Pat was a lot closer in her assessment and you did a very good job of proving it.
Inflation
- Thread starter debilorrah
- Start date
- Status
- May 17, 2007
- 3,216
- 170
- 254
Quote:
Like I said, we are all entitled to our own opinions.
Rufus
Like I said, we are all entitled to our own opinions.
Rufus
I am far from a liberal but there is no way you can lay the blame for this mess on just the liberals. They had a role, so did the unions, but the right skated along while trying to claim the moral high ground for not sucking quite as much as the left. The right was just as quick to spend and just as quick to meddle as the liberals. Don't get me started
- Thread starter
- #104
I am very proud of you people. This COULD be a hot topic thread and everyone has remain calm and level headed.
You haven't heard what I think the real problem is yet though...I am still in a good mood so I won't go there.
Quote:
Yep. Tea Partiers crack me up. A neighbor's one. Now, he thinks I'm great so I can take a few pokes at him .... like mentioning that the Tea Party goes back to the reign of Bush II, it was a stand against his tax-and-spend policies. Yep, you heard that right. They're ALL tax-and-spend. And if you go down to the local Welfare office I bet you'll find 2/3rds of the people in line to get onto the gov't teat self-identify as "republicans" or "conservatives". In reality, just about everyone wants those sweet gov't bennies if they can get 'em, live off of someone else's dime.
(I must mention here that I qualify to sell my soul for all kinds of gov't bennies and take the Number of the Beast and all the goodies and a widescreen TV an'a bagga chips and I'm Not Taking It. No, Thanks. My reaction to "I'm from the gov't and here to help you is, Run away! Run away!
)
Yep. Tea Partiers crack me up. A neighbor's one. Now, he thinks I'm great so I can take a few pokes at him .... like mentioning that the Tea Party goes back to the reign of Bush II, it was a stand against his tax-and-spend policies. Yep, you heard that right. They're ALL tax-and-spend. And if you go down to the local Welfare office I bet you'll find 2/3rds of the people in line to get onto the gov't teat self-identify as "republicans" or "conservatives". In reality, just about everyone wants those sweet gov't bennies if they can get 'em, live off of someone else's dime.
(I must mention here that I qualify to sell my soul for all kinds of gov't bennies and take the Number of the Beast and all the goodies and a widescreen TV an'a bagga chips and I'm Not Taking It. No, Thanks. My reaction to "I'm from the gov't and here to help you is, Run away! Run away!
Quote:
There aren't very many liberals in Congress (maybe 10 or so, Democrat does not = liberal) and Presidents are usually pretty centrist in their actual actions. Anyone who is being honest will place the blame on both parties. I wish there was an actual 3rd party. Both parties have the same goal. They just go about achieving it in a different way. The goal is to win at any cost. The goal needs to be changed. If you pay attention to what is actually happening you'll see that each party is trying to further the goals of those that donate the most to their elections or that are most likely to vote for them. It doesn't matter what furthering these goals for their contributors do to the country. All that matters is winning.
There aren't very many liberals in Congress (maybe 10 or so, Democrat does not = liberal) and Presidents are usually pretty centrist in their actual actions. Anyone who is being honest will place the blame on both parties. I wish there was an actual 3rd party. Both parties have the same goal. They just go about achieving it in a different way. The goal is to win at any cost. The goal needs to be changed. If you pay attention to what is actually happening you'll see that each party is trying to further the goals of those that donate the most to their elections or that are most likely to vote for them. It doesn't matter what furthering these goals for their contributors do to the country. All that matters is winning.
As I said - sanity lies in the tension between the three components. All three have proven themselves to be not in the best interest of the country. The best place lies in the balance of powers.
But, I take umbrage with the idea that the success of unions caused there to be two classes: privileged union members and oppressed non union members. That is silly. At no point did the unions (even at their greedy bloated worst) say others should not unionize.
Every leg of this will ask for more than it should have - that is the point of a balance of power. But, at this point you really need to ask yourself why we weren't able to compete with people making $3 a day and would we have been better off lifting them up instead of pulling ourselves down.
The republican/democratic paradigm is a falsehood Clinton was the best republican president we ever had. Look at what the parties say they stand for - then look at what they do. They do what the economic gurus tell them to do and we all lose. This is not consipiracy theory nonsense, it is about how the ethos of our economic system evolved and why it got so toxic. The answer isn't to swing 180 degrees but by golly we had better start a pull back here soon.
But, I take umbrage with the idea that the success of unions caused there to be two classes: privileged union members and oppressed non union members. That is silly. At no point did the unions (even at their greedy bloated worst) say others should not unionize.
Every leg of this will ask for more than it should have - that is the point of a balance of power. But, at this point you really need to ask yourself why we weren't able to compete with people making $3 a day and would we have been better off lifting them up instead of pulling ourselves down.
