Nick, condescend all you want. I know what a neocon is. Get off your high horse. I post in here because the vomit you spew all day about Obama makes me sick. When the doomsday scenarios come true, I'll give you some props. Until then, I'll post in here and try to take on your superior political intellect:whatever:

 

I love how every time you realize you have nothing to say to defend Obama, you just tell Nick to "get off his high horse".

:stunned:

 

why oh why is govt so corrupt. I say we start a revolution! :sneaky: -well I still gotta give the man a shot... thats all I'm saying.

 

you start it, I'll join it;)

I love how every time you realize you have nothing to say to defend Obama, you just tell Nick to "get off his high horse".

 

Josh, what is there to defend at this juncture. My point is that it is too early to judge. That's all. Nick comes across as an elitist when he debates sometimes. I believe I have used the "high-horse' comment twice. Too much i guess.

Clinton wanted to do the same health care intiatives.

Clinton was a great president but hit the jackpot of the dotcom boom so no one cared that much because people were rolling in cash.

I guess that's true. Still he tried to work across party lines which is essentail today

I guess that's true. Still he tried to work across party lines which is essentail today

 

Obama wanted to do that too. That is why he kept Gates and tried to put some repubs in his cabinet.

I guess that's true. Still he tried to work across party lines which is essentail today

 

indeed.. :\

Obama wanted to do that too. That is why he kept Gates and tried to put some repubs in his cabinet.

 

but he's still not wanting to work across party lines in congress. now that there's a majority for him there's no need. it's still important regardless.

Nick, condescend all you want. I know what a neocon is. Get off your high horse. I post in here because the vomit you spew all day about Obama makes me sick. When the doomsday scenarios come true, I'll give you some props. Until then, I'll post in here and try to take on your superior political intellect:whatever:

 

If you do know what a Neo-Con is you're the one condescending a and now being hypocritical.

 

I never said doomsday, in fact we will have it better than most countries, just nothing like we could have it.

 

Economic depressions aren't doomsday, was last September doomsday? Again you show your inability to read what people are saying and fill in your own meaning. :dozey:

Clinton wanted to do the same health care intiatives.

Clinton was a great president but hit the jackpot of the dotcom boom so no one cared that much because people were rolling in cash.

 

The "Jackpot" of the "dot com boom" was nothing but trouble. A short term economic boom followed by a major bust, thus the boom was not real. Just like Bush's "boom" years were fake and caused a lot of damage to the economy.

 

 

Nick comes across as an elitist when he debates sometimes

 

And you do too, is it ok for you? Maybe I'm not the one on the high horse:thinking:

 

We'll let the readers decide, your only defense against the facts are "its too early", but you don't debate any of the issue's I brought up.

 

The "Its too early" defense does nothing to defend his record deficit spending, his increase in military spending from the Bush years, his increase in war and sending troops to South America, nor defense in his voting for the FISA Bill or the Patriot Act.

 

Like I said if you can't debate any of the facts and just get mad, don't try to come in here and talk about politics when you clearly don't know anything about the issues. I wouldn't care if you could back up your point of view, I love other points of view that are backed up by something.

Nick, look, I am sorry that I lost my cool with you in earlier debates and in this thread. I now see why I get so frustrated. First of all, I do know about the issues discussed in here. It is not fair of you to say I don't. Much of what you say is true. some may not be. From now on, I will debate with you as I do with my family members who align themselves politically the way you do. We have spirited debate but don't lose our cool. I will try not to disrespect you in the future and I hope that you will do the same. Now let's get down to business.

First off, you say that Obama is increasing military spending. Not so according to this and many articles like it. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123595811964905929.html

 

As for his record spending. You are right. It is rediculous. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't. I think it is worth a try as much of his spending is meant to have an effect many months to years from now. Give it time is all.

 

Increasing the military. He is cutting the amount of troops in Iraq. Many articles on this and increasing them in Afghanistan which is fine by me as we are trying to get rid of Bin ladin. I have no problem fighting terrorism there.

 

Obama's support of the Patriot bill and the Fisa legislation is disappointing and he has rightfully taken some heat for that.

 

My point to you is that I don't see how he is worse than Bush. You point out his spending too much money fine. That is more than bush. But he is not starting new wars as Bush did. He is not trying to bring about more environmental destruction as bush did. He is not trying to pass an amendment against gay marriage as bush did. He is not trying to deny americans of their civil rights as bush did. Did you see that Ashcroft is allowed to get sued for the techniques he used after 9/11. Bush was just fine with Ashcroft.

