obama sending more troops

[curious]

just needed to highlight your statement "without capitalism you die"

I'm trying to collect a list of 10 most idiotic beliefs of right wing reactionaries. That one's the leader so far. Curious had a nice one too.

Well, let's see, since I'm not right wing and I'm not a reactionary you uttered two idiotic statements in one sentence, so I think you are in the lead.

Just out of curiosity, what is my "right wing reactionary" idiotic belief that made your top 10 list?

[curious]

quite an interesting amalgam of pseudo christians, imperialists, pro free market socialists, angry old dudes, and poor white trash

if these were ever in the same room they would rip each other apart

and if jesus came back , they would chop his head off bc hannity would tell them it wasnt the real thing

Let's see. I detest Hannity. I don't believe in Jesus. I' not a Christian. I'm not either angry or old. So, I guess I'm white trash? Although, how you would know what race I am is beyond me since I have never mentioned anything about race. So just to enlighten us downtrodden, what is your definition of white trash?

[reno cool]

I'm 51, older than that teenager they just elected but half the age of the ancient one who ran for the Repubs.

I don't think people would like it if I was President. LOL.
Here are what my policies would be:
1. Trade - I would order all US companies to make their products in the United States or the leadership of those companies woudl be arrested. I would send trade negotiators to every other country and offer then 1 of 2 trade agreements. Agreement 1 - Fair trade in both directions with no subsidies, no tarifs, no artificially low currency valuations, no use of inferior substances like using poison in food (as China does routinely), no stealing US patents, no infringing on US trademarks and/or copyrights. If the country does not want to sign Agreement 1, then we sign Agreement 2 for them. Agreement 2 - Country ______ will have no future contact of any kind with the US. All citizens of Country ____ are immediately expelled from the US. All assets of Country _____ in the US are immediately siezed. Good luck in your future endeavors.

2. Immigration - I would immediately put 500,000 border guards on the US/Mexican border with orders to shoot infiltrators on site. I would order the construction of a 30 foot high, 30 foot wide "Hadrian's wall" on the US/Mexican border. I would put in all kinds of electronic surveillance devices on the border. Illegal immigration across the Mexican border would be OVER.

Give all illegal immigrants a choice. You can stay in the US under a special work **** which allows you to work (and you pay a special tax for the privelege). But, you cannot ever apply for US citizenship and your children will not be US citizens. Or, you go home, now, today. And I would make it the top national security issue to find illegal immigrants and make them make the choice to become legal under the work program or go home, and clean up this mess once and for all.

I would put the asylum cities under EXTREME sanctions so that they would stop that nonsense. And I would arrest the mayors of all asylum cities and send them to Guantanamo. When the liberals start marching and protesting because the illegals are being forced to become legal or go home I would arrest the liberals and put their traitorous asses in Guantanamo too.

3. Foreign entanglements. I would close all overseas US military installations and bring all US forces home. I would end all foreign aid of any kind. I would pull the US out of the U.N> and kick them out of the country. Stop all funding of the IMF, the World Bank, and the Import/Export bank.

4. Taxation - I would end all federal taxation. The federal government would get its revenue from properly managing the huge assets that the federal government owns. The federal government owns trillions of dollars worth of minerals, petroleum reserves, forests, prime real estate, you name it we own it in large amounts. Problem is that these assets are looted by Congress criminals who give them away to their friends. I would put an end to that nonsense.

5. Federal budget. I would make it illegal for the federal government to borrow money. I would cut the size of the federal government by 90%. I would cut the federal budget by 50%. I would put in policies that actually WORK with the basis of all policies to help people help themselves without a huge army of bureaucrats sucking away all the money so they can waste it.

6. Education. I would outlaw Sallie Mae and make college education free for anyone who can gain admittance on MERIT. I would end this nonsense that everyone is entitled to the same result. But, I would make colleges actually provide a real education. Right now college education doesn't mean anything because the curriculum has been so watered down to make sure that everyone can "succeed". What nonsense. I would outlaw the teachers union. I would require all classrooms to have no more than a 10-1 teacher / student ratio. I would require that the huge student warehouses be closed and replaced with small schools in each neighborhood so that children go to school near where they live in a school with 10-15 teachers and a principle teacher (Not a NAZI concentration camp commandant which is what most principles think they are). With a 10-1 teacher/student ratio this would be a school of 150 students. I would put the students in charge of maintaining the building. If the building gets vandalized they have to fix it, if it gets defaced with grafitti, they have to clean it. I would have the buildings built so that they generate their own power, heat and cool themselves, use solar lighting, recycle water, harvest rainwater, have a hydroponic greenhouse on top of the building to raise the food the children need for breakfast and lunch, and put the children in charge of growing the food. This way children would grow up seeing environmentally sound policies in action instead of them being bumper sticker slogans spouted off by some loud mouth liberal. Each teacher would have a teacher's aid.

Advancement to the next grade level would be by merit. If you can't do the work you can't advance. Teachers would be held accountable as to why their children are not learning (if they are not showing advancement). This idea that children could graduate high school not knowing how to read would be a thing of the past, someone's head would roll if a student could not read after about the 3rd grade.

