediately after an inauguration until now. Probably more and more people having access to inflammatory junk on the Internet plays a huge part. For example, I often will try to find the real source for some story making the rounds, and I will need to weed through several Google pages of mis or disinformation put up on the Internet about the story before I actually get to a few facts, which often prove that the followup stories have conveniently omitted something or embellished the story to suit the political agenda of whoever published it.

And again, that someone was WRONG!.. People rioted in the streets and threw eggs on President Bush's car. There were constant screams of "he stole the election." even though the Supreme Court Made the Ruling. I don't think you can get any more dishonest than you are.. what a shit stirrer.

 

[Annie]

Yes, things are getting better; and, yes, we had a terrorist attacks. And, yes, the domestic casualties due to terrorism in Bush's first year was 100 times greater than those in BHO's first year. Let's keep issues in context, folks.

So if Obama experiences an attack, which has already be exposed to be in planning, you'll do the same as you and sympathizers did regarding Bush? Didn't think so.

 

[potter 58]

hey willow, still can't get over the blowhard cowboy got 3000 killed on his watch, but then again you morons blame that on Clinton , so tell us again what is Obama's body count up too now?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, things are getting better; and, yes, we had a terrorist attacks. And, yes, the domestic casualties due to terrorism in Bush's first year was 100 times greater than those in BHO's first year. Let's keep issues in context, folks.

So if Obama experiences an attack, which has already be exposed to be in planning, you'll do the same as you and sympathizers did regarding Bush? Didn't think so.

Keep it in context, Annie. If we get another attack like 9-11, darn right we should holed the BHO administration responsible. What world do you inhabit.

 

[JakeStarkey]

hey willow, still can't get over the blowhard cowboy got 3000 killed on his watch, but then again you morons blame that on Clinton , so tell us again what is Obama's body count up too now?

Willow is such a wing nut twisted pathology, she will not be able to be honest or objective.

 

[potter 58]

by your logic Willow OBAMA is the man, none in a year comapred to 3000 in 9 months, not much of a comparision if you ask me

 

[ihopehefails]

Thats rich! After you guys spent eight years basing you strategy on how bad things were and using it to get into power you go around and claim the other side is doing it to you.

BTW, is things getting better? And have we had a terrorist attack? Yes and Yes so that means that Obama sucks and you know it.

really, nutbar? is that why everyone threw their support behind baby bush after 9.11? or did he have a 90% approval rating b/c the big bad liberals were pretending to hope for him to succeed?

stop projecting

I think most liberals couldn't stand how well the economy was doing up until 07 and exagerated every little thing in order to get into power because why would you change the person in office if there is nothing wrong.

BTW, I am hoping that Obama fails. I don't give a rats ass about him and his agenda but if he would just change his tune to a POLICY that I would like then I would change my mind but in the meantime I will keep hoping that he not only fails but accidently dies in office.

 

[potter 58]

hey fails, talk about smoke and mirrors, 2 wars run off the budget and tax cuts on top of that, why can't you simple morons admit the chickens finally came home to roost

 

[midcan5]

Maggie, et al

Good post and very true, the same happened when Clinton won. That marked the start of it as the conservative media machine and years of corporate support for think tanks and editorial opinion has clouded the minds of many republicans and conservatives. Foes make some comfortable, gives them reason for living.

I don't remember it happening before Clinton and Bush Jr, while mediocre and a bit lost at first had things easy too. Bush criticisms didn't start till he squandered the surplus and invaded the wrong nation. Katrina didn't help either. Contrast with Haiti under the Obama administration.

It is change and the loss of power that get so republicans and conservatives up in arms. Clinton tried healthcare and gay acceptance in the military and the wingnuts went nuts. It is a difficult phenomenon to understand or even outline. I was talking to some friends just today who wondered how the right became so unreasonable. I don't know.

These are interesting and explain a bit. It could just be human nature rebels against things that don't fit their world view and reason has no place here. Hirschman even picks on we perfect people. LOL

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Rhetoric-Reaction-Perversity-Futility-Jeopardy/dp/067476868X/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246707264&sr=1-8]Amazon.com: The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy (9780674768680): Albert O. Hirschman: Books[/ame]

Harvard University Press: The Rhetoric of Reaction : Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy by Albert O. Hirschman

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Being-Certain-Believing-Right-Youre/dp/031254152X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not (9780312541521): Robert Burton: Books[/ame]

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ok, so yeah, I'm a newbie here. Can you either give me a date in which I will have been here long enough to be able to give a knowledgable opinion, or can you provide a link to a specific thread you are talking about?