 

I am a very liberal person almost bordering on socialist. I like big government when it strives to help people. Healthcare/welfare/. I don't like it when it seeks to strip people of their rights(patriot act/drug laws etc. I believe that poor people should receive help from the government. I believe in affirmative action. I believe in equality for gays and lessbians to get married. Bush was against much of what I stand for and although Obama does not support all that I believe, he met enough of my likes to get my vote. Obama is trying to save face in the world now. Bush tried to destroy that. Obama does seek to work with the world to make it a better place. Is he perfect no. Is he somewhat hypocritical in sending troops to SA, yes. Obama can't be all things to all people. I just feel like there is a double standard that exists with his presidency. It's as though he is fucked no matter what he does.

In ending, Nick, you are a good guy. I do know politics and so do you. Maybe we will be able to see more eye to eye as we discuss further

:escaping2:

I thought I read the numbers on Obama that he was spending more on our Military, but I guess not. That's what I want, if I'm wrong on something like that, show me.

I study the facts, numbers and history to make up my views on issues. I'm willing to change my mind if there is something there to prove to me I'm wrong.

As for his record spending. You are right. It is rediculous. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't. I think it is worth a try as much of his spending is meant to have an effect many months to years from now. Give it time is all

 

I have to disagree based upon what I've researched. You see this is government policy, both sides are Keynesians, spend more and have the government control the economy when in economic trouble. Bush did it, and Obama is doing it too, just as most presidents do during a recession, both Dems and Repubs because they prescribe to the same economic school.

Now I shall give you my reason why a high deficit won't help but make things worse.(Japan is the perfect example)

 

Have you heard about Japan's lost generation or sometimes called lost decade? They had a very similar thing to use in the 80's, housing boom, high inflation and a market that hit 40,000, then the bubble burst and they had a crash and depression.

For around 20 years now they have been doing what our government has done and is planning on doing. Quantitative easing(Central bank printing money to buy government bonds, which is inflation) monetizing commercial bonds, propping up failed banks and industries, very low interest rates, loose monetary policy to spur the consumer to buy and not save. Essentially the exact same thing we taught them to do, because they belong to the same economic school.

 

Now the result of this has been 20 years or so of stagnation, no or little growth. Their market is around 10,000 now, down from around 40,000 in 1988! So Japan is a prime example how government spending and these policies make things worse and do not worse. We may be looking at a similar situation, low or no growth in and out of recession for a while.

 

So my logic is history has shown us it cannot work. But also, we have to pay back that massive debt by a combination of printing and taxing, all that money will come out of our economy in the future with heavy interest. So we're already facing tough economic times in the next 15 years, low growth, so this will only lower growth as that money is taken from the economy to the government to pay down high debt. So it will hurt long term recovery a lot and billions will be wasted on interest.

 

Second whenever you owe someone so much money, you become their slave. We owned a lot of British debt a while ago and threatened if they didn't listen to us to dump their currency, basically holding them hostage to do what we want them to do. That same situation could come from so many foreign nations holding so much of our debt.

 

Increasing the military. He is cutting the amount of troops in Iraq. Many articles on this and increasing them in Afghanistan which is fine by me as we are trying to get rid of Bin ladin. I have no problem fighting terrorism there.

 

Here is where the liberal in me comes out. I don't think we should be in Afghanistan, its un-winnable and were only creating more enemies. We created a lot of this mess in the first place with our military policies and being the world police. Both parties have pushed around the people of this world and we created our enemy, we cannot stop them by the same policies. I think if we pull out of most the countries and leave them alone, eventually these terrorist groups will lose support and become ineffective.

 

And what about Obama talking of taking a more aggressive stance on Pakistan? Isn't that just being more of a bully and making more enemies in the world, like Bush did?

 

But he is not starting new wars as Bush did.

 

He's starting things in South America that could become a war, and at the very least are making already strained relations there worse. Even if he has cut defense spending a little bit, don't you see how aggressive he is still, bullying in South America and not doing anything about us having our military all over the world policing it. I want real change, a different foreign policy, both parties foreign policy is the same. He's bullying and getting South American nations heated up and talking of war with our military, that isn't change but more of Bush's and all our presidents bully tactics.

 

He is not trying to deny americans of their civil rights as bush did.

 

But he is. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/09/state_secrets/

 

On many issues he's bad on Civil Rights, maybe not Gay Marriage and that's a good thing.

 

I do love that they can go after Ashcroft now, no one should be above reproach.

 

Also to see who Obama is and how he will govern you must look at who he selects to be around him. So far its extremist who are dividing us even further.