7. Energy. I would set a deadline of 12 months after which importing oil would be illegal punishable by execution. Simultaneously I would launch a Manhattan style project to get the US off of imported oil through a combination of: 1) exploring for and drilling for oil anywhere it is found on US soil and offshore and the ****ing environmentalists can go **** themselves. 2) building coal liquefaction plants, 3) building tar sands refineries (the US has massive tar sands reserves), 4) building Shale oil refineries (the US has massive shale reserves), 5) building sugar cane ethanol refineries and ending the sugar cane allotment system and making federal land in Florida, Mississippi, Hawaii, the US Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Alabama, Louisiana, and Texas aviable for sugar cane growing. I would end the corn ethanol program. 6) Building liquefied natural gas refineries, 7) Construct fueling stations along all interstates that would supply a wide variety of fuel types, 8) Order all restaurants to sell their cooking oil to a bio-fuels system (right now they sell it to pet food manufacturers), 9) Launch a crash program in battery technology to make the electric car feasible. Also launch a crash program in solar technology so that solar cells can be made into the roof of the car to charge the batteries and a solar recharging station can be at every home, every office, any place feasible. 10) Set up a fast track permitting program so that anyone wanting to create an electricity facitiliy like wind, solar, hydro, clean coal, etc can get their permit in a few days instead of the 20 yeas that the environmental nazis demand with their constant lawsuits and endless public inquiry. 11) Provide funding for alternative electric facilities like wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, hydro, and some advanced technologies like using the pressure differential of the deep ocean and sea level, or using the temperature differential of the deep ocean and sea level, or using the saline differential at places where salt water and fresh water meet. 12) Immediately approve the turbo diesel engine and build manufacturing plants in the US to build this engine. The turbo diesel engine gets 50 MPG but the environmental nazis won't allow it to be used in the US. ****ing hypocrites. 13) Outaw the use of oil as a heating fuel and fund the installation of geothermal heat pumps so that people no longer need to use oil to heat their homes. Hey, dudes it isn't the 1800s anymore. 14) Replace the use of petroleum for motor oil with synthetic oil made from the jojoba bean. Set up large jojoba bean farms on federal land in the southwest.

8. Corruption in government. I would make giving any politician ANYTHING of value for any reason a crime punishable by execution of both the person giving the bribe and the politician. I would outlaw campaign contributions and tell every newspaper, magazine, TV station, radio station, every media outlet: "Operating int he US is a PRIVILEGE that we grant you, in return you will donate so much of your advertising space to people running for office and give this space out equally to all candidates. Any TV station or radio station that did not comply would immediately lose their FCC license.

I would make lobbying a crime punishable by death and kick all lobbyists out of DC. All foreign lobbyists would be deported immediately.

Corruption would be punishable by death for both the politician and the person giving the bribes or recieiving the benefits. So, a politician telling a buddy that property was going to be rezoned ahead of time so the buddy could buy the property and benefit unfairly would be a high crime and would be very vigorously prosecuted.

9. War on drugs. I would immediately end the war on drugs and disband the ATF and the DEA. I would decriminalize drug possession at the federal level . HOWEVER, drug smuggling and importation into the US of quantities of drugs would be punishable by death. I would hire enough custom agents so that EVERYTHING that enters the US can be inspected to ensure that there is no smuggling.

I would immediately pardon anyone every convicted for simple drug possession where there was no other crime involved like violence or robbery.

10. War on poverty. I would immediately disband the myriad social give away programs and replace them with one program. Anyone who wants to work can have a job. If you are already working and you need something basic then we will help you get it, but you have to do something constructive in return. You don't want to work? Fine, have a nice day. You can't work? There is SOMETHING constructive you can do. Okay, some people will be totally incapable of doing anything constructive, we will help them, DIRECTLY, no need to pay a bureaucrat six figures so they can look down their nose and say no.

11. "Vice" cirmes. You cannot legislate how people think and how they behave behind closed doors. I would get the government out of the morality business.

12. War on terror. The liberals are going to howl at this one. I would end all contact with all countries which are supporting the terrorists. This includes Saudi Arabia by the way. I would kick their embassies out of the country and expel anyone holding a passport from those countries.

I would send pictures of the moon to all politicians and all military leaders in the Muslim world. I would then have an announcement made on worldwide television in all languages. "Any attack on US soil by Islamist Jihadists will be responded to immediately by making Mecca and Medina look like the surface of the moon. If further attack occur then we will just go down the list of all Islamic holy sites turning them all into the surface o the moon". Then I would show pictures of the surface of the moon.

Any attack on Americans outside the US would be responded to by massive WWII style bombing of capital cities in the countries known to support and harbor terrorists. The Islamic world would be given a choice. Round up the terrorists yourselves and execute them or get the **** blown out of you because of the evil that they perpetrate.

You seem to think that US involvement in foreign affairs is done to aid or help other countries.
You might want to consider the fact the US economy is based on the ability to exploit resources in other lands and establish markets.
If this wasn't the case than we'd have no argument. It's a huge gap in your thinking.

[curious]

I never accused you of being a Bush supporter. I'm addressing your idiotic statement that: "without govt interference the market will always grow to provide a job for everyone that needs one."
You can write a hundred pages of crap based on your faulty premise.

