Is he bleepin stupid?!?!?!? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Is he bleepin stupid?!?!?!?


Dennis in MA
12-05-2012, 08:39
I never post here. Hell, I never read here. But I'm peeved off and GNG isn't the place.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama-stress-raise-debt-limit-111228060.html?l=1

"Just do as I say or I'll tell everyone it's your fault."

I don't get why the "business leaders" don't tell him to pound sand. Honestly, I don't. The turdburgler has no business dealing with this at all. Of course, Reid and Pelosi are delighted he's taking lead - less potential blowback on them.

What's great is, if the Republicans rolled over and just passed whatever he wanted and we raised the debt limit to eleventybillion trillion, our debt would be downgraded. . . and somehow it would be the Republicans' fault.

I just don't get how we get to a place where economic fantasy becomes economic fact.

series1811
12-05-2012, 09:01
Arrogant is too bland a word to describe Obama. He really is a walking, talking example of NPD.

JohnH
12-05-2012, 09:26
I never post here. Hell, I never read here. But I'm peeved off and GNG isn't the place.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama-stress-raise-debt-limit-111228060.html?l=1

"Just do as I say or I'll tell everyone it's your fault."

I don't get why the "business leaders" don't tell him to pound sand. Honestly, I don't. The turdburgler has no business dealing with this at all. Of course, Reid and Pelosi are delighted he's taking lead - less potential blowback on them.

What's great is, if the Republicans rolled over and just passed whatever he wanted and we raised the debt limit to eleventybillion trillion, our debt would be downgraded. . . and somehow it would be the Republicans' fault.

I just don't get how we get to a place where economic fantasy becomes economic fact.

Dennis those "business leaders" who are beneficiaries of the crony-capitalist complex will never tell him to go pound salt. All that "quantitative easing" (monetizing the debt) flows directly to the well connected cronies. And quit worrying about all that debt! Your buddies down at the Fed can just print more money. It's the Keynesian way! Weeeeeeeeee!

snerd
12-05-2012, 09:37
Wayne Rogers finally used the correct word to describe what's going on............. Fascism. He's just as perplexed as most of us that it is not being legally challenged by anyone. Cause, that's how we solve things in this country, the courts. Oh, wait.........

GAFinch
12-05-2012, 10:00
Dennis those "business leaders" who are beneficiaries of the crony-capitalist complex will never tell him to go pound salt. All that "quantitative easing" (monetizing the debt) flows directly to the well connected cronies. And quit worrying about all that debt! Your buddies down at the Fed can just print more money. It's the Keynesian way! Weeeeeeeeee!

That's all very true, and ZIRP forces investors and banks to put their money in the stock market to artificially inflate stock prices, but what they're doing is well beyond Keynesian economics.

smokeross
12-05-2012, 10:33
It will all be over in 16 days anyway.

kirgi08
12-05-2012, 11:10
Yes he is.'08.

DonGlock26
12-05-2012, 11:16
The mainstream media has signaled him to make the big push now.

certifiedfunds
12-05-2012, 11:32
That's all very true, and ZIRP forces investors and banks to put their money in the stock market to artificially inflate stock prices, but what they're doing is well beyond Keynesian economics.

Yup. Fodder for the big boys.

427
12-05-2012, 11:52
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership . Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit."
Then Senator, Barack Obama March 16, 2006

DWARREN123
12-05-2012, 11:59
This problem started long ago and it is our fault (the people) for not stopping it before it got out of hand.
But the elected folks of today are not helping at all. :steamed:

Chesafreak
12-05-2012, 12:06
Up until yesterday I was believing along GOP party lines about how a tax increase on the upper 2% or "job creators" would negatively affect the economy. Then my daughter in law shared with me this video that explains that the middle class are the real job creators, not the rich. Anyone care to school me on why this is right or wrong, and if this is not the reason why Republicans are against raising taxes on the top 2%, then why?

http://www.athenstalks.com/rich-are-not-job-creators-nick-hanauer-ted

GAFinch
12-05-2012, 12:31
Raising taxes isn't going to decrease the deficit or the debt. He wants it for three reasons:

1. Gin up class warfare among the masses.
2. Use a hugely unpopular idea to divide and conquer Republicans and/or ensure that the fiscal cliff happens.
3. Use the tax increases to pay for more stimulus plans (he's openly said this).

greentriple
12-05-2012, 12:38
So is he a right wing fascist or a left wing communist? Which one? Come one, just pick one? Or does it depend on your own clueless wonderment of your leaders.

janice6
12-05-2012, 12:41
Interesting, he claims to want to give Mortgage and student Loan debt relief by just cancelling them, and then says the way to handle debt is to just ignore it.

What a financial genius.

427
12-05-2012, 12:58
So is he a right wing fascist or a left wing communist? Which one? Come one, just pick one? Or does it depend on your own clueless wonderment of your leaders.

Communist.

Berto
12-05-2012, 12:58
So is he a right wing fascist or a left wing communist? Which one? Come one, just pick one? Or does it depend on your own clueless wonderment of your leaders.

Didn't you vote for him? You tell me. What is he?

GAFinch
12-05-2012, 13:10
So is he a right wing fascist or a left wing communist? Which one? Come one, just pick one? Or does it depend on your own clueless wonderment of your leaders.

Fascism, or national socialism, is hardly right wing. That's historical revisionism. Besides, neo-Marxism combines the two ideologies anyway. Don't fall into the trap of excluding ideologies based on narrow definitions and narrow labels from 100 years ago, that's how they convert you into their thinking without you realizing it.

kirgi08
12-05-2012, 13:11
I was gonna mention someones definitions are a wee bit off.'08.

GAFinch
12-05-2012, 13:14
Interesting, he claims to want to give Mortgage and student Loan debt relief by just cancelling them, and then says the way to handle debt is to just ignore it.

What a financial genius.

If Europe, Japan, and China all agree to do the same thing, then it doesn't really matter. If anyone else refuses to play along, they'll have a few navies parked on their shores until they achieve enlightenment. :tequila:

series1811
12-05-2012, 14:41
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership . Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit."
Then Senator, Barack Obama March 16, 2006

Every Republican Congressman should get up and read this, one after the other, verbatim, and with proper attribution, at the next debate on raising the debt limit.

countrygun
12-05-2012, 14:52
So is he a right wing fascist or a left wing communist? Which one? Come one, just pick one? Or does it depend on your own clueless wonderment of your leaders.

That is just regurgitating the revisionist re definitionofthe terms to set up a win/win for the liberal revisionists.

Fascism AND socialism AND Communism/Marxism are all on the same end of the spectrum and freedom is on the other. Facism is not on the Conservative end of the spectrum nor ist it a goal. It has been placed there, in discussion, falsely by revisionists in their "New View" so they can propose socialism as a lesser of two evils.

series1811
12-05-2012, 15:24
So is he a right wing fascist or a left wing communist? Which one? Come one, just pick one? Or does it depend on your own clueless wonderment of your leaders.

I don't know exactly what to call him, but Cloward and Piven approve of what he seems to be trying to do.

nursetim
12-05-2012, 17:16
Fascism and communism are kissing cousins. It is a common misconception that the opposite of communism is fascism sine we equate fascism and naziism as one and the same, it is not. Naziism was a socialist movement, and socialism is the precursor to communism.

HWSNBN, uses fascist tactics to implement communist dogma. The socialist party has its blamegame in fine form. They are not responsible for anything bad, the other guy is. With the MSM on their side, it's a lock. The republican party and the republic is dying, if not dead.

SCmasterblaster
12-05-2012, 19:05
Arrogant is too bland a word to describe Obama. He really is a walking, talking example of NPD.

True, so very true. :upeyes:

G29Reload
12-05-2012, 22:15
Up until yesterday I was believing along GOP party lines about how a tax increase on the upper 2% or "job creators" would negatively affect the economy. Then my daughter in law shared with me this video that explains that the middle class are the real job creators, not the rich. Anyone care to school me on why this is right or wrong, and if this is not the reason why Republicans are against raising taxes on the top 2%, then why?

http://www.athenstalks.com/rich-are-not-job-creators-nick-hanauer-ted

Its as simple as this: We are, or should be a capitalist system.

The top 2% are (obviously) good at aggregating CAPITAL on a scale that can fund investments in factories and storefronts that give people JOBS. They are also efficient investors and users of that capital, more so than the government that would poach that money to little effect…


The top 10% in this country provide 70% of the government's revenue. The rich ARE paying their fare share, and the share of quite a few people who are paying NOTHING. So, how much is enough, really?

If Obama got his way and raised the rates to where he wanted, the total extra take from the wealthiest folks would run the government for 8 days, and at the same time drain it from the private sector where it would actually do some good.

We do not have a revenue problem. We have a SPENDING problem. Reid pelosi and Obama squandered trillions, now they want to confiscate more to pay for their waste. Pound sand I say.

greentriple
12-05-2012, 22:33
Here's some revisionist history for you: This week's 4 most ridiculous, head-scratching poll results : https://www.google.com/producer/editions/CAowsP0E/theweekcom/CAIiEEL07zrGT1VzJesjo0fgqNAqFAgEKg0IACoGCAowsP0EMIAlMJpk/this_weeks_4_most_ridiculous_head_scratc


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

oldman11
12-05-2012, 22:43
Interesting, he claims to want to give Mortgage and student Loan debt relief by just cancelling them, and then says the way to handle debt is to just ignore it.

What a financial genius.
Can you say "dictator wannabe"?

stevelyn
12-05-2012, 22:53
So is he a right wing fascist or a left wing communist? Which one? Come one, just pick one? Or does it depend on your own clueless wonderment of your leaders.


Everything he's done can be found in Mao's Little Red Book.

certifiedfunds
12-05-2012, 23:12
Its as simple as this: We are, or should be a capitalist system.



Capitalism isn't a system. It is simply men engaging freely in commerce.

Gunhaver
12-05-2012, 23:33
Up until yesterday I was believing along GOP party lines about how a tax increase on the upper 2% or "job creators" would negatively affect the economy. Then my daughter in law shared with me this video that explains that the middle class are the real job creators, not the rich. Anyone care to school me on why this is right or wrong, and if this is not the reason why Republicans are against raising taxes on the top 2%, then why?

http://www.athenstalks.com/rich-are-not-job-creators-nick-hanauer-ted

Even though Nick Hanauer is spot on you won't get anywhere with that video. I've already tried. The denial is too strong here. His very good points will be ignored by most here in favor of the "the rich are job creators!" mantra that's been programmed into them.

9jeeps
12-06-2012, 00:28
he was re elected for four more years of digging the USA into a hole. Maybe some of you idiots that voted for him will vote against him when he wants dictatorship. But I doubt it!

Blast
12-06-2012, 00:39
http://s0.wp.com/imgpress?url=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_omk7dxCwoak/S9j6aCSzVsI/AAAAAAAAC7o/oJGefQLDDPE/s1600/Obama-idiots.jpg#obama%20thinks%20the%20people%20are%20stupid

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kN1fN9ixrJE/T_XNM11n-kI/AAAAAAAACKk/2mL_YRFOi08/s1600/Liberal+Logic+101+(a).jpg

kirgi08
12-06-2012, 00:46
:goodpost: :agree:

engineer151515
12-06-2012, 01:13
Budget conscience Conservative Republicans have been painted as greedy Scrooges, starving school children and throwing grandma over the cliff, for decades. For an entire generation of voters, the mantra has been repeated until it is accepted as truth. The blame for that lies with the voter who either doesn't want to inform themselves or have a political self interest in gaining from a governmental party that promises wealth redistribution.

Clinton's supposed "balanced budget" accomplishment (scoff) is treated as some political high water mark by the Left as masterfully reaching a balance between Liberalism and Conservationism. In truth, it was settled with scorn, blame, and disdain, presenting Conservatives as evil leftovers from the Reagan "age of greed".

Conservatism has not changed. We must, as a nation, live within our financial means. And we have not. To the tune of $16 Trillion dollars. But the Liberal propaganda of vilifying political opponents has been so simple and effective to the disinterested or edacious voting populous, that Liberals have reached their political zenith of power.

America deserves exactly what we majority vote for. Our currency will default and Democrats hope that happens sooner than later. Because, if the money power is defeated, all that is left is reliance on the State.

A Socialist's dream.

Chesafreak
12-06-2012, 07:12
Even though Nick Hanauer is spot on you won't get anywhere with that video. I've already tried. The denial is too strong here. His very good points will be ignored by most here in favor of the "the rich are job creators!" mantra that's been programmed into them.

While the video has changed my mind about who the real job creators are, I don't favor raising taxes on anyone, even the top 2%. I am in favor of cutting spending and entitlements. Obama's plan is to spend more and cut less and focus the poor's anger on the rich.

series1811
12-06-2012, 07:16
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kN1fN9ixrJE/T_XNM11n-kI/AAAAAAAACKk/2mL_YRFOi08/s1600/Liberal+Logic+101+(a).jpg

Yep. If you don't believe this is how they think, ask Ed Asner.