And Aaron, this is a view many Americans hold and many more are seeing. As the poll numbers are showing. The main things people were mad at Bush for Spending,world police, massive government and the government "knows best" mentality were huge reason's in Bush's hatred, and now they see it with Obama.

 

Our businesses and people are already overtaxed, taxing more will hurt the economy, printing more will hurt the economy, and this will eventually cause a revolt by the voters against Obama. As more businesses have trouble making it because of a bad or weak economy and taxes go up, and more people are taxed while a few companies(GM, GE, and the megabanks) get around this because of ties to both parties more people will revolt(politically) against Obama like they did Bush. I only hope they don't run back to the Neo-cons but to people who truly want change.

 

Obama's connections to the super corrupt oligarch's will make it impossible for real change.

Ron Paul Revolution!

 

Amen!

I thought I read the numbers on Obama that he was spending more on our Military, but I guess not. That's what I want, if I'm wrong on something like that, show me.

I study the facts, numbers and history to make up my views on issues. I'm willing to change my mind if there is something there to prove to me I'm wrong.

 

 

I have to disagree based upon what I've researched. You see this is government policy, both sides are Keynesians, spend more and have the government control the economy when in economic trouble. Bush did it, and Obama is doing it too, just as most presidents do during a recession, both Dems and Repubs because they prescribe to the same economic school.

Now I shall give you my reason why a high deficit won't help but make things worse.(Japan is the perfect example)

 

Have you heard about Japan's lost generation or sometimes called lost decade? They had a very similar thing to use in the 80's, housing boom, high inflation and a market that hit 40,000, then the bubble burst and they had a crash and depression.

For around 20 years now they have been doing what our government has done and is planning on doing. Quantitative easing(Central bank printing money to buy government bonds, which is inflation) monetizing commercial bonds, propping up failed banks and industries, very low interest rates, loose monetary policy to spur the consumer to buy and not save. Essentially the exact same thing we taught them to do, because they belong to the same economic school.

 

Now the result of this has been 20 years or so of stagnation, no or little growth. Their market is around 10,000 now, down from around 40,000 in 1988! So Japan is a prime example how government spending and these policies make things worse and do not worse. We may be looking at a similar situation, low or no growth in and out of recession for a while.

 

So my logic is history has shown us it cannot work. But also, we have to pay back that massive debt by a combination of printing and taxing, all that money will come out of our economy in the future with heavy interest. So we're already facing tough economic times in the next 15 years, low growth, so this will only lower growth as that money is taken from the economy to the government to pay down high debt. So it will hurt long term recovery a lot and billions will be wasted on interest.

 

Second whenever you owe someone so much money, you become their slave. We owned a lot of British debt a while ago and threatened if they didn't listen to us to dump their currency, basically holding them hostage to do what we want them to do. That same situation could come from so many foreign nations holding so much of our debt.

 

 

 

Here is where the liberal in me comes out. I don't think we should be in Afghanistan, its un-winnable and were only creating more enemies. We created a lot of this mess in the first place with our military policies and being the world police. Both parties have pushed around the people of this world and we created our enemy, we cannot stop them by the same policies. I think if we pull out of most the countries and leave them alone, eventually these terrorist groups will lose support and become ineffective.

 

And what about Obama talking of taking a more aggressive stance on Pakistan? Isn't that just being more of a bully and making more enemies in the world, like Bush did?

 

 

 

He's starting things in South America that could become a war, and at the very least are making already strained relations there worse. Even if he has cut defense spending a little bit, don't you see how aggressive he is still, bullying in South America and not doing anything about us having our military all over the world policing it. I want real change, a different foreign policy, both parties foreign policy is the same. He's bullying and getting South American nations heated up and talking of war with our military, that isn't change but more of Bush's and all our presidents bully tactics.

 

 

 

But he is. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/09/state_secrets/

 

On many issues he's bad on Civil Rights, maybe not Gay Marriage and that's a good thing.

 

I do love that they can go after Ashcroft now, no one should be above reproach.

 

Also to see who Obama is and how he will govern you must look at who he selects to be around him. So far its extremist who are dividing us even further.

 

Nick, good response. I understand your issue with Obama's spending and I do admit it is a dangerous road to travel. You are definitely more versed in the game of economics so I will give you that. My only opinion would be that most post-industrial economies of the world are struggling right now. China and India will take over as true economic super powers. We are in a different time and a different dynamic seems to be running our governmental policies. There is no option for a 21st century new deal. What would you do if you were in Obama's position? I am willing to wait and see where his economic policies lead us. At least in the short term, the economy seems to be in a tenuous stabalization.