I don't know what Obama sound bites I'm repeating. Why don't you enlighten me.

You provide no facts to show why my premise is faulty. You just say that it is so.

Since we are all so ignorant please teach us why my premise is faulty.

[curious]

ah yeas, thanks for the help with amren.com

next time link to anncoulter please

Those are FHA stats published by the FHA. So, you are saying that the FHA is lying?

[curious]

in


tax cuts didnt get us out of any rut we have ever been in
its yet another bankrupt gop idea

So, I guess you never heard of the Carter depression? Reagan's tax cuts saved us.

So, it never occurred to you that if families weren't having to fork over 50% of their income as taxes then maybe they could pay their mortgages? So, maybe a drastic tax reduction might go a long way to easing the mortgage crisis? That never occurred to you?

andywend has a very very loos grasp of whats going on in this country. minorities pay back their loans at a higher rate than do whites, so try again.

Really? Yet the stats published by the FHA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac say just the opposite.

youre pretty weak man, spewing shit out of your mouth that you learn on talk radio. does any "conservative " here actually have their own thoughts?

Let's see, I have posted several pages worth of discussion points and you have yet to respond to a single one of them. Although you have accused me of having no thoughts and just repeating what I hear on talk radio. Even though I don't listen to talk radio and I'm not a conservative and I'm not a Republican.

[Hotdiggity11]

No, I'm not. I am posting facts, something you seem to have a problem figuring out how to do.

The plans to wind down the Iraq war and shift the focus to Afghanistan were not just being talked about. The plans were drawn up, discussed, approved and orders issued long before Obama talked about "his" plan. Which was identical in all respects to the plan that had already been adopted, with the slight change of moving up the withdrawal timetable from 24 to 16 months, something the Iraqis rejected out of hand.

I'm not debating that Bush ****ed up everything he touched. I agree with you on that point. However, you are trying to give Obama credit for something that Obama had nothing to do with. Obama is simply continuing the plans that were already well in place before he came on the scene. Unfortunately, he gets to take "credit" for something that was already done.

You are dishonest in that you are twisting things to make it sound like the previous administration was only talking about winding down the Iraq war and shifting the focus to Afghanistan, when in fact they were in the process of carrying out a fully fledged plan to that end.

But, I have never talked to a DemoCong supporter who was not dishonest so that is no big surprise.

Bash Bush all you want, I don't support the man, so I don't care, but don't give The Messiah credit for things he had nothing to do with.

And, you also assume that continuing the war in Afghanistan is a good thing, which it is not. The Afghanis hate al-Qaeda but they hate foreigners more. Left to their own devices the Afghanis would drive al-Qaeda out of their country. But, now they have a common enemy so they will put their differences aside and fight the foreign occupier and the occupier's puppet regime. Don't delude yourself into thinking that the Afghanis don't view the Karzai government as a puppet regime.

Trying to prop up a puppet regime in Afghanistan is pure stupidity, if not lunacy.

The Islamofascists are now mostly based in Pakistan now, in the northwest tribal areas. What do you want to do, invade Pakistan? You think things are ****ed up now, stir up those lunatics and see what happens.

Oh, and our great "friends" the Pakistanis just released the person who is directly responsible for North Korea, Iran, Syria, and others obtaining nuclear weapons. Luckily, Israel had the good sense to blow up the Syrian facility before the Syrians could commit any mischief.

Khan will now put his "nuclear arms available for a price to anyone who wants to use them to kill Americans and their allies" marketplace back in business.

This should tell you how good "friends" the Pakistanis are of the US. A man who made it his life's work to get nuclear weapons into the hands of any Muslim who would use them against the United States and our allies has had pretty much a free hand to do whatever he wanted from his "house arrest" and now he has been released outright.

The Pakistanis are not our friends.

The only way to defeat al-Qaeda and the Taliban is to invade Pakistan. It would take an army of 10 to 20 million because EVERY able bodied Pakistani would pick up a gun and would fight a Christian invader. The invader would have to use tactics that would make the Russians blush. And even then you might lose.

This problem with the Islamofascists cannot be solved with slogans and by having the simple minded idea that the problem is that Bush didn't pay enough attention to Afghanistan and all that has to be done is to give "attention" to Afghanistan. Anyone who claims this knows nothing about the current situation.

1. Dude, I haven't attacked you one time yet, I don't know why you are inferring that I have. Just an honest political debate, from both sides.



2. No, my argument is that these measures should have been taken a long time ago. From keeping our focus on Afghanistan to surging more troops in Iraq as Shinseki originally suggested. It is not a simple coincidence these measures are just now being taken in the Obama Administration, even if they were planned beforehand.


3. I am perfectly fine with Iraq keeping their original plan signed under the resolution instead of Obama's 16 month ideas.

4. I agree about Afghanistan. I think the War on Terrorism, in general is a joke that has hurt our interests and even our goals more than helped. I am, however, relieved the Iraq situation will, for the most part, soon be over outside of residual troops being kept there as well as the question of Iran. If I had the choice, I would make sure Afghanistan could remain stabilized without American troops and make a gradual withdrawal from the region ASAP.