Captain Caveman
12-06-2012, 07:49
Up until yesterday I was believing along GOP party lines about how a tax increase on the upper 2% or "job creators" would negatively affect the economy. Then my daughter in law shared with me this video that explains that the middle class are the real job creators, not the rich. Anyone care to school me on why this is right or wrong, and if this is not the reason why Republicans are against raising taxes on the top 2%, then why?

http://www.athenstalks.com/rich-are-not-job-creators-nick-hanauer-ted


He does have a valid point. However, it's over simplistic. Taxes are pass through. Raising the taxes on the business owners will only increase the cost of products. Increased cost on products without a corresponding increase in wages for everybody (and the tax cut isn't even close to compensating for this), means less products purchased. Less products purchased means less income, but more overhead for the business owner. More overhead for the business owner means less to put back into the company. Less to put back into the company means stagnant or slower growth, which means fewer jobs and or cutbacks on current employment.

It's a vicious cycle that will take months, maybe even years to fully realize. The initial effects will be more layoffs and higher unemployment. Sure the unemployed will be able to survive on unemployment insurance for a time, but look what's already happening now. The unemployment rate is only dropping because people are loosing the insurance. Quite a few have just given up and are simply existing. My mother-in-law is one of these.

Some have gone back to school to go into another career field, but the market is highly competitive. My company is an example of this. The last training class had 75 QUALIFIED applicants for 15 positions. Just to get to those 75 qualified, they had to weed out thousands.

sheriff733
12-06-2012, 08:54
I really hope no agreement is made and we go over the cliff.

That's one sure way to cut this out of control spending and I'm afraid that might be the only hope left.

czsmithGT
12-06-2012, 14:25
Up until yesterday I was believing along GOP party lines about how a tax increase on the upper 2% or "job creators" would negatively affect the economy. Then my daughter in law shared with me this video that explains that the middle class are the real job creators, not the rich. Anyone care to school me on why this is right or wrong, and if this is not the reason why Republicans are against raising taxes on the top 2%, then why?

http://www.athenstalks.com/rich-are-not-job-creators-nick-hanauer-ted

As soon as he said "Those who believe that the rich should not pay taxes.." I stopped listening.

The Ignorance of Nick Hanauer's TED Speech
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/05/19/the-ignorance-of-nick-hanauers-ted-speech/

Gunhaver
12-06-2012, 14:32
As soon as he said "Those who believe that the rich should not pay taxes.." I stopped listening.

Why don't you actually watch the whole thing and consider what he's saying instead of finding a chicken **** reason to bug out?

jeanderson
12-06-2012, 14:39
I never post here. Hell, I never read here...
Welcome to the club!

In response to your issue, all I can say is that he goes around selling his tax-the-rich-to-save-the-country ideas but refuses to negotiate face to face with Congress. From everything I read about the spineless Republicans, he'll get his hike on taxes for the "rich" and won't offer any spending cuts. But I don't think Congress is going to give him the power to raise the debt ceiling on his own.

It doesn't matter. It's all a piss hole in the snow bank. The economy is going into the tank again and the country will be flat out broke in a few years.

czsmithGT
12-06-2012, 15:06
Why don't you actually watch the whole thing and consider what he's saying instead of finding a chicken **** reason to bug out?

Because he is a dumbass

Gunhaver
12-06-2012, 15:14
Because he is a dumbass

Hmm, compelling argument you make there. Wonder when the GOP platform of, "Everyone that disagrees with us is a dumbass!" will finally pay off?

Bren
12-06-2012, 15:35
So is he a right wing fascist or a left wing communist? Which one? Come one, just pick one? Or does it depend on your own clueless wonderment of your leaders.

You seem to have no clue about government vs. economic system and the [possible mixtures of them. I have rarely seen you post about anything you do understand. Couldn't you Google it before posting, at least.

But no, Obama is clearly not a fascist, because fascism involves basing yourr totalitarian state on a shared national heritage. I'll readily admit, Obama is no nationalist or fascist - pretty much the opposite.

More of a democratic socialist - in other words, a Nazi without the patriotic side.

czsmithGT
12-06-2012, 15:45
Hmm, compelling argument you make there. Wonder when the GOP platform of, "Everyone that disagrees with us is a dumbass!" will finally pay off?

He is not a dumbass because he disagrees. He is a dumbass because he is a dumbass. Even rich people like he is can be ignorant- better to just shut his mouth than to prove it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/05/19/the-ignorance-of-nick-hanauers-ted-speech/

onebigelf
12-06-2012, 16:19
No, he's not stupid. He's a Marxist Communist Ideologue. He is moving precisely along the path he wishes to and it ends with the free-market capitalist system in this country collapsing under the weight of loose socialist spending policy so that people will DEMAND something better... something... fairer...

Keep practicing. Sooner of later, we're going to have to fight. I don't want anyone on MY side that can't shoot.

John

juggy4711
12-06-2012, 16:29
You seem to have no clue about government vs. economic system and the possible mixtures of them....

There is a lot of confusion here regarding economic systems of organization and forms of government.

Cycletroll
12-06-2012, 16:31
So is he a right wing fascist or a left wing communist? Which one? Come one, just pick one? Or does it depend on your own clueless wonderment of your leaders.

All despotic regimes, be they right or left, are fascistic. Communisim/Collectivism is just one kind of Fascism.

All despots promise equality to the Proletariat in their rise to power and then rob them blind; Obama is no different.

certifiedfunds
12-06-2012, 18:13
All despotic regimes, be they right or left, are fascistic. Communisim/Collectivism is just one kind of Fascism.

All despots promise equality to the Proletariat in their rise to power and then rob them blind; Obama is no different.

I agree with you partially. However if the far right = maximum liberty, how is there a despot?


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

czsmithGT
12-06-2012, 18:56
I agree with you partially. However if the far right = maximum liberty, how is there a despot?


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

Far right is not maximum liberty. Libertarians are maximum liberty. Far right are just as much control freaks as far left to my way of thinking.

greentriple
12-07-2012, 09:17
Let's see: Underemployment? Down to 4 year low - 7.7%; Jobs? 146K added. Hmmm? I sure you all will have some way of spinning this, but I'm confident had a Republican been in office you'd be singing his praise and claiming how he's saving us from the past 4 years!

I have only one phrase for you: Score Board

kirgi08
12-07-2012, 09:57
2 words,Seasonal workers.'08. :upeyes:

greentriple
12-07-2012, 10:30
So we can expect the unemployment rate to go up after the holidayz? I guess it's a wait and see.

certifiedfunds
12-07-2012, 11:05
Far right is not maximum liberty. Libertarians are maximum liberty. Far right are just as much control freaks as far left to my way of thinking.

Libertarians are far right, just to the left of anarchy

Gunhaver
12-07-2012, 11:18
Libertarians are far right, just to the left of anarchy

It's more of a 2 dimensional thing.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Political_chart.svg/250px-Political_chart.svg.png

You can go libertarian to the left or right or authoritarian to the left or right.

certifiedfunds
12-07-2012, 11:27
It's more of a 2 dimensional thing.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Political_chart.svg/250px-Political_chart.svg.png

You can go libertarian to the left or right or authoritarian to the left or right.

There is no authoritarian right in American politics.

Authoritarian is on the left. Liberty is on the right.

Hawkeye16
12-07-2012, 11:31
Let's see: Underemployment? Down to 4 year low - 7.7%; Jobs? 146K added. Hmmm? I sure you all will have some way of spinning this, but I'm confident had a Republican been in office you'd be singing his praise and claiming how he's saving us from the past 4 years!

I have only one phrase for you: Score Board

Under employment? Did you mean unemployment? If you did then you have no idea how unemployment works. Just because the number for that goes up or down doesn't mean more people are working. You have to factor in the people that are not working and not looking for a job anymore.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

GWSHARK
12-07-2012, 11:38
http://i.imgur.com/uyMwO.gif

greentriple
12-07-2012, 11:59
Under employment? Did you mean unemployment? If you did then you have no idea how unemployment works. Just because the number for that goes up or down doesn't mean more people are working. You have to factor in the people that are not working and not looking for a job anymore.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

Yes, unemployment....

When it's good for the right they do not look at who is no longer looking for work. My point is philosophical not mathematical. The point being that regardless of what the numbers are the right will bash Obama and look for loopholes to downgrade the positive. If the numbers had come in under a Republican administration conservatives would be blowing them up in bold. Hypocrisy is the bastard child of political ideology.

Bren
12-07-2012, 12:34
Its as simple as this: We are, or should be a capitalist system.

The top 2% are (obviously) good at aggregating CAPITAL on a scale that can fund investments in factories and storefronts that give people JOBS. They are also efficient investors and users of that capital, more so than the government that would poach that money to little effect…


The top 10% in this country provide 70% of the government's revenue. The rich ARE paying their fare share, and the share of quite a few people who are paying NOTHING. So, how much is enough, really?

If Obama got his way and raised the rates to where he wanted, the total extra take from the wealthiest folks would run the government for 8 days, and at the same time drain it from the private sector where it would actually do some good.

We do not have a revenue problem. We have a SPENDING problem. Reid pelosi and Obama squandered trillions, now they want to confiscate more to pay for their waste. Pound sand I say.


Well, I watched this much of that guy (and could take no more) - "I have started a lot of companies that hired a lot of people" - so he's talking about the rich, not the middle class, there. So why does he say the middle class are the "real job creators"? - because they buy products that make those companies profitable. Do you really need somebody to explain what's wrong with that? Seriously, just think about it. Who are the middle class with the money to sustain these companies started by the rich?

They're the &^%$#@F)(*&^% employees of those companies started by the rich, who have money to spend!!

In other words, that guy may be an idiot but, if not, he is intentionally lying to you to promote an agenda (or for profit).

Bren
12-07-2012, 12:37
Even though Nick Hanauer is spot on you won't get anywhere with that video. I've already tried. The denial is too strong here. His very good points will be ignored by most here in favor of the "the rich are job creators!" mantra that's been programmed into them.

You really didn't see the internal logic flaw in that guy's claim?:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Hanauer argued that the rich, people like him in other words, aren't responsible for the bulk of America’s job creation and therefore shouldn’t receive tax breaks to help them create jobs. Instead, he noted that middle-class consumers are more likely to create jobs by spending and spurring businesses to hire.

So think about it a minute - he argues that those people employed by the rich entrepreneurs are only employed because the middle class have the money to buy the products. Duh. We knew that, but his idea only makes sense if you stop without asking where the middle class got the money to buy the products that keep the businesses working to employee the people who work for a living...including the middle class who then have money to buy products from...never mid, if you need to be lead through that, you are either refusing to try to understand or you aren't able.

whoflungdo
12-07-2012, 12:47
Well, I watched this much of that guy (and could take no more) - "I have started a lot of companies that hired a lot of people" - so he's talking about the rich, not the middle class, there. So why does he say the middle class are the "real job creators"? - because they buy products that make those companies profitable. Do you really need somebody to explain what's wrong with that? Seriously, just think about it. Who are the middle class with the money to sustain these companies started by the rich?

They're the &^%$#@F)(*&^% employees of those companies started by the rich, who have money to spend!!

In other words, that guy may be an idiot but, if not, he is intentionally lying to you to promote an agenda (or for profit).


Exactly and as disposable income goes down, jobs are lost creating less disposable income.

I would like to ask the people who believe this guy's "logic" where the capital come from for businesses to be started or for them to borrow money to expand or to help make it through the rough times?

czsmithGT
12-07-2012, 13:43
There is no authoritarian right in American politics.

Authoritarian is on the left. Liberty is on the right.

The Neocons are about as authoritarian as anyone could stand. Bush after 9/11 became increasingly authoritarian as he implemented more "Homeland Security" measures.

czsmithGT
12-07-2012, 13:46
Libertarians are far right, just to the left of anarchy

Gary Johnson is not an anarchist. Libertarians believe in free markets, private property, and capitalism.

certifiedfunds
12-07-2012, 14:14
The Neocons are about as authoritarian as anyone could stand. Bush after 9/11 became increasingly authoritarian as he implemented more "Homeland Security" measures.

Neocons are progressives


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

certifiedfunds
12-07-2012, 14:16
Gary Johnson is not an anarchist. Libertarians believe in free markets, private property, and capitalism.

We believe in more than that.

Keep moving GJ to the right and you have no government.




Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

czsmithGT
12-07-2012, 14:39
Neocons are progressives


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

Authoritarian progressives.

Neocons and Obamanistas are just two sides of the same big-government anti-individual rights coin.

certifiedfunds
12-07-2012, 15:02
Authoritarian progressives.

Neocons and Obamanistas are just two sides of the same big-government anti-individual rights coin.

Yessir

See any marijuana thread or anything by JBnTX


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

juggy4711
12-07-2012, 19:57
I wonder how many here think that anarchy is just a synonym for chaos and disorder, or that communism and socialism are forms of government?

greentriple
12-07-2012, 22:54
We believe in more than that.

Keep moving GJ to the right and you have no government.




Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

Oh, so libertarians want no government? Quasi-Anarchists.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

greentriple
12-07-2012, 22:56
I wonder how many here think that anarchy is just a synonym for chaos and disorder, or that communism and socialism are forms of government?

Great questions.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

certifiedfunds
12-07-2012, 23:25
Oh, so libertarians want no government? Quasi-Anarchists.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

You're an attorney IIRC. That requires a lot of reading. I would have expected you to be better at it.

kirgi08
12-08-2012, 00:34
You shoulda sent that one ta me.'08.

Skyhook
12-08-2012, 05:27
Raising taxes isn't going to decrease the deficit or the debt. He wants it for three reasons:

1. Gin up class warfare among the masses.
2. Use a hugely unpopular idea to divide and conquer Republicans and/or ensure that the fiscal cliff happens.
3. Use the tax increases to pay for more stimulus plans (he's openly said this).


Any leader who appeals to the most base and craven qualities of his 'kingdom', greed & envy would have been thrown out of office by a moral society.

greentriple
12-08-2012, 08:00
You're an attorney IIRC. That requires a lot of reading. I would have expected you to be better at it.

It's impossible to reason with ideologues. Your expectations are unimportant, happy to disappoint. But reading you posts throughout GT I'm baffled by the lack of self awareness yet readiness to criticize others.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

greentriple
12-08-2012, 08:02
Any leader who appeals to the most base and craven qualities of his 'kingdom', greed & envy would have been thrown out of office by a moral society.

Clearly the methodology of the right: foster fear, classism and anger.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

Cavalry Doc
12-08-2012, 08:19
Even though Nick Hanauer is spot on you won't get anywhere with that video. I've already tried. The denial is too strong here. His very good points will be ignored by most here in favor of the "the rich are job creators!" mantra that's been programmed into them.

He bases his belief that the middle americans are the job creators, basically that they are the largest consumers. But without the ability to have money to consume.

The bottom line is that people need jobs, whether a rich dude or a guy just scraping by does it, someone has to create a job for the other guy to have so he can be middle class.

Not all business owners are rich.

But, the election is over, boehner is caving, taxes will likely go up for almost every worker to help pay for the non-working, and the federal government will still spend an extra 40+ cents for every dollar they take in.

Cavalry Doc
12-08-2012, 08:21
It's more of a 2 dimensional thing.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Political_chart.svg/250px-Political_chart.svg.png

You can go libertarian to the left or right or authoritarian to the left or right.

I know what you mean. Where are the guys on the right again?











http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/politicalspectrum-2.png

certifiedfunds
12-08-2012, 08:38
It's impossible to reason with ideologues. Your expectations are unimportant, happy to disappoint. But reading you posts throughout GT I'm baffled by the lack of self awareness yet readiness to criticize others.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

So as a leftist ideologue you know yourself well and realize you can't be reasoned with. Congratulations.

Yet you read my post and completely misunderstood it. I would think an attorney would have better skills.

So to clarify: Yes, libertarians want no government. However, we realize some government is necessary to protect people, their property and their rights from others so that they may go about pursuing happiness.

Hef
12-08-2012, 10:24
Up until yesterday I was believing along GOP party lines about how a tax increase on the upper 2% or "job creators" would negatively affect the economy. Then my daughter in law shared with me this video that explains that the middle class are the real job creators, not the rich. Anyone care to school me on why this is right or wrong, and if this is not the reason why Republicans are against raising taxes on the top 2%, then why?

http://www.athenstalks.com/rich-are-not-job-creators-nick-hanauer-ted

We shouldn't raise taxes on anyone.

czsmithGT
12-08-2012, 10:26
You can take the test to see where you fit in the spectrum here:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/index

This is where I fit-

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i59/CzsmithGT/pcgraphpngphp.jpg

Don't know how accurate this test is. Look where they put Obama- I would have put him closer to Hugo Chavez

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i59/CzsmithGT/internationalchart.jpg

snerd
12-08-2012, 10:56
My political outlook and social beliefs have changed greatly over the last 4 years.


http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=0.88&soc=-4.10


This is about where I was just a few short years ago.............


http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=3.25&soc=5.85

QNman
12-08-2012, 11:09
Raising taxes isn't going to decrease the deficit or the debt. He wants it for three reasons:

1. Gin up class warfare among the masses.
2. Use a hugely unpopular idea to divide and conquer Republicans and/or ensure that the fiscal cliff happens.
3. Use the tax increases to pay for more stimulus plans (he's openly said this).

This.

We could tax the top 2% of this country at 100%, and we would still be operating at a deficit higher than any in history.

Tax increases on "the rich" is a ruse... it is part of the circus being operated to continue the sleight of hand that our economy has become.

Truth - spending is at a point where it is impossible to cut it adequately to avert our pending disaster without creating another disaster. If spending were actually reined in to the level necessary to avoid the fiscal collapse we are certainly heading towards, there'd be rioting in the streets when all those on the dole suddenly found they only received enough to survive.

So the continuation of this kabuki theater is all part of the bread and circus that keeps us distracted from the coming collapse as long as possible.

greentriple
12-08-2012, 11:41
You can take the test to see where you fit in the spectrum here:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/index

This is where I fit-

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i59/CzsmithGT/pcgraphpngphp.jpg

Don't know how accurate this test is. Look where they put Obama- I would have put him closer to Hugo Chavez

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i59/CzsmithGT/internationalchart.jpg

Amazing how NOBODY on the GT Right knows anything about Obama.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

greentriple
12-08-2012, 11:46
So as a leftist ideologue you know yourself well and realize you can't be reasoned with. Congratulations.

Yet you read my post and completely misunderstood it. I would think an attorney would have better skills.

So to clarify: Yes, libertarians want no government. However, we realize some government is necessary to protect people, their property and their rights from others so that they may go about pursuing happiness.

Now you're just babbling to babble. I know what the political ideologies and how hey are defined. By saying libertarians are quasi-anarchist is not necessarily incorrect, even by your definitions, i.e. "some government is necessary...."


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

greentriple
12-08-2012, 11:59
229521

Fairly accurate.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

czsmithGT
12-08-2012, 12:03
Amazing how NOBODY on the GT Right knows anything about Obama.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

The only difference between Chavez and Obama: Chavez IS an autocratic left wing dictator and Obama just wants to be an autocratic left wing dictator.

QNman
12-08-2012, 12:15
http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=1.50&soc=-2.97

No argument.

greentriple
12-08-2012, 12:17
The only difference between Chavez and Obama: Chavez IS an autocratic left wing dictator and Obama just wants to be an autocratic left wing dictator.

Not by your graph.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

QNman
12-08-2012, 12:23
Not by your graph.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

The test is only accurate if you answer it honestly.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but going right on the graph shows social conservatism. Does anyone actually consider Obama socially conservative?

czsmithGT
12-08-2012, 13:14
Not by your graph.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

I realize that. And it isn't my graph, I merely posted it. I don't believe for a second that Obama is "right of center". I don't know the basis someone used to put him there- perhaps because he hasn't closed Gitmo yet and thinks assassination of unconvicted American citizens by drone is OK. Anyway, I think he is a lot closer to Che Guevara than to August Pinochet.

Skyhook
12-08-2012, 13:15
The test is only accurate if you answer it honestly.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but going right on the graph shows social conservatism. Does anyone actually consider Obama socially conservative?


Highlighted the key...

kirgi08
12-09-2012, 07:20
So as a leftist ideologue you know yourself well and realize you can't be reasoned with. Congratulations.

Yet you read my post and completely misunderstood it. I would think an attorney would have better skills.

So to clarify: Yes, libertarians want no government. However, we realize some government is necessary to protect people, their property and their rights from others so that they may go about pursuing happiness.


Kinda disagree with that my friend.We want no government,we want problems handled by the citizens,not elected officials.'08.

certifiedfunds
12-09-2012, 08:20
Kinda disagree with that my friend.We want no government,we want problems handled by the citizens,not elected officials.'08.

Good enough for me and I don't speak for every libertarian.

On some days I agree with you and on some days I'm fine with basic governmental functions like courts to enforce contracts.

series1811
12-10-2012, 07:35
I wonder how many here think that anarchy is just a synonym for chaos and disorder, or that communism and socialism are forms of government?

I wonder how many liberals agree with what you just posted as accurate statements Probably all of them.