 

As for the war in Afghanistan etc. I believe that we should try to figure out where bin ladin is. I do not think it is a moral war but I am not upset about being there. Iraq is another story. As for Pakistan, they have nukes and trust me, Obama will not fuck with them.

 

the salon article was enlightening and disappointing. I still do not think that Obama will, in any way, approach the absurdity of Bush's civil liberty destruction but we shall see.

 

We always stick our noses in latin american affairs usually with miserable results. I do not agree in us being down there.

 

As I said before, I am a social issues voter. Notice how Obama is not going after the pot legalization in Oakland. Bush had a field day expanding DEA activity in California. I believe that more of my needs will be met under Obama. You know what my favorite kind of conservative is? the fiscal conservatives. They vote on the president who will give them the most money back. I respect that. I am a social issues voter and proud to be. I still believe that Obama is a more sensitive, compassionate,empathetic president than Bush. That is my opinion of course.

Amen!

 

ron paul is a homophobic dick

Encase you're wondering Aaron I do have a life. I'm spending the day studying Anatomy and surfing the forums. I'm happy we can have a good debate.

 

What would you do if you were in Obama's position?

 

I would do what was done in 1921 when faced with very tough economic times, cut spending, taxes and government. We were heading for a depression in the early 20's, but Warren G. Harding did the opposite of what his advisers wanted and instead of spending more and taking on debt, he cut and it worked well. The funny thing is, one of his advisers then was Herbert Hoover who wanted to do the opposite. Spend more, more government and take on more debt. Now in 1929 when Hoover was president another economic crisis hit and he did the opposite of Harding and we had a very long depression. You see Hoover was the actual father of the "New Deal", Roosevelt only added on or made bigger Hoovers plans. So we have two examples in economics what happens during bad economic times, cut spending, government and do nothing and the problem resolves itself, which as been proven time and time again. Now when you take the other approach, you have a great depression or a lost decade like Japan had. So the solution to the problem as bad as it may seem in the short term is quite simple, history has shown cutting spending and government and letting the weak fail and the strong take on their assets leads to a recovery and sustained economic growth as long as their isn't credit expansion by a central bank. Boom and bust's like we've had are caused by credit expansion made possibly only by a central bank controlling the market and the interest rate.

 

Government intervention like Bush's or Obama's only messes with economy, making it impossible to accurately tell what is going to happen, it keeps supply and demand out of balance. Government spending and intervention make it hard for resources to allocated to the most efficient businesses, thus it causes a lot of lost money and malinvestements. Hundreds of billions wasted in the end that could have gone to the economy and helped people with new jobs or higher pay.

 

China and India will take over as true economic super powers.

 

And China each year is becoming more Capitalistic, while we are switching places with them. They are copying the things that made our economy great, while we copy what has made theirs bad. I'm a bull on China, as time passes they will embrace the free market more and gain more wealth, while America continues on the opposite path, now we'll still be one of the most wealthy nations, just not as wealthy as we could have been. In a free market the wealth is spread around better than the government can. When the government tries even with good intentions it is incapable of doing it through waste and corruption and it hurts more than it helps, all while a few in government get all the money and power while claiming to "help the people".

 

We always stick our noses in latin american affairs usually with miserable results. I do not agree in us being down there.

 

I foolishly hoped Obama would bring change and stop this. I actually thought at one point he would pull us out of a lot of nations but from what he's done and said I know that will probably not happen.

 

My view on politicians is we must constantly watch them and make them do good for the nation. We must be tough on every politician, and they all should be petrified they will not be re-elected. I support these kind of attacks and pressure on politicians I like, because all in all its good for the nation to be viscous with our leaders and keep them on track.

 

Notice how Obama is not going after the pot legalization in Oakland. Bush had a field day expanding DEA activity in California.

 

That is a very good point, thank you! Now do you see why "Conservatives" don't like me, lol!

You know what my favorite kind of conservative is? the fiscal conservatives. They vote on the president who will give them the most money back

 

That's me. I'm for drugs being legal, gay marriage, I'm fiscally conservative but socially liberal. My view is do what you want as long as you don't hurt anyone or infringe upon their rights. If you want your doctor to kill you, go for it as long as it's made clear it was your choice.

 

Now I must get back to my studying, have a good night Aaron.

 

ron paul is a homophobic dick

 

But I think out of most the politicians he's most likely to allow gay marriage. He seems to have the "I don't like it, but if its not un-constitutional you can do it" mentality.