[curious]

my motto is this

any web site that has ads that say "the real martin luther king" or a picture of obama with a headline that says something like "transition to black rule," is not worthy of any reply,period.

enjoy your hatred of everyone who isnt you.

But it was perfectly okay for you traitors to say things like "Bush lied, people died" and to talk about "regime change" when talking about the upcoming presidential election, and to talk about charging the president with war crimes and hauling him before the world court? And to talk about "white rule". That was okay? Oh, I see, the rules are different now. Sorry, I had a rational moment there.

[Hotdiggity11]

But it was perfectly okay for you traitors to say things like "Bush lied, people died" and to talk about "regime change" when talking about the upcoming presidential election, and to talk about charging the president with war crimes and hauling him before the world court? And to talk about "white rule". That was okay? Oh, I see, the rules are different now. Sorry, I had a rational moment there.

Actually, you will see rules change from both sides such as:


"Love it or leave it" is now something Democrats may say, as Republicans display their dissent towards the current federal government.



Republicans are now advocating small government again, after mostly being in favor of George W. Bush who increased the government significantly.

[ryanXL977]

i want us off oil, we could have spent the trillion dollars from iraq, on new energy, would have created millions of jobs AND gotten us off oil, which is a problem because

a: its running out
b: it ruins the environment
c: it forces the usa to support awful regimes and creates a ton of anti american sentiment when we do

when we stop acting like the world is our walmart, we will be able to solve problems

we arent entitled to rule the world, we are no better than anyone else. we have no right to start wars anymore than china or russia does

[curious]

You seem to think that US involvement in foreign affairs is done to aid or help other countries.
You might want to consider the fact the US economy is based on the ability to exploit resources in other lands and establish markets.
If this wasn't the case than we'd have no argument. It's a huge gap in your thinking.

There is no gap in my thinking, there are several falsehoods in yours.
The US economy does not depend on the exploitation of anyone else. That used to be the case, but all resources are fungible commodities now. The days of needing hegemony in a part of the world to have access to resources are over, now you can just buy them on the open market, it is much cheaper.

The problem is that the US government still BEHAVES as if hegemony of an area where resources are located is vital to "US interests". This idea is nonsense of course. We can easily bring all military assets home and our economy will not suffer. We will still be able to buy what we need on the open market. This is cheaper in the long run.

This stopping foreign entanglements in the name of "vested national interests" is the core premise to my thinking. I want such foreign entanglements in the name of "protecting vital US interests", which are almost always exploiting some resource in a way that is bad for the people of that country to stop. The way to stop it is to develop the resources at home, being all military assets abroad home and insist on fair trade with all our trading partners. Then there would be no way to use military power or foreign affairs as a way to advance the interests of the likes of the United Fruit Co., or Shell Oil, or any of a number of other big companies that wield undue influence on these matters.

And since US foreign affairs do nothing to benefit the recipients I guess you would have no problem with eliminating all foreign aid programs at the same time that we bring all overseas military assets home. Since the recipients of this aid don't benefit from it it is in their best interests that America just pull out and have nothing further to do with them.

[curious]

Actually, you will see rules change from both sides such as:


"Love it or leave it" is now something Democrats may say, as Republicans display their dissent towards the current federal government.



Republicans are now advocating small government again, after mostly being in favor of George W. Bush who increased the government significantly.

Bush the Elder began the big expansion of the federal government. Slick Willie and Bush the Lesser just continued what Bush the Elder began but on a much larger scale.

And you are confusing conservatives with Republicans. Conservatives want a small federal government. Republicans have shown over the years since Bush the Elder betrayed the Regan Revolution that they are not conservatives. So, what might be happening is that the conservatives are retaking the Republican party.

[therber2]

i want us of oil, we could have spent the trillion dollars from iraq, on new energy, would have created millions of jobs AND gotten us off oil, which is a problem because

a: its running out
b: it ruins the environment
c: it forces the usa to support awful regimes and creates a ton of anti american sentiment when we do

when we stop acting like the world is our walmart, we will be able to solve problems

we arent entitled to rule the world, we are no better than anyone else. we have no right to start wars anymore than china or russia does

Ryan, pretty soon no one is going to give a shit about any of this except people who have money! When your mortgage and car payment is on the line; penguins and melting polar ices caps get put on the backburner.

Save the three trillion. Balance budget in government, encourage free market by reducing regulation, and cut taxes. Politicians know there is so much discord now so why don't they listen. Most people don't want their country to be driven into more debt for the incompetent. Only the incompetent and special interest groups are for more spending to solve the problem of having already spent too much. There is no logic, just politics. Too late. These bastards are already having their way.

[ryanXL977]

there is no evidcece, ever, that tax cuts accomplish anything. none. zero

and pretty soon we wont have a planet to make money on bc it will be 90% underwater!
but i agree with your general sentiments other than the free market stuff. thats been pretty much disproven finally

[Data]

I'm addressing your idiotic statement that: "without govt interference the market will always grow to provide a job for everyone that needs one."

I agree that this is wrong, it is wrong on two levels. First, having a job is not an absolute, the socialists countries had 0% unemployment rate, it is living conditions what matters. Second, there is no guarantee that the market will provide good living conditions for everyone willing to work. What it does is creating the best possible living conditions for the working class comparing to other possibilities. It achieves this via creating best economical stimulus to work hard.