That being said, I have posted on teh interwebs long enough to know how political forums work. Each side of the political spectrum will post threads/topics to help show how their opinion/party is better than the other. Sure there are trolls, but in most cases they are posting to get a rise out of the other side as opposed to really caring about the stories they are linking to.

-TSO

I wouldn't worry about it. Look how long Maggie's been kicking around, and it's a good day for her if her post is intelligible enough for people to be able to mock it. "Knowledgeable" is an undiscovered country for her.

 

[Annie]

Yes, things are getting better; and, yes, we had a terrorist attacks. And, yes, the domestic casualties due to terrorism in Bush's first year was 100 times greater than those in BHO's first year. Let's keep issues in context, folks.

So if Obama experiences an attack, which has already be exposed to be in planning, you'll do the same as you and sympathizers did regarding Bush? Didn't think so.

Keep it in context, Annie. If we get another attack like 9-11, darn right we should holed the BHO administration responsible. What world do you inhabit.

Well Jake, no surprise, but your general and personal attack are so irrelevant as to just illustrate your level of discourse. Thanks for making it clear to any new posters.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yeah. Unemployment, the state of the economy, that kind of stuff strikes me more as "I told you so" or "See!" than a desire for things to get worse.

What's quite clear is that there is a very large contingent of the right who is wishing, hoping, and praying every day that we suffer another devastating terrorist attack. So then they can have their "see!" and "I told you so" moment and feel vindicated for all the criminal policies implemented in the war on terror and the leverage to push for even more. Some of them even admit it.

Maybe, if they kept their fingers crossed and several thousand Americans died, they'd even get to use it as justification for a war with Iran.

You're right to be repulsed.

Oh, really? A "very large contingent", is it? Then it shouldn't be too much trouble for you to name a few members of this "contingent" and provide links to the posts where they express a desire for a terrorist attack.

I'll be waiting, but I won't hold my breath.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Well, here's my 2 cents:

I think that there are certain media figures, such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glen Beck who pray silently every day for a major terrorist attack.

I truly believe this, as if it happened their ratings would skyrocket well beyond what they currently enjoy, and I believe that ratings is all they care about in the world.

I also believe that this secret desire bleeds out in the talking points that they disseminate to "the faithful" every day on their programs.

So, truthfully, I don't think the average Joe right-winger WANTS another 9-11, at least not consciously, but it seems like they do when looking at their statements.

I also firmly believe that Dick Cheney does in fact desperately want there to be another 9-11, so that his Vice Presidency will somehow be vindicated.

There are a few other radical members of the right-wing that want another 9-11 for their own reasons, but I think they are few and an far between.

Here's a few: Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well, here's my 2 cents:

I think that there are certain media figures, such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glen Beck who pray silently every day for a major terrorist attack.

I truly believe this, as if it happened their ratings would skyrocket well beyond what they currently enjoy, and I believe that ratings is all they care about in the world.

I also believe that this secret desire bleeds out in the talking points that they disseminate to "the faithful" every day on their programs.

So, truthfully, I don't think the average Joe right-winger WANTS another 9-11, at least not consciously, but it seems like they do when looking at their statements.

I also firmly believe that Dick Cheney does in fact desperately want there to be another 9-11, so that his Vice Presidency will somehow be vindicated.

There are a few other radical members of the right-wing that want another 9-11 for their own reasons, but I think they are few and an far between.

Two cents? Sounds more like a ha'penny to ME.

 

[ihopehefails]

hey fails, talk about smoke and mirrors, 2 wars run off the budget and tax cuts on top of that, why can't you simple morons admit the chickens finally came home to roost

Why can't you admit to yourself that that was the political strategy of the left during the Bush years. It was like every bit of good news was downplayed or not even played at all. The economy grew during the Bush years and those wars are done with so I would consider that a success. Its one thing to point out legitimate problems but to actually skewer the debate around a single strategy to get into power is just plain wrong.