The republican/democratic paradigm is a falsehood Clinton was the best republican president we ever had. Look at what the parties say they stand for - then look at what they do. They do what the economic gurus tell them to do and we all lose. This is not consipiracy theory nonsense, it is about how the ethos of our economic system evolved and why it got so toxic. The answer isn't to swing 180 degrees but by golly we had better start a pull back here soon.
If government would abide by the Constitution instead of redefining it Government would function within its boundaries. Most politicians and Americans have never read the Constitution. Read it some time and ask yourself if you live in this system.
Quote:
There aren't very many liberals in Congress (maybe 10 or so, Democrat does not = liberal) and Presidents are usually pretty centrist in their actual actions. Anyone who is being honest will place the blame on both parties. I wish there was an actual 3rd party. Both parties have the same goal. They just go about achieving it in a different way. The goal is to win at any cost. The goal needs to be changed. If you pay attention to what is actually happening you'll see that each party is trying to further the goals of those that donate the most to their elections or that are most likely to vote for them. It doesn't matter what furthering these goals for their contributors do to the country. All that matters is winning.
Quote:
There aren't very many liberals in Congress (maybe 10 or so, Democrat does not = liberal) and Presidents are usually pretty centrist in their actual actions. Anyone who is being honest will place the blame on both parties. I wish there was an actual 3rd party. Both parties have the same goal. They just go about achieving it in a different way. The goal is to win at any cost. The goal needs to be changed. If you pay attention to what is actually happening you'll see that each party is trying to further the goals of those that donate the most to their elections or that are most likely to vote for them. It doesn't matter what furthering these goals for their contributors do to the country. All that matters is winning.
- May 17, 2007
- 3,216
- 170
- 254
I have WHAT in my yard? :
As I said - sanity lies in the tension between the three components. All three have proven themselves to be not in the best interest of the country. The best place lies in the balance of powers.
But, I take umbrage with the idea that the success of unions caused there to be two classes: privileged union members and oppressed non union members. That is silly. At no point did the unions (even at their greedy bloated worst) say others should not unionize.
Every leg of this will ask for more than it should have - that is the point of a balance of power. But, at this point you really need to ask yourself why we weren't able to compete with people making $3 a day and would we have been better off lifting them up instead of pulling ourselves down.
The republican/democratic paradigm is a falsehood Clinton was the best republican president we ever had. Look at what the parties say they stand for - then look at what they do. They do what the economic gurus tell them to do and we all lose. This is not consipiracy theory nonsense, it is about how the ethos of our economic system evolved and why it got so toxic. The answer isn't to swing 180 degrees but by golly we had better start a pull back here soon.
I did not say that organized labor intentionally held down the wages of unorganized labor. They were just so focused upon their own desires and needs that they ignored those of the rest of the working class. But, that is what happened.
By the way, have you noticed that most politicians will not use the term "working class?" They refer to us as "middle class." It is as if working were a dirty activity. Middle class people are the doctor, lawyer professional class.
Tea party people are of the opinion that the situation can be corrected. I, on the other hand, can see the train wreck coming, and I want off. Everyone needs to decide how they handle their own financial future. I would never venture to tell people how to live and plan their lives.
Rufus
As I said - sanity lies in the tension between the three components. All three have proven themselves to be not in the best interest of the country. The best place lies in the balance of powers.
But, I take umbrage with the idea that the success of unions caused there to be two classes: privileged union members and oppressed non union members. That is silly. At no point did the unions (even at their greedy bloated worst) say others should not unionize.
Every leg of this will ask for more than it should have - that is the point of a balance of power. But, at this point you really need to ask yourself why we weren't able to compete with people making $3 a day and would we have been better off lifting them up instead of pulling ourselves down.
The republican/democratic paradigm is a falsehood Clinton was the best republican president we ever had. Look at what the parties say they stand for - then look at what they do. They do what the economic gurus tell them to do and we all lose. This is not consipiracy theory nonsense, it is about how the ethos of our economic system evolved and why it got so toxic. The answer isn't to swing 180 degrees but by golly we had better start a pull back here soon.
I did not say that organized labor intentionally held down the wages of unorganized labor. They were just so focused upon their own desires and needs that they ignored those of the rest of the working class. But, that is what happened.
By the way, have you noticed that most politicians will not use the term "working class?" They refer to us as "middle class." It is as if working were a dirty activity. Middle class people are the doctor, lawyer professional class.
Tea party people are of the opinion that the situation can be corrected. I, on the other hand, can see the train wreck coming, and I want off. Everyone needs to decide how they handle their own financial future. I would never venture to tell people how to live and plan their lives.
Rufus
- Status
Similar threads
New posts New threads Active threads
-
Threads with more replies in the last 15 days
-