Karl Marx postulated that labor has an intrinsic value and build his otherwise very logical theory based on this wrong assumption. If the working class creates all the goods by applying their labor then all the goods should belong to them and not to capitalists who are just a bunch of rich parasites sucking on the fruits of working class labor. The communists fixed that unfairness in Russia. They turned a country that had living standards on par with the European countries into a country that was on par with Africa in that and many other aspects. Everyone worked in the USSR but they were poorly stimulated (work for the peanuts or go to jail where you will have to work for nothing) and their productivity was extremely low.

So, what was Marx's mistake? Labor has very little intrinsic value that can only provide the quality of life you can find in undeveloped Africa. The working class best hope is that there is a venture capitalist who is bright enough to find a use for their idle hands. The workers can, say, dig deep holes. Everyone can. The digging itself is useless and does not bring any food to the table, besides worms. What is lacking here is the purpose. The venture capitalist provides that purpose, be it a canal or coal mine, or whatever. The market cherish and rewards the capitalist. Again, the market does not guarantee that a bunch of "diggers" will prosper but it creates the best conditions for the capitalist to come and provide that lacking purpose which will turn the useless labor into paying jobs.

What happens if the venture capitalist becomes rich and the "diggers" take him out? The "diggers" share the expropriated loot among themselves and live off of it for some time. Then they become poor again and no matter how much pointless digging they do their conditions will not improve.

In the past the labor was simple and good venturing ideas were scarce. It was economically reasonable to make the "diggers" slaves and to use pain as a stimulus to work. Long time ago the conditions changed that now it is much more profitable for a venture capitalist to stimulate the workers economically. Moreover, the important part of it that anyone can be a venture capitalist. Many people work for themselves while the others grow their businesses to give paying jobs to others. The market rewards creating "the purpose" and that is the engine that lets the free world to move forward.

[Hotdiggity11]

Bush the Elder began the big expansion of the federal government. Slick Willie and Bush the Lesser just continued what Bush the Elder began but on a much larger scale.

And you are confusing conservatives with Republicans. Conservatives want a small federal government. Republicans have shown over the years since Bush the Elder betrayed the Regan Revolution that they are not conservatives. So, what might be happening is that the conservatives are retaking the Republican party.

Calling them "Conservatives" is a thing of the past, Social Conservatives have taken over that name and totally changed its message in the eyes of the public. That is why people like Hannity, Coulter, and Limbaugh are at the forefront of the self-proclaimed "Conservative" movement while people like Buchanan are mostly a thing of the past. The people who want less government are now "Libertarians."

[therber2]

90% underwater!

Where did you hear that? You know our poles move around right? Stand on the North Pole and watch the stars spin around the North Star. Go back a few years later, and watch the North Star wobble. That is why every season is not exactly the same and every decade or century does not have the same weather! Don't blame burning oil for odd weather; our planet has seen this many times before. "Global Warming" assholes just cherry picked some evidence to support some made up theory. Burning oil does not affect the earth's axis of rotation which can affect temperatures more than Al Gore's bullshit. Sure it is possible that it contributes, but not significantly enough. Ryan, like I said, this fad is going to be put on the backburner for now. Oil is going up; Pakistan is a powder keg. Our country is burning.

Later on alternatives like Solar, Wind, and biofuels should definitely be used more, and if one is able to switch over now on their own; good for them. Come to think of it I would love to pay less and be more efficient using Solar; and use my water source more efficiently by redesigning my house. Right now though, these things aren't affordable for most people. Just to be clear though this switch is about efficiency; and it should be done by our biggest energy companies Exxon, Chevron, (not government). The free market needs to heal itself without government aid; plenty of people who are competent enough to do this Ryan. Why put a nation's fate in the hands of some kids sitting in a conference room? Government has a specific set of tasks they are meant to do, and leave the rest up to the people.

[ryanXL977]

What reagan revolution? the one that ballooned the deficit and built up arms for an imaginary enemy?

ill take the word of scientists over the world of gop think tanks on global warming. if you shit where you live, your house will smell like poop. to me its common sense.

[Hotdiggity11]

What reagan revolution?

The one that took the GOP from Goldwater Conservative to Social Conservative.

[ryanXL977]

ah
but they ignore what happened under reagan, they ignore the debt, the corruption, the lies, the growth of government, but its ok bc their movie actor hero is a good speaker. nice

[curious]

Calling them "Conservatives" is a thing of the past, Social Conservatives have taken over that name and totally changed its message in the eyes of the public. That is why people like Hannity, Coulter, and Limbaugh are at the forefront of the self-proclaimed "Conservative" movement while people like Buchanan are mostly a thing of the past. The people who want less government are now "Libertarians."

You can call the Kumquats if you want to.

