samadhi wrote:I have no particular dislike of Clinton
Hillary may know Congress a bit better than Obama but Obama is better at making coalitions to accomplish goals. Here is how he did it in Illinois ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020802262.html ).Ask me next november. A lot can happen to change my opinion. If we continue to muddle thru, Hillary will prolly be more effective with a Democratic congress than Obama.
See above. It's doubtful that she could be more effective than him given her polarizing profile and his as a unifier.But Hillary can get more done with congress than he can.
Not sure what to say to this. If you think the CIA is running the country, then it really doesn't matter who is elected.Its not a case of whether we like any of the candidates, but what the challenges will be. If Obama gets elected, and looks too dangerous to the power elite, the CIA will take him out just like they did JFK. Hillary has a better working relationship with the CIA.
The Republicans have already targeted Hillary. They are salivating to run against her. We need someone who can bring in the Republicans, not someone who will have to fight them tooth and nail over every vote. They tried to impeach her husband, do you think they would treat her any more kindly?You can give up the illusion that we have a functional democracy until we do something to disempower the CIA. And the person best situated to do that... is Hillary.
Obama/Clinton/McCain, it's all the same, spend-spend-spend until in the words of Thomas Jefferson, we wake-up homeless on the continent our fathers conquered...
He didn't say the CIA is running the country, but the power elite. The CIA are just the hit men.Not sure what to say to this. If you think the CIA is running the country, then it really doesn't matter who is elected.
Unidian wrote:About 800,000 Americans already do, Nick. But heaven forbid we do anything about that, because it would involve "spend-spend-spend."
Unidian wrote:I'm not fooled by this sort of thing. The real concern isn't waking up homeless. That's already happening to the poor and no one cares. The real fear that inspires the sources and promulgators of all this lofty rhetoric is waking up without the extra $200 in their tax rebate check they were planning to spend on leather seat-covers for the Astrovan. That is worth more to them than the well-being of the least fortunate among their fellow Americans.
Unidian wrote:Are you middle-class, Nick? If not, there's no reason you ought to be fooled, either. Don't buy into rhetoric designed to serve a class other than your own. There used to be some sense in doing so back when class mobility existed, and one could hope to someday join a class higher than their own. But it's a globalized world now and those days are over. We have to hang together, or we'll hang separately. Want to tell me which founding father said that?
Without referencing popular conspiracy theories, YouTube videos, or other fringe elements, can you explain in terms of mainstream economic theory why the federal reserve system, fractional reserve banking, and Keynesian economics are fatally flawed in the disastrous, apocalyptic manner you suggest? Also, please explain how such a deeply flawed system has managed to stay afloat for nearly a century (using a conservative definition of its implementation). Something like "robbing Peter to pay Paul" won't do. You need to substantiate your doomsday views in legitimate economic terms.
As a start, you might try explaining what money actually is. Hint: it isn't gold, silver, diamonds, or any other hard currency. That is an irrevocably antiquated model of money, just as the geocentric view is an irrevocably antiquated model of the physical universe.
Nick Treklis wrote:You can hide your head in the sand, but we will see the end of America in our lifetime unless we make fundamental changes.
Carl G wrote:Barack Obama, next president of the U.S.?
We shall know this when the die is cast (when the Diebold vote is cast).
Unidian wrote:I'm not sure why you'd buy into that sort of Chicken Little doomsday-mongering, Elizabeth.
Unidian wrote:What gives you the idea that America is very likely to end within your lifetime? It's been here for well over 200 years. The Roman Empire lasted many centuries longer.
Unidian wrote:Do things really seem that bad to you? I'm aware that we're facing big challenges, but don't you think the idea that America and the world are going to come crashing down during our lifetimes is a bit incredible?
Unidian wrote:What are recessions and busts? Are they really catastrophic disasters which leave the bulk of Americans "gasping for air," or are they more accurately described as periods during which Americans are slightly less obscenely prosperous? As you might guess, I favor the latter view. Popular rhetoric depicting American recessions as breathtaking disasters which plunge the country's people into grinding economic oppression has little credibility with me. Since the 1940's, no boom or bust has made much difference with regard to the fact that America is consistently the most economically prosperous nation on Earth, and its people among the richest.
Unidian wrote:A real depression of significance, on the other hand, like the one of the 1930's, is exactly the sort of thing modern Keynesian economics was designed to correct and prevent - and it has done so quite successfully. You won't find me crying any tears over the minor economic slowdowns modern Americans refer to as "recessions." What they mean to most people is simply that HBO has to be dropped from the premium cable package. There have been no bread lines since the 1930's, and despite your concerns, we have modern economic ideas to thank for it.
Unidian wrote:And yes, before you bring it up, I'm aware of the theories that the Great Depression was artificially created in order to provide an opportunity for the "elite bankers" to bail us out with a system of economics which would eventually place everything under their total control. It is simply a conspiracy theory like any other - and beyond that, everything has always been under the total control of those who have the money, anyway. I'm sure you know the "Golden Rule" - he who has the gold makes the rules.
What are recessions and busts? Are they really catastrophic disasters which leave the bulk of Americans "gasping for air," or are they more accurately described as periods during which Americans are slightly less obscenely prosperous? As you might guess, I favor the latter view. Popular rhetoric depicting American recessions as breathtaking disasters which plunge the country's people into grinding economic oppression has little credibility with me. Since the 1940's, no boom or bust has made much difference with regard to the fact that America is consistently the most economically prosperous nation on Earth, and its people among the richest.
Daybrown wrote:Panic could spread uncontrollably on the Internet, and initially gratify the doomsayers. But they will stave also.
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest