Anusol for the monkey.......

POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Friday, February 20, 2009 23:38
VIEWED: 10955
PAGE 8 of 20

PREV PAGE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT PAGE

JONGSSTRAW

Wednesday, February 18, 2009 2:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Jong, it's not as bad as it looks...

You're right, it's actually much, much, much worse. I appreciate that you chose to respond to my post, but you only addressed a point or two that I made, and it's interesting that Hero and Auraptor had little or no response. Truth & reality is a bitch. I guess it's easier to just dig in your heels and continue the same old tired arguments THAT DON'T WORK ANYMORE, than face the obvious reality. Our Party is dead. Dead, dead, dead. We have NO hope for anything in the future as I see it. We have no channels of communication to get our message out, whatever the hell that is these days, no internet fund-raising skills, no grass roots skills, etc etc. All the Obama-Dem. liberal/terrorist/socialist rhetoric didn't do squat, except to make matters worse. If you believe that Rush Lumbaugh or Sean Hannity are going to lead the opposition to Obama, and become the "voice" of Republicans in any kind of successful way, then you're not seeing it as I do. Even if a "new breed" of a re-born Republican Conservative emerges from the ashes, I don't see how that person could ever get a message out, without it being attacked, ridiculed, marginalized, charicaturized, and destroyed with all the media weapons the Left now has firmly established in its' arsenal. And what the hell is a Republican anymore? Is Bill Kristol a Republican?; or George Will? They are absolutley nothing like Newt or Rove. They are LIBERAL Republicans. Then we have the traitorous RINOS....Spector, Collins, Snow, and of course the biggest idiot/media whore/ betrayer of the party, John McCain. Quite a pathetic party I'd say.

KWICKO

Wednesday, February 18, 2009 2:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Oddly, this means nothing to me.

Did I fail a pop-culture test or something?

Yes. Short lived remake of bionic woman last year...bionic woman was a spin-off of the Six Million Dollar Man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Six_Million_Dollar_Man

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bionic_Woman

I was going to mention NIMH too...since we're talking about mice.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

Oh - Starbuck. You could have just said "Starbuck". I probably wouldn't have even thought you were talking about overpriced coffee!

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, February 18, 2009 3:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
,,,, and it's interesting that Hero and Auraptor had no response. I guess it's easier to just dig in your heels and continue the same old tired arguments THAT DON'T WORK ANYMORE, than face the obvious reality.

I can't respond to that which I didn't see in the first place. Sorry, I got no idea what you're talking about.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

A concern of the GOP is that the people aren't informed enough to understand their policies, while a fear of the Dems is that the people WILL understand.

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, February 18, 2009 3:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
... Makes ya wonder why you even tried to do the right thing and live within your means, don't it?

Ayup. And, though I make quite a bit of noise about there being no difference between the two parties in terms of net policy, this is one area where I wish the Democrats would listen to Republicans. Incentives DO matter. If the overall perception is that people won't, ultimately, suffer (or benefit from) the results of their decisions, they won't worry much about prudent decision making in the first place.

If, on the other hand, some of these banks actually failed, if their shareholders actually lost their asses, if the complacent car companies were allowed to fail (because they have), if we got over this "too big to fail" bullshit, if we made it perfectly clear that when you make important financial decisions you're "playing for keeps", we could avoid a lot of the nonsense we're dealing with now.

But that's not how Dems want to play. They want to bail everyone out and then use regulation to force them toward their version of "prudent" decision making. Problem is, regulation is just a game that lawyers play. It's rarely any good at achieving its idealistic goals - and that's assuming the goals are worth a shit in the first place. At least as far as the economy goes, regulation is a poor substitute for reality.

We seem to want the benefits of the free market without the downsides. History has shown the seemingly insurmountable difficulty in running a full-blown centrally planned economy. But a free market won't work either if you don't let it run its course. Apparently we don't have the stomach for that. Which puts us sort of between a rock and hard place.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, February 18, 2009 3:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Deregulation. Because as anyone knows business can be counted on to regulate itself...

(see my post above)
Regulation can be used effectively to stop swindles and maintain an appropriate amount of transparency. But it's not the way to "encourage" business to make better decisions. It's a little frustrating to see Dems attempting to use this scandal as an argument against deregulation as a general concept. Bad laws need to go, and good laws should be created to address new situations.

Quote:
Free trade. Let business be unfettered in its worldwide pursuit of maximum profits.
[

And here you do the same thing. Our nation's blind support of corporate power, even to the point of using our military to support their interests, isn't free trade. Selective deregulation that let's corporations "lie, cheat, and steal" isn't free trade - it's just stupid.

Laying these kinds of bad decisions at the feet of "free trade" is disingenuous and politically opportunistic.