I'm talking about the principles of:
1. As little government interference as possible. But in areas where government interference is important to ensure that monopolies won't exert undue power the interference is just and honest and accomplishes the stated effect. In other words, the government has a duty to protect us from robber barons.
2. As small a central federal government as possible.
3. Federal government deals with defending the borders, being a court system of last resort, and mediating disagreements between the states. The states deal with anything else not specifically given to the federal government. Oh, and the federal government cannot just do anything it wants hiding behind the "regulating commerce" clause.
4. Low or no taxes.
5. Equal opportunity NOT equal outcome.
6. Elimination of welfare of all types. Corporate welfare, welfare for foreign governments, welfare for foreign companies, welfare to states, counties and cities, welfare to the permanent "under privileged" class that these (failed) social engineering policies created.

There is more but this is the basics.

So what do you call this? It isn't libertarianism because libertarians don't want the federal government protecting us from the robber barons. I think we need that protection.

I despise the "social conservatives", bunch of ****ing hypocrites.

[curious]

ah
but they ignore what happened under reagan, they ignore the debt, the corruption, the lies, the growth of government, but its ok bc their movie actor hero is a good speaker. nice

So, you would have rather had the Carter depression continue?

[curious]

I agree that this is wrong, it is wrong on two levels. First, having a job is not an absolute, the socialists countries had 0% unemployment rate, it is leaving conditions what matters. Second, there is no guarantee that the market will provide good leaving conditions for everyone willing to work. What it does is creating the best possible leaving conditions for the working class comparing to other possibilities. It achieves this via creating best economical stimulus to work hard.

Karl Marx postulated that labor has an intrinsic value and build his otherwise very logical theory based on this wrong assumption. If the working class creates all the goods by applying their labor then all the goods should belong to them and not to capitalists who are just a bunch of rich parasites sucking on the fruits of working class labor. The communists fixed that unfairness in Russia. They turned a country that had leaving standards on par with the European countries into a country that was on par with Africa in that and many other aspects. Everyone worked in the USSR but they were poorly stimulated (work for the peanuts or go to jail where you will have to work for nothing) and their productivity was extremely low.

So, what was Marx's mistake? Labor has very little intrinsic value that can only provide the quality of life you can find in undeveloped Africa. The working class best hope is that there is a venture capitalist who is bright enough to find a use for their idle hands. The workers can, say, dig deep holes. Everyone can. The digging itself is useless and does not bring any food to the table, besides worms. What is lacking here is the purpose. The venture capitalist provides that purpose, be it a canal or coal mine, or whatever. The market cherish and rewards the capitalist. Again, the market does not guarantee that a bunch of "diggers" will prosper but it creates the best conditions for the capitalist to come and provide that lacking purpose which will turn the useless labor into paying jobs.

What happens if the venture capitalist becomes rich and the "diggers" take him out? The "diggers" share the expropriated loot among themselves and live off of it for some time. Then they become poor again and no matter how much pointless digging they do their conditions will not improve.

In the past the labor was simple and good venturing ideas were scarce. It was economically reasonable to make the "diggers" slaves and to use pain as a stimulus to work. Long time ago the conditions changed that now it is much more profitable for a venture capitalist to stimulate the workers economically. Moreover, the important part of it that anyone can be a venture capitalist. Many people work for themselves while the others grow their businesses to give paying jobs to others. The market rewards creating "the purpose" and that is the engine that lets the free world to move forward.

How is this different from what I said? Without government interference capital will seek investments so that it can grow. People who want to work hard will be able to find a place to do that. Either in enterprises run by others who found investments to fund a worthwhile purpose, or in enterprises they found to accomplish a worthwhile purpose.

Those who obtain education and skills and save and invest and amass capital will prosper to a higher degree than those who don't do those things.

Prosperity at the level of being "rich" will not be promised or guaranteed. But pretty much anyone who wants a job will be able to find one.

The "digger" economies you use as an example are irrelevant because those societies did not have capital or a legal system to protect investment or infrastructure or any of the innumerable other things that are required for innovation, commerce, and productivity to thrive.

We live in a different era.

Allow innovation, productivity, and commerce to thrive without government interference and unemployment pretty much disappears. Poverty does not disappear because unskilled labor will not be rewarded at a level to be much above the poverty level. But, the market does not promise to enrich unskilled labor. It promises to enrich ingenuity, innovation, enterprise, productivity, creativity, and sound fiscal practices.

Government interference artificially depresses economic opportunity, there are many concrete examples of this.

[curious]

The one that took the GOP from Goldwater Conservative to Social Conservative.

Reagan did not do that, Bush the Elder and Bush the Lesser did that.

[therber2]

ill take the word of scientists over the world of gop think tanks on global warming. if you shit where you live, your house will smell like poop. to me its common sense.

This is both a bad analogy, and propaganda at it's finest. Leave politics out of science research. If a politicians are pushing a humanitarian agenda a red flag should go up. If Global Warming hasn't at least made you skeptical, Ryan, you are the one buying political think tank fodder. Sorry man. Try to get info from non-political based sources or at least think for yourself. You do know that our poles move right? You could go check this yourself! As for common sense: if you have any you should know that green house gases shouldn't affect the earth's tilt. This is something I haven't heard from the GOP; it is common knowledge...

I'm not against alternatives at all though and neither are our big energy suppliers so long as they stay in business, are able to keep/create jobs, and continue paying their shareholders; right now though, many alternatives haven't been fully research, and/or just aren't practical. "Getting off oil" + fixing an economic and geopolitical mess is quite a bit for government to do, and I personally am not convinced that even the best could do even a half-assed job. I would of course want them to, but they are taking on too much if they do this and using our money to do it.