 

I know a lot of his supporters want gay marriage to be legal, not because they necessarily agree with it but because it is not the government's right to decide if you can marry or not. And I agree, I'm not gay, but who you want to marry is not my business nor the governments, it's yours and who you marry. I want in the eyes of government everyone to be equal and have the same rights.

Nick this is probably the best debate we had. You response was well thought out and well put. I would only suggest that although you make a valid observation about the economics of the 1920's, I believe the hands off approach allowed for the greedy to get richer and the poor got poorer. I know this is not popular at all but I really do believe that if people work hard, they should be paid a real living wage. Any job, no matter what it is should afford people the ability to truly live well. I don't think that the weak should have to perish. Everyone needs help from time-to-time.

Your comments about China make a lot of sense. For now we are dependent upon on another. If that dynamic changes, we are screwed.

You definitely made me smile with your response to the Bush DEA bullshit and your social liberalism. Right on man.

I really can't get offended by someone who is open-minded in terms of social policy. I do believe we have more in common politically than I thought.

You have a great night too Nick:) What are you getting your degree in?

 

 

Edit* As for ron paul, what I have read leaves a lot to be desired. His anti-gay rhetoric is enough for me to never consider him a viable political candidate.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1211504/The-image-dying-U-S-soldier-sparked-furious-debate-Afghan-war-divided-America.html

 

He was 21 years old, probably over there to help pay for his college education (with printed money) so he could get a decent job. The government's solution to an ant-bite is to go roll around in the anthill for 8+ years.

 

Edit* As for ron paul' date=' what I have read leaves a lot to be desired. His anti-gay rhetoric is enough for me to never consider him a viable political candidate.[/quote']

 

Who is your friend? The man who would let you live as you wish, and fight for your right to do so... or the guy who says nice things, but holds a gun to your head?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1211504/The-image-dying-U-S-soldier-sparked-furious-debate-Afghan-war-divided-America.html

 

He was 21 years old, probably over there to help pay for his college education (with printed money) so he could get a decent job. The government's solution to an ant-bite is to go roll around in the anthill for 8+ years.

 

 

 

Who is your friend? The man who would let you live as you wish, and fight for your right to do so... or the guy who says nice things, but holds a gun to your head?

 

Obama is not holding a gun to my head Jay. Paul has said hurtful things about homosexuals. I highly doubt he would support gay equality.

I think that obama deception theory is bullshit. People think too complexely about politics. America isn't run by one man, he can't handle all the problems on his own, he has help from others, and therefore, anything bad cannot entirely be blamed on Obama. These theories probably originate from a party who's views differ from the views of the democrats, and possibly even come from those who oppose democracy. It's an attempt to win over people who will easily believe these kinds of things. Watching that was like watching a Michael Moore film - completely biased and deceitful. And besides, Coldplay gave a shout out to Obama on SNL.

I think that obama deception theory is bullshit. People think too complexely about politics. America isn't run by one man, he can't handle all the problems on his own, he has help from others, and therefore, anything bad cannot entirely be blamed on Obama. These theories probably originate from a party who's views differ from the views of the democrats, and possibly even come from those who oppose democracy. It's an attempt to win over people who will easily believe these kinds of things. Watching that was like watching a Michael Moore film - completely biased and deceitful. And besides, Coldplay gave a shout out to Obama on SNL.

 

I'm pretty sure that's the most biased, ignorant piece of bullshit I've ever read in my life. I almost stopped reading at "People think too complexely about politics", but for some reason I kept going. You scare me man.

Yeah, and I think the whole point of the film (even with it's flaws) was that he doesn't "run" things - and that presidents are under the thumb of corporate, elite bankers.

Hans Hoppe wrote an excellent book, called "Democracy: The God that Failed" in which he explains why the presidency is like a monarch that "rents" the nation for a period of time. Because he doesn't own the capital-producing mechanisms (like a King would), he has no incentive to have a long-term time horizon when making policy.

 

As a result, Democracy is the ultimate way to create a society of degenerates.

 

~ Less productive activity as a result of shifting laws. What is legal today, might not be legal tomorrow.

~ Lower self-reliance, with the rise of a dependent, parasitic class.

~Lower future-orientation, due to inflation and disincentives to put off consumption (read: save money)

 

The very problems democratic wealth-redistribution is meant to heal are exacerbated by it. Decivilization, infantilization, and demoralization are the future of every western democracy.

I'm pretty sure that's the most biased, ignorant piece of bullshit I've ever read in my life. I almost stopped reading at "People think too complexely about politics", but for some reason I kept going. You scare me man.

 

Well, your the expert.