If you want to make the case for why free trade is bad as a general concept, do it. Tell us why we should lock down the economy and have the government run it instead. How's that gonna work? I'm honestly curious. Centrally planned economies have proven incredibly difficult to run efficiently in the past, do think that now, with modern technologies (computers and the like), we can pull it off?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

JONGSSTRAW

Wednesday, February 18, 2009 4:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I can't respond to that which I didn't see in the first place. Sorry, I got no idea what you're talking about.

What I'm talking about is YOU. What I'm talking about is Hannity & Limbaugh. You bash Dems and Obama like you won the election or something. Are you NOT aware of the Republican debacle that occurred in 2006 & 2008? You're all still on the old treadmill of Republican talking points that don't work. Maybe you can impress some in a debate forum, but in the real world your clinging to a Party and an ideology will never get Republicans back into power. The entire RNC is an embarrassment, and these talking heads only further damage the cause with their Democratesque obstuctionism and demonization. All of a sudden Republicans give a damn about fiscal responsibility? Now that's funny!

KWICKO

Wednesday, February 18, 2009 4:09 PM

Quote:

The economy WAS doing better, when Barney Frank said that, but that's besides the point. W and the GOP were trying to solve an issue BEFORE it got to critical mass. The Dems stopped that, and we got to where we are today because of that. Why the hell are you being so dense about this ?

And Bush exhorting everybody to just "Go shopping" was piling on more credit and more debt, encouraging rampant spending that couldn't be maintained or paid for. The economy wasn't "doing better" - it had the APPEARANCE of doing better, with nothing holding it up but balloons of fasle money and deficit spending - at the very top of which was the Defense budget, which while already by far the largest part of the Federal budget, STILL wasn't enough to cover the occupation of Iraq, for which Bush routinely asked for hundreds of billions of ADDITIONAL dollars - which had to be borrowed, of course.

Meanwhile, rampant deregulation of nearly EVERY industry, from airlines and telecoms to banking, securities, stocks, defense contractors, energy companies, etc., led to widespread fraud, cooked books, accounting scandals, and more. So while you claim that Bush was trying to regulate Fannie and Freddie, he was on a Reaganistic frenzy in trying to deregulate everything else, which all got piled one on top of the other, until the whole house of cards couldn't do anything BUT topple.

Why are you being so dense about this?

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

KWICKO

Wednesday, February 18, 2009 5:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I can't respond to that which I didn't see in the first place. Sorry, I got no idea what you're talking about.

What I'm talking about is YOU. What I'm talking about is Hannity & Limbaugh. You bash Dems and Obama like you won the election or something. Are you NOT aware of the Republican debacle that occurred in 2006 & 2008? You're all still on the old treadmill of Republican talking points that don't work. Maybe you can impress some in a debate forum, but in the real world your clinging to a Party and an ideology will never get Republicans back into power. The entire RNC is an embarrassment, and these talking heads only further damage the cause with their Democratesque obstuctionism and demonization. All of a sudden Republicans give a damn about fiscal responsibility? Now that's funny!

Jongs, you're onto something.

There was a time I would eagerly have supported McCain for president (2000) had he been the Republican nominee, because I felt at the time that he was a better choice by far than Al Gore. McCain and the GOP screwed that away, though.

The right-wingers I run into seem convinced that the ONLY way to get noticed is by going far, FAR right. That isn't a direction that's going to work out very well for them, any more than the left going far, FAR left - which it is nowhere near doing.

The "happy medium" lies somewhere in the middle, in meeting to work things out and compromise, not in bashing each other over the head with deck chairs while the Titanic heads inexorably towards that pretty, pretty iceberg...

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

KWICKO

Wednesday, February 18, 2009 6:19 PM

Quote:

Trickle down : The poor sure as hell never gave anyone a job. Silly to point the finger of blame here.

Actually, that's dead wrong. You want proof? Welfare. SOMEONE has to work at the welfare office handing out checks and government cheese, nicht wahr? ("Is it not so?").

You ever notice that the welfare department is a perpetual-motion machine, and a Catch-22 at the same time? Its job is to get everyone off welfare - which, if it ever achieves that goal, all its employees will be out of work... and thus have to go on welfare.

Just somethin' to ponder, and lighten the mood a bit.

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

RUE

Wednesday, February 18, 2009 6:29 PM

"So while you claim that Bush was trying to regulate Fannie and Freddie ..."

Yes, and amazingly it was back in 2003 (or 2001, 2004 or 2005, depending on revisionist history source), when the repubicans had ALL branches of government. And he STILL couldn't get it done. (The real president - President Barney Frank - was gettin' in the way don'cha know. )

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

PREV PAGE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT PAGE