[Data]

How is this different from what I said? Without government interference capital will seek investments so that it can grow.

You said:
"Without government interference the market will always grow large enough to supply jobs to anyone who wants one."

I say:
The market is NOT guaranteed jobs to grow large enough to supply jobs to anyone who wants one.

Yes, the capital will seek investment but "the purposeful" investments are limited and not easy to find. That is why finding one must be rewarding. So, the desire to grow does not guarantee the grow. The desire to invest and grow while the opportunity does not exist creates bubbles, like we witnessed, yet it creates the jobs as well. The jobs that should not be there. Like the jobs of mortgage wholesalers where female high school dropouts could make millions, http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...9070638235.htm.

What I am saying is that the last years prosperity was abnormal and the crash is going to be hard. The market will ensure we do the best as we can do but, again, it does NOT guarantee jobs for everyone and nothing can.

[curious]

You said:
"Without government interference the market will always grow large enough to supply jobs to anyone who wants one."

I say:
The market is NOT guaranteed jobs to grow large enough to supply jobs to anyone who wants one.

Yes, the capital will seek investment but "the purposeful" investments are limited and not easy to find. That is why finding one must be rewarding. So, the desire to grow does not guarantee the grow. The desire to invest and grow while the opportunity does not exist creates bubbles, like we witnessed, yet it creates the jobs as well. The jobs that should not be there. Like the jobs of mortgage wholesalers where female high school dropouts could make millions, http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...9070638235.htm.

What I am saying is that the last years prosperity was abnormal and the crash is going to be hard. The market will ensure we do the best as we can do but, again, it does NOT guarantee jobs for everyone and nothing can.

You wrongly assume I am using the last 7 years as some sort of basis for my premise. I am not.

The last 7 and more years was an artificial spike in the boom side of the boom/bust cycle that was caused by government interference and the creation of an abnormal, illogical, and irrational "market" for "investments" where the actual value of those "investments" was impossible to determine.

I'm still not certain what caused the creation of that market. Was that government intereference or lack of government interference.

Here is what I am talking about. There are a number of local and regional banks in the area where I live that are all fiscally sound. They did not make risky investments in real estate or mortgages. They made mortgages sure, using their own money, their own originators to customers they know to buy houses in neighborhoods they know. We didn't suffer from the run away housing costs followed by a housing crash here. Our banks are still sound.

This is the way banking used to be done. Banks took deposits then invested those deposits in endeavors that they understood with people they trusted. Yes, there was risk but it was understood and manageable risk.

What happened in the mortgage industry was not banking. It wasn't even lending. It was pure speculation. Originators created paper, banks acted as intermediaries to fund that paper in the short term, they then sold that paper to "investors" who then assumed all the risk. The originators and the short term intermediaries assumed no risk. The investors had no idea what they were buying. The paper was impossible to accurately value.

This isn't banking, it isn't investing, I'm not sure what it is.

Anyway, that has nothing to do with what I am talking about. I don't want jobs created out of thin air because of worthless paper being sold to dupes.

I think that if you have an environment where creativity, ingenuity, innovation, productivity, and commerce can thrive unencumbered by interference from government and also not artificially stimulated by interference by government either, then jobs will be plentiful and capital will be plentiful.

Now, since there has never been an environment like that I have no idea how to prove this theory. Politicians always interfere to either make the boom leg or the bust leg of the boom/bust cycle steeper than it should have been.

[curious]

What reagan revolution? the one that ballooned the deficit and built up arms for an imaginary enemy?

The Soviet Empire was an imaginary enemy? Of all the idiotic things you have said, that one has to be the most delusional.

ill take the word of scientists over the world of gop think tanks on global warming. if you shit where you live, your house will smell like poop. to me its common sense.

Everything about the "proof" for global warming is a lie. The hockey stick chart was disproved as a fraud long ago. Carbon is not a toxin, that is a blatant lie. The so called climate models that the climate change lunatics use to "prove" there point were discredited because they leave out the main factors that influence the earth's climate.

Oh, I guess you are behind the times on this one. They changed the name from "global warming" to "climate change" because the temperature is actually cooling now. Calling it climate change is more convenient because then they can blame anything that happens on "climate change". It is getting cooler, "SEEEE, we are right, that damm climate change". It is getting warmer, "SEEE, we are right, that dammm climate change".

Pretty ingenious, but still nothing but hogwash.

I wouldn't be too worried about the ice over top of the Arctic Ocean melting, the volume of the oceans won't rise because of that. Now, if the ice on Greenland melts, then you will have a problem. A VERY big problem. Fortunately, the ice sheet on Greenland is not melting, it gets thicker every year.

[tacomax]

Fortunately, the ice sheet on Greenland is not melting, it gets thicker every year.

Really? Greenland must be crapping themselves - they recently voted for independence from Denmark partly on the basis of the natural resources which will be uncovered from the melting of the ice.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1131848/Nato-military-presence-Arctic-melting-ice-leads-scramble-energy-reserves.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4791047.ece

However, I can think of someone who does get thicker every year.

[Data]

Now, since there has never been an environment like that I have no idea how to prove this theory.

There is no need to prove this theory because there is no need to subscribe to it because doing so leaves you wide open for an attack that you cannot effectively defend against. You do not need to say that the market (capitalism) is good at something while all you need to say that it is better than alternatives because the factual evidence exists for the latter and not for the former.

[ryanXL977]

id be interested in real capitalism, not just for a few poor people, while the rich are the ones who practice solcialism.
let me know when we have real capitalism, real free markets without intervention, without cheats and no bids. there can and never will be a true free market bc someone will always find a way to get rich manipulating it
always has been
always willbe

[reno cool]

I agree that this is wrong, it is wrong on two levels. First, having a job is not an absolute, the socialists countries had 0% unemployment rate, it is living conditions what matters. Second, there is no guarantee that the market will provide good living conditions for everyone willing to work. What it does is creating the best possible living conditions for the working class comparing to other possibilities. It achieves this via creating best economical stimulus to work hard.

Karl Marx postulated that labor has an intrinsic value and build his otherwise very logical theory based on this wrong assumption. If the working class creates all the goods by applying their labor then all the goods should belong to them and not to capitalists who are just a bunch of rich parasites sucking on the fruits of working class labor. The communists fixed that unfairness in Russia. They turned a country that had living standards on par with the European countries into a country that was on par with Africa in that and many other aspects. Everyone worked in the USSR but they were poorly stimulated (work for the peanuts or go to jail where you will have to work for nothing) and their productivity was extremely low.

So, what was Marx's mistake? Labor has very little intrinsic value that can only provide the quality of life you can find in undeveloped Africa. The working class best hope is that there is a venture capitalist who is bright enough to find a use for their idle hands. The workers can, say, dig deep holes. Everyone can. The digging itself is useless and does not bring any food to the table, besides worms. What is lacking here is the purpose. The venture capitalist provides that purpose, be it a canal or coal mine, or whatever. The market cherish and rewards the capitalist. Again, the market does not guarantee that a bunch of "diggers" will prosper but it creates the best conditions for the capitalist to come and provide that lacking purpose which will turn the useless labor into paying jobs.

What happens if the venture capitalist becomes rich and the "diggers" take him out? The "diggers" share the expropriated loot among themselves and live off of it for some time. Then they become poor again and no matter how much pointless digging they do their conditions will not improve.

In the past the labor was simple and good venturing ideas were scarce. It was economically reasonable to make the "diggers" slaves and to use pain as a stimulus to work. Long time ago the conditions changed that now it is much more profitable for a venture capitalist to stimulate the workers economically. Moreover, the important part of it that anyone can be a venture capitalist. Many people work for themselves while the others grow their businesses to give paying jobs to others. The market rewards creating "the purpose" and that is the engine that lets the free world to move forward.

I know this is accepted conventional wisdom on the part of elitist apologizers and indoctrinated Americans but again it's not true.
Russia was mostly a 3rd world country before the revolution and in a matter of decades became a world leader in many, many fields. Not to mention providing a livable standard for the vast majority. All this despite suffering immense losses during WWII.
On the other hand the tens of third world nations living under capitalism and the world bank are getting themselves deeper and deeper into poverty, debt and hopelessness.

[pico]

this thread is going to be epic

[Data]

I know this is accepted conventional wisdom on the part of elitist apologizers and indoctrinated Americans but again it's not true.
Russia was mostly a 3rd world country before the revolution

The conditions in Russia right before the revolution were very poor due to Russia's loss in WWI. However, despite Russia's loss to Japan in another war, that happened just in 1905, the living standards in Russia in 1913 (the last year before WWI started in 1914) were indeed on par with leading European countries. Any historian knows this. Unlike you, I do not spill bullshit when I say something.

and in a matter of decades became a world leader in many, many fields.

What many fields? Russia was one of the world leaders in science and culture long before the revolution. Those are the fields that heavily depend on talented individuals not a political system. They kept having success under commies not because but despite. The other field they were a leader is military. That was achieved by spending the most of their GDP on military.

Not to mention providing a livable standard for the vast majority. All this despite suffering immense losses during WWII.

They lost approximately 50 million lives due to hunger and people being killed in GULAG. During Stalin years almost one third of the population were prisoners in labor camps working for free. Is that what you call livable standards? After Stalin they got lucky with oil and that kept them going for a while. Not at any point of Russia's history under commies the living standards were even remotely close to the rest of Europe which they once a part of. People were very poor as, again, most of the money went to their military. They were successful in space discovery only because it was part of military program.

On the other hand the tens of third world nations living under capitalism and the world bank are getting themselves deeper and deeper into poverty, debt and hopelessness.

They get as much as they worth. Capitalism is not a magic wand.

[curious]

id be interested in real capitalism, not just for a few poor people, while the rich are the ones who practice solcialism.
let me know when we have real capitalism, real free markets without intervention, without cheats and no bids. there can and never will be a true free market bc someone will always find a way to get rich manipulating it
always has been
always willbe

So, what you really hate is anyone who has more than you? You keep spouting off about "the rich" as if someone becoming successful is some sort